Author: Muhammad Din Jauhar

[Author’s Note: Faizabad sit-in continued under the leadership of Maulana Khadim Hussein Rizvi from 5th of December till 26th December 2017. This essay was written to discuss the sit-in in the last week of the same month. It was written as an editorial for the Quarterly periodical “Jee” but due to the delay in the printing of the magazine, it could not be published. In the backdrop of the passing away of Maulana Khadim Hussein Rizvi on 19th November 2020, this article is being published without any editing.]

With the Faizabad sit-in a new political movement has become part of the national arena. It will be premature to discuss its future consequences, but as a religious and political event it merits a serious analysis. The general reaction to it was one of hostility; especially few moral aspects of Maulana Khadim Hussein Rizvi’s manner of speaking were rightfully criticized. But this criticism and analysis does not do full justice to the issue at hand.  By and large the sit-in was discussed from a conspiracy theory standpoint, as a part of the machinations of few invisible powers of the system. In the current political climate of partisan polarization, its interpretation was superficial and derisive. In the same vein the religious point of view that emerged from the sit-in was pooh-poohed.  The national main stream media gave minimal direct coverage to it and much of the news regarding the sit-in came through social media. Major political parties like PML-N, PPP and PTI were in general silent. Religious parties like JUI and JI also refused to give any meaningful statement about the sit-in. During the police action against the sit-in, the media blackout resembled a war-like situation and reliable details of that operation are still unavailable. Some national circles termed this sit-in as a tragic regression. The disruption of social life in the area of the sit-in was also heavily denounced.  This idea also gained some traction that the sit-in was sponsored by the Punjab government or a manifestation of civil-military struggle for supremacy. Then, the monetary aspects of the protest were also debated and alleged financiers were named and blamed. In some circles, this sit-in was seen as a major failure of the governing party, the establishment conspiracy or as a project to radicalize Barelvi populace.
All of these views cannot be right at the same time. But even if we assume that all these conflicting narratives somehow explain the genesis of the protest, it still leaves us with the heavy task of its interpretation. And mere deplorable aspects of manner of speech should not deter us from ignoring this charge.
The sit-in can also be viewed from another angle, that is, (1) the political school of Deoband stayed almost irrelevant from the protest; (2) The existing Barelvi political forces in the national matrix also opposed it;(3) the whole English and Urdu commentariat spoke against the sit-in and expressed their ridicule of the leaders and participants of the protest;(4) the reformists scholars and opinion makers were in a continuous state of shock due to the sit-in;(5) secular analysts also spoke harshly against it;(6) common educated Muslims were frightened; and (7) the poverty stricken strata of our society were in general supportive of the sit-in  or felt deep sympathy towards it.
Its common knowledge, that the immediate reasons for the sit-in were proposed changes in the Law of finality of Prophethood whose details are still secret. But, one thing is clear that this amendment can be traced back to an organization called ‘Atheist Ireland’ that acquired access to Pakistan via the power corridors of UN and State Department of US.  In the midst of the mysterious circumstances of the amendment and the studied national silence, the explosive sit-in was a surprising reaction.
Setting aside the analysis, it is essential to look at the political and religious view of Maulana Rizvi that manifested on the national scale:
(1) In relation to the Muslim identity, he has given primacy to the service of Holy Prophet PBUH instead of Tauheed(monotheistic concept of Allah). The Belief of Finality of the finality of the Prophethood and service of the Holy Prophet PBUH is not only the bedrock of Muslim social life but also the cornerstone of their political identity. Traditionally and historically the societies of Ahl e Sunnah wal Jamaat have expressed this concept as their basis, summarized in the words of Maulana Ayub Dehlvi r.a. as,” Islam in its essence is the flag-bearer of Prophethood and Tauheed is included in it”. With the advent of Maulana Wahab’s ideology in the subcontinent and Tehreek I Mujahedeen (Shah Ismail and his movement), this concept started modifying and gradually receded to the background. In the ensuing eras the expression of service to the Holy Prophet PBUH on cultural and political level lost its confidence and primacy.
(2) According to Maulana Rizvi, Islam is not a religion of Peace. After the defeat of 1857, when Islam and Muslims were chained and put on trial in the colonial tribunal, this very confessional declaration was brought forth that Islam was a religion of Peace. Our case was pleaded by Maulvi Chiraag Ali, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Ghulam Ahmed Qadiyani. This declaration and its acceptance by the tribunal were celebrated in the influential and modern circles of Muslim society. On the condition of Islam being a religion of peace, it was allowed to survive and live on in the Muslim societies in a subdued fashion. Now, “Praise be to God Almighty”, that all Muslims, regardless of sect and school of thought consider Islam to be a religion of Peace. The final argument that was brought forth in this regards was that the word “Islam” translated as Peace and being Whole. “Islam is a religion of Peace” does not mean that it was a religion of War in earlier times. Its meaning is very simple, that Islam does not have any political agenda whatsoever and in that sense it is completely subsumed in the West.  This statement of Maulana Rizvi, that Islam is not a religion of Peace, was like a dagger to the very heart of this Modern and semi-modern Muslim consensus. And after a century and a half of indoctrination, it finds itself resistant to this notion of Islam not being a religion of Peace.
(3) It is the view of Maulana Rizvi that we demand the Deen of Prophet PBUH on the throne of this country. This view of him also threatens to upset the general consensus. Historically and especially excepting the All India Muslim League, all political and religious movements of Indian Muslims in the twentieth century have never claimed the throne and neither have they participated in the struggle of political power. For example, Tehreek I Khilafat was not even directly addressing the Muslim society of the subcontinent and their political agenda in summary was letting go of the struggle for Power and limiting itself to a demand to the colonial masters, and even that demand itself was not directly or indirectly related to the subcontinent or its political situation. And Jamiat Ulema e Hind was not a participant of the Power politics, as stated in its manifesto. Its aim was the unity of Hindus and Muslims so that “Angrez” could be ousted from the subcontinent. Hindu-Muslim unity in its essence was a moral and reformative demand that was expressed in political idiom. In other words, its basic purpose was the reform of the “mistaken” political viewpoint of Muslim League in the light of “religious injunctions”.  Fascistic movements like Khaksaar were expression of existential nihilism of a declining Muslim society. Even after the inception of Pakistan, religious parties used Islam as an instrument, and without directly confronting the inherited colonial power structure of the state, worked in subservience of that very political system to demand the implementation of Islamic laws.  Maulana Rizvi is not demanding the implementation of Islamic statutes; rather by calling out the “throne” he is trying to confront the whole political hegemonic system and its structure.
(5) Maulana Rizvi has briefly discussed economic justice. He has strongly denounced those religious actors and Peshwas who have used religion as a tool and means to accumulate economic capital and influence.  
(6) In our country, the way Iqbal’s ideology has been manipulated to accept or reject every kind of political viewpoint on the principle of “Iqbal Daal” (Put everything on Iqbal) , is nothing new. From students writing fake papers to get degrees to the fake Islam of Pervez (1950s), the interpretation of Iqbal has been like a bounty of Loot.  No religious party has ever “owned” Iqbal and ‘political’ Iqbal has been a state possession, and now even state seems to be getting rid of it. The interpretation of Iqbal brought forth by Khadim Rizvi is completely strange in the public domain and was long forgotten. Many circles are frightful and critical of this ‘new’ and ‘forgotten’ rendition. This version of Iqbal is also at odds with the general consensus of Muslims of the subcontinent. That consensus usually keeps circling around the axis of philosophic and non-philosophic. Iqbal declares service of the Holy Prophet PBUH as the actual lifeblood of Muslims and also considers it the highest level of purity or Ishq.  Maulana has brought up this point with singular vehemence.  That Iqbal which was a complete narrative of rejection of the West had been forgotten in plain daylight by the ceaseless efforts of Modernist Islam. The energy with which Maulana Rizvi has tried to bring to light that very narrative of Iqbal at odds with the West has caused quite a ripple in the economically secure Muslims of our society.
(7) Muslim history of the subcontinent is the agenda of Indian PM Narendra Modi and BJP. It is impossible to understand the political philosophy of Hindutva and its actions in isolation from this history of Muslim dominance. In the Muslims of the IndoPak region, no one can claim to be the successor of that history, because Islam cannot remain a religion of Peace, while having the history of dominance and supremacy. Maulana Rizvi fully ‘owns’ Pakistan Ideology, Iqbal and Muslim history of the subcontinent. Such a combination is in itself very unique and ‘troubling’ for a large section of our population.  We still harbor this illusion that a Present and Future can be viable without having any kind of Past that links it with History. Nowadays, even a forgotten reference to our past fills our prosperous and Modern classes with unease because they are more interested in a hypothetical and progressive Future built on the basis of present ground realities.
