Why do we have such firmly held beliefs that a discussion becomes a fight? Conversation so easily degenerates into an argument - 'us versus them' kind - with little room for the other point of view. Of course, matters of faith are incontrovertible and need to be respected; but, elsewhere, why can't we have an open mind, and marshal facts without a threat of brickbats?
Contrarians aside, the common refrain runs something like this.
Ayubian decade was our golden era and Bhuttoism the death knell for the economy. We may not be literate but endowed with incredible native intelligence - remember Bashir the camel driver who left Lyndon Johnson aghast with his homilies? We would be the tops if we had the right leadership; if only Jinnah had a few more years. South Korea is where it is today because of the Plans they borrowed from us - and kept.
It is not that time clouds judgement or distorts the picture, making us remember what we want to remember and not the inconvenient truth. To question the 'distant drums syndrome' let us see how beliefs are getting shaped today.
Until Naya Pakistan dawned it had been a government of the plunderers by the plunderers for the plunderers. This has become a widely held and unshakable belief. Even diehard Noonies and Piplyas seem to be having pangs of conscience, if not a crisis of faith.
There are billions of dollars stashed away that must be brought back. Some of the recovered looted wealth can be 'flung back at the IMF' and the rest can be used to usher in unprecedented prosperity, declaims a vociferous Minister. It will also create enough space for subsidies (gas, electricity, and petrol) and will lighten the yoke of taxation, if not entirely got rid of. If there are no convictions for rank corruption it is because 'white collar crime is immensely difficult to prove'; never mind if others effectively use tax laws to coral white collar.
The government inherited an economy on its death-bed. It will now require time, and harsh measures, for it to recover - except here the narrative becomes a bit shaky. It vacillates between victory (fiscal discipline, current account gains, steady rupee, stock market uptick) and promise of great things to come (inflation, investments, jobs) - eventually.
Institutions were willfully destroyed to open the gates to unchecked corruption. A fish rots from the head down; now that the top is pinky the body will be saved. The process of resurrecting and strengthening Institutions has already begun. Think FBR, think SBP and SECP.
Perhaps all this is true; but should he narrative, parroted with increasing intensity, never be questioned? Should it never be put to the test of unbiased scrutiny?
But maybe we are getting ahead of us. The enquiry we wish to make is the extent to which our thinking is influenced by propaganda. Whether it is good propaganda or bad is not the point-people all over are susceptible to propaganda. For us the real question is if we as a nation are more gullible: accepting as gospel truth whatever is incessantly hurled at us, rarely caring to check its veracity or the motive behind this carpet bombing.
What sets us apart? The instances we have highlighted smack of dogmatism - only a step removed from bigotry. Do we, intrinsically, have a lower resistance threshold to dogma? Is it merely convenient, too lazy to probe and parry, or is it a part of our national psyche? Is it that we are more prone to wallowing in what we are fed because of the way we are brought up: taught not to disagree with the elders, challenge the teacher, or have a questioning mind?
We are all for the other person having his opinion, and the right to articulate it, but to quote President Obama "you are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts".
All the instances we mentioned, from Ayub to Naya Pakistan, will look different if we cared to research, to get to the facts. Admitted, even facts can be interpreted differently, but at least let's begin the discourse by basing it on facts, not hearsay, not what we are forced-fed.
We immediately recognize the difficulty of finding facts. Take the economy, recent past and the present, as an illustration. There are such few authentic sources of information available. Even if we curb the tendency to 'pick and choose' where do we turn to for the unvarnished truth? Government's data, then as now, is considered suspect; media is not above 'fake news' and 'contrived views'; there is a stark paucity of independent think tanks or research bodies.
Arguably, State Bank of Pakistan is one body whose independence and professionalism one could trust. Its quarterly report on the state of the economy (submitted to the parliament) is by and large quite fair and factual, despite having to walk a fine line: Data dependency they can negotiate through a clever use of 'proxies', but 'embarrass' the government? Only at the Governor's peril - Governors are not sacked but asked to resign; four and a half did over the last ten years.
If one were to look at SBP reports our beliefs would waiver more than a bit: the economy pre-2018 was not as bad as it is held to be, and not as good as now claimed. It is ironic for someone as astute as Asad Umar, a member of the SBP Board until he opted for politics, to claim he didn't know how bad things were until he became the Finance Minister. Was he not reading the SBP reports that signaled an over-heated economy and the challenges of CPEC-driven current account turmoil?
Sometimes we think our gullibility has less to do with low literacy levels or the way we are brought up than, for want of a better expression, our 'tradition': our propensity to hyperbole, whether through the poet or the storyteller. We prefer the lyrical to the empirical. Many can happily name any number of poets, even quote them, but few can recall eminent scientists!
We will continue to believe what we are bombarded with, and truth will remain a casualty, until we can teach our kids to question. Freedom of expression is the necessary first step towards it.
shabirahmed@yahoo.com