RIP Junaid Jamshed: A Voice Like No Other

Source: Dawn

Source: Dawn

Who would have thought that on a day like any other, we would hear something as dreadful as this about Junaid Jamshed?

PIA flight PK-661 crashed near Havelian on its way from Chitral to Islamabad on December 8. To the nation’s shock, Junaid Jamshed, and his wife were in the ill-fated ATR, along with around 46 others. Whether PIA knew about the fatal faults in the plane is now a matter of speculation.

Plane crashes are absolutely terrible. Imagine yourself in one. I often do.

The pain, shock, and horror of these accidents somehow have a far greater amplified effect than most other ones. And especially if you happen to know someone in them, and especially if there is a celebrity. Junaid Jamshed, in my opinion, has a national hero status for his contribution over the years. But more than anyone else, you have to think of his children. You can only imagine what they would be going through. Still, the entire nation shares their burden of grief.

I can’t say I was his biggest fan, but I always admired him. And of course, his music did have an impact on me growing up, like the rest of my generation.

Even if we want to, there is no way we can ever ignore the impression his patriotic song “Dil Dil Pakistan” had on us as a nation. Especially to people like me who were growing up in the 90s. The images of that song deeply imprinted on our minds. Even a few notes enough to stir a euphoric sense of freedom and patriotism, that are otherwise clearly absent.

With Shoaib Mansoor - Source: Dawn

With Shoaib Mansoor – Source: Dawn

Source: pakteahouse.net

With Maulana Tariq Jameel – Source: pakteahouse.net

The two highly contrasting parts of Junaid Jamshed’s life could be reflected by the two highly contrasting mentors that inspired them. His highly celebrated pop career inspired by PTV producer Shoaib Mansoor, who created the concept behind most of the songs of Vital Signs, his band that included Shahi Hassan and Rohail Hyatt.

As a recent DW piece pointed out, his transition personified the contradictions any, if not most, Pakistanis have to wrestle with all their lives.

Even though I do not want to mar the respect for the tragedy of his death by bringing up his recent comments about women, but I am probably going to find no other occasion to talk about it. But it is safe to say that he eventually betrayed his through his misogynistic comments, albeit in the form of the traditional criticism of Ayesha, the Prophet’s wife, or draconian decrees of mullahs inspired by Saudi Arabia.

Even in his worse preaching days, I never disliked him because I knew he meant well. His views on women had become misguided, if they were not already, but were more reflective of the religious ideology he had adopted than anything else. Because in his latter years, all he had become was a mouthpiece for it. And if he indeed had such views about women, it made him come out with them.

Though after a while, it became hard to apologize for what his views had become, for the decent human being that he was. Still, what are you to do if his faith required those views? But it only goes to show what a certain type of religiosity does to a pop icon such as Junaid Jamshed, or to any person anyway.

From a pop icon to a controversial preacher, to someone who was selling high-end designer clothing and fashion accessories, Junaid Jamshed attracted as much flak as he did love. But amid all this, most people fail to see that he was a very misunderstood person in the middle of his confusing worldview.

Of course, it is hard and unfair to make a comment about it, but more than anything else, it seems that Junaid Jamshed wanted to reach out and help. Tried being useful in whatever way he could and sometimes went too far with his passion. And even if craving spotlight would have been a factor, it was his desire to reach out and contribute to the society that defined his celebrity. As fans, there is probably not much we could have asked for.

But one point that hardly anyone would dispute is that he was a voice like no other.

Let’s mourn him. Let’s celebrate him.

Rest in peace.

