The End of Jinnah’s Pakistan

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

The End of Jinnah’s Pakistan

Governor Salmaan Taseer's murder raises questions about the future of Pakistan’s Western-educated elites.

By SADANAND DHUME

Every time you think things can’t possibly get worse in Pakistan, along comes something to prove you wrong. On Tuesday, in possibly the country’s most consequential political shock since the 2007 murder of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, Salmaan Taseer, the 65-year-old governor of Punjab province, was gunned down in an upscale Islamabad market by one of his police bodyguards. The reason: the governor’s plain-spoken defense of Asia Bibi, an illiterate Christian woman sentenced to death under Pakistan’s harsh blasphemy laws. According to press reports, Taseer’s killer pumped nine bullets into him for daring to call the blasphemy provision a “black law.”

Muhammad Ali Jinnah, far right, at the 1947 partition conference.

Needless to say, Taseer was right. Pakistan’s blasphemy laws belong more in a chronicle of medieval horrors than in a modern society, let alone one that receives billions of dollars in Western largesse. Since the mid-1980s, blasphemy—including criticizing the prophet Mohammed—has carried a mandatory death sentence. Amnesty International calls the laws “vaguely formulated and arbitrarily enforced” and “typically employed to harass and persecute religious minorities.” Over the past quarter century, at least 30 people have been lynched by mobs after being accused of blasphemy. Many others have been forced to flee the country. Though Christians make up less than 2% of Pakistan’s population, they account for about half the country’s blasphemy cases.

In a larger sense, however, the significance of Taseer’s murder lies in what it says about the future of nuclear-armed Pakistan. Carved out of the Muslim-majority provinces of British India in 1947, the country has long struggled to reconcile two competing visions of its reason for being. Is Pakistan, as imagined by its founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah—a London-trained barrister with a fondness for pork sandwiches and two-toned spats—merely a homeland for the subcontinent’s Muslims? Or was it created to echo the far more ambitious formulation of Abul Ala Maududi, the radical Islamist ideologue born roughly a generation after Jinnah: for the enforcement of Islamic Shariah law upon every aspect of society and the state?

Taseer broadly belonged to Jinnah’s Pakistan. He was educated as a chartered accountant in England, founded a successful telecom company, and published the country’s leading liberal newspaper in English. (Though, as the son of a famous Urdu poet, Taseer was perhaps more culturally authentic than his nation’s founder.) By contrast, Taseer’s killer, a 26-year-old named Mumtaz Qadri, symbolizes Maududi’s vision. In photographs, he’s bearded and moustache-less, in the manner prescribed by fundamentalist Islam. That Mr. Qadri could defy South Asia’s usually rigid codes of hierarchy by murdering someone far above his station jibes with the contempt radical Islamists often feel for traditional elites. According to press reports, Mr. Qadri showed no remorse for the murder.

The murder highlights anew the way in which Pakistan’s English-speaking classes resemble a small island of urbanity surrounded by a rising tide of fundamentalist zeal. They have only themselves to blame for their predicament. From independence onward, successive governments—military and civilian alike—have ridden the tiger of fundamentalism out of political expediency, misplaced piety or geopolitical ambition. A statistic from Zahid Hussain’s “Frontline Pakistan” is telling: When Pakistan gained independence in 1947 it housed 137 madrassas. That number has since swelled to about 13,000, between 10% and 15% of which are linked to sectarian militancy (Sunni versus Shia) or terrorism.

For many analysts, Pakistan’s slide began during the prime ministership of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the debonair, Scotch-swilling feudal from Sindh first elected in 1970. Believing that he could co-opt the then small fundamentalist lobby, Bhutto banned alcohol and gambling and shuttered night clubs. He replaced the traditional Sunday holiday with Friday and declared the tiny heterodox Ahmadiyya sect to be non-Muslim. Bhutto promoted the pious and ultimately treacherous Zia ul-Haq to head the army.

After Zia seized power in a coup in 1977, the Islamization of Pakistan took off in earnest. The general set up Shariah courts, began government collection of zakat (an Islamic alms tax), denuded libraries of books deemed un-Islamic, and mandated compulsory prayer for civil servants and marks in their personnel files for piety. In the 1980s, army officers were instructed to read “The Quranic Concept of War,” a book by a zealous officer, Brigadier General S.K. Malik, which argues that “terror struck in the hearts of the enemies is not only a means, it is the end in itself.” Many of these officers subsequently rotated through the notorious Inter-Services Intelligence whose links to violent fundamentalist groups fighting NATO troops in Afghanistan and India in Kashmir are widely regarded as too deep to sever entirely.

Since the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the U.S. has worked hard to stem the rising tide of fundamentalism in Pakistan. First it backed the military strongman Gen. Pervez Musharraf. When he failed to deliver, policy makers in Washington held out hope that a democratically elected government, armed with greater legitimacy, would fight a better fight. But so far—despite co-operating with stepped-up U.S. drone strikes against militants in the country’s remoter reaches—the regime of President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani has hardly succeeded in stemming the tide of fundamentalist anger in either Pakistan or Afghanistan.

Perhaps Governor Taseer’s murder will lead the country’s squabbling politicians and scheming generals to come together in a renewed bid to save Jinnah’s country from Maududi’s vision. Perhaps Pakistani society will be outraged enough to act against the thousands of madrassas that poison the country daily. But if the past is any guide to the future, it may not be a good idea to hold your breath. Jinnah, it can safely be assumed, is spinning in his grave.

Mr. Dhume is a columnist for WSJ.com and a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, DC.

URL: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704723104576062961607588454.html

COMMENT: No to blasphemy laws

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

COMMENT: No to blasphemy laws — Marvi Sirmed

One is amazed at the audacity of the advocates of blasphemy laws, who think of themselves as vigilant guards of not only the Almighty, but religious personages as well, thereby creating an illusion that God and the Prophet (PBUH) might not be able to deal with the blasphemer

It is nothing much, just one more conviction under the Blasphemy Law of Pakistan. This time, it is a woman. Aasia Bibi gets her fate written by an Additional Sessions Court in Nankana Sahib, District Sheikhupura. We have, it seems, successfully saved the honour of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH).

A simplistic, popular argument in favour of the faulty black laws of blasphemy has been that, as committed Muslims, we cannot let blasphemers get off scot-free. And since the law of the land asks for capital punishment for the crime of blasphemy, it is obligatory to pursue such cases with public vigilance. To an ordinary thinking mind, this increasing insecurity about the honour of Islam, the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and Holy Quran looks ridiculously misplaced. Ever since the blasphemy laws were promulgated in the Indo-Pak subcontinent, they seem to have instigated violence against religious minorities.

