Furthermore, the minister claimed that the proposed military courts will not target political parties, media or madrassas. There are situations where political party workers are involved in sectarian killings. Also, does the statement indicate that a compromise has already been made in which sources of extremism and terrorism will not be reviewed? If, under the new system, some of the religious parties — which are a major source for expansion of militant networks — continue to block an assessment of madrassas, then what exactly is new about the action plan? Will these special courts only attend to cases in which state functionaries were targeted?
In this game of colours, we can’t afford to ignore the central role specific madrassas play in the extremism-terrorism nexus. The issue is not necessarily their curriculum. In fact, many important madrassas teach English and computers. It is the ideology of the teachers which is a major issue. Since many of the sympathisers and members of various militant outfits are teachers in these seminaries, it is how they eventually interpret and present religious text that is a major issue. It is worth noting that the knowledge of Islamic history and personalities is very poor. Any introduction to a historical personality is partial and mainly in the context of explaining some text. You cannot expect peace to get restored as long as such mindsets remain unchallenged. Or do we also plan to use the military to watch over society?
Why is it that the Peshawar incident, which justified a major constitutional change resulting in surrender of civilian power, could not be used to start the process of madrassa reforms? Indubitably, madrassas are not the only issue. We now have some English-medium schools doing the same job. In fact, some militant outfits have opened English-medium schools and have student wings inside many public-sector universities. Challenging these requires a revisit of the entire education policy, especially the government’s role in regulating private education. You cannot touch madrassas until the state is willing to harness private English schools as well.
Sounds like an uphill task but surely there are things which the state can do with greater ease, such as implementing existing laws. For instance, why can’t the government enforce the law to ensure that its mosques are not used for extremist purposes? Or why can’t it implement an existing law that calls for separate registration of mosques from madrassas. Mosques are meant to be open spaces, which cannot be closed to the public. Mosques controlled by militant groups often do not allow entry because they have established a madrassa there, which propagates a certain ideology. Is it possible to just make sure that no one is allowed to restrict people’s entry into a mosque, or that no particular group controls it?
For all the promises of commitment by the government, it is creating lacunas that would dampen even the role that civil society could play in contributing to counter-extremism. How does one explain the lack of will to discipline Maulana Abdul Aziz despite his threats to innocent citizens, when all they wanted to do was pray inside a government mosque? Similarly, shouldn’t the government help when zealots attacked civil society members in Lahore commemorating Salmaan Taseer’s death anniversary?
The state’s absence doesn’t help a civil society eager to expand the social space but is weakened by the state’s lack of cohesion or absence of a clear agenda. There appears to be a fractured consensus on creating a liberal space because of diverse interests and agendas. Individuals and groups don’t need to see eye-to-eye on issues but the inner differences and contradictions will have to be set aside in order to cooperate with one another. Otherwise, the radical militant and mullah, who was encouraged by the state to occupy civil space for the last three decades, is much better organised and understands that he is being fought by a group of people who usually do not act unless they can get funding from somewhere.
Maulana Aziz’s strength is not just the support he may have from within the establishment, but it is also the understanding that those claiming to reclaim the mosque would not last long. Wonder how many of the protestors would go to a mosque five times a day for the next 365 days? The strategy of liberalising religion from zealots is extremely challenging. Not engaging with religion is not an option because this is the only narrative which sells in society. But building a movement to rationalise religious discourse requires support and greater numbers. This means that the current movement will have to find a way to break out of its current socioeconomic class boundary and reach out to ordinary people. It also means engagement with political parties and their party cadres to market a new discourse. But then a new discourse has to be developed strictly with internal efforts and funding and should not be tainted by donor money. Perhaps, gathering a group of religious scholars to think about alternatives could be a process. Extremist values, historically, are the alternative and not mainstream religious discourse. People have to be reminded of that.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 8th, 2015.
Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.
COMMENTS (13)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
: The real aim of the Prime Minister and his team is to spend a period of two years withut being challenged or molested by the opposition which Imran Khan had started. He has asked Sharif of military to protect him with his military courts. This ploy has neither any impact or can prevent Taliban operations who are now using escort services for the potential victims.
