The uncharted ideological borders of Islamic Pakistan are contested between two-self-appointed custodians.
For last few days I was trying to solve the puzzle of Pakistani nation’s bizarre reaction over the killings of Taliban leader Hakimullah Masood. The Interior minister press conference was not in any manner different than Taliban’s spokesman; as both expressed their anger and avowed to revenge against US with slight variation of wordings. As a result of ambiguous response of the government public opinion further swayed in favor of Taliban that emboldened the political breed sympathized with Taliban to seize this opportunity to further their cause. Aggrieved Rightist and religious parties declared him martyr and issued fatwa against the Pakistani soldiers who died fighting against the terrorists. According to pro-Taliban parties, Pakistan army is nothing more than extension of US army and therefore, Pakistani soldiers’ death status in Islam is not different from US soldiers. In this race of condemning killing of Hakimmulah, left parties including parliament felt no qualm jumping into anti-American bandwagon to show solidarity with pro-Taliban forces. While media and political pundits were trying to laud military’s views about Taliban and criticizing civil government silence but they overlooked the role and complicity of military in nurturing such forces and protecting them by calling good and bad Taliban. In nutshell, military and political hierarchy yet not able to see the threat posed by not only Taliban but ideology they share with many groups and parties that declared TTP Martyr. In spite of fact that they killed more than 50000 Pakistanis including civilians, military and Para-military people and attacked GHQ, Naval and Air force headquarters but yet vast majority and rightist parties openly siding with them.
The controversy that appeared in the media after the remarks of Jamaat e Islami Amir Munawar Hassan for declaring Hakimuullah “shaheed” and Pakistan soldier’s “not Shaheed” represents the dilemma of Pakistani polity and society rooted in its history of Islamic ideology. This can be further observed from the apathy and indifference these leaders displaying over an extra-ordinary threat TTP poses to the very existence of this country and mercilessly killing countless innocent people. It is not true that only JI or Fazul Rehman parties subscribe pro-Taliban and extremist views. Pakistan is full of with such pro-extremist and Taliban leaders including civil and military hierarchy, civil servant, journalists, civil society members and lawyers. People like retired General Hamid Gul, Imran Khan, Sheikh Rasheed, Hafiz Saeed, Ansar Abbasi, John Orea and large section of Lawyers have never hidden their love for Taliban and refrained from condemning Taliban brutal acts. Military role in this regard has been dubious too.
As they military leadership never made their inquiries public or allowed any government to take action against the culprits from involved GHQ, Naval or Air Force attacks from their ranks except punishing some low ranking employees for eye wash. In the same manner they turned blind eyes on JI’s open connections with Al-Qaeda when many of top al-Qaeda terrorist were arrested from JI senior members’ houses during Musharraf period. Now Furious, Retired General Athar Abbas had to speak about JI’s connections with Al-Qaeda when JI Amir questioned their status in this war, reflects where problem lies.
When discussing the dimension of ongoing row between JI and military few points is important in this regard. First, military’s reaction against JI was not due to their support to Taliban rather bone of contention was how did JI venture to question Islamic credentials of self-appointed custodian (Army) of Ideological borders. If this wouldn’t have been the case then military leadership must have treated remarks of Maulana Fazlurehman offensive to them who also declared Hakimullah, as “Shaeed”.
Second, one can infer from this debate that “territory and people” weren’t subject or focus of this discussion except that military tried to reinforce its image as “custodianship of uncharted borders of Islamic ideology” that JI leader questioned. The retired vice Air Martial Latif’ comments on the media shed some light when he angrily demanded unconditional apology from JI Amir for questioning the status of Pakistani soldiers’ death. He was of the view that Pakistani soldiers sole motivating factor for laying their lives was their love for Islam, suggested that they didn’t join army for economic reasons or defending country except Islam. If somebody asks him that why soldiers from different countries go to UN peace mission including Pakistan and die there. Why NATO forces in Afghanistan come and died here? The fact is that response on the media against JI leader was not much different from JI, as both were using same Islamic yardstick to prove or disprove their loyalty with Islam not with territory or people.
This situation begs attention of sane Pakistani elements willing to think by rising above the anti-Americanism to explore its roots. When political or media pundits come forward in defense of military hierarchy against the JI and forgetting the fact that military was the pioneer and architect of pan-Islamist movement and nurtured extremist groups to seek strategic expansion and regional ascendancy. It was 9/11, that deterred the march of Pan-Islamism in the region and saved many nations and cultures from being overtaken by such radicals and extremist elements to which JI was military’s partner.
Watching heated debate on Pakistani mainstream media on the issue who is Shaheed and who is not, after seven decades of its creation reminding the days when similar kind of religious arguments had been advanced for the creation of separate homeland for Indian Muslims. Then Muslim League’s leadership M.Ali Jinnah had passionately pleaded that Muslims of India needed separate homeland to live according to their Islamic values. No economic, social or political reasons were given in support of its creation. If identical views echo after 7 decades of its creation and same Islamic parameters are used, for or against the Taliban killings, or Pakistan army’s death to prove their love for Islam and find no reference of, territory or people, reflecting ideological delusion embedded in country’s Islamic ideology contested by different groups, parties and institution.
What these striking similarities in discourses after 7 decades suggest that religion was then persuasively used to create separate country and now is contested between two old sole mate to reassert or claim custodianship of its “uncharted borders of Islamic ideology”. Islamic extremist groups and parties rightly question to military’s credentials that how they can be guardian or custodian of an Islamic state when they are aligned with an unlismic and infidel country that is involved in killing and occupying, Muslims and Muslim country, like Afghanistan. The military leadership that sidelined democratic and secular forces by questioning their religious credentials, loyalty and competence and always portrayed as self-appointed custodian of ideological and geographical border is furious over JI remarks for undermining their image as custodian of it.
They promoted Islamic parties and militants groups sharing army’s Indian centric policies, anti-democratic views volunteered to wage Pakistan army’s war against its neighbors for regional ascendancy that will keep military in business. Therefore, this war needs to be seen in ideological context where country’s undefined Islamic ideological borders are contested between two, self-appointed custodian and guardian.
No comments:
Post a Comment