Freedom of religion

What and for whom

First, the state declares that a few groups of people do not belong to the religion of the majority and then, it also declares that these groups cannot worship the way they want to. They cannot read the texts they want to, cannot make their places of worship as they want to, cannot have the kind of calligraphy on their place of worship that they want to, and cannot even recite verses that they want to. It then sends the police to desecrate the minority’s place of worship so that it does not resemble the places of worship of the majority of people in the country.

And all this while our constitution guarantees people the freedom of religion. The constitution clearly holds that all people will be equal in the eyes of law, dignity of all people will be maintained, that all people will have freedom to profess and pursue their religious beliefs, and all people will have the freedom to create and maintain institutions for practice of their religion. There are so many clauses in the constitution that cover these freedoms, and in an overlapping manner, that it is difficult and almost pointless to list all of them here. Yet, the same country passed constitutional amendments that declared groups of people to be non-Muslim and not only that, later passed on laws that make it illegal for them to preach their religion, to publicly profess their religion, and to even ‘pose as Muslims’.

The contradictions are clear for all to see. If legislators do not want to see them, it is not that there are no contradictions, it is clearly because they just do not want to see them. But where legislators can come under public pressure and so on, why have our courts and jurists gone along with these. If they lacked independence before, can they stand up and be counted now? Or is it that they too cannot see the contradictions? But a lot of the same people, politicians and jurists, can clearly see that the burqa ban of France is wrong and Switzerland’s ban on the minarets is wrong. And yet, what we are doing to the minorities in Pakistan, with the full power and backing of the law, is not seen by most in Pakistan as wrong.

And wrong it all is. In fact it is wrong at so many levels that it is hard to even start making a case against it. It is legally wrong, but more importantly all of this is morally wrong. Very wrong.

Why is the state in the business of declaring who is a Muslim and who is not? The state should not have a religion that it favours. People have the freedom to belong to a religion of their choice. And people have the freedom to be as religious as they want to be, as long as they do not infringe on similar freedoms of others. The state can arbitrate, but if the state chooses sides, if it declares that it has a religion, how can it arbitrate neutrally, and more importantly, how can it guarantee equal freedom and equal citizenship to all?

Even if the state has said that the official religion of the country is Islam, it should not be in the business of saying who is a Muslim and who is not. Why should the state have that right? It is a slippery slope to step on and it is not the business of the state to go there. Will the state create a process and procedure for deciding which sects make the cut and which do not? In General Zia’s dictatorship when Zakat was imposed many sects had been given the freedom not to pay Zakat? Should there have been a state institution to decide if these sects had breached the ‘Muslim’ barrier? And who will decide who is a Muslim? Look at the history of such debates; not many sects and sub-sects have agreed on general definitions. But even if we could have an agreement of a majority, it does not make it right for the state to do this. Doesn’t this all sound absurd? But we have no problem in the state doing similarly ridiculous things when it declared certain sects to be non-Muslim.

And even if some groups are not Muslim, should the state be telling them how they can or cannot worship, how their places of worship should be constructed or not constructed, and what they should be reading or not reading? How can the state tell people who are not Muslim that they cannot ‘pose’ as Muslims? If I was reading the Bible should a Christian be allowed to tell me that I cannot do so or should the state? Does all this not sound ridiculous to reasonable people? Are we still going to insist that all this is fine with having fundamental ‘freedoms and rights’ guaranteed in our constitution and that all of the above does not contradict these guarantees? Are there people who still see all of the above as moral? If a person who can see insists that she is blind, there is not a whole lot one can do to convince them that they can see.

My sentiments might be inflamed by the behaviour of another person but the same can be said by the other person about my behaviour. But as long as we do not cross lines of creating public order issues, threats to safety of each other and other people and so on, we have to tolerate the behaviour of others and not only that, we have accept it as well: diversity of life choices is one of the basic facts of life and all collectives of individuals will have such diversity. The state, based on the consent of the governed, has to arbitrate amongst all of the people who live under the state. To argue that if some people do not like the decisions of the majority they can leave and other such jejune arguments are too ridiculous to be given any credence.

The spirit of the 1973 Constitution had gone with universalistic tendencies. But sadly that has all been undermined by subsequent changes, the rulings of the courts and often the behaviour of the majority. If people cannot see the obvious wrongs they are allowing, wrongs that are obvious by any consistent standard, any religion, any moral and/or any legal system, then one cannot make them see these. Arguments are then futile here.

The writer is an Associate Professor of Economics at LUMS (currently on leave) and a Senior Advisor at Open Society Foundation (OSF). He can be reached at [email protected]