Believe it or not, if you look closely enough, there is a silver lining to the otherwise dark cloud of the Raymond Davis affair. To begin with, it vividly exposed the incompetence and clumsiness which seems to have become the hall mark of US foreign policy post 9/11. US State Department Spokesman Philip Crawley was the first off the starting blocks with a globally aired public statement that the name of the perpetrator of a double murder was not Raymond Davis. Whatever Mr. Crawleys reasons for trying to invent a new persona for Davis, the USAs credibility went south rapidly from there. The US administration embarrassed its entire top leadership including the Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama, by making them go out on a limb with stout assertions that Raymond Davis was part of the diplomatic staff of the US embassy.
Over the next few weeks, it was established beyond a doubt that he was a CIA controlled covert operative, who obviously interpreted the word covert rather loosely. When the threats of cancellation of the gravy train failed to move the government of Pakistan which was under even greater pressure at home, the Americans found an unlikely savior in Islamic Sharia law. Public threats made way for conciliatory statements emphasising the importance of the strategic relationship and an affirmation of the US respect for Pakistans courts. In due course, blood money was paid and the bumbling covert agent was whisked out of Pakistan.
These developments were followed by a frenzy of condemnation and outrage in Pakistan. The reaction of the media and the right-leaning political parties would have been funny if it was not so sad. For weeks, all and sundry shouted from the rooftops that the fate of Raymond Davis would be decided by the courts. We reminded the US of A, and anyone who asked, that Pakistan now had an independent judiciary which would do justice to the case in accordance with law. And in due course politicians, TV anchors and armchair analysts and experts were all red in the face when the trial court did exactly that and acquitted Davis under the Diyat law.
This development well and truly took the wind out of the sails of the hang-Davis brigade. Some said impostors had appeared in the court and testified to having pardoned the accused, others claimed the authorities had arm twisted the legal heirs while still others complained that the entire transaction had been completed with indecent haste.
Which bring us to the heart of the matter: Raymond Davis took advantage of a law which entered our statute books about two decades ago during the self serving Islamisation campaign of the dictator Zia ul Haq, along with other controversial laws such as the Blasphemy and the Hudood laws. The manner in which these laws were applied in our criminal administration and judicial framework made a complete mockery of the system.
The prisons were soon full of the victims of sexual assaults on the basis of weird reasoning, which was to the effect that they were admittedly part of the occurrence which led to the criminal case. In one case a blind victim of rape who become pregnant as a consequence, was convicted and sentenced to death by arguing that whereas her pregnancy proved commission of an office under the Hudood laws by her, there was no evidence against the rapist. Being blind, she could not identify him. The consequences of the blasphemy laws promulgated by Zia-ul-Haq are too recent and well known to require elaboration. The third set of laws introduced by the military dictator were the Qisas and Diyat laws.
How has this law worked to the detriment of the poor, weak and vulnerable sections of society? Two situations brought out below will illustrate this.
A brother kills his sister over the sick notions of honour which infest our society. The father becomes the complainant against his son in the criminal case. As soon as the dust settles, the legal heirs pardon the son and pride of the family and a heinous crime goes unpunished.
Or take the case of a family member of a locally powerful and relatively wealthy zaminadar who kills a tenant over some real or imagined grievance. Immense pressure, including threats of further violence is exerted upon the poor complainant family. Perhaps the pot is sweetened with some monetary compensation. It is inconceivable that this carrot and stick will be resisted. The Qisas and Diyat laws will be invoked and the murderer will walk free.
Scenarios like the above are being enacted in our courts every day. Those who are expressing outrage over Raymond Davis release would do well to remember that this took place under a law which was enacted with the support of a certain obscurantist mindset and which has been allowed by our society to remain on the statute books. Davis should have gone home in a body bag. He went in the luxury of private a jet. But the fault is not his in that he took advantage of a law which made it possible. It happened because a bad law was there to be taken advantage of, but it is our bad law.
The only good that can come from this shameful episode is the spotlight it brings upon a law which operates in a manner that promotes injustice. As a society, we must not give up the freedom which our faith and our Constitution confer upon us, the freedom of speech, the freedom to express views without fear or favour, the freedom to debate what is good for us and what isnt.
Let society exercise this freedom.
