Appendix 14
Workers’ Rights in Pakistan
Karamat Ali
The Labor Force
When India was still partitioned in 1947, only 2.6% of the factories and
6.5% of the labor force of undivided India were all that Pakistan got as
its share. It inherited a very limited railway network and a small
merchant navy, two small textile mills, two cement factories, two biscuit
factories, 11 cotton ginning units, one engineering unit, one tramway
company operating in Karachi, a few power houses and a small number of
purely commercial oil companies in the non-agricultural sector. The rest
of the economy was agricultural and was in the firm grip of the feudal
lords.
According to Pakistan’s first census of 1951, the total population then
was 75.8 million: 44.78 million in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh) and
31.02 million in West Pakistan (now Pakistan). Of these, the workforce was
9.51 million: 6.19 million in the agricultural sector and 3.32 million in
the non- agricultural sector. In the same year, the number of registered
factories was 1,985 of which 370 were in East Pakistan and 1,615 in West
Pakistan.
In 1952-1953, the number of industrial and non-industrial workers was
808,900. Of these, factory workers numbered 190,870; railway workers,
209,940; merchant navy personnel, 73,000; port workers, 14,700; inland
water transport workers, 222,800; tea plantation workers, 86,745; and
other categories, 10,845.
In 1988, that is 17 years after the creation of Bangladesh, Pakistan’s
population was 103.82 million. Of this population, the workforce numbered
28.99 million of which 21.29 million were in the agricultural and 7.7
million in the non-agricultural sectors.
Trade Unions and Their Membership
In 1947 when Pakistan came into being, the two major trade union
federations in undivided India were the Communist-led All India Trade
Union Congress (AITIJC) and the reformist Indian Federation of Labor (IFL)
led by Dr. M. N. Roy. These two reconstituted themselves as the Pakistan
Trade Union Federation (PTUF) and the Pakistan Labor Federation (PLF),
respectively, after partition. By 1948, the PTUF had 38 affiliated unions
while in 1949 the PLF had 49 affiliated unions. The railway workers formed
the major component of PTUF, whereas the Port Turst workers were the
mainstay of the PLF.
The PTUF came under heavy attack soon after its formation. Its president,
Mirza Ibrahim, was arrested in 1948; and its secretary, Faiz Ahmed Faiz,
was implicated in a conspiracy case in 1951. Most of its members were
harassed and hounded for their trade union activities. By 1954 when the
Communist Party was banned, the PTUF had already been made totally
ineffective and had to close down. It could not reconstitute itself until
1970.
On the other hand, the PLF was extended full patronage by the State; and
in 1950, a new organization by the name of the All Confederation of Labor
(APCOL) was created through the merger of various reformist trade unions.
APCOL was headed by Dr. A. M. Malik, who was also the central labor
minister of Pakistan. State patronage of APCOL was so blatant that in the
1955 labor policy it was stated openly that it would do everything in its
power to increase the membership of
APCOL.
In 1951, the number of registered trade unions was 209 with a total
membership of 393,000. Towards the end of the Z. A. Bhutto government in
1977, however, the number of registered trade unions had risen to 8,332
with a membership of more than 1,050,000. In 1978 though, one year after
Gen. Ziaul Huq imposed martial law, the number of trade unions had dropped
to 7,894 and the membership to 1,012,309. In 1979, the number had further
dropped to 6,869 and the membership to 983,911. In 1980, i.e., after three
years of martial law, the number of registered trade unions stood at 6,551
and the total membership at 869,000. One year later the figures had
dropped to 6,227 and 746,364, respectively.
When Gen. Zia held his partyless elections in 1985 prior to the lifting of
martial law, there were 6,170 registered trade unions with a membership of
859,517. In the eight years of martial law from 1977 to 1985, 2,162 unions
disappeared together with a membership of 191,271. In other words, the
imposition of martial law resulted in a reduction of 25.9% in the number
of registered trade unions and the alienation of 18.2% of the workers from
the trade union movement.
In 1988, the number of registered trade unions was 6,428, which was 2,183
less than in 1976, and the membership was 888,000, i.e., 170,000 less than
in 1976.
The Right To Form Trade Unions,
To Strike and Collective Bargaining
In Pakistan, the workers have the right to form trade unions of their
choice and to form federations based on particular categories of industry
and trade. They have the right to frame constitutions and rules and
regulations for their unions/federations. They can choose the
representatives of their choice. The workers have the right to strike, to
collective bargaining, freedom of association and demonstration and
publication of their own newspapers and journals. They are free to
formulate their programs and to participate in activities of their choice.
However, the actual exercise of these rights and freedoms have been made
so cumbersome that they are virtually unattainable. Administrative
measures and flaws and loopholes in the labor laws obstruct and inhibit
the exercise of these rights and freedoms.
Labor Laws/Policies
Pakistan inherited an elaborate institutional framework from the British
at the time of independence in 1947. The British government had permitted
the growth of trade unions and a system of collective bargaining within
specific limits embodied in the Trade Unions Act of 1926, the Factories
Act of 1934 and the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947.
The Trade Unions Act of 1926 recognized workers’ rights to organize and
form trade unions. It also provided for the optional registration of trade
unions with the registrar of trade unions, who was appointed by the
government under the act. The registrar had the power to cancel the
registration in case the provisions of the act were not fulfilled or were
violated.
The act allowed the unions to be formed freely, but their effective
functioning was conditional upon their recognition by the employers.
However, the most important aspect of the act was that the trade unions
were for the first time recognized as legal entities, and their officers
and members were granted immunity from criminal conspiracy and civil
offenses.
The Factories Act of 1934 provided for comprehensive standards pertaining
to working conditions in the workplace.
While the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 primarily amended certain
provisions of the Trade Unions Act of 1926, especially those related to
the modes of resolving conflicts, its main thrust was to restrict strikes
and to secure the settlement of disputes through compulsory conciliation
and arbitration procedures.
The government of Pakistan adopted the above framework of industrial
relations. In addition, it set up a tripartite consultative mechanism
composed of representatives of the government, employers and employees and
consisting of the Pakistan Tripartite Labor Conference and the Standing
Labor Committee.
On the face of it, this system of industrial relations looked quite
liberal; but in practice, the situation proved to be the opposite. The
State intervened quite decisively through legal and administrative means
to curb the workers’ fundamental right to organize and bargain
collectively on a regular basis.
To achieve the objective of transforming trade unions into instruments for
controlling the workers, a series of amendments to the inherited framework
of industrial relations were enacted, and new laws were promulgated which
restricted both the right to organize and to bargain collectively.
In 1952, the government promulgated the Pakistan Essential Services
(Maintenance) Act. The act gave wide powers to the government to apply it
to any establishment. The application of the act deprived the workers of
either the right to organize or to bargain collectively or both of these
rights.
Immediately after the promulgation of the act, all central government
employees were deprived of the right to organize and bargain collectively.
In addition, a large number of workers employed in industries declared as
“public utility services” by the government were denied the right to
collective bargaining. This came as a crushing blow to the labor movement
as most of the unionization in the pre-independence days had developed in
the services and state sectors.
The Industrial Disputes Ordinance of 1959 followed the announcement of a
new labor policy by Ayub Khan’s military regime on Feb. 28, 1959. The
years preceding the imposition of martial law in 1958 had seen an
unprecedented level of militancy among the workers. They had been
protesting against the continuous decline in their wages and the blatantly
anti-union attitudes of employers. The state-backed APCOL had proved
increasingly incapable of controlling the workers’ protests. Strikes had
become a regular phenomenon despite stringent controls over “legal”
strikes. In the years 1956 and 1957, there were 300 work stoppages
involving 299,832 workers, resulting in the loss of 683,236 working days.
After seizing power, the military regime prohibited strikes in all types
of enterprises. However, to appease the protesting workers, it announced a
new labor policy wherein it pledged that the labor laws would be based on
International Labor Organization (ILO) Conventions and recommendations
ratified by the government of Pakistan. However, when it came to
translating the policy commitments to laws in the form of the Industrial
Disputes Ordinance of 1959, reality proved to be entirely different.
The Industrial Disputes Ordinance of 1959 superseded the earlier
Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 and was, therefore, the first major piece
of legislation on industrial relations in post- independence Pakistan. It
resulted in a severe curtailment of the right to organize and to engage in
collective bargaining and sought to render the trade unions ineffective
wherever these were allowed to form. In addition to other provisions
obstructing free trade unionism, the ordinance drastically enlarged the
list of “public utility services” to cover almost all major categories of
industry. Almost all industrial workers were either immediately deprived
of their fundamental rights or could be deprived of them whenever the
government wished.
The ordinance was amended through the Trade Union (Amendment) Ordinance of
1960 which provided for the compulsory recognition of trade unions by
employers. However, this recognition was dependent on a prior recognition
of the union by the registrar of trade unions after the complicated
requirements laid down by the ordinance were fulfilled. The recognition
could still be withdrawn by the employer with the permission of the
Industrial Court.
Even with its serious shortcomings, this amendment was a positive step
forward, but this minimal relief for the trade unions was also to prove
short-lived as the ordinance was further amended to debar “outsiders” from
becoming trade union office bearers.
This amendment was the most serious blow to the growth and effectiveness
of the trade union movement. The “outsiders” were usually those employees
who had been dismissed because of their trade union activities or educated
individuals who sympathized with the workers’ cause. The individuals
belonging to the category of “outsiders” were particularly important for
the growth and effectiveness of trade unions at this particular juncture
in their history as the mostly illiterate, first-generation workers were
hardly equipped to deal with an extremely complex legal system where all
proceedings were conducted exclusively in English.
The West Pakistan Trade Unions Ordinance of 1968 further restricted the
scope of unionization and enhanced the regulatory powers of the registrar
of trade unions. It also increased the list of exclusions and now, in
addition to the personnel of the armed forces and the police, the
employees of Watch and Ward Security Services, managerial and
administrative personnel and non-industrial government servants, including
the employees of prisons and hospitals, were denied the right of
association.
The mass movement against the Ayub regime, which began in October 1968,
culminated in its overthrow in March 1969 and its replacement by another
martial law regime headed by Gen. Yahya Khan. Although the workers did not
participate in the movement in its early days, the impact was tremendous
once their inertia ended. In the three months between January to March
1969, there were 285 work stoppages involving 184,982 workers and a loss
of 1,220,337 working days. The strike activity was accompanied by a
substantial growth in unionization during that period. The total number of
registered unions grew from 1,041 in 1968 to 1,486 in 1969, and the
membership grew from 512,912 to 600,401.
The most notable feature of this wave of protest was that the workers had
totally rejected the prescribed legal channels of conflict resolution.
Encouraged by the increasingly militant mass political movement, they also
resorted to direct militant actions, like encircling management until
their demands were accepted, and some larger textile factories were
occupied by the workers. In the process, leadership also passed to the
shop floor leaders, and the official trade unions’ federation-level
leadership was thoroughly isolated.
It was against this background that a new labor policy was announced in
1969. The most immediate objective of the government was to achieve an end
to work stoppages and to contain the militancy among the workers. The
policy consisted of a package of measures aimed at reconstituting
industrial relations on a more liberal and healthy basis. It contained a
wages and welfare policy, including a revision of minimum wages and
certain welfare measures.
The policy repeatedly emphasized the “need for strong trade unions and
strengthening of the collective bargaining process.” It also underscored
the need to limit the role of the government “to providing a legal
framework and to encourage the environmental conditions for the growth of
trade unions, for the settlement of disputes peacefully and for protecting
the right of the individual and their collective rights.”
The apparently pro-labor slant of the policy statement was naturally
successful in creating relative calm coupled with high expectations among
the workers. However, when the policy was finally translated into law in
the shape of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969, it proved to be a
mere rehash of the previous ordinances. It took all of the elements of the
previous laws regarding the formation and functioning of trade unions,
collective bargaining and conflict resolution and incorporated them with
minor changes into the new law.
The Industrial Relations Ordinance also further enhanced the list of
establishments where trade unions could not be formed. The procedures for
registration and certification of unions were further tightened; and in
the name of strengthening collective bargaining, the formation of more
than one union in a single plant was allowed. This provision conferred
additional powers on the registrar in accordance with the Collective
Bargaining Agent (CBA) and institutionalized factionalism among the
workers.
The Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 was amended successively in
1970, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1979 and 1981, resulting in the eventual
forfeiture of the fundamental rights of another large chunk of workers as
well as more stringent regulation of their unions.
The government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, which came to power in December
1971 following the separation of East Pakistan, announced a new labor
policy on Feb. 10, 1972. A series of high- sounding promises were made to
the workers, such as free medical aid, group insurance, free education for
one child per worker, an old age pension, the appointment of auditors to
be nominated by workers for the checking of stores, a workers’ share in
profits of 2.5% to 10% and three days’ notice prior to a strike.
The policy announced with great fanfare, when translated into the 1972
labor laws, gave the workers no more than three or four minor benefits.
