A holy fuck

by night, i might be a blogger, but by day i slog through the hours at a shia channel in the UK, where i produce two shows covering politics.

i had tweeted a while back about callers who would shout "youse all are kuffar" before hanging up, but recently something new has started happening.

one of my shows has the blessedly generic name 'behind the headlines' where i round up a week's worth of stories relating to islam and muslims and then three hosts discuss them while taking calls.

last week, we did a show discussing the comments of Jack Straw, a former Labour cabinet minister, that Pakistani men "are preying on white women." the hosts then asked the audience if the statement was a valid one. they also made mention of the fact that Straw's own brother had been put on the sexual offenders list.

now the response was beyond anything our show had seen. pakistani callers of both genders nearly melted the phone lines as they chimed in with their vitriolic responses. but they weren't only concerned with Straw's comments, they were mega pissed that the channel had even brought up the question. in fact, days after the show we were still receiving emails literally bursting at the seams with venom over how our show sought to repeatedly bring up anti-pakistan stories.

now this was something i have long held disdain for. back in pakistan journalists would forever get pillored for promoting a 'negative' image of the country. in a month where pakistan remained in the news for blasphemy rows ranging over issues such as water glasses, business cards and posters, culminating in a brutal murder which was roundly appreciated by all and sundry, it's really not my fucking fault if pakistan is 'looking' bad.

and as my forays into both news and non-news media have blatantly illustrated, everyone loves the controversial, shocking, 'negative' stories far more over any uplifting, positive ones. moreover, i am sick to death of this refrain because if these problems do exist, the worst thing possible would be to start pushing them under the rug.

take the Jack Straw story again. he made his comments a week or so after pakistani gangs who ran prostitution rings got busted. now the stories in all the papers were about how they were using white women. no one bothered mentioning that there were a lot of asian women involved as well. why?

because for people like Jack Straw, the question is one of an event reconfirming a bias brought about their own anxieties. the bias being that pakis are up to no good. the anxiety being that these good-for-nothing pakis are ruining our beloved Blighty.

its not like Straw is alone on this.

for starters, without resorting to anything more than anecdotal evidence and personal experience, there is a impulse, nay a raging desire, amongst pakistani men to fuck white women. its not that they are the most obvious cultural marker of beauty of our globalised society, although its that also, but because of something simpler.

men like to play out their politics on women's bodies.

for the colonised brown man, the pain of being politically subjugated seeks relief through the physical conquering of the coloniser's woman. for the downtrodden minority, doing someone from the majority is meant to alleviate all other miseries.

of course, in actuality this far too often leads to self-hate and eventual acting out etc.

but that never subverts the desire to play out your ideology via a vagina.

take the partition for example. for so long, i have tried to rationalise or attempt to understand why the announcement of a homeland being broken led to a mass explosion of unrestrained sexual violence. i mean we all know about looting, plundering and raping hanging out in the same crowd. but widespread lopping of breasts and collecting them in sacks? forced circumcisions by the dozens? rape at such magnitudes that the governments for both the new nations actually had to develop policies of how to deal with rape-concieved-children-of-the-wrong-faith?

the only answer that makes sense is that the helplessness felt at being uprooted and having your home torn apart was alleviated by forcibly imposing a grotesque level of control through rape.

and its not like this, as we so often like to delude ourselves, was a one-off.

even now, our allums (you know, the big-ass flags you carry in war) are adorned with women. when the woman is aasia, her feminity and humanity are torn off and she is presented simply as evil incarnate. when it comes to aafia, her feminity is ramped up through the selective lens of mehramness, and she ascends as the daughter of the nation. no one has any clue about who they were as people, or even as women, yet deranged fanatics continue to projects their beliefs amidst their breasts.

because when women can be objectified, as a hole to put your dick into, an image to spill your semen on, a symbol for your desire to crawl back up the uterus, a standard bearer for all your morality and anxieties, it allows you to cloak yourself from the actual responsibility of dealing with them.

what do i mean by "dealing with them?"

well, i mean realising they are human.

now, i know you know that. but let's take this conversation down to a basic level. let's take it down to sex.

because you can say whatever the fuck you feel like, and your brain can make as many logical and rational and intellectual arguments as it wants, but your body and its urges always act in what you truly feel. and so its one thing to say platitudes about women, quite another to make love to her in a way which is equitable and enjoyable.

its an idea i have thought about often, even making a short film about this.

and i returned to it in quite a staggering manner. a person i interviewed told me about how in iran, the middle class families would snap up the books by the Imams on jurisprudence and the hijab, but no one would buy the books on sexual advice. and by that, i don't mean stuff about chastity and what not. i mean details on how to find the g-spot, on techniques of love making.

holy fuck, emphasis on holy.

and if you think that this is just khatmal mythology typical of this kuffar sect, check out what the Prophet had to say on this matter.

The Prophet said, "Three people are cruel: . ..a person who has sex with his wife before foreplay.'' (Wasa'il, vol. 14, p. 40) Another hadith equates sex without foreplay to animal behavior: "When anyone of you has sex with his wife, then he should not go to them like birds; instead he should be slow and delaying." (Wasa'il, vol. 14, p. 82) The Prophet said, "No one among you should have sex with his wife like animals; rather there should be a messenger between them." When asked about the messenger, he said, "It means kissing and talking." (Tahzibu'l-Ihya, vol. 3, p. 110)

as i was saying, holy fuck.

because it got me thinking, do all these doyens of religion, and those champions of equality and rationality, ever allow these thoughts into their bedroom? do they ignore the imperatives of their raging hard ons to try and get their wimmin hot and spicy? do all those millions who massed for upholding the Prophet's sanctity and protecting the daughter of the nation, do they try and see if their tongues and their thumbs can locate clitorises (or is it clitori?) does maulana fazlur rehman consider that reverse cow-girl might not be as fun for him, but it could be more fun for his zoja? or do our chest-thumping, equality now bloggeratis pause their impending premature ejaculations in an attempt to at least try and ensure that the match doesn't end with the female orgasm stranded on a golden duck?

cause eventually, all this talk of politics and rights and ideals are smokescreens obfuscating your own agendas, insecurities and beliefs. stop the talking, let your actions (and i mean this in the most colloquial sense of the word) prove your worth.

To Look or To Love - Voyeurism in Pakistan

This was meant to be a blog post - I had even written out the first para... then i decided it would do better as an idea for my first academic paper in like two and a half years.

so while the writing is not of the usual brilliance you have come to expect, and my non-plagiarized academic work is quite shabby, the contents are pretty contemporary and happening, so as the wise man said, "Enjooay..."

The aim of this paper is to use psychoanalysis to read two pieces of text in the form of e-mails. Both were written by students at a Pakistani university denouncing what they described as the “public display of affection.” But while the authors claimed that their protests were based on their values, this paper asserts that they were in fact a manifestation of their own voyeuristic tendencies.

I
A few weeks ago, one of Pakistan’s premier universities, the Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) made global headlines after its administration decided to “ban kissing on campus.” Many of the international newspapers covering this story chose to focus on it as an example of cultural clashes within a country fighting “terrorism.” However, the entire issue speaks of a lot more than a simplistic cultural divide in Pakistani society.

The controversy began with the e-mails themselves – the first text chosen for this paper was the one that sparked the debate. Entitled ‘To Love or not to Love’ it was sent out to all the university’s students. It sparked a huge reaction from the students as well as staff, and the second chosen text was one of the earliest responses to the original e-mail.

(both e-mails are included at the end of this paper in their original format)

However, before turning to read these texts, we must familiarize ourselves with the concepts that inform their reading.

Jean Michel-Hirt, drawing on Freud, describes the concept of voyeurism as a “a deviant manifestation of sexuality that involves looking without being seen in order to obtain sexual pleasure.”

II
Voyeurism however is not merely the act of looking at what is illicit – it actually inhabits a far wider and more complex range of actions. Thus it can also be understood as a “…‘refusal’ to be seen as an object and, thus, a negation of object loss. It is an exclusive concentration on visual mastery, on the first position.”

This drive to gain ‘exclusive concentration’ of looking has been identified by scholars as prevalent in the process of narration. The narrator, by removing itself from the narration, gains the ability to see (and tell) without being seen itself. Hence, scholars posit, “that narrative is fundamentally voyeuristic, concerned with the veiling and unveiling of objects.”

Now let us turn to the texts in question. The first e-mail, which began the controversy, opens with the following lines:

“I don't know what is wrong with the new freshman,and some seniors too,they have a special and an uncontrolled need to seek physical consolation from the members of opposite sex many times in a day,in public,and in places where EVERYBODY can witness it.”

