certifired_img

Books and Documents

Pakistan Press (23 Jul 2016 NewAgeIslam.Com)



Taboos and Icons: New Age Islam's Selection, 23 July 2016




New Age Islam Edit Bureau

23 July 2016

Taboos and Icons

By Irfan Husain

Check Your Male Privilege When Talking About Qandeel Baloch

By Mohammad Zia Adnan

Turkey and Pakistan

By Babar Sattar

The Coup That Failed

By Gen (R) Mirza Aslam Beg

Compiled By New Age Islam Edit Bureau

-----

Taboos and Icons

By Irfan Husain

23-Jul-16

QANDEEL Baloch was just a name that popped up with irritating frequency on my Twitter feed. I had a vague idea that she was posting irreverent images of herself online, and that a cleric had been publicly embarrassed for appearing with her in a video that went viral.

Good for her, I thought to myself, not paying much attention to her or her online antics. But when news of her murder by her brother reached me, I went through some of her material on the Internet, and was gobsmacked by a sexy dance she performed on her bed.

And I was just one of over half a million people who had clicked on that particular link. Many of the comments that had been posted ranged from the sanctimonious to the bitchy. Some, mercifully, expressed their sorrow at the model’s death, and their anger at her brother.

Why can’t men be accused of tarnishing the family ‘honour’?

The alleged murderer, Waseem Azeem, said later that his family’s ‘honour’ had been so tarnished that he had to kill himself or his sister. So why didn’t he just kill himself? Obviously, the way to protect the family’s honour is to strangle a vulnerable woman, just as so many hundreds are murdered every year.

Pakistanis — and Muslims — don’t have a monopoly on this vile practice. But statistically, more Muslim women are killed by male family members for marrying of their own free will, or for other transgressions of a savage social code, than any others. In many cases, the killers are aided and abetted by close female relatives.

Perhaps the most sickening aspect of this warped desire to enforce obedience from women is that it is widely accepted and even condoned and defended. Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy’s Oscar-winning documentary The Girl in the River: The Price of Forgiveness makes this chillingly clear. The father of the eponymous girl he almost managed to kill boasted that as a result of his attempted murder, his status in the community had gone up, and his other daughter had received several marriage proposals.

In the documentary, the victim, Saba, is pressured to ‘forgive’ her father in a court. She explains in an interview that she has to live in the community, and if her father were sent to jail, her family and neighbours would make things intolerable for her.

And so it goes. In Qandeel Baloch’s case, the state has become a party in the case of murder in the expectation that this would preclude the possibility of the killer being let off the hook by offering his parents blood money. However, legal experts are divided on the issue. But even if the self-confessed murderer is convicted for his crime, he will be an exception because, in most such cases, men are usually set free.

Clearly, family ‘honour’ provides men with a powerful motive to kill. But what is it exactly? Why can men behave in the most obnoxious way and not be accused of tarnishing this so-called family honour? They can rape, steal and kill without arousing family members to seek retribution.

So how come women are the sole custodians of this precious commodity? Why does this burden not fall equally on men? It would appear that the whole concept is a primitive tribal construct designed to control women. Virginity is highly prized in backward societies, and if there is any doubt about the matter, marriage becomes virtually impossible.

Property rights are another aspect of family honour: if a girl marries a man the family has not selected, he can later claim a share of his wife’s inheritance. Also, a father or a brother lose face in their community if it appears they cannot force a daughter or a sister to obey them.

Among Hindus, it is anathema for an upper-caste man or woman to marry somebody of a lower caste. Hundreds are killed for this ‘offence’, and killers are seldom punished. Other backward societies maintain similar taboos and enforce them with lethal force.

But why do democracies permit this murderous practice to continue, thereby allowing the subjugation of half their population? In many of our courts, reference to family ‘honour’ attracts the judge’s sympathy. The law of the land and the rights of the victim are set aside while the murderer, usually a man, is given every latitude.

s long as judges, police and the wider society continue slut-shaming victims, this vicious tradition will continue. And as we saw in the online and televised comments following Qandeel Baloch’s murder, a number of people take the view that her brother should not be blamed. For them, the model’s social media displays invited retribution.

t is this hypocritical attitude that creates an environment of sympathy and support for those who kill in the name of ‘honour’. For the sake of tradition and religion, we permit — even encourage — the oppression of women.

