Though Indian state is secular and its constitution provides equal rights to all citizens irrespective of their religion, Indian society is not at all secular. Secularism of mind takes time and the process is on. The attempts by successive political leadership in the country to integrate Indian society under a secular code are strongly resisted by Hindu extremist groups like Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Muslims in India favour secularism because it will ensure maximum religious freedom for them in a Hindu-dominated society. The Partition of India in 1947 triggered large-scale sectarian strife and bloodshed. Since then, India has been experiencing violence sparked off by underlying tensions between sections of the Hindu and Muslim communities. These conflicts mainly stem from the ideologies of Hindu nationalism versus Islamic extremism that exist in certain sections of the Indian population. Jinnah was secular and an honest and upright leader and politician. But, why are we following Jinnah now when he is part of history? We should look into the merits and demerits of secularism instead of bickering over what Jinnah had said in his August 11 speech. Instead of brooding on the past, we should act like a vibrant society by keeping our approach futuristic. The Objectives Resolution decided the fate of Pakistan as an Islamic country. Jinnah became irrelevant with the passage of the Objectives Resolution by the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan in 1949. The resolution, proposed by the then prime minister Liaquat Ali Khan, proclaimed that the future constitution of Pakistan would not be modelled entirely on a European pattern, but on the ideology of Islam. But most of the Islamic provisions were introduced in the 1973 Constitution and Islam became the religion of state. Till the time of President Ayub Khan, Pakistan army remained secular and it used to follow the tradition of a colonial institution. The army became religious during the Zia regime. Yes, the impression that army and religious elements are in agreement over an Islamic outlook of Pakistan is somewhat correct. REFERENCE: "Jinnah became irrelevant after Objectives
Resolution" -- Dr Mubarak Ali, eminent historian and scholar By Mazhar Khan Jadoon 29 August 2010 http://jang.com.pk/thenews/aug2010-weekly/nos-29-08-2010/spr.htm#6
Punjabi jihadism has its distinctive features. Its leadership is trained in religious ideology, while its foot soldiers are divided between those that have received better schooling in government schools and those that are madrassa trained. While the bulk of the foot soldiers come from madrassas, the emphasis is on recruiting boys from government schools, who are sharper and comparatively more educated. Their education is a valuable skill for jihad. These smarter children are open to recruitment because often, they have already been partially indoctrinated by friends to militant ideology. Sometimes they are simply disgruntled: they have problems with their parents and are ready to leave home. The fresh recruits are then sent on a daura-e-aam (simple tour), which is a 21-day training course in the NWFP or Kashmir, in which they are mainly given ideological training. Those that are tempted to stay on are later dispatched on a daura-e-khaas (special tour of three to six months) in which they are taught the use of weapons and military techniques. Anyone willing to continue with jihad is then sent to another highly specialised training mission in which their threshold to resist and inflict pain is developed. This training is conducted prior to “launching” a jihadi on a particular front. It prepares the fighter, as well as a trained commando, in the art of offensive guerrilla operations and the use of military technology. During this stage, it is rumoured that trained military personnel (serving or retired) are involved, especially in the cases of the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba and Jaish-e-Mohammad. Since the training has been taking place for the past two decades, organisations also benefit from battle-hardened surviving fighters who fought in Afghanistan and on other fronts. REFERENCE: A Different Breed By Ayesha Siddiqa 9 SEPTEMBER 2009 http://www.newslinemagazine.com/2009/09/a-different-breed/
The Objectives Resolution was where religion first crept into the constitutional debate. It was a foot in the door but even this document paid some lip service to equality and freedom of religion etc. Now here we are in the 21st century still procedurally, substantially and constitutionally unsure of ourselves. Consider Ansar Abbasi’s article in response to the Joseph Colony incident. He mercifully condemns the incident, which is, no doubt, a big improvement on what he generally has to say. However, he then goes on to speak of Pakistani non-Muslims as dhimmis. It is clear to me that Abbasi has not bothered to investigate this issue. Even under the Islamic law, not all non-Muslims are dhimmis. We have clear Islamic precedent in the case of Mesaq-e-Medina where the Jews of Medina and Muslims were declared one ummah. That document was approved by the Holy Prophet (PBUH) himself. The distinction is a clear one. Dhimmis were protected people in the immediate aftermath of conquest. They were de-militarised but their civil rights were kept intact and they were allowed to continue with their religion, business and lives as before. This does not apply to people who were not conquered, such as Pakistani non-Muslims who are at least promised equal citizenship under the constitution. Therefore, the Mesaq-e-Medina precedent is more applicable to our case. Pakistani non-Muslims are not dhimmis but equal citizens and form one community just as Jews and Muslims did under the Mesaq-e-Medina.Pakistan was not conquered by Jinnah. He envisaged a free and democratic state, which would not discriminate on the basis of religion. Unfortunately, Pakistan has become everything else but that. Our democracy is dysfunctional and patchy and we discriminate on the basis of religion at every level. A few token examples aside, minorities are discriminated against. Civil service and the armed forces do not promote non-Muslims beyond a certain level. Even in the judiciary where you have had Cornelius, Dorab Patel and Bhagwandas, there is hardly any hope for a religious minority in Pakistan to make it to the top. Then of course there is the constitutional bar against non-Muslims becoming president or the prime minister of Pakistan. Heck, they cannot even become the interim prime minister of Pakistan. The situation is even worse for Ahmadis in Pakistan as I have stated many times earlier. Their existence on the same electoral rolls as Muslims seems to threaten the faith of millions. This is despite the fact that the country has joint electorates in place. In the Islamic Republic of Pakistan there seem to be two lists: Ahmadis and non-Ahmadis. One hopes that the Chief Justice of Pakistan will undo this patent injustice against a patriotic Pakistani community. No Pakistani is a dhimmi. All of us, whatever our faith, are equal citizens with equal obligations and equal responsibilities. It is high time that we all have equal rights as well and this means absolutely no bar against any community. So long as a Pakistani — on merit — deserves a job, his or her religious beliefs should not be hindrance to him getting his fair share, be that the job of the president of Pakistan. Let us build a Pakistan on truly inclusive and democratic lines. Or else we will continue to slide down a slippery pole. REFERENCE: COMMENT : Are Pakistan’s non-Muslims ‘dhimmis’? — Yasser Latif Hamdani Monday, March 18, 2013 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2013\03\18\story_18-3-2013_pg3_3Ansar Abbasi on Pakistani Zimmis Daily Jang March 11, 2013 http://jang.com.pk/jang/mar2013-daily/11-03-2013/col14.htm
Ram Jethmalani on Jinnah and Hindus in Sindh
Deobandi Scholar Husain Ahmad Madni of Indian National Congress was of the view that Hindus and Muslims of India are one Ummah Nation
"QUOTE"
Madni was also a leading Muslim political activist, and was closely involved in the Congress Party in pre-1947 India. At a time when the Muslim League under Jinnah had raised its demand for a separate Muslim state of Pakistan, based on the so-called ‘two nation’ theory, Madni came out forcefully as a champion of a free and united India. He insisted, arguing against the claims of both the Muslim League and the Hindu Mahasabha (which, too, subscribed to a ‘two nation’ theory of its own version), that all the inhabitants of India were members of a ‘united nationality’ (muttahida qaumiyat) despite their religious and other differences. Hence, he argued, Muslims, Hindus and others must join hands to work for an independent, united India, where all communities would enjoy equal rights and freedoms. Madni elaborated on his theory of ‘united nationalism’ in a book penned in the early 1940s as a reply to Sir Muhammad Iqbal’s critique of his own political position. By this time, Iqbal had turned into an ardent pan-Islamist and had clearly distanced himself from his earlier nationalist stance. Madni’s book ‘Muttahida Qaumiyat Aur Islam’ (‘United Nationalism and Islam’) was published before 1947, and long remained unavailable after that, being only recently reprinted by the Jami’at ul-‘Ulama-i Hind’s headquarters in Delhi. Madni’s central argument is that Islam is not opposed to a united nationalism based on a common motherland (vatan), language (zaban), ethnicity (nasl) or colour (rang), which brings together Muslims and non-Muslims sharing one or more of these attributes in common. REFERENCE ISLAMIC PERSPECTIVES The 'United Nationalism' of Maulana Madni - i By Yoginder Sikand Published in the 1-15 Aug 2004 and http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/2004/01-15Aug04-Print-Edition/011508200434.htm 16-31 Aug 2004 http://www.milligazette.com/Archives/2004/16-31Aug04-Print-Edition/163108200472.htm
