IN the Pakistani corridors of power these days, the buzz word is “enlightened moderation”. Logically this two-word phrase may be a misnomer. One is either “enlightened” or one is not. But, one cannot be “enlightened” in “moderation”. One can be asked to drink in moderation or eat in moderation, but not be “enlightened” in moderation. The phrase has been used with reference to Islam and Muslims. We are told that, “we must adopt a path of moderation and a conciliatory approach to fight the common belief that Islam is a religion of militancy in conflict with modernization, democracy and secularism. My idea for untangling this knot is Enlightened Moderation... the Muslim world should shun militancy and extremism and adopt the path of socio-economic uplift.” (General Musharraf in his article published in The Washington Post, June 1, 2004).

If we study the Holy Quran, we will find that its entire spirit is in consonance with the concept of peace and not violence or terrorism or suicidal bombings. The very name of the religion is ‘Islam’ which means ‘peace’. Islam as a religion came to enlighten the people who had fallen into darkness and abyss. The Holy Quran was revealed to create a just, lawful, tolerant and peaceful society — non-sectarian, non-racial, non-doctrinal with just submission to the will of Allah and with no compulsion.

Allah asks Muslims in Ayats 2:108 and 5:12 not to stray from “Sawa-us Sabeel”; the “path of rectitude”, the even way. In 2:145, Allah tells Muslims: “Thus have We made you an Ummah justly balanced (Ummah-tu-Wasata), that ye might be witnesses over the nations. And the Messenger a witness over yourselves”.

Islam is the only religion which enjoins upon its followers to accept and revere all prophets (Peace be Upon them All) and their revealed messages, as we Muslims do for the Quran and our own Prophet (PBUH). “Say ye: “We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Isma’il, Issac, Jacob, and the Tribes and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to all Prophets from their Lord: We make no difference between one another of them: and we bow to Allah.” (2:136 and a similar ordain in 4:136)

Unlike other religions, which say that salvation will only come to those who follow their Scripture, Allah tells that it is not only Muslims, but also: “Verily those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, who ever believe in Allah and the Last Day and do righteous good deeds shall have their reward with their Lord, on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.”

Allah has already told Muslims: “Ye shall certainly be tried and tested in your possessions and in your personal selves; and ye shall certainly hear much that will grieve you, from those who received the Book before you and from those who worship many gods.” And asks Muslims: “But if ye persevere patiently and guard against evil — then that will be a determining factor in all affairs.” (3:185)

In fact Muslims have been told: “We have not made you a watcher over them (non-believers) nor you are set over them to dispose of their affairs. And insult not those whom they worship besides Allah, lest they insult Allah wrongfully without knowledge. (6:107-108)”

Muslims are forbidden to argue or take part in a discussion about verses of the Quran with non-believers. “When you see those who engage in vain discourse, false conversation about Our Signs (Verses of the Quran) by mocking at them, turn away from them till they turn to another topic. If Satan ever makes you forget, then after the recollection sit not in the company of those who do wrong.” (6:68)

Muslims are required to do justice even to the people who hate them or to whom they have an aversion. “O ye who believe stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not hatred of others to make you to swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: this is next to piety. And fear Allah”. (5:8)

Muslims are to forgive and overlook deceits and misdeeds of non-believers. “For, Allah loveth those who are kind.” (5:13) Muslims are asked to “Repel (evil) with that is best.” In other words, a Muslim must repel evil with something that is good; counter hatred with love; repel ignorance with knowledge; folly and wickedness with the friendly message of Revelation, the Quran.

This moral standard can be reached only by patience and self-restraint. “Indeed, if any one shows patience, and forgives, that would truly be an affair of great resolution.” It is more difficult to be patient, and forgive, than to punish the guilty or teach them lessons. But patience and forgiveness would be the best way to get wrongs righted, as was done by the Holy Prophet (PBUH) throughout his life. In fact, patience is placed above all the Islamic virtues, and, reward beyond measure is promised for it.

The Quran asks: “Help one another in righteousness and piety, but help not in sin and rancour.” (5:3) That is, the hatred of the wicked does not justify hostility on our part. Muslims have to help in righteousness and piety, not in perpetuating quarrels of hatred and enmity.

Fighting (Qatal) is permissible in Islam only in self-defence and under well-defined limits; to restore peace and freedom of worship of God. In any case, women, children, old and infirm men should not be harmed, nor trees and crops cut down, nor should peace be withheld when the enemy comes to terms.

And the Quran says, “But if the (enemy) inclines towards peace, you do (also) incline towards peace and trust in God.” Then in the succeeding verse it says, ‘Should they intend to deceive you, God suffices you.

The Quran also says, “But if anyone remits retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. God forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith, nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly.” The words “kindly and justly” used herein direct that, over and above a just treatment, Muslims must treat them generously and benevolently.

Compulsion is incompatible with Islam, as Islam depends on faith and will; and these would be meaningless if induced by force. Allah ordains very categorically and clearly: “There is no compulsion “in religion.” (2:265)

According to President Musharraf, “Today’s Muslim world is distant from all these values. We have been left far behind in social, moral and economic development. The way forward is through enlightenment. We must concentrate on human resource development through the alleviation of poverty and through education, health care and social justice.”

In a way his diagnosis may be correct. But he misses the point that this state of affairs in the Muslim world exists because of the rulers and not the people, who are down-trodden and hardly have any say in their affairs.

Present day rulers of the Muslim countries call themselves Muslim but hardly follow the dictates of Allah contained in the Quran; they have created the gaps between rich and poor beyond imagination by adopting corrupt practices and fleecing their own people.

Allah says, “And do not eat up another’s property unjustly—in any illegal way e.g. stealing, robbing, deceiving etc) nor give bribery to the rulers (judges before presenting your cases) that you may knowingly eat up a part of the property of others sinfully. (2:188)

When we talk of socio-economic uplift, Allah provided guidance and told Prophet Muhammad. “They ask you what they should spend. Say: whatever ye spend that is good, is for parents, and kindered, and orphans, and those in want, and for wayfarers, and whatever you do of good deeds truly Allah knows it well.” (2:215) “O, ye who believe! give of the good things, which you have honourable and legally earned, and the fruits of the earth, and do not aim at that which is bad and you would not accept it save with closed eyes.” (3:267) “Those who spend their wealth in The Cause of Allah, and do not follow it up with reminders of their generosity or with injury, their reward is with their reward.” (3:262)

“O, you who believe! Do not render in vain your reminders of their generosity or by injury, like him who spends his wealth to be seen by people, but believe neither in Allah nor in the Last Day.” (3:264)

If the western world believes that “Islam is a religion of militancy in conflict with modernization, democracy and secularism....”, the responsibility for such a wrong belief rests with the Muslims of today, specially the rulers, who are either ignorant or don’t want to follow what Allah ordains them to do in the Holy Quran.

The Ummah does not need ‘enlightened moderation’ but enlightenment from the Quran and moderation in their day to day lives. Rhetoric and lies may not yield results. Truth and poverty alleviation and not ‘elevation’ are the need of the time.

IT WAS once said half-jokingly that Pakistan wants Kashmir, preferably without the Hindu Kashmiris. It could be said with equal semi-seriousness that the proponents of Hindutva covet the territory of Pakistan, preferably without the Muslim Pakistanis. The concept of Hindutva is encapsulated in the slogan coined in the 1930s by V.D. Savarkar of the Hindu Mahasabha: Hindu, Hindi, Hindustan, and envisages a ‘sacred geography’ of India that would (if India could) extend to natural geographic frontiers — from western Iran to the eastern Malaysian peninsula, from northern Tibet to southernmost Sri Lanka. After 1947, the slogan was sharpened to: ‘Hindu, Hindi, Hindustan, Muslim jao Pakistan.’

As a Muslim whose ancestors may or may not have originated from the Middle East or Central Asia (as our forebears maintained), or who may or may not have been the lineal descendants of Hindu converts (as the RSS maintains), I find it difficult to recognize myself in the image the RSS has of me, and of millions of subcontinental Muslims like me. We are the unwelcome guests who refuse to leave, the exiles still camped on the quayside, the stubborn Pompeians continuing to live on the slope of a rumbling communal volcano.

