Women’s Rights in Pakistan

NGOs slam Marwat`s inclusion in govt

http://www.dawn.com/2003/text/nat38.htm
By Our Staff Reporter

KARACHI, Jan 7: Non-governmental organizations have expressed concern over the inclusion of Irfanullah Marwat in the Sindh cabinet and have demanded that he be dropped from the government and the pending rape case against him be decided soon.

At a meeting on Tuesday, the NGOs said: ``Mr Marwat was one of the major offenders in a gang-rape in which Veena Hayat was raped, in 1991, at her residence. Ms Hayat was subjected to severed torture and physical abuse by five armed men, including Irfan Marwat.``

``Ms Hayat had accused Mr Marwat of the offence. Mr Marwat was then adviser on home affairs in the Jam Sadiq Ali ministry,`` the NGOs said.

The meeting was of the view that ``since the gang-rape case is still pending in court against Mr Marwat, his inclusion in the Sindh cabinet shows that the government has no respect for women`s rights and human rights.``

``The incidents of systematic violence against women will further increase when perpetrators of violence are rewarded with ministries and cabinet posts. Mr Marwat`s inclusion in the provincial cabinet is a shameful act.

``Ms Hayat has named Irfan Marwat as the main culprit and perpetrator of the incident who, with other men, entered her house and raped her and later during the investigations and inquiries conducted by a commission it was established that he was involved in the rape of Veena Hayat.

``Mr Marwat had been released on bail, but since the case is still pending, he remains a culprit. He, therefore, should not be appointed to any public office. The case, which has been pending for more than 11 years, should be decided immediately,`` the NGOs said.

NGOs, including the Women Action Forum, War Against Rape, Aurat Foundation, Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, Shirkat Gah, attended the meeting. The meeting demanded of the government to finalize the case and ensure punishment to those responsible for perpetrating the crime.

The meeting also expressed concern over the increasing incidents of karo-kari in the province as more than 382 people had been killed under that pretext during 2002, which was an alarming sign of violence against women.

ahmedmadani

............. you are a riot! .......... i just love your stuff ..........

Reaction Responseto #17

GhalibZaman............ Dear Sir, You have been very kind to comment on my write up and I am grateful to you. This writing gives me happiness for expressing as real ordinary working person. I work in a profession where we have to please every body and entertain people and part of it is to listen to visitors and do ha ji ha ji. It gets boring rotinue. In my real life I am helpless unsuccessful person unhappy with ungrateful children and wife. Every day work almost 12 hours and travel to and from in flooded streets or sweating hot busses. While doing this its hard physically and mentally and I die little every day. One day 2 years ago I was forced to use computer in our **** hotel and I leart internet. My only friend(real) in this world is my boss exfauji manager. I help him spy on fellow workers regarding `Union` troubles. He gave me chance to go to middle east for over four months. Now he and I are doing side business. We are selling medical drugs like aspirin, allergy tablets,Male potancy tablet and syrups..... need to use two tablets per day and quater cup of liquid syrup after dinner for 6 months, if you miss a day you have to start over to get results.... asthama medicines,vitamins, diet pills, brain improvement, Vitamin M (Memory improvement), Indigestion, Remady against acidity and heart ache, backpain,cold , flew ( most of these are from enemy foreign country- it start with I. I do not want to be specific. Our expaks are smart It has N also. IRAN, IRAQ,IRELAND,INDIA,ICELAND,Indonesia one of them). We supply to rural doctors and feel we are doing profit. I even act as doctor now a days in sindh rural areas and what medicine to take on normal problems. I read lebels on medicines and read information and tell same.

I got depressed as MQM victory prediction did not come right. Mr. Tahmed said i was wrong. Then some hindu guy said I am whining stupid pakistani. But now is ok. I like hamidm write up. He is too hard on beards
may be he was forced to remember Koran. I do not like too much reference of foreign as its just show as nobody really reads reference, correct. I am of opinion most are fabricated references and these references do not exist, its pure Lafanbebazi ok. I like white women but know its not in my fate. I am partial to white color. Its my weakness. I have respect to expaks. I will like expaks to write about KSE stocks etc. Something money wise about TAP pipe line cost etc. I do not read articles if long but read comments and make comments. Fortunately articles and comments have no relationships as size of comments swells. I then get confused and write similar comments to to all articles as a safe resort. I feel jalosy envey and greed about expak and life, cars, white girlfriends and their excessive Zina carnal pleasures. Some times I even fantasize as expak myself but then some body shouts at me and I land on real world. I have learnt lot and improved english. I will like expak to write about economy and how we can take advantage of rise of stock market etc.
Other talk ``:democracy, feudalism( I will some time explain why it is good system), equality, NGO, oppresswed,India,Bomb,Military rule, all dictectores A to Z,Bangla desh, Biharis, need for educaation, MMA and dangers, SSP, Jinnah,Women oppressionGandhi,PMI Q etc`` is good but not real. Not real in sense nothing can be done about it. Hope expak concentrates on KSE where there is real money.

Sorequest to expak

#15 hamidm

I understand you and fully agree with you.

The ``pidram sultan boodness`` has been gender-equalled to ``madram sultaana boodness``

#14:ahmedmadani

You are jewel of a writer. Please continue to share your keen observations & insights with us here.

You are an original. and that matters a lot.

...... and i respectfully submit that the steam engine was a revolutionary concept compared to the horse-drawn carriage .......... so what if islam gave women property rights ........ that was then, this is now ......... let`s move on .......... the fact remains that women in islam are relegated to second class citizenship and that is that .............most fundamentalists, barbarians, and folks who can`t differentiate between sheep and women are okay with that - but it is not okay ............

............. anytime anyone mentions the oft repeated crap about how islam saved womankind from extinction, he needs to to be slapped ..........it is this kind of garbage that keeps us mired in the sorry state that we are in.............. the autohor of this piece of doodoo is guilty ..........

It is sad situation in Pakistan for women before 1980s even for urben women. Rural areas most non rich women have unfortunate life of Cattle. A Indian writer(Premchand) said rightly. ``woman your miserable life- breast full of milk and eyes full of tears.`` Still for most women of rural areas specially if you go little inside leaving main highways.
When I go through rural Sindh (started part time business recently) those poor women see at outsiders a hope. I get deep anguish when they look at you with such depressed face, young 30s and 40s women their tired bodies gone through 5 to 6 child births and their litter surrounding them. Its most depressing site of tired exhausted sindhi women of 30s and 40s many time divorced abandoned. I feel very sad but know nothing can be done honestly. Still means of agricultural production are so backward that over all every thing is so backward and no wealth there. I do my best is I always give biscuit packs to these miserable children. I also know that pity is not good as these poor womens masters are just trying to have as many babies squeezed out of these poor women with such frequency. Its women used by this rural men as milking cows. But there must be wrong with these women going through their torture so patiently waiting for heavenly salvation. I do not know what can improve but sure no laws passing is not going improve any thing. I feel with time things will improve as global effect like TV , radio . Once this summer after my foreign-middle east trip in rural sindh a poor man offered ( of his own) his beautiful daughter for little money for marriage who was same age as my daughters made me think. I wondered was he kind or unkind to his daughter. It vicious there just avoid. Things will improve with time hopefully.Unless economy of rural sindh improves, there is more wealth, new means of production of wealth misery of women will continue.
Beacuse of my whining fat wife I have bad feeling about women and daughters feel I am born just to serve them and their whims ( they look down at me and cat in my home is more respected, cat also looks down at me), I have started disliking women . Still I happy to be born as man as when you think of these miserable rural Sindhi beast of burden women it turns my stomach upside down. Its sad and nothing is going to change for next 80 years. These problems can not be cured but endured. Amiserable subject.

it really shouldn`t take such a long article to define the plight of Muslim women in Pakistan or anywhere else in the Muslim world --

it can described in one sentence...

the status of Muslim woman in Pakistan is that of an untrustworthy indentured slave -- only a few degree less than that of Taliban`s. Period.

and my friends do something about this backwardness instead of writing a thesis on it -- no ifs and buts.

