Raza Habib Raja
While going through the various blogs and some English newspapers, at times one gets rather misleading impressions about secularism in Pakistan. One of the foremost impressions is that a reasonable number, if not majority, is secular in Pakistan. But even more misleading impression is that some of the mainstream parties are secular and so is their vote bank. I have also heard that masses since they have generally voted for PPP and PML (N), both of them are closer to middle, are somehow or the other “secular minded”.
The UNFORTUNATE reality is that in a country like Pakistan, no MATERIAL and INFLUENTIAL, institution is secular. That is a fact. Our courts, our establishment and even the liberal parties are not secular. Secularism exists but only in fringes.
Frankly the case of secularism has never been presented in an effective manner. Somehow the concept has been thoroughly confused and amalgamated with Atheism in Pakistan. An overwhelming majority of politicians, and even intellectuals, often try to defend themselves when “accused” of being secular particularly on mainstream electronic media and Urdu print media.
Even now when the anti blasphemy law is under spotlight, its opponents are not PUBLICLY opposing it in the mainstream media because of it being against the philosophy of secularism. The major thrust of the argument has not been whether a religion inspired law has no place in our society but rather that the law is contradictory to the real Islamic “spirit”. To weave arguments around secularism in mainstream media is almost impossible and even if done would be counterproductive as far as repealing the blasphemy law is concerned.
A lot of hue and cry was made on Chief Justices remarks expressing ‘concern’ about Parliament passing a constitution which would make Pakistan a secular republic. Supporters of some mainstream liberal parties have been writing passionate articles in which they have been critical of the Chief Justice and also reiterating their stance on the ‘reactionary” lawyers’ movement. What I really find laughable is that while being critical of the judiciary, they are conveniently forgetting that in all probability, this parliament or for that matter any parliament, will not legislate to remove religion from the affairs of the state in the first place. And they also forget, that decision to fuse religion with state was taken by the parliament and unanimously vide 1973 constitution. I have heard a number of times that representatives reflect the will of the masses and in fact this is projected as the strongest defense of democracy. But following this logic, the 1973 constitution, which was unanimously passed, only reflects the will of the masses. Mind you democracy is not always liberal and that is why innovations like first amendment exist in American Constitution which tries to protect freedom of speech, secularism and the minorities. This protection would even supersede any decision taken by the majority in the parliament if it is in contravention of the aforementioned principles.
So what about the political parties? A political party is secular if it openly denounces fusion of religion with the matters of state and that has to be part of its manifesto. In democracies, political parties have to openly debate and therefore there is no concept of closet seculars. Even if you cannot publicly call yourself as secular (as some point out that in Pakistan it would be impossible to), you still have to adopt secular approach (at least show progression towards that end). Yes if you do not legislate to induce more Islam in the matters of the state, while keeping silent about the existing status, this would perhaps qualify you as a moderate party, not a secular party. Parties like MQM, PPP and ANP can be called liberal and moderate parties but it is difficult to call them secular. Secular credentials reflect through a party’s actions as well as statements and if a party has actually legislated to make Islam a state religion, and subsequently done nothing to repeal it, then frankly claims by a small group of its supporters about its secularism are simply not valid. Eventually a political party speaks what its vote bank wants it to speak. The vote bank of almost every party is religious though with varying degrees and unfortunately wants religion in the affairs of the state. They may not be voting clergy into power but frankly they are also not raising enough voice to separate religion from state.
In country where the general populace is of such character, the alternate would be a top down approach which can either be through a populist leader with sway over masses or through establishment institutions. And here also the leader or the institution has to “act” secular without actually declaring itself as one. In Pakistan, no leader has dared to do that and in fact the one who was most popular, ZAB, was in many ways originator of the present state of affairs. In fact ZAB manipulated religious sensitivities for gaining political mileage and after him, Pakistan has seen popular leaders like Benazir and Nawaz Sharif, but both of them did not take any material step towards removing religion from state. Nawaz Sharif obviously caters to conservatives and therefore it was highly unlikely for him to take any step but even Benazir despite being personally liberal and secular could not take any concrete step towards this objective. One cannot blame Benazir as by 1990s too much ground had already been ceded to the quest of a “true’ Islamic state.
