Blasphemy in the digital age

In a cautiously organised event in Islamabad, a modest group of lawyers, writers, activists and concerned citizens convened in a room. The air was so thick with political tension that a trip from the tea-station to the seats felt like wading through a pool of molasses.

The meeting took place in a post-Taseer Pakistan where the Supreme Court has ruled that a discussion on reforming blasphemy laws is not blasphemy in itself, but a democratic right. The event was a discussion organised by the Digital Rights Foundation and it was initiated by the Executive Director, Nighat Dad. The panelists included Senator Dr. Ashok Kumar, Romana Bashir from the Peace and Development Foundation and Tooba Syed from the Awami Workers’ Party (AWP).

Nabiha Meher Shaikh, the event moderator, presented a report authored by Waqqas Mir titled ‘Blasphemy in the Digital Age’ - a comprehensive analysis of the blasphemy laws in Pakistan and their effects since they were modified in 1986 during General Zia-ul-Haq’s reign. The editors of the report included Adnan Ahmed and Ms. Shaikh herself.

Little disagreement was expressed about the need to penalise blasphemy. What’s difficult to deny, however, is the culture of falsely accusing people of blasphemy - especially to settle personal scores. The law, in its current form, is used to disproportionately target religious minorities and others who are politically marginalised.

There was instant agreement that nobody should have their fate decided by a frenzied mob

Although it is understood that ‘false accusation’ is not a problem unique to the crime of blasphemy, the consequence of wrongly accusing someone of blasphemy is markedly different from charging someone with having committed, say, tax fraud. The former sparks a fierce public reaction, often resulting in mob justice - or as one participant correctly renamed it, ‘mob violence’, since there is no justice without trial.

One by one, the panelists had their say. Dr. Kumar spoke of the hurdles to interfaith harmony in Pakistan. Romana Bashir mentioned the ease with which these accusations are made, in the helpful backdrop of a slide with a pie-chart depicting the number of blasphemy accusations before 1987 (only seven) against the number of accusations after the amendment (1,335).

Tooba Syed, from the AWP, addressed the prejudice against religious minorities in the country, briefly mentioning the Capital Development Authority (CDA) and its slum eradication drive. She highlighted the grossly inappropriate remarks made about the Christian slum residents impinging upon the Muslim majority of the capital district. This was most pertinent to the discussion, as the reform of blasphemy laws must primarily be about the protection of minorities in a hostile climate.

The digital age brings its own set of challenges, the report by Waqqas Mir explains. A blasphemy accusation can spread through the internet in a matter of seconds, making it frighteningly simple to rile people up against a specific person. Disrespectful material, posted anywhere in the world, is ignorantly utilised to cause social and political unrest in Islamic countries around the globe.

Numerous examples were brought up of people who were threatened, accused and even killed for posting allegedly blasphemous blogs and tweets - including the tragic fate of a Facebook user on whose wall someone else had posted something supposedly disrespectful. The most famous case of outrage triggered by the online community is that of Junaid Jamshed. There was hardly a progressive citizen in the room who agreed with Jamshed’s political and social views. And yet there was instant agreement that nobody should have their fate decided by a frenzied mob outside a courthouse.

A robust discussion ensued. Participants shared their experiences with false blasphemy accusations and proposed ways of addressing this challenge. The introduction of a libel law, to prosecute those who wrongly charge someone with blasphemy, appeared to be a popular suggestion. The need to humanise the victims of mob violence was noted. It was also discussed that there was a need for the law to differentiate between derogatory remarks made with clear intent, as opposed to those where the offense is implicit and accidental.

It is enticing, in this situation, to cede more power to the government to ban potentially problematic sites. Waqqas Mir urged us to not fall to this temptation. Our descent into a state without privacy and freedom of information is not viable. The government must avoid broad actions like banning entire platforms out of fear of their misuse.

We believe in a peaceful religion - that much we know. Why, then, do we sometimes have a difficult time acting on our most basic directive? Why is it that when a single Christian or Hindu Pakistani is accused of blasphemy, the entire community has to flee the area - for the well-founded fear of hate crimes or even genocide?

Why do we cast a web so wide that along a handful of actual blasphemers, we trap thousands of innocent citizens, including lawyers performing their legal duty of representing the accused, as well as their families and religious kin?

When we choose to assume the proud title of an ‘Islamic Republic’, we take up the responsibility of demonstrating to the world what an Islamic society looks like. So are we a merciful society that levelheadedly tries those who are accused of disrupting social order? Or are we the republic that arbitrarily and often extra-judicially assaults its weakest members, making little effort to protect the innocent?

A two-hour event and a 30-page report are perhaps insufficient to fully answer all these questions. But it’s a start, and one must hope others are asking similar questions.