An Early Warning Signal

I have been asking myself questions this week:

          When a newspaper or a newspaperman is terrorised into submission, should that newspaper close down and should that newspaperman quit? Or should that newspaper and the newspaperman stand up and fight?

          When I feel that a newsman had brought me into disrepute by false or malicious reporting, should I slay him or should I take the reporter to court?

          When a newspaper criticises me with honest or dishonest intent should I, with the help or armed hirelings ransack its offices, burn them down and prevent its circulation by force or should I hand in my side of the story to the editor? 

           Now you, my reader, be my judge, as I answer. I am not a Mr. Know-all. I am not Mr. Always Right. I do not have the services of armed men at my command that will kill anyone, or burn anything at my bidding. I am alone and I am unarmed. I am no Samson , either. I do not have the histrionic ability to rouse people into frenetic orgies of murder and arson.

          Despite all this, however, I think I am a fairly well protected citizen because the Constitution guarantees me the freedom of life, liberty, choice of vocation and expressions. People I do not particularly like have the same freedoms in equal measures.

          The Constitution also denies me certain freedoms. I am not free to kill anyone just because I do not like his face. I am not free to kill him just because I do not fancy what he writes. I am not free to destroy his property just because I do not like him or what he writes. I cannot throttle him just because I do not like the sound of his voice. The law, in short, does not permit me to take the law into my own hands.

What are the Constitutional options open to me, then?

          If I have been misrepresented, misquoted, ridiculed, or if have been brought into disrepute; I can sue the person or paper responsible for libel. But I cannot under any circumstances, take the law into my own hands . The law protects me. Therefore, I must throw myself into the protective embrace of the law. I also must prove, to the satisfaction of the law, that I have been wronged. The law will undo the wrong and punish the wrongdoer. There is no other way the Basic Law of the land will allow me to react to wrongdoing.

          Now I ask you, my reader, how would you have reacted had I tried to gag a newspaper founded by the Quaid -i-Azam  himself?

          Or am I talking of ideal behaviour in an ideal society? What does one do when the law itself is terrorised into submission to the will of a person, or persons, bent upon seeking extra constitutional redressal of the real or imaginary wrong done them?

          How does the law react to this sort of situation? The law can punish those it has appointed as its custodians-in this case the Sindh  Government-which looked the other way when the Quaid 's own newspaper was under attack, when its copies were being seized and put out of the reach of its readers.

          But those who masterminded this assault on the Quaid 's paper, and later on Takbeer , have not perhaps taken into consideration the consequences of their unconstitutional acts.

          First, those who live by the sword, eventually, die by the sword.

          Second, if one person or one party takes the law into its own hands, another person or party can do so, too. If one party destroys one newspaper today, be sure that another party will destroy another newspaper tomorrow.

          How does the Press  respond to this assault on the freedom of expression? It must get together and give battle to those who in their short-sighted frenzy are bent upon destroying a vital pillar of the society and the state. Newspapers must unanimously decide on a national protest strike, and refuse to report the person or party they think has acted in violation of the Constitution, and the laws, rules, and regulations emanating there from in Karachi  during the last few days.

          Finally, a humble petition to the Supreme Court. That which happened in Karachi  to my paper and to Takbeer  is no ordinary matter. It could be the beginning of the end of rule of law, of law itself. The events of the past few days in Karachi can have a snowballing effect. After all, everyone and every party has a newspaper or a periodical it hates. Other persons, other parties in other cities could ransack, and put to the torch other newspapers, and other periodicals. I submit to My Lords of the Supreme Court that they may kindly take su moto notice of the events that have rocked Karachi. I make this plea because these events are an early warning signal of a grave national disaster because they mark the birth of intolerance, which invariably leads to fascism.

          I also make this plea because those who have executive authority in Karachi  and Islamabad  have failed to do their duty by the Press  and by the nation.

          I end this plea with a saying from Hazrat Ali , which adorns the editorial page of The Muslim , Islamabad .

          " An un-Islamic  government  may last awhile, but tyranny cannot endure ."

Friday, March 29, 1991