Devising rules for the law and the rule of law.

Byline: Fouad Hafeez

Of late, there has been talk - and action has been contemplated - against a law that has existed since before the partition of the Subcontinent; Section 124A of the Pakistan Penal Code, that deals with 'sedition'.

The text of said section of the law itself, explains this phenomenon quite succinctly: 'Whoever...brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the Federal or Provincial Government established by law shall be punished with imprisonment for life to which fine may be added...'. The text explains the various means which such 'conveyors of acrimony' towards our worthy governments might resort to. It also elaborates various other punishments that might be meted out to them.

A Senate bill recently moved by its former Chairman, Mian Raza Rabbani, aims at repealing this 'draconian' law; which so many amongst the press, political classes, legal fraternity and rights groups alike, have decried as being 'archaic' or 'anachronistic to modern day democracy'. References to how this law is being used against the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM), civil rights activists, student bodies and journalists are being made. They point out how this law was used by the British - yes, it certainly dates to that time, and India has also inherited an identically-numbered section in its Penal Code, too - to quell and muzzle dissent and opposition by the 'natives' against their foreign-born masters. They're of the view that this law was specifically designed by the British to further stifle the already-repressed voices of the 'natives' that were clamouring for freedom, before Partition.

See, that's where they're wrong. The US has a sedition law, too. So do Australia, Canada, Ireland, Malaysia, New Zealand, India - yes, the same one that's identically-numbered as our law - and Singapore. The British have one that dates back to 1661 (and how's that for 'archaic'). The mere presence of a law, thus - black or white or whatever hue it may be considered - can't really be the cause for such a fuss. All of them are also worded fairly similar to the way our law is worded; so that can't be it, either.

The answer, of course - and as always - lies elsewhere. Within the application of the law, rather than the law itself. Having served as Law Minister under the PPP, one would tend to think that the sedition law may have been applied on occasion under Raza Rabbani's discerning gaze. If not, it's...