Small signs of support: Protest rallies were held across Pakistan in various cities to protest the US raid in Abbottabad and the death of Osama bin Laden, but the crowds at most were small.

Over the last decade, our nation has gone through a significant ideological transformation on key political issues. If this wasn’t clear enough in recent years, the death of Osama bin Laden at the hands of US Navy SEALs on Pakistani soil has made it crystal clear now.

Never before has the US been so overwhelmingly detested in Pakistan as they are now. Just try to quote one example from the past when our religious political parties ever had the desire, or guts, to criticise any military operation carried out against the nationalist movements in Balochistan and East Pakistan, or the democratic movements in Sindh and Punjab. Not easy, right?

But now these religious parties waste no opportunity to curse military operations against terrorists in the country. What has changed their mindset so radically? Why has an act that they once considered legal and unavoidable for the integrity of the country now become illegal and unacceptable to them?  The rift between the government and the religious parties has now become very wide and deep. Now, these two sides disagree with each other on most of the fundamental national issues.

In a press release from May 2, 2011, Pakistan’s foreign office stated, “More than 5,000 Pakistani security and armed forces officials have been martyred in Pakistan’s campaign against Al-Qaeda, other terrorist organisations and affiliates.” This might have been the first time in the history of Pakistan that a government-issued press release blamed Al-Qaeda and its affiliates for unleashing death and tyranny in this country. This is diametrically opposite to what most of the supporters of bin Laden have been saying since his death on May 2. They claim that Al-Qaeda, and specifically its leader, were never hostile to Pakistan. Contrary to what the government says, bin Laden is still portrayed by his supporters as a holy warrior who sacrificed his life fighting against the forces of Pharaoh. The government of Pakistan and all those who criticise the policies of Al-Qaeda are now being depicted in the Urdu press as traitors siding with the forces of infidels. According to a report that appeared in the daily Jang on May 7, 2011, Osama bin Laden’s son Hamza bin Laden was among the militants who attacked Pakistani forces in Waziristan back in 2005. Yet, he is now regarded as a hero by those who were once always very quick to label critics of the Pakistan army as anti-Pakistani or anti-Islamic. So while Osama bin Laden and his followers are accused by the government of not only killing innocent citizens but also army personnel, these facts bring no remorse to the country’s religious parties and their supporters. Their faithfulness to the perpetrator of these crimes remains alive and is thriving.

Currently, the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) stands out as a most vocal religious party upholding Osama as a hero of the Muslim ummah. History shows us that the JI was actively involved in supporting a campaign that labelled Sheikh Mujibur Rahman a traitor and a person under the influence of the Hindu leadership of India. The witch-hunt against him continued until his landslide electoral victory in the majority province of a then united country when he became the undisputed hero of the people of East Pakistan. When the military began its operation in East Pakistan to quell the alleged insurgency there, its main allies on the civilian front were the Muslim League and the JI, who ran a counter-insurgency movement under the names of Al-Shams and Al-Badar. Ironically, the JI is now calling Osama bin Laden a hero while he has been blamed for anti-state activities and the killing of thousands of civilians and security officials. Moreover, it is no secret that bin Laden didn’t approve of the close partnership between the US and Pakistan in the war on terror. In 2007, the Al-Qaeda leader had called on Muslims in Pakistan to wage jihad against their government. So, the JI is now supporting an organisation that, to the present Pakistani government, appears to be the equivalent of the former Mukti Bahini.

Of course, things started differently back in the 1960s. Merely raising a six-point agenda for provincial autonomy was deemed enough to declare Mujibur Rahman disloyal to the country, and in 1971 it was further used to justify an eventual march by the military to crush the largest elected political party of the country. The violent reaction of the Bengali population against the military operation under the banner of Mukti Bahini was, and is still, used as a justification for the massacre carried out in East Pakistan by the military. The rationale in West Pakistan was the Islamic Republic of Pakistan had to be saved from dismemberment: political and military leaders hailing from the western portion had assumed authority as the custodians of the country and its ideology. The JI and other political parties from West Pakistan were in full support of this operation.

What we are facing in Pakistan now is a kind of repeat of what we experienced back in 1971. Only this time, the roles have been changed. Instead of a national leader playing in the main role, a non-national is assigned the title of leader by his followers. He didn’t gain this title by working peacefully for the rights of the people he leads. He became a leader by default, and that too because of the militancy he engaged in. He never presented himself openly in public and never led any peaceful political procession. He didn’t even contest any national election to determine his electoral strength and popularity. Yet, he led and guided his followers from unknown hideouts and never tried to restrain his disciples from conducting terrorist attacks on the innocent citizens of the country in which he was enjoying well-sheltered accommodation. All these deeds sound like crimes to many, but they didn’t to his followers. Patriotism has a different meaning for them. It seems as though the killing of Pakistani nationals by non-nationals and providing support to such elements are not at all unpatriotic or un-Islamic for the JI and many other similar religious parties in the country now. In this case, ostensibly, taking up arms against the country, and that too by those who have no legitimate representation in the country, is neither regarded as an act of rebellion or war, nor a violation of sovereignty.

Poor Bengalis, I feel pity for them because of the price they had to pay for not electing a single member of the JI in the election of 1971! Changing rules and principles to suit the political ambitions of a section of the population might give opportunists some temporary advantages but ultimately it will fail to establish the rule of law in the country. The rule of law is not established by influencing the law with any ideology, it is established when we make it free from political or religious influences. The illegal steps taken in 1971 against Mujibur Rahman haunt us to this day. A similar fate will await us again, if we fail to take honest and just steps, free from all prejudices.