What's new

Protecting Pakistan's Hindus

khanz

SENIOR MEMBER
Joined
Dec 3, 2007
Messages
4,514
Reaction score
1
good article

Hindus in Pakistan have suffered grievously since the founding of the nation in 1947. Recently, in the southern province of Sindh, a Hindu man was accused of blasphemy and beaten to death by his co-workers. This comes at the heels of the abduction and dismemberment of a Hindu engineer.

A little while earlier, the military removed 70 Hindu families from lands where they had been living since the 19th century. To this day the temples that Pakistanis destroyed in 1992 in response to the destruction of the Babri mosque in India have not been restored.

Pakistan, according to many accounts, was founded as a way to protect the rights and existence of the minority Muslim population of Colonial India in the face of the larger Hindu majority. Pakistan's founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, is reported to have said in 1947: "In due course of time Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims - not in a religious sense for that is the personal faith of an individual- but in a political sense as citizens of one state." It is therefore a travesty of Pakistan's own founding principles that its Hindus - and not to exclude Christians and Ahmadis - have suffered so grossly.

There are two levels of prejudice in Pakistan with respect to Hindus - the cultural and the legal.

While it is difficult to say which one is more pernicious, cultural prejudice is certainly more difficult to uproot because it is perpetuated by religious supremacism, nationalism, stories, myth, lies, families, media, schooling and bigotry.

Cultural prejudice has become part and parcel of language itself. Hindus are referred to as "na pak." Na means "un" and pak means "pure." So, Hindus are turned into the impure, or unclean. Given that the word "pak" is part of the word "Pakistan" - which means Land of the Pure - somebody's impurity suggests that they are not really Pakistani.

To make matters even worse, Pakistani mullahs teach a very supremacist version of the Islamic creed, the kalima. Usually, the kalima reads simply: "There is no god but God and Muhammad is His final messenger." The version that children are taught, however, reads as follows: "The first kalima is Tayyab; Tayyab means Pak (Pure); There is no god but God and Muhammad is His final Messenger."

Do you see how the word "Pak" - which denotes both purity and connects to citizenship in Pakistan - is smuggled into the Islamic creed? Since in Urdu this little ditty rhymes very effectively, this is the version of religiosity that most children repeat their entire lives. As a result, while they grow up, they psychologically equate Hindus with impurity, with uncleanliness, as not Pakistani, and therefore less than, both Islamically and as citizens.

The only two parties that can begin to bring some change in this arena are the state and the liberal clerics.

Last year Pakistan's prime minister did greet Hindus during Diwali and a prominent Hindu nationalist leader - who had to quit his party because of his outreach - that was born in Karachi did come back and pay respects to his birth-city.

Cricket diplomacy, which began in 2004, helped a little (but not really, because the focus was on cricket and not on religion). Also, there are a few prominent Hindus here and there - one is a justice of the Supreme Court and one is the leading leg-spinner for the cricket team. Yet, as the Pakistani exile Tarek Fatah points out, Justice Bhagwandas had to take the oath on the Quran. Meanwhile, Kaneria is regularly excluded from the Pakistani cricket team's congregational Islamic prayer.

As bad as the cultural prejudice is, legal prejudice is the one that must be more urgently dealt with, because it is what allows cultural prejudice to acquire institutional power.

Two laws in particular have been very problematic for the Hindu community.

The first one was promulgated under the 1973 constitution which made Islam the state religion of Pakistan and established a separate electorate for Muslims and non-Muslims so that Hindus could only vote for Hindu candidates. Musharraf abolished this in 2002. I think Muslims who support the idea of Islamic states around the world really need to stop and think about this for a second. It took an American-backed dictator in the year 2002 for a Muslim state to abolish unequal voting? As a wise man once said: are you kidding me? This is a deplorable commentary on the state of equality in today's Islam.

The second law is the infamous blasphemy law passed under Islamist dictator Zia ul Haq in the 1980s. Designed specifically to punish the Ahmadi minority, the blasphemy law now provides convenient protection to anyone who ever wants to kill, murder, maim, beat up, mug, abduct, or punish any religious minority. All you really have to do is carry out your brutality and then point at the victim and say that he was blasphemous.

This law needs to be repealed immediately: no reform, no fixing, no tweaking, but total abolishment. Efforts to repeal it under Musharraf failed in the Senate. The secular parliament in session now is probably not going to touch it unless it is told to do so by international groups (who frankly aren't really interested). The UN, EU, US, and International Council of Jurists must make some noise about repealing Pakistan's heinous blasphemy law.

