رشوت ستانی
رشوت ستانی ایک جرم ہے۔ایسا جرم جو مجرم کو امید دیتا ہے بلکہ یقین کہ وہ بالکل بے قصور ہے۔ اس میں ایک فرد کی تیسرے فریق کو عام طور پر جو کوئی اتھارٹی رکھتا ہے،(کسی سرکاری بندے کو یا نجی ادارے) کو رشوت دیتا ہے تا کہ وہ اس کے ذریعے فائدہ اٹھا سکے۔اس طرح وہ رقم مختلف قسم کے تحائف ،جاندار یا بے جان تحائف یا مختلف اقسام کی صورت میں دی جا سکتی ہے۔ صرف اور صرف ذاتی مفاد کے لیے اگلے کو خوش کر دینا بلکہ اس کے گلے میں اپنی رشوت کے ذریعے گھنٹی باندھ دینا۔رشوت دینے کا مقصد یہی ہوتا ہے کہ رشوت لینے والا ایسی کاروائی کرے اور ایسا کیس بنا کر پیش کرے جس میں قانون کو بھی اندھا ثابت کرنے میں کوئی کسر باقی نہ رہے اور معاملہ فرد کے حق میں ہو جائے۔بعض اوقات رشوت دینے کا مقصد خود کو ٹھیک ثابت کرنے کا نہیں ہوتا بلکہ اس لیے بھی ہوتا ہے کہ ہم پر حکومت کرنے والے ہمیشہ کے لیے ناکارہ ہو جائیں اور ہر عمل سے پہلے رشوت دینے والے کا سوچیں۔
ایک مستقل سرگرمی جس میں اگلے کو اپنا غلام بنا لیا جاتا ہے،اسی کی وجہ سے معاشرتی مسائل بڑھتے جا رہے ہیں۔ یہی وجہ ہے کہ آج ہر شعبہ زندگی میں سفارش،رشوت اور لوٹ مار کا بازار گرم نظر آتا ہے۔دوسروں کی دل آزاری کرنا، اس کی حق تلفی کرنا نہ صر ف حقوق العباد کی نفی کرتے ہیںبلکہ اس کے ذریعے ہم حقوق اللہ سے بھی انصاف نہیں کرتے۔افسوس صد افسوس اسلام کے معیار کو بھلا کر معاشرے کی اقداروں کو نظر انداز کر کے آج ہم اس رشوت جیسے جرم کو مزید اضافے کی طرف لے جا رہے ہیں۔
...
Before the advent of Islam, a woman was considered as property, with no rights at all. They did not have the right to choose a husband. Islam liberated women and gave them the basic rights. Unfortunately, in Pakistan many parents and legal guardians misinterpret and misuse the guardianship of their children, especially with reference to marriage. They deny some religious rights to their children because of local traditions, customs and taboos. Forcing children to marry against their wishes, does not conform to the Islamic code. Forced marriages are considered illegle in Shariah. Even in the case of marriage of a minor arranged, by a father or a grandfather, the girl has the right to cancal it on reaching Puberty. According to Shariah the boy and the girls has the right to turn to a court for a settlement of the issue.
Research studies suggest that societies moving from traditional-authoritarian order towards rational-democratic order should promote rational-inclusive ideological discourse, promote politicians who are favorably disposed towards rational- democratic values and capacity building at local level—incubation/transformation. However, governing elite in developing societies, such as Pakistan, adopts either exclusive ideology or remain indifferent; temper with evolutionary political process and prefers centralization instead of building rational capacity at local level. As a result, society remains stuck in transition with hybrid regimes. Parallel to hybridism are fluctuations in state’s effectiveness, political instability and violence. Periodic fluctuations indicate the presence of underpinning structural factors in this regard. Thus, structural constraints faced by governing elite in state-society consolidation and relationship between hybridism and instability and violence need to be understood. The study is based on the position that hybrid regimes are locked in transition. As this study addresses ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions, therefore interpretive ‘empathetic enquiry’ has been employed. Within hybridism as deductive framework, induction across time and space has been employed in order to find out common pattern and specific variations. Governing elite is the product of structure, hence possesses both authoritarian inclination and conviction in the legitimacy of rational-democratic order. The absence of requisites of rational-democratic order provides justification for the authoritarianix mind-set. However, requirements of democratic legitimacy prompt them to continue democratization. But the task of adjustment between irreconcilable features compels them to adopt bounded rationality—decision-making which accounts only for immediate changing context. Thus, governing elite adapt politico-ideological posture according to the changing context—internal political situation and global dynamics. Besides, due to authoritarian-libertarian paradox, governing elite neither adopts consistent coercion nor complete accommodation. Thus, grievances of less- empowered groups due to nation-state discourse keeps on simmering, high expectations of potentially mobilized groups remain un-institutionalized, and greed of privileged groups unaddressed. In addition to these, temporary motivation and limited coercion without internalization of rational-democratic values make state and society fluctuating. Welfare-state discourse and holistic analysis of society by intelligentsia and political leadership can lead to the consolidation of stable as well as peaceful relations.