Whose ideology is it anyway?
by Nadeem F. Paracha on 02 9th, 2011 | Comments (25)
Photo courtesy: Creative Commons
The following is what Sindhi nationalist leader and scholar, G.M. Syed, said about Pakistan’s future – and mind you, he said this way back in the summer of 1953: “In the years to come, Pakistan will not only become a problem for itself, but it will pose a danger to the world at large.”
Now how prophetic is that? Very. However, he was not the only one in those days casting a pessimistic shadow across the possible future of the newly-founded country. Those who agreed with Syed were were various Bengali and Baloch nationalists along with Pakhtun nationalist icon, Bacha Khan.
So what exactly were they reacting to? The answer to this question is quite simple and it is the answer to this that between 1947 and at least up until the late 1980s, it made an assortment of military dictators, politicians, ideologues and even some intellectuals denounce men like G M. Syed and Bacha Khan as traitors.
Very early on such Sindhi, Pakhtun, Baloch and Bengali nationalists and thinkers had started to raise an alarm about the cosmetic nature of what was beginning to be devised by the state as ‘Pakistan’s ideology.’
Starting with the 1949 Objectives Resolution, which for the first time introduced religion as a binding force for the young nation, men like Syed and other ethnic-nationalist icons correctly saw through the beginnings of a process which they feared the ruling elite would try to bulldoze an awkward reality with an invented illusion.
The awkward reality that was to be suppressed had to do with the fact that Pakistan was not exactly a single nation with a single language. It was a diverse country with multiple ethnicities, religions and sects. Each one of these had their own literature, language, culture and interpretation of faith, society and history.
The invented illusion in this respect was a monolithic, state-sponsored strain of faith that was to be imposed over ethnic and sectarian diversities described as dangerous cleavages by the state.
Logically speaking, constructing state-level unity out of this diversity should have been attained by providing a generous degree of democratic autonomy to the provinces. But instead of taking the logical democratic route in this context, the ruling elite began seeing this diversity as an existentialist and political threat to the country.
___________________________
It is interesting to note that there is little or no evidence to suggest that there was ever a concrete plan to immediately turn Pakistan into an Islamic state.
However, when agitation by Bengali nationalists in former East Pakistan over the issue of making Urdu the national language broke out, this suddenly triggered the government to officially introduce certain theocratic concepts in the 1949 Objectives Resolution.
Even though these were no more than an eye-wash and the Pakistani leadership and society remained largely secular in orientation, but men like GM Syed and Bacha Khan were quick to sight a dangerous trend. To them the ruling elite was now willing to use religion to suppress ethnic aspirations.
The state and the ‘establishment’ of Pakistan painstakingly constructed this supposed ideology, so much so that (ever since the 1980s) it eventually started being used by intelligence agencies, certain politico-religious parties, and media personnel to actually justify the folly of the Pakistan state and military for patronising brutal Islamist organisations.
_________________________
But whose ideology is it, anyway?
Until about the late 1960s it was normal to suggest that Pakistan as an idea was carved out as a country for the Muslims of the subcontinent who were largely seen (by Jinnah), as a distinct cultural set of Indians whose political and cultural distinctiveness might have been compromised in a post-colonial ‘Hindu-dominated’ set-up.
As Jinnah went about explaining his vision of what Pakistan was supposed to mean, there are no doubts about the historical validity of the notion that he imagined the new country as a cultural haven for the Muslims of the subcontinent where the state and religion would remain separate, driven by a form of modern democracy that incorporated the egalitarian concepts of Islam such as charity, equality and interfaith tolerance.
According to Professor Aysha Jalal, Jinnah’s view of Islamic activism in the subcontinent was akin to him fearing that Islamic zealots would harm the national cause.
However, in spite of the fact that a number of speeches by Jinnah can be quoted in which he is heard envisioning Pakistan as a progressive and non-theocratic Muslim state, there are, at the same time, examples of speeches by the same man (especially in the Punjab and the former NWFP), where he actually uses terms like Shariah and Islamic state.
No matter how intense the debate between those who saw him as a secular, liberal Muslim and those who claim that he was okay with the idea of Pakistan being turned into a theocratic state, the truth is, we might never really know exactly what it was that Jinnah actually stood for.
____________________________
Jinnah’s death in 1948 reduced his party the Muslim League from being a dynamic organisation of visionary action, into a rag-tag group of self-serving politicians.
Gone too was the party’s ability to bring into policy the modernist aspects of Jinnah’s otherwise rather woolly vision. The idea of a progressive Muslim country got increasingly muddled and shouted down by the once anti-Pakistan Islamic forces.
The Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) went on a rampage in 1953 in Lahore, hungrily overseeing the country’s first major anti-Ahmadi riots. By now, the famous speech by Jinnah in which he underlined the idea of religious freedom in the new country was conveniently forgotten as the ruling elite grappled confusingly with the crises.
Eventually, it caved in to the demands of the handful of vocal Islamic leaders by officially declaring the country as an ‘Islamic Republic’ in the 1956 Constitution.
It was classic ostrich behaviour; the sort a number of Pakistani leaders have continued to demonstrate whenever faced with the question of Pakistan and its relationship to politicised faith.
In 1956, misunderstanding Islamist activism as mere emotionalism, the ruling elite gave the Islamists a bone to play with, without bothering to explain to the rest of the people exactly what an Islamic Republic really meant in the Pakistani context – a country comprising of a number of ethnicities, ‘minority religions,’ and distinct Islamic sects.
Democracy in this case should have been a natural answer. But for the Islamists, democracy meant the emergence of ethnic and religious plurality that would encourage secular politics and further undermine the new-found notion of the Islam-centric Pakistani nationhood.
_______________________________
But was democracy really the answer to such a dilemma? After all, the second major step towards the widespread Islamisation of politics and society was actually taken during a democratically-elected left-liberal regime in the 1970s.
Stung and confused by the separation of the former East Pakistan and witnessing the collapse of Jinnah’s ‘Two-nation theory,’ the Z.A. Bhutto regime set about putting into practice the idea of socio-political and economic regeneration.
This idea saw the regime trying to synthesise socialist and nationalist populism with political Islam.
In 1973, the government invited a number of nationalist intellectuals and Islamic scholars for a conference in Islamabad, asking them to thrash out a more defined and well-rounded version of Pakistan’s ideology that would help the state and the government in salvaging the country’s lost pride (after the 1971 defeat in East Pakistan) and also help it keep whatever that was left of Pakistan, intact.
By the end of the conference, both secular and Islamic intellectuals concluded that Islam should clearly be defined as the core thought in the constitution and polity of Pakistan. Recommendations were made to promote this core idea through the state-owned media, school text books and government policies.
Pakistan was renamed as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in the 1973 constitution while in 1974 the Bhutto regime (on the insistence of the religious parties), outlawed the Ahmadies as an Islamic sect.
Furthermore, although the government and society (until about 1977) remained largely secular and modernist, the idea of an Islamic state put forward by a government-sponsored conference ironically turned into a rallying cry for religious parties during their 1977 movement against Bhutto.
While Bhutto (like Anwar Sadat of Egypt) was busy taking to task his largely exaggerated communist, far-left and ethnic opponents, religious parties who had been sidelined after the 1970 elections began filling the political and social vacuum created by Bhutto’s strong-arm tactics against leftist student and trade unions and Baloch and Pakhtun nationalists.
Again very much like Sadat, some historians also maintain that Bhutto was allowed the mushrooming of Islamist student groups on campuses to subdue his opponents on the left.
The result? After badly shaken by the Islamist resurgence he himself had (albeit indirectly) set into motion, he was heckled all the way to the gallows by the very forces he had tried to appease.
Ziaul Haq and his reactionary regime that is correctly blamed for finally turning the Pakistani society and politics on its head with his controversial laws and acts in the name of faith, was really just a symptom of what that 1973 conference had suggested as an ideology.
_______________________________
Many years and follies later, and in the midst of unprecedented violence being perpetrated in the name of Islam, Pakistanis today stand more confused and flabbergasted than ever before.
The seeds of the ideological schizophrenia sowed by the 1956 proclamation followed by the disastrous doings of the Ziaul Haq dictatorship in the 1980s, have now grown into a crooked tree that only bares delusions and denials as fruit.
As Islamic parties and reactionary journalists continue to use the flimsy historical narrative of Pakistan’s Islamic state-ism – and consciously burying the harrowing truth behind the chaos the so-called ‘Islamic ideology of Pakistan’ has managed to create – a whole generation is growing up to this cosmetic ideological narrative.
This narrative has continued to alienate not only religious minorities and various ethnicities (mainly Sindhi, Baloch and now even the ‘mohajirs), it has created intolerance within various Muslim sects as well.
Recent examples in this respect is the way many puritanical Sunni Islamic groups reacted to conservative political leader Mian Nawaz Sharif’s statement sympathising with the plight of the Ahmadis.
In fact, even when the political leaders of all Muslim sects living in Pakistan do get together for a political cause, the state-constructed and all-encompassing Islamic narrative fails to mend the cracks present between the sects.
