September 17, 2016
‘Honour’ trees
Every new day seems to bring yet another case of ‘honour’ killing. This time the victims were a woman from a village near Multan and the young man she was alleged to be having an affair with. The perpetrators were her father, brother and husband. The details of the case are particularly grisly, with both victims beaten up and then hanged from a tree. All three of the accused confessed to the murders and are currently in prison but there is no guarantee that justice will be served. This incident follows the recent killing of Samia Shahid, a British national who was lured to Pakistan by her father, raped and then killed; also involved was her first husband. Samia’s remarriage had angered her family. It is over such reasons that over 1,000 women on average are killed each year. According to the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, the figure stood at 1,100 reported deaths for 2015. The trend appears to be continuing with a large number of killings having taken place already this year. Certainly, the government’s threats of meting out punishment to culprits or initiating new laws have had no impact. The brutalisation of society and the disempowerment of the weak and vulnerable pave the way for such killings.
A large number of ‘honour’ killings never come to public view. They are carried out in the dark and ‘sanctified’ confines of ‘family’ from where the truth never emerges. We do not know how many really fall victim to such acts. Not only are the police and the judiciary reluctant to punish such crimes, the government, despite promising to do so, is yet to close a loophole in clemency laws that allows family members to forgive murderers. But in the case of ‘honour’ killings both the victim and the perpetrators have the same family who, under pressure or because they agree with the killing in the first place, decide to drop the murder case. The government claims to have come up with a bill to forbid the practice in ‘honour’ killing cases but it is yet to present it to the public or table it in parliament. This is unforgivable when such killings take place on a daily basis. The federal government is reported to have put a draft before the CII for a new law which eliminates the possibility of granting forgiveness. The body – whose own role in advocating regression in society is glaring – says it is studying it and initial reports suggest it will stand with the law. But what if it does not? That question aside, are laws enough to stop the horrendous killings that we see? Can they alone prevent honour from being hanged from trees? Amending laws will not change the poison that afflicts us. In parliament, right-wing ‘religious’ parties like the JUI-F have consistently been at the forefront of opposition to any pro-women bill introduced. But they are not alone in this inhumanity. The so-called ‘liberal’ parties too have offered legions of examples where the holders of jirgas that mete out ‘honour’ punishment have been patronised and protected. A deeper social and political change is required, along with strong implementation of laws. The way is to resist and change the immoral status quo rather than accept it. Where and what is the agency of resistance and change?
Ghani’s Pakistan bashing
Afghan President Ashraf Ghani’s trip to India, where he inked a billion-dollar aid deal and lost no opportunity to bash Pakistan should put to rest any idea that his government seeks better ties with Pakistan. The growing cooperation between Afghanistan and India on energy, agriculture, infrastructure and other areas will understandably make Pakistan wary as it sees this as part of an Indian plan to gain further influence in the area and use it to destabilise us. Ghani’s needlessly vitriolic statements against Pakistan only confirmed that belief. In a speech at the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses in Delhi, Ghani described Afghanistan as a country which is “landlocked but thinks openly” while condemning Pakistan as a country which has “access to the sea and thinks like a landlocked country.” This reference to land and sea was not accidental since recent sticking points between Afghanistan and Pakistan centre on Pakistan’s refusal to allow Indian goods destined for Afghanistan to pass through the Wagah border. Pakistan, meanwhile, is upset at being shut out of the Chahbahar Port deal, which gives India access to both the lucrative Central Asian market and an all-weather port in Iran through Afghanistan. Add to those the new deals signed between Afghanistan and India and it is clear that we are deliberately being isolated in the region.
Pakistan’s response to the deal and the statements came not long after. Our permanent representative to the UN Maleeha Lodhi said Pakistan cannot be expected to fight Afghanistan’s war on its own soil and also called on Ghani to ensure his territory wasn’t being used to plot attacks in Afghanistan. This kind of tit-for-tat, where the two countries accuse each other of fomenting terrorism against each other has become depressingly familiar and it appears it will only increase in the near future. It is no coincidence that as Ghani has sought better ties with India, he has taken to making barely-veiled accusations against Pakistan on an almost daily basis. Even on areas where there should be some agreement, Ghani has stuck to his anti-Pakistan guns. For instance, Maleeha Lodhi pointed out that Pakistan wants to build fences along the border – something Afghanistan should support since it has long accused us of not properly patrolling the border. Now that we want to do something about it, however, Ghani is dead set against it; the closure of the Torkham border even led to indiscriminate firing by Afghan forces. While no one should want Afghanistan to be Pakistan’s proxy in the region, there should also be concern that Ghani is leading it down a path where it will be acting as India’s proxy.