thenews.com.pk
Shafqat Mahmood

Our collective prejudices and hypocrisies were on display after the Lahore attack on Ahmedi places of worship. Those multitudes protesting internet blasphemies earlier were silent. Those railing from the pulpit against international conspiracies had no voice. The cherished tolerant image of Islam had been tarnished but it did not register.

The government response was also schizophrenic. Terrorism was condemned yet no important official of the Punjab government bothered to visit the injured. And, no compensation was announced for the dead. The coffers of the state were closed to the ostracised.

We are enemies of the other; of anyone who is not like us. We created a state because of fears that a dominant other, the Hindus, would overwhelm us. Having achieved that, we proceeded to find other ‘others’.

Ahmedis were an early target, 1954, because some of their beliefs were highly controversial and against the basic tenets of Islam. We declared them non-Muslims in 1974. But that did not end the search for and hatred of the other.

The dreaded Shia-Sunni clashes were a natural outcome. The ‘other’ had to be found and targeted. All are Muslims and acknowledged as such – except by some Sunni ulema who do not accept Shias as Muslims – yet the mayhem continues.

The desire to find the ‘other’ did not end there. Some Sunni mullahs found schisms within their sect too. Deobandis started to kill Barelvis and vice versa. The seeming difference being that one believes in saints, pirs, fakirs etc. while the other does not. Into this volatile and deadly mix are the Ahl-e-Hadees, the Wahabis, and other ‘others’ I am not aware of. Where will this division between the self and the other end?

As it is, on the ethnic plane, we have a number of divisions that are leading to serious conflict. The targeted killings in Karachi are an example as is the spate of murders in Balochistan. All Muslims but the ‘other’ is a difference of origin and mother tongue.

In fact, the word ethnic to describe it is a misnomer because essentially there is no difference of ethnicity among most of us. We are technically all the same people with different geographic birth and mother tongues. Yet, we are determined to seek the differences and build walls around us.

The Hazara movement is a classic example of this. Many of its leaders, and I am sure camp followers, are from a Pakhtun background or claim to be. Mr Gohar Ayub Khan, now in his new incarnation as a Hazarewal leader, is a Tarin. This is a Pakhtun tribe if I am not wrong. Yet, on the basis of language he and others have created a schism.

This is not a commentary on whether there should be new provinces. I have long advocated division of Punjab into three and Hazara could very well fit into the new Potohar province. The issue here is seeking to create divisions whether based on religion, sect, language differences or place of origin.

We are in any case a troubled land. The open warfare in our tribal areas and parts of KP is not something that is likely to go away soon. Balochistan is beginning to boil into another insurgency. Punjab is emerging as a nursery of terrorists with increasing attacks on law enforcement officials. And killings frequently erupt in our main business hub, Karachi.

What we don’t need are divisions within division. Yet that is where we are now. Much of the history of this country since the mid-sixties is a lived experience for me. As a citizen, I have been a witness to many ups and downs, including the East Pakistan tragedy. Yet, I have never seen the country in a worse state than it is now.

If it was just state failure, there could be remedies. The state is in an abysmal state but there are solutions to put it in order. All it requires is vision and leadership. It is the societal failure that is more troubling. There are no easy solutions to it.

State failure is a deterioration of capacity and bad organisational design. Both can be fixed. Capacity can be improved with proper induction through incentives and focus on training. Flawed organisational design can be rethought and rearranged.

Societal failure is a state of mind. How does one go about fixing that? How does one teach tolerance for other religions and other beliefs? How does one take out the ingrained suspicion and hatred for those who speak a different language or come from another geographical location? In effect, how does one reconcile self and the other?

The obvious place to look for leadership is in the political domain. These are the people who have been anointed by the aura of legitimacy. Their positions of eminence are because of a political process. They are in purely technical terms a reflection of the will of the people.

Can they take the lead in healing the divisions that afflict us? Can Mr Zardari, Gilani, Nawaz Sharif, Altaf Hussain, Asfandyar Wali and the various Maulanas leading religious parties play a role in bridging the divides in our collective psyche? Or, are they a part of the problem and not the solution?

History tells us that schisms in the mind are the most difficult to heal. Mahatma Gandhi was a much-revered leader in India yet he could only sometimes stop Hindus from killing Muslims and vice versa. In the end, it was a Hindu fanatic who murdered him. Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela had more success but not entirely.

Our political leaders are nowhere close to these iconic figures. In fact, some of them, but for the grace of God and a lawless country, would have spent most of their life in jail for crimes against state and humanity. How can they come even close to healing divisions within society?

The onus is then on society itself. It must find social leaders within who would take the lead and point out the folly of hate for the other. The much-criticised – by mullahs and quasi-religious outfits — civil society organisations are the only ones that have taken up the challenge.

Their exhortations have an appeal but mostly to the already converted. The label that they are part of English-speaking westernised elite, which they are, limits the impact they have on the broader society. It is the religious and social leaders that will have to come forward.

There are many among the ulema who abhor the stance taken by some within their ranks. They also detest religious intolerance and sectarian schisms. They must come forward and raise their voice. Also, social leaders like Abdus Sattar Edhi, who are deeply respected, need to stand up and be counted. Their voices have the potential to heal.

We, as a nation, are on the edge of an abyss. If we don’t step back, there is only tragedy ahead.

Email: shafqatmd@gmail.com