There are little more than three million Hindus in Pakistan (a nation of 160 million). They are still part of Pakistani life and need to be treated with respect and dignity. According to some sources, at the founding of Pakistan, Hindus comprised nearly 15% of the country's population and now number barely 2%. Many have left, many have been killed, and many have converted to other religions to protect themselves. All in all, a travesty for a state that was created with the intended purpose of protecting minorities.


Protecting Pakistan's Hindus | Comment is free

everyone should have equal rights ! :pakistan:
 
.
I really hope things get better minorities if theres one thing i'm ashamed of about pakistan it's how they're treated non-muslims disgraceful how the only pakistani nobel prize winner was treated just because he was ahmadi.
 
.
I personally think that the rights of the majority must be protected. They are citizens of Pakistan as well. We as an Islamic Republic must follow the principle of Islam which demands that Muslims protect and give equal status to non-Muslims.
 
.
Great article. Mixing religion with the state affairs has been a disastorous exercise in futility for us. We must immediately revert to secularism, we must remove Islam as the state religion, delete the law barring anybody but a Muslim from becoming President/Prime Minster, we must IMMEDIATELY terminate the blashphemy law, we must end our extreme discrimination of Ahmadis. Only by reverting to Quaids vision for Pakistan can we truly be a tolerant, successful, respected country.
 
.
Completely agree Solid.

We have no right to stop an Ahmadi from calling himself Muslim, or practicing his faith as a Muslim.

We have forgotten, as have our hypocritical Mullah's, that very essential rule that was drilled into our heads during Quran classes, "only Allah can judge someones faith".

It is time to pull out of this business of regulating religiosity, and let people "submit to Allah" however they see fit.

I am not in Pakistan right now, but if I ever get a chance, I would love to organize a community effort to rebuild those temples that were destroyed.
 
.
It's not a good article. Quite the contrary, it's a very factually inaccurate article that's been made to portray a problem, when one does not exist, at least to that degree. It's proveable bullshyt, but amusing to watch you guys banging your heads and torturing yourselves over fictitious genocidal claims such as this one

According to some sources, at the founding of Pakistan, Hindus comprised nearly 15% of the country's population and now number barely 2%. Many have left, many have been killed, and many have converted to other religions to protect themselves. All in all, a travesty for a state that was created with the intended purpose of protecting minorities.

Though I would agree that a degree of discrimination does exist in Pak, overinflating the discrimination by writing fiction (or references to anonymous uncreditable sources) does not do any cause any good.
 
.
I think there is no harm in being an Islamic republic and having Islam as a state religion (by the way we have a mixture of Islamic and non-Islamic law).

Since Ahmadis don’t have the same faith as Muslims so they should maintain their separate identity and live with peace and they should enjoy the same rights as an equal Pakistani.

About blasphemy law I think we need to implement it correctly with few checks rather than eliminating it completely, a good step could be if we make some law for profanity against all religions.
 
.
RR:

I completely agree with you on the "pseudo factual" arguments related to the "decline" of the Hindu population in Pakistan.

As you yourself quite excellently argued on other threads, too many people refuse to take into account the fact that the "15%" number is based on the combined Hindu population of East and West Pakistan before partition.

You have to take into account that there was a mass exodus of Hindus and Muslims from both India and United Pakistan at that time, resulting in a declining proportion of HIndus. Add to that the fact that East Pakistan (that had the majority of the Hindu population of the areas that became Pakistan) is now Bangladesh, and the "drastic decline to 2%" number is even more misleading.

However, the discrimination of Ahmadis is a fact - the State has no business telling a community what they can or cannot call themselves, or what constitutes a "true Islamic sect". Some extremist Sunni and Shia sects don't even consider the other a "true Islamic sect", so its a dangerous path to follow.

My comments about "organizing the community to reconstruct any damaged Hindu temples" is out of a sense of being part of the majority, and doing my bit to go the extra mile to try and create a sense of inclusiveness in the minority community, and practically show our respect for their faith and beliefs.
 
.
We have no right to stop an Ahmadi from calling himself Muslim, or practicing his faith as a Muslim.

We have forgotten, as have our hypocritical Mullah's, that very essential rule that was drilled into our heads during Quran classes, "only Allah can judge someones faith".

Before we get emotional & get carried away, we must know that this was not taught by mullah. Its in Quran.

According to Quran:

"Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of God and the Seal of the prophets. And God is ever Knower of all things." - Qur'an: "The Allies", verse 40.

In 1974, the government of Pakistan amended its constitution to define a Muslim "as a person who believes in the finality of the Prophet Muhammad"

The Ahmadies (Qadiyanis) were officially declared Non-Muslims by the government of Pakistan mainly because of religious purposes, but they were declared by all Muslims as Non-Muslims much before that date. The Ahmadiyya is a heterodox Islamic Sect because it follows the teaching of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835:1908) who is believed by some of his followers to have been a prophet and by the Lahore branch to have been a Saint.

