‘Bakwas’ must stop

Shabnam's case was reported and tried as a dacoity and not rape as a euphemism for rape

Aisha Sarwari who recently contributed an article to this publication has not done her homework as a writer nor followed the grammar of responsible journalism. In her article she referred to the case of Shabnam which was reported and tried as a dacoity and not rape as a euphemism for rape. It seems she has not taken the trouble of inquiring from Madam Shabnam what she has to say in this post #MeToo era, was she raped and gang-raped in the presence of her husband and the young son? If she did not have her number and had given me a call instead, I would have gladly given her the number. However having read her article, I did call Madam Shabnam and spoke to her. I shall refer to her answer later.

Legally speaking, rape can never be defined by using a euphemism or as an agreeable or inoffensive expression in substitution for the blunt, unpleasant or embarrassing expression. Rape is rape and cannot be substituted by any agreeable phrase; and depends on investigation, charge in the court, evidence of reliable witnesses and findings by the court.

She did not seem to have read my book Mere Mashoor Muqadmay wherein full description of what happened and who were tried in the court is mentioned. The result is that she has wrongly stated that the incident of decoity happened in 1976 which actually took place during General Zia’s time starting from July 1977; later referring to me she says “this so-called social justice warrior pleaded Shabnam’s case got the decoits apprehended, sans Bandial”, Bandial was also apprehended and put to trial.

Would she admit that these are serious lapses which she should not have committed?

Let me explain why the dacoity at Shabnam’s house cannot be substituted for ‘rape’ in as much as seasoned lawyers always make thorough inquiry from victims and other relevant witnesses by being blunt and not caring for embarrassment to figure out what case has to be pleaded. I went to the house of Robin Ghosh and Shabnam and separately talked to them (lawyers do get complete confidence of their clients), then I inquired from the servants about the details and after debriefing relevant people I wrote in my brief ‘NO CHARGE OF RAPE, only DECOITY, THREAT TO ROONI life’. Thereafter, I inquired from the investigating officers if they got any clue about the rumour that rape was also committed that night. The two investigating officers told me that not a trace was found indicating rape. The charge framed by the prosecuting agency was confined to dacoity only. Finally, the court also gave them capital punishment for dacoity and not rape.

I marvel how Ayesha Sarwari has concluded that Shabnam was not only raped but gang-raped and that too in the presence of her husband and her child. She seems to have been influenced by some irresponsible reports in social media or was she imagining such a sordid happening.

Now let me tell her and the readers what Madam Shabnam told me when I contacted her in her home at Dhaka. She said, “Bhai I have learnt about what some people in Pakistan have said about the incident of dacoity at my house. Bhai, it is all ‘bakwas’”. She repeated this word a number of times and with a tone of anger. When I finally put the blunt question she almost broke down and said the words which are haunting me since then. She said, “Why have the people of Pakistan whom I love resorted to this ‘bakwas’ and are agonising me and my family after forty years.”

Now the ‘bakwas’ must stop. Let us respect her, her feelings and her spoken words.

Sarwari in her narration has weaved a spider net starting from pre #MeToo era, euphemism for substitute for rape concluding it was a gang rape, then roping Imran Khan for ‘courting all the fair maidens’, then to the importance of social media, irrelevantly to my person and finally the letter I wrote to General Ziaul Haq.

I may answer why I wrote the letter dated 26/10/1979 (contents irrelevant). Firstly, the trial was before Special Military Court with no appeal provided. Secondly, if the accused were tried before the civil court they would have got life imprisonment or less; Thirdly, I am generally opposed to capital punishment as the chairman of the Human Rights Society of Pakistan and finally, I recommended for commutation of capital punishment to life but not total freedom (Presidential pardon was for life imprisonment only).

Lastly, let us see what Sarwari is to say about me, otherwise not relevant to the article. “S M Zafar, Shabnam’s legal counsel” she says “a man revered as just, honest and who speaks truth to power we throw these accolades without referring to any thesaurus”. I may not be entitled to all these qualifications but I have a record to place before the readers.

I told Field Martial Ayub as his cabinet minister that he has to return to adult franchise for which he called me “immature” in politics in his diaries.

I rebuffed Gen Zia through a press conference that I could not accept an invitation to join his Advisory Council, as the Pakistan Muslim League of which I was secretary general, had passed a resolution that no office-bearer of the League will join martial law authorities. He was irate.

When Gen Pervez Musharraf made Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry dysfunctional, I gave an interview to journalists in the UN’s lobby where I had gone to represent Pakistan in one of the committees that “the Order of president is unconstitutional”.

On the issue of “keeping his uniform” for which my party had passed a resolution that Musharraf should continue to keep his uniform, I said in the Senate and to the press, ‘He will be betraying the nation’. If the common man considers these acts as speaking “truth to power” why do they need thesaurus and can Madam Sarwari find other words for explaining the same by searching through various thesaurus.

Yes, in the nation’s interest, I did speak truth to power.

In denying my honesty she has no scandal to quote. May I also in all humility point to her my writing oral history (a special genre) of what happened and who were responsible. No one ever denied or gave a different version. Through the Crisis (1971), Dialogue on the Chessboard (2004) and Senator Zafar Ki Kahani (2015)”, is what common people called ‘just’ and ‘honest’.

If she still has a different opinion about me, I assure her that I shall let her keep her opinion because this is her fundamental right.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 16^th, 2018.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.