[sacw] SACW Dispatch | 29 Sept. 00

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Web Dispatch
29 September 2000
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

================================

#1. Pakistan: Electoral system and the minorities
#2. Pakistanis Protest letter to Musharraf re separate electorates
#3. India: The state and religious identities

================================

#1.

DAWN
28 September 2000
Op-Ed.

ELECTORAL SYSTEM AND THE MINORITIES

By Khalid Rahman

PAKISTAN'S population of 140 million includes about three per cent
non-Muslims. According to the voters' list (1997), the number of non-Muslim
registered voters is slightly more than 1.5 million against 55 million
Muslim voters. At present, there are 10 seats for non-Muslims in the
National Assembly, and 23 in provincial assemblies. Since the elections of
1985, non-Muslims have the right to vote on the basis of separate electorate.

Comments on the subject, and statements of some of the non-Muslim community
leaders for the introduction of joint electorate to replace the separate
electorate system abound. Objections of the protagonists of the joint
electorate can be summed up as follows:

* Separate electorate harms national solidarity because the members of the
majority and minority communities consider themselves apart from each other.

* There should be no law that may discriminate on the basis of religion.
The system of separate electorate conflicts with some international
declarations and even runs against the vision of the founder of Pakistan
that he had about the country. The following portion of his address of Aug.
11, 1947 is presented in this regard: "You are free to go to your temples,
you are free to go to your mosques or places of worship of any kind.
Whatever may be your religion, creed or race, it has nothing to do with the
affairs of the state."

Objecting to the separate electorate, it is said that this system is the
product of a particular mental approach and that this approach has affected
the following:

* In the Constitution of Pakistan, Islam has been declared as the religion
of the state; head of the state has to be a Muslim, and the wording of
prime minister's oath is such that he too has to be a Muslim.

* According to articles 227 and 228 of the Constitution, laws conflicting
with Shariah cannot be framed. That is why the Shariat Court has been set
up. Moreover, the Hudood laws and the blasphemy law have to do with the
mentality that is growing because of the separate electorate system. These
laws victimize the minorities.

* It is also said that General Zia-ul-Haq was an unelected ruler and as
such had no mandate to introduce such things. With reference to a petition
that was submitted to the Supreme Court in 1993, it was complained that it
had not been taken for hearing despite the lapse of seven years.

An analysis of arguments for joint electorate reveals that the entire
debate revolves round one central point: whether religion is a private
matter of individuals, or it is concerned with collective affairs as well.

Not only among the minorities but also in the majority community, there
exists a group of those who think that religion is a private affair and
therefore objects to separate electorate. But the question is: whether the
majority of the Pakistanis uphold this view. The answer is in the negative.
The overwhelming majority of the people believe that Islam provides
comprehensive guidance in all spheres of life and that the concept of
Allah's sovereignty is the most important and basic component of Islamic
teachings. So, remaining within the limits set by the Qur'an and Sunnah,
forming government and law making by those whom people entrust with this
responsibility and which may ensure justice to all members of society and
provide for their needs is the objective of the democratic system in Islam.
On the contrary if, religion is relegated to a private matter, then its
teachings and guidance about the collective life become redundant.

The Quaid-i-Azam's vision of Pakistan should be viewed in this context. It
is interesting that all statements, speeches, and papers and articles in
favour of joint electorate make reference to the Quaid's only one speech
(of Aug. 11, 1947). A fair approach would be to arrive at a conclusion
after taking into consideration his other speeches and statements as well.

In fact, it was the vision of the founder of Pakistan that later on became
part of the Constitution of Pakistan in the form of the Objectives
Resolution which provides a permanent basis for the Islamic identity of the
state.

As far as violence and intolerance are concerned, these are abhorrent and
detestable not only with respect to the minorities but in every respect.
There should be ways and means for their elimination keeping in view the
reasons and factors causing them. However, if isolated incidents, of
violence involving the minorities were taken to construe that these occur
because of the 'intolerant' atmosphere generated by the separate
electorate, it would certainly be a wrong conclusion and an example of
hasty generalization. Though Pakistan is the only country in the world
where elections are held on the basis of separate electorate, the need is
to analyze the state of affairs in those countries where not only the
electoral system but the whole state system is run on a secular basis.

In India, anti-Muslim riots, demolition of the Babri mosque and sacrilege
of other sacred places, attacks on Sikhs' holy places, etc., are widely
known. During six months, from January to June 2000, there have been more
than 40 attacks on Christians and their places of worship.

This unfortunate phenomenon is not restricted to India only; acts of
violence and discrimination on the basis of religion occur in Europe and
America as well. For example, in the United States in 1994, some 150 miles
away from San Francisco in Yoba, a newly built mosque was set on fire and
reduced to ashes. A Muslim family house was put on fire on May 29, 1993, in
Solingen, near Cologne, Germany. Two women and two girls were burnt to death.

