Nerves of Steel - Interview Mirwaiz Umar Farooq

By Amir Zia
Monthly Narratives
August 2017

Being an opposition leader or even an ordinary political worker – labelled as separatists – in Indian-occupied Kashmir is not conventional politics as conducted around the world. One has to have a mighty heart and nerves of steel to stand up against the might of more than 700,000 hostile Indian forces

For Mirwaiz Mohammad Umar Farooq – one of the most prominent leaders of Indian-occupied Kashmir’s All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) – politics is not the traditional game of power, but a high-risk mission in which all the dice are loaded against him.

Farooq, along with his fellow political leaders and followers want to free their people and their homeland – the Himalayan region of Kashmir – from the vicious tentacles of Indian rule through a peaceful, political and democratic struggle. What they face in return is brutal Indian state terrorism and repression, a non-stop backlash of threats and abuses from the fanatical followers of Hindutva, a blatantly biased and hostile Indian press and the stony indifference of the world towards the gross human rights violations in the occupied region.

Being an opposition leader or even an ordinary political worker – labelled as separatists – in Indian-occupied Kashmir is not conventional politics as conducted around the world. One has to have a mighty heart and nerves of steel to stand up against the might of more than 700,000 hostile Indian forces in one of the world’s most highly militarised regions.

Farooq took on the responsibility of this ‘do or die’ mission of freeing Kashmir from India after the assassination of his father, Maulvi Farooq, the Mirwaiz or the top cleric of Kashmir in 1990. He was barely 17 years old at that time. And since then, he has never looked back. He has been in and out of Indian jails, confinements and house arrest scores of times for demanding the right to self-determination for the Kashmiri people in line with the United Nations Security Council resolutions. He faces death threats from the Indian state and its stooges for his pro-independence stance on Kashmir and often an innocuous tweet or statement issued by him on the social media results in a barrage of abusive words and insults from Hindu extremists.

In a Skype and telephone interview, conducted by this scribe in two parts for a Bol News’ television programme and Narratives magazine, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq highlights the Indian brutalities in the occupied Kashmir and explains how relentless state terrorism is forcing young Kashmiris to opt for armed resistance.

Can you describe the state of affairs in occupied Kashmir currently? How is the Hurriyat leadership assessing the situation?

Mirwaiz: Firstly, I would like to congratulate the Bol Network for highlighting the Kashmir issue so effectively. Although Pakistani channels are blocked here, people watch your channel with keen interest through other mediums such as the social media. And we are grateful for the way Bol is focusing on Kashmir and showing the Pakistani public a true picture of the valley.

The problem of Jammu and Kashmir is linked to its people’s emotions, sensitivities and aspirations, which are being denied and crushed by the Indian state. We tell everyone coming from India or anywhere else to admit this reality.

It’s very hard for you (India) to digest that today Kashmiris are demanding their freedom and you are responding through the brutal use of force and violence. Have you (Indians) forgotten your own independence movement? People like Nehru, Gandhi, Subhash Chandra Bose and others happen to be your independence leaders, but ironically you equate our young leaders, who are rendering sacrifices, with terrorists.

The reality is stark; India wants to crush the movement of the people of Jammu and Kashmir through the use of force and coercion and by deploying 0.7 million troops there. Kashmiris have been fighting this war for the last 70 years; I was 17-years-old when I took over as Mirwaiz after the martyrdom of my father.

                   The barbarism is not just restricted to one area; all of                                 Kashmir has been transformed into a massive torture cell

It’s been 27 years since I have been associated with this liberation movement. During this time, I’ve realised that with each passing year, the passion and fervour of Kashmiris, for independence, has intensified and increased.

When (former Indian External Affairs Minister and senior BJP leader) Yashwant Sinha and his delegation came here to talk to us in 2016, I told him that in the 1990s you saw emotions and a euphoria among Kashmiris, but in 2016 you are witnessing anger and hatred of Kashmiris towards India for which you (Indians) yourself are responsible.

As you said, following the assassination of your father by gunmen in 1990, you were pushed into politics at the nascent age of 17. What gives you the strength to stand up to a country, which uses extreme brutal tactics in occupied Kashmir and has a history of violating human rights and possesses such a powerful, callous army? 

