Representatives of different religions and faiths have demanded the government develop a clear strategy to stop religiously-motivated violence and giving complete protection to all citizens without any discrimination.
A media briefing arranged by the Peace and Harmony Network Pakistan observed that successive governments and relevant institutions had remained silent over the misuse of blasphemy laws.
The briefing was addressed by Catholic Council for Inter-religious Dialogue and Ecumenism (CCIDE) Secretary Javaid William, Pakistan Ulema and Mushaikh Council Chairman Allama Zubair Abid, United Religions Initiative Coordinator Dr James Channan, Sikh representative Tranjeet Singh from SAYOG and Hindu representative Amarnath Randhawa from Hindu Sundhar Sabha.
“We believe that the government – through relevant ministries – can monitor, protect and defend cases against persons accused of blasphemy,” they said, adding that blasphemy laws had fostered a climate of religiously-motivated violence and were frequently used indiscriminately against both Muslims and non-Muslims.
“We can observe that these blasphemy laws have become so sensitive that nobody really wants to touch the laws despite the fact that these are often used to settle personal scores,” they said.
“So we are just demanding steps for avoiding misuse of the relevant provisions of the procedural law,” they said. In Pakistan, the blasphemy cases continue to pile up, often for seemingly innocuous incidents. “The worst part of this cataclysm is that it has not only badly damaged relationships amongst different religious communities, but it has disproportionately affected the religious minorities as well,” they said.
The representatives of different religions also stressed that there was a need to revisit the laws so that this situation of suspicion, mistrust and hatred can be healed and this law can be used in a civilized manner.
“Besides setting up state-sponsored religious dispute resolution bodies at district levels, there is a dire need to establish an institution that can provide legal assistance to the accused in cases of false accusations,” they said.
They pointed out that the civil society and human rights organisations were playing their role but there was a need to legislate on the issue apart from maintaining an institution which can oversee that laws pertaining to blasphemy are not abused.
“We believe on acceptance and a respectful dialogue between different communities so everyone can live with their own religious commitments and practices,” said Javaid William, who is also secretary general of Peace and Harmony Network.
He said that every person must recognise existence of people of other faiths in order to live in peace with one another.
“We must know that recognition and acceptance of people of different faiths is mentioned in all sacred scriptures and we have to play our part in accepting and understanding different communities,” he said, asking the government to make the laws acceptable where no innocent people are killed or harassed.
They also demanded that all members of the parliament and the judiciary should review the blasphemy laws and rectify short comings. The scholars of various religions should sit together in interfaith conferences and find a solution of this issue to create harmony in the society, they added.
The panellists proposed that the condition that only a Muslim judge could hear blasphemy cases must be abolished because any judge within the judicial system must be expected to dispense justice regardless of religion. Moreover, the accuser must be equally penalized if the charge proves false and malicious.
The accused and his family must be offered state protection once the case has been registered and special vigilance must be kept for the neighbouring community to which the accused belongs. The cases where the accused dies in custody must be followed and those responsible must be penalized. Blasphemy cases should only be tried in the high courts. The accused person must be given full rights and privilege to a legal counsel. The fundamental right of the concept of ‘mens rea’ (intentionality) must be given serious and due consideration in such cases, they concluded.
