Naeem Shakir

[Ed. Note: The writer is a practicing lawyer of the Lahore High Court,chairman of Idara-e-Amn-o-Insaf Lahore (Committee for Justice and Peace) and a member of the Central Committee of the National Workers Party.]

Soon after the untimely demise of its founder, Qaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the infant nation of Pakistan was thrown out of the cradle of democracy and became a victim in the hands of those who were careerists, opportunists, fundamentalists and obscurantists. The leadership left behind deviated from the path leading to a democratic order. Almost half of Pakistan's national life has been under direct martial law rule. The democratic institutions could not flourish, rather they were dismantled and debased.

Ironically enough, the religious extremists who were openly opposed to the formation of Pakistan and its founding leader Qaid-e-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah have been raising claims for being builders of this State and assert to materialise their agenda to theocratise Pakistan. On the contrary, the Qaid literally abhorred the idea of a theocratic State and never approved it. The people of Pakistan have not supported their stand and have never reposed confidence in them during the electoral process conducted through the general elections so far held in the country.

The religious extremists insist on imposing the mode of separate electorates on the Pakistani nation in general and on minorities in particular in order to theocratise the State of Pakistan. During previous martial law rule, they made an attempt to Islamicise every field of life and now they want to Islamicise religious minorities as well.

The subject of the mode of electorates relates to a basic right of a citizenÐthe right of franchise, which determines the character of a modern society and state. The principle of adult franchise means that every adult citizen has the right to vote. The exercise of this right in the electoral process enables citizens to form a government of their choice. Thus, the business of the state is conducted through elected representatives; but if an embargo is imposed in any manner on the exercise of this right or it is subjected to any kind of classification, the process is tantamount to the negation and violation of a fundamental and basic human right, and the concept of good governance is ruthlessly mutilated. The involvement of the people in the business of the State can only be maintained through the exercise of the right of franchise.

The much talked about Objectives Resolution, which was earlier placed as a preamble to the 1956, 1962 and 1973 constitutions, was made a substantive part of the Constitution of 1973 by effecting a constitutional amendment through Presidential Order 14 of 1985 whereby Article 2A was incorporated in the Constitution. The text of this constitutional document opens with:

'Whereas sovereignty over the entire Universe belongs to Almighty Allah alone, and the authority to be exercised by the people of Pakistan within the limits prescribed by Him is a sacred trust,

And whereas it is the will of the people of Pakistan to establish an order

Wherein the State shall exercise its powers and authority through the chosen representatives of the people;'

The underlined words do not create any classification or discrimination on any basis among the people of Pakistan. This principle and spirit was maintained until 1985 when the constitutionally settled issue of mode of electorates in the 1956, 1962 and 1973 constitutions were disturbed. This was done by effecting a constitutional amendment via Presidential Order 14 of 1985 whereby a mode of separate electorates was imposed on the Pakistani nation in general and non-Muslim citizens in particular.

This change of mode of electorates was made on a religious basis. The nation was divided on the basis of religion in five groups, namely:

1. Muslims
2. Christians
3. Hindus
4. Sikhs, Buddhists, Parsis and
5. Ahmadis

The electoral lists were separated on a sectarian basis, and each religious group was confined to itself in the electoral process. None could give or receive votes beyond its religious group. The nation was segregated and divided, and thus, the democratic strength of the people of Pakistan was disintegrated. It was a deliberate move of Gen. Zia ul Haq to prolong his military rule in the country.

With the introduction of this mode of separate electorates, non-Muslim citizens were thrown out of the mainstream of national life. A religious apartheid was imposed which promoted the baneful sentiments of religious prejudice and hostile sectarianism. Non-Muslims are practically no longer a part of the State, rendering them marginalised, second-class citizens.

When rights are protected by constitutional guarantees, they are called fundamental rights because they have been placed beyond the power of any organ of the State, whether executive or legislative, to violate.

