Asadullah Khan Niazi explains how the social conception of 'morality' forced Uzma Khan and her sister to withdraw the case against Malik Riaz's family. "A Latin proverb goes 'The judge answers the question of the law, the jury answers questions of fact' – in this case, we were neither judges nor jury, what we were we all know: the executioners", he writes.
The case of Uzma Khan caught the entire country’s attention – despite negligible coverage on electronic media – it was for me in its own way unique yet a daily occurrence in our country. I suppose most people reading this piece would agree with the previous sentence, but what matters is its interpretation. They would infer two different understandings and that is my case today, the case of a divided society and its impact on the social fabric as well as the rule of law.
The case has left me with a lot of unanswered questions, and with my attempt at this article, I look to answer them, most if not all, for my better understanding of our society and the direction we as a nation are headed in. For this purpose, I kept asking people I met about their views on the case and the social media also presented a lot of varied opinions. If I arrange all the answers on a horizontal line where on one end people are demanding to bring the oppressors to justice while on the other, to give sharia punishment to Uzma - the graph appears to be a bell-shaped curve with a large cluster of opinions centering around the following line in the middle of the curve; “What happened to Uzma and Huma was wrong BUT anyone in the angry wife’s position would do the same”.
Keeping the above statement in mind, it seems the debate has reached a point where a balance between a moral and a legal battle needs to be reached for a large number of people to decide where the justice lies. Here stands my original argument that our people would derive two distinct meanings from my statement of this case being unique yet a daily occurrence. Some would assume the battle is between the rich, the powerful, and the resourceful versus the voiceless, whereas others would assume it meant husbands cheating on wives. Which of the two it really is should be made clear by the end of this writing.
It appears that a considerable amount of people are confused about the concept of law and justice. My synopsis here seconds that of a Karachi-based social activist who opined on a social media post that we as a people want to demand a moral certificate of an individual before considering them worthy of justice and while at it, we want the certificate to present an A+ grade. Are we headed in the right direction with this kind of mindset? Or will this ingrained need to judge one’s moral standing before everything else further impede the need for justice and prevalence of the rule of law?
In addressing the moral debate, I heard TV commentators and social media comments saying one could only understand if one would put themselves in the shoes of the angry wife. Is this a justification for the threat to physically and sexually assault an individual? If that is true, how far are we from saying that a father/brother is justified in an act of honor killing? Or from legalizing the terrorist act of Mumtaz Qadri? After all, none of us has ever been in the shoes of an angry father, in a patriarchal society of a tribal area, when he chose to murder his own daughter over love marriage. He probably felt a lot of emotions and possible shame and looked out to maybe a lifetime worth of taunts and humiliation from his tribesmen. Mumtaz Qadri certainly expressed his feelings justifying himself in the heinous crime. How can we treat the matter of the contents of the viral videos as a natural and justified reaction? Are we not at fault for putting the BUT in the middle of a statement in order to balance the illegal actions of people of power with the moral certificate of the victims?
The legal battle of the case is as pure as black and white. A group of armed men forced entry into the house of two girls on the orders of their accompanying employers. Belongings of the two girls were destroyed. The girls were threatened with physical and sexual assault. And all this was filmed. Facts are so simple and uncomplicated that small sentences paint very vivid pictures. Would the actions have been the same if Uzma’s house was guarded by a dozen armed men? Would the accused women have taken the same action? I would beg to differ as the facts reek from the stench of privilege.
Discussing the entire episode, I believe far before the question of moral justice is presented, the importance of the question of ethical justice needs to be addressed – human beings’ responsibility towards each other. What part did we play as individuals during the case? Are we right to question Uzma for possibly withdrawing the case (at the time of writing this article the only statement under Section 164 was made by Huma Khan while the primary complainant was Uzma Khan, hence we can assume that the case has not been requested to be withdrawn yet)? I believe not. I believe that when a photographer in Lahore with a massive following, uploads a very old video on his official social media page intending to show one of the victim girls dancing at an event when a police officer on twitter shares the statement attempting to withdraw the case questioning why police inefficiency was discussed throughout the case when a deal was to be made at a later stage, when countless comments of a smear campaign are made on social media posts and when a spurious religious personality records and shares a video condemning the character of Uzma and Huma - it is we who as a society have failed to provide justice to those in need. I believe we would not have tolerated the silence of politicians and media personnel had this incident been conducted by the daughters of, let’s say, CM Buzdar – regardless to say it would have made headlines for days to come. Thus the questions we should raise are that is the media silent regarding this incident because ‘might is right’? Or can this deafening silence be attributed to the resourcefulness and the subsequent hold of the powerful elites on the media and other institutions safeguarding basic human rights?
It is us who instead of supporting the cause of fair justice stood aside while the brutality of power and sexism quashed the pillars of civilization and society, bringing hopelessness for many in the future. Gossip from the elite in the backdrop of unaddressed internal issues fueled a campaign. The campaign weakened Uzma’s resolve to fight the might of the domineering guv’nor. We did not question the inefficiency of the police in fulfilling their oath. We did not question influencers who maligned and defamed and smeared and slandered Uzma into surrender. We withheld support for the weak in their quest for justice. If a deal is really made, who is to be blamed? It is we as a society. A Latin proverb goes “The judge answers the question of the law, the jury answers questions of fact” – in this case, we were neither judges nor jury, what we were we all know: the executioners.
