The alleged rape of a college student by a security guard on a Lahore campus has lit protests in cities across the Punjab, leading to some 380 arrests and the pursuit of another 1,500.
The provincial government says no rape took place. Protesting students strongly disagree.
This is now no longer a matter of justice. It has been utterly politicized—and mishandled.
Based on its own investigation, the provincial government says the alleged victim remains untouched and “pure.” It has invoked warnings of possible terrorism to suppress protests. The parents of the alleged victim came forth to say their daughter’s injuries came from a fall down their stairs. Peers of the young woman in question backtracked on their earlier statements. The official line: there is no victim, there is no crime, there is no evidence, and there is nothing to see here.
Led by a modernizing and popular woman chief minister, the Punjab government is not entirely off in blaming the opposition party for whipping up these troubles and fomenting the frenzy through social media. There is truth to that. But officialdom has also likened these protests to May 9, when opposition supporters attacked military installations after the arrest of their leader, Imran Khan.
Officials have also said that a “Bangladesh-like situation”—referring to the recent street agitation there that ousted their longest-serving prime minister (and which the opposition here cites as aspirational)—would not be tolerated. This, too, is a false comparison, but it has sanctioned the casualness with which police are coming down on protesting students. This seeming highhandedness, even overkill, has only deepened mutual distrust in this powder keg of a political climate, where rape itself has become a divisive subject.
There are compelling reasons, especially in this Islamic Republic, that keep rape victims silent: societal stigma, fears of a media circus and relived trauma, victim blaming and shaming. Even when victims come forward, rape kits are not always available, cannot be administered without consent, and are only effective if used within three to seven days of the alleged crime.
Unfortunately, this entire affair has become a boisterous battleground for two political parties and two competing narratives, each riddled with reasonable doubt. The continued clampdown on protesters—who should somehow be engaged with constructively—has turned this into a “toro, toro” moment, where the clearest casualty is the truth.