Scrutinising sinners and traitors...Side-effect

While the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) is busy accepting and scrutinising nomination papers of candidates for the elections of the national and provincial assemblies, a clip was televised on news channels the other day which showed a candidate in Sindh being asked how many times Muslims are supposed to pray in a day and how many rakats are there in the Fajr prayers. These questions were asked by the returning officer of the ECP while receiving the candidate’s papers.
A few similar instances were reported from other constituencies where candidates were asked to recite verses of the Quran from memory. A couple of news anchors were reporting these incidents in jest. But for some of us it is a critical issue. If I were in place of the candidate, I would have felt humiliated and embarrassed. Even the left-leaning liberals among us will find these questions very basic and an insult to their knowledge of their faith and culture.
Besides, there are Muslim sects that legally remain in the ambit of Islam (still, at the time of writing these lines) who pray differently or have slightly different timings for offering prayers. For instance, while Shia Muslims believe in praying five times a day, they can combine the noon and the early evening prayers and the sunset and the night prayers, hence praying three times a day. Ismaili Muslims go to their jamaat khanas and have a different way and timing to pray.
All of us pray differently according to our different jurisprudences, traditions and practices. I find it particularly interesting that the chief election commissioner, a man of impeccable character and integrity, is himself a Bohra Muslim. How could he allow his appointees to ask the candidates such questions? If one is unable to learn certain holy verses by heart or they slip from one’s mind when one is asked to recite them should one be disqualified? Those in favour of such quizzes draw strength from the present shape and form of Articles 62 and 63 of the constitution.
It is important to understand what clauses (d), (e) and (g) of Article 62, Chapter 2, of the constitution actually mean. This article lays the preconditions and elaborates the qualifications of an individual which are needed for her/him to be able to contest the general elections. However, the three clauses mentioned here are seriously problematic and leave too much to the arbitrariness and subjectivity of the scrutiniser. They create room for those who would want to manipulate elections by getting the candidates they dislike for whatever reason disqualified.
The clauses (d) and (e) of Article 62 read, “A person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (parliament) unless – (d) he is of good character and is not commonly known as one who violates Islamic injunctions; (e) he has adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings and practises obligatory duties prescribed by Islam as well as abstains from major sins.”
Ignore the inherent language bias and consider ‘he’ as ‘she and he’. There are a few fundamental questions that can be raised here. What does ‘commonly known’ mean legally? Who is going to give evidence of someone violating or not violating Islamic injunctions – friends, family, neighbours, political opponents, media or the local cleric? Which Islamic injunctions are we talking about, beliefs, practices, rites and rituals? Who is going to certify the candidate? What will be the sources of information for the ECP?
In clause (e), the requirement that the candidate have an adequate knowledge of Islamic teachings is hugely subjective. What is ‘adequate knowledge’? For that matter, in any subject, the more you read the more you feel ignorant. Does ‘adequate knowledge’ mean having read the various narrations and interpretations of the Holy Book, jurisprudences, Islamic history, etc or will high school Islamiat curriculum suffice?
Then the clause asks the candidates to fulfil obligatory duties prescribed by their faith and abstain from major sins. Again, who will endorse that the candidate says prayers regularly, fasts during the holy month of Ramazan, offers sacrifice on Eidul Azha, pays what is due to the poor and needy from annually and is also now intending to go to the pilgrimage in Makkah?
Furthermore, which major sins are being referred to in this clause? Who will validate the candidate’s claim that he or she has always abstained from all major sins always? Why is the Pakistani state more interested in ‘sin’, which by definition is a personal matter, and not so interested in ‘crime’, which is essentially a public issue?
Let us now come to clause (g) of Article 62, which reads, “A person shall not be qualified to be elected or chosen as a member of Majlis-e-Shoora (parliament) unless – (g) he has not, after the establishment of Pakistan, worked against the integrity of the country or opposed the ideology of Pakistan.”
Apparently, most people will find this clause to be less problematic than the two mentioned above. However, I find this clause noteworthy for two reasons. Firstly, I can see the influence of clerics on the language here, the likes and followers of Maulana Maudoodi. They, through creating nuisance in the name of Divine orders, have influenced the constitutional and legislative processes in Pakistan, even though they have not been elected power by people at large.
Why is the phrase ‘after the establishment of Pakistan’ added here when we speak about a person being ineligible to contest elections if he has worked against the integrity of the country or opposed its ideology?
In my humble view, it was important for those clerics and their disciples who opposed the creation of Pakistan to have this qualification added to this clause of Article 62. Or else, they will not be able to run for elections in a county founded by a liberal Muslim who would be the last person to see Pakistan as a theocracy.
Secondly, while working against the integrity of the state is perfectly all right as a disqualification, what does opposing the ideology of Pakistan mean? There was a two-nation theory propounded by the All India Muslim League which was used as an ideological basis for Pakistan after Quaid-e-Azam’s efforts to implement the Cabinet Mission Plan and keep the Subcontinent united did not bear fruit.
It was the Indian National Congress that had rejected the plan. There was no mention of any such ideology officially in Pakistan before Maj-Gen (r) Sher Ali Pataudi, who was Gen Yahya Khan’s minister for information and national affairs between 1969 and 1971, started using it. Quite understandably, if you look at the times we are talking about, the first victims of the new official ideology were East Pakistanis. They were in a majority and wanted the realisation of their economic and political rights but the struggle for their rights was seen as opposition to the ideology of generals Yahya Khan and Sher Ali.
So what is the ideology of Pakistan today? What is the legal definition? Some say that it is the Objectives Resolution of 1949 that delineates this ideology. But many of us believe that it was against the wish and will of the founding father. Its adoption after the passing away of Quaid-e-Azam is quite significant in our view. Moreover, if the Baloch are asking for their due rights in the Pakistani federation, are they against this ideology? All their nomination papers will be rejected?
It is important for the next parliament to revisit Articles 62 and 63 of the constitution and make them clear and objective.
Email: harris.khalique@gmail.com