Now or never

The widely diversified socio-political reaction to the Supreme Court verdict acquitting Aasia Bibi tends to confront Pakistan with a now or never challenge. Should there be a review of the verdict as demanded by a cross-section of people or should the government stand up to the challenge and sternly deal with the chaotic aftermath, as promised by Prime Minister Imran Khan? For consecutive fourth day, the detractors of the court's verdict have paralyzed the normality of people's daily life all over the country. The government spokesmen insist they are in talks with protestors, but there is no sign of any alleviation. And no wonder, the protestors expect the government to capitulate, as it did when they seized the Rawalpindi-Islamabad Faizabad Interchange. But there is a subtle difference between then and now. Then the government made sacrifice of a federal minister, but that is not possible now as the judgment acquitting Aasia Bibi has been given by the country's highest court. On this occasion, however, they are guilty of fomenting rebellion in the armed forces and making calls for assassinating judges. So the work cut out for the government is not only to remove them from road-crossings but also snuff out this germ of organised religious bigotry once and for all. Why now or never, the famous lines of Martin Niemoller, an anti-Nazi German pastor, are relevant: "First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a socialist. Then they came for trade unionists, and I did not speak out - Because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out - Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me". There is no gainsaying that we as a polity have come to a fork in the road, which way to go from here is going to be a crucial test as it is bound to shape our destiny as a people and a country.
Regrettably, reality on the ground suggests that we are in confusion; there are quarters that fully stand behind the judgment given by the Supreme Court and there are the vested interest groups who are reluctant to take a clear stand and thus, vicariously, lend support to the rejectionists. While to some it is an issue with potential to shape our future as forward-looking country and to others the verdict given by the apex court not only abounds in illegalities but also tends to compromise Pakistan's identity as an Islamic state. However, looking at it a bit incisively, one finds the balance of argument titled in support of the court's judgment - and rightly so because while its supporters are motivated by considerations of logic, history and justice its doubters look at it through their narrow prism of dogma and vested political self-interest. The prime minister was quite spot on when he warned the detractors of state action. The fact is that the rejectionists are not only guilty of committing sedition their adventure has the potential to be used as cat's paw by our enemies. The position that the prime minister was harsh and he should have spoken on the issue from the floor of parliament cannot be considered as a serious, well-thought-out call, given that the opposition in the house is expected to undertake constructive criticism instead of merely point-scoring.
In the fullness of time, the Supreme Court's decision to acquit Aasia Bibi will be seen as one of the decisive moments in our history. There should be no ambiguity about the fact that all the bench who gave the verdict are Muslims, and have given a unanimous verdict. In arriving at their decision, they draw sustenance from the Hadith of the Holy Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him): "Beware! Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, or curtails their rights, or burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will, I [Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)] will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment". The argument that her conviction by the trial court was upheld by the High Court also holds no water - the Supreme Court was completely within its jurisdiction, as is the jurisdiction of the apex courts anywhere in the world. We must not forget that Quaid-e-Azam too assured minorities in his address to the first Constituent Assembly on August 11, 1974 he said: "You are free; you are free to go to your temples. You are free to go to your mosques or any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion or creed - that has nothing to do with the business of state." The opposition may ask the prime minister to brief the members, but for now the work cut out for our legislators is how to prevent misuse of the blasphemy law and go after those who make false allegations.