For example, during the 1977 movement of religious parties against Bhutto, leaders of these parties refused to pray behind one another during a break at a press conference at the Karachi Press Club.
Recently, during a rally against amendments against the Blasphemy Law, though Barelvi, Deobandi, Ahel-e-Hadith and Shia leaders joined hands, there were reports that Shia speakers were heckled by the supporters of radical Sunni groups. In addition, one of Pakistan’s foremost Islamic scholars, Javed Ahmed Ghamdi, has quietly flown out of the country in a self-imposed exile.
Ghamdi was facing a number of threats from certain puritanical Islamic groups.
His sin? He stood out as a mainstream Islamic scholar who was willing to bank on reason and a modern interpretive take on the holy book, eschewing the myopic literalism of the puritanical groups and of political Islam.
In other words, it seems the so-called Islam-centric ideology of Pakistan that began as a modernist and reformist project, has gradually regressed to such an extent that even the idea of having an informed debate on the subject of faith has become a taboo.
Nadeem F. Paracha is a cultural critic and senior columnist for Dawn Newspaper and Dawn.com.
The views expressed by this blogger and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.
PSPUVACHA says:
February 9, 2011 at 17:09
NFP,, you’re an amazing guy!! But you must make some conscious efforts to get your message across the to masses who are the ones being shephered by the religious parties because as you can see most people on this forum totally agree with your point of view.. but the people on this forum on are in minority and they cant do much.. wait a minute .. on the other hand may be they just might ignite a spark which can lead to a revolution like it happened in tunisia or egypt.. eitiher way.. keep your good work up.. and you never know one day your voice might actually might be heard
all the best
Reply
zeeshan says:
February 9, 2011 at 16:52
paracha…i wonder what purpose you serve by spreading so much pessimism and hopelessness through your writings?
bashing the very roots of the country you live in all the time…
i have been to india more than once and believe me life for ordinary citizen here in Pakistan is way much better than any middle and lower middle class citizens in india can wish for.
Minus the political failures this country has thrived tremendously since its birth in every walk of life..
GM syed and bacha khan’s ideology is better understood by the people who followed their ideologies for 50 years and they see hope at the end of the tunnel .
Reply
BRR says:
February 9, 2011 at 18:25
Please continue to believe that, if that makes you happy. How does that solve your situation in Pakistan is perhaps not important to you.
Reply
Lobster says:
February 9, 2011 at 17:23
“i have been to india more than once and believe me life for ordinary citizen here in Pakistan is way much better than any middle and lower middle class citizens in india can wish for.”
Why should anybody believe anything you say?
Reply
Amjad Wyne says:
February 9, 2011 at 18:24
Why should anyone listen to a lobster known to change its color the moment it finds itself in hot water.
Reply
Bill says:
February 9, 2011 at 16:28
Hi Nadeem,
Nice piece of facts, i will track your articles in future. Always interested in history as it shapes today. Cheers.
Reply
A Chowdhury says:
February 9, 2011 at 16:09
There is a zombie out there … by that I mean the mullahs have infected the society with suicide bombers and zealots who are nothing but zombies !!
Reply
rationalist says:
February 9, 2011 at 15:24
An utter sense of hopelessness – that is what I read in every NFP article. Sure, he wants to drive key messages into the heads of larger and larger number of people, and turn the tide. And I am fully on board on the message itself.
But I wonder if it is possible to make some predictions. Will Pakistan keep collapsing, and turn into a black hole of ignorance and extreme religiosity? Or, will democracy gradually take root, faltering now and them, seemingly in an endless cycle of crisis and despondency that India went through for decades, and continues even now? I hope it is the latter. Maybe the situation is not so hopeless anyway.
Reply
sharma says:
February 9, 2011 at 16:24
The despondency in India regarding democracy was only expressed once when Indira Gandhi imposed emergency. Indian people responded bravely and now no one can fiddle with our democracy . The greatest challenge to democracy in Pakistan is fedual system which does not seem to be amnable to change as of yet.
Reply
Tim says:
February 9, 2011 at 15:12
Sad reading
its such an irony that even after 63 years of inception of Pakistan,we are not clear as to why it was created? There is so much smoke and ambiguity and the more we analyze history, the more we get confused. It seems that there was never a clear agenda. Simultaneously, future looks pretty uncertain.
A true but bitter article.
Reply
Mahrukh Husain says:
February 9, 2011 at 15:03
This is so true. Due to a lack of foresight on behalf of the ruling elite over the past few decades, we have regressed to a point where you run the risk of getting shot at if you so much as utter even a few syllables in favor of having an informed debate on religion and its practices. However, the question remains… will we ever get out of this quagmire?
