Pak Tea House » Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Army, Constitution, Democracy, Judiciary, Punjabi, Taliban, Terrorism, war, Zardari » Where I Disagree With Some Prominent Liberals of Our Time
Where I Disagree With Some Prominent Liberals of Our Time
Raza Habib Raja
As a philosophy liberalism is more inward looking and hence does not try to shift blame on the outside forces. By its orientation, it also does not have an overly negative assumption about human nature and consequently is not obsessed with crime and punishment. It believes in the rationality of humans and further assumes that human intelligence is capable of creating an artifice where ethnic, linguistic and other such “ natural” differences can be accommodated without creating rift. Its emphasis and belief on human rationality rather than instinct logically lead it to being more fluid and progressive. Conservative point of views by and large are grounded on instincts (which are permanent) and it is no surprise that conservatives are traditionalists. Yes, within conservative side, there will be variations but by and large they have a static view of issues. However, on some issues unfortunately those claiming themselves as liberals also have a tendency to take fixed positions.
One position which I have often found as somewhat of an anomaly is the stance of some western liberals on the war in Afghanistan. Their stance does not stop at opposing the war but stretches to paint Taliban as some kind of “victim” . A raving liberal from the other side of the border, aka Miss Roy, also has the tendency to view Taliban in some glorified “robin hood” kind of a way. Likewise prominent liberals/left wingers like Tariq Ali and Noam Chomsky in their zeal to criticize USA for its imperial designs often cross the line and end up sounding as supportive of Taliban in a twisted way.
Particularly interesting was Tariq Ali’s recent speech at Marxist convention where he blatantly criticized US war in Afghanistan and also the drone attacks. Predictably the rationale given for the war was US business and imperial interests. What Tariq Ali failed to really appreciate was that there is much more to the war than mere “grand” conspiracy to maintain US military bases. And even if it is assumed that the sole purpose of the war was for maintaining US’s hegemony as well as protection of its strategic interests, the implications for the area would be weakening of the Taliban. The policy of appeasement as well as negotiation has repeatedly failed with the Taliban. Even if you have to ultimately negotiate you have to negotiate with a position of strength and that won’t be possible without some acts of aggression. Yes you can argue over the modus operandi of the war but there is much more to the rationale and outcome of the war than mere US capitalist greed.
I think the central issue is that some positions due to historical baggage have become too entrenched and consequently such anomalies often arise. For example US aggression has been historically viewed as for maintaining its hegemony (there is a strong element of truth in it) and over time this image has become synonymous with virtually its every act of aggression. I am not suggesting that Bush initiated war in Afghanistan is purely a noble war but at the same time to interpret that Afghan Taliban militants are “nationalists” and mere victim of adverse circumstances is stretching it too much. What these leading liberals of the West do not know is that their stance actually becomes a credible propaganda weapon in the hands of right wingers in our side of the world who actually cite these intellectuals in support of their own anti war arguments. In fact Mr. Zaid Hamid has a regular tendency to quote Noam Chomsky (without crediting him of course) and give mind boggling spins to his views to align them with his own rightwing non sense about US grand conspiracy to destabilize Pakistan. It is a funny sight to find western ultra liberals and local conservative conspiracy theorists actually in the same bed.
I think a major problem is the excessive usage and in fact abuse of the concept of self introspection. Self introspection is a great virtue but it should not come at the cost of credibility. People like Arundhati Roy, Tariq Ali and Noam Chomsky in their zeal to show hypocrisy in their own societies do end up becoming less credible and even counterproductive. Instead of taking a case by case approach and evaluating the overall impact of particular acts on the ideological fabric of the society, the need to self fledge in order to be politically correct (according to liberal criterion) overrides everything. I have gone through many articles of Ms Roy and frankly she hardly seems credible in many instances. In her zeal to indulge in self fledging and to shift the entire blame on Indian government, she loses her credibility.
At our side of the border also the need to conform to some fixed “liberal” positions at times result in making liberals less credible. Although luckily in Pakistan, the liberal side does not suffer from twisted opposition of the USA and belief in “victimhood” of Taliban but problems emerge in other areas. For some of the liberals the whole paradigm of analysis revolves around few terms like Political Islam, Urban Middleclass, Punjabi hegemony, Establishment etc. Of course these factors are responsible, but not every problem in Pakistan is emerging due to these factors. Issues have to be analysed according to their individual merit. And yes while there are issues with the urban middleclass but that does not mean that its every concern is just an expression of bigotry and intellectual bankruptcy.
