Daily Times

There are only a few countries in the world that deny their citizens the basic right to self-identity. Pakistan and Burma are two examples that come to mind. In both cases, the state-mullah nexus has changed the meaning of basic identities to exclude a group of people it despises.

Despite the fact that they have been living there for numerous generations, Rohingya Muslims in Burma have been denied citizenship and the basic rights that come with it. The Burmese Nationality Law, passed in 1982, does not legally recognise the Rohingya ethnic minority. Following international pressure on Myanmar, the government finally introduced a plan a few years ago to open a pathway for Rohingya citizenship. However, very few Rohingyas have been successful in becoming citizens through this route. This is because the plan requires them to prove at least three generations of residence in the country, not an easy task given the lack of accurate historical biographical data. In addition to this requirement, they have to give up the Rohingya identity and agree to being officially declared Bengali, or face government threats of relocation.

Countries usually confer citizenship through one of two principles: jus soli (by birth) or jus sanguinis (by blood). The former determines a person’s citizenship by their birthplace. This system of conferring citizenship is common in developed countries. In jus sanguinis, on the other hand, a person inherits their parents’ citizenship. Burma follows the jus sanguinis principle since its notorious citizenship law of 1982. This means only those Rohingya born to parents who are citizens at the time of their birth can attain citizenship. This is meant to ensure a perpetual chain of non-citizenship for the Rohingyas, who are severely marginalised at the hands of the Buddhist majority.

Just as Burma refuses its one million Rohingyas the right to identify at will, Pakistan also denies its five million Ahmedi Muslims this basic right to self-identity. Since the infamous Second Amendment to Pakistan’s Constitution, passed in 1974, Ahmedis have been prohibited the right to identify as Muslims. They are forced to identify as only Ahmedis, or opt to insult the founder of the Ahmedi community to earn the Muslim identity on ID cards and passports.

Before 1974, a Muslim was universally defined by the Kalima or Islamic creed, i.e. a person attesting to the oneness of God and the prophethood of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). The Holy Prophet (PBUH) himself only required people to recite the Kalima at his hand when accepting them into the fold of Islam. When one of his companions killed a warring opponent during a battle, despite his reciting the Kalima, Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) became furious. The companion tried to defend his actions by explaining that the man had read the Kalima merely out of fear. The Prophet (PBUH) replied: “Did you open his heart and look inside it?” Such is the significance of the Kalima and of not being judgmental of others’ faith.

Despite this universally accepted defining characteristic of a Muslim, clerics in the Indian subcontinent were — and still are — known to engage in takfeer, the practice of declaring other Muslim sects heretic. The Pakistani state, however, did not interfere in such matters of religious identity, in line with the founding father’s vision. Jinnah is famously known to have stated, “You may belong to any religion, caste or creed — that has nothing to do with the business of the state.” In 1974, however, the state fell off the tracks Jinnah set it on. It took on the power to interfere in matters that were supposed to be strictly between man and God. Pakistan redefined the word Muslim, no longer limiting it to the Islamic Kalima. Two clauses, i.e. attesting to a certain interpretation of the concept of finality of Prophethood and insulting the founder of the Ahmedi community were added as requirements to be considered Muslim by the state. This was despite the fact that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) had cautioned the Muslims to refrain from judgment in matters of faith. In a tradition narrated in Bukhari, he is reported to have said: “Whoever says, ‘None has the right to be worshipped but Allah’, faces our Qibla during the prayers, prays like us and eats our slaughtered animal, then he is a Muslim, and has got the same rights and obligations as other Muslims have.” Apparently, this definition was discarded by the state as lacking.

In another tradition, the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is reported to have said: “Islam has been built on five things: on testifying that there is no god save Allah and that Muhammad is His Messenger, on performing prayer, on giving the Zakat, on pilgrimage to the House if within means and on fasting during Ramadhan (Bukhari).” The state did not seem to agree with this description either.

New clauses were introduced by the state-mullah nexus for the sole purpose of marginalising the Ahmedi Muslims. Subsequently, the state enacted laws (Ordinance XX) to punish the Ahmedis who were caught acting like Muslims. This is exactly what Burma did a few years later in 1982. As in Pakistan, the Burmese state-clergy nexus exploited the law to deny the Rohingya Muslim minority its right to self-identity and forced them to identify as Bengali instead.

In both cases, discriminatory legislation led to a prospective rise in violence against the respective communities. Since then, almost 300 Ahmedis and Rohingyas have been killed in the two countries. Hundreds of thousands have had to flee their homes and seek refuge outside. Many Ahmedis and Rohingyas seek refuge in UN refugee camps in Thailand, Sri Lanka, etc.

It is heartening to see many Pakistanis rightly concerned about Burma’s denial of self-identity to the Rohingyas. Some Pakistani politicians have even called on the UN and on foreign governments to ensure the safeguarding of their basic rights. How painfully ironic then that we remain blind to these same crimes when committed by our own state. How hypocritical that our lips remain sealed at the similar denial of rights to our own citizens. If we really believe it is a crime to deny citizens the right to self-identity, it should be very easy to prove, right here at home.

The author is currently completing his Cardiology fellowship with Tufts University in Boston, US. He writes for various American newspapers and Pakistani publications and blogs at the Huffington Post. He tweets @KashifMD