Daily Times

After a long imposed ordeal of 9 years, Asia Bibi was saved from the gallows by a three member bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan through its landmark verdict of overturning her death sentence. Asia Bibi, a Christian and a mother of four, hailing from an impoverished background, was accused of blasphemy during an altercation with fellow workers.

Though, in the prevailing circumstances of charged environment the Supreme Court’s verdict is ground breaking and historical, however, one should hold one’s horses for a while before celebrating it. The reaction of certain radical elements warranted more than being just worried.  Immediately after the announcement of the verdict by the top court of the land normal life was almost paralysed as it plunged some parts of the country into a critical law and order situation.

On November 1, 2018, the BBC quoted the US Commission on Religious Freedom report for 2017. It stated that 71 countries had blasphemy laws and only a few out of them had made the law punishable by death.  The law is harsher where religion is either a state ideology or an instrument of political control e.g Iran, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.  However, as reported by the BBC, some countries like Iceland, Norway and Malta have abolished blasphemy laws in recent years and some more are thinking to follow the suit.

It is no longer a secret that the blasphemy law had mostly been used as a weapon for the sake of vested interests. The colonial power enacted the blasphemy law in the British India not out of love for the local religious beliefs but as an instrument of socio-political control in the religiously heterogeneous environment of the subcontinent. “Actually it is an old law from colonial period. The purpose was not to allow people to cause tension and conflict by committing blasphemy against religion,” said Afrasiab Khattak, a former chairperson of Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and member of the Senate of Pakistan.

The law was further sharpened by General Zia ul Haq as a component of his politically motivated Islamisation drive for consolidating his political hold. According to statistics published by an English newspaper on November 1, 2018, 58 cases reached the courts from 1927 to 1985, and from 1986, the cases number reached 4000.  So far, in a majority of cases the blasphemy law whether against religious minority or Muslims had been used to settle personal score or for vested interests. “It was changed into its present form under Zia’s regime. Rise of intolerance and extremism has led to exploitation of religion by fanatics against religious minorities and political opponents,” added Mr Khattak.

It is time to realise and ruminate that whatever the power elite, particularly the security establishment, considered a glue for state unity, and an effective tool of security and foreign policy also has the potential to explode the state foundations

Most recent examples of weaponising the blasphemy law to use it against opponents, nonconformist political views and political rivals are the murder of Mashal Khan by the mob after accusing him of committing blasphemy. The blasphemy allegation against social political activist bloggers who were abducted last year were forced to flee the country after they were released. The attack on the life of the then federal interior minister Ahsan Iqbal was motivated by blasphemy allegations.

Turning religion and religious laws into a weapon for a purpose may pay short term political dividends and justify a certain state paradigm but at a huge cost to pluralism, stability and democratic values. The ensuing bigotry, religious and political intolerance have anarchic potential to explode the very polity.

Currently, the law has assumed the status of an article of faith.   No one dare ask for its review or to make it foolproof against misuse. In the given circumstances where the state allegedly sponsors religious extremism and intolerance and has a weak writ, the accusation of committing blasphemy is enough to incite mob violence and lynching of the accused..

The holier than thou sense in the society inculcated through decades of indoctrination does not wait for the harsh law to take its course. Taking the law into hand is considered the highest level of pity and faith. Police station and jail is not safe for the accused.

In some instances, the mob sieged the police station to get the accused out for lynching, not bothering to wait for the harsh law to take its course. However, if the accused manages to escape the mob, he or she can be killed at a police station by the police personnel or jail inmates trying to prove devotion to faith.

In such a charged situation of street vigilantism, it is difficult for an investigation officer to carry out independent and impartial investigation or a judge of lower, even higher courts, deliver justice against the wishes of the mob. Once accused of blasphemy the person is condemned before being put on trial. First, no proof of innocence can save the accused. Second, if lucky as in rare cases, exonerated by the court of law the lives of the defence lawyer of the acquitted and the judge are endangered. Asking for compensation for wrongly implicating or demanding a legal action against the accusers is not even a probability. Is it not blasphemy of the highest level to accuse an innocent and send him/her to the gallows or to lynch Or to ransack, vandalize public propertie in the name of Prophet Mohammad’s (PBUH) honour? Would the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) who is titled as a blessing for humanity approve of such rash attitude?

Michelle Chaudhry, president of a rights based organisation the Cecil & Iris Chaudhry Foundation commented,  “We can only demand procedural changes to the law to prevent its misuse and ensure legal action against those who misuse it for personal or political motives.”

The Supreme Court’s verdict to acquit Asia Bibi is a glaring example of pressure on the investigation and trial court.  The verdict of the three member bench of the Supreme Court explained that there was no  evidence of committing blasphemy by Asia Bibi and therefore turned down the death penalty awarded by the trial court and upheld by the high court.

A mutinous reaction against the verdict of the top court of the Islamic Republic exemplified the level of intolerance. The situation is self-evident if the verdict of the top court functioning under the hugely celestial Constitution and laws is not acceptable.

Ironically, the state once again capitulated to the violence inciting elements and seems stepping back to appease them.

It is time to realise and ruminate that whatever the power elite, particularly the security establishment, considered a glue for state unity, and an effective tool of security and foreign policy also has the potential to explode the state foundations.

The writer is a political analyst hailing from Swat. Tweets @MirSwat

Published in Daily Times, November  4^th 2018.