Witness the latest bizarre and depressing development from Karachi. According to Dawn, a “mysterious campaign” against eunuchs was launched this week, by persons unknown.
“F alias S told The News that last Saturday evening “she” along with her two other friends were standing at Haidery Market when five youths carrying sticks and wearing gray trousers and black shirts inscribed with “Police Security” took them away.
When “15” Madadgar policemen intercepted them, the youths aged 16 to 18 years said that they were taking them to the National Database and Registration Authority (Nadra) office to get their names registered there.
The eunuchs were driven in a van to the Super Highway where they were forced to massage the youths, said S, adding that the fake policemen also snatched money from them and abused her.
Later, the youths brought them near the terminal of G-13 mini-bus and gave them Rs20 (coins) at about 11.30 pm to leave town.
[F alias S] claimed that these people were posing as “government employees”, claiming that they had orders from Asif Ali Zardari to rid the city of eunuchs."
I don’t want to make light of what was no doubt a traumatic experience, but parts of this story are ridiculous.
Firstly, what the hell is the point of referring to someone as “F alias S”? Surely F is the alias. And if her name actually is F, then why mention it along with the alias, S?
Secondly, NADRA? For arguments sake, say you were one of the abductors in the aforementioned scenario, and the Madadgar 15 Police catch you with your pants down, along with your bored and ignorant friends, 3 eunuchs and some felonious t-shirts. One would expect you would have a nice, airtight excuse at the ready for just such an emergency. Surely you could'nt even hope to rely on the pathetic excuse for an excuse that is: “Oh Good Evening officer, me and my friends and my eunuchs are all on our way to NADRA”.
Dawn reports that this individual incident (inanity notwithstanding) is actually part of a wider ‘anti-eunuch campaign’. F Alias S continues:
"On October 23, said S, some youths took her friend from a marriage hall near Five Star roundabout and after subjecting her to a similar treatment they abandoned her on Super Highway by giving her Rs10 (coins)."
She asserts that this has happened to about 40 to 50 eunuchs from Nipa roundabout, Water Pump Chowrangi, Jail Chowrangi and other locales, all of whom are apparently still missing.
“If we have committed a crime then we should be arrested instead of being thrown into the jungle and abused,” she said adding that, she and her friends are now begging in localities instead of main markets."
If this is true, I find it quite saddening to note that some of the weakest members of our society prefer arrest by the Sindh Police over their current state of affairs.
I would also like to draw attention to the title and opening of the source article, which is annoying even if it isn't true:
‘Mysterious’ drive against eunuchs triggers health concerns'
Unknown elements have launched a mysterious campaign against eunuchs since the last week, triggering anxiety among non-governmental organisations working for the prevention of HIV/AIDS.
The NGOs fear that if this trend continues, it will force eunuchs to go underground and their alleged abuse might transmit Aids, Hepatitis and other diseases among the abusers since eunuchs are considered to be part of the high risk group.
According to DAWN, it appears that the primary issues of concern with respect to the abduction, extortion and sexual harassment of eunuchs are the health implications for the abductors and broader heterosexual society. I for one am glad they told me. Forewarned is forearmed.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Justice Cornelius
I'm undecided as to whether the Pakistani legal system, in its entirety, is a bit like a monkey in a suit. Or like W, looking ridiculous in his Vietnamese Ao Dai. Or like Wasi Zafar, pretending to be a Law Minister. In each instance, you have an already strange creature made to wear something that just doesn't fit because the whole outfit is designed for something altogether different.
Consider this news item, published without a blink of a reaction from anyone (including the lawyer's movement):
"PESHAWAR: Another eight alleged militants surrendered to police here Wednesday and were freed after they swore on the Holy Quran to refrain from any terrorist activity in future."
Before the occasional reactionary reader starts making presumptions and frothing at the mouth, I am not mocking the oath on the Quran or even expressing outrage at their pardon. I am simply questioning a legal system that permits police officers the power to pardon individuals who have admittedly been involved in shootings, killings and perhaps bombings. What about common murderers, or decoits, or carjackers? Slaps on the wrist and oaths on the Quran all round?
And I'm not even being sarcastic or facetious. The latter may actually be part of a better solution. Let me lend some authority to the notion. Even Justice A.R Cornelius, a former Chief Justice of Pakistan - who was both a student of the Shariah and a Christian - asserted:
"[The British] did great work in establishing a complete system of courts and judiciary, and furnishing an example to the people ,over about 200 years of how such a system can be run.
[However] they were operating a system of justice which was imposed upon the people and did not derive from the life of the people themselves.
...To a community, a wrong by one of its members of a nature which disturbs its peace would always appear in a limited light, namely in those lights which derive from considerations of the common welfare of the community. They would not be included to exaggerated the offense, but always to minimize it and keep it at a proper level. Thus for instance, any breach of the peace can be regarded either as a breach of the local peace or reach of the kings peace. The community would tend to keep it at the former level, but the laws are devised so that the State steps in to deal with all except the most trivial breaches and the matter assumes an extra communal aspect by the intervention of Police and magistrates in many cases where such intervention might have been avoided"
Some would say that Cornelius was a tad too enthusiastic in his efforts to establish symbolic continuity between the the Pakistani Legal System and the populace's Muslim heritage. At one stage he famously suggested that Pakistan should adopt a modernized version of the classical Quranic Hadd punishment for theft, namely severing the thief's arm. Rather than sever the arm altogether (a bit hardcore for Cornelius's liking), he proposed that the 'motor nerves' connecting the brain to the arm be disconnected, thereby rendering flaccid and inoperative.
