Protest in New York!

Today`s DAWN carries an interesting article by Tahir Mirza. Here`s an excerpt from that:

The problem in any comparison between the two countries [India & Pakistan] with regard to religious freedom is that in India manifestations of communalism are often seen as aberrations in a nation with a secular, democratic constitution, but in the case of Pakistan they are considered to be inevitable products of the constitutionally mandated Islamic character of the state.

Professor Embree was among those who emphasized this difference. He said India`s political system had permitted freer discussion of the underlying issues, and the most important difference with Pakistan was that the latter`s constitution unequivocally declared Islam as the religion of the state, ``with its leaders pledged to preserve the Islamic ideology on which the nation had been founded``.

This is something that keeps cropping up in any discussion about religious revivalism in the subcontinent, and it is not easy to defend such constitutionally sanctioned devices as separate electorates or the motivations that led to the declaration of the Ahmadiya community as a minority.

Incidentally, a spokesman for the Ahmadis gave some disturbing figures at the hearing. He said from April 1984 to December 31, 1999, 753 Qadianis had been booked for displaying the Kalima and 379 booked for ``posing as Muslims``.

RE: Fairdinkum # 134

It was easier to understand your post when I divide it in two parts. The first part consists of excerpts from Justice Munir-Kiani Report and the second part discusses the status of Fiqah Jafria as a minority. I hope you wouldn`t mind if I reply your post in the reverse order i.e Fiqah Jafria first and Munir-Kiani Report later.

It is common perception among Sunni Pakistanis (and probably India too) that all Shias are descendents of Ehl-e-Bait. Either they don’t know or they don’t care that not all Shian-e-Ali (Friends of Ali) are Syeds. Shia-ism came into the subcontinent when Syeds and non-Syed Shian-e-Ali entered in subcontinent seeking refuge from the persecution of the then local governments in Iraq and Iran. They were well received by the local population as Mazloomeen (persecuted) Ehl-e-bait. It is also a common consensus among Sunni Muslims whether declared or un-declared that the Shahadat of Imam Husain was an unjust act by the then government of Yazid. Anyway, the presence of these feelings among Sunnis in subcontinent served Shias well. Soon they were able to achieve a status of privileged social class in a society where class distinction was inherent. Being a minority and also having a privileged social status that was bestowed upon them by the locals voluntarily they consciously avoided being candid about their views on Sahaba etc. as mentioned by you. Soon this situation of an undeclared détente became the status quo.

Although this status quo was upset from time to time due the actions of the extremist elements on both sides but both sides were able to maintain that détente through those sporadic events. Then came the Iranian revolution. The revolution was considered a threat to the Arab regimes who feared that the Iranians may try to export their version of Islamic Democracy into the Arab Lands; especially the Iranian rallies during Hajj was a cause for alarm. That started a counter offensive on two fronts; at military front Iraq was pushed to start a war against Iran and at the ideological front several anti-shia ``religious`` factions were instituted. The role of US in this saga is a common knowledge. During that time the Afghan War was in progress and Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse. During that time the institution of such religious factions served two purposes-counter the Iranian threat and counter the Soviet offences.

To cut the long story short, which is a common knowledge anyway, I would say that the animosity that is prevalent between Shia and Sunni factions, today, is due to the working of the propaganda machinery that was active during those days. I think that the terrorist and intimidating actions of extremist groups such as ASSP, Lushkar-e-Jhangwi and counter-offensive groups such as TNFJ etc. has upset that status quo to some extent that was prevalent for centuries.

You are right that the Blasphemy Law has a potential to persecute Shia minority if they promote the views that you have mentioned. But I am unaware of any such incidences where a Shia was prosecuted on the basis of Blasphemy Law. I am also unaware of any incidence where any Shia was charged with any such allegation. I checked various human rights sites and several Fiqah Jafria sites but I did not find any report of Shia persecution (by government machinery). According to CIA and HRCP reports I did not see any indication that Shia is a persecuted minority.

I agree to the fact that Iran is a major player in the region but I don’t think that the above has something to do with Iran. Iranian influence would have been evident in case if any case of Blasphemy was registered against any Shia and Iran somehow had exerted diplomatic pressure to influence the judicial outcome. The prosecution of terrorist acts is a different story though.

In my opinion, Shia aristocracy in particular and lower echelon of leadership is on the horns of dilemma whether to opt for a status of persecuted minority or not. If they do, then there is a chance that it may backfire and they may loose their status of socially privileged class. So they still are not candid (the word `candid` is used in its strongest sense) about their religious views. Whatever is out there is the result of the propaganda machinery of anti-shia groups. A common Sunni also likes to believe that.

The role of India as one of the sources of funding and weapons on both sides is another story. It is not related to Blasphemy Law though.

As far as Justice Munir-Kiani Report is concerned, I think that you have chosen specific excerpts to elaborate a point that the Ulemas do not agree on basic principles. I do not buy this and consider it a myth that is propagated by anti-religious elements. Let me remind you that Blasphemy Law and the Ahmadi Law had unanimous and full support from Shaia Ulema. The Iranian Democracy has also proven this myth wrong. The Objective Resolution, the Shariat Bill etc. are other examples that prove this myth wrong. Personally I think that the difference of opinion (among Ulema) is a sign of the strength of the system and not the weakness as it is usually propagated. One must be fair to understand this religion; while some things are specific down to semi-colon, comma, and period the majority of things are left open for us to use our best judgment. That is where the cause of differences lies.

Regards

PS. I hate you for being in Sydney at this time while I am here busy assembling cars. I thought I was the chosen one, you Kafir. :)

Re: Khokan #149

Thanks for reproducing the articles by R M PAL here.

The punishment under Section 295B is imprisonment for life. - Relates to offenses committed against Quran

The punishment under Section 295 is two years imprisonment or fine or both. - Relates to offenses committed against all religious books other than Quran (since Quran is now exclusively covered under section 295B).

``Significantly, there has been no report until then of any case of desecration of holy books of any religion, including Islam.``

The more I read about blasphemy laws the more I am convinced that they are discriminatory against weaker minorities of Pakistan, and in clear violation of universally accepted standards of human rights. And in my personal opinion, blasphemy laws are a disgrace to the humanity, and dishonorable for the followers of Mohammed (S).

Sameer,

Don`t you worry man, we`ll win the gold medal..
And if I see Pakis losing, I can always claim to be an aussie and jump the ship :)

From the Olympic city where I am yet to watch an olymic event - for the first time in me life :)

Omar 1974#

You are confusing two issues.

One is religious. And according to you you don`t consider Farrakhanism as Islam. So there is some limit or threshold set by you to be a Muslim otherwise you would not say Farrakhanism is not Islam. The same way inspite of all fighting and bickering among many sects in Islam. One thing is common: i.e 1- One God 2- Mohammed the last of Prophet and 3- Koran.

Second issue is oppression by state. State oppression is not limited to religious minorities, but ethnic, lingual and all form of people who don`t take the establishment line are oppressed.

Moreover your attitude of teaching the illiterate people should change to helping the oppressed people to take their destiny in their own hand.

OFF TOPIC:

fairdinkum (#148): Shahji, now it all depends on your prayers. This is gonna be a test of your true Syed credentials--to make Pakistan win the elusive Gold Medal. Besides, since we are always concern about competing India in among all things--hockey, cricket, medal counts and..........so it is an absolute must for Pakistan to win at least one medal since India has already won one bronze medal (Congrats Sadhana, this medal was won by a woman from Andhara Pradesh, for weight lifting. ChandraBabu Naidu has awarded her one million rupees already.). Pakistan is though leading in the total number of goals scored, with one, named Sohail Abbas, scoring four goals already.

Have a safe trip and beware of SSP people in Sydney. I guess, Abbas? has to worry more about them. Just kidding!!!!!!