Dear Wasiq Bokhari:

Abid Ullah Jan is a prolific writer and a regular contributor to the Frontier Post. He has written on numerous controversial issues. We need to develop a sympathetic critique of the problem of ``honor killing`` and its tribal (Pakhtoon) cultural context. Jan maintains:

``. . . it is extremely easy to protest murder of a women at Asma Jehangir`s office and vow to protect all the ``internationally recognized rights`` but it is equally hard to understand what do such rights entail in the perspective of our society.`` Rather than developing a critique of tribal culture, Jan has essentially linked the issue of honor-killing to Islam? Is Pakhtoon tribal culture a true reflection of any interpretation of Islam? Is honor-killing allowed in Islam? Should we simply reject Islam and accept the Eurocentric system of values? What do we need to do to balance the rights of individuals to that of family, community, or society?



Regards, Bilal Ahmad

P. S. Ms. Jehangir has recently been identified as one of the ten great Pakistanis by Khaled Ahmad (Friday Times, August 13).

Frontier Post; August 17, 1999

Women`s rights: Third dimension

Abid Ullah Jan

In yet another attempt to shine their business careers, the women`s rights activists condemned the way Senate dealt with the resolution against honour killing. It is splendid to see the human rights champions and women advocates fighting for the cause of the oppressed women, but a large number of them are causing ominous dislocations in the basic concepts of Islam and the accepted norms of an Islamic society. The reason is that their goal is not fair treatment of women, but redistribution of power from the ``dominant`` class (the male patriarchal system) to the ``subordinate`` class __ normally women, but actually only the radical feminists who know how to play by rules they have invented. The Senate happened to be just another scapegoat providing them an opportunity to make another demonstration and peddle the fiction that men are engaged in a vast conspiracy against women.

These radical feminists, together with the men who are interested in making a headway in their shadow, want to establish the rule that offences against women should be defined (not objectively, but subjectively) on the basis of how the woman felt instead of what the defendant actually did. Long before the new outburst of women`s rights` Pandora`s box, there were literally hundreds of laws clearly defined in Islam that gave protection to women based on society`s common sense recognition of facts of life and human nature.

The Senate cannot overrule what has been established since centuries.

In theory, the women`s rights activists appear to demand a doctrinaire equality, but in practice they are demanding affirmative action for women __ equal seats in educational institutes, equal job vacancies, equal seats in the representative bodies, etc. irrespective of any merit, or ability, or qualification. Their goals are the feminisation and subordination of men and their tactics are to cry ``victimisation`` and ``oppression.`` They have launched a broadside attack on Islamic jurisprudence and basic norms of an Islamic society. They want the victim, rather than the law to define the offence. They want the battered women syndrome to free any woman from conviction of violent crime. What they wanted from the Senate, in other words, was a licence for women to kill their ``abusive spouses.``

The borrowed feminists strategy of our women`s rights activists is straightforward: whine that women are victims of centuries of ``oppression`` and ``stereotyping,`` put men on a guilt trip and use all the stereotypical cultural techniques that women have always used to wheedle what they want out of men. Then use women in NGOs, media and government to change the laws in order to force us to conform.

We are getting used to what the feminists do, the way the act and the rights they demand. Their objection to the norms set by the Holy Quran has become a routine and we accept the daily criticism of the laws set by the Shariah. But this is leading us to a stage where we would approve all the forms of behaviour that are regarded beyond the pale of morality and decency. For instance, Thomas Jefferson, in his revised criminal code for Virginia, classified sodomy with rape, as a felony to be punished by castration. But the gradual brainwashing has brought another president, Bill Clinton to address a convention of homosexuals and place a presidential seal of approval on a loathsome behaviour.

Patronising anti-Islam and anti-nature propaganda and activities of women`s rights groups is destructive of something more profound and important than public health. It is a manifestation of that moral relativism that has infected the western countries, and has been transmitted to our elites, in public education, in government, politics, the media and particularly the NGOs. The women`s rights activists say all moral choices are ``value judgements,`` and that there is no rational basis for saying one moral judgement is better than another. This is the point from where they take a start for building a case against honour killing and condemnation of the Senate.

