Pakistanis are not lesser Muslims. A peaceful protest against a sacrilegious movie would have perhaps meant that Pakistanis were compromised Muslims. What Pakistanis proved on September 21 (last Friday) was that if Arabs in their countries could turn the anti-movie protest into acts of violence by razing property and devouring human lives, Pakistanis were equally capable of doing the same. A protest against the irreverent movie that ends up in destroying public and private property and claiming human lives is unjustified. Such a violent act and associated hooliganism is no service to the cause of Islam. Nevertheless, the government faltered on three counts. First, the government’s decision to declare Friday a national holiday to let people demonstrate against the blasphemous movie was a call in haste. Prior to any such announcement, the government could have consulted the religious and political parties, besides the representatives of civil society, and transferred the responsibility for protest management to them. In an effort to keep all on board, instead of Friday, any other day could have been selected for the peaceful display of Pakistanis’ feelings. Second, it is known that in the subcontinent, Muslims are very sentimental about the inviolability and holiness of the symbols and personalities of religion. Here, sentiments mean that emotional attachment carries more weight than sagacity. Against this backdrop, harbouring expectations from the protestors to perform rational acts while giving vent to their surging anger against the movie, its maker or the land where it was made, was itself a preposterous idea. Hence, before announcing the decision of a national holiday, the government should have come up with a comprehensive plan to manage the viciousness of reactive crowds, instead of leaving the space open for letting anything happen. Third, the government should have declared whether or not it would allow the participants to get their protest registered with the US authorities in Pakistan. Even if it is accepted that the turning of a protest into an act of violence was a phenomenon not to compete with the rage of the Arabs, the protest was revealing in at least seven ways. First, the protest showed that there was a link between the religious thinking of people and violence. The broader question is, does the religion of Islam teach violence to articulate one’s feelings and let violence be a way of life? Second, the protest showed that when people were angry and in the streets, they tended to lose the sense of distinction between what to do and what not to do. It is not known what purpose setting police mobiles on fire served. These vehicles were meant for protecting the same people from robbers and criminals. The absence of these vehicles is bound to enhance the vulnerability of the people to crime of all sorts. Third, the protest showed that the protestors had lost all sense of proportion. That is, the protestors could not decide whether the protest was against the government of Pakistan or against the movie. Similarly, the protestors could not decide whether the protest was against banks and petrol pumps or against the moviemaker. Further, the protestors failed to judge how setting a fellow citizen’s car on fire could send a message to the US to penalise the maker of the movie in question. Fourth, the protest showed that any gathering of protestors could turn into a mob that had a tendency of dispensing justice on its own. Such a mob remains leaderless and directionless. That is how mob mentality is lethal: An uncontrolled fury that can be unleashed on anyone and anything but the offenders remain unaccountable. The trend portends much trouble for Pakistan in the future. Fifth, the protest showed that violence was fast becoming a way of life in Pakistan. People thought that resorting to violence was the only recourse to be heard. In the past, the callous disregard of the government towards the genuine demands of the people also promoted this kind of thinking. Hence, if violence is the language used to convey one’s message to those who matter, it means Pakistan is degenerating and its tall claims about the rising literacy level are a farce. Sixth, the protest showed that the number of marginalised people in society is mounting. Whenever the marginalised found a chance to avenge their marginalisation, they would not squander any such opportunity. These marginalised people may be semi-illiterate people who are clueless in which age they are living; these marginalised people may be semi-skilled people who are jobless and find insufficient economic solace in society; these marginalised people may be religiously educated people who feel themselves irrelevant to society; and these marginalised people may be politically redundant people who do not see their future attached to the progress of Pakistan. Seventh, the protest showed that the number of disgruntled people was increasing in society. Some consider that the contest, in the name of a protest, was between the haves and have-nots of society. The have-nots did not fail to snap at a chance to seek revenge for their haplessness and equal the score by depriving several people of their legitimate property. Some consider that uncontrolled urbanisation led to the migration of illiterate rural people to urban areas who unleashed their uncontrolled fury on urban property and urban symbols in the name of protest. Some consider that the ignorant portion of the much averred ‘youth bulge’ showcased its worth during the protest. Some consider that the deprived of society waged a personal vendetta against the country in the name of protest. The government should urge the US government to review its laws to differentiate between what is freedom of speech and what is a sacrilegious act. The writer is a freelance columnist and can be reached at qaisarrashid@yahoo.com