In the event of suicide, a government curtly refuses to accept the responsibility for the violent death of a person. It never bothers to investigate the reasons and the causes that force a person to terminate his own life
This is in continuation of our discourse on suicide last week. It very rarely happens that a person commits suicide in normal conditions. It is always in adverse emotional, neurotic, economic, social, judicial, physical and political conditions that an affected person tends to commit suicide. Unbearable torture during detention or interrogation compels a victim to terminate his own life. Innumerable under-trial suspects are on record to have committed suicide during the traumatic ordeal beyond their physical and mental endurance.
In our discourse today, we would try to find out the responsibility of the State in the event of a violent death of a citizen. When a hoodlum kills a man in the street, or in his neighbourhood, the State machinery immediately comes into action. The killer is caught and thoroughly tried in a court. When finally found guilty, the assassin is sentenced to undergo punishment according to the laid down procedure prescribed in the legal system of the land. Thus, it clearly indicates that the State is responsible for the protection of the life and property of the people. If any harm comes to an aggrieved person, the government, through Police and the judiciary, ensures that the wrongdoer is punished.
In case of a pedestrian who, while crossing a road comes under the wheels of a vehicle and dies, the driver of the vehicle is arrested by the State. He stands trial, and when found guilty, is subjected to the prescribed punishment.
A greedy person who slaughters a relative to grab his property is apprehended by the State. He stands on trial. On being found guilty, the murderer is meted out punishment according to the law of the land.
The State, in order to carry out responsibilities of protecting the life of its citizens, goes to the extent of punishing a doctor who through negligence takes the life of a patient. It is the constitutional responsibility of a government to safeguard the life and property of its subjects. Whether the government carries out its responsibilities towards the citizens judiciously is altogether a different topic. We would sit down together some day to probe the subject in its true perspective. It is a revealing subject.
However, in the event of suicide, a government curtly refuses to accept the responsibility for the violent death of a person. On the contrary, the government holds the victim responsible for taking his own life. In case it turns out to be an attempted suicide, the victim is arrested, tried and is incarcerated. A government never bothers to investigate the reasons and the causes that force a person to terminate his own life.
Once in Islamabad, I came across a young doctor who had travelled all the way from a small town in Sindh for employment, any employment. His poor parents, farmers by profession, had sold their five acres of land, mortgaged the dilapidated kutcha abode, and borrowed loans for meeting the expenses incurred on the education of their son. The hardworking young man completed his studies successfully. After house job, he qualified to become a doctor. The young doctor was a nonentity for the Sardars, Waderas, MNAs and MPAs of Sindh. In a society infested with sifarish, the young doctor couldn’t find an opening in Sindh. Meanwhile, the condition of his family worsened. Starvation knocked at their door. Consumption crept in, and began taking the toll. The young doctor travelled to Islamabad with frustration writ large on his face. No door opened to him for employment.
Half-dead with starvation, one day the young doctor managed to enter the office of the Minister for Education. The minister was simply shocked to see a shabbily dressed man in front of him who had an unruly beard on his face, and unkempt hair on his head. He seemingly had not bathed for months. The minister picked up the receiver of the intercom and talked to his secretary. He asked, “Was it not possible for you to have dealt with this man at your level?”
“I am afraid, no Sir. It was not possible for me.” “Why not?”
“Sir, he is an MBBS, and he is looking for a peon’s job.”
The minister rose to his feet. Looking straight in the eyes of the starving young man, he furiously asked, “So you are an MBBS, and you want to become a peon?”
The young man calmly replied, “I am jobless for the last five years.”
“You are lying. You are an enemy agent.” The tough minister grabbed the young man by his arm, and said, “Are you not aiming at tarnishing the image of Pakistan by showing to the world that an MBBS vies for a peon’s post in our country?”
The minister threw the starving young man out of his office. The same night, the jobless starving young man steadfastly walked between the railway tracks, and was mutilated beyond recognition under the wheels of an express train.
Should we hold the frustrated young man responsible for taking his own life? Wasn’t the minister responsible for his death? Weren’t all those persons responsible for his death who for five years had refused to give a job to a well-qualified man? Isn’t government constitutionally responsible for providing suitable employment to qualified persons? How can you hold an educated person responsible for his own death who had endured hunger and humiliation for years, and had seen his parents die of starvation? Weren’t the begetters and the creators of the awful circumstances responsible for the young doctor’s death?
