“Secondly I would like to say that the number of seats in the national and provincial assemblies has increased. However, the seats for religious minorities have not been increased. The population of minorities has also increased. Therefore, the number of allotted seats for minorities should also be increased. Regarding equal status for all in Pakistan, our media and ministers claim when abroad that they had given freedom to religious minorities. But we are not free here at all. I would like to talk about Babri Mosque in India, which was demolished by Hindus there. In reaction, several Hindu temples were burnt here in Pakistan. A majority of the temples destroyed were not operating. They were just serving as shelter for the homeless people. I myself know a Muslim family living in a temple. They were thrown out of the temple, and then it was burnt to ashes. I would like to question: who was at a loss? Hindus or that Muslim family whose shelter was burnt! Furthermore, the blasphemy law is present to protect the worship places as well. But no action was taken against anyone during those riots, which shows that blasphemy law is only against non-Muslims. We don’t want that a Muslim should be caught under this law. Only we wonder how biased our law and lawmakers are”.
“Other than blasphemy laws, there are rape cases and kidnapping of minority women. But they are decided under the Islamic laws. To implement Islamic laws for Muslims is fine but not for other religions. These laws are imposed on us. Why can’t they decide according to people’s own religious laws, If Pakistan is only for Muslims then they should throw all non-Muslims out. Let this country be only for Muslims”.
Ayub Khan:
“We are talking about Islamic laws such as the provision for four witnesses of Muslim men or eight Muslim women/ non-Muslim men and Qisas and Diyat and so on. There is no one here to answer these questions. My request is this that there should be some one who understands Islamic law, so that such questions may not be unanswered. It is the law of the land. For example, some Pakistanis get married in England and bring their children here away from their mothers. But the government of England takes the children back because it gives women rights. As far as temples are concerned, Ms. Romana Bashir has been to Sialkot. There is harmony among people of different faiths over there. I can tell you that we arranged for the protection of temples and in some cases Muslim friends also helped the Pundits there. So we cannot say all Pakistanis are prejudiced. But it is true that Muslims mostly disrespect temples, which cannot be justified in anyway”.
Mahjabeen Khan:
“We have talked about judiciary and the Constitution. So far, the legislation has proved that laws apply only to the masses and not to the elite. We are developing a culture of crime. We met the Nazim of Hyderabad, and told him that he should pay some attention to what women councilors say. His reply was very simple. He said,’ women just talk nonsense. Therefore we don’t have to listen to them’. This is the mentality of men in power”.
Ambreen:
“I will talk about the Constitution. There have been rapid amendments in Constitutions of 1956, 1962 and then of 1973. I often ask myself what do we want from these amendments? We cannot become a secular country, because our president has to be a Muslim. This is very unfair. Another article of the Constitution says that there will be no discrimination on the basis of caste, sex and creed, but we experience it all the time. For example, take Article no. 295, and 295C about blasphemy for which the punishment is death. This Article is often misused. (It has been sometimes against Muslims but mostly against non-Muslims) Once a Muslim was selling fruit chat, when a non-Muslim asked for a plate of chat. The Muslim seller tried to serve him in a plate kept for non-Muslims. The non-Muslim insisted on eating in one of the other plates. But the vendor refused to do so. The non-Muslim said something and went off. The Muslim went to the police station and registered a blasphemy case against the non-Muslim. So every one turned against that non-Muslim without knowing the reason. Therefore, it is demanded that non-Muslims should be given some protection so that they should also feel as equal citizens of this country. The Blasphemy cases should not be dealt with emotionally. The facts should be considered and if the complainant is found guilty then s/he should be punished”.
Bashir Booter:
“We have had several Constitutions and a lot of amendments in them. There are many laws. The real problem is the implementation of these laws. Basically this state is not a theocratic state. A communist had drafted the manifesto of the Muslims League in 1946. In this sense, the leader was not a mullah, or the manifesto a religious one”.
“The President or Prime minister, some one said, has to be a Muslim. For me, this is not the problem. He may be a Christian or Hindu, but he must be an elected one. The problem is that he is not elected. In India there is no problem of religion. The main target is the nation’s growth. And they are successful in it. Now there is a Sikh prime minister and a Muslim president. Can we say that Hindus in India have lost their identity because no Hindu is holding any key position? But Hindus are not like us. They trust the Muslims and Sikhs whom they elected to hold supreme offices. In our case, we need to stress that the prime minister and president of Pakistan should be the elected one”.
