PukhtunWomen

A friend who is coordinating Samar Minallah’s visit to Washington (DC) to receive the Perdita Huston Award (Minallah has won the 2007 Perdita Huston Activist for Human Rights — the Award itself was established in 2002 to celebrate the work of Perdita Huston, and to recognize the life and work of outstanding advocates for women’s rights in the developing world) wrote a worried note yesterday when she read in a column of mine of the furor an inadvertent hug on the part of Nilofar Bakhtiar had caused in Pakistan. The friend wrote a worried note back on her website: After hearing that Nilofar had to resign I called DC and made sure that everyone there was aware that they were in no way to touch Samar. I asked that everyone attending be sent a memo, in case someone unknowingly patted Samar on the back or God forbid gave her a hug. To which I had to write back that considering we are living in the interesting times of Shumail R and Shahzina, she should make sure no one hugs Samar. Surely no one wants to give more grist to our judicial mills and have some overzealous person in Lahore filing a case that a woman in Washington DC ‘aspiring towards’ and/or ‘masquerading’ as a man wanted to hug Samar. In short, please don’t hug us, we are Pakistani.

Marriages are a tricky business to comment on, and far be it for me to venture on what constitutes a good one or a bad one. But it becomes particualrly problematic when we have to define what constitutes them — is it a marriage of minds, are they decided on planes divine, does it concern matters of a union of the flesh, the soul? I don’t have the text for Justice Khwaja Muhammad Sharif’s judgement on the issue, but I understand that it pertained more to matters of perjury, of falsifying accounts, of impersonating as a man in matters legal than the issue of what constitutes a marriage. And probably the learned judge was wise not to step in that minefield, of not deliberating on the definition of marriage in Pakistan, for that would have opened a Pandora’s Box which would not have suited those who comprise the ‘moral brigade’ and pride themselves as the custodians of matters cultural and traditional in Pakistan. By defining who can enter into and what conditions rule a marriage, I am sure our learned courts would have to give a ruling on the legality of marriages between women and the Quran (I am sure certain very respectable families in Sindh who form a power religio-political nexus in Sindh would like to share their views on this issue), minor girls traded to settle blood disputes, instances when both parties know that the “bride” in question will not be enjoying that status but is rather an individual against whom the aggrieved party can direct their ire and vengance. In many cases she is kept as a reminder of the loss their family has suffered, a living punching bag, and if she is very lucky, cheap domestic labour. Then we also have the instances of forcible divorces in case a set of wata satta marriages (exchange marriages) breaks down, which any day can be gauged by the plethora of questions on any given day in advice columns in our daily newspapers. What say of the sanctity of the institution of marriage in that case? Negotiating a relationship is difficult as it is, but imagine the scenario of when any typical day there are four people walking the tight-rope of your relationship, you, your spouse, your brother and sister-in-law — one false step and everyone comes falling off. And I need not get into the details of the countless cases where women are treated as chattel, forced to marry their rapists, pay off gambling debts (Shahzina’s case one instance), keep a promise an elder had made, marrying a brother-in-law who is still a minor to keep property/children together. In all these cases what can still hold as a good marriage (Pakistani or otherwise) and should be allowed under any concept of justice and leading a good meaningful life (which should be a basic human right for any person, even if perchance they happen to be Pakistani; our nationality shouldn’t by definition preclude us from aspiring to happiness, no matter what our President has told us).

Huma Yusuf writing elsewhere on this particualr issue has brought up the ‘first things first’ mentality in Pakistan which she understands is behind our belief, albeit flawed, that we should deal with fundamental issues – democracy, terrorism, poverty, illiteracy, Kashmir, nukes, and land reforms before getting matters of social justice and debatable issues like this particular relationship resolved. Yusuf does plead to civil society in Pakistan to not shy away from their responsibilities, particularly since we are members of a global village and to understand that the issue can be (and I join her in this) the harbinger of a meaningful social revolution in Pakistan, but I would like to turn her use of the phrase “first things first”, which for many is problematic ‘around’. Let us continue to have a policy of “first things first” in Pakistan, but apply it for all the contentious definitions of marriage that parade in Pakistan. Let our honorable judiciary and civil society in Pakistan do away with the contentious definitions of civil unions in Pakistan that I have listed, where women are victimized and where in more cases parties have turned to the legislature and judiciary to rescue women out of a situation which they do not recognize as a marriage but have been gagged in the name of maintaining tradition and cultural pride. Resolve that and then deem yourself fit to decide in a situation where two partners who were happy in their union and had approached you to protect their relationship are concerned.

Returning to Samar Minallah’s news, it is a matter of pride to learn that some of us refuse to be intimidated by the sheer enormity of the task ahead as we turn to confront all the hurdles that impede Pakistani women to operate as full citizens in their country. Minallah through her endeavour Ethnomedia has been involved in a public advocacy programme against many of the horrific crimes committed in the name of honour. Swara, best translated as “compensatory marriages”, is just one of them. I am quoting here from the letter of recommendation for the Perdita Huston award to explain what issues her win raises. “From such cases as two minor girls being given away as compensation against 11 stolen buffaloes, or the case of a religious scholar solemnizing a marriage of a one month-old girl to a one year-old boy to end an age old dispute after a tribal Jirga’s verdict, are hard to imagine, but are a daily reality of the world that Samar lives in. Though un-Islamic and illegal, this century’s old customs take precedence over local jurisprudence and are backed by some politicians who do not wish to upset their constituents...fifty other similar cases of girls from different parts of the country given as compensation have been averted with Samar’s dedicated work taking each individual case as far as the Supreme Court of Pakistan. One of the journalists that helped highlight the incident through different forms of media has been missing since then…In the case that Samar was fighting (pro bono) for the girls aged 2, 3, 5 and 6, she challenged the decision taken by a feudal lord. Despite the risk to her life she bravely continues to advocate and defend girls who may never even know her.”

First things first, Justice Khwaja, and then comment on what constitutes a marriage.