Pakistan Press On Gender-Based Violence in Pakistan and Chinese Trafalgar: New Age Islam's Selection, 21 October 2020
By New Age Islam Edit
Bureau
21 October
2020
• Workshops against Gender-Based Violence Are
Of No Use in Pakistan
By Rafia Zakaria
• Gilgit-Baltistan’s Long Struggle
By Sajjad Ahmad
• Involving the Security Agencies Could Deepen
the Crisis
By Zahid Hussain
• A Chinese Trafalgar
By Harlan Ullman
-----
Workshops against Gender-Based Violence Are Of
No Use in Pakistan
By Rafia Zakaria
21 Oct 2020
I WANT to
believe. I really, truly want to believe when the representative in Pakistan
for the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime tweets his congratulations to
the participants and stakeholders of yet another workshop to build consensus on
gender-based violence. The content of the consensus is not mentioned but the
discourse, which apparently took place in some local hotel or event centre over
two days, was deemed “productive”.
Undoubtedly,
with this workshop’s conclusion, a box was ticked somewhere in the programme
monitoring of the labyrinthine UN reporting system. Like all the goodhearted
bureaucrats of the world, someone probably wrote a report. The report was read
by someone else and its presence discussed at a departmental meeting. All was as
it should be as the bureaucratic machine of the massive UN complex kept
chugging along, producing reports and briefs and more reports that would be
developed into new programmes that would do the same old thing.
I don’t
blame the UN for its well-meaning if ultimately useless workshop. And I am
certain that UN officials had the very best and most sincere of intentions when
they wrote tweets and attended the workshop. I am certain that the stakeholders
and others who attended were similarly serious about reducing gender-based
violence in Pakistan.
My
frustration draws from the truth that the entire production, and others like it
(and there are many), maintain the myth that success is measured not by the
actual reduction in gender-based violence but by the fact that such workshops
are conducted at all. The facilitated conversations, the free refreshments, etc
are all supposed to be goods in themselves; the workshop does not actually have
to be effective in solving the problem that gives rise to the need for it. It
simply has to happen. And so it happened.
Programmes
and workshops against gender-based violence are of no use in Pakistan.
The world
body and the workshops that it conducts are not, of course, the root of the
problem in Pakistan. That lies in the beliefs of Pakistanis themselves. Every
day, millions of women sit down and consume hours of television dramas that
normalise violence against women. The slaps and pushes that show up in their
plots are not only narrative devices, they are a means of reiterating what the
vast majority of Pakistanis believe, that a woman is property whose
responsibility is transferred from her father to her husband. Husbands can and
do demand that runaway wives be returned; fathers can insist that their
daughters cannot marry without their permission. There is no room for love in
any of these equations, there is only room for control, and everything in
society promotes this belief.
All sorts
of attempts have been made to change this. Muslim feminists have unravelled the
argument in favour of wife beating, saying many men have misinterpreted
religious injunctions. Muslim female scholars who have looked into the matter
argue against the view that the Muslim faith sanctions wife-beating.
But all that
does not seem to matter to Pakistanis. They go on behaving and believing that a
man can beat his wife, force her to have sexual relations (marital rape is not
a crime at all), abuse her in other ways, humiliate her, treat her like an
object and not like a human. Most Pakistani women assist the men in this
project, with mothers-in-law gleeful and drooling at the prospect of their son
clobbering the woman he has married, ensuring that his mother and not his wife
remains at the top of the female hierarchy of the household.
These are
the reasons why programmes and workshops against gender-based violence are of
no use in Pakistan. Awareness has been raised for decades, everyone knows
everything and no one sees any reason at all to change the way things are. The
very idea of Pakistani masculinity is based on the very visible subjugation of
women, where men who cannot ‘control’ the women in their family are seen as
weak and effeminate.
The
benevolent among men are in the habit of handing out some selection of approved
activities; within these boundaries women are supposed to operate happily and
without complaint. Even the increase in women working outside the home has not
changed a thing. Most women must get ‘permission’ to work and be submissive
when they get home at the end of the day, handing over their paychecks to and
cooking food for the lord and master of the house, and tending to his children.
Economic empowerment in this black hole is not empowerment at all.
Instead of
holding workshops on gender violence against Pakistani women for stakeholders,
the UN and other international bodies should hold workshops which have ordinary
men discuss and develop consensus on how best to curb the spirit and squash the
wishes of the women in their lives — wives and daughters and sisters. Such a
workshop would reveal the real beast that roars in the heart of almost every
Pakistani male, and whose healthy and continued life over decades and
generations means that there is no possibility of any sort of improvement in
the high rates of gender-based violence in the country.
The only
value of workshops as they exist is to provide some economic opportunities to
the local staff of bureaucratic agencies. Earnest and sincere, the staff has no
option but to hide the truth and insist on the probability of success against a
problem that Pakistanis do not consider a problem at all.
