FOCUS

Majority in Pakistan

MJ Akbar was in Karachi some years ago, he recounts, at the home of a close Pakistani friend. Between them they decide to visit the Binori mosque and madrasa, founded by Maulana Yusuf  Binori immediately after Aug. 1947. It is another matter, that despite being a dignitary in the Pakistani official apparatus, the friend too, had never visited this Binori mosque for all the six plus decades’ post independence. Was this too, a reflection of the air of uncertainty prevailing in Karachi? This location was widely believed to be a sanctuary for Osama Bin Laden during his association with US forces in their fight against Soviet Union’s presence in Afghanistan. On reaching the mosque, MJA describes “We mounted steps that opened into a spacious courtyard surrounded by rooms. A few students loitered around with their usual outfit, of white kurta and the two inches above ankle pyjama, like in any Islamic seminary in the subcontinent. As I bent to unlace my shoes, I dismissed a slight tremor of unease, unwilling to accept that I was afraid. It was impossible, however, not to sense that we were on the threshold of  different world, where a different law and a separate order prevailed. The Karachi police would probably have guffawed at the thought that they needed to do something about an Indian held hostage in the mosque. Fools deserve their fate. Then, without a word, my companion signalled, that it was time to end this stupidity. We returned to the car at a brisk pace, just short of a panic run,” he concluded. Here is an eminent Indian intellectual and his prominent    friend, both Muslims, after over 60 years, could not muster enough courage to be inside a mosque cum madrasa in an Islamic Republic and literally runaway panic stricken.

Experience of MJA prompted the writer to raise pertinent questions and write the piece. Readers are requested to be open minded in asking questions and answer them themselves, in the context of the sub-continent as a whole. Feedback and critical comments are welcome.        –Editor

Surely it looks a confusing and amusing title for an article on Pakistan. There have been whole lot of debate, discussion and reports in the media so also meetings by global intellectuals on the minority situation especially in Pakistan. It is not for nothing that former US Secretary of State Madeline Albright had said many years ago that Pakistan is an ‘international migraine’. That this geographical land mass called Pakistan is a case of migraine was never in doubt. But Ms. Albright was the first one to say so on record and it became, quite rightly a quotable quote. But the fact is, even that country itself is a victim of migraine it created. 

Recorded latest statistics available in the public domain informs us that Pakistan consist of 97% Muslims of both Sunni and Shia denominations. This leaves 3% Christian, Hindus, Parsees and even those of other Muslim denominations like Ahmedias and others. If these are figures of 2012/2013, the figures on 14th Aug 1947 were much different. According to the figures available for those earliest days of Pakistan, non-Muslim population of Pakistan was of the order of over 30%. So whatever has happened to the 27% of these non-Muslim members of the Pakistani society? 

There are lots of theories making its rounds in the public discourse. These theories include, forcible conversion of women through forced marriages, forced conversion of men by intimidation and threats, outright elimination through violent killings and of- course those who could manage to flee, escaped to other countries. 

Although, it may be uncharitable to describe Pakistan as a violent society, it is admittedly true that violence is found and witnessed all across the country, almost on daily basis which corroborate the description ‘International Migraine’. Hence the question arises, what is the majority community doing to shed this image of a country, of being an international migraine? 

Mobasshar Javed Akbar, is an Indian journalist, writing in English since many decades. He is well known as MJ Akbar and is respected all across India as a thinker and an intellectual. Penguins published one of his books in 1985, “India; The siege within”. It was an intellectuals account of how he saw the land of his birth evolving, and the challenges before it as a pluralistic society. 

