'Women's rights in Pakistan' is a big question often raised in the West. It is believed that women has no rights or privileges in the male dominated society of Pakistan.
Before discussing whether women have rights in Pakistani society or not, first understand Pakistani society.
Pakistan is an Islamic state, where people, not only take pride in strictly adhering to the Islamic values but are ready to sacrifice their loved belongings for the glory and sanctity of Islam. Islam has accorded a highly venerated social position to women. Islam acknowledges the rights and privileges of the women in society. Likewise, Islam does not impose any restrictions that may hamper the social growth and development of the woman. A woman is equally important member of society. The woman plays a vital role in building the society on healthier and stronger foundations.
The women in Pakistan have been constantly complaining of having being isolated from the mainstream of society. Women feel disillusioned on being maltreated by the male-oriented set up in Pakistan. They strongly claim that if they are given a chance, they can contribute more positively towards the development of all social aspects.
However the Pakistani society usually adopts a hostile attitude towards the women. Their development in society is hindered due to many factors. Particularly the rural woman has to sustain, sometimes, unbearable dominance by the other sections of society.
Numerically the women in Pakistan are almost equal to men. They are equal in potential as the men. The Pakistani women live in the most diversified location of the tribal, feudal or urban environments. She can be a highly qualified and self-confident professional or a diffident peasant toiling along with her men-folk.
Women in Pakistan observe 'Pardha' while coming out of domestic environs or mixing up with other sections of society. 'Pardha,' or veil, is meant to segregate the women-folk from the male section of the society. The women are not prohibited from working but at the same time are supposed to observe strictly the rules of morality.
Due to pardha system, most of women (particularly of low education) have to take up work at home. They involve themselves in knitting, dressmaking, embroidery, etc.
In the areas like NWFP and Balochistan, life is governed and regulated by strict beliefs and behavioral patterns. A woman has no say in any aspect of her life, including her marriage. In the populated provinces of Sindh and Punjab, a woman may keep her connections with her family after marriage. She expect support from her brothers and father in case of separation and divorce from her husband. In Punjab and Sindh, women are seen working in the fields with their men-folk collecting fuels and in some cases working on the construction sites shifting material from one place to another.
Most of women in rural areas have to bear double burden of domestic and outside work. They are the first to rise and last to bed. They lit the fire to prepare breakfast, wash the utensils and cleans the house before setting out on their outside work. When every member has ridden the bed after completing day's work, they are engaged in working.
Although the conditions of women in urban areas are better than those of the rural women. Yet the old traditions and religious restraints have hindered the independent and free movement of the women.
Pakistan is the first country in the Muslim world that has elected a woman as its prime minister twice.
source:www.essortment.com
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
WOMEN-PAKISTAN: Domestic Violence Bill Draws Mixed Reactions
That is assuming the bill, which was approved by the National Assembly on Aug. 4, will be passed by the Senate to make it a law.
"Just as the proceedings began before the bill was put to a vote, Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani got up to say his government supported the bill as it fell under their party manifesto’s purview," said Yasmeen Rehman, a member of the ruling Pakistan People’s Party, who sponsored the bill. "I was elated."
Civil society groups advocating protection of women against all forms of violence dubbed the passage a "historic move.
"The bill is significant," said Khawar Mumtaz, chief executive officer of Shirkat Gah Women's Resource Center, a women’s rights group in Pakistan. "Firstly, it acknowledges the incidence of domestic violence. Secondly, it recognizes that it can no longer be ignored or remain invisible," Mumtaz told IPS.
For too long, "treating domestic violence as a private affair has given protection to perpetrators of violence and has led to victimization of women," she said. "The passage of the bill "is a measure of success of women's advocacy."
The bill underwent endless vetting by an 18-member house Standing Committee on Women Development and the Law Ministry, said Rehman. "I think the bill was greatly strengthened by these processes," said parliament member Bushra Gohar of the Awami National Party, a leftist party in Pakistan.
It stipulates against not only the more accepted forms of violence against women, like sexual abuse and assault but also covers such acts as stalking, economic abuse, verbal and emotional abuse, willful or negligent abandonment and wrongful confinement, among others.
The bill defines domestic violence as "(a)ll intentional acts of gender-based or other physical or psychological abuse committed by an accused against women, children or other vulnerable persons, with whom the accused person is or has been in a domestic relationship."
Anis Haroon, chairperson of the National Commission on the Status of Women (NCSW), an independent statutory body, described the passage of the 28-clause bill as a "major step forward."
But while some rights groups have hailed the passage of the bill, others expressed strong misgivings about it.
Maliha Khan, a women’s rights activist, said the bill does not criminalise the offence. While its definition of domestic violence is "fairly all-encompassing," it is tantamount only to "a restraint order." On a cursory reading, the bill looks acceptable, but it is not, she said.
She cited the breach of protection order found in section eight of the bill. "This order obligates the accused not to commit an act of domestic violence…. When and if the accused breaches this order, only then will she or he be punished with imprisonment and/or fine," she said.
It is important to note the distinction, she explained. An accused found guilty of committing an act of domestic violence will only receive a warning not to do certain acts based on the protection order. Thus the accused will not be subject to penal punishments for committing a criminal act, said Khan.
Penalties for violations of protection orders include imprisonment of six months to one year and a fine of 100,000 rupees (some 1,210 U.S. dollars) for the first breach; and a prison term of one to two years and/or a fine of not less than 200,000 rupees (2,421 U.S. dollars) for the second and succeeding offenses.
"To effectively deal with this social evil, it is vital that an act of domestic violence be punished with imprisonment and/or fine at the first instance, not after a "breach" of protection orders," said Khan.
Khan also took issue with the use of the word "intentional" in the bill’s definition of domestic abuse. "Excuses such as ‘mistake’, ‘ignorance’ and ‘accident’ could be easily used to counter any complaint of domestic violence, resulting in immediate acquittal," she said. Thus she had proposed the inclusion of ‘unintentional’ in the same definition before the bill was passed.
Based on a report by the women’s rights group Aurat Foundation, ‘Situation of Violence against Women in Pakistan’, a total 7,571 incidents of violence against women were reported in the country last year.
According to the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP)’s ‘State of Human Rights in 2008’ report, 1,210 women were killed for various reasons. "Over eight hundred were sexually harassed, 350 raped, 45 gang- raped and 13 were stripped," stated the document. It added that 185 women were killed due to domestic violence and 138 others injured.
The United Nation’s Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) said at least one out of three women around the world has been "beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime — with the abuser usually someone known to her. Violence against women and girls is a universal problem of epidemic proportions."
UNIFEM said only 89 countries have legislative provisions on domestic violence against women and only around 60 states have passed specific domestic violence laws, a significant rise from only 45 countries with such a law in 2003.
Pakistan could become the 61st country outlawing domestic violence should the Senate pass the bill.
Although rights groups welcomed the passage of the bill by the upper house, they were dismayed by yet another of its provisions. Section 25 states that in case of a "false complaint," an imprisonment of up to six months and a penalty of 50,000 rupees (about 605 U.S. dollars), or both, will be meted out to the complainant.
"It never existed in any of the earlier bills (on domestic violence)," said the NCSW’s Haroon.
"It makes the legislation null and void," cried Khan, who presented the recommendations put forward by the civil society to the government and parliamentarians. "If anyone files a complaint of domestic violence and is unable to prove it, for whatever reason, the complainant will be charged with false accusation and punished accordingly." She said this could dissuade women from seeking protection against domestic violence for fear of reprisal.
Others appear more concerned about how the law, once passed, will be implemented.
Zohra Yusuf of the HRCP said, "Women need easy access to complaint centres, so perhaps small ones can be established in neighbourhoods, where sensitized policewomen can be placed."
Gohar stressed the need to hire more women police at the sub-district level as well as the conduct of gender sensitivity training for police officers and local government representatives.
Still others are downright sceptical about efforts of any kind to legislate against domestic violence. Dr Shershah Syed, a leading Karachi-based gynecologist, asked: "Will it change the attitude of the people, the perpetrators? They always manage to go scot-free," he said. "Pick up any national paper. Not a single day passes when a few violent acts against women are not reported.
"Many women think abuse is part and parcel of married life and take it in stride. Unless the prime minister and the president announce zero tolerance for violence against women, no amount of law making would help," he added.
Akmal Wasim, a Karachi-based lawyer who was among those who vetted the bill, agreed that a mere law cannot change society’s attitude toward gender- based violence. "The bill is inconsequential if the political will for its proper implementation is not there," he said.
Still, the passage of the bill is a crucial step in the right direction, some experts said. If laws are not being implemented it does not mean they should not be legislated in the first place, said Shirkat Gah’s Mumtaz.
"Laws are important for setting standards and defining what is acceptable in society. Whatever fate awaits the new law will also depend on how much people turn to it for protection. But once it is in the statute books, the option of invoking it becomes available," she said.
source:www.ipsnews.net
"Just as the proceedings began before the bill was put to a vote, Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani got up to say his government supported the bill as it fell under their party manifesto’s purview," said Yasmeen Rehman, a member of the ruling Pakistan People’s Party, who sponsored the bill. "I was elated."
Civil society groups advocating protection of women against all forms of violence dubbed the passage a "historic move.
"The bill is significant," said Khawar Mumtaz, chief executive officer of Shirkat Gah Women's Resource Center, a women’s rights group in Pakistan. "Firstly, it acknowledges the incidence of domestic violence. Secondly, it recognizes that it can no longer be ignored or remain invisible," Mumtaz told IPS.
For too long, "treating domestic violence as a private affair has given protection to perpetrators of violence and has led to victimization of women," she said. "The passage of the bill "is a measure of success of women's advocacy."
