The way it was: Vision of a new ummah
Mian Ijaz Ul Hassan
“Muslim” countries pursue their own respective state interests. An ummah run
by the clerics as a theocracy with Samuel Huntington as their Caliph is the last
thing, which the Muslims of the world deserve or need
I am one of those who saw Pakistan’s birth. I belong to the generation, which
was later raised on clichés and fabrications. Clichés can sometimes be useful
in communicating common ideas and mundane feelings. Fabrications, even small
lies, are forgivable if frugally employed to avoid hurting a friend or
encouraging someone on to do right. But to make lies state policy is an
irredeemable offence. This is precisely what we have been guilty of, these
fifty-plus years.
The clergy soon challenged Jinnah’s concept of Pakistan as a secular state,
interpreting “secular” to be “godless”. The clerics who had opposed
Pakistan’s creation became its ideologues. By the time of President General
Yahya Khan, the concept of Islamic ideology was introduced. General Sher Ali,
then information minister, introduced the concept of “ideological
frontiers”. Defending the ideological frontiers was equally if not more
important than defending the physical frontiers. This explains why governments,
especially authoritarian government spent most of their time hounding and
persecuting their own citizens. Any form of dissent was branded as the work of
Indian or Russian agents.
It is one of the great ironies of our history that political forces that worked
closely with the CIA to promote US interests, should today declare the US to be
the principle enemy of the Muslim ummah. Up until the Afghan war, almost all
religious parties considered it kosher to connive with the CIA to bring down
popular nationalist leaders in order to replace them with suppliant pro-US
governments.
The war fought by General Ziaul Haq against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan on
behalf of the US was the ultimate folly. What have we gained from it, weapons,
drugs and Talibanisation of Pakistan? The ideological fallout has been even
worse. We began slaughtering each other in the mosques. Instead of gaining
strategic depth, the supposed dividend of our policy, we have ended up losing
control over what little we had. Today the US, old buddy of the rightwing, has
become the principle enemy of Islam.
I was listening to Qazi Sahib, the Jamaat chief on one of these new private
Pakistani channels. Qazi Sahib was holding forth against the Americans for
violating the sanctity of the sovereign Iraqi State. I couldn’t believe my
ears. It is quite amazing how in one breath one can talk of the Muslim ummah and
in the next breath defend the concept and legal sanctity of the state. I
remember being asked by the Daily Khabrain to participate in one of its forums.
The topic was whether or not Pakistan should sign the CTBT. Among others who had
been invited were Mr Najam Sethi, the editor of this newspaper, and an amiable
young information secretary of a militant Islamist organisation.
During the discussion, I remember, Najam interrupted the young man, who was
insisting that the Treaty should not be signed and that to sign the treaty would
be a violation of the tenets of the holy Quran. He asked the young ideologue,
“Do you believe in a nation-state?” To which this young man without batting
an eyelid replied: “No, we do not!” At that point, Najam requested the young
man that since some of us, rightly or wrongly, believed in a nation-state, he
should allow us to proceed with a matter that strictly concerned the strategy
and welfare of the state of Pakistan.
I have met Qazi Hussain Ahmed Sahib only once and found him to be a warm and
courteous gentleman. I have also heard his daughter, an MNA, expressing her
views on a few occasions. I may not agree with her entirely, but she puts across
the party line in a quiet and learned manner that is impressive.
I beg Qazi Sahib to resolve the contradiction because if there is an ummah in
the traditional sense which impels Muslims to transgress national boarders of
another country for any cause then in the words of Qazi Sahib that act also
violates the legal sanctity of that state. Logically speaking, the one negates
the other; you cannot have both. The Islamic clerics find it impossible to
acknowledge that there are today only nation states in the world. Let us not
forget that the allied forces launched their offensive against Iraq from Kuwait,
a Muslim country. Kuwait was attacked a decade earlier by Iraq, another Muslim
country that had a decade before attacked Iran, another Muslim country.
People from all over the world have opposed the invasion of Iraq. It has never
happened before that people should oppose a war before it even began. People of
different religions should oppose it. People representing communists, socialists
and capitalist countries should oppose it. People of all continents should
oppose it. People of different colour, race and ethnic backgrounds should oppose
it. Even people of Britain and US should oppose it, whose governments have
conducted this so-called holy war against evil. There were more people on the
streets in London and New York than there were in Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi.
Why can’t we embrace all of these good caring people of the world as part of
the ummah? Why can’t we broaden the meaning of ummah and include in it all
those who stand up against war, violence and injustice.
To face the vicious and predatory New World order, we have to adapt a new
strategy. The opposition to the Iraq invasion has proved Samuel Huntington
wrong. There is no clash of civilisations. Sardar Aseff Ahmed Ali pertinently
pointed out the other day that since civilisations were interdependent they
couldn’t clash. There can be a diffusion of civilisations based on
universality of knowledge and human experience but not a clash. The clash
concept he believed was meant to prepare US citizens for what was to follow.
US went to war in Iraq not against Muslims but for purely political and economic
reasons. There are of course Muslims all over the world. There are several
states where Muslims are in a majority but there is also no evidence of an ummah.
Is there? Most of these Muslim majority states are divided and have different
political systems ranging from democracy, autocracy to monarchy. It seems that
the Muslims clerics now want to create their hegemony by establishing a
theocracy. There are twice the number of Muslims in India than there are in
Pakistan. There are Muslims living in China, in the US and in scores of other
countries in all continents. They may be in a minority but they are as loyal to
their countries as we are loyal to our own.
It is ironic that a Muslim from Pakistan can become American, British and for
that matter German, Swedish and Australian citizens but not Saudi or Kuwaiti
citizen. What ummah are we talking about? The fact is that the “Muslim”
countries pursue their own respective state interests. An ummah run by the
clerics as a theocracy with Samuel Huntington as their Caliph is the last thing,
which the Muslims of the world deserve or need.
Prof Ijaz-ul-Hassan is a painter, author and a political activist