A Mirage called Malala

A Mirage called Malala: Another Daughter of the East? 
by Farzana Versey, CounterPunch, July 15

Had Edward Snowden exposed the dirt of the Taliban, he would have been standing behind the lectern in New York at the UN hall on Friday, July 12.

The contrast, and irony, is stark.

• A young man is hounded by the government of his country for exposing its sly mechanism, of its covert war against the whole world, not to speak of its own citizens. He waits at an airport in Russia that had fought a war against Afghanistan, which was backed by the CIA.

• A teenager’s birthday was officially declared Malala Day by the United Nations. She addressed a well-heeled gathering in the United States that was one of the two countries to oppose the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; the other was Somalia.

Malala Yousafzai’s speech had a captive audience. 

Malala at the UN - Pic The Guardian

They wanted a cinematic moment. The gooseflesh groupies, including the mainstream media and urban Pakistanis, were not interested in going beyond the script of her address. They became the protectors of a girl who they could not protect in their own country. The legal imperative is not even considered to fight such cases. What bothers them is their pretty position would be threatened and questioned.  

Politician or puppet?

If we are to treat her as just a courageous 16-year-old, then perhaps we ought to disregard her role as activist. She cannot be hoisted as a symbol of resistance as a cocooned marionette.

In the very first sentence, Malala said it was an honour to wear a shawl of Benazir Bhutto. This was a political statement. From being a victim of the Taliban, she appears to be a “mind-controlled victim” of the elite. Like Benazir, Malala’s power comes from being wronged. Nobody will deny that they indeed were. However, the dynamics of power play are not about the literal, and this the souvenir dealers do not wish to understand.

When she was being treated at the hospital in Birmingham,  President Asif Ali Zardari visited her wearing a coat with a lapel that had her photograph on it; to honour her, he pledged $10 million for girls’ education to UNESCO because “sending girls to school was the best way to combat extremism”. While Malala’s school in Mingora, in the Northern region of Swat, was renamed after her, the President did not offer this money to a local organisation. To get legitimacy, it would appear the issue has to have global appeal.

The Interior Minister at the time, Rehman Malik, was quoted as saying:

"Until terrorism is over, she will continue to have security until we feel she is OK. You never know the circumstances, what will happen. The Taliban might be zero tomorrow. Still [while] we think or successive government feels she needs security, it is of no issue, to be honest, because she has become the icon of Pakistan, she has stood against terrorists and Taliban and she has become an icon for the education of young girls.”

Why do many Pakistanis refuse to see this as a convenient ploy by the leadership to put the onus on iconoclasm to deal with the issues, knowing well that this would work only as a mirage? Where are the political initiatives to tackle terrorism? Benazir Bhutto too supported the Taliban regime in its initial years to ensure that her position was not threatened. The progressive discourse overlooks the fact that she did not expunge any law that was anti-women.

Ever since she was shot at by the Taliban, the cheerleaders have expressed cursory concern for the “other Malalas”; the sidelight is brought out only as a nervous tic. Malala too made a nodding mention of her friends, now forgotten by everyone. They were also shot at, but not as grievously. Where are they? Are they protected? Any school named after them? No one seems to notice that despite her environment, she managed to learn, to seek peace, and to take on the militants.

The omission of any inspiring contemporary figure in her speech was startling. Yet, she managed to please the activists when she spoke about “hundreds of human rights activists and social workers who are not only speaking for their rights, but who are struggling to achieve their goal of peace, education and equality”. 

Students in Mingora (Pic: Pak Magazine)

It would have been politically incorrect for her to add that her sponsors and their allies not only kill civilians in the regions they occupy, but also employ child soldiers. In an earlier piece, I had raised these points: Is this courage or just canny marketing by consumerist consciences? Do we even pause to think about the consequences of creating or supporting such vulnerable ‘revolutionaries’? …Just think of the kids the US forces fought in Iraq and then took them captive to Abu Ghraib. Think about them in the Maoist Army in Nepal, as human shields in India’s Naxal groups, of them in Israel, of stone-pelting Palestinians now holding guns. These are representatives of their countries, not fringe groups.

Malala even sent out a message of forgiveness for the Taliban using time-tested figures: 

“I want education for the sons and daughters of the Taliban and all the terrorists and extremists. I do not even hate the Talib who shot me. Even if there was a gun in my hand and he was standing in front of me, I would not shoot him. This is the compassion I have learned from Mohamed, the prophet of mercy, Jesus Christ and Lord Buddha. This is the legacy of change I have inherited from Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela and Mohammed Ali Jinnah. This is the philosophy of nonviolence that I have learned from Gandhi, Bacha Khan and Mother Teresa.”

This is what Barack Obama says. This is exactly what the West, specifically the US, has done with its neat division of good Talib, bad Talib. Besides, as America is due to exit from Afghanistan in 2014, it will have to deal with the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). Whoever drafted Malala’s speech was taking no chances, even carefully omitting Hinduism, aware that it is a touchy issue in Pakistan where the infidel is associated with the idol-worshipping faith more than any other.

Besides, what change did Jinnah bring about? His major contribution was before the Partition and in helping to formulate the idea of Pakistan. He did not live to watch it veer away from the avowed secularism he hoped for. Malala recalling Mandela and Gandhi seems like a staple politician-beauty pageant fortune cookie moment, but Bacha Khan? He did not want to be with Pakistan and had specified that he should be buried in Afghanistan, to retain the purity of his Pashtun dream. Violence of thought is not something to be shrugged off.

Who is educating whom?

Like the caricature of the Taliban frightened of a girl with a book is simplistic, the catchphrase at the UN that day –‘Education First’ – is restrictive, especially when you consider the number of school dropouts in the West. But American kids willingly emptied their kitties for a charity that turned out to not only misuse the funds, but also mislead. Greg Mortenson, a Nobel Peace Prize nominee, who wrote the bestselling ‘Three Cups of Tea: One Man’s Mission to Promote Peace ... One School at a Time’ set up the Central Asia Institute charity that funds schools in the Balti region. President Obama made a handsome donation, and the book compulsory reading for the forces in Af-Pak.

However, the greater crime, as I wrote in the Counterpunch article Fabricated Philanthropy was “one by default – of whitewashing the image of the US administration, even if to a small degree. It has come to light that he was not kidnapped by the Taliban. In one of the photographs of 1996, his so-called kidnapper turns out to be Mansur Khan Mahsud, a research director of the FATA Research Center.”

Those who oppose religious factionalism that the Taliban propagates have been using religious arguments against militancy. Certain clerics had issued a fatwa against those who targeted the girls; the liberals did not know how to negotiate this similarity. Pakistanis have lived with their Islamic laws, so they cannot ignore the mullahs.

Such lounge activists do not take on the Taliban or the government. They merely participate in the usual candlelight vigils and sex up the debate with their passive-aggressive act. Quite reminiscent of what Madonna did soon after Malala became a talking point. At a concert in Los Angeles, the singer had said, “This made me cry. The 14-year-old schoolgirl who wrote a blog about going to school. The Taliban stopped her bus and shot her. Do you realize how sick that is?” As reported: “Later in the show, Madonna performed a striptease, during which she turned her back to the audience to reveal the name ‘Malala’ stenciled across it.”

When Malala mentioned the problem of child labour, it did not strike her that she is now even more a victim of it, albeit in the sanitised environs of an acceptable intellectual striptease.  

© Farzana Versey

---

Do read Our Guns, Children's Shoulders

The Hina Factor: Pakistan’s Wicked Ploy

Oops, you did it again! Krishna and Khar

This is Asif Ali Zardari’s shrewdest move. Sending Hina Rabbani Khar on what amounts to be the equivalent of cricket diplomacy. This is not meant to be a sexist comment. She pretty much sailed through the India test by fire even as Pakistani intellectuals and the media have been rubbishing her ever since she was appointed to the post.


What are the dynamics here? It seems impossible to disregard the references to what she wore, how she looked and spoke, and it is a tad stupid for well-traveled Indians to comment on her designer labels as though they are not exposed to these. If anything, they look a bit awestruck even as they seemingly reduce her to superficials. The Times of India decided to tread carefully and mentioned our foreign Minister S.M.Krishna’s necktie, as though it were mandatory to give him equal sartorial time.


Zardari’s victory is that he knew the attention would be diverted from important issues although he had said that giving a 34-year-old with little experience the plum assignment was “a demonstration of the government's commitment to bring women into the mainstream of national life". There is no contradiction in his mind that the mainstream is the elite. He is sending out a few messages here: our societies are obsessed with the façade of economic progress, so let us dress the part even if we are dependent on foreign aid. A report had said that Richard Holbrooke was keen that she was given more responsibility. As foreign affairs minister she does not need to know what happens in the bastis. Does Rehman Malik, the Interior Minister, know? She has to convey Pakistan’s intentions, which is an easy job to do because India already knows it. As she said in a television interview, when questioned about her meeting with the Hurriyat leaders before her official itinerary, that this was the “stated position of Pakistan”.


Rather smartly, she also took the age issue head-on and said it was a matter of how one sees it. She has been an elected MP and served two terms as junior minister that helped her “learn on the job”. This sounds like a simple statement. Think about it, though. The head of our government is not elected; the woman running this country has no experience; the youth leader has been learning on the job for years now with the added advantage of dynasty. If we decide to look into our own backyard, Ms. Khar’s debut would appear like quite a masterstroke.


So, what is it about her that has riled Pakistanis? A former envoy, Zafar Hilaly, had been dismissive: "Asif Ali Zardari clearly does not want a heavyweight in the job. Hina will play the role and say her piece; but I don't think anyone is expecting anything significant from her."


He should know that no minister can do anything significant with India. We have been playing a carrot-and-stick game for years and will continue to do so. All paperwork, statements and dossiers will be cosmetic offers.


There are derisive put-downs that she is just a rich spoilt woman from a feudal family. This comes from the media; most of the owners and editors are rather well-off and have other businesses and most certainly give the time of day to social butterflies. In fact, some noted writers have made a career of carousing for the Chanel chicks. They seem to have forgotten that none of their prominent leaders has been a grassroots person. Zardari is himself a greenhorn with a shady history. What about Benazir Bhutto? What was her experience except to belong to a political family? Jemima Khan had dismissed her  as "The Kleptocrat in an Hermes scarf" (my rejoinder was here), completely forgetting her own posh Goldsmith girl days. What is Imran Khan’s experience that some people think he’d, be a great prime minister? One will not question the political experience of military leaders because they rule either by coup or from the coop.


Professor Pervez Hoodbhoy added some perspective but a bit harshly: “In a male dominated culture, she will be derided as no more than a pretty face. This would be true even if she was hard-as-nails and an exemplary negotiator. She will also be the object of jealousy within the PPP, where sycophants know that the boss decides and suck up to him. How forcefully Khar is able to present Pakistan's position as foreign minister remains to be seen. Although she was selected for her docility rather than bold originality, there could always be surprises."


How many Pakistanis, forget politicians, have expressed a position that is boldly original on matters of foreign policy? Any national psyche makes it incumbent for people to believe in certain aspects; much of it is inherited baggage. If she is to push Pakistan’s position, that too with regard to India, how can she be original?


Before her visit, a report had quoted an unnamed observer who said, “It is well-known that Pakistan's foreign policy is in the hands of agencies, not the foreign minister or even the President. Hina will have a tough time proving that she is not just a puppet. I don't think anyone is going to forget that her roots go back to the Musharraf administration."