The bill underwent endless vetting by an 18-member house Standing Committee on Women Development and the Law Ministry, said Rehman. "I think the bill was greatly strengthened by these processes," said parliament member Bushra Gohar of the Awami National Party, a leftist party in Pakistan.
It stipulates against not only the more accepted forms of violence against women, like sexual abuse and assault but also covers such acts as stalking, economic abuse, verbal and emotional abuse, willful or negligent abandonment and wrongful confinement, among others.
The bill defines domestic violence as "(a)ll intentional acts of gender-based or other physical or psychological abuse committed by an accused against women, children or other vulnerable persons, with whom the accused person is or has been in a domestic relationship."
Anis Haroon, chairperson of the National Commission on the Status of Women (NCSW), an independent statutory body, described the passage of the 28-clause bill as a "major step forward."
But while some rights groups have hailed the passage of the bill, others expressed strong misgivings about it.
Maliha Khan, a women’s rights activist, said the bill does not criminalise the offence. While its definition of domestic violence is "fairly all-encompassing," it is tantamount only to "a restraint order." On a cursory reading, the bill looks acceptable, but it is not, she said.
She cited the breach of protection order found in section eight of the bill. "This order obligates the accused not to commit an act of domestic violence…. When and if the accused breaches this order, only then will she or he be punished with imprisonment and/or fine," she said.
It is important to note the distinction, she explained. An accused found guilty of committing an act of domestic violence will only receive a warning not to do certain acts based on the protection order. Thus the accused will not be subject to penal punishments for committing a criminal act, said Khan.
Penalties for violations of protection orders include imprisonment of six months to one year and a fine of 100,000 rupees (some 1,210 U.S. dollars) for the first breach; and a prison term of one to two years and/or a fine of not less than 200,000 rupees (2,421 U.S. dollars) for the second and succeeding offenses.
"To effectively deal with this social evil, it is vital that an act of domestic violence be punished with imprisonment and/or fine at the first instance, not after a "breach" of protection orders," said Khan.
Khan also took issue with the use of the word "intentional" in the bill’s definition of domestic abuse. "Excuses such as ‘mistake’, ‘ignorance’ and ‘accident’ could be easily used to counter any complaint of domestic violence, resulting in immediate acquittal," she said. Thus she had proposed the inclusion of ‘unintentional’ in the same definition before the bill was passed.
Based on a report by the women’s rights group Aurat Foundation, ‘Situation of Violence against Women in Pakistan’, a total 7,571 incidents of violence against women were reported in the country last year.
According to the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP)’s ‘State of Human Rights in 2008’ report, 1,210 women were killed for various reasons. "Over eight hundred were sexually harassed, 350 raped, 45 gang- raped and 13 were stripped," stated the document. It added that 185 women were killed due to domestic violence and 138 others injured.
The United Nation’s Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) said at least one out of three women around the world has been "beaten, coerced into sex, or otherwise abused in her lifetime — with the abuser usually someone known to her. Violence against women and girls is a universal problem of epidemic proportions."
UNIFEM said only 89 countries have legislative provisions on domestic violence against women and only around 60 states have passed specific domestic violence laws, a significant rise from only 45 countries with such a law in 2003.
Pakistan could become the 61st country outlawing domestic violence should the Senate pass the bill.
Although rights groups welcomed the passage of the bill by the upper house, they were dismayed by yet another of its provisions. Section 25 states that in case of a "false complaint," an imprisonment of up to six months and a penalty of 50,000 rupees (about 605 U.S. dollars), or both, will be meted out to the complainant.
"It never existed in any of the earlier bills (on domestic violence)," said the NCSW’s Haroon.
"It makes the legislation null and void," cried Khan, who presented the recommendations put forward by the civil society to the government and parliamentarians. "If anyone files a complaint of domestic violence and is unable to prove it, for whatever reason, the complainant will be charged with false accusation and punished accordingly." She said this could dissuade women from seeking protection against domestic violence for fear of reprisal.
Others appear more concerned about how the law, once passed, will be implemented.
Zohra Yusuf of the HRCP said, "Women need easy access to complaint centres, so perhaps small ones can be established in neighbourhoods, where sensitized policewomen can be placed."
Gohar stressed the need to hire more women police at the sub-district level as well as the conduct of gender sensitivity training for police officers and local government representatives.
Still others are downright sceptical about efforts of any kind to legislate against domestic violence. Dr Shershah Syed, a leading Karachi-based gynecologist, asked: "Will it change the attitude of the people, the perpetrators? They always manage to go scot-free," he said. "Pick up any national paper. Not a single day passes when a few violent acts against women are not reported.
"Many women think abuse is part and parcel of married life and take it in stride. Unless the prime minister and the president announce zero tolerance for violence against women, no amount of law making would help," he added.
Akmal Wasim, a Karachi-based lawyer who was among those who vetted the bill, agreed that a mere law cannot change society’s attitude toward gender- based violence. "The bill is inconsequential if the political will for its proper implementation is not there," he said.
Still, the passage of the bill is a crucial step in the right direction, some experts said. If laws are not being implemented it does not mean they should not be legislated in the first place, said Shirkat Gah’s Mumtaz.
"Laws are important for setting standards and defining what is acceptable in society. Whatever fate awaits the new law will also depend on how much people turn to it for protection. But once it is in the statute books, the option of invoking it becomes available," she said.
source:www.ipsnews.net
Women of Pakistan Apologize for War Crimes in 1971
When the confrontation between the people of Bangladesh and Pakistan's military power climaxed in the War of Liberation in 1971, and Yahya Khan's troops launched a genocide in Bangladesh, the vast majority of people in Pakistan remained silent. Only a few brave voices were heard in protest.
The first time a public statement was issued was around August 1971. Condemning the genocide and recommending negotiations with the elected representatives of the people of Bangladesh, this statement was signed amongst others by the poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz, journalist Mazhar Ali Khan, trade unionist Tahera Mazhar. These signatories were at the time accused by Pakistan's establishment of being anti-national and subversive and they had to pay a price for their courageous defiance.
Now, 25 years later, women's groups have become the vanguard of Pakistan's conscience. They resisted military rule in the eighties in their own country. On March 1, 1996 they spoke out in public to apologize for the military atrocities in 1971. In particular, they condemned the acts of rape committed by their military in Bangladesh. Even in 1996 their statement is an act of courage and we welcome their attempt to accept responsibility and to hold out their hands in solidarity with us.
Reproduced below are two public statements issued by the Women's Action Forum, a broad-based coalition of women's groups in Pakistan, and ASR, a resource center, which were in the forefront of resistance to Ziaul Huq's military rule and his attempts to condemn women to subordination in Pakistan. Issued on March 01, to coincide with the day Yahya Khan postponed the Constituent Assembly, the statements were endorsed by other groups including SAHE, Shirkatgah, Institute of Women's Studies, Lahore, Simorgh Collective and Pattan. We print them because we want to recognize the people's initiatives to ascribe responsibility for the genocide. We expect that our sisters in Pakistan will work towards stronger national condemnation of those who were guilty of war crimes in Bangladesh, because we feel that this will strengthen their own struggle for democracy. We also see their apology as a marker towards an affirmation for peace, democracy and non-violence in South Asia.
WAF (Women's Action Forum) Apologizes to Women of Bangladesh
As Bangladesh celebrates its 25 years of independence, the state and the people of Pakistan must reflect on the role played by the state and the Pakistani military in the unprecedented and exceptionally violent suppression of the political aspirations of the people of Bangladesh in 1971. Continued silence on our part makes a mockery not only of the principles of democracy, human rights, and self determinations which we lay claim to, but also makes a mockery of our own history.
The committee of nations has now not only recognized that even in cases of war, and other forms of conflict, there are certain parameters beyond which violence cannot and must not be condoned, and further that those perpetrating and responsible for such violence should be held responsible for such violence. In view of this, and in the larger interests of our own humanity as a nation, we must condemn the oppression by this state of its own citizens in 1971. As Pakistanis who stood silently by, we must also judge ourselves as history has already judged us.
WAF would like to use this opportunity to build public awareness on the issue of state violence and the role of the military in 1971, At the same time there is a need to focus on the systematic violence against women, particularly the mass rapes. While we try to focus the nation's attention towards a period in our history for which we stand ashamed. Women's Action Forum, on its own behalf, would like to apologize to the women of Bangladesh that they became the symbols and the targets in the process of dishonoring and humiliating people.
ASR on 25 Years of Silence
As Pakistan approaches its 50th year, we must reflect on these five decades not only in celebration and nostalgia but with a consciousness of the darker side of our history - a history that is systematically denied to its own citizens. It is ironic that Pakistanis, particularly the younger generation, consider Pakistan's history as continuous when in fact the first half of 50 years were internally challenged. Indeed, this challenge then led to a truncated Pakistan in 1971. This was a critical point for Pakistan since it threw up a crisis in terms of our own identity, our sense of self and most of all, our humanity. While we have still not emerged from this crisis, we make it worse by continuing to be silent. Representing our history under a false patriotism and denying the experience of the oppressed is not the grounds on which we can build a future we may be proud of.
In reviewing our history, both the state and the people of Pakistan need to confront their denial of democratic and human rights and the indifferent attitude toward women. In particular this silence and eclipsing of the voice of the people and the tremendous violence directed against the women of Bangladesh is a shameful testimony. Mass rapes and violence were specifically motivated to seize power from those who had democratically earned it. 1971 was brutal year rationalized under the guise of war, revenge, honor and betrayal through misrepresentations by the powerful classes who determine how history is constructed and obscured.
