In search of utopia
If one were to compare the two matters in the context of public importance and the benefits that would be reaped by raising a particular issue as opposed to the other then I would opt for the Mashal Khan case any day
These days we are seeing two matters dominating the media. One, the lynching incident in Abdul Wali Khan University in Mardan and two, the Supreme Court’s decision in the Panama case.
The lynching incident is the case of Mashal Khan, a student in Abdul Wali Khan University, being brutally murdered after baseless accusations of committing blasphemy.
The Panama case is about the children of the prime minister owning valuable property in central London, which they are having a tough time justifying as to how and with what resources they purchased.
If one were to compare the two matters in the context of public importance and the benefits that would be reaped by raising a particular issue as opposed to the other then I would opt for the Mashal Khan case any day and the following are my reasons.
In the Panama case the issue on the face of it seems as though the petitioners are seeking a utopian society. The country in which we live is integrally corrupt and it is very famously accepted that who ever does not indulge in corruption, simply has not been given the opportunity.
However if one were to look a little deeper then one would find that the objective is not the creation of a utopian society and an adverse order against the premier would not have achieved the same either. The objective was primarily regime change.
Regime change as we all know has never panned out very well for us, every time a new form of system has replaced an old one prior to its natural life cycle the reasoning has been the imperfection of the system. However such a change takes the country decades back in growth and prosperity as the whole state structure gets damaged.
There are numerous examples of this happening. The whole of the Middle East is in a mess because there were uprisings against dictators who were running their countries for decades and when they were forcefully removed, no semblance of government could be achieved. Similarly, even in this country when ever a democratically elected government has been removed in the past, mismanagement of affairs has been given as the primary reason. All this achieved nothing but instability and military dictatorships.
The present government at the time may have its flaws but it by far is the best performing government in the context of governance when compared with the other large political parties in the country and in this context we really don’t have many alternatives to replace it with.
Raising the issue of Mashal Khan’s lynching would have a far more positive result than taking up the issue of Panama. If some level of reform is achieved in our state universities and intolerance in the name of religion is curbed than it would be a serious achievement for all
Lastly, the benefits that were to be achieved from this case have already been achieved. Don’t get me wrong I am not an advocate for remaining silent to corruption. What I am saying is that most of the times it is better to simply treat the termite than to burn the whole house down.
By the naming and shaming of the leadership of the ruling party there will definitely be a different attitude towards corruption. If one cannot make properties or open accounts then naturally people in power will be less inclined to indulging in corruption.
On the other hand we have the Mashal Khan case, which represents a blatant abuse of religious sentiments by the false accusation of blasphemy, corruption and mob violence of student organisations in state universities. Raising such a matter will only have a positive impact.
The raising of a mob to violence against any individual by simply accusing them of blasphemy and then getting away with it because the subject is taboo has been done for too long and it has created too many victims. Those individuals who lynch others on a false pretext must be dealt with accordingly so that similar incidents are avoided and the writ of the state is established.
Similarly, state universities which cost the taxpayer a lot of money, are providing sub standard education, their administration is corrupt and are controlled by student organisations, which hold an influence on the university through the threat of violence.
Raising the issue of Mashal Khan’s lynching would have a far more positive result than taking up the issue of Panama. If some level of reform is achieved in our state universities and intolerance in the name of religion is curbed than it would be a serious achievement for all. On the other hand the only thing Panama will achieve is instability.
I see Panama episode stands capped and finished.The notice of JIT to Hasan and Hussain will elicit this reply,”We are British Citizens and are under no legal obligation to appear before you.No Pakistan agency has the authority on us.We are non residents and dont pay tax in Pakistan.”,….and that is the end of the news.
Lots of learning from Panama case decision. Justice Azmat Saeed observed “They [justices] cannot be tempted to pronounce a popular decision but must decide all cases in accordance with law without fear or favour, affection or ill-will”.But deciding about religious edicts the Ulema describes that Blasphemy law is the unanimous decision of the ulemas of all sect rather than based on logic, quranic interpretations or the deeds of the Prophet saw. The Supreme court must over rule the blasphemy law and reenact the law based on correct interpretation of the quran and strong Hadees and the deeds of our Prophet saw. Dont expect lot from our law makers.
Comments are closed.