Congress leaders advised Hindus to leave Sindh which was viewed by the Sindhi Muslim leadership as a ploy to deprive Sindh of its merchants, bankers, and sanitation workers. According to Brown University’s associate professor of history Vazira Zamindar’s book The Long Partition and the Making of Modern South Asia (Columbia University Press, 2007) : “Ayub Khuhro, the premier of Sindh, and other Sindhi leaders also attempted to retain Sindh’s minorities, for they also feared a loss of cultural identity with the Hindu exodus.” The Sindh government “attempted to use force to stem” the exodus “by passing the Sindh Maintenance of Public Safety Ordinance” in September 1947. On September 4, 1947 curfew had to be imposed in Nawabshah because of communal violence. It turned out that the policies of a local collector resulted in the exodus of a large Sikh community of Nawabshah to make room for an overflow of refugees from East Punjab. The Sindh government took stern action to suppress the violence. The Sindh government set up a Peace Board comprising Hindu and Muslim members to maintain order in the troubled province. PV Tahilramani was secretary of the Peace Board. He is the one who rushed to Khuhro’s office on January 6, 1948, at around 11am to inform the chief minister that the Sikhs in Guru Mandir areas of Karachi were being killed. According to Khuhro, senior bureaucrats and police officials were nowhere to be found and he rushed to the scene at around 12.30 pm where he saw “mobs of refugees armed with knives and sticks storming the temples”. Khuhro tried to stem the violence and Jinnah was pleased with his efforts. The prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, was angry with Khuhro when he went to see him on January 9 or 10. Liaquat said to Khuhro: “What sort of Muslim are you that you protect Hindus here when Muslims are being killed in India. Aren’t you ashamed of yourself!” In the third week of January 1948, Liaquat Ali Khan said the Sindh government must move out of Karachi and told Khuhro to “go make your capital in Hyderabad or somewhere else”. Liaquat said this during a cabinet meeting while Jinnah quietly listened. The Sindh Assembly passed a resolution on February 10, 1948, against the Centre’s impending move to annex Karachi. The central government had already taken over the power to allotment houses in Karachi. Khuhro was forced to quit and Karachi was handed over to the Centre in April 1948. Reference: REFERENCES: Who orchestrated the exodus of Sindhi Hindus after Partition? By Haider Nizamani Published: June 4, 2012 http://tribune.com.pk/story/388663/who-orchestrated-the-exodus-of-sindhi-hindus-after-partition/ Vazira Zamindar’s book The Long Partition and the Making of Modern South Asia (Columbia University Press, 2007) http://books.google.com.pk/books/about/The_Long_Partition_and_the_Making_of_Mod.html?id=EfhqQLr96VgC&redir_esc=y
Last Interview of Pakistan's Minority Minister Shahbaz Bhatti
Objective Resolution and Minorities: 5 Adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to freely profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures. Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to [1][freely] profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures; - Wherein shall be guaranteed fundamental rights including equality of status, of opportunity and before law, social, economic and political justice, and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to law and public morality; Wherein adequate provisions shall be made to safeguard the legitimate interests of minorities and backward and depressed classes; Ed. note: Mr. Ardeshir Cowasjee's article 'The sole statesman - 4' - published in Dawn on July 9, 2000 - makes an interesting observation about a potential disparity between the original Objectives Resolution and the Annex inserted into the Constitution by P. O. 14 of 1985. The word "freely", which appears in the original Resolution, notes Mr. Cowasjee, is missing from the clause: "Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures;" The Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010 (Article 99), with effect from April 19th, 2010, has corrected this by inserting the word "freely" at the correct place. REFERENCE: ANNEX [Article 2(A)] The Objectives Resolution http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/annex_objres.html#1 Editor's note about Objectives Resolution http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/otherdocs/the_word_freely.html
In response to all these objections of the opposition, Liaquat
Ali Khan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan and the mover of the
Resolution, reminded the House that ‘Pakistan was founded
because the Muslims of this Subcontinent wanted to build up
their lives in accordance with the teachings and traditions of
Islam.’ He assured the minority members that in an Islamic state
their rights and interests would be fully protected.40
The leader of the PNC, Chandra Chattopadyaya referring to
the Quaid-i-Azam’s declaration made in the Assembly on
August 11, 1947, said that it was a clear indication that Pakistan
would be based on ‘eternal principles of equality and
democracy’. He asserted that the minorities considered that declaration as a guarantee against the imposition of an Islamic
state on them.41
In reply to Chattopadyaya’s point of view, Maulana Shabbir
Ahmad Usmani, the president of JUI, referred to a letter of
Quaid-i-Azam to Pir Sahib of Manki Sharif, in November 1945,
in which he assured him that ‘it is needless to emphasize that the
Constituent Assembly which would be predominantly Muslim in
its composition would be able to enact laws for Muslims, not
inconsistent with the Shariat laws and the Muslims will no
longer be obliged to abide by un-Islamic laws’.42
Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar on behalf of the government
replied to most of the arguments put forward by Hindu members.
He contended that the criticism emanated from a
misunderstanding of the relevant provisions by the Hindu
members. He explained the concept of Divine Sovereignty was a
mere statement of fact to indicate that the Almighty is the
sovereign of the whole universe. It also implied the principle of
brotherhood of men all over the world. He pointed out that the
political sovereignty of the people was not in any way limited by
the provision. He told the House that more emphasis was placed
on terms like ‘the people’, ‘the right of the people’, and ‘the
representatives of the people’ and ‘the authority of the people’ in
the Objectives Resolution.43 Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar contended that the inclusion of
non-Muslims in the ‘enabling clause’ would have been to their
disadvantage because they would certainly not like the state or
the majority community to interfere in their religion and regulate
their religious and cultural affairs. In meeting the argument that
the Objectives Resolution flouted the assurances given to the
minorities by Quaid-i-Azam, he contended that the former had
also given pledges to the majority. He claimed that the demand
for Pakistan was based on a particular ideology and the
Resolution was in accordance with those pledges, which both the
League and Quaid-i-Azam had given to the minority as well as
to the majority.REFERENCE: The Role of Opposition in ConstitutionMaking: Debate on the Objectives Resolution BY Kausar Parveen http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/studies/PDF-FILES/Artical%20No-7.pdf
Deobandi (Sunni) Scholars were the brain behind Objective Resolution and some of the Sunni Scholars (mostly Barelvis) are also of the view that Deobandis are Apostate (Dhimmis)
Chattopadyaya further elaborated that ‘people of different
religions live in a state. Therefore its position must be neutral
with no bias for any religion and should help all the religions
equally. The state must respect all religions and, therefore, a
state religion is a dangerous principle. Previous instances are
sufficient to warn us as people were burnt alive in the name of
religion. Therefore, sovereignty must reside with the people and
not with anybody else’.18
Raj Kumar Chakraverty, a member of the PNC from East
Pakistan, moved another amendment in the same clause: the
words ‘state of Pakistan through its people’ should be substituted
with the words ‘people of Pakistan’. He further elaborated that ‘a
state is the organized will of the people. A state is formed by the people, guided by the people and controlled by the people.’
