The rightist and nationalist ideologies have been entrenched so effectively in public discourse that any voice countering or opposing them, no matter how rational the dialogue may seem, gets easily intimidated by threats and humiliation. It is, in fact, easier to be termed a traitor than be considered one having common sense and empathy. In the face of intolerance and actual violence meted out for speaking one’s mind, freedom of expression has become a far cry for many here. And this is a sad predicament for those who get conveniently labelled as anti-Pakistan just for expressing their criticism of certain acts of the state that have caused great harm to the people here in the name of national interest.
So, who are these people who are homogenising the national mindset by condemning free minds? One must recall how Malala was targeted on social media and the whole episode of her getting shot played as a ‘CIA drama’. No matter how ridiculous this idea is, it holds sway with the irrational reasoning of the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) and the like. They criticise her and consider her to be an agent of the CIA, who got herself shot by the CIA and went abroad to malign Pakistan and the army. They became insecure because the Malala episode had in fact exposed the fissures in our country whereby schoolchildren are targeted, directly or indirectly, by the militants and the state remains unable to give protection to schools and the children within them.
The question that needs to be asked is: why is ridiculous logic being allowed to be presented by fundamentalists in the mainstream? And, most importantly, who is encouraging them and using them to steer public opinion in their favour? Liberalism has become a taboo word in Pakistan, and secularism has become almost criminal. However, the good news is that, in logical terms, the right-wing narrative, with endorsements of fabricated national history, seems to be losing ground. Because of Nawaz Sharif’s speech in which he indicated that he would steer his country on a liberal and democratic path, he was severely criticised by the right-wing parties and their media affiliates. Nawaz Sharif had a previous beef with the military establishment about which he is now quiet since coming to power has also subjected him to much ridicule, media trials and, perhaps, a threat to his political ambitions.
Nawaz Sharif may feel pressurised to aid Saudi Arabia in its aggression towards Yemen. He can feel the flickering of right-wing operatives under the umbrella of the Pakistan Defence Council (PDC) to protest parliament’s decision to refrain from sending troops into Saudi Arabia’s war, unless the country faces a direct threat to its sovereignty. The plausible reason behind this was the apprehension that this act that represented the will of the people could affect military contracts and relations with Saudi Arabia. A profitable venture that the establishment feared losing, it attempted to create a public discourse in this regard. Thankfully, this did not work as people are becoming more aware of what their national interests should actually be versus the national interests that are working against them. It is indeed only through the democratic principle that the voice of the will of the people is respected.
What we suffer at the hands of fundamentalists is the paranoia of the state, which has a tendency to disown the people’s resentment towards certain policies. There is a vicious cycle of how the nexus of the state with right-wing parties, fundamentalists and even with militants at times results in emboldening religious parties to pressurise the government into meeting their political demands. This politicisation of religious groups is a living example of creating ideological chaos in the country. They come out in full force to dictate societal trends through their unchecked propaganda machine, which is the reason why we see intolerance and violence against minorities. The present government is finally realising the dangers of such radical inculcation in society. We should be worried about the fundamentalists taking over political and public space because they form their opinions on a limited knowledge of Islam and vigilantly persecute those who challenge their unwritten dictates.
The hardened blasphemy, anti-Ahmedi and Hudood laws, for instance, were issued by a military dictator, General Ziaul Haq, to appease the clergy who held the reins of society and its institutions. It was done during an Islamisation process, a fallout of the Cold War that propelled Pakistan to side with the US, which financed the jihadist organisations to fight off Soviet forces based in Afghanistan. It was more than a token of thanks to the fundamentalists for fighting the ‘infidels’ in another country.
The institutions in Pakistan are weak and they usually fail to deliver to the people. There are more pressing issues that need to be addressed by the state than investing in religious institutions that have damaged our collective ability to tolerate and appreciate diversity. It is time to do away with nationalist and religious indoctrinations, and adopt policies that are pro-people’s development in every democratic and liberal term. Being critical does not mean one is anti-Pakistan or anti-Islam; in fact, it should have more to do with keeping in view the best interests and prosperity of the people of Pakistan.
The writer tweets at @zeebahashmi and can be reached at [email protected]