Lately I have heard fantastic theories of some grand alliance between Punjabi elite, Establishment, Media and Judiciary to destabilize the current government. Whereas I fully agree that PPP led government is lynched too much, but to conclude that all the “sinister” forces are acting under some joint conspiracy is stretching it too much. For that matter the interests of Media, Judiciary, Army etc though somewhat overlapping may not be completely corresponding to each other. And yes though PPP is the only electable liberal option but there are issues with its quality of governance. To deny these would be ignoring a reality. And above all not every PPP critic is a Taliban sympathizer or for that matter even closet conservative. You can be a liberal and yet be critical of PPP.
There is a reason as to why I think Fasi Zaka is the best liberal Pakistani journalist. He upholds liberal ideals of constitutional liberalism, independence of institutions, equality and freedom. And yet he does not mince words where liberal parties make mistakes. He does not spin the facts to absolve liberal parties of their mistakes. He recognizes that liberal mistakes are conservative gains. He understands that governance is important and that dynasty politics is counterproductive to progressive politics. He is a liberal in true sense as far as ideals are concerned and a realistic in interpretation.
What is more important for the liberal side is to stress on the liberal ideals of constitutional liberalism, equality and freedom. These ideals should remain fixed. In interpretation of issues, it is important to have an open mind.
Filed under: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Army, Constitution, Democracy, Judiciary, Punjabi, Taliban, Terrorism, war, Zardari
34 Responses to "Where I Disagree With Some Prominent Liberals of Our Time"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- tajender
said Fingolfin
kayasth are illegetimate off spring... - tajender said Fingolfin
kaysth are not bania.they are not tra...
- RajTOO
said Fingolfin,
tajender knows nothing. He just copy p... - Fingolfin
said Tajender
you poor soul Amitabh is not a Brahmin... - tajender said ahem,truth is this that,
Corruption dents India...
- tajender said It is the mainstay of islam. Islam was, is and alw...
- ahem
said to raj
Quote:
"He was ok till some muslims c... - RajTOO said I don't think posters here should make tajender in...
- ahem said In the cauldron of Pakistan everything gets cooked...
- ahem said Muslims are unwilling to accept that their god (or...
Good article, overall.
It would be useful if the author would have more boldly identified a few names of prominent liberals within Pakistan and shown us his disagreement with some concrete examples.
The Teen Jeem alliance against politicians and democracy is an historically established fact. The PPP being the most prominent voice of the people of Pakistan is the consistent target of the Teen Jeem alliance but not the only target.
Fasi Zaka’s criticism of the PPP should always be welcome, however, if he has not paid attention to the Teen Jeem alliance and its implications for Pakistan’s past, present and future, he should!
very well said raja sb, the problem with ultra liberals stems from their naive or rather lopsided view of human nature, its true that human beings are rational and capable of solving problems and generally good(whatever that means) but they are also emotional, greedy and revengful, any analysis based on onesided view is bound to be empty rhetoric without any insight. If you remember when prof chomsky visited pakistan a decade ago his lecture was more of a showbiz than an academic event. Plus this neo colonialism thesis provides the third world intellectuals with an easy escape and they fail to see their own shortcomings. Another important thing is that american tax paying citizen has a moral right to criticize their system but when our intellectuals do that it somehow hurts one’s aesthetics.
Some liberals are scared (everyone is) of the violence of the reckless and the fascists. So these liberals take care not to ruffle them. But they also wants to be known as “fearless” critics. So they will very often attack, with great vehemence, the smallest mistakes (or look-like mistakes) made by those who are fighting these reckless guys and the fascists. They can do that only so long the reckless and the fascists are not in power.
N. Chomsky, Arundhati Roy etc. are such dilapidated souls and decrepit minds.
RHR writes as if reading ones mind specially the first paragraph. How do you define constitutional liberalism?
politicized Islamists and depoliticizaed liberals, both are condemnable.
I think it is important not to sacrifice your credibility just for being called a liberal. And one should avoid being critical of USA just for the hek of it and yes if you are critical of PPP, that does not mean that you are a psuedo liberal.
