Pakistan’s
Politico-Religious Demagogues Inspire Karl Rove?
By Siddique Malik
President,
www.spreadfreedom.com
US
Recently, an amazing thing happened in Pakistan
that bodes well for Pakistan’s political
future. While, Jamiat Ulema Islam (JUI) led by
Mr. Fazlur Rehman has reacted positively towards
the recently announced bus service between Indian
and Pakistani sides of Kashmir, the Jamat Islami
(JI) headed by Mr. Qazi Hussein Ahmed, is not
happy with this development that in the context
of rigid India-Pakistan relations can genuinely
be described as epochal.
Otherwise, in the entire sub-continent, the bus
service announcement is being referred to as the
mother of all CBMs (confidence-building measures),
an important element of the lexicon related to
the love-hate relationship between these two neighbors
that house almost 1.2 billion people but are armed
to the teeth, conventionally and in nuclear terms,
while abject poverty mars the majority of their
citizens.
Allow me to explain the deviation that you may
have noticed above. I refrained from referring
to the two gentlemen mentioned above, as “Maulanas”.
This word in Arabic means “our lord”,
and I refuse to bestow this title upon anyone
who in my opinion does not deserve it. Now back
to why the above-mentioned difference of opinion
over the proposed Kashmir bus service excited
me.
In my humble opinion one of the major reasons
for Pakistan’s continued quandary in all
fields, social, economic, political, educational,
etc, is the fact that religion has been forced
into areas where it does not belong. Consequently,
the common person continues to get exploited by
those who have a lot to gain from the confusion
that naturally results when asymmetrical elements
are forced to cohabit.
Of all the proponents of this unnatural mixing,
Pakistan’s politico-religious elements are
the most vocal. They claim that their politicking
is based upon noting but Islamic tenets. Both
of the above-mentioned parties clearly fall under
this category of such demagoguery. If their claim
were to be taken at its face value, then how would
these parties rationalize their contradicting
stands on the bus service?
The interesting thing is that both these entities
are united under a politico-religious umbrella
called MMA, an acronym for the Urdu for the title
“United Action Committee”. Because
of the group’s subtle links with the army,
many Pakistanis jokingly and sarcastically also
call it the “Mullah Military Alliance”.
This divergence of opinion on the bus service
suggests that either Islam and politics don’t
mix, or one of these two parties doesn’t
understand Islam (I would love to find out, which
one). The reality is that Islam (or for that matter
any religion) and politics can and should not
mix.
Not only these two parties but also politicians
and parties with a canny ability to exploit religion
to hide their shortcomings, anywhere in the world,
either don’t understand their religion or
find it convenient to manipulate people’s
soft corners for religion. If people could be
convinced (tragically, doing so is much easier
than one would imagine) that God will be happy
if the people voted for a certain candidate, then
certain politicians don’t have to offer
tangible proposals on how they intend to solve
people’s problems. For them, things couldn’t
get easier than this. Why do you think Karl Rove
forced the issue of gay marriage on American news
screens during a certain time-period?
Under this technique of political high-handedness
which automatically involves degradation of religion,
political opponents are simply given a subtle
or sometimes not so subtle title of immoral liberals,
infidels or apostates. In Pakistan, issuing fatwas
against political opponents is a normal tool of
political clerics. Even before the creation of
Pakistan in 1947, in British India, some Muslim
Indian politicians freely launched fatwa missiles
against their opponents. The founder of Pakistan,
Muhammad Ali Jinnah and his close comrade, philosopher-poet,
Sir Muhammad Iqbal, were both declared kafirs
(infidels) by such clerics.
One sees a glimmer of hope in the above-mentioned
divergence of opinion in Pakistan, though. The
reality is finally catching up with even those
who seem unable to accept it. The rigors of democratic
and free political dispensation (even considering
the fact that Pakistan’s current setup is
far from being so) have caused these clerics to
shed their garb, albeit, unknowingly, and for
now, temporarily.
This proves that even a lame-duck democracy is
better than no democracy. Trying to suppress politico-religious
parties would have transformed them into a monstrous
force of negativity, something like Ayatollah
Khomeni’s movement. Allowing them to face
the rigors and realities of even a quasi democracy
is slowly but surely turning their leaders into
statesmen.
It is too far-fetched to believe that they deserve
the title of statesmen but I am overexcited upon
seeing religion being separated from politics
in Pakistan (even though it was briefly) and that
too by those who are the least likely to even
fathom this natural bifurcation. Let us call them
statesmen for a day.
I hope that this development will become the forerunner
of the concept of equality in Pakistan’s
political psyche. Hopefully, one day a Hindu from
Sindh, a Christian from Lahore, a Qadiani from
Rabwah, or any non-Muslim Pakistani from any corner
of Pakistan will have the same shot at becoming
the President of the Republic of Pakistan, as
any of his/her equally qualified Muslim compatriots.
And, on the voting day all Pakistanis regardless
of their religion would join the same voter queue
and their names would be checked against the same
voter list, InshaAllah.
Meanwhile, the tragedy is that in the world’s
oldest and strongest democracy that owes its existence
to the magnanimity and awesome foresight of its
founding fathers, over zealous executive assistants
are bent upon exploiting religion for their boss’s
benefit. President Bush called Karl Rove the architect
of victory, but what do you call a person who
tried to chip away at the very soul of a great
nation and the basis of its strength, its sacred
value of keeping religion out of politics?
Epilogue: While standing next to the visiting
US Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice, Pakistan’s
Foreign Minister, Khurshid Mehmud Kasuri declared
that minorities in Pakistan had equal rights.
The fact the Ms. Rice did not raise eyebrows indicated
that she was being polite to her host. But ironically,
none of the reporters accompanying the Secretary
questioned the Foreign Minister over Pakistan’s
statutes that prohibit non-Muslim Pakistanis from
seeking nation’s top jobs. Obviously, these
reporters were either under the effect of a jet
lag or had not done ground work before embarking
on the trip.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
