Islam and the Politics of Pakistan — Part I
By
Imran Kureshi
February 16, 2015
Here is a brief take on my version of the role of
Islam in our polity. First, I would like to mention a book on governance and
violence in Pakistan by Dr Sagheer Hussain, of Bahauddin University, in which
he also deals with this subject. Simplifying what he states and thereby no
doubt doing great injustice to the learned doctor’s treatise, his contention is
that before partition, our institutions (judiciary, police, bureaucracy and
army) received considerable exposure to rational democratic discourse under the
British. But here there is a dichotomy since basically these institutions were
inculcated with and believed in an authoritarian system of governance, as also
was the case with feudal politicians.
Another aspect of this perspective is that ours is a
hybrid society, in the sense that the population is attuned to democratic
discourse at various levels but basically we are a traditional society and have
not completely assimilated or accepted democratic norms and values. Modern
research has shown that such societies are most prone to violence. Furthermore,
Dr Sagheer maintains that before partition the Muslims of the non-majority
Muslim provinces of northern India felt much more threatened by Hindu
domination than the Muslim majority western provinces. Thus the former created
the All India Muslim League (AIML), claimed that the Muslims were one
integrated block and had to have separate arrangements than to be with the
Hindus after the British left. They propagated an Islamic national discourse to
strengthen their stand. This discourse continued after partition. I would like
to add here that it was not only the Mohajirs who introduced the Islamic
discourse, but in the election campaign in Punjab in 1946, pirs and religious
elements flocked to the AIML and considerably overshadowed the more secular
supporters. They adopted as their own Allama Iqbal’s dream and the concept of a
separate Muslim state, which they envisaged as an idealistic religious state.
It was in this campaign that the slogan started: Pakistan ka matlaab kya? La
ilaha Ill-Allah.
I would like to make a digression here. The Islamic
aspect of this discourse is based on the doctrinaire interpretations of
religion that came about with the Islamic revival in the subcontinent in
northern India in the beginning of the last century — Barelvi, Deobandi and
other sects. However, if you compare it to the Islam of the Golden Age and
Ottomans you will find many differences. The latter was much more tolerant,
understood statecraft and dealt with provinces in a fair manner. Because of
this, our current stratum of religious belief was redefined at a time of
colonial domination. There is greater emphasis on identification, preservation
of culture and an assertive show of religion; also there is greater intolerance
of other religions and sects, and rejection of anything considered western.
When the Mohajirs migrated to Pakistan, they enjoyed a
privileged position because of their political representation in the Muslim
League (although their politicians had lost their electorates) and the officer
cadre in the state institutions, by which they built a strong position for
themselves in commerce as well. Thus they were very much part of the power
structure and the mainstream.
Digressing a bit, again referring to Dr Saghir Hussain,
regarding the controversy on whether the Quaid was an Islamist or
parliamentarian, obviously he was very much exposed to democratic rational
discourse, but we see the tactics he adopted in the 1946 elections in Punjab,
in which success was the only consideration and he espoused all the convenient
slogans of socialism, student mobilisation, democracy and majorly Islam. He
almost single-handedly created this country and thereafter was governor
general.
The Mohajirs continued to propagate the Islamic national
discourse to maintain their privileged position. The institutions were very
secular. However, they too used the Islamic national discourse to suppress and
discourage dissension in the provinces of East Pakistan, Sindh and Balochistan.
However, in those days there was no assertive proselytising of any manner and
the minorities were treated with respect and felt secure. Karachi was a
harmonious multicultural society. It should be noted that in Ghulam Muhammad’s
constitution of 1956, the operative part of the Objectives Resolution was done
away with though it was voted back by the Assembly. And Ayub Khan’s 1962
Constitution did away with the resolution altogether. Ayub Khan can by all
accounts be deemed a secularist.
Here is the most important digression of all. After
partition, the mainstream, through the institutions, decided it was the
custodian of this country and relegated the politicians (and the East Pakistan
majority population) to secondary status, keeping them only to give legitimacy
to the various governments (and martial law). They ruled in an autocratic
manner from the west wing and treated the provinces in a criminal manner,
suppressing regional culture, factionalising their elite, exploiting East
Pakistan and Balochistan atrociously; in short, treating them like a colony
without the impressive pomp and circumstance, the artful finesse and
condescending beneficence of the British. The tragedy is that we did not learn
a lesson from the secession of the east wing nor from the prolonged insurgency
in Balochistan nor Sindh.
(To be continued)
Imran Kureshi is a freelance columnist
Source:http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/opinion/16-Feb-2015/islam-and-the-politics-of-pakistan-i