by Imtiaz Gul This is bigotry and confusion at its best: “Valentine’s Day has no connection with our culture and it should be avoided … we must maintain our religious and national identity.” This was the president of Pakistan, who also informed his audience on the death anniversary of Sardar Abdur Rab Nishtar that “there is a need to formulate the educational curriculum of Pakistan according to the requirements of the modern age and ideology of the country”. Such a subjective and paradoxical statement by President Mamnoon — a top businessman and former graduate of one of the best business schools — was nothing less than a grim reminder of the hypocrisy that currently rules Pakistan. It was subjective because what is wrong with celebrating an occasion, regardless of whether it is Western or Eastern? It was paradoxical because the majority of affluent Pakistanis live largely in the Western tradition. Deception, fraud, maltreatment of servants and snobbery are all but a few hallmarks of our “Eastern” culture. Honestly, I learnt my manners of greeting people, showing deference to those walking ahead of you or behind you, considering others’ rights, all after arriving in Germany as a 24-year-old. Nearly every day was a bitter reminder of the bigotry and insensitivity that I had grown up with in a Muslim society. The president’s revealing statement on Valentine’s Day also runs contrary to the spirit of respect for diversity, tolerance and deference to other beliefs and traditions. He may hold his brief on other cultures as an individual, but he forgot that he represents a multicultural, multiethnic society that is also guided by the Constitution of Pakistan. The president and those who think like him need to be reminded that even if they abhor Western culture, they are supposed to follow the Constitution in its letter and spirit to ensure and protect equal rights to all citizens. They also need to be reminded, for instance, that Article 20 guarantees “freedom to profess...

Senior PPP leader and Sindh Minister for Law and Parliamentary Affairs Nisar Ahmad Khuhro moved the bill in the provincial assembly which was later passed after a debate between the opposition and treasury benches. The bride and groom cannot be less than 18 years, according to the text of the approved draft. Married couples will be required to obtain a marriage registration certificate, while a couple can also face fines in case their marriage is not registered. Zoroastrians and Sikhs will also be able to register their marriages under the new law. Hindus, despite being the second-largest religious minority group in Pakistan, with a population of 3.3 million, had no legal mechanism to register marriages. Unlike the Muslim majority or Christians, Hindus lacked any legal framework for protection of their marriages and are unable to provide legal proof when required. Hindu women have had to face problems in proving their relationships when dealing with officialdom, while widows were particularly disadvantaged. Without official proof of relationships, getting government documents issued or moving forward on any other activity which involves documentation — from opening bank accounts to applying for visas — became next to impossible for any citizen. After the 18th Amendment, the issues of religious minorities and their family matters became provincial subjects but the Balochistan and Khyber Pakhtunkhwa assemblies passed resolutions allowing the federation to legislate Hindu marriage law. A similar resolution is pending in the Punjab Assembly. A draft bill has already been passed by the National Assembly standing committee on law and justice, while Senator Nasreen Jalil, the chairperson of the Senate standing committee on law and justice, has also convened a meeting of the committee to take up the matter. A clause in the draft Hindu Marriage Bill, which states that a marriage will be annulled if any of the spouses converts to another religion, is being vehemently...

In October 1931, Gandhi said of Ambedkar that “he has every right to be bitter. That he does not break our heads is an act of self-restraint on his part.” Meaning that given the background of the atrocities against him and his communities, Ambedkar was entitled to be harsh with his words. I thought of that as another college protest has attracted the ruling party’s anger. In Delhi, police have registered charges of sedition against students at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) over an event protesting the hanging of Afzal Guru. Sedition is the “the crime of saying, writing, or doing something that encourages people to disobey their government”. The FIR was lodged by the BJP MP from East Delhi, Maheish Girri, who in a written complaint called the students “anti-constitutional and anti-national elements”. Girri also wrote to Home Minister Rajnath Singh and Human Resource Development Minister Smriti Irani, telling them “strict action should be taken against the offenders so that such shameful and anti-India activities are not repeated”. This is a repeat of the sequence in Hyderabad where the BJP acted strongly against students protesting the hanging of another man, Yakub Memon. That episode ended with the tragedy of one of the students hanging himself. JNU, which says it had not approved the event, has set up a committee to inquire but again, the same problem of representation has arisen. The students’ union says there is no member on it from marginalised communities. There was a choice here for the BJP. Instead of throwing the book at the students, it could have shown some understanding of the issue, which is linked to caste directly. Why are dalits protesting against hangings in Hyderabad? Why is the focus on Muslims at JNU? Why are the students insisting on representation from marginalised communities when they are being judged by a committee? The fact is that India reserves the death penalty mostly for dalits and Muslims. A study that will be published later this...

In October 1931, Gandhi said of Ambedkar that “he has every right to be bitter. That he does not break our heads is an act of self-restraint on his part.” Meaning that given the background of the atrocities against him and his communities, Ambedkar was entitled to be harsh with his words. I thought of that as another college protest has attracted the ruling party’s anger. In Delhi, police have registered charges of sedition against students at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) over an event protesting the hanging of Afzal Guru. Sedition is the “the crime of saying, writing, or doing something that encourages people to disobey their government”. The FIR was lodged by the BJP MP from East Delhi, Maheish Girri, who in a written complaint called the students “anti-constitutional and anti-national elements”. Girri also wrote to Home Minister Rajnath Singh and Human Resource Development Minister Smriti Irani, telling them “strict action should be taken against the offenders so that such shameful and anti-India activities are not repeated”. This is a repeat of the sequence in Hyderabad where the BJP acted strongly against students protesting the hanging of another man, Yakub Memon. That episode ended with the tragedy of one of the students hanging himself. JNU, which says it had not approved the event, has set up a committee to inquire but again, the same problem of representation has arisen. The students’ union says there is no member on it from marginalised communities. There was a choice here for the BJP. Instead of throwing the book at the students, it could have shown some understanding of the issue, which is linked to caste directly. Why are dalits protesting against hangings in Hyderabad? Why is the focus on Muslims at JNU? Why are the students insisting on representation from marginalised communities when they are being judged by a committee? The fact is that India reserves the death penalty mostly for dalits and Muslims. A study that will be published later this...