An interesting article in Voice of America discusses the state of women’s rights in Pakistan. In some ways, women’s rights are flourishing, especially in the cities, where women’s relatively rapid economic advancement is driving a lot of local women’s rights activism. At the same time, rural areas are remain reactionary, supporting woman-hating practices like forced marriages and “honor” killings.
One focus of Pakistani feminist activism is “the country’s most controversial Islamic law, known as the Hudood Ordinance,” which activists are trying to have overturned.
Trial lawyer and women’s advocate Jamila Aslam says the laws protect rapists and punish the victims.
“You find most women will not report the rape because they don’t expect to get justice. They go to the police station. Chances are if she’s pretty, she’ll be raped by the policeman. Second, they’ll say, oh, you’re a culprit because a sexual act has been performed. It’s a man’s world out here,” added Ms. Aslam.
She says the law has sent more than 20,000 mostly innocent women to prison.
But religious groups in Pakistan strongly oppose any changes to the law, saying it protects core Islamic values.
Unfortunately, the police and the president are firmly, and sometimes violently, misogynistic. The courage of women’s activists in Pakistan is stunning. From the International Herald Tribune:
This didn’t happen to some unknown student or impoverished villager. This happened to Asma Jahangir, the United Nations special rapporteur on freedom of religion and head of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, the country’s largest such nongovernmental group. The setting: a glitzy thoroughfare in Lahore’s upmarket Gulberg neighborhood. The crime: attempting to organize a symbolic mixed-gender mini-marathon on May 14. […]
In Washington and London, Musharraf presents himself as the face of enlightenment; in Pakistan there is another face. The Bush administration, Musharraf’s chief backer, should realize that its friend in the war on terror came to power in a coup, continues to hold office without facing Pakistani voters, refuses to schedule a vote, and bans women from running in mixed-gender races. Those who stand for the values of human rights and democracy that the Bush administration calls universal are seen as the enemy within and are beaten on the streets.
The website Fiscal Study has put together a good collection of short articles about women’s rights in Pakistan (from which I swiped the photo at the top of this post). If you’ve got a few minutes, it’s well worth reading.
What’s striking to me is that Pakistani culture isn’t a monolith of misogyny, which is how it’s sometimes portrayed. The Pakistani women’s rights activists are as much a part of their culture as the misogynists are, and the feminist protestors pictured at the top of this post are as important an image of Pakistani womanhood as the more often seen photos of veiled women. The US should be looking for ways to support feminist activism in Pakistan, rather than just supporting a misogynistic head of state.
Regardless of whether or not you favor the U.S.’s actions in Southwest Asia, we have clearly made a deal with the Devil here. It’s a dangerous game, and the type that has often turned out badly for us. Pakistan could blow up at any time, and then we’re fighting on 3 fronts, which we can’t manage.
Under the ordinance, women who fail to prove rape claims are charged with committing adultery, a criminal offense.
It’s horribly interesting how right-wing misogynists, American or Pakistani, no matter what their alleged motivations, treat women so much the same. In the US, it may be claiming that if a man is acquitted of rape that means the woman who testified against him can be charged with falsely accusing him; in Pakistan, as above: but the wish to harm women for speaking out against men is horribly similar.
The US should be looking for ways to support feminist activism in Pakistan, rather than just supporting a misogynistic head of state.
Nice fantasy. There’s never been a President of the US yet who would have chosen to support any kind of equal rights activists in other countries against an allied head of state, no matter how oppressive: and women’s rights are always last on the list.
From the linked article:
Musharraf actually said this to a US newpaper? I can believe that he said it, but I can’t believe that he said it to a western paper let alone one from the US. I find it disheartening that misogynists so often hide behind religion and use both its written teaching and created doctrine to reinforce their own ideas about women. Islam, as a faith, is no more misogynistic than is Christianity. But when you put them in the hands of men who would keep control one of the first things they do is to subjugate women.
Jesu:
I agree with you. It appears that the basic “need for control” is apparent regardless of other societal ideas. I for one am thankful that in the US I don’t have to worry about being killed legally for speaking out. And I do wish there was more that could be done to help the women of the Middle East take back the equality that the deserve.
In regards to our leaders supporting human rights when it goes against an allied leader in another country. It is a sad state of affairs when political expediency outweighs moral decency, but global politics has always been a sad state of affairs.
RonF wrote:
Anyone else feeling a draft in here… ? >:
Linked article:
“Pakistani women participate in protest rally in Islamabad, to condemn President Musharraf’s remarks to a US newspaper that some women viewed being raped as a way to acquire a foreign visa.”
You know, when I read this, I thought to myself “Oh my God, what if that’s true? What does that say about the wonderful ‘Islamic culture’ in Pakistan?”
