|
|
|
July 21, 2005
Giving hope to victims of injustice
President Pervez Musharraf recently proposed hosting an international conference for women to highlight injustices committed against them.This coming together of victims from all over the world, he believes, would shed light on atrocities that are committed at a global level without singling out any one country. Pakistan would therefore be spared any further embarrassment and its women could perhaps take respite in knowing that they alone are not being victimized by the state, judiciary, society, media and so forth.
If such a conference were to take place, the president would be well advised to invite the American woman whose brutal rape in New York City’s famed Central Park in 1989 shocked not just the city but the entire USA.
The rape nearly left the woman dead — she suffered brain damage, lost at least three-fourths of her blood and spent two weeks in a coma. Five young men, four black (one was Muslim) and one Latino, were prosecuted for the crime after allegedly confessing to it, and were sentenced to nearly 11 years in prison. But the case took an unexpected turn in 2002 when a man named Matias Reyes, who was serving time for serial rape, confessed that he alone was the Central Park jogger rapist. DNA evidence confirmed this. The five boys’ conviction was eventually thrown out.
This case brought to the fore, amongst many things, the entanglement of race and rape in the US. Owing to strict rape-shield laws, the rape victim — about whom we knew nothing other than that she was a banker and honours graduate from Wellesley and Yale — came simply to be referred to as the Central Park Jogger. However, in March 2003, 14 years after the rape, the woman broke her silence and stepped forward to reveal her identity in a book she wrote called I am the Central Park Jogger.
Trisha Meili, 42, who has no memory of the attack, and had to re-learn how to read and write and even tell time, grappled with her decision to go public “I thought it’s more important to get this message out there that, yes, it is possible that [rape victims] can come back and that I’m an example, I think, of how much the love and support of others makes a difference,” she said in one of her many interviews.
This particular rape case opened a debate on many issues: from police policy on coerced confessions to the prosecution’s bungling of the case to the media’s role in playing the race card. In short, the mess showed how the justice system really works in the US.
Meili’s book, however, gave us an insight into her indomitable courage. After she had been raped, thousands of strangers poured in with tributes and messages of support for her at the hospital where she was being treated. The graphic nature of the crime — which Meili has no recollection of — was documented by others in her book. A doctor at the hospital callously told her family that it would be better for Meili if she died.
Since publishing her book, Meili has become a motivational speaker and shares her story with thousands of female victims of violence around the country. Proceeds from her book, and any money she makes from appearances, is given to charities. By sharing her experiences, she has given other women the will to live and rebuild their lives. “I have the capacity to be generous and to love;’ she wrote in her book. “Rather than take away those attributes, the attack allowed me to find them in myself. For that I am grateful.”
By reminding people of Meili’s rape case, one hopes to assuage peoples’ anger that Pakistan has been at the receiving end of an unfair media onslaught on Mukhtaran Mai. Rape is a crime against women, irrespective of what country one is in.
Although the aim is not to draw parallels between Meili and Mukhtaran Mai, one can’t help but find one common thread: both are courageous women who chose to prove that they are survivors and not victims. Meili returned to Central Park months after her recovery to reclaim the park she so loved. Meili was, like most rape victims, also seen as someone who, by jogging at Central Park late at night, was asking for trouble. By returning to the park and later participating in a marathon in 1995, she wanted to send the message that: “if you tried to put me down, you are not getting away with it:” Mukhtaran Mai, too, is trying to reclaim herself in her battle to pursue justice.
Another commonality can be found in the emotional outrage both women’s cases generated. In 1989, media attention around Meili’s case caused such unrest in New York, and the pressure mounted on the police and district attorney to nab the culprits was enormous. The media’s frenzy also contributed to the pressing need to prosecute someone, anyone, for a crime that drove the city over the edge. Famed real estate billionaire Donald Trump took out a one-page ad in a New York paper, asking for the death penalty which only led to further racial tension in the city.
The same is true for Mukhtaran whose brutal gang rape on the orders of a tribal jirga in 2002 needs no reminding. The national and international reaction was also of outrage, and the pressure was on to solve the case instantly. That the government intervened as a result of the international pressure is well known. As is the prosecution’s inability to present a solid case against the accused which led to their release, re-arrest and re-release. And most recently, their re-arrest as ordered by the Supreme Court.In such high profile rape cases around the world, the brutality of the crime is always hard to swallow but the outpouring of love and support from total strangers is equally unimaginable. Whether it is Meili or Mai, two women on opposite sides of the spectrum in every conceivable manner, total strangers reached out, in extraordinary ways, and offered their support. In Pakistan, however, steeped in so many taboos as it is, many find it hard to digest Mai’s bravado. Members of the government who have been supportive of Mai’s quest for justice suddenly backtracked and felt that sharing her story would bring shame to the country. A section of society that felt Mai’s pain nonetheless lambasted the press for not reporting on “positive” stories.
In order to overcome prejudices associated with “honour”, an open and honest dialogue has to take place. Society has to be sensitized to the horrors of crimes against women, like rape. If a percentage of Pakistanis believe that Mai’s case generated unnecessary attention or that Pakistan was unfairly singled out, than the president’s idea to hold an international conference is a novel idea. It will succeed in telling people that crimes against women are not related to culture or religion. By sharing stories, it will give women hope that there is life after rape, domestic violence and so forth. Beyond that, it will do nothing for Pakistani women unless the conference aims to address women’s rights in the country.
It is obvious that the president wants to hold this conference as a PR exercise to soften the damage done to Pakistan’s image over the way it mishandled Mai’s case. The international community has spotlighted the dismal state of women’s rights in Pakistan for which the onus lies squarely on the present government. Since assuming power, President Musharraf has periodically spoken on reviewing the draconian Hudood laws but has yet to review the recommendations made by the National Committee for the Status of Women. According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, a woman is raped every two hours — a horrifying statistic the government has to own up to.
Those who believe that rape is a bigger problem in the US (a fact that no one denies) need to realize that women like Meili can seek legal recourse in a country whose judicial system too has flaws. American society, by and large, is open to dialogue and discussion and while that may not contribute to lowering the rate of crime, it fosters an environment where victims do not feel shamed into leading reclusive lives.
In Pakistan, another rape victim, Dr Shazia Khalid, was, by her own admission, forced to leave the country. In an interview with the BBC, she said that she still received threats. Gen Musharraf must include Dr Khalid as a speaker in his proposed international conference if he wants to genuinely address injustices against women.
|
|
|
|
