‘Admitting you are a secularist can get you killed in Pakistan’

Academics lament that rulers have been using religion to their advantage for centuries.

Our Correspondent January 27, 2013

KARACHI: Urdu linguists have distorted the meaning of the word “secular,” and falsely translated it as la-deen (non-religious). The use of the word is so dangerous now that even mainstream leftist political parties in the country are afraid of talking about it.

Civil society representatives highlighted these points as they participated in a seminar titled ‘Democracy and secularism in Pakistan: Its need and importance’, at the Arts Council on Saturday. The event was organised by the Forum for Secular Pakistan. The participants urged political leaders to push for a secular state, “as there can be no democracy in the country without secularism”.

Prof. Dr Jaffar Ahmed, the chairperson of the Pakistan Study Centre, criticised Urdu linguists for “distorting” the meaning of ‘secular’ in earlier dictionaries. The word was originally used to refer to the small pieces of land that common people used to hold in the days when the Catholic Church would own most of the land. The word came to symbolise scientific inventions and progressive thought in the 19th  century, he said.

Senator Hasil Bizenjo said that secularism had become, perhaps, the most difficult subject to talk about in the country. “If someone says that he is secular, people would kill him on the spot.” He said that only three to four political parties in the country had mentioned the word in their manifestos.

On the other hand, monarchs, as well as democratic governments, have been using religion to strengthen their rule for centuries. However, there have been a few prominent rulers, including the founder of the Mughal dynasty, who had grown worried over the amalgamation of religion with state affairs, said I A Rehman, the secretary general of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. “For democracy to survive, it is necessary for the state to stay neutral when it came to religion.”

Published in The Express Tribune, January 28th, 2013.


Mulheed | 8 years ago | Reply

I support secularism. But you can't be a true Muslim and be secular. And I support secularism.

BruteForce | 8 years ago | Reply


Jinnah was never relevant to any society that wants to achieve the kind of things Nehru stood for..

No wonder that today Nehru and Gandhi are still relevant. Obama says Gandhi is the person he wants to meet from History, above all else. Mandela time and again has said how Gandhi inspired him. Martin Luther King has said how Gandhi transformed him as an individual.

Barring Obama; Mandela, King and Einstein fall into the Great category. Jinnah was someone who opposed Gandhi, called him someone who was pushing forward a Hindu agenda. Poor Gandhi, he goes on hunger strikes to make sure Muslims are not butchered by the Hindus and gets called such things.

For every secular sounding speech of Jinnah, I'll give you an Islamist speech.

Jinnah called Direct Action because his because his demands in CMP were not met and he called it during the month of Ramzan. Take the Religious overtones, mix it with national politics and add to it the deadly ingredient of violence, you will have a Taliban.

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


Most Read