Region 
 

Swabi

In the Line of Fire

For today’s journalists, resilience is not optional but essential.

By Dr M Ali Hamza | March 2026


Silence, on one side, is a symbol of inner peace and contemplation, but on the other, it becomes oppressive when imposed. In societies where freedom of expression is lost, silence is no longer a choice; it is imprisonment.

Since its inception, Pakistan has witnessed a consistent pattern of suppressing journalistic freedom. Both military and civilian regimes have used censorship, intimidation, and violence to silence dissenting voices in the media. Journalists were flogged, imprisoned, and heavily censored, with press freedoms virtually suspended. Such silenced minds breed unrest, and a muzzled society loses its identity. True freedom thrives where expression flows freely.

Yes, there were always state-approved journalists who echo state-permitted narratives while posing as independent voices. Though they speak loudly, their words serve power, not the whole truth. Genuine criticism appears to be absent. Such journalists maintain the illusion of a free press while reinforcing censorship and gradually weakening public trust in media and democracy.

But at the same time, we cannot ignore the existence of journalists who receive funding from foreign bodies and promote narratives aligned with external agendas rather than national interests. Their work can subtly influence public opinion, destabilize local discourse, and undermine sovereignty. These journalists often highlight selective human rights or governance issues while ignoring broader realities, thus serving as tools of soft power.

The real question is, “How long can Pakistan’s genuine journalists survive the silence?” This seemingly simple question demands exploration from multiple angles; far too many to cover in just a few hundred words. Still, let’s attempt to unpack some of them.

Firstly, this pattern of controlling information, suppressing voices, and financing compliant journalists is not unique to Pakistan. Even Western nations that present themselves as champions of democracy face growing concerns over the erosion of free expression. Political polarization in the United States has fuelled heated censorship debates across university campuses and social media platforms. In the United Kingdom, laws targeting “hate speech” often blur the line between harmful rhetoric and legitimate opinion. France has drawn criticism for restricting certain religious expressions in the name of secularism. Meanwhile, in Canada, legislation like Bill C-11 has sparked fears of government overreach in regulating online content.

The banning of RT (Russia Today) across Western platforms after the Russia-Ukraine war sets a troubling precedent for freedom of expression. While concerns about propaganda are understandable, the outright censorship of an entire media outlet erases alternative narratives and limits public access to diverse perspectives. In the name of countering misinformation, many Western governments and tech companies suppressed Russian viewpoints; often without open debate or legal transparency. This raises critical questions: Who gets to decide what constitutes “truth”? Excluding Russian narratives, however biased, undermines the principle of free speech and exposes a selective commitment to open dialogue in global discourse.


In the West, freedom of expression often falters when it comes to criticism of Israel, particularly regarding its actions in Palestine. Journalists, academics, and activists face censorship, job loss, or accusations of antisemitism for voicing support for Palestinian rights or condemning Israeli military actions. In the US and parts of Europe, laws penalize individuals or organizations supporting the BDS movement. This selective suppression reveals a double standard: while freedom of speech is upheld theoretically, it is frequently denied when narratives challenge powerful political allies or established geopolitical interests.

History shows that some of the finest works of journalism and literature in Pakistan emerged during the harshest regimes

These examples show that even in the West, freedom of expression is not absolute, often compromised by political, cultural, or security-driven agendas. Therefore, this question is frequently raised for developing countries. Coming back to Pakistan: a developing nation grappling with various challenges, such as identity crises, ethnic divisions, political ambiguity, lack of long-term vision, an uncertain financial model, and the burden of covert wars among global powers.

Journalistic censorship becomes more than just a professional obstacle in such a fragile environment. Genuine journalists view their work as a fundamental right to publish investigative opinions and reports, and often feel they are operating in exile. Here, it is not merely about rights but about maintaining integrity with intelligence. Like in any profession, integrity in journalism takes generations to become a norm. Yet, true-spirited journalists continue to push boundaries within the constraints, using every opportunity to expand their influence and space for expression. Even under control, speaking remains the only way to survive, and history shows that persistence, however subtle, ultimately widens the circle of freedom.

Though fear often replaces dialogue and conformity overshadows creativity, history shows that some of the finest works of journalism and literature emerged during the harshest regimes, including General Zia’s era. Where conformity suppresses creativity, a counter-argument suggests that true refinement is forged only through struggle. The toughest times demand resilience; for journalists, resilience is not optional but essential.

Yes, when silence is forced, it is not serenity; it is the loudest cry for liberation no one hears. But as citizens of this world, have we reached a consensus on the meaning of liberation? Absolutely not!

Read More