`All men are equal'. There is no doubt
whatever about that. But I am sorry I must change this one slightly before
those nice ladies from APWA sue me for discriminating women. So let's begin
again: `All human beings are equal'. Logic, you see, is a very effective
tool for drawing conclusions, especially when it is used by someone who
does not know how to use it or knows too much about its use. All men are
human beings, women are too. So if men can fly aeroplanes, women can fly
them too; if men can be soldiers, women can be soldiers too; If men can
play soccer, women can play soccer too; if men can `father' children...
(be logical, fill in the gaps); if men can grow moustaches...
No, no, don't laugh. This is not Tom
and Jerry's show; this is Pakistani culture under licence from manufacturers
in the USA. Besides, when something gets popular it ceases to be silly
even if it had been. No wonder when Madame Popularity with all her dark
charms asks some `Baa Baa Black Sheep' for any foolery it may have,
there is always someone more than willing to say `Yes, three bags full’.
Such `Baa Baa Black Sheep' , most Pakistanis should know (though they don't),
are called scholars and intellectuals in our society.
So what happens when `the latest,
latest' on the Mount Olympus in Islamabad is that Muslim (Pakistani) women
participate in international games? Elementary, my dear Watson! A `Baa
Baa Black Sheep', say a professor from a local college, writes an article
-- a very logical one -- displaying how easily logic can be `used' and
how nicely can it serve its master.
My friend likes smoking. I don't.
He says to me `You know Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan?' I say `Yes'.
`You know' my friend continues `he was a great man?' I utter a `yes' again.
`You know he made great sacrifices for our country?' Again I say `Yes'.
`He smoked cigars' concludes my friend. There's a technical knockout! What
can I do? Nothing but accept my defeat. I like Jinnah. I think he was a
great man, but to say anything about smoking now would impair my reputation
as a patriot. Bear witness, logic is powerful!
Every `intellectual', I think, knows
how to `use' logic even if he is not logical. People like Lord Russell
for example do not say: `Extramarital relations are quite desirable, just
use contraceptives. Enjoy yourself; eat, drink and be merry. That is life.
Don't worry even if you get a girl pregnant. God doesn't probably even
exist; nobody's responsible to anybody. Enjoy your life, enjoy! So what
do they do? They get hold of somebody `big'... and `use' logic1
Here's a great scientist. He serves humanity, contributes to the welfare
of society, works eighteen hours a day, and late at night enjoys himself
for eighteen minutes with his neighbour's wife. And there's this
man, a bum; does nothing, creates nothing. He is married. Which of the
two is better? In appreciating the scientist's contribution, one finds
oneself approving adultery; and in condemning the bum; one ends up condemning
the very concept of marriage, though, I believe, in this country at least,
nobody would like to find out that his mama had contributed to the society
by being the scientist's neighbour even if daddy was a bum.
But all this is nothing, `Baa Baa
Black Sheep' -- I mean Professor Sahib -- does even better. To glorify
Islam, he talks about the Prophet (sws). Once, the Prophet (sws) raced
with his wife, `aa’isha (raa). To this fact Professor Sahib
`adds' a context not known to any other Muslim scholar in fourteen hundred
years. He believes that the event was held in public and the Companions
of the Prophet witnessed it. His inference: racing with his wives
was the Prophet's (sws) way of encouraging women to participate in sports.
What is the result? Professor Sahib
gets his popularity, and Pakistani women show more of themselves than their
performance in games. However, the desire for popularity is not always
ill-intentioned. In our society, popularity is sometimes indispensable
even to express an honest opinion. Besides, sincerity of intentions is
something which nobody except God can judge. So a `Baa Baa Black Sheep'
is not necessarily someone whose sincerity is doubtful, but one who has
more `baa baa' (that is power of speech) than a solid basis for his or
her point of view.2
Nevertheless, it may be absolutely useless to inform Professor Sahib that
in surah ahzab
the wives (raa) of the Prophet (sws) were specifically
told to stay in their houses much and the Companions were instructed not
to ask anything of them unless from behind a curtain and that, according
to the same suurah, preferable demeanour for Muslim women going out of
their homes is that they wrap themselves up with large cloaks (called jilbab).
Even if you try, you'll be branded a downright fanatic and an extremist
and categorized as simply narrow-minded. Some `Baa Baa Black Sheep' will
ask you sternly `You don't believe in the equality of men and women?' If
you say no, you'll never be able to prove yourself broad-minded thenceforth.