It is important that we retain out independence of thought and try to be credible.
Raza, an excellent observation. Balance and a certain humility is key for credibility. However for polemics and sophistry, the winning is all important – truth, subtlety and nuance are not key objectives in themselves; humility is for wimps.
I don’t think Chomsky, Tariq Ali or Arundhati Roy would classify themselves as “liberal” rather they would consider themselves as part of the Left.
Maybe we should define what is meant by liberal? It seems like it’s just a term that covers a set of principles generally held to be true by the dominent “liberal” group in the world today which, I guess, would be a collection of the views of the US Democratic party and, perhaps the Liberal democrats of the UK. As long as one aligns ones views reasonably closely to the views held by this group one can be considered a liberal.
The problem with fitting ones political perspective into a Western framework is that none of the parameters apply. Which is why we have leftists in Pakistan who functionally seem allied with the Islamic right. Now this point causes much pain and outrage among Leftists – the usual response is that you are a “neo-liberal” or a brown sahib, or some such thing. But the fact remains, it is functionally completely accurate. There is very little that practically speaking, differentiates an Arundhati Roy from a Geelani – both are working towards the same goal in the case of Kashmir. It may be true that Roy derives her inspiration from completely different sources than Geelani, but the fact remains that political principles are meaningless devoid of indigenous context.
One of the points I took away from Dr. Taqi’s column on Afzal Bangash was the importance of framing your politics in a local setting and of not “importing” ones political principles. What is liberal in a Western context is very often, when transplanted into a Pakistani one, on the other side of the political spectrum. In fact I would go as far as to say that politics cannot be transplanted across borders. If Pakistan is ever to develop a truly free society where the average person is empowered and the military establishment is put in its place, it will have to come up with a completely indigenous solution which will most likely be unique and will most probably contain elements of compromise and accommodation with elements considered utterly distasteful to the image-conscious westernized liberal. And if that struggle is ever successful, I don’t think that there will be much room or importance for those who are primarily interested in polishing their “liberal” halos.
@ rabia
Tariq Ali will definately call himself a leftist though one can not be sure about ms Roy. Actually i have used the term liberal/left to lump them togther. Obviously differences are there but liberals are closer to left rather than right. Moreover, after the collapse of socialism, many leftist have also become closer to liberalism. The dinstinction between the two, though still there has somewhat blurred as mainstream left haas made adjustments and moved more towards centre.
Raza, an excellent article and analysis. You have rightly pointed out the counterproductive
influence of some of these entrenched ultra-liberals. They end up greatly negating a cause by
their mere association. Fully agree with Ali Arqam and Tilsim too.
We have Arundhati Roy and many others on our side. The theme song in Ms. Roy’s life seems to be how different she is, how outrageous she can be. In the end, they are basically narcissistic people.
To paraphrase Madhu Kishwar, an academician of some value, this mindset has a long ancestry in the old colonial missinary criticism of the subcontinent. This is a mindset which very selectively picks up only the faultlines with a hawkish gaze. The old imperial powers were masters in sharpening these faultlines for political gains. The new generation Katherine Mayos (she opposed our independence because of the practice of child marriage and young pregnancy) use these as a lucrative business model. The self hating subcontinentals are much sought after in the international circles and receive large pay packets for selectively pointing out newer ways of sharpening divides.
A good and refreshing article. Glad that you brought it up. It was getting disappointing
to watch the rhythmic patting of each other’s backside going on on some other threads.
@ no-communal
Thanks. I am particularly perturbed by Miss Roy. I think since she got famous through loud expression of self hatred and now in order to retain that image, she is forced to twist facts and continue slef fledging even where it is not needed.
I think some of the writers when they become famous start playing to their respective gallaries too much and Ms Roy belongs to that category.
By the way, I love Fasi Zaka. Love Nadeem Paracha too. He seems to be the best politico-journalist-satirist of the subcontinent.
@NC, Raza Raja,
Actually, to the nationalists, Roy is godsend. I actually feed bad for the common Kashmiris, whose genuine demands would be made into a spectacle by Ms. Roy. I understand the angst of Maoists, Naga separatists, and the Kashmir separatists, but Khalistanis? That just takes the biscuit. I don’t know why but when I read her, this song starts playing in my head:
“I feel pretty,
Oh, so pretty,
I feel pretty and witty and bright!
