Dr Tariq Rahman
THE ISLAMIZATION DRIVE IN THE FRONTIER
The Government of the MMA has made headlines by passing a Shariat Bill and defacing boards with pictures of women on them. Those who oppose such measures use the following arguments: these are cosmetic steps and not Islamization in the real and deeper sense of the term; these steps are a product of the ruling cleric’s own version of Islam while ‘real’ Islam is different from it; such steps will drive out investment in this cash-strapped province; this will disempower women even more by restricting their mobility and opportunities; it will lead to the kind of witch-hunting which has already been witnessed in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, revolutionary Iran and parts of Swat during Sufi Muhammad’s movement; it will produce a dull, stringent, colourless society without the normal pleasures of life. Apart from these arguments, the editorial of The Friday Times also wrote:
---It has been ensured that Islamism is only opposed to civil society transgressions of the national security state and not to military hegemony or extensive state intervention in the economy and society (TFT 30 May-05 June 2003.)
Let us look at these arguments one by one.
The first argument, that these are cosmetic steps, is not really a strong argument. What is ‘cosmetic’ and what is not is a matter of interpretation. Those of us, like the present author, who are not qualified to pass a judgment on religious issues should not pass any judgment on this issue. In any case, if the clerics go for ‘deeper’ Islamization, it could make life even more unlivable for the critics.
The second argument, that this is the cleric’s own version of Islam, merits more attention. There are at least three major interpretations of the Islamic law even in orthodox Sunni Pakistani Islam: the Ahl-i-Hadith; the Deobandis and the Barelvis. Moreover, the Shias have a different interpretation too. In addition to that there are modernists whose interpretation is different from all these sub-sects. Even in the N.W.F.P, there are independent interpreters of Islam who have different views from the MMA leadership. Mohammad Farooq Khan, both in his recent statements and in his book Islam Kya Hai? (1997) says:
Thus, the holy Qur’an proves that the veiling of women’s faces is not necessary when they are at home or in safe places. It is necessary in the street, the open bazaar and unsafe places (p. 323).
He goes on the suggest that music too is allowed unless it is part of lewd and irresponsible get-together (p. 330-331). At another place Dr. Farooq argues that no person can be forced to adopt a peculiar dress or a way of thought (p. 369).
With these differences in the interpretation of religion, it is unjust to impose any one version of Islam by the coercive apparatus of the state. It would lead to friction, amounting perhaps to a civil war, between the liberals and the MMA. This would really shake the fabric of the state which is neither in the interest of the liberals nor the MMA. For this reason alone, if for no other, the MMA should consider whether the imposition of any single version of Islam---other than the laws already in use---will lead to more dissension and friction or not? If they will lead to conflict, would it not be ‘good’ not to impose them?
The third argument, that the foreign investors may start investing in the N.W.F.P may be true. Even if it does not happen because of the female faces on the hoardings, it might happen if the MMA changes the banking laws. Although there are Islamic modernists who argue that the present system of banking interest is not riba, the MMA widely believes it is. If the MMA moves beyond ‘cosmetic’ measures to such vital issues as banking and bans interest in all forms, then the province will be very badly hit indeed. As it is, even the ban on alcohol for foreigners in hotels and the demolition of hoardings, may irritate foreign investors. This is a powerful argument and the members of the MMA should ask themselves whether they are responsible for reducing poverty in the province or not? If they are, would it not be ‘good’ to concentrate on that?
The fourth argument, that of diresnpowering women, is really very compelling. As it is, the women of the N.W.F.P are very disempowered. In Farida Shaheed’s book called Imagined Citizenship (2002) published by Shirkat Gah a national survey of 1609 women was undertaken. Among those who answered that: ‘men did not allow me to vote’, the share of the N.W.F.P women was the highest being 31.9% whereas the national average was 13%. They are allowed unaccompanied trips for shopping only in 17% cases whereas the national average is 31.9%. Thus, in the name of honour and Pakhtun tradition, women have always been disempowered. Besides honour and tradition, men have also appealed to Islam to restrict women’s mobility and chances in life. All this is not new; what is new is that women’s restrictions and disempowerment will be institutionalized by law. This is worrying because whenever the law has been extended to any cultural or societal field---as during the Zia ul Haq era---no government has been able to reverse this trend.
This brings me to witch hunting. It has been observed that whenever vigilante groups have been entrusted with the enforcement of values, what has happened is that an inquisition has been unleashed. This happened in China when the ‘cultural revolution’ made young people disgrace distinguished scholars creating emotional scars which have not been healed yet. It happened in Iran when the Pasdaran-i-Inqilab insulted people, spied upon them and generally unleashed terror in the minds of intellectuals and urban elites. And in Afghanistan, as we all know, the Taliban drove away intellectuals, purged the universities and closed them down, and did away with art and culture---all in the name of enforcing ‘good’. Can this not happen here? And, if it does, would it create ‘good’ or its opposite?
The banning of music, painting, sculptor and other forms of art will distort the minds of the people because pleasure is an important aspect of life. The NWFP is already a very martial society and the need is to promote values of peace and tolerance. A joyless society is always an intolerant one. Eric Fromm’s An Anatomy of Human Destructiveness (1973) tells us that societies which curb the joys of life promote cruelty, aggression and war. From this point of view, the Hisbah Act which creates a vigilante group, perhaps of young activists, will create more unpleasantness than virtue in the NWFP.
Let me now come to the views of the Friday Times. It is true that the military has used the religious lobby to further its policy in Afghanistan and Kashmir. It is probably also true that the clerics want an authoritarian order which the military has promoted when it has ruled openly or behind the scenes. It might also be true that the MMA has been empowered to keep the PML-N and the PPP out of power. However, if the military thinks that the MMA will always keep the military’s power intact, then maybe it is mistaken. It should be understood that the religious lobby feels that it must create its own version of an ‘Islamic society’. It is also clear that without political power it cannot create such a society. Thus, the religious lobby will not remain a stooge of the military. It will bid for power in its own right. By creating a parallel system of enforcement of the law (Hisbah), it is creating a para-military force. As poverty increases people will become more and more keen on a new order and, therefore, susceptible to being seduced by a fascist political order which promises immediate transformation of society. Such a combination of committed ideologues, a parallel force and armies of aggressive and unemployed youth is potentially dangerous for the state and, of course, for the military as an institution. It is, therefore, not in the interest of the army to support the authoritarian excesses of the MMA.
While one may not agree with aspects of the Islamization drive of the MMA, this does not mean that this government should be dismissed or suppressed. The rules of democracy allow an elected government to complete its tenure---so be it. The same rules also ensure, as John Stuart Mill said in On Liberty, that the majority cannot force itself on the opinions or way of life (including clothes) of a minority (i.e. those who disagree with it). This the MMA government should respect while the federal government should respect its democratic right to complete its tenure. In the end, it is the democratic order which should be supported and not this government or that.