Heroines or victims?

The cases of Aafia Siddiqui and Aasia Bibi serve as prime examples of how women serve as symbols of male notions of nationalist and religious pride and cultural communal demarcations. For the religious Right, there is an enviable clarity in such cases. For them, Aafia is the iconic female symbol of Islam’s vulnerability, a victim of imperialist western injustices and hegemonic designs against the Muslim world. By the same token, Aasia, the alleged blasphemer has the sympathies, and is therefore representative of liberal, human rights secularists, who in the view of the Right, are anti-Islam and dupes and beneficiaries of vested western interests. By this token, both women have no independent agency (and no individual rights) and must rely and serve as proxies of the larger narratives at stake.
The liberals, on the other hand, predictably guided by their usual blurred vision and eager to find the least confrontational exit strategy, stumble along the path of least resistance. This would mean their usual passive-aggressive approach where the political posture is to demand the unconditional repeal of the Blasphemy Law, while practically they would accept and therefore be complicit with an amendment to reform a religious law. The justification for this is a higher principle that claims lives are at stake and therefore, the immediacy of the situation (its been on the books for nearly 30 years) calls for pragmatic compromise. Coincidentally, this was the exact justification for the signing of the Nizam-e-Ad’l, a peace brokered across the freedoms of women to save, well, just about everyone. Pragmatism is really another (very male) word for expediency.
This is not to suggest that reform doesn’t work. The ‘gift’ of Gen Musharraf to the women of Pakistan in the form of the Women’s Protection Act has, according to some surveys, succeeded in reducing considerably the number of women falsely accused of adultery. What hasn’t been resolved is what happens when a woman is guilty of the crime? Do secularists accept the state’s right to punish guilty transgressors and if not, then what is their position on regulation of sexual behaviour? It is no longer enough for secularists to side-step central issues. So far, the campaigns against Zina laws had protested against their discriminatory nature for women but after the amendment there is no call for the state to disengage from the issue of adultery altogether. So ultimately the reform position triumphs and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” impasse is very acceptable to all, except the secularists don’t want to admit defeat. However, they cannot dance at both weddings. Repeal will not follow reform.
The difference between the anti-secularists and those who uphold individual rights that are not defined by faith-based laws is, that the former locate their struggle against an ideology. In this case, liberal secularism. By giving it a geographical location (The West), this becomes an embodiment and easier to target. The secularists in Pakistan have not succeeded in grounding their arguments except a vague adherence to universalism. They have not kept up with the new challenges founded increasingly in academia and in foreign policy briefs, which seek to impose an exclusive logic of religiosity in their approach, understanding and work with Muslim-majority countries. As if our entire identities are exclusively defined by religion over and above our humanness or cultural compulsions.
Unfortunately, the lack of clarity amongst secularists has resulted in a limited call for a secular state merely by references to Jinnah’s secular intentions. Not only have the meanings and place of secularism changed and redirected themselves over the last fifty years but also our secularists (unlike in India) have designed no alternative thinking or body of work with regard to what the methodology, replacements or implications of a new secularism would entail. We all saw where limited pop-philosophy such as ‘enlightened moderation’ led us. So, does secularisation simply mean the repeal of the Hudood Ordinances and Blasphemy laws? But then what about the Family Laws and Inheritance Laws – premised on principles and a framework of discrimination. Does secularisation of the state only refer to laws or is there a vision that encompasses more? Which model of secular alternatives do its supporters agree upon in Pakistan? Does slow, incremental tweaking with Islamic laws suggest we are moving on the path of secularisation?
It is this last false hope that traps us. The reformist approach has had limited success, particularly for women, unless arguably, you take Iran as a model. Many Islamic feminists argue the case for the concessions of rights elicited from the Iranian state for women. However, in a gilded cage, every little freedom does glisten as exceptionally bright.
Despite the weak secularist agenda in Pakistan, one has always argued that the pockets of secular resistance have often unwittingly buffered the rising tide of fundamentalist politics. Ironically, the reform of the Blasphemy law may not help in this instance. It is not about the Aasia case, it is about the state’s attitude and political response to Gojra that allowed the notion of impunity to linger long enough until the next case. If, for the religious Right, Aafia symbolised global injustice and they milked it, then for the secularists, Gojra deserved the same sustained campaign for justice against local bigotry.
Secularists bemoan the relinquishment of increasing spaces at state levels to narrow religious political agendas. However, when they occupy such spaces themselves and have support they retreat and often actively repel the secular possibilities in the name of pragmatism and ground reality. This is acceptance of defeat and directly boosts anti-secular forces too.
Ironically, Aafia has gained the stature of an imagined heroine amongst the Right purely on the basis of her religious identity, while Aasia may become the unlikely cause celebre amongst liberals if the law is amended, for the same reason. Both heroines, at the cost of being victims and losing their respective lives as they knew it. The question is, ultimately will this price be enough to resolve the place of religion and protection of individual rights within a neutral and just state?

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: afiyazia@yahoo.com