Dr. Farooq Hassan [1]

Brief thematic synopsis of Address given to

The Center for Society & Secularism, the Vikas Adhyayan Kendra and

The Pius College Seminary
Mumbai 29 October 2005

Religion has been a dominant factor in determining the history of the people’s of South Asia. It still continues to be the case. Today this region has several countries representing a diversity of faiths. Out of these countries, Pakistan was created, at least in an historical context, on the solitary basis of religion. Yet, despite this fact pertaining to the doctrinaire basis of the country in 1971, it was torn asunder by the political aspirations of the people of East Pakistan. At the same time, India, the world’s largest successful democracy, has had to face up to this phenomenon numerous times - sometimes with tragic consequences. More recently, even in Bangladesh, created on solid secular foundations, there are signs of emergent nuances of Islamic extremism.

At times it is very hard to distinguish between seemingly ethnic conflicts and more deeply held religious controversies. Generally, the minorities have had to face the brunt of unpleasant implications. But this is not invariable. Both in India and Pakistan, Hindus and Muslims have respectively suffered the effects of sectarian turmoil at the hands of their own followers of the same faith. A question thus naturally arises: does religion assume a secondary role of importance if political necessities of a given time, as perceived, are considered more urgent for redressal even at its expense? This realization is based on empiricism. Effects of far reaching significance affecting the geo-strategic realities of this region have been witnessed to occur presumably on such a foundation. Or, conversely, is the real question that religion is primarily used initially as a cloak or cover for wider political aspirations of the “relevant” people? If it is indeed so, then the enormity of the dynamics of the religion factor is evident. In sum, whether or not religion per se is the initiator of change, it continues be to a major matter propelling alterations of the status quo.

Most of the major religions of the world are present in South Asia, including hundreds of millions of Hindus and Muslims; this region also has a very large numbers Christians, Buddhists and even Jewish people. In addition, there exist several scores of other faiths in the peripheral areas of the main land mass of this vast and diversified sub continent, each possessing hundreds of thousands of adherents. While Pakistan was created on the basis of providing home land for Muslims, there still remain more Muslims in India.

Amongst the followers of these regions, some have ardently advocated frequently certain perspectives held in high esteem by them with emphasis. For some the effects of such partisanship are confined to their own locales. For others, such effects are of much wider application. [2] The emphatic focus envisaging changes of the status quo by such religious activists is often at variance with the thoughts of those constituting a majority. But hard liners often have an ascendant position in such controversies.

Over centuries, despite these sociological cum political differences, there was generally an overt appearance of acceptance of each others perspectives. Absence of homogeneity in the basic dogmas of diverse faiths was not by itself a major insurmountable hurdle for creating a healthy society of a pluralistic nature. Indeed, there existed pari passu with such discordant avocations a great deal of harmony in the Indian society.

It is my view that, in the wake of different political currents of ideology emanating from essentially non Sub Continental European and Western powers during the last century, the seeds of communal discord gradually appeared in South Asia. The fact of a difference in religion amongst very extensive populations was played up by skillful, vested, interests. This resulted in the creation of still more acrimony as the last century moved gradually towards the present day international infrastructure of modern times. Not surprisingly, therefore, the two most populous countries of South Asia, India and Pakistan, have seen regrettable acrimony of religious intolerance even after they separated to become sovereign countries at great human costs.

In Pakistan, there has been indeed serious sectarian violence between different sects of Muslims themselves. In India, too, there has been witnessed intra-faith discord involving Hindus, Muslims and even Christians. This analysis attempts to point out the extent of the conceptual impact of such religious pursuits have with the corresponding affects on the body politic and the public philosophy of the day.

I have already advanced my major conclusions on the broader theme of this subject in my accompanying talk today to the Indian Center for Society and Secularism entitled: “Islam & Extremism” (Now available on the net on the Greater Democracy site). What remains to be examined with a sharper focus is the impact of this phenomenon in South Asia; given my own familiarity, I will focus basically on Islamic issues in this presentation.

