In terms of massive tragedy, atrocities committed and personal traumas surely no one community has suffered more in contemporary history than the Ummah –the worldwide community of Muslims. Indeed, if the suffering does not end soon the persecution of Muslims will come to rival that of the Jews in history except, that is, in one respect, the Jews were persecuted by gentiles (mostly Europeans, almost never Muslims) whereas no one – not even the crusaders – have killed more Muslims than Muslims themselves. We are our own worst enemies. Recall, the brutal and vicious war the Egyptians waged in Yemen in the 1960s; the genocide that took place in Indonesia at about the same time; the Iran-Iraq war; the civil war in Afghanistan following the Soviet withdrawal and the one that is likely to follow once the Americans leave. Think also about the current goings on in Syria, Lebanon, Bahrain, Egypt and Pakistan; and the cataclysm to befall the region if Iran is attacked by the US at the urging of its Muslim allies. If outsiders are also to blame, let’s also concede that if Muslims were not so divided, and at each other’s throats, the wars and killings would not happen.
But through all the past and present day carnage, and the woeful inadequacy of such pan Islamic organisations as the Arab League and the Organisation of the Islamic Conference to stop it, pan-Islamic sentiment remains one of the most sacred and exalted passions in Pakistan.
Why?
First, a bit of pre- independence history.
In the late 19th century Jamaluddin Afghani travelled across the Muslim world (Iran, Turkey, India Afghanistan) exhorting Muslims to see Islam as a single civilisation and historical entity. He urged demoralised Muslims under foreign occupation not to allow their colonial masters trample over them but to resist. And the way to resist, he said, was to bring about reforms to strengthen their societies and then to unite them in a loose pan- Islamic federation or confederation.
In other Muslim countries Afghani received a polite hearing; however, among India’s Muslims he struck a chord. In fact, he enthused and energised them ‘and lifted them from the gloom and torpor into which they had sunk following British repression’.
The passion for Afghani’s teachings led India’s Muslims to identify themselves with the fortunes of the Ottoman Empire by then (1914-18) on the brink of total disintegration at the hands of western powers. Indeed, so desperate were they to protect the Empire and the Caliphate that they formed the Hijrat movement in 1920. And some half a million men, women and children left their homes and trekked to the Muslim kingdom of Afghanistan giving as the reason for their exodus the Islamic doctrine ‘that if a Muslim finds himself helpless against iniquity and cannot resist he should migrate to a place where he is not faced with the same problem.’ Many of the pilgrims perished on the way. Others returned after some time – broken and destitute.
The impact of this abortive exodus on the psyche of India’s Muslim was considerable. Jinnah, for one, began espousing international Muslim causes with gusto including those of Palestine, Iran and Indonesia. In 1945, in a telegram to the British prime minister (Atlee) he condemned the Zionist campaign to turn Palestine into a Jewish state – “President Truman’s… proposal to admit 100,000 Jews is unwarranted, and the encroachment upon another country, monstrous and highly unjust.’
Similarly, when The Netherlands landed fresh troops in 1946 to reclaim Indonesia, despite Sukarno’s declaration of independence, Jinnah threatened to withdraw the help of India’s Muslims to the allied cause.
In retrospect, having achieved independence as a Muslim state on the basis of our Islamic affiliation perhaps it was natural for Pakistan to promote Ummah solidarity and Liaquat Ali Khan gave what remains to date the pithiest justification for this policy:
“The underlying idea of the movement for the achievement of Pakistan was not just to add one more country to the conglomeration of countries in the world or to add one more patch of colour to the multicoloured global map but to practice our Islamic ideology. A cardinal feature of this ideology is to make Muslim brotherhood a living reality. It is, therefore, part of the mission that Pakistan has set before itself to promote…fellowship and cooperation between Muslim countries”. (February 9, 1951)
Our commitment to Muslim causes has brought little in return. Indeed, on occasions such as the ill-fated proposal to promote a Muslim prime ministers’ conference it brought only derision. The fact is that a common belief in Islam could not override different perceptions of security and development. Our approach was much too naïve to produce results.
Besides, much of the goodwill reaped by advocating Muslim causes like independence for Libya, Tunisia etc, was squandered by our membership of US sponsored alliances – SEATO and the Baghdad Pact. King Saud condemned the latter “as a stab in the heart of the Arab and Muslim states”. Ayub Khan made matters worse by declaring, “Pakistan has openly and unequivocally cast its lot with the west. We do not believe in hunting with the hound and running with the hare.”
Our image among the Ummah received a further blow when Nasser declared our stance during the Suez crisis (1956) as duplicitous. He accused then foreign minister Hamidul Haq Chaudhry of going back on his word to support Egypt. He cancelled a visit to Cairo by prime minister Suhrawardy and issued a statement saying “Suez is as dear to Egypt as Kashmir is to India”.
Even then the penny, so to speak, did not drop. We stubbornly failed to perceive that Arab priorities were and are very different from ours. In his manifesto – Philosophy of the Revolution – Nasser had drawn three concentric circles around Egypt. The first circle was Arab, the second African. The Islamic world was the third and the least important.
Ayub Khan showed a clearer perception when he said:
“The upsurge (for independence) in other Muslim countries is racial, linguistic, territorial, anti-imperialistic, anti-colonial and very little religious. It is our fault for not judging or reading the situation correctly.”
In fact there were many in his audience who believed we were weak, stupid, sentimentalist idealists for believing what we did about the importance of the Ummah.
Alas, we are skilled in glossing over differences and fudging issues. Besides, our leaders like to placate Arab counterparts especially of the ‘supermarket’ states like Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, etc, because that’s where they mostly end up with their gains when they are forced to leave the country for the mess created at home. On their part the Gulf states find our armed forces personnel, serving or retired, useful for dealing with their rebellious subjects/citizens.
But that’s neither here nor there. The fact is that Muslim nations are deeply divided. Their disunity has defied all efforts to close ranks. Territorial nationalisms in the Arab world have spawned intra-Arab contradictions and confrontations. And with the advent of politicised armed sectarian groups we, and they, are now locked in sanguinary and seemingly eternal conflict. Anyway, the only time the Ummah was united, and for a relatively brief period, was under the leadership of the Prophet (pbuh) and the four rightly guided caliphs of Islam.
We need to redefine Pakistani nationalism not primarily in terms of its relations to an imagined extra-territorial community of believers but facts on the ground. And if we believe recourse to Islamisation will somehow help, that’s pointless. Zia’s efforts only deepened divisions among Pakistanis and led to fanaticism, the greatest carrier of the spores of fear and intolerance – which may yet consume us.
The writer is a former ambassador. Email: charles123it@hotmail.com
Source: www.thenews.com.pk
No comments:
Post a Comment