Is secularisation of Pakistan possible?

[jai231179]

Iran has many official religions.

"The constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran recognizes Islam, Christianity, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism as official religions. Article 13 of the Iranian Constitution, recognizes them as People of the Book and they are granted the right to exercise religious freedom in Iran.[33][38] Five of the 270 seats in parliament are reserved for these three religions."

Religion in Iran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Plus Iranians are proud of their history and never claim to be arabs. They respect their historical religions.

If I'm not wrong their Persian culture is way older than the Arabs too. But isn't the current regime known for its suppression of ethnic and religious minorities?

 

[Dance]

Religious parties are at an all time high, and the population has become more observant of Saudi style islam.

Guess you've never met a Pakistani.

FYI religious parties ALWAYS do the worst in elections, they probably have the least support among all of the political parties!

In fact the party that has always been successful ( up until now at least) is secular.

 

[Wright]

If I'm not wrong their Persian culture is way older than the Arabs too. But isn't the current regime known for its suppression of ethnic and religious minorities?

Iran has many different ethnicities. There are Baloch's, Azeri's, etc. They are treated equal. However from what I recall, Afghan illegal's are disliked.

There is religious freedom in Iran, in fact Iran has a high population of Jews. However the current government does favor Shiite muslims over others, and provides cerain benefits not avialible to non mainstream religions.

Of course someone who actually lives in Iran would be more knowledgeable.

Guess you've never met a Pakistani.

FYI religious parties ALWAYS do the worst in elections, they probably have the least support among all of the political parties!

In fact the party that has always been successful ( up until now at least) is secular.

Ive been there. MMA did gain a majority in NWFP, Baluchistan. Am I right?

 

[Zarvan]

Is secularisation of Pakistan possible?​

Secularisation and state secularism, however, are distinguishable. The former is an evolutionary process and the latter a constitutional expression of the state’s impartiality to all religious considerations

In view of the Constitution of 1973 and the many authoritative pronouncements of our judiciary regarding Pakistan’s status as an Islamic state, it is logical to question whether secularisation of Pakistan is possible. Opponents of a secular Pakistan claim that since the state itself was founded in the name of Islam, secularisation is antithetical to it. This post hoc view on the raison d’etre of Pakistan is inconsistent with the historical facts leading to the partition of India and should have been void ab initio. However, the enactment of the 1973 constitution has given it the cover of legal fiction, i.e. Islamic ideology, which is said to be the grundnorm of the state.

Our stock myth is that our society was largely moderate until it was radicalised by the state’s Islamisation in the last few decades, when the reality is the opposite. The state’s Islamisation 1970s onwards was a faithful reflection of the bigotry that was ingrained in our society. The famous Munir Report in 1954 details instances of religious extremism and fanaticism not just in the early years of the new state but also during the British Raj. Parties like the Majlis-e-Ahrar, who paradoxically wanted a united India under the banner of the Congress Party and were dead set against the creation of Pakistan, had been involved in numerous incidents of religious violence in Punjab against Ahmedis, Shias and non-Muslim communities. The urban centres of Punjab had witnessed religious violence between Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims since the early 1900s. The decade of the 1920s saw further deterioration of the communal situation, where firebrand Muslim and Hindu orators were at each other’s throats in public and involved in the so-called ‘pamphlet wars’. The Ahrar particularly benefited from the Shahid Ganj dispute in the 1930s politically.

Similarly, the anti-Ahmadiyya movement started by the Ahrar was wildly popular in Punjab. Ahrar had used the anti-Ahmadiyya movement both before and after partition primarily to attack the Muslim League that allowed Ahmedis to be members of the party. Shias were also attacked, especially because the key leaders of the Muslim League were and historically had been Shias.

The Punjab Muslim League was not blameless either. In the 1946 elections, it too sullied its good name by resorting to abrasive religious rhetoric against the Unionist Party, which on its part also utilised clerics to denounce Muslim League leaders as kafirs (infidels). After partition, Punjab Leaguers actively encouraged the Ahrar against the central Muslim League leadership in Khawaja Nazimuddin’s tenure. All this is documented in the previously mentioned Munir Report.

