WITHOUT going into the debate of who the honorific can be bestowed upon, let us focus on the etymology of the root word ‘maula’. In Arabic, it means ‘master’; with the suffix ‘na’, it means ‘our master’. Historically, personages of reverence were addressed as ‘maulana’. Gradually, standards of knowledge or assumptions of piety receded amongst its qualifications, and mostly anyone with a bearded visage could be elevated to it. Famous journalist Chiragh Hasan Hasrat was given to using it with reckless abandon, the clean-shaven state of the addressed notwithstanding. Tomes of Persian and Urdu poetry are interpreted as having a homosexual undercurrent because they endlessly talk about the fuzz on the beloved’s face. This, of course, ignores the biological changes adolescents of both sexes go through during puberty. Much before the Korean dramas and their lead characters’ translucent skins became all the rage, many a damsel wore their natural shade of green till societal norms or personal freedom afforded more adventurous beauty regimes. Before the poor poets of yore are further accused of cradle snatching, let’s not forget that many poets in the Eastern tradition started composing poetry in their early teens; hence, these nubile love interests, primarily imaginary, are entirely age-appropriate, their facial sprouting notwithstanding. Single-name recognition is restricted to the rockstar celebrity status; ie, no one will ever ask, ‘Elvis, who?’ If you hear only ‘mir’, a shortened version of the Arabic title ‘ameer’, no chieftain would come to mind; it has to be Taqi Mir, the poet. Becoming an honorific’s sole reference grants an even more exalted status amongst the multitudes of lesser mortals. Among those familiar with the Turkish tradition, there is no reference to the Turkish dramas here; it is common knowledge that ‘mevlana’, without any name attached to it, means Jalal al-din Rumi. Lately, in the land of the pure, there has been only one maulana; no one else among the 120 million or so men in the country would come to mind but Fazlur Rehman of the JUI-F. It is fascinating to learn how and who built the Maulana into this icon of political brinkmanship, an almost singular arbiter of power. If you look at the numbers, his party boasts across the legislative spectrum — eight seats in the National Assembly, five in the Senate, nine in KP and 12 in the Balochistan assemblies — the mystery deepens. There was a time when the MQM, with its 25 or so seats in the 300-plus NA and an impressive showing in Sindh, used to be the go-to party for alliances, votes of no-confidence, or constitutional amendments. Nine-zero in Karachi and later London, the party’s HQ, decided whether a coalition or an alliance was to survive. How it used this bargaining advantage and what it got for its constituents is the subject of another piece; suffice it to say, the architects of chaos have relegated this goose to the deep freezer to be brought out, thawed, and cooked some more at an appropriate time. Lately, there has been only one maulana. The bane of human existence is that the strongest desires are realised under the worst circumstances. The latest comedy of errors regarding the proposed constitutional amendment ostensibly to emasculate the judiciary drew protests from every sane quarter. While the proponents of democracy, the heirs of the Charter of Democracy, were running from pillar to post, mainly in the compound of the Maulana, it is the latter who emerged as the custodian of democratic norms and refused to throw his legislative weight to tip the scales in favour of the mystery amendment. Over the decades, many parties, including the PPP and MQM, have boycotted polls and lived to rue their decision. Their leadership fessed up to the political immaturity of such decisions. However, the Maulana’s party has consistently participated in the electoral process. In essence, it should be great news that democratic norms are earning newer and stronger adherents, and that too amongst those traditionally seen as opposed to electoral politics. However, there are problems. The Maulana’s beaming face that has adorned most photo-ops at recent constitutional conclaves is also seen presiding over public events where people are incited to target constitutional minorities. A blasphemy suspect was recently murdered in custody by a policeman in Quetta. A senator from the Maulana’s party supported the killing and announced bearing all legal expenses for the killer’s defence. For now, the party has the best of both worlds; the senator will not have to cough up any legal fees; the heirs of the victim have ‘forgiven’ the murderer. In worldly affairs, the Maulana sits pretty, while Mevlana’s dervishes are caught in the whirlwinds of time.