| 24 January 2004 | Saturday | 01 Zilhaj 1424 |
Status of women
From all accounts, the landmark contact between the All Parties Hurriyat Conference and the Indian government in New Delhi on Thursday went well. It was followed yesterday by a meeting between the APHC leaders and Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee in another ground-breaking development. Thursday's formal meeting, the first between the two sides in almost three years, did not go into very many details; it lasted only two-and-a-half hours.
But the tone as reflected in the joint statement issued after the discussions was positive, and it was agreed that it was the "first significant step" in a dialogue process. The key sentence in the statement would seem to be the one that reflects the two sides' agreement on ending "all forms of violence at all levels".
This implies an effort to reduce the level of militant activity, but more significantly to check also the provocation that in the first place has precipitated militancy - the presence in force of the Indian army in Kashmir and its violence against the people of the territory. In fact, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq has indicated that India might halt its military operations against freedom fighters and the people by early next month, coinciding with Eidul Azha. There was also some commitment on the part of India to prevent violation of human rights, which have been grossly abused by the occupying troops.
The setting for the APHC-Indian government talks was propitious. It took place in an atmosphere of lightened gloom in the subcontinent following the recent steps at rapprochement between India and Pakistan. The meeting between Mr Vajpayee and President Musharraf in Islamabad last month undoubtedly spurred a search for possible solutions to the Kashmir imbroglio.
Short of a plebiscite, it has always been recognized that one way of determining the wishes of the people would be by talking to leaders whom the people accept as their genuine representatives. It would be idle to pretend that the key to a settlement in Kashmir does not still ultimately lie in the hands of New Delhi and Islamabad, but the Kashmir factor is crucial for lasting peace in the Valley. That India has now accepted that it has to come to terms with Kashmiri leaders instead of hounding them is a most welcome development.
The next round of talks between the Hurriyat and Indian government representatives is due at the end of March. Next month, a "composite" dialogue is scheduled to begin between Indian and Pakistani officials as a follow-up to Mr Vajpayee's discussions with Pakistani leaders, and if the going is good, as everyone hopes and prays it will be, further negotiations involving the APHC will assume more substance.
But two things are now absolutely essential. One is that Hurriyat leaders should be allowed to meet their counterparts and other Kashmiri representatives on this side of the LoC - to arrive at some kind of a unified position on possible solutions to the Kashmir issue. Excluding leaders based here would be as self-defeating as it has proved to be in the case of the Valley-based leadership. Second, the rift within the Hurriyat could not have come at a worse time.
The group led by Syed Ali Gilani was not part of the New Delhi parleys, and Mr Gilani has trashed the talks as part of an Indian "conspiracy to hoodwink international opinion". He has, however, stated that his group will accept talks with India when the India-Pakistan dialogue process begins. This means that he is not unamenable to talking to Indian leaders; he needs to be persuaded to do so rather than be encouraged to plough his own furrow.
A senior Kashmiri personality acceptable to both factions should try to heal the differences between Mr Gilani and Maulana Abbas Ansari. At the bottom of it all is the necessity of a change in the mindset that has prevailed in the subcontinent all this dreary half-a-century and more. The signs are that we are moving in the right direction. The earnest wish is that nothing will happen to throw everything out of joint again.
Status of women
The unveiling of the report of the National Commission on the Status of Women (NCSW) on the Hudood Ordinances comes at a time when the government, for political reasons, does not seem to be serious about taking up the issue. This is morally wrong because the commission was set up by the military government under a presidential ordinance in July 2000 with an explicit mandate to identify discriminatory laws against women.
Headed by retired Justice Majida Razvi, the commission comprising 18 legal experts vetted the provisions of the Hudood Ordinances of 1979 and found them to be based on a highly questionable interpretation of Shariat and recommended their repeal to the government. A report to this effect was submitted last August to the cabinet, which has not much as taken it up for consideration.
This is because the government does not want to upset the religious orthodoxy, particularly the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal, with which it struck an accord over the Legal Framework Order only last month. It has reportedly assured the MMA leadership that the Hudood Ordinances and other 'Islamic' legislation will not be repealed.
If this is so, misgivings are bound to arise about the fate of some of the measures contained in the LFO itself that aim at empowering women. It is indeed ironical that the passage of the very instrument - the LFO promises women equal rights - should have hinged on the bargaining away of those very rights. This only lends credence to the liberal opposition's contention that the LFO seeks only to legitimize military rule since the 1999 coup and to provide a legal cover for General Musharraf's continuance as president.
The Hudood Ordinances are so palpably discriminatory to women that ever since their promulgation by Gen Ziaul Haq, they have resulted in filling up prisons with women - more than half of them having been booked on questionable charges of adultery levelled against them by men with malicious intent. The provisions of the ordinances are so lopsided that in many cases they have led to the conviction of women victims of rape, giving the accused men undue benefit of the doubt and resulting in their acquittal.
When the NCSW began working on the issue in May 2002, there was hope that some remedial ways would be found to undo the damage done by obscurantist laws enacted by a dictator. That hope can still be revived if the government takes up the recommendations made by the commission and presents them to parliament for debate and decision.
The government can still do so by seeking support from opposition parties like the PPP and the PML-N if it approaches them with a degree of accommodation. The LFO, despite its controversial provisions, is now here to stay, with the government having got the two-thirds majority vote it needed for its passage.
It should now act in a conscientious manner and go ahead with the implementation of the recommendations of the NCSW instead of remaining hostage to the MMA's threat to withdraw its support. Women constitute half the nation, and unless women's right to justice and equal, non-discriminatory treatment is restored to them, the government's claim of empowering them will continue to ring hollow.