Tweet
Daily Times, Pakistan
Dec 7 2004
COMMENT: Pakistan should look towards Turkey —Ishtiaq Ahmed
The Quaid-e-Azam came to the conclusion that mobilising Muslim
masses in the name of Islam to get Pakistan was one thing and making
Pakistan a theocratic state quite another. On August 11, 1947 he
portrayed unequivocally his idea of Pakistan in secular,
liberal-democratic terms. But for more than half a century Pakistani
governments suppressed that idea
When Allama Iqbal composed the famous verse, Judaa ho deen siyasat
sey to reh jaati hai changezi (if religion is separated from politics
the result is tyranny), he was both right and wrong. He was right to
the extent that politics divorced from morality can degenerate into a
brute exercise of power by the strong. He was wrong to the extent
that the word deen means not only religion in the narrow sense of
religious faith, but a supposedly all-encompassing holistic way of
life deriving from a dogmatic interpretation of Shariah that the
state is expected to enforce through its legal system and
constitution. In the later role, at least in the contemporary period
all Islamic states — Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan under the
Taliban - have oppressed religious and ethnic minorities.
In this connection, the Madinese State model of the Prophet (peace be
upon him) and his pious caliphs can always be presented as
counter-evidence to allegations of Islamic states being oppressive,
but since we are far removed from that pristine period in Islamic
history it is advisable to consider it an exception rather than the
rule. It is even wise not to drag exalted names from the Islamic past
into contemporary politics. How many times have we not heard about
Hazrat Umar entering Palestine with his slave sitting on the camel
and he walking on foot. Do let me know if any Pakistani president,
prime minister or ministers ever do without air-conditioner during
summer while most of our masses toil in the merciless May-July sun
without even the shade of a tree.
Or, do let me know when you see even a district coordination officer
drive the car while his peon sits beside him or behind him. As a
gimmick, of course, such antics have great publicity value. Thus one
day when General Zia ul Haq went to his office on a bicycle from
Rawalpindi to Islamabad (or was it in the opposite direction?)
virtually the whole police force and the security fellows in that
area were mobilised to protect him. It turned out to be nothing more
than a caricature of the conduct of the pious caliphs. Not
surprisingly, instead of becoming a regular practice it remained a
one-time parody.
It is a myth that the state in Europe was secular and the church
represented only religious interests. The truth is that both together
represented the Christian polity and the wars of religions fought in
the 16th century were an ugly manifestation of fanatical religion in
European affairs. Similar periods of fanaticism have ravaged Muslim
history. However, one must point out that during its heyday Islamic
Spain developed quite an enlightened and tolerant political and
social order in which dissident Christians and Jews running away from
persecution were accommodated at all levels of society. Also, the
Ottomans practised wide latitude of communal pluralism which allowed
considerable internal autonomy to the various millets (nations)
consisting of Armenians, Greeks and Jews while the ruling power
remained in the hands of Sunni Muslims. Such an arrangement, however,
had no scope for individual human rights and freedom and therefore
the Ottoman system remained a pre-liberal type of religious
pluralism.
The break with the system of religious polities in Western
Christendom took place at the time of the American and French
revolutions when individual rights (initially only for white men)
were given constitutional cover. Among Muslims, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
had the foresight to realise that if Turkey was to awaken from its
medieval stupor it had to modernise its legal and constitutional
systems. The Indian National Congress also came to the sound
conclusion that if India was to be a democracy it could not be a
Hindu state.
The founder of Pakistan, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, too, came
to the conclusion that mobilising the Muslim masses in the name of
Islam to get Pakistan was one thing but making Pakistan a theocratic
state was quite another. Therefore on August 11, 1947 he portrayed
unequivocally his idea of Pakistan in secular, liberal-democratic
terms. But for more than half a century Pakistani governments
suppressed that idea and Pakistan could not develop into a democracy.
On the contrary, from the late 1970s onwards Pakistan fixed its gaze
upon Saudi Arabia in search of an ideal and source of inspiration.
