Challenging the wasteland

My column ‘How to make an intellectual wasteland’ that appeared in these pages on January 24, 2020 elicited interesting responses from my readers both in Pakistan and from abroad. A majority of the readers who wrote to me thought that I presented a true reflection of many societies in the world as they are in the 21st century.

Some others opined that the column projected too gloomy a picture. According to them, we cannot call any society an intellectual wasteland and there always are some activities that keep people engaged in discussions. “If we do not agree with the contents of such discussions held in conferences and seminars, we have no right to be condescending to the interlocutors”, one reader reminded me. There was a third group of readers which wanted answers to questions such as who is responsible for making and unmaking the wastelands, or how those societies became intellectual wastelands where most basic needs of the people are fulfilled.

Ravi Nayyar from Singapore had the following to say: “Do you think these leaders (especially from Pakistan and its neighbours) are able to create such an unhealthy atmosphere because the masses in these countries are striving to fend for life’s necessities? In these wastelands it is seen that energies of the masses are consumed in making sure that the entity called family is able to breathe and eat two course meals. Although you do not have the magic wand, what do you recommend to reduce the sphere of such intellectual wasteland?

“How will you analyze the circumstances in communist countries? I have China’s example to quote. They too had suppression for a long time. Living with such a large number of constraints, society has achieved high ranking in all sectors. How will you review their success story (if you think that success exists there)?”

Responding to these emails is a challenge in itself as there are no simple answers. I read somewhere that ‘for every complex question there is a simple answer, which is wrong.” First, it is difficult to present ‘a true reflection of’ any person, let alone an entire society or societies. We may have known a person for a lifetime and still can’t figure out what that person may end up doing. Perhaps the best we can do is try to connect the dots according to our background knowledge and understanding.

The problem is that after we have drawn the lines, some dots still remain unconnected and we must keep making efforts to join them. The sketch of a person or society that we make draws inspiration more from our economic interests than intellectual ones. For a person whose family gets immense benefits from the state, such as lifelong pensions, full medical coverage, subsidized educational and recreational facilities, and access to power, it makes little difference if the rest of society is reeling under tremendous pressure.

For a family whose business thrives by buttressing the dominant ideology, it is of little value that the power structure is highly exploitative, depends on rent–seeking, and deprives a vast majority of people of their fundamental rights. This brings us to the ‘gloomy picture’ that some people don’t like. They don’t want to see the condition of government hospitals where drugs –– life–saving and otherwise –– are in short supply, and mostly not available. In their not so gloomy picture, since their own children get the best educational infrastructure –– irrespective of the nature and quality of learning –– millions of out–of–school children don’t matter much.

Conferences and discussions mostly revolve around innocuous topics with a feel–good atmosphere. Hagiographical conferences abound, and the calls for national unity and cosmetic changes drown out the clamour for some real transformation that can bring happiness to most people. Without being condescending, one may ask about the utility of seminars where solemn speakers deliver somber speeches session after session, but not a single ‘scholar’ can name the real culprits responsible for the plight of the people. A slight mention of a name can deprive you of your job at a TV programme, or even close you channel unless you fall in line.

The ‘intellectual activities’ that some people admire are liable for an appraisal of their intellectual content. Yes, the subject–matter may be different but is it actually worth discussing in the first place? One needs to develop one’s own criteria for evaluating such exchange of ideas. One simple criterion is if that intellectual activity is just regurgitating platitudes or is it shedding some new light on old problems. Is it offering some alternative explanations or solutions or is the same elixir pedaled which has failed for decades? Has that activity reinforced your old presumptions or stimulated new perspectives?

Coming to the question of who is responsible for making or unmaking of the wastelands, one must ask who holds the most power in society. And the pundits have suggested that any power that you cannot challenge or question is the real power in society. And that power is responsible for making the wastelands we are talking about. It can be a political party in one country and the civil and military bureaucracy in another. It can also be religious or sectarian groups in some countries and a well–entrenched establishment in another.

Who is responsible for ‘unmaking the wasteland’? Well, to tell you the apparent truth nobody can ‘unmake’ the wasteland. As my reader Ravi has pointed out, ‘you don’t have a magic wand’. He is right in highlighting that an ‘unhealthy atmosphere’ comes into being when the masses are unable to fend for themselves. They are consumed in just maintaining the family. Now, what do I recommend to reduce the sphere of such intellectual wasteland? Perhaps, a courageous, long–drawn, and sustained intellectual and political struggle that may appear to be a lost cause for decades or even for centuries.

How do I analyze communist countries such as China? I have had the opportunity to live in and travel across the Soviet Union at the height of its power in the 1980s. I also became an unwilling witness to its unravelling. The communist system in the Soviet Union was able to give a majority of its people basic facilities such as health and universal literacy –– if not universal higher education. It also gave people water and sanitation, power and infrastructure. But it failed because the people felt suffocated intellectually – and when the time came, they threw away the golden yoke.

As for China, we need to understand that it prospered economically when radically transformed its communist credentials. In the past 40 years, it has moved far away from communism and eradicated extreme poverty from the vast swathes of China. Politically, it is still a one–party authoritarian rule. Both China and the Soviet Union have paid a heavy human cost for their development; the cost of not thousands but millions of lives. It is for the readers to do the cost–benefit analysis. To me if somebody offers less poverty and claims one of my family member’s life, I would decline the offer.

High ranking in sectors such as export–import, manufacturing and services are all good for economic progress. Perhaps, what we should be striving for is both economic and intellectual prosperity. What should come first? Ideally both should go hand in hand. A highly regimented society is against human nature, or even against animal nature. No matter how prosperous a society claims to be, ideally a society based on fundamental rights which include not only health, education, livelihood, and decent housing but also intellectual and political freedom should be the aim.

The writer holds a PhD from the University of Birmingham, UK and works in Islamabad.

Email: mnazir1964@yahoo.co.uk