Fighting the rule of fear

Kamila Hyat

As though the assassination of Salmaan Taseer were not bad enough, the reaction that followed it was even more terrifying.
Over the Internet, on television screens and at private gatherings of all kinds, people leapt to the defence of murderer Malik Mumtaz Qadri. Many argued that Governor Taseer deserved to die because he had spoken against the blasphemy laws. Death, it seems, is the only solution that comes to mind when differences of opinion arise. Nothing short of this will apparently do.
Even Interior Minister Rehman Malik jumped on the death bandwagon, stating he will personally shoot anyone who considers a repeal of the blasphemy laws. The notion of rule of law and a judicial process that allows those accused of even the worst crime to defend themselves seems to have evaporated. There is fear too of what may yet lie ahead.
A prominent mosque in Karachi has issued a “fatwa” against Sherry Rehman, declaring her a “non-Muslim” and demanding death for her. This will encourage others to search out their own victims. The best the interior ministry can do is to advise Ms Rehman to quit the country.
The result, of course, is fear. Minority representatives say that within their communities there is a greater sense of intimidation than ever before. Many others will think again and again before raising questions about the blasphemy laws. And there is another reason for fear: the possibility that the battle for control of ideas has been won by the extremists suddenly seems very real.
The kind of future that lies ahead is far more uncertain than before. The optimistic notion that the younger generation may be different is not borne out by entries on websites, where highly educated teenagers and others a little older suggest death is an acceptable punishment for those who voice “anti-Islam” sentiments of any kind.
So, is the contest over? Have the extremists won? Has space been closed off permanently for all those who believe that citizens are equal regardless of their beliefs, and that religion should play no part in the working of the state?
There is, however, some reason to examine the crescendo of voices suggesting it was okay for a man who had done little more than express his opinion to be gunned down in the streets. There is some evidence that the opinions of a majority, which prefers to stay silent rather than take on the fanatical armies of clerics and madressah students, are not really coming across. The media is to a very large extent responsible for this.
The crazed quest for audiences between the television channels has created an environment that thrives on sensationalism and high-pitched tabloidism. Much of the content of talk shows that fill a high percentage of air time is determined by a score-sheet of viewer ratings, compiled on the basis of monitors placed in some 500 households, by an independent agency and sent out to the channels. The figures are scrutinised by channel bosses, anchors and producers, and virtually every other member of staff. They have an impact on decisions that include the hiring of programme hosts and the topics taken up by them. The result is that the more lurid of programme, the greater the number of viewers and therefore the tendency to replicate similar material on all channels.
When this principle is applied to events such as Salmaan Taseer’s killing, the results are horrific. In an effort to attract viewers, the most controversial voices are aired. These come from people who advocate death and favour violence of all kinds. The opinions of those who oppose this receive far less space. This lack of media responsibility, the conservatism within it and the desire to attract audiences, rather than to inform people, has resulted in growth of extremism. Every “fatwa” issued receives time, even when it comes from some obscure cleric aiming only for publicity, and images of sweets being distributed in Mansehra after the murder receive attention quite out of proportion to their significance.
It is impossible to say what the true balance of opinion is. Even the surveys conducted on issues that touch on religious belief are arguably flawed – with much depending on what organisation conducted them or how questions were framed. And, of course, people are wary of expressing views that may be interpreted as being “anti-religion” in any way. The question of what this comprises has become increasingly distorted over the years, notably since the Ziaul Haq era with its hypocrisy and the pushing of religion onto the centre-stage of national life.
There is, however, some evidence that extremism is not favoured by the majority. The results of the 2008 election and the handful of assembly seats claimed by religious parties offer some proof of this. But if this majority is not given a voice, there is a danger the seesaw will begin to tilt over the other way, with people opting to join the strongest flow.
Unfortunately, mainstream political parties which oppose hard-line ideas have backed away from providing leadership to the people. Salmaan Taseer was abandoned by his own party.
The PPP backtracked completely on the blasphemy issue and its initial stance on a pardon for Aasia Bibi. No other party has assumed the role of leading a change in this situation, though both the MQM and the ANP have made some brave statements. Without this leadership, it is unrealistic to expect civil society to meaningfully resist well-organised extremist groups capable of reducing happenings such as the first court appearance of Mumtaz Qadri to a farce — during which the murderer was garlanded and showered with rose petals while the judge cowered in the courtroom.
Changing reality and driving away fear will not be easy. It can be achieved only by addressing the real issues of state, rather than those created by fanatics. A commitment to defending the rights of all people, including their right to earn a livelihood, and to security of life can go a long way towards this. These issues are linked to that of extremism. Taking them up is vital to winning over people and using their power to battle fanaticism.