Blasphemy Law
Blasphemy laws in the South Asian Sub-continent are nothing new. While there is no concept of Blasphemy in Hinduism, those in practice during the Moghul Era were repealed by British colonial rule to allow Christian missionaries to proselytize. However in 1860 the Commission chaired by Lord Macaulay made the law again part of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as Section 295, which gave protection to worship places, scriptures and personages of all religions of India. Two Sections 295 (A) and (B) were inserted in 1927, these prescribed punishment for outraging the religious feelings of any class or religious group with deliberate and malicious intentions. On independence in 1947, this became part of Pakistan’s Penal Code (PPC). While Blasphemy Laws exist in many countries in the world (including the UK till 2008), even among all Muslim-majority states in the world, Pakistan has perhaps the strictest Blasphemy Law.
Seeking to secure support among the middle class and mainly among religious radicals, Gen Zia ul-Haq accelerated the Islamization process. Several new sections relating to religious offences were added to the PPC, almost all made by Presidential Decree. Inserted in 1980, Section 298-A made the use of derogatory remarks in respect of persons revered in Islam an offence punishable with up to three years’ imprisonment. This law was amended further in 1982 as 295-B, by Presidential Ordinance – “Defiling the Holy Qur’an” i.e. “whoever willfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Qur’an or of an extract there from or uses it in any derogatory manner for any unlawful purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment for life”. It stipulates life imprisonment for an offender who willfully defiles a copy or portion of the Holy Qur’an. Later, in 1986, this was further narrowed down by was declaring a criminal offence anything defiling person of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), “295-C read “Use of derogatory remarks, etc., in respect of the Holy Prophet: whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.” It was punishable with death or life imprisonment.
The Federal Shariat Court (FSC) ruled in October 1990 that “the penalty for contempt of the Holy Prophet … is death and nothing else” and directed the Federal Government to effect the necessary legal changes (Decisions of FSC under article 203-D of the Constitution are binding on the government which may, however, appeal against such decisions to the Shariat Appellate Bench of the Supreme Court whose decision is final). When PM Nawaz Sharif did not file an appeal against the FSC decision; the death penalty became the mandatory punishment for blasphemy.
Following protests by national and international human rights organizations against what they perceived to be abuses of the Blasphemy Law, Ms Benazir’s PPP Government intended in early 1994 to introduce two procedural changes to lessen the possibility of abuse of section 295-C, a formal authorization by a judicial magistrate being required before a complaint of blasphemy could be registered and arrests made. The false allegation of blasphemy would itself be made a criminal offence to be punished with up to seven years’ imprisonment.
Both PM Ms Benazir Bhutto (and later President Pervez Musharraf) were not able to bring even any slight changes to the law. Hard-line Muslim leaders organised street protests and issued dire warnings against making any changes. As widespread strikes and protests occurred across Pakistan against any changes to the Blasphemy Law, then PM Benazir Bhutto backtracked smartly on 28 May 1995, declaring her government had only envisaged procedural changes and added: “we will not amend the law”.
Controversy over the law has recently flared up after Sherry Rehman tabled a bill in November 2010 calling to end the death penalty for blasphemy after Aasia Bibi a Christian was sentenced to hang. Aasia Bibi was arrested in June 2009 after Muslim women labourers refused to drink from a bowl of water that she was asked to fetch while working in the fields. Days later, the women complained that she made derogatory remarks about the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH). Bibi was set upon by a mob, arrested by police and sentenced. Sherry Rehman has been receiving death threats for speaking out. Politicians and conservative clerics have been at loggerheads over whether Bibi should be pardoned. Following Salman Taseer’s assassination PM Yousuf Gilani announced on January 9 that “we have no intentions to amend this law.”
There is nothing wrong with the Blasphemy Law, it keeps our society from disintegrating into vigilantism. Moreover it does not target non-muslims alone, of the 647 or so brought to trial since 1991, less than 50% were non-muslims, the majority were muslims. Only a handful have been condemned to death, no one has been executed. However some have been murdered, being victims of “vigilante justice”. Unless the laws for bearing false witness are made stronger and effective, vigilante incidences like the brutal murder of Salman Taseer at the hands of his security guard will proliferate.
The PPC must have draconian punishment for bearing false witness. My article, ‘Perjury’ of Feb 12, 2010 and “Giving false statements under oath is perjury plain and simple, and perjury is a punishable offence. The Oxford Dictionary defines Perjury as ‘an act of willfully telling an untruth when on oath’, and goes on to use the words, ‘lying, mendacity, mendaciousness, falsification, deception, untruthfulness, dishonesty, duplicity’. In simple terms, a perjurer is a criminal and must be treated as one. In most countries, perjury carries exemplary punishment, ruthless enough for people to try and avoid giving a statement under oath lest that statement (or part thereof) be detected to be false”, unquote.
To quote article “Targetting Perjury”, on July 15, 2010, “In Pakistan the militants used the facade of religion in Swat, what they really exploited was rampant injustice and frustrations thereof. If the whole system is taken to be corrupt and the justice meted out to be unjust and unfair, frustration forces those seeking justice to take law into their own hands. Loss of faith in the judicial system can become a very potent breeding ground for vigilantes. Social upheaval turning violent can spill over into the Pakistani heartland. In criminal trials, the punishment should be exactly what the accused would have got if the evidence had been held to be correct. If based on the statements of the witnesses committing perjury the accused would go to the gallows, shouldn’t those giving false evidence face the gallows themselves? The judge (or judges) must decide each case of perjury on merit and come down with a heavy hand against perjurers as well as their manipulators and abettors”, unquote.
The punishment for perjury should be the same as the accused would have to face if the he (or she) were found guilty. We must avoid polarizing society by fueling the controversy of amending/changing the Blasphemy Law. If the laws are made strong against bearing false witness, miscarriages of justice will not take place and it will not be confined to Blasphemy alone.
Did you enjoy this post? Why not leave a comment below and continue the conversation, or subscribe to my feed and get articles like this delivered automatically to your feed reader.
Comments
No comments yet.
Leave a comment