........ they stole my Eid, my joy, my faith

...... since I spend many nights every week in strange hotel rooms in stranger places, I get to read the Bible a lot - thanks to Gideon .......so in between raiding the mini-bar and flipping through mature movies for the sexually-deprived, I stumbled upon a horrible secret- mercy ! ...... just to make sure it wasn`t the uncivilized mixture of scotch, beer and whiskey clouding my mind, I reread the passage agin the next morning ...... and that`s another thing I don`t understand - why don`t they keep more than one of the same kind of those silly little bottles in a mini-bar ? ...... why does a poor traveller, suffering from jet-lag and client-fatigue have to mix horrid potions ...... anyway where was I ?

yes ..... so this passage from Genesis in Gideon`s Bible informed me that :

``When they reached the place God had told him about, Abraham built an altar there and arranged the wood on it. He bound his son Isaac and laid him on the altar, on top of the wood. Then he reached out his hand and took the knife to slay his son.``

...I was dumfounded by this discovery - ISSAC ! ..... Oh Lord ... and all this time, for years, once a year, I would get up early in the morning, put on new clothes and rush to hear the maulana retell the beautiful story of Ishmael, son of Hagar and Abraham ...... it was him, Ishmael who was about to be sacrificed, not this .... this interloper - Issac, son of Sara........ I love Eid - the mutton tikkas, the kaleeji-gurday, the karahi-goshts and the siri-paye the day after ......... now it seems there are four billion people, Protestants and Catholics, Lutherans and Baptists, Mennonites and Maronites who say that I am wrong - they want to steal my Eid ! ..... Lord, show me a sign - who is wrong? .... a billion of us or four billion of them ? ........ chowkwallas, please help me - is it okay to celebrate Eid even if it was Sara`s son under the knife?

PS. I checked to make sure this was not a Qadiani conspiracy to undermine the true faith. As far as I can tell, Gideon`s last name is not Mirza, and King James died long befor Mirza Ghulam Ahmed hit the prophethood circuit. So it must be the CIA... or is it those despicable Hindus ?...... or does it really matter as long as we get to celebrate Eid ?

The Statesman

Editorial Column

23rd July, 1998



In God`s Name-I

Special Article



Blasphemy Law In Pakistan



By R M PAL



A ROMAN Catholic priest committing suicide is unusual. Why did Bishop John Joseph shoot himself to death? Ayub Masih, mentally ill, who was sentenced to death on 27 April 1998 under the Pakistan Penal Code Section 296 C is not the first Christian to be convicted under this unlawful law. There have been a number of Christians in Pakistan booked under this Section including the 11-year-old Salmat Masih.



Mention may also be made of the widely publicised case in which the well known human rights activist and lawyer, Mrs Asma Jahangir, presently Chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), ap-peared in the Lahore High Court in defence of the accused Gul Masih, and succeeded in getting his acquittal.



Gul Masih had to seek refuge in Germany to escape the retribution of mullahs and Mrs Jahangir, after being attacked in the court premises - she narrowly escaped - had to engage Pathan guards for security. She declined state security.



HRCP has given a detailed account in its annual report of 1997 of the operation of this unlawful law against the Christians and non-Muslims. (HRCP defines a ``mullah`` as: ``formerly an appellation for an Islamic scholar, now it often refers pejoratively to a semi-literate fanatical campaigner and pronouncer of the orthodox Islamic view in the community``).



CONTEMPT



The Pakistan government has treated with contempt recommendations made by activists - both from Pakistan and abroad including Muslim organisations in India - to repeal/amend the blasphemy law. Even Mrs Benazir Bhutto who had declared in her party`s election manifesto that this law would be amended, surrendered - in fact

prostrated - before the mullahs.



Her law minister introduced a Bill in Parliament in 1993-94 but when the mullahs called on the people to kill the minister, Mrs Bhutto lost no time in withdrawing the Bill. Even today - after the Bishop`s tragic death - the Pakistan government is defiant, and maintains that if the law of blasphemy, especially Section 296C which provides for mandatory death penalty, is repealed, the ``law of jungle will prevail in the country.`` (It may be mentioned that the HRCP is strongly against death penalty and has been advocating its removal from the statute book).



Even a man of the stature of the Comilla and Orangi fame, the Gandhian, Mr Akhtar Hameed Khan, a former member of the ICS, was booked under Section 296C and faced death sentence. He was in his mid-eighties when he was booked, and put to untold miseries and harassment; he fought the case with great courage.



It is to protest this barbaric history of the law that the Bishop shot himself.



The law of blasphemy is on the statute book of not merely multi-religious countries where the definition needs to be precise; it is on the statute book of many Western countries. What then

is ``special`` in Pakistan and how is the law different there?



Section 295 of the law of blasphemy appears in Chapter XV of the Penal Code and this chapter was enacted in 1860, and continues to operate. The Section reads: ``Who-ever destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion or any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend

to two years, or with fine, or with both``. It is clear that it covers the sacred books of all religions.



HOLY QURAN



Section 295B, inserted by Zia-ul-Haq reads: ``Whoever wilfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Quran or of an extract therefrom or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose, shall be punishable for imprisonment for life.`` This Section relates to offences against the Holy Quran only, whereas Section 295 relates to sacred books of other religions.



The punishment under Section 295B is imprisonment for life. Which means that until the programme of Islamisation ruthlessly implemented by Zia-ul-Haq, the punishment relating to all religious books including the Quran was a maximum of two years imprisonment. Significantly, there has been no report until then of any case of desecration of holy books of any religion, including Islam.



Even a casual reading of the two Sections brings out the most blatant discriminatory character in the law. Furthermore, while Section 295 is precise, there is ambiguity in Section 295B in that the offence of using the holy Quran in a derogatory manner is not clearly defined, and therefore can be abused and is being abused. As is well known, this section as also Section 298C of PPC have been ruthlessly and cruelly used against the Ahmadiya community.



The HRCP notes in its latest 1997 annual report: ``There are two sets of laws that are directly discriminatory. One not only

declares Ahmadiyas to be non-Muslims, it also went on to prohibit their preaching their faith. Preaching included their speaking about their faith to anyone or handing out any literature relating to it. In practice this makes it difficult for them to publish their periodicals for the benefit of their own community. The law also forbids their practising their religion in public or using any of the forms, symbols or nomenclature associated with Muslims. They cannot pray in public... These provisions are among the most stringently applied of the laws on the statute book. In fact there is an over-zealousness in invoking them.``



PROSECUTION



Between 1984 and 1997, there have been over 3,000 cases against the Ahmadiyas under the law of blasphemy - the largest number, about 750 being under Section 295B. These 750 accused have been

prosecuted for displaying the Kalima - the tenet which says, ``There is none worthy of worship except Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah``. A hundred and forty were prosecuted under the blasphemy Section 296C.



In 1989, the entire population of Rabwah, the Ahmadiya headquarters in Pakistan, was charged under the Pakistan Penal Code Section 298C which is a special anti-Ahmadiya law. During 1997, three Ahmadiyas were killed because of their faith; three others were sentenced to 25-year imprisonment and Rs 50,000 fine on a charge of blasphemy which was added six years after they were initially charged with preaching Ahmadi- yat; 32 were charged under anti-Ahmadiya and

blasphemy laws, and 59 cases were registered on religious grounds (Source, HRCP Annual Reports 1996 and 1997).





The Statesman

Editorial Column

24th July, 1998



Special Article: In God`s Name-II

Increasing Divisions In Pak Society



By R M PAL



THE ground was prepared and seeds of Islamisation were sown by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto when he, as President of Pakistan, declared Ahmadiyas non-Muslim thus depriving them of their rights including the use of mosques for namaz. Zia-ul-Haq continued with the Islamisation programme, saying that he had received a direct message from God in this regard!



