Nasir Saeed finds little cheer for Pakistan’s beleaguered Christians in the electoral promises of a “moderate government”.
For anyone who likes their International affairs in black and white, Pakistan’s torturous political machinations can be a little confusing at times. Take, for example, Pervez Musharraf - President, at least until this month’s elections; goodie or baddie? Extreme or moderate?
When George W Bush was asked by a journalist in 2000 who he thought was the President of Pakistan, the President-to-be answered that he didn’t know the man’s name. But he immediately added that although the man in question hadn’t been democratically elected, “It appears this guy is going to bring stability to the country, and I think that`s good news for the sub-continent”.
Blessing or bane for the sub-continent, Musharraf’s close links with Washington, and promises to clamp down on Islamic extremism, have been a source of some relief for the US in these post 9/11 times. He may not make for a perfect “good guy”, but he was at least our “good guy”.
But following the return of exiled former Prime Ministers Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, and the imposition of a state of emergency (now lifted) everything seems a little more complicated. Ms Bhutto, with her promises of democracy and equality, appears to be the enlightened moderate, riding back from exile on a white charger to save the day, and forcing the hand of democracy upon a reluctant President. And she has had plenty of support from Christians over the years too, both in Pakistan and around the world.
However, Ms Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party has not lived up to their promises of equality, even at this early stage. The party failed to allot even one candidacy to a non-Muslim in the election. Whatever the result, and whatever uneasily political alliances are formed, there will not be a single Christian in the entire 1070 seat parliament to represent Pakistan’s sizeable Christian population.
This isn’t just a matter of tokenism, or political correctness. To understand why this is such a shocking it’s worth dwelling on a little-reported incident in Paksitan’s parliament last year.
In April 2007 one MP tabled a motion for Pakistan’s Blasphemy’s laws to be amended. His reason: this law is currently being used as a carte blanche for any Muslim with a mild grudge against their non-Muslim neighbour to have them arrested and imprisoned.
Take for example Sattar Masih a 28 year-old Christian man, who was due to be married last April. On his wedding day he was greeted by an angry mob outside his home. They had been shown a piece of paper supposedly deposited in a donation allegedly insulting the Prophet Mohammed. Rather conveniently the same piece of paper included all of Sattar’s contact details.
Police intervened, and took him to a local police station. It was here that Sattar claims that he was tortured into making a confession. “How can I write this blasphemous note with my picture and name on it, when I know that the punishment for the blasphemer is death?”
You would hope that a democratically elected parliament would welcome a few amendments to a law that is so regularly used to settle scores, and encourage mob rule - The current wording states that Blasphemy against the Prophet Mohammed may occur “... by words, either spoken or written, or by any imputation, innuendo or insinuation.” Sadly, events have proved otherwise.
On presentation of the Bill in parliament, Parliamentary Affairs minister Dr Sher Afgan rejected it out of hand, saying that it was against the injunctions of Islam. “Islam is our religion and such bills hurt our feelings. This is not a secular state but the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”
The remarks were greeted with noisy enthusiasm by the opposition with
MPs banging their desks in support. Presumably, they too felt personally slighted by such a bill â€" never mind the thousands of non-Muslims who have faced torture, imprisonment and death threats on a regular basis.
In spite of this, many of the parties have been stressing the importance of equality and moderation in their manifestos. The continued support of the West was crucial for President Musharraf, and is likely to remain so for all involved in messy business of Pakistani politics.
So why has so little international pressure been put upon Pakistan to offer a little more protection and equality to Pakistan’s badly persecuted Christians? They number 3.5 million, which is, after all, more than half of the population of Israel, for any budding lobbyists reading this.
Sadly, in the clamour to see Pakistan clamp down on Islamic extremism â€" and with it, potential sources of terrorist unrest â€" mere matters of torture and persecution are not priorities for Western Governments.
It’s a short-sighted view, as many of Pakistan’s Christians have been tireless political campaigners who would offer a much needed moderating voice in Pakistan’s political system.
It may not please the hardliners, but Pakistan’s leaders need to be told that matters of basic human rights are non-negotiable if they are seeking the continued financial and political support of the West. This, of course, is a message that the US Government would put “in the strongest possible terms” to Pakistan’s new President and Prime Minister if it believed that more than a handful of its citizens cared about their brothers and sisters in Christ sufficiently.
At a time when all the candidates for the Presidency are likely to be primed with the name of Pakistan’s newly elected President and Prime Minister, perhaps it is time to show our leaders that ignoring this kind of religious apartheid hurts our feelings.
Nasir Saeed is the Director of CLAAS UK (the Centre of Legal Aid Assurance and Settlement), an organisation that offers assistance to Christians facing persecution in Pakistan.