And then there were none

One by one, all the figures who stand up for the rule of law, democracy and decency in Pakistan are being assassinated. Just like in Agatha Christie’s famous novel (originally known as Ten Little Niggers), in which the 10 guests on Soldier Island are, one by one, eliminated, until the last one commits suicide in bewildered panic. “And then there were none.”

One by one, the believers in a democratic, open Pakistan are being gunned down or cowed into silence. One by one, the defenders of natural justice, the advocates of rationality, are slain. Methodically, systematically, the killers proceed, unmoved by the fact that the government has announced the withdrawal of all projects to amend the blasphemy laws, which goes to show that indeed, the aim of the religious killers is not, and never has been, to defend Islam or the honour of its Prophet (PBUH). Why should they stop? The authorities reacted to the Salmaan Taseer murder with such callous cowardice that the religious groups behind the slaying have correctly interpreted it as a go-ahead signal. The ministers and the president may strut around boasting about their determination to find Bhatti’s killers and bring them to justice (Pakistan’s EU ambassador swore that Pakistan “will leave no stone unturned” in finding the killer. Yeah, right). But the fact is that all this strutting around barely conceals the complete lack of political will to either arrest and prosecute the culprits of the assassinations, or to counter the ideology behind them. This shameful government no longer deserves to be at the helm of the state: when you abandon your country, your citizens, your politicians to the hands of savage killers, you have become an objective accomplice. Einstein wrote, “The world is a dangerous place, not so much because of those who commit evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.” Shame on this government for appeasing, hence aiding and abetting, the growingly empowered lunatics who gleefully go on their killing spree.

Violence is the attribute of the weak. When you cannot argue, when you cannot reason, when you know neither good, nor law, nor right is on your side, then you use violence to make your point. But the evil lies not only in the use of violence itself: it also lies in its wake, in the cowardice and moral debasement it entails for all those around. Progressively, the (ir)religious lunatics who kill all the advocates of justice and democracy are achieving their aim: to be the sole public arbiter of right and wrong, of lawful and unlawful. Their dictatorship starts with the monopoly of discourse, as dissident voices are being silenced. Indeed, when facing such a methodical, Agatha Christie-style elimination of all democratic voices, it becomes increasingly difficult to have the courage to stand up to it. In a way, the religious killers have already gained some points: they have managed to shelve all debate on the blasphemy laws, however objectively unjust it is, by all accounts. They have also managed to defile the name of liberalism and humanism — which have become almost an insult in Pakistan these days. Let us not even talk about ‘secularism’, which has become, under their push, simply haram (forbidden). More cleverly, they have managed to portray their victims as extremists themselves, and it has become commonplace now to repeat the falsity that they propagate: that Salmaan Taseer or Shahbaz Bhatti were blasphemers. No, they were not. As a matter of fact they were simply defending something usually as uncontroversial as the rule of law. But the first victory of the crazy blasphemers who have killed them is to subvert the meaning of words. ‘Blasphemy’, ‘liberalism’, ‘democracy’, ‘religion’ even, no longer mean anything: their meaning has been thwarted to fit the twisted political agenda of the killers.

Language is perhaps the first casualty of the rise of an extreme right movement, as many European states have experienced. The cunning ruse of these far right groups is first to co-opt the human rights discourse, using the argument that their racist, anti-immigrant rants are covered by freedom of expression, just like their borderline violent demonstrations are a mere exercise of freedom of association. But it is a sham: their ideology is the exact opposite of human rights, and the use of the rights discourse is nothing but an opportunistic ploy to disempower rational, democratic speech. Extreme right groups, like the FPÖ in Austria, the Vlaams Blok in Belgium or the National Front in France, have become very agile at this sort of double speak: a pseudo-democratic façade coupled with a human rights discourse for the consumption of the general public, and a hardline, intolerant, violent speech for their own constituents. The religious groups in Pakistan, which are nothing but the South Asian version of European or American extremism with the addition of lethal violence, operate similarly: they have internalised the discourse on rights and freedom, only to subvert it for decidedly anti-rights and anti-freedom ends. It is always the same process — first, minorities are made to feel vulnerable, as minorities are always the easiest prey. Then, human rights activists. Then liberal voices in general. Then it is the turn of anyone who defends the rule of law. “And then there will be none.”

 

The writer is a freelance columnist and can be reached at sikander.amani@gmail.com