Paralysis of Governance?
By Karamatullah K. Ghori
Toronto, CA

 

The burning, in a public square of Sialkot, of the corpse of the Sri Lankan manager, Priyantha Kumara—after the frenzied mob had lynched him to death—was reminiscent of the dark Middle Ages in Europe. That’s exactly how the Catholic zealots of Spain would burn their Muslim or Jewish quarries to death at the stack during the Era of Persecution.

The bestiality of blood-curdling mob execution of the hapless Sri Lankan in Sialkot may well have moved the bar of barbaric vigilantism in Pakistan several notches up. However, this kind of lawlessness—with people arrogating to themselves the right to condemn their quarry, or quarries, to horrific death at their hands—isn't new. It has been going on for years, with obvious impunity in the garb of protecting the honor of Islam and its Holy Messenger (PBUH).

It can’t be denied that the sanctified law of Blasphemy has given free vent to vigilantism in a societal milieu that’s fundamentally feudal in nature. It has been used by all and sundry to settle personal grudges and exact vendettas in the garb of protecting the sanctity of Islam. One can rattle off case after case, some of which attracted more media and public attention than others. To quote just one incident, the murderer of Punjab Governor, Salman Taseer—a man by the name of Mumtaz Qadri became a public hero for his heinous crime. His funeral—after his hanging—attracted not only unlettered masses but also known figures of Pakistani intelligentsia. His grave was quickly turned into a shrine.

Which forces one to reason that vigilantism has been fed in the country as much by a narrow and archaic interpretation of religious dogma as by failure of the society to condemn it as reprehensible and unacceptable. Except for a few lonely voices of those who can plumb the depth of social depredation that this kind of free-wheeling vigilantism is promoting, the deafening silence of the so-called ‘silent majority’ has instilled among the rowdy vigilantes that they can do what they want, with the assurance that they will not be held accountable.

But more than the lamb-like silence of the country’s majority population, it’s the apathy of the ruling elite that has been a huge factor in galvanizing the perpetrators of vigilantism.

Every successive government since General Pervez Musharraf has deemed it wise to sue for peace with the religious rabble using their street power to challenge the writ of the state. Musharraf, in 2007, was the lone exception. He had the gall and the grit to call the bluff of the radical mullahs, who had turned Islamabad’s famous ‘Lal Masjid’ into a well-armed fortress and were defiantly challenging the writ of the state, right into the heart of the capital city. But Musharraf’s action to thwart the radicals’ challenge was checkmated, subsequently, by the country’s higher judiciary, for reasons of their own.

No government, since then, has shown any backbone to beat the purveyors of vigilantism—masqueraded as ‘defenders of the faith’--at their nefarious game of open blackmail of the state apparatus. Every civilian government, succeeding Musharraf, has deemed it politically expedient—besides being convenient—to bargain with the pseudo-religious radical blackmailers to gain breathing space and some momentary advantage.

The incumbent government of Imran Khan (IK) has surpassed all previous governments in shamelessly surrendering to the arm-twisting and blackmail of the radical religious factions, in particular to the diktat of Tehreek Labbaik Pakistan (TLP).

In the humiliating process of suing for peace with TLP, IK’s government has exposed its susceptibility to blackmail. Earlier this year, IK’s government had declared TLP a terrorist outfit and incarcerated its leader. But when TLP organized yet another of its raucous march of zealots toward Islamabad, the government capitulated to the blackmail without any semblance of resistance. TLP was taken off the terrorist list, allowed to function as a regular political party and all its confederates—who were guilty of murdering half-a-dozen policemen in Lahore—were set free.

Also set free, honorably, was TLP’s leader, Saad Rizvi, whose release from prison in Lahore was celebrated by his aficionados as a ‘victory march.’ And why shouldn’t they be jubilant on their ‘achievement’? With their street- tactics they had brought IK’s much-trumpeted ‘New Pakistan’ to its feet. The icing on the cake was the congratulatory visit of the ruling PTI’s Senator Aijaz Chaudhry to the sanctum of Saad Rizvi. The Senator garlanded the rabble rouser and hailed his release from prison.

One shouldn’t be surprised that the ghastly Sialkot incident—in which hundreds of ‘defenders of faith’ burnt the corpse of their Sri Lankan victim at the pyre—followed quickly on the heels of TLP’s supremo’s release from prison. The Sialkot vigilantes wanted, perhaps, to present their head-honcho with the trophy of the slain Sri Lankan.

It doesn’t take a genius to surmise that vigilantes, garbed as ‘defenders of faith’ have taken their frequent triumphs over a weak and wobbly government to heart. Why should they be constrained from indulging in their melee of mayhem when they have the assurance that the law of the land wouldn’t dare challenge them on their chosen turf.

Following the barbaric murder of the Sri Lankan manager in Sialkot, both the civil and military leaderships have ticked off all the regular boxes of issuing stereotyped statements—such as, none would be allowed to challenge the writ of the state et al.

But the writ of the state has been made into a laughing stock by the weakness of governance. Regular failure of the state to checkmate the dastardly vigilantism of radical religious right—and the gangs of murderers and arsonists at their beck and call—has emboldened those elements who think they are a law unto themselves.

IK may have had the reputation of a firm and resolute ‘kaptan’ when he was calling the shots on the cricket field. But on the more daunting and demanding political turf, his performance as a leader has been far from resolute or firm. Other than coming up with paper threats in his tweets—which he never fails to fire off whenever an occurrence may so demand—IK has been at sea as far as firm and resolute action against challengers to his writ is concerned.

The rot, of vigilantism, will not go away as long as the rabble is smug with its assessment that it’s up against a weak and irresolute government that will cause them no harm.

IK will have to stiffen his backbone and tone up his governance to take on the religious fascists firmly and resolutely. The menace must be dealt with an iron hand. Does IK have, in him, what is demanded by a situation becoming critical by the day and spinning out of control?

It’s not only his political future at stake but—let there be no second-guessing of it—the stability of the State of Pakistan is under assault. - k_k_ghori@hotmail.com

 

(The author is a former ambassador and career diplomat)