|
|
|
|
 |
 |
   |
Editorial overview Share
(of) Afgan Niazi opinion Out
to lynch Indian
premier leagues Showing
mobs or creating 'em In
the name of God
We in the Indo Pak subcontinent are no strangers to mob solutions. We have a shared bloody history marked by mob violence. We also share a collective grief about the events of partition because that is all we can do. That the grief should have led to some introspection and better solutions for conflicts, unfortunately, did not happen. From our recent recollection of razing of Babri Masjid and Gujrat pogroms, it is evident that it did not happen in the democratic India. Pakistan has seen many more instances of mob violence, motivated both by politics and religion. What happened with Jagdish Kumar in a Karachi factory provides the peg for this Special Report but equally important for us were the incidents of beating of Dr Arbab Rahim in Karachi and Dr Sher Afgan in Lahore. Mob violence is a historical reality. Revolutions, too, have been characterised by it. However, it is the saner political forces that keep them under check. No wonder that Hindutva-led entities have remained subservient to the secular forces for a large part of post-partition Indian history. The moments of their glory have seen as major aberrations to Indian polity and not as norms. In our recent past, some people saw a great measure of maturity in how the Pakistan People's Party leadership handled the matter of Benazir Bhutto's assassination and brought an end to the activities of the angry mobs. By and large, though, the spirit of violence is ingrained in how the Pakistani state functions. The tribal system of dispensation of justice promotes and propagates the mob instinct of violence. The military takeovers underscore the need for quick-fixes and reject the values of tolerance, debate and consensus. The question is that can we allow these social and political anomalies and let the mobs lynch whoever they want to? How does the law deal with such mobs? And how do we look at the phenomenon of 'live' mob violence? These and some other issues form a part of today's Special Report. Belief should be rescued from the clutches of the self-appointed priests, force banished from common discourse, and the state recovered from its illegitimate occupiers By I. A. Rehman Last month's killing of Jagdish Kumar in a Karachi factory and the execution of a 'criminal' by the Taliban in Mohmand Agency, at the other end of the country, dramatically represent the threat legitimisation of violence in the name of belief presents to Pakistan's integrity, its social fabric and its mental health. Jagdish was killed in a
factory, where the only identity workers are supposed to have is that of In a Muslim society, even if the people do not follow the fundamental tenets of their faith, much as respect for life, truthfulness, and uprightness in public dealing, liberty can often be taken with God but not with the Prophet (PBUH). That is the reason that in the entire Muslim world there have been few cases of blasphemy ever. The disease was almost unknown in Pakistan till Gen. Zia and his cohorts conspired against Pakistan and Islam by making a law that is blasphemous -- as it insinuates that the name of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) can ever be defiled. This law has grievously undermined Muslim people's tradition of tolerance for which they were once acclaimed across the globe. Not only the law is
flawed its enforcement over the past decades has revealed its extensive
abuse. Yet the state has failed to protect victims of indefensible
violence. When Naemat Ahmar, a Christian teacher, was killed by a young
man, the latter was lionised in the prison and the community outside. When
Farooq Sattar, known as a better Muslim than many others in his town, was
lynched in If a brief digression may be allowed, there is a story worth telling. A famous man killed his wife in a western capital and went to the police. He was promptly dispatched to an asylum for ascertaining his mental health. Unfortunately, many in the west have deemed it proper to abandon that pedestal of sanity. However, that should be the procedure in Pakistan if anybody is really found to have committed blasphemy, or ordinary murder for that matter, for no one who takes the life of a fellow being can be wholly sane. The encouragement the killers of people accused of blasphemy has wrought quite a havoc. A suspect was handed over to the police. The constable chosen to take him to a police station killed him on the way. Last year the Gujrat police arrested five men on the charge of composing an allegedly objectionable book in a computer shop (the author was abroad). A police constable shot one of the detainee dead in the lock-up! The state is responsible for all such cases of violence because it has allowed the preachers of intolerance complete freedom, because it has lacked firmness to check fanaticism. And, it does not compensate victims of religious violence, while victims of riots are. The Mohmand incident, too, should be seen in the context of the trend in the tribal areas, and several settled areas in the NWFP, to enforce Shariah through non-state agents. The state has been guilty of promoting the fiction that an inanimate object can have a religion, and has failed to inform the people how religious laws (and which of the many versions) can be enforced. As a result there is anarchy in a large northern part of the country and nobody can rule out its spillover across the rest of the land. Many say it is only a matter of time. One of the factors attributed to our failure to curb belief-based violence is the infantile interpretation of Muslim history in the subcontinent. The Muslim dynasties are believed to have established their rule with the help of their arms alone, through their superior capacity for violence. When local commanders lacked the requisite capacity for violence, help could be sought from a Babar or an Abdali. The Muslim empire in the subcontinent fell because the challengers possessed greater capacity to kill. Children are taught that people rise by their belief and their arms. Those who argue that nations become great by their knowledge and skill, by their sciences and their arts, by their laws and tribunals of justice, by their traditions of tolerance and compassion, are ridiculed as a minority of heretics. One of the most serious indictments of the state apparatus in Pakistan is that it has been training generation after generation of blood thirsty blockheads who kill writers of unorthodox tracts and worship ugly replicas of Chagi hills in their boulevards. As if misinterpretation of belief and vulgarisation of history were not enough to destroy the Pakistani people, the cult of authoritarianism has completed our psyche of violence. Killing for political dissent has always been accepted as legitimate. Non-violence is shunned as being sinful and derided as the creed of cowards. Whoever questions authoritarian rule -- be it a Bengali or a Pakhtun or a Baloch -- will be gunned down, the continual replacement of political argument with the gun has sown the seeds of insane violence into the mindset of the Pakistani people. Finally, all violence is not committed with the visible use of force. All dissipations of constitutional life in Pakistan, glorified through utterly fake slogans of 'bloodless revolution', have been acts of gross and dehumanising violence. They have installed force as the supreme deity in our pantheon. The killing of Jagdish or that unnamed Mohmand (newspapers can't agree on his name) are but symptoms of a fatal sickness that has seized the Pakistan society. No cure is possible until belief is rescued from the clutches of the self-appointed priests, force is banished from common discourse, and the state is recovered from its illegitimate occupiers. There have been allegations that the violence was triggered by some 'outsiders' and once they had hit Dr Niazi, others followed indiscriminately By Shahzada Irfan Ahmed The gruesome images of heavy thrashing received by Dr Sher Afgan Niazi at the hands of a violent mob are still fresh in the minds of television viewers. The heightened frenzy with which the crowd attacked him with fists, shoes and stones was unprecedented. Another fact that made the incident unique was that the said mob constituted educated lawyers, students and activists and not the ruffians who rule the roost in states of lawlessness. Despite the lawyers'
efforts to disassociate themselves from this action many from within their
ranks have condemned certain lawyers for bringing bad name to their
movement for judiciary's Amir Malik, a Lahore-based college student, says the act of beating was highly deplorable. The reaction of the lawyers was not at all impulsive; they had sufficient time to plan and rethink their course of action, he says. Amir says a large number of lawyers with eggs, tomatoes and shoes in their hands had laid a siege around the office of a lawyer in which Dr Niazi was present. They should have been dispersed by the security personnel or driven away from the spot by the leaders of the lawyers' movement, he says, adding: "Isn't it strange that the police can disperse a rally of 5,000 lawyers when it wants but become helpless when it has to deal with a handful of people?" Justice Tariq Mahmood seemed to be the most disturbed by the incident as is obvious from his statement that "one incident had whitewashed all the efforts of the lawyers since March 09, 2007." The way an attacker broke the glass of the ambulance with a punch and caught Dr Niaz by his neck shows how dangerous his intentions were. Raza Butt Advocate, a Lahore-based lawyer associated with the PML-N, says although he in no way approves the attack on Dr Niazi it was something that was bound to happen. He was part of Musharraf's team that would defend every act of his, whether it be the grisly operation against the inhabitants of Lal Masjid or the brutal beating of lawyers on the streets of Lahore, Islamabad or Karachi. The urge to avenge is too strong to resist whether a person is highly educated or totally illiterate, he says. Raza says that the lawyers have also beaten up Senator Tariq Azeem in Islamabad, Naeem Bukhari Advocate in Karachi and painted the face of Ahmed Raza Kasuri black in Islamabad. When you are beaten black and blue every other day by the police at the behest of advisors like Dr Niazi such retaliation is imminent. Dr Babar, a psychiatrist, says when people think they are anonymous, they will behave in anti-social ways. They feel safe as they won't be singled out or solely held responsible for the unlawful acts committed by him. In Dr Niazi's case, the lawyers lost their patience and beat him up despite the fact that they know the best about what law allows and what it prohibits. Citing a popular mob theory, Babar says social norms no longer apply to members of the group; rather, the group creates its own set of norms to which every member adheres. "That's why mob violence is called a terrible human phenomenon that can change even the pacifists of the highest orders into killing machines instantly."
