Honor Killing! Isn;t it an oxymoron? “honor” and “killing.” Since when did killing a women for exercising her rights become a queation of honor for her family? Here’s an article from Dawn.
**Outlawed **
By Danish Zuberi
The recent murder of Samia Imran has yet again brought home the reality of how a woman who exercises her right to either enter into a marriage or end it is so easily silenced into oblivion by none other than her own family. Samia Imran, a mother of two children and a resident of Peshawar had come to Lahore to file a divorce case. She was married in 1989 to her cousin. After years of torment she decided to go back to her parents in 1995 and file for a divorce. Since Samia’s parents refused to lend any support to her she finally went to Lahore and took refuge at Dastak, a shelter for women. After persistent attempts from her family, Samia decided to meet her mother in the presence of her counsel, Hina Jillani. It was at this fateful meeting that Samia’s mother with the help of an assassin silenced her forever. This blatant murder, too, was potrayed as yet another attempt to preserve the honour and ghairat of the family.
In 1999 alone, several cases have been reported in the press with one common thread - the exercise of the right to get married by a woman without the consent of her parents or her family. The consequences of the exercise of this basic right have also been very similar. The disgruntled parents have successfully been able to use the laws and the state machinery to take revenge from their daughters and the men they chose to marry, all on the pretext of that much misused term - the family honour. The only uncommon feature being that the castigated and rebuked women hail from different social backgrounds and socio-economic classes. It makes no difference if they are educated or not or if they are from urban or rural settings. The cases of Humaira Mahmood and Saima Waheed dispelled the myths surrounding many young urban women who held the misplaced belief that discriminatory laws only affect women in rural areas or the lower socio-economic strata of the society.
In April 1999, Asma Mumtaz a resident of Shershah in Karachi married a man of her own choice despite her parent’s disapproval. Her parents reported the matter to the police and the local Khidmat Committee asserting that their daughter had been kidnapped by Mumtaz [her husband]. Asma and her husband are seeking refuge from the police while the nikah khwan who contracted their marriage has been arrested by the police. Asma and her husband have made innumerable appeals to the police and the Khidmat Committee but to no avail.
In February 1999, Sabra married Ashfaque. Sabra’s parents registered an FIR against the couple under the Zina Ordinance on the pretext that she had already entered into a Nikah with her cousin Abrar-ul-Haque. Both Sabra and Ashfaque were arrested by the police and were released on bail after six months.
In the beginning of 1999, Humaira Mahmood, a 28-year old woman who is the daughter of an MPA from Okara, Punjab, was forcibly taken away from the Edhi Home, Karachi, by the police and her brother. The allegation was all too familiar. Humaira had defied her parents wishes and had married a man of her own choice. Humaira’s case was fought across two provinces and it took the intervention of the High Courts of Karachi and Lahore to secure the safety of the couple and to pronounce Humaira and Mahmood’s marriage as legal and valid. Another unique feature in Humaira’s case was the role of the state machinery, both, in Karachi and Lahore which not only chose to turn a blind eye to the actions of her family but also lent them support at all junctures.
In the case of Riffat and Ahsan, the Pakhtoon Amn Jirga had called for strikes in the city of Karachi and Riffat was recovered. Ahsan was severely injured in an attempt to murder him within the court premises. The young couple are still in hiding, making desperate attempts to seek asylum abroad as they are convinced that Riffat’s family (the Afridi tribe) will kill both of them if they are ever found.
1998 was the year the landmark case of Saima Waheed was fought. In this case the right of a woman to get married without the consent of her wali or guardian was challenged. A full bench of the Lahore High Court in a rather apologetic judgment held that a woman has the right to contract a marriage without the consent of her wali.
