After the London Bridge terrorist attack last weekend, British Prime Minister Theresa May stood on the steps of 10 Downing Street and said: “There is, to be frank, far too much tolerance of extremism in our country”.
Would it not be more appropriate for the prime minister of Pakistan to make such a statement? In fact, there was a justification for this confession at about the same time. On Sunday, a joint investigation team (JIT) finalised its report on the lynching of Mashal Khan on the campus of Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan on April 13.
What the JIT concluded was that there was no direct or indirect evidence to prove that Mashal Khan had committed blasphemy. It held some officials of the university, several students and a few outsiders responsible for the brutal murder that was committed by a frenzied mob.
This was one more diabolical outburst of emotions when the allegations of blasphemy are made against any person. More than 50 people had been arrested on the charge of participating in the gory act that was captured through a series of videos that were made available to the media. Mashal’s friend was saved through the intervention of some teachers.
The Mashal case has a particular significance for a variety of reasons. It should have left the rulers with a sudden pang of conscience – or, in other words, with a sense of guilt about what they have made of society. For once, senseless mob violence was enacted not in a bazaar but on university premises – a place that is supposed to have been sanctified by higher learning. And Mashal would be a good example of a sensitive young man with a curious and creative mind. What does it suggest when so many people get involved in the barbaric killing of such a young man on the trumped-up charge of blasphemy?
What is different here is the situation that developed after Mashal’s murder, thanks to some fortuitous circumstances. It has allowed the authorities to confront the curse of religious intolerance and violent extremism. The role played by Mashal’s family – and particularly by his father – is truly inspiring.
Mohammad Iqbal’s stoic courage played a major role in changing the initial surge of popular loathing of his son for his alleged transgression. It later emerged that Mashal was the victim of a conspiracy. After some hesitation, some strong voices were raised in his favour. The formation of the 13-member JIT was one consequence of this shift.
It is a pity – and, perhaps, quite symptomatic of our rulers’ inability to comprehend the dynamics of our society – that the JIT report on Mashal’s murder has not made a splash. The political leaders – forever anxious to make a fuss over inconsequential issues – took no notice of the report which has essentially certified apprehensions that unfounded accusations of blasphemy generate disastrous outcomes.
One has to be mindful of the sequence of events that took place on that fateful day to appreciate the significance of JIT’s findings. However, we have to wait for its real impact because it is to be submitted to the Supreme Court and the anti-terrorism court.
To some extent, the report may have receded into the background owing to the other flaming headlines of the week. There is, of course, the other JIT that has raised a political storm. It is investigating the assets of Nawaz Sharif’s family in the context of the Supreme Court’s April 20 verdict in the Panama Papers case.
An image grabbed from the CCTV footage of the proceedings has generated a lot of comment and controversy. The Qatar crisis is reverberating across the Muslim world. Terrorists have struck in Tehran. Snap elections in the UK have produced unexpected results, casting a shadow on Theresa May’s leadership. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) summit in Astana, Kazakhstan – where Nawaz Sharif and Narendra Modi have “exchanged pleasantries” – has rightfully attracted attention.
Yet, even if the world is in flames and the political tussle for power in Pakistan is getting out of hand, violent extremism that has taken deep roots in our society remains the most serious threat to our survival. We are repeatedly reminded of the indomitable influence of extremist elements across the entire spectrum of our society. Our rulers repeatedly turn their backs on the urgency of taking on the extremists with full force.
In the process, the liberal voices of reason and tolerance have diminished and the extremist elements have retained their influence – often in the name of religion or national security. One may recall specific instances that called for decisive action on the part of the authorities. But the change that the circumstances demanded did not materialise, either because of a lack of will or some degree of confusion about the national sense of direction.
The massacre of our schoolchildren in Peshawar’s Army Public School on December 16, 2014 was projected as a game-changer. A National Action Plan was set into motion after the incident. But gradually, it appeared to be business as usual and extremism has prevailed in the guise of orthodoxy and an aversion to modern, progressive ideas. Before that, the government did not find enough courage to address head-on the dark passions that had been aroused with the assassination of Salman Taseer.
For me, the true measure of the collective mindset that was formed by the policies of the state was the rejection of Malala as the pride of Pakistan. In this case too, the rulers did not go out of their way to create an enabling environment to promote values that are personified by an enlightened and liberated young woman.
We now have the Mashal case to contend with. In the words of one of his teachers: “he was brilliant and inquisitive, always complaining about the political system of the country. But I never heard him saying anything controversial about religion”. Irrespective of the conspiracy that was hatched against him, the fact is that it is becoming increasingly difficult for our young people – mainly girls – to exercise a measure of freedom in their struggle to realise their dreams and come to terms with the harsh realities of the world in which they live. In short, they are being denied their youth.
At the outset, I said that our rulers have unduly tolerated extremism, in spite of their quest for a counter-narrative. But the situation is perhaps more dreadful. After all, where has this extremism come from, if it is not the gift of our ruling ideas?
The writer is a senior journalist.
Email: ghazi_salahuddinhotmail.com