One of South Asia’s most influential news magazines, Himal Southasian, is to close next month after 29 years of publishing as part of a clampdown on freedom of expression across the region. The magazine has a specific goal: to unify the divided countries in South Asia by informing and educating readers on issues that stretch throughout the region, not just one community.
Index got a chance to speak with Himal Southasian’s editor, Aunohita Mojumdar, on the vital role of independent media in South Asia, the Nepali government’s complicated way of silencing activists and what the future holds for journalism in the region.
“The means used to silence us are not straightforward but nor are they unique,” Mojumdar said. “Throughout the region one sees increasing use of regulatory means to clamp down on freedom of expression, whether it relates to civil society activists, media houses, journalists or human rights campaigners.”
Himal Southasian, which claims to be the only analytical and regional news magazine for South Asia, faced months of bureaucratic roadblocks before the funding for the magazine’s publisher, the Southasia Trust, was cut off due to non-cooperation by regulatory state agencies in Nepal, said the editor. This is a common tactic among the neighbouring countries as governments are wary of using “direct attacks or outright censorship” for fear of public backlash.
But for Nepal it wasn’t always this way. “Nepal earlier stood as the country where independent media and civil society not accepted by their own countries could function fearlessly,” Mojumdar said.
In a statement announcing its suspension of publication as of November 2016, Himal Southasian explained that without warning, grants were cut off, work permits for editorial staff became difficult to obtain and it started to experience “unreasonable delays” when processing payments for international contributors. “We persevered through the repercussions of the political attack on Himal in Parliament in April 2014, as well as the escalating targeting of Kanak Mani Dixit, Himal’s founding editor and Trust chairman over the past year,” it added.
Index on Censorship: Why is an independent media outlet like Himal Southasian essential in South Asia?
Aunohita Mojumdar: While the region has robust media, much of it is confined in its coverage to the boundaries of the nation-states or takes a nationalistic approach while reporting on cross-border issues. Himal’s coverage is based on the understanding that the enmeshed lives of almost a quarter of the world’s population makes it imperative to deal with both challenges and opportunities in a collaborative manner.
The drum-beating jingoism currently on exhibit in the mainstream media of India and Pakistan underline how urgent it is for a different form of journalism that is fact-based and underpinned by rigorous research. Himal’s reportage and analysis generate awareness about issues and areas that are underreported. It’s long-form narrative journalism also attempts to ensure that the power of good writing generates interest in these issues. Based on a recognition of the need for social justice for the people rather than temporary pyrrhic victories for the political leaderships, Himal Southasian brings journalism back to its creed of being a public service good.
Index: Did the arrest of Kanak Mani Dixit, the founding editor for Himal Southasian, contribute to the suspension of Himal Southasian or the treatment the magazine received from regulatory agencies?
Mojumdar: In the case of Himal or its publisher the non-profit Southasia Trust, neither entity is even under investigation. We can only surmise that the tenuous link is that the chairman of the trust, Kanak Mani Dixit, is under investigation since we have received no formal information. Informally we have indeed been told that there is political pressure related to the “investigation” which prevents the regulatory bodies from providing their approval.
The lengthy process of this denial – we had applied in January 2016 for the permission to use a secured grant and in December 2015 for the work permit, effectively diminished our ability to function as an organisation until the point of paralysis. While the case against Dixit is itself contentious and currently sub judice, Himal has not been intimated by any authority that it is under any kind of scrutiny. On the contrary, regulatory officials inform us informally that we have fulfilled every requirement of law and procedure, but cite political pressure for their inability to process our requests. Our finances are audited independently and the audit report, financial statements, bank statements and financial reporting are submitted to the Nepal government’s regulatory bodies as well as to the donors.
Index: Why is Nepal utilising bureaucracy to indirectly shut down independent media? Why are they choosing indirect methods rather than direct censorship?
Mojumdar: The means used to silence us are not straightforward but nor are they unique. Throughout the region one sees increasing use of regulatory means to clamp down on freedom of expression, whether it relates to civil society activists, media houses, journalists or human rights campaigners. Direct attacks or outright censorship are becoming rarer as governments have begun to fear the backlash of public protests.
Index: With the use of bureaucratic force to shut down civil society activists and media growing in Nepal, how does the future look for independent media in South Asia?
Mojumdar: This is actually a regional trend. However, while Nepal earlier stood as the country where independent media and civil society not accepted by their own countries could function fearlessly, the closing down of this space in Nepal is a great loss. As a journalist I myself was supported by the existence of the Himal Southasian platform. When the media of my home country, India, were not interested in publishing independent reporting from Afghanistan, Himal reached out to me and published my article for the eight years that I was based in Kabul as a freelancer. We are constantly approached by journalists wishing to write the articles that they cannot publish in their own national media.