Mirwaiz: We firmly believe in Allah. We have an unshakeable belief that we are fighting for a just cause. And this is our biggest strength. Those living in cities are relatively better off in a sense that at least they have some access to the media. But the people living in the rural belt are being subjected to the worst kind of violence and cruelty.

Can an independence movement of this scale be sponsored? Would people want to lose their limbs, their eyes, their lives, just for a few hundred (rupees)?

One of our leaders, who recently came from south Kashmir, said that the condition of the people there is deplorable; they face the most terrible kind of violence virtually every day. In June, the forces stormed into their homes, damaged vehicles, beat up innocent, unarmed people. Even the youth, who celebrated Pakistan’s victory in the Champions Trophy, were roughed up, mauled, and pellet guns were fired at them. It’s the passion for freedom that has kept us together and provides us the impetus to keep moving forward.

What’s the price ordinary Kashmiris – men and women, young and old – have to pay when they talk about their rights and independence of Kashmir, given the fact that Indian forces have intensified and increased the level of violence in an alarming manner? 

Mirwaiz: Indeed, what can be more horrific than the scenario which unfolded in 2016, when for the first time, the army and the administration used pellet guns on unarmed civilians; more than 300 Kashmiri youngsters were struck in the eyes with pellets.

Out of these victims, almost 30 percent lost their sight. Pellet scars still exist on their bodies and faces. In that spell of savagery, as many as 97 innocent Kashmiris were martyred by the Indian forces. The barbarism is not just restricted to one area; all of Kashmir has been transformed into a massive torture cell.

The propaganda that the Indian media is conducting against the struggle, calling it a ‘sponsored movement,’ defies logic. It’s shameful that they are misleading the people by constantly lying to them. Can an independence movement of this scale be sponsored? Would people want to lose their limbs, their eyes, their lives, just for a few hundred (rupees)?

What do you think the Indian government aims to achieve by escalating violence and brutalities in Kashmir? Can the use of force suppress the voice of Kashmiris?

Mirwaiz: There’s talk of the Doval Doctrine, which suggests that Kashmiris be crushed so much that they are unable to rise. But the theory has boomeranged.

The Kashmiri youth has stood up against Indian occupation and oppression with much more vigour and passion in 2016 following the escalation of violence in Kashmir. Unfortunately, many educated Kashmiri youngsters have been forced to take up guns because of the brutalities of the Indian forces against our mothers, sisters, children and the elderly. They have no other choice.

There was a time when Hurriyat leaders faced no restriction in talking to the Pakistani leadership. But since Narendra Modi came to power in 2014, his government has slapped restrictions on such contact. What does the Indian government hope to achieve?

Mirwaiz: India has a false superiority complex. The country thinks that it’s a rising economy because international powers, including the United Kingdom and the United States, are interested in its markets. But I think India’s economy is in trouble; its Gross Domestic Product growth has lost momentum, its investments have declined and the country faces a host of issues due to demonetisation. 

When India is not ready to come to the negotiating table, then what other options do you have to push forward the Kashmir cause?

Mirwaiz: The options are very limited. It’s a fact that India wants to settle the issue militarily, not politically. And one can see this in the way Indian forces have been granted powers to wreak havoc on Kashmiris; you can also see this in the Indian army chief’s statements.

                There’s talk of the Doval Doctrine, which suggests that              Kashmiris be crushed so much that they are unable to rise. But the                                                    theory has boomeranged

It is clear that the Modi government is not seeking political engagement and, instead, wants to suppress the voice of Kashmiris through force. Therefore, Pakistan and the international community have a role to play. I believe that we must intensify our diplomatic efforts to highlight the plight of Kashmiris at every international forum and important capitals the world over.

Kashmir is one of the oldest disputes recognised by the United Nations. Why has the international community shied away from playing a pro-active role for its resolution? 

Mirwaiz: There are many reasons. Firstly, the world community’s focus right now is on other pressing issues such as Syria and Iraq. So, the entire attention is either on these issues or it is on Islamophobia.

