Did Pakistan's Founder Envision an Islamic Republic?

"Who am I to give you the constitution? The Prophet of Islam had given us a constitution 1300 years ago." Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah

Did Quaid-e-Azam envision Pakistan as an Islamic Republic? What constitution was he referring to when he said "the Prophet of Islam had given us a constitution 1300 years ago"? These questions need to be explored and answered to understand what Pakistan's founder intended.

Misaq-e-Madina:

The Islamic state the Prophet of Islam established 1400 years ago was the state of Madina. The constitution of this state is referred to as "Misaq-e-Madina" or the Charter of Madina.  Let's examine the contents of this document.


Here's the opening line of Misaq-e-Madina:

"This is a document from Muhammad the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace), governing relations between the Believers i.e. Muslims of Quraysh and Yathrib and those who followed them and worked hard with them. They form one nation -- Ummah."

It clearly says that all citizens of "Yathrib" (ancient name of Madina), regardless of  their tribe or religion, are part of one nation--"Ummah". So the word "Ummah" here does not exclude non-Muslims.

Further into the "Misaq" document, it says: "No Jew will be wronged for being a Jew. The enemies of the Jews who follow us will not be helped. If anyone attacks anyone who is a party to this Pact the other must come to his help."

The Mesaq assures equal protection to all citizens of Madina, including non-Muslim tribes which agreed to it. The contents of Misaq-e-Madina, Islam's first constitution approved by Prophet Mohammad 1400 years ago, appear to have inspired Quaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah vision of Pakistan where people of all religions and nationalities live in harmony with equal rights and protections under the law.

Quai-e-Azam's Pluralistic Vision:

Pakistan's founder's pluralistic vision is reflected in the word's of what he described as Prophet Muhammad's constitution. It is also found in Quaid-e-Azam's other speeches that are mistakenly seen by some as conflicting with his quote: "Who am I to give you the constitution? The Prophet of Islam had given us a constitution 1300 years ago."

Here is another quote that reaffirm Jinnah's pluralistic vision of Pakistan:

"You are free; you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed that has nothing to do with the business of the State"


Two-Nation-Theory:

Some might now ask what was the need for the Two-Nation-Theory given the above vision of the Quaid? The Quaid's search for Pakistan as an independent state for Muslims was inspired to give India's minority Muslims better opportunities to grow and prosper. While it's true that Pakistan has not lived up to the Quaid's expectations, it is also true that, in spite of all their problems, Muslims in Pakistan are still much better off  than their counterparts in India.

The growing intolerance in Modi's India and the Indian government commission headed by former Indian Chief Justice Rajendar Sachar confirm that Muslims are the new untouchables in caste-ridden and communal India. Indian Muslims suffer heavy discrimination in almost every field from  education and housing to jobs.  Their incarceration rates are also much higher than their Hindu counterparts.

According to Sachar Commission report, Muslims are now worse off than the Dalit caste, or those called untouchables. Some 52% of Muslim men are unemployed, compared with 47% of Dalit men. Among Muslim women, 91% are unemployed, compared with 77% of Dalit women. Almost half of Muslims over the age of 46 ca not read or write. While making up 11% of the population, Muslims account for 40% of India’s prison population. Meanwhile, they hold less than 5% of government jobs.

Those who say that the Two-Nation-Theory died with the creation of Bangladesh in 1971 are wrong. They need to be reminded that the Lahore Resolution of March 23, 1940, in fact called for two "independent states", not "state", in Muslim majority areas of India in the north east and the north west. The other fact to remember is that Bangladesh did not choose to merge with India after separation from Pakistan.

Summary:

The Quaid-e-Azam sought to follow the Misaq-e-Madina, a very progressive and pluralistic charter, when he said, "who am I to give you the constitution? The Prophet of Islam had given us a constitution 1300 years ago." The rise of fanatic Hindu Nationalists in India and the worsening conditions of Indian Muslims have reinforced the rationale for the Quaid insisted on pursuit of the Two Nation Theory.  Pakistan has indeed been a great blessing for vast majority of Muslims who chose to make it their home.

Here are a couple of video discussions on this and other subjects:

http://vimeo.com/82796819

http://vimeo.com/103030587


Nawaz Sharif Govt Survival Questioned; ISIS Advances in Iraq from WBT TV on Vimeo.


Jinnah’s birthday, Bangladesh Independence, Abdul Qadir Molla hanging, Aam Aadmi Party success India from WBT TV on Vimeo.

Related Links:

Haq's Musings

Upwardly Mobile Pakistan

Jaswant Lauds Jinnah

Are Muslims Better Off in Jinnah's Pakistan?

Comparing Pakistan and Bangladesh

Is This a 1971 moment in Pakistan's History?