“I would also like to talk about the way we protest when some law is misused or broken. England is the only country without any written Constitution. But if there is even a small act against the law, people raise their voices against it. They protect the law. The government does not make any amendments in the law to make it harsh for the public. In England, before you enter the platform of an underground station there is a turnstile and one needs to put a coin to enter. But Pakistanis in Britain find it easy to jump over it without dropping the coin. The English laugh at their meanness. We need to respect the law”.
“According to the 1985 policy for kachi abadies, people were to be given the ownership rights. But later that policy was not adopted and the authorities used their powers to dislodge people from their homes. We opposed and arranged seminars and conferences to raise our voice. Then there was a conspiracy case against me and eight other people on the plea that we were against the army and that we wanted to overthrow the government. I just want to ask where should we go for remedy? We, the poor, just trust the influential every time. And every time they are in power they fail us”.
Ali Nawaz Murree:
“We are talking about the Constitution. Unfortunately, since the creation of Pakistan there has been a problem regarding the Constitution. Whenever somebody says something, he is taken away by the agencies for investigation and after a few days his dead body is found somewhere. I am from Balochistan, and army is establishing cantonments there for search operations. We feel that they do not need new cantonments. What is needed is a new Constitution and more plans for development of the local poor people. We need universities, medical colleges, law colleges, hospitals, but we do not need what they are offering us. Blouchis are known for their bravery. They fight for their rights. However, whenever they speak truth they are considered to be traitors. We do not say anything against our country, but whatever we say it is termed to be against the law and the country, which is not true”.
Peter Jacob:
“It has been discussed in human rights forums that the Constitution of 1973 should be implemented in its original form. We should be very clear about it. Secondly, the Constitution of 1973 has been tampered with regarding the rights of the citizens and the relations between the state and the citizens. The rights of the provinces have also been tampered with. The present Constitution does not give rights to all. Therefore, there is a need for a new Constitution. One thing is very clear about the 1973 Constitution: it has made religion part of the state. We must debate this issue. Your determination to fight for the rules and your working strategy are important. One thing every Pakistani knows: the laws introduced under the umbrella of Islamic laws or Shari’ah, are controversial. These laws have led to religious hatred and sectarianism in Pakistan. It increased prejudices among people and the country experienced the economic crisis. Until and unless you distribute resources and opportunities equally and you don’t change the state from a theocratic to a democratic one, you can’t safeguard the rights of citizens without fair laws. Therefore, a new Constitution addressing all problems and providing a space for every citizen is needed. The working strategy does not allow this under current circumstances, because the current democratic atmosphere is not suitable for such activities. Our working strategy should demand the repeal of all 17 amendments in the 1973 Constitution. Once the country is run democratically, we can demand a new Constitution”.
George Clement:
“We should recommend that any law-enforcing agency or person found violating the law should be punished severely and publicly so that it should be a clear message to all. Secondly, the role of the army (which is already in the Constitution) must be laid down, and implemented in strict measures. All institutions and the election commission, if found guilty of favoritism, must be punished”.
Fr. Archie D’ Souza:
“I understand that we have talked about socio-economic and cultural realities. In the same context, we are talking about laws and the Constitution. But we did not talk about Labour Laws, employment, and economy. These are very important aspects of the future development of a nation. If we don’t talk about the laws for the migrants, women and child labor, then how can we talk about the Constitution and make some reasonable recommendations. Without the economy, one cannot talk about education. Similarly, when we talk about labor then we should talk about the economy. Both go hand in hand”.
Abdul Khalique:
“I will raise two points: Firstly, the Constitution declares that the prime minister should be a Muslim. I say it does make a difference. We must try to change it because such rules convey a message that Muslims are different (better) from others. This affects people from all walks of life. Similarly non-Muslims are not employed in the atomic energy establishment. In India, Muslims are also employed in the sensitive areas such as atomic energy centres. Secondly, it was said that the 1973 Constitution must be implemented. We are against it. The influentials are keeping it for two reasons; first to suppress the oppressed when they ask for their rights. It is just to show them that all the provinces had agreed to that constitution. Secondly, it is kept to show the minorities that no one from amongst them can become the head of the state. This is to maintain that the minority citizens as second-class citizens. We must demand for a new Constitution. We also hear that Pakistan is going through a critical period. We have been saying this for the last 57 years”.
