Justice & social realities

THE Mukhtaran Mai case has taken another dramatic turn. First, a division bench of the Lahore High Court had acquitted five of the accused persons sentenced earlier by an anti-terrorism court to death. The acquittal was greeted with shock by Mukhtaran Mai and those campaigning on her behalf. The woman’s defence team had announced that they would appeal in the Supreme Court. In the meantime, however, the Federal Shariat Court has taken notice of the case on its own. It has suspended the High Court verdict and announced that it will hold its own hearing in the case. This is an unprecedented move and quite likely will create its own legal complications. The unexpected intervention reflects the Shariat court’s concern about social issues, but it appears to have based its decision on the fact that the crime involved in this case, the alleged gang-rape of Mukhtaran Mai, should be tried under the Hudood laws. These laws have been the subject of intense controversy ever since they were promulgated by the Ziaul Haq military dictatorship. If the Supreme Court is moved in appeal, how it will react to these developments will be keenly watched.

The Lahore High Court’s judgment acquitting all except one of the accused in the case was based on several lacunae that came to light regarding delays in investigation and registration of the first information report as well as contradictions in the testimony of witnesses. This raises the whole question of the utter rottenness of the police system in place and its total inability to respond to crimes involving factors such as tribal and feudal pressures and oppression of the socially and economically weakers sections of society, which include women. A woman subjected by a tribal court to gang-rape or a couple murdered as karo-kari or a cultivator forcibly uprooted from his land by a powerful landlord or a government agency have the odds stacked against them from the beginning. The patwari-police-zamindar-maulvi axis continues to be a crippling feature of rural life. In many cases, it may be impossible for a victim to venture out of his or her house to lodge a report with the police. Where access is possible, the victim comes up against the wall of police indifference and venality. The force has been so corrupted and intimidated by constant pressure from the state machinery, from politically important persons and from local tribal groups to circumvent the law that it has largely forgotten its responsibility to the citizens. It is unfortunate that the magistracy and the lower judiciary are susceptible to the same pressures. It is worth recalling that it was a suo motu Supreme Court notice that had initiated registration of a case in the Mukhtaran Mai case.

In this milieu, how the law is to be interpreted in a social context presents a major dilemma. Should a judge strictly adhere to points of legal technicalities, as he is expected to do, or look at the entire circumstances surrounding an incident? This is a recurring dilemma that has faced the judiciary in every country down the ages. It has been easier to resolve in countries where the rule of law, constitutional procedures and respect for democracy have been firmly established — also where feudalism and the feudal mentality have been laid to rest. Unfortunately, in our country, even the legislatures, when they have not been immobilized by military rulers, are dominated by feudal elements. There can be little hope of social justice unless the entire system is democratized. The state itself has to become more caring and less oppressive. Justice, like any other function of state, cannot operate in a vacuum. Meanwhile, the people will continue to look up to the judiciary to introduce an element of social justice in the system, and to act as a force for reform and progress.

Why this obsession?

ONE notes with regret the Punjab government’s obsession with holding cultural shows at the Jahangir Quadrangle inside the Lahore Fort. The latest function planned for Monday comes in defiance of the ban imposed earlier by the Punjab Environment Protection Tribunal on holding events within the precincts of protected monuments. The provincial government later prevailed on the tribunal to issue a one-time exemption. The ban imposed by the tribunal was in addition to the bar placed on holding such activities at historical monuments under the Antiquity Act of 1975. As for the function in question, it is doubly regrettable because hosts of the event are none other than the archaeology department and the Punjab chief minister. This is indeed very sad, for such were the fears expressed by Unesco earlier last year when the provincial government was given custody of the Lahore Fort and Shalamar Gardens. Considerable damage was done to the two monuments enlisted by Unesco as World Heritage sites, and many of their crumbling structures, when the former provincial government routinely used them as venues for state-sponsored cultural events. Unfortunately, the present government has continued the practice, as was evident from its use last year, too, of the Jahangir Quadrangle where it arranged a cultural show. This has to stop.

Those opposed to the use of historical monuments as venues of cultural or public events have an argument that is hard to counter. Such events in the past are known to have caused irreparable damage to ancient structures — for instance, by drilling holes in the walls to erect tents or to put up temporary lights. As it is, many historical buildings are in a decrepit state as a result of official negligence and increasing wear and tear caused by rise in noise and air pollution levels, especially in Lahore. The fort and the Shalamar have particularly been affected by these two factors. Being their custodian, the provincial government should redouble efforts to conserve the existing structures and help streamline policies and procedures for their proper maintenance and upkeep instead of becoming a party to their decay.

A correct decision

The Sindh government has done the right thing by deciding not to allot the US consulate in Karachi a plot next to a large school for its proposed relocation there. The chief minister’s remarks at a cabinet meeting on Friday, where this issue was decided, are commendable because they seem to constitute one of those rare occasions where a government has decided on something after full consideration of public opinion. The decision on Friday should be seen as a victory for citizens and proof that standing up for a cause pays off.

The matter came to a head only after the residents of the well-heeled area where the school is situated took to the streets, mobilized opinion against the idea and organized protest rallies. This they did after finding out that the government was considering handing over the said plot to the US consulate. So, while Friday’s cabinet announcement is a positive development, the site should never have been considered for the US consulate’s re-location, considering that the mission next to a large school and residential area would have caused frequent disruptions there and even put the lives of schoolchildren and local residents at risk. In allocating an alternative plot for the relocation of the consulate, the question of traffic disruption and convenience of residents and commuters should also be kept in mind.