Mashal Khan’s lynching last month for alleged blasphemy by fellow university students in Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) province sent shockwaves across Pakistani society. It instantly stirred recollections of the 2011 murder of Salman Taseer, a former governor of Pakistan’s Punjab province, by his own security guard because he had opposed laws punishing blasphemy. Both episodes highlighted the deep intolerance for diversity and the readiness to use violence over religious disagreements in Pakistan. But there was one major difference that could open an opportunity to steer Pakistan in a more moderate direction.

A Pakistani policeman stands next to the intercom at the entrance to the compound where Osama Bin Laden was killed in Abbottabad, Pakistan.
Photo Courtesy of The New York Times/Warrick Page

When Taseer was killed, the response of many Pakistanis, including a number within the educated class, was ambivalence, if not support, of Taseer’s killer Mumtaz Qadri. News media flashed pictures of Pakistanis showering petals on Qadri, while elite drawing rooms in Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi debated the issue ad nauseam. Although Qadri ultimately was executed for the murder in 2016, Taseer’s own political party abdicated its responsibility to stand up for the governor at the time of his death, instead buckling under pressure from the religious right.

In contrast, Khan’s killing on April 13, while confirming that the problem of intolerance remains deeply entrenched, also highlighted the growing confidence among Pakistanis to denounce such barbarism. Commentary in the news and on social media has been openly critical of the lynching and has demanded the perpetrators be brought to justice. Politicians also have stood up. KP province’s ruling party Chairman Imran Khan even called for a serious reconsideration of the blasphemy law, a subject that has long been taboo in Pakistan.

Public and private university heads are recommending initiatives to combat intolerance for diversity on their campuses. The ideas include mandatory ethics courses and lectures to introduce students to a broader range of opinions.

Imran Khan compared Mashal Khan’s lynching to the Army Public School attack in December 2014, in which Taliban militants killed more than 140 children. That attack forged a national consensus against internal terrorism in Pakistan. It led to Pakistan’s National Action Plan (NAP) against terrorism that has helped create openings for Pakistan’s moderate—but hitherto silent—majority to challenge Mashal Khan’s killing. Pakistan also seems to be taking baby steps toward correcting its abysmal record of protection for women and minorities, by passing legislation to penalize honor killings and rape and to recognize Hindu holidays and marriage provisions.

These are welcome signs that more Pakistanis recognize they must challenge bigotry. Certainly, this is only a start. But Pakistani state and society could seize on the response to Mashal Khan’s killing to broaden the consensus represented by the National Action Plan beyond internal terrorism. It should apply to all forms of violence as well as the underlying intolerance for diversity of opinions that make individuals susceptible to violence.

Only then could Pakistan’s leaders find the breathing room to make deeper structural changes for a truly moderate society. That would require reforming education, long a crucible of intolerance; bridging the social-economic divide between the elite and disempowered classes; and creating a coherent national narrative that no longer embraces terrorism. The U.S. and the international community need to pressure Pakistani leaders to embark on this course, and support the efforts they make in this direction.  

Related Publications

South Sudan’s Pitfalls of Power Sharing

South Sudan’s Pitfalls of Power Sharing

Friday, February 16, 2018

By: USIP Staff; Susan Stigant; Aly Verjee

This week, a new proposal for a power sharing government was tabled at the ongoing Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) High Level Revitalization Forum (HLRF) peace talks for South Sudan. An earlier, 2015 peace deal also contained a formula for power sharing; that arrangement failed and the civil war re-ignited a year later. Power sharing arrangements are appropriate if certain conditions are met, but not enough has been done to ensure the latest proposal will overcome the obstacles present in South Sudan, according to Susan Stigant, USIP’s director for Africa programs and Aly Verjee, a visiting expert at USIP and a former senior advisor to the IGAD mediation, who comment on the proposal and suggest how it could be improved.

Democracy & Governance; Fragility and Resilience; Global Policy

To Stabilize Iraq After ISIS, Help Iraqis Reconcile

To Stabilize Iraq After ISIS, Help Iraqis Reconcile

Sunday, February 11, 2018

By: USIP Staff; Nancy Lindborg; Sarhang Hamasaeed

An international conference opens in Kuwait Monday to plan ways to rebuild Iraq and secure it against renewed extremist violence following the three-year war against ISIS. A USIP team just spent nine days in Iraq for talks with government and civil society leaders, part of the Institute’s years-long effort to help the country stabilize. The Kuwait conference will gather government, business and civil society leaders to consider a reconstruction that Iraq has said could cost $100 billion. USIP’s president, Nancy Lindborg, and Middle East program director, Sarhang Hamasaeed, say any realistic rebuilding plan must focus also on the divisions and grievances in Iraq that led to ISIS’ violence and that still exist.

Conflict Analysis & Prevention; Violent Extremism

View All Publications