This goes in her favour. Pervez Musharraf conducted the biggest PR exercise in India during the Agra Summit although it ended rather badly. He became a martyred hero, so the connection is her silent trump card. Again Zardari, who it is suspected could get close to Musharraf again in one of those opportunistic alliances that his father-in-law was so adept at, has played his cards well.


And for those who are talking about maintaining the status quo, that is what Indo-Pak relations are about. That or months of sulking. The outcome is, as expected, simplistic. India and Pakistan have agreed “on the need to strengthen cooperation on counter-terrorism including among relevant departments as well as agencies to bring those responsible for terror crimes to justice”. This is worth a yawn although it gives sufficient grist for several yarns.


The confidence building measures (CBMs) will be another Samjhauta – compromise. You take some missiles out of the way, but that does not prevent the threat perception and the real threat. It is not about whether either country decides to attack, but how much it feels the need to defend itself. This is never overtly at the government level. We have coined the phrase “non-state actors” just to make sure that foreign ministers can “agree” without having a clue as to what is happening behind their backs. The intelligence agencies have to deal with the headache, unless they are the headache.


The Line of Control will now be accessible for travel and trade. Is this a big leap forward when the economies of both sides of Kashmir are not really bullish? As regards travel, residents of Kashmir are anyway given visas more easily.


In general terms, trade opening acts as one more people-to-people initiative.


By far her entertaining the Hurriyat leaders at the Pakistani High Commission before meeting our foreign minister  - while deemed undiplomatic and a kick to protocol - was her real moment. Tutored she was, but she made it seem like the most natural thing to do. India and Pakistan are just two nations. Emphasise Kashmir and you sit on the TNT bomb. To keep it simmering has proved to be the most lucrative aspect of Indo-Pak politics. CBMs are just loose change.


- - -


Also published in Countercurrents

Pinky and the Beefcake

Does it matter whether Imran Khan had a roaring or a purring affair with Benazir Bhutto? Does it say anything about how it affected their psyches and, therefore, Pakistani politics? It could…

Christopher Sandford has written a biography of Imran Khan and it will probably have a lot of stuff on the cricketer-playboy-politician. The author has been called ‘respected’, which means we are to be suitably impressed. The respected Sandford has come up with gems about how Benazir might even have been the first to call Imran the ‘Lion of Lahore’. Quite a revelation, eh?

Our own Times of India, however, indulged in a rather cheap title for the report: ‘Loin of Lahore?’ Adding a question mark is irrelevant. You do not do a front page story and use a term such as this, even if it is about an affair. This is not some stupid Ajit joke; it amounts to juvenile smarts. But, then, must we be surprised at all?

What I find truly funny is this quote from the author in an interview to the Telegraph:

“In any event, it seems fairly clear that for at least some time the couple was close. There was a lot of giggling and blushing whenever they appeared together in public. It also seems fair to say that the relationship was ‘sexual’, in the sense that it could only have existed between a man and a woman. The reason some supposed it went further was because, to quote one Oxford friend, ‘Imran slept with everyone’.”

Make of the portions I have italicised what you will. And if he slept with everyone, then it is rather slanderous that Benazir would have been merely one of his conquests. I was strangely touched by Imran’s assertion that they were “only friends”. It reminded me so much of Bollywood.

Having said all this, I do think they would have made for a great couple. Both with feudal mentalities, arrogance and the ability to pass of dictatorial tendencies as democratic.

Asif Zardari has all those qualities, except that his appeal could never have been so international. He manages to dazzle a few Sindh belt types or the Lahore halwa-puri (attempting to pronounce it as puree) set. Isn’t that why he was so overwhelmed with Sarah Palin?

One only hopes this man does not try and make political capital out of it. He is anyway willing and able to inherit anything.

Art, politics and mockery

Is political satire in art a mockery of art? We don’t seem to have much contemporary art that can boast of such ability, at least in our part of the world. The closest we come to it is cartoons.

I have already written about the painting at the Shanakht festival that got into trouble:

The controversial painting at the Shanakht festival

There have been questions raised as to whether it is art or even satire. Both are difficult to define and cannot be seen objectively.

There can be very dark commentary, as Iranian artist Ardeshir Mohassess portrays:

Ardeshir Mohassess' 'Against the wall'

Quite a bit of Salvador Dali’s works would qualify as parody.

It is even possible to go way back into the 16th century. Artist Jacob Jordaens’ The Satyr by the Farmer is perhaps a telling commentary where the satyr is the cowering figure, while the farmers are in what may be described as a 'peasantly' expressive orgy. I am completely fascinated by how almost everyone is using their hands:



Political parody need not be obvious, but if it is then it can be analysed by those standards.

This brings us to the Shanakht painting. Almost everyone has spoken about it being objectionable because of the image of Benazir.

This is part of what I wrote in the earlier post:

It does not look like a tasteful idea but then reams have been written about how Pakistani democracy invariably plays along with the army. This happens to be historical reality. Besides, is art merely supposed to be tasteful and not comment wryly, or even with a whiplash, at prevalent norms and mishaps?

…If, say, Benazir is shown as Mother Teresa, would the moral-keepers of Pakistani society object to her non-Muslimness, her Indian connection or her canonisation, which is against Islam?

With the image now available to me, I would like to use the perceptive comment posted by mstaab (in italics here) to deconstruct it:

I haven't seen the work depicting Ms. Bhutto perched on Gen Zia's lap either; but one can well imagine. As a part of our paternity here in the west, we have such expressions as, "in the lap of luxury," which is suggestive of especial privilege. Another such expression plays off a fairly common domestic image of a child nestled comfortably on the lap of a parent or caregiver while being regaled with a story. We say "X learned it at Y's knee," which conveys the transference of cultural wisdom from an elder to a youngster. The image of Santa Claus in countless shopping malls across the US, hordes of children lined up to take their turn on his lap to make their particular request(s) for consumer goods, is still thought to illustrate the winsome innocence of children and their pressing desires.

The lap of luxury concept is rather obvious here where Benazir is dressed in finery. She is a grown woman and therefore an element of wiliness can be conjectured upon. Even coquettishness. She is also head and shoulders above Zia, which means that she knows her place. Is it the wisdom from an elder?

Zia got her father killed. So, if the artist was timing it ‘pre’ that period then the above may work. If it is ‘post’, then perhaps she was playing along or became a happy victim to get some gains and then topple him. Which she did.

Interestingly, the Islamist Zia is quite comfortable with her un-Islamic dress and posture and both are holding each other.

This would connote the rich kid who still yearns for Santa Claus goodies because of its…

Fairytale value
To belong
To cater to greed
To follow parental indoctrination

It must also be noted that she is the only one whose skin colour is close to real and not the pantomime mask of the rest, except the figure on the far right top.

Maybe her history is still fresh and therefore not concretised.

Certainly it makes sense that the personalities involved (Ms. Bhutto and Gen Zia, in this instance) might cue the viewer as to how this arrangement is to be interpreted. After all, there are countless paintings of "Madonna and Child" that depict a naked baby Jesus holding forth from the lap of a fully clothed Virgin Mother; but I have yet to hear of any interpretation of these works that suggests the naked (perhaps even "vulnerable") Christ-child as being, say, a ventriloquist's dummy…

Besides the point about vulnerability, there is the innocence factor too. The transposed innocence of the Virgin Mother’s with the child’s. Also the comfort level with nudity seeks to confirm the purity. And immaculateness.

However, this particular image shows a stern mother and a certain distancing. The child looks mature and is apparently already his own person:

13th century Madonna and child in the Italo-Byzantine style

The ventriloquist’s dummy brings me back to the Shanakht painting. Ayub Khan is carrying a baby Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Military dictatorship was a new phenomenon, and there is benign distance in the armyman’s demeanour, whereas an impetuous child Bhutto is holding him, while in deep thought looking ahead. This is again a part of recorded history. The petulant child found a new Santa, who is interestingly in the foreground.

Yahya Khan is shown as almost a ridiculous dwarf physically, but his face is in repose. Probably in the classical ‘sitting for a portrait’ mould. From all accounts, the gentleman behind him is Mujib-ur-Rehman. I am sticking my neck out with this, but if it is so it is sought to be shown that there was a tacit understanding between them that later failed. He is wearing almost priest-like robes, a fact that harks to his later beatification as the creator of Bangladesh and martyr for its cause.

Certainly many western (and eastern) businessmen have some familiarity with the "lap dance." And, likewise, there yet remains in the consciousness of some the not-altogether-bygone imagery of a secretary (generally female) with notepad in hand athwart the manager's lap (generally male), "taking dictation" (it may be helpful for folks from Mumbai to exchange the secretary for starlet and the manager for film director, with the activity being "learning his/her lines," lol).

The imagery of the lap dancer also means deceit; the belief that what you are paying for is really catering to you. The dancers’ motives are clear; the obfuscation of the clients’ understanding makes it poignant.

“Taking dictation” and lines being scripted are a part of any political tamasha.

Tasteless art is probably trying to reflect that very tastelessness.

Adnan Sami, Benazir and the PPP

Why is a couple's domestic problem so important that not only does it become news but also a diplomatic issue between two countries?

Aside from the fact that Adnan Sami's marriage has made the headlines, it is distressing to note that he has contacted the Pakistani president and prime minister after reportedly getting death threats. He says it is to ensure that the wrong people are not accused. What the hell does he mean? Should there be a serious attempt on his life, on what grounds can the government of his country of origin point fingers and demand an explanation?

We create doubts about the intentions of our own people from certain communities.

So why keep quiet as the Adnan tamasha gets into top gear with even an element of violence?

I don't know and don't care about the inside story of the Sami affair but it is disgusting for Pooja Bedi to make the report available to the media where she gives a graphic description of what his wife did to ironically mimic Pooja's sense of dressing. What is she trying to prove?

Where in all this vulgar recounting of details do the Pakistani leaders come in?

---

Talking about Pakistani leaders, specifically the PPP, they had sent their members early this month to disrupt the Shanakht art festival. They objected to one particular painting of Benazir Bhutto on the lap of General Zia.

I have not seen any images of it and it is obvious the artist was making a political point. It does not look like a tasteful idea but then reams have been written about how Pakistani democracy invariably plays along with the army. This happens to be historical reality. Besides, is art merely supposed to be tasteful and not comment wryly, or even with a whiplash, at prevalent norms and mishaps?

Did the PPP have to go on a rampage at the venue where other art was displayed and theatre to be performed?

Pakistan does have some amazing artists and they are quite open about even painting nudity. I have seen such exhibitions so I know. Would the artists dispassionately say that the BB painting was vulgar? Then, does a rampage not qualify as vulgar too? If, say, Benazir is shown as Mother Teresa, would the moral-keepers of Pakistani society object to her non-Muslimness, her Indian connection or her canonisation, which is against Islam?

I am curious.

Pakistan's 'saviours' saving their skins?

Asif Ali Zardari was supposed to be following Hillary Clinton’s diktat. What happened? Why was Nawaz Sharif put under house arrest? And if he was, then how did he manage to break through and join the protest?

This is all sounding very stage-managed.

Not a single politician in Pakistan will go against American interests. None. Even if they want to.

It beats me why Zardari is behaving the way he is. He is not a man of substance who can stand up against opposition. The only reason could be that aware of his utter failure he already has a tacit arrangement with the army for a neat escape.

His attitude has given rise to a whole new bunch of martyrs. Imran Khan, who is essentially a mullah in Saville Row suits when abroad, is now leader material. The guy could not stay in his country when it was crisis time. He has absolutely no standing in the major areas of Pakistan; social butterflies do not count. Even the mullahs will not stand by him.

Nawaz Sharif already has the Saudi lobby in his pocket.

