Political Empowerment of Women in Pakistan

“No nation can rise to the height of glory unless your women are side by side with you; we are victims of evil customs. It is crime against humanity that our women are shut up within the four walls of the houses as prisoners. There is no sanction anywhere for the deplorable condition in which our women have to live. You should take your women along with you as comrades in every sphere of life.”
(Muhammad Ali Jinnah, 1944)
With the advent of the Pakistan Movement, women’s participation in the freedom struggle became a dire necessity, both for increasing the Muslim vote bank and for displaying numerical strength at the Muslim League’s political rallies. In 1940 Mr. Jinnah announced, “Women are supposed to create a sense of general political consciousness. They should stand shoulder to shoulder with men in practical politics.”1 This saw the removal of cultural and social restrictions on their traveling for purposes of attending political gatherings. Unfortunately, in spite of the Quaid’s personal views, 1948 saw an abrupt end to this temporary political freedom. However, a few determined women continued to play very important roles in the political empowerment of the women of Pakistan. This article seeks to record and eulogise their successes, while simultaneously analyzing the effects of their failures on the body politic of Pakistan.
The first such lady was Miss Fatima Jinnah who was an inspiration to the women of Pakistan and continues to be held in high esteem even today. She formed the Women’s Relief Committee, which played a vital role in the settlement of refugees in the new state of Pakistan.2 After the Quaid’s death,she assumed the mantle of the Protector of Public Interest. She fearlessly pointed out the lapses of the rulers on a regular basis, and continuously beckoned the Nation back to the Quaid’s cherished principles. In 1964, after Khawaja Nazimuddin died, the Combined Opposition Parties (COP) nominated Miss Jinnah as their presidential candidate.3 By agreeing to challenge Field Marshal Ayub Khan at the height of his dictatorial power, she not only electrified the Nation, but also took a massive step towards the political empowerment of women. This, one courageous decision, raised the threshold of political ambitions amongst the female politicians of the Subcontinent to the very highest levels. It may well be worth researching what role her decision may have had on motivating Mrs. Indira Gandhi to become Prime Minister of India a few years later. Her candidature also put an end to the knotty question of a woman’s right to become the head of a Muslim State, as even the Jamat-i-Islami gave her its grudging support, albeit under the concept of it being “the need of the hour.”4 Surprisingly, the APWA and its leaders, including Begum Raana Liaquat Ali Khan and Begum Fida Hussain, opposed Miss Jinnah and actively campaigned for President Ayub Khan.5 This was all the more unfortunate as Begum Raana Liaquat Ali Khan had been taking a leading role in women’s movement ever since the creation of Pakistan.
In 1948, in the immediate aftermath of Independence, two very determined lady members of Pakistan’s Constituent Assembly, Begum Shaista Ikram Ullah and Begum Jahan Ara Shahnawaz, managed to achieve a phenomenal level of political success for the women of Pakitan.6 Through dedicated and focused hard work, they succeeded in getting the Muslim Personal Law of Shariah passed under which women were granted the right to inherit property, including agricultural land.7 The irony is that, even after this law became fully effective in 1951, it was seldom practiced, as it could not change the deep-rooted male custom of denying this right to their women, especially in the interior of the country. Although, in an even greater irony, Islam had granted women the right to inherit property fifteen hundred years earlier. Muslim men in the subcontinent have continued to negate this as they feel they must protect their property from falling under the control of the men of another family into which their sisters and daughters were to be married. Therefore, the achievement of these two ladies was truly phenomenal as they had debated and ensured the passage of this law in an Assembly largely populated by the landed gentry, in a country dominated by male chauvinism.
In 1955 Prime Minister Mohammad Ali Bogra took a second wife,8 which instigated women organizations to launch a campaign against his second marriage.9 The United Front for Women’s Rights (UFWR) was formed under the leadership of Begum Jahan Ara Shahnawaz. Under pressure from UFWR and APWA, the Government formed a commission headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Rashid, to study the existing laws of marriage, divorce, maintenance and custody of children and recommended modifications to bring them into conformity with the dictates of Islam.10 The Rashid Commission finalized its report in 1956, which included a detailed dissenting note by its religious member Maulana Ehtesham ul Haq Thanvi.11 As a result of sustained pressure and dissent from the orthodox religious elements, the report was unfortunately shelved.12 However, five years later it was to form the basis for the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961.13
“Equality of status, equality of opportunity, equal pay for equal work and guarantee of rights for Muslim women under the Muslim Personal Law of Shariah” were apart of the Charter of Women’s Rights, prepared by Begum Jahan Ara Shahnawaz.14 The Charter was passed by the Constituent Assembly with an overwhelming majority, in spite of the fact that Mr. Zafarullah, who was chairing the meeting, opposed the bill. It was his contention that a newborn state could not afford this “luxury”, especially as British Prime Minister even Mr. Churchill had refused to agree to equal pay for equal work for women in Britain.15 Therefore, the adoption of this charter was certainly a great victory for both the lady parliamentarians in particular, and the women of Pakistan in general.
However, the landmark legislation of that era was the acceptance in the 1956 Constitution, of the principle of female suffrage for the seats reserved for women, allocated on the basis of special territorial constituencies. This, in effect granted women dual voting rights – one for general seats and the other for the reserved women’s seats.16 The importance and potential of this right towards the political empowerment of women was apparently not fully grasped by the framers of our subsequent constitutions. Hence it was abolished in the 1962 Constitution, which replaced it with a system of indirect elections.17 This stipulated that henceforth the elected members of the Assemblies would elect women members for the reserved women seats. As voting would obviously be on party lines, women candidates would therefore be selected by their party bosses rather than elected by their real constituents i.e. the women of Pakistan. This in fact turned women members into “token representatives”.18 Unfortunately, this concept of indirect elections was retained in the 1973 Constitution.19
During the 1970 Election campaign, Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto emerged as the clear front runner in the Punjab and Sind, particularly among the poorer segment of civil society. His message had a special fascination for women who were encouraged to believe that, in a PPP regime that would provide “Roti, Kapra aur Makaan,” they too could develop as dignified human beings in their own right.20 Thus, for the first time, women voted for the candidates of their own choice, irrespective of their husband’s desires. This was a big step in the political empowerment of women at the grass roots level.21
On assuming power in December 1970, Mr. Bhutto gave top priority to drafting a new constitution. Begum Nasim Jahan and Begum Ashraf Abbasi were the two lady members of the Constitution Committee who played the same role that Begum Jahan Ara Shahnawaz and Begum Shaista Ikram Ullah had played in 1956.22 It was largely due to their efforts that the 1973 Constitution brought about greater gender equality, declaring all citizens to be equal before the law and stipulating that there would be no discrimination on the basis of race, religion, caste or sex for appointment in the service of Pakistan. It also guaranteed reserved seats for women in Local Bodies and mandated that steps be taken to ensure the participation of women in all spheres of national life. As a result, women now entered those superior services from which they had hitherto been barred such as the CSP and the Foreign Service.23
However, as mentioned earlier, in spite of forceful demands put forward by APWA and other women organizations, and a determined effort made by Begum Nasim Jahan in the National Assembly, the principle of female suffrage for the reserved women’s seats, was not revived in the 1973 Constitution. Bhutto’s Law Minister, Mr. Abdul Hafeez Peerzada, felt that as in the past the political parties had been unable to find suitable female candidates beyond the big cities, an election based on female suffrage would produce unhealthy results. He was also influenced by the fact that, although women had played a remarkable role in the 1970 Election Campaign, none of them was able to get elected. In his view this proved that the better category of women politicians were adverse to fighting a direct election. He therefore thought that the interests of women would be best served by a system of indirect elections, which would attract a better breed of women politicians.24 However, Begum Nasim Jahan was of the view that as the electorate for this indirect form of elections (or more appropriately the nominating authority) would comprise entirely of males, the women parliamentarians would be reduced to being mere token representatives.25
The period of Gen Zia’s Martial Law, which followed after the overthrow of Mr. Bhutto, was a rather lean period for women politicians. In fact, after the Bhutto ladies had been forced to leave the Country, women politicians seemed to have virtually disappeared from the landscape. However, in the wake of the promulgation of the Hadood Ordinances, this vacuum was filled by a class of educated women activists who had emerged to form pressure groups committed to protecting women’s rights. These laws, wittingly or unwittingly, reduced the legal status of women through the Qanoon-e-Shahadat on the one hand, and virtually tyrannized them by the faulty interpretation of the Zina Ordinance on the other hand.26 Whereas the first barred them from giving evidence in cases of rape, qazf, bodily harm or property, the second resulted in a rape victim being jailed for Zina unless she could produce four Muslim male witnesses to prove that she had been raped.27 Thus was born the Women’s Action Forum (WAF), which continues to be active even today in its struggle for ensuring basic rights for women.28
Although, relatively speaking, the Musharraf era proved to be a political boom for the women of Pakistan, unfortunately it also did not restore the principle of female suffrage for women’s reserved seats on the basis of special territorial constituencies as envisaged in the 1956 Constitution. The effects of this lapse can best be judged by an analysis of the elections held in 2002. Although Gen. Musharraf very boldly increased the number of reserved women’s seats to an unprecedented 20% in the Assemblies29 and 33% in the Local Bodies, reportedly as many as 31% of the women in NWFP, Baluchistan and Southern Punjab were not allowed by their men to vote.30 If the principle of women voting for the reserved women’s seats had been included in the LFO, even MMA Party leaders would have been “encouraged” to ensure that their womenfolk went out and voted for MMA women candidates. The alternative would have been to surrender the 20% reserved women seats to their rival parties. This would also have had the advantage of making candidates for the reserved women’s seats accountable to their women voters, thus forcing the candidates to devise political agendas conductive to resolving women’s problems and helping them to achieve their due rights.31 In other words, women’s demands would have been presented and fought for in the assemblies by women parliamentarians, who would have had to demonstrate their dedication and record on women issues as an essential requirement for seeking re-election.32 This would have been in stark contrast to the position that has persisted ever since the abrogation of the 1956 Constitution, whereby women parliamentarians have been beholden to their party leaders, who have virtually “nominated” them for occupying the reserved women seats.33 Thus, even today, their political subjugation has not been fully eliminated. It is worth pondering whether women parliamentarians would have allowed themselves to be manipulated into behaving with such lack of decorum, as was witnessed during May 2003 in the Punjab Assembly, if they had been directly elected and did not have to do their master’s bidding.34
However, all said and done, women owe a lot to Gen Musharraf. Besides the increase in reserved women seats in the Assemblies from 2 to 20% women now also constitute 33% of the Union, Tehsil and District Councils.35 In addition, many women have been sent as ambassadors to various countries. These are very bold and positive steps that herald the beginning of a whole new chapter in the political participation of women in Pakistan. It is now incumbent upon the women parliamentarians to take meaningful steps for gaining a deeper understanding of women’s issues and problems. As this knowledge and awareness increases, it is hoped that women parliamentarians will rise above party affiliations and gravitate towards forming an “intra party bond” for jointly devising appropriate measures in support of women’s rights. This would be the most effective way of enhancing the political empowerment of women, as envisaged by President Musharraf in his inaugural address to the National Conference on Women’s Political Participation in January 2003,36 where he had stated that, “The women members of the Assemblies must rise beyond party affiliations… influence decision-making… (and) become effective in legislation to ensure that no law detrimental to their rights and interests is passed.” It is heartening to note that subsequent development in the Punjab Assembly, where women members of the Opposition broke ranks with their male colleagues and joined their female counterparts from the Treasury Benches in supporting the provisions of the Punjab Prevention of Domestic Violence Bill, 2003.37 Similarly, the subsequent passage of the Honour Killing Act and Women Protection Act (that has considerably reduced the anti women bias of the Hadood Ordinances) have helped bring to surface a new breed of women politicians such as Sherry Rehman PPP, Nilofar Bakhtiar PML(Q), Kashmala Tariq PML(Q) and Fauzia Wahab PPP. Their roles in the passage of these Acts have definitely proved that there is light at the end of the tunnel.