And I pity….”
It doesn’t bode well the liberal left to be hijacked by such shrill lightweights.
NC,
I find Masood Hasan quite entertaining. I wish we had his equivalent. For example, he describes Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal as “Mickey Mouse’s Folly”, which is a perfect description of some of our own (mis)adventures.
CM
I agree. The subcontinentals are an emotional bunch. They can be flexible too. If Ms. Roy chose Umar Farooq instead of S. A. Geelani, there probably wouldn’t be so much outcry about it. But no, Geelani it had to be. No matter if he was personally responsible for the murders of so many Kashmiri leaders themselves. It almost feels like Ms. Roy’s ilk are hell bent to make an international issue of THEMSELVES, the cause can go to the river.
@Raza
Why criticism of US policies is so hard to digest for the liberals.
Just as hardline Islamists want to blame everything on USA and Israel, the other extreme like yourself find it excruciating to even listen to other people criticizing USA let alone do the critique themselves.
Of course in your article you have made some obligatory yet obscure reference to USA hegamony but have been careful not to dwell on it too much. Well guess what some other people do dwell on it, and express their views on it. Some views of Chomsky and Roy please the Islamists of Pakistan because these affirms the Islamists stance on the issues, yet this does not mean that the views are wrong.
According to you, a writer loses credibility when he/she expresses analysis contrary to your world view. Roy is not credible because she blames Indian govt, and Chomsky is supporting Taliban because he is criticizing USA. And apparent you are the most unbiased impartial writer to comment on these people. Wow.
What Pakistani liberals hate most I think is that people like Roy and Chomsky generally use the public forum provided by right wing parties to propound their views when they are in our part of the world. They love to point out that look these guys are in bed with Talibans. But the problem is that its only the right wing people who let them speak from their podiums. The Islamists are smart enough to make use of whatever support that can get. However that in no way means that these authors are supporters of extremist philosophy.
What would have been best if these people can also be given forums at the liberals or non-religious discourse. The debate would be much more interesting then. Unfortunately none of your exteremly rational and totally egalitarian liberal friends are keen to hear any counter views.
@ nadia
I never said that Noam Chomsky supports Taliban just because he opposes US hegemony. My point was that in his zeal to paint US as a rogue state only, he ends up even sounding like supporting Taliban in a TWISTED way.
And yes I am not a liberal extremist and I think that was an unfair remark.
The problem with Arundhati Roy is that she is dishonest. She courts publicity, which is alright, a lot of people do, but Roy doesn’t mind using false coin to purchase attention. Whether it is the Maoists or Kashmir, she can be relied upon to say things for effect.
@Raza
Who would you call a liberal extremist then.
I think an extremist is someone who cannot accept that the other side may some very valid points. A liberal extremist is one, who believe all our problems arise from religious conservatism, and everything they have to say is wrong, and even if third parties want to support some of the Islamists arguments, they are still wrong.
I would like to know what description you would come up with.
By the way you again demonstarted how delicately you handle the reference to US hegamony; basically by brushing it aside altogether.
@ Nadia
It is ironical that in an article which is critical of entrenched liberal positions, i am being branded as a liberal extremist.
The topic was not US hegemony and therefore there was no need for me to dwell on it too much. even then I acknowledged that it exists. Where i disagree is that due to historical baggage somwe ultra liberals have a tendency to view its every act as nothing but a conspiracy to maintain its hegemony. Basically the article is a critique on that mentality and the negative effects emanating from holding such views.
Now stretching it to assume that it is pro US and that I can not take criticism on US, is frankly unfair.
Secondly, in your comments above you mentioned that liberals blame everything on religious conservatism. Well if you had cared to read the article till the end, you would find that I am critisizing their over emphasis on religious conservatism also.
Hayyer,
Pankaj Mishra is another member of this brigade. Apparently, just because he has roamed the countryside in his younger days, he is qualified to write about anything/everything concerning rural urban divide. What riles me more than dishonesty is the intellectual atrophy. These loons have been circulating the same arguments no matter what the problem is. Then there is Jawed Naqvi, who goes on to compare Roy to JP! Imagine that.