Thus, the clause must be substituted as ‘people of Pakistan’ as
‘the state should be responsive to public opinion’. REFERENCE: The Role of Opposition in ConstitutionMaking: Debate on the Objectives Resolution BY Kausar Parveen http://pu.edu.pk/images/journal/studies/PDF-FILES/Artical%20No-7.pdf
In case people forget that in Pakistan every Pakistani Muslim is a Dhimmi for another Pakistani Muslim
“To my utter regret it is to be stated that after partition, particularly after the death of Quaid-i-Azam, the scheduled castes have not received a fair deal in any matter”
Resuming the painful narrative of Pakistan’s long journey backwards on which we had set out with the resignation of the newborn country’s first law minister, Joginder Nath Mandal, from the cabinet of Prime Minister Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan on October 8, 1950 (‘The long journey backwards’, Daily Times, May 4, 2011), we find ourselves at a fork — the road more travelled leads ahead to Liaquat’s assassination a year later and so on.
Let us not proceed on that yet. There is many a chapter of our collective guilt that must be first revisited on the road less travelled before history in its ruthless fashion confines the nation to the dustbin of oblivion. Most of all, names have to be named now. Let us start with the first villain of the piece called Noorul Amin (literally meaning, the light of the trustworthy, no less). Actually, there is tough competition for the highest place of dishonour in our gallery of rogues.
But, one at a time, not necessarily in order of precedence. So, insofar as Liaquat Ali Khan is concerned, he had snatched Jinnah’s Pakistan from the Quaid-i-Azam even before the country appeared on the world map. Over to Mandal, again. Below are some select direct quotes from his resignation letter:
“My dear Prime Minister,
“It is with a heavy heart and a sense of utter frustration at the failure of my lifelong mission to uplift the backward Hindu masses of East Bengal that I feel compelled to tender resignation of my membership of your cabinet. It is proper that I should set forth in detail the reasons, which have prompted me to take this decision at this important juncture of the Indo-Pakistani subcontinent...
“Before I narrate the remote and immediate causes of my resignation, it may be useful to give a short background of the important events that have taken place during the period of my cooperation with the League. Having been approached by a few prominent League leaders of Bengal in February 1943, I agreed to work with them in the Bengal Legislative Assembly. After the fall of the Fazlul Haq ministry in March 1943, with a party of 21 Scheduled Caste MLAs, I agreed to cooperate with Khwaja Nazimuddin, the then leader of the Muslim League parliamentary party who formed the Cabinet in April 1943.
“Our cooperation was conditional on certain specific terms, such as the inclusion of three scheduled caste ministers in the cabinet, sanctioning of a sum of Rs 500,000 as annual recurring grant for the education of the scheduled castes, and the unqualified application of the communal ratio rules in the matter of appointment to Government services...
“...For the sake of truth I must admit that I had always considered the demand of Pakistan by the Muslim League as a bargaining counter. Although I honestly felt that in the context of India as a whole, Muslims had legitimate cause for grievance against upper class Hindu chauvinism, I held the view very strongly indeed that the creation of Pakistan would never solve the communal problem. On the contrary, it would aggravate communal hatred and bitterness.
“Besides, I maintained that it would not ameliorate the condition of Muslims in Pakistan. The inevitable result of the partition of the country would be to prolong, if not perpetuate, the poverty, illiteracy and miserable condition of the toiling masses of both the states. I further apprehended that Pakistan might turn to be one of the most backward and undeveloped countries of Southeast Asia.
“I must make it clear that I have thought that an attempt would be made, as is being done at present, to develop Pakistan as a purely ‘Islamic’ state based on the shariat and the injunctions and formulae of Islam. I presumed that it would be set up in all essentials after the pattern contemplated in the Muslim League resolution adopted at Lahore on March 23, 1940. That resolution stated inter alia that...‘adequate, effective and mandatory safeguards should be specifically provided in the constitution for minorities in these units and in these regions for the protection of their religious, cultural, political, administrative and other rights and interests in consultation with them’.
“...I was fortified in my faith in this resolution and the professions of the League Leadership by the statement Quaid-i-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah was pleased to make on the August 11, 1947 as the President of the Constituent Assembly giving solemn assurance of equal treatment for Hindus and Muslims alike and calling upon them to remember that they were all Pakistanis.
“...Every one of these pledges is being flagrantly violated apparently to your knowledge and with your approval in complete disregard of the Quaid-e-Azam’s wishes and sentiments and to the detriment and humiliation of the minorities.
“It may also be mentioned in this connection that I was opposed to the partition of Bengal. In launching a campaign in this regard I had to face not only tremendous resistance from all quarters but also unspeakable abuse, insult and dishonour...but I remained undaunted and unmoved in my loyalty to Pakistan. It is a matter of gratitude that my appeal to seven million scheduled caste people of Pakistan evoked a ready and enthusiastic response from them. They lent me their unstinted support, sympathy and encouragement.
“After the establishment of Pakistan on August 14, 1947 you formed the Pakistan Cabinet, in which I was included and Khwaja Nazimuddin formed a provisional Cabinet for East Bengal. On August 10, I had spoken to Khwaja Nazimuddin at Karachi and requested him to take two scheduled caste ministers in the East Bengal cabinet. He promised to do the same sometime later. What happened subsequently in this regard was a record of unpleasant and disappointing negotiation with you, Khwaja Nazimuddin and Mr Nurul Amin, the present chief minister of East Bengal...
“But alas! You did not perhaps mean what you said. Khwaja Nazimuddin did not keep his promise. After Mr Nurul Amin had become the chief minister of East Bengal, I again took up the matter with him. He also followed the same old familiar tactics of evasion...
“When the question of partition of Bengal arose, the scheduled caste people were alarmed at the anticipated dangerous result of partition. Representations on their behalf were made to Mr Suhrawardy, the then chief minister of Bengal who was pleased to issue a statement to the press declaring that none of the rights and privileges hitherto enjoyed by the scheduled caste people would be curtailed after partition and that they would not only continue to enjoy the existing rights and privileges but also receive additional advantages. This assurance was given by Mr Suhrawardy not only in his personal capacity but also in his capacity as the chief minister of the League ministry.
