|
| April 7, 2006 | Friday | Rabi-ul-Awwal 8, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Smiles from Sri Lanka
Harassment
What could brighten the country’s image
Immigration reform
THE government of Pakistan is concerned about building a positive image for the country for which it seems to be struggling to hire highly paid and presentable consultants. These people are meant to take the Pakistan roadshow to the rest of the world to prove that the country is as sane as any other in the South Asian region, if not the entire world.
THE constitutional crisis in Thailand is not about to end soon, the resignation of its prime minister notwithstanding. Mr Thaksin Shinawatra, who announced on Tuesday that he was stepping down as prime minister to reunite the country, may have succeeded in taking the wind out of the opposition’s sails for the time being. But Thailand’s political problems will not vanish right away. Since Mr Thaksin continues to be the leader of his party, he is expected to manipulate politics from behind the scenes. Besides, in the absence of a strong leader, Thailand’s politics is bound to be muddied and confused. This may pose problems because the country is faced with a constitutional crisis that has to be resolved soon. The snap elections on April 2 were called by Mr Thaksin in a bid to establish his popular standing. His party, the Thai Rak Thai (TRT), won 16 million votes — an impressive count — but 10 million voters cast abstention votes and another million spoilt their ballots. Thirty-nine out of 500 seats could not be filled as no candidate in some constituencies won the required minimum of 20 per cent of votes to get elected. Since the parliament cannot meet until these seats are filled within a month, Thailand’s future remains hazy. It is not known if the opposition parties, which boycotted Sunday’s polls, will agree to contest the by-elections now scheduled for April 23 and thus allow the TKT-dominated parliament to function.
Mr Thaksin’s political fortunes do not look as bright as they were until February 2005 when he won a landslide victory in the elections. Since 2001, when he rose to the pinnacle of power on a populist platform, this businessman-turned-politician appeared to be unassailable. The break came in February this year when he sold his family-owned Shin Corporation to the Singapore government’s Temasek Holdings making a neat tax-free profit of 1.9 billion dollars. The charges of corruption flung at him by the opposition leaders stuck and they managed to mobilise massive street protests that have proved to be the undoing of Mr Thaksin. If Thailand’s political crisis has not spun out of control so far, it is because of the moderating influence of the revered monarch, King Bhumibol Adulyadej. The king, who has kept a neutral posture since the country has been in the grip of agitation, is believed to have met Mr Thaksin and advised him to step down.
Thailand’s experience should serve as a lesson for many Third World countries with similar problems. High-level government corruption alienates that section of the people which feels it is being robbed. In Thailand’s case the reaction of the middle classes in the urban areas and the intelligentsia brought down the government. Even though the rural masses continued to support Mr Thaksin who had poured huge sums into Thailand’s 77,000 villages for entrepreneurial start-up funds, the urban-led opposition had the final say. By stepping down at this stage rather than making this a case of his political ego, Mr Thaksin has saved the country further turmoil. He may still make a comeback on the basis of his popularity in the rural areas. Significantly, the army has kept a low profile through the past several months when the government was under siege. Although Thailand had a long history of the military’s intervention in politics until 1992 this time there has been no talk of the army taking over on the plea of the politicians’ corruption. Hopefully, better sense will continue to prevail among the army generals.
PAKISTAN have just ended a satisfying tour of Sri Lanka, winning both the one-day and the Test series. While credit for the Test series victory must go to Mohammed Asif, the sensational new find in pace bowling, the one-day matches provided for some competitive though incompetent cricket from either side. Even before the tour started, Sri Lanka were without some of their senior professionals like fast bowler Chaminda Vaas and skipper Marven Attapatu. The tour began with one-day internationals. The first game was washed out by rain while in the other two, Pakistan were hard put to it holding their own against the hosts. But they eked out narrow wins to take the series 2-0.
