Since the judicial inquiry has been unable to identify people responsible, it is time we step forward. We killed Saleem Shahzad. If you read the report carefully, it lays the blame on us. It blames us for doubting the country’s intelligence agencies for the murder of a journalist, because of course, they can never be held in doubt, let alone be responsible, or worse be at fault.

Let me explain: the most consistent feature of the report is perhaps the way in which it attacks Ali Dayan Hasan, of Human Rights Watch (HRW), and Hameed Haroon for being responsible for ‘casting’ doubts on the country’s intelligence agency. Following the failure of the judicial commission in identifying culprits involved in Saleem Shahzad’s murder, the HRW released a report, demanding the government to take every step possible to identify the culprits and that the judicial commission appeared fearful of confronting the ISI.

The claims of the HRW aren’t unsubstantiated and it has documented these incidents. They can be substantiated by the stories of the missing people, the condition of the Adiala eleven detainees; there are innumerable instances to support these claims. Yet, instead of taking note of the concerns of human rights organisations, The ISPR did what it always does most effectively, demonise the critic, cast doubt on their integrity and — in this instance ­— resort to not-so-veiled threats. Its press release said: “With this press release, HRW appears to have seriously jeopardised the bipartisan and objective nature of its work. It will be in fitness of things to expect HRW to withdraw this biased statement…”

Not denying its right to refute claims alleging the ISI’s involvement, the harsh language and the demand of withdrawal reflects uneasiness and anger of being held accountable or criticised. The situation begs to ask a simple question: If a man leaves a note naming people responsible in case of his death, is abducted and killed in a pattern known to be signatory of the accused, and a judicial inquiry fails to name the culprit, what are human rights activists, people in general or the media supposed to deduce?

The fact that a culture of complete lack of accountability of certain institutions is perhaps responsible for the perception that there is more to it than meets the eye in the case of the murdered journalist. Now, if those who brought forward evidence of harassment are being held responsible, we must step forward and accept equal responsibility. We are at fault, for not demanding that the ISI focus on counter terrorism and intelligence, rather than chasing journalists and human right activists, and for always believing and helping propagate the fallacy that demanding accountability is akin to demonising our soldiers and overlooking their sacrifices, and for not questioning when we ought to be and for isolating those that do.

The light is at the end of the tunnel is a deception unless we own up to our mistakes and vow to mend them.

If the guns are being blazed at human rights activists and media heads for helping the judicial inquiry with the evidence they had, if their integrity is being put at stake, if they are being blamed for seeking justice, then the least we can do is support them, step up, lest they be isolated.

Published in The Express Tribune, February 19^th, 2012.

Intentional offense is reprehensible, justifying it in the name of freedom of expression even more so. Freedom of expression doesn’t absolve anyone from being despicable, derogatory or provocative.

Let’s begin with establishing the fact that Terry Jones is desperate to any kind of publicity. Jones’s entire campaign stems from his blind hatred and prejudice towards Islam. In other words — Islamophobia. Like a yearly ritual, this year’s Islamophobic offering was served when Jones decided to burn the Holy Quran, which in his words is the “root cause of all evil”.

Last year, when the campaign to draw a cartoon of the Holy Prophet (pbuh) caused uproar, many of us felt the best way was to not succumb to provocation. That didn’t go well with most; hence it caused an uproar resulting in a blanket ban of the internet (almost). But did that stop the campaign? No it didn’t, it did however gave it more publicity.

In the aftermath of Jones deplorable publicity stunt, 22 people lost their lives — seven of them were members of the UN working in Afghanistan. They were hunted down and, at least, three of them were beheaded. In Pakistan, three churches have been attacked in less than a week. Even more despicable is the recent incident of the defiling of a Bible as a ‘response’ to Jones.

The Christian community in Pakistan is being attacked because of the actions of a delusional pastor from Florida. Jones’ desecration of the Holy Quran is outrageous, an inadmissible provocation and therefore condemnable. It is noteworthy that the Christian community in Pakistan were amongst the first to denounce Jones actions and protested against it with Muslim and religious parties. Despite an open condemnation by the Christian community, churches across Punjab have been attacked.

But why is it so hard for some to understand that one man’s ill doing doesn’t warrant discrimination and persecution of an entire community? The dilemma of Christians at risk of facing retaliation due to Jones action, is quite similar to what Muslims and Pakistani’s have been facing. For many years now, Muslims across the world have been fighting off stereotypes that paint them as terrorists and claim that Islam is a violent religion. The battle to rid ourselves from the actions of a certain group of Muslims, who choose to be violent, is a battle we fight every single day. Therefore, if anyone can understand the plight of the Christians today, it is the Muslim community, especially Pakistanis at large, irrespective of religion.

Jones doesn’t represent the Christian community; he represents a vicious cycle of Islamophobia that is virulent. The real dilemma then is how to best respond to such provocations. It’s easier to suggest “let’s not get worked up over this” and clearly any attempt at that has not been working too well. While we can’t take away someone’s right to be angered by, or protest, a certain incident, we can however suggest ways in which these protests can be made more meaningful rather than counterproductive. It’s not a battle that can be fought by the Muslims alone. Islamophobia is not only limited to attempts to malign Islam and target Muslims, but is also an exploitation of freedom of expression. Therefore it is a fight for all irrespective of ideological affiliations.

We can begin by not letting a mad act exploit the rights of our minorities. For Muslims, it would be most fitting to understand that when a delusional man like Jones pulls off a stunt, vandalising the Holy Quran, he does so with an intention to provoke. Succumbing to his provocation is only going to fuel the inferno of hate.

Those attacking minorities are not only insulting the teachings of the Holy Quran, but are also reaffirming the allegations made by people like Jones.

When critics of Islam depict it as a ‘violent religion’, the tendency to react violently lends credence to the very characterisation being protesting against. We must condemn this outrageous act by standing with our Christian community in denouncing a man masquerading hate in the name of religion.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 12^th, 2011.

In the cases of both, the murder of Salmaan Taseer and that of Shahbaz Bhatti, the murder itself was committed in broad daylight, it was televised and documented. We know them and their supporters. We know them by their names. Our silence now will only mean more blood.

Citizens for Democracy (CFD), a group comprising civil society members organised shortly after Taseer’s assassination, has stepped up to call for action. Their demands are simple: Upholding of rule of law; arrest and punishment to murderers of both Taseer and Bhatti; and no to intimidation. A letter campaign recently arranged by CFD members managed to get 15,000 people to sign a petition to the chief justice, the prime minister and heads of all political parties to take action against the brutal murders. This is perhaps the largest number of people that have showed their support with regards to this issue.

Criticism is inevitable. In this case, it is the question of a petition being the solution to our arduous problems. It’s true, a petition is not the only solution. It is, however, an initiation point for a much bigger action plan. These 15,000 people defied all labels and cliches. It was not about the liberals or the conservatives, but about Pakistanis uniting against violence and fear. It is symbolic of the fact that, contrary to popular perception, we are not a nation of vigilantes. The atmosphere of intimidation can only be countered by courage.

The next thing now is to strategise a way forward. We understand that it is zeal that gives the extremists an upper hand, and to counter that we must identify our driving force. Our support system is then our political parties. Much of the criticism after the assassinations has been aimed at the PPP, when, in fact, all political parties need to step up to the crisis. The assassinations are not just displays of vigilantism and lack of security but most of all they show is a failure of governance.

In fact, the PML-N needs more of our attention for it’s failure to counter hate campaigns against minorities in Punjab.

This brings me to the point about perseverance. In the wake of Taseer and Bhatti’s assassinations, we ought to realise that it is one bumpy ride from here on. We cannot allow ourselves to be reduced to labels or engulfed by pessimism. The call for upholding the rule of law and the stance against intimidation is a basic humanitarian right. It is a cause that is meant for and must appeal to all Pakistanis alike.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 17^th, 2011.

Perseverance is perhaps the only rational way to deal with adversity. But it is toilsome, and so requires patience. Owing to the magnitude of our problems, our reactions are often impulsive. It is a natural instinct, understandable since everything we do seems pale in the face of rampant violence.

In the wake of Salmaan Taseer’s death, most of us found ourselves plunged into a dilemma. I confess that attending a vigil a day after Salmaan Taseer was assassinated did little for my optimism. One candle against 27 bullets. There we were a few hundred, marching around the press club with candles in our hands, demanding Taseer’s killer be punished. We chanted and we held banners, we called him a martyr. A few days later, newspapers carried pictures and headlines of around 40,000 men condoning the murder and demanding the release of the assassin.

It was impossible not to make the comparison. Analysis, scrutiny and comparisons followed. The one force that kept us bound together was our stance against intimidation. Our frontiers shrunk further, as those in favour of the assassin and those against the killing were now being minimised to labels. Almost infectious, even obituaries couldn’t refrain from using them. Not only is this counterproductive, it is also maligning the cause. Taseer was killed because he took a stance for a Christian woman. His stance was based on humanitarian grounds, those who incited his murder used the ‘liberal elite’ label to malign his cause, divert attention from the humanitarian adversity and later to justify his murder. It is then ironic that we continue to use these labels and marginalise the cause.

It doesn’t end here — like a reoccurring nightmare, just eight weeks after Taseer’s assassination, Federal Minorities Minister Shahbaz Bhatti was also gunned down. His assassins left pamphlets and claimed his death was imminent due to his support for reformation of the blasphemy law. Bhatti’s death has brought us back to square one. Even though there are no celebrations or huge rallies in favour of the assassin, the writings on the wall are clear. It is worth recalling that rallies before and after Taseer’s death called for murder and listed three names. Two of the three have been shot dead.

It is important not to lose our sense of rationality even at the time of grief and loss. Following Bhatti’s assassination, MNA Asiya Nasir delivered a heart-rending address in the National Assembly. There was this one question she asked that needs to be answered: Why did the government fail to clarify that no committee was working on the reformation of the blasphemy law? It is ironic beyond belief that we find ourselves in the middle of such debates right after one of us is shot in cold blood.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 16^th, 2011.