Wednesday, September 15, 2021

The Drone Unit that Helped the Taliban Win the War

The work of a drone unit, reported in detail here for the first time, shows how the Taliban were able to win the war against the U.S.-backed forces in Afghanistan

The Drone Unit that Helped the Taliban Win the War
Two civilian contractors prepare a US Army 14′ Shadow surveillance drone before it’s launched at Forward Operating Base Shank May 8, 2013 in Logar Province, Afghanistan / Robert Nickelsberg / Getty Images

As the U.S. began its final drawdown of troops from Afghanistan in the spring, the Taliban’s drone unit moved into position for its most important mission yet. A team of 12 engineers-turned-assassins, it was tasked with firing what would turn out to be one of the decisive shots in the closing stages of the war.

The target was a regional-level official in the north of the country named Piram Qul. Like so many of Afghanistan’s now deposed ruling elite, Piram Qul was a beguiling mixture of the charismatic and corrupt, a veteran of the mujahedeen’s struggle against the Soviets in the 1980s who had come to regard his youthful principles as an impediment to power. He was an ethnic Uzbek warlord who was part of many anti-Taliban Afghan factions, including Ahmed Shah Massoud’s Jamiati-i-Islami. In the years since the U.S.-led invasion, he had served as a member of Parliament and presided over local militias accused of a range of human rights abuses, including kidnapping and murder. What mattered to the Taliban, though, was the stranglehold he had on Takhar, a province on Afghanistan’s border with Tajikistan — an area traditionally hard for them to influence. Piram Qul was one of the last dominoes that needed to fall if the insurgents were to sweep across the north and trigger a decisive advance on Kabul. Their plan to assassinate him was motivated by necessity, not vengeance.

On the morning of May 2, Piram Qul was meeting villagers in the district of Rustaq in Takhar, accompanied by his usual retinue of bodyguards. Far above, a Taliban drone filmed him using a camera connected to the internet via a satellite signal. The hit squad’s leader was stationed at an undisclosed location nearby, where he controlled the drone and monitored the camera’s video feed using a laptop computer. He knew the drone was unlikely to be spotted. Its body and wings were painted custom blue to blend into the sky, so were the mortar rounds attached to its homemade weapons rack. The drone had cost the Taliban tens of thousands of dollars to buy, and it was quieter than cheaper and easily available commercial models. Nevertheless, the lead assassin needed to hold his nerve and remember everything he had practiced. This was not the first attack his team had carried out, nor would it be the last. But for tactical and psychological reasons it was essential he got it right. Kill Piram Qul, and the Taliban would be a step closer to sweeping through the north in a matter of weeks. Miss, and Piram Qul might encourage local security forces to regroup, stalling the Taliban’s advance and leaving the drone team embarrassed and exposed.

Around 11 a.m., the unit leader uttered a prayer and keyed the launch code into his computer. Seconds later the mission was over. Piram Qul was dead before he even realized he was under attack. The war could now be won.

Soon afterward, before any of Afghanistan’s cities had fallen to the Taliban, a member of the drone unit spoke to me on condition of anonymity about the assassination. The first of two members who agreed to be interviewed for this article also hinted at the extraordinary events that were about to unfold across the country. “We are one of the main forces that has demoralized the enemy and is causing them to flee,” he said.

While images of the Taliban alongside vast stockpiles of abandoned U.S. and Afghan military equipment have featured heavily in Western media coverage of recent weeks, they do not tell the story of America’s defeat. Classic insurgent tactics and unconventional weapons won this war. The work of the drone unit, reported in detail here for the first time, shows how the Taliban were able to neutralize the technological and military superiority of the U.S. In the past few days, the drone unit has again been busy, carrying out reconnaissance in the province of Panjshir that allowed Taliban ground forces to rout remnants of the Tajik-dominated Northern Alliance hiding there.

The two drone unit members interviewed for this article spoke to me in several meetings that took place in secret in Kabul. All the interviews were held before and during the nationwide offensive that led to the Taliban entering the capital on Aug. 15 and declaring victory. Both members asked for their identities to be concealed due to the nature of the work. At one meeting, the two members were among a number of insurgents who attended a dinner in the neighborhood of Khoshal Khan, where they were joined by their squad leader, or emir, for a traditional Afghan meal of rosh — a dish of boiled and dried lamb, mixed with herbs and spices, and served with potatoes. The leader opted not to be interviewed, and his colleagues declined to reveal his name.

That drones should end up becoming one of the insurgents’ most potent weapons is a fitting twist to a war that confounded U.S. expectations from the start.

That drones should end up becoming one of the insurgents’ most potent weapons is a fitting twist to a war that confounded U.S. expectations from the start. Though drones have been used for surveillance purposes far longer, armed drones did not become operational until the late 1990s. In the last two decades the technology has become synonymous with the so-called global war on terror. The CIA used drones prior to 9/11 to track the movements of Osama bin Laden under the old Taliban regime. Then, during the 2001 invasion and its aftermath, it carried out its first drone strikes inside Afghanistan. Later, it began to use drones across the border in Pakistan, targeting insurgent hideouts in areas otherwise beyond the reach of U.S. forces. At least 51 CIA drone strikes occurred in Pakistan under the Bush administration, according to the U.K.-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism. This number increased significantly once Barack Obama entered the White House. From early 2009 to early 2017, the bureau estimates that more than 370 drone strikes occurred in the border areas of Pakistan. The strikes decapitated the leadership of the Pakistani Taliban and killed many militants, though they also killed hundreds of civilians.

Many states watching these developments saw the potential of drones and started developing their own. But soon enough, drone technology had also started finding its way into the hands of insurgents and militias across the Middle East. In 2006 Hezbollah used armed drones against Israel, albeit with limited efficacy. Other nonstate groups tried their luck as unrest spread across the region in the wake of the Arab Spring, with Yemeni Houthi fighters using drones to attack oil refineries in Saudi Arabia in 2019. But it was the use of drones by the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria that captured the Taliban’s imagination. Footage of the attacks was featured in the Islamic State’s slick propaganda and found its way to Afghanistan, where it was eventually seen by the future emir of the Taliban’s drone unit.

The architect of Piram Qul’s assassination was at something of a personal and professional crossroads when he began to study the Islamic State films in detail around two years ago. He had made his reputation within the Taliban as an instructor at a training camp for suicide bombers, only to find that the nature of the war was now changing. U.S. military operations were winding down, and the Taliban leadership knew that continuing to launch suicide attacks against Afghan forces risked angering the population. A more precise method of killing was needed, particularly in the north of the country where the insurgents had less support. To the man who would become the unit’s emir, drones seemed like the perfect answer. After talking through the idea with senior intelligence operatives, he started to assemble his team.

The emir is tall, with an athletic build, long hair and flecks of gray in his beard. While he spent some of his youth studying in madrassas, he reportedly excelled as a student in Kabul University’s faculty of engineering during the U.S. occupation. He carries an Italian 9mm pistol and a knife with a handle made from goat horn — a piece of artisanship distinctive to the Afghan province of Parwan. But he is also rarely seen without his laptop and two smartphones — a Huawei and a Samsung Galaxy S20. The squad leader’s team of 11 men is made in his image. Like him, several of them are from Wardak, southwest of Kabul. They are well educated, and a number of them worked for Western NGOs before joining the drone team.

“We don’t work for money, we work for our theology and ideology,” said the second unit member.

Its job was to harass and assassinate Afghan government officials in the north.

