Dr Tahirul Qadri has landed from abroad to lead the ‘Pakistan Revolution’. His so-called long march has now become a sit-in. He himself is staying in the luxury of a bulletproof, centrally heated cabin, specially made for him, while his supporters are also ensured of food and security. They have no comparison to the tens of thousands of Chinese Communist soldiers who embarked in October 1934 on the historic trek from one side of China to the other. They did not know how long they would be walking, what they would eat, or how their largely unarmed ranks would survive enemy attacks in this difficult journey, which ended in October 1935, claiming the lives of seven out of every ten who attempted it. It became the turning point of the Chinese Communist Party, for whose cause these soldiers were willing to die.
Dr Qadri claims his march and sit-in is for the people of the country he chose to leave for the security he felt abroad, and yet he is hell-bent to present his demands for reforms by making the government hostage. His style of politics presents any opportunist the excuse to derail the country from the path towards real democracy and the pluralistic government the people of Pakistan are slowly but steadily moving to. In the name of the people, the people may once again become a victim. They forget that everywhere clerics have a known history of entering the fray in the disguise of helpers of the people and ultimately take away from them their rights. We do not have to go too far to find evidence. In our own neighbourhood, we have an example to learn from. We just have to go back to 1979.
Iran was under Raza Shah’s tyrannical rule. Having initiated the White Revolution, which included land reform, the extension of voting rights to women, and the elimination of illiteracy, the monarch had become a dictator. He continually sidestepped democratic arrangements, remained unresponsive to public opinion and refrained from allowing meaningful political liberties. People were fed up with his policies but since the successful crushing of the students and workers movement in the 1960s, raising voice against his rule successfully was not possible. Political parties opposed to the Shah were banned. The only organised party of the left, Tudeh, was underground, not allowed to function, and the people were generally disorganised. Wide discontent within the country made the time ripe for change but there was no political force to guide them. The country, however, had one group that were allowed to have an organised structure: the clergy. Seizing on the opportunity provided to them by default, this group provided the necessary organisation to translate people’s anger and frustration against the Shah into the revolution led by Ruhollah Khomeini. The leader landed triumphantly in Tehran from France where he was in exile.
Apparently, the people had won. Knowing the utopian mindset of the masses and the likely outcome of a near term election, the leaders of the revolution allowed political activity; many political prisoners were freed, and Iran had an election. The Tudeh Party and other leftist groups were able to participate in the presidential and parliamentary elections for the first time in many years. Naturally, the Islamic Republican Party formed in mid-1979 to assist the Iranian Revolution won the majority of seats in the Majlis. The people, however, chose the former human rights activist and a student leader of his time, Abulhassan Banisadr, as the president on January 25, 1980. The clerics’ love affair with democracy did not last long and the Majlis impeached Banisadr in his absence in June 1981, allegedly because of his moves against the clerics in power. Dissent was not allowed and the government imprisoned writers at a newspaper closely tied to Banisadr. Over the next few days, they executed several of his closest friends. The clerics could not even tolerate a dissenting view within its own ranks and Ayatollah Montazeri, who was among the few people in the government in support of Banisadr, was soon stripped of his powers. The Iranian government outlawed all political parties, except the Islamic Republic Party and arrested members of other parties, such as the People’s Mujahedin, Fedayeen-e-Khalq, Tudeh, and Paikar. The impeachment was a coup d’état against democracy in Iran. In order to settle the political differences, Banisadr asked for a referendum. In reply, ‘the Rahber-e-Inqilab’ made a speech, in which he said if 36 million people said yes, he could say no. Iran has since then been a theocracy with all political movements controlled by the clerics and even candidature to the office of the president subjected to clearance by the Guardian Council, with the aspirant needing references from 300 political and religious figures. Do the people of Pakistan want such a revolution that ultimately takes away from them their cherished goal of true democratic freedom and be ruled by a theocracy? The answer is a big NO.
Pakistan does not offer an identical situation. Iran had a cohesive Shiite population — 90 to 95 percent — who could be guided by their own faith. Pakistan, though being a Sunni majority country, offers a diverse mix with a significant Shiite presence. Even amongst the Sunnis, the Deobandis having been provided the muscle by the Saudis, would not toe Dr Qadri’s line. His success would, therefore, lead to unprecedented strife.
Fortunately in Pakistan we do have a democracy of sorts where people have freedom of association and can vent out their frustrations through speeches and protests. The law allows dissent and Dr Qadri’s march is a testimony to that. Slowly but surely the wheel of accountability has also started to move. The higher judiciary has started flexing its muscles and started asking questions that positively affect the functioning of national institutions. The sacred cow concept is slowly withering. In time with their proper supervision, things will get better at the lower courts too, where most of the masses have their cases. Yes, the Election Commission can be made better but that does not need making the Capital hostage. The ultimate accountability of the government — elections — is around the corner. Yes, we do have the problem of radicalism that is still not being dealt with but this is neither his priority nor does it need a cleric for a solution. He will never be able to mimic the leader of the Iranian Revolution who had much better credentials and was respected by the Iranian people. Contrary to that, Dr Qadri has to his discredit the report of the LHC commission, which while investigating the incident of an assassination attempt on him, wrote that he had engineered the so-called murder attempt on himself.
As a believer in universal human rights, one must respect the rights of those who believe in Dr Qadri. However, those who believe in Dr Qadri need to be reminded that expecting a cleric to usher in an era of true democracy, freedom and justice is like living in a fool’s paradise. If he indeed is a reformed man and the people would be truly glad if that is the case, the way he handles the situation as it unfolds would be an indicator. He has while addressing the gathering on Wednesday said among other things that the rulers were not facing a mullah or a maulvi, that he did not consider the minorities to be minorities and considered them equal citizens. If he meant what he said, he should have included in his demands that Jinnah’s speech to the Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1947, be made a part of the constitution. If the absence of this demand is just an oversight and not deliberate, we should see it included without delay. Civil society awaits that.
The writer can be reached at [email protected]