Face of Islamic revivalism

REVIVAL of the pristine Islamic society, as an end in itself, has been a perennial theme in the writings of Muslim clerics, scholars and thinkers, but there came to be associated with it, at a later stage, a widely held belief among the revivalists that a revival of the pristine Islamic society would somehow lead to restoration of the past glory as well. And by ‘past glory’ is meant the military and political ascendancy of the Muslim empires from the early caliphates to the Mughal and Ottoman empires.

This view of revival is a legacy of the age of decline (18th to the early 20th century) when the Christian Europe was on a colonization spree all over the world, and the Muslims, among others, were on the retreat everywhere. The desire to get even with the European powers was, therefore, expressed in military and political terms, and revival of the Muslim imperial power was seen as the only answer to the expansionist surge of the European powers.

This was an understandable, even justifiable, reaction consistent with the spirit of the times when territorial expansion by conquest was the order of the day. This is best illustrated by the fortunes of the British empire that expanded at an average rate of 100,000 square miles per year from 1815 to 1865.

Logic of the revivalists was, and still is, quite simple: since the foundations of the Muslim imperial power were laid at the time of early caliphates when Islam was being practised in its pristine form and spirit, it was but logical to assume that revival of the Islamic society would also lead to the restoration of the political ascendancy of the Muslims. In the minds of the revivalists a causal connection between revival of the Islamic society and restoration of the Muslim political ascendancy is clearly and firmly established. This, in essence, is the message of the religio-political movements that began in the 18th century and have continued ever since in the Muslim world.

In the contemporary Muslim world this belief is shared by the fundamentalists, jihadis and other Islamic militants who can be described as functional manifestations of the revivalist belief that promises final victory over the non-believers through revival of the pristine Islamic society. One is, not quite sure, though, whether revival of the pristine Islamic society is being sought for its spiritual blessings or for the expected temporal reward in the shape of worldly power and influence. In either case revivalism holds great promise for all those who would like to see Muslim ascendancy revived.

The expectation that an empire of worldly power and influence would materialize out of a revival in the spiritual domain is also reflective of the times when the Muslim nations were languishing in a state of limbo (neither modern nor pristine) yearning for an instant solution to the misery of perpetual enslavement. For them the road to modernization was long, little understood, and even debatable.

While the road to restoration of the past looked simple and easy as it demanded of the faithful nothing more than a collective act of faith, without engaging in a life-consuming task of acquiring modern scientific and technological knowledge, creating institutions, experimenting with new ideas in trade, industry, governance, and much else besides that brought about a socio-economic transformation of Europe.

One of the contemporary believers in this kind of revivalism are, for example, the Taliban who remained disdainful of earthly accomplishments, and led themselves to believe that they had access to the knowledge that God was on their side. What they did and hoped to achieve, and the contempt with which they defied the world opinion is, perhaps, the most revealing example of that heavenly hubris which the ‘true believers’ and the ‘chosen people’ of every faith exhibit.

The revivalists are, thus, pursuing an objective that belongs to another age (past glory); through irrelevant means (societal throwback); in the face of insurmountable odds (one hyper-power, many great powers); oblivious of the irreconcilable contradiction between the end and the means (shaping the future by reviving the past); while working diligently to self-destruct by defying the tide of history. But one should not rush to write their obituary. Their day is not yet done.

Of equal or, perhaps, of greater concern is the fact that the revivalists have almost managed to put on hold the direction of change in the Muslim world which is in a state of intellectual paralysis. Muslims happen to be the only people in the world who are not quite sure how to order their societies. They are still debating about even the basics of an acceptable shape of things in a Muslim society (school syllabi, bank interest, even democracy) while Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, Jews, and even communists have moved away from their dogmas, and are quite clear about the future direction of their societies. In fact they are all moving in the same direction despite some differences in their respective given situations.

In sharp contrast, the 300-year old debate in the Muslim world between the revivalists and the reformists goes on endlessly. There is a significant change though. During the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century the revivalists were a weaker and dying force, while the reformists (such as Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, Mustafa Kemal Pasha) were the up-and-coming socio-political force expected to grow stronger. That hasn’t happened. In the contemporary Muslim world the reformists are no more than passive apologists for change, while the revivalists are, literally and figuratively, on the warpath.

How this change has come about? Well, it came about in an unexpected and paradoxical way. First because of the Cold War and next because of the end of Cold War. While the Cold War lasted the revivalists (also known as fundamentalists, or jihadis, depending on the context) were encouraged and supported by the West. As mujahideen they played a decisive role in the liberation of Afghanistan from the Soviet occupation.