When the drone team was established sometime around 2019, its remit was clear. While other sections of the Taliban were free to use basic civilian drones for surveillance, and the Haqqani network was allowed to carry out the occasional uncoordinated drone attack in the south and east of the country using equipment it acquired independently, the hit squad was the only drone unit with official operational approval from the Taliban’s leadership. Its job was to harass and assassinate Afghan government officials in the north. In doing so, it was to report solely to senior members of the Taliban’s intelligence apparatus. No one else in the insurgency was to be given detailed information about the unit’s operations, including shadow governors and high-level military commanders. The unit would be headquartered in the northern province of Kunduz.

Although other sections within the Taliban were able to rely on Pakistan or Iran to assist with weapons supplies when necessary, the drone unit members made no mention in my interviews of receiving help from either state. Instead, they claim to have turned to a private Afghan front company that imported agricultural chemicals and farming equipment from China. The unit asked the company to find a drone that was quiet and light but strong enough to withstand adverse weather conditions and fly at relatively high altitudes. When the company identified the right drone, it cost the Taliban approximately $60,000. They purchased it in China and smuggled the parts into Afghanistan via Pakistan.

Next, the unit’s engineers set to work modifying the drone. The chemical tanks and hoses for carrying and spraying fertilizer and pesticides were removed and replaced with a makeshift plastic missile rack capable of holding four mortar rounds that could be fired via a computer-activated spring mechanism. The Talibs changed the fuses on their usual mortars for more powerful versions containing RDX, a type of explosive popularized by U.S., British and German forces during World War II. While the drone came colored black, unit members repainted it blue to camouflage it against the sky. They also painted the RDX mortars blue. The drone was set up to be controlled in flight using a combination of laptop computers and smartphones that were connected to the internet via a portable satellite terminal.

After several trial-run attacks on checkpoints of the Afghan security forces, the Taliban’s first major operation with the new drone came in the northern city of Kunduz on Nov. 1, 2020. At least four bodyguards of the provincial governor were killed in the strike, which occurred while the guards were playing volleyball in the governor’s compound. The second drone unit member interviewed for this article said another potential operation in Kunduz, this time against U.S. troops, was called off after U.S. service members spotted the drone and relayed a complaint to the Taliban’s political office in Qatar, noting that it would violate the terms of the nationwide withdrawal agreement the Trump administration struck with the Taliban in February 2020. Taliban leaders ordered a halt to the operation — a rare example of them interfering in the drone team’s work. That same month, the head of Afghanistan’s National Directorate of Security told Parliament in Kabul that he wanted to stop the import of commercially available camera drones. It was too late.

Unit members continued to scout for potential targets even as images of crude insurgent drones used by other Taliban fighters began to spread across social media. The pictures belied the professionalism of their work. They traveled across the country in a silver Toyota Corolla Fielder station wagon driven by a trusted colleague hired from outside the team or used motorbikes to move quickly and easily through villages and backroads. The unit also bought and weaponized a second drone. Meanwhile, two more official Taliban drone units modeled on their efforts were established for the south and east of the country.

As the Taliban edged closer to victory, the northern team stepped up its operations. When Piram Qul’s name was added to the unit’s hit list, it was only a matter of time before he was killed. His assassination on May 2 this year went exactly as planned. Local media reported that the drone strike had been triggered by a call to Piram Qul’s mobile phone, ensuring its aim was precise. Not everyone in the drone unit was happy with the result, however. In the days that followed, the team learned that Ashraf Ghani, the Afghan president, had been due to visit Takhar in early May, only for his trip to be canceled over security concerns in the wake of Piram Qul’s death. Some members rued the fact they had missed a chance to assassinate the president.

“The drone’s targeting system is very exact,” said the second unit member. “If your hat has four stars on it and the operator targets a specific one of those stars, he can hit it.”

The unit did not dwell on its missed opportunity. With Piram Qul dead, members turned their attention to an even more powerful political figure in northern Afghanistan, Atta Muhammad Noor, better known as Ustad Atta. Another ethnic Tajik veteran of the mujahedeen’s fight against the Soviets, Ustad Atta had spent much of the U.S. occupation as governor of Balkh province and the de facto ruler of the city of Mazar-e-Sharif. To his supporters, he was an ardent opponent of the Taliban whose sharp suits and opulent lifestyle were evidence of his progressive politics. But the man Afghans call Ustad Atta was notorious locally for inflaming ethnic tensions and cracking down on anyone who challenged his authority. He had used his power to amass an enormous personal fortune, cultivating lucrative patronage networks linked to Afghanistan’s cross-border trade with central Asia. Although he was no longer governor, his continuing influence meant the Taliban could not hope to control the north if he remained a key figure on the political scene.

On July 1, Ustad Atta was hosting a meeting with other warlords and politicians at his house in Mazar-e-Sharif when a Taliban drone fired one of its mortars into the yard outside. Ustad Atta escaped unhurt, but a number of people were injured and several vehicles damaged. In an interview soon afterward, the drone squad members predicted that Ustad Atta would no longer try to resist the advance of the Taliban’s ground forces, with one of them mocking him as an aspiring Bollywood movie star who was only interested in fame and fortune. Atta was clearly spooked. Six weeks later, on Aug. 14, the Taliban took control of Mazar-e-Sharif. On Aug. 15, Kabul fell. Ustad Atta and Ghani were nowhere to be seen.

The British journalist and author Chris Sands contributed to this story from London.

 

Decriminalisation will lead to suicide prevention. It's high time Pakistan repealed Section 325, a British Raj remnant

The first step towards destigmatising suicide is to make it a human rights issue, not a criminal offence.
Published 04 Sep, 2021 04:22pm

As World Suicide Prevention Day approaches on September 10, it is high time for Pakistan to repeal Section 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code, a legacy of the British Raj.

According to WHO estimates, there are around 130,000 to 270,000 cases of attempted suicide in Pakistan each year. Suicide is a criminal offence under the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) 325 which states “Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, (or with fine, or with both)”. Ironically, Pakistan continues to follow this law which is a legacy of the British Raj, even though Britain itself decriminalised suicide way back in 1961.

Factors behind suicide

Between 2016 to 2020, 767 suicides were recorded in Sindh, as per a five-year research conducted by the Sindh Mental Health Authority (SMHA). The highest number of cases occurred in Tharparkar (79). An alarming 60 per cent of the victims were teenagers. In June 2021, the SMHA carried out what it called a “psychiatric autopsy” of the Thar region to determine the “reasons behind suicides”, according to a statement by the authority’s chairman, Dr Karim Khawaja. The findings suggest that the majority of cases involved lower income groups and people suffering from untreated mental illness and poverty.

On May 9, 2021, three people killed themselves in Chitral within a period of 24 hours. Two girls, who were cousins, ended their lives by jumping in the Chitral River. Meanwhile, in a separate incident, a man took his life by stabbing himself with a knife repeatedly in the Sno Ghar village. The notoriously high rates of suicide in Chitral have been linked to poverty, lack of job opportunities and forced marriages. These findings also raise the ethical dilemma that if someone attempts suicide due to socioeconomic reasons, should the state be held responsible?

While suicide is generally attributed to mental health issues, in lower income countries like Pakistan, suicide rates also reflect broader economic and sociocultural realities. Public health interventions to reduce suicide should incorporate these components in addition to mental illness as a potential target for intervention.

Victims, not criminals

In May 2021, the Punjab Police tweeted a warning that anyone who survived suicide would be liable to one year imprisonment. This tone-deaf post was met with massive backlash on social media over the insensitivity in dealing with what essentially is a public health issue.

Suicide remains illegal in at least 25 countries worldwide and attempted suicide is punishable under religious law in a further 10. The World Health Organisation's Comprehensive Mental Health Action Plan (2021-2030) has decriminalising suicide as an important target, seeking to end criminalisation, reduce stigma and ensure that there are sufficient services available for those that need them.

Criminalisation of suicide also deters sufferers from seeking adequate help.

