This story first appeared in The Friday Times – Naya Daur

With all its strengths and challenges, the Aurat March is here to stay

Aurat March 2023 is here, and so is its unabashed opposition and antagonism from the state and sections of society.

Every year close to the International Women’s Day, March 8, there ensues an onslaught of feminists, especially those at the forefront of the Aurat March (AM) organisation. Every year without fail, parts of the mainstream media erupt in frenzy against AM and its allies, while social media explodes with anti-feminist fury.

From 2018 to 2020, AM progressively increased its outreach and media impact, despite a far greater backlash from a wide range of social groups, including opposition from some of the purportedly liberal voices. As the noise increased, so did the diversity of AM participants. Six years on, it is now pertinent to take stock of how the society, state, and feminist collective behind AM have changed. Or not.

In 2018 when the younger generations of Pakistani feminists in Karachi made a move to organise the Aurat March – women’s day rallies as we used to call it in the 1980s and 90s – we were all taken aback by the success – in terms of diversity and volume of participation. The participants revolted against the patriarchal social order and, for the first time, used humour and satire effectively in slogans and speeches.

The system had to respond, and it did. Women were attacked from all fronts – the religious zealots, hyper-nationalists, netizens, and even liberals. For the rest of the month, feminists were made to face ferocious attacks on their integrity by the media and conservative religious quarters. Their agency and motives were questioned, and they were denounced as agents of the West on a mission to destroy the moral order of Islamic Pakistan.

The ripples that AM created in 2018 were enough to shake feminists – or feminist-leaning liberals who weren’t yet ready to be labelled feminists – from slumber. By 2019, there was a visible excitement to make it the next big thing in town and be part of it. And voila – a diverse range of social classes and ideological groups joined the Aurat March in 2019.

That year, women repeated the Mera Jism Meri Marzi slogan in unison after it became the ultimate thorn in the eyes of the religiously inclined, social conservatives, and section of liberal ‘democrats’ alike. The attacks on AM increased manifold.

But that did not deter women from raising it again in 2020. That’s when Khalilur Rehman Qamar made a joke of himself days before the March by melting down using abusive words on live TV – a first in the history of television in Pakistan. The next day, feminist collectives in Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad, Hyderabad, and Quetta raised the slogan in their meetings in an ultimate act of defiance. That year, the Aurat March was joined by Pakistani women in many capitals, including London and Washington D.C., who organised solidarity events on March 8.

If antagonism and attacks on AM were increasing, women’s enthusiasm and rebellious energy were increasing at double the speed. By 2021, however, the backlash had become too strong, dangerous and violent after the Lal Masjid extremists vandalised the AM mural in Islamabad, the March participants were attacked, and the organisers were accused of blasphemy. In 2022, the March was changed to a jalsa in Islamabad with a lesser number of people attending. In almost all the cities that year, the manifestos and slogans of Aurat March and Aurat Azadi March showed a shift from radical dissent to a more accommodating and non-confrontational tone from the organising bodies and participants. The slogans had become far more sanitised, and Islamabad had even retreated on Mera Jism Meri Marzi. The defensive attitude of AM organisers and participants, which was with good reason, was too conspicuous to ignore.

The ‘Rosa Luxemburgism’ of Pakistani feminism that had created the AM fabric is seemingly either losing its ground or is retreating from its original position of forceful rejection of religion-inspired patriarchal values governing women’s bodies. There is, however, still a sliver of the inking of denunciation of the bourgeois standards of morality. It might have been part of strategic expediency in the wake of a violent Islamist backlash, but it has still changed the initial flavour of the resistance. The ideology must find a way to meet the strategy and expediency somewhere midway. Without this, AM would remain short of becoming a movement while being reduced to a project with too many project leaders competing with each other.

