The changes proposed were of a ‘radical‘ nature of course. The government must make reforms to the election commission to ensure a fair election, must hold elections within 90 days, must ensure that all candidates are vetted according to articles 62 and 63 of the Pakistani Constitution, must put an unbiased interim government in charge and must eradicate the electoral rigging conducted throughout Pakistani, arguably all, democratic elections. This agenda was supposed to represent the aspirations, and tackle the problems, of the people of Pakistan.
The movement continued to gather momentum in this magnanimous fashion with a meeting between Qadri Sahib and the Choudhary brothers from Gujrat, Pakistan. They threw their weight, and that of their party PML (Q), behind these calls of ‘revolutionary’ change. Again, one must not be so rash as to try and rationalise how the sitting Deputy Prime Minister, Choudhary Parvez Elahi, could call upon the ‘government’ to put its house in order. After all it was a ‘noble’ movement, which needed to be supported in its positive aims. The opposition parties (of which there is a plethora in Pakistan) must have been short-sighted and insincere for not lending this Mujahid any support (PTI held talks but were too cowardly to take up the option of joining the ‘long march’).
Within this context, Allama Qadri set off on his historic march on the 14th January, 2013, to rid Pakistan of this cancerous government. There were hundreds of thousands bearing the harsh climes of winter and rain, joining their beloved leader in his mission, very appropriately labelled the ‘Hussaini Maqsid(in reference to Imam Hussain’s (RA) ‘march’ against the tyranny of Yazid). The crowd moved slowly, taking regular pit stops and being blessed with the wisdom of Shiekh-ul-Islam at every juncture.
In one such stop at Lala Musa, Allama Qadri delivered a rousing speech. The Punjab government had ordered their police force to take all necessary steps to deter Qadri’s ‘revolutionary’ advance. They spiked the roads, to puncture car tyres and douse the flames of the march’s passions. Luckily, they didn’t have the foresight to just detain the noble sheikh, which would have finished the whole movement in one simple step. At Lala Musa, Sheikh Sahib invoked memories ofBadr and Uhud, where those fighting the Taghoot of their times had been forced to proceed on foot into battle. Why must these critics point to the fact that Allama Qadri was sat aboard his state-of-the-art Land Cruiser while delivering his motivational speech? What relation does that have to the situation?
Allama sahib reached Islamabad and ordered the stage to be set up in D-square, right outside the Houses of Parliament. He meant business and would say the ‘kalima of Haqq‘ to these tyrants directly. The interior ministry, overawed by the presence of the venerable sheikh, was forced to allow this demand and remove its police guards from their duties. How does one deduce from this that there was a more powerful hand behind this movement? Why do the Pakistani media and so-called intellectuals keep questioning the smooth movement of the Sheikh, without any obstacles of note? So what if the movement was against the government, the theoretical people in power? Why can we not just attribute this to the charisma and presence of such a popular Sheikh, rather than looking for answers like ‘the army or the West must be behind this‘?
The sheikh pronounced the president as the ex-president and the prime minister as the now ex-PM, in his first address from the scene of the legendary sit-in. He then hailed the Supreme Court for issuing an arrest warrant for the corrupt PM in the rental power case (the now infamous Raja Rental). After camping in his 10 million rupee tour bus (this sheikh is real rock and roll), whilst a million men, women and children slept in the freezing cold rain outside for two nights, the sheikh delivered a deadline to the government on 17th January. They had until 3 pm to fulfil his demands, and give the people of Pakistan ever-lasting peace, tranquility and process. Otherwise the masses would march on parliament and drag these amoral creatures out of power. Obviously, the government could not act so promptly therefore, in a testament to his grandeur, the sheikh kindly extended the deadline by 45 minutes. At 3:45 pm, the government’s negotiating party had the PM sign a document accepting pretty much all of the sheikh’s demands. This historic sit-in had attained its objectives and the people of Pakistan could celebrate this momentous success. Now Pakistan will be rid of all it’s ills and problems.
Despite all of the above, I do not possess the wisdom or knowledge that the great Sheikh effused in his persona and public addresses. This means I am left with certain unanswered questions, and would feel eternally indebted to anyone providing the answer to these troubling issues.
