By Amir Zia
The News
Sunday, April 7, 2013
The mainstream parties must harness Pakistan’s collective will, which remains moderate and liberal. They must promise to repeal not just Article 62, but all the General Zia-injected distortions in the constitution. This is vital to reclaim Jinnah’s moderate and progressive Pakistan and defeat those forces that stand against its spirit and founding principles
We should be thankful to the returning officer who disqualified former lawmaker and one of the country’s leading columnists Mr Ayaz Amir from the 2013 elections for his alleged ‘thought-crime’ of opposing the ideology of Pakistan and Islam in his articles. Had the nomination papers of Mr Amir not been rejected, the issue of the General Zia-ul Haq-inspired controversial scrutiny process would have remained just a matter of amusement and another process to ridicule and vilify politicians.
But with Mr Amir’s disqualification, which has been followed by former president Pervez Musharraf’s nomination papers for Kasur being rejected for the 2007 crackdown on militants holed up in the Lal Mosque of Islamabad and a host of other alleged crimes, the gravity of this controversial and flawed scrutiny process now stands fully exposed.
In fact, many of the founding fathers of Pakistan, including Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah, would have failed the Election Commission’s trial aimed at bringing self-styled ‘pious’ and ‘good’ Muslims and defenders of the ‘ideology of Pakistan’ into parliament under the controversial Article 62 of the constitution.
Just imagine Quaid-e-Azam standing in front of a returning officer and being asked to recite Azan-e-Fajar, kalma or funeral prayers to prove credentials of being a good, practicing Muslim. Our Quaid would have certainly refused to participate in this absurd display of religiosity.
Even Sir Allama Mohammed Iqbal would have been on a sticky wicket if requested to explain the ideology of Pakistan in this day and age. The Poet of the East would have probably inquired which ideological interpretation he needed to give. The one defined in the Zia-era developed curriculum or coined post-Independence by those clerics and their predecessors who opposed Pakistan’s creation and declared its founding leaders infidels? Iqbal would have certainly stood loyal to the Quaid’s vision, which has no place for religious bigotry and intolerance or theocracy. He would have preferred ‘disqualification’ rather than yielding to the orthodoxy he battled against all his life.
Many other front-line independence movement leaders, who in their individual capacities served South Asian Muslims and Pakistan more than all the trouble-making politico-clerics combined, would have also failed to qualify for the 2013 elections if scrutinised under sections (d) and (e) of Article 62, which say that the candidate should be “of good character and is not commonly known as one who violates Islamic injunctions” and “has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practices obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major sins.”
Section (f) of this Gen Zia-injected article is no less baffling. It sets the condition that a candidate must be “sagacious, righteous and non-profligate, honest and ameen.”
Now can any authority objectively determine who is wise and righteous? Can one explain what is meant by a good character and ensure that others also agree to this definition? Doesn’t Islamic theology itself tell us that one act of virtue washes away all sins, while an iota of conceit and arrogance about self-assumed piousness in one’s heart can offset lifelong labour of worship? Any sensible state and its institutions distinguish between sin and crime.
Holding people accountable and barring them from running in elections for evading taxes, stealing public money, submitting fake degrees, defaulting bank loan payments is understandable and commendable. But for sins – which usually tempt and stun – one remains answerable only to the Almighty. It is His domain to punish us on this count and not the job of some returning officer or a professional cleric.
After all, who can claim that he or she has not sinned? Can the honourable chief justice, the Election Commission chief, the returning officers, the members of the caretaker setup members, the cleric on the pulpit, the anchor in front of the camera or any self-appointed moral watchdog of the society claim that they remain free of sin? Can they cross their hearts and vouch that they are of good character? Only extreme vanity will make one do that. Indeed, these are vague terms and exposed to subjective understanding and interpretation. The entire process is akin to pre-poll rigging. This so-called scrutiny is setting the game in favour of a certain kind of parochial mindset and forces by keeping alternative voices out of the race.
The Biblical question – let he who is without sin cast the first stone – seems to aim at today’s Pakistan where hypocrisy reigns supreme. Ironically, here every second person carries stones and wants to be the first one to throw them.
Pakistan’s founding fathers and many distinguished Pakistanis who came later would have the moral courage to confess with humility that they stand on the wrong side of scrutiny in this mad house, where religious bigots in the Election Commission and their cheerleaders are trying to thrust Zia’s dark legacy in the country.
The question-answer session conducted by returning officers to gauge a candidate’s character, piousness and understanding of the religion is nothing short of a farce. It is not only making Pakistan a laughing stock in the world, but further polarising an already divided society as well as strengthening religious intolerance. Religion, indeed, is a matter between an individual and God. The state and the society have no business in it.
