Colliding visions

Speaking at a Pakistan Military Academy passing-out parade last Saturday, CoAS General Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani made assertions that, to put it politely, were inappropriate and inconsistent with facts. Said he, "let me remind you that Pakistan was created in the name of Islam and Islam can never be taken out of Pakistan. However, Islam should always remain a unifying force." He went on to add that "regardless of odds, the Pakistan Army will keep on doing its best towards our common dream for a truly Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as envisioned by the Quaid-e-Azam and Allama Iqbal."
The refrain of Islam in the address comes at a time the stage is set for national elections. It can easily be read as an attempt to influence the election outcome in favour of certain political parties whilst three mainstream liberal/secular parties - the PPP, the ANP and the MQM - facing a grave threat from violent religious extremists, have already been forced to restrict their campaign activities.
As for the reminder that Pakistan was created in the name of Islam and the advice that it should always remain a unifying force, a recall of relevant history is in order. All religious parties functional in the pre-Independence India, including JUI-F, which the other day vowed to make the election a "direct clash between religious and secular forces", had vehemently opposed the creation of Pakistan arguing that Islam being a universal religion could not be confined within the boundaries of a nation-state. It is pertinent to recall also that neither the 1956 nor the '62 constitution - the second one written by a military ruler General Ayub Khan - used the prefix of Islamic for the country.' It was much later, after the majority Muslim population inhabiting East Pakistan, had gone its separate way to establish Bangladesh that the new '73 Constitution - the framing of which was led by the PPP now under threat from the Taliban - named the country as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.
Islam being the faith of an overwhelming majority of this country's population, of course, "cannot be taken out of Pakistan" but it must not become a tool of oppression in the hands of extremists killing citizens either on their own or at the behest of other countries. Between them the Taliban and various sectarian organisations have killed so many Muslims in the name of Islam that it is difficult to keep a count. The number surely is many times bigger than that of those killed in the various wars this country has fought against its arch rival, India.
Each one of them wants to impose its version of Islam through intimidation and violence. The sectarian strife is not limited to two main sects of Sunni and Shia Muslims. The Sunni sectarian militants, being the followers of Deobandi School of religious thought, have been targeting Sufi shrines revered by the Barelvis, even their Eid Milad-un-Nabi processions. They have also been attacking religious scholars whose interpretations of Islamic teachings they do not like. Encouraged by vested interests inside and outside this country, these elements have turned Islam into something that is to be feared rather than loved and practised as a spiritual force for the good of humankind.
Islam clearly has not proved to be a unifying force. The Bengalis, the vanguard of the struggle for Pakistan, fought a brutal war for independence from the country they had helped create because of a deep sense of economic and political deprivation, and exploitation at the hands of West Pakistan's Punjabi-dominated ruling classes.
The Founding Fathers strove for the establishment of a homeland for the subcontinent's Muslims - as opposed to a theocratic state - so that they would not become a permanent minority in a Hindu majority country, deprived of their economic and political rights - the same reasons that drove the East Pakistanis to cessation. As late as 1946, the Muslim League had accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan which offered a power sharing arrangement within a loose confederation, guaranteeing parity for Hindu and Muslim majority provinces. The Muslim League leadership was amenable to the idea of a united India as long as the Muslims got requisite safeguards. The Plan never took off because the Congress party wouldn't accede to the idea of safeguards. Hence, the Quaid-e-Azam decided to go back to the demand for Pakistan in the face of fierce resistance both by the Congress and the Islamist parties. What defined the Pakistan Movement surely was not the dream of an Islamic state.
The self-appointed guardians of the nation's 'ideological frontiers' make selective references to the Quaid's remarks to contend that he envisioned an Islamic state. Indeed, he invoked religion at certain public meetings to make his case for a new state, but he is also on record to have said that Pakistan will not be a theocratic state. Such comments need to be viewed within the context of time and place.
The Quaid's formal position statement made in his August 11, 1947, speech before the Constituent Assembly envisioned a democratic, tolerant and pluralistic state. In it he emphasised that religion, cast or creed "has nothing to do with the business of the State." More to the point, he cited the example of Britain where he said "Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the nation... We should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State." The ideal he talked of plainly is at odds with the "common dream for the [realisation] of truly Islamic Republic of Pakistan" our Army chief promises to protect and promote. So suggests the historical evidence. In any case, the issue would be best left to politicians and the people of this country to decide.
[email protected]