Standing up to be counted

Daily times, January 1, 2006
COMMENT: Standing up to be counted —Sherry Rehman

All of us must consider the questions thrown up by the premise of Qandeel’s petition. Can minorities really feel that they have equal opportunities in a country where the constitution states that the head of the state has to be a Muslim; where the blasphemy law is used routinely to victimise them; where knowledge of other religions is not valued at par with knowledge of Islam?

Earlier this year, a girl from Gujranwala applied for admission to King Edward Medical College, but was rejected. Instead, another student, who was awarded 20 additional marks for being a hafiz-e-Quran, was accepted. Qandeel, the aggrieved Christian girl, has since posed the following question before the Lahore High Court: is she, a Pakistani Christian, equal to a fellow Muslim citizen?

In a society where litigation is seen as a political ploy, or non-option, Qandeel has raised some critical issues. The questions are central to the way we perceive ourselves as citizens of a nation-state founded on a confessional political campaign. They are equally germane to the matter of the ideology of Pakistan.

Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s vision of a secular state is challenged everyday on the streets and in legislatures of Pakistan, where reactionary elements have hijacked the essence of what he sought to achieve: a haven for undivided India’s Muslim minorities to prosper in. That haven was at no point designed to exclude, marginalise or discriminate against non-Muslims who became a minority in a land they had lived in for generations. Yes, Pakistan was a Muslim state, extracted from British India on the basis of a communalised political campaign. But the white stripe on the green national flag was meant to emphasise the importance of communal diversity to the project of a secular state. In terms of citizenship and rights guaranteed under the constitution, Pakistan would be a state where Hindus would cease to be Hindus, and Muslims cease to be Muslims. Everyone, including Christians, would be free to worship in their temples to their God, and no Muslim, Christian, Hindu or members of other religious sect be denied the right to celebrate their identity.

Qandeel has asked a question that disturbs almost all minority Pakistanis. She is challenging a legal system riddled with flaws and internal contradictions. According to Article 22 of the constitution, “no citizen shall be denied admission to any educational institution receiving aid from public revenues on the ground only of race, religion, caste or place of birth,” and according to Article 27, “No citizen otherwise qualified for appointment in the service of Pakistan shall be discriminated against in respect of any such appointment on the ground only of race, religion, caste, sex, residence or place of birth.” From this it would appear that the treatment meted out to Qandeel amounts to a violation of the constitution.

This is sadly, not the first example of the dismal indifference towards minorities and disregard for the constitution. Recently, the atrocious Sangla Hill incident illustrated the government’s failure to protect the rights of minorities and served as another reminder to society that the much-contested blasphemy law is a tool for victimisation and persecution of the minorities.

The discrimination is hardly surprising given a political climate in which laws serve as tools for authorities to further their own agenda, irrespective of the aggrieved person’s response. All of us must consider the questions thrown up by the premise of Qandeel’s petition. Can minorities really feel that they have equal opportunities in a country where the constitution states that the head of the state has to be a Muslim; where the blasphemy law is used routinely to victimise them; where knowledge of other religions is not valued at par with knowledge of Islam? In other words if learning the Quran by heart is rewarded with 20 marks for admission then shouldn’t the same rule be extended to knowledge of Christianity and Hinduism? The last question is additionally complicated and adequate reason for rethinking the decision. It needs to be recognised that it is virtually impossible to define what amounts to “considerable knowledge” for each religion? The logical conclusion would be that it makes far more sense to abolish the 20 marks awarded for hifz. A similar debate has been holding back a major revision of our public school textbooks, which are still filled with hate-language and war symbolism targeting Hindus as largely equated with India, the state’s old arch-enemy.

Naeem Sadiq’s heartfelt complaint to the chairman of the Higher Education Commission is welcome. However, while it is necessary to protest against such incidents, it is just as necessary to avoid losing sight of the central conflict — in this case, targeted discrimination and affirmative action. Mr Sadiq praises the Indian parliament for passing an affirmative action bill reserving university seats for lower castes, and admonishes Pakistan for continuing to favour the majority and the powerful.

Implicit in his statement about Pakistan favouring the majority, unlike India, is the inaccurate assumption that the lower castes of India compose the minority population whom the government is seeking to protect. Together, the Scheduled Tribes, Castes, and Other Backward Classes (all official terms used in the Indian constitution) constitute over 50 percent of Indian citizens. Sceptics question the value of a set of definitions that label over half the country “backward” and in need of state intervention in the first place. This is one reason why the issue of positive discrimination in India is so contentious. It is also why the Indian government has consistently failed in efforts over the years to follow through on even a limited agenda.

Lastly, there is a need to consider what the focal point in the Qandeel situation should be. Mr Sadiq’s claim about Pakistan’s political preferences once again wrongly assumes that hafiz-e-Qurans in this country are in the powerful majority. Given Pakistan’s dismally high illiteracy rate, it is probably safe to say that persons receiving education — religious or other — are not the bulk of the population. The point here should not be to pit one minority population against another, but rather, to focus on the larger problem of state-sponsored discriminatory policies, the denial of equal treatment for its citizens, and means by which these can be overcome. One can only hope that Qandeel’s courage in taking her case to the courts will serve as a wake-up call to the ruling elite.

Recognising our collective folly can be a useful first step towards change. There is no absence of viable agendas or good people in the country. It is just difficult for the majority to be anything but silent in an atmosphere where politics is derided as a refuge for scoundrels. Yet without political organisation, no real challenge can be mounted to a decaying status quo. We all need to stand up and be counted. If Qandeel can do it, so can many others.

Sherry Rehman, a former editor of Herald magazine, is a member of the National Assembly and head of policy planning for the Pakistan People’s Party