Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif recently watched A Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness, Sharmeen Obaid Chinoy’s Oscar-nominated documentary about ‘honour’ killings. In a statement following the screening, he told Ms Chinoy and his audience that there is no ‘honour’ in murder. 

In the days since it has been announced that the government will move to plug holes in laws that currently allow killers (often family members) to go unpunished. Ms Chinoy has expressed the hope that her film would help put an end to honour killings in Pakistan.

Read: No honour in honour killing: PM

It would be wonderful if her wish came true. The reasons it will not are the ones that the government needs to address if it truly wishes to tackle the problem. 

The root of the problem is that women (and men) are considered social capital in a family.

Before reasons, however, consider context. I pulled up two sets of statistics compiled by the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP). The first covers the period spanning Feb 1, 2004, to Feb 1, 2006. During this time, there were 988 incidents of honour killings in Pakistan. Nearly, but not exactly half, did not even have FIRs registered for the crime. Firearms were the weapon of choice for doing away with the victims, followed by blunt force injury with a heavy weapon. 

Fast-forward a decade: another set of statistics I pulled from the HRCP database was from between February 2014 to February 2016. The number of honour killings in this period was 1,276, nearly 400 did not have FIRs registered, and most of the victims were killed by guns.

The decade in the middle has not been one without legislative initiatives or civil society campaigns to end honour killings. I chose the period immediately following 2004 because that marked the passage of a bill against honour crimes. As political machinations go, the bill that was actually passed was a diluted version of the one first introduced by senator Sherry Rehman. There was much clapping and clamour then too.

The whole thing repeated itself in March of last year with the passage through the Senate of the Anti-Honour Killings Laws (Criminal Laws Amendment) Bill, 2014. Meanwhile, international human rights organisations have devoted budgets and campaigns to ending honour killings in Pakistan. As the numbers show in both cases, honour killings (to the extent they are even reported) have continued and even increased. 

Here is why. First, legislative initiatives have focused on the legal dimensions of the issue, the latest a much needed amendment to the qisas and diyat laws that would prevent the pardoning of honour killers. This is a great idea. 

At the same time, like legislative initiatives of the past, it has no teeth at all against the root of the problem: that women (and men) are considered social capital in a family, marrying them a form of adding sociological assets, creating relationships that families, increasingly torn by migration and demographic change, require. 

When a woman rebels against this mechanism, not only does the family lose the possibility of capital accrued from arranging her marriage, her decision jeopardises the futures of remaining brothers and sisters, their possibilities of making good matches that sustain them in a web of relationships where individual choice defeats collective security.

In a cultural and sociological system where the family and tribe are still the only and often unitary form of social insurance against catastrophe, the death of a breadwinner, illness and job losses, collective control over the individual is the glue that holds everything together. 

Honour killers kill because they think they are preserving the system, saving the sisters who did not run away. To overcome honour killings, a robust state must take the place of the family in providing basic guarantees of security against debilitating losses; until it does so, the cruel elimination of those who wish to make their own choices will continue. 

The second reason for failure lies in the broken mechanisms of international advocacy, particularly as they exist in countries like Pakistan, which have faced the brunt of international aggression. Simply put, since “saving brown women” became the reason to go to war, stories of hapless victims of honour killings in countries like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Syria have served to fuel a moral reason as to why such imperial overtures are justified. Some brown women, those at risk of honour killings, are to be saved; others who happen to be near target zones for drones do not. 

The hypocrisy of this is not lost on local populations but it manifests in a particularly grotesque (مسخ شدہ، بگڑا ہوا) way in the towns and villages of Pakistan that have borne direct hits from American aggression; maintaining honour, which translates roughly to controlling women, has become a nationalistic goal, a stand for local sovereignty. 

Women are paying with their lives; simply telling their stories has not saved them and will not save them. This last point is important, for it represents a very troubling moral bifurcation in the aid and advocacy economy via which campaigns against honour killings are funded and the communities in which moral change must take place. 

The campaigns are providing jobs and causes and in some cases, international acclaim for a few; but that will never bridge the vast chasm (دراڑ، خلا) between top-down advocacy and urgently needed grass-roots change. 

The words of the prime minister are heartening. Like most women, I would rather have a leader willing and sincere in recognising the horror of honour crimes than one who capitulates as so many others have done. 

A Pakistani woman honoured at the Oscars is also a good thing, an inspiring individual victory and a hopeful honouring, even if it is one that cannot stop future dis-honourings of less lucky Pakistani women. For that, a deeper effort is required, a local and grass-roots conversation directed at those for whom family, honour and survival are intertwined, the murderous killing of the rebel justified because it pretends to be saving all the rest. 