“To my utter regret it is to be stated that after partition, particularly after the death of Quaid-i-Azam, the scheduled castes have not received a fair deal in any matter. You will recollect that from time to time I brought the grievances of the scheduled castes to your notice. I explained to you on several occasions the nature of inefficient administration in East Bengal. I made serious charges against the police administration. I brought to your notice incidents of barbarous atrocities perpetrated by the police on frivolous grounds. I did not hesitate to bring to your notice the anti-Hindu policy pursued by the East Bengal government, especially the police administration and a section of Muslim League leaders...”
So, what else is new in the Islamic Republic?
Lynch mob - a mob that kills a person for some presumed offense without legal authority - a disorderly crowd of people. Lynching is an extrajudicial execution carried out by a mob, often by hanging, but also by burning at the stake or shooting, in order to punish an alleged transgressor, or to intimidate, control, or otherwise manipulate a population of people. Lynching is sometimes mistakenly thought of as an exclusively North American activity, but it is found around the world as vigilantes act to punish people outside the rule of law; indeed, instances of it can found in societies long antedating European settlement of North America. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching AND PAKISTAN as well.
March 2013 Lahore, Pakistan - Incident of Attack on Christian Community in Joseph Colony, Badami Bagh Lahore - The tragedy’s roots is said to lie in a quarrel between two friends, Mohammed Imran, a local Muslim barber, and Sahwan Masih, a 28-year-old Christian municipal cleaner, who lived across the road. They were close, by all accounts. “They would sit together, drink together,” said Mr Chand Masih. Earlier in the week, on an afternoon when they were sitting outside Mr Imran’s barber shop, a fight broke out between them. It is not clear what was said, but residents claim sharp words were exchanged about each other’s faiths. By Friday, Mr Imran and another friend, Urf “Chico” Shafiq, told the local Muslims. The colony rests next to Lahore’s steel mills, and the quarrel coincided with local elections for the steel worker’s union. According to residents, the leading candidates decided to make the alleged blasphemy a campaign issue. A crowd - estimated to be more than 3,000 strong - first gathered on Friday. They gathered after Friday prayers, apparently urged on by the local religious leader. The police were there, although in just scores. The next day, the attackers returned to torch the colony. REFERENCE: Neighbours' row ends in a holy war against Christians of Pakistan Muslim mob goes on arson rampage in Lahore after alleged blasphemy by OMAR WARAICH , ANDREW BUNCOMBE LAHORE SUNDAY 10 MARCH 2013 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/neighbours-row-ends-in-a-holy-war-against-christians-of-pakistan-8528231.html
ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry remarked that it was a criminal negligence to bring changes in the documents like Objectives Resolution as former president General (retd) Zia ul Haq tampered with the Constitution in 1985 however, the sitting parliament had done a good job by undoing this tampering. At one point Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry observed that the word ‘freely’ was omitted from the Objectives Resolution in 1985 by a dictator, which was an act of criminal negligence, but the then parliament surprisingly didn’t take notice of it. He said the Constitution is a sacred document and no person can tamper with it. The chief justice said credit must go to the present parliament, which after 25 years took notice of the brazen act of removing the word relating to the minorities’ rights, and restored the word ‘freely’ in the Objectives Resolution, which had always been part of the Constitution. The chief justice further said that the court is protecting the fundamental rights of the minorities and the government after the Gojra incident has provided full protection to the minorities. “We are bound to protect their rights as a nation but there are some individual who create trouble.” - DAILY TIMES - ISLAMABAD: Heading a 17-member larger bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry termed as criminal negligence the deletion of a word about the rights of minorities from the Objectives Resolution during the regime of General Ziaul Haq in 1985. Ziaul Haq had omitted the word “freely” from the Objectives Resolution, which was made substantive part of the 1973 Constitution under the Revival of Constitutional Order No. 14. The clause of Objectives Resolution before deletion of the word ‘freely’ read, “Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to ‘freely’ profess and practice their religions and develop their culture.” DAILY DAWN - ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry on Tuesday praised the parliament for undoing a wrong done by the legislature in 1985 (through a constitutional amendment) when it removed the word ‘freely’ from a clause of the Objectives Resolution that upheld the minorities’ right to practise their religion. The word “freely” was deleted from the Objectives Resolution when parliament passed the 8th Amendment after indemnifying all orders introduced through the President’s Order No 14 of 1985 and actions, including the July 1977 military takeover by Gen Zia-ul-Haq and extending discretion of dissolving the National Assembly, by invoking Article 58(2)b of the Constitution. After the passage of the 18th Amendment, the Objectives Resolution now reads: “Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their culture.” The CJ said: “Credit goes to the sitting parliament that they reinserted the word back to the Objectives Resolution.” He said that nobody realised the blunder right from 1985 till the 18th Amendment was passed, even though the Objectives Resolution was a preamble to the Constitution even at the time when RCO (Revival of Constitution Order) was promulgated. REFERENCES: CJ lauds parliament for correcting historic wrong By Nasir Iqbal Wednesday, 09 Jun, 2010 http://archives.dawn.com/archives/32657 - CJP raps change in Objectives Resolution * Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry says deletion of clause on rights of minorities was ‘criminal negligence’ * Appreciates incumbent parliament for taking notice of removal of clause by Gen Zia’s govt in 1985 By Masood Rehman Wednesday, June 09, 2010 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=201069\story_9-6-2010_pg1_1 CJ lauds parliament for undoing changes in Objectives Resolution Wednesday, June 09, 2010 Says minorities’ rights have to be protected; Hamid says parliament should have no role in judges’ appointment By Sohail Khan http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=29367&Cat=13&dt=6/10/2010
Please keep in mind that Zimmis are those Non-Muslims who seek protection after Muslim Defeat them in the Battle and Pakistani Non-Muslims cannot be called "Zimmis" they should be equal to Pakistani Muslim Citizens which they are not since the tinkering of Objective Resolution which was "wrongly" introduced by one of the Alleged Founding Father amongst many Fathers of Pakistan i.e. Nawabzada Liaquat Ali Khan and Jang Group's Rent a Mufti Ansar Abbasi is trying his level best to distort not only the History but also tinkering with the Islamic interpretation of Zimmis. Jizya from the Linguistic Perspective: "Jizya" is derived from the root "Jaza" or "compensate". Arabs usually say the phrase "Jaza, yajzi" which means "compensate" or 'reward" if a person rewards another for the service rendered by the latter. "Jizya" is a derived term in the form of "ficla" from "Mujazã" which is the noun "compensation", meaning "a sum of money given in return for protection". Ibn Al-Mutaraz said: "It is derived from "’idjzã" or "substitute" or "sufficiency" because it suffices as a substitute for the "dhimmi's embracement of Islam" REFERENCE: Jizya in Islam by Dr. Monqiz As-Saqqar Ph.D in Christian Doctrines and Scripture, Faculty of Usul-al-Din, Umm al-Qura, Saudi Arabia. Translated by Hayam Elisawy, Edited by Mohammad Elfie Nieshaem Juferi.http://chagataikhan.blogspot.com/2008/10/background-of-zimmis-and-jizya.html
“Pakistan desires to show a beacon of light to the world, which has been caught in the vortex of materialism and has lost its way in the darkness of atheism and agnosticism,” thundered Maulana Shabbir Ahmed Osmani as the first Constituent Assembly listened attentively. He was speaking in support of the Objectives Resolution presented in the House two days ago, on 7 March 1949, by Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan. It is believed that the resolution was drafted by the Maulana. His words were music to the ears of many sitting in the Assembly Chamber in Karachi. There was more than one reason for them to celebrate this turn in the region’s political discourse. Pakistan Resolution was presented nine years ago. During the period between the Pakistan Resolution and the Objectives Resolution, the world went through the frenzy of World War II; the bloodiest event of mankind’s history which took tens of millions of life all across the globe, most of them in horrid ways. Standing at the fag end of this event, you did not need arguments to convince a new state that an option other than the greedy capitalism is worth a try. But probably the honorable members were not as much concerned about the horrors of capitalism as they were about the “excesses” of communism that were purportedly advancing from the western side. “Islam has no truck with capitalism. The Islamic State brings about an equitable distribution of wealth by employing methods peculiar to it and distinct from communistic practices.” So the Islam was the panacea, the antidote to the ills of the two systems of governance that the world had known thus far. Members of the Constituent Assembly cheered over the passage of the resolution. It elated them. Most of the members boasted of a glorious past and the resolution reassured that the return of greatness was at hand and a matter of few years. On a more pragmatic note, however, they rejoiced over the other more handy feature — the “Islamic State”. It seemed to be a perfect tool to fix “the problem of cultural diversity” that they saw as an obstacle in the way of building a nation for this country. The problem originated from the fact that the new country had at least five distinct languages and cultures. Sindhi was Greek to a Pakhtun and Bengali Latin for a Punjabi and, more importantly, one of these was separated from the others by a thousand miles stretch of enemy territory. The problem had two dimensions. One, what will serve as the uniting element, the binding force. No one in power echelons had the capacity, courage and foresight to pursue the nation building as a humane and democratic process. They were desperate for quick fixes even if these required blatant use of force. REFERENCE: Minar-e-Pakistan to Shahbag By Tahir Mehdi http://jang.com.pk/thenews/Mar2013-weekly/nos-10-03-2013/dia.htm#4 Ansar Abbasi on Pakistani Zimmis Daily Jang March 11, 2013 http://jang.com.pk/jang/mar2013-daily/11-03-2013/col14.htm
In case people forget "Jinnah, Allama Iqbal, Sir Syed Ahmed Khan etc. were all Zimmis.