The Test series, restricted to two games, began on a high note for Pakistan. Sri Lanka were bowled out for less than 200. Even so, Pakistan conceded a nominal first innings lead after which the home side batted with rare abandon. Led by a magnificent 185 by Kumar Sangakarra, Sri Lanka set Pakistan an impossible task of making 458 runs to win. Pakistan saved the day with some resolute batting. In Kandy, on a wicket helping speed and spin, Pakistan ended with a deficit of 109 runs and a Sri Lanka victory looked more than likely. Mohammad Asif, bowling with great accuracy, had other ideas. He finished the match with 11 wickets for just 71 runs. Seldom after the heyday of Imran Khan, Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis have Pakistan been better served than by Mohammad Asif. It is too soon, perhaps, to compare him with the Australian great Glen McGrath. His real test will come when Pakistan tour England later this summer. But there are also chinks in our armour. We have to find a reliable partner for Mohammad Asif and we have to refurbish our batting order, beginning from the top. Pakistan will find England a far tougher proposition than they did at home last winter.
WE have only Mr Akhtar Mengal’s account of the events preceding Wednesday’s siege of his Karachi house to go by since the police declined to comment on the event. But from the details given by the former Balochistan chief minister, it appears that his car was being followed by two men and his guards managed to capture one of them, who turned out to be an intelligence man. The man was detained by Mr Mengal, which led to the siege, the eventual handing over of the intelligence operative to the police, and the arrest of Mr Mengal’s guards and driver, the whole drama ending at around midnight. In the process, the residents of the area where Mr Mengal lives were put to considerable inconvenience. Some may no doubt have drawn considerable amusement from the fact that an intelligence operative was nabbed by those whom he was chasing.
Now, whatever Mr Mengal’s politics, and this has to be judged in the wider Balochistan context, the crude effort to put a tail on him cannot be seen as anything other than harassment. Mr Mengal may have been wrong in detaining the intelligence man, but the police had no business to stage a show of force in a residential area and scare peaceful citizens. Such open intimidation of political opponents does not behove a government committed to enlightened moderation. The Balochistan issue will not go away by letting the intelligence agencies have a field day abducting and harassing Baloch sardars and political activists (Sindhi nationalists have also complained of victimisation in various forms). That most formidable and troublesome of the sardars, Nawab Akbar Bugti, is wrong when he suggests that negotiations to solve the Balochistan issue should be held under international guarantees, but political talks involving the main actors are essential. A political solution to the problem cannot be brought about through overbearing intelligence agencies.
Unfortunately, those responsible for projecting the positive image or the policymakers in general fail to emphasize the good things that the country has always had such as the extremely liberal family laws, especially the divorce law.
The inability to flag the things that are good about the country and its legal system emanates from the larger problem of ownership. Successive leaders in Pakistan have shied away from propagating policies that they have not made themselves. Such an approach, unfortunately, denies the country the good publicity it deserves.
The family laws made in 1962, especially the divorce laws, fall in the category of policies that Islamabad has failed to publicise. The fact is that Pakistan has got one of the best divorce laws that treat women almost on par with men. The column 18 of the ‘nikahnama’ that grants a woman the right of divorce is a sensible piece of legislation that empowers women to seek an honourable exit out of a bad relationship. It is one of the least publicised facts that the right of divorce is a delegated right that can be implemented very easily.
It allows a woman to draw a divorce deed even on a blank paper signed by two witnesses to be admitted in the office of the chairman of the arbitration council of her area with a copy dispatched to the spouse. After submitting a copy of the deed the parties have to wait for a period of 90 days during which the arbitration council would try to counsel the two sides for reconsidering the decision.
The parties have the option to come personally or be represented by a third party. There is no force used on the woman to reconsider the decision or to face a litany of false charges from her spouse as would happen if she were to apply for a ‘khula’ which is the option offered to her under the Sharia law. After the end of the 90-day period the arbitration council is bound to annul the marriage through issuing a certificate of divorce. Not many countries can boost of such a civil and easy method of divorce that does not violate the honour of the parties concerned.
Interestingly, very little is popularly known about this law. In fact, the usual practice of the mullahs is to encourage women to surrender this right. Moreover, there is no effort ever made to educate women about this particular right. A friend getting married recently had to confront the problem of the mullah acting as the ‘nikah khan’ challenging the said law. The mullah’s contention was that both the divorce certificate issued by the arbitration council and the nikahnama were illegal. He was of the opinion that since the Sharia only granted the man the right of divorce, the nikahnama issued under the Family Laws Ordinance of 1962 was illegal and, thus, null and void. In this particular case, he refused to marry the couple.