SOURCE:www.pu.edu.pk

Role of Women Parliamentarians in Social and Political Change

The role of women parliamentarians in the previous as well as in the present parliament was impressive. However, women parliamentarians still face multiple challenges: social, cultural, structural and political, which need to be overcome through strategic essentialism, electoral as well as political reforms with the help of social and political movements. This was stated by the panelists speaking at the panel on Role of Women Parliamentarians in Social and Political Change.

The panel was addressed by Dr. Farzana Bari and Mr. Naeem Mirza while Ms Marvi Mamon was the discussant and Ms Nafisa Shah chaired the session.

Dr. Farzana Bari was of the opinion that gender deficit in politics is a global issue and its roots may be traced in the work of historical political thinkers. Women’s participation in politics has historically been considered irrational and patriarchal indoctrination has been furthered by the social, cultural and political environment.

Dr. Bari, while sharing the finding of her study, observed that this public-private division had been challenged by women’s rights moments throughout the history and succeeded in achieving their right to vote and representation. Today women have the right to vote globally except in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

However, she observed that global debate is still going on regarding women’s participation in politics and primarily two types of arguments have come to the fore: first that the population of women is 50% and they do participate in the generation of resources and production and therefore should also participate in policy formulation and decision-making process. Second, women are essentially different from men and so are their problems, which need specific attention.

Dr. Bari further said that women have distinct interests, political perspectives and legislative behavior but the question is still there: how far have they succeeded in making women’s concerns part of the legislation process? The answer lies in gender analysis of parliamentary proceedings. While sharing her analysis, she said that 220 bills had been tabled in the previous parliament and only two were bills specific to women pushed by the women parliamentarians, which they got through. Moreover, 60% of interventions on women specific issues by the women parliamentarians had been reported. One-hundred-and-one private bills had been moved by women parliamentarians, 40% were women-specific bills.

Dr. Bari was of the opinion that these evidences dismiss the assumption that women do not take interest in hard-core political and constitutional issues.

Dr. Bari went on to explain that the post-modernist intersectional approach destabilizes unity among women and divides them on the basis of social and political classes, which affects their performance. Under the concept of strategic essentialism, women may formulate at least temporary consensus, particularly on women’s issues, beyond party and intersectional lines. However, the analysis of previous parliament proceedings is negative in this regard, whereby women failed to build consensus on even a minimum agenda, stressed Dr. Bari

Notwithstanding that women parliamentarians do have an impact on the legislative process, particularly on women-related legislation, a dependency remains on a multiplicity of factors including the level of citizenship, democracy and democratization of society, governance structures, institutional roles and procedures, formative action and justice distribution, particularly resource distribution, as well as other structural and functional factors such as the role of media and gender role ideology, all of which come together to determine the performance of women parliamentarians.