The key difference is that Pakistani leaders before 1970 — more or less unanswerable to the electorate — were better placed to withstand populist sentiments. Very logically, the necessary empowerment of the common people that accompanied Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto’s rise to power also meant those in power could no longer afford to remain ambivalent to the ideas of these new participants in national life. Therefore, since the 1970s, Pakistan has seen a more vocal religious right with greater mob support. The ill-advised Afghan jihad and the state’s co-option of the Islamist sentiment to create warriors of Allah added to this radicalisation.

Now 30 years later, we bear the full brunt of this vicious cycle but at the same time, arguably Pakistan has simultaneously experienced secularisation at a very fundamental level. Commercial and economic considerations are beginning to trump religious ones. For example, women from all backgrounds are becoming part of the workforce as economic hardship forces the lower middle classes to seek two incomes instead of one. With women out of the chador and char devari (four walls), the Mullah, who practises control primarily through the regulation of women’s clothing and conduct is becoming powerless.

There are substantial indicators of secularisation of not just the mainstream of society but also its Islamist fringes. Committing themselves to the 1973 Constitution, most religious parties have been forced to check their more extremist rhetoric, though by no means is an Islamist party like Turkey’s AKP, which accepts separation of mosque and state, in sight. To a lesser degree, however, Pakistan’s Islamists have been forced to operate within the confines of the constitution, which while professing a great deal of commitment to Islamic ideology remains nevertheless a democratic constitution. Those religious parties have given up — at least in their rhetoric — the idea of a pan-Islamic caliphate or even a Pakistan-specific one. Instead of religion, they are forced to emphasise issues such as inflation and the economy. The flip-flop of Maulana Fazlur Rehman on NATO supplies further underscores the fact that other than the flowing robes and beards, there is hardly anything that distinguishes run-of-the-mill politicians from the religious leaders when it comes to power politics and crass opportunism.

Does this necessarily mean that Pakistan will become a secular state in the near future? No. In fact, to the glee of our anti-secularists, there is still occasion for the country to shoot itself in its metaphorical foot, repeatedly. Secularisation and state secularism, however, are distinguishable. The former is an evolutionary process and the latter a constitutional expression of the state’s impartiality to all religious considerations. On a long timeline though, things cannot remain constant. Historical trends afford evidence of eventual acceptance of secularism in other religious states. It is very likely our posterity will also make a decisive break with ‘ideology’ and make Pakistan a normal democratic state sans hyphenation of any kind, because progress and the onward march of humanity is unstoppable. If Pakistan’s raison d’etre was the material progress of its people, as I believe it was, then it shall be realised only when a paradigmatic shift — a Copernican revolution of sorts — is brought about in the discourse on religion’s role in Pakistan.

The writer is a practising lawyer. He blogs at
hhtp://globallegalforum.blogspot.com and his twitter handle is @therealylh

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

Pakistan is based on two nation theory Pakistan was created for Islamic Rules to be practised Secularisation has already failed and people are coming towards Islam and it has also failed in other countries where ever they have tried these kind of acts Muslims have become attached to their religion more than before like in Egypt Indonesia Syria and Algeria and Morroco and now in Turkey we are also seeing change and people are again coming towards Islam

 

[Dance]

Ive been there. MMA did gain a majority in NWFP

Maybe in NWFP, don't know about Balochistan.

They're disliked a lot though in NWFP.

Point is that religious parties have never won any significant elections and they probably wont.

They're not taken seriously.

 

[Zarvan]

Maybe in NWFP, don't know about Balochistan.

They're disliked a lot though in NWFP.

Point is that religious parties have never won any significant elections and they probably wont.

They're not taken seriously.

