Asia Bibi, an illiterate Christian mother of five, fell victim to this law. After a row with her fellow villagers over drinking water, she was accused of blasphemy, convicted and sentenced to death. To Salman Taseer, the governor of her province, this punishment seemed draconian. He publicly advocated for Asia Bibi’s pardon and for a change in the blasphemy law. Because of his vocal opposition to the blasphemy law, the governor was gunned down in broad daylight. He was shot 26 times with a submachine gun by his own bodyguard. During interrogation, Malik Mumtaz Qadri, the man who shot him said that by opposing the blasphemy law, Mr Taseer was himself committing blasphemy!
What is even more telling is that when Mr Qadri was brought to court, he was given a hero’s welcome. Some lawyers showered him with rose petals, and a rowdy crowd patted him on the back and kissed him. Two weeks later, there continues a show of solidarity on the streets for Mr Qadri.
This unfolding chain of events in Lahore gives us a glimpse of the Pakistani society at large today and offers lessons for Nepal. To put it in the simplest terms, Nepal is where Pakistan and India were in 1947. What route it takes now will determine whether it resembles Pakistan or India more 50 years down the road.
Pakistan did not become such an intolerant society overnight. The decadence began when the military dictator Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq decided to turn Pakistan into an Islamic state. He strongly favored Islamic idealists during promotions in the army and the civil government. It was during his tenure that the Sharia law was introduced. Blasphemy could now possibly lead to death sentence. The seed of Islamic fundamentalism was sown. Subsequent governments nurtured this sapling. In order to gain the trust and eventually the vote of the Mullahs and other overzealous idealists, Nawaz Shariff’s democratically elected government made it mandatory to sentence blasphemers to death.
With a large number of the leadership believing in overzealous idealism taught by the Koran, and the law on the side of these zealots, the country has turned into a society very intolerant to alternate views. This zeal shows no sign of abating. Even some of the top political leaders who privately hold secular views don’t dare to advocate secularism. Such is the state of Pakistan today.
Idealism is good. Overzealous idealism is not. When idealists use violence to suppress the ideals of their opponents, they cross the line. They endanger themselves, their opponents, and the society at large.
Nepal like Pakistan also has a legacy of violent zealots physically harming their opponents. During the Panchayat regime, thousands were killed for challenging the ideals set by the monarchy. The former king, Gyanendra, tried to silence the newspapers writing against him. Maoist cadres murdered Birendra Kumar Shah, a brave journalist. The chief of the party himself publicly threatens to harm his opponents.
The other political parties are not guilt free either. Enforcement of bandas by violent means is also in essence the use of violence to achieve one’s ideals. All political parties have been guilty of this at one time or another.
Neither is the civil society guilt free. Often, the civil society has remained silent to violent eruption of ideals. This is a mistake. Overtime, the lack of opposition might legitimatize the use of violence to silence opposition, just like in Pakistan.
Currently the Maoist party is at the cross-roads. On one side are likes of Baburam Bhattarai who want to achieve their ideals via non-violent means, and on the other side are the impatient group led by Mohan Vaidya that wants to use violence to fulfill their ideals. Which of these factions will eventually prevail is hard to tell. But for the believers in non-violent ways to do politics, it is time to throw their weight behind the likes of Mr Bhattarai.
This show of support to non-violent ways to politick will be a welcome change. A young man is often taught to believe in his ideals and fight for them. He somehow conceives that the harder you fight, the more pious you are. Too often he interprets that hurting someone for the sake of ideals is an act of bravery; less often, he is reminded that it may actually be a sign of cowardice.
Writer is an Assistant Professor of Economics & Finance at Texas A&M International University in Texas, US
Related story
Death of Faith