Under the Social Security Scheme, they got some medical aid provisions. As
a result of consistent struggle, some of them got a 5% share in the
profits of some factories. The new labor policy finally ended as a package
of broken promises.
The year 1972 witnessed widespread labor unrest throughout the country and
the brutal suppression of workers’ protests by the police and various
other civil armed forces. Scores of workers were killed and hundreds of
workers were jailed, including scores of labor leaders. How bad the shape
of things became during the Bhutto period, when the workers had nursed
great hopes and expectations after long spells of martial law, can be seen
from the following data of workers’ protests:
-
In 1972, there were 779 strikes with 361,149 workers taking part;
-
In 1973, there were 536 strikes with 233,568 workers taking part;
-
In 1974-1975, there were 370 strikes with 301,753 workers taking part.
During 1975-1976, the state machinery - in the form of the police, Federal
Security Force, Sindh Constabulary, Sindh Rangers, Sutlej Rangers,
Frontier Constabulary and other repressive organs of state power - was
wantonly employed to crush, foil or pre-empt the strikes of workers of the
sugar industry, cement industry, ghee industry, rice mills and ginning
factories. By 1976, the labor movement had been rendered virtually
lifeless.
After the imposition of martial law in 1977, workers’ strikes became
almost non-existent. For instance, there were 81 major strikes in 1977
involving 49,000 workers, but there were only 18 strikes in 1988 involving
8,231 workers.
The 1977- 1985 period of martial law saw the worst form of suppression of
the basic rights of the workers. The situation registered little
improvement when the Junejo government was in power following the
partyless elections from 1985 to 1988. During the martial law period, not
only were labor strikes forbidden, but striking workers were often jailed
and lashed.
Not satisfied with the series of amendments introduced from time to time
to the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 to curtail workers’ rights,
Zia’s military regime promulgated the infamous Martial Law Regulation
(MLR-52) on Aug. 15, 1981. Through this regulation, all unions,
organizations and associations of workers and employees of any type were
dissolved at Pakistan International Airlines Corp., affecting about 30,000
workers. Similarly, the registration of labor unions at Pakistan Steel
Mills, Pakistan Security Printing Corp. and several other plants were
canceled.
ILO Conventions and Pakistan’s Labor Laws
Pakistan ratified ILO Convention No. 87 (relating to the right of workers
to organize) in 1951 and Convention No. 98 (pertaining to the right to
bargain collectively) in 1952.
However, the sad truth is that the various laws enacted and implemented in
Pakistan from time to time have either been in conflict with the ILO
conventions or have totally violated them. Section 1, Subsection 3 (A to
H) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969, which is still in effect
today, contravenes ILO Convention No. 87. Similarly, 38A to 38H of the
same ordinance as well as sections 32, 33,45, 46 and 46A declaring a
strike to be illegal at any stage and the Essential Services Act violates
ILO Convention No. 155. Section 25 of the Export Processing Zone Authority
Ordinance of 1980 and Rule Nos. 3 and 4 under it constitute a gross
violation of the ILO conventions and rules. Under the West Pakistan Water
and Power Development Authority Ordinance of 1958, the workers are denied
the right allowed to them under ILO Conventions 87 and 98. These are only
a few glaring instances out of a long list of violations.
Contract Labor System
Taking advantage of the persistent denial of basic rights to the workers,
the exploiters have devised what is known as the “contract labor system”
in place of the regular employment of workers. This has drastically
reduced the chances of workers becoming organized. Under this system, the
worker loses more than one-third of his legitimate wages. He enjoys no
rights whatsoever to form trade unions, to strike or to engage in
collective bargaining. His services can be disposed of at the will of the
employer without giving any notice. This explains why, despite an increase
in population, official statistics show a decrease in the number of
workers, whereas the truth is otherwise. In spite of consistent demands by
workers and various political organizations and the promises made by
various governments, this crude anti-worker practice is widely in vogue in
the country.
Forced Labor
Another glaring instance of the violation of basic human rights and
international norms governing the dignity of labor is the practice of
forced labor, which has existed since the establishment of Pakistan.
Forced labor is prohibited by Pakistani law. The Security of Pakistan Act
of 1952, the Political Parties Act of 1962, the Industrial Relations
Ordinance of 1969, the Pakistan Penal Code, the Merchant Shipping Act of
1923 and a number of other laws prescribe imprisonment of people charged
with extraction of forced labor from any citizen on the grounds that they
have opposed the established political and social system or have violated
a law or rule or on other grounds.