Is Pakistan Too Big to Fail?

Pakistan: A Great Blessing for Muslims

Pakistan's Top Politicians Guilty of Treason under Article 6?

Many actions of top Pakistani politicians have been and continue to be in clear violation of several articles of the Constitution of Pakistan since 2008. The biggest examples are violations of Articles 62, 63 and 140A. Should they, along with former President Musharraf, be tried for treason under Article 6 of the Constitution? Let's try and examine this question in some detail.

Articles 62:

About half of Pakistani lawmakers do not pay any tax. Tax dodgers and lawbreakers can not be allowed to serve in Parliament under Article 62, clause F of the Constitution of Pakistan. They can not vote for nor serve as Prime Minister or cabinet ministers.

Article 63:

Most of the politicians of all stripes in the national parliament and provincial legislatures steal electricity and gas and do not pay their utility bills. Many have also defaulted on bank loans worth billions of rupees. The constitution (Article 63) says that any defaulter of electricity and gas bill of more than Rs. 10,000 over six months can not serve as a member of parliament. Hundreds of members of parliament, including government ministers, have had electricity cut off multiple times for defaulting.

Article 140A:

Under Article 140A of Pakistan's constitution, each province is required to  "establish a local government system and devolve political, administrative and financial responsibility and authority to the elected representatives of the local governments". All provincial governments in Pakistan have violated this article since 2008, an extended  period of six years. In addition, the top ruling politicians in each province  have also ignored Supreme Court orders to hold local government elections.

Article 6:

Article 6 says that "any person who abrogates or subverts or suspends or holds in abeyance, or attempts or conspires to abrogate or subvert or suspend or hold in abeyance, the Constitution by use of force or show of force or by any other unconstitutional means shall be guilty of high treason". "Any person aiding or abetting [or collaborating] the acts mentioned in clause shall likewise be guilty of high treason.

The constitution bars the courts from intervening in offenses under article 6 unless the parliament asks the courts to hear such cases, leaving it to the discretion of the politicians to pursue such cases.

Summary:

While it is clear that the courts can not begin Article 6 proceedings against any individual on their own, it is necessary for the courts to pursue violations of Articles 62, 63 and 140A, thereby laying the basis for future prosecutions of current ruling politicians under Article 6 for practically subverting the Constitution and holding key parts of the Constitution in abeyance by virtue of being in power.

The current ruling politicians should be treated no differently than President Musharraf whose decisions while in office in 2007 are now being used to prosecute him under Article 6. President Musharraf's case should serve as a powerful precedent for future cases against all Pakistani rulers, both civilian and military.

Here's a video discussion on the subject:


Sharif's Aides Statements Anger Army; Pak Economy Recovering; Modi Acknowledges Wife from WBT TV on Vimeo.


Related Links:

Haq's Musings

Kudos to Qadri

Musharraf's Treason Trial

Musharraf Wants to Face Trial But Army Opposes it

Vindictive Judges Pursue Musharraf

Musharraf Earned Legitimacy By Good Governance

Can Secular Laws Promote Tolerance in Pakistan?

Guest Post by Vanguard

The Model Town incident in Lahore started the exercise in same old introspection. Most of the essays start with Quaid-e-Azam did not want an Islamic state just a Muslim state, others blame the original sin of carving out Pakistan, some point fingers at Objective Resolution and last but not the least policies of Mard-e-momin Mard-e-haq Zia ul Haq.

What we seem to forget in these exercises is that the people carrying out the rampage have no religious preference per se. They did not selected their targets because the constitution describes them as non Muslim. Today they have murdered Ahmedis, but a few days ago they were murdering general population (religion/sect no bar) in moon market blasts, prior to that firing incident in a Friday prayers in Islamabad Mosque, Sri Lankan cricket team, police academy outside Lahore, GHQ attack, shia procession, pathan roti walas and thailay walas and prior to all this killing of shia professionals in Karachi.

What all this shows is total breakdown of law and order in the country. There are some people hell bent on killing (they might kill a one group more than the others) and the state is incapable of doing anything against them.

I respect Quaid-e-Azam and what I am today is because of Pakistan and hence my gratitude for him. However, Quaid was not a prophet nor an angel. He was a mere mortal and mortals can make mistakes and not everything they do and say is 100% correct. This is not to say that he said anything wrong.

He may have wanted a secular constitution but he believed in democratic principles and left it up to the people through their representatives on how they want to be ruled. If the constituent assembly or the future assemblies decide (rightly or wrongly) that Islam is to be state religion, then democratic principles imply that it should be.

Islam gives equal rights to people from other religions to practice. However, if the Muslim population does not allow the minorities equal rights, its not Islam's fault, rather it is the fault of Muslims and Islam being the state religion not has nothing to do with it.

When minorities are attacked, its not because we are not secular. Take the case honor killings that take place in Sind and Balochistan (most secular of all the ethnicities in Pakistan). It does not have any implicit protection or even a nod in the constitution. How many persons have been tried for honor killings?

Akbar Bugti (though murdered extra judicially) himself claimed to have murdered his subjects in his youth just because he could. There is a minister in Balochistan government who admitted to be on panchayat that agreed to burying women alive. Except for little hue and cry when he made the statement, nothing else has happened against them. Now that we don't have Hudood Ordinance, still such crimes continue and go unpunished.

Despite how it appears to be, I am not recommending here that constitution and law should not be improved. What I am implying here is that even if we changed the law, things will not improve because all this happens in spite of the law, not because of it.

With the exception of Zia and Nawaz Sharif, the country has been ruled by what you call in Pakistan secular or liberals. We lost half of the country under the stewardship of liberals i.e., Islam had nothing to do with it other than probably delaying the secession. Seculars were ruling the country under a secular constitution. Compared to the murder and rape that took place in Bangladesh, the current crimes pale in comparison against them.

Some people claim that it was bound to happen since there was a thousand mile hostile country in between. One of the most stupidest arguments ever. The world had seen large empires with the seat of empire sometimes at a distance of a month's journey from the frontier even before airplanes were invented and such empires existed for centuries.

Coming back to secularism, we have many commentators exploiting the Lahore tragedy to spew vitriol against Islam nowadays. Will they be happy if so called Islamic injunctions are taken out of the constitution of Pakistan? I don't think so because a few weeks ago some of them were spewing in a similar vein against Khyber Pakhtunkhwa in favor of Hazara region. And this is when Khyber is ruled by a secular party.

In Karachi, which is ruled between PPP, ANP and MQM, all three are secular parties, is a boiling pot of ethnic tensions with 16 people killed in single day a few weeks ago with NO hue and cry anywhere.

You can make the constitution as secular as you wish, but the fact is that secularization of laws will not make your problems go away.

Related Links:

Quaid-e-Azam M.A. Jinnah's Vision For Pakistan

Pakistan, Turkey and Secularism

Pakistan Must Defeat Agents of Intolerance

Daily Carnage in Pakistan

Religious Leaders Respond to Domestic Violence

Fighting Agents of Intolerance

A Woman Speaker: Another Token or Real Change

A Tale of Tribal Terror

Sharif Emerges as Pakistan's Power Broker

Less than nine years ago, Mr. Nawaz Sharif, the two-time prime minister of Pakistan, was overthrown, jailed and then forced into exile by General Musharraf. Now, he is emerging as the ultimate come-back kid of Pakistani politics. Recent polls indicate he is the most popular politician in Pakistan. His party, the PML(N) has emerged as the second largest force in Pakistan's parliament in February elections held under President Musharraf. His brother rules Punjab, the largest province in Pakistan, and Sharif has forced Asif Zardari to join him in removing Musharraf, his personal nemesis, under the threat of impeachment.

Who is Nawaz Sharif? What is his past? What does he want? These questions are gaining great relevance with the rising popularity and increasing clout of Nawaz Sharif. A recent Wall Street Journal interview and story shed some light on Mr. Sharif.


Here are some excerpts from the Wall Street Journal report today:

Mr. Sharif hails from a family of industrialists. At his heavily guarded home on the outskirts of Lahore, his wealth and power are both on display. Peacocks stroll on neatly trimmed grass and statues of a doe and her fawn mark an entrance where security guards wearing black T-shirts and carrying automatic weapons await visitors. Just outside Mr. Sharif's cavernous dining room are two stuffed African lions that appear to be stalking prey. "From Botswana," Mr. Sharif said. "Male lions."

In an interview at his home Wednesday, Mr. Sharif said he is prepared to withdraw his Pakistan Muslim League (N) from the governing coalition, led by the Pakistan People's Party, if about 60 judges -- sacked during a six-week state of emergency declared in November -- aren't given their jobs back immediately. Mr. Sharif added, "Mr. Musharraf threw the judges out of office. He ridiculed the institution," he said. "If this institution is not restored, it will shake the foundations of this country."

In answer to a question on business, Mr. Sharif said, "The privatization program started from our government. We should open up further. I'd like to privatize everything. This is the key to success. The government shouldn't be in the business of running factories".

Answering another question, Mr. Sharif said, "The coalition of the PPP and our party came into being on the basis that democracy would be strengthened and judges restored. And of course, we would restore the constitution as it stood before Mr. Musharraf overthrew an elected government, my government. The reinstatement of the judges hasn't come through."

