These days, Imran Khan is using religion unabashedly to advance his political goals. This is evident from his public persona and concocted religious narrative. For example, he, a la Benazir Bhutto, holds a rosary in his hand to emit vibes of piety.
(It may be noted that when Benazir started wearing a chaddar, Habib Jaleb advised her to put on a false beard as well to complete the pantomime).
Khan claims he is seeking power not for personal glory but for building Riasat-e-Medina a la Prophet of Islam. His speeches are sprinkled with verses from the Quran and references to lives of the Prophet (PBUH) and Khulafa-e-Rashidin.
Besides, he has placed the ongoing power struggle between him and his political rivals as a clash between good and evil -- his political opponents obviously being incarnation of the evil. He has also claimed that hell will be waiting in the afterlife for those voting against his party at the ballot box.
Khan is not the first politician to abuse religion towards political ends. Pakistan’s history is replete with similar examples. However, no other politician, civil or military, has abused it as much as him. Many believe that he has crossed red lines in its abuse.
How far is this charge justified? Where could this slippery slope lead us?
Late Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan committed the ‘original sin’ when in 1949 he used religion to get the Objectives Resolution adopted which prescribed Islam as the state religion. This was at odds with the Quaid-e-Azam Muhammed Ali Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan that he spelled out on August 11, 1947 which envisaged equal rights for all Pakistanis and separated state and religion. Liaquat Ali Khan knew that the Quaid used religion to unite the subcontinents’ Muslims for the establishment of Pakistan. He knew the path he was embarking on was an antithesis of the Quaid’s vision. Still, he treaded on that path for his political survival, as the rightest parties, especially the Jama’at-e-Islami (JI), put pressure on him for making Pakistan an Islamic state. He sacrificed the principle for politics. Morally speaking, JI’s Abul A’la Maududi had no business to come to Pakistan because he detested Jinnah and regarded Pakistan an abomination.
In any case, the Objectives Resolution granted an official licence to politicians to use religion for political purposes.
Here enters Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. He was an inveterate secularist but the lure of power made him do things which would curry favour with the masses opiated with religion. Seizing upon an incident that pitted Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba (IJT) members against Jama’at Ahmadiyya youth he got the National Assembly (NA) declare Ahmadis as non-Muslims. It is true that the NA stictu sensu designated them non-Muslims for constitutional purposes only but Bhutto must have known that the genie he was allowing to get out of the bottle would irretrievably hurt the Ahmadi community and the Pakistani polity.
Z.A. Bhutto’s insatiable hunger for power reminds us of a cartoon that appeared in Le Monde during the early 1970s which showed an Afghan, standing in the middle of a road in Kabul, hitch-hiking for a free ride with one hand stretched in one direction and the other in the opposite direction. The cartoonist wanted to show that the hitch-hiker was merely interested in a free ride irrespective of the direction in which the vehicle would take him.
Bhutto’s attitude in politics was no different from that of the hitch-hiker. As an aside, one wonders, why Pakistani writers pillory General Ziaul Haq for damaging Pakistan’s polity through his Islamisation crusade but spare Bhutto for irreparably disfiguring it.
In the next round of game of thrones, Zia took the abuse of religion to new heights when he got the apex court to rule that Ahmadis could not enjoy their civic and political rights as citizens of Pakistan to practice Islam in public. Besides, he introduced blasphemy law and other highly divisive and controversial religious laws which irredeemably distorted Pakistan’s polity. It is to be noticed that during this period the rightest media and parties equally played an unsavoury role. For example, a leading rightest newspaper advised Zia to introduce these laws in a way that no democratic government could put the clock back on them. The JI became Zia’s collaborator.
So this is the unsavoury story of our rulers’ abuse of religion to perpetuate their rule. Khan’s abuse of the religion appears to be no worse than that of his predecessors. However, unfortunately, this is not the end of the story. He has made certain utterances on the religion which have made his detractors assert that he has crossed red lines.
Consider. During the holy Prophet’s period, non-believers, on returning home, were often amazed to find that their household had embraced the Prophet’s religion. Similarly, Khan propagates, you should spread my message is such a way that my opponents are stupefied to discover that their household is leaving them for my sake; spread my message far and wide just as the prophets propagated the God’s message; whosoever does not accept my message is guilty of shirk; loyalty towards me is superior to the performance of ummah; and that the God is preparing me as he prepared the holy prophet. Examples are galore on this count.
What do these pronouncements signal? Is Khan getting ready to declare some kind of divine status or is it just a vote getting gimmick?
He is exploiting the peoples’ religious sentiments to win political support. The heavy streak of narcissism in him explains the release of religious adrenaline. Though that does not rule out the next step towards a declaration of divinity.
There are examples in history where highly successful individuals, such as Alexander the Great, came to believe that they possessed superhuman qualities and were thus endowed with some kind of divinity. It is incontestable that given his track record in philanthropy and education, unmatched charisma in politics and accomplishments against insurmountable odds, makes even his worst detractors to acknowledge that Khan possesses superhuman qualities. He too seems convinced that he can do anything; and that the word ‘impossible’ does not exist in his dictionary.
Whether or not he claims divinity for himself will depend on how things shape in the future.