Opposition by the state is one of the many challenges that AM faces. Days before the event, the civil administration of at least two cities – Lahore and Islamabad – refused AM the no-objection certificate for holding the event due to ‘security concerns’ and ‘controversial’ placards. This probably alludes to the placards insisting upon the autonomy of women’s bodies and asserting their sexual agency. Not to forget that these were essentially the slogans that Islamabad’s jalsa willingly allowed to forego in 2022 in the hope of greater acceptance from a wider spectrum of society. Some feminists were lamenting that the new feminist movement had pitched itself against religion ‘needlessly’, leaving a vast space for Islamist parties. The 2000-strong Haya March, a counter rally by Jamat-e-Islami women, has been attacking AM for its supposed anti-Islam and anti-culture shades. It is a debate for another day that the party Haya March women belong to does not allow women to be head of the party.

To sum it up, relinquishing the dissent might not be the best strategy to win support or dilute the opposition. That it is counterproductive should be clear from the administration’s denials to hold Aurat March in two big cities. Also, it is important to have an honest debate within the feminist collective on ideological differences to agree on minimum feminist agenda without compromising group-specific values and principles of secularism, democracy, and dissent against patriarchy and imperialism. But far more important is to retain the ability to work together despite the unavoidable competition for attention owing to the new social media order.

With all its strengths and challenges, one thing is clear: Aurat March is here to stay. You may love or hate it but you can’t ignore it.

Link to original story

This story first appeared in The Friday Times – Naya Daur

This March 8 women from all social and economic backgrounds are likely to march together for a just cause

It was a 110 ago that the International Women’s Day was first commemorated, following a proposal from Clara Zetkin from Germany, an iconic political leader (Social Democratic Party of Germany – SPD), a celebrated Marxist theorist, and a fierce advocate of women’s rights. She tabled the idea at the second International Conference of Working Women at Copenhagen in 1910. The following year, March 19 was marked internationally to celebrate women’s resistance and to articulate their demands. Initially, the day was called the International Working Women’s Day.

In subsequent years, although the day was marked annually, the dates kept changing. From 1918 onwards, March 8 was picked as the consensus date after the famous ‘Break and Peace’ strike by Russian women in 1917. The strike commenced on March 8, and four days later the Tsar had to abdicate. Ever since, it has been March 8.

In 1975, the United Nations adopted it as the International Women’s Day and commemorated each year thereafter with a unique theme of the year.

However, the activism around the International Women’s Day, at least during the pioneering years, remained rooted in socialist, rather than feminist, struggle — the distinction that Zetkin repeatedly made in her writings and speeches in late 19th and early 20th century. She considered contemporary feminist theory a bourgeois articulation that was exclusive of working-class women. She called it an unavoidable dichotomy of socialist and feminist ideologies — a view endorsed by Engels via an enthusiastic “hurrah” he sent to Zetkin.

A peep into the origin of and debates within the movement for women’s rights, gender equality, and feminism, gives an inkling of the inherent ideological, conceptual, and theoretical debates (or tensions) that were brewing at the turn of the century. Rosa Luxemburg, the socialist theorist icon, who challenged comrades Lenin and Trotsky (who called her an ‘unadulterated Marxist’ and a ‘purist’), rejected ‘bourgeois standards of morality’ that feminists of the time held in awe. Postmodern feminists celebrate her as a feminist role model.
The new wave feminists are proactively engaging themselves with working-class women, professionals, peasant women, domestic workers, and all other shades of proletariat. This is something to celebrate.
Cutting a long story short, the perceived dichotomy between feminism and socialism began to gradually disappear, I’d say, after women from both worlds started conversing about each other’s agendas for the International Women’s Day at the beginning of the 20th century.

Fast forward to Pakistan, a century later, and you’d see similar tensions and debates happening — with much more inclusivity and openness to intersectionality. This Fourth Wave Feminism in Pakistan is completely different in character from the earlier waves.

Unlike the women’s rights activism during the first four decades after Independence, this new wave is neither just focused on the welfare schemes for women nor on reforming the state through the pro-women legal framework, rather it is doing all of this, and looking at the patriarchal schema and challenging the code of existence imposed on women but not made by them.

But, this is where the problem lies. This is the sin unpardonable. This is what qualifies them for all the opprobrium and calumny that the ‘righteous’ and the ‘faithful’ dutifully throw at them every year – the Aurat March marks the Fourth Wave Feminism in Pakistan.

Every year, since 2018, I have written on the International Women’s Day, and every year I’m impelled to respond to the ridiculously shallow critique – nothing more than naked and shameless muck racking – on the Aurat March participants. I have watched organisers, participants and supporters of the Aurat March relentlessly and graciously offer responses to every invective, accusation, ‘misunderstanding’ over the past four years. Still, they are abused, insulted and attacked (by Lal Masjid goons last year); their posters and artwork is vandalized; they are dragged in courts; and they are accused of blasphemy – which is akin to giving a go-ahead to a vigilante mob to lynch and kill.

This year is no different. A government minister has written a letter to prime minister to ban the Aurat March and instead mark the day as a ‘Hijab Day’. A leader of one of the opposition parties has threatened to use batons against women if they hold the Aurat March.
The need to keep an eye on the challenges ahead and continual engagement in internal debates to resolve those challenges cannot be overemphasised. Reaching out to and including the marginalised, the working-classes, and the ‘invisibles’ (gender and sexual minorities) is one thing, creating a leadership space for them and including their issues in the central agenda points is another ball game.
On the other hand, a refreshingly inclusive nature of the Aurat March (liberal feminist democrats) and the Aurat Azadi March (social democrats including radical feminists) is reaching out to women from all social and economic backgrounds. Resultantly, every year not only the number of participants is increasing, but also their diversity of participation is expanding. Every year new cities, far from major urban centres, are joining up and organising the March. I’m most interested in exploring the possibilities and way forward for this new energy that the Fourth Wave Feminists have brought to the movement.

Going back to where we started, there is a huge room to learn from how the initial tensions were resolved between bourgeois feminists of western hemisphere (white feminists) and the socialist movements of working-class women, mostly in the eastern hemisphere (predominantly the women of colour), and how was an event pioneered by hardcore communist/socialist theorists joined by liberal democrat feminist movement and none of the two groups feared ‘hijacking of the cause’ by the other. Not just that, at the substance level, white feminism (Can they be comparable to urban upper-class feminists from big urban centres of Pakistan?) was fiercely challenged by black feminism and later by brown women to make the global feminist movement more inclusive in terms of participation as well as agenda.

What I see in the Aurat March is a very welcome departure from 1980s and 1990s’ praxis that was more involved with confronting the state oppression than reaching out to subordinate classes beyond sincerely trying to articulate their problems. The new wave feminists are proactively engaging themselves with working-class women, professionals, peasant women, domestic workers, and all other shades of proletariat. This is something to celebrate.

However, the need to keep an eye on the challenges ahead and continual engagement in internal debates to resolve those challenges cannot be overemphasised. Reaching out to and including the marginalised, the working-classes, and the ‘invisibles’ (gender and sexual minorities) is one thing, creating a leadership space for them and including their issues in the central agenda points is another ball game. One of the big challenges is the inclusion of this agenda point.

I’m calling it a challenge because in specific context of Pakistan’s patriarchal credentials and celebrated conservatism coupled with the kind of attacks already launched against the Aurat March, it can further complicate the already bumpy ride for the organisers. But turning away from it is not an option.

It can be resolved, and here comes the second challenge, if this annual event becomes a movement. Easier said than done, though. With such a diverse base of organisations, groups, and individuals with such varied schools of feminist thought, it is going to be a tall order. But old timers from earlier waves are still around. If they offer a hand, together, we can do the unthinkable.

