Smokers’ Corner: More pious, not better
The ‘Islamisation’ debate in Pakistan should not only be about the implementation of various ‘Islamic laws’ by the state and governments of Pakistan. It should also incorporate the study of the so-called Islamisation of public space, or space that was historically and inherently secular in nature. One of the most prominent examples in this respect is the manifold growth in the number of mosques and madrassahs in the last 25 years, and this trend’s physical and symbolic extension into the secular space of society.
For example, ever since the early 1980s, there has been a visible augmentation in the formation of ‘praying areas’ in offices in both private and government institutions, and the toleration of laxities allowed to employees at the workplace regarding prayer timings.
However, as can be observed from the findings of various academic and research-based studies (mainly on assorted criminal activity in the country in the last 25 years), the growth in the number of mosques, implementation of Islamic laws, and an increase in regular practice of faith among the populace ever since the 1980s has not exactly helped make society any more law-abiding and constructive than what it already was.
In fact, the rate of crime has increased dramatically and social commentators have continued to bemoan the ‘institutionalisation of social hypocrisy.’
But this hasn’t prompted influential sections of the state, media and public at large to evaluate the failure of the ‘Islamisation’ initiatives.
On the contrary, the failure of these initiatives to generate a more morally correct and better society has ironically made its advocates actually accelerate their efforts.
For instance, beginning in the 1980s, there are more religious programmes on television and radio than ever before. Also, more and more lawns and drawing-rooms are becoming venues for religious lectures and darrs. In fact, even in modern, posh shopping malls, the central sound system is used to broadcast the azaan!
Secular space is rapidly shrinking and the sociology of Pakistan today is strikingly different from what it was till about the late 1970s.
Advocates of these trends would rightly suggest that social Islamisation could not have taken place without the consent of the majority of the people. True. But one need not be a professional sociologist to determine the resounding failure of this initiative to convert Pakistan into a morally sound community of people.
Social, cultural and economic indicators of the last 25 years suggest a society displaying a religiosity that, at the same time, is convolutedly trying to reach a forced synthesis with modern material want and ambition.
There is an inherent dichotomy between loud displays of moral piety and the desire to taste the fruits of amoral materialism.
Nevertheless, in Pakistan this dichotomy has been turned into a collective attempt to work it as a synthesis.
The apologist argument in this respect is that being pious doesn’t mean one can’t be materialistic as well. This apologia can be countered in a number of ways, especially when the piety that is being displayed is supposedly following the dictates of a dyed-in-the-wool brand of faith — a brand of piety in which, for example, music may become ‘haram’, but getting paid to endorse a western brand of chips as ‘halaal,’ is fine!
Addressing such convolutions has become the work of televangelists and ‘modern sounding’ preachers.
Their role can be defined as helping mould a workable narrative that is constructed from certain select religious texts and then offered to their audience as an Islamic rationale to survive in the modern material world as a loudly practicing Muslim without feeling guilt or angst.
This dichotomy is then converted into a religiously rationalised normality.
But the question again arises, how constructive has been such an arrangement? It has clearly not turned Pakistan into a better, more law-abiding society than it was before the so-called Islamisation process really kicked in (during the Ziaul Haq dictatorship).
As Ziaul Haq’s ‘Islamise society from above’ process failed to address the utopian expectations of the people for the ‘ideal Islamic state’ that he had promised; and as political and economic corruption further eroded Zia’s regime, the Islamists and various fundamentalist groups that had risen in the 1980s, decided to ‘Islamise society from below.’
The idea was to Islamise all aspects of society so that people will ‘turn from being just Muslims into becoming Islamic.’
Interestingly, the state and the governments even after Zia’s demise allowed this brand of social Islamidation to continue, as long as it didn’t exhibit any overt political ambitions. But it did.
The Islamists and the fundamentalists were free to carry on Islamising social space, so much so that today it has become impossible to escape religious symbolism and rhetoric in even the most traditionally secular spaces and surroundings.
The socialisation of a theologically puritan strain of faith has been an all-encompassing event. Its symbols and rhetoric abound on billboards, in shopping malls, parks, on cars, in buses, drawing rooms, on TV screens, in offices and in everyday lingo.
It seems Pakistanis have lost the capability to separate the religious from the secular.
So what’s wrong with that, some might ask?
Well, this trend has consequently molded a mind-set that has become almost voluntarily vulnerable to the Islamists’ exploitative socio-political manoeuvres.
This might answer the question as to why society throws up its arms in disgust after a drone attack but remains awkwardly quiet every time a terrorist murders scores of common people, cops and soldiers in a suicide blast.
