There is, at this delicate moment in Pakistan’s history, a big question that must find an answer: who will own the new political order that is in the process of being shaped and how will that ownership be exercised? In the last few articles, I have been comparing Pakistan’s political development with that of India and will respond to this question first in the Indian context.
India is a more diverse country than Pakistan and yet, it has developed a consensus on how it should be governed. Its constitution, adopted in 1950, is based on two simple but powerful premises: that the will of the people must prevail and the rights of all communities must be fully protected. India can be justly proud of the fact that its head of government is a Sikh belonging to a religious community that once rebelled against the state and since then, has been fully accommodated in the political system. While it often deviates from these two rules, what is attractive about the Indian system is that it has the ability to return to the old established norms.
Today, the Indian system is faced with at least one big challenge: the slow death of national parties. The Congress has found it difficult to climb out of the dynastic mould. It is widely expected that the fourth generation in the Nehru-Gandhi family will take command of the party and the government when Sonia Gandhi and Manmohan Singh pass from the scene. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is finding its ideological foundation to be a weak force for building a national base. The progressive failure of the national parties has created space for those with strong regional interests. The inevitable tension between the regional and national parties has made it very hard to formulate economic policies that are aimed at national rather than regional objectives. Prime Minister Manmoham Singh’s latest set of economic reforms has run into predictable regional opposition.
Whether New Delhi will persist with them will determine the future of the Indian political order.
Now let me turn to the case of Pakistan and the evolution of its political system. There are a number of contending forces in the country as well. Some of these don’t hesitate to use violence to get their way. Islamists and secularists have their views and are vying for influence, the former by using threats and intimidation to gain support. It was this group that assassinated Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer in January 2011 for expressing secularist views about the incarceration of a poor Christian woman on charges of blasphemy. Regional and separatist forces are fighting the weakened state, seeking to control the people who live in their territories and establish a claim on the resources that are yet to be exploited in these areas. Sectarianism is now a force with each faction within the same faith claiming to be in possession of the full truth. Religious minorities are being hounded to gain political ground. It is clear that the forces that seek to divide rather than unite will use whichever opportunity arises to get their way. It was not bad policing that produced mayhem in Pakistan following the airing of a YouTube video that disparaged the prophet of Islam in mid-September. A score of people died so that those who excited them could gain additional political ground.
Religion has become the battleground in Pakistan. In India, the failure of the BJP to use the Hindu identity to define national politics pushed religion to the background. That has not happened in Pakistan. A fully democratic order that respects the rule of law is the only way to bring together different forces and get them to resolve their differences through the ballot box and from the floors of the national and provincial assemblies. Once a law is placed on the books, there must not be any deviation from it, in particular by those who hold the reins of power. The law, for instance, does not permit any individual — certainly not a federal minister — to urge the murder of a person who may have hurt the sensitivities of those who follow his faith. This was precisely what was done by the minister in charge of railways when he announced a reward of $100,000 for the murder of the man behind the YouTube video.
Will Pakistan be able to reconcile the deep devotion to Islam as the faith of the country’s majority with the demands of a political order based on accommodating different views not only about religion but on other issues that lie in the domain of public policy?
Published in The Express Tribune, October 1st, 2012.
COMMENTS (27)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
@Karma
Well said.
Well known historian, Dr. Mubarik Ali, has aptly said that contemporary problems must be answered through the prism of history. results of 1937 election left the idea of Pakistan unimaginable. afterwards, the manifesto was deliberately altered; secular parties exploited sympathies of poor people and religion was exploited to enjoy the power by feudal and dogmatic one percent class. So, the next upholder of the system will be the same people who are now living in power corridors: aid addicted, dogmatic, religion exploiter and apparently secular hypocrites through coalition set-up.
Indian Guy: You are so wrong. Hindu Philosophy includes Atheism. Hinduism isn't a monolithic religion. It incorporates various philosophies. Read about Charvaka or Lokayata system within Hinduism - it is completely atheistic, and is over 2,000 years old.
