The family of the man who was murdered have suggested that he may have been killed for other reasons, and his co-workers have merely invoked blasphemy as a convenient ruse for a murder committed for more prosaic reasons.

This is, sadly, not altogether uncommon in Pakistan. Usually it is a threat against any minority (Christian, Hindu or otherwise) and can be used to justify land-grabbing, to settle fights between a Muslim and non-Muslim, or for a myriad of other reasons. All you have to do is scream about how soandso cursed the Prophet or what not and ta-da... you've either got a mob scene (what appears to have happened here) or you've got an arrest followed by the "guilty" party given the choice between giving the accuser what he/ they want in exchange for them "dropping the charge" or facing the music which can be death (though I must add it's not terribly clear how many of these cases result in death penalties).

It (the blasphemy law) ought to be repealed immediately although it's not likely especially considering that the OIC is trying to effect a quasi-global blasphemy law as we speak (or write as the case may be).

>>Ali Eteraz’s sincere hope is that the Blasphemy Law in particular ought to be immediately repealed.

That's right. Repeal the law and the problem will go away. Because the people are law abiding citizens, not ideologically motivated, correct?

Laws should reflect the philosophical makeup of the populace. Social engineering through laws has never succeeded. Case in point: Dowry laws in India have failed miserably.

People will do what they want to do.

M. Nam

However, we might remember that Pakistan’s legal community took a heroic stance last fall in the face of Musharraf’s anti-democratic actions.

well, the problem might be with what moornam alludes to: presecution of minorities might be the democratic impulse.

Pakistan’s legal community took a heroic stance last fall in the face of Musharraf’s anti-democratic actions. Perhaps they can do so again.

I'd be surprised if they did. My understanding is that Iftikhar Chaudhry is fundamentally a populist, and his actions stem from his beliefs on what the masses want.

btw, ali says: According to some sources, at the founding of Pakistan, Hindus comprised nearly 15% of the country's population and now number barely 2%.

does that include east bengal? since hindus were 30% of the population in east bengal and east bengal was around 1/2 of the original state population that seems plausible....

Dammit -- is Ali spreading that crap false statistics as well? It's easy to research. Focusing only on West Pakistan, the proportion of non-Muslims (counting Ahmadis as msulim) was 3.56 in 1941, and 3.48% in 1998. If anyone has better figures, please let me know.

Ali has good intentions, but in this case he needs to work on fact-checking.

That's right. Repeal the law and the problem will go away. Because the people are law abiding citizens, not ideologically motivated, correct?
Laws should reflect the philosophical makeup of the populace. Social engineering through laws has never succeeded. Case in point: Dowry laws in India have failed miserably.

There was not much support for de-segregation in the deep South either but laws were passed anyway. The minorities in Pakistan need to be protected whether the majority is ready for offering such protection or not. That is why you need the Courts in Pakistan to step in and fix the problem as they dont face popular pressure.

these data suggest that in rural sindh hindus form nearly 10% of the population.

There was not much support for de-segregation in the deep South either but laws were passed anyway. The minorities in Pakistan need to be protected whether the majority is ready for offering such protection or not. That is why you need the Courts in Pakistan to step in and fix the problem as they dont face popular pressure.

IOW, elites need to non-democratically impose individual liberty and engage in a kulturkampf which applies enough cultural pressure to shift the arrow of conformism appropriately. i'm down. but do you think pakistani elites are?

Dammit -- is Ali spreading that crap false statistics as well? It's easy to research.

Between Ikram and myself, we have smacked down these bogus numbers atleast a dozen times on SM. These numbers have more resilience than the campaign of Hillary Clinton.

AMFD:
>>There was not much support for de-segregation in the deep South either but laws were passed anyway

The law was backed by the North(60%+ of the country's population), a large white minority in the south, and of course AA's themselves. In addition, much before the law, meetings were held, debates were conducted. Churches urged integration. Movies were made to spread racial tolerance.

Where's the equivalent of that in Pakistan? What to the Friday sermons preach about religious minorities? Where is the Pakistani movie equivalent of "Guess who's coming to dinner?"?

>>The minorities in Pakistan need to be protected whether the majority is ready for offering such protection or not.

Minorities should be sufficiently integrated that they should not have a minority complex. The way to do it is not through laws, but NGO's to emphasise on individualism and teach people to negate group think.

M. Nam

It must be noted, however, that blasphemy laws are not used against minorities alone, but against fellow Muslims, mostly for personal or criminal reasons.

These numbers have more resilience than the campaign of Hillary Clinton.

But are they less bogus than her campaign?

he way to do it is not through laws, but NGO's to emphasise on individualism and teach people to negate group think.

No, you need a multi pronged approach. Laws and strong leadership, a vocal media, some amount of propaganda tying such things to the idea of Pakistan and Islam, education starting at the primary level promoting the same and NGOs working on the ground and still you cannot be sure it will work (your example of Dowry in India).

The law was backed by the North(60%+ of the country's population), a large white minority in the south

that seems false. unless "large white minority" = few percent of the population (see there goes my everything). as for the north, the book sundown towns documents expulsions of blacks from "all-white" towns in illinois as late as the 1950s. in oregon blacks who played in portland had to stay across the river in vancouver, WA, because portland hotels wouldn't serve them. the reaction to busing in places like boston, or the support for george wallace in the wisconsin primaries, shows that non-elite whites in the north were qualitatively that different from southern whites. their racism was simply less salient because they had ethnically cleansed blacks from their towns earlier, while southern whites had simply segregated them. in much of the north civil rights was a southern issue because there were no blacks, and the populace was willing to acede to the supreme court and enforce its edict. but remember that it initially had little effect on them; northern segregation was more informal or localized, or, many regions did not have many blacks to begin with.

(i agree with your overall point, but i don't think that one should present the past falsely to advance an argument)

Ardy etc: >>No, you need a multi pronged approach. Laws

Ok - let's backtrack and go to the roots. Law making 101. What's a law? At it's core, a law is the will of the majority imposed on a minority. A majority of the people believe that theft, murder, rape is wrong, so a law is passed and implemented to prevent the minority from indulging in them. A majority of the people believe that a speed limit of 55-65MPH on the freeway and 25MPH around schools is "safe" - so a law is passed to prevent the minority from speeding.

Remember: A law does not have to be just or fair or follow logic. It is, at the end of the day, the whim of the majority.

