The operation silence with all its bloodshed is over, and the blood of hundreds of children, who became victims of this massacre, would have been wiped off the war-torn and deserted Lal Masjid by now. Its execution, however, raised a number of unanswered questions, which are and will be discussed on different national and international forums in days to come.

First, the very idea of implementing the writ of the state, all orchestrated, and executed by those who are allegedly involved in a number of violations of the constitution and thereby the state, seems ridiculous. The writ of the state was not harmed the day Chief-Justice, a symbol of constitution of Pakistan, was threatened in the President house. It was also not affected the day General Musharraf denounced the Chief Justice in public, not even when he congratulated the May 12 killers. The state’s authority was not challenged when thousands of people all over the country were kidnapped by the intelligence agencies which think themselves to be beyond all laws. But when hundreds of kids – only a few of whom were alleged to be involved in kidnappings – were massacred, and their books colored with their innocent blood, state’s writ was implemented with all its vigor.

The second part of this bloody episode was the way the writ thing was implemented. The execution of the operation seemed a complete show of fraud, confusion and public deception. People were told that 50-70 people had taken hostage some seven hundred students, and that foreign militants had joined the Madrassah authorities. Meanwhile, ulema of the Wafaqul Madaris, who witnessed the negotiations between Ghazi and ministers, blamed the president for the failure of negotiations. Later, when the operation was finally over, nobody could see the claimed foreign militants, or any hostages. Instead, kids’ books, all soaked in their own blood were seen strewn all over the bloody mosque. The hundreds of trained militants now simmered down to 102, and nobody knew or cared about the rest 500 who were present in the state’s supreme Math a day before, and were nowhere to be found now. Nowhere did the government feel the need of any explanation for this mass-deception.

What Ghazi and his followers did was indeed condemnable. The question here, however, is not a religious one. It is a human issue, where hundreds of innocent or manipulated children were killed when this disaster could be averted. It is the time when we should throw out religious divisions aside, and demonstrate true human values by condemning the massacre of children, secular and religious alike.

Lesson for the Government

General Musharraf promised the nation that he would not let any other madrassah become Lal Masjid. His claim, which may seem possible though, is highly improbable. Lal Masjid and similar other movements are normally taken to represent a religious fanatic force alone, which has support only from the like. Here a significant point is normally over looked: Lal-Masjid brigade, aside from promising to implement 'shariah', also promised social justice, and help to the suppressed - a commodity which is very rare in Pakistan. There is a huge vacuum created by the callous attitude of both the government and non-government organizations towards the objective of reinforcing the supremacy of the law, at all levels. This vacuum, as long as it exists, will ignite similar movements, and if the brute-force technique is any further used, its consequences can be even deadlier.

Meanwhile, government should refrain from unnecessarily hurting the religious emotions of the people. The NATO Forces or US invasion in Pakistani areas may provide ideal take-off point to the extremists. Musharraf’s call for music, even though it’s a petty issue, is a serious interference into personal affairs. The women protection bill, when it was denounced as un-Islamic by many religious circles, was continuously declared as Islamic by authorities. The best way could have been to leave the question of Islamic and un-Islamic on the masses’ disposal, thus demonstrating complete secularism. When you insist on something’s being Islamic, you invite huge emotional hullabaloo from those who think it is un-Islamic.

At this point, a revision of the constitution of Pakistan as well as educational material, or its refining is also required. The tough decision for the government in the coming days may be to define the future status of Pakistan: the easier way may be to let it remain ‘Islamic’, while slowly ‘enlightening’ the definition of Islamic by inclusion of similar statutes into the constitution. This path, though being more likely to be adopted by Musharraf, is disastrous as it may still lead many to the confusion that Pakistan means shariah, which in turn means fighting the immoral and irreligious elements, just the way Ghazi and co. thought.

So if Musharraf thinks attacking a few Madrassahs can effectively eradicate terrorism, he is wrong. An effective solution to the religious problems of Pakistan is one of the most difficult, intricate and threatening controversies of the past and present of Pakistan. Mass-raiding little madrassahs is not the permanent solution problem of the problem. If government is serious about solving this controversy, it will need to find a consistent definition of religion and all its related terminologies, which obviously, is not the case right now.

Lessons for the religious clerics

The simplest lesson to be learnt for religious circles from the Lal-Masjid incident is that truth in any religion is relative. Lal-masjid fight, to me, was a fight between two definitions of Islam, one believed by the authorities and the other by the Lal-Masjid brigade. And future controversies can only be averted if we can unify these definitions, or if that is impossible, let everyone live with his or her definition.

To many of us, implementing shariah and enforcing Islam in Pakistan may not even be an option. It might seem quite absurd to mention secularism and ‘enforcement of Islam’ in the same lines. However, if we can just look at the history of this controversy, things do make sense.

It is often claimed by religious authorities, semi-religious elements, and even the masses that Pakistan was established in the name of Islam. Historically, though it's debatable, it is not completely deniable. Thus, declaration of 'implementation of shariah' as the state's objective by the Government of Pakistan, religious clerics and fanatics does make sense. But the point to understand for the religious clerics is that the definition of the word Islam is not unified, in fact it is one of the most confusing ones of our time. So, it is need of the hour to opt for one of the two: unify Islam or let Pakistan be secular.

The first option shows to the clerics the only ray of hope, a unified model of a Muslim state. But this task will require umpteenth tolerance, sincerity and rigorous legislation, from all religious groups. The somewhat unpleasant side of this option is that to the extent that Islam is open to interpretation, it may not be possible to unify it.

The other option, of letting everyone live his life, implies ‘irreligious acceptance of American rule’ to many, which it is not. Considering the objective situation of religious leadership in Pakistan, the second option may seem as the more viable one. But Government may not have enough cards to use this option, as the masses are largely against it. Additionally, our educational setup, our constitution and the overall environment has been continuously brainwashing our people for years. They may not know what an Islamic system is, but they do want to give it a chance.

Lessons for the Liberals

Lal Masjid operation, the way it was conducted, seemed to have provided room for various human rights activists to come in and demonstrate integral resolve of upholding humanitarian rules, irrespective of the political agenda. Not many, however, succeeded in doing that, a fact that might have further widened the gulf between the 'liberal' and 'religious' in Pakistan. Pakistan seems to be housing two opposite religious groups, both fighting against each other. It is the extent of this fight that may determine the immediate future of Pakistan.

The bottom line is that moving forward means change in attitude and thought for everyone. But the immediate signs do not show that it is very likely to take place in near future.