|
"You
must understand the environment in Pakistan," Musharraf added.
"This has become a money-making concern. 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 Washington Post, September 13, 2005.
General
Pervez Musharraf's remarks, quoted above, stunned Pakistan's entire
public, women activists in particular were smitten to the marrow.
Quite a few international figures, such as the Prime Minister of
Canada, were equally shocked and outraged. Subsequently, General
Musharraf asserted that that he had been misquoted, while The Washington
Post issued a statement reaffirming its original text. President
Musharraf has returned to the subject more than once and official
spokesmen are threatening organisations (un-named) that they accuse
of maligning Pakistan before international audiences.
Unfortunately,
neither the President nor his spokespersons have cared to support
their fulminations with evidence. It would have simplified matters
if they had given the number of women who have gone abroad by presenting
themselves as rape victims and of those who have made money. As
far as human rights activists are concerned, they have not sought
visas or cash grants for any victim of rape. Indeed there is very
little support in civil society for the practice followed by some
of Pakistan's leaders under which cheques are issued by government
by way of compensation for rape and other forms of trauma. The government
alone is responsible for making human suffering a commodity for
sale.
The
issue now is not the words and phrases actually used by General
Pervez Musharraf while referring to rape cases in Pakistan. The
issue is the establishment's mindset which is closed to reason and
sanity. The totalitarian rulers' intolerance of criticism is proverbial.
Their feeling of lack of legitimacy makes them hypersensitive to
any suggestion of deficiency or shortcoming on their part. But that
never alters reality.
Violence against women is endemic in Pakistan. Incidents
of rape and gang-rape are on the increase by all accounts. The issue
is much too serious to be disposed of in casual rhetoric. The issues
framed by General Musharraf are, firstly, that rape of women in
Pakistan is not as serious a problem as it is in many other countries
of the world, including such advanced countries as France. Secondly,
Pakistan is maliciously singled out for criticism on the basis of
rape cases. Thirdly, NGOs that highlight rape cases in Pakistan
are working against the national interest. Lastly, the present regime
has done everything for victims of rape. For example, the help extended
to Dr. Shazia to go abroad. All these issues can be discussed without
taking leave of the norms of decent discourse.
General
Musharraf's anger at his favourite punching bags on the ground that
they malign the country before foreign audiences is equally misdirected.
Much before any NGO raises its voice against a rape incident, the
world comes to know of it from newspapers and the electronic media.
Some of the most widely publicised incidents, such as the cases
involving Mukhtaran Mai, Dr. Shazia and Sonia Naz, were reported
first and extensively by the media. All leading newspapers of Pakistan
are available to the world via the internet. Does the government
of Pakistan propose to tell the newspaper proprietors to stop putting
their newspapers on the internet because by broadcasting stories
of rape in Pakistan they are maligning the fair name of their motherland?
Official rhetoric about Pakistan's image and circumstances in which
Pakistan can suffer loss of reputation demand a longer rebuttal
than space constraints permit at the moment. The fact which the
authorities must try to grasp is that report of any crime in a country
does not bring it as bad a name as does the absence of response
to violations of human rights by the state and civil society. If
the national media and the much maligned civil society organisations
do not take notice of brutal treatment of women and children or
members of minority communities, Pakistan will invite greater opprobrium
than offences against women alone, because civil society will be
accused of conniving with the wrongdoers. Similarly, the state invites
less criticism for what is done by criminals in its territory than
for its failure to create adequate and effective redress mechanisms.
In the final analysis, therefore, a state wins kudos or attracts
censure by its own acts of commission and omission and does not
need any assistance, benevolent or malignant, from civil society.
During
the debate on the incidence of rape in Pakistan the government has
tried to defend itself by cataloguing what it considers acts of
great favour to Pakistan's womenfolk. The flaw in this approach
is obvious. No good acts that might have been done to promote the
interest of women can erase the anguish and the shame that incidents
of rape cause to Pakistani people every year. It is like telling
a hungry and jobless young man to stop complaining because the government
has built a motorway that runs close to his village. In any case,
the government's record leaves little to write home about.
The government can claim credit for increasing women's seats
in the national and provincial assemblies and for reserving seats
for women in the Senate, although some of the credit has been washed
away by its retreat, as evident from the reduction in women's representation
in the local bodies.
The
government, unfortunately, cannot claim any credit for adopting
what is called the karo kari law because the law presents no threat
to those who kill women for a variety of reasons and then claim
that they have done their duty by taking the life of defenceless
creatures for the sake of honour. So long as the government continues
to beg the issue of compoundability of murder this measure will
remain ineffective.
