A much-discussed woman has become a name now synonymous with privilege, recklessness, and, for many, injustice. The prime suspect of the recently concluded Karsaz road accident case received a pardon last week, again sparking outrage and debate across Pakistan. The young woman had reportedly been under the influence of drug at the time of the accident that claimed two lives. But what started as a straightforward investigation into an open-and-shut case soon morphed into a national scandal.
As we have seen over time, the social media has a way of taking simple facts and turning them into something far more emotional. This was one of many such accidents that are reported in Pakistan every year. In fact, road accidents are one of the leading causes of death, with speeding and driving under the influence being major contributing factors. According to the Pakistan Bureau of Statistics, approximately 9,000 road accidents are reported annually on average, and many of these result in deaths.
However, most of them barely make the news, let alone result in national debates. Such cases typically end in a few lines in the newspapers, with no follow-up on the legal proceedings because they involve ordinary citizens. Why, then, did this particular case garner so much attention? The answer lies in her social standing. Some media outlets, as well as social media, were quick to latch onto this fact and turned the accident into a spectacle. The moment the news of the accident broke, social media users began to share and comment on posts, speculating about the outcome of the case.
People who had never met the woman and had no real understanding of what had happened that day suddenly became experts on her character, her intentions, and her guilt. And as the story continued to unfold, the lines between truth and emotion became increasingly blurred, with millions expressing their anger. As a result, hashtags demanding justice trended within a couple of days. Interestingly, those sharing of and commenting on the posts focused less on the tragedy of the accident and more on the woman’s privileged background.
From videos and images of her lifestyle to the family’s influence and wealth, everything became talk of the town. She was portrayed as not an individual who made a tragic mistake but a symbol of the impunity that the rich enjoy. Only a handful of people focused on the legal aspects of the case, such as whether her actions legally constituted murder or reckless driving. Instead, much of the conversations and commentary revolved around her family’s ‘influence’, especially over the judicial system.
The common narrative was that she would never face the full force of the law mainly because of her connections. It was a perception that proved difficult to shake, especially when news outlets that rarely cover road accidents in detail spared hours of their airtime to cover the woman’s case. Special programs were arranged, with reporters and panellists commenting on her family’s wealth and speculating about her possible connections to political figures.
Questions like “would her wealth protect her?” and “is she guilty of more than just an accident” were asked not in the name of truth but in the name of rating and viewership. Even when photos from her prison cell got viral within minutes, everyone started sharing them, considering it a perpetual charity. However, no one even bothered questioning how the photos were leaked to the media in the first place. In short, the traditional media played into the same frustrations that were driving the social media outrage.
A murder on two counts?
Looking at the legal aspects of the case, we would get a different story. The woman was indeed guilty of reckless driving and driving under the influence, and her actions led to the tragic loss of lives. There was no dispute about the facts of the case. However, there is a clear distinction between reckless driving and intentional murder. Had the incident taken place in some other country, the driver would still have been charged with vehicular manslaughter or reckless endangerment, not murder, as it was not intentional.
This distinction, however, was lost in the passion of social media, where the people demanded that the woman be charged with murder regardless of legal precedent. The pardon by the victims’ family also added fuel to fire, and gave the social media users another target, this time the victims’ family. The web was rife with comments like “the victim family received millions and a lucrative job offer for one of its members” and “they pardoned the woman under pressure”.
The victims’ family had to say on record that they did not receive any blood money or compensation, and had instead forgiven the woman for God’s sake. In any case, the pardon reinforced the public perception that the woman had ‘bought’ her way out of this mess. The national and foreign media ran full-length stories on this ‘out-of-court settlement’, with headlines suggesting that the “rich Pakistani lady got away with murder”. Some didn’t even hesitate to call her a junkie behind the wheel who procured her freedom.
Even some newspapers published absurd photos of the defense and prosecution lawyers, smiling and shaking hands after the settlement, trying to prove a point better known to heads of the media outlet. Despite all that, the fact that most readers and pseudo-intellectuals chose to ignore was that even if blood money or any other compensation was offered and received, it is allowed by the law of the land. The bottom line: the girl walks free, forgiven by the victims’ family.
With her release the story ends, not with a bang but with a whisper. Soon, the public will also forget about her. Her name will now resurface only as a reference if, God forbid, a similar incident takes place. One thing that will not change is the role of media in shaping public sentiment and fanning the flames of public anger that will continue to simmer under the surface.