The demise of rational discourse

The narrative built around the compulsions of religiosity pushing the country back by leaps

“Whenever you committed the evil of refusing to think and to see, of exempting from the absolute of reality some small wish of yours, whenever you chose to say, let me withdraw from the judgment of reason the cookies I stole, let me have my one irrational whim and I will be (someone) of reason above all else – that was the act of subverting your consciousness, the act of corrupting your mind. Your mind then became a fixed jury who takes orders from a secret underworld, whose verdict distorts the evidence to fit an absolute it dares not touch – and a censored reality is the result, a splintered reality where bits you chose to see are floating among the chasms of those you didn’t, held together by that embalming fluid of the mind which is an emotion exempted from thought.”

–Ayn Rand

Beset with much turbulence, the one thing that is fast disappearing in the country is the rational discourse and the ability to engage in a meaningful conversation. Instead, every such initiation degenerates into a chaotic shouting bout with people flinging just about everything, sans logic, at the others to force their point home.

Only the other day, I was witness to one of the most brutal and grossly senseless verbal orgies perpetrated by a couple of wiser-than-the-world individuals who, in the course of discussing Malala’s book, came within touching distance of exchanging blows with Dr. Hoodbhoy who was exercising his right to an alternate opinion. Such an eventuality was avoided only because the participants did not happen to be sitting at the same place: one was in the studio in Islamabad, the other in Lahore while Dr Hoodbhoy was participating in the programme from his residence.

The horrible fact is that both the principal protagonists of conspiracy theories authored by the USA regarding everything that happens with Pakistan were quoting fictitious extracts from Malala’s book to form the basis of their tirade of abuse. For example, one of them quoted from the book thus: “He (Salman Rushdie) has all the right under freedom of expression, but my father said that we should write a book against him”. This is incorrect. What is actually stated in the book is: “My father saw the book as offensive to Islam, but believes strongly in freedom of speech. ‘First, let’s read the book and then why not respond with our own book?’ He ended by asking in a thundering voice my grandfather would have been proud of: ‘Is Islam such a weak religion that it cannot tolerate a book written against it?’ Not my Islam!” Quite obviously, it is a case of perverse distortion which is routinely practised by the proponents of obscurantism.

Similar accusations were hurled at Malala about supporting the Ahmadis. The book has this to say about them: “Now we are a country of 180 million people and more than 96% are Muslim. We also have around two million Christians and more than two million Ahmadis who say they are Muslims though our government says they are not. Sadly those minority communities are often attacked.” How does this statement support the Ahmadis? It is nothing but an expression of truth which, inter alia, is not acceptable to the rampaging degenerate moral brigades that want to introduce their own myopic version of Islam and then force everyone to accept it also.

Dr. Hoodbhoy represents a predominantly reticent class that is still unwilling to surrender before this vicious onslaught. While he was demanding that truth should be stated and extracts from the book should not be manipulated to suit a certain narrative, the other two were overzealously insistent on saying what they imagined was correct, its appropriation to what was actually contained in the book notwithstanding! The discussion degenerated to a point where one of the zealots called Dr. Hoodbhoy ‘a jaahil’ (ignoramus) and, after heaping much abuse on him, went on to puke venom thus: “Aik aisay jaahil ko, jis ko parhaanay kay ooper lagaya huva hai hamaray aik prime institution main. Mujhay nahi samajh aati yeh jaahil waha’nn kiya parhaata hoga?” (Dr. Hoodbhoy is an ignoramus who has been chosen to teach at one of our prime institutions. I don’t understand what he (‘yeh jaahil’) would be teaching there?)

This is as bad as any discussion can get. Even more disturbing was the conduct of the anchor who sat there smiling broadly, doing nothing to bring this verbal brawl to an end which he could easily do, given the technological gadgetry at his disposal. Instead, he handed over full-screen exposure to one of the zealots to continue his abusive tirade. Where is PEMRA? What happened to the much-talked-about code-of-conduct that was to regulate the media? Where is the Pakistan Broadcasters Association? Where are the other professional bodies that should be formulating rules of business to regulate television programming? Where is the channel’s management that telecast the programme? Do they have a responsibility to make the anchors subscribe to a minimum, credible code-of-conduct and refrain from providing unlimited time and space to the proponents of an abusive culture that aims at eliminating all prospects of disagreement with a highly personalised and polluted narrative?

In view of the note that Dr. Hoodbhoy has circulated, serious questions have also arisen with regard to the abnegation of professional responsibility and the abjectly partisan conduct of the anchor and the channel management. Dr. Hoodbhoy has highlighted the following points:

1. The anchor telephoned me repeatedly to invite me to his programme. I was reluctant because my academic schedule is very demanding. But he said it was very important to counter the wrong trends that we see in Pakistan and people like me have to raise their voices. I agreed to come, not knowing that he had invited Orya Maqbool Jan and Ansar Abbasi. He had deliberately withheld those names from me, although I had asked who else would be on the show.

2. Dunya TV sent a DSNG unit to my house in Islamabad. I could hear but not see the anchor or the other guests. In the midst of the shouting match that developed during the programme – a consequence of Orya Maqbool and Ansar Abbasi savagely attacking Malala Yusufzai and lying about the contents of her book – I was under the impression that my voice would be getting through to the audience.

3. The next morning, when the programme had been uploaded on to the internet, I was astonished to note that the audio level from my end had been turned down so low that my response was inaudible. However, Ansar Abbasi was hurling abuses against me and these were coming through loud and clear. I also noted that Ansar Abbasi and Orya Maqbool Jan would occasionally appear full-screen whereas I was shown as a tiny image even when speaking. This was clear manipulation and bias.

4. After some time had passed, the audio was abruptly turned off from my headset. I naturally thought that the programme had ended. So I took off my headset and walked away. The anchor said that I had left the programme. This was a lie.

These are serious issues which need to be looked into. No one has the right to slight another person, that too on the basis of a concocted and distorted narrative. It is quite obvious that Dr. Hoodbhoy was trapped by the anchor, possibly with the support and connivance of the channel management. What is this all about? Rating points? A salary increase for the anchor and his promoters and collaborators? More funds in the channel coffers?

The narrative built around the compulsions of religiosity is forcing the country back by leaps. This narrative has no popular support, but is being propagated by a brigade of bigoted few who do not have the capacity to tolerate an alternate opinion based on advancing the cause of rational discourse. Instead, this band of fanatics is bent on sabotaging all remaining avenues that may still facilitate such interaction. Their state of mind is summed up effectively by William T. Powers: “…In fact, being told that they are playing a game with arbitrary rules is insulting or frightening. They want to believe that the rules they know are the ones that everyone ought to play by; they even set up systems of punishment and reward to make sure that nobody tries to play a different game.”

The society is being manipulated by criminal mafias, the religiosity mafia being one of them. It is not just their obscurantist approach that is scary. It is their conviction that no one else should be given the right to express his or her point-of-view. Everything other than their abusive tirade is to be curbed brutally and without exception. What we saw in the programme provides an exposition of the same venomous culture of intolerance and hatred which is being incessantly propagated to instil an environment of fear. There is a palpable neo-fascist streak that dominates this narrative and its proponents. A self-annihilating implosion remains only a matter of time!

The writer is a political analyst and the Executive Director of the Regional Peace Institute. He can be reached at[email protected]