Muhammad Sarwar
Words are immensely powerful. They are powerful because they give form to ideas, which have the potential to threaten the citadels of power. The status quo fears words more than anything; and, they are the ones to suppress them more than anyone. That is why, historically, dissenting voices have always been suppressed by those in power. Because the suppression of voices ensures an unequal social order between the powerful and the powerless. Those who are being silenced, are effectively rendered invisible and powerless. Those that silence others, consolidate their power by becoming more powerful.
There is something tribal in the urge to silence the voices of others. In the past, the chieftains of the tribes did not want any peer competitors to challenge their authority. The elected or unelected chieftains of today also do not want to be challenged. Their methods of silencing the voices of others may be different but their motive is the same: the singularization of truth. They want people to see the world not through their own eyes but the eyes of their masters. The masters detest any other version of truth: except their officially authorized version of truth. Any dissenting voice that claims otherwise is instantly crushed. Socrates is said to be the first casualty of truth: because he seduced people to navigate for the plurality of truth.
It is true that modern states have evolved into framing complex laws that spell out the rights of individuals to speak their minds; however, the genetic trait to subordinate others has not gone anywhere. Therefore, laws are not entirely helpful- especially if they are formed by the powerful- to secure the rights and interests of the marginalized. After all, isn’t it true that laws are made to be broken intentionally and deceptively by the powerful when conflicting interests emerge? And isn’t it also true that those in power benefit from the loopholes and know smart ways to lock up voices that might pose a threat to their power?
One of the egregious tools widely abused today is the pretext of national security: it is often cited as an excuse to silence dissent. Its telling example is the militated response of western governments against the peaceful protests in the educational institutions which demand an end to the war in Gaza. Instead of heeding to the genuine concerns, anger, and frustration of protesters, they are labeled as undemocratic forces stoking violence and anti-semitism. The western world, which tirelessly lectures others about freedom and democracy, scraps their democratic ideals into pieces when the interests of the powerful are at stake.
The pretext of national security effectively allows all states to extinguish any contrarian discourse that deviates from the official state narrative. In Pakistan, we have a rich history of bending and breaking the law by self-serving individuals, however, the invocation of national security to suppress dissenting voices has become a cliche in recent times. Indeed, national security is of paramount importance; however, it should not be misused to drown out meaningful conversation on important issues.
Since the controversial election, widespread measures have been imposed on social media platforms to curb free speech. The Punjab Defamation Act 2024, is another addition to the slew of draconian laws aimed at silencing critical voices. It provides a legal cover to punish opponents and journalists critical of the government policies. The latest round of restrictions has exacerbated the ongoing onslaught on fundamental rights. It has exponentially escalated the threat of our democracy sliding towards authoritarianism.
Every time the government announces restrictive measures, the citizenry gradually becomes habitual to those measures. After some time, the cycle is repeated, and the population again digests the new dose of restrictions. In this way, the territory of individual rights is gradually surrendered to undemocratic forces. The post-election curbs have transformed the country into a claustrophobic abyss. There is little or no space left to breathe freely. Public and private spaces have shrunk to the point of asphyxiation. In other words, insanity has literally colonized our rationality.
Does suppressing dissent help at all? An African proverb says that “an enemy is the one to whom we were not ready to listen”. Those whose voices are suppressed or unheard for too long, might feel neglected and suffer alienation. Therefore, they might resort to violent actions to register their grievances. That is how friends turn into enemies when the common ground for coexistence diminishes. If democracy is a social contract where everyone is equal, then everyone should be heard and their opinions counted equally: even those with whom we have our core disagreements. Because there is no other way to make the social contract functional except by accountability. That is why free speech and accountability are the central pillars of democracy.
One can suppress voices but one cannot incinerate ideas. The more one tries to suppress ideas, the stronger they will spring up. If they are not allowed a breathing space, they would rupture like a volcano in tumultuous waves causing unimaginable destruction. That is why I said in the beginning that words are immensely powerful. One should think hard before suppressing words lest they blow everything up with them like explosives.
The Author is an MPhil scholar in English Literature at GC University, Lahore.
He can be reached at Email:msarwar2069@gmail.com
