|
|
|
|
 |
 |
   |
Editorial rationale March
in February protest The spirit and
the letter Image of
martyrdom
Politics in faith There are blasphemy laws on our statute books and they are invoked every now and then. But the newspapers are free to discuss those laws each time they're invoked, there's a public debate on how they're being misused, the electronic media touches them too and, rarely though, someone from the government side points out the lacuna. Yet, despite all demands to repeal those laws, they continue to exist and hence continue to be misused. But they continue to be discussed as well. However, there's another dimension where blasphemy is politicised to the extent that it becomes dangerous to discuss the issue. Beginning from the 1989 protest against Salman Rushdie's 'Satanic Verses' in Islamabad in which five people lost their lives, there have been many prominent incidents where we saw faith issues politicised to our own detriment. This Special Report is an attempt to recall a few of them in the wake of renewed protests against Rushdie's knighthood in order to bring out the futility of the extreme response coming from none other than federal ministers themselves. It is noted that at the end of each of these incidents, innocent people lost their lives or had to spend precious years behind bars. The sad part is that none of them made us any wiser. The Muslims, especially in the subcontinent, have shirked, and still do, from a liberal interpretation of religion and left the job with ultra-conservatives. Sadder still is the fact that in times such as these, the state or the government of the day chooses to side with the conservatives -- for political expediency.
The political abuse of belief Unless the causes of the deterioration of Pakistan people's mind are removed, we may see an increase in issues that inflame mass feelings The current agitation
against the British for recognising a writer who has been condemned to
extreme penalty by the dominant Muslim lobby again confirms the vast scope
for people's belief being exploited for narrow political ends. The use of religion for gaining advantage over political rivals or adversaries on the battlefield or for strengthening a regime has a long history. Throughout the centuries of Muslim rule in the subcontinent kings, pretenders to the throne and military commanders appealed to the religious sentiments of their followers to gain or retain power, nearly always when they faced non-Muslim forces and sometimes against Muslim rivals too (e.g., Babar vs Ibrahim Lodhi, Aurangzeb vs Dara Shikoh). However, the dangers in undue reliance on the use of belief for political purpose were also realised quite early (e.g., Alauddin Khilji's refusal to accept the religious leaders' call to declare jihad against the non-believers in the land, and Babar's advice to his son to avoid meddling with the people's faith.) The Mughals, and the less recognised Muslim rulers in the southern parts of the subcontinent, and in Bengal and Oudh, to a greater degree perhaps, sought to derive strength from communal harmony instead of religious acrimony. One of the great ironies of the history of the subcontinent's people is that the 1857 war of freedom, the anniversary of which the present regime chooses to ignore, constituted the peak of communal harmony and also founded a tradition of deliberate abuse of belief for political purposes, that has bedevilled the people of South Asia for a century and a half. The alien rulers divided the people along religious lines and their subject communities obliged them beyond their expectations. Nobody should know this better than students of Muslim separatist movements in the subcontinent. That the tradition of communal politics struck deeper roots in Punjab than elsewhere (say, Sindh, Balochistan and Frontier) is perhaps difficult to deny. It is for historians to tell us whether the propensity to exploit religion for political purposes was rooted in the Muslim majority's consciousness of trailing the slightly less numerous non-Muslim population in the economic field and in the professions or whether it was born of the latter's inability to capture the political crown. For a considerable period Muslim politics in this area revolved round the status of the Shaheed Gunj mosque. It is still worth probing the transformation of Majlis-I-Ahrar, the Punjab Muslims' most significant indigenous movement for economic and social justice to the underprivileged into a most rabid exploiter of the people's belief. Unfortunately, our vulnerability to abuse of slogans supposedly derived from belief, that had become a major feature of our communal psychology during the decades preceding Partition, has been reinforced through periodic injections. If a few decades ago a riot could be caused by announcing that a mosque had been desecrated without a serious attempt to probe the allegation, now mob violence can be instigated with a suggestion that somebody has burnt the Holy Quran or committed blasphemy. The issue is not the reaction of the masses or their concept of the sanctity of symbols of their faith, especially their devotion to the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), the issue is the state's failure to devise means to deal with outbursts of mass frenzy or, as some would argue, its connivance with the exploiters of belief. What is happening now is that the state institutions, the government and the assemblies, are trying to compete with the elements that are exploiting public sentiment for gaining advantage in the ongoing tussle for power. Two important figures in government are targeting an opposition leader in a pre-election-campaign barrage and the motive is obvious. How have we come to this pass? A traditional answer to this query has been that successive regimes abused the people's belief in order to justify their hold on power. References are made to the adoption of the Objectives Resolution, a long history of countering the Bengali compatriots' democratic aspirations with slogans of religious unity, the anti-socialist defence alliances, the insertion of Article 2 in the 1973 Constitution, the 1974 amendment to the Constitution, Gen. Zia's Ordinance XX, and the State's role in fostering militant religious organisations. All this may be true but it does not explain the inability of successive civilian governments' inability to undo the edifice of an intolerant theocracy raised by Gen. Zia. What follows is not an answer but an invitation to think about some of the factors that seem to have caused endless problems. First, the tradition of a liberal, intra-religious discourse for which the subcontinent's Muslims were known, and to which Iqbal made a rich contribution, was allowed to wither away and the field was left completely open to conservative interpreters of Islam. The people of Pakistan are unaware of the trends in Islamic thought across the world, trends that resemble the liberation theology. The state has ignored the potential of institutions such as the Council of Islamic Ideology, the Islamic University, the Institute of Islamic Culture and the Iqbal Academy, for ending the stagnation in Muslim thinking. The state has surrendered to the conservative, traditionalist cleric without a fight, without an argument. Secondly, the state has closed by law the debate on its ideology and offered politicians appearing in the garb of champions of faith possibility of capturing power in a State whose creation they had resolutely opposed. Pakistan cannot hope to move forward without a critical reappraisal of the movement for its creation, without sifting concepts of enduring value from tactical posturing. Thirdly, long spells of authoritarian rule have consolidated the theory of governance by force alone. Brute force has replaced reason, justice and rights as a sufficient factor for legitimising a regime. No wonder the people have taken the ways of their masters, they too wish to decide matters, in their homes, in the marketplace and on the political stage (national or international) through violence or threat to use force and with nothing else. Unless these three causes of the deterioration of Pakistan people's mind are removed, we may see an increase in the political abuse of belief, especially of the law and concept of blasphemy as these inflame mass feelings more quickly and more extensively than any other matter.
February 14 2006 remains etched in the collective memory of Lahore's citizens while the identity of rioters remains shrouded in mystery Lahore was peaceful till
noon on February 14, 2006. The shops and offices along The Mall and at other
busy commercial centres were mostly closed. Posh food outlets were, however
open to accommodate young couples celebrating the date as Valentine's Day. The roads were deserted as the wary lot had decided to stay away from the sites of action. Religious leaders under the banner of Tahafaz-e-Namoos-e-Risalat Mahaz had given a protest call to condemn the publication of objectionable caricatures of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) in the European press. The business community of Lahore had also supported the call and many of the local businessmen had decided to suspend their business activities that day. People had started gathering at different meeting points to join the protest march that, according to the organisers, was supposed to be a simple and peaceful affair. Everything went as per the announced plan till early afternoon when sudden violence erupted at different locations along the procession's route. Soon, the angry mob turned violent and went on a rampage, burning every other building coming their way and damaging vehicles plying on roads or parked outside offices. Two protestors lost their lives when a security guard of a foreign bank opened fire on them, assuming they had plans to loot cash from the bank. The worst part of the story was that scores of police contingents deployed along the route stood motionless, giving a free hand to the rioters to do whatever they wanted. This attitude of the police evoked varied responses including those terming the whole episode a state-engineered affair. "I had never ever seen people breaking into shops like this right under the nose of security personnel. I can recall the sight of these policemen laughing instead of stopping people from running away with booty," says Muhammad Saleem, an eyewitness, who works at an office situated in Dyal Singh Mansion. He says the same policemen who spare no time in killing those attacking their colleagues did not even touch the skin of the attackers who had brutally thrashed then SSP Operations, Lahore, Amir Zulfiqar Khan. This shows that the police was taking orders from somewhere else, he says. Lahore District Nazim Mian Amir Mehmood was also seen helpless that day having no authority over the police force. "What happened in Karachi on May 12, 2007 was witnessed by us on February 14, 2006," he adds. It seemed the rioters did not belong to the city and had travelled all the way from neighbouring districts, Saleem says. Considerable damage was done to Shezan Restaurant, a KFC outlet, two branches of local banks, a portion of the Punjab assembly, a couple of car showrooms, traffic signals on The Mall and so on. The police lodged an FIR against Tahafuz-e-Namoos-e-Risalat Mahaz leaders including its general secretary, Dr Sarfaraz Naeemi, and other unknown persons. Pictures of rioters that had been taken during the strike were also released and even pasted on the concerned police station's walls. Dr Sarfraz Naeemi tells TNS that it is an open secret that no one else but the intelligence agencies had managed the show. "We had given a protest call but in principle it was decided that no one would take the law in his hand," he says. The peaceful protest turned violent when some miscreants set a private building on fire. The situation aggravated further when the Lahore police gave tacit support to these people by not acting against them. Naeemi says he and his disciples have been victimised for the reason that he is a staunch supporter of Mian Nawaz Sharif. "In short, the intentions behind implicating me in terrorism cases are simply political," he adds. He says it's a pity that instead of arresting those who had damaged private and public properties, the police have registered cases against peaceful protestors. "If they have the pictures of the culprits then why don't they arrest them?" he questions. Had the participants of the procession been guilty, they would not have been acquitted by the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) hearing their cases, he says adding: "I myself have been acquitted in four terrorism cases registered against me." Zahid Chaudhry, a resident of Saanda, Lahore is not ready to accept that the show was engineered. He says though the protest call was given by a specific religious group, people had come from each and every part of the city to condemn the shameful act of blasphemy. "Days before the protest, meetings were held at mosque level to ensure maximum participation of masses in the protest. Even the cable operators joined the drive and repeatedly showed films like Ghazi Ilm Din Shaheed," he says. Zahid says that the danger of a mob turning violent is always there; and that is why riot police force is employed by the government and paid salaries from public money. "It was this police and no one else that encouraged some miscreants to act illegally," he says. Inspector Investigations, Civil Lines Police Station, Lahore, Nazar Abbas Shah tells TNS that the police were able to round up most of the people identified in the pictures available with them. "It is not true that all of them had come from other districts. Though there were some outsiders, a large number of these miscreants belonged to Lahore," he adds. Nazar says that the police have nothing to do with these people now. Those arrested were challaned and produced before the court, he adds.
Rushdie 18 years ago The story behind a protest against 'Satanic Verses' that turned horribly wrong On February 12, 1989, a
large number of protestors gathered in the heart of Islamabad under the
banner of Tahafaz-i-Namoos-i-Risalat to condemn the publishing of 'Satanic
Verses' written by Salman Rushdie in the United Kingdom When the protest came to an end, seven people had lost their lives, thirty more had sustained injuries and forty four police personnel were injured in clashes with the protestors. When the incident took place the Benazir government was just around two months old. The procession was led by Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan, Maulana Abdul Sattar Niazi, Maulana Kausar Niazi and Maulana Fazlur Rehman. A judicial enquiry commission was formed under Justice Ijaz Nisar who at that time was a Lahore High Court judge to look into the facts of the matter which then published its report in August 1990. During the enquiry these leaders pleaded that the People's Party government had an ulterior motive of crushing the ulema on their very first appearance in Islamabad so that the greatest hurdle in the way of the secular government was removed or at least weakened. The district administration
justified its action in self-defence, pleading that the armed protestors were
highly disorganised with no single leader in command and the protestors
looted a petrol pump and collected petrol from there. The administration
estimated the size of the crowd between 30,000 to 40,000. The enquiry commission noted that confusion seems to have been caused by the advertisement placed in the press by Tehrik-e-Tahafaz-i-Risalat and the demonstrators were not informed about the arrangements settled with the administration that they were to halt at a barrier to be placed at a distance from American centre, that only leaders would proceed onwards to hand over the protest note. On the other hand they were intimated by the advertisement that the protest rally was to be staged in front of the American Centre "It was strange that the infamous book was published in the UK, the US did not have any plan to publish it, still the organisers chose to protest in front of the USIS building in Blue Area instead of going to the British High Commission office," recalled Abdul Hameed Alvi, the then media advisor to USIS while talking to TNS. Many of the witnesses that came before the commission agreed with the suggestion that America had nothing to do with the publication of 'Satanic Verses', neither was Salman Rushdie a resident of America, nor was the book published from there. Identifying what went wrong, the the 160 paged commission report found that when the protestors crossed the barrier a scuffle ensued between the police and the protestors. The protestors pelted stones at the police that resorted to firing tear gas but the direction of the wind changed and the tear gas smoke instead struck the police. Meanwhile, the jeep carrying the leaders arrived at the scene where it was hit by a stray tear gas shell. Brick-batting was also going on. As a result those in the jeep were injured. "It would therefore be incorrect to presume that the jeep of the leaders was made a target. The gas shells fired on the protesters encircling the jeep accidentally hit the occupants. Finding the leaders hurt the protesters became furious. They advanced towards the police in a state of intense anger, pelting stones on them. Seeing them getting violent, the police receded towards the depression by the side of the American Centre. Some of the protesters taking advantage of police drifting away, scaled over the walls of the American Centre, smashed its window-panes, damaged the dish antenna and destroyed the main entrance. Two or three of them climbed up the roof of the American Centre and pulled down the American flag. The demonstrators who were present on the eastern side of the American Centre also joined them and resorted to brick batting." The report observed that the demonstrators tried to set a vehicle in the American centre on fire. A tent of the security guards and a security post was also burnt. As none of the leader was around, there was nobody to impart any instruction to the crowd. Getting reinforcement, the police appeared on the scene again to prevent the situation from becoming worse. It resorted to firing that resulted in deaths. "If the situation called for police firing, there was hardly any justification in aiming at the protestors directly. The police could have directed its shots towards the legs instead of vital parts of their bodies, the firing in that case could have merely incapacitated them rather than cause their instantaneous death," noted Justice Ijaz Nisar Why the protestors chose to go to American Centre could be explained by the fact that a large number of international media was present in Islamabad to cover an event relating to formation of a future government in Afghanistan. Rushdie was not an American citizen nor the United States published the book but the anti-Rushdie protest turned into an anti-west or an anti-America protest, a fact attested by the then prime minister Benazir Bhutto in a press conference on her return from China soon after the incident. The judicial enquiry commission in its report in August 1990 recommended the government to pay a minimum of Rs 100,000 as compensation to the legal heirs of each of the dead, Rs 50,000 to those with fire arm injuries and Rs 25,000 each to the persons having other injuries. Of the seven dead only three were from Rawalpindi. Rest of them belonged to the adjoining cities of Jhelum, Attock, Mansehra etc. The father of one of the persons killed, Zafar Iqbal Sultan Muhammad Mirza, who was then principal of Qandeel Institution for the Blind and Deaf in Rawalpindi, told TNS that his son was not religious. "He had taken intermediate examination from Government College and was taking tests to join army. On the fateful day he along with his friends went to the protest and got killed," Mirza recalled. "The amount of compensation was not enough because the amount spent to seek justice was much more."
What happened before and after the publishing of the blasphemous letter in a newspaper in 2001 On January 29, 2001 a
blasphemous letter was published in the 'Frontier Post' Peshawar's letter to
the editor column titled 'Why Muslims Hate Jews' -- actually received through
email by someone named Ben D Zac. The next day religious groups became
furious and burnt the offices of the paper and a cinema. A judicial enquiry by a High Court Judge was established soon after the incident which found that: "The main circumstance under which the blasphemous letter was published in the Frontier Post is the lack of professionalism, lack of efficiency, the crippled financial condition and sheer negligence and nothing more." The one-judge tribunal was appointed by the NWFP provincial government just two days after the incident to probe into the circumstances under which the letter was published; to find out a motive for the offence and to suggest ways and means to prevent such sacrilegious acts by the print media as well as any other organisation in the future in the name of freedom of press and publication. Interestingly, the government deliberately missed out to task the tribunal to fix the responsibility for instigating a mob to burn the Frontier Post's office and a cinema. The students from religious seminaries present in and around Peshawar had gone on a rampage and rioted on the streets despite the fact that none of them could read English while the letter was published in an English daily that was financially crippled and had a minimal circulation of a few hundreds. The tribunal, whose report is available with TNS, also tried to look into certain theories taking the rounds including that it was done by some unknown anti-government agencies; that the Afghan page in the newspaper had offended some elements; that a rival newspaper house which was planning to launch an English daily might have been behind the incident or; it had been done by the government itself to divert the people's attention from the price-hike etc. The tribunal found all these theories as frivolous. But the tribunal did not look into the then popularly held theory that the main reason for rioting was the reproduction, of the letter in Jasarat, an Urdu newspaper, a mouthpiece of Jamaat-i-Islami (JI), the very next day. Haji Ghulam Ahmed Bilour, an ANP leader, whose cinema was burnt in the riots, in a press conference had alleged that the government should also register a blasphemy case against Jasarat because it was the main cause of instigating people. Later the police raided the Jasarat offices to arrest its bureau chief but no arrest was made. Maulana Abdul Akbar Chitrali, who had led the protesters, told TNS that the reaction from the students was spontaneous and they came out on the streets the moment they heard of the publication of derogatory remarks against Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). To the question how he got the information he said that he got a telephone call from a friend. He denied the impression that none of the protestors could read an English newspaper by saying that his son is educated and he reads English dailies for him. Maulana Chitrali, a JI member who manages a religious seminary on the outskirt of Peshawar, was elected member National Assembly from Chitral in 2002 elections on MMA's (Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal) ticket. He said that despite an apology published by the 'Frontier Post', it could not have been pardoned because it was not the first time but the third time that the paper had published blasphemous material. "On the last two occasions in the late 1980s and early 90s, the newspaper was forgiven," he added. Because of the protests, an atmosphere was created outside the courts that due course of justice could not have been followed. Soon after the incident a case was registered under three blasphemy related clauses of Pakistan Penal Code i.e, 295, a,b,c. and seven employees of the Frontier Post were arrested handcuffed, blindfolded and taken in an armoured vehicle and kept in strict security. The case was registered on the complaint of Syed Mehdi Hussain, the then Director Information NWFP. Some of the journalists were released later, however three of them were tried in a district session court for over two years. In July 2003, the court released two journalists but sentenced Munawar Ali Mohsin, the sub-editor responsible for getting the email letter from a computer operator and handing it over for pasting. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment and 50,000 rupees fine. Mohsin's argument was that at the time of incident he was not in the right frame of mind because he was released from a detoxification centre a day before the incident. And as sub-editor he was only responsible for the city pages. He was forced to edit the op-ed (editorial) pages because its incharge had to go on leave. The session court's judgment read: "Accused Munawar Mohsin during the trial was not found to be an abnormal and the evidence is completely silent about his abnormality of mind. Independent and disinterested witnesses stated that accused Munawar was responsible for selection of the letter in question and subsequently he sent the same for the purpose of printing." Later in 2003, while upholding the appeal of Munawar against the sentence, the Peshawar High Court said: "Section 295-C PPC, under which the appellant (Munawar) has been convicted and sentenced, provides for the punishment of any person who by inter alia (among other things), word spoken or written defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet (PBUH). The objectionable material was neither written by the appellant nor read by him before it was published. The publication of the letter was on account of sheer negligence due to poor management of the newspaper." Munawar was released quietly on the eve of Eid when there was no fear of protest. At present Munawar Mohsin Ali, is addicted to heroin and lives in shabby condition in a downtown flat in Islamabad with no source of income. While another journalist who was initially accused but was later absolved by the courts confided to TNS that the memory of that incident still haunts him and he still fears that someone has come to kill him whenever there is knock at his door. However, the whereabouts or identity of the real culprit Ben D Zac, who is living happily somewhere in the world has remained unknown.
Just how realistic are the parallels drawn between Ghazi Illam Din and Amir Cheema who died in Germany after the Danish cartoon controversy? "Not many people remember Illam Din and his act but such images of martyrdom are revived and resurrected by a nation whenever needed," says historian Dr Mubarak Ali. Amir Cheema is a similar
case in which around 75 year old image of Illam Din Shaheed was resurrected
by dubbing Amir as the 'Illam Din Shaheed of Rawalpindi'. The episode of Amir Cheema occurred during the controversy triggered by a Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten that published blasphemous caricatures of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) in September, 2005. This act outraged the Muslim the world over. Pakistan was in the lead where violent protests were held with regular intervals. In this charged atmosphere, Amir Cheema, a Pakistani student, died mysteriously in the custody of German police in Berlin in May 2006. Amir was studying in Germany at the University of Applied Sciences in Muenchberg since 2004. He was arrested on March 20 for trying to enter the building of Axel Springer publishing house, the publisher of Die Welt newspaper, in Berlin and was accused of planning to attack the paper's editor for reprinting the Danish blasphemous cartoons of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). Amir's case is akin to lllam Din's except that Amir failed to kill the blasphemer. But as was the case of Illam Din who was hanged by British government, Amir died in German police custody. Amir and Illam Din attracted huge crowds at their respective burials in Saroki, near Wazirabad and Miani Sahib in Lahore. "Going to Germany and attempting to kill a blasphemer was the destiny of my son Amir Cheema," said Prof. Nazir Cheema during the funeral prayer (Ghaibana Namaze Janaza) of his son in Rawalpindi. The event was organised by Jamat-ud-Dawa. A number of fiery speeches were made by the Jamat leaders condemning the US, the West and India for shedding the blood of Muslims. The German government claimed that he hanged himself while alone in his prison cell. But Amir's family and religious parties believe he was tortured to death by the German police. To resolve the controversy, the federal government sent two of its officers, Tariq Masood Khosa, additional director-general of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA), and Tanveer Ahmed, the deputy inspector general of Punjab Police, to Germany to probe the matter. Both the officers visited Berlin for three days and observed the autopsy proceedings. They also visited the prison and talked to some relevant quarters. Tariq Masood later appeared before the Senate's Standing Committee on Human Rights and told that Amir was found with his hands tied behind his back. He told the Senate that the German prison officials had supplied a 'translated version' of a letter reportedly written by Cheema in which he confessed planning an attack on the newspaper editor. However, he said that the German authorities had refused to give the original letter. During the Senate meeting, Senator Prof Khursheed Ahmed of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) produced a letter written by Cheema to his brother, Asif Cheema, in which the former wrote that he would soon return and join the family. He also asked his brother to send him some clothes and essential items of daily use. Ahmed said Cheema's arrest had not been reported in the German press till his death. He said Cheema was shifted from one cell to another cell a few days before his death. He said that Cheema's parents saw his body before the burial and saw no marks round his neck. Makhdoom Khusro Bakhtiyar, the state minister for foreign affairs, informed the committee that the German authorities had refused to answer 30 questions put by a Pakistani investigation team. The German authorities told Pakistan that the replies would be sent through the law and justice department, he said. All these proceedings ended by August last year. And since then nothing has been heard about the case. However, close to Amir Cheema's death anniversary, the media reported that a row had broken out over observing the death anniversary of Amir Cheema between his family and the Tanzim Ahle Sunnat faction led by Pir Afzal Qadri. The differences are related to the collection of donations for building a mausoleum on his grave and its control. And what should be the date of Amir's death anniversary. The family announced May 13 as his death anniversary when he was buried while the Tanzim planned it for May 1, when he died in Germany Amir's father, Prof Nazir said he would not allow anybody to use his son's sacrifice for political and monetary gains. He claimed that the Qadri group wanted to shift Amir's body from Saroki to Gujrat to achieve monetary benefits. |
|
