Pardon me for being slow on the uptake, but I am trying to understand the brouhaha about Veena Malik. Is she being accused of what or who she is or being herself while on the ridiculously named Indian reality tv show, Bigg Boss?
This matter of clarification is important because if she is what she is then she would be what she is regardless of where she is. That is to say, if the woman is generally not looked upon as marriage material and cant be taken home to ones mother while she is in Lahore, how can one expect that she would exude piety while in Mumbai?
And if the answer is that she would be what she is, or is considered to be such, irrespective of geographical bounds, then why this ruckus?
Let me clarify at this point that before this controversy broke out, I had no lowdown no pun on Malik. But the controversy got me interested in finding out about her so congratulations to the critics for making it work for her. Among other websites, there is an entry on her on Wikipedia which tells me that she was born Zahida Malik and shares my birthday. Damn, a fellow Piscean!
The entry also lists other controversies including one about her alleged nude pictures and providing escort services to cricketer Mohammad Asif. But given that I cant recall either, it seems neither evoked much interest here. So, my research question remains: why is the national flagpole getting a rise now?
Could it be that it is more acceptable for a woman to be immoral at home than while she is abroad, in this case, India? If yes, then it would seem that the issue pertains less to her supposed immorality and its expression and more to where it is being expressed. For instance, would it be more acceptable if she shared a bunk or a blanket or whatever the heck she is accused of sharing with a Pakistani male than with an Indian Hindu male? Would the percentage of her immorality lessen a little if she bunked with a Muslim Indian?
Or let me put it another way. Lets assume one of our channels was hosting some such programme and it had an Indian actress who was bunking with a Pakistani man. How would we react to that? Let me guess: we would watch the programme, remark that the Indian women are loose and feel happy that one of them was on the programme for our voyeuristic pleasure.
Now if my assumptions are right, then I am afraid the issue is not about who or what Malik is; it is also not about nationalism. It is about some of us being swinishly men, that primeval instinct of possession expressing itself through a nationalism sacralised by religion.
From what I have read about Malik I quite believe she is not Mother Teresa. But then neither am I or the guy next door St Paul. The point is that unless we are prepared to say the world is meant to be domiciled only by saints and popes, and not, lets say, lawyers, journalists and police officers, we could safely make space for women like Malik and Meera and, I dare say, many others.
The issue of morality is a tricky one and in this country, where we have conflated sin and crime, trickier. So, instead of criticising or praising Malik for being a good or bad artiste, which would be a perfectly legitimate exercise, focus as it would on her professionalism or the lack thereof, we choose for our vitriol issues that are best left to individual choices.
This is not to say that societies do not, and cannot, have collective benchmarks. Laws are a legal-normative expression of what is considered acceptable or unacceptable. But there is a big difference between laws grounded in rationality and social debate and morality determined by religious or creedal certainty. Laws can be calibrated and reframed through legal realism; morality defined in religious terms, by being self-referential and outside time and space, denies human debate and change.
Being punished for drinking per se and being charged for drunk driving are two different issues. Being punished for having a boyfriend and being charged for defrauding him are two different issues. The benighted Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has laws that would be considered idiotic and laughable if their impact were not so oppressive. It shouldnt surprise anyone that almost all are based on some interpretation of religion and cannot be debated and reformed precisely for that reason.
The issue, therefore, is not Malik, possibly a below-average woman who wants to make it big in the only small way she knows and is capable of, but the kind of state and society we have created. Allah be praised!
The writer is Contributing Editor, The Friday Times.