The Amendment of Excommunication

Source: Dawn

Source: Dawn

It has been 40 years since the passage of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

Probably this is a one of a kind legislation in the history of the world, at least up till that time. The provision declared Ahmedi Muslim or Ahmediyya sect (also commonly referred to Qadianis), whichever is correct, as Non-Muslims.

This would be a great shock for any Ahmedi citizen living in Pakistan, and considering it is a largely Punjabi sect, many of them did too and still do consider themselves Muslims living in Pakistan today. It would also be a great matter of interest to a Muslim, particularly those eager to see this provision passed, with the religious political leaders instrumental in its realization.

However, for someone who is not interested in either of these groups, other than that they are the citizens of this country, there is a reason why it still is a matter of great concern. It is a matter of great concern for anyone interested in secularism because it is a provision of law respecting the establishment of a religion, or at least favoring one unnecessarily.

Apparently, the provision only seems to be just another jolly good case of casting one religious cult out of the broader circle of a larger faith, but it is much more than that in this case. In this context, this excommunication pretty much means legalization of social condemnation, leading to trivializing of their persecution.

In the 21st century Pakistan, the Ahmedis almost enjoy pretty much the same social popularity and the citizenship status that the Jews enjoyed in the Third Reich. The only difference, perhaps, is concentration camps. And of course, the Holocaust.

To someone who wants a secular constitution in place, eliminating and prohibiting any religious law, the Second Amendment is a disgrace.

Source: Dawn

Source: Dawn

It is an understatement to claim that it was put into effect as an act of appeasement of the religious clerics such as Abul A’ala Maududi, whose support was necessary to unite the country under the then Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. This provision seems to have the blessing of the supposedly secular bureaucratic establishment of the state to this day.

But it is important to make another point here. Our commitment to and sympathy for any religious group should be for their civil rights and free exercise of religion, which must not include intrusion on private rights. For any further approval as members of the society, they would have to remain out of political roles in public life and the law as much as possible as a religious community.

Now just as giving a state under the control of Sunnis and Shias can produce such disastrous results, it would not be wise to trust a group such as the Ahmedis to involve religion into politics and state affairs. Only strictly sticking to the secular principles would guarantee the right solution instead of taking sectarian sides.

What a religion decides about another is none of the business of the state, as long as it does not involve the violation of personal freedom of even a single individual.

This is precisely why the Second Amendment is wrong and should be repealed.

Regardless of what mainstream Muslims and Ahmedi Muslims may think of the excommunication affair.

Her Mother Didn’t Have to Die

 

 

The other day I was writing a post on the Lahore PAT protest and police violence, so I came across this video.

Let’s keep politics aside for a moment.

Now call me an idiot or accuse me of emotional blackmail, and I’d gladly agree, but nothing has affected me more recently than this. Because I can so easily see myself in her position.

Now the question that the little girl asks is so clear, so valid, so astonishing, that not only it moves you to tears, but also makes you reflect on its possible answer, which no adult would be able to give to her.

One simple question.

Why did they kill her mother? Really, why.

There is one thing that I know pretty clearly and that is that her mother did not have to die. But would she understand why.

Her mother should not have been putting her life on the line for a cause as ridiculous as removing a security barrier from a religious leader’s home. For her children’s sake at least.

Seriously, what was this incident about anyway?

But surely it was not her fault. Probably she was just trying to evade a bullet or a baton around the residential compound.

Probably she was a passer-by or just happened to be caught up in the great mess. Maybe she was just a Minhaj-ul-Quran employee and was doing her job.

But perhaps the Punjab police should have thought twice before relentlessly firing at the people and beating them.

But didn’t some cops die too?

I don’t know.

I just know very clearly that her mother did not have to die.

It’s not only unfair. It’s irresponsible.

Countless individual lives are ruined by politics everyday with people dying for the convenience of politicians.

War is understandable and hard to avoid, but such petty politics.

Nobody learns any lessons.

Making Bad Laws Worse

Source: salon.com

Source: salon.com

I have often observed what a terrible idea making laws for a living is.

However, that is apparently what makes the world go round. But often in their bid to play their much needed part in changing the society for the better, lawmakers often tend to worsen the already terrible laws that are in force.

One of the recent examples of this has been the proposed amendments to the Pakistan Protection Ordinance 2013 by the current Federal Government.

Arguably a bad law, perhaps the PPO 2013 was not so terrible (probably because I always thought the likes of Taliban should be treated as POWs), though it is just about Pakistan’s version of the NDAA 2012. But the PPO 2014 certainly goes a step ahead in ensuring violations of personal liberty.

We are already familiar with the terrible dictatorial orders that our former Prime Ministers have issued in the not so distant past to ban YouTube. But the Federal Government is now considering a Power Conversation Bill that could ban the import of electronic appliances that consume more than a certain limit of power.

There is really no need to elaborate on the terrible lifestyle laws in Punjab imposed by CM Shehbaz Sharif, which include prohibiting flying kites and serving more than one dish in weddings. Not to mention arresting caterers for not observing wedding ceremony timings. But then again, we are entering the realm of elected dictators now.

As far as the PPO is concerned, for a change if only out of political animosity, the parties on the opposition benches put aside all their differences and opposed it with a united voice.

It is hard to disagree with them. As a matter of fact, at this point in time, I have to say that I am proud of the opposition parties. The new ordinance not only overrides many existing legal and constitutional conditions and encourages detention on government orders, but even introduces the term “internment camps”.

