Author:
Publication: Newsinsight.net
Date: July 18, 2003
URL: http://www.newsinsight.net/fulldebate2.asp?recno=681
Maulana Fazlur Rehman is not the
man he claims to be.
Why are Pakistan's top hawk, Fazlur
Rehman, and Jammu and Kashmir's chief pro-Iran politician, Abbas Ansari,
saying no to US mediation between India and Pakistan, and yes to bilateral
talks under the Shimla Agreement? Rehman says truthfully the US intervention
in Iraq and Afghanistan changed his mind, while Ansari comments America
is welcome as a friend but "not as a master". At bottom, both men fear
that the United States will set up base in Jammu and Kashmir to spy- on
China on the pretext of resolving the Kashmir dispute. There have been
whispers of this at high official levels, and this could be what Ansari
means when he says America is unwelcome as a "master". But Fazlur Rehman's
fear of America runs deeper, and directly concerns Pakistan. Under US pressure,
Pakistan has commenced a comprehensive clean up of mosques and madrasas.
As anyone who has recently been to Lahore will tell you, mosques are being
forbidden to hold anything more than prayers and small gatherings, while
madrasas are banned from giving arms training and preaching sectarian hate.
Their funds are to be rigorously audited. The religious hardliners are
up in arms. Syed Munawar Hasan, secretary-general of the Jamaat-e-Islami,
told this magazine, "Pakistan is an Islamic country, and mosques and madrasas
have a definite role here. The Pakistan army should be disciplined first
before taking action against Islamic institutions" (Intelligence, "Pak
crackdown on mosques and madrasas," 16 July 2003). But Punjab governor
Khalid Maqbool, a former Pakistani army IV corps commander, is firm on
the clean up of religious institutions, saying, "We are going to do it
at all cost. Pakistan cannot grow with extremist values." Fazlur Rehman,
all said and done, belongs to the Islamist Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal which
rules Baluchistan and NWFP. The Shariat has been introduced in NWFP which
has alarmed the Pakistan government and the West, while sectarian hate
is sweeping up Baluchistan, where fifty Shia Hazaras were bombed in a Quetta
mosque. If Fazlur Rehman were to renounce fundamentalism in Pakistan and
come to spread the message here, one could have taken him at his word.
But the Pakistani Deobandi hardliner is following one standard for Pakistan
and another for India, and this suggests he is playing for time. For example,
he speaks of peace and claims to reject violence but does not take the
next logical step of condemning cross-border terrorism. He says there is
no "agreed" definition of terrorism, meaning that terrorists could be deemed
"freedom fighters". Why bother with India then? "I am not representing
those who talk of fighting," he claims. "I am representing those who want
to resolve issues through dialogue." That is not why he is really here.
Dialogue yes, may be, but Fazlur Rehman's real purpose seems different.
It is possibly to make common cause with Indian post-Iraq-war anti-Americanism
– as he perceives it – and channel it to create anti-US pressure within
Pakistan, before the Islamist infrastructure is entirely dismantled. Since
India is most uncomfortable with US mediation in J & K, that is where
Fazlur Rehman seeks to show most solidarity first – without going back
on any of Pakistan's first principles about the dispute. Into the gap has
also stepped in Abbas Ansari, the new Hurriyat chairman, who is echoing
Iran's anti-Americanism, because it finds itself next on the US hitlist.
Why should Rehman and Ansari think India can stand up to the US at all?
Because it has – by refusing troops in Iraq. When General Pervez Musharraf
was being forced to commit two brigades, the Opposition, which comprises
the MMA, demanded consultation with Pakistan's neighbours, which suggested
Iran first but also implied India, which by then had more or less decided
not to deploy. The actual decision to say no, coming on the same Monday
this week that Rehman crossed the border at Wagah, should have warmed the
hearts of Pakistan's fundamentalists, although it also entirely suited
India's national interest. So should India play along with this anti- Americanism
if it opens a way through the J & K deadlock? From the Indian perspective,
US mediation in J & K is unwelcome, while US intervention in Pakistan,
especially to clean up the terrorist and Islamist infrastructure, is wholly
necessary. Fazlur Rehman is here to prevent that, by aligning India against
the US on Jammu and Kashmir. The danger is that once America eases
pressure on Pakistan, it will return to terrorism and fundamentalism with
a vengeance, and its first impact will be felt in J & K. Unless Pakistan
is modernised and secularised on Turkey's lines, no solution to Pakistani
cross-border terrorism is possible, and there can be no lasting peace in
Jammu and Kashmir. If Maulana Fazlur Rehman cannot be in Pakistan what
he says he is in India, he cannot be a man of peace. Which is not to suggest
shutting the door on him, but to keep the peace offensive going, while
permitting no let up in the anti-terrorist campaign. And anti-Americanism
serves no purpose, even while India and the US have their rights to foreign-policy
differences.
