The politics of religion

And its misuse

Prime Minister’s declarations to evolve a liberal society in our country have visibly irked our religious organisations that consider it an intrusion into their domain. The government tested the waters by executing the court verdict of hanging Governor Salmaan Taseer’s assassin Mumtaz Qadri. His funeral was attended by more than a hundred thousand charged zealots where he was hailed as a true martyr (shaheed). Luckily, the ritual event passed peacefully.

The launch of the Women Protection Bill, hurriedly pushed through the Punjab Assembly, proved to be the last straw. Some 22 of these diverse groups got together at the Jamat-e-Islami headquarter in Lahore to exhibit a show of strength (and a rare unity). A unanimous challenge was thrown to the government to withdraw the bill, or else. It was soon followed by the JUI-F chief’s unambiguous warning at a press conference that they may not have a numerical majority in the parliament, but they have enough strength to derail the government at will.

Perhaps the PML-N did not take the warning from its political and parliamentary ally too seriously. The Punjab administration timidly succumbed to all demands and allowed the chehlum of Mumtaz Qadri to be held at such a large scale in the heart of Rawalpindi. The Islamabad administration and the interior ministry also naively placed excessive confidence in the verbal and written assurances of the organisers that the assembly will disperse peacefully at the conclusion of the ceremony. If any precautionary, monitoring and contingency measures were planned for action, they proved totally ineffective. The intelligence gathering was inadequate and perhaps even misleading. The level of flaming passions and the intents were underestimated. A repetition similar to the 126-day PTI siege of D-Chowk and red zone was allowed to reoccur. Obviously, we never learn from history and never make amends to our mistakes.

The outcome has been devastating. Normal activities in Islamabad were crippled for four days. The mob leaders fearlessly made inflammatory speeches against the government and drew an unlikely parallel to the siege to Jang-e-Badar and Karbala. We provided the whole world (and our public) another spectacle to classify us as an ungovernable state where small groups of agitators can create a chaos that can potentially topple the government and the state does not possess the capacity to preempt or prevent them.

Almost seven decades later since our inception in 1947, our people are still divided over the philosophy of the existence of our nation in the Islamic republic. Time and again minority religious groups have sought to assert themselves over the majority by using religion as a political tool. Historically, the Islamic religious groups of various schools of thought in undivided India had conscientiously objected to the carving out of a new state for Muslims from the Hindu majority India. This was based on the doctrine of Islamic state to be universal with no boundaries. It is the same concept that is now propagated by the Taliban and the ISIS. The same groups that had opposed the ideology of Pakistan have prospered in the new state. Some of them have persisted in confusing us in an ideological (but politically motivated) coercion.

Ironically, it was a flamboyant, strong, liberal and secular leader such as Mr Z A Bhutto who were instrumental in setting this trend. He surrendered to the pressure from the religious parties and got the status of Qadianis constitutionally redefined as non-Muslims through an act of Parliament in 1974 (although this community had overwhelmingly voted for the PPP). Later in 1977, he prohibited the sale of alcohol and made Friday a weekly holiday in order to appease the right wing PNA movement. For the first time, the position of the religious parties as a political force was reinstated and their confidence was restored. They have never looked back.

General Ziaul Haq reinforced it further and pushed the nation further into religious fundamentalism. Scared by communism knocking on our door and the influx of refugees, he chose to interfere in Afghanistan by assisting the resistance to the Russian occupation. This region was not on the US radar of primary interests till 1980. As luck would have it, a Texan Congressman by the name of Charlie Wilson was heading a delegation visiting Islamabad. Almost at the last minute, General Zia managed to persuade him to visit the refugee camps in the vicinity of Peshawar and witness human sufferings there.

The politician sensed an opportunity of personal glory and returned to lobby the American Congress for funds to supply military equipment and anti-aircraft weapons to the Afghan fighters to combat the communists. CIA was happy to get funding to launch its biggest ever covert ‘Operation Cyclone’ that continued both during the Carter and Reagan administrations. Our religious leaders termed it a jihad against the infidels and encouraged students from their seminaries to join the Afghans in their armed struggle. This jihad has never left its footprints from our lives since.

The Soviets decided to withdraw, accepting the invasion of Afghanistan a mistake. But the Americans never really left as they had to capitalise on their investment by turning this region into a playing field for their covert and overt networks. Our country was saddled with millions of Afghan refugees playing havoc with our social imbalance, crime and terror. The returning mujahideen were now jobless with a highly developed taste and skills in guerilla warfare and the deeply ingrained concept of jihad that has since grown to become the most misinterpreted element of our religion.

Their comradeships developed during the Afghan fighting gave birth to the Pakistani version of Taliban that has claimed sympathies and patronage of most religious and a few of our political parties. They had access to arms suppliers and sanctuaries in our tribal areas extending deep into the country. These misguided souls have sought to legitimise, under the head of their version of jihad, all evils like torture, kidnapping, rape, murder and sacrificing young children in suicide bombings. A few seminaries such as Lal Masjid collected large cache of arms and ammunitions and assumed the role of a state within a state. They have become so powerful and inaccessible that even an army dictator, such as General Pervez Musharaf, and the two successive governments (and our judicial system) have failed to dislodge this and other banned organisations.

Somehow, democracy has come to be interpreted as a free for all in our country. Our state has failed to define, control and impose limitations on the speech or actions that go beyond or infringe on national security or national interests. Provocative speeches from the pulpits were tolerated. Seminaries were allowed to function unchecked and receive substantial foreign funding utilised to promote sectarian differences. Anti-state elements, attacking security installations and mercilessly killing innocent men, women and even young children, were embraced as faithful Muslims. Periodic attacks on schools, parks and markets killing scores and injuring hundreds are accepted with symbolic customary grief but an outrage and the public determination to eliminate these people from our ranks has sadly failed to emerge.

Our religious organisations have grown so powerful and resourceful that they can challenge the writ of the government and seek influence in major policy decisions. Governments are run by actions and not opinions. The West could not develop economically until it separated church from the state. We also have to understand that religion is a matter between man and Allah. Ulema’s job is to spread knowledge (ilm). Statecraft is better left with the politicians. It is time to start a serious public debate on how we can introduce reformation to separate the role of religion from state.