Like politicians, political commentators, too, frequently use the word ‘awaam’ [the masses]. I once asked a political analyst what he meant by the term awaam? He said “common people.” In that case, he was certainly not part of the awaam, I pointed out — and he agreed.

But like many of his contemporaries, he uses the word awaam a lot — especially when describing Imran Khan’s popularity. “Awaam uss ke saath hain [the common people are with him]” is a common refrain. What or who are the awaam? And are the middle classes part of the awaam as well? Responses to this question are almost always ambiguous and unsure. But the concept of the awaam has been changing.

Awaam is a plural Urdu word, from ‘aam’ meaning common. From the early 20th century, the word’s usage saw manifold increase when Muslim political leaders in South Asia began to utter it during their speeches. Awaam in this context meant the masses. Globally, up until the early 1970s at least, the word ‘masses’ was mostly used by left-wing leaders and theorists. It meant peasants in the countryside and the proletariat (working classes) in the cities. The left understood it as a revolutionary force with the potential to overthrow capitalism.

The nationalist right saw the masses as a collective of common, simple, patriotic people with the potential of becoming a powerful nationalistic whole. To the liberal democrats, however, there was a difference between the masses and ‘the people.’ The democrats saw the people as made up of persons, each conscious of their own responsibility, whereas the masses were an ‘easy plaything’ in the hands of anyone seeking to exploit their emotions.

The word denoting ‘the masses’ is often used recklessly by political commentators and the media,........

© Dawn (Magazines)