By Javed Iqbal
David M. Perry rightly remarked the slogan of ‘My Body, My Choice’, a principle of bodily autonomy, can bring together disparate strands of America’s left. The goal, the campaigns from disability rights to black lives matter, keep the abortion legal to the environmental movement, can’t achieve, will the controversial slogans attain it?
The aurat march (ladies’ walk) is being finished by our moms, sisters and daughters. I don’t figure out why it is being made dubious. The people together, one way, ought to support this march with an open heart if it is against prostitution in the society and exploitation of the poor by the rich, rape of women in the held Kashmir and other issues.
I have consistently been supportive of ladies and minorities in a democratic society. In the event, ladies are striving for their rights, what’s wrong with it? However, a little conservative part of society can show revulsion. Yet, an extremely enlightened class will surely positively bolster it.
The other side of the story is altogether different. The ‘aurat march’ slogans like ‘My Body, My Choice’ made the march objectives controversial. The debate between playwright Khalil ur Rehman Qamar and Marmi Sarmad added fuel to the fire. The court refused to grant the status quo on the issue.
The narrative we hear so often “Muslim women are oppressed,” they are denied inheritance rights and lack opportunities to learn and earn. Is it right, if yes, how?
The historic perspective and factual data tell the other way round. Islam initially permitted polygyny for those widows and orphans who faced money related issues under rigorous conditions. It never permitted polyandry as has been practised among certain clans even today knowing sacredness of ladies. To the surprise of many, the West didn’t take this Himalayan norm of sharing men.
Right now this article will attempt to handle the issue instead of making it more controversial. The western class has a dominant part of liberal and illuminated people. There may be a sentiment in the eastern minds to oppose the move to make a lady a market-commodity. We don’t rehash the inconsiderate words about a lady from a mullah or a modern playwright. Whether a specific segment desires to move society towards free sex or to split the marriage bond is a point of concern.
The MeToo movement has arrived at an ‘aurat march’ expedition, and the day isn’t far when our moms and sisters will be liberated like those in the West to choose their fate. I recollect an analysis by somebody who focused on a socialist society and considered it as dormant. The same is being said about a Muslim society in Pakistan. The reason for promoting popular pop music was to distance individuals from their belief system. Financing was the other tool. At the point when international associations are funding specific projects, or more to say, to cheapen social values, it would perhaps be hard to save them.
As indicated by one scholar Ejaz Khan, the most deep-rooted family institution has been already hit hard by the liberals. Presently, as the target of the marchers and sloganeers “My body, My Choice” seems as to debilitate the bond that religion has called marriage.
I wonder the society where recalling religion and God was an ignoble offence; there the most powerful man (Putin) is looking at making belief in God and religion a piece of the constitution. In addition, he has confidence in the significance of strict religious bonds among people instead of implicit contracts.
It is essential to refer to the Talibanization movement, which believed in weaponization. Their belief system was considered a bigger weapon, a philosophy that constrained the world’s superpower including allies, to flee from the scene. It had to go into accord with Taliban called Doha Peace Pact.
It is said that when the educated class of society believes in anti-state ideology, it is not less than adversity. This philosophy prompted the Arab Spring and the sun of several countries set. The Syrian civil war is the other outcome of such contentions.
There should be marches against child abuse, rapes, sodomy and low wages and many more issues like corruption, price hike, inflation and rising loans by the state. However, as the leaders of the March are expected to declare that they are leading the cause of women’s equality and they are against all the discriminations, if any, in favour of women. They may reject reserved seats for women in the legislative assemblies. They may also reject the women quota being given in the competitive examinations like CSS etc as they are equally smart to compete with the men aspirants. They may also refuse to enrol in boys-specific institutions to give those anti-March minds a clear message. The majority of Pakistanis wants to hear their stance on the marriage contract. They may also explain why they could not move against rising prostitution in the society and exploitation of the working class by the mighty capitalists. Why no march for hundreds of girls and women raped in the held Kashmir?
Quoting Ama Ata Aidoo, Mary Kolawole in 1997 in “Womanism and African Consciousness” posits some of the African female scholars towards feminism, “Feminism…The destroyer of homes. Imported mainly from America to ruin nice African homes.”
Does this quotation fit to the Pakistani society as well? We hope the campaigners of the aurat march don’t want to further damage the already split society, the eastern traditions and the family institution.