Theocracy
QUAID-i-Azam had clearly and repeatedly uttered that Pakistan would not be a theocratic state to be run by mullahs.
To him Islam did not stand for an ecclesiastical state.He also refused to be the President of the Pakistan Muslim League that was a successor to All India Muslim League.
He told that he would not work as the de facto Head of State and lead an avowedly communal organization.
The Quaid wanted to transform the League into a national body in Pakistan as it no longer made sense to have a Muslim League in a Muslim majority country.
A majority nationalism is about subjugation and a minority nationalism is about survival.Those who came after the Quaid could not make that subtle distinction between the two‘.
Instead of heeding the 11 August speech and allowing the distinctions of majority and minority to vanish over-time, Pakistan has insisted on letting them become ossified into non-negotiable positions.
In the process Pakistan has become a theocracy on all counts.Apologists for theocracy in Pakistan say that Pakistan is not a theocracy because Parliament is sovereign.
How much sovereign every one knows better.Sovereignty of the entire Universe belongs to Allah alone.This is the deity clause of our Constitution.
This alone does not make Pakistan a theocracy.The Quaid wanted the Indian Muslims to get united under the flag of Indian Union Muslim League for the rights of the Muslims.
His will did not carry the day as far as Pakistan was concerned.Then the time for such a move had not yet come and the decision to have a purely Muslim organisation was not irrevocable and would be revisited when enough progress has been made.
The critical point here was the distinction between majority and minority.
This is what separates the minority Muslim nationalism of 1930s and 40s from the dominant Hindu nationalism, just Black nationalism in the US can never be equated to White nationalism that plagues it.
The Objectives’ Resolution enables Muslims to live according to the Quran and the Sunnah.
Here the word is “enable” not “enforce” — a critical difference.So it is true that the Objectives’ Resolution while a communal and majoritarian document — does not make Pakistan a theocracy in a legal and constitutional sense.
The 1956 and 1962 Constitutions were not theocratic constitutions though these had distinct theocratic features.
The Quaid’s will did not carry the day as far as Pakistan was concerned.The time for such a move had not yet come but that the decision to have a purely Muslim organisation was not irrevocable and would be revisited when enough progress has been made.
The critical point is the distinction between a majority and a minority.This is what separates the minority Muslim nationalism of 1930s and 40s from the majority Hindu nationalism.
Just Black nationalism in the US can never be equated to White nationalism that plagues it.A minority nationalism is about survival and a majority nationalism is about subjugation.
There were Islamic provisions in deference to the Muslim majority and Muslim cultural life but they did not seek to impose religion.
The Office of the President was reserved for Muslims alone and that was the beginning of real constitutional discrimination in Pakistan against the minorities.
The office of the Prime Minister, in whom is vested executive authority under the 1956 Constitution, was open to any citizen of any faith.
Neither constitution had a state religion.The Quaid wanted the Muslims in India to remain united under the flag of Indian Union Muslim League to protect and fight for the rights of the Muslim minority.
In the 1973 Constitution the freedom of expression clause had the glory of Islam exception.
It was a thoroughly discriminatory and theocratic constitution from the beginning but introduction of Federal Shariat Court and provisions added by General Zia-ul-Haq’s military regime made it an outright theocracy.
So it is about time we admit that we are a theocracy run by mullahs with a divine mission and it would seem that a great majority of Pakistanis want it that way.
Minorities of Pakistan are second class citizens and at least one minority – a forced one- has no rights at all in the country.
Mullahs with a divine mission sit in the Council of Islamic Ideology and the Federal Shariat Court constantly vetoing any progressive legislation in the country.
Z A Bhutto and General Zia-ul-Haq, are the two architects of this theocracy.Imran Khan, the founder of Naya Pakistan is also noticeable.
Accept you are a theocracy and become a pariah state.Any attempt to replicate it by lesser mortals would lead to papacy and that Islam does not allow.
It is correct that Islam does not stand for an ecclesiastical state like the Vatican City.
There is no compulsion in religion- finds fullest expression — a level playing field for everyone to convince the other of their point of view.
Why Quaid-i-Azam had never used the term Riyasat-e-Medina.It was not on account of his much vaunted indifference to religion.
On the contrary it was because Quaid-i-Azam understood as many amongst Muslims have that Riyasat-e-Medina worked because of the divinely guided Prophet (PBUH).
Who amongst the leaders of today can take up that mantle and I remind you that to do so would be blasphemy.
—The writer is editor, book ambassador, political analyst and author of several books based in Islamabad.
