THE provenance of the gesture, ‘lanat’, can be traced back to ancient Greece. That the moutza or faskeloma, a gesture of disgust and condemnation, should survive many millennia and still be used in our part of the world is unsurprising, as some of our circumstances hark back to that era. Democracy and the flourishing of philosophy and arts are certainly not among them. Muddy and unpaved streets are the resemblances that survive, along with the lanat.

In the olden times, undertrials and condemned prisoners were paraded in the streets in shackles and handcuffs. The passersby, usually similar misfits, would dip their hands in the abundant muddy slush on the street and, with all five digits apart, rub it down the prisoner’s face to record disgust over the actual or suspected misdeeds of the victim. Yet others, repulsed by these wretches, avoided physical contact and imitated the hand gesture from a distance. Lest their insult goes to waste, they would also yell ‘na,’ meaning ‘here, take this!’ Precisely what it means in Sindhi — ie ‘he vath,’ a necessary accompaniment of ‘bujo’ or ‘bhundo’, as lanat is called.

Every region and society adapts cultural norms, civil and vulgar, according to its temperament. Punjab and Sindh have added the suffix ‘lakh’ to ‘lanat’ for added effect. The Seraiki-belt has taken the insult to another level by exclaiming ‘gaharore kay’ (rotating and grinding) while communicating it. The Baloch and Pakhtun do not seem to have an indigenous word for it, and the insult is uncommon, though not entirely unheard of in their cultures.

Having established the antecedents and gravity of the word, let us discuss its latest usage and the currency it is given through a viral video. By way of a full public disclosure, I have issues with the chief justice. I also favour the public right to discuss, even criticise, observations made and verdicts passed by courts on judicial merits. The incumbent chief justice and his family have been persecuted in courts of law and subjected to media trials. His tormentors are on record as acknowledging that the reference filed against him in the Supreme Judicial Council was ill-advised. The same party’s supporters are piling all kinds of abuse on him. Have they not heard ‘what goes around, comes around’?

Have they not heard ‘what goes around, comes around’?

Does the PTI leadership not realise that they are inviting their opponents to get equal by showing disrespect not just to them but to anyone and everything dear to them? A judge may be seen as bristling in his courtroom, scolding attorneys pleading their clients’ cases, coming under the clergy’s pressure to dilute earlier decisions, engaging in verbal jousts with journalists. But that does not justify the treatment being meted out to him and his family. He may not be the best this exalted office demands or deserves, but he is not the worst.

Our history is replete with prime ministers, presidents, and service chiefs seeking safe havens abroad when they leave office or are shunted out; we seem hell-bent on adding chief justices to this category. Yes, judges need to earn the public’s respect and goodwill through their rulings while in office, but if they have committed any wrongs, how do we make them right by forcing them to leave the country? Shunning someone socially is an individual choice, but resorting to violence, physical or otherwise, begets violence.

Prime ministers, judges, or generals, serving or retired, cannot be above the law. We, the people, must ensure that ins­titutions and those who serve and, especially, head them, act according to the Constitution while in office. Those who do not abide by the law of the land shou­­ld face it regardless of whether they are in or out of office.

One hopes that truth shall prevail in every instance, muckraking and sullying the reputations of the upright stops, and those hurting the rights of the citizens are punished according to law and not given a safe passage to foreign lands. The wrongfully accused and defamed should take heart; Faiz Sahib, too, was taken through the streets in handcuffs, albeit in a tonga.

That we remember his famous verse, ‘aaj bazar mein pa ba jaulan chalo…’ (swagger through the bazaar in shackles today), is a testament to the abiding resilience of good repute and truth. Bhutto and Faiz have acquired iconic status.

Urfi, the Persian poet, famously said, “Barking of dogs doesn’t impact the beggars’ sustenance.” War dogs, for their part, no longer lend an ear to their master’s voice and are snapping at his heels.

The writer is a poet. His latest publication is a collection of satire essays titled Rindana.

shahzadsharjeel1@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, October 15th, 2024