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 unknowilngly 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.