It was in 1950, that India gave itself a constitution, drafted by some of the greatest minds of India of those days. The committee that finalized and presented the constitution was chaired by the indomitable Bhimarao Ramji Ambedkar (BRA) According to the social stratification of the day, when India became independent, BRA was an ‘untouchable’. The New York Times, in an article reportedly published on Nov. 30, 1930, describes Ambedkar as the “most unusual ‘untouchable’, having the degrees of Doctor of Philosophy from Columbia University, New York and a Doctor of Science from the University of London’s London School of Economics. At the end of all his study abroad he returned to India as an ‘untouchable’ as when he left. He could not enter a temple or drink at a public well”. Yet, in 1947, when the country got its political independence, a respectful nation appointed B R Ambedkar to chair the Constitution Drafting Committee, for his sheer intellectual greatness.

The Indian constitution declared the country as a secular nation without any state religion, unlike the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (Islam-i Jamhuria-e Pakistan), which had Islam as its official religion. 

In 1950, on 26th of January, when India declared itself as Sovereign Republic, it overwhelmingly conveyed to the world at large that secularism shall be its guiding philosophy in statecraft. Here it is important to recollect, “When, 13 June 1947, Mahatma Gandhi was asked whether those who called God Rama and Krishna instead of Allah would be turned out of Pakistan, he answered only for India; we shall worship God as both Krishna and Karim and show the world we refuse to go mad.”

No wonder, in his book “India The siege within”, MJ Akbar writes “Hindu fundamentalism, long the thirst of a section of the middle class, has never got much response in an India whose population is 80% Hindu. It needs to be pointed out that India remains a secular state, not because 1/5th of its population is Muslims, Sikh or Christian and therefore obviously has a vested interest in a secular constitution, but because 9 out of 10 Hindus do not believe in violence against minorities”. (Page 23) 

Does this mean, majority in Pakistan failed to protect its minorities? 

Indira Gandhi, a tall leader by her own right, wrote in her magnum opus ETERNAL INDIA, published by London based George Allen & Unwin “The secret of India’s greatness and resilience is the acceptance of life in all its fullness, the good and the evil, and at the same time trying to rise above it all. In all the ups and downs of its long and chequered history, Indian customs, mores and traditions have been continuously evolving. It has not hesitated to adopt, adapt, absorb new and fresh ideas and issues. And inspite of various foreign influences of thousand years, the roots of indianness have remained strong and healthy. The Christianity came to India from outside, so was Islam. Parsees driven away from their homeland found refuge in India. All of them made India their home and flourished. While others only spoke of secularism, India truly practiced secularism and sustained our scriptured perception of tolerance and compassion.” 

Free and democratic India and theocratically oriented Pakistan, both have the same period of existence, yet how diametrically different both these countries are and how they have evolved over the last over 6 decades as a congregation of civil society! According to MJ Akbar “Indians and Pakistanis are the same people; why then two nations travelled on such different trajectories? The idea of India is stronger than the Indian; the idea of Pakistan is weaker than Pakistani”.

Population of Pakistan, consisting of 97% Muslims, are mainly Sunni denomination with 77% and the balance 20% being Shia. All through its history of 66 years, there have been continuous bloody attacks on Shias. Ahmedias, who claim that they are Muslims, have been declared as non-Muslims by the Supreme Court of Pakistan, and thus was rendered extremely vulnerable and are hence living a terrified existence. There is one more Muslim minority group, which want to migrate to India, where obviously they feel more secure and safe.

Isn’t this a massive failure of the majority in Pakistan’s civil society? Mohd. Ali Jinnah, who swore by secularism, whom officially Pakistan calls as ‘Father of the Nation’, would be a deeply disappointed man rolling in his grave. Or was Pakistan a puppet in the hands of Jamat-e-Islami, which was founded before 1947, by Maulana Maududi, acknowledged as god father of Pakistan?  And Zia-ul-Haq, who was a disciple of Maududi, destroyed the liberal fabric, if any, of Pakistan by his, over a decade’s, autocratic rule by the application of Shariat. MJ Akbar, reminisces, that even after Zia regime, the efforts to reverse his legacy have not succeeded, because a strain of theocracy runs through the DNA in the idea of Pakistan.