And perhaps that’s why — after being cowed down by so many years of Pakistani state’s and its civilian allies’ ‘Islamic project’ — the Pakistani society may have a ready-made consensus on, say, the dangers of alcohol abuse, but still can’t seem to reconcile to a common consensus on who or what is an extremist.
I love the way NFP provokes logical reasoning among the common pakistanis ,who are now willing to look beyond their religious veils and not hesitant to take on the logical course to reason out things. These days the positive comments from the readers are more interesting than the article itself. But still the credit goes to NFP. Looks like slowly he is winning..but he must be saying to himself that "miles to go before I sleep" .
keep coming NFP! – love from India
I would love to see this article to appear in Urdu media. Yet, I can not be that cruel as I want NFP to live long. Majority's brain that follows Urdu media in any shape or form has been corrupted beyond repair. For all this we are indebted to the policies and education system that was adopted as a state during the Golden era of Zia ul Huq that allowed state to convert Muslims to Ziaism. Zia has long gone but no one had the guts to touch his legacy. Not even so called liberals and leftists like PPP and ANP.
NFPs favourite secular heroes, MQM supremo who has become a permanent resident of London has only telephonic contacts with his ethnic followers, other now heading presidency, by all counts & polls has popularity less than 15 %. Who is there to invigorate secularism as opposed to Islamism ?
Why do you expect leaders to bring about the change? Look around your neighbourhood and a little bit from every individual to promote communal harmony and tolerances towards other faiths would go long way in promoting secularism.
Pakistan is being used as a 'Bad Example" to the rest of the world. The state it is in is a warning to other nations to Keep Religion Out when You are Administering a Country……
The Nation of Pakistan and the Massachusetts Bay Colony were both founded as quasi religious entities.
+
"There was no doubt in Winthrop (the lead cleric's) mind that God intended civil governments to be in the hands of men like himself; to entrust the people at large with the powers of government , as in a Greek democracy, was not only unwarranted by Scripture, but dangerous to the peace and well being of the community, for the people at large were unfit to rule… (as ultra religious Muslims believe secularists are unfit to govern)
+
…Winthrop and the other English Puritans of the Bay Company were authorized by their charter (from the English king) to exercise absolute powers of government … assisted by a philosophy of government which clothed every civil ruler in the armor of divine authority…
…The most dangerous tendency among the Saints of Massachusetts was not excessive liberty, but excessive purity."
Agree with NFP. Making the wolf wear the sheep's skin doesn't turn the wolf into a sheep.
In commenting on the author's last article on Pakistanis eating grass to have the "Bum," I asked the author a question. That still stands (repeated).
Have you, NFP, considered running for public office? You can do the greatest service to Pakistan by being in a position of power to steer it to sanity.
I am tired of writing/saying – EXCELLENT, BRAVE, GREAT, HONEST, WELL ANALYZED, TRUTHFUL, SCHOLALRLY……WHICH YOUR ARTICLES ALWAYS ARE.
Running a public office might not work for NFP. Its not his space and understandbly too. You can't expect Harsha Bhogle to go and Bat on the field just because he know each and every bit of the game.
We are so so lost.
NFP means well. But still his 'articulations' come out as peddling his beliefs in the ideology bazar. There are many countries where Islam is not the 'offender' and yet they are poor despite being secular. Take Cuba. Take our neighbour as well. One cannot establish positive correlation (even this has yet to be established in any society) between religion encroaching the 'secular space' and the ills of that society. NFP's prescription are at best naiive and superficial.
The progress and happiness of a society depends on the will of the people being implemented. In Pakistan either there is military dictatorship or there are rubber stamp parliament more akin to a bourse than as the highest law-making institution of a destitute, helpless but nevertheless hopeful nation. NFP must continue to write. I may or may not agree with him. But then both of us understand well that the 'public space' needs to be defined by the nation collectively , not by NFP or by the likes of me.
Hypocrisy rules supreme in Pakistan, unfortunately.
The issue of drones is not as simple as NFP thinks. It does kill innocent people alongwith a few militants, creates anger and revengeful sentiments. When a group of people is angry and THEY feel the state is not doing enough to protect them, they believe it is right to fight against the state. Anger clouds rational thinking.
The solution to our economic situation is electing a trustworthy government not the the corrupt lot as we have today. A government that prioritises education, health and development of indigenous energy resources. Religion can achieve social progress not an economic progress. We people have to do our part. It is critically important to elect a better government, shun the ethnic, provincial and religious prejudices, work hard and be patient. Yes we have become an intolerant society but it is due to our failure to understand Islam which teaches tolerance towards followers of all religions. NFP I am sorry that you feel this way about Islam.
