http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009\09\19\story_19-9-2009_pg3_2
analysis: To kill with impunity -Abbas Rashid Clearly, over the last few months, extremists have seen public support for their positions erode as more of their activities have come to light. Inciting people in this fashion would be a way for them to regain this lost space The most recent victim of those who have frequently used the blasphemy law and the social sanction derived from it for their own ends has been a young man named Fanish Masih, aged 19, a resident of Sambrial-Sialkot, a citizen of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and a Christian. On an accusation of blasphemy, he was put in jail and was subsequently found dead in his cell. And, the police claims, he committed suicide. For his family, his tragic death will probably remain the most traumatic incident of their lives. But what is equally unfortunate is that his death is not entirely exceptional. Just over the last few weeks there have been horrendous incidents of organised and targeted violence in Punjab; the worst in Gojra, where a number of men and women were burnt alive when a mob apparently used chemicals to set homes on fire. The Gojra victims, too, were members of the Christian community. Of course Muslims have also been victimised under this law by those who obviously think little of taking a religious cover for perpetrating such crimes with impunity. But then we need to recall that the 'law-giver' in this case was none other than General Zia-ul Haq, a military dictator who used Islam liberally in order to secure desperately needed legitimacy for his government. The laws imposed by Zia with the stated objective of making better Muslims of us all essentially targeted the poor and the defenseless, particularly women and minorities. It was a cynical policy used with abandon to gain political leverage. That successive civilian governments have left the law in place does them little credit. At one point during Benazir Bhutto's government there seems to have been some discussion about imposing a five- to seven-year jail sentence on anyone who was found guilty of false accusation in such a case. It seemed an eminently fair proposal given that the law prescribes the death sentence for blasphemy and furthermore there is a high likelihood of the accused being killed in any case, regardless of whether the charge is eventually proven in court or not. The idea was dropped because of pressure from clerics. And, of course, this is a group from whom we hear very little about how this law, imposed by a dictator and used relentlessly as a cover to terrorise minorities, serves Islam or the ends of justice. Time and again, it has been established in such cases that in the background there was a dispute over property or some other personal antagonism that provided the motive for someone to make the accusation. And yet, once again, we have Maulana Hamid Kazmi, the federal minister for religious affairs, defending the law, as it stands. Does anyone really think that in a country with a Muslim majority of about 95 percent, anyone would even dare blaspheme? Why did we hardly ever hear of an incident of blasphemy prior to the advent of Zia-ul Haq? With or without the law, people would have been outraged if they found someone blaspheming. The reason is that blasphemy was not common then nor is there any reason for it to be common now. The difference between the two eras obviously lies elsewhere. But this was not just a case of mob hysteria. Fanish Masih was in jail and kept in isolation. There seems to be no motive whatsoever for him to commit suicide, even if he were to somehow acquire the means to do so. There must be a proper and credible enquiry into the circumstances of his death. Was he killed by those who were deputed by the state to protect him? In which case what would be the distinction between them and a mob? Those found guilty of committing or abetting such a serious crime must be brought to book. It is not enough to adopt the usual course of suspension and transfer. The message must go through that however aggravated anyone may feel, they have not been accorded the mandate of judge and executioner. But is there another sinister dimension to these killings? It could well be that some of the leading extremist groups in Punjab are now anticipating the state moving against themselves as the military operation in FATA and the NWFP against the militants proceeds successfully. According to a provincial minister, some banned extremist groups were involved in the violence in Gojra and that masked men had been spotted among the rioters. So, as the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan has also pointed out, this was not quite spontaneous outrage but an organised attack. Clearly, over the last few months, extremists have seen public support for their positions erode as more of their activities have come to light. Inciting people in this fashion would be a way for them to regain this lost space. All the more reason then that the government should be vigilant - not quite what it has been so far - against efforts by such groups to foment anger against minority groups as a tactical move. Much better intelligence would be needed by the state to check this strategy. There is no question that the blasphemy law needs to be reviewed. For a start, we could go back to the recommendation of the Islamic Ideology Council whereby it would be possible to register blasphemy cases only with the High Court, with only senior investigators charged with the task of establishing the truth of the matter. The other issue is that of imposing punishment for making a false accusation or providing wrongful testimony in such a case. Both should serve as a deterrent to this cruel persecution of minorities in particular and restrain those disposed to using the law for their own ulterior purposes. Abbas Rashid lives in Lahore and can be contacted at [email protected] Home | Editorial
<<20090919_ed01.jpg>>