Blasphemy accusations were regularly levelled against the Sufi mystics before and during Mughal India. In most of these cases, orthodox schools of religious thought used blasphemy as a pretext for settling other scores. One can see it in the case of Sufi saint Sarmad Shaheed who was beheaded by Aurangzeb, Baba Bulleh Shah who was thrown out of his native Kasur on charges of blasphemy, and even Rahman Baba who was accused of being an atheist and had to defend the conspiracies to oust him from his village, Hazar Khwani, in Mohmand district of the then Peshawar province.

It, however, remained largely an activity of the royal courts to invoke blasphemy against Sufis or political opponents. The scourge of popular vigilantism entered Indian society after the 1860s Blasphemy Law inclusion in the India penal code. There was no looking back after this, especially after Pakistan came into being. The first major case of blasphemy that got public attention and a permanent imprint on the Muslim mind was that of Ilam Din (called Ghazi and Shaheed simultaneously). Ilam Din, as the legend goes, was an ordinary Muslim son of a carpenter and irregular mosque-goer. It was the oratory of the clerics Maulana Ahmed Saeed Dehlvi and Amir-e-Shariat in a protest meeting against the publication of a profane book against Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) that instigated the carpenter’s son to get up, hold up the dagger and stab the publisher to death. This act of murder without any conviction by a court of law (the matter was still sub judice) was hailed by all and sundry, including the entire range of Muslim political leaders. Ilam Din is still revered for this “valour”, “act of piety for sheer love of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH)” and for being “a matchless warrior”, as Dr Sir Allama Iqbal was quoted as saying at Ilam Din’s funeral in the Encyclopaedia of World Muslims.

After Pakistan came into being, we had to rely on the excessive use of Islamic symbolism to justify our existence as a separate entity from parent India, and to avoid a further breakdown through the generous provision of religious adhesive to an otherwise multi-ethnic, multi-cultural federation. The Islamisation of laws was an easy tool to adopt that outlook. It was no later than the early 1950s that pogroms against the Hindu population started in Khulna and other parts of East Pakistan, but also the fierce attacks on Ahmedis and Christians in West Pakistan. The existing Blasphemy Law provided an easy solution for pushing minorities against the wall. What is most troublesome is that even in those days popular vigilantism was allowed to let go unchecked, rather it was patronised.

Aasia Bibi’s case is not the only shame Pakistan has had to suffer; we have many such cases to our credit, especially after 1992 when 295-C was further amended to make death the obligatory blasphemy sentence. A cursory look at the data amply shows a sudden surge in blasphemy cases post-1992.

Section 295 of the Pakistan penal code prohibits “injuring or defiling a place of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class”. Section 295-A forbids “deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs”. Section 295-B puts a bar on “defiling, etc, of the Holy Quran”. Section 295-C forbids the “use of derogatory remarks, etc, in respect of the Holy Prophet (PBUH)”. There is an additional Section 298 that forbids “uttering words, etc, with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings”. Three more sections, Section 298-A (use of derogatory remarks, etc, in respect of holy personages), 298-B (misuse of epithets, descriptions and titles, etc, reserved for certain holy personages or places) and Section 298-C (person of the Ahmedi group, etc, calling himself a Muslim or preaching or propagating his faith) make a further mockery of every principle of justice and equality in a modern state.

The basic problem with these sections is that none of them qualifies and determines the variables like “deliberate” and “malicious” attempts of profanity/defamation. In the backdrop of this ambiguity, the absolute unwanted character of these legislative provisions has not only suppressed the religious minorities manifold, but also given rise to uncontrollable public vigilantism and violence in society.

According to a recent report by the National Commission for Justice and Peace (NCJP), a total of 964 people had been charged under the Blasphemy Law in Pakistan from 1986 to 2009. Out of these, NCJP says, 479 were Muslims, 340 Ahmedis, 119 Christians, 14 Hindus, and 10 others. It may be noted that none of the blasphemy convicts have been executed so far, but 32 people charged with blasphemy have been extra-judicially killed. No serious enquiry into their murders has yet been seen. Many of these murders have either been committed in the custody of police or in front of authorities. But powerful religious groups manage to go scot-free in every murder, thereby strengthening the view that the life of minority citizens has no value and depends on their conduct under sheer suppression by a furious majority.

One is amazed at the audacity of the advocates of blasphemy laws, who think of themselves as vigilant guards of not only the Almighty, but religious personages as well, thereby creating an illusion that God and the Prophet (PBUH) might not be able to deal with the blasphemer and would need the help of Tehrik-e-Khatam-e-Nabuwat and the like. In my view, they themselves are the biggest blasphemers.

It needs to be strongly voiced in every public sphere today that Pakistan, with a majority Muslim population, does not need blasphemy laws. The presence of these laws hints at Muslim insecurity as well of lack of confidence in our own selves. Let us not make laws for the already powerful majority. A blasphemy law without a strong blasphemy libel law is merely a tool of suppression. It is not 295-C that is the problem, it is the way we have written our statute and the way we are shaping our worldview that has become the problem. Root it out before it roots us out. Pakistan cannot afford any more shame.

The writer is a rights activist and independent blogger. She can be reached at marvi@marvisirmed.com

URL: www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\11\23\story_23-11-2010_pg3_3

VIEW: Blasphemy Law

Monday, November 22, 2010

VIEW: Blasphemy Law — Yasser Latif Hamdani

Nothing will cripple the terrorists more decisively than a tolerant, moderate and democratic Pakistan that respects human rights and treats all its citizens equally. No victory would be permanent if such a Pakistan is not achieved

Arundhati Roy committed blasphemy of another kind when she asked the Americans to reconsider their alliance with India without resolving the Kashmir issue in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiri people. Earlier she had upset many Indians when she claimed that Kashmir was not an integral part of India, a statement that had every gung-ho Indian, those Oscar Wilde’s vicious patriots and there are about a billion of them, baying for her blood, proving that India is and will remain an intolerant society for some time to come.

Well, taking inspiration from her, Pakistanis should also ask President Obama why his government continues to aid a government and a country that continues to trample on the rights of its own people. No I am not talking about India. I am talking about Pakistan, where the state continues to persecute religious minorities by using a law that cannot be justified on any grounds, whether democracy or Islam. In my previous article I briefly touched on the issue of the Blasphemy Law and the verdict against the Christian woman, a mother of five, who was beaten up and then handed over to the police. It is likely that she will get a presidential pardon. That however is not enough. In the process Pakistan has been humiliated for the umpteenth time simply because we want to appease the mullahs as we have done so consistently since 1949, who in any event have declared a war on Pakistan. I had predicted this much in my article.

