The Curse of Mullah

++
India, at the time of partition was fully secular – secular constitution, secular Prime Minister, secular populace, secular legal system, etc.
++

This is a controversial claim, and certainly not a fact.

Even in 1947, Hindu fundamentalist forces were bitterly opposed to Congress`s secular politics. To marginalize the fundamentalists, Congress diluted its secular ideals by adopting some fundamentalist slogans. Several Congress members echoed the views of Hedgewar. Since Jinnah was initially a member of Congress, he was apprehensive that at some point, Gandhian secularism would succumb to Hindu fundamentalism.

Nevertheless, Jinnah didn`t envision a theocratic state in Pakistan anyway.

I agree with the author (Atif Mian) that the Mullahs have essentially been derailing Pakistan from its intended vision in the last 2 decades. However, we need to expose these retrogressive forces through democratic means. The anti-Mullah camp is largely in disarray. There are no charismatic and honest leaders among the moderate/liberal parties to oppose the Mullah camp.

Although PPP and PML together share 60% of the vote in Pakistan, their leaders (Benazir and Nawaz Sharif) have been convicted of corruption (in absentia). Since convicted leaders cannot engaged in politics, both PPP and PML are essentially leaderless. The latter has been hijacked by Musharraf to form a king`s party.

The remaining parties are too small to pose any challenge to the Mullahs. MQM has only 3% of the total vote and its leader (Altaf Hussain) has been convicted of murder and extortion. Punjabis and Pashtuns don`t trust him. Imran Khan, Farooq Leghari, Wali Khan, Mehmood Achakzai, etc are leaders of one-man parties.

In contrast, the Mullahs are organized. They are also untainted with corruption (primarily because they never got a chance to indulge in corruption). And above all, they are riding a wave of anti-US sentiment. Inside the National Assembly and outside, Mullahs are leading the opposition in Pakistan.

Unless moderate political forces get organized, they will cede the political ground to Mullahs completely in the next elections. IMHO, Pakistanis should prepare themselves for a rough ride. Mullahs are likely to become an every day nuissance for the next 3-5 years.

Romair:

``India is not a secular state, regardless of how much its Constitution says it should be. It briefly was, at the time of partition, but hasn’t been since.``

???????????????? what is your definition of secular???

Romair:

``India, at the time of partition was fully secular – secular constitution, secular Prime Minister, secular populace, secular legal system, etc. ``

Completely false. India, at the time of independence, did not even have a constitution. The Congress wanted a secular country but it was not a done deal. ``secular populace`` has no meaning. It is the government that can be secualr if it does not adopt an official religion. People in India have always been religious. The legal system in India and Pakistan was completly the same, an inheritence of British Common Law and Indian traditions.

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.

Having said all that, and gone through Jinnah`s sayings speeches etc (definietly not as much as Manto) I do believe that there is a lack of clarity, maybe deliberate, in defining what Pakistan was to be. That could be a strategic issue in terms of making the legal case for Pakistan and Jinnah did not foresee what a problem it would become. I am not saying that si the case, merely stating the possibility.

One thing that I do think is paramount..it is the people, not an individual`s vision, that defines a country. If the Mullahs win an election they should get power, with the caveat that they agree to hold elections again after a fixed term. Oone time election is not democracy.

“Bhutto sentenced in Switzerland

A judge in Switzerland has found former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto and her husband, Asif Zardari, guilty of money laundering.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/3125277.stm)

It is a rare political leader, who has the honour of being legally convicted in two different countries for corruption. It will be interesting to hear the arguments offered by the PPP for BB`s conviction in Switzerland.

The best thing that can happen to the secular supporters in Pakistan is for a credible secular political party to appear in Pakistan. Pakistanis, until now, and even now, have always voted more secular than religious. However, the more secularly inclined parties have ruined Pakistan, and have robbed it silly. Primarily, because these parties are nothing but corrupt feudals, hiding behind secularism. Just like religious parties are nothing but ambitious maulvis hiding behind Islam.

