|
General
Pervez Musharraf's derogatory comments about victims of rape have
outraged all sections of opinion in Pakistan and abroad. Women,
in particular, have condemned these comments most strongly and have
expressed their concern on the prospects of justice for women who
become victims of crimes such as rape, honour-killings and other
forms of abuse. The remarks were obviously designed to silence those
who have dared to make their plight public, and those who have exposed
the abysmal failure of the state to protect or deliver justice to
victims of violence.
The
General accuses Pakistani women of 'crying rape' for material gains.
His utter contempt for women is apparent in his base attempt to
convince the outside world that "This has become a moneymaking
concern." He went so far as to deliberately convey an impression
that this was a widely held view in Pakistan. Imputing the view
to others, he said, "A lot of people say if you want to go
abroad and get a visa for Canada, or citizenship, and be a millionaire,
get yourself raped." The General should have disclosed who
are these "lot of people" that he thought fit to quote
in support of his own view. Were they a figment of his imagination,
or were they no other than his own circle of sycophants who would
go to any extent to undermine and discredit any voices that protest
the human rights violations resulting from the commissions and omissions
of the regime?
Incidents
of violence against women have been on the increase in Pakistan
for many years. The recently available figures show that at least
1000 women in the country suffer rape or gang rape each year. How
many of them have made millions or sought visas for Canada? The
General received a well-deserved rebuke from the Canadian Prime
Minister for his comments. Nobody has ever claimed that the incidence
of violence against women, including rape, is limited to Pakistan
alone. However, any government worthy of respect would be troubled
by such occurrences and certainly more focused on addressing the
issue through appropriate legislative and policy initiatives, than
on blaming the victim.
The
facts speak for themselves. A flawed criminal justice system coupled
with corrupt and incompetent state machinery has placed the burden
of prosecution on the shoulders of the victim. The police refuse
to register cases until the victim has arranged for some influential
intervention, or to bribe the police. In the first place, dishonest,
partial and flawed investigation mars their prospects for successful
prosecution of perpetrators of this crime. If the cases get to the
court, discriminatory laws and procedures, anti- women biases and
social prejudices stand in the way of any redress for the victims.
Many such women have emerged from the process feeling humiliated
and having lost any confidence in the system of justice. There are
too many instances of such humiliation to think of them as isolated
cases. Many were subjected to violence at the hands of the police
at their first port of call to register their grievances.
The
courts have frequently allowed or have themselves made unjustified
and unnecessary comments on the character of the victim. Many reported
judgements contain references to the victim as "a woman of
easy virtue" or "loose character." Not only is her
character attacked but also her privacy by bringing in matters completely
extraneous to the case within the ambit of the proceedings, causing
great anguish to the victim and her family.
Throughout this process, victims and their families are frequently
threatened or harmed by the culprits, witnesses are intimidated,
and evidence tampered with. Far from coming to the aid of the victim,
the state agencies have permitted all this to happen. Victims who
protest against such conduct or anyone supporting them are intimidated
and maligned.
Take
the case of Mukhtaran Mai. The incident involved the holding of
an illegal jirga that ordered the victim to be raped during proceedings
witnessed by scores of people. From subsequent reports it is apparent
that the police not only had knowledge of this illegal tribunal
but also of the crime committed against Mukhtaran at its instigation
and with its connivance. The police failed to register the crime
for several days.
The local press published the story of this heinous crime, and human
rights activists raised their voices for justice to be done. It
is only then that the government felt the necessity to take action.
Several ministers were rushed to the site, one of them carrying
a cheque from the General himself which she made sure was handed
out to Mukhtaran Mai with great pomp and show, in full view of the
press specially called to witness this gracious visit to Mukhtaran's
village.
All
that the victim had asked for was justice. There is nothing to indicate
that she had either asked for or expected money from the General
for the wrongs done to her. Obviously, it was not this victim, but
the General who thought of money as compensation for rape.
No effort was made by this flock of ministers to ensure
that all legal requirements for successful prosecution were taken
in time. Investigation competently conducted in good faith, and
diligent prosecution of the accused would have been the proper recompense
for the victim. Instead the investigation was botched up by taking
illegal shortcuts and doing too little too late, allowing the accused
to gain an edge. The prosecution was conducted in a negligent and
lukewarm manner. The rules and standard of proof required as evidence
of rape are already tilted against the victim. An application of
these without a judicious consideration of the ground realities
and flaws of the system by courts made it impossible for Mukhtaran's
case to be concluded with justice being done.
Strangely
enough, the legal process instead of vindicating the victim ended
up casting doubt on an occurrence that had no dearth of witnesses.
Women's anger at the government's mishandling of the case and the
system once again having failed to deliver justice was legitimate.
Irked at the criticism, the General lashed out at the victim and
prohibited her travel to attend an international conference. Mukhtaran
Mai was placed on the notorious exit control list. While the Prime
Minister and other luminaries of this government kept confusing
the public as to the facts, the General proudly owned up to placing
curbs on her movements in order to "protect the image of Pakistan."
Interestingly, this disclosure was also made by him to the media
during his official visit to New Zealand.
The plight of women who are violated by those in a position
of influence or power is even worse. In Dr. Shazia Khalid's case,
the General himself announced on television that he was convinced
that the nominated accused was innocent, even before any investigations
were conducted. What kind of confidence could the subsequently constituted
tribunal of inquiry inspire under these circumstances? The proceedings
before this tribunal only caused immeasurable agony to the victim
and exonerated the accused.
Shazia's tribulations did not end there. She has narrated
her whole story in a recent interview in BBC online and exposed
the threats and intimidations that the government used in order
to force her to leave the country, so that the case could be hushed
up. It would be interesting to hear of the role that General Musharraf
played in Dr. Shazia's dramatic exit from Pakistan.
Sonia Naz is another victim of state violence. She was raped
by police officers. Every attempt has been made to damage her case
through multiple inquiries, although the first step mandated under
the law is the registration of a case. She has been seeking registration
of her complaint for over three weeks. The man she accuses has been
found guilty of all sorts of misdemeanors, which she was the first
one to expose. The government, however, refuses to register her
complaint of rape.
Instead of acknowledging the justification of women's outcry
against the injustices done to them, the General threatened to use
all his might to silence anyone who dared to question the working
of the state while he was at the helm of affairs. In a meeting in
New York organised by the Pakistan government to extol the general
as a champion of women's rights, he once again exposed his arrogance
and intolerance of criticism. The manner in which he attacked the
woman who expressed disapproval of his anti-women comments, showed
him in a poor light. He called her an enemy of the state and threatened
to fight people like her with full force.
Threatening women or maligning them will not divert attention
from the way that the General reacted in the case of Mukhtaran Mai
or Dr. Shazia Khalid. It is not exposure of the malady that afflicts
the country, but the conduct of the government and its highest functionaries
that brings a bad name to Pakistan.
The Journalists in the United States who investigated and
reported the illegalities committed by Nixon that led to his impeachment
were not blamed for bringing a bad name to that country. Imrana,
the Muslim woman who was raped by her father-in-law in the Indian
State of Uttar Pradesh, was not admonished by her government for
tarnishing India's image.
Pakistan's
civil society, especially the women's movement, has always received
respect for their struggle against military dictatorships, resistance
to any undemocratic trends of civil governments, and refusal to
accept gender discrimination or religious intolerance. Their diligence
in monitoring and reporting human rights abuse and support and protection
of victims is the one factor that has distinguished Pakistan. The
General's tantrums and threats will certainly not frighten them
into silence.
|