A Question of Ideology

Considering that the existing Constitution came into force in 1973, the CII managed to come up with a ‘final report’ by 1996, a casual 16 years too late. Be that as it may, that means the CII has fulfilled its mandate and should go home now. The fact that it has managed an ugly afterlife for decades shows both the weakness of the state and the lack of attention this republic lends to its Constitution. The law demands the CII be disbanded. Not that the previous government hasn’t tried. Men as liberal and illiberal as former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, General Pervez Musharraf and former President Asif Ali Zardari have toyed with the idea of slapping the CII down but no one succeeded. The law ministry made a convincing case as late as in 2010 that, post-final report, the CII was over the hill.

But the council wailed back like a stepchild cut out of the will, screaming that the same Article 230 implied permanent status for it. It was needed, quivered the CII, in deciding what was right for Pakistanis. As a hideous child marriage bill makes it through Iraq’s parliament, days from being drafted into law, it doesn’t take much to guess what the CII may one day be capable of, if left to its own devices. Mohammad Ali Jinnah said “Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state, to be ruled by priests with a divine mission.”

There is merit in this recommendation because the CII was never supposed to be a permanent body. It was supposed to give its final report within seven years of its appointment. That final report was represented in December 1996 and, as such, there is no constitutional imperative to continue with the body anymore. The makers of the constitution, to their credit, did not envisage the CII to be a council of ulema or religious priests. Article 228 of the constitution speaks of the appointment of persons as members who are either well versed in the “Knowledge of the principles and philosophy of Islam as enunciated in the Holy Quran and Sunnah,” or “Understanding of the economic, political, legal or administrative problems of Pakistan.”

Significantly the use of the word “person” denotes that such persons neither need not be Muslims nor even citizens of Pakistan. Article 260(1) of the Constitution defines a person as “anybody politic or corporal”. The president of Pakistan has the power to appoint a CII comprising eight to 20 members. These members would necessarily have to have one woman amongst them. The requirement of individuals engaged in Islamic research or instruction is 1/3rd of the total body. This means that 2/3rds of the body could be derived from men and women who were experts in law, economics, science, business, etc.

The recent verdict on Junaid Hafeez in a case of blasphemy, child abuse and non-implementation of Islamic injunctions, are the aftermath of CII failures. The Constitution has thus sought to balance the requirements of modernity with religion and create a truly ijtihad body that would help modernize the law of Islam according to the times we live in, but unfortunately, we have failed to enhance and adapt Islamic injunctions in the light of the Quran and Sunnah. This was keeping in line with Allama Iqbal’s lectures on Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam. The CII was not supposed to be a body of religious priests with a divine mission. Perhaps, most importantly, Article 227(3) bars the CII from recommending anything that affects the status of non-Muslims as equal citizens of Pakistan. Keeping in view the present national and international socio-cultural and religio-political trends, the government of Pakistan should review the purpose, scope, and powers of the CII, including the qualification for its members.