Jamaat-e-Islami announces nationwide protest again…

Islamabad: A controversy over the Pakistani film “Buleha” after a Senate committee questioned whether the movie damaged the image of legendary Sufi poet Baba Bulleh Shah by showing a character connected with violence, weapons and personal justice. During a heated discussion, Senator Pervaiz Rashid questioned how a film carrying the name of a famous symbol of peace and love was approved despite scenes and dialogues that critics said were opposite to Bulleh Shah’s teachings. The controversy intensified when members of the Censor Board admitted that some important points were overlooked during the approval process. Dr. Sultan Azam Taimuri, a senior member of the board, accepted responsibility and said the concerns raised about the connection between the fictional character and Baba Bulleh Shah should have been discussed more carefully. The committee argued that Baba Bulleh Shah was known for promoting peace, humanity and love, while the film appeared to show a character using force and weapons to fight criminals. Members questioned whether such a portrayal could create confusion among young viewers about the real message and personality of one of Punjab’s most respected Sufi poets. The debate became intense when a Senator Pervaiz Rashid asked if a film about another respected poet, such as Khushal Khan Khattak or Ghalib, showed that personality in a completely opposite way, would the Censor Board approve it. A censor board member admitted that such a film would not be acceptable and said it would be wrong to show a historical personality against their actual beliefs. The committee then questioned why the same standard was not applied to “Buleha.” The Censor Board defended its decision by saying the movie was not a biography of Baba Bulleh Shah. Officials explained that the character in the film was fictional and had no direct connection with the real life of the Sufi poet. They said the board considered the movie a fictional story and believed the name alone was not enough reason to stop its release because Bulleh Shah himself used the word “Bullah” in his poetry. However, the committee pointed out that the board’s explanation created confusion. Members questioned how the film could have no connection with Bulleh Shah but still use a name and dialogue strongly linked with him. The discussion became more serious when Dr. Sultan admitted that the committee’s concerns had a point. He said the board did not discuss this angle properly at the time of approval and accepted responsibility. He also admitted that a dialogue in the film where the character compares himself with Bulleh Shah could be controversial. Another Censor Board member, Syed Farooq Hassan, also accepted that the board overlooked this perspective. He said the board knew Baba Bulleh Shah’s teachings were completely different from the violence shown in the film, but members believed the character was fictional and not based on the actual life of Bulleh Shah. The board members also explained that Pakistan’s film industry was already struggling, and they wanted to support local movies within acceptable limits. They said promoting cinema was also one reason behind their decision. The committee, however, questioned whether supporting the film industry should come before protecting the image of respected cultural and historical figures. During the meeting, criticism was also directed at the writer of the film. Members questioned whether being a successful film writer was enough qualification to handle the story of a major historical and spiritual personality. They argued that the writer’s fame came mainly from action based films and said success in commercial cinema does not automatically mean expertise in history, culture or the lives of national figures. One committee member strongly criticised the idea of approving a film simply because it was written by a famous writer. He said the writer was known for introducing violent action elements in films but was not known as an expert on Sufi personalities or Pakistan’s cultural traditions. The committee also rejected the argument that other provincial censor boards had already approved the film. Officials said Punjab and Sindh censor boards had approved the movie without cuts, and it had also been aired on Local TV. However, committee members said approval by other boards did not remove the responsibility of reviewing the film’s impact. The discussion also raised questions about the knowledge and background of Censor Board members. Members suggested that people approving films about major personalities should have knowledge of history, literature, culture and society. They said the selection criteria for board members should ensure they understand how films can influence children and families. The committee argued that showing respected personalities incorrectly could affect how younger generations understand their history. At the end of the meeting, the committee made a strong recommendation regarding the film. The committee suggested that the film name should be changed and the dialogue in which the character calls himself Bulleh Shah should be removed. It further recommended that the film’s exhibition licence should remain suspended until these changes are made and that online versions should also be removed if available. The Senate Standing Committee on Information and Broadcasting has also included the film “Buleha” issue in its upcoming agenda, calling Censor Board members and producers to explain the certification process and the discussions behind the film’s approval.

Lahore: Opposition member of the Punjab Assembly Aftab Ahmad Khan has criticised the provincial government’s Green Property Certificate system, claiming that poor implementation has disrupted property transactions and created difficulties for citizens across Punjab. The opposition lawmaker has submitted an adjournment motion in the provincial assembly, highlighting what he described as serious administrative and technical shortcomings in the newly introduced system. According to the motion, the system was implemented across Punjab simultaneously without adequate preparation, complete computerised land records or sufficient training for the staff responsible for processing property transactions. Aftab Ahmad Khan said the system had become particularly difficult for ordinary citizens and overseas Pakistanis seeking to buy or sell property in the province. He claimed that property transactions in several areas had effectively slowed down or come to a halt because of problems associated with the new procedure. According to the motion, people who need to sell properties urgently are facing financial difficulties because transactions cannot be completed promptly. The opposition member also pointed to discrepancies in computerised land records and inadequate staff training. He alleged that errors in records and excessive discretionary powers available to officials could create opportunities for corruption and contribute to disputes over land ownership. Another concern raised in the motion is the certificate’s validity period. The opposition member said the 90-day validity period adds to the difficulties faced by property owners and buyers, particularly when transactions are delayed because of administrative problems. The motion further criticised what was described as a complicated “seven-window operation”. Instead of simplifying property transactions through a one-window mechanism, the current process has allegedly increased the number of offices and stages applicants must navigate. Aftab Ahmad Khan said the situation was particularly problematic for properties owned by multiple people, as co-owners may face additional difficulties in completing transactions within the required time. The opposition has called for immediate correction and updating of land records and better preparation of officials handling the system. It has also demanded the establishment of a user-friendly online portal specifically for overseas Pakistanis so they can complete property-related procedures without repeatedly visiting government offices. An effective grievance redressal mechanism has also been proposed to enable citizens to report problems and obtain timely solutions. The motion states that widespread concern and frustration are emerging among citizens over the implementation of the system.