This was most unfortunate because while the Saudis were most
unwilling to share their oil-generated wealth with us they were very
keen to foster upon us their closed culture of segregation of men and
women, absence of political freedom, free press and media, and an
antipathy for any intellectual or artistic endeavour.
Consequently no university has ever been established in Saudi Arabia
where political science, sociology, psychology or modern economics is
taught. Saudi citizens are thus denied any opportunity to interact
with the modern world in an informed manner. Saudi economic help to
Pakistan therefore resulted in the proliferation of religious
madrassas where thousands and thousands of pupils from
poverty-stricken homes were indoctrinated to hate anyone who did not
share their ideas and beliefs. It is not clear if all such
institutions have now been closed down. The Pakistan government did
express such an intention.
I think the situation can change for the better in Pakistan if we
study more closely how Turkey has successfully developed into a
modern state and society. The Kemalist elite, particularly the
military, has often been criticised for its rigid secularism, but it
is important to point out that now that a democratically-elected AKP
government, with an emphasis on Islamic values, has shown maturity
not to disturb the secular basis of the state the Kemalist elite has
adjusted to such a situation quite amiably.
Educated Turks will tell you that being a Muslim does not mean
rejecting modernity or secularism, but rather a willingness to
incorporate the best ideas of the time into the legal structure and
creating a modern citizenry capable of facing competently and
effectively the challenges of the contemporary period.
Even the highly suspicious and sceptical Europeans are coming around
to the idea that Turkey is a successful Muslim democracy. Unless the
conservative forces in Europe, particularly France, rally
overwhelming opposition Turkey is likely to begin - after a top EU
meeting in December - formal negotiations for membership in the
European Union.
We should look towards Turkey for an ideal.
The author is an associate professor of political science at
Stockholm University. He is the author of two books. His email
address is [email protected]
--Boundary_(ID_y1Y+41F1LZ4y9fvxWVSY2w)--
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
Dec 7 2004
COMMENT: Pakistan should look towards Turkey —Ishtiaq Ahmed
The Quaid-e-Azam came to the conclusion that mobilising Muslim
masses in the name of Islam to get Pakistan was one thing and making
Pakistan a theocratic state quite another. On August 11, 1947 he
portrayed unequivocally his idea of Pakistan in secular,
liberal-democratic terms. But for more than half a century Pakistani
governments suppressed that idea
When Allama Iqbal composed the famous verse, Judaa ho deen siyasat
sey to reh jaati hai changezi (if religion is separated from politics
the result is tyranny), he was both right and wrong. He was right to
the extent that politics divorced from morality can degenerate into a
brute exercise of power by the strong. He was wrong to the extent
that the word deen means not only religion in the narrow sense of
religious faith, but a supposedly all-encompassing holistic way of
life deriving from a dogmatic interpretation of Shariah that the
state is expected to enforce through its legal system and
constitution. In the later role, at least in the contemporary period
all Islamic states — Saudi Arabia, Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan under the
Taliban - have oppressed religious and ethnic minorities.
In this connection, the Madinese State model of the Prophet (peace be
upon him) and his pious caliphs can always be presented as
counter-evidence to allegations of Islamic states being oppressive,
but since we are far removed from that pristine period in Islamic
history it is advisable to consider it an exception rather than the
rule. It is even wise not to drag exalted names from the Islamic past
into contemporary politics. How many times have we not heard about
Hazrat Umar entering Palestine with his slave sitting on the camel
and he walking on foot. Do let me know if any Pakistani president,
prime minister or ministers ever do without air-conditioner during
summer while most of our masses toil in the merciless May-July sun
without even the shade of a tree.
