- Not quite?
Pakistan was created on the basis of an ideology; that of Islam. But it wasn’t solely created for Muslims but for all non-Muslims alike to practice their religion openly. However, over the years the true meaning of a ‘separate homeland’ has been misled to believe in Pakistan as a separate homeland for Muslims by Muslims. It won’t be difficult to hence conclude that religion has played a fundamental role in matters of governance over the years.
Capital under siege
What has seemed to be a persistent involvement by religious groups in matters of political governance and philosophy in the country has greatly thwarted any progress of a responsible clergy. This has engendered religion being radicalised and used as a tool to pressurise successive governments. The most recent example of this is the sit-in in Islamabad where thousands of supporters of Tehereek e Labaik Pakistan party have gathered and blocked all entry points to the city.
This isn’t the first time that religious groups have laid siege to the capital, and sought fulfillment of their unmet demands, in this case for resignation of Zahid Hamid, the country’s law minister. The protest comes in a bid to reclaim the finality of Prophethood, which is the fundamental belief without which the declaration of Muslim faith isn’t complete.
This isn’t the first time that religious groups have laid siege to the capital, and sought fulfillment of their unmet demands, in this case for resignation of Zahid Hamid, the country’s law minister
During October the government suddenly changed the wording of an oath from “I solemnly swear” to “I believe” in the finality of Prophethood, to what it later termed as a clerical mistake. The law details with matters relating to non-Muslim candidates who as per the constitution can’t run for office of either prime minister or president.
The new amendment, known as Form-A of Elections Act 2017, has caused an uprising of sorts amongst religious fanatics who saw Sections 7B and 7C as fundamental to those assuming power, while their omission in Elections Act 2017 as un-Islamic. These Sections detail on the status of Ahmedis as non-Muslims and those who don’t abide by the fundamental of finality of Prophethood to be declared non-Muslim. The various political parties which aim at restoring the country on the principles of Islam declared these as wrongful amendments and demanded immediate removal of these clauses.
What the sit-in signifies
While the government has taken the necessary actions to correct this, the protest by TLY suggests three very important things.
Firstly, the protest sheds light to the space that exists in the country’s politics for such political parties to flex their muscles. The party quickly gained success after gaining more than 7,000 votes during September’s by-elections in Lahore and has since then been able to gather more supporters for its cause. This points towards the idea that the far-right is still on a rise in the country and that elements in the society both engender and feed on the differences (social, racial and religious) that still exist.
Secondly, the sit-in that has lasted a week signifies how important agitation politics are in our society. More often than not, religious polity has asserted itself as a brand of ‘pressure groups’ and more often than not, the government has abided by their demands. The very controversial Second Amendment to the Constitution is one example, very relevant to the sit- in. The protest can also be suggested as being an extension of this Amendment; to further Islam-ise the country that was created for the practice of Islam. Political assertions such as laying siege to the capital are a show of not only political might but also a practice that is carried out by any political party aiming to create a sphere of influence
Thirdly, with such liberties overlapping and the government’s inefficiencies in finding a solution to this, we are made to understand that our brand of democracy is not functioning in the country. The system is not only decaying from within but also has failed to deliver a society where both elements can co-exist. We aren’t a society where we can openly talk about human rights and label the killing of Ahmedis as wrongful under the Supreme Constitution that is supposed to govern us.
This is the same mob that led Zulfikar Ali Bhutto declare the Second Amendment, and the same that is now declaring a law minister as blasphemous. Clearly, the government has for so long ignored the topic and allowed people take law into their own hands. For so long the government’s inaction has exhausted the ambitions of such groups and diluted their might, but now the government has to tackle the elephant in the room.
The government has to deal with the protestors first, the elements that fuel these later and regulate much later a discourse that talks about how far these clerics have brought the Pakistani society in close conformity with the ‘Islamic principles’ we were promised. It also needs to differentiate between the responsible clergy and the pressure groups. Without this, our society will further divide on differences that were supposed to diminish under the banner of Pakistan, without this our capital will be laid siege to time to time.
The rise of religious fanaticism isn’t easily digested in a country that has been equally damaged by the rise of Taliban in Afghanistan and the terrorist activities in the country. These not only hinder processes for modernisation in the country but also highlight the paralysing state apparatus and the greater violent instruments that lie within our societies, and within us.