When Gen. Pervez Musharraf says yet again that he wants Pakistanis to vote for “moderate” parties and reject “extremists” it doesn’t even have a comforting ring to it.
Leave aside any hope for a plausible outcome. Whatever Pakistan’s problem with extremism and violence, it is not for a head of state, the role that the general has arrogated to himself, to advise the voters which way to vote. A legitimate head of state would best be serving the country if he were to reiterate his constitutional role — that he will do all it takes to protect the life, property and constitutional rights of the citizens of Pakistan.
The implements that the head of state must deploy to fulfill this mandate are indeed the institutions of the state. Issues that Gen. Musharraf, like many others in Pakistan, has raised about the negative fallout of political extremism, violence and intolerance, are valid. These need to be raised mostly in the Parliament, in the print and electronic media, public forums and also within the confines of courtrooms.
A call from the top to vote for moderates and to defeat the extremists may have an enticing ring to it. But such a call compromises the contest. A state that has almost vicariously often played the dangerous game of promoting political extremism has to reclaim its neutrality. The past role of security agencies in promoting extremism — political, ethnic, provincial or religious — to counter mainstream political parties the agencies considered “security threats” has significantly contributed to the current climate of political extremism.
What is the anatomy of what is referred to as religious extremism? Political extremism has caused religious extremism. State policies created groups like Pakistan National Alliance (PNA), supported sectarian groups, facilitated the creation of ethnic groups, and undermined, through various covert means, mainstream political parties including the PPP and the PML-N. None of the sectarian groups did evolve through a natural organic growth. Most flourished under state patronage. That needs to be altered.
The state needs to build institutions that respect tolerance and protect diversity but all within the framework of law and the constitution, protected by an independent judiciary. The state, prompted by power calculations, must not dictate any “kosher” political ideology. It should also not issue divisive calls.
We need national reconciliation, not further divides. For that we need the rule of law, institutions and constitutionalism. Bring that back and extremists will go. Pakistanis have made practical political choices. Their religious choices are personal and political choices practical but for the interference from the state. Despite a supranational Muslim consciousness they chose national leaders through the ballot.
The role of a state is to facilitate the existence of an environment in which different political parties and groups can freely bring their ideas and ideologies in the market place — in the media, forums, conferences and political gatherings. So long as the idea or ideology does not violate the basic precepts of Pakistan’s constitution, its entry into the market place cannot be stopped.
We are the inheritors of rich and varied cultures, of an ancient civilization. Our cultural diversity stretches from the desert of Cholistan to the Hindukush range, from the monasteries of Takht-i-Bai to the Kalaash Valley, from the eternal abode of the Sufi Shahbaz Qalander to the Data Darbar and the Badshahi Mosque in Punjab. Majestic peaks of Nanga Parbat, the rugged Khunjerab pass, the enchanting Kaghan Valley, the historic Khyber Pass, the stunning Shandur Pass and Karakorum Highways — these masterpieces of nature partner with the diverse and colorful cultures to create the mosaic that is Pakistan.
These are the treasures that are veiled behind the divide of extremists and moderates. The state and society jointly need to create space for the spirit, for peoples’ creativity, art and culture to perpetually evolve and flourish. The energy created through these diverse spiritual and cultural experiences constantly creates the common space for Pakistaniat — one that is steeped in the many soulful mosaics that Pakistan’s rich and diverse culture and creativity produces.
This then, among others, has to be the business of the state — to remove the hurdles that obstruct the flow of the Pakistani soul. What then is this divide that the state is casting on the entire 150 million population? The state must sit up now. The problem of “extremism” has to be dealt with administratively. Verbal assaults may prove counter-productive. We have operated in a broad security context. It was one within which the state, given the overall strategic picture of the region, would inevitably support the Taleban. On Kashmir too diplomatic engagement and political route has demonstrably overtaken the logic of cross-LOC guerrilla warfare.
So today we have to work with altered security logic. It is one of engagement, negotiation and accommodation — without letting go of our defensive capabilities and military preparedness. The new security logic also presents a changed environment where new realities will be set in motion. We can set in motion our own new realities. If there is a categorization that is relevant to the present and future of Pakistan it is of the good and bad state. Pakistanis need the good state — a state that creates a context within which humanism, the core value of Islam, must flourish and blossom.
