Skip to content 
In recent days, a particular segment has been promoting a discourse in the name of “cultural freedom” and “the boundaries of music.” While it may appear to be an expression of artistic appreciation on the surface, a closer examination suggests that this narrative represents a clear deviation from Pakistan’s constitutional institutions, judicial rulings, and the principles of national dignity and integrity. When laws and the state narrative are undermined under the guise of freedom of expression, a firm and reasoned response becomes an essential requirement of the time.
Reducing the significance of the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision to a mere procedural directive is, in essence, an attempt to challenge the authority of the state. In reality, the ruling was not limited to the restriction of Indian content but was intended to protect the domestic media industry and uphold the PEMRA regulatory framework. PEMRA is a constitutional body mandated to enforce established laws rather than act on individual preferences. Its recent actions are not arbitrary decisions but part of a legal continuum. The question arises: should media operate beyond the scope of national law? The answer is clearly no, as the supremacy of law is the hallmark of any civilized and sovereign society.
Portraying the broadcast of restricted content as a tribute in the case of a foreign artist’s death reflects a weak intellectual argument. Reporting news and promoting entertainment content are two distinct matters. While announcing a death is a professional responsibility, airing prohibited material in the form of songs under the pretext of tribute constitutes a clear violation of regulations. Historical context also shows that when Pakistan’s artists were restricted in India, similar exclusionary and hostile measures were adopted there, yet such conduct often goes unacknowledged by certain circles that are quick to criticize Pakistani institutions.
The cultural discourse being promoted today also appears disconnected from the suffering of the people of Kashmir, who continue to endure prolonged human rights violations. In such a context, glorifying cultural ties without acknowledging political realities raises serious ethical questions. Cultural harmony can only exist where mutual respect is upheld; otherwise, it becomes a selective and one-sided narrative.
Attempts to compare past policies with present circumstances are often irrelevant and misleading. State policy and personal preference are fundamentally different. In today’s geopolitical environment, India operates under a political framework widely criticized for its treatment of minorities and its regional posture. Media regulation during sensitive periods is a globally accepted practice, and framing it as inconsistency ignores established international norms.
It is also important to recognize that Bollywood functions as a form of soft power, often carrying political undertones in its narratives. In such a context, unrestricted cultural openness can pose concerns related to national security. However, lawful expression of artistic recognition remains possible within regulatory boundaries; what is prohibited is the promotion of restricted content under any pretext.
According to HTN, this selective liberal narrative—one that finds attraction in cross-border cultural content while dismissing domestic legal frameworks and sensitivities as excessive rigidity—runs contrary to national interests. State policy is guided by evolving strategic considerations, and its regulatory measures should be understood as part of a broader national strategy rather than contradiction.