And as far as other “pillars” of state are concerned, the situation is even worse and one cannot expect any hope of secularism from them or even progression towards that end. Ideologically armed forces are geared to hold up Islamic values as well as Pakistani nationalism in terms of their orientation and identity. This ideological orientation, designed chiefly to ensure internal cohesiveness and combating zeal, is also identical with the general state nurtured ideology which tries to negate ethnic plurality. So whenever army is in direct power its ideological thrust amalgamates with and in fact reinforces that of the broader state’s cultivated ideology. In fact, with every army rule, we regress as far as secularism is concerned. Pakistan is not turkey and even Turkey had transformed only because of the humiliation of the first world war defeat which had thoroughly discredited Caliphate. The unique circumstances and presence of Ata Turk combined to enable Turkey emerge as a secular republic. The armed forces there are virtually indoctrinated in secularism unlike our armed forces which are completely opposite. There will be no “soft’ revolution in Pakistan.
Judiciary of course is ideologically Islamic and particularly Lahore high court and its chief justice is openly courting the hardliners and passing judgements which only appease them. In fact just yesterday I saw banners displaying open support to CJ Lahore high Court from Islami Jamiat Talba (student wing of Jamat-i- Islami). The remarks of the Chief Justice of Pakistan are hardly surprising given the overall “atmosphere”.
And this atmosphere is riddled with severe misconceptions about secularism. Due to fear of being branded as “Atheist” and anti Islamic the word secular, in both letter and spirit, is virtually absent from the discourse. The approach is more focused on reinterpretation of religion rather segregating it from the affairs of the state.
I can fully understand this approach because frankly this is apparently the only pragmatic approach. But here the issue will be no less problematic because Pakistan simply does not have a tradition of liberal discourse on religion. In fact liberal religious scholars virtually do not exist. Those who were talking of renaissance, like Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, have been forced to relocate. Some of their colleagues, like Dr Muhammad Khan, have been killed. Right now the discourse is dominated by ultra conservatives no matter what school of thought they may belong to. Another issue would be to intellectually justify as to what criteria to use to reinterpret. Mind you reinterpretation has to be consistent to be convincing as pick and choose policy won’t be convincing.
In a country like Pakistan, where establishment institutions are ideologically religious, secularism has to evolve from liberal discourse on religion. Without that tradition, it won’t just materialize from thin air. Even in western countries, secularism has evolved out of a liberal discourse on the nature of religion and its place in their lives. Unless and until that critical discourse initiates, frankly there is no hope. And right now even conditions for that discourse do not exist and unless all the likeminded unite and push for it, the status quo will be maintained.
While going through the various blogs and some English newspapers, at times one gets rather misleading impressions about secularism in Pakistan. One of the foremost impressions is that a reasonable number, if not majority, is secular in Pakistan. But even more misleading impression is that some of the mainstream parties are secular and so is their vote bank. I have also heard that masses since they have generally voted for PPP and PML (N), both of them are closer to middle, are somehow or the other “secular minded”.
The UNFORTUNATE reality is that in a country like Pakistan, no MATERIAL and INFLUENTIAL, institution is secular. That is a fact. Our courts, our establishment and even the liberal parties are not secular. Secularism exists but only in fringes.
Frankly the case of secularism has never been presented in an effective manner. Somehow the concept has been thoroughly confused and amalgamated with Atheism in Pakistan. An overwhelming majority of politicians, and even intellectuals, often try to defend themselves when “accused” of being secular particularly on mainstream electronic media and Urdu print media.
Even now when the anti blasphemy law is under spotlight, its opponents are not PUBLICLY opposing it in the mainstream media because of it being against the philosophy of secularism. The major thrust of the argument has not been whether a religion inspired law has no place in our society but rather that the law is contradictory to the real Islamic “spirit”. To weave arguments around secularism in mainstream media is almost impossible and even if done would be counterproductive as far as repealing the blasphemy law is concerned.
A lot of hue and cry was made on Chief Justices remarks expressing ‘concern’ about Parliament passing a constitution which would make Pakistan a secular republic. Supporters of some mainstream liberal parties have been writing passionate articles in which they have been critical of the Chief Justice and also reiterating their stance on the ‘reactionary” lawyers’ movement. What I really find laughable is that while being critical of the judiciary, they are conveniently forgetting that in all probability, this parliament or for that matter any parliament, will not legislate to remove religion from the affairs of the state in the first place. And they also forget, that decision to fuse religion with state was taken by the parliament and unanimously vide 1973 constitution. I have heard a number of times that representatives reflect the will of the masses and in fact this is projected as the strongest defense of democracy. But following this logic, the 1973 constitution, which was unanimously passed, only reflects the will of the masses. Mind you democracy is not always liberal and that is why innovations like first amendment exist in American Constitution which tries to protect freedom of speech, secularism and the minorities. This protection would even supersede any decision taken by the majority in the parliament if it is in contravention of the aforementioned principles.
