The Curse of Mullah

Romair--your posts are always well balanced and interesting. If there were elections tomorrow which of the main parties MMA, PML, PPP, PTI, etc. would you vote for?

**
The biggest problem which the ulama face is that even when they win in a fair manner, like in Algeria, the secularists in Pakistan and the USA will always conspire to keep them out of power...shame for those supporters of democracy who only seem to accept results when parties they like win!

**
As for Mawlana Noorani--if only all the factions within the Ahle Sunnat would also vote for him he could be Pakistan`s saviour insha Allah! I also think that if Prof. Tahir ul Qadri`s PAT could also be enticed to join the MMA it would greatly strengthen the Islamic block...

The author wrote:

``Mr. Khalid Waqar Chamkani, a member of parliament from JUI (F) in the Frontier assembly, presented a new bill aimed at revolutionizing the educational system of Pakistan. The bill declared the wearing of shirts and trousers as “Un-Islamic” (and hence un-constitutional), and called for a strict ban on shirts and trousers in all schools and colleges of the province.``

Unfortunately, from this opening paragraph I was expecting an article on the education system in Pakistan, however it turned out to be a general political discussion with a rather familiar theme. But back to this, I have some questions:

a) What is the current dress code in state run schools and colleges, if any? How do they vary from province to province, if at all? I seem to remember that under Zia, the shalwar kameez was enforced...

b) Aside from the dress code, exactly what other steps/measures were proposed by the MMA to reform the education system in Pakistan? Or was the author being sarcastic, and the only thing done was the bill for the changing/enforcing of dress code?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Jinnah was not vague. He clearly stated ``Religion has nothing to do with the business of state``.

However, Pakistan continues to go running jumping in a totally different direction. And possibly towards a melt down unless unfettered democracy and secularism is the course chosen.

As for the threat posed by the Military and Mullas, the only way to nuetralize them both through one stroke is to normalize relations with India.

rozaiba:

Molvis power is about to increase with the certain appointment of new Balochistan governor as a result of possible deal with MMA on LFO. The resident specialists here are never going tp accept the role military establishment intentionally played in propping up MMA. Even today MMA will lose both provinves if a new fair elections are called. Similarly Ch. Shujaat is more likely to assume prime ministerial position once deal is done because he is much more acceptable to MMA. The governments in Panjab and Sindh are non-functional due to overlordships of military but they have given free hand to MMA in NWFP and Balochistan.

Military had three tier strategy right from the begining. One of the main difference this time different from previous military rules was to bet on three horses simultaneously. Topmost being PML (Q) and Laghari`s NA, followed by a gathering of infependent candidates backed by ISI and third group, MMA.

They knew that chances of winning against PPP, PML (N) and MQM are bleak for Musharraf. The so-called liberal support led by The Friday Times was never there for Musharraf. TFT`s Sethi had his own axe to grind with NS as he has still not given up with Ittefaqnama regular column.

The reason Musharraf is still in power is apparently due to one person and his name is Colin Powell. He has kept all Islamists stone throw away from him to make sure USA keeps betting on this mule.

here`s a excerpt of a piece on MMA written by Anwar Iqbal from PBS`s website highlighting JUST HOW SIGNIFICANT MMA`s victory was:

`Is Pakistan likely to Become a Taliban State?`
...
``Consequently, the MMA emerged as the single largest political group in the Pathan areas. It now rules the North-West Frontier Province, where it has a majority in the provincial assembly, and also is a coalition partner in the adjacent Balochistan province. At the national level, the MMA won 53 seats in an assembly of 342, the highest number for any Islamist group since Pakistan`s creation in 1947. This makes the religious parties, who had never won more than 10 seats before this election, the third largest force in parliament after the pro-Musharraf ruling alliance and the opposition PPP of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.

A closer look at the election results, however, provides a better picture. The PPP, which won 62 seats in the National Assembly, received the highest number of votes, 25.01% of the total polled. The pro-Musharraf Pakistan Muslim League (PML-Q) received 24.81% of the votes. In the National Assembly, however, the PML-Q became the single largest party, with 77 seats, and later formed the federal government with the help of smaller parties.

The MMA, which surprised many by winning 53 seats, received 11.10% of the total votes. Even the smallest group in the National Assembly, the Pakistan Muslim League (N), the party of another former prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, got more votes. Although it has only 14 members in the assembly, it received 11.23% of the total votes.

This lends strength to the opposition`s claim that had its leaders -- Bhutto and Sharif -- been allowed to return from exile and campaign for their candidates, their parties might have fared better. It also strengthens the allegation by independent observers -- including some from the European Union -- that though the government did not interfere with the voting, it manipulated results to ensure that the PPP and PML (N) did not get a majority.

Although the MMA won 53 seats, it did not increase its vote bank. Religious parties usually receive 5% to 6% of all votes across the country. But because in the past they often competed against one another, their votes were split and they did not have a significant presence in the national legislature. There are also allegations the military government supported religious parties as a bulwark against the mainstream political elite and hopes to use the Islamic card in its dealings with the United States....``

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#26, mantolives:
I appreciate your recognition of my concerns. Those concerns are not limited to Pakistan only. I am convinced the fates of India and pakistan are interlinked and therefore, the good of one will affect positively the other no matter how antagonistic the two countries appear to be at present. I also appreciate your not passing any judgement on my thesis and leaving it up to fair historians of the future. I hope and pray that before long the unravelling of twisted strands of relationship between two countries of one people will begin. Let it be through Fazlur Rahman if it has to.

Atif Mian: would you believe so far I had not read your article. The discussion was so intense, I did not have time to read the initializing statement!!!! I want to unhesitatingly endorse your thoughts and I have no disagreement with any of them.

HisEexcellency:

``Jinnah wisely remained vague about the role of Islamic law in Pakistan.``

In hindsight, it is my subjective opinion that the move was not wise. Pakistan is still suffering from an identity crisis due to that vagueness. Romair, Manto and Urstruly on Chowk are three Pakistanis with three different visions, yet all of them are ``good`` Pakistanis. In Pakistan, I don`t think that a national consensus has emerged even now.
In India, incluidng the BJP, all political parties respct the ONE cnstitution that defines the national consensus.

My reading of history, both Indian and Pakistani, is that the situation was so polarized by the 1940S that there was no way an alternative could have emerged to Jinnah`s leadership. A clear vision therefore could have been articulated. Moreover, keeping the ultimate destination vague is not good policy in the long term. All this is ofcourse in hindsight.

I would like to emphasize that my PERSONAL view is that Jinnah`s vision in 1947 is immaterial. A consensus of the Pakistani people on the other hand is essential. Also, my PERSONAL opinion is that Romair`s thoughts, keeping the country Islamic in name but not going overboard ``Islam Lite`` if you will, is actually closer to the reality of what the majority of Pakistanis want.

Manto`s vision, though admirable and closer to what I would want my country to be like, I feel is a bit radical for the Pakistan of today.

Stuka`s reply to Romair needs to be highlighted:

``Your assumption that a secualr Pakistan is meaningless because it seperated from a secular India is flawed. There are two major flaws:

1. Since Pakistan became independent on Aug 14th, and India became independent on Aug 15th, Pakistan did not seperate from India. It is a successor state, one of two, of the British colonial holding or ``British Iindia``.

2. Since India itself was not a ``secualr republic``, the seperation of Pakistan was not that of a religious country seperating from a Hhindu one. It was a ``Muslim Majority`` country seperating from a Hindu Majority one.

The above two points illustrate the hollowness of your claim that raison d`etre of Pakistan was a non secular state. You must also realize that there is a difference between a country ``for Muslims`` and a Muslim country.``



Why did I waste my time writing those posts. Stuka has said so much better than I ever could.

-Manto

HisExcellency #24: I agree with most of your other points, however, there are two points I do not agree with.

