Archives

Your responses to my Bhutto comments on CNN.com and CNN Int’l (Part 1)

Posted in Irshaddering Thoughts, Q & A on Jan 01, 2008

On December 29, CNN.com published my commentary about the mixed legacy of Benazir Bhutto. That night, I appeared on CNN International to discuss my views in a special program that otherwise canonized Bhutto.

Many of you have branded me tasteless, disrespectful, opportunistic and just plain selfish for refusing to practice hero worship.

Some have called my commentary a personal attack on Bhutto. But questioning someone’s track record is not the same as challenging their humanity. Surely people who believe in Bhutto’s democratic ideals would appreciate the essence of democracy: dissent.

Dissent is fine, others wrote, but why so soon after her murder? Let me turn the question around. Would media be interested in airing a balanced assessment of Bhutto’s achievements after her death ceases to be news? Sorry, people. That’s not the way journalism works.

Better that something thoughtful be published and criticized than not submitted at all because its nuance or timing will offend. If you can’t handle offense, then you can’t handle meaningful democracy.

Besides, big media already censor us enough. As one reader said, “When I wrote a comment about why Bhutto is not the martyr the Western world thinks, my comment was never published by CNN.com. A whole bunch of them which were pro-Bhutto and anti-you went online, but not mine.”

Debate pays tribute to the principles for which Benazir Bhutto stood. CNN showed guts to broadcast my views; now it’s time to broadcast the robust — and conflicting — responses that they’ve generated. Here’s Part One:

* “You must be the lowest form of opportunistic, sycophantic trash to attack a strong, good-intentioned woman immediately after her assassination. Assuming that you are not simply a tool of the status quo, attacking Bhutto mere hours after one of your anti-disestablishment, counter-cultural goons unnecessarily took her life and the lives of a hundred more shows an unbridled lack of class. This height of opportunism is one matched only by Bush/Cheney spin doctors and henchmen.” - Arlen

* “I am very happy that you have come out with a very honest appraisal of what her legacy is, rather than getting drowned by emotions. Although she came to power with socialist intentions carrying the famous ‘Roti, Kapra, Makaan’ [’Food, Clothes, House’] slogan of her father, nothing much was visible on the ground. As you rightly mentioned, the feudal mindset somewhere got the better of her.” - Venkat

* “Although I disagree with you that Bhutto actually wanted to do something good for Pakistan and not just loot it like she did in both of her regimes, it still has to be the best article I’ve read about the situation from a person of Pakistani origin.” - Jahiz

* “It’s very easy for a pampered academic like yourself to criticize Ms. Bhutto for adhering to feudal politics, or being unwilling to defy anti-rape laws, but politics is a practical business and it’s definitely not for the meek… If you’re so interested in the reform of your faith, why not go and live full-time in some of these Islamic societies that you opine about on the web? Perhaps it’s because you know that the anti-democratic forces in those those countries would immediately target a secular, feminist, lesbian intellectual like yourself in a heartbeat.” - Robert

Irshad replies: I’ve been called many things, Robert, but “meek” isn’t one of them. In fact, I’ve applied six times for entry visas to Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Each time, I’ve been declined.

During their self-imposed exile, Ms. Bhutto and her family lived in the United Arab Emirates. The UAE bans my website, never mind letting me physically cross its borders. How do you propose that I “live” in any one of these societies?

Then again, I don’t need to live in Pakistan, Saudi or Iran to be targeted. Death threats against me and other reformists come as readily from Muslims in the West as they do from the traditional Islamic world. We look forward to receiving your protection, Robert.

* “I know there are so many supporters of Bhutto out there would look at your article as an attack on her, and while I support(ed) Bhutto myself, I see it as a truthful remembrance. You did an honest and incredible job.” - Matt

* “It seems to me, an outside observer, that as the leader of a country with a sizeable minority of extremely radical Islamists, Bhutto’s existence as a candidate in the first place is a HUGE step toward modernization… Was she a saint? No. Was she a dirty politician? Maybe. Was she a brave woman? YES. To suggest otherwise is not only self-evidently absurd but offensive.” - Shaun

* “What is it with you feminists being utterly jealous of other strong women? There’s plenty of space on this earth for all you women. No need to choke your own species.” - Ali

Irshad replies: What is it with your sexist assumptions, Ali? When a woman critiques another woman’s record, is it always out of jealousy? Did envy drive historians who analyzed the administration of John F. Kennedy and concluded that he could have done much more for civil rights? And when Muslim women criticize me, shall I now tell them that “you’re just jealous”?

Women should never give each other a free pass merely because of our gender.  To do so is to indulge in the soft bigotry of low expectations.  I have higher expectations of humanity. That includes you, Ali. It also includes Alisa, our next writer, who shows that higher expectations can be fulfilled.

* “It is a pleasure to see someone with intellect captivating audiences globally. What a breath of fresh air to read something that one truly believes in regardless of whether others agree or disagree. Rejoice that you can convey your thoughts with style and grace!” - Alisa

* “Your diatribe against Benazir lacks rationality and shows your pathetically skewed lenses of reasoning.  How much time have you spent in a 3rd world country?  Instead of acknowledging the world of imperfection that exists in developing Muslim countries at a sensitive time like this, you have taken your myopia to cast down on a person who tried her best, in a society a million times more chauvinistic than your insulated, fluffy, cozy feminist Toronto existence.” - Omar

Irshad replies: In your own diatribe, Omar, not once do you explain how my reasoning is “pathetically skewed.”  Instead of citing examples, you take the lazy route and pounce on my “fluffy, cozy feminist Toronto existence.”

Would a cozy existence require me to have bullet-proof windows at home?  Or personal security at my public events?  And in reminding you of my realities, are you going to accuse me of playing victim or seeking more media attention?

Stick to the issues.  Tell me how my argument “lacks rationality.” Until then, you’re all emotion and no substance.

* “Your article is a reminder that the outpouring of emotion should not obscure an objective assessment of a leader’s record.  I’m reminded of the hagiographic treatment of John F. Kennedy until historians pointed to a mediocre record.” - Frank

* “You are just writing about Muslims to be Controversial and Make money. You aren’t Muslim. You are slut fucked by white dogs, so shut up.” - Adam, Djibouti

Irshad’s note to all readers: If you think Adam from Djibouti has a point, then you’ll love the next installment of this debate.  Stay tuned.  It only gets better from here…