For example: During the Great Depression, a great majority felt that Social Security was necessary for old age, so a law was passed to implement it. The minority, which saw through the ponzi scheme, was silenced. Once the majority feels that Universal Healthcare is good, no amount of argument from the minority will prevent it from becoming law.

If the great majority feels that dowry is a personal exchange between consenting adults, much like prostitution, then all the laws passed against it will be futile. If the great majority feels that minorities, especially idol-worshipping minorities need not have rights, then no amount of laws will cure the disease.

M. Nam

The coming of real Democracy (if it happens) to Pakistan may not help, but infact hurt, the status of minorities.
There has to be explicit clauses written in the legal code (or constitution) to prevent the "tyranny of the majority". On top of that the culture should be one of respect for the law. If these things are absent than Democracy can pave a way for the extinction of minorities. Hitler was elected Democratically after all.

If the great majority feels that dowry is a personal exchange between consenting adults, much like prostitution, then all the laws passed against it will be futile. If the great majority feels that minorities, especially idol-worshipping minorities need not have rights, then no amount of laws will cure the disease.

there might be a quantitative difference between "majority" and "great majority," but there's social science data which suggests that the masses will go along with the elites after some latency. usually there is a tendency to adhere to the espoused norms and conform, so there needs to be persistent pressure applied after the initial shock. roe. vs. wade is a good example, i used to have 'americana yearbook' and most people were notionally opposed to legalized abortion before the ruling. after the ruling there was a shift toward acceptance of legalized abortion. if the elites are serious about change they can do it, they just need to sink some capital into it. as it is, my understanding is that dowry spread in india in the 20th century as elite emulation, and prosperity is exacerbating it, not dampening it. that's probably the issue here; the elites are two-faced.

Amardeep, good post. On the lynching itself, I don't think the stated rationale was the actual motive - it was just convenient and provides plausible legal cover, as it was known to his assailants that he was Hindu. Since the poor man is dead, he can't explain himself, and nobody's the wiser, or so they thought. One positive facet of the sad story is that it is being discussed precisly because Pakistan now has a much freer media than it ever did, a media that defends its freedom with a zeal that, frankly, is astounding. I think the full facts should soon become more widely known, because the media is investigating, and so is the official machinery. In earlier periods, it might well have been buried and forgotten about.

Just a few more general comments. First, it is necessary to note that an overwhelming number of the Hindus now remaining in Pakistan are from the weakest socioeconomic classes - it would be euphemistic to call them sanitation workers or leatherworkers or shoesmiths or washerfolk. While there is certainly an attempt from latter-day Islamic clergy to adduce a religious rationale for the discrimination - for the most part, the discrimination arises from their low socio-economic status, and indeeed, similarly situated folk across the border in India face similar 'caste' discrimination.

Secondly, the Hindu population of Pakistan is mostly rural and mostly in Sindh. Thus it is largely immune from the effects of any prejudice from urban and/or Punjabi Pakistanis - simply from the fact of where it is located - and the former comprise most of Pakistan. It is not as if the Hindu population of Pakistan were uniformly spread over Pakistan in urban ghettos and hostage to the possibility of regular 'riots' the way the Muslim population of India often is. There is, however, a significant Christian minority in the Punjabi part of Pakistan - they are more urban, but also largely in lower socioeconomic classes. There have been cases of lynchings and attacks on Christians also over 'blaspheming'.

Thirdly, the separate religious electorates are now gone. In fact, Musharraf took them out in a constitutional amendment back in 2002, and they were not there in the 2008 elections. Ali's write up mentions this, perhaps he corrected it after you read his piece.

Overall my reading of Pakistan today is that elite consensus is shifting away from supporting a religiously-defined state toward supporting a more secular state with an overwhelming Muslim majority - although it is sometimes a question of one step forward and half a step back.

Justice Bhagwandas may have taken his oath on the Koran, but he did serve as Acting Chief Justice; he did go on a religious holiday to India where he remained while a major crisis broke in Pakistan; his inability to celebrate Diwali with his friends (while under house-arrest along with his Muslim judicial colleagues) became a major issue in the Pakistani media; the protests from clergy and religious parties that he should not be allowed to serve as Acting CJ because of his religion were faint to begin with and then wholly quashed by the elite, nor did they find resonance in the polity one might otherwise have expected given the perception and reality of Pakistan as an Islamic country.

So I see these as hopeful signs; Ali as ever is in iconoclastic dissident mode, and I salute his brave stance holding a mirror to Pakistanis over their treatment of the religious minorities in their midst.

While there is certainly an attempt from latter-day Islamic clergy to adduce a religious rationale for the discrimination - for the most part, the discrimination arises from their low socio-economic status, and indeeed, similarly situated folk across the border in India face similar 'caste' discrimination.

ROFL. I was pretty sure that someone would raise the "moral equivalence" between India and Pakistan. I'm surprised that it took 18 comments.

Recently, Mayawati humbled an intermediate caste leader for saying derogatory stuff. You should note that there is no legal blasphemy law in India to take refuge after killing a person belonging to the minority community or from the weaker sections. Infact India has laws protecting the Dalits even from being abused and that is the law invoked by Mayawati.

Now continue with the "moral equivalence" stories.

Dammit -- is Ali spreading that crap false statistics as well? It's easy to research. Focusing only on West Pakistan, the proportion of non-Muslims (counting Ahmadis as msulim) was 3.56 in 1941, and 3.48% in 1998. If anyone has better figures, please let me know.

Where are you getting this? 1941? In 1941, the Sikh/Hindu population of western Punjab (which became Pakistani Punjab) was at least 25%. The Hindu population of Sindh was close to 20%. Even NWFP and Balochistan had a few % of their population as Hindu/Sikh. So there is no way the non-Muslim population of what was to become Pakistan was only 3.56% in 1941. If you meant 1951 then you may be right.

At it's core, a law is the will of the majority imposed on a minority.

Not always. Especially in a place like Pakistan which is more often than not a faux democracy. Here on SM itself, we've brought up the idea of a benevolent dictator, and this is one place where such a dictator or ruling leadership (even if democratically elected) could make a difference. Thus a law does not always have to be a majority consensual one. For eg. the blasphemy laws, I am not so sure were a will of the Pakistani majority that got implemented.

Secondly, as you yourself pointed out, the law can function as a deterrent to the minority to go against what the majority believes. Thus once your NGOs etc start making progress and people start seeing the way of respecting everyone, the minority of people which will want to discriminate against religious minorities can be deterred through laws. Unless you assume that as soon as majority will develops, a law will be passed and more importantly implemented to the degree neccessary in a very short time.