The other aspect of the problem was more worrisome — how would the ruling elite maintain its hegemony over this country where they had no cultural or political constituency. The Pakistani elite at that time was composed mainly of Urdu-speaking migrants from northern India. Their language and culture were not indigenous to the areas that formed Pakistan. Urdu had a hold in Punjab even before Partition but not in other parts of the country and certainly not in Bengal. A nation built on indigenous identities and democratic principles offered no place to this elite, not at least the top and the most powerful one. The most important of the interpretations of the Objectives Resolution thus was that it required all to abandon their languages and cultures and adopt the one ordained as Islamic by the ruling class. Baba-i-Urdu Molvi Abdul Haq is on record to have said that all languages of the subcontinent, except Urdu, are languages of kafirs and thus have no place in this Islamic country. The lofty Islamic ideals belittled and demeaned all things local. “Provincialism” was propagated as a scourge and “lisani” (linguistic) labelled an evil. Unlike the western provinces, Bengal in 1947 had a fully grown and thriving middle class. It was educated and trained in its mother tongue that was used in all walks of life in that vast area. Again unlike the languages of the western provinces, Bangla had a distinct script of its own, developed and in vogue since centuries. On the western side, only Sindhi had a script and a print media. The decision to abolish Bengali language from official use through a notification was arbitrary, naive and callous. It implied overnight disempowerment of the biggest section of the middle class of the country. Such a brazen act of omission was bound to meet stiff resistance. The decision sparked a movement in East Bengal that pitched mother tongue against the state narrative of nationhood. It started as early as December 1947 and spread far and wide. There were frequent street protests in 1948 led fervently by Dhaka University students. In one of those, the former prime minister of united Bengal AK Fazalul Haq, was hurt in a scuffle with police. He was the Bengali leader whom Quaid-e-Azam had chosen to present the Pakistan Resolution to the Muslim League meeting of 1940 in Lahore. The movement got its first martyrs in 1952 when on February 21 four of the protesting students died as the police opened fire to break the crowd. The language movement of Bengal was the first tussle between the two paradigms of identity, one based itself on all things indigenous and the other derived a whole array of cultural symbols from a particular interpretation of Islam or borrowed these from various chapters of the history of different Muslim societies. While the Islamic one attempted to unite distinct ethnic groups on the basis of faith, the cultural recipe supported unity among believers of diverse religions. Islam suited the ruling elite of Pakistan as it not only offered return of the glory, it also supported the status quo — the continued dominance of Urdu speaking elite. Bengalis, however, won the first round. They successfully checked the onslaught of this elite. The national language status for Bangla was one of the 21 points on the basis of which the United Front made the Muslim League bite the dust in the landmark elections of 1954. The Bengalis had by now grown weary and were apprehensive about the intentions of the ruling coterie at Karachi. They pressed forcefully for their democratic rights and again Islam was used to silence, subdue and coerce them. The Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) led the cause of Islam-based identity in both the wings of the country. In East Bengal, it secured 6.1 per cent of the votes in the 1970 elections while Awami League swept with 75.1 per cent of votes, bagging a whooping 160 of total 162 seats of that province. The language based narrative of nationalism defeated the supra-cultural Islamic state ideal on all possible avenues — on the streets, in the campuses and at the polling stations. It however did not soften the other party that instead further stiffened. It ended up as a bloody clash that reached its zenith in the spring of 1971. The nationalists came well-prepared and won on this front too, though only after a lot of bloodletting. REFERENCE: Minar-e-Pakistan to Shahbag By Tahir Mehdi http://jang.com.pk/thenews/Mar2013-weekly/nos-10-03-2013/dia.htm#4
In case people forget Jinnah and even any other practicing Muslim who was not in Jamat-e-Islami was also declared Apostate, Heathen, Polytheist, Zimmis by Mawdudi and Jamat-e-Islami Leaders like Manzoor Nomani
The Islamists stood defeated completely and thoroughly. This had cleared the way for the triumphant Bengali nationalists to pursue the state formation on the basis of their secular and culture-based ideals. Did they? No, they did not.
The violent campaign against the nationalists was spearheaded by the Pakistan Army as the Jamaat (JI) people served as their point-men. With the benefit of hindsight, it now seems that probably the Pakistan Army was serving as the front-men of Jamaat. The real owner of the Islamic state narrative is the Jamaat and the state of Pakistan was just one of its franchises.
Pakistan and its army became irrelevant to the politics of Bangladesh after 1971. But Jamaat-i-Islami survived. In the 1970 elections, there was one Jamaat voter for every 12 of Awami League and this is not negligible especially when you factor in the level of organisation in the Jamaat. The Jamaat kept its ideals, of basing national identity on Islam, alive in Bangladesh and found new allies within the new country’s middle class and its military establishment.
Bangladesh’s original constitution of 1972 had declared it a secular state but the later military rulers amended it to ward off democracy and they never forgot to play up Islam to compensate for the shortfall in democracy. The 8th Amendment, effected by General Ershad in 1988, declared Islam as the state religion of Bangladesh.