But in death Qandeel has achieved an iconic status, while her many critics will soon be forgotten.

Source: dawn.com/news/1272643/taboos-and-icons

----

Check Your Male Privilege When Talking About Qandeel Baloch

By Mohammad Zia Adnan

23-Jul-16

In a passage from Rabisankar Bal’s Dozakhnama, Manto, on the male ego, says:

When it rears its head, it wants to destroy the very world. Do you know why? Because it’s a glass doll. Throw it on the floor and it’ll shatter. So it becomes furious at the slightest threat.

Do you know what the male ego is: I’m the last word, nothing can be greater.

Dozakhnama imagines conversations in hell between Manto and Ghalib, but Manto could have very well written this in real life.

Male privilege in his Pakistan of the 1940s and 50s is not far removed from the situation today. If anything, it has remained unchecked and permitted to flourish.

Now we live in communities ailing from the cancer of systemic misogyny. Qandeel Baloch’s horrific murder at the hands of her own brother casts light upon this malignant disease.

Her brother may have acted alone, but he was produced in, and emerges from, a system that turns a blind eye to his ‘honour’, but doesn’t fail to scrutinise the actions of his sister under an intrusive and repugnant microscope.

How can anyone justify his actions? Is it not more dishonourable to live with the guilt of murdering your own sister?

To call Baloch’s savage murder an ‘honour’ killing is despicable.

To suggest that Baloch deserved her death is a testament to the fragile male ego, still pining for justification after innocent blood has already been spilt.

We talk a lot about ‘culture’ in Pakistan. We strike down ambition in the name of ‘culture’.

We decide that wearing a certain item of dress, or not wearing a certain item of dress, is not our ‘culture’. Qandeel was apparently a ‘disgrace’ to this unnamed, unclassified, monolithic 'culture'.

In her phenomenal essay, ‘We Should All Be Feminists’, Nigerian author Chimimanda Ngozi Adichie addresses the problem of society failing to extend equality to women in the name of 'culture'. She writes:

Culture does not make people. People make culture. If it is true that the full humanity of women is not our culture, then we can and must make it our culture.

Baloch called herself a modern-day feminist. In death, as in life, she remains a polarising figure. She was a woman who reclaimed her body from the male gaze and didn't allow others to police or regulate it.

Instead, she controlled the male gaze, rebelliously deciding to whom, and when, she would make herself virtually visible.

She very clearly defied what we understand and accept as appropriate gender performance. And regardless of how we come to recognise her legacy, Baloch was undoubtedly a dissident voice.

But Baloch was primed by the media like a lamb up for slaughter, lionised, loathed, named and shamed.

We should blame not only those who sought to profit from her notoriety, but also Pakistan's toxic male privilege that validates this kind of treatment.

We should blame not only Baloch's brother who acted as the medium through which this abhorrent privilege was conveyed to Qandeel as a lasting and fatal blow, but also the culture of misogyny that legitimises and protects men like him in Pakistan.

On college campuses in the US, we often discuss intersectionality, identity, race, ethnicity and privilege. "Check your privilege," has become a knee-jerk phrase during arguments, alluding to the fact that we all have advantages that aren't necessarily apparent to us when we comment on the experiences of others.

As a feminist, a male, a Pakistani, I am ashamed of the privilege that I am accorded because of an accident of birth.

Today, there is blood on all of our hands — both the men who condone killings in the name of honour, and those who have, thus far, remained silent on the issue.

In the wake of Baloch's murder, hollow condemnations are too little, too late.

And so, to the men who believe Qandeel Baloch ‘had it coming’, I say, check your privilege.

To the men who have condemned her murder but still think she wasn't necessarily the best 'role model', check your privilege.

To the people who think that ‘honour’ killings aren’t the same as cold-blooded murders, check your privilege.

Check your privilege. It's time that we all well and truly did.

Mohammad Zia Adnan is an undergraduate at Princeton University.

Source: dawn.com/news/1271442/check-your-male-privilege-when-talking-about-qandeel-baloch

----

Turkey and Pakistan

By Babar Sattar

July 23, 2016

Since last weekend there has been much excitement in Pakistan over the botched coup attempt in Turkey. This wasn’t because the Turks and us have a special shared affinity since the Khilafat movement and we were worried sick how our brethren might fare under a dictatorship.

Pakistan and Turkey have both suffered military interventions in the past and that hasn’t affected our bond. (Actually it might be no exaggeration to say that General Musharraf has been more popular with our Turkish friends that any contemporary Pakistani ruler).

Many of us watched what was unfolding in Turkey with anxiety about its likely effect in Pakistan. In a country where the fear of a saviour is omnipresent; a fear that begins to grow once an elected government’s initial honeymoon period has ended, and becomes especially pronounced near a scheduled change of guard at the GHQ, it was obvious that the effects of a putsch in Turkey would be felt in Pakistan. More so as no other army chief in recent history has enjoyed the reputation of a deliverer that General R has built for himself.

With banners displayed on streets across Pakistan inviting the army chief to “move in”, with the Sharif family embroiled in the Panama scandal that won’t go away, and with the opposition launching an all-out agitation against the PML-N government, the success of a praetorian adventure in Turkey at this time could have been ominous not only for the Sharifs but also for democratic continuity and constitutionalism in Pakistan. But the fact that it failed doesn’t necessarily mean that our appetite for adventurism will also whittle down.

The glee of the PML-N and its devotees over Turkey’s failed coup is palpable. On the other hand, apologists of adventurism have been at pains to explain that the coup failed solely because it was not fully backed by the military and was badly executed. Both sides are playing out scenarios in their minds in the context of Pakistan. Team PML-N wishes the failed Turkish coup to act as a deterrent in Pakistan. And Team SaviourVille is essentially saying that had the putsch been in the land of the pure, any question of ‘failure’ wouldn’t even arise.

There are two essential parts of this advisory. One, that had it been Pakistan, the top military leadership would lead a coup and not the ranks of a divided military as in Turkey, and would therefore succeed. And two, that public response would be one of celebrating such forced takeover by the military as opposed to resisting it. In other words, Pakistan military and its ‘men at their best’ wouldn’t do a sloppy job at launching a coup if they so wished, and if they so wished, ordinary people would welcome the move.

There can be no quarrel with any of this. And that is probably why many in Pakistan viewed the spectacular scenes emanating from Turkey – a military not united behind usurpation of the constitution; ordinary people resisting a forced takeover by fellow soldiers with tanks and guns, even at the cost of their lives – with nothing but sheer envy.

Almost everyone who has studied the ethos and structure of our military will agree that only the army chief can launch a successful coup in Pakistan. And thank God for that.

“Who guards the guardians,” Plato had asked in The Republic. “The wonder…is not why the military rebels against its civilian masters, but why it ever obeys them”, Samuel Finer had mused in The Man on the Horseback. In societies transitioning from rule of men to rule of law, constitutionalism, institutional evolution, political stability and civility all remain at the mercy of individuals wielding power before the transition is complete. Why else are we appealing to General R himself to be a good man and do the right thing on the matter of his extension?

There is a lot of nonsense being bandied about Erdogan and his government to explain the failed coup in Turkey, especially by those who wish military coups to remain a live threat in Pakistan. Our excellent all-weather relationship with Turkey aside, Erdogan is seen to be as autocratic a civilian leader as can be. He has been accused of showing no patience for dissent, for persecuting opponents, generals, judges, academics, journalists (anyone who opposes him really), of censoring the media, and of being involved in a corruption scandal.

Notwithstanding Turkey’s economic progress over the last decade and a half, Erdogan is not the ‘messiah’ he has been made out to be in Pakistan. And the cause of envy in relation to Turkey’s response to the attempted coup was just that: despite all the failings of Erdogan and the fear of further repression if he survived, even his harshest critics in Turkey opposed the putsch. It seemed that Turkey had graduated to a higher level of evolution with its people collectively rejecting the law of the jungle as a necessary response to a controversial leader.

This was sadly lost on Imran Khan and others embellishing a possible coup and peoples’ acceptance of it as a legitimate response to a bad government in Pakistan. Guardians using force to enforce the law is one thing. But to bring out tanks and armour that a nation hands them to fight enemies and draw guns to threaten fellow countrymen to abide by their diktat is simply abhorrent. Such use of force to conquer one’s own home can never be legitimate. But questions of legitimacy are still not part of the norms that guide our behaviour and actions.

The argument that military rule is welcome because an incumbent civilian leader is terrible is devoid of logical reasoning. The UK is going through a political crisis. But the question of the military taking over the government because politicians seem to be failing might have crossed no one’s mind. A Trump presidency might a nightmare for the US (and the world). But the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff assuming control of Washington on the basis that the political class is rotten and has failed the country is not even imaginable.

We are not the US or UK and our institutions are at a different stage of evolution. But so is our consciousness, which is why our constitution and our laws are still mere lines in the sand within our own contemplation. We eulogise the military. But we fail to comprehend that the military is great because it is not dependent on the greatness of one individual. No one doubts that when a COAS walks into the sunset and the next commander takes over, he will wield the same authority that his predecessor did and have the allegiance of all those who don the uniform.

The military performs because it follows its rulebook meticulously. But rule of law in Pakistan remains at peril for many reasons, including that within the military mindset the command of the constitution doesn’t trump the command of the commander. If the military gets a terrible commander, the institution waits him out cognizant that breach of rules or chain of command will do more long-term harm to the institution than good. But the logic breaks down when it comes to evolution and strengthening of vital civilian institutions.

That a general has done a great job as army chief doesn’t qualify him to take over the country. That a military takeover is still possible doesn’t mean we must side with a prime minister unconditionally or not hold his feet to fire.

But what leaders like IK mustn’t do is endorse the argument that a rotten civilian government is justification enough for martial law and public acceptance of it. For that feeds into the larger narrative that we have a failed civilian political class due to which democratic continuity will pay no dividends ever. That is the biggest threat to democracy in Pakistan; not one failed leader or non-performing government.

Babar Sattar is a lawyer based in Islamabad.

Source: thenews.com.pk/print/136970-Turkey-and-Pakistan

----

The Coup That Failed

By Gen (r) Mirza Aslam Beg

23-Jul-16

The coup makers attempted to stem the tide of change taking place in Turkey, under the democratic order, but failed, unlike the earlier four attempts made in 1960, 1971, 1980 and 1997, which succeeded. The attempted coup took place because the military considers itself the ‘guarantor of the secular political order’ and opposes President Erdogan and his party leading the political Islamic order, which also is not acceptable to the Shadowy powers - the champions of democracy, who prefer a pure secular democratic order as in Bangladesh. For example the political Islamic order in Egypt was ruthlessly crushed by the military, supported by petro dollars of the Middle East and the ‘champions of democracy’. No wonder, the New York Times of 19 July laments: “Political Islam Emerges winner in Turkey. All in all Turkey will become a country where power is more consolidated and dissent will be more difficult.”

President Erdogan leads a popular political movement. Economy is stable because of balanced fiscal policies. He has turned around the economy; paid back US$ 24 bn to IMF; brought about 64% increase in GDP, raised the national reserves from US$ 25 bn to 135 bn, and brought down inflation from 32% to 9%. Several high profile national developments projects have uplifted the level of prosperity. Whereas, there has been a gradual decline in the military influence. The size of the Army now stands reduced to 5,50,000 from the previous 8,00,000. It was mainly the lower ranking officers, who attempted the coup. The army and air chiefs were arrested. President Erdogan escaped and gave the call to the people to rise against the coup makers and received a popular response, with people confronting the army, forcing them to retreat to their barracks or surrender. A significant feature was the loyalty of the police force to Erdogan, over which he has a strong grip. The efficient intelligence network was ready and vigilant to face such a crisis. As of now, the opposition parties support the government, condemning the coup makers in a rare show of unity. Even the Kurd Democratic Party (HDP) and others stand by the side of the government.

The revolt was led by the former Air Chief, supported by lower ranking officers. The rebel gunships hit the parliament and their troops reached out to seal-off the bridge over the Bosphorous. In the absence of the Army Chief, General Umit Dundar assumed command to crush the revolt. The failed coup is a golden opportunity to heal a deeply divided society. Curiously, the coup attempt coincides with the nascent trends of a shift in the Turkish foreign policy – in particular, in the direction of a rapprochement with Russia and a possible rollback of Ankara’s interventionist policies in Syria. These events would constitute a major setback to the US’s agenda to establish a permanent NATO presence in the Black Sea to contain Russia. The moot question is, who was supporting the ‘Young Turks’ who rebelled. Why did the government seal-off the Incirlik airbase and declare a ‘No fly zone’? Why didn’t the petro-dollars work here to buy the support of the higher military command?

This botched coup offers the opportunity to understand the nature of critical civil-military relationship obtaining in Pakistan where a serious ideological conflict, between the moderate Islamists and the secularists exists. The die-hard religious parties ignored by the people stand marginalised, having no role in shaping the ideological ethos of the nation. Our heads of the State, the government and national institutions, who take oath to defend the Constitution of Pakistan which lays down the national purpose that Pakistan will be a democracy governed by the principles of Quran and Sunnah, have nurtured only democracy, ignoring Quran and Sunnah, causing a dangerous vacuum and tension between political Islam and Secularism. Regretfully, the US policy of “perception management of the Pakistani nation”, has added fuel to the fire, creating conditions such as those, which caused the civil war in Indonesia in 1965-66.

The coup failed but it may not fail again, when the Turkish armed forces regain their élan. Their moral strength lies in their past history. The victorious powers in the First World War destroyed the Ottoman Empire. Mustafa Kamal Ataturk emerged to unite Turkey as a secular state. Under his leadership the army defeated the enemy forces in the battle of Gallipoli and holds this honour at the deep recess of their hearts. It will assert itself.

In Pakistan, the narrative is very different. Our armed forces have had a marginal role in winning our freedom, whereas they inherited the high military traditions of the British and never felt comfortable serving a weak political order. Soon the military joined hands with the civil bureaucracy to usurp power in 1958, 68, 77 and 98. The political parties, which could not win elections on their own, joined the Band Wagon. And now, that the good and bad democracy is chugging along, the “band wagon political parties” are once again active to edge-out the elected government. Shamelessly they are inviting the army to take-over. This may well be possible, but is not likely, because it is a different army now. It has acquired a knowledge based value system, which is very much different from the past. Its professionalism is at its best with demonstrated capability to protect national security interests against external and internal threats.

Unity of command and internal cohesiveness gives the Army the resilience to stay away from sectarianism, socio-political conflict, and societal contradictions. Yet, the key word must be remembered: “When you can no longer trust your army, there are serious issues that need to be addressed-(Robert Fisk).” And that is precisely our problem also, which Shahbaz Sharif is trying to handle on behalf of his ailing brother. Can he!!

Gen (r) Mirza Aslam Begis a former COAS, Pakistan. He can be reached at friendsfoundation@live.co.uk

Source: pakobserver.net/2016/07/23/the-coup-that-failed/

URL: http://www.newageislam.com/pakistan-press/new-age-islam-edit-bureau/taboos-and-icons--new-age-islam-s-selection,-23-july-2016/d/108048





TOTAL COMMENTS:-   1


  •  “…preclude the possibility of the killer being let off the hook by offering his parents blood money”. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan should know that for ‘premeditated murder’ the prescribed punishment is death. No Sir, there is no reprieve for the murderer!

    “It would appear that the whole concept is a primitive tribal construct designed to control women. Virginity is highly prized in backward societies,…” Again No Sir, ask the late comedian Dave Allen for one…Chastity Belts and the Crusaders?

    Male privilege culture is church’s creation and thanks to the concept of “hoors and virgins” of male-priesthood. Fire test of Ram’s Sita, Virgins mother of Jesus and Hoors of Jannah for example.

    I support fire test at melting point of iron-hadeed for all potential and current priests.


    By Rashid Samnakay - 7/23/2016 9:11:07 PM



Compose Your Comments here:
Name
Email (Not to be published)
Comments
Fill the text
 
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in the articles and comments are the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect that of NewAgeIslam.com.

Content