Case of bogus science

By Pervez Hoodbhoy COMSTECH is the Organisation of Islamic Countries’ highest scientific body. It has received millions of dollars from OIC countries, including Pakistan.

Comstech’s magnificent headquarters are located on Constitution Avenue in Islamabad. It has been headed by Dr Atta-ur-Rahman since 1996. Although its performance has been consistently mediocre, the organisation has now descended to an all-time low.
Recently Dr Rahman published an eye-popping article entitled HAARP (Dawn, Oct 17). The article claims that a physics research project, based in Alaska, may have been used by the US to trigger earthquakes globally, and could also have caused the catastrophic floods in Pakistan. Dr Rahman concludes with a chilling question: “Is the HAARP then, a harmless research tool — or a weapon of mass destruction far more lethal than nuclear weapons? We may never know.”
Given Dr Rahman’s prominent place in Pakistani science, and that he is fellow of the Royal Society, one must consider seriously his claim that HAARP can cause earthquakes and floods. But even the briefest examination makes clear his claims make no scientific sense.
HAARP stands for High Frequency Active Auroral Research Programme. Its website states it is a research programme run by the University of Alaska in collaboration with various US colleges and universities. If HAARP is a secret military project conceived by evil and diabolical minds, it is hard to see why visitors, including foreign nationals, are said to be allowed on site. The website says that the last open house was on July 17, 2010.
At least on the face of things, HAARP does not have the trappings of an American secret weapons facility. (Google Earth, which I used, blacks these out.) Readers will see a field of antennas, as well as some cars and two ordinary looking buildings.
No security barriers are visible. This does not appear to be a classified project.
But, of course, appearances can be deceptive. So let us simply use common sense and physics. Assume therefore that the power of the transmitters is many times that declared on the website (3.6MW). This may mean HAARP could potentially disrupt radio communications during war, or blind incoming missiles. But science cannot accept Dr Rahman’s claim that “It (HAARP) may also affect plate tectonics causing earthquakes, floods through torrential rains and trigger tsunamis.”
Does the good doctor believe in magic and demons? How else can massive tectonic plates be moved by radio waves? Will HAARP tickle a sleeping subterranean monster that awakes and sets off earthquakes? This kind of thinking was what irate and ignorant village mullahs used after the 2005 Pakistani earthquake. They blamed cable television, after which followers smashed thousands of television sets.
Weather change simply cannot be caused by HAARP’s radio waves. The effects of a puny 3.6MW radio transmitter on the ionosphere can only be detected with sensitive instruments. Even these are almost completely washed out by a constant stream of charged particles from the sun that hit the earth during daytime. To see HAARP’s effects would be like trying to see a candle a mile away in blazing sunlight.
Today, even the most powerful lasers and radios are millions of times weaker than needed to heat sizeable portions of the ionosphere. (Of course, producing hotspots in tiny volumes anywhere is not a problem, but these have zero effect on the weather or earthquakes.) Perhaps in some future century a laser might be able to do this job.
Dr Rahman says he is uncertain if HAARP could equal a nuclear weapon or perhaps be even more destructive. But if it is actually the super-weapon that he alleges, then the laws of physics will have to be overturned. Physicists will have the sad task of unlearning all that they know and burning their useless books. With a heavy heart, I shall return all my physics degrees.
Scientists sometimes disagree — this is how scientific disputes are resolved. But it is worth asking if at least some genuine scientists support Dr Rahman’s claims. He provides no examples. Instead, he quotes President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, who accused the US of causing the Haiti earthquake. While I admire Chavez for standing up to political bullying by the US, I am not sure he knows anything about plate tectonics. In fact, his claim caused seismologists to crack up with laughter.
Dr Rahman also quotes a 1999 committee of the European Union Parliament that called for HAARP to be examined by an international independent body. I do not know if any of the committee members were scientists. But 11 years later, the EU has not called for further investigation, nor alleged that HAARP has caused natural disasters.
The good doctor enthusiastically endorses the statements of Dr Nick Begich, one of HAARP’s most vocal critics, and refers to him reverentially as a scientist. But Begich’s website says that he obtained a doctorate in traditional medicine from The Open International University for Complementary Medicines in 1994. In other words Begich is not a scientist, but a homeopath who obtained a mail order degree.
Yet another quoted “authority” is the arch conspiracy theorist, Michel Chossudovsky, a retired professor of economics in Ottawa. In Dr Rahman’s pantheon of ‘experts’, none has published a scientific paper in a reputable science journal that demonstrates a connection between ionospheric physics and any weather or subterranean phenomenon. In short, Dr Rahman’s claims about HAARP are based on pseudo-science promoted by conspiracy theorists who blame America for all grief in the world.
Once science loses its objectivity and becomes enslaved to any kind of ideology or political opinion, it becomes useless.
Quack science does not just cost money. It also confuses people, engages them in bizarre conspiracy theories, and decreases society’s collective ability to make sensible decisions. One must therefore seriously question whether a pseudoscience organisation like Comstech deserves lavish funding from poor Pakistanis. We have better things to spend our money on. As for the world of science: it will not even notice Comstech’s demise.
The writer teaches physics at Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad.

Our lovely image

Kamran Shafi

JUST back from a trip to lovely old England — oh how I love England! — and the usual experiences: the immigration officer at Heathrow falling off her chair at the mere sight of my green passport, then getting up and after brushing off her clothes settling down for a detailed scrutiny, referring to her computer, sussing me out for the nth time, and so on.

All with the greatest courtesy and respect I must add.But do we even know, indeed do we even accept, the trepidation with which we are seen in other countries, that the name we have given ourselves, by our own actions most of all, is not a very good one? Do we ever pause and think why it is that in the time it takes an immigration officer to process one of us, his or her colleagues process up to seven or eight passports of other countries, yes, including India?
These are important questions which we Pakistanis must ask ourselves, about which later. Let us first of all go to the latest outrage, nay monstrosity, which we have chucked at the world — the sentence of death pronounced upon Aasia Bibi a poor Christian woman of Sheikhupura district for a crime she simply could not have committed.
I mean, for heaven`s sake, don`t we know our own country, our own Sheikhupura, our own people? Is it at all possible that a Christian woman, belonging to a tiny minority which is already severely tormented by the very vast majority, its Muslim neighbours, would commit blasphemy in the manner alleged?
Every single time that a Christian has been accused of blasphemy I have said that the person should first of all be taken to a psychiatrist to determine whether he or she is mentally sound. For it makes no sense at all for members of the weak and dispossessed Christian community to commit this crime in this hard and pitiless country.
As to the specific charges in Aasia`s case that she committed blasphemy after some Muslim women working in the fields with her refused to drink water from her glass, she would not on her own offer her glass in the first place. For, as yet another example of our intolerance, indeed plain hypocrisy, it is not done that a Muslim would use a Christian`s utensils to drink or eat from. (And we have the gall to blame Hinduism for the caste system!) Ae hookah peenh alay
Two anecdotes come to mind. Once, in those far-off days when I was farming in Sheikhupura district, I was supervising some work in a field next to a track which led from our village to the next one. A man passing by saw a hookah belonging to one of my workers and asked if it was (literally) `smokeable`, in Punjabi “”.
I did not understand the question so asked what the man had said. “He is asking if this is hookah belongs to a Christian,” one of them said. I then said to the man that ours was a Christian village; that if he wanted to smoke the hookah he was welcome, otherwise he should be on his way. The fellow quietly sat down on his haunches and after a satisfying smoke walked on to his village. wangaar wangaar degh
The second was when I had asked for a , a great system prevalent in all farming societies in which neighbouring farmers gather to help one of their number get urgent work out of the way quickly. In Punjab, the farmer who asks for cooks a or two to provide sustenance to his helpers. munshi
It was at lunchtime that I noticed everybody else tucking away into their food and young Mehnga, Baba Qadir`s son, sitting a little way away, not eating. When I asked why, my took me aside and said in low tones that Mehnga was waiting for his little brother to bring him his own plate so that he could eat.
Since all of them were eating out of my crockery, I immediately served Mehnga myself, and then announced that the plates being used were those that had been eaten from by Christians many times, indeed, my American and German and Swiss and Brit friends who would often come for weekends to my farm, sometimes for extended lunches, and which everyone present knew about.
What was it about Mehnga, I asked, the colour of his skin that he was not eating with them? There was not a squeak out of any one of them, I can tell you, and never again any such nonsense in Kot Hyat Khan.
So then, it is simply not possible that Aasia Bibi herself insisted that her Muslim co-workers drink from her glass, and when they did not, commit blasphemy. It is time that this horrendous law was amended to make it less harsh and one-sided. For we know that it has very often been used to victimise opponents and people who do not conform to the dictates of someone, not only Christian but many Muslim unfortunates too.
Let us all of us then, support the courageous Sherry Rehman in her efforts to amend the blasphemy laws by tabling a private members` bill in the National Assembly. Let us petition our political leaders to support this amendment so that the Damocles sword hanging above our poor and powerless minorities is removed once and for all. We must ensure that what happened to so many Pakistanis such as little Rehmat Masih`s uncle, Manzoor Masih, who was shot dead in broad daylight while waiting for a bus after his nephew`s court hearing); or to Justice Arif Iqbal Bhatti who was shot dead after acquitting Rehmat Masih. n
Let us transform Pakistan from an ugly and cruel and merciless country to one that is beautiful and kind and compassionate.
kshafi1@yahoo.co.uk