So when Obama says “we will act if Pakistan is unwilling or unable to act”, he should walk the walk as well. Nothing will cripple the terrorists more decisively than a tolerant, moderate and democratic Pakistan that respects human rights and treats all its citizens equally. No victory would be permanent if such a Pakistan is not achieved. President Obama, the US, the IMF, the World Bank and the entire western world should immediately stop assisting Pakistan in every field from humanitarian aid to military aid till Pakistan puts its house in order. Being a signatory and having ratified the International Convention on Political and Civil Rights, Pakistan is bound by international law and its own constitution to provide all its citizens the right to life and liberty and religious belief unconditionally.

I do not favour arguments referring to religious interpretation, but our Blasphemy Law is untenable even from an Islamic angle. There is nothing in the Holy Quran or even the Hadith that definitively prescribes such a Blasphemy Law. On the contrary we have a clear example set by the Holy Prophet (PBUH) when he forgave his worst enemies and offenders like Hinda. Almost everyone knows the story of the old woman who would throw garbage daily on the path that the Holy Prophet (PBUH) took. When she fell ill, the Holy Prophet (PBUH) went to visit her and nursed her back to health. Less known is the story of another old woman who the Holy Prophet (PBUH) helped by carrying wood to her house. Along the way, not knowing the identity of her helper, she began to speak about the “trouble maker” of Makkah. It was only after their journey was at an end that the Holy Prophet (PBUH) told her that he was the same Muhammad (PBUH) she had spent the greater part of the journey abusing. This was the Holy Prophet’s (PBUH) character. This is why he is referred to as Rahmatul-lil-Alameen or the mercy for all worlds.

Islamic law and jurisprudence is derived from four sources, known as the Usul-ul-Fiqh (fundamentals of the law), i.e. the Holy Quran, the Sunnah, Qiyas (analogy) and Ijma (consensus). The Holy Quran is silent on the issue of blasphemy. The Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) seems to suggest the exact opposite. By using Qiyas, one can only conclude that the Blasphemy Law is patently un-Islamic and there is no Ijmah or consensus amongst the scholars of Islam on the punishment of blasphemy.

Islamic civilisation has a rich history of not only tolerating but even celebrating dissent. Needless to say some of the greatest scientists in Islamic history, Al Razi, the father of medicine, and Avicenna, would have been lynched many times over had Islam actually favoured a Blasphemy Law as is currently on the statute books of Pakistan. I am told that our local textbooks on science all have a chapter on the achievements of Muslim scientists and the contribution of Islamic civilisation to science and enlightenment of humanity. It is forgotten that this was achieved by a culture of tolerance, acceptance and openness. In my last column, I quoted the founder of this nation as stating as clearly as possible that bona fide criticisms and investigations into religion must be protected and safeguarded from any Blasphemy Law. So must be the fundamental rights of life, liberty and religious belief.

A nation is its laws ultimately. The intolerance permeating down to every segment of our society is the direct result of the laws that evade common sense and logic. It is therefore time to repeal the Blasphemy Law.

The writer is a lawyer. He also blogs at http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com and can be reached at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com

URL: www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\11\22\story_22-11-2010_pg3_5

Pak television channels ‘glamorising’ Taliban, spewing venom against minorities: Report

Pak television channels 'glamorising' Taliban, spewing venom against minorities: Report

2010-06-24 17:30:00

Amidst the expanding hatred and violence against minorities in the country, Pakistani television channels, particularly the news channels, are fanning hostility against the marginalized sections of society.

Promoting anti-US sentiments and minority bashing appears to have become favourite subjects, which are being discussed during talk shows on different television channels these days.

Dozens of private cable channels sprouted during the early 2000s under the rule of former President General Pervez Musharraf, who liberalized the country’s strict media laws, and now these channels are apparently working on an agenda of backing the extremists instead of demonising them.

“These (programs) need to be looked at and reviewed. Instead of demonizing the Taliban, they glamorize them,” The Christian Science Monitor quoted former Information Minister Sherry Rehman, as saying.

There are a number of celebrated Pakistani TV hosts at present who have risen to great heights through a belligerent attack on minorities on their shows.

Televangelists such as Amir Liaquat Hussain, Hamid Mir and Zaid Hamid can often been seen spewing venom against the US and the minorities on their chat shows.

Out of the three ‘firebrands’, Zaid Hamid, has perhaps the largest youth following with some 58,000 fans on Facebook, the report said.

He has also advocated the Pakistani conquest of India as a solution to poor Indo-Pak relations.

“One of the reasons why he is beloved is because he’s someone who helps absolve self-reflection. His insistence is that we were destined by greatness but we were robbed by America, by the Jews and the Hindus,” said a popular radio-show host and columnist Fasi Zaka.

While Hamid generally reserves his venom for what he perceives as Pakistan’s external enemies, others, like Amir Liaquat Hussain openly call for violence against Pakistan’s minorities, it added.

In 2008, during his show Hussain, post of minister of state for religious affairs in the Musharraf regime, said it was incumbent on all true-believers to kill Ahmadis.

Within two days, a prominent Ahmadi doctor and an Ahmadi rice trader were shot dead in Sindh province, the report added. (ANI)

URL: http://sify.com/news/pak-television-channels-...international-kgyr4egbade.html

Pakistan’s Medieval Constitution

Monday, June 21, 2010

Pakistan’s Medieval Constitution

It is the only Muslim nation to explicitly define who is or is not a ‘Muslim.’

By MIRA SETHI

In the early hours of May 28, Khalid Solangi was shaken awake by his wife. She told him that she’d heard news of a bloody attack on two Ahmadi mosques in Pakistan. Khalid’s older brother, an Ahmadi Muslim American, had recently flown to Lahore for a wedding and they feared he was one of the victims. “My wife said to me, ‘Your brother has never missed the Friday prayer.’”

And so Khalid dialed his sister-in-law’s number. She confirmed the worst: Her husband had called from his cellphone minutes earlier, asking her to pray for him and the others trapped inside the mosque. “The next thing we heard was that my brother had been martyred,” said Khalid. “He had gone to Pakistan for a wedding. He didn’t even live there.”

When the dust from the bombs settled and the Taliban gunmen stopped their shooting, nearly 100 innocent Muslims lay dead inside the mosques where they had gathered for Friday prayer. This wasn’t the first act of terror committed against this minority Muslim sect.

Since 1953, when the first anti-Ahmadi riots broke out in newly independent Pakistan, the Ahmadi community has lived under constant threat. In 1974, Pakistan amended its constitution to declare Ahmadis non-Muslims.

