Practically applying the theory
Whether Pakistan was created in the name of Islam or/and what factors invoked the constitution to imply Islam as a state religion; are questions of rather a paradoxical nature and may include authority as a decisive force to lead a nation to either secularism or theocracy. The idea of secular Pakistan should stand on its own terms rather manipulating the statements of authority to conform with a proposed argument. While arguing about the religious and state matters one must know that secularism is not the antithesis of religion, it does not defy religious doctrines practiced in a state. It only frees people from following the religion of the majority and rejects the monopoly of the favored religion. Talal Asad in his book, “Formations of the Secular: Christianity, Islam, Modernity”, places secularism as a doctrine and distinguishes between private reason and public discipline. He says that that private reason is not same as private space, it is only immunity from the public reason. The various interpretations and multifaceted texts and its relevance are a complex business depending upon the personal habit, temperament and perceived demands of the social situations. In his book, he argues that Religion and Secularism overlap and are not fixed categories. He assumes that there is nothing ESSENTIALLY religious nor any universal essence that defines sacred language. He concludes his work by stating that secular cannot be viewed as a successor to religion neither can be seen as on the side of rational. It is a category, with multi-layered history related to major premises of modernity, democracy and concepts of human rights.
If we wish to find roots of secularism in history, we may want to look at “French Laicite System”. It refers to the idea of Res Publica (Republic) i.e., to address everyone—believers, atheists and agnostics alike. What pertains to some cannot be applied to all and public institutes must not be under supervision of religion. In the book State and Secularism, the writers differentiate French Laicite and Turkish Laicite: that Kemal Ataturk prohibited religious outfits in the street, which is not the case in France. In France, people were free to choose the kind of faith they wanted. The book moreover, emphasizes that faith can be taught at other places so school is a place where taste of culture and science must be developed. Also, ‘Intelligent design” cannot be taught in Laic schools, it belongs to faith rather a sphere of knowledge. Similarly, in Greece, identity papers do not mention religious beliefs of the bearer anymore and the government of Jose Luis in Spain banned compulsory religious course in public schools. Sweden has also adapted French Laicite system. These are the countries with higher growth rate than the nations holding religion as a sacred law that cannot be surpassed or challenged by the human mind. Countries like Bangladesh, which after 28 years of having Islam as a state religion, has decided to separate State and Religion. Whereas, Pakistan deems secularism as some “Western Agenda” that is threatening to the force of Islam and the only way to propagate Islam is if it is practiced as a state religion. The force of Islam, as we know it, did not spread its wings until Zia’s Islamization. Christophe Jaffrelot in his book, Pakistan: Nationalism Without a Nation, mentions how Islamism controls the politics of sectarianism and displays far more concern for religious orthodoxy than Protestant and Catholic politics do in Northern Ireland. He further blames Islamization which transformed government institutions and policy making apparatuses in accordance with Islamic teachings. Zia’s Islamization was reduced to “Sunnification”, in which Sunni Islamists were not prepared to accept equal status for Sunnis and Shias. Pakistan belonging to 25 percent Shia population and 8-10 percent Ahmadi population is a hub for ethnic and minority differences. However, the intolerance created by exclusive political and economic institutions among states cannot be justified by a single narrative.
We have many examples of secular states with underprivileged ethnic minorities such as Iraq’s era of modernization under Sadam Hussain, Turkey’s secularity where Ataturk granted equal rights to religious minorities but he granted full freedom to private worship. However, he was a believer in the assimilation of ethnic minorities such as Greeks and Armenian Christians, and not to forget rise of BJP in secular India. Islamic Republic of Pakistan was created to cater the Muslim minority of the sub-continent and the Article 20 of the constitution clearly mentions the right to choose from any religion one wants to BUT the laws must pertain to the Islamic Ideology (sunni-ism) that ought to be followed by every national of the state. What do these nations have in common regardless of their religious affiliation with state? These nations have a huge ethnic diversity and they have failed to provide private space for each individual to practice his/her faith or faithlessness. Would these nations have catered minorities better if these were purely secular? I cannot be sure, however, I do know what will happen if Pakistan becomes secular and disengage with religion in public sphere.
