Intellectual Dishonesty of Pakistani
(Pseudo)Liberals
Syed
M. Alam
AS
a nation we suffer from a number of problems. In my view, the most
critical among them is not the rising tide of narrow-mindnes or
militancy, state-sponsored or otherwise, but the intellectual dishonesty
in the liberal class, which is supposed to counter the conservative
one.
Liberals
were not a confused lot in General Zia ul Haq's period, because
all classical leftist movements were marked by anti-religious forces.
Benazir Bhutto's compromise and then Musharraf's coup put the liberals
in a big dilemma and confusion. How can one liberal denounce a military
regime secularizing Pakistan? I am sure Qazi Hussain Ahmed also
wants to see Pakistan progress as any ultra leftist and liberal
would want to. The difference exists in the goals (what is 'progress'?)
and the methodology (bottom-up or top-bottom, etc.).
The
sudden rise of pseudo-intellectuals is a new phenomenon, and their
dishonesty is evident in following issues:
Pakistan
Army: This has been the strongest institution that Pakistan
has produced, mainly because of the fact that its command line comes
from a particular martial race (more harmony, cohesion, and way
of thinking), bred by British colonial forces in centuries. Their
interests are the same, and differences are amicably resolved, otherwise
the dissenting fellow has to be exploded in the air, or has to take
a respectful exit.
Pseudo
Liberals (PLs) always jump to Pakistan Army's support mainly because
of its strength relative to the other weak institutions. The Army,
seeing this fallibility of pseudo intellectuals, always makes sure
that no institution gets bigger than it, and this vicious circle
goes on.
This adventurism got a boost, and a justification, when General
Zia declared that Pakistan's ideological frontiers were also to
be safeguarded by the Army. This virtually meant that foreign and
homes security policies should be run by the Army and not a civil
institution. So for the last two decades we had our prime ministers
running the country like municipal chairpersons, while the Army
was taking care of all internal and external security issues without
any civilian checks.
In the mess of 9/11, pseudo liberals came forward for Army's support
saying that 'Pakistan had no other choice'. So the biggest failures
of two foreign polices were thus unaccounted for, on the pretext
of lack of choices. The question is: if two foreign policies were
based on Jihad and Allah's perceived help, then how come the Army
used civilians as canon fodder in Kashmir and Afghanistan, but refused
to be just another canon fodder? This exposes the hypocrisy of the
Army, conveniently ignored by pseudo-liberals.
There
is not a single demand by any pseudo liberal to hold the Army accountable
for the crimes (most of them war crimes) committed in Kashmir, Bombay
bomb blast and Afghanistan. There is no question asked about how
Indian underworld mafia leaders got refuge in Pakistan with Pakistani
passports.
Another reason why our pseudo liberals support the Army is their
assumption that the Army will get rid of Pakistan from civilian
corruption. An institution whose own accounting books are not seen
by any third party, whose few corruption cases were unveiled by
civilian sources (mostly by the ousted Nawaz Sharif government)---how
can it assume this moral authority to audit others?
Pseudo
Liberals usually identify the problems/benefits of military regime
and its dictatorship with one person (such as Musharraf), so that
if the dictatorship fails, not the whole the Army is made responsible
for this. In this way, the door remains open for more dictatorial
adventurim by another 'mard-e-momin'.
Punjab domination: No pseudo liberal want to be classified
as a 'racist', even when he is subject to racism. So all our Pseudo
liberals look the other way when the racist composition of Pakistani
establishment is discussed. Civil administration in minority provinces
can be all non-locals, Pakistan Army and rangers and police can
be non-locals, but pointing out this fact as simply a violation
of the peoples right to have representative administrations, is
something that no pseudo-liberal would tend to discuss.
We can look at the booklets of human rights organizations
working in Pakistan, or most of the national parties, opinion leaders
in press, but we can not see anything about it. Only regional and
nationalist parties raise this issue, and hence can easily be disregarded
as anti-Pakistan. Civil unrest in Karachi of mid-90s and frequent
disturbances in Baluchistan are all conveniently ignored with one
excuse or other.
White-mentality (total disregard to local intellect):
If there is any mess like 9/11, they would like to listen to Naom
Chomsky. If they have to believe that Jinnah was the statesman they
would refer to some 'scholar' in American/British university vouching
for his strength of personality. Not that these foreigners are bad
people, but if the problem is yours, you got to sort it out yourself.
If
we do not have the intellect to come up with our own solutions then
the problem can not be resolved by inviting others to resolve our
crisis. Even in history, our PLs can refer to lot of white historians
who can not speak any local language. Local historians and writers
are completely disregarded.
Human Rights scenario: Human rights organizations mostly
take the issues for which they are funded. Raising of selective
issues was more prominent in mid 90s in Sindh, during MQM and the
Army confrontation. Extra-judicial killing by state was completely
ignored by the Human Rights Commission.
Incidents of rape of women, even though condemnable, are given much
more energy and publicity because this is how these organizations
earn money. The policies of these organizations are also effected
by foreign donors (much like madrassas). Membership to these organizations
mean that you just have to give them money regularly without contributing
anything else. Who formulates their policies is anybody's guess.
Meaning of Pakistan: What Pakistan should be? Pseudo
Liberals jump to Jinnah's statements to show that Pakistan was meant
to be secular. Should Pakistan be what Jinnah wanted? Or anybody
else? Are we not negating the very meaning of democracy by that?
Should we even discuss what Jinnah wanted (besides academic interest)?
The same questions go with other founding fathers like Iqbal.
Heroism vs Systematic Approach: Most pseudo liberals
tend to credit one person with all the powers without any checks
and balances, in the hope that something will work out, or in the
desperation that we have no other way out, and the 'hero' on the
top is our last chance with destiny. Institutions are not supported
but a hero is made out of a ruling person like Musharraf, or some
aspirant like Imran Khan so that some 'magic' would happen over
night. This approach does not help society progress, no matter if
a saint is ruling at the top. Any 'change' in the system is always
brought about by challenging the vested interests responsible for
the status-quo.
Culture-Vulture: Traditional religion has miserably
failed to satisfy the growing diversified needs of Pakistani middle
class society. It has created many moral issues and dilemmas, which
can not be resolved by any 'broad-minded' interpretation of traditional
religion (as the evolution of religion is possible in a free society
not stuck up with its past and origin). This dilemma forced many
educated liberals to look at other alternatives (among leaving the
religion altogether). The culture of saints (sufisim) is the one
preferred by some liberals. It has been acclaimed more in the music
industry like that of Junoon group, Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, etc.
Imran Khan of Insaaf part and Salman Ahmed (of Junoon group) sort
of represent this pseudo
intellectual group. Their thinking, statements and professional
activtities all point to the hollowness of their intellect. Saints
are presented in Junoon's music and video as the ultimate prophet
of humanity. This is another story that most of these saints were
half mad, junky and frustrated people. Their ascent to priesthood
was mainly the result of a backward and superstitious society of
illiterate people. But this would not sell, would it?
Besides the promotion of 'sufisim', the other cultural 'progress'
has always been in the Americanization of things. So it is not just
enough to understand and speak English, but it is also necessary
to use the American accent and slangs. This is understandable given
the dominance of America in economics and the media, but the off
shoots of this mentality are manifolds, including: Formulation of
major national policies by Toms, Dicks and Harrys from amongst American-Pakistanis
(mainly because it is easy to get foreign fundings this way).
The
writer is an IT professional working and living in USA. He was born,
raised and educated in Karachi, Pakistan. He had a brief political
experience in student politics in mid 80s, while the country was
transforming from dictatorship to dictated democracy. EMail:syed_alam_1994@yahoo.com
Email Story | 
Discuss Story