Progressive movements must no longer allow themselves to fall into the trap of being duped by historical distortions. To some extent, the women's movement in Pakistan has been attempting to reinterpret a people's history while challenging the oppression and exploitation of women on various fronts. It has a courageous history. However, we have not yet questioned the politics of the violence of 1971 beyond that of sympathetic solidarity on the issue of the mass rapes of Bangladeshi women. In particular, we have not confronted the politics of the complicity of our own silence in the collective action that aimed not just to humiliate but stamp out any resistance. In that we are a part of devaluing further the lives of those women. What the movement needs to recognize is that violence against women cannot be delinked from the spectrum of patriarchal violence which is articulated at all levels in society and through all institutions, of which the military is one. While the women's movement has struggled to give expression to all forms of violence, including violence in the domestic sphere, it has tended not to take cognizance of so public and immoral an action such as that of the Pakistani military's mass rapes of millions of Bangladeshi women in 1971. Until we challenge this and see redressal, the climate of violence will continue where the women and the powerless will be the worst victims both when the conflicts exist within and between nation states. All those who agree with this perspective must see to it that the Pakistani state not only acknowledges the role that it played in 1971, but that the state initiates a process by which the women of Bangladesh are elevated to the humanity that is their right and to further ensure that history doest not repeat itself through social, political or military policies.
source:www.adhunika.com
The first time a public statement was issued was around August 1971. Condemning the genocide and recommending negotiations with the elected representatives of the people of Bangladesh, this statement was signed amongst others by the poet Faiz Ahmed Faiz, journalist Mazhar Ali Khan, trade unionist Tahera Mazhar. These signatories were at the time accused by Pakistan's establishment of being anti-national and subversive and they had to pay a price for their courageous defiance.
Now, 25 years later, women's groups have become the vanguard of Pakistan's conscience. They resisted military rule in the eighties in their own country. On March 1, 1996 they spoke out in public to apologize for the military atrocities in 1971. In particular, they condemned the acts of rape committed by their military in Bangladesh. Even in 1996 their statement is an act of courage and we welcome their attempt to accept responsibility and to hold out their hands in solidarity with us.
Reproduced below are two public statements issued by the Women's Action Forum, a broad-based coalition of women's groups in Pakistan, and ASR, a resource center, which were in the forefront of resistance to Ziaul Huq's military rule and his attempts to condemn women to subordination in Pakistan. Issued on March 01, to coincide with the day Yahya Khan postponed the Constituent Assembly, the statements were endorsed by other groups including SAHE, Shirkatgah, Institute of Women's Studies, Lahore, Simorgh Collective and Pattan. We print them because we want to recognize the people's initiatives to ascribe responsibility for the genocide. We expect that our sisters in Pakistan will work towards stronger national condemnation of those who were guilty of war crimes in Bangladesh, because we feel that this will strengthen their own struggle for democracy. We also see their apology as a marker towards an affirmation for peace, democracy and non-violence in South Asia.
WAF (Women's Action Forum) Apologizes to Women of Bangladesh
As Bangladesh celebrates its 25 years of independence, the state and the people of Pakistan must reflect on the role played by the state and the Pakistani military in the unprecedented and exceptionally violent suppression of the political aspirations of the people of Bangladesh in 1971. Continued silence on our part makes a mockery not only of the principles of democracy, human rights, and self determinations which we lay claim to, but also makes a mockery of our own history.
The committee of nations has now not only recognized that even in cases of war, and other forms of conflict, there are certain parameters beyond which violence cannot and must not be condoned, and further that those perpetrating and responsible for such violence should be held responsible for such violence. In view of this, and in the larger interests of our own humanity as a nation, we must condemn the oppression by this state of its own citizens in 1971. As Pakistanis who stood silently by, we must also judge ourselves as history has already judged us.
WAF would like to use this opportunity to build public awareness on the issue of state violence and the role of the military in 1971, At the same time there is a need to focus on the systematic violence against women, particularly the mass rapes. While we try to focus the nation's attention towards a period in our history for which we stand ashamed. Women's Action Forum, on its own behalf, would like to apologize to the women of Bangladesh that they became the symbols and the targets in the process of dishonoring and humiliating people.
ASR on 25 Years of Silence
As Pakistan approaches its 50th year, we must reflect on these five decades not only in celebration and nostalgia but with a consciousness of the darker side of our history - a history that is systematically denied to its own citizens. It is ironic that Pakistanis, particularly the younger generation, consider Pakistan's history as continuous when in fact the first half of 50 years were internally challenged. Indeed, this challenge then led to a truncated Pakistan in 1971. This was a critical point for Pakistan since it threw up a crisis in terms of our own identity, our sense of self and most of all, our humanity. While we have still not emerged from this crisis, we make it worse by continuing to be silent. Representing our history under a false patriotism and denying the experience of the oppressed is not the grounds on which we can build a future we may be proud of.
In reviewing our history, both the state and the people of Pakistan need to confront their denial of democratic and human rights and the indifferent attitude toward women. In particular this silence and eclipsing of the voice of the people and the tremendous violence directed against the women of Bangladesh is a shameful testimony. Mass rapes and violence were specifically motivated to seize power from those who had democratically earned it. 1971 was brutal year rationalized under the guise of war, revenge, honor and betrayal through misrepresentations by the powerful classes who determine how history is constructed and obscured.
Progressive movements must no longer allow themselves to fall into the trap of being duped by historical distortions. To some extent, the women's movement in Pakistan has been attempting to reinterpret a people's history while challenging the oppression and exploitation of women on various fronts. It has a courageous history. However, we have not yet questioned the politics of the violence of 1971 beyond that of sympathetic solidarity on the issue of the mass rapes of Bangladeshi women. In particular, we have not confronted the politics of the complicity of our own silence in the collective action that aimed not just to humiliate but stamp out any resistance. In that we are a part of devaluing further the lives of those women. What the movement needs to recognize is that violence against women cannot be delinked from the spectrum of patriarchal violence which is articulated at all levels in society and through all institutions, of which the military is one. While the women's movement has struggled to give expression to all forms of violence, including violence in the domestic sphere, it has tended not to take cognizance of so public and immoral an action such as that of the Pakistani military's mass rapes of millions of Bangladeshi women in 1971. Until we challenge this and see redressal, the climate of violence will continue where the women and the powerless will be the worst victims both when the conflicts exist within and between nation states. All those who agree with this perspective must see to it that the Pakistani state not only acknowledges the role that it played in 1971, but that the state initiates a process by which the women of Bangladesh are elevated to the humanity that is their right and to further ensure that history doest not repeat itself through social, political or military policies.
source:www.adhunika.com
CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web Order Code RS21299 Updated March 27, 2003 Pakistan’s Domestic Political Developments: Issues for
Summary
In October 2002, Pakistan held its first national elections since 1997, thus fulfilling
in a limited fashion President Pervez Musharraf’s promise to restore the National
Assembly that was dissolved in the wake of his extra-constitutional seizure of power in October 1999. Opposition parties contesting the elections – along with rights groups and European Union observers – complained that the exercise was “deeply flawed.” No party won a majority of parliamentary seats, though a pro-military alliance won a plurality while a coalition of Islamist parties made a surprisingly strong showing. Musharraf supporter M.Z. Jamali is Pakistan’s new prime minister and has thus far maintained Musharraf’s foreign and economic policies. Debate continues over Musharraf’s August 2002 changes to the country’s constitution, many of which greatly augment his already considerable powers and institutionalize a permanent governance role for the military. The 1999 coup triggered restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance,restrictions waived in October 2001 and again in March 2003 by President Bush. Secretary of State Powell has indicated that the Administration will seek waiver authority for upcoming years. In response to continued perceived anti-democratic practices in Islamabad, there is legislation in the 108th Congress aimed at restoring aid restrictions through the removal of the U.S. President’s waiver authority (H.R. 1403).
This report will be updated periodically.
On October 10, 2002, nearly three years to the day since Pakistani Chief of Army
Staff (COAS) Pervez Musharraf replaced Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in a bloodless
coup, the people of Pakistan returned to the polls for their country’s first national
elections since 1997. In the wake of the October 1999 coup, Islamabad faced
considerable international opprobrium and was subjected to U.S. sanctions as a result.
The September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States and Musharraf’s ensuing
decision to withdraw support for the Afghan Taliban regime, however, had the effect of greatly reducing Pakistan’s international isolation. Direct U.S. aid to the country began flowing again in the final months of 2001, rising from about $10 million in FY2001 to CRS-2
1 Aid restrictions were triggered as a result of the military coup. In October 2001, President Bush signed S. 1465 (P.L. 107-57), which exempted Pakistan from coup-related prohibitions on assistance for FY2002 and authorizing the President to waive such prohibitions for FY2003 if he determines that such a waiver would facilitate the transition to democratic rule in Pakistan and is important to U.S. efforts to combat international terrorism. President Bush waived these aid
restrictions for FY2003 in March 2003. See CRS Report RS20995, India and Pakistan: Current U.S. Sanctions, by Dianne Rennack.
2 U.S. State Department Spokesman Philip Reeker, “Excerpts: Musharraf’s Constitutional
Changes Concern U.S.,” USIS Washington File, August 22, 2002.