The argument is that whatever an adult man or woman do or decide for him/herself, no third adult has a right to condemn or pass judgement on it. But there is no rational basis for ``value judgements,`` there is no rational basis for the aforementioned limitation to adults, or to consent. Relativism can validate Hitler`s genocide as well as any of his other moral preferences. It can validate rape as well as consensual sex. The reigning moral relativism of the women`s rights champions scuttles the wisdom of the Islamic tradition and of the tradition embodied in ``the laws of nature.``

It implies that whatever an adult woman decides for herself is as much a matter of moral indifference as the choice of a flavour of ice-cream or a brand of soup, and there is no need to barbarically go to the extent of killing in the name of honour. It simply removes men and women behaviour from the sphere of morality, as if it had nothing to do with right and wrong __ as both are considered to be relative to the time and generation. This relativism extends the whole length of morality. Logically, it does not admit to exceptions. It means we cannot condemn slavery or genocide, except it is something we happen not to like. But our preferences have no moral standing in the court of reason than their opposites. We cannot say that slavery and genocide are intrinsically wrong.

But those of us who will not concede that slavery is justified, no matter what others may think, or that genocide is justified no matter what Nazis may think, must say why slavery and genocide are wrong, everywhere and always. Why then do we say that it is acceptable to ``enslave`` a horse or an ox, but not another human being? Why is it acceptable to slaughter a cattle but not a Jew? Is it not because those who share a common human nature ought not to be degraded below the level of their humanity? Do we not have an obligation, arising from nature itself, apart from all law and custom, not to harm other human beings, except in self-defence?

Regardless of any religion and cultural norms, the same nature that tells us it is immoral to enslave (or eat) our fellow humans tells us how to treat men and women and this distinction between a male and female is the most fundamental distinction within all living species, and that within the human species it is the original and originating source of all moral distinctions. Man has not invented any patriarchal system to enslave women as is being propagated by the women`s rights sympathisers. Nature means that which has within itself the principle of its existence from birth to death. There is a superhuman wisdom in nature that unerringly produces puppies from dogs, kittens from cats, piglets from pigs, and male and female human babies from human parents. Not only does it produce them, but it guides their path of growth and behaviour, and decline from birth to death that can neither be controlled by men nor women to oppress all members of the opposite sex, everywhere and all the time.

When we think of women or human freedom, we should bear in mind that our humanity is not something we invented or chose for ourselves. Because we are neither beasts nor gods, we have no right to act as gods to other human beings, or treat them as if they belong to a lower order of creation than ourselves. Of all the laws we make in our common interest, none are of greater import than those having to do with the men and women relationship, marriage and family. Human freedom enables us to discover the meaning of right and wrong. But it is not the source of that meaning.

Slavery and genocide are intrinsically wrong, they represent the abuse of human freedom. So does sexual promiscuity in all its forms approved by the feminists. It is in human nature that we may obey or disobey the rules of morality, but nature does not permit us to be the source from which these rules emanate and declare than men and women are equal in all respects and that their present roles need to be redefined as they have been evolved due to ``social conditioning.``

The entire moral network arises from nature. Now it happens also to be part of the nature that sexual passion is a jealous passion that is one of the major factors leading to honour killing. The integrity of the family depends upon female chastity, because the sense of obligation of the husband depends upon his conviction that his wife`s children are his own! And the husband fidelity is necessary to convince the wife that she and her children are the undivided objects of his devotion. Nothing strikes at the well-being of the family more than adultery or incest, or relations with a person other than the spouse __ let alone breaking the marriage bond and starting a new life with another partner without fulfilling the accepted norms of society. These prohibitions against rape, adultery, incest, women`s unbridled freedom, etc. are no mere ``value judgements.`` And our Senate cannot do anything to repeal such prohibitions or allow the violations that lead to honour killings.

