‘Exploitation of fragile situations has been done, more often than not, by Punjab, even though Sindh is not far behind in dealing a rough hand to its minorities,’ laments Asma Jahangir

ASMA JAHANGIR, the courageous exponent of human rights and egalitarian society, takes a characteristically blunt view of the issues confronting the religious minorities in Pakistan, arguing that things had gone wrong at the very beginning.

She believes that sentiments against religious minorities were aroused as and when the minority members of parliament spoke against the Objectives Resolution which was made the basis of the country’s constitution.

In a recent interview with Dawn Magazine, Asma took a comprehensive view of the minority rights in the country. The following are excerpts:

Q. The Quaid enunciated a state policy in his historic speech on August 11, 1947. Do you think his emphasis on minorities’ rights as equal citizens has been ignored to the extent of violating these rights? If so, by whom?

A. One speech couldn’t change the emphasis. If we go through the Quaid-i-Azam’s speeches to the first Constituent Assembly, we feel that they were directed to the rights of the minorities, right of the women and freedom of expression. It was the Quaid who was the ambassador of Hindu-Muslim unity. But later there was a shift for adjustments between the two communities — from rights to adjustments.

And when you speak in terms of adjustments and become spokesman for the Muslims of India, then you are not addressing the basics of the problem. I believe this was the mind behind that speech of the Quaid in which he said “Muslim will cease to be Muslims and Hindus will cease to be Hindus.” If that was the case, it takes away the justification for Pakistan.

I think the political victory was so prominent that it reflected in the speech, and it left a deep impact on the people who joined the movement for Pakistan. It is no longer a secret that the people who joined the Muslim League had no sympathy with the rights and freedoms; they had only wanted to have a separate homeland for Muslims. It thus meant that only the religious question was predominant.

So, the cross-cutting messages of the Quaid did not give a clear line where Pakistan was eventually to go. But it is now up to the progressive and liberal people of Pakistan to take up the speech afresh, make it a basis, and struggle for laying a foundation of a polity in Pakistan. It is not a constitutional but political issue because constitution always comes on the heels of a political struggle.

The constitutional issue has been controversial since the beginning when the Objectives Resolution was made the basis for constitution-making, though the goal was not clear and was different from what the Quaid had said, and also in conflict with the general ethos of the country.
 

Q. Does this mean that the liberals failed even in the beginning to deliver?

A. Yes. I believe that they were not able to deliver. And by then the complexion of the Muslim League had also changed. The Muslim League, which used to talk of an egalitarian society during the movement, was now a stronghold of landlords. It had now become a party interested only in power politics. Although the politicians who came to Pakistan could be compared to those in India, they had lost the track immediately because they could see the fulfilment of their vested interests; they were first and foremost feudals. That is why the progressives had left the party and chose to form a new organization that was to oppose government policies. The Azad Pakistan Party is a good example.
 

Q. As for minorities’ rights, what were the circumstances that led to their violation? Who started it, and why?

A. I think the violation started from the very beginning. We have to take into consideration the whole scenario of minorities rights because they were more vulnerable than other sections of society. The violation started in a subtle way against women, first of all. Muslim League women were asked to leave politics and enter into social work. So it was the top women hierarchy of the League that formed the APWA. The only subsequent respite for women was the Family Laws of 1961.

As for the sentiment against religious minorities, they were aroused as and when minority members of parliament spoke against the Objectives Resolution. The speeches of Jogindernath Mandal, the first president of the Constituent Assembly, would bear the testimony. It was the Punjabi leadership that exploited the situation to the maximum. They also capitalized on the mistakes of Foreign Minister Sir Zafrullah Khan, who was from the Ahmadi community. Such exploitation always had its basis in the Punjab.

As for Sindh, very few know that a large number of Hindus were arrested during the 1965 war, and another large number left for India. The situation of Hindus in Sindh has completely changed since 1965. They are no longer living there like citizens who could expect protection from the state. Many of their charitable institutions have also been closed down.

Then came the turn of the Christians who had traditionally been associated with all governments and administrations in the past. They had never posed any challenge to governments. It was during the era of Gen Ziaul Haq that discrimination against the Christian community started. Zia introduced such laws as to give a feeling to the Christians that they were under attack. But what aggravated the situation was the promulgation of blasphemy laws, which decreed death penalty for all acts considered to be blasphemous.
 