Because it isn't monolithic in its philosophy, Hinduism can embrace parts of newer religions and ideas over time. Buddha is considered one of 10 avatars of Vishnu by many Hindus today, and most Hindus are reverential about places of worship of any religion (including Mosques and Churches). It can cast aside old ideas like Sati, Caste System without much trouble. Today even a person belonging to low caste can be a temple priest. - In short it is a constantly reforming faith system.
@Hindu atheist: Lol, you can either be Hindu or an Atheist. An atheist does not subscribe to an organized religion with its own set of superstitions. Hinduism may not have persecuted atheists but it did (and still does, despite laws to the contrary) people born to so-called "lower" castes, an idea I find utterly repugnant. You may have a point that Hinduism may treat atheists better than some other religions, but I don't see a reason why atheists have to choose between religions when "none of the above" is available. @ethicalman: Why would I protest if something happens in Pakistan/Bangladesh/Sri Lanka? I care about my country, the people of those other countries should worry about what happens there. -Proud atheist
This was a nice article except for the BJP and Hindutva error. As most people have pointed out, any extreme religious ideology coming out of the BJP did not have a chance right from the start. When you have a "religion" that has successfully given space to polytheists, monotheists, agnostics, atheists (and a host of other "eists") to flourish, challenge each other and create a rich and diverse body of philosophical work, any attempt to impose narrow "religious identities" is pretty much doomed from the start.
What makes me really uncomfortable about Pakistan and quite frankly Islam is that even the liberal Muslims I have met insist the state and Islam must be intertwined. It's only the current interpretation that is wrong. Pakistan is not truly Islamic, nor are the other countries with Islam as a state religion, etc. Invariably, all these countries have problems that make India look pretty impressive in contrast. An impressive achievement, considering how many problems India has. Perhaps I am meeting the wrong kind of Muslims and reading the wrong blogs, but this religion + politics is a recipe for disaster. The irony is that progressive countries like Turkey have prospered by toning down religion. And looking at Erdogan, Turkey is not going to stay secular for long if he has his way. All of my Turkish friends are apprehensive and want less (not more) religion in their lives.
ethicalman "nice guys finish last"
I do not agree. In the short term, the answer may be yes. In the long term, it is no. Why do you get the feeling Hindus are last. In fact, the Hindu "religion" is witnessing a resurgence at least in USA where I sit. I have lost count of the number of people who either self identify as Hindus or are for all practical purposes Hindus in thought and belief. I have at least 4 friends who were amazed that there was a major "religion" that has historically accepted atheists and did not persecute them. Much like me, they self identify as Hindu atheists now. Yoga is so popular that the Catholic Church is getting nervous. Imams are prohibiting their followers from doing yoga. There are Christians who have attempted to launch a hilarious perversion called Christ Yoga.
The basic fact is this. In this era of science and instant interconnectedness, exclusionary dogmas that have no basis in fact are on the retreat. This also includes exclusionary sects of the dharmic "religions". In nations that are prosperous and have personal freedom, there is a direct correlation with an increase in atheism and dharmic though (Buddhism is spreading like wildfire in the US, even more so than Hinduism). Besides, as a Hindu, you should not be worried about numbers. When an ideology or religion starts worrying about numbers, it is no longer about god or the absence of god but about politics.
Religious fundamentalism in any country may fetch popular imagination, but for brief period in history. Even in India, BJP has realised that the extreme rightist , fundamentalist attitude isnt paying any dividend..law of diminishing returns is catching up with them . Today even BJP's ultra right Chief minister hobnobs with Muslims ..in form of Iftar parties, special help etc..this is one form of appeasement. BJP will never be able to win Parliamentary election and rule on their own..they will have to depend on support of political parties who are opposing Congress. Diversity in India's electorate adds to balancing act and moderation in Public posturing of political forces in India.
While some of us Indians will find some reason to gloat, let me state this: In terms of potential, Pakistan had (has?) tremendous potential. On a per capita basis, Pakistan has far larger natural resources (water, minerals etc.) that could have enabled not just agriculture but manufacturing as well. Immigrants in any society typically are a lot more industrious and dynamic (simply because there is no other choice) than natives and Pakistan had a higher % of migrants than India post independence. You guys dont seem to value what you have got.
Don't blame it on corruption. Both countries are no different from that perspective. It is not completely because of religion as well. There are enough successful countries with a dominant (and even state) religion. I think Pakistan err in seeing secularism as an anti-thesis to religion; ergo, if you are secular, you are irreligious/ atheist. That may be a classic western practice, but India simply sees secularism as equal respect for all religions. Even the BJP, a party that i have never voted for and never will, for all its faults, did not/ does not want to revoke secularism and convert India into a Hindu theocracy. Their favourite stick is that other parties are not secular but pseudo-secular. Go to Bombay during Ramzan and believe it or not, you will find BJP and Shiv Sena posters greeting Muslims on Ramzan. BJP holds iftari dinners.
Why does Secularism work? In the absence of a state religion, the constitution becomes your bible. For sure, the society and system is not perfect, but as the author mentions, various governance arms bring back status quo quickly when deviations occur. Even Modi cannot gloat about what happened in Gujarat
Correction in previous post:
The law and order can only be improved, if the laws are followed by the book and they should NOT tilt towards providing convenience to those having vested interest.(political party, army )
Adding: Even those who are pro-BJP here in India, wouId actually willingly accept that someone else in BJP to be a better PM candidate than Modi, that he could not prevent the riots in his state will be a sufficient reason for it. The fact is Indian middle class, knows "progress" in real terms,. All it requires is to take a look on the successful working of those socities where religion and governance are seperate in this age, There should nothing above Right to Life and Liberty, and the state should do its best to protect it.
About India, I am of view that we do not in the current political landscape, have a political leader as Gandh, Nehru, Sardar Patel for them the country was above everything else. The same might be true for Pakistan not having a leader as their Quaid e Azam.
@usmanx there is basic difference in India and Pakistan. While BJP is considered a right wing party in India, Muslim League, PPP and PML-N are considered secular in pakistan.
"political order based on accommodating different views not only about religion but on other issues that lie in the domain of public policy" The author hits the nail with the last line, even if Pakistan remains to be of singular view when comes to religion and provdies no concession to minority religion, can it shy away from the responsibility of providing a society based on other issues lying in the domain of public policy.
The law and order can only be improved, if the laws are followed by the book and they should tilt towards providing convenience to those having vested interest.(political party, army )
Only solution is change the constitution and make Pakistan as a secular state where religion has no power in the policies of government
@usmanx talking about political parties? your country itself is a result of religion!!
@phir bulleh shah if there are some "necessary good" in India , that cannot be found in pakistan , its there for some reasons...
Excellent article. Many good points. I disagree on the following points:
India can be justly proud of the fact that its head of government is a Sikh belonging to a religious community that once rebelled against the state and since then, has been fully accommodated in the political system.
The authors seems to imply that Sikhs were only "fully accommodated" only after the the Khalistani rebellion. That is wrong. Sikhs were always prominent in national politics and sharing of power ever since independence.
In India, the failure of the BJP to use the Hindu identity to define national politics pushed religion to the background. That has not happened in Pakistan.
The above comments also are not correct. Religion had been "pushed to background" not because of any BJP failures, but solely because secularism is enshrined in the Indian constitution. On the other hand, the reason for Pakistan being intimately wedded to religion is because Pakistani constitution declares that Pakistan is an Islamic state. Not to mention the fact that Pakistan was created in the name of Islam.
@Pir Bulleh Shah: " ... Thankfully Gandhi and Nehru refused the basic protections demanded by the Quaid and Pakistan was born. ... "
Your Quaid's demands went beyond seeking basic protections. He wanted preferential treatment for Muslims.
A man "blasphemes" against Islam the whole Muslim world erupts. Hindu temples were destroyed, idols were smashed recently in Pakistan, India did not erupt. Nepal did not erupt. They were calm. That is tolerance of the faith.
Those who say all Religions are the same, they preach tolerance are very wrong. Some qualify, only some.
You have to factor this in when you say Hinduism did not take hold in the central national identity. Hindus inherently are a very pluralistic and tolerant lot.
@usmanx: Has a religious party won in Pakistan ever? NO. Please explain me how did the Pak Army rule Pakistan for more than half of its independent existence?? and please don't tell me the Pak Army does not have religious inclination. Pakistan's Passport reads "Islamic Republic of Pakistan"....... So, whether you like it or not, there was no option for Pakistan other than having a religious party at the helm at all time right from its independence... Welcome to the light.........
Pakistan was formed on the premisis of religion .... every Pakistani is a Muslim first and then a Pakistani ... should explain why Pakistan is at this stage ... Even the ISI and Army plays this card ... and Pakistan with all the OIC countries ... Worst part is everybody knows that Pakistan is using religious card only for personal benifit ...
"two simple but powerful premises: that the will of the people must prevail and the rights of all communities must be fully protected."
You must be kidding, Mr Burki! If India had promised to protect the rights of all communities, do you think Quaid e Azam would have asked for a separate country? Thankfully Gandhi and Nehru refused the basic protections demanded by the Quaid and Pakistan was born.
About tolerance of hindus. It may noted that the prime minister is a sikh. The army chief is a sikh. The chairman and deputy chairman of planning commission are also a sikhs. The chief of governing political party is a christian woman and she is the most powerfull politician of india and the chief justice of the supreme court is a muslim. this is in a country wheren the hindus are in overwhelning majority.
@usmanx: The BJP is as much of a religious party as the PML-N, which has won the elections several times (incidentally, even when it was at the peak of its popularity, the BJP never got more than one-third of the seats in Parliament, and had to give up its religious agenda to find coalition partners willing to support it to power.)
Modi is not going to be future prime minister, simply because even the BJP's partners will never support him.
Has a religious party won in Pakistan ever? NO. Has the BJP won in India? YES. Is MODI IN POWER now and likely Future prime minister? YES.
We could learn from India's governance but there is no need to self-flagellate.
In India the diversity is so enormous that people have to be flexible in their public life; which again makes them willing to keep their private life behind. In Pakistan, the mono religion being the axis, believers could easily become rigid enough not to accomodate any difference in the practice of others belonging to the same religion.For an indian there is more opportunity to embrace an all accomodating way of life which is missing in Pakistan.
No. That is the answer to your excellent question in closing. People of the Islamic faith have to rise up against the intolerance, victim hood, and hate preached and taught to them. They have to cease being willing participants. Beliefs rooted in absolutism and religious supremacy create arguments and impress no one. However Islamic people ask a lot from "others" but are unwilling to provide the same rights of equality, tolerance and freedom to non-Muslims in their societies. Unless the mosque is separated from the State, Pakistan cannot have peace with itself. And peace is a requisite for sustainable growth.
In India , religion buggy couldn't start because of tolerant Hindus . Hindu community is generally peaceful and minds its own issues , not others . How many mass protests do you see when something happens to Hindus in Pakistan ?Not a single one.But in case of Muslims through out the world , it is very very different . At the same time, Hindu community tried some modern values like schools and universities in stead of Gurukul (like Madrasa) . But Madrasas are wide spread through out Islamic world .Also we believe in integration by lowering our religious thinking , that's why Indian Hindus don't suffer in westen countries .Also in our text , religion,politics,economy doesn't go in sync .However this is not the issue of pakistan only , this is the issue of whole muslim world . Politicians come out of the community and why to blame them . In a community where some Ayatollahs and ministers declares bounty against some person to glorify themselves and support things like beheading and muder openly , how can that community thrive ? Turkey is an fine example for islamic world to emulate .
religious fanatics will own the system