111 510 510 libonline@riphah.edu.pk Contact

A fatal contradiction

Will it be a modern, secular democracy or an Islamic state, harking back to the pristine glory of early Islam? Or will it be both, at the same time? We do not know if a ‘naya’ Pakistan is around the corner but some of us may be excited about what it would look like. Waiting for the world to change, though, has been a constant state of mind for a large number of people, mainly young lovers. And, to be sure, the world does change. Our lives, too, have been in a state of flux. Often, however, it feels that the more it changes, the more it remains the same.

Nevertheless, the promise of a ‘naya’ Pakistan has its specific, political connotations. We have Imran Khan , the intrepid campaigner, to lead us in that direction. It is for him to explain to us how he proposes to build for us a ‘naya’ Pakistan. Ostensibly, he is doing that on a daily basis and the nation, thanks to our news channels, is obliged to listen to him. So, what has he been telling us about his vision?

Personally, I confess to being very impressed when he, during one of his late evening shows, elaborated on the shining attributes of democracy that he had himself experienced in England. He was totally credible. I remember he also invoked the example of the Scandinavian countries, particularly of Sweden. The idea, as I gathered, was to convince the people that a new world in which there is justice and order and respect for human dignity is possible. Look, other people have realised this dream for us to emulate.

Somehow, I felt a shade of conviction in his pronouncement. Imran Khan is not my leader, I must concede. But I would have voted for him impulsively at that moment. Alas, he has repeated his assertion that his model is the ‘riyasat’ of Medina. In this respect, though, there is not enough explanation of what this system would be in our modern times. We do have more than fifty Muslim countries. In spite of that, we do not have one working model of an Islamic state that is also democratic in practice.

There is Turkey, you might say. For more than a decade, a moderate Islamic party is in power. But Turkey is constitutionally a secular country. I liked President Erdogan’s comment when he visited Tunisia as his country’s prime minister in the wake of the Arab spring. He said: “An individual should be religious but the state should be secular”.

So, is Imran Khan’s stance an example of ‘doublethink?’ It was George Orwell who coined this word in his dystopian novel ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’. ‘Doublethink’ is the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously and accepting both of them. To a considerable extent, ‘doublethink’ is embedded in what we recognise as Pakistan’s crisis of identity. Still, it is the task of a leader to contend with this and other crises of our existence. What, after all, is our national sense of direction?

A focus on how Imran Khan is defining his political agenda is justified for the reason that he personifies the present movement for change. It is generally assumed that his campaign, with very useful collaboration of Tahirul Qadri, has stirred a wave of awareness among the people. It may yet be not strong enough to inundate the entire political landscape but the next date of the arrival of a tsunami is repetitively announced. Now it is November 30, next Sunday. Can this be the beginning of the change that Imran has promised?

The fatal contradiction that Imran’s ‘doublethink’ represents is, unfortunately, very deep rooted. It would essentially be the task of a visionary leader to synthesise this contradiction into a viable formulation to chart a way out of this deadly morass. It is Pakistan’s bad luck that Imran is not able to do that. Instead, he seems to be infected with the same confusion that resides in the minds of the people who raise the slogans of change. At the same time that he is building his appeal among the urban, educated youth, he is exploiting the vast reservoir of orthodoxy and social as well as religious prejudices that exists in the country. That may also mean that he is not leading a movement of change in any democratic or progressive context.

I would like to refer again to that silver lining that I had glimpsed in Imran’s persuasive validation of democracy as it is practiced, for instance, in England and in the Scandinavian countries. But this would call for a serious inquiry into how these nations have evolved and how their societies have protected the rights and the freedoms of ordinary citizens. One dimension of this would obviously be the emancipation and empowerment of the women.

Imran is very much a product of that system and this should be an asset. But at times he does not seem to be very different from the Islamists who pretend to detest modern western ideas and values. Yet the point of contention remains the sanctity of a democratic dispensation. Free and fair elections remain the professed goal of the movement for a ‘naya’ Pakistan.

Considering the present state of our society and the rising potential for unrest, one sees the real danger of ‘naya’ Pakistan being a more toxic version of the ‘purana’ Pakistan because our present leadership, including Imran, is not willing to challenge the collective mind that has become so conservative and pathologically reactionary in its approach.

Let me cite an example. A friend who teaches social sciences in an institute of excellence in Karachi asked his students about how they felt about Malala Yousafzai’s Nobel Peace Prize. This was soon after the announcement of the prize. More than 80 percent of them, coming mostly from well-to-do middle class, were not on Malala’s side. Their argument was that it was all a western, particularly an American, conspiracy. Yet, answering a different question, 90 percent of them said they would want to go to the United States for their higher studies.

Here is another instance of ‘doublethink’. Speaking at the UBL Literary Excellence Awards ceremony in Lahore on Wednesday, writer Intizar Hussain said that the entire nation celebrates the World Cup but when a Pakistani wins a Nobel Prize, people are not happy. So, what percentage of at least the educated elite would feel genuinely proud of the achievements of Dr Abdus Salam and Malala in ‘naya’ Pakistan? And will ‘naya’ Pakistan invite Malala back to her home and her school?

The writer is a staff member, Email: ghazi_salahuddin@hotmail.com

Ghazi Salahuddin, "A fatal contradiction," The News. 2014-11-23.
Keywords: Social sciences , Social needs , Social rights , Society-Pakistan , Democracy , Islam , Imran Khan , Nobel peace prize , Dr. Abdus Salam , Dr. Tahirul Qadri , Malala Yousafzai , Intizar Hussain , Pakistan , England , Turkey , Lahore