A task force for religious tolerance had to be established. No such task force has been established. The SC called for curricula reform. Dr Bernadette Louise Dean, an educationist doing precisely that, was driven out of the country
Source/Credit: Daily Times | Pakistan
By Yasser Latif Hamdani | June 29, 2015
It has been a little over a year since the now famous minorities’ judgment was handed down by the Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan under the guidance of Chief Justice (CJ) Tassadaque Hussain Jillani, now retired. It is a judgment that on a legal plane establishes certain truths about Pakistan’s self-identification, which need to be underscored and which, unfortunately, have not been emphasised enough either by legal scholars or by human rights activists.
The SC says in paragraph 13 of the judgment: “By freedom of religion and belief is meant the right of a person to follow a doctrine or belief system which, in the view of those who profess it, provides spiritual satisfaction. However, it is impossible to define the term ‘religion’ in rigid terms. The freedom of religion must then be construed liberally to include freedom of conscience, thought, expression, belief and faith.” This extends the right of religious freedom as being a community right to an individual right. This distinction is very important and is repeatedly driven home by the judgment. Explaining this, the SC lays down in paragraph 16: “Article 20 must then be interpreted to guarantee the rights of the community as well as the right of the individual against those from his own or other religious communities — the ultimate goal being the eradication of religious intolerance in the society.”
In paragraph 17, the SC declares: “It is imperative that the right to freedom of religion be restored as an individual and indefeasible right.” In paragraph 15(e), the SC underscores that the right to religious freedom and the right to propagate one’s religion extends not just to Muslims but to minorities as well: “It is important to note that this propagation of religion has not been limited to Muslims having the right to propagate their religion but this right is equally conferred on non-Muslims to propagate their religion to their own community and to other communities.”
Explaining the constitutional background of freedom of religion and status of minorities, the SC harks back to the Pakistan Movement as essentially a movement for the rights of the Muslim minority in India and points out that these rights sought by the Muslim minority were not limited to Muslims but had been through various resolutions of the All India Muslim League (AIML) extended to non-Muslim minorities. Thus, the judgment makes an important ideological contribution to the reframing of the history of the Pakistan Movement in terms of rights instead of religion. The SC states in paragraph nine of the judgment: “The protection of the freedom of religious belief and practice of all communities was indeed the predominant right asserted in several propositions and resolutions passed by the AIML. Despite the fact that members of the AIML were being strongly influenced by secular liberal thought, the ideology underlying the Pakistan Movement was the creation of a separate nation state for the protection of the interests of the Muslim minority in India. However, these freedoms were not limited to the protection of the Muslim minority but all religious minorities. One of the famous 14 points enumerated by Mohammad Ali Jinnah on proposed constitutional changes was that ‘full religious liberty, i.e. liberty of belief, worship and observance, propaganda, association and education shall be guaranteed to all communities’.”
How the SC identifies its role is also enlightening. It sees itself as the apex court of a liberal democracy. In paragraph 34, the judgment reads: “The Supreme Court, being the apex court in a liberal democracy, is mandated to protect and defend the Constitution, which embodies the fundamental rights of its citizens. Thus, while deciding cases entailing inter-faith or intra-faith conflicts, the Courts should keep in view the fact that there are some in every faith who seek to interpret religion in myopic terms.” It is clear that the SC views itself as the guardian of the values of a liberal democracy and not a myopic theocracy. The judgment imagines the SC as the vanguard of an enlightened Pakistan, the position of which in the world it is equally clear on. In paragraph 36 of the judgment, the SC says: “The cherished goal of creating a more pluralistic society where fundamental rights are respected would continue to elude us unless we realise that we are living in a world of globalised interdependence, a world of interconnectivity, of cyber space, of shrunken distances, of cross border migration and a world of rapidly changing cultural identities. We are all members of one race of humans with common challenges, and we cannot confront these challenges without forging a common alliance.” Here is a noble and progressive vision of what Pakistan in the 21st century aspires to: a Pakistan committed to human progress, human freedom and the creation of a harmonious and pluralistic society run in accordance with the highest possible standards of human conduct. After Jinnah’s August 11 speech and the Munir Report in the 1950s, this judgment is the third major document that promises an inclusive Pakistan of which freedom of religion — in the broadest sense — would be a cornerstone and where every citizen would be equal before the law and in the eyes of the state.
The implementation of this judgment has been poor to non-existent. There were specific directions given by the SC to the government. A task force for religious tolerance had to be established. No such task force has been established. The SC called for curricula reform. Dr Bernadette Louise Dean, an educationist doing precisely that, was driven out of the country. Hate speech had to be curbed but in reality hate speech is even more rampant in Pakistan against the minorities. A National Council of Minorities had to be constituted under the law to ensure practical realisation of minorities’ rights. No such council has been formed. A special police force had to be established for the sake of the protection of minorities and their places of worship. Surprise! No such police force has been established. The government, it seems, is unwilling or unable to comply with the most basic requirements of the judgment. Is it because rights of minorities — despite being on every party’s manifesto — is not sexy enough to matter? It is precisely for this reason that minorities ought to given the right to elect their own representatives through popular vote. Their appeals to the majority’s reason and sense of fairness have brought them nothing. Is the SC listening? Is it still willing to play the role of the apex court of a liberal democracy as it promised so eloquently on June 19, 2014?
(Concluded)
Read original post here: Pakistan: Minorities and the Supreme Court — II | Yasser Latif Hamdani
This content-post is archived for backup and to keep archived records of any news Islam Ahmadiyya. The views expressed by the author and source of this news archive do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of Ahmadiyya Times. Ahmadiyya Times is not an organ of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, nor in any way associated with any of the community's official websites.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for your comments. Any comments irrelevant to the post's subject matter, containing abuses, and/or vulgar language will not be approved.