On Wednesday, at the National Education Conference in Islamabad, we heard an interesting argument. While Dr Javed Ahmed Ghamdi, a prominent religious scholar, recommended that Islamiat (Islamic studies) be introduced as a subject only after Class V, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz differed with him and said that students should be imparted religious education from the very beginning. In the recently approved scheme of studies, the government has excluded Islamic studies as a subject in the first two grades. Dr Ghamdi wants this exclusion to extend to the fifth grade. He argued that until students reach Class V, they should be taught ethics to instil in them a sense of humanism and civility. Dr Ghamdi's argument is that religious education, without formal education from an early age, tends to produce religious and sectarian extremists. He recommended that the compulsory teaching of the Quran should begin in Class VI, so that no mullah can “spoil an innocent mind”. Dr Ghamdi also wants the distortions in history textbooks to be removed. Mr Aziz, however, differed with Dr Ghamdi. “In my personal view both religious and formal education are [sic] necessary from the beginning. Religious education... helps character building,” he said at the concluding ceremony of the conference. Mr Aziz added that the education system must be based on “Pakistani values and religious norms”. How should we look at these two arguments?
First, we commend Dr Ghamdi on his insightful argument. Equally, however, we think it most unfortunate that Mr Aziz, supposedly a moderate and “enlightened” gentleman, failed to grasp Dr Ghamdi's argument, both for its intrinsic value and its contextual significance. Consider.
By emphasising “ethics” before a study of religion, Dr Ghamdi is clearly arguing that “ethics” and “religion” are two different categories, and religion, if it is to be understood in its correct perspective and not induce violent hatred, must be tempered with ethics. This is an incisive argument and by presenting it Dr Ghamdi has done a great service to this country. Since the benighted days of General Zia ul Haq, this country has mixed religion and ethics with disastrous results. Ritualistic piety has arrived centre-stage and upstaged every other value. One of its consequences is textual literalism that is Calvinistic, bigoted, sectarian and violent. But while “religion” provides the overhang under which we have been breathing for a quarter century now, humanism, civic sense, probity and work ethic have all made an unceremonious exit. Nothing can revive them unless we heed what Dr Ghamdi has said: that for religion to become meaningful, for it to become spiritual, for it to become socially relevant, we need to first study ethics. The young have to be exposed to ethics as the basis of humanity, the larger framework in which religion can be placed and the only way it can then be appreciated in its true spirit.

It is a matter of concern that Mr Aziz, instead of appreciating the vigour of Dr Ghamdi's argument, chose to parrot the politically opportunist and cynical line that has become so familiar to us and which has been the bane of this society — religious education helps in character building and education must be based on Pakistani values. No sir, you are wrong on both conceptual and empirical counts. If religious education helped in character building we would not have had the spectre of religious violence that has consumed thousands of lives so far and shows no signs of abating. Similarly, there is no such thing as “Pakistani values”. Ethical values are universal and they are non-spatial and non-temporal. Surely Mr Aziz knows that. This is exactly what Dr Ghamdi is pointing out. Teach the children ethics so they can be saved from the essentialism of religion. Do not queer the pitch by starting with religion. Let young minds be exposed to a universalism that is essential for them to be good human beings so that they can become good Muslims. This makes sense. To say that a religious-minded Pakistani will automatically be a good human being is not correct. Our society is full of such religious minded “Muslims” who are bad human beings. We see the flaws of this sort of thinking in everyday life, from the workplace to the roads to the workings of the government and its functionaries. It is time to get rid of it.
Mr Aziz should reconsider Dr Ghamdi's argument and see the merit in it. There is no point, political expediency notwithstanding, for a person of his upbringing and intellect to take the beaten path for the sake of politics and refuse to pick up Dr Ghamdi's logic. Doesn't the government want to instil enlightenment and moderation precisely because there is a lack of these in a “religious minded” culture of ignorance and extremism? Neither of these values can come without appeal to universal human values that are a function of ethics as it stands and not as a hyphenated adjunct with religion. Indeed, this is an issue on which the government should hold a separate conference and invite comment. It is important for us to understand the essence of what Dr Ghamdi is saying if we want to put this society and state back on the rails of humanism and civility.