Their victory over the occupiers gave them immense self-confidence and a sense of fulfilment. After, and because of, the end of Cold War, they turned their attention to other brothers-in-faith who too sought liberation: Palestinians from the Israeli occupation; Kashmiris from the Indian occupation; Chechens from the Russian occupation; and the Arab states from the American military presence.

Today freedom is their cause, militancy their method, and religious faith their strength. This adds up to a powerful appeal to the Muslim masses. The reformists and the liberals, on the other hand, are seen as cowering in the corner before the oppressors. Good reason for them to be diffident and apologetic.

As a consequence two things have happened: the revivalists have assumed the role of sole champions of the Muslim communities fighting for freedom and, because of that role, have gained the sympathy of the Muslim masses, while the reformists and the liberals have been reduced to the position of apologists for their role, or the absence of it, in the freedom struggle and for their reform agenda, if any. It is obvious, therefore, that injustice to the Muslim communities fighting for freedom is the fuel to the fire of militancy. But for that fuel the flame of militancy would soon be extinguished or, at least, cease to be a threat to anybody.

Incredibly, this conclusion is not widely shared outside the Muslim world. In the vast amount of literature on jihadis and terrorists a discussion of the linkage between Muslim militancy and the struggle for freedom by the Muslims of the occupied territories is quite often studiously avoided. The most important case of such an omission is the report of the 9/11 Commission appointed by the US Congress and the president to ‘examine the facts and circumstances surrounding the September 11 attacks, identify lessons learned, and provide recommendations to safeguard against future acts of terrorism’. The Commission has made no less than 41 recommendations — 28 about ‘what to do’; and 13 about ‘how to do it’. However, none of the recommendations has been formulated with a view to helping resolve the conflicts over occupied territories. In fact, it is likely that instead of existing occupations being vacated some more lands may come under occupation in not too distant a future. Such being the prospects, the reformists would lose the battle for the minds of the Muslim masses, and the revivalists would, surely, succeed in blocking the dawn of the age of reformation in the Muslim world.

E-mail: tvo@isb.comsats.net.pk

Pitfalls Congress must avoid

IT appears that the BJP is beginning to retrieve the territory it had lost. After the defeat at the Lok Sabha polls, nearly one year ago, the party was in the dumps. The media paid it hardly any attention.

The BJP tried to play the Hindutva card but made no headway. There was no response to even the emotive issue of building a temple at the place where the Babri masjid stood once.

The ruling Congress itself is responsible for making the BJP relevant. Initially, the stalling of parliament rattled the Congress unnecessarily. The more the government sought the BJP’s cooperation, the more intractable it became. This was the game that the Congress too had played when it was in the opposition. It should have figured out how to face such situations.

What really put the Congress on the defensive was its effort to grab power, first in Goa and then in Jharkhand. The party adopted the same old methods to get into the seat through the Congress-appointed governors even though the party and its allies had not the necessary numbers. People were shocked to see the flouting of constitutional methods.

Defeat either evokes defiance or the desire to compromise. The Congress has opted for the latter. Maybe, it has found that the BJP leaders, from L.K.Advani to Sushma Swaraj, are too ferocious for the Congress to challenge with the timid and the inarticulate lot it has on its side. Maybe, the Congress has decided not to join issue with the BJP.

Whatever the reason, it is apparent that the Congress does not want to pick up the gauntlet which the BJP throws down so often. Those who saw Congress president Sonia Gandhi taking on the then prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee in the Lok Sabha are disappointed over the squeamishness of the Congress leaders. Something has gone wrong somewhere because Sonia is still the party president. Either Sonia has some other considerations in view or her advisers have given her a wrong advice.

Therefore, New Delhi’s overreaction to the denial of US visa to Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi does not come as a surprise. Washington’s step was an act of indiscretion and, hence, highly objectionable. The State Department could have ticked Modi off by withdrawing the diplomatic visa while sustaining the ordinary one. True, America bungled. But the pitch to which New Delhi took the incident was so disproportionate that it made Modi look like a martyr. He is responsible for the Gujarat carnage and remains unrepentant.

The BJP’s attitude was understandable. It had to go to town because it had been groping for an issue for a long time to be in the limelight. The party converted the visa’s denial into an issue of ‘national pride’. When in power, the party did not say a word over the stripping of George Fernandes at New York, although he was India’s defence minister at that time. L.K.Advani was then on a different trip: how President Bush dropped in when Advani was sitting with Secretary of State Powell. The party wanted to take credit for proximity with America.

