The attack on Journalist and vlogger, Asad Toor, a strong critic of country’s state institutions, has once again sparked a debate. On Tuesday night, Asad Toor was attacked and threatened inside his Islamabad apartment by unknown assailants.
There might still be warnings or threatening messages but now, the elements who want critical voices silenced have gone one step further and demonstrated that they have no qualms about ‘disappearing’ journalists or subjecting them to brutal assault.
Later, Information Minister Fawad Chaudhary, in a statement, claimed that certain media persons in the past have blamed the military and institutions only to receive political asylum and immigration to foreign countries. Responding to the minister’s claim, Hamid Mir termed the minister’s remarks unfortunate. “I was attacked but I am still in Pakistan. Matiullah Jan was attacked once but he is also in Pakistan. Absar Alam is also present in Pakistan,” he added.
“I will prove that you sit it Pakistan and protect the interests of Israel, India and the United States,” Mir said, apparently referring to the armed forces and establishment. Mir has raised a far wider and more important issue. The Army – and that very definitely includes the Army chief – is not above criticism and must not be protected from legitimate and sincere critique.
Earlier, in a disappointing move, the National Assembly Standing Committee on Interior approved a bill to make amendments to the Pakistan Penal Code and Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to take action against those who intentionally ridicule armed forces. The bill states that anyone who shall be guilty of said offence could face up to two years imprisonment or fine that may extend to Rs500,000, or both.
Given this reality, the move to bring in such legislation sends the wrong message. It would give cause for some to say that the very goal here is to prevent legitimate criticism by opposition politicians and rights groups that have questioned the role of the army in civilian affairs.
It would also give weight to the argument that the present dispensation is a hybrid regime. This bill will criminalise legitimate questions about the military’s alleged interference in civilian matters. In a democracy every institution of state must face criticism when it’s justified and deserved. If that includes the prime minister and how can it possibly exclude the army and its chief?
The military has to concede, comply and continue to cooperate. It has to punish those associated with it for any corruption or its appearance thereof. Else it needs to forcefully defend those falsely accused. And that a national debate about its role to be constitutionalised or otherwise, be undertaken.
