Dissent embodies the fabric of opinions, philosophies and sentiments that diverge from the prevailing ideas or policies imposed by the overarching authority of a government, political entity, individual or establishment.

The acknowledgment and embrace of dissent not only signify the capacity to question and hold powerful entities accountable but also underscore a society’s openness to diverse perspectives. This tolerance not only facilitates the scrutiny of governmental actions but also fosters an environment conducive to constructive debate and deliberation, catalysing positive social transformation and progress.

Historically intertwined with critical thinking and the audacity to question established paradigms of authority, truth and meaning, dissent manifests itself in various forms. Literary works, such as George Orwell’s 1984, a scathing critique of totalitarianism and state control, or Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale, which challenges patriarchal power structures and religious fundamentalism, exemplify the profound impact of dissent in shaping cultural narratives. Faiz Ahmad Faiz, Ahmad Fraz, Fahmida Riaz, Ustad Daman and Habib Jalib exemplify such trends in Pakistan.

Dissent, characterised as articulated, latent or displaced, extends beyond the realm of literature. In an organisational context, employees express dissent in various ways. Thu there is personal advantage dissent, principled dissent and other focused dissent. Political dissent, on the other hand, represents a dissatisfaction with or opposition to the policies of a governing body, manifested through a spectrum, ranging from vocal disagreement to civil disobedience. At times, there is resort to violence.

Embedded in our constitutional rights, the right to dissent is a paramount guarantee. As long as an individual refrains from violating the law or instigating conflict, they have an inherent right to deviate from the collective stance of fellow citizens and those in power. This right empowers individuals to articulate and propagate their beliefs, contributing to the pluralistic ambience that defines a vibrant and democratic society. That is what Kark Popper calls an ‘open society.’

The superior courts, serving as vigilant custodians of the people’s rights, bear a solemn responsibility to guard against the stifling of dissent by those in authority. In the eloquent words of a perceptive jurist from a neighboring country, such suppression would undoubtedly cast a “chilling effect” on the cherished freedom of speech.

Aligned with the foundational tenets of governance, the rule of law is a cornerstone alongside democracy and the separation of powers, intricately interwoven into the fabric of our body politic. It is, without doubt, the golden thread that intricately runs through the warp and woof of our constitution.

Whenever ordinary citizens are afforded the privilege of choice, they consistently choose freedom over tyranny, democracy over dictatorship and the rule of law over the rule of men.

The bedrock upon which our democracy stands is none other than the rule of law. This necessitates the imperative presence of an independent and unwavering judiciary. A judiciary unencumbered by external influences is indispensable for upholding the sanctity of democratic ideals and ensuring that justice remains blind, impartial and resolute in the face of any challenge.

In Pakistan, the concept of dissent has been entwined with heresy, often narrowly interpreted. Heresy, in this context, denotes any belief or theory that starkly deviates from established norms or customs, particularly the recognised doctrines of religion, creed or religious organisation. A heretic, then, is an advocate of such divergent claims or beliefs.

It’s crucial to distinguish heresy from both apostasy and blasphemy. Apostasy entails the explicit renunciation of one’s religion, principles or cause, whereas blasphemy involves impious utterances or actions concerning God or sacred entities. While heresy commonly refers to deviations from significant religious teachings, it also extends to views vehemently opposed to widely accepted ideas in general.

In the Pakistani narrative, the melding of dissent with heresy reflects a conflation that has implications not only for religious discourse but also for broader societal conversations. The nuances within these terms deserve careful consideration to foster a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges at hand, especially concerning clashes between divergent beliefs and established norms in various spheres.

The interweaving of religious idiom with the ideological contours of politics has given rise to an alarming trend of exclusionary rhetoric permeating the political sphere. The pervasive use of labeling political adversaries as Jewish agents or Qadiani underlings has become distressingly commonplace. This toxic tendency has, in turn, deeply polarised the socio-political landscape of the country.

Those who dissent against the ruling (centralised, coercive) regime, particularly those advocating for the supremacy of law and the safeguarding of citizens’ rights as guaranteed by the constitution, are systematically demonised as apostates. This vilification creates an environment where any fervent religious individual expressing dissent is automatically associated with the potential for extremist actions and attempts on their lives can be orchestrated.

In Pakistan, where religion often serves as a benchmark for validating political ideologies, dissent is not merely perceived as dissent but is often inaccurately cast as heresy and, in some extreme cases, even apostasy. People in the saddle care a hoot if such actions result in assassinations or bomb blasts, killing scores of innocent civilians. This distortion is detrimental not only to the principles of religion but also to the integrity of political discourse.

The conflation of dissent with heresy or apostasy (which is done at times unwittingly) undermines the very foundations of a healthy democratic society, impeding open dialogue and constructive criticism essential for the robust functioning of both religion and politics. The intricacy that warrants thoughtful consideration lies in the inherently secular nature of modern politics, both structurally and fundamentally.

Historical antecedent reveals that the British strategically utilised religion as a tool for socio-political control during their rule (1857-1947), a calculated move to diffuse the burgeoning wave of Indian nationalism, initially transcending religious boundaries. This maneuver, however, inadvertently transformed religion into a potent source of exclusion that became an abiding feature of subcontinent’s politics.

No wonder, this trajectory persisted post-independence in both India and Pakistan. In Bangladesh, however, the course of political events took a different turn. Parties of the religious right have been dealt with an iron hand.

In the aftermath of independence, decision-makers (comprising military-bureaucratic oligarchy) in the West Pakistan resorted to branding East Pakistanis as ‘imperfect’ Muslims, a tactic designed to strip them of the political advantage derived from their numerical majority. This divisive narrative, once set in motion, proved challenging to reverse, perpetuating religious tensions.

Ironically, even Ayub Khan, who leaned towards secularism, sought a fatwa from the ulema declaring that, according to Islamic tenets, a woman could not assume the mantle of leadership.

Determination of politics through the measure of religion reached a new level during the Zia regime. The paradoxical scenario persisted through the years, resurfacing when Benazir Bhutto confronted a similar predicament. The most recent victim of this practice is the man once hailed as the country’s biggest celebrity.

These instances underscore the enduring complexity and contradictions embedded in the relationship between religion and politics, revealing how religious dynamics have been manipulated for strategic purposes.

The writer is a professor in the Faculty of Liberal Arts at the Beaconhouse National University, Lahore