According to this logic, all marriages solemnized after 1962 are illegal. Admitting such logic would, of course, create a major complication for the generation born of such marriages. In any case, sitting through the friend’s marriage ceremony one wondered what might have happened if the families concerned were not educated and were not aware of their rights. It would certainly have been most embarrassing for the woman who might have found her would-be in-laws walking out on her. Furthermore, the mullah could perfectly have declared her earlier marriage a case of adultery since the earlier marriage was also solemnized according to the Family Laws Ordinance of 1962.
Sadly enough, there is no method available to punish the mullahs who seem to be challenging the writ of the state. Successive governments have allowed the clergy to selectively challenge the laws without invoking the ire of the state. The very fact that the state has allowed two types of laws to exist: the family laws and the Sharia laws, does not make it easy for the people.
The reality is that there are very few Muslim countries that could boost of laws that are fair to women. However, what is important to note is Islamabad’s inability to publicise such forward-looking legislation. The reason for this apparent inability to propagate such positive laws lies in the constant efforts that successive regimes have made in befriending the religious clergy and the most backward looking and conservative elements of society.
Given the power of feudalism and feudal attitudes in society, the leadership in Pakistan does not dare own laws that question the power of the conservative elements of society. Since the said piece of legislation empowers women, there are few in the country who would like to own laws that would question the hold of the powerful segment of society over the disempowered part. Thus, the women are allowed to imagine that they are dependent on a man for their freedom rather than being conscious of the fact that they are equally capable of seeking an exit out of a painful relationship.
Surely, those who would like to abuse a woman’s body and soul for their honour would not like women to know about their rights. There are areas in Pakistan where women are kept in chains through marrying them off to the Quran or much younger male relatives. This is a culture where female empowerment is a stigma, or where a woman is expected to beg for her rights or her freedom. Hence, it is not odd that a majority of men folk, and intriguingly, a lot of women as well, saw Mukhtaran Mai as a recluse and a culprit rather than a symbol of empowerment. Soon after the Mai case, one heard a lot of people talk about the financial aid she had secured or the attention she got internationally.
Such remarks were made without considering the pain and anguish she had suffered, for that money or rewards could not compensate her for what she had suffered and lost. Not surprisingly, the government’s efforts were focused on propagating how it was protecting the victim. There was certainly no effort made to scrap the controversial law or custom that permitted honour killing.
It is the same mindset that is extremely uncomfortable in owning the liberal divorce or other similar laws in the country, or fail to punish those that violate such legislation.
The fact is that the socio-political environment in the country is highly conservative. The Family Law ordinances were promulgated in 1962 during a period when the military regime of General Ayub Khan was keen to project a liberal image of itself and the country. Such laws contributed to creating a positive image of the military regime as a modern institution capable of modernising the country. However, the regimes that followed (both civilian and military) were not keen to implement the new rules.
Over the years, the country has drifted towards greater conservatism. The political forces appear to be as socially conservative as the non-political elements. Resultantly, Pakistan continues to struggle with the basic issues of empowering almost half of its population. It is part of the conservative ethos that does not allow the government to talk about laws that would certainly project some aspects of the country as being truly modern.
PRESIDENT Bush says he’s committed to “comprehensive reform” of America’s broken immigration system: legislation that would both increase enforcement to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into the country and provide a legal way to, as Mr Bush puts it, “match willing foreign workers with willing American employers to fill the jobs that Americans are unwilling to do.”
But the president himself has been unwilling, so far, to match his words about reform with deeds to make certain it gets done. Now, with the Senate debating the explosive issue and protests against a draconian House bill flowering from the streets of Los Angeles to the high schools of Northern Virginia, it is time for Mr Bush to step up.
In a welcome move this week, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved a realistic and humane immigration measure. It not only would create a temporary worker programme to help stem the flow of illegal immigration but also would permit those already working here illegally to obtain citizenship eventually.
Credit for this goes especially to the minority of committee Republicans — Chairman Arlen Specter and Sens. Sam Brownback, Mike DeWine and Lindsey O. Graham — who voted with Democrats for this sensible approach, under which illegal workers would have to register, pay fines and back taxes, learn English, and wait their turn for legal status.
The Judiciary Committee’s work could well be fleeting. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has a competing, enforcement-only approach that will also be debated on the Senate floor. And the measure approved by the House — with, it’s important to recall, a statement of strong support from the administration — would, among other things, make it a felony to be in the United States illegally or to help illegal immigrants.
—The Washington Post