My heart broke yesterday, when I saw the video of a small boy shaking in the snow laying on the road side in Quetta. In the freezing temperature he was out to shine shoes so that he could make ends meet and probably get food for himself or his family. There was widespread outrage, the images were haunting, everyone wanted to help that poor boy. TV screens lit up, the government of Balochistan announced that this boy will be their responsibility from now on. Not sure if that boy was found again or not, and neither knowing that but we all collectively felt good about ourselves. We had seen a poor boy suffering and we all had gathered around him, wanting to help him and support him, and at the first sign this had happened that help had somehow reached him, we all patted ourselves on the back.

Before seeing those viral photos and videos, we probably deep down, had an idea that this boy or boys like him existed. Yet, we weren’t compelled to seek him out. This is what I call selective amnesia. We chose not to acknowledge him until we saw it. We choose not to act until it was shoved in our faces. We choose not to care until it was drilled into our empathy lacking conscious.

Many people would have also seen this boy on the street, and dismissed him like we ordinarily do when we see the poor and destitute on the streets. Only when one individual was affected by the boy and his condition – that individual chose to act. The individual who we know nothing off made a video and posted it online. I am not aware if the individual who recorded the video chose to help the boy. My first inkling if I see a semi-frozen child shaking violently is not to make a video, but to get him some help, to give him some food and to get him some warmth. A rational first inkling wouldn’t be to make a video and post it online. One can assume – even if it is a bit of a stretch – that if some help was given to the boy by the video maker he or she would have shared that too. Yet, to give the benefit of the doubt I am going to argue that for whatever reason that person did not have any other recourse. I am going to think that that person couldn’t help that boy in any other way beyond what he or she did. 

Now, why did this boy affect us so much and not all those bystanders on that street? I am going to argue this was because that boy on that street for those walking was a routine occurrence. We are all so used to seeing someone suffering on the street. We also are all so used to doing nothing about said suffering. Yet, when that boy was presented to us on social media, where we like to think highly of ourselves and also which is our exclusive domain away from such things, it touched us and got to us. We had to act. It was as much a display of sympathy as it was a feature of our own human psychology. There probably were other such unfortunate souls on the street that day too. In a country where poverty is so rampant why wouldn’t they be? Yet, they continue to remain invisible for us. Forgotten into the pits of our selective amnesia. 

I can’t fault anyone who like myself felt sorry for that boy, or who wanted to help him. I felt the same. It is strange that what we see often rarely affects us any more. We see people suffering on the street too often so we ignore it. We see people suffering on social media rarely so we act. Maybe our real problem isn’t that boy who was suffering on the street that day, it is our indifference which lets so many like him suffer in silence, while we pick one case that is brought to us, try to do something about it or express remorse and move on feeling good about ourselves for nor real reason.

Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf and its leader Imran Khan, bank on a very important assumption about themselves. They say they are not corrupt, they are unfathomable and that they have a high moral ground than any other political party in Pakistan. They haven’t looted the nation, they haven’t robbed it of its wealth and they are against everything that makes this country a worse place to live in for its citizens.

This same moral ground is used by all supporters for PTI. They believe like their leaders that they are better than anyone else, better than any other party and they are unfalable. This is why whenever the PTI loses or does not come out on top, its supporters and some of its leaders say that Pakistan can never change. This is what Pakistan deserves. This is what you people deserve. This form of self-righteousness has been a key feature of both PTI and its followers.

Because of this belief that they are so unfalable and the only ones who are the solution to Pakistan’s problem. The party also believes that whenever it doesn’t come out on top and doesn’t win, it is only because of something that was done against them. It was rigging, it was corruption, it was voter management. Had the contest been fair, there is no possibility that PTI would have ever lost.

When NA154 happened, these were exactly the kind of response we saw. This is what they thought, and this line of thinking can be very dangerous for any political party. Dangerous because it creates this environment where a party will blame other people for its own mistakes.

What happened in NA154 was that after years of preaching against dynastic politics, the PTI nominated Ali Tareen, it gave different definitions of dynastic politics and tried to convince itself and its vote base it wasn’t doing the very thing it has been speaking against for so many years. This obviously was a contributing factor, coupled with a realatively weaker candidate fielded by PMLN.

When you go off message you have consequences. One of the arguments that PTI’s supporters made was that why did people accept dynastic politics in NA120. Well, what they again don’t understand is that PMLNs base is perfectly ok with dynastic politics no matter how much they or even I may disagree with it.

It is also dangerous because when you feel like you can’t do no wrong, and are and always will be victim to external designs: you lose the opportunity to reflect and correct yourself.

PTI has seriously gone off message. It has not revolutionized KPK during its government. It has not ended VIP culture. It has also not ended corruption, and amongst it has corrupt leaders too. It has not ended nepotism and it has not been vastly or even slightly better than any other provincial government over the past five years, no matter what the media or social media wing of PTI may say, and no matter how many abuses it may hurl.

The PTI needs to understand that its urban, middle class and educated base needs it to hold true to its promises. Because, its central assumption is only valid if it didn’t have a shot at power. But, that is not the case anymore.

There is still time. I want to see change in Pakistan. I want to fix this broken system. I can’t expect that change from PMLN, PPP or the religious parties, but it seems sadly I can’t expect that from PTI as well.

PTI’s high moral ground is its biggest downfall. Arrogance never takes you anywhere.