A prominent Pakistani scientist is stoking conspiracy fires

Salman Hameed

On my recent visit to Pakistan, I was amazed at the number of conspiracy theories floating there. Everything was blamed on a shadow conspiracy. And I heard these statements from very very (yes, the second very is not a typo) educated people - and many of these people have close connections to policy makers. Some of the craziest things I heard was that the recent crash of a commercial plane, despite the fact that the weather was bad and the plane was flown by a pilot two years beyond his retirement age, was actually caused Blackwater agents trying to crash it into Pakistan's nuclear facility at Kahuta. That American President Harry Truman, soon after the end of World War II declared that we may think that Soviet Union is our (United States) enemy, but our true enemy is Islam. And that the catastrophic floods in Pakistan were actually caused by an American experiment in Alaska - that can control weather and earthquakes. Now all of these things are absolute nuts - not much different from many Americans believing that the astronauts never landed on the Moon, or the Kennedy conspiracy theories, or that the Pentagon was actually hit by a missile and not a plane on 9/11.

The difference in the case of Pakistan is that these conspiracy ideas are widely spread amongst the educated elite. Why should this be of any concern? If we start believing in a false reality, then it will be very hard to fix the real problem at hand. We won't even know what is there to fix. For example, if instead of understanding the changing weather patterns as part of a worldwide change in climate, we blame an intentional manipulation by a foreign power - then the answers we find, and the way we prepare for this change will be completely different.

Why am I talking about this? I was absolutely stunned to see a highly irresponsible article by prominent Pakistani chemist, Dr. Atta-ur-Rahman, insinuating that the recent flooding in Pakistan may indeed have been caused by an American atmospheric research program called HAARP based in Alaska. Now mind you that Atta-ur-Rahman has served as the federal minister for science and also the federal minister for education. He was elected Fellow of the Royal Society in 2006. So his words carry a lot of weight.

Now there is a surprising amount of bunk in Atta-ur-Rahman's article (in fact, his bunk-level is almost as close to that of Harun Yahya!). Now it is true, that he is citing other people - and not saying it himself - so then he can use the excuse that, well, I was just quoting somebody else. No question: he is stoking the conspiracy fire (or in Urdu, "yeh jalti per tael chirak rahay hain").

Now Pervez Hoodbhoy promptly called Atta-ur-Rahman out on this in an article titled, Case of Bogus Science. He correctly points out that there is no connection between the ionosphere and earthquakes and that one of the people quoted in Rahman's article is a new age-y guy with a degree in traditional medicine. I just googled his name, Nick Begich, and found that he also believes in mind control and ESP! This doesn't necessarily disqualifies him - but we have to be a bit more careful about his claims.

Pervez dismantles several of the arguments presented in Rahman's article, and then ends his article like this:

Yet another quoted “authority” is the arch conspiracy theorist, Michel Chossudovsky, a retired professor of economics in Ottawa. In Dr Rahman’s pantheon of ‘experts’, none has published a scientific paper in a reputable science journal that demonstrates a connection between ionospheric physics and any weather or subterranean phenomenon. In short, Dr Rahman’s claims about HAARP are based on pseudo-science promoted by conspiracy theorists who blame America for all grief in the world.

Once science loses its objectivity and becomes enslaved to any kind of ideology or political opinion, it becomes useless.

Quack science does not just cost money. It also confuses people, engages them in bizarre conspiracy theories, and decreases society’s collective ability to make sensible decisions. One must therefore seriously question whether a pseudoscience organisation like Comstech deserves lavish funding from poor Pakistanis. We have better things to spend our money on. As for the world of science: it will not even notice Comstech’s demise.

Now, Pervez and Atta-ur-Rahman have a personal history as well, and I think it is safe to say that they don't like each other. Pervez has been a harsh critic of Rahman's education policies - and that spat continues to this day. I think Pervez's critique of the article is spot-on, but given their personal history, I think it comes out quite harsh (but then Atta-ur-Rahman did write a horrible piece). So expectedly, Atta-ur-Rahman wrote a letter to the editor titled HAARP: a US weapon of mass destruction?, digging his heals in some cases and on others he claims that he was only citing other people. Now this is a classic Fox News defense. They would run a ticker as: "Is Obama really unpatriotic?" - and then defend themselves by saying that they never questioned Obama's patriotism - they were simply asking a question.

If one reads Atta-ur-Rahman's original article, it is hard to draw any other conclusion than that HAARP is involved in developing a weapon that can control weather and that Pakistan's recent floods have been quite suspiciously mysterious. I think it is not too hard to connect the dots - especially at a time when Pakistan is obsessed with conspiracy theories.

This is not one of Atta-ur-Rahman's proudest moments.

But what about the science itself? Here is what baffles me. Just like the Moon landing conspiracy theories, the allegations about HAARP are actually quite easily dismissible. And just like the Apollo Moon-landing hoax, people are not genuinely interested in finding out alternative explanations (if you want to entertain yourself, you can find information about Apollo Moon Landing hoax here). This is a matter of beliefs. May be HAARP is involved in something sinister - but it is certainly not related to the claims that are made in Ata-ur-Rahman's article.

Just a very brief primer on our ionosphere: This is a thin layer of atmosphere containing charged particles (ions - and hence the name ionosphere) extending roughly from 80 kms to 300 kms above the surface (Rahman got this thing correct). Most of the weather is shaped by lower layers (the stratosphere and the troposphere). Indeed, ionosphere is important for communication systems - as our transmitters often bounce off radio waves in the ionosphere. Therefore, it is important to understand variations in this layer of the atmosphere. Can this have a military connection? Of course. Militaries all over the world are worried about maintaining communication links in all eventualities. For example, solar flares emit charged particles - and these particles can disrupt satellites as well as they can have an impact on the ionosphere. Therefore, while solar flares are of interest to astronomers, many militaries in the world are also monitoring the Sun for the same purpose. But, the fallacy comes in when we jump from a military application...to the assumption of a weapon of mass-destruction.

Wait a minute. So where does the HAARP and earthquake connection comes in. After all, Ata-ur-Rahman has quoted President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela of blaming the US for causing Haiti's earthquake (yes, all we need is a President of a country believing in quack science!). This is an interesting question. I know that radio waves are used to monitor movement of plates and any earthquakes (for example, here is the system in Auckland). And, since they are dealing with communications, radio waves are also important for projects like HAARP. I really don't know. But if this is the case, then blaming earthquakes on these radio detectors is like blaming your pressure gauge for causing thunderstorms.

Atta-ur-Rahman should have been able to pick these things up quite easily. The fact that he did not do so, is deeply disappointing and, in this particular case, quite irresponsible.

P.S. Ever wonder, if the US is so good at weather manipulation then why don't they recall all their troops, and simply flood-out the Taliban. May be they want to keep the weather system appear natural - so most of us think that they don't really control the weather. And now if you think about it, this is exactly what is happening. OMG! Their plan is working perfectly.

