| December 22, 2003 | Monday | Shawwal 27, 1424 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
American reinforcements
Mistreating minorities
THE Supreme Court’s judgment that adult Muslim girls are free to marry of their own free will is of significance in Pakistan’s legal history. One could even have defined it as a landmark decision but for the fact that a similar judgment had already been handed down by the Federal Shariat Court in 1981. The FSC had then ruled that the consent of the wali or lack of it was immaterial to the marriage of an adult female. If the Lahore High Court which heard the two similar cases of Saima Waheed and Shabina Zafar (which had provoked the present appeal) in 1996 thought it appropriate to overturn the FSC’s ruling given 15 years earlier, the Supreme Court is to be commended for taking the lower court to task. Since the stand taken by the FSC is derived from Islamic law and is recognized as such all over the Muslim world, it is strange that the issue was allowed to trigger so much controversy.
This points to two basic facts pertaining to our state and society in respect of women. First is the low status of women which has enabled people to treat them as chattel. For what else can one infer from the demand made by the parents of Ms Waheed and Ms Zafar who were adults when they entered into a marriage contract of their own accord which was opposed by their families? Didn’t they have a mind of their own and couldn’t they exercise their own judgment? The gender bias shown in Pakistan is quite a sociological problem as the majority of men have still found it difficult to accept women as co-humans with equal rights, intelligence and will. For centuries men have treated women as inferior who can be exploited and oppressed. For them it is not easy to now concede that women also have their rights — guaranteed by Islam as well — and walis cannot trample them at will. This basically requires a concerted and multi-pronged campaign to create the awareness and conscientization needed to sensitize men to the needs and rights of women in every walk of life. This also holds true for their economic rights, because marriage disputes invariably stem from property claims and inheritance matters.
The second aspect of this case is the continued existence of many laws which operate against the rights of women. The most important — and which has hurt women most in the last 24 years — are the hudood laws. They blatantly discriminate against women and unsurprisingly the widespread demand is now being made — spearheaded by the National Commission on the Status of Women — for their repeal. Had these laws not been there, the present cases could not have acquired the grave implications that they did. It is a pity that a woman who is legally married is required to prove the bona fides of her nikahnama to establish that she is not violating the Hadd law by living in what is viewed as adultery because some technical conditions have not been met. It is bizarre that a country which is burdened with myriads of problems of all kinds should be more concerned about matters as trivial as these. In this context, the courts can play a positive role. By taking up public interest cases they can attempt to create more awareness about the need to change the laws.
THE American decision to send more troops to Iraq can be explained only in terms of a thinking in the Pentagon that the present troop strength is inadequate for the purpose of crushing the resistance. That the decision should come in the wake of Saddam Hussein’s capture is all the more indicative of Washington’s assessment of the Iraqi situation. Since his Dec 14 capture near Tikrit, Iraq has witnessed some gruesome incidents. These include two car-bomb blasts in Baghdad, killing seven people, the killing of 18 Iraqis by American troops in three “rebellious towns”, and the fuel truck bomb in Baghdad that left 17 people dead, besides numerous bomb explosions and clashes. The continuation of resistance confirms what many in the American establishment had said earlier — that the resistance was not controlled by Saddam Hussein. This means elements opposed to the fallen Baathist dictator consider it their duty to resist the American occupation, their opinion of Saddam Hussein notwithstanding.
Evidently, Americans do not seem to be in a hurry to get out of Iraq. The Interim Governing Council inspires no confidence among the Iraqis, and the date for an election — Dec 2005 — is too far away. The resistance has a cause to fight for, because Washington has given no time-table for an American withdrawal. President George Bush himself has made it clear that US troops will stay on until Iraq is “free and peaceful”. This phrase is open to the widest possible interpretation. Already, the Iraqi contracts issue has added to the misgivings about America’s intentions. Many governments in Europe feel America wants to monopolize economic opportunities in Iraq and restrict the lucrative contracts to American firms and to nations which supported America’s war on Iraq. One can only hope Washington will not stretch the occupation to a point where even the moderate Iraqis feel called upon to make a common cause with the resistance forces. A delay in withdrawal will merely complicate matters and increase Mr Bush’s difficulties in an election year which is only two weeks away.
AN official US government report submitted this week to Congress accuses the Pakistan government, among governments of other countries, of failing to protect the rights of religious minorities. Specific mention has been made of some laws that have been termed discriminatory. That the US is being critical of the Pakistan government’s human rights record may raise some eyebrows as the Bush administration has been criticized by human rights organizations for the manner in which it has been treating its own Muslim minority community in the aftermath of 9/11. With regard to what is happening in Pakistan, what we have seen is that in the post-September 11 scenario, there has been a rise in violence against the Christian community. This violence has been instigated by some quarters that wish to vent their anger at the actions of western powers against the Muslim world. While these criminal acts do not enjoy state sanction or popular support, not enough has been done to rein in elements preaching and practising violence or to punish those responsible for specific acts of terror and intimidation against members of the religious minorities.
Then there are the discriminatory laws that have added to an atmosphere of religious intolerance. For example, the Hudood Ordinances of 1979 exclude the testimony of women and members of the minority communities in the award of certain punishments. Another cause for concern is the procedural flaws that exist in the blasphemy law. There have been several instances in the past where the law has been abused to target members of minority communities by some vested interests. Efforts to correct these flaws have met with strong resistance from obscurantist elements. Amendments are needed to make these laws non-discriminatory and less liable to be misused. The guiding spirit in all such efforts should be the principle the Quaid-e-Azam had laid down on August 11, 1947, giving equal status to all citizens regardless of religion, caste, creed or colour. Keeping this in mind, the government should correct some inconsistencies that have crept in some of our laws and our treatment of minorities and this should be done at the earliest.