Issue 62 Vol III, April 30, 2008

A N A L Y S I S

Blasphemy and Persecution
Ishtiaq Ahmed

THE barbaric murder of Jagdeesh Kumar, accused of blasphemy by some of his workmates at a garment factory in Karachi, brings out in sharp focus once again the exposed and vulnerable situation of non-Muslims in a Pakistan still wedded to the legacy of General Zia-ul-Haq.

When the police finally intervened, the body of the 22-year-old victim had been mutilated and disfigured beyond recognition: among other things the eyes had been gouged out. The reports published indicate that he was a quiet man, from a poverty-stricken Hindu family belonging to some obscure village in the Sindh desert. People with such a depressed and vulnerable background come to factories to eek out a miserable living, not to engage in religious controversies. In the days and weeks ahead, we will learn that some petty personal quarrel or irrational hatred of a Hindu was the real reason for his murder.

What happened in Karachi was reminiscent of the lynching of African-Americans by white racists in the southern states of the US as late as the early 20th century. Until those laws were changed, black men and women were killed for the flimsiest of reasons. I remember one story when a white shopkeeper took out his gun and shot dead an old black man, who for years had been delivering merchandise to him, when an altercation took place between that man and a white man who had come to the shop for the first time. The white shopkeeper sided with a complete stranger, because the race laws had conditioned him to react in that way.

Anyone who follows the news from Pakistan and reads the reports published regularly by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan would find that violence and brutality against non-Muslims increased exponentially after the blasphemy law was imposed in 1982 and reformulated in 1986. The connection between law and social behaviour is a well-established fact and, quite simply, bad, intolerant and violence-inducing laws produce malevolent behaviour among members of society. Let me quote both the relevant texts on blasphemy in Pakistan:

In 1982, Section 295-B was inserted in the Pakistan Penal Code. It reads: "Defiling, etc., of The Holy Quran: Whoever wilfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Quran or of an extract therefrom, or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life."

In 1986, Section 295-C was added. It stated: "Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet: Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine."

Those who are familiar with legal expressions and jargon will have no difficulty in understanding that the wordings of the two laws furnish an easy excuse for accusing a person of blasphemy. What can be a matter of at most a spirited discussion on religion and religious icons among educated people can easily be interpreted by illiterates as blasphemy if they discuss religion.

More important, perhaps, is to figure out what purpose these laws are supposed to help realise. If the purpose is to make people, presumably non-Muslims, respect Islam and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), then such an intention is premised on a singularly flawed psychological theory and approach.

Fear induces submission and despondency, not respect. In situations when fear and threats surround the lives of people, they resort to dissimulation and become hypocrites: thinking and believing one thing but saying and doing something else. On the other hand, respect and admiration for someone or some belief is gained voluntarily. It has to come from the heart and cannot be extracted under duress.

There are many non-Muslims who have written laudatory texts on Islam and the life of the Holy Prophet. Recently Karen Armstrong has written his biography which is highly sympathetic. She must have done this by studying his life and finding him praiseworthy. Fear would never have induced such writing.

On the other hand, if the purpose of the blasphemy laws is to terrorise non-Muslims to either convert to Islam or force them out of the country, then the question is: is such an objective compatible with the Constitution of Pakistan which guarantees that minorities shall live in peace and security in Pakistan?

One can argue that even if the intention of adopting the blasphemy laws was to establish respect for Islam and the Prophet and not to terrorise non-Muslims, the overwhelming and incontrovertible evidence abundantly shows that the unintended consequences of the law have been just the opposite. Time and again some Christian or Hindu accused of blasphemy has either been mercilessly killed by a fanatic or a bunch of such people – without ever being punished for breaking the law and committing murder – or subjected to a draconian legal process in which the lower courts almost invariably found him guilty; but the higher courts either acquitted him or commuted his punishment to a lighter sentence.

Now, when a civilian, democratic government is in power, it is time to begin a discussion on the Hudood and blasphemy laws. We must realise that as long as people have different religions and beliefs they are bound to discuss and debate them. In such circumstances the role of the government should be to provide people with a sound education so that they can develop the sensibilities to respect each others' identity and convictions while engaging in debate and controversy.

It was very encouraging to read columns in the Pakistani English-language press against this latest manifestation of mob frenzy. It is important that our colleagues in the Urdu media also come out strongly against such brazen acts of inhumanity. Some petitions condemning Jagdeesh Kumar's murder have also been put up on the Internet for signatures. All this is indicative of another type of Pakistan.

The writer is a professor of political science and a visiting senior research fellow at the Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore. Email: isasia@nus.edu.sg

BACK

Is Indian judiciary above law?
Gobind Thukral

LESS than two per cent of Indians knock at the doors of courts for justice. Most Indians believe in the old advice courts would just ruin you whatever be the merit of your case. Everyone knows litigation is costly, time consuming and at times killing. So avoid it. Yet at times forced by circumstances, people do land up in courts in various capacities; as criminals, in civil suits related to property or such matters and marital disputes.

After independence as India became a welfare state, the government entered most facets of human activity; building roads and schools, providing education and health services communication, defence and what not. The government because of its inefficiency, dishonesty and callousness has turned to be the biggest litigant in courts. Laws are enacted, rules are made, notifications issued and then government officials prove to be the biggest violators.

By the end of last year over three crore cases were pending in various Indian courts. Experts estimate it would take 360 years to resolve these at the current rate of disposal. One year back the law minister admitted that 40,243 cases were pending in Supreme Court, 3,991,251 cases in 21 high courts.

The number of pending cases swelling to more than 11 lakh million has made the Punjab and Haryana High Court sit up and worry at the speed of delivery. The rate of disposal of cases during the past four years shows that supreme  court can at best dispose50,000 cases and all high courts fifteen lakh cases and subordinate courts one crore and thirty lakh cases. Since cases keep coming daily, the piling goes on. On an average a civil litigation takes 15 to 18 years and a criminal case 8 to 10 years to reach finality. Every day newspapers are full of stories about someone in jail for 2o years, another for 30 years and in some cases over 50 years as the cases remained undecided. Innocent people spend years in jails. At times conviction is much less than the total years spent in jails. One reason for jail riots is the delay in justice system. Add to this corruption at all levels and fleecing of litigants by lawyers, court officials and who not. Would it be wrong to say that Indian justice system is deeply sick?

There are serious consequences of delays and people often resort to direct action and follow dubious and ingenious methods to seek justice. At times civil despite often turn into criminal cases. Punjab is full of these cases of land or other property disputes leading to violent clashes and murders. Since law enforcing agencies are thoroughly corrupt, the result is emergence of goons, hired assassins and thugs to settle the disputes. A culture of violence and corruption has taken deep roots.

This kind of sickening situation would make anyone sit-up and worry. Last week the Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh called all the chief justices of high courts, all the chief ministers and honorable chief justice of the Supreme Court and other judges and the law minister to look at the malady and find a solution.

And, Dr Manmohan Singh for a change was a bit frank. He said, “More than one retired Chief Justice has drawn attention to the growing incidence of corruption among certain sections of the judiciary. The confidence of the public can be sustained only if, apart from efficient and effective justice, there is a firm belief that judgement will be rendered without any extraneous consideration.” Indeed framers of the Constitution placed a great ‘onus and responsibility on the members and practitioners of our judiciary to maintain the highest standards of probity and integrity’. Dr Manmohan Singh suggested that judiciary should s evolve a mechanism to bring efficiency and honesty and speed up the disposals. People are losing faith and he was worried as it strikes at the roots of democracy. He wanted less of holidays and more work and was prepared to provide money to hire more judges, build more courts and provide modern facilities.

The Prime Minister wanted to cut down long vacations and the number of holidays was estimated to be equivalent to increasing the number of judges by 25 per cent. Advancement in information technology had not touched the corridors of judiciary in a significant manner. The Chief Justice of India KG Balakrishnan conceded that backlog and delay in deciding cases were areas of grave concern. But he found the judiciary alone was not responsible for it and the government should share the blame. Lack of monetary resources was one major reason for the ailment. How would the government explain large number of vacancies, 284 in the high courts and 3,233 at the subordinate level?  Also, the poor working conditions and lack of infra structure.

All wise things were said by all Wiseman gathered at the third such conference.  Yet judiciary continues to treat itself above everyone else. Prime minister’s charge of corruption did not go well and judiciary at the highest level was not ready to accept the new law, the Right to Information Act. It was not prepared to be answerable to the people, the ultimate masters in any democracy. There was a queer logic when justice Balakrishnan said, "The chief justice is not a public servant. He is a constitutional authority. Right to Information Act does not cover constitutional authorities."

We all know that this law is one sure way to fight sloth and corruption. No one seems to agree with the chief justice of India.  Disputing Balakrishnan's views that Constitutional functionaries are not covered under the RTI, Lok Sabha speaker Somnath Chatterjee who had practiced at the Supreme Court for 30 years said "everything is under the Constitution or should be under the Constitution. The question is whether people are entitled to know…The Constitutional position of people's right to know has been recognised under the RTI Act." he said noting that it has been brought for the purpose of enforcement. Chatterjee said in a democracy people occupy the central position and insisted that once such information is denied, then "there is scope for speculation which may affect the credibility of the institution".

Many jurists, including former Chief Justices of India, J.S. Verma and V.N. Khare have expressed dismay and shock over the reluctance of the Supreme Court and High Courts to provide information sought by the people under RTI. Justice Verma said. “If there is reluctance to provide information, I am willing to be the first to volunteer and see to it that all correspondence regarding appointments and executive actions during my tenure as Chief Justice should be made public.”

Justice Khare opined judiciary could not escape accountability measures, which it wanted others to follow. “Everybody holding a constitutional office in this country is accountable, and so are the judges. It is important for them to come clean and be seen as above suspicion.”

If this argument of justice Balkrishna is admitted that all prime minister, governors, chief ministers, ministers, members of public service commissions and central ministers would be above this Act. They are all constitutional authority.

The judiciary is also not prepared to reveal to anyone what assets judicial officers held. This information was highly protected by the highest court of the land. Since no one could know its varsity it could be always doubted.  What those sealed envelopes contained was anyone’s guess.

Allegations against judicial officers are becoming a reality. One Chief Justice has said that only 20 per cent of the judges are corrupt. Another judge has lamented that there are no internal procedures to look into the allegations. Therefore, the necessity of a mechanism is being emphasised by the judges themselves. Then the question arises as to how this mechanism would be brought about and as to who would bring it. According to Mr Chatterjee the fact of the matter is that the judiciary is the only unique institution that has no accountability to the people in a democracy. In this overall context, it is absolutely essential to involve outside elements in the process of judicial accountability.”

Apart from increasing the number of judicial functionaries, we must also upgrade the existing infrastructure. Many court buildings and complexes have not seen any expansion since the time they were originally built. This has contributed to a severe congestion in courts and our court premises in many places have a sorry look about them. Much more than the attitude must change. We must have only implementable laws and those that go well with Indian ethos like panchayat courts. These could provide justice in relatively simple civil and criminal cases in rural areas.

BACK

Indians losing in health
Sawraj Singh

SOME people are projecting Indians as one of the biggest beneficiaries of Globalization. However, Indians are paying a very heavy price for the so-called progress related to Globalization. India will have the largest number of heart patients in the world; Indians have the least resistance to HIV and AIDS, and India now has the lowest female to male ratio in the world.

It is projected that India will have 60% of the heart patients in the world. This means that compared to the rest of the world, India will have four times more heart patients because India has about 15% of the world’s population. Previous studies in America and Canada also have shown that Indians have a much higher incidence of heart disease compared to the rest of the population. The Chinese have a much lower incidence of heart disease compared to the rest of the population. For example, in Canada, the incidence of heart disease among Chinese is four times lower than the general Canadian population, whereas the incidence of heart disease among Indians is four times higher than the general Canadian population. This means that the incidence of heart disease among the Indians in Canada is sixteen times higher than the Chinese.

Now, we find that Indians have less immunity against the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Therefore, they are more likely to develop AIDS if they are exposed. Should we blame genetics for this? Similarly, people are blaming our diet for the higher incidence of heart disease. I guess we are also going to blame our genes for being leaders in female feticide. Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has just warned that because of female feticide, our male-female ratio has dropped to dangerously low levels.

I feel that more than our genes or diet, it is Globalization that is affecting our value system and way of life. Because of these factors, we have become more vulnerable to many diseases and ailments. After all, our genes and diet have not undergone such dramatic changes as our value system and way of life have.

India, the land of spirituality, has become the most materialistic society in the world. We have even beaten the West in our adoration for material things. Bigger, better, and more homes, cars, furniture, jewelry, and electronic appliances, and making our children doctors, are some of our highest priorities. Of course, all this is taking a heavy toll. We are paying a very heavy price for the intense competition we have put ourselves in. We have become one of the least healthy people on earth.

It is high time that we should stop blaming our genes and diet for our health and other social ailments and accept the fact that globalization has done more harm to us than good. After all, our ancestors had the same genes and ate a similar diet. They were comparatively healthy people. I have seen three generations among the people in Punjab. The older generations were much healthier physically, mentally, and spiritually, than the present young generation: Punjab has the lowest female to male ratio in India and in the world.

[Sawraj Singh MD FICS, Chairman, Washington State Network for Human Rights]

BACK