NC,
Apparently there were some fervent supporters of Geelani who drowned every dissenting voice with their cries of “Azaadi ka matlab kya, La illaha..etc. etc.” The surprising thing is that our liberals seem to condone it, forgetting that their fellow travelers across the border are engaged in a life and death struggle against exactly the same set of idiots! I mean, is there no sense of proportion?
Ms. Arundhati Roy and her ilk merely fill an existing niche that allows them to slyly promote themselves by espousing only those specific causes that are likely to get a nod of approval of the western liberal left representing Anglo-American interests. It is clearly nothing more than a mundane market transaction that some brown skinned people have been willingly performing to please their respective masters in the west for many centuries.
@Raza, you raise some good points. However, the problem with Tariq Ali is that at best, he is still stuck in the 1960′s and at worst, he is an active clog of what is referred to as the establishment in Pakistan or “deep state”. His statements echo those of Imran Khan and Fatima Bhutto and his portrayal of the Taliban is deeply dishonest and reeks of opportunism!
Also, the PPP-govt. should be held accountable for those aspects of governance that are still under its purview. It would be naive to blame them for our foreign policy. Also, if judges want to act as political actors and place their mandate on the “people” and NOT their limits vis-a-vis the constitution , well they should share the credit for the mess as well!
Also, I think the following article is a good accompaniment to this article by Raza Habib.
I will submit the link in seperate comment
——————————————————-
Pakistan’s left towards rights- Tariq Ali praises Taliban and Hezbollah
22
11
2008
Tariq Ali
by Imtiaz Baloch, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
The writer is affiliated to Baloch Human Rights Council of Canada, Toronto, Ontario
The writer can be reached at: imtiaz2000@hotmail.com
Last week the British-Pakistani orator came to Toronto for a talk. It was with great hope and enthusiasm; I arrived at the University of Toronto auditorium on Nov 14, 2008 with my Baloch, Sindhi, and Kashmiri friends to listen to the man famous for his revolutionary views and eloquent speeches.
Tariq Ali’s writings had always been a great source of inspiration for us under General Zia’s military rule, fighting for democracy, justice, and equality in the Pakistan society.
I am from the generation of progressive student activists who had witnessed the rise of ‘jihadi culture’ in Pakistan; funded, armed, and trained by the .. Army, ISI, Saudis, and the CIA. My generation was also a witness to two revolutions in the region on the borders of Pakistan – Afghanistan’s (Soar) April revolution of 1978 and Iran’s anti-Shah/ uprising of 1979, later stolen by the Mullahs.
But alas, my expectations were terribly let down. Thinking of the street fighting days of the 80′s, my thoughts were interrupted by the voice coming from the podium of a man I thought was the living embodiment of an era when Marxism, revolution, and Che Guevara were the idols worshipped by the left-wing students world over.
Tariq Ali spoke eloquently and took us on a journey into Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, touching briefly upon Pakistan and then rocketing back to the recent US elections and the crisis in the capitalist world. In his speech, he praised Sheikh Nasarullah’s Hezollah in Lebanon as “heroic”, conveniently forgetting to mention this group’s ideological, financial, and military support from the Islamic Republic of Iran and Syria.
The two states, one theocratic and the other a dictatorship – both infamous for brutally repressing their own people including torture and murder of communists.
In addition, to my amazement, Tariq Ali chose Hamas as the Palestinian voice of resistance and not PFLP or DFLP for that matter, yet another Iran-backed Islamic group striving for an Islamic state.
Finally came the bombshell. Instead of denouncing the atrocities carried out by the Taliban, the beheadings and the throwing of acid on the faces of schoolgirls, Tariq Ali eulogized the neo-Taliban as an indigenous movement representing Pashtun nationalism.
Suddenly it all made sense, for Tariq Ali. For him, the world had shrunk to the two opposite poles – America
on one sides and the global Islamic militancy. Anything anti-American would do, regardless of its nature being oppressive, anti-progressive, anti-democratic and anti-human.
What Tariq Ali said that evening would make Jamaat-e-Islami, chief Qazi Hussain Ahmed and former Director General ISI Hameed Gul (godfather of the Taliban) applaud and dance with joy.
Unfortunately, that was not the end of the story. He also managed to present one dramatized case of forcible disappearance of a Pakistani citizen Aafia Siddiqui now in US custody for alleged links with Al-Qaida.
