'Pakistan, an object of Western appreciation'

Charles Graves
Secretary General,
Interfaith International

Pakistan is becoming interesting as a major news topic in the West nowadays and yet it is hardly recognised as one of the most militarised states in the world.

The general impression in the West is that the Pakistan military has been too implicated with the Talibans. This impression persists up to today, but it is not shared by the general public. Pakistan is considered more today as a bulwark for democracy and against terrorism than as a friend of the Talibans.

Yet the support for the Talibans and their ideology penetrates some important sectors of Pakistan society. This fact is not widely appreciated in the West. Moreover, unfortunately in the West, very few journalists and observers are criticising the basic flaw in Pakistan 'democracy' - namely that the military has an unjustifiably large role within the social, political and economic life of the country.

Of course, this is quite obvious to everyone attending this conference today. The tradition of Sindh is not military, and Sindhis suffer from military dominance in Sindh. Unfortunately the West does not seem to be concerned about the impact of the military on the population of Pakistan. As has happened many times in the past, some Western governments, and the USA in particular, tend to favour military-oriented governments because they make strong allies. We have noticed such a phenomenon in the U.S. support for Latin American military leaders such as Pinochet in Chile or Videla in Argentina. Of course, this is in absolute contradiction to the Western ideologies, namely that civilians should have the final word in democracies.

Hence a very strange phenomenon occurs, civilian governments in the West favouring military governments in South Asia in order, as they say, to 'promote democracy'. The only movement going counter to this seems to be some indigenous peoples, international or national human rights groups or brave journalists presenting the real situation of many parts of the Pakistan society where large sectors of society are suffering from the influence of the military. And it is just this military which prevents the various peoples and  nations in Pakistan from achieving a modicum of autonomy.

Those who have grown up as part of the military caste in Pakistan, but who have become opponents of its power and influence, such as some of our refugee friends in Switzerland, are hoping for a reduction of the role of the military in Pakistan. The military has extraordinary privileges, gains more and more of the land in the countryside as well as achieving control over more and more of the administrative posts in the villages and determining to an even greater extent the kind of education given in the schools, (sometimes fanatic Muslim education). We have seen this type of military control spread out all over the country as presently it is doing in Sindh.

Elsewhere in Pakistan we have seen also that the military together with the secret police (ISI) have the means of subjecting the populations to its control through force. We saw this recently where a Baluchistan uprising against Punjabi domination was put down mercilessly. We projected recently at the U.N. Human Rights Sub-Commission in Geneva the videos showing the Pakistani army helicopters bombing civilian homes in Baluchistan trying to assassinate a noted Baluch leader, in which attack many civilians died.

Thus, what the West most rejects, namely military states, is flourishing in Pakistan which is considered by the West (on a diplomatic level at least) as a 'democratic' country. Western policy continues to ignore the ethnic, social and religious realities of present-day Pakistan. Some persons believe that country is a bulwark against a terrorist threat.

We must continue to point out the human rights violations of the often racist military personnel and their supporters whose influence in Pakistan is all out of proportion to their ability to lead a country.

What are some practical steps to take within the given situation ? One idea which may be relevant to this conference is to militate for the separation of religion from the state in Pakistan.  'Religion' is a quite strange and volatile aspect of our experience. For some of us it can bring hope, life and ethics but for others it can bring also fanaticism and even martyr's death as with the 7.7. London bombers. Why should a modern state as Pakistan have religion tied to its Constitution ? The only 'Western' state constitutionally tied to religion is Greece (the Christian 'Trinity ' in the constitution).

If a state is by its constitution 'religious' (this of couse was so because the main 'definition' of Pakistan as separate from India was the 'religious question') what is the effect of this upon the population ? Of course it provides a certain 'identity' to the state and a certain unity among its people. But religious political parties flourish on this basis. In the West we can see such religious parties in the 'Christian Democrats' of Germany or Switzerland, but these political parties have become mostly 'secular' by now. In the USA some religion is discussed in political life but it is kept to a minimum by law.  The state has no right to spread religion as national policy.

Such safeguards are not kept in Pakistan. Religion becomes an affair of the politicians which is quite dangerous, leading to abuse in many quarters. The British and some personalities in the Sub-Continent wanted to separate Pakistan from India because of religion , but does this imply that Pakistan is obliged, eternally, to be a 'religious state' ?

Pakistan should probably change its constitution and delete the clauses about religion, and let religion be a social and cultural matter and not a political one. This will not necessarily mean destroying Pakistan's present ideology as a state but on the other hand Pakistan should not shy away, constitutionally, from having a modern, tolerant ideology.

As the peoples of South Asia begin, after many years, to work together again, more liberal values should become common all over the region. The way some politicians use religion today in South Asia is dangerous - using religion to boost national 'self-identification' - this is really backward-looking. Religion shoud be a unifying not a separating factor among the peoples. Religion used for ideological, nationalistic purposes seems a throwback to an earlier era.

The kind of religion needed is not political, ideological religion but one which helps to respect our neighbour and find ways to work with them even though the cultural backgrounds are quite different. We know that Sindh has given to the world's culture a religion of tolerance. Sindhi religion emphasises a struggle of human beings 'towards the truth, towards God'. We do not 'have God' but we 'go towards God'. This kind of religion by its very nature banishes fanaticism. We cannot identify ourselves 100% with God. We cannot claim to act as God's agents as some fanatics do.

Sindhi religion might be a better model for Pakistan than religion considered as the 'ideological basis of the state'. Religion as ideological basis may have a temporary value in uniting the people, but it in no way promotes religion as an all-important human experience.

In conclusion, why not work for a reasonable separation of religion from the state as regards Pakistan ? This may also aid in fostering self-determnination of the ethnic groups making up Pakistan. Tolerance of differences, rather than religious fanaticism, could become the symbol of the future Pakistan.

Our international NGOs should become more pre-occupied with the militarisation of Pakistan and this question of religion and state in Pakistan. Let us think about how separating religion from the state could foster respect among the ethnic and cultural groups that make up present-day Pakistan.

Thank you.