WHAT’S wrong with being a conspiracy theorist? Our everyday lives are filled with so much that is inexplicable and comes out of the blue that often the only plausible explanation for such things is the one that tells you they must be the result of a conspiracy.
In recent months, the most potent threat to the image of the military has come in the manner of the release and exit from Pakistan of Raymond Davis, the CIA contractor, accused of murder.
You don’t have to take my word for it for I believe sovereignty without a life of dignity for my 170 million compatriots means nothing. But this was the view of those members of the Fourth Estate who are totally committed to the concept of a security state and perhaps even more committed to the guardians of Pakistan’s ideological and territorial frontiers.
Equally significant is their claim to have ready access to the nation’s (qaum/awam) views. Must have Gallup/MORI type
polling organisations feeding directly into their studios and newspapers everyday.
So, now that the New York Times tells us that ISI chief Ahmed Shuja Pasha has talked tough to his CIA counterpart Leon Panetta, and that too in the latter’s citadel of Langley, Virginia, is the army on its way to regaining its lost status as the monopolist of all things good and clean in the country? And if that is the case, will the military leadership’s disdain for the present set of governing politicians resurface in the shape of what a former senior officer calls ‘patriot games’.
Patriot Games? Yes, what else should we label the various experiments in political engineering that different military leaders have been carrying out since they initially tasted for themselves that soul-destroying intoxicant called power?
Do we know why the prime minister and other members of the governing party keep denying that there can be fresh elections ahead of the completion of the present government’s term? Any idea why the PML-N’s leading light, Chaudhry Nisar Ali, is appearing bitter than the bitterest of medicines?
Many journalists who have covered parliament will tell you that Chaudhry Nisar has the ability to vent his spleen without rhyme or reason and will caution you against reading too much into his outbursts.
But then, the MQM’s rally draws the sort of statements from a large number of PML-N leaders that one would be forced to wonder whether this is the reaction to an insignificantly weak threat or the fear of something far more sinister?
Then you hear Imran Khan has met Altaf Hussain clandestinely in London. Of course, the former cricketer and his party have denied this. But there can be no denying the timing of the MQM’s Lahore public meeting.
Although quite a few highbrow observers would often rightly dismiss our TV talk shows as absurd, occasionally these shows will also allow one to gain an insight into the politicians’ reading of a situation.
Little wonder one couldn’t help but notice last week when in a TV discussion programme PML-N Senator Mushahid Ullah resorted to the most, and I say with great respect for he is a public representative, crass line of argument with a leader of
Imran Khan’s PTI.
The PTI representative (I do seek his forgiveness having missed his name along with the initial part of the programme) had barely questioned the source of funds for the multiple properties the Sharifs allegedly own abroad when the senator cut loose.
What followed was a torrent in which Imran Khan’s past as a ‘playboy’ was raised in the most uncivil of terms. This wasn’t all.
Senator Mushahid Ullah also objected to Imran staying at his former wife’s mansion in London and Jemima Khan’s staying at Imran’s place in Pakistan on the occasion the two visit each other’s countries.
This, coupled with the cricketing icon’s relationship with the late Sita White ages ago, was cited as a reason to question Imran’s suitability to become the prime minister of an Islamic country.
Imran Khan’s defender, albeit perspiring in anger with his pate shining in the studio lights, was no match for the PML senator’s ferocity. But he did mention the Sharifs’ Achilles heel which, in their case, happens to be their scalps.
He suggested that the Sharifs had got hair transplants because of their earnest wish to appear attractive to women (while the great Khan needed no such help). At this Mushahid Ullah alleged that Imran Khan had also benefited from a hair transplant.
I was left scratching my head — though very gently so as not to dig furrows through it, given how sparsely populated with hair my own scalp is. This was undoubtedly beginning to take the shape of a conspiracy — and nothing short of a hair-raising one.
The idea seemed to be for the PML-N to tell the PTI leader what to expect if he entered the electoral fray (whenever that may be) as a serious contender for power especially if he has found influential backers. But at this stage it is, admittedly, no more than speculation that the guardians of a sovereign Pakistan may be trying to assemble a grouping of ‘clean’ politicians for the next electoral exercise.
So, before serious readers jump down my throat for peddling conspiracy theories and not facts, let me place an irrefutable fact for the public record. Power players in Pakistani politics rely heavily on hair transplants, not unlike their Italian counterparts.
And the phenomenon is not restricted to civilian leaders. Look out for a hairline resembling Berlusconi’s among the monopolists of the clean and the good when the cap is off. I daren’t say more.
The writer is a former editor of Dawn.
Meanwhile, as illustrated in the Arab world, what people really want are jobs, democracy and freedom, not more religious bigotry and extremism. There is something toxic and surreal about Europe’s obsession with the sartorial choices of Muslim women. But spare a thought for modern-day European politicians as they try and understand the quirkier lifestyle choices made by a very small minority of European Muslims.
I wonder: instead of focusing on the very real challenge of integration and building an inclusive society why are European politicians and some European Muslims wasting time on burkas and minarets? Is it not revealing that it’s Muslim women, who arguably already face the biggest societal hurdles in becoming part of the European mainstream, who end up in the front line?
For those who have not followed the saga, here are some insights: since April 11, it has been against the law for people in France to cover their faces with a burka, a niqab, a hood or a mask while in a public place. Since I have yet to meet a Muslim man — however pious — opt for such a covering, the French bill impacts solely on the few Muslim women who want to spend their public life sheltering behind the burka.
The French burka ban is the first in Europe, but other countries are waiting to enact similar legislation. In Belgium, the lower parliamentary chamber voted a year ago in favour of banning the full veil. However, the reform is on hold because of long-term political deadlock.
Seven of Germany’s 16 states have banned teachers in state schools from wearing Islamic headscarves. And wearing Islamic veils or headscarves is officially prohibited at universities in Turkey, a country that is predominantly Muslim but constitutionally secular. In Britain, the government has ruled out a burka ban, with Damian Green, the immigration minister, saying that “telling people what they can and can’t wear, if they’re just walking down the street, is a rather un-British thing to do”.
I have to confess to certain impatience with Europe’s hand-wringing over the visible presence of Muslims in the public space.
It’s fashionable to declare — as the leaders of Britain, Germany and France did just recently — that multiculturalism has
“utterly failed” and that Muslims must either melt into the landscape or “go home”. There’s little doubt that Europe’s attempts at the integration of Muslims have been largely unsuccessful. But that’s not just because of the Muslim communities’ unwillingness to join the mainstream. European governments have done little to encourage integration, with many failing to enforce anti-discrimination legislation or promote jobs, education and better housing for minorities. Also, Europe is not ‘secular’ as many analysts suggest. Christian traditions are deeply rooted in the culture. For many Europeans, however, religion is personal, a private affair. As such, the very visible piousness of orthodox Muslims and Jews is often viewed with disquiet. In fact, the debate over the burka distracts from the very real problems of integration faced by Europe’s Muslim minority.
Clearly also, with national polls scheduled for next year, French President Nicolas Sarkozy is running scared of the far-right Front National and its charismatic and increasingly popular leader Marine Le Pen. The ban on the burka could be just what the embattled French leader needs to re-establish his credentials with Islam-wary voters. I am equally impatient, however, with the minority of women who see the burka as an essential part of their Muslim identity. It is not. Once again, it is a distraction from the real struggle to get a decent education, find a job and fend off discrimination.
The question has of course divided the Muslim community at a time when joint action is needed to confront common challenges.
Trying to set the record straight, a recent report on Unveiling the Truth released by the Open Society Institute seeks to distinguish myths and misrepresentations surrounding women who wear the full-face veil. The study notes that the wearing of the full-face veil is not a permanent practice for every woman. Nine of the 32 respondents interviewed said they did not wear the veil on a regular basis for three main reasons: the general socio-political climate, work regulations or family tensions.
The adoption of the full-face veil is not a rejection of socialisation, it said. In the majority of cases, the women interviewed had active social lives. Many who avoided going outdoors since they started wearing the veil did so only to avoid the abuse levelled at them in public. In most cases, the women interviewed said they adopted the full-face veil as part of a spiritual journey, not because of pressure. Others confessed that they started wearing the niqab after the controversy broke out in April 2009. In fact, many parents considered the full-face veil as an extremist practice, something unrelated to religion. Many parents also rejected their daughters’ full-face veil because they wanted their children to pursue a professional career.
Muslims who have made it as politicians, business leaders, artists and the like in their home countries or in their adopted lands have done so by putting in long hours, team work and hard labour. Success is difficult to come by for those who purposely exclude themselves from other people.
The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Brussels.