Islamization & Infidels

Pakistan
Islamization & Infidels:
A Brief History of Rule under Zia-ul-Haq

By Raj N Patel

Introduction

This essay will be dealing with the forces that decided to use Islam as a vice to forge a new identity for a new Pakistani country from its birth in 1947 to 1988, and how this process ultimately lead to the complete Islamization of the state of Pakistan. Particularly, I will be concentrating on General Zia ul-Haq, who was de facto dictator of Pakistan from 1978 to 1988. The backdrop of the ‘second’ Cold War (1978 – 1985) is relevant to the issue of Islamization of Pakistan, however it is beyond the scope of this essay (taking into account space limitations) so I have omitted any references to the effect it had on Pakistani internal affairs except the following: the most important factor that the war in Afghanistan (mainly the US against the communist threat posed by the USSR) had played is that Zia ul-Haq used the Soviet threat to scaremonger money from the United States, whilst simultaneously propagating the Islamic fundamentalist ideology to keep Afghanistan politically weak. A democratic strong Afghanistan has always been pro-India, because of tribal disputes of land that was illegally annexed by the British and declared Pakistani land during the partition. Thus a weak, Muslim Afghanistan under strict Islamic law upheld by the Taliban (contrary to popular belief the Taliban was trained by the Pakistani government and NOT by the US, however the US is ‘blamed’ for training the Taliban by providing economic assistance to Pakistan to aid its exploits in Afghanistan) is ideal for Pakistan to be top-dog in the particular region.
The main point of this essay is to highlight the destructive force that fundamentalist interpretation of religion has on a countries political structure, social structure, and economy. I will also delve into the repercussions Zia ul-Haq’s Islamization of Pakistan has had for the world we live in today.

Pakistan after independence: merging Islam and national identity (1947 – 1951)

The first prime minister of Pakistan, who was also a member of the All India Muslim League, was the largely secular Liaquat Ali Khan. Liaquat Ali Khan was criticized for having a pro-US foreign policy (thus seen as a pro-Western foreign policy) and the pressure he placed on the Communist Party of Pakistan during his tenure. L.A. Khan, alongside Muhammad Ali Jinnah, was a secular elite. This was proven and L.A. Khan’s secular ideology was noted when he decided to clamp down the radical Islamist political party, the Jamaat-e-Islami (Islamic Society) .

This did not stop state officials of Pakistan (who wanted to use Islam to blunt ethnic identity opposition and mold the Pakistani national identity by promoting national identity was synonymous with being a good Muslim) from using Islam for political gain and as a tool utilized to broker power. This was exemplified n 1948, by the Pakistani army’s decision to use the Islamic idea of jihad to recruit and entice tribesman for the seizure of Kashmir from its Hindu maharaja. The critical point here is that although Pakistan was founded by the secular elite, all of whom were Muslim but believed in equality of all peoples and a separation of Mosque and State, some elements of the early Pakistani government did not refrain from using radical elements from within the society to promote their own political agendas. As we will see, this was to have dire consequences, not only for Pakistan, but for the entire world.

Pakistan: First Nervous Steps on the Tight Tope between Islam & the West
Ayub Khan, military commander-in-chief of Pakistan, ousted General Iskander Mirza in 1958 through a bloodless coup d’état that was met with little opposition as the country had been in a considerably unstable condition under Mirza’s rule. Ayub Khan described this coup d’etat as revolutionary, and was also an advocate of using Islam, domestically, to blunt ethnic identity and forge a new Pakistani identity. His thoughts are summed up in his autobiography:

“True that in [Islamic] society national territorialism has no place, yet those living in an area are responsible for its defense, security and development. Attachment to the country we live in and get sustenance from is therefore paramount.” He goes on further to say “moreover, considering that the people of Pakistan are a collection of so many races with different backgrounds, how can they be welded into a unified whole whilst keeping intact their local pride, culture and traditions”

