The myth of 'political neutrality'

Ansar Abbasi and ORya Maqbool Jab

'Political neutrals' are sick personalities who have personal interests from the system they are serving.

To call oneself politically neutral is one of the most absurd statement to hear. This is an excellent alibi to present your hatred and prejudice in the most severest way possible. Personally, I consider such statements as an intellectual sickness; a sickness of superiority.

A political neutral person tries to demean his opponent's idea, and simultaneously act as his best friend. This 'politically neutral' group notoriously malign the opposition.

Mostly, you'll find such people to have a complete command over rhetoric (i.e. clerics and their 'intellectual-followers', army men, and fundamentalist journalists).  They aren't able to give a logical and constructive reply. Rather, when they face a question they give out a wimpy smile and say, "You look frustrated; see the world in a neutral way!". This act is such an excellent checkmate move that the opponent doesn't have any more move left. He simply has to bare with the person.

When it's the opponent's turn to reply, these 'politically neutral' people play the old argument winning 'straw man' move. They just have to make a simple statement, "Look! I'm politically neutral, you aren't! So I won't be listening to you." Game Over!

I've met many such 'politically neutral' characters. Some were of my age and some older than me. There is a sense of intellectual superiority in these people. They play with you by asking bit-size questions, allowing them to subtly move the topic of discussion towards their side. In the end, if the opponent is weak, he is bound to lose, and hence stupidity prevails.

One such "political neutral person" who is destroying the youth is Oriya Maqbool Jan. He subtly constructs his arguments; playing with words and phonetics; he goes on to prove Taliban as the finest form of government, while declaring democracy as an atheistic form of government. The question arise, "whom does he support?" and the answers simply goes, "I'm only an analyst!"

When asked whether Islam allows killing innocents, he gives a big definitive, "No!". Conversely, when asked about his view on Taliban, he goes on to picture them as the soul champions who defeated three super powers and started the 'Golden Age' of Islam in Afghanistan.

He speaks for the right of individuals, but says that he supports Khilafat over Democracy. 

Another such 'political neutral' example is Ansar Abbasi. He, like his predecessor, is a fundamentalist. The shear abnormality of his neutrality is that he goes on to hate everyone who doesn't support fundamentalism. On the other hand, he also supports democracy. In the last few days this person even went against fundamentalism. Mr. Abbasi spoke venom against Dr. Tahir ul Qadri, although Mr. Qadri — like Mr. Abbasi — belongs to the people who some how want to implement Divine Laws in the country. Not surprisingly, this 'politically neutral' went on a blasphemous drive against Dr. Qadri. He even doesn't know the etiquette of criticising a political leader.

These 'political neutrals' are sick personalities who have personal interests from the system they are serving. Otherwise, even if the system isn't paying them enough, they try to assure that they get the largest share of the pie in the future. The only thing rational people can learn from them is how to be a good TV actor and play with innocent minds.

The question arises: Why do people listen to them?. The answer is as simple as this: They project them themselves as neutral players —  Mr. Abbasi calls himself an "investigative journalist", while the other is a "CSS passed dramatist and psychologist". This disguise of westernized terms with complex unexplainable personal goals create an unresolvable dichotomy.

Such personalities shouldn't be given time in the public space, because they are radicalising the society in a very dangerous way. Sometime ago, the CSS passed psychologist eulogized Taliban in front of our primary school children. His dramatic oratory did the magic, and everyone gave him a big applaud. He successfully radicalized the youth, while he himself smokes a pipe similar to western thinkers whom he opposes.

I think one effect of seeing such characters on television screen and print literature is that people — even sane people  —  are starting to call themselves politically neutral. The fallacious logic and wimpy smile is becoming more common. The intolerance in their language is increasingly being copied as the society descents into further chaos.