Prophethood after prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is considered a heresy in Islam and is enough to consider them Non-Muslims.

Sainthood is also rejected.

Beside that, the Ahmadiyya group has many religious practices and beliefs that are totally contradictory to Islam.

They have no right to call them selves Muslims; because they are not muslims. but this does not means that Islam allows discrimination against non Muslims.

It is time to pull out of this business of regulating religiosity, and let people "submit to Allah" however they see fit.

I think you might want to re-read this statement.

I am not in Pakistan right now, but if I ever get a chance, I would love to organize a community effort to rebuild those temples that were destroyed.

I rather would make efforts to rebuild babri mosque that was destroyed by extremist hindus, & also set up funds for the victims of Gujarat genocide.
 
.
Before we get emotional & get carried away, we must know that this was not taught by mullah. Its in Quran.

I was saying that "it was drilled into our heads by the Mullahs" not that they came up with the concept.
According to Quran:

"Muhammad is not the father of any of your men, but he is the Messenger of God and the Seal of the prophets. And God is ever Knower of all things." - Qur'an: "The Allies", verse 40.

In 1974, the government of Pakistan amended its constitution to define a Muslim "as a person who believes in the finality of the Prophet Muhammad"

The Ahmadies (Qadiyanis) were officially declared Non-Muslims by the government of Pakistan mainly because of religious purposes, but they were declared by all Muslims as Non-Muslims much before that date. The Ahmadiyya is a heterodox Islamic Sect because it follows the teaching of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835:1908) who is believed by some of his followers to have been a prophet and by the Lahore branch to have been a Saint.

Prophethood after prophet Muhammad (pbuh) is considered a heresy in Islam and is enough to consider them Non-Muslims.

Sainthood is also rejected.

Beside that, the Ahmadiyya group has many religious practices and beliefs that are totally contradictory to Islam.

They have no right to call them selves Muslims; because they are not muslims. but this does not means that Islam allows discrimination against non Muslims.
A Rahman - we also have some extremist Sunni factions who claim that the Shia are a "heretical sect". i am not suggesting that the interpretation of teh Qurab you gave is wrong, but that the State should not involve itself in this matter.

If you as a Muslim want to consider the Ahmadis non-Muslims, that should be your personal choice, not one dictated by the State. If they call themselves Muslims, who does it hurt? I am not saying they are Muslims, just that the State shouldn't tell anyone what they are or are not.

When we say that "Allah is the only one who can judge a persons faith" that is it - no ifs, and's or but's.

We are either judges or we are not - and it is clear that we should not be judges on matters of faith, yet we "judge" the Ahmadis.

I think you might want to re-read this statement.
Not sure what you mean?

I rather would make efforts to rebuild babri mosque that was destroyed by extremist hindus, & also set up funds for the victims of Gujarat genocide.
That is for the Hindu/Muslim community in India to do. I am concerned with the citizens of Pakistan.
 
.
Quote:
I am not in Pakistan right now, but if I ever get a chance, I would love to organize a community effort to rebuild those temples that were destroyed.
I rather would make efforts to rebuild babri mosque that was destroyed by extremist hindus, & also set up funds for the victims of Gujarat genocide.

I think this thread is about Pakistan and not India.

Whether the Babri Mazjid is rebuilt or otherwise is India's problem and not Pakistan. Likewise the problem in Gujerat.

I am sure Pakistan has not taken the lien for all MOslem the world over.

In fact, these type of misplaced sentiment if what creates the problems for Mos*lems in India and right now there is a Moslem family on a holiday with us and I find nothing unusual about it since we know each other's family for 40 years!! And we are very good friends that none can break try as they might!

If GoP wants to rebuild the temples razed in Pakistan so be it. It will only make India look small as Burney is doing.

It is time one must understand that in this high tension equation, there is a huge majority in India which appreciates when Pakistan does better in the moral question and it sure puts pressure on the Indian govt to do better.

Lets work for harmony and not hate!!

Hate Musahrraf and Vajpayee for what is is worth, but they wrote history in gold. They were bold to start the show of amity.
 
.
RR:

I completely agree with you on the "pseudo factual" arguments related to the "decline" of the Hindu population in Pakistan.

As you yourself quite excellently argued on other threads, too many people refuse to take into account the fact that the "15%" number is based on the combined Hindu population of East and West Pakistan before partition.