Modi is himself exploiting the visa’s denial and saying all kinds of things to divert attention from the real reason: The report by the National Human Rights Commission on his complicity in what happened in Gujarat. Modi’s one vignette is that President Bush has punished him because he has enacted the anti-conversion measure. Another Modi’s quote is that human rights activists should be punished for their ‘foreign links’. That Washington has again refused him a visa is unfortunate. But it is a non-event, not the end of the world as the BJP is trying to project. Why should the Congress play into its hands? Perhaps the government has an eye on the smooth functioning of parliament. Is this the price?

The Congress is, however, wrong if it believes that the BJP will show any accommodation to the government. This is clear from the manner in which the BJP state governments have refused to introduce VAT, a tax which is to be levied throughout the country from April 1. The same non-cooperative attitude was behind the BJP boycott of Lok Sabha Speaker Somnath Chatterjee’s conference of state speakers. His idea was not to confront the judiciary but to point out that the Jharkhand judgment indicating guidelines to the state legislature might upset the fine balance which the judiciary and the legislatures had maintained after independence. The constitution gave legislatures unrestricted powers to conduct affairs in the house. Even unwittingly, the supremacy of the elected should not be watered down.

The Congress rightly allowed its states to attend the speaker’s meeting. But it did not support his suggestion that the president, as authorized by the constitution, should make a reference to the Supreme Court for another look at its judgment so as to delineate clearly the power of the judiciary and that of legislatures. The Congress should confront the BJP on this point. The issue is so important from the point of view of the constitution’s basic structure of federalism that there should be a public debate on the subject as well as a reference to the Supreme Court.

The Congress is mistaken if it believes that going along with the BJP is possible. Some political experts are indulging in a guess-game that the Congress and the BJP can develop an understanding of sorts. L.K.Advani’s comment in a TV interview that the two have not been talking to each other ‘enough’ is considered significant. Lord Megnath Desai, an Indian economist based in London, has gone to the extent of saying that the Congress and the BJP should cooperate ‘in the interest of country’s progress’.

The Congress is wrong in its assessment. The BJP will continue to create more and more difficulties for the Congress because the BJP wants to step in its place at New Delhi. It has also begun to nourish the hope that the ruling United Progressive Alliance (UPA), which includes both the Congress and the Left, may disintegrate in 2006 when the two will be in direct electoral clash during elections in West Bengal and Kerala.

What is sad about the whole thing is that the Congress, which should be fighting the BJP on every front, is seen compromising with it. The Congress does not realize that its strength lies in taking an unequivocal stand against the communal forces. The more it dilutes its stand the more distant it will go from the people who defeated them in the last election. The country’s ethos is pluralism, not parochialism and prejudice that the BJP fosters. The Congress should have at least understood this by this time.

The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.

More excuses for absuses

THE Pentagon’s investigations of its own abuses of detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere have taken on a predictable pattern. Officials compile voluminous reports — there have now been 10 — detailing shocking mistreatment, widespread violations of laws and the Geneva Conventions, and failures by senior military commanders and civilian officials up to Defence Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld.

They then conclude there was “no policy of abuse” and duck the question of whether anyone above the low-ranking personnel now being prosecuted should be held accountable.

The report delivered to Congress by Vice-Adm. Albert T. Church III, which was intended to fill the gaps of previous reviews, provides a blatant example of this whitewashing. Though it comprises 360 pages, the Pentagon released only a 21-page executive summary. This euphemistically describes “missed opportunities” in the management of interrogation of detainees but insists — directly contradicting at least three previous Pentagon reports — that these did not contribute to the 70 cases of proven abuse, including six deaths, that it covers.

When asked who should be held responsible for this terrible record, Adm. Church first told a congressional hearing that it was “not in my charter” to determine that. Later, he revealingly told journalists, “I don’t think you can hold anyone accountable for a situation that maybe if you had done something different, maybe something would have occurred differently.”

By that standard, no commander in the US military would ever suffer any consequence for malfeasance, however damaging to the national interest. Judging from the record of investigating prisoner abuse, that is exactly the Pentagon’s intent.

Military spokesmen protest that the process isn’t finished. The Army inspector general is said to be pursuing investigations of senior officers. The Army also has been delivering encouraging reports, though without much detail, about a revamping of interrogation policies and of supervision and training for personnel who handle detainees.

So far, however, the only general officer known to have been sanctioned is a reserve brigadier general who played no role in conducting prisoner interrogations or writing policies for them and who plausibly describes herself as a scapegoat.

