- The flames keep burning
The government of Pakistan has, over the decades, exhibited a series of misplaced priorities; and facilitating dissident voices is one of them. Being formulated on the basis of a religious ideology at a time when the world was progressing towards liberalisation, the country has neither been able to incorporate religious ethos or formulate a nationalist perspective outside of it. Resultantly, what engenders is a lost national consensus amongst the masses and a fragmented framework by those in the government.
Over the years, the state and government have not only bowed down, but facilitated anti-state narratives and dissident voices whose only aim is to corrupt and pollute the existing system which already hangs in the balance. The state and government perhaps have only ever agreed in these instances. Nonetheless, the state has been rendered helpless amidst persistent differences which have been fed on, successively.
Precedents were set soon after the country gained independence. Pakistan’s first foreign minister, Muhammad Zafarullah Khan was accorded the position owing to his credentials, but these bore no significance when it came to his faith. He represented Pakistan at the United Nations and various other international platforms, and his engagement with Muslim countries was of immense importance, for which Pakistan’s leading daily wrote:
He earned the abiding respect and admiration of the Arab and other Muslim nations as a defender of their interests
But in the grand scheme of things, this had very little significance as he was quickly deposed from being the foreign minister, whereas he continued his services as a diplomat. Soon after, in 1974, the second amendment came which declared the Ahmadiyya community as non-Muslim, and sermons by clerics called for their persecution which led to state-wide protests. The government ‘had to’ protect the sanctity of the religion, the fractured ideology on which the foundations of the country were laid. Just like the state had to ‘buy time’ from the Faizabad protestors and the government had to remove Federal Law Minister Zahid Hamid over a short-of-a-controversial amendment to the Khatam-e-Nabuwat clause in the Election Act 2017.
To say that the matter was borne out of thin air would be to absolve the state and government of what they’ve been spectators to for decades
The removal of a clause is a part of a much diverse debate which uncovers a paticular side of the Pakistani society in specific. This is best characterised by street power, mob rule, all at the hands of influential clergy who knows too well which sentiments of the masses to harness and the strings to pull to exert their influence. With the over-spewing nature of the endless, forgotten Afghan war and a uniform support for the freedom struggles of Kashmiris and Palestinians alike, there is an inherent unrecognised need amongst the people of lesser-known groupings to exert their influence for their recognition as a diverse, albeit integral part of the society. This exasperation of the marginalised, forgotten-under-the system people is unequivocally so influential that it has always outweighed any real progression in politics and has given firm roots to identity politics. But this hasn’t borne out in isolation.
The demand for a separate homeland was legitimised under a theory which stated that two groups, of different origins and practical beliefs, couldn’t gel together as one nation in one country. At the core of human nature is personal identity which spreads on towards collective conscience of a society. The idea of identity politics, therefore, isn’t alien but ubiquitous throughout the world. However, the means of achieving this collective conscience are the determining factors of what the society will be like. In Pakistan, with various channels co-existing and systems of governance weak; there is an overriding prevalence of agitation politics and pressure tactics that determine how the country is to be governed and by whom.
Taking a direct hit against the system that has facilitated these voices, the cricket-star-turn politician, Imran Khan, struggled for over 20 years to emerge as the populist leader. His fight against the status quo, for justice to prevail, and strengthening of institutions is what is primarily seen as the ideologues to correct the perverted system that has caused more marginalisation than bringing people under the umbrella that united them for self-determination in the first place. And now that he is the prime minister, his continuous assurances of ‘not bowing down’ to the extremists have all been met in vain. The removal of Atif Mian as the head of (Muslim) Economic Advisory Council, and putting Asia Bibi on Exit Control List till further trial for mass protests against her acquittal are all an indication of the weak system of governance that continues to prevail, and the legitimacy that is rendered to the violence-backed religious rhetoric. This is an indication of how this facilitation of dissident voices has created gaping holes in the system, which have only been enlarged with continuous penetration.
In a three-day long protest/strike/lock down, the entire society was held hostage, with people living on daily wages being the worst hit. All roads were blocked, people had to go through a series of obstacles to get their bare necessities, stranded people on roads, especially motorway, were harassed and none of the law enforcers could curtail the situation. People’s properties; especially their vehicles were destroyed. As a result of this chaos, two people died. The entire country was agitated and where the acquittal was being celebrated internationally, news of state-wide protests was making headlines too. However, for the first time, electronic media management was appropriate and helped placate confusion and anarchy that would’ve been in full swing with the live-talk-show frenzy.
This doesn’t only affect a direct blow to governance, but also goes on to show how easily domestic consensus can be lost, no matter the years of persuasion. It also highlights that the common ground that legitimises state creation, is also the focal point for its eventual destruction.
To say that the matter was borne out of thin air would be to absolve the state and government of what they’ve been spectators to for decades and the forces that they have unleashed. Here Billy Joel’s lyrics would be appropriate.
We didn’t start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world’s been turning
This fire was ignited a long time ago, and the flames will keep burning. There needs to be a discourse to understand why these flames remain bright, and from time to surface, with even more might and violence.