The two most powerful secularly inclined parties in Pakistan are ANP and PPP. However, these parties have also been amongst the most useless and corrupt and feudal – specifically PPP. ANP has been thoroughly thrashed in NWFP by maulvis. PPP has been able to hold on to its traditional 28% or so votebank. However, it is being held hostage by BB and Zardari.

I believe the govt. offered Amin Fahim the PM-ship of Pakistan, in an alliance with PML(Q). He was obviously willing to accept. However, BB vetoed it, because she wants to oppose the govt. until corruption charges against her are dropped. And she does not want any other powerful leader to head PPP, who could replace her. So the PPP is now out in the cold, with no direction. The PPP actually won the largest percentage of votes, hence the theory that the govt. conspired against it, doesn’t quite hold water. It would not have won more seats than it did in the last election, had that been the case. Yet, it is neither in power, nor leading the opposition.

Since PPP occupies the secular seat in Pakistan, it is the platform of the Pakistani secularists – even the ones who dislike BB. The best thing that could happen to Pakistani secularists is if BB is completely sidelined from the PPP. This will get rid of the corruption scandals associated with the PPP. This will also get rid of PPP’s hereditary leadership. No one, other than a Bhutto, has ever headed the PPP. It is the only truly hereditary party left in Pakistan. It will also force the PPP to hold internal elections. It never holds internal elections, and BB is its officially appointed chairperson for life, while she simultaneously argues for elections in Pakistan.

Once BB is gone, other good people from within the PPP ranks will appear in leadership positions. More importantly, it may open up the door for non-feudals to come to the forefront of the PPP. This will then result in the PPP being a progressive secular party, rather than a “feudally secular” (an oxymoron) party.

Those asking for the return of BB to Pakistan, should think twice. She has destroyed Pakistan, twice, and is a wanted criminal. No one has done more to discredit secularism in Pakistan than the Bhuttos. Making BB the poster child for secular forces is only going to be counterproductive for them. There are plenty of other good people, some within PPP (I know a few of them), who are much better and more honest choices to occupy this position. However, they cannot rise within their party, as long as the Bhuttos dominate it. Political parties should belong to the people, not to one family.

Even now, BB has no problems with the PPP going into a complete alliance with the MMA, just so she can put pressure on the govt. to get herself cleared of corruption. An honest PPP leader would never have to do that, and would be able to negotiate from a much more solid position.

Hopefully the above-mentioned news will mean an end to BB’s career. This could result in a revitalisation of the PPP, with new urban leadership. That could then give credibility to secularism in Pakistan. However, as long as Pakistani secularist keep looking towards individuals like BB as their leaders, they will never be able to take on the maulvis. The maulvi leadership, for all its ignorance, does not have any corruption cases against it. And is, on the whole, democratically elected, within its own parties. And is not feudal. BB, on the other hand, is exactly the opposite, i.e. feudal, dictator within her party and internationally recognised (and now convicted) as massively corrupt.

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

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

Pakistan is slowly being forced to face the challenges and contradictions, in my opinion, which Jinnah foresaw, at the time of partition. The in and out military rule had kept democracy dormant and thus some of these issues from surfacing earlier. However, they were bound to appear, sooner or later. Some of these contradictions include:

1) If Pakistan is/was to be a secular state, then what was the point of creating Pakistan, in the first place?

India, at the time of partition was fully secular – secular constitution, secular Prime Minister, secular populace, secular legal system, etc. This secularism reached furthur heights when Gandhi was assassinated by the BJP predecessors. So, how can someone ask for a separate nation, from India, for, “Mulsims,” and then go on to point out that the new nation should be secular. Separation from a secular state, by a religious community, to form its own secular state, is a conflicting concept.

While the maulvis of Pakistan must accept what Jinnah openly stated, again and again, i.e. Pakistan is not to be a theocratic state (though he refrained from using the phrase, “It will be a secular state;” perhaps indicating his own understanding of the contradiction), the secularists of Pakistan, obviously, must answer the question, “If secularism was the ideal, then how can the creation of the Pakistan be justified, since India was secular, by all accounts?”

So, a “Secular`` state for Indian “Muslims” has an in-built contradiction that Pakistan’s polity now faces, and cannot decide upon.

2) What to do when maulvis are elected through a democratic process?

Goras don’t face this contradiction, because their societies are overwhelmingly secular. At most, their maulvis can form a pressure group, as is the case of the Christian Coalition in the USA. But the Pat Robertsons and Jerry Fallwells will never be elected President. And even if they do get elected, it will only be due to the assistance of secular forces. So the gora maulvis are now left debating whether gay marraiges should be legal or not. Not how to become the Prime Minister of UK, or Chancellor of Germany. But what about Pakistan, where maulvis have shown that they can be voted into the position of Chief Minister, and who knows, maybe even Prime Minister (someday)?

By tradition, the boundaries of “dress code” in a society is decided, on a legal basis, by the collective will of the people, through an elected group. Hence, there are boundaries in America, where it is illegal to walk naked in a park, etc. If the elected maulvis ban pants and shirts, it may be idiotic, but is it non-democratic? They were voted in by poor people, who can barely afford shalwar kameez, much less pants. Maybe they want to remove the class difference in dress, and will get even more votes, from their poor voters (99% of whom cannot afford cable television, and would thus be least bothered, if it were banned). Or maybe, the maulvis are just idiots. In either case, they are democratic. Democracy includes idiots within its folds, also.

The secularists are usually strong supporters of democracy, and usually anti-military. However, they are now facing a contradiction: What to do, when democracy results in elected maulvis, and the only counter to the maulvis is a secular military dictator?

3) How to undo the secularity of Jinnah’s ideas?

All said and done, Jinnah was a secularist to his fingernails, in his personal life. And a secularist, if not to his fingernails, at least to his wrists in his political life. He had absolutely nothing in common with maulvis – even those maulvis who were his friends. He was the ultimate anti-maulvi – as anti as any Muslim can be. Without getting into the pluses and minuses of Jinnah’s ideas, they do create a contradiction for our Shariah-loving maulvis, i.e. the guy who created Pakistan, repeatedly stated that Pakistan is not to be a theocracy (translated: No Shariah, of any kind).

For maulvis to implement their Shariah-atic agenda, they have to literally distort the documented words of Jinnah – the guy who founded the country, and whose picture the maulvis must hang on their walls also. How can they implement in Shariah in a country, whose founder prohibited it? Another contradiction.

In my opinion, following are the realistic facts of South Asia, as opposed to the theoretical facts (which the overly religiously-inclined and overly secularly-inclined friends on this site, keep pushing, for some reason):

- Pakistan was created primarily for the Muslims of India (only someone clueless will not see this). Unless, we consider it a coincidence that, even at great personal losses, Muslims just happened to migrate to Pakistan and Hindus and Sikhs just happened to migrate to India, at the time of Partition. It thus contradicted the basis of a secular nation. It actually broke away from a secular nation, on the basis of the religion of its inhabitants. This is, in fact, anti-secularism (though not necessarily Islamism).

- India is not a secular state, regardless of how much its Constitution says it should be. It briefly was, at the time of partition, but hasn’t been since. Nehru and Co. wanted it to be a secular state, but it hasn’t ended up as one. It is secular in its outwardly appearance, but its uniting factor has always been the Hindu religion of its inhabitants - most of whom, never had anything else (including language and nationhood) in common with each other, historically. Each province in India, that has had a non-Hindu majority (Sind, Baluchistan, NWFP, Pakistan Punjab, Bangladesh, Indian Punjab, Kashmir) has successfully or unsuccessfully tried to separate from the Hindu majority provinces. This does not happen in true secular states. In fact, India still cannot figure out what to do, and how to handle, its large Muslim minority. This is now clearly visible by the repeated electoral victories of the BJP. In fact, India is now moved beyond being a religious state, and is on the verge of becoming a Hinduvta state, i.e. radically religious.

- Jinnah wanted to be in a united secular India. He was more fond of Bombay, than of Karachi. However, he realized that sooner or later, India would not remain humanely secular, and the Muslims there would be in thick nihari. The rise of the BJP has vindicated his vision. So he had to ask for a country, based on religion. However, he wanted, “his” country to be humanely secular (secular can be inhumane, also), i.e. more secular than what he thought India would end up as. He then realized that the inhabitants of his new nation, weren’t nearly as secular in their outlook as he was. A better expression maybe that they were far more Islamic in their outlook than he was. Hence, he understood that shoving his ideas of secularism down their throats, would be counterproductive. At the same time, he understood that theocracy would ruin Pakistan also.

