Friday, April 24, 2015

Law Open to Abuse Blasphemy Law In Pakistan

religion_1840947c
The blasphemy law is a part of the PPC, which was introduced in 1860 by the British Government to protect religious feelings. It may be observed that Section 295 provides protections to worship places of all classes of religions living in the subcontinent. It does not contain element of discrimination or preference to any class. It maintains equality of all before the law. The law appears to maintain mutual harmony and peace as well as to promote sense of mutual tolerance, understanding and respect in the multifaceted society of the subcontinent. This section represents the typical example of a secular democratic law for benefit of all and loss to none. But it gradually was envenomed and the addition in it made this law a weapon of annihilation.
There have been instances of intolerance relating to the blasphemy laws, promulgated by General Zia in 1985. They state that whoever says anything disparaging about Holy Qur’an and Muslim can be punished by life imprisonment and that anyone who blaspheme against Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is liable to the death penalty.
The blasphemy law continues to be abused because of its vague formulation, which allows arbitrary enforcement. In additional, it only takes the testimony of four Muslims to bring about a conviction. It is not worthy that in several cases complains have been filed at the insistence of local clerics or members of the Islamic parties. The motives are varied and some seem to be purely because the accused is the member of minority faith.  In other cases this fact is exacerbated by economic or profession rivalry.
Original Sections of 1860 Code: 295-298
Section 295
Injuring (or) Defiling Place of Worship, with intent to insult the Religion of any class ‘whoever destroys, damages, or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to their religion, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.’
Section 296
Disturbing Religious assembly ‘Whoever voluntarily causes disturbance to an assembly lawfully engaged in the performance of religious worship, or religious ceremonies shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.’
Section 297
Trespassing on burial places, etc ‘Whoever, with the intention of wounding the feelings of any person, or insulting the religion of any person, or with the knowledge that the feelings of any person are likely to be wounded, or that the religion of any person is likely of sepulture, or any place set apart for the remains of the dead, or offers any indignity to any human corpse, or cause disturbance to any person assembled for the performance of funeral ceremonies, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine or with both.’
Section 298
Uttering words etc with deliberate intention to wound Religious feelings ‘Whoever with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or make any gesture in the sight of that person, or place any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine or with both.’
First Addition
In 1972 section 295-A was introduced as a result of the failure to convict one Rajpal who had written a scurrilous tract against the holy Prophet [PBUH]. Rajpal’s acquitted led to serious Muslim-Hindus communal tension. To fill the lacunae in the law that had enable his acquitted 295-A was introduced by Act XXV of 1927. This was the second blasphemy law.
Section 295-A
Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage Religious feelings of any class by insulting its Religious (or) Religious believers ‘Whoever, with deliberate and malicious act intended to outrage religious feelings of any class of His Majesty’s subjects, by word either spoken or written, or by visible representations, insults or attempts to insult the religion or religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to years, or with fine, or with both.
Additions by General Zia-ul-Haq 
Thereafter the laws remained unchanged until 1980. Between 1918 and 1947 there are only 4 reported cases in India under sections 298 and 295-A i.e. the blasphemy laws. Between 1947 and 1986 there were only 5 reported cases in Pakistan.
All the above laws also continue to be part of Indian and Bangladesh Penal Codes.
In 1980 section 298-A was introduced. This was the third blasphemy law.
Section 298-A
Use of derogatory remarks etc in respect of Holy personage ‘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 any wife [Ummul Mumineen], or members of the family [Ahle-bait], of the Holy Prophet [PBUH]or any of the righteous Caliph [Khulafa-e-Raashideen] or companions [Sahaaba] of the holy Prophet [PBUH] shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both.’
Section 295-B
Defiling etc of copy of Holy Qur’an ‘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 or for any unlawful purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment for life.’
Section 295-C
Use of derogatory remarks, etc, in respect of the Holy Prophet [PBUH] ‘Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or in directly defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad[PBUH] shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.’
The two technical changes introduced with this law are that for the first time blasphemy becomes a capital offence. Further, in 1991 the Federal Shariat Court ruled that the option of life imprisonment was to be removed and the death penalty became the mandatory punishment for this offence. The second innovation is that this is the only law in the entire PC that requires the presiding judge be a Muslim. The other noteworthy aspect of this section in the absence of the expression willfully or intentionally in the text of the law. Disregard of the element of will or intention in the law makes the whole environment suspicious of the reason that “will” or “intention” is an essential part f human behavior in the context of identifying a criminal offence. Thus under section 295-C, a person committing offence without “will” or “intention” is awarded death sentence at par  with one committing it “willfully” or “intentionally”. We can see that law is required to punish the “unintentional” offence on the same scale as in the case of “intentional” one, without any justification.
Blasphemy laws, like other discriminatory laws, gave change the fate of Christians in Pakistan, the Ahmadi community and even the Muslims are not safe from this brutal and savage law.
Christians and Ahmadis are the main target of the fundamentalist and religious-political parties. The law is being used for forced conversions, forcibly taking the lands and the businesses of non-Muslims and for settling personal scores, rivalries and vengeance. These laws have also hindered the preaching of any other faith except Islam. Nevertheless, these laws have proved to be the most injurious weapons for active religious persecution used by the extremists.
Once a person is held under blasphemy charges, the victim and his\her family are sore-pressed and are harassed with problems. As a matter of fact, none of the victims has ever availed relief from the lower courts and have to go in appeal in the higher or even if the person get relief from the higher courts he\she can never go back to this place and have to live in danger for his\her entire life.

No comments:

Post a Comment