February 29 was a monumental day for Pakistan. Two seemingly independent events that were worlds apart occurred: an Oscar and a hanging. In the aftermath of these events, there was the usual commotion on social media, with everyone trying to paint the narrative with their own brush. Look a little closer and it becomes obvious that it is a picture increasingly devoid of colour; the efforts being made are primarily to reduce the scene to merely black and white — us versus “them”. It is the emergence of this discourse that threatens the formation of a pluralistic and tolerant society, more so, if not equal to, the violent rhetoric of some segments. While the extremist forces in society are no doubt threatening our social fabric, the existence of an exclusionary and antagonistic narrative from the liberal, educated and privileged groups lurks as a conceited threat. As a means of condemnation and firmly putting ourselves against extremist acts, we resort to ‘otherising’ the people that do not conform to our beliefs. Such a narrative leads to demonising the zealots and the conspiracy theorists — those who believe that Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy is yet another Western agent — in order to create a moral high ground for the educated and liberals, which of course comes with the right to claim to be the true embodiment of a Pakistani, and the beacon of progressive, tolerant thought in a lawless land. This seems to be the go-to response for the liberal side: labelling the other side as misled, uneducated, and bigoted. Though in certain cases this may be necessary, especially with those who cannot digest what Obaid-Chinoy has to show us, the very fact that a portion of the population, which may not always represent the majority, somehow feels that it has the authority to undermine dissenters by questioning their sanity, patriotism and humanity is a dangerous concept. In fact, it is quite contradictory to what liberalism calls for. There is a constant struggle to impose one’s narrative on the other, without any semblance of understanding the context of the other side. Eventually, both sides are guilty of the same charge, which is a lack of understanding and compassion, even though one of them manifests itself under the garb of human rights and tolerance. The tragedy of Pakistan is that rather than the educated, the more-aware portion of society using its privileged position to change the very nature of discourse in society, and not only its content, it creates a hierarchy of opinions and places itself on a pedestal. The imperative is on the rest of society to follow suit and reach the same conclusion; failure to do so is seen as a testimony to their lack of rationality and humanity, which then reinforces the hierarchy. Such an approach has led to increasing polarisation in society, whether on socioeconomic or religious lines. Going back to the topic of creating the ‘other’, in earlier columns I had said that there needs to be a sense of compassion and responsibility in our approach towards dealing with militants, simply because that is the only way to tackle the socially embedded root causes of terrorism. Integration, not marginalisation needs to be the cornerstone of counterterrorism policies. The need for this is even greater today, as recent events have exposed the brewing extremism within society at large, not just in specific marginalised, poverty-ridden groups. As the past few days have shown, though it shouldn’t be much of a surprise, there are hundreds of thousands of people whose views can be labelled as extremist. However, characterising them as misled, illiterate sheep that are incapable of making rational choices and blindly following radical shepherds is simply missing the mark altogether. Worse, it is simply another form of extremism and intolerance. Hundreds of thousands of people cannot be seen as intellectually inferior and in need of a messiah to guide them to the right (read: liberal) path. Hence, the mantra of education being the silver bullet is nothing more than worn-out rhetoric, since no type of education can ever be successful without sufficient social integration being carried out. Rather, we need to diagnose these symptoms for what they truly represent, which is a reaction to a lack of identity, belonging and constant oppression. Pakistan’s development has been skewed significantly against certain social groups, coupled with the lack of access to the public sphere and ability to partake in the national discourse. This pushes these groups to the fringes of society, where extremism provides an alternative to their existing reality. Therefore, we must identify the systemic causes that have led to this social degradation over the past few decades, rather than simply passing judgments on people and further chastising them. Therefore, what these events depict is a dire need for discourse, not with the aim to prove one side to be right and superior, but for a greater understanding of all sides so that there can be some common ground. Neither military action nor executions can eradicate or deter extremism from further melting itself into the social fabric. We need to recognise that we are at a critical juncture where proving yourself to be right serves no interest beyond a little ego-inflation. It is the responsibility of the educated members of society to put aside this notion of dictating what others should believe from atop a pedestal; they need to be the ones calling for there to be conversation between different ideologies in society. There are extremists in all camps, but there are also those, and I believe they are in the majority, who are willing to avoid confrontation if only they are given a voice. To clarify, there is no argument against the fact that the radicalism that has been on display recently needs to be condemned. However, suppressing this fraction of society further, through media bans and so on, will only decrease the space they occupy in the public sphere and will force them to resort to even more violence, simply to be recognised. We need to accept the state of society as it is, whether it is through documentaries on sensitive issues or by giving people a voice through various platforms. Further antagonism by creating a right versus wrong dichotomy will only deepen the already severe fault lines in society, and the educated/privileged classes need to recognise their stake in contributing to this process. Rather than trying to impose on others what a Pakistani identity entails and whether certain people make the cut or not, we should understand that our identity is still very fluid and cannot be one that excludes a significant portion of the masses. Let’s try to create an identity that transcends various social boundaries and provides a safe space for discourse and progress. The writer is a freelance columnist