This audience, I am particularly happy to note, is a gathering of truly an inter faith variety. I see that this function is being held in a Christian seminary of great antiquity in the historic city of Mumbai. Also present amongst the sponsors of this event are the members of the Vikas Adhyayan Kendra, which is dedicated to promote religious harmony based on egalitarian principles of democracy and tolerance. I thank its Executive Director, Mr. Ajit Muricken, who has written enormously on the subject of religious harmony in India for being here this afternoon. Finally, we have amongst us the supporters of the Indian Center of Society of and Secularism which aims to achieve in the multi-religious Indian environment the attainment of the goal of a dignified civil society through the process of secularism. Its esteemed Chairman, Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer, is presen. His scholarship in Islamic learning stands on a pedestal of its own in this country and abroad. [3]

I may add that “secularism” has been variously interpreted in constitutional terms vis-à-vis its political connotations. One of the main authors in this field in the Sub Continent, Dr. Engineer, who is present today at this function, has described [4] this as an “attitude of respect for other religions” and has been summarized in the often quoted Hindu maxims “sarva dharma samabhava.” For my present analysis, this description, rather than a definition of secularism would do - as it is not necessary presently to delve into a number of controversial aspects of what this concept really envisages in constitutional law and in sociology.

There is no gainsaying the fact that the most notable manifestation of the religious phenomenon in the Sub Continent is the political divide of this region when Pakistan was carved out of British India as an autonomous country. For the first time in modern history, a country was created on the basis of a religion alone. It was almost a year later, in 1948, that the State of Israel emerged as a Jewish homeland in the Middle East becoming the second country to be so created by conferences and international diplomacy.

Thus, long before the contemporary controversy regarding the place of religion in a modern state, or that of the concepts and contours of religious extremism arose in its present form, the British Government, by lending a helping hand in the creation of both Pakistan and Israel, had demonstrated what it felt on such crucial issues. The British thinking, initially contained in the Balfour Declaration of 1916, was further solidified in its basic thematic content by the Cabinet Mission to India and the Mountbatten Plan of 3 March, 1947 regarding the independence and eventual division of India. These political ideas were carried into effect by the British through the then international community, consisting of just 55 Member Nations of the UN, to endorse and adopt the creation of new countries on religious basis alone.

The breakup of Pakistan in 1971, leading to the creation of Bangladesh, establishes that religion was not sufficient by itself to maintain the homogeneity of the country. Indeed, within Pakistan, it is still unclear whether the establishment of a separate homeland for Muslims also signified the creation of an Islamic state. Furthermore, what exactly is an “Islamic State” is far from a settled question. [5]

Given the political realities of the present millennium, such precedents may not be repeated for decades to come in the history of the world. Such an attitudinal metamorphosis is now manifestly evident. Contemporary de facto bashing of such ideas by the foreign policies of the Western states that matter is now beyond question. It has clear implications that over-indulgence of religion in an international context is not something to be lightly countenanced in future by the policies of significant Western powers. [6]

The policy to which I refer has been heavily underscored by the recent events in Afghanistan and Iran. In the former case, the Taliban regime, based on purely Islamic postulates, was overthrown by the U.S. led war, while the political cum strategic tensions against the Islamic Republic of Iran underscore this perspective as an illustration of the latter scenario articulated above. It is possible that, fearing this kind of a resultant turmoil in Pakistan, General Musharraf keeps on harping upon “moderate Islam” being the policies of the Islamabad military regime. This rhetorical repetition is as much an act of self preservation for an unelected ruler as it is to placate his newly found Western friends. Be that as it may, it is clear that a State based entirely, or mainly, on religious avocations is not likely to have many supporters in any significant Western Capital.

In South Asia, not merely religion, but ethnic antagonism based on historical acrimony, have compounded the tensions that have sadly been the cause of much friction. In Sri Lanka as well as in former East Pakistan, for instance, it was ethnic diversity and apparent exploitation (both economic and political) of a large segment of the society, which produced consequences of far reaching significance. Similarly events which led to the storming of the Golden Temple in the early seventies were predicated on similar aspirations of those that felt “afflicted” by those in authority. Thus hegemonic treatment within a state by those who posses the de facto elements of power vis-à-vis the disprivileged ones is also a malaise capable of producing deadly consequences.

I am very familiar with this phenomenon. In 1980, I was amongst six international jurists selected by UNESCO to frame the Third Generation of human rights. The right I outlined, “the right to be different”, was officially recognized in Mexico City in 1980 by the UN. It deals specifically with this problem. [7]

The minimum conceptual consequence that clearly emerges from this reality is that willingly, or by device, the continued presence of a state of “injustice” to a community, often by the majority, is the catalyst for eventual violence for change. [8] Stretched further, the hegemonic policies of foreign powers, whether real or perceived, gives rise to acts of extremism and terrorism. [9] In a broader sense, this is as true, in my view, of domestic South Asian events that have been noted above, as much as it is for international matters of grave significance affecting this region. For instance, the East Pakistan embroiled situation in 1971, or the current insurgency in Afghanistan, or Iraq, are directly the result of such perceptions and feelings. “Nationalists” naturally contest the external controls placed on their “independence” by domestic elements, or by governments emanating from abroad, and dominating them by presenting such fiats of and from outsiders. There is little doubt in my mind that “democracies” produced by armies, whether domestic or foreign, cannot easily succeed.

