|
|
» Home
» Politics » Lal Masjid Operation and the Question of the Writ of the Government
| Lal Masjid Operation and the Question of the Writ of the Government |
| By Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani |
Published
07/19/2007
|
Politics
|
Unrated
|
|
|
Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani
Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani is a jurist. He is secretary general of JKCHR-NGO in special consultative status with the United Nations. He is an expert in Peace Keeping/Humanitarian Operations and Election Monitoring Missions.
View all articles by Dr. Syed Nazir Gilani
Lal Masjid Operation and the Question of the Writ of the Government
Thursday, 15th Muharram, A.H. 1283 (May 30, 1866), is a blessed and auspicious day in the Islamic history of India when the foundation stone for the renaissance of Islamic sciences was laid in the land of Deoband.
Students desirous of studying the Holy Book and the Sunnah, the Shari'ah and the Tariqah (the spiritual path), began to flock here in droves from this sub continent as well as from neighbouring and distant countries like Afghanistan, Iran, Bukhara and Samarqand, Burma, Indonesia, Malaysia, Turkey and the far off regions of the continent of Africa, and within a short-time the radiant rays of knowledge and wisdom illumined the heart and mind of the Muslims of the continent of Asia with the light of faith (Iman) and Islamic culture.
It is only since 'Afghan Jihad' in 1979 that militancy and weapons have entered the precincts of Masjids and Madrasa. Islamic Militancy entered Muslim 'Masjid' and 'Madrasa' when drawing on his experiences running dissident Polish exiles as agents behind Nazi lines William Casey CIA Director decided to revive the CIA's propaganda proposals targeting Central Asia. The CIA's specialist proposed to send in books about Central Asian culture and historical Soviet atrocities in the region.
In Pakistan ISI generals are the architects of adding a militant component to Sunnah, the Shari'ah and the Tariqah (the spiritual path) which held the exclusive space in Masjids and Madrasas. The ISI generals proposed distribution of Korans in the local languages. CIA commissioned an Uzbek exile living in Germany to produce translations of Koran in Uzbek language. CIA printed thousands of copies and shipped them to Pakistan for distribution to mujahedin. The first Uzbek translation arrived in 1984. 5000 copies were smuggled into northern Afghanistan and onward across the Soviet border by early 1985. It was part of a CIA's propaganda proposal against Russians (in co-operation with ISI in Pakistan).
Pakistani ISI created a scope for Muslim militancy in early 1990 in the Valley. Masjid and Mosque were both used to increment an experience gained in Afghanistan. Kashmiri youth fed up with the half a century old proxy politics in the Valley fell into a proxy desire to challenge the Indian military might and writ in the Valley. It is true that Indian army could not have won and will not win any war against a civil population in the Valley.
India seems to have won because it was not a people's war against India. It was a proxy war which fooled all shades of public opinion. It did not enhance the constituency of support for people's right to self determination. On the contrary it helped the establishment to retain and abuse power and purse in the name of Kashmir. It helped Government of Pakistan to enhance its bargaining position with India on its own interests.
Lal Masjid gained notoriety for keeping ammunition and harbouring militants. This version has been plastered by the establishment through its pockets in the media. 'Operation Silence' or 'Operation Sunrise' which ever serves the killing instinct of military mind, has overshadowed the fact that Lal Masjid and Madrasa were full of students, some orphans, women without any other refuge and more so there were students from various parts of Azad Kashmir who had lost their parents in the earthquake.
Maulana Abdul Rashid Ghazi and Maulana Abdul Aziz were accused of challenging the writ of the Government. Abdul Rashid Ghazi was no stranger to the establishment. He had a Masters in International Relations from Qauid-e-Azam University Islamabad Abdul Rashid won the knighthood of "Ghazi" from his close associates when he fought battles in Chechnya, Bosnia and Afghanistan. Abdul Rashid was trained by then mujhahideen, who themselves were trained by the sole world super power, the United States, and the supreme intelligence agency ISI of Pakistan.
Did the two brothers and their male and female students, wielding sticks and clad in burqa or dressed in long pajamas challenge the 'writ' of the Government? It is a question that begs a due examination.
Constitution of Pakistan states that "Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah".
Lal Masjid administration through the instrument of their students (Muslims) have made a demand in accordance with a guarantee provided in the constitution. In modern day civilised world it has to be tolerated as a freedom of expression. John Stuart Mill in his essay On Liberty in Utilitarianism Etc: London (1910) p 83 wrote "... there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it might be considered."
In other words, unless the enemies of freedom possess the liberties which they are keen to abuse, then we deny the essence of what we ultimately stand for and are therefore no better than those to whom we are opposed.
French Enlightenment writer Francois-Marie Arouet (21 November 1694 - 30 May 1778), better known by the pen name Voltaire has said "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." The corollary is that the actions and words of the enemies of freedom must be critically analysed in public debate. This is where supporters of a free society have failed miserably.
On a more practical plane, freedom of speech serves many functions. One of its most important functions is that decision-making at all levels is preceded by discussion and consideration of a representative range of views. A decision made after adequate consultation is likely to be a better one which less imperfectly mirrors the opinions, interests and needs of all concerned, than a decision taken with little or no consultation. Thus freedom of speech is important at all levels in society. Yet it is most important for government. A government which does not know what the people feel and think is in a dangerous position. The government that muzzles free speech runs a risk of destroying the creative instincts of its people.
Freedom of speech is also important to government because when criticisms of a government are freely voiced, the government has the opportunity to respond and answer unfair comments and criticisms about its actions. On the other hand, when freedom of speech is restricted, rumours, unfair criticism, comments and downright falsehoods are circulated by word of mouth. These have a habit of spreading across the length and breadth of the country through conversation and surreptitiously circulated writings. The government is in no position to answer these views, because they are not publicly stated. It is in a government's interest to have criticisms in the public arena where it can answer its critics and correct its mistakes. The government generally has access to electronic and print media far in excess of individuals and groups. It is able to present its view only if the opposing views are in the open and known.
Freedom of speech is the single most important political right of citizens, although private property is required for its operation. Without free speech, no political action is possible and no resistance to injustice or oppression is possible. Without free speech elections would have no meaning at all. Policies of contestants become known to the public and become responsive to public opinion only by virtue of free speech. Between elections the freely expressed opinions of citizens help to restrain oppressive rule. Without this freedom it is futile to expect political freedom or, consequently, economic freedom. Thus freedom of speech is the sine qua non of a democratic society.
Freedom of speech involves toleration of a great deal of nonsense and even of matters which are in bad taste. There are those, among them notably Justice Douglas of the American Supreme Court, who have argued for near absolute freedom of speech and against the restrictions based on many of the common exceptions. In Roth v US 354 US 476 (1957) a case about obscenity, Justice Douglas said in dissent:
"The test of obscenity the Court endorses today gives the censor free range over a vast domain. To allow the State to step in and punish mere speech or publication that the Judge or jury thinks has an undesirable impact on thoughts but that is not shown to be part of unlawful action is drastically to curtail the First Amendment."
Those who attempt to resort to such tactics to stifle presentation of an opposing view give the impression that reason and logic are not on their side. Freedom of speech has as its necessary corollary the expression of a wide range of views, some of which of course will be unpalatable, or clearly wrong.
Dissent is part of a mature judgement and civilised living. To be different does not any sense constitute a challenge to the writ of the Government. It is important to point out that Government hold this writ on behalf of and in the best interests of the members of the society. It is not a gift but a trust and has not be abused.
Lal Masjid administration and its students may have over stretched their faith in the guarantee offered in the Constitution. They may have camped themselves in a 'zone' which attracts criminal offence, duly punishable under law. This prosecution is not settled by a killing instinct using gunship helicopters and ammunition, which Pakistan army has rarely attempted in any war. Criminal liability is settled by following a due process of law.
More so, the present Government itself has remained a subject of a debate that it has violated the Constitution and flouted the rule of law. Therefore, its writ, at core remains questionable and suspect. 'Operation Silence' or 'Operation Sunrise' are no answer to face a dissent or a criminal activity. The style of 'Operation Silence' is characteristic of a military killing instinct. Incidentally the armies around the world have been transformed into a democratic institution and they have started giving up the 'killing instinct' of the past.
The use of force too has been excessive and against a majority which had a legitimate interest in Islamic learning. We live in an enlightened age where even a 'friendly fire' entails a due liability and accountability. Here the State has killed a whole host of innocent Pakistanis and Kashmiris, just because Maulana Abdul Rashid Ghazi and Maulana Abdul Aziz had graduated in experience to act differently and independently, to the surprise of those who had trained and sustained them since Afghan Jihad.
|
|
|
Your Favorite Articles
|
View All Favorites
|
|
