Salman Taseer’s death provides a parable of why his country, which promised so much, has slipped so far

The Economist has made an occupation in being anti-Pakistan.
This was the act of an individual. Don't you have crazy people in the West? What about that guy who murdered John Lennon?

Before rushing to canonize Mr Taseer as a beacon of liberalism and hope, one needs to keep in mind that among other things, he was also reportedly a Holocaust-denier. That puts him in the same league as Ahmedinejad. (Mr Salman Taseer's son Atish Taseer, in his memoirs, has elucidated on that.)

Yet, thanks to the desiccated standards of contemporary Pakistani society, where the merely 'bad' is still endearing compared to the alternatives available, Mr Taseer was clearly better than many others there. His assasination and the surprising level of adulation being enjoyed by the assassin is a stark commentary on Pakistan and how the idea on which it was formed (that minority Muslims could not co-exist with Hindus and Christians) was a silly one to begin with.

Similarly, the grand evocations of Mr Muhammad Ali Jinnah on religious toleration (that The Economist cites) should also be taken with a pinch of salt. Mr Jinnah led a vicious campaign for the carving out of a new country (Pakistan) from India in 1947 primarily on the basis of religion, implying that a diverse, pluralistic society was unfeasible. The result was one of the most gruesome rioting in world history, and on that bloodied foundation the state of Pakistan was created. With such an ominous foundation, is it surprising to see what condition that country is in today?

By the way, what The Economist disingenuously glosses over as "a row with neighbours over drinking water" was actually an example of untouchability practiced by many Pakistanis against all non-Muslims. The entire row came to light after Asia Bibi, the illiterate Christian lady handled drinking water which muslims considered ‘unclean’ since it was touched by a person following a supposedly inferior religion. A simple search on the Net will yield more on this!
+

@blithe7,
"This was the act of an individual. Don't you have crazy people in the West? What about that guy who murdered John Lennon?"

He was not garlanded or showered with rose petals or celebrated as a killer in society at large with 300 lawyers lining up to defend him.
This extends way beyond the individual.

BrainWarrior,

You have a very distorted information about Mr. Jinnah. He was a member of Congress party for a long time and campaigned for India's freedom till Mr. Gandhi came back from South Africa and started taking over the leadership. Jinnah developed sharp differences with Gandhi mostly on the direction of the movement. He joined Muslim league while still maintaining his association with the congress and tried reconciliation between the two groups. His good friends were hindus like Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Gokhle.His mentor was Dadbhai Naoriji. His biggest concern was securing the interests of muslims as minorities. The congress sub-committee recommended several such measures which were accepted and then repudiated by Mr.Nehru.Mr. Gandhi made lot of noise about communal harmony but didn't push Nehru and Patel to gave assurance to the muslims. He simply lost trust in hindu leaders and was convinced that muslims as a permanent minority will have no power in Independent India. Finally after nearly 40 years working with hindu leaders he put forward a demand for Pakistan in 1940. This seems to be a desperate step rather than
than a declaration of no co-existence belief with other religious communities in India. He married a non-muslim and his daughter was raised as non-muslim and married a non-muslim. So much for his religious bigotry.
His speech in August 1947, Economist has quoted, is a genuine expression of a secular leader. Keep in mind that Pakistan stayed fairly moderate till 1970's when Zulfiqar Bhutto played his religion card to hang on to his office. Zia ul Haq turned it into an intolerant
extremist country that Pakistan is today. I am sure Jinnah is turning in his grave. The Economist is right.

The much Venerated "Jinah", is just as Guilty & Responsible as that Dead Dictator "Zia-ul-Haq", for this Wave of Ignorance, Incitement & Intolerance!
The late Mr Taseer, will be remembered as a Strong Symbol of Courage!!
While his Assassin, along with whom-ever Inspired or Instigated him, continue to Show US nothing but Cowardice!!!
Maybe what began with the Partition of the Sub-Continent -in 1947, could only possibly End with Re-Integration.......

