Are we into unchartered territory here, with a clear and unequivocal violation by a TV channel of a clear and unequivocal order by Pemra?
The language of the ban directive issued on the 26th was so exhaustive that it called for parody. As per the directive, the channel was informed that the firebrand anchor shall not “host any programme, or appear on TV in any manner (fresh, old or repeat) including (but not limited to) as a guest, analyst, reporter, actor, in audio, video beeper, promo/advertisement or his programme or in person, in any manner whatsoever, on BOL NEWS with immediate effect.”
Whew. They only missed barring him from serving tea in the studio. In the words of an immortal Punjabi joke, “Chaudhry Saab, faer assi na hee samjhiye?”
But no didn’t mean no, apparently. Because the next day, the man was on air again, doing his thing, this time bringing Pemra’s Absar Alam into the cross-hairs as well.
Now the channel might have gone off the air in most of the country, but it continues to stream its content online, most notably, on its YouTube channel. Which means things have moved beyond Pemra’s control to the province of the PTA, or perhaps, the FIA’s cyber crimes division. No directive of the latter two has been violated, because they haven’t issued any in the first place. But it is clear now that when Pemra throws the ball in a particular channel’s court, the channel can smash open a new court through online broadcasting and social media.
A caveat to that, however: this route isn’t open for all channels. Advertisers won’t take too kindly (yet) to online-only TV channels. But for Bol, with scarce advertising to begin with, going online was an opportunity to play the victim card without much by way of financial loss.
In response, of course, Pemra has termed the airing of the show on the 26th as “willful defiance of the orders of the authority, which is a cognisable offence under Sections 29, 30, 33 and 34 of Pemra Ordinance 2002 as amended by the Pemra (Amendment) Act 2007.”
The regulatory authority has directed Bol News to submit an explanation within seven days, as to “why an appropriate action may not be initiated against the licencee for the above referred violation”.
On the content of the show itself: one thing that Mr Liaquat’s many targets should avoid is taking the bait and actually coming on to his show for a manazara of sorts. In the words of George Bernard Shaw, “Never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.”
The point being the peculiar logic of his. Instead of addressing the question of why he accused the missing bloggers of blasphemy, he will bring the blasphemy itself to the forefront and then accuse the whoever comes on to the show of defending a blasphemer. If his adversary were to cite the clauses of Pemra rules that he had violated, Liaquat is going to respond by citing 295-C. If the response to that is how that isn’t applicable in this case, he is going to cite the instances of blasphemy again, setting off a vicious cycle to be repeated again and again.
Amir Liaquat knows perfectly well what he has done is wrong. Rational arguments won’t cut it.
Another line of reasoning of his that was particularly interesting: accusing of treason anyone who is of the opinion that Pakistan lost the 1965 war.
Neutral observers of the war can be squarely placed within two camps. The first says that India won that war, while the second says that it was an inconclusive draw. And even within the latter group, there is a belief that India would have achieved a conclusive victory had international pressures not brought about a ceasefire.
But the reader should forget all that and assume Pakistan did, in fact, win that war. Would an academic, or a media person, having an alternate point of view be accused of treason? What law, in particular, is Liaquat citing, when he says this is against the Constitution?
The bar for treason seems to be falling lower and lower. Soon, anyone suggesting that the Pakistan Army didn’t win any Olympics medals, or that Waar was a horrible film, is going to be on the chopping block.
Post-script: There is one issue, however, on which Amir Liaquat was spot-on on his program on the 26th. When Geo was broadcasting news of his ban by Pemra, the newscaster prefaced his name with “jaali degree ke baa’iss badnaam.” Well, Liaquat replied, Geo didn’t really care about my fake degree when he was working there. It was all “Dr Saab, this and Dr Saab, that” by father and son (Mir Shakeel-ur-Rehman and Mir Ibrahim-ur-Rehman.)
Though it is an admission of guilt on the degree front, he does have a point. The copywriters at Geo clearly didn’t see that one through.