On the surface, the tragic killing of an innocent young man in Karachi by the Pakistani Rangers appears as outright hooliganism, an atrocity beyond measure to say the least. The immediate reaction when I heard and watched this incident on television was of sympathy and fury. Sympathy for a man whose life came to a rapid and ruthless end at 25, anger at those who are deemed to safeguard us, having instead shot point blank at the young man, Sarfaraz. After all, what would prompt a body of armed guards to shoot an unarmed man? What hazard did he pose? Those who have seen the video can clearly spot how the man was pleading for his life as the footage has been broadcast repeatedly on various television channels.
A spokesman for the paramilitary Rangers claimed its forces detained the 25-year-old because he was attempting to rob people in a park in Karachi. Let us suppose he really was robbing people. Is death the price robbers pay in our country? Certainly not. Especially not when just today a report in the newspaper by the Auditor General of Pakistan states that an astounding amount of Rs 35 billion might have been embezzled from public accounts. Is that not robbery of a higher degree? Will those responsible face the same penalty? Certainly not.
Now let us fling our empathy aside for that young man and look at this unfortunate incident from another perspective, albeit an insensitive one. A paramilitary spokesman said that the man was reaching for a Ranger’s rifle. Anywhere in the world, if you do not step back and surrender, and instead head towards security, you are most likely to get shot. But then, is death the price you pay for ignorance to the rules of capitulation? How many people in Pakistan would be aware of those anyway? And how many of them will be able to act with prudence and not by impulse when faced with a predicament of having five armed security personnel surround you? Besides, those rules apply to a civilized society, not one like ours where 15-year-olds blow themselves up in the name of religion.
Some say that perhaps because of the war on terror, the rampant suicide bombings and terrorist attacks that have spread in the country like cancer, our forces feel they are under greater threat of a person exploding himself and, if he comes too close, he needs to be shot at to avoid a greater atrocity. Could the Rangers have thought that if we do not shoot this person now he could possibly be a threat to those around (even though he was unarmed and not in a dubious looking jacket)? Was it fair judgment? Well, he could have been shot at once in the foot only to be injured and given a warning. He could have then been taken to a hospital to be treated while investigations on him being a robber could linger.
This incident helps us recall another atrocious incident that took place on May 17 at a check post in a Quetta locality called Kharotabad where security forces shot and killed five foreigners. Initial claims by officials were that the five were suicide bombers, but they turned out to be unarmed. The inquiry is still ongoing but the National Assembly has expressed reservations over contradictions and loopholes in the probe report. Those foreigners included a pregnant woman. My concern is not how this made us look in the foreign media but the message it sends across the country and the world. Pakistan is not safe for foreigners; well it is not safe for Pakistanis either.
Could have and should have are irrelevant now. So are political statements that support the demised to gain mass popularity. There needs to be immediate action — ‘immediate’ being the key word here and not when this incident has elapsed and another heinous one takes over. Whether in the form of punishment for the guilty, or training of pre-emptive strikes or in surrendering to security forces, action needs to be taken to avoid this in the future or else keep your pessimism intact as far as the future of this country is concerned.
The writer is a freelance journalist who has worked for Express News and Dunya TV as a news anchor and producer