THE case of disappeared persons has caught the limelight. The Supreme Court has before it a petition concerning 41 missing people, and was told on December 1 by the government that 20 of them had been traced. Three men who have returned home in the Frontier after two years have confirmed that they were detained by state agencies. Others who have been released may be under threat not to disclose who had whisked them away and kept them in detention and perhaps even tortured them.

The Supreme Court’s interest and initiative have sent a wave of hope among all those who cherish human rights and the freedom of citizens. The court, which has taken suo motu notice of many matters concerning individual rights, has issued stern instructions to the government to inform it of the remaining cases of enforced disappearances. The authorities have always found ways to frustrate the judiciary’s efforts in such matters, and the position does not appear to have changed significantly in this particular case.

The issue has also been taken up by newspapers, and columnists have written about in these columns. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) has decided on a week of protest against the disappearances which, from 2000 onwards, total 240 recorded cases. This is certainly something that needs both greater public interest and support. It is a fairly new development, dating back to 9/11 and the commencement of the war on terror. Before this, if citizens disappeared, and some did, it was at the behest of feudal lords as an act of personal vengeance or by the police to extort money. It is standard and almost an acceptable police practice to detain close family members of a man they are looking for, and to keep the abducted persons’ whereabouts unknown.

The disappearances may date back to the war on terror, but if you look at the lists of missing people, you are forced to believe that the establishment’s domestic political considerations are also operative. Thus, you find, according to the HRCP, that of the 241 people missing since 2000 and 110 are from Balochistan, 70 from Sindh, 42 from Punjab and 20 from the Frontier. There are Baloch nationalists such as Hanif Sharif, a writer, who was kidnapped in November last year and later found in the custody of the anti-terrorism force. His release was obtained in July this year, and the HRCP reports him shaken and dejected. There is the case of Chetan Kumar of Sindh who was arrested in 2001, sentenced by the anti-terrorism court and acquitted by the Sindh High Court in 2005 but who was arrested in July this year by eight people who came in a government vehicle. The police have refused to register an FIR.

Mr I.A. Rehman, director of the HRCP, who was contacted in Lahore on Monday, recalled also the case of Dr Safdar Sarki, an American national holding a senior position in a Sindhi nationalist organisation, who disappeared from Karachi in February this year. A petition against his disappearance and detention was filed before the Sindh High Court in and several hearings held in March. In May, the defence ministry was asked to answer specific allegations and it said on May 16 that neither the ISI nor any other agency had detained Dr Sarki. The court advised the petitioner seeking Dr Sarki’s recovery to approach an appropriate forum.

Mr Rehman says the latest in this context of forcibly missing persons is an e-mail message just received from the ex-husband of Dr Aafia Siddiqi who disappeared in 2003 from Karachi. A US citizen, she was teaching in the US, and was reportedly suspected by the Americans of helping Al Qaeda. The message from the ex-husband, Dr Mohammad Amjad Khan, says he has been trying to trace his ex-wife and their three children since their disappearance three years ago, but the police and other government agencies have not provided any help. Dr Khan adds: “Kindly can you let me know if Aafia Siddiqi is among those 20 persons whose whereabouts were reported or is she still missing? I am more interested in my children. Please let me know if you have any information that will help me in contacting or locating my children or their mother.”

Two hundred, 600 or 1,000 persons missing may not be seen by the promoters of ‘enlightened moderation’, by bureaucrats, by political leaders, even otherwise conscious citizens, and international organisations as something worth too much attention in a country where thousands of people are born and live unknown, miserable lives and die without being missed by anyone. We are also a country where people are killed in stage-managed encounters and political leaders, activists and even a former prime minister and governors are forcibly eliminated. There may be some otherwise liberal citizens who might not mind the abduction or disappearance of people confirmed to be associates of organisations like Al Qaeda to terrorist groups.

But this whole story reflects the callousness of state authorities in defying the law of the land whenever they wish, to use an international context forced on them to employ covert methods for domestic political purposes and to let the military and civil intelligence agencies, already operative along lines made famous by the CIA, become even more abusive of all constitutional and moral norms. The way the state has reacted cold-bloodedly (and so many of us too, alas) to the disappearance and discovery as a dead body of journalist Hayatullah Khan itself bears testimony to how used the ruling system is becoming to methods like forced abductions for which they don’t feel answerable.

The point, however, is that such practices are not going to change because of occasional protests. The independence that has been acquired by ISI, a power that has survived even elected governments and used by them for their own objectives, and other intelligence agencies has to be comprehensively inquired into and the agencies themselves totally reformed. Even a small proportion of the attention happily endowed on the women’s protection law by Gen Pervez Musharraf, many political parties that lay claim to liberalism and secularism and by civil society organisations if it was spent on improving the situation governing civil liberties may pay dividends concerning a bigger segment of society.

If we can somehow begin to respect the concept of the rights and freedoms of individuals, then we would not only be helping curb assaults such as the kidnapping of people and keeping them in illegal and undisclosed detention for months and years but will also be contributing to improving the entire atmosphere in which we live and whose basic principles of liberty are cherished by democratic societies.

