Why the Cynical Fascism of Hassan Nisar Must Be Rejected

Source: Unknown

For too long, former comrade Hassan Nisar has been spewing a bit too much hate for democracy and for the intellect of the people of Pakistan and for far too long he has been tolerated. He has been tolerated because the general public perception is that he is an intellectual. Perhaps he is, but the idea he has been propagating for years now. You do not need to take my word for it. Go and watch hours after hours of footage on YouTube and Pakistani social media and you will have some idea about what we are saying.

Of course, the secular elements in the country take a lot of pleasure in his scathing commentary on the mullahs and the religious fundamentalists. They love how he destroys the religious clerics and their approach to secular education and science.

With such opinions, at least the secularists liked to listen to him because he was a secular man. However, his recent disappointing comments about religion card has put shadows of doubt over this idea as well. To add insult to injury, his decision to paint Imran Khan as a savior ended up in great embarrassment for himself due to the dismal performance of his administration, which he has admitted himself.

Recently, the PTI government has taken upon itself to defend former dictator General Pervez Musharraf in court for the proceedings against him in the treason or Article 6 charge. The General had abrogated the Constitution in 1999 in a bloodless coup to oust Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, which according to the Constitution itself is a treasonous act. In turn, Nawaz Sharif opened this case against him when he came to power.

The Report Card show from Geo TV Network which involved this subject had a discussion on democracy that quickly escalated into the following. Hassan Nisar, like always, was cynical about any hint of democracy in Pakistan.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

The full show can be watched in the following video.

Hassan Nisar’s basic thesis is that the Pakistani people must be educated first before they can be trusted with something such as democracy. While the cynic in us would tend to agree with him, it cannot be stressed enough how dangerous this line of argument is. It is a self-defeating statement more than anything else and has nothing to do with any solutions.

Hassan Nisar, just like all the defenders of the military establishment, he blames all of the current democratic and constitutional crises on the politicians. He considers any legal proceedings against former military dictators as needless and even refuses to recognize “sham” democratic institutions in Pakistan. To make matters worse for himself, he even defended Musharraf’s controversial properties dismissing it as his private affair. However, he would refuse to apply the same principle to the Sharifs, who he has been bitterly opposing for decades.

This is not just one incident but the clip in this tweet is perhaps Hassan Nisar at his worst. He is not arguing but ranting. What is worse, he was being inexcusably and unnecessarily rude to other speakers on the show. Many on twitter were blaming it on him possibly being drunk at that time but those who have listened to him for years now are familiar that his moral constipation has a far longer history and it has nothing to do with a moment of weakness.

We have been following Hassan Nisar for a very long time and obviously, his rhetoric has some basis on logic. Only for that reason, he has gathered a fan following or viewers or readers over the years. But people, especially the youth should be wary of considering him an ideal for deriving their political thought.

For too long, Pakistanis have been fed the Caliph Syndrome thanks to a quote by Umer II or Umer I about a ruler being even responsible for a calf dying by the Euphrates river. Such cynicism has only harmed both democracy and public thought in Pakistan. People expect unrealistic miracles and solutions from political leadership, looking for a Caliph, and when they fail to meet those goals, they wait for a Messiah in the shape of a military general who would have a silver bullet solution for all their woes. Of course, the dictator never works for them either but at least they were happy about the sudden “appearance” of a charismatic leader out of nowhere without any voting. Perhaps, military dictators such as Zia and Musharraf are indeed sent by Allah. It is the same principle that is being applied to the binary regime of Imran Khan and General Bajwa.

Hassan Nisar is great for social media moments and gratification of the emotions of the political cynic in Pakistan, but in terms of substance and ideology, we should surely look elsewhere.

The caustic, cynical fascism of Hassan Nisar must be rejected.

On Objective Morality

Sacrifice of Isaac by Caravaggio - Source: Wikimedia Commons

Sacrifice of Isaac by Caravaggio – Source: Wikimedia Commons

In my opinion, there is no such thing as an objective system of morality, at least for an (intelligent and) emotional species such as human beings. I would not even consider a single value to be universally agreed upon, no matter how morally correct or incorrect it may seem to any person. Not even instincts of self interest in nature guarantee an objective system of morality.

Ayn Rand called her philosophy of preserving self interest and individual liberty “moral objectivism“. People find her philosophy immoral, but I like it and rather admire her for challenging moral conventions. However, I consider it a bit arrogant and naïve of her to call her philosophy moral objectivism. It is not moral objectivism in the true sense, because it is not objective, you may go with the name, but by her own definition, a more appropriate title would be “rational morality” or “moral rationalism”. Though people would even dispute that, on the count of rationality. I don’t have enough sympathy for the philosophy to even defend that label though.

Even if there is a God, and has ordered a certain set of morality, there is no reason for humans to accept it. God’s opinion is just an opinion and humans may find no reason to find it superior to theirs. And since humans have enough intelligence to reason for themselves, they do not need to follow the opinion of an alien entity, even when enslaved.

Somebody asked me that if there were no objective morality, would it allow people to rape babies. This question has nothing to do with the idea that there is no such thing as objective morality, because this tells more about the person committing the act. While a lot of people may commit the act considering it something wrong, while going on with it, while others would not consider it immoral at all, even if it kills the baby. Take righteous and honor killing for an example. An apparently very wrong act committed for very moral and noble reasons.

