Malala Yusufzai’s book and its criticism on different TV channels has once again opened a window into the widening chasm between the ‘liberals’ and ‘conservatives’ at home.
The most severe display of this divide came to surface after the murder of former Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer when an overwhelming section of the public dubbed Mumtaz Qadri as a hero, while the country’s ‘liberals’ demanded capital punishment for the murderer at the least. The latter called themselves a silent and unarmed minority against a very well organised and powerful majority, which, on its part, equaled ‘liberals’ with ‘western stooges, traitors and infidels’. Although that was the tipping point for everyone to realize how these differences had taken roots in the society, incidents such as criticism on Malala’s book keep reminding us of that disagreement over such basic issues.
A recent review of her book by senior journalists in the print media started a debate which had not assumed such huge proportions after the same were called on TV shows to express their respective but opposing views. Somewhat to the ‘silence’ of the moderators, the debate took a heated turn with senior journalist Ansar Abbasi and bureaucrat turned columnist Orya Maqbool Jan on the one side and renowned physicist Dr Pervaiz Hoodbouy on the other. Right after the show ended the social media flooded with tweets and posts of the supporters of both sides.
Immediately afterwards memes were created mocking one side or the other. Sentences used during the show were used in the memes to prove how mean a particular participant was. The educational qualifications of the participants were also discussed to prove their merit for the debate.
The ‘liberals’ supporting Hoodbouy put up his picture as their display picture on Facebook and started making fun of the other two while those on the other end alleged Hoodbouy ‘neglected’ the country’s interest.
Whatever side one may choose, the lack of a forum to create “harmony” among the clashing segments of society is disturbing at the least and has already once resulted in a violent outcome. Besides, conspicuous absence of state in removing doubts and giving clarity to the people on such crucial issues further adds fuel to the fire. The media already moderates debates on these hot issues and has limitations too, unlike the state, which is required to come out and show its presence to avoid violent incidents in the future.