Aurat March organisers have already succeeded in achieving the impossible. Patriarchy is shrieking. It has started feeling helpless, and is seeking refuge behind the religion, culture, and patriotism. Whose last refuge is this?

Link to original story

As reports emerge that Geo News has been taken off air in various areas across the country, State Minister for Information and Broadcasting Marriyum Aurangzeb has categorically denied that her ministry has issued any directives for the suspension of the channel’s transmission.

Talking to Daily Times on Sunday, she said, “the government hasn’t shut down or suspended any channel. Why would we?” She said that the government could only take such a decision if a TV channel violated PEMRA law or the code of conduct. Even when such a violation took place, the PEMRA needed to follow the due process, she added.

Aurangzeb said Geo News’ suspension was in violation of PEMRA rules. She said the government had already initiated action against cable networks and cable operators found involved in the matter. “If they don’t address the issue, all of their cable services can be suspended,” she said.

The case of partial suspension of Geo TV in many areas across the country since last few days is turning out to be quite curious. No one from among the relevant authorities appears to know who is interrupting Geo News’ broadcast.

Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal tweeted about the matter on Sunday, “It is a shame & we will take notice. If it was wrong for a political party to do so in Karachi some time back, how can it be right for anyone else. [sic] Only PEMRA has the legal sanction to do so. Pakistan can’t be a pariah state for freedom of expression.”

Distributors, i.e. cable operators, have a huge stake in the electronic media. Speaking to Daily Times, Imran Nadeem, former general secretary of the currently inactive Cable Operators Association (CAP), said he had no knowledge of suspension of Geo News’ transmission, ‘except the one in DHA Karachi, which is mainly due to an ongoing conflict between Geo management and the local cable operators’. Nadeem, however, explained that digital cable distributors in Pakistan could offer no more than 70 channels to the public, while there were more than 150 channels in the country. “This means that some channels are inadvertently pushed off air,” he said.

When senior staffers at Geo News were approached, they denied having any ongoing conflict with cable operators in DHA Karachi. A journalist speaking on condition of anonymity said that cable operators in DHA Karachi were not showing Geo News since 2014. Another journalist said there had never been any such problem in the area before 2014. A senior reporter from Islamabad held that the distribution of Jang Group newspapers was stopped in DHAs for no reason in 2014.

In April 2014, Geo News was shut down illegally and arbitrarily hours after its senior staffer and veteran journalist Hamid Mir survived an assassination attempt in Karachi. After the attack, Geo News directly accused the then head of the military’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency for having a role in the attack. Subsequently, not only that Geo transmission was abruptly discontinued in many parts of Pakistan especially DHAs. This was followed by a slander campaign against the owner of the media house who was accused of blasphemy in hundreds of FIRs registered against him in different cities.

More recently, a top security official had reportedly told around 40 leading journalists in an off-the-record meet-the-press session that some channels, especially Geo News, were crossing red lines. While the official quoted the constitutional guarantee that no one would be allowed to malign state institutions, the provision concerning rule of law and due process were ignored, as per reports of the meeting in the media. The precise nature of the red lines was also not identified.

Looking at Geo News’ recent on-air behaviour, two aspects stand out. Firstly, many of its journalists and analysts have held strong views in favour of the 18th constitutional amendment and its edicts on provincial autonomy [another subject discussed in the off-the-record meeting]. Secondly, despite having many programmes and anchorpersons critical of ruling PML-N’s politics, the channel’s news bulletins have shown a sympathetic tilt towards the party, especially its emerging woman leader Maryam Nawaz Sharif.

source: https://dailytimes.com.pk

In what may prove a decisive blow to Nawaz Sharif’s political career, the Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled on Wednesday to bar him from heading his political party for being disqualified from the membership of the Parliament. The judgement left many concerned about the promotion and protection of fundamental rights baffled for being in direct conflict with the spirit of the Constitution.

