I have failed to understand the Supreme Court’s directive of setting up a commission to probe what happened.
SAUDI ARABIA: What is the definition of a mosque? It is a place for worship of Allah for the followers of Islam. Then, what about a mosque which once became a central rallying point of militancy in the heart of Pakistan’s capital? Should that place be exempted from any action by the state, even if elements seeking shelter inside it are planning to wage a war against the state and carry out terror attacks?
Didn’t female students of Jamia Hafsa occupy a children’s library and refuse to vacate? Did they not intimidate and terrorise the public by resorting to beatings and kidnappings, and did not many students of Lal Masjid in 2007 display weapons against members of the security forces? Did not students of the mosque attack the police and Rangers, and did they not also occupy government buildings?
All the male and female students, teachers and staff of Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafsa were given the opportunity to lay down their arms and leave the mosque and that they would not be arrested if they did that. As a result, hundreds of students and teachers did peacefully leave the premises. One of them was the head of the mosque and he was trying to escape in the guise of a veiled woman but was arrested by security forces.
Obviously, those left in the mosque were hardliners who didn’t take the surrender option and decided to fight the security forces. In the backdrop, I have failed to understand the Supreme Court’s directive of setting up a commission to probe what happened. During a petition filed by the head of the Lal Masjid, a member of the Supreme Court bench hearing the case remarked that those killed were innocent girls. If that is the case, it would appear that the Supreme Court has already made up its mind as to who was present inside the mosque when the military operation was conducted in 2007. So why set up a commission at all?
Masood Khan, Jubail
Published in The Express Tribune, December 9th, 2012.