The case of Uzma Khan caught the entire country’s attention – despite negligible coverage on electronic media – it was for me in its own way unique yet a daily occurrence in our country. I suppose most people reading this piece would agree with the previous sentence, but what matters is its interpretation. They would infer two different understandings and that is my case today, the case of a divided society and its impact on the social fabric as well as the rule of law.
The case has left me with a lot of unanswered questions, and with my attempt at this article, I look to answer them, most if not all, for my better understanding of our society and the direction we as a nation are headed in. For this purpose, I kept asking people I met about their views on the case and the social media also presented a lot of varied opinions. If I arrange all the answers on a horizontal line where on one end people are demanding to bring the oppressors to justice while on the other, to give sharia punishment to Uzma - the graph appears to be a bell-shaped curve with a large cluster of opinions centering around the following line in the middle of the curve; “What happened to Uzma and Huma was wrong BUT anyone in the angry wife’s position would do the same”.
Keeping the above statement in mind, it seems the debate has reached a point where a balance between a moral and a legal battle needs to be reached for a large number of people to decide where the justice lies. Here stands my original argument that our people would derive two distinct meanings from my statement of this case being unique yet a daily occurrence. Some would assume the battle is between the rich, the powerful, and the resourceful versus the voiceless, whereas others would assume it meant husbands cheating on wives. Which of the two it really is should be made clear by the end of this writing.
It appears that a considerable amount of people are confused about the concept of law and justice. My synopsis here seconds that of a Karachi-based social activist who opined on a social media post that we as a people want to demand a moral certificate of an individual before considering them worthy of justice and while at it, we want the certificate to present an A+ grade. Are we headed in the right direction with this kind of mindset? Or will this ingrained need to judge one’s moral standing before everything else further impede the need for justice and prevalence of the rule of law?
In addressing the moral debate, I heard TV commentators and social media comments saying one could only understand if one would put themselves in the shoes of the angry wife. Is this a justification for the threat to physically and sexually assault an individual? If that is true, how far are we from saying that a father/brother is justified in an act of honor killing? Or from legalizing the terrorist act of Mumtaz Qadri? After all, none of us has ever been in the shoes of an angry father, in a patriarchal society of a tribal area, when he chose to murder his own daughter over love marriage. He probably felt a lot of emotions and possible shame and looked out to maybe a lifetime worth of taunts and humiliation from his tribesmen. Mumtaz Qadri certainly expressed his feelings justifying himself in the heinous crime. How can we treat the matter of the contents of the viral videos as a natural and justified reaction? Are we not at fault for putting the BUT in the middle of a statement in order to balance the illegal actions of people of power with the moral certificate of the victims?
The legal battle of the case is as pure as black and white. A group of armed men forced entry into the house of two girls on the orders of their accompanying employers. Belongings of the two girls were destroyed. The girls were threatened with physical and sexual assault. And all this was filmed. Facts are so simple and uncomplicated that small sentences paint very vivid pictures. Would the actions have been the same if Uzma’s house was guarded by a dozen armed men? Would the accused women have taken the same action? I would beg to differ as the facts reek from the stench of privilege.
Discussing the entire episode, I believe far before the question of moral justice is presented, the importance of the question of ethical justice needs to be addressed – human beings’ responsibility towards each other. What part did we play as individuals during the case? Are we right to question Uzma for possibly withdrawing the case (at the time of writing this article the only statement under Section 164 was made by Huma Khan while the primary complainant was Uzma Khan, hence we can assume that the case has not been requested to be withdrawn yet)? I believe not. I believe that when a photographer in Lahore with a massive following, uploads a very old video on his official social media page intending to show one of the victim girls dancing at an event when a police officer on twitter shares the statement attempting to withdraw the case questioning why police inefficiency was discussed throughout the case when a deal was to be made at a later stage, when countless comments of a smear campaign are made on social media posts and when a spurious religious personality records and shares a video condemning the character of Uzma and Huma - it is we who as a society have failed to provide justice to those in need. I believe we would not have tolerated the silence of politicians and media personnel had this incident been conducted by the daughters of, let’s say, CM Buzdar – regardless to say it would have made headlines for days to come. Thus the questions we should raise are that is the media silent regarding this incident because ‘might is right’? Or can this deafening silence be attributed to the resourcefulness and the subsequent hold of the powerful elites on the media and other institutions safeguarding basic human rights?
It is us who instead of supporting the cause of fair justice stood aside while the brutality of power and sexism quashed the pillars of civilization and society, bringing hopelessness for many in the future. Gossip from the elite in the backdrop of unaddressed internal issues fueled a campaign. The campaign weakened Uzma’s resolve to fight the might of the domineering guv’nor. We did not question the inefficiency of the police in fulfilling their oath. We did not question influencers who maligned and defamed and smeared and slandered Uzma into surrender. We withheld support for the weak in their quest for justice. If a deal is really made, who is to be blamed? It is we as a society. A Latin proverb goes “The judge answers the question of the law, the jury answers questions of fact” – in this case, we were neither judges nor jury, what we were we all know: the executioners.