Six questions for Pakistanis................................................Harris Khalique Six questions for PakistanisSince 1956, Pakistan has been celebrating March 23 as its Republic Day. That was the day when the Lahore Resolution was presented in a three-day general session of the All India Muslim League held in Minto Park, Lahore in 1940. Sixteen years later, the first constitution was promulgated on the same day in 1956, turning Pakistan into a republic from being a dominion of Britain. Although the constitution was short-lived since a military government took over power in 1958 and abrogated the constitution, the day continues to be celebrated as a commemoration of the passing of the Lahore Resolution (although the resolution was moved on March 23 and passed on March 24). The Lahore Resolution was renamed Pakistan Resolution and Minto Park is now called Iqbal Park. The Minar-e-Pakistan stands tall where this historic session of All India Muslim League was held. Let us begin with the prayer that may this republic of ours find the ability, commitment and strength to bring justice, prosperity and peace to all its citizens; and that, as citizens, may we become more knowledgeable, rational, humane and progressive. Today, a couple of days after the nation celebrated its republic day with much fervour, I raise a few questions simply in order to remember what was not remembered this March 23, not by any of the high level functionaries of the government nor by the pundits we see and hear in the media. Many more questions can be asked but let me limit myself to the first six that came to my mind. There is no particular order either. The sheer purpose is to make us think, learn and correct course, if there is any will left in any quarter to get us back on the right track. I shall begin with March 23, 1940 to pose the first question. The gentleman who presented the Lahore Resolution to the All India Muslim League meeting was Sher-e-Bengal, A K Fazlul Haq. East Bengal, the biggest province of the original Pakistan, is no more with us and became an independent state 43 years ago. The majority seceded from the minority and found itself a new name even before the republic could celebrate its silver jubilee. The wounds of 1971 remain unhealed in some sense. Even now, war criminals are tried and sentenced in Bangladesh. There is no closure brought in what is now Pakistan, the erstwhile West Pakistan. The judicial inquiry commission’s detailed report has still not been released and no heads rolled ever or responsibility officially established over this. Why? The second question is about the founder of Pakistan, the father of the nation, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammed Ali Jinnah. He was born into an Ithna-Ash’ari Shia Muslim family with some relations from the Ismaili Muslim sect. Pakistan is increasingly becoming a retrogressive state with an intolerant society for smaller Muslim sects, let alone non-Muslims. But it was interesting to see that the Quaid’s portrait, in which he is clad in a finely tailored suit with a sober smile lightly spread on his face, overlooked the deals our government is making with Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Whether this is intentional or unintentional help being provided to them in order to tighten the noose around Syria and Iran and for supporting the monarchy of the minority in Bahrain, we don’t know. However, this may have the potential to drag us badly into the sectarian politics of the Middle East and create further divisions among Shias and Sunnis in Pakistan. Why? The third question is again about the ideas of the father of the nation regarding the constitutional and legal environment and practice he wanted to see in the newly formed state. The first law minister appointed by Quaid-e-Azam was his close confidant – and a follower of Hinduism. His name was Joginder Nath Mandal. He resigned some time after opposing the passage of the Objectives Resolution in 1949. It must be reiterated that the Objectives Resolution was passed after the death of the father of the nation and opened the floodgates for religion to be used as a tool for political gains. The Quaid clearly viewed laws to be made in accordance with the needs of the modern state and society without compromising on the values enshrined in the teachings of the faith. A system of old Islamic jurisprudence already exists in some form as there is a Federal Shariat Court and an Islamic legal system working in tandem with common law. But today, many in Pakistan speak about strictly imposing an abstract legal system – a concoction of various forms of jurisprudence older than a millennium in most cases – in the name of Islam. Why? The fourth question is also about what Quaid-e-Azam said about Pakistan’s role in the international community. According to him, Pakistan had to be the advocate of peace and stability in the region. This he said time and again while fully recognising and mentioning that Kashmir and some other border disputes had to be settled with India. Leave India aside for a moment; it gets discussed more frequently what these countries do to each other. Look at others. US and Pakistan continue to hoodwink each other and even after a close working relationship between the two countries for long, the mistrust remains strong. No other neighbouring country, including the two Muslim-majority countries to our west, is happy with us. Afghanistan makes pacts with India and harbours groups that invoke militancy in Pakistan as it believes that Pakistan has interfered too much in its internal affairs and has caused instability. Iran increasingly sees us siding with its adversaries in the Middle East and watches closely the violence inflicted upon and treatment meted out to the Shia community. We never tire of praising China for its friendliness and support. But they also utterly dislike the presence of the East Turkestan Islamic Movement’s militants on our territory. It is also said that some of the group’s leadership were killed in drone strikes. No one around us – including old friends – is happy. Why? The fifth question is essentially about the text of the Lahore Resolution of 1940. The two clear points standing out in the resolution were about provincial autonomy and minority rights. Not only that, the Muslim-majority regions in the western and eastern parts of British India were to be given autonomy and sovereignty, units within these regions were to be autonomous and sovereign within the new union formed as a result. Besides, there was specific insistence on the economic, social, cultural, religious and other rights of those belonging to minority faiths within these regions and in India as a whole. The point is that those outfits that took out rallies to highlight the Islamic character of the state on this Republic Day do not believe in both. But they are encouraged by the state to operate openly and take out rallies while those asking for provincial autonomy are even physically eliminated. Why? The sixth question is related to the slogans and chants from the Pakistan movement used in our print and electronic media, school curriculum and political rallies. History is rewritten and used differently by those orthodox political parties that had little stake or participation in the independence movement or those conservative forces that emerged much after the creation of Pakistan – seeing an opportunity to grab political power. The issue today is about the founders of Pakistan insisting on Islam’s universal values of public good, equal citizenship for all and service to humanity, and the conservative forces insisting on using an orthodox interpretation of faith, and a sect-based and dated legal and political in order to impose their writ. But the slogans of the latter are given far more space in popular public discourse today. Why? The writer is a poet and author based in Islamabad. Email: harris.khalique@gmail
Posted on: Wed, 26 Mar 2014 09:03:25 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015