Asiya Bibi- The Water Fetcher

Mother of five and farm worker
To earn her bread and ale
The old routines to fetch water
As await her four angels
The empty stomachs
To fend off hunger and poverty
And yet remains in view
With disdain and hatred,
The old refusal
To the hands and its toil
Cannot you serve us?
You don’t belong to our clan
Cannot you run away?
We have our laws,
We have our might
Follow we will to your place,
Burn we will you to death
Cannot you escape?
We will find you
Through the laws, to the gallows
Take your choice, you are the one
The weak and in fear
As you play havoc in our farms
Your hands are not clean,
Your soul is not to our beliefs
And your body, consume we will
The rights we have derived
As we practise our ignorance
As we invoke laws and its existence
In our tightened chests and minds

The annals of history heavy,
The story of human civilisations
Minorities don’t reflect
Minorities don’t offend
Opinions of the majority
Why will they insult?
There are no grounds
Created out of hatred
These testimonies
As they run riots

Here in the West, where we become
The weak and minorities
How often do we cry and scream
Upon Church of England and Pope,
Even when the options are there,
The freedom in action and through speech
Why only in Pakistan
Driven out of their homes
The death sentences and damage
To their properties and children
This is not Islam they practise
Only the hatred in their hearts
The manifestation of the times unknown
As the games are played
To persecute minorities and weak

The practise that goes unnoticed
These ways of fear and intimidation
Pushed upon them these laws,
Through reasons not religious
The total abyss, in our morals and ethics
All forgotten we have our own,
Prophet for whole mankind and his message

Tied down to the gallows,
The woman and her children
The tales of water fetcher
Her only crime- weak and in fear
Not from the same clan as rest
The embedded irony of our times
As we play havoc in the Garden of Eden…

Kashkin

Dr. Abdus Salam: Beyond Physics

Adil Najam,

 Share

Today marks Dr. Abdus Salam’s death anniversary.
It should be a moment of deep reflection for all of us. He would have been as great a man as he was even if he did not won the Nobel Award in physics. But we would have conveniently forgotten him. That he did win the Nobel Award is a source of cosmetic and hollow pride for many Pakistanis. Cosmetic and hollow because it is also a source of visible unease. Even when we acknowledge that he was a great scientist (after all, the Nobel Committee thought so), we are uncomfortable acknowledging that he was a great man whose significance goes beyond his science.

As a brutally honest editorial in today’s Daily Times points out, “we are scared of honoring Dr. Salam.” We must not be.
The Daily Times editorial says all that needs to be said; it is worth reading, worth thinking about, and worth quoting in full:

The tragedy of our treatment of Dr Abdus Salam
Dr Abdus Salam (1926-1996) died ten years ago. He was the first Pakistani to get a Nobel Prize in 1979. But he might be the last if we continue to allow our state to evolve in a way that frightens the rest of the world. Our collective psyche runs more to accepted ‘wisdom’ than to scientific inquiry; and even if we were to display an uncharacteristic outcropping of individual genius the world may be so frightened of it that it might not give us our deserts.
We are scared of honouring Dr Salam because of our constitution which we have amended to declare his community as ‘non-Muslim’. When Dr Salam died in 1996 he had to be buried in Pakistan because he refused to give up his Pakistani nationality and acquire another that respected him more. But the Pakistani state was afraid of touching his dead body. He was therefore buried in Rabwa, the home town of his Ahmedi community whose name is also unacceptable to us and has been changed to Chenab Nagar by a state proclamation. But that was not the end of the story. After he was buried, the pious, law-abiding and constitution-loving people of Jhang, which is nearby, went over to Chenab Nagar to see if all had been done according to the constitutional provisions regarding the Ahmedi community to which he belonged.
And what did the constitution say? It said that the Ahmedis are not Muslims, that they may not call themselves Muslims, nor say the kalima or use any of the symbols of Islam. The original amendments to the constitution were passed by Z A Bhutto, a ‘liberal socialist-democrat’, and subsequent tightening of the law was done by the great patriot General Zia-ul Haq. Thus both the civilians and the khakis had connived in the great betrayal of Dr Salam.
After the great scientist was buried in Chenab Nagar, his tombstone said “Abdus Salam the First Muslim Nobel Laureate”. Needless to say, the police arrived with a magistrate and rubbed off the ‘Muslim’ part of the katba. Now the tombstone says: Abdus Salam the First Nobel Laureate. The magistrate remained unfazed by what he had done but Dr Salam’s grave is actually the tombstone of a Muslim culture that Pakistan had inherited from the founder of the nation, Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. But ironies fly thick in Pakistan. In Jhang, for example, where Dr Salam grew up as a precocious child, the schools that he endowed with scholarships and grants now teach communal hatred rather than the love that he had in mind when he gave them his money.
Meanwhile, the Ahmedi community is under daily pressure and anyone with a twisted mind is free to persecute them.
Abdus Salam was born in Jhang in 1926. At the age of 14, he got the highest marks ever recorded for the Matriculation Examination in Punjab. The whole town turned out to welcome him. He won a scholarship to Government College, Lahore, and took his MA in 1946. In the same year he was awarded a scholarship to St. John’s College, Cambridge, where he took a BA (honours) with a double First in mathematics and physics in 1949. In 1950 he received the Smith’s Prize from Cambridge University for the most outstanding pre-doctoral contribution to physics. He also obtained a PhD in theoretical physics at Cambridge; his thesis, published in 1951, contained fundamental work in quantum electrodynamics which had already gained him an international reputation.
In 1954 Dr Salam left his native country for a lectureship at Cambridge University. Before the Pakistani politicians apostatised him, he was a member of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission, a member of the Scientific Commission of Pakistan and Chief Scientific Adviser to the President from 1961 to 1974. Pakistan’s space research agency Suparco was created by him and it is only symbolic that a group of Shia workers of Suparco were put to death in Karachi in 2004 by sectarian terrorists. Like Dr Salam, a lot of gifted Shia doctors have had to leave Pakistan because of the state’s twisted policies.
Dr Abdus Salam got his Nobel Prize for Physics in 1979. It was a most embarrassing moment for General Zia who had “supplemented” the Second Amendment to the constitution with further comic disabilities against the Ahmedis. He had to welcome the great scientist and had to be seen with him on TV. Since the clerical part of his government was already bristling, he took care to clip those sections of Dr Salam’s speech where he had said the kalima or otherwise used an Islamic expression. It was Dr Salam’s good luck that one of the believers did not go to court under Zia’s own laws to get the country’s only Nobel laureate sent to prison for six months of rigorous imprisonment. Dr Salam then went to India where he was received with great fanfare. He had gone there to simply meet his primary school mathematics teacher who was still alive. When the two met, Dr Salam took off his Nobel medal and put it around the neck of his teacher.
Let us admit in a whisper that Pakistan did issue a stamp commemorating Dr Salam years ago lest the government come under pressure to remove it from circulation. It is also true that his alma mater, Government College Lahore, now a university, has named certain ancillary departments and academic sessions after him following a long period of obscurantist domination. But Pakistan needs to feel guilty about what it has done to the greatest scientist it ever produced in comparison to the lionisation of Dr AQ Khan who has brought ignominy and the label of “rogue state” to Pakistan by selling the country’s nuclear technology for personal gain. Can we redeem ourselves by doing something in Dr Salam’s memory on this 10th anniversary of his passing that would please his soul and cleanse ours?

Is this education?

I.A Rehman  

 

THE contribution public school textbooks make to the production of narrow-minded elements, even if all of them do not become suicide bombers, has not received due attention. It is time this attitude was abandoned.

