Appendix II

Islam and politics in Pakistan

Islam has played a decisive role in Pakistan's history. Religious institutions collaborated with the feudal power structure for common interests in retaining the status quo and still pose a threat to any real social transformation. The dubious ruling regimes and opposition movements trying to dislodge them, both exploited Islam to the utmost. Those in power, used religious sentiments of ignorant masses to maintain their power and those thirsting for power, exploited the same sentiments in an attempt to maneuver their way in.

Hence, the process of the so-called Islamization worked to the satisfaction of all privileged segments of the society, namely military, bureaucracy, land owners and industrialists. The military elite found status quo continuation easy with Islamization as the economically deprived lower cadres of the army got solace in it, thanks to their traditional background. The civil bureaucracy that has learnt the art of surviving in all sorts of governments found it safe and secure, since Islamization has not substantially altered the socio-political realities in Pakistan. The land-owning and business classes enjoyed enough protection in legitimization of unlimited private property. The nominal land reforms introduced during Ayub and Bhutto's era were reversed in the name of Islam.

Islam has never been an issue in Pakistan. In fact, even those parties which talk of scientific socialism or secular politics did not ignore the potential and popularity of the faith in electoral politics. What however, is a matter of concern is the emergence of propagation of an idea that Islam is opposed to progress and enlightenment.

The emergence of Pakistan on the world map left the ulema high and dry since most of them opposed its creation. Soon after independence, when the administration of the new state was coping with huge problems arising out of the partition of the subcontinent, the ulema began arousing the religious passions of the people to get an "Islamic Constitution" passed by the Constituent Assembly.

The cry of 'Islam in danger' was a powerful weapon in the struggle for Pakistan. Every contemporary politician was aware of the risk that too adventurous policy would be greeted with the dangerous words, 'Islam betrayed.' The politicians therefore wished at least to preserve a facade of harmony on religious matters until the state should be more firmly established. Therefore the post independence period presented the political leadership with the problem of the role of Islam in the structure of the new state. This however, was overshadowed by the need for political stability. Most political leaders and the "moderates" among the men of religion wanted to see a new flexibility in the social and political thinking in Islam. But to pursue this issue before the new constitution had been brought into operation, would have been to invite confusion and conflict.

Politics is 'the art of the possible' and in the long run depends upon convincing the convincible and politically active middle section of the population towards a particular course of action or way of life. Each succeeding government in Pakistan hence thought it suitable to continue with the agencies established to find out the methods for Islamization of the laws and the social structure. As a device to appease the ulema and illiterate mass of the people, the political leadership conceded that if the Quran has clear guidance to offer on any matter, then that guidance must be followed.

Ironically, it was the socialist and secular Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who started the process of Islamic fundamentalism in the country. The 1973 constitution contains a number of clauses which later paved the way for the Islamization of laws. He was responsible to declare the Ahmadis constitutionally as non-Muslims. To Islamize the society, he declared Friday as holiday instead of Sunday, and introduced the subjects of Islamiyat as compulsory subject for the students. He invited the Imam of Ka'ba to Pakistan to lead the prayers. However, these initiatives could not save him from the ultimate disaster and he became the victim of his own acts and deeds when almost all the religious parties joined hand in launching a campaign against him.

Bhutto's successor, General Ziaul Haq fully utilized the process of Islamization to achieve his political ends and sought legitimacy by implementing Islam as an ideology of Pakistan. General Zia, with the help of state institutions, weakened the secular and progressive forces and introduced the Hudood, Qisas and Diyat in the legal system of the country. The Federal Shariat Court was established through an amendment to the constitution with the powers to examine and decide the question whether or not any law or provision of law is repugnant to the injunctions of Islam. (Article 203D of the constitution). The Federal Shariat Court (FSC) has proved as a law-demolishing agency in conflict with parliament as the constitutionally sovereign legislative body. The Council of Islamic Ideology, another constitutional body, has restricted itself to a negative role; to identify what is 'repugnant' to Islam without spelling out the alternative which is 'in conformity' with Islam.

