Of heroes and villains

Popular perception remains Qadri's hanging was meant to appease foreign powers rather than follow norms of justice

One wonders if hanging Mumtaz Qadri has closed or opened another long chapter in Pakistan’s history. There were hundreds and thousands of people that gathered on March 1 for funeral prayers and burial of a man who had killed Salmaan Taseer in 2011 because he believed the then Punjab governor had committed an act of blasphemy by criticising the blasphemy law. Now millions believe that Qadri, who was Taseer’s bodyguard, had heard him say blasphemous words. In the coming days, other myths will be born to strengthen the belief of millions that Qadri was indeed right in doing what he did.

However, many of us heaved a sigh of relief and believe that the state indeed did the right thing by hanging the man for killing an innocent person. The detailed judgment by Justice Khosa did not find Taseer engaging in any blasphemy nor did he find Qadri right in taking the law in his hands. Some believe this is a critical moment, which will see the country emerge strongly. After having disposed off Malik Ishaq and now hanging Qadri, the government has demonstrated its resolve to fight all kinds of extremist violence. Notwithstanding scepticism of many regarding Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s ability to take such a decision, the fact is that he has ownership of implementing the decision.



But is this the beginning of a new bright era for Pakistan?

One of the reasons for patting Nawaz Sharif’s back is that his government alone is held responsible by millions for taking the decision. The military and the civilian leadership were certainly on the same page. However, while no one will dare direct their ire at the military, the anger will be directed at the government and its functionaries, as we saw in the treatment of Information Minister Pervaiz Rashid. In fact, this decision may impact Nawaz Sharif politically. Many of the people at the funeral, including those from the PML-N, were talking about not voting for Sharif in the future.

It is not that justice shouldn’t have been done but the popular perception remains that this decision was meant to appease foreign powers rather than follow the norms of justice. For the common man, there are too many contradictions which confuse his mind. There are those who point to the fact that the decision in the Qadri case was expedited even though it started after the Aasia Bibi case. Or what about the general state of the judicial system that fails to deliver justice and has become more populist? Ordinary people see justice being bought and sold every day, a menace from which there is no reprieve.

Also, where is the sense of justice when people see how certain militants are allowed to live and operate in the country just because they remain on the right side of the state? Thus far, the state has demonstrated the absence of zero tolerance for all forms of militancy. The pronouncement by Sartaj Aziz that all will be dealt with one after the other is like giving sufficient warning to certain militant groups rather than restricting their operations. Ordinary people may be simple and powerless but they are certainly not fools. Their takeaway from the hanging is that the decision was taken to appease powers outside the country.



The funeral and burial saw a huge turnout. At the same time, there was no chaos and disruption despite tempers remaining high. For many, there is now a new martyr and a shrine that will now be the centre for political agitation. It may also become one of the hubs for expressing the resolve of those who believe they have to fight the project of bringing Western liberalism to Pakistan and the threat of secularising the state. The divide between the liberal elite and the conservative or even radical and more localised elite will widen even more. When narratives and visions divide people so drastically, it is not a good sign.

Politically, Nawaz Sharif may have won the hearts of many outside and inside the country, but it is worth thinking if he has actually managed to strengthen his position vis-a-vis other powerful stakeholders in the country. For ordinary people, this is not an issue of justice or hanging of an individual but the larger matter of blasphemy. In people’s minds, the question of whether Taseer was guilty of blasphemy or not remains largely unresolved. The matter is highly sensitive for a society where almost every individual considers himself/herself responsible for defending the honour of religion and religious icons. The language of the liberals lacks the depth to engage with the man on the street. So, while there may be a lot of thumbs-up for the converted by the converted, the possibility of engaging ordinary folks remains very limited.



The state will resort to the one option available to bury Qadri’s memory by blocking its discussion in the media hoping that no mention of the name will help people forget him. This may or may not happen. However, the media blackout in itself is a double-edged sword. It indicates a rise in authoritarianism of the state in which voices will be suppressed at will. Today it’s the coverage of Qadri’s funeral; tomorrow it could be something else. We can keep hoping that all of this is for the larger good of the necessary re-imaging of the state. While our neighbourhood is turbulent, we will appear more moderate and liberal. But the question is: is the muffling of voices the right formula for introducing moderation?

Look across the Muslim world and you will see that authoritarianism only breeds contempt for moderation or a culture that people suspect conforms more to Western standards. In any case, muffling voices is a bad recipe. Let society, including institutions such as the media, learn and take ownership of responsible behaviour. Lest people think this is in Qadri’s support, I am merely reviewing what the future may hold.

Published in The Express Tribune, March 3^rd, 2016.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.