Friedrich Nietzsche famously said, “You have your way. I have my way. As for the right way, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” When I read this for the first time, it bruised my sensitivity as a Muslim. For me, Allah was the sole truth and Nietzsche’s saying seemed to me as a satanic mantra.

However, delving deeper into the philosophical connotation of this adage gave me cognisance of the plurality of truth. That struck my mind while deliberating on the right of the individual to seek his/her own truth, from his/her subjective angle through a bid to ‘know thyself’.

That comes only through intensive self-introspection, a practice that leads an individual to experience truth. Here personal experience is of utmost importance. The idea, in Hegelian sense, that is formed through the synthesis of cultural tradition, historical consciousness and idealist/revealed knowledge enables the individual to seek its own version of truth.

What is implied here is an optimally inclusive context, free of the coercion of the dominant discourse. However, strenuous practice on the part of the individual seeker of the truth is made possible only within the discursive context of the prevailing time. If anybody tends to break the discursive barrier, he/she would meet the fate of a renegade like Sarmad, or before him, Mansur Hallaj.

Their interpretation of truth ran counter to the prevailing sensibility. Besides, their method of articulating their experience lacked the inflection typical of nuances employed by the Sufis of the medieval times. Now we turn our gaze back to the pluralisation of truth.

But before proceeding any further, it is pertinent to make another important point. Ironically, despite all the material progress, humans have yet to learn to co-exist. Such progress, instead, has driven them apart and has somehow failed to reflect in human relations.

Material progress and human well-being are the states that in most cases are mutually exclusive. In many countries, material progress has widened class differentiation. Social alienation has crept into every society. The greater the scale of material progress, the more social alienation it creates.

Acceptance of the socio-cultural diversity and the truth claim associated with every socio-cultural segment of the international community is the most decisive step to ensure human well-being.

Every great idea, concept or theory must have plural angularities by virtue whereof they get traction among the people of divergent backgrounds. Through pluralised versions of the truth claims are sustained across time and they adjust to the spatial difference.

Truth ought to cater to the sensibility of different people, be they lingually different or ethnically, culturally, or religiously different. Acceptance and not mere tolerance of the difference offers humanity a panacea that may lead to enduring peace and tranquility.

So far in the entire human history unilateralism has caused mayhem and engendered mutual hatred. Ever since the political category of a superpower has become a part of our lexicon, particularly since the last 250 years, a unilateral version of the dominant truth has been imposed on the dominated.

Does the ‘truth’ emanate from political dominance? I think not. Generally, such epistemic violence (imposing one’s version of truth on the other) is usually associated with the societies and states (empires) of the East. This perception persists until this day.

Muslims are particularly targeted as sword-wielding Jihadis with imperialist designs. They have been depicted as people disseminating their religion through coercive means. The violence and terrorism are what Muslims know the best and practice it with impunity. Such an impression was cast by colonial power from the 18^th century onwards.

Through the force of the dominant narrative, orientalists re-constructed the history of the colonised to make them look barbarians. Obviously, by discrediting Muslims they legitimised their own rule. Colonial discourse tried to force with great deal of success, the singular meaning of truth through textuality. That’s how the version of truth, the colonised were made to embrace, was de-historicised and de-contextualised.

All said and done, the plurality of truth was not countenanced, and alternative reading of history and culture was forcibly muzzled. Unilateral ideas, rooted in the western tradition, were given currency. That trend got perpetuated and bequeathed to America when it assumed the status of a superpower after the Second World War.

While talking about America it must be borne in mind that as a state it is plagued with what we may call “historical myopia”. Like an ardent disciple of Hegel, the American state has “learnt only one thing from history that it has not learnt anything from history”.

It wanted to preserve freedom in Vietnam and after fighting for several years, American forces were chased out of Vietnam. The same happened with them in Afghanistan. Persistence and perseverance are what America lacks.

After 20 years of occupation, Afghanis left them with no option but to run away. Still, they fail to realise that their version of freedom and human rights could not be universalised in the societies, which had been evolved differently and they have been the product of a different historical process. Probably America’s own history is not something that it can feel proud of. Thus, its relationship with that vital branch of knowledge is tenuous. Therefore, while engaging with any nation it does not bother to look at its historical context, its time-honoured customs and conventions that constitute that nation’s collective identity and its being.

Overtaken by its unilateralist version of truth, it invaded Iraq upstaging Saddam Hussain and then orchestrated dismantling of the Gaddafi regime in Libya, which resulted in utter disaster. As if it was not enough, the same example is being repeated in Syria.

Americans, while trying to export their version of democracy and freedom, would end up fragmenting the entire region where anarchy would rule the roost. With no central government in place, even America itself would find it impossible to exercise its control over it.

Undoubtedly, dictatorship is bad but the fostering of anarchy by America in various countries, including the Middle East is worse many times over than tyrannical dictators. Thus, its aspiration to democratise the under-developed world has resulted in its virtual ruination.

Other than military invasion, another ploy that America uses is the economic sanctions and the pretext is usually about the regime being undemocratic or human rights abuses. But now such unilateralism is being questioned. With such an imperial overstretch, would America sustain itself as a superpower for long? We have to wait and see.

The writer is Professor in the faculty of Liberal Arts at the Beaconhouse National University, Lahore