Calling someone a liar to their face rarely advances dialog. So, Mr. Mubarak, let’s take your comment at face value. If you actually believe this, have you considered just how horrible would conditions for women in your country (hell, conditions in general) have to be for some of them them to resort to inviting rape in order to get out? Or do you think being raped is trivial, like getting a speeding ticket?
alsis39, this country’s military leaders don’t want a draft. They think it would destroy the military’s morale and give them a military that would not be as effective a fighting force. Believe it or not, there have been a bunch of lessons learned from Vietnam – this is why we have an all-volunteer force to begin with.
I think that Pres. Bush recognizes that it would also be a political disaster that he probably couldn’t get through Congress.
There’s a lot of things, including our current quagmire, that the military leaders didn’t want. However, they haven’t rebelled over it before, and I doubt that they will if Bush wants a draft. Protest ? Maybe. Revolt ? Nah.
Not by himself, no. But with a coterie of Democrats doing a bunch of cheerleading for it, he’d have a shot. I believe that Rep. Charles Schumer already was mumbling about draft reinstatement over a year ago.
You are quite right that in the end, it would be a huge disaster for both parties [sic], and the Roman Circus lover in me almost likes the idea of getting to be around to see it. Unfortunately, the purveyors of a draft wouldn’t feel the pain until even more lives –both U.S. and middle Eastern– have been ended or ruined. And since the sons and daughters of Senators and Congressman would get to dodge the quagmire, just as they always have, the pain felt on Capitol Hill wouldn’t really compare to the pain in my neighborhood. Or yours.
But that’s precisely my point: The assholes running this country don’t really feel any kinship with the majority of their constituents precisely because they don’t run the same risks as their constituents. That’s why a draft remains a distinct possibility. :(
Pingback: Global Voices Online » Blog Archive » Pakistan: Hudood Ordinance
Musharraf actually said this to a US newpaper? I can believe that he said it, but I can’t believe that he said it to a western paper let alone one from the US.
Not only did he say it to a “western paper”, but he said it to the Washington Post.
Not only did he say it to the Washington Post, but he said it in a recorded conversation, where the Post retained the tape.
Not only did he say it in a recorded conversation, but he then denied it.
“Let me say with total sincerity that I never said that, and it has been misquoted,” Musharraf told the women’s group. “These are not my words, and I would go to the extent of saying I am not so silly and stupid to make comments of this sort.”
The readers of this thread might be interested in an open letter of the HRCP to the President. Go visit The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.
Musharraf is a maddening mixture of contradictions. He sometimes seems to have some good instincts and then he does something like this. The only alternative to him, hovever, might be a Taliban type government. Pakistan is a mess and probably will be for many years to come.
alsis39, your point about the sons and daughters of Congresscritters, etc., not ending up in the draft is a good point. A while back on another thread, I proposed that the draft might be a good thing to reinstate if it was changed, including:
1) Everyone goes at age 18 or 19 regardless of marital status, physical status, educational status, who your family is, etc., etc.
2) Nobody HAS to serve in the military; things like the Peace Corps, something like Habitat for Humanity, something like the old Civilian Conservation Corps, etc., service in hospitals, etc., would be freely choosable alternatives.
As far as your estimate of the effect of the military’s opinion and the public opinion on that; all either of us can do is figure “yeah, that’ll kill it” or “no, it won’t”. My bet is that 5 years from now, there won’t be a purely military draft.
I know that it states in the articles that women are sent to prison, but would some muslim radicals kill them? 4.15 of the Quran says
“If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or Allah ordain for them some (other) way. “
Pingback: Plus + Ultra » Blog Archive » Other things that are banned in Pakistan besides Plus Ultra
Pingback: Plus + Ultra » Blog Archive » A detailed look at the Pakistani Constitution (Preable Through Chapter 1)
Pingback: Plus + Ultra » Blog Archive » More fun at the Plus Ultra Photoshop Dept.
Jesurgislac Writes:
December 22nd, 2005 at 2:00 am
Under the ordinance, women who fail to prove rape claims are charged with committing adultery, a criminal offense.
It’s horribly interesting how right-wing misogynists, American or Pakistani, no matter what their alleged motivations, treat women so much the same.
In the US, it may be claiming that if a man is acquitted of rape that means the woman who testified against him can be charged with falsely accusing him; in Pakistan, as above: but the wish to harm women for speaking out against men is horribly similar.
===================
Pakistan is a crazy place, and no government there can change that.
A total mess…USA should consider to change its politics towards such countries – but this is not so easy, a political question. Generally, Islamic countries are not known to be thankful to the USA for any assistance.
Islam – a major religion of this world, is not known to treat women in a fair way – a fact.
About US-justice or other democratic countries: I do not see any reason, why a woman, who deliberately is producing a false rape allegation, should not be punished for libel and slander.
Women rights cannot go so far, that any woman can accuse a man for a crime, which never took place.
Omg. Argh.
This is why I have to titrate activism. Too many of these stories and it just feels hopeless to face a monolith of fear and violence.
Well on to the link provided by Magis.
Thanks for posting this – glad I stumbled you.