Akbar Mai

i kind of agree with dehati, plus the ending was quite abrupt, may be the author had a fascination with those panchaiat news stories which made headlines few months back.

Re Khan :

Hey Time out, I stand corrected. Happens all the time when words by themselves take precedence over their usage I guess.

An apology is due. am sorry

I am sorry to say that this piece of writing is thoroughly disappointing. The story has very little depth and poor character development. It is an absolutely pathetic attempt on part of the author to raise a controversy. While there are real issues in our society regarding widows and the treatment they receive, a better spokesperson for them is required than Mr Afzal Upal.

Re: Rishi

I am surprised Rishi, that you missed the bludgeioning sarcasm in my remark about people believing that it is all the fault of Hindu culture and a Zionist conspiracy.

I may be witty/funny as you say but you certainly need to have your wits about you so you know when you are in opposition with someone`s views and when you are in total agreement. From your remarks it seems like we are in agreement that these ARE NOT the causes of all the ills.

Re :

there they go again

`` M. Sheraz Nasim said ---

I am replying in response to the story ``Akbar Mai``. It is one nice story that may reflect the evils of society wich we have adopted from the Hindu society with time. ``

In india, when a hindu wants to take more than one wife and if he fears the law he first converts himself into a muslim atleast for name`s sake. this is a fact with most of our hindu (read not hindi alone) film actors . can hindu then blame the practice of polygamy on the influence of islamic culture. if they do that it would be as crappy and pathetic an excuse as Sheraz Nasim`s .

And are the Taliban in Afghanistan too influenced by Hindu culture that they imprison their women and force men to grow beards.

Come on, give me a break. Don`t blame someone else for your ills and perversities. I have studied Islam and the religion by itself does not sanction such perversities. Rather than that, the unquestionable authority and the absoluteness that people derive for themselves from Islam, lets them decide things as it favours them. Islam would be a more wonderful religion if only dissent and debate are not subjugated by the followers of Islam. Remember that even the prophet allowed debate and dissent. Islam was democratic even when it evolved. I am sorry to say that It is only you rabid individuals who are responsible for such perversities not islam and neither is Hinduism.

Re : Khan

Religion by itself does not control the wrongs and rights of men. In reality, it is more to do with the extent to which the law pervades the said society. Therefore, if Sayyid and Hassan decided to wreak revenge on Akbar Mai, they just used Islam as an excuse (although probably an inaccurate excuse at that). It was however done only as a result of male chauvinism, feudalism, and perverted perceptions still prevalent among all of us. Well power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

However, religion is always a checkpoint against absolute power. that too organized religions have more of these checkpoints (islam vs hinduism) . Given this fact, isn`t it amazing that in Islam inspite of the fact that authority and power are ascribed only to Allah, ordinary mortals under the guise of spiritual heads ascribe themselves to the same power and authority to which they are not entitled to. Any thoughts ........as to why ?

And Sir Khan, you really are a funny man,,,,

You said :

Of course in th end as well all know all our ills either are inherited from ``Hindu Culture`` or befall us due to a Zionist conspiracy.

.

Does this mean that you accept your Hindu Past, that your culture is in essence Hindu culture or is it a case of passing the buck ...

Let me repeat, you indeed are a funny man

Last I heard, Saharanpur was in India.

Anyway this work, in the footsteps of Manto with all eyes cast on the single woman with suspicion and the irrelevance of her rights in the eyes of her culture, is almost too real. Whether the ending is seeped in reality or not, who amongst us has not heard of the fake ``Sayyid`` and the the most interesting part of the Punchayat system in which the absence of the female gender is taken for granted or not necessary.

But in my humble opinion,the most important

aspect of this work is not that Islam is

represented in any way shape or form here

but that in the culture represented, no

matter what the wrongs done by men, ``justice``

appears to be meted out to the women, and

it is their suffering that pays the price. It is there that Afzal Upal has succeeded

in getting the message across brilliantly.

Great job.

Ras

Man, im surprised so much importance is being to a piece of writing that THROUGHLY DISSAPOINTED ME. The setting in the beginning began aupisciously enough but to leave us with what? a very open-endned, non conclusive conclusion. how awful. the discussions going on right now abut womens rights in pakistan is ``cute``. We all KNOW women have little-to-no rights there..we are seen as sex objects