Some things do need to be said
I’ve long lamented the propensity of Pakistan’s progressive citizenry to be tempted by the same game, whose rules are fundamentally opposed to their interests.
Recently, the Population Welfare Department of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (KP) has made the decision of inducting about 250 clerics in their campaign to raise awareness about family planning and maternal healthcare. The move is intended to counter the widespread notion that family planning services are repugnant to Islamic laws, and may not be trusted.
Christianity has exerted similar pressures against family planning. Despite the Vatican being the largest private healthcare provider to AIDS victims, Pope Benedict XVII termed condom use as “not a real or moral solution”. Scientifically, it may well be among the most effective means of preventing STD transmission, but surely science beggars the priest’s approval.
Furthermore, the Christian right in the developed world has always been renowned for its antagonism towards contraception and women’s reproductive rights. Angry Christians picketing abortion clinics, and harassing or even assaulting women who dare enter to exercise control over their own uteri, has long been a common sighting in the US. The concept that is sinful to artificially hamper conception and fertilization has been firmly established in many major religious groups.
In Pakistan, where ‘secularism’ continues to be scowled at as a Western conspiracy against human decency, the progressives surrender to the same game that – by its very nature – is rigged against true democratic values and scientific thinking. In situations where the orthodox religious elements antagonize our interests in public health and safety, the most popular policy is to fight fire with fire; namely, by recruiting ‘progressive’ clerics to our own cause.
In the developed world, feminist clerics have congregated to pay homage at the shrine of social liberalism. One end of the movement is populated by Catholic nuns, the likes of Sister Simone Campbell, challenging the acutely patriarchal structure of their religious institutions. On the other, there are controversial women imams in the developed world leading the charge against gender segregation. Similar efforts have been made by followers of the Jewish faith, such as the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance (JOFA).
Progressive theists have made commendable efforts in informing the public that conserving the environment is a goal perfectly compatible with the religious dicta. Morocco has recently decided to revamp 600 mosques so they run exclusively on clean, renewable energy. This effort is intended to offer a religious motive to people who wish to convert to renewable energy, as means of reducing greenhouse gas emission.
Jan-Christophe Kuntze, the project’s chief, said: “We want to raise awareness and mosques are important centres of social life in Morocco. They are a place where people exchange views about all kinds of issues including, hopefully, why renewables and energy efficiency might be a good idea.”
All of these initiatives, however worthy in the short run, betray their primary objective by reinforcing the very system that manufactures these obstacles in the first place. This is a system where the cleric – not the scientist, or the victim of prejudice – has the final say in what a successful public policy might look like.
The expert in the field of sociology, psychiatry, gynecology and obstetrics, climatology, or economics, is stripped of his rightful authority on the subject. A woman subjected to misogynistic practices on a daily basis, and the member of a persecuted minority, are both relieved of their agency. The power cycles back to the privileged theist, whose approval or disapproval is deemed imperative.
The female victim of domestic violence or child marriage may kick and scream all the way down into oblivion. But her suffering is not legitimate, until it has been officially recognized by a ‘good’ cleric, who assures the nation that these practices are indeed reprehensible.
The discourse is not hijacked by the clerics; the discourse is gift-wrapped in a glossy red ribbon and presented before the theistic magistrate by the progressives themselves, because we cannot conceive another way in which a decision may be reached. It is impossible to bypass the mullah in matters that have little pertinence to religion, and a far greater relevance to science and public health.
Instead of making an impassioned argument grounded in reason, the debate is steered into religious waters where belief trumps data.
We don’t need progressive clerics to challenge the regressive ones. We need secular experts challenging the quasi-theocratic model, where all decisions regarding public welfare tend to await the cleric’s approval.
