Relatively speaking, Amnesty International's 2002 report on Pakistan is not too damning. In past reports, we have had a far worse showing.

The summary of our human rights record for last year: "Human rights abuses committed in the context of the government's continued support for the US-led 'war on terrorism' included the arbitrary detention of hundreds of people suspected of having links with 'terrorist' organizations and their transfer to the custody of US officials. In addition, systematic human rights violations - including torture, deaths in custody and extrajudicial killings - continued. Abuses committed against women, children and religious minorities, including Christians and Shi'a Muslims, continued to be ignored. At least 140 people were sentenced to death and eight were executed."

The most positive aspect of the report is that the heading 'Harassment of journalists' is missing from our section. As many foreign visitors have observed, with surprise and appreciation, over the past three years the press in Pakistan has been allowed more freedom than it ever has been. We are free, within the limits imposed by the Constitution on certain 'delicate' issues, to write what we like - and to a large extent, apart from the self-censorship imposed by the publications themselves, we do.

There have been odd reports about journalists who have allegedly received heavy-handed treatment from the unintelligent members of the Inter-Services Intelligence agency for irritating the military government, particularly during the pre-referendum and pre-election periods, but there was obviously nothing too serious as all has been ignored on the international front. Military man Musharraf can be congratulated on this score.

There have been a few journalists, some not exactly of shining reputation, who have stridently claimed that they have been targets of governmental wrath and have made minor waves in the foreign press - but again not of a serious nature.

The bad news yesterday to come over the internet is that "PTCL's PIE" is blocking a website run by a green card holder journalist who supposedly fled from Pakistan because of 'agency' harassment and who since then has posted some rather scurrilous and probably non-factual articles on the military government of General Pervez Musharraf, the Zafarullah Jamali government, and the country's leadership at large.

Why does the Jamali ministry of information and its loudmouthed minister behave in such a stupid manner? Such things have to be ignored. The website should be available to all of us here in Pakistan, as it is to the rest of the world, and let the readers make up their minds as to its veracity and worth. Banning it simply boosts its owner-editor. Extremely silly indeed.

I have always considered Sheeda to be a sensible down-to-earth man fond and capable of enjoying the good things that life at times scatters around him. If he has any clout, he should unblock this harmless, ineffectual, humourless website.

The most shaming item listed in the AI Report is 'Abuses of the blasphemy laws'. If there are black marks against the human rights record in this country, the blasphemy laws must take the pride of place on the list. These 'laws' formed part of the legislation for Pakistan's 'Islamization' by our military despot General Ziaul Haq, and are in the form of amendments to the Penal Code (an adaption of Macaulay's Indian Penal Code of 1860).

The original law, Section 295, 'Offences relating to religion,' merely specified punishment by imprisonment up to two years, or a fine, for those who deliberately destroyed places of worship of any religion, or those who uttered words with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings. Later 295-A was added to punish 'deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its relgion.' The stress was on all religions, and deliberate intent.

When this section was discussed long ago in the Central Assembly of the raj, Mohammad Ali Jinnah of the Muslim League sounded an emphatic warning: "I thoroughly endorse the principle that while this measure should aim at those undesirable persons who indulge in wanton vilification or attack upon the religion of any particular class or upon the founders and prophets of a religion, we must also secure this very important and fundamental principle that those who are engaged in historical works, those who are engaged in bona fide and honest criticism of a religion, shall be protected."

In the Pakistan that followed Jinnah few now remain who are capable of sharing such values or who have the courage to do so.

In 1980, Zia added section 298-A by which the use of derogatory remarks "by words ...... or by imputation, innuendo or insinuation, directly or indirectly" in respect of persons revered in Islam was made a criminal offence punishable with up to three years of imprisonment.

The most inequitous and shaming and downright menacing amendment was made by Zia in 1986 in the form of Section 295-C added to the PPC: "Use of derogatory remarks, etc, in respect of the Holy Prophet: Whoever by words, either spoken or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine." Now, liberal judges, who are an endangered species in the Pakistan of today, would be able to construe this in a strict manner. But it does not happen.

These laws are abused systematically as they are intrinsically susceptible to abuse. They are used with impunity against minority religious communities by those motivated by personal enmity, by those motivated by monetary material or political gain. One detestable fact is that accusations are normally accepted uncritically by the prosecuting authorities out of fear of threats, intimidation, injury or even loss of life should they fail to accept them. Also, those accused are often subjected to vile treatment because of the emotional manner in which charges are brought forward and publicized.

Many lawyers and members of the lower judiciary exhibit open bias against those charged under Section 295-C and local lawyers often refuse to take up blasphemy cases. Trials are invariably highly disorderly and the courts are often packed with the local clergy and their illiterate brainwashed followers all baying for the blood of the accused.

A few months after General Musharraf took over, a highly publicized seminar on human rights was held in Islamabad during which the general announced that there would be certain procedural amendments made to the blasphemy laws which would render them less susceptible to abuse and misuse - a much needed step forward and a step applauded here at home by the thinking few and internationally by those who held them in abhorrence. But what did the general do? On the advice of those who misadvise him too often, within days he backtracked and cancelled the proposed amendments. Despite the excuses given, this was inexcusable and he cannot be forgiven for this particular sin of commission and omission. He surely has the courage and time to redeem the wrong.

So, in 2002, with a war being waged against terrorism, in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as records the AI Report, "several men were sentenced to death for blasphemy, and others accused of blasphemy were killed, some in circumstances suggesting official complicity or acquiescence in the killings." One man sentenced to death was later found to be a lunatic. This is quite usual, as it is never taken into account by the courts that no sane man, knowing the consequences, would even contemplate blasphemy.

In June last year a prisoner jailed and sentenced to death for blasphemy was shot dead in jail and that was the end of the matter. In July, a man who had been sentenced to death for blasphemy, and freed on bail because of his mental state, was stoned to death by a mob on the call of a local Muslim cleric. The police remained inactive.

Now on to the rights denied to a citizen of Pakistan in the year 2003. At the end of last year, a senior retired civil servant of spotless reputation was arrested for an alleged 'crime' committed over a decade ago. One of his decisions had allegedly caused an inadvertent loss to the exchequer. Since then he has languished in jail. His bail application filed soon after his arrest was adjourned again and again over a period of four months and finally, in May, judgment was reserved by a bench of two honourable judges of the Sindh High Court.

The presiding judge last week delivered a 90-page judgment justifying his decision that bail be granted. The second judge delivered a judgment half as long which attempts to justify his decision that bail not be granted. The former servant of the state, now 65 years old, will remain in jail until a third judge adjudicates on his liberty. What price the rights of man, and what price justice in Pakistan?