The intensity of the rumblings from this volcano have varied over the years, but the latest seismic reading — an explosive interview given recently on NDTV by Sarsanghachalak K. S. Sudarshan to the Indian journalist Shekhar Gupta — is a warning to co-existentialists, a caution against complacency. It needs to be heeded, just as Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru’s concerns once were, when he counselled in 1958 that ‘communalism of the majority is far more dangerous than the communalism of the minority. Three years later, in 1961, he foresaw: “When the minority communities are communal, you can see that and understand it. But the communalism of a majority community is apt to be taken for nationalism.”

K. S. Sudarshan is the present head of the RSS and its chief ideologue, and therefore what he has to say (and he feels he has to say it, regardless of the consequences) cannot be ignored, if only because it is taken seriously by all the other components of the Sangh Parivar, the family of organizations and movements (including the BJP) committed to the consummation of a Hindutva, masquerading as nationalism.

So, when asked, for example, whether Mr Vajpayee’s BJP-led government had handled relations with Pakistan ‘the right way’, Mr Sudarshan replied: “Pakistan’s identity depends on its enmity with India. And if this is removed, then Pakistan will be finished. Pakistan’s administrators know this very well. If the people-to-people relations improve, then Pakistan will not be able to survive. The whole partition is artificial.” To which he added: “If the image improves among the common people, then Pakistan will be finished. So, our game plan should be to try and improve relations.”

To Mr Gupta’s specific question ‘What is the final solution for India and Pakistan?’ Mr Sudarshan’s response was: “There is only one solution. Pakistan should leave PoK. It is the only solution.” And would he agree to the LoC as an option? “We don’t agree, because it will not end there. It will whet their expansionist hunger; they would want more — the whole of Kashmir.”

The new reality of both India and Pakistan becoming nuclear powers and the threat of a nuclear war left him unmoved: “If it happens, it’ll happen. We can’t keep quiet all the time because of the scare of nuclear weapons.” Conceding Gupta’s view that nuclear war was not an option, Sudarshan responded: “That’s okay, but what’s the guarantee that they won’t do it even after acquiring nuclear weapons. There’s no guarantee. Pakistan has converted all its money into Euros, so the US has no control over it anymore.”

It was this last addendum that is particularly intriguing, for in it Mr Sudarshan seemed to be paying an over-generous compliment to the independence of the present Pakistan government, lampooned as it has been recently by the The Washington Times in a cartoon showing it as an obedient canine, waiting for a command from His Master’s Voice.

For a Muslim outsider, coming to grips with the Sangh Parivar and its ‘Inspired Organizations’ is to relive the difficulties an exasperated Mohammed Ali Jinnah faced in his dealings with a nebulous M. K. Gandhi. Preeminent within it is the RSS — short for Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh — founded eighty years ago in 1925 by D.K. B. Hedgewar. A sister organization was founded for women in 1936 — the Rashtra Sevika Samiti.

In 1951, the Bharitya Jan Sangh or BJS was formed as an alliance between the Hindu Mahasabha and the RSS. Students were mobilized as early as 1948 under the ABVP — Akhil Bharitya Vidyarthi Parishad, and seven years later in 1955 labour was given its own identity as the Bharitya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS). It is now one of the largest trade unions in India. To counteract separatism in Hindu thought and practices, the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) was established in 1964, just as the Rashtriya Sikh Sanghat was established in the 1980s to bring independence-inclined Sikhs back into the fold. The Bharitya Janata Party (BJP) created in 1980 and led by A. B. Vajpayee and L.K. Advani is the latest addition to the Sangh Parivar, although this generic term is, in the eyes of Mr Sudarshan, a misnomer. The word Parivar implies a family with a head. He prefers the term ‘Sangh and allied organizations.’ He defines “allied in the sense that we take inspiration from the Hindu thought process about each organization, but each organization is independent.”

It is this very degree of independence that can permit RSS’s political wing — the BJP — to espouse Mr Vajpayee’s idea of ‘positive secularism’ and go along with his peace talks with Pakistan, just as it can encourage his deputy Mr Advani during his Rath Yatra from Somnath to Ayodhya in 1990 and the barbarous assault on the Babri Masjid in 1992. And it is this detachment that can allow Mr Sudarshan in his interview to advise , on behalf of the RSS, both Vajpayee and Advani to ‘step aside’ from the BJP party and to make way for ‘a new leadership’.

