In response to Jemima Khan 'I feel for Gillian Gibbons' *
Jemima Khan empathizes with Gillian Gibbons by smearing Ms Bhutto. Why? Jemima Khan empathizes with Gillian Gibbons and her husband with the most radical group JI in Pakistan.
Her accusations that her ex was not able to win seats due to Ms. Bhutto are baseless. Benazir is one leader in Pakistan who understands the dynamics of the modern world very clearly. She believes in minority rights, speaks for them and puts her life at stake for the sake of the disenfranchised of our country. This smear article to malign Ms. Bhutto with intolerance and anti-Semitism is a vulgar attempt to hide incompetence of Suleiman and Qasim's "Abba."
The overzealous "Abba" welcomed Musharraf coup; he voted for Maulana Fazlur-Rehman instead of a liberal, stands and lives with radicals and was recently beaten by the most radical element as they were worried he was trying to steal their stronghold of Punjab University. He is aligned politically with JI's Qazi Hussien who demands the head of anyone who is even remotely associated with blasphemy. It is this bunch of ideological perverts who have hijacked any sensibility from a Pakistani society.
Ms Khan blithely takes objection to and derogatorily refers to the Sudanese government as "rabidly anti-western" in her spiel over Gillian Gibbons. On the other hand, it is the very "western" values that Mr. Khan has a stand on; Mr. Khan who ridicules the western educated intelligentsia that speaks of freedom and secularism in Pakistan calling them "Desi" liberals, a condescending term. His search for a true liberal like him takes him to the most hardcore of extremists, his closest being General Hamid Gul and JI's Qazi. Mr. Khan's writes on this desi complex:
''Desi liberal fanatics preach secularism, yet they don't fully understand the evolution of secularism in Europe. ..The Desi secularists have been heavily influenced by Marxism with its anti-religion and anti-family message and American secularism. As to the question about how a country deals with the complex issue of religious fundamentalism, the liberal fanatics have only one answer, one very close to Hitler's 'Final Solution': they want the army to take them on. The same group that, quite rightly, preaches dialogue with India, has the most illiberal solutions for its own countrymen...''
No one has been a better desi-secularist than Mr. Khan. His ability to live separately and let his children study in the west with a very liberal mother are true values that any desi secularists will adopt. Hugh Grant definitely fits in as an ideal surrogate father for the large happy family of the Khans. Kate Moss adds some colour by tongue on tongue exchange of love, nothing wrong with that as long as charity can be raised, but can any Pakistani mother do that? Will Mr. Khan not condemn such a mother as a "desi" secularist and approach the court to take away the rights of his great children to not be brought up in such an environment?
We the liberals and those who raise their voice against extremism find Ms. Khan's attitude and rearing of her children, Salman and Qasim, as an exemplary way of bringing up great children; we want the same chances for every Pakistani child. Her husband keeps repeating how foolish those Pakistanis are who want to adopt the English language and try to expand the horizon of learning; he calls them the brown sahibs; he admonishes young cricketers not to waste their time in English counties although he has been labouring up and down the English grounds for decades.
While Ms. Khan's tongue in tongue gelling helps her children understand how to live a life beyond a husband, Khan in Pakistan is advocating a tribal judiciary system of Jirga which allows honor killing as a way of life. In front of thousands of people in Jagjit Singh's concert in Lahore, he went up to the stage and admonished young girls for not being ashamed of dancing in front of other men.
There is one mullah-backing anti-western anti-liberal Khan for us in Pakistan and the other Khan for "The Telegraph" readers. That is good enough, but will you ever get evenhanded in promoting this hypocrisy we are suffering from? It is the liberal icons who are drowning us in the sea of extremism. Khan will be first one to see the other way for what is an innocent act of Gillian Gibbons. Rest assured one person in Pakistan who is strong enough and clear-headed enough to condemn this debauchery in Sudan is Ms. Bhutto, the target of Ms. Khan's rage.
The great cricket legend Imran Khan was hurt by rumours that his former wife began a relationship with actor Hugh Grant while the couples were still married. Perhaps, understandably he is a true gentleman by accepting realities on the ground. It was Hugh Grant who taught Mr. Khan's son Suleiman how to dive in Barbados on a holiday with his ex-wife. This is really big example of 'family values' Khan likes to endorse.
I wish this is the behaviour and civility every Pakistani family should adopt and promote. Mr. Khan accepts this for his family but call this kind of behaviour by others as 'aping desi brownism.' No one is enhanced 'brown sahib' than Mr. Khan. In Pakistan a wife doing such things will be ostracise and snubbed and probably her husband will claim custody, but Khan is real generous and considerate. Going by the actions it clearly transpires that two junior Khans are being brought up in a true Islamic manner as defined by Mr. Khan with 'Grant and Moss' disseminating true Islam all around them.
Hopefully this is exactly type of Islamic model that Mr. Khan need every Pakistani to adopt, our problems shall be resolved overnight if we have such level of tolerance. This foresight if becomes the currency of Pakistani will finish the biggest crime we face that of honour killing and Karo kari. We need from Mr. Khan and Ms. Khan a reiteration of values of their family and extend them over to our nation, in this lies our paradise not in duplicity of playing with words. The liberals had great hopes in Khan; it is his double standards and insincerity that they are distraught with. What is good for him should be good for other girls and children .
The hypocrisy of Ms. Khan and Mr. Khan tolerated by your newspaper in the name of freedom hurts all the liberals. The reason he lost the election last time and probably this time around too will be that his party was stillborn with ideas; his control freak mannerism has no place for any intelligent man to survive. A party needs to grow; in the last ten years his has gone from weakness to near self-depletion. When people of Pakistan see him voting for Fazl, MMA's top honcho, they cannot trust him. This silent majority is perplexed with his actions.
It would be nice of Ms. Khan if she restricts herself to having great fun and stop indulging in areas where vultures dare not fly. To challenge the mullah mentality needs the wits of an eagle; the leader at present who has this in ample supply is Ms. Bhutto. We need to condemn this without any hypocrisy and we need to raise our children, like Salman and Qasim, to the modern world and our mothers and sisters need to have a life free and nice like Ms. Khan, which Mr. Khan obviously does not approve of. The kind of dichotomy of values promoted by Mr. Khan and Ms. Khan is confusing. One cannot make a distinction as to what they stand for. Mr. Khan on merits of western civilization:
''If only we had a scholar of Iqbal's calibre today he would have questioned the direction western civilization has taken; e.g. in its exploitation of women, as in beauty contests, in advertisements where half-clad women are used to sell products, or where fashion forces women to display their bodies. He would certainly have commented on the proliferation of public immorality in the name of freedom and its role in the breakdown of the family. And, its impact on the devaluing of the role of the mother, a role so highly regarded in Islam. Iqbal would certainly have questioned homosexual marriages and gay couples adopting children.''
Look at how long-winded and tortuous his logic is. Rich from a man who lived a life of excesses, of expensive dope - loves stoning woman every day refuses to accept his own daughter 'Tyrain Sita White'and wants to take responsibility of 80 million Pakistani youngsters. What a blatant hypocrisy.
Mr. Khan equates the Alqaeda-inspired fanatics and liberals on one platform and deals with them with single glue. Does Khan fail to understand that freedom of minds [from dogma] and true liberty [from drawing moral equivalence for every heinous extremist act] is what helps nations to grow?
The tribalism he wants to promote by condemning western culture sees itself manifesting in extreme forms sometimes. What is the harm in western clothing? To make it an issue is what I find disturbing; finding causes for disturbing behaviour is the biggest problem of Islam. It has to be unequivocal condemnation of terror; it has to be the openness Mr. Khan's family displays that should become the cornerstone of all Islamic houses: a true representative family living in extraordinary arrangement of beneficial cohabitation.
Ms. Khan is well advised to be happy that she is bringing her children up in best of societies and let her husband drown himself in his own contradictions.
Pakistan needs freedom for millions of Qasims and millions of Jemima Khans from clutches of duplicitous and hypocritical millions of Mr. Khan's. That is our real predicament Ms. Khan. You know it well. As far as he keeps losing the elections our hopes are high. His pathetic performance in elections is the result of his own self afflicted disease of self righteousness and not in any way making of Ms. Bhutto.