Fundamental Rights: In the operative part of the five-page judgement, the Court ruled that the provisions of Sections 203 (membership of political parties) and 232 (disqualification on account of offences) were liable to be read with infamous Articles 62, 63 and 63-A of the Constitution. Whereas the two sections of the Election Act 2017 do not conflict with fundamental rights provisions as such, Wednesday’s judgement has read them subject to the constitution’s articles dealing with qualifications for membership of the Parliament.

The problem with this approach is that it prevents those disqualified under Articles 62/63/63-A from exercising their fundamental rights as citizens of the republic, enshrined in and protected by the constitution of Pakistan for ‘detailed reasons to be recorded later’.

In the judgement, the three-member bench – comprising Chief Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, Justice Umar Atta Bandial and Justice Ijazul Ahsan – makes a reference to the Article 17 of the constitution, which clearly provides that ‘every citizen, not being in the service of Pakistan, shall have the right to form or be a member of a political party.’

The article further adds, “… subject to any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the sovereignty or integrity of Pakistan…” Explaining the requirements of such a law, the article says that such a law should empower the federal government to make a declaration to that effect [that certain political party was working against the interests of country’s sovereignty and integrity]. Within 15 days of making such a declaration, the federal government shall refer the matter to the Supreme Court whose decision on such reference shall be final, according to the article.

This clearly means that disqualification under Article 17 would be of a political party as an entity, not of a citizen from being a member of or holding an office of a political party. In order to get the disbandment of a political party on account of acting in a manner prejudicial to the integrity and sovereignty of Pakistan, a two-stage process must follow as per Article 17, i.e., the federal government must make a declaration; and a reference to the Supreme Court.

Thus, the only restriction is on political parties, not on citizens for being part of any political party. It was seen in the Islamic Republic of Pakistan vs Abdul Wali Khan case (PLD 1976 SC 57) whereby National Awami Party (NAP) was disbanded following a similar process. Within days, the leaders of NAP established a new party with another name.

The fundamental rights are protected under the constitution even if someone is declared felon, a convict or disqualified from holding parliament’s membership. The judgement in question bases it’s ruling on the reasoning that a person heading a political party ‘has a central role in the performance of duties by the Members of the Parliament’, s/he therefore, must fulfill the criteria set by the Article 62 and 63.

If this logic is applied on the judiciary that is mandated to interpret the work of the members of the Parliament, every member of the bench will have to fulfill the same criteria as of a member of Parliament. There would be no end to the application of moral turpitude to the holders of all offices in all the organs of the state.

The critical part: The critical, and in a sense most unnecessary, part of the judgement is in its section 9, whereby the honourable court has declared that ‘all steps taken, orders passed, directions given and documents issued [by Nawaz Sharif] as Party Head after his disqualification on 28.07.2017 are also declared to have never been taken, passed, given or issued in the eyes of the law’.

It is, again, inexplicable as to why the esteemed court deemed it fit to give Mr. Sharif the worst of both the worlds. The court is applying on him the restrictions that apply on public office holders i.e., the member of the Parliament – that is to say, for disqualifying him they are treating him as public office holder subject to restrictions that apply on members of Parliament – but when it comes to his actions/decisions, they are denying him the status of a public office holder and nullifying all his decisions that he took as party head after his disqualification on July 28, 2017. It is inconsistent to the extent that restrictions of public office holder have been applied without giving protections to his decisions that were provided vide earlier judgement.

It is interesting because the main decisions taken by him as party head (considered by the court as public office like the member of Parliament) were nominations for all by elections in past six months as well as for the upcoming Senate election. While the main decisions he took as a public office holder, i.e., Prime Minister (which the court had protected under the doctrine of avoidable consequences) included making key appointments including those of the chiefs of armed forces, navy, air force, the National Accountability Bureau, and other important institutions, let alone the key decisions made for development projects, foreign and national security policies as well as the finance bills of past four years.

