|
Q: Given the religious parties' past electoral performance,
did you expect such a huge victory for the MMA?
A: It is a misconception that the religious
parties have not fared well in previous elections. If you consider
how many votes the religious parties got in the '70 elections independent
of each other, and put them together, they will add up to approximately
the same number as we have mustered this time. Although we contested
on more seats then, we were contesting against each other, so we
didn't get the results we should have.
The other factor that cost us votes [on previous occasions] was
that when we were contesting against each other, the common man
saw us as sectarian organisations and most people are opposed to
sectarianism. They felt we took the name of Islam, but couldn't
even agree on its basic tenets. So there was a lot of resentment
against us, even among those who were ideologically affiliated with
us and were our natural supporters.
A ripple of joy ran through these people when they saw us on one
platform speaking with one voice.
[This turn of events] was welcomed even more because usually politics
and elections separate people, they don't bring them together. But
here we were at this crucial election juncture, having come together.
And we were the first among the parties in the race to agree on
a distribution of seats, the first to select our office bearers,
from the president and vice president, all the way down the hierarchy.
All of this happened within a couple of months. Even the press called
it "incredible."
This was the fundamental basis of our success in the election. And
to answer your question, yes, I had faith that if we united we could
effect a huge change [in the voting pattern], particularly in the
Frontier.
Q: Don't you think the burgeoning anti-American
sentiment in Pakistan played a major role in the MMA's victory?
A: No, this is not a new phenomenon. If you
reflect on the 1970 elections you will recall how American flags
were burnt in all the PPP processions. I don't see our success as
anything other than an expression of joy among people over the unification
of the religious parties.
Q: How do you respond to perceptions that the ISI
helped prop up the MMA to no small extent?
A: I think the ISI could never play such a constructive
role - their role has always been to divide rather than bring together.
Q: Doesn't the fact that the MMA - like the other
political parties - chose to participate in and not boycott the
elections, imply a tacit acceptance of the Legal framework Order
(LFO), considering the elections were held under this ordinance?
A: We will take oath under the constitution.
They say the LFO and the amendments are all part of the constitution.
We reject this. We say there is only one constitution - that which
was suspended on October 12 - and all the amendments that have been
introduced are illegal. However, we adopted a pragmatic approach
- if we had not participated in the elections, we would not have
been where we are today. And I believe that in the process of the
transfer of power we will have to show flexibility - and so will
they [the military regime]. We will follow whatever procedure is
necessary to attain the restoration of democracy, supremacy of the
constitution and sovereignty of Parliament. But we will not waiver
from our principled stand.
Q: How effective do you believe Parliament can be
in the existing set-up?
A: We consider the set-up illegal. And when
Parliament starts functioning, its powers will gradually be enhanced.
Q: Do you accept General Musharraf as President?
A: We are willing to allow the President to
play his role - but only within the parameters of the constitution.
We say the President should have himself elected constitutionally.
Q: Clearly then you do not accept the referendum
A: I have taken this matter to the Supreme Court.
My stand was that the referendum was not constitutionally valid
and the Supreme Court agreed. But they said 'the constitution is
in abeyance, there is a PCO, an emergency order. We are constrained
to pass judgements according to this, not the constitution.' But
the judgement also clearly said that at the proper time and in the
proper forum I could once again take my case to court.
Q: The MMA will in all certainty form the government
in the Frontier and possibly, also in Balochistan. Both provinces
are in the frontline in the combined US-Pak operation against Al-Qaeda.
What line will the MMA take considering its much publicised position
on this issue, which is in total variance with the military government's
undertaking to the United States?
A: This policy is a result of the military government's
weakness. They don't have roots, they have imposed themselves, they
are not of the masses. When our government is in place, there is
no possibility of any group engaging in any activity that will disrupt
peace and order at home or conducting operations in foreign countries.
The government is responsible for the peace and security of its
people; a responsible government will not tolerate its soil being
used by people of other countries working against its citizens or
against a foreign country. We don't need the Americans to establish
peace and security in our country, we don't need their bases. We
will not allow our soil to be used by any foreign power against
Afghanistan or any other country.