To answer this, let’s imagine Pakistan to be a secular state. Not only does it sound good but it can prosper both economically and socially if it resorts to secularism. First of all we should know that the view of secular constitution as atheistic constitution is altogether wrong, it only provides built-in guarantee of religious freedom. For a religiously pluralistic society as Pakistan, if the religion is kept aside of constitution, a higher value is placed on the notion of citizenship rather on religion. The creation of a citizen identity is especially crucial in a pluralistic setting. Secondly, it makes it difficult for the negotiation to take place among religious groups in a society because a religious constitution will always have a privileged religion, and no matter how accommodative government or judiciary might be, the primal force to carry the decision making will have to adhere to the religion of the state- that necessarily means the diminution of another. To a greater extent, the inter-religious conflicts will be rather less volatile if the enemy is not another “religious group” but a state instead. This approach may work well in the case of Shia-Sunni conflict, may positively encourage Ahmadi’s participation in the society, and the jobs may be given on the basis of merit rather than preferring one’s religion. The whole idea of a secular society is to democratize religious sentiments among the public institutions; by privileging no particular religion and ensuring equal rights for all. If only the educational institutes welcome every religious school of thought and design a rather secular curriculum, we can see next generations exploring new horizons in the field of science and research. If only we can teach students about the work of Dr. Abdus Salam in the field of theoretical physics instead of vilifying him because his religion did not conform to the religion of the state. Now more than ever, Pakistan needs a rule of law that can flourish without tyrannizing the voiceless religious minorities.
nice and brave.
Agreed
Great effort while explaining such a huge topic with good references as well. But between all of this I'm just stuck to one question !
Please have a view point on it… Question is, suppose state adopt a secular system. How state should define parameters that people with higher approach (Someone rich or having hold onto other people etc ) doesn't monopolize lower class?
No doubt a state with secular model would be good enough to provide everyone to practice it's own faith, but it could help people to monopolize the things related religion.
i would say that what idea the article has mentioned is actually to root out extremism from religion and its really a big issue to raise and adressed ,the other aspect we should keep in eyes and mid brain is to other countries esp west if inforcing thier own agenda and type of culture and school of system is actually behiding our values of our culture our type of living,,,religion has nothing to do with your culture but western life style and their type of living is shifting us to be the mirror of their culture …………..islam spreads more in diverse communities rather then in a specific communities and kind of people……islam as a state religion is fair actually but religious elements if using it as political gain is also unfairness to religion.islam emphasize on wearing veil it must be practiced and should be make a law that every women have to wear veil as part of their religion………………………………may thing happen at the best of pakistan and for its stability and peace
"Not only does it sound good but it can prosper both economically and socially if it resorts to secularism…Pakistan needs a rule of law that can flourish without tyrannizing the voiceless religious minorities."
Is that really enough? The author may wish to examine the recent history of Tunisia in some detail. In Tunisia Islam has been the state religion but until the Arab Spring its regime was strongly secularist and Tunisia prospered economically. However, that did not stop Tunisia's newest generation from becoming Islamic radicals, as described in the article "Exporting Jihad" in a recent issue of The New Yorker magazine. Rather, the failure of the secularist regime to promote respect for ethics other than that offered by militant Islam was. Rule-of-law became perceived as rule-BY-law of the corrupt, so in economic recession people turned to Islamic militarism instead, as democratic and liberal individual human-rights values were absent or misunderstood.
Secular country: maybe. Secular people: yes. We don't want secularism one our neighbour has i.e. a beef banned nation where democrats kill minorities like dictators
The basic foundation of Pakistan is an Islamic State for which reason the Muslims were fighting for an independent Islamic State. In 69 years and especially the last 2 decades there is nothing to see of an Islamic State but more like a zionist, wahabi and hindu state with all mullahs and corrupt leaders! It is time to make it an Islamic State as it was meant to be. If you want a seculier state then you better join India! Please lets we struggle and fight for our countries and get rid of these mullah rapers of innocent children boys ,girls and all weak people and all damn corrupt politicians too!
you are mistaken my friend, the basic foundation was economical. There are more Muslims in India today than Pakistan!. Read the history. The Qiad-e-azum was never a mullah and never intended to have Islamic state, rather secular country. However, the army dictators changed it to Islamic state. It is time for a change again.
Not that i agree with jahangir shah, but how can u say that qaid e azum wanted a secular state? i don't know which book you read, but two nation theory was quite clear. And contrary to the article, under the article, under the ACTUAL ISLAMIC RULE, things progressed faster than in any other rule! No one can point the fingers at the caliphate of HAZRAT OMAR RADIALLAH HU ANHU, the world never will never see the level of GOOD GOVERNANCE AND JUDICIARY which was practiced at that time! The article is biased as it glorifies secularism and don't see the other side
The two nation theory is clear. The problem is state being religious vs secular. Read the excerpt 1940 speech, two different nations….not islamic state and hindu state. Secular state everyone has equal rights and freedom of religion, while in islamic state muslims has more rights!. If you like to live in 12th century, go ahead no will stop you and good luck, otherwise move on to current century.