Sherry Rehman resigns because of the clampdown on the electronic media. Naturally, she does not get to be seen…she is now leader material – Benazir’s courier girl? The one who stood by Zardari knowing what he was about? If she had any real intentions to be committed to democracy, then she had her chance to quit a while ago and not wait for Geo TV’s going on the blip.

These people are merely preparing for the next power Centre and hope to save their skins. Far-sighted, I must say.
- - -

I believe there is some kuchch kuchch hota feeling for Musharraf now. Perhaps for those who want to see things beyond the narrow confines of the current situation, you might like to visit what I wrote a year ago in Musharraf, Peace and the Autumn of the Patriarch: The Great Dictator?

They are no match for Musharraf

A short note on this for now.

They are planning to impeach Pervez Musharraf. So what? Bill Clinton was impeached. Did anything change? He still rocks (and rolls), mucks up his wife's chances like he always did, and gets himself a tan. Musharraf needs no tan. I am just so amused by some statements:

Asif Ali Zardari, leader of the coalition's biggest party, expressed confidence it will succeed. He called the move to seek impeachment "good news for democracy" in Pakistan.

The idiot should know that he is the biggest slap in the face of democracy. And what is he doing making such statements? The leader of a political party should just see that everyone is well fed and drunk...is he really taking his role as the "Sonia Gandhi of Pakistan" too seriously? Does he forget that he got where he is because of Benazir Bhutto's arrangement with Musharraf? Does he realise if the judiciary was truly fair it should be going after him? But no, no, Pakistanis are told they have to uphold this democracy thing... Then we hear this:

With his (Musharraf's) popularity at rock bottom and civilian political forces arrayed against him, the outlook is gloomy for the leader who pushed Pakistan into the U.S.-led war on extremist groups after the Sept. 11 attack on America.

Chuckle moment ...is his popularity low because he led the war on extremism? Then what democracy are these people talking about? And if his popularity is so low, then what are they afraid of? Oh, how can we forget, this is upholding of democracy. Even if he is impeached, he will have it good...like any officer and a gentleman would. I know people think this amounts to supporting a dictator, but I don't compare chalk with cheese. Get me a better Cheddar, then we will talk de-mockery-cy.

Hip hypocrites

It is fine to take out protest rallies against dictators. But is public memory so short that people will forget the sheer double standards on blatant display here? Do Jemima and her ex-husband Imran Khan need to ‘use’ Benazir? Read the caption…she is pointing to BB’s picture. To tell the world what? That she even gives a damn? Not everyone is going to buy it lady, and her lord.

These are their not-so-old quotes. In fact, a little before Benazir’s death. Hypocrisy ki bhi koi hadd hoti hai…

Jemima:

“She has only been able to return because Musharraf, that megalomaniac, knows that his future depends on the grassroots diehard supporters inherited from her father's party, the PPP…As a result, Musharraf, who in his first months in power declared it his express intention to wipe out corruption, has dropped all charges against her and granted her immunity from prosecution. Forever…Benazir is a pro at playing to the West. And that's what counts. She talks about women and extremism and the West applauds. And then conspires.”

Imran:

“She alone among Pakistan's political party leaders has given public support to the massacre of women and children that Musharraf caused when he ordered his troops to attack the Red Mosque in Islamabad… She also backed his attacks on civilians in the tribal regions.”

What is this?

Fatima Bhutto is attending the Jaipur Literary Festival. Naturally, she has got a lot of attention, and not much for anything literary. So, she has been giving a detailed description of her father’s assassination. It is painful to read. I also understand she was inconsolable on TV after Benazir’s death despite being critical of her. Only natural, for family ties do not just snap like that even if you do not agree politically.

However, her one quote at the Fest has really put me off. And there is no scope for ‘context’ here. She was asked if she regretted being so harsh on her aunt’s past record. This is what she said:

“No, I have no regrets about what I said about my aunt. If she had continued to live, she would have given me only more material to write.” (The audience at the back is reported to have guffawed) “Come to think of it, of all the Bhuttos, she lived the longest. She lived until 55, my grandfather died at 50, my father died at 42, and my uncle Shahnawaz died at only 26. As a Bhutto, she had a pretty long run.”

I suppose the mourning period is well and truly over. God bless America.

Benazir and Indira as Papa's Puppets

Benazir and Indira as Papa's Puppets

The Complex Electra
By Farzana Versey
December 28, 2007, Counterpunch

Brave and courageous. These words have not yet been applied to Nawaz Sharif who returned to a turbulent Pakistan, but Benazir Bhutto was honoured with such terms. She died on what people will now see as those terms. As the first Muslim woman to become head of state, she came with a readymade bonafide of martyr-rebel.

“Despite threats of death, I will not acquiesce to tyranny, but rather lead the fight against it,” she had said recently. If she would have got the opportunity, it would have been the third time. Politics is about erring often enough to be human.

Benazir may have identified with India’s Rajiv Gandhi, but those were superficial similarities. Her real mirror, if it may be called so, was Indira Gandhi.

Aside from the fact that both were ambitious women, they shared complete devotion to and obsession with their fathers. While Ms. Gandhi was India’s first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru’s only child, it is rather interesting that despite the politics of the subcontinent, as indeed the world, being heavily patriarchal Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto chose his daughter over his sons as his political heir.

The two male parents became Svengali and nemesis, their ghosts continued to not merely haunt but hypnotise their daughters. When Indira first came into politics, she was called “goongi gudiya” (the dumb doll). Her whole political credo was therefore designed to hit back.

She was Papa’s puppet. Naturally, in that small stage she had to move according to a pre-set rhythm. Katherine Frank’s biography talks about her paranoia regarding those she considered Nehru’s enemies. She felt that they were “out to trap her father and bring him down”. What was happening is that she was fearful for herself. Even as puppet she wanted to be on centre-stage. Perhaps, by getting her father to move away from the clique, she was subconsciously trying to claim complete ownership.

Psychology would describe this as the Electra Complex that combines penis envy with castration fear. Symbolically, the desire for impregnation would manifest itself in being able to internalise the father’s ideology.

Neither Benazir nor Indira managed to strike out on their own in terms of policy or altering the role of the family as ‘monarchy’. Benazir, had she lived longer, would have brought her children into the political arena just as Indira Gandhi did.

Dynastic rule in democracies or quasi democracies has been about perpetuating the name of the father. (The widow as successor is essentially legitimised only as ‘carrier’ of the husband’s progeny.) The spouse is a prop, often a convenient one to act as buffer and even bear the brunt of blame. Indira’s marriage to Feroze Gandhi was a façade that went through moments of turmoil to keep it alive. In all likelihood, she took his name to try and be her own person and not merely the offspring of Nehru.

Feroze was known to be a womaniser. Indira was aware of it. Her humiliation would be avenged only if he felt that while he had proved his manhood, he had lost out as the “nation’s son-in-law”.

Asif Ali Zardari came with similar credentials. Benazir settled into arranged matrimony and baby-producing to give Pakistan the sort of woman who did regular things and had descendants to perpetuate the royal pure blood.

With such delusions, these women till the very last posed a threat only to themselves.

Indira Gandhi saw imaginary demons. The result: The Emergency. Like all frightened people, she camouflaged her baseless theories about others trying to plot against her government and stall its functioning beneath self-righteousness, declaring that democracy was not more important than the nation. She could not even tolerate a peaceful resistance movement. She was found guilty of corrupt electoral practices by the High Court.

Benazir Bhutto was exiled to escape corruption charges. The pretence of being the people’s princess had to wear off once it was realised her father had been the emperor with no clothes. The veneer of statesman was wearing thin.

Is it any surprise that Ms. Bhutto blatantly supported the Taliban regime in its initial years to make certain that the Afghans did not breathe down her neck?

This was similar in manner to Indira Gandhi propping up Sant Jarnail Singh Bhindranwale as a leader in Punjab, when he was a non-entity. She and her younger son Sanjay used him till it was convenient.

The mistake we make is to confuse populism for popularity. There is no doubt that both these women had their ears to the ground; as opposed to the sons of the soil, they were the mothers of the earth. This again works well in the Electra Complex where the daughters aspire to replace the mother. In villages and remote towns it can have tremendous appeal. The poor and illiterate in our subcontinent like to be seen as loyal subjects being the benefactors of largesse. Political coquetry is a trait that comes with the territory.

To make the situation even better, both these women had the benefit of a western education and an urbane lifestyle. This seems a bit ironical for they insisted on holding steadfastly to the dying socialist principles of their fathers. These principles were for the most part straw pillars meant for the masses; these families remained committed to feudalism in their own lives. They had the luxury of encouraging coteries without seeming to court anyone.

In India, Ms. Gandhi took away the privy purses, but kept the princes. She spoke about rationality, but had a hedonistic ‘godman’ as a close confidante. She was suave and sophisticated, but she encouraged greasy middlemen. She spoke about “social democracy” but blatantly gave a fillip to underhand financial dealings that came to be known as ‘the license permit raj’. And she thrived on strife. This is how she came to support the Mukti Bahini in what was then East Pakistan and became Bangladesh.

A goddess was born. A few years later, she had internalised the spook and revelled in the praise, “Indira is India, and India is Indira.”

Benazir did not have to deal with such a coinage, perhaps because heading an Islamic country meant no idol worship. Instead, she deftly marketed herself as the broadminded, non-jihadi face of Pakistan. Her version of social democracy too was embedded in the old-fashioned ideals of dignity of other people’s labour while she sat back as her husband made the money and got to keep the change.

It takes some sleight of mind to master the act of playing both distressed damsel and the dominatrix-matriarch fiercely protective of everything around them and, as a consequence, their own position.

While most women in ‘tough’ roles are accused of mimicking men, as the ‘Only Man in the Cabinet’ and ‘Ms. Virgin Ironpants’, Indira and Benazir demasculinised themselves. Talking about woman power, what they really did was to build a cottage industry of being wronged. Politics became not just a playground for suppressed emotions but a serious arena for catharsis.

Both women were elected to office twice. Indira Gandhi was shot dead by her most trusted bodyguard. No one has as yet suggested that it could well have been a Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) sympathiser who did Benazir in. She was the visible face of the party, but the ideology was dictated by the spectre of Zulfiqar Ali. Some say that her niece Fatima Bhutto, who has made serious allegations against her aunt for the murder of her father Murtaza, could possibly play an important role.

If that were to happen, we would have one more “mind-controlled victim” avenging her father’s death and dreaming his dreams. Individual voices in Pakistan are being muffled by echoes of old thoughts.

Benazir Bhutto: The final exile...

Benazir Bhutto has been killed. The news was she was injured, but the television channels confirm she is dead. 15 others have died in the suicide attack.

Having maintained that she was wrong on several counts, I feel that politics requires different voices and it might have been an interesting fight to see where Pakistan would go from here.

This is not to be, with one important player gone. It is unfortunate what this country is going through, and I am sorry but I do blame the United States of America for using it for its proxy wars and its leaders as convenient puppets to send messages to other nations.

Update at 7.45 IST: Called up a friend in Islamabad. Karachi has broken out into violent reactions; Islamabad is tense. Martial Law again predicted and elections likely to be on hold.

As always, the common people will suffer the most. I do hope everyone is well and safe.

A tumultuous way for the year to end.

fariyaad katghare mein
ro ro ke tadapti thi
qaanoon ke rakhavaale
kal le ke gaye jis ko
ab us ko yahaan laayein
vo naash to dikhalaayein

-Fehmida Riyaz

Please excuse my basic translation:

The plea that cried in the witness box
Was taken away by the keepers of law
Bring it back to us
At least show us the corpse

Martial law in Pakistan

Just called a friend in Islamabad on her cellphone. Got through easily. Time 7.26 pm IST.

