Neutrality is a myth. The idea that anything can be neutral, least of all opinions, is a misplaced assumption that has been paraded around as a fact for far too long.

This misplaced trust on a myth has led us to a dysfunctional situation where anyone who disagrees is not being neutral. Somehow neutrality is equated to either being indifferent or in agreement while anything else is a bias.

Be it political, social or an economic discussion the assumption is that somehow the opposing view should be neutral. The problem with this approach and mindset are multiple but with as most things, it is more important to look at how we got to this point than just focus on the end result.

To begin with, anyone who has ever voted, has had any opinion or has ever made any choice is biased. By definition making a choice makes a person biased. So to assume that there is a world where people are neutral is like assuming a world where we all have unicorns and our houses are made of candy.

Take for example the national discourse on topics like creation of new provinces.

All sides involved keep demanding that their needs to be a neutral perspective on this issue when they really mean that there has to be a fair approach to this topic.

So instead of a having a spirited debate on why or why not we need new provinces, we end up in a situation where each side wants to dictate its own opinion as an absolute fact. And that is the problem we face i.e. neutrality being confused with balance.

Balance is a point between two opposing forces/options/views. The idea is to take enough of each to achieve a situation where no one perspective/option dominates.

Neutrality on the other hand is not doing anything and just standing still. What makes this even more problematic is when pseudo progressive people who otherwise have great intentions, demand the world to take a stand and speak up while demanding anyone opposing them to act neutrally.

Consider examples from our daily lives.

In the case of the Metrobus in Lahore, the infrastructure was still being built and there was a certain amount of criticism of the project.

Till the Metrobus became functional, every discussion I had included the phrases:

"Adnan, be neutral and then tell us what you think"

And my reply every time was:

"You cannot ask my opinion to be neutral given that an opinion, by default, is based on personal choice"

And the reply would always be:

"See you cannot be neutral about it how can we discuss this issue"

In each instance the 'go to' assumption of the next person was that because I had a declared point of view, I should put that aside and then get in to an argument with them which would be based on their point of view.

Think of it this way: instead of proving their case, people want to start arguments with the burden of proof already on the other party while their job being merely pointing out the other party is guilty is because they think it is guilty and if the other party cannot disprove their guilt to complete satisfaction of the assumer than they lose the argument.

Take a deep breath and think about this… does it make any sense?

Similarly any discussion on the economy involves discussants who believe debating economy should be done in a neutral setting where their argument should not be opposed with another argument but instead dealt with ‘neutrally’.

Nearly in all cases the moment you bring a counter argument, the discussion ends with both parties calling each other biased.

Consider a simpler issue such as how people choose to dress. Everyone seems to have an opinion on that but for some God forsaken reason everyone with an opinion demands everyone else to be neutral about it.

Instead of debating what they think is right or wrong, there is this urge to force opinions on to others by dismissing opposing opinions as biased.

Think about the geniuses who deface billboards that advertise clothing lines; to them they are demanding neutrality from everyone else while they push their agenda. Because their argument is, we think all this is wrong now neutrally tell us how it is right.

You see the problem with this line of argumentation?

You see how the framing of opinion is done in a way where you literally cannot argue back?

This is the whole problem; we have a culture now where we want to debate things but what we really mean is that we want to dictate things i.e. one perspective is supreme and anything that opposes it should be outlawed.

So why this this hypocrisy?

Why the urge to muzzle divergent approaches using the myth of neutrality?

Why the hesitation to take a stand and get labeled?

Because the bottom line is this myth is generated out of the fear of being labeled and identified with views or ideas. And if one was to trace the origins of this fear of being labeled and identified based on opinions, it goes back to the multiple dictatorships we have witnessed.

In each instance, the first thing the dictator did was to go after people who self-identified with an ideology and spoke up for their beliefs. People who took a position/stance were targeted and broken down till they submitted to the will of the dictator while those who refused were dealt with accordingly.

The dictators came and went, but the fear of being targeted for ideas stayed. And that is where this myth came in to play that plagues our social conscious now; the idea that one should remain neutral while the powers that be do their bidding for anyone who openly takes a side will be struck down.

Going back to the examples, in case of Metrobus and the economy, any opinion that does not support the notion being presented by one side is just wrong and should be outlawed under the guise of neutrality because well that is what the Dictators taught us. To use technicalities to block differing opinions under the guise of new laws.

But the thing is, we cannot expect democracy to progress with this mindset.

Democracy is a clash of ideas/approaches where the majority wins. How can a democracy progress when a major chunk of the society refuses to publicly admit their stance?

How can we demand freedom of speech when the overwhelming majority of people associate it only to their brand of ideology and nothing else?

We are stuck in a vicious cycle; a cycle of repetitive behavior that leads us nowhere. Freedom of speech and opinion cannot thrive if it is supposed to be of a certain brand. There is going to be a variety of it and unless all of it is accepted there is no moving forward.

This myth of neutrality has to end

In a democratic environment we cannot end arguments by demanding the other person stay neutral while we make our point. That is not how democracy works, that my friends, is how a dictatorship operates. And while I do realize that there are people who would support a dictator over a democratic leader in a heartbeat, they do so for the fear of having to take a stance on their own or to think for themselves.

The idea of ‘stability’ the dictators sell, is basically the idea of no one else having an opinion, for in absence of all opposing opinions the dictators do as they please. That is what they call ‘stability’ and that is what civilized societies call muzzling voices under the guise of neutrality.

We need to stop that. It is hurting Pakistan and making our people stupid. It has to end.

Lastly we have to come to terms with the fact that there is nothing wrong with identifying with opinions or ideas. Especially politically, our society needs to realize that it is OK to talk about our individual ideologies and why we believe in them.

I realize it is a tall order in a society where most people feel better about their own existence by trying to embarrass others. But this is the only way forward. The other option is where we are now; islands of opinions refusing to acknowledge the existence of others while protesting legitimacy of everyone else.

Social media and mainstream media have helped create this culture where people try one upping each other to feel better about themselves. But this dumbing down of discourse to a feel good point scoring game may be entertaining and good for fictitious ratings, but it hurts the already low national intelligence.

So enough with this delusion of expecting neutrality in a democratic society where the essence of everyday life is dependent on making choices - each of which requires a person to be biased.