Men, Women, Maulvis And The Military
The News, Pakistan
Opinion
March 7, 2006
Afiya Shehrbano
The second wave of the women's movement in Pakistan historically dates to the 1970 anti-General Ayub agitation, followed by a sustained struggle against the 1979 promulgation of the Hudood Ordinances and Islamisation process by General Zia-ul-Haq. Direct action, political mobilisation and collectivism became the hallmark of the women's movement which lodged itself against military dictatorship and demanded restoration of democracy.
The decade of '83 – '93 saw no concrete success in terms of the repeal of regressive laws, reduction of violence or political empowerment of women but it was the most visionary, inter-disciplinary, broad-based collective movement of its time. Its success lay in stemming the tide of a vicious, anti-women, conservative agenda and in a way rewrote the story of Pakistani women.
What Zia-ul-Haq successfully made obvious to the women of this country was the collusive relationship between men, the military state, religion and economic structures -- all of which depend on the exclusion and subjugation of women for their own power. In response, women (and some men) from trade unions, student organisations, the press, Left politics, academia and various professions organised themselves to form pressure groups in the cities; while rural women formed affirmative action groups such as Sindhiani Tehreek as part of the democratic movement.
Then came the money -- in different forms. Notably, the NGO movement allowed funded research and activism for political and social activists, as well as artists and journalists. Not only did this splinter the movement, it created hierarchies within a previously leaderless movement and encouraged competition for projects and funds. Simultaneously, social and development activism got redefined as a business or consultancy run by highly skilled professionals. The politics got diluted to suit the aims and purpose of the funding agency and the movement lost steam.
The other development came by way of globalisation which opened up career doors for women but also contributed to the feminisation of poverty. So we celebrate the odd woman CEO, state bank governor and women executives but millions of women struggle in Mcjobs, the unorganised sector, home-based exploitation and domestic work. Meanwhile the women's movement was amongst the first to criticise military action in Bangladesh and Balochistan and repeatedly protest extravagant military spending.
Religion has remained the most debated issue within the movement. For most of the 80s women activists remained split on the role of religion as a mobilisation strategy. Members of (particularly urban) women's organisations argued over the need for a progressive interpretation of Islam to challenge patriarchal religious state forces or to remain within a completely secular activist framework. This remains an unresolved and side-lined dialogue, partially due to 9/11.
Religion took on a new force after 9/11, with women seeking political expression in male-defined religious resistance to western Islamophobia. Many young women, particularly from the lower middle classes, found sanctuary in religion in an otherwise disempowering society where they were losing rights and representation. One example is found amongst those who took on the 'hijab' as a religious symbol, and then found it a convenient refuge against male harassment and a way of negotiating for their space in the public sphere. Women religio-political leaders earned false power even if it meant compromising with a militarised, dictatorial state. Religion became privatised and women home-based preachers found power in their small followings which filled the absence of democratic or domestic importance.
The path of the Pakistani women's movement has thus been marked by several adversaries ranging from a militarised state, male-domination, women-obsessed religious leaders and capitalist globalisation. But perhaps the single most important challenge for the movement came from within. It failed to resist the forces that stole away a whole new generation of activists. The new generation of activists are divided by the same ideological forces but within a new context. The ideology of individualism has taken over all the other forces, with economic insecurity encouraging competition and privatised religion building militant expression. The more we turn inward, to prove our professional worth and look for spiritual sanctuary, the more we are becoming politically disengaged from social issues.
The military/dictator apologists who believe that our democratic model must be determined by the stick and uniform, and are guaranteed merely because we have 'free media', are clueless about the principles of democracy generally and social activism in particular. By refusing to engage with the reality of people's discontent economically and politically, this myopic view is limiting itself to blaming a few Al-Qaeda operatives, a few women NGOs for highlighting 'occasional' abuse and a few miscreants who protest violently.
The ostrich approach will convince no one and there will come a time when the prisons will be too full to cage the discontent. Democracy includes freedom of expression and people are expressing their unhappiness at this form of 'democracy' that is neither representative in the house nor in our hearts. Perhaps the women's movement has made its most important contribution in its challenge to the rule of men, money, the maulvis and the military, and the establishment would do well to learn this guiding principle sooner than later.
