Zoheb is Back, Baby!

Who can forget the bubble-gum pop of Nazia and Zoheb Hassan? The infectious melodies, the goofy lyrics, the fresh-faced and "cool" appeal of the musical siblings... It all takes me back to a time when I was much, much, much younger and much, much, much less cynical. Nazia passed away a few years ago after a battle with lung cancer (and a painful and abusive marriage). She'd been living in the UK. In 2002, Nazia was posthumously awarded the Pakistan Pride of Performance Award. Her family has created a charitable foundation in her memory. Here's a short but touching tribute to her.

I had no idea what had happened to Zoheb until recently, when I saw that he had released a new album called Kismat. It's apparently a huge hit in Pakistan - over 50,000 sold - and now he is hoping to launch the album in India (where the real money is).

Rightwing Rhetoric Alike?

I always find it fascinating when I see the similarities between the rightwing in different places. I know it shouldn't be surprising, but it is still often curious how such different cultures and contexts will produce the same kind of conservative and extremist forces. I recently saw two news items in the Pakistani press that reminded me of this, because of their usage of rhetoric that is often deployed by the US rightwing (source: Daily Times, November 20).

The first is the response of the mullahs to the passage of the incredibly anemic "Women Protection Bill." Only by the most conservative measures can this bill be seen as an advance for women in Pakistan, although if someone held a gun to my head, I would admit that it is slightly better than the current Hudood laws. But the mullahs are so outraged by even this extremely modest change in the law that they have vowed to take action. Their first act?

Creating a "body for defence of Hudood laws."

If that sounds familiar to those conversant with US politics, that's because it channels the same twisted spirit as the absurd "defense of marriage laws." In both cases, the rightwing portrays itself as somehow under attack or under siege, when in fact, the institutions they are purporting to defend are in absolutely no danger of ever being harmed. The irony in Pakistan is that the new Women Protection Bill has preserved much of the old Hudood law, in civil form. And of course the Hudood laws STILL exist! They haven't been repealed, as they should have been (of course, they should never have been put into place to begin with, but that would take us back to the ghost of dictators-past). Among the things that is upsetting the mullahs is the change in age of consent for women to 16 (not puberty as before). Lovely, aren't they?

The second news item that startled me with its analogous rhetoric was a statement by the banker-turned-Musharraf's-stooge, I mean, prime-minister, Shaukat Aziz. Commenting on the situation in Afghanistan at a joint press conference with Tony "lap dog" Blair, Aziz said:

"Cut and run is no way to resolve the issue."

That, of course, mimics the teasing taunt tossed by Republicans at Democrats in the most recent midterm-election cycle. So, just as the Bush administration refuses to recognize that its presence in Iraq is immoral, so does the Musharraf government refuse to give up its hegemonic designs on Afghanistan. Haven't we Pakistanis done enough already to destroy that country? Haven't we, directly and indirectly, guaranteed that Afghanistan will never prosper? (And by "never," I mean at least a century, which equals never to people who live there now.)

Let me give you a tip, Shauky (pronounced "Shock-key" if you're Punjabi): nothing good can ever come out of Pakistan's military adventure in Afghanistan. Not for Afghans, not for Pakistanis, and not even for the Pakistani military and people like you who continue to enable the military to reign supreme. Yes, "cut and run is no way to resolve the issue" - instead, we should be taking the military's budget, giving Afghanistan reparations out of that (in addition to the much bigger reparations that should come from the US), take what's left over, and give it to the Bangladeshis. (Well, in actuality, Bangladesh has first dibs on those reparations, but you get the idea.) Disband the whole damn military. That might be a start to resolving the issue. "Staying the course" is not.

Mujhse Dosti Karoge? NAHIN!

The image of the American seems to be that of an open and friendly person - but us immigrant types have always known better, right? Well, that image is taking a bit of a beating. According to a survey commissioned by the Discover America Partnership (a group composed mostly of hospitality industry firms), the US is now perceived as the least friendly country in the world to visit. The US was ranked the worst in terms of its visa policies and immigration procedures (39%), although fikar not, the #2 spot went to the Middle East/Subcontinental Asia (16%). A majority of respondents - 54% - viewed US immigration officials as "rude."

Iran Fingerprints Americans

Falling within the category of heavily-symbolic-
but-ultimately-totally-irrelevant-yet-thoroughly-satisfying is this news item from Iran. The Iranians have decided to reciprocate current US border control procedures, which is to fingerprint all visitors coming into the US - of course, best-friend countries such as the UK and Israel and well-behaved nations such as pretty much all rich and/or white countries are exempt from this requirement.