In this charged atmosphere, nationalism has assumed tremendous force. It is axiomatic that the emergence of this basic characteristic throughout the world is an addendum to the Age of Industrialism and Western expansion that led to colonialism in the 19th century. All serious analysts must surely realize this simple fact of history. Just as the industrialized West needed colonial possessions for it successful existence, nationalism dictates that foreign imposed rulers, howsoever beneficial they may actually be, be prevented from now arising. It is equally a truism that to not expect opposition to such a status quo by the affected people is utterly unrealistic.

In South Asia in addition, we have at the Government level a remarkable spectrum of different practices. India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka possess, despite cultural and systemic difficulties, representative institutions. Pakistan and Nepal, on the other hand, demonstrate the existence of military or authoritarian regimes which have a token or face saving pretense of being democratic. When this perversity is examined in a particularly a religious environment, autocratic regimes have a great deal to lose. Fascism, as such, is truly and historically allergic to any Faith. It is thus not surprising that Communism was always averse to any religion. Notwithstanding the different systems of government in various counties of South Asia, the presence of religion as a factor of great strength, with a potential for decisive change in the society, remains in tact.

While the topic of religious extremism is evidently vast and important in countries of South Asia, I am mainly concerned today in this analysis with the effects pertaining to Islam and Muslims. This topic has been in the center of all reverberating news, and developments manifestly impacting the foreign policies of states of great significance since 9/11. But, as I have said enough on this theme in my other accompanying article, nothing further need be noted here except its impact in the South Asian context.

The relationship of reason and faith requires a close examination. In terms of human values, one really cannot be understood by itself, without reference to the other.  We should also understand that religion and faith are inseparable, as the former derives from it validity via a norm of acceptance and consequential obedience to its core fundamentals. But once the initial dogma part of faith is traveled, the rest must surely be supported by reason. As such, it is only prudent to suggest that, while faiths of all types need to be respected, reason too should be utilized more extensively whenever it is so felt. This would lead to an over all more tolerant society. The underlying troubles of a sociological nature arise from an inability of contemporary political leadership to grasp such conceptual and historical niceties.

While the institutional part of the Faith may be dogmatic, there is a large reservoir of human addendum to it which must be:-

(1) In harmony with the divine mandate of the relevant religion, and

(2) It must, a fortiori, admit of change according to evolution and development.

Every Faith has a system of values and each prospers according to this accepted characteristic as such. In this context, changing hegemonic relationships and information technology are defining elements. Large populations in the Third World, particularly those of the Muslims, find it increasingly difficult that this process of “modernization” is gradually eroding their identity. The comprehensive Western hegemony in the cultural domain is producing this identity crisis among religious and cultural communities in South Asia, and much more so among Muslim communities. Thus, lack of cultural affinity with contemporary movements is another reason for much of South Asian anxiety against the perceived hegemony of the West. The recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have, in the short term, heightened these fears and apprehensions rather than toning them down.

In South Asia, as elsewhere, the religious rituals observed by Muslims are usually influenced by both history and local customs. It is also important to note that, though values and rituals are common to all religions, the former are really the cultural expression of the communities in which Muslims have lived for generations. As rituals are essentially the product of local custom, it is not surprising that Muslims in South Asia are largely influenced by local norms of behaviour of the Hindus. For such similarities to be accepted gracefully requires an attitude which is difficult to locate nowadays in quarters it should be vested in order to create a religious and communally harmonious atmosphere.

On most social issues, Muslims in Pakistan, for instance, have more in common with the Indian populations, regardless of religion, than with the Arabs or with the North Africa Muslim communities. Indeed, some Hindu social observances are observed with greater passion in Pakistan than even in India! [10] Such actual practice of local cultural practices of the dominant, or historical majority, has become, of late, not unnaturally, the cause of some friction. Even observances of minority cultural or religious practices has not failed to arouse local disharmony. [11]

Conclusions

This brief thematic expose has focused on specific issues of religious extremism in South Asia. In Pakistan, there is visible strife between Islamic sects, leading often to bloodbaths in mosques, of all places. This strife is recently also seen to arise in Bangladesh as well. In India too, despite its many successes in being a successful representative society, since many decades of regrettably tragic events of a communal variety have surfaced. Communal disturbances associated with the demolition of the Babri Mosque, and the more recent riots in Ahmedabad, are typical illustrations of such religious and societal discord.

