Seminaries and the government

They’ll nap on NAP a while longer

That Information Minister Pervez Rashid had to apologise for his ‘provocative comments’ about religious seminaries has once again raised doubts about the government’s commitment to the National Action Plan (NAP). When he called them “centres of ignorance”, it was interpreted in certain circles as the N-league kitchen cabinet finally overcoming its internal paralysis and moving forward on the matter of madrassas.

But the prime minister did not back him. Even when the religious lobby accused him of blasphemy and called for his execution, the government remained silent. That meant, of course, that the statement had been a solo affair. Untypically, the information minister was not talking public policy, rather personal opinion. That or the prime minister backed out of stated policy as pressure mounted, even if that meant leaving Rashid in a potentially Salman Taseer like situation.

Many also wondered if there was any life left in NAP at all.

Not that bad

The government has definitely been slow getting off the mark on NAP, but general criticism tends to overlook some of the good work that has been done.

“A lot is still being done that is not appreciated”, said Amir Rana, director of Pak Institute for Peace Studies (PIPS) and an acknowledged security analyst.

“There is a new counter terrorism department in KP, and a lot of suspects have been rounded up in Punjab, which would not have been possible without NAP’s provisions”.

It must also be understood that the program faced strong headwinds since the beginning and political constraints, just as much as government lethargy, are responsible for some of the delay.

That or the prime minister backed out of stated policy as pressure mounted, even if that meant leaving Rashid in a potentially Salman Taseer like situation

JUI-F challenged the bit about madrassas at the outset. The Supreme Court has still blocked military courts, which were trumpeted by parliament, especially the prime minister. And there continue to be procedural problems regarding sharing responsibility with the provinces.

“Plus there has been significant progress on controlling hate speech and squeezing cyber space for militants”, added Rana.

What they didn’t do

However, that still does not explain the reluctance to tackle madrassas, especially after Ch Nisar promised a host of actions including checking their funding, operations, syllabi, etc.

“Seminaries clearly continue to be holy cows”, said Salman Zaidi, deputy director at Jinnah Institute, an Islamabad based think tank. “There are levels of protection and there continue to be levels of accommodation, so it’s unlikely that any government would be too willing to move against them”.

And, tellingly, the government does not seem too worried that this lack of will is becoming increasingly apparent.

“For example, the Sindh government recently requested the federal government to provide a list of proscribed organisations, but no such thing was forthcoming”, he added. “They did put one up on the interior ministry website earlier, very briefly, and it was taken off very quickly”.

Media silence

Strangely, the media did not take up the matter of the information minister’s statement, and the reaction it generated, too seriously. Usually it is eager enough to flash moments of government weakness, especially regarding something as important as NAP, yet this time was different even though there were open calls for a senior minister’s execution.

“The media has formed a collective consciousness by now”, said Moeed Pirzada, a prominent anchor-analyst. “Even if liberal sections of the media, or society for that matter, had stood up, it would have only served to sensationalise the issue”.

Moderates, according to Pirzada, have realised the futility of taking such stands. There was a time, especially around the ’07 Lal Masjid incident, when “ultra liberals” believed that triggering a head-on clash with the “ultra orthodox” would force change.

Strangely, the media did not take up the matter of the information minister’s statement, and the reaction it generated, too seriously

But coming full circle (2007-13), the ultra liberal lobby that advocated the Lal Masjid operation, among others, quickly melted away. NGOs, liberals and people who agreed with Musharraf’s principled stance no longer backed him. Rights lobbies went mum and there wasn’t a sound out of HRCP, etc.

“Compare the Lal Masjid fallout with the Model Town JIT”, Pirzada said. “However anyone disagreed with Musharraf personally, his action was purely in interest of state. Conversely in Model Town, there was a direct threat to the regime”.

Yet Musharraf is facing trial for treason while Sharif and Sanaullah are exonerated.

These events, among other things, have shaped this collective consciousness that Pirzada mentions. Just like the moderate lobby, it too expected the issue to fizzle out on its own.

“It would have been better to approach the issue with more subtlety”, he added. “The information minister should instead have suggested upgrading the curriculum, including sciences and languages that are now part and parcel of basic education”.

It would have made the ultra orthodox less insecure and also taken less wind out of NAP in the long run.

For the immediate term, though, NAP will need revising if the government’s accomplishments are to match its to-do list. And taking out madrassa reforms means, of course, more power to the ultra orthodox lobby, which in turn means uninterrupted funds from the Gulf, and unscrutinised working of the seminaries.