[DAWN] BY passing a bill that gives legal and constitutional cover to the jirga and panchayat system of dispute resolution, the National Assembly has only highlighted its own weaknesses. The non-serious approach to the matter must also be criticised: only 23 members of the house were present, and none of them pointed out the lack of quorum, allowing the crucial responsibility of administering justice to be outsourced to some of the most regressive elements in society. It may be true that the jirga and panchayat system has existed in the country for centuries, but that does not mean it should be handed the responsibility to administer justice, even in supposedly minor cases. Over the years, this system has given us heinous ’judgements’, supposedly endorsed by ’tradition’, such as vani where maidens are forcibly married off in order to settle disputes or enmities. If the law minister, who introduced the bill, thinks that the provision of attaching ’neutral arbitrators’ to each case is sufficient to ensure that the verdicts pronounced will be in accordance with the law and fundamental rights, and will protect the rights of women, then it can reasonably be assumed that he is washing his hands of the responsibility of providing justice to the common citizens of this land.If the government wants to bring in alternate dispute resolution mechanisms to help reduce the caseloads in the courts, which is the language in which it is justifying the passage of this controversial bill, then an option already exists in the form of the office of the federal and provincial ombudsman. That office can be strengthened and expanded to perform dispute resolution functions in the 23 different offences applicable in the jirga and panchayat bill. This way dispute resolution will remain the responsibility of the government while minor issues can be settled quickly in accordance with the rules and principles the state is obligated to uphold. If it can find ’neutral arbitrators’ for jirgas and panchayats then surely it can find the personnel to staff the office of the ombudsman at the union council level too.
No assurance given by the law minister regarding the protection of the rights of women under a jirga and panchayat system should be entertained. The politicians who were present in the Assembly on the day the bill was voted upon, disgraced their oath of office by approving the bill with such little discussion. The Senate should move to block its passage, and if that fails, the provincial governments should steer clear of invoking its provisions. Perhaps the Supreme Court can examine its legality as well. The state should be working on strengthening modern forms of dispute resolution, not reinforcing antiquated bodies that do more harm than good and giving them legal cover.