Regarding the Finality of the Prophethood, the view fiercely expressed by Maulana Rizvi is not only the exact Islamic view point but also highly appreciated and praiseworthy.  The Belief of the Finality of Prophethood is the true lifeblood of Muslims in the Modern times just as it was in the past. It is the most basic responsibility of the Muslim society to use all of its resources in the protection and preservation of this Belief and no sacrifice should deter it from this.  The second aspect of Maulana Rizvi’s movement is political and the Islamic values he expressed in that regard are also universally agreed upon and known among all Muslims.
There is no doubt that this is a new phenomenon among the political processes based on Islamic ideals that are present in our society. But the real question is whether it’s any different too or merely a revision of the existing religious politics? This aspect needs a serious analysis, because the existing religious politics in our history has not only failed to achieve any major practical objective but also has not been able to bring forth a big ideology of its own. There is no doubt that religious politics has hindered the ceaseless inherited Power system multiple times and even achieved few legal victories too. But the basic aim of any political movement is the power system itself, its reformation or modification or gaining its control. In this regard, religious political parties have completely failed. Its cause is quite apparent. Average Pakistani man is well aware of the collective values of Islam and they are his political aspirations. These very values are the political manifesto of religious parties. It’s not hard to comprehend that a man’s wishes remain unfulfilled unless they are followed by the requisite wisdom and solid attempts. This very principle applies doubly on a political party and its stated goal. Merely repeating the stated objective does not automatically fulfill individual wishes. In the same way, incorporating collective ideals in a political declaration does not make them achievable. A political idea, more urgently require necessary wisdom and serious attempts to make it into a reality. Otherwise, it runs the risk of becoming mere facilitators of the existing Power system. In other words, values need a compatible language to be able to communicate with the world and meaningful striving to become a reality in that world. At the moment our values lack these two ingredients. If ideals fail to translate into  actionable blueprints and are unable to find a political process that will act as their vehicle, then they most often than not become mere tools of the dominant system of their time. If those ideals contain truth but lack a way to express it into real life, the result is often a compromise or violence.
In this regard, the political movement of Khadim Rizvi is a continuation of the existing religious politics and the possibility of any actual change is very limited by mere chants of collective values. This can be easily guessed by listening to those conversations Maulana had with the media. For example, when one television anchor asked Maulana about the IMF debts and any possible solution of paying them back; his reply was not only irrelevant but also comic. If he had equal amount of knowledge to go along with his vehement belief in collective ideals, then that situation could not have arisen.  He has correctly understood the political Ideal of Islam, but is trying to understand the mechanics of the society and the world he has vowed to change, religiously blameworthy?
More important is the difficulty of our religious political parties to understand the political process unfolding in our modern times. They are unable to understand or accept that Law is completely secondary and the real deal is political Power and its system. And that the basic purpose of and political movement is to gain control of it and then bend it to the will of the people by making it compatible with their goals. By refusing to recognize this basic reality and ignoring its primacy, all of our religious political parties become mere instruments and organs of the present political system. It’s very possible, that despite putting forth a very strong and credible narrative, the religious party of Khadim Rizvi may not become the herald of any change in the present Power system, to bring it closer to the will of the people. Our Islamic political ideals are pure blessing for the humanity in every sense, but like every ideal they are not self- actualizing. To make those ideals a historic, social and human reality, we are still fall far short of gaining the required knowledge and actionable strategy. And this is the reason that every political process emerging from religious basis fails to secure its objectives, and with time the very idea of a just society keeps fading away.
In order for a peaceful human society to flourish, it is necessary to keep all violent sources and elements in the control of the state, and political avenues of resistance should never cease to exist. Political system is the source of all violence and its justification arises from the narrative of power and the goal of political justice.  In our country, the narrative of central political power has frayed considerably, loosening the state’s control over violence and giving rise to multiple potential avenues of violence. Pakistani public has paid the price for this. Unfortunately, in the subcontinent Muslim political power and religious narrative have rarely worked in the same direction. Muslim political power as a whole, for better or worse, for ultimate good or evil, has trudged along; but the religious political narrative has failed miserably, in delivering anything to the public who shared their ideals, nor could they  bend the direction of our political arc and merely became lost in the fog of limitless compromises. We know our destinations but have no clue to the directions or strategies to get there. It remains to be seen whether this new narrative of Khadim Hussein Rizvi is merely a spark in this dark night or the herald of a nearby Dawn.

The End.
[Link to the original article in Urdu:
http://jaeza.pk/taasrat/faizabad-dharna-md-jauhar/?fbclid=IwAR2uQ4BqVoJ2wQxPvdUx2R8xaQUg3SGLJhc55scz_zjdseskqdOmDj_2TGg#.X7voITIkJDU.facebook ]