Highway hypocrisy of selective activism in Pakistanis
Navigating the labyrinth of social justice and activism requires a fine balance between confidence and arrogance. Cross this line, and mindfulness of one’s actions often fades into oblivion. Similarly, there exists a nuanced difference between genuinely advocating for all lives and selectively speaking up when convenient. The sobering truth is that no one possesses the moral high ground to decide which lives are worth saving or which oppressions are worth opposing. Every life is precious, and every act of oppression demands our condemnation. Yet, reality often paints a different picture, where discrimination and selective activism disturbingly prevail.
In Pakistan, the issue of selective activism and ingrained hypocrisy is glaringly apparent. Racism and discrimination are so deeply woven into the societal fabric that many opt to ignore or remain silent about them. This silence is particularly deafening when minorities in Pakistan face violence and oppression. The lack of vocal support for these communities is not merely a passive act; it actively enables oppressors to continue their atrocities. As a member of the Shia community, this silence is all too familiar. The trauma of surviving an attack during a Juloos procession at the age of three and the subsequent violence that followed has left an indelible mark.
Despite these personal and communal experiences of pain and injustice, the response from self-proclaimed activists and human rights advocates often remains disappointingly muted. Their voices are conspicuously absent when a Hindu girl is abducted, forcibly converted, and married off at a tender age. They remain silent when a Christian man is falsely accused of blasphemy and attacked by a mob, only to be forgotten in the news cycle days later. The destruction of Ahmadi mosques and the persecution of Ismailis and Shias under false blasphemy charges receive little to no attention from these so-called defenders of human rights. However, these same voices are loud and clear when atrocities occur against Muslims in non-Muslim states. The inconsistency is glaringly obvious. Today, we see a surge of activism for Palestinians, yet the same level of concern is rarely shown for the genocide in Kashmir or the violence against minorities within Pakistan. This selective activism raises important questions about the motivations and integrity of those who claim to stand for justice and humanity.
Karl Marx, the father of communism, once emphasized the importance of solidarity among the oppressed. His rallying cry, “Workers of the world, unite!” was not meant to be geographically or culturally selective. If Marx were to witness today’s selective activism, he’d likely raise an eyebrow and question, “What happened to the unity of the oppressed?” Hypocrisy in activism is a betrayal of the very principles that underpin the struggle for justice. Similarly, Martin Luther King Jr., a champion for civil rights, argued that “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” King’s words remind us that selective activism not only undermines the cause but also perpetuates a cycle of oppression. When activists pick and choose their battles, they essentially declare that some lives are more valuable than others-a dangerous precedent that erodes the foundation of human rights advocacy.
Why does this selective advocacy occur? Is it rooted in racism, sheer ignorance, avoidant behavior, or blatant hypocrisy? While it is difficult to pinpoint a single reason, it is evident that calling out double standards is not about passing judgment but about highlighting inconsistencies and demanding accountability. The tendency to criticize foreign injustices while ignoring domestic issues is not only hypocritical but also deeply damaging.
Speaking out against injustices, regardless of the victims’ geographical location or religious affiliation, is a fundamental aspect of true activism. Yet, many find it easier to condemn others than to hold themselves accountable. This selective activism undermines the very essence of human rights advocacy, which should be impartial and all-encompassing.
To borrow a phrase from Shakespeare, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” The louder the outcry against foreign injustices, the more glaring the silence on homegrown atrocities becomes. True activism demands consistency-a willingness to stand up for the oppressed, no matter where they are or who they are. It requires the courage to confront uncomfortable truths about one’s own society and the humility to acknowledge personal biases. The selective activism and hypocrisy prevalent in Pakistan and among Pakistanis is a troubling phenomenon because it reflects deep-seated prejudices and a reluctance to confront uncomfortable truths about one’s own society. True activism requires consistent and unwavering support for all victims of oppression, regardless of who they are or where they come from. It is time to move beyond selective outrage and embrace a more holistic and genuine approach to human rights advocacy. Only then can we hope to create a more just and equitable world for everyone. In the words of the inimitable Mark Twain, “A half-truth is the most cowardly of lies.” Let us strive for a full truth in our activism, one that encompasses all lives and all injustices. Only then can we claim the mantle of true human rights defenders.
And let’s not forget, while it’s easy to march with a placard for a distant cause, it’s far more impactful (and courageous) to confront the injustices brewing in our own backyards. After all, if our activism doesn’t start at home, what credibility do we really have when we preach to the world?
To Keep Updated Visit & Follow our Facebook Page Or Our Website
