The pieties of Article 62
 

[B][CENTER][COLOR="DarkSlateBlue"][SIZE="4"]The pieties of Article 62[/SIZE][/COLOR][/CENTER][/B]

The media has highlighted the situation created at the offices of many Returning Officers (ROs) scrutinising candidates for the May 11 elections. One daily newspaper headlined a story thus: "Poll scrutiny turns into Islamic studies test". And then went on to report: "Before joining the race for parliament, candidates for the May 11 elections may have to prove their adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and the Quran, and may be requested to recite a Sura or particular Quranic verses and answer questions about the five daily prayers."

Although this kind of inquisitorial grilling of the people's representatives was heard randomly during past elections, this time the exercise is being done with a vengeance. Returning Officers unsuccessfully hide their sadistic smirks as the victims gulp and gape over questions people don't face in ordinary life. The same daily paper referred to one case where the trick didn't work because the victim was well-rehearsed with answers to questions he likely knew were coming: "TV channels recorded that when Owais Muzaffar Tappi, PPP candidate for a Sindh Assembly seat and President Asif Ali Zardari's close aide, was asked about the number of Namaz prayers one is required to offer in a day, he took a couple of seconds to tell the number of rakats in Fajr prayers."

But in Hyderabad region, the MQM candidates were not so lucky. Their nomination papers were rejected during scrutiny. The party says if lack of knowledge about Islamic teaching was declared as the reason behind the rejection, it would challenge the process of scrutiny. "The papers of one of our candidates from Matiari were rejected by the returning officer. The reason is not yet mentioned but the candidate was asked several questions about Islamic teachings."

Article 62 of the Constitution explains the criterion of qualifications for members of parliament, and its clause (e) reads: "He [must have] adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and [must be] practising obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstaining from major sins". There are other conditionalities too, like "he should not be opposed to the Pakistan Movement" which has resulted in ROs asking about the date of birth of the Quaid-e-Azam and who wrote the national anthem, etc.

Are these questions thrown at all candidates? Reports indicate that the big leaders are let off with less harsh remarks like "you should have sported an Islamic beard"; and some are not asked any questions at all. The fact however is that the said Article is forcing people to assume a false piety in order to get through the phase of filing their papers. Life's first lesson - and the most important article of faith under Islam - is that a man is judged on the basis of his actions not his verbal claims to goodness. If piety was the badge worn by true Muslims then our founder the Quaid-e-Azam would have boasted a flowing beard. Not even Allama Iqbal the philosopher of Pakistan succumbed to the attractions of Article 62 by growing facial hair - he in fact had an imposing mustache not approved by our clergy.

Disturbed by the spectacle of the inquisition of the ROs, an eminent columnist has asked what is an "adequate knowledge of Islamic practices" required by these Officers. The same columnist listed a number of national leaders who would have failed this test of superficial piety. The fact is that a cleric minister who looked after religious affairs in the last government could have answered all the arcane questions without batting an eye; yet he was not spared by the courts in deference to his pious knowledge-by-rote when scandals broke on his watch. Another senior journalist put it succinctly during a TV discussion when he said that the questioning of candidates under Article 62 was a way of trivialising Islam.

Why should the Election Commission start badgering politicians at this stage? Everyone knows that religiosity (showing off faith) has hurt Pakistan more than religion itself. The terrorists who kill innocent people like flies in Pakistan are all bearded men who flout their religiosity and come to their job after saying namaz. Some have even confessed that they believed they would go to Paradise and cohabit with houris. The Election Commission must be realistic and save the situation from becoming more grotesque. It should revert to the past practice of benignly ignoring the article in question.

General Zia has done us in again. He took Article 62 and stuffed it with his religiosity to legitimise his illegal tenure in power. After he died, politicians did not have the guts to clean up the Constitution in its entirety. The Ziaist provisions that remained were ignored in the post-Zia period. Why should they be revived now? The Election Commission, after taking a look at what is going on in the name of Islam, should recommend to the next parliament that the article be reviewed and made more realistic.

[url]http://www.thefridaytimes.com/beta3/tft/article.php?issue=20130405&page=1[/url]