FEAR and anxiety have deeply penetrated Pakistani society, undermined social cohesion and eroded the social fabric.

One of the major factors responsible for this state of affairs is religious bigotry, which continues to persist across the country. Uncertainty and scepticism are two major expressions of growing fear, and ordinary folk who have already lost trust in the state’s delivery system are now losing belief in each other.

The state has managed sectarian-related violence in the country. Still, the sectarian divide is not only persisting but also expanding in its ugliest form, where mobs and individuals alike take the law into their own hands and are ready to kill anyone who does not belong to their faith and breach their privacy whenever they want.

In this regard, two points warrant further exploration. The first pertains to the strength of violent religiously inspired groups and how effectively they use legal tools; the second is about how the majority itself becomes insecure.

Organised violent groups have undergone a transformation and changed their tactics. There is a visible pattern in most cases. The leadership of these groups encourage people to take the law into their own hands and then surface after a violent incident in which religious minorities have been targeted, taking up the matter and engaging with the local administration and the legal community.

Their engagement with the police and local administration is confined to providing impunity to the culprits who are not charged with the heinous crimes they have committed. The local administration and police cooperate with them for two reasons: first, to maintain law and order in their respective jurisdictions, and second, because of their own belief in the causes behind religious bigotry.

The leadership of these groups suddenly activates their social media teams to highlight the incident to gain public support and give an impression to the state institutions that the situation can worsen if any action against the culprits is taken. The central leadership also exploits its contacts within the state institutions and political parties to protect the culprits.

The circle of religious bigotry is tightening and beginning to suffocate the majority itself.

Legal instruments have become more critical, and these groups have set up cells within to ensure legal protection. It is interesting that the legal community justifies incidents of religious bigotry by the radical groups, which claim that their members have taken the initiative to implement the law. There are several legal clauses introduced during Zia’s regime and even during the last 10 years of various governments in which the rituals of religious minorities can be criminalised, apart from their targeting by religious bigots.

Curiously, during their final weeks in office, the PDM government, comprising both the PML-N and PPP, set a global record by passing 48 legislative bills in a single day in August 2023. However, the treasury benches supported critical amendments by far-right religious parties. The Senate approved amendments to the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to enhance punishments for those disrespecting the Ahle Bayt or Sahaba-i-Karaam. These amendments were passed without discussion, raising concerns about the expansive nature of religious-related legislation.

A Jamaat-i-Islami parliamentarian from Chitral had presented the bill, but just after its approval, one of his own close aides in Chitral was booked under the amended law. While the victim had not been charged because of the pressure from religious parties and a written apology, when state institutions and political parties introduce and support such legislation it strengthens extremist religious groups, and they use such laws to threaten religious and sectarian minorities.

The second point is that it is not only religious and sectarian minorities who are victimised; the majority itself has become apprehensive and is even conscious about the use of religious terminology in their daily lives, except among close groups. One example is quoted here, ie, the amendments introduced in the CrPC were used against a close aide of the lawmaker who took credit for introducing the law.

Does the blasphemy entrapment group fall in the same domain? The high court has advised the Pakistan government to establish a commission to investigate alleged collusion between the FIA and Islamist clerics in the entrapment of innocent people in false blasphemy charges.

This situation is affecting the mental health of people, especially in the services sector, where people are becoming more religious in their practices but are scared to discuss religious issues. Regardless of whether or not the move towards ritualism is something they genuinely believe in, what is astonishing is that a bigoted mindset is reflected in their reactions to incidents of religious violence.

The circle of religious bigotry is tightening and beginning to suffocate the majority itself. At the same time, they are discouraging the ordinary person from applying common sense or becoming a positive and active member of society. Perhaps this is the desired outcome that state institutions aim at: a population that remains obedient and does not question their actions.

One doesn’t have to point out that religious bigots have the support of the system and, in many instances, the support of state institutions. It is clear that state institutions do not trust civil society, as the two have divergent views on democracy, constitutional rights, statecraft, and even the foundational principles of the state.

While it is also evident that both state institutions and radical religious groups can collide with each other, the worldview of the former frequently matches that of the latter, as both are on a trajectory that diverges from the path taken by civil rights movements.

It is hardly surprising then that a religious group, which the state once declared to be a national security threat under Section 11B(1) of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, was right in front, supporting the state narrative on many occasions.

The writer is a security analyst.

Published in Dawn, May 25th, 2025