3 A well-received and more clearly progressive change is found in the reservation of 60 assembly
seats for women and non-Muslims.
more than $1 billion in FY2002.1 The United States considers Pakistan to be a crucial ally in the international anti-terrorism coalition and has refrained from expressing any strong public criticisms of the country’s internal political practices, while still asserting “it is of vital importance that full democratic, civilian rule be restored in Pakistan.”2 Military regimes have ruled Pakistan for more than half of the country’s 55 years in existence, and the majority of observers agree that Pakistan has no sustained history of effective constitutionalism or parliamentary democracy. From the earliest days of independence, the country’s armed forces have thought of themselves as “saviors of the nation,” a perception that has received significant, though limited, public support. The country’s political history has been marked by an ongoing tripartite power struggle between presidents, prime ministers, and army chiefs. The military, usually acting in tandem with the president, has engaged in three outright seizures of power from civilianled
governments: General Ayub Khan in 1958, General Zia ul-Haq in 1977, and General
Musharraf in 1999.
Constitutional Changes
In August 2002, President Musharraf took unilateral action in announcing that a
“Legal Framework Order” of constitutional changes had been finalized and would take
effect. The most important of these provide greatly enhanced powers to the Pakistani
President, a title assumed by Musharraf and ostensibly legitimized by a controversial
April 2002 referendum. Musharraf insists that the changes were necessary to bring “true democracy” to the country. Critics contend that Musharraf (who has retained his position as Army Chief) is seeking to legitimize and make permanent the military’s currently own continued power in
contravention of democratic principles.
Key changes to the constitution include the establishment of a military-dominated
National Security Council (NSC), provisions allowing the President to dismiss the
National Assembly, and provisions calling for presidential appointment of armed services chiefs.3 The NSC will be authorized to oversee the country’s security policies, as well as monitor the process of democracy and governance in the country. Given the body’s significant military element and the military’s traditionally intimate ties to the presidency, this is seen as providing the Pakistani armed forces with a permanent and unprecedented CRS-3
4 The NSC is comprised of 13 members: the President, PM, Senate chair, Assembly speaker and opposition leader, JCS Chair, three armed service chiefs, and four provincial Chief Ministers.
5 Pakistan’s 1973 constitution envisaged a sovereign parliament where most of the powers rested with the Prime Minister, but subsequent changes under the military-dominated regime of General Zia ul-Haq shifted power to the presidency. In 1997, then-Prime Minster Nawaz Sharif oversaw passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the constitution, repealing Zia’s Eighth Amendment 1985) right to dismiss the government and appoint military chiefs (and thus restoring powers to
the PM’s office).
6 David Rohde, “Musharraf Redraws Constitution,” New York Times, August 22, 2002.
7 U.S. State Department Spokesman Philip Reeker, “Excerpts: Musharraf’s Constitutional Changes Concern U.S.,” USIS Washington File, August 22, 2002.
institutional role in the country’s governance.4 Presidential powers to appoint individual military chiefs and dismiss the National Assembly are viewed as supplementing this role.5 Pakistan’s major opposition parties unanimously decried Musharraf’s action as illegal, claiming that only the Parliament has the power to amend the constitution. They also demand that Musharraf retire from the military. A majority of Pakistanis reportedly oppose most of the enacted amendments.6 In response to Musharraf’s imposition of constitutional revisions, the United States indicated that full U.S. support for Musharraf would continue, even if some of the changes “could make it more difficult to build strong,
democratic institutions in Pakistan.”7 The 2002 Elections Background. The history of parliamentary democracy in Pakistan is a troubled one. Since 1970, five successive governments have been voted into power, but not a single time has a government been voted out of power – all five were removed by the army through explicit or implicit presidential orders. Of Pakistan’s three duly elected Prime Ministers, the first (Z.A. Bhutto) was executed, the second (Benazir Bhutto) was exiled and her husband jailed on corruption charges, and the third (Nawaz Sharif) remains in exile under threat of life in prison for similar abuses should he return. Given this inauspicious record with democratic processes, many analysts lauded Musharraf for the
mere act of holding elections as promised.
The Pakistan Muslim League (PML) is the country’s oldest political party and was
the only major party in existence at the time of national independence. Former PM
Nawaz Sharif led the offshoot PML-Nawaz, which dominated previous elections in 1997.
Most former (but still influential) Sharif loyalists recently moved to join the newlyformed Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid-e-Azam (PML-Q), a group widely seen to enjoy
both tacit and overt support from the Musharraf government. The Pakistan People’s Party(PPP) was founded by former PM Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1967. His daughter and current PPP leader Benazir Bhutto lives in exile under threat of imprisonment should she return to Pakistan (she has thrice been convicted of corruption in absentia). In an effort to skirt legal barriers to participation, the PPP formed a separate entity, the PPP Parliamentarians (PPPP), that pledges to uphold Bhutto’s political philosophy. The PPP historically has seen its greatest electoral successes in the southern Sind province. The United Action Forum (MMA in its Urdu-language acronym) is a loose coalition of six Islamist parties formed especially for the 2002 elections. While Pakistan’s religious parties have at times CRS-4
8 Both of his predecessors as national leaders – Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif – were, by Musharraf’s own decree, excluded from candidacy regardless of the status of criminal charges against them. The two have long been the country’s leading civilian political figures.
9 Election figures come from the Associated Press of Pakistan, a government news service.
10 The PML-N suffered huge losses in 2002, winning only 19 national seats, all of them in Punjab. The Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM) is a regional party mainly comprised of the descendants of pre-partition immigrants (Muhajirs) from what is now India who are almost wholly found in Sindhi urban centers. Though it did well in Sind’s provincial elections, the MQM collected only a small percentage of the national vote (winning 17 national seats). It has since aligned itself with the PML-Q. Small parties and independents account for the remaining
31 seats.
11 On the same day, the chief justice of Pakistan’s Supreme Court swore Musharraf in to another five-year term as president, a move that opposition parties called “unconstitutional.”
enjoyed a high profile and were strengthened by Zia’s policies of the 1980s, their electoral showing has in the past been quite limited. Islamists, most of whom hold anti-Western sentiments and seek to institute Sharia (Islamic law) nationwide, typically find their core support in Pakistan’s more sparsely-populated western provinces, but have recently mad some inroads in the country’s urban centers.
Results. Despite the Musharraf government’s insistence that the exercise was free
and fair, opposition parties, human rights groups, and independent observers from the
European Union called the election “flawed,” accusing the military-led regime of
manipulating such aspects as candidate eligibility and public demonstration ordinances as a means of influencing the electoral outcome. Most widely asserted is the notion that pre-election machinations substantively weakened the main secular opposition parties.8 The October 2002 turnout was estimated by the Pakistan Election Commission to have been lower than any previous Pakistani national election, leading numerous observers to midentify a pervasive apathy among the country’s citizens with regard to national politics. The PML-Q – also called the “king’s party” due to its perceived pro-military ben – won 118 of the total 342 parliamentary seats, almost all of them from Punjab.9 The affiliated National Alliance won 16 seats. This number gave the pro-government parties ma clear plurality in the National Assembly, but fell well short of the majority representation needed to control the body outright. As expected, the PPP did well in Sind, but was unable to form a working coalition in that province’s legislature. The PPP also made a comeback of sorts in Punjab and attained runner-up status in the 2002 election with a total of 81 seats in the National Assembly. Perhaps the most surprising outcome of the 2002 elections was the strong third-place showing of the MMA Islamist coalition that now controls the provincial assembly of the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and leads a coalition in that of Baluchistan, as well as seating 60 legislators in the National Assembly (up from only two previously).10 Coalition-Building. The new National Assembly met on November 16, 2002,
when 324 members took their oaths of office under the 1973 Constitution.11 The three
leading national parties – the PML-Q, PPP, and MMA – had engaged in five weeks of
convoluted coalition-building negotiations. Reports that the secular opposition PPP had finalized an alliance with the Islamist parties were proven false. Such an alliance would have set the pro-military parties in opposition, a possibility that reportedly sent the CRS-5 12 Rana Jawad, “Musharraf Regime Panicked by Surprise Secular-Islamist Deal: Analysts,” Agence France-Presse, November 6, 2002.
13 Several senior political observers believe that the outcome in which no party secured a majority
serves President Musharraf’s interests by allowing him to retain preeminent power and may well
have been his intent (see, for example, Paula Newburg, “Musharraf’s Win, Pakistan’s Loss,” Los
Angeles Times, October 20, 2002). Speculation abounds over whether or not the Pakistani
President intended for the Islamist coalition to make as strong a showing as it did.
14 With 172 votes, Jamali beat out top MMA official Maulana Fazlur Rehman (86 votes) and PPP
contender Shah Mehmood Qureshi (70 votes) for the prime ministership.
15 Prime Minster Jamali and his PML-Q allies insist that the LFO amendments stand, but
opposition parties say the LFO represents a “new system of military-controlled democracy”
(“LFO Part of 1973 Constitution: Jamali,” Dawn (Karachi), March 7, 2003; “Pakistani Parliament
in Crisis,” BBC News, March 8, 2003; Zaffar Abbas, “Pakistan Senate in an Uproar,” BBC News, March 12, 2003).
