No one should be condemned unheard
What causes a person or frenzy of zealots to lynch innocent people to death — people who merely describe their perspectives and question the status quo? The answer to this apparently simple question is obvious: ideological differences, which too often stimulate the obsessed radicals towards evil undertakings. Perplexingly, the misuse of “blasphemy law” in Pakistan is a sword of Damocles used to settle personal vendettas.
One must not be so surprise about the prevailing ideological fissures organically erected in the last three and half decades. The creation of these ideological differences were the preliminary motto of the Pakistani state’s elites to politicise religion for tainted political and strategic interests.
Historically, religion in Pakistan is politicised and instrumentalised in order for it to be used for personal gains. The elite bourgeoisies settle personal scores underneath exploiting the religious sentiments of the people. They ponder that religion is the most persuading force to exacerbate hatred against dissents. Mashal’s case was not different.
From Mardan to Chitral and from Sialkot to Hub, other areas and other victims who fell prey to fundamentalist’s terror in the name of faith were beyond the sphere of humanity. These brutal incidents allude to the state’s utter feebleness in the face of the fundamentalist’s terror. Today, in Pakistan, vigilantism is practiced with more vigour than the policies of the state and its powerful institutions. The state’s weaknesses provide more space to mob justice in remarkably controversial contents, if not controlled.
Sadly, this act of barbarism was probably against the progressive critic. The inept university administration did not want to face logical criticism — of a young enlightened student — and used the state’s approved narratives for Mashal’s eternal silence. There is no scarcity of fundamentalists in the land of the pure, who blindly kill innocent people without thorough investigation of the matter. Regrettably, accusation is evidence. Just put allegations; the extremists will do the job themselves.
Most of the people, from left to right and from mainstream TV anchors to mainstream political pundits, condemned the heinous act. But what ignited that monstrous behaviour was not debated amenably. The state and society must keep in mind that the oversight was not an overnight development, but the crossroad to Mashal’s horrific murder was punctuated by incidents which happened in the past. As a result, innocents are dying while offenders are enjoying utter impunity.
Above all, Mashal Khan’s inhumane and premeditated lynching was in part to silence progressive thinkers and secular humanists by using the state’s enforced doctrine of radicalism. His enlightened, liberal and critical standpoint sparked intense debate about the inefficient staff of AWKU Mardan, which haplessly turned against him. As a result, the AWKU administration accused him of alleged blasphemy in order to teach him a lesson for his outspokenness and critical viewpoints. The extremists — indoctrinated at the university premises — orchestrated the brutal job voluntarily. The so-called interest of university administration was served under the guise of protecting the honour of Islam.
According to the “religious” right, free-thinking and secular ideas are un-Islamic doctrines and formidable menace to Islam. That’s why they do not endure anyone having enlightened views about —primarily — state and society. But the fanaticism that fuelled Mashal Khan’s lynching was not orchestrated by madrassa students — it was scored by an elite university students, who are radicalised through school text books by the Pakistani state to protect its own interests.
The grisly lynching of Mashal Khan was not only aimed at silencing a single progressive critic, but had also aimed at sending a clear message to every progressive voice and the left wing dissidents, who could call a spade a spade. This religiously paranoid society does not tolerate free-thinkers because of their liberal ideas about state and society.
At present, vigilantism seems quite powerful. It works in full swing to decide religious matters and held cases in its own brutal justice system. This happens, because both the state and society have given a free hand to fanatics in cases related to religion. After every violent move, vigilantism is becoming more obviously dangerous. It is, however, equally important to discuss in public places why the state has capitulated in front of “Islamist” fanatics, who often take law into their hands.
Similarly, these types of brutal instances strongly question the state’s ineptness of not controlling the religious rights, who too often kill people on alleged blasphemy cases. Secondly, it refers the state’s complete failure to shelter the most educated and a minority of the — having reason and logic — progressive class of society.
History has enough evidence.
Mumtaz Qadri, — who killed Punjab’s Governor Salman Tasir in a broad daylight — was welcomed by a throng of Pakistan’s religiously paranoid radicals. The declared terrorist was celebrated as a legend, hero and saint after his execution last year. If people like Mumtaz Qadri are openly celebrated in the society, the radicals would keep killing people in the name of faith to be celebrated in the society.
With each day, the room for enlightened people in Pakistan is dwindling. On the contrary, despite having killed thousands of innocent people, the extremists roam freely and enjoy utter impunity.
The ideological fissure between liberals and the radicals — involving primarily state and society — more often causes pandemonium. The state needs to take stern action in order to maximise this slit.
The state must ensure justice in Mashal’s case by giving exemplary punishment to all perpetrators in order to ensure deterrence theory to halt such outrageous incidents in future. If not so, the frenzy of zealots will keep lynching innocent people in a regular basis without considering state in matters.