An initial reading would suggest that the author is merely bringing to attention a case of widespread exhibitionism (‘physical consolation’) and its consequent voyeuristic behavior (‘where EVERYBODY can witness it.’) However, the first act of voyeurism is actually the very process of putting this incident into a narrative form. It is this e-mail which establishes a narrator, and hence a voyeur, and through its dissemination, invites others to partake in this voyeuristic act.

In fact, the dissemination of this narrative is also an important facet of both texts. In the first e-mail, after providing graphic details of various incidents the author has witnessed on campus, she goes on to issue this warning:

“…If nothing is done about it then i'll take pictures of such things and attach them with my emails for everyone to see.)”

The author of the second text expresses her agreement with this threat, and also promises to carry it out as well.

“Otherwise I, too, am in. I WILL take pictures of what offends me and send it to everybody to see.”

Now, the very act of narration had already turned the authors into voyeurs in an academic understanding. By expressing their ability to take photographic evidence, they seem to be coming across as voyeurs in the popular understanding of the term as well.

But more importantly, it is the dissemination of this narrative which transforms the authors from voyeurs to pornographers, since according to Charnon-Deutsch, “The narrator is the voyeur, the one who becomes a pornographer in his role as witness and distributor of the story.”


III
Originally, Freud had expounded upon the idea of voyeurism, and its counter-part exhibitionism, as part of a dichotomy based on gender. Thus the male was the voyeur, the female the exhibitionist, and woven intrinsically into this idea was the notion of the voyeur seeking "to resolve the problem of dependency by possessing or controlling the other … by making the other person an object." Furthermore, “in psychological terms narrating means seeing… in order to avoid being seen, exerting power over an object in order not to be mastered by it.”

Thus we understand that narration and voyeurism are in a fundamental way related to power, and the ability to exert control over the object of the voyeur’s sight. In light of this relationship, the authors’ threats of taking photographs, and the very narration of the incidents, can also be seen as their ability to reduce those indulging in exhibitionist behavior as mere objects, over whom they seek to exert control.

And this idea of asserting power over the objects is reinforced multiple times in both texts:

“I openly challenge the fake hypocritical "tolerance" and "liberalism" being promoted on campus…”
“I demand that a set of rules be laid out so that the "sentiments" of not-so-unclutured people are not hurt…”

The author also incorporates another traditional method of differentiating and objectifying those subject to her looking by describing them as

“…people who [are] involved in this proud display of animal instincts in man.”

The idea of comparison with animals has been traditionally used to deny the object “participation in civilization (language, thought, culture) which differentiates [it] from whomever is seeing...”

IV
But further our reading of these texts, it is also necessary to understand the dynamics of the voyeurism. Davis, drawing upon Lacan, writes, “seeing is but a function in a largely unconscious discourse that can be glimpsed in what Lacan calls… the ‘Gaze,’ and… the subject who looks is the one who precisely is ‘seen’ by the nonvisual Gaze.” Silverman further expounds this Lacanian concept by writing that “it is precisely at that moment when the eye is placed at the keyhole that it is most likely to find itself subordinated to the Gaze.”

The reason it is important to understand the relationship between the voyeur and the Gaze is because of the reaction the Gaze produces within the voyeur. Continuing with Silverman, who writes that once the eye is subordinated to the Gaze, “the Gaze surprises the [subject] in the function of the voyeur, disturbs him, overwhelms him, and reduces him to shame.”

And it is this idea of shame that is an integral part of establishing both these texts as voyeuristic.
“I demand that a set of rules be laid out… so that we can go home and NOT for once,hide from our fathers our of sheer shame of what they saw.”

The author expresses a double set of voyeurism here, firstly by witnessing the acts of exhibitionism and finding herself subordinated by the Gaze, and hence reduced to shame. The second act is of seeing her father seeing as well, thus turning his voyeurism into an exhibitionist act for the author, and once again transforming into the Gaze which reduces the author to shame.

This idea of shame and voyeurism is expressed more explicitly by the second author, who writes that:

“The weirdest part is that WE, the ONLOOKERS, end up going red in the face and we try to hasten away from the 'crime site'! As if its OUR fault that we caught them red-handed! Normal human reaction to being caught in such situations is to hide one's face in shame,but in this situation,we,the "not-so-uncultured" need to look away and get OUR sentiments offended in the name of hypocritical liberalism!”

Here, the author has identified herself as the ‘onlooker’ and is surprised and angered by the shame she feels in looking. Rosenman quotes Sartre on the subject, who writes that “I am ashamed of myself as I appear to the Other… I am put in the position of passing judgment on myself as an object…” Rosenman writes that according to Tomkins, the origin of shame also lies in “the failure of distancing that ought to mask an intense investment.”

Thus the shame provoked in the authors is not due to the idea of such acts occurring, but rather by having witnessed such acts and being reduced to shame by the submission evoked by the resultant Gaze.

Furthermore, the idea of distancing oneself from the object is also apparent in the chosen texts. The first author suggests that the ‘offenders’ should find more surreptitious locations for their activities:

“Why don't they go back to using the DRs at night? Or behind the sports complex? or in the hockey fields?”

The suggestion makes clear that the author is not opposed to the acts themselves, for they obviously satisfy the voyeuristic urge, but that she rather opposes their being carried out within such immediacy, which confronts the voyeur’s ability to see without being seen.

V
Despite the various nuances with which this paper has attempted to show these texts as voyeuristic, a certain protest can be anticipated, namely that the authors were not seeking to derive any sexual pleasure from their acts of looking.

Hence we must also understand how a voyeur experiences pleasure from his acts in order to understand these texts more properly.

According to Blank, “The voyeur achieves gratification in a complicated way. He looks at the forbidden, expresses aggression in his defiant behavior, avoids any commitment to interpersonal intimacy and, all the while, in his passive fantasy needs not surrender one iota of his ideals and imagined assertiveness.”

Blank’s definition largely encapsulates the actions of the authors as described in the text. As is clear, both authors admit to having witnessed ‘forbidden’ behavior. Their various threats, most notably that of producing and distributing photographic evidence, can be read as manifestations of their aggression and defiance. And finally, their numerous appeals to ideals of cultural and social values make clear that they do not feel the need to apologize for their voyeuristic acts, or even concede the higher moral ground. In fact, as one of the authors writes the offensive actions are leading to rumors that “most of the girls in the university are not virgins” and it is leading to the university’s “credibility” being challenged. This can be read as a justification proffered for the voyeuristic act within the garb of protecting ideals.

Therefore, we can see the how the authors were able to achieve voyeuristic gratification in accordance with the formula that Blank provides.

VI
In conclusion, our reading the two texts seeks to confirm the voyeurism of the authors. In order to do so, we have looked at how the act of narration is fundamentally voyeuristic. We have seen how narration and voyeurism are about power, and how the voyeur seeks to exert dominance over the object. We have also explored the idea of the voyeur being seen by the Gaze, and how that provokes a sense of shame. And finally we have seen how the voyeur gains gratification. With each intellectual leap, we have been able to read how the texts themselves conform to these facets of voyeurism, and how they can be understood as primarily voyeuristic pieces.
VII
As an afterthought, it is interesting to note that the university decided to ban “kissing on campus.” Since voyeurism is associated with power and control, it is probably no surprise that the exhibitionist act was ‘punished’ and the voyeuristic one ‘rewarded.’


Bibliography: Ahmed, Issam. "Top Pakistan university to ban kissing." Csmonitor.com. Christian Science Monitor, 14 Oct. 2009. Web. 31 Oct. 2009.
Benjamin, J. "The Bonds of Love: Rational Violence and Erotic Domination." The Future of Difference. Eds. Hester Eisenstein and Alice Jardine. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 41-70.
Blank, Leonard. "Nakedness and Nudity: A Darwinian Explanation for Looking and Showing Behavior." Leonardo 6.1 (1973): 23-27. Print.
Charnon-Deutsch, Lou. "Voyeurism, Pornography and "La Regenta"" Modern Language Studies 19.4 (1989): 93-101. Print.
Davis, Robert C. "Lacan, Poe, and Narrative Repression." MLN 98.5 (1983): 983-1005. Print. Freud, S. ‘Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality’, in The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud, trans. and ed. James Strachey, 24 vols. [London, 1953-74], 7:167).
Hirt, J-M, Voyeurism. International Dictionary of Psychoanalysis. Ed. Alain de Mijolla. Gale Cengage, 2005, eNotes.com. 2006. 31 Oct, 2009
Press Trust of India. “To kiss or not to kiss keeps Pakistani Tweeters busy” Hindustantimes.com, Hindustan Times, 19 Oct 2009. Web. 30 Oct. 2009.
Rosenman, Ellen B. Unauthorized pleasures: accounts of Victorian erotic experience. Ithaca, New York: Cornell UP, 2003. Print.

Appendix:
(Text 1)
Subject: To Love or Not to Love
Date: Sep 11 2009
Dear All
I have been reduced to throw this out there because of what i have been witnessing in Lums for around a month now. What has to be kept in mind here is the fact that the following has nothing to do with "religion" or with anybody's personal beliefs so please,refrain from sending any emotional "liberal" emails in reply to this.
Public Display of Affection.
I don't know what is wrong with the new freshman,and some seniors too,they have a special and an uncontrolled need to seek physical consolation from the members of opposite sex many times in a day,in public,and in places where EVERYBODY can witness it.
Quoting few instances: (Readers' Discretion is advised)
1) Standing at the main entrance,a girl stands on tip of her toes and kisses a boy good bye.
2) Lying in the lawn in front of the library,a boy rolls over the girl lying down beside him and remains in this posture.
3) Sitting in the academic block, a boy constantly rubs a girl's leg,which are already half bare,with his hand inside her capries.
(These are just few instances,i have no reason to make these up.If nothing is done about it then i'll take pictures of such things and attach them with my emails for everyone to see.)
Our (people who aren't involved in this proud display of animal instincts in man) parents come to lums to pick us up and they have,i can gladly say,some sense of social (MIND YOU,i didn't say religious) sentiment intact so they get offended. Our crediblity, and the credibility of our institution in our society is challenged when aunties spread rumors of most of the girls in lums not being virgin spread all over the city. Even my parents were reluctant to send me to lums just because of the "enviroment" here.
I openly challenge the fake hypocritical "tolerance" and "liberalism" being promoted on campus.If irreligious,uncultured (by this i mean those who don't respect a culture's values),unsocial have the need to be tolerated and have "sentiments" which need to be respected,then so do religious,cultured and social people.
This "tolerance" for each other has to be mutual.If we give some,then these people need to do it too.Why don't they go back to using the DRs at night? Or behind the sports complex? or in the hockey fields?
I have never seen a religious person reading their holy book out in the open then why can't they hide their anti social and irreligious practices too?!
I demand that a set of rules be laid out so that the "sentiments" of not-so-unclutured people are not hurt and so that we can go home and NOT for once,hide from our fathers our of sheer shame of what they saw.
I am hoping that the OSA will look into this so i have not cc-ed this email to the VC.
regards,
Tajwar.

(Text 2)
Subject: (Re:) To Love or Not to Love
Date: 13th September 2009
Thank you so much Tajwar for speaking out.
The weirdest part is that WE, the ONLOOKERS, end up going red in the face and we try to hasten away from the 'crime site'! As if its OUR fault that we caught them red-handed! Normal human reaction to being caught in such situations is to hide one's face in shame,but in this situation,we,the "not-so-uncultured" need to look away and get OUR sentiments offended in the name of hypocritical liberalism!
This is a "STUDENT AFFAIR", OSA stands for OFFICE OF THE STUDENT AFFAIRS. I hope those cc-ed in this email can see the OBVIOUS reaction this issue has raised and can respond and do something about it.
Otherwise I, too, am in. I WILL take pictures of what offends me and send it to everybody to see.
regards,
Nabiha

Phallic Phallacies

AMpakistanis who have lived abroad, or more likely studied abroad, always carry a hang up of having been there. they love making endless comparisons, using it perpetually in arguments, talking about the best quiche they ever had, the most stunning concert they heard, the most fun they had, the best drink they ever tasted - while they were abroad.
i should know - i am one of them.

my stories inevitably begin with "when i was in america..."

so this is one of them stories. *these*

when i was in america, at my college, we would have a weekly assembly, where people from various countries would mark their country's independence day with a presentation about their country, they would play their music and dress in their native clothes, and talk about their country in general.

now firstly 14th august fell during the summer vacations, so i didn't have an option for that. but in my second year me and my first year country mate did do something for 23rd march.

back in 2002, pakistan was a country not many people knew about, and almost no one gave a shit about. in essence, the good old days.we forsook the talking about our country for a two minute video. the first slide began with the claim that pakistan was a country that was the bomb.

that was followed by a montage of pictures of beautiful pakistani women, and those of our nuclear missiles, played over salman ahmed's version of the national anthem.

as i recalled that incident now, the first thing that struck me was how incredibly misogynist it was. but i also recalled it as a deliberate attempt by us about making people know where and what pakistan was by making obvious the two most shocking things about our country - that we had women who were not wearing burkhas, and that we had a far more naked nuclear obsession.

