Author: Munir Attaullah
Publication: Daily Times
Date: October 30, 2003
URL: http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_31-10-2003_pg3_5
A 'truly Islamic state' can only
be authoritarian. Our clerical politicians are not unlike the communist
party. That party claimed to be the vanguard of the proletariat, and the
sole interpreters of the iron laws of 'historical inevitability' which
only they understood
Three recent events - the IJT annual
conference in Lahore, Sherry Rehman's proposed 'The protection and empowerment
of women act 2003', and the award of the Nobel peace prize to Shirin Ebadi
- are ominous indicators of the dreary and desolate future we Muslims seem
intent on choosing for ourselves. A brave minority may still have the idealism,
the spirit, and the commitment to mount the occasional challenge to the
forces of irrationality in our midst. I applaud their courage, am moved
by it, and dearly wish them every success. But alas! A reality check forces
me to conclude that they are far too likely to be overwhelmed by the growing
tide of obscurantism which finds ready sponsors of every hue in our midst.
When Lord Nazir of the UK, the ex-Punjab
governor Shahid Hamid, and Raza Rabbani, among others, share a platform
with the likes of retired Lieutenant-General Hamid Gul, and by their presence
provide a seal of approval and respectability for an outfit like the IJT,
alarm bells should ring. Is this not the same organisation which regularly
terrorises a section of society on New Year's eve? Behind the billboard
defacing programme and other acts of vandalism? Responsible for much of
the violence, bullying and disruption on university campuses? You sure
have come a long way, baby.
Poor Sherry. Here is a committed
lady trying to live up to her responsibilities as a legislator. She tables
a bill which would end gender discrimination, penalise social depravities
like domestic violence and honour killings, allow some freedom of choice
for women in matters of marriage, and repeal that hideous blot on our statute-books,
the Hudood Ordinance. Moreover, a Commission headed by a former lady judge,
just recently overwhelmingly recommended (with but one dissenting voice
- yes, you guessed correctly - a member of the Jama'at) the repeal of this
hated ordinance.
But what do you think is going to
happen? Any chance, you think the male legislators (and women members from
the religious parties) will support the bill in sufficient numbers for
it to become law? How many are willing to be tarred by Mr Liaquat Baloch
as a mortal who dares to repeal the laws of Allah? Will the foremost champion
of 'a modern, progressive, Muslim state' - our president, of course - grasp
this wonderful opportunity to lend credence to his hitherto empty words,
by ensuring the PML-Q support the bill? When the MMA threatens to split
the ARD on this issue, will the secular opposition parties call the bluff?
When the answer to each of the above questions is highly likely to be in
the negative, what chance does Sherry have for her brave initiative?
How the Iranians greeted the news
of Shirin Ebadi's honouring by the Nobel committee was not dissimilar to
our reaction when our own Prof. Salaam was similarly honoured. A small
minority celebrated what is universally acknowledged as a singular and
prestigious award, and which does more for a country's image than a thousand
empty speeches by its leaders or millions spent on public relational exercises.
Predictably, another lot saw it as either a Zionist or an Imperialist plot.
To our collective shame, officially the event was more or less ignored
(we prefer to fete and honour boxers who win a medal in some insignificant
regional contest).
Shirin Ebadi was a judge until the
Islamic Revolution barred women from the bench. Like our own Asma Jehangir,
she then decided to take up the cause of human rights, and defend the weak
and vulnerable segments of society. In 1999, she was the defence counsel
for the family of a victim of vigilante action by hard-liners against reformist
student supporters of President Khatami. As part of her defence she released
a taped confession by a vigilante militiaman involved in such violence.
Her reward for embarrassing the hard-line clergy who dominate the judiciary,
was to be banned from practicing for 5 years, and 15 months imprisonment
(the sentence was eventually suspended). Is that the future we can look
forward to?
The Iranian experience (not to mention
that great experiment in our other westerly neighbour) of rule by the clergy
should be an eye- opener for us. Let us call a spade a spade. There is
no such thing as an 'Islamic Democracy'. A 'truly Islamic state' can only
be authoritarian. Our clerical politicians are not unlike the communist
party. That party claimed to be the vanguard of the proletariat, and the
sole interpreters of the iron laws of 'historical inevitability' which
only they understood, and which would eventually lead everyone to the socialist
utopia. As such, it was the 'sacred duty' of the party to the masses, to
crush all opposition and enforce the will of the party in the 'ultimate'
interest of everyone. They called it 'Democratic Socialism'. Replace a
few words judiciously in the above and you will not be far off from the
clergy's concept of 'Islamic Democracy'.
There are elections in Iran, no
doubt. But only candidates approved by the clergy are eligible. The great
majority of the people may want more freedom, and reform, but what do they
know what is in their best interest? Here is a test. In an 'Islamic Democracy'
can you conceive of a situation where a Churchill - the very symbol of
a nation's most perilous struggle, and the architect of its most famous
triumph - can be peacefully removed from office in his finest hour?
(Munir Attaullah is a businessman)