Many civil society initiatives have exposed the atrocious contents of textbooks. But the revised integrated curriculum has only confirmed its authors` inability to address the demands of a plural, democratic society.
Commenting on the new textbooks for classes I to III in Punjab, a curriculum expert observed that their content was insufficient to enable a child to gain basic knowledge in any subject and that these textbooks were overloaded with religious and moralistic preaching and paid scanty attention to themes related to nation-building.
Even a cursory perusal of textbooks for classes I to V in Punjab shows that these are full of poorly written religious essays and are apparently designed to keep children ignorant of their society and environment.
For instance, Meri Kitab for class I declares that Punjab, Frontier, Sindh, Balochistan and Kashmir are parts of Pakistan. Is it fair to tell children that Pakistan includes Kashmir? The provinces are mentioned in textbooks for primary classes but the Punjabi, Sindhi, Pakhtun and Baloch people are nowhere recognised. In the textbook for class IV students are told of two poets who wrote in Punjabi — Mian Mohammad Bakhsh and Mian Waris Shah — and both are essentially religious figures. It is only in the Urdu book for class V that Sachal Sarmast is introduced as the founder of the Kafi tradition in the Sindhi language “while Punjabi is rich in Kafis, thanks to Hazrat Bulleh Shah”. Sachal also is basically a religious figure. The Punjab Textbook Board is not aware of any Pakhtun or Baloch poet or any other figure or does not consider it appropriate to mention them in Punjab schools.
The Urdu book for class V allows students to look beyond Punjab — at Quetta and Ziarat. While the lesson on Ziarat does not disclose that this town is in Balochistan, in the description of Quetta a reference to Balochistan is unavoidable: “In respect of area, Balochistan is the largest province of our dear homeland Pakistan…. Many tribes live in this province. Its inhabitants speak, along with national language Urdu, Balochi, Brahvi and Pushto.”
There is no discussion on Pakistan`s non-Muslim citizens in the book for primary classes. Meri Kitab for class II only says that Pakistan`s population includes non-Muslims. Then in the Urdu book for Class V, while describing `Our Punjab`, non-Muslims are mentioned: “the majority of people living in Punjab are Muslim. The people order their lives according to Islamic teachings. [Delusion is sweeter than ignorance.] Here, besides Muslims, the inhabitants also include non-Muslims.”
In all stories in these textbooks the children are Muslim boys and girls. None of them meets a non-Muslim child. The textbooks for classes I to V contain 41 poems but Allama Iqbal`s beautiful poem, Child`s prayer , which is supposed to be recited at each school before the start of classes, comes last in the class V Urdu book, possibly because it refers to the poor and infirm.
It is easy to see what kinds of half-truths and distorted facts are dinned into children`s ears. The attempt at converting and reconverting Muslim children to Islam, and putting each hero in religious clothes can induce boredom or worse reactions. Introduction to religious belief is one thing. An obsession with religiosity is far less creditable. Apart from undermining the purpose of education such exercises confuse impressionable minds and cause a huge waste of time, to use an expression favoured by great religious authorities such as Aurangzeb and Sir Syed.
However, if the textbooks for the primary classes attract criticism for distorting reality or their preference for selective factualness, civic textbooks contain much mischief. At a recent seminar in Karachi, the material contained in the textbooks in Sindh was criticised for being outdated and distorted. The situation in Punjab is equally pathetic. Here, too, the books on civics prescribed for classes 9 to 12 are full of subjectively edited quotations from the Quaid. He is said to have described Pakistan as a `laboratory` for testing religious principles. All these books are loaded with controversial interpretation of many themes, such as the Pakistan ideology, the Islamic state and the continued relevance of the two-nation theory.
For instance:
— Democracy and dictatorship have seven merits and eight demerits each. A merit of dictatorship is that under it “the whole nation is inspired by the will to progress and each citizen considers honest labour as his duty and therefore the pace of creativity and progress is fast”. Another merit of dictatorship is that “because of the absence of opposition political parties the people are rid of partisan politics and factionalism; the people`s solidarity and national unity are assured and this makes the country prosperous”. (Civics, Classes 9-10)
— “One merit of Urdu language is that it upholds Islamic civilisation and culture: therefore, its promotion is one of our important obligations from the religious and national point of view, too.” ( Ibid )
— “Provincialism is a curse that undermines national unity. Some opportunist elements fan provincial and regional affiliations; we should eradicate such trends.” ( Ibid )
— The Khilafat movement is discussed over four pages in the textbook for class 12 but there is no reference to what the Quaid thought of it.
— A demerit of the federal system: “Dictatorial attitude of the judiciary”… “the central government and the governments of the units often quarrel with one another and this, on the one hand, weakens the federation and, on the other, the judiciary, as the superior guardian of the constitution, gets an opportunity to intervene”. (Book for class 12)
When a student reads that it is necessary to practically enforce the divinely ordained system in Pakistan so that the Islamic revolution prevails across the globe (book for classes 9-10), he might wonder as to what is wrong with the Taliban. More objectionable are omissions such as the absence of any reference to the havoc caused in Pakistan by authoritarian regimes and war-mongers.
Quite a few educationists claim that a review of civics textbooks was undertaken in 2008 but that the government has been sitting on recommendations that would have replaced the present material with new and democratic concepts of citizenship.
Similarly, there are allegations that the curriculum review decisions of 2004 and 2007 have not been fully or properly implemented. If true, these claims reveal a scandal of the first order. Delay in revising school textbooks to promote the values of pluralist and participatory democracy, inter-faith harmony and human rights will render the government liable to indictment for laying, unwittingly if not deliberately, the foundations of religious extremism.

Was Jinnah secular?

By Yasser Latif Hamdani
(In wake of the national debate on ideology and textbooks, Mr. Raza Rumi, the founder and editor of Pakteahouse, recently asked me to revisit the issue of Jinnah’s secularism through a comprehensive blog-post. This blog post is written for PTH exclusively and may be reproduced by giving PTH credit.)
Many people (though not all) on all sides of the ideology divide in Pakistan take umbrage with the description of Mahomed Ali Jinnah – the anglicized founder of Pakistan- as a secular leader or a secularist. Islamists in Pakistan say that he wanted an Islamic state. Islamic modernists say he wanted a modern Islamic democratic state (whatever that means), some people from the left say he was a communalist who was not secular because he championed Muslim separatism (albeit only in the last 11 years of his life). All of these groups agree that if Jinnah had been secular, it would not have been necessary to make a separate state. All of them – unconvincingly and inaccurately- claim that those who lay claim to a secular Jinnah are basing it on a solitary speech of Jinnah made on 11 August 1947. A slightly different claim is made by the Wali Khan group- which is ideologically consistent if historically errant- which claims that Jinnah wanted a secular state and that his push for Pakistan was the result of British manipulation and divide and rule which made him utilize Islamist rhetoric for the creation of Pakistan. While respecting all these points of view, I disagree with all of them and through this article I will explain why.
I have argued repeatedly and I stick by the position that Jinnah wanted a state that can only be described in modern parlance as a secular democratic state. My claim is not based on 11 August 1947 alone and in fact I will go as far as to say that Jinnah’s vision of the state would have been secular even if he had not made that extraordinary pronouncement where he merely put it in black and white.
My claim is based on all of the following:

1. Jinnah’s record as a legislator in the central Indian legislature spanning over four decades.
2. Jinnah’s role in the Indian Independence movement and in trying to forge a united Indian nationality which earned him the title of “Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity”. 
3. Jinnah’s record after he took over the Muslim League as its president.
4. Jinnah’s clear pronouncements as the Governor General and the first president of the constituent assembly.
5. The symbolism deployed by Jinnah in his choice of his cabinet.