The Awami League, though champions of secularism but like any other political party involved in the power games, does not hesitate using the religion card. The government of the four-party alliance (2001-2006) led by Bangladesh Nationalist Party and including Jamaat-i-Islami had banned Ahemdi literature through an executive order. The Awami League could ill-afford losing the Islamic constituency to its arch rivals, it thus joined hands in 2006 with another Islamic party, Bangladesh Khelafat Majlish, on the promise that it would extend the definition of state religion to include the belief in the finality of Prophet Muhammad which by implication would have declared Ahemdis as non-Muslims.
Similarly, a Bangladesh High Court had declared in 2010 the constitutional amendment that had changed the country’s secular status to that of an Islamic state as having been done without lawful authority. It laid the legal ground for the government to revert to the secular state status but despite enjoying the required majority in the parliament it did not dare.
It is against this background that the current Shahbag movement should be seen. The Bangladeshi youth has gathered in a Dhaka city compound in droves and continues to do so since the past few weeks. Their apparent demand is from the International Crimes Tribunal that is set up by the present Awami League government to try those accused of committing war crimes in 1971. Most of them are members of Jamaat-i-Islami. The protest gathering started on February 5, 2013, in reaction to a “lenient” sentence of life-imprisonment awarded to a Jamaat member. The youth instead demands “exemplary punishment”.
This youth does not want Islam to be a determinant in matters of government, the biggest proponent of which is Jamaat and 1971 is its soft belly.
A surprising aspect of the protest is that it has ‘pardoned’ Pakistan even before the country could tender a formal apology. Pakistan is conspicuously missing from the list of those accused of crimes of 1971. It is solely focused on Jamaat men. In Shahbag, there has not been even a meek demand to ‘try’ Pakistan as well. Pakistan and its army are a distant historical entity for the youth born much after those events. Jamaat, however, is an alive phenomenon — omnipresent and overbearing. They experience their suffocating presence on a daily basis. A blogger who was part of the Shahbag movement and is accused of being an atheist was stabbed to death, allegedly by members of Jamaat.
On the other hand, the Jamaat is avenging the sentencing of its leaders by attacking the Hindu neighbourhoods and by vandalising their places of worship. They believe that it is the presence of the Hindus that has made the “Muslim brothers” fight each other. The Islamisation campaigns in Bangladesh have been invariably targeted against local Hindus. They were 15.6 per cent of the country’s population in 1975 and by 2010 were reduced to 9.6 per cent.
Political parties in the Muslim countries over the past half century have either actively pursued the idea of an Islamic State or have silently witnessed the politics go that way. Even those who profess secular ideals have not dared take a diversion. It is the default position of all and a nugget of common political wisdom that any act being done in the name of Islam enjoys unflinching public support and thus must be supported at all costs.
Shahbag is the first time in the recent history that the youth of a Muslim society has come out in such numbers and with such fervour and zeal to oppose something that is cloaked in a sacred robe. Maulana Osmani was a great orator and he had the skills to spell bind the Muslim elite sitting in the Assembly Chamber in Karachi. Can the screaming youth of Shahbag break that spell? REFERENCE: Minar-e-Pakistan to Shahbag By Tahir Mehdi http://jang.com.pk/thenews/Mar2013-weekly/nos-10-03-2013/dia.htm#4
Members of the Hindu minority in Pakistan fear persistent harassment at the hands of religious extremists and complain that there is little official protection accorded to them. Hindu activists argue that ‘secret files are kept on them and their integrity is always in question. They are not allowed into the armed forces, the judiciary or responsible positions in the civil service'. These allegations are substantiated by the facts, which reflect an almost negligible Hindu presence in the higher echelons of the administration, bureaucracy and armed forces. Discrimination and prejudice against the Hindus is reinforced by the religious orthodoxy, within educational institutions as well as by the state-controlled media. As a consequence of the oppression and discrimination, the last two decades have seen a steady exodus of Hindus from Pakistan. This exodus, however, has left behind a community that is most vulnerable and in urgent need of socio-economic protection. A significant proportion of the Hindus within the province of Sindh are the so-called untouchables, the Scheduled Caste Hindus. As haris these Scheduled Caste Hindus make up part of the pool of landless bonded labour of the province of Sindh. Sindh's agricultural wealth, to a large extent, has depended on the intensive and strenuous work of bonded labour in producing hugely profitable cash crops such as sugar cane. While huge profits are made by the wealthy landlords, this landless bonded labour, consisting of substantial number of Scheduled Caste Hindus, continues to suffer from abject poverty. They remain tied to the land where they are forced to work literally as slaves. The landlords ensure that these bonded labourers and their future generations remain illiterate and unable in any way to challenge the unfair system of exploitation. The National Assembly of Pakistan abolished bonded labour through the Bonded Labour Abolition Act 1992. However, the banned practices continue to thrive in many parts of Sindh; officials remain reluctant to interfere for fear of incurring the wrath of powerful ruling families. Hindus who do manage to break the vicious cycle of repression of bonded labour, nevertheless fail to gain any support from the general community. Existing taboos and rampant discrimination ensure that their employment prospects are confined to menial labour as Jamadars. Recent reports suggest increasing harassment and intimidation of women belonging to these Hindu communities. According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, during 1998 a number of disturbing cases came to light where Hindu women have been kidnapped, raped or forcibly converted to Islam. With overt, state-sponsored discrimination and repression, the Hindus of Pakistan remain deprived of their fundamental human rights. The Hindus are ‘unwanted' and ‘unwelcome' and continue to be associated with India. During the recent armed uprising in Baluchistan (2005-6) members of the small Hindu community were targeted and attacked by the Security Forces. All Hindus residing in the town of Dera Bugti were forced to take refuge either in the Sui region of Baluchistan or other provinces of Pakistan. The attacks resulted in the deaths of 33 Hindus, mostly men and young children. As with Christians, Hindus too constantly face the issue of forced conversion. Minority groups have expressed concerns about the persecution of Hindus and threats to their places of worship. In 2007 the only Hindu temple in Lahore was demolished to make way for a commercial building. REFERENCE: HINDUS http://www.minorityrights.org/5630/pakistan/hindus.html
80s: General Ziaul Haq with Indian Film Star Shatrughan Sinha --- June 2010: ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry remarked that it was a criminal negligence to bring changes in the documents like Objectives Resolution as former president General (retd) Zia ul Haq tampered with the Constitution in 1985 however, the sitting parliament had done a good job by undoing this tampering. At one point Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry observed that the word ‘freely’ was omitted from the Objectives Resolution in 1985 by a dictator, which was an act of criminal negligence, but the then parliament surprisingly didn’t take notice of it. He said the Constitution is a sacred document and no person can tamper with it. The chief justice said credit must go to the present parliament, which after 25 years took notice of the brazen act of removing the word relating to the minorities’ rights, and restored the word ‘freely’ in the Objectives Resolution, which had always been part of the Constitution. The chief justice further said that the court is protecting the fundamental rights of the minorities and the government after the Gojra incident has provided full protection to the minorities. “We are bound to protect their rights as a nation but there are some individual who create trouble.” - DAILY TIMES - ISLAMABAD: Heading a 17-member larger bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry termed as criminal negligence the deletion of a word about the rights of minorities from the Objectives Resolution during the regime of General Ziaul Haq in 1985. Ziaul Haq had omitted the word “freely” from the Objectives Resolution, which was made substantive part of the 1973 Constitution under the Revival of Constitutional Order No. 14. The clause of Objectives Resolution before deletion of the word ‘freely’ read, “Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to ‘freely’ profess and practice their religions and develop their culture.” DAILY DAWN - ISLAMABAD: Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry on Tuesday praised the parliament for undoing a wrong done by the legislature in 1985 (through a constitutional amendment) when it removed the word ‘freely’ from a clause of the Objectives Resolution that upheld the minorities’ right to practise their religion. The word “freely” was deleted from the Objectives Resolution when parliament passed the 8th Amendment after indemnifying all orders introduced through the President’s Order No 14 of 1985 and actions, including the July 1977 military takeover by Gen Zia-ul-Haq and extending discretion of dissolving the National Assembly, by invoking Article 58(2)b of the Constitution. After the passage of the 18th Amendment, the Objectives Resolution now reads: “Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their culture.” The CJ said: “Credit goes to the sitting parliament that they reinserted the word back to the Objectives Resolution.” He said that nobody realised the blunder right from 1985 till the 18th Amendment was passed, even though the Objectives Resolution was a preamble to the Constitution even at the time when RCO (Revival of Constitution Order) was promulgated. REFERENCES: CJ lauds parliament for correcting historic wrong By Nasir Iqbal Wednesday, 09 Jun, 2010 http://archives.dawn.com/archives/32657 - CJP raps change in Objectives Resolution * Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry says deletion of clause on rights of minorities was ‘criminal negligence’ * Appreciates incumbent parliament for taking notice of removal of clause by Gen Zia’s govt in 1985 By Masood Rehman Wednesday, June 09, 2010 http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=201069\story_9-6-2010_pg1_1 CJ lauds parliament for undoing changes in Objectives Resolution Wednesday, June 09, 2010 Says minorities’ rights have to be protected; Hamid says parliament should have no role in judges’ appointment By Sohail Khan http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=29367&Cat=13&dt=6/10/2010
Mr Liaquat Ali Khan with US President Mr Harry Truman in USA: Congress leaders advised Hindus to leave Sindh which was viewed by the Sindhi Muslim leadership as a ploy to deprive Sindh of its merchants, bankers, and sanitation workers. According to Brown University’s associate professor of history Vazira Zamindar’s book The Long Partition and the Making of Modern South Asia (Columbia University Press, 2007): http://books.google.com.pk/books/about/The_Long_Partition_and_the_Making_of_Mod.html?id=EfhqQLr96VgC&redir_esc=y “Ayub Khuhro, the premier of Sindh, and other Sindhi leaders also attempted to retain Sindh’s minorities, for they also feared a loss of cultural identity with the Hindu exodus.” The Sindh government “attempted to use force to stem” the exodus “by passing the Sindh Maintenance of Public Safety Ordinance” in September 1947. On September 4, 1947 curfew had to be imposed in Nawabshah because of communal violence. It turned out that the policies of a local collector resulted in the exodus of a large Sikh community of Nawabshah to make room for an overflow of refugees from East Punjab. The Sindh government took stern action to suppress the violence. The Sindh government set up a Peace Board comprising Hindu and Muslim members to maintain order in the troubled province. PV Tahilramani was secretary of the Peace Board. He is the one who rushed to Khuhro’s office on January 6, 1948, at around 11am to inform the chief minister that the Sikhs in Guru Mandir areas of Karachi were being killed. According to Khuhro, senior bureaucrats and police officials were nowhere to be found and he rushed to the scene at around 12.30 pm where he saw “mobs of refugees armed with knives and sticks storming the temples”. Khuhro tried to stem the violence and Jinnah was pleased with his efforts. The prime minister, Liaquat Ali Khan, was angry with Khuhro when he went to see him on January 9 or 10. Liaquat said to Khuhro: “What sort of Muslim are you that you protect Hindus here when Muslims are being killed in India. Aren’t you ashamed of yourself!” In the third week of January 1948, Liaquat Ali Khan said the Sindh government must move out of Karachi and told Khuhro to “go make your capital in Hyderabad or somewhere else”. Liaquat said this during a cabinet meeting while Jinnah quietly listened. The Sindh Assembly passed a resolution on February 10, 1948, against the Centre’s impending move to annex Karachi. The central government had already taken over the power to allotment houses in Karachi. Khuhro was forced to quit and Karachi was handed over to the Centre in April 1948. REFERENCE: Who orchestrated the exodus of Sindhi Hindus after Partition? By Haider Nizamani Published: June 4, 2012 http://tribune.com.pk/story/388663/who-orchestrated-the-exodus-of-sindhi-hindus-after-partition/
Objective Resolution &; Minorities: 5 Adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to freely profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures. Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to [1][freely] profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures; - Wherein shall be guaranteed fundamental rights including equality of status, of opportunity and before law, social, economic and political justice, and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to law and public morality; Wherein adequate provisions shall be made to safeguard the legitimate interests of minorities and backward and depressed classes; Ed. note: Mr. Ardeshir Cowasjee's article 'The sole statesman - 4' - published in Dawn on July 9, 2000 - makes an interesting observation about a potential disparity between the original Objectives Resolution and the Annex inserted into the Constitution by P. O. 14 of 1985. The word "freely", which appears in the original Resolution, notes Mr. Cowasjee, is missing from the clause: "Wherein adequate provision shall be made for the minorities to profess and practice their religions and develop their cultures;" The Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010 (Article 99), with effect from April 19th, 2010, has corrected this by inserting the word "freely" at the correct place. REFERENCE: REFERENCE: ANNEX [Article 2(A)] The Objectives Resolution http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/annex_objres.html#1Editor's note about Objectives Resolution http://www.pakistani.org/pakistan/constitution/otherdocs/the_word_freely.html
Yaar, Samjha Karo’ Ammar Shahbazi: No, you don’t get lynched or forcibly converted if you are a Hindu living in this city, unlike your brethren in certain parts of the country. But your sense of being different is often stoked in the unlikeliest of situations, especially when you interact with the wider community and identify yourself as a Hindu. A small, seemingly trivial incident, brings home this painful reality and offers a reminder of how deeply entrenched everyday discrimination can be. Rajesh*, a student and social activist who runs a school for poor children near Punjab Chowrangi, wanted to print a panaflex with a picture of the baby Lord Krishna, on the occasion of Janmashtami — the birthday of Krishna — which is being celebrated across the world today (Friday). To a Muslim and someone not aware of this attitude, it seemed surprising that Rajesh felt his routine task would not be an easy one. He had delayed the job of getting the material printed, and his Hindu friends in the printing business were already overbooked with orders. Ambling from one printer’s shop to another on Pakistan Chowk, the hub of the printing industry in the city, Rajesh carries a sample color printout he has designed for the panaflex, and shows it to the shopkeepers. All he gets in return are blank looks and polite smiles and the address of a printer a few lanes away who prints ‘Hindu material’. With a wry smile on his face, Rajesh points out how terrible it feels to be put through this humiliation. “On major occasions like Janmashtami, we can’t afford to leave anything to the last moment; people here usually don’t print pictures of our deities, because they find them ‘jinxed’, I guess.” Agha, one of the printers who declined to print Rajesh’s ‘Hindu material’, doesn’t want to explain why he did not take the order. “Bus Yaar, Samjha Karo” (buddy, please try to understand!), he said with a sheepish smile. On my insistence, Agha divulged that some of his workers refuse to work on pictures of “Murtis” (statues) in Ramazan. However, Rajesh said that the printers routinely decline to print their religious material, irrespective of whether it is Ramazan or not. “I usually go to a Hindu printer because that’s the safest bet. They do the job without whining, keeping the sacredness of the material in mind.” Amar, a Hindu who works nearby, concurs with Rajesh. “Yes, there are people here who decline outright taking printing orders from Hindus, especially if the printers are of a religious bent,” he said. “But many Muslims do not mind either.” Amar said that discrimination surely exists but it is not something widespread. “I print this kind of material here and my employer, who is a Muslim, does not say anything to me.”
