I think President Pervez Musharraf should seriously consider dropping his clothes. That is, if he wants to be considered a statesman and not somebody who sent Nawaz Sharif on a permanent Haj. Why this need to continue to wear the General’s uniform? Does he not realise how ridiculous it looks when he is photographed sitting before a portrait of Jinnah in fez cap and achkan? How can you discuss diplomatic ties with a man who has medals pinned on his lapel for doing undiplomatic things? These are petty questions compared with the most important one: Has the President discovered women and does he want to keep them happy?

This is no idle thought. It is a fact. Women get turned on by men in uniform. I have never understood why. Here is an attempt to find some answers. This is not a reflection on the role of the Armed Forces in protecting a country. We are talking about gender and power dynamics of a certain type of clothing.

I cannot stand the sight of a man in uniform. The whole idea of a Nobody being transformed overnight into something special only because he can march in a straight line is silly. Yet, why are women attracted to such men? Do they think that men become different by wearing fatigues? Are they impressed by their discipline, their music, their barked-out orders, their weapons?

And if it is the uniform that has attracted the woman in the first place, then what happens when the man is out of it, say at home or in bed, stripped off medals, bereft of his beret? Does her attitude towards him change? How does she react when she hears him grumble about superiors and juniors, about the corporate sector, and the good life outside of their confines?

The most obvious reason why men in uniform appear so appealing is because they ooze power. Very few of them are in this field for patriotic reasons; it’s just another job opportunity. Many look on it as experience to jump into a more profitable profession. Yet, just togged up in that uniform they become important creatures. They can get things done, they can demand an explanation and they just seem so fearsome. People like to have someone to look up to, to feel confident that they will never be harmed. As a matter of fact, the power rubs of on those the powerful deign to associate with. For example, there is no earthly reason why army wives should follow a strict hierarchy, but their very position gives them this advantage.

The uniform makes the man feel he does not need to be anything else. These grand men could be so very ordinary, and to think one has to trust them with our lives only because they can walk around in a starched uniform, reverse arms smoothly and salute some dhoti/sherwani-clad minister. The accusation of ’brainless brawn’ is not entirely hollow. Men of action are not supposed to think. It works as a defence mechanism when they are seriously incapable of doing much besides their job. There is a ghettoisation of sorts where their social parties are essentially entertaining only on account of their reminiscence of what they did on the front.

Besides the aggressiveness, what attracts women is the underlying layer of sacrifice. In their dreams women love the idea of a man bleeding to death for a cause. So obsessed are they with male martyrdom that very often if after the death of the husband they think of a second marriage it is to someone from the Armed Forces.

Why do women seek out men whose life is in danger? It gives them a sense of working for a larger purpose and to act as the all-enveloping ocean to the tossed-about boat. However, if added to the woman’s ’superior’ position is the man’s heroism in upholding certain values, in whatever ways they may manifest themselves, then the uniform becomes a symbol. Man and outfit at some stage become one.

It is this uniformity that makes life relatively easy for people. How many individualists are there in this world who will stick their necks out and seek their own course? And how many people are there to find a criterion to judge them with? We like to see men belonging to safe categories whereby we can flaunt those we know with the firm belief that the person will be a recognisable class, if not a well-known entity.

Do civilian men lack all these qualities? Can they not be powerful heroes and belong to a section of society that has enough respect? They can and they do, but the reactions to them are different. If they do something with a flourish and some style they will be branded ‘filmi’ only because they don’t have the uniform on; an armyman doing the same will be called a gentle giant. An officer’s temper tantrums are attributed to his authoritarian and upright personality; the ordinary fellow’s is said to be part of his tyrannical attitude. The man in uniform risks his life when he stands in the middle of the street with his chest puffed out for no particular reason; the civilian doing the same will be accused of being a hindrance.

Are they really two distinct individuals? The man in uniform has a chip on his shoulder, which will be even more visible when he’s out of his suit. After spending so many hours barking out orders, he finds adapting to a different situation tough and may go overboard. The wife or lover can rarely cope with the change. She expects the authority figure. The women who marry such men fall into three categories: wide-eyed adolescents who fantasise about cantonment homes, neat lawns and waltzes, or motherly figures who think they can control and channelise the hostile streak, or women who like anecdotes and were used to bedtime stories in their not-too-distant childhood.

And what of those of us who do not care for such men? I detest the idea of uniformity. Of a status quoism thrust upon you. Of subservience to a goal and ideology you may not believe in. Of believing in an enemy you do not know. Besides, men in uniform represent the nasty face of society. Dealing with dirt, blood and tears does not in any way elevate them.

The civilian may have many flaws but he is at least not trapped in some khaki outfit which he is supposed to caress with the enthusiasm he should reserve for other things. The armyman knows when to; the civilian knows how to.