An eye for an eye

I have watched the video of the petrol pump incident in Lahore, and I can understand why it has divided people. Some see it as a brave act by Punjab Chief Minister Maryam Nawaz. Others see it as a dangerous departure from the rule of law. Both sides have a point. But before we join the shouting match, let us pause for a moment and think about the man who was slapped first.

He was a petrol pump worker. He was doing his job when a customer allegedly became aggressive after being asked not to smoke near petrol. According to the police account, the customer abused the workers, threatened them with a weapon and drove away. The police later arrested him. Then came the video that changed the story. In police custody, the same man was slapped by the worker he had allegedly struck earlier. Maryam Nawaz shared the video on social media, calling it a message to rich and powerful people who believe they are above the law.

I understand the emotion behind that message. We have all heard stories of ordinary people being insulted, threatened or beaten by people who think their money, cars or connections make them superior. We have seen poor citizens stand helplessly before powerful men. We have heard the familiar advice: keep quiet, do not make trouble, and remember who you are dealing with.

For such people, the image of a powerful man being held accountable can feel like a breath of fresh air. For once, they may think, somebody has stood up for the person who cannot afford a lawyer, influence an investigation or spend years visiting courts.

When a chief minister chooses an eye for an eye, people are bound to criticise her. A government cannot claim to defend the law while celebrating an act that appears to bypass it. The police station is not a private court, and a victim cannot become a judge simply because the accused is powerful or unpopular. If a slap is the punishment today, what will stop someone from demanding a beating tomorrow?

Yet I would also ask the critics to wait, think and look beyond the legal argument. What does justice mean to a poor worker who has been humiliated? How long must he wait? How many police stations, lawyers, hearings and adjournments must he endure before he feels that the state has heard him?

Speedy justice matters. In fact, delayed justice often feels like no justice at all. A victim may win a case after years of struggle, but the time, money, fear and humiliation spent along the way can be a punishment of their own.

The petrol pump case has exposed this gap between legal justice and the public’s desire for immediate relief. The worker’s supporters saw the video as a restoration of his dignity. They felt that the powerful man had finally experienced what he had allegedly inflicted on someone weaker. The emotional appeal is easy to understand. The legal problem, however, cannot be ignored.

I would argue that the incident should become an opportunity, not a model to repeat. Maryam Nawaz should turn the public demand for speedy justice into a practical reform. Punjab needs a system in which minor offences and clear cases can be handled quickly, fairly and transparently, with proper safeguards for both victims and accused people. Special fast-track courts, where legally appropriate, could reduce unnecessary delays. Police officers who allow violence in custody must also be held accountable.

Such a system would save victims from endless visits to courts, reduce the burden on lawyers and judges, and give accused people a fair chance to defend themselves. Most importantly, it would show that the state can act quickly without abandoning the law.

I support speedy justice. I support the protection of poor and vulnerable citizens. I want the powerful to face the same law as everyone else. But I do not support personal revenge dressed up as public justice.