Numerous books have been written on Islam in Pakistan. So, two years ago, I set out to write a book on the history of liberalism in Pakistan. It is still an ongoing project requiring additional research. 

There is one realisation, though, that continues to be strengthened by the research: Pakistani liberals and so-called ‘progressives’ are the most uncanny embodiments of what are called ‘useful idiots.’  

A ‘useful idiot’ is a gullible person who can be manipulated to advance someone else’s cause or agenda. Liberals and progressives continue to become the means of outcomes that are actually the opposite of whatever liberalism stands for. And, no, by this I certainly do not mean what the former prime minister Imran Khan posited while talking about liberalism. He imagined himself as being the ‘real liberal’, not because he was a committed democrat but because, apparently, he was ‘anti-war.’ Rather, one particular war — the one against Islamist militants. 

To him, the militants were fellow Pakistanis who were fighting against US imperialism, and the Pakistani state’s conflict with them was part of a war that was imposed on us by the West. During the period when militants were blowing themselves up in markets, mosques, schools and shrines, Khan was opposing a military operation against them, insisting that the security forces should be helping him to root out ‘corruption’ instead. 

Self-styled ‘liberals’ and ‘progressives’ in Pakistan have, for decades, inadvertently advanced causes and agendas that have run contrary to their ideals

He lashed out against those who were supporting the possibility of a military operation. He called them “fake liberals” and “khooni [murderous] liberals.” Yet, he never called out those who were actually doing all the murdering. When a prominent Indian journalist once asked him why he didn’t condemn the militants, he conveniently replied that it was too dangerous a thing to do for a politician. So, ‘real liberalism’ meant condemning political opponents to hell for supposedly being ‘corrupt’, but not uttering a word against terrorists, and then trying to stall any action against them because “liberalism stands for peace.” 

Any sensible person can see through the doltish nature of this narrative. But actual liberals haven’t been very smart either. They have been some of the most handy useful idiots in this country. In 1974, when Islamist parties decided to table a bill in the parliament to oust the Ahmadiyya community from the fold of Islam, the then government, led by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, blocked all debate on the issue in the National Assembly. 

The Islamists poured out on the streets (mostly in Punjab) and began attacking Ahmadiyya homes and members. Bhutto threatened to unleash the military. But, instead of condemning the violence, newspapers (especially the ‘liberal’ ones), began to criticise the government for not granting the opposition its “democratic right” to table a bill. 

A review of newspaper op-eds and editorials of the time suggests that this was ‘discussed’ more than the intent and possible fallout of the bill. Eventually, the pragmatic Bhutto changed tact and allowed the bill to be passed, especially when told by his trusted advisers that there was ample support for the bill within his own ‘progressive’ party as well. 

When the bill was passed, newspaper editorials hailed the event as an act that would strengthen parliamentary democracy in Pakistan. And here’s another curious fact: it wasn’t until the mid-1980s that the liberal and progressive intelligentsia began to truly revisit what had happened in 1974. Yet, it still wasn’t a reflective realisation but an outright condemnation of the Bhutto government. Liberal/progressive journalists and intellectuals conveniently exonerated their own questionable conduct in the whole affair. 

The narrative squarely put the blame on the Bhutto regime, skipping the fact that the idea of tabling the bill was conceived by Islamist and right-wing parties in parliament who were supported by various secular and left-wing parties. Also skipped in this narrative was the way the Bhutto regime had tried to dissuade the opposition to table the bill until both the right-wing and liberal newspapers started to denounce this as “undemocratic” behaviour. In a way, they were suggesting that the right to declare a community non-Muslim against its will was a democratic right. 

In April 1977, the Bhutto government was pushed into a corner by a violent protest movement led by Islamist parties. But these were enthusiastically joined by many left-wing and secular outfits as well. During my research, I came across an amusing photo published in an Urdu newspaper archived in the Library of Congress in Washington DC. It shows a 1977 anti-Bhutto rally, in which activists from Islamist parties are carrying banners demanding ‘Sharia law’, and with them are activists from a faction of a communist party and supporters of secular Pakhtun nationalists. Things can’t get more surreal than this. 

Some of these useful idiots were honest enough to confess their folly when Bhutto was executed by a right-wing dictatorship in 1979. But most never did. In 1986, the death penalty was introduced to the country’s blasphemy laws. During my research, I struggled to come across any meaningful editorials on the decision, even in the most liberal newspapers — except maybe in the now defunct monthly magazine Herald. 

In a column published in a liberal English daily, just days after the death penalty was introduced, a known ‘progressive’ intellectual chose to write about the dust problem in Karachi and how it was causing increasing cases of allergy. I couldn’t help but chuckle.

In the 2007 Lawyers Movement, useful idiots were a dime a dozen. Apparently, the movement was to restore the dignity of the judiciary, remove a dictator, and usher in ‘real democracy.’ But the rallies during this movement quickly turned into highly surreal affairs. Within a

single rally, one could see flags of pragmatic mainstream parties, left and liberal students organisations, and even groups holding posters of Osama bin Laden. 

Indeed, the movement weakened the dictator Gen Pervez Musharraf, but it strengthened Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, who was looking to become the next military chief. In all likelihood, he quietly facilitated the ‘uprising’ through useful idiots, especially of the ‘democratic’ kind. The movement also introduced an odious strand of judicial populism in the courts.

These days, the archetypal liberal/progressive useful idiots have become mouthpieces of their former tormentor, Khan. They claim they are simply fighting for democracy and justice. But the truth is, in trying to influence the minds of judges so that the latter would respect ‘the will of the people’, the useful idiots have intensified tensions between the judiciary and the military.

The outcome of these tensions will be disastrous, especially for democracy.

Published in Dawn, EOS, July 21st, 2024