|
| March 16, 2007 | Friday | Safar 26, 1428 |
Hastening slowly
Barbaric acts in Khyber Agency
Status of women in Islam
But at the same time, a lot remains to be done to strengthen ties. For while the days of overt Indo-Pakistan hostility are slowly receding into the background, the overall pace of progress has been slow, even though the two sides are more cooperative on delicate issues such as fighting terrorism. Kashmir, of course, remains the primary concern, and it is understandable that as the major bone of contention in Indo-Pakistan relations, any forward movement on this will take time. It is disappointing, however, to see the lack of progress on Sir Creek and Siachen. Assurances have often been held out that these territorial disputes would be resolved soon, but little seems to be happening. Both countries are losing men to the icy heights of Siachen — besides incurring enormous expenditure on them — and are not benefiting from the energy resources that the Sir Creek has to offer. Moreover, with India and Pakistan in disagreement over tariff concessions, Safta too has proved to be a non-starter for mutual trade. A solution to Kashmir may not directly hinge on the positive outcome of these issues, but the removal of such irritants in Indo-Pakistan ties would create a more conducive atmosphere to work together for a final settlement.
THE resolution passed by the American Senate on Tuesday is not all disaster. A similar motion was passed by the House of Representatives in January, but it is non-binding. President George Bush’s views on the two resolutions are known. He and other administration officials have opposed linking aid to Pakistan to its performance in the war on terror. Such a move, the State Department said recently, would not only damage relations with Pakistan but hurt the cause of the war on terror. The “sense” of the Senate resolution should give a fair indication of the attitude of the Democrat-dominated Congress towards Pakistan. More important, it should provide food for thought for the government, because it links aid not only to Islamabad’s “doing more” on the terrorism front but also to democratic reforms.
The resolution needs dispassionate study, for it does not speak of a Pressler-style presidential certificate. On the whole, it is couched in positive terms, emphasises this country’s importance in the war on terror, acknowledges the “hundreds” of casualties the army has suffered, and pleads for continued aid to Pakistan — but with the caveat. The resolution acknowledges that “it is the policy of the US to maintain and deepen its long-term strategic partnership with Pakistan”, and that the US “must work to facilitate the peaceful resolution of bilateral disputes” between Pakistan and its neighbours. For that reason, the motion seeks continued aid to Islamabad because “a democratic, stable, and prosperous Pakistan … is vital to the national security of the United States…” Thus, it upholds the need for “a robust aid strategy” that supports Pakistan’s social sector programmes and infrastructure development. Towards the end, however, the resolution wants to see “demonstrable progress” by Pakistan towards the war on terror and democratic reforms, especially the holding of a free and fair general election.
Of late, the vehemence in stories and comments accusing Pakistan of not doing enough seems to have reduced a bit, and a realisation seems to be dawning on Congress and elsewhere that Pakistan itself has been a victim of terror. What is, however, lacking is an appreciation of the intricacies of the problem in an area where militancy is part of life. That Al Qaeda and the Taliban have some following among the tribesmen goes without saying, but it would be an exaggeration to say that all tribesmen and their elders support them. The recent shoot-out between foreign militants and their Taliban supporters on the one hand and neutral elders on the other underlines the complexities of the situation. It is the latter who need Islamabad’s support to help them get rid of the foreign militants and their supporters. This can be done by adopting policies that do not rely on force alone — something that the media and the ill-informed among politicians in the US and elsewhere fail to realise.
The Senate is right about democracy reforms. It is right when it demands that elections in Pakistan should conform to “internationally recognised democratic reforms”. While tackling the militants in the tribal area may be a complicated job, holding a fair and free election is not. It is decisions like having the existing assemblies re-elect Gen Musharraf for a second term that make people here and abroad doubt the transparency of the coming election later this year.
BY all accounts, the fourth round of the composite dialogue between India and Pakistan has been a major step forward in paving the way for strengthening confidence-building measures, and in doing so, reducing the current level of mistrust between the two countries. Indian Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon said that the progress achieved on the peace process so far gave him “great confidence” in the future. Perhaps, among the most positive achievements of the latest set of talks was an agreement to conclude a visa regime to facilitate travel by Indians and Pakistanis to each other’s countries. This has been a sore point in relations between the two sides and is underscored by the absence of proper and easy consular services that could have ensured a far larger number of Pakistanis and Indians journeying across the border than they are doing at the moment.
BARBARISM is alive and kicking in Bara in the tribal agencies. This was proved once again on Wednesday when a woman and two men were publicly stoned and then shot to death on charges of adultery. One could have understood had this gruesome incident occurred over a thousand years ago when there was no education or awareness about peoples’ right to a fair trial. But this is happening in today’s Pakistan which has laws that do not allow anyone to take the law in his own hands. Nor does it recognise the jirga or panchayat as institutions that can pass edicts. Yet all kinds of illegal acts occur in tribal areas every now and then. Unfortunately, the government has done little to enforce its writ there, which is why people there know they can do whatever they want without any legal liability. Since the war on terror began, countless persons have been publicly executed on the mere suspicion of their being pro-government spies; last month an Afghan was beheaded in Miramshah on similar charges. If the government ignores Wednesday’s incident, many such criminal acts will continue to occur.
This tragic state of affairs must be put to an end. For too long, these areas have been neglected by the government and their people have not been brought into the national mainstream. They have few educational, healthcare and other basic facilities of modern life. It is still not too late to bring about a change. The government must first enforce its writ and put to an end jirgas that promote barbaric acts. It should then move towards completing all its development projects that will bring some relief to the peoples’ lives there.
HALF of the population of the world consists of women. It is, therefore, necessary that any religion or social theory that stands for the good of mankind should also be concerned with the welfare, the rights and progress of women. This is an issue, which throughout history has bristled with emotional complexes, traditional taboos and other complications.
Historically, the status of woman has undergone many changes. She has been man’s helpmate without whom his life would never have been complete. She has been a plaything, an object of decoration and a beast of burden carrying man’s load of work and sorrow on her back. She has participated in all kinds of important activities ranging from administration to technical work, to poetry and mysteries. Some ecclesiastics have debated whether woman has a soul and have sometimes come to the conclusion that she has not!
She has been a fighter for her rights and has gained many rights denied to her in the past – the right to vote, the right to own property, the right to equal wages with men for equal work and the right to divorce.
In some cultures, the status of woman was better recognized at one time, or at least in one direction, and then there was a regression. Sometimes, within the same state or region, the position of women has differed enormously. Economic factors, technical advances, social theories and religion have influenced it. Sometimes there has been a great gap, greater than in the case of men between the theoretical rights enshrined in personal law or constitution and those accorded in practice. The right to share in property has been denied to women by hidebound men of feudal and semi-feudal societies.
Generally speaking, the status of women before the advent of Islam was not enviable, either in Arabia or outside. While there were occasional exceptions due to the personal status or the ability of individual women, in many of the older cultures they were generally looked down upon and treated as inferior beings. There is reason to believe that in the great Greek civilization, woman was treated as a slave. In her childhood she was the slave of her parents; in her youth and old age the slave of her husband, and as a widow, of her sons. Plato did hold that women should be treated as equals but this had no impact on her everyday life.
In the Roman civilization too, she had a low status under the law. The father and the husband had full control over their daughters and wives. They could even turn them out of the house with no redress. The father could marry her daughter to any one he liked and could also annul the marriage (sounds familiar in present day Pakistan?). The husband could in some cases even kill his wife, without the law taking any cognizance of the crime. Even in Jewish and Christian religions as they developed later, woman was supposed to be a source of pollution and the history of monks is full of painful incidents of how they not only looked down upon women but even considered it sinful to look at their mothers’ faces. There is of course nothing in the religion of Jesus Christ which countenances such an approach but this does show what travail and shame woman had to pass through in history.