Which is not to say that without laws such a change cannot come about, but a law will definitely help much.

Look -- Hindus in Pakistan are really poor, rural, and backwards. You average whiskey-drinking-investment-banker-wannabe-London-vacationing-barely-urdu-speaking elite Pakistani will never meet a feudal Hindu labourer in his life. Apart from the occasional news event, like the murder above, Hindus are just off the radar screen.

Which kind of argues -- based on Razib's thinking above -- that elite Pakistanis use the Pakistani government to push society to provide better treatment of Hindus, and affirmative action. But the Pakistani government has never been particularly effective at anything, so chances of an effective kulturkamp are slim.

Ponniyin -- "People" who put "random" words "in" quotation "marks" are ""irritating"". "Please Stop".

Amitabh -- very sorry -- Now I'm the one spreading bad stats. Yes, its 1951 -- click on the link and it will take you to the sources.

If you meant 1951 then you may be right.

I think Ikram meant 1951, and it was a typo, if you check his earlier comment linked in the discussion.

Also, Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) which double digit % after 1948, has have had many waves of Hindus and other minorities immigrating to India, all through 1950s-60s, with the largest influx in 1972.

You average whiskey-drinking-investment-banker-wannabe-London-vacationing-barely-urdu-speaking elite Pakistani will never meet a feudal Hindu labourer in his life

on a more serious note, one of my close friends grew up as a hindu in karachi, and he had a really rough time of it. their status as a minority was a big reason why his entire family has now moved out of pakistan, mostly to the states. it's been nearly 15 years since he's left pakistan, but there is always a twinge of bitterness when he speaks of pakistan. sad.

Not always. Especially in a place like Pakistan which is more often than not a faux democracy. Here on SM itself, we've brought up the idea of a benevolent dictator, and this is one place where such a dictator or ruling leadership (even if democratically elected) could make a difference. Thus a law does not always have to be a majority consensual one. For eg. the blasphemy laws, I am not so sure were a will of the Pakistani majority that got implemented.

well, i think one can make a strong case that sadam was good for religious minorities. the sunni arabs, well, he was a sunni arab, but also christians from the chaldaean community (tariq aziz was a chaldaean christian). it now seems many christians are moving to syria. syria is dominated militarily by an alawite family. the alawites are very heterodox muslims. chances are if syria goes to majority-rule the christians of syria as also going to be shit-out-of-luck.

this doesn't mean that dictators and the like are always benevolent. they have interests to serve. in medieval spain there was a monarch who was a notorious friend of jews. i say notorious because he was hated by many nobles and the populace, and so jews were a group he could always depend on, and served as reliable sources of capital against his brother during their wars. similarly, the alawite protection of religious liberty for christians is motivated probably in large part due to the fact that if they foment and encourage that sort of sectarianism then the majority sunnis will look in their direction in due time. in the united states one of the reasons the elite opinion shifted against segregation probably had to do with the fact that we battled a racial nationalist regime in world war ii, and, were making the case against communism as an oppressive regime which enslaved whole peoples. obviously leftists had an immediate retort when these sorts of universalist-rights arguments were advanced in the interests of american power.

Chachaji,

I am sure you know more about this than I do, I have a close Hindu Sindhi friend from Karachi and his description of Hindu Sindhis in Karachi is anything but poor. From his account it seems like they are an affluent minority. Can someone speak more to this?

Umber Desi, there may well be some very wealthy Hindu Sindhis in Karachi. Many more are comfortably well off. I meant that the rural Hindu Sindhis are very poor. The rural Hindu Sindhis are the majority of Pakistani Hindus.

I hadn't seen the table Razib posted upthread, when I made my earlier comment, but now I have, and the statistics bear me out.

umber desi, the hindu friend to whom i referred @ 26 was also of a sindhi family in karachi. although they were affluent, it seemed that their (particular) experience as minorities was enough to incite all of them to look outward for their future home.

I don't think the stated rationale was the actual motive - it was just convenient and provides plausible legal cover

Well, in the case of non benevolent dictators/monarchs of the kinds that Razib mentions, it's a case of maintenance of power and it is always easier to maintain a give and take relationships and thus generate loyalty with a minority group and history will indeed provide many examples of the same.

While the issue of minority leaders does not hold as much in democracies, the idea of populism works along similar lines in incubating a loyal minority base, especially with electorally powerful minorities. Thus you have the Jewish commonity actively courted in the US and muslim appeasement in politics in India.

RC, here is what the family of the victim had to say

the family also believed that the murder had nothing to do with religion. It could have been the result of a personal feud. Raju, brother-in-law of the victim, told Dawn that the case should be properly investigated

Jagdeesh was a simple man who knew little about religion. He had come to Karachi to earn a living and not to indulge in debates over religion. And it is easy to kill a member of a minority community and then accuse him of uttering blasphemous remarks. And that it is why there is need for a proper and thorough investigation,” he said.

How do you know this??

Come on RC! I didn't say I knew it. It is just a surmise, though not an uneducated one. Again, I hadn't read the Dawn article Amardeep linked in, but if you read it, you will see the same speculation right there.

An official at the JPMC said the body bore marks of severe torture, but there was no injury indicating that sticks, bricks and iron rods had been used. He said that it appeared to be a case of ‘intentional murder’, rather one of death in a brawl.

Like police, the family also believed that the murder had nothing to do with religion. It could have been the result of a personal feud. Raju, brother-in-law of the victim, told Dawn that the case should be properly investigated.... He said the incident should be investigated in a transparent manner to determine the actual reasons behind the murder and not to allow anyone to take the law into his own hands.

Also, Bangladesh (then East Pakistan) which double digit % after 1948, has have had many waves of Hindus and other minorities immigrating to India, all through 1950s-60s, with the largest influx in 1972.

Kush makes a good point. Also I believe a better baseline to check the numbers from should not be 1951 but the pre-1965 Indo-Pak war period. The borders were pretty open in the 50s with people moving in and out on both sides.

ROFL. I was pretty sure that someone would raise the "moral equivalence" between India and Pakistan. I'm surprised that it took 18 comments.

I am not sure whats funny about that. There have been no mass scale killings of minorities in Pakistan at the level of India (for example Sikhs in Delhi or Muslims in Gujarat).

well, i think one can make a strong case that sadam was good for religious minorities. the sunni arabs, well, he was a sunni arab, but also christians from the chaldaean community (tariq aziz was a chaldaean christian). it now seems many christians are moving to syria. syria is dominated militarily by an alawite family. the alawites are very heterodox muslims. chances are if syria goes to majority-rule the christians of syria as also going to be shit-out-of-luck.