Advertisements

The Crime of Being Born Without a Penis

Source: aboutcirc.com

I never thought I would be writing a post on this but I guess there are a few things which I feel need to be said. A few things that I observed and that talking about them would do more good than harm for others than for myself. The last fortnight started with a tragedy and ended with all sorts of political and intellectual hilarity, as every week begins and ends in one way or the other in our world. Started of course with a plane crash in Rawalpindi/Islamabad due to alleged bad weather and an alleged lightning strike/downdraft. The plane crash killed around 127 people. The airline’s first flight in a little less than two decades, not exactly, and had earlier been banned for violating safety procedures. It seems no one will question the CAA too hard for clearing the 30 year old 737 to fly, though I had put the question to Honorable Interior Minister Senator Rehman Malik, which I expect no heed to be paid to. Another question to ask is this. Would the people and government had treated the airline in a similar manner had it been the national flag carrier. But let’s be honest with ourselves, friends, let’s be honest. Let us hope, and pray, if you believe in praying, that we don’t find ourselves in a plane that is about to crash. Because in any case, that is the end of that.

Later an article by an Egyptian American columnist Mona El Tahawy appeared in a magazine allegedly discussing Foreign Policy created a stir. The cover of the magazine, which I found pretty charming and a rather eye-catching form of graphic propaganda that some people saw as objectification of women, probably deliberately meant, was extremely useful in terms of journalism, or even propaganda for that matter, because it sent the right message straight away. Without a word being spoken. I wouldn’t be too proud of the issue but of the cover very much, had I been the editor. It was a great idea in itself, keeping the moral issues aside. You don’t have to agree with its morality to agree with its effectiveness by the way. I won’t go into the detail of that particular article because the internet has been exploding with it all over the place and you can go through it yourself. My comment is neither about women’s rights nor about feminism nor the opinion presented in the article itself, to which I mostly agree and which makes good sense factually given the history of discriminatory practices against women in the Middle East, but about the criticism of it and the response to that criticism, since I don’t consider myself qualified enough to talk about feminism and women’s rights, so letting the experts speak is the right thing to do in any case.

The moment I saw the article I knew that the twitter will turn into a battlefield and blogs populated with fresh rebuttals and counter-rebuttals, as it occurred, so let us stay out of the line of fire. I found the criticism more political and nationalistic in nature than dealing with feminism or women’s rights. I am not sure if all the people criticizing the criticism saw that, though I can safely assume that many did. As for the criticism, here is one argument for it and one against it. The criticism was primarily about wounded Arab nationalism and Islamic traditions than out of the genuine denial of women’s suppression, but one that was dripping with desperation. An insult was probably meant, it is safe to say, not necessarily by the article but by the issue, and was achieved it seemed. Now that is biased criticism in terms of the content of that article, but maybe not too much in terms of the context of the space in which it appeared. Some of the answer to that is already provided in that article actually.

Probably the critic had perceived the relevance of such article in a magazine that mostly talks about American wars overseas and the propaganda associated with it for a good deal of time, which is what US Foreign Policy has been mostly about for decades, to be inviting war in the Middle East for the cause of the liberation of women, since it exclusively talked about the Arab world. The most absurd thing you’ll ever hear though, even if that is the case. The Western powers, however, are not idiots and would be willing to do so anyway for several other reasons than that one, though would like you to believe otherwise. An argument against it obviously is that in the blind criticism of the article, her point of female suppression in the Middle East, which is a crude fact, had been conveniently subsided if not denied by many. This is where even the self-proclaimed constructive criticism starts losing its credibility and as one of my friends puts it, the gap between Western feminism and in his words so-called Islamic feminism shows broad daylight. But despite the criticism, I do think that Islamic feminism is a good idea on the face of it. Better than nothing.

I personally do not mean any disrespect to any particular culture or philosophy and do not feel the need to ever do so, but simply talking about things the way I perceive there are in this case. Those who do mean disrespect are noticed by their language anyway. However, it was entertaining to see the burka debate emerge all over again which involved one side challenging the patriarchal symbol of female suppression in the male dominated societies and the other side upholding the choice of the female individuals choosing to wear it. One sees burka as a symbol of oppression. Other sees it as a way of life. Both sides obviously thinking that the other is very wrong. I feel both are right in the sense that they have a point but both are wrong in the sense that they do not realize that they are actually on the same side of the struggle and probably even the same side of the argument. I do think that the struggle against the enforced burka can be carried out while accepting it as a piece of clothing. Maybe that is not possible but I can’t see why. However, the worst part is that both sides are not prepared to learn from the other.

There is a lot of cognitive dissonance involved in the burka issue because of the cultural shock factor. Everything you say about a burka is an insult to someone. Just like this post probably, which if it is, I hope at least offends both the parties equally, because doing that never is the aim. Supporting the burka is an insult to feminism and female emancipation and opposing it is an insult to some culture and women who support or wear it. Just like it is an insult to a woman to wrap a burka around her and an insult to another to stripping her of it. This cognitive dissonance is because of the merging of two distinct and apparently clashing cultural ideas, western feminism and Islamic culture. Yes, cultural shock is not always a cool thing. Not anymore, at least.

For some it is about which culture is superior, which I want to have nothing to do with because I find ideological warfare repulsive and disgusting. However, not every woman (speaking for women’s rights) living in an Islamic culture has accepted western feminism as it is, giving rise to what people refer to as Islamic feminism, while others have completely embraced it. Like it or not, this is a fact. Some of them may wear the hijab while others wouldn’t be found dead in it. This cognitive dissonance has given rise to the burka debate and a neutral observer has little choice but to respect the viewpoint of both the schools of thought. Then again, it depends on the neutral observer. Right now I cannot think of a way of describing it in a more scientific and objective manner.

But shouldn’t it purely be a woman’s debate? If that is not being sexist. I don’t know but men do comment on it. As for men commenting on it, the fact that men cannot understand enforced burka does not mean that they should abandon the principles of individual freedom, if they believe in them. For those who believe in telling people what to do are the cause of the entire problem anyway. The point is that you cannot tell people what to wear and what not to wear while still be concerned when fundamentalist Muslims criticize women for their clothing and tell them to dress in a certain way. This is why supporting democratic values and individual freedom mean opposing a burka ban in France as well as the absurd law-norm of enforced burka wearing in public places in Saudi Arabia. I presume many people would support the former while oppose the latter for some valid reasons. Not saying at all that this approach is not based on a principle and a philosophy, but not sure if it is as democratic as the one opposite to it and I personally do not respect it as much. Though I personally am not fond of the burka anyway.

Both the mentioned laws are wrong in my opinion, but to some both are right or one of them is. A ban on the internet is wrong, right? A ban on anything is wrong. That’s freedom. That is where you compromise the principles you claim to believe in to fit your ideological passions. But this is just a viewpoint and it can be wrong. Maybe the burka, which must also remind a lot of people of the Taliban, is banned because it harms women who want to wear it or harm other women and have far-reaching psychological and social consequences that I cannot even reach the understanding of in this lifetime. I am still learning about the science behind the burka, especially how it is made. Perhaps a burka ban would be more relevant in the context of a society like Saudi Arabia where women are forced and required to wear burka, unlike France where it is most probably banned for other reasons.

It would still violate individual freedom though. But since men cannot understand what it feels like to be inside a burka and the discrimination that it involves, though not all men are unfamiliar with sexual invasions contrary to popular opinion, it is fair to leave the choice to women, as in the case of childbirth and abortion, ideally that is. Maybe only women should be allowed to vote on such issues. This way it could offer a better picture to the solution of these issues. A recent example being all the female Republican senators voting for passing/renewing Domestic Violence Act in the United States but most of the male Republican senators voting against it. I don’t know.

But a few months later, there will be another article printed about it again and the debate will start all over again and will end in a stalemate, just like the debate about the existence of God.

A stalemate is a sign of an intelligent species. This much I can tell you.

