Intellectual Dishonesty of Pakistani (Pseudo-) Liberals

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-mindedness 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 Zia’s period, because all classical leftist movements are marked by anti-religious forces. BB’c compromise in late 80s, and then Musharraf’s coup put liberals in a big dilemma and confusion (how can one liberal denounce a govt secularizing Pakistan?).

Everybody wants to see Pakistan progress. This article does not mean to discredit pseudo liberals intentions. I am sure Qazi Hussain wants to see Pakistan progress as much as any ultra leftist and liberal wants. The differences exist in the goals (what is ’progress’?) and the methodology (bottom-up or top-bottom, etc.)

The sudden rise of pseudo-liberals is a new phenomenon, and their dishonesty is evident in a number of issues, as following:

1. Pakistan army

Pakistan army 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 same, and differences are amicably resolved, otherwise the dissenting fellow has to be exploded in air, or take a respectful exit. Pseudo Liberals (PL) always jump to Pakistan army’s support mainly because of its strength relative to the other weak institutions. Army seeing this fallibility of pseudo intellectuals, always make sure that no institution gets bigger than it, and this vicious circle goes on.

This adventurism got the boost and excuse when Zia declared that Pakistan’s ideological frontiers were also to be safeguarded by Army. This virtually meant that foreign and homes security policies should be run by army and no civil institution. So for the last 2 decades we had our PMs running the country like municipal chair persons, 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 in the army’s support saying that ’Pakistan has no other way’. 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 are based on jihad and Allah’s perceived help, then how come 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 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 army is their assumption that 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 ousted NS govt)---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 army is made responsible for this. In this way, the door remains open for more dictatorial adventurim by another ’mard-e-momin’.

2. Punjab domination

No pseudo liberal want to be classified as ’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 people’s right to have representative admin, 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 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.

3. 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.


4. 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 army confrontation. Extra-judicial killing by state was completely ignored by 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 polices of these orgs are also effected by foreign donors (much like madrasas). 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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 (sufism) 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 activitities 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 ’sufism’, 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 slang. This is understandable given the dominant American economics and media, but the off shoots of this mentality are manifolds, including: Formulation of major national policies by Toms, Dicks and Harries of American Pakistanis (mainly because it is easy to get foreign funding this way).