Q: Do you refute the existence of Al-Qaeda?
A: To us it's just a name; we don't know anything
about it. But when we have our own government, it will be a government
of the people. And we will try to facilitate the establishment of
a government in Afghanistan that will be acceptable to the world
and the Afghan people, and which will not require the presence of
foreign troops.
Q: Do you believe General Musharraf had any other
choice apart from allying with the US after September 11?
A: General Musharraf needed courage, he needed
wisdom. The problem is there was no institution in the country at
that time and he did not consult anyone, not even his own army generals.
This was a huge weakness in the regime. We only learnt later that
he had adopted this [post September 11] policy.
Q: What would you have done in his place?
A: We would have worked through an institution.
We are not dictators. We would have consulted others, elicited public
opinion, sought our neighbours' views. In the process, a bit of
time would have lapsed; we would have gained time to prepare ourselves
[to formulate a policy].
We certainly wouldn't have immediately offered our skies, our bases,
logistics support and intelligence information, or taken the entire
burden on ourselves after just one phone call [from the US].
Q: The religious parties have been in the vanguard
of the jihad in Kashmir. How would this translate into policy when
in government?
A: All our policies, including those on Afghanistan
and Kashmir, will be subject to the approval of Parliament after
discussion in the house. But remember, it's not just the MMA that
will be sitting in Parliament - apart from us there are many other
parties that will be there too. We will adopt whatever policy is
agreed upon by consensus.
Q: The MMA comprises six parties, among whom the
JUI has secured the most seats. Will ministries be divided accordingly
where the MMA forms the government?
A: Actually our party (the Jamaat-e-Islami)
and the JUI each won approximately the same number of seats. There
is no scramble within the MMA for portfolios - we really aren't
interested. From the outset I have said I will take no ministry.
I want to be of service to the people, to work alongside them. Ministers
voices don't really reach the people. My voice alhamdolillah reaches
far and wide. It reaches everyone.
Q: Endless statements have emanated from MMA leaders,
including yourself, about fashioning Pakistan according to your
perception of what a Muslim country should be. Specifically, MMA
leaders have spoken of a ban on music and dance, of segregation
in academic institutions, etc. What kind of image of Pakistan would
you like to see?
A: Very simple. We would go along with the recommendations
of the Council of Islamic Ideology - which is a constitutional body.
It comprises several legal experts. It's president is always a legal
expert, it has among its ranks ulema from all schools of thought
and several intellectuals.
Q: Maulana Noorani has said he would ban dance and music
how do you feel about this?
A: The point is, we, the MMA, will not enjoy
absolute power; we are just one part of society. But within our
limits, we will do what is possible to create a society that conforms
to our beliefs, our views and our culture.
Q: You may not wield absolute power in the centre,
but you are almost certain to form the government in the Frontier.
And you have categorically stated you will enforce segregation in
academic institutions there. By the same yardstick then, isn't it
logical to assume that a ban on cable television etc. would follow
A: Firstly, I didn't say there should be segregation
- the women said it. Ten thousand women have asked for it. I read
their charter of demands and merely repeated it. The women's commission
has said 'we want a peaceful environment, we want separate universities'.
Q: Ten thousand women of the Jamaat
That apart,
how realistic a demand is it? We have barely any universities to
begin with, certainly not enough to cater to need, and even fewer
resources to establish more.
A: We are not saying we will establish new universities
immediately, we don't have the resources. What we are saying is
we will work towards mustering the resources. As a matter of fact,
I have a grouse against the press. We spoke of providing universal
literacy, and the press implied we are against education. We said
we will make primary education mandatory for all - men and women
- and for girls particularly, we will try and offer free education.
We have said we will not restrict women from working. In fact, we
have vowed to protect working women and to create the right environment
for this. We even provide rifle training for our women. It is part
of our programme to provide whatever women are allowed within the
Shariah and Hudood - nursing, first aid, rifle training, etc.
We have stated we will ban honour killings and in wata sata situations,
we will ensure that unless the girls involved give their consent,
these [marriages] will not be allowed - they are unIslamic. We have
issued a charter for women in which we have categorically stated
we will accord them respect. We will not adopt any oppressive policy
against women. Social changes are brought about through education,
learning and example. They cannot be implemented through the law.