It establishes that misplaced and demonstrative religious zeal, at times resulting in violence, is not totally under control of any government in this region; rational elements, however, are working hard to avoid the eruption of tragedies of horrifying magnitude. All prudent elements, individuals and institutions, must work to avoid these consequences. Some sceptics even maintain that the governments at the relevant times in different countries are conceivably involved in such terrible occurrences. [12] I am of the view that, while some evidence is available to justify such fears, on the whole, saner institutions and wiser elements in the overall structure of administration are at work to avoid such tragedies from erupting.

In line with these articulations, it is equally evident that similar developments on the basis of religion are taking shape in the rest of the world as well. It is clear therefore, that, not only in the South Asian context, but the world over, there is clearly, per se, a renaissance of religion. The more fervent this renaissance, arguably the more pronounced are its consequences and implications, including a corresponding reaction by those who feel threatened.

This phenomenon, according to some particularly foreign experts of American policies, is also noticeable in the U.S. itself. The strong showing in the last presidential elections, and the polling patterns, have established the manifest Bible belt support that President Bush obtained, compared to voting in the major urban civic centres. As cities like Los Angles, Boston or New York are representative of liberal attitudes, it is not surprising that they are apparently against him on the point of his adoption of a strong pro-war foreign policy. [13]

The U.S. emerged as the solitary World Power after the disintegration of the USSR in the late eighties. It is axiomatic that any major decision that Washington takes has genuine transnational effects and implications. What worldwide implications are likely to arise as result of a pursuit of Bush administration policies is, not as yet, clear as the purest might wish for. What political and strategic goals and aims have been achieved by the U.S. thus far, however, are still to be objectively evaluated. I am not going to go into this question as I am only concerned in this address with the effects of religious extremism in the Sub-Continent. But this much is clear to me: If, despite the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Washington does not take steps to ensure the creation of “true democracy” in countries other than India in South Asia, much that President Bush went to war for will be lost .

Communal and religiously based political activity operates at different levels. Its objective is to destroy the basic foundations of a pluralistic society. Why? Since it itself derives its dynamics on the basis of a monolithic elite. In military regimes, this corps of elites exists in the combined vested interests of the army and the feudal. In religiously led societies, this elitist element is epitomized by Mullahs and other kind of priestly classes. Since this aim is not easy to realize expeditiously, the process to obtain these goals is by a slow percolation and propagation of the social norms which suit the relevant society. In some ways, this phenomenon is found in all South Asian cultures. The only positive way to challenge this process is by producing a genuine participatory democracy.

Let me end these submissions by referring briefly to the ultimate goal of all religions. A genuinely religious human being, irrespective of his precise faith, should be devoted to freedom of person, freedom of conscience and compassion for all needing his care and assistance. Such a religious person invariably strives for truth and justice. In this respect, my detailed reference to the Islamic concepts of iman and adl (Faith and Justice) in my longer presentation needs to be properly comprehended. 

All religions basically advocate morality, tolerance and decency. Without such traits, they could not have survived for centuries. Where events take a course other than that of peace and harmony is when supervening factors and events outlined in detail in my longer text occur. As Mahatma Ghandi said, there is no religion higher than truth. Let us pursue this objective as it assures ultimate righteousness of human conduct.

The religious leadership of diverse institutions and parties in all South Asian countries must be vigilant against such possibilities that can create and have, with increasing velocity, caused tremendous damage to the multi-ethnic and multi-religious culture of the Sub Continent. It is also a phenomenon of current political evolution that religious based political parties are becoming tangible national or regional forces in their respective environments and societies. The great rise to political power of MMA in Pakistan and of BJP in India are the best examples of this trend. The real and perceived political and social victimization of some religious elements has created “extremism”. This situation must be attended to at the earliest, with respect to its causation, to prevent the deterioration of the law and order situation in these societies.

In any pluralistic society, the attainment of democracy, based of consensus and accommodation, is, in my view, the real, and ultimate only, end which can produce the desired results. India’s success in realizing this goal is, without question, a formidable achievement. True, it has still many socio-religious troubles, as evident from attacks such as those on the Bhandarkar Institute in Pune. But the wider reservoir of goodwill contained in its major state instruments of resolution of disputes, such as its judiciary, are still the best surety to proceed further in this regards.

