Now, I was under the impression that the job of the election commission was to try and find honest, straightforward, God-fearing, sensible and educated men and women who had never been suspected of or convicted of moral turpitude. And that they were to give a hard kick in the pants to the bank defaulters, tax evaders, rapists, men who sodomise young boys, people who steal electricity and those in positions of power who siphoned off millions of dollars into Swiss banks. From what I can gather, the people who are calling the shots have apparently decided that Pakistan does have an ideology after all. And that it is a blend of the Objectives Resolution, Ziaul Haq’s Hudood Ordinances and the belief that as Pakistan was created as a homeland for the Muslims of the subcontinent, it has to be a theocracy.
This is what I find so confusing. I belong to that small tribe which has become an endangered species. The tribe that still believes that the Ideology of Pakistan is, and always will be, come what may, what Mr Jinnah stated in his oft-quoted presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947. You know the one where he said, “You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed — that has nothing to do with the business of the state … We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one state.” Mr Jinnah believed in a Muslim majority state, not a theocratic one. When Pakistan Television and Radio Pakistan were instructed to edit that speech by cutting out the bit about religion and the state, in my study of jurisprudence, they were committing treason. As you can see, there is still a certain amount of confusion in the minds of the people, particularly members of the older generation who lived under the secular government of Ayub Khan. I think the chief election commissioner should hold a press conference and also appear on the telly to let the nation know just what our ideology is supposed to be — so that the matter can be cleared up once and for all.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 21st, 2013.
COMMENTS (18)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
In view of the questions asked by the returning officers, one is thrown in to a state of confusion; are these elections relevant for the 12th century or the 21st century? While the press relentlessly broadcasted the questions drama, neither the people nor the leaders in Pakistan really know what they were doing or what it is all about.
Secular Ayub: his sons and family were looting Pakistan with long arms. Secular Yahya Khan gave away East Pakistan to India. Secular ZAB looted so much that his kids financed and executed an 11 year terrorism campaign from overseas. Secular Mushrraf found partners in burglars like Chaudhries, et al.; and promulgated the NRO to forgive the crimes of BB/Zardari. In Pakistan, secularism is used as a cover for crime.
@BruteForce: Keep on drinking that KoolAid. Jinnah’s life and beliefs were secular throughout. His speeches underlined the fact that Islamic principles or Shariah’s principles are not in contravention of modern secular states’ paradigms. The only places you would find Jinnah’s letter to Pir Sahib of Manki Sharif quoted are RSS sources. And, why would Jinnah appoint Maulana Azad from the Muslim League platform, whereas Maulana Azad was Congress' President? I am amazed that people like BruteForce, Nero, & mostly other supposedly Indian trolls take particular delight in supporting the points of view of the most narrow-minded conservative Mullahs, and tend to oppose the points of view of secular oriented progressive elements of Pakistan. They also tend to believe that somehow India has invented secularism and the world did not know about this phenomenon before 1947. Spare us of your bigoted tunnel vision.
@Arzoo: the U.K. has a long Christian tradition, yes, but an equally spirited secular one, which has made the terms "Christian Nation", "Head of the Church of England" pretty meaningless. DC can afford to chime in about Christian values now and then as a politician knowing fully well nobody will take that seriously. Is Pakistan in the same position? The author of the article in question has given some of the examples that ROs have asked aspiring candidates for the elections. Can you imagine this happening in the UK?
@Nero & @David_Smith: You are absolutely wrong. Take a look at David Cameron's statement here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16224394 . As Prime Minister of Britain he may know a thing or two about being a Christian Nation and at the same time a secular state. And, by the way, the Queen is the head of the Church of England. What is essential for being a secular state is that the state does not officially adopt a particular religion. Jinnah's statements were in consonance with that objective. Pakistan definitely has struggled with the dichotomy of this issue, with the confusion exacerbated by our Mullahs, who were against the establishment of Pakistan to begin with, but afterwards jumped ship and changed their tunes.
"Mr Jinnah believed in a Muslim majority state, not a theocratic one. "
I quote Jinnah:
A Theocratic state's definition as per the dictionary in my mac:"a system of government in which priests rule in the name of God or a god."
Jinnah wanted Sharia to rule, not "Priests" or Mullahs. But, that doesn't mean he didn't want Islam to be the state Religion or Sharia should NOT be implemented? He says so clearly in the quote I've shared.
Regarding the Ideology question, Jinnah refused to admit Maulana Azad in the interim Government saying only Muslim League can nominate Muslims. The Pak Election Commission pretty much did the same thing with Ayaz Amir. Only the criteria and reason has changed.
Clearly his idea of Pakistan is much closer to what it is now, than what the Author is trying to portray.. Why are so many people in Pakistan trying to subvert History to suit their purposes?
"I think the chief election commissioner should hold a press conference and also appear on the telly to let the nation know just what our ideology is supposed to be — so that the matter can be cleared up once and for all." wrote the honourable learned author. I have the feeling that everyone in the country should be free to declare and as such strive to be in practice of the ideology that upholding of "JUSTICE" is the best policy for the whole mankind. Upholding of justice should be widely propagated by one and by all and everyone should be encouraged to get into the practice of upholding of justice. When people at large will make an effort to make "JUSTICE" a very commonly found habit among the people then there is a chance that justice will become a commonly found commodity. Upholdng of justice at all the times is the only way to bring about peace in our turbulant, troubled world. Upholding of justice is to regard and respect the Lord, the Creator exactly as and what he is. He is not a human like us. Upholding of justice is to regard and respect the fellow humankind exactly as he or she is i.e. a fellow humankind. Once we start getting into this valued and precious habit we shall see that we are able to ward off all the trouble we endure everywhere in the world.
'Mr.Jinnah believed in a Muslim majority state, not a theocratic one". That was the slippery slope, my friend. Any state, based on religion, generates dynamics that will eventually move it towards oppression of its minorities, over-emphasis on its religious identity, and spawn groups that will take an increasingly radical view over religious interpretation (this happens even in faux religions like communism, when splinter groups appear that challenge the leadership on grounds that they were moving away from the party's "core" principles!). Perhaps, with your erudition, you could do a comparative study between Saudi Arabia, a faith-based state, and Iran, an open theocracy. Throw in a look at Israel as well, a state based on the need for a "homeland for the Jewish people", in other words, a "Jewish-majority state and not a theocracy".
"Mr Jinnah believed in a Muslim majority state, not a theocratic one."
Dear Author, I know your heart lies in the right place. But there is something wrong with that statement. You can not be secular if you "believe" in a majority (any religion) state. Secularism is an exact opposite. Religious affiliations of citizens is irrelevant in a secular state. Mr Jinnah's case is even more interesting. He "believed" in a Muslim majority state which didn't even exist.
It is interesting to see how all of us cannot agree even on a 'cynical' view of a 'minor' farce. Why can't we just laugh?
@TrueSecular: As they say: "Brevity is the soul of wit; and stupidity is the exclusive domain of the witless." You should have at least given half a reason in support of your comment instead of a sweeping statement. As a "TrueSecular," whatever that may mean, do you not know that Turkey with a 96.83 percent of a Muslim population is a fiercely secular state? Mr. Mooraj's main argument is based on Mr. Jinnah's clear and unequivocal intent of establishing a purely secular state. Mr. Jinnah's own life was a testament to his secular credentials. That Pakistan has failed to live up to his ideals does not necessarily mean that there is no hope of it in the future.
@Falcon: You cannot be serious while writing "They could have easily made an amendment to fix it." In this Islamic Republic and the land of pure, with PML-N having close to as many seats in NA as PPP and PML-Q many more in the senate than any other party, nobody could make that change in the constitution. Even they tried hard in 18th amendment but could not do away with those articles of "pure Islam". I usually agree with most of your comments and have a lot of respect but you cannot be serious when you can say it could be easily fixed. BTW, a good balanced secular Op Ed and thanks for that. Regards, M
Aah, the secular Government of Ayub Khan.... those were the days! A Golden Era that we can only dream about now. The man was a God-send and would be most welcome if he was to appear again in a second coming! If only..... God sake, if only,,,
How can you say there confusion in the minds of the older generation who lived under a secular Ayub government? It is the generation of Ayub and the leaders before that commited Pakistan to the path of Islamism and faux secularism. The older generation, despite their "confusion", seems to have raised very clear headed off spring who have accelerated the Islamist path chalked out by their elders. Also, how do you define "secular" in religious oriented societies like Pakistan? Definition of secular in Islamic society is not the same as in genuine democracies where all citizens are equal irrespective of religion, creed etc.
Yet another flawed article from a confused secular.
I completely agree with your concerns. But I also think that the blame rests as much on politicians as does it on ECP & ROs. What were the politicians doing for the last 5 years when they know that article 62/63 is going to be a problem? They could have easily made an amendment to fix it.
Sir what u r referring to lies somewhere in the middle of the triangle of theocracy, ecclesiocracy and democracy. Is not Theocracy is a very wrong word to use? What I infer from ur piece is that a country with a state-religion is a theocracy, and a theocracy can never provide equality and freedom of worship. Too much slippery slope?
Once again you have said what every sane, sensible person would think. The position on the ground is as confused as it can get. We have one too many a cook to spoil the broth. Its not just spoilt, it literally stinks, but the mood seems to be ' lets muddle through with this and say we've had an election '............and then go back to business as usual.