Violence against women and 'honour killings' have figured prominently in the State Department's report. When the division bench of the Lahore High Court acquitted five of six men sentenced to death in the Mukhtar Mai gang-rape case, the story made international headlines. The gang rape itself had shocked the world and had portrayed the dark side of our feudal and tribal culture.
The reality of Pakistan
Ghazi Salahuddin
More than many others, Pakistan is a difficult country to describe and understand. It generally inspires ambivalence and ambiguity. Some contradictions are obvious. After being a safe haven for religious extremists, it is now in the front line in a war against the same elements. Its role as a close ally of the United States also poses a number of questions with reference to its democracy that is masked in a military uniform. And finally, its well-applauded economic progress is tinged with the shame of massive poverty and social deprivations.
But there has to be some way of presenting the present state of affairs in the country with a measure of objectivity and a genuine concern for its well-being. Incidentally, we have had two assessments this past week that have come not from blinkered critics or opponents of the government but from indulgent friends. First, the US State Department issued its annual human rights report for 2004 and its chapter on Pakistan certified widespread violations of human rights in the country. No less significant were the remarks made by the British High Commissioner, Mark Lyall Grant, when he announced the Country Assistance Plan for Pakistan.
Very instructive was the almost knee-jerk response of our officials to the two obviously well thought out presentations. We can see how touchy our rulers are when criticism is made of their policies and performance. You are expected to give a round of applause even when they abandon a previous policy and take a hasty U-turn. Talking about U-turns, you should understand the imperative of the shift that was prompted by 9/11. But there have been so many other reversals of policy and political approach, not to mention the solemn promise to take off the uniform.
Take the example of how the seemingly determined thrust for enlightened moderation is meant to erase the influence of the same religious elements that were calculatedly propped up before the elections of October 2002, well after 9/11. Conversely, a dialogue is now being sought with the same mainstream parties that were suppressed with a vengeance. Meanwhile, an unholy coalition was cobbled together with the help of defectors and time-servers. That this could not be viable for long is demonstrated by the noxious scandals that the Sindh government has thrown up. But this can also be put to good use in the name of accountability and to set the stage for new arrangements.
To return to what I said at the outset, what really is the state of the nation? The human rights situation can be a good window from which to look at the entire landscape. First, we had the State of Human Rights in 2004, a meticulously documented report of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan. With relevant facts, it projected a dismal human rights picture. Among other things, it highlighted the present rulers' disregard for democratic norms with reference to the prime ministerial charade played out in 2004.
Though the HRCP report should be more valid for us because it reflects the passionate involvement of our own citizens, respected for their commitment and integrity, it is the State Department's version that would attract official attention. It is true that the US is guilty of its own abuses and its concern for violation of human rights may be termed as hypocrisy, but its analysis of the situation in Pakistan is very important in the context of its very special relationship with our country and its establishment.
After all, President General Pervez Musharraf is profusely admired by the US, also for his exertions to promote democracy in Pakistan. Indeed, comments made by the Bush administration are often at odds with the academic appraisals that Pakistan exerts in American think tanks. We have some scary prognoses from US experts. Should we not take them into account when we draw a portrait of our country?
Anyhow, the State Department has noted "serious problems" in Pakistan's human rights situation, in spite of "some improvements" here and there. Without quoting extensively from published reports, we can see that it is a troubling report. It says that the police abused and raped citizens, arresting and detaining them arbitrarily. Corruption and inefficiency remained severe problems and the government violated due process and infringed on privacy of citizens' privacy rights. Also, the press was partly free but in some instances, the government took retaliatory actions against media outlets and journalists.
And what did our good friend Mark Lyall Grant have to say to the unconcealed displeasure of our foreign office? He should be considered a good friend not only because he represents Britain, as close an ally of Pakistan as the US, but also because he may have some nostalgic affection for Pakistan in light of his ancestral linkage with this part of the subcontinent. Besides, he was only expounding on the contents of the Country Assistance Plan report of Britain's Department for International Development. The plan for Pakistan worth 238 million pounds over the next three years was unveiled in Islamabad on Tuesday.
Launching the assistance programme, the British high commissioner said that it would open a new era of cooperation between the two countries. At the same time, it was critical of the military's involvement in business ventures, saying that it was one of the biggest obstacles to development and poverty reduction in Pakistan. He also said that the existing structure of land ownership in Pakistan, the disparity in wealth and differences based on kinship, ethnicity, religion and gender were also impeding the fight against poverty. These obstacles, in his view, were hampering the effectiveness of the bureaucracy and the judiciary.
One senior official was quoted in this newspaper as saying that "this is blatant interference in the internal issues of Pakistan". Ah, for that matter, any country that gives aid to improve Pakistan's economic conditions or praises its rulers for their policies also interferes in our internal affairs. And what about the projection of factual reports from Pakistan in the international media? Would that also be considered interference in our internal matters?
This brings me to Mukhtar Mai's case. It, in fact, deserves an entire column. But see it as a reverberation of what is contained in the State Department's report and what was implied by the British High Commissioner. Violence against women and 'honour killings' have figured prominently in the State Department's report. When the division bench of the Lahore High Court acquitted five of six men sentenced to death in the Mukhtar Mai gang-rape case, the story made international headlines. The gang rape itself had shocked the world and had portrayed the dark side of our feudal and tribal culture.
In its Friday issue that I read on the web, The New York Times put the story on top of its International section with the headline: "Village Gang-Rape Sentences Are Upset by Court in Pakistan". There was this moving photograph with the caption: "Mukhtar Mai of Meerwala, Pakistan, cried Thursday after the death sentences for men convicted of raping her in 2002 were overturned". We have to be reminded that she was raped in public on the orders of a 'panchayat' for her brother's alleged illicit relations with a woman of the offenders' family.
If all this seems too depressing, let me conclude with a note of cheer. On Thursday, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz said: "We are out of the woods. The winds of growth, change and enlightenment are blowing across the country."
jang.com.pk
The writer is a staff member |
