Ideological diversions

Power operates through media in very ingenious ways. The media may present a conflict between two minority groups. It further inflates the conflict and thus diverts attention from exploiters, usurpers and the corrupt.

Recently I wrote a blog about my perceptions on the education system of Pakistan and the way rot- learning and poor teaching-learning process of science is creating careerists who are failing to run the institutions. A friend recommended me to send the blog to Express Tribune. I did the same but surprisingly I was told that the blog did not fit into the policy lines of the paper. May be the concerned person had not read the article or may be this was exactly their policy. In any case, I have observed that the paper encourages an ideological propaganda of the seculars, liberals or leftists. There’s little room for objective analysis of issues.

In Malala’s case I have been engaged with the liberals in a variety of talks. I have been telling them that making an ideological war of Malala is an over-exaggeration of her mission and that if we restrict ourselves to her mission of education for all girls it would be more pragmatic. However, the temptation of making Malala as symbol of resistance was so great for them and they were so much obsessed with this thinking that I had to remain silent. Such portrayal of Malala not only led to further polarization but also diverted many from her original mission of “education for all girls.”

A similar ideological conflict can be witnessed between the PTI and ANP in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. Sanity demands that both the parties must work in close collaboration in such a way that the former learns from the experiences of the later and the later cooperates with the former on the pretext of bringing stability to a terrorism-affected province. When I advocate such a mutual and democratic cooperation on social media I am not encouraged.  For both the government and the opposition an ideological conflict is more fruitful as genuine grievances of the people are set aside and the parties’ interests are in the news.

There are also many ideologues who misinterpret relationship between the power and the required resistance. For example, one of my communist friends on facebook did not like Malala because she had not spoken against imperialism in her UN speech. Such an ideological resistance model is counter-productive and it does not empathize with the power-holders. Without empathizing with the power-holders we cannot know what the power-holders perceive. In other words ideological abstraction of the resisting groups is merely a diversion and it helps more those in power than those who are supposed to resist.

Capitalism as criticized by the communists or which is termed as “rentier and investor” by its proponents is the prevailing economic system.  Democracies in this system hugely rely on money. Academia is sponsored by industries and in turn industries make more profits from academic research. The media itself is mostly commercial. Power operates through media in very ingenious ways. The media may present a conflict between two minority groups. It further inflates the conflict and thus diverts attention from exploiters, usurpers and the corrupt.

It is not surprising that there is enough room for the distortion of facts and propaganda of non-issues. I don’t suggest a communist alternative. I am describing what the system is all about.