Section 295B gives protection to the police to raid people`s houses on the pretext that information has been received about the

violation of this Section. This is an attack on the privacy of one`s home, and contravenes Article 14 of the Pakistan Constitution which states, ``the privacy of home shall be inviolable.``



Furthermore, as the disparity in the punishment between this Section and Section 295 is enormous, Section 295B contravenes the provision of Article 25(1) of the Constitution which states, ``All citizens are equal before law and are entitled to equal protection of law.``



Let us now turn to Section 295C, inserted by Zia-ul-Haq, which is directly related to Ayub Masih`s conviction and Bishop Joseph`s unusual and unique protest.



It reads: ``Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad shall be punished with death and shall also be liable to fine.``



JESUS CHRIST



The ambiguity and arbitrariness of the definition of crime mentioned in this Section is obvious. The late Justice Dorab Patel, who was Chief Justice of Pakistan Supreme Court, and later first

Chairperson of the HRCP, and an internationally known human rights activist, drew attention to this aspect in a speech in Pakistan. In 1993 a Christian member of the Pakistan National Assembly said that Jesus Christ was the Son of God. He was denounced by the majority group for having committed blasphemy. Fortunately for him, he could not be prosecuted because he enjoyed complete immunity by virtue of his being a member of the Assembly.



If, however, Justice Dorab added, the Christian member made this comment to a Muslim outside the Assembly, and the Muslim ridiculed Christ, thus insulting Him, the maximum punishment to which the

Muslim is liable under Section 298 is only one year`s imprisonment. But if in reply the Christian criticises the Quranic injunction

against the claim of Christ being the Son of God, he would be sentenced to death under the law of the land, that is Section 295C.



It is in the context of this arbitrariness that I refer to the HRCP, an NGO which during the last seven or eight years have consistently made efforts to see that the two Sections, 295B and 295C, are repealed. During the campaign for repeal, Justice Dorab Patel and Mrs Asma Jahangir, present Chairperson of the HRCP, were threatened with death by the mullahs in Lahore - stickers appeared on buses and cars asking people to kill them.



JEHAD



The HRCP 1997 report sounds a note of pessimism and sadness in this regard. It comments editorially that instead of providing a healing touch there have been increasing divisions in society. Religious minorities, women, and the poor have no hope of redress of their condition. ``The policies look calculated to favour the rich and to allow leeway to the fanatics for their physical and verbal jehad against their chosen targets. When two minority MLAs complained in the National Assembly of their girls being kidnapped and forcibly converted, when a feudal lord burnt down the Bheels` temple of Devi Mataji to seize their land, or when Roshan Lal and his sister asked the Prime Minister in an open kutchery that if their land could not be protected he might send them to India - it is bad enough. But worse is pervasive official acquiescence in these acts.



Persecution of Ahmadiyas as in medieval times, public execution of a woman not just in a tribal area but also stoning of another in a village in Punjab, a High Court virtually condoning a father`s

murdering his daughter, are indicative of how thin the veneer of civilisation still wore... There is a drift that seems headed in the direction of further weakening of such institutions as still exist, dividing the people, and easing the career of sanctimonious intolerance.``



The HRCP and some women`s groups like the well known Shirkat Gah in Lahore take the view that horrendous things like increasing intolerance and violence have been happening in the name of Islam, and that it is the task of all right-thinking people in the country to deal with this intolerance effectively; and if they do not stand up and acknowledge this disgraceful happening and close the door on it, the present and the future of Pakistan will continue to remain bleak. We in India must also take note of the culture of

intolerance that prevails here.



Religious and sectarian intolerance has been on the increase in Pakistan but not many outside the HRCP and Shirkat Gah have taken it seriously. The silence of Pakistani intellectuals remind one of their approach and attitude to the 1971 event which led to the break-up of the country.



INTELLECTUALS



Some kept their lips sealed, and some supported Bhutto and the Army regime and their tirade against East Pakistan Bengalis and India. They know now - and privately acknowledge the fact - that if there is one reason which led to the break-up of Pakistan, it was the human rights violations perpetrated by the West Pakistan Army and other West Pakistan government agencies in East Pakistan. Pakistan was not defeated by India; Pakistan was defeated by its own army. Let not Pakistani intellectuals keep their lips sealed now. Indeed, intellectuals and opinion-makers everywhere must stand up and fight the forces of intolerance and fanaticism - of which we have our share in India in ample measure - wherever they be.

