Pakistan: Questioning ideology

---

Ziaul Haq – taking his cue from his great supporter Maulana Maudoodi – turned Jinnah’s vision into a mockery. He ensured that Pakistan’s ‘ideology’ wore a Deobandi/Wahabi dress,...

Ahmadiyya Times | News Watch | US Desk
Source/Credit:  The News | Pakistan
By Talat Farooq | April 19, 2013

There is renewed interest in questions of Islamic ideology and the ideology of Pakistan following the implementation of the concepts of ‘sadiq’ and ‘ameen’ as per ROW (returning officers’ wisdom). In this regard one would like to ask some elementary questions. What is ideology? How does ideology function?

To begin with, the term ideology encompasses many ideas and is difficult to narrow down. In its archaic definition the term referred to, “the science of ideas or the study of their origin and nature.” It also meant “visionary speculation, especially of an unrealistic or idealistic nature.”

The nuances of the term may have evolved with time but the initial flavour persists. New definitions are just as unspecific and open-ended when describing ideology as “the assertions, theories, and aims that constitute a political, social, and economic programme.”

Defining ideology then is no easy matter, at least not for those who do not accept things at face value. The question then is how can a term, which is fundamentally abstract, function as a tangible absolute? How can an abstract complex concept – which is abstract precisely because of its subjectivity – be uniformly applicable to diverse human groups?

In his influential book on the role of ideology in American foreign policy, Michael Hunt perceptively defines ideology as, “an interrelated set of convictions or assumptions that reduces the complexities of a particular slice of reality to easily comprehensible terms and suggests appropriate ways of dealing with that reality.”

In other words, a piece of complex and multi-layered reality is taken out of context and reshaped into perceptible and simplified actions or rituals. This makes things simpler not only for the brain that is wired to shape complexities into recognisable patterns but also for the powerful ideologues that need justifications for social coercion and self-aggrandisement.

This raises an ethical question: Can one apply simplified versions of reality to complex human societies without compromising the fundamental human potential to grow as an individual – something that makes us human in the first place?

Ideology, like any other philosophical or intellectual social construct, is amenable to different interpretations. Hence, if parliament or the courts have not been willing to or able to define Pakistan’s ideology it is because there is no uniform definition that will be acceptable to all in a multi-ethnic and diverse society like Pakistan.

That his struggle for Pakistan was opposed by the mullahs (including the founders of the JI) is a testament to the fact that Jinnah wanted a democratic Pakistan and not a theocratic one – the two cannot coexist. Unfortunately, Jinnah’s successors accommodated and appeased the same religious elements. They assumed that religion could serve as a unifying glue in a multi-ethnic Pakistani society in the absence of viable political culture.

The constitutional insertions of ‘sadaqat’ and ‘amanat’ were not necessarily the will of the people as the ideology-advocates would have us believe. These acts were more the will of the mullahs (and retained by the PPP coalition government for political purposes) and had Jinnah been alive he would have been uncomfortable with the article. Instead he would have supported a constitution that upheld minority rights and the freedom of expression and religious beliefs.

And he would have endorsed and made possible stringent rule of law and accountability that obviated institutionalised corruption to begin with. The will of the Pakistani people is expressed in free elections in which they have so far never elected religious parties into political power, clearly wanting to keep the two separate; the common man knows that ideologies do not put food on the table.

Ziaul Haq – taking his cue from his great supporter Maulana Maudoodi – turned Jinnah’s vision into a mockery. He ensured that Pakistan’s ‘ideology’ wore a Deobandi/Wahabi dress, assuming, incorrectly once again, that ethnicity can be trumped by religion or that his particular brand could outlive different interpretations of Islam. Our present predicament with its ethnic and sectarian dimensions is a testimony to the falsity of that assumption.

When political ideology is religious in orientation, it becomes a lethal combination. To turn religion into an ideology, a particular aspect of it is treated as the ultimate truth and the only one that can explain political realities. Difference of opinion and freedom of expression are anathema to ideologues.

And in the case of societies with weak law and order – as in Pakistan – fear of change and diversity turns violence into an acceptable tool for maintaining the status quo. If we wish to survive as a society we have to challenge this status quo. In the words of a thinker, an ideology always destroys transcendent and universal moral values because these can accommodate diverse beliefs and loosen the grip of orthodox authorities.

Mixing political agendas with religion gives material ambitions divine significance. That is why it was easy for Zia and his cronies to turn indoctrinated members of such groups into human weapons of war. Lack of education that encourages critical thinking and analytical skills makes the job easier hence the mushrooming of the madressah culture.

The first lesson imparted by critical thinking skills is the realisation that reality is explainable at multiple levels. Therefore, those whose identities and nuisance value are linked to ideological cults abhor diversity and love imposition of uniformity usually through coercion.

Under conditions of such bigotry and hypocrisy aligning with the powerful is perceived as the only way to survive. Therefore, when Zia applied political pressure the Shariat Court promptly reviewed its earlier verdict terming stoning to death as un-Islamic and declared it in keeping with Islamic injunctions.

This example says as much about Zia’s character as it does about the lack of integrity of those assigned the task of interpreting the Quran. Such is the suppression of an ideological set-up that it makes its adherents relegate their own professed moral values to self-preservation.

Ideology helps create a cult; as members of a cult one can abdicate the heaviest of human responsibilities – the responsibility to think and make choices. Within an ideological group someone else thinks and decides for us, relieving us of the exercise of individual moral judgement.

It is this tendency in our society that has allowed the detractors of Jinnah to become the self-proclaimed guardians of our morality. But that is not all that they seek – they also want political power. Talk about getting the best of both worlds!



The writer is a PhD student at Leicester, UK. Email: talatfarooq11@gmail.com



Read original post here: Questioning ideology


This content-post is archived for backup and to keep archived records of any news Islam Ahmadiyya. The views expressed by the author and source of this news archive do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of Ahmadiyya Times.