my friends were genuinely surprised, perhaps because at age 16-18 kids are not as politically inclined.

regardless, the prinicpal was aghast - she summoned us and lectured us about the inappropriateness of the message we were putting out about our country. she was almost weeping when she spoke about how much she would hate someone portraying her native Colombia in such a manner.

thinking about it now, i wonder why i decided to present pakistan in such a manner. instinctively, the first response i recall was wanting people to realise what and where pakistan was - i mean before the epicenter of terrorism stuff most people thought of us as somewhere between saddam and apu.i also remember that at that time i found our nuclear pride a bit hilarious - i didn't know whether to laugh or cry when the people of our bum fucked nation were distributing sweets in public to celebrate the nuclear tests.yet, i am still not sure if my eventual message was as genuinely satirical as i recall. because eventually, i was projecting the two things pakistan the nation, the construct and the state love doing - brandying off our nuclear power, and exploiting our women.


essentially, both impulses arise out of the strenuously patriarchal nature of our society. the phallic missiles aside, the nuclear bomb is a blatant display of geopolitical machismo.
it is perhaps the IR equivalent of wearing one of these.
as for women, i don't know if i really need to qualify anything here. women in pakistan exist in a surreal reality.
they are upheld as the barometer of our morality and values, and are hence punished barbarically if they stray even in the slightest from the standards we uphold for ourselves...
...yet at the same time, it is a national pastime to ogle at women, to fantasize about women, to poke women's private parts in public places, to fornicate with women with or without their consent.

for many young pakistani males, getting together to bang a hooker is an acceptable weekend activity. if my former driver is to be believed, in rural areas getting together to gang bang any woman is acceptable weekend activity.
we have found ways to make sleeping with nine year olds religiously acceptable, and if we feel that we must protect their honor, we have found justifications for marrying them off to the Holy Book.

essentially then, the interplay between women and nukes was so vital in my presentation (even though i didn't realise it) because it represents the pakistani psyche, with both elements representing integral parts of our masculinity - with the nukes being the national penis, and the women being the national penis receptacle.

put in such a context one can understand why just about every problem in pakistan is inevitably attributed to a foreign ploy designed to steal our nukes. in essence, we are afraid of being castrated by the big white man. we are afraid they will take away our penises.
so even though we are largely poor and illiterate as a nation, and remarkably fucking corrupt and lest we forget, in the eye of the global shitstorm, our primary obsession is the nukes and their planned theft.
because, as i just said, without the nukes we would be chakkay, heejray, na-mard.
so imagine the delightful irony of this delightful situation, described here in the words of my colleague

"The entire national security doctrine is based on the revenge of a lover..."

it appears that a couple of pakistani nuke scientists - oh those epitomes of our nation's valor - were willing to fucking sell out the nation's grassy diet for a little bit of cash. if we extend our analogy here in, some pakistani males were willing to castrate our national lun to buy some rolexes or what not. to make these guys even more scum of the earth, one of these fuckers had an office romance (which i find abhorrent) and then decided to jilt his lover.

motha-fucka.

in essence, the pakistani male is willing to chop off his own cock for the sake of some money, which he would probably spend on getting a hooker upon which he would realise that he no longer has a dick and thus the money and his penis would both go to waste.
now, as my fiance reminded me, it was a woman however, who helped us retain our luns, and thus through perverted pakistani logic, our murdangi.
and what makes this woman, who was also a nuclear scientist by the way, even more impressive, is that she did not do it for the national cock, but rather out of the fury generated by a love betrayed.
now if there is one thing we can do right, it's love. love is a good enough reason to do anything, and if someone fucks with your love, being delivered to the ISI is a pretty easy let off.

so next time you bitch and moan about the fact that the foreigners are looking to castrate the nation and run off with the nukes, remind yourself that those who rule, those who obsess about their phalluses the most, are the ones that are most willing to sell them off for some money.

like every other problem in pakistan, it seems that only those who are getting fucked will be around to save the country (and it's penis) when it needs them.

The Politics of Dance

Last year in Lahore, there was a running battle between the courts and the moral police in an attempt to ban dancing on stage. It was one of the first battles in a steadily intensifying culture war, which would later rear its head during the Shanakhhat festival, as well as the banning of Naseebo lal.

I had done this report back then...