We are told, that Army and its allied institutions like ISI run the Pakistani politics and economics and therefore the larger society. Almost the whole of the men and women, who mans these institutions are from the majority community and therefore has the power to protect its less than 3% non-Muslim minorities, and the 20% Shia Muslims and yet, day in and day out we see and read reports of violent killings, almost every day, including during the holy month of Ramadaan. Dead are generally Shia Muslims, Ahmediyas, Christians or Hindus.

Look at the politics of Pakistan. Despite, there being federal parliamentary system in place, in 1958, Field Marshal Mohd. Ayub Khan seized the power, and enforced his brand of ‘controlled democracy’ till 1969, as President. His deputy, General Yahya Khan deposed Field Marshal. He ruled until 1971, when he presided over the balkanization of Pakistan, and East Pakistan got liberated as Bangladesh. This was again the failure of the majority, which led to the eastern part of Pakistan deserting the mainland.

Zulfikar Ali Bhulto was handed over the power by Gen. Yahya in 1971. He was overthrown by Gen. Zia-Ul-Haq, who executed Bhutto in 1979, accusing him of murder of a political opponent. Gen. Zia was killed in an air crash, allegedly planned, in 1988. Was he killed for executing Bhutto? The question was never answered. In the general election held in 1988, Benazir Bhutto’s party was voted to power, who was dismissed in less than 2 years in Aug. 1990. Nawaz Sheriff Government which took over was dismissed in 1993. Benazir who returned to power thereafter was again dismissed in Oct. 1996. Feb. 1997, saw Nawaz Sheriff again taking over the power, only to be overthrown by the then army chief Gen.  Pervez Musharaff in Oct. 1999 who packed off Sheriff to Saudi Arabia with a 25 years sentence not to return to Pakistan.

All those military rulers who usurped power, promised civilian rule, only enjoyed it without keeping the promise, and they all belonged to the majority section of the Pakistani society. Even the last of the military ruler, Gen. Musharaff enjoyed unbridled power until end of 2007, when he resigned, after the assassination of   Benazir Bhutto, when she had returned to Pakistan, from a long exile, to fight the ensuing election. There are accusations that Gen. Musharaff was responsible for the killing of Benazir, so also that of the tribal leader Bugthi of Baluchistan. He is presently under house arrest in Pakistan. With Nawaz Sheriff government in power, there is every chance that Gen Musharaff will be made to pay for his alleged acts of commissions.

Thus, for all its 66 years, the political life of Pakistan has been one of turmoil and uncertainty. All actors were from the majority section of Pakistani society.  Hence the question persists that “Could it be that, majority in Pakistan has failed to realize the dream of its Father of the Nation, ‘A Muslim majority secular nation’?” Despite there being a plethora of political parties formed by civil society members, latest being that of Imran Khan, writes Ayesh Siddiqa from Islamabad, “None of these parties challenged terrorism and radicalism in the country despite being in power at different times”. May be Indian friends of Pakistan, like Mani Shankar Iyer, may be able to answer this troubling question with adequate explanations.

Introducing his book “TINDER BOX - The Past and Future of Pakistan”, MJ Akbar writes, “Muslims of British India had opted for a separate homeland in 1947, destroying the possibility of a secular India, in which Hindus and Muslims would co-exist, because they believed, that would be physically safe, and their religion secure, in a new nation called Pakistan. Instead, within six decades, Pakistan had become one of the most violent nations on earth, not because Hindus were killing Muslims, but because Muslims were killing Muslims. Islam did not save the Pakistan of 1947 from its own partition, and in 1971, the eastern wing separated to form Bangladesh. It is neither coincidental nor irrelevant that the national anthem of Bangladesh has been written by the same poet, Rabindranath Tagore, who gave India its national anthem”.

According to Sir Hillary Synnott, British High Commissioner in Pakistan between 2001 and 2003 “Pakistan’s structural and historical weaknesses are such that nothing short of a transformation of the country’s body politic and institutions will be necessary, which can be brought about by Pakistanis only”. MJ Akbar thinks “Pakistan displays the characteristic of a ‘jelly state’, neither will it achieve stability nor disintegrate. It seems condemned to sectarian, fratricidal and international wars. The thought is not comforting.” And he feels “Pakistan can become a stable, modern state, but only if the children of the Father of Pakistan, Jinnah, can defeat the ideological heirs of the god father, Maududi.”

