Justice in Pakistan’s Tribal Border Areas

15339_214291876108_615166108_3542243_2935305_n“We are quite clear what justice is. If someone kills, commits adultery or some other offence, they deserve to die,” said Javaid Khan of the Utman Khel tribe in Bajaur Agency.

He said “tribal justice” was practised in the country, and killings had been carried out following verdicts delivered by `jirgas’ (gatherings of unelected tribal elders).

He did not see these as extra-judicial killings or a violation of the law, saying: “We have our own means to keep order here… Yes, over the years, killings have been carried out on `jirga’ orders – for murder, adultery or other offences.”

Traditional justice is strong in many of these areas – but that comes at the expense of universally accepted legal rights, say campaigners.

The `jirga’ may offer justice in some cases, but there are flaws and there is evidence that the will of powerful tribal elders holds sway over the less influential. The less influential includes women.

The `jirga’ courts are a community-based form of justice, deciding right and wrong in areas where national official judicial structures are out of reach.

Their power is particularly strong in the FATA, which are only covered by limited parts of the Pakistan Penal Code and the 1973 constitution.

Instead, FATA operates under the Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR) of 1901: colonial-era laws that condone collective punishments and lack a right of appeal or trial by jury.

Those who campaign against the justice of `jirgas’, say they often deliver injustice, in part because women have so little power over their decisions.

Since women are not represented on the `jirgas’, verdicts often go against them.

Far-Reaching Influence
The hold of tradition and “traditional justice” extends beyond the more legally autonomous tribal belts.

Women in KP are frequently produced before jirgas”, most often in cases of `swara’ or “marriages of exchange”, where they are handed over to an aggrieved party to settle a dispute, including murder or other crime. Under-age girls are often produced before jirgas by their fathers in such cases.

The `jirgas’ often help reinforce discrimination against women, which can be particularly acute in rural areas in the north.

In the remote Kohistan District of KP where, technically speaking at least, national law applies, three men were shot dead in January this year as a result of a long-standing tribal feud involving allegations their brothers had mingled with unrelated women.
In Kohistan, the ease with which people are willing to kill women, often on `jirga’ orders, is shocking. It is just something completely acceptable to them. The ease with which people are willing to kill women, often on `jirga’ orders, is shocking.

“In our culture men and women unrelated to each other are not permitted to mingle at all,” Nazir Kohistani, a businessman who now lives in Peshawar but has origins in Besham, Kohistan, said. He said he had moved to Peshawar when his three daughters were infants “so they could be educated and lead a normal life.”

Women’s Rights Curtailed
Such traditions, and the power of `jirgas’ hold back women – preventing even their education, as well as other rights.

A survey by SDPI conducted in six KP districts and Punjab Province, the results of which were released to the media last month, found a large proportion of men in both provinces believed that there were situations in which it was necessary to use physical violence against women, and that banning violence was a “Western concept”.

Nevertheless, SDPI’s monitoring and evaluation team said that traditional `jirga’ courts still had a degree of popularity in the surveyed areas.

“It is difficult to change established ways,” said Shandana Bibi* who now lives in Peshawar, but hails from Mohmand Agency. “We as women can only try, but despite my efforts I have been unable to persuade my husband to allow our two daughters to study beyond grade five.”

She says she will need to “fight hard” to allow her daughters to receive even vocational training in sewing or embroidery, and the right to leave their home to receive the training.

Businessman Kohistani says he has come up against the same issues. He told IRIN: “In areas such as ours, there are women who never, ever leave the four walls of their home, simply moving from the home of their parents to that of their husbands. I did not want my daughters, or my two sons, to grow up in such a culture, and therefore I escaped it.”

However, escape is not possible for most. Nor do they necessarily wish to abandon old ways.

“We live as are grandfathers and great grandfathers did, we keep to our own ways as tribesmen; we believe life must follow tradition so we preserve our culture – and we are proud of the morality that comes with this,” said Javaid Khan from Bajaur.

He says his main concern is to “keep change away since it will worsen, not improve our lives, ruining morality, especially for women, who need to be modest and kept away from public life.”

*not a real name

Published by alaiwah

ALAIWAH'S PHILOSOPHY About 12 years ago, while studying Arabic in Cairo, I became friends with some Egyptian students. As we got to know each other better we also became concerned about each other’s way of life. They wanted to save my soul from eternally burning in hell by converting me to Islam. I wanted to save them from wasting their real life for an illusory afterlife by converting them to the secular worldview I grew up with. In one of our discussions they asked me if I was sure that there is no proof for God’s existence. The question took me by surprise. Where I had been intellectually socialized it was taken for granted that there was none. I tried to remember Kant’s critique of the ontological proof for God. “Fine,” Muhammad said, “but what about this table, does its existence depend on a cause?” “Of course,” I answered. “And its cause depends on a further cause?” Muhammad was referring to the metaphysical proof for God’s existence, first formulated by the Muslim philosopher Avicenna. Avicenna argues, things that depend on a cause for their existence must have something that exists through itself as their first cause. And this necessary existent is God. I had a counter-argument to that to which they in turn had a rejoinder. The discussion ended inconclusively. I did not convert to Islam, nor did my Egyptian friends become atheists. But I learned an important lesson from our discussions: that I hadn’t properly thought through some of the most basic convictions underlying my way of life and worldview — from God’s existence to the human good. The challenge of my Egyptian friends forced me to think hard about these issues and defend views that had never been questioned in the milieu where I came from. These discussions gave me first-hand insight into how deeply divided we are on fundamental moral, religious and philosophical questions. While many find these disagreements disheartening, I will argue that they can be a good thing — if we manage to make them fruitful for a culture debate. Can we be sure that our beliefs about the world match how the world actually is and that our subjective preferences match what is objectively in our best interest? If the truth is important to us these are pressing questions. We might value the truth for different reasons: because we want to live a life that is good and doesn’t just appear so; because we take knowing the truth to be an important component of the good life; because we consider living by the truth a moral obligation independent of any consequences; or because we want to come closer to God who is the Truth. Of course we wouldn’t hold our beliefs and values if we weren’t convinced that they are true. But that’s no evidence that they are. Weren’t my Egyptian friends just as convinced of their views as I was of mine? More generally: don’t we find a bewildering diversity of beliefs and values, all held with great conviction, across different times and cultures? If considerations such as these lead you to concede that your present convictions could be false, then you are a fallibilist. And if you are a fallibilist you can see why valuing the truth and valuing a culture of debate are related: because you will want to critically examine your beliefs and values, for which a culture of debate offers an excellent setting.

Leave a comment