The writer is an attorney teaching constitutional law and political philosophy.

rafia.zakaria@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, February 24th, 2016

ZAKIA Soman, co-founder of the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan

TWO women qazis of Jaipur, Afroze Begum and Jahan Ara, have broken the male-dominated bastion for the first time in Rajasthan. Whether they get to put their two-year training into practice is another story but if they do, it will be with a model nikahnama, a comprehensive legal document that has been prepared by the Bharatiya Muslim Mahila Andolan (BMMA) to help helpless women trapped in unfortunate circumstances.

Behind these confident and eloquent women qazis stands steely, gritty but soft-spoken Zakia Soman, co-founder of the BMMA, which now has over 70,000 members. Soman and a colleague, Noorjehan Niaz, are spearheading a silent social revolution in the backward Muslim community to stand up against injustice, gender parity and to voice their opinion in a highly patriarchal community.

Soman herself passed through a similar experience during the riots of 2002 in Gujarat. She and her then 13-year-old son had to flee their home in Ahmedabad and relocate to a Muslim ghetto on the outskirts. Stories of arson, looting, rampage and destruction shook her up. She wondered at the police’s insolence and their eagerness to let off the mischief-makers. For her, it was a harsh lesson in citizenship. Once the riots subsided, Soman began to visit camps to help with the rehabilitation programme. There she met many women, who despite coming from a poor background, wanted justice for their families. It changed Soman’s outlook and inspired her. It was then she realised the vulnerability of being a woman and a minority. But it failed to dampen her fiery spirit, She resolved to find a way to help these women who needed justice and a voice. Excerpts from an interview:

What is this model nikahnama that you say should be used by qazis, especially women qazis?

In Islam, marriage is a social contract. But traditionally, there are no details in the nikahnama other than just name and signature. There are only basic details. The model nikahnama has the terms of agreement written down during the time of marriage. It has details and declarations like whether the groom is married or not, death certificate, of previous wives, talaq (divorce) certificate, amount of mehr, which is the money given to a bride at the time of a wedding and is equal to 100 per cent of the groom’s annual income. The gifts received from both sides should be listed in the nikahnama. There would be two witnesses and their addresses, signatures, IDs on the nikahnama. It is a comprehensive, valid legal document and would be beneficial for both bride and groom in the long run, if the couple has problems later in their marriage.

But how do you enforce that couples get married with this nikahnama?

It would be a long-term process to enforce it. In 2009, we prepared the first version of the model nikahnama. It was used in some marriages and some mass marriages in Maharashtra and Gujarat. In Ahmedabad, a girl got a mehr of INR 100,000 with this nikahnama. The process to enforce it would begin with spreading awareness about it. There would be campaigns to make parents of the bride know about the details to be filled in the nikahnama. Qazis have cleared their two-year training course from the Mumbai-based Darul Uloom-i-Nisawa and they would use it. Many of our girls and even boys have developed a progressive mindset. We have hopes that more and more people will adopt this nikahnama during the marriage vows.

But what about a nod from the highest Muslim body for these qazis to practise?

It is not that everybody in our community will be against women qazis. There are some progressive qazis as well who interpret religion rightly. So we would talk to them and get them to share our model nikahnama among the masses. There is no authorised body in our community to give the go ahead for either women qazis or the model nikahnama.

The Muslim Personal Law Board is actually an NGO among the many thousand NGOs in our country. It has no judicial or official status. The mainstream media has got it wrong that it is one of our highest decision-making bodies. But our Muslim society is changing, there is awareness and the mindset is changing. Boys and girls are becoming progressive, more aware and knowledgeable that Islam is being interpreted by many in a wrong way. That section of our society is likely to believe in our nikahnama and would use it.

Is there still a lot of confusion between Sharia laws and the laws of the land? Is there a wide gap between the two?

The confusion is deliberate. Our society is still patriarchal and the confusion is to their advantage. In 1937, the British who ruled over India said Muslims would be ruled according to Sharia laws. But those laws do not talk about what should be the age of marriage, the ways of talaq and many other things. It is not a codified law. So everybody has the liberty to interpret laws in their own ways, especially the fundamentalists. The Quran has given women equal rights but it has not reached the poorest of the poor women yet.

Are you against triple talaq?

Our movement has strongly campaigned for abolishing the practice of triple talaq, which allows Muslim men to divorce a woman by merely saying the word talaq thrice. Instead, we want the use of the “talaq-e-ahsan” method, where at least four attempts at reconciliation are made before a divorce is granted. So comprehensive reform in Muslim laws is very necessary. The Quran had given us rights 1,400 years ago but we have not been able to savour it. In 2014, the BMMA drafted a Muslim Personal Law drawn from the Quran, but from a woman’s perspective.

