There are more than a few reasons Sahir Lodhi’s recent dramatic performance is so acutely mortifying.
The primary reason, of course, is how absolutely irrelevant his Sunny Deol styled monologue was. It was a straw man argument of the variety feminists have long become accustomed to. “Why do you hate men?” They never said that, but why let facts distract us from an invigorating and probably cathartic shouting match.
“Why did you insult Jinnah?” The female participant – Dr Saba Rizwan – never did that, but let’s consider for a moment that she’d indeed taken Jinnah’s name in vain.
The reduction of the Pakistani nation to 189 million member strong cult of Jinnah, is as much an insult to its people as Dr Rizwan’s speech was insulting to Jinnah. Respect towards political personalities is that which is offered willingly; what’s coerced out of people by a cudgel is ‘fear’. Essentially, Sahir Lodhi and the elderly professor of the panel did not call for Jinnah to be respected, but to be ‘feared’.
It follows the same principle as ‘Ehtram-e-Ramzan’ laws, for that matter. When ‘ehtram’ begs to be squeezed out of a cowering citizen caught eating a samosa at the wrong time of the day, through the threat of fine and imprisonment, it re-invents the very concept of ‘ehtram’. It rebrands the recipient of respect as a tyrannical force, which is ‘disrespectful’ in itself.
It is ironic that if there was anyone on stage who had actually mocked Jinnah, it was Mr Lodhi himself. Perhaps he misspoke, but he very clearly praised Jinnah for “sacrificing hundreds of thousands of people”. Through his comical error, he sided with Indian nationalists who have long asserted that Jinnah was a misguided politician leading people to their death like lambs to slaughter.
For as long as we can remember, ‘patriotism’ has been associated foremost with militarism and the soldier’s honour code. Patriotism has been treated as a wholly owned subsidiary of the archetypical male. Toxic masculinity has outright consumed the industry of patriotism which has no place for women, unless they adequately serve their role of writing sentimental letters and singing dirges as devout mothers and sisters of the patriots. These mothers and sisters, esteemed as they may be, are mere reflectors of the man’s glory just as the moon reflects the light of the sun.
The American women’s fight for inclusion in the army, particularly combat roles, has been reviled as an unpatriotic agenda; aiming to dilute the strength and efficiency of the combat units for social political reasons. A documentary about the rape culture in India was banned partly on grounds that it ‘misrepresented’ India and tarnished its image. Pakistani nationalists have often berated local feminists, and women the likes of Mukhtara Mai, for the same reason.
The construct of ‘patriotism’ has long served as a convenient tool for continued denial of rights to the marginalised, by glorifying suffering as a service to the state. When Kennedy famously said, ‘Ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country’, he effectively transferred the responsibilities of the state to the people, and encouraged them to take pride in their losses. It should be clear at this point that the ‘nation’ and the ‘state’ are two very different things, and patriotism is intended to serve the latter.
From the very moment Dr Rizwan began her eloquent speech on the crisis women are facing in Pakistan, Mr Lodhi bore a look of unmistakable hostility. However, he needed a reason to intrude upon Dr Rizwan’s plea for women’s rights, and a sentiment that sounded vaguely unpatriotic was his cue to dive in.
The awkwardness continued till the very end of the segment, with four women standing in line before the 49-year old actor, being tutored on the need to respect their national heroes and not sound so utterly negative.
By what means does the oppressor stand before the oppressed, preaching to the latter what oppression is and how it ought to be dealt with? It is done by invoking something supposedly ‘more important’ than women’s rights; more important that minorities’ safety; more important than our privacy and freedom; more important than the working class, liveable wage, and social welfare. It is done by playing the trump card of the State, and whatever icon is associated with it.
