Today marks 50 years of a continuing crime against humanity that Pakistan’s unthinking Parliament unleashed on an already divided population.
It is a crime against humanity because it has set the stage for persecution that is unparalleled in the world today. It has also created almost insoluble problems for the state of Pakistan as far as the idea of citizenship is concerned. It has also warped the very idea of what it means to be a Muslim in Pakistan, transforming the majority into mindless zombies, easily roused in the name of Khatam-e-Nabuwat to carry out the most unthinkable and bigoted atrocities against the Ahmadiyya community.
Without the precedent set by the Second Amendment, it would have been unthinkable for the state to have the kind of exclusivist and reactionary laws, such as the blasphemy laws, that are a source of constant embarrassment for the country globally.
It is important to recognise that the Second Amendment, first and foremost, violates the very premise of Pakistan’s foundational myth, the much-maligned and misunderstood, Two Nation Theory. By this, I mean the actual idea that was posited by the Indian Muslim leadership in the closing decades of the British Raj and not the illogical iteration we have come to know after the 1980s through the state approved textbooks for Pakistan Studies.
The Two Nation Theory postulated that Indian Muslims were a nation based on the internationally accepted criteria for what constitutes a nation, i.e. common history, territory in which it was a majority, language, names and day-to-day cultural life. Muslims, thus, were Muslims not as much because they believed a defined set of theological beliefs but because they were seen as Muslims by the Hindu majority of the subcontinent. The prime example of this was Jinnah himself, who, for the longest time, would insist that he was an Indian first, second, and last. That he flouted Islamic conventions is also well-known and well-publicised. Yet his name was enough for him to be called a “minority” by Gandhi. Had it not been for his name and his perceived Muslim identity, Jinnah would never have been dethroned from the leadership of the Independence movement by Gandhi. Cast into the Muslim mould by his majoritarian colleagues in the Congress, Jinnah was very reticent about defining what he meant by “Muslim”. Gandhi had specifically asked him to do so in their correspondence. When pressed on the Ahmadi question, Jinnah repeatedly advised his followers not to engage in sectarian questions. The idea, thus, was to create a big tent of Muslim identity. This expansive tent allowed for the inclusion of atheists, agnostics, avowed communists, nominal believers, Barelvis, Deobandis, Shias, Ismailis and very significantly, the Ahmadis in the inchoate Muslim nation.
By choosing to define what the word Muslim means in 1974, we buried the non-denominational idea of Muslim identity. In its place, the state adopted a theologically defined Muslim identity which violates the principle of state neutrality to matters of faith
Consider the fact that the demand to declare Ahmadis a Non-Muslim minority predates independence. On July 30, 1944, Maulana Abdul Hamid Badayuni presented a resolution at the All India Muslim League’s central council asking for the expulsion of Ahmadis from the Muslim League. It would have likely passed but Jinnah intervened and refused to allow it to be debated. In the 1950s, the state still had better sense not to get into the adjudication of a sectarian dispute and, accordingly, a memorandum from the Prime Minister’s office stated forthrightly that any attempt to declare Ahmadis Non-Muslim would be contrary to the long-standing policy of the Muslim League vis-a-vis the Ahmadis and would end up dividing the Muslim community.
It was this policy that was abandoned through the Second Amendment. By choosing to define what the word Muslim means in 1974, we buried the non-denominational idea of Muslim identity. In its place, the state adopted a theologically defined Muslim identity which violates the principle of state neutrality to matters of faith. By placing the question of personal faith front and centre, the state has made the question of personal religious belief a matter of state policy, which arguably militates against Islamic jurisprudence. The cornerstone of the religious policy of Islam is — to quote the Holy Quran as its master signifier, which says that there is no compulsion in religion — freedom of conscience for every human being, whatever their faith.
The Parliament’s decision was unanimous and it refused to consider the Ahmadiyya position despite the Constitution’s explicit promise that Islam would be interpreted in accordance with each sect’s jurisprudential position. This diversity of religious opinion, the cornerstone of the Constitution’s religious policy, was sacrificed at the altar of unanimity. The blame primarily lies with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and his Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP). Like any other populist, Bhutto taught the people to be fearful of the educated class. Since Ahmadis were an educated and enterprising community which had done well in the new state, they made for easy targets. History will not judge those who supported the amendment kindly. Mufti Mahmood and his party’s support for the Second Amendment was expected. However, self-proclaimed secular and left politicians also backed it, for example, the National Awami Party led by Wali Khan, which voted en masse for the amendment. Bhutto was quick to present this as his signature achievement and singular contribution to Islam. Speaking on the issue, he boasted that it was the PPP that had resolved the 90-year-old problem. He counted it amongst his chief services to Islam in Pakistan. General Zia ul Haq doubled down on this discrimination by bringing in the law to criminalise the very profession of the Ahmadi faith.
Rulers who followed furthered the policy. During her term as prime minister, Benazir Bhutto referred to this as her father’s great service to Islam and refused to undo even General Zia’s ordinance. The PML-N further intensified the campaign of persecution by changing the name of the Ahmadi-majority city of Rabwah to Chenab Nagar. The situation for Ahmadis in Pakistan keeps going from bad to worse. They are effectively barred from voting in elections due to a discriminatory supplementary list. What happened in the Mubarak Sani case recently shows how precarious the situation for Ahmadis is now. Even allowing Ahmadis the right to practise their faith behind closed doors is controversial, and Supreme Court’s capitulation underscores the urgency of the matter. A judgment of the Islamabad High Court from 2018 has directed the government to ensure that Ahmadis are made to wear a different attire so that they can be recognised as being separate from Muslims. Bar Associations are now banning Ahmadi lawyers from courts around the country. There is a complete cultural, economic and social genocide of the community in Pakistan, designed, calculatedly, to root out the community from Pakistan.
Ultimately, Pakistan would have to repeal the Second Amendment. It is a travesty that it has been allowed to go on for 50 years. The erasure of the identity of an entire community is unsustainable in the 21st century. Pakistan can continue to swim against the tide, but as with all discriminations and prejudices around the world, Pakistan would ultimately be forced to end this. The Second Amendment violates Pakistan’s obligations under international law, and its status as a modern nation-state cannot be reconciled with such antediluvian constitutional amendments and laws.