This article was downloaded by: [Minhas Majeed Khan]

On: 06 November 2013, At: 09:47

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Review of Faith & International

Affairs
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rfia20

US FOREIGN POLICY AND THE FUTURE OF

DEMOCRACY AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN
PAKISTAN
Minhas Majeed Khan

To cite this article: Minhas Majeed Khan (2013) US FOREIGN POLICY AND THE FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY
AND RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN PAKISTAN, The Review of Faith & International Affairs, 11:1, 84-86, DOI:
10.1080/15570274.2012.760973

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15570274.2012.760973

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our
agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the
accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and
views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are
not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not
be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information.
Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,
costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising
directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 US FOREIGN POLICY AND THE
FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY AND
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM IN
PAKISTAN
Downloaded by [Minhas Majeed Khan] at 09:47 06 November 2013
I
n recent years, the need for religious
freedom has mounted due to religious
intolerance present among the followers of
different faiths. Since 9/11, the world has
seen a spike in bigotry and prejudice. September
11 became the day the world got divided on
religious lines, as people increasingly began to
view each other as “Us” versus “Them.”
Consequently, it began affecting international
relations. Today, no one knows when this divide
will come to a peaceful end. How do we cross
the bridge from “divided” to “united”?
Thinkers, politicians, statesmen, and citizens
in all walks of life, therefore, have come to a
common conclusion that this situation of
intolerance and anti-religious sentiments must be
negated. As such, the International Religious
Freedom Act (IRFA), which came into US law in
1998, has become highly relevant in recent times.
The IRFA declared freedom of religion and
conscience a top objective of US foreign policy. It
recommends and implements policies to the State
Department in countries where there is gross
violation of these issues. Some supporters of the
IRFA favor that religious freedom should be
advanced through punitive measures like
automatic sanctions against violators. On the
other hand, others stress diplomacy and
negotiation. Moreover, since religious extremism
is believed to take root in undemocratic societies,
84 | volume 11, number 1 (spring 2013)
By Minhas Majeed Khan
it is often argued that IRF can help in promoting
democracy, which as a result will help in
eradicating religious extremism.
Pakistan has suffered great blows to its
standing in world opinion due to cases of
religious radicalism and discrimination against
minorities. Although Pakistan is at war with
extremists, recent instances have raised questions
and renewed concerns about its commitment to
the cause. Furthermore, Pakistan has received
criticism for its lack of democratic institutions,
the unsatisfactory response to sectarian and
religious violence, its failure to protect
minorities, and the highly abused Blasphemy
Law (1986).
Under Pakistan’s anti-blasphemy law,
desecrating the Qur’an is an offence punishable
by death. The Gojra incident, the case of Asia
Bibi, and the recent one against an 11-year-old
Christian girl, Rimsha Masih, who has learning
difficulties, and many other cases of alleged
blasphemy are glaring examples which have raised
controversy over these laws.
Minhas Majeed Khan holds an MA in International Relations and is working on
her PhD dissertation from the University of Peshawar, where she is also a
lecturer in the Department of International Relations. She has delivered talks
on various subjects in national and international seminars in India, Pakistan,
Turkey, and the United States. She is a member of the Board of Directors of
the Regional Institute of Policy Research and Training in Peshawar.
© 2013 Institute for Global Engagement

The law is considered hostile and
discriminatory, and most often the allegations
that the law enables are false. Furthermore,
extremist groups and mullahs use it for vindictive
and political purposes, resulting in an increase in
violence against religious minorities. It can be
argued that laws like these and the Hudood
Ordinance give birth to the violence against
Christians, Hindus, and members of the Muslim
offshoot factions, such as Ahmadis and Zikris in
Pakistan.
The situation has not been helped by the
Pakistan government’s apparent willingness to
accommodate certain violent extremists, as for
Downloaded by [Minhas Majeed Khan] at 09:47 06 November 2013
example, it has done in the Swat Valley. The US
Commission on International Religious
Freedom has also expressed concern over the
alleged role of Pakistan’s madrassas in providing
ideological training to religious extremists, and
in creating an atmosphere of intolerance in
which abuses of religious freedom are more
likely to occur.
The flawed public policy and unwillingness
on the part of the government and institutions in
Pakistan to isolate certain hostile elements of the
society are also worrisome. Additionally, the
killing of Punjab’s Governor Salman Taseer, and
Minister for Minority Affairs Shahbaz Bhatti, for
criticizing the Blasphemy Law, and the support
that these killings received in some circles, are all
very disturbing. Recent killings of Shia minorities
also highlight the marginalization of religious
minorities in Pakistan. Also raising apprehension
are the harsh restrictions on the equal rights of
women to freedom of thought, conscience, and
religion. In fact, most have likened the
atmosphere prevailing in Pakistan under these
laws and the resulting intolerance to a return to
the Middle Ages.
Expressing their concern, US lawmakers in
2009 submitted House Resolution 764 to the
Committee on Foreign Affairs calling on Pakistan
to repeal the Blasphemy Law. This resolution
urged Pakistan to also review other legislation
that restricts the right to profess, practice, and
propagate religion or that constitutes
discrimination on the basis of religion, in order to
bring Pakistani law into conformity with
international human rights standards.
minhas majeed khan
The Government of Pakistan, previously
under the military rule of General Pervez
Musharraf, and now led by the Pakistan Peoples’
Party (PPP), expressed their support for this
resolution, and agreed to review the Blasphemy
Law in order to address the grievances of religious
madrassahs. Although Musharraf banned two
sectarian groups and changed the curricula of
madrassahs, discriminatory policies and
legislation continue to cause problems for
religious minorities. In 2010 Sherry Rehman, a
PPP Parliamentarian, proposed that cases
brought under the Blasphemy Law should be
reported to a senior police officer instead of a
Station House Officer of a police station, and that
these cases should be heard in higher courts rather
than lower courts for speedy justice. That said,
much progress could not be achieved because of
the sensitivity of the issue. More importantly,
political leaders are hesitant to provoke religious
political parties, which are capable of bringing the
masses to the streets.
Meanwhile, the IRFA is criticized in many
Muslim-majority countries and is thought to be
associated only with criticizing Muslims. Many
see US IRF policy as an attack on religious
traditions or a threat to communal identity. What
is more, there is a widespread perception that US
policies on democracy and religious freedom are
designed against non-Christian communities to
empower American missionaries. The argument
that religious freedom is already part of the UN
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR) is also questioned. It was in this context
that the scholars in the 19th World Congress on
International History of Religions, held in March
2005 in Tokyo, advocated for changing the
existing formulation of the freedom of religion
clause in the UDHR, believing that it favors those
religions that proselytize. Many religious scholars
in Pakistan stress that the US government should
consider revising IRFA as far as conversion from
Islam is concerned.
In my view, the IRFA can be beneficial if it is
mobilized in the right way, and that is when it
pushes for the freedom of every religion in every
way on equal footing. Politicization of the IRF
issue is not good and it is important to know how
issues of international religious freedom are
the review of faith & international affairs | 85
 us foreign policy and the future of democracy and religious freedom in pakistan
sometimes manipulated. If IRF advocacy focuses
on one religion alone it can do little good and can
quite possibly create more trouble. Unfortunately
that is how it is seemingly being used today; for
example, while IRF policy appears intensely
interested in the freedom to build churches in
Saudi Arabia, it does not appear very interested in
the minarets issue in Switzerland.
In addition, despite always making rhetorical
claims of promoting democracy and eradicating
extremism, US foreign policy has rarely shown
any consistently substantive concern for
democracy, always supporting dictatorship in
Pakistan. Many associated with IRF policy
Downloaded by [Minhas Majeed Khan] at 09:47 06 November 2013
formulation wanted to put Pakistan on the list of
CPCs (“countries of particular concern,” which
under IRFA are subject to possible sanctions), but
the US government appears to have ignored the
issue as Pakistan is serving American interests in
the region (not least, fighting Al Qaeda). Double
standards such as these lead many Muslims
around the world to doubt the intentions of the
US government.
American efforts to promote religious
freedom will not be successful in countries with
powerful religious communities so long as there is
mistrust about the US role in international affairs.
To justify its IRF policies, the US government
needs to focus on issues such as democratization,
human rights, good governance, and poverty
reduction. To eliminate religious extremism and
intolerance to promote democracy, the United
States should play a positive role in the socio-
economic uplift of all of Pakistan’s people, as well
as the good governance structures and policies
that protect those people.
Pakistan too must look in its own mirror. It is
a fact that the mushroom growth of madrassas in
Pakistan has proved to be a source of militancy.
Though efforts have been made, time and again,
for madrassa reforms, the efforts have been
halfhearted or failed to prove fruitful. It is high
time that these madrassas are properly monitored.
The registration of all madrassas should be made
mandatory, with proper audits of their accounts,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15570274.2012.760973
86 | volume 11, number 1 (spring 2013)
as these institutions get massive donations from
philanthropic and religious minded people. It has
been noted that the madrassas have become,
more or less, business ventures—and accordingly
they are springing up in the rural areas on a
massive scale. Moreover, a proper curriculum
should be devised for them with teaching of
scientific and social disciplines, which could make
their graduates eligible for jobs. Further, those
teaching in the madrassas should be given
training on a regular basis. Additionally, there
should be exchange programs for the students
and teachers, promoting interfaith harmony and
dialogue so that religious extremism and conflicts
can be minimized.
The media, academia, religious as well as
secular scholars, and faith-based organizations
should be engaged; they can function as powerful
warrants in creating mutual respect and
understanding, and can help in promotion of
democratic pluralism. Besides the efforts
mentioned above that the Pakistan government
could make, the US administration should also
support exchange programs and offer stipends for
the students of these madrassas.
The Blasphemy Law, the Hudood
Ordinance, the Islamic code of punishment, and
the demand for imposition of shari’a by religious
political parties and non-state actors like Tehrik-
e-Taliban Pakistan, are dangerous developments.
The Pakistan government’s approval of any such
development would be an invitation to the US
government to act against it. On the other hand,
support for religious freedom and related human
rights in Pakistan will help ensure the future of
Pakistan as a free, strong, and vibrant society, one
with enduring stability.
As far as religious tolerance is concerned, one
size really does not fit all, and what is right for
Pakistan is not right for the whole world. It will
take sacrifices, compromises, and concessions
from all sides, but it is a task that must be
accomplished.
How do we create a bridge from “divided” to
“united”? We build it, together. v