Daily Times

Identities, if one
were to survey recent literature spanning many social science disciplines, are often complicated by the numerous intersections between a plethora of variables such as class and gender. Given the extreme diversity of inter and intra cultures, it would seem that defining what it means to be a Pakistani or a Muslim is a futile endeavour (a member of the Kalash group is as much a Pakistani as someone living in the far flung reaches of Balochistan, or a denizen of urban Punjab, despite the clear diversity), yet that does not stop entities whose power is derived from a set alignment of variables from attempting to do so. As this article explores in a brief manner, the struggle to exclude groups from the definition of a Pakistani or a good citizen is usually part of a broader ideological camp espoused by the powers that be, in consonance with the material endpoints of their policies. I use a case study to examine what I loosely dub the politics of purification in Pakistan where, in this presumed quest to identify a ‘good citizen’, discourse excludes, or is framed negatively towards, those who are perceived as miscreants and a threat to the configuration and distribution of powers in the status quo. The scenario is that of the short-lived spat between civil society activists and other parties a few months back over ‘Unsilencing Balochistan’, where the already depleted and maligned left wing faced torrential abuse and saw the cause they had been championing carefully flushed.
A relentless campaign spanning numerous media platforms ensued, decrying LUMS’ presumed support towards an alleged secessionist figurehead, targeting individual faculty members and students by awarding them such unsavoury epithets as “RAW agent”, “anti-Pakistan”, “liberal” (and, ironically, “pseudo-liberal”), “anti-Islamic” and “western agent”. The assertion is (in general) that the accused is subversive to Pakistan, Islam or any other buzzword that can inflame and/or manipulate individuals when delivered to an audience! Anyone familiar with the strategies of the media can recognise the feelings, ranging from apathy to irritation/inflammation, an average reader will experience if he/she reads a small paragraph on the third page of their newspaper stating that “three RAW agents were apprehended by the police” or “two suspected militants were killed in a police shootout”. This is certainly not a new strategy; even Fatima Jinnah was accused of being an Indian agent by her nemesis, the venerable Ayub Khan. Yet this strategy is arguably far more potent now given the access more and more people enjoy to social media and the time, effort and resources that certain parties can dedicate to their nefarious campaigns.
It seemed as if the visceral fear of being devoured by India that, according to scholars of the Pakistani military complex, has plagued the country since its inception, has only been magnified as the establishment tries to rest on a narrow, ethno-nationalist premise complemented by a religious flavour to justify its existence and, more importantly, its actions. This leads to the exclusion of those who question prevalent assumptions and the modus operandi of the establishment from not just the parameters of polite debate, but from the constitutional shield of citizenship as well. Titles like RAW agent serve to dehumanise their bearers, expunging them from the socio-legal framework of the country by revoking their moral claims to citizenship. The rights and provisions of justice (expression, due process etc) enshrined in the supreme of law of Pakistan seem to evaporate into non-existence when this primal threat is activated. It follows that, because they have been successfully depicted as stooges of the west and/or elements corrosive to the moral fibre of the nation, their words and ideas cannot be entertained seriously. If they criticise human rights abuses, they are on RAW’s payroll, riling up national and international sentiments against Pakistan. There is no conceivable way in which a ‘good citizen’ will engage in such subversive discourse, so these liberals and lefties must not be good citizens! Universities like LUMS are portrayed as ‘brainwashing’ centres, where the deliciously hot air of ‘liberalism’ is pumped into impressionable young minds by vindictive PhDs with intentions to take over the world.
The battlegrounds of social media exposed the beleaguered ‘liberal fascists’ to an onslaught of abuse, with Facebook pages being dedicated to threatening and/or maligning such “anti-Pak” figures. Even more pressingly, formal measures such as edicts by the Higher Education Commission (HEC) prohibiting anti-Pakistan statements only seem to reify, in some convoluted sense, the existence of an ‘acceptable discourse’ with narrow confines that, in theory, seems to prohibit entire social science disciplines. One does not need to think much to figure out the problems with this, yet, unfortunately, it seems even that basic level of thinking is elusive.

The writer is a student of History, Politics and Sociology at the Lahore University of Management Sciences