Last Blog : Clash of the Titans

One of the most intensely debated topics over the past three weeks, one that everyone in LUMS has heard about; why did the ISI cancel Mama Qadeers talk and violate LUMS's right to freedom of expression? Not only is this issue incredibly complex, it is also excessively controversial. I'll start by pointing out that I'm not defending what the ISI did, I believe it was wrong, but I also believe it  was somewhat justifiable.

I've heard the words 'freedom of speech' one too many times over the past few days, protesters are constantly chanting about their constitutional right to freedom of speech, half of which have not even seen let alone read the constitution. The constitution does, in fact, safeguard an individuals right to freedom of speech with the state withholding a right to impose restrictions in case the "integrity, security or defense" of the state and its institutions is harmed. Now one might question, how are we to determine whether the integrity of Pakistan would get damaged in light of the talk. Just a brief examination of the panel put together for the talk concludes that the discussion was indeed going to portray a point of view intensely biased against the Army, one of the most prestigious institutions of the state of Pakistan. If you're harming the integrity of a state institution, you're harming the integrity of the state, and so it can be argued that authorities had the constitutional right to cancel the talk. A better way to go about it could have been inviting a more diverse panel with conflicting points of view to provide for a more intellectually stimulating debate. 

Secondly, freedom of speech shouldn't  have double standards. LUMS has consistently gone on and on about the ISI banning the discussion, it has plastered social media, campus news and campusmail with posts and articles  aimed directly at state agencies for censoring any point of view that is not coherent with their own. But not only was calling a biased panel and not letting the other party present its view a form of censorship in itself, it bought me no surprise that there was nothing but a single paragraph long 'apology' by LUMS when it cancelled Asad Umars talk last semester. Their justification was that they want to refrain from engaging in politics and did not want to represent one single view to their students, I don't see how Mama Qadeer's talk was any different though. People argue that the talk was going to be about the army, basically against the army, but was not going to be political. But isn't that what is conveyed in almost every Political Science and Pakistan Studies lecture in LUMS, the army's ever-increasing role in Pakistan's political sphere? Therefore, I think LUMS is being a little hypocritical in this situation. 

I want to talk about the controversy regarding Mama Qadeer and his sons identity and their alleged affiliations with terrorist organisations and them being agents of RAW and/or the CIA and all the other narratives going about, but this is getting a little long and that is an even more controversial debate, so I'm going to conclude by saying every relationship is a two way sweet. You cannot expect other individuals to do what you do not do yourself, and since Lums has cancelled various talks in the past providing baseless justifications, they do not have the right to point fingers at the ISI.

While LUMS hides behind walls, more brave institutions such as T2F come out and explicitly voice their opinions and their beliefs. The founder paid her life for it, not only that but also put her mother in jepordy, but isn't that the point, to even die for what you believe in? It adds all the more weight to her message, and this just goes back to the social contract theory; would we even know of Socrates today had he not sacrificed himself for what he believed in? With that said, I believe intellectual freedom died with Sabeen Mahmud, it died Imtiaz Ali and Muhammad Raza, it dies every day we do not speak for what we believe in.