Dr. Bari recommended instituting a quota for social classes, direct election on reserved seats, capacity building and networking of women parliamentarians with other civil society and rights organization and structural changes in political parties by creating gender quotas in their working committees and awarding tickets to women workers. She also suggested replacing the majoritarian system with a proportionate representation system.

Mr. Naeem Mirza of Aurat Foundation agreed with Dr. Bari and further elaborated the issue of the role of women parliamentarians. He was of the opinion that a 33% quota for women in the national parliament was a considerable leap in parliamentary history. While analyzing the performance of women parliamentarians in the previous parliament from 2002 to 2007, he explained that 42% of all private bills, 24% of all resolutions, and 30% of call attentions were moved, as well as 27% of questions were asked by women in the five year term. Mr. Mirza was optimistic about the performance of women parliamentarians in the current parliament by forming caucuses by women parliamentarians in the National as well as Provincial assemblies.

Mr. Mirza further said that women parliamentarians lack a power base in the absence of their constituencies and on reserved seats, which renders them unable to form their own power base, making their representation and political participation vulnerable and fragile. He pointed out that VIP culture and favoritism and nepotism further create constrains on women’s participation.

He opined that direct election on reserved seats and proportionate representation with a rotational system of allotting constituencies will consolidate women’s representation and mainstreaming in politics. Mr. Mirza was of the opinion that reserved seats alone may ensure women’s representation in the parliament but cannot mainstream women in politics, therefore the political parties should create a 15% inter party quota for women for political mainstreaming.

Ms Marvi Memon, Member National Assembly, as discussant on the panel observed, though globally we are fortunate enough having 33% representation on reserved seats, which solved the issue of representation at least numerically, lack of power base in the form constituencies still remains a constrain in the mainstreaming of women in politics. She affirmed that women parliamentarians have formed rotational groups and caucuses that work on an issue-to-issue basis across party lines, turf issues, egoism and personal likes and dislikes, adding that political and ideological orientation certainly comes into play in affecting the performance of women parliamentarians. However, this may be overcome through strategic essentialism, which she called a great concept. Although the primary responsibility of parliamentarians is legislation, in the present political structure many things like thana kaichari (police station/courts) and patronage in the form of development is expected from parliamentarians, she said. Equity in resource distribution as well as development funds is therefore essential for constituencies building. Ms Memon was of the opinion that being public figures, women parliamentarians should also be accountable for their time and should be accessible.

Ms Nafisa Shah while concluding the session said that the women parliamentarians should deliver something to the people, which was not possible in the traditional divisive system in the face of numerous challenges. She further elaborated that women’s participation in politics is not a new phenomenon in Pakistan as we have role models of great women politicians.

SOURCE:www.sdpi.org

Women as Political Actors in Pakistan

After listening to the podcasts of Masuma Hasan and Fattima Bhutto, consider their positions on Benazir Bhutto’s influence in Pakistan: do you think that she helped the women of Pakistan? If so, how? If not, why not?

Is Pakistan's version of quotas—the reservation system—beneficial to women? Why or why not? What are some of the challenges facing women as political actors in Pakistan?

In answering the questions, think about the effect of different kinds of representation, supply and demand factors,

Masuma Hasan makes it clear in her interview that she believes strongly in the reservation system Pakistan now has for female representation. She discusses the two factors bringing Pakistani women into the political fold: One aspect is evolution, which shows that as a country developes and progresses, women will become bigger political players. The other aspect, Hasan argues, is that the government must (as Pakistan has done) create the conditions for women to enter politics (demand factors). The 33.5% local quota and 17.4% state and regional quota have, in her view, put Pakistani women on the right path.

Fatima Bhutto disagrees completely with Hasan and the reservation system. She argues that women have traditionally been in powerful roles in Pakistan (eg before the reservation system) and the system in fact disempowers them. The women in higher levels of government are appointed by their party in proportion to seats won, and the women chosen are "weightless" and "benchwarmers." The women brought to office have no constituency and no mandates. Bhutto makes the case that many of these women are vapid socialites who have no true political will, and therefore hurt women's progress.

I agree with Bhutto on this -- to beat the dead horse we've discussed in class time and time again, descriptive representation is, in my eyes, no progress at all when the woman behind it is anti-women or stands for nothing substantial. Women like this make it too easy to dismiss women in general as legitimate political actors.