We know, from the sketchy and partial investigations that have been done, that decisions by Mr Rumsfeld and the Justice Department to permit coercive interrogation techniques previously considered unacceptable for US personnel influenced practices at the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and later spread to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Methods such as hooding, enforced nudity, sensory deprivation and the use of dogs to terrorize — all originally approved by the defence secretary — were widely employed, even though they violate the Geneva Conventions. But no genuinely independent investigator has been empowered to connect these decisions and events and conclude where accountability truly should lie.

—The Washington Post

What happens in our National Assembly

OUR National Assembly adorns the fulcrum of our representative institutions. Many great and noble voices have filled its chamber from the clarion call of Mohammad Ali Jinnah on August 11, 1947 — it was then the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan — to the brilliant orations of Hussein Shaheed Suhrawardy, and the passion of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to name three stalwarts of time past.

Our National Assembly has had a chequered career because of a political hiatus. As a consequence, it has not built up strong traditions like the Lok Sabha of India. By this I mean unwritten conventions on do’s and don’ts and the drawing up of invisible red lines which are mostly respected by both sides of the House. Our House consists of 342 members, without traditions or conventions. Maintaining order is a trying job at the best of times with such a large assemblage of politicians. Our sensible Rules of Procedure that govern our working are honoured more in the breach than in observance.

What follows is a critique of our National Assembly’s performance. Any institution is open to improvement. If parliament is to be the arbiter between the people and the executive, no martial law will ever be able to set it aside. However, because of free spending habits and an obsession with perks and privileges of its members, and much bark without a bite, its reputation since 1985 has not been high.

We may shout or cry our lungs out but no real mechanism exists to resolve a genuine problem of a humble citizen or provide the institutional cover for elementary justice. If the National Assembly is to be the court of final accountability in a moral and material sense, it must be an exemplar of the highest probity and rectitude in its own working.

What then are the root causes of a consistent poor performance which fails to inspire the people? Briefly, a virus embedded in our system. The virus is the abuse of the ‘point of order’ privilege given to members. A ‘point of order’ has a very narrow scope; it permits a member to interrupt the proceedings of the assembly if a constitutional provision or the assembly’s Rules of Procedure are in patent breach. If so, the Speaker must take cognizance of it and give the floor to the member.

In practice what happens is near bedlam of voices, in competition to catch the headlines of the next day. There have been many days when most of a business session was neglected and taken up by ‘non points of order’. These ‘nons’ range from personal pique to political passion; from minor constituency complaints to religious sermons; from showmanship (dukaan chamkana) to utopian spiels. This traffic jam of ‘ad hoc’ speeches, mostly in defiance of the Speaker’s ruling, is a costly waste of time (each minute of the National Assembly costs Rs.55,000) and impinges on our claim to be a serious debating chamber.

Many of the ‘non-points of order’ are important, but, raised in defiance of the rules, leads to a traffic jam with vehicles stuck on the road. Without discipline there is chaos; and chaos is the harbinger of dictatorship. What mostly prevents the Speaker from enforcing order is the constant threat by a group of members (usually the opposition) to walk out of the chamber in protest if they are not heard on a ‘non-point of order’; a walk-out by the opposition can trigger the suspension of the assembly for the day for lack of quorum.

The quorum requirement in our assembly is an unreasonable 25 per cent of the total membership, which is probably the highest of any democratic parliament in the world. Ordained by the Constitution (Article 55), any change would require a constitutional amendment.

It has been calculated that the cost of a working hour in the National Assembly ranges between Rs.26 Lacs and Rs.40 Lacs; these figures do not include the depreciation costs of the National Assembly building and parliamentary lodges and many hidden expenses under other heads. The precise cost of a working hour cannot be determined because of the secrecy that shrouds many aspects of our working — a theme that we shall revert to later.

Taking the middle figure, the cost of a working hour is Rs.3.3 million or Rs.55,000 per minute. On average, at least, one hour is lost on each working day because of ‘non-points of orders’ and other disturbances — such as lack of quorum, delays in starting the proceedings — the cost is around Rs.430 million for 130 days’ working per annum, at a minimum.

Incidentally, the cost of a working hour in the Lok Sabha is Rs.19 million, notwithstanding a much larger membership and better emoluments for members. Probity must begin at home if we are to hold the executive to account; otherwise it is a case of double standards. There is much extravagance. For example, over a hundred members of this assembly have been sent on two week-stints to New York to learn presumably how the UN works, as if, this was necessary or possible in two weeks.

Over 250 members have been sent in parliamentary delegations or government missions to the four corners of the globe from Outer Mongolia to Mexico, from Canada to China and from Sweden to South Africa. There are 41 parliamentary committees when 28 could do. For good measure each chairperson of a committee, among other perks, has at his disposal a brand new 1500CC Toyota or Honda for personal use.

Most governments are conspicuous wasters of public funds. Ours, of course, is no exception. The National Assembly is the custodian of the national purse. Its foremost duty is to vote expenditure, after due diligence — this does not happen in practice. Budgets are passed mechanically. Members are given two to four days to study a stack of budget books literally two feet high to participate in a so-called general debate, which lasts for about a week, followed by cut motions, and the passage of the budget voted upon in quick succession on party lines. The heaviest component of the budget is defence, which is a one liner! Not surprisingly most of the budget discussion is a litany of local complaints.

Surely, this procedure defeats common sense. What happens in most parliaments is that the demand for grants is sent to the concerned standing committee of the assembly for each the ministry of government and given sufficient time to scrutinize the demands in a committee without fanfare so that the demand is examined not on the adversarial principle, but, in cooperative diligence for the national good. The standing committee of parliament is the permanent supervisory group of members on the ministry assigned to them.

If parliament is to play a role in controlling expenditure or improving amenity to the public, it makes no sense to deprive the standing committees a reasonable opportunity to examine in depth the demands for grants at budget time and report thereon to the assembly. The budget should be presented in early May, if it is to be passed before the fiscal year runs out, and if this not be possible, the assembly should sanction ad-hoc funds on a vote of account to authorize government expenditure for a brief period beyond the fiscal year.

Delay in providing justice is the open wound of our society. A case in court may be adjourned from hearing to hearing for months even years before judgment is pronounced, and then too the verdict may be reserved for long periods, and arguments reheard at considerable cost, all over again. Our code of procedure evolved in the 19th century do not recognize the compulsions of the population dynamic and the communication revolution of the 21st century. The cause lists are unreasonably long.

Is it humanly possible for a judge to listen to 50 or 60 cases in a day? Inevitably, the counsel for one or the other side will seek an adjournment being busy in court elsewhere, or the judge is on leave, and, more likely, the turn of the case will not be reached, with the bewildered seeker of justice sweating it out in the miserable verandas of our civil courts. Parliament fails because there is absolutely no focus on the problem. What is called for is a joint committee of both houses of parliament to determine the facts and causes of delay. No statistics of delay in courts is available.

And what do we know of human rights violations inside jails, police stations, lunatic asylums, red light areas, and of bonded and child labour? Civil society is just beginning to explore these dark corners of our society.

What has parliament done? Precious little. Apart from a half way house bill on the ‘Karo-Kari’ issue! If parliament is to serve as a guardian for the weak, the tortured, the deprived and the defenceless, should its doors not be open to them? A parliamentary committee has great authority; it can cut through red tape and official obstruction in ways that no other institution can. It can rivet the attention of the nation through the press; it can shame those involved in human rights violations and administer a stern lesson to other potential violators.

And yet justice and human rights only find a place in an obscure corner of a single committee charged with law, justice and human rights. The main task of parliament is legislation and this committee has more than ample work on legislation. As mentioned earlier, at least 13 current committees are redundant; what is not are separate committees for justice and human rights.

This is not to suggest that there are any easy solutions to these problems of administering better justice or facing down human right violations, but addressing the issue squarely with a ‘hands on’ approach is what parliament is all about.

If parliament is to strike root in our stony political environment, it must try to be an exemplar of transparency, probity and good organization. Transparency demands that its proceedings be on line and viewers have the facility to talk by e-mail with their representatives to question them. A good investment would be to supply laptops to those members who cannot afford it. The parliament bureaucracy must come out of its shell with an annual report on every detail of its working and costs. If we are not transparent, is it fair to demand it of others.

The National Assembly should not be a circus of noise or a palace of privilege. Politicians rail against the VIP culture at election time, but, once they enter it, they jump the queue of the common men. Much time is wasted on frivolous privilege motions on imagined or real insults at the hands of the bureaucracy. Parliamentarians are of the people, made by the people and should belong to the people. Why then should they or the high officials of the state, including the military, be given privileges. How else can they understand the day-to-day tortures of the common man? In practice privilege has come to mean the power to make a successful ‘sifarish’ usually off the record. Business rules of members, ministers and the bureaucracy need to be reviewed in the context of our constitutional oaths, which are scarcely remembered once taken. The “bite” of parliament as opposed to its ‘bark’ needs to be institutionalized through the nitty gritty of the committees, which should be easily approachable and with power of redress.

The writer is a member of the National Assembly. E-mail: murbr@isb.paknet.com.pk