“Since convicted leaders cannot engaged in politics, both PPP and PML are essentially leaderless. “

I don’t think the PPP and PML are leaderless. No party with so many seats can be leaderless. I know four of five individuals in PPP and PML personally, through my family. They are usually the top contenders for NA seats in their localities. They are gifted, educated, intellectual, urban and honest (at least as far as I know). They have never had any corruption cases against them. A couple of them are rags to riches stories, and are self-made millionaires. And are as enlightened as anyone you will find in Pakistan. Anyone of them would make a much better leader of PPP and PML than BB and NS. If they were leading their parties, I would definitely vote for them.

The problem is that the PPP and PML are not internally democratic. Their top leaderships will never allow it. In fact, internally, for top leadership position, PPP and PML are less democratic than the Army – which rotates its Chief every three years, while PPP and PML have elected heads for life. They are nothing but the old boys network of feudals. NS is the only exception, being an urbanite, however, he is only a representative of the feudals. He was basically put into power by the Army. Otherwise PML is also a party dominated by feudals like Junejos and Soomros and Hussains etc.

The feudals see BB and NS as their best bet/representative for keeping power amongst the feudals, in Pakistan. So they keep supporting them. They are as scared of their political opposition, as they are of urban members of their parties gaining power within the party. Why doesn’t BB allow someone else to run PPP, when she is facing all these corruption charges? It would give her more time to handle the charges, and the party will run better with an internal leader? Primarily because she is afraid of another leader emerging within the PPP, and taking her place. She will only pass on the leadership to a family member.

“Although PPP and PML together share 60% of the vote in Pakistan,”

I think one has to take the, “60%” vote bank with a grain of salt. I only consider urban vote bank to the true vote bank – where people are free to vote. In feudal areas, people have no choice, but to vote for a feudal. And invariably, one feudal belongs to PPP and the other to some faction of PML. Since 60 - 66% of the MNA seats go to feudals, the real vote bank can only be analyzed in the urban 33% or so.

In the urban vote bank, PML wins in Punjab cities, with PPP comes second. MQM wins in Sind cities, with MMA second. And MMA wins is Baluchistan and NWFP, now. With PML and ANP second in NWFP. PPP has never had any support in urban NWFP, urban Baluchistan and urban Sind (other than Layari). It is basically a feudal Sind/Punjab and urban Punjab party.

The maulvis have a lot going for them, which the more secular parties don’t have:

- Unlike PPP and PML, the maulvis hold elections within their parties.

- Maulvi parties allow the poorest people to take leadership positions. In fact, the recent elections have resulted in mullahs of mosques and farmers being elected to the NWFP assembly. These are individuals most Chowk interactors would not invite to their living room. Yet, now they are making the laws. When was the last time the PPP and PML elected a poor man to office (even internally).

- Maulvi parties are not heridatory. JI’s amir is not the son of the previous Amir. Though in case of JUI, the leader is the son, (but that is the exception and not the rule).

- Maulvi parties have a super loyal following. Feudal voters are forced to vote for feudals of PPP and PML. However, in the cities, the PPP and PML voters are not too loyal to their parties. While JI voters and JUI voters are very loyal. They, rightly or wrongly, believe in their leaders. While the normal PPP and PML follower is fed-up with BB and NS. Many vote for them, just to keep the maulvi out, as indicated by a reply on this site. Naqshbandi’s loyalty to Nooranis of the world, is far stronger than Manto’s or Atif Mian’s loyalty to BBs of the world.

- Maulvis only change their agenda, when they have something politically to gain. They rarely change their agenda, because they are afraid of being convicted of corruption, etc. PPP and PML leaders can always be blackmailed by each other, and by the Army, because so many of them are loan defaulters, tax defaulters, illegal Swiss account holders, and what not. I cannot completely agree with your assertion that the reason maulvis haven’t been corrupt is because they have not had power. Some of them like Fazl, Qazi etc. are regularly Senators, MNAs etc. Yet, none has ever had any corruption cases against him. This makes them even more popular, within their own parties.