Since Kashmir is a Muslim-dominated area, we see the international community’s double standards here. It intervenes in South Sudan and in other parts of the world, but there’s silence on the Kashmir dispute.

Secondly, given its size, population and economy, India now has clout in the international community. The United States and the United Kingdom eye its markets. The economic stakes of the world powers in India is the major reason why the international community has turned a blind eye to Kashmir.

How can the international community be engaged on this issue? Is there a need to organise the Kashmiri diaspora, especially in the western countries, to fight the case of Kashmir on the diplomatic and political fronts?

Mirwaiz: Absolutely. In my opinion, we can garner a lot of support by presenting facts about the gross human rights violations in Kashmir by the Indian forces. We must take advantage of the social media to highlight the cause.

Whenever something happens in Kashmir, the first target of the Indian government is the social media, which is immediately blocked.

However, despite these measures, reality cannot be hidden and the world, through various social media platforms, gets to know the situation on the ground. I believe a sustained effort is needed; for example, Pakistan’s embassies ought to be reactivated. An incessant campaign needs to be run on the human rights issue.

The indigenous Kashmiri freedom struggle is being presented to the world by India as a terrorist movement. How can a counter-narrative be developed to change this perception?

Mirwaiz: Indeed, India has launched a sustained campaign to mislead the world about the liberation movement and paint it as a ‘sponsored movement’ aided and abetted by Pakistan.

But statistics tell a different story. In the last one year alone, 140 Kashmiri youngsters have been martyred. We have a list of approximately 22,000 others who were incarcerated during the same period. We have all the data available. It is a question of presenting it to the world despite all the restrictions, bans and disinformation and misinformation drives unleashed by India.

The Indian agenda is to associate the Kashmiri freedom struggle with fundamentalism and terrorism. It is trying to create an impression that there is no peoples’ movement here, but for the last couple of years, especially after the martyrdom of Burhan Wani in 2016, the world has witnessed an unprecedented surge in our struggle and more and more youngsters are resisting Indian occupation by whatever means they can.

Our position is that the Jammu and Kashmir freedom struggle is a peoples’ movement. The causes of militancy lie in state terrorism, repression and human rights violations. Indians forces arrest youngsters and when they walk out of jail or they suffer abuse and ill-treatment, they take up weapons. We have to tell the world that it is a legitimate, indigenous struggle against India’s illegal occupation of Kashmir.

Has the armed struggle helped advance the Kashmiri cause?

Mirwaiz: Absolutely. But the fact is that the Kashmiri youth had to pick up the gun when all avenues were blocked, leaving them with no other choice except to respond to Indian aggression with force. Even today, the Kashmiris are picking up guns because they have been pushed to the wall.

How do you see the recent US move of declaring Hizbul Mujahideen’s Supreme Commander Syed Salahuddin a terrorist? Why, after all these years, has Washington suddenly declared him a terrorist?

Mirwaiz: Firstly, the Americans know that Kashmiri armed groups, including Hizbul Mujahideen, operate only in Kashmir and in no other part of the world, including India. They know that these militant groups are meant only for Kashmir. The United States’ position on Kashmir has always been that Kashmir is a dispute and it needs to be solved. However, recently a US tilt towards India is evident.

It’s a fact that India wants to settle the issue militarily, not politically. And one can see this in the way Indian forces have been granted powers to wreak havoc on Kashmiris

The All Parties Hurriyat Conference sees the armed struggle in Kashmir as one aspect of the overall movement, but not as its dominant factor. The dominant factor of the Kashmir Independence Movement is its political struggle. The Indian forces are killing unarmed children and those who are resisting the occupation, by forming poorly-armed militant groups, are doing it because they see all peaceful and democratic avenues to end this conflict are closed and to halt the Indian atrocities.

The drift of youngsters towards militancy is also a challenge for us but the Indians are pushing them to the wall. We want to keep our independence movement peaceful and political. The United States should rethink its policy (on Kashmir) and take immediate action to resolve the issue in a just and equitable manner rather than siding with the Indian occupation forces.

Will the move of declaring Syed Salahuddin a global terrorist by the US have any impact on the political and armed struggle in occupied Kashmir?

