Resuscitating the dying demons

Forget about the pandemonium that prevailed in the National Assembly late last month; the lower house also legislates. And don't mind if that legislation is done without debate and even when the house lacks a quorum. So, if you thought the National Assembly acts as a forum for serious debate on issues concerning millions of people think again: the Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) Bill which tends to give legitimacy to the notorious jirgas and panchayats system was passed when in the 342-member house only 23 were present and none among them pointed out the absence of a quorum. Mind you, it is not a simple piece of legislation; it covers 23 offences ranging from land and business disputes to family matters and seeks reconciliation instead of penalising the wrongdoers. If there was criticism of verdicts given by the jirgas and panchayats, let it be so; the National Assembly would like to accord legitimacy to their verdicts. The elected house was expected to go deeper into the matter but it acted in great haste - as if it was a headache and it wanted to get rid of it as quickly as possible. A deeper thinking would have helped the National Assembly to comprehend that a lot of laws covering these 23 offences already exists on the statute book, and therefore the problem is not paucity of laws but its application. We hope the Senate would act differently; it would not only go into its pragmatic applicability but also ensure that it fits into the socio-cultural milieu as it tends to obtain today. A case in point may be the serious concern expressed by the Women's Action Forum, which says the said piece of law would not only perpetuate the hold of 'influential people and clerics with deep patriarchal biases', but also render family laws and family courts dysfunctional. It is a strange irony that instead of eliminating jirgas and panchayats - that are known for giving verdicts like offering little girls as 'vani' and making someone to walk on burning coals to prove his innocence - the legislature has given them a fresh lease of life.
Ideally, instead of passing the Alternate Dispute Resolution Bill the National Assembly should have thought about strengthening existing laws, which are in plenty and if necessary should be fine-tuned. For instance, there is an ombudsman's office in every province, which can effectively deliver on the offences covered by the Alternate Dispute Resolution Bill. May be these offices would require more staff, but then that should be no problem given the presumption in the ADR Bill that recruiting 'neutrals' should not be a problem. Moreover, the criminal justice system is required to be streamlined without any further loss of time. The recently passed Costs of Litigation Bill is, of course, a positive move in that direction. It aims at discouraging false and frivolous litigations and unnecessary adjournments, which in turn would help secure speedy justice. May be the scope of the Alternate Dispute Resolution Bill should have been shortened, mainly by excluding family matters which fall in the purview of family laws and commercial and business disputes which the ombudsman's offices can decide. And let only the land and property disputes fall within the purview of the proposed Alternate Dispute Resolution Law. But the verdicts given under it should be referred to the ombudsman's office. The fact is that Alternate Dispute Resolution Bill as passed by the National Assembly is a bad law and indeed a negative reflection on the working of the National Assembly. If it were an attempt at confronting the challenge of human rights violations, which apparently it was, then it was certainly a half-hearted attempt. A fuller house and extensive debate on it would have definitely delivered a better law - and not by resuscitating dying demons of jirgas and panchayats.