Can Pakistan Be Secular?
A Pakistan that, like India, embraces pluralist tolerance is worth thinking about
Washington: To anyone who knew him in this country, Faisal Shahzad seemed like a likeable but unremarkable young man, a naturalised American citizen, living a middle class life in Connecticut with his wife and two children. Then came Saturday, May 1, 2010, when he allegedly tried to blow up a van loaded with explosives in New Yorks crowded Times Square. He failed and was later arrested. His story has set off a flurry of questions here: Why did he do it? What are the links between Islam and jihad? And, why does Pakistan figure so ominously in a majority of terror-related incidents around the world?
The British authorities said sometime ago that 70 per cent of terror-related events in their country had a link with Pakistan. Indians can shake their heads in empathy; so can the Americans after a series of attempted cases of terrorism involving US citizens becoming radicalised after hooking up with jihadi outfits in Pakistan. What is it with Pakistan that jihadis find such a hospitable climate for their activities?
Writing in The Washington Post last Monday, Fareed Zakaria asked why Pakistan remained a terrorist hothouse at a time when jihadists were losing support elsewhere in the Muslim world. The answer is simple, he said. From its founding, the Pakistani government has supported and encouraged jihadi groups, creating an atmosphere that has allowed them to flourish. Unsurprisingly, its a conclusion with which many thoughtful Pakistanis agree. That much was evident last Monday at a seminar in this town.
Inaugurating the conference on Competing Religious Narratives in Pakistan: Can Islam Be an Agency for Peace, Husain Haqqani, Pakistans erudite ambassador to the US, offered a strikingly candid set of observations. He began by quoting from an April 1957 essay by Hasan Suhrawardy, then the prime minister, in which the veteran politician wondered, apparently in exasperation with Islamist ideologues, whether the insertion in the constitution of the adjective Islamic to describe the state
was meant in any way to be a sign of courage or moral excellence. Today, said Haqqani, the vision thing is hardly discussed. Popular discourse in Pakistan is over trivialities and dominated by conspiracy theories.
Is Pakistan an ideological state? Or is it a nation state, asked the ambassador, making it clear that he stood with those who wanted it to be a nation, in which secular politics formed the chief channel of discourse, and not a theocratic entity. Politics is the grand avenue of service to humanity, he declared. Religious parties could have a legitimate role in politics but they must not have a veto over the countrys direction by threatening those who would support pluralism and democracy.
Haqqanis act was followed by similarly insightful and forthright presentations by, among others, two Pakistani intellectuals. Farzana Shaikh, who is with Chatham House in London, pleaded for the introduction of a minimal form of secularism in a rapidly declining Pakistan which she said was struggling to survive in desperate times. The states identity was not clear from its very start. Given the circumstances in which the demand for a separate nation called Pakistan arose, even its early secularists had to rely on Islamic terminology to state their case. An ambiguous and ample role was awarded to Islam, she pointed out. Later, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto flirted with a form of folk Islam while General Zia-ul Haq openly implemented an ulemainspired, shariatised Islam. The military, in power for most of that countrys life, relies today on a Muslim communal discourse.
Ayesha Siddiqa, who wrote a fine account in her book Military Inc of the spread of the Pakistani militarys financial tentacles, warned that jihadist influence was far more widespread than just in the FATA region. Contrary to the belief of many who thought some jihadi groups worked independently from others, she asserted that all jihadists were interconnected. She too pleaded for an attempt by the countrys elite to separate Islam from politics of the state. For that to happen the educated would have to create a new narrative on secular politics and give up attempts to argue that this or that variety of Islam, such as Sufism, could bring moderation to the land.
It is probably too late in the day to introduce a strict form of secularism in Pakistan. The nation was founded as a separate land for Muslims of the subcontinent. That did not happen; most Muslims in South Asia live outside Pakistan, which in fact stopped further Muslim migration soon after its creation. It has become a military state, with a patina of democratic representation without real power. And it is becoming a land for ideological Islamists instead of a nation for Muslims. Can secularism work there?
Secularism exists in various forms. The French have a hard variety, in which the state tries to preserve a republican nonreligious uniformity; the Americans believe in keeping equidistance from all religions while maintaining a wall between religion and the state. India offers a third variety, in which the secular state tries to treat all religions equally; the state, as well as the judiciary, often intervenes in religious affairs while religious considerations can influence public policy. But it maintains a pluralist tolerance and allows all religions free play.
Can Pakistan become a bit like India? Probably not, but it may be worth a thought.