I think it will be interesting to map out the rights of minorities in countries run by dictators. Both Saddam (sunni in shia majority) and Assad (shia in sunni majority) are members of a minority class in their respective countries. Sometimes even benevolent dictators like Mahathir are not good to their minorities.

36 · Pagal_Aadmi_for_debauchery said

I am not sure whats funny about that. There have been no mass scale killings of minorities in Pakistan at the level of India (for example Sikhs in Delhi or Muslims in Gujarat).

That's because Pakistan did an amazing job of clearing itself of minorities during Partition. Hindus and Christians don't even form some kind of vote bank in Pakistan, they take what they get. Not the case in India.

That's because Pakistan did an amazing job of clearing itself of minorities during Partition. Hindus and Christians don't even form some kind of vote bank in Pakistan, they take what they get. Not the case in India.

Yes, there was no ethnic cleaning in Indian Punjab. Btw, Shias are a 25% minority in Pakistan.

I thought most of them converted to Islam. If Hindus in Pakistan can afford to move to India, then why not?

I've met a Sindhi Catholic girl before. I've also met a Pakistani medical doctor whose ancestors, strangely enough, came from Goa.

In general, religious minorities are treated horrendously over there. Even Shia Muslims are treated as kafirs, even though Jinnah was Ismaili. Razib would be tormented every day there, unfortunately. In India, Shias are model citizens, from what I've seen, and they're doing very well in India.

I wish that the Pakistani allow the Sindhis and the people of Nuristan (i.e. "Kafiristan") to practice their ancient religion.

28 · umber desi said

Chachaji,

I am sure you know more about this than I do, I have a close Hindu Sindhi friend from Karachi and his description of Hindu Sindhis in Karachi is anything but poor. From his account it seems like they are an affluent minority. Can someone speak more to this?

I am not sure whats funny about that. There have been no mass scale killings of minorities in Pakistan at the level of India (for example Sikhs in Delhi or Muslims in Gujarat).

I think it gets manifested in different ways in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.

a) In India, religious violence is often, and is triggered by events, like a cow meat in front of a hindu temple, pig meat in front of a mosque, train load of devotees burned (one may argue the cause but it is a very incendiary catalyst, no doubt), or demolishing old places of worship (Babri Majid), or events like PM Indira Gandhi being assassinated by her body guards. Mostly events are the catalysts, and then state actors are complicit in some cases.

b) In Pakistan, you read news, almost every week, for last few years, 10-20 people are killed where the origins are sectarian - Shia/ Sunni. Hindus, and Christians are too marginalized to be a threat or even pose any challenge. They are invisible huddled masses for most part, with some exceptions, like current Chief Justice of Pakistan.

c) In East Pakistan, in 1972, Pakistani Army specifically targeted Hindus, and other intellectuals(these intellectuals were Muslims too) - number of killings range in orders of hundreds of thousands (and in millions if Bengali Muslims included as a whole). The biggest outmigration to India was seen in 1972, running into millions, Muslims included. In Bangladesh today, the minority population has decreased to 9%, that was once close to 22% in 1951 in East Pakistan/ Bangladesh. There are some quite severe property laws forbidding Hindus for ownerships in Bangladesh, as of today. For that matter, Bihari Muslims (originated from West Pakistan) are not even given citizenships.

Different strokes.

3 · razib said

presecution of minorities might be the democratic impulse.

By definition, "democracy" implies a respect for minority rights. As a wise man once said, "Democracy is more than just elections."

11 · MoorNam said

The way to do it is not through laws, but NGO's to emphasise on individualism and teach people to negate group think.

Yes, that's it. We must teach everyone to negate groupthink. Everyone!

By the way, I think that it would be far more interesting to do a report on the Hindu/Sikhs of Afghanistan.

39 · Pagal_Aadmi_for_debauchery said

Yes, there was no ethnic cleaning in Indian Punjab. Btw, Shias are a 25% minority in Pakistan

I didnt say that. Yes there was ethnic cleansing in India, but Muslims remain in India in substantial numbers and aren't a politically vulnerable minority. In India you cannot legally kill a man for blaspheming Hinduism and expect legal support for your argument like you can in Pakistan. If a murder like this had happened in India, the guilty party could not use his membership in the majority religion as a way to get out of the crime without him being called out by human rights activists, religious leaders, some politicians and in the end, the law. Muslims in India have political power and use it.

In Pakistan, the 20% of hte population in 1941 that was Hindu/Sikh is nonexistent today. You can harp on riots all you want, but that is the basic extermination of a group of people to a point where injustice against them cannot be ever meaningfully persued.

By definition, "democracy" implies a respect for minority rights.

no it doesn't, you're wrong. there's a reason polybius distinguished between democracies and republics, you know what i mean?

How do you know this?? So these criminals are so sophisticated that they know about the anti-blasphemy laws and in used that for this pre-meditated act !!! Wow that is a leap.

there is a long history of this in pakistan. before i heard about it in the case of christians in punjab, but it seems usually the blasphemy charge is a lever used for other ends.

. The biggest outmigration to India was seen in 1972, running into millions, Muslims included. In Bangladesh today, the minority population has decreased to 9%, that was once close to 22% in 1951 in East Pakistan/ Bangladesh. There are some quite severe property laws forbidding Hindus for ownerships in Bangladesh, as of today. For that matter, Bihari Muslims (originated from West Pakistan) are not even given citizenships.

1) when i was in bangladesh in 2004 i was told that many of the 9% who live in bangladesh now live in india, but have official residence in bangladesh

2) the reason has to do with property. those who live in india are dispossessed

3) the issue with bihari muslims is complicated. i think a fair number have now assimilated. i have relatives-in-law who are bihari muslims. but they have bengalicized and their children will be raised with a bengali identity. OTOH there are a group of bihar muslims who wish to maintain their identity and do not accept that they will be bengalicized and these are disproportionately the ones which live in refugee camps and are stateless

Even if laws protecting minority groups/individuals were to pass in Pakistan, would it be enforced by the police, judicial systems, etc? (Or are there laws for minority rights already in existence?)

It would be nice if India and Pakistan can do one last population exchange. Pakistan can send all their non muslim minorities to India and India can send those who supported idea of Pakistan with their wealth and health and their descendents to Pakistan. Everyone will be happier.

