The plague of censorship

Karachi: Pakistan remained a part of international news rather frequently in the recent past due to its censorship issues. In January 2020, Sarmad Khoosat, a renowned director released a trailer for his upcoming film Zindagi Tamasha (Circus of Life). The film was released internationally and went on to obtain numerous awards and was also an official entry for the Academy Awards. Produced in Pakistan and directed by a Pakistani director, the movie could not gain praise in its country and the thing that halted the representation of the movie and its viewing was the extremist nature of Pakistan, especially of Muslims, which labelled the movie as comprising of content that will hurt the religious sentiments of Muslims. Therefore, Zindagi Tamasha was later banned before it could even hit the cinemas, the movie, after going through numerous cuts has been given a new release date for March this year, but will it actually see the light of day?

Isn’t it hypocritical that on one hand people ask for “different content” and “out-of-the-box” ideas, and on the other hand there is constant policing over the content that is being created and produced in Pakistan? The policy actors/stakeholders in this discourse include an extremist party, the film censorship board of Pakistan, the government of Pakistan, the media industry, and the film fan base, as they are the ones being directly, as well as indirectly affected by the censorship. Many films and TV serials could never be aired and banned for viewing. Unlike other countries, Pakistan has always struggled with laws and their execution.

There is no clear law that explicates the regulation of content, nor defines under which circumstances a content could be banned, inappropriate or lead to brain washing of Muslims. This does not only divides the Pakistani society, but also create conflicts. And this is exactly what happened with Khoosat’s film. When Zindagi Tamasha’s trailer was released, it immediately faced criticism by a handful of extremists who asked for its ban, as it “might lead [people] to deviate from Islam”. In a country like Pakistan where each individual is extremist to an unimaginable level, what other outcome could be expected.

The habit of judging the book by its cover now needs to subside as this is what keeps the Pakistani audience being deprived from such great and thought-provoking content ad further leads to confuse the viewers. Zindagi Tamasha was questioned merely because of its trailer, which was not wholly representing the movie’s narrative.

The law-makers are stifling the voices, discouraging the ones who question a policy leading to bewilderment. Being a secular state till 1955, Pakistan always ensured freedom of speech. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan had repeatedly said in his public speeches that residents of Pakistan are free to go to their temples, mosques and churches. The language used by Jinnah showcases the significance of freedom be it religious, cultural, or media.

Censorship has not been an issue for the national but international content as well. The Lady of Heaven, a Netflix original film was banned by the Pakistani government for having blasphemous content. Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) labelled the film as, “sacrilegious”. The word ‘blasphemy’ has become common so much so that anyone can use it in any context without realizing its seriousness and the consequences. This is dreadful for many which quietly chocks their voices before they begin to question any policy and law, fearing the consequences.

Likewise Hollywood movies such as Viceroy’s Housev was banned in Pakistan because it was against the picture that a certain class has sketched of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, whereas there is already too many controversies regarding his belief and lifestyle. A country that does not know its leader very well, how can they ban a foreign movie in their country just for the sake of standing politically right?

The Actors Collective Trust Pakistan (ACT) extended their support and strongly condemned the threatening behaviour of certain individuals.  If examined, one can comprehend that the language used is, albeit focusing on the film but also promoting the revoking of section 295-C.

The language is rather informal and sarcastic, which portrays the frustration of the entire acting community. It also probes the government to realize the position of certain individuals who are not a part of the censor board; thus, do not possess the right to ban or unban a film or ask to ban a film.

This coerces the reader to focus on the problem at hand. It out-rightly calls out the problematic representation of the law in the media and television. Moreover, the language in all those statements that are opposing this law and supporting the film is very analytical, straightforward and justifications are present in their discourse to support their claim.

Furthermore, when the senator announced the clearance of the film, he said, “Senate HR committee unanimously agreed with the censor board’s decision to allow the screening of movie Zindagi Tamasha. We’ve found nothing wrong with it.” Although this statement was in support of the film, it was intentionally kept ambiguous.

One expects more from the government of the country, the use of emotive and convincing language could have been present to convince even those that are opposing the release. Perhaps this is because, amid the violent protests and threats, the government had found itself in a conundrum and became hesitant. This highlights the larger issue of religious intolerance, which is why the governmental body is cautious in making a decision against a party with no authoritative say in the government.

Meanwhile, there is undoubtedly no dialogue from the political association, justifying their stance. They are producing empty and baseless accusations and statements with the use of violence, blackmail, and threats. They do not want to mention which part of the film is corrupt or encouraging religious corruption as if talking about corruption is also promoting sowing the seed of corruption.

A citizen jumping in the pool wrote a contradictory statement on twitter which clearly reflect the mindset of the youth and their confused state. “How can we decide what film is trying to portray without watching it? Still great effort to suspend its release.” Another user took it to twitter to share the news of the ban saying, “Sindh becomes the first province to ban Zindagi Tamasha. This movie should be banned on a national level and should be reviewed under Islamic Ideological Council”. The use of numbers here indicates it as some sort of competition that Sindh has already won. The confident and applauding tone of this statement promotes the political group’s agenda.

It is believed that the use of violent protests and ‘agitation’ was used by the mentioned association to form their agenda. Political structures are also utilised to demand or ban policies considered to be damaging to its religious interest. Additionally, this policy reduces dialogue in the society, where filmmakers are battered by an inescapable religious-cultural conservatism.

This further diminishes any space for critical engagement within Pakistani society. The language used in this discourse by the supporting party and the opposition is very self-explanatory. Although the supporters of this law have little or no evidence of blasphemy involved and choose not to justify their stance, the opposition of the law is constantly using emotive language and is repetitively justifying their claims.

Zindagi Tamasha is already cleared by the censor board in a very vague announcement. Although many have spoken in support of the film and have indirectly and directly put out their opposing views regarding the vague laws, there is not much action taken by the government to amend the censorship policy. Perhaps, this is due to the influence of extremists that run far and wide throughout the country. To conclude, there should be clear policies from the government to the actors, producers, directors and religious authorities of the country. Monitoring the content is not the matter here, but how the content is being monitored is the matter. This should be specified as it not only legitimizes the conservative views but also offers no space for the viewer input under the façade of “religious integrity”. As a result, it can be considered as suppression of artistic freedom. A country like such where nobody can question due to the religious extremism would never evolve or develop.