EDITORIAL: War of words

The war of words between PML-N chief Mian Nawaz Sharif and PPP chairperson and president of Pakistan Asif Ali Zardari is hotting up. After Nawaz Sharif made a frontal assault on the government for corruption, misgovernance, failure of the military and intelligence agencies in discharging their duties during a public meeting in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, President Zardari paid him back in the same coin. He accused Nawaz Sharif of trying to pit the PPP against the military and creating rifts within the army. It did not end here, as the PML-N retaliated and accused Zardari of being a military apologist. The substance of their arguments notwithstanding, the language employed by the leaders of the two mainstream parties has embarrassed many. It is sad to see that the national political discourse has dropped to the level of personal attacks. While criticising the government is the right of the opposition, mud-slinging and name-calling do not behove the heads of political parties. Although Asif Ali Zardari was speaking as chairperson of his party, he must remember that he is also the president of Pakistan and by making such remarks, he has lowered the dignity of his office, which represents the federation of Pakistan and is supposed to be politically impartial. What kind of example are these leaders setting for the rest of the politicians and their own party cadre?

As for the substance of the allegations and verbal attacks, what has most piqued the PPP chairperson and the military is Nawaz Sharif’s calling for accountability of the armed forces. He went so far as to suggest that the intelligence agencies, instead of doing any good, have destroyed the country. While one might not disagree with the essence of his argument, but to present it in the manner in which he did was not at all desirable. However, there is a need to see whether it was Nawaz Sharif who has whipped up this controversy about the role of the security forces or was merely reflecting a sentiment that already exists. The truth is that large sections of society share Nawaz Sharif’s sentiments. Regrettably, the security forces have themselves contributed to this controversy through a series of recent events: Abbottabad, PNS Mehran Airbase attack, Kharotabad, Saleem Shahzad’s murder and the Rangers’ killing of a boy in Karachi. These were not one-time slips but manifestations of the gradual decline in the professionalism of the security forces that has been in process for a long time. The security establishment is visibly shaken by the barrage of criticism it has recently received at home and abroad. However, instead of shooting the messenger, as it did in the case of journalist Saleem Shahzad, who revealed the infiltration of al Qaeda in the Pakistan Navy’s ranks in his reports, it needs to address the concerns being raised by various quarters.

In the middle of the struggle against terrorism, the intelligence agencies and the military deserve support, but in return they must be above board and highly professional. Therefore, they should concentrate on the message of this diatribe being directed at them perhaps for the first time since the secession of East Pakistan. Public confidence in the protectors and defenders of the nation is of utmost importance, particularly in the current circumstances when the security forces are up against a formidable enemy that has declared war on the state. They cannot fight this war without public support and due respect for the job they are performing. If the security personnel who are being killed every other day in attacks across the country are lampooned and viewed as being part of some murky game, how can we expect them to put in their best effort? Therefore, it is important for the security bosses to address the criticism and take credible measures to remove the grievances against them. *

SECOND EDITORIAL: The blasphemy controversy

The ominous spectre of blasphemy has raised its head yet again. A judge of the lower courts in Talagang has sentenced a man to death for the alleged crime of ‘blasphemy’. One can never definitely say that blasphemy has been committed because a) what constitutes blasphemy has not been outlined clearly in our laws — it can be anything from a torn page of the Quran to the throwing into the trash of a business card — and b) the alleged blasphemous material can never be revealed even in court because that would be considered blasphemy. In this case, the accused has been sentenced to the gallows for sending ‘blasphemous’ text messages via his mobile phone. The complaint was made by the man who was on the receiving end of these texts from an unknown number. The police was brought into immediate action: they formed a special inquiry committee and, with permission from the home department, traced the mobile number to a Mr Abdul Sattar in Larkana after which they wasted no time in arresting him. Such efficiency is extremely out of character for our police.

The courts also take on blasphemy cases with the kind of zeal and fervour we wish they had for other cases. However, the trajectory that Pakistan has been on for the last few decades shows how almost all alleged cases of blasphemy, whether they make it to the courts or not, almost always end in violence. The most recent blasphemy case to gain media attention was that of Aasia Bibi, a poor Christian woman also sentenced to death and sympathy for whom got Governor Punjab Salmaan Taseer killed and Minorities Minister Shahbaz Bhatti assassinated, both by religious zealots. The ‘crime’ of blasphemy was made punishable by death by General Ziaul Haq in 1982; since then the mere insinuation of a blasphemy charge has seen many of the accused (still to be proved guilty) murdered in cold blood, judges who acquit the accused gunned down and mobs inciting violence against entire communities without even a shred of evidence. This radical mindset has infiltrated the courts, police and citizenry as a whole; is it any surprise then that even text messages can land you with a death sentence?

The blasphemy law has long been used as a tool for victimisation and injustice. If one wants a rival or ‘obstacle’ out of the way, a simple accusation of blasphemy is more than enough to achieve that nefarious end. For the sake of the many more actual or potential victims who are out there, if this law cannot be repealed it must at least be reformed to prevent continuation of injustice. Too many people have been made scapegoats for this not to invite serious contemplation. *