Free to Breed

During a talk show on a popular TV channel last Thursday, the network decided to hold a poll. Viewers were asked a question that went something like this: Do you think suicide attacks in Pakistan are (a) Part of war against the US or (b) The murder of Pakistanis?

A massive 87% of the pollsters went for answer number 2.
Such results are anything but surprising, simply because the majority of the people are now sick and disgusted with whatever groups like Thereek-e—Taleban stand for and do.

The irony regarding the poll was that it was part of a show hosted by a man with obvious right-wing views. The sort who are media representations and reflections of politicos like Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Imran Khan and Mian Nawaz Sharif. Men who are willing to scream bloody murder when Asif Ali Zardari is reported to twist his moustache or worse, when armed men and women who kidnap, burn down CD shops and bomb girl's schools are taken to task by the authorities, but will not come out clean in condemning terrible suicide attacks.

At least not without one way or the other dragging in the now ubiquitous mantra about "US aggression," "Musharraf's policies" and "foreign hands."

So this is exactly what the host did as well. After reading the results of the poll, he condemned suicide attacks but at once followed up the condemnation with the usual mantra suggesting that the suicide attackers were also victims and only reacting to what was happening in Swat and Waziristan.

My question is, in the volatile environment that we are living, what are these warped-out right-wing convolutions in the shape of many talk show hosts contributing? Nothing more than confusion and an aggressive apologist stance about an ideology and action that is no less than naked, cowardly and shameless barbarism.

However, if the religious fanatics don't have support of most Pakistanis, then why do they keep getting away in making large numbers of Pakistanis bend to their will?

If most Pakistanis keep quiet and remain tolerant about events such as provocative gatherings of religious fanatics, mosque take-overs and the distribution of hate literature, how come they cow down when the fanatics don't show an iota of tolerance regarding events associated with "moderate Pakistanis?"

How come there is no "talk" on TV when a group of fanatics attack a concert, a painting exhibition, a "mixed function" at a college, or force residents of an area to walk, talk and dress the way the fanatics deem "correct?"

So far only two strains of responses have emitted from the embattled moderates. The most common response sees them becoming submissive, taking their events indoors, and in the process letting the self-righteous fanatics take over more and more cultural space, stuffing and suffocating it with fear and violence.

This cultural space is also being congested by TV anchors and reporters that eventually end up sounding like glorified spokespersons of obscurantist forces. Their bosses and seths are only interested in the advertising revenues they are supposedly attracting.

Right-wingers belonging to or holding sympathies for assorted obscurantist and conservative views have always been apt at infiltrating the print media, especially the Urdu press, even though recently a once liberal English daily of a large media group has fallen prey as well, sounding and looking more like a broadsheet of the many myopic jamaats and thareeks out there.

The so-called liberals, just as they are in most TV channels, have been cast aside to look after subjects such as "entertainment" and empty cultural gibberish to keep the multi-nationals interested.

In other words, it is the multinational buck that is keeping a lot of reactionary and right-wing shows and papers running, in spite the fact that it is "entertainment" that they believe they are sponsoring.

Of course, the multinationals and the owners are totally pragmatic about it. To them money talks and b*ll sh**t walks, when the truth is, the scenario in this context is more about, money talks because bu** sh**t walks!

Sometimes the moderates try to get into an intellectual discourse with the fanatics, optimistically believing the fanatics would realize their folly.

It won't work. Fanaticism is one of the most prominent expressions of an irrational mind. The religious fanatic's mental make-up is quite like that of a deeply embedded cult member's. It is like a brain maliciously washed clean and bearing no capability whatsoever for rational thought.

The result: The emergence of warped, drawn-out "lecturers" on the TV screens pretending to offer a constructive debate on religion. Men like Zahid Hamid are classic examples. Just as most talk-show hosts slip up to become media manifestations of bigoted obscurantist elements and so-called jihadies, this gentleman becomes the acceptable and "scholarly" face of what is quite clearly an ideology that has given Pakistan nothing but heartache. He bag's his following by offering that age-old excuse: Whatever that is happening in the name of Islam, is not your/our/Muslim's fault. It is the fault of Americans/Indians/Zionists. In fact Mr. Zahid will slash, distort and convolute his way across "politics" and "economics" as well to prove the point.

The presence of ubiquitous right-wing hosts and long-winded "scholar-talkers" on the TV screens is also an indication of the liberals/moderates' defeatist attitude. As the seths and owners among them go about pragmatically looking for fast advertising bucks through faster obscurantist hog-wash on their channels and papers, the lower layer liberals are left either discussing the ins and outs of fashion, or contemplating lofty notions about constitutionalism, and (their favorite topic), the hideous crimes of Asif Ali Zardi.

That's what a liberal talk-show host on a less sensationalist TV channel was discussing the day Thareek-e-Taleban killed 70 civilians in Wah. It was as if he found Zaradri's leadership a more hideous event.