J.SHRIYAN

Minority in a Naya Pakistan

Naya Pakistan is the new buzzword in the country. It is the campaign slogan of Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf, and it speaks to those who are seeking not only a new leadership but also new Pakistan. There is an expectation that with this election must come a Pakistani renewal that would be more in keeping with the original promise of Partition, instead of the present corruption, poor governance and the absence of any sense of security. Many see the country suffering from the burden of an inept leadership and an expensive partnership with the United States in its war on terror, and believe Pakistan has paid too high a price for this. In the past few years, the media seems to have put the burden of both internal mismanagement and skewed external relations on the ruling Pakistan People’s Party. With new leaders like Imran Khan on the horizon, it is believed that a positive change is in the offing. Although it is not clear that Mr. Khan will be the ultimate winner in the elections, it is taken for granted that the new 40 million votes added to the voters’ list, including those of the youth, will favour the cricketer-turned-politician.

Turnout uncertain

However, there is a lot of uncertainty underlying the change mantra. Given the fact that the voter turnout in past elections was low, it is still not certain how many will show up for the election today. In provinces like Balochistan, the voter turnout in the 2008 election was as low as 20 per cent. Countrywide voter demotivation could get compounded by the threats being issued by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), which has warned people, especially in the tribal areas and the Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa province, against going anywhere near a voting booth. Thus far, there have been numerous murderous attacks by the TTP against the previous ruling combine of the Pakistan People’s Party, the Awami National Party, and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, targeting its leaders, candidates and campaign rallies. The TTP has declared these parties liberal-secular and thus deserving of its ire. The irony of course is that none of the three parties challenged terrorism and radicalism in the country despite being in power for five years.

Even if voters overcome these challenges to come out and vote, there is no evidence yet that a Pakistan under a different leadership can bring about the sort of renewal that is required for the task of nation-building. Nowhere is this more evident than in the attitude of political parties to the religious minorities. There are 2.9 million non-Muslims in the country formally registered with the National Database and Registration Authority. Of this, the biggest number is of Hindus (approx 1.4 million), followed by Christians (1.2 million), and then others which include Ahmedis, Zorastrian, Bahai, Sikh, Buddhist and even a handful of Jews.

Pakistan, which opted for separate electorates for its minority communities at the time of Partition, took the decision to integrate these communities in the political mainstream by abolishing that system in 2002. But in other ways, the process of integration of the minorities has been non-existent and, thanks to the overall ideological-political climate in the country, the attitude towards them is one of violent intolerance.

After many such incidents of violence targeting them and their mosques, the Ahmedis, for instance, are feeling more ostracised and threatened than before by the growing latent-radicalism in the country. The community was declared non-Muslim by the Bhutto government in 1974. Mainly concentrated in Central Punjab, the Ahmedis have opted to boycott these elections as none of the political parties seems to heed their concerns.

Earlier in the campaign, Imran Khan, who spoke about changing Pakistan from his hospital bed after his fall this week, issued a formal press statement contradicting the video footage about the party’s plan to revisit the law declaring Ahmedis non-Muslims. The video clip had gone viral on social media and the ensuing controversy forced Imran Khan to make the statement that he believed in the finality of Prophet Muhammad. But shockingly, he went on to add that no one from his party had sought Ahmedi votes. More than anything else, that declaration raises worrying questions about a national party’s agenda. Notwithstanding differences on interpretation of faith, the right of Ahmedis to life and inclusion in politics has to be ensured. It is also interesting that Imran Khan used the term ‘Qadiyani,’ which the Ahmedis in Pakistan consider derogatory.

The situation in relation to other political parties is not encouraging either. Nawaz Sharif’s PML-N, which is trying to maintain control of the largest province of the country, is entrenched in an electoral partnership with the defunct militant Deobandi organisation, Sipha-e-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP), that is contesting elections under the title of Ahle Sunnat wal Jamaat (ASWJ). The party’s rabidly fundamentalist posturing in Punjab does not bode well for the Ahmedis, or for the Shia community. In these last few months, the Shia community has been violently targeted in different parts of the country, especially in Balochistan, by the Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, an offspring of the SSP. The Shias are not a minority, but their relentless targeting is a result of the mainstreaming of Deobandi and Wahabi discourse in society and politics in general.

Misuse of blasphemy law

The Christian community is not happy either. In the past five years, there was a noticeable increase in the number of attacks on Christians using the blasphemy law. The Zia-era legislation condemns anyone guilty of blaspheming against the Prophet of Islam to death. The law is frequently manipulated to settle personal scores and disputes over land, especially by land mafias that are spread across the country. Some ministers of the PML-N were allegedly behind some of the attacks.

A similar situation seems to prevail in Sindh where Hindus feel increasingly insecure and abandoned like everyone else by what was once Bhutto’s party. Many PPP candidates are wealthy land-owning wadheras; some of them have well-known links with criminal gangs and militant outfits. The Hindus of Sindh will probably vote pragmatically for the PPP in areas dominated by the party, not out of loyalty, but to safeguard their interests and buy security, seriously deficient in Sindh.

Unlike the Hindus in South Punjab who mainly consist of the scheduled castes, the Sindhi Hindus include castes that are more affluent. They dominate business and industry in rural Sindh but consider themselves a threatened species primarily due to the abysmal economic and security conditions in the province. In upper Sindh, they say that the banyas dare not even show off their wealth for fear of attracting unwelcome attention, usually in the form of kidnappings for ransom. The overall increase in poverty and poor governance in the province have raised ordinary people’s threshold as far as crimes against rich Hindus are concerned. No one is outraged if some of their wealth gets stolen or extorted.

A bigger concern for Sindhi Hindus in recent years pertains to forced conversion of upper caste Hindu girls to Islam. Their economic influence has not translated into sufficient political clout to generate support among the political elite of Sindh to solve this particular grievance.

Wadhera-mullah combine

The lack of political engagement does not help counter the influence of religious wadheras or the wadhera-mullah combine which is now increasingly behind the conversion issue. It was in 2012, for example, that the conversion scandal involving a pir of the Bharchundi shrine became public. Mian Mithu, as he was popularly known, was also a PPP member of the National Assembly. He was instrumental in converting a local Hindu girl, Rinkle Kumari, to Islam after one of his men facilitated her abduction and then married her off to a boy she allegedly had an affair with. As Rinkle’s Talraja caste has some influence in Ghotki and adjoining Dharki, where it even has a huge shrine of Sacho Satram Das, the PPP eventually abandoned Mian Mithu.

Pakistan’s renowned Sindhi playwright, Noor-ul-Huda Shah, believes that there is a tendency to treat conversions, especially of upper caste girls such as Rinkle Kumari, as a trophy. The pride in converting upper caste Hindu girls could also be linked with the gradual spread of militant organisations like the SSP, JeM and LeT in interior Sindh. Piggybacking on the shoulders of the religious party, Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam, the various militant outfits are said to be engaged in several cases of violence including the killing of three Hindu boys in Khairpur who were suspected of involvement with Muslim girls.

The efforts made by some Hindus in the last couple of years to migrate to India caught media attention. Though most people in the community still consider Pakistan their country and would not leave, political parties have paid scant attention to their problems.

For the minorities in Pakistan, the biggest question is whether this election will help them negotiate their safety and security in a society and polity increasingly drifting towards the right wing. So far, no political party has had the courage to provide a reassuring answer.

(Ayesha Siddiqa is a commentator based in Islamabad and author of Military Inc.: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy) This is a reproduction of an article in the Hindu of May 11, 2013.