Grotesque misdirections of fault

In increasingly globalising world perceptions matter. Pakistan's image as tolerant, inclusive state should be priority

Victim blaming. A term that has become a norm in recent parlance but an act that has, starting far earlier, been propped up as an explanation and, in many cases, even a justification for crimes of moral turpitude. There is something crucial yet conspicuously absent in this oh so vicious little phrase i.e., the perpetrator.

While we may hope that the irrationality of this missing element should cause even the most elementary mind to flinch, this is unfortunately not the case. And even more unfortunate is the fact that the internalization of this act, and the accompanying moral buttress, travels through and across every segment of society without discrimination.

Most recently, one of the incumbent justices of the highest court of our land has laid another brick in the wall of society’s regressive baggage. In one of the most high-profile murder cases in the history of Pakistan—the brutal murder of Noor Muqaddam by Zahir Jaffar—our Honourable Justice felt an irresistible compulsion to insert his moral judgment in the form of an additional note which concluded by observing that “living [sic] relationships” have a part to play in such heinous crimes. People question why he authored such a note in the first place.

He agreed with the majority verdict and the note, in large part, also revolves around factual and legal observations. The right and honourable Mr. Justice Ali Baqar Najafi could have simply signed his name along with those of his fellow members of the bench and be done with it.

But you fail to see that this was not merely a piece of fatherly advice proffered by an aging man, as I am sure a contrite Justice Najafi may hope to portray if the backlash over his comments becomes too substantial. No. These words authored by a champion of justice and civility stem from the same mind that kills his daughter in the name of honour.

An uncontrollable urge to avenge a so called ‘morality’ without which society is bound to crumble. The only difference lies in the severity of their reactions. Some may argue that the father killing the one is worse. But I would ask you to consider the implications of such statements that embolden the innumerable.

Again, I truly believe he has not erred against his conscience. Like the people indoctrinated with this manner of thinking (which I presume to be the comfortable majority), he has simply said what he truly believes. And the fact that this may betray his oath to act according to the law and to defend and uphold the Constitution is immaterial, because these worldly measures of duty will always take a backseat to a supposed higher calling.

So what is it that compels a people to turn an obvious chain of perpetrator-crime-victim-judgment-punishment on its head? What rationale permits us to punish the victim with damning aspersions on the basis of their character when this has nothing to do with the judgment being passed against the perpetrator?

I wish I had a clear and coherent answer. That I could simply comprehend this as a symptom of a male dominated society. But to reduce the issue to this would be a disservice. So, at present all I have is a working theory before which I would like to provide some historical context.

One of the foremost studies on the problematization of desire and morality in the modern age can be found in the writings of French philosopher, Michel Foucault. While this is an incredibly comprehensive and nuanced work, my focus revolves around the exposition of moral thought in Ancient Greece discussed by Foucault.

That the Ancient Greek civilization was a patriarchal society is too blatantly obvious to sugarcoat—the right to vote, govern and essentially any form of self-determination vested exclusively in free men. But quite interestingly, moral judgment in Ancient Greece for any form of sexual misconduct was not directed towards the object (I use object instead of victim because acts of pleasure were not considered criminal). Instead, it was the subject, the man able to freely exercise his will, who would be subjected to moral judgment, if any.

The reason for this, though it may offend our modern notions of equality, was that it was free men who were empowered to impose their will, societal standing and might onto the subjugated classes (comprising free women and slaves) and were, therefore, morally culpable for any misuse of their power. It was the man, unable to control himself, who suffered for his indiscretions.

This logical equation was slowly mutilated in succeeding Judeo-Christian tradition and though the exact stepping stone is hard to trace, the corrupting wiles of Eve and all her descendants appear to occupy the centre stage in most sermons preaching the decline of societal values.

Similar historical contexts exist in the traditions of many other regions, religions and societies where the problematization of the morality of the subject and object oscillates and tends to rest on the side blaming the object. Even in Islam, which is most relevant to us, the Holy Quran first commands men to lower their gaze and guard their modesty before subscribing the same conduct to women. A sequence of responsibility that seems to have been honoured more greatly than it is today.

And despite being an arguably more progressive and inclusive society than the Ancient Greeks, there too male domination was the norm.

Therefore, despite what a reductive mind may wish to assume, I do not think that it is enough to cry “patriarchy” and pat ourselves on the back. This may get us likes and clout, but it is not conducive to finding a solution. First you must do the work that is due to understand the problem. Only then can meaningful remedial measures and steps towards re-education be taken.

Therefore, I have a theory which delves a bit deeper in order to understand the issue. Admittedly, it is not airtight. But I shall share it still in the hope that better minds may get the ball rolling.

I feel it may be significant to study the historical encroachment by the inept of leadership roles. A leadership that lacks the mettle to address nuanced and complex issues and to work towards meaningful solutions will always choose to hide behind smokescreens. We see examples of this all around us. Such as mythical immigration issues and the evil intentions of racial and ethnic groups used to distract a people from a fracturing economy.

In similar vein, those unable to explain complex matters of self-restraint to its natural audience, the possibly delinquent men, take refuge behind the corrupting effects of the female form against which the timid will of simple men is no match.

This narrative coddles you and leaves you blameless because you, hardly more than a beast compelled by his hormones, cannot be held responsible. And with time, this ludicrous notion supported by a sympathetic audience gains so much traction that it attains the status of religious belief. Equipped with this self-serving absolution a vicious cycle of men with decreasing substance perpetuates.

To the point that no number of intellectual experiences or positions in society can shake off the instinct to attribute blame not to the operator of the drill but to the canyon for hosting precious minerals and, thus, “asking for it.”

It is perhaps this utter lack of substance infecting every strata of society that motivated a former Prime Minister of Pakistan to simply say “men are not robots” when asked regarding the rape of a woman in the middle of the road before her children’s eyes.

Therefore, it may be the case that male domination, due to its provision of a sympathetic audience, made such regressive thought easily feel at home. But as with other narratives where the oppressor shifts the blame onto the oppressed, perhaps the lapse also heavily lies in the moral deficiency of those we bestow with authority.

As a consequence, a major roadblock in developing suitable content and policy is the inability to defer to the conventional state education structures. Instead, what we can try to push for is the development of long-term programs by (hopefully) more sensitized organisations.

These include the National Commission on the Status of Women (NSCW), the National Commission for Human Rights Pakistan (NCHR) to name a few, ideally in consultation with a host of other governmental and non-governmental institutions. And to rope the state in on this valiant effort, an attempt needs to be made to speak to governments in terms of the one inarguable priority: the economy.

In an increasingly globalising world perceptions matter. Pakistan’s image as a tolerant, safe and inclusive state should be the priority. This will not only open doors to foreign endorsement and investments, but most significantly bring much needed opportunities to our people.