Firstly, what did the sheikh actually achieve? The government has agreed to stop its corruption. Are they not supposed to adhere to this anyway? Or will this be the timely reminder to these vile people? PPP have agreed to hold elections within 90 days, as demanded. Is the government’s 5-year tenure not over on 18th February in any case? Were these elections not due within 90 days anyway? Further, the government has accepted that candidates should be vetted in accordance with the Constitution.
Article 62 and 63 stipulate that those wishing to be elected to both Parliament and the Senate must be of at least 25 years of age and meet certain moral characteristics. They must be truthful and not engage in open Fisq (commission of sins according to Islam). This criteria is to be applied to all prospective candidates. Many elected members of parliament in the current chamber were disqualified for holding counterfeit degrees, in line with these articles. Have the government agreed to a radical change or maintenance of the status quo? After all this stipulation is always applied, in theory.
Finally, the government has agreed to consult Qadri on the two names it proposes to the election commission as heads of the interim government, in the transitional period. These people are supposed to be independent individuals, facilitating a smooth transfer of power. However, what happens if the government doesn’t consult him? What if they suggest two names for the interim government and resign from parliament immediately afterwards, as they are conventionally required to do? Who is he going to protest against at that point? If I can think of ways to neutralise this clause with so much ease, would the devious Zardari government really struggle with this demand?
A few issues were notable by their absence from Qadri’s discourse . There was no mention of the murderous drone attacks, the betrayal of the Pakistani army in killing their own brothers, the poverty of the people of Pakistan or even basic things like the energy crisis. Populist slogans, which rouse the emotions of the people, are a tool utilised to mislead people in pursuing short-sighted aims. Anything must be better than this government surely? However, do we not remember this exact same thought process when Musharaf was in power? And the sighs of relief when Musharaf deposed Sharif in 1999? Or the landslide win for Sharif in 1997, due to the people’s ire and anger at the conduct of the Benazir Bhutto government? This game of charades needs to be put to an end.
This soap drama would be comic were it not for the tragic reality of it. The people of Pakistan have been duped by agents of the powers-that-be once again. Whilst it is heartening that people are moved to take action against government for its failings, unfortunately their energy is misdirected. The Muslims of Pakistan need Islam. How can one claim to be a Muslim and not strive, day and night, to live by the Hukm of his Creator. Calling for the idiocy of democracy or the military rule which is so fashionable in Pakistan does not resolve the issue at heart. These systems, and the people they produce, are incapable of providing the solutions. This is the case even if they are sincere to the cause (which TUQ certainly is not). Any solution taken from other than Islam will always be a veil over the eyes of the masses. Allah’s deen must be established to govern all arenas of life, the only salvation for humanity. Otherwise the people of Pakistan will continue to twist and turn, running from pillar to post, in a perpetual cycle of disappointment and national humiliation. As a brother once analogised to me: imagine a society where there is a widespread social problem directly linked to alcohol and can be traced to the local pub. What would you think of appointing the most sincere and honest person in charge of such a pub? He will probably run a more efficient establishment. However, you still have the root of the problem, namely the pub. Even if you appoint your local imam in that position, the problem remains. Until you get rid of this root, you will be faced with its resultant ills. The problem in Pakistan is the corrupt capitalist, democratic, secular and liberal system. Stop face rotating within the system. Pull out these roots of the problem.
To finish off, I must make mention of a TV show I happened to watch a few weeks ago. Imran Khan, the other ‘saviour’ of Pakistan had made a claim that the next election would be like the battle of Badr, with one side possessing all the material might coming up against those with nothing but sincerity and honest passion. Commenting on this (a comment that is very appropriate to Qadri’s speech in Lala Musa), Javed Choudhary, in his programme Kal Tak, forwarded some very sound advice to Imran Khan. He declared that politicians should quit the game of playing with people’s emotions. He should not equate his dirty politics to the nobility of Badr. He was not doing anything that those on the battlefield of Badr had been attempting to attain and he should refrain from distorting and misusing Islamic history for his own political gain. Very apt words.
By Adnan Khan
[Adnan Khan's Blog]
No comments:
Post a Comment