approvedc: TouaregVr6
From: "sarnews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: GoaNet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Pakistan blasphemy laws -- state willing, political flesh weak
Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 09:28:15 +0530

SAR News May 21, 2002
Pakistan Blasphemy Laws: State Willing, Political Flesh Weak

By Robin Fernandez

Marginalised communities are often disappointed by the inadequate legislative 
protection given to them by governments. Their lobbying attempts to enlarge the legal 
umbrella that barely covers their heads are doomed from the start. The State is 
willing but the political flesh is weak. Perhaps in no place is that more apparent 
than in Pakistan where the majority of Muslims do recognise the need to protect 
Christians and other religious minorities from discriminatory laws.

But the Government is paralysed by fear of what it has identified as far-right 
extremists. A small illustration of their grip on the power levers came in May 2000 
when no less a person than military ruler, General Pervez Musharraf, announced the 
withdrawal of a proposed amendment to the blasphemy law. (Musharraf had earlier 
offered to revise clause 295-C of the penal code which deals with blasphemy).

Christians in Pakistan, as a matter of principle, are not opposed to the original 1860 
penal code clauses of 295 and 298, both of which are intended to prevent religiously 
motivated violence and hate crimes. Nor do they dispute the efficacy of the 1927 
amendment to clause 295 incorporated as 295-A which reads: "Whoever, with deliberate 
and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of 
citizens...by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, insults 
the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with 
imprisonment...for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

Their grouse lies mainly with the legal insertions made by the late military ruler 
Zia-ul-Haq in the 1980s. These amendments, introduced as 298-A, 295-B and 295-C, for 
one, do not mention malicious intent to rake up religious sensitivities as a condition 
for an action amounting to criminal offence. They also prescribe stiffer penalties for 
blasphemy and focus almost exclusively on the religious sentiments of Muslims, instead 
of "any class of people."

In 1990, the Federal Shariat Court upheld the punishment recommended for blasphemy 
under clause 295-C. It ruled that the only punishment available for anyone convicted 
of blasphemy is death.

Christians have argued in vain on two counts. They say that no member of their 
community would ever willfully insult or defile the name of Prophet Muhammad or any of 
his companions. Nor would they ever malign Islam or rebuke adherents of the Muslim 
faith. Their community leaders say they merely want the Government to prevent people 
from lodging false blasphemy cases against non-Muslims.

Lawyers say the country's blasphemy laws have all too often been invoked for the 
purpose of grabbing prized land, settling personal scores and eliminating competition 
for lucrative posts. The human rights watchdog, Amnesty International, lists yet 
another cause: "Charges against Ahmadis (an Islamic sect) and Christians appear to 
have been brought solely because of their membership in these minority groups." While 
this is undeniable in several cases, one must differentiate between the obscurantists 
and the moderates, and the literate and the uneducated - a distinction that was first 
made by senior administration officials following last September's terror attacks on 
the United States.

The intolerance for which the Muslims of Pakistan are blamed stems from a fringe 
fundamentalist element. So the State or Government, instead of its powerless masses, 
is obliged to tame the obscurantists and take concrete measures to protect religious 
minorities.

Apart from throwing into prison dozens of people, the controversial amendments in the 
penal code have claimed an important life. Bishop John Joseph, the first native 
Punjabi bishop, committed suicide in May 1998 to protest against the death penalty 
awarded to a Christian youth for blasphemy.

One of the noticeable trends emerging from the misuse of blasphemy laws is the fact 
that the average victim - in the case of Christians especially - is disadvantaged, 
barely literate and resident of a rural town in Punjab or Sindh. This is again proof 
that discriminatory laws are far more menacing to the poor.

Thus it falls upon the Government to create legal structures to protect the poor and 
the defenceless. Human-rights activists believe the charge of blasphemy ought to be 
thoroughly examined before criminal prosecution can get underway. In most of the cases 
documented by human rights organisations, the complainant himself is the sole witness 
to the act of blasphemy that could include desecration of the Koran and insulting or 
defiling the name of the prophet Muhammad. The verbal testimony thereof is rarely 
corroborated by other sources. By the time court proceedings are instituted, however, 
more witnesses mysteriously step forward.

It is not uncommon for the judge hearing the case or the defence lawyer to receive 
death threats. Often mobs are seen assembled outside courthouses hearing blasphemy 
cases, as if to reinforce the message that they would not accept anything less than a 
conviction. Other intimidatory tactics usually follow.

Against this background, 30-year-old Ayub Masih was sentenced to death by a court in 
Sahiwal two years ago. The deceased bishop of Faisalabad, Bishop John Joseph, fought 
off the blasphemy allegation against Ayub. The charge was in fact motivated by a 
dispute over land allotment for Christian families. Once the blasphemy charges were 
filed against Ayub, several Christian families that hoped to win land under a 
government programme for the landless peasants were beaten and forcibly evicted. Ayub 
is still in prison since the appeals filed against his sentencing are pending.

Beyond mere appeasement of religious minorities is the possible measure of widening 
the scope of the blasphemy law, making it a punishable offence to malign religious 
personages of all other faiths. That is likely to heal many of the long-festering 
wounds of the minorities, and ensure that their religious sentiments are accorded the 
respect they deserve. END


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-W-E-B---S-I-T-E-=-=-=
 To Subscribe/Unsubscribe from GoaNet  |  http://www.goacom.com/goanet
===================================================================
 For (un)subscribing or for help, Contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Dont want so many e=mails?  Join GoaNet-Digest instead !
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Help support non-commercial projects in Goa by advertizing!!
        *               *               *               *
                        Your ad here !!

Reply via email to