Musharraf regime into “panic.”12 Ensuing signals that a PML-Q-Islamist alliance was in the offing likewise ended when President Musharraf refused to accept the MMA’s
demands that he resign his position as Army Chief.13 In an unexpected circumstance, the pro-Musharraf parties succeeded in forming a thin working coalition without the
participation of either the PPP or the MMA, a development made possible by the
defection of several PPP members, some of whom were rewarded with high-profile
ministerships of their own. This splinter group, calling itself the PPP-Patriots, now boasts some 21 members. On November 21, PML-Q favorite and former Baluchistan Chief Minister Mir Zafarullah Jamali was elected to serve as Pakistan’s Prime Minster.14
A constitutionally-mandated December 2002 vote of confidence was won by Jamali,
who garnered 188 votes, 16 more than needed. January 2003 by-elections further
strengthened the parliamentary positions of the PML-Q and the MMA, with each party
winning three of the 10 seats contested. In an added sign of the PPP’s difficulties, the party led by Bhutto did not win any additional seats, and failed to take even a share of power in any of Pakistan’s four provincial assemblies. February senate elections bolstered the position of the ruling coalition-leading PML-Q, which now oversees a simple majority in the 100-seat body. The new Chairman of the Senate – who has powers to take over the post of President in the event of vacancy due to illness or sudden death of the President – is a PML-Q member and Musharraf loyalist. Although a full National Assembly is now seated, the body has yet to exert substantive impact on Pakistani politics and appears to be stalled on constitutional issues.15
Issues for Congress
While near-term U.S. concerns regarding anti-terrorism operations seem to require
a stable and effectively governed Pakistan, many observers believe that broader U.S.
interests and future regional stability are best served through the establishment of a sustainable and working system of democracy in Pakistan. According to them, this could be the case even if such a system brings to power elements that do not fully countenance U.S. policies. The anti-terrorism security interests of the United States may, however, outweigh such considerations.
CRS-6
16 See CRS Report RL31624, Pakistan-U.S. Anti-Terrorism Cooperation. Leaders of the stillfragile Kabul government have expressed their own concerns about the implications for Afghani stability of MMA gains (“Afghan Paper Condemns Pakistan’s Pro-Fundamentalist Bias,” BBC Monitoring South Asia, March 3, 2003).
17 Jean-Herve Deiller, “Behind Civilian Rule, Pakistan’s Army Looms Stronger Than Ever,” Agence France-Presse, March 2, 2003; Amit Baruah, “Jamali Unable to Emerge as a Credible Player,” Hindu (New Delhi), March 9, 2003; “Pakistan: Calm Before the Storm?,” Economist Intelligence Unit, March 24, 2003.
18 Glenn Kessler, “Pakistan’s N. Korea Deals Stir Scrutiny,” Washington Post, November 13, 2002. In March 2003, the Administration announced that it had “carefully reviewed the facts relating to the possible transfer of nuclear technology from Pakistan to North Korea and decided that they do not warrant the imposition of sanctions under applicable U.S. laws.” (Assistant
Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs Kelly, “Letter to Sen. Daschle,” March 12, 2003).
source:fpc.state.gov
In October 2002, Pakistan held its first national elections since 1997, thus fulfilling
in a limited fashion President Pervez Musharraf’s promise to restore the National
Assembly that was dissolved in the wake of his extra-constitutional seizure of power in October 1999. Opposition parties contesting the elections – along with rights groups and European Union observers – complained that the exercise was “deeply flawed.” No party won a majority of parliamentary seats, though a pro-military alliance won a plurality while a coalition of Islamist parties made a surprisingly strong showing. Musharraf supporter M.Z. Jamali is Pakistan’s new prime minister and has thus far maintained Musharraf’s foreign and economic policies. Debate continues over Musharraf’s August 2002 changes to the country’s constitution, many of which greatly augment his already considerable powers and institutionalize a permanent governance role for the military. The 1999 coup triggered restrictions on U.S. foreign assistance,restrictions waived in October 2001 and again in March 2003 by President Bush. Secretary of State Powell has indicated that the Administration will seek waiver authority for upcoming years. In response to continued perceived anti-democratic practices in Islamabad, there is legislation in the 108th Congress aimed at restoring aid restrictions through the removal of the U.S. President’s waiver authority (H.R. 1403).
This report will be updated periodically.
On October 10, 2002, nearly three years to the day since Pakistani Chief of Army
Staff (COAS) Pervez Musharraf replaced Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in a bloodless
coup, the people of Pakistan returned to the polls for their country’s first national
elections since 1997. In the wake of the October 1999 coup, Islamabad faced
considerable international opprobrium and was subjected to U.S. sanctions as a result.
The September 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States and Musharraf’s ensuing
decision to withdraw support for the Afghan Taliban regime, however, had the effect of greatly reducing Pakistan’s international isolation. Direct U.S. aid to the country began flowing again in the final months of 2001, rising from about $10 million in FY2001 to CRS-2
1 Aid restrictions were triggered as a result of the military coup. In October 2001, President Bush signed S. 1465 (P.L. 107-57), which exempted Pakistan from coup-related prohibitions on assistance for FY2002 and authorizing the President to waive such prohibitions for FY2003 if he determines that such a waiver would facilitate the transition to democratic rule in Pakistan and is important to U.S. efforts to combat international terrorism. President Bush waived these aid
restrictions for FY2003 in March 2003. See CRS Report RS20995, India and Pakistan: Current U.S. Sanctions, by Dianne Rennack.
2 U.S. State Department Spokesman Philip Reeker, “Excerpts: Musharraf’s Constitutional
Changes Concern U.S.,” USIS Washington File, August 22, 2002.
3 A well-received and more clearly progressive change is found in the reservation of 60 assembly
seats for women and non-Muslims.
more than $1 billion in FY2002.1 The United States considers Pakistan to be a crucial ally in the international anti-terrorism coalition and has refrained from expressing any strong public criticisms of the country’s internal political practices, while still asserting “it is of vital importance that full democratic, civilian rule be restored in Pakistan.”2 Military regimes have ruled Pakistan for more than half of the country’s 55 years in existence, and the majority of observers agree that Pakistan has no sustained history of effective constitutionalism or parliamentary democracy. From the earliest days of independence, the country’s armed forces have thought of themselves as “saviors of the nation,” a perception that has received significant, though limited, public support. The country’s political history has been marked by an ongoing tripartite power struggle between presidents, prime ministers, and army chiefs. The military, usually acting in tandem with the president, has engaged in three outright seizures of power from civilianled
governments: General Ayub Khan in 1958, General Zia ul-Haq in 1977, and General
Musharraf in 1999.
Constitutional Changes
In August 2002, President Musharraf took unilateral action in announcing that a
“Legal Framework Order” of constitutional changes had been finalized and would take
effect. The most important of these provide greatly enhanced powers to the Pakistani
President, a title assumed by Musharraf and ostensibly legitimized by a controversial
April 2002 referendum. Musharraf insists that the changes were necessary to bring “true democracy” to the country. Critics contend that Musharraf (who has retained his position as Army Chief) is seeking to legitimize and make permanent the military’s currently own continued power in
contravention of democratic principles.
Key changes to the constitution include the establishment of a military-dominated
National Security Council (NSC), provisions allowing the President to dismiss the
National Assembly, and provisions calling for presidential appointment of armed services chiefs.3 The NSC will be authorized to oversee the country’s security policies, as well as monitor the process of democracy and governance in the country. Given the body’s significant military element and the military’s traditionally intimate ties to the presidency, this is seen as providing the Pakistani armed forces with a permanent and unprecedented CRS-3
4 The NSC is comprised of 13 members: the President, PM, Senate chair, Assembly speaker and opposition leader, JCS Chair, three armed service chiefs, and four provincial Chief Ministers.
5 Pakistan’s 1973 constitution envisaged a sovereign parliament where most of the powers rested with the Prime Minister, but subsequent changes under the military-dominated regime of General Zia ul-Haq shifted power to the presidency. In 1997, then-Prime Minster Nawaz Sharif oversaw passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the constitution, repealing Zia’s Eighth Amendment 1985) right to dismiss the government and appoint military chiefs (and thus restoring powers to
the PM’s office).
6 David Rohde, “Musharraf Redraws Constitution,” New York Times, August 22, 2002.
7 U.S. State Department Spokesman Philip Reeker, “Excerpts: Musharraf’s Constitutional Changes Concern U.S.,” USIS Washington File, August 22, 2002.
institutional role in the country’s governance.4 Presidential powers to appoint individual military chiefs and dismiss the National Assembly are viewed as supplementing this role.5 Pakistan’s major opposition parties unanimously decried Musharraf’s action as illegal, claiming that only the Parliament has the power to amend the constitution. They also demand that Musharraf retire from the military. A majority of Pakistanis reportedly oppose most of the enacted amendments.6 In response to Musharraf’s imposition of constitutional revisions, the United States indicated that full U.S. support for Musharraf would continue, even if some of the changes “could make it more difficult to build strong,
democratic institutions in Pakistan.”7 The 2002 Elections Background. The history of parliamentary democracy in Pakistan is a troubled one. Since 1970, five successive governments have been voted into power, but not a single time has a government been voted out of power – all five were removed by the army through explicit or implicit presidential orders. Of Pakistan’s three duly elected Prime Ministers, the first (Z.A. Bhutto) was executed, the second (Benazir Bhutto) was exiled and her husband jailed on corruption charges, and the third (Nawaz Sharif) remains in exile under threat of life in prison for similar abuses should he return. Given this inauspicious record with democratic processes, many analysts lauded Musharraf for the
mere act of holding elections as promised.
The Pakistan Muslim League (PML) is the country’s oldest political party and was
the only major party in existence at the time of national independence. Former PM
Nawaz Sharif led the offshoot PML-Nawaz, which dominated previous elections in 1997.
Most former (but still influential) Sharif loyalists recently moved to join the newlyformed Pakistan Muslim League-Quaid-e-Azam (PML-Q), a group widely seen to enjoy
both tacit and overt support from the Musharraf government. The Pakistan People’s Party(PPP) was founded by former PM Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1967. His daughter and current PPP leader Benazir Bhutto lives in exile under threat of imprisonment should she return to Pakistan (she has thrice been convicted of corruption in absentia). In an effort to skirt legal barriers to participation, the PPP formed a separate entity, the PPP Parliamentarians (PPPP), that pledges to uphold Bhutto’s political philosophy. The PPP historically has seen its greatest electoral successes in the southern Sind province. The United Action Forum (MMA in its Urdu-language acronym) is a loose coalition of six Islamist parties formed especially for the 2002 elections. While Pakistan’s religious parties have at times CRS-4
8 Both of his predecessors as national leaders – Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif – were, by Musharraf’s own decree, excluded from candidacy regardless of the status of criminal charges against them. The two have long been the country’s leading civilian political figures.
