How could a tribal council in a Pakistani village sentence a young woman to rape, as revenge for a crime allegedly committed by her brother?
By Bina Sarwar New York Times
Karachi
How could a tribal council in a Pakistani village sentence a young woman to rape, as revenge for a crime allegedly committed by her brother? The case would have passed without attracting attention if the local imam had not come out against the act in his Friday sermon and a journalist who heard the words published the story.
This is the normative attitude towards rape - although to date no tribal council (known as panchayat, or jirga in areas bordering Afghanistan) is known to have issued such a verdict. Government officials turn a blind eye to the rulings of the councils, which often deal with disputes over land or within the family. Police chiefs and governors trying to end the jirga law do not get the government's support. Jirga law spread outside the tribal areas at the same time as the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. Many Pakistanis find a connection between the two, being "traditional", but the jirga tradition has nothing to do with religion.
Jirga law stems from tribal customs and the power of tribal elders. The state, which agreed to give up some of its powers in exchange for social stability, allowed these men to take responsibility for many "private" matters. That is, it gave a small group private power over others, especially women. No less worrying is the fact that the state, in its insecurity, may give up more powers by defining public matters as private. As actually happened with Islamic law and practice.
Thus, for example, in the panchayat order which stated that the punishment for rape would be carried out by four men, there is an echo of the distortions in the law introduced by General Zia ul Haq (whose military rule lasted from 1977 to 1988) in his attempts to Islamize Pakistan. One law, from 1979, requires the presence of four witnesses before it can be established that a crime of rape or adultery has been committed. The law erased the difference between adultery and rape, turned a private offense (adultery) into a criminal one and at the same time actually made rape a private matter, when it stated that the burden of proof is on the victim.
Question marks were placed on Zia's campaign. In 81, a federal sharia court ruled that the death penalty by stoning is not Islamic. But the law was brought back under political pressure. The problem is that when the state defines some aspect of social power as Islamic or traditional, it creates a new layer of power holders, who will protect it even when the specific "tradition" is new and the "Islamic law" is even newer. Certain sectors of society internalized the values enshrined in law during Zia's time, and no government that has arisen since has had the courage to repeal the laws.
In the meantime, the government actually entrusts the rights of women as citizens and as human beings to the elders of the tribe, in a society that treats women as property.
It is good that these cases provoke a national discussion. But the problems involved are not exclusive to Pakistan. The fact must be recognized that forms of traditionalism and fundamentalism can in a certain sense be very modern, in large parts of the world, and that they must be fought using modern terms, usually secular, without losing cultural or religious identity. This is the struggle going on today in Pakistan and other places, and it is certainly not abstract. It is carried out on the bodies of girls and women, and sometimes also men.
In the end, the state will have to stand up for its right to protect all its citizens. The guilty in the rape case must be punished, but according to the law. And the injured family must be treated with sensitivity and care. It certainly won't harm traditions or beliefs that have value.
The author is a journalist in the Pakistani newspaper "The News".
https://www.hayadan.org.il/BuildaGate4/general2/data_card.php?Cat=~~~289661881~~~34&SiteName=hayadan