Perhaps
something could be done to ensure continued employment for them. For all the
rest of Pakistanis, life belongs to one of two categories separated by gender:
the women constantly asking, begging, hoping for permission; and the men
refusing, scolding and ignoring their appeals. In the time it takes to read
this article, thousands of Pakistani women have made beseeching requests, and
thousands of Pakistani men have delivered wordless and resounding slaps.
----
Rafia Zakaria is an attorney teaching
constitutional law and political philosophy.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1586186/so-set-in-our-ways
-----
Gilgit-Baltistan’s Long Struggle
By Sajjad Ahmad
21 Oct 2020
HARDLY any
government can ignore Gilgit-Baltistan’s loud demand for integration with
Pakistan. GB is a case study of a region denied its political rights for
decades. Since independence from Kashmir’s Dogra regime, GB has waged a
peaceful political struggle for its rights. First it was the war of liberation
from despotic Dogra rule, and later the efforts to end the colonial-era
Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR) that the government of Pakistan imposed on GB.
Opposition
against the FCR first surfaced in the mid-1950s. Formed in 1956, the Gilgit
League demanded reforms and the abolishment of the FCR, but was banned in 1958
under martial law. In the 1960s, GB’s youth, who moved to other cities for work
and education, established many political organisations and platforms to demand
an end to the FCR and repressive feudal rule. Two local parties of a
nationalist bent became instrumental in creating awareness among the people:
the Gilgit-Baltistan-Ladakh Jamhoori Mahazand the Tanzeem-i-Millat. Both were
banned by the authorities.
An incident
in January 1971 in which a school principal was fired by the district
commissioner for not promoting a non-local officer’s child triggered
large-scale protests in Gilgit for the first time, with the Tanzeem taking the
lead. The demonstrations turned into riots. Subsequently, the Tanzeem
leadership was arrested and jailed. The awakening of 1971 did not go
unaddressed by the government. When Zulfikar Ali Bhutto became prime minister,
he initiated reforms in GB. The FCR, feudal rule and the status of political
agency were abolished. Bhutto also released the Tanzeem leaders, incorporating
some of their demands in the reform process.
The credit
of initiating reforms in GB certainly goes to the PPP. After Z.A. Bhutto it was
Benazir Bhutto who first introduced party-based elections in the region in
1994. In 2009, a reform package, the Gilgit-Baltistan Empowerment and
Self-Governance Order, was promulgated by the PPP. Though the package fell
short of expectations, it gave an identity to the region by changing its
nomenclature and significantly stirred debate among locals about their
political rights.
The people
are expecting a provisional provincial status.
Since 2009,
GB’s youth and civil society have been discussing, debating and creating awareness
about GB’s political problems, constitutional status, its linkage with the
Kashmir issue and possible legal alternatives to removing the hurdles to its
integration. Several forums have been established and a new enlightened
generation has emerged. On many issues, such as the Pakistan government’s
decision to end wheat subsidy or the imposition of tax, the population has come
forward together in prolonged protests irrespective of their ethnic, linguistic
or religious affiliations. In a carefully worded 2015 resolution, GB’s assembly
demanded that Islamabad integrate GB with Pakistan as a provisional province
until the final settlement of the Kashmir conflict in light of the UN
resolutions. Political maturity, awareness, the emergence of the educated class
and a united stand appear to be some of the reasons behind pushing authorities
towards finding solutions.
When the
PML-N formed the government in GB in 2015, it constituted a committee which was
headed by the then adviser to the prime minister on foreign affairs, Sartaj
Aziz, and included experts on the law. It was given the task of reviewing the
constitutional status of GB and giving suggestions for constitutional and
administrative reforms, keeping in view the implications of those
recommendations vis-à-vis the UN resolutions on Kashmir.
This
high-powered committee gave a nod to granting GB provisional provincial status
until the final settlement of the Kashmir dispute; representation in the
National Assembly and Senate through constitutional amendments in Articles 51
and 59; and representation of GB in all constitutional bodies like the NFC,
NEC, Irsa and others. Though these recommendations were hailed by the people,
instead of incorporating them, the government framed and promulgated another
executive order in 2018.
After the
PPP and PML-N, it is now the PTI government that has announced a way out. The
political and religious leaderships of GB and civil society are largely united
in their demand for a provisional provincial status. It appears that the PTI
leadership is planning to integrate GB as a fifth province. Hopes across GB are
high, along with election fever. Any future solution that falls short of the
people’s aspirations might stir opposition. Memories of the efforts put in by
previous GB generations are still alive. In fact, their demands are much louder
now.