You have to take into account that there was a mass exodus of Hindus and Muslims from both India and United Pakistan at that time, resulting in a declining proportion of HIndus. Add to that the fact that East Pakistan (that had the majority of the Hindu population of the areas that became Pakistan) is now Bangladesh, and the "drastic decline to 2%" number is even more misleading.

However, the discrimination of Ahmadis is a fact - the State has no business telling a community what they can or cannot call themselves, or what constitutes a "true Islamic sect". Some extremist Sunni and Shia sects don't even consider the other a "true Islamic sect", so its a dangerous path to follow.

My comments about "organizing the community to reconstruct any damaged Hindu temples" is out of a sense of being part of the majority, and doing my bit to go the extra mile to try and create a sense of inclusiveness in the minority community, and practically show our respect for their faith and beliefs.

am,
my comments weren't directed at you, as much as the article which I considered to be poor. I also don't believe all this nonsense that Pakistan should be perfect with no discrimination and no prostitution and no gang rapes as realistic or reasonable.

The point being made in that article that Pakistan's Hindus have dramatically declined is a lie of huge proportions. If the author is going publish work, at least accept the responsibility of checking his sources. He will find that the population of Hindus has not declined from 15% to 2%, but increased from around 1.5% to 2%.

As for Ahmadiyas, I don't know how much the blasphemy law is used against them in Pakistan. Abdus Salam was made head of SUPARCO and a government advisor even though he was Ahmadiya. He continually claimed to be a devout Muslim, but it doesn't appear he was sentenced to any blasphemy. There is obviously some discrimination, but it seems to me that Pakistan is a fairly tolerant country for its development status.

The question of whether Ahmadiyas are Muslim. Again, can a Muslim be a person who believes in recent Prophets? I haven't researched it to know enough about it. Some strong Hafiths or Qu'ran quotes would be needed here.
 
.
Road Runner has raised a good point and it is true that the figure of 15% Hindus given in the article is from before the partition. However as far as I am concerned, the number of minorities is not the important thing, what is important is freedom of religion and eliminating discrimination from our laws.

Someone please tell me why my Hindu or Christian or even Ahmadi Pakistani brothers & sisters cannot be President or Prime Minister of Pakistan? What does one's religion have to do with the ability to drive a strong economy?

What does it matter if Ahmadis are true Muslims or not? It is for Allah to decide their fate in the life hereafter if they are choosing to believe in something other than the finality of prophethood. It should not affect their rights in Pakistan in any way. What do we achieve by forcibly keeping them from calling themselves Muslim? In their hearts they still think they are Muslims. Let everyone call themselves whatever they want, it doesn't affect me or you in any way.

In my high school in Karachi, we elected a Hindu as the headboy of our A level section. His religion did not hinder his ability to carry out his duties in any way. Likewise, other Hindu students in my classes were just as smart as the most devout Muslim. Why then, should these guys not have a shot at serving their country as Prime Minister one day?

Pakistan's only nobel prize winner was an Ahmadi. Did his lack of belief in the finality of prophethood of Muhammad have any affect on his brilliant mind? No, it did not. Shame on us for implementing discriminatory, anti-minority, and useless laws like Hudood and Blasphemy laws.

The only people who care so deeply about religion are the illiterate class who flip a lid if they come into contact with a "non-Muslim". In their hearts there is nothing but hate for anyone who does not follow the same branch of religion as them. Those of us who have been blessed with an education should not bow down to their pressure and let our country continue to mete out unfair punishment on our minorities in the name of Allah. As if Allah needs protection from anyone.

Sooner or later the Hudood laws and Blasphemy laws will be repealed, so we might as well do it now. Some bearded morons will throw hissy fits over it, but they have been doing that at every step up Pakistan takes towards joining the comity of modern secular nations.
 
.
I dont believe your a Muslim if you dont agree with the 1st Kalma. You can call yourself whatever your want, but the reality is a bit different!
 
.
I dont believe your a Muslim if you dont agree with the 1st Kalma. You can call yourself whatever your want, but the reality is a bit different!

Webby,

On a personal level I have no disagreement with that. But at an official level what does it matter if the Ahmadi's want to call themselves Muslim? We have people who steal, murder, and fornicate, are never caught, and yet get away with saying the "kalima" and enjoy the benefits of being an "official Muslim". They are no more a "true Muslim" than any other individual who violates the tenets of Islam.

Whats wrong with an individual who is a model citizen, but does not believe in the finality of prophethood, from at least being allowed to live his life the way he wants?

If they have sinned, and you believe in Allah's promise of judgment, then every individual will get their dues in the hereafter.

Why do we mortals have to step in and punish someone, so long as the "crime" is not something that affects us in the material world?
 
.
Back
Top Bottom