Reply
samyak gowda says:
February 9, 2011 at 14:49
“As Jinnah went about explaining his vision of what Pakistan was supposed to mean, there are no doubts about the historical validity of the notion that he imagined the new country as a cultural haven for the Muslims of the subcontinent where the state and religion would remain separate, driven by a form of modern democracy that incorporated the egalitarian concepts of Islam such as charity, equality and interfaith tolerance.”
This is funny. All the above factors that you claim Jinnah quoted as the reasons for creating Pakistan are available in India, more than they are in Pakistan.
Why are charity, equality and interfaith tolerance islamic concepts? In fact anybody will agree that a polytheistic religion by definition is tolerant. Charity is a human concept. Interfaith tolerance is exemplified in India which has thousands of ways to god (you must read about Basavanna, Din-elahi, Acharyas among many others) and has given birth to three more religions (Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism) peacefully.
Reply
S.A. Ahmed says:
February 9, 2011 at 14:30
It is really sad to see scholars like Ghamdi who can make a difference are being hounded out of the country by the intolerant zealots. We need more sane and progressive voices to speak out and take a stand but “Jaan Sab Ko Pyari Hai”. Where do we go from here?
Reply
Suyash says:
February 9, 2011 at 13:51
Dear NFP, I am a regular follower of your blog and a great admirer of your clear thoughts and crisp analysis. Gives a great insight of pakistan. Very few such avenues are available for an outsider like me.
Thank you.
Reply
faisal says:
February 9, 2011 at 13:36
God bless you man.
Reply
Observer says:
February 9, 2011 at 13:23
From the views expressed here in the article the writer looks more confused .
Reply
Rajeesh says:
February 9, 2011 at 13:21
Hi Nadeem
Great article.
Sometime in the past I had read a conspiracy theory which says that because of the political situation of the late 1940s, the British(a prominent military power then) were rather very happy to have the buffer of an Islamic state between India and Russia.
According to this theory the western powers did not want Russia to import communism to India. The Hindu India may get easily carried away by communism. And so they kept Pakistan as a buffer and nurtured pro-Islamic ideology there post independence.
This maybe just pure absurdity. But then when you look at it from a wider angle, many things fit in rather easily. Post perestroika this fear of communism has gone down among the west, so they now try to meddle in Pakistan and keep themselves safe from extremists (which they themselves help flourish at an ideological level).
Rajeesh
Reply
kapil says:
February 9, 2011 at 15:26
This is pure absursity, have no doubts. Jinnah and the leaugue wanted a seperate state for muslims and the english had repetedly over ruled it.
But for the heartless direct action day that had millions dead, the british would have never submitted to the two nation theory.
Reply
kapil says:
February 9, 2011 at 15:27
i forgot to mention that the congress agreed to two nation theory first before the english.
Reply
kamaljit Singh says:
February 9, 2011 at 13:19
Good article by Mr. Pracha
After exhorting the Indian Muslims for creation of Pakistan based on religious sentiments, Mr Jinnah made a complete u- turn in the constituent assembly by declaring that religion has nothing to do with the affairs of the state. This left the common man puzzled and leaders as well. Mr. Jinnah declared that “Muslman musibat mein ghabrata nahin hai.” He used the word ‘Musalman’ not Pakistani. Mr Jinnah could not create dedicated and visionary second – in command. He was not sure for the direction of the new country. He proved not a visionary by advocating Urdu as national language ignoring majority of Bengalis.
Kamaljit Singh
Reply
samyak gowda says:
February 9, 2011 at 14:59
correct.
Reply
PRADEEP BHATIA says:
February 9, 2011 at 13:11
Completely in agreement. But what can be the remedy. Guess it’s too late for the damage to be undone.
Reply
deep says:
February 9, 2011 at 13:03
I know Zardari is a general disappointment for everyone but his inaction on everything is a good thing for Pakistan. He will be remembered as the president who saved Pakistan through inaction.
I think Pakistan through writers such as yourself is taking stock of where they are and who is responsible for what.
Reply
Imran Faroukh says:
February 9, 2011 at 12:31
It would be sad,,but as things are going on in Pakistan,,,it seems it would crumble under the weight of its own contradictions.
Reply
Mazhar says:
February 9, 2011 at 12:27
Top article again, NFP. well thought out and articulated. Yes, exactly whose ideology is it anyway?
On a side note, I find NFP to be one of the very free pro-PPP journos who is not only willing to support parties like ANP and MQM, but I love the way he tears into the myth of Z A. Bhutto as a progressive.