Rex Minor
@khawaja nawaz: With the induction of Military Courts, a parallel Judiciake believel system has been launched which is NOT answerable and questionable by any Superior Courts
Yours is the delusion and make believe philosophy. The army which cannnot combat upfront cannot administer and uphold the civilian justice and will have to answer to the International criminal court for war crimes since all its decisions wil now be subject to Internatinal and no longer National laws.
Rex Minor
Ms Ayesha Siddiqua, We need to understand the recent transformation with greater depth in the issue. Let us now get out of the discussion about necessity of Military Courts as the elected Parliament has placed its stamp already. What I feel is that the civilian aspect of the State and society as a whole is giving up all space to Military to take care of all aspects. FC in Baluchistan & KPK, Rangers in Sindh and Zarb Ghazab are all clear manifestations that State has given up the Law & Order role to Armed Forces of Pakistan. Thus the police has become almost redundant to the system. With the induction of Military Courts, a parallel Judicial system has been launched which is NOT answerable and questionable by any Superior Courts. Thus the TWO of the three aspects of STATE have been handed over to the Armed forces by the elected Parliament itself. This is the greatest erosion of civilian and political power of the Country. Human Resource development, (Education) is being fiercely fought by Madressah System led by Moulana Fazal ur Rehman while State has no one to fight for its right to dispense education. Moulana Abdur Rashid is just one of the pawns of Madressah System and our brave Interior Minister Ch. Nisar & his whole police force of over 10,000 in Islamabad is unable rather doesn't have will, to catch him. The Civil Society & Media is let loose to mourn the tragic deaths in Army Public School at Peshawar as greater Marsia of it helps Army to grab still greater space and domains with the empathy of civil society. I for one feel certain that we might need to recruit a whole new force to take over the borders and defend the country from external aggression, if any.
We have wasted a lot of precious time already. Now we must correct our attitudes/direction without further loss of time & energy. No source of illegality must be left unattended.
Madarsa Reforms, engaging with the religion, reaching out to ordinary people..I believe this is a the only sagacious approach to the problem of extremism.I have always believed in that direction...
May Allah bless you, Mam! You have courageously bring forward and analysed the reality. Our comic interior minister still seems defending the poisonous ideology in madrasas and in the society spread by these madrasas. Islam and Islamic teachings do not need them. The people of reason and wisdom must take the issue seriously and focus on teaching and training of their children according to religion in the real sense and should not depend on theocracy.
So civilians will be proactive only on those matters when the boys say so. Shall we say spineless.
Is religion and the madressa mainly culpable for terrorism, militancy and religious extremism, or, is the state dominated by military and ISI the source of this mess? Is there a move to investigate the activities of state institutions and their leaders? Does the recent amendment in constitution provide the military with a better grip over their proxies? Are we to believe that state had an epiphany and it has changed course of its own free will?
Of course, by designating someone as "jet black" prejudges that person and less likely to get due process safeguards, if that is even a consideration under the Pakistani judicial system so hopelessly confounded by elements of sharia.
With respect, this is exactly the problem with moderates. Inadvertantly they provide cover to the extremists. Until we look to reform from within, religion has always been and will always be an extremist ideology. It has never been an alternate. Dont know what history of dogma is the author referring to ?
The military courts are not solving a problem, they are just showing that something is being done. The Army saw an opportunity, it took it, the government offered what they wanted in a platter and everyone feels as now that the military has gotten what they have wanted terrorism will be defeated. Sadly it will not and when terrorism doesnt end just because the military sentences people to death under questionable processes, what will be the next step? Military dictatorship? Tried that already. Carpet bomb the country barring cantonments and DHA's, well perhaps? The mindset is what needs to be changed as as long as people believe in hidden, foreign or third hands and unwilling to take on responsibility, handing any amount of power to the military is not going to make Pakistan a peaceful place.
Copy paste few days older post; ''Mr prime minister change your interior minister he is not competent for this job. Believe us." Another post two days ago; "One day this minister has to quit his job for obvious reasons.He is a hidden mullah."