Banning Cultural Products Stunts the Growth of Creativity and Tolerance of Democratic Values in a Society
By Nadeem F. Paracha
18 Oct 2020
In 1973, an
Urdu film, Insaan Aur Gadha (Man and Donkey) was suddenly ordered by the
government of Z.A. Bhutto to be taken off the screens, just weeks after it was
released.
Illustration by Abro
------
Directed by
the late actor and director, Syed Kamal, and starring the popular comedian,
Rangeela, the film was a satire on the human condition in Pakistan. Rangeela
played the human version of a donkey who had prayed to God to transform him
into a human being.
After the
donkey’s prayers are heard and he turns into a man, he soon realises that his
existential purpose and sense of morality had more meaning, balance and clarity
as a donkey than as a human being. Disappointed by humanity (or its lack
thereof) he ends up asking God to turn him back into a donkey.
The reason
the film got taken down by the government was a scene in which the
donkey-turned-man (Rangeela) addresses a large gathering of actual donkeys. He
promises them that he would fight for their rights and against their cruel and
unjust human masters. The late filmmaker, Mushtaq Gazdar, in his book Pakistani
Cinema: 1947-1997, writes that the scene did not hide the fact that it was
parodying PM Bhutto’s signature style of populist oratory.
This was
what had angered Bhutto. But his government’s censor board shared this
reservation only with the producers of the film. Publicly, the reason given for
the ban was that the scene had ridiculed the masses, by depicting them as a
bunch of donkeys.
Even though
the film was eventually allowed to return to the cinemas, it is interesting to
note the nature of the justification given by an offended government for its
removal from cinemas.
Recently,
the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) banned the popular Chinese app
TikTok just days after PM Imran Khan lamented that it was promoting
‘immorality’ in the country. However, in a tweet, the senior political
commentator Najam Sethi insisted that the app was banned because many of its
local content-makers were parodying and satirising Khan’s populist rhetoric,
which is in stark contrast to his government’s political and economic
incompetencies.
The ploy of
using moral and/or religious rationale and angles to ban a cultural product
that has offended a sitting ruler’s inflated ego was not present in the country
before the late 1970s.
Had it been
in use before the mentioned decade, the Z.A. Bhutto regime would have not
hesitated to use it to ban Insaan Aur
Gadha. Or for that matter, the Ayub regime would have used it to ban 1959’s
Jago Hua Savera.
Jago Hua Savera, scripted by the famous communist poet Faiz
Ahmad Faiz, is a story based on the struggles of a poor fishing village in
former East Pakistan. Ayub saw it as commentary against his ambitious economic
plans. But the reason given by the regime for banning it was that its content
was ‘inflammatory’ and that it could arouse hatred among East Pakistan’s
Bengali majority against their West Pakistani brethren. In today’s Pakistan, Ayub
could have simply banned it on the grounds of it being a communist film, and
thus promoting atheistic ideas.
In his 1967
book Islamic Modernism in India and Pakistan, the scholar Aziz Ahmad writes
that the founders of Pakistan went out of their way to underline the fact that
their idea of Islam was different to the one held by most Ulema and clerics. To
the founders, their idea of Islam was inherently modern, rational,
sophisticated and progressive, as opposed to the ‘reactionary’ and myopic ideas
of the faith propagated by the Islamists.
The state
and various governments carried forth and further expanded this narrative till
1974. Therefore, till then, the notion of banning a cultural product on the
basis of morality would have seemed contrary to this narrative or something
that was the domain of unsophisticated mullahs.
However,
things began to change rapidly after the Z.A. Bhutto regime handed the once
despised ‘forces of myopia’ their greatest victory through the constitutional
Second Amendment in 1974, which ousted the Ahmadiyya community from the fold of
Islam.
Bhutto
believed that he was ahead of the curve by noticing the rising interest in the
Muslim world towards (albeit utopian) ideas of ‘Islamic rule.’ The French
political scientist Oliver Roy, in his 1992 book The Failure of Political
Islam, agrees that, indeed, from the mid-1970s, polities in the Muslim world
had begun to shift rightwards towards political Islam.
But Z.A.
Bhutto was giving himself too much credit for anticipating this shift, and,
more so, for believing that he was monopolising it before the Islamic parties
could. Because no matter how hard he tried, the Islamic parties understood the
dynamics of this better than he did and were therefore more adept at exploiting
its emotional and psychological appeal, as they did during their 1977 protest
movement against the Bhutto regime.
The tactic
of using the ‘Islamic/morality card’ to proscribe a cultural product which, in
reality, has only offended the ego of a ruler, earnestly began from 1977
onwards, with the coming to power of the reactionary Zia-ul-Haq dictatorship.
Before my
father passed away in October 2009, he would often tell his friends the story
of how, soon after the 1977 coup, when he was a reporter at a large Urdu daily,
he was told that his name had been put by the dictatorship on a ‘blacklist’ of
‘pro-Bhutto journalists.’ This meant he could not write anything on politics.
So, a few days before 1978’s Eid-ul-Aza — the day when Muslims sacrifice bulls,
goats or camels — my father was allowed by the editor to do a completely
apolitical piece on a make-shift market of sacrificial animals in Karachi’s
Gizri area. He went there, completed his report and submitted it.
The next
day he was told that the report had been removed by the Zia regime’s
Information Ministry, which used to scan newspapers before they went into
print. A member of the ministry told the editor that there was a whole
paragraph in the report about how people were checking the front teeth of the
sacrificial goats. The ministry man then added that the writer was being
‘cheeky’ by indirectly mocking Zia’s prominent front teeth. But the reason
provided to my father was that the article was ‘ridiculing the holy tradition
of animal sacrifice.’
The act of
proscribing a cultural product on the basis of ‘immorality’ just because it
offends the bloated ego of an individual or that of a community has little or
nothing to do with preserving the moral fibre of a nation. Instead, it’s more
about feeling a sense of power, which feeds inflated egos and the monomania of
those who have an entirely illusionary understanding of the society they live
in. Unlike those who go on a banning spree to avenge what they believe has
offended them individually, the other lot actually believes they are fighting a
holy war to save society. The result is a suffocating environment, which stunts
the growth of creativity, tolerance and of democratic values in a society.
Original Headline: BANNING CULTURAL PRODUCTS
Source: The Dawn, Pakistan
URL: https://newageislam.com/the-war-within-islam/banning-cultural-products-stunts-growth/d/123268
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic
Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism