RUTHFULLY YOURS

“anyone who criticizes the blasphemy law has no right to live”.

Shahbaz Bhatti knew he was under threat of death. He had been campaigning to have Pakistan’s blasphemy laws changed. As described earlier on Family Security Matters, these laws have been used to attack Christians, as well as the sect of Ahmadi Muslims. Before he was a minister, Bhatti had been the head of the All Pakistan Minorities Alliance, supporting the rights of Christians, Hindus and Ahmadi Muslims who have frequently been victims of mob violence, rape as a means to forcible conversion, and deliberate misuse of the blasphemy laws.

As a matter of procedure, anyone who becomes accused of blasphemy is immediately placed in police custody when a FIR (First Instance |Report) is made to a police station. The Ahmadi Muslims are regarded as heretics, because they believe the founder of their sect, Ghulem Ahmad, was a prophet. For this reason, Ahmadis are subject to appalling persecution around the world. Last month, Ahmadis in Indonesia were stripped naked and beaten to death by fanatics from the “Islamic Defenders Front” (FPI). Pakistan’s blasphemy laws (PPC Section 298-B and 298-C) prohibit Ahmadis from proselytizing, and also deny them the right to call themselves “Muslim.” The penalty for breaching these prohibitions is a jail sentence of up to three years, and a fine.

The situation of desecrating a Koran (295-B) brings, upon conviction, a mandatory life sentence. Section 295-C of the Pakistan Penal Code  was first introduced in 1982, outlawed “Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet.” In 1986, an option to 295-C included the option of death penalty for blaspheming against the founder of Islam. These draconian additions had been introduced by the military dictator Zia ul-Haq, who had acted in collusion with the Jamaat-e-Islami party to forece Islamism upon the nation. After Haq had been killed in a plane crash in 1988, the blasphemy laws underwent a further amendment in 1992, when Nawaz Sharif’s government was in power. Here, the penalty for transgressing 295-C was changed to a mandatory death sentence.

Introducing the compulsory death penalty turned the blasphemy laws into a powerful weapon for the settling of personal grudges. So far, judges have thrown out the cases where people (almost all Christians) have been accused of insulting the “Holy Prophet,” but lives have been ruined. People who have been acquitted of breaching 295-C have been forced into hiding, and some have been shot dead at the courthouses which acquitted them. People have been killed in custody, and it was a case of a Christian woman sentenced to death that led to the recent concerns about the blasphemy laws in Pakistan. Shahbaz Bhatti was killed for campaigning to change the laws after Aasia Bibi, a Christian woman, had been sentenced to death for insulting the “Holy Prophet” on November 8 last year. Only last month, another politician had been shot dead for demanding that the law be changed after he felt moral outrage at the unjust treatment of Aasia Bibi.

Aasia worked on a farm belonging to a Muslim, and on June 19, 2009 she had been arrested after a conversation she had had with fellow farm-workers. Aasia had then said that Christ was the true prophet of God and was still alive. For this, she was threatened with being publicly humiliated in her village, and then she was arrested and accused of breaching 295-C. For orthodox Muslims, Mohammed is regarded as the last prophet of God. Because Aasia Bibi’s declaration was fully in keeping with the traditions of Christian theology, the decision to sentence her to death for blaspheming against Islam’s brand-name-only- accept-no-other “Holy Prophet” was seen as an act of undiluted aggression – aggression against an innocent woman and against all members of Pakistan’s oppressed Christian community.

Salman Taseer (pictured above) was the governor of Punjab province, where Aasia Bibi, had lived. He campaigned for the blasphemy laws to be changed after Aasia’s conviction. On Wednesday January 5, 2011 he was shot 29 times in the back by one of his own bodyguards, a man called Mumtaz Qadri. The attacker immediately admitted his part in the assassination.

The murder of Salman Taseer was described by Rashed Rahman, writing in the Pakistan Daily Times as follows:

“The whole country has been shaken and sent into new depths of depression and gloom by the assassination of Governor Punjab and publisher of Daily Times Salmaan Taseer. A man of conviction and courage, Salmaan Taseer was gunned down by one of his own Elite Police Force guards. The assassin, after the dastardly deed, surrendered to police. He has stated that he had killed Governor Salmaan Taseer because he had called the Blasphemy Law a black law.

The incident shows that the fanatical mindset has now permeated broad sections of our society. The governor’s defence of Aasia Bibi, a Christian woman sentenced to death by a lower court on an alleged charge of blasphemy evoked the religious lobby to condemn him. Fatwas were issued calling for his death, and many of our ‘heroes’ of the electronic media joined the chorus of condemnation of the Governor for his bold stand in defence of a poor, helpless Christian woman. Much food for thought here for those still capable of thinking in our increasingly irrational society…”

Rashed Rahman had written the above words immediately after the assassination. Few people in the West were prepared to see Taseer’s killer fêted as a hero of Islam for committing murder. When Mumtaz Qadri arrived at court to be charged for the murder, lawyers had gathered to praise him and to shower him with rose petals. In Pakistan’s National Assembly, no prayers were offered for Taseer, either through contempt for him, or for fear of antagonizing Islamist fanatics. Qadri’s lawyer, Rao Abdul Raheem, argued that he had acted within the law and was immune from prosecution, saying:

“…Qadri has not done anything prohibited by law, but in fact, law was not being enforced because of Article 248 of the Constitution, according to which a governor cannot be prosecuted.”

After Taseer was killed, only two politicians remained who were still campaigning for the blasphemy laws to be changed. Sherry Rahman was one, Shahbaz Bhatti was the other. Sherry Rahman, a woman member of the National Assembly, had said:

“There’s a very clear and present danger to the fabric and soul of Pakistan. The kind of country we want to live in, if we are not up to strategize and face up to this very existential threat, I think that that will swallow us whole eventually.”

Sherry Rahman received so many threats of death, she capitulated to Islamists’ demands shortly after the murder of Salman Taseer. Even though she abandoned her campaign to change the blasphemy laws, she is still forced to live under heavy protection.

Shahbaz Bhatti was aware of his possible fate. He had said:

“I am receiving threats on speaking against the blasphemy law, but my faith gives me strength and we will not allow the handful of extremists to fulfill their agenda.”

With Bhatti now gone, there is no-one within Pakistan’s political establishment with the moral courage or the will to stand up to extremist Muslims and dare to challenge the blasphemy laws.

In America, Hillary Clinton said she was “outraged” by Shahbaz Bhatti’s murder, claiming it was an attack against “toleration and respect.”

America has not helped Pakistan by giving it the billions of dollars that is has received since the nation has been co-opted into assisting in the War on Terror. The state of Pakistan’s education is appalling. In the tribal areas adjoining Afghanistan few children get an education, and girls are rarely given education opportunities.

With no proper education, it is easy for religious fanatics to spread their hate. Many poor families send their children to madrassas, not because these religious schools offer anything of value (other than recitations of the Koran) but because the children at such schools get a free meal.

The billions that have been thrown at Pakistan have not been used to assist the poorest members of Pakistan’s society. Instead of using the wealth drawn from American tax-payers to foster social improvements, the government of Pakistan is currently embarking on a massive increase of its nuclear weapons program.

American officials should look beyond the obvious ironies of a nation that refuses to afford food and education to its poorest members while working on developing bomb-grade plutonium for a new class of nuclear weapons. The Pakistan government has squandered billions of dollars in American aid, and is still a third world nation with no protection for its minorities. It cannot even protect politicians who speak up against intolerance.

Pakistan’s intelligence service ISI is corrupt to the core, and during the years of Musharraf this agency was said to be responsible for the disappearances of numerous individuals. The ISI helped to form the Taliban in Afghanistan and still maintains close relations with the Taliban.

Pakistan refuses to disclose its exact number of nuclear weapons (though it is estimated to have around 100) and will not allow their location to be known to the Americans. With no inspection of its weapons, it is impossible to know if these are “secure.” Should Pakistan become further destabilized by Islamists, it could become possible for Pakistani nuclear weaponry to end up in the hands of Iran.

Raymond Davis is an American diplomat who shot at two men on a motorcycle who were pointing guns at him in Lahore, Punjab province. This took place at the end of January. The Obama administration later admitted that Davis is a CIA man. Instead of granting him diplomatic immunity, President Zardari of Pakistan has claimed that Mr. Davis fate be decided by the courts. The courts have upheld that Davis has no diplomatic immunity, but so far, he has not been charged and remains in custody. Pakistan has apparently offered to free Davis, but only on the condition that America should free convicted terrorist Aafia Siddiqui, who was jailed for 86 years in September 2010.

The Davis incident incited anger in Pakistan, and increased resentment of America. If American funds had been spent by previous Pakistani governments upon improving the lives and conditions of its citizens (and if the U.S. had made sure these funds were spent wisely), America might be viewed with more respect.

The current American administration’s policy of using drones to send missiles upon suspected hideouts are further dividing the people and government of Pakistan from America. This policy has increased dramatically under the leadership of President Obama, encouraged by Richard Holbrooke. Even after Holbrooke’s death, the drone strikes continue, contributing nothing to making America appear “benign” to people in the borderlands where such attacks are carried out.

The relationship between Pakistan and America is a tenuous one. Pakistan is led by a weak leadership, one that is too fearful of Islamists to act decisively against the Jamaat ud Dawa group, which carried out the Mumbai attack. Hafiz Saeed, the founder of the Jamaat ud-Dawa group (who also founded the terrorist group Lashkar e-Taiba or LeT) walks around with impunity. In February, Hafiz Saeed even threatened to make war on neighboring India. The authorities in Punjab province, where he is based, appear too frightened (or sympathetic) to deal with Saeed’s blatant disregard for the law.

The murder of Shahbaz Bhatti is a further sign that Pakistan’s administration is powerless to protect one of its own from Islamist aggression. Shahbaz Bhatti had repeatedly asked the government for a bulletproof car, but had been turned down.

Ali Asif Zardari, the president and head of the PPP party, claimed that his party would uphold the rights of minorities. He added:

“Our national response is and will continue to calculate, deliberate and measure the mindset that promotes and nurtures violence in the country behind the façade of religion.”

Zardari is regarded with suspicion by many Pakistanis, and he and his late wife Benazir Bhutto were tainted by accusations of corruption. Pakistan’s prime minister Yousaf Raza Gilani said of Bhatti’s murder that terrorism and extremism were bringing a bad name to Islam. Such statements mean nothing to the Islamist parties and their supporters, who wish to impose non-democratic sharia law upon Pakistan.

The Islamists are in the shadows, threatening to cause disruption. Lawyers support murder, terrorists are allowed to preach and intimidate.

Recently, America has lost control of most of its allies in the Middle East. Pakistan is one nation where there could be some hope for establishing a positive relationship. However, the leadership of Pakistan is weak, lacking in popularity and unable to present an image of vigor and dynamism, and the same could be said for America’s current administration.

Unless both sides attempt to improve their relationship with the people on the ground, Pakistan could become subsumed by extremism. If that should happen, not only will the people of Pakistan suffer, so will the American administration. And the world could become an infinitely more dangerous place.

The Editor, Family Security Matters