The Islamization process, which was used as a political weapon, has caused severe damage to our national life. Wrong interpretation of Islam has resulted in the rise of fundamentalism, obscurantism and retrogression. Since the death of General Zia, inconsistency and instability prevails in our laws. Instability means that the law is frequently changing or is under threat of change because of differences of opinion among the ruling factions. Three of the most obvious inconsistencies in our Islamic law are (a) those between legal norms and socially observed norms; (b) those between statutory legal norms and the norms applied in practice in the courts (e.g. Hadd is difficult to implement as confession, retraction of confession and strict standards of proof make it difficult to execute); (c) those between different formal legal norms (e.g. non-compliance with the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance is compromised by the courts but is strictly punished under the Zina Ordinance). Another example of this contradiction is that the constitution assures women equal status on the one hand but, on the other hand, they are greatly discriminated in criminal law.

With the passing of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance in 1990, the victim (or heirs of the victim) of a crime now have the right to inflict injuries on the offender identical to the ones sustained by the victim. The law also allows offenders to absolve themselves of the crime by paying compensation to the victim or their heirs. In the already existing system of bribery and corruption, it gives free hand to the people with money. The Human Rights activists rightly say that in effect this means, that rich people can get away even with willful murder.

The interpretation of the Shariah Act of 1991 has been challenged by the Federal Shariat Court. Sections 3(2) and 19 of the Act, which safeguard the existing political system and the country's financial obligations (including interest payments), have been declared un-Islamic by the FSC because of the riba (interest) involved. In its ruling of January 1992, [the Court held that rules and regulations relating to interest were repugnant to the Quran and Sunnah and should be brought in accordance with Islam. This ruling was embarrassing to the government, while on the one hand they wanted to satisfy the traditionalists, on the other hand the ruling was not in accordance with the government's international obligations. A private appeal was thus lodged with the Supreme Court against the FSC decision. Other rulings of the FSC in 1992 included one stating that the country's system of employment quotas was un-Islamic, as was the charging of court fees.

Women became the special victims of Islamization of law and its inconsistencies. The Zina Ordinances, which have been particularly discriminatory against women, continued to be law despite all the demands from women's organization. [See Chapter VIII for detailed discussion.) As always, the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 is continuously under challenge. In 1992, there was an interesting case in the Supreme Court where the court declared Section 7 of the ordinance to be against Islam.

The government of Benazir Bhutto promoted Pakistan as a moderate Islamic state. A booklet published by the Ministry of Information -- entitled, Pakistan: a moderate Islamic state -- acknowledges that "from late 1970s to mid-1980s, Pakistan often found itself specially featuring in (western media) despatches about "Islamic Fundamentalism," an expression depicting religious intolerance. The despatches brought out Pakistan as an irrational society suppressing minorities, contemptuous of human rights, treating women as inferior and generally living inside a cocoon of faith debarring contemporary compellings. Such negative references have not been totally abandoned but their frequency has considerably declined in the last about ten years. Some recent developments recreated misgivings vis-a-vis fundamentalism in Pakistan as blasphemy erupted as an issue. However, a superior court restored the confidence of the people in the state's commitment to a learned approach. The court's objective and dispassionate handling of the case has re-emphasized an enlightened approach which is further sustained by the government's negotiations and consultations with leaders of religious political parties and scholars to affect amendments in the existing laws on blasphemy to incorporate safeguards against exploitation of any segment of the population.

In May 1995, the federal cabinet approved two amendments in the blasphemy law -- i.e. article 295-C of Pakistan Penal Code. The amendments stipulate ten years' prison term for instituting a false blasphemy charge against anyone and forbids registration of any First Information Report (FIR) on this count without a preliminary investigation by a judicial officer, not below the rank of deputy commissioner, as to the veracity of the allegation. However, the proposal met severe resistance from religious and other groups. The Provincial Assembly of the Punjab passed a resolution against the proposal on May 4, 1995. This was the second resolution of the Punjab Assembly on the issue. On April 20, 1994, the Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution urging the federal government to maintain the blasphemy law as such. On June 29, 1995, the Provincial Assembly of Baluchistan also passed unanimously a similar resolution.