“Suicide is an indicator of mental distress, not criminal behaviour. In many cases, the act signifies the extremity of depression. The role of the state should be to help treat such people, not punish them,” said former Senator Dr Karim Ahmed Khawaja.

In 2017, Senator Khawaja moved an amendment bill seeking to replace the colonial penal law by decriminalising attempted suicide. But despite its unanimous adoption by the Senate and the Council of Islamic Ideology, the bill was not passed by the National Assembly, and eventually lapsed at the end of the last government’s tenure.

In recent years, suicide legislation has been successfully repealed or superseded by new legislation in the Cayman Islands, Cyprus, Lebanon, Sri Lanka and India. In most cases, this has taken a combination of of civil society pressure, government and legislative changes, and in some cases support from the countries' religious leadership.

I spoke to Dr Murad Moosa Khan, Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry, Aga Khan University, and former President of the International Association for Suicide Prevention (IASP).

“An important reason to destigmatise suicide is that people are already hesitant to seek help when it comes to mental health; criminalising suicide adds another layer of stigma, that they have done something wrong,” Moosa said.

According to the existing law, every suicide case should be received by the city’s government hospitals that are officially designated as 'medico-legal centers' (MLCs). “In Karachi, there are at least three designated MLCs — the Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre (JPMC), Civil Hospital Karachi (CHK) and Abbasi Shaheed Hospital (ASH)," he explained. However, people are reluctant to go there for fear of legal repercussions.

He reported that since it is very rare for people to be prosecuted under this law, the practical risk is minimal, but the greater risk is of exploitation by medico-legal authorities and officers who may blackmail victims and their families in order to extort money from them.

Currently, people who attempt suicide end up either in a public sector, private sector or a charitable health facility. “If the attempt is a serious one, for instance use of a firearm or ingestion of a toxic poison, those cases are sent to an MLC hospital, as other hospitals do not want to get involved in police investigations in case of death of the individual.”

Cases that are less severe are not reported and treated at non-MLC hospitals. They are usually written off as food poisoning, another medical condition or accidental poisoning.

Dr Moosa further stated that almost all private and charitable hospitals are carrying out this practice in Pakistan. “Due to these practices, we do not know the true extent of attempted suicides in the country.”

What steps can be taken to repeal the law?

“To advocate for decriminalisation, many sectors have to come together, including mental health and public health professionals, human rights organisations, legal professionals, educational institutions and the civil society. International organisations such as the WHO, United for Global Mental Health (UGMH) and IASP have been actively involved in raising awareness about the need for suicide decriminalisation," Dr Murad shared.

Dr Uroosa Talib, Consultant Psychiatrist and Chief Medical Officer at Karwan-i-Hayat, one of Pakistan's largest psychiatric rehabilitation centres, said that a lot of people do not report suicide cases and since most of such cases need medical attention first so they are taken to tertiary-care setups.

“People hide facts about suicide to avoid legal implications. Additionally, patients and families go through the traumatising experience of dealing with our police. So they opt to stay quiet or conceal facts. Ironically, this way they deprive the person who attempted suicide of proper care. They are not given a chance at be seen by a psychiatrist to rule out any underlying mental health condition,” says Dr Talib.

Decriminalise suicide to destigmatise seeking mental health services

Decriminalising suicide is the first step towards eradicating the stigma associated with seeking mental health services. The second would be to develop the mental health services sector to cater to the needs of the population. This would entail psychoeducational training of personnel — police, medico-legal officers, emergency room doctors and staff, lawyers and religious leaders.

Detractors of this campaign are of the opinion that decriminalising suicide will result in a spike in suicide rates. Empirical evidence suggests otherwise. The WHO 2014 report reveals that suicide rates tend to decline following decriminalisation.

In fact, decriminalisation can actually lead to suicide prevention. This is because once the act is no longer considered criminal behaviour, there are less obstacles in reporting cases of attempted suicides. As a result, the data moves towards accuracy and correction and can thus facilitate in helping those who may be at risk.

When decriminalised, suicide will be considered a public health issue rather than a criminal act. The reduced stigma will also encourage psychologically vulnerable people to seek help and vulnerable at-risk individuals will be better able to obtain the care they need.

To help those who are campaigning for the decriminalisation of suicide in their countries, the UGMH, working with the Thomson Reuters Foundation and IASP, is working on a report that looks at suicide laws in various countries to produce accurate information on what legislative changes are needed. The report also looks at trends across countries, examples of where laws have successfully changed, and the role the international community can play in helping encourage reform. Local organisations such as the Pakistan Mental Health Coalition, Karwan-i-Hayat, House of Pebbles and PILL are also engaged in organising events to advocate for suicide prevention.

It is important to remember that decriminalisation does not imply legalising suicide. The aim is not to encourage suicide but to discourage prosecution of those who have attempted it. They may or may not have a psychiatric illness but they are certainly undergoing severe distress. The threat of prosecution only exacerbates their suffering. Decriminalisation will be a major stepping stone in the prevention of suicide and providing access to mental health services to those who are in need.

 

Predatory corporatisation of the media and why strengthening the institution of the editor is vital

We need to seriously think about the restoration, protection and preservation of the institution of "the editor".
Published 31 Aug, 2021 

We journalists have some experience of fighting governmental repression of the media. But how do we, or better still, how should we, handle owners' oppression of their own media, meaning owners dictating what is to be published and what not, to forcing the editor to oblige, or ignoring the editor altogether if he refuses? The stories that circulate are horrendous of editors being made mere rubber stamps and the whole newsroom remaining silent as people from the owner's office force journalists to publish false, motivated and scandalous stories against their business rivals or perceived antagonists.

While discussing why a certain business house was bringing out a new newspaper, a fellow editor said that because they were going for a new several thousand crore investment and they needed a media, especially a newspaper, to protect them. This was especially so because the existing leader in that sector, who owned several media outlets, was preventing the former's entry by publishing false and derogatory reports about them.

One can easily imagine what role the new newspaper will play. The underlying meaning of the story is that, as our business houses increase in number, they are investing resource and power, into newspapers (read media in general) that can serve as a part of their arsenal for business growth, fighting rivals and frightening others from exposing their malpractices.

So professional journalism be damned, and along with it, the ideals of freedom, democracy, truth, people's rights, public interest, collective good, unearthing corruption, fighting for justice, equality, fairness, building a just society, etc. The vital role of the media in holding power to account vanishes as does the notion of accountability and transparency.

The threat to a free press comes from many quarters — the government, the advertisers, the owners and even the failure of journalists to maintain their own ethical standards.

The threat from the government emanates both from the regulatory framework that it creates through enactment of various repressive laws and also in the manner in which such laws are put into practice, which reflects the government's overall attitude towards the free press. The Digital Security Act (DSA) in Bangladesh is just the latest and the most virulent example of it.

Most laws in Bangladesh relating directly or indirectly to the media are mostly directed either to repressing or controlling the media. There are no laws in our statute books (and I would love to be proved wrong), except for the Right to Information Act (RTI), that either protects the journalist, the newspapers, or the media in general, or proactively help its cause by protecting sources, and whistle-blowers, and preventing police harassment or arbitrary arrests or questioning of media professionals.

The threat from advertising has always been there. A corporation may be looting the country dry but any hint of an exposé would automatically delist a newspaper from receiving their advertisement. This practice is not new, however; its intensity has risen to an unbearable level. One can ask how we can expect a business house to give ads if we are writing against them, forgetting that we are, in fact, not writing against them but against their unethical and unlawful practice, which must be exposed for the betterment of the society and for the environment.

The relationship between the media and its advertisers must in no way be allowed to impinge on the freedom of journalists to report freely and ethically. It is a complex issue and has become more so due to Covid-19 which has drastically affected the media's, especially the newspapers' business model.

However, our main focus today is on the issue of corporate control of the media, not in general, but the ones they own. We want to confine our discussion only to newspapers about which I happen to know a little. At first it may appear to be an oxymoron, a contradiction in itself. If someone owns something it is only natural that they will control it. Yes, in many cases, but not in all. A person may own a hospital but can he run it on his whims just because he has invested in it? It must be the doctors who run the hospital. Businessmen may own airlines, but are their planes run as they wish without professionals? This is also true in case of the media. Many people may invest in the newspaper industry, but it must be the professional journalists who run it.

This brings us to the bigger question on what is the role of a newspaper in general. Is it only to serve the interests of the owners? As someone said, "Freedom of the press is the freedom of the owners of the press". Is that really true? Then what happens to the interests of the society in general, of the people, of principles, of ideals, of a nation's interests? What happens to the fundamental principle of freedom of speech, people's right to know, of holding power accountable?

If the media's role is far bigger than the corporate interest of the owners — and by definition it must be bigger, encompassing the interest of the nation as a whole — then, it must be allowed to function with full freedom with professional journalists at its helm. Some experiences from the rest of the world may help to prove this point.

As the need for higher investment in newspapers grew over time, especially due to technological sophistication of the printing press requiring more capital, individual ownership became difficult and investment from the financial and corporate world began to enter this sector. If we look at the newspapers of any industrialised country, they atrract investment from banks, insurance companies, corporations, mutual and investment funds, services industry, etc. Why do these diverse groups invest in newspapers? Simply because newspapers were good investments and investors saw it as a sector with a good ROI (return on investment).

Here is the interesting twist. Investment came to newspapers because of its good ROI, and it was so because newspapers continued to serve public interest — not the interest of the diverse interest groups that owned the sector— and thereby grew their business and thus gave attractive dividends to the investors.

The rising corporate investment in the media in Bangladesh is nothing new or unprecedented. It was, to some extent, inevitable. What is, however, unprecedented and not inevitable, is the predatory nature of the corporate control and the total destruction of the ethical foundation of the newspapers. This is destroying media credibility — the life blood of a media's acceptability.

If an investor wants to make profit out of his investment in the newspaper, which is not an unnatural or unjustified expectation, then the only way to do so is to allow the media to function in the way that media is supposed to — serve public interest. Through ethical journalism and upholding the common good and promoting freedom of speech and accountability, a newspaper gains credibility, which leads to greater readership, which attracts advertisers, which brings in increased revenue, and which then leads to attractive remuneration and good working conditions for the journalists as well as dividends for the investors. This is the business model of a free and independent media, and there is none other.

However, when investors break the above cycle and use their newspapers to protect and serve their own vested interest — as against that of the public — then serious problems arise which we are now facing in Bangladesh.

We repeat, corporate interest in newspapers is neither new nor unique to Bangladesh. However, there is a big difference. What exists in countries with matured newspapers is the institution of the editor. It is well-established, highly-regarded and enjoys huge public credibility. (Both the western newspapers and their editors had suffered a huge loss of credibility in supporting the Iraq invasion. However, many of them realised their mistake and have done impressive exposés on the whole sordid affair, helping to restore some of their lost credibility).

We need to seriously think about the restoration, protection and preservation of the institution of "the editor". We have great examples in Tofazzal Hossain Manik Mia, Zahur Hossain Chowdhury and Abdus Salam from the Pakistan period, and Maulana Akram Khan, Abul Kalam Shamsuddin and Abul Mansur Ahmad from the pre-1947 period to inspire us to rebuild the institution of the "editor" in Bangladeshi media today.

The editor is that pivotal person who protects the freedom of the media from attacks from all sides — government, agencies, large corporations, powerful political leaders and from the interference of the owner — and through his courageous, ethical and honest leadership and non-partisan stance, inspires his fellow journalists to reach the highest standards of objective journalism. This is pivotal for the survival of the free and independent media in Bangladesh.

Admittedly, many of us have failed in this task. We have ourselves destroyed this institution by becoming a PR person for the owner. Many of us have used our position to curry favour with the rich and the powerful, peddled influence for personal gains, misused our positions to harm others and twisted facts to be on the right political side, even while knowing that the truth lay elsewhere.

On a different level, many of us did not pay enough attention to our own newspapers as to what were being published, how well-researched they were, what was the quality and reliability of the sources used and whether sufficient due diligence was done before a corporate or personal reputation was questioned.

All this brought down both the prestige of the institution of the editor and the credibility of the newspaper that he led.

This must change for the good of journalism and for the good of the country, which is on the verge of attaining lower-middle-income country status on the global stage.

The emergence of the social media, the tsunami of news portals with an endless flow of unedited, unverified, unsourced news and the deliberate promotion of "alternative facts" by governments and powerful business lobbies have perhaps made the role of the editor the most crucial for the restoration of public faith in journalism. As someone said, "if you do not read the news, you are uninformed, but if you read the news you are misinformed". This is something that must worry us journalists if we want to save our profession.

As of today, a total of 1,200 dailies are published from Dhaka city. (We should be holding the world record in this). Country-wide, the figure is 3,222. On the face of it, newspapers should be among the most flourishing of industries in the country. What is their business model? Who are their readers and advertisers? Those of us who have been in this field for a while and know well how the market has shrunk wonder as to the sustainability of all these publications. Unless, of course, they will all sing the praise of their corporate owners, fight for their business interest, publish fake news about their rivals and ride on the subsidy of the owners—and all the while professional journalism will fall by the way side.

In one sense, we can rejoice in the words of Mao Zedong: "Let a thousand flowers bloom". But on the other, we are fully aware how media credibility can be destroyed in the wrong hands and how harmful the media can be in the age of unedited, badly edited and totally fake news.


This article originally appeared on The Daily Star and has been reproduced with permission.

MIRANDA 50 YEARS BEFORE QANON

 

 

1971
ANATOMY OF A RESISTANCE
Eos presents an essay from the recently published book 'Womansplaining
'
Updated 12 Sep, 2021
DAWN.COM 

LONG READ

With the Taliban take-over of Afghanistan leading to concern about the status of women’s freedoms in that country, as well as the birth of a vocal women’s resistance there, it is perhaps instructive to look back at Pakistan’s trajectory in terms of its own women’s movement and where it stands today. Eos presents one of 21 essays by women activists from the recently published book Womansplaining, excerpted with permission



Movements, meaning an organised group of people pursuing a shared agenda for change through collective action with some continuity over time, arise at particular historical junctures. The specific circumstances and configurations of power confronted, particularly the character of the state, but also market forces and the dynamics of national and international politics in which movements emerge and play out, are as important in shaping a movement as the ideals, volition, actions, identity and resources of its activists.

The confluence of these factors determines the issues a movement takes up, its goals and modalities and the outcome. To survive, movements must be sufficiently agile to respond and adjust to changing circumstances and opportunities, sometimes taking on new incarnations. The celebrated era of the Pakistani women’s movement of the 1980s, therefore, can only be properly understood from the perspective of its context; the brutal and brutalising martial law and quasi-military rule of General Ziaul Haq from 1977 to 1988.

Many of the women who helped steer the activism of the 1980s, and those who joined the movement in the 1990s, are still actively struggling for gender equality today. But whether women’s contemporary activism is a continuation of that movement is a moot question, given the emergence of new activists as well as new forms and priorities of activism.

In many ways, it is also a less important question than whether a women’s movement exists today and how vibrant the movement is.

DEFYING THE MILITARY TO SAFEGUARD WOMEN’S RIGHTS

Illustration by Radia Durra

The contemporary women’s rights movement burst on to the scene in 1981, several years into the country’s most oppressive military dictatorship. Political parties were banned; politicians, trade unions and anyone who dared to oppose the regime ferociously suppressed; fundamental rights suspended; public hangings and floggings commonplace. For women, the challenge was the military’s “arrogat[ing] to itself the task of ‘Islamising’ the country’s institutions in their entirety” (Omar Asghar Khan, 1985).

