There is always a certain element of brutality and extreme agitation involved whenever it comes to the accusation of blasphemy in our country. When the individual, regardless of whether he/she is really the wrongdoer or is purported to be one, is brought forth, the conviction that such a voice should be silenced without having the opportunity to have his or her say clearly reflects the mindset of the people who bear no tolerance in such a case. The people’s instinctive agitation over the mention of blasphemy turns into extreme rage, to such a point their emotions are ignited that they bear no hesitation in taking law in their hands and setting out to punish the accused themselves, though he is only claimed to have committed this sin and is not yet proven. But what should be done to the accused in the eyes of the people is done blatantly and openly, and a message or perhaps a warning is delivered through lynching, burning, stoning etc. But when the case enters investigation and reality unfolds one layer after another it is too late for the realisation that what was done shouldn’t have been done. But who is bothered by the depths of feelings of those who have lost? And the people who thought they preserved the honour and stature of their religion by resorting to acts that only portrayed a negative image of their religion, what do they gain? Why does the fate of the accused in such cases always have to be decided by the people? Why not the law?
Maaz Israr
Lahore