Reply
by Nadeem F. Paracha on 02 9th, 2011 | Comments (25)
Photo courtesy: Creative Commons
The following is what Sindhi nationalist leader and scholar, G.M. Syed, said about Pakistan’s future – and mind you, he said this way back in the summer of 1953: “In the years to come, Pakistan will not only become a problem for itself, but it will pose a danger to the world at large.”
Now how prophetic is that? Very. However, he was not the only one in those days casting a pessimistic shadow across the possible future of the newly-founded country. Those who agreed with Syed were were various Bengali and Baloch nationalists along with Pakhtun nationalist icon, Bacha Khan.
So what exactly were they reacting to? The answer to this question is quite simple and it is the answer to this that between 1947 and at least up until the late 1980s, it made an assortment of military dictators, politicians, ideologues and even some intellectuals denounce men like G M. Syed and Bacha Khan as traitors.
Very early on such Sindhi, Pakhtun, Baloch and Bengali nationalists and thinkers had started to raise an alarm about the cosmetic nature of what was beginning to be devised by the state as ‘Pakistan’s ideology.’
Starting with the 1949 Objectives Resolution, which for the first time introduced religion as a binding force for the young nation, men like Syed and other ethnic-nationalist icons correctly saw through the beginnings of a process which they feared the ruling elite would try to bulldoze an awkward reality with an invented illusion.
The awkward reality that was to be suppressed had to do with the fact that Pakistan was not exactly a single nation with a single language. It was a diverse country with multiple ethnicities, religions and sects. Each one of these had their own literature, language, culture and interpretation of faith, society and history.
The invented illusion in this respect was a monolithic, state-sponsored strain of faith that was to be imposed over ethnic and sectarian diversities described as dangerous cleavages by the state.
Logically speaking, constructing state-level unity out of this diversity should have been attained by providing a generous degree of democratic autonomy to the provinces. But instead of taking the logical democratic route in this context, the ruling elite began seeing this diversity as an existentialist and political threat to the country.
___________________________
It is interesting to note that there is little or no evidence to suggest that there was ever a concrete plan to immediately turn Pakistan into an Islamic state.
However, when agitation by Bengali nationalists in former East Pakistan over the issue of making Urdu the national language broke out, this suddenly triggered the government to officially introduce certain theocratic concepts in the 1949 Objectives Resolution.
Even though these were no more than an eye-wash and the Pakistani leadership and society remained largely secular in orientation, but men like GM Syed and Bacha Khan were quick to sight a dangerous trend. To them the ruling elite was now willing to use religion to suppress ethnic aspirations.
The state and the ‘establishment’ of Pakistan painstakingly constructed this supposed ideology, so much so that (ever since the 1980s) it eventually started being used by intelligence agencies, certain politico-religious parties, and media personnel to actually justify the folly of the Pakistan state and military for patronising brutal Islamist organisations.
_________________________
But whose ideology is it, anyway?
Until about the late 1960s it was normal to suggest that Pakistan as an idea was carved out as a country for the Muslims of the subcontinent who were largely seen (by Jinnah), as a distinct cultural set of Indians whose political and cultural distinctiveness might have been compromised in a post-colonial ‘Hindu-dominated’ set-up.
As Jinnah went about explaining his vision of what Pakistan was supposed to mean, there are no doubts about the historical validity of the notion that he imagined the new country as a cultural haven for the Muslims of the subcontinent where the state and religion would remain separate, driven by a form of modern democracy that incorporated the egalitarian concepts of Islam such as charity, equality and interfaith tolerance.
According to Professor Aysha Jalal, Jinnah’s view of Islamic activism in the subcontinent was akin to him fearing that Islamic zealots would harm the national cause.
However, in spite of the fact that a number of speeches by Jinnah can be quoted in which he is heard envisioning Pakistan as a progressive and non-theocratic Muslim state, there are, at the same time, examples of speeches by the same man (especially in the Punjab and the former NWFP), where he actually uses terms like Shariah and Islamic state.
No matter how intense the debate between those who saw him as a secular, liberal Muslim and those who claim that he was okay with the idea of Pakistan being turned into a theocratic state, the truth is, we might never really know exactly what it was that Jinnah actually stood for.
____________________________
Jinnah’s death in 1948 reduced his party the Muslim League from being a dynamic organisation of visionary action, into a rag-tag group of self-serving politicians.
Gone too was the party’s ability to bring into policy the modernist aspects of Jinnah’s otherwise rather woolly vision. The idea of a progressive Muslim country got increasingly muddled and shouted down by the once anti-Pakistan Islamic forces.
The Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) went on a rampage in 1953 in Lahore, hungrily overseeing the country’s first major anti-Ahmadi riots. By now, the famous speech by Jinnah in which he underlined the idea of religious freedom in the new country was conveniently forgotten as the ruling elite grappled confusingly with the crises.
Eventually, it caved in to the demands of the handful of vocal Islamic leaders by officially declaring the country as an ‘Islamic Republic’ in the 1956 Constitution.
It was classic ostrich behaviour; the sort a number of Pakistani leaders have continued to demonstrate whenever faced with the question of Pakistan and its relationship to politicised faith.
In 1956, misunderstanding Islamist activism as mere emotionalism, the ruling elite gave the Islamists a bone to play with, without bothering to explain to the rest of the people exactly what an Islamic Republic really meant in the Pakistani context – a country comprising of a number of ethnicities, ‘minority religions,’ and distinct Islamic sects.
Democracy in this case should have been a natural answer. But for the Islamists, democracy meant the emergence of ethnic and religious plurality that would encourage secular politics and further undermine the new-found notion of the Islam-centric Pakistani nationhood.
_______________________________
But was democracy really the answer to such a dilemma? After all, the second major step towards the widespread Islamisation of politics and society was actually taken during a democratically-elected left-liberal regime in the 1970s.
Stung and confused by the separation of the former East Pakistan and witnessing the collapse of Jinnah’s ‘Two-nation theory,’ the Z.A. Bhutto regime set about putting into practice the idea of socio-political and economic regeneration.
This idea saw the regime trying to synthesise socialist and nationalist populism with political Islam.
In 1973, the government invited a number of nationalist intellectuals and Islamic scholars for a conference in Islamabad, asking them to thrash out a more defined and well-rounded version of Pakistan’s ideology that would help the state and the government in salvaging the country’s lost pride (after the 1971 defeat in East Pakistan) and also help it keep whatever that was left of Pakistan, intact.
By the end of the conference, both secular and Islamic intellectuals concluded that Islam should clearly be defined as the core thought in the constitution and polity of Pakistan. Recommendations were made to promote this core idea through the state-owned media, school text books and government policies.
Pakistan was renamed as the Islamic Republic of Pakistan in the 1973 constitution while in 1974 the Bhutto regime (on the insistence of the religious parties), outlawed the Ahmadies as an Islamic sect.
Furthermore, although the government and society (until about 1977) remained largely secular and modernist, the idea of an Islamic state put forward by a government-sponsored conference ironically turned into a rallying cry for religious parties during their 1977 movement against Bhutto.
While Bhutto (like Anwar Sadat of Egypt) was busy taking to task his largely exaggerated communist, far-left and ethnic opponents, religious parties who had been sidelined after the 1970 elections began filling the political and social vacuum created by Bhutto’s strong-arm tactics against leftist student and trade unions and Baloch and Pakhtun nationalists.
Again very much like Sadat, some historians also maintain that Bhutto was allowed the mushrooming of Islamist student groups on campuses to subdue his opponents on the left.
The result? After badly shaken by the Islamist resurgence he himself had (albeit indirectly) set into motion, he was heckled all the way to the gallows by the very forces he had tried to appease.
Ziaul Haq and his reactionary regime that is correctly blamed for finally turning the Pakistani society and politics on its head with his controversial laws and acts in the name of faith, was really just a symptom of what that 1973 conference had suggested as an ideology.
_______________________________
Many years and follies later, and in the midst of unprecedented violence being perpetrated in the name of Islam, Pakistanis today stand more confused and flabbergasted than ever before.
The seeds of the ideological schizophrenia sowed by the 1956 proclamation followed by the disastrous doings of the Ziaul Haq dictatorship in the 1980s, have now grown into a crooked tree that only bares delusions and denials as fruit.
As Islamic parties and reactionary journalists continue to use the flimsy historical narrative of Pakistan’s Islamic state-ism – and consciously burying the harrowing truth behind the chaos the so-called ‘Islamic ideology of Pakistan’ has managed to create – a whole generation is growing up to this cosmetic ideological narrative.
This narrative has continued to alienate not only religious minorities and various ethnicities (mainly Sindhi, Baloch and now even the ‘mohajirs), it has created intolerance within various Muslim sects as well.
Recent examples in this respect is the way many puritanical Sunni Islamic groups reacted to conservative political leader Mian Nawaz Sharif’s statement sympathising with the plight of the Ahmadis.
In fact, even when the political leaders of all Muslim sects living in Pakistan do get together for a political cause, the state-constructed and all-encompassing Islamic narrative fails to mend the cracks present between the sects.
