Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Development & Aid, Gender, Headlines, Human Rights, Poverty & SDGs

PAKISTAN: TV Debates Take on Anti-Women Islamic Laws

Zofeen Ebrahim - Asia Media Forum*

KARACHI, Jun 15 2006 (IPS) - Filmmaker Hasan Zaidi is an optimist. He is sure that debates currently being conducted over a private TV channel could help see the repeal of Pakistan’s Hudood Ordinances – a set of laws based on Islamic decrees, criticised as being anti-women.

”It will change things,” the young filmmaker predicts confidently, referring to the ordinances that cover a range of crimes, the most controversial being one that requires a woman to provide four witnesses to prove rape, or face charges of adultery – punishable by being stoned to death.

But the debates, conducted as part of the Zara Sochiye (Just Think) programme of Geo TV network, is the first serious challenge to the much reviled Hudood Ordinances, introduced 27 years ago by military dictator Gen. Zia-ul-Haq. ”We’ve taken a good, big risk but it is worth taking,” said a Geo spokesperson. ”The responsibility is entirely our own, and we are very aware of that.”

The network has taken pains to convince people that the purpose behind the TV campaign is to provide “food for thought” and “highlight some problems with the ordinances”. It is stressed that there is “no American hand, no government hand, no NGO hand or any other hand”.

It is natural for many in this Islamic nation to look at the campaign with wariness. General elections have been set for 2007 and there are simmering internal conflicts, compounded by anti-U.S. sentiments that are at an all-time high. Across the border in Afghanistan, the Taliban is slowly regaining a stronghold in some key areas.

People have received the programme well, if for no other reason than that Geo TV has had the courage to bell the cat.

”I know some sceptics believe this campaign to have the backing of the government – so that an atmosphere can be created for rethinking these laws. But even if that is so, it is an important precedent,” is how Zaidi sees it.

Zulfiqar Shah, a labour activist, is one cynic who looks at the campaign as an exercise in futility. “Most such campaigns are coming from outside (donor driven) and till something happens inside, till we have a sound political basis and people have a say in government policies, laws such as these will remain.”

“This is the first time that there is such an open and public debate on the laws – previously, people and institutions, other than a handful of rights-based organisations and women rights activists, have shied away from even talking about such a blatantly discriminatory and shameful law, fearing the religious extremists,” says Bushra Gohar, a rights activist.

Gohar hopes that, if nothing else, the debate would “at least educate the people about how the ordinances have reduced women’s status in the country and have legalised open and blatant discrimination against them in the name of religion.”

For 27 years, the draconian laws have been opposed by political parties, rights organisations, women’s groups and even the legal fraternity. Yet, they stubbornly remain on the statute books as they are based on Islamic decrees.

Enforced by Gen. Haq in 1979, as part of an Islamisation process, without public or parliamentary debate, the ordinances were supposed to work in tandem with the country’s secular legal system. Subsequent governments tried to do away with them but could not get past the religious right. Even President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has shied away from attempting repeal.

Disturbingly, in this televised debates, the raucous voices of religious scholars are heard over arguments made by women’s groups and recommendations from legal eagles that are against the ordinances.

The network’s approach is to ride with the current. Says a Geo representative: “Our tag line asks – Hudood Allah par behas nahin! Kya Hudood Ordinances Islami hain?” (There is no debate on the decrees of God but are the Hudood Ordinances Islamic?”)

The decision not to give voice to women and rights organisations may be “strategic” as they claim. But the campaign, while quite vivacious, is conspicuous by the absence of female religious scholars. “It seems as if we don’t have any women religious scholars who may also have a point of view,” commented Samita Ahmed, an architect, at one of the debates.

One of the programme producers claims that half the battle has already been won. “Geo has brought various religious scholars to, at least, accept that the ordinances, as they are – are not comprehensive or reflective of the Hudood set by the Quran and Sunnah.”

Zaidi views it differently. “Geo has done a good job of exposing the shallowness of the arguments of the ordinances’ proponents such as Mufti Muneebur Rehman. Hopefully, people can see their merit, or lack of it, for themselves.”

“I can completely understand the sensitivities involved in questioning widely misunderstood religious dogma but I hope it does not mean a fait accompli amendment as opposed to a repeal, which is what really should happen to the Hudood Ordinances,” adds Zaidi, saying the content of some of the interviews covers this particular weakness well.

“We leave it to the people to carry the debate further in whatever way they choose to. Good or bad, it’s a conscious decision we have taken, to keep it a debate,” said the Geo representative.

“Obviously, an electronic media campaign of this sort is positive as people get to view and listen to both sides of the debate. However, in the present political set-up, with the support of the mullahs crucial to the government, it is difficult to say whether it will have an immediate impact on our legislators who are in a position to have the law repealed,” says Ayesha Azfar, a journalist.

“I support the campaign of Geo in as much as the campaign has started a dialogue and debate which was necessary,” explains Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, who, in 1997, had recommended a repeal of the ordinances in his famous ‘Report of the Commission of Inquiry for Women’. “A large number of issues are taboo in our society for no valid reason. But with the great advances in the field of electronic media, it is not possible to keep the people ignorant about various so-called sacred issues and keep a ban on their discussion.”

His words are endorsed by Farah Moazzam, an Islamic scholar who, while not in favour of a repeal, agrees that an amendment is called for. ‘’The power of the media can never be underestimated. Politically, however, it may not serve much purpose unless there are hands behind this campaign or Pakistan miraculously becomes a true democracy and starts valuing the views of people.”

(*The Asia Media Forum is a space for journalists to share insights on issues related to the media and their profession, as well as stories, information and opinions on democracy, development and human rights in Asia.)