Pakistan on the crossroads

Interview: Dr Javed Iqbal

‘One thing is certain: Neither Iqbal nor the Quaid were for a theocratic state’

With his vast knowledge on ideology of Pakistan and related issues, together with his immense scholarly depth and creativity, Justice (Retd) Javed Iqbal is probably the most suitable person to shed light as to what was the vision of the founders of Pakistan about the nascent state.

Very daringly, he strongly believes that any attempt return to the medieval ages in the name of Islam has nothing to do with the Quaid’s vision for Pakistan. As such his views especially the ones that seek to prick the oversized balloon of Pakistan’s ideology often pit him against the self-styled custodians of ideological frontiers right now.

In an exclusive interview with DNA, Dr. Javed Iqbal holds that Pakistan right now needs creativity and not traditionalism to survive and thrive in the comity of nations. He thinks that it is also high time for the leadership to decide what type of state we want to be.

Excerpts from the interview:

Q: Is this the Quaid’s Pakistan – the one visualized by the founder of country –and how far have we drifted from his vision?

A: Both Allama Iqbal and the Quaid-i-Azam strongly believed in Ijtehadi model. In fact creation of Pakistan was based on the Ijtehadiinterpretation as opposed to the Taqleedi one. That is the main reason why certain forces subscribing to the Taqleedi model did not approve of the idea of Pakistan or a separate Muslim state initially. These forces only reconciled with the new Muslim state only after its creation with their own agenda of making Pakistan a theocratic state. Pakistan is being threatened by the same forces. But our salvation lies in following the path laid out by the Quaid and Iqbal.

_____________________________________________

‘The Talibanisatiobn is the bane of all problems. In this milieu, we must ensure that all religious sects and minorities are protected. We need to follow the European example. Any dithering or slackening on this count would be suicidal.’

_____________________________________________

If we go through Quaid’s August 11, 1947 speech, it appears as if he favours a secular state outright. But if we compare his other statements and also take into account the Muslim nationalism and spiritual aspirations of local Muslims that were at the heart of Pakistan movement all along, it appeared that Quaid was not at all for a secular state. The Quaid kept this option open ended in fact, leaving it to Ijtehadi interpretation. However, one thing is definite about him: he was not for a theocratic state at all. Nor did Iqbal ever visualise a theocratic state.

Iqbal remained quite critical of the Iranian model. At that time too, Iran was under a theocratic spell. Both Iqbal and the Quaid wanted to see a spiritual democracy thriving in Pakistan. Spiritual democracy is the one in which not only majority community clings to its religious practices but the minorities are fully protected and respected by the majority. There are two options before the leadership again. First, keep the state away from religion which in other words means secularism. Second, ensure that all the minorities have freedom to follow their faith and beliefs.

Iqbal even proposed legislation that banned any hate speech against the founder of any religion. Iqbal’s views in this respect were based on the Charter of Medina.

Pakistani leadership now desperately needs to take certain crucial decisions. It is high time to decide whether we need secularism or we can do with the other option, ensuring respect for all sects. Otherwise we are going to be doomed. Europe did it a long time before us when the various Christian factions fought between themselves, followed by the persecution of Jews and Muslims touched new heights. Finally it was realised that the only enduring solution was recourse to secularism, and separating the religion from state.

In Pakistan we witness extremism growing, and sectarianism has raised its ugly head. The Talibanisatiobn is the bane of all problems. In this milieu, we must ensure that all religious sects and minorities are protected. We need to follow the European example. Any dithering or slackening on this count would be suicidal.

Q: Is the growing Talbanisation or sectarianism compatible with the Quaid’s Pakistan?

A: The Quaid’s ideals have nothing to do with such savage beliefs or attempts at taking Pakistan to the medieval age in the name of Islam. The Quaid was a great modernist like Sir Sayyed Ahmad, Iqbal, Jamal uddin Afghani and Shibli Naumani.

The cabinet formed by the Quaid was full of people from all backgrounds. the Quaid himself was Shia. Look at the rise of of Sir Zafar Ullah Khan despite being an Ahmadi.