For example, during the 1977 movement of religious parties against Bhutto, leaders of these parties refused to pray behind one another during a break at a press conference at the Karachi Press Club.
Recently, during a rally against amendments against the Blasphemy Law, though Barelvi, Deobandi, Ahel-e-Hadith and Shia leaders joined hands, there were reports that Shia speakers were heckled by the supporters of radical Sunni groups. In addition, one of Pakistan’s foremost Islamic scholars, Javed Ahmed Ghamdi, has quietly flown out of the country in a self-imposed exile.
Ghamdi was facing a number of threats from certain puritanical Islamic groups.
His sin? He stood out as a mainstream Islamic scholar who was willing to bank on reason and a modern interpretive take on the holy book, eschewing the myopic literalism of the puritanical groups and of political Islam.
In other words, it seems the so-called Islam-centric ideology of Pakistan that began as a modernist and reformist project, has gradually regressed to such an extent that even the idea of having an informed debate on the subject of faith has become a taboo.
Nadeem F. Paracha is a cultural critic and senior columnist for Dawn Newspaper and Dawn.com.
The views expressed by this blogger and in the following reader comments do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Dawn Media Group.
PSPUVACHA says:
February 9, 2011 at 17:09
NFP,, you’re an amazing guy!! But you must make some conscious efforts to get your message across the to masses who are the ones being shephered by the religious parties because as you can see most people on this forum totally agree with your point of view.. but the people on this forum on are in minority and they cant do much.. wait a minute .. on the other hand may be they just might ignite a spark which can lead to a revolution like it happened in tunisia or egypt.. eitiher way.. keep your good work up.. and you never know one day your voice might actually might be heard
all the best
Reply
zeeshan says:
February 9, 2011 at 16:52
paracha…i wonder what purpose you serve by spreading so much pessimism and hopelessness through your writings?
bashing the very roots of the country you live in all the time…
i have been to india more than once and believe me life for ordinary citizen here in Pakistan is way much better than any middle and lower middle class citizens in india can wish for.
Minus the political failures this country has thrived tremendously since its birth in every walk of life..
GM syed and bacha khan’s ideology is better understood by the people who followed their ideologies for 50 years and they see hope at the end of the tunnel .
Reply
BRR says:
February 9, 2011 at 18:25
Please continue to believe that, if that makes you happy. How does that solve your situation in Pakistan is perhaps not important to you.
Reply
Lobster says:
February 9, 2011 at 17:23
“i have been to india more than once and believe me life for ordinary citizen here in Pakistan is way much better than any middle and lower middle class citizens in india can wish for.”
Why should anybody believe anything you say?
Reply
Amjad Wyne says:
February 9, 2011 at 18:24
Why should anyone listen to a lobster known to change its color the moment it finds itself in hot water.
Reply
Bill says:
February 9, 2011 at 16:28
Hi Nadeem,
Nice piece of facts, i will track your articles in future. Always interested in history as it shapes today. Cheers.
Reply
A Chowdhury says:
February 9, 2011 at 16:09
There is a zombie out there … by that I mean the mullahs have infected the society with suicide bombers and zealots who are nothing but zombies !!
Reply
rationalist says:
February 9, 2011 at 15:24
An utter sense of hopelessness – that is what I read in every NFP article. Sure, he wants to drive key messages into the heads of larger and larger number of people, and turn the tide. And I am fully on board on the message itself.
But I wonder if it is possible to make some predictions. Will Pakistan keep collapsing, and turn into a black hole of ignorance and extreme religiosity? Or, will democracy gradually take root, faltering now and them, seemingly in an endless cycle of crisis and despondency that India went through for decades, and continues even now? I hope it is the latter. Maybe the situation is not so hopeless anyway.
Reply
sharma says:
February 9, 2011 at 16:24
The despondency in India regarding democracy was only expressed once when Indira Gandhi imposed emergency. Indian people responded bravely and now no one can fiddle with our democracy . The greatest challenge to democracy in Pakistan is fedual system which does not seem to be amnable to change as of yet.
Reply
Tim says:
February 9, 2011 at 15:12
Sad reading
its such an irony that even after 63 years of inception of Pakistan,we are not clear as to why it was created? There is so much smoke and ambiguity and the more we analyze history, the more we get confused. It seems that there was never a clear agenda. Simultaneously, future looks pretty uncertain.
A true but bitter article.
Reply
Mahrukh Husain says:
February 9, 2011 at 15:03
This is so true. Due to a lack of foresight on behalf of the ruling elite over the past few decades, we have regressed to a point where you run the risk of getting shot at if you so much as utter even a few syllables in favor of having an informed debate on religion and its practices. However, the question remains… will we ever get out of this quagmire?
Reply
samyak gowda says:
February 9, 2011 at 14:49
“As Jinnah went about explaining his vision of what Pakistan was supposed to mean, there are no doubts about the historical validity of the notion that he imagined the new country as a cultural haven for the Muslims of the subcontinent where the state and religion would remain separate, driven by a form of modern democracy that incorporated the egalitarian concepts of Islam such as charity, equality and interfaith tolerance.”
This is funny. All the above factors that you claim Jinnah quoted as the reasons for creating Pakistan are available in India, more than they are in Pakistan.
Why are charity, equality and interfaith tolerance islamic concepts? In fact anybody will agree that a polytheistic religion by definition is tolerant. Charity is a human concept. Interfaith tolerance is exemplified in India which has thousands of ways to god (you must read about Basavanna, Din-elahi, Acharyas among many others) and has given birth to three more religions (Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism) peacefully.
Reply
S.A. Ahmed says:
February 9, 2011 at 14:30
It is really sad to see scholars like Ghamdi who can make a difference are being hounded out of the country by the intolerant zealots. We need more sane and progressive voices to speak out and take a stand but “Jaan Sab Ko Pyari Hai”. Where do we go from here?
Reply
Suyash says:
February 9, 2011 at 13:51
Dear NFP, I am a regular follower of your blog and a great admirer of your clear thoughts and crisp analysis. Gives a great insight of pakistan. Very few such avenues are available for an outsider like me.
Thank you.
Reply
faisal says:
February 9, 2011 at 13:36
God bless you man.
Reply
Observer says:
February 9, 2011 at 13:23
From the views expressed here in the article the writer looks more confused .
Reply
Rajeesh says:
February 9, 2011 at 13:21
Hi Nadeem
Great article.
Sometime in the past I had read a conspiracy theory which says that because of the political situation of the late 1940s, the British(a prominent military power then) were rather very happy to have the buffer of an Islamic state between India and Russia.
According to this theory the western powers did not want Russia to import communism to India. The Hindu India may get easily carried away by communism. And so they kept Pakistan as a buffer and nurtured pro-Islamic ideology there post independence.
This maybe just pure absurdity. But then when you look at it from a wider angle, many things fit in rather easily. Post perestroika this fear of communism has gone down among the west, so they now try to meddle in Pakistan and keep themselves safe from extremists (which they themselves help flourish at an ideological level).
Rajeesh
Reply
kapil says:
February 9, 2011 at 15:26
This is pure absursity, have no doubts. Jinnah and the leaugue wanted a seperate state for muslims and the english had repetedly over ruled it.
But for the heartless direct action day that had millions dead, the british would have never submitted to the two nation theory.
Reply
kapil says:
February 9, 2011 at 15:27
i forgot to mention that the congress agreed to two nation theory first before the english.
Reply
kamaljit Singh says:
February 9, 2011 at 13:19
Good article by Mr. Pracha
After exhorting the Indian Muslims for creation of Pakistan based on religious sentiments, Mr Jinnah made a complete u- turn in the constituent assembly by declaring that religion has nothing to do with the affairs of the state. This left the common man puzzled and leaders as well. Mr. Jinnah declared that “Muslman musibat mein ghabrata nahin hai.” He used the word ‘Musalman’ not Pakistani. Mr Jinnah could not create dedicated and visionary second – in command. He was not sure for the direction of the new country. He proved not a visionary by advocating Urdu as national language ignoring majority of Bengalis.
Kamaljit Singh
Reply
samyak gowda says:
February 9, 2011 at 14:59
correct.
Reply
PRADEEP BHATIA says:
February 9, 2011 at 13:11
Completely in agreement. But what can be the remedy. Guess it’s too late for the damage to be undone.
Reply
deep says:
February 9, 2011 at 13:03
I know Zardari is a general disappointment for everyone but his inaction on everything is a good thing for Pakistan. He will be remembered as the president who saved Pakistan through inaction.
I think Pakistan through writers such as yourself is taking stock of where they are and who is responsible for what.
Reply
Imran Faroukh says:
February 9, 2011 at 12:31
It would be sad,,but as things are going on in Pakistan,,,it seems it would crumble under the weight of its own contradictions.
Reply
Mazhar says:
February 9, 2011 at 12:27
Top article again, NFP. well thought out and articulated. Yes, exactly whose ideology is it anyway?
On a side note, I find NFP to be one of the very free pro-PPP journos who is not only willing to support parties like ANP and MQM, but I love the way he tears into the myth of Z A. Bhutto as a progressive.
Reply
No comments:
Post a Comment