Setting the law in the right direction, finally
Finally, Mumtaz Qadri has been declared a terrorist, and his capital punishment has been upheld by the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. No doubt this was a daring and courageous decision on the part of the apex court in our cowed down and rusted criminal justice system. And sending the self-confessed killer of former Governor Salmaan Taseer to the gallows will also set the stage for a correction of the cultural and traditional narrative on religion, though not making any palpable difference in the society.
However, nothing about this high-profile case seems to advance jurisprudence. Saying something against set traditional wisdom, either based on so-called religion or some societal norms, no doubt carries the credit of being bold and setting the law on its right path. But going beyond such benchmarks must be the true objective of the interpreters of the legislation and the constitution.
The real acknowledgement of the apex court received by majority of the moderates was due to its rational and logical rulings on the blasphemy laws, which is otherwise obvious as well. Who does not know that Mumtaz Qadri committed a premeditated Qatl-e-Amad and instilled terror in the hearts of people? Moreover, when he proudly confessed to killing Salmaan Taseer, could there have been any possibility of his escape from the clutches of the law? When there was no evidence of committing blasphemy by Taseer, as the SC observed in its ruling, commutation of any punishment to the accused could have reinforced the traditional narrative on the blasphemy laws in Pakistan.
The real acknowledgement of the apex court received by majority of the moderates was due to its rational and logical rulings on the blasphemy laws, which is otherwise obvious as well
Perhaps the SC’s observations in Mumtaz Qadri’s case are more vital than the decision itself, since the same was announced by the Anti-Terrorism Court as well. Talking about man-made laws, even if they relate to religious or sacred principles, is no blasphemy at all. All the punishments meditated and contemplated by the collective legislative wisdom and coded in the Pakistan Penal Code are not divine punishments. These can be altered, amended, reduced or even enhanced by legislation anytime.
Luckily, Pakistan abounds with ‘true believers’; hosting perhaps the most among all the Muslim Umma. Here the legislators have recommended either capital punishment or life imprisonment for committing blasphemy (Section 295-C PPC). The maximum punishment for blasphemy as per Indonesian Penal Code is five years (Article 156); Malaysian Penal Code suggests three years imprisonment and fine of 1,000 US dollars (Article 296&298-A); Bangladeshi Penal Code mandates five years in prison and fine (Article 295-A); Irani Penal Code carries no separate provision for blasphemy and recommends capital punishment as per the severity of offence for ‘publishing’ blasphemous material; Sudanese Criminal Act has either fine or 40 lashes (Section 125); Egyptian Penal Code comes up with punishment of six months to five years and a fine up to 1,000 pounds in cases of blasphemy.
Thus, Pakistan is the only Muslim country in the world where man-made laws on blasphemy are considered ‘divine laws’ and not much can be done really about already stated definitions.
Another area that the Supreme Court could have discussed in its observations was the process of registration of criminal cases in offences of blasphemy and related procedures in investigation.
Normally criminal cases are registered against the accused and then the state machinery sets into motion for conducting investigation for the purpose of collecting evidence. But in blasphemy cases the procedure could have been the other way round.
Imagine a blasphemy accused released on acquittal of charges and subsequently living in the society among the ‘common folk of believers’. Of course, the blasphemer has to die. Mere allegations are enough. After that the only thing that is left for the ‘true believers’ is either stoning the accused to death or lynching him in public.
Secondly, the Supreme Court also observed during its hearing of Qadri’s case that it was considering launching a campaign to curb the culture of deposing false witnesses before the courts by awarding life sentences to those found guilty. This is a better move instead of doing something with the blasphemy laws as any suggestion to amending or altering the same could have put the life of judges in danger. But again the responsibility lies with the parliament to make such legislation
Thirdly, sending Mumtaz Qadri to the gallows will disillusion those who ‘glorify ignorance’. This landmark decision will set the stage for setting the law in the right direction.
In this whole episode, what was more alarming was the sense prevailing with the lawyers who showered petals and garlanded the accused and treated him like another Ghazi Ilm Din Shaheed
In this whole episode, what was more alarming was the sense prevailing with the lawyers who showered petals and garlanded the accused and treated him like another Ghazi Ilm Din Shaheed. On the top of it, defending the case of Qadri by two former justices including the former chief justice of the Lahore High Court, Khawaja Muhammad Sharif, is in itself a question mark on the selection of judges in the top judiciary. If you defend something not having the realisation that it is against law, you yourself are the same stuff as is the person whom you are defending in the dock.
Fourthly, the SC’s decision has broken the ice and prompted a talk on blasphemy law which otherwise was a ‘prohibited area’ for discussion. Now people are likely to talk more about it with the believers to create more space for listening to talk on blasphemy law and its misuses in the society. Soon after the SC’s verdict, a number of private TV channels aired programmes, mostly endorsing the court’s decision though many of them had veiled justification for Qadri’s act.
It is true that an ignorant person’s act should be judged considering his social background and religious affiliations, but the law cannot allow or show any leniency towards ignorance. It (law) is always blind.
Another thing that baffles about the case is Qadri’s desire to seek pardon, or any other form of reprieve for that matter. Ultimately they meet the fate that they had always desired and longed for – being in paradise.
