Maulana’s ‘assurance’
Rashed Rahman
Maulana Fazlur Rehman, chief of the Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Islam-Fazl (JUI-F), is a frustrated man. Two rounds of a sit-in in Islamabad and highly ambitious attempted blockage of highways throughout the country last year failed to find traction and had to be abandoned. Now the Maulana has announced round three of his campaign to oust the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaaf government by once again taking to the streets in Karachi on February 23, 2020, followed by a national convention in Islamabad on March 1, 2020 and a public meeting in Lahore on March 19, 2020.
The Maulana was bitter about the ‘betrayal’ of his cause by the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) by not fully backing his drive against the government. The vote in favour of the bill to extend the COAS’ tenure proved, in the Maulana’s eyes, the icing on the cake of the ‘betrayal’ by the two largest mainstream parties. All this is by now well known as the Maulana has not been shy of criticising these parties on this account earlier too.
But what was intriguing about the Maulana’s latest avatar was the ‘revelation’ that he had called off the Islamabad sit-in on an ‘assurance’ that Prime Minister Imran Khan would immediately resign and fresh elections would be held three months after. No prizes for guessing who might have given such an assurance. Maulana referred to Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid (PML-Q) leader Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi’s statement that he could not disclose the conditions that led to the end of the sit-in since those were a ‘sacred trust’ with him by asking Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi to divulge the details of the ‘understanding’ that led to the end of the sit-in. The Maulana went on to castigate the government for the price hike making the people’s lives miserable, claimed it was his 13-day sit-in in Islamabad that caused the fissures appearing in the ruling coalition’s ranks, and dismissed the sitting parliament as based on a bogus mandate that had resulted in a vacuum in the corridors of power.
Whatever the hidden truth, it appears unlikely that the powers-that-be so easily gave in to the Maulana’s demands. If Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi did play the role of mediator and carrier of messages, it may not be the messenger who is to blame. This is not the only conundrum to emerge in recent days. First, there was the startling revelation on social media that Ehsanullah Ehsan, the erstwhile spokesman of the Tehreek-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) who surrendered to the authorities in 2007, had ‘escaped’ to Turkey. Although the report was belatedly confirmed by ‘a senior security official’, there is no clear or credible explanation of how such a prominent TTP figure who had been singing like a canary while ensconced in a safe house in Peshawar had managed to vanish from under the noses of those charged with his security. It is difficult to resist the suspicion that having been treated with kid gloves in exchange for information about the TTP that allowed the security forces to considerably root out its cells and organisation, he has been given a ‘free pass’ to freedom somewhere outside the country.
Or take the reappearance of the Lal Masjid cleric Maulana Abdul Aziz inside the infamous mosque two weeks ago, followed by hundreds of his militant female followers occupying Jamia Hafsa once again, to demand of the government that he be restored to his former position of the khateebof the mosque, be compensated for the cancellation of the plot in Islamabad’s H-11 sector meant for Jamia Hafsa, and paid between Rs 20 to 35 million claimed to have been spent by them on Jamia Hafsa. Do we need reminding of the bloody events of 2007 in and around Lal Masjid? How is it that Maulana Abdul Aziz gained entrance to Lal Masjid when the authorities had reportedly banned his entry? How were the Maulana’s female ninjas able to overcome the barriers to entry in Jamia Hafsa? Were the mosque and seminary left unguarded? Now reports speak of a ‘compromise’ hammered out with the Maulana by the Islamabad Capital Authority whereby he would be allowed to stay in the mosque but not deliver sermons, would be given a 20 kanal plot to build Jamia Hafsa and, according to Maulana Aziz, be paid Rs 35 million compensation for the ‘confiscated’ Jamia Hafsa in H-11.
The establishment seems to have latched on to the preferred tactic of making concessions to our religious parties and extremists in a bid to buy time, defuse the present standoff/crisis, and then deal with the recalcitrants in an ‘appropriate’ manner. First and foremost, we must remind ourselves that it is the establishment that, beginning with Ziaul Haq’s benighted rule, created, nurtured, and in various ways supported religious parties and fanatical extremist groups inside the country in pursuit of jihadi enterprises in Afghanistan and Indian Held Kashmir. Ignoring the warnings over the years of knowledgeable analysts that these proxy chickens would one day come home to roost, when some of these parties or groups no longer served the purposes of the establishment or actually took up arms against the state, they were unceremoniously dumped or worse.
Maulana Fazlur Rehman was winkled out of parliamentary politics through depriving him of his traditional seat in D I Khan in the 2018 general elections. Hence his newfound insight into rigged elections (of which he had been a beneficiary in the past, even forming the MMA government in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa under Musharraf). The hints he is dropping after the failure of his sit-in vis-à-vis assurances of an entry back into the power corridors reflect the old game of pressurising through street power the powers-that-be and then negotiating an end in return for concessions.
Unfortunately for the Maulana, he has failed to read the tea leaves correctly. If only he had reflected on the manner in which the Tehreek-i-Labbaiq Pakistan’s sit-in in Islamabad was dealt with (cash bribery to bring it to an end, followed by a crackdown on the group) or Maulana Aziz is currently being ‘favoured’ (with perhaps a similar denouement when circumstances allow), he would have taken the ‘assurances’ he received with a huge pinch of salt.
Maulana’s third wave campaign is likely to go the way of the first two, with his reaching out to religious groups (excluding the Jamaat-i-Islami with which relations have cooled) likely to prove no substitute for the PPP and PML-N, who for all practical purposes have abandoned him.
Surveying the above examples, it should be amply evident that playing footsie with the establishment is a dead end as far as the people and their aspirations for justice and a better life are concerned. We should therefore leave the different varieties of Maulanas and their retinues to their own devices and concentrate instead on building a mass people’s movement for genuine democracy, a socially progressive system, and relief and a better life for the vast majority.
rashed-rahman.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment