Welcome to Pakistan
Secular or theocratic: State needs to deliver

Secular or theocratic: State needs to deliver

Would you call those who form the Pakistani state "true Muslims"? I wouldn't.

Umair Rasheed December 16, 2010

The discourse on the secular versus religious state in Pakistan is almost always based on the personal alignments of the debaters. Routinely missed out though are the hard facts about the actual actors – people and institutions.

If the average citizen is asked to describe in one word those who form this state, one can rest be assured that it wouldn’t be pious, modest, honest or trustworthy – the presumable attributes of momins and true Muslims.

The state structure has its roots in the Delhi sultanate and then the Mughal Empire, which was established by Muslims from Central Asia. The true foundation, however, was laid by the British crown. Except for a few statutes introduced after partition to give it a semblance of Islamic character, most of what forms the constitution of the Islamic republic is derived from the Government of India Act of 1935.

Be it the armed forces, parliament, bureaucracy or judiciary, all institutions of this so-called Islamic state are knee-deep in corruption allegations - from French submarines to missing persons and from Hajj scams to judicial murders.

Then, there is a Council of Islamic Ideology, a ministry of religious affairs and the Federal Shariat Court (FSC), with their bread-and-butter linked to the theocratic project. I have yet to come across a single service these institutions have rendered towards Islam or for Muslims. For example, the FSC ruling which declared land reforms un-Islamic disregards the fact that the biggest impediment to overcoming rural poverty is landlessness.

Because religion has always been portrayed as the overriding influence in state affairs, the custodians of the Islamic-republic trademark owe us an explanation for this "un-Islamic" conduct of the people and institutions that make up the Islamic state. Be it secular or theocratic, the state cannot continue to be unrepresentative, totalitarian and oppressive.

WRITTEN BY:
Umair Rasheed Works at the Lahore desk of The Express Tribune and tweets @umairrasheed1

The views expressed by the writer and the reader comments do not necassarily reflect the views and policies of the Express Tribune.

COMMENTS (13)

zaigham | 13 years ago | Reply @Awais Farid Khan: you are right. we have to first prepare the people and then carry from their on. as for Quaid i din't mean that since his stance was secular we should forget it. The problem is liberals tend to portray QUaid as secular minded while conservatives portray him as opposite. My point was that, it doesn't matter now what his dream was 60 years ago. His priorities as not really relevant as we have new problems and need a solution that can solve them.

Awais Farid Khan | 13 years ago | Reply @ Zaigham Do you know what institutions are made of? I read the blog and my point is that instead of focusing on the laws and policies of institutions, our government should focus on the education. We already have enough laws. When i say educated people it does'nt mean the people like you and me. We do have the degree of medicine or engineering or business but we donot know our rights. We donot know our own direction. Our mind is corrupted by western propoganda and our actions are resstricted by our elites. Institutions will become strong when the people become educated and they know their rights.Corruption does'nt grow overnight. But corruption goes unpunished only when people only do what they are told. How many of us stood against the tyrany of previous governments? I did not raise my voice in the streets but only wore black ribon on my arm. Institutions are made of people. I am really frustrated by my people. We were ready to stand together for iraq war but when came a time to stand for the institutions our minds were being corrupted by media & govt. Our caliphs were religious leaders as well as generals of the arm forces. However i thing i agree with you. Quaid's job was to create a piece of land where we can live under the protection of islamic laws. Now its our duty, the future leaders of Pakistan, to make our people to realise this. @ umair we have to know one thing ie there is no such thing as secularism. Those who say that their state is secular they are wrong. All the current laws used by different states were influenced by the religion in the first place. Even in America, their one dollar bill has a quotation "In god we Trust". Reliogion was, is and will remain an important tool of ruling class. what we need to do is to create a balance of the use of religion. The middle path is the right path. You and me disagree with the mulahs because of their interpretation of the religion not the religion itself. The real question is why do we need to follow their interpretation in the first place? Becasue to confirm the truthfulness of an idea or a philosophy or a history is not the part of my people's nature. We donot research. We need to break the pyramid cycle and create an inverted social pyramid.

