Daily Times

Islam was exploited during the British Raj by driving a wedge between the masses of India on a communal basis to serve the interest of the Muslim elite and the middle class. That is why the religious leadership continues to insist that ‘Ideology of Pakistan’ was to implement Islamic laws and Shari’a.

At the same time, a majority of the people want a modern democratic state. Although Pakistan will mark 70 years of its independence next year, it is still not sure of its identity. The good thing is that the debate about its identity continues, though both the people and its leaders are confused as to whether Pakistan is an ‘Islamic state’, or should it be a ‘democratic state’. Democracy has to be secular if it is democratic in the true sense. There is a third equally strong strand that tries to synthesise the irreconcilable two: Islamic state with Islamic laws and a modern democratic state with the laws and values of the twenty-first-century polity. This predicament is being faced by most of the Muslim-majority countries whose societies are being pulled in two different directions. It is not the clash of civilisations, contrary to what was suggested by US writer Samuel Huntington; it is a clash within the Muslim societies, who being at different stages of economic development, are finding it hard to withstand the strong wind of globalisation. There are multiple streams of thought and aspirations in Muslim societies that are at variance with each other. Emphasis on religion was used to justify the creation of the massive war machinery, which needs an aggressive and adventurous foreign and national security policy. The natural corollary of this policy was giving more space and a free hand to religious extremists in the country’s politics, and promotion of Jihad as a tool for the extension of the national security policy crafted by the armed forces. The same so-called ‘assets’ of the security establishment are now the biggest liability of Pakistan threatening its future. The people of Pakistan have been suffering nerve-racking uncertainty for decades because of these perilous policies. With each turn of event in the country they have been asking the same question again and again: What will happen now? Will the country survive? Will it further drift into chaos and civil war? Will democracy survive? So on and so forth, it seems that all faces are now just question marks dancing around in public debate and private gatherings.

Many writers and scholars have attempted to deal with these questions and forecast the probable future of Pakistan — the country that is described as the ‘world’s most dangerous’. Let us first briefly review what these pundits are forecasting.

Stephen P. Cohen has highlighted ‘warning signs,’ which he says need immediate and urgent attention, although none alone are sufficient to ensure normalisation of Pakistan. I have listed these warning signs but changed the sequence on the basis of my understanding of the situation in Pakistan and prioritising them to provide a logical flow. The six warning signs include further appeasement of Islamists; recent crisis with India; unwillingness to deal quickly with economic issues; [Dependence on] the begging bowl; absence of governance at the top; and unwillingness/inability to rebuild state institutions.

I would add two more warnings. The fear of U.S-China scrambles to secure the Gulf waters and their conflicting interests in the coastal belt of Balochistan, and the widening economic inequality between the haves and have nots.

Cohen — and many other writers concur that Pakistani society is becoming increasingly polarised between Islamists, ‘who receive considerable state patronage,’ and the liberal democrats, who are on the defensive. The rise of Islamists’ militant movement to become the vanguard of Islamic Jihad in the world has plunged the country into a near civil war situation. This has destabilised the country.

However, the immediate threat to the country from within and fearing the present geo-strategic scenario, there has been some realisation in a section of the ruling class that tension with India has to be eased. A majority of the big businesses have also been pushing for the normalisation of relations with India as they see tremendous business potential between the two countries. But the direct and indirect beneficiaries of the war economy, it seems, sabotage all such attempts. The current tension between the two countries is very suitable for the intelligence agencies that thrive on destabilising each other by supporting their respective terrorist groups.

In response to the Pakistan’s flawed national security policy, which relies heavily on non-state actors’ terrorist activities in Afghanistan and India, the two states have started using the same tactics against Pakistan. The way things are, it seems that Pakistan will need to sit with these two neighbours and eventually sign an agreement that they need to get rid of such groups.

An overwhelming majority of Pakistanis are against religious extremism. The government, military, and the people will back any action taken against ruthless religious extremists. But the worrying point is that there is little debate in Pakistan on why religious extremism is rampant. Some of the questions that should be discussed and explored by social scientists are: Is religious extremism a new phenomenon was it embedded in the Pakistan movement in undivided India? Is religious extremism spreading and strengthening in Pakistan or does it appear to be expanding because religious extremists are using terrorist tactics to achieve their ideological goals? What external and internal factors have sharpened the contradiction between religious extremists and modernists? And is religious extremism and modernity contradiction peculiar to Muslim societies, or did other religions also got inflicted with this malaise? These questions need to be debated.

Religion and politics have to be separated to check sectarian strife and to stop state patronage to Islamists. The Jihadi organisations have to be wounded up along with a programme for the rehabilitation of their foot soldiers. Mosques and Madrassahs have to be closely monitored to stop them from spreading hatred against other sects. Madrassahs have to be converted to technical schools and other institutions imparting modern education on humanistic lines. Such reforms mean moving away from the religious nationalist narrative to build a secular society. Pakistan is not an early twentieth century Turkey where a Kemal Attaturk could rise to abolish the ‘Caliphate,’ which was a symbol of the temporal and divine world. But it can take a break from its stated religious nationalism and move towards secularisation of society based on reason and scientific life stance — the process which has been started by Bangladesh.

The do’s and don’ts list is long but what has been suggested above is the most urgent matter in the list. Otherwise, Pakistan would not be able to pull itself out of the quagmire in which it is sinking inch by inch every passing day.

The writer is freelance journalist and author. He can be reached at ayazbabar@gmail.com