It had raised itself from the abyss it had fallen into with the loss of its Eastern wing, and had for the first time in its history succeeded in drafting a constitution that was secular in essence, though Islam was to be the state religion. It guaranteed freedom of expression and profession of religion in addition to other basic human rights, which are universal. However, as fate would have the prime minister of the day fell prey to the allure of grandeur and hosted the Islamic Summit. While this could have become a source of pride for a nation rising from the low, what happened, thereafter, afflicted the country with the malaise, which was to eat it up from within for decades to come. In hindsight, it can be said that whatever was covertly or overtly discussed between those leaders at the moot that mattered, changed the direction Pakistan needed to continue to move in. As the events of later days would tell, it changed its course from a modern democracy where the state did not interfere in how its people chose to live to one where the state assumed roles reserved only for the Creator. This day in 1974 was the cornerstone in this course change. The state assumed absolute ownership of the religion of the majority of its people and in a way chose to act God, the originator of religion. It coined a definition of a Muslim on its own and judged a group among its people, the Ahmadis, as only God could on the Day of Judgment. The constitutional second amendment was made to pass with the members of parliament belonging to the community not being able to vote. In the history of religion, this just has one parallel. In the year 85 AD, the Council of Jamnia, the supreme Jewish body, declared Christians to be not Jews. Similarly, here too, the state chose sides while its role was to leave matters of faith to God alone. It was claimed that a 90-year issue had been settled but in fact, the de facto rule of the pulpit and populist justice was unleashed. This not being a tryst on religion no subjective opinion on the matter is being attempted. Suffice to say that that once the state assumed this role, what followed after that fateful day was anybody’s guess. The country changed to one that dictated people in personal matters. This paved the way for the latter-day dictator to further up the ante and subject the people to draconian measures in the name of God. The floggings carried out then, on flimsy evidence of vice, may not be known to the youth but are in the memory of the old. This also ushered in the most divisive period in the country’s history when sectarian extremism took hold and later paved the way for extremist outfits. All interfaith and intrafaith dialogue ceased and this resulted in further hardening of positions. The state assumed absolute ownership of the religion of the majority of its people and in a way chose to act God, the originator of religion The situation has continued to remain so and rather than promoting dialogue and logic where people learn to listen to the different point of view with the desire of understanding, we have become afraid of it. The policy has been to dissuade people from intellectually engaging those who have a differing or alternative view. While this suits the clerics as it keeps their followers zombies, it restricts such interaction within or between communities that could help people find similarities and live peacefully with the differences. The role of the state is to provide a conducive atmosphere for the exchange of all sorts of ideas so that people make informed decisions. However, as matters stand the state is wary of any such healthy interaction. There is hardly any attempt at convergence, for extremism has taken hold. The clerics fear the loss of political clout in case of loss of flock to the other side,and this is understandable. Many of them worry not about the good of the people but the number they hold as followers. Thus, we rarely find the clerics initiating and leading any march on the rights of the downtrodden and women or against false testimonies. Contrarily, we do witness many leading political marches and lynching. The incidents of Gojra and Kot Radha Krishn where Christians were targeted are not very old. The proactive role of the state which is necessary to protect the rights and property of the vulnerable gets compromised when the state sides with any particular faith. Acting justly becomes impossible. When confronted with this crisis, by its nature existential, our leaders have shied from taking the bold decisions that could wake up the people from this state. Fearing a backlash from the pulpit they have only taken half measures at the most in reversing the wrongs. The realisation that these wrongs cannot be set right unless the cardinal sin of the state acting God is reversed has not yet sunk in. This continues to divide the society, and the dream of Jinnah’s Pakistan remains elusive. Europe was in the same state some time ago. With enlightenment, it realised that the State could not be a party to matters of faith. This resulted in the disconnection between the Church and the state and human development followed. For achieving Jinnah’s dream of a Pakistan where all its citizens are equal. Pakistan also needs to have this realisation. In his 11th August 1947 speech, Jinnah said “The people of England in course of time had to face the realities of the situation and had to discharge the responsibilities and burdens placed upon them by the government of their country and they went through that fire step by step. Today, you might say with justice that Roman Catholics and Protestants do not exist; what exists now is that every man is a citizen, an equal citizen of Great Britain and they are all members of the Nation.” For this, we need a leader who guides the people and can make them change course wherever needed. Jinnah indeed was one. The country needs another. Those who follow the masses don’t qualify. The writer is a freelance columnist