Whenever I ponder over the pronouncements and actions of the leaders of important organs of the state I regularly get amazed at the extent of hypocrisy that characterises our morality. In the last few weeks one could witness naked display of hypocrisy by various players that occupy the centre stage of our public policy. Let me begin with the ‘prophet’ of new Pakistan: Imran Khan.
I shuddered with disbelief when I found Khan sermonising in a women’s college on the International Women’s Day that if women in Pakistan demanded protection from domestic violence they would become westernised. Just as clerics often assert he also sweepingly claimed that family system in the western countries had completely broken down. In the wake of the passing of the anti-domestic violence bill by the Punjab assembly we have been hearing voices of all sorts. What Maulana Fazal-ur-Rehman said does not surprise me as his narrative caters to his electorate well. It, however, was shocking to see the ‘architect of modernity’ in Pakistan opposing the introduction of women protection bill in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) where women suffer most due to firmer socio-religious grip of men over social norms and practices. I would have no issue with him if he had stated that since his coalition partner, Jammat-e-Islami (JUI) was against the bill it was difficult for his party to introduce the legislation in the KP assembly. But he instead laboured to manufacture a logic that seemed weird, inappropriate and embarrassingly hypocritical. Khan’s two sons being residents of the UK, it is strange that he was lecturing women of Pakistan against recourse to law by suggesting that there was no family life in the west. How political expediency reigns supreme in Khan’s scheme of things was manifested a little while ago when he publicly disowned an active female party supporter and fundraiser just because she happened to be an Ahmadi by faith. Great leaders, from Abraham Lincoln to Nelson Mandela, take difficult decisions, which at times may even go against the grain. Going with the tide is an easy option, a sign of cowardice and sheer Machiavellian politics, which does not reflect well on the integrity of a leader.
A leader is one who generates the discourse of change. Gender discrimination is one of our most important social problems along with other forms of discrimination such as on account of social status and religious identities. I am under no illusion that a piece of legislation can prove a panacea and would remedy the situation overnight. No law can prove effective if a society is not ready intellectually for successful implementation of the law. But law can be seen as serving many functions besides helping the offended party. It represents the intent of the state and, at times, can prove a catalyst for change. While all societies in the world, one by one, have been updating their laws to make them compliant with the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) we remained negligent in this area. Now if the federal and Punjab governments have made a good initiative we should welcome them, as they are steps in the right direction and augur well for the strategic aim of establishing a tolerant and extremism-free society. This is an issue that must be placed above our petty political interests or regional identities. Interestingly, Khan chooses the strongest adjectives when he refers to the JUI and its leaders, but as for the fate of the women protection bill he wants it to be decided by the CII, which is headed by a leader of the JUI. Perhaps it was high time that women supporters of the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf told their leader that if females dancing in party meetings do not pose any threat to our social values then a piece of legislation that intends to save them from domestic violence is also not going to wreck society.
The way Pervez Musharraf has been handled by the mighty and powerful of the country is another instance of institutionalised hypocrisy. We regularly see how inspector generals (police) are regularly summoned by the superior courts and then torn to pieces over petty departmental matters. But when a matter concerns ‘generals’ our courts want the federal government to deal with them at its own peril. While the lawyers of Altaf Hussain have been struggling to get the ban on his right of expression removed it was a bit astonishing to see the escape of a general getting facilitated who in the recent past had not only dismissed the Supreme Court Chief Justice but had also put the honourable judges under house arrest. Government had sought the support of judiciary in making a dictator accountable for his deeds as one has to be either completely naive or observing tajahul-e-arifana (feigned ignorance) not to know that government on its own cannot achieve the task as the offender continues to enjoy protection of a very strong trade union.§ A perception that is getting fortified is that as Musharraf makes good his escape the demon of doctrine of necessity is rising from its grave again.
The writer teaches public policy in the UK and is the founding member of the Rationalist Society of Pakistan. He can be reached at [email protected]