In September 2000, less than a year after he took over this country, General Pervez Musharraf established a National Commission on the Status of Women comprising 20 members, and, giving it a swift second thought, nominated a woman, the first woman ever to have sat as a judge on the bench of one of our high courts, the retired Majida Razvi.
Its primary mandate was to review the laws and policies that undermine the status of women of Pakistan; and it was to work towards the emancipation of half of the population of this nation and to eliminate 'all forms of discrimination against women'.
After just under three and a half years down the line, the condition of the women of this country remains as it was, and, if anything, it has possibly worsened vis-a-vis the magnitude of crimes committed against them in the name of the law and in violation of the law.
Commissions on the emancipation of women are routine, not earth shaking or even a tremor in the country's life. The first commission on marriage and family laws was formed in 1955 and the report presented six years later. Its recommendations were only accepted in a highly diluted form, they were defied in practice and are challengeable in our courts of law. In 1961, President Ayub Khan promulgated his Family Laws Ordinance, which did give some relief to our women, though narrow and confined to their family status. Since then, it has been all downhill, the national mindset being what it was and remains, gradually deteriorating with time and successive governments.
The Pakistan women's rights committee was formed in 1975, chaired by the then attorney-general of Pakistan, Yahya Bakhtiar, a reasonable man, whose report was released in 1976. Nothing came of this. In 1981, the Pakistan commission on the status of women was set up and its report was finalised in 1985, but with President General Ziaul Haq wielding supreme power and bent on his particular and expedient form of 'Islamization' it was naturally suppressed. Zia's contribution to the well-being of the women of his nation was the dicey Qisas and Diyat law and the inhumane and shameful Hudood Ordinances.
Nine years later, in 1994, the commission of inquiry for women came into being under the chairmanship of judge Saad Saoud Jan. There was disagreement and wrangling over its composition and it was not until 1996 when judge Nasir Aslam Zahid was appointed chairperson that serious work on the subject began. In August 1997, Judge Zahid's report was published.. It was read, discussed and studied, but again, its recommendations, excellent as they were, remained confined solely to the printed page.
Judge Razvi's commission has put in a good deal of work and come up with two annual reports, the second for the year 2002 having recently been released (and the commission was left with Rs.13 million in the kitty). Sadly, it makes no startling revelations nor does it detail any concrete action having been taken to better the lot of some 50 per cent of our population. As for the Hudood Ordinances, a special committee was formed by the commission with the sole object of analyzing them.
Now, one can analyze these iniquitous laws till kingdoms come but no amount of analysis or debate or discussion can make them any the less objectionable for giving succour to those bludgeoned by them. Recommendations galore have been made that they be repealed, only to be relegated to the back shelf. All that needs to be done is for someone to act, sternly, and to get rid of them, and that too without further delay.
In his speech last week, inaugurating the summit meeting of first ladies of the Asia-Pacific Regional Steering Committee for the Advancement of Rural and Island Women, President General Pervez Musharraf spoke of initiating an 'open debate' on the subject of the Hudood Ordinances, ignoring the fact that they have been debated for well over a decade without any elimination action being contemplated, let alone taken.
He admitted, as bravely as he could, that as they stand now they are not in conformity with the dictates of the Quran and Sunnah. If they are not, if they have little to do with the true spirit of Islam, should they not be shed immediately? The general, in a generous mood, justified their existence by telling us that Ziaul Haq did what he did to women 'with good intent'. This is highly reminiscent of Abdul Qadeer Khan's assurance to the nation that his transgressions of all accepted nuclear non-proliferation norms and laws were done 'in good faith'.
To activate a further debate as to whether or not the Hudood laws are a correct interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah will only add to the muddied waters as has always been the case. Our many and varied religious experts have their own interpretations, all at odds with one another. Apparently, there is a large section of the ulema which has called for their repeal (Dawn editorial of February 12), but there is obviously a larger section intent on sustaining them.
What the general did say that made sense is that the women in our assemblies - 18 in the Senate, 73 in the National Assembly and 143 in our provincial assemblies - should, as he put it, join hands, raise their voices, and claim their rights and those of the millions of their sex far less fortunate. How they can manage this is a different question, taking into account the calibre of the members and the composition of the assemblies. The general may assure them of all support, but unless he himself takes drastic action, the laws will linger on - and on.
His adviser on women's affairs, Ms Nilofar Bakhtiar, made noises about how the opportunity is ripe for women to make a difference and rightly qualified her remark by stressing that they can only do so if they understand their rights, their role in society, and their responsibilities. Now the majority of the women in parliament may be able and equipped to do so, but what about the larger mass of women? The literacy rate of women in the country is so pathetically low and seems destined to remain so, or to even decrease, unless our gurus in charge of education prove their worth and get going on upping the literacy rate of both women and men, or stand aside and let others, who are competent and qualified, take over.
Not only are the Hudood laws iniquitous in themselves, they are wide open to misuse and abuse by the law enforcement agencies and by the courts. The sufferings inflicted on the illiterate poor and defenceless women who are charged under these laws are horrific - and they are so well documented that there is not one legislator or bureaucrat who can claim ignorance.
The Zina ordinance is probably the most brutal of the lot and the most discriminatory. It is practised not only against women, but also against non-Muslims as their individual testimony is also disallowed under the law.
The general has done what no elected person in Pakistan could do, and that is to put 234 women legislators in place (remember what Benazir Bhutto, prime minister and a woman, once said: "It's too dangerous politically for me to stand up for women and reserve seats in parliament.") No elected person since 1979 has been able to touch the Hudood ordinances. All in all, it seems that on this issue (as in the case of many others) the ball rests in the General's court.
The same applies to that revolting habit, widely practised in towns and villages, known under the strangely discordant term as 'honour' killings and accepted as such by an inordinately large number of the so-called educated members of our society and legislature and lawmakers. Musharraf recommends 'strict action' against the perpetrators. All that is needed is strict application of the existing laws as what we know as 'honour killings' is simple murder and the penal code is clear on the application of the law against murderers and on the penalty prescribed. Any number of seminars, discussions, reports or recommendations will not finish off this deplorable practice until the existing law takes over and the police and courts adhere to it.
The president general has allocated Rs.100 million towards the development of our women. How is this money intended to be utilized? On education? Or on more commissions and reports? He can allocate as many millions as he can find for the uplift of our women, but there will be no amelioration unless and until he acts firmly and quickly. We all know that when it is vital and necessary, he can act, without procrastination.
The well-being of the women of this nation are as vital and necessary as any other issue. Article 25 of the Constitution which deals with our fundamental rights is clear on the point - that nothing "shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the protection of women.......". As things stand, the general has all the powers he needs. He cannot enjoy this position and yet shirk the responsibility that goes with it.
A national newspaper could not have put it more directly in an editorial on February 12: "No more discussion needed on Hudood laws".