As the least powerful group, women were easy targets and a way for the regime to demonstrate its ‘Islamic’ credentials. In a rigidly patriarchal society, there was no popular resistance to the almost casual rescinding of women’s rights. Women themselves did not respond in an organised manner until September 1981.

Igniting action was a small news item tucked away on an inside page, noticed by a Karachi-based women’s collective, the Shirkat Gah-Women’s Resource Centre. The news item reported that a woman (Fehmida) and a man (Allah Bux) had been sentenced respectively to 100 lashes and stoning to death under the soon-to-be-infamous Hudood Ordinances.

The promulgation of these ordinances in February 1979 had gone largely unnoticed during the trial of the ousted Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who was hanged in April 1979. Shocked and bewildered by how such sentences could be legal, the collective decided it was time to act.

Given their limited numbers and the adverse circumstances, the single-most remarkable achievement of this entirely indigenous and unfunded movement was that it placed women and their rights squarely and permanently on the national agenda.

With only nine members, Shirkat Gah reached out to both women and men, urging collective action to prevent the sentences from being carried out. It was the diametrically opposed responses of women and men that galvanised the women’s movement. Men were either dismissive, believing such punishments would never be carried out in Pakistan, or defeatist, saying that individual citizens were helpless under martial law.

For women, these sentences represented the last straw. They were already angered by the regime’s numerous initiatives to curtail women’s rights, by the spiralling misogyny unleashed under the pretext of being more Islamic by people encouraged by state rhetoric, by the unprecedented harassment of women in public spaces, including women previously shielded by class privilege. Palpable anger and outrage at the meetings called by Shirkat Gah led to the formation of the Khawateen Mahaz-i-Amal, better known by its English name, the Women’s Action Forum (WAF). WAF chapters opened in quick succession in Lahore, Islamabad and Peshawar and, for a short while, in Abbottabad.

Led by WAF, the women’s movement mounted the most vociferous opposition to ‘Islamisation’ until Zia’s death in 1988. The relentless onslaught of legal and policy measures and proposals to curtail women’s rights demanded ceaseless activism. These included written and unwritten directives imposing ‘Islamic’ dress codes for a widening circle of women, barring female athletes from competitions, preventing women in the foreign ministry from serving abroad, imposing a moratorium on the recruitment and promotion of women in banks, an ‘anti-obscenity’ campaign seeking to eliminate women’s images from advertisements and in all media, and the Ansari Commission’s recommendations to seriously curtail women’s political participation.

Reducing the legal status of all women and non-Muslim men to half that of Muslim men started with the Hudood Ordinances, continued with the proposed ‘Law of Evidence’ and culminated in the proposed qisas and diyat law stipulating this ‘half-human’ status in black and white.

In the 1980s, women’s activism was reactive, state-focused and adversarial. The movement was led largely by middle- and upper-class working women who, having gained the most in their personal lives, stood to lose the most. But they were also better placed to face the risks of activism under martial law. Few of the new legal measures were likely to directly impact the personal lives of these activists. The fear was of a tsunami-like impact that the reducing of women’s legal rights, their further marginalisation and their exclusion from all decision-making positions would bring.

Numerous women’s organisations were involved but WAF provided the underlying coordination and strategic direction, becoming the face of the movement, a role facilitated by its policy of not accepting any funding other than personal donations and its principle of collective leadership that refused to acknowledge individual leaders, especially in the press.

With only a few hundred activists, the movement relied heavily on disrupting public spaces with street protests despite martial law prohibitions on public gatherings, to leverage attention, and on a supportive print media made more responsive given the ban on reporting political news, to amplify its message.

As a platform for individual women and women’s organisations, WAF initially adopted a minimal agenda for maximum buy-in, mobilising many women with no prior experience of, or inclination for, activism. Given the ban on politics, WAF deliberately called itself non-political. It reclassified itself as non-aligned and secular in 1991 and dropped the strategic use of Islam to counter laws proposed in the name of religion. A significant number of its activists were associated with progressive movements and participated in pro-democracy events, carefully explaining that this was in their individual capacity, not as WAF members — a distinction often lost on the press and on others.

With only a few hundred activists, the movement relied heavily on disrupting public spaces with street protests despite martial law prohibitions on public gatherings, to leverage attention, and on a supportive print media made more responsive given the ban on reporting political news, to amplify its message. Women’s defiance under martial law ensured public attention and media appreciation and earned the respect of politicians and other politically engaged actors.

Activists consciously engaged trade unions and political parties. Individual activists knew feminists and women’s groups abroad, but these links were irrelevant during this period, as the movement ignored international events and processes, including the 1985 UN World Conference on Women.

Given their limited numbers and the adverse circumstances, the single-most remarkable achievement of this entirely indigenous and unfunded movement was that it placed women and their rights squarely and permanently on the national agenda so that, for example, all political parties, including the conservative politico-religious Jamaat-i-Islami, started addressing women in their agendas. Other achievements included several discriminatory proposals curtailing women’s rights being abandoned, such as the Ansari Commission recommendations and a misogynist preacher’s programme on state-controlled television being discontinued.

The new discriminatory laws of evidence, and the qisas and diyat provisions in the law, could not be stopped but were delayed for years and enacted minus some of the most blatantly discriminatory aspects. Yet the Hudood Ordinances, having overturned the principle of presumed innocence, continued to fill the jails with women accused by former husbands, vindictive neighbours and random strangers, until the Women’s Protection Act of 2006; and the deep-seated changes wrought by Zia to the state and society continue to plague the country to this day. The current status of women’s activism has to be understood in the light of changes that occurred in the following two decades.

THE TRANSFORMATIVE DECADES

Zia’s death and the return of democracy in 1988 brought a major shift in the context and content of activism. The sense of urgency dissipated, political differences submerged in the struggle against a military dictator surfaced and activists returned to careers put on hold for almost a decade, reducing the number of proactive women.

Modalities changed: the skills of adversarial politics developed under martial law gave way to critically engaging authorities in less confrontational ways. Street protests became less frequent. New avenues for influencing were explored, facilitated by the links forged with politicians, and the fact that a significant number of women activists joined mainstream politics.

Several notable developments impacted the movement. Freed from incessantly countering anti-women moves, activists started defining their own agenda, demanding more rights and improved policies across a broad range of issues in addition to the rescinding of the zina laws and other regressive measures introduced by Zia.

The movement’s identity became more diffused. WAF ceased to be the movement’s singular face, although it still spearheaded some initiatives, for example, preventing the privatisation of the First Women Bank through a writ petition in court. Movement-linked women’s organisations took up issues for which they had no time under Zia, having understood how easily de jure rights can be overturned when so few women know about, much less enjoy, their rights.

Movement-linked women’s organisations took up issues for which they had no time under Zia, having understood how easily de jure rights can be overturned when so few women know about, much less enjoy, their rights.

Individual women’s organisations led initiatives on diverse issues such as political rights, education, health, workers’ rights, development policies and the need for a permanent commission on women to serve as a watchdog body. Media visibility waned as politics reclaimed centre stage. The movement reached fewer people as coverage was consigned to city pages, if carried at all.

During the unstable democracy of the 1990s, activists’ relationship with the state “vacillated between co-operation and collaboration with Benazir Bhutto [1988–90, 1993–96], and confrontation and contestation during the time of Nawaz Sharif [1990–93, 1997–99]” (Rubina Saigol, 2016). Threats to women’s rights became embedded in wider governance issues, such as the proposed Shariat Bill.

