The politics of dharnas
December 7th, 2010
Amir of Jamaat-e-Islami Dr Munawar Hasan moved his party another step forward in the pursuit of his rejectionist politics when he addressed what he called a dharna in front of parliament on Constitutional Avenue in Islamabad on December 5. The roster of his disaffection from the present order under the PPP coalition was already familiar: enslavement of the country to the US; pursuit of unjust war against elements fighting against the Americans; the perfidy of allowing America to carry out drone attacks; and rampant corruption under the PPP government.
As he asked army chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani directly not to agree to the American demand of attacking North Waziristan, the past and present Jamaat leaders were at his side, including the inventor of dharna politics former amir Qazi Hussain Ahmed. Dr Munawar Hasan is the stormy petrel of national politics, believing in intensifying the Jamaat’s politics of rejection rather than toning it down. The argument behind this radical agenda is that politics of the status quo has run its course, at least for the Jamaat, and now only a promise of revolution will bring back votes absorbed by other rightwing parties, led by the PML-N.
The biggest strain borne by the Jamaat came from the ‘deal’ the ruling MMA made with General Musharraf when Qazi Hussain Ahmed was its leader. The deal resulted in the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment which gave legal cover to the general to carry on ruling the country. The ‘deal’ caused internal rifts and the MMA — which failed to protect its Shia component from terrorists — began to crack, losing the 2008 election and bisecting on the lines of Jamaat-JUI politics. The Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam led by Maulana Fazlur Rehman (JUI-F) is in the government, playing a complex game of compromises; the Jamaat, with Qazi Hussain Ahmed gone, has Dr Munawar Hasan carrying the banner of an aggressive agenda in contrast to the JUI-F.
Dr Hasan has many likeminded small-party leaders. Imran Khan’s Tehreek-i-Insaf has been playing close to the Jamaat line, but Mr Khan was conspicuous by his absence at the Islamabad dharna. More dharna sessions have been announced, but will the politics of extremes win the day? Or will the politics of flexibility of JUI-F reap greater advantage for its considerable vote-bank which is larger than the Jamaat’s? Unfortunately, neither Imran Khan nor Dr Hasan will make much headway in Punjab where the former is looking for PML-N votes and the latter is hoping to recover the votes the Jamaat has lost to Mr Nawaz Sharif. The rise of the Tehreek-i-Insaf Party in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa may in fact damage Jamaat and JUI-F both.
Aggressive agendas are an enemy of the sophistication needed by political parties under democracy. Aggression needs forceful articulation and that is impossible without an outpouring of rage at the status quo. Only two leaders in the political arena are indulging in the politics of rage: Dr Hasan and Imran Khan. Most analysts think that the voting population, while being aroused by expressions of rage, are also scared of conflict and destruction as agents of change. Elections symbolise gradual evolution, not revolutionary uprooting of the system. Such analysis is reaching Imran Khan but Dr Hasan is insulated against it because of the continuity of the party line adopted by Qazi Hussain Ahmed whose personal style, however, was less aggressive.
The Jamaat is countered effectively by the rise of ethnic politics in Karachi; in Punjab, the PML-N is firmly in place, strengthened by its new contacts with Jamaatud Dawa and Sipah-e-Sahaba. On the other hand, a less ‘ghairatmand’ (honourable) but more flexible and sophisticated Maulana Fazlur Rehman is shoring up the internal strength of his Pashtun-dominated JUI-F by being in the ruling coalition, deftly placing his man at the head of the Council of Islamic Ideology. The Jamaat may be pleased to hear an octogenarian Roedad Khan delivering his usual philippic against the PPP government at the dharna, but Roedad Khan will help little in enhancing the Jamaat’s profile in national politics. The government was wise in its decision to give the ‘dharna’ a wide berth.
Blasphemy law saga
December 7th, 2010
The saga of Pakistan’s blasphemy law continues. Hearing a petition from a citizen challenging parliamentary moves to amend a law that has inflicted suffering on hundreds, the Lahore High Court has directed that the blasphemy law not be amended until a final ruling is made in the controversial case of Aasia Bibi — the 45-year-old mother of five who faces a death sentence on charges of alleged blasphemy. PPP member Sherry Rehman had planned to move a private members bill seeking changes in blasphemy laws while such amendments are said also to have support from other members of the party.
At the end of last month, the Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court had issued an order preventing a presidential pardon for the victim of the latest blasphemy charge following indications from President Asif Ali Zardari that this was being considered. This move had been condemned by the president of Pakistan’s Supreme Court Bar Association as well as by human rights activists.
The case of Aasia Bibi exposes the rift lines that run through our society. On the one hand, we have clerics baying for blood and even setting a price for the killing of the woman, while on the other we have those demanding an end to the misuse of the blasphemy law. This, of course, is not to suggest there should be any lack of respect for the religious sentiments of people and the fact of the matter is that the existing law, notably over the past two decades, has been used more often to victimise rivals or settle personal scores. It has also been a long-standing demand of minority groups that their sentiments be protected. It is vital that justice be done in this matter. Several government functionaries, including the Punjab governor, have said on record that the woman has been wrongly accused and convicted. The courts, parliament and other institutions must make this a key priority and do what they can to ensure that laws likely to be used as a means to harass the vulnerable or which add to the extremist trends that run through our society do not remain on statute books.