.

The past, present and future of feminist activism in

Rubina Saigol https://herald.dawn.com/news/1398878

Aurat March 2019 was one of the most exciting feminist events in recent years. Its sheer scale,

magnitude, diversity and inclusivity were unprecedented. Women belonging to different social

classes, regions, religions, ethnicities and sects came together on a common platform to protest

the multiple patriarchies that control, limit and constrain their self-expression and basic rights.

From home-based workers to teachers, from transgender to queer — all protested in their unique

and innovative ways. Men and boys in tow, carrying supportive placards, the marchers reflected

unity within diversity, seldom seen in Pakistan’s polarised and divisive social landscape.

Carried out in many cities across Pakistan, the march took both its supporters and detractors by

surprise. No one expected such a big turnout and in so many cities with truth-laden and daring

placards. The intensity of the vitriol seen in the backlash to the march testifies to its enormous

success — it certainly managed to hit patriarchy where it hurts.

Aurat March 2019 also marks a tectonic shift from the previous articulations of feminism in

Pakistan. It would not be far-fetched to say that it has inaugurated a new phase in feminism,

qualitatively different from the earlier movements for women rights. While the past expressions

of feminism laid the foundation for what we see today, the radical shift of feminist politics from

a focus on the public sphere to the private one – from the state and the society to home and

family – manifests nothing short of a revolutionary impulse. Feminism in Pakistan has come of
age as it unabashedly asserts that the personal is political and that the patriarchal divide between

the public and the private is ultimately false.

The social, political and historical context of each previous form of feminism was different and

the feminist issues of each era arose from particular moments in national and global histories. In

the early years of Pakistan’s formation, the wounds inflicted by the bloodstained Partition were

fresh. Women activists were focused on welfare issues, such as the rehabilitation of refugees,

because that kind of work had social respectability within the traditional cultural milieu.

Pakistan also inherited many social issues – such as polygamy, purdah, child marriage,

inheritance, divorce and the right to education – from the pre-Partition times. Many of the

demands for social and legal reforms on these issues were acceptable even within the bounds of

religion. So, there was no fear of women upsetting the applecart when they asked for these

reforms.

The 1960s saw the proliferation of women’s welfare and development organisations but it was

the All Pakistan Women’s Association (APWA) that became the face of the women’s movement

in the country in that decade. The passage of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, pushed by

APWA, reflected a minor ingress by the state in the private sphere as it placed certain procedural

limits on the men’s arbitrary right of divorce and gave women some rights regarding child

custody and maintenance. Even the small changes repeatedly stirred public controversy with

clerics clamouring for the reversal of the ordinance.

and development work involving girls’ education and income-generation activities; two, the

collaboration with the state to achieve its aims. APWA shied away from an overtly political

position in that it did not contest dictatorship. It did not ruffle any religious or political feathers

and preferred to play it safe even when Fatima Jinnah, a woman, remained the sole campaigner

against dictatorship. The cooperation and collaboration of women leaders with the state to attain

women’s rights continued during the civilian rule of the Pakistan Peoples Party (1971-1977).

The feminist movement and the women’s rights struggle that arose in the 1980s, spearheaded by

Women’s Action Forum (WAF) in the urban areas and Sindhiani Tehreek in rural Sindh, were

significant for their overtly political stance. As both these movements were formed in the context

of a hypernationalist absolute dictatorship that relied on a particular version of religion for

legitimacy, they consistently challenged both the military rule and the incursion of religion in

politics. WAF struggled for a democratic, inclusive, plural and secular state while Sindhiani

Tehreek strove for an end to feudalism and patriarchy, sought the restoration of democracy and

championed the principle of federalism and provincial autonomy.

These movements represent a significant break from the former paradigm of collaboration and

cooperation with the state. They challenged patriarchal power in every domain — political,

religious and legal. Unlike the welfare and social uplift-oriented movements of the 1960s, the

struggles launched by women in the 1980s were essentially political movements anchored in the

ideas of democracy, basic rights and sociopolitical change. As they confronted the authoritarian

state, women in these movements could ill-afford to play it safe like their predecessors. They,

therefore, engaged in frequent street protests and demonstrations. They took risks and were
occasionally beaten, jailed, baton-charged and otherwise threatened by the dominant religious-

military patriarchies of the time.