Record as a legislator and a leader of the Indian Independence Movement:
Jinnah started his political career as a liberal nationalist and a moderate in Indian National Congress in 1906. His opposition to the Muslim delegation’s demands in 1906 placed before Lord Minto is well known and documented. He opposed initially the separate electorate in principle as being divisive only to reconcile later with it as a necessary and temporary evil which would be dispensed with in due course. For a detailed discussion on Jinnah’s politics I encourage everyone to read “Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity” by Ian Bryant Wells, probably the best book written on Jinnah’s early politics – which should serve as a prequel to Dr. Ayesha Jalal’s brilliant “Sole Spokesman. Together these two form the essential “Jinnah reader”.
What is not well known is that after the acceptance of the separate electorate principle by the British government, Jinnah tried to move an amendment allowing non-Muslim candidates on Muslim seats arguing forcefully that the Muslim electorate should not be deprived of quality candidates just because of their faith. In other words Jinnah argued – without contradiction – that non-Muslims could represent Muslims and Muslim interests as well as any Muslim. Much later in his life he proved exactly that by appointing a Scheduled Case Hindu on a Muslim League seat.
As a legislator, Jinnah always put progress above faith. In1912, Jinnah alienated many of his Muslim supporters by giving his wholehearted support to the Special Marriage Amendment Bill, which sought to provide mixed religion marriages legal protection.  He argued that the bill would provide equality but he was opposed by many members on the grounds that the bill contravened the Koran. Undaunted Jinnah asked the law member who had opposed the bill if he “would deny that there is a certain class of educated and enlightened people who rightly think that a gravest injustice is done to them as long as liberty of conscience is held from them”. 
This was a position through out his life believe it or not.  Rubbishing the idea that Muslim sensibilities would be hurt, he asked:
“Is this the first time in the history of legislation in this country that this Council has been called upon to override Musalman Law or modify it to suit the time? The Council has over ridden and modified the Musalman law in many respects.”[1]
[An aside: This is a very important issue not that personal choices are relevant. It also lends us an important insight into Jinnah and debunks another myth. Many Pakistan ideology and Islam-hawks in Pakistan claim that Jinnah objected to his daughter’s marriage to a parsi on grounds of faith. This is only partially true. If Jinnah was all bothered about faith, he would not have ensured that his daughter grew up in a British boarding school and learned in British (not Muslim culture). If Jinnah’s anglicization was deliberate, his daughter is in very real terms English and there is absolutely no indication in Jinnah’s life that he tried to have his daughter schooled in religious dogma. His objection to his daughter’s marriage was on legal grounds. The law in India did not allow interfaith marriage unless one of the spouses converted to the other faith or both renounced their faith. For a leader and politician waging the battle for Muslim community interests, and increasingly a target of Mullahs already questioning his lifestyle and his minority Shia faith, this would have been embarrassing.]
In 1919 Jinnah gave evidence before the Joint Select Committee appointed by Parliament on the Government of India Reform Bill. The following views were expressed by him in answer to questions put by members of the Committee on the Hindu-Muslim question. This is as clear a representation of Jinnah’s life long belief in secularism as any:
EXAMINED BY MAJOR ORMSBY-GORE.Q. 3806.—You appear on behalf of the Moslem League— that is, on behalf of the only widely extended Mohammedan organisation in India ?—Yes.
Q. 3807.—I was very much struck by the fact that neither in your answers to the questions nor in your opening speech this morning did you make any reference to the special interest of the Mohammedans in India: is that because you did not wish to say anything ?—No, but because I take it the Southborough Committee have accepted that, and I left it to the members of the Committee to put any questions they wanted to. I took a very prominent part in the settlement of Lucknow. I was representing the Musalmans on that occasion.
Q. 3809.—On behalf of the All-India Moslem League, you ask this Committee to reject the proposal of the Government of India?—I am authorised to say that—to ask you to reject the proposal of the Government of India with regard to Bengal [i.e., to give the Bengal Muslims more representation than was given them by the Lucknow Pact].
Q. 3810.—You said you spoke from the point of view of India. You speak really as an Indian Nationalist ?—I do.
Q. 3811.—Holding that view, do you contemplate the early disappearance of separate communal representation of the Mohammedan community ?—I think so.
Q. 3812.—That is to say, at the earliest possible moment you wish to do away in political life with any distinction between Mohammedans and Hindus ?—Yes.  Nothing will please me more than when that day comes.
Q. 3813—You do not think it is true to say that the Mohammedans of India have many special political interests not merely in India but outside India, which they are always particularly anxious to press as a distinct Mohammedan community? —There are two things. In India the Mohammedans have very few things really which you can call matters of special interest for them—I mean secular things.
Q. 3814.—I am only referring to them, of course.—And therefore that is why I really hope and expect that the day is not very far distant when these separate electorates will disappear.
Q. 3815.—It is true, at the same time, that the Mohammedans in India take a special interest in the foreign policy of the Government of India ?—They do; a very.—No, because what you propose to do is to frame very keen interest and the large majority of them hold very strong sentiments and very strong views.
Q. 3816.—Is that one of the reasons why you, speaking on behalf of the Mohammedan community, are so anxious to get the Government of India more responsible to an electorate ?—No.
Q. 3817.—Do you think it is possible, consistently with remaining in the British Empire, for India to have one foreign policy and for His Majesty, as advised by his Ministers in London, to have another ?—Let me make it clear. It is not a question of foreign policy at all. What the Moslems of India feel is that it is a very difficult position for them. Spiritually, the Sultan or the Khalif is their head.
Q. 3818.—Of one community ?—Of the Sunni sect, but that is the largest; it is in an overwhelming majority all over India. The Khalif is the only rightful custodian of the Holy Places according to our view, and nobody else has a right. What the Moslems feel very keenly is this, that the Holy Places should not be severed from the Ottoman Empire— that they should remain with the Ottoman Empire under the Sultan.
Q. 3819.—I do not want to get away from the Reform Bill on to foreign policy.—1 say it has nothing to do with foreign policy. Your point is whether in India the Muslims will adopt a certain attitude with regard to foreign policy in matters concerning Moslems all over the world.
Q. 3820.—My point is, are they seeking for some control over the Central Government in order to impress their views on foreign policy on the Government of India ?—No.
EXAMINED BY MR. BENNETT
Q. 3853.—. . . .Would it not be an advantage in the case of an occurrence of that kind [i.e., a communal riot] if the maintenance of law and order were left with the executive side of the Government ?—1 do not think so, if you ask me, but I do not want to go into unpleasant matters, as you say.
Q. 3854.—It is with no desire to bring up old troubles that I ask the question ; I would like to forget them.—If you ask me, very often these riots are based on some misunderstanding, and it is because the police have taken one side or the other, and that has enraged one side or the other. I know very well that in the Indian States you hardly ever hear of any Hindu-Mohammedan riots, and I do not mind telling the Committee, without mentioning the name, that I happened to ask one of the ruling Princes, “How do you account for this?” and he told me, “As soon as there is some trouble we have invariably traced it to the police, through the police taking one side or the other, and the only remedy we have found is that as soon as we come to know we move that police officer from that place, and there is an end of it.”
Q. 3855.—That is [a] useful piece of information, but the fact remains that these riots have been inter-racial, Hindu on the one side and Mohammedan on the other. Would it be an advantage at a time like that [that] the Minister, the representative of one community or the other, should be in charge of the maintenance of law and order ?—Certainly.
Q. 3856.—It would ?—If I thought otherwise I should be casting a reflection on myself. If I was the Minister, I would make bold to say that nothing would weigh with me except justice, and what is right.
Q. 3857.—I can understand that you would do more than justice to the other side; but even then, there is what might be called the subjective side. It is not only that there is impartiality, but there is the view which may be entertained by the public, who may harbour some feeling of suspicion?—With regard to one section or the other, you mean they would feel that an injustice was done to them, or that justice would not be done?
Q. 3858.—Yes; that is quite apart from the objective part of it.—My answer is this: That these difficulties are fast disappearing. Even recently, in the whole district of Thana, Bombay, every officer was an Indian officer from top to bottom, and I do not think there was a single Mohammedan—they were all Hindus—and I never heard any complaint. Recently that has been so. I quite agree with you that ten years ago there was that feeling what you are now suggesting to me, but it is fast disappearing.
EXAMINED BY LORD ISLINGTON
Q. 3892.—. . . .You said just now about the communal representation, I think in answer to Major Ormsby-Gore, that you hope in a very few years you would be able to extinguish communal representation, which was at present proposed to be established and is established in order that Mahommedans may have their representation with Hindus. You said you desired to see that. How soon do you think that happy state of affairs is likely to be realized?—1 can only give you certain facts: I cannot say anything more than that: I can give you this which will give you some idea: that in 1913, at the All-India Moslem League sessions at Agra, we put this matter to the lest whether separate electorates should be insisted upon or not by the Mussalmans, and we got a division, and that division is based upon Provinces; only a certain number of votes represent each Province, and the division came to 40 in favour of doing away with the separate electorate, and 80 odd—1 do not remember the exact number—were for keeping the separate electorate. That was in 1913. Since then I have had many opportunities of discussing this matter with various Mussulman leaders; and they are changing their angle of vision with regard to this matter. I cannot give you the period, but I think it cannot last very long. Perhaps the next inquiry may hear something about it.
Q. 3893.—You think at the next inquiry the Mahommedans will ask to be absorbed into the whole?—Yes, I think the next inquiry will probably hear something about it. [2]
Leader of the Muslim League and the Governor General of Pakistan:
The great paradox for Pakistan’s imagined Islamic nationhood is that had Jinnah not adopted a secular – i.e. non-theological- policy- he would have never managed to bring all Muslims together on one platform. The doctrinal differences between Muslims were far too great to make for any real unity. Nor was Islamic rhetoric or Muslim unity alone able to bring the Muslims marching behind the Muslim League. The painful and long process by which Jinnah forged an apparent unity is indicative of his masterful political skill. What Jinnah wanted has been long a subject of controversy but there is abundant evidence that Jinnah did not want a complete separation or partition.
The classic consociationalist theory Jinnah put forth was to secure adequate and effective representation for Muslims, having seen in close quarters the sidelining of the League in UP despite being the largest Muslim party there. Therefore Jinnah’s lawyerly arguments –  a regurgitation of a small pamphlet called “Confederacy of India” (originally named Pakistan but changed at Jinnah’s insistence) by “a Punjabi” called Kifayet Ali- as he placed them in front of the League in his famous 23 March 1940 address cannot by any stretch of imagination be used to argue that he wanted an Islamic state. I strongly recommend K K Aziz’s long essay (including an interview with Kifayet Ali) on “Confederacy of India” which can be found in his short works published by Vanguard Books. In any event the Lahore Resolution did not refer to “Islam” or “Islamic state” even once. This is significant for a resolution that was imagining a different country. At the very least it was clear that there was no one fixed vision of Pakistan that the League agreed on.  
The very call for national – instead of territorial- right of self determination indicated a national compact between communities and was not a clarion call for an Islamic utopia. His objective was a political space where Muslims were not limited by their faith which to Jinnah was a significant accident of birth. Ironically, that is precisely what Pakistan has been doing for the last 30 odd years.
Raja of Mahmudabad’s evidence is significant. The Raja started off by saying that since the Lahore resolution had been passed earlier that year, if and when Pakistan was formed, it was undoubtedly to be an Islamic State with the Sunna and Shariah as its bedrock. The Quaid’s face went red and he turned to ask Raja whether he had taken leave of his senses. Mr. Jinnah added: `Did you realize that there are over seventy sects and differences of opinion regarding the Islamic faith, and if what the Raja was suggesting was to be followed, the consequences would be a struggle of religious opinion from the very inception of the State leading to its very dissolution. Mr. Jinnah banged his hands on the table and said: We shall not be an Islamic State but a Liberal Democratic Muslim State.[3]
Jinnah’s appeal to Islam was entirely ambiguous and never concrete. In fact he always very conveniently managed to sideline the issue of Sharia, especially in 1943 when a bunch of Muslim Leaguers tried to pass off a resolution to commit Pakistan to Islam. Jinnah vetoed it and called it a censure on every Muslim Leaguer. [4]
On 21st May, 1947,   Jinnah described clearly what kind of state he envisaged in Pakistan:
The basis of the central administration of Pakistan and that of the units to be set up will be decided no doubt, by the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. But the Government of Pakistan can only be a popular representative and democratic form of Government. Its Parliament and Cabinet responsible to the Parliament will both be finally responsible to the electorate and the people in general without any distinction of caste, creed or sect, which will the final deciding factor with regard to the policy and programme of the Government that may be adopted from time to time… The minorities in Pakistan will be the citizens of Pakistan and enjoy all the rights, privileges and obligations of citizenship without any distinction of caste creed or sect.  They will be treated justly and fairly. The Government will run the administration and control the legislative measures by its Parliament, and the collective conscience of the Parliament itself will be a guarantee that the minorities need not have any apprehension of any injustice being done to them. Over and above that there will be provisions for the protection and safeguard of the minorities which in my opinion must be embodied in the constitution itself. And this will leave no doubt as to the fundamental rights of the citizens, protection of religion and faith of every section, freedom of thought and protection of their cultural and social life.  [5]
In an interview with Duncan Hooper he said:
Minorities DO NOT cease to be citizens. Minorities living in Pakistan or Hindustan do not cease to be citizens of their respective states by virtue of their belonging to particular faith, religion or race. I have repeatedly made it clear, especially in my opening speech to the constituent assembly, that the minorities in Pakistan would be treated as our citizens and will enjoy all the rights as any other community. Pakistan SHALL pursue this policy and do all it can to create a sense of security and confidence in the Non-Muslim minorities of Pakistan. We do not prescribe any school boy tests for their loyalty. We shall not say to any Hindu citizen of Pakistan ‘if there was war would you shoot a Hindu?’[6]
In his address to the people of the United States of America,  Jinnah said:
In any case Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic State — to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have many non- Muslims — Hindus, Christians, and Parsis — but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizens and will play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan.[7]
Speaking to Parsi gathering in Karachi in February 1948, he said:
I assure you Pakistan means to stand by its oft repeated promises of according equal rights to all its nationals irrespective of their caste or creed. Pakistan which symbolizes the aspirations of a nation that found it self to be a minority in the Indian subcontinent cannot be unmindful of minorities within its own borders. It is a pity that the fairname of Karachi was sullied by the sudden outburst of communal frenzy last month and I can’t find words strong enough to condemn the action of those who are responsible. [8]
On 22nd March 1948, meeting with Hindu Legislators in an effort to stem their exodus to India, he said:
We guarantee equal rights to all citizens of Pakistan. Hindus should in spirit and action wholeheartedly co-operate with the Government and its various branches as Pakistanis. [9]
On 23rd March 1948 meeting the ‘Scheduled Caste Federation’, he said:
We stand by our declarations that members of every community will be treated as citizens of Pakistan with equal rights and privileges and obligations and that Minorities will be safeguarded and protected.[10]
Speaking to Quetta Parsis in June 1948, he said:
Although you have not struck the note of your needs and requirements as a community but it is the policy of my Government and myself that every member of every community irrespective of caste color, creed or race shall be fully protected with regard to his life, property and honor. I reiterate to you that you like all minorities will be treated as equal citizens with your rights and obligations provided you are loyal to Pakistan. [11]
Symbolism was also very important. As mentioned earlier, Jogindranath Mandal, a Scheduled Caste federation politician and lawyer from Bengal, was first appointed on League’s behalf to represent Muslims of India in the interim government. After partition he was nominated by Jinnah to chair the inaugural session of the Pakistan Constituent Assembly. He was then nominated to the first cabinet as Pakistan’s first law minister. This is a very significant fact. If Pakistan was to be an Islamic state, why was a Hindu being appointed the minister of law?  Jogindranath Mandal was not only a scheduled caste Hindu but he was entirely unversed in Islamic law (unlike Rana Bhagwandas). Another significant thing was Jinnah’s decision to get a Hindu to write Pakistan’s first national anthem. This was done presumably to show that Pakistan was not exclusivist state for Muslims alone.
Jinnah’s “Islamic” rhetoric and a Secular Pakistan