Mohammad Ayub Khan put through state reforms and legislations that strengthened the centralized state power. He introduced a “series of repressive measures”, in which “civil liberties were abolished, the press was controlled, and extraordinary penalties were prescribed for offences. Special military courts were set up and given power to pass any sentence except death, transportation, imprisonment exceeding one year, and whipping exceeding fifteen stripes. Ayub initiated series of sweeping reforms in matters such as the land tenure system, the educational system, and administrative reorganization”

As we will see, balancing being perceived as a pious, Islamic individual at home domestically in Pakistan, with being deemed a moderate, perhaps even secularist leader, in foreign relations, has been the political strategy of choice for Pakistani dictators.

Pakistan: Zia ul-Haq & The Islamic State

General Zia ul-Haq, who was in power of Pakistan for an astonishing 11 years, helped turn Pakistan into a complete Islamic state. His intentions became clear when he agreed with a BBC interviewer who asked him if he was trying to ‘cleanse and purify Pakistan’. He went onto say “I try to be a practicing Muslim. If in the process, I can be termed a puritan, it is up to those who judge. I am an idealist in all my Islamic beliefs but I don’t profess to have the knowledge”. Furthermore, he said he would “stay in power as long as Allah wills.”

This religious soaked rhetoric may have filled Haq’s domestic population with admiration, but such piety was to have an irreconcilable negative effect on the politics and culture of Pakistan. General Zia ul-Haq started the Islamicization process within a few days of holding office. Primary school children (ages 4 – 11) were taught that “Pakistan was a fortress of Islam” and that “the Muslims came to this country [India], bringing with them a clean and elegant culture and civilization today” . In essence, Pakistani children were now being conditioned to support long term “military rule in Pakistan, inculcating hatred for Hindus, glorifying wars, and distorting the pre-1947 history of the area constituting Pakistan.”

History was re-written and pumped to the young, impressionable children as if Orwell himself had written a contemporary history rather than a grotesque prediction of the future when he produced ‘1984’. Pseudo-intellectual material and falsehoods fused with state and divine authority to produce such assertions as “Islam can never co-exist with Hinduism, therefore Muslims must separate from India” (despite the fact that India has the 3rd largest population of Muslims in the world within its borders, and incidentally is the largest democracy in the world). Religious zealots and extreme supporters of state Sharia law, in effect those synonymous with proponents of the literal-interpretation of the Kor’an, were revered as founders of the ideology of Pakistan (one of these were Maulana Maududi, founder of the Jamaat-e-Islami) . This was a false claim to make, a claim that should have made the Pakistani people enraged over the staining of their great founding secular elite with these theofascist mediocre hatemongerers. Communal riots that broke out during the mass exodus of different religions to different parts of the subcontinent were described as ‘Hindu and Sikh massacres of unarmed Muslims’. Ayub Khan was described as an ‘extremely popular leader’ loved for his ‘piety’. Zia ul-Haq was acknowledged with introducing the ‘Islamic system dreamed by the founders of Pakistan’ . This fabrication has had a profound impact on contemporary Pakistani culture.

The justice system was transformed from the largely Anglo-Saxon system Pakistan had adopted from the British to the primitive system of Sharia Law as prescribed by the Kor’an and the hadith. The ridiculous nature of this law was exposed in 1983, when a 13 blind year old girl known as Safia Bibi, alleged that she had been raped repeatedly by her employer and his son. She was the only witness in the case she made against the men, and Islamic law requires four men to testify against a rapist for him or her to get charged. However due to the fact she was pregnant, the court took this as evidence enough (for having sex with a man other than her husband) and charged her instead. Her witness statements did not stand up in court because she was blind.

