‘Corrupt’, ‘Traitor’, and ‘Immoral

In the socio-cultural, socio-political and socio-economic fabric of the state and society of Pakistan, dissenting voices, diverse indigenous narratives and parallel spaces in power have been consistently denied room by the Power through a formidable discourse of Political Economy and Geo-politics. The discourse is constituted of three loaded idioms---‘Corruption’, ‘Immorality’ and being ‘Traitor’. Previously, this formidable discourse was permeated through Urdu print media and state electronic media, and presently the same discourse is permeated through Urdu media, electronic media and social media. Two sets each of three strands need to be noticed in this discourse.

The first set of three strands:

First, victims and target of this discourse have been observed to be co-incidentally those individuals, groups, political parties, research and media forums and creative arts groups that hold an alternative view to what is usually the stated policy of the establishment.

Second, interestingly, the discourse has been observed to be used consistently against those mentioned above who in a particular point of time have thought differently from what state institutions have thought of in certain state domains. These domains include foreign policy, state security policy, defense policy and the state’s ideological inclination. (Is there something wrong with the genetic making of all those who think differently in the above domains that they must be ‘traitors and agents of foreign powers’, ‘corrupt’, and ‘immoral’?).

Third, the use of this discourse has been observed to be vociferously made when there is an event of some significance for the state and society. In the case of the state of Pakistan, one may count numerous examples like passage of Objective Resolution in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan in 1948, the secession of East Pakistan and turning East Pakistan into Bangladesh in 1971, the US-Soviet war in Afghanistan in 1980s, Pak-India dialogue on several occasions, attack on Malala Yousufzai in Swat in 2012, the OBL saga in May 2011 and NATO pull out from Afghanistan in 2014. All these events relate to either Geo-politics or Political Economy of the State.

The second set of three strands:

First, embedded semantic value in all the three idioms of ‘corrupt’, ‘immoral’ and ‘traitor’ seem to be connected. ‘Corrupt’ practice indicates deviation from the established ethical foundation of governance. ‘Immoral’ tendency shows violation of the established moral code of a particular society, while ‘traitor and foreign agent’ depicts a perceived despicable behavior in modern consciousness based on the concept of social contract between an individual and a state.

This strand seems to originate from the colonial and tribo-feudal construct of the discourse of political economy to isolate, marginalize and disenfranchise an individual, a group or a community. The power that desires to control a whole population socially, politically, culturally and economically would logically tend to first prove the population incapable to think, govern themselves and live a civilized life. This leaves little space for any alternative and indigenous narrative. 

  

One can find examples of similarities in techniques used by all imperial powers, tribo-feudal traditions and security nation states to bring about an overwhelming control of human intellect, collective emotions and growth in collective socio-political consciousness. They would first enforce a certain code of behavior, particular set of ethics and peculiar patterns of thought to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of those who can observe contradictions in the established norms, see socio-political, socio-cultural and socio-economic dis empowerment of the common masses, certain political groups and communities. To deny space to such voices, all the forces mentioned above would then use various techniques to disenfranchise a particular individual, party, group, community or gender. One of the techniques is the use of    corrupt’, ‘immoral’ and ‘traitor’ discourse against them. 

   

Second, consistent, coherent and systematic means of communications and indoctrination are used by the Power for connecting the discourse of power and for disenfranchising the dissenting voices and indigenous narratives. The means of communication used for permeation of the discourse of power seem coherent in various domains like education, mainstream media, social media, public discourse, constitutional discourse, legal discourse and institutional discourse.

Third, the Power ensures sustainability of intellectual and emotional control and perpetuation of the discourse of power through organizing several operational strategies. One of the operational strategies is to monopolize information and centralize dissemination of information. It is then very easier to block the dissenting voices, indigenous narratives and creative non-conformism on the one hand and on the other hand it becomes quite convenient for the Power to use  the discourse of    corrupt’, ‘immoral’ and ‘traitor’ against the challenging agents of change.  

What can be the strategy of the agents of change, those who pursue creativity, those who accommodate and celebrate diversity and those who wish to stand for the dis empowered,  disenfranchised and disadvantaged in such circumstances?