Progress is like toothpaste


Aziz Akhmad July 18, 2010

In 1916 when the first Jewish judge of the US Supreme Court, Louis Brandeis, was nominated, the ruling establishment bitterly contested his nomination mainly because he was a Jew. He did get appointed but one of the judges, James McReynolds, refused to sit next to him. (Brandeis ended up being one of the most celebrated judges known for case opinions on freedom of speech and the right to privacy.) Anti-Semitism was rife in America, as was discrimination against blacks and other minorities.  The ruling America, including Congress, was predominantly made up of white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant males.

Today, US President Barack Obama, a black president, has nominated a Jewish Harvard Law professor, Elena Kagan, a woman, to the Supreme Court to replace a retiring judge. If confirmed, which seems likely, Kagan will be the third Jewish judge on the present Supreme Court. For the first time in US history there will not be a single Protestant on the bench. The remaining six judges are all Catholic, including a black judge. This does not mean racism or discrimination is dead in America. But it does mean it no longer rules.

The point is that a nation’s progress depends on more than an increase in wealth. It also depends on how much the society moves towards inclusion and away from racial, religious and sexual discrimination. In fact, the enormous economic progress the US has made since World War II is attributed to the diversity of its population and the freedoms guaranteed to it in the constitution, and, of course, to education.

Other developed countries have also moved in the same general direction — forward. Even India, with whom we love to compare and compete, abolished the centuries old practice of ‘untouchability’ through its constitution in 1950. Pakistan, however, has moved backward.

Unbelievable as it may sound, Pakistan was a non-discriminatory society for the first two or three decades of its life, at least at the legal and official level. Muhammad Ali Jinnah had given the nation a vision of an all-inclusive society (his speech of August 11, 1947); the country had a 15-20 per cent non-Muslim population; the first federal cabinet included a Hindu, Jogendra Nath Mandal, as law minister and an Ahmadi, Zafrullah Khan, as foreign minister. Many Christians joined the air force; Christian missionaries ran some of the best schools and hospitals in the country. The anti-Ahmadi noises, emanating from the usual quarters, were either ignored or, when necessary, treated as a law and order problem.

But in 1974, Prime Minister Zulfikar Bhutto, falling prey to political expediency, amended the 1973 constitution to excommunicate the Ahmadis and, in his words, “solved the 90-year old problem”. That “problem” is now 126 years old, and doesn’t seem to go away.  The amendment paved the way for more discriminatory legislation, which unleashed intolerance and violence in the society. Laws are made for the well-being of citizens, not to persecute them. Discriminatory laws encourage violence. (Lynching of blacks in America until the early 20th century was also the result of prevailing discriminatory laws.) It is naïve to expect violence to go away while retaining such laws. They must be scrapped in order for the society to move forward.

As someone said, “progress is like toothpaste. You cannot push it back into the tube.”  We tried to, and look at the mess we have made.

Published in The Express Tribune, July 19th, 2010.

COMMENTS (17)

Muhammad Ahsan Khan | 14 years ago | Reply “This is why Begum Shahnawaz was noted for her opposition to Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar’s proposition that Pakistan be an Islamic country, arguing that Jinnah envisaged it as a secular state” @Talha It was courageous stand of Begum Shahnawaz and some other opposition leaders. In my earlier comment I have given the definition of a secular state.(1) State has nothing to do with the religion (2) Religion has nothing to do with the state (Governing system). Jinnah envisaged only half of it (1). The result is “Objectives Resolution”. Do you deny this fact? “Better take your own advice and keep your heart open because delusional dreams of Ummah, Caliphate and what not shall never come to pass” Here only half of my statement is used which I consider an incorrect way of blaming somebody. I wrote: It is good to keep your heart open to receive the messages of the leaders (politicians) but it is better to keep the eyes open to watch their acts. I keep to my better part of advice and my eyes are always open. I write my observation and not my opinion. I am not dreaming of a Caliph but I have been observing all the developments from the birth of the state to this day and I conclude the end result. Personally, I will be happy to be wrong.
Talha | 14 years ago | Reply This is why Begum Shahnawaz was noted for her opposition to Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar's proposition that Pakistan be an Islamic country, arguing that Jinnah envisaged it as a secular state. Better take your own advice and keep your heart open because delusional dreams of Ummah, Caliphate and what not shall never come to pass
VIEW MORE COMMENTS
Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