My strongest disagreement with Faiz is on his disfranchizing of the masses. Stated explicitly in some speeches and essays which most of his readers have not read, but also implied throughout his poetry, the masses are not entitled to choose their literature or to think for themselves. In his opinion, they always get "conditioned" and he advises governments to indoctrinate the people.
Hence, while Faiz speaks for the people, he does not believe in seeking mandate from them. Nor does he believe that when you claim to be speaking for others, then you are obliged to present their case, otherwise you should just say that you are speaking for yourself and exercise your freedom of expression. Instead, he imposes himself in a position where he knows what is good for others, and therefore they do not have the right to question his legitimacy as their spokesperson. The fundamental right which is denied here is "consent".
It seems to me that these ideals did not arise from any dictatorial streak in his personal makeup. Quite the contrary. It seems to me that he was rather too gentle to revolt against these dominant trends of the school of thought with whom he got associated somehow. In my opinion, an impartial study will reveal an immense worth of his poetry for the study of a very interesting mind.