WAF had to respond quickly and frequently because of the rapid pace at which the regime was

promulgating discriminatory laws and taking anti-women measures. The focus of the WAF

members was squarely on the public sphere where the state machinery was utilised to brutally

repress anyone who dared to stand up to the dictatorship. The aggressive and intrusive

reconstitution of the private sphere, through instruments such as the Hudood Ordinances, had to

be resisted at the public level by fighting legal cases, speaking up and protesting on the street.

Given the dizzying pace at which the regime and its religious allies had to be countered, there

was little room for internal reflection in WAF. Although most of its founders had a strong

feminist background and a feminist lens for unpacking the dominant narratives, the space for

interrogating private life had shrunk. WAF members knew that patriarchies work through the

bodies of women and write their strictures on those bodies. They also understood that the

traditional family, which controls and organises the human body and sexuality, is the mainstay of

patriarchies. Yet they were constantly occupied with contesting the state’s laws being drawn

from a singular interpretation of religion. In private conversations, the politics of the body in the

body politic were often discussed but, publicly, WAF was only engaged in countering the

imperious state.

Some of the reasons for the reticence were internal. WAF was composed of a diverse set of

organisations and individuals with differing perspectives on religion, culture and tradition. This

diversity grew out of the necessity to have maximum numbers to confront a heavy-handed

regime. WAF was reluctant to take too radical a stand on the body, sexuality and the family as
many of its members were religious, conservative and deeply embedded in traditional family

systems. The conversations on the body, sexuality and the freedom to express oneself in one’s

own way did not become a part of the official public agenda of WAF.

Ironically, while WAF members avoided public discussions on the body and sexuality, the state

and religious clerics had no such qualms; their focus was squarely on the woman’s body — the

need to conceal it, cover it, protect it and preserve it for its rightful ‘owner’. The state was

consistently referring to sexuality (for example, in laws on fornication, zina), the veil and the

four walls of the house — all designed to control the rebellious and potentially dangerous female

body capable of irredeemable transgression.

This is where the new feminists break from the older generation and mark a powerful shift in the

feminist landscape. Even as new feminism retains many of the older critiques of the state,

fundamentalism and militarism and reflects the desire for equality and democracy, it reaffirms

the personal and injects it right into the heart of the political. ‘My body, my will’, it tells

patriarchy to its crestfallen face. ‘Warm your own food’, ‘I don’t have to warm your bed’, ‘don’t

send me dick pics’ — in curt one-liners, the new young feminists reclaim their bodies, denounce

sexual harassment, stake a claim to public space and challenge the gender division of labour on

which rests the entire edifice of patriarchy.

The new wave of feminism includes people from all classes, genders, religions, cultures and

sects without any discrimination or prejudice. The young feminists are diverse, yet inclusive,

multiple yet one. There are no leaders or followers — they are all leaders and followers. The

collective non-hierarchical manner of working and the refusal to take any funding is similar to

the functioning practised by WAF and represents continuity with the past. But the entire framing
of the narrative around the body, sexuality, personal choices and rights is new. The young groups

of women say openly what their grandmothers could not dare to think and their mothers could

not dare to speak.

They say what women have known for centuries but have not been able to voice. They have

broken the silences imposed by various patriarchies in the name of religion, tradition and culture.

They have torn down so many false barriers including the four walls of morality built to stifle

their selves and curb their expression.

The backlash has been swift, fierce and expected. Patriarchy began to shake in its boots and

masculine anxiety reached a peak as women hit it where it hurt. The self-appointed guardians of

morality, who in the past never touched the issues of violence and inequality, have been quick to

condemn the marching women in their television chatter shows, puny little newspaper columns

and silly tweets. The blowback from little people is not new for feminists.

The critics certainly cannot stop the marchers. Will money hinder their path? There are questions

about the sustainability of the feminist movement given that the young feminists do not take any

funding from corporate, government or foreign donors. The tremendous energy and passion

generated by the march, however, are enough to ensure that these activists will continue

marching into unknown but exciting futures.

Reactions to Aurat March, held on the International Women’s Day on March 8, 2019, ranged

from supportive to condemnatory and everything in between. The national conversation that

followed raised some important questions not only about the role and status of women in the

Pakistani society but also the significance of the issues highlighted by the marchers.