In Bosnia, Kosovo, and Chechnya Muslim presence is not being tolerated
simply because of discrimination on a religious basis. There are places
where Muslims are not allowed even to call for prayers, though there is no
ban on chimes of church bells. Muslim girls wearing head-scarves are facing
difficulties in some of the most developed democracies of the world.

It would also be useful to mention here that Muslims holding highest
offices in Pakistan is not a strange or extraordinary thing, which could be
declared a result of separate electorate. How many examples are there in
the whole world where a religious minority has had a chance to rule? While
there might be some exceptions, but the overall situation everywhere in the
world is quite the same. With the exception of one or two presidents, has
there ever been a non-Hindu (even non-Brahmin) prime minister in the
secular republic of India? Leave the office of the prime minister and look
at the political representation in assemblies. If the official claim of 12
per cent Muslim population in India is accepted, Muslims should have at
least 66 seats in the Lok Sabha, in proportion to their number. Likewise,
the situation for minorities in India in education, employment, army, and
other sectors, is worse than in Pakistan.

Another example is of Bangladesh where elections are held on a joint
electorate basis. While non-Muslim population is 12 to 15 per cent, there
are no more than five non-Muslim members in the 330-strong Bangladeshi
Parliament. Similarly, in Britain there should be some 10 Muslim
representatives, in proportion to their number. Has it ever happened?

In this context, an analysis of Election Commission's Report of 1997 would
be useful. For 207 seats for Muslims, the average vote per seat is 266,029;
for 10 seats for non-Muslims it is just 154,764. This report clearly shows
that minorities' representation with respect to their votes is much higher
in proportion than in the case of majority.

To raise objections against the separate electorate because of General
Zia's being an unelected ruler is unconvincing. Though it was General Zia
who introduced this amendment, when the elected National Assembly and the
Senate passed it, this amendment got approved by elected institutions.

An important aspect the issue that is to be kept in mind is that in spite
of the volatile atmosphere at election time, it is the separate electorate
that eliminates chances of clash on a religious basis, and thus provides
protection to the minorities. While in the case of joint electorate,
chances of clash and violence may increase manifold, especially in a
constituency where there is a considerable number of minorities wanting to
use their collective vote in favour of a particular candidate on the basis
of acceptance of their agenda and demands.

Unable to respond to the arguments that minorities are entitled to several
benefits because of the separate electorate system, the biggest of them
being their over-representation in the legislatures, the proponents of the
joint electorate interestingly demand double vote for minorities. The 1996
electoral reform package of the Pakistan People's Party had this bizarre
suggestion in it (such suggestions are also made in case of women's
representation). Apparently, it seems to benefit the minorities but
actually may lead to widespread resentment because of the privileges they
enjoy on the basis of discrimination in their favour.

In the present separate electorate system, the whole country or a whole
province becomes the constituency for a seat in the national or provincial
assembly, respectively. This might involve logistical problems, but to say
that a minority candidate has to spend hugely and that the voter finds it
impossible to contact his representative, ignores the fact that this is
part of our overall culture of elections and has nothing to do with joint
or separate electorate system.

Proportional representation offers a practical solution to keeping in tact
the separate electorate system while both the majority and minorities
remain in the mainstream. In this scheme, while retaining separate vote and
seats for minorities, political parties can be required to nominate their
candidates from among minorities as well.

______

#2.

Dear Friends,
PPAD has today sent a letter protesting the continuation of separate 
electorates in Pakistan. If you agree, please send email messages in 
support of our statement to General Pervez Musharraf, the Chief Executive 
of Pakistan. His email address is the following: ce@p...
Warmest best regards,
Ishtiaq Ahmed
Coordinator PPAD

PAKISTANIS FOR PEACE AND ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT (PPAD) URGE AN END TO THE 
SYSTEM OF SEPARATE ELECTORATES

28 September 2000

To
The Chief Executive of Pakistan
General Pervez Musharraf
Rawalpindi
Pakistan.

Dear General Musharraf,

Pakistanis for Peace and Alternative Development (PPAD) is a world-wide 
network of Pakistanis dedicated to working in the interest of peace, social 
justice and enlightened humanism in Pakistan, South Asia, and in the world 
as a whole.
We are writing to express our serious concern at the continuation of 
various undemocratic, outmoded and dysfunctional processes and practices in 
the political system of Pakistan, notwithstanding the fact that you came to 
power with a promise to rid Pakistan of such afflictions. Among them the 
most reprehensible is undoubtedly the system of separate electorates.
The 1956, 1962 and 1973 constitutions of Pakistan were consistent 
in rejecting separate electorates, a system inherited from the colonial 
period. Quite simply, their framers were clear in their minds that a 
multi-religious, multi-sectarian, multi-linguistic and multicultural 
society like Pakistan needed norms and mechanisms, which could bring its 
disparate peoples together and consolidate them into a single nation. In a 
political sense, such an objective could only be realized through a system 
of joint electorates. Such an approach reflected the vision of a cohesive 
nation constituted by all Pakistanis irrespective of their religious 
beliefs which the Founder of Pakistan had spelled out on 11 August 1947 in 
his address to the Pakistan Constituent Assembly.
The obscurantist government of the late General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq 
subverted this democratic consensus. In 1985 separate electorates were 
re-introduced in Pakistan. The ostensible argument advanced in their favour 
was that non-Muslims stood no chance of getting elected on a general ticket 
and therefore separate electorates will ensure a fair degree of 
representation to them. The real reason, however, was quite different. He 
wanted to establish a social and political order that drew sharp boundaries 
between Muslims and non-Muslims. The introduction of the infamous Blasphemy 
Law in 1986 was a further step in this direction.
However, his misguided policies only served to sharpen sectarian divisions 
among Muslims and alienate the non-Muslim minorities. Today Pakistan is 
ridden with sectarian violence and terrorism, and the non-Muslims live in 
constant fear of victimization at the hands of religious bigots and zealots 
present in the larger society as well as in the state machinery.
We think that the options and opportunities for Pakistan to recover from 
long years of misrule are fast running out. We urge you to use your office 
and vision to prevent the movement of national self-destruction from taking 
its full course. To promote and restore religious tolerance and social 
harmony in Pakistan, the curse of separate electorates needs to be removed 
as an immediate first step.

Yours sincerely,

1. Dr. Ishtiaq Ahmed (Associate Professor)
Coordinator, PPAD
Department of Political Science
Stockholm University
106 91 Stockholm
SWEDEN.

Core Members of PPAD

2. Zubair Faisal Abbasi, (Journalist), Pakistan.

3. Group Captain Cecil Chaudhry, SJ, SBt.
Pakistan Air Force (Retd)
Principal, St. Anthony's High School,
Lahore, Pakistan

4. Prof. Susan Mussarat Akram (law), USA

5. Dr. Ghazala Anwar (Islamic theology), New Zeeland

6. Prof. Hassan Gardezi
Professor Emeritus (sociology)
Canada

7. Faisal A Gilani (company executive), Pakistan

8. Dr. Bilal Hashmi, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus (Sociology)
USA

9. Prof. Fawzia Afzal-Khan (English Literature), USA

10. Ayyub Malik (architect), UK

11. Dr Babar Mumtaz (reader), UK

12. Dr. Saghir A Shaikh (Engineering, Human Rights) USA

13. Dr. Ahmed Shibli (science and technology), UK

14. Ijaz Syed (researcher), USA

15. Dr. Mohammad Tanveer, (journalist), Pakistan

16. Nadeem Omar Tarar lecturer (cultural anthropology), Pakistan

17. Ayesha Y. Vawda (educationist), USA

_____

#3.

The Hindu
29 September 2000
Op-Ed.

THE STATE AND RELIGIOUS IDENTITIES 

By G. P. Sharma 

RELIGIOUS IDENTITIES have existed since time immemorial but never have come
into play as prominently as now. Today, religiosity is treated as a virtue
that can be bartered for instant political favour and the distinction
between just being religious and overtly religious can make a difference to
one's political fortunes. No wonder religious enthusiasts, especially
belonging to a particular community, are trying to occupy every bit of the
social space at the behest of their political bosses. National symbols are
being appropriated to communicate a political message couched in religious
idiom. The mythical past is being reinvented to serve the cause of politics
as well as religion. Various cultural festivals have acquired a new meaning
in the changed political context. The scale and manner of their celebration
is a kind of political statement. The most disturbing trends, however, are
the indiscriminate construction of places of worship, again mostly by the
majority community, and the growing incidence of attacks on Christian
missions. Hence, doubtless, religion is being politicised on a scale never
before seen. In the current situation, the holding of the BJP's national
council meeting and the visit of Mr. A. B. Vajpayee to the RSS headquarters
in Nagpur, the first by a Prime Minister, are of significance. They show
the influence the RSS wields over the BJP and should dispel the notion that
their supposed differences over issues such as swadeshi and the
relationship with Kashmiri militants are fundamentally irreconcilable. They
should be seen as two sides of the same coin. More importantly, such
proximity between state and religion raises serious doubts about the
secular and plural character of the Indian state.

