No, I am not going to criticise the security lapse at the recent standoff in the Federal Capital, where a lone gunman along with his wife and two children held the city hostage for over five hours. Nor am I going to piece together the ‘conspiracy theory’ of the respectable interior minister labelling it an ‘international’ conspiracy, as only the respectable minister is privy to the details of how it is all done beyond our borders. Yes, a person high on illicit drugs created a gruesome scene, which is normally reserved for Hollywood or Bollywood flicks. But one thing is for sure: the drama the way it unfolded will and must resonate with society and its attention for some drastic reform and change. Society as a whole has to change its outlook towards people who tend to play with the emotions of the public by using religion as a pretext to justify their heinous acts. The way we publicise and reflect such characters on the idiotic box and then the nightly ringmasters who analyse and often sympathise with such pathetic characters begs for serious introspection, and possibly, a reasoned discourse.
How could a man under the influence of drugs and ‘energy drinks’ along with two fully loaded automatic guns demand the ‘rule of Sharia’ to begin with? I will tell you why. There is a vague concept among many people out there that by enacting ‘Sharia’, all ills will vanish and we will be in great shape as a nation. In theory, one may agree with this concept out of reverence for our faith, but in reality one has to ask the sober and sane individuals what particular brand of Sharia they would prefer. Whose interpretation of Sharia will be enforced? What particular sect’s Sharia will be implemented? Which particular school of thought would be preferred? Who is going to lead and who is going to follow? Whoever disagrees with someone else’s brand of Sharia, what would be his recourse? See the irony in handling this vague concept. As a Muslim, I follow the teachings of our Holy Prophet (PBUH) and seek guidance from his teachings. But at the same time, I disagree with various interpretations that trump and diminish the value of the other. It is only practical and possible if the various different sects, beliefs, groups of all Muslims around the globe agree to hold a summit and open an informed discourse about what Sharia truly means to them, what they want from it and how they want it be implemented.
It is a vague concept that the person who is tying a suicide jacket to his or her body to kill him or herself is doing so to make amends for this so-called ‘evil society’, and the clergy that is inciting violence by hateful speeches, perhaps it is their way of reformation and correction using the concept of the ‘process of elimination’. The person who gawks at women in lust, but wants his own wife covered in black robes, only exposing her eyes, has a justification too for some of his behaviour. The list is so long and the hypocrisy so obvious that it is not worth spending your time and energy on these issues. Until and unless the entire ummah gathers under one umbrella and opens a reasoned dialogue, what this concept means to them, how they would view it and how they would want it implemented, the concept will remain open to question.
Often people in their passion confuse the rule and its enforcement in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia as Sharia. With utmost respect to all of them, does Sharia allow the concept of ‘kingdom’ to begin with? Next, comparing the rule of a king to the rule of the people is like comparing apples with oranges. Then the fact that a lot of crimes go unreported in the ‘Holy Kingdom’ due to societal barriers and severe control often misses the attention of some passionate folks. The fact that the enforcement of certain forms of punishment has still not eradicated crime in its entirety is again another point to ponder. I am not a bleeding heart liberal trying to criticise the hardliners. I am just trying to be a voice of reason questioning the hollowness of the argument. It is one of those circular debates that go round and round and at the end there is no definitive outcome.
Getting back to the incident and the senseless behaviour of the media at times, I totally agree with the media and public’s right of information. But by the same token, how is the media helping by showing the ‘live’ coverage of such a situation? Not to mention the live coverage of a shootout involving children. Furthermore, the minute-by-minute live coverage is perhaps providing encouragement to potential copycats to besiege the Federal Capital. By giving significance to such pathetic characters as the gunman in this case, it is a signal to the ‘real terrorists’ to perhaps seek similar attention through similar incidents down the road. This begs an honest assessment of two very critical elements. One is the counterterrorism measures at the administrative level and the adoption of standard operating procedures in case of such unexpected emergencies. The other important element is the media’s role in using extreme caution in showing violent images live on screen. PEMRA should revise a code of conduct for the media to avoid such gruesome footage, so the very young and tender minds who are watching TV are not subjected to this nonsense.
The writer is a Pakistani-American mortgage banker. He blogs at http://dasghar.blogspot.com and can be reached at [email protected] He tweets at http://twitter.com/dasghar