Or, do let me know when you see even a district coordination officer
drive the car while his peon sits beside him or behind him. As a
gimmick, of course, such antics have great publicity value. Thus one
day when General Zia ul Haq went to his office on a bicycle from
Rawalpindi to Islamabad (or was it in the opposite direction?)
virtually the whole police force and the security fellows in that
area were mobilised to protect him. It turned out to be nothing more
than a caricature of the conduct of the pious caliphs. Not
surprisingly, instead of becoming a regular practice it remained a
one-time parody.
It is a myth that the state in Europe was secular and the church
represented only religious interests. The truth is that both together
represented the Christian polity and the wars of religions fought in
the 16th century were an ugly manifestation of fanatical religion in
European affairs. Similar periods of fanaticism have ravaged Muslim
history. However, one must point out that during its heyday Islamic
Spain developed quite an enlightened and tolerant political and
social order in which dissident Christians and Jews running away from
persecution were accommodated at all levels of society. Also, the
Ottomans practised wide latitude of communal pluralism which allowed
considerable internal autonomy to the various millets (nations)
consisting of Armenians, Greeks and Jews while the ruling power
remained in the hands of Sunni Muslims. Such an arrangement, however,
had no scope for individual human rights and freedom and therefore
the Ottoman system remained a pre-liberal type of religious
pluralism.
The break with the system of religious polities in Western
Christendom took place at the time of the American and French
revolutions when individual rights (initially only for white men)
were given constitutional cover. Among Muslims, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk
had the foresight to realise that if Turkey was to awaken from its
medieval stupor it had to modernise its legal and constitutional
systems. The Indian National Congress also came to the sound
conclusion that if India was to be a democracy it could not be a
Hindu state.
The founder of Pakistan, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, too, came
to the conclusion that mobilising the Muslim masses in the name of
Islam to get Pakistan was one thing but making Pakistan a theocratic
state was quite another. Therefore on August 11, 1947 he portrayed
unequivocally his idea of Pakistan in secular, liberal-democratic
terms. But for more than half a century Pakistani governments
suppressed that idea and Pakistan could not develop into a democracy.
On the contrary, from the late 1970s onwards Pakistan fixed its gaze
upon Saudi Arabia in search of an ideal and source of inspiration.
This was most unfortunate because while the Saudis were most
unwilling to share their oil-generated wealth with us they were very
keen to foster upon us their closed culture of segregation of men and
women, absence of political freedom, free press and media, and an
antipathy for any intellectual or artistic endeavour.
Consequently no university has ever been established in Saudi Arabia
where political science, sociology, psychology or modern economics is
taught. Saudi citizens are thus denied any opportunity to interact
with the modern world in an informed manner. Saudi economic help to
Pakistan therefore resulted in the proliferation of religious
madrassas where thousands and thousands of pupils from
poverty-stricken homes were indoctrinated to hate anyone who did not
share their ideas and beliefs. It is not clear if all such
institutions have now been closed down. The Pakistan government did
express such an intention.
I think the situation can change for the better in Pakistan if we
study more closely how Turkey has successfully developed into a
modern state and society. The Kemalist elite, particularly the
military, has often been criticised for its rigid secularism, but it
is important to point out that now that a democratically-elected AKP
government, with an emphasis on Islamic values, has shown maturity
not to disturb the secular basis of the state the Kemalist elite has
adjusted to such a situation quite amiably.
Educated Turks will tell you that being a Muslim does not mean
rejecting modernity or secularism, but rather a willingness to
incorporate the best ideas of the time into the legal structure and
creating a modern citizenry capable of facing competently and
effectively the challenges of the contemporary period.
Even the highly suspicious and sceptical Europeans are coming around
to the idea that Turkey is a successful Muslim democracy. Unless the
conservative forces in Europe, particularly France, rally
overwhelming opposition Turkey is likely to begin - after a top EU
meeting in December - formal negotiations for membership in the
European Union.
We should look towards Turkey for an ideal.
The author is an associate professor of political science at
Stockholm University. He is the author of two books. His email
address is [email protected]
--Boundary_(ID_y1Y+41F1LZ4y9fvxWVSY2w)--
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress