"Adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to freely profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures"
Stated above is Article 5 of the Objectives Resolution passed in 1949 By Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan. An hour ago, Minority Minister Shahbaz Bhatti was assassinated by gunmen in Islamabad. The most probable motive of assassination is his stance on the blasphemy law, which he believed to be flawed.
This has sadly been the story of our nation over the past 64 years. Religion has been a sensitive spot in Pakistan's fragile political history, and its role in Pakistan's history has led to much violence and hatred. Perhaps those that have suffered most have been the minorities. The most popular example that comes to mind is the persecution of the Ahmadis, which due to political pressure from the right-wing conservatives were declared non-Muslims in 1974.Perhaps what is remarkable is that 21 years before, in 1953, those same radical clerics were suppressed by the Pakistan government and military for advocating chaos in Lahore. Such was the drastic change in political thinking. In 1974, Zulfiqar Bhutto accepted the declaration of AHmadi's as non-Muslims. In 1977 he similarly gave in to pressure from Islamists by promising to implement Sharia Law, combined with the ban on drinking and gambling in the social sphere. It was all a ploy to stay in power, yet he was replaced by the military dictator Zia-ul-Haq.
Zia's crowning achievement was his usurpation of the Constitution when he suspended all the political institutions and declared himself sole ruler of Pakistan. In 1981, he implemented the Hudood Ordinance( which was according to him in accords with Islamic Law). The problem was that much of Zia's role was very un-Islamic in nature, as he implemented laws without the deliberation of the people and the respected political parties. Zia-ul-Haq's biggest legacy was his removal of the notion of "rule by law" with the notion of rule by "coercion/fear." His infamous attributes included the suppression of political parties, the dismissal of governments(Junejo) combined with the constant abuse of the constitution. This was done through his infamous use of Islam as a political ploy in order to gain votes and stay in power.
The blasphemy law did not originate in 1986. Rather, it was the legacy of the Imperial British Crown, which sought to appease both the Hindus and Muslims in the pre-partition era. However, the law was loosely kept after the formation of Pakistan. From 1947 to 1985, there were next to no cases reported in relation to the accusation of blasphemy.
In 1986 Zia reformed the law, added amendments and thus the religious exploitation started. The amendments were not passed through to the parliament, but were rather made through the Majlis-e-Shoora, a panel of "religious clerics" hand-picked by Zia-ul-Haq. This Majlis-e-Shoora, which was completely inept in relation to constitutional governance, passed the amendments and since then the blasphemy cases have increased exponentially. Between 1947 and 1985, less than 50 cases were reported. Since 1986, there have been more than a thousand cases reported, with more than 50% of the accused being Muslims [ Conflicting reports, yet all have stated this]
Did Pakistan magically start becoming un-Islamic after 1986, according to these figures? The fact of the matter is that there has been no execution for the notion of "blasphemy" since 1986, which shows that amongst the thousands of cases reported, none have been strong enough to carry a death sentence. Hundreds of people are arrested over blasphemy laws. Some die in prison, some are still there awaiting justice, and some resolve their differences out of court. The most shocking example of the misuse of the blasphemy law was provided by Allama tahir. Ashrafi claimed that on 12 Rabbi-ul-Awal, two popular Sunni sects( Deobandis and Barelvis) were engaged in burning copies of the Quran in Faisalabad. Of course, the burning of the Quran was done to send a message to the other sect that their version of Islam was not the right one. Yet, these disputes(according to Tahir Ashrafi) were settled out of court. What does it tell us about how this law is carried out and how it is used by tribes/religious sects.
Our religious minorities have decreased from 24 % to a staggering 2 % in the span of 64 years. The question that arises is; Why has this question never been brought forth to the public forum? Why is it that when religions is interlinked with politics in Pakistan, the public starts putting labels on people? Why don't political leaders/scholars debate on this platform?
The answer lies in the transformation of the Pakistan political order. It was envisioned by Jinnah as one in which the rule of law would govern the citizens of Pakistan. However, in the 1970's and 1980's, with the leniency towards Islamic radicals by Zulfiqar Bhutto combined with Zia's unconstitutional vision of Islam, the political landscape has changed. Out of the two decades of unquestionable misinterpreted use of Islam, the rule of law has been replaced with the "rule by fear/coercion."
Political leaders have adopted policies from our leaders of the past by turning a blind eye towards the misuse of Islam in the political sphere. In order to gain votes and to appease religious conservatives, they don't take a hands-on approach towards the misuse of Islam in Pakistan's Constitution. Fearing political backlash, the political members just appease the religious conservatives by claiming to not be involved in anything that is "detrimental to Islam", may it be a law that has ben very un-islamic in its implementation.
The result of these political stances( or lack of them) has led to a public that is criminally misinformed in relation to the said law. Salmaan Taseer was killed for bringing to light the alarming misuse of the law, Shahbaz Bhatti has been killed due to his simple stance on adding amendments to the law that can make it more Islamic and more just. Javed Ghamidi lives in a self-imposed exile for debating the notion of whether this law is viable in accords to Islamic principles.
General Musharraf was the only person who was somewhat not tied to this political mindset. In 2006, he added the Women Protections Bill, which was an added amendment to the Hudood Ordinance. Designed to include forensic evidence in rape charges, the amendment was addd to try such cases under civil, and not Islamic courts. Musharraf was only able to add this amendment due to the fact that he was a military dictator. Public approval meant the same to him what it meant to Zia; nothing. In terms of analyzing constitutional laws, this is the extent one needs to reach to expand on constitutional laws. The amendment was criticized by Imran Khan, citing it as a ploy by Musharraf to appear moderate in the Western world. It was similarly criticized by Jamat-e-Islami clerics for trying to remove Islam from the political sphere. It is disgusting to realize that an amendment made to include advanced forensic evidence to enhance investigation was dismissed by parties left and right. This is the extent to which it has proven impossible to deal with debating amendments to flawed constitutional laws.
I will pray for Shahbaz Bhatti. He is yet another victim to the political rule by fear.
Allama Tahir Ashrafi is the only brave voice left fighting this ignorance that has crippled the mind of Pakistanis. May God give him the strength to stay alive, and may more people listen to his message.