In established democratic societies also, like the United States, we see elected but authoritarian leaders like George Bush seeking illegal methods to curb individual rights, but they are forced to change the law of the land to defend inhuman projects like the Guantanamo Bay, and even then they are constantly challenged by civil liberty organisations and individuals. This leads to reforms. We need something like this to happen. It is generally accepted that there are many areas where only the military, which has been the biggest stumbling block in the way of democratic reforms, peace and liberty, can take the initiative now to initiate changes in the entire environment before the hardliners again come into play after the next elections and seek to intimidate civilian governments.

General Musharraf should make efforts to have the role of the ISI clearly defined and stop its political interference and pressure. The role of all other intelligence agencies should also be regulated; we have got to a pass where even senior civil service promotions are sent for clearance by intelligence agencies.

How the reforms are to be initiated needs to be discussed — whether by activating the still inactive administration reforms commission and giving it this as a priority task or by seeking advice from the Supreme Court on how to proceed in the matter. The military must also get rid of its prejudice against human rights organisations because they criticise military rule and attacks against democracy and individual freedoms. Every conscious citizen does so. These organisations should also be consulted with an open mind.

Once the overall approach to freedoms and removal of injustices improves, issues like women’s protection and empowerment will be easier to adopt and the mullahs, who have never cared about matters such as enforced disappearances, will lose further influence in society.

Incidentally, the Supreme Court will face increasing challenges to act on its own on individual and civil liberty violations as we approach elections and when elections are in progress. One hopes it will watch government’s moves closely and in a broader context.

THE Women Protection Bill, which has already been passed by the National Assembly and the Senate and has become a law after the president’s signing it, is undoubtedly a major step towards improving the situation that women find themselves in, in this country. For almost two decades women have been calling for the repeal or amendment of the Hudood Ordinance that had been enforced in 1979 by General Ziaul Haq.

Under that ordinance a raped woman was required to produce four adult male witnesses in order to press charges, failing which she was punished for adultery on the basis of assumed confession. As a result, a large number of women were not only denied justice but were imprisoned while the rapists went scot-free.

The Women Protection Bill is aimed at eliminating some of the oppressive provisions of the anti-women laws. Under the new bill, rape has been taken out of the Hudood Ordinance and put back under the Pakistan Penal Code. It is an important amendment as the Hudood Ordinance had changed the nature of the offence and equated rape with adultery. Another major amendment is the change in the procedure of registering a zina case; now only a court can decide whether the case has any merit and needs to be admitted, and even if it does, the offence is bailable.

As a follow-up to the Women Protection Bill, another bill — the Prevention of Anti-women Practices Bill — has also been submitted to give legal shape to the six-point proposal of the Ulema Committee for removing injustices to women. The proposals include laws to ensure women’s share in inheritance and action against those who deprive women of their inheritance or property rights; legislation against customs like vani, swara — marriage of underage girls against their will — to settle murder or tribal disputes; marriage to the Quran; elimination of the custom of sale and purchase of women and forced marriage; legal action against those who issue three divorces to their wives in one sitting; and an end to the practice of watta satta.

All these practices are abhorrent and derogatory and deny women their basic human rights. Women have always been accorded a lower position in society, especially in the rural areas and among the feudal classes where these anti-women practices are more prevalent. Women are treated as property and sex objects with no will of their own. These practices reflect badly on our society, culture and moral values and portray us as uncivilised people.

While legislation in favour of women is certainly welcome and will definitely help better the lot of women in society as well as providing legal remedy when transgression takes place, we ought to realise that the problems of women cannot be resolved by laws alone. What is needed is that women are empowered, and the best way to do so is to educate them and encourage them to be economically independent, and ensure that they are able to take decisions of their own. They should be enabled to seek justice where they are denied their rights and forced to succumb to pressures and intimidation.

What is more important and would make a greater impact is creating awareness and educating the people about women’s rights and interests. People should be made to realise that women are not objects to be treated at will but human beings who have their rights and deserve respect and a proper place in society.

There is a need to bring about a change in the thinking of the people. Change in attitudes or behaviour does not come overnight or by legislation alone; it comes from a higher level of awareness and enlightenment of the people, which takes a long time to produce results.

It is a sad fact that it is mostly the close family members of the women who maltreat them and often put them through duress. If they are denied a dignified status, it is mostly by the men of the family, mostly under the pretext of age-old customs and traditions or in the name of honour. Unless the mindset of the people is changed it is very difficult to prevent the victimisation and persecution of women.

If a more liberal dispensation for women is to materialise, a movement for social and behavioural changes will have to be launched. The government alone cannot make all this happen; this will have to be supported by NGOs, human and women rights activists and community leaders and, above all, by the educated middle class, which has so far remained aloof from such issues.

In order to protect the interests of women and to ensure that they are not suppressed or anti-women practices are not carried on, some sort of checking mechanism will have to be adopted. Community leaders or district and taluka nazims will have be entrusted with powers to ensure that any sort of transgressions involving women are not perpetrated by the families or any one else. They can also facilitate the victimised women to seek justice under the new laws.