|
During
a one-year tenure in General Pervez Musharraf's cabinet from November
1999 to October 2000 as Advisor on National Affairs and Minister
for Information and Media Development, I had the privilege of being
closely associated with two significant cabinet decisions on electronic
media policy. Both steps had the common aim of radically enlarging
Pakistani audiences choice for access to news, analysis, information
and entertainment. One was the introduction of laws and policies
to spur and regulate cable TV distribution. The other decision was
to create a regulatory authority to enable a transparent and fair
process for the establishment of private radio and TV channels.
Both these progressive changes are marred by the ban on Indian TV
channels.
PEMRA is unfairly cast as the villain in what is really a
government-written script and policy. The majority of PEMRA's members
are non-officials. This was done deliberately to balance official
pressures. Hopefully, the non-official members will assert their
own views on this subject. Cable operators may presently appear
to be bold sentinels of cross-border friendship. But many are also
guilty of atrocious quality in service delivery. And of illegal
acts such as screening of pirated Indian movies on their own "channels"
with inanely repetitive advertisements super-imposed.
The
third villain is weak, corrupt law-enforcement. Yet the innocent
heroes and heroines, our beloved viewers also make too much of what
is bound to be a temporary measure. They could equally enjoyably
give more attention to the ballets of birds and beasts on National
Geographic until the ban goes.
But
the hullabaloo is actually much ado about two important issues.
One:
the universal, timeless human desire to have access without hindrance
to information and entertainment.
Two:
the inherent tendency of all states and governments to obstruct
content from a hostile source and/or to provide support to local
players against overseas competition.
Three
dimensions with alliterative affinity are also seen: protectionism,
paranoia and propaganda.
Many countries, including several western countries that claim pre-eminence
in freedom of speech and free flow of information and operate free
market economies, have used a variety of measures to restrict their
domestic audiences access to the foreign media.
Located
right next to the world's largest cinema industry which contributes
substantial content to Indian TV channels, Pakistan is justified
in expressing concern for the overwhelming impact that the sheer
scale and the relatively more liberal policy of India vis-a-vis
depicting the female form can have on the Pakistani TV channels.
But expressing concern
is one thing. Banning viewer access outright is quite another. We
should learn from our wrong decision to ban the import of Indian
cinema films after the 1965 war. While we did produce a handful
of exceptional feature films in the past four decades, the ban actually
distorted and twisted the growth of our own film industry.
Trying to be a pale imitation of Indian cinema, our own cinema has
become a crass, crude version of our neighbour's model. If we had
been allowed to compete freely, we would have been compelled to
develop our own specific cinematic identity and quality.
Authentic protectionism lies in applying a dynamic, sensitive mix
of policy measures covering content incentives, taxation, finance,
censorship, locational and operational aspects while permitting
overseas competition with reasonable, and not arbitrary standards
to restrict content considered offensive to social and religious
norms.
Though it needs to be remembered that despite incentives and protective
measures provided by the British, French and German governments
to their own cinema industries, the onslaught of American cinema
affected the growth of cinema in these three countries in recent
years.
State-owned PTV has enjoyed a monopoly from the late 1960s to about
1990 when the STN channel began transmission. PTV has rendered valuable
service as the first Pakistani TV channel, training hundreds of
technical specialists and thousands of creative artistes articulating
and personifying some of our finer features.
Notwithstanding its flaws, PTV continues to offer exclusive content
in some subjects. And it has an unmatched archive! However, the
monopoly instrument should be buried deep in a shaft and solidly
cemented over because it is completely out of synch with a world
in which freedom of media choice are now globally recognised principles,
even if not yet implemented everywhere.
Protectionism hurts the very entity sought to be shielded. As it
is, a couple of the new private TV channels sometimes seem like
alter egos of Indian originals.
The paranoia is a phantom. Over the past two decades and more, the
easy availability of Indian movies on video tape in every inhabited
nook and corner of Pakistan may have wasted millions of hours of
viewing time on innocuous and banal material - with some rare exceptions.
Yet
Indian movies have not made an iota of difference to the simultaneous
evolution of a sense of Pakistaniat, a deepening of national
identity and pride at being Pakistani. If there were any gaps left,
9/11 has filled them!
Unlike the military sphere, in media propaganda we do face huge
asymmetry. Whereas one Pakistani for every three Indian soldiers
reflects a recognised, deterrent number, there is no equivalent
ratio in TV channels. And how can there be, with the dozens of major
languages (and the corresponding number of TV channels) spoken across
India, compared to fewer languages in Pakistan.
There is certainly an insidious aspect to the way in which, between
the song and dance, Indian media seek to undermine the rationale
that validates and motivates Pakistaniat.
In creative content terms, we therefore need to develop the media
equivalent of nuclear weapons so as to equalise and neutralise the
Indian superiority in conventional numbers and the attempts to corrode
our persona.
We also have a remarkable propaganda weapon of our own, much maligned
and under-estimated. Of the several hundreds of TV channels spinning
images across our planet today, PTV is the only one that provides
a daily report on the brutal reality of Indian-occupied Kashmir,
including the daily body count and voice-casts from leaders in Srinagar.
However predictable this may be, the fact is that the truth hurts
India plenty. This is why, post-13 December 2001, it was the Indians
who banned PTV, obliging a Pakistani response. Previously, as well
as presently, a range of coercive means are used to discourage cable
operators across India from distributing PTV.
When propaganda includes cleverly concealed and malicious disinformation,
the effect can be dangerous and destabilising well before it is
detected by its targets.
We should remain on guard. We must give back as good - or bad -
as we get.
Let
viewers choose to see - or switch off Indian channels. Pakistani
people, identity and media have strengths that surpass cables, dishes
and dances.
|