—The Statesman / India

Published in Dawn, February 24th, 2016

US has failed to explain deadly drone policy, says report

AFP — THE DAWN

WASHINGTON: The United States has made little or no progress in explaining how and why it orders lethal drone strikes, even as America’s reliance on the unmanned aircraft soars worldwide, a report said on Tuesday. 

According to a study by the Stimson Centre, a Washington-based non-partisan think tank, President Barack Obama’s administration has failed to provide basic transparency in the drone programme that has become a keystone in America’s counter-terrorism efforts. 

“In terms of the justification for the programme and all the legal basis — that still remains out of reach of the American public,” study author Rachel Stohl said. 

Her paper gives American school-style grades in a “report card” to the US government, rating how it has improved its drone accountability since the Stimson Centre wrote a damning report on the matter in June 2014. 

The report card gave the Obama administration an “F” — or a failing grade — in three areas: a lack of progress on releasing information on targeted drone strikes, developing better accountability mechanisms and explaining the US lethal drone programme’s legal basis. 

A seemingly ever-expanding global war against extremist groups means the United States relies heavily on drones to monitor hostile lands and launch missiles at suspected extremists. 

Mr Obama has drastically expanded the programme during his tenure, but his administration provides scant information on strikes. 

Critics say many drone strikes kill civilians, and the aircraft alienate and radicalise local populations on the ground. 

Since June 2014, the United States has reportedly carried out lethal drone strikes in Afghanistan, Libya, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, as well as against the militant Islamic State (IS) group in Iraq and Syria. 

The Stimson Centre said at least a dozen countries now host US drone bases, including Ethiopia, the Seychelles and Yemen. 

“The targeted killing programme has been the most precise and effective application of firepower in the history of armed conflict,” said Michael Hayden, former head of the Central Intelligence Agency, which carries out most drone strikes. 

Writing in The New York Times on Sunday, he credited drones for decimating the ranks of Al Qaeda. But the Stimson Centre says such assertions are meaningless without any publicly reviewable data available to back them up. 

“We know very little about the actual drone operations, the missions, even in aggregate we don’t know,” Ms Stohl said. “How do we evaluate if this programme is successful?” 

Much of the limited data available on deadly drone strikes has been compiled by journalists, watchdog groups and industry whistleblowers. 

The report’s highest grade is a “C”. While it’s a passing grade, it’s still far from stellar. 

It credited the administration with making some progress in releasing a new export policy on drones, progress towards adopting rules and regulations for the use of drones in US airspace, and progress acknowledging the use of drone strikes in foreign countries.

Published in Dawn, February 24th, 2016

KABUL: Russia delivered 10,000 Kalashnikovs to the Afghan government Wednesday, with officials saying they were for the fight "against terrorism", a day after Kabul hosted talks on reviving the peace process with the Taliban.

The assault rifles, delivered with pomp at a ceremony on the tarmac at Kabul's military airport, will be directly transferred to security forces, said President Ashraf Ghani's national security adviser Hanif Atmar.

"We are trying to continue our efforts for peace, but in the meantime our nation should have the ability to defend itself," Atmar said.

He said "international terrorism" in Afghanistan was a threat not only to the country and the region, but also to "our friends in Russia".

Despite the $60 billion spent by Washington over more than 14 years to equip and train the Afghan security forces, they have struggled to contain the resurgent Taliban.

Kabul is trying to resume a dialogue with the militants, and after talks with the US, China and Pakistan on Tuesday said it expects to relaunch the stalled peace process by early March.

Related: Pakistan wants Russian engagement in Afghan peace process

Russia is not part of the quartet. In a recent interview with state news agency Ria Novosti, Zamir Kabulov, the Kremlin's special representative to Afghanistan, described Washington's efforts to restore peace as "futile".

 An Afghan security officer stands next to boxes of ammunition inside a Russian aircraft at the International Kabul Airport, Afghanistan.─Reuters

At Wednesday's ceremony Russia's ambassador in Kabul Alexander Mantitski said cooperation between his country, NATO and the United States in Afghanistan ended in April 2014 "at the initiative of the West".

The decision was taken in retaliation for Russia's annexation of Crimea.

However the diplomat said Moscow would continue to cooperate directly with its Afghan partner.

Also Read: Afghan peace process quadrilateral talks in Kabul on Feb 23: Foreign Office

Russia remains concerned about the growing influence of Islamic State in the east of the country, where the group counts fighters from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan -- two former Soviet republics bordering Afghanistan -- in its ranks.