I am not sure whats funny about that. There have been no mass scale killings of minorities in Pakistan at the level of India (for example Sikhs in Delhi or Muslims in Gujarat).

Not repeating what the earlier commenter said, there is no comparison of the situation of religious minorities in Pakistan.

Yes, there was no ethnic cleaning in Indian Punjab. Btw, Shias are a 25% minority in Pakistan.

There was ethnic cleansing in India during 47, but not as clean as that of Pakistan. There are no mass scale killings of minorities in Pakistan because they form a miniscule percentage and are more or less hidden from the public view. I'd assume zero -communal riots in India if Muslims formed 2% of the population and India was declared a Hindu country with death penalty awarded for blaspheming idol gods. :-)

Ikram quoted from an article:

Jagdeesh was a simple man who knew little about religion. He had come to Karachi to earn a living and not to indulge in debates over religion.

Chachaji sites article from The Dawn

Raju, brother-in-law of the victim, told Dawn that the case should be properly investigated.... He said the incident should be investigated in a transparent manner to determine the actual reasons behind the murder and not to allow anyone to take the law into his own hands.

The family of the deceased may be trying to preempt the accused hiding behind a possible anti-blasphemy shield and thats why they are saying this. On the other hand it is possible, as Razib #47 mentions, this crime fits a pattern of criminals using a loop-hole to settle scores or achieve other objectives.

There are some quite severe property laws forbidding Hindus for ownerships in Bangladesh, as of today. For that matter, Bihari Muslims (originated from West Pakistan) are not even given citizenships.

I think you are taking up an unworthy cause of Bihari Muslims in Bangladesh. As far as I know, these folks were part of the "razakars" hand in glove with the Pakistani army in their atrocities against Bengalis in the 1970-71 period. Of course, Kids who were born after that should not be made to suffer the sins of their ancestors. But it is not like their parents are not culpable of any blame.

http://www.dawn.com/2008/04/12/nat21.htm

Let's be real. Everyone has a problem with difference. Most people are bigots to some degree. The difference is how you manage it.

White people in the U.S. just move away and create another enclave. In Pakistani, they shoot or blow one another up. In India, they burn the person alive and rape their daughters. Just slight cultural differences.

Amardeep:

Thank you for high-lighting the piece. I also want to apologize for the various errors and oversights in the piece that have been pointed out here and there. I don't think they take away from the thrust of the piece.

Razib:

You talk about the democratic impulse of Pakistan and assume many a thing about it, especially vis a vis the hudud. However, Islamization occurred for the large part, under a dictator. Second, the 1973 constitution, which made Islam the State religion and introduced divisions upon the basis of religion - i.e. stripping Ahmadis of their faith - was effectively written without broad consultation, and at a very difficult time (after defeat in 1971). In other words, "democracy" wasn't really ever in effect when these things were introduced.

Still, fact is, Islamizat is real. The issue isn't what the people think. The issue is how to defeat it. I recently gave a talk at Emory where I argued that the most appropriate place for the this kind of supremacism and legal segregation and anachronism to be defeated will be the courts -- which require political stability. As an example I used the issue of the Public Morality Bill of 2006 which was struck down in the Supreme Court. The secular court essentially defeated the Islamists with a historical argument rooted in Islam's history.

The same thing, actually, impelled the passage of the Women's Protection Act. The operative thing that brought about change to the rape laws -- and you might remember this from the States of Islam days -- wasn't that the legislature passed the bill. The issue that really struck a nerve was the argument by Muslim scholars (liberal ones obviously) who said that for a raped woman to be left open to an accusation of adultery was un-Islamic.

In '73 Pakistan tipped over when Islam became state religion. Before it, you didn't have to bother by citing to Islamic precedents for anything, afterwards you do. Its a harder battle, but its not an impossible one. It can be won as long as there is rule of law. This is why dictatorship is so pernicious.

Over the Musharraf presidency, the Supreme Court fell behind 11 years in its case load.

Also there is an open case about the ISI's involvement with elections since 1976 that is before the SCT that needs to be heard. Its been sitting there since 98 or so.

All of these conversations about rights need to keep going back to political stability: why is it that Pakistan's democratic institutions are not stable and get run over by the military? Why is this allowed? So on and so forth...

intolerance is intolerance--

what does anyone gain from trying to make excuses for horrific deaths of innocent people??

Hindus, Sikhs, and members of other religious minorities should NOT be mistreated by either the government or the extremist Muslims in Pakistan or Bangladesh.

Muslims should NOT be mistreated by either the government or extremist Hindus in India.

Both countries need to take active steps to spread TOLERANCE in their respective societies and stop pointing fingers and allowing for such ridiculous murders to take place.

Our respective religions advocate for peace, love, and justice-- not hate, death, and intolerance.

Kush,

What are you talking about, guy? There were the Sindhi-Mohajir riots in '72 that claimed the lives of a few dozens. Oh yes, there was this 'minor' riot in '71 which killed off over a million people and created a new nation. After Benazir Bhutto was killed, there were a few more dozens killed in rioting. That's not even counting the Baluchi riots or the low-level civil war against the Pashtuns, which have killed as many as 2,259 Pakistani soldiers.

42 · Kush Tandon said

I am not sure whats funny about that. There have been no mass scale killings of minorities in Pakistan at the level of India (for example Sikhs in Delhi or Muslims in Gujarat).

I think it gets manifested in different ways in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh.

a) In India, religious violence is often, and is triggered by events, like a cow meat in front of a hindu temple, pig meat in front of a mosque, train load of devotees burned (one may argue the cause but it is a very incendiary catalyst, no doubt), or demolishing old places of worship (Babri Majid), or events like PM Indira Gandhi being assassinated by her body guards. Mostly events are the catalysts, and then state actors are complicit in some cases.

b) In Pakistan, you read news, almost every week, for last few years, 10-20 people are killed where the origins are sectarian - Shia/ Sunni. Hindus, and Christians are too marginalized to be a threat or even pose any challenge. They are invisible huddled masses for most part, with some exceptions, like current Chief Justice of Pakistan.

c) In East Pakistan, in 1972, Pakistani Army specifically targeted Hindus, and other intellectuals(these intellectuals were Muslims too) - number of killings range in orders of hundreds of thousands (and in millions if Bengali Muslims included as a whole). The biggest outmigration to India was seen in 1972, running into millions, Muslims included. In Bangladesh today, the minority population has decreased to 9%, that was once close to 22% in 1951 in East Pakistan/ Bangladesh. There are some quite severe property laws forbidding Hindus for ownerships in Bangladesh, as of today. For that matter, Bihari Muslims (originated from West Pakistan) are not even given citizenships.