The base of feminist agenda is that a woman`s identity disappears in marriage and that ``marriage is bad for you, at least if you`re female.`` Would the women`s rights groups promote a right which the author of a 52-page article ``Scenes from the Family`` in Redcliff Quarterly described as, ``instead of getting married for life, men and women (in whatever combination suits their sexual orientation) should sign up for a seven-year itch.`` If they want to re-enlist for another seven, they may, but after that, the marriage is ``over.``á

The beacons for our women`s rights activists are the western feminists who extol the wonderful life of a child born out of wedlock and explain divorce as ``a significant life event that confronts individuals with the opportunity to change.`` Are we going to see campaign on these issues in the near future? Those who are calling for ``protection of all internationally recognised human rights`` under the banner of Asma Jehangir must keep in mind that the New York-based Institute for Values recently completed a study of 20 post-1994 college social sciences. Called ``Closed Hearts, Closed Minds,`` the report concludes that most of the textbooks give a downright hostile view of marriage, emphasising marital failures rather than its joys and benefits. Thanks to grip of western feminists, who view marriage as especially bleak and dreary for women due to its ``archaic and oppressive nature.``

Pro-feminist textbooks, like ``Changing Families`` by Judy Root Aulette, focus on battering, marital rape and divorce and give the impression that children don`t need two parents and are not harmed by divorce. ``Why Women Who End Their Marriage Do So Well`` by Ashton Applewhite is an example of the new genre of books attacking marriage as a bad deal for women. The author dumped her husband after reading feminist Susan Faludi`s ``Backlash.`` Now Applewhite together with other feminists, seeks social approval for her walk-out by encouraging middle-aged women to find independence by doing likewise.

The publication of another new book ``On Our Own: Unmarried Motherhood in America`` by Melissa Luddtke, attracted Hillary Clinton and many other to a book party at home of PBS journalist Ellen Hume. Hillary was thanked for her assistance as a ``reader of the book in progress.`` Similarly, in the movie industry, ``G. I. Jane,`` directed by Ridley Scott, is a fitting sequel to his 1991 movie ``Thelma and Louise.`` Both movies try to idealise the macho victim, the foul-mouthed, gun-totting women who triumph over the perceived discriminations perpetrated by an unfair male-dominated society. Thelma and Louise freed themselves from an oppressive patriarchal society by driving their automobile off a cliff. Their double suicide proved they were liberated women because they made that death decision independently from male coercion.

G.I. Jane (Demi Moore) proves she is a liberated woman by getting herself beaten to a bloody pulp, almost raped, and subjected to extreme bodily harassment. To the feminists, this is okay because her goal is to be treated just like men. This is the kind of equality our women`s rights activists demonstrating in front of the Parliament House are seeking, but what they demand in public rallies and describe in various seminars has been reduced to a simple phrase: ``double standards of human rights.``

Like the Senate members, everyone is apologetic and defensive. Whereas the fact remains that the borrowed views on motherhood, marriage, gender, career and women`s rights are being imposed on us by its champions for shining their own careers and strengthening their funding base. We cannot respond to what they say without proper research, analysis and impact study of such innovations on the western society. For namesake, it is extremely easy to protest murder of a woman at Asma Jehangir`s office and vow to protect all the ``internationally recognised rights`` but it is equally hard to understand what do such rights entail in the perspective of our society. Would any of HRCP member fight for the rights of the homosexuals and stage protest in front of the Senate because it is an ``internationally recognised human right`` endorsed by Bill Clinton as well?

Every generation seeks its defining moment. Through intellectual illumination, artistic insight, philosophical precision, political perception and moral appreciation we come to understand our life and time. Let speechlessness in the face of feminist onslaught not become the hallmark of present generation due to lack of research and inability to see the third dimension of the issue.

-- Frontier Post

Re: Rama

I am sorry if you got the impression that:

(a) I was defending one religion i.e. Islam

(b) I was blaming some other religion i.e Hinduism.

