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.

Nihilistic Fundamentalism in Pakistan

The incident of lynching an alleged blasphemer in Pakistan, sent a shrike deep down my spine. I said  impromptu, "Nihilistic Fundamentalism is greatest threat to Pakistan".

Fundamentalism originated as a counter culture in the modern world. It urged people to show their back to the modern materialistic world. At a very basic level, fundamentalists interpret religious scriptures in a literal fashion, transforming the allegorical aspects of the holy scriptures into concrete modern days ideologies. They are on a mission for trying to bring back religion back at the centre stage in a world where liberalism control all aspects of human life.

This was how Fundamentalism used to be. But in today's world, Fundamentalism has taken an horrendous path which has the tendency to destroy humanity. Karen Armstrong in her seminal work, The Battle for God, calls this tendency the nihilistic aspect of fundamentalism. Such fundamentalist reject all general human trait. They desecrate life, freedom of speech, education, and they even battle against the foundational tenets of religion. These nihilists don't just desecrate their life in the name of religion; rather, they desecrate any thought which opposes them.

We can observe the consequences of Nihilistic Fundamentalism everyday in Pakistan. From the murder of Shabaz Bhutti to the assassination of Salman Taseer, from the ousting of Ahmadi children from schools to the killing of Hazara Shias. From forced marriages to forced conversions. From burning innocents alive to extraditing intellectuals. The buzzwords that iterate in all these horrendous acts are nihilism and fundamentalism. The perpetrators consider themselves as the last saviours of the religion with the duty of annihilating all symbolism which they believe to be profane. They believe that killing people will sent him to heaven and attacking worship places will bring them rewards. They think that ossifying alien ideologies is the only way to keep their ideology alive.

Nihilistic Fundamentalism is a force to reckon with. Such fundamentalists are by definition anachronistic. Their inward journey to find meaning in the modern world distorts their grab of reality. They aren't on a mystical journey to understand reality; rather they totally are disconnected from the ethos of the civilized world. Nihilistic Fundamentalism is an antithesis of the culture of love preached by the sufis and mystics in South-Asia. The 18th century Punjabi sufi poet, Bulla Shah, once said:

Tear down the mosque and temple too, break all that divides
But do not break the human heart as it is there that God resides.

Copping with Nihilistic Fundamentalist 

Nevertheless, we shouldn't give them an easy win. Firstly, we should appreciate how nihilistic fundamentalists think. Are they programmed to be anachronistic? Why do they live on hate? What force them to annihilate? I think, there is a serious dearth of research on this topic from the view point of the fundamentalist. 

More importantly, an ideological war can only be fought with an alternate ideology. There is a need of a serious discourse to topple all the utopian ideas preached by fundamentalists in Pakistan. The vibrant electronic media in Pakistan should help in building up the public narrative against terrorism.

Book Review: The Battle for God

The Battle for God by Karen Armstrong
My rating: 4 of 5 stars
Publisher: Ballantine Books

Price: Rs/= 1150

Pages: 442

In The Battle for God, Karen Armstrong traces the history of fundamentalism in the three monotheistic religions, i.e. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The author explains fundamentalism to be a modern phenomenon, which could only take place in our modern times. It is only in the post twenty century world that religion has been sent into the aisles while the values of liberalism control all aspects of human life. It is this attitude towards religion which allows the fundamentalist zeal to grow out of bounds. Fundamentalists consider themselves as the last saviours of religion; they have a mission to bring back religion from the aisles to the centre of our modern society.

Karen Armstrong gives a detailed account of different fundamentalist tendencies in the three faiths. She analyses the Heredims in Judaism, Protestant premillennialism in Christianity, and Syed Qutb's and Khomini's revolutions in Islam.

All these movements have transformed religious mythos into logos. In the pre-modern world, myths were never meant to be considered form a rational point of view. The inherent enigma present inside the mythos allowed people to connect with the divine. The logos, the practical aspects of religion, was always complemented these mythos. Therefore, a perfect balance between mythos and 'the practical' was always present. This balance was completely destroyed after the rise of scientific modern world. This new world was based on tangible and empirical evidences, with no room for mythos. Everything that was logo was open for a critical examination. As the fundamentalist cannot disregard mythos, they have tried to transform their respective religious mythos into concrete ideological logos. Be it the theory of Zionism, the idea of rapture, or the institution of Vilayat-e-Faqi. On the basic level, it is the transformation of mythos that has provided the much need energy to drive fundamentalism in the modern world.

Secondly, in today's world, Nihilism has become a basic ingredient of fundamentalist movements. They have created suicide bombers, excommunicated people who criticise their ideologies, and have put their back towards the modern world. It is these nihilistic tendencies which drives Jewish fundamentalist to plan an attack on the Dome of Rocks and Muslim fundamentalists, such as Taliban, to kill innocent men and women in the name of God. Nihilism has become an integral part of their program.

Meanwhile, the book also maintains that fundamentalism is primarily a modern movement. It is a reaction to the ethos of the modern world. In this respect, fundamentalism isn't an inherently religious movement. It has originated due to the internal dialectics of modern societies. Hence, it is the scientific drive which has led Christians and Muslims alike to test their sacred scriptures on the touchstone of modern science. Moreover, the alienation created as a result of the total neglect of mythos has clearly distorted our subconscious self. Humans always need mythos as much as they need logos. This alienation has created, in the words of Sartre, a "God-shaped hole" that needs to be filled up. Fundamentalism tries to fill this alienation problem, but mostly it is unsuccessful in performing this task.

The author has done an excellent job in trying to explain the fundamentalist's view point from their own perspective. Without understanding their believe structure, it is quite impossible to dialogue with them. Dealing with a fundamentalist is like dealing with an anachronistic person. A modernist and a fundamentalist can never understand each other points of view, because they don't exist on the same plane of thought.

The book prophetically claims hat fundamentalism is here to stay. Liberalism hasn't been able to solve all human problems on the basis of rationality. Fundamentalists of the three faiths will always exploit this fact for their personal agendas.

The aim of this seminal book was to present a historical analysis of Fundamentalism. The author has excellently done her job. She has elaborated all forms of fundamentalists tendencies which have arisen in these great faiths. The book is highly referenced and an excellent bibliography is presented at the end.

View all my reviews