smartcybers786@gmail.com 
#Falsehood #essence #narrative #Political #Economy
He said the concept of rhetoric has a basic place in philosophy, literature and social theory – especially when examined through the lens of knowledge and power. A story is not merely to mention the events. It is a constructed representation that is created by the purpose, vision and theory. It is through their statement that individuals and societies explain the meaning of the world around them.
The statements are not neutral or benign. Often, they are to convince the tool, which is designed to legalize special interests or to unite the uncomfortable facts. This is especially clear in the context of the geographical political dispute, such as the ongoing conflict between India and Pakistan, where the war of stories has eclipsed the facts on earth. Here, the statement is not always with the truth. Instead, it is often in the form of strategic misunderstandings, manipulation and ideological warfare.
Although rhetoric and knowledge have a deep connection, they are different in important matters. Traditionally, knowledge is seeking truth, objections and justification, depending on the logic and evidence of the support of its claims. On the contrary, the statement is naturally charged and emotionally charged. It makes events a structure in meaningful civilians, but does so through cultural principles, power structures and subjectivity.
Where knowledge asks, “What is the truth?” The statement often asks, “What can mean?” “Who is speaking?” And “What agenda is being developed?” This is the one that makes the statement in the realm of international politics such as strong and sometimes dangerous.
In India’s Pakistan conflict, the priority of the statement, especially the competition events, such as border clashes, alleged terrorist activities and diplomatic defects are unclear. The states are engaged in controversial battles not just to inform people, but to influence and form public comments, to achieve international sympathy and to strengthen internal unity. The statements are often less similar to the verified fact and are instead prepared to serve strategic interests. They mobilize patriotism, make ‘other’ devils and reinforce nationalist ideas. These false or exaggerated accounts are not accidental accidental deviations. They are essential for modern state craft mechanics.
Michelle Focal’s insights on the relations between knowledge and power are deeply compatible with analyzing the dynamics of historical statements in countries like India and Pakistan. The concept of the “governments of facts” refers to the idea that what is understood within a society is not a simple reflection of objective reality, but is the product of socially built and regular debates.
These discussions – communication, faith and knowledge system – form people in power positions. They work to strengthen the current power structure by explaining the legitimate, acceptable and the truth. According to the focus, the truth is not neutral or accessible globally. Instead, it is developed and regulated by a specific social mechanism that decides what can be said, what can be known and what information needs to be hidden or suppressed.
In the context of India and Pakistan, this framework provides valuable insights on how the state, the media, political dialogue and the formation of a collective memorandum, through its control, constitutes a statement that served special political and ideological interests. The state -controlled media plays an important role in spreading and strengthening the dominant stories of the state’s political goals. In both countries, the media and public conversation of governments affect the flow of manipulation information, which is directed to be presented as a truth and what is backward or distorted.
Political rhetoric in both India and Pakistan often tries to establish an official story of national identity. It is presented as a controversial truth. In these countries, the statement of political power often involves the inclusion of history in such a way that it legislates the state’s current status and policies, while the ‘other’ makes the devil or presents them as a threat. This exercise not only forms a national identity but also justifies military operations, economic policies and other state decisions.
In his influential work of Jean-French Lutoard, criticism of “great statements” provides an important ideological framework to understand the role of stories in the formation of national identities, especially in conflict context. The main argument of Lutoard is that in modern times, great stories – which are wider, are stories that claim to explain and explain historical actions, ideas and social orders, and lost their credibility and power. These statements, which once provided society with a proportional meaning and purpose, are now now seen rapidly inadequate to explain the complexity of modern life.
Both India and Pakistan set great stories that facilitate complex dates and problems and more digestive and emotionally charged stories. These statements often revolve around the topics of hunting, bravery, historical treachery and cultural destiny. For example, in Pakistan, the partition of India in 1947 often faces a tragic event of Muslim victims and the birth of a suffering nation.
In India, the same event can be presented as a struggle for bravery for independence, which has a story of fraud by the Muslim community, which is divided. In such a framework, there is little scope for the proportional complexity of the event, such as the role of colonial powers, the voice of people affected by these misery in both India and Pakistan.
These grand stories become completely framework that not only offers a way to understand the past but also act as political and ideological control tools. Within these framework, any disagreement or alternative point that challenges the official story is often labeled as unfaithful or rebellion. National identity and political unity are praised in opposition to those who disagree and are tight -lipped in place of criticism, complexity and diversity.
As the reasoning of the Lutoard is, when the scrutiny is subjected, these great rhetoric inevitably fall, which reveals insufficients of these simple, solidarity explanations of history and reality. The solution to the crisis is the creation of micro-stories-small, local stories that allow individual and social experiences to express their individual and social experiences that are often erased or ignored in major national statements. These micro -stories are open of more fluids, diverse and complexity. They reflect the real experiences of people rather than the ideological goals of the states.
Edward has also presented Edward’s work, including Orientalism (1978), to understand how the statements act as a form of ideological domination. The main focus is on how Western colonial powers have built Orient -East, including regions like the Middle East, South Asia and North Africa.
According to the West, the West used a statement about Orient to present it as a need for backward, irrational and Western intervention to bring civilization and development. These statements were not based on the cultures of the East and the experimental reality of people. Instead, these were built by the biased lens of colonial power, which needed to justify its aggression and control.
As a tool for domination, this concept of statement is similar to that of India -Pakistan context. Just as the West built the East as a “second”, powerful institutions in India and Pakistan have prepared distorted national statements about each other to serve internal political agendas and legalized their aggression, militancy and diplomatic enmity. These statements are often the form of historical complaints (such as the partition of 1947, 1965 and 1971 wars and the ongoing Kashmir dispute), but they have been prepared in such a way that they remove the complexity of relations between the two countries.
For example, Pakistan can present India as a hedimonic force that is trying to suppress the rights of the Muslim population (especially in Kashmir), while India can present Pakistan as a terrorist sponsor and aggressor. These pictures are not necessarily an objective representation of the political facts on the ground, but rather the ideological construction products that work to strengthen national identities and justify state measures.
The author is a professor at the Faculty of Liberal Arts at the Beacon House National University in Lahore.