Pakistan’s secular forces will not be able to take on the maulvi unless:

1) the maulvi performs even worse that the PPP/PML/ANP etc. in areas where they have been elected. This is unlikely, since the PPP/PML etc. performed so pathetically. The maulvis’ voters are too poor to be pushed about cable TV and no pants and shirts. In fact, they may see this as an evening out of the class system in their areas, i.e. if they cannot watch cable, why should anyone else

2) the secular voters stop putting their faith in the same corrupt leaders of PPP and PML, and start looking for newer faces. This will not happen until PPP and PML are rid of Bhuttos and Sharifs, since they will never allow anyone to emerge from within the ranks

3) PPP and PML become more egalitarian and allow their common workers to rise in the party – much like the MQM and MMA does. PPP projects itself as the, “Awami” party, yet statistically speaking less than 2% of its top leadership seems to be Awami (BBC has the exact statistics). While a very large amount of the MMA top leadership is Awami.

If one takes out the fedual areas of Pakistan, where PPP and PML feudals dominate everyone, MMA is quite a force now in the cities and in the non-feudal rural areas. I don’t have the statistics, but I would say in the non-feudal areas of Pakistan, MMAs’ vote bank is maybe equivalent to those of the non-maulvi parties.

I think middle class and lower middle class Pakistanis give far less importance to the tag, “secular” than the many interactors on Chowk. If the PPP/PML/ANP does not deliver, these voters will obviously go to the other alternative, which is MMA. They are probably more pushed about food and education, than secularism and Islam – a point I repeatedly try to make here.

#11,87msa:
No, I am not joking. You see what countries like Pakistan and India need to do is to bring their populations to understand that democracy is not a panacea. People have to work hard to deserve the right of vote. All European and North American countries spread their right of vote gradually. Since they took good amount of time they did not need the restriction on candidacy. But for South Asian countries, India got the universal adult franchise instantaneously. It was done so that the tough goals of a very liberal leadership in India could be met. It has been a mixed blessing, however. Since Pakistan is not even at zero level, it has to limit the right of vote as well as candidacy. Musharraf has tried to restrict the candidacy - and only partially succedded at it - but the terroristic and low level of training of Pakistani populace requires restricting the right of vote also. First people have to be trained in democratic living. They have to understand the system rather than be driven like cattle from one system to another. This devolves a tremendous responsibility on current leadership of Pakistan. In particular, it is necessary to neutralize the mullah-masjid alliance as India had done under Mr. Nehru. Unfortunately there is no leader of Mr. Nehrus`s caliber in Pakistan.

#18, Romair:
You need to learn about India. Here is some info to illuminate your international ignorance. The question-statements can be ascribed to you. Bracketed by ****--****. Answers are mine!

I take issue with the underlying theme of this article (This article was written by Nadeem Akram but later removed by Chowk). I am not informed about Pakistan but I do know about India. I will confine my comments to the Indian context.

****What we have today is a big chunk of humanity waking every morning wondering what if anything they have done to deserve this; they don’t have access to clean drinking water, basic health services, acceptable sanitation conditions, education, gainful employment, and above all the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.****

This is just not true. They may not have water works a la western standards but the quality on almost all fronts has improved during last fifty years. This is borne out by the longer life expectancy, better health care, lower infant mortality; population booming to a billion. Educational opportunities were never better, unemployment has reduced to a point that it is hard to get personal servants! Even the poor have radio, tv and other appliances!!


****A handful of people play with the lives of millions of people everyday.Decisions are made on their behalf without their participation, yet the oligarchy of politicians and industrialists want everyone to believe that democracy rules in this part of the world. ****

Ask the educated minorities in India: How the farmers and lower caste people feel endowed with the power to vote. Of course, Mayavati and her likes could not even dream to be consulted for their own exixtence fifty years ago, let alone rule the Uttar Pradesh.

****They were asked to fight for freedom, which was to bring them prosperity; it never did, and now they are asked to protect the freedom through sacrifice. ****

From what has already been asserted this statement is baseless. of course every one will not have every thing they want. Ever. What people need in India is the sense of responsibility to run a democratic form of governance.


****Half a century’s deceit, lies, and false promises have ensured that the majority of the people in the region remain mere tools in furthering the interests of the few. ****

This is true even for United States. The populace has to learn the ropes of democratic procedures. If our educated people are either cynical or consider beneath them to go and organize for votes they will be subject to the will of those who show up at the polls. The members of Parliament in India haling from farming classes has doubled during the last fifty years and halved for graduates.


