Lawyering the law

4
132

A few days ago, a former colleague related to me the woes of a mother and a daughter who desperately need protection against threats from the daughter’s rapist. The girl is barely 15 years old. Her rapist? An influential doctor in his 60s. Not only are the survivor and her mother being threatened by the man, he is also using the police to harass them. On Chaand Raat, the survivor’s house was raided by female police personnel, who decided to make off with the only items of any value there: two cheap mobile phones.
As such, seeking recourse in the law is not a realistic option for the girl and her mother. They’re not influential, while the perpetrator is; they don’t have money, but the perpetrator does. They can’t afford a lawyer, while the alleged rapist can afford to buy the law.
A couple of years ago, I heard about a case of bonded peasants from Sindh who had sought assistance from the law against their ‘owner’. The peasants were represented by a newbie lawyer who had offered his services pro bono. Their feudal ‘owner’, on the other hand, was represented by the son of the then-president of a Sindhi nationalist party that pretends to represent the workers and peasants of this province. Disregarding social realities, and more importantly, the law, the political scion pleaded in favour of his clients, claiming that the peasants had been rightfully ‘bought’ and were now making noise because they were unable to repay the landowner’s debt. The judge ruled in favour of the plaintiffs, however, and the feudal’s lawyer was questioned by the public. His response: ‘I am a lawyer to make money. My politics is different. I will make all possible efforts to protect my clients.’ The law, in other words, was lawyered. The man in question has since been appointed by daddy dearest as the head of their party.
More recently, we saw the Mukhtar Mai case, where the laws concerned were blatantly disregarded in an extremely misogynist 86-page judgment in favour of the defendants. Despicable though it is, however, this phenomenon of ‘lawyering’ the law isn’t new, is it? Muhammad Ali Jinnah’s career, for instance, is littered with such cases. Many condemned Mumtaz Qadri’s lawyers for defending him in court, while conveniently dismissing the fact that the liberals’ new hero, Jinnah, had once decided to represent Ilm Deen, a man put on trial (and hanged) for a crime very similar to Qadri’s.
Jinnah’s behaviour was legally equivocal while dealing with the Khan of Kalat. The latter had sought help from him after elections in Balochistan resulted in an overwhelming victory for democratic candidates and an effective routing of the sardars. The Father of Pakistan saw the Khan’s cry for help as an opportunity to annex his client’s territory, thus laying the groundwork for a protracted battle for rights and ownership of resources that has, to date, resulted in countless atrocities against the Baloch.
So this ‘lawyering’ of the law, in the Pakistani context, actually began with the Father of the Nation. Why, then, do our ‘liberals’ valourise Jinnah while condemning the actions of those who, technically, are doing little more than following his example? I’m not inclined to buy the ‘they don’t know any better’ argument. We’re talking about people who’ve had access to the ‘best education that money can buy’. They’re historians, sociologists, economists, political scientists and analysts. I’m assuming that they do know, and that they chose to disregard these facts and purposely present a one-dimensional Jinnah. There could be a few reasons for this incredibly problematic framing of arguments.
See, what we have right now *is* Jinnah’s Pakistan; and Iqbal’s and Syed Ahmed Khan’s. What we need, on the other hand, is a democratic, pro-worker, pro-peasant, pro-women country. But the liberatti can’t afford that: it would mean no more serfs or servants; it would mean that they will no longer be able to get away with not paying their employees. It would truly mean disaster for their ill-begotten coffers. It would also be disastrous for the religious right: what would they do without cannon-fodder for their madrassahs where poor people are forced to send their kids in an attempt to escape from grinding poverty.
As such, it seems that Pakistan’s left, right and centre don’t really want to change the current narrative as long as their own lifestyles are not affected. Either that, or the fact that they are perhaps incapable of framing the narrative on their own terms, and must, perforce, regurgitate various forms of the state-sanctioned discourse. No, I think I’m going to go with ‘don’t want to, dammit!’
As for the mother and daughter whom I spoke of at the start: they are in urgent need of help. What should they do?

– The writer is a freelance journalist and researcher based in Karachi. She can be reached either via Twitter (@UroojZia) or email ([email protected]).

4 COMMENTS

    • Yasser (Latif Hamdani):

      Wasn't that you on Pak Tea House, January 7, 2011 at 7:37 pm:

      "An excessively stupid Air Commodore called Khalid Iqbal is spamming the internet with his lies …
      Please feel free to counter with the above article/blogpost."

      Are you a believer in democracy?

      • Your comment makes no sense. So what if I said that? Khalid Iqbal's article was pretty stupid. So is this one above by Ms. Zia.

Comments are closed.