5 July 1977: the day Bhutto was removed

Embed from Getty Images

I was young at the time (35), but like almost every Pakistani I was overjoyed when Zia toppled Bhutto (and hanged him later). I have written elsewhere about how much Bhutto damaged Pakistan (https://tribune.com.pk/article/33546/we-will-never-forget-nor-ever-forgive-you-mr-bhutto). Indeed, I still believe that he was responsible for the break-up of the country, by damaging what remained of Pakistan by nationalizing industries and dividing the country by using the Sindh card.

But in hindsight, I believe that he should not have been executed. I still think he ordered many people to be killed, but then, as pointed out by many people at the time, even American presidents had done so. As I grew older, I gradually came to oppose the death penalty, which is why hanging Bhutto was the biggest mistake Zia made. If Bhutto had been freed, he would have won the next elections and hanged Zia (as he'd threatened to do). But of course, Zia could have saved himself by leaving the country, even though it's doubtful if Bhutto would have carried out his threat. 

By killing Bhutto, Zia made the PPP more popular, which lead to Benazir and Zardari getting elected, and the country suffering because of their corruption.

Mass executions in Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia is one of the few countries in the world that has the death penalty. Mostly those who commit serious crimes like drug smuggling are executed (some of whom are Pakistanis). But sometimes political opponents (often Shias) are also beheaded. 

I have always been against capital punishment because sometimes innocent men and women are sentenced to death and hanged. This has happened so many times in the western world that the death penalty has been abolished in UK and Europe. Even many states in the US don't execute murderers. But executing someone for political reasons is absolutely abhorrent. 

Yesterday the Saudis executed eighty one people, and forty one of them were Shias. This happened when the Saudis were engaged in talks with the Iranians to improve relations between their two countries. Iran immediately called off the talks. No reason was given but obviously the execution of the Shias rankled the Iranians (who, by the way, are as ruthless as the Saudis).

So, again, there is no chance of peace between the two neighbors in the near future. But one thing I'd like to know: why is it that civilized people are so cruel? Don't they realize that the poor Pakistanis and others who bring narcotics into the kingdom deserve to live and be reformed? Wouldn't it be better to use them for labor? The real culprits are those who give them the heroin and such stuff, as well as those who receive the drugs. Why can't the Saudis be more tolerant? I know there are other countries like Malaysia and Singapore that also execute people caught smuggling narcotics. I wish they too would abolish capital punishment.

For five years in the recent past (2008-2013), there were no executions in Pakistan (credit for this goes to Asif Zardari, the president at the time). But as soon as Nawaz Sharif came into power, Pakistan started hanging people again. It's a pity, really, but how can you expect illiterate and crude people to learn to forgive and be tolerant?

But hanging people who demonstrate against the government is too much. At least in Pakistan, people who protest are not executed. It's true that the deep state does kidnap protesters or those who are against the establishment, but again, the courts do order the state to release them. It seems that cruel regimes like the Saudis and Iranians will retain the death penalty because it serves the interests of the rulers.

Musharraf and the death penalty

Embed from Getty Images

Let me first of all make it clear that I'm opposed to the death penalty. I shall write about this later, but the main reason is that in Pakistan and the Third World, innocent men are often executed because they cannot prove they're innocent (or because powerful people want them out of the way). Once, two brothers in Pakistan were acquitted after they'd already been hanged (the court did not know this). Many such instances have occurred throughout history.

But the conviction and death penalty for General Musharraf seems to have been done because he had imposed an emergency and arrested those lawyers and judges who opposed him. No doubt it was reprehensible, but a simple conviction (with life imprisonment) would have served the purpose. By ordering that Musharraf's corpse be dragged and hanged the judge has only diverted attention from the former dictator's excesses. The government, by favoring Musharraf, and the army, by criticizing the judgement, have both proved what we've known for a long time: that Imran Khan did not really win in the elections. But that is another subject.

The armed forces should stay out of politics. If the generals get this message, the judgement will have served its purpose. No more "selection" of prime ministers, please!

Death penalty should be abolished

The mentally retarded Imran Ali was hanged today. He was alleged to have raped and killed eight year old Zainab (the cops said he had killed many other little girls as well, but you can't believe what our cops say). The parents of the dead girl had demanded that the killer be hanged in full view of the public, but fortunately the court did not agree. 

People have often asked me why I say that killers and rapists should not be executed. The main reason, of course, is that in third world countries like Pakistan, innocent men and women are likely to be hanged. In the UK, a Muslim man was hanged in 1957 for a murder which he did not commit. The actual killer confessed on his death bed to the crime, the government realized its mistake and repealed the death penalty. I'm firmly convinced that many innocent people have been killed by the state for no fault of their own. Sometimes people are implicated in blasphemy cases by rivals who want their lands, or due to old enmity. It is very easy to give ten thousand rupees to a police inspector and file a case of murder against anyone you want. A Christian woman has been charged with blasphemy after a quarrel which resulted after she drank water from a well from which only Muslims were supposed to drink. Some Christians have been burnt alive after someone accused them of uttering blasphemous words or sentences. To give him credit, the notoriously corrupt AAZ didn't allow anyone to be executed in his five year stint as president of the country.