****Hunger, famine, poverty, and suffering were the words that were ascribed to India (sub-continent) a century and half ago; these words are as relatable today as they were then. ****

The wealthy and poor will always exist but now they are in a much more balanced ratio than fifty years ago. There has not been any famine and obesity is increasing just as in US though it has not quite reached the same level.

What we need to do is to develop greater sense responsibility for operation in self-governance mode. For example Indian cities are littered with trash but no community is willing to make the decision to pay for clean-up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

re: #22 by stuka

Thanks for your comments.

Jinnah wisely remained vague about the role of Islamic law in Pakistan. On the one hand, he described Pakistan as a laboratory and fortress of Islam... on the other, he declared that Pakistanis are free to go to their mosques, temples, churches.. and that they would cease to be Hindus, Muslims, Christians in the political sense.

If he had openly rebuffed the idea of Shariah law, Mullahs would have painted him as another Mustapha Kamal Pasha. This could have divided the Pakistan Movement.

Arjunm,

Isn`t it amazing that you are claiming with certainty about Pakistan which even the government of Pakistan is pathetically unaware of? CIA`s figures are based on the estimates by the Pakistan Government itself. And the estimates of the Pakistan Government are way off....

Kindly visit the website : http://www.pakistanchristianpost.com/

It claims on the top of the page: Serving 15 Million Christians of Pakistan.

Ok so let us say that those figures are sexed up... let us assume there are only 10 million christians. Add to those 9 million christians, the official figure of 1.2 million Hindus (though according to other estimates they are around 2.5 million) and 1 million for other religions. Now add that up.... 10 + 1.2 + 1= 12.1 million Non-Muslims atleast right?

12.2/140 million = 8.75%


Inquirer,

I admire your concern for Pakistan ... but I say this with all the politeness... while We want friendship, cordial relations, even open borders with India, but atleast this secularist doesn`t stand for reunification (Infact it is a Mullah who goes by the name Fazlu who wants reunification). As for the communalistic foundations... we will leave this to a fairer understanding of history whenever History is written without the bias of nationality.




Romair,

Some definitions:

Secular nation: A nation with a common secular characteristic ie language.
Secular state: A State that doesn`t interfere in the religious beliefs of its citizens nor does it discriminate on those basis, nor does it use religious dogma to legislate.

Examples of secular nations:

Had Punjab become one state when the british left and a Republic perhaps that would have been a secular nation. Similarly if Kashmir ever wins its independence it might be a secular nation based on common Kashmiri identity. Logically a secular nation will live under a secular state.


Examples of Secular states without secular nations:

Modern Turkey emerged out the conflict between non-Muslim ottomans, and Muslim ottomans at the end of the world war 1. Hence the nation that emerged after the world war 1 was 99.6% Muslim. Yet it was proclaimed a secular state. Same was true of Greece which was an orthodox christian nation, but had a secular state. Israel is a Jewish nation and the country was founded as a jewish homeland. Yet the state of Israel is a secular state. Turkey, Greece and Israel remain Muslim, Christian and Jewish nations respectively, but as states they are completely secular.


You are right that initially Jinnah wanted a secular Indian nation, but later on his life he became disillusioned with the idea... (please cut the cra-p about humanely this or that ok?) but how does it contradict with his desire to see Pakistan as a Secular State which is different from Secular nation? Here is your contradiction: In the first `realistic` fact you say Pakistan broke off from a secular nation. In your second `realistic` fact you say India is not secular. Because if you believe in the second fact then you have automatically answered the questions in the first. And if you believe in the first realistic fact, then all you are basically saying is that Jinnah was wrong in his estimate of India. That basically his fear of a Hindu theocracy was unfounded.