Ten years later, among a slew of anti-blasphemy laws—one of them famously known as “Ordinance XX”—the military dictator Zia ul-Haq made it a crime for Ahmadis to call themselves Muslims. They were forbidden from declaring their faith publicly, using the traditional Islamic greeting, and referring to their places of worship as mosques. In short, virtually any public act of worship or devotion by an Ahmadi can be treated as a criminal offense punishable by death.

Unsurprisingly, attacks on the Ahmadi community followed. In 2005 eight Ahmadis were gunned down in a mosque in a small town in Punjab, Pakistan’s most populous province. A year later a mob burned down Ahmadi homes and shops in a small village in the province, forcing more than a 100 Ahmadis to flee.

Last winter, while I was home in Lahore, I drove to a beige building near my house to get my passport renewed. The officer, in a small effort to assist me, made Xs next to the lines that needed my signature. First I signed the badly photocopied sheet, again and again. Then I found myself being asked to confirm that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad—a 19th century Punjabi reformer and founder of the Ahmadi movement—was an “imposter.”

This is standard. Every Pakistani Muslim applying for a passport must sign a statement deriding Ahmad, but I had forgotten about the procedure.

I asked the officer what would happen if I didn’t sign above the line. He looked at me blankly: “You don’t want passport?“

Later that day I went with my friends to a restaurant in Old Lahore—the city’s historic quarter—where cramped alleys lead to centuries-old Mughal mosques, forts and gateways. We ate kebabs and shared a hookah. On our way home, passing Lahore’s busiest road, I saw a banner on a building facing the Lahore High Court: “Jews, Christians and Ahmadis are enemies of Islam.” We passed a patch of grass where a bronze statue of Queen Victoria had once stood. It has been replaced by a tall glass box containing a Quran.

That the Ahmadi movement agrees with every tenet of Islam, save the additional belief that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad came to the Muslim community as a promised messiah, is irrelevant. The legal system has left minorities such as Christians and Hindus, and within Islam, Ahmadis and Shiites, socially and politically isolated.

Routinely, the graffiti along Lahore’s stylish boulevards will proclaim that Shiites are infidels. More than 100 Christian houses were burned in a town in central Pakistan last year over a claim that a Christian had defiled the Quran. That same year, 37 Ahmadis were charged under the blasphemy laws.

Pakistan is the only Muslim nation to explicitly define who is or is not a “Muslim” under its constitution. This serves only one purpose: to embolden groups like the Pakistani Taliban who use the laws as justification to declare Ahmadis as “wajib ul qatl” or “worthy of death.” As long as the state continues to decide who is and is not a Muslim—a personal, private question—we will continue to see attacks on minorities and medieval banners in the public square.

Ms. Sethi is a Robert L. Bartley Fellow at the Journal this summer.

URL: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704198004575311043632237762.html

The liabilities of our state

Monday, June 21, 2010

VIEW: The liabilities of our state — Yasser Latif Hamdani

The state is not only negligent of its duty in protecting the faith of the Ahmedis, it is directly criminally liable under its own Blasphemy Law every time it prints a passport or an identity card application

A first information report, commonly known as an FIR, has been lodged in Lahore against Facebook under section 295 C of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). Legally, this raises some very poignant questions about the criminal liability of a corporation, i.e. a business with legal identity.

The issue has been the subject of much litigation, most notably and recently the Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 558 US 50 (2010), in which the US Supreme Court held that any limits on a corporation’s political funding would be tantamount to a violation of the first amendment to the US constitution. It remains to be seen, of course, if the corporations are going to get the right to vote as well but needless to say, this judgement has, for all practical purposes, created room for all sorts of mischief, including criminal liability for a corporation. Therefore, a criminal case against Facebook, absurd as it may seem, is legally possible, thanks to the landmark American judgement above, amongst other things, even if the established Pakistani case law might exempt it on other grounds.

What I am interested in, however, is not Facebook, which is, after all, a foreign company, but the criminal liability that may now also be extended to the ‘state’ in Pakistan, which is also, like a corporation, a legal artificial person. That a sovereign state — yes we do love the word sovereign, do we not? — is a legal person under the law is an undisputed fact. This primarily means that the state in Pakistan is collectively bound by the laws of Pakistan, including but not limited to the PPC. Now consider Section 295-A of the PPC, which states: “Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs: Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of the citizens of Pakistan, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations insults the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years, or with fine, or with both.”

Now let us here revisit some facts. The Second Amendment has, quite regrettably, laid down in no uncertain terms that members of the Ahmediyya sect, of either the Qadiani or Lahori jamaats, form a separate religion, with distinct religious beliefs. Now, with that in mind, let us dwell upon the declaration that every Pakistani Muslim is asked to sign when getting either his national identity card or his passport:

“I consider Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani to be an imposter prophet…” I spent some time looking for a positive meaning of the word ‘imposter’ or ‘impostor’ but found none whatsoever. The meanings I did find were: one who fakes, charlatan, fake, faker, fraud, humbug, mountebank, phoney, pretender, quack. If this is not ‘insulting’ and a ‘deliberate’ and ‘malicious’ act to outrage the feelings of a community then I do not know what is. Now clearly, constitutionally recognised Muslims in the territories of Pakistan do not believe that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad Qadiani was a nabi or a prophet. Those who believe in his prophethood are no longer recognised, according to the Second Amendment of the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as Muslims. Yet, it goes without saying that in doing so and admitting that they form a separate faith unto themselves, there are constitutional and legal protections that apply to the Ahmedis and their faith. The state is not only negligent of its duty in protecting the faith of the Ahmedis, it is directly criminally liable under its own Blasphemy Law every time it prints a passport or an identity card application. It goes without saying that no petitioner is going to petition, no lawyer is going to take the case and no judge is going to rule according to the law in this matter. Moral courage is lacking in our country, especially when it comes to enforcing the rights of minorities.

However, does the state not have any responsibility to at least attempt to abide by its own laws? Parliament recently restored the word ‘freely’ to the Objectives Resolution as it forms the substantive part of Pakistan’s constitution under Article 2-A. Even without the word ‘freely’, the resolution promised that “adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures”. On the contrary, the state has made every provision to hamper the profession and practice of the Ahmedi minority’s religion. It has, indeed, through Ordinance XX of 1984, clamped down on and, for all practical purposes, criminalised the Ahmedi mode of worship.

Pakistan recently ratified the International Covenant of Political and Civil Rights. Article 18 of the said covenant — which may not be derogated — lays down:

“1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This right shall include freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice, and freedom, either individually or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in worship, observance, practice and teaching.

2. No one shall be subject to coercion, which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice.” In Pakistan, after Zaheeruddin v the State, there is no scope for the implementation of this covenant, regardless of the good intentions of the present government. So long as Pakistan does not return to Jinnah’s original conception of an impartial state based on justice, fair play and complete equality of citizenship, it is bound to rank amongst the worst human rights violators and abusers in the world.

Yasser Latif Hamdani is a lawyer. He also blogs at http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com and can be reached at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com

URL: www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\06\21\story_21-6-2010_pg3_6

Our tolerant society

Thursday, June 03, 2010

PENSIEVE: Our tolerant society — Farrukh Khan Pitafi

Many of us journalists were continuously receiving e-mails from the Taliban and the Asian Tigers. One such e-mail congratulated Muslims on the Friday attacks on the Ahmedis and invited them to kill more Ahmedis and even Shias

Last week I expressed my concern over the rising intolerance in our society and how the antics of the powers that be would essentially add to the general disquiet. But today I need not press that point again. The very same week, terrorists attacked Lahore again and ruthlessly killed nearly 100 Ahmedis during their prayers or Friday congregation. The misery of the situation was that we could not even call their worship place a mosque, nor their worship, prayers. This is because a law forbids us to say any such thing. I would have been complacent but when everyone can pour out venom on the tube against the 18th Amendment despite its being a part of the constitution, I think I am entitled to challenge a law that is an absolute negation of basic rights.

Let me make it clear that I am not a judge of any creed’s philosophy, but I was raised in a fashion to express wariness of the Ahmedi ideology. Old habits, they say, die hard and I think I am still not mature enough to actually fight for the rights of the Ahmediyya community. What I am about to say is purely based on selfish reasons and the instinct of self-preservation. I honestly believe that a state should have nothing to do with any faith at all. When a state is allowed to judge your faith and impose restrictions on your freedom owing to some preconceived notions, a dangerous precedent is created, which can be used against any faith, creed or school of thought. Verily, a country that has witnessed the Rawalpindi Conspiracy Case, Zia’s shariah laws and Pervez Musharraf’s ‘enlightened moderation’ can definitely attack any point of view and try to ban it. If the state were to choose my faith for me, even the concept of freedom of choice in any religion would be compromised. This is only one important point. There are umpteen others.

I am sure you are not new to our sectarian history. If the Sipah-e-Sahaba had its way, all Shias would have been declared non-Muslims. Had the Taliban held sway, we all would have been declared infidels. The point is that the precedent that was created through constitutionally excommunicating the Ahmedis from Islam can be invoked again and again and, perhaps, yet again. There comes a time when you have to stand up and stop the appeasement of the irrational few. That time, for me, has come.

Even if your constitution, undermining its own commitment to basic rights and religious freedoms, decides to exclude a group from the majority religion of the country, that should not make the members of that group lesser citizens. I have grown up listening to theories about the alleged conspiracies of this community but, with due respect, what I have witnessed thus far is exactly the opposite. I have seen how conspiratorially a loyal, patriotic community of taxpayers and law-abiding citizens is being ostracised in our society. And how we are taught, albeit between the lines, that the Ahmedis are virtually untouchables. This is quite heartrending to tell you the truth and can just as easily happen to you. The sooner we wake up the better it is for all of us. We should do every bit to reintegrate this segment back into society, even though it now seems impossible to reintegrate them into the faith. And for that we will have to, at least, throw all the restrictions imposed during the time of Ziaul Haq out the window.

Let us now come back to the issue at hand, that of the rise of intolerance. I firmly believe that the recent debate about Facebook and blasphemy has a lot to do with the incident in Lahore. Believe me I have no intention of questioning a court’s decision to ban a social networking site in the country, even though it was really an unpleasant experience for me. However, once the ban was imposed, the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) went on an unrestricted witch-hunt, banning a number of other sites including YouTube (which was mercifully restored last week). And when some of us tried to protest against the ban, we had to endure the wrath of the great defenders of the faith. I could feel it coming already. When there is so much anger in society and the real offender is out of your reach, you try to find an easy scapegoat in the same society. This publicised and even glorified outrage at things that took place beyond our borders, gave the terrorists the courage to attack yet again. And what more convenient target can you find than the Ahmediyya community. I say this because, despite repeated assaults by the terrorists thus far, this community had managed to stay away from the main conflict between the Taliban and the state. Then you are bound to ask yourself: why this community and why now?

Ironically, when the PTA was busy banning foreign sites, many of us journalists were continuously receiving e-mails from the Taliban and the Asian Tigers. One such e-mail congratulated Muslims on the Friday attacks on the Ahmedis and invited them to kill more Ahmedis and even Shias. If you cannot see any double standards here, then you will probably never see them.

And while I was in pain thinking about this state of affairs, something equally troubling came to my notice. Those who had seized control of a children’s library in Islamabad in the wake of the Red Mosque fiasco were exonerated by the court on the basis of lack of evidence. Is it only me who remembers that Ghazi Abdur Rashid and Um-e-Hassan both used to address the media from the very same place? What other evidence could there be? Somehow I fear that our state, which was supposed to be the custodian of our rights and property, is once again desirous of bringing us back to General Zia’s dark ages and hence consciously appeasing the extremists even when their brethren are butchering our soldiers and citizens alike.

The writer is an independent columnist and a talk show host. He can be reached at farrukh.khan@pitafi.com

URL: www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\06\03\story_3-6-2010_pg3_5

COMMENT: Last Friday

Wednesday, June 02, 2010

COMMENT: Last Friday — Munir Attaullah

Is there any doubt that the Ahmedi community is the victim of state discrimination through specific legislation, and active persecution by fanatic religious elements that the authorities turn a blind eye to?

Last Friday’s horrible act of senseless terrorism conveyed more than one message to this allegedly basha’oor nation. How many of us have understood it, given the powerful hold of right wing and religious ideologies on our minds? Weighing up the media coverage, is it worth my discussing the matter also?

The answer to the latter question is a resounding “Yes”. It is the duty of every right-minded person to strengthen and amplify that barely audible collective voice of reason of the precious few courageous people in our midst, struggling to be heard over the cacophony of bigotry and hate. I take my cue from Shakespeare: “From that it is disposed: therefore it is meet. That noble minds keep ever with their likes; for who is so firm that cannot be seduced?”

Or, browbeaten into terrified silence, he might have added. The motto of my college (now GCU) is ‘Courage to Know’, a translation of the Latin phrase Sapre Aude that Kant used to symbolise the birth of the Age of Reason in Europe. Our problem (and that of the Islamic world) is not that we lack people who have ‘the courage to know’. We have our share of such people. The problem is, rather, the extreme paucity of people having ‘the courage to speak’.

Put that down to the battle that was lost in the Islamic world centuries ago, when Imam Ghazali’s philosophical views prevailed. Since then, the ulema-e-karam, often in connivance with the ruler of the day, have granted themselves a lucrative monopoly: that of being the sole guardians and interpreters of the authentic word of God. When debates on social issues are diverted on to the slippery slope of religion, sooner or later one will invariably crash into the barrier labelled ‘The word of God’. Then try countering the blackmail implicit in the threat, “Are you challenging the Word of God?” Ask Fouzia Wahab what happens when your words are deliberately misinterpreted in a twisted way to suit convenient ends.

And then there is the fact of life, which is social apathy and indifference to most problems and unjust laws that do not touch us directly. Why get involved when there is little to gain and possibly much to lose? I confess this conundrum is a hard nut to crack. So, without adducing lengthy theoretical reasons or justifications, I am simply going to state my bias: my overwhelming preference (as that of many others) is for a concerned, caring and tolerant society where we do whatever we can for the disadvantaged, the deprived and the ill-treated. And I infinitely prefer tolerance and compassion over hate.

Let us, therefore, look at Friday’s tragedy in the context of the above preamble. Is there any doubt that the Ahmedi community is the victim of state discrimination through specific legislation, and active persecution by fanatic religious elements that the authorities turn a blind eye to? Ask the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), or any of the numerous international agencies concerned with human rights issues, who are unanimous in their opinion. But, of course, all such people and agencies are Israeli stooges and the enemies of Islam. Are they not? And have not the legal challenges mounted by the Ahmedis (admittedly a long time ago) against the offending legislation all been summarily dismissed by our judicature using convoluted and disingenuous arguments?

I have a question for those of our constitutional law activists who are ever ready to challenge the constitutional validity of this or that ordinance, or constitutional amendment. Mr Roedad Khan claimed the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) violated his human rights; and on a recent talk show, I heard Barrister Akram Shaikh claim that the imposition of value-added tax (VAT), by sending millions below the poverty line, would amount to a violation of the basic human right to live, against which he would certainly file a petition. Would it be too much to publicly ask them and their likes if they think the anti-Ahmedi laws are, or are not, a violation of the human rights of millions of Pakistanis? And if they are, will they please stand up and file a petition in this regard also?

Which question naturally leads on to what we might expect from our newly independent judiciary, committed to the laudable aim of fearlessly doing justice to one and all, regardless of whether the heavens should fall or not. In this new era, will their lordships look favourably upon a petition, filed, say, by the HRCP, to review these vicious laws that are a blight upon our name in the international community and leave many of us hanging our head in shame?

Do you want my guess what our basha’oor nation will do? Nothing. It will be back to business as usual after a few days of ritual hand wringing and speech making. Incidentally, in many, if not all, such acts of terrorism, high functionaries of state have been quick to condole with the grieved and promise compensation. Yes, our tireless interior minister, and the Punjab law minister, did what they had to do. But where were the Sharifs? And, while Mr Rehman Malik was admirably blunt and typically fearless in what he said, why was Rana sahib keen to downplay the obviously sectarian dimension of the incident?

Above all, why did no one offer a thimble of compensation in this case? I suppose it was not politic to be seen as being supportive of the untouchables. Hunza is more important than the Ahmedi community.

The role of the media was broadly encouraging, though not without its moments of macabre humour that can result from silly laws. In the first flush of reporting, some media people, wholly innocently, used illegal words such as, attacks on Ahmedi ‘masajid’ where people were offering ‘namaaz’, without realising they were thereby committing an offence. But quite quickly, they learnt the politically correct language of ‘ibadatgahs’ and ‘prayers’.

“Are Ahmedis really wajib-al-qatl?” I was looking forward to the answer to this question an anchorperson promised to ask, after a routine commercial break, of a leader of the JI. Mysteriously, this explosive question was never posed or answered. Just as well.

I cannot end this column without saluting again those courageous few amongst us who make us proud by their fearless and outspoken public rejection of black laws and hate mongers. Taking names would be invidious — and unnecessary — but the usual suspects were not found wanting in coming to the fore once again.

Nor must I — or others — forget the Ahmedi community itself. It has borne all its suffering, humiliation, and provocation with immense fortitude and patience, and remains peaceful, model citizens in every way. I, and many, many others are with you in your hour of trial.

The writer is a businessman. A selection of his columns is now available in book form. Visit munirattaullah.com

URL: www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\06\02\story_2-6-2010_pg3_2

ROVER’S DIARY: Killing fields

Tuesday, June 01, 2010

ROVER’S DIARY: Killing fields — Babar Ayaz

Many of my writer and journalist friends are sad, angry and frustrated. Yes, sad because we are a sensitive and humane bunch and have equal love for all, without distinction of religion, sect, nationality and race

Once again I have fallen on the thorns of the killing fields of Pakistan. I am bleeding. This time over 80 Ahmedis were killed in two attacks on their places of worship in Lahore. Sorry, the law forbids me to call their worship places ‘mosques’ and the killed namazis. Such are the laws of the land of the pure, although they are in violation of the basic principle of the constitution that grants equal rights to the people and freedom of expression. And these laws conflict with the UN Charter of Human Rights.

Target killings on ethnic, political and sectarian basis in Karachi; killing of teachers in Balochistan; killing of the Baloch; missing Baloch nationalists; killing of people by the Taliban in FATA and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa; all those killed are my own people. Even the misled intolerant suicide bombers are of us. And each time a person is killed, something in me snaps.

My cardiologist who I visited for a checkup last Friday says that in Pakistan we live in depressing times. My psychiatrist friend Dr Haroon Ahmed endorses this statement. He says the number of patients who suffer from depression have almost doubled in the last few years. He is conducting a study on the rise in post-trauma mental disorders and the rise in psychosomatic physical disorder cases. Most such cases are not reported. But Dr Ahmed feels that many people in the urban society are taking tranquillisers. All lessons into positive thinking and optimism are dampened by the reigning grief on such days, which are brought live into our households.

Every time intolerance and violence wins over life, my soul is tormented and reminds me of Ghalib: Mujeh kya bura tha marna jo yeh aik bar hota. But then, perhaps, it is not only I; such killings quietly shatter the nerves of most people. It is only that different people pay different tolls. Many of my writer and journalist friends are sad, angry and frustrated. Yes, sad because we are a sensitive and humane bunch and have equal love for all, without distinction of religion, sect, nationality and race. Angry, because we have seen how the shortsighted policies of our successive rulers have sowed the seeds of intolerance and violence in this society. Frustrated, because the obscurantists who preach intolerance have access to the pulpit, madaris and air-time more than the voices of rationality in this country.

No doubt it is important to find out who did it; it is also equally essential to dig out and punish the forces behind terrorism. After every such sectarian killing, our leaders usually say that no Muslim could have done such a thing. Are we not being ostrich-headed? Or, are our leaders trying to tell people that non-Muslims are senseless killers?

In Friday’s killings, the targets were the Ahmedis. Many religious groups live on spitting fire and brimstone against them every day, and the state quietly watches them condescendingly. A large section of the media reports the statements of the hate-mongers with impunity. Of late, some blogs have been targeting them for conspiracies against Pakistan. Even some TV anchors of religious programmes declare Ahmedis as non-Muslims and condemn them for blasphemy. After one such programme, two Ahmedis were killed in Sindh. Each month there are target killings of Ahmedi and Shia doctors in Sindh and Punjab. Neither the popular news channel banned the aalim, nor the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA), which is supposed to take notice of such things, took any action.

I think that brings us to the most crucial question: why? Yes, why one Muslim sect considers other Muslim sects apostate and thus liable to death? Why have they the right to decide who is Muslim and who is not? Why human life has lost its value? Why so many people tend to believe that it is the work of a foreign hand or the agencies? Why are we shy to face the reality that even many people sitting in our parliament and the judiciary are bigots? Why so many people are willing to blow themselves up?

Briefly, I can say that there is a broad consensus among the intelligentsia that, for years, the establishment has supported and nourished the extremists. Saudiaisation of our otherwise tolerant Islam in Pakistan has nourished intolerance in the country. All sects and religious minorities have the right to believe in their own interpretation of Islam, but nobody should have the right to preach hatred against another sect. It is easy to say but hard to implement unless there is broad consensus among all the institutions of the state.

Quickly, on what is to be done. First and foremost, nationalise all madaris and convert them to normal schools. Purge them of the extremist teachers who preach jihad against the state and other sects. Second, all school syllabi should be cleansed of any material that inculcates religious hatred against other religions. Third, no political or religious party should be allowed to spread hatred through the media and the mosques. Last, and most important, Pakistan should be declared a secular state. All sectarian amendments inserted by Mr Bhutto and General Ziaul Haq, which discriminate against a section of society, should be struck off.

The terrorists psyche is built on hatred. To fight it, let us take solace in Rumi’s poetry:

Let us fall in love again

and scatter gold dust all over the world

Let us become a new spring

and feel the breeze drift in the heavens’ scent.

Let us dress the earth in green

and like the sap of a young tree

let the grace from within us sustain us.

Let us carve gems out of our stony hearts

and let them light our path to love.

The glance of love is crystal clear

and we are blessed by its light.

(Are we?)

The writer can be reached at ayazbabar@gmail.com

URL: www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\06\01\story_1-6-2010_pg3_4

VIEW: The Second Amendment

---Daily Times, Pakistan

Monday, May 31, 2010

VIEW: The Second Amendment — Yasser Latif Hamdani

The Second Amendment laid the foundations of intolerance and religious tyranny in Pakistan, which has manifested itself in other ways. Since then our state has been in a downward spiral

The violence against the Ahmediyya community underscores the bigotry that has become the hallmark of our beloved homeland. A community — already sacrificed at the altar of political expediency — has now been made to pay the ultimate price.

Amongst the dead, which included retired army officers and other contributors to Pakistani society, was reportedly the youngest brother of Chaudhry Zafarullah Khan. For those who are unaware of who Chaudhry Zafarullah was, he was the author of the Lahore Resolution, Pakistan’s first foreign minister and Pakistan’s advocate before the Boundary Commission. In other words, this community has paid for such crimes as their valiant contribution to the Pakistan Movement, their significant role in the development of Pakistan and the fact that Pakistan’s only Nobel Prize was bagged by them. Yet what happened on Friday was waiting to happen, given the neglect and at times outright bigotry that our governments, both federal and provincial, have been guilty of on this count starting with the PPP government in 1974.

Things were not always like this. It bears remembering that in 1944 when a group of Muslim divines approached Jinnah to persuade him unsuccessfully to turn all Ahmedis out of the Muslim League, Jinnah was resolute against such bigotry. He responded to them by saying, “Who am I to declare non-Muslim a person who calls himself a Muslim?” It was for this reason that many religious parties and even self-styled freedom fighters like Mirza Ali Khan (Faqir of Ipi) denounced the Muslim League as a “bastion of Qadiyanism”. Yet such was the force of character of our founding father that he not only stood against such bigotry but without any fear appointed the leading Ahmedi Muslim at the time to shoulder the most important responsibility for the Muslims of South Asia, i.e. of arguing Pakistan’s case before the Boundary Commission. So long as the Quaid’s colleagues were at the helm, there was some semblance of common sense that prevailed on this issue. When in 1953, the Majlis-e-Ahrar and the Jamaat-e-Islami, both groups that had opposed the creation of Pakistan, started a mass agitation movement to have Ahmedis like Chaudhry Zafarullah turned out from the government and excommunicated from Islam, Khawaja Nazimuddin, himself a devout Muslim, refused to bow under their pressure. His government fell a few weeks later and the establishment stepped in to sweep up the mullahs with extreme prejudice.

In 1974, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was determined to hang on to power by hook or by crook. Though not a bigot himself, Bhutto was ill-advised by his law minister Abdul Hafeez Pirzada. As a result, the PPP stabbed in the back the one community that had helped them in winning the 1970 elections, by putting a question to parliament that it had no authority to determine. As a result Bhutto managed to hang on to power for another three years. The usurper who replaced Bhutto, General Ziaul Haq, took bigotry against the Ahmedis to another level altogether with his unconstitutional and inhumane Ordinance XX of 1984 specifically targeting this community. His bigotry was upheld by our independent judiciary in Zaheeruddin v The State, where the dispensers of justice compared Islamic symbols with Coca Cola’s intellectual property in an argument that defies all legal sense and logic to justify the ban on the Ahmedis from using any Islamic symbols — symbols that are central to their faith.

Martin Lau, a leading legal scholar of religious freedom in common law jurisdictions, has argued in his paper on Zaheeruddin v The State that Pakistan has abolished religious freedom for Pakistanis, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, through this judicial precedent. My own view is that the very idea of Pakistan as a bastion against the tyranny of the majority was killed the day our parliament decided to take it upon itself to excommunicate a sect from Islam. The Second Amendment laid the foundations of intolerance and religious tyranny in Pakistan, which has manifested itself in other ways. Since then our state has been in a downward spiral. The Gojra incident, violence against Shias, and now the massacre of the Ahmedis is only symptomatic of the real sickness that emerges from the 1974 Amendment. Pakistan shall continue to be on the wrong side of history as long as the Second Amendment remains in the constitution of this republic.

