Asim Sajjad Akhtar: Pakistan is a country where right-wing ideologies thrive under the hegemony of an entrenched status quo. Ideologies that portray right-wing governance as the only viable path for the Pakistani masses further obscure this dominance, marginalising left-wing perspectives. With religious and ethnic nationalism at its peak within the country, it isn’t that hard to sell such a narrative. Where parties like PMLN, PPP, and PTI are at the spearhead of Pakistani politics, it leaves little room for other left-wing ideologies, specifically socialist and democratic, to take root. But the lack of such views in the country doesn’t lessen the need for them, especially given the few rights given to workers in Pakistan. Such problems have been highlighted by various personalities, one of whom is Aasim Sajjad Akhtar.
An academic, activist, politician and columnist, he earned a bachelor’s from Northwestern University and secured his master’s from Yale University, both in economics. His contributions to the academic circle of Pakistan have also been notable. Akhtar has served as faculty in some of the top institutions of the country, such as LUMS and Quaid-e-Azam University, excelling in colonial history, state theory, sociology and political economy.
Akhtar’s contributions have also extended to various movements, such as the Okara military farms movement and other campaigns which address the rights of the workers in the country. He has also done tremendous work in raising leftist thought within the country, shedding light on neglected problems in the country which the mainstream media fails to address. For example, his work often addresses the implications of the closure of the Taftan border and its impact on Balochis and their resource generation. Similarly, his work has also shed light on the growing kachi abadis in urban settlements of the country, along with the system of peshgi (bonded labour).
Primarily, Akhtar’s work focuses on ethnonationalist tendencies in the country, along with the structure of postcolonial capitalism that has brought forward free-market capitalism. As this narrative focuses on private ownership and minimal intervention, it has benefited various stakeholders who are engaging in mega gold and coal mining (for example, Saindak and Reko Diq) and housing scheme projects in the country. He examines the implications of such policies and their impact on exacerbating income inequality and reducing the labour force.
Ideologically, Akhtar draws references from Fanon and Francis Fukuyama and applies their ideologies within the Pakistani and other non-Western contexts. He explains how the constant debate regarding the head of state is moot and is based on the dominance of right-wing thought. Akhtar also draws attention to the stigmatisation of the working class within the Pakistani community and the role of the middle class in further strengthening such class differences. He addresses how respectful traditional terms such as ‘mazdoor’ and ‘musalli’, which were previously used to define the working class, are now regarded as demeaning.
In his recent book, “The Struggle for Hegemony in Pakistan: Fear, Desire, and Revolutionary Horizons”, Akhtar focuses on the inactive role of socialists who have failed to propose an alternative governance strategy that may be more suitable for the country. This lack of productivity has reinforced the rightist ideologies and has led the masses to think that no other alternative for governance exists in a state like Pakistan. The exploration of digitalised resistance in today’s world has revealed that the process of individuation among people has become more pronounced due to digital media.
Akhtar maintains that while digital media has led to a pronounced individuation by giving everyone a chance to present their opinion, it has also led to the formation of echo chambers, which reinforce stereotypes, due to which several differences have been overlooked, hindering them from reaching international politics, leading to a less recognised status of such problems.
Despite the marginalisation of such discourse in Pakistan’s academic community, Akhtar’s work offers a refreshing alternative to the prevailing neoliberal orthodoxy in the country. His debates raise problems that need instant attention, attention which is not going to be in favour of the ruling class of the country. His leftist and proletarian stance is not well taken, as his work is prey to criticism and erasure from public discourse. However, this will not be for long. Pakistan’s deepening economic, ecological and political crisis will soon compel the masses to revisit the ideas of revolutionaries such as Akhtar. As the day will come, Akhtar’s work will not need rewriting. It will need rereading.