Pakistan was created out of an apprehension and fear of mistreatment by the Hindu Majority. Now if the assertion is that India is a perfectly secular nation-state, that apprehension was unfounded and baseless. If the assertion is that India is not a secular nation-state but rather a Hindu one as you claim later on... then you have your answer. In any event, it doesn`t negate the belief of the Pakistan`s founders in the idea of the separation of church and state. Your post has done nothing but repeat all the accusations that Indian nationalist histiography levels at Pakistan. Maybe it will help if you read Ayesha Jalal`s thesis on partition and you will actually broaden that horizon which seems to be very limited at the moment. Pakistan`s founders opted for Pakistan only out of a fear of Hindu domination. Hence their fear, rightly or wrongly, was that India wouldn`t be a secular state. However at the expense of repeating myself, had Jinnah met the Jamaat e Islami leadership and the Mullahs who are now well entrenched in the halls of our Islamic Republic, he would have gladly preferred Hindu domination. I have no doubt about this. It hurts me to find a fellow countrymen so closed to the understanding of simple political science concepts.. I don`t know what this `secular nation` means, but I know damn well what a secular state means, and both concepts are totally different. There are many secular states in the world... US, India, European states, but most of these states are inhabited with nations which have religions, christianity, Hinduism, etc.

Also this scapegoat you make out of BJP is insulting to the intelligence of the common man.
BJP remains more secular and modernist in ideology than any party in Pakistan. Forget their motivations but as pointed out to you on other boards, where you as always have ignored any appeals to reason, BJP is the party that stands for a Uniform secular civil code for all Indians regardless of their faith. Yes BJP is a Hindu Nationalist party, but it is a staunchly secular party when it comes to the issues of Governance.


SO here is your home assignment soldier:


1) Distinguish between Nation and State ... Comment on the foundations of the United States of America. Comment whether the nation in 1776 was secular or christian? What about the state that resulted from the Revolution?

2) Read the US constitution. Inform us on Chowk how many times the word secular has been used. Then comment whether the absence of the word `secular` makes the US constitution any less secular?

3) Using the conclusions of the first two questions interpret the following words:

`You may belong to any religion caste or creed- that has nothing to do with the business of the state... In due course of time Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims and we shall all become equal citizens of one state.`

Please inform us if the person who made these remarks isn`t making his intention about the nature of the state perfectly clear? Let us not forget that where these statements were made and when. If you read the Jinnah papers, this speech came immediately after the election of Jinnah as the speaker/President of PCA, and after a point of order by one MP who inquired about the nature of the state. You are right that Jinnah was well aware of the apparent contradiction that may arise out of the misunderstanding of the demand for Pakistan which is precisely why he made it abundantly clear on many occasions what Pakistan would be as a state... infact a month ago, the Deputy Prime Minister of India said this that while Jinnah had expressly stated that Pakistan would be a secular state, it isn`t, and that none of the Indian leaders had made such tall claims, but India is a secular state.


The point is that we the secularists don`t want to make change the religion of any nation. Pakistan is a predominantly Muslim nation and that is a fact, just like India is a predominantly Hindu majority nation. All we are asking for is keeping religion out of governance... hence legislation on the basis of Quran and Sunnah shouldn`t happen.. because Pakistan isn`t inhabited by Muslims alone, and non-muslims are as much Pakistanis as anyone. And even among Muslims there are so many divisions... When they brought up the issue of Sharia, Jinnah simply replied `What sharia, whose sharia, I don`t have time for this`.... But then I don`t think Romair has time for the real facts. His facts are usually arrived at by long and hard debate within his own head. Book utanay ka to hosla nahin hai... He will not answer any questions, just like he ignored all the questions by Sameer, myself and PM on the other board.

-Manto

Continued: There is no such thing as secularist in private life. Jinnah was a believing shia and from the looks of it more religious in his last days. That he used to drink or eat pork was his personal irreligiousity. Secularism is a public condition.

Jinnah was a secular nationalist when he believed in one Indian nation. Later on he did become a Muslim Nationalist as in he moved from his belief in one Indian nation to one muslim nation, but he remained a secularist with respect to the issue of Governance, i.e. he was believer in the separation of religion from the matters of the state. And when he spoke of `Hindus will cease to be Hindus, and Muslims will cease to be Muslims`, he hinted towards Pakistan evolving into a secular nation, through the efforts of a secular state.