Sir because many religious parties are not electoral process than their are Tableeghi Jamat and Ahle Sunnat who have millions supporters who don't even vote and finally religious parties are divided in sects if combined they have significant vote bank

and not taken seriously was this line a joke ?

 

[truthseer]

If Pakistan is to ever be secular, it should be decided by the population. Since the majority doesn't want it to be, it would be dictatorial to enforce secularism

 

[Dance]

and not taken seriously was this line a joke ?

Thats my opinion, you can disagree.

 

[truthseer]

and not taken seriously was this line a joke ?

They're not taken seriously. JUI is a joke here in Karachi.

 

[jai231179]

If Pakistan is to ever be secular, it should be decided by the population. Since the majority doesn't want it to be, it would be dictatorial to enforce secularism

I am sure many Pakistanis have seen and realized by now, the benefits of being secular.

 

[truthseer]

I am sure many Pakistanis have seen and realized by now, the benefits of being secular.

There is no such advantage.

 

[Zarvan]

They're not taken seriously. JUI is a joke here in Karachi.

The Street Power they have shown is enough to proof if to take them seriously or not and kind of supporters they have is enough to take on any government

 

[King Solomon]

Pakistan is based on two nation theory Pakistan was created for Islamic Rules to be practised Secularisation has already failed and people are coming towards Islam and it has also failed in other countries where ever they have tried these kind of acts Muslims have become attached to their religion more than before like in Egypt Indonesia Syria and Algeria and Morroco and now in Turkey we are also seeing change and people are again coming towards Islam

Secularism failed? The best muslim countries today are those who are secular. Check the other thread comparing GDP outputs of muslim nations.

 

[truthseer]

The Street Power they have shown is enough to proof if to take them seriously or not and kind of supporters they have is enough to take on any government

Well, supporters? They BUY half the people who come to their rally. Also, some of their rallies are filmed in front of big roads. For example, one was in front of University road near Masjid Bait-al-Mukkaram. Every passer-by would be thought to be in the rally.
Also, they only have street power because they have an armed gang which recruits in government colleges but the PPP government has stopped that (Shock! PPP did a good thing.)

Secularism failed? The best muslim countries today are those who are secular. Check the other thread comparing GDP outputs of muslim nations.

I saw the other thread, Turkey is hardly secular.
Also, see the secular US and its debt, see the secular Israel and its inhumane treatment of Palestinians. Tell me what is so enticing about it.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Impossible, their Two-Nation theory and Secularism are incompatible.

That statement is COMPLETELY wrong. Please keep in mind that the TNT was defective at a deep level, and is also practically impossible to implement, but it DOES NOT preclude a secular nation-state.

This one-line dismissal is a summary of the sustained self-justification of the Congress, which sought to project itself and it's ideology as the only possible paradigm for India. In doing so, it had to oppose and denigrate the Two Nation Theory, not on the grounds of its underlying impracticality as a formula for creating a nation-state, which would have been realistic and would have very adequately explained difficulties arising in Pakistan, but in terms of its articulation of the identity of a minority,among other minorities.

The Two Nation Theory perfectly allows a secular nation, it does not accommodate, per se, an Islamic nation. That is the reason for the conflict in progress in Pakistan today. If the original blueprint had not been hijacked and forcibly altered by elements which had earlier fought tooth and nail AGAINST a Muslim homeland, or homelands, and WITH the Congress AGAINST the Muslim League.

This is about Pakistan, not about India. Members may kindly remember that India has a completely different package of issues to deal with. For Indians, it is important to consider the Two Nation Theory (not adequate in ideological terms for a multiple minority nation state), adapted by majoritarians with their own divisive and exclusive agenda, the Congress' inclusive theory of all Indians being one, with no need for differentiation, and the harsh realities of nation-building in a liberal democratic milieu which rejects the Marxist analysis of 'nations'.

Please let us not use our situation and our insights in interpreting Pakistan and its situation. It would be as superficial and as silly as a Pakistani commentator interpreting India through the lens of the Two Nation Theory.