There can possibly be a moral system in which even eating the babies would not be considered wrong. On the lighter note, it actually calls to mind Jonathan Swift‘s satire “A Modest Proposal“. But consider someone actually following the outrageous idea for moral reasons

So there is only one explanation of subjective morality systems around the world. Humans came up with it themselves and almost all of them have some sort of contradiction at some point.

—-

Answer to Quora Question: If there is no God, then how can there ever be any sort of objective system of morality?

The Destruction of Ziarat Residency and Rational Criticism

Source: AP/Express Tribune

Source: AP/Express Tribune

It takes the simplest of incidents to illustrate the most obnoxious behaviors and opinions. There could not have been a better one than the destruction of the Ziarat Residency at the hands of the Baluchistan Liberation Army.

I have used the words of rational criticism in the title, because this post would mainly address the otherwise rational critics who think that the loss of Ziarat residency is some kind of a heroic act, or perhaps one that must not be condemned because some people are not condemning worse incidents, such as loss of human lives, since people in our country are always so concerned about who is condemning and not condemning something.

A lot of interesting comments about the destruction of Ziarat Residency have been appearing. The likes of, people are worried about that building and not worried about the deaths of the Balochs. People are worried about a colonial building in which Mr. Jinnah was held under “house arrest”. Why the hell are you upset about a destroyed building. There is no mention of the other terrorist attack killing college going girls in Quetta.

First of all, it is unfortunate that political ideology prevents people from seeing things the way they are. This is why I am sickened by jingoistic ideologues on both sides of the fence as far as the matter of the Ziarat Residency attack is concerned, that is, the Pakistani nationalists and anti-Pakistan nationalists.

To me, this is not a matter of patriotism at all, unlike most Pakistanis. But I must observe that the stance of anti-Pakistan nationalists defending the destruction of the Ziarat Residency is ridiculous when compared to that of their counterparts.

The prime logical fallacy in their arguments is that they think that one wrong act should be ignored just because other greater evils are taking place or, in other words, the appeal to worse problems. This deserves a round of applause.

I personally see the Ziarat Residency as a historical colonial building that stood there way before Mr. Jinnah ever set foot in it and before his belongings were ever placed there. And its destruction is an irreparable and irreversible loss.

The point is that Ziarat Residency is just a building, and that too, a historical one. So what if it is colonial? And so what if Mr. Jinnah stayed here during his last days?

The general secretary, that is the mouthpiece, of the Baluchistan based Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party, Akram Shah made a statement that the Ziarat Residency is nothing more than a colonial structure and a symbol of slavery.

You know what, I agree with him. But the impression that Mr. Shah is trying to create over here is that the loss of Ziarat Residency does not matter.

Now isn’t that charming? I have a huge list of symbols of slavery all over India and the world to be burned down for that matter. Because such structures are so evil that the world would be a better place without them.

My problem with his statement is not that he rejects the connection of the building with the Pakistani national heritage and Jinnah, unlike most Pakistanis, but that he thinks that the loss of a colonial structure does not matter at all. Instead of apologizing the failure of his coalition government’s failure to save this historical landmark, he is offering excuses for the attack.

So the historical heritage of the building makes it important, whether or not it had anything to do with Mr. Jinnah or anyone else. And even if it was about Jinnah, so what? Have the citizens of Mumbai destroyed Jinnah’s residence, Jinnah House, at Malabar Hill? No. Can’t figure it out? Because they are apparently not stupid.

Historical structures, whether secular or religious, are important because these are not only important landmarks and sources of wonder and inspiration for generations, but also a record of human civilization. Therefore, to me, the destruction of the Bamyan Buddha statues is as painful an incident as the looting of the Baghdad National Museum, or the damage to the heritage structures in Aleppo, Syria, or the rioting inside the Egyptian Antiquities Museum in Cairo or even the destruction of the Ziarat Residency.

And destruction of such structures in troubled states where people are dying only adds insult to injury. It would not offer any solace to the mourning.

I detest people justifying these stupid acts in the name of politics, religion and freedom.

Ziarat Residency Before Destruction  Source: Express Tribune

Ziarat Residency Before Destruction
Source: Express Tribune

The Baluchistan Liberation Army destroying this building is certainly a sign of defiance of the state. It’s probably good for them as a statement, but it really proves their stupidity to me, now that they are targeting historic landmarks of Baluchistan instead of focusing attacks on the Pakistani military. So this is what it has come down to? For a neutral observer, this rather unnecessary act of terrorism damages the image of their campaign.

Indeed, I am guilty over here of claiming to have a more superior opinion to my critics in this post, but not a moral or a righteous one please, just objective and common sense. I am prepared to be declared an immoral man for holding this opinion. Because it is the people I am criticizing who bring morality into it, not me.

I am least concerned with the jingoistic political morality surrounding this incident, which is just another case of criminal arson. The loss of a historical structure is the loss of the entire humanity, not a loss of any particular people or state.

The argument over here is not left versus right, Pakistani colonial rule versus liberation fighters and state nationalists versus ethnic nationalists. The argument over here is common sense versus nonsense.

For those considering  the destruction of Ziarat Residency a heroic act, this post is not an apology for ambiguous ideals such as Pakistani nationalism and patriotism. It is just to explain why you are stupid.