The entire nation seems to be divided and engaged in the war of words over the return of youngest Nobel laureate, Malala Yousafzai. Malala had returned after six long years after she escaped the Taliban reign in her hometown, Swat. There are two factions: The first one, mostly liberal, celebrated Malala’s homecoming. The second one launched a vicious campaign against the young woman, accused her of being a west’s agent, which automatically translates into being anti-Islam and anti-Pakistan. The practice of touting religion as a tool to oppress the weaker segments of the society has a long history. Faith has been used even to the extent of settling personal grievances. Ironically, the religion, which had been popularized by the founding fathers themselves, was weaponised even against them. The ‘kafir brigade’ that distributes certificates of fidelity and infidelity has been successful in indoctrinating masses into believing that they are the owners of the faith. The so-called owners of the faith have infiltrated almost every compartment of the society. Recently, while the nation was jubilant over the enormous global recognition it earned after Krishna Kumari became Pakistan’s first-ever lower-caste Hindu Senator, the Islamabad High Court asked the citizens to mention their faith on all official identity documents, urging the state to make it mandatory to check the faith of a citizen before it holds any public office. The verdict led to another debate over the plight of minorities in Pakistan. Court’s open religious bigotry and bias is a dangerous negation of Article 3 of the constitution, which promises the citizen a fulfilment from each according to his ability and to his work. But the court’s verdict has been delivered through the prism of religion. The IHC’s verdict has not only challenged the spirit of the Constitution, it also diametrically opposes Jinnah’s doctrine; a doctrine that commands the state to be blind to people’s faith and personal identities, and judge them as human beings who deserve rights that all individuals and citizens of the state should have The Article 38 of the constitution ensures the ‘promotion of the social and economic well-being of the people irrespective of sex, caste, creed and race’. The IHC’s verdict has not only challenged the spirit of the constitution but over and above it, it has also diametrically opposed Jinnah’s doctrine; a doctrine that commands the state to be blind to people’s faith and personal identities, but judge them as human beings who deserve rights that all individuals and citizens of the state should deserve. Pakistan continues to earn disrepute at international forums due to the state’s weak decisions and the lack of clear strategy to produce a counter-narrative in order to fight the militant groups and to consolidate and unite the deeply-divided society. In addition to this, Pakistan’s third Universal Periodic Review report raised concerns about freedom of religion and beliefs, discrimination and violence against minorities along with other issues. The state should first determine its priorities to balance competing principles and to take affirmative action to respect, to protect and the fulfilment of human security guided by the constitution as the dutiful obligation. Its basic idea that neither state nor state institutions have right to interfere in the matters of religion of its citizen. No country can ever be succeeded with this paradox until it wipes away the stains of prejudices by judging the citizens through the convictions of their faiths instead of determining the rights enshrined in constitutions. The politics of patriotism and ‘true faith’, beyond the shadow of doubt, would prevent in creating an egalitarian society. Otherwise, it would stagnate the intellectual growth of society. It must be dealt with robust counter narrative at the state level. The writer is a freelance writer tweets at @ranasarfraz3417 Published in Daily Times, April 4th 2018.