The time has come for the PPP government to undo this great injustice done to not just a minority sect but to Pakistan itself. All roots of Pakistan’s current existential crisis with Islam emerge from that one foul act that was brought about on the ill-advice of Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, who is now challenging parliament’s sovereignty, the same sovereignty he had argued 36 years ago as being absolute. It is now up to the PPP to make a clear choice. Will it continue to defend a dubious legacy or will it come out decisively against religious bigotry?

History beckons President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani to clear the name of Pakistan’s largest political party by undoing what it did in 1974. In this they must be supported unwaveringly by the MQM and the ANP — for they claim to be the guardians of secular liberal politics. The Sharif brothers must also atone for their sins — of having spoken from both sides of their mouths — by supporting this move. Even the religious parties, the Jamaat-e-Islami foremost amongst them, must state unwaveringly that while they may not consider the Ahmedis Muslims, they are willing to leave this final judgement to God.

If they manage to undo this grievous injustice and act of inhumanity, the ladies and gentlemen in our parliament will secure for themselves a permanent place in Pakistan’s history as the visionaries who restored Jinnah’s Pakistan, which is to be built on the ideals of justice, fair play, impartiality and complete equality for all citizens of Pakistan.

Yasser Latif Hamdani is a lawyer based in Islamabad. He can be reached at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com

URL: www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2010\05\31\story_31-5-2010_pg3_5

Restoring the Civil Rights of Ahmadis

- Chowk.com
June 16, 2008
By a Pakistani

(The writer is a lawyer and a participant in the lawyer’s movement. He has asked to keep his identity secret for the fear of persecution.)

The events in Punjab Medical College in Faisalabad recently have brought to the forefront once again a very important and yet neglected issue which continues to blacken our collective conscience as a nation. The expulsion of 23 students for allegedly preaching their faith underscored the sickness that has crept into the majority in this country bringing bad name to the country and the faith of Islam as well. There is need for serious inquiry as to whether this pathetic state of affairs will be allowed to continue and will the Ahmadis continue to be the victims of Pakistan’s version of Jim Crow Laws aided and abetted by a PCO-ed judiciary passing numerous “Dredd Scott” like decisions.

The persecution of Ahmadis even under the present mangled constitution is patently unconstitutional. A fair court of law would have noticed and pounced on the Ahmadi-specific legislation that has crept into our statute books for every single one of these laws violate a couple dozen fundamental rights accorded to the citizens of Pakistan not the least Article 20 which gives every citizen the right to practice and propagate his or her religion without any caveats. The rot however began with Bhutto’s 2nd Amendment which declared Ahmadis Non-Muslim. His law minister, Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, proved himself to be a poor constitutional lawyer when he declared that the National Assembly was sovereign and could take such a step. The correct legal position was that of Sir Zafrullah Khan, erstwhile Pakistani foreign minister and one of the authors of the Lahore Resolution, who argued that it was beyond the scope of the National Assembly to determine the faith of an individual especially under the Constitution of 1973. Even the Islamic provisions of the constitution of 1973 were to be interpreted according to each sect’s understanding and Ahmadis being an established Muslim sect in 1973 were entitled to their own interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah.

Ahmadis were also very much Muslim when the Government of Pakistan laid claim to Qadian as a Muslim holy place in 1947 as a counterweight to Sikh claims to their holy sites in Pakistan. No less a person than Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Pakistan’s founding father, had declared unequivocally on the Ahmadi issue that anyone who calls himself a Muslim is a Muslim and that anyone who says otherwise is conspiring against the Muslim cause. It is little known that Jinnah was finally persuaded to return to India and lead the Muslim League by Mr. Ibrahim Dard, the Imam of the London Ahmaddiya Mosque in the 1930s. The future founder of Pakistan had gone to and prayed behind the Ahmaddiya mosque unaware that the country he was about to create in two decades would one day make such an act punishable under law. If he was to time travel into the future, he would probably abandon the whole Pakistan project altogether.

Every single act of persecution against Ahmadis is quite unjustifiably laid at the door of the idea of Pakistan. Unjustifiably because those at the fore front of the “Persecute Ahmadis movement” are the same people who bitterly opposed Pakistan and considered Jinnah as big a Kafir as they consider the Ahmadis. The first occurrence of the anti-Ahmaddiya feeling on record is a report by a Muslim League activist who found that in the tribal areas, Fakir of Ipi and other pro-Congress Mullah elements had begun to describe the Muslim League as a bastion of “Qadiyanism”. The same feeling has persisted. Majlis-e-Ahrar that led the anti-Ahmaddiya movement in 1953-1954 was the biggest Congress ally before partition. Jamaat-e-Islami chief Maududi had dismissed Jinnah and others as too secular and westernized to properly lead the Muslims. The biggest persecutors of Ahmadis i.e. Darul-Uloom-Deoband and their cronies owe their very political existence to Mahatma Gandhi who introduced these Mullahs in the Khilafat movement — out of which arose the Jamiat-e-Ulema-Hind — the forerunner of all fundamentalist and militant movements in South Asia and beyond.

The idea that a majority can dictate to a minority what it is or isn’t allowed to call itself is the very anti-thesis of the principle Pakistan was created on. Pakistan was created on the idea that a permanent majority cannot by sheer numeric strength dominate and dictate to a permanent minority. The anti-Ahmaddiya legislation flies in face of the whole Pakistan idea, leading to at least one perceptive commentator calling the second amendment to the constitution in 1974 nothing less than the death of Pakistan. That a PPP government was in charge and Pakistan’s brightest Prime Minister was in power makes that event even more ironic. Bhutto perhaps had no other option. Had he resisted it, the establishment would have used the issue to dismiss Bhutto the same way they dismissed Khawaja Nazimuddin and the Muslim League government in 1953. Of course Bhutto fell three years later and atleast the rotund and very religious Nazimuddin does not carry the blot of being the Prime Minister who persecuted a group of people based on their faith. Great responsibility lies on the shoulders of the Pakistan People’s Party to undo its heinous mistake and clear up the good name of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto once and for all. It has an excellent opportunity to undo a historic wrong.

Remember the issue is not, and it has never been, whether anyone agrees with Ahmadis or considers them Muslim. It is one’s right to hold an opinion but that opinion cannot be imposed no matter what force of majority is behind it. The issue is — as it has always been — what Ahmadis consider themselves. No construction of Article 20 of the constitution can deny them the right to call themselves Muslims and by settled law fundamental rights are the over-riding feature of any written constitution. Therefore the second amendment itself is unconstitutional and illegal, not to mention the antithesis of Pakistan and its idealism. It is also an issue that cuts deep into our aspiration to be a civilized and tolerant society based on rule of law. The actions of those who had always opposed Pakistan and its founder are beginning to taint the very ideal to utter joy of our enemies home and abroad. It is time for Pakistanis to stand up and be counted.

URL : www.chowk.com/articles/14234