It is quite amazing to find the government putting Dr Shazia's
case in its credit column. References to this case betray the government's
inability to finalise its brief. On the one hand, non-government
organisations are castigated for sending Dr. Shazia abroad and,
on the other hand, the government demands credit for facilitating
her exit from Pakistan and for giving her a considerable amount
in dollars. Why did the government give her money? Will it be able
to give similar amounts to every victim of rape? What was the hurry
in sending her abroad? Everybody knows how difficult and time-consuming
any effort to secure government funds for a citizen in distress
is. What is it that persuaded the government to complete the expulsion
of Dr. Shazia and her husband from Pakistan within a few days? Dr.
Shazia's desire to leave the country is being used against her quite
shamefacedly. It can be shown that Dr. Shazia's decision to leave
the country was based on the shabby and oppressive treatment she
received not only from the lowly minions of the state but also from
the high authorities after her story had broken. Who doesn't know
that she was kept in virtual detention and denied contact with supporters
and sympathisers or with anyone who could commiserate with her.
Pakistan's rulers stand firmly indicted for making the country unsafe
for victims of the worst forms of violence and thuggery.
That rape is one of the most serious issues concerning Pakistani
women can easily be demonstrated. Statistics gathered from newspapers
alone show that during the first eight months of the current year,
at least 135 women had been raped and 134 subjected to gang-rape.
The number of victims is by no means small. There may be countries
with higher incidents of rape but that's no consolation to Pakistani
women, especially those who have had the misfortune of suffering
the trauma of rape. What makes the situation more intolerable is
the considerable evidence that the evil is spreading and is justified
by powerful groups. The incidents of rape are no longer confined
to underdeveloped rural areas as cases are being reported from urban,
and semi-urban areas where such incidents were not known to occur
earlier on. Besides, cases of rape and gang-rape under the order
of a jirga or panchayat is a very recent addition to the history
of crime in this country. Feudals in other countries of the world
are also known to have caused women to be ravaged by their henchmen,
but it is difficult to cite the example of any country where such
atrocities are now sanctioned by recognised bodies. Thus the basic
cause of concern in Pakistan is not merely the incidents of rape;
the real question is that the factors contributing to this crime
are multiplying.
One of the factors contributing to the incidence of rape
is the strengthening of feudal values in the country. These values
have been bolstered by the consolidation of the patriarchal system
in the name of belief. Anti-women biases in society have been strengthened
by the rise of the conservative clergy and a visible decline in
the efficacy of the system of justice. Finally, some of the changes
in the penal laws, supposedly in response to ideological obligations
of the state, have emboldened the criminal elements that could earlier
be checked through strict compliance with reasonable laws.
The nexus between increased incidents of rape and declining
public confidence in the system of justice is quite obvious. Considerable
evidence is available to show a growing public preference for informal
forums of settling disputes. The jirga/panchayat system which in
the past was limited to a few districts has appeared in many districts
where it was not known before and now these forums have become active
in metropolitan centres too. All jirgas are strictly male affairs
and are steeped in feudal norms. They cannot understand the woman's
point of view and have difficulty in recognising her as a citizen
entitled to enjoy fundamental rights. Thus, despite all the campaigns
by the civil society and some effort by the judiciary and administration
to curb vani and swara customs, women are still given away in forced
and unreasonable matches to settle disputes. The plight of families
that approached jirgas/panchayats is known.
The most essential fact is that Pakistani women cannot be
guaranteed dignity of person and protection against violence without
commitment to a process of society's transformation so as to ensure
women equality of rights with men, especially in terms of social
and economic independence. Instead of looking at women's problems
separately, they have to be viewed in the context of Pakistan's
needs for social regeneration. Justice for women is impossible in
a period of feudal resurgence and appeasement of conservative clergy.
Authoritarianism itself is incapable of appreciating women's concerns
just as it is incapable of appreciating the demands of federalism
or social justice. Anyone who wishes to be fair to women must be
at the barricades against feudalism, exploitation of belief for
political gain and authoritarianism (especially the variety sold
in democratic wrappings).
However, to say that women cannot be promised any relief
till the whole of Pakistan society is reformed is blatantly unrealistic
because women should not be considered merely as prospective beneficiaries
of social change. Their right to define the objects of change and
to work for their realisation cannot be denied.
The
strategy to wash the stigma that the high profile rape figures bring
to the country must involve simultaneous work on several fronts.
The laws that offer any protection to women need to be enforced,
and new laws made to cover areas that have not received attention
so far. There must be some way to ensure that these laws are duly
implemented. It will be necessary to sensitise not only the judiciary
but also a large body of policy makers and moulders of public opinion.
And if those in power cannot manage civil expression while referring
to women who are victims of gross violence, they may try to discover
the virtue of violence..
|