This is hardly the first time that
culture and tradition, or even religion, were used to justify violence
and suppression of women.
Given the multiple issues facing Pakistanis, the last thing we surely
need is a legislator to defend a heinous crime in the name of tradition
or custom. We don't need the heinous crime either, in this case the
murder of women who were apparently defying their families by trying to
marry of their own choice.
The resistance of conservative families to expressions of autonomy by
their daughters is an ongoing problem in patriarchal, conservative
societies like ours. Some parents accept their children's wishes.
Others submit to the inevitable, cutting off inheritance or refusing to
meet them. In Pakistan, some misuse the legal system to gain
submission, filing cases of 'zina' (adultery) against daughters who
elope, preferring to see them tried for a crime punishable by death
rather than married to someone 'unsuitable.' Others resort to physical
violence, locking up the erring child without food, cutting off all
communication in an effort to gain submission. In the most extreme
cases, some family member uses a gun, a knife or an axe to end the
defiance once and for all termed a 'crime of passion' in much of
the world. Here, it is called 'honour killing.'
The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan recorded over 600 cases of
'honour' killings or 'karo kari' last year just the reported
incidents, compiled from reports appearing daily in the media. Over
ninety such murders were reported in the first three months of this
year alone. The actual number may be higher, as not all cases are
reported. Is the violence actually rising or is it just that the media
is reporting such cases with greater frequency? The media boom is
certainly instrumental in bringing more such stories to light. However,
such cases may also be on the rise because of emerging conflicts within
a rapidly modernising conservative, patriarchal society where women are
traditionally seen as family property and the repositories of honour.
Greater exposure to media and more education lead to a heightened
awareness of human rights issues. Those who defy the old order have
greater support legal, moral, and financial from various
non-government and even some government organisations.
Pitted against these developments are conservative elements fearful of
their culture and traditions changing before their eyes, who then seek
to codify 'culture' and 'tradition,' until now fairly amorphous. This
may be the context of the inexcusable justification that Senator
Israrullah Zehri of the BNP presented in defence of the brutal murders
reported in his home province Balochistan: five women reportedly
beaten, shot and then buried alive for defying their families.
This is hardly the first time that culture and tradition, or even
religion, were used to justify violence and suppression of women. The
prosecuting lawyer in the Samia Waheed 'love marriage case' argued that
in the sect of Islam to which Samia belonged, a woman must seek the
'wali' or guardian's approval to marry "even if she is sixty years
old." Although she won the case, fearful for her life, she fled abroad
along with the man she had eloped with.
In another infamous case, Saima Sarwar wasn't so lucky. The young woman
from Peshawar had left her abusive, drug-dependent husband. Her parents
accepted that but drew the line at her intention to divorce him and
re-marry. She took refuge at a women's shelter in Lahore. In April
1999, her mother asked to meet Saima at AGHS, the office of her
attorney Hina Jillani, arriving with a manservant. As Saima entered the
room, he pulled out a pistol and shot her dead. Her mother escaped in a
rickshaw but a plainclothes policeman at AGHS shot the murderer dead as
he attempted to flee. Entering the building immediately after the
incident, one had to step around the body sprawled on the stairs in a
pool of blood. Upstairs, the victim's petite black-clad body lay on the
floor by Hina Jillani's desk, a bullet lodged in the wall behind it,
having missed Ms Jillani herself.
What many found astounding was that Saima's parents were not some
illiterate people from a remote tribal area, but educated, influential,
city dwellers. The father was a businessman who had headed the Peshawar
Chamber of Commerce and Industry while the mother was a gynaecologist.
Then too, there was uproar in the Senate, when former law minister
Iqbal Haider of the opposition Pakistan People's Party initiated a
resolution against the murder on August 2, 1999. Like Israrullah Zehri
of the Balochistan National Party which has secular, nationalist
credentials, Ajmal Khattak, the supposedly progressive leader of the
Awami National Party, a successor of the National Awami Party, also a
secular, nationalist party, had shouted Mr. Haider down. He held that
Saima Sarwar had disgraced her family who had acted according to
Pakhtoon tradition. Some senators from FATA physically attacked Mr.
Haider. Only four Senators stood in support of the resolution: besides
Iqbal Haider, his party colleagues the indomitable Aitzaz Ahsan, then
leader of opposition in the Senate, and the late Hussain Shah Rashidi.
The fourth was the MQM's Jamiluddin Aali. Twenty-four Senators
including the PML-Q's presidential candidate Mushahid Hussain Syed
(then with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif's PML) and other luminaries like
the retired judge Javed Iqbal and former foreign secretary Akram Zaki
stood to oppose it.
Flash forward to another democratic era barely a decade later. Another
horrific murder, another voice raised in the Senate (this time by a
woman), and another Senator's justification in the name of tradition.
Whether the women were buried alive or whether they were already dead
when buried is beside the point. The tragedy is not so much how they
suffered (although the murder is more horrific if they were still
breathing when buried). First of all, no one has the right to take
another life. Second, the women's 'crime' (to want to marry of their
own choice) was no crime under any law or religion. Third, even if
murdering women who disgrace their families is accepted in some areas,
not every aggrieved family resorts to such action. And fourth but not
least, slavery too was once a widely accepted custom. So was the
burying alive of baby girls. Neither practice is condoned now, in any
way, anywhere in the world.
Interestingly, both these Senate debates for and against the murder of
women for 'honour' took place after particularly gruesome crimes
committed under a democratic dispensation. This is certainly not
because there was less gender violence when the military was at the
helm of affairs. Violence against women has risen over the last decade.
It was at its peak under Gen. Zia ul Haq and his discriminatory
'religious' laws that strengthened reactionary forces and reinforced
negative stereotypes about women. But democracy, with elected
representatives answerable to their constituencies, opens up spaces to
discuss and debate such issues rather than sweeping them under the
carpet, going beyond knee-jerk responses like incident-specific
legislation such as that enacted after the public denuding and
humiliation of women in the infamous Nawabpur case of 1984 (also on the
pretext of 'honour').
Some would prefer not to discuss such issues because this 'brings a bad
name to the country' (or province). They need to ask themselves who is
responsible: those who perpetuate the violence, or those who are its
victims? What would make us a better, stronger nation: dealing with the
issue, or burying it in the sand?
http://www.thehindu.com/2008/09/08/stories/2008090856371100.htm
Copyright © 2008, The Hindu.
