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?