Mirwaiz: I don’t think it would have an impact. To keep the record straight, I would like to mention that when there was an attack on Pathankot (January 2016), we condemned it. We don’t encourage militancy even in Kashmir. It is India which is resorting to aggression in Kashmir, it is India which is committing human rights violations and atrocities and it is India which has transformed Kashmir into the highest militarised zone in the world.

Is Syed Salahuddin relevant in today’s Kashmiri struggle which has been taken over by young, new faces?

Mirwaiz: The United Jihad Council is a platform where Kashmiri militant groups coordinate. It is necessary to have a chain of command. The Jihad Council says that if the Kashmir dispute can be solved politically and India takes initiative and shows willingness to settle the issue through talks, only then can it consider a ceasefire.

The world must see that if there is militancy in Kashmir, there is a context to it. Now there is a new phenomenon; youngsters, teenagers and even children – both boys and girls – are spearheading protests and shouting for freedom in rallies and protests.

Many of them realise that the Indian forces and government are bent upon denying them political space and the means to a peaceful, democratic struggle. This is leading towards a new situation. Many of these youngsters are acting on their own, as freelancers. It is a challenge for all of us. We don’t want these kids to ruin their future, but the belligerent Indian attitude and atrocities are leaving them with no choice but to take up arms without any chain of command.

Any message for the Pakistanis?

Mirwaiz: Pakistanis have always supported Kashmiris on the diplomatic, political, and moral fronts. We expect that they will continue this support. I also urge the Pakistani media to highlight the Kashmir cause much more effectively and vociferously to the world. I request the Pakistani media to redouble its efforts to present our case to the world and inform the world community about the barbarities which India is committing against the innocent Kashmiris.

ends

War Of Narratives

By Amir Zia

Monthly Hilal

The Pakistan Armed Forces' Magazine

September, 2015

The pseudo liberals criticize Pakistan and its security establishment for the alleged support to the religiously-motivated Afghan militants, while the religious extremists condemn and target the country exactly for the opposite reason; for fighting the Al-Qaeda-linked or inspired militants and destroying the safe havens of all foreign terrorists.

Two small, but motivated rival forces have long been trying to rule the public opinion in Pakistan. They are zealously pushing their competing narratives in schools, colleges, universities and seminaries to capture young minds. They are battling it out with each other in the mainstream media in an attempt to thrust their agendas. And they are trying to exploit the reach of the new media to propagate views and put across their messages. Despite deep fissures and countless variances within each of these forces, the westernized pseudo liberals and the religious extremists are two distinct groups, struggling to seize the national narrative.

But their ideological differences apart, these rivals also share some common traits.

For example, they both in their essence remain opposed to Pakistan and its basic idea apparently for conflicting reasons, yet aiming to achieve the similar outcome. If the so-called liberals think that the creation of Pakistan and the partition of British-India was a slip of history, the religious extremist, too, think in the same manner albeit under a different pretext. The religious extremists denounce the Freedom Movement and its achievement – Pakistan – because it clashes with their parochial, intolerant and theocratic worldview. Their rivals – the pseudo liberals – try to undermine the demand for a separate Muslim homeland in South Asia as a mere British conspiracy aimed at dividing India. By this naïve assertion, they ignore the strong demands of political, economic and social rights of Muslims, which culminated with the creation of Pakistan. The two rivals also appear on the same page in their criticism of Pakistan’s founding fathers and heroes of the Freedom Movement – from Sir Syed Ahmed Khan and Sir Allama Muhammad Iqbal to Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah. If for the religious extremists these leaders were too open-minded, progressive and modern, their rivals declare them conservative, communal and pro-British.

In today’s context, these forces remain bitterly opposed to the Pakistan Armed Forces. For pseudo liberals, the security forces are the main stumbling block in their designs to make frontiers between Pakistan and India irrelevant. They justify their argument in the name of the so-called shared values, culture and history between the two states. The religious extremists stand at the other side of the pendulum and propagate that the armed forces are allies of the West and therefore, resorting to acts of terror against them remain justified.

