NON-FICTION: REIMAGINING THE POLITICS OF POWER
Since the inception of Pakistan, two questions that remain unresolved are about power and religion. Three constitutions, four formal military rules, controlled democracies, half-baked liberal and socialist economic models, religio-socialisation and religio-nationalism processes, strategic ambitions — all of these have created such a disquiet state that the questions of authority and identity constantly consume our intellectual energies to this day.
Bilal Zahoor, in collaboration with Raza Rumi, has made the latest effort to rethink Pakistan in light of these questions. Together they have compiled Rethinking Pakistan: A 21st Century Perspective, an anthology of essays on the critical challenges the country is facing. Leading scholars and experts in their relevant fields have shared their thoughts to identify the reasons for the chronic problems of the country and have suggested ways out to create a balance between religion and power and how the constitutional, economic, governance, development, diplomacy and ideological issues can be fixed.
The anthology is divided into five thematic structures. The first part deals with the issues of identity, religion and radicalisation. The first essay, ‘Refuting the Radicals’ by renowned scholar Dr Tariq Rahman, discusses the different interpretations of jihad by contemporary scholars in South Asia, including Ziauddin Sardar, Maulana Wahiduddin Khan, Javed Ghamidi, Dr Farooq Khan and Dr Tahirul Qadri — all of them contribute in refuting the radical interpretation of Islam. Rahman, who recently wrote a lengthy volume on this subject, provides insight into the moderate voices in religious discourses, which were marginalised by both the state and society in Pakistan.
An anthology of essays on the critical challenges facing Pakistan tries to identify the reasons for the chronic problems of the country and suggest ways out
In another essay, historian and former Iqbal fellow at the University of Cambridge, Dr Tahir Kamran deals with the question of religion, saying that the foundational story of the country was re-scripted in the light of fundamentalist ideology. Whereas Pakistan’s foundation, in essence, was political assertion by Muslim modernists, those who re-script the genesis story give a purely puritan view. It is not that only traditional political Islamists such as Deobandi parties pitched themselves in the story, but the Barelvis did, too. In a way, while both wrangle over the particular angle of religion in nation-building, both nonetheless rely heavily on the political dimension of faith. This national narrative building gave space to religious actors, which eventually transmuted into the likes of the Tehreek-i-Labbaik Pakistan (TLP).
Meanwhile, Nadeem Farooq Paracha discusses the role of religion in the socio-political context of the subcontinent and argues that the society in Pakistan is an ultimate outcome of the thoughts under evolution during Muslim rule in the subcontinent. He asserts that Pakistan “is not a bastion of liberalism either. Its strength lies in a historically inherent moderate disposition, which, whenever it was given the space to assert itself, exhibited a remarkable aptitude to tolerate a rather fruitful co-existence between conservatism and certain more permissive ideas.” His essay provides context to the debate on identity in the country.
No debate on religion, identity, constitution and statecraft in Pakistan can be completed without referring to what the founder of the country thought. Bilal Zahoor, in his introductory essay, holds accountable the state, which kept distancing itself from Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s vision and, contrary to his vision, used religion in the nation-building processes. Zahoor quotes a well-known argument by the professor of Near Eastern Studies and Religion at Princeton University, Muhammad Qasim Zaman, that by ‘Sharia’, Jinnah only meant the “Muslim laws of personal status governing matters such as marriage, divorce and inheritance” and not “that the state should commit itself to Islamic Law in its fullness.”