Renowned
historian and newspaper columnist The News on Sunday: Mob violence has seen a steady rise around the world. How do we understand the psyche of a mob? Dr Mubarak Ali: Mobs have a tendency of working as a united force. The best work on this subject has been done by Alias Camatie in his book 'Crowd and Power' in which he describes the mentality of a mob. Camatie claims that while in a mob, masses feel empowered to take the liberty to do as they please. The individuality of a person who becomes part of a mob vanishes and he starts acting and thinking collectively with his/her comrades. Due to this, violence or any other phenomenon spreads like fire amongst an agitated crowd. Such mobs often take their anger out on symbols that have oppressed them which includes the nobility, grand castles, industries, shops etc. Shakespeare in his play
'Julius Caesar' portrays mob mentality brilliantly. After the death of
Caesar, Anthony gives a speech in front of an anti-Caesar crowd. He starts
his speech by praising Brutus, TNS: Historically, what role have mobs played in different political movements around the world? MA: The first mass use of mobs in a political movement in modern times can be seen in French Revolution of 1792. Ordinary people had immense hatred for the nobility due to the increasing prices, lack of political freedom and indifference of these nobles. Hence, when the revolution took place, people felt empowered and wanted to take revenge for all their sufferings. Many in the nobility were publicly humiliated and executed, with crowds cheering their deaths. The castle where political prisoners were held was attacked and taken over by the people as was the parliament. Mobs occupied the galleries in the assembly hall to observe if any member speaks against the people. Private political meetings were banned and politicians were expected to discuss their issues in public. The worst form of mob violence was introduced by the fascists in Germany under Hitler. Hitler used his SS group to hunt down Jews, communists and all other 'enemies of the state' in order to kill them. Here, mobs were used by the state in order to instil terror and loyalty amongst the population to keep them subservient. This led to the dilution of opposition against Hitler's regime. TNS: Is mob violence a recent phenomenon in the history of the sub-continent? MA: No. The origins of mob violence in India can be traced to the 1857 War of Independence. It started with rumours that the East India Company was facing a defeat which led to rebellions throughout the country. In his book, 'Peasants at Arms', Eric Stoke claims that the peasants, much like the French revolutionaries in 1792, attacked all symbols of oppression. Both British and Indian officials of the Company, as well as Indians collaborating with the British were executed. An interesting incident took place in Lucknow when peasants attacked the shops of Halwaiis and looted sweets from it. Till then, only the rich could afford sweets due to high prices which made them an ideal target for the masses. So the tradition of attacking symbols of tyranny remained an integral part of mob violence in India. TNS: You claim that mob violence is a reaction to tyranny. How do you then explain the violence during partition? MA: I am not saying all forms of violence are a reaction to tyranny. Mobs work in a complex manner. Issues of race, religion, identity and nationality have played an instrumental part in provoking hatred. During the partition, religious identity triumphed over all other historic identities that Indians adhered to. This meant that the followers of a particular faith stuck together in order to face the other which resulted in mob action. The strong emphasis of honour and its attachment to the woman's body further aggravated the situation. The state also withdrew from the scene as the British authorities claimed that they could not handle the situation. Thus, all these causes combined to produce one of the worst episodes of violence in the 20th century. However, we must realise that Pakistan is not the only place where such things happen. I have already mentioned how fascists in Germany committed such atrocities. In the U.S., blacks were lynched by white mobs on the basis of their racial difference. Hence, historically, such violence has not been a monopoly of the east. TNS: You mentioned the use of religious identity as one reason for violence during the partition. Recently, a Hindu labourer, Jagdish, was lynched by a mob on charges of blasphemy. How do you view such developments? MA: The lynching of Jagdish should also be seen in a historical context. Religion has remained a taboo topic in Pakistan as the establishment censored Jinnah's speech to the constituent assembly, thus giving the signal that religion was not a subject to be debated. The first martial law in Pakistan was declared in Lahore in 1953 due to the anti-Ahmediyya riots led by religious forces. The pressure of religious forces on the cultural domain was so strong that an otherwise secular Bhutto was forced to declare the Ahmadiyya community as non-muslim. General Zia's dictatorship saw the blossoming of the religious right which aggressively asserted itself in every domain as debate was stifled in society. Under such circumstances, when an issue is not allowed to be debated, violence becomes more acceptable to settle such issues. Again, a comparison can be made to the lynching of the blacks when it was accepted in law that blacks were inferior to whites and dangerous and, thus, should be treated as such. There is also an economy surviving due to the blasphemy issue. Organisations like Majlis-e-Tahuffaz-e-Khatam-e-Nabbuwat get their funding on the basis of such issues and many a time they are responsible for organising mobs to highlight blasphemy cases. Of course, such sentiments have a trickledown effect on society when no one is allowed to present a counter argument. TNS: Mobs