Art in the service of paid propaganda

Coca Cola sponsoring Karachi Literature Festival (KLF) or Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy receiving award from World Economic Forum may also be astonishing developments, but Abida Parveen becoming part of political ad is more shocking

In my view, power of mainstream (corporate) media does not lie as much in its ability to inform and educate people, as much in its disability to do so. They have great ability to distort the facts and misguide the masses in the name of so called news, analyses, op-eds. Advertisements, often the main source of income for print as well as electronic media and cover most of the space, are in particular pack of lies.

Owing to media’s tendency to distort facts and create false images, they are always side with the powerful, be they politicians, businessmen, bureaucrats /policy makers, NGOs or other vested interests. But all the propaganda is conducted in the name of empowering the masses who neither have any access to nor any opportunity to express their opinion in the mainstream media. According to Javed Jabbar, former Information Minister, despite being independent of state control/ownership and other governmental restrictions, many media units in virtually all categories of Western media, except for the parallel media, sometimes overtly and explicitly, and often covertly and subtly, maintain a close nexus with their respective States' and Governments' policies and vital interests, as well as corporate interests (see: Criss-Cross Times by Javed Jabbar, page-374).

Although media are declared vital for democratic functioning of the society, they mostly act as a propaganda tool for the state (and other vested interests). In recent years, owing to a deepening media-politicians nexus, media outlets are visibly failing to do what they preach to others. For instance, in recent years there have been several scandals in which media persons did engage other sectors in a way that can be called unethical. Many national and international instances point to the fact that media are falling prey to the same unethical instincts that the rest of the corporate world is mired in. The point here is that once media are corrupted there is nobody to point out several wrongdoings being committed by others, especially, politicians and other powerful elements of society.

Even, BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation) that until now was thought to be the paragon of virtue has, reportedly, covered up several stories that exposed the power that be in the U.K. (www.managementstudyguide.com/media-and-ethics).

But an important question is that can artists also be the part of this unholy nexus and is there anything, such as pure art? Prominent artist Quddus Mirza in his recent article titled, ‘Away from society and state’, points out that often when art is discussed in the context of society and in relation to state, one assumes that society demands a certain kind of role from the art, while art anticipates some initiative from the state. He traces the nature of this relationship in the dark caves of prehistory where art met the expectations of a group that hunted animals; there a prototype of ruler must have provided space, time and a few substances to the ancient image maker so he could draw pictures of prey which were useful for the whole community. He further elaborates: ‘in the present age, we have diffused descriptions or notions of these three entities. We are part of a society and we do recognize the presence of state around us but how these two affect us or are being affected by art is not very clear. This does not mean that art exists in a vacuum; it is made by human beings who deal or have to deal with society or state. But there is a difference between artists as citizens and artists as fabricator of images where we examine their presence and practice with reference to state and society’ (The News, May 15, 2011, page 36).  

However, shockingly some reputable and sober artists and writers like Abida Parveen and Fatima Suraya Bajia have appeared in political ads endorsing the governments. While the phenomenon of paid news is a norm in the mainstream media, the specter of artists becoming part of a paid political advertisements is really aberrant. Though someone may argue that even Michelangelo got his regular paycheck from the pope for decorating the Sixtine Chapel, and Mirza Ghalib also received monetary assistance from Mughal emperor, Bahadur Shah Zafar. But in all such cases there was transparency involved. We do not know if, and how much, Abida Parveen or other luminaries were directly or indirectly paid to deliver statements in favour of PPP government.

The series of such advertisements (that continue to appear till this day i.e February 15, while I am writing these lines) by the PPP government in Sindh started to appear in the mainstream newspapers from February 10, 2013 titled, ‘To Serve Sindh, is To Serve Pakistan’ apparently in response to the media campaign by PML(N).

I have no right to object if Abida Parveen or for that matter any other artist expresses his/her opinion about any political party's achievements or other people friendly policies, but the main point here is that: Is this morally or ethically right to give these opinions in paid advertisement? A better way would have been writing a column or article in the concerned newspapers. 

Coca Cola sponsoring Karachi Literature Festival (KLF) or Gulzar Sahib [Indian poet lyricist, and director] returning to India without attending the said event (perhaps, he doesn't like the Coca Cola) or Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy receiving award from World Economic Forum may also be astonishing developments, but artists becoming part of political advertisements is more shocking to me than any other development. Although, we may not agree with the notion that there exists something as pure art and there are examples that artists needed patronage in every age for survival as well as encouragement, but the less commercial the art is the more creative and relevant it will be for the society. But, then, we are (always?) living in strange times.