Zia ul-Haq regularly met with ulema (Muslim scholars), and this created a climate where religious piety in government was deemed to be desirable; indeed civil servants sought promotions by highlighting personal acts of religious observance. The regime also gave equal status of ‘higher sanad’, the diploma achieved by graduating from religious fundamentalist schools called madrassas, with that of a University degree. The effect of this was that graduates from religious schools, trained and conditioned by extreme religious values, were now able to apply for governmental positions. Zia ul-Haq, although promoting the ‘anti-Islamic’ view of the U.S and then U.S.S.R was still intent on securing U.S aid and economic assistance to help boost Pakistan’s weary economy. On December 20th, 1984, Pakistan held a referendum brought about by Zia ul-Haq in an attempt to gain political legitimacy to carry on his dictatorial Islamization of the country. The referendum had a single question: “Do you support the process initiated by the government for the Islamization of all laws in accordance with the Holy Quran and Sunnah and do you support the Islamic ideology of Pakistan”. The ridiculous nature of the question is inescapable; the question was asked to the masses of Muslim Pakistani’s, which were forced to give Zia-ul-Haq further power. The Jamaat-e-Islami called for a ‘Yes’ vote, arguing that it would be blasphemy for a Muslim to vote against Islamization. This is yet another example of the Pakistani political apparatus using Islam for political gain, and to give an almost totalitarian government divine consent; the pseudo theodemocracy in fact just a military theocracy.

Zia ul-Haq appointed Mohammad Khan Junejo as prime minister in 1985. Junejo was more of a secular man, especially juxtaposed to the Islamist hard line Zia ul-Haq always took. Junejo took an independent approach to his prime ministerial duties; he acted without consulting any military generals and it is thought that for this reason Haq dissolved the National Assembly on May 29, 1988 and put forth a law that required every judicial decision made to be in accordance with Sharia Law. Zia ul-Haq died on August 17th, 1988, in a mysterious plane crash.

Thoughts and conclusions

The Islamization of Pakistan under mainly Zia ul-Haq’s military reign has led to extremely dire consequences for the Pakistani people. It seems that every military dictator since, including the incumbent Pervez Musharraf, has used the blueprint set by each dictator before him: secure U.S aid by scaremongering (back then it was the Soviets creating a communist bloc in Afghanistan, now it is Osama Bin Laden wanting to destroy America), but maintain an image of piety amongst the population (which includes deeming the U.S as a threat to Islam), and finally convince the domestic population that the Pakistani army and Islamic values are inextricably linked. The U.S at the time of Haq did not care about his Islamization as they did not anticipate it would come back to haunt them; they were pre-occupied with the U.S.S.R expansion into Afghanistan, and were using Haq’s well molded Pakistani identity to use Islam as a fuel to set fire to any Soviet hopes of taking Afghanistan.

The problem with Zia ul-Haq was that the Islamization he introduced gave him and his cronies the ultimate legitimacy amongst a religious peoples; the legitimacy of the divine. In a country where the government repeatedly stated it was acting strictly to principles set out in the Kor’an and hadith, where the power balance swung between the military and the mosque is itself justified with the utmost religiosity and piety, and where the pan-Islamic worldview was taught to children to condition the next generation of zombies of Islam, who had enough power to deem this foolishness for what it actually is – the bastardization and rape of the Islamic faith for political gain and power to oppress people without any thought of moral justice? Zia ul-Haq will be remembered by his admirers as a man who brought Islam to Pakistan, but by his critics as someone who used Islam in a way that is strictly un-Islamic. The founding father of Pakistan, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, whom Haq had the audacity to quote and praise, would probably have turned in his grave to see Zia ul-Haq bring about changes that he did through the guise of the divine.


Sources and Credits

Haqqani, H (2005), Between Mosque and Military
Khan, A (1967), Friends Not Masters
Singhal, D. P. (1972), Pakistan
Barron. Brian (1978), President of Pakistan Interviews to Foreign Media Vol. 1, BBC documentary
Aziz, K.K. (1993), The Murder of History in Pakistan
Shakir, Naeem (2003), Women, Minorities & Hudood Laws in Pakistan