April 11, 2008...3:19 pm

Protecting Pakistan’s Hindus

Jump to Comments

This is an engaging piece by Ali Eteraz who writes with much intellectual energy and passion. The views expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily subscribed by the Pak Tea House.

Hindus in Pakistan have suffered grievously since the founding of the nation in 1947. Recently, in the southern province of Sindh, a Hindu man was accused of blasphemy and beaten to death by his co-workers. This comes at the heels of the abduction and dismemberment of a Hindu engineer.

A little while earlier, the military removed 70 Hindu families from lands where they had been living since the 19th century. To this day the temples that Pakistanis destroyed in 1992 in response to the destruction of the Babri mosque in India have not been restored.

Pakistan, according to many accounts, was founded as a way to protect the rights and existence of the minority Muslim population of Colonial India in the face of the larger Hindu majority. Pakistan’s founder, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, is reported to have said in 1947: “In due course of time Hindus will cease to be Hindus and Muslims will cease to be Muslims - not in a religious sense for that is the personal faith of an individual- but in a political sense as citizens of one state.” It is therefore a travesty of Pakistan’s own founding principles that its Hindus - and not to exclude Christians and Ahmadis - have suffered so grossly.

There are two levels of prejudice in Pakistan with respect to Hindus - the cultural and the legal.

While it is difficult to say which one is more pernicious, cultural prejudice is certainly more difficult to uproot because it is perpetuated by religious supremacism, nationalism, stories, myth, lies, families, media, schooling and bigotry.

Cultural prejudice has become part and parcel of language itself. Hindus are referred to as “na pak.” Na means “un” and pak means “pure.” So, Hindus are turned into the impure, or unclean. Given that the word “pak” is part of the word “Pakistan” - which means Land of the Pure - somebody’s impurity suggests that they are not really Pakistani.

To make matters even worse, Pakistani mullahs teach a very supremacist version of the Islamic creed, the kalima. Usually, the kalima reads simply: “There is no god but God and Muhammad is His final messenger.” The version that children are taught, however, reads as follows: “The first kalima is Tayyab; Tayyab means Pak (Pure); There is no god but God and Muhammad is His final Messenger.”

Do you see how the word “Pak” - which denotes both purity and connects to citizenship in Pakistan - is smuggled into the Islamic creed? Since in Urdu this little ditty rhymes very effectively, this is the version of religiosity that most children repeat their entire lives. As a result, while they grow up, they psychologically equate Hindus with impurity, with uncleanliness, as not Pakistani, and therefore less than, both Islamically and as citizens.

The only two parties that can begin to bring some change in this arena are the state and the liberal clerics.

Last year Pakistan’s prime minister did greet Hindus during Diwali and a prominent Hindu nationalist leader - who had to quit his party because of his outreach - that was born in Karachi did come back and pay respects to his birth-city.

Cricket diplomacy, which began in 2004, helped a little (but not really, because the focus was on cricket and not on religion). Also, there are a few prominent Hindus here and there - one is a justice of the Supreme Court and one is the leading leg-spinner for the cricket team. Yet, as the Pakistani exile Tarek Fatah points out, Justice Bhagwandas had to take the oath on the Quran. Meanwhile, Kaneria is regularly excluded from the Pakistani cricket team’s congregational Islamic prayer.

As bad as the cultural prejudice is, legal prejudice is the one that must be more urgently dealt with, because it is what allows cultural prejudice to acquire institutional power.

Two laws in particular have been very problematic for the Hindu community.

The first one was promulgated under the 1973 constitution which made Islam the state religion of Pakistan and established a separate electorate for Muslims and non-Muslims so that Hindus could only vote for Hindu candidates. Musharraf abolished this in 2002. I think Muslims who support the idea of Islamic states around the world really need to stop and think about this for a second. It took an American-backed dictator in the year 2002 for a Muslim state to abolish unequal voting? As a wise man once said: are you kidding me? This is a deplorable commentary on the state of equality in today’s Islam.

The second law is the infamous blasphemy law passed under Islamist dictator Zia ul Haq in the 1980s. Designed specifically to punish the Ahmadi minority, the blasphemy law now provides convenient protection to anyone who ever wants to kill, murder, maim, beat up, mug, abduct, or punish any religious minority. All you really have to do is carry out your brutality and then point at the victim and say that he was blasphemous.

