At the behest of country’s superior court, PEMRA has
taken on the onerous task of defining what constitutes … wait for it … obscenity. I have previously written about the
stupidity of defining obscenity because it is almost impossible to define it. It
varies from one culture to another, from one class to
another, from one ethnic group to another and from one member of the family to
another. I personally think Borat was an obscene film and every time Borat asked
a woman ‘How much?’ (That character believed that every woman in USA was for
sale) I wanted to go and punch the living daylights out of him. My very
religious cousin, on the other hand, thought Borat was hilarious, however he
has issues with every girl who appears on local TV channels and TV commercials wearing
fitted T shirts and wants to drown them – collectively – in the nearest ocean.
I wonder whose version of obscenity would be acceptable to those who are
defining what obscenity is.
As expected and directed by the most August Chief
Justice of Pakistan, the paragon of virtue, Qibla Mufti-e-Azam Hazrat
Maulana Ansar Abbasi sahib has also been invited to the PEMRA deliberations
on obscenity. Qibla Ansar Abbasi who is the upholder of morality of millions of
his countrymen and women, the mainstay of the sanctity of the family values of
misguided Pakistanis and the defender of the piety of all the citizens initially
agreed to lend his very virtuous services for the great cause of defining
morality but later refused to be part of the proceedings because some women who
he think do not represent majority of women were also invited to be define
obscenity. His recent abomination
that tries to pass as an op-ed berates the inclusion of some women in the
PEMRA discussions on obscenity and thinks that inviting liberal women who
support Hindu culture (his words, not mine) is tantamount to a joke or a conspiracy
(seriously, a journalist who uses the word joke and conspiracy interchangeably
should be fired on spot for this offence alone). The women who he thinks do not
represent the majority of women in Pakistan are Marvi Sirmed, Farzana Bari,
Samina Peerzada, Atiqa Odho, Kishwar Naheed, and Sheema Kirmani among others.
The reasons he cited for the unsuitability of their inclusion included their
liberal and secular ideology and their preference for Western civilization. He
also berated the fact that one of them is a dance teacher while another is the
champion of the cause of LGBT people.
He then lists the women who should have been
called to represent the women of Pakistan and includes names such as Bano
Qudsia, right wing politicians such as Maryam Nawaz Sharif (who does not even
tweet without daddy’s permission), Samiya Rahil Qazi of JI, Ghazala Saad Rafiq
(whose claim to fame I believe is matrimony to one Khwaja Saad Rafiq), Samina
Khawar Hayat (She once supported a bill which encouraged
affluent men into polygamy), Justice Nasra Iqbal (CJP’s fangurl) and Dr
Farhat Hashmi (who now resides in Mississauga and sports a Canadian passport).
If Ansar Abbasi’s logic is followed, women who make a name for themselves by
hard work in their respective fields for long cannot represent women of
Pakistan and women who are famous because they are married or related to famous
and powerful men should represent women of Pakistan. If his logic is followed, then
people like Marvi Sirmed or Kishwar Naheed, taxpaying and law abiding citizens
of the country cannot represent its women because of their ideological
preferences but Dr Farhat Hashmi, a Canadian who lives in the state of Ontario,
has every right to represent the women of Pakistan because she dons a burqa.
As if that was not all, he lists the criteria for
the women who should represent Pakistan and it includes their views on Namoos-e-Risalat and their acceptance of
Ahmadis as non Muslims. For starters, the whole exercise of defining obscenity is
stupid, but if it is taking place and the government officials actually wanted
some female representation then what has definition of obscenity got anything
to do with either Namoos-e-Risalat or Ahmadis being non Muslims? I was quite
livid at this idiocy but then I told myself to calm down. After all, it is a column
published in Jang, written by Ansar Abbasi and it need neither be coherent nor
is it required to make any sense at all.
In the end he endorses Qazi Hussain Ahmed’s suggestion
that Council of Islamic Ideology should define what constitute obscenity. I
thought the council was supposed to work only on matters related to Islam. As
obscenity, astagfirullah, is not at all Islamic, they should be spared the
indignity of associating with something like obscenity and stick to things pure
and gentle.
PS: Those who want to read Ansar Abbasi in all his glory can read the original text in Urdu below.
PS: Those who want to read Ansar Abbasi in all his glory can read the original text in Urdu below.