9 Election figures come from the Associated Press of Pakistan, a government news service.
10 The PML-N suffered huge losses in 2002, winning only 19 national seats, all of them in Punjab. The Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM) is a regional party mainly comprised of the descendants of pre-partition immigrants (Muhajirs) from what is now India who are almost wholly found in Sindhi urban centers. Though it did well in Sind’s provincial elections, the MQM collected only a small percentage of the national vote (winning 17 national seats). It has since aligned itself with the PML-Q. Small parties and independents account for the remaining
31 seats.
11 On the same day, the chief justice of Pakistan’s Supreme Court swore Musharraf in to another five-year term as president, a move that opposition parties called “unconstitutional.”
enjoyed a high profile and were strengthened by Zia’s policies of the 1980s, their electoral showing has in the past been quite limited. Islamists, most of whom hold anti-Western sentiments and seek to institute Sharia (Islamic law) nationwide, typically find their core support in Pakistan’s more sparsely-populated western provinces, but have recently mad some inroads in the country’s urban centers.
Results. Despite the Musharraf government’s insistence that the exercise was free
and fair, opposition parties, human rights groups, and independent observers from the
European Union called the election “flawed,” accusing the military-led regime of
manipulating such aspects as candidate eligibility and public demonstration ordinances as a means of influencing the electoral outcome. Most widely asserted is the notion that pre-election machinations substantively weakened the main secular opposition parties.8 The October 2002 turnout was estimated by the Pakistan Election Commission to have been lower than any previous Pakistani national election, leading numerous observers to midentify a pervasive apathy among the country’s citizens with regard to national politics. The PML-Q – also called the “king’s party” due to its perceived pro-military ben – won 118 of the total 342 parliamentary seats, almost all of them from Punjab.9 The affiliated National Alliance won 16 seats. This number gave the pro-government parties ma clear plurality in the National Assembly, but fell well short of the majority representation needed to control the body outright. As expected, the PPP did well in Sind, but was unable to form a working coalition in that province’s legislature. The PPP also made a comeback of sorts in Punjab and attained runner-up status in the 2002 election with a total of 81 seats in the National Assembly. Perhaps the most surprising outcome of the 2002 elections was the strong third-place showing of the MMA Islamist coalition that now controls the provincial assembly of the North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and leads a coalition in that of Baluchistan, as well as seating 60 legislators in the National Assembly (up from only two previously).10 Coalition-Building. The new National Assembly met on November 16, 2002,
when 324 members took their oaths of office under the 1973 Constitution.11 The three
leading national parties – the PML-Q, PPP, and MMA – had engaged in five weeks of
convoluted coalition-building negotiations. Reports that the secular opposition PPP had finalized an alliance with the Islamist parties were proven false. Such an alliance would have set the pro-military parties in opposition, a possibility that reportedly sent the CRS-5 12 Rana Jawad, “Musharraf Regime Panicked by Surprise Secular-Islamist Deal: Analysts,” Agence France-Presse, November 6, 2002.
13 Several senior political observers believe that the outcome in which no party secured a majority
serves President Musharraf’s interests by allowing him to retain preeminent power and may well
have been his intent (see, for example, Paula Newburg, “Musharraf’s Win, Pakistan’s Loss,” Los
Angeles Times, October 20, 2002). Speculation abounds over whether or not the Pakistani
President intended for the Islamist coalition to make as strong a showing as it did.
14 With 172 votes, Jamali beat out top MMA official Maulana Fazlur Rehman (86 votes) and PPP
contender Shah Mehmood Qureshi (70 votes) for the prime ministership.
15 Prime Minster Jamali and his PML-Q allies insist that the LFO amendments stand, but
opposition parties say the LFO represents a “new system of military-controlled democracy”
(“LFO Part of 1973 Constitution: Jamali,” Dawn (Karachi), March 7, 2003; “Pakistani Parliament
in Crisis,” BBC News, March 8, 2003; Zaffar Abbas, “Pakistan Senate in an Uproar,” BBC News, March 12, 2003).
Musharraf regime into “panic.”12 Ensuing signals that a PML-Q-Islamist alliance was in the offing likewise ended when President Musharraf refused to accept the MMA’s
demands that he resign his position as Army Chief.13 In an unexpected circumstance, the pro-Musharraf parties succeeded in forming a thin working coalition without the
participation of either the PPP or the MMA, a development made possible by the
defection of several PPP members, some of whom were rewarded with high-profile
ministerships of their own. This splinter group, calling itself the PPP-Patriots, now boasts some 21 members. On November 21, PML-Q favorite and former Baluchistan Chief Minister Mir Zafarullah Jamali was elected to serve as Pakistan’s Prime Minster.14
A constitutionally-mandated December 2002 vote of confidence was won by Jamali,
who garnered 188 votes, 16 more than needed. January 2003 by-elections further
strengthened the parliamentary positions of the PML-Q and the MMA, with each party
winning three of the 10 seats contested. In an added sign of the PPP’s difficulties, the party led by Bhutto did not win any additional seats, and failed to take even a share of power in any of Pakistan’s four provincial assemblies. February senate elections bolstered the position of the ruling coalition-leading PML-Q, which now oversees a simple majority in the 100-seat body. The new Chairman of the Senate – who has powers to take over the post of President in the event of vacancy due to illness or sudden death of the President – is a PML-Q member and Musharraf loyalist. Although a full National Assembly is now seated, the body has yet to exert substantive impact on Pakistani politics and appears to be stalled on constitutional issues.15
Issues for Congress
While near-term U.S. concerns regarding anti-terrorism operations seem to require
a stable and effectively governed Pakistan, many observers believe that broader U.S.
interests and future regional stability are best served through the establishment of a sustainable and working system of democracy in Pakistan. According to them, this could be the case even if such a system brings to power elements that do not fully countenance U.S. policies. The anti-terrorism security interests of the United States may, however, outweigh such considerations.
CRS-6
16 See CRS Report RL31624, Pakistan-U.S. Anti-Terrorism Cooperation. Leaders of the stillfragile Kabul government have expressed their own concerns about the implications for Afghani stability of MMA gains (“Afghan Paper Condemns Pakistan’s Pro-Fundamentalist Bias,” BBC Monitoring South Asia, March 3, 2003).
17 Jean-Herve Deiller, “Behind Civilian Rule, Pakistan’s Army Looms Stronger Than Ever,” Agence France-Presse, March 2, 2003; Amit Baruah, “Jamali Unable to Emerge as a Credible Player,” Hindu (New Delhi), March 9, 2003; “Pakistan: Calm Before the Storm?,” Economist Intelligence Unit, March 24, 2003.
18 Glenn Kessler, “Pakistan’s N. Korea Deals Stir Scrutiny,” Washington Post, November 13, 2002. In March 2003, the Administration announced that it had “carefully reviewed the facts relating to the possible transfer of nuclear technology from Pakistan to North Korea and decided that they do not warrant the imposition of sanctions under applicable U.S. laws.” (Assistant
Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs Kelly, “Letter to Sen. Daschle,” March 12, 2003).
