Daily Times

Rise of religious extremism in Pakistan is one of the most discussed topics of the 21st century on national and international platforms. Academic and scholarly circles are making efforts to develop a comprehensive understanding of the framework of this extremism and the actors involved in it. This includes the Pakistani State, Islamic clerics, educational institutions, terrorist groups and non-state actors. All are held responsible for contributing to and promoting this havoc in one way or the other. However, it is important to realise that Pakistani civil society has become a proponent of extremism as well and extremism has trickled down from institutional to individual level significantly.

Religious and cultural extremism in Pakistan is now being practiced and accepted at a completely different level in various strata of society. Therefore, we are becoming more and more confused as a society. This is an alarming situation. If we are not able to decide on what our ideology is, our actions and behaviour will remain out of control. Hence the vulnerability to be driven by ‘any’ force increases tremendously. When Pervez Hoodboy said; “At time when the country needs clarity of thought, one must not look at everything through the prism of fossilised ideologies”. He clearly meant to restrain Pakistanis from being dogmatic and radical. He added, “For Pakistanis the important question is: what are the options for Pakistan’s people today? Pakistan’s future will be determined by the ideological and political battle between citizens who want an Islamist theocratic state, and citizens those who want a modern Islamic republic”. Unfortunately, Pakistanis seem to be very vague about the ideology they should follow.

The behaviour of the Pakistani state is equally confusing and contradictory. This is because the state is trying to please the religious right and the liberals at the same time

Recently, pictures of well-known Pakistani women, Mahira Khan and Malala Yousafzai went viral and met with voracious opprobrium from Pakistani society through social media. Mahira was bashed for smoking a cigarette with an Indian male actor in New York, while Malala was criticised for her western clothing despite the fact that she was covered head to toe. Indeed, this is not a simple matter of public opinion about Pakistani celebrities; in fact, the very problem of extremism lies at the heart of this issue. People who shared those pictures with hateful comments are the face of the same logic of religious and cultural extremism that gives them the legitimacy to be critical about those who deviate from their fundamental frames.

Such people are blind to the spectrum of possibilities that is the base of the post-modern world. They operate in the binaries of right and wrong, acceptable and non-acceptable or appropriate and inappropriate. Their radical judgements are derivatives of their subject positions acquired through religious or formal education and the social mindset of which they are active agents and proponents at the same time. But what is their source of legitimacy for imposing their ideals on every member of society is a question that needs to be asked.

‘At a time when the country needs clarity of thought, one must not look at everything through the prism of fossilised ideologies’

However, such incidents aren’t new, they have been asked time an again. An example of this is the controversy regarding Sheema Kirmani’s Dhamal at the shrine of Shahbaz Qalander after a suicide attack at the shrine. The cases of Qandeel Baloch and Mashal Khan were epoch of this catastrophe when Pakistanis became victims of the hate and violence of their own society.

On the other hand, Pakistani educated liberals condemn these incidents in their media interviews, press statements, Twitter and Facebook accounts in lieu of personal choice, individual preference, and freedom of speech and expression. However, the havoc continues as these two groups fail to find a compromising distance with their juxtaposing ideologies about how Pakistanis should behave as a society.

Interestingly, the behaviour of the Pakistani state is equally confusing and contradictory. This is because the Pakistani state is trying to please religious stake holders and modern liberals at the same time. The promises made by Nawaz Sharif to Sharmeen Obaid, an Oscar winning women’s rights activist is one example of this which is contrary to the recent death sentence of three members of Ahmadi community is the other side of this reality.

It is not a coincidence that in the same month Captain Safdar’s speech in National assembly made it into the headlines for his derogatory remarks for the country’s first Noble Laureate Dr Abdus Salam. “These people (Ahmadis) are a threat to this country, its Constitution and ideology. This situation is heading towards a dangerous point” said Captain Safdar, son-in-law of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif who was declared ineligible by the supreme court of Pakistan.

Hence, it is convenient to drum any idea into public mind using religious lexicon and create issues about which the whole society needs to be concerned while undermining other problems such as corruption which are equally detrimental socially, if not more. Therefore, some individuals are seen as a ‘threat’ to their own society from which other righteous members try to protect it. Moreover, these protectors look towards the state for support and assurance of their acts as the state itself functions as a protectorate of not only its people but also as protecters of people’s faith. This was especially prominent when the state proved its role by arresting Mufti Qavi, who is suspected of being involved in Qandeel Baloch’s murder case.

In addition to this Pakistani scholars also seem to be divided on issues such as the disqualification of former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif as few people see it as a good precedent of intolerance against social and political evils like corruption. However, for others this disqualification is a fracture in Pakistan’s already fragile democracy. Similarly, Pakistani civil society is also divided on this issue where followers of the opposition party, PTI celebrated this decision as their success while followers of the ruling party PML-N called it a dark day in the history of Pakistani politics. Moreover, there is a section of society which is unable to decide which is threat is greater.

Finally, zooming out of the national context, Pakistan has recently been elected as a member of United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) which Maleeha Lodhi called a ‘diplomatic success’ and ‘manifestation of the international community’s trust in Pakistan’ in the same week in which three Ahmadis were sentenced to death for blasphemy. Ironically, when Pakistan is making advances on human rights issues internationally, it is unable to propagate humanitarian values of tolerance, co-existence and religious freedom nationally. Raza Rumi rightly pointed out in one of his articles “seventy years remained insufficient for us to define the contours of nationhood and to build consensus around such issues”.

This failure to develop a common national ideology and perpetual struggle to understand Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan has resulted in extremism which we don’t know how to deal with. This dilemma has not only affected Pakistan’s image on the international landscape but extremism is also inimical to our national self. Henceforth, it is high time we acknowledged the destructive potential of extremism at the very micro level by increasing awareness about the categories of personal and political, private and public, and national and humanitarian. The unfortunate incidents of the past should be seen as lessons rather than taken as precedents for the future. Extremism can only be countered by collective efforts by the Pakistani state and society. Only this can save us from imploding as a nation state.

The writer is Falak Sufi Scholar at Hagop Kevorkian Centre for Near Eastern. Currently pursuing a Masters degree at New York University

Published in Daily Times, October 24^th 2017.