The meaning of the word ‘liberal’ has never been
precise anywhere and at anytime in the world. In Pakistan too it has always
kept shifting. In the parlance of the Islamic fundamentalists (itself a
problematic term) liberalism is equated with Westernization not only in
lifestyle and behaviour but also in ideology. Thus, a liberal is, at best, a
non-practicing Muslim completely ignorant of Islam or, at worst, simply a
hypocrite pretending to be a Muslim. The liberals themselves profess to be
Muslims but with a different interpretation of Islam than the fundamentalists.
Some of them distinguish between ‘political’ liberalism and religious
liberalism. By ‘political’ liberalism they mean the desire to have free
elections with women having equal political rights and all citizens being equal
as far as the state is concerned. Their main argument is that the founder of
Pakistan, the Quaid-i-Azam, was just such a liberal. Along with this, some
argue that, though religion is a personal affair as far as the state is
concerned and therefore theocracy is ruled out, they themselves are Muslims
according to their understanding of Islam.
Leonard Binder in his book Religion and Politics in Pakistan (1963) has categorized attitudes
towards Islam in four ways: traditionalist (the view of the ulema); modernist (the view of Islamic
scholars familiar with Western knowledge); fundamentalist (the views of groups
reacting to the West and desiring that Muslims should return to the
‘fundamentals’ of Islam as interpreted by them) and secularist (views of
Westernized people with little knowledge of the original sources of Islam).
Even these categories are insufficient as they leave out the mystic (or
neo-mystic) sufi groups which are
also loosely called ‘liberal Muslims’ by some writers. Moreover, the
‘fundamentalists’ are also ‘revivalists’ as they want a revival of the power
and ideological hold of Islam over the minds of the Muslim masses.
Most Pakistani liberals have never thought deeply about
their real ideological position. They profess to admire the modernist Islamic
scholars, like the late Dr. Fazlur Rahman, but they do not have any knowledge
of the Arabic sources on which the modernists base their interpretations. Moreover,
most Pakistani liberals first make up their mind as to what Islam is and then
accept or reject the arguments of scholars. If a scholar happens to support
their point of view he is quoted with admiration; if he does not, he is
dismissed as being either ignorant or prejudiced. This is understandable
considering that most of these liberals do have a genuine desire not to abandon
Islam. At the same time they have also internalized Western philosophies and
the values contingent upon them. Some of them genuinely respect religion and
they sincerely feel that they have understood its spirit correctly. As such all
they need is a confirmation of their understanding which they obtain from some
modernist thinkers. However, a judgment or interpretation not consistent with
their understanding of Islam is quietly rejected or resisted by them. The
liberals do not, of course, realize that their modernist world view might be
influencing them in their interpretation. For instance, the philosophy of
nationalism influences them far more than they realize and any Islamic
injunction, no matter who interprets it, against this modern world philosophy
would be quietly glossed over as impractical idealism.
Most Pakistani ‘liberals’ are merely cosmetic liberals.
If they have been socialized by the state they are liberals only in dress,
table manners and the use of English. Apart from that they do not respect
democracy or human rights or rights of women. However, since they seek
legitimacy in the world, they maintain laws which are not, at least in theory,
too discriminatory against women and minorities. Moreover, they pay lip service
to democracy and support some form of electoral exercise even if the country
remains under authoritarian, quasi-military rule even when elected prime ministers
are ‘reigning’.
There are, however, a handful of liberal radicals too.
Among them are human-rights activists, women-rights activists and peace
activists. This is a very small group which has migrated from the left towards
liberalism. Among those who are still active most are middle aged and some are
elderly. Moreover, being employed by NGOs and the press, they can hardly afford
to be very radical. I doubt whether they have an active following among younger
people who do want justice, as their seniors did, but who tend to join
religious idealistic groups promising the same. Most of these people are
secular in politics, education and lifestyle but it would be wrong to assume
that they are all secular in their personal faith too. Some might be but most
are modernist Muslims without, however, any understanding of the Arabic sources
of Islam.
The liberals of all description are united in regarding
the extreme fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, such as the one represented
by the Taliban, as a threat. The religious parties declare that it is a threat
to their lifestyle which involves the social mixing of men and women, the
wearing of Western clothes, the hearing of Western music and, in some cases,
drinking and dancing. While this is true in the case of some cosmetic
‘liberals’, it is not the whole truth in the case of the others---especially
the radicals. The latter are really committed to democracy, human rights,
rights of women and peace. They could, of course, keep up the drinking and
dancing in private but they risk their lives for principles they value. This
commitment should be valued by their detractors. The liberals too ought to
understand that their opponents, the Islamists, also risk their lives for the
principles they value.
Unfortunately, the present conflict in Afghanistan,
threatens to drive the liberals to moral bankruptcy. The moral dilemma is that
if they oppose the war the United States has declared on Afghanistan they seem
to go against their principle of supporting peace and opposing war. If,
however, they oppose the war they seem to be supporting the Taliban whom they
have always opposed. Moreover, they strengthen the position of the religious
parties in Pakistan who would not tolerate them if they ever came to power.
Another dilemma is how to support General Musharraf’s moderate and pragmatic
foreign policy without appearing to support military rule as such. They do not
want to make General Musharraf’s position untenable because they feel, and
rightly it appears, that if the General loses power a radical right wing
government or anarchy stares them in the face. Thus they do support General
Musharraf. Yet, they can hardly face their own conscience, let alone their few
admirers, if the bombardment in Afghanistan continues unabated and if democracy
is not brought in.
Most of the liberals have been forced to tell their
conscience to keep its mouth shut. The last time they did so was when the
Islamists nearly won an election in Algeria but then the military took over.
Most liberals, frightened out of their wits by the prospect of fundamentalists
ruling over them for ever, kept quiet. They also kept quiet when women were
discriminated against for wearing head scarves in France and Turkey because,
they felt, too much song and dance about it would only strengthen the Islamic
fundamentalists. They have also ignored the fact that the use of English in
elitist domains of power in Pakistan discriminate against the poor masses who
cannot afford to buy this language from expensive schools. This is because most
of the liberals are products of expensive English medium schools. Similarly,
some of the Pakistani liberals argued upon General Musharraf’s takeover in
October 1999 that he was their last hope since he alone could weaken the
Islamic militants. Although at that time some disagreed with this assumption,
nowadays almost everyone agrees with this.
In short, the liberals in Pakistan come in several
overlapping and indistinct categories. While many are neither liberal in
policies nor in behaviour or values, others are committed to ideals like
democracy, human rights and peace. They are pragmatic in general since they
desire that they should not be destroyed by Islamic fundamentalists. This is
what makes them support policies like the continued bombing in Afghanistan even
though it goes against their pro-peace stand to do so. There are, however, some
committed and principled liberals who value humanitarianism and respect for
human life and happiness everywhere in the world. They are the ones who condemn
both terrorism in the United States as well as the war in Afghanistan since it
will result in death and starvation of innocent Afghans and maybe a long
guerrilla war between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance even if the latter
wins the immediate battle. Such people may be very few and they may become the
casualties of history but if principles matter they must be given the respect
they deserve.