WAF mobilised a broader coalition with other human rights groups and religious minorities, subsequently formalised as the Joint Action Committee for People’s Rights, which started to articulate positions on many issues. An unintended consequence was the reduced visibility of women’s distinct voices.

A decade of extensive networking both within and outside the country replaced the inward-looking isolation under Zia, spurred in particular by the United Nations conferences on human rights (1993), population and development (1994) and, especially, the 1995 Fourth World Conference on Women (FWCW).

WAF engaged in the 1990s conferences, preparing position papers that were circulated to and by organisations and individuals from Pakistan and elsewhere, although WAF’s no-funding policy precluded its presence as WAF. The FWCW also marked a high point of cooperation with the government; many activists collaborated with the government to prepare the national report and half the official delegation comprised non-government women.

Donor-supported events leading up to the FWCW facilitated unprecedented interactions among activists. But a surge in funding opportunities accompanying the conferences led to a mushrooming of civil society organisations (CSOs), including women’s organisations, very few of which were movement-linked. Women’s organisations ceased to be principally places of affiliation and identity; like other CSOs, they also became places of employment, if at far below market rates.

The new millennium marks a new era. Even as self-proclaimed gender equality advocates multiplied, the women’s rights movement was less visible qua movement. The malaise was not limited to Pakistan. It was highlighted as a “mobilisational lull” in the context of Latin America by Sonia Alvarez, who also coined the term “NGO-isation” as early as 1999.


A young Asma Jahangir listens to a group of women | White Star ArchivesWhile the institutional wherewithal of organisations enables them to carry out certain initiatives better than individual activists, such as running women’s shelters, providing legal aid, systematic capacity building and rigorous research, worries that this NGO-isation was stultifying the movement started to be voiced. Underlying the malaise and lull were factors both internal and external to the movement.Internally, following the considerable energies invested in shaping the Beijing Platform as a governmental blueprint, many organisation-based activists focused their energies on concretising the promises secured. Some substantial gains were achieved, but this engagement shifted the agenda from a political to a more technical one.Because organisations concentrated on specific areas (for example, gender-based violence, education, political participation, workers’ rights), struggles took place in silos, dissipating the more cohesive dynamics of a united movement. Externally, the more technocratic Millennium Development Goals replaced the movement-informed Beijing Platform for Action.

Funding opportunities dwindled and were increasingly tied to “accounts-ability” (Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah, 2015) and pre-set agendas, with donors pushing CSOs to adopt ever-more corporate business models. Bridging the two, the drive to secure funding led to competitiveness and a tendency to project organisational names rather than a collective movement identity.

In Pakistan, by this time, WAF was more of an organisation than a platform. Activists had become recognised names and the hidden hierarchies and power dynamics of decision-making had surfaced. Older activists failed to mobilise younger women to resist the Zia-reminiscent misogynist machinations of the Muttaheda Majlis-i-Amal (MMA), a coalition of politico-religious parties cobbled together by the new military ruler, Gen Pervez Musharraf (1999–2008).

The younger, urban, relatively well-off women they contacted favoured an all-embracing human rights and peace agenda over a separate women’s rights movement. Class privilege probably played a role, as less-privileged grassroots women engaged by women’s organisations were eager to learn about and resist patriarchy, albeit within the more immediate circles of family and community, shying away from addressing the state.

The net result, to use Amrita Basu’s terms, was a shift away from an organised gender equality movement to a more dispersed ‘feminism’. While both share similar goals and ideas, the distinction is that gender equality movements have specified entities enacting the ideas of equality using particular forms of engagement, whereas ‘feminism’ describes struggles for gender equality, connoting both ideas and their enactments, that are more dispersed.

This brings us to the contemporary period and the question of whether or not there is a movement today.

TODAY’S ACTIVISM: MOVEMENT OR NO MOVEMENT?

Since 2015, far more women than ever before self-identify as feminists and Pakistan has an articulate third generation of feminists. Some millennial activists have joined WAF but, although a new WAF chapter opened in Hyderabad in 2008 — quickly becoming the most active — and a WAF chapter has recently been launched in Quetta as well, these are led by women from the ‘in-between generation’ and WAF no longer provides the cohesive identity of a national movement as it once did.

Feeling marginalised in existing structures dominated by older women, young feminists have formed their own groups, often as collectives, including Girls at Dhabas, the Feminist Collective, Feminist Fridays, the Women’s Collective and the Women’s Democratic Front — some affiliated with left groups. The volition, modalities and priorities of young feminists differ significantly.

The concepts and praxis of activism are dissimilar. Older feminists, including many from the ‘in-between generation’, tend to conceive of activism in classical political terms and therefore focus collective action on state laws and policies, leaving the reshaping of the daily praxis of gender relations to personal initiatives.

In contrast, while some young feminists have engaged in important legislative processes, the majority concentrate on bringing about societal changes with a focus on personal lives.

Modalities differ. Aiming to change the contours and gender dynamics of the immediate communities they inhabit, younger feminists engage in the politics of presence, occupying physical and online spaces to do so. Today, social media, rather than mainstream news media, is the primary location of discursive battles in which younger women are more prominent.

Young feminists enjoin a more forceful expressive dimension of the movement through social media initiatives and novel approaches, such as stand-up comedy, an engagement that provides a crucial counterpoint to the aggressively waged discursive battle of far better resourced religious right forces. In the 1980s, activists did deploy humour, but fell short of fully developing an expressive dimension of the movement. Finally, today’s feminists prioritise sexuality, an issue that older activists always acknowledged but failed to address publicly.

The different priorities of the new generation are attributable, at least in part, to changed circumstances. The catalyst for activists of the 1980s movement, a state bent upon overturning women’s rights, is absent. Instead, the new generation confronts policing and harassment by social actors on a daily basis. The immediacy of these encounters and the ensuing frustrations make such issues seem more relevant than distant laws, propelling a greater interest in reshaping gender dynamics and power relations in everyday practices than in struggling to ensure rights by engaging with the state.

The failure of decades of activism to significantly change the daily reality of misogyny is likely to have prompted a loss of confidence in the state’s ability to achieve the desired change, deepening the reluctance to engage with the state in terms of challenging laws and policies or proposing new ones.

Without dispelling this mistrust and building bridges, activists will find it difficult to create the interconnected support system and coalescing force that lends activism a more definite movement identity, such as WAF provided earlier.

One advantage of society-focused activism is that it lends itself more easily to spontaneous actions of individuals or small groups of women — the dispersed feminism Basu refers to. In comparison, far greater organisational management is required to deploy and sustain concerted collective action typical of movements, especially those aiming to influence state policies. Over time, this management tends to become centralised and thus more hierarchical. It also often requires greater resources to maintain.

Engaging in society-oriented activism may be better placed to avoid binding structures and the need to secure finances. But transcending the confines of small actions entails its own dynamics and challenges, as evident when young feminists brought their politics, including of sexuality, on to the streets and into public view in 2018 and 2019.

On March 8, 2018, young feminists in Karachi organised the first Aurat March (Women’s March) under a new banner, Hum Aurtein (We Women). They were assisted by some older feminists. Thousands participated from all generations and classes, along with trans and rainbow activists. A smaller march was held in Lahore as well.

Unlike earlier demonstrations organised to protest against or demand something specific, Aurat March was an occasion for everyone to express themselves. The homemade placards were more imaginative and humorous than those seen at previous movement events. One stating ‘Heat your own food’ should have been unobjectionable but provoked a social media backlash.

The success of the Karachi march fired people’s imaginations and rallies multiplied the following year. In several major cities across the country, the 2019 Aurat March attracted thousands of people. In more remote areas such as Bannu, women held smaller rallies. A handful of placards (‘Warm your own bed’, ‘Keep dick pics to yourself’, an image of a woman sitting with her legs apart, stating ‘Now I am seated appropriately’) unleashed a furious misogynist reaction, including condemnation by lawmakers, family backlash and at least one attempt to file a police case against the organisers in Lahore.

These reactions conveniently ignored all the other posters demanding better working conditions, stronger laws, rights for workers and rural women and addressing many other ‘serious’ issues. They also ignored the presence of veiled women, including a burqa-clad woman whose placard read ‘My dress, my decision’.

Surprisingly, while many older activists were delighted that these crucial issues had finally been catapulted into the public arena, some felt the posters were inappropriate and risked alienating women. Forgetting the crucial role that notions of respectability play in maintaining patriarchy, these activists contributed, perhaps inadvertently, to the politics of respectability.

Other internal critics, who felt the posters detracted attention from the issues of rural and grassroots women, overlooked the fact that grassroots women themselves did not object. A positive and encouraging development is that a number of women legislators joined the Aurat March and reactions were not unidirectional: politicians, journalists and people on social media extended support as well.

TOWARDS THE FUTURE


Aurat March in Islamabad | Tanveer Shahzad/White Star


It is unclear whether this new activism will take the shape of an organised social movement or remain a period of more dispersed feminism. Generational differences among gender-equality activists are not unique to Pakistan. Across the globe, younger women are prioritising the politics of sexuality and, in Latin America for example, thousands of large rallies have been organised by women disenchanted with institutional activism, both with respect to more formal women’s organisations and direct engagement with the state.

Change is essential for movement continuity. The focus on sexuality of Pakistan’s younger generation fills an important gap in earlier activism, and their society-oriented activism complements the state-focused and policy-oriented struggle of older activists. However, state laws, policies and narratives always impact women’s lives in multifarious ways, and past experience makes it abundantly clear that the state can never be ignored. The experience of the 2019 Aurat March may propel younger feminists to greater engagement with the state. If not, this will leave a significant vacuum in the movement.

Keeping an eye on the state is all the more important as Pakistan pursues “the art of making dictatorship look like democracy” (Tom Hussain, 2018). New strategies are needed in the face of new challenges; the steady erosion of space for civil society, debate and dissent; increasing surveillance of CSOs and interference from intelligence agencies; and the use of terrorism threats to clamp down on human rights groups in Pakistan, as in other countries.

While women’s organisations that remain true to the ideals of feminism and linked to the movement can advance the movement by engaging with state institutions and providing institutional support, this may become increasingly difficult. Less formalised structures to achieve societal change may offer important advantages — one reason WAF never registered was to avoid such controls.

Internally, activists must overcome generational mistrust and bridge the approaches of differently located activists. Older activists believe that younger women tend to ignore the broader political dynamics, are less interested in structural change than in changing personal lives, and more interested in engaging with international movements than in building a national movement. The online activism of younger feminists is seen to exclude grassroots women, their actions are viewed as highly individualistic and some of their concerns are considered to be elitist.

Younger feminists believe that older activists operate in exclusionary hierarchies of power, have a know-it-all attitude that devalues younger women’s experience and perspective, and are resistant to listening to and learning from others.

Without dispelling this mistrust and building bridges, activists will find it difficult to create the interconnected support system and coalescing force that lends activism a more definite movement identity, such as WAF provided earlier. An important show of solidarity and strength, until very recently, the Aurat March was only an annual event and it is unclear whether Hum Aurtein is designed to operate as a movement in the future.

Without interconnectedness and identity, the different strands of activism and organisational bases risk remaining disparate initiatives, leaving Pakistani women’s rights activism in the ‘feminism’ state described by Basu, rather than as a recognisable movement.

Most recently, in September 2020, the immediate country-wide response to the gang-rape of a woman on the Lahore-Islamabad motorway, coupled with the outrageous misogynist statement of the Lahore Chief of Police (CCPO Umar Sheikh) on the incident, indicates that the women’s movement is very much alive — and also has numerous male supporters. Several demonstrations were co-organised by Aurat March, WAF and numerous other organisations.

With Aurat March stepping out of its role of being a once-a-year rallying point, it could become the leading face of the movement with others, including WAF, supporting it. This would certainly help to develop a more cohesive women’s and gender-equality movement.

The writer is a sociologist and human rights activist. She is the executive director of Shirkat Gah — Women’s Resource Centre in Pakistan and the co-author of the book Women of Pakistan: Two Steps Forward, One Step Back?

This essay originally appeared in Womansplaining: Navigating Activism, Politics and Modernity in Pakistan, published by Folio Books, 2021. The editor of Womansplaining, Sherry Rehman, is a fourth-term parliamentarian, the President of the Jinnah Institute and the Vice President of the Pakistan Peoples Party

A detailed bibliography of works cited and additional notes relevant to the essay can be found in the volume

Published in Dawn, EOS, September 12th, 2021
PAKISTAN
LAW: PROTECTING WOMEN FROM VIOLENCE

Zofeen T. Ebrahim
Published September 12, 2021 - 
Despite hundreds of existing laws protecting children, women and transgender people, the justice system of Pakistan is unable to adjudicate cases of gender-based violence

Confronted with newer, more brutal and humiliating forms of inflicting pain, hurt and torture on women, the country’s response in proportion to it is dismal, and seemingly almost of nonchalance.

As psychiatrist Dr Ayesha Mian explains, gender-based violence (GBV) — ranging from verbal abuse, pushing and slapping to severe beating, burning, throwing acid, sexual harassment and rape — has increased globally (by 25 percent) since the pandemic began. The pandemic resulted in a “loss of employment, pay-cuts, being confined to small home spaces and an increase in stress, anxiety and depression.” In addition, an increase in substance abuse can also be attributed to the rise in GBV crimes, she says.

Moreover, perpetrators of these crimes often go scot-free. In Pakistan, for example, available data suggests the conviction for these crimes is not more than three percent.

“Until we send perpetrators to jail in large numbers and make examples of them, we will not make a dent in bringing the horrific GBV statistics down in our country,” says Oscar-winning documentarian and activist Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy, known for her work that highlights gender inequality.

But the problem is that not all women lodge a complaint. Even globally, less than 10 percent of women victims seek help from the justice system.

“They [women survivors] have little confidence in the system,” says Chinoy, referring to Pakistani women. “They tell me point blank there’s no point, saying the process is long and painful.” And because the women give up, the aggressor is never convicted, she adds.

In 2019, the Chief Justice of Pakistan announced the setting up of 1,000 specialised courts throughout Pakistan to deal with gender-based violence. Whatever became of them?

Back in 2019, just a few months before his retirement, the then Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP), Asif Saeed Khosa, had announced the setting up of more than 1,000 GBV courts across Pakistan, “at least one such court apiece in every district” to help “speed up prosecutions”, where the victims could “speak their heart without any fear.”

This proclamation was not made on a whim by a retiring judge.

Work on the establishment of these specialised courts had started back in 2016 when Irum Ahsan, a lawyer working with the Asian Development Bank, wanted to find out the “the root cause” of the extremely low rate of conviction. For example, in Punjab — “a hotbed for gender-based violence”, says Ahsan — only two percent of the accused were convicted. According to Dr Mian, “entrenched feudal systems, a tradition of honour killings, watta satta [exchange marriages between households],” could be some of the reasons behind it.

Another probable reason why Punjab recorded increased incidences of violence is “better access of the media” to the victims/survivors, which allows for more such crimes to get reported, says Zohra Yusuf, a human-rights activist and a council member of the independent Human Rights Commission of Pakistan.

What confounded Ahsan during her research was that despite “hundreds of existing laws” protecting children, women and transgender people, the judges were unable to adjudicate using them.