R.I.P. Salman.......

Peace, Love & Respect.

"For evil to prevail, as the old saw goes, all that is required is for good men to do nothing."

So ordinary people can sit around and wait for good people to stand up. Good to know.

The sad fact is that such evil actions are condoned and receive no general sanction or criticism in Pakistan, such is the sad status of it's government. Certainly, it is no democracy. And probably it never will be.

This guy was in the People's Party, a notoriously corrupt party. There could have been tons of reasons for someone to want to kill him, especially if the killer is a disenfranchised commoner. But of course The Economist wants to put out more Anti-Islamic sentiment, don't they? Just give us more spin, Economist.

Aye!

As Salman Taseer wanted change in the laws of blasphemy so that no evil-minded person can abuse this law to settle his/her scores with his/her enemies. I think, speaking in favour of such a change does not constitute a blasphemy. Moreover, all the Muslims cannot tolerate an insult to the Holy Prophet of Islam (peace be upon him) and while punishing a person who commits an act of insult to the Holy Prophet, the true Muslim does not care about his own life. But it is strange that the killer of Salman Taseer ensured his own safety first by requesting his fellow bodyguards not to kill him when he tries to assassinate Salman Taseer.

@schuhella
"There could have been tons of reasons for someone to want to kill him, especially if the killer is a disenfranchised commoner. But of course The Economist wants to put out more Anti-Islamic sentiment, don't they? Just give us more spin, Economist."

Although the reason Malik Mumtaz himself gave is becaue he considered Taseer a blasphemer for challenging the death penalty for blasphemy.

No spin needed there.

Personally I understand his reasoning as Malik is basing it on the actions of the Prophet (pbuh) himself. In that sense his action is quite consistent with the examples given in the hadiths, and approved of by Muhammed.

In the words of Mr. Finkle Salman Taseer needed killing.

How was it that the governor of Punjab, the largest, most affluent, with the opposition in power, having received death threats, controversial on his stand on the Blasphemy law, walks out into a market to lunch at a public restaurant and was complacent enough to meander in front of live weapons albeit guards provided for his own protection providing an opportunity to be shot. The protocol required the ADC to precede the Governor, take stock of the situation and then escort him out in a way that he slips into the car door with as little time of exposure as possible, the car is parked with the entry door towards the exit of the building with the door open to ensure a seamless departure. At this point the security detail should be sitting in the vehicle, ready to escort the VIP carrier quickly out of the scene which would have attracted a lot of attention by this time. If there was need of having guards on the ground with their weapons on the ready, it is guard leader who is controlling the process and is closest to the VIP providing a human shield and most ready to shoot. Obviously none of this happened, no one even tried to shoot the assassin, which leads one to conclude that there was perhaps a conspiracy.

The possible beneficiaries from his death could be the a) religious extremists, which they have made it clearly known through public statements and Facebook and other blogs, b) political adversaries a lot of them would surely want him dead but not at the cost of their own political future, c) could be the establishment as a diversionary tactic form the current political turmoil, d) a ruse by the intelligence agencies at the behest of the army to pave the way for another coup, e) could it be a self inflicted wound by the ruling majority again to divert the attention of the public from internal strife or ‘crying wolf’ to an international audience for more drastic aid measures, especially when President Zardari is due to visit the USA to attend the last right of Richard Holbrooke, or given the complexity of the situation there could be a host of other reasons.

If there was none of the above and it was just some trigger happy self proclaimed jihadist, then the people responsible for giving him that post will need to give some serious expalinations.

Read more at personality cult devotee http://wp.me/p1ahFg-3y

The assassination of the Pakistan's Punjab province Governor, Salman Taseer by one of his elite security guards, said to be opposed to the repeal of blasphemy law, as being advocated by Taseer, does point to an ominous sign as to how the Islamic radicalisation process that began some decades back has come to its logical end with the Pakistan polity and military having succumbed to the dictates of Islamic fundamentalism, making the lives of common Pakistani people just miserable, and posing a serous existential threat to the Pakistani nation state itself. If the Islamic militants do succeed to lay hands on the Pakistani nukes, a real possibility indeed, not only the stability and peace of South Asian region, but of the whole world might be threatened.