Iqbal Bali:
“We must prepare some recommendations, which will reflect how serious we have been during this consultation. The Constitution of 1973 gave enormous powers to the prime minister that need to be balanced because now great powers have been assigned to the president. There must be elections through the independent election commission. Then, the Constituent Assembly must make the Constitution”.
M. Parkash:
“We have talked a lot about constitutional amendments, violation of laws, and worries of common citizens. It is our great desire that the original 1973 Constitution should be implemented minus any discriminatory religious laws. New laws must be added to safeguard minority rights. I don’t say that Pakistan should become a secular state. However, it should become liberal so that all the citizens should live freely, according to their creed, under better economic conditions. We condemn terrorism and we also want that Pakistan should not get involved in it. We condemn terrorism in all its forms all over the world”.
Mr. Rufin Wilson:
“Mr. Junejo and Mr. Parkash and some others suggested that we must form a committee. This committee will make some recommendations that will be presented to the whole group. The house has selected the following members to form a recommendation committee. They are: Mr. George Clement, Mr. Abdul Kahlique Janojo, Mr. Peter Jacob, Ms. Mangla Sharma, Ms. Mahjabeen, Mr. Rufin Wilson, Mr. M. Parkash and Mr. Haroon Nasir”.
Session III:Political Issues Affecting Rights
Moderator: Mr. Peter Jacob
Peter Jacob:
“In the beginning, we will make a list of issues to be discussed so that we might not waste our time on non-issues. The issues listed are political issues affecting rights, political parties, women’s rights, religious pluralism, and illegal amendments, army’s role in politics, its influence on the state, and reconstruction of the state. The first issue, which I believe all would like to discuss, is Army’s role in the state affairs. The major role of army is to defend the boarders of a country. They should not interfere in the country’s internal affairs. Army takes away the major part of the national income. Army is also involved in a number of money generating schemes. They have built educational institutes, hospitals, Army welfare trust (AWT) and a number of schemes for the retired army officers and jawans. Lastly, they have been involved in politics for a number of years now. This interference stops the growth of the country. Now it’s time for you to express your thoughts”.
Ali Nawaz Murree:
“Since Pakistan’s independence, the army thinks it is the only power which could bring real democracy into the country. However, it is the army that discriminates between the rights of the people and the rights of the army. Are men in the army the only patriots and all others are unpatriotic? People of Balochistan are very faithful to Pakistan but most of the time they are labeled as traitors. I cannot find any reason for declaring us anti-Pakistan”.
Peter Jacob:
“We read in the newspapers that an operation is going on in Balochistan; but the government denies it. We would like to know the actual situation there. Secondly, it is not correct to say that the people of a certain area are more loyal than others. People are being victimized in the name of loyalty”.
Ms. Mangla Sharma:
“First of all, I would like to know that agencies (intelligence) are not present here, because once we speak even for our rights, non-Muslims are immediately booked under different cases. While discussing politics, we do not want them to take notes. The army is for safeguarding the boundaries of a country, but in Pakistan they are given a status higher than the kings. They are not accountable to any one; even a democratic government cannot ask any questions. They are not angels. They are human beings. But, they cannot be touched by any law”.
“Political parties form governments but our army is always ready to take over if a democratic government makes even a minor mistake. All key-posts are given to retired army officers in civil departments like Water and power development authority (WAPDA), Pakistan Telecommunications (PTCL), Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB). On the job they are given full facilities and after retirement they are preferred over the civilians. They block the way of civilians for their promotion and progress. Therefore people have developed a negative opinion about the army. Non-Muslims particularly are not trusted for army. Therefore, one very rarely finds a non-Muslim army officer. There might be some Christian army officer, but it is impossible to have a Hindu or a Sikh army officer. Why are they not considered patriotic when we live in the same country and work for the country’s development?”
Peter Jacob:
“When we talk about such topics where the army is criticized or the deprived citizens are discussed then we wish that we could have agencies here so that they also know how badly we are treated”.
Fr. Archie D’Souza:
“Pakistani people even today believe in the person who has authority, e.g. father in a family, chaurdhy sahib in a village etc. Then we got the word democracy, which is a Western concept. In the West, democracy means equal opportunities for all. This has never been practiced here. Another problem is that we are trying to save democracy without knowing exactly what it means? We want a symbol of authority. In our case, the army holds the authority. What kind of democracy we could have?”
Peter Jacob:
“In Pakistan Islam is used as a cover-up. Otherwise, every ruler has his own agenda”.
Rubina Feroze:
“I would like to quote the example of Hasina Wajid of Bangladesh. She said: wherever there is army, democracy cannot mature. I also believe that when a general is the president, there can never be a democracy. The minorities welcomed army rule this time because the army took concrete steps for restoration of joint electorates. This was the duty of a democratic government. However, one military government did it. For an effective democratic rule, we need to address the questions in an appropriate manner. Our democratic governments only tried to save their rule. They did not try to wipe out the social evils. They even failed to provide basic civic education so that people should also understand democracy and should support the democratic process”.
Abdul Khalique Junejo:
“However, we have not learned anything from examples of other countries and we are repeating our bitter experiences continuously. We know that there is no role for army in democracy but army rules this country again and again. We already suffered during Gen. Zia’s era. Now again our rulers are repeating the mistakes of the past. If we are serious in establishing democracy in our country, then we need to develop a concept that the army is only for defending the borders. They should not be allowed to interfere in the civilian matters. Furthermore, they should not be allowed to set themselves as a business class. Road carpeting, health or education projects, estate business, banking or any other commercial zone should not be their concerns”.
Ateeque Ahmed Swati:
“The level of democracy was higher in the chaliphs’ times because the Ameer was chosen from the people. Once Hazrat Umar was asked when everyone was given one sheet from bait-ul-maal how come Caliph Hazrat Umar could have two, because the dress he was wearing could not be stitched with one sheet. When he stood for sermon, people questioned him. He called his son to answer him. His son replied that he gave his sheet to his father so that he could have a full dress. This is the level of democracy. Can we have this sort of democracy when demanding Shari’a?”
Ayub:
“In Islam, the mullah had a role from the very beginning. The concept of Ijtahad (council) is for this purpose, so that the religious scholars may interpret the problems according to the need of the time. I consider the army a very valuable asset. I feel sad, when people say: why do you want to hire a lawyer, why don’t you hire the judge. Journalism is called yellow journalism. All this is very painful”.
“We are talking about the role of army. Many people can use guns, but they are not called the army. Similarly doctors not the army, should run hospitals. Carpeting the roads is the field of engineers not army. Unfortunately, the professionals are not allowed to do their jobs. In the 1965 war, people offered everything they had to the army. It was only because they loved army. Now the army has taken over WAPDA. They are assigned to discover ghost schools and to take taxes. This is not their work. We should not let them do our jobs. Nevertheless, we are not performing our social and national duties by inviting them to rule us”.
Alwin Murad:
“The army has been given facilities that the civilians can’t even think about. Army officers enjoy full benefits of their service, and then are given another chance to get jobs in semi-governments and semi autonomous institutions. They think that they are superior to the civilians. The civilians consider army jobs to be superior to other jobs. People hate the army but love to send their children to the army so that they may also enjoy the same status and facilities”.
Mahjabeen:
“Whether we accept it or not, the army believes that the army and politics are one. The history of Pakistan shows that generals ruled for longer years than politicians. Army officers after retirement are given agricultural land and several other benefits which a civilian can only dream of. Even after retirement, they buy land as if they are buying chocolates because they can buy expensive land for low prices. They are ruining every law. So far they have fought only three major and some minor wars. Everyone knows the result”.
Wasem Wagha:
“We are helpless before the army. A friend commented that religion does not allow the army to have a role. However, there are some things common in a mullah and a soldier; mullah thinks that there are several social evils, which he has to purge. The soldier also thinks he will cleanse the society. Religion has provided more space to the army. Other countries of the world also have armies, but we look at our army in a different way. The army gets even more benefits than mohajars; Punjabis and NWFP people also get some benefits. But those left out of this race are the Siraikies, Sindhis and the Balochis. Women and non-Muslims are also ignored in our situation. The army has guns to fire. Can they clean the social evils as well?”
George Clement:
“The military is not only interfering in social life, but also taking a lot from our treasury. Whether the army is in power or not, it has its grip on the system. It is not only heading the civilian institutions, but also enjoying the decision making power directly or indirectly. What are the reasons for the civil society’s inability to run the country? Beside many other reasons, one reason is that many capitalists, politicians, and bureaucrats have their relatives in the army. Civil society is becoming weaker. Thus, the situation is quite difficult and horrible”.
Romana Bashir:
“Political people have established a network of blood relations with the military personnel. Such is the psyche of the leaders at the grassroots level (whom we idealize) that if a general invites them to dinner, they let it be known to the whole world and feel happy and proud to be invited by a general. A prime minister (PM) takes dictation from the president and later poses that he is giving direct instructions”.
Rufin Wilson:
“The question is: how did the army get this political role? Our governments are formed abroad. There are many incidents that tell so many things. Therefore, it is not the army alone that is responsible for creating problems in the society. There are some other factors as well. If we want to bring change then we must struggle to remove the foreign influence from our politics”.
Peter Jacob:
“History explains that we requested the US for a visit of our prime minister. When Liaqat Ali Khan ignored the invitation of the Soviet president and went to the US instead, it was a deciding moment for our politics. With the Baghdad Pact, we became important for America and since then whenever we are needed by America we are there. Otherwise we are left alone. When the army came some incomplete tasks were completed, especially joint electorate, which was demanded by religious minorities. The two political parties in their short tenure in power could not do so. The army initiated separate electorates and the army could revert to it again. In contrast the army was unable to bring harmony among the people of different religions. Thus, in the presence of the army the nation was divided in various ways”.
Abdul Khalique Junejo:
“We would like to eliminate the difference between the rights of the minority and majority. Every citizen should be treated as equal. This is possible only in democracy. Whenever there is a non-democratic government, it creates differences. We also need to know that democracy does not come in a day. It takes years through a political process and this process is very slow”.
Ms. Mangla Sharma:
“Whenever the army took over, it had a poor rapport with the minorities. It is because it is cut off from the mainstream society. It lives in separate cantonments. It is also a fact that religious minorities have no access to GHQ. Therefore, they are completely ignored”.
Peter Jacob:
“The concept of social justice does not exist in our country. There are some deceptions in this field. For example there are some seats kept for women and religious minorities. But GHQ chooses those who are elected on these reserved seats. Therefore, even women or religious minorities filling those seats are not working for the rights of their communities. They obey their GHQ masters who chose them. They give us reserved seats and tell us that they are safeguarding our rights. But the reality is different. The British for a long time ruled Ireland and several Irish men were serving their army. Similarly our army recruits a small number of persons from minority communities to impress that they are with them”.
M. Parkash:
“It is true that the army ruled for more than half the time of our history. If the politicians are not going to change their habit of criticizing for the sake of criticizing and opposing the incumbent elected governments, then our country might face army rule again and again”.
Abdul Khalique Junejo:
“The concept of democracy is not possible without political parties. If any state institution becomes strong, the credit goes to political parties. India and Pakistan came into being at the same time. However, India made its institutions strong whereas in Pakistan personalities were stronger than institutions. Consequently, the institutions lost their credibility. In India, even decisions made by Mr. Gandhi could not be implemented without the approval of the supreme council. In Pakistan, we love the one-man show. In the past, two major parties came up as the champions of democracy. Both the parties when in opposition, said that the other was corrupt, and invited the army to set things right; both are equally responsible for martial laws. When Gen. Musharaf came to power, we pleaded him to save us from mullahs. It was only because of his perceived liberal character as he was shown walking with puppies. However, we cannot say that every person walking with puppies can save the nation. In Sindh, all the landlords take dogs for a walk. Will they also save us from mullahs?”
George Clement:
“In the past, we have seen that the two major parties have operated through their connections with the army and America. They operated according to the foreign agenda. They don’t go after the people’s needs. They only work for themselves or their masters. They forget the public”.
Rubina Feroze:
“We must now talk about joint electorates and the structure of political parties, so that religious minorities could also be included in mainstream politics. Minorities are making their separate parties in spite of the fact that the major political parties have established minority wings. There is no need of separate parties. It should be mandatory for all parties to adjust religious minorities and give them tickets on general seats. I was in Bangladesh. A women worker from a minority alliance said that women were given 33% representation in local bodies and 17% in assemblies in Pakistan, and she appreciated the performance of the present government. However, she did not say anything about the problems faced by Pakistani citizens in Bangladesh. This woman was nominated from a minority alliance. She holds a key post there but was unable to draw a clear picture of the problems faced by the minorities before the audience”.
Waseem Wagha:
“Politicians and political parties best performed in the 1970s. Zia’ era was the worst for politics. There were notices in hotels, tea-stalls and public places that political discussion was not allowed. After 1985, the only job assigned to politicians was the procurement of small jobs for the people of their areas. The political parties have undergone changes. No doubt that women got 33 per cent seats in local bodies and 17 per cent seats in assemblies. Yet they are ineffective because they have not become an essential part of the system. Political parties always took up the issue of minorities for their own benefit. Whenever there is any problem regarding minorities, they try to get the full media coverage, and a small group of minorities is there to support them. Therefore, even women or minority representatives are not able to help their respective constituencies”.
Peter Jacob:
“No system can be a system for all times. The system needs changes and amendments in the changing world. I would like to give the example of Dr. Ambedker, Chairman of the Indian constitution committee, an intellectual figure and a social worker. People congratulated him on finishing the constitutional draft. He said, ‘ I could not give anything to my people in this Constitution’. This statement proved to be true. After 56 years of independence, there are still separate seats for dalits, and their condition is still the same. Therefore, we need people who really could make positive contribution to the welfare of their nation and community in particular”.
Samina Imtiaz:
“If the public is not aware of its rights, politicians will keep exploiting them and the army will keep on intervening in politics. I would like to make one recommendation: lack of civic education is creating havoc. Perhaps the subject is being taught in the schools but students are not taught the meaning of democracy or the political process. Democracy is not only to raise your voice for your rights but also to fulfill your responsibilities. Did people fulfill their responsibilities? Did we raise our voice against those for whom we voted, who violated our rights. We are just waiting for a messiah to liberate us, and let us have our rights”.
Ms. Mangla Sharma:
“What is real democracy? We have not yet experienced it in Pakistan, but at international forums, it is claimed that there is real democracy in Pakistan. Where is it in reality?”
Mahjabeen Khan:
“In my opinion, real democracy means that people can communicate freely. We can share the role model of the US, where people know positive and negative aspects of their leaders. In India people are also free to criticize or praise their leaders. But the case in Pakistan is entirely different. People are attached emotionally to parties without thinking about their role. When they are disappointed with their party then they stay home and do not vote. This is not democracy. This is hypocrisy”.
Rufin Wilson:
“The foundation of democracy is laid by citizens. To build up citizens’ character and to take care of their welfare is the function of any democratic institution. Only democratic institutions can make a good system”.
Peter Jacob:
“Ladies and Gentlemen we are thankful to you for your supportive role. I am glad that each one of us spoke candidly. If the recommendations are sent to the government officials then definitely a positive message can be conveyed. The truth is bitter enough to swallow. We need to behave democratically so that some of the democratic norms could be established. We need to act sensibly for restoration of democracy. Otherwise the army may get another reason to stay back. We should try our best to strengthen institutions instead of individuals. If individuals are not around, the institutions should not cease to work. They should continue to perform their functions. Now Mr. George Clement and Rufin Wilson are here with the recommendations prepared by the committee last night”.
George Clement:
“The recommendations are as follows. If you have any objection or if you want to rephrase or add something more after reading these recommendations, please do so”.