source:fpc.state.gov
PAKISTAN: Focus on honour killings
Jamila Khan, (not her real name) was confident when she described her narrow escape from an honour killing in Pakistan's Punjab Province. "Women were always hated in my household. My mother hated having girls," the 25-year-old told IRIN in the Pakistani, capital, Islamabad. From early on, Khan said she was stopped from progressing in every aspect of life. "I had to fight to go to school. I was tied up with rope and beaten on many occasions, and the bones in my hands have been broken so many times," she said. Describing her treatment as worse than that meted out to animals, she said she had finally fled her home after her brother accused her of having premarital sex, ordered her to stay indoors, removed all the door-locks in the house to prevent her from hiding, and then threatened to electrocute her. Had she not fled, "I would be dead now", she asserted. Khan escaped what could well have been a brutal honour killing (when a male family member kills a female relative to protect the family's honour) and has been living in a safe house in Islamabad since May 2002. She was lucky, but hundreds - possibly thousands - of other women in this South Asian country are not. According to Pakistan's Human Rights Commission (HRCP), honour killings and other forms of violence against women are increasing. "One of the main reasons why honour killings are increasing is because people are getting away with it, and there is poor prosecution," Kamila Hyat, a joint director of the HRCP, told IRIN from the eastern Punjabi city of Lahore. "Only 20 percent of cases are brought to justice," she added, calling for tougher laws on domestic violence. Under Pakistan's penal code, honour killings are treated as murder. However, the law states that the family of the victim is allowed to compromise with the killer (who is usually a relative). "We are calling for this law to be changed," Hina Jilani, a human rights lawyer, told IRIN from Lahore. Methods of carrying out honour killings vary across the country. In the southern province of Sindh, where it is often referred to as "karo kari", the victim is hacked to death, often with the complicity of the community. Among the tribal Pashtun communities in North West Frontier Province (NWFP) and Balochistan in the southwest, where the practice is known as "tur", the victim can be hacked, stabbed, burned or shot. In both cases, the practice's name means "black" in the local languages, in reference to the perceived culturally unacceptable behaviour of the victims. In the populous Punjab, the killings - usually by shooting - are more often based on individual decisions and carried out in private. In most cases, husbands, fathers or brothers of the women concerned perpetrate the murders. In some cases, jirgas, or tribal councils, decide that the woman should be killed and send men to execute her. The victims range from pre-pubescent girls to grandmothers. They are usually killed on the mere allegation of having engaged in 'illicit' sexual relationships. They are never given an opportunity to give their version of events: most significantly of all, often the making of the allegation alone suffices to defile a man's honour and, concomitantly, to justify killing the woman. However, the threat of an honour killing is not confined to Pakistan. Women from this Islamic country living abroad are not immune from this violent method of death. In May 1999, the Nottingham crown court in the UK sentenced a Pakistani woman and her adult son to life imprisonment for murdering the woman's daughter, Rukhsana Naz, a pregnant mother of two children. She had been perceived to have brought shame on the family by having a sexual relationship outside marriage. Her brother reportedly strangled Rukhsana, while her mother held her down. HRCP statistics for the first 10 months of 2001 reveal at least 379 cases in the southeastern province of Sindh, the victims of 151 of which were men. This compares to a total of 196 cases reported in 1998. "Sindh is the only place in the country where the lives of men are also taken in honour killings," Hyat explained, adding that these figures were an inadequate reflection of the true state of affairs. In the Punjab, there were 227 reported honour killings in 2001. However, there were also some 722 murder cases involving women, and the likelihood of a proportion of them being honour killings was high. One of the most disturbing cases in the Punjab was that of Samia Sarwar, who was murdered for trying to escape an abusive marriage. At the instigation of her own parents, the 36-year-old woman was shot dead in her lawyer’s office in Lahore on 6 April 1999. Although the circumstances of her death are well known, the case was never brought to court. Advocates who defend women’s rights are also the targets of violence. For example, Hina Jilani, who helped Sarwar pursue a divorce, says she has received numerous death threats. Following Sarwar's death, a resolution condemning honour killings was proposed by a member of parliament, but according to Jilani, it was withdrawn. "The senate refused to debate the resolution, with some members of parliament saying that it was part of our culture. This is totally unacceptable," she asserted. With growing pressure on the government to act, officials are adamant that every effort is being made to resolve the problem. "There are five recent cases of honour killings in the Punjab Province, and we are perusing them rigorously," an official of the Ministry of Women's Development and Special Education, who asked not to be named, told IRIN. Describing Pakistani court procedures as cumbersome, he said the ministry was hopeful for positive outcomes. Regarding the implementation and review of the Hudud Ordinance (based on the Islamic Shari'ah), which is said to discriminate against women in domestic violence cases, the official said: "The National Commission on the Status of Women has been reviewing these laws." He added that the law had been under discussion for two years, and that a report on ensuing recommendations was now being prepared by the commission's chairperson. "This report will become the basis for any modifications to the ordinance," he maintained. According to activists, suppression and degradation of women are rife in this Islamic society. A survey HRCP conducted in January 2001 found the extent of women's ignorance of their rights to be alarming. A total of 64 percent of female postgraduates interviewed by Karachi University students were unaware of their basic legal rights, which theoretically afford them equality in society. Some 50 percent felt they were discriminated against due to social factors linked to tradition. Other prominent women's rights activists in this nation of 140 million have also expressed grave concern over increasing numbers of honour killings as we enter 2003. "There has certainly not been a decrease in 2002, and in fact the numbers are rising," the head of the Pakistan Women's Association NGO, Shanaz Bokhari, told IRIN in Islamabad. Data collected by her NGO for 2002, show a significant increase in the atrocious crime of honour killing. Based on 7,000 newspaper clippings, her findings show 1,246 cases of domestic violence, 233 of which were classic "karo kari", and 1,900 cases of women killed by brothers, fathers or husbands. "These statistics are from a few national newspaper clippings, and they are very alarming. I expect this is the tip of the iceberg," she warned. Bokhari said she believed there were two reasons for the significant increase: firstly, that the press was highlighting the problem more freely, and, secondly, that more victims or relatives of victims were now coming forward because of the media campaigns. The women's rights activist commended efforts at policy making levels towards strengthening the status of women. "Hats off to them for this as there are now huge number of women, compared to before, at policy making levels," she noted, asserting, however, that the government was merely paying lip service to issues concerning violence against women. Calling for a closer investigation into the situation in the NWFP, Bokhari said it was important to reach out to remote communities to monitor the situation of honour killings there. "We don't know how many women have been killed in the NWFP, because it is difficult to access this information there," she said, adding that it was a very conservative society. Bokhari added said there was also concern over the increasing incidences of domestic violence. "We have seen many cases where men have chopped women's noses off as punishment for arguing or some [other] stupid reason," she said. "We need to have domestic violence legislation which can handle these cases if we are to save the lives of hundreds of innocent women in this country."
source:www.irinnews.org
PAKISTAN: Focus on ‘vani’ – the practice of giving away young women to settle feuds
Each day, Fareedullah Khan, nearly 70, reads items from the newspaper to his wife, Sakina Bibi, 60. The items he picks out from the columns of dense, Urdu-language print concern the custom of 'vani', or the giving away of girls in forced marriage to the male relatives of murder victims. The traditional Pakistani practice is used as compensation for the crime and a means to settle feuds between two families or clans. The elderly couple has a reason to be interested. Nearly 20 years ago, their granddaughter became a 'vani' - to pay for a murder committed by her paternal uncle. She has since lived a life of misery, as a virtual slave within the home of a husband 30 years her senior. ORIGINS Today, her grandparents hope the brutal tribal custom can be ended. "It is a terrible thing. The girls handed over to rival families are innocent of crime, and they are always treated like enemies within the homes of their spouses," Fareedullah told IRIN. His wife nodded sadly, contemplating the fate of their favourite grandchild. Both fervently support a new campaign against the practice. On 7 March, in Mianwali, a town of some 85,000 people in north-western Punjab, located 200 km south of the capital Islamabad, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) organised a meeting to coincide with International Women's Day to speak out against 'vani'. SPEAKING OUT "Such customs thrive in oppressive environments," HRCP chairperson and human rights activist Asma Jahangir said during her speech. Many women at the meeting said they wanted to get the practice of ‘vani’ banned. Women appear to be less tolerant of such practices today and are increasingly prepared to speak out against them. THREE SISTERS Late in 2005, in an incident that galvanised public opinion against 'vani', three sisters in the village of Sultanwala, in Mianwali district, took a bold stand against the practice, warning they would commit collective suicide if wed forcibly to men from a rival family. The sisters, Abda, Amna and Sajda Khan, all still in their teens, and all well educated, were put forward for 'vani' 14 years ago, when they were still toddlers. Their uncle, Mohammad Iqbal Khan, had at the time killed his cousin and then gone into hiding to escape a death sentence. A tribal council called to resolve the issue offered him a pardon – in exchange for five women from his family being handed over as 'vani' when they came of age to male members of the victim’s family. The women, then mere children, included Iqbal's own daughter, and his nieces, Abda, Amna and Sajda. "I agreed only out of fear. If I had not done so, I would have been killed by now," says Iqbal, pointing out that his cousins live just across the road from his own house. The practice has plenty of support in the region, where it is viewed as a way to prevent blood feuds that can continue for generations and claim dozens of lives. But the Khan sisters are lucky – they have been supported by their father, Jehan Khan Niazi, who is determined his daughters will not pay for the crimes of others. He has moved the young women away from the village to protect them, and says: "I agreed to the custom at gun-point. But my daughters are innocent, and have their rights. They are educated, and this makes them able to stand up for justice." COURT JUDGEMENT In a landmark judgment in December 2005, the Supreme Court of Pakistan, hearing several petitions against 'vani', ordered police in the Punjab and neighbouring North West Frontier Province (NWFP) to protect women given in marriage under the custom, which had already been declared illegal two years ago. The court made specific reference to the need to protect potential 'vani' victims in Mianwali district, including the Khan sisters. But old traditions cannot just be legislated against and left at that, Jahangir argues. The family to whom the five girls in Mianwali were to be handed over, continue to demand the pledge be honoured, and insist the girls are in fact already the wives of male members of their clan. Ziaullah Khan, a Mianwali-based activist for the Karwan Community Development Association, an NGO, says that since the Sultanwala case: "At least 20 to 30 other persons have come forward to report 'vani'." She added that despite the ban on the practice, both by courts and the Punjab government, cases of girls being given away in compensation still take place. Most incidents have been reported in the Mianwali district, with some reports in the media stating there have been at least a dozen cases within the last year. GROWING OPPOSITION TO ‘VANI’ Despite this, opposition is growing. Even before the Khan sisters, looking bravely out from above their veils, made their plight public, in June 2004, two other educated women in Mianwali district, Kulsoom Akhtar and Parveen Akhtar, stepped forward to demand their rights. The sisters, who had been victims of 'vani' in 1987, when they were infants - to compensate for a murder committed by their father - approached rights activists and said they would not wed the 'husbands' to whom they had been given away. After a public outcry over the matter, the planned handing over of the girls was shelved. And criticism of the practice is coming from other, unlikely quarters. Across Pakistan, religious scholars have spoken out against 'vani', declaring it un-Islamic. "These customs have nothing to do with Islam, and are not prescribed as a means to settle murder," said Anis Ahmed, a scholar at the International Islamic University in Islamabad. Lately, more and more politicians, activists and social workers have joined in the demand to bring an end to such practices. But many believe the key lies in the struggle now being waged by the victims and their families against tribal practices, patriarchy and the hold of tradition. “Increased awareness of 'vani', and the determination of many young women to resist it, are chipping away at a custom under which hundreds of women have suffered over many decades,” Jahangir said.
