Daily Times

Should thought crimes — a term introduced by George Orwell in his classic book 1984 — be punishable by law? By thought crimes, the renowned novelist and journalist did not mean the intention to hurt someone else. It is in reference to unorthodox thought processes of certain individuals and their ideas that challenge the societal repertoire. In the novel though, it meant the doubts that the male protagonist, Winston Smith, cultivated in his mind against the ruling party.

The consensus around the world regarding this question is that thought crimes should not be made illegal, that every human being is free to make his own choices. Society may influence them to some extent, but it cannot and must not dictate its terms or impose its verdict on everyone, nor should it judge individuals based on their faith or punish them on the basis of ideology.

Theoretically speaking, most people around us too would agree with that principle. They would agree that people should choose their own heroes, nominate their own villains and define their own morality. That going after every dissent would destabilise the system much more than it stabilises it.

But the same people when confronted with a real life scenario would take less than a minute to make a U-turn and change their attitude altogether, transforming from being rational to someone emotional like a ticking time bomb filled with self-righteousness and inflammable ego, so unstable that it can blow up any time. All one has to do is to say the wrong thing at the wrong time to the wrong people. And once they get on that trajectory, there is no going back, the doors of mercy shut down, and hellfire descends upon the victim. For them the issue becomes that of life and death, honour and morality, shame and virtue, not a mere difference of opinion. If action is not taken, the evil not nipped in the bud, they fear the disease will metastasise and infect the whole society.

What are the most common thought crimes in our society? Unlike in 1984, in Pakistan, of course, the ruling party cannot enact such draconian laws. The list here includes religious disagreements, political or historical arguments or ideological differences. You may be persecuted because you believe in the “wrong” God (or prophet), or be humiliated through social media because you questioned the integrity or criticised the performance of certain institutions, raised an eyebrow on the services of the “founding fathers,” or challenged the validity and outcomes of the Two Nation Theory. For your own safety, it must be advised, therefore, that you must at all times follow what the majority says and how it says it.

While this attitude shows a combination of raw sentimentality and intellectual rigidity, in my opinion, it also shows something bigger: a trend towards Talibinisation of the nation. In response, people tell me they are not like Taliban, not even close, because they do not condone violence. They hate violence. They follow Islam because it teaches them to save humanity and serve people. In fact, violence and bloodshed only represent a small portion of Taliban-like strategy, just the tip of an iceberg. What lays under the surface is the real problem: the mindset that does not provide legitimacy to the opposing point of views.

So even though they defy violence as a political strategy to gain power now, it does not matter, nor does it make them less Taliban or good Taliban or reformed Taliban. Reason? Because once they get into power, there will be no difference between them and the ones who are waging “jihad” on common people today. They are going to apply the same rules, the same way as Taliban do once they occupy an area. And yes, they will do it in the name of saving humanity and providing service to the people. In other words, they will become the “Big Brother” of 1984 representing a ministry of thought.

To add another angle and bring a philosophical perspective, we must talk about Socrates for a moment, the Greek philosopher and teacher of Plato who wrote extensively about the great sage. If asked today, most people would favour Socrates even in Pakistan, calling his death a tragedy, a great injustice. They will not hesitate to proclaim him a hero, a brave man who preferred death by drinking Hemlock over running away even when he could from prsion.

But when people understand his real crime and look at the charges against him, they will side with the people who punished Socrates, a jury consisting of a few hundred individuals. Why do I say that? Because, of the two crimes that Socrates was punished for one was impiety, which means “not respecting the gods,” while the other was corrupting the youth — both looked at as thought crimes. For the sake of simplicity, try to change the word “gods” with “gods and his apostles” in the list of his offences and ask yourself: where do you stand? Regardless of your claim to be the follower of Socrates what you will find out after this thought experiment is that you are the real follower of the people who killed him.

The writer is a US-based freelance columnist. He tweets at @KaamranHashmi and can be reached at skamranhashmi@gmail.com