Section (g) of Article 62 drifts further into the murky waters of intangibles by setting the criterion that the candidate “has not, after the establishment of Pakistan, worked against the integrity of the country or opposed the ideology of Pakistan.”
Ideology of Pakistan! Can one take the trouble of describing it? It is perhaps the most misused and abused term in our land of the pure.
Quaid-e-Azam and his team led the Pakistan Movement for the economic and political rights of Muslims – and that too for the Muslim-majority provinces. Had Congress leaders agreed to give constitutional guarantees to ensure these rights, history would have taken a different course. There are ample firsthand accounts and research available on this subject now.
Quaid-e-Azam had a Muslim majority state in mind not a theocratic Islamic one. This desire is articulated in his speech to the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on Aug 11, 1947: “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...”
And whenever, Pakistanis got the opportunity to choose, they overwhelmingly voted for liberal and secular parties, underlining the ethos of Quaid-e-Azam’s Pakistan. The Taliban, their ideological forefathers and those who fought the so-called holy wars on dollars and stringers provided by the CIA were always booted out by voters.
But it also remains an unfortunate fact that today none of the major political parties, including the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), seem to be fighting for Jinnah’s Pakistan. They remain hostage to political expediency and appear afraid of the organised but small bands of militants and religious zealots, who try to impose their narrow world view on the majority.
But Pakistan is too big and too dynamic a nation to be swept away by these forces of obscurantism. The mainstream parties must harness Pakistan’s collective will, which remains moderate and liberal. They must promise to repeal not just Article 62, but all the General Zia-injected distortions in the constitution. This is vital to reclaim Jinnah’s moderate and progressive Pakistan and defeat those forces that stand against its spirit and founding principles.
Tailpiece: The Muttihada Qaumi Movement (MQM) leader Altaf Hussain has emerged as the first major politician to raise a voice against the Election Commission’s controversial scrutiny process, challenging the misuse of the term Pakistan ideology.
The other major parties must also play their role and unite on minimum points to get rid of distortions introduced in our constitution and society by General Zia. The masses are ready for this change, but is there any political will to do this? The 2013 elections might probably decide. If not, the struggle to realise Jinnah’s Pakistan will go on.
The News
Sunday, April 7, 2013
The mainstream parties must harness Pakistan’s collective will, which remains moderate and liberal. They must promise to repeal not just Article 62, but all the General Zia-injected distortions in the constitution. This is vital to reclaim Jinnah’s moderate and progressive Pakistan and defeat those forces that stand against its spirit and founding principles
We should be thankful to the returning officer who disqualified former lawmaker and one of the country’s leading columnists Mr Ayaz Amir from the 2013 elections for his alleged ‘thought-crime’ of opposing the ideology of Pakistan and Islam in his articles. Had the nomination papers of Mr Amir not been rejected, the issue of the General Zia-ul Haq-inspired controversial scrutiny process would have remained just a matter of amusement and another process to ridicule and vilify politicians.
But with Mr Amir’s disqualification, which has been followed by former president Pervez Musharraf’s nomination papers for Kasur being rejected for the 2007 crackdown on militants holed up in the Lal Mosque of Islamabad and a host of other alleged crimes, the gravity of this controversial and flawed scrutiny process now stands fully exposed.
In fact, many of the founding fathers of Pakistan, including Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah, would have failed the Election Commission’s trial aimed at bringing self-styled ‘pious’ and ‘good’ Muslims and defenders of the ‘ideology of Pakistan’ into parliament under the controversial Article 62 of the constitution.
Just imagine Quaid-e-Azam standing in front of a returning officer and being asked to recite Azan-e-Fajar, kalma or funeral prayers to prove credentials of being a good, practicing Muslim. Our Quaid would have certainly refused to participate in this absurd display of religiosity.
Even Sir Allama Mohammed Iqbal would have been on a sticky wicket if requested to explain the ideology of Pakistan in this day and age. The Poet of the East would have probably inquired which ideological interpretation he needed to give. The one defined in the Zia-era developed curriculum or coined post-Independence by those clerics and their predecessors who opposed Pakistan’s creation and declared its founding leaders infidels? Iqbal would have certainly stood loyal to the Quaid’s vision, which has no place for religious bigotry and intolerance or theocracy. He would have preferred ‘disqualification’ rather than yielding to the orthodoxy he battled against all his life.
Many other front-line independence movement leaders, who in their individual capacities served South Asian Muslims and Pakistan more than all the trouble-making politico-clerics combined, would have also failed to qualify for the 2013 elections if scrutinised under sections (d) and (e) of Article 62, which say that the candidate should be “of good character and is not commonly known as one who violates Islamic injunctions” and “has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practices obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major sins.”