source:www.irinnews.org
source:www.irinnews.org
PAKISTAN: Violence against women still a huge problem - reports
Two independent reports on domestic violence against women in Pakistan have found that the country is suffering increasing levels of abuse in spite of legislation to provide women with protection. 'The State of Human Rights in 2004', the annual report of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) was released on Tuesday in Islamabad, covering the period from January to October 2004. It said that although there is increased awareness of the issue and discussion at both official and non-official levels, little had been achieved. "Existing laws were poorly implemented. The practices that led to the crimes against women continued across the country under the cover of 'tradition', however, no efforts were made by the government to ensure an improvement in ground realities. Rather, attempts were made to defend the murder of women and violence against them by some legislatures," said the HRCP. A second report compiled by the Lawyers for Human Rights and Legal Aid organisation (LHRLA) recorded some 4,302 cases of violence against women which had been reported in the print media and more than 1,000 cases of sexual abuse, during 2004. The HRCP found the incidence of physical, sexual or verbal violence against women in the home to be amongst the highest in the world. According to their figures, up to 80 percent of women in the country suffer from such abuse. The extent of domestic strife was illustrated, said the HRCP, by the fact that in the first half of 2004, around 5,464 cases involving violent husbands were pending in the civil courts of the Punjabi capital, Lahore alone. Many other cases of domestic discord never even reached the courts, it said. Cases of acid attacks on women have grown alarmingly over the past three years, notably in the southern Punjab, according to the HRCP. Over 15 attacks were reported in the Bahawalpur district alone between January and June 2004. "Looking at the figures coming from various sources, it appears that violence against women is clearly increasing. But to curtail this violence, the laws need to be strengthened. A whole system needs to be put in place to help the victims," said Anis Haroon, the Resident Director of the women's rights and advocacy group, the Aurat Foundation. "We can talk about it, discuss at different forums, highlight it and then get some relief for a few victims after making some noise before the higher authorities, but that's not all. There should be a proper system in place to compensate the victims and curtail the violence as well," Haroon told IRIN, speaking from the southern port city of Karachi. The HRCP report said both the official figures and unofficial estimates indicated an increase in the incidence of rape. According to the HRCP figures, about 670 rapes were reported in the first ten months of 2004. Three hundred and fifty of those were gang rapes. However, the HRCP added that some press reports suggested the true national figure for both reported and unreported rapes indicated the number of victims to be over 10,000 a year. The HRCP report further observed that despite a ban on 'jirga' trials, under which an assembly of local tribal elders passes verdict, the decisions taken by the 'jirgas' continued to jeopardise the safety of women. The increase in verdicts violating the rights and dignity of women issued by 'extra-judicial court-like' forums has to be brought to an end, demanded the HRCP. It also called for the withdrawal of a proposed new ordinance in Sindh which would legitimise such 'jirgas'. The report added that flaws in a recently introduced law on 'honour killing' must be removed. It called for judges, lawyers and police officials, as well as other sections of society, to be urgently educated on the terrible consequences for women of many customs, including 'honour killings', so that the courts and administration are deterred from extending protection to such illegal practices. "Besides introducing strong legislation, the entire system of the police and judiciary needs to be reformed. And for that a strong political will is needed, which is lacking at the moment. Unless the people at the helm of the affairs are not punished for violating the laws, nothing will change," Haroon maintained.
source:www.irinnews.org
PAKISTAN: New "honour killing" law does not go far enough - rights groups
Pakistan's lower house of parliament strengthened a law against honour killings on Tuesday, but opposition parties and human rights activists say it lacks bite and sincerity. The UN Children's Agency UNICEF defines honour killing as an ancient practice in which men kill female relatives in the name of family "honour" for forced or suspected sexual activity outside marriage or even when they have been victims of rape. Opposition lawmakers staged a walkout as Pakistan's National Assembly approved the amendment, which increases the minimum jail term for people convicted of an honour-related crime from seven to 10 years. The government had pushed to the sidelines an opposition bill on honour killing drafted in consultation with NGOs, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) and the Aurat Foundation. It said it would introduce its own bill in parliament. The opposition's Sherry Rahman, whose bill was rejected by the government, described the government proposal as one that "misses the essential ingredients which could have confronted the main issues and punished those committing murder in the name of honour". The legislation is part of government efforts to eliminate the medieval custom. Exact figures for honour killings are hard to compile because many go unreported. But according to human rights organisations, the HRCP and the NGO Madadgar, at least 758 women were killed in 2001. The province of Sindh had the highest count with 453. In 2002, around 823 women were killed in the name of honour, most in Sindh (423). In 2003, 1,261 women were killed for honour, 638 in Sindh and 463 in Punjab province. Women's rights activist Majida Razvi praised the bill as a step toward curbing violence against women but said it fell far short of hopes. "It's a weak law because it does not fully cover the crime. But it is a positive step," said Razvi, head of the government-appointed National Commission on the Status of Women. Women rights groups have documented 410 incidents of killing for honour from January to September 2004. According to Pakistan's Interior Ministry, more than 4,000 males and females have been victims of honour killings in the last six years. Since 1998, 3,451 cases of honour killing have been registered of which 1,262 are currently before the country's courts. The amended law will ensure that senior police officers are compelled to investigate honour killings. The bill also states that a woman accused of adultery can only be arrested on the orders of a judge. The bill must be approved by the Senate before President Pervez Musharraf signs it into law. The bill also proposes abolishing the practice of giving a female in marriage or otherwise to compensate for a murder. This practice is known as the custom of wani. Under existing laws, the perpetrators of honour killings often escape with reduced sentences if they can prove they were "provoked" into committing the crime. "We did it with utmost sincerity, dedication and intense deliberations involving all concerned segments of society," said Nilofar Bakhtiar, an adviser to the prime minister, in her remarks on the floor of the lower house after the bill was passed. "We have passed a law that must be a matter of pride for women. We must have courage to redefine the word 'honour' and go for effective implementation of this law," she said. Human rights activists and lawmakers had demanded the government stiffen penalties for honour killings. "There are several flaws in the draft of the proposed bill on honour killing. It is not acceptable and movement will be launched if it is passed in its present shape," former head of HRCP, Asma Jehangir, told IRIN. Jehangir said the bill would do little to stop honour killings. "The government bill is meaningless. It is a watered-down [bill] and we don't accept that bill. We reject it outright." She added: "There is an emergency as far as women's lives are concerned. And there is complete impunity in this country for anyone to kill a woman." In addition to murder, other types of honour crimes occur with alarming frequency. In several cases, local leaders have sentenced women to be gang-raped or suffer other extra-legal punishments. The HRCP said any truly effective law would need to ensure that those who committed a whole range of honour-related crimes ended up on trial. Former judge Nasira Javed Iqbal told IRIN the bill allowed close relatives of the deceased to escape punishment with ease. She quoted religious scholar Dr Farooq Khan to stress that Islam made no allowance for honour killing. "It [condemnation of such killings] could be substantiated by the Holy Koran," she said. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has repeatedly condemned the practice of honour killing.
source:www.irinnews.org
source:www.irinnews.org
PAKISTAN: Domestic violence endemic, but awareness slowly rising
Shahina Imran, 30, describes her marriage as "happy". She said she "remains busy" all day with household chores, cooking for her husband and two children and doing other domestic tasks at her home in Shahdra, on the outskirts of Lahore. She does not see herself as a victim of domestic abuse.
Like so many other women in a society in which few are aware of their rights, she accepts the regular slaps, kicks and severe verbal abuse that she says are meted out to her by her husband, Javed Imran, a plumber, as "what can be expected in married life".
This attitude is not surprising, given that Shahina's two elder sisters, and many of the other women she meets at the grocery store or near her house, face a similar fate.
Domestic violence is endemic in Pakistan. The New York-based Human Rights Watch, in one of the most detailed reports on domestic violence in the country published in 1999, found that up to 90 percent of women in Pakistan were subject to verbal, sexual, emotional or physical abuse, within their own homes.
Sadly, there is little evidence that the situation has improved dramatically eight years on. Asma Jahangir, a leading lawyer and rights activist, said: "Domestic violence is very widespread. It is tied in to the lack of empowerment of women in our society."
More on domestic violence
in Pakistan
New "honour killing" law does not go far enough - rights groups
Violence against women still a huge problem
Focus on ‘vani’ – the practice of giving away young women to settle feuds
Focus on honour killings
Women's rights activists have long argued that the issue is linked to the “second class” status of women in society.
This is a reality reinforced by laws that discriminate against them in terms of the right to inherit property, the amount of blood money given as compensation for physical hurt, and by the failure to eradicate traditions such as 'vani', under which a woman is handed over in marriage to an aggrieved party to settle a dispute, usually after a murder.
Awareness rising
Over the past decade, however, awareness of the issue has risen.
Since 2006 the Pakistan Ministry of Women's Development has been running at least 10 crisis centres in major cities, where victims of domestic abuse or other violence receive legal, financial and psychological support, and counselling regarding their options.
Domestic violence has also been discussed in both Pakistan's provincial and national assemblies. A draft Protection Against Domestic Violence of Women and Children Act was drawn up by the Federal Law Ministry early in 2007, but has not yet been passed.
Photo: Zofeen Ebrahim/IRIN
Domestic violence remains endemic in the country
These efforts also appear to have had some positive impact on police efforts to curb domestic violence. In a high profile case in January 2007, Karachi police arrested a national sporting hero, Moin Khan, a former captain of Pakistan's cricket team, after his wife complained of being beaten by him.
He was later released on bail, but the case focused public attention on the issue and underscored that assault on wives was a crime under Pakistani law. Yet despite these developments, violence remains widespread.
source: www.irinnews.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