Different strokes.

The murder of the co-worker in this case was not a lynching. "Lynching" hardly makes sense outside of an American context, nor does this murder resemble a lynching. Calling it such, as the poster does, is shameless and inaccurate sensationalism.

Noblekinsman,

I used the word "lynching" following the reporter for Dawn, who also used the word. The basic definition of 'to lynch' is to execute without due process of law.

Apropos Pakistani Hindus, there's a film called RAMCHAND PAKISTANI by Pakistani-born, New York resident Mehreen Jabbar that will premiere during the Tribeca Film Festival. It's based on the true story of a Hindu boy who accidentally crosses the border with India, where he is imprisoned as a Pakistani spy.

I agree with you Pakistans legal system is very comlex
www.material-spiritual.info

I am surprised that there are so many comments condemning pakistan here. An islamic country treats non-muslims badly... this isn't exactly breaking news, is it?

Pakistan was not exactly formed on the basis of equality. If Pakistani muslims wanted to give minorities the same rights as Muslims, the land of the pure would not have been formed in the first place.

While the Hindu-Muslim divide does not contribute to significant tension within Pakistan (although it is a significant component of Indo-Pak tension and of course, communal tension within India) - there are many other schisms within Pakistan that ought to be mentioned, as some people already have: Christian-Muslim; Shia-Sunni; Ahmadiyyas vs Others; Punjabis vs Non-Punjabis; Mohajirs vs 'Natives'. These result in a significant amount of communal (the word in Pakistani usage is 'sectarian') conflict, and frequent violence and deaths. Gender discrimination and relative status issues are also a big cause of violence in Pakistan, as indeed they are also in India.

Though the separate religious electorates are now gone, Pakistan has reserved 17% of seats in both state and national legislatures for Women. Many well-connected women (relatives of prominent male politicians) got party tickets, and have been elected to Parliament; but on balance, this is probably better than no representation. Pakistan's House Speaker is today a woman, just as in the US. Women can contest both from the reserved seats and from the general seats, and men are not excluded from voting in the seats reserved for women. Bangladesh has also implemented a 15% reservation for women in its legislature. I would favor a similar reservation for women in Indian legislatures.

Whether reservations (or, on occasion, even separate electorates) are a step forward or back depends on the motivation and the implementation. The end of separate religious electorates is a step forward in Pakistan only if religious minority candidates begin to be elected from general seats in numbers. Let's hope that happens as the system, and democracy itself takes hold. If not, then even the token representation afforded by the separate electorates is gone, to be replaced by nothing, which would be a step back.

Pakistan was not exactly formed on the basis of equality. If Pakistani muslims wanted to give minorities the same rights as Muslims, the land of the pure would not have been formed in the first place.

hm. that's actually not the official story of the founding ;-)

36 · Pagal_Aadmi_for_debauchery said

There have been no mass scale killings of minorities in Pakistan at the level of India (for example Sikhs in Delhi or Muslims in Gujarat).

Minorities in Pakistan know their place in society. Take a headstrong, nationalistic Pakistani leader. Everyone, at least the majority community, adores him. Their love for him borders on idol worship. Take a disgruntled Hindu or Christian or any other person of a vulnerable community. He/She shoots the leader in the head. Tell me, the majority community wont react in animalistic ways? Luckily its never occured. Might I add, members of the majority community in India are just as vulnerable as minority communities when it comes to riots. Take the Hindus in Kashmir, Kerala '46, Northeast States, and other notable areas. Ill add a cliche for giggles: Dont compare apples and oranges. Or Samosas and pakoras (corny, I know)

Pagal_Aadmi_for_debauchery - "There have been no mass scale killings of minorities in Pakistan at the level of India (for example Sikhs in Delhi or Muslims in Gujarat)."

We Pakistanis have an unhealthy penchant for ignoring the genocidal deeds of our nation, such as, the 1971 massacre of a million Bengali Hindus and Muslims. Indeed, the Pakistani [mostly Punjabi] "Muajahids" took pride in raping and murdering the "baniya" women by the thousands.

"Pagal_Aadmi_for_debauchery - "There have been no mass scale killings of minorities in Pakistan at the level of India (for example Sikhs in Delhi or Muslims in Gujarat)."

1. East Bengal genocide, yes it is not at the level of riots in India, way beyond that. Gujarat was a 4 figure issue, Bangladesh was 6-7 figure.
2. Repeated before, but there simply aren't enough Christians or Hindus in Pakistan to cause "trouble".

There have been no mass scale killings of minorities in Pakistan at the level of India (for example Sikhs in Delhi or Muslims in Gujarat).

Dude you really missed the mark with this comment and the implied comparison. Not that India doesn't have an abysmal record of its own.

Pagal_Aadmi, would you rather be a middle-class Muslim in India or a middle-class Hindu in Pakistan?

I would favor a similar reservation for women in Indian legislatures.

Chachaji,

You should Guha's "India After Gandhi", and the whole discussion of women reservation discussed in Constituent Assembly. Many (majority) of women leaders and lawmakers in the Constituent Assembly were dead against women reservation in Indian legislatures. You should read the lively debate.

There is significantly high percentage of women in Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, Vidhan Sabhas, and Panchayats.

Women speaker of the House, etc. happened in India.....eons ago, some examples Sarojini Naidu (the first Indian Governor in 1949), Najma Heptullah (Deputy Chairman, Rajya Sabha in 1980). Currently, the two king makers in Indian politics are Sonia Gandhi, and Mayawati, and trouble shooter par excellence is Uma Bharati.

I meant: You read should Guha's "India After Gandhi"

I meant: You read should Guha's "India After Gandhi"

Ok Kush, I'll read that as "You should read Guha's "India After Gandhi" :)

I started it in earnest but haven't finished it yet. Maybe I will.

Fine, we had Najma Heptullah, but as you note she was Deputy Chairman, in the Upper House. The actual representation of women in the Lower House has been small, both in absolute and in relative terms. On a worldwide comparison, India is #106 out of 140 countries in the percentage of women parliamentarians in the Lower House, after Malta. Pakistan is #43 as of its previous Parliament; and Bangladesh would be around #75, based on the 15% reservation. India's percentage of women in the Lower House is about half the Asian average of 17%, as well as the Sub-Saharan average of 17.3%.