Following the defeat of the BJP-led coalition in the last general election, the relationship between the RSS and the BJP is undergoing a critical self-analysis that will inevitably lead to some sort of change, however cosmetic. What is unlikely to alter though is their attitude towards Pakistan and its obsession with Kashmir.

The RSS mission and vision declamation defines its position clearly: “The State of Jammu and Kashmir, with its oppressive Muslim-majority character, has been a headache in our country ever since independence ... The endless appeasement of the Muslim population, especially in Kashmir, practised by successive governments in Delhi, has been the bane of our government’s Kashmir policy. Just as too much mollycoddling and lack of discipline spoil the child, so has been Kashmir, a problem created out of our own folly.”

The homely image of chastizement by a benign Bharat Mata echoes an interview given in 1970 by Mr Sudarshan’s predecessor M.S. Gowalkar, revered within the RSS as Guruji. The questions put to him and his replies deserve to be quoted verbatim:

“Q: Who will teach Muslims to identify themselves completely with the country and its culture?

A: You and me, all of us.

Q: Can you teach by beating?

A: Beating is of two kinds: mother beating her child and an enemy sticking a man. We have not done any beating. But if, as and when we do teach by beating, it will be like a mother’s beating of her child — out of love and solicitude for the child’s welfare.”

Such maternal concern was expressed once by a mother who while beating her child, tried to reassure him that such chastizement hurt her as much as it did him. To which the bruised child replied: ‘Perhaps so, but not in the same place.’

THE Commission on Human Rights based in Geneva was set up to address serious human rights abuses around the world. The inspirational theme for this body was sanctioned by the charter of the United Nations which prescribed that the promotion and protection of human rights was a global responsibility. It was rightly considered that safeguarding human rights could not simply rest with the state since more often than not the state itself was the author of abuse.

Several instances in recent history testify to the accuracy of this assertion. The people of East Europe, languishing behind the iron curtain, remained deprived of the elementary norms of civilized life. Justice was dispensed arbitrarily and the individual enjoyed no protection against state power. Stalin dispatched millions of his countrymen to death camps in Siberia. Soviet tanks crushed with singular ruthlessness the first stirrings of freedom in that region.

The military juntas of yesteryear in Latin America pioneered new methods of cruelty to silence the voices of dissent in their countries. Thousands disappeared without trace. But for the selfless efforts of the global human rights machinery that saga of darkness may well have continued longer.

The era of Slobodan Milosevic in the former Yugoslavia constitutes a particularly ghastly chapter in the annals of human abuse. The massacres perpetrated at Sarajevo, Mostar and Srebrenica and the many towns and hamlets of that country by hate-filled nationalists shook the conscience of the world. The first world conference on human rights held in Vienna in 1993 condemned these killings as genocide through a resolution tabled by the OIC. To its credit, the western world, led by the US, responded to this crisis with commendable integrity. The Dayton accords negotiated by US diplomat Richard Holbrooke brought a semblance of peace and security to the Muslims of the region.

Following the events of September 11, 2001, the dynamics of human rights changed significantly. The attacks in New York and Washington were seen as an assault on western civilization itself. The very freedoms constituting the bedrock of the modern western state were perceived to be under threat. The new war is seen as a civilization clash that must be waged to the finish. Dialogue is considered irrelevant to the dynamics of this conflict. The adversary must be totally eliminated through the application of overwhelming power. Afghanistan remains in the throes of conflict despite a significant Nato military presence. In Iraq, nationalism and ideology have combined to create conditions of chronic instability for the people. These developments carry two implications of considerable import for the human rights agenda. Non-state actors have now emerged as a distinct category of violators of human rights. Secondly, the western world, which so far had projected itself, with some justification, as the sole votary of human rights, is beginning to find itself in the league of the transgressors.

Until recently, the category of the violators was well defined: Saddam Hussein, Robert Mugabe, Kim Il Jong, Fidel Castro, the Chinese communists and the clerics of Iran as well as a smattering of Central Asian strongmen. The human rights discourse was thus conducted within distinct and simplified concepts; western governments and civil society standing up for the rights of the oppressed in the Islamic and Third World countries. Undoubtedly, some causes were politically inspired. The motivation behind the ritualistic Cuba bashing at the human rights commission each year is well known.