In the Manu Smriti, likewise, woman is regarded as entirely and helplessly dependent on man. She is not to do anything independently. She is not even expected to perform acts of worship for her highest duty is to be of service to her husband (Pati parmeshwar), which would ensure her salvation. A widow was not allowed to remarry and must spend her life in sorrow without adequate fulfilment and the normal enjoyment of life. This applied equally to child widows. (When director Deepa Mehta wanted to show the horrors of a Hindu widow’s life in her film Water, rabid Hindu zealots prevented the shooting of the film anywhere in India. She had to go to Sri Lanka for filming). There are also other deprecatory references to women as addicted to telling lies, deceit, hypocrisy, stupidity, greed and lack of loyalty.Arabs during the age of ‘ignorance’ often indulged in infanticide of girls. To many of them, women were not companions who could participate fully in the life of their husbands. They were mere objects of pleasure or slaves to carry out their commands. Unlimited polygamy was common and wives could be discarded at will without any restraints. When a man died, his wife or wives became the property of his brothers or his sons and stepsons. Women had no right to own personal property and no safeguards against maltreatment by their men folk. There were some exceptional women like Bibi Khadija, a well-to-do widow whom the prophet married, who carried on trade transactions. There were only a few poets among the womenfolk.
With the advent of Islam, this situation changed both in theory and in practice. There are many verses in the Quran as well as the sayings of the Holy Prophet and events in his personal life and conduct, which helped greatly to raise woman’s status in society and gave her many, hitherto denied, rights.
The first thing that Islam did was to declare that there is genuine equality between the sexes and no people or community could build up the fabric of good life if their mutual relations were not rightly ordered. To Islam it was not merely a matter of rights but also of decent behaviour. Man must learn to treat women with respect and consideration as well as with a sense of justice both in economic and social relations.
“You, who believe, are forbidden to inherit women forcibly. Nor should you treat them with harshness that you may take away what you have given, unless they have been guilty of open lewdness. On the contrary, live with them on a footing of kindness and justice. If you take a dislike to them (for some reason, do not lose your balance). It may well be that you dislike something and God may bring out a great deal of good through it.” (4:19)
The Prophet always showed consideration and gentleness to women, whether belonging to his family or outside. For instance, he always stood up to show respect for his beloved daughter, Fatima, and in other ways in an era when infanticide was in vogue and women were considered ‘property’. In his last sermon made a few months before his death, the Prophet worked upon it, as if it was a covenant with God: “Fear the displeasure of God in the matter of women.” On another occasion he remarked that the best of men (before God) is he who deals with his family in the gentlest possible way,” and that “he is the best of believers who is courteous and treats his dependents gently.”
The Quran did not restrict itself to recommending gentle behaviour towards women but also gave specific instructions about what this connotes in the matter of inheritance, marriage, divorce, etc. It lays down detailed guidance about how property was to be distributed among the relations and dependents of a deceased individual, giving due share to both men and women – the latter being allotted half of the share allotted to man, presumably on the assumption that they were entitled to inherit from their parents as well as their husbands.
It is stated in the Quran: “From what is left by parents and others closely related there is a share for men and a share for women, whether the property be small or large – it is a share (determined by God).” (4.7)
Elsewhere, the Quran states: “Men have their share in what they have earned and women have their share in what they have earned.” (4.82)
The above verses of the Quran clearly imply that women are entitled to keep what they have earned and no one can forcibly take it away from them. It also implies that women have the right to earn their living, which is, incidentally, a repudiation of the feudal mentality.
In the matter of marriage laws, Islam has come in for a good deal of criticism based on its failure to understand the historical context of the times. In the pre-Islamic days of Jahiliyat there were no generally recognised principles which governed social issues like marriage, divorce, and inheritance among the Arabs. What attitude does Islam take in regard to marriage? The main verses, which lay down the rules to be followed, are: “Marry such women as seem good to you, two, three or four; but if you fear that you will not be equitable then only one or what your right hand owns.” (4:3)
It was, in the first instance, a limitation on unchecked and irresponsible polygamy, which prevailed then in Arabia, and, secondly, it has a restrictive clause of taking undue advantage of the permissive clause. Islam tries to create a balance between the ideal and the real, between what is desirable and what is feasible in all social matters.
Islam laid down in most social, economic and other matters the broad principles that should govern the relations among individuals and groups. It did not, as contended by conservative clerics, some religious writers and genuinely misled scholars, give a rigid framework within which the growing forces of life should be necessarily circumscribed.
Islam indicated clearly the direction of advance and left it to the intelligence of its interpreters and scholars to redefine the position of women in the evolving pattern of society through centuries. Where they have failed to do so, they must bear its responsibility.