Jinnah turned out to be correct on all the above accounts: 1) India ended up electing BJPs, which went after Indian Muslims, from all directions 2) Muslims in Pakistan, in their separate country, prospered beyond Muslims in India 3) Pakistanis refused to accept pure secularism, resulting in not a single major Pakistani political party declaring itself to be openly secular 4) Theocratically motivated maulvis screwed Pakistan, intentionally or intentionally, whenever they got power.

However, even the most brilliant lawyer in the British empire, Jinnah, did not have a solution for these contradictions.

So Pakistan (and India, also) is a country whose population finds its unifying identity in its religion, with armchair secular theorists, somehow trying to portray it as a secular nation, and with misguided maulvis, trying to destroy it by turning it into a theocracy. It is also a country in which the maulvis and the secularists will, unfortuanately, settle for nothing short of the other’s complete destruction.

In my opinion, dividing a society and its corresponding political space, along the religion and secularism lines, with no third option, is potentially catastrophic for third-world countries. It has had catostrophic results in India. Poor results in Iran and Algeria. And has resulted in a confused Turkey – to name a few third world countries. In case of Pakistan, simply using the secularism/Islam argument creates contradictions in the ideas behind the creation of the country, itself.

Interestingly, both Pakistan and India, have been thoroughly let down economically by their corrupt secularly inclined leaderships. Both have thus, seen a rise of religiously motivated political parties – more dangerously so in India. I think, they will both be let down by their religious leadership also. At that time, hopefully, some sane individuals will come to the front, and will present a workable solution to handle the contradictions in these countries.

[quote]
To me, true Islam represents the best of what mankind can hope to achieve.
[end-quote]

As long as you believe silly nonsense like this, there is no hope for you. The real tragedy is that the author of this report doesn`t even understand that it is his own attitudes that are the start of the whole problem.

Tom Friedman has correctly characterized it as ``problems caused by an assumption of islamic superiority which is not supported by economic and social fact``. But heh, he is an amreekan yahood, (even lower in your caste system than a polytheist hindu? Please do enlighten us kafirs who cannot follow these subtle distinctions), so you probably don;t care for his comments.

re: Inquirer & Mantolives

Yes, the preamble to the consitution is a problem and since we are mindlessly devoted to that document, we create our own problems.

Ciao

TRUE. IT IS THE CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN, NAY THE PREMISE OF PAKISTAN THAT IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE PRSENT WOES. I do not say that we have to undo the Partition of 1947, the thinking in Pakistan have to reassess the communalistic foundation on which the country rests. NO DOUBT THE CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN HAS TO BE REWRITTEN. Furthermore, there is no need to rule out the unification of India PROVIDED IT IS DONE RATIONALLY INCLUDING THE rights and RESPONSIBILITY OF ALL. If East Germany and West Germany can unify so can India and Pakistan. Of course, Indians have to accept this too since they stand to lose by unification.

Those dailytimes people censored the word `phallic` from my letter... tsk tsk...

Ferozek,

I agree with you ... I have always told people that the basis of the problem is the constitution of 1973 ... though some might argue that the problem started in 1949, when Liaqat Ali Khan ignored very reasonable and sane advice from the Hindu MPs who were invoking Jinnah`s promise. Yet, if this Pakistan was created on 16th December 1971, the time has come for another Pakistan... a Pakistan which is peace with its past.

I was looking through the Chambers dictionary once, and I came across 2 meanings for Pakistan ... 1) A republic in South Asia. 2) A former Republic (1947-1971) with East and West Wings.