I am not sure if the internment camp reference was ever introduced before in the Pakistani law or no. However, this ordinance certainly is a step forward to legalize otherwise illegal detentions and even internment of certain citizens. It only sounds like a new low for the liberty of Pakistani citizens, despite the security situation.

Despite fierce resistance, the treasury benches passed the ordinance on a party line vote in the House, not that the individual members have much of a choice. But since PPP controls the Senate, it could possibly defeat the bill there, since the party so passionately opposes it.

But the citizens of Pakistan are not always so lucky. For the sake of convenience, let us not discuss the multitude of discriminatory laws passed by the parliament anyway.

It is not just about Pakistan actually. Legislators obsessed with constantly changing the society for the better anywhere are arguably a continuous threat to individual liberty of the citizens. And we see this idea in action everyday.

Making bad laws worse.

Let’s conclude this post with an age old liberty cliché that is as true now as it was in the eighteenth century and the eons before. It was encouraging to see a few liberals endorsing the same quote in Pakistan recently.

Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.

                                                                                                                                         – Benjamin Franklin

Jamshed Dasti, Parliament Lodges, Mujra and Alcohol

Source: Geo.tv/The News

Recently, Jamshed Dasti, an independent MP, has revealed to the nation that the tenants of the Parliament Lodges often hold Mujras and drinking sessions while speaking on the House floor. Dasti even vowed that he can produce video evidence if any MP attempts to refute his claims.

Later, the former PPP populist MP even produced empty liquor bottles on a TV talk show that he claimed he retrieved from the Parliament Lodges. He has even called for medical tests of the MPs to help determine the culprits.

Though it is hilarious that the Pakistani TV channel on which he appeared blurred the liquor bottles on screen. Why? Are those bottles that hard to watch?

I am not too sure if this is the greatest issue that our nation is facing. Personally, I find little problem with it, unless it is violating Parliament regulations and laws. But it surely does break one law, which is the main point behind it.

I can see only one reason to respect Jamshed Dasti’s complaint. And it’s a big one.

No act should be permitted for the Members of the Parliament should which is prohibited for any other citizen of Pakistan. Because, after all, they are citizens as well.

Therefore, they must not be allowed to consume alcoholic beverages.

This warrants an investigation, as the Speaker of the House has reluctantly called for. Whereas, the Interior Minister has completely ruled out the possibility of a Mujra or a dance party.

By law, holding a Mujra party, or inviting a female dancer over to your place, is not prohibited. For now. Unless the police changes their mind. Any citizen can do that for entertainment.

But what a citizen cannot do is buy and consume liquor, except through bootleggers. Which rules out the legal consumption of the commodity.

This is not a question of morality. It is a question of law.

Some could argue that the prohibition of Alcohol that materialized in the late 1970s is an infringement on the personal liberties and the fundamental rights of the people.

Even though the Pakistani Constitution does provide for the fundamental rights for the citizen, it also faces the dichotomy of accounting for the Shariah and Islamic tradition. The problem is you can hardly protect individual liberties if you are accounting for Shariah at the same time.

Maulana Fazl-ur-Rehman complained about the moral policing on the MPs in a statement that I loved. But sadly, he is a proponent of Shariah himself and it is partly due to people like him that these acts are even considered crimes. While I hate to say this, his political position in this case arguably amounts to hypocrisy.

But then again, passing moral judgments about our MPs is not my prime interest here. I would leave that to our clerics and leftists.

But with Dasti’s complaints, our lawmakers are having a taste of their own medicine. This is how it feels when someone interferes in your private affairs. Even though they are holding public offices and should be up for greater scrutiny.

But will they ever learn?

If our MPs are so fond of drinking, a choice that I very much respect, they should call for a vote to legalize liquor and marijuana.

Let the people choose too.

Sheepthink: Presenting Problems as Solutions

Source: godtreasure.net

One of the most fundamental aspects of politics that you can observe is that it works mostly by the manipulation of human emotion.

And why not. With its practitioners being the guardians, as well as traders, of morality and justice, it becomes all about addressing the grievances of the wronged, given the incessant tendency of the human kind to be drawn to conflict and violence.

The imperfect state of affairs and the injustice and inequality caused by the abuse of power and authority all over the world in one way or another only fuel the tensions among people who feel they have been deprived and cheated.

Therefore, since there are always people who are deprived and even oppressed in some way, there will always be platforms that would offer help, genuinely or not. And often those platforms would ultimately resort to the same ills they have been claiming to liberate people from, should they have their way.

Such is the terrible cycle of politics, call it a deliberate system or a natural random occurrence.

However, in a bid to change the society for the better, greater control of the government is often proposed as a remedy to the prevalent inequality and injustice. Yes, what but the government is the solution to every wrong on earth?

Government control is absolutely necessary when it comes to providing security and protecting fundamental rights, consumer rights and the environment from abuse and malpractice. But more often than not, invitation to greater regulation results in taking a yard when an inch is offered. Arguably the same is true for certain private entities, but it remains to be the very occupation of the government.

Often the solution which is supposed to liberate people from the clutches of evil capitalistic oppressors are the very vehicles of the corruption ensuing this misery.

So is completely abolishing either private enterprise or government regulation the solution?

In the meantime, people would continue to be exploited by political emotional blackmail in one way or another. I would not mind as long as they would at least understand the value of their individual liberty, which they are gladly willing to give away in exchange of an imaginary utopian orgasm.

Establishing social justice by infringing on people’s right is nothing but sheepthink.

Maybe the only solution is just not dropping your guard.