His positive approach and contribution are in stark contrast to others who are content with armchair criticism. Such people focus less on contribution and more on self-promotion. This is evident from the fact that their podcasts and words find currency among rabid Hindutvists who are on the prowl for such self-hating voices.
Deep introspection and self-criticism are commendable. But they are relevant when constructive criticism is offered from a place of love instead of self-hate. Such criticism uplifts people and catalyses change, instead of bringing people down to hate themselves.
Apart from Dr. Salman Hameed, I like Arafat Mazhar, who has indefatigably worked on Islamic jurisprudence against blasphemy laws. Likewise, I extol the works of Yasser Latif Hamdani and Muhammad Umair Khan. They offer a vision of Jinnah’s Pakistan that is in stark contrast to both Islamist and Hindutvist narratives on Pakistan. It is for this reason that I have followed and supported them by reviewing and promoting their works.
It is important to support individuals who are contributing at a time when Pakistan is experiencing an immense economic and political crisis on top of devastating consequences of climate change and intensifying fascism in neighbouring India.
Criticism is praiseworthy when it is directed at those in positions of power. However, the same criticism is detrimental when it is used to stereotype all Pakistanis. Thus, Pakistani critics come across as odious when they state “we are this” or “we are that,” as if they had the authority to pass judgment on all Pakistanis.
In contrast to such rabid generalisation by Pakistani critics, even Dr. Shashi Tharoor, whose ideological position runs counter to the Pakistani position, has distinguished between the Pakistani establishment and the Pakistani people.
Of course, Dr Tharoor’s narrative is not the same as that projected by Yasser Latif Hamdani and Muhammad Umair Khan. Pakistan was a revolt against second-class citizenship in India. And if someone like Jinnah – who upheld English liberalism and pushed for Hindu-Muslim unity – was sidelined for seeking minority safeguards, then it busts the myth of a “secular India.”
How could a place be “welcoming” to others when it created “untouchables” and treated its own people, the Dalits, with impunity? Hindutvists with a deep-rooted inferiority complex can only bring others down.
The boycotts faced by the Bollywood Khans who comprise the most liberal class of Muslims simply confirm the deep-rooted prejudice that always existed against the Muslim ‘Other.’ In short, PM Modi didn’t create that prejudice out of thin air but stoked what always existed. And he may not even be the worst representative of Hindutva fascism.
There is always a bigger fish. Just as Benjamin Netanyahu outdid Ariel Sharon on draconian policies, so too can Yogi Adityanath put to shame Narendra Modi. In both cases the minority Palestinians or Muslims are generalised as “terrorists” and perpetual victimhood is reserved for far-right Israelis or fascist Hindutvists.
Apart from Dr. Salman Hameed, I like Arafat Mazhar, who has indefatigably worked on Islamic jurisprudence against blasphemy laws. Likewise, I extol the works of Yasser Latif Hamdani and Muhammad Umair Khan. They offer a vision of Jinnah’s Pakistan
Marginalised groups separate to safeguard their interests. Bangladesh separated from West Pakistan. Scotland seeks to separate from Britain. There are also groups in Quebec and Alberta that want to secede from Canada, which is supposedly the best place for immigrants across the globe.
Likewise, Pakistan was envisioned as a safeguard for minorities. It was not for nothing that both Ahmadis and Dalits under Jogendra Nath Mandal supported Pakistan. That Pakistan became a nightmare for them is a separate story.
To generalise Pakistanis doesn’t cost much in terms of one’s own skin. However, the litmus test of one’s commitment arrives when instead of basking in a Hindutvist fan following, such critics contribute to building Pakistan like Dr. Salman Hameed, Arafat Mazhar, Yasser Latif Hamdani and Muhammad Umair Khan.
In essence, to adapt from Kevin Kline’s Mr. Hundert, criticism without contribution is without significance.