Events of the last few days inspire confidence that the State is beginning to reclaim its role to define the national values. First the Prime Minister attended a special showing of an Oscar nominated (and later winning) documentary about the so-called honour killings, and promised to bring necessary changes in the legal provisions that allow perpetrators to escape punishment by invoking the Qisas and Diyat laws. Second, the Punjab Assembly passed a comprehensive bill for the protection of women against various forms of domestic violence. Third, as per the Supreme Court verdict, the assassin of Punjab governor Salmaan Taseer was hanged.
The religious parties have come out with a strong reaction, seeing these developments as diminishing of their influence. It is worthwhile to note that these parties and other conservative religious leaders have never raised a voice against such despicable crimes as karo kari, vani and marriage with the holy Quran - all committed by male members of families in the name of tradition-as well as gang rapes, ordered in several instances by men sitting in village councils. But when it comes to women's rights they make the loudest protests. Taking the Punjab Assembly to task for the passage of the women's protection bill JUI-F chief, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, derided the assembly as a "house of uxorious MPAs" and Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif as 'Khadim-e-Aala' in his own house. The law, he said, will lead to break-up of homes and make men feel insecure. As for the first part of this argument, women already have the right to divorce, which obviously leads to break-up of homes. Regarding his concern that preventing men from subjecting women to violence can make them feel insecure the less said, the better.
The Maulana, of course, also averred that the government needed to first seek guidance from the Sharia laws. The problem with the advice is that who is to interpret the Sharia? We have the example of Saudi Arabia, where for a woman to drive a car is punishable with lashes. She cannot perform such a simple task without the consent of a male relative as opening a bank account or travel without a male chaperon. Traditions of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) present a very different picture. His first wife, Hazrat Khadija (RA), was a businesswoman. Hazrat Aysha (RA) led a battle riding camelback. There are at least two examples of women participating as fighters in battles led by the Holy Prophet (PBUH). Many others tended to the injured or provided motivational support. That means there was no bar on them to pursue activities in a chosen field. And Islam gave women the right to own property - economic independence is the key to emancipation - about 13 centuries before women in Europe won that right. A property owner or a business person surely has to deal with financial matters, including bank accounts. Yet if our clerics had their way, women's status would be no more than that of a homebound slave. Their chief worry is about losing control over women's lives.
Unfortunately, they have been misleading public opinion on the blasphemy issue as well and exploiting public sentiments to earn brownie points. The Emir of Jamaat-e- Islami, Sirajul Haq, led 'ghaibana Namaz-e-janaza' of Taseer's assassin in Peshawar, and the next day, again, said the assassin's funeral prayers in Rawalpindi along with his party men. He has also announced plans to hold week-long protest demonstration. The JI leader and JUI chief - who also condemned the hanging - certainly are aware of two vital details of the case: First and most important, Taseer never asked for the abolition of the blasphemy laws; in fact, he had repeatedly said that no Muslim could even think of advocating such a thing. He had called for some changes, reasoning that since these are not divine laws and have been made by men, they contain flaws that are used by people to make false allegations - of which there are countless examples - and hence need to be amended to prevent misuse.
Notably, while rejecting Qadri's review petition the Supreme Court drew attention to the fact that in Islam a false accusation can be as serious as blasphemy itself, and that the calls for reform of the law "ought not to be mistaken as a call for doing away with the law." Which merits the question, why are knowledgeable leaders of religious parties like Sirajul Haq and Maulana Fazlur Rehman insistent on blocking any attempt at reform in the light of Islamic teachings?
The second significant detail being ignored is that the court also observed that the petitioner could neither establish errors floating in the judgement (of the trial court) nor blasphemy charges against the governor. No one has pointed out any legal lacuna in the legal proceedings. Indeed, taking the life of any convict by a state offends civilised sensibilities. But that is not where these protesters are coming from. They are most vociferous proponents of the death penalty. They are protesting because it provides them with an opportunity to play power politics.
In fact, while fulminating against the women protection bill Maulana Fazlur Rehman made it known that when it comes to the religious parties interests they can go to any lengths to enforce their will. Admitting that the religious parties do not get many votes, he said, "that does not mean we cannot topple the government." This is pure sedition. And the pretext aside from the Prime Minister's promise to prevent so-called honour killings through fresh legislation, are the Punjab women's protection bill, and the case of a public official's assassin. What is also pinching him alongside various sectarian groups is the impending madressah reform, under the National Action Plan, that requires cutting off their huge foreign and local funding. Since the Musharraf government's days they have refused to allow audit of their finances. No wonder, he said, all sects are united in resolving to resist any attempt at madressah reform.
The State possesses the power to defeat any challenges to its authority as the successes of Zarb-e-Azb and the ongoing intelligence-based operations across the country show. It will take time to roll back the outcome of the past ill-conceived policies of collusion and connivance. But that is something the government must do without any compromise to reclaim the space occupied by the forces of regression and bigotry so the country can move ahead, in accord with its founding ideals, as a progressive, modern state.
[email protected]
Comments
Comments are closed.