Monday, March 18, 2013

Dhimmi Republic of Pakistan.

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\03\18\story_18-3-2013_pg3_3 Ansar Abbasi on Pakistani Zimmis Daily Jang March 11, 2013

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


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 16-31 Aug 2004


Cleansing of Hindus in Sindh Marvi Sirmed

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 Vazira Zamindar’s book The Long Partition and the Making of Modern South Asia (Columbia University Press, 2007)

 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 Editor's note about Objectives Resolution

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

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)

Barelvi Decree of Apostasy on Deoband (Hussam ul Haramain)

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

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?

It was politically expedient for Liaquat Ali Khan to force both Islam and Urdu down the throats of his adoptive homeland of Pakistan as only that could provide him with the basis for legitimising his rule as the prime minister. REFERENCES: COMMENT: Naming names — I —Ghani Jafar Friday, May 13, 2011 COMMENT: Naming names — II —Ghani Jafar Wednesday, May 25, 2011 COMMENT: The long journey backwards —Ghani Jafar Wednesday, May 04, 2011

No comments: