SIYASAT ARCHIVES

An awakening that's long overdue..

Saturday, July 16, 2005 | 2 comments

by

Qudsia Aziz

"Pakistan ka matlab kiya, la illaha illa lah"

Does this imply the same thing today that it implied 65 years ago? The ideology of Pakistan has become fazed over by half truths and supposed brain-washing arguments over its validity. Today the previously stated phrase is thought to deliver a touch of "Islamic extremism". The remnants of a neocolonial ruling system have weakened our socio-political and economic institutions and diminished our national spirit to an extent of blatant indifference regarding the affairs of the state and government decisions. Those who know, have stopped caring and those who do not know, are either not bothered or do not possess the means to learn.

Pakistan was carved out of British India to allow the people of Muslim-majority regions to shape their own nationhood in a separate nation-state. While addressing his last meeting with the Muslim League in Delhi, Jinnah our founder, asked the Muslims of India to live as loyal citizens of India. He declared Pakistan to be a state of its entire people, regardless of their religion. Rather than basing Pakistan’s entity in conflict with India, he vowed to have friendly relations with India. That was his vision. As opposed to this democratic vision, the nation-building process over the years and the ever-changing somewhat personalized policies of the leaders on both sides, took an authoritarian course and formulated a relationship of revulsion between the two neighbors.

The legitimacy for this power structure was sought by vulgarizing the "two-nation" theory, which had served the purpose of partitioning India, as "ideology of Pakistan". Accordingly, deviating from Quaid’s vision, neither did Pakistan become a republic, nor evolve a positive, affirmative and forceful self-image. Pakistan was neither a peculiarity of history, nor a by-product of British conspiracy, as perceived. It was based on foundations of its people, who wanted to have a separate homeland, and was created out of its struggle for autonomy and a search for identity.

Unfortunately, the notion that Pakistan will not survive reinforced the paranoia of a fear-stricken state of Pakistan. Consequently, differences turned into conflicts and wars were fought. Even if efforts were made to resolve them through negotiations they ended up by being futile and thus the two nations could not build a sound structure of friendship so long as issues like Kashmir remained unresolved. The negative image and the feelings of mutual hatred were propagated and enhanced through the media on both sides.

Pakistan today can be likened to a body disfigured beyond recognition, an outcome of countless experimental surgeries. After more than half a century of such complex relations between India and Pakistan, the leaders at the centre today have finally tried to take a firmer, more effective initiative to improve Indo-Pak relations. What the hour calls for are humble, sincere statesmen. According to a simple Irish saying, "anything that keeps a politician humble is healthy for democracy". It is very easy in politics to take an extreme position, because there is little room for change or question in extremism. The need of the hour is therefore, moderate politicians. Leaders, who mean what they say in a speech and not merely reading out elaborate appeals of patriotism and broken promises to the common masses.

We as a nation have been taken advantage of by those in power for nearly half a century; it is therefore now time to take a stand, and make a conscious effort to awaken ourselves from this slumber of indifference, rather ignorance. Revolutions cannot yield results, progress and advancement cannot be acquired overnight and life cannot transform into something radical, until a decision is taken. A unanimous decision, a determined will possessed by the common and extraordinary alike. The will to bring about a change and settle for nothing less. A change maybe not initially in the form of a political movement in its true essence but more of a personal movement, that movement of a man who looks at himself and tries to make changes within himself to realize and understand his surroundings.

More than Kashmir, Indo-Pak relations remain a hostage to the enmity generated by the Partition. It is the common people who lose the most due to these relations. It is the liberation of Indo-Pak relation from the captivity of hostility that can create a soil of mutual confidence. For South Asia to become a really strong region it is imperative that the two neighbors exhibit greater understanding for each others' interests. What is no less important is that the Muslims in India and Hindus in Pakistan will never become first-rate citizens unless Indo-Pak conflict is resolved. There cannot be any new beginning for South Asia without a friendly relationship between the neighbors. But the separate identities of the two regions must learn to co-exist in a peaceful way. It is required that there be a peace that appeals to the senses. One cannot simply recognize another flag and let go of the existence of one’s own. To quote a local citizen, "There should be friendship that will make one see beyond the eyes of politicians."

The Elusive Reconstruction

Saturday, July 16, 2005 | 0 comments

by

Saad Anis

Two recent incidences have served to bring to the fore, issues brewing just under the surface in Muslim societies worldwide for the better part of a century. These are: the violent disruption of a mixed marathon in Gujranwala by activists of the Mutahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA); and a bill moved in the National Assembly, calling for a ban on women in advertising. Submitted privately by as many as 21 members of the National Assembly — all incidentally belonging to the MMA — the bill calls for a crackdown on parties displaying or publishing "indecent" advertisements.

The MMA contends that such exhibition of women in advertisements in Pakistan is contrary to the teachings of all religions and eastern values, promotes licentiousness, and damages the society. By implication, it is also against the Islamic edicts of "hijab". As the government, by Article 31 of the constitution, is bound to take measures to enable the Muslims of the State to spend their individual and collective lives in consonance with the teachings of the Quran and Sunnah, the MMA argues that depiction of women in advertisements should thus be prohibited by law.

The reaction to the aforementioned incidents from various camps has been predictable. The federal government has rallied to defend its liberalist policies, slamming the MMA for disrupting law and order and adopting a distorted interpretation of Islam. The intelligentsia writing in the scarcely read English dailies has, as per custom, trashed the MMA’s views as obscurantist and narrow-minded, and obfuscating the "true spirit" of Islam. A few from the moderate fold even go on to highlight a dire need for a revision of religious thought in light of modern advancements in technology and learning, in order to accommodate the cultural changes transpiring as a consequence.

Other critics maintain that the MMA should focus on fundamental issues of poverty and education rather than indulge in political manoeuvring by playing the religion card every now and then.

While one may agree that the MMA may have had ulterior motives of soliciting political clout in trumpeting the said incidents, one would nonetheless have to concede that the issues at hand are deeper than petty power play. They highlight the existential dilemma of a culture torn between religious values and modernism, and its feeble efforts to reconcile the two. The tragedy of the Muslim world, and indeed of the entire modern civilisation, is that while it has witnessed mind-blowing advancement in learning over the last five centuries, it has been unable to facilitate an intellectual evolution to compliment this material progress. The outcome is a civilisation with the world at its feet, yet burdened with the moral guilt of somehow having sinned gravely by bringing about astounding material innovation. A stupefying progression in science and technology has made our lives infinitely more comfortable, but the inability of modern philosophy to keep pace with it has caused humanity to feel culpable by virtue of tthat very progression.

The consequence has been lamentably predictable. In the absence of a moral code to harmonise with its current state of development, mankind has invariably gravitated towards materialism, helped in no uncertain terms by relativist philosophers. The heartrending misfortune of our times is that man today has to stand trial in a court of morality for the crime of striving for the most moral of goals; building a better life for himself.

In our society, the blame for this state of affairs falls squarely on the intelligentsia. As in any societal structure, the responsibility of moral and philosophical evolution rests with the intellectual elite. In this case, ours has failed miserably. It is because of this letdown on the part of our thinkers that although one may condemn the MMA’s tactics of trashing marathons and violating the law of the land, one cannot dispute the underlying principle behind their action. Mixed marathons and advertisements flaunting women do indeed go against Islamic values as set by the Quran, Hadith and Fiqh.

If there is to be a reconstruction of religious laws, as the more perspicacious among us are wont to aver, one wonders how it is to be brought about. Whenever the question of the "true sprit" of Islam arises, members of the liberal intelligentsia embark upon vague protracted accounts of a radical revamp of religious legislation. However, not one of them takes the crucial step forward to define exactly what that reconstruction is, what its basis would be, how it is to be brought about and in what specific areas of jurisprudence. The fact that the last consequential work on this subject was undertaken by Iqbal some 80 years ago, amply exhibits the lack of commitment and competence of our intellectuals towards so critical an issue.

Throughout history, there have existed traditionalist elements in society which have vehemently supported established social and theological norms, opposing all innovation for fear of distortion of their pristine ideals. Although one may argue that September 11 had a lot to do with it, the fact is that the MMA came into power with a substantive mandate on the promise of implementing religious laws. With the prevalence of such an air of uncertainty, one cannot possibly blame it for playing its historical part rather well.

We have too long been slave to the paradoxical state of material well-being with a guilt-ridden morality. It is about time that we began to contemplate the implications of questions raised by the MMA, rather than dismiss them as extremist rhetoric.