I was doing neither, as a perusal of my article would readily confirm.

best

The article, in the first place drifted away from the actual topic in order to defend the religion in general,which is not required. This can be said because other Islamic countries like Iran,Iraq etc have granted equal status to women inspite of their religious constraints. It does not seem to justify the abuse of women in Pakistan by blaming the influence of Hindu ideological base acquired by Indian counterpart because from Human Rights Reports it can be seen that abuse of womens` rights is more than double in Pakistan than in India. So, the article serves the only purpose of defending Islam and Pakistan male society, than emphasizing the womens` issues. Ofcouse, the author seems to be well versed with the Muslim laws(Shariat,Quran etc..) which has nothing to do with womens` rights. Because what the religion preaches is not what is being practised. So, it would have been justifiable to focus, on the real issue rather than unnecessary elaboration. Good Luck to the Pakistani Women!!

Dear friends, thank you for your comments. This article is an attempt to open a dialogue on this topic. As I said in the article, we are particularly sensitive about this issue because it has been negatively painted in the West for ages. However, there are genuine points for debate here, and one cannot take the classical arguments to be the final word in themselves. An issue of rights is as much linked to the essence of an individual as it is to the circumstances around him or her.

Re: American Moslem Woman

Thanks for the reference to the link, I was impressed by the content and quality of the articles on your home page. I would point out however that most of the opinions presented there are modernistic themselves and are a far cry from some of the traditional interpretations.

Let me focus on Jamal Badawi`s essay: Rights of a Woman in Islam. He clearly identifies a woman as the weaker sex, and states for example:``...some decisions require the maximum of rationality and a minimum of emotionality - a requirement that does not coincide with the instinctive nature of women``.

I would like to ask you, if you in your own experience, consider yourself to be less rational than men. How much of this perception is demonstrably true and how much is part of the social upbringing? Also how about when women are past their child-bearing ages, should they not then be able to become leaders of a society? There are many issues here that we can discuss.

It would be fitting if you could contribute to this on-going discussion, in terms of your comments or preferably an article, all the things that I have either not presented in my article, or have presented incorrectly.

I would like to disagree with the author on his use of the term Islam. The author uses Islam to include Prophetic Traditions as well as Quranic Traditions.

In this respect, I would like to clarify that Quran does not allow a man to have upto four wives. This was a tradition at the time of Holy Prophet in view of the socio-economic conditions of women in those time.

A number of different Quranic translations are available, some have translated the relevent verse as permission to beat lightly and some as admonish but in both instance it is in response, not to man`s whim, but in response to spiritual transgressions (like skipping prayers, etc)

It is not just Islam which does not have female prophet but all the Religions of Book, so if there is any cause of complaint then it should be universally applied to Christianity and Judaism.

Again, I have not come accross any specific reference to segregation of men and women in Quran and would be more than happy to see some specific reference. In fact, to my recollection, women played important roles in all aspects of religion during Prophet`s time.

Just because some self proclaimed scholar of Islam might have expressed such views does not necessarily reflect those being Islamic.

RE: Dr Rabbani ...`` we direly need a Mustafa Kamal Pasha, though, sadly, he was a pig in
many other ways``.

To echo these noble thoughts, as much as I hate to admit it, ``we direly need a Field Marshall Ayoob Khan, though, sadly, he was a paternalistic dictator in many other ways``.

RE: Dr. Rabbani ``...the thinking people of Pakistan need to come to their senses and
have the courage to put religion `in its place` ... dismantle the whole Shariat Law establishment and build a Secular society ... we direly need a Mustafa Kamal Pasha ..``.

Right on, Brother! This is exactly what the Founder of Pakistan envisioned. Had Mr Jinnah lived long enough after the deliverance of Pakistan, he would have done exactly what you
so boldly stated here. Where is Kemal Ataturk now that Pakistan needs him?!?!

Wasiq Bokhari has spoken many truths, but he stopped short of saying what really needed to be said out loud. Reading between the lines I can see that he wants to say somethings which he knows better than to actually say. Let me translate in plain words: The thinking people of Pakistan need to come to their senses and have the courage to put religion ``in its place``. We must not be timid in the face of primitive militancy and be brave enough to denounce the nosensical gibbrish which passes for ``divine endorsement`` of anachronastic values at the dawn of the 21st century. We need to ABOLISH the discriminatory state-religion status of Islam. Dismantle the whole Shariat Law establishment and build a Secular society. In this regard we direly need a Mustafa Kamal Pasha, though, sadly, he was a pig in many other ways.