(It may be noted that when Benazir started wearing a chaddar, Habib Jaleb advised her to put on a false beard as well to complete the pantomime).
Khan claims he is seeking power not for personal glory but for building Riasat-e-Medina a la Prophet of Islam. His speeches are sprinkled with verses from the Quran and references to lives of the Prophet (PBUH) and Khulafa-e-Rashidin.
Besides, he has placed the ongoing power struggle between him and his political rivals as a clash between good and evil -- his political opponents obviously being incarnation of the evil. He has also claimed that hell will be waiting in the afterlife for those voting against his party at the ballot box.
Khan is not the first politician to abuse religion towards political ends. Pakistan’s history is replete with similar examples. However, no other politician, civil or military, has abused it as much as him. Many believe that he has crossed red lines in its abuse.
How far is this charge justified? Where could this slippery slope lead us?
Late Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan committed the ‘original sin’ when in 1949 he used religion to get the Objectives Resolution adopted which prescribed Islam as the state religion. This was at odds with the Quaid-e-Azam Muhammed Ali Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan that he spelled out on August 11, 1947 which envisaged equal rights for all Pakistanis and separated state and religion. Liaquat Ali Khan knew that the Quaid used religion to unite the subcontinents’ Muslims for the establishment of Pakistan. He knew the path he was embarking on was an antithesis of the Quaid’s vision. Still, he treaded on that path for his political survival, as the rightest parties, especially the Jama’at-e-Islami (JI), put pressure on him for making Pakistan an Islamic state. He sacrificed the principle for politics. Morally speaking, JI’s Abul A’la Maududi had no business to come to Pakistan because he detested Jinnah and regarded Pakistan an abomination.
Late Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan committed the ‘original sin’ when in 1949 he used religion to get the Objectives Resolution adopted which prescribed Islam as the state religion.
In any case, the Objectives Resolution granted an official licence to politicians to use religion for political purposes.
Here enters Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. He was an inveterate secularist but the lure of power made him do things which would curry favour with the masses opiated with religion. Seizing upon an incident that pitted Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba (IJT) members against Jama’at Ahmadiyya youth he got the National Assembly (NA) declare Ahmadis as non-Muslims. It is true that the NA stictu sensu designated them non-Muslims for constitutional purposes only but Bhutto must have known that the genie he was allowing to get out of the bottle would irretrievably hurt the Ahmadi community and the Pakistani polity.
Z.A. Bhutto’s insatiable hunger for power reminds us of a cartoon that appeared in Le Monde during the early 1970s which showed an Afghan, standing in the middle of a road in Kabul, hitch-hiking for a free ride with one hand stretched in one direction and the other in the opposite direction. The cartoonist wanted to show that the hitch-hiker was merely interested in a free ride irrespective of the direction in which the vehicle would take him.
Bhutto’s attitude in politics was no different from that of the hitch-hiker. As an aside, one wonders, why Pakistani writers pillory General Ziaul Haq for damaging Pakistan’s polity through his Islamisation crusade but spare Bhutto for irreparably disfiguring it.
In the next round of game of thrones, Zia took the abuse of religion to new heights when he got the apex court to rule that Ahmadis could not enjoy their civic and political rights as citizens of Pakistan to practice Islam in public. Besides, he introduced blasphemy law and other highly divisive and controversial religious laws which irredeemably distorted Pakistan’s polity. It is to be noticed that during this period the rightest media and parties equally played an unsavoury role. For example, a leading rightest newspaper advised Zia to introduce these laws in a way that no democratic government could put the clock back on them. The JI became Zia’s collaborator.
So this is the unsavoury story of our rulers’ abuse of religion to perpetuate their rule. Khan’s abuse of the religion appears to be no worse than that of his predecessors. However, unfortunately, this is not the end of the story. He has made certain utterances on the religion which have made his detractors assert that he has crossed red lines.
He is exploiting the peoples’ religious sentiments to win political support. The heavy streak of narcissism in him explains the release of religious adrenaline. Though that does not rule out the next step towards a declaration of divinity.
Consider. During the holy Prophet’s period, non-believers, on returning home, were often amazed to find that their household had embraced the Prophet’s religion. Similarly, Khan propagates, you should spread my message is such a way that my opponents are stupefied to discover that their household is leaving them for my sake; spread my message far and wide just as the prophets propagated the God’s message; whosoever does not accept my message is guilty of shirk; loyalty towards me is superior to the performance of ummah; and that the God is preparing me as he prepared the holy prophet. Examples are galore on this count.
What do these pronouncements signal? Is Khan getting ready to declare some kind of divine status or is it just a vote getting gimmick?
He is exploiting the peoples’ religious sentiments to win political support. The heavy streak of narcissism in him explains the release of religious adrenaline. Though that does not rule out the next step towards a declaration of divinity.
There are examples in history where highly successful individuals, such as Alexander the Great, came to believe that they possessed superhuman qualities and were thus endowed with some kind of divinity. It is incontestable that given his track record in philanthropy and education, unmatched charisma in politics and accomplishments against insurmountable odds, makes even his worst detractors to acknowledge that Khan possesses superhuman qualities. He too seems convinced that he can do anything; and that the word ‘impossible’ does not exist in his dictionary.
Whether or not he claims divinity for himself will depend on how things shape in the future.