The much awaited bill to curb the reprehensible practice of so-called honour killings was introduced by the government and hurriedly passed by the National Assembly, without the opposition taking part in it, apparently because in its present form it ignores some fundamental humanitarian concerns of the rights groups.
As per the proposed law, entitled the Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2004, 'honour killing' is to be treated like any other murder, and is liable to punishment with death or a maximum imprisonment of ten years and minimum of seven years.
In actual fact, what this bill gives the potential victims with one hand, it takes away with the other. For, 'honour' crimes would still be subject to laws that allow for compromise between the murderer(s) and the heirs or guardian (Wali) of a victim.
As is the case in such crimes, the murderer is almost always a close relative of the victim, who, usually is either the Wali - the father or brother - or is acting on his behalf or that of the heirs of a woman killed in the name of family honour.
Unsurprisingly, therefore, ever since the Qisas and Diyat Law has been in force, permitting forgiveness under a compoundability clause, the number of 'honour' killings has increased drastically. In fact, the Prime Minister's advisor on women's affairs, Nilofar Bakhtiar, while claiming credit for the government for the wishy-washy bill, told the House that during 2003 alone as many as 1261 women were killed in different parts of the country in the name of honour.
How widespread is the crime is obvious from the fact that 638 of these killings took place in Sindh, 463 in Punjab, 120 in NWFP, and 40 in Balochistan. Hence, the PPP legislator, Sherry Rehman, had an important assertion to make when, reacting to the passage of the bill at a press conference in Karachi, she said that there was no point in bringing an honour crimes bill if it did not remove the facility for murderers to be forgiven.
Equally importantly, she suggested, as she had already done in the House while proposing her amendments to the bill at an earlier stage, that in all such crimes the State should act as the Wali rather than a victim's relative who is involved in the murder.
Sad as it is, the political parties dominated by feudals, tribals and obscurantists have been asking for leniency in the prescribed punishments. They tend to forget that in most cases the victims are adult women having contracted marriage in accordance with Islamic law, which lays unequivocal stress on a female's consent to marriage rather than that of her Wali.
Which is why a woman to be married is asked three times, in the presence of two witnesses, whether or not she accepts a particular individual as her wedded husband. If she says no, the marriage contract cannot be solemnised. Clearly, those encouraging the honour killings are not acting in accordance with Islamic teachings but prejudices rooted in feudal/tribal culture peculiar to the Subcontinent. Religion certainly does not condone killing of adult women entering into consensual marriage contract.
It is important therefore that in the greater interest of justice, equality and Islamic law, the government pay due attention to the demand that the bill be amended to make the State, rather than relatives of the victim of an 'honour' crime as Wali.
It can and must still be done when the bill comes up for discussion in the Senate, and returned to the National Assembly for approval before it becomes the law of the land.
Comments
Comments are closed.