In Masuma Hasan’s interview she discussed many of the difficulties involved with women as political actors in Pakistan. Some of the major challenges include voter fraud, low literacy rates, intimidation factors and the cost of an ID card. Masuma Hasan makes it very clear that the women of Pakistan are forced to deal with violence near the polls on voting days. This violence is often times committed by extremely conservative groups, who feel as though women should not be allowed the vote. This intimidation factor leaves women feeling scared for their own well being at the voting polls and results in less women turning out to vote. Aside from violence at the polls, “one of the greatest problems which women face in respect to participation in politics, is that of mobility” (Masuma Hasan). Hasan demonstrates that in order to have political participation one must have mobility in order to move from the home to the voting polls. The challenge of lack of mobility has been a large barrier that women as well as men face during election periods in Pakistan.
Personally, I feel that the greatest challenge these women had to overcome was the Hudood Ordinance which was enacted in 1979 as part of the military ruler’s “Islamization” process. This ordinance made it so that extramarital sex was illegal as well as accusing someone of having extramarital sex. This made it impossible for women to prove an allegation of rape, as the law required four adults to witness the act of penetration. Essentially men could rape the women of Pakistan with little to no consequences. This ordinance was finally changed in 2006 by the Women’s Protection Bill. Many politicians and religious scholars often debate this controversial topic; one argument is that women fearing conviction under “Section 10(2)”, merely bring charges of rape against their male partners, which would result in the male being accused and the female being “exonerated of wrongdoing due to reasonable doubt rule”. I have a hard time believing that this law was created to protect men’s rights, and feel that it was enacted in order to suit men’s interests in taking advantage of women.
Despite these challenges, Masuma Hasan seems to be confident that advancement in terms of women’s involvement in government in will continue to occur. She strongly believes that the effects of women’s participation in politics are starting to be seen, and that more women are participating in politics within Pakistan.


I have to agree with Julia on the subject of the reservation system in Pakistan. While it sounds like a great idea to begin with, it is clearly not practiced in a way where it could create a positive, non-sexist country for the future. The reservation system on the local level seems fair, yet on the state level it seems to lose its functionality. By appointing socialite women themselves, the parties are undermining the capable and qualified women that could actually make a difference in the government. Furthermore, with the placement of unqualified women in these positions stigmatizes women as being inferior and once again indirectly reestablishes sexism even more strongly.

Next, we can look at the differences of opinions between Masuma Hasan and Fatima Bhutto. This, like we discussed in class, could be due to their age difference. Fatima Bhutto in only 26 years old and has a career as a columnist; clearly she will be more outspoken and radical with her opinions. Her disagreement with the former prime ministers ways can be due to her exposure to modern day politics around the world as well as the completely different environment she has grown up in compared to Hasan. Masuma Hasan on the other hand is much older and had her Ph.D long before Fatima was even born. She is much more dedicated and patriotic to her country and its policies and leaders. She has seen the country go through much turmoil and has seen Benazir Bhutto rise and fall from power.

One thing they both seemed to agree on was the progression of their country. They believe it will continue to occur, it may be slow but overtime it seems that they see women being equally represented in their government in the future.

The reservation system is fair in theory but clearly less fair in practice.

SOURCE:www.imow.org

MNA Marvi Memon refused to meet US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in Islamabad. Here she explains why in an open letter.

Open Letter to Secretary Clinton

Dear Secretary Clinton,
Whilst the message from you and your government is that of peace and friendship, the Kerry Lugar Bill passed by your legislative branch has been one of the main stumbling blocks in this mission. The assumption that Pakistanis have misunderstood the bill is equally faulty. Pakistanis have read the bill and understood your intent to micromanage Pakistan, to curtail Pakistan’s nuclear expansion program and to direct the war against extremism in Pakistan from White House.

What follows below is an understanding of the bill which needs to be amended if relations between US and patriotic Pakistanis have to be established. Your assertion that if we have issues with the bill we don’t need to take the money is ‘spot on’; patriotic Pakistanis have rejected your mere $1.5 billion. We will not negotiate on our country’s sovereignty and defence. And these are not mere slogans. They are based on facts which we read out of your conditionalities which do exist. And here are the facts Secretary Clinton:

1. The most controversial clause in the bill pertains to giving US ‘direct access to Pakistani nationals associated with such networks’. The explanation given in the note is equally unacceptable because it wants ‘cooperative efforts’ to combat proliferation to continue. This cooperation mentioned is intrusive since it demands ‘direct access’. Secretary Clinton, we have already handled our proliferators and believe in non priliferation. This we consider a breach of our sovereignty.

2. The reference to Pakistan military and intelligence agencies being involved in giving support to terrorists in the past is equally offensive. This is a clause which enables the Indian lobby to target Pakistan and hold it responsible for all future terrorist acts in the region.

3. The other issue pertains to the fact that President Obama’s regional security strategy will include working with ‘relevant governments and organizations in the region and elsewhere.’ The strategy which could include RAW and Mossad would be imposed on Pakistan for US national interest not Pakistan. And as such we cannot give the authority of making Pakistan’s security strategy to a US President.

4. There are references to expansion of Container Security Initiative at various Pakistani ports which we consider a security hazard.

5. The term sanctuary for terrorism implies that Pakistan is a failed state as is included in intelligence reforms and Terrorism Prevention Act 2004.

