It is indeed a matter of great relief for the masses that the government was able to talk the TLP into ending its sit-in throughout the country within the short span of three days and they did not have to endure the ordeal like the Faizabad dharna during the PML-N government by the same organisation. But the fact remains that this repeated episode has unraveled the gravity and seriousness of the challenge that the state is confronted with due to the burgeoning fanaticism and religious extremism premised on skewed view of Islamic injunctions and its emphasis on justice through the justice system of the state to the exclusion of mob justice. The federal minister for Information and Broadcasting Fawad Chaudhry in an interview with BBC in regards to the accord reached between the government and TLP was right to say that the agreement with TLP was a temporary arrangement and they needed to come up with a permanent solution to such situations.
Many commentators and analysts view the agreement as a capitulation to the TLP demands by the government while some others have termed it a complete surrender. There are others who differ with their assessment and take it as a pragmatic move which has saved blood-shed on the streets had the government used force to dislodge the charged protestors. I personally go with the latter. Blasphemy is a very sensitive issue and needs to be handled with utmost care.
The most worrying aspect of the TLP narrative regarding blasphemy is its belief in death penalty for the alleged blasphemer without due process of law as well as those who support the right of the blasphemer to be given the opportunity to defend himself or herself according to law or want improvement in the blasphemy law to make sure that it was not used to settle personal enmities or to victimise the members of the minority community. We cannot deny the fact that the number of those who support this narrative of the TLP leaders runs into millions throughout the country. We have already seen assassination of former Punjab governor Salman Taseer and federal minister Shahbaz Bhatti. No wonder that the TLP leadership openly called for assassination of country’s leaders including the judges.
It is indeed a very unfortunate situation which is fraught with grave dangers. There is no difference of opinion in regards to protecting the honour of the Prophet (PBUH) and upholding the sanctity of the Holy book being the articles of faith for every Muslim and also obligatory on the state to ensure that nobody dares to act otherwise. However it is also obligatory on the state that accused of any crime including blasphemy was provided unhindered opportunity to defend itself against the charges, which is the fundamental right of an individual also enshrined in our constitution and recognized the world-over. That is why most of the countries which have written constitutions provide for three tier justice system to fulfill all requirements of justice to make sure that nobody’s life is taken away in the absence of credible incriminating evidence against him.
In Aasia’s case justice has taken its course and the highest court of law in the country after having gone through the record of the case and the arguments of the legal teams has come to the conclusion that her conviction was not based on any solid and corroborative evidence and ordered her acquittal. Judiciary is the most sanctimonious institution of the state, particularly the apex court which is the final forum in the dispensation of justice. No society can survive without justice and upholding the prestige and honour of the judiciary. The issue needs to be understood in its true perspective. Societies are not ruled and run by sentiments but according to the law and constitution. The SC is custodian of the constitution and fundamental rights of all the citizens irrespective of their creed and religion. The decision given by it is in conformity with the law and the constitution of Pakistan as well as in line with the internationally recognised principles of jurisprudence.
In Aasia’s case justice has taken its course and the highest court of law in the country has come to the conclusion that her conviction was not based on any solid and corroborative evidence
It is pertinent to point out that while the lawyers of the accusing party and the appellant argued in favour and against the conviction respectively, the additional attorney general of Punjab on behalf of the state defended the High Court verdict of conviction of the accused. However the SC found number of infirmities in the evidence produced and concealment of facts by the witnesses of the accusing party which did not conform to the legal standards corroborating the evidence. Justice Saeed Khosa while agreeing to the contents of the verdict authored by the Chief Justice in his additional note has in detail unraveled those flaws and deliberate omissions. The verdict is therefore strictly in accordance with the law and the constitution.
The sit-in staged by TLP and its supporters and blockade of the arterial roads causing disruption of civic life was not unjustified. It was tantamount to defiance of law and challenge to the writ of the state. Inciting people to violence and destroying public and private properties is not the right way of expressing dissent. It has to be done through permissible and legal avenues. The state cannot allow any organisation to take the law in its own hands and resort to disgracing and insulting the state institutions, more so the sanctimonious institution of judiciary and the honourable judges.
TLP and other parties are playing upon the sentiments of the people and inciting them to violence and defiance of the writ of the state on the basis of their own flawed understanding of the situation and the legalities involved. Islam lays greatest emphasis on justice and the sanctity of the human life. Taking away the life of any individual for any crime warranting death penalty under the relevant law is the exclusive responsibility of the state after ensuring due process of law. The course adopted by TLP surely is not the way to protect the honour of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) who was the messenger of peace and harmony in the society and a role model of kind-heartedness.
The society has to resist attempts towards radicalisation and deliberate moves to spread chaos and anarchy in the country and support government efforts to deal with the creed preached and propounded by the TLP both on the ideological and religious plank as well as in regards to administrative and legal measures that it deems necessary to save the society from descending into disarray. The media and the religious scholars can surely play a significant role in this regard by helping the people to understand the issue in its true perspective in the light of Islamic injunctions and its justice system.
Meanwhile the government has to make sure that such situations do not recur in the future and nobody is allowed to challenge its writ the way it has been done now and in the past. TLP as well as other entities which subscribe to its creed also need to revisit their stance, refrain from challenging the writ of the state and have faith in the judiciary. Behaviour to the contrary would be disastrous for the country and it would also lower its prestige in the comity of nations. We, therefore, have to think where are we headed to?