This law needs to be repealed immediately: no reform, no fixing, no tweaking, but total abolishment. Efforts to repeal it under Musharraf failed in the Senate. The secular parliament in session now is probably not going to touch it unless it is told to do so by international groups (who frankly aren’t really interested). The UN, EU, US, and International Council of Jurists must make some noise about repealing Pakistan’s heinous blasphemy law.

There are little more than three million Hindus in Pakistan (a nation of 160 million). They are still part of Pakistani life and need to be treated with respect and dignity. According to some sources, at the founding of Pakistan, Hindus comprised nearly 15% of the country’s population and now number barely 2%. Many have left, many have been killed, and many have converted to other religions to protect themselves. All in all, a travesty for a state that was created with the intended purpose of protecting minorities.

 First published at Commentsisfree

7 Comments

  • yasser latif hamdani
    April 11, 2008 at 7:20 pm

    Eteraz,

    A brilliant article as usual. You know how close this topic is to my heart. The answer lies in making Pakistan a secular state.

    However I would like to make a comment and ask a question.

    The oaths in Pakistan are not taken on the Holy book but it is taken by reading out the oath in the constitution for judges. Therefore Tarek Fatah was as usual not being honest when he made the claim about Bhagwandas. I have seen the judges oath taking ceremonies and I can honestly tell you there isn’t a ghost of chance of Fatah’s version of events being true.

    Secondly has he accused you of being part of Pakistan’s chattering classes yet for using Jinnah’s name or is that honor reserved for yours truly?

  • yasser latif hamdani
    April 11, 2008 at 7:23 pm

    On the contrary I did appear in court in the US once as a witness and was forced to swear on the bible in circuit court in NJ.

  • In some ways the condition of the Hindus in Pakistan is similar to that of most Muslims in India. In Pakistan, if I am not mistaken, most Hindus who “stayed back” were “low caste” ones, while most Muslims who stayed back in India after ‘47 were poor and not belonging to the upper caste Muslims (i.e. the Syeds and Ashrafs et al). The more well off on either side could afford to migrate, it is the poor ones who could not do so.

    A small error in the article- Advani (the “Hindu nationalist” leader mentioned in the article) did not leave his party, indeed he is now projected as the Prime Ministerial candidate of his party.

  • Yasser:

    It is my understanding that Bhagwandas and other judges have to utter the words “May Allah almighty help and guide me, Ameen.” If that is the case, then Tarek was right — b/c that is what he said — and I accidentally misconstrued what he said.

    By the way, your and his disagreement is merely historical. Having become familiar with both of your ideas (to some extent), they are almost mirrors of one another in the hard secularism they espouse.

    He supported the lawyer’s moment pretty solidly - of which I understand you were a part. While, if I recall correctly, you find some of the criticism made by Communists and leftists very valid. Ultimately I’m my own man and not beholden to either of you but as far as where Pakistan *should* go, you agree.

    As to your direct question, I am not sure what chattering classes are. Tarek and I have a cordial but critical relationship. He knows I am critical of both the Bhuttos, I know that unlike me he doesn’t think we need to give the Ghamidi and liberal maulvi the time of day. Less emotion from the both of you would help =]

    Finally, just as a caveat, I am not interested in appropriating the voice of Pakistanis-in-Pakistan. I like to make it very clear that I am looking from the outside in.

  • Future of all islamic countries is grim.The culture religion which is based on hate ,kill disrespect to women rights and others has no future. All bad thing prosper but nature is very strong and big factor nature need variety ,nature wants diversification.Islam is against natural rule .Its call for finishing the others .Soon this i will finish with in or others will unite to finish this soon.

  • Yasser Latif Hamdani
    April 13, 2008 at 7:31 am

    Ali,

    Actually my views are closer to yours than Tarek’s who I frankly consider a trojan horse for many reasons. In any event I for one appreciate Ghamidi’s existence a lot.

    My view of secularism is not based on a negation of all things Islamic and Muslim… nor is it based on some self righteous and hypocritical interpretation of marxism or ethnic identity. It is a matter of necessity … not ideology… for Pakistan.

    Here is one of my letters in Dawn from two years ago which explains my position better: http://www.dawn.com/2006/06/21/letted.htm#3

  • to an inquisitive indian like myself your article provided a succinct yet valuable picture about the condition of hindus in pakistan. no nation in today’s time can choose to ignore the principle of secularism as it forms the premise of modern civilization. it will be in the intersts of the pakistanis of the present as well the coming generation for the country to closely embrace secularism

Leave a Reply