So there is a problem here, and it ill behooves the world's largest democracy to have such a pitifully low percentage of women in the lower House of Parliament. Sonia Gandhi or Mayawati are powerful women, but the idea is not to have just one or two powerful women but to empower women more broadly. Pakistan's women parliamentarians, including the Speaker, are relatives of male politicians, and I expect this kind of thing is true to some extent in Bangladesh also. Plus, there is some segregation in the seating arrangements in the House. Still, I view that as better than not having female representation.

Some of these things might happen in India if India had reservations, but it is happening even without it. So I think the symbolism and reality of having, say, 20% or 30% women in the Lower House is real, and regardless of what the (largely unrepresentative) Constituent Assembly may have deliberated on it sixty years ago, I support it today. The initial symbolism can lead to real changes later.

Islamic marriage law /now the state law of pakistan, prohibits nonmuslims from marrying muslims unless they convert to islam. Strategically this means there is always going to be growth in muslim population and decline of minorities.
The population growth of muslims in India can be attributed to it too.

Fine, we had Najma Heptullah, but as you note she was Deputy Chairman, in the Upper House.

Because, Vice President of India is the ex-officio Chairman of the Upper House, Rajya Sabha.

So amongst Rajya Sabha Members, Deputy Chairman is the highest post. The day to day matters is taken care by Deputy Chairman, and is the real person running the upper house.

More details here.

Because, Vice President of India is the ex-officio Chairman of the Upper House, Rajya Sabha.

Of course. Good point, and I should have noted it myself. But it is only the Lower House that is directly elected, and the rest of my point stands, without taking anything away from Najma Heptullah's achievement in becoming the Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha.

Amitabh writes: >>Dude you really missed the mark with this comment and the implied comparison.

Amitabh - AMFD has a talent for writing seriously about something that's actually a tongue-in-cheek comment. It took me a while to get used to his sense of humour.

M. Nam

Most of the Hindus in Pakistan live in Sindh. I am not Hindu, but I grew up in Sindh and had Hindu classmates in School, College and University.

Frankly, there is lots of room for improvement in Pakistan in terms of minorities’ rights. How and when that would happen depends on the political situation as Ali Eitraz mentioned in his post up thread.

In Sindh there are many economic tiers in Hindu population like in any community. Most of the Hindus are peasants and workers like most of their Muslim counterpart. Kohli and Bhel are mostly laborers and work in the fields or on construction sites.

Doctors, engineers,Landowners, traders, small rice husking or flour mills owners’ form the Hindu middle and the business class.

Besides two Hindu majority districts in Sindh, some small cities like Jacobabad, Sukker, Larkana, and Dadu have Hindu communities.

Last twenty or so years were really not good for the Hindu community and they stepped back politically. Things are changing now. A Hindu from Tharparkar district contested elections against the former Pakistan PM Shoukat Aziz on the PPP ticket. He lost then but this time around he won from a nonhindu majority area. He is a provincial Minister now in Sindh along with two other Hindus.

Every major Sindhi newspaper and there are four or five of them, have Hindu columnists and reporters. One Amar Sindhu, a woman columnist is my favorite. She is not the kind to holdback and expresses her political views quite forcefully on national or local issues.

Cricketer Danish Kanaria and before him, Anil Dalpit have played for Pakistan. They are not ethnic Sindhi. Their families moved from Gujarat long before the partition. Some Hindu businessmen in Karachi have Gujarati roots.

Besides two Hindu majority districts in Sindh...

A few years back we also heard about the purohit of a Lahore mandir being invited to the Punjab CM's house on the occasion of Holi to conduct a puja of sorts. The Punjab CM is reported to have gladly accepted a tilak on his forehead from the pandit!

The Punjab CM is reported to have gladly accepted a tilak on his forehead from the pandit!

Thats a good development LOL. Also there is one sikh in the pakistani army.

64 · chachaji said

I would favor a similar reservation for women in Indian legislatures.

maybe indians should worry about the mass massacre of gujrat before they pointout "1" occurence of abuse in karachi against a hindu as the general attitude of pakistanis towards religious minorities. mr amardeep I noticed ur a sikh , y dont u ask ur sikh yatrees who vist lahore every year to visit religious shrines if pakistanis are hospitable or violent like BJP hindus. this is typical indian double standard just like india wants everyone to biocott chinese olympics for tibetan oppresion but continues to oppress kashmiris. shame on you.

Hassan,

Chill out. You can't make a comparison between what happened in Gujarat and this. Both are completely awful in their respective ways. I don't know about everyone else, but let's try to keep to the issue itself instead of "but look what happens in India\Pakistan\Bangladesh, there this ain't that bad".

Agha Hassan:

Amardeep is a practicing Sikh, and this we all respect of him. His Sikh Community will just as quickly to take up for a Muslim's cause as they will a Christian's cause, and they have a rich history which proves this. Regarding hospitability: I'm 100% sure that the people of Pakistan are very hospitable. I've seen their hospitality with my own eyes, and during my darkest times, they've provided me with a shoulder to lean on and an ear to talk to. Also, BJP Hindus are hospitable. They, too, have provided me with a brotherhood in much the same way that my non-BJP friends have done. It's remarkable that I'm promoting the hospitality of Pakistanis and BJP Hindus, and I'm neither of these two groups.

Regarding a double standard: The SepiaMutineers were the first to condemn the Gujarati riots, and many of their authors and lurkers, like myself, condemn religious, ethnic, socio-economic, and gender based biases and trespasses in all forms. Many of us, but not all of us, want some dialog and awareness for the Tibetan people *and* the Kashmiri people. Personally, I don't see a moral equivalence between the Hindu victim in Sindh and Kashmir, so we'll leave that for another topic.

May Allah bless you, and thanks for posting. All of us Lurkers love this dialog which allows us to understand one another and make our points.

Khudo Hafiz,
BM

82 · hassan said

maybe indians should worry about the mass massacre of gujrat before they pointout "1" occurence of abuse in karachi against a hindu as the general attitude of pakistanis towards religious minorities. mr amardeep I noticed ur a sikh , y dont u ask ur sikh yatrees who vist lahore every year to visit religious shrines if pakistanis are hospitable or violent like BJP hindus. this is typical indian double standard just like india wants everyone to biocott chinese olympics for tibetan oppresion but continues to oppress kashmiris. shame on you.

ERRATUM IN MY PREVOUS POST:

84 · boston_mahesh said

Agha Hassan:

Amardeep is a practicing Sikh, and this we all respect of him. His Sikh Community will just as quickly take up for a Muslim's cause as they will a Christian's cause, and they have a rich history which proves this. Regarding hospitability: I'm 100% sure that the people of Pakistan are very hospitable. I've seen their hospitality with my own eyes, and during my darkest times, they've provided me with a shoulder to lean on and an ear to talk to. Also, BJP Hindus are hospitable. They, too, have provided me with a brotherhood in much the same way that my non-BJP friends have done. It's remarkable that I'm promoting the hospitality of Pakistanis and BJP Hindus, and I'm neither of these two groups.

Regarding a double standard: The SepiaMutineers were the first to condemn the Gujarati riots, and many of their authors and lurkers, like myself, condemn religious, ethnic, socio-economic, and gender based biases and trespasses in all forms. We all want some dialog and awareness for the Tibetan people *and* the Kashmiri people. Personally, I don't see a moral equivalence between the Hindu victim in Sindh and Kashmir, so we'll leave that for another topic.

May Allah bless you, and thanks for posting. All of us Lurkers love this dialog which allows us to understand one another and make our points.

Khudo Hafiz,
BM

82 · hassan said

maybe indians should worry about the mass massacre of gujrat before they pointout "1" occurence of abuse in karachi against a hindu as the general attitude of pakistanis towards religious minorities. mr amardeep I noticed ur a sikh , y dont u ask ur sikh yatrees who vist lahore every year to visit religious shrines if pakistanis are hospitable or violent like BJP hindus. this is typical indian double standard just like india wants everyone to biocott chinese olympics for tibetan oppresion but continues to oppress kashmiris. shame on you.

maybe indians should worry about the mass massacre of gujrat before they pointout "1" occurence of abuse in karachi against a hindu as the general attitude of pakistanis towards religious minorities. mr amardeep I noticed ur a sikh , y dont u ask ur sikh yatrees who vist lahore every year to visit religious shrines if pakistanis are hospitable or violent like BJP hindus. this is typical indian double standard just like india wants everyone to biocott chinese olympics for tibetan oppresion but continues to oppress kashmiris. shame on you.

Good morning my brethers and seesters, may peace be upon you. ahem... Pardon my hinglish.
I am not surprised you are justifying the killing by equating it to Godhra. Osama laden justified 9/11 with Iraq war, didnt he?
Sometime I wonder how did shahrukh khan became a superstar in the violent BJP hindu country?

Khuda office

must see docu about the plight of some....

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=15elGwkFUYE&feature=related

Sometime I wonder how did shahrukh khan became a superstar in the violent BJP hindu country?

LOL
Omg, like totally! how did he!!??
btw, are you being sarcastic? It's hard to tell because I'm relatively new to SM.

Khuda office
Take it easy mate.

Good evening my brethers and seesters .. may you rest in peace... LOL
Since Amardeep deleted my previous post, here I am again again. I hope he doesnt delete this one coz this is just a Q.
I have a genuine question for muslims and Pakistanis in general. What do you think is the reason for conflict between muslims and non-muslims in every corner of the world, be it India,Pak,USA,UK,Isreal,france,spain etc and how can it be addressed?

Khuda office (hey I am at my office, what do u expect?)

82 · hassan said

india wants everyone to biocott chinese olympics for tibetan oppresion but continues to oppress kashmiris. shame on you.

topcat sounds like a troll to me....

89 · Topcat said

What do you think is the reason for conflict between muslims and non-muslims in every corner of the world

Hey dudez

I'ts an ABCD here. howza all doing??

anywayz Iz justa wundering my head off whether therez any good hindu sitez out in them thar boondocks where iz can be learning them hinduz viewpoint(z). to tell the truth, i'm getting a little tiredz of all the abcd tomgreenery.

keep it real.

over and out

Amardeep, thanks for posting this.
In a time of excessive political correctness, we also need to address real relevant issues brutally just like the american media. Indian media tends to be a little too soft on the culprits much like our escapist Indian movies.
We need desi Bill Mahers and Colberts to speak about issues of religion and islamic fanaticism in particular. Its ok to call it islamic fanaticism because thats what it is. If u want to sit on the fence not wanting to risk the hostility of muslims thinking the issue will resolve then god help you. We need to collectively assert that islamic fundamentalism just like nazism is incompatible with humanity as they both failed to embrace diversity.

82 · hassan said

maybe indians should worry about the mass massacre of gujrat before they pointout "1" occurence of abuse in karachi against a hindu as the general attitude of pakistanis towards religious minorities. mr amardeep I noticed ur a sikh , y dont u ask ur sikh yatrees who vist lahore every year to visit religious shrines if pakistanis are hospitable or violent like BJP hindus. this is typical indian double standard just like india wants everyone to biocott chinese olympics for tibetan oppresion but continues to oppress kashmiris. shame on you.

"1 occurence" LOL. Since you love to compare genocides, how about this for a comparison. Count all the Hindus that have been killed by Muslims since the beginning of time and count all the Muslims killed by Hindus in the same time period. You will understand why it is funny you use Gujarat to insist that India is the genocidal maniac while Pakistan is "nation of peace".

These are very general sentiments, no specifics, just my 2 cents:

I am Pakistani but an outsider due to my isolated upbringing in Canada. So it's easy for me to say this: Islam needs to reform to the point where it's easy for Muslims to say this in places like Pakistan. See the problem just isn't that the predominant Islamic theology is intolerant of other faiths, but it's also that it's intolerant of questioning and reform among Muslims themselves. Another part of the problem with trying to denounce the intolerant aspects of Islam is that it is always seen as an attack on Muslims themselves, their very identity. In Pakistan, where religion is the core of our identity, this matters even more and it's hard for the common person to see things otherwise. If we were able to live with Hindus and others in peace, then what was the point of creating Pakistan in the first place? I am not sure how we will get to the point where we can peacefully coexist with others without animosity and angst, but I do know it will have to involve introspection on the part of Muslims themselves. Some amount of careful criticism of Islam from outsiders may help, but if it's laid on too thick, then there only will be war and increased hostilities. So this is tricky business.

I think the more basic point which we all need to remember is that Pakistan is not and never was a secular democracy. It was created as a muslim homeland, and that religious tradition still controls. Blasphemy laws are commonplace in virtually every islamic state, whether democratic or not. It exists from Malaysia and Indonesia to Saudi Arabia. The lone exception being Turkey. I agree with the ridiculous aspects of a blasphemy law, but let's get real. In the muslim world it is the norm not the exception. The mere fact that many Pakistanis are working hard to rally against them needs to be applauded, but this is a larger issue of religious intolerance.