N November 19, the Council of Islamic Ideology of Pakistan issued recommendations giving women the right to seek divorce in written form and binding the parties to settle the matter within 90 days. Exceeding this deadline the divorce would automatically be considered valid.

When the CII made the recommendations public there began much commotion in the circles of the religious parties and factions. The announcement seems to have got on their nerves. The religious parties found a new ground to mislead the public in the name of religion. They began to raise hue and cry by declaring that the recommendations were not in conformity with the spirit of the Quran and Sunnah.

Two such parties, which are most vocal, started a campaign against the recommendations by challenging the very validity of the Islamic Ideology Council. They contended that the members of the Council were not reliable since they had been selected by ex-president Gen Musharraf. The irony is that they came to realise this fact after getting favours from Musharraf in return for their covert support, enabling him to rule the country for eight years.

Coming from a region where culture is equated with religion, these elements wailed until the government publicly dissociated itself from the Council`s recommendations. The religious groups thus succeeded in winning their case by pressuring the government. Despite bringing the recommendations to parliament for debate, the government succumbed to these bigots. In democratic countries, parliament has the sole authority to discuss and enact legislation but in Pakistan it is often used as a way out to undermine a lawful demand. Yet the refrain remains that parliament is supreme.

The political parties pursuing reactionary politics are known for their peculiar mindset, hypocrisies and manipulations. They believe only in their own version of Islam and oppose any other interpretation. But the role of the mainstream political parties has also been equally annoying. We have now a party at the helm of affairs of the state which claims to be secular and liberal. It is not the first time that this party has become fearful of bigots. In 1974, too, under the charismatic leadership of Z. A. Bhutto, the People`s Party had yielded to an exclusionary demand of the reactionary religious elements which in fact sowed the seeds of what we are harvesting now. If the government had overcome the fear of these elements at that time, the religious militancy would not have flourished in the country.

In the media, especially electronic, we hear specialists speaking at the talk shows on affairs in a manner which can only mislead the viewers. Very often, one finds the same political personalities appearing on several channels. They just bicker and often squabble as well. The media, too, seems scared of these reactionary politicians. There are exceptions, indeed. Some channels try, of course, to present different perspectives on religious matters as well but that does not often lead to a healthy debate and discourage these elements from hammering out their fixed views again and again in an arrogant manner. As such, the talk shows often fail to provide a positive view of certain related issues.

One also hears views which implicitly encourage militancy. In the dailies, especially in Urdu newspapers, one can read statements which indirectly favour the militants/terrorists. Those who give such statements presume that the militancy has wide support among the general public. For instance, the NWFP JI Amir, Sirajul Haq, two months, back stated that the NGOs were spreading adultery (fahaashi). Similarly, in a recent annual party congregation (ijtima), Qazi Hussan Ahmad said that this gathering would help accelerate the current jihad for Sharia.

In an Urdu newspaper two weeks back, Maulana Fazlur Rehman contended that although the people (militants) defend their creed (religion) but everywhere they are called terrorists. It is worth noting what such statements suggest and if at all how much these leaders feel about the plight of the people. The religious leaders adopt such a stance because they are losing their stakes owing to the war on terror. No politico-religious leader has ever publicly condemned the killing of innocent people by suicide bombing and target killing.

Even Nawaz Sharif, currently most popular leader, is also reluctant to denounce the militancy. Similar is the case of Imran Khan. He seems to have no clear party position on this matter at all. It is amazing that both Nawaz and Imran are silent on the killing of people by the militants. They only prefer to condemn the U|S attacks in Fata areas (and now on settled areas) but to claim that the killing of people inside Pakistan is simply a reaction to the US-led strikes within the territory of Pakistan is a jaundiced view. For instance, what have the CDs stores, shops selling items of daily use for ladies and girls schools to do with the US strikes in Fata or elsewhere? Do these shopkeepers send the drones?

It is understandable that common citizens cannot resist or counter-attack terrorists for they can easily be wiped out. They do not have the privilege of tight security nor any support from the government. Their fear is understandable. Yet those who dare speak against the scourge of militancy are dubbed as US agents by the pro-militancy intellectuals.

It is a pity that the government led by a party whose leader, Benazir Bhutto sacrificed her life but did not give in to bigotry, is so fearful that it publicly disowns the advice of a constitutional institution which has the sole objective to guide the state on law making in accordance with Islamic teachings.

Email angeltorwali@gmail.com