Daily Times

While we continue to cry hoarse about India’s exclusivist actions, which are indeed troubling, have we bothered to consider what we are up to in our own country. The past week has been especially cruel to our country’s reputation. First came the verdict on Musharraf. Anyone familiar with Article 6 and the concept of High Treason knows that General Musharraf’s actions were indefensible.

There are however two questions that arise from the sentence. First of all, is capital punishment really a bigger deterrent than say rigorous life imprisonment?  No western state will ever allow Musharraf to be extradited to Pakistan on account of the capital punishment awarded to him. He will evade justice.  Secondly there is the question of paragraph 66.  The judgment was sound all through out till we get to paragraph 66 which seems to have thrown all reason and caution to the wind. Who in this day and age calls for the hanging of a dead body and its exhibition for three days in the most important intersection in the republic?

Some people cite the example of Oliver Cromwell’s posthumous execution.  Let me remind these people that the Lord Protector of the short lived English Republic as it were, a regicidal dictator to some and a hero of liberty to others, was exhumed and posthumously executed in the year 1661. This was during the time Aurangzeb was ruling India.  It was 358 years ago.  If that is where we are to draw our inspiration, why do we not cite examples from Salem Massachusetts 1692, where witches were burnt after the notorious Salem trials?  Does Pakistan exist in the 21st Century or does it exist in the 17th Century? Or worse is it stuck in the Tudor times when public executions, floggings and desecration of dead bodies were carried out.  Just because the English did it many centuries ago, does not make it civilized. Today Great Britain does not even have the death penalty let alone any public executions of the dead or alive.  Needless to say I did not expect this from a learned jurist and the Chief Justice of Peshawar High Court to hand down such a decision. By all accounts he is a gentleman. Hence paragraph 66 of the judgment remains one of the great mysteries of life.

Anything can be blasphemy provided it is perceived as such or argued as such. There is no definition of what is blasphemy and what is not

Of course Pakistan does not really live in the 21st Century.  An English professor of BahauddinZakariya University, JunaidHafeez, has been sentenced to death by a court in Multan, pending confirmation by the High Court.  This is under Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code.  This section introduced by Mr. Ahsan Iqbal’s mother ApaNisar Fatima and endorsed by General Zia ulHaq in 1986 has been taken by the multitudes of Pakistanis as the word of God, despite many great scholars of Islamic jurisprudence saying it violates the canonical and eccelesiastical law laid down by Imam Abu Hanifa.

Then there are some liberal apologists who say that the law was introduced by the British, which is a complete and total lie. The law that the British introduced was Section 295-A in 1927.  It prescribed a punishment of two years for maliciously and deliberately outraging the religious feelings of any class of persons in British India.  It was so worded so that academic or bona fide criticism of religion would not be hindered. Interesting it was Jinnah who had raised this caution against its misuse when he said that “we must also secure this very important and fundamental principle that those who are engaged in the ascertainment of truth and those who are engaged in bona fide and honest criticism of a religion shall be protected.”  Jinnah had been part of the select committee and he insisted on the “malicious” and “deliberate” to ensure that bona fide and honest criticism of religion be exempt.  295-A was supposed to be the end of the matter. It was not a blasphemy law per se but an effort to keep the peace between communities.  From 1947 to 1985, only 14 cases were registered under the law and many of those were thrown out for the lack of evidence. There was never a single case of a person being killed for these accusations. Since then- after the introduction of 295-B and 295-C- more than 1500 cases have been registered and at least 75 people have been killed on accusations of blasphemy by the mob or through a pious faithful’s bullet. Obviously Pakistani state has never actually executed anyone for blasphemy but that has to do with the fact that the powers that be understand that any such action would lead to complete international isolation. Hence after years of imprisonment, the accused do get respite from the superior courts but by then they are too old and haggard.

There are many clear legal problems with the way the law exists right now. It speaks of insinuation and takes men rea out of the picture. Anything can be blasphemy provided it is perceived as such or argued as such.  There is no definition of what is blasphemy and what is not. Nor can the alleged blasphemous comments or materials be reproduced because that would be blasphemy in of itself.  Hence blasphemy allegations are often used to settle scores or to take over a person’s lands.  In the case of the English professor, there is evidence of the blasphemy accusation being motivated by his tussle with the IslamiJamiat e Tulaba, the armed student wing of Jamaat e Islami.  The proliferation of IJT itself is a product of the ban on student unions imposed in 1984. This is why powers that be do not want student unions to be restored. It would mean an end to the monopoly of IJT on our campuses. This in turn would deprive certain actors of their leverage on Pakistan’s campuses.  Ironically there is no IJT on UMT campus set up by the Jamaat e Islami in Lahore butI digress.

Coming back to the point though, I wish to state without any fear of contradiction that Holy Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), listed as a great law giver for all humanity by both the Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn and the US Supreme Court, would never stand for injustice and that too in his name.  Justice and fairness were two of the greatest attributes of our Holy Prophet (PBUH).  I ask those who claim to follow in his tradition if they are doing justice to people by the perpetuation of this climate of fear?  What are we telling the world? We are only playing into the hands of the worst enemies of Islam who want to paint us intolerant barbarians.

The writer is an Advocate of the High Courts of Pakistan