Any guess,what will happen to the killer body guard?

blithe7 wrote:
Jan 6th 2011 6:20 GMT

The Economist has made an occupation in being anti-Pakistan.
This was the act of an individual. Don't you have crazy people in the West?
____
Blithy - My dear boy ( as your PM would probably say) this act of an individual , has been applauded by a very large majority of the Pakistanis.
They have crazy people everywhere , but never supported by a majority of the population, NAZI Germany being and exception.
...
INCIDENTALLY - this thing about the Economist being anti-Pakistan,
The Chinese say the same thing , as do us Indians, and apparently many Americans don't like criticism of America either
...
One more thing I do have to ask, Jinnah, whose wife and daughter did not want to live in Pakistan, did say that 20% of the population was free to go to their Hindu temples.

What happened those people ?

BIN SAFI wrote:
Jan 7th 2011 1:11 GMT
Maybe what began with the Partition of the Sub-Continent -in 1947, could only possibly End with Re-Integration..
...
No thanks bin - we would not want to deal with these losers.
We would hope that they join up with China.

One is surprised that you have started the article with Mr. Jinnah famous so called Speech of his August 11th,1947. How can even think of such hypocrisy.Read the words and tell us what was going on since Direct Action Day 1946. Did the writer forgot the ethnic cleaning in Punjab. How can you even think of quoting such words?
Pakistan was founded as a Muslim nation and thus there is no place of another faith or religion.
Jinnah might had been at one time a secularist but his invasion of Kashmir did show his true colour.Maybe the writer is young and have missed the carnage .
So kindly stop quoting such Hippocratic words.

It is a shame that people like Mr. Taseer has fallen target to the bullets of such fundamentalist.But one must remember that the nation is on self destructive path and misled the illitrate people in name of Faith.

@blithe7

"narrow-minded people all over the world"? Yourself included perhaps?

"actually a Hindu caste practice to segregate food and drinking water". Not the Hinduism I know. You suggest the practice in Pakistan might be a misinterpretation of Islam, so might you not also afford the same benefit of doubt to Hinduism? Casteism is a cultural phenomenon, not a spiritual/religious one.

"You are also wrong in saying that Islam considers Christianity to be an inferior religion. Islam considers Christianity as a co-religion." So it's ok if everything else is considered inferior :)? Perhaps you should look up Allama Mashriqi in Wikipedia.

Hindus, Muslims, whatever - why is it that 'moderates' always shrug and act helpless when a murder is committed in the name of their religion? Why don't they make the Honest Choice?

Either confront the misguided transgressors and try to educate them (or imprison them - that would be fine too), or disavow your pestilential metaphysics and join the twenty first century?

Do you really think your God is happy with you shrugging your fool shoulders while idiots are murdering their way into his heaven?

Why don't you heed the prayers of the rest of humanity?

Stand up for your religion if you realy believe in it. Confront the murdering subhumans you have bred and deal with them.

Before it's too late.

Perhaps for reasons of decorum, TE rarely describes political violence. Not so the American press. According to the Washington Post, the assassin announced to his colleagues in the elite counter-terrorism protective police that he intended to kill Taseer for attempting repeal of the blasphemy law. Someone reported his remarks to superiors...who did nothing. During the attack, other members of the elite bodyguard...did nothing. The attacker emptied his pistol into Taseer and then calmly set it on the ground.

If only we could say of Pakistan what is said of Las Vegas: what happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas. The inevitable collapse of Pakistan's civil society into anarchy will stretch across international borders everywhere, but no border will be more affected than the one with India. I hope the Indians are planning ahead.