Article Ansar Abbasi of the Constitution

Liberals must stand up with the same conviction as Abbasi's, demand Constitution be purged of unenforceable provision.

For days running, Ansar Abbasi of The News has been ardently defending the Constitution of Pakistan in writing and by making appearances on news channels. In his reading of Articles 31, 62 and 63, as they must be applied to the potential people’s representatives during the process of scrutiny by the Election Commission of Pakistan, Abbasi has been more forthright — given the letter of the Constitution — than those opposing his views on how the State of Pakistan must be configured.

His view is simple. The Constitution refers to Islam and Islamic injunctions and stipulates, inter alia, that people may be qualified or disqualified to contest for public office depending on whether they are good Muslims. As with the Constitution, Abbasi’s views on what or who constitutes a good Muslim are problematic. But first the Constitution.

Before Articles 31 and some provisions of 62 and 63, let’s begin with the very preamble:

Whereas sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone, and the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust ...

Wherein the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice, as enunciated by Islam, shall be fully observed;

Wherein the Muslims shall be enabled to order their lives in the individual and collective spheres in accordance with the teachings and requirements of Islam as set out in the Holy Quran and Sunnah;

Note my italics in the text. Let’s move to Article 19, dealing with the Freedom of Speech, etc: “Every citizen shall have the right to freedom of speech and expression, and there shall be freedom of the press, subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan or any part thereof ...”

Further, Article 31, Islamic way of life. (1) Steps shall be taken to enable the Muslims of Pakistan, individually and collectively, to order their lives in accordance with the fundamental principles and basic concepts of Islam and to provide facilities whereby they may be enabled to understand the meaning of life according to the Holy Quran and Sunnah.

(2) The State shall endeavour, as respects the Muslims of Pakistan —

(a) to make the teaching of the Holy Quran and Islamiat compulsory, to encourage and facilitate the learning of Arabic language...;

(b) to promote unity and the observance of the Islamic moral standards; and

(c) to secure the proper organisation of Zakat ...

Given the paucity of space, this would suffice to show that the letter of the Constitution stands as Abbasi claims. Sadly, the arguments on our side have been less than convincing. Why?

Firstly, the secular-liberal is weighed down by a contradiction. On the one hand he defends the Constitution because it is the basic document and the most fundamental provision against coups d’état or any other extra-constitutional effort to hurt democracy. On the other, this basic document is riddled with vague clichés and references to Islamic injunctions without any acknowledgment of the obvious fact that the question of who is (or is not) a good Muslim is, and has been, a matter of bloody dispute throughout the history of Islam.

Take Article 31. It even talks about the absurdity of encouraging and facilitating the learning of the Arabic language, not as an exercise in language acquisition but for reasons of religious practice.

The same Article tells us that the State shall “promote unity and the observance of the Islamic moral standards”. What does that mean? At the minimum, it is an acceptance that there is no unity in the observance of Islamic injunctions, including the rituals. That being so, how will the State promote unity without weighing in on the side of one or the other way of practising Islam?

Clause ‘c’ of the article dealing with securing the proper organisation of zakat is a case in point, though not the only one. [NB: The Munir Report is the most poignant example of denominational differences.]

Another meaningless and very problematic reference in the Preamble reads: Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures.

Given our practice, we know this to be bollocks. In fact, better and more vociferous Muslims than Abbasi are already at work to ensure denominational purity within Islam; to think they give a damn about minority rights is a joke.

Abbasi is welcome to retort that he considers sectarian to be against the practice of Islam. If so, he only rubbishes the foundation of his own argument and tries to be ahistorical. He will also then be most welcome to preach to those who are even less apologetic than him about the fact that even this Constitution is not Islamic enough and democracy is a satanic system.

Secondly, the secular-liberal needs to contextualise how, when and under what circumstances these provisions entered the Constitution. And they aren’t just the doing of the hated Ziaul Haq. They begin with the Constituent Assembly and bear the heavy footprints of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

This, again, is a topic needing separate treatment. But two points are important. One, the Constitution is a document bristling with contradictions. Two, accepting that the Constitution contains unenforceable provisions is not an unconstitutional exercise. Finally, the secular-liberal has to stand up with the same conviction as displayed by Abbasi and demand that the Constitution be purged of these provisions. It won’t be easy because Abbasi and his tribe will refer to democracy and the numbers in favour of these provisions. They are good at playing democracy when it suits them.

However, it’s not a hopeless situation. What I have gleaned from my learned friend Feisal Naqvi, Article 31 (one of the “Principles of Policy”) as per Articles 29(2) and 30 is pretty much expressly recognised as being useless. Second, the parsing of the Constitution into operative and clichéd provisions has already been done to a certain extent by the judiciary (e.g., the neutering of the Objectives Resolution). This needs to be done for Articles 62 and 63 also.

That is precisely the battle.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 10^th, 2013.