Pathetic, despicable and disgusting, even if we put all of them together in one basket, they can only describe one-tenth of what really had happened that night on the television show On the front, hosted by Kamran Shahid. The Dunya News programme was supposed to discuss the book written by Malala Yousafzai — the girl who after a close range gunshot survived death and missed a Nobel prize, both by a very close margin — in which she has put forward her liberal ideology about Islam generally and radicalisation of Pakistani society specifically. In my opinion, there was no problem with the disclosed purpose of the programme, although the real agenda and the undisclosed objective, the objective to ridicule an honourable professor, as we now know through the humiliating smile of the anchor, was without a doubt guileful and deceptive. In the beginning of the programme, only to dodge his audience, the anchor announced to bring both the views on the table: the liberal perspective and the conservative opinion. While it is true that a lot can be said in favour of and against either one of these philosophies since each one has its own strengths and weaknesses, still we understand that in a deeply fragmented society like ours, this debate can stir up emotions any time. That is why it is the responsibility of the host to conduct the show with extreme care and extraordinary caution. Smiling comfortably in this situation becomes a criminal act for me: when everyone realises that the limits of decency has been crossed by almost all the participants; the tone of their voice has become condescending and rude; they have started shouting at each other; they are using abusive language and one of them is even inciting violence through religious sentiments. It looks even worse when he bursts into laughter with the insult of one of his guests as if a funny puppet show is being rehearsed in front of his eyes, or maybe his long-standing desire to get the highest rating for his programme is being fulfilled at that moment. Conservatives or liberals, each group, we all know very well, has some basic talking points in support of their views. If one of them likes to quote one verse of the Quran in favour of their opinion, its rival, in response, would quote another verse with just the opposite meaning; and if one likes to cite one Hadees from Sahi Bukhari, the other would refer to another saying of the Prophet (PBUH) from Sahi Muslim. This debate is neither new nor does it prove one group eternally right or wrong; it is just the way successful societies move forward. While most in these societies keep their beliefs sacred to themselves, they still understand the reasons for their differences with their opponents. And regardless of how irreconcilable they think these differences are, they keep the discourse polite and decent. Most people also realise that a large portion of society falls in the centre: they are not ‘godless’ liberals, but they do not condone the atrocities of the clerics either. Pakistan is the same way. People absolutely hate the mullah who censures them for watching Indian movies, songs and Turkish dramas, yet they revere them for waking up early in the freezing cold morning to call for the prayers even when there is no hot water available for ablution. But if your limits of decency are purposefully pushed against the wall for personal gains, and participants are deliberately provoked on television for more advertisers, what would it tell you about that programme and its host? What would it tell you about that news channel and its administration if they encourage people to lose their tempers on a live show? And above all, what would it tell you about us as a nation who finds it entertaining when people are abusing each other? It tells me that we can cross every limit of morality and professionalism to boost our programme ratings. It also tells me that personal motives and financial gains are much more important than human life. We — in the name of freedom of expression, regularly and unashamedly — promote hate speech, religious extremism and violent propaganda for ulterior benefits. That is why, Kamran Shahid had a venomous smile when Ansar Abbasi went after Pervez Hoodbhoy, and put the professor on the spot with his list of incendiary questions regarding blasphemy while shouting, “Hoodbhoy, tum jahil ho”, as if the assassination of Governor Salmaan Taseer was not enough, and as if the killing of Shahbaz Bhatti did not quench our thirst for more bloodshed. By broadcasting programmes like this one, the electronic media, especially its evening time anchor-evangelists, have once again made a mockery of the freedom of speech. Everyone now believes that after years of ‘hard work’ in building their reputations, all anchors operate as a propaganda machine, a tool to misguide people and sell them lies, way more than being a source of information and education. That night was a perfect example, when a healthy debate was relegated by design into a brawl between good and evil, and to top it all, was converted into a fish market, where the loudest person and the rudest among all, one with the ability to be most abusive, was allowed to mistreat and demonise the other in the name of Islam, the religion which preaches tolerance and peace. There is no doubt that both the parties were partly responsible for the argument; Hoodbhoy came across as an impolite person when he labelled his opponents as liars, but he was soon stigmatised by the simultaneous attacks of Ansar Abbasi and Orya Maqbool Jan. The host could turn off the mike of his participants any time or take a break any moment but he did not. How could he when he was looking at the ratings more than the emerging threat on a human life? The writer is a US-based freelance columnist. He tweets at @KaamranHashmi and can be reached at skamranhashmi@gmail.com