So what about the political parties? A political party is secular if it openly denounces fusion of religion with the matters of state and that has to be part of its manifesto. In democracies, political parties have to openly debate and therefore there is no concept of closet seculars. Even if you cannot publicly call yourself as secular (as some point out that in Pakistan it would be impossible to), you still have to adopt secular approach (at least show progression towards that end). Yes if you do not legislate to induce more Islam in the matters of the state, while keeping silent about the existing status, this would perhaps qualify you as a moderate party, not a secular party. Parties like MQM, PPP and ANP can be called liberal and moderate parties but it is difficult to call them secular. Secular credentials reflect through a party’s actions as well as statements and if a party has actually legislated to make Islam a state religion, and subsequently done nothing to repeal it, then frankly claims by a small group of its supporters about its secularism are simply not valid. Eventually a political party speaks what its vote bank wants it to speak. The vote bank of almost every party is religious though with varying degrees and unfortunately wants religion in the affairs of the state. They may not be voting clergy into power but frankly they are also not raising enough voice to separate religion from state.
In country where the general populace is of such character, the alternate would be a top down approach which can either be through a populist leader with sway over masses or through establishment institutions. And here also the leader or the institution has to “act” secular without actually declaring itself as one. In Pakistan, no leader has dared to do that and in fact the one who was most popular, ZAB, was in many ways originator of the present state of affairs. In fact ZAB manipulated religious sensitivities for gaining political mileage and after him, Pakistan has seen popular leaders like Benazir and Nawaz Sharif, but both of them did not take any material step towards removing religion from state. Nawaz Sharif obviously caters to conservatives and therefore it was highly unlikely for him to take any step but even Benazir despite being personally liberal and secular could not take any concrete step towards this objective. One cannot blame Benazir as by 1990s too much ground had already been ceded to the quest of a “true’ Islamic state.
And as far as other “pillars” of state are concerned, the situation is even worse and one cannot expect any hope of secularism from them or even progression towards that end. Ideologically armed forces are geared to hold up Islamic values as well as Pakistani nationalism in terms of their orientation and identity. This ideological orientation, designed chiefly to ensure internal cohesiveness and combating zeal, is also identical with the general state nurtured ideology which tries to negate ethnic plurality. So whenever army is in direct power its ideological thrust amalgamates with and in fact reinforces that of the broader state’s cultivated ideology. In fact, with every army rule, we regress as far as secularism is concerned. Pakistan is not turkey and even Turkey had transformed only because of the humiliation of the first world war defeat which had thoroughly discredited Caliphate. The unique circumstances and presence of Ata Turk combined to enable Turkey emerge as a secular republic. The armed forces there are virtually indoctrinated in secularism unlike our armed forces which are completely opposite. There will be no “soft’ revolution in Pakistan.
Judiciary of course is ideologically Islamic and particularly Lahore high court and its chief justice is openly courting the hardliners and passing judgements which only appease them. In fact just yesterday I saw banners displaying open support to CJ Lahore high Court from Islami Jamiat Talba (student wing of Jamat-i- Islami). The remarks of the Chief Justice of Pakistan are hardly surprising given the overall “atmosphere”.
And this atmosphere is riddled with severe misconceptions about secularism. Due to fear of being branded as “Atheist” and anti Islamic the word secular, in both letter and spirit, is virtually absent from the discourse. The approach is more focused on reinterpretation of religion rather segregating it from the affairs of the state.
I can fully understand this approach because frankly this is apparently the only pragmatic approach. But here the issue will be no less problematic because Pakistan simply does not have a tradition of liberal discourse on religion. In fact liberal religious scholars virtually do not exist. Those who were talking of renaissance, like Javed Ahmed Ghamidi, have been forced to relocate. Some of their colleagues, like Dr Muhammad Khan, have been killed. Right now the discourse is dominated by ultra conservatives no matter what school of thought they may belong to. Another issue would be to intellectually justify as to what criteria to use to reinterpret. Mind you reinterpretation has to be consistent to be convincing as pick and choose policy won’t be convincing.
In a country like Pakistan, where establishment institutions are ideologically religious, secularism has to evolve from liberal discourse on religion. Without that tradition, it won’t just materialize from thin air. Even in western countries, secularism has evolved out of a liberal discourse on the nature of religion and its place in their lives. Unless and until that critical discourse initiates, frankly there is no hope. And right now even conditions for that discourse do not exist and unless all the likeminded unite and push for it, the status quo will be maintained.
