Jang under fire
Farrukh Saleem
In 1633, William Prynne in Histrio-Mastix criticised the queen. Prynne was "imprisoned, pilloried and shorn of his ears." One hundred and fifty years latter, the founding fathers of the United States wanted to make sure that the same does not happen in their country. In 1789, they enacted the First Amendment to the Bill of rights enabling the press to "pursue its mission, no matter how odious that mission might seem to those in power." In 1974, US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart said that the "primary purpose of the First Amendment was to create a fourth institution outside the government as an additional check on the three official branches (the executive branch, the legislature and the judiciary)."
The First Amendment to the US Constitution essentially provides that "Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or the press." The 14th Amendment further protects the press from "Abridgment by the states." The essence is to provide "immunity of the communications media from government control." The idea being that the government should not be able to "punish someone just for being different."
Thomas Jefferson, America's third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, had said that "were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter." In 1801, the president further stated: "If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this Union or change its republican form, let them stand as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it." It's the dawn of the 21st century, but the ruling elite of this hapless country remain adamant on making a Prynne out of anyone who dares to "criticise the king." In 1987, a referee judge of the Lahore High Court (LHC) had "argued from American precedents that the burden of proof of having been libelled and of the libel having been done with intentional malice was on the plaintiff" and not the press. It was a landmark decision. Pakistani legal community had rejoiced as the "test of malice that took the US courts nearly two centuries of the exercise of freedom of expression to arrive at was adopted here almost ready-made within years of experimentation with a free press."
Two hundred years ago, Jefferson had preferred "newspapers without a government." We now think that "a government without newspapers" is better suited for this Islamic Republic. The nation is being told that the Jang Group owes a massive Rs2 billion in taxes. The Jang Group itself has been told that all their worries would be over only if they begin to toe the official government line. If Jang owes taxes they should not be spared at any cost whether they agree to toe the government's line or not. Let the battle proceed in tax courts. Don't mix up criminality with politics.
Not too long ago, IPPs (Independent Power Producers) were told that if they reduced their power tariff they would not be investigated for corruption. That was mixing up criminality with commercial viability. If any IPP is found to be corrupt they should not be allowed to operate even if they agree to supply us with free electricity.
In the case of Jang, the government also alleges that the Group has a "hidden political agenda". May be it does. But, the government has absolutely nothing to worry about. After all, a mere 24 months ago it had managed to win 135 National Assembly seats out of the 204 Muslim constituencies in the country. Then there is the additional allegation concerning Jang's circulation certification by the Audit Bureau of Circulation (ABC). In the short-run, it may be very tempting for the government to apply law on a selective basis. Over the long haul, selective accountability always backfires.
Furthermore, the government need not over-react to print media in a nation of illiterates; especially when it continues to dominate the airwaves. Yes, there is the Internet and the satellite dish, but as long as a vast majority of Pakistanis make less than a dollar a day they'll continue to be heavily dependent on PTV. The Jang Group, on the other hand, is also over-playing its hand thinking that it can somehow irreparably damage an elected government. The quasi-democracy of ours won't let that happen.
I am convinced that our government hasn't matured to the point whereby it will allow the "fourth institution outside the government as an additional check" on the other three. I am sure that the Jang Group also has commercial considerations apart from its public stance of "just exclusively campaigning for the freedom of expression". The greatest of my worries is that if the govt actually succeeds in subduing Pakistan's largest newspaper group then no one, for the foreseeable future, would dare to differ from the official line. That would be intolerance in the purest of its forms. How can a govt so committed to the enforcement of Shariah practice intolerance? To be certain, an intolerant society is essentially an un-Islamic society.
It's time to remember that when "the Nazis first came for the communists, and I did not speak up, because I was not a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak up, because I was not a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak up, because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I did not speak up, because I was not a Catholic. Then they came for me...and by that time, there was no one to speak up for anyone".
A solution lies in some sort of a compromise. Perhaps, the creation of an independent Pakistan Press Council (PPC). A self-regulatory body of the print media with two principal objectives: to help "preserve the traditional freedom of the press and ensure that the free press acts responsibly and ethically." A forum to which anyone, including the government, could take a complaint against the press. A Council comprising editors, publishers, journalists and members of the public.