The credit of turning our unbiased, evenhanded and peaceful society into a hub of fanaticism and planting seeds of radicalism goes to none other than General Ziaul-Haq. Prior to his nefarious rule, Shia, Sunni, Barelvi, Deobandi and people of all other schools of thought had been living with dignity, mutual love and respect. They did have religious and sectarian differences but were not engaged in physical or verbal clashes. Despite annoyances, they were not thirsty for each other’s blood. Just one person — Ziaul Haq — was responsible for staining our streets with blood and our prolific brains with the destructive germs of extremism.
Today, from earthly paradise Parachinar to the shores of Karachi, from Gilgit-Baltistan to Quetta, innocent men, women and children are being killed, mutilated and beheaded by hard-hearted men. Radicalism and extremism prevent a society from progress and development. With the challenges of the 21st century’s world, we cannot hope to progress or cut a niche for ourselves if we appear before the world as an extremist, radical and fanatical nation. A society loses its esteem and remains isolated if it treats its multi-fractioned subjects pitilessly and prejudicially. There is the example of the incursion of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Pakistan was the first to recognise their regime but soon after the invasion by the US, their rule came to its horrendous end. The judicious world that had resisted the supremacy of the church centuries ago refused to accept the rule of fanatics and extremists. The Taliban introduced Islam and an Islamic society before the world as callous and insensitive, while no religion permits the killing of innocent men, beheading of children and women, and setting on fire schools, hospitals and mosques. How is it imaginable that a religion that considers the murder of one innocent man equivalent to the killing of entire humanity, would allow its followers to depict such a bleak image of Islam?
Since long, the fanatical forces of Pakistan are at daggers drawn with the secular elements, with both sides causing immense harm to their respective ideologies. Consequently, we find extremists on both sides abusing and attacking one another openly. Whether Pakistan is based on secular lines or created in the name of religion is a long argument or more specifically, a dispute with no conclusive results, because history is not what we see today; it is always amended and buried in the deep folds of vested interests. One cannot find even an iota of unanimity on the issue. Rather than wasting time in indecisive debates, it would be better to discuss where we stand today.
Pakistan is neither a secular nor a completely theocratic state. The reality is that right wing radical forces who had vehemently opposed the creation of Pakistan have always tried to dominate the secular faction of society. For an ordinary citizen, secularism seems a word implying disenchantment and an image of a state based on atheist ideology; in fact, it is not.
For Pakistan, secularism is what was propounded by its founders Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah and Allama Muhammad Iqbal. For these leaders, secularism simply meant respecting all fellow Pakistanis’ moral grounds, religious ideology and social status with no discrimination based on gender, sect or religion. For them, secularism was an instrument to homogenise the alienated public, relinquishing religious, linguistic, sectarian, ethnic and ideological differences.
Pakistan had and still has a potential to adopt secular ideology based on mutual respect but regrettably, the wave of extremism unleashed by one of the dictators greatly contributed in eroding those secular bases. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto enthusiastically led a struggle against radical forces but finally fell victim to a fanatic, extremist dictator himself. Nonetheless, after Z A Bhutto, Benazir Bhutto, his daughter and the first woman prime minister of the Islamic world did not abandon the struggle. She bore the first wave of severe criticism by the right wing forces that raised their finger against the rule of a woman. It was the start of a showdown. Throughout her life, she continued battling against fanaticism. The fight was between one strong woman and several right wing so-called democratic leaders led by extremists. These fanatics do not want a peaceful Pakistan free from parochial and ethnic differences, a Pakistan where everyone has freedom to practice their political, religious and social ideologies without any fear or hindrance. On the other hand, Z A Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto struggled for Pakistan to be unswerving to the values of faith, freedom, fundamental human rights, family values and a flourishing society based on the rule of law and human dignity. It has never been a battle of power but a battle of ideologies in which both the heroic father and daughter sacrificed their precious lives. Who or whatsoever came as an obstacle in this endeavour and purported to exploit the common man, infringe the rights of minorities and women, ZAB and Benazir stood firmly against them.
Use of spiteful instruments of declaring our citizens as traitors and blasphemous by vested malevolent interests in personal enmity, if not opposed and discouraged now, would render speechless those who want to speak against extremism and terrorism and would be very detrimental for a peaceful society. Our only minority minister, Shahbaz Bhatti, who was working tirelessly for the well-being of a demoralised and browbeaten section of our society was killed. In the same way, Salmaan Taseer was also mistreated, blamed for blasphemy and then ruthlessly killed by a fanatic.
Today, Mr Hussain Haqqani, the son of this soil, our own citizen who has been serving Pakistan is facing the same threats. Muhammad Nawaz Sharif who remained on the exalted post of premiership himself came into court to put the life of a citizen in danger and abet the extremist forces of our country. Such a flippant attitude that Mr Sharif adopted for political point scoring is turning our society into one of extremists.
One can be guilty, but how can a responsible commission declare a national who has served on reliable constitutional positions in different democratic governments unpatriotic and disloyal? The case can be termed as one of professional negligence if our courts are bent upon punishing him at any cost, but how can anyone determine how patriotic or unpatriotic is the other?
Moreover, the commission did not facilitate Mr Haqqani; the report is full of biases and prejudice. “The commission was only supposed to report on the validity of the accusations,” says Zahid Bokhari, the counsel of Mr Haqqani. “Per that mandate, they were only supposed to collect evidence and submit a report of their findings — providing any recommendations or making any judgments about Husain Haqqani’s loyalty to Pakistan was and is beyond their ambit.”
Under what law the commission can declare anybody a traitor is a question in every mind. The commission’s declaration is above the constitution and law that does not permit giving a verdict but collecting facts. In such a situation, our apex court must reject such findings that are beyond the commission’s responsibility and can put one life in danger, with great loss to him and his family in his own country.
Why do we take extreme steps while handling our national sensitive issues and why do we bring our personal enmities to influence national decisions? Why are we taking Pakistan toward fanaticism and extremism? The commission’s observations on Mr Haqqani’s loyalty were redundant and beyond its scope of duties.
Such a verdict and remarks will make our history sour and can jeopardise many lives, if we as a nation do not rise and oppose such moves when the time is ripe.
The writer is a political analyst and expert on FATA affairs. He can be reached at [email protected] and he tweets at @RiazToori