RECOMMENDATIONS
| • |
The House strongly feels that rapid amendments in the constitution should be avoided and discouraged. |
| • |
All Amendments, which are arbitrary and meant to favour any single individual, party or government should be repealed and withdrawn. |
| • |
The Objectives Resolution no longer forms part of the Constitution. Rather the Lahore Resolution of 1940 known as the Resolution of Pakistan must replace it. The House felt that any other subsequent resolution couldn’t form the basis of the Constitution. |
| • |
The constitution of Pakistan should be based on the Resolution of 1940 and no other subsequent resolution or document should form the basis of the Constitution. |
| • |
The role of the Armed Forces should be defined as defenders of the boundaries of the country and no governing role should be assigned to them in the Constitution of Pakistan. |
Strong recommendations were made by the House that the Constitution of Pakistan should conform to the spirit of the Pakistan Resolution; that it should abolish all partisan amendments hitherto enacted; and that it must embody all the needs and demands of the federating units and must address the current issues and respond to the contemporary problems.
Haroon Nasir:
“Ladies and gentlemen, these are the recommendations, which the committee has prepared after the two sessions. We will share these recommendations with the authorities, with MPAs and MNAs, and the policy makers i.e. bureaucrats and all those who have influence over future policies”.
“At the end I would like to thank you for taking time out of your busy schedules and sharing your experiences and thoughts with us. I would especially like to thank Ms. Mangla Sharma from Karachi, Mr. M. Parkash from Hyderabad and Mr. Peter Jacob from Lahore for moderating the three sessions. Our discussion, I am sure, would be beneficial for all of us. I would also like to thank our partners IDEA of Sweden, Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) of Dehli, SDSA Pakistan, and last but not the least my staff members and all those who worked hard to make this seminar a success. May God bless you. Good bye!”
Executive Summary
The House deliberated on the economic and cultural realities prevailing among the communities belonging to religions other than Islam. The House voiced its concern that the majority community, intentionally or inadvertently, is pursuing indoctrination of Islamic creeds and values upon the students of other religions at every level of their educational life. The House generally focused on the following points:
| 1. |
The prevailing poverty, which often assumes horrendous proportions, is due to the overall control and authority over the means of production, resources and utilities. The communities of other religions are often deprived of the opportunities to share these resources. |
| 2. |
The majority’s psyche often determines the inter-relationships between the citizens as being superiors and inferiors. It causes depression in the communities of other religions, as they feel excluded from the cultural and national events. The majority community often tends to empathize with the Arabian culture whereby the communities of other religions feel alienated and excluded. |
| 3. |
The Hindu community does not get the permission from the government to construct and erect new temples for worship. Nor are they allowed to have space for the cemeteries. The participants noted that the Pakistani communities, including the Hindu community are fragmented and atomized into various small factions whereby the caste system and the class system leave people divided and pitched against each other, thereby disrupting the social fabric. |
| 4. |
As far as the media is concerned, it is biased in favour of the Muslim community. It does not highlight those festivals and events, which have a great value for the communities of other religions. Whenever a symbolic presentation appears on the media, only unimportant aspects are projected, thus leaving out the core message of the events. In a nutshell, the economic and cultural life of the communities of other religions in Pakistan is far from satisfactory. The need for more awareness and better understanding is very much desired. |
| 5. |
As far as the Ideology of Pakistan is concerned, it was noted by the participants that it comes to mean the Ideology of Muslim supremacy. Thus, this Ideology remains open to personal as well as subjective interpretations of various governments. |
| 6. |
As far as the Objectives Resolution is concerned, firstly, its text has negative effects on the communities of other religions living in Pakistan. Secondly, it has been shrewdly incorporated into the main body of the Constitution. It is important to note that the Objectives Resolution was never intended to be the integral part of the constitution from its very inception. |
| 7. |
As far as the Charter of the Human Rights is concerned, every government in power pays only lip service to its articles. It is a contradiction in terms. The communities of other religions, whose rights are professed so ardently, are denied the right to be elected President or Prime Minister of the country. They are virtually barred from being elected as Chairman of the Senate or the Speaker of the National Assembly or Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan. |
| 8. |
Several laws, which contain Islamic provisions, are often liable to different interpretations, as the terminology used therein is vague, inaccurate and misleading. The necessary amendments, which have been introduced, should have the precise meanings in that text. |
| 9. |
The discriminatory laws, such as, the Law of Evidence, the Hadood Ordinance, the Law of Blasphemy, etc. need to be repealed forthwith. |
| 10. |
Forced conversion should be made a punishable act and the women and the minors should be safeguarded from such conversions. |
| 11. |
The Labor Laws, the Personal & Family Laws affecting the communities of other religions must be streamlined. |