The pluralistic legal system in Pakistan has given rise to a number of contradictions. The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, provides that all citizens are equal before the law and that there shall be no discrimination on the basis of gender. It vows to protect the institution of marriage and the family and uphold the dignity of man; and yet the State in the garb of religion has framed laws and supports executive actions that are the very anti-thesis of these sacred pledges. Today a woman in Pakistan is not a competent witness for the maximum punishment in rape cases. She cannot enter into a valid contract in matters pertaining to financial obligations without the presence of a male witness. The apex court of the country as recently as in 1999, was embroiled in discussions on whether it was moral for a Muslim woman to live by herself in an apartment. A woman’s right to exercise her choice in any matter, be it as private as marriage or divorce is fraught with legal complications. The biggest weapon being the Hudood Ordinances, an amalgam of five laws of which the Zina Ordinance is the most notorious. Under the Zina Ordinance, which governs sexual offences (rape, adultery, fornication etc.) all offences are cognizable and non-bailable. This means that the bail amount is very high and in most cases since the case has been registered by family members there is no one to furnish the surety.
The Zina Ordinance is time and again put to perverse use by family members who register false cases against the women of their family who dare to defy the age-old patriarchal traditions. The high rate of acquittal in zina prosecutions also reflect on the fact that most of the cases registered are based on fabricated evidence and the real motive behind the registration of these cases is harassment rather than securing a conviction against the woman. These laws are amply supported by the police and other state machinery. The police that is very shy in registering a case of marital abuse at the instance of a battered wife as these are ‘private matters’ has no qualms in registering a zina case at the instance of a father against his daughter or a husband against his wife.
Humaira’s is a case in point of how an MPA from the ruling PML party could conjure up police force across two provinces to have his 28-year daughter abducted twice even after she had made categorical statements before the court that she had married Mahmood voluntarily of her own free will and volition and had a nikahnama to support her claim. The calling of strikes by the Pakhtoon Amn Jirga in the Riffat and Ahsan saga and the statements by the Afridi tribe that the local administration had done nothing to protect the honour of their tribe, shows an increasing tendency even within urban settings of giving preference to the traditional and informal legal system as opposed to opting for the formal legal system. This approach has been encouraged by the tribalization of formal laws by the enactment of laws such as the Hudood Ordinances and the law of Qisas and Diyat. The inclination to take the law in their own hands and ignore the formal legal system has also been amply encouraged by the State machinery and has led to the urbanization of tribal customary laws. Nafisa Shah in her paper ‘Faislo - The Informal Settlement System’ writes that “in a number of places in Sindh the informal faislo settlement system is increasingly superceding the formal justice system.” She goes on to say that “the distance between the state law and the informal codes is being bridged. The imposition of the Hudood Ordinances and the Qisas and Diyat Act relating to sexual offences and bodily harm, including murder, has added tribal characteristics to the formal justice system; especially the latter which has made murder a compoundable crime”.
The law of rape or zina-bil-jabr is another area where the traditional system of settlement often supercedes the formal one even in urban areas. The Zina Ordinance draws a fine distinction between the offences of rape and adultery which has often resulted in complainants of rape being convicted of adultery when unable to prove their cases. Further, since marital rape is not an offence under the Zina Ordinance, accused rapists have even managed to fudge the issue of rape and zina to their advantage by asserting that they were actually married to the victims and have produced forged nikahnamas to the effect. The Report of the Commission of Inquiry For Women has recommended that these laws are in direct conflict with Islam, the Constitution as well as international commitments made by Pakistan under the UN Convention on the Elimination on all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The Commission has strongly recommended the repeal of the Hudood Ordinances. The questionable rape laws are further compounded by the Qanun-e-Shahdat or the law of evidence which permits the accused rapist to adduce evidence of the rape victim’s ‘past misconduct’. This gives the alleged rapist the right to adduce evidence that is totally irrelevant to the rape prosecution. The inherent discriminatory nature of these laws when combined with delays by the court and the social taboo that shrouds the issue of rape often leads to a ‘compromise’ between the families where the rape victim has no voice. The nature of the compromise is anything from monetary compensation by the family of the alleged rapist to the family of the victim to marrying of the rape victim to the rapist. Families may also exchange women so that the tit for tat principle can be applied and the honour of the families may be assuaged at the cost of the victim’s life and sanity.
While our legal system does not formally recognise or sanction the jirga or the informal settlement system, the reaction of the State machinery to these traditional mores, especially when these discriminate against women is anything but discouraging. Its time all the State organs recognize the sanctity of the rights guaranteed to women under the Constitution and various international commitments and assume responsibility to give effect to these so that basic rights no longer appear to be a mere illusion to the women of Pakistan.