One may wonder that why the very term of secularism is so
offending, disgusting and even tabooed in Pakistani political culture and
social setup. There, indeed, are a number of reasons behind this disposition of
Pakistani society. The major reasons are: wrong/misinterpretation of the very
term secularism; low rate of literacy; historical factors, especially the discourse
during the immediate pre and post partition times; and propaganda on the part
of the interested quarters. Before discussing the factors, it is necessary to
objectively analyze what secularism is, which has a long historical background
and is the ultimate product of the antagonism between the forces of clergy and
common man.
Briefly put, during the Dark Ages of European history the
government was dictated by the church. The clergy class has had the upper hand
both in the religious as well in the political affairs of the state. Individual
liberty, freedom of expression and public choice in the social and political
affairs was made subservient to religion/church. State itself received
dictation from the church and theocracy was the political system. The revolt
against this over-dominant role of church in all fields of human life developed
into the creed of secularism which advocated separation of state and religion.
Religion being the personal concern of individual while state being the common
domain of all. The revolt got triumph over the clergy control on the state and
the democratic governments along with secular creed were established in most
parts of Europe.
But the way secularism is interpreted in Pakistan, is indeed
sorrowful. If meaning of the term is looked up in Urdu’s dictionaries, a very
strange meaning is given over there. Which not only reflects a very poor understanding
of lexicography on part of the dictionary writers, but is a great injustice to
the cause of secularism itself.
The meaning here implies that secularism is a kind of system in which there is no room
for religion, or in other words
practicing religion or showing affiliation with any religion is not tolerated
in the system. It is interpreted as an arch enemy of religion. And this is the
very discourse which has been in use by certain interested sections for their
own vested interest. In addition, however, there are historical factors as well,
which counts for the development of the adverse attitude towards secularism in
Pakistan.
In the pre-partition era it was a political necessity for
Muslim League to use the card of religion to galvanize support of Muslim for political
ends. But after the partition Mohammad Ali Jinnah immediately sensed the danger
of the overplay of religion in politics. He was the first person, who
articulated the separation of religion from politics, but unfortunately his statement
was neither read between the lines and aptly interpreted nor effort was made to
put the same into statute. His famous statement Speaks volumes for the cause of
secularism.
“You are free; you are free to go to your temples. You
are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State
of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed—that has nothing to
do with the business of the state.”
If the discourse contained in the text is critically
analyzed, one can easily infer that the whole creed of secularism has been
couched in these words. First freedom of religion is guaranteed, one can go to
one’s own center of worship whatever it may be, and in fact this is first
principle of secularism. Wherein there is no restriction on one’s practice of religion.
Religion is the private choice of individuals and they cannot in any way be
forced in this regard. Secondly, separation of religion and politics which he
clearly states that religion has nothing to do the business of state is the
second important principle of secularism. But all these views of him went
unheeded because these were not brought into institutional framework. The stage
was already set for the religious elites who along with a group of politicians took
the state into a theocracy.
The need of using religion as a card in the politics surfaced
in the immediate post partition time. Key politicians of the time belonged to
those areas of subcontinent which had become part of India, and when they
migrated to Pakistan they had no constituency of their own. Therefore in order
to play down the concept of being foreign and lack of support in public, they
used the card of religion capitalizing on which they got public vote and
support, and thus the concept of religion got another entrance into the terrain
of politics. The same situations were coupled with pressure from the orthodox
religious figures who demanded that the purpose behind creation of Pakistan was
creating a castle of Islam and therefore the same must be realized. All these developments
culminated into the Objective Resolution of 1949, which converted Pakistan into
a religious state. A critical assessment of the theocratic nature of Pakistan
is necessary to bring forth the benefits and harms it accrued.
No doubts the card of religion to some extent tied the public
together in a time when the country needed unity. Further It also satisfied the
orthodox section of the society which was hell bent of giving such identity to
the infant state. However, it developed in its wake ground for the following
issues as well.
If the religious consideration was not there, report of
Second Basic Principles committee would not been rejected (albeit other reasons
) by orthodox for not having explicit
mention of Islamization of the country, which was supplemented by Khwaja
Nizamuddin by adding a Board of Ulema to the committee and subsequently the
constitution framing would have not delayed that much.
Pakistan would have not needed inserting an amendment to its
constitution, declaring Ahmadyia community as non Muslim, drawing a demarcation
line between the otherwise equal citizens. Pakistan, therefore would have not made
its only worth mentioning scientist Abdussalam to bid adieu to his country of
birth, simply because he belonged to the Ahmadiya community.
Prospects of mullah and military alliance would have not been
there for ‘safeguarding the ideological frontiers’ of the country though
explicitly at the cost of physical boundaries, and accruing the harm which
is evident everywhere in the country now. Indoctrination of the public with the
ideology of fighting anywhere for the holy cause is also a part of the
same venture .It is interesting to note that the TTP ex-spokesman once gave allusion
the ideologically loaded articles of the constitution and justified actions of
his outfit, and termed their war a struggle for the implementation of those
constitutional provisions.
Pakistan would have not witnessed the social marginalization
and even deaths of its smaller religious denominations on the pretext of their being
followers of a religion other than
Islam. ZiaulHaq had even once removed the word ‘freely’ for minority in the exercise of their religion
in his infamous RCO 1985.
The last but not the least, Pakistan would not spend a share
of its budget on the boy the Council of Islamic Ideology whose interest revolve
around the woman and woman alone in various declaration.
CLICK TO FOLLOW US ON FACEBOOK.
CLICK TO FOLLOW US ON FACEBOOK.
READ ALSO
Political issues of Pakistan.
SOCIAL ISSUES.
CRITICAL CURRENT ISSUES