[Back to main obituary write-ups page]

Mind behind movement By Ayesha Khan We were so fortunate to have counted Shahla Zia among us. Much work remains, and it will be very hard indeed to proceed without her in our midst. The most outstanding citizens of this country tend to pass away quietly, without many of us even aware of who they are. Just as often, we lavish mediocrity with praise and privilege, giving the living a false sense of greatness in their own lifetime. This is why Shahla Zia has passed away in our midst and the country can go on as if nothing major had happened. But for the women's movement, precisely the opposite is true.

Shahla Zia was a founding member of the Women's Action Forum, and a joint director of the Aurat Foundation in Islamabad for over a decade. She trained as a lawyer in Lahore, and in the early years of her career helped to establish AGHS -- Asma, Gulrukh, Hina, Shahla -- the legal aid organisation for women. She sat on the National Inquiry Commission on the Status of Women, led by Mr. Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, and was a major contributor to its 1997 report, which led to the establishment of the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women. Her advocacy work focused on the increased political participation of women. She lobbied with lawmakers patiently and persistently to restore reserved seats for women in our elected bodies, and later led efforts to train new women entrants into local bodies to be effective leaders.

The deeper truth is that Shahla was our mentor in the women's movement in Pakistan. She achieved that stature not through her public activities, but through the manner in which she guided others to work together in a group for social change and in the unique clarity of her thought. She was clear and firm on the principles of the Women's Action Forum as it struggled to counter discriminatory legislation, attacks from the religious right, and derision from an uncommitted public. She gave endless hours in meetings and discussions groups to explain to us, and remind us in times of confusion, what it was we were fighting to achieve for this country.

I recall the lengthy internal debate within WAF regarding the wording of the WAF Charter and our position on the issue of secularism in the early 1990s. Members were stuck; if we demanded a state that was secular did that compromise our belief in Islam? Was it possible to reconcile faith and politics without compromising the former and diminishing women's rightful share in power? Even harder, was it possible to have a charter that accommodated the belief systems of all women, believers and non-believers, and detracted nothing from their rights as citizens?

I still have a memo she wrote after a WAF meeting on this issue, articulating the fine points of why it was correct for WAF to take such a controversial stand. She wrote that taking a stand in favour of a secular state "does not mean that WAF is in any way against Islam, but merely that WAF believes that religion is a personal matter and not for the State to dictate or control." If religion becomes the province of the State, she added, "It has always been exploited by the State for its own political gains and motives, and this has invariably adversely affected women, minorities and the poor." In a country where the Hudood Ordinances (1979) are still in force despite frequent recommendations for their repeal, it is instructive to remember the benefit of a clear secular approach even a decade after Shahla made these notes.

She placed her faith in the Constitution and in a legal system that could be turned into a support for the poor and marginalised in society if we fought for it. The first chapter of the 1997 Report of the Inquiry Commission puts the case simply. "The Constitution is a country's basic law. To the extent constitutional rule is promoted and becomes entrenched in a society to that extent democratic culture flourishes. And it is in a democratic culture that women's rights have the best chance of recognition."

Can these arguments be dismissed as rhetoric of the westernised elite of Pakistan, the coffee-drinking, cigarette-smoking, English-speaking women activists accused by their detractors of misrepresenting women of this country? For that is what opponents of the NGO movement have claimed time and again in response to activists' demands for women's rights and social justice.

Nothing is quite what it seems when viewed from such a distance. Shahla was calm, compassionate, and soft-spoken. She was devoted to her large family, devoid of material greed, and shy of social or media attention. She genuinely loved the law, and had the patience to study its nuances and articulate subtleties that was beyond many an enthusiastic activist. And in an increasingly hypocritical society, Shahla's stature grew because her honesty remained undiminished, and her integrity as a friend and colleague was never in dispute.

We were so fortunate, and indeed honoured, to have counted Shahla Zia among us in Pakistan. We are a better people for it, since she taught us through her intellect and example. Much work remains, and it will be very hard indeed to proceed without her in our midst. Yet her tremendous composure under pressure, her warmth, optimism and patience, remain the best example for those who need to continue this struggle for generations to come.

[Source: http://www.jang.com.pk/thenews/mar2005-weekly/nos-20-03-2005/dia.htm#2]

[Last updated: 20 March, 2005]