A glance at our past would show that tolerance had been the hallmark of our
religious tradition. During the Mughal rule there were varying degrees of
cultural interaction between Hindus and Muslims. Most rural Muslims, many
of whom had descended from Hindus, continued many of the earlier religious
practices. Many Hindus went on pilgrimage to Muslim shrines without any
fear of getting stigmatised. There was a good deal of flexibility in the
mode and choice of worship. The Mughal rulers never allowed themselves to
be dictated to by the ulema or the Muslim priests even though the dividing
line between religion and politics was very thin. Even a ruler like
Aurangzeb, who has been much maligned, had 175 Hindus out of a total
strength of 575 higher officials. There were cases of conversions and
re-conversions in the past but the state never came into the picture and
never questioned such processes.

Even during British rule, when religion became a tool of politics, the
state kept itself aloof from such controversies. It is important to note
that the British colonial state in its enlightened self-interest never
tried to tinker with religion, especially after 1857, knowing fully well
its sensitive character. However, this did not prevent the British from
making use of its divisive power. They quite successfully turned the
pre-colonial communitarian divide into a communal one through communal
construction of India's past. This became possible because despite shared
experiences of living together and common traditions, there did exist some
degree of social distance between the two communities. For example
inter-community marriages were very rare. Social responses were mostly
structured and the areas of social interaction were clearly defined. It
paid the British rich political dividends but at huge social cost. By
portraying two religious groups as having mutually exclusive identities and
interests the colonial state tried to play one against the other. The
further perpetuation of these identities and the concretisation of the
communal agenda followed the policy of constitutional reform and
participatory politics.

However, the colonial state's official agenda never included the
sponsorship of any particular religion. The coming of the missionaries was
part of a larger imperial project of facilitating the entry of the British
in India and of gradually enabling them to gain legitimacy through the
creation of a new (colonial) cultural order. They were always conscious of
the fact that although their explicit aim was to serve the cause of
humanity their implicit aim was to pave the way for British ascendancy and
to serve larger imperial interests. But unlike today, when Parliament has
the presence of several saffron-clad personalities, there was no such
organic link between the two and at no point of time did the missionaries
ever try to seek nor did the colonial state try to provide political
patronage. Moreover, the missionaries did not require any official
recognition to prove their credentials, which spoke for themselves.

The methods followed by the Christian missionaries of seeking converts are
well known. Having chosen a particular area as the centre of their activity
they virtually adopted it and tried to improve the basic quality of life
with the focus on health and education. The sheer scale of their endeavour
resembled a kind of enterprise which was holistic in its approach. Their
attempts at conversion have to be seen in the light of these meaningful
reforms. The cumulative impact of these were so gratifying that the
recipients felt obliged to embrace Christianity and that too without fear
of losing their cultural and even religious autonomy, for apart from going
to the church the tribals, who constituted the main target group, would
also worship the family god which was central to their existence.
Therefore, it goes without saying that the element of force was nearly
missing from the missionary approach to conversion and naturally so because
the missionaries completely immersed themselves in the local society and
tried to dilute their alien character as far as possible.

The religious groups which confronted the Christians were mainly the Arya
Samaj and the Hindu Mahasabha. They trailed the former wherever they went.
Their foremost concern was to counter the activities of the missionaries.
But this was easier said than done. For it was neither possible to match
their scale of enterprise nor the stupendous efforts at reform and uplift
in areas that the missionaries chose for themselves. Not being able to
acquire a foothold in those areas, the Hindu religious enthusiasts began
using force to seek re-conversions. In most cases it was done under the
cloak of the nationalist project and mostly tribal autonomy became the
first casualty of its viciousness. Despite the colonial state's strict
enforcement of law and order, ugly incidents, such as burning of churches,
could not be averted.

In today's context when religious fervour is at its worst, it is imperative
that the state neither cultivates nor gives in to any kind of religious
fundamentalism. But, it is becoming increasingly benign toward followers of
a particular religious faith so much so that it is willing to cover up
their acts of omission and commission. The demolition of the Babri Masjid
stands out as a monumental testimony to such a role and points to a growing
liaison between state and religion. Today the studied silence of the Indian
state on several disturbing incidents involving the preponderant religious
group has emboldened its followers to commit all sorts of excesses in the
name of religion just to please their political patrons. This has not only
put the minorities on the defensive but created a scare amongst them and
lent credibility to the sectarian argument that with the rise in Hindu
fundamentalism there is no place for minorities in India. Since religious
identities have assumed political colour, religion is no longer a matter of
personal faith. It has gradually moved from the private to the public
domain and as long as religiosity is rewarded politically, brutal incidents
like the Staines' murder will be repeated.

(The writer teaches history at the Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi).

_____________________________________________
South Asia Citizens Web Dispatch (SACW) is an informal, independent &
non-profit citizens wire service run by South Asia Citizens Web
(http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex)since 1996. Dispatch archive from 1998 can be
accessed by joining the ACT list run by SACW. To subscribe send
a blank message to <act-subscribe@egroups.com>
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[Disclaimer : Opinions carried in the dispatches
are not necessarily representative of views of SACW compilers]