The unfortunate are the innocent people who die in drone attacks. Those who use drones, do not intend to kill them, but the few terrorists sitting along side. They still launch it and kill all. Majority of those in Pakistan who are crying for these innocent people have no concern for them, but for the terrorists who were killed. Since they cannot cry for the terrorists, they use the guise of these innocent to seek protection for the terrorists.
These poor people are unfortunate as no one cares for them.
Why have we failed to understand Islam? What was wrong with the understanding of Islam before Zia? You are approving NFP's point that Zia because Pakistan was still Islamic republic and better before Zia. Zia simply exploited Islam's name by calling himself " Islam ka Mujahid (warrior of Islam)" and dragged the country into this ditch. There were ethnic differences in Pakistan as in other countries but Zia added sectarianism to the list which was not there before him.
Only solution is to get out of this religious obsession .
"When a group………right to fight the state" Really! and you fight the state by killing innocent people by suicide bombing in Marketplace, in Mosques, Girls School and the list goes on and on.
There are some black sheep in the guise of pious people. Militants often use religious cover and somehow justify abductions, murders, looting of banks. But it is absolutely wrong to attribute all the ills in Pakistan to religion or spread of mosques. NFP is actually trying to make people believe that religion or praying or being pious is wrong. NFP is equating Islam with ills. Why was it that in the Prophet Mohammad's era Muslims took care of each other, gave charity to poor people, freed slaves and became a socially advanced united nation. Pakistan did not progress not because its people (infact only a small minority) started going to mosques. Our poor condition is because of not following the islamic teachings (majority of which are common to all major religions). How could NFP conclude that people who are going to mosques are committing crimes. It may the the people who are not going to mosques. Thanks to our corrupt rulers we are poorer, more unemployed, less tolerant now than 30 years ago and these are the causes of todays crimes. NFP please stop propaganda against any religion including Islam. All religions deserve respect.
The author's arguments are so baseless that it's actually funny! One could correlate the rise in crime to a million different things and find a positive correlation! How about the growth in the population! Or the number of people below the poverty line! Or the number of computers or the number of cell phones! You could get a positive correlation for all these things plus anything you wanted!
As far as the pervasiveness of religion in public space…it's because the PUBLIC wants to see religion there that's why it's displayed!
You claim to fight against oppression and for democracy but you don't have the guts to tolerate the majority's mandate! It's people like you who preach equall rights and a liberal society but can't stand those who differ from them especially when it comes to the religion and secularization debate. You need to understand what true liberalism is! I agree with your opinions on extremism but you tend to label all of religion as a form of extremism and that's where your mistaken
I think you've jumped the gun. First of all, his point is that the mandate to Islamize social space in Pakistan was not achieved through a democratic process but either from above, such as the state, or from below, such as fundamentalist organizations.
And his argument is pretty simple: If the Islamization of society was meant to make society better in the spheres of morality, economics, politics, etc., than did it?
NFP thinks this proccess had actually corrupted the whole idea of piety and faith. I tend to agree with him. You may find this as 'actually funny' too, but guess who's having the last laugh? NFP.
Also, NFP should now also include in his sharp thesis the infiltration of obscurantist forces to control cyber space as well. Take the recent examples of banning Facebook and Twitter, supposedly on religious grounds.
One of the biggest pitfall in statistical co-relation is that one starts finding causality. You are right to point out that rise in crime and hypocrisy can be co-related to many things but causality is different to prove. NFP is doing blunder by thinking causality here.
I don't understand that if PA system is used for Azaan, what's the problem. How come secular space is threatened by it. In west, anyone is allowed to establish mosque, churches or any place of worship and such religious laxities are part of secularism. Secularism vs Religion is no debate as long as religion is not used as an instrument of governance. You are clearly mixing up things NFP
Scratch anyone in South Asia, and you will find some form of religious feeling oozing out, even if it's an imperfectly understood version of whatever that faith is. The first PM of India, Nehru, understood this, and knew that he could get his points across only with mixed metaphors, like: " Dams are the temples of modern India " – that socialist economics, equitable distribution of resources, and feeding empty stomachs mattered more than any sunshine-moonshine road to salvation or jannat.
Way to go, NFP ! I look forward to the day when visitors to our countries will marvel at our achievements, every which way.
On the spot as always NFP. There is nothing wrong in being very religious, true believer or whatever. What is wrong is the hate & malice for the other Figah. In the race of supremacy ( partly finaced by Saudi, UAE & Iran)., the situation is disastrous, even suicidal.