VIEW MORE COMMENTS

zaigham | 13 years ago | Reply With no insult intended, Quaid-e-Azam is long dead. He had a dream but we are living in a nightmare. Realities have changed. To top everything, enough confusion exists as to what exactly was his dream? A western-styled secular state or a progressive Muslim state. I think its time we stop we all stop looking back for proving whether he was with 'us' or with 'them'. We need to discuss what is the way out from this amalgam of religious bigotry, corruption and intolerance. No, it was not their religious position. Even Ansars of Madina put forward their claim to lead based on their services to Muslims. Eventually, it was the elevated status of Quraish in the Arabia's tribal system (primarily due to their guardianship of Makkah in pre-Islamic Arabia) that was the deciding factor. Any other setup, in my opinion would have resulted in a blood bath. I hope you are aware of huge number reforms undertaken during their eras to improve the society, e.g., police, postal system, dept of accountability, etc. These civil, political and social reforms are proofs of their political and social novelty. There selection cannot merely be based on theocratic aspirations. We are of course only fed the religious narrative which largely ignores and downplays these features. lobby? minority? come on, I'm not an alien in Pakistan. Blasphemy law is not the work of few fringe, nutter and radical elements. Its the mindset of the people. I am sure more than half of the population believe it is correct to kill the one who blasphemes. Or at least thats my impression in my 30 year of existence. The raw power still rests with the cleric of the mohalla mosque. Each Friday, he delivers such pearls of wisdom and teaches rebellion against any future reforms. Of course will of majority must never translate into tyranny. In practice, even democracy is in tatters. Its heredity nature in Pakistan is although disastrous, but does little to blot the original concept in our eyes. Why? Because we know the what it really is. This hierarchy is a result long existing submission to kings, tehseeldars, jageerdars, waderas, sardars, peers, etc. Likewise, the people have also out sourced their religious understanding to this lot of mullahs.

Milestogo | 13 years ago | Reply Give it some time all minorities in Pakistan will convert to Islam.

Umair | 13 years ago | Reply By secular state, I mean that religion should have nothing to do with the affairs of state, as the founding father himself asserted in his August 11 speech. Its a private concern and everyone should be able to excercise his own beliefs. And as you yourself imply that state should be neutral. I wont go into the history of Islamic state because that in and of itself is a vast topic of debate, On the selection of four caliphs, however, I dont understand how were they better administrators or how could this have been a criteria for there ascending to the seat of power. As I see it, they were the closest to the prophet and it was their religious credentials that other sahaba agreed to their leadership. About ur point that if the people themselves want the state not to secular, I agree ultimately its about the people and their choices. Having said that there are two qualifications however, one, people have never been allowed to judge these matters as it has always been a religious lobby (which is in a minority yet its visibilty and coherence makes it into a very effective pressure group) that stands guard to the Islamic state (for their vested interests, I'd say). For instance, see how this lobby has activated in the wake of the current debate on blasphemy laws. If one can call general elections a bleak reflection of people's choices tu the fact that PPP has always emerged with the majority number of seats (and in theory it stands for a secular state, I wont go into what it actually does in practice thatd take the issue to another tangent) does to an extent show their leanings. Also, religious parties who avowedly call for shariah have never secured a significant number of seats Second, when we say people's will is supreme, we have to ensure that this does not culminate into the tyranny of the majority. Which is even more important in a country like ours where there are very fine lines between the majority (sunni islam) and minorities (be they sectarian, religious or linguistic) And I don't agree with ur point that Islam does not endorse religious hierarchy. Looking at the religious parties other than JI all are based on hierarchical structure of leadership (Fazlur Rahman, Samiul Haq) plus the newly found Sunni Ittehad Council comprises the patrons of all seminaries which too are no democratic posts (the sahibzadas, peerzadas and all).. even sufi islam has entrenched hierarchies,, Gillani, Shah Mehmood and several others are Gadinashins and the seat only runs in the family, no merit or democratic opinion can undo this setup. I mean what it stands for in theory is debatable, but in practice it is very clear from the posture of Islamic parties that they are deeply embedded in social hierarchies.

zaigham | 13 years ago | Reply well CII purpose is more than just harnessing the allies to form a government... its just like any other parliamentary committee, composed of experts from a certain field, whose consultation or recommendations are sought when drafting laws for that particular field... final decision rests with the parliament... i agree that currently its a joke and is only being used for the purpose you have mentioned already... but isn't it the case with all the other things?

Ahmed Bilal Hakeem | 13 years ago | Reply Umair is very right in identifying the chasm that exists between the perceived Islamic character of state institutions and the colonial foundations of the state structure. However, the debate is crucial in understanding what the concept of theocratic state entails in terms of representation and its inclination towards being non-inclusive.

zaigham | 13 years ago | Reply just wondering what is your definition of secularism? In European context it was the separation of state and church, initially, and later as they disregarded religion completely, they excluded religion as well. Theocracy is something where you give the ruling power to the religious class (priests) just because they happen to be priests, e.g., Medieval Europe where Pope used to be King of the Kings, Iran (even though Ahmedinijad is an elected leader, but the final authority rests with some Ayotullah) and Saudi Arabia (to some extent as its a monarchy but clerics have an enormous influence). Since Islam doesn't have any room for priestly class or doesn't endorse a religious hierarchy, it can't be a theocracy. Therefore, it is inherently secular in the first sense. The event right after the death of the Prophet, where there was a dispute who is to be the next leader, Ansars forwarded their claim lead based on their services and not their religious status. In the end Quraish got the right to lead because of their wide spread influence over the Arab lands. Moreover, the first four caliphs were also not chosen in their religious capacity but because they were best the possible leaders and administrator at that time. Now coming back to the second sense of secularism, I think its to be decided by the people. If people decide that religion should play a role or guide the workings, why would it be wrong? If you bar religion from the Constitution, it would be similar to a theocratic setup but only just the opposite. If one think religious laws are out dated or barbaric, one has to convince people to change their minds. I see no other way.

there is hardly anything Islamic about the institutions and people who form this state

There was nothing Islamic about the reforms undertaken by the four caliphs during their time as well. Institutions are neutrals. Its the false narrative that we have been fed which creates such confusions.

