The Protection of Women (Criminal Laws Amendment) Bill passed by the National Assembly on Wednesday, an important step towards the restoration of women's rights, turned out to be an interesting spectacle of political power play.
The voting on the Bill was preceded by a long process of procrastination on the part of the government and protracted negotiations with the religious parties' alliance, MMA, which had been vehemently opposed to any change in the Hudood Ordinance, including its controversial provisions regarding women.
Notably, the constitutional body, the Council of Islamic Ideology, responsible for determining whether or not a particular piece of legislation is in consonance with the religious injunctions, had been supporting the proposed changes in the Hudood laws, introduced by General Zia-ul-Haq as part of his Islamisation campaign.
Yet the government dragged its feet in pushing the Bill through parliament even after a select committee of the National Assembly had discussed it at length and made its recommendations for approval by the House. Overriding the parliamentary body, the government then set up a nine-member Ulema committee to accommodate the MMA's demands. But as President General Musharraf remarked in a hurriedly arranged address-to-the nation following the passage of the Bill, the government had to contend with 'religious extremists' and 'liberal extremists' at the same time.
The PPP-P, representing the liberal spectrum of opinion in parliament, in fact, had presented its own Bill, prior to the government sponsored one, on the same issue, and had also been demanding the repeal of the entire Hudood Ordinance. The MMA representing the 'religious extremists' had threatened that its members would resign from the assemblies in case the government tabled the select committee's bill for approval.
In the event, the party that stuck to its stated position was the PPP-P, which voted in favour of the motion, and the MQM did likewise. The PML-N, having opposed the Bill from the start, abstained and preferred not to cast negative vote either. The MMA reiterated its criticism but, like PML(N), decided not to vote against it. Its leaders had a difficult time later confronting the persistent question from the media why the alliance had not carried out its threat to resign.
Maulana Fazlur Rehman offered the explanation that there was some confusion as to whether the Bill was the one approved by the select committee or the one approved by the Ulema committee, and further that the final decision on resignations would be taken after consultations with Ulema and legal experts. Indeed, the MMA is not expected to quit the assemblies, and going by the alliance's past dealings with the government, the confusion could be a manoeuvre to serve as a leeway for the alliance.
While none of this has been surprising, drama and came from unexpected quarters. PML President Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain promised to resign from the Assembly if anything in the Bill was found to be contrary to the teachings of the Quran and the Sunnah. He actually read out a pre-drafted resignation and submitted it to the Speaker, who, of course, duly returned it, pointing out that it was conditional. And conspicuous by his absence from the House was the PML-Q leader's brother Chaudhry Wajahat Hussain as well as a prominent ruling coalition partner and former president, Sardar Farooq Ahmad Khan Leghari. Apparently, through their absence they probably wanted to appease conservative but influential elements within their respective constituencies.
As a matter of fact, all sides took positions that would resonate through their respective constituencies at the next year's elections. President General Musharraf topped his side's efforts by making a special speech to claim credit for the passage of pro-women legislation and to counter criticism that the government had given in to the MMA pressure by introducing the offence of fornication in the PPC.
He also promised to abolish the cruel practices of 'vani', marriage with the Quran, and 'vatta satta.' And before concluding, he exhorted the people to "elect progressive people who want justice and moderation."
Leaving politics aside, the passage of the Bill is a much welcome step in the right direction, though some anomalies remain. Most importantly, it is to change the controversial provision of the Hudood laws under which a rape victim had to produce four male witnesses in her support, otherwise which she could be hauled up for having committed adultery and the rapist(s) could go scot-free. Also, when the Bill becomes law it will no longer be easy for people to level false allegations of fornication.
Anyone making such an allegation, says the Bill, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term up to five years and shall also be liable to fine not exceeding Rs 10,000. Thousands of women are currently in jail on false charges, which shows the enormity of the problems caused by the existing law. Hopefully, the passage of the Women's Protection Bill will pave the way for an enlightened debate and action on the other controversial provisions of the Hudood laws as well.