The brutality of the murder not only shook Islamabad but Pakistan. While this was no ordinary murder, the circumstances leading to it were all too familiar.
The victim, a young girl, had said no to a boy. And that was it. Like the thousands of females across Pakistan who dare to say no to a boy, she was tortured and murdered. But in this case, she was also beheaded.
It was a case of consent that eventually led to Noor Mukaddam’s murder by a rich, entitled, drug addicted (as stated by the Supreme Court) and violent psychopath Zahir Zakir Jaffer.
The entitlement of being rich never leaves and one remains protected by it and so did Zahir Jaffer till now. Or so it seems because in all likelihood he will continue to be protected in jail via tactics for the delay of the death sentence most likely by approaching for the Presidential pardon.
This case is a classic example of how our society and system demean and fail them, besides being set against girls and women of Pakistan. There is general impunity to kill girls and women in Pakistan and of Pakistani origin, be it Gender Based Violence (GBV), Violence Against Women (VAW) and now Tech Facilitated Gender Based Violence (TFGBV).
Women and girls carry the burden of honor for themselves, their family and even that of any man who may feel aggrieved by her mere rejection, whether it be for marriage or a difference in opinion. Society and system condones men who are abusing, doxxing, raping, killing, stalking or throwing acid on them – everything is justified for a man, and even more so when his honour is at stake.
A man has the choice and liberty to be an acceptable threat in all situations and in all forms, physical or digital. He is barely demonised as he has two potent protection shields; one is religion, “Satan overcame me” (mujh pe shaitan aa geya tha); and the second is, mental health, “I was not in my senses” (mein hawasoon mein nahin tha).
This ‘curse’ unfortunately is placed on the female as being responsible for it and no one even bats an eyelid or questions the role of the man in it
No one ever questions them or their families as to if their male members suffer from such weak faith or mental illnesses, why did they not help and why did someone else’s daughter have to pay the price?
On the other hand, the female who is a victim is held to account and is blamed for supposedly ‘asking for it’. One would have thought that the Noor Mukaddam case would have been treated differently given the grotesque nature of the crime but why would it? Even here, three days of Supreme Court hearing and linked reporting has also demonstrated that in this case too Zahir Jaffer had all the protection and Noor Mukaddam, even in death, was demonised for simply being a girl.
Strangely, the Judges did not have an understanding of the concept of consent in a social and legal construct which is ideally the same. Their unguarded comments during the proceeding further solidified false and regressive unwritten rules of society:
- Females should not have freedom to make any decisions.
- Females should not be going around at will.
- A female’s dress must have an appropriate tag on it (while appropriate and inappropriate remains undefined).
- Parents should not trust their daughters.
The Women Protection Act to Domestic Violence Act, stresses on consent and emphasises that No means No. This is such a significant element that it is applied in the case of a sex worker as well as for a married women in the case of marital sexual abuse. But somehow it was not applied in this case.
Salman Safdar, Zahir Jaffer’s lawyer poked holes in the character of the brutally killed Noor but Justice Hashim Kakar reportedly said that both of them were living together without taking into consideration that she was a victim of coercive behaviour that is part of the abuse she suffered at the hands of Zahir Jaffer.
Why did the Supreme Court judges think it was acceptable to imply she was immoral by stamping her with the allegation of indulging in a ‘live in relationship’ with Zahir Jaffer? Where did this come from and was there any evidence of it? This was not established in any of the proceedings in the Session and Islamabad High Court nor is it a fact.
It could be that the honourable judge is confused in the definition of a live-in situation (where two people live together without being married, which is rare in Pakistan) and extra marital consensual sex (which is prevalent in Pakistan). He was most probably referring to ‘extra marital consensual sex’ which he defined as a ‘curse’ for a society but the damage was done.
This ‘curse’ unfortunately is placed on the female as being responsible for it and no one even bats an eyelid or questions the role of the man in it. This curse is being freely used by over 90% of married men in our society and 100% by all those men who can get an opportunity.
Even if there was a presumed live-in relationship - and there is nothing to suggest there was one - does it merit her to be murdered for saying no? Never before has consent been so significant.
Secondly, the judge goes on to comment that since she came at will to Zahir Jaffer’s house, the situation could not be described as a kidnapping. To apply such reductive thinking, grossly undermines the fact that she was kept in that house against her will. It takes deep desperation to try and escape by jumping to the ground from a height and there is evidence that Noor Mukaddam jumped from the terrace as a means of escape only to be dragged by her hair back into the house by her murderer.
She was also not allowed to escape from the gate when she finally made it there and it is precisely this reason why the gardener and guard were sentenced for abatement to murder.
The questions are endless and they come from the Supreme Court Judges themselves given the precedent they set on questioning a beheaded girl who was held against her will
How could the Supreme Court judges ignore that? She was held back against her will - does this not qualify as being held hostage? Is there not enough evidence that she wanted to run away but was kept via force by her murderer? Or did they think that she consented to be dragged by her hair and consequently end up with her head cut off?
One recognises that the judgement which upheld one death sentence out of two is a reason to be hopeful and that this sets an example. But for me, I still sit with much fear and concern. One cannot ignore the weak conceptual understanding by the Supreme Court judges when it comes to consent, live-in relationship, extra marital sex and being forcefully held when blatant attempts to escape are made.
The unguarded comments and final verdict can be viewed as being in support of the anti woman narrative entrenched in patriarchy and misogyny. Throughout the proceedings, this anti-woman narrative was liberally used by Salman Safdar to taint Noor Mukaddam’s character as a means of either detracting attention away from his client’s heinous crimes but also to show Well, She Was Asking For It.
And it would not be wrong to say it worked. The death sentence awarded by Islamabad High Court for rape was downgraded to life imprisonment and the ten year imprisonment for kidnapping has also been reduced to one year.
The grave implications are that the money will flow again and the situation where mental health issues will be used to seek a Presidential pardon is very much possible. That will leave Zahir Jaffer with 15 years of imprisonment in total - which is like 7.5 years in total, out of which almost 4 years have been served and chances of him being out and about in 4 years are still there.
One could argue that Salman Safdar was paid by Zakir and Asmat Jaffer (Zahir’s parents) to do his job which involves questioning technical loopholes in the medical report such as the size of head wounds as not being described in the post mortem report, but one wonders if he believed that such things took away from evidence where his client forcefully dragged Noor where it is proven he tortured and beheaded her.
On the other hand, judges are paid by taxpayers and being one of them, I ask them where is it written in their TOR or Oath of being a judge that they are to apply what can be referred to as a religious touch at an attempt at being moral? How could they sermonise about how women and girls should behave in society and how their parents should act but the same judges refused to utter a word for men, especially in this landmark case? Why did they not point fingers on the Jaffer family and question them for raising a monster, where was the sermonising given Zahir Jaffer’s drug addiction and history of violent tendencies (as reported from session court to IHC) in Pakistan and abroad?
Did not a single judge question how he should have been behaving in society and why was he not put in a rehabilitation center despite her mother being a psychological counsellor herself? Did the court ban her practice? Why did the judges not deem it appropriate to ask whether Zahir Jaffer’s social life was ‘appropriate’ or not? Why weren’t his parents held accountable on whether they were providing for and protecting him? It is amazing that there was no sermon on why parents need to raise their sons better.
Why did the judges let Therapy Works go scot free? Do they not need to be held accountable that they employed Zahir Jaffer as a psychological counsellor and later came to ‘rescue’ him from the murder scene on the pretext that he is mentally unstable?
The questions are endless and they come from the Supreme Court Judges themselves given the precedent they set on questioning a beheaded girl who was held against her will.
I only have one conclusion: Zahir Jaffer has the money and time to buy his way out. Over to the ‘moral’ judges.