Raymond Davis
Jailed: 27 January 2011 Released: 16 March 2011
Poof! He’s gone.
Raymond Davis entertained us when we discovered he had shot two of our own. He had hurt something within us. What something? Ah, yes, you say it right. He hurt nationalist sentiment.
So he left us after he hurt us.
And we do not believe in the form of love where the beloved leaves us hurt (and this is despite the heavy doses of Ghalib and Faiz we all received in our adolescent years). What a pity?
A beloved who hurts one has many things to teach. If only one lets him. But we were hurt. We have bad habits. And have yet to mature as lovers.
On the evening of March 16 in a courtroom set up in the Kot Lakpat jail the families of the two men whom Raymond shot forgave him under what is speculated to be diyat (or blood money). The lawyer of the families claimed he was unable to meet the families before they accepted. The families themselves were also evacuated from Pakistan and given asylum at a yet to be discovered location (the US and Dubai are speculated).
The site’s imagining Raymond’s fate:
The families themselves, overtly, had led the call for Raymond’s head. Faheem and Faizan’s families had themselves also seemingly marginalised the third deceased, Obaid-ur-Rehman’s family during their claims.
The reports coming from the families were contradictory. On numerous forums, they appeared to be voicing concerns that they were under pressure from religious and political parties. The greatest show of force appearing to come from the Pakistan Tehreek i Insaf, who continued to find kind allies amongst the parties of the religious right (i.e. the JI and the JUI-F), there appeared to be other factors in play too.
There was also the tussle between the CIA and ISI interplaying over the incident – overtly it manifested in the form of a diplomatic struggle where the US President Barack Obama, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and Senator John Kerry in a face off with Pakistan Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani, Interior Minister Rehman Malik and ex-Foriegn Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi . Behind the scenes, the CIA director and the ISI chief were also working out their differences.
In the same context, a complex political facade was operating with ministers of state contradicting each other. A similarly complex battle was being orchestrated in the courts – who were trying to balance public sentiment, political pressure and legal formalism.
To add to the emotion constructed around the event was Faheem’s wife, Shumaila’s purported suicide.
Amongst all of this the question to ask is: why were we, ordinary and disconnected actors, hurt?
Our dear hypernationalism:
The answer is to be found in the specific form of hyper-nationalism that is constructed in Pakistan. Media, albeit free media operates in cahoots with a set of interest-articulating bodies that shape the imaginations of what constitutes public interest. Rather dormant, we let them control our imagination.
The control is exhibited to the extent that we were enthused by Raymond Davis’s purported niswaar addiction more than wanting to uncover what it was that he actually was tasked to do in Pakistan. And thus amongst this obsession with his niswaar addiction even major English newspapers were able to feed us articles silly enough to suggest that Raymond had been recruiting individuals for the Lashkar i Tayyaba (LeT).
The truth was perhaps closer to the reverse: Raymond was likely attempting to infiltrate the LeT.
It must be remembered that the LeT is what the US and India accuse the ISI of controlling. The prior suggestion, popularised under the rhetoric of the admittedly notorious Blackwater, was found articulated amongst numerous reasonably learned individuals.
And here is the point: we lose all sense of history, context – and therefore the truth of an event when we begin to look at it under the gaze of our hyper-nationalism.
And that is indeed why while we continued to deliberate over what his ‘illegal’ activities in Pakistan were – and his diplomatic status – Raymond was whisked away through backchannel politics.
Religious edicts against themselves:
With respect to these backchannel politics, Raymond’s release was secured through a lingering Zia ul Haq legacy: the qisas/diyat laws.
Such liberty is not available within the web of colonial legal paradigms that still continue to be the fundamental tenants of the day-to-day of legal process in Pakistan. In this process, the status of Raymond’s diplomatic immunity would have been central.
The tenant on which the case swinging was on whom Raymond’s offence was against: the State or the victims’ families?
Frankly, as a public, we are yet to resolve that question. And, well, now the question itself has become out of bounds (i.e. it is no longer relevant).
This is not the first time that the US resorted to the qisas/diyat law in Pakistan. An earlier report in this very paper suggested that it had been done at least twice before – to secure release of US diplomats in Pakistan after hit and run accidents.
That the qisas/diyat law was used brings us to two reflections.
First, on Pakistan’s legal system.
This is the realisation that the Pakistani legal system runs at least two parallel systems (if not more) – a codification and separation that is colonial in its root (the construction of Muslim Personal Law). These parallel systems interlock to produce numerous contradictory outcomes.
Second, on the ensuing condemnations.
It is interesting to think about what our condemnations constitute.
Rather more interesting will be the response of the religious organisations that had previously been asking for Raymond’s head. Will they take out a protest against their own law is the question being asked.
It also makes us realise that by bringing the Islamic laws, the legacy of General Zia’s ghost has continued to be benign to the Americans.
Respecting the ‘real’ victim:
This is a short, rather very short reflection.
What exactly was it that the families of those killed in connection with the Raymond Davis wanted?
We never really let them speak. In a conversation with the family (abstracts from which are also available to you), they articulated their concern about their own future and how, if they accepted compensation, they would be unable to live in Pakistan.
Did the families not have a right to choose – unconstrained by public pressure?
When we judge the families, we do not think of what we would have done in such a case. The boys who died were a source of income for their families. Despite public promises by a number of political parties, none had financially assisted them in private. A life lost is now lost.
We all have serious problems with the American influence in Pakistan. But – why use the shoulders of grieving families to shoot our gun?
This is not to suggest that the families of Faheem and Faizan did not exploit public sentiment. In fact, they appeared masters of exploiting public sentiment – till right before they went missing.
But it is put to question: why were we looking for a catharsis for all that America had wronged us on their shoulders?
The fact is that, due to public pressure, the voice of those directly affected was silenced.
It was the rest of us speaking. They were only mimicking us – till they got their money. But can we really blame them?
We did not show them respect either.
Still being anti-imperialist:
Despite this article putting to question a number of oft-held notions about the matter, we still maintain that the US has wronged. There is no question about it.
In terms of the history of diplomacy, this event shall be unique and remain a matter of international discord. And it must.
The United States of America’s record on human rights and justice has been legitimately queried again. The New York Times should have headlined: American murderer’s release secured.
But it did not. It went with: ‘CIA contractor’s release secured from Pakistan.’ It did not even mention the murders he committed.
The American media has revealed its complicity once with human rights abuses again. But this time it is more blatant: it is in the name of nothing.
But by a strange irony we can summarise the Raymond Davis affair into five short sentences.
He came. He spied. He killed. He paid. He left.
With Raymond gone, I suppose it is time that we thanked Raymond for showing us many things about ourselves.
He showed us our sentiments are easy to fool.
He showed us we sell easy.
He showed us might is right.
He showed us, ultimately, that beggars cannot be choosers.
So as we say goodbye, we pass one final message to Raymond:
“This meeting of friends was not long enough, Raymond. But thank you, Raymond, for being a mirror to us.
We dedicate a couplet from Ghalib to the unattainability of our love for you:
Yaar Se Chedh Chali Jaye 'Asad'
Gar Nahin Vasl To Hasrat Hi Sahi
Teasing the beloved cannot leave Ghalib
If there be no union then the desire is enough
Goodbye, Raymond! It was a pleasure being your hosts at the Kot Lakpat Jail!”
- The article was printed in the Review in Pakistan Today on 20 March 2011.
No comments:
Post a Comment