(Don't worry, you really don't have to; the way I see it, a broad-minded
person is one who has nothing but `broads' on his mind). If you say yes,
you lose. Hallelujah! Our `Baa Baa Black Sheep' not only use popular
personalities but also popular (and often misleading) concepts. Equality
of men and women, for example, is one, democracy, another.
Now, let us have a look at the major
premise. Even though I may be branded a fanatic, the exercise, I think,
will be worthwhile. `All human beings are equal', are they? So why don't
we let an ordinary peon do the work of a managing director and ask the
chartered accountant in our firm to be the gatekeeper and let a mason teach
nuclear physics? If we don't, does it mean we don't think all human beings
to be equal? Certainly not. The answer is obvious: all human beings are
equal, and a peon as a human being deserves the same respect as a managing
director does, but we don't let the chartered accountant be the gatekeeper
because his services can be utilized more effectively in the accounting
department. Division of labour, to take help from another popular (but
not misleading) term, is not only natural but also indispensable to any
society. So, all human beings are equal. There is no doubt about that.
But all human beings are not the same. God Almighty says:
We have apportioned among them their livelihood in the
life of the world and [have apportioned it in such a manner that We have]
raised some of them above others in rank that some of them may take labour
from others; and the mercy of they Lord is better than that which thy amass.
(43:32).
If all human beings are not the same,
then men and women too are not the same. (Boy! isn't this syllogism wonderful?).
Just as men by their very nature are not good 'mothers', women are not
in a position to 'father' children. An article in Fortune (July 30 1990)
discussed reasons why women still don't make it to the top in business.
The reason (as this writer perceived it) is only one: in most cases
they can be either of the two -- chief executives or (normal) women.
IsIam tells us that a woman deserves respect just as a man does even when
she is not jumping from roofs or flying aeroplanes. She deserves all the
respect just doing what she as a woman can do best. That is why as a mother
she may have to be respected by her son three times more than he respects
his father, but, as a wife, she has to obey her husband within certain
limits. Nobody is deprived of the reward he or she deserves; a poor man
giving ten rupees as charity may deserve as much reward as a rich man spending
hundred rupees deserves depending on the sincerity of each, which is something
only God can judge. A Mother doing her duty properly may be no less in
the eyes of God than the head of a state doing his part well. The Qur'an
says:
And in no way covet those things in which Allah has bestowed
His gifts more freely on some of you than on others; to men is allotted
what they earn, and to women what they earn; but ask Allah of His bounty,
for Allah has knowledge of all things. (4:32)
The verse points out the fact that if
a peon does his job well, he may be rewarded by God as much as He may reward
an honest and hardworking managing director. A woman -- a mother-- who
rears up a mujahid may have as much chance of entering the Kingdom
of Heaven as the mujahid who has been sent to the front to
risk his life for the nation. A woman's role as a daughter, a sister, a
wife, or a mother is no less important than the role of any man. In the
words of a Muslim scholar:'You give me Muslim mothers, and I'II give you
a Muslim nation’.
It is obvious from the same verse
that men are inherently better than women in some spheres of life, just
as women are better than them in others. For example, a woman's role as
a mother is one for which she is most suitable by her nature. Unfortunately,
modern society is haunted by an unfounded disdain for this role. `Women
are not just machines to produce babies' we often hear nice, young ladies
crying out. `Not just machines to produce babies'. That's some language.
`To produce babies' -- the collocation is hideously anomalous. Babies are
human beings. I'm sure if babies too could speak out and form an APBA (All
Pakistan Babies Association), they would point out that they are not `units
produced'. In the world of high fashion, where smiles are affected and
love is made of plastic, genuine respect for life is becoming dangerously
demode. Life is too sacred to be considered as homologous with product
of a machine. A man who saves one life in his lifetime does almost enough
to justify his own in this world. A man, even if he is the greatest tycoon
around, is not worthy of his life if he takes just one. To give birth to
life -- that is sublime. To perpetuate life -- that is almost divine.
A woman does it. She gives birth.
She perpetuates life. She becomes the instrument of God's benevolence
as the Creator. Her existence would truly be noble even if her role were
confined to just that. See the hive. The queen is doubtlessly the most
important member. It seems as if the whole activity of the colony revolves
round her. Her job: to perpetuate the life cycle of the colony. See how
the Qur'an refers to this role of a woman:
And we commanded man about his parents: -- his mother
carried him [in her womb] in weakness and hardship upon weakness and hardship,
and his weaning was in two years -- that [you O man] be grateful to Me
and to your parents; to Me is the return. (31:14)
This `weakness' of a woman which the Qur'an
mentions
is her strength, for to this frailty does every man owe his life and to
it must he show solemn gratitude. Therefore, in this `weakness' is a cause
for pride, not shame.