_____________________________________________

‘Most political leaders flirted with Islamisation to keep the mullahs quiet and gain legitimacy without being concerned about its consequences.’

_____________________________________________

The recent debate as to who is martyr and who is not was politically motivated, with absolutely nothing in consonance with Islam as interpreted by Iqbal. Pakistan’s future lies in the Ijtehadi interpretation. In case the Taqleedis established their supremacy, it would be the end of the road [for Pakistan]. For Pakistan to stand on its own legs, it needs creative thinking and not traditionalism. Traditionalism, I repeat, is a destructive path for Pakistan.

Q: Where did we falter?

A: At the very outset. First, we lost the Quaid very early. Then next shock was that of Liaquat Ali Khan. Afterwards it was a rule of bureaucrats who never bothered to address the issues sincerely. Political leadership too never tried to fill the vacuum left by the Quaid and Liaquat Ali Khan.

Most political leaders flirted with Islamisation to keep the mullahs quiet and gain legitimacy without being concerned about its consequences. It reflected the hypocrisy of our body politic.

When I returned to Pakistan after completing my studies from abroad, my friend Qudratullah Shahab introduced me to Sikandar Mirza. Sikandar Mirza wanted me to be part of his delegation due to sign the Baghdad Pact. I declined. He then asked me to become member of his Democratic Party. At that time his party was facing opposition from the old Leaguers. But I was not interested in politics. I asked Sikandar Mirza to induct me in newly created Islamic Advisory Council. I was quite amazed at his response. “What you are going to do there? It is a dead horse”

Same was the case of Objective Resolution. It was more of an attempt to appease the clergy than any honest move to bring about an Islamic revolution.

Ironically only Ayub tried to address these real issues. He asked all the intellectuals to come up with their version of ideology of Pakistan. He drafted eight questions and circulated them among all the known intellectuals for their observations. He liked my points. He asked me to convert them into a book. But later political leaders prevailed over him, making him stay away from any tinkering with ideology of Pakistan.

So the question that what kind of state is suitable continues to linger on. And this is the bane of all our ills.

Q: What constitutes our biggest failure?

A: The Quaid-i-Azam laid a great stress on national integration. His speeches and statements reflected this desire. But after his death, nobody tried to create national integration. If any half-hearted attempt was made, it was based upon religion, which only compounded our problems. Iqbal is more popular and read abroad. In Iran, Turkey and Egypt people know more about Iqbal. In Pakistan, Sindhis or Balochis or the Pushtuns have very little to do with Iqbal. Our state never tried to popularize Iqbal or Pakistan’s ideology in other provinces. So Iqbal is more considered as a Punjabi poet.

_____________________________________________

‘The recent debate as to who is martyr and who is not was politically motivated, with absolutely nothing in consonance with Islam as interpreted by Iqbal.’

_____________________________________________

There is no chair of Iqbal in any university outside Punjab. By merely fixing a statue at Alhamra or by observing the Iqbal Day you cannot achieve anything.

The Pakistani state has singularly failed to ensure integration at all levels. That is why initially the defunct USSR used to call us ‘States of Pakistan’ instead of Pakistan.

Q: Any achievement worth remembering that brings us closer to ideals of Quaid?

A: The strengthening of democracy in Pakistan is a great achievement. We can safely declare 2013 as year of change. In this year we witnessed a continuity of democracy in Pakistan. Whether it is the PPP, the PML-N or the PTI in power, what is important is the continuity of the process.

Judiciary played a very important role in preserving and protecting democracy in Pakistan. It has passed judgments that have made difficult for the military now to intervene in politics. Rather it will be embarrassing for the military to take over from a democratically elected government.

Judiciary has also kept itself aloof from the executive. It has exercised its power to use suo moto quite frequently much to the dismay of the executive, while previously the invoking suo moto was avoided it was offensive to the executive. Now the judiciary has overcome this inhibition. This a great change in Pakistan, and something to cheer about.