The pseudo liberals criticize Pakistan and its security establishment for the alleged support to the religiously-motivated Afghan militants, while the religious extremists condemn and target the country exactly for the opposite reason; for fighting the Al-Qaeda-linked or inspired militants and destroying the safe havens of all foreign terrorists.

One can draw several other such parallels and dig deeper into the ideological stances of these two extreme views, which in a nutshell may appear contradictory, but aim to weaken and destroy Pakistan.

Many pseudo liberals, who also have been joined in by the leftists of yesteryears, will certainly raise eyebrows on what they might say the “audacity” of drawing similarities between them and their violent ideological rivals. Some can rightly say in their defence that unlike the religious extremists, they do not stand guilty of resorting to suicide bombings, explosions and acts of terrorism and sabotage, while others may like to draw attention toward their services for the EU-inspired human rights causes.

All this may be true, but the thrust of the argument is to highlight the commonalities of the two rivals. As far as actions are concerned, besides ideology, they are the result of many other factors, including strategy, the class and social backgrounds of activists, their political orientation and commitment.

The pseudo liberals overwhelmingly comprise mainly of the westernized and well-off middle, upper middle and elite classes, while the religious extremists draw most of their foot soldiers from the lower classes, especially from the rural areas and bank on select motivated individuals from the middle and upper-middle class as their ideologues, masterminds of complicated operations.

Both these rivals enjoy much more reach and clout in the traditional and the new media than their actual size in the society. For instance, pseudo liberals dominate the English-language press, which despite the small size, is seen influential because of its reach in the corridors of power. The so-called liberals freely run propaganda campaigns against the core national interests from undermining the Kashmir cause to that of the criticism on the country’s nuclear programme mainly in the English-language press, which serves as the main vehicle to highlight their small protests, conferences and other activities. They resort to propaganda against the country’s security agencies and the armed forces and try to portray them as rouge institutions. They also indulge in foreign-inspired advocacy campaigns in the name of human rights – by which they basically mean rights of criminals and terrorists. The organized, EU-backed campaign against the resumption of death penalty after last December’s barbarity at the Army Public School Peshawar is a case to point. As the national consensus stood solidly behind awarding capital punishment, the self-styled rights’ groups launched a drive to save the life of the child killer Shafqat Hussain by twisting facts and distorting evidence to prove that he was a juvenile when he kidnapped a seven-year-old boy and murdered him after sexual abuse. Their aim was to undermine Pakistan’s judiciary. Due to public pressure, the child killer was finally hanged to death in Karachi after evading death warrants at least half-a-dozen times.

Although the religious extremists do not have a direct clout on the traditional media, their apologist and allies in the mainstream religious and political parties help support their narrative. They urge for talks with terrorists – responsible for killing thousands of Pakistanis, including officers and soldiers of the armed forces – in the name of peace. There also are blatant attempts in the media to justify taking up arms against the state and arguments to support the policy of appeasement and reconciliation with the local and foreign terrorists, trying to run a state within the state. Such voices have bigger influence on the Urdu-language media, which has become a tool to propagate hate speech, intolerance, conservative ideas and ideals and twist the vision of Pakistan by attempting to paint it as a theocratic state. Such ideas are also reinforced by many pulpits and seminaries as well as big and small religious groups. Their narrow, myopic, flawed and confrontationist interpretation of the sacred religion of Islam creates favourable ground where extremist ideas breed and grow.

The extremists also have an organized propaganda machinery of their own and have mastered the art of using the new media. They are not just banking on the written word to disseminate propaganda, but use audios, videos and photographs through dedicated or third party websites and countless fake accounts on the social media. If any of these accounts get blocked, a new one is created under another fake identity.

However, the pseudo liberals and the religious extremists remain a minority in this country of more than 180 million people. Yet they have managed to create a lot of dust, which tarnishes Pakistan’s image and creates despondency, negativism and anger in the society. Ironically, the rational Pakistani nationalist narrative is missing from both the traditional and the new media. Even if it exists, it is disorganized and finds little space, though it articulates the aspirations and will of overwhelming majority of Pakistanis. What does this nationalist narrative mean in a nutshell given Pakistan’s present day challenges?