So the point of writing all this was that we should try to learn from such a debate. But it really is true that men can have no idea what women go through with the societal norms that they have created and engage in misogynist behavior everyday, sometimes unknowingly, being raised up in patriarchal societies. Also true that Middle Eastern women and also women in Pakistan and India and maybe even Bangladesh are particularly oppressed by men. To the point of even hating them. A very good example being acid assaults in Pakistan. How heartlessly atrocious and subhuman low can you get. Nationalistic criticism of that viewpoint cannot change facts. This is something that a particular society should take the responsibility of changing itself by modifying some of its norms over time through education and awareness, easier said than done. Although all the advantage men have over women in such a society is that they are born with a penis and that women are not. So they can be thankful that nobody tells them to wear their underwear over their pants whenever they leave their homes.

In other words, women’s crime for being treated with discrimination is being born without a penis.

Isn’t that absurd?

The Case of Prem Chand Pakistani & The Constitution

After the May 28, 2010 AirBlue airplane crash in Islamabad, the coffin of one of the deceased, Mr. Prem Chand, who happened to be a Hindu, and a member of some Youth Parliament, which some kids have made to pretend they are something important (I think they were at least doing something constructive other than whining), was marked as Kafir .

According to Dr. Awab Alvi‘s blog, which quoted the Express Tribune that the word was first prominently written in black on the coffin and then was outlined with red, to make it more dramatic and to emphasize its importance.

Kafir is a word of Arabic which literally means the “one who covers or hides”, among other things, since Arabic is a much deeper language than we think, but in this context and as is the popular use of this term among Muslims, it means an “infidel”, or the one who does not believe in Allah, or God.

It  surely was insensitive to mark the coffin of this citizen, and a huge fuss has been made by a lot of people in the country about it on popular and social media. But in all honesty, and as a believer in the equal rights to all the citizens of the country, regardless of clan or creed,  I rule out any malign intentions behind this action.

Clearly it would have been done by authorities to separate the coffin for identity or funeral reasons, because Muslims are almost as obsessive as any other religious group  in their ritualistic habits. Even if that is not the case, we have made too much fuss out of nothing. Besides, this term is not meant to be insulting unless someone takes offense for some odd reason. Maybe, some thought that Prem Chand was a Muslim, or should have been one. As far as I know, only Muslims and Ahmedis mind being called Kafirs.

If all those who are furious on this event are so sincere to bringing secular values to Pakistan, why are they not furious over the Constitution that has been passed on a communal basis and only emphasizing the values of one religion? Religious discrimination has become a part of Pakistani culture, and it is only promoted by a constitution which represents one community more than others.

No wonder “coffins should not be marked by such a word”, which is not derogatory by any means, but highlighting these insignificant issues will only help the world laugh at Pakistan, which they are already doing. I know many people around the world, whose sole entertainment is ridiculing Pakistan for one reason or another.

I am against the persecution of the so-called “minorities”, as they call them here in Pakistan, and maybe even in India (apologies to Indian friends if that is not the case, mentioning anyway). But well, every now and then, it costs nothing to use your brain and see what matters you should be trumpeting out in front of the world and which you should not, if you want a strong Pakistan, that is. Given the behavior of a number of journalists in Pakistan, it is not difficult to assume otherwise.

But think about your constitution. The taboo subject.

We tend to impulsively react to such actions, but do not address the deep-rooted prejudices in our society which manifest in one form or another. As a nation we have made it a habit not to address the root of the problem and whine and condemn and protest and forget. Life is too short for that, and guess what: people don’t give a damn. But most Pakistanis do not talk about the constitution, a taboo in the society of course, just like sex.

In the blog that was referred to earlier, reporting this “tragic incident”, I mean the marking and not the death of the poor fellow (not being insensitive), the author had apologized to the friends and family of Prem Chand and the Hindu community of Pakistan for the marking of the coffin. It was a noble notion indeed, but really I find no reason to apologize to them for that. I would rather apologize to them for the discriminating constitution.

As Pakistanis, we should apologize to the Hindus, the Christians, the Sikhs, the Parsis, the Ahmedis and all other so-called minorities and non-Muslim citizens of Pakistan, who deserve as much rights as any of the so-called Muslim majority citizens in the constitution, sans any discrimination.

At least I would do so.

%d bloggers like this: