Freedom for minorities and women

The concept of freedom is equivocal at best. There are no definite limits to the extent one can exercise freedom. It is debatable whether one should remain indifferent to someone’s offensive speech directed at one’s ideology, race, or gender just because an individual is exercising its right to free speech, or there should be some redlines holding them back from indulging in excessiveness.

Pakistan’s founding father Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah in his Presidential Address delivered to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan on August 11, 1947, defined religious freedom as, “you are free to go to your temples, you are free to go to your mosques or any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or caste or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of the state.” The statement guaranteeing freedom had provided a ray of hope for the minorities who were already distressed at the trauma of partition. For the Muslims of India, particularly those who had put their weight behind the pioneering struggle of the Muslim League for an independent homeland, freedom merely meant an absence of the occupation by a Hindu-majority post-partition India. This ill-conceived understanding of freedom generated misconceptions after the independence of Pakistan. Minorities are facing worse treatment in Pakistan and are subjected to cruel discrimination.

Pakistan is drawing near to its 75th Independence Day on August 14 and the time is ripe to reflect and ponder if it has preserved the ideals of freedom for its citizens, notably for its minorities and women. Unfortunately, the more we delve into the annals of the history of Pakistan since its independence, the more we get convinced that though it managed to evade domination of a Hindu-majority India, the continuity to exist myriads of constraints on the freedom of its citizens, particularly on minorities and women.

To understand how the state continues to subjugate minorities and women in an apparent free Pakistan, we must take a clue from the late British social scientist Isaiah Berlin’s famous article titled, “Two Concepts of Liberty” where the writer divides freedom into two categories, named as negative freedom and positive freedom. I will limit my discussion to the negative version of freedom presented by Dr Isaiah and try to draw similarities between his concept of negative freedom and freedom available to minorities and women of Pakistan.

Dr Isaiah Berlin defines negative freedom as a kind of freedom that is free from external interference. In short, when an individual is willing to perform an activity of his own accord, he considers himself a master of that area without any fear of being hindered by an external actor. To understand how relevant the concept of negative freedom applies to the freedom of women in Pakistan, we should compare Jinnah’s definition of the role of women to their present condition. Jinnah, for instance, in Aligarh in 1944, said: “No nation can rise to the height of glory unless your women are side by side with you. We are victims of evil customs. It is a crime against humanity that our women are shut up within the four walls of the houses as prisoners.” Do such lofty ideals of women working shoulder to shoulder with their male counterparts exist in contemporary Pakistan? The answer is a plain no.

A glimpse of the state infringing on the freedom of women can be understood through the recent case where the Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Bill, 2021, was opposed by the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII). The bill had proposed severe punishments for the perpetrators of domestic violence in the country. Adviser to the Prime Minister on Parliamentary Affairs Babar Awan wrote a letter to the National Assembly Speaker Asad Qaiser where Awan requested Qaiser to review the bill from the male-dominated CII. The letter maintained, “Most importantly, it is being highlighted that the bill contravenes the Islamic [injunctions] and way of life as enshrined in [the] responsibility of the state in Article 31 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.” The case highlights just the tip of the iceberg issues facing women, in this case, a CII body without a single female representative and the state exerting its pressure through various articles of its constitution.

Negative freedom is not about actions but the availability of opportunities even if one is unwilling to avail those. The concept of negative freedom understands the external restrictions imposed by natural forces and does not include them as infringements on one’s rights. For instance, it is a universal reality that a woman gives birth to a child. Or, a man is incapable to soar high in the sky like an eagle. But, man-made restrictions deprive citizens of their due freedom. A state where state authorities wield enormous influence by controlling the lives of its subjects cannot be termed as a free nation but a totalitarian one. Freedom House scores Pakistan’s internet freedom 26 out of 100 and places it in a ‘Not Free’ category. When the National Assembly (NA) unanimously passed the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Bill (PECB) 2015, it was strongly criticised by human rights organisations in Pakistan. Numerous other bills and acts stand in contravention to individual rights to freedom. It lends credence to the fact that external interference by the state in restricting opportunities shrinks prospects of true freedom in Pakistan. Nothing better can summarise the prevalent situation than George Orwell’s term ‘Big Brother is Watching You’, in his magnum opus Nineteen-Eighty-Four.

Similarly, positive freedom, in contrast to negative freedom, is a kind of freedom to do something. It means an individual should be able to act according to his will, completely free from internal constraints. Here too, minorities and women lack truly independent posture.

Different existing definitions of freedom are at times contradictory. Freedom of speech and the right to avail equal opportunities are cornerstones of a free and democratic state. Even in the countries viewed as spearheading movements of freedom in the world, like the United States of America, with its long tradition of ‘free speech fundamentalism’ and its respect for the First Amendment, still finds herself at sea about justifying the concept of freedom of speech. As long as minorities and women are left at the mercy of the state to take decisions on their part through interference, an ideal Pakistan, as envisioned by the Quaid-i-Azam will remain a distant dream.

-Mobeen Jafar Mir is an Assistant Researcher at Islamabad Policy Institute (IPI).

He tweets at @jafar_mobeen.

He can be reached at: Mobeen_jafar_mir@yahoo.com