Jinnah’s references to Islam were – contrary to the tall claims made by those Ulema who ironically had the time opposed the creation of Pakistan- few and far between. It was usually an Eid message or a speech at convocation where Jinnah referred to Islam. Three such quotes that these Ulema bring up include Jinnah’s speech on the occasion of Eid Milad un Nabi, his letter to Pir of Manki Sharif and his alleged speech in Peshawar’s Islamia College.
Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. Islam has taught Equality, Justice and fairplay to everybody. What reason is there for anyone to fear. Democracy, equality, freedom on the highest sense of integrity and on the basis of fairplay and justice for everyone. Let us make the constitution of Pakistan. We will make it and we will show it to the world. Islam is not only a set of rituals, traditions and spiritual doctrines. Islam is also a code for every Muslim, which regulates his life and conduct in even politics and economics and the like. [12]
The latter part is quoted out of context to prove that Jinnah did not want a secular state, when a closer reading shows that this is erroneous. Take the example of Keith Ellison, the Muslim Congressman in the United States. He is a practicing religious Muslim. For him Islam is a code of conduct. He is also a member of the Congress of United States of America and a patriotic American. His life and conduct in politics and economics are all regulated by his adherence to Islam. Jinnah’s opposite number in the Congress Party, Maulana Azad, was another example of an extremely conservative Muslim whose every action was driven by and regulated by Islam. In contrast Jinnah himself had a very liberal understanding of the code of Islam – if indeed he followed it.  The point is that Jinnah’s reference to code for every Muslim was on a personal level. It does not speak of a state or any other thing like that.  How then can this statement be taken to mean that Pakistan would be an Islamic state or a theocracy especially when read together with other speeches and statements quoted above?  It also bears remembering that whenever Jinnah spoke of “Islamic principles” he qualified the statement with “democracy”, “equality”,  “fairplay”,  “brotherhood of man” and “social justice”.
Another often quoted example is Jinnah’s letter to Pir of Manki Sharif.    The Pir had asked Jinnah if lives of Muslims shall be subject to Shariat?  What Jinnah had promised was that affairs of the Muslim community would be subject to Shariat i.e. the Muslim personal law. No where did Jinnah promise to make Shariat the civil and criminal law of Pakistan.    Shariat in British India referred to Personal Law.  It is this law that is still in force in India.
Section 2 of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1937 of India reads:

2. Application of Personal Law of Muslims.- Notwithstanding any customs or usage to the contrary, in all questions (save questions relating to agricultural land) regarding intestate succession, special property of females, including personal property inherited or obtained under contract or gift or any other provision of Personal law, marriage, dissolution of marriage, including talaq, ila, zihar, lian, khula and mubaraat, maintenance, dower, guardiaship, gifts, trusts and trust   properties, and  wakfs (other than chartities and charitable institutions and charitable and religious endowments) the rule of decision in case where the parties are Muslims shall be the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat). [13]

