Women's demonstration for rights

As March 8, the International Women's Day, draws closer self-appointed custodians of national morality are getting roiled up at the prospect of replay of last year's massive 'Aurat March'. Usual labels of 'vulgarity' and 'obscenity' are being bandied about to disparage the activity. The other day, JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman issued a statement to warn that "anyone who thinks they can come on the road under different banners and threaten our culture and Islamic values, should know that we will come out to stop them." Earlier, a lawyer had approached the Lahore High Court to stop the rights march, though on being told by the court that restrictions could not be put on freedom of expression, he said he was not seeking a blanket ban on it, but his issue was with the 'objectionable' placards held by some participants of last year's march. As for the Maulana's purported principled stance, it needs to be recalled that at one point he had proclaimed that a woman could not be the head of government in a Muslim state. Yet when Benazir Bhutto became prime minister, he happily accepted to serve under her as Chairman of the Kashmir Committee.

Women being doubly repressed (by men within families and the system in all walks of life) are by definition a progressive force, and hence the target of regressive elements. In the early 1980s, the Gen Zia regime introduced a clutch of retrogressive laws aimed at keeping women down. That drew strong resistance from women's rights groups. Joining hands, they staged protest marches and braved police high-handedness. After the end of that dark era, for a time a sense of smugness seemed to have set in although some groups remained active within their limited spheres. Last year's 'Aruat March', a well organised affair, has infused a new spirit in the rights movement. This time it needs to do better and disallow any counter-productive distraction. The focus should be on major issues and concerns. Some of them may be common to women everywhere, but not all are relevant to this society. Abortion, for example, is a big issue in the US. Here most women are not allowed to make even basic life decisions, such as acquiring education and/or pursuing professional careers like their male siblings, and who to marry. Although the religion gives women the right to inherit family property, most are denied that right. Generally seen as male property, in some parts of the country they are also used as bargaining chips to settle blood feuds.

Those privileged to take these rights for granted may need to raise other issues that have provocative sexual connotations, but in so doing they should give due consideration to what is known as political correctness. Organisers of last year's march were hard put to defend some of the controversial placards. Such voices tend to draw attention away from the bigger issues and damage an otherwise important assertion of equal rights. It is imperative therefore for the organisers of this year's 'Aurat March' to keep the lunatic fringe under control. And the government must see to it no one tries to disrupt the march.