He spent considerable time talking about Aafia Siddiqui, painting a picture of a victim of American atrocities, but he did not utter a single word about the thousands of Sindhi and Baloch political activists who
were disappeared by the ISI under Musharraf’s military rule and ended up in the torture cells.
Speaking of torture, Tariq Ali slammed Hasni Mobarak’s Egypt, but a kept a complete silence on the brutal practices of torture by the Islamic Republic of Iran where thousands of progressive activists have been tortured and hanged publicly. He did not utter one word against Saudi Arabia, an apartheid state where racism and repression are state policy.
Most amazingly, Balochistan was completely absent from his speech, where for the last four years people are facing a brutal military operation unleashed by the Musharraf regime. The atrocities include aerial bombing of villages by PAF; killing of innocent civilians including women and children; forced displacement of 200,000 Marri and Bugti tribal families; arrest, torture and targeted killing of activists and leaders; forced
occupation of people’s land by the state to build military cantonments; development of testing sites for nuclear weapons causing health and environmental hazards.
HRCP chief Asma Jahangir, who does not claim to be a revolutionary and who hails from Lahore, has done a magnificent job in risking her life to collect all the data from the remote and restricted areas of Balochistan and in bringing the facts to world’s attention.
Tariq Ali’s evasiveness from the Baloch national question is not just a matter of ignorance of the facts, but rather based on his worldview related to the narrow vision and what fits in it. This became obvious from his
response to a question on Balochistan asked from the audience. While claiming his support to Baloch rights and saying that military operation was not a good thing, he then balanced it off by dismissing Baloch nation’s right to exercise the right of self determination, because of the involvement of the “big powers”
and their interests in the region.
Tariq Ali stands for the right of self determination for the people of Palestine, but not for the people of Balochistan or Kurdistan.
Later that evening at a private dinner he further explained that formation of new independent states was not on the world agenda therefore the best option for Baloch and other nationalities is to be part of a South
Asian Union in which Pakistan will exist as a loose federation. How is that possible and why would Pakistan’s
military sacrifice all its multibillion dollar assets, businesses and political power to become part of South Asian Union? During the debate, Tariq Ali also made a passing remark that Baloch should join Islamic Republic of Iran, knowing very well the atrocities unleashed on Iranian Baloch by the state.
It felt like asking the sheep to leave the flock and join a pack of wolves. What could be more insulting coming from a world-renowned scholar of Tariq Ali’s stature?
Moreover, when he was reminded of the fact that Iranian Balochistan also needs to be liberated from the repressive theocratic state, he simply looked the other way and smiled sarcastically. His response to a
question regarding Sindh’s national rights was simply a joke to the people of Sindh. He said, “President Zaradari is now in power”. This was an utter disregard for Sindh’s national problems.
In his speech Tariq Ali spent a full 30 minutes making fun of Asif Zaradari, mocking his English accent and sinking to a level of attack that reflected a bitter personal animosity. There was not a word of criticism
of Nawaz Shariff or General Musharraf.
Tariq Ali made no mention of the heroic struggle of people like Pervez Hoodbhoy and Ahmad Rashid, who has criticized in previous writings.
In listening to Tariq Ali, it seems one was listening to some .. Army Colonel lecturing us Baloch to fight the so-called “Sardari nizaam”, as if Sheroo Marri and the late Mir Bizenjo were sardars.
In general, Tariq Ali’s attitude and behaviour towards Pakistan’s nationalities question sounded like an echo coming from Islamabad’s corridors of power representing the voice of a dominant nationality that has
colonized Baluchistan for 60 years, yet whose intelligentsia, including the Left is woefully oblivious of their own role as accomplices.
There seemed a pattern emerging from the speech and the discussion that completed the picture. The old Left and the neo-Taliban have bonded into a new friendship with a common cause – Bush-bashing, for which, Islamic populist sentimentalism, state and strong army have become important tools of the trade. Today, it is not surprising to see former Marxists collude with Jihadis, but to see Tariq Ali in that role was a huge let down.
Therefore, Pakistan and Iran as states and their military as an intimidating force are non-negotiable in
exchange for the national emancipation of oppressed nationalities. What lessons have we learnt from the Iranian left movement and their self-destructive path of alignment with Khomeni on anti-American basis? And how that had resulted in the complete abolishment of the Left experience in Iran.
