Poor Mr. Advani
By Dr. Dawood Khan
Chicago, IL


Wait, the sky’s not falling !
Mr. L. K. Advani was perhaps caught up in a rush of emotions: returning to his own birthplace, getting (of all persons) an invitation to Katas Raj temples, and being a gracious guest intent on being a bit too lavish, all in a seductive environment of easing tensions between long-feuding neighbors.
Throwing labels around may be a political pastime but nothing else creates a controversy, or perpetuates one so created, better than some emotionally-charged and poorly understood labels, carelessly and extemporaneously used in complex matters. For his remarks, Mr Advani is being roundly ridiculed and chastised . He has been called even a ‘traitor’, among other things.
On ‘secularism’, Mr. Advani himself carries a lot of baggage. How secular does he suppose his own actions and views have been on a whole range of issues, from Babri Masjid to the communal riots in Gujrat? From his ‘vantage’ point, ‘secularism’ and ‘secular’ perhaps have a different connation. Secularism, as we understand it, is, in essence, excluding religious considerations from public affairs. It is NOT introducing, promoting or encouraging such views.
It’s no secret that Pakistan was created basically on religious grounds – much like Israel was, for instance. That is nothing new: several other religious and ethnic groups have also carved out areas and created independent countries (Bosnia/Herzegovina, Kosovo, East Timur, to name just a few recent ones). Mostly ethnic Republics of the Soviet Union that separated in 1991 to form independent countries represent another set of not too-dissimilar circumstances and conditions. The continuing Chechen struggle is a separatist, religious movement.
There is no question that the bloodshed in the wake of India’s partition has forever tainted the land and the people of both countries. The very nature of Indo-Pak relationship since then is a clear reminder of how lasting and how deep those wounds have been. The fact that minorities have fled Pakistan reflects intolerance, and that communal riots continue in India, a sad recurring challenge to tolerance in democracy. The extremists are not found in just one ethnic group or in only one country.
Whether or not Jinnah himself was ‘secular’ is again no brainer – at least not for those familiar with his biography. He was a worldly (rather than a very religious) person; he may not have been a strictly observant, practicing Muslim or bound by Islamic restrictions and traditions -- if not all his life, but certainly a good part of it. That would qualify him as ‘secular’. His own views may once have been ‘secular’ or may even have been professed to be so, notably when he was not in the throes of trying to create Pakistan, or after the creation of Pakistan, but the effort to create Pakistan can hardly be accepted as ‘secular’.
Being lavish in praise is not without its risks. There have been cases in the US and elsewhere, when people, being effusive about someone or something, have managed to land themselves in trouble by their own words. A recent case in US Congress comes to mind: former Senate Majority leader, Republican Trent Lott, had to resign after his laudatory comments on the 100th birthday of his fellow-Republican Senator Strom Thurmond (South Carolina) that evoked the centenarian’s segregationist (anti-black) past. By the way, Thurmond had not only changed his racial stance since but, as it became public after his death, he had also fathered a child (now a retired teacher) with a black woman at a time when he was publicly known for his strong segregationist philosophy.
There have also been cases of staunch believers in one political philosophy, who chose to abandon it and broke major barriers to achieve things unimaginable. Recall Menachem Begin, an ultra-conservative Israeli Prime Minister (who had long been a staunch anti-Arab) and Anwar Sadat (Egypt) shaking hands, making peace that still holds between their countries. Another example: Richard Nixon, who for of his political life was a dyed-in-wool anti-communist, going to China and establishing relationship that he had himself refused to allow as a Congressman and a Vice President.
I am not suggesting that Mr. Advani’s trip to Pakistan was anywhere near the same league. There is, however, a history of radical politicians from one end going clear across the spectrum to do things on the other end, never expected of them. Some of them can also achieve goals that long eluded those who have spent their lifetime working toward them.
Views change -- must change with reason and for good reason, a sign of rational growth with the ever-changing world, very different from carved-in-stone refusal to learn and modify. Politicians (even veteran politicians) are people too. They grow with time; must grow. Maybe most politicians wouldn’t want to accept this, and certainly Mr. Advani’s critics don’t seem to (particularly within his own party —“et tu, Brute!”), but isn’t Mr. Advani, the religious right, the nationalist, the ultra-conservative, who has put himself between the rock and a hard place, entitled to at least some growth in his view after all these years ?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Editor: Akhtar M. Faruqui
© 2004 pakistanlink.com . All Rights Reserved.