Article Window
A Pakistan that, like India, embraces pluralist tolerance is worth thinking about
Washington: To anyone who knew him in this country, Faisal Shahzad seemed like a likeable but unremarkable young man, a naturalised American citizen, living a middle class life in Connecticut with his wife and two children. Then came Saturday, May 1, 2010, when he allegedly tried to blow up a van loaded with explosives in New Yorks crowded Times Square. He failed and was later arrested. His story has set off a flurry of questions here: Why did he do it? What are the links between Islam and jihad? And, why does Pakistan figure so ominously in a majority of terror-related incidents around the world?
The British authorities said sometime ago that 70 per cent of terror-related events in their country had a link with Pakistan. Indians can shake their heads in empathy; so can the Americans after a series of attempted cases of terrorism involving US citizens becoming radicalised after hooking up with jihadi outfits in Pakistan. What is it with Pakistan that jihadis find such a hospitable climate for their activities?
Writing in The Washington Post last Monday, Fareed Zakaria asked why Pakistan remained a terrorist hothouse at a time when jihadists were losing support elsewhere in the Muslim world. The answer is simple, he said. From its founding, the Pakistani government has supported and encouraged jihadi groups, creating an atmosphere that has allowed them to flourish. Unsurprisingly, its a conclusion with which many thoughtful Pakistanis agree. That much was evident last Monday at a seminar in this town.
Inaugurating the conference on Competing Religious Narratives in Pakistan: Can Islam Be an Agency for Peace, Husain Haqqani, Pakistans erudite ambassador to the US, offered a strikingly candid set of observations. He began by quoting from an April 1957 essay by Hasan Suhrawardy, then the prime minister, in which the veteran politician wondered, apparently in exasperation with Islamist ideologues, whether the insertion in the constitution of the adjective Islamic to describe the state
was meant in any way to be a sign of courage or moral excellence. Today, said Haqqani, the vision thing is hardly discussed. Popular discourse in Pakistan is over trivialities and dominated by conspiracy theories.
Is Pakistan an ideological state? Or is it a nation state, asked the ambassador, making it clear that he stood with those who wanted it to be a nation, in which secular politics formed the chief channel of discourse, and not a theocratic entity. Politics is the grand avenue of service to humanity, he declared. Religious parties could have a legitimate role in politics but they must not have a veto over the countrys direction by threatening those who would support pluralism and democracy.
Haqqanis act was followed by similarly insightful and forthright presentations by, among others, two Pakistani intellectuals. Farzana Shaikh, who is with Chatham House in London, pleaded for the introduction of a minimal form of secularism in a rapidly declining Pakistan which she said was struggling to survive in desperate times. The states identity was not clear from its very start. Given the circumstances in which the demand for a separate nation called Pakistan arose, even its early secularists had to rely on Islamic terminology to state their case. An ambiguous and ample role was awarded to Islam, she pointed out. Later, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto flirted with a form of folk Islam while General Zia-ul Haq openly implemented an ulemainspired, shariatised Islam. The military, in power for most of that countrys life, relies today on a Muslim communal discourse.
Ayesha Siddiqa, who wrote a fine account in her book Military Inc of the spread of the Pakistani militarys financial tentacles, warned that jihadist influence was far more widespread than just in the FATA region. Contrary to the belief of many who thought some jihadi groups worked independently from others, she asserted that all jihadists were interconnected. She too pleaded for an attempt by the countrys elite to separate Islam from politics of the state. For that to happen the educated would have to create a new narrative on secular politics and give up attempts to argue that this or that variety of Islam, such as Sufism, could bring moderation to the land.
It is probably too late in the day to introduce a strict form of secularism in Pakistan. The nation was founded as a separate land for Muslims of the subcontinent. That did not happen; most Muslims in South Asia live outside Pakistan, which in fact stopped further Muslim migration soon after its creation. It has become a military state, with a patina of democratic representation without real power. And it is becoming a land for ideological Islamists instead of a nation for Muslims. Can secularism work there?
Secularism exists in various forms. The French have a hard variety, in which the state tries to preserve a republican nonreligious uniformity; the Americans believe in keeping equidistance from all religions while maintaining a wall between religion and the state. India offers a third variety, in which the secular state tries to treat all religions equally; the state, as well as the judiciary, often intervenes in religious affairs while religious considerations can influence public policy. But it maintains a pluralist tolerance and allows all religions free play.
Can Pakistan become a bit like India? Probably not, but it may be worth a thought.
Article Window
