At a time when we desperately need an honest and intense debate to define our national sense of direction, our apparently congenital inability to conduct a rational and well-informed debate on such issues as the uses of radical Islam in our politics and strategic thinking is emerging almost like a threat to our existence as a civilised and democratic society.
That we do not have an environment in which a learned discourse on essentially controversial issues would be possible has been my refrain. I have also been acutely conscious of our educational, intellectual and cultural deprivations. In this respect, the issue of language, particularly the language in which we are able to think, seems crucial.
But what are the barriers that we encounter in our pursuit of meaningful progress? There is this intolerance fed mainly by the induction of religion into politics and a fanatical defence of its policies by a powerful establishment. There is so much that you cannot question openly and get away with. Also, dissident views are easily overwhelmed by inspired and angry rhetoric of those who feel threatened by any progressive change in society.
However, this intolerance and intimidation is perhaps not as detrimental to our political and intellectual liberation as the desertification of our collective mind as an outcome of our performance in the field of education. And in this respect, the issue of language is of vital importance.
Now, when we refer to the scope for debate on national issues, we readily invoke the talk shows on our news channels. We do have the leading politicians and, sometimes, known intellectuals and academics, on these shows. But what is the quality of articulation that you get in these shows? Is this how an informed public opinion can be nurtured? Alas, it is the same when you join a discussion in a living room or on a coffee-table. Everywhere, there is a merely a spirited gush of opinions.
The question is: where do these opinions come from? How can people who do not seek access to facts and relevant knowledge be so passionate in expressing their rough and half-baked opinions?
All these, I recognise, are separate strands. Still, I feel that they are mostly rooted in the issue of language. This issue, also, is not restricted to the system of education. Incidentally, I have often argued that the domination of English as a means to power in our society has seriously undermined our progress. There have been a number of studies on the language issue and Dr Tariq Rahman is our authority on the subject.
Now a journalist, Ms Zubeida Mustafa, has written a book on the “Tyranny of Language in Education”. I am prompted to write this column by its foreword penned by Q Isa Daudpota. He begins: “The tyranny of language is not limited to education. It overflows into every aspect of Pakistani life, most notably in Urdu talk shows that occupy the evening hours of many families. It is not merely the annoying Urlish – an ugly combination of Urdu and English – that one is concerned with here, but the illogic, the crude expressions and overheated emotions of most participants, spurred on by largely conservative anchors with small minds and big mouths”.
Isa points out that our education system has failed to inculcate “critical thinking, creativity…. and a respect for informed communication”. This means that we are not taught to think and we remain unable to communicate. After all, language is a necessary tool for thinking and we, in a collective sense, are not proficient in any language. There should be ample evidence to show that in recent decades, after the surge in English-medium education, our cultural and intellectual resources have diminished.
I know that some of my young acquaintances, who adulate Faiz but cannot recite his verse, get bored when I mourn the increasing loss of audience for Urdu literature and an alarming dearth of reading habits because they feel at home in their very limited circle of well-educated, English-speaking individuals. Out there, though, is the turbulent sea of the multitude in this sixth largest population of the world, struggling to speak a language that could express their feelings and thoughts.
This, as I have said, is a very dangerous situation. Coming back to the talk shows – and they do reflect the quality of public discourse in our society – we can see how coarse and vulgar they sometimes are. We have many instances of participants almost coming to blows. Foul language is not considered out of bounds. Civility, in terms of dealing with divergent views, is often missing.
But the main problem in not just the television talk shows but also in discussions held in private spaces and also in classrooms and seminars is that emotions usually cancel out logic and reason. In addition, most of us are unable to coherently present our thoughts because of our lack of learning and of facility of language. I like to say that we are becoming a ‘bezaban’ nation.
This inadequacy is manifest in many areas of our existence. Our higher education, except in some schools of excellence, is incapable of providing students the tools that are necessary for rational and objective thinking. I know of cases where students objected to the lessons being taught to them by senior teachers. Violence sometimes becomes the language in which they speak.
In this perspective, the present crisis that was spawned by the Abbottabad incident, has yielded the expected mystification and mindless commotion. In fact, the US operation in which Osama bin Laden was killed in a garrison town was an absolute godsend to scrutinise our national security policies in the light of their performance and the obvious consequences of their derelictions. The great tragedy is that this opportunity is beginning to slip through our fingers. On the one hand, we are unable to make an objective analysis of the entire situation. On the other, the usual suspects, whipping up the anti-American emotion, have gone into action.
To conclude, one example of the wisdom of our commentators. In his opinion piece in an English daily last Sunday, the writer said: “In fact, the 2/5 episode was a hoax and a big lie, the same as the 9/11 episode was a big lie for an excuse to launch a crusade against the Muslim world”. He also informs us that “Osama’s look-alike prisoner from Bagram was picked up and brought to Abbottabad and killed in cold blood…..”.
The writer? A former chief of the army staff, Gen Aslam Beg. He did go through the process of education and training in the most exalted institution of the country and was so distinguished that he reached its pinnacle. So, what hope do we have that we can set our direction right?
0 comments:
Post a Comment