Let us examine how the right to vote has been guaranteed in our Constitution. It may be carefully noted that despite a constitutional amendment via Gen. Zia ul Haq's Presidential Order of 1985 regarding incorporation of the words '207 Muslim members' in Article 51 (1) of the Constitution of 1973 (relating to the National Assembly), the definition of a voter in Article 51 (2) was not disturbed and remained as follows:

(2) A person shall be entitled to vote if:-

a. he is a citizen of Pakistan

b. he is not less than 21 years of age

c. his name appears on the electoral roll, and

d. he is not declared by a competent court to be of unsound mind.

Whereas with the addition of clause (2A), the words incorporated were: 'In addition to the number of seats referred to in clause (1), there shall be in the National Assembly ten additional seats reserved as follows for the persons referred to in clause (3) of Article 106.'

It is pertinent to point out that Article 106 clause (1) and (2) were not disturbed at all, neither were the seats were termed 'Muslim members' as was done in Article 51 (1), nor was the definition of voter was changed for the provincial assemblies. The addition of clause (3) was made, however, regarding the additional reserved seats for four non-Muslim religious groups as was done in Article 51.

All of this means that the constitutional status of citizens regarding the right to vote as it stands today is as follows. Since the definition of 'voter' in Articles 51 and 106 is not disturbed, non-Muslim citizens can vote on so-called general seats; however, they cannot contest elections for the National Assembly seats of '207 Muslim members' as prescribed in Article 51. Non-Muslim citizens in Article 51(3) have been provided 10 additional seats reserved for the four non-Muslim religious groups referred to above. However, no change was made to Article 106, except the reservation of additional seats for four non-Muslim religious groups. Thus, a non-Muslim can contest elections for both 'general' and reserved seats of the provincial assemblies.

Despite this constitutional guarantee of the right to vote in Articles 51 and 106, non-Muslim citizens were not allowed to vote for general seats and neither were they allowed to contest elections for seats in the provincial assemblies. Likewise, Muslim citizens were deprived of the votes of their non-Muslims compatriots. This situation caused a diminishment of the democratic forces.

This constitutional violation was consistently repeated in the country's general elections of 1985, 1988, 1990, 1993 and 1997. The right to vote was classified on religious affiliations. The people of Pakistan were deprived of their basic right of adult franchise. The concept of democracy stood negated.

Ever since the imposition of this apartheid mode of separate electorates, the religious minorities have been agitating against this constitutional violation and sectarian discrimination, but an adamant approach has been adopted so far to perpetuate a wrong which goes to the roots of religious extremism,obscurantism and fundamentalism, nursed and promoted during all these years for their vested interests.

A misconception needs to be removed that the issue of mode of electorates is an issue of minorities alone. It is not correct. It is a national issue. The mode of separate electorates deprives the citizens of their electorate, which is constitutionally provided and guaranteed. The non-Muslim citizen's right to vote stands classified on religious lines, which is opposed to the spirit and principle maintained in all the constitutions framed by the elected representatives of the people of Pakistan without any distinction or discrimination. The electoral process provided to non-Muslims in the form of additional reserved seats in the National Assembly and provincial assemblies is onerous, oppressive and ridiculous as the constituency for the National Assembly and Provincial Assembly reserved seats is the whole of Pakistan's territory.

The election results under separate electorates have shown that the contestants to these reserved seats indulge in this expensive and onerous exercise as an economic enterprise as they have represented none except their own vested interests. This mode of electorates has further divided the four non-Muslim religious groups into different sects, which has further fanned sectarianism. The four members from among the Christians are all from the province of Punjab, as the majority of them live there and not in the other three provinces. Likewise, the four Hindus are from the province of Sindh as the majority lives there, and thus, the remaining three provinces stand unrepresented. In the same way , the other two reserved seats are inequitably filled.

Thus, it is not representation but sheer manipulation which matters in this election. Practically all of the 10 members remain in the fold of the ruling party as it can best serve their interests. There is a lot of discrimination in the form of legislation against the minorities; but during all these years, not a single bill was moved by these members to better the lot of their electorates. The position of such seats in the provincial assemblies is no better. This mode of electorates has created a class of opportunists and manipulators among the minorities, which, instead of representing their electorate, represent their own vested interests by selling their votes. It has de-politicised the members of the minorities as far as national mainstream politics is concerned. They stand totally segregated and are treated as pariahs.

The Islamists, on the other hand, are vehemently against the mode of joint electorates and support separate electorates. Their case is based on religiously sectarian lines and thus smacks of discrimination on the face of it. According to them, Pakistan is an ideological State, and the principle of separate electorates is inherent in its ethos, and thus, no one can be permitted to disturb this position. They say that Pakistan was formed by the struggle of Muslims for their homeland on the basis of the Two Nation theory which still holds good, and therefore, non-Muslim citizens do not enjoy the same status in this State as Muslims. The State is responsible for protecting their life and property; however, the ability to decide policy matters for running the business of the State exclusively rests with Muslim citizens. They further allege that anyone who tries to disturb this position and wants to abolish separate electorates and plans to introduce joint electorates is an anti-State and anti-Islam traitor, and, thus, must be taken seriously and taught some lesson for destroying the Islamic edifice. They use threatening language to silence the democratic forces in general and the religious minorities in particular. They issue religious decrees to kill (fatwas) those who do not agree with them on their ideological stand.

Their stand that non-Muslim citizens cannot be equal citizens in an Islamic Republic of Pakistan is based on fallacy. The non-Muslim citizens living in present Pakistan have been living on this land for many centuries. They are sons of the soil. They belong to this mother earth. They have not been vanquished by any force called Muslims. They, at the time of partition, stayedbecause it is their motherland.

Secondly, the movement of the people of undivided India to overthrow the yoke of British colonialism embraced all, irrespective of caste, colour or creed. The new State emerged from the partition of India. The non-Muslim in general and the Christians in particular supported Quaid-i-Azam wholeheartedly, and the proceedings of the Boundary Commission will bear out that Christians voted in favour of Pakistan while the boundaries were being carved.

There is hardly any ground for the Islamists to hold that Pakistan was made to be formed into a theocratic State. The blueprint Quaid-e-Azam spelt out before the nation was on a democratic and secular basis. His presidential address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan at Karachi on 11August1947 clearly demonstrates how the Quaid wanted to run the business of the State and how the minorities would be treated in the State 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 creedÐ that has nothing to do with the business of the State. Now, I think we should keep that in front of us as our ideal and you will find that in the course of time Hindus would cease to be Hindus and Muslims would cease to be Muslims, not in the religious sense, because that is the personal faith of each individual, but in the political sense as citizens of the State.'

After this historic declaration, there is hardly any scope for communalism or religious sectarianism. All citizens of this State make up one nationÐthe Pakistani nation. The Two Nation Theory was propounded for creating a separate homeland so that Hindu domination in economic and political fields could be avoided. The demand for a mode of separate electorates by the Muslim League was also for a separate homeland. The division of India was being designed. After the formation of Pakistan, there is only one nationÐneither any new state nor new nation is to be born, nor is the division of this State of Pakistan desired. The minority in India (the Muslims) asked for separate electorates, whereas the minorities of Pakistan do not want separate electorates. Therefore, it would be wrong to impose the mode of separate electorate over unwilling minorities. The minorities of Pakistan treat the mode of separate electorates as the root cause of their marginalisation.

The present military rulers since their arrival on 12 October, 1999 have talked much about good governance and accountability. They even organised a Convention on Human Rights and Human Dignity at the government level and vowed to defend and promote the marginalised sections of society, but since then, they have made a number of retreats in favour of religious extremistsÐperhaps to avoid their religious decrees. These are ad hoc and opportunistic measures. The policy of appeasement for religious clerics, like their predecessor, is being adopted by them also. This policy has gradually drifted society towards the brink of an abyss. The situation is too grave to be ignored. The government's conduct as silent spectator provides implied patronage to theocratic elements. This approach fans orthodoxy, retrogression, socio-religious intolerance and armed violence in the name of religion. This atmosphere of hate and violence is suffocating the lives of the people.

The present government's much trumpeted agenda of devolution of power for which the time frame for the election of local bodies has been declared will be meaningless if the right of franchise remains subject to classification on sectarian lines. The apartheid mode of separate electorates must be brought to an end in order to build a civil, tolerant and democratic society. The agenda for devolution of power should be for the people of Pakistan and not for Muslims alone.