The government has now deferred its decision to bring the bill, to amend the blasphemy law, before parliament since it was not in a position to pass the legislation. In the meantime, the government has instituted administrative changes to the procedures for filing blasphemy charges. Formerly, individuals could be charged with blasphemy if any individual filed an FIR with the police. Now, formal charges cannot be levied until a magistrate has investigated the allegations and determined that they were credible under the law.

The US Assistant Secretary of state, Robin Raphel, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations sub-committee, on March 7, 1996, said that the United States recognize that the religious parties in Pakistan have "street power" and not "ballot power" and this is a major constraint for the Benazir Bhutto's government to repeal blasphemy laws. She revealed that more than 150 blasphemy cases have been lodged in Pakistan since 1986. Most of these have been brought against members of the Ahmadi community. None of the cases against Ahmadis have resulted in convictions. During the same period, at least nine cases have been brought against Christians and nine against Muslims. There have been convictions in some of these cases, but no one has been executed under the law's mandatory death penalty. Some convictions have been overturned and several individuals are currently appealing their convictions.

The Lahore High Court, on February 22, 1995, acquitted Salamat Masih and Rehmat Masih from blasphemy charges. They were sentenced to death by a Sessions Judge on February 9, 1995, for allegedly writing blasphemous word on the wall of a mosque in 1993. The death sentence was quickly overturned following an international uproar. During the appeal hearings there were almost daily demonstrations by small religious groups demanding that the sentence should be carried out. After the judgment, religious groups observed a protest day throughout Pakistan to protest against the acquittal.

The year 1995 also witnessed a ghastly incident of religious frenzy, when Dr. Sajjad Farooq, was beaten to death by people outside a police station in Gujranwala. He was declared an apostate and accused of having desecrated the Holy Quran. Dr. Farooq, who was later reported by the press to be a staunch Muslim, was dragged out from the police station where he was lodged and stoned to death by frenzied mobs. On the basis of a rumor, apparently circulated by someone out of personal enmity, through loud-speakers of the mosques in his locality he was proclaimed to be a Christian. While religious fanaticism of one sort or another has tended to manifest itself in Pakistan in occasional incidents from time to time, many in the country are now beginning to regard it almost as sacrosanct. The so-called Islamization of Pakistan during late General Ziaul Haq's regime has imbued the fanatics with a spirit of self-righteousness which can only be regarded as alarming in any civilized society.

Islam, which should have served to unite the people of Pakistan -- over 90 percent of them being Muslims -- has been, and is being, misused to divide them into mutually hostile sectarian groups and to divert their attention from basic social and economic problems. The myth of popular support for religious parties has repeatedly been exploded by the electorate. Yet, sectarian and religious hate mongers have proliferated. Major parties are courting leaders of religious parties, while latter's militias continue fanning the flames of sectarianism. The only all-Pakistan force that seems to be growing uniformly is sectarianism.

1958 CONSTITUTION

When the question of constitution-making came to the forefront, the Ulema, inside and outside the "Constitutional Assembly"_ and outside demanded that the Islamic "Shariah"_ shall form the only source for all legislature in Pakistan. In February 1948, Maulana Maududi, while addressing the Law College, Lahore, demanded that the Constitutional Assembly should unequivocally declare:

1. That the sovereignty of the state of Pakistan vests in God Almighty and that the government of Pakistan shall be only an agent to execute the Sovereign's Will.

2. That the Islamic "Shariah"_ shall form the inviolable basic code for all legislation in Pakistan.

3. That all existing or future legislation which may contravene, whether in letter or in spirit, the Islamic Shariah shall be null and void and be considered ultra vires of the constitution; and

4. That the powers of the government of Pakistan shall be derived from, circumscribed by and exercised within the limits of the Islamic Shariah alone.

On January 13, 1948, "Jamiat-al-Ulema-i-Islam"_, led by Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, passed a resolution in Karachi demanding that the government appoint a leading Alim to the office of Shaikh al Islam, with appropriate ministerial and executive powers over the qadis throughout the country. The Jamiat submitted a complete table of a ministry of religious affairs with names suggested for each post. It was proposed that this ministry be immune to ordinary changes of government. It is well known that Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah was the head of state at this time and that no action was taken on Ulema's demand. On February 9, 1948, Maulana Shabbir Ahmad Usmani, addressing the Ulema-i-Islam conference in Dacca, demanded that the Constituent Assembly should set up a committee consisting of eminent ulema and thinkers... to prepare a draft ... and present it to the Assembly.