And sattar, my final post of the day:

Your statement: “If you feel this board is not the proper place for this discussion…”

My friend, this chowk is the place to have such discussions… don’t even think about debating this matter in one of the chowks in Mansoora :)

All the best!

Urstruly,

Tomorrow I am off to Sydney to watch a few of the hockey matches.. will stay in touch though…and keep checking for your reply…hope Pakistan wins the damn hockey gold medal.

RE: Fairdinkum # 146

Good advise and well said.

Sattar2,

“Litmus test of truth does not lie in numbers, but in the strength of its arguments.”

Indeed. And the litmus test of truth does not lie in not having numbers either, but as you say, in the strength of the argument presented.

Let me advise you, as a friend, that the path you are treading, i.e. an invitation of debate on fundamental beliefs etc. is futile. Whatever your beliefs are, you do not need to get them approved from anybody – be it mullahs, or people on Chowk. You don’t have to prove to anybody based on any criteria that your religion is true. It is your fundamental human right to practice your religion without being persecuted.

Your statement: “I would like to inquire how is Ahmadi faith regarding finality of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh) at odds with the teachings of Quran?”

My experience is that the above will never be settled through any amount of debate or discussion. The debate will go around in circles.

Your statement:

“History bear witness that every prophet has been vehemently opposed by the then-existing religious institutions. This is probably because God Almighty raises prophets for reformation of the people gone astray. The coming of a prophet therefore threatens the prevalent religious hierarchy, which explains why the “mullahs” are always in strong opposition of the newly arrived prophet.”

So, if existing religious institutions oppose a person, who claims to be a prophet of God, he is by default a true prophet? Of course not - right? So, what is your argument here?

sattar2 #139:

You say, [.... we believe that God Almighty will continue to raise “non law-bearing prophets” for guidance of the believers....]

What is the criteria?

And without being facetious, if tomorrow someone outside of your fold claims to this version of ‘prophethood’ and denounces Ahmedism or casts a long shadow, how would you respond?

Also, while you are at it, could you please explain the difference between Qadianis and Lahoris?

rgds,

t

RE: Sattar2

An almost well argued post; the only thing that was lacking was the main bone of contention i.e how do you perceive and counter the allegations of Muslims as regards to the beleif of the finality of the Prophet (peace be upon him). The other question is what do you think why Muslims from North America to Japan have a consensus on the issue, whether they are aware of your existence or not, while you disagree.

My next question was about your argument on 14th century and Mehdi, but I think Fairdinkum has said it well for me.

Sattar2 #139

“Speaking of consensus among majority of Muslim scholars about finality of Prophet Mohammad (pbuh), let me point out that until recently there was also consensus among these scholars that the Promised Messiah and Mahdi will arrive before the end of 14th century (Islamic calendar). This “majority of scholars” is now silent on this issue.”

I have never heard of this before. Are you sure about this? As far as I know no time frame has ever been fixed for arrival of Mehdi or for rooz-e-qayama.. the reason being that it is one of the fundamental beliefs amongst all Muslims (a rare occasion where all ulema are unanimous) that only God has Knowledge of future.

What is the source of your information?

RE: Fairdinkum # 134

I wish you had posted your reply earlier when this article was published. You could have saved my hair from getting shaved by Mullah Omer Mirza. Man! I love my hair.

Anyway, your post is very informative ( and much needed). Now we can focus this conversation on the real issues. You have raised a number of valid points and issues that need to be addressed separately. I will reply them shortly as soon as I gather my thoughts-dont go away.

Dear Shandana,

I never said that the demand for a separate electorate from minorities is unanimous or uncontested from with in the minority circles. The opposition to separate electorate does exist and it is fierce. As far as, the question regarding who is in majority, the results of the past (minority) elections and the workings of those elected are a good indicator. I am un-aware of any other gage that is indicative of the public opinion in Pakistan. It is quite possible that in the future (minority) elections the minorities elect those candidates who support and will work to attain joint electorate. So is the nature of the political process.

There are two ways to look at the issue of ``separate or joint electorate``. One way is to look at it as a black and white issue, judge it as discriminatory, and discard it. The other way is to understand the issue in its actual and historical context taking in account the composition and ideological direction of the society. (Please do not narrow the word ``ideology`` down to ``Islamic Ideology`` and make it a black and white issue).

Historically, the demand for a separate electorate was raised by Muslims of United India. One may argue that the underlying principle beneath this demand was religious discrimination (on part of Muslims) but even if one may take it at its face value the demand was still valid. So Pakistan inherited this tradition. It is not a post-partition invention by bigoted Mullahs. Even our beloved pork eating, whisky-drinking lawyer was a staunch advocate of separate electorate and he literally fought for this right throughout his life. (The last sentence was meant for Mullah Omar Mirza).

Please also study the issue of separate electorate as it was raised in post segregation USA and how it was used as a bargaining tool during the Civil Rights Movement. The demand for a separate electorate was relinquished in favor of the Affirmative Action; since the separate electorate issue had a potential to re-incarnate segregation. These strategies are a part of the political games- and in any kind of games you win some and you lose some. As compared to the US, Pakistan has both Affirmative Action and a Separate Electorate (best of both worlds?).

So what is the political game in Pakistan regarding separate and joint electorate? Currently the main driving force behind the Separate Electorate issue is the Ahmadi community. (Please do not make this as a sinister-plot-that-I-am-exposing kind of thing, this is a political analysis and should be looked at as such and BTW it is an open secret). The Ahmadi Community is a relatively less visible minority as compared to Christians. Their demand for separate electorate makes perfect sense. This small step i.e. abolishing separate electorate will lead to the abolition of the requirement of identification of minorities status and that will ultimately lead to the abolition of Ahmadi`s non-Muslim status. It is a very long process that needs a lot of patience and perseverance but it will work. Ahmadis are willing and determined to take their chances with their lack of representation in legislature for a while, (which amounts to nothing anyway, according to you). Whereas, Christian community along with others is divided on this issue; One faction sees it as a black and white issue as mentioned earlier, whereas the other faction who has no reservations about being a visible minority sees no benefit in it. As a matter of fact they will loose (their opinion) what they have got right now, or what they have worked for until now.

Then there is inevitable Mullah factor-who sees and understands this effort by Ahmadis as something very threatening to the work they have done so far. So they give the whole issue a religious perspective.

Personally, I don’t think that Separate Electorate is an Islamic issue. The Separate or Joint Electorate are both Islamic if minorities agree to it. If they don’t then it is un-Islamic.

Regards.

Attn: ANAMIKA # 140
I hope this post will answer some of your questions too.

unstruly #127

I read recently that the representatives of the minority communities were the ones pressing for the scrapping of the separate electorate. Is this not true?

In India, there are reserved seats for SC/ST (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes or the so-called ``untouchables``). The candidates can come only from these categories. Every eligible voter and not just those belonging to these communities votes for one of these candidates. This is one way to ensure that SC/ST communities get some representation in the legislature. Of course SC/ST are free to contest the open seats as well.

Would something like this not be better if the intent was really to make sure that the minorities don`t get shafted? The ``muslim vote bank`` is a seriously discussed issue in India. Where muslims are a sizeable minority - 10% or more of eligible voters - they can strongly influence the results in a closely contested election. The accustion that Congress Party pandered to the muslim electorate (for example, in the Shao Bano case) was premised on this alleged muslim vote bank and the presumption that muslim voters are a monolithic entity.

If I lived in Pakistan, I (and my community) would have no influence on the legislators from the majority community. Apartheid may be too strong a word, but it`s getting there.