[Reader-list] Taliban is the future-- another, more imp Pakistani debate

[S. Jabbar]

>From The Daily Times, Pakistan
Mar 10, 2010

 A secular state is a moral state
By Ishtiaq Ahmed

The modern secular-democratic state must ensure that all individuals as well
as majorities and minorities enjoy
freedom of religion and conscience and the political right to choose their
government

In the last few weeks the Daily
Times has carried a number of very interesting articles for and against
making Pakistan a secular state. Babar Ayaz pleaded for amending the
Pakistani constitution with a view to making it a secular state (‘Amendments
for a secular constitution’, Daily Times, February 2, 2010). Dr S M Rahman
of the Friends Foundation took a diametrically opposite stand, debunking the
secular state as an immoral entity, which allegedly focuses entirely on the
pursuit of hedonistic interests and pleasures (‘Is secularism that
sacrosanct?’ Daily Times, February 22, 2010). Both authors have advanced
seriously considered arguments in favour of their political and ideological
preferences. I fully sympathise with Babar Ayaz as he has referred to the
hard facts of the brutalisation of society that has taken place in Pakistan
in recent years.

Some further arguments can be adduced in support of the secular state. The
basic flaw in Dr Rahman’s thesis is that instead of reviewing contemporary
views on the secular state, he eclectically quotes fictional literature and
with a broad sweep the history of 2,000 years of Christendom, the
Renaissance, the Reformation and so on, but does not attempt a review of the
development in political theory and practice with regard to the contemporary
secular state. 

Not only Rousseau but some other Western writers have shown admiration for
the state of Medina founded by the Prophet (PBUH) and sustained for a while
by his pious successors (29 years according to the Sunnis and a mere six
years according to the Shias). However, what those writers have not done but
which any serious and honest scholar of today — Muslim or non-Muslim —
cannot escape noticing is that subsequent attempts to resuscitate the ideal
Islamic state have been unmitigated disasters.

I have shown in my doctoral dissertation (‘The Concept of an Islamic State:
An Analysis of the Ideological Controversy in Pakistan’ published in 1987
and again in 1992), that the Quran does not provide a general theory of the
state or government; it at most provides a sui generis idea of a
Prophet-in-Authority. The Prophet (PBUH) was a lawgiver, a law enforcer or
and a law adjudicator. Upon his death the role of lawgiver was over. The
pious caliphs could at most claim the right to enforce the law and to
adjudicate it when it was violated. With the assassination of Ali in 661 AD,
the ideal Islamic state ceased to exist.

During the pre-modern period, education, information and knowledge were
restricted to very small elites, pious or corrupt. In such circumstances,
societies were lucky to have a benevolent despot in power but were mostly
ruled by absolute rulers; many were tyrants. One can argue that at that
period in history it was but natural that some gifted individuals could make
a huge difference in the lives of people. Since the Prophet (PBUH) and his
pious successors were in their own time revolutionaries who tried to
establish a more just society than what was present contemporaneously in the
7th century, their achievements have admirers not only among Muslims but
also others. With the advances in education, information, law,
constitutionalism, moral philosophy and political theory, there is no need
for pinning hope on gifted individuals. Rather the need is to build
institutions that ensure respect for the rights of citizens.

The modern conception of the state begins with Machiavelli — an authority
that Dr Rahman probably is referring to with regard to morality. That view
of the secular state has indeed visited great suffering on humanity during
the period of nationalism, and the two World Wars and the Holocaust are
examples of it. However, the state as an entity upholding the rule of law
and itself accepting limits to its power and authority by law has a long
pedigree. It origins are undoubtedly the British Isles. The rule of law
meant recognition of the rights of individuals to certain inalienable
freedoms. Those freedoms included the freedom to conscience and religion as
well.

It is such a secular state that has evolved during the 20th century into a
welfare state, and after World War II it has become truly universal,
requiring equal treatment of men and women, protection of the rights of
minorities to their culture and religion, and committed the state to promote
the welfare of its citizens. I do not find such developments immoral in any
sense of the word. On the contrary, the modern secular state prescribes a
very advanced morality — that its citizens have the right to be liberated
from want and hunger, illiteracy and disempowerment, which has been the lot
of the mass of the people throughout history. Moreover, the modern
secular-democratic state must ensure that all individuals as well as
majorities and minorities enjoy the freedom of religion and conscience and
the political right to choose their government. There are of course many
other rights that are now part of the UN conventions and national
constitutions. The whole idea is that the government cannot arbitrarily
repeal the human and civil rights of citizens.

No doubt the secular-democratic state is no guarantee that its constitution
and laws will never allow abuse of power — the unlawful invasion of Iraq in
2003 by religious freaks like US President Bush and British Prime Minister
Blair are some indication of the need to extend the rule of law beyond the
state to international relations. In other words, there is an urgent need to
ensure that the violation of international law that results in the deaths of
innocent people is criminalised even more strongly. The International
Criminal Court (ICC) has been assigned the task of ensuring that leaders who
are guilty of crimes against humanity and acts of genocide are tried and
punished.

It represents a secular morality that is far superior to all the
‘might-is-right’ conquests that were normal when warrior nations such as the
Romans and Arabs or later the Europeans could embark upon and subjugate
other peoples. Secular political thought, tempered by the growing
realisation that human beings have to be treated as equal and free without
regard to race, nationality or religion, has created vastly different
possibilities for human beings to live in peace and enjoy a life of dignity
under the law. Therefore, the modern secular state is a moral state.

Ishtiaq Ahmed is a Visiting Research Professor at the Institute of South
Asian Studies (ISAS) and the South Asian Studies Programme at the National
University of Singapore. He is also Professor Emeritus of Political Science
at Stockholm University. He has published extensively on South Asian
politics. At ISAS, he is currently working on a book, Is Pakistan a Garrison
State? He can be reached at isasia at nus.edu.sg


> From: Kshmendra Kaul <kshmendra2005 at yahoo.com>
> Date: Wed, 10 Mar 2010 01:49:29 -0800 (PST)
> To: Sarai Reader-list <reader-list at sarai.net>, yasir ~يا سر
> <yasir.media at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Reader-list] Taliban is the future
> 
> Dear Yasir
 
Not 'writing from across the border'. So no 'border-glasses'. On
> the contrary, mine might be broader-glasses.  
 
I would like to believe
> that I have greater objectivity regarding both Pakistan and India as compared
> to most who are living in either country.   
 
This comment of yours was
> interesting - " foreign entities and money incl china, russia, US, saudi,
> india, are all stoking the fires to thwart each others' regional agendas in
> the border regions of baluchistan and nwfp/fata"
 
Have heard that mouthed
> very often in/on Pakistani Media. You forgot to mention Iran (especially wrt
> Balochistan).
 
These days one often hears Pakistanis claiming that TTP (
> Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan) is borne/reared/nurtured/promoted/financed by
> India.
 
Kshmendra


--- On Tue, 3/9/10, yasir ~يا سر <yasir.media at gmail.com>
> wrote:


From: yasir ~يا سر <yasir.media at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Reader-list]
> Taliban is the future
To: "Sarai Reader-list" <reader-list at sarai.net>
Date:
> Tuesday, March 9, 2010, 9:12 PM


1. Hamid Gul is a cold warrior, with an
> islamist pov. always interesting to
hear. yet he and his views have been
> marginalized in pk. let us us say it is
the end of the zia era.

2. pk and afg
> are very different entities. while taliban are making a quiet
come back in
> afg, even they themselves are not supporting the pk-taliban as
this would sour
> their relations with pk. besides the pk-talibs are either
being massacred or
> disappearing to resurface at some point later, the moment
in northwest-pk. so
> this can be dicey for that region only ie fata. there is
no such problem for
> the rest of the country. foreign entities and money incl
china, russia, US,
> saudi, india, are all stoking the fires to thwart each
others' regional
> agendas in the border regions of baluchistan and nwfp/fata
- a fact of life at
> the moment. but the country seems to have regained some
agency of itself with
> upsurge in popular sentiment and pressure on govt
since the lawyers movement
> and the last elections. a good point for
negotiations with india for instance,
> to streamline our own common regional
agendas, which are overdue since at
> least partition, actually much before...

3. pk-taliban or their views, in
> fact islamist views are definitely on the
margin in pk at the moment. so i
> totally disagree with KK (who is writing
fron across the border wearing
> border-glasses), and agree with pawan, that
the common enemy are the islamists
> in afg/pk/and hardly so (ie totally
overblown) in india, where too, just like
> us, they love to make a circus out
of it. lets hope the common bonds are
> stronger than the hate, of which there
has been enough.

best,
> y
_________________________________________
reader-list: an open discussion
> list on media and the city.
Critiques & Collaborations
To subscribe: send an
> email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject
> header.
To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> 
List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>



> 
_________________________________________
reader-list: an open discussion
> list on media and the city.
Critiques & Collaborations
To subscribe: send an
> email to reader-list-request at sarai.net with subscribe in the subject
> header.
To unsubscribe: https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/reader-list
> 
List archive: &lt;https://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/>