U | 13 years ago | Reply @Amaar: though I totally stand for a secular state and precisely bec of the point you mentioned, I just think that the debate should be done in the backdrop of these facts (that there is hardly anything Islamic about the institutions and people who form this state @zaigham: thanks for liking the writeup, the only real purpose CII or FSC and MOFA serve, I believe, is that they provide the incumbent govt with an additional source to attract cronies (so-called allies) for instance recently PPP made Maulana Sheerani the CII chairman to buy Fazlur Rahman's support for the RGST. Which unfortunately for the PPP could not be kept for longer thanks to the hajj scam and the Karzmi vs Swati drama @Awais Farid Khan: I understand that there has been some miscommunication, actually a sentence was omitted in the edited version which would have clarified my point about the 'people'...I'm posting it here "Almost like a pyramid, the tip of this structure is the Chief of Army Staff (which currently is Mr Kiyani and previously was Mr Musharraf) and it runs all the way down to countless naib qasids (peons) in basic pay scale -1. In between, are thousands of patwaris, SHOs, PAs, secretaries etc." so when I said people I meant those who are employed by the state i.e. who form the state (see state is not something abstract, its the people employed in it and the institutions that form it) My point about the people is that they are hardly the prototypes Islam stands for (the attributes that I mention in the blog), so the fuss about a theocratic state is only an excuse for those at the helm of power to perpetuate their power. Not once did I intend to malign the ordinary people for their lack of education or other shortcomings (I believe education is not even an issue, the country has been run by the educated lot for 63 years and see where have they brought us :)

Amaar | 13 years ago | Reply A secular state in my view is simply a state that does not create laws for the preferential or the discriminatory treatment on the basis of religion. In Pakistan the state cannot deliver precisely because there are many laws which do this discrimination.

Hasan | 13 years ago | Reply @Awais Farid Khan: So wait, you are blaming the state for 'keeping people uneducated'? Who re-elects these people who run the state? Ignorance is bred into our nation. Be it literate or illiterate. The issue of not delivering Islamic services is completely different. It is the nation that is at fault. Has anyone of us taken some time to ponder into what our religion really says? Not everyone has. We take the word of the Mullah for it. Fresh example is the case of blasphemy law. Again and again proven un-Islamic (http://dinopak.wordpress.com/2010/11/30/why-blasphemy-law-is-not-islamic/) but nothing. I argued, with a 'Doctor', an 'Engineer', a 'Physician' about it, even they think it is Islamic not because they researched it. Because their maulvi said so. When you have literate people following a mullah blindly, I don't think you can blame the less fortunate, less educated to do the same. These religious people, you all send them in the national assemblies. For once, just for once, open the Qura'an and try to understand it without a Mullah by your side.

zaigham | 13 years ago | Reply at awais: have you even read this beautiful piece? he isn't talking about people but institutions... even in the caption it says 'institutions'... yes our people are ignorant but thats not their worst trait... their worst trait is inclination to do corruption... everybody does that in his/her own humble way... these poor man of ours, would be willing to raise hell and even die if a cleric tells him something is blasphemous or some un-islamic law is being passed... yet these people are strangely immune when the same cleric tells him not to cheat, steal or kill... at writer: its a good blog... short and to the point... CII is somehow understandable, but i have never really understood this thing FSC... but why the surprise over land reform ruling, it fits with its character... sufi o mulla malukiat kay banday hain tamam i agree that our problem is not a secular state or an Islamic state, our problem is our morals...

Awais Farid Khan | 13 years ago | Reply I find the comments of photographs insulting. If you let your people uneducated and treat them as third citizen in their own country, then its not the fault of the state to let the people ignorant in the first place. first you donot provide food and then you torture those who steal a loaf of bread. this is not justice. State keeps them uneducated and then punish them for the lack of education. Ironic....My question to you, do you or your class provide free education (may it be religious or modern), does our poor people find food from our doors? Who are the poeple who still remembers the flood victims or the earth quake victims or the victims of War on terror? We donot know the importance of Rs. 100 but for them its a whole day meal. You can not judge the story of the book from its title. Visit madrisas and you will be surprised by the number of students there. Can we provide free education to them. no i guess not. provide them proper services and you will be surprised by the outcome. Islam is not just books or laws or council but the whole life style. Its how you see, meet, act, feel, recieve, give, perform, say, hear, stop, rise , fall, deal. its not that simple to become a true muslim......

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ

Secular or theocratic: State needs to deliver

More by this writer

FOLLOW US