Ali Eteraz has an informative column on Comment is Free about discrimination against Pakistan’s 3 million Hindus.
The immediate inspiration is a recent lynching of a Hindu factory worker in Karachi, after it is alleged that he uttered blasphemous words about Islam and the Prophet Muhammed. The family of the man who was murdered have suggested that he may have been killed for other reasons, and his co-workers have merely invoked blasphemy as a convenient ruse for a murder committed for more prosaic reasons. It is unclear whether his killers will be prosecuted, though there does appear to be some legal interest in doing so.
In his column, Ali Eteraz rightly condemns the institutional discrimination that exists against religious minorities in Pakistan, including the establishment of separate electorates for Hindus (dating from 1973), and an anti-Ahmadiyya blasphemy law that was first instituted by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and then enhanced by Zia ul-Haq in 1982.
One of the commenters on Comment is Free also linked to this article in the Washington Post, which describes Pakistan’s anti-blasphemy laws in greater depth. Reading that article reminded me how complex Pakistan’s legal system is. I think Ali Eteraz’s sincere hope is that the Blasphemy Law in particular ought to be immediately repealed. For my part, I must admit I have no idea whether that is a realistic possibility or not. However, we might remember that Pakistan’s legal community took a heroic stance last fall in the face of Musharraf’s anti-democratic actions. Perhaps they can do so again.
This is, sadly, not altogether uncommon in Pakistan. Usually it is a threat against any minority (Christian, Hindu or otherwise) and can be used to justify land-grabbing, to settle fights between a Muslim and non-Muslim, or for a myriad of other reasons. All you have to do is scream about how soandso cursed the Prophet or what not and ta-da… you’ve either got a mob scene (what appears to have happened here) or you’ve got an arrest followed by the “guilty” party given the choice between giving the accuser what he/ they want in exchange for them “dropping the charge” or facing the music which can be death (though I must add it’s not terribly clear how many of these cases result in death penalties).
It (the blasphemy law) ought to be repealed immediately although it’s not likely especially considering that the OIC is trying to effect a quasi-global blasphemy law as we speak (or write as the case may be).
That’s right. Repeal the law and the problem will go away. Because the people are law abiding citizens, not ideologically motivated, correct?
Laws should reflect the philosophical makeup of the populace. Social engineering through laws has never succeeded. Case in point: Dowry laws in India have failed miserably.
People will do what they want to do.
M. Nam
However, we might remember that Pakistan’s legal community took a heroic stance last fall in the face of Musharraf’s anti-democratic actions.
well, the problem might be with what moornam alludes to: presecution of minorities might be the democratic impulse.
I’d be surprised if they did. My understanding is that Iftikhar Chaudhry is fundamentally a populist, and his actions stem from his beliefs on what the masses want.
btw, ali says: According to some sources, at the founding of Pakistan, Hindus comprised nearly 15% of the country’s population and now number barely 2%.
does that include east bengal? since hindus were 30% of the population in east bengal and east bengal was around 1/2 of the original state population that seems plausible….
Dammit — is Ali spreading that crap false statistics as well? It’s easy to research. Focusing only on West Pakistan, the proportion of non-Muslims (counting Ahmadis as msulim) was 3.56 in 1941, and 3.48% in 1998. If anyone has better figures, please let me know.
Ali has good intentions, but in this case he needs to work on fact-checking.
That’s right. Repeal the law and the problem will go away. Because the people are law abiding citizens, not ideologically motivated, correct? Laws should reflect the philosophical makeup of the populace. Social engineering through laws has never succeeded. Case in point: Dowry laws in India have failed miserably.
There was not much support for de-segregation in the deep South either but laws were passed anyway. The minorities in Pakistan need to be protected whether the majority is ready for offering such protection or not. That is why you need the Courts in Pakistan to step in and fix the problem as they dont face popular pressure.
these data suggest that in rural sindh hindus form nearly 10% of the population.
There was not much support for de-segregation in the deep South either but laws were passed anyway. The minorities in Pakistan need to be protected whether the majority is ready for offering such protection or not. That is why you need the Courts in Pakistan to step in and fix the problem as they dont face popular pressure.
