Louis Althusser suggests that the most powerful ideologies are those that don’t need to be recognized as ideologies–they simply feel natural, inevitable, and default. The ones in power are in power because it only feels natural for them to be so. The metric of power is frequently measured through popularity or trendiness. Trends are able to make an impact mainly through popularity. Myths and dominant narratives that are often believed to be true gain influence simply because they are popular and widely embraced. However, popularity should never be confused with moral, ethical or political correctness.
When a harmful trend or ideology takes hold, keeping your opposition private is not enough. In times of injustice, neutrality acts as silent approval. Choosing to remain neutral merely to avoid public scrutiny is tone-deaf because neutrality itself is a privilege. The fact that a situation doesn’t affect you deeply enough to demand your voice against it is a privilege often not recognized. Remaining indifferent to the suffering of others is morally indefensible and unethical. The bare minimum one can offer is support in the form of active, visible opposition.
In the modern world, while some people have the privilege to not be affected by every act of injustice happening around them whether in the form of violence or unequal distribution of rights, it does not eliminate the problem at its core. Choosing to remain unaware of the injustice and then being neutral until it’s you who gets affected is extremely selfish.
A clear example of this dynamic played out with the passage of the 27th Constitutional Amendment in late 2025. This amendment provided lifetime immunity to the President and top rank Military officers from criminal proceedings and arrest. Moreover, the NAB amendments shielded politicians and bureaucrats from arrest and prosecution for general policy and executive decisions.
A law that places ruling elites above accountability explicitly demands public outcry yet meaningful public opposition was largely absent. Although the amendment was rushed through parliament within a week without open public hearings, it remains active primarily because a large segment of the population actively chose to ignore it. Citizens exercised their privilege of neutrality because in day-to-day life such an amendment does not affect a common man. However, this public passivity on such an issue only shielded the powerful, giving them tacit permission to further consolidate their authority. On the contrary, had the public created a storm of widespread resistance, the precedent for future institutional overreach would have been significantly reduced. Public silence is not a neutral stance — it is the very mechanism that keeps the powerful immune.
Similarly, when persistent internet blackouts in AJK prevented students from registering for the MDCAT on time, educational authorities penalised them with hefty late fees or tight, unannounced extensions upon connectivity restoration. Penalising students for a state-created blackout is institutional indifference. When the broader public remains silent about digital shutdowns in border regions, “neutrality” effectively signals to those students that their fundamental right to equal opportunity is secondary. The privileged sitting in major cities never raised this issue because they’re safe with their fibre-optic internet and the situation doesn’t affect them. Public silence, whether in response to constitutional immunity for the elite or digital exclusion for students, is not neutrality; it is active complicity.
In a passive and restricted environment, public silence allows state decisions, such as the 27th amendment or AJK MDCAT late-registration penalties, to pass unchecked. On the contrary, in a mobilised environment, such as the recent student protests at Jantar Mantar, even unaffected citizens and parents stepped in to create public pressure that forced the state to be accountable and yielded tangible results. Real change requires recognising that the struggles of others are never as distant as they seem. Indifference only thrives as long as the public majority chooses to remain quiet or neutral. Breaking this cycle demands that we turn private disagreement into active, visible solidarity. Ultimately, creating public pressure to strip the powerful of their immunity and force a system built on privilege to finally become accountable