Implications on Senate Elections: Declaring the decisions of the head of the biggest political party null and void means that his letters of nomination of party members for Senate candidates might also become null and void, creating a vacuum following which the Election Commission of Pakistan might decide to postpone the elections altogether. The most important point to bear in mind is that the Senate’s permanency is enshrined in the Constitution. There cannot be a time when Senate of Pakistan is suspended. For that reason, the ECP is not empowered to postpone the election.

Even if all the nominations made by the PMLN are held null and void, the elections shall still proceed. The precedent of partial elections is already there when in 2015 the elections on FATA seats were postponed but the rest of elections could not be stopped.

The Way Forward: The appropriate way forward for the ECP would be to carry on with the elections without cancelling the nomination papers of PML-N candidates even if their party nominations are held null and void after the judgement in question. In such a case, the PML-N nominees would be considered independent candidates instead of carrying party’s label. The ECP is empowered to decide the matter accordingly and allot different election symbols to all these candidates.

Another option can be, the PMLN appoints an interim president of the party, who can then submit fresh letters of nomination for all its party candidates post-haste.

In these two situations, Senate elections would not be affected. But in case the former option is not followed by the ECP, it would be clear that some wheels are in motion to create a ripple effect for preventing the Senate elections or inhibiting a certain party from seeking majority in the upper house.

Published in Daily Times, February 22^nd 2018.

By Marvi Sirmed

If death is defined as the end of life, Asma Jahangir hasn’t really died. The larger than life, iconic defender of human rights and the most daring challenger of the status quo, Asma Jahangir breathed her last at her home in Lahore on Tuesday. With her, we lost the most towering hero of our age, the tallest of Pakistani, rather South Asian, citizen.

My mother broke this news to me calling on the phone from her home in Lahore. With her voice quivering and her words jumbling, she wanted me to tell her that it was a fake news. Something that I kept hoping for several hours to prove true – may this be a fake news. We were not that lucky though.

My friends Asma Shirazi, Ayesha Tanzeem, and Beenish Saleem called one after the other, all shell shocked and unable to speak. Mehmal Sarfraz wrote on WhatsApp and that’s when it slowly sunk in my system that something terrible had happened.

The first time that I heard of her was from my mother when I was a toddler. Eventually, her name became a part of regular conversations at our dinner table – of Ammi’s talks with her friends and of her heated arguments with Abbu on something that Ammi used to call ‘dark days’. I could barely understand whatever was happening. Those were the years following Ziaul Haq’s martial law. Then in early 1980s, my mother took me with her to a demonstration where a lot of people were raising slogans (I later learned that it was a women’s protest demonstration against Ziaul Haq’s Qanun-e-Shahadat). Raising slogans at the top of her orotund and penetrating voice, that five-feet-something woman caught my attention. That was my first introduction to the gutsy and courageous woman that Asma Jehangir was.

In 1989, when I was running for student union elections after Benazir Bhutto’s first government reinstated unions for a year, I met Asma Ji – the way I always called her – as an aspiring volunteer. After Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, she was the one who inspired a teenager me so strongly that it became my goal of life to be like both of them in every possible way. Especially, Asma Ji’s perseverance, her clarity of purpose, her strength of character, her unprecedented courage, her commitment to human rights, her itch to question the powers of the time, and her passion to fearlessly fight for the oppressed and for whatever she considered right, come what may.

Then in 1990-91 when I was running a campaign as the president of Pre-Medical Students Association for the rights of girl students seeking admissions to medical colleges, I was stunned to receive her call. She told me to remain steadfast and offered her help. We were disgruntled girls with pre-medical certificates of high achievement in our hands but denied admissions in medical colleges as boys with half our achievements were given admissions.

Mian Nawaz Sharif’s provincial cabinet was hell bent to brand us ‘miscreants supported by Benazir Bhutto’ and brush away every argument that we had for open merit as opposed to maintaining 1:2 girl-to-boy ratio in medical colleges. Asma Ji supported us by highlighting our struggle and guiding us for running a successful campaign. By the end of 1991, we had won our case from Supreme Court. I could not thank Asma Ji enough.

From there onwards, there was no point of return for me personally. Ammi was very excited to see that I was following Asma Ji – something that she herself couldn’t do because of family pressures. Since then, Asma Ji was there whenever I needed guidance and strength. She pushed me to become a member of the HRCP – the institution of its own kind that she founded as part of her struggle for human rights in Pakistan. Her contribution to my life is just a tiny part of what she has done for this country. Every marginalised and oppressed segment of our society, be it religious or ethnic communities, or issues like rights of children, women, labourers, and farmers, or citizens’ right to govern themselves through a democratic system – Asma Ji left her indelible mark in all these struggles, a mark that is impossible to ignore or forget.

Her detractors would call her anti-Pakistan and anti-Islam because of her strong voice against state-sponsored militancy, oppression, extremism, and against usurpers of power. Vile and venomous campaigns would be sponsored against her to demonise and otherise her in bid to discredit her work. Few years ago, a picture of her with Bal Thackeray, India’s firebrand nationalist considered strongly anti-Muslim and anti-Pakistan, became viral. Little did her detractors realise that Asma Jahangir was meeting Thackeray as part of a fact-finding mission about anti-Muslim riots.

The self-proclaimed ‘Pakistani nationalists’ would criticise her for what they understood as her silence on some of the issues that they wanted to propagate disproportionately e.g., Indian atrocities on the Kashmiris. She remained focussed on the rights of Pakistani people but was hardly silent on human rights violations elsewhere in the world. Last year, the demonstration in solidarity with Kashmiris organised by her and her strong statements in 2017 as UN’s Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Iran against rights violations of religious minorities and against persecution of Rohingyas in Myanmar are most recent examples.

What has inspired me most strongly was her unflinching commitment to basic principles of social justice, human rights and democracy. She would not hesitate to help even the harshest of her critics when they needed support in standing up for their rights. She was probably the only one from the ‘civil society’ of Pakistan who had such a clear idea of the complex nature of Pakistan’s politics and civil-military equation. The anti-politician rhetoric, mainly propagated by the undemocratic forces, never swayed her commitment to democracy unlike the rest of our comrades.

She braved most despicable, mephitic and malicious attacks on her integrity, mostly with her signature smile. She would always tell me to never give a slightest hoot to these attacks on social media, which had affected me badly a couple of years ago. Many people would ask me why she was so angry always. She was angry because she cared, because she was strong enough to be angry and to channel her anger into the amazing work that she did at AGHS Legal Aid Cell, HRCP, and through scores of other platforms – international, regional and national. She was the first of the only three Pakistani women appointed as UN’s rapporteurs. Just so the readers may know, she was not all that angry all the time. I have seen in her a very bubbly and fun-loving connoisseur of arts and music.

The last time we spoke a few days ago, she was talking about a national dialogue that she wanted to initiate on the concept of ‘national interest’. “What exactly it is, have you ever wondered?” she asked, knowing that her question carried the answer. We discussed the matter on a long phone call and ended the conversation with her promise to have a detailed meeting when she comes to Islamabad next. This is just one of the scores of other unfinished agenda items that she has left to us.

Her last public address was at the Pakhtun sit-in in Islamabad. That was her – a woman with resolve to stand up for the oppressed. Her ethnic, religious or national identities hardly mattered for the people she stood for. She transcended these mundane boundaries. So now, she must be seen as an icon of humanism, and a symbol of social justice and equality.

Pakistan was blessed to have Asma Jahangir, who was truly the conscience of this country. She symbolised the best of human qualities. A hero of this stature cannot just pass away or die with the end of breathing. She is survived by hundreds and thousands of little lamps that she had lit in the form of human rights defenders and activists for democracy and justice. Long live Asma Jahangir, rest in power.

source: https://dailytimes.com.pk