This is the law in secular India today.   Muslims of India are governed by Shariat in their affairs as a community.   Does it affect Indian secularism in anyway?    Communal Personal laws are an accepted part of English Jurisprudence.   So it does not quite follow that Mr. Jinnah was referring to anything but this when he promised Pir of Manki Sharif that the affairs of Muslim community (not nation interestingly) shall be run by Shariat in Pakistan and that no Muslim would be forced to accept any unIslamic law, which implies – for those who use this double-edged sword to prove the impossible-  that there was an element of choice that a Muslim may accept an unIslamic law out of his or her free will.   This would obviously make it consistent with Jinnah’s life long support to mixed marriages bill.
And finally the issue of the alleged “laboratory of Islam” speech: without getting into the controversy of whether Jinnah actually did say it and assume that he did. Considering his Peshawar audience, this was almost revolutionary. After all was Islam not be “final” and “complete”? Was Jinnah talking of experimentation i.e. Ijtehad? Was he under Qadiani influence? It certainly does not mean that Jinnah wanted a conservative Islamic state.
The argument that Jinnah was secular does not mean necessarily a secularism of the French or Ataturk kind (even though Jinnah admired Ataturk greatly and described Ataturk’s Turkey as an exemplary Muslim state). Jinnah’s secularism was of the English variety schooled and crafted by British liberalism which was far more tolerant of religion.
Indeed he referred to English history in his land mark 11^th August speech. If Pakistan is the citadel of Islam in South Asia, as some claim, England was the bastion of Protestantism in Europe. It is – technically- a protestant country today. Yet it is a perfect secular democracy because it does not have a state religion and every elected office in the country is open to every subject of the Queen regardless of religion, caste or creed. Now let us consider what Jinnah said:
“As you know, history shows that in England, conditions, some time ago, were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some States in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed against a particular class. Thank God, we are not starting in those days. We are starting in the days where there is no discrimination, no distinction between one community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another. We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens and equal citizens of one State. The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation. Now I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.”
It was the perfect summation of English secularism. It was also Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan. Jinnah’s Pakistan to sum it up was to be

1. An inclusive democracy
2. An impartial state without a state religion
3. A state which ensured rule of law and equality of citizenship to all its citizens regardless of religion caste or creed.
4. A state where a person’s religion was to be a personal matter.

No one- even those quoting Jinnah’s so called Islamic references- can deny these four postulates which Jinnah expressed repeatedly again and again. This is the essence of a secular state. This is why Jinnah was a liberal secular democrat in my view.
NOTES:
        [1] p. 21, Ian Bryant Wells, Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity, Permanent Black New Delhi
        [2] http://tinyurl.com/ycfsg3g
        [3] http://www.dawn.com/events/pml/review38.htm
        [4] See Jinnah’s speech at the Delhi Session of the Muslim League of 1943 after Dr. A H Kazi tried to introduce a resolution committing Pakistan to Khilafat-e- Rashda. See Footnote on Page 96 of Ayesha Jalal’s “Sole Spokesman” published OUP.
        [5]  p.845,  Zaidi, Z.H. (ed) (1993) Jinnah Papers: Prelude to Pakistan, Vol. I Part I. Lahore: Quaid-i-Azam Papers Project
        [6]  p. 61,  Jinnah Speeches and Statements 1947-1948,  Oxford 1997
        [7]  p. 125 Ibid
      [8] p.102-103 Ibid
      [9] p.  153 Ibid
    [10] p.  154 Ibid
    [11] p. 223  Ibid
    [12]  p. 98  Ibid
    [13] http://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/muslimperact/s2.htm

In Suicides We Trust

By D. Asghar
Every time there is an insane terror attack in the heart of Pakistani cities, within hours you see the holy warriors of TTP claiming the responsibility for such “remarkable valor.” It is unclear, why the law enforcement agencies have not tackled these murderers head on.
These cowardly acts are marketed as a fitting response to the US drone strikes. Or these are GOD fearing Mujahids waging a war against the infidels, so to speak. The term “infidel” has lost its real meaning. Any and everybody can be declared an infidel at a moment’s notice by any one. After that conclusive declaration, no further justification or reasoning for any action is warranted.
The sad part is that a significant number of general population is sympathetic towards these beasts, because the Taliban use religion as a shield to cover their dastardly deeds. Let’s assume that these “oppressed and valiant Taliban” were not Muslims and these were communist rebels, resisting American invasion (so to speak), would our attitudes and sentiments still be in line with their modus operandi.
In any war the strategy seems to dominate the game. In this case, TTP or Taliban in general have brilliantly used religion to cover up their heinous and barbaric acts. There are educated people, in and outside Pakistan, who not only buy into all of this, but justify these suicide bombings as an act of struggle against “Imperial forces.” If you engage those individuals in any sane discussions, the counter argument is always American invasion and these acts being its repercussions.
Afghanistan prior to the much touted and debated American invasion, was no symbol of peace and prosperity under the direct rule of these “self righteous and pious Muslims.” The sheer brutality and lack of human values were the hallmark of these “great visionary leaders” of Muslim Ummah. Many would dismiss all of this being Western propaganda, but facts from independent and non partisan media, show volumes of incriminating evidence against these brutes.
The case in Pakistan is no different as we have hyper sensitive religious society, in action at all times. We can attract people’s attention within minutes in the name of religion, for better or for worst. The hard core religious parties always have a soft corner for these beasts as ideologically they find a common ground with the TTP’s and LJ’s and their likes.
The common theme or slogan which is raised repeatedly is, “Islam is in peril.” For 1400 years or so, Islam has withstood all tests, challenges and dangers. This is in front of all the people around the world. This fact should be the hallmark of every living and breathing Muslim’s faith. Nothing has, nor it ever will diminish the religion as it is a divine message. On the other hand, it is incumbent upon Muslims, as the torch bearers of this divine message, to demonstrate the best of their character towards their fellow human beings.
In order to combat this menace, first and foremost the distinction between terrorism and holy war has to be established. Mostly media, paper and electronic, voices its condemnation after every such incident, but it appears that all its pleas fall on deaf ears.
It is high time that all Muslim sects of Pakistan and their religious leaders, collectively form an alliance to eradicate this evil. We make tall claims about the following of Prophet PBUH in attire and argue with one another about minute details of how to perform our Salah. But do we really care about, what Prophet PBUH would have done in this situation. What would have been his reaction to all of this? If he was the Messenger of Good, then where is our Goodness and Humility? Islam is not about the length of the beard and the color of the turban, but it is how a human being submits to the will of GOD.
All the Masajids of all sects should be mandated to teach the followers the difference between the act of suicide, which is beyond evil and forbidden in the faith, and the true struggle in the path of ALMIGHTY. The schools, colleges and all learning institutions should have mandatory education about this subject, so the myths can be eliminated.
The law enforcement agencies should be held to task by the elected leaders to combat this menace effectively. The investigations should be transparent and must have targeted deadlines, so the future catastrophes can be averted. The prosecution and sentencing should be exemplary so the people can get a clear and unified message of zero tolerance.
There is this widely held belief that terrorism cannot be eliminated completely. There is some truth to this debate, however terrorism cannot be tolerated in its present form either. It is undoubtedly a hydra headed monster, yet chopping or knocking few of its head will go a long way.
Those who vehemently relate this to the American presence in the region, should be cognizant of the fact that, even if the US troops were to leave today, this menace will still loom over everyone in and outside Pakistan. Because the perpetrators will find some other issue or internal strife to exercise their illogical agenda. Lawmakers are you listening….if not please do, before the Pakistan we know is completely up in flames.

Winds of Change from ‘Holly Land’

By Ahmad Nadeem Gehla
Those who have had an opportunity to do business with Arab corporates know very well that deals are neither transparent nor free from political influences. This is very rare that any corporate head from ‘Royal Family’ lodges a complaint with foreign governments or approaches other power centres in foreign states. Conspiracy theorists are terming the complaint of Saudi Prince against Ministry of Religious Affairs to be first cool wind of change from ‘Holly Land’. Obviously, their can be other reasons as well, as the present Minister for religious Affairs belongs to a sect of Muslim which is vocal against Taliban and not a favourite of Arab Kingdoms. This also might be a genuine discontent of business tycoon but it is difficult to believe that a Prince wont follow the ‘rules’ and protest as at home business follows the ‘Royalty’.
As Supreme Court of Pakistan has takes Suo-Moto notice on Prince’s complaint, discussing the merits or otherwise of the case might prejudice the issue but political implications are open for public debate. The famous quote of ’3 A’s', Allah, America and Army is crafted very carefully, intentionally ignoring another ‘brotherly ‘A’; the Arab Empires’. The infamous ‘American interference’ in internal affairs of Pakistan is a favourite topic of right wing ‘Talk Show Hosts’ , political Mullahs and politicians. However, they conveniently ignore interference of ‘Brotherly Sheikh’, as it does not hurt our half-sovereignty. Historically, some Arab Kingdoms’ has always been actively micro managing internal affairs of Pakistan and played key role in making and breaking of governments.
Iran is the only ‘Islamic Nation’ which is not qualified to be included in ‘Brotherly’ group as it is disliked by ‘Sheikh’. A’s consider micro managing war torn Afghanistan as their legitimate right. However if Hamid Karzai makes a statements about Pakistan, the custodians of half-sovereignty start condemning ‘foreign interference’ in internal affairs of Pakistan. Certainly, one has to be rich and powerful to qualify as a ‘brother’ – that is our culture. Presently ‘Holly Land’, not only influences the decisions of establishment and politicians in Pakistan but it has got new followers in corridors of justice.
Zardari regime earned displeasure of ‘Sheikh’ by defying the wish of ‘His Highness’ to stay away from Iran, which irritates badly the’ Elder of Ummah’. The supply agreement of ‘impure Gas’ from Iran through a pipeline project has put present regime at odds with ‘Holly Land’. Although since assassination of King Faisal, ‘Sheikh’ has never been very kind towards secular Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). The ‘Soviet War Project’ brought ‘Kingdoms’ further closer to right wing dominated establishment and politicians. Some Arab Kingdoms were unhappy when Benazir Bhutto came in to power, as the women’s rule is against their interpretation of religion.
The brotherly states played a major role in convincing ‘political Mullah’s’ to assemble against secular Pakistan Peoples Party. No-confidence motion against Benazir Bhutto was generously funded by Sheikh Osama Bin Laden, a great well-wisher of Pakistan who wanted the ‘land of pure’ to get rid of ‘women rule’. Same ‘Kingdoms’ played an active role in formation of infamous IJI and later brokered a deal with Pervez Musharaf to get Mian Nawaz Sharif released despite his multiple convictions from court. There are speculations that tenure of agreement between Pervez Musharaf, Kingdom and Mian Nawaz Sharif will expire next month and later is ready to bid for premiership. Certainly the ‘Elder of Ummah’ would like to reward his friend and previous host for his obedience and common goals towards ‘impure Iranian gas’ and identifying good Taliban.
Democracy might be a best revenge but democracy in third world is not a wise revenge when playing against the wishes of economic, religious and regional players. They got the powers to make example out of Bhutto, King Fasial, Benazir and adventurism of those who tried to defy the system. Things are not that complicated. Zardari regime has to decide weather it wants to stay in power or make enemies. Gas pipeline from Iran irritates the ‘Highness’, recognition of good Taliban is a joint project of ‘Elders of Ummah’ and righteous. Going against the tide wont help when corruption’ allegations against Minister of Religious Affairs are ‘proved’ in Supreme Court and general elections follow with this much inflation and allegations. Iranian gas is good for economy and war against terror is important for nation but survival is the key – get wiser before you get revenge – feel the winds of change from ‘Holly Land’.

Shame on all Mullahs – the real enemies of Pakistan

The contributions of Ahmadis both to the creation of Pakistan and to its progress are innumerable.  While the Mullahs -who now have become the chachas and mamas of Pakistan – were abusing the Quaid-e-Azam and Pakistan as Kafir-e-Azam and Kafiristan,  Ahmadis worked diligently for the Pakistan Movement. This is a fact of history many in Pakistan now wish to deny. Today Ahmadis are persecuted in the country they helped found by people who were its worst enemies!

TRIBUNE EDITORIAL : NO PEACE FOR THE DEAD

Interred body of an Ahmedi exhumed from a Muslim graveyard after protests held against the burial.

What should one say about the forcible disinterment of an Ahmadi corpse from a Muslim graveyard in Bhalwal, Punjab, on Sunday, except that it is a conundrum born out of our religious narrow-mindedness? The police asked the Ahmadi family to dig up the body themselves, or face public protest and possible violence. When they did not do so, the police, led by the local DSP, exhumed the body and handed it over to the family.
If you read Ahmadi literature listing what Pakistan is doing to them, you will think this is a small incident that can be ignored. The police look the other way when terrorists descend on their beats but will catch helpless citizens like transvestites and Ahmadis to win cheap acclaim. The official version is that some powerful Muslim clerics of Sargodha had warned that if the Ahmadi corpse was not taken out they would cause great disturbance.
The police had the law on their side: Ahmadis are not Muslims under the Second Amendment to the Constitution: they can’t say the kalima, they can’t call their places of worship mosques and they are to be treated as a non-Muslim minority not qualified for zakat. The question is, how can non-Muslims be buried in Muslim graveyards? Are Christians ever buried along with Muslims? The common man will not care to examine this kind of argument carefully but a conscientious man can.
The argument cuts two ways. Christians and Muslims don’t bury their dead in each other’s graveyards because they want to retain their religious identity. If a Christian seeks out his “gora” (non-pejorative) cemetery he does not accept the Muslim ritual on the pain of being buried as a Muslim. Similarly, a Muslim avoids the Christian cemetery for fear of losing his Muslim identity.
The Bhalwal Ahmadi family has protested that the police have violated a tradition that the local community had accepted. Dozens of Ahmadis lie buried in the Muslim graveyard from the days when Ahmadis were considered Muslims. The police have not exhumed any of these bodies. But this is where one can indict the wisdom of the law that declared Ahmadis non-Muslim followed by other absurd disabilities like not reciting the kalima.
What should be done about marriages that took place between Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis before the Ahmadis were apostatised? Should they be declared null and void; and if so, what about the legitimacy of their offspring? What about cross-sect marriages that still take place? And what about Muslim women who are not allowed to wed non-Muslims? Ahmadis are not considered ‘Ahle Kitab’ (people of the book). In that case, not even Muslim males are allowed to wed an Ahmadi even though they can marry Christians and Jews. Can we put thousands of couples to death for living in sin brought about by a constitutional amendment?
A graveyard defines the man who lies buried therein. A humane interpretation, had it suggested itself to the DSP in question, would be that an Ahmadi who accepts to be buried in a Muslim graveyard automatically converts back to his Muslim identity. After all, the majority principle should matter in graveyards too. Moreover, laws that regulate human rights are supposed to be universal. Yet the Ahmadis living in India and elsewhere in the world are considered Muslims and treated as such. In many cases, local communities share their graveyards if Ahmadis are isolated from their own community, as happened in Bhalwal. It is strange that the moment an Ahmadi crosses over to India he becomes a Muslim. And the Shia community, whom many Sunni clerics declare non-Muslim on the basis that their kalima, namaz and burial rituals are different, have not been apostatised by our parliament. The Bahais, apostatised by Iran, are still Muslims in Pakistan.
The Ahmadis have been dealt with unjustly and inhumanely. The unthinking law we have enacted to persecute them portrays us as an evil state to the world.
Published in The Express Tribune, November 4^th, 2010.

Mr Zardari is this your idea of a joke?

Maulana Atta-ur-Rehman
Minister for Tourism
Personal Profile
Date of Birth:				25-07-1962
Place of Birth:				Abdul Khel D.I Khan
Education:
(i)		Shahadat-ul-Alamia:                       (Wifaq-ul-Madaris-ul-Arabia)			Qasim-ul-Uloom, Multan, 1987
(ii)		Master of Arts (Islamiat)			Gomal University D.I Khan, 1996
(iii)		From 1998-1998			He Taught in the religious Institute “Jamia-tul-Maarif-Alsharia”, D.I Khan. He was the In-charge of that Institute too.
Active Politic
(i)	Party:  Jamiat-e-Ulama-e-Islam Election Commissioner for D.I Khan District				1998
(ii)	Joint Sectary, JUI, NWFP				1998
(iii)	Party Election Commissioner for NWFP Province				2002
(iv)	Joint Secretary, JUI, NWFP				2002
(v)	President / Ameer, JUI, Dist. D.I.Khan				2002
(vi)	Vice President / Naib Ameer, JUI, NWFP				2006 till now
Parliamentary Experience
In 2002:			He was elected as a member of National Assembly of Pakistan from NA-25 D.I.Khan / Tank and played active role in opposition.
In 2008:			He was again elected as MNA from the same constituency NA-25 D.I.Khan/Tank and his party nominated him as Federal Minister