15.09.2013 Religion vs nation-state
Either religion has to submit to the exigencies of the nation-state, or else the nation-state,
by acquiescing to the ‘universal’ call of the religion, will sacrifice its very existence
By Tahir Kamran
One of the criteria to ascertain the level of socio-cultural maturity among any group of people is to assess its demeanour towards those adhering to a different belief system. Co-existence, if not camaraderie, among the followers of different faiths or sects is absolutely vital for the sustenance of the multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society of Pakistan, which is also conspicuously punctuated by wide variety of sectarian denominations.
The rapidly diminishing proportion of religious minorities in Pakistan provides a stark testament to our collective attitude towards divergence of any sort, and especially of religious difference. Exclusion in the name of religion has become an institutionalised practice which clerics practice with impunity, and the inability of the state to successfully counter such a social malaise has debilitated not only the state itself, but society too.
On September 7, 2013, the 39th anniversary of the passage of the Second Amendment was marked by the holding of the Markazi Khatm-i-Nubuwat Conference in Johar Town, Lahore. The conference was reportedly riddled with diatribe against Ahmadis. Mufti Muneeb-ur-Rehman, Chairman of the Ruet-i-Hilal Committee was among the principal speakers at the conference. The virulence that his speech contained epitomises yet again the changed character of Barelvi Ulema, particularly in post-independence days, but also it reflected the prevalence of exclusionary rhetoric in a sect known historically for its relative docility. Other speakers including Dr Amir Liaqat Hussain, Pir Muhibbullah Noori, caretaker of Baseerpur and Justice (retired) Mian Nazir Akhtar were equally relentless against this minority group.
Majlis-i-Tahaffuz-i-Khatam-i-Nubuwat, under whose auspice the conference was held, has a history of posing challenges to the state. It almost rocked the foundations of the state apparatus in 1953, until the Army was called in and a tight rein was put on its leaders. History repeated itself in 1974, when they declared Ahmadis to be non-Muslims. Z.A Bhutto acquiesced because he was threatened with yet another challenge to the state. MTKN then perpetuated this challenge (if not direct threat) to the state through Sipah-i-Sahab and the much-feared Lashkar-i-Jhangvi.
This latest conference is yet another repetition of a call to revisit the horrific episodes of religious fanaticism and bigotry that no civilized nation can afford.
The tone, tenor and language employed by these fire-brand guardians of Islam points to their intolerance of those who practice different faiths. This also begs the question as to how a ‘citizen’ is to be defined given the de facto situation obtaining in Pakistan. Practically, the beleaguered minorities of Christians and Ahmadis are denied the right to be citizens of Pakistan. The two categories of ‘Muslim’ and ‘Pakistani citizen’ have become conflated and therefore ceased to be independent of each other. So, whether citizenship should be conferred only on Muslims, or on anybody possessing a Pakistani passport or national identity card irrespective of his/her religion or creed, becomes an open-ended question.
Another point here concerns the obligation of a state to protect its citizens, a duty which it is constantly shirking. The Pakistan Penal Code succinctly pronounces (in section 153-A) a punishment of up to five years of imprisonment and a fine for inciting disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious groups. The invocation of such punishment becomes mandatory in such circumstance in order to rein in anybody flouting the law, even if it is in the name of religion. Unless this is done, the menace of religious extremism, which inexorably leads to sectarian militancy, will not be contained.
That people who, at one point or the other, have represented the state of Pakistan, such as Muneeb-ur-Rehman and Justice (retired) Nazir Akhtar, are now employing religion to incite violence, which is lamentable, to say the least. The neutrality which used to be a sine qua non for any one holding official position is starkly compromised. Unfortunately, in Pakistan this has become the norm. The government officials make appearances on TV channels and write regular columns expressing views antithetical to stated government policy.
Reverting to the point of the relationship of the religion and the nation-state, which, at best, is erratic primarily because of their inability to co-exist on an even keel. Either, religion has to submit to the exigencies of the nation-state and compromise on its transnational agenda and appeal, or else the nation-state, by acquiescing to the ‘universal’ call of the religion, will sacrifice its very existence. Any religion claiming to have a ‘universal’ agenda will be at the cross purposes with the nation-state, which is run by a constitution and is contained within properly demarcated and internationally accepted frontiers. Even the Muslim states with firmly established theocratic systems of governance, like Saudi Arabia and Iran, keep religion under check. Religion in the particular case of Pakistan tends to disregard such a thing as ‘national frontiers’.
Similarly, religion accords rights and privileges to the believer in its fundamentals, whereas a nation-state is obliged to protect the rights of those living within its frontiers irrespective of their belief system. It is, therefore, essential that, in the peculiar case of Pakistan, the state must assert its position vis a vis the individuals and agencies representing religion. The solidarity and strength of Pakistan is what seems to be in jeopardy here.
Ironically, the surest way to discredit anyone is to call him/her an Ahmadi, in the way that the JUI-F has orchestrated a campaign against Abdul Lateef Yousafzai in spite of the fact that he has denied being an Ahmadi. It is indeed frustrating to know that such people will be sharing the responsibility of governing this hapless country with the PML-N. One can only hope, against hope, that the current government will pay heed to such a situation.