Domestic violence against women is rampant mostly amongst the low-income illiterate segments of Pakistani society. The reported cases may be running into thousands every year. If the reported and the unreported cases are put together, one finds more than 90 per cent of women in these segments are subjected to violence. It is rare to come across a poor uneducated woman who is not beaten up quite often. Family members usually do not intervene. Some actually watch with a nod of approval. Many of the persecuted women also find comfort in seeing another woman being thrashed.

While society in general and the low-income sections in particular believe in the superiority of men, this belief is shared by many women too. This is one of the reasons why violence is not resisted at the individual, family and community level.

The paradox is that the act of beating up of women is considered bad as well as men’s divine right at the same time. It is this latter view that women fall back on to justify their sad existence. This inhuman act is thus granted social legitimacy and is viewed as a ‘family affair.’

The Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Bill recently passed by the National Assembly takes a jab at the ‘legitimacy’ given to violence against women. Passage of the bill by both the houses will simply transform beating up of women from a ‘legitimate’ to an illegal act. In the process, its legitimacy will be called into question.

However much people may dislike their legislators and the government, laws once framed describe and define acceptable behaviour. Once the legislation is enacted, perpetrators of domestic violence will be unable to defend it on social grounds too.

Regardless of the differences of opinion between the male and the female family members, the new law of the land will declare beating unacceptable.

Women will thus be allowed a say in family matters and the male-female equation within the household will be redefined. Violent communities with an air of self-righteousness about them will have another view.

The domestic violence bill is, therefore, a major milestone transforming socially legitimised domestic violence into an absolutely illegal act and a crime. Now it will a crime whether perpetrated on a family member within the char-diwari or on an unrelated person outside the house. The bill remains to be passed by the Senate.

Remedy should, however, be specified to rectify behaviour. The bill appears to have soft pedalled the correction part.

It is unclear if it is a bill for future prevention and protection after a complaint is lodged or whether it also provides for penalty for the violence that led to the complaint.

Court will issue protection orders after complaints are received which, if violated, will lead to a moderate punishment including 1/2 years’ imprisonment plus fine.

This is inadequate deterrence for the chronic practitioners of violence who cannot tolerate any dissent from women in any matter. Rigorous imprisonment terms must be specified for criminal acts of domestic violence against which complaints are lodged. Fairness and justice would demand penalty in proportion to the degree of crime usually committed with sticks, metallic rods, and belts. At times, women are tied up and doors locked from inside to beat women with the rest of the family sitting smug outside. On many occasions, the perpetrator is instigated by the immediate family members to fix the woman who probably ‘thinks too much.’

If the new law is meant to truly prevent violence, it should attempt to pre-empt all acts of violence before they are committed and not just after violence has occurred. It should aim at the ‘greatest good of the greatest number’ by significantly penalising the very first act of violence also that is currently not the case.

The apprehension is that the domestic violence bill in its current (lenient) form might not be able to prevent much of violence. And, there is the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII) fretting about the divorce rate going up with this law.

But probably the divorce rates may not be adversely affected because in this socio-economic segment, women are either bread winners or they play a strong supportive economic role. The fear may then be that one earning woman might be substituted by another earning woman.

But the man will run the same risk of litigation if he treats the second woman similarly. So, why change the woman? Also, with their large number of children from a young age, possibility of another woman taking responsibility for the first wife’s children is remote and so is the possibility of divorce.

The male’s dependence on woman that is currently taken for granted will be redefined under the new scenario eventually leading to healthier relationships, quite contrary to what the CII thinks.

The law on the anvil will make the men see limits of their high-handedness as they will be compelled to trade-off some of the free rein they give to their egos with the fear that the law will put into them.

While actual implementation will remain fraught with pitfalls due to deeply ingrained customs and social ties, mavericks will lead the way and set examples for others to follow until violence against women loses its legitimacy.

The practical battle will be a long drawn out one. Nonetheless, the domestic violence bill is the first step in the right direction that, at least, begins to write the theory of gender parity in contemporary times as we all ignore God’s injunction, ‘….we do not disregard the work of men or women (as they are not special over each other) since they are from both genders….’ (A ‘lay Imran: 195).