Misogyny, mental health linked to violence


In her quest to find answers, Ahsan reached out to district-level judges. She found that “both men and women judges had unconscious blind spots when they were hearing GBV cases.”

“Many of them stated in survey responses that rape occurred because men were unable to control their sexual urges when provoked by a woman — such as by wearing provocative clothing or make-up, engaging in flirtatious behaviour or staying out late,” says Ahsan. Moreover, if the survivor resiled or compromised, the case was closed and the crime forgotten.

Many judges interviewed by Ahsan did not believe that marital rape was a reality and the judges proffered that women lied or concocted these cases for revenge.

At the same time, Ahsan and her team started studying the cases. “We found economic imbalance to be among the major reasons for reaching a compromise by male relatives of the victim. “It was not deemed necessary to seek the woman’s permission or free consent,” she says.

“The misogynistic attitude of the media, the clerics, as well as, to some extent, of state functionaries has played a role [in fanning GBV]”, according to Yusuf.

The recent murder of Noor Mukaddam in Islamabad, in June, highlighted the rise in gender-based violence in our society | AFP

Only recently, Prime Minister Imran Khan was quoted as saying in an interview that “if a woman is wearing very few clothes it will have an impact on men unless they are robots”.

Until we send perpetrators to jail in large numbers and make examples of them, we will not make a dent in bringing the horrific GBV statistics down in our country,” says Oscar-winning documentarian and activist Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy, known for her work that highlights gender inequality.

Referring to the recent wave of GBV crimes across the country, Dr Mian says the country’s youth suffers from significant risk factors to healthy emotional functioning. These may include, “toxic masculinity, entitlement, having poor role models, not being able to engage in sports and other co-curricular activities and lack of civic engagement.”

Sadly, due to a lack of health literacy, much of the patterns of pathological functioning go unrecognised. “The lack of awareness, poor understanding of mental health symptoms and stigma are further compounded by a general acceptance of the early signs of possible mental health disorders in boys as [we tend to accept that] they will be aggressive, loud, angry and given to temper outbursts,” she explains.

For her part, Ahsan decided she needed to work with judges and developed a detailed course with the help from a team of five women — experts in the field of gender, law, justice, human rights, anthropology and Islamic scholarship. They then went on to carry out several intensive week-long sessions of gender sensitisation training for lower-courts judges and prosecutors across Punjab and extended it nationwide.

“In the end we must have trained more than 600 judges and prosecutors nationwide,” she says.

For Ahsan, these workshops were a huge success. “We did not intend to bring a sea change, but even converting a few dozen judges was monumental for us,” says Ahsan. The evaluations were shared with the then Chief Justice of the Lahore High Court (LHC), Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, who mandated them to set up a model GBV courtroom within eight days.

Ahsan and her team immediately got to work and found a room in the Lahore district court building. It was a slightly larger room to accommodate more distance between the judge, victim and the lawyers.

They also put in a chair in the witness stand for comfort, along with a screen — so that the complainant did not have to face the accused directly. There was a side room for recording evidence electronically, in case the survivor did not want to face the court, or if she were accompanied by a child. The team also worked meticulously on a training manual to help the judge, which provided “court procedures based on national and international best practices and human rights norms; formal procedures in case the victim or the witnesses resile, and practice notes on evidence and other court matters.”

“Our courts are not easy for a woman who has been violated,” says Ahsan. “The way she is judged, the language used and the way she is questioned, it’s like she is being raped over and over.”

Back in 2019, just a few months before his retirement, the then Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP), Asif Saeed Khosa, had announced the setting up of more than 1,000 GBV courts across Pakistan, “at least one such court apiece in every district” to help “speed up prosecutions”, where the victims could “speak their heart without any fear.”

“If we want women to pursue these cases and if we want to show real commitment towards eliminating violence against women, then our legal system will need GBV courts,” says Chinoy, adding that there is a need to sensitise the police as well.

PATRIARCHY
Asma Rani (above) was shot dead near her home in Kohat in 2018 for refusing a marriage proposal; earlier this month, her killer was pardoned by her father

In October 2017, the new GBV court in Lahore began its work.

Ahsan and her team also got permission to review the cases for a full year. They analysed that, by the end of the year, the two percent conviction rate of 2016 had jumped to 16 percent by 2019.

This evidence led to the National Judicial Policy Making Committee, under the leadership of the then CJP Asif Saeed Khosa, approving in November 2019, the establishment of specialized GBV courts in each of Pakistan’s then 116 districts.

“The course material we developed on gender sensitization can be used to train the entire judicial machinery,” says Ahsan, who feels gender studies should be institutionalised by making it mandatory. “All it needs is an order signed by the chairman of the National Judicial Policymaking Committee,” she says.

Today few know what became of the administrative order and how many more such courts have actually been set up.

However, Nida Usman Chaudhary, founder of the Women in Law Initiative Pakistan, which works for equality of opportunity and connectivity of female lawyers in Pakistan, has been following up on news on GBV courts. According to her, the 2019 judicial policy around setting up a GBV court in every district of Pakistan never got implemented.

“Under the new anti-rape bill, special courts are to be designated as GBV courts, but those shall be notified once the anti-rape bill 2021 is passed and becomes an act,” says Chaudhry.

Presently the GBV court in Lahore, set up in November 2017 by then LHC Chief Justice Mansoor Ali Shah, is the only GBV court in practice in the city. “The special court in Faisalabad that was designated under the anti-rape ordinance 2020 now appears to have no legal cover after the lapse of the anti-rape ordinance 2020,” says the lawyer. In addition, there is one GBV court in Islamabad and one in Quetta.

However, Sindh has done much better. Last year, the Karachi-based Legal Aid Society (LAS) and the Sindh Commission on the Status of Women (SCSW) found 27 dedicated GBV courts in Sindh alone.

While not all the specialised courts were found to be working efficiently or having the basic infrastructure required for a GBV court — 74 percent did not have a separate waiting room for the complainant, another 74 percent were without screens and 64 percent were without the separate room to record the victim’s testimony using video-link facilities — Sindh still stands out as the only province that has these specialised courts in all its districts. “I think that’s a huge positive,” says Maliha Lari, associate director at LAS.

Chaudhary agrees. “Sindh is the most progressive in terms of the number of functional operative GBV courts,” she says.

While it was largely left to the discretion of the provincial courts what all a GBV court should entail, one important provision was special protection measures for both the victim(s) and witnesses. The LAS found this missing in the GBV courts in Sindh. Their assessment revealed this could be an important factor in the higher rates of victims and witnesses resiling.

In addition, the review and study of 50 disposed-off cases in six GBV courts in Sindh pointed to innumerable other factors for why the conviction rate was as low as 3.1 percent, as per the LAS survey.

For example, the delay was happening at the magisterial level. “It is important to sensitise and strengthen the noting [down] of reporting at that level,” says Lari. Similarly, despite the emphasis laid on using medical evidence, there was limited understanding of it among the police, the prosecution and even the judiciary.

The LAS carried out a user-satisfaction survey about GBV courts in Karachi East and Hyderabad, in September 2020 and repeated it in February 2021. The surveys found that the satisfaction of people using these courts had risen by 14 percent. While this is a substantial improvement, Lari adds there is room for further improvement. “Minimising waiting times in case of combined waiting areas, sensitisation of courtroom staff on interaction between the victim and the accused, availability of interpreters/translators inside the courtroom” can all help in betterment of the user-satisfaction score, according to Lari.

It may have taken the highest judiciary 65 years to notice that the Supreme Court of Pakistan never had a female judge and make amends; it must not take this long to set up the promised 1,000 courts. It is time to build the eroding trust of society so that the clamour for swifter, extrajudicial justice does not get stronger.

The writer is an independent journalist based in Karachi

Published in Dawn, EOS, September 12th, 2021