Firstly, it represents modernity rooted in our tradition, culture and religion. The same way, Pakistan’s founding fathers conceived and articulated it by investing in the modern education starting from Aligarh, Sindh Madrassatul Islam, Islamia College Peshawar and other modern education institutions, which in turn became the vanguard of the freedom struggle.

Secondly, it means rising above the bigoted sectarian, ethnic and provincial divide and promoting national cohesion and unity. This again remains the crux of the message of Pakistan’s founders, who managed to unite Muslims of South Asia for a single cause regardless of their class, ethnic, sectarian or provincial background.

Thirdly, it is establishing the writ of the state and rule of law in the country. This means zero-tolerance for armed groups and bands of non-state actors operating under any pretext. The state should ensure its monopoly over violence. The Operation Zarb-e-Azb and the crackdown on criminals and terrorists in Karachi are aimed at achieving this goal. Support to these causes is vital in the battle of ideas to achieve the goal of a peaceful and stable Pakistan as envisioned by its founders.

Fourthly, it should aim at making Pakistan’s defence impregnable against any direct aggression as well as the indirect soft invasion diluting our national cohesion and unity. This means unflinching support for the guardians of Pakistan’s frontiers – the armed forces – and countering those individuals, commercial organizations and media ventures working against Pakistan’s core interests.

And fifthly, it should promote the idea of economically prosperous, progressive and strong Pakistan to ensure not just the wellbeing and upward social mobility of citizens, but also guarantees peace and stability in the region. This was the dream of Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali and his companions. The first key to achieve these goals is to aggressively and unapologetically dominate the battle of narratives and counter those tiny organized minorities of pseudo liberals and the religious extremists, who are trying to weaken Pakistan. It is time for the Team Pakistan to rise, make a difference and win this battle.

A Time To Kill

By Amir Zia

(A truncated version of this article appeared in the July, 2015 issue of monthly Newsline) 

The ramification of deciding cases on the basis of public perception or direct foreign or local pressure is indeed an ominous trend. State institutions and the government should not yield before such pressures. How Pakistan runs its judicial system is totally our business. The government also needs to give a tough warning to the EU and other foreign players not to blatantly interfere in Pakistan’s internal matters.

Convicted child-killer Shafqat Hussain got another lease of life when his execution, scheduled for June 9, was stayed for the fourth time, barely a few hours before the hanging. On whose orders the jail superintendent deferred the execution initially appeared a mystery as both the President House and the Ministry of Interior denied issuing any such directives. Also, there were no court orders to save Hussain’s life.

“It was Almighty Allah’s will, that’s all I can say,” said a senior jail official with a knowing smile at the Karachi Central Prison. “But eventually he will be hanged. It’s only a matter of time…The case has become a prestige point, both for the superior judiciary and those opposed to Shafqat’s execution.”

Jail authorities maintain that it was the Sindh government, which managed to prevent Shafqat’s hanging as only a day prior to it, a delegation, comprising diplomats from the key EU countries, met Sindh Chief Minister Syed Qaim Ali Shah, and urged him to play his role in saving Shafqat’s life. And the PPP government obliged by advising the jail superintendent to postpone the hanging, using the argument that another hearing of the case was due the following day.

The stay prompted an angry response from the federal government, underlining the fact that the tussle over Shafqat Hussain’s fate is far from over. In fact, this tussle has become a defining one in Pakistan where Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif partially lifted the moratorium on the death penalty in December 2014, following the deadly attack on an army-run public school in Peshawar. The national outrage over the massacre of more than 140 people, mostly children, created an unprecedented consensus on crushing terrorism and awarding the death penalty to those convicted for terrorism. In March 2015, the government lifted the moratorium on the death penalty for all heinous crimes under the constitution. 

The anti-death penalty campaigners were caught off-guard, as a broad national agreement emerged on lifting the controversial moratorium on the death penalty placed by the former PPP government in 2008. The moratorium had created a dichotomy in Pakistan’s legal system whereby the judiciary kept on handing down the death penalty under the constitution, but the executive arm was not implementing those orders.

