What has to be said again and again for as long as what remains of Jinnah's Pakistan exists, and what must bear repetition ad infinitum, is one well known sentence from Mohammad Ali Jinnah's momentous speech delivered on August 11, 1947: "The first duty of a government is to maintain law and order so that the life, property and religious beliefs of its subjects are fully protected by the state."

Lesser known is what he told the people of Australia in his broadcast of February 19, 1948: "The great majority of us are Muslims. We follow the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad, may peace be upon him, we are members of the brotherhood of Islam in which all are equal in rights, dignity and self-respect. Consequently we have a special and very deep sense of unity. But make no mistake, Pakistan is not a theocracy, or anything like it. Islam demands from us the tolerance of other creeds and we welcome in closest association with us all those who, of whatever creed, are themselves willing and ready to play their part as true and loyal citizens of Pakistan."

That month he also spoke on the radio to the people of the United States when he told them much the same thing: "Islam and its idealism have taught us democracy. It has taught equality of man, justice and fair play to everybody. We are the inheritors of these glorious traditions and are fully alive to our responsibilities and obligations as framers of the future constitution of Pakistan. In any case, Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state - to be ruled by priests with a divine mission. We have non-Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Parsis - but they are all Pakistanis. They will enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other citizen and play their rightful part in the affairs of Pakistan."

He said all this with faith in his legacy.

Since my last column, yet another citizen of Pakistan has been gunned down in Karachi merely because he was a member of the Shia sect of Islam. The Shias of Karachi and those who support the fundamental freedoms guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the Islamic Republic led a protest march two days ago. The result: stone throwing, broken windscreens, much disorder.

According to yesterday's Dawn report on the incident, "the law-enforcing agencies said that 'It is still a blind murder and no major breakthrough has been achieved'.... five leaders are in custody and police have arrested ten more protesters and booked them for damaging public property." The oblique message of the law enforcement agencies to the Shias: we are unable to protect you from being killed and if you protest we will arrest you. The Shias are naturally angry and we can look forward to more protests and more arrests.

In various areas of Pakistan, over one hundred members of the Ahmadi community are under trial, charged and accused under the blasphemy laws operative in this country, some in custody, some not. Again and again they are called to appear before our courts only to be told that their cases have been adjourned for one good or bad reason. The strife continues.

One publication of our press did us a good turn on August 26 2001. A columnist of a national newspaper published from Lahore has traced the history of these blasphemy laws. It makes sad reading. I quote:

Section 295 of the Pakistan Penal Code dates back to 1860. It stipulates: "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."

In 1927, following the agitation involving the famous Rangila Rasul case, through the Criminal Law Amendment Act XXV, Section 295(A) was added. "Whoever, with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings of any class of citizens, by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representations insults the religion or the religious beliefs of that class, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." (By the Second Amendment Act XVI of 1991 the term of imprisonment was extended to ten years.)

In 1982, under the PPC (Amendment Ordinance 1), Section 295(B) was added: "Whoever wilfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy of the Holy Qur'an or of any extract therefrom or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any unlawful purpose shall be punishable with imprisonment for life."

In 1986, the Criminal Law (Amendment Act, III) was passed by the hand-picked pious members of champion of Islam General Zia-ul-Haq's Majlis-e-Shoora headed by Mohammed Khan Junejo and it added Section 295(C), a weapon designed to be used for personal vengeance, a weapon with which scores can be settled, a weapon even to be employed for personal gain. It reads: "Whoever by words, either spoken or written, or by visible representation, or by imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (peace by upon him) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall be liable to fine."

Around 1991, a person by the name of Ismail Qureshi, inspired by piety and holiness, petitioned the Shariat Court. In the name of the tolerant religion of Islam it was prayed that Section 295(C) prescribe only the death penalty with no option of life imprisonment. The Shariat Court, in its infinite wisdom, allowed the petition, and the decision was later upheld by the Shariat Appellate Court of the Supreme Court.

During the second round of Nawaz Sharif the suggestion was made that Section 295 be further amended so as to provide that anyone making a false accusation of blasphemy would himself be liable to the death penalty. It was shot down.

Come our second Ataturk, known to be a strong man with good intentions. In April 2000, he instructed member of his national Security Council Attiya Inayatullah to organize a seminar on human rights. Very correctly he made a reference to the blasphemy laws, and realizing the criminal abuse they arouse and in an effort to prevent such abuse he announced his intention of amending the laws so that prior to the registration of an FIR, a deputy commissioner would be required to make investigations as to the veracity of the charge - a mere token change in the law but nevertheless a step in the right direction approved by the external world and by the sane and balanced internally. Later, for no good reason other than fear, he retreated and told the nation that such an amendment was not possible. A pity indeed.

Of course, had the amendment gone through, now it would not longer be the DCs who would investigate, but the Nazims installed by the general and his wise men. Do we know if the institution of the Nazims is a step up or a step down from the institution of the DCs? In what way do the Nazims and DCs differ in their mindset, educational qualities and abilities? Only time will tell.

So, for the time being, and heaven knows for how long, we do not have a law amender. We will have perforce to depend on the law dispensers. Is it possible that one day we may have a judge who has enough confidence in his faith and in himself so that when delivering a judgment he is able to say: I have heard what has been alleged and my faith in my religion tells me that even if the accused, as alleged, has by word spoken or written, by physical representation, by imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, done what he is accused of having done, which has not even been substantiated by sufficient evidence, he is not guilty of blasphemy. He is free to go.

Considering the intelligence endowed unto the vast majority, a tall order. But we can hope.