Yes.Pakistan should be a secular state.
Excellent Article. Pakistan should be a secular state.
A very balanced article and articulately argued.I am all for a secular Pakistan.
Pakistan created on the name of Islam and Islamic system of state not yet implemented,So secular minded people want to implement that system ,by me they are good to go,and for the author there are a lot other fields to get famous.If you want to do it go for it.
one simple question……….if Pakistan was created in the name of Islam, why Islamic parties and Ulma opposed it????
You should read history before the zia implementation and manipulation of pakistan history. The country was never intended to be islamic state. The Liaqat Ali Khan even alama iqabal and Muhammad Ali Jinnah were all secular. Infact, some historian thinks they were atheists but most agree they were secular leaders. No one except may be you and so many mullah thinks they were Mullahs and wanted Islamic state.
I dont see any harm if Pakistan becomes Secular State. These satanic minds Mullas creating problems . Secular is just system to run the government its nothing with the religion. You are absolutely right that Mr. Jinnah, Allama Iqbal even Bhutto were of secular mind. I am confident if we enforce this system , the country would progress on all sectors., we can conceivably put to productive use, say reinvigorate economic area,. Religious expolitation would ceased . .
“To answer this, let’s imagine Pakistan to be a secular state. Not only does it sound good but it can prosper both economically and socially if it resorts to secularism. “Although I also believe this to be true but it’s one thing to believe and another thing to prove that such a system could be practical for a country like pakistan.
Keeping in mind that bhutto ‘s ‘experiments’ with the economy of pakistan backfired in the long run
Discussion over such volatile issue cannot be comprehensive until viewed through the magnifier of Islamic idealogy. I wish someone who is qualified in the both fields take initiate to sort into such debate . However it’s a affrmative effort !
I don't know why we are so tired of Islam,what is there in Islam? Iran is Islamic state in our neighbor,Malaysia grew its economy rapidly by adopting islamic principle.If we follow the islamic rules for crimes none will dare to commit crimes,poverty will be eradicate if our Zakat system is properly run.And I don't know why we are talking about secularism we follow secular way but the name is Islamic Republic of Pakistan.When central Asian state were emerging then US stress them to adopt moderate Islam like Pakistan.so what is there in the name of Islamic… (you may edit in my comment)
Do you know how mamy people are publicly beheaded in Saudiu Arabia alone every year? Well. we know that it is genrally every Friday. And it has been happening for years and years and years. If anytrhing, the number of executions have increased as it seems like people still murder or get involved with drugs in Saudi Arabia. Iran executed 977 people last year for drugs related charges. It has been going on there for at least 20 years if not more. Have we seen any decline in number of peope who still get involved with drug trafficking, get caught and then get hanged. No sir, this has not happened either. Al this idealistic ralk about only if we have zakat system in place. only if we can do this…. well may be instead of starting from the punishments, we can start from make our society more better so that people have less reasons to commit the crime? May be our goal becomes to strnthen our justice system first and make it corruption free and accessible and working for people with no money and power before we pat ourselves on our back for hanging people?
yes very well written but will take a v hard work if nt impossible to introduce secularism in Pak.
[…] More: […]
Very well explained the benefits of Secular country.
I do agreed that Pakistan should be a secular country , not because I am against the Religion but no to do Politics in the name of Religion
I don't know why everyone is making an effort to make Pakistan secular? Why not talk on the implementation of the Shariah law in the ISLAMIC Republic of Pakistan??
my friend i hope u r an educated person and wont take my comment in the wrong sense. No religion is greater than humanity, all of us were created equally and also believe that there is someone/something which bought this very universe into existence. humans have been inhabiting this planet millions of years before these so called religions came into existence.
Coming to shariah law, tell me one thing. u have adopted a modern lifestyle, i mean u use lights at home not candles as they were used back in the 12th century, also u travel on a motorbike/car/bus and not on camels, also u use refrigrator for cold water and not a clay pitcher as it was used back then. my question is why have u transitioned ur lyf style from the medieval times? obviously the answer is lifestyle and needs evolve with time. similarly law also evolves with time. using a law which was used centuries ago is not a practical approch and will take pakistan back to the dark ages while the rest of the world will be prospering.(u must be knowing about the controversy surrounding the blasphemy laws in pakistan) I hope u got the point. Im sorry if this hurts ur religious sentiments in any way.
Comments are closed.