6. Bill allows ‘irregular forces to be used for US combat operations in Pakistan’ as stated in the Ronald Reagan Act 2005. This in effect gives legal cover to the Dynocores and Blackwaters which we Pakistanis have major issues with and consider a threat to our security.

7. The bill micromanages Pakistan’s important federal government agencies from education, madrassah’s to trade, to judiciary, to natural resources. All aid given will be to NGOs and if more than $100,000 is given those NGO files will become classified. As such Pakistan will not have access to such operations. This we consider an attempt by US to create its own financial political power bases for future.

8. Approximately $860 million of the aid will go back to US in the form of administrative expenses etc. This truly reflects badly on the actual impact on an average Pakistani’s life.

Here were some of the issues with the bill. Now let’s examine what aggravates Pakistani sensitivities with regards to current US policies. And why you are not welcome in Pakistan by patriotic Pakistanis. This might help you understand why over 80% of Pakistanis have issues with your policies as per certain reliable surveys.

1. Firstly, the US stance in the war against extremism is biased towards protecting Indian and Afghan interests. The TTP and Baloch terrorists have been using these two countries and their resources as bases for their operations inside Pakistan as is proven by Pak military evidence. Whilst you consider Pakistan to be sovereign our aid is linked to these two countries which we find distasteful.

2. Whilst Pakistan’s nuclear program is an issue for US, the Indian nuclear program (civil nuclear technology agreement) is being allowed to expand without any blockades.

3. Whilst you have personally complemented Pak military efforts in your recent visit, at the same time there are conditionalities in giving aid to Pakistan to strengthen its military against terrorists. Certainly these terrorists are linked to India and as such conditionalities are one sided. Moreover, if Pakistan military is being complemented why can’t it be trusted with drone technology? Additionally US policy wishes to strengthen Pakistan’s parliament and yet it ignores the resolution passed by Pakistani parliament against drone attacks.

4. Whilst Pakistan is a frontline state which has paid dearly in terms of men lost in battle with terrorists, US considers India and Pakistan to be equals. Where is the advantage Pakistan should get for cooperating on terrorism? $1.5 billion is a joke compared to the billions spent in Afghanistan and Iraq, even in Turkey and Egypt. As well as the fact that no where with other allies has US imposed intrusive conditionalities.

5. Whilst Pakistan is blamed for terrorist sanctuaries how many infiltrators coming from India and Afghanistan specifically have you managed to stop?

6. The commitment for ROZs looks like its dithering. Where is the actual support for the tribals who have suffered the most in the war being fought to destabilize Pakistan?

7. What effort has the US played in cutting drug money which is destabilizing Pakistan and funding terrorism considering its source of entry is US backed Afghan territory. UN report confirms that after US entry into Afghanistan opium production has increased manifold. This is impacting Pakistan’s security since it’s ready financing for terrorism inside Pakistan.

Secretary Clinton,

If you wish to improve Pak-US bilateral, a more productive approach would have been to not justify the bill on arrival but rather to give an open ear to the criticisms with a commitment to amending it. Since there have been no such commitments it seems fruitless to meet with you. This is even more disturbing considering that you have been given plenty of evidence of Pakistani uproar on the bill before your arrival. It’s a pity that the bill was executed minus real Pakistani input. This has no doubt created a diplomatic fiasco for the US. Instead of underestimating the fiasco or considering it a result of Pakistani lack of comprehension, it would have been better to deal with it head on: amending the bill being the only viable option.

Pakistan might have a government which is beholden to you for its future longevity, but there are patriotic Pakistanis who will defend the soil before accepting your policies of creating a US fiefdom in Pakistan. As a young parliamentarian, I would only welcome you to Pakistan once we have evidence of your shift in policy so that Pakistan is dealt with as a sovereign country.

MARVI MEMON
Member of National Assembly of Pakistan

SOURCE:www.defence.pk

Pakistan: Status of Women & the Women's Movement

Four important challenges confronted women in Pakistan in the early 1990s: increasing practical literacy, gaining access to employment opportunities at all levels in the economy, promoting change in the perception of women's roles and status, and gaining a public voice both within and outside of the political process.

There have been various attempts at social and legal reform aimed at improving Muslim women's lives in the subcontinent during the twentieth century. These attempts generally have been related to two broader, intertwined movements: the social reform movement in British India and the growing Muslim nationalist movement. Since partition, the changing status of women in Pakistan largely has been linked with discourse about the role of Islam in a modern state. This debate concerns the extent to which civil rights common in most Western democracies are appropriate in an Islamic society and the way these rights should be reconciled with Islamic family law.

Muslim reformers in the nineteenth century struggled to introduce female education, to ease some of the restrictions on women's activities, to limit polygyny, and to ensure women's rights under Islamic law. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan convened the Mohammedan Educational Conference in the 1870s to promote modern education for Muslims, and he founded the Muhammadan Anglo-Oriental College. Among the predominantly male participants were many of the earliest proponents of education and improved social status for women. They advocated cooking and sewing classes conducted in a religious framework to advance women's knowledge and skills and to reinforce Islamic values. But progress in women's literacy was slow: by 1921 only four out of every 1,000 Muslim females were literate.