The writer is a sociologist based in Karachi. She has a background in women's studies and has authored and edited several books on women's issues Email: afiyaszia@yahoo.com
Opinion
March 7, 2006
Afiya Shehrbano
The second wave of the women's movement in Pakistan historically dates to the 1970 anti-General Ayub agitation, followed by a sustained struggle against the 1979 promulgation of the Hudood Ordinances and Islamisation process by General Zia-ul-Haq. Direct action, political mobilisation and collectivism became the hallmark of the women's movement which lodged itself against military dictatorship and demanded restoration of democracy.
The decade of '83 – '93 saw no concrete success in terms of the repeal of regressive laws, reduction of violence or political empowerment of women but it was the most visionary, inter-disciplinary, broad-based collective movement of its time. Its success lay in stemming the tide of a vicious, anti-women, conservative agenda and in a way rewrote the story of Pakistani women.
What Zia-ul-Haq successfully made obvious to the women of this country was the collusive relationship between men, the military state, religion and economic structures -- all of which depend on the exclusion and subjugation of women for their own power. In response, women (and some men) from trade unions, student organisations, the press, Left politics, academia and various professions organised themselves to form pressure groups in the cities; while rural women formed affirmative action groups such as Sindhiani Tehreek as part of the democratic movement.
Then came the money -- in different forms. Notably, the NGO movement allowed funded research and activism for political and social activists, as well as artists and journalists. Not only did this splinter the movement, it created hierarchies within a previously leaderless movement and encouraged competition for projects and funds. Simultaneously, social and development activism got redefined as a business or consultancy run by highly skilled professionals. The politics got diluted to suit the aims and purpose of the funding agency and the movement lost steam.
The other development came by way of globalisation which opened up career doors for women but also contributed to the feminisation of poverty. So we celebrate the odd woman CEO, state bank governor and women executives but millions of women struggle in Mcjobs, the unorganised sector, home-based exploitation and domestic work. Meanwhile the women's movement was amongst the first to criticise military action in Bangladesh and Balochistan and repeatedly protest extravagant military spending.
Religion has remained the most debated issue within the movement. For most of the 80s women activists remained split on the role of religion as a mobilisation strategy. Members of (particularly urban) women's organisations argued over the need for a progressive interpretation of Islam to challenge patriarchal religious state forces or to remain within a completely secular activist framework. This remains an unresolved and side-lined dialogue, partially due to 9/11.
Religion took on a new force after 9/11, with women seeking political expression in male-defined religious resistance to western Islamophobia. Many young women, particularly from the lower middle classes, found sanctuary in religion in an otherwise disempowering society where they were losing rights and representation. One example is found amongst those who took on the 'hijab' as a religious symbol, and then found it a convenient refuge against male harassment and a way of negotiating for their space in the public sphere. Women religio-political leaders earned false power even if it meant compromising with a militarised, dictatorial state. Religion became privatised and women home-based preachers found power in their small followings which filled the absence of democratic or domestic importance.
The path of the Pakistani women's movement has thus been marked by several adversaries ranging from a militarised state, male-domination, women-obsessed religious leaders and capitalist globalisation. But perhaps the single most important challenge for the movement came from within. It failed to resist the forces that stole away a whole new generation of activists. The new generation of activists are divided by the same ideological forces but within a new context. The ideology of individualism has taken over all the other forces, with economic insecurity encouraging competition and privatised religion building militant expression. The more we turn inward, to prove our professional worth and look for spiritual sanctuary, the more we are becoming politically disengaged from social issues.
The military/dictator apologists who believe that our democratic model must be determined by the stick and uniform, and are guaranteed merely because we have 'free media', are clueless about the principles of democracy generally and social activism in particular. By refusing to engage with the reality of people's discontent economically and politically, this myopic view is limiting itself to blaming a few Al-Qaeda operatives, a few women NGOs for highlighting 'occasional' abuse and a few miscreants who protest violently.
The ostrich approach will convince no one and there will come a time when the prisons will be too full to cage the discontent. Democracy includes freedom of expression and people are expressing their unhappiness at this form of 'democracy' that is neither representative in the house nor in our hearts. Perhaps the women's movement has made its most important contribution in its challenge to the rule of men, money, the maulvis and the military, and the establishment would do well to learn this guiding principle sooner than later.
The writer is a sociologist based in Karachi. She has a background in women's studies and has authored and edited several books on women's issues Email: afiyaszia@yahoo.com
posted by Unknown | 5:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home