Of course that means that Iran is very much included in this list of countries. Not only is it a predominantly-Muslim country, but it also occupies extra-special status as a member of the absurdly-named "axis of evil." Now the Iranians have decided to put American visitors to Iran under the same procedure that Iranians are subject to when entering the US:

Iran's conservative-dominated parliament, in a tit-for-tat measure, passed a bill on Sunday obliging the government to fingerprint US citizens entering the Islamic Republic, state radio reported.
The proposal, backed by 135 votes to 26, also requires a complete security check on every American who enters Iran. The bill now goes to the hardline Guardian Council, a constitutional watchdog body, before becoming law. (source: Reuters)

Interestingly, President Ahmedinejad opposed the bill, apparently because he did not want to send a hostile signal to American visitors (and Westerners say he's irrational). Iran joins Brazil in reciprocating the draconian border control measures that the US places upon visitors who look like us.

Quranic Ringtones Un-Islamic

Sometimes there's a news item that perfectly captures the insanity of the religious fanatics. The maulvis at Deoband in India - the same people who brought you the Imrana affair - have weighed in on another weighty social matter: mobile phone ringtones. Turns out that a popular trend among some Muslim youth is to use Quranic ringtones on their mobile phones. I don't know who these youth are, and I have never heard such a ringtone myself, and a quick look at the Ufone and Mobilink websites didn't yield any such Quranic ringtones. But these ringtones must be widespread enough for the Deobandis to weigh in on the issue. One might guess that the clerics would like the idea of even young hipsters with mobile phones turning to the Quran for their ringtone needs. But one would guess wrong.

And what do they have to say? Their verdict is that the Quranic ringtones are un-Islamic (source: The Daily Times):

Clerics at the Darul Uloom seminary in the northern Indian town of Deoband issued an edict banning the use of holy Quran verses or Muslim call to prayers as ringtones, saying doing so violates Islamic law.

Their logic? Apparently, Quranic verses are not meant for entertainment purposes. In addition, what is really problematic for our mullah friends is that a person may answer their phone without letting the entire ringtone play, thus cutting short the verse. Explains Mufti Badrul Hasan:

One should hear the complete verse of the holy Quran with a pious mind and in silence. If it is used as a ringtone, a person is bound to switch on the mobile, thus truncating the verse halfway ... This is an un-Islamic act.

When I shared the news item with lahorimunda, he replied that "every system has the seeds of its own destruction." I certainly hope so, but I'm really beginning to wonder if these people are too stupid and incompetent to even pull off their own destruction.

Cleric Sets Himself on Fire

From Germany comes news that a cleric has set himself on fire. I'm embarrassed to say that when I first saw the headline, I assumed it was yet another instance of a mullah displaying his idiocy, and yet another instance of the Western media distorting the image of Muslims by picking on the one idiot mullah who sets himself on fire.

Then I read the story. Turns out it was a Christian cleric who set himself on fire. Apparently he was so incensed (heh) by the "spread of Islam" that he immolated himself yesterday, a day that is celebrated in some parts of Germany as a recognition of the Protestant Reformation. So here's more proof: they're ALL crazy.

Cricket and Religion

The new head of the Pakistan Cricket Board, Nasim Ashraf, has caused some controversy due to his recent remarks about the cricket team and religion. And what exactly did he say?

"There is no doubt their religious faith is a motivating factor in the team. It binds them together. But there should be a balance between religion and cricket."

I don't understand why there is anything remotely controversial about this statement! Any idiot can see that the cricket team has become totally Islamized, leading most disastrously to the conversion of Yousuf Youhanna last year. Whatever happened to the stereoptype of the decadent-partying-playboy cricket player? It's been replaced with another ugly stereotype, complete with jamaat namaz. By the way, the picture features Saeed Anwar, who is no longer on the team but is perhaps single-handedly responsible for beginning the Islamization process in the team.

Frankly, Nasim Ashraf wasn't harsh enough in his statement.

Spiral of Violence in Iraq

The AP reported today that Iraqis are now being killed at the rate of 43 a day. This is up from an average 27 per day since April 2005. This news follows the recent study published in Lancet which estimated that 655,000 Iraqis have died in Iraq since the war. That's 2.5% of the population. (The authors' lowest estimate is 393,000, and their highest estimate is 943,000.) The Lancet is subscription-only so I can't link to the study, but it has been widely covered in the mainstream media, including by rightwing commentators who have criticized it. For a look into the way those wingnuts think, and for a laugh, check this out.

Rushdie Hearts Musharraf

I keep thinking it's not possible, but Salman Rushdie just keeps saying more and more idiotic things. The latest is his declaration that he wishes

General Pervez Musharraf a “long and healthy life” because, in his view, Pakistan is “one assassination away from having Islamic fanatics in charge of a functioning nuclear weapon, which they may not mind using”... Rushdie finds the situation in Pakistan “scary, extremely scary”, much more so than the Iranian “near-bomb”... He says although it makes him feel sick to be put in a position of hoping that Gen Musharraf has a long and healthy life, he does so because with the general not on the scene, it could be something much worse. Rushdie says Gen Musharraf is a “dictator” and no better than Gen Ziaul Haq, while adding that in the ISI, “there are people much worse, who want a very radical Islamist state”. [source: The Daily Times]

Rushdie's most recent remarks follow a pronouncement that veils "suck," proving that even though he's a talenter writer, Rushdie isn't necessarily the most sophisticated political analyst.

Why does he do it? Why say such dumb things? Is Rushdie just really dumb? Or is this simply an attempt to try and get attention even though he is a sad little man who is no longer relevant to the literary or political scene?

Afghanistan 5 Years On

Tomorrow marks the 5th anniversary of the US invasion of Afghanistan. Somehow this year I am much more reflective about the event. Perhaps "enough" time has passed by for me to make more sense of the war, rather than being intimately caught up in it. I remember being in Boston when Bush came on TV to announce that he had ordered the start of the war. It was such a depressing night. I remember immediately emailing my sister and her husband that the US had "let slip the dogs of war" (see, convent school was good for something - and yes, this was before I had my beautiful phone with which I can text the world). I was trying to be clever to cover up my deep sadness.

For some reason, for that first month or so, I had been holding out some hope that maybe war could be averted, that perhaps the world would come to its senses, that maybe the US would engage in a real overhaul of its imperialistic foreign policy. I remember following the iterations of Taliban offers as they first stated that they didn't know where Osama was; then agreed to turn him over to an international court with Shariah rules; then agreed to try him themselves in a local Shariah court. I kept hoping that maybe something would work. I hoped this despite my training as an academic and my political education as a lefist - that is to say, despite my knowledge of the fact that what was really going to happen was going to be awful, violent, and extreme.

The thing is, I wanted to believe that there was another possibility, a possible path that we could all take that was peaceful and addressed the existing structural issues that had led us down the path to 9-11. I wanted to believe all this because I wanted to believe in the promise of peace. Because the reality was that we were witnessing the death of the idea of peace, at least for my generation, and that's something that is hard even for a cynic like to me take.

And honestly, the thing is, I'm NOT a cynic. I'm an optimist, an idealist, a hopeless dreamer. And 5 years ago, that idealism was very sorely tested.

It was such a feeling of madness, knowing exactly what was necessary to chart a course to peace, and realizing that no one around you gets it. For the first time, I felt real empathy with those mad people who are always muttering to themselves, the conspiracy theorists, the end-of-worlders. I tried talking reason to anyone who would listen, but really, no one wanted to listen, and eventually I too succumbed to fatigue and fear. Complicating all this was the gut knowledge that what was also being set in motion was the collapse of my personal life. That's too long and painful a story that I frankly still can't talk about. But I do remember the feeling of helplessness as I knew what I was walking towards, and I couldn't do a thing about it. Knowledge was painful, in a very deeply personal way.

It was a difficult time to be a thinking person and an activist. I mean, I know it seems hard now, but trust me, it was much, much worse then. In a way, the invasion of Afghanistan proved somewhat useful to me at a personal level. Now I had a great sorting mechanism to figure out who I really wanted to talk to. Because the Afghanistan war separated the true anti-imperialists and peace activists from the mere "nice" liberals. And frankly, when the Iraq war came around, I was no longer shocked as many were at what was happening. It frankly seemed to be the logical progression of the imperialist project that it is.

I guess I could end this in a sentimental way by saying that we should remember the Afghan victims (whose suffering is only getting exacerbated). But really, I want to take a moment for myself and my friends, who are struggling to remain idealistic even after living through that harrowing experience. I hope we continue to dream, even though it seems utterly pointless. I don't know how my friends keep doing it, but they are an inspiration to me and help me to keep dreaming as well.