IOW, elites need to non-democratically impose individual liberty and engage in a kulturkampf which applies enough cultural pressure to shift the arrow of conformism appropriately. i’m down. but do you think pakistani elites are?
Dammit — is Ali spreading that crap false statistics as well? It’s easy to research.
Between Ikram and myself, we have smacked down these bogus numbers atleast a dozen times on SM. These numbers have more resilience than the campaign of Hillary Clinton.
AMFD:
The law was backed by the North(60%+ of the country’s population), a large white minority in the south, and of course AA’s themselves. In addition, much before the law, meetings were held, debates were conducted. Churches urged integration. Movies were made to spread racial tolerance.
Where’s the equivalent of that in Pakistan? What to the Friday sermons preach about religious minorities? Where is the Pakistani movie equivalent of “Guess who’s coming to dinner?”?
Minorities should be sufficiently integrated that they should not have a minority complex. The way to do it is not through laws, but NGO’s to emphasise on individualism and teach people to negate group think.
M. Nam
It must be noted, however, that blasphemy laws are not used against minorities alone, but against fellow Muslims, mostly for personal or criminal reasons.
But are they less bogus than her campaign?
No, you need a multi pronged approach. Laws and strong leadership, a vocal media, some amount of propaganda tying such things to the idea of Pakistan and Islam, education starting at the primary level promoting the same and NGOs working on the ground and still you cannot be sure it will work (your example of Dowry in India).
The law was backed by the North(60%+ of the country’s population), a large white minority in the south
that seems false. unless “large white minority” = few percent of the population (see there goes my everything). as for the north, the book sundown towns documents expulsions of blacks from “all-white” towns in illinois as late as the 1950s. in oregon blacks who played in portland had to stay across the river in vancouver, WA, because portland hotels wouldn’t serve them. the reaction to busing in places like boston, or the support for george wallace in the wisconsin primaries, shows that non-elite whites in the north were qualitatively that different from southern whites. their racism was simply less salient because they had ethnically cleansed blacks from their towns earlier, while southern whites had simply segregated them. in much of the north civil rights was a southern issue because there were no blacks, and the populace was willing to acede to the supreme court and enforce its edict. but remember that it initially had little effect on them; northern segregation was more informal or localized, or, many regions did not have many blacks to begin with.
(i agree with your overall point, but i don’t think that one should present the past falsely to advance an argument)
Ardy etc: >>No, you need a multi pronged approach. Laws
Ok – let’s backtrack and go to the roots. Law making 101. What’s a law? At it’s core, a law is the will of the majority imposed on a minority. A majority of the people believe that theft, murder, rape is wrong, so a law is passed and implemented to prevent the minority from indulging in them. A majority of the people believe that a speed limit of 55-65MPH on the freeway and 25MPH around schools is “safe” – so a law is passed to prevent the minority from speeding.
Remember: A law does not have to be just or fair or follow logic. It is, at the end of the day, the whim of the majority.
For example: During the Great Depression, a great majority felt that Social Security was necessary for old age, so a law was passed to implement it. The minority, which saw through the ponzi scheme, was silenced. Once the majority feels that Universal Healthcare is good, no amount of argument from the minority will prevent it from becoming law.
If the great majority feels that dowry is a personal exchange between consenting adults, much like prostitution, then all the laws passed against it will be futile. If the great majority feels that minorities, especially idol-worshipping minorities need not have rights, then no amount of laws will cure the disease.
M. Nam
The coming of real Democracy (if it happens) to Pakistan may not help, but infact hurt, the status of minorities. There has to be explicit clauses written in the legal code (or constitution) to prevent the “tyranny of the majority”. On top of that the culture should be one of respect for the law. If these things are absent than Democracy can pave a way for the extinction of minorities. Hitler was elected Democratically after all.
If the great majority feels that dowry is a personal exchange between consenting adults, much like prostitution, then all the laws passed against it will be futile. If the great majority feels that minorities, especially idol-worshipping minorities need not have rights, then no amount of laws will cure the disease.
there might be a quantitative difference between “majority” and “great majority,” but there’s social science data which suggests that the masses will go along with the elites after some latency. usually there is a tendency to adhere to the espoused norms and conform, so there needs to be persistent pressure applied after the initial shock. roe. vs. wade is a good example, i used to have ‘americana yearbook’ and most people were notionally opposed to legalized abortion before the ruling. after the ruling there was a shift toward acceptance of legalized abortion. if the elites are serious about change they can do it, they just need to sink some capital into it. as it is, my understanding is that dowry spread in india in the 20th century as elite emulation, and prosperity is exacerbating it, not dampening it. that’s probably the issue here; the elites are two-faced.
Amardeep, good post. On the lynching itself, I don’t think the stated rationale was the actual motive – it was just convenient and provides plausible legal cover, as it was known to his assailants that he was Hindu. Since the poor man is dead, he can’t explain himself, and nobody’s the wiser, or so they thought. One positive facet of the sad story is that it is being discussed precisly because Pakistan now has a much freer media than it ever did, a media that defends its freedom with a zeal that, frankly, is astounding. I think the full facts should soon become more widely known, because the media is investigating, and so is the official machinery. In earlier periods, it might well have been buried and forgotten about.
Just a few more general comments. First, it is necessary to note that an overwhelming number of the Hindus now remaining in Pakistan are from the weakest socioeconomic classes – it would be euphemistic to call them sanitation workers or leatherworkers or shoesmiths or washerfolk. While there is certainly an attempt from latter-day Islamic clergy to adduce a religious rationale for the discrimination – for the most part, the discrimination arises from their low socio-economic status, and indeeed, similarly situated folk across the border in India face similar ‘caste’ discrimination.
Secondly, the Hindu population of Pakistan is mostly rural and mostly in Sindh. Thus it is largely immune from the effects of any prejudice from urban and/or Punjabi Pakistanis – simply from the fact of where it is located – and the former comprise most of Pakistan. It is not as if the Hindu population of Pakistan were uniformly spread over Pakistan in urban ghettos and hostage to the possibility of regular ‘riots’ the way the Muslim population of India often is. There is, however, a significant Christian minority in the Punjabi part of Pakistan – they are more urban, but also largely in lower socioeconomic classes. There have been cases of lynchings and attacks on Christians also over ‘blaspheming’.
Thirdly, the separate religious electorates are now gone. In fact, Musharraf took them out in a constitutional amendment back in 2002, and they were not there in the 2008 elections. Ali’s write up mentions this, perhaps he corrected it after you read his piece.
Overall my reading of Pakistan today is that elite consensus is shifting away from supporting a religiously-defined state toward supporting a more secular state with an overwhelming Muslim majority – although it is sometimes a question of one step forward and half a step back.
Justice Bhagwandas may have taken his oath on the Koran, but he did serve as Acting Chief Justice; he did go on a religious holiday to India where he remained while a major crisis broke in Pakistan; his inability to celebrate Diwali with his friends (while under house-arrest along with his Muslim judicial colleagues) became a major issue in the Pakistani media; the protests from clergy and religious parties that he should not be allowed to serve as Acting CJ because of his religion were faint to begin with and then wholly quashed by the elite, nor did they find resonance in the polity one might otherwise have expected given the perception and reality of Pakistan as an Islamic country.
So I see these as hopeful signs; Ali as ever is in iconoclastic dissident mode, and I salute his brave stance holding a mirror to Pakistanis over their treatment of the religious minorities in their midst.
ROFL. I was pretty sure that someone would raise the “moral equivalence” between India and Pakistan. I’m surprised that it took 18 comments.
Recently, Mayawati humbled an intermediate caste leader for saying derogatory stuff. You should note that there is no legal blasphemy law in India to take refuge after killing a person belonging to the minority community or from the weaker sections. Infact India has laws protecting the Dalits even from being abused and that is the law invoked by Mayawati.
Now continue with the “moral equivalence” stories.
Where are you getting this? 1941? In 1941, the Sikh/Hindu population of western Punjab (which became Pakistani Punjab) was at least 25%. The Hindu population of Sindh was close to 20%. Even NWFP and Balochistan had a few % of their population as Hindu/Sikh. So there is no way the non-Muslim population of what was to become Pakistan was only 3.56% in 1941. If you meant 1951 then you may be right.
Not always. Especially in a place like Pakistan which is more often than not a faux democracy. Here on SM itself, we’ve brought up the idea of a benevolent dictator, and this is one place where such a dictator or ruling leadership (even if democratically elected) could make a difference. Thus a law does not always have to be a majority consensual one. For eg. the blasphemy laws, I am not so sure were a will of the Pakistani majority that got implemented.
Secondly, as you yourself pointed out, the law can function as a deterrent to the minority to go against what the majority believes. Thus once your NGOs etc start making progress and people start seeing the way of respecting everyone, the minority of people which will want to discriminate against religious minorities can be deterred through laws. Unless you assume that as soon as majority will develops, a law will be passed and more importantly implemented to the degree neccessary in a very short time.
Which is not to say that without laws such a change cannot come about, but a law will definitely help much.
Look — Hindus in Pakistan are really poor, rural, and backwards. You average whiskey-drinking-investment-banker-wannabe-London-vacationing-barely-urdu-speaking elite Pakistani will never meet a feudal Hindu labourer in his life. Apart from the occasional news event, like the murder above, Hindus are just off the radar screen.
Which kind of argues — based on Razib’s thinking above — that elite Pakistanis use the Pakistani government to push society to provide better treatment of Hindus, and affirmative action. But the Pakistani government has never been particularly effective at anything, so chances of an effective kulturkamp are slim.
Ponniyin — “People” who put “random” words “in” quotation “marks” are “”irritating””. “Please Stop”.
Amitabh — very sorry — Now I’m the one spreading bad stats. Yes, its 1951 — click on the link and it will take you to the sources.
If you meant 1951 then you may be right.
I think Ikram meant 1951, and it was a typo, if you check his earlier comment linked in the discussion.
Also, Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) which double digit % after 1948, has have had many waves of Hindus and other minorities immigrating to India, all through 1950s-60s, with the largest influx in 1972.
perhaps not a feudal labourer, but if he’s whisky-drinking, there is a good likelihood that his supplier is hindu.
on a more serious note, one of my close friends grew up as a hindu in karachi, and he had a really rough time of it. their status as a minority was a big reason why his entire family has now moved out of pakistan, mostly to the states. it’s been nearly 15 years since he’s left pakistan, but there is always a twinge of bitterness when he speaks of pakistan. sad.
Not always. Especially in a place like Pakistan which is more often than not a faux democracy. Here on SM itself, we’ve brought up the idea of a benevolent dictator, and this is one place where such a dictator or ruling leadership (even if democratically elected) could make a difference. Thus a law does not always have to be a majority consensual one. For eg. the blasphemy laws, I am not so sure were a will of the Pakistani majority that got implemented.
well, i think one can make a strong case that sadam was good for religious minorities. the sunni arabs, well, he was a sunni arab, but also christians from the chaldaean community (tariq aziz was a chaldaean christian). it now seems many christians are moving to syria. syria is dominated militarily by an alawite family. the alawites are very heterodox muslims. chances are if syria goes to majority-rule the christians of syria as also going to be shit-out-of-luck.
this doesn’t mean that dictators and the like are always benevolent. they have interests to serve. in medieval spain there was a monarch who was a notorious friend of jews. i say notorious because he was hated by many nobles and the populace, and so jews were a group he could always depend on, and served as reliable sources of capital against his brother during their wars. similarly, the alawite protection of religious liberty for christians is motivated probably in large part due to the fact that if they foment and encourage that sort of sectarianism then the majority sunnis will look in their direction in due time. in the united states one of the reasons the elite opinion shifted against segregation probably had to do with the fact that we battled a racial nationalist regime in world war ii, and, were making the case against communism as an oppressive regime which enslaved whole peoples. obviously leftists had an immediate retort when these sorts of universalist-rights arguments were advanced in the interests of american power.
Chachaji,
I am sure you know more about this than I do, I have a close Hindu Sindhi friend from Karachi and his description of Hindu Sindhis in Karachi is anything but poor. From his account it seems like they are an affluent minority. Can someone speak more to this?
Umber Desi, there may well be some very wealthy Hindu Sindhis in Karachi. Many more are comfortably well off. I meant that the rural Hindu Sindhis are very poor. The rural Hindu Sindhis are the majority of Pakistani Hindus.
I hadn’t seen the table Razib posted upthread, when I made my earlier comment, but now I have, and the statistics bear me out.
umber desi, the hindu friend to whom i referred @ 26 was also of a sindhi family in karachi. although they were affluent, it seemed that their (particular) experience as minorities was enough to incite all of them to look outward for their future home.
How do you know this?? So these criminals are so sophisticated that they know about the anti-blasphemy laws and in used that for this pre-meditated act !!! Wow that is a leap.
Well, in the case of non benevolent dictators/monarchs of the kinds that Razib mentions, it’s a case of maintenance of power and it is always easier to maintain a give and take relationships and thus generate loyalty with a minority group and history will indeed provide many examples of the same.
While the issue of minority leaders does not hold as much in democracies, the idea of populism works along similar lines in incubating a loyal minority base, especially with electorally powerful minorities. Thus you have the Jewish commonity actively courted in the US and muslim appeasement in politics in India.
RC, here is what the family of the victim had to say
the family also believed that the murder had nothing to do with religion. It could have been the result of a personal feud. Raju, brother-in-law of the victim, told Dawn that the case should be properly investigated
Jagdeesh was a simple man who knew little about religion. He had come to Karachi to earn a living and not to indulge in debates over religion. And it is easy to kill a member of a minority community and then accuse him of uttering blasphemous remarks. And that it is why there is need for a proper and thorough investigation,†he said.
Come on RC! I didn’t say I knew it. It is just a surmise, though not an uneducated one. Again, I hadn’t read the Dawn article Amardeep linked in, but if you read it, you will see the same speculation right there.
Also, Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) which double digit % after 1948, has have had many waves of Hindus and other minorities immigrating to India, all through 1950s-60s, with the largest influx in 1972.
Kush makes a good point. Also I believe a better baseline to check the numbers from should not be 1951 but the pre-1965 Indo-Pak war period. The borders were pretty open in the 50s with people moving in and out on both sides.
ROFL. I was pretty sure that someone would raise the “moral equivalence” between India and Pakistan. I’m surprised that it took 18 comments.
I am not sure whats funny about that. There have been no mass scale killings of minorities in Pakistan at the level of India (for example Sikhs in Delhi or Muslims in Gujarat).
well, i think one can make a strong case that sadam was good for religious minorities. the sunni arabs, well, he was a sunni arab, but also christians from the chaldaean community (tariq aziz was a chaldaean christian). it now seems many christians are moving to syria. syria is dominated militarily by an alawite family. the alawites are very heterodox muslims. chances are if syria goes to majority-rule the christians of syria as also going to be shit-out-of-luck.
I think it will be interesting to map out the rights of minorities in countries run by dictators. Both Saddam (sunni in shia majority) and Assad (shia in sunni majority) are members of a minority class in their respective countries. Sometimes even benevolent dictators like Mahathir are not good to their minorities.
36 · Pagal_Aadmi_for_debauchery said
That’s because Pakistan did an amazing job of clearing itself of minorities during Partition. Hindus and Christians don’t even form some kind of vote bank in Pakistan, they take what they get. Not the case in India.
That’s because Pakistan did an amazing job of clearing itself of minorities during Partition. Hindus and Christians don’t even form some kind of vote bank in Pakistan, they take what they get. Not the case in India.
Yes, there was no ethnic cleaning in Indian Punjab. Btw, Shias are a 25% minority in Pakistan.
I thought most of them converted to Islam. If Hindus in Pakistan can afford to move to India, then why not?
I’ve met a Sindhi Catholic girl before. I’ve also met a Pakistani medical doctor whose ancestors, strangely enough, came from Goa.
In general, religious minorities are treated horrendously over there. Even Shia Muslims are treated as kafirs, even though Jinnah was Ismaili. Razib would be tormented every day there, unfortunately. In India, Shias are model citizens, from what I’ve seen, and they’re doing very well in India.
I wish that the Pakistani allow the Sindhis and the people of Nuristan (i.e. “Kafiristan”) to practice their ancient religion.
28 · umber desi said
I am not sure whats funny about that. There have been no mass scale killings of minorities in Pakistan at the level of India (for example Sikhs in Delhi or Muslims in Gujarat).
I think it gets manifested in different ways in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.
a) In India, religious violence is often, and is triggered by events, like a cow meat in front of a hindu temple, pig meat in front of a mosque, train load of devotees burned (one may argue the cause but it is a very incendiary catalyst, no doubt), or demolishing old places of worship (Babri Majid), or events like PM Indira Gandhi being assassinated by her body guards. Mostly events are the catalysts, and then state actors are complicit in some cases.
b) In Pakistan, you read news, almost every week, for last few years, 10-20 people are killed where the origins are sectarian – Shia/ Sunni. Hindus, and Christians are too marginalized to be a threat or even pose any challenge. They are invisible huddled masses for most part, with some exceptions, like current Chief Justice of Pakistan.
c) In East Pakistan, in 1972, Pakistani Army specifically targeted Hindus, and other intellectuals(these intellectuals were Muslims too) – number of killings range in orders of hundreds of thousands (and in millions if Bengali Muslims included as a whole). The biggest outmigration to India was seen in 1972, running into millions, Muslims included. In Bangladesh today, the minority population has decreased to 9%, that was once close to 22% in 1951 in East Pakistan/ Bangladesh. There are some quite severe property laws forbidding Hindus for ownerships in Bangladesh, as of today. For that matter, Bihari Muslims (originated from West Pakistan) are not even given citizenships.
Different strokes.
3 · razib said
By definition, “democracy” implies a respect for minority rights. As a wise man once said, “Democracy is more than just elections.”
11 · MoorNam said
Yes, that’s it. We must teach everyone to negate groupthink. Everyone!
By the way, I think that it would be far more interesting to do a report on the Hindu/Sikhs of Afghanistan.
39 · Pagal_Aadmi_for_debauchery said
I didnt say that. Yes there was ethnic cleansing in India, but Muslims remain in India in substantial numbers and aren’t a politically vulnerable minority. In India you cannot legally kill a man for blaspheming Hinduism and expect legal support for your argument like you can in Pakistan. If a murder like this had happened in India, the guilty party could not use his membership in the majority religion as a way to get out of the crime without him being called out by human rights activists, religious leaders, some politicians and in the end, the law. Muslims in India have political power and use it.
In Pakistan, the 20% of hte population in 1941 that was Hindu/Sikh is nonexistent today. You can harp on riots all you want, but that is the basic extermination of a group of people to a point where injustice against them cannot be ever meaningfully persued.
By definition, “democracy” implies a respect for minority rights.
no it doesn’t, you’re wrong. there’s a reason polybius distinguished between democracies and republics, you know what i mean?
How do you know this?? So these criminals are so sophisticated that they know about the anti-blasphemy laws and in used that for this pre-meditated act !!! Wow that is a leap.
there is a long history of this in pakistan. before i heard about it in the case of christians in punjab, but it seems usually the blasphemy charge is a lever used for other ends.
. The biggest outmigration to India was seen in 1972, running into millions, Muslims included. In Bangladesh today, the minority population has decreased to 9%, that was once close to 22% in 1951 in East Pakistan/ Bangladesh. There are some quite severe property laws forbidding Hindus for ownerships in Bangladesh, as of today. For that matter, Bihari Muslims (originated from West Pakistan) are not even given citizenships.
1) when i was in bangladesh in 2004 i was told that many of the 9% who live in bangladesh now live in india, but have official residence in bangladesh
2) the reason has to do with property. those who live in india are dispossessed
3) the issue with bihari muslims is complicated. i think a fair number have now assimilated. i have relatives-in-law who are bihari muslims. but they have bengalicized and their children will be raised with a bengali identity. OTOH there are a group of bihar muslims who wish to maintain their identity and do not accept that they will be bengalicized and these are disproportionately the ones which live in refugee camps and are stateless
Even if laws protecting minority groups/individuals were to pass in Pakistan, would it be enforced by the police, judicial systems, etc? (Or are there laws for minority rights already in existence?)
It would be nice if India and Pakistan can do one last population exchange. Pakistan can send all their non muslim minorities to India and India can send those who supported idea of Pakistan with their wealth and health and their descendents to Pakistan. Everyone will be happier.