It has become something of a political cliché to blame Zia-ul-Haq for everything intolerant in this country. I have no desire to defend Gen Zia for his legacy (if you can call it a legacy at all) had the worst impact on our social fabric. Yet blaming one man or one regime for every negative trend in the society is not only overtly simplistic albeit politically convenient but it has the potential of distracting us from finding the real causes of intolerance. It is true that Zia introduced us to the culture of Jihadi non state actors, drug and weapon proliferation and of course the political intolerance in the garb of wafer thin religiosity.  But were the laws on prohibition and on the issue of Qadianis not adopted much before Zia’s takeover. And of course who can possibly forget the Rawalpindi conspiracy case? There most certainly is, then, a legacy of intolerance aided and abetted by political opportunism which has brought us to the current precipice.

Just a few days ago Altaf Hussain called for the Qadianis to be allowed to preach their faith freely. However within no time we found him, under political duress of course, reiterating the importance of Khatam Nabuwat (or finality of Prophethood). This has assumed the shape of a pattern. A politician comes out with a statement in defense of this politically underprivileged community, the next thing we know is that the same person is found reiterating his Muslim credentials out of fear of being declared a non-Muslim or Qadiani. Unfortunately while the civil society has grown considerably in this country it has not been able to fight such sorry trends. Protecting someone’s right to exist does not mean that you have to become one of his lot. I am not a Qadiani and have never been attracted by their worldview but that does not mean that I do not feel duty bound to fight for the rights of a Qadiani citizen or any minority group and their right to exist. One should have expected at least this much from the enlightened few in a polity committed to democracy and republicanism. Yet in this gloom such hope is hard to come by.

The biggest problem here is that thanks to the indoctrination of our religious elite our people are unsure whether they want to be a retrogressive and of course reductionist theocracy or a modern progressive democracy. And this summation is not one Bush’s proverbial my way or the highway quasi choices. History bears testimony to the fact that there are only two kinds of states today: the states which owing to some ideational or other contradictions are failing rapidly and the states that have opted to attach more importance to the rights of their citizens instead of ambiguous ideologies and hence are prospering steadily. Plainly black and white here and no gray areas. If you do not agree kindly find one country today that has made it to the top harmoniously with an ideology rather than the rights of its citizens as a priority. I know someone may mention China or Israel but while the former is rapidly reforming its worldview in order to progress the latter is still facing huge existential challenges.

If truth be told our own radicalization owes a lot to the existential issues. A country carved out of India for the Muslims of the subcontinent certainly needed a grand narrative as a rationale for existence, or so it was thought. The Muslim religious elite that had actually opposed the creation of this state then  started advocating for a religious as opposed to a secular state. What was the point in creating a separate country if it was to be as secular as India, they asked. And hence a grand narrative based on religiosity was invented which has been exploited thus far by the religious rent seekers to gain a wide berth.

Faith, however, is a private matter and so should it remain. A  state should have nothing to do with such private matters. As for the grand narratives here is an antidote. To my generation that was born in this country, especially after the fall of Dhakka, apart from a mere academic debate, it matters not how or why this country was founded. It is our home and we do not need any excuse for its existence. What matters to us is its strong, pluralistic and democratic future. If future custodians of the country, the civil society and the citizenry at large grasp this simple fact of life, I am sure that the political class will follow suit in fighting the retrogressive and intolerant trends. Enough of the reductionist blackmail then.