Q. Is state policy the main reason behind the feelings of discrimination among religious minorities?

A. Yes, I believe this is the main cause. We have seen Christians and Muslims living together without complaints. But when the blasphemy laws came, they suddenly found themselves pitched against each other. The very fact that a big majority of blasphemy cases had been registered on the complaints of the Muslim clergy, speaks of how it has been misused. These cases had not been filed by their neighbours. As such, much exploitation took place subsequent to these laws. I believe this is the state policy. There is no enmity between the two communities because more and more Muslims prefer their children to be educated in Christian schools and get their patients treated at hospitals run by Christian missionary.
 

Q. All political parties have incorporated clauses related to minorities rights in their manifestos. Do you think they have been able to honour this commitment?

A. I believe that if political parties are given a role to play, they will be very sensitive to the issue of minorities. They have already shown an eagerness to hold a dialogue with the minorities because they understand that it is the question of the people of Pakistan and the country’s image. But at times, political parties have their own expediencies to pay little attention to such problems. Besides, they have not been able to communicate to the people at a reasonable and respectable level about the issue of minorities.

But I should be fair to the People’s Party, which effectively made a reversal of blasphemy cases. Had it not been the PPP (the second Benazir government), the Salamat Masih case could not have been decided, as it was decided despite severe and several pressures. It was in the same period that a large number of haris were liberated in Sindh, and the administration supported the cause of bonded labour.
 

Q. To what extent religious militants have caused the erosion of minorities rights? And, do you think communal hatred has taken a deep root in society?

A. Yes, it has taken deep roots because we have earned notoriety abroad as a country where extremism has a vast space to flourish. The state encouraged such elements by all available means. Religious extremism has grown so strong that it has taken the state and society hostage and even the judiciary has no answer to this highhandedness. The society stands at their mercy and the people look helpless. Even the rights groups feel frightened as they face their wrath, and we have frequently faced harassment. This has kept the people away from taking courageous stand.
 

Q. Which period do you think is the worst for the religious minorities in Pakistan, and how?

A. Of course, Ziaul Haq’s period was the worst, and it continues to worsen. This is because he (Zia) extended the state patronage to religious extremists to such a high degree that they grew like invincible mafias. It is because of this fearful impact that no subsequent government has been able to strike down the Zia laws, which has led to the emergence of the present situation.
 

Q. Do you think the country’s constitution has adequate provisions to protect the rights of the minorities?

A. Certainly not. It is not equipped with provisions to even safeguard the rights of the majority, what to talk of minorities. The constitution has now become a document of conflicting articles that have overriding effects on one another. The constitution enshrines fundamental rights and principles of policy, yet their provisions have lost meanings because of other conflicting provisions.

The Eighth Amendment, for instance, has indemnified even the coma and full stop of Ziaul Haq’s dictates which have been derogatory to all sections of society. But the question is not constitutional but political and only a political struggle can ensure rights of citizens irrespective of their religious beliefs. However, if a constitutional protection is to be ensured, we shall revert to the original constitution which was adopted on August 14, 1973.
 

Q. Are there sufficient laws to protect the minorities?

A. There apparently are no such laws. There are only bad laws.
 

Q. Whether there is a state policy on minorities’ rights; if not, do you think we need such a policy?

A. The state policy is fully manifest in the laws we have on the statute book. When the basic law (constitution) does not provide a remedy, we can say this is the state policy.
 

Q. What do you think of the proposal that a minorities commission should be constituted?

A. No such commissions will help, as we have seen what has happened to earlier such commissions. If at all such a commission is to be established, a Supreme Court judge from the minorities or the judge on whom the minorities confide, should be appointed its chairperson. The commission should take into account the whole question of minorities rights since the beginning, have wide ranging consultations with all sections of society and then come out with a set of recommendations which should first be made public for a debate. It should be subsequent to this debate that its recommendations should be presented for the formulation of a minorities policy.
 

Q. Will the establishment of ministries exclusively for minorities at the Centre and in the provinces will be a meaningful step in ameliorating their lot?

A. The only meaning of such a setup will be that some more people will get jobs. No meaningful purpose will be served till there is a clear state policy in favour of vulnerable groups. The ministries should only follow to implement.