There is no mention of the phrase “Ideology of Pakistan” in the Objectives Resolution [Article 2(A) of the Constitution]. It does, of course, mention Islam saying “ … the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam shall be fully observed”. And that “… 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 the Sunnah”. The phrase does not appear even in the oaths prescribed for all elected offices, members of all houses and the governors. In these oaths, there is a mention of “Islamic Ideology” (That I will strive to preserve the Islamic Ideology which is the basis for the creation of Pakistan). Islam is a faith, a religion like Christianity and Judaism. It is not an ideology like communism, socialism or capitalism. Therefore, I am not sure if it is advisable to limit the eternal and universal faith that is Islam into an ideology, which is inherently a temporary phenomenon.

Since I first heard the phrase in the late 1960s, I have been trying to find out the real meaning or definition of “Ideology of Pakistan”. Once, I conducted a small survey to determine the precise drift of the phrase. To my utter disappointment, the definitions I received were not only as varied as the sample was, but each answer differed in substance from what the rest believed the phrase meant. When I came across this phrase again in Articles 62 and 63 after the 1973 Constitution was mutilated by General Ziaul Haq, I was intrigued by the wording of Article 62, as according to this Article, those who had opposed Pakistan before its establishment were exempted from its purview, which meant that all those who had called the Quaid-e-Azam “Kafir-e-Azam” and opposed his struggle for Pakistan were absolved of their animosity towards the Pakistan Movement. We all know who these people are and how they have succeeded in becoming the thekeydaars (keepers) of Pakistan and how they have managed since to distort the very basis for the creation of the country by coining misleading slogans like Pakistan ka matlab kia … which to me sounds more like a blasphemous utterance. So, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know the hands that held the pen that wrote the clause.

I am doubly happy that they picked Ayaz Amir to intimidate the majority into owning the minuscule minority’s view of “Why Pakistan?” Perhaps, they thought that with the disqualification of an intellectual of considerable standing on the trumped up charges of violating the “Ideology of Pakistan” clause, they would terrorise the majority resisting their obscurantism all these years into falling in line. But Ayaz is no easy pick for anybody, least of all for the minuscule minority that has been trying its level worst since the very inception of Pakistan to push the country back into the cave age. Ayaz has been fighting this minority since the day he entered the media world in the late 1970s. His columns in Dawn during Zia’s brutal and Musharraf’s birdbrain rules, especially during the Kargil misadventure and right when Musharraf was selling Pakistan cheap following 9/11, or his columns in The News in support of the movement for the restoration of the judiciary are evidence enough — if any evidence is needed — to prove Ayaz’s love for this country and his scorn for those who try to take liberties with Pakistan. The sound and fury that swept across the country and among every section of society following the verdict of the returning officer, who despite all his powers is no mufti to issue a fatwa (edict), has exposed the hollowness of the clause in question.

Both Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, and Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the author of the 1973 Constitution, as well as those who voted unanimously for the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment, were not theocrats. They were all politicians. All three had aimed for unanimity while seeking their respective objectives. That is the context in which their utterances and actions should be read and we should not insist on basing arguments on selective parts of their speeches and deeds.

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