From confusion and chaos, emerges a hazy outline of future path
It has been observed, stated and discussed extensively how Pakistan today is polarised. Be it the army, judiciary, terrorism, religion, political Islam – associations have been formed with institutions, figures, terms of speech, that have been further cemented over the better part of last decade.
While this is expected of politicians everywhere, even seasoned, respected and independent opinion makers look to find a pattern in each series of events that unfolds and develop a linear, one-root-cause narrative. However, the last four or five years have witnessed a visible, however subtle, emergence of a careful, introspective, less intense and scathing mode of intellectual discourse that is symptomatic of confusion at the state of affairs, and attempts at clarity.
This I believe is due to turn of events that have challenged prejudices, in which mostly the left-leaning have been confronted, but the right-wing has had its share of shaken convictions as well. A discussion of these events in one chain is necessary to observe how the last few years have forced reexamination in both extreme narratives pertaining to issues, institutions and political figures.
The judiciary, the apex court at the very least, has been assertive in its display of institutional independence. While some hardened anti-establishment activists remain skeptical, numerous sections have expressed careful optimism at initiatives on view. While the missing persons case continues to linger, observations during court proceedings and remarks are, to many, are signs of the judiciary trying to find its feet while treading into the murky wrongdoings of the dangerous establishment. The Asghar Khan judgment, discussed to exhaustion, will fail to shock into reconsideration only the hardened and pessimistic anti-establishment thinkers.
While a certain famed and respected human rights activist was quick to hammer into unity Tahir-ul-Qadri’s long-march endeavor and the judiciary’s judgement on rental power case, events that followed seemed to underline the brand new scenario that has emerged following judiciary’s ascendance as a fresh pillar of power.
The fixation of the left on the PPP had been constant for decades with the reasons being obvious: no other formidable leftist alternative, persecution of the leaders and workers, frustration at establishment’s exploitation of the corruption narrative. Over a period of time, this exclusive claim to the left made the PPP luxuriate into ideological stagnancy and apathetic incompetence.
The PPP leaders, similarly the hardcore subscribers, could see no wrong in example after example of the PPP’s complacence in the face of huge challenges. Every attack on the last government’s performance could be conveniently returned with an equally charged attack on the PML-N with potent examples. However, this last term has seen to it that the PPP no longer enjoys monopoly on the educated, left-leaning segment. The presence of powerful landowners and capitalists is no longer a minor blotch but a glaring nod to compromise on ideology. While the narrative of corruption employed by the mainstream media manages to anger many ‘jiyalas’ into perpetual adherence, the ideological decline is not lost on anyone. How this bodes for other leftist parties can be debated depending on the volume of the left-wing space left vacated by the PPP.
The discourse on how to tackle religious militancy has always had black or white arguments until recently. The TTP’s persistent, prolific attacks have resulted in a reasonable decrease in sympathy for them in the average person’s mind which has resulted into the dialogue-only option being chastened by facts and figures, and freshly awakened loathing. On the other hand, the sustained frequency of the attacks in the face of numerous operations and drone attacks has had many a realist head bowed into agreement with PTI’s uninformed-sounding assertion that there is no pure military solution to this.
How the PTI has tiptoed into the “talk, isolate and remove” narrative from the “put away guns and negotiate” is also worth noting. The potential exit of the US in 2014, and the horrific consequences that could take shape, means the introspection is ever-deepening and the realisation of inadequacy of current understanding is stark.
It is quite evident, the country is at a crossroads on many levels – which can be supported by more examples. The tearing polarity that the country has been witnessing cannot, in any sane discussion, be assumed to be healthy. If this is assumed to be correct, the emerging confusion, and some clarity with it, is likely to equip more armour for optimism to the informed thinker. Many evils remain unexposed, and some offices are still beyond reproach of the common man, however, changes in some areas that have remained constant for years, and decades, at least promise a different set of problems that could lead into emergence of a hazy outline of a path towards people’s power and welfare.
