Some jihadist-minded and religious commentators are in fact bent upon strengthening anti-Americanism in Pakistan as it helps them to advance the agenda of global political Islam. Such an approach does not help in search for Pakistani solutions to Pakistani problems

Pakistan is passing through a situation in which public sentiments run counter to public interests. Almost on a daily basis, religious and political leaders articulate and strengthen long-held views, prejudices and conspiracy theories that prevent people from thinking positively about their future. It is relevant, therefore, to examine whether the purpose of political speech and media commentary should be to reinforce deeply-held mass sentiments and prejudices, or to develop a critique of those sentiments in order to inject constructive ideas.

Recently, veteran Pakistani journalist Asaf Jilani, who became a friend and mentor to me at the BBC Urdu Service in London, wrote an article in Roznama Jasarat of October 10, offering several criticisms of the U.S. role in Pakistan and underlining the trust deficit between the two countries over past several decades. A number of arguments put forward in the article are familiar and reinforce deep-rooted anti-Americanism. There are two points here to seriously think over: first, the validity of popular and unhelpful arguments put forward by Pakistani leaders and commentators regarding national and international issues; second, to scrutinize if the spectre of anti-Americanism sweeping Pakistani society is in the interest of Pakistani people.

Let me take the second point first. Anti-Americanism is one of several dominant narratives that have taken hold over mass consciousness in Pakistan. Anti-Americanism has emerged as an ideology, as an overriding system of ideas. Writers, politicians and commentators frequently use the ideology of anti-Americanism, sometimes intentionally and mostly unintentionally, to explain the causes of various problems in terms of America’s international role. As a dominant perspective, anti-Americanism has come to acquire an autonomous reality of its own. It hegemonizes minds and prevents people from seeing facts as they exist.

With exception to those writing in the Dawn and Daily Times newspapers, Pakistani journalists and media commentators are generally failing everyday to look at various problems confronting Pakistan except through the ideological looking glass of anti-Americanism. Some jihadist-minded and religious commentators are in fact bent upon strengthening anti-Americanism in Pakistan as it helps them to advance the agenda of global political Islam. Such an approach does not help in search for Pakistani solutions to Pakistani problems. America alone cannot be held responsible for all problems in Pakistan. For example, it is the responsibility of Pakistan to eliminate terrorist organizations. It is necessary, therefore, to cut through the ideological prism of anti-Americanism. Pakistani people’s interests will be secured by overcoming anti-Americanism and other such ideologies. Such an attempt will help people to think constructively about their situation.

Second, the drone attacks are killing civilians, including women and children. In many cases, women and children are killed. This is also because militant groups take shelter amid civilian populations. However, the U.S. drone attacks are supposed to be targeted precisely. Therefore, women and children must not be killed, not even in times of war. Countering anti-Americanism does not mean that a constructive criticism of America’s role in Pakistan and elsewhere be totally shunned. Third, the article observes that the drone attacks are a result of America's farzi khatrat – imagined terror threats. This is obviously a false argument. There are numerous videos posted by jihadist organizations on the internet showing them planning and training in safe havens in the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. Most recently, a video emerged of Taliban chief Hakimullah Mehsud meeting with Faisal Shahzad, who has been jailed for life for the May 1, 2010 failed car bombing in New York’s Times Square. In such a situation, the U.S. has a right of self-defense against the militants in Waziristan. However, the means for such self-defense can be discussed and agreed between the U.S. and Pakistani officials.

The article also contends that the United States is out to end the Pakistani nuclear program. In principle, Pakistan is entitled to retain nuclear weapons. However, these weapons are dangerous to humanity. Therefore any argument in favor of Pakistan’s nuclear program has to be based on the principle of responsibility. Most countries have developed their nuclear programs secretly. Once a country acquires a nuclear weapon, it becomes an automatic responsibility for it to take ownership of threats that such a weapon could pose to humanity. Therefore, that country must do two things: not share such technology with other nations, and cooperate with other nuclear powers to prevent other nations from acquiring these weapons. Pakistan has failed on both these principles.

In the case of Pakistani nuclear program, there are associated issues that the international community is worried about: the ability of militants to infiltrate into the Pakistani nuclear establishment and gain control of such weapons; concerns over Pakistan’s stability amid rapidly deteriorating security situation. Also, the Pakistani democracy’s inability to survive and flower causes doubts about the Pakistani state’s conduct regionally and internationally. Authoritarian and theological states are not known to abide by democratic norms. Pakistan has a long way to go, with its elected civilian government literally throttled by the Pakistani military.

The point to recognize is that op-ed writers in Pakistan are finding it easy to reinforce public sentiments against the U.S. The challenge is how to counter it. A beginning can be made for the recovery of Pakistani state and society by arguing for facts, and by confronting conspiracy theories, anti-Americanism and other such popular ideological movements. A brave attempt was demonstrated recently by Pakistani lawmaker Marvi Memon. Speaking in the Pakistani parliament, she hit out at politicians for admitting in private that Dr. Aafia Siddiqui was associated with Al-Qaeda while simultaneously leading public protests for her release from the U.S. where she has been jailed for 86 years for trying to kill U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. Opposing mass protests over the Aafia Siddiqui issue, Memon said: ‘‘We should not go with the popular movement and turn a blind eye to facts; Pakistan is losing its liberal agenda, which cannot be regained by following what is wrong.’’ Like Marvi Menon, media commentators in Pakistan need to argue for facts.