Debate on the Definition of the ideology of Pakistan

The humongous uproar of the Hudood Ordinance debacle was staged to bury the unceremonious, locked burial of murdered Bugti, and its aftermath. A profoundly important story also got intered in this ludicrous commotion. I want to exhume it from its august sepulture and give it a proper postmortem or resuscitate it, if possible.

M P Bhindara is a minority Member of National Assembly from the Pakistan Muslim League (Q). Last Tuesday he sought a debate on Ideology of Pakistan. But his request was considered so drastically out of sync with the sensitivities of both opposition and government benches that, even in one of the most heated moments of NA history of bickering, it was unanimously and vociferously rejected.

I assume he had no ulterior motives to bring this "sensitive issue" up. I don't believe he was playing an agent provocateur. I don't think he was drunk either. He just wanted to be on the safe side of the law.

He siad he wanted either a clear definition of the ideology of Pakistan or the deletion of Article 62(h) and Article 63 (g) of the constitution from the book. He claimed that the ideology of Pakistan had not been defined anywhere in the constitution or in the Objectives resolution. He said:” I am not saying that a definition of ideology should not exist in the constitution. Tell us exactly what the ideology of our country is."

As an MNA from PML ruling party he has to be a member of the Pakistan Muslim League (Q), a party that takes credit for achieving a separate country for the Muslims of sub-continent
and have just finished celebrating the centennial birthday of their party. PML must have a
constitution of its own that should explain the ideology of Pakistan, if there is such a thing, to its members before they fill out their membership forms. Why the party officials did not let him read the constitution of the party to familiarize himself with the ideology of Pakistan?

Let us suppose the Big Chaudhry of Gujrat did not do his job to educate MP Bhindara. But now when he had requested that he should be told where exactly the ideology of Pakistan had been defined in the constitution, I guess his request must have been given some weight.

But unfortunately for me and, may be some other, if not all, Pakistanis who want to know what exactly is the ideology of Pakistan and where it is defined, his request was rejected by all and sundry. He insisted that since the ideology had not been defined anywhere so the above mentioned articles be deleted until a definition was inserted in the constitution.

Again, I guess he is being careful or is plain scared. He may know his limitations. He may be disqualified from his hard earned seat as a member of parliament or may not run in the next election if absent-mindedly or in a stupor he steps in this explosive terra incognita.

These two articles, respectively, warn that a candidate for a seat in the parliament "must not have opposed the ideology of Pakistan" and a member of parliament could be disqualified if "he is propagating any opinion, or acting in any manner prejudicial to the ideology of Pakistan".

I think MP Bhindara is within his rights to know the definition of the ideology of Pakistan so that he does not, inadvertently, oppose, voice an opinion against, or act, in a prejudicial manner to something which turns out to be an ideology of Pakistan and end up losing his seat.

He said different people had different ideas of the ideology and he wanted a consensus reached through a debate. It seems to me, from reading the statements made by some able and rather witty members of the Parliament in opposition to his move, that he was right on that score.

Liaqat Baloch said Article 2 of the constitution established that Islam was the state religion of Pakistan.

I think Baloch missed the point and confused between religion and the definition of the ideology of Pakistan.

Hafiz Hussain Ahmad found another Article to resolve this dilemma: he said under Article 227 all Pakistan’s laws must be in accordance with the Quran and Sunnah. He said the ideology of Pakistan was based on that principle.

Hafiz Hussain Ahmad lost Bhindara too, when he confused laws and ideology.

Riaz Hussain Pirzada, another MNA of PML (Q) who made a timid effort to come to Bhindara's rescue by saying a debate was needed to educate the new generation and urged his fellow members not to "drag religion into every minor issue".

I don't think knowing the definition of ideology of Pakistan was a minor issue for M P Bhindara though.

Another Pirzada, Mujeeb, found the ideology somewhere else. He said the Supreme Court had defined the ideology of Pakistan several times as based on democracy, federalism, the parliamentary form of government and Islamic mode of the constitution. He also claimed the Objectives Resolution provided the basis of the country's ideology.

Even the parliamentary Affairs Minister Sher Afgan Niazi, who one would believe to be well versed in the Constitution of Pakistan if not the constitution of the PML (because he has not joined it yet as a formal member and would be excused for not knowing the ideology because he has been in the PPP all his life), was of ho help.

Niazi said: "The oath of parliamentarians and the president explains that they must 'strive to preserve the Islamic ideology which is the basis for the creation of Pakistan'".

Niazi was showing Bhindara the Islamic ideology, without any definition no doubt, while Bhindara was interested in the definition of ideology of Pakistan somewhere in the constitution.

Sher Afgan Niazi asked the National Assembly Speaker, another Chaudhry, not to allow a debate.

"Baloch feared a crisis if a debate was allowed on the sensitive subject".

What about the crisis of M P Bhindara? Or for that matter, what about the identity crisis of Pakistan? Let there be a debate on this “sensitive subject”! Why not?