Let me end this talk by bringing to your notice a unique consequence in the Sub Continent with respect to pursuit of religious bigotry in political or social affairs. Whereas terrorism is the normal result in such scenarios elsewhere, in the Sub-Continent the threat is of straight forward vandalism. In all major occurrences of this nature there is evidence of large scale destruction by mobs or gangs of a particular persuasion to achieve their avowed aims. The time has come for policymakers to devise appropriate modalities to combat this menace.

Clearly, a manifest attempt to achieve inter communal harmony is presently required. In all societies possessing multi-faith populations such a healthy evolution of attitudes would be invaluable. In a visionary spirit of looking at such matters, if inter-faith deliberations can occur, so much the better. It is imperative that in such a cultural attitudinal metamorphosis, past inter se grievances have to be over looked and focus should be on future betterment of the religious diversity. In more ways than one, the South Asian experiences on this subject have a tremendous role model potential. We have been victims of extraordinary religious bigotry and intolerance over a long time. We know too well how this has led to the most baneful consequences. I can only hope that, with a growing awareness of the immense benefits of peace and harmony, the time has arrived for turning a new leaf of history.

In this context, I am particularly keen to express my highest appreciation for my hosts, each of whom have done their share in contributing to this message of mine. The Center for Society & Secularism and the Vikas Adhyayan Kendra are leaders in this field. They have, to their credit, both vast publications and many activities devoted towards this goal. The Pius College Seminary is, likewise, an institution with a tradition of creating the kind of harmony which distinguishes a culture of toleration.

Thank you all!

Endnotes:

[1] D.Phil.; B A Juris, MA. M.Litt, (Oxon), DCL (Columbia), DIA (Harvard), Of Lincoln’s Inn, Barrister at Law, UK, Attorney at Law, US, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (QC) of Pakistan; Affiliate & Visiting Professor of International Affairs, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, Special UN Ambassador for Family for the World Family Alliance, Advisor to four Prime Ministers of Pakistan on Law & Foreign Affairs; Delegate to the UN, NY, & to the Human Rights Commission on Human Rights & to the Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Geneva, Leader of Pakistan’s Delegation to the International Criminal Court Prep Coms., NY & Delegate to UN GA Sessions. Also, inter alia, on the Faculty of Law, Human Rights Program, Harvard University, Faculty of Political Science, Tufts University, the Secretary General, American Asian Institute of Strategic Studies, Boston. International Legal Counsel before transnational Tribunals & US Congress. David M Kennedy Scholar of International Studies, Kennedy Center, BYU 2003-4, distinguished Visiting Professor JNU, Memorial Lecturer at Benaras Hindu University, Mumbai University &Ambadkar Center, Auranagbad, 2004-5 ;President, Pakistan Family Forum, Chairman, Foreign Affairs Committee, Pakistan Bar Association at Lahore, 2003/4. Given King Faisal Memorial Award, 2002 and awarded in 2003 the International Professor of Human Rights Recognition from a galaxy of international professor by Saudi Arabia.

[2] The Islamic concept of Ummah connotes a world wide application of Muslim norms to all of Islamic peoples.

[3] Conferred the Right to Livelihood Awarded by Parliament of Sweden, 2004.

[4] See: Religion, State & Civil Society, p 2, 2005, Asghar Ali Engineer

[5] See the two works of the author: Farooq Hassan , The Islamic Republic, 1984 and The Concept of State in & Law in Islam , 1981 University Press of America, Washington DC.

[6] The policies of the Republican Present Reagan in supporting and eulogizing the Jihadist elements in Afghanistan against the USSR have been utterly reversed by another Republican President George W. Bush since 9/11.

[7] See UNSCO Doc.SS-80/CONF, 806/COL.7 (1980). Also Final Report SS-80/CONF. 806/COL.7 at 22 The Right to be Different., Dr. Farooq Hassan.

[8] Ironically, it was the East Pakistan majority province that felt afflicted by the minority Provinces of West Pakistan on account of the clear Establishment bias against it.

[9] According to one view that is what is in evidence in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

[10] For instance the kite flying festival of Basant announcing the arrival of Spring is observed with tremendous fanfare in Pakistan despite strong opposition to it from religious elements.

[11] In Pakistan where the majority is of the Sunni faith, the taking of Tazia, a practice of the minority Shiites to commemorate the martyrdom of Imam Hussian, is not free from local disharmony or law and order situations.

[12] See e.g. Lessons from Gujarat, a Compilation of Essays, Mumbai, 2003,

[13] Engineer, op cit says: “Bush mainly relied on issues like danger of terrorism on the one hand, and Christian values and family values on the other” to push for “the propaganda that American right wing Christian politics (are needed) to enhance its security,” P 244-245.

 

Feed on comments to this Post