Rape Culture in Pakistan

Content Warning: Discussion of rape and sexual violence

Pakistan remains in shock and disbelief after a woman was gang raped by robbers in front of her children near a motorway in the city of Lahore on September 9th. In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, thousands of citizens have headed to the streets in an immense outcry. Horrendous acts, such as gang rape, continue to occur despite citizen outcry and condemnation from the government. According to a 2017 report from the Madadgaar National Helpline 1098, nearly 93% women experience some form of sexual violence in public places in their lifetime in Pakistan. However, this event is not an isolated incident; in fact, this is a culmination of a  festering issue in the country, which consists of  regular threats, harassment and a growing rape culture. The perpetuation of rape as a repeated crime with little to no repercussion has stemmed from multiple discrepancies within the judicial system, a chasm among societal norms and behaviors, and  a lack of education towards sexual violence and sexual protection. While women’s rights activists have stepped up to the plate,in terms of supporting and facilitating a nationwide Aurat March in 2019 and 2020, there is still a considerable amount of work that needs to be done from the ground up. This paper will breakdown the event in detail, the societal norms and legalistic fixtures that have reinforced crimes such as rape, concluding with what actions have taken in place thus far from the Pakistani people and what practices must be implemented for substantial change to occur. 

Motorway Incident 

While this incident of gang-rape was not the first Pakistan has witnessed within the country, it is crucial to consider specific details of this case which ultimately resulted in a considerable amount of pent-up rage and frustration among citizens. It was around 3am on September 9th when a woman, who is  a resident of France, and her two children were driving back from relatives in Gujranwala, Pakistan. She ran out of fuel and per the advice of her relatives, she called the motorway emergency numbers for assistance. It was reported that after waiting for approximately an hour for help to arrive, two armed men broke into the woman’s car, stole a considerable amount of money and material possessions, and proceeded to rape her in front of her two children. 

Despite the horrendous circumstances of that night, it was what Umer Sheikh, a senior police official, had to say the following morning on national TV that displayed a widepsread problem with the system. Umer Sheikh appeared in front of the media and implied  that she had been partly to blame. First, he questioned why she had not taken a busier road, given that she was driving at 10 pm, and then when on to state that she should have checked her fuel before departing. Sheikh also added that the woman, who is a French resident, was traveling under the impression that Pakistan is as safe as France. It is one thing for an individual to experience this level of trauma and abuse then to see the most senior police official, who is meant to empathize with citizens and protect the community at large, instead blaming the victim for what happened that night and holding that person solely responsible for their own safety. This was one of many breaking points in Pakistan, resulting in protests calling for a host of demands, such as the termination for the senior police official to improve police accountability. Immense questioning and eyes are pointed towards the victim rather than the criminals or the traffic who failed to arrive in a timely manner. Despite the fact that two suspects have been found and are being held for questioning, the central problem remains: instead of being treated with empathy, the victim's actions are critiqued thus normalizing victim-blaming and a flawed justice system. 

Systemic Behaviors on the Ground 

Along with this motorway incident, a flood of rape cases has reached the media. This case was only five days after a 5-year old girl was found murdered, raped, and torched. In roughly the first two months of 2020, as many as 73 incidents of rape have been reported, including five gang-rape cases. It should be  reiterated that  these statistics are only considering cases that have been reported.. It is imperative to consider the multitude of victims and their ordeals which have gone unnoticed, specifically how normalized behaviors and attitudes have made it seem as though Pakistan is at a standstill or has even backtracked when it comes to handling acts of rape and sexual violence. Difficulty in getting the courage to report such cases reflects cyclical gendered practices deeply entrenched in a patriarchal society where women in some cases are exploited in the name of religious and cultural norms. For example, honor is a social value tied to virginity and modesty with men deciding if these virtues are being met. Societal behaviors place more responsibility and pressure on the women to uphold a certain image which dictates the way she should dress and how loud she should be in public; behavior outside of these frameworks appear as conscious indicators to attract male attention. 

A big part of the problem lies within the language and terminology that is used when discussing issues like rape in Pakistan. Pakistani activists highlight that the problem persists due to  people immediately blaming the victim and their family-  Blame goes to the victim for roaming around freely and  the parents are blamed for not taking ‘proper’ care of their child. That is the way rape has always been framed within Pakistani society. Additionally, the rape has always been tied to a female’s modesty and her family’s honor; thus rape is often portrayed  as a loss of her piety and good character and respect of her family. It is disheartening to see a system that leaves families suffering because of  societal notions of dishonor and shame and victims not receiving the justice they deserve, while perpetrators are essentially roaming free. Social attitudes and norms embody larger narratives in society which tell women ‘not to get raped’ instead of turning the focus towards telling men ‘not to rape’; thus women  treat major or minor acts of sexual harassment as trivial and are willing to accept  that they are objects of sexual desire and not human beings who should be treated as fairly and equally as their male counterparts. 

Do Laws in Pakistan Actually Help Women? 

When it comes to acts of sexual assault , Pakistan tends to utilize religion and interprets Islamic ideology to understand crimes such as rape and how it should subsequently be handled. There is a large chasm in ideology and tolerance when considering the fair treatment of women that are based on set laws meant to protect them. While there have been fine-tuned laws, with the intention to help victims of rape with legal process of reporting the crime and taking it to the courts, evidence shows these efforts have not been as effective. 

In 2016, the Pakistani parliament broke massive legislative ground when it passed laws to increase sentences for rapists, making it mandatory that the culprit must be imprisoned for 25 years, and those who commit honor killings of women, as an attempt to close a loophole that allowed many of the killers to go free. Despite these promising changes, in 2016 alone, 370 rapes were registered in the country and 3100 cases were still under investigation. Data shows  that the cases are increasing with the passage of time despite the presence of a legal mechanism of protection. Another factor is the lack of political stability in Pakistan, which enables perpetrators of all sorts of gender-based crimes against women to go unpunished, as government action on both national and local level remains absent. It was a Jirga that decided in 2002 that Mukhtar Mai was to be gang-raped as recompense for a sexual assault committed by her brother. Jirgas, or tribal courts in the rural regions, is a nuanced version of the justice system, which operates on centuries-old codes of honor; this tribal code believes that women should essentially succumb to the orders of male relatives. Over the years, there has been increasing tensions between judiciary challenging the old tradition of jirgas known for providing quick justice. Most people prefer the jirgas’ style of quick and rough judiciary due to the formal legal system being categorized as cumbersome and corrupt, with cases taking years to reach a final verdict. 

The crackdown towards the criminalization is also heavily dependent on which party is holding majority seats in parliament and the importance they place on the particular issue. When accepting his role in office, Prime Minister Imran Khan’s particularstance on social justice and change for all, led to him  condemning the rape that occurred on the motorway in a tweet stating, “They [rapists] should be given exemplary punishments. In my opinion, they should be hanged at the chowk [intersection].” Despite the bold nature of his tweet, a month post incident, no major action has taken place in legal terms. However, this has been the most responsive action by parliamentary government in the last few years. It was in 2017 that Khan’s opposition and former party in power, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) that the government decided that the solution to Pakistan’s inefficient and politicized judicial system was to provide constitutional cover to Pakistan’s centuries old jirga system. This ultimately displayed at one point the government not only accepting their fault of maintaining a weak judiciary based on self-interest, but consciously wanting to promote a system without considering the negative repercussions it would have towards women’s rights in Pakistan.  

What is Being Done: The Role of Everyday Women 

 The World Economic Forum ranked Pakistan 151 out of 153 countries in its 2020 Global Gender Gap Index Report. The Aurat March -- or Women's March -- has been held across Pakistan on March 8 for the past three years, attracting thousands of citizens, both men and women, intending to demand gender equality, minimum wages for the working class, and bodily rights in the context of sexual harassment and for police support victims in filing for criminal reports, along with raising slogans against sexual harassment and gender-based violence. Women’s rights activists, such as Fouzia Saeed, who founded the first women’s crisis centre in Pakistan, believes progress is being made and that mindsets are changing within society. While women are claiming their own voice through the Aurat March, and with the movement’s message gaining sustainable traction and support through the use of media, there has also been a great amount of backlash. In relation to this year’s March 8th demonstrations, conservatives conducted a smear campaign against feminist activists. Throwing stones at protestors and destroying placards were tied with the justifications deeply embedded in socio-religious norms, stating that it was a highly Western campaign that simply just wanted to promote vulgarity. The status of women has been a social tripe which has evolved into finding an autonomous voice, the the danger of strengthening prevailing patriarchal cultural norms that use Islam as the justification. 

The Future of Pakistan: The Beacon of Light Ahead 

The Aurat March displays itself as a catalyst for detailed guidance and hope, due to its multi-dimensionality and holistic approach of synthesizing the key issues coupled with strategies and solutions to tackle these daunting tasks. The Aurat March was one way to bring women of all ethnicities, classes, and religions onto one platform. Everyday should be a women’s day in Pakistan- there should not be temporary outrage and anger exhibited towards isolated events; this should be a continuous struggle against rigid socio-religious behaviors. Attention should turn towards easing the pain and helping the survivors and their families. Breaches in law enforcement hindering the healing process for these victims should be held accountable. Law enforcement must also see potential good that can come from partnering with NGOs that can send professionally trained female facilitators to accompany the victim when reporting the crime, with the purpose being to ensure the welfare of the survivor. Furthermore, it is an impreative to look  at rape as a heinous crime, rather than an infliction on the victim’s character or honor. Bold reforms and bold attitudes will be needed to bring about this outcome. None of this can become a reality unless the grit and the will of the Pakistani people manifest as the main driving force. None of this can be possible if women are not given positions where power resides; ultimately women must step outside domestic roles to attain their basic rights. 

A Weapon or a Consequence? Sexual Violence in Armed Conflict

“We know now, as we knew even before the passage of this resolution, that rape is a kind of slow murder.”

—Slavenka Drakulic on the UN Security Council’s Resolution 1820

Sexual violence is not merely an unfortunate side effect of war, but a deliberate tactic used to humiliate, dominate, disperse, and instill fear in women and their communities. This essay evaluates several key examples of sexual violence being used against women during wartime including the Bosnian War, ongoing conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and United Nations peacekeeping missions, with the goal of discussing the validity and consequences of the categorization of sexual violence as a “weapon of war.” While males and gender nonconforming people also suffer from sexual violence, and while men are not exclusively the perpetrators of rape during war, this paper focuses on sexual violence against women and girls since they are disproportionately targeted by the use of sexual violence. Although this paper incorporates evidence from scholars who believe sexual violence is only a consequence of war, or as I will refer to them, “Consequence Theorists,” it focuses on their challengers, “Weapon Theorists,” who believe sexual violence is a deliberately used weapon. This paper focuses on Weapon Theory since the passage of United Nations (UN) Resolution 1820 shifted the dominant paradigm in its favor in 2008. This paper does not consider conflict actors as homogeneous and recognizes that while sexual violence is, overall, a weapon of war used by most conflict actors (e.g., states and non-state groups), it may be an unfortunate side effect in other conflict actors’ operations (e.g., inter-governmental organizations and peacekeeping forces). I first review each theory by considering the validity and consequences of each, as perceived by differing scholarly opinions. I then test the theories against the historical record. I conclude by demonstrating that sexual violence is most appropriately and accurately categorized when it is defined as a weapon of war.

Weapon Theory

Weapons: guns, knives, swords. Weapons: emotion, gender, power. The way the international community—civilians and governments alike—has redefined what constitutes a “weapon” of war has dramatically changed since the turn of the twenty-first century. Today, many forms of sexual violence such as rape are considered war tactics that threaten international peace and security. This outlook was established for the first time in the UN Security Council’s 2008 Resolution 1820, which stated that sexual violence during conflict was an international threat. Weapon Theory scholars argue that sexual violence is a weapon of war due to its intentional use, its systematic nature, and its strategic execution. Hillary Margolis, leader of the International Rescue Committee’s sexual violence program in North Kivu, claims that rape is a deliberate (not a random) tactic. Dara Kay Cohen also attests that rape in wartime is intentional; however, she maintains that rape is not only used officially as a weapon against women, but is also used passively to promote bonding within a militia group. Wartime sexual violence is often systematic in nature, while side effects are not predictable. Weapon Theorists emphasize that male sexual desire fails to explain patterns of sexual violence because most men, given the opportunity, do not rape. Historian Antony Beevor says that rape during war has been used strategically to achieve political or military objectives by humiliating and terrorizing since ancient times. Even ancient academics believed wartime rape to be as old as war itself; Saint Augustine called it an “ancient and customary evil.” Elisabeth Wood shows that rape is used strategically, to terrorize people and force them to leave an area. She also says that militia leaders’ claims that they lack control over their troops are groundless, because a commander with enough power to direct military operations has enough power to stop his soldiers from raping.

Weapon Theory: Consequences

Anna Hedlund argues that the labeling of rape as a weapon of war is often inadequate, simplified, sensationalistic, and stereotypical. Kerry F. Crawford, Amelia Hoover Green, and Sarah E. Parkinson believe that classifying rape as a weapon causes inaccurate rape claims to be made out of hopes for case money, disincentivizes programming focused on other types of suffering during conflict, and makes other wartime crimes harder to prosecute. All four scholars believe that the selective media narratives that focus entirely on women, compounded with calling rape a “weapon,” create challenges for non-visible survivors. “Media narratives about Iraq and Syria are almost exclusively focused on women, concealing and marginalizing male and LGBT victims who may be equally in need of help,” write Crawford, Hoover Green, and Parkinson. They also write that calling rape a weapon of war gives outside states a disingenuous justification to intervene due to the “impulse to ‘save’ Syrian and Iraqi women from sexual violence.”

However, interventions in the name of “saving” women are not new phenomena. In 2001, Laura Bush advocated for the intervention of Afghanistan under a humanitarian front to fight “brutality against women and children” in the name of “our common humanity.” Categorizing rape and sexual violence as a weapon of war in 2008 did not give rise to this neo-imperialist façade. The goal of classifying rape and other forms of sexual violence during wartime as “weapons of war” is to bolster international accountability and eradicate the culture of impunity that supports sexual violence. Of course international policies could do more to help male and LGBTQ survivors of sexual violence. But this is beside the point; identifying rape as a weapon of war—and thereby creating legal mechanisms to hold military commanders accountable to the law—puts international law on a path to combat sexual violence that can be developed to include all victims. Having a system of accountability designed to affect deterrence is a better option than accepting the violence and allowing it to continue due to a lack of sufficient legal labeling. Furthermore, calling all forms of sexual violence—including rape, sexual slavery, and sexual humiliation—weapons of war legitimizes the suffering, pain, and damage that it inflicts on survivors and their communities. Associating traditional instruments of war and sexual violence with the use of the word “weapon” is an important shift in discourse that has helped to break stigmas and the silence attached to rape. Lastly, the weak argument that women might lie about rape in exchange for money is historically unsubstantiated and, frankly, the product of a patriarchal, victim-blaming mentality. These critiques do little to negate the importance and usefulness of recognizing sexual violence as a weapon of war.

Consequence Theory

Consequence Theory holds that sexual violence is not a weapon intentionally and strategically used during war, but rather an inevitable or unfortunate side effect of war due to a culture of rape that war often creates, the increased opportunities to execute sexual violence, soldiers’ sexual desires that cannot be satiated by consensual sex during wartime, and because poorly-trained soldiers do not realize sexual violence is wrong. Richard Malengule states that years of fighting have resulted in a culture of rape in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where sexual violence is accepted as a by-product of the conflict. Susan Brownmiller, author of Against Our Will, wrote, “War provides men with the perfect psychologic backdrop to give vent to their contempt for women.” This belief suggests that sexual violence is an inevitable result of war due to an increased opportunity for men to perpetrate violence against women. Consequence Theory holds that soldiers see sex by rape as a “spoil of war,” and when sexual violence occurs it is a randomized result of an individual’s sexual desires. Military leaders in Japan and the DRC have argued that rape is not a weapon, but a consequence of male desire and a substitute for consensual sex. As evidence, Japanese commanders instituted the system of “comfort women,” who were forced into sexual slavery, to satiate soldiers’ desires. Leaders in the DRC have said that an inability to pay sex workers during warfare is what leads to rape. Others hold that sexual violence is not a weapon but a result of young, ill-trained men who do not understand their wrongdoings. Dearbhla Glynn argues that perpetrators are oblivious to their actions’ harmfulness because they are often part of the cycle of violence that has normalized rape and sexual violence. Similarly, Antony Beevor claims that it is the “indisciplined soldiers,” free from religious and social constraints, who commit sexual violence.

However, Consequence Theory’s claims are widely disputed. First, wartime sexual violence is not inevitable. There is a high level of variation of sexual violence across countries, conflicts, and armed groups. Perpetration is also heterogeneous among groups within the same conflict, proving that many armed groups can and do limit their perpetration of rape when commanders choose to prevent it. In El Salvador’s civil war, insurgents rarely committed rape. Likewise, sexual violence was virtually absent from the strategy of the Sri Lankan Tamil secessionist group, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). Since some groups do not engage in sexual violence in war because their leaders do not condone it, it is not inevitable. If it is not inevitable, there are therefore “stronger grounds for holding responsible those groups that do engage in sexual violence.” This also defeats the argument that rape in war is opportunistic. It is a misconception that given the opportunity, men will rape, and it is over-simplistic to believe that all perpetrators, as Brownmiller implies, do so out of “contempt for women.”

Margot Wallström, UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict said, “There are no rape cultures, only cultures of impunity.” Critics of the Weapon Theory claim that a rape culture is produced as a side effect of conflict because even when wars end, rape continues. However, wartime rape used as a weapon often goes unpunished, thus creating a culture of impunity that sanctifies its continued perpetration. Rape and sexual violence do continue after the guns are put down, but this further exemplifies rape as a weapon of war. A culture of rape is a necessary but not sufficient condition for sexual violence’s use as a weapon. In other words, sexual violence perpetrated with rape culture and with strategy is a weapon, while rape culture without strategy is merely a side effect of wartime rape impunity.

The myth of uncontrollable male sexual desire also fails to explain sexual violence as an unfortunate side effect of war. Oftentimes, widespread rape of civilians is committed where soldiers have full access to sex workers or sexual slaves. Furthermore, sexual temptations cannot explain the extreme brutality of gang rapes or sexual torture that many women and girls suffer. Instead, participation in rape is often a way to build internal ties when armed groups are not cohesive, as seen in The Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in Sierra Leone. When fighters have been forcibly recruited, they are more likely to commit rape, particularly gang rape. Soldiers are usually not lacking in women to appease whatever sexual desires do exist; therefore, Weapon Theory more accurately explains this violence due to its intentional, systematic nature, and the internal strategies behind these rapes.

Finally, the claim that sexual violence is only a side effect of war committed by poorly trained soldiers who do not understand the evil of their actions fails to account for (i) the ill-trained insurgent groups that do not perpetrate this violence, and (ii) the highly trained and educated groups that do commit sexual violence in wartime. Perhaps only child soldiers who are born and raised in violent conflict zones, and where rape is common, are immune from this critique. The prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib in 2003, in which Iraqi prisoners were sexually abused and humiliated by U.S. soldiers, is a key example of sexual violence being used as a weapon of war by a highly trained military. Many Iraqi prisoners were made to perform homosexual acts. While dehumanization is unacceptable in any culture, homosexual acts are against Islamic law and have been punished by execution in Iraq. In the case of Abu Ghraib, as in many others, the three tenants of Weapon Theory were clearly present: the use of sexual violence was intentional, systematic, and calculated, and was constructed based on cultural dynamics to humiliate, dominate, and instil fear in the prisoners.

As a Weapon of War: Bosnia and DRC

Several historic examples give credit to the Weapon Theory of sexual violence in war. The war in Bosnia-Herzegovina (Bosnia) from 1992 to 1995 was the first to gain international attention for the use of systematic rape as a weapon of ethnic cleansing during war. While numbers remain highly controversial, it is estimated that between 20,000 and 50,000 women were raped during this war. Women’s bodies were widely seen as another battlefield where violent, ethnic conflict could be fought. Rape by Bosnian Serb forces was ordered by head military figures, with the goal of wiping out particular ethnic groups. As in many conflict, sexual violence in Bosnia was used as a weapon against a particular people. The use of rape during the Bosnian War is considered genocidal because the objective of the perpetrators was to forcibly impregnate women to create “more babies with the perpetrator’s ethnicity and through this to destroy and erase the ethnic, religious and national identities of their female victims.” Sexual violence in the Bosnian War was a weapon of war due to its intentional, systematic, and strategic nature.

Wartime rape can also be used as a way to deliberately instil fear, displace communities, and spread sexually transmitted diseases. Raped women are often stigmatized by their communities or blamed for their rape. In eastern DRC, which has been called the rape capital of the world, brutal and systematic sexual violence has plagued the region for almost two decades, leaving tens of thousands of victims enduring some sort of sexual violence. Essentially all sides of the conflict perpetrate sexual violence, including civilians, militiamen, armed groups and members of the Congolese Armed Forces. During one of the largest instances of mass rape in eastern Congo, three armed groups raped at least 387 civilians in 13 villages between July and August 2010. The indiscriminate, widespread nature of these mass rapes support the Weapon Theory, which holds that sexual violence is systematically used to impart fear on the victims and their communities. Since rapes in DRC are carried out regularly from village to village, women, girls, and their families often feel afraidto leave their homes to obtain food and water, go to school, or work in the fields. In contrast, some families are so afraid of staying in place (or are directly threatened with rape) that they flee their homes. This forced displacement breaks up communities that are often grouped on ethnic lines, giving perpetrators and armed groups power, as well as the resources that villages leave behind. Carrying out mass rapes is a strategic weapon of this particular conflict because it allows military objectives to be met and provides perpetrators with terror-based power.

As a Consequence of War: Peacekeeping Missions

While the majority of reported sexual violence during wartime is used as a weapon by state militias or non-state armed actors, Consequence Theory holds weight in the context of UN peacekeeper perpetrators. These operations involve military personnel but do not have enforcement powers, and are based on the cooperation of the parties to the conflict. As UN peacekeeping operations increased, a major problem emerged: peacekeepers were found to be sexually abusing or otherwise sexually exploiting local populations during missions.

Peacekeepers have been found guilty of sex-trafficking, soliciting prostitutes, forcing children into prostitution, and having sex with minors. This has occurred among both military and civilian UN personnel across a wide range of countries. Sexual exploitation and abuse is not tolerated by the United Nations, and as former UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan said, it “violates everything the United Nations stands for.” In 2001, allegations of sexual violence emerged, and after refugee communities in Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone were monitored, confirmation of these crimes was reported. In 2004, the UN reported 121 allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation.Forty-five percent of these reports involved sex with minors. In 2005, 340 cases were reported; in 2006, 357 cases. In a Côte d’Ivoire mission in 2007, 800 peacekeepers were suspended on allegations of having sex with minors.

Many scholars have speculated (like Consequence Theorists) that the conditions of the missions allow the exploitation of local girls and women.Peacekeepers are seen as powerful figures in the areas they inhabit during missions, and are likely to believe they can get away with sexual abuse. One UN employee on a peacekeeping mission in eastern Congo who admitted to having sexual relations with 24 girls said he committed these crimes because, “Over there, the colonial spirit persists. The white man gets what he wants.”

The imbalance of power—along ethnic, cultural, and institutional lines, and a culture of impunity provide increased opportunities to execute sexual exploitation. This gives weight to the Consequence Theory: peacekeepers perpetrate sexual violence without gaining strategic political or military power and without a systematic agenda. When governments and non-state armed groups commit sexual violence, it is a weapon. In peacekeeping missions, however, sexual violence is a consequence of war. Nevertheless, these instances are the exception to the international norm, not the rule.

Conclusions

Not every incidence of sexual violence during wartime is a weapon of war; in some instances, it is a consequence of war or conflict. Typically, however, the use of sexual violence in conflict zones is widespread. It is deliberate. It is systematic, strategic and calculated. In these cases and for these reasons, it is a weapon of war. Women and girls have endured physical and psychological trauma in conflicts across the world. The current culture of impunity needs to be eradicated and international support should be fervently thrown behind the sentiments in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1820. Sexual violence is as much a weapon against international peace and security as it is on the bodies and minds of the women and girls who have endured it.