----
Sajjad Ahmad teaches in the social sciences and
liberal arts department of IBA.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1586185/gbs-long-struggle
-----
Involving the Security Agencies Could Deepen
the Crisis
By Zahid Hussain
21 Oct 2020
IT is
getting messier. An increasingly strident opposition and an obstinate prime
minister are now locked in a battle that may not have a winner. The battle
lines are still hazy, notwithstanding the PDM’s impressive show of strength at
the two recent rallies in Gujranwala and Karachi. The motley coalition is not
clear who its main target is.
Nawaz
Sharif’s no-holds-barred virtual speech at Gujranwala where he named names has
once again shifted the battle lines: it is not the security establishment but
its commander that is the target. The former prime minister’s latest narrative
has changed the line of attack.
It may not
be the first time that the military leadership has been blamed for conspiring
against civilian dispensations in this country, but Sharif’s tirade has more
serious connotations. It is not a military ruler but a serving army chief
against whom wrongdoing has been alleged. There has been no mincing of words.
That seems
to have changed the PDM’s entire battle plan that was meant to focus on the PTI
government. Sharif’s scathing attack on the current military leadership may be
too much for some alliance partners as well as his own party members.
The PM has
the rare quality of pushing everyone into the opposition camp.
Unsurprisingly,
the tenor of most opposition leaders at the two rallies was markedly less
aggressive. They mostly kept their guns pointed at the prime minister and his
failed policies. But it’s the former prime minister in self-exile who continues
to dominate the PDM’s narrative.
There may
not yet be a groundswell of support for the opposition movement, but the PDM
rallies have already put the government on the back foot. Imran Khan has
reacted to the opposition’s onslaught with his usual bluster, threatening to
put his rivals into jail. His frustration was evident from his outburst against
his opponents last week. He sounded like a leader who has already lost the
plot.
He is
conveniently using the establishment as a shield to confront the rising
opposition challenge. But, perhaps, he knows that he is playing on a sticky
wicket. His cover may not work when it comes to the crunch. It is not so much
the opposition movement but his government’s failure that has been the main
reason for him losing his popular base.
The shelf
life of Pakistani elected civilian leaders in office is usually not very long,
but the decline of the Khan government is indeed phenomenal. It has failed on
almost every front. That has provided the opposition a very favourable
situation to launch an offensive. The prime minister finds himself in a more
precarious situation with fewer allies who too do not seem fully on board. He
has the rare quality of pushing everyone into the opposition camp. It is now
virtually the PTI versus the rest.
It is
Punjab that could prove to be Khan’s Waterloo. The PTI-led coalition government
hinges on a razor-thin majority in the province that is also the PML-N’s
stronghold. All indicators show that the PTI is fast losing its popular base in
the province due to its own ineptitude and inexperience. Many analysts agree
that it’s probably the worst administration in the province in recent history.
With an ineffective chief minister at the helm, the PTI government is hardly
capable of stopping the opposition’s movement.
Given that
the bureaucracy is up in arms, there is no functioning administration in place
in the province. The rising prices of essential food items have largely been
caused by governance failure. But there is hardly any realisation within
government ranks about the seriousness of the crisis.
The prime
minister now seeks to handle this crisis through his so-called Tiger Force. The
controversial ‘volunteer force’ is now supposed to assist the administration
and check inflation. It shows the utter bankruptcy of the government. Serious
policy measures are substituted by gimmickry. With the opposition’s
anti-government drive gaining momentum, it is hard to see how the provincial
administration can deal with this challenge. That will have a direct bearing on
the federal government.
With no
indication of the prime minister coming out of his hallowed bubble, there is
increasing pressure on the security establishment to deal with the situation.
The escalating attack from the opposition has worsened its predicament. Nothing
could be worse for institutional credibility.
It is an
unprecedented situation limiting the options of the security establishment. Its
position as an arbiter has also weakened. Any action against the opposition
directly or indirectly involving the security agencies could deepen the crisis.
The current stand-off can only be resolved through political means. What
happened in Karachi where the IG was allegedly kidnapped by the security
agencies and forced to order the arrest of a PML-N leader is ominous.
Regrettably,
the prime minister appears incapable of rationally dealing with any political
crisis. His confrontational approach has largely been responsible for the
current political standoff in the country. His recent speech that now the
nation would see a “new Imran Khan” implies that he will come down much harder
on the opposition and does not give hope of the rational political approach
that is needed to defuse the situation. He is increasingly resorting to
heavy-handed means to curtail freedom of expression. This may also push the
opposition into taking a more aggressive stance.
It’s an
extremely dangerous situation, with all the major political forces arrayed against
an ineffective government relying on the security forces for its survival.
Pakistan’s internal and external security cannot afford the growing political
instability. A declining economic situation and rising unemployment have
fuelled social unrest that could get worse if the political instability
continues.
Indeed, the
main responsibility lies with the government, but one hopes the opposition
shows some rationality and does not take matters to the limit. One must learn
some lesson from our history that the politics of confrontation encourages
anti-democratic forces. There will be no winners. One can only hope that sanity
prevails before it is too late.
----
Zahid Hussain is an author and journalist.
https://www.dawn.com/news/1586187/a-precarious-situation
-----
A Chinese Trafalgar
By Harlan Ullman
October 21,
2020
To many
observers in the United States, China is now America’s main threat and enemy.
The litany of wrong doings and evidence of China’s malevolence is long. Theft
of IP; militarization of tiny islets off its coasts in international waters;
repression from Hong Kong to the Uighars; hostile penetration of American
society; and of course the Wuhan Flu are among China’s obvious transgressions.
One
solution, agreed to by Republicans and Democrats alike, is to increase
America’s military forces. In particular, the plans for Battle Force 2045 and a
Navy almost double its current size of about 290 ships is illustrative. And the
U.S. Army and Marine Corps have shifted strategic focus to the Pacific and a
potential conflict with China.
Today marks
the 215th anniversary of the greatest naval battle of the modern era and
certainly since Salamis two and a quarter millennia ago. On this day, Vice
Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson hoisted his famous signal from the starboard
yardarm of his flagship HMS Victory: “England expects that every man will do
his duty.” Then the Royal Navy obliterated the Combined French and Spanish
fleet under the command of French Admiral Pierre Villeneuve at the Battle of
Trafalgar.
Of
thirty-three Franco-Spanish ships of the line, twenty-one were captured and one
sunk and about 4500 sailors killed. The Royal Navy lost no ships and had only
1/10 the casualties with one major exception. Nelson died of wounds.
This
history lesson does not suggest that the U.S. should not and cannot compete
with China economically, diplomatically, ideologically, strategically,
politically and technologically. But over-militarizing policy as we did from
Vietnam to the second Iraq War almost always induces some form of failure
Perhaps the
U.S. Navy has similar visions of a future sea battle against China’s PLA Navy.
And a similar outcome could occur. However, Trafalgar was fought in 1805. It
would take a full decade until Napoleon and France would finally be defeated at
the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. No matter how decisive British sea power was in
commanding the oceans, the war had to be won on the ground.
The current
U.S. National Defence Strategy continues the Obama “four plus one” policy
focusing on a great power competition with China and Russia. The Pentagon is
directed “to deter and if war comes defeat” a list of adversaries topped by
China and Russia. But no where are specific definitions to be found of what
“compete, deter and defeat” mean; how each is to be achieved; and how success
or failure is measured.
One
suspects that the Cold War maxim of ensuring deterrence by virtue of
maintaining countervailing military strength suggests that war with China will
not arise as the risks are too great. That proposition obviously worked during
the Cold War when thermonuclear war would have been existential and neither
East nor West had irreparable differences that only could have been resolved by
military force. But does that logic still apply today? That, to quote
Shakespeare, is THE question.
Should war
break out between China and America and if the PLA Navy was eviscerated as
Villeneuve’s fleet was, would that make any strategic difference? Then, London
had allies in Europe. Wellington, the other great military commander of the
day, had bled the French Army badly in the Peninsula Campaign in Spain greatly
weakening Napoleon. And if Blucher had not appeared at the moment critique, the
“close run thing” as Wellington later described Waterloo could have gone the
other way.
Trafalgar
also provided other strategic and tactical insights. HMS Victory was forty-six
years old at the time of the battle, far more than the life expectancy of
modern warships and is still in commission moored in Portsmouth in the south of
England as an historical monument Realizing the only way to defeat a continental
power was to win on the periphery, this was Britain’s strategy. And it depended
on allies.
My concerns
with the current identification of China as an adversary are, first, there is
no apparent off-ramp to de-escalate a deteriorating relationship and, second,
as great power competition in 1914 was a major cause of World War I this one
could become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Third, as two world wars and a cold
one should have taught us, allies are crucial to success and to victory. How
many allies would we have if there were a naval confrontation or worse a major
conflict with China?
This
history lesson does not suggest that the U.S. should not and cannot compete
with China economically, diplomatically, ideologically, strategically,
politically and technologically. But over-militarizing policy as we did from
Vietnam to the second Iraq War almost always induces some form of failure. And,
in areas of vital mutual interest from climate change and terrorism to
preventing future pandemics, cooperation cannot be dismissed.
In 1805,
England had Pitt the Younger as Prime Minister and Nelson and Wellington. Who
are America’s Pitt, Nelson and Wellington today?
----
Dr Harlan Ullman is Senior Advisor at the
Atlantic Council. His next book is The Fifth Horseman: To Be Feared, Friended
or Fought in a MAD-Driven Age
https://dailytimes.com.pk/680012/a-chinese-trafalgar/
----
URL: https://newageislam.com/pakistan-press/pakistan-press-gender-based-violence/d/123215
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic
Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism