The beginning of the inquisition
Sadiq, ameen refer to moral qualities, not religious practice. But Zia made these questions instrument of inquisition.
tariq.rahman@tribune.com.pk
Scene: in a jail in Seville between 1478 to 1834. The Grand Inquisitor in imposing clerical robes enters a dungeon in which a man is condemned to be burnt at the stake: “I know you are Jesus Christ,” says the Inquisitor and argues that the Church, offering hope to millions, had discarded “freedom” and followed Satan. Even Christ himself would not be allowed to subvert the Church. Christ kisses the Inquisitor who tells him to go away. This scene is from Dostoevsky’s novel The Brothers Karamazov (1880). Inquisitions were part of European history from the 12th century till the early 19th. Thousands of human beings were burnt on the stake and it was only the clear separation of Church and state, which put an end to them. We are starting with ours. Our instruments are three: rumour-mongering, media witch-hunt and Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution as amended by General Ziaul Haq.
Examples of the first and second abound but let me take a recent case. While working in a library, I overheard three students. One boy asserted that Najam Sethi had been made the chief minister of Punjab by India. The girl waxed indignant saying that she would prefer a person who “ate and drank” (i.e., was financially corrupt) to one who was a traitor to the country. Now, go on to the media and you will find media trials galore. The same kind of accusations are whirled at anybody having liberal ideas, with anchorpersons actually wallowing in character-assassination. So, a dictator need not say that other people’s views are different from his; all he has to do is spread to the media that they are Indian, Jewish or American agents.
Recently, the returning officers invoked Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution, interpreted literally to exclude all but practicing Muslims and believers of the establishment view of the creation of Pakistan. Sadiq (truthful) and ameen (trustworthy) refer to universal moral qualities — making Scandinavians better than any of us — and not to religious practice. But General Ziaul Haq made these questions the instruments of inquisition. One prominent case is that of Ayaz Amir who, in my view, is one of the few who still has a sense of humour left in the parched land presided over by zealots and mediocrities. Ayaz Amir has been accused of not believing in the ‘ideology of Pakistan’. Now, this concept has several interpretations and they are historical and not theological so, in the first place, to make it an article of faith even in a religious state is questionable. One interpretation is that Pakistan is based on the two-nation theory; i.e., that Hindus and Muslims are two nations and, therefore, cannot live together in one country. The other is that Pakistan is based upon Islam and is an Islamic state, not a state for Muslims. The first interpretation is not valid nowadays as it would endanger the Muslims of India and strengthen the claim of the RSS that Indian Muslims have no right to live in India as Pakistan was made on the principle that they cannot live with Hindus. Furthermore, if given a chance, Mohammad Ali Jinnah would have made a Pakistan with an undivided Punjab and Bengal with huge religious minorities. Moreover, he never applied this principle to the princely states, accepting the accession of Junagadh, which had a mostly Hindu population, to Pakistan. Obviously, the two-nation theory was the requirement of the time to empower Muslims and secure a safe niche for them in India. That is why Jinnah used religion as a symbol for creating solidarity among Muslims and there are many statements promoting the idea of a liberal democracy in his statements also. He wanted security for Muslims, either within the Indian federation or, when this failed, outside it. He conceived Pakistan as a state for Muslims and not an Islamic state. But we have stopped debate and made even history a part of faith.
Another thing that is wrong with the way politicians are being ridiculed and handcuffed is that the message which goes to the young is that civilians are not fit to govern. So, who is? The military!
And now, think of a scene from Pakistan: a frail old man faces the returning officer and the latter says, “Did you say on August 11, 1947 that religion is not the business of the state? You stand disqualified.” No — not Ayaz Amir but Mohammad Ali Jinnah.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 9th, 2013.
Examples of the first and second abound but let me take a recent case. While working in a library, I overheard three students. One boy asserted that Najam Sethi had been made the chief minister of Punjab by India. The girl waxed indignant saying that she would prefer a person who “ate and drank” (i.e., was financially corrupt) to one who was a traitor to the country. Now, go on to the media and you will find media trials galore. The same kind of accusations are whirled at anybody having liberal ideas, with anchorpersons actually wallowing in character-assassination. So, a dictator need not say that other people’s views are different from his; all he has to do is spread to the media that they are Indian, Jewish or American agents.
Recently, the returning officers invoked Articles 62 and 63 of the Constitution, interpreted literally to exclude all but practicing Muslims and believers of the establishment view of the creation of Pakistan. Sadiq (truthful) and ameen (trustworthy) refer to universal moral qualities — making Scandinavians better than any of us — and not to religious practice. But General Ziaul Haq made these questions the instruments of inquisition. One prominent case is that of Ayaz Amir who, in my view, is one of the few who still has a sense of humour left in the parched land presided over by zealots and mediocrities. Ayaz Amir has been accused of not believing in the ‘ideology of Pakistan’. Now, this concept has several interpretations and they are historical and not theological so, in the first place, to make it an article of faith even in a religious state is questionable. One interpretation is that Pakistan is based on the two-nation theory; i.e., that Hindus and Muslims are two nations and, therefore, cannot live together in one country. The other is that Pakistan is based upon Islam and is an Islamic state, not a state for Muslims. The first interpretation is not valid nowadays as it would endanger the Muslims of India and strengthen the claim of the RSS that Indian Muslims have no right to live in India as Pakistan was made on the principle that they cannot live with Hindus. Furthermore, if given a chance, Mohammad Ali Jinnah would have made a Pakistan with an undivided Punjab and Bengal with huge religious minorities. Moreover, he never applied this principle to the princely states, accepting the accession of Junagadh, which had a mostly Hindu population, to Pakistan. Obviously, the two-nation theory was the requirement of the time to empower Muslims and secure a safe niche for them in India. That is why Jinnah used religion as a symbol for creating solidarity among Muslims and there are many statements promoting the idea of a liberal democracy in his statements also. He wanted security for Muslims, either within the Indian federation or, when this failed, outside it. He conceived Pakistan as a state for Muslims and not an Islamic state. But we have stopped debate and made even history a part of faith.
Another thing that is wrong with the way politicians are being ridiculed and handcuffed is that the message which goes to the young is that civilians are not fit to govern. So, who is? The military!
And now, think of a scene from Pakistan: a frail old man faces the returning officer and the latter says, “Did you say on August 11, 1947 that religion is not the business of the state? You stand disqualified.” No — not Ayaz Amir but Mohammad Ali Jinnah.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 9th, 2013.