It was in this background that Prime Minister Liaquat Ali Khan on March 7, 1949, moved the Objectives Resolution in the Constituent Assembly, according to which the future constitution of Pakistan was to be based on " the principles of democracy, freedom, equality, tolerance and social justice as enunciated by Islam."

Islamic provisions in the 1956 constitution were contained in the Directives Principles of State Policy, which were not enforceable in the courts. The directive principles reaffirmed the statement in the preamble that "steps shall be taken to enable the Muslims of Pakistan individually and collectively to order their lives in accordance with the Holy Quran and Sunnah. Further the state was to endeavor (a) to provide facilities to the Muslims to enable them to understand the meaning of life according to the Holy Quran and the Sunnah; (b) to promote unity and observance of Islamic moral standards; (c) to secure the proper organization of Zakat and Awkaf. Article 24 provided that the state should endeavor to strengthen the bonds of unity among Muslim countries. The same article enjoined Pakistan to foster friendly relations among all nations.

There was no provision to make Islam the state religion in Pakistan. Article 21 provided that no person should be compelled to pay any special tax, the proceeds of which were to be spent on the propagation of any religion other than his own. The Head of State was to be a Muslim not younger than 40 years of age. The constitution of 1956 represented a decision to transfer to the people and not the Ulema or other religiously privileged class, the responsibility, if not for making the authoritative interpretation of Islam, at least for choosing which interpretation shall become authoritative.

Insofar as Islam was given any practical legal significance in the 1956 Constitution, it was in two ways. First, through Article 197 the president was obliged to set up an organization for Islamic research and instruction in advanced studies to assist in the reconstruction of Muslim society on a truly Islamic basis; and under article 198 the President expected to appoint a Commission of Experts to make recommendations ' as to the measures for bringing existing laws in conformity with the injunctions of Islam. ' The Commission was to submit its report to the President within five years of its appointment. This report was to be placed before the National Assembly, and the Assembly after considering the report was to enact laws in respect thereof.

The constitution had something to offer to both sides; it gave grounds to the orthodox traditionalist that his cause might be advanced, while there was nothing in the Islamic clauses to cause a liberal democrat to feel that Pakistan was incapable of becoming the kind of a state he wishes to see. The constitution did little to settle the fundamental issue of the desirable role of Islam in a modern state. Nor did its adoption serve to bridge what one writer had called the ' wide gulf between the Ulema of the orthodox schools and the intelligentsia."

The 1956 constitution was accepted without widespread opposition from religious groups concerning its Islamic provisions. Jamat-e-Islami described it as an "Islamic constitution." A statement issued by the Majles-e-Shura of the Jamat on 18th March 1956 said: "The preamble of the constitution, its Directive Principles and Article 198 of the constitution have finally and unequivocally settled the 8-year old struggle between the Islamic and anti-Islamic trends in favor of the former. And the fact that the future system of life in this country has to be shaped on the basis of Islam and that the Quran and the Sunnah shall ever reign supreme here has been so firmly embodied in the constitution of the country that no worldly power shall, Insha Allah, be able to obliterate it."

ZULFIQAR ALI BHUTTO (1971-1977)

            Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto's attempts to exploit Islamic sentiment were scarcely different from those of his predecessors. As with the previous constitutions, the 1973 document cites "all existing laws shall be brought in conformity with the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah....and no law shall be enacted which is repugnant to injunctions of Islam." Article one of the 1973 constitution describes Pakistan as an Islamic Republic. The same phrase was utilized in the 1956 document, although initially Ayub omitted references to an Islamic Republic in his 1962 constitution and only relented under great pressure to reconsider his position. Article Two of the 1973 constitution declares: "Islam shall be the state religion of Pakistan." The phrase did not appear in the 1956 or 1962 constitutions and the implications of its inclusion are only being realized since the removal and execution of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

Bhutto hosted the Second Islamic Summit in Lahore from February 22 to 24, 1974. The summit was attended by thirty five member states of the Organization of Islamic Conference and Palestine, represented by the Palestine Liberation Organization. The summit helped him the recognition of Bangladesh when Sheikh Mujib was invited to attend the meeting. The Islamic summit was followed by an invitation to the Imams of the mosques at Madina and Ka'aba to visit Pakistan. Later the government sponsored an international conference on the life and work of the Prophet. International Seerat Congress was held in Pakistan in March 1976. The Congress was attended among others by Imam of Ka'aba and more than hundred prominent scholars and Ulema drawn from all over the Muslim world, America and Europe. This catering to Islamic sentiments was expected to generate support for the government.