-Manto

This is for `ENQUIRER`. Perhaps I am mistaken but did you suggest that non-high school graduates should not be allowed to vote. You`re kidding, right. Tell me you`re joking. Or have I completely misunderstood. Cuz, if you mean what I think you mean, you`ve just recommended that we have an undemocratic, elitist electoral system. That definitely cannot be the solution.
Oh, and `vanguard`, it does not matter what the majority of people wear in NWFP or anywhere. The choice to wear what they want is what is important. With regards to the highest education budget in the NWFP. It would have been an encouraging sign if it were less brainwashing and more education.

came across this item. when people`s party asked fazlu to not accept the agreement on LFO (recent event), fazlu`s response was in the form of a retort to BB: `would you do the same if you controlled two provinces?`

mullah or not, they are politicians first and are being played around with by the faujiz who have no interest apart from their own. similarly, i dont know how long the mullah`s can live off of slogans. i always get the sense that if BB were allowed to return and contest free and fair elections, she`ll win hands down. not cause she`s forgiven, but because in the carnival of free elections, the `chamchay` and `mullay` are always thrashed. of course this would not be acceptable to our dime a dozen faujiz.

i never thought a day would come when i`d despise the faujiz and the conservative establishment so much, i`d prefer to see someone like BB come in thrash them.

Arjunm,

Obviously the saying `little knowledge is dangerous` holds true. You are the living example of it. YLH is under no obligation to educate every tom di-ck and harry with facts.

-Manto

re: Atif Mian

Jinnah is dead and Jinnah`s Pakistan died in 1971. Stop dreaming the impossible and realize that Pakistan of today was created in December 1971. Pakistan of today is an ideological state fasting becoming a theocracy of a politically exclusive minority. The consitution of 1973, which is the holy grail of any liberal Pakistani states quite clearly that sovernity belongs to Allah and national leaders are its rightful trustees. What we have in Pakistan is nothing less than a divine right of the kings and the feudals have replaced the kings, but the excesses of power are still the same.

Do not blame the mullah; blame your beloved consitution, which gives them the right to legalize your dress code. Mullahs did not make Pakistan a theocracy. It was made into a theocracy by those enfeebled liberals, who wrote the 1973 consitution. You wish to reclaim Pakistan, then write another constitution, which gives you the right. You hate the mullah and you cast blame towards him, but remember it was the politicans of Pakistan who went begging bowl in hand to the mullah to give them legitimacy when they grabbed power illegally. Every politican in Pakistan, who was illegitmate asked for mullah`s help to make himself absolved of sins. Who let the mullah into politics? Who allowed the mullah to grab the armalite and raise the banner and kill? While the killing was going on, who turned a blind a eye to it all? Blame the army if you want, but blame yourself because in the name of Kashmir you thought that you could wash away the spot on your conscience. You cried ``out damned spot`` but the spot refused to wash away!

Blame the mullah, but remember that it was the educated class of Pakistan which failed Pakistan and not the mullah. The mullah knew what he wanted, but the educated elite of Pakistan; the guardians of its liberal dreams was confused. We never knew what we wanted and when the people of Pakistan dispised us, they stood behind the mullah, because we raped the very people we promised to hold inviolate. The mullah came to power, because we gave up that power to him; we who were busy amassing wealth and hounding our opponents. While we killed each other, the mullah counted his roseries and waited and he waited till we had proven ourselves to hopless to the people of Pakistan.

By all means blame the mullah and blame the army and blame the bureaucracy and blame the Indians and blame the zionist and blame the Americans and blame the cosmos! Also blame yourself, because you did nothing to stop it all. Where were you in all of this? Blame yourself, because your sin is greater; you are educated and to those whom much is given, much is expected from and yet, you were found wanting.

Yours and my generation has failed Pakistan. Let us accept this fact and not blame others for our short comings.

Ciao

Though I don`t support the mullahs but the fact remains that mullahs won the seats in the parliament fair and square. At least they did not get 98% votes in a referendum with a turnout of 71%.

The bill was presented in the parliament and was stamped by the majority. Can we say the same for our LFO that is keeping His Highness Mr. MAcho Musharraf on the throne. I think not. Dont you forget that NWFP budget has the highest percentage dedicated to education. How many of our other assemblies and governments can claim that.

And who in NWFP except for those going to Burn Halls and Cadet Colleges or Private colleges where trousers. The majority of the population already wears Shalwar Qameez.

I think we are making a mountain out of an ant hill.

Take care