| Submit your comments on this article |
| India-Pakistan |
| Which MMA? |
| 2003-05-30 |
| THE Muttahida Majlis-e-Amalâs unprecedented electoral strides are due largely to the Pakistan military establishment. This nexus between the military and the mullahs (Military Mullah Alliance) is the âotherâ MMA that defines the ideological-security parameters of the military-bureaucratic state establishment of Pakistan. Their relationship is best articulated by putting certain current developments in a political context. The MMA government of the NWFP has tabled a Shariat Bill seeking to amend 71 laws as advised by the Islamic Ideology Council. The new law will be implemented by a committee of hardline mullahs who will freely use the organs of the state to enforce their fanatical definition of âwhat is good and what is badâ in society. The bill follows a campaign of vigilante action by extremists of the Jamaat-e-Islami in the province who first defaced and then wrecked advertising hoardings displaying the âvisageâ of women. It is linked to the Jamaatâs attack on other policies and practices that allegedly smack of moderation or tolerance in any form — a witch hunt against the English language at the Punjab university, a blockade against the construction of a food street in the vicinity of the Grand Mosque in Lahoreâs old city, the attempt to replace English with Arabic as a compulsory subject in higher education, and so on. Although the opposition in the NWFP assembly has objected to the shariat bill, its voice is much too weak to carry conviction. Well-meaning NGOs and other civil society organizations like the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan are alarmed. But the mullahs see them as outposts of western imperialism and are targeting them no less as vices to be abolished. The interesting point, however, is that there hasnât been a squeak out of the federal government in Islamabad whose âbossâ, General Pervez Musharraf, is proud to bill himself as the great and enlightened voice of moderation, flexibility and modernity in the country. In fact, far from criticizing the MMA or reining in its militants, the militaryâs intelligence agencies have worked overtime to pave the way for their forceful entry into the corridors of power. Indeed, even as we write these lines, the military leadership is trying to woo the MMA to give up its personalized opposition to General Musharraf in exchange for a freer hand to run their governments with greater federal financial support. Why does the military see Pakistanâs religious forces as allies to be cultivated and used even though it knows that they are inimical to the sort of modern, moderate and flexible civil society that wannabe Ataturks among the military yearn for? What is the relationship between the MMAâs relentless drive for Islamisation and the militaryâs domestic and regional agendas? As the scholar and political scientist Vali Nasr has explained, the Pakistani militaryâs acquiescence to Islamisation actually transcends its fear of it by seeking opportunities in it to establish the militaryâs hegemony and expand its control over society. While the MMA has been given the political space to mobilize Islamic symbols and tenets (destroying billboards, extolling the veil, etc), to exploit anti-Americanism to garner votes, and to formulate Islamic laws as in the NWFP to make inroads into civil society, it has been ensured that Islamism is only opposed to civil society transgressions of the national security state and not to military hegemony or extensive state intervention in the economy and society. Indeed, the military-bureaucratic state is constantly trying to harness the energies of Islamists to subdue the political opposition and to expand state power. Islamisation has therefore become a proactive process rather than a reactive one in which the military-bureaucratic stateâs interests continue to serve as a causal factor. This happens first through the appropriation of the Islamic discourse, through PTV and state owned and controlled media, and then through implementation of Islamic policies, as happened during Ziaist times and is now taking place in the NWFP and Balochistan. That is why both periods of Islamisation have been periods of unprecedented expansion of military power. The need for increasing revenues for enhanced military budgets rather than large-scale poverty alleviation, coupled with the requirement of political hegemony, has led the military-bureaucratic state to create and interact with the âotherâ MMA. Can this âotherâ MMA last? The first cracks are beginning to appear. The religious forces are no longer interested only in challenging attempts by the state to become less ideological and more secular in the new global WTO village. They are now seeking to challenge the stateâs monopoly over political control. The MMAâs strategy of forcing General Musharraf to take off his uniform is aimed at achieving this objective. The continuing tragedy is that neither General Musharraf nor the mainstream political parties currently realize who stands to benefit the most from their mutual hostility and antagonism. |
| Posted by:Paul Moloney |