The state has only tried to silence the voices of its citizens rather than maintaining and upholding law and order.
Recently, a 36-year-old man, Muhammad Ibrahim (a Muslim) tourist from Sialkot, was set on fire by extremists after being dragged out of the police station, tortured, and lynched to death for the unproven blasphemy charges of desecrating the Holy Quran in Swat. The police attempted to protect him by taking him into custody and locking him in jail to face the forces of law. However, the outraged mob, demanding swift action against the alleged blasphemer, set the police station ablaze and decided the case by establishing a ‘Mob Court’ to lynch the alleged individual to death. They first tortured policemen and him. He was dragged out and shot directly in the police station and then burned alive, even without the blasphemy charges being proved, marking an advent of mob rule.
Rather, these charges needed to be dealt with in accordance with the law. However, in a country established and developed around religi
ous principles, where politics, the judiciary, and laws are influenced by clerics and religious sentiments, such incidents are likely. Wasn’t the 2nd amendment passed in 1974 in the constitution of 1973 of Pakistan a clue to rapidly diminishing the country’s peace, putting minorities at risk? This is why several people belonging to the Ahmadiyya community were jailed and prosecuted this year for performing Eid-ul-Adha and sacrificing animals, allegedly violating the constitution and Section 298-C of the Pakistan Penal Code, which specifically targets Ahmadis, restraining them from pretending to be Muslims or preaching and propagating the Islamic faith. Section 298-C of the PPC criminalizes Ahmadis (including the Qadiani and Lahori groups) if they call themselves Muslims, making it punishable with imprisonment for a term that may extend to three years and a fine. This also leads to severe consequences, including violence and punishment, for individuals who do not believe that Islam is a religion of peace, and those who perform Eid rituals without wish and permission of religious extremists and clerics are prone to prosecutions and punishments.
However, how can one obstruct anyone from practicing what they believe as their religion? The Supreme Court ruled in 2022 that it is unconstitutional to restrain non-Muslims from practicing their religions within their places of worship. Advocating for religious freedom in third-world countries like Pakistan is in dire need. It is ironic to witness Pakistan officially condemning violence in Palestine and denouncing Islamophobia, yet failing to curb the violence, extremism, and fanaticism within. The Swat incident shall have unavoidable and irreversible consequences on tourism in Pakistan.
The massacre over blasphemy started with the law, but it is no longer linked to the law. The state has only tried to silence the voices of its citizens rather than maintaining and upholding law and order. Mob courts’ decisions to lynch anyone at any time for allegations of blasphemy are common in Pakistan. Sadly, there is no legislation for punishing those who spread hate and violence through false allegations and blasphemy accusations. The irony is that these blasphemy laws are widely misused by both the state and common people for their own proxies and benefits, as mere accusations can fuel extremists and incite mob violence.
Historically, Pakistan has witnessed a significant escalation in blasphemy incidents since Zia Ul Haq made blasphemy punishable by death. Previously, from 1927 to 1986, only 14 incidents were reported in 59 years. However, from 1986 till today, the number of blasphemy cases has surged to more than 2100 in just 38 years, reflecting a 50 to 60 percent increase in such incidents. These figures also indicate a similar increase in religious extremism in Pakistan over the last three decades. According to reports, more than 70 percent of the accused belong to Punjab province, with Sindh having the second-highest number of blasphemy cases.
The trend of bringing religion into politics and using it against those who critique the state or the ruling government results in complications not only in the legislature and judiciary but also harms the social fabric and diversity of the country. Instead of banning such practices, the state systematically launched an Islamization project, infused hatred for minorities in the curriculum, sponsored Talibanization, institutionalized the legal system into Sharia and common courts, supported extremist religious groups like Tehreek-e Labaik Pakistan (TLP) and Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and continues to do so. What can one expect from such a state to stand against extremism and clericalism, which the state itself occasionally relies on for political interests—particularly to silence those who challenge the state’s status quo by criticizing its policies?
The pattern of these blasphemy incidents follows a scripted path: one accuses another of blasphemy if reported, the police may intervene; otherwise, an enraged mob takes the law into their own hands, torturing, killing, burning, and lynching the accused to death. They then flee while proclaiming victory for Islam, either securing a place in heaven or earning God’s reward for their actions. Few legal remedies are offered, and social media often condemns the actions of the illiterate mob. In some cases, a few individuals from the incited groups are arrested instead of those who instigated or falsely accused others. This troubling cycle persists with no clear solution, as it has become endemic. However, Pakistani society remains deeply polarized on this issue.
The state needs to declare the sections later adopted (PPC 295-B, PPC 295-C, 298A, B, C) by the dictator Zia as unconstitutional, as they were adopted during martial law, undermining proper legislative processes. Until these sections are repealed, false accusations must be made equally punishable. Furthermore, extra-judicial killings of alleged blasphemers should also be equally punishable. These two factors may lead to a dramatic decline in these incidents. Additionally, the exploitation, misapplication, and misuse of blasphemy laws need to be addressed. Perhaps the state is reluctant to amend or restrict blasphemy laws due to fears of facing blasphemy charges from the clergy. This is rooted in past incidents where prime ministers, justices of the higher judiciary, and even army generals have been subject to mob violence and accusations of blasphemy.