But yes, a woman's role is not confined
to just that. She does not merely perpetuate life -- which alone would
be enough to justify the existence of many a being --, she also nurtures
it. Her hands help in forming its character. She embellishes life. It is
her strength which manifests itself as the soldier's courage on the front.
It is her softness and delicateness which prevent the `de-humanisation'
of the soldier otherwise trained just to kill. It is her love which channels
his aggressiveness into a positive force. Indeed, there are times when
God makes her the only sane thing in the jungle of his life. No man can
ever dare disparage her role as a mother or a daughter or a sister or a
wife. In her lap, he finds an escape from all the harshness of life. In
her dependence, in her loving embrace, he finds a reason to live and hope.
In her purity, he sees his honour. In her love and loyalty he revives his
strength.
A woman not only gives birth to a
man, she makes him strong -- and she makes him human. What can be more
important than that? Making Shoes? Unfortunately, many belonging to the
world of `style' think so. `What's wrong with making shoes?' they ask (especially
when the lady doing it is the CEO in a large multinational). But hey! what
about the underpaid woman who makes shoes in the company's factory and
who would rather sit home and take care of her kids? (`Psst!' experts on
etiquette remind angrily `you don't raise such issues in high society’).
Yes, you don't. You do condescend to the poor and you do make expensive
plans in grand parties to alleviate poverty, but, seriously honey, all
this is for breakfast, not for dinner. CEO in a large multinational ...
well, it's glamourous, isn’t it? Certainly more fun than cooing over a
wet baby, especially when everyone is cooing over you.
O tempora! O mores!
Family is the basic and the most important
unit of any society. And a woman is a very important part of that unit.
The vacuum created by her absence is almost impossible to be filled. She
has not been forbidden to help her family financially just as the husband
has not been forbidden to help his wife in her baking -- after he fulfills
his responsibility3 of providing
for the family. Indeed, there are areas as medicine and education where
her contribution to society is greatly needed. But neither the husband
nor the wife can be allowed to neglect his or her basic responsibility,
for whatever they contribute to society while neglecting their basic duty
is bound to have greater cost than benefit (ceteris paribus). This natural
`division of labour' -- this discrimination -- is not wrong. It is justice.
And without it, the society stands to lose its sense of proportion.
But women are exploited -- and
in our society, in the name of this very `division of responsibility'.
The blame, however, must be placed on those who misuse the term for their
chauvinism. The best of ideals have often been used to justify the most
ignoble of deeds. Honesty has often been murdered in the name of honesty.
Men and women -- have a natural ability to justify their failings. But
inspite of the misuse, the ideal itself must not be cast aside, for the
fault, dear Brutus, is not in the ideal, but in the bosom of the one who
misuses it. If those who speak highly of honesty are dishonest, it does
not mean that society should settle for corruption. The solution lies in
making effort to remove obstacles in the way of honesty rather than in
doing away with honesty itself.
Speaking of honesty and corruption,
one is bound to think of a particular class of our countrymen -- the politicians.
If equality and similarity are not synonymous terms, and if men and women
are not similar despite being equal, then all politicians too are not the
same. (Warning: Logic can sometimes be injurious to health!). By that contention,
not every Tom, Dick and Harry ought to be elected. The helm of state should
be in the hands of those who are pious, altruistic and competent. Again
this discrimination would not be wrong. It would be justice. And good sense.
But I am rushing in where even angels fear to tread. I must stop before
I step on the tail of some politician to whom popularity is `the sole earthly
judge of right and wrong’. In a country where politicians belonging to
the affluent class roam about in BMWs and fifty percent of the population
does not even have potable water, popularity is easy to buy if you have
the dough. It's pathetic to see almost all the politicians, including the
maulvis among them, literally craving for popularity. No wonder the maulvi
truned politician usually has so much against the likes of Madame Nur Jehan,
who can attract a larger audience with just one of her `items' than most
mullahs can hope to manage in a lifetime. But as I said earlier, I must
stop. One must learn to mind one's p's and q's in this dear country of
ours. Freedom of speech is not so freely available, for in our society,
even where everyone should be the same in the eyes of the law, there are
some animals more equal than others.
|