That night when I was finally leaving for home, all sorts of questions were rising in my mind. For some reason, the night seemed slightly darker than usual. The only beacon of hope was the faraway mountains of
Balochistan where the sound of thunder was the call for freedom.
Imtiaz Baloch is affiliated to Baloch Human Rights Council of Canada, Toronto, Ontario
–
Source- Posted by: Imtiaz Baloch, imtiaz2000@hotmail.com, Fri Nov 21, 2008 1:09 am (PST) at SPN.yahoogroups.com
—
[Please note: Indus Asia Online Journal, iaoj, is not responsible for the contents of the different posts at iaoj and anything written in different postings does not necessarily reflect the iaoj policy. Also note that neither the e-mail address, nor the name of the sender have been verified. Please discuss views and ideas instead of any one's private life.]
Excerpt from Imtiaz Baloch article:
“There seemed a pattern emerging from the speech and the discussion that completed the picture. The old Left and the neo-Taliban have bonded into a new friendship with a common cause – Bush-bashing, for which, Islamic populist sentimentalism, state and strong army have become important tools of the trade. Today, it is not surprising to see former Marxists collude with Jihadis, but to see Tariq Ali in that role was a huge let down.”
I have just posted two comments and here is the link for the full quoted article and the excerpt:
http://iaoj.wordpress.com/2008/11/22/tariq-ali-praises-taliban-and-hezbollah/
In India we have journalists who are eagerly printed in Pakistan. Like N. Ram, Praful Bidwai etc. Ever read them criticizing anything about islam and muslims?
@ amar….
‘Ever read them criticizing anything about islam and muslims?’
I believe you already have a full time position doing that…
you can look it up via the excellent book:
‘Professions losers with no lives adopt Vol. 3 chapter 6′
Excellent article Raza.
What I find most amusing is that the leftists have convinced themselves and others that they are liberals. This is the root of the problem, I think. For the left is as illiberal as the right is.
I think it’s time to unshackle liberalism from the clutches of the contemporary political definitions.
The way I see it, today’s right and left wing are both socio-political conservatives (right-wingers are essentially social conservatives and the leftists are essentially political/economic conservatives) and neither have got a good understanding of liberalism.
It’s about time we promote the right meaning of liberalism – the socio/economic/political liberalism!
@Ashish
you are right, the issue at least in the international arena is the post cold war movement of left wingers towards some form of liberal ideology. They have retained the almost religous fervour and inflexibility of the old time socialists
to probyn
Will the pakistani press publish articles critical of islam and muslims and written by indians / hindus? What I write is being ignored even in the “liberal” PTH (you must have noticed that). And when a person like you comments then only to ridicule.
[...] Originally published on PakTeaHouse on 31 October 2010. Tags: afghanistan, Arundhati Roy, conservatives, Establishment, hegemony, judiciary, liberalism, liberals, media, Noam Chomsky, political Islam, ppp, taliban, Tariq Ali, usa, zaid hamid Posted in Cross Posted Blogs Share [...]
Liberals are confused in their response because fundamentally they are pro-capitalist, in the sense that they equate ‘progress’ with ‘capitalism’ as they don’t think there is any alternative to free market. They think profit motive is the only way to make the mare go. And that, as a result of the pursuit of profit, innovation takes place, entrepreneurs grow rich and, in the long run, their wealth trickles down to the multitude also…….
Kindly see my following note on the liberal attitude.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=321759653677
@ Raza
Very well put. India can survive Roy since there is still more opportunity, compared to Pakistan, for all kinds of views to come forward.
In Pakistan, since only freedom of rightist speech is acknowledged, liberals nodding to the right damage their very own cause.
I would however disagree with you about considering them lacking credibility. The truth is, no one is “credible” in any true sense of the word. And in a country like ours especially, where there is no access to critical information regarding the events going on around us, we are ourselves far from being “credible”.
For example, you have taken up a point against Tariq Ali’s criticism of US invasion of Afghanistan. If WE did not have the taliban problem in our own country, would you still be as opposed to him about his views ? After all the taliban were a legitimate recognized govt.
I think it does hurt the cause against religious extremism in our own country, to expose the USA as the culprit in Afghanistan, but I think liberals have this one “weakness” against religious fascists… and that is siding with the the “truth” rather than political correctness.