Rebuttal of Al-Jazeera article on Malala

The writer of the piece comes directly from her classroom, office or whatever corner of a library and is totally unrelated and disconnected to the social realities of the country. She has presented her critique to present criticism on Malala as not a form of pre-mordern sensibilities but has tried to 'deconstruct' the rage shown at Malala as a substitute for the 'global western empire'. First there is problem with her representation of the local hatred. She herself says in the article about the importance of representation. But she herself in this article is not representing the hatred of Malala's compatriots as like one would do a representation in a portrayal. She instead is 'representing by substution' in that she erases the grounds which Pakistanis have for criticizing Malala and instead coins her own grounds and present them as 'real' causes of Malala's hatred. Her straitjacketing of theories of global power and domination only obfuscates her own fallacy and, I will say dishonesty, in representing the local sentiment.

The second part of rebuttal about this article, which will also clarify my charge of the writer being dishonest, is transparency of the intellectual and writer. How much transparent is her own representation of the Malala hatred? She has completely erased the misogyny and religious myopia which form the crux of Malala hatred and instead has presented the abuse as a helpless response toward global institutions of power, which the 'locals' are not equipped with better terms to articulate. Hint: Infantalizing.

The third part of the rebuttal is that she says that Malala is loathed because she is perceived as instrument of the western power. But she never once asks the question that why Malala is seen as the instrument of western hegemony? Is this because of the 'owning' by the West or has it something to do with the message that she conveys and the symbolism she embodies? The fact that the writer of the piece is disconnected from the social realities of the country is made unambiguous by the fact that for most Pakistanis, being recognized by a western institution, is a sure way for your credibility. Take example of Imran Khan. The two things which follow his record as Cricket captain are his studies at Oxford and he being a chancellor of Bradford. Afia Siddiqui is said have to have 144 honrary degrees (This is false but in era of post-truth who cares!) If you have the 'right' kind of message to put across, your western credentials will work in your favor, not against you, in Pakistan. Has the writer going to 'deconstruct' this side of the story too?

Here is link to the article:

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/malala-polarising-figure-pakistan-180401054631496.html