Be that as it may, the contours of the debate on human rights were largely clear: Third World autocrats trampling over the freedoms of their people held in check by the enlightened policies and conscientious interventions of the West. The war on terror has obscured this neat equation. Several glaring instances come to mind. Has any tabulation ever been made of the number of non-combatants killed during the military campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The right to life is universally recognized as the most precious right. Commitment to this right does not seem to have acted as a restraining factor on the bombing campaigns conducted in Iraq and Afghanistan. The continuing exposure of incidents of maltreatment of prisoners at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram portray a pattern of gross and systematic abuse. Unless proven otherwise these cannot but be considered as manifestations of deliberate state policy.

Just recently, allegations of desecration of the Holy Quran in Guantanamo (carried in the Newsweek but subsequently retracted) and the large-scale application of torture on Afghan inmates at Bagram have come to light. According to reports, Afghan prisoners were subjected to repeated abuse for the purposes of extracting information. In some instances, torture was inflicted simply to relieve the prison guards of the state of boredom. In one case, torture continued even as the captive was breathing his last.

What has been the response of the UN human rights commission to this? Did it signal its disapproval? At every session of the commission, the European Union delivers a detailed statement on the state of human rights in the world. Did Guantanamo, Abu- Ghraib or Bagram figure in this chronicle of misdeeds? Did the OIC, which acts as the custodian of Islamic interests in the commission, initiate any move to at least call for an investigation? One has not seen the record but it would not be surprising if the gritty Cubans had raised their voice against these indignities.

The response of the government of Pakistan was correct. The president called for a thorough inquiry and maximum punishment for the perpetrators. The foreign office issued a strongly worded statement even though the foreign minister showed undue haste in welcoming Newsweek’s retraction. In the National Assembly, political leaders of different persuasions joined hands to pass a unanimous resolution condemning the desecration.

Revulsion to the reported abuse across the Islamic world prompted a categorical assurance from the US government to conduct a thorough and transparent investigation and to award appropriate penalty to those found involved. It is important that the state department comes through on this promise.

The response of the human rights community of Pakistan to the reports of torture in Bagram and the acts of desecration in Guantanamo was bewildering. Instead of squarely addressing these grave violations our local activists were busy organizing a mini- marathon. A furious din was raised lambasting the authorities for restraining the runners. When the first attempt failed, another more determined and better-organized effort was crowned with success. There is no justification for police high-handedness to stop a mixed marathon on the streets of Lahore.

However, what is incomprehensible is the fact that while the whole nation was incensed over reports of desecration of the Quran, frenzied human rights campaigners held forth on media channels on the virtues of mixed marathon running. The chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan also happens to be UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion and religious belief. But not even a whimper of disapproval was forthcoming.

Sentiments abound that a segment of the human rights establishment in Pakistan is wedded to the pursuit of a prescribed western agenda. This should not necessarily be a cause for worry because many political and civic values enshrined in the western way of life need to be fostered in all societies. There is simply no substitute for gender equality, freedom of expression and speech, constitutionalism as the organizing principle of state polity, judicial independence and above all strict adherence to the rule of law.

To the extent that civil society in Pakistan is engaged in promoting these values it can rightfully count on the support of every Pakistani. Questions arise when gross breaches of these very precepts occurring outside our borders, including instances of unfair victimization of Pakistanis, are greeted with a stony silence by our civil society.

No wonder, moves are currently afoot to either emasculate the UN commission on human rights or better still abolish it all together. The argument advanced in support of this view that the commission has, over the years, become a haven for Third World transgressors is only partially true. Equally valid is the perception that some major western powers now fear that the commission which was originally intended to serve as a platform to chastise errant Third World autocrats might now try to interfere in other areas.

The challenge of human rights protection in Pakistan is very real. We fall short of most benchmarks despite our formal adherence to several human rights instruments. Most pernicious is the maltreatment of women exemplified by the scourge of honour killings which brings us infamy around the world and demeans us as a nation in our own eyes. Any endeavour by us to remove this dreadful practice should elicit the support and cooperation of every conscientious Pakistani. But if, as is now agreed, human rights have universal application and require to be addressed in that context then all violations, no matter from which quarter they emanate, must be condemned without reservation or hesitation.

The writer is a former ambassador.