Is Mr. Sharif a really changed man? Has he learned from his past mistakes? Has he had a real epiphany? Let's see how one can square the new persona of Mr. Sharif with the following realities from his past two stints as prime minister:

In June 1994 when Nawaz Sharif was the prime minister, Pakistan faced its worst-ever constitutional crisis when a pro-Sharif mob stormed into the supreme court, forcing Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah to adjourn the contempt of court hearing against Sharif. Hundreds of Pakistan Muslim League supporters and members of its youth wing, the Muslim Students Front (MSF), broke the police barricade around the courthouse when defense attorney Mr. S.M. Zafar was arguing his case.

A journalist ran into the courtroom and warned the bench of an impending attack. Heeding the warning, the chief justice got up abruptly, thanked Zafar and adjourned the hearing. While judicial members left the courtroom soon after, the mob ran in shouting anti-Supreme Court slogans, and damaging furniture.

The angry mob, led by ruling party member from Punjab Sardar Naseem and Colonel (retired) Mushtaq Tahir Kheli, Sharif's political secretary, shouted slogans against the chief justice. The mob also beat up Pakistan Peoples Party senator Iqbal Haider. The police managed to restore normalcy after baton charging and teargassing the mob, both inside and outside the courthouse. The court which assembled at 9:45 a.m., could continue the proceedings for only about 45 minutes.

According to media reports in 1998, Nawaz Sharif, after taking over as prime minister for the second time, amended Pakistan's constitution twice to consolidate his power. He attempted to transform the constitution and system of government completely by attempting to get unlimited powers of Amir ul Momineen (the chief of the faithful) by means of the Sharia Bill, which he introduced.

In April 2001, Ayaz Amir, a popular newspaper columnist and now a PML(N) MNA, wrote as follows about the Sharif brothers: The Sharifs’ notions of government were intensely private: which is to say, have your own man at every key post. They began with commissioners and police DIGs, the dregs of both services pandering to their whims and enriching themselves in the process. Major Mushtaq of the Police Service who has finally been caught by NAB for becoming a real estate tycoon while in service was an outstanding example of this breed: doing as he was told and becoming an impressive man of property along the way. But when Nawaz Sharif became Prime Minister the second time round the family’s sights were set higher. They had whiz-kid younger brother running Punjab. They had their own man in the presidency. After Sajjad Ali Shah’s arranged departure from the Supreme Court, they thought they had the apex court lined up in their favor. In the person of Justice Qayyum at the Lahore High Court they had the closest thing they could get to a personal judge. Division of family assets, balancing of huge bank loans against dummy collateral, tightening the noose around Asif Zardari and Benazir: the only judge who could handle these sensitive matters was Justice Qayyum.

In 1999, when Nawaz Sharif was prime minister, Pakistani economy was in shambles. Pakistan’s total debt as percentage of GDP was the highest in South Asia – 99.3 percent of its GDP and 629 percent of its revenue receipts, compared to Sri Lanka (91.1% & 528.3% respectively in 1998) and India (47.2% & 384.9% respectively in 1998). Internal Debt of Pakistan in 1999 was 45.6 per cent of GDP and 289.1 per cent of its revenue receipts, as compared to Sri Lanka (45.7% & 264.8% respectively in 1998) and India (44.0% & 358.4% respectively in 1998). The Economist recently noted that the current macroeconomic disarray will be familiar to the coalition government led by the Pakistan People's Party of Asif Zardari, and to Nawaz Sharif, whose party provides it “outside support”. Before Mr Sharif was ousted in 1999, the two parties had presided over a decade of corruption and mismanagement. But since then, as the IMF remarked in a report in January, there has been a transformation. Pakistan attracted over $5 billion in foreign direct investment in the 2006-07 fiscal year, ten times the figure of 2000-01. The government's debt fell from 68% of GDP in 2003-04 to less than 55% in 2006-07, and its foreign-exchange reserves reached $16.4 billion as recently as in October."

Like his coalition partner Asif Zardari, Nawaz Sharif has also been the subject of corruption allegations. He is accused of abuse of power and amassing personal wealth at Pakistan's expense, and leaving the country bankrupt in 1999. There are lingering questions of where and how Mr. Sharif got the money to pay off the $450m judgment as rendered by a British court against him in 1998, in connection with Hudaibia Paper Mills Ltd.

Let me conclude with some questions and a sincere hope: Is the transformation of Nawaz Sharif genuine? Or, are we seeing just another two-faced politician vying for more power and popularity? Sometimes, people do change profoundly. I sincerely hope, for the sake of Pakistan's future, that the metamorphosis of Nawaz Sharif is positive and genuine. I also hope that Asif Zardari , the other major power broker in Pakistan, has gone through similar transformation to enable genuine democracy to take roots in Pakistan.