Fifty years ago the situation in the bazaars was very different
to what it is today - but nobody had legally enforced purdah at
that time.
Actually, I object to the word segregation when used in reference
to separating the genders. In the west it is a derogatory term.
It was used for dividing people along racial lines. The fact is
that a mingling of the sexes is not part of our culture. In all
honourable families, even today, men and women are separate. If
you consider, at any function - whether it's a funeral or a Friday
congregation at the mosque - men and women are separate. In homes,
when male guests come, women do not sit with them. In every home
there are separate zenana and zenani (male, female) quarters. No
man likes to have an outside male intrude on his privacy, or sit
among his womenfolk.
A cultural attack has been launched against us, we are being forced
to change our culture.
Q: In certain tribal areas women were totally disenfranchised
- they were barred from voting. How do you feel about this?
A: This is also included in our charter - that
we acknowledge everyone's right to vote. In fact, we will work towards
ensuring that women come forward to vote. In our speeches we have
questioned what kind of custom it is that forbids women from voting.
After all they go, all dressed up, to weddings and other functions,
and their men have no objection to that. So if women choose to fulfill
their national obligation to vote, why are they barred from doing
so, especially since there are separate polling stations for women
and all the required arrangements can be made for them, protection
can be provided to them.
Q: How much truth is there in the allegation that
MMA leaders have distributed the reserved seats for women allocated
to it among their female family members?
A: This isn't true. Yes, my daughter has been
nominated, but she has a long history of involvement with the women's
wing of the Jamaat-e-Islami. This is common knowledge. She was nominated
for a seat because of her own role, her personal contribution, not
because she's my daughter. And I didn't prop her up; the women's
commission, of which she is a member, recommended her. The same
applies to the other reserved seats. No one has been nominated for
a seat on the basis of family connections.
Besides, there's no guarantee that everyone who's been nominated
will make it to the assemblies.
Q: Given the history of hostilities between - and
in the case of the Shia TNFJ, disparate ideologies of - the MMA's
component parties, do you think the MMA will be able to stay united?
A: We have all seen the benefits of unity; who
will be stupid enough to walk away now? Additionally, now there
will be public pressure upon us to stay together.
Q: Do all members of your alliance offer your prayers
together?
A: We have read our prayers ba-jamaat in Karachi,
before everyone - all of us together, Shia and Sunni.
Q: Do you think this grouping together will help
eliminate to any extent the menace of sectarianism?
A: It's already helped end it to a large extent,
it's made a big difference.
Q: The leaders of the MMA adopt the high moral ground
and seek to be the custodians of Pakistan's moral culture. Yet leaders
within the alliance have questionable moral credentials. Take Maulana
Fazlur Rehman, who earned himself the sobriquet 'Maulana Diesel'
for alleged dubious financial practices, or Maulana Samiul Haq better
known as 'Maulana Sandwich,' for his alleged involvement in a sordid
sex scandal in Islamabad. How do you reconcile these positions?
A: Please, don't ask me to comment on this.
Even if I were to defend them, I would be held responsible for it.
But I promise you, in future we will dispense justice, we will not
give ourselves any concessions, nor will we allow our party members
to allot themselves any concessions. We will not protect each other,
not even our sons or fathers, if they err or are on the wrong side
of the law. And we will never take revenge against our opponents.
This is our vow.
Q: Do you see the new government lasting?
A: Which ever government the MMA is part of
will be a truly popular government, a people's government. And it
will not be easy to dislodge it.
Q: So what kind of government do you envisage?
A: We would like to see a government where everyone
can come together - a government of consensus, of national reconciliation.
Whoever forms the government should respect the opposition and be
able to work with them. We seek to lay the foundation of a unitarian
society.
Q: Do you think Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif
should be allowed to return?
A: Yes
Well, I believe there are laws,
and everyone should adhere to them. The cases against them don't
have to be dropped if the charges are valid, but getting bail is
their legal right, even if the cases against them continue.
|