have been used recently for political purposes during the May 12 and April 9 riots, as well as the thrashing of Sher Afgan by lawyers. What are the future implications of this rising trend? MA: I feel this point of view is problematic. The violence on May 12 and April 9 cannot be lumped together with the thrashing of Sher Afgan. Fascist organisations like the MQM have an organisational structure that takes part in mob violence through an organised manner. A similar situation was witnessed in Gujrat in 2002 with the BJP-led government supporting its own mobs. Both situations led to large-scale loss of life. The lawyers' movement has been largely a non-violent one, based more on ideals rather than its mob power. The lawyers' community has suffered massively at the hands of the state and has been forced to give many a sacrifice for their cause. Unfortunately, Sher Afgan had to face the brunt of this anger. If an incident happened here, it does not mean the lawyers' movement has been a violent one. TNS: Are you justifying Sher Afgan's beating? MA: No. All I am saying is that there are both qualitative and quantitative differences between the violence perpetrated by the MQM and the one by the lawyers. Neither is justified, but lumping them together as one will not be justified either. TNS: How do you think this tendency can be stopped? MA: The primary responsibility lies with the state. It should strive to fulfil the basic needs of the masses and guarantee freedom of speech so that controversial issues can be debated in a frank manner. It should also stop supporting organisations whose politics is based on mob violence. As far as the activists are concerned, they should understand that while in a movement it becomes necessary to break tyrannical laws, degenerating into needless mob violence always hurts the cause. The leadership should also play a decisive role when things start going out of control. The indifferent attitude of political leadership, as witnessed on May 12, is no help in bringing normalcy. Gandhi played a crucial role in calming communal tensions in Bengal by going on a hunger strike, while the role played by Aitzaz Ahsan during Sher Afghan's beating saved his life. Such involvement of credible leadership can always help in dispersing mobs. In the end, I would advise people to channelise more of their anger against the system rather than individuals so that lasting change can come about without the occurrance of such ugly episodes.
Out
to lynch By Aoun Sahi The way the Pakistani law enforcing agencies tackle protests, both aggressive and peaceful ones, is always criticised. The agencies come under fire for employing age-old methods, rules and regulations that were formed by our colonial masters over a century and half ago. "For the most part, they (the police and other agencies) use force in so harsh a way that it propels a protesting mob to become violent," says Anwar Kamal, senior advocate of Lahore High Court. He goes on to say, "Look at what happened on Nov 5 last year in Lahore. The lawyers had announced holding a protest demonstration against the imposition of emergency, but the police did not allow them to come out on the road and locked the doors of the LHC building. "When some young
lawyers tried to push their way out, the police started to torture them,
firing According to Anwar Kamal, the police may not be held responsible for resorting to force. "In most cases, they are only following the orders given to them by the government. "The police is also not trained to tackle the mob," he declares. It is believed that the system to handle protests has become even more complicated after the dissolution of the civil magistracy. Today, all powers -- such as the right to baton-charge, fire teargas shells and bullets -- rest with the police officials and they are not answerable to magistrates. "If the commanding police official does not exercise control over his nerves the situation can easily get out of his hands and become worse, which is what happens in most cases," opines the senior lawyer. Anwar Kamal further says that the post-protest process, in which the police identifies the 'culprits' and registers cases against them, is even more faulty. "During a protest, there are always some prominent faces, but there are a lot of others that are hard to identify even if you video-tape the event. In that case, the police registers cases against those 'identified' few and also include others in FIR." He adds that such cases are meant to harass the anti-government elements but a whole lot of innocent people end up becoming the victim. The cases are registered under different sections of Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) formed by the British rulers in 1860 and Maintenance of Public Order (MPO) Ordinance promulgated by the first military dictator of Pakistan, Ayub Khan, in the year 1960, against the 'culprits'. "Now the Anti Terrorism Act (ATA) is also in place which is used against the protestors." The police officials say they are giving special training with regard to tackling the mob. One basic principle is to use minimum force and to try to disperse the crowd," says Zubair Nawaz Chatha, Superintendent Police (SP), Punjab. According to Chatha, there are occasions when the mob refuses to disperse and reacts to the use of force, "It is very difficult to handle them then. Even the best trained police cannot handle such a situation. In France, during the 2005 riots, 60 police officials were wounded badly by a violent mob. Only those (police officials) who have the nerves should be assigned such duties. Last year's figures provided by the Interior Ministry show that in Islamabad alone, as many as 397 protests were held in which 320 protestors and 40 police officials were injured. According to the data, the police used 5614 long-range shots, 3000 short-range shots, 540 teargas shells, 1200 rubber shots and 1671 rifle shots to handle these protests.
Radical forces in India have long asserted their cloutMob mentality has always transgressed eras, racial, religious and ethnic divides. In the post-colonial and modern, imperialistic age that is based around nation states, neo-political elements have also been incorporated and nationalistic, right-wing movements have sprung up in various parts of the world. India is no exception. Hindu nationalism traces its roots to the foundation of the Hindu Mahasabha to counter the Muslim League and the secular Indian National Congress. Later, its top leadership -- that of Sawarkar and Hedgewar -- furthered the Hindu nationalism cause by formulating notions such as Hindutva and organisations such as RSS or Sangh. It was an activist of this very party that assassinated Gandhi in 1948. Although the Hindutva-led entities such as RSS and Bajrang Dal had generally remained subordinate to the mainstream Indian secular government regimes, they have become prominent in the last two decades. The furor of riots and mob violence that have ensued since the razing of the Babri Mosque in Ayodhya in 1992 have been mostly attributed to the involvement of radical Hindus that are members of the Sangh Parivar that is an umbrella association of all major Hindu revivalist groups. These anti-secular, right-wing Hindu organisations have also asserted their political clout through the mainstream political Bharatiya Janata Party. The Sangh Parivar has exploited its close associations with BJP to spread its cause by operating through a network of political, charitable and religious institutions, and recruit and mobilise workers. The efforts of the Sangh Parivar bore horrific fruits in 2002 due to an alleged burning of a train's coach carrying Hindu Saints by Muslim extremists in Gujrat. The fire that was later found to have most likely to have been accidental was nonetheless seized upon by the BJP-led government of Gujrat as an opportunity to instigate communal violence against the local Muslim population. The fallout involved the gory massacre of hundreds of people involving both Hindus and Muslims characterised by an excessive targeting of females. Nightmarish scenarios erupted in the form of brutal rapes of both Hindu and Muslim women before butchering and burning them alive. The complicity of Gujrat state officials and direct involvement of Sangh Parivar members was revealed five years later in 2007 in a sting operation of sorts carried out by Tehelka, an Indian weekly magazine. The findings exposed the strategic planning and identification of Muslim owned businesses and residences for Saffron clad Sangh Parivar workers to target as a mob. This was in direct contradiction to the apparent mindless backlash resulting from the train burning incident. In recent years, the eastern states of Bihar and Orissa are also fast becoming the hotbeds of Hindutva-fueled mob activities. The regional government is riddled with Sangh Parivar representatives that seek to 'purge the soil of anti-Hindu elements', which are mostly Muslims and Christians. The democratic forces of India have been outlining goals and setting standards of achievement in order to expedite socioeconomic development. However, apart from poverty, illiteracy and a burgeoning population, another great spectre to contend with is the rise of orchestrated mob violence and lynching driven by fanatic ideologies. -- Aziz Omar What is significant about a television footage is how it is helping the size of the mob to swell up Mob violence in present times has had a direct link with live media coverage. Television which has the capacity to exaggerate the size of the mob has generously used it in recent times. It also has the power to enhance impact manifold -- by fixing the camera lens on the mob and ignoring all else -- and we have seen tv do this in many recent incidents of violence. Significantly, television has taken the anonymity factor away from mobs gathered to make mischief. The anonymity that was supposed to spark energy and life into the crowd, the strength that came by that sense of togetherness, has now been replaced by the lens of the camera. This aspect of media hampered the image and cause of certain organisations and movements. The hooliganism and bloodbath on the streets of Karachi on May 12, 2007, was seen live by the entire country and put the city administration and the concerned party on the defensive like never before. The black coats and familiar faces of lawyers gathered to beat up Dr Sher Afgan dealt a severe blow to the hitherto peaceful lawyers' movement. On the positive side, the element of recognition available as proofs in tapes may now help the law to take a different course from what it would for a faceless mob. Generally, mobs do remain faceless and cannot be apprehended like the ones in Lahore on Feb 14, 2005, that emerged out of nowhere, created mayhem in the city and vanished, even though the people may still remember the faces of some they saw on television. What is most significant about the television coverage of mob violence is how it is helping the size of the mob to swell up. Therefore, the job earlier performed by the anonymity factor has now fallen to the share of the camera lens. By showing the faces of some, the camera energises or coaxes others to do the same. The size of the mob increases, sometimes leading to more violence than anticipated but television gets absolved of any sense of responsibility. "We only show what's happening," it innocently remarks. Well, actually it also creates situations and needs to show some restraint sometimes to save situations. -- FZ The gruesome killing of Jagdish Kumar on charges of blasphemy, by a group of vigilantes, calls for some serious stock-taking April 8, 2008. An unruly mob lynch a Hindu factory worker, Jagdish Kumar, on the pretext of uttering blasphemous words against the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). Twenty five-year-old Kumar, who was a worker in the stretching department of Nova Leather Industries Pvt Ltd, had come to Karachi from Mirpurkhas around eight months ago. He had been living with his brother-in-law in the Rangiwara locality in Lyari, Marvari Mohallah, from where he would go to work, travelling all the way to Korangi Industrial Area. April 15, 2008. Three accused -- Waqas, resident of Landhi, along with Usman and Hashim, residents of Korangi -- are arrested and, three days later, produced in the court. It transpires that Waqas was the person with whom Kumar had clashed in the first place, while Usman and Hashim only came to the former's help. Eye witnesses reveal that Kumar stopped Waqas from reading a book that he (Kumar) said had anti-religion content. Waqas didn't pay heed to him, following which the two picked a fight, eventually coming to blows. Usman and Hashim joined in, and started beating up Kumar. They halted only when the security guards intercepted and took the badly injured Kumar to the security room of the factory. April 15. The police arrests the three perpetrators on FIR No 262/2008 under section 302. According to the police, after the factory workers had killed Kumar in the security room, they were not satisfied and dragged Kumar's body off to a nearby road where they made a public exhibition of their protest against the alleged blasphemous act. They were joined by a few other people who even tried to torch the dead body. However, the area police reached the spot on time and dispersed the crowd. The FIR was lodged against unidentified suspects on the complaint of Kumar's brother, Om Prakash. Another group of eyewitnesses say that Kumar was killed in the presence of the police. According to them, when Kumar was taken to the security room and the factory manager was being contacted, an enraged mob broke open the room door and ambushed Kumar, beating him senseless. Kumar lost his life there and then. A fact-finding team of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) also stated that Jagdish Kumar was killed not because of some act of blasphemy, but because of a personal feud with his fellow workers. In this regard, Abdul Hai, Acting Coordinator and Field Officer, HRCP, said that Kumar was bludgeoned to death while the police was very much around. The Station House Officer (SHO) of Korangi Industrial Area Police Station, Ghulam Sarwar expressed his complete ignorance of the matter.
|
|
sellers (at lowest possible rates) of their labour. He was felled in
Karachi, the metropolis that defies its non-feudal character by promoting
its cult of pre-industrial age violence. And he was lynched in the
presence of policemen who have so consistently disgraced their calling
that they have forgotten their primary job is to save human life. All this
because the state has not had the courage to challenge the view that every
Muslim has a licence to kill a blasphemer.
Gujranwala, nobody tried to ascertain the charge against him: burning of
the pages of the Holy Quran. The state condoned his murder. A man was
saved from the gallows because the Lahore High Court found out that the
subordinate judge, who had awarded the death penalty, had ignored the
medical certificate on record that the accused had been suffering from
mental disorder. Why blame illiterate zealots when an honourable judge,
apparently sane, is on record as having proclaimed that a Muslim had a
duty to kill a blasphemer when saw one.
independence. There have been allegations that the violence was triggered
by some 'outsiders' and once they had hit Dr Niazi the others followed
indiscriminately. The policy of non-intervention followed by the police
force present there strengthens this theory to a great extent but does not
give a clean chit to the lawyers.
the man responsible for Caesar's death. However, he slowly shifts his tone
in praise of Caesar and convinces the crowd of Caesar's heroic status and
martyrdom. This leaves the crowd agitated as it goes on a rampage in Rome
against the killing of Caesar. That is how easy it is to manipulate the
crowd in one's favour and this is how mobs have been used by political
leaders historically.
teargas shells that resulted in the worst kind of clash ever witnessed in
the city between police and the lawyers."