Section (f) of this Gen Zia-injected article is no less baffling. It sets the condition that a candidate must be “sagacious, righteous and non-profligate, honest and ameen.”
Now can any authority objectively determine who is wise and righteous? Can one explain what is meant by a good character and ensure that others also agree to this definition? Doesn’t Islamic theology itself tell us that one act of virtue washes away all sins, while an iota of conceit and arrogance about self-assumed piousness in one’s heart can offset lifelong labour of worship? Any sensible state and its institutions distinguish between sin and crime.
Holding people accountable and barring them from running in elections for evading taxes, stealing public money, submitting fake degrees, defaulting bank loan payments is understandable and commendable. But for sins – which usually tempt and stun – one remains answerable only to the Almighty. It is His domain to punish us on this count and not the job of some returning officer or a professional cleric.
After all, who can claim that he or she has not sinned? Can the honourable chief justice, the Election Commission chief, the returning officers, the members of the caretaker setup members, the cleric on the pulpit, the anchor in front of the camera or any self-appointed moral watchdog of the society claim that they remain free of sin? Can they cross their hearts and vouch that they are of good character? Only extreme vanity will make one do that. Indeed, these are vague terms and exposed to subjective understanding and interpretation. The entire process is akin to pre-poll rigging. This so-called scrutiny is setting the game in favour of a certain kind of parochial mindset and forces by keeping alternative voices out of the race.
The Biblical question – let he who is without sin cast the first stone – seems to aim at today’s Pakistan where hypocrisy reigns supreme. Ironically, here every second person carries stones and wants to be the first one to throw them.
Pakistan’s founding fathers and many distinguished Pakistanis who came later would have the moral courage to confess with humility that they stand on the wrong side of scrutiny in this mad house, where religious bigots in the Election Commission and their cheerleaders are trying to thrust Zia’s dark legacy in the country.
The question-answer session conducted by returning officers to gauge a candidate’s character, piousness and understanding of the religion is nothing short of a farce. It is not only making Pakistan a laughing stock in the world, but further polarising an already divided society as well as strengthening religious intolerance. Religion, indeed, is a matter between an individual and God. The state and the society have no business in it.
Section (g) of Article 62 drifts further into the murky waters of intangibles by setting the criterion that the candidate “has not, after the establishment of Pakistan, worked against the integrity of the country or opposed the ideology of Pakistan.”
Ideology of Pakistan! Can one take the trouble of describing it? It is perhaps the most misused and abused term in our land of the pure.
Quaid-e-Azam and his team led the Pakistan Movement for the economic and political rights of Muslims – and that too for the Muslim-majority provinces. Had Congress leaders agreed to give constitutional guarantees to ensure these rights, history would have taken a different course. There are ample firsthand accounts and research available on this subject now.
Quaid-e-Azam had a Muslim majority state in mind not a theocratic Islamic one. This desire is articulated in his speech to the first Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on Aug 11, 1947: “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...”
And whenever, Pakistanis got the opportunity to choose, they overwhelmingly voted for liberal and secular parties, underlining the ethos of Quaid-e-Azam’s Pakistan. The Taliban, their ideological forefathers and those who fought the so-called holy wars on dollars and stringers provided by the CIA were always booted out by voters.
But it also remains an unfortunate fact that today none of the major political parties, including the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N), seem to be fighting for Jinnah’s Pakistan. They remain hostage to political expediency and appear afraid of the organised but small bands of militants and religious zealots, who try to impose their narrow world view on the majority.
But Pakistan is too big and too dynamic a nation to be swept away by these forces of obscurantism. The mainstream parties must harness Pakistan’s collective will, which remains moderate and liberal. They must promise to repeal not just Article 62, but all the General Zia-injected distortions in the constitution. This is vital to reclaim Jinnah’s moderate and progressive Pakistan and defeat those forces that stand against its spirit and founding principles.
Tailpiece: The Muttihada Qaumi Movement (MQM) leader Altaf Hussain has emerged as the first major politician to raise a voice against the Election Commission’s controversial scrutiny process, challenging the misuse of the term Pakistan ideology.
The other major parties must also play their role and unite on minimum points to get rid of distortions introduced in our constitution and society by General Zia. The masses are ready for this change, but is there any political will to do this? The 2013 elections might probably decide. If not, the struggle to realise Jinnah’s Pakistan will go on.
Excellent Amir. This is one of your best articles written recently.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you 100% on the absurd issue of Returning Officers deciding who should or should not participate in the elections by asking religious questions.
No civilized society does that. Like you pointed out the obvious crimes or acts of fraud should be the only objections. They should throw out the religious questions out of the window for qualifying the contestants in the Elections.
There is a need to change the political narrative in Pakistan. All non-issues are the issues and the real issues are on the back burner.
Delete