Illegal bonded labor is still widespread despite all of these prohibitive
laws. Bonded labor is quite common in the brick, carpet, glass and fishing
industries and extends to agricultural and construction work in rural
areas. Even a sort of compromise ruling issued by the Supreme Court of
Pakistan in a case brought by a workers’ association in Punjab on behalf
of the workers of the brick kiln industry has not improved the situation
to any appreciable extent. In this case, the court in March 1989
reinforced prohibitions on forced labor and the forcible collection of
debts and limited pay advances to one week’s wages. In spite of this,
there are still reports of widespread violations.
Polarization among Workers
on Ethnic and Religious Lines
The mushrooming of political organizations on narrow ethnic and linguistic
lines under the patronage of the military regime since 1977 has badly
harmed the workers’ interests. Split into ethnic and linguistic factions
and driven into internecine confrontations, the workers are unable to
unite and wage a collective struggle for the promotion and protection of
their rights.
This harmful trend got a big push after the partyless elections held by
military rulerZiaul Huq in 1985. In those elections, no political party
was allowed to put up candidates or propagate its program. As a result,
the election campaign was conducted by contesting individuals on the basis
of ethnic, linguistic, clan, tribal and sectarian affiliations. Naturally,
the trade union movement could not remain unaffected.
On the other hand, there was also the religious element. The State has
often encouraged and patronized religious fundamentalist organizations to
increase their influence, both in the working class neighborhoods and
among the unions. This has led to the division of the workers on
religious, sectarian lines.
The Outlook for the Trade Union Movement
in Pakistan
The foregoing assessment shows that in the post-independence period an
extremely restrictive system of industrial relations has developed in
Pakistan. Devised basically to fulfill the need of rapid industrialization
with phenomenal profits for the local as well as foreign capitalists,
while ensuring their secure and unhindered operations, this system is
geared towards securing the permanent subordination of the workers, on the
one hand, and in the removal of conflicts from the workplace (in addition
to preventing such conflicts from developing into class conflicts), on the
other. To this end, the system seeks to turn the unions, whenever and
wherever they are allowed, into instruments for disciplining the workers.
Under this system, the prominent elements relating to the two main rights
of the workers, i.e., the right to organize and to bargain collectively,
are outlined below.
i It allows the rights to a small number of workers, as is evident from
the list of exclusions in the Industrial Relations Ordinance of 1969 as
amended from time to time.
However, even when the workers may have the right to form unions, they may
be deprived of the right to bargain by, for example, being brought under
the purview of the Essential Services Act of 1952. On the other hand, the
non-availability of an unconditional right to strike has the effect of
severely limiting the capacity to bargain with the employers. As the right
to strike has been made conditional on fulfilling lengthy mandatory
procedures, the attempts to use this right often prove extremely
frustrating and counterproductive.
ii. The law only provides for the formation of plant- or
establishment-based trade unions. It also allows multiplicity of unions in
each plant and for compulsory registration and certification of unions and
their consequent regulation and policing by the registrar of trade unions.
As a result, the independence of the unions at the plant level and the
inability to form industrial unions militate against any effective
collective action on the part of workers.
iii. And finally, the mandatory conciliation, arbitration and adjudication
processes have the effect of keeping the trade union leaders involved in
spending most of their working time away from the workplace and their
membership.
The unions thus end up having to waste their scarce financial resources on
very often fruitless legal activities rather than on efforts to strengthen
their organization or on the welfare of their members.
The State coordinates the above system of labor control through primarily
the Ministry of Labor and various other administrative agencies.
The system, for the most part, functions quite effectively. However, there
are times when rank-and-file workers, frustrated by the multiplicity of
procedures and the impossibility of achieving any meaningful redress
through the prescribed channels, are forced to resort to collective
actions. These actions invariably take a militant form.
It is at this juncture that the State comes out with the ultimate weapon -
state terror - which is then let loose on the peaceful workers. The
arrests of activists, imprisonment without charge or trial, physical
torture and finally the indiscriminate killing of scores of workers are
the result. The senseless killing of workers in Karachi in 1951, 1963 and
1972; in Faisalabad in 1958; and in Multan in 1978 are but a few examples
from the past.
Apart from these extreme cases, police intervention in industrial
disputes, invariably on the side of the employer, is a matter of daily
routine in the industrial estates of Pakistan.
