It’s
always been argued that there is no clergy among the Muslims. Is it so? Not the
least! In fact, there is all the ‘required’ evidence available to defy this
claim. Regardless of the positions and interpretations the Muslim scholars
advocate in this respect, there always existed and still exists such a body of
religiously ordained persons who use their authority in worldly as well as
other-worldly affairs of the Muslims. Even if there is no Muslim Church like
the Christian Church, the Principle of Clergy for all the practical purposes is
the same in Muslims. It may also be added that unlike the Christian Church,
where a uniformly organized clergy or popery exists, in Muslims though the same
institution does not exist in the same manner, the principle of clergy does
exist religiously in an un-organized and politically in an organized manner. Hence,
what’s important is not the institution, but the principle of clergy that’s
predominant in Pakistan!
In
Europe especially, the clergy used to exert unflinching influence on political
as well as public life. It’s the same sway which gave rise to the historically
well-know tussle between the state and the church. As the institution of the
state could not make any headway under the burden of the clergy which had its
own axe to grind, it tried to extend its writ by freeing itself from the clutches
of the clergy. In fact, it was gradually that the clergy ceded its control to
the state represented by kings. To see how fierce the struggle was and how the
kings brought things under their control, one may look into the details of the
murder of Thomas Beckett, Archbishop of Canterbury.
As
Ian Jarvie, a philosopher, dubs Reason as a jealous God, which tolerates no
other authority questioning its authority, in the same manner in political
philosophy, state is termed as the association of associations, which tolerates
no other association up and above its position. Actually it’s in the nature of
the concept of the state that it allows for no other authority, whatsoever it
is, to question its writ. In that sense, and logically too, it represents the
ultimate authority, and if it’s an ultimate authority, by implication no other
authority can override its control. In other words, it means the state
monopolizes the process of law-making and its implementation which
indispensably involves violence. That’s the essence of the conflict between the
state and the church which Europe witnessed during the middle ages. It was only
after it got freedom from the clergy’s clout that the state started moving
towards evolving just rules and laws.
Let
me venture to say that the same conflict is being waged in Pakistan (and in
other Muslim countries also). In this case, it’s a conflict between the
principle of (Pakistani) state and the principle of (Muslim) clergy. Even
during the days of Sultanate and Mughal Empire, Muslim clergy tried to direct
the state represented by kings. Under the British, its influence waned, and it
went into a state of recoil. With time, it reacted, resented, and then exhorted
Muslims to wage Jehad against the British. More to it, it was as frantic in
snubbing the individuals and groups whose efforts focused on liberalizing the
rigid regime of clergy and weakening its clout. When the prospects of one
constitution to be agreed upon between the Muslim League and Congress dwindled,
the Muslim clergy found sufficient room to exercise its influence upon Muslim
political and public life once again. That’s how what’s known as the Movement
for the attainment of Pakistan got baptized; the clergy tried hard to sort of
hijack it. However, the real act of hijacking the state ensued when the real
state of Pakistan emerged in 1947.
It’s
this background that eclipsed the process of the making of the constitution in
early Pakistan. The two crucial issues which constantly proved to be a
stumbling block were the political and religious character of the constitution.
The former manifested the pre-partition dynamics of Muslim League’s politics in
Sindh, Punjab, and NWFP, i.e. how it got them to support its cause. Now in
Pakistan, the Muslim League failed in offering them a viable political bonding.
The latter issue, the religious character of the constitution reflects the
clout of the Muslim clergy immeasurably exercised by it though it had no
matching representation in the legislative body. See the details of the debates
both inside and outside the various legislative organs regarding the religious
character of the constitution: Whether it was a ploy of the politicians and
political parties that they made use of the clergy to secure their interests
and appeased it or the clergy was so potent and enjoyed so popular a base in
Pakistan that in the end it succeeded in obtaining a place for the principle of
clergy in the constitution; and thus it defied the principle of the state.
So
far as the 1973 constitution is concerned, nothing changed with it either. The
principle of clergy in Pakistan remained as forcefully effective as it was
earlier. In contrast, and consequently, the principle of state proved as
ineffective as it had always been. With time, instead of weakening, the
principle of clergy became stronger, and resultantly the state went weaker and
weaker so that what we have today is a limping state creaking under the burden
of the Muslim clergy’s agenda. It’s no place to visit how the principle of
clergy strengthened in Pakistan; and as for who is responsible (politicians or
military) for its rise by way of, for instance, unduly appeasing it. Two things
stand un-denied. In spite of deriving its support from a devoutly religious Muslim
population, the Muslim clergy completely failed in converting its religious
following into its political following, i.e. its politics failed it miserably. That
means it’s politicians and political parties which allowed it to have a field
day in Pakistan.
In
the end, it may be concluded that for the state of Pakistan the fateful moment
will come only when it decides to free itself from the ravages of the principle
of clergy, and set itself to evolve just rules and laws in order to protect
life, property, and freedoms of its each and every citizen!
Note: This article was completed on January 26, 2015.
No comments:
Post a Comment