The Muslims printers, when approached, are usually evasive about their behavior. One of them, a twenty-something man named Qasim, said that it’s forbidden for Muslims to help spread the religious message of non-Muslims, so he does not want to become a part of this activity. Rajesh said he just wanted to print a panaflex for the Hindu children in the school he runs. “It’s an important event so I wanted to make it a bit special for them. But I think this year I will have to go without the panaflex. But who knows, somebody might just take the order.” So Rakesh kept on trying his luck, with the sample in his hand, moving from one shop to another on Pakistan Chowk. REFERENCE: ‘Bus Yaar, Samjha Karo’ Ammar Shahbazi Friday, August 10, 2012 http://www.thenews.com.pk/Todays-News-4-125692-Bus-Yaar-Samjha-Karo
The Hindu population of Pakistan makes up a small minority of about 1.96 million, or 1.2 per cent, of the total population. An overwhelming majority of the Hindus (96 per cent of the total Hindu population in Pakistan) live in rural areas of Sindh. There are heavy concentrations of Hindus in Sanghar and Tharpakar district, which borders with India. There are also small pockets of Hindus in interior Baluchistan and Punjab. The Hindus of Pakistan - residing in the interior of Sindh or Baluchistan - belong principally to the so-called untouchable class, the Scheduled Caste Hindus. Many of them are landless bonded labourers, working on the lands of big Sindhi landlords (known as Jagirdars). Those who live in towns and cities also have a menial standing and are generally employed as sweepers or Jamadars. Sindh at one time had a very sizeable Hindu population; however, at the time of partition large numbers migrated to the Indian side of the border. The partition of India in August 1947 resulted in genocidal campaigns against religious minorities, with the Hindus in Pakistan suffering most. In addition to the genocide, several million Hindus were forced to become refugees. Those who decided to stay behind in Pakistan after partition had to face constitutional limitations and social stigma. One of the country's principal and primary constitutional documents, the Objective Resolution of March 1949 makes provision for non-Muslims to freely profess and practise their religion, and this tolerant spirit is reflected in the provisions of the 1956, 1962 and the 1973 constitutions. However, despite the presence of these constitutional guarantees, the Hindu community both prior to and even after 1971 has been a continual target of suspicion and has often been treated as a fifth column. Political expediency has allowed Hindus to be treated as scapegoats for the general incompetence of governments in power. While Islam has been used as the great rallying force for political ends, conversely, and for the same purposes, Hindus have been treated as anti-state and anti-Islamic elements, discriminated against and persecuted, arguably becoming victims of genocide during the secessionist war of 1971. Hindus generally lack equal access to education, employment and social advancement. The tiny minority of Hindus that remains in the truncated Pakistan of today, continues to find itself vulnerable to exploitation and abuse. The constitutional amendments introduced by General Zia-ul-Haq have adversely affected the position of the Hindu minority. More significantly, the rise in religious extremism within South Asia, with periods of tense political relations between India and Pakistan, has led to greater violence and physical attacks on Hindus. Thus the Hindus of Pakistan frequently suffer from outbursts of anti-Hindu sentiments generated through a backlash of violations against the rights of Muslims in India. The Babri Masjid incident (December 1992) provides a tragic example, when anger at the demolition of the mosque in Ayodhya (India) was vented against the Hindus and their properties in Pakistan. It is estimated that between 2-8 December 1992 about 120 Hindu temples were destroyed in various parts of Pakistan. In a number of instances, gangs of frenzied men entered these temples, smashed the idols of revered Hindu gods and goddesses, snatched the jewels that adorned them, and made off with the charity boxes containing donations. Several shops were looted or burnt, with the cost of damages running into millions of rupees. More than 500 non-Muslims, primarily Hindu families, were victimized and tortured; angry crowds entered their houses, destroyed their furniture and household goods and took away their savings and jewellery. There were also physical attacks on members of the Hindu community. A number of Hindus were killed, including a family of six who were burned to death in Loralia. Compensation for the damage to life and property has not been forthcoming. REFERENCE: HINDUS http://www.minorityrights.org/5630/pakistan/hindus.html
Top Indian actor-turned-politician Shatrughan Sinha, in an interview to The News, recalled unfading memories of his eight-year association with the former Pakistani President, General Ziaul Haq. Shatrughan is in Pakistan these days to attend the birth day ceremony of Zain Zia, special daughter of late General Zia. He recalled that even military tension between the two countries on several occasions could not break his ties with the Zia family. Shatrughan whose name became household in Pakistan after he was declared a state guest by General Zia recalled that how Zia used to receive him with great affection. Giving details of his first meeting with General Zia, Shatrughan said he was on a personal visit to Karachi in 1981, when he received a message that the president of Pakistan wanted to meet him in Islamabad. He was greatly surprised to receive this unusual invitation, he said. Shatrughan said he came to Islamabad where he was given a royal reception by General Zia whose daughter Zain turned out to be his big fan. He said Zain loved his acting and had asked her father to arrange a meeting with him. Zia returned after performing Umra the same day and could not meet the Indian actor. The next day, General Zia took Shatrughan to his family where the latter was surprised to see the passions of a small girl, Zain, for him. Shatrughan said being so close to Zia, he had played a major role in removing many misconceptions between the two countries and their people as he used to tell his friends and media men in India about many positive things of Pakistan. He recalled that he was given special treatment by General Zia. He said once he with his family was riding in a car and being escorted by military and police motors and people standing on roads thought he was perhaps arrested in Pakistan. He said even General Zia was taunted for spending hours with an Indian actor. But, he said Zia never compromised his relations with him. He said once his kids lost their pet black cat named 'Michael Jackson' in Bombay. When they came with him at the Army House, Rawalpindi, to meet the Zia family, they spotted a black cat in the lawn and rushed to capture it shouting they had found their ÔMJÕ. He said to his great astonishment, General Zia also stood up and rushed behind his children to ensure that they did not fall on the ground. He said he could not forget those unusual moments in his life watching Zia running after his kids. He said when Dr Anni, daughter of General Zia, got married he was one of the few privileged people who were invited. ÒRather I was the host at this wedding as I was deputed to receive and see off guestsÓ, he said. He said when General Zia came to India to watch Pakistan-India cricket match in Jaipur state as part of cricket diplomacy, he received a telephone call from Zia himself to accompany him to watch the match. REFERENCE: Shatrughan cherishes memory of friendship with Zia Rauf Klasra http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/aug2005-daily/03-08-2005/main/main28.htm Shatrughan Sinha keeps date with 'sister' Zain Zia across the border PTI Jan 18, 2012, 05.07PM IST http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-01-18/india/30638678_1_shotgun-sinha-shatrughan-sinha-sonakshi