Promoting the education of women was a first step in moving beyond the constraints imposed by purdah. The nationalist struggle helped fray the threads in that socially imposed curtain. Simultaneously, women's roles were questioned, and their empowerment was linked to the larger issues of nationalism and independence. In 1937 the Muslim Personal Law restored rights (such as inheritance of property) that had been lost by women under the Anglicization of certain civil laws. As independence neared, it appeared that the state would give priority to empowering women. Pakistan's founding father, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, said in a speech in 1944:

No nation can rise to the height of glory unless your women are side by side with you; we are victims of evil customs. It is a crime against humanity that our women are shut up within the four walls of the houses as prisoners. There is no sanction anywhere for the deplorable condition in which our women have to live.

After independence, elite Muslim women in Pakistan continued to advocate women's political empowerment through legal reforms. They mobilized support that led to passage of the Muslim Personal Law of Sharia in 1948, which recognized a woman's right to inherit all forms of property. They were also behind the futile attempt to have the government include a Charter of Women's Rights in the 1956 constitution. The 1961 Muslim Family Laws Ordinance covering marriage and divorce, the most important sociolegal reform that they supported, is still widely regarded as empowering to women.

Two issues--promotion of women's political representation and accommodation between Muslim family law and democratic civil rights--came to dominate discourse about women and sociolegal reform. The second issue gained considerable attention during the regime of Zia ul-Haq (1977-88). Urban women formed groups to protect their rights against apparent discrimination under Zia's Islamization program. It was in the highly visible realm of law that women were able to articulate their objections to the Islamization program initiated by the government in 1979. Protests against the 1979 Enforcement of Hudood Ordinances focused on the failure of hudood (see Glossary) ordinances to distinguish between adultery (zina) and rape (zina-bil-jabr). A man could be convicted of zina only if he were actually observed committing the offense by other men, but a woman could be convicted simply because she became pregnant.

The Women's Action Forum was formed in 1981 to respond to the implementation of the penal code and to strengthen women's position in society generally. The women in the forum, most of whom came from elite families, perceived that many of the laws proposed by the Zia government were discriminatory and would compromise their civil status. In Karachi, Lahore, and Islamabad the group agreed on collective leadership and formulated policy statements and engaged in political action to safeguard women's legal position.

The Women's Action Forum has played a central role in exposing the controversy regarding various interpretations of Islamic law and its role in a modern state, and in publicizing ways in which women can play a more active role in politics. Its members led public protests in the mid-1980s against the promulgation of the Law of Evidence. Although the final version was substantially modified, the Women's Action Forum objected to the legislation because it gave unequal weight to testimony by men and women in financial cases. Fundamentally, they objected to the assertion that women and men cannot participate as legal equals in economic affairs.

Beginning in August 1986, the Women's Action Forum members and their supporters led a debate over passage of the Shariat Bill, which decreed that all laws in Pakistan should conform to Islamic law. They argued that the law would undermine the principles of justice, democracy, and fundamental rights of citizens, and they pointed out that Islamic law would become identified solely with the conservative interpretation supported by Zia's government. Most activists felt that the Shariat Bill had the potential to negate many of the rights women had won. In May 1991, a compromise version of the Shariat Bill was adopted, but the debate over whether civil law or Islamic law should prevail in the country continued in the early 1990s.

Discourse about the position of women in Islam and women's roles in a modern Islamic state was sparked by the government's attempts to formalize a specific interpretation of Islamic law. Although the issue of evidence became central to the concern for women's legal status, more mundane matters such as mandatory dress codes for women and whether females could compete in international sports competitions were also being argued.

Another of the challenges faced by Pakistani women concerns their integration into the labor force. Because of economic pressures and the dissolution of extended families in urban areas, many more women are working for wages than in the past. But by 1990 females officially made up only 13 percent of the labor force. Restrictions on their mobility limit their opportunities, and traditional notions of propriety lead families to conceal the extent of work performed by women.

Usually, only the poorest women engage in work--often as midwives, sweepers, or nannies--for compensation outside the home. More often, poor urban women remain at home and sell manufactured goods to a middleman for compensation. More and more urban women have engaged in such activities during the 1990s, although to avoid being shamed few families willingly admit that women contribute to the family economically. Hence, there is little information about the work women do. On the basis of the predominant fiction that most women do no work other than their domestic chores, the government has been hesitant to adopt overt policies to increase women's employment options and to provide legal support for women's labor force participation.

The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) commissioned a national study in 1992 on women's economic activity to enable policy planners and donor agencies to cut through the existing myths on female labor-force participation. The study addresses the specific reasons that the assessment of women's work in Pakistan is filled with discrepancies and underenumeration and provides a comprehensive discussion of the range of informal- sector work performed by women throughout the country. Information from this study was also incorporated into the Eighth Five-Year Plan (1993-98).

