Mir Mohammad Ali Talpur
Zia became Zia because that inherent quality of hate and hypocrisy he represented was produced in him by a long history of vigorous and sustained promotion of a vicious kind of fundamentalism that could only produce pernicious mindsets
Everyone is trying to comprehend why Pakistan has become a hub of terrorism because wherever terrorists strike, the leads point towards the country. A lot has been written to explain the reasons why, of all places, it is here in Pakistan that the mindset which is universally so destructive and thrives solely on violence, bigotry and belligerence flourishes unhindered. Why has this country become the breeding place of an extremely vicious, bigoted and violent brand of fundamentalism that the Taliban and their ilk want everyone to accept as the real Islam?
It is surprising that most intellectuals, writers and politicians, when rightly condemning fundamentalist terrorism and terrorists, hold only Ziaul Haq responsible for of all that is wrong here. Terming the scourge of fundamentalism and Taliban terrorists “Ziaul Haq’s progeny”, they erroneously overlook as to whose progeny Ziaul Haq was, for certainly he and his ideology did not suddenly appear from nowhere. DNA testing would certainly establish the parentage.
Fanatical ideologies and individuals are products of long social, political, economic and historical processes. Blaming Zia alone for all the ills here is erroneous and dangerous because it creates a false sense of complacency, leading to the belief that if what Zia did could be undone then there would be peace and tranquillity. We need to look at history before Zia to understand why it had to be Zia who was born with his particular mindset, promoting hatred and hypocrisy instead of a Sufi preaching of tolerance and forbearance.
If you build a unit to produce bullock-carts then, as pious, virtuous and well intentioned as you may be, you cannot expect a Porsche to roll out from that assembly line. It will produce just what it was programmed to. Nothing happens in a vacuum, nothing happens until conditions ideal for something to happen exist. Seeds grow and eggs hatch when certain conditions are met but, more importantly, because they have that inherent quality to grow and fertilise. Stones shaped like seeds or eggs will not respond however ideal the conditions might be. Zia became Zia because that inherent quality of hate and hypocrisy he represented was produced in him by a long history of vigorous and sustained promotion of a vicious kind of fundamentalism that could only produce pernicious mindsets.
Who would you hold responsible for the policies of genocide, human rights abuses and war crimes that Israel regularly commits? Ben Gurion, Golda Meir, Menachem Begin, Moshe Dayan, Ariel Sharon or someone else? They certainly are responsible but the onus is on the ideology of Zionism that produced their like and motivated them to relentlessly pursue its ideals.
Zia is undeniably culpable but do look farther back to understand him and his policies, and unless that is done there simply cannot be any hope of change. Obsession with Zia will thwart any attempt to delve into the real reasons for the prevalence of this pernicious mindset in the ‘fortress of Islam’.
Without the Objectives Resolution there could have been no Zia, but then that too had its precursor. Unfortunately, the subcontinent’s Muslim landed gentry, having ruled for centuries, considered itself superior to the rest of humanity. They were sharp enough to understand that they would have to exploit the people’s emotional attachment to religion to acquire power that otherwise would always remain in the realm of impossibility.
It is evident that the efforts of the Muslim League for the creation of a state were located in the use of religion to neutralise nationalism. Exploitation of religious sentiments became their weapon of choice in the battle for a new state. It appears that those interested in the creation of a Muslim homeland for the continuation of their power failed to understand, or maybe they did, that there would eventually be grave repercussions and consequences of their garnering support solely in the name of religion.
The Muslim League leadership’s promotion of religiously-based politics was in keeping with their firmly held beliefs and the dawning of the realisation after election setbacks that they could not contend with nationalist sentiments without exploiting religion. This dangerous tendency was carried over into the governing of the new state: one unit was not accidental; it was part of that grand strategy.
The beliefs, actions, attitudes and pronouncements of the Muslim League’s leaders determined what ideology the newly formed state would adopt. Sprinklings of secular sounding statements were never going to be enough for motivating deviation from the course decided by those bent upon achieving and continuing in power through religion.
The Nehru Report (1928) provided for a secular basis of governance and had this been accepted then with partition being agreed to after, it certainly would have been less traumatic and less divisive. Without doubt, the Hindutva champions and supporters equally share the blame for using communalism. Initially, there were many prominent secular minded leaders on both sides with enough influence to stop the two communities from splitting into eternally hostile camps but they lost out to the zealots.
B R Nanda in his book Road to Pakistan points out that at Muslim League’s December 1927 Calcutta session, presided over by the Maharaja of Mahmudabad (Raja Sahib’s father), the All-India Muslim League expressed the hope that League members would “ratify” the proposals of the Nehru Committee by the end of 1928. Among the 14 signatories to the manifesto were the Maharaja of Mahmudabad, as well as eminent figures such as Seth Yakub Hassan, Saifuddin Kitchlew, Maulana Zafar Ali Khan, Maulana Abdul Bari, Syed Mahmud and M C Chagla.
This revolt within the ranks of the Muslim League in support of the Nehru Report was most shocking for Jinnah because such a step would have precluded any hope of his assuming overall leadership of the Muslims in India. He set forth his 14 points and, as is usual with politicians here, the dissenters were soon playing the same tune.
The Muslim and the Hindu leaderships vied in obduracy and inflexibility. This obduracy destroyed any hope for a cordial relationship then and for the future. The obduracy and intolerance, as exhibited by the leaders on both sides, became a major reason for the senseless violence that struck the subcontinent preceding partition and in its aftermath.
(To be continued)
Mir Mohammad Ali Talpur has an association with the Baloch rights movement going back to the early 1970s. He can be contacted at mmatalpur@gmail.com
|
