The anger and the rhetoric

Part - II

Side-effect

The writer is a poet and author based in Islamabad.

Today, besides Pakistan all South Asian Muslims societies including those of Bangladesh and India are witnessing cultural chaos and psychological turmoil and there are many similarities among all these societies. But there are distinct differences among them as well.

Hindutva, on the other hand, has gained further strength across the cultural, political and social landscape of India. Interestingly, religious revivalism anywhere has little to do with spiritual reawakening and almost everything to do with social and political domination over states and their respective peoples. I can argue how even those who portray themselves as mere proselytisers contribute to the macro agenda of domination over social institutions and the political establishment. But let me try to limit myself to present-day Pakistan.

I too get angry and rhetorical like most of my fellow Pakistanis – liberal or conservative, progressive or reactionary – when it comes to comprehending, analysing, inferring and articulating the current situation, its causes and fall-outs and the solution, if there is any. It is much easier said than done to remain logical and objective and think straight in the circumstances we are in for decades after decades. However, it is time to coolly reflect, introspect, take stock of where we have come and where we are heading and, finally, what we can collectively do to correct the course.

Let us look at Pakistan then without losing sight of the South Asian backdrop in terms of our origins as a state and people, our history, culture(s) and civilisation. As I submitted earlier (in my column of last week) while reflecting on the four discourses of resistance to colonialism, the discourse of freedom from direct colonial rule is not valid any longer in Pakistan or elsewhere, even if we do not discount the secession or self-determination struggles being waged in the peripheries of these post-colonial South Asian states. The discourse of revolution, which included freedom from colonialism but extended the meaning of freedom to include economic liberation and egalitarianism, impacted other discourses but seldom took the centre-stage.

Although that is where the hearts of so many of us lie, objectively speaking this will remain a weak and limited discourse for a long time for some of the reasons briefly cited before as well as other international circumstances. For instance, in the recently concluded local government polls in Pakistan, the total number of councillors elected on the ticket of the only socialist party that properly ran for elections from some places in the country is virtually less than 0.001 percent (about 130 out of approximately 140,000). Translating into electoral strength apart, the rhetoric is solid and relevant but is not graduating into a comprehensive progressive theory to address contemporary issues. Perhaps, it cannot in the short run anyway.

Therefore, the discourse of resistance to colonialism from the yesteryear that has not only stayed relevant for a number of people but has gained a new currency as a discourse of resistance to neo-colonialism in the present day and age is religious revivalism. Now the question remains whether it actually presents an alternative to the neo-colonialism of our times or not.

Let us probe that further. Unlike the solid and relevant rhetoric of the left-wing revolutionary discourse, which however fails to transform itself into an applicable theory, the religious discourse has a divine theory to back it up. The theory is then translated into rhetoric. Students of philosophy may disagree with the use of the word ‘theory’ here and may insist on calling it ‘theology’. But the fact remains that an alternative political system is offered claiming a divine right with divine powers invested into men who have taken upon themselves to represent that divinity.

In Pakistan, the discourse of religious revivalism has made the ‘confusion worst confounded’ for most of the citizens, to quote one my favourite terms which was also used by Gen Ziaul Haq who used this in a press conference after removing his own handpicked prime minister, Mohammed Khan Junejo, in 1987.

A large number of people remain utterly confused in matters of faith and their interplay, alignments and contradictions with modernity and its institutions. However, for a significant number of people, over the years in our history any confusion about the divine right to rule, legislate and set universal social standards by clerics has been replaced by a complete clarity of thought. According to this clarity, a theocracy is the only panacea where eventually clerics will call the shots in accordance with the divine instructions which only certain clerics in power can interpret. Meaning thereby, that there is a divine universal theory and its custodians will dominate all spheres of life.

One must not fail to recognise that there is a strand of strong anti-colonial sentiment within the religious revivalism of today. That is where its political manifestation is rooted, which in fact is the true and real manifestation of both this sentiment and discourse.

However, the issue is that the discourse of religious revivalism in Pakistan – like many other places – is not only that it is against neo-colonialism. It is also against anything modern. But there is an inherent contradiction there too. The champions of a religious revival are not against modern technology and its services or gadgets, which are primarily developed by non-Muslims. They are against new ideas.

But they are not against neo-liberalism either. For there is no alternative that they can propose except translating English banking terms into Arabic and finding ways to manipulate financial management to prove that banking practices are according to divine law. All economic systems and their different off-shoots available to humanity, ranging from monopolistic capitalism to regulated markets to social democracy to communism, are a product of modernity.

Therefore, living with the deep irreconcilable contradiction of toiling for the hereafter in this world as this life is transitional temporary, and struggling tooth and nail to dominate in this temporary world, the champions of religious revival are left with little choice but to focus on the weaker segments of society – weaker in terms of their political and social status, on the one hand, and in their knowledge of history, sociology and politics on the other if they are supposedly educated (like many of our engineers and accountants). As a result, we see the subjugation of women and citizens of minority faith as perpetual rallying points. Just remind yourself about what most of the religious political parties, preachers, spiritual leaders and clerics across the sectarian and sub-sectarian divides have come together for in the last few weeks.

The biggest and the most voluble reaction from the champions of the discourse of religious revivalism came against the passing of a women’s rights bill in the Punjab Assembly; the bill focuses on curbing violence against women. So much so that the wannabe liberal (not progressive) Punjab government had to stop notifying the implementation of the law and begin negotiations with the clerics.

The other reaction was observed when Mumtaz Qadri, the assassin of Salmaan Taseer, was hanged in Rawalpindi. It did not bring all schools of thought together but most did come together including the Jamaat-e-Islami and some Deobandi school clerics. Although many victims are Muslims but the blasphemy law in its present shape and form as defined under Gen Ziaul Haq’s regime directly affects citizens belonging to other faiths.

In short, the discourse of religious revival is not bringing us out of the present quagmire but entrenching us further into the swamp of both poverty of thought and poverty of means. We will remain dominated and dispossessed.

To be continued

Email: harris.khalique@gmail.com