The Left is active and she was in fact in a political meeting right when I called.

A state of Emergency is always bad, but why has it come as a surprise? Just as some of us outsiders were not at all surprised at BB's callousness, this is not really news, however disheartening it is. Some really thought this would be a return to democracy, by getting Pinky back?

Sorry about indulging in pop-analysis, but her return and its resultant mayhem is what pushed the Emergency. All politicians, even militiamen, are insecure.

And the papers had already quoted PPP leaders warning Benazir about returning to Pakistan because an Emergency would be declared.

This could not have been ESP.

PS: Hope my friends in Pakistan are well and the country survives one more crisis.

A Rejoinder to Jemima Khan

Imagining Serfdom in a scarf
By Farzana Versey
October 24, 2007, Counterpunch

She’s back because she never went back. Pakistan was a nice stopover. Hurrah! She’s a woman. She’s brave. She’s a moderate. She speaks good English. She’s Bristol-educated…ah, will make the cut. And she’s not bad looking either.

Now I am mimicking all of these opening lines that Jemima Khan used as she tried going for the kill to claim her pound of legitimacy. The Hermes scarf is the oh-so-flip touch that in fact endows both these women.

Which is what makes the critique a bit like Isadora Duncan’s scarf: “It is red and so am I”. What is precious is Jemima attempting to save world opinion from converting Benazir Bhutto into a martyr. It is unlikely to happen for the simple reason that the lady is so power-hungry that she calls people that have turned into corpses as evidence of democracy and an ‘inevitable’ fallout. Martyrdom requires a bit more.

Who should know this better than the new cleavage-turned-chador-wearing and back to cleavage Jemima Khan? Her nine years in Pakistan were seen as exile from Annabel’s and rather appropriately she was canonised as Blonde Power by the Western press. As I had once stated, there were breathless exclamations deifying her: Look, someone broke into her Fulham house and it was a politically-motivated act! Look, she was called a Zionist conspirator yet she wrote passionately about the Palestinian cause! Look, she campaigned with her husband in the heat and dust and spoke Urdu and a bit of Pashto! Look, she lives with her in-laws and shares her bed with her kids! Look, she took Lahore shadow-work to London! She did these in her capacity as the wife of a man who may have changed jobs but has only one profession: Being Imran Khan.

Of course, Imran is no Asif Zardari. He is rather sophisticated to settle for 10 percent of loot. However, he too is the sanctioned owner of hubris, a necessary requisite in subcontinental politics, unlike the West where it is an adornment.

What I find disturbing about Jemima’s analysis is when she says, “This is no Aung San Suu Kyi, despite her repeated insistence that she's ‘fighting for democracy’, or even more incredibly, ‘fighting for Pakistan's poor’.” I find it disturbing because she has a short memory; she has forgotten that Pakistan is still an Islamic Republic where democracy will follow at least some of the religious norms, and fighting for poverty is a slogan all politicians revel using. It is like the posh circles talking about limited edition solitaires.

Ms. Khan was herself being manipulated to reinforce the delusion of British superiority, almost in an Empire strikes back fashion. While Benazir may become a martyr only in the eyes of the West, Jemima became a martyr at the hall of matrimony that soon got consecrated as pedestal politics. Pakistan’s erratic electricity, water supply and the rumour that she did not even have a (shudder!) washing machine became tabloid chatter.

Pity-tinged headlines tried to recall the child of innocence caught in the jungle of Pakistani rough terrain. It might be pointed out here that the UNICEF ambassador post has come courtesy walking around with head covered through these very streets.

Therefore, when Jemima says that “Benazir is a pro at playing to the West. And that’s what counts. She talks about women and extremism and the West applauds. And then conspires”, it really brings back memories of how she was in fact pitted against the same woman by the West. And they found a precedent to harp on, no matter that it was a flawed one, to prove the compromises she would be forced to make: they said Benazir Bhutto gave up her slacks and opted for the shalwar kameez when she came to Pakistan. There are two problems with this. One is that Bhutto was head of the government twice, and represented a particular tradition. Surely, she wasn’t expected to traipse around in strapless gowns at official functions? Two, if Asians in the West wearing traditional clothes become objects of curiosity, if not amusement, then why should Western garb be exempted in Asia? Or is Western attire normal, while Eastern clothes are peculiar?

It was Jemima who became the one off-shoulder gown shoulder to fire the gun from.

She is absolutely right is accusing Benazir of doing nothing to repeal the Hudood Ordinance, but that is where she stops. For Ms. Khan is not in a position to be the total-recall feminist. She changed her religion, her name and her identity to ‘fit in’; it could hardly have been a desire to belong for there was always the charitable stance of wanting to do something. This is as political as it can get. Besides, Jemima still harbours a tunnel-vision of what constitutes gender disparity.

At what cost are women in the West better off? There are women who break through the glass ceiling in the West as they do in India and Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. I would say the areas of exploitation differ and we mistake them for degrees of exploitation.

The problem is that Jemima Khan appears to be grandly granting Benazir the vanity of looking good on Larry King’s sofa while making no attempt to discuss how in the interiors and even in the cities women are fighting against outdated laws every single day. Pakistani politics is a bit more complicated than calculating the euros spent on a Hermes scarf.

News Meeows - 11

One of Congress’ babalogs has come up with a new idea to revive the party’s fortunes in Uttar Pradesh. To counter the influence of caste politics — to be read as Mayawati and Mulayam — the plan is to spring Shah Rukh Khan as the chief ministerial candidate for the state.

Utterly shocking. I should hope this is just some tittle-tattle. The argument dished out is that film stars have been elevated to the top slot in the South, so it can be done in the North.