A melding of the traditional social welfare activities of the women's movement and its newly revised political activism appears to have occurred. Diverse groups including the Women's Action Forum, the All-Pakistan Women's Association, the Pakistan Women Lawyers' Association, and the Business and Professional Women's Association, are supporting small-scale projects throughout the country that focus on empowering women. They have been involved in such activities as instituting legal aid for indigent women, opposing the gendered segregation of universities, and publicizing and condemning the growing incidents of violence against women. The Pakistan Women Lawyers' Association has released a series of films educating women about their legal rights; the Business and Professional Women's Association is supporting a comprehensive project inside Yakki Gate, a poor area inside the walled city of Lahore; and the Orangi Pilot Project in Karachi has promoted networks among women who work at home so they need not be dependent on middlemen to acquire raw materials and market the clothes they produce.

The women's movement has shifted from reacting to government legislation to focusing on three primary goals: securing women's political representation in the National Assembly; working to raise women's consciousness, particularly about family planning; and countering suppression of women's rights by defining and articulating positions on events as they occur in order to raise public awareness. An as yet unresolved issue concerns the perpetuation of a set number of seats for women in the National Assembly. Many women activists whose expectations were raised during the brief tenure of Benazir Bhutto's first government (December 1988-August 1990) now believe that, with her return to power in October 1993, they can seize the initiative to bring about a shift in women's personal and public access to power.

SOURCE:womenshistory.about.com

Pakistan, women and politics

The issue of violence against women in politics was looked at with a Pakistani perspective on the second day of the South Asia Partnership's regional conference here on Thursday.

Justice Nasira Javaid Iqbal (retired) gave a presentation along with Rukshanda Naz on the national laws in Pakistan.

Panellists who discussed the electoral system included Mehfuza Folad, Camena Gunaratne, Raffit Javaid and Rabbia Bajwa.

Pakistan People's Party MPA Sajida Mir shared her experiences in politics with the audience. She was followed by Samina Naz Charsadda, Nasreen Awan and Naheed Bukhari.

The first session was concluded by Anis Haroon, chairperson of the National Commission on Status of Women. "These women are role models, as they passed through a very violent struggle to become part of politics. We must recognise women as catalysts of change in society," Anis said.

This session recommended that the criteria for election of the president should be changed, more women should be given representation in elected bodies, political parties should be democratised, alternate media should be introduced and dictatorship should be eliminated once for all.

The second session dealt with the topic of the culture of political parties and the role of the media. MPA Amna Butter gave a presentation, followed by Sheen Farrukh, who said that "women's empowerment is not the media's concern in Pakistan" generally that in fact resorts to sensationalism in news stories. Another sad fact is that the media mostly avoids stories on women issues, reporters do not take up such stories themselves and the electronic media is more concerned with making business through advertisements. Ms Farrukh also said that various media organisations within the country should work in close collaboration with each other and with civil society at large to achieve desired results.

Panellists Maliha Sahak, Chitra Lekha Yadav, Shobha Shrestha, Bushra Gohar and Neelam Hussain replied to questions and concerns from the media present.

I.A. Rahman, secretary general of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, concluded the session, saying that "any system other than democracy is based on violence…other systems degrade women to a lower status". In Pakistan, he observed, women were known courtesy their men folk. Unless women come into politics through their own efforts, they would not be recognised. Women should be acknowledged as productive individuals and liberated by society first. The power they could yield in politics was related to their freedom in society, economic independence, etc. Patriarchy and all that it entailed had to be driven out of people's minds.

Rohit Kumar Nepali, executive director of SAP International, rounded up the discussions of the two-day conference, saying that structural violence, systemic violence and political violence existed in one form or the other whereby women were denied the right to practice freely. Yet the people who performed such acts of violence, however subtle they might be, were actually cowards. This issue, he added, was not a SAP issue, but its concern was humans. What is required is that this issue gets momentum and gets lobbied to an international level to make them gender sensitive. The media, Rohit said, was sensitised, but it needed to do more on this topic. More space should be created for women politicians in assemblies, local bodies, etc.
SOURCE:www.dawn.com

Pakistan, women and politics

If we scan through the socio-cultural and political landscape of the sub-continent it is almost the same. In the political front, we can see that at some point in the political history of these countries.

These women leaders are not ordinary leaders, each of them has a grand legacy behind them and a mass following, believing their ideologies and promises. Millions of ordinary women follow these leaders and hope that they will be able to address and understand their problems, which man leaders could not. But the biggest irony is that, they were not able to address those issues and seen to fall back into those bandwagon of being deaf and mute leaders whose only issue is to control their vote banks. They are observed to go to the extent of propagating and patronizing those extremist view points so that they do not hurt the sentiments of so called - propagators of extremist views to be sure of being reelected.

Ultimately we see that those women leaders – who were supposed to be the harbinger of change and hope for millions of ordinary women… as just another ordinary political leader with false promises.

SOURCE: www.iknowpolitics.org