Anyone read and listen to NFP and his thought provoking ideas and writings is infact his ally and a supporter if anyone says Pakistan is a failed state I totally disagree,Yes pakistan has major problemswhich is uneducated and totally disfunctional Zia's regime dying breed,Mullah and also KP and fata based terrorist but amazingly things getting better extremly slow but as you can see NFP does not have to hide or anyone else If he critize for anywrong doing by the goverment,it's giant leap forward considering it was not possible just some years ago.
GOD BLESS PAKISTN
LONG LIVE NFP
I am not too sure NFP understands what piety is, because if he did the topic of the article would make no sense to him.
There is a difference between an analysis and a apologetic argument. I appreciate the views expressed by the writer because I believe that every one should have the rights and the opportunities to express themselves. However, the text contains no analytical sophistication that can be taken as or presented as a challenge for further intellectual pursuit. For those who want to pursue a study of secularism , traditions, modernity and debates about role and definition of religion I would recommend the following readings: "Conversion to Modernities" edited by Peter van der Veer. "Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity " by Talal Asad as a start. Now to the problems in the texts. First the writer has a very naive and one sided view of modernity, tradition,secularism and religion. This view is informed by a commitment to liberal rationalist theory. There is nothing wrong with that theory or any commitment to it, but a balanced view should take into account the difference of opinions between the adherents of that theory, the critique by scholars who have criticized this theory not on any religious basis but due to their own adherence to different philosophical and theoretical approaches. Post modernist critique of modernity by french authors like Lyotard , Barthes, Foucault as well as socialist neo marxist critique of connection between certain modernity and capitalism by writers such as Althusser and Gramsci cannot be ignored when talking about what is modernity, secularism and what is the relationship between religion as a discourse. These gentlemen were atheist.
When someone defends a religion and gives essentialized examples or arguments based on a very consolidated view of religious doctrine without taking into account the diversity and debate within a single religious discourse, their approach is good material for rhetoric but has no academic value. Similarly, a simplistic approach to any ideology, religious or non religious, without tackling the complex developmental history of that ideology has no academic value. What the writer of this text is doing is preaching a certain ideology that he likes on the basis of certain theoretical postulates that can strengthen his arguments. But the debates surrounding these postulates are not part of his intellectual universe. Or if they are he is not addressing them. This behaviour is also manifest in religious scholars who preach their version of religious ideology and history and do not expose their clients or students or audiences to the internal debates of their ideologies. Nonetheless, as i said, everyone has a right to express their views even if these views have no real intellectual value and have an overdose of rhetorical value.
@Analyze this
You have made your point and have liberally buttressed it quoting or referencing books / studies by many reputed people, which is beyond a lay person like me to read and understand.
But the point NFP is making is this : has the increase in religiousness / religious symbolism in the Pakistani ( or you may even include Indian ) society, caused a proportional increase in peace, harmony , morality and general well being in the society? For I fear that there is a direct co-relation in the increase in religiousness and people dying due to violence. You may go as long back in history as you may want to; it seems that organised religious dogma has invariably caused more harm than good to humanity. The quest for God should be within your heart.
And I would like to quote Kabir here : Tera Sai hai ghat bheetar, bahir naina kyun khole……
you could have kept the argument simpler. not so intellectual people like me also come on this site, and want to participate in discussion, but when your arguments are so hard to understand, i am afraid, you should rephrase the entire thing once again.
keep it simple like NFP
@Analyze this, I fear it is rather difficult to take you seriously given your choice of callsign (which I think betrays your real intent with this post). Not to mention that personally I find it hard to take any opinion with the term "post modernist" seriously, but then that's just me of course. All I would like to say is, I believe NFP's intention with this piece was to deliberately reach out to the regular folk, you know, the ones who read the dailies, and voice an opinion which is very much derived from a personal world-view, rather than academic research or social commentary informed by adherence to any given philosophical doctrine; therefore if you are disappointed with the level of sophisticated analysis or academic / intellectual value of this piece, you were probably looking in the wrong place. As you can see by the rest of the comments on this page, the common-folk seem to have taken to it well.
Sad, but a true outlook on excessive display of religious symbolism in the public spheres and space. It is eroding the distinction between the sacred and profane. My hat off for NFP!
There is still some hope !!!!
It is clear that when a nation's majority is from a particular faith, and a majority of the majority tries its best to concur social space, it produces a kind of society that gets "outraged by a drone attack but is awkwardly silent " when many of the faith get slaughtered through suicide attacks by practitioners of the same faith. Perhaps a compulsory curriculum in high schools/colleges in area studies would help in understanding how other societies tackle this kind of problem. And, as usual, NFP has nailed the problem without being preachy.