I believe that capital punishment should be abolished entirely, whatever the crime committed. It doesn't serve the purpose of preventing others committing rape or murder and other crimes. In Saudi Arabia, heads are chopped off for smuggling drugs and hands are cut for theft, yet both crimes continue to occur. That is why the death penalty is never imposed in highly civilized countries like the UK and the European Union. We should follow suit.

Death penalty & execution of innocent people

Published in the Friday Times

Sir,

The execution of two men before their appeal was heard proves that many innocent persons may have been hanged in the past, and such incidents may be replicated in future unless the government thoroughly revamps the justice system. In 1957, a Muslim was wrongly convicted and hanged in the UK. The actual murderer confessed to the crime on his death bed twenty years after the event. Due to the possibility of such miscarriages of justice, one hundred and forty countries (out of a total of 196) have either abolished capital punishment or have held it in abeyance. Statistics prove that abolition of the death penalty does not increase crimes. Moreover, just as a black man is more likely to be convicted and executed in the US, in India, Muslims are more likely to be wrongfully convicted and hanged. To avoid more miscarriages of justice, Pakistan should immediately stop executing people. The least it can do, if it wants to retain capital punishment, is to impose it only for serious crimes like waging war against the state.

Shakir Lakhani,

Karachi.

Jamaat-e-Islami should oppose the death penalty!

Death penalty

Published in Daily Times, December 17, 2013

Sir: This letter is with reference to your editorial titled, Molla’s hanging (Daily Times, December 15, 2013). Now that leaders of religious parties like the Jamaat-e-Islami (JI) have seen how innocent people can be executed without fair trials in developing countries, I hope they understand why the death penalty has been abolished in most countries of the world. Capital punishment is strictly enforced in some countries like Saudi Arabia, for example, but it has not proved a deterrent. But when the trial is flawed as in Molla’s case and prosecution witnesses are unreliable, the death penalty should not be invoked. The JI and other religious parties should at least start by demanding that men and women over the age of 60 should be spared. Perhaps a day will come when capital punishment is abolished throughout the world. 

 

SHAKIR LAKHANI

Karachi

No more executions, please!

On capital punishment

Published in The News on July 10, 2013

This refers to Amir Zia's article 'Kindly resume hanging' (July 8). The moratorium on the death penalty should continue in our country where even a minor government official like a police constable can frame an innocent man and get a murder case registered against him. Crimes continue to be committed even in those countries where the death penalty is strictly enforced (like Saudi Arabia). In fact, it is the abolition of capital punishment that often results in a reduction in the crime rate.

If hanging is resumed, it will mostly be the poor or those belonging to the minorities who will inevitably suffer the most. I suggest that capital punishment should be abolished altogether.

Shakir Lakhani

Karachi

Punishing the corrupt

Published in The News, July 22, 2011

Two Chinese officials are reported to have been sentenced to death for bribery and corruption. Will our corrupt officials ever get the death penalty? I don’t think so. In fact, considering a few recent examples, it seems they will be allowed to loot and plunder without ever being punished.

Shakir Lakhani

Karachi

Death penalty for corruption!

Let me make it very clear at the outset: I am against the death penalty. In an undeveloped country like Pakistan, the likelihood of an innocent man being hanged is much greater than such a thing happening in the U.K., where a Muslim was executed and the real killer confessed to the murder many years later. In Saudi Arabia, where I have been on pilgrimage twice, they routinely chop off the heads of men and women caught smuggling drugs into the country. Even though hundreds have been executed, smuggling of heroin continues, because most of the real culprits (the consumers) are probably members of the ruling family. Innocent Pakistanis who don't know the dangers involved get caught and end up losing their heads.

I remember, years ago, an ex-president of South Korea and a prime minister were sentenced to death for being corrupt while in office. For many months after the sentence, South Koreans were too scared to take bribes. And just last week a couple of Chinese men were sentenced to death while another two were executed for taking kickbacks and commissions. I believe it has now become necessary in Pakistan to hang the corrupt people at the top. Just a few death sentences should work wonders. But I doubt if it'll ever happen. On the contrary, I fear that if Mr. Zardari gets elected president again, corruption will increase and the country will disintegrate.

Gay Saudi prince sentenced to life imprisonment in UK

I'm against capital punishment, but when I read about this 34-year old homosexual Saudi prince raping, torturing and killing his black servant, I wished he'd be sentenced to death. But since the death penalty has been abolished in the UK (as well as the EU), the killer got life imprisonment (which means he'll be out of prison after twenty years or so). Of course, if this had happened in the prince's native Saudi Arabia, nothing would have happened to him. Despite its lofty pretension of being an Islamic state (which usually means forcing women to wear black burqas and not allowing them to drive), Saudi princes can do anything they want and get away with it. Apart from one execution (that of the killer of King Faisal), no member of the royalty has ever been punished, even though many of them indulge in gambling, killing, raping and drug smuggling.

Justice in Saudi Arabia of course is for poor natives and foreigners. A Pakistani or an Indian accused of stealing can lose a hand, but if a Saudi is caught stealing, he or she is usually let off with a warning. Despite knowing this, most Pakistanis to the Holy Land think there is real Islam in that country. Nothing can be further from the truth.