Mumtaz Qadri has more defenders than opponents for the blighted act he carried out to prove his religious commitment to Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Did he really pass on any message to the community of Muslims about the love he beholds for the Messenger of Allah? There is, however, misgiving even in the reality of what constitutes proving one’s love for the last Prophet (PBUH) and the way to carry it out. However, a convenient way has been to kill rather than to practice what has been taught and personified by the Prophet (PBUH) himself during his lifetime. Finally, Mumtaz Qadri’s case is being prosecuted and the judges are ostensibly in a hurry to bring the case to its logical conclusion. There is, nonetheless, a gap between the judicial process and the government’s desire to get the ball rolling in the right direction to save a potential blasphemer from being killed by some self-proclaimed defender of faith. What is it that we need to do to have less of those who defend killers like Mumtaz Qadri and more of those who seek a constitutional way to address one’s grievances, be they religious, social or political? Of late, there has been a visible behavioural change in people regarding the legal system and its method of implementing the law. Somehow it looks as if a notion of incorrigibility about our judicial process has sunk into the masses, considering it a mummified thing, that can be revered but not expected to act, perform or do any good. We may have an army of judges, litany of laws and running courts but, on the flip side, we also have a burdened, outdated, unreliable and notoriously cumbersome judicial process heaped on top of an equally unproductive legal system dating back to colonial times when the laws were created to subjugate the masses rather than to rule them. Scale this abnormality against the relentless, unchecked and unhindered religious outpouring onto the masses by as many clerics as there can be and from as many schools of thought. In corollary, what we are looking at is a system not responding to the rule of law, masses given to unregulated life and thrown to the pack of clerics for any kind of experimentation, and a ruling class helpless to manage the varying power points. Taking the law into one’s hands in such a scenario is often welcomed and considered exactly the way of a gentleman. And if it relates to religion, especially when the state is found guilty of not implementing sharia (Islamic jurisprudence), the idea gets an extra scoop of attention and credence. The question is: what is the difference between a person who accuses someone of being a blasphemer and gets him/her killed or arrested, and the Taliban who kill people — the Barelvis, the Shias, the Ahmedis and the Christians — to avenge the state of Pakistan for not promoting the Islamic system in the country? In both cases, the mindset at play is the same. Both are at least sure about the government’s inability to sustain its writ and its equally insufficient moral courage to abide by the rule of law and get the wheels of justice rolling against the enemies of the state. Both are sure of finding sympathisers in the rank and file of those who matter in getting the writ of the government established — the intelligence agencies, law enforcers, judiciary, etc. Here we have the former Chief Justice (CJ) of the Lahore High Court (LHC), Justice Sharif, defending, protecting and sheltering Mumtaz Qadri. A large segment of his fraternity is colluding with him to do the same. Is it being established that anyone, either in the garb of the Taliban or otherwise, can kill others to defend Islam, one’s faith or ideology, without fearing the law, its consequences or the writ of the state? This fearlessness to commit crime has been induced by none other than the state itself. The missing ‘state’ in the lives of the people marked by the absence of constitutional law, democratic principles and rule of law has developed a system surviving on corruption, military interventions (soft and hard) and a ruling elite cashing in on the illiterate, forgetful and politically uncouth masses. The judges have been offended to find a parallel justice system created by an act of parliament. They took the military courts as a slur on their abilities. The blame game soon started and the buck found nowhere to lay itself. The typical accusations against the government are that it has been unable to provide sufficient judges all these years to the courts to run efficiently and effectively. The budgetary doles for the judiciary have been inadequate to provide for the necessary arrangements, atmosphere, tools and instruments to make the judicial process fast and efficient. Parliament has become parasitical on outdated criminal laws and rarely bothers to alter them to make the judiciary responsive and people-oriented. From the government’s perspective, the judiciary has been active in everything but getting the system changed. The absence of both the pull and push factor to deliver justice inadvertently produced a systematic fearlessness in people who could not find solace in knowing that justice is, after all, not that far off or that slow, if taken into one’s own hands. The onus to restore things and to create responsible citizens lies as much with the government as with everyone else. Qadri’s case is a litmus test, if the state could muster the wisdom to take it as such. Let him go to the gallows and amend or abolish the blasphemy law. Then turn towards the education system, both conventional and religious, to produce law abiding Muslims and not killers like Qadri. The writer is a copywriter and freelance journalist with an academic background in public policy and governance. She can be reached at marium042@gmail.com