Personally, I'd disagree with Cornelius's proposal. Hazrat Umar suspended the Hadd punishment of arm severance (for the crime of theft) during a famine, arguably on the basis of Istihsan (Juristic Preference), as societal circumstances prevented the Quranic rule from being applied without the contravention of core Quranic values of social justice and fairness. Justice is not a price that is paid for lip service to Quranic formalism, let alone for some false notion of continuity. As for the whole severance of the motor nerves business, it's creepy and lacks any sort of cultural resonance or logic, so it adds zero value.
And if, according to a Rashidun, juristic preference can dictate that the operation of a Quranic rule is to be suspended in the broader interests of justice and social utility, then why not suspend the law of the land of Pakistan? Why not pardon militants who have committed crimes against the state, but repented? If their repentance is bona-fide, then surely a pardon serves the agenda of reconciliation, cools temperatures in the NWFP, and its good for the country.
In that sense, I don't take issue with the pardon. I actually think its a good idea. I just wish that the administration of justice in Pakistan was more systematic and consistent. The real injustice for our people results not from the exercise of discretion itself, but the extra legal ad-hoc-ism that characterizes its application. It is the reason our common law system is yet to fit us, in our 60 years of independence.
Consider this:
"...Mr Bush grimaced repeatedly and shifted from foot to foot, a portrait of embarrassment in turquoise blue brocade with yellow trim. It was obvious he couldn't’t wait to get it off and sure enough, moments after the official photographs were taken, he strode away, ripped it off and folded it up."
Now just imagine if he had been wearing it faithfully and consistently for 60 years. And he fully intended to do so for the indefinite future. Maybe then he wouldn't have looked like a complete idiot masquerading as a statesman.
Consider this news item, published without a blink of a reaction from anyone (including the lawyer's movement):
"PESHAWAR: Another eight alleged militants surrendered to police here Wednesday and were freed after they swore on the Holy Quran to refrain from any terrorist activity in future."
Before the occasional reactionary reader starts making presumptions and frothing at the mouth, I am not mocking the oath on the Quran or even expressing outrage at their pardon. I am simply questioning a legal system that permits police officers the power to pardon individuals who have admittedly been involved in shootings, killings and perhaps bombings. What about common murderers, or decoits, or carjackers? Slaps on the wrist and oaths on the Quran all round?
And I'm not even being sarcastic or facetious. The latter may actually be part of a better solution. Let me lend some authority to the notion. Even Justice A.R Cornelius, a former Chief Justice of Pakistan - who was both a student of the Shariah and a Christian - asserted:
"[The British] did great work in establishing a complete system of courts and judiciary, and furnishing an example to the people ,over about 200 years of how such a system can be run.
[However] they were operating a system of justice which was imposed upon the people and did not derive from the life of the people themselves.
...To a community, a wrong by one of its members of a nature which disturbs its peace would always appear in a limited light, namely in those lights which derive from considerations of the common welfare of the community. They would not be included to exaggerated the offense, but always to minimize it and keep it at a proper level. Thus for instance, any breach of the peace can be regarded either as a breach of the local peace or reach of the kings peace. The community would tend to keep it at the former level, but the laws are devised so that the State steps in to deal with all except the most trivial breaches and the matter assumes an extra communal aspect by the intervention of Police and magistrates in many cases where such intervention might have been avoided"
Some would say that Cornelius was a tad too enthusiastic in his efforts to establish symbolic continuity between the the Pakistani Legal System and the populace's Muslim heritage. At one stage he famously suggested that Pakistan should adopt a modernized version of the classical Quranic Hadd punishment for theft, namely severing the thief's arm. Rather than sever the arm altogether (a bit hardcore for Cornelius's liking), he proposed that the 'motor nerves' connecting the brain to the arm be disconnected, thereby rendering flaccid and inoperative.
Personally, I'd disagree with Cornelius's proposal. Hazrat Umar suspended the Hadd punishment of arm severance (for the crime of theft) during a famine, arguably on the basis of Istihsan (Juristic Preference), as societal circumstances prevented the Quranic rule from being applied without the contravention of core Quranic values of social justice and fairness. Justice is not a price that is paid for lip service to Quranic formalism, let alone for some false notion of continuity. As for the whole severance of the motor nerves business, it's creepy and lacks any sort of cultural resonance or logic, so it adds zero value.
And if, according to a Rashidun, juristic preference can dictate that the operation of a Quranic rule is to be suspended in the broader interests of justice and social utility, then why not suspend the law of the land of Pakistan? Why not pardon militants who have committed crimes against the state, but repented? If their repentance is bona-fide, then surely a pardon serves the agenda of reconciliation, cools temperatures in the NWFP, and its good for the country.
In that sense, I don't take issue with the pardon. I actually think its a good idea. I just wish that the administration of justice in Pakistan was more systematic and consistent. The real injustice for our people results not from the exercise of discretion itself, but the extra legal ad-hoc-ism that characterizes its application. It is the reason our common law system is yet to fit us, in our 60 years of independence.
Consider this:
"...Mr Bush grimaced repeatedly and shifted from foot to foot, a portrait of embarrassment in turquoise blue brocade with yellow trim. It was obvious he couldn't’t wait to get it off and sure enough, moments after the official photographs were taken, he strode away, ripped it off and folded it up."
Now just imagine if he had been wearing it faithfully and consistently for 60 years. And he fully intended to do so for the indefinite future. Maybe then he wouldn't have looked like a complete idiot masquerading as a statesman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)