The writer is assistant professor of history at Forman Christian College and an editor at Oxford University Press.
March 1, 2012
 |
Aside from the blasphemy law issue, I hope to understand the death of Shahbaz Bhatti in the wider Pakistani context. Recently, I have been reading the debates of the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on the Objectives Resolution of March 1949, and the heated debate over this Resolution raised several questions — many of which remain even now.
When Shahbaz was gunned down many quickly called him a ‘shaheed’— a martyr. But who was he a martyr for? Certainly, the Christians considered him a martyr, since he was killed because of his faith. But was he also a martyr for the country? Surely, since he died in the service of the country, he should be considered a martyr for the country. However, martyrs can only be created for causes they are fully a part of — there are no partially-involved martyrs. So, was Shahbaz really a full citizen of this country and a martyr?
Pakistan was conceived as a separate homeland for the Muslims of South Asia. Where Jinnah wanted to safeguard the interests of the Muslims, he was clear that he wanted to create a ‘homeland’ for them — not an Islamic state. The conflux of these two concepts is the root cause of the existential crisis in Pakistan. How could Jinnah escape the perceived threat of the hegemony of one religious community and create that same domination over other communities when a separate country is carved out? Would it not be insincere for Jinnah to escape ‘Hindu Raj’ in India but impose ‘Muslim Raj’ on non-Muslims in Pakistan? Jinnah wanted to create a country where there would be no such threats to the development of a Muslim community, but also to ‘any’ other community, as well. That is why in his famed August 11, 1947 speech to the Constituent Assembly, Jinnah made citizenship the basis of the country. In a nutshell, it did not matter what your religious, ethnic, or social background was, once you were a Pakistani that would be your primary identity, and all your rights and privileges would emanate from that basic citizenship.
Then came the Objectives Resolution in March 1949, which radically redefined Pakistan. Gone was the Pakistan based on citizenship, and a new Pakistan came into being with a ‘majority community’ and ‘minorities’. The relationship between the majority and minorities was not equal, but was based on a ‘protector’ and ‘protected’ basis. The Hindus, Christians, Sikhs and others who remained in Pakistan were simply told that Pakistan is for the Muslims, but that they will be tolerated. So in one week — between March 7 and 12, 1949 — about 20 per cent of Pakistan became ‘minorities’ from ‘citizens’. Their inherent right of being in Pakistan with full rights and privileges as citizens was taken away, and they were ‘granted’ (in an apparent show of magnanimity) a ‘protected’ and ‘minority’ status. This change of status was not lost on the non-Muslim members of the Assembly and Siris Chandra Chattopadhyaya, who was a member of the Pakistan National Congress Party lamented: ‘We are not going to leave East Bengal. It is our homeland. I claim that East Bengal and East Pakistan belongs to me as well as to any Mussalman and it will be my duty to make Pakistan a great, prosperous, and powerful state…because I call myself a Pakistani… I do not consider myself as a member of a minority community. I consider myself as one of the seven crore Pakistanis. Let me have the right to retain that privilege.’
The pleas above, however, fell on deaf ears, and the Objectives Resolution was passed without any amendment, and the non-Muslims in Pakistan were left with the legal term of ‘minority’, a sense of not belonging, not being accepted, and increasing discrimination in all walks of life.
Hence, when Shahbaz Bhatti was assassinated there were only muted voices in the country who called him a ‘martyr’ since, how could he be a martyr in a country where he was merely a ‘minority’?