Naeem Shakir

Religious extremism has played havoc in our society. It has defiled democratic institutions, mutilated our present Constitution, created law & order situation, seriously impaired human values and has been responsible for the cause of thousands of causalities. Religion has undoubtedly played a vital role in human development, however, the element of extremism has generated ill will, hatred violence, prejudices and resultantly disturbed the whole social fabric. Because of the prevailing socio-political conditions what we lack most is the socio-religious harmony in our society.

The administrators of our state and its organs have used religion for their malafide designs to consolidate their otherwise weak position. By over awing with their religious decrees, they silence peoples to justify obedience. This phenomenon has caused immense degeneration in our society. It has hot only arrested the process of polemics but has retarded the process of social progress. The abuse of religion and the element of extremism therein has promoted religious fundamentalism which has sapped the very vitals of our society.

Though, practically all the organs of the state have sustained tremendous loss, but when the element of extremism creeps in the organ of the state which is supposed to be the custodian of the Constitution, and to administer justice i.e. the Judiciary, that demonstrate that religious extremism and fundamentalism has grown beyond proportions.

A speech delivered by Justice Mian Nazir Akhtar of Lahore High Court during an international Seerat Conference on 4 September 1999, and as reported in the press, certainly would provide a cause of alarm to those who believe in the rule of law and more particularly those who adhere: to Article 4 of the country's Constitution which provide the inalienable right of every citizen to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law. The published statement made by Justice Nazir Akhtar opposed blasphemy law being on the statute book as he considered that the blassphemer should be killed on the spot. Meaning thereby, an accused of blasphemy does not deserve any trial or that he be immediately punished without due process of law. There have been statements of resentment in the press. The office of the Chief Justice Lahore High Court has said that the statement of the judge had been misinterpreted.

There has been another statement by the head of Namoos-e-Mustafa Action Committee, which controverts the statement of the judge having not been made so.

Incidentally I have known the honorable judge as member of the bar and the bench for more than two decades. Even if he had said so, it would not have surprised me because he is known to be rigidly religious. As I know him I must say he is an honest evangelist. Though, he himself has not come forward to deny the statement attributed to him, the same has been denied by the office of the Chief Justice. Therefore, it should be taken positively. I am inclined to believe so because as a judge of the superior court he has acted otherwise. In a case titled "Riaz Ahmed versus State reported in PLD 1994 Lahore Page 485, while refusing bail to an Ahmedi under section 295-C of Pakistan Penal Code, Justice Nazir Akhtar while agreeing to the author of the judgment of the full bench (Justice Khalil-ur-Rehman Khan) was pleased to attach his note which is produced as under:

"The provisions of section 295-C of the PPC have made it possible' to bring the culprits to book through the judicial process and has set a trend in the society to resort to the law. The registration of a criminal case under the above-referred section of the Pakistan Penal Code provides a lease of life to an accused with full opportunity to defend himself in a Court of law through a counsel of his choice and in case of conviction, to avail of the remedies of appeal, revision etc. in the higher Courts. No person, much less a Muslim, can 'possibly oppose this law as it curtails arbitrariness. and promotes the rule of law. If the provisions of section 295-C' of the PPC are repealed or declared to be ultra vires to Constitution, the time old method of doing away with the culprits at the spot would stand revived".

However, there are other statements of religious leaders who have eulogized the judge for coming out courageously with a firm stand that an accused of blasphemy did not deserve any sympathy and ought to be killed and punished on the spot without trial. I am reminded of the day when newspapers carried the news about the gruesome murder of Naimat Ahmar, a Christian post-graduate teacher-poet by a young killer of an extreme religious organisation.

He was garlanded while in police custody and later in jail by religious extremists who congratulated him for having won heavens for himself for killing a blasphemer on the spot.

It would not be out of place to mention here that no case had been registered for blasphemy against Naimat Ahmar. He was butchered in the broad daylight on January 6, 1992 while on duty in the office of District Education Officer Faisalabad. The killer acted on hearsay, as he himself had not heard him uttering blasphemons words. One Tamir Iqbal, and invalid whose lower portion of the body had totally paralyzed and used wheel chair was accused of blasphemy. Despite his serious physical disability he was refused bail and remained in jail for one year eight month and 14 days till he died in dubious circumstances in the jail. The deceased had alarmed the authorities including Home Secretary, I.G. Prisons and Superintendent Jail much before his death that a conspiracy was being hatched by the religions extremists to kill him in jail. And that proved true.

In other case of blasphemy when three accused (Salamat, Rehmat and Manzoor) left my office after Court proceedings, a volley of bullets of lethal weapons were sprayed on them, killing Manzoor Masih on the spot while the other two along with their escort received multiple grievous injuries but praise to the timely medicL aid of the doctors who miraculously saved their lives. The Lahore High Court. acquitted them of the charge. The two surviving accused however had to flee from the country for fear of the religions extremists. Likewise Gull Masih was accused of blasphemy who was acquitted by the High Court for it was a case of no evidence. He also had to leave the country as the religious extremists had issued religious decree to kill him. I know all these cases as I have served as a defense counsel.

During the trial or no trial of all these accused, there was only one voice from the extremist lobby that these persons must be sent to gallows. They were against their trial. They demanded. immediate execution. They even posed threats to their defense lawyers. The wave of extremism working in them did not allow them to remain normal and balanced_. They are not prepared to listen to any voice, which proposes normalcy, a balance and a dialogue. Perhaps none amongst them was a witness to the occurrence of alleged commission of blasphemy:

Religious doctrines and issues are important and sensitive in nature. These should be handled with utmost care and tolerance. The extremist elements are unmindful of the fact that their evangelism is tainted with militancy and belligerency which is certainly opposed to the faith they profess. Islam is an evangelical religion but abhors compulsion and oppressive modes of invitation to the creed. Therefore the voices of extremism must not be ignored by all those who work for human values and for peace and amity amongst people.

The case of Justice Rana Bhagwan Dass of Sindh High Court is another example of extremism. It rather crudely demonstrates the element of vested interest for which religion is being abused. The lapses and failures are being philosophised in a religious fashion. A commercial company after loosing its case before a division bench or Justice Sabhi-ud-din and Justice Bhagwan Dass, instituted a Constitutional Petition challenging the very appointment of Rana Bhagwan Dass as Judge of the Sind High Court and thus impugned the competency of the division bench to pass adverse orders against it. The claim in the petition being put forth is that Rana Bhagwan pass being a Hindu - a non Muslim cannot be a judge of a Court in this Islamic Republic of Pakistan. A full bench of the Court has been constituted to adjudicate upon the crucial issue, whether a non-Muslim citizen can be appointed a judge in the state of Pakistan. Without commenting further (as the matter is subjudice) we may visualise the stage of extremism that we have reached at.

Who amongst the managers of the state will have the courage to be honest enough to speak out the truth that we as a nation are treading over an uncivilized and perilous path about which the father of the nation Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad All Jinnah categorically forbade us to use. The Quaid in an unequivocal manner declared that Pakistan would not be a theocratic state. Good will, tolerance, honesty, unity; peace and prosperity are the cherished goals of all nations; Let we also cherish and achieve those as otherwise we all will perish.