PESHAWAR: Pakistan is known for it higly-charged and volatile political landscape, where politicians go for their rival’s jugular in public speeches. They do not pull any punches when addressing rallies, accusing rivals of everything from corruption to treason. This is accompanied by choice words or phrase that leading politicians have used to demean their rivals. Imran’s use of “cherry blossom”for Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif is to suggest that he has an obsequious character. Maryam Nawaz’s use of the term ‘ladla’ (favourite/spoilt) for Imran is an allusion to claims that the military-led Establishment engineered the election to bring him to power.
Recently, two new words have entered our booklet of political insults: shado (monkey) and melo (bear). For their introduction, we have to thank Messers Aimal Wali Khan of the Awami National Party and Imran Khan of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf respectively.
But these two words were used not for animals in real sense. The two leaders have used it for each other while addressing supporters in Charsadda as well at other venues in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, where the PTI is hanging on to power.
“When I used to start addressing previously, I’d hear the term ‘diesel’, he said, referring to the pejorative term that he uses for Jamiat-e-Ulema Islam Chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman. “Now, I have started hearing the word, which is…,” he says as the crowd responds with ‘melo.’
“I have been told that melo means bear,” he said. For those who are not well versed with the local political landscape, Imran uses “melo” to refer to the burly Aimal Wali.
In return, Wali uses shado and langur, with both meaning monkey. Just like Imran uses bear, Wali compares Imran’s looks to that of a monkey to bring his rival down a notch.
The use of these terms, as slurs to denigrate political rivals, are received with boisterous applause on every occasion.
This is disconcerting for multiple reasons. The obvious one is that personal insults are normalized in political discourse.
The other is that the use of animal metaphors are highly offensive.
Another aspect, often glossed over, is the mindset that such offensive usage of animal names as slur can engender.
Dr. Zaigham Hasan, assistant professor of Zoology, University of Peshawar, believes that this practice is dangerous for animals because common people use negative names.
“They not only start hating these animals, but as a result of this hatred, they also think of harming this animal.”
In the lead up to election day in 2018, PTI supporters beat up a donkey following Imran Khan’s statement that anyone who votes for the PML-N was a donkey.
In response, rival supporters put PTI flyers and pamphlets on a dog.
In either incident, it was the animal that paid the price.
Back in 2013, a rare white tiger became the star at PML-N rallies, with Maryam fond of taking it to events. The soaring temperatures was too much for the big cat which died an untimely death.
Similarly, a year later, suppoters of the Pakistan Awami Tehreek of Dr Tahirul Qadri tied up a wild boar and beat it to death while writing “Go Nawaz Go” on the lifeless animal.
It is something that politicians have been accused of doing in the past as well.
Author Salman Rashid wrote that Ghulam Dastgir Khan, the father of current Energy Minister Khurram Dastgir, had a lantern tied around a bitch and paraded it across Gujranwala before the 1965 presidential elections. It was an insult directed at Fatima Jinnah, who was using the latern as a symbol while competing against Ayub Khan.
An aspect of racism
Using monkey as a racist term has been witnessed on football fields so often that FIFA, the governing body of international football, has asked local federations to not only eject fans but place a lifetime ban on them.
In Italy, France and even England, black players have had to listen to such chants from rival fans.
Cricket’s monkeygate scandal is another incident where monkey was used as a racial slur. Australia’s Andrew Symonds, who died in a road accident earlier this year, had accused Indian spinner Harbhajan Singh of using the term in 2008.
Animal rights organization People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) argues that words can create a more inclusive world or perpetuate oppression. They say that calling someone an animal reinforces the narrative that humans are superior to animals. For that reason, they consider the violation of animal rights to be justified because animals are humiliated by referring to the negative traits of humans, which is cruelty and injustice to animals. Therefore, the language of supremacy should be rejected. PETA believes that “racist language is not only wrong, but harmful”.
Nick Haslam, professor of psychology at the University of Melbourne in Australia, wrote in his research article that many animal metaphors are simply offensive rather than representing a specific trait. Calling someone a pig, a rat, a monkey or a dog is insulting and emotionally and morally charged, he says.
Professor Haslam, based on his research, says that some animal metaphors are highly objectionable because the comparison itself is inhumane and the use of animal similes implies that the people are literally inhumane.
JUI-F KP spokesman Abdul Jalil says that using of animal slurs was not a practice of past politicians. “People like Abdul Ghaffar Khan, Mufti Mahmood and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto never resorted to abusive words against their opponents despite severe political differences.”
He said now abuse and abusive words are common in politics. “This is not a sign of a civilized society and calling someone by the name of an animal is not permissible in any case.”
Spokesperson of Awami National Party Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Samar Bilour says that when a leader uses wrong language or terminology to mock his rivals, it sends the wrong message to the youth. “This is dangerous for our future.”
It is indeed a disturbing and dangerous development, not just for young impressionable minds but the many animals - rare and otherwise - that we come across on an everyday basis.
Instead of cultivating empathy, these comparisons give people a cogent and tangible outlet to target their anger and hate. Next time you see a political worker attacking an animal, you know where lies the blame.