Recurring political instability; long periods of martial law and the
accompanying suppression of all basic rights; polarization of the people
on narrow ethnic, linguistic, religious and sectarian lines; and the
frequent spells of depoliticization are some of the additional factors
inhibiting the development of free trade unionism in Pakistan. Only when
concrete steps are taken to eliminate these trends and elements from the
country’s body politic can the outlook for the trade union movement be
better.
Human Rights in Pakistan
Only during short periods when civilian governments were in power has
Pakistan had a semblance of freedom of association, freedom of assembly,
freedom of movement and action, freedom of expression and communication,
freedom to take part in political activities, etc. Even during these
periods, however, the various governments of Pakistan have permitted the
police to freely violate them. Seldom has the government taken the
offending policemen to task.
The period following the imposition of martial law in 1977 saw the worst
form of suppression of human rights in Pakistan. Between 1977 and 1985,
innumerable people disappeared without a trace, particularly in Sindh
Province. Many died in prisons. Many were executed for political reasons
but were charged falsely with criminal offenses, including Prime Minister
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Political activists were publicly flogged and their
family members harassed and intimidated. Hundreds of political workers
were put in prison without trial. The 1983 movement for the restoration of
democracy was brutally suppressed, particularly in Sindh, where scores of
people were killed. Thousands of cases were tried in special military
courts; and, without following the international norms of justice,
political workers were sentenced to long-term imprisonment.
Every government has in one way or another tried to manipulate the freedom
of the press through “press advices” to newspapers and discrimination in
the allocation of government advertisements.
Censoring of the private mail of citizens and tapping of their telephones
have continued throughout, although with different degrees of strictness.
During the brief 20-month rule of Benazir Bhutto, there certainly was an
effort to show greater respect for basic human rights and freedoms. The
police and law-enforcing agencies, however, have always acted in total
disregard of these rights and were never taken to task for their excesses,
so much so, that in some of the known crimes personnel of these forces
were found to be involved.
Violence against innocent citizens has been an ever-present menace.
Kidnapings and random violence have continued, especially in Sindh.
Government forces have at times violated individual rights and have used
excessive force in efforts to combat dacoities and, in the process, have
caused suffering and death to innocent citizens. The widespread abuse of
prisoners by the police, including the murder of prisoners while in
custody, have been common occurrences, but no government has taken
adequate measures to bring to trial and punish the personnel committing
such excesses. Arbitrary arrests and the detention of citizens without
charge or trial still continue. Religious minorities are very often
harassed and discriminated against.
Anachronistic laws based on a fundamentalist interpretation of religion
have drastically interfered with the basic rights of the people. No
government dares to get rid of these laws, the worst of which were
introduced during Ziaul Huq’s military rule, for fear of being branded as
anti-Islamic by the mullahs. Some of these laws interfere with people’s
freedom of conscience, their freedom to practice the faith of their
choice.
Generally speaking, much has to be done to bring the level of human rights
in Pakistan to conform to the stipulations of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights of the United Nations; the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of the United Nations; and the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, also of the United
Nations.
The Rights of Women
Women, like the workers, have been among the worst victims of abuse or
curtailment of basic human rights in Pakistan. Zia’s military regime
particularly directed its offensive at institutionalizing an inferior
status for women in its plans of so-called Islamization This has an
immediate correspondence with the existing feudalistic attitudes among the
majority of men from all classes. Although the women constitute only a
small percentage of the country’s labor force at the moment, the
reinforcement of these archaic ideas has important implications, not only
for the labor movement, but also for the country’s vital interests as
women, who form half of the country’s population, are kept out of its
social and economic activities.
The social and legal oppression of women in Pakistan is a gross violation
of their basic human rights. The abuse of women, including rape, often go
either unreported or unpunished. A woman who is raped risks being
prosecuted for adultery as her testimony is a priori considered unreliable
and has to be supported by that of four reliable Muslim male witnesses.
There have been several cases in which the innocent victims of rape have
been sent to jail under the Hadood Ordinance. Similarly, under the Law of
Evidence, the testimony of two women is needed to equal that of a man.
Women are also banned from taking part in international and domestic
sporting events.
Even the government of the Pakistan People’s Party headed by a woman could
not do much in its 20 months in power to better the status of women for
fear of inviting the wrath and fury of the religious fundamentalists.
Attempts to organize symposia, seminars and discussions by various women’s
organizations and their supporters among the intelligentsia, students,
etc., to highlight the discriminatory measures against women have so far
made only a minimal impact as generally the response from the male
population has been lukewarm, not forthcoming or even hostile.