On March 31, 1972 Bhutto asked his people to 'make this beautiful country an Islamic state, the biggest Islamic state, the bravest Islamic state and the most solid Islamic state." More than 90,000 Pakistanis performed Haj in 1972. The National Assembly passed an Act in July, 1973 to ensure "Error Free Publication of the Holy Quran." Adequate steps were taken against the desecration of the torn pages of the Holy Quran. A Ministry of Religious Affairs was set up for the first time. Religious education was made compulsory from primary upto Matriculation.

Bhutto's strategy was both to placate and outwit the religious and conservative opposition. He defeated it handsomely in the general election in 1970 but by 1974, unlike Khawaja Nazimuddin, a weak man, Bhutto, the strong man, was not able to meet the challenge posed by the anti-Ahmadi agitation_XE "anti-Ahmadi agitation"_. The demonstrations in Lahore and Lyallpur in June 1974 resulted in widespread rioting, destruction of property and army units being called to quell the disturbances. Bhutto surrendered to the opposition demand to declare Ahmadis as non-Muslim minority. The constitution was suitably amended to placate the Ulema. But that did not stop the Ulema to use the religious appeal against him. In 1970 election, religious and conservative parties like Jamaat-i-Islami, Jamiat-ul-Ulema-i-Islam, the Muslim League were divided but in March 1977 elections these parties had formed a common alliance -- Pakistan National Alliance (PNA). Bhutto did not see the danger in the Alliance for he called it a "cat with nine tails."

In the aftermath of violence erupted by the "fraudulent' election results, Bhutto announced a ban on liquor, night clubs and horse races in May 1977. Friday was declared as a closed weekly holiday in lieu of Sunday from 1st July, 1977 "in deference to the wishes of the Muslim community." These measures were taken during the last days of Bhutto's regime. The motive behind these measures was not the enforcement of the injunctions of Islam in the country but to out-wit the mounting opposition, which gathered on a religious platform.

GENERAL ZIAUL HAQ (1977-1988)

On December 2, 1978, General Ziaul Haq made a dramatic announcement on the occasion of the first day of the Hijra year to enforce the Islamic system in the country. In a nationwide address, General Zia accused politicians of exploiting the name of Islam saying: "many a ruler did what they pleased in the name of Islam. After assuming power the task that the present government set to was its public commitment to enforce Nizam-e-Islam. As a preliminary measure to establish an Islamic society in Pakistan, General Zia announced the establishment of Shariah Benches. Speaking about the jurisdiction of the Shariah Benches he said: "Every citizen will have the right to present any law enforced by the government before the "Shariah Bench" and obtain its verdict whether the law is wholly or partly Islamic or un-Islamic." But General Zia did not mention that the Shariah Benches jurisdiction was curtailed by the following overriding clause: " (Any) law does not include the constitution, Muslim personal law, any law relating to the procedure of any court or tribunal or, until the expiration of three years, any fiscal law, or any law relating to the collection of taxes and fees or insurance practice and procedure." It meant that all important laws which affect each and every individual directly remained outside the purview of the Shariah Benches. However, he did not have a smooth sailing even with the clipped Shariah Benches. The Federal Shariah Bench declared rajm, lapidation, to be un-Islamic, Ziaul Haq reconstituted that court which declared rajm as Islamic.

In his drive of Islamization General Ziaul Haq announced further measures on Feb. 10, 1979. In a speech on the occasion of the birthday anniversary of the Holy Prophet Mohammed he said: All major political parties despite their other differences are agreed that the Islamic system should be introduced in this country ...... I am formally announcing the introduction of the Islamic system in the country." The Islamic measures were enforced through presidential orders and ordinances under which the existing laws relating to the offenses of theft, robbery and dacoity, adultery, false charge of adultery and wine-drinking were replaced by the fixed punishments prescribed by the Holy Quran and Sunnah. One of the ordinances was related to the execution of the punishment of whipping.

Under Offenses Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979, the punishment of imprisonment or fine, or both, as provided in the existing Pakistan Penal Code for theft, was substituted by the amputation of the right hand of the offender from the joint of the wrist by a surgeon. For robbery, the right hand of the offender from the wrist and his left foot from the ankle should be amputated by a surgeon.

Drinking of wine (i.e. all alcoholic drinks) was not a crime at all under the Pakistan Penal Code. In 1977, however, the drinking and selling of wine by Muslims was banned in Pakistan and the sentence of imprisonment of six months or a fine of Rs. 5000/-, or both, was provided in that law. Under Prohibition Order these provisions of law were replaced by punishment of eighty (80) stripes for which an ijma of the companions of the Holy Prophet ever since the period of the Second Caliph Umar, was cited.

Under the Zina Ordinance the provisions relating to adultery were replaced as that the women and the man guilty will be flogged, each of them, with hundred stripes, if unmarried. And if they are married they shall be stoned to death. It was argued that the section 497 of the Pakistan Penal Code dealing with the offence of adultery provided certain safeguards to the offender in as much as if the adultery is with the consent or connivance of the husband, no offence of adultery was deemed to have been committed in the eye of law. The wife, under the prevailing law, was also not to be punished as abettor. Islamic law knows no such exception.

The Pakistan Penal Code and the Criminal Procedure Code, were amended [through ordinances in 1980, 1982 and 1986] to declare anything implying disrespect to the Holy Prophet, Ahle Bait (family of the prophet), Sahaba (companion of the prophet) and Sha'ar-i-Islam (Islamic symbols), a cognizable offence, punishable with imprisonment or fine, or with both. Instructions were issued for regular observance of prayers and made arrangements for performing noon prayer (Salat Al Zuhur) in the government and semi-government offices and educational institutions, during office hours, and official functions, and at the airports, railway stations and bus stops. An "Ehtram-i-Ramazan" (reverence for fasting) Ordinance was issued providing that complete sanctity be observed during the Islamic month of Ramazan, including the closure of cinema houses three hours after the Maghreb (sunset) prayers.

By amending the constitution, General Zia also provided the following definition of a Muslim and a non-Muslim: (a) "Muslim" means a person who believes in the unity and oneness of Almighty Allah, in the absolute and unqualified finality of the Prophet hood of Mohammed (peace be upon him), the last of the prophets, and does not believe in, or recognize as a prophet or religious reformer, any person who claimed to be a prophet in any sense of the word or of any description, whatsoever, after Mohammed. (b) "Non-Muslim" means a person who is not a Muslim and includes a person belonging to the Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Bhuddist, or Parsi community, a person of the Qadiani Group or the Lahori Group (who call themselves Ahmadis), or a Bahai, or a person belonging to any of the scheduled castes.

Within the framework of Islamization of economy, the National Investment Trust and the Investment Corporation of Pakistan were asked to operate on equity basis instead of interest as of July 1, 1979. Interest-free counters were opened at all the 7,000 branches of the nationalized commercial banks on January 1, 1980. But interest bearing National Savings Schemes were allowed to operate in parallel. The Zakat and Ushr Ordinance was promulgated on June 20, 1980 to empower the government to deduct 2.5 per cent Zakat annually from mainly interest-bearing savings and shares held in the National Investment Trust, the Investment Corporation of Pakistan and other companies of which the majority of shares are owned by the Muslims. Foreign Exchange Bearer Certificate scheme that offered fixed interest was exempted from the compulsory Zakat deduction. This ordinance drew sharp criticism from the Shia sect which was later exempted from the compulsory deduction of Zakat. Even Sunnis were critical of the compulsory deduction and the way Zakat was distributed.

On December 13, 1980, to the surprise of General Zia, the Federal Shariah Court declared the land reforms of 1972 and 1977 as eminently in consonance with Islamic injunctions. Then the so-called Ulema were brought in who traditionally supported the landlord class. Three Ulema _XE "Ulema "_were inducted into the Federal Shariah Court and two into the Shariah Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court which reversed the FSC judgment in 1990. After the imposition of martial law, many landlords were reported to have told their tenants to seek the protection of their benefactor, namely, Bhutto. Thousands of tenants were forcibly evicted from the land in various districts. The martial law regime made it clear that it was not committed to redistributive agrarian policies and described the land reforms as ordinary politics to reward supporters and punish enemies.

REFERENDUM: In the mid-1983, General Zia realized that despite his extremely repressive and barbaric measures, which included whipping the dissidents, the Movement for the Restoration of Democracy (MRD) had not only survived but had also gained strength. Faced with the inevitability of a return to civilian rule, the general tried to make his position secure by getting himself elected as the head of state through a process, in which the people were asked to vote for their religion. On December 19, 1984, a referendum was held on the Islamization policy of the martial law regime. Announcing the referendum plan, General Zia said that if the people say yes to his Islamisation process he would consider it as an endorsement of his rule for the next five years.

The people were asked a loaded question: "Do you endorse the process initiated by General Mohammed Ziaul Haq, the President of Pakistan, for bringing the laws of Pakistan in conformity with the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), and for the preservation of the Islamic ideology of Pakistan, the continuation and consolidation of that process, and for smooth and orderly transfer of power to the elected representatives of the people."

Given that the country was created in 1947 specifically as a Muslim state, and that 95 per cent of the population is of that faith, it is inconceivable that even a sizable minority, let alone an actual majority, would dissent. And therein lies the General's strategy, said The Times, London on Dec. 20, 1984. The Gazette, Ottawa described the referendum exercise as an insult to the intelligence of the helpless masses and said: "The referendum will not bestow upon Mr. Zia the aura of legitimacy --international and domestic -- he so desperately is seeking" (18.12.84). There was no criticism of the referendum in the Pakistani press since any criticism of the political manoeuvring was outlawed.

International Commission of Jurists said "Zia manipulated the referendum on his Islamisation policy in order to remain in power for a further five years. His subsequent amendments to the constitution giving him sweeping powers, the continuing use of martial law, charges of torture and increasing control of the media -- all cast severe doubts on President Zia's claim to be working toward restoration of democracy" (UPI dated 9.7.1985).

SHARIAH ORDINANCE: On June 15, 1988, two weeks after dissolving the national and provincial assemblies (elected on non-party basis) and disbanding ministries (formed on party basis), General Zia promulgated a new Shariah Ordinance to declare Shariah as the supreme law of the land with immediate effect. Article 3 of the Act for the enforcement of the Shariah said "the Shariah that is to say, the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and Sunnah shall be the supreme law of Pakistan. Explaining the reasons for taking this dramatic step, he said it was unfortunate that the enforcement of Shariah could not attract due attention of the members of the National Assembly, which the nation expected of them. Under the Shariah Ordinance were eligible to be appointed as judges of the court which were empowered to challenge almost all existing laws of the country.

However, it was apparent that the whole exercise was primarily meant to put extensive powers in his own hands to be exercised through his nominees on various courts. The president was given powers to make rules for the appointment of the Ulema judges to the courts. Even Ulema of different schools of thought denounced the Shariah Ordinance and described it a move seeking cheap publicity. A Jamat-i-Islami leader declared that the Shariah Ordinance does not conform to the Shariah and it has been enforced by the rulers to save themselves from accountability. Jamiat-i-Ulema Pakistan expressed the apprehension that leaving the interpretation of Quran and Sunnah to the Ulema will open a new pandora's box.

Like many near-bankrupt military regimes in Muslim countries, General Zia used the so-called "Islamisation process" to legitimize and perpetuate his narrowly-based military rule marked by public and political executions, flogging of people in the name of Islam and confusing the country's judicial system by simultaneously operating the Shariah courts, the military tribunals and the common law civil courts. Justice Shafi Mohammad, Judge of the High Court of Sindh, while allowing quashment of criminal proceedings against two accused booked under the Hudood Ordinance remarked:

"It is the considered opinion of many religious scholars that Islamisation in 1980s as adopted by the government of General Ziaul Haq was devoid of the real spirit of Islam and the same created complication not only for the prevailing judicial system, but also ambiguity about Islam instead of solving the problems of this country" (Dawn 9.6.1995).

Pakistani legal experts fully agree that Islamic criminal law thoroughly suited tribal Arab society. This is especially so if we look at the Islamic law of murder. Murder is considered a private vengeance and in tribal Arabian society the avenging of a murder fell on the victim's next-of-kin; so it was the right of the family to demand satisfaction. Punishment was effected on the principle of retaliation, commuted to a payment of blood money or compensation for the injury. Cutting of limbs, stoning to death and flogging were also prevalent as punishments (in the tribal Arab society. The position of women in tribal society was also secondary to that of men. In the light of modern developments in criminology where the insistence is on reform and rehabilitation of criminals, the claim of the Muslim traditionalist, however, is that Islamic concepts are not contrary to the modern spirit of criminology.

Pakistan is one of those Muslim countries (the first being Saudi Arabia) where Islamic criminal law has partly been put into practice. Generally speaking, there has been a significant increase of crime in Pakistan since the implementation of Islamic punishments in 1979. This is notably in crimes against property, which include highway robbery, theft from petrol pumps, housebreaking and bank robbery, cattle rustling, motor vehicle thefts etc. An increase of crime has also been noted in Zina, Qazf and prohibition of alcohol cases.

Modernists question whether the criminal policy adopted in Pakistan is compatible with the requirements of a modern society. The modernist demand in this respect is that the codification of Islamic criminal law should be done in the light of modern circumstances. There can be no return to the past. Islamic law has to face the challenges of the modern world. Otherwise, Islamic law is just a mockery, as we now know from the experience of Pakistan.

Islamic criminal law is certainly not compatible with the status that women already have in Pakistani society. It was a shock to the women of Pakistan to have to accept that they are not accepted as full human beings, that in Hudood cases they are not considered capable of appearing as witnesses and that in financial matters two women are considered equal to one man. (Rubya Mehdi, Islamisation of the Law in Pakistan)

The women became the special victims of Islamisation and its inconsistencies. The Zina Ordinance carried grave injustices and untold miseries on women in the country and prompted bitter international criticism. Women's rights groups helped in the production of a film titled "Who will cast the first stone?" to highlight the oppression and sufferings of women under the Hudood Ordinances. In September 1981, the first conviction and sentence under the Zina Ordinance, of stoning to death for Fehmida and Allah Bakhsh were set aside under national and international pressure.

In many cases, under the Zina Ordinance, a woman who made an allegation of rape was convicted for adultery whilst the rapist was acquitted. This led to a growing demand by jurists and women activists for repealing the Ordinance. In 1983, Safia Bibi, a 13-year-old blind girl, who alleged rape by her employer and his son was convicted for adultery under the Zina Ordinance whilst, the rapists were acquitted. The decision attracted so much publicity and condemnation from the public and the press that the Federal Shariah Court (Safia Bibi v. The State, PLD 1985 FSC) of its own motion, called for the records of the case and ordered that she should be released from prison on her own bond. Subsequently, on appeal, the finding of the trial court was reversed and the conviction was set aside.

In early 1988, another conviction for stoning to death of Shahida Parveen and Mohammed Sarwar sparked bitter public criticism that led to their retrial and acquittal by the Federal Shariah Court. In this case the trial court took the view that notice of divorce by Shahida's former husband, Khushi Mohammed should have been given to the Chairman of the local council, as stipulated under Section 7(3) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. This section states that any man who divorces his wife must register it with the Union Council. Otherwise, the court concluded that the divorce stood invalidated and the couple became liable to conviction under the Zina ordinance.

The International Commission of Jurists ' mission to Pakistan in December 1986 called for repealing of certain sections of the Hudood Ordinances relating to crimes and "Islamic" punishments which discriminate against women and non-Muslims. The commission cited an example that a Muslim woman can be convicted on the evidence of man, and a non-Muslim can be convicted on the evidence of a Muslim, but not vice versa.