We have only the example of Jayalalitha and she had done a good deal of work with MGR. Irrespective of what anyone thinks of her policies and politics, this cannot be ignored. Shahrukh has no such exposure. And the reason itself is vile. Everyone knows about his run-in with Amar Singh and the simmering rivalry with Amitabh Bachchan. We cannot have leaders only on the strength of these.

Besides, only recently I read an article where the actor said he was too good-looking to be in politics. It is of course a casual comment, supposed to raise a few laughs. I only hope he continues to have such vanity and stays away from the field. ‘Capturing the imagination’ is not how the largest state, or any state or even tehsil, can be run.

It is also disturbing that the report comments, “It is to be seen if the idea finds favour with Rahul Gandhi. If the Prince gives his nod, then the party will go all out to chuck old style politics and King Khan might be seen in a new role.”

Prince? King? Where are we – in some principality being ruled by a monarchy? And whose Prince is Rahul? He has indeed been traversing through the UP landscape and has got the flavour of the state, but he still appears rather distanced. On what basis will he decide on the chief ministerial candidate? This is eerily reminiscent of the late Sanjay Gandhi. Fortunately, Rahul does not have the reputation of being a roughneck. That still does not permit him or whoever is trying to project him to make such important decisions.

Mellowing his stand against Muslims for the first time, Shiv Sena chief Bal Thackeray trained his guns against Christians and attacked Congress leaders for cosying up to the US.

While I have opposed the nuclear deal, his other comments are pretty disgusting. He thinks Sonia Gandhi is fond of “Christian leaders like Margaret Alva, Union ministers like Oscar Fernandes and her son-in-law Robert Vadera”. He managed only three names and none of them is important enough in Indian politics, unless in Robert’s case (half Christian) keeping the daughter of India, Priyanka, happy in a marriage qualifies as leadership.

Margaret Alva is only a fairly regular TV face. Oscar Fernandes is rarely mentioned. I have no idea how Sonia Gandhi is expressing her fondness for them and how Balasaheb is privy to such affections.

Of course, his keeping quiet about Muslims seems rather worrying. Is it a diverting tactic?

In an interaction with her fans at New York, J K Rowling claimed wizard Albus Dumbledore was gay.

I have watched only one Potter film and quite enjoyed it. I like the magic stuff though this post is no place to analyse it. It would not have mattered what the wizard’s secual orientation was unless he did something really gay to earn his stripes.

Rowling is probably already bored that her last book on the subject is done with and she needs to keep that memory alive. The millions she made is not enough; money cannot buy you people’s recollection of what you produce. She is a canny businesswoman. During this year’s Durga Puja one tableau in Kolkata used the Harry Potter theme, including the castle. Rowling sent them a notice about breach of copyright and they had to dismantle it.

Come now, she could have just let it pass…her fans in India as elsewhere were queuing up to buy the book, part of the herd mentality zombies suffer from everywhere. (Ouch, it really wasn’t a swipe…) So urban kids stood in line like obedient students and shelled out the big bucks. Wonder if they would do it for our Panchtantra or Amar Chitra Katha stories (though again I think mythology isn’t the only way to learn) or even if someone brings out a really interesting children’s book.

No. I am quite certain. We just don’t have it in us to appreciate our own creativity.

Imran Khan on Ms. Bhutto

“Given the way that she has undermined democracy by siding with Musharraf, I don't know how Benazir has the nerve to say that the 130 people killed in those bomb blasts sacrificed their lives for democracy in Pakistan.”

Oh, she can, after all she referred to the tragedy as “inevitable”. Reminds me of the Rajiv Gandhi comment when the 1984 riots broke our and Sikhs were being killed, he had said, “there is a shaking of the earth whenever a big tree falls”

Potent pictorial comment

Caption states: Unable to take the strain of standing at attention for many hours, a constable falls in a dead faint at at Naigaon Police Hutatma Ground on Sunday. The constables and police officials had gathered at the ground to pay tribute to colleagues who died in the line of duty.

Is this some ladies' club?

It is interesting to watch the manner in which men rise to the occasion when a woman is involved. They really get high if, say, a woman criticises a woman. I have been watching a few such tamashas where raising questions about BB’s credentials immediately proffers you with a “primitive mindset”.

Benazir Bhutto is planning to return to power; power has no gender, I assume. She is playing the game as well as any man. When men are critical about Musharraf or Nawaz Sharif does anyone imply it is envy or a locker-room run-in? There is a tendency for men to imagine this to be a little zenana item number they can enjoy; they do not understand that people may wish to engage in a dialogue or even an emotional outburst. Isn’t that what it is called when a woman says something forcefully? I have recently seen men say, “At least she will get laid now” and call her a “Brothel Bitch”…it seems okay, but women expressing their anger are “foul, mealy-mouthed”.

Some are. I am not. Yet I think BB sucks.

People who have always said Pakistan does not have an independent judiciary are now gung-ho about this same “independent judiciary” being allowed to try her on corruption charges…

Who is to even decide with such confidence that she is the only one who represents democratic values? Who says India can do business with her better than others? What the heck do they know? India has had the most effective peace measures during the reigns of Zia and Musharraf…if that is of any consequence.

She now happily blames Zia’s supporters. What a woman…isn’t it obvious she is tugging at the very past we are supposed to forget about? Zia killed Papa and Pinky must now take the people back to that time. That Zia and his party are dodos now does not matter.

Getting people to line the route is not always an indication of popularity; it is such an easy thing in the subcontinent. Come on, we all know about getting truckloads in India not just to say “Jeeye so and so” but even to win ‘democratic’ elections. Funny, how the men start talking about Pakistani democracy that they consider did not exist.

Madame BB is very much a part of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and according to the Constitution she will have to follow certain rules. And she has shown us that it is precisely what she likes doing as long as her miyan can pocket the 10 per cent from the big bucks she makes. Aw, she is such a woman, ain’t she? She lets him keep the change…