Ironically, instead of going for a constitutional amendment to abolish the death sentence, the PPP, had chosen a short cut because of the fear of a backlash from powerful and radical Islamic groups, which view any attempts to scrap the death penalty as being against the tenets of Islam. Along with the Islamic groups, many secular nationalist Pakistanis, key-decision-makers in the judiciary, members of civil society and the bureaucracy, also oppose banishing the death penalty.

In the wake of this broad national consensus in favour of the death penalty, a few human rights campaigners went for an indirect approach to campaign against the death penalty by picking up Shafqat Hussain’s case. They came out with an allegation that Shafqat was under-age – barely 14 years old or so – when convicted for the kidnapping and murder of a seven-year-old child in 2004. Pakistan’s constitution bars capital punishment for persons under the age of 18 years. These groups also allege that Shafqat’s confession was gleaned through torture.

What followed was a sorry saga of distortion of facts and falsification of documents, including the birth certificate of the convicted killer – all rejected by Pakistan’s superior judiciary. Shafqat’s childhood photo was circulated on social media to win sympathy among the people and cast doubts about the judicial process.

The target appeared simple; sow suspicions about one case and undermine the entire system. But the Justice Project, which came out in Shafqat’s defence, picked the wrong case in an attempt to paint black as white.  

According to the police, it was an open-and-shut case of murder and kidnapping.

Shafqat was 23 or 24 years old when the crime was committed. The photograph taken at the time of Shafqat’s arrest is undeniable proof of this. The body of the victim was found based on information provided by Shafqat, who worked as a security guard at the Karachi apartment building from where the boy was kidnapped.

Shafqat continued to make telephone calls to the victim’s family even after murdering the child, in a bid to collect ransom and was arrested red-handed when he came to collect the money.

From the anti-terrorism court -- authorised to try kidnapping for ransom cases -- to the superior judiciary – all upheld the death verdict handed down to Shafqat. His appeal for clemency was rejected by the president.

All through his trial, the question of Shafqat’s age was never raised. And if some of the so-called rights campaigners are to be believed, then our entire judicial system failed to notice that it had been trying a boy aged barely 14.

The multiple appeals by the lawyers associated with the Justice Project in various courts, including the Islamabad High Court (IHC), failed to win any relief for Shafqat, who had exhausted all the judicial avenues. The IHC on May 21 dismissed the petition calling for the formation of a judicial commission to determine Hussain’s age and termed it unmaintainable. “Nothing has been placed before this court which would indicate any miscarriage of justice or a need for a probe,” IHC Justice Athar Minallah said.

However, the case was picked up by the foreign media which found the false story about the trial of a 14-year old prisoner and his planned execution sellable.

If foreign pressure, along with the local support, somehow manages to save Shafqat from the gallows, it will not just undermine Pakistan’s judicial system, but encourage other pressure groups to opt for similar tactics. These pressure groups can range from various shades of religious extremists to militant groups, which have a far bigger following and popular support base compared to those who are fighting the Shafqat Hussain case mainly on Twitter and Facebook.

The ramification of deciding cases on the basis of public perception or direct foreign or local pressure is indeed an ominous trend. State institutions and the government should not yield before such pressures. How Pakistan runs its judicial system is totally our business. The government also needs to give a tough warning to the EU and other foreign players not to blatantly interfere in Pakistan’s internal matters.

The local rights groups – even those working with the best of intentions – need to do some soul-searching. Unfortunately, they seem more concerned about advocating for the rights of convicted terrorists and criminals rather than standing up for the victims and their families. Of course, they have every right to lobby and campaign against the death penalty, but in their zeal they should not distort facts and forge documents as a handful of them did in Shafqat Hussain’s case.

These groups also need to take into account Pakistan’s priorities: The basic questions to ask are; Have there been more than 60,000 killings by terrorists and extremists (as in Pakistan) over the last one decade in any of those countries which have abolished the death sentence? Do they face similar challenges of crime and lawlessness as that of Pakistan? Is there any parallel between our economies? The answer to these and many other similar questions is a firm “no.” The government needs to hold accountable those people who, perhaps in pursuance of their own agenda, attempted to create confusion about Shafqat Hussain’s case through blatant lies and falsification of documents. Justice must prevail at every cost in line with the constitution of Pakistan.