The fact that regulatory means to silence media and civil society is meeting with such success here and that an independent platform is getting scarce support within Nepal’s civil society will also be a signal for others in power wishing to use the same means against voices of dissent.
It is a struggle for the media to be independent and survive. In an era where corporate interests increasingly drive the media’s agenda, it is important for all of us to reflect on what we can all do to ensure the survival of small independent organisations, many of which, like us, face severe challenges.
Farieha Aziz, director of 2016 Freedom of Expression Campaigning Award winner Bolo Bhi (Photo: Elina Kansikas for Index on Censorship)
Pakistan’s National Assembly passed a controversial Prevention of Electronics Crimes Bill on Thursday 11 August. The bill will permit the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority to manage, remove or block content on the internet.
Many critics say the bill is too overarching and punishments too severe. It also leaves children as young as 10 liable for punishment.
Last week, Aziz was selected by the Young Parliamentarians Forum – a bi-partisan forum with representation from all political parties – as one of the 10 Youth Champions of Pakistan. Yesterday – the day before the bill passed – each recipient was given three minutes to speak to the speaker of the National Assembly, Sardar Ayaz Sadiq, and other parliamentarians.
Yesterday, Aziz used her three minutes to criticise the bill based on the below letter to members of YPF. She emailed a similar letter to Ayaz Sadiq, who left before she gave her speech.
Dear Members of YPF,
Thank you for nominating and selecting me as one of the 10 youth champions of Pakistan.
I stand before you today apparently in recognition of efforts made to secure the rights of Internet users. I regret though that this is no moment for personal recognition or glory, not when the future of the youth of Pakistan stands threatened. What is that threat? The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill, which is on today’s orders of the day of the National Assembly, set to receive the approval of parliament and become law.
For over a year, not just I, but many citizens and professionals fought long and hard to fix this bill. We engaged with the government and opposition. Provided input to make the law better. We never said there shouldn’t be a law but that the law needed to respect fundamental rights and due process. While we found many allies among you – parliamentarians without whose efforts it would have been an even more difficult struggle – there were many part of the same system who labelled us as agents and propagandists.
On one occasion, the doors of parliament house were shut upon us. Stack loads of written input was disregarded and we were told we were just noise-makers who’d given nothing at all.
How I wish the certificate awarded today was actually a significantly amended version of the bill. A bill that did not trample on the rights of citizens. A bill that factored in the input we’d provided. I have come here today not for the certificate, but to ask you, if you will commit to the youth of this country beyond certificates?
The youth of this country is losing hope. I come to ask you if you will do all that is in your power to do, to restore it. If you want to give the youth of this country hope, then do not dismiss them. Do not stick labels. Do not isolate them. They don’t need certificates to give them hope. They need to see that things will be done differently – that their input will be considered and that you will constructively engage with them. That you will enter questions, and motions and resolutions on vital issues that concern citizens. That you will wage a struggle within your parties to make them see differently on issues. And that you will use your vote when it counts, and block legislation that seeks to take away our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms and rights.
If the bill is passed today, in its current form, the message that will go out to the youth of Pakistan is that there is no room or tolerance for thinking minds and dissenting voices. Should the youth inquire and raise questions, a harsh fine and long jail term awaits them. Is this the future you want to give the youth of Pakistan? If not, then when you go to the National Assembly today at 3pm, stop the bill from becoming law. Allow time to fix it.
Show the youth of this country that not only will you recognize efforts outside parliament; but that you will also honour these efforts by casting your vote to protect their rights inside parliament too. If you do this, that would be true recognition.
Thank you.
Farieha Aziz
Concerned citizen, digital rights activist and journalist
Farieha Aziz, director of 2016 Freedom of Expression Campaigning Award winner Bolo Bhi (Photo: Elina Kansikas for Index on Censorship)
The cyber crimes bill passed by Pakistan’s lower legislative chamber is unacceptable and needs major changes, Bolo Bhi told Index on Censorship.
Fareiah Aziz, director of Bolo Bhi, said the group is ready to pick up the fight against the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, which was passed by Pakistan’s National Assembly on Wednesday 13 April. The bill must now be approved by the senate.
“We need the senate to change the bill significantly, if not completely,” Aziz said. “A few amendments are not going to be enough.”
The bill, which stems from the 20-point National Action Plan against terrorism prime minister Nawaz Sharif announced after the Peshawar attack and was presented to the national assembly by an expert committee established by the standing committee for IT, has caused uproar in civil society for its restrictions of human rights and free speech.
According to Bolo Bhi, some of the major concerns are the criminalisation of political criticism and political expression; the overreaching and discretionary powers given to the media regulator; the harsh punishments and fines for hate speech; and the lack of protection for journalists and of adequately set procedures.
Additionally, the group has also lamented a critical lack of transparency in the drafting process, claiming the government deliberately avoided making the proposed text available to the public.
According to Dawn, the bill also shows a critical lack of IT expertise.
Aziz told Index on Censorship that Bolo Bhi expected the bill to be approved by the national assembly, and has been lobbying the senate since August 2015.
“We already have commitments from senators, including the chairman, who said very publicly in one of the sessions that this bill is not going to pass in its current version.”
“The senate is more balanced, and the opposition has the majority, whereas the government has a 2/3 majority in the national assembly,” she said.
However, Aziz warned the greatest risk is that senators settle for a few amendments to the bill instead of changing everything that needs changing.
“It’s the oldest trick in the book,” she said. “Make changes here and there, accept a few amendments, and then say that you’ve done what you could do. But that’s not going to be enough.
“We’ve seen this before with the introduction of military courts and the Protection of Pakistan Bill 2014. There was always an outcry by opposition parties, especially about the Protection of Pakistan Bill, but then they settled for a few amendments and all went through.”
Aziz said Bolo Bhi is already working to organise public and academic debate around the bill, and to make sure the senate has a clause by clause discussion.
Bolo Bhi, which means “speak up” in urdu, has been fighting the bill for over a year. They have been lobbying with members of the opposition and other organisations against the bill since then, shedding light on the legislation, organising public debates and creating a timeline tracking cybercrime legislation with information on every development.
Up to five year imprisonment, $95.000 fine or both for hate speech, or trying to create disputes and spread hatred on the basis of religion or sectarianism.
Up to five year imprisonment, $48.000 fine or both for transferring or copying of sensitive basic information.
Up to $480 fine for sending messages irritating to others or for marketing purposes. If the crime is repeated, the punishment would be three months imprisonment and a fine of up to $9.500.
Up to three year imprisonment and a fine of up to £4.800 for creating a website for negative purposes.
Up to one year imprisonment or a fine of up to $9.500 for forcing an individual for immoral activity, or publishing an individual’s picture without consent, sending obscene messages or unnecessary cyber interference.
Up to seven year imprisonment, a fine of $95.000 or both for interfering in sensitive data information systems.
Three month imprisonment or a $480 fine or both for accessing unauthorised data.
Three year imprisonment and a fine of up to $48.000 for obtaining information about an individual’s identification, selling the information or retaining it with self.
Up to three year imprisonment and a fine of up to $4.800 for issuing a sim card in an unauthorised manner.
Up to three year imprisonment and fine of up to $9.500 for making changes in a wireless set or a cell phone.
Up to three year imprisonment and a fine of up to $9.500 for spreading misinformation about an individual.
On 27 March, thousands gathered in Islamabad’s twin city Rawalpindi to commemorate the Chehlum of Mumtaz Qadri, marking 40 days since his death. Qadri was executed for the 2011 murder of the governor of the province of Punjab, Salman Taseer, who opposed Pakistan’s blasphemy law. Many extremists in Pakistan welcomed the murder of Taseer and celebrated Qadri as a hero before and a martyr after his death.
Supporters of Qadri from all over the country were called on by two extremist parties, Sunni Tehreek (ST) and Tehreek-i-Labbaik ya Rasool (SAW), to march on the Parliament House in Islamabad, under heavy resistance of riot police and paramilitary forces.
In an attempt to hold back protesters, police fired tear gas into the crowds. When the protesters reached D-Chowk in the city’s Red Zone, the square in front of the Parliament House, the situation turned more violent as participants removed and torched containers and destroyed private and public property. Police officials later denied firing live rounds at protesters.
Around 1000 people were arrested and over a dozen injured. “We are considering imposing Anti-Terrorism Act Section 7 on these protesters”, City Police Officer Israr Ahmed Abbasi told Dawn Newspaper, referring to a law dealing with creating terror and violence in society. “A case has not been registered yet, but consultations with legal experts are underway.”
The protests were largely ignored by the media leading to a major lack of coverage. Media regulatory body Pemra warned channels to avoid coverage “driven by crass commercialisation like in India.”
At D-Chowk, nearly 2000 pro-Qadri protesters continued a sit-in, demanding the establishment of Shariah law, the release of arrested Sunni clerics and leaders, and a guaranty for the enforcement of Pakistan’s blasphemy laws. They also insisted that the government should officially declare Mumtaz Qadri a martyr.
Protesters ended the sit-in after four days, claiming the government had agreed to their demands, but interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan later denied any deal had been made.
Simon Engelkes studied political science at Freie Universität Berlin and American University of Beirut, with a focus on armed conflict and political violence. He is currently working as a research intern with a think tank in Islamabad. He tweets @englks.
One of South Asia’s most influential news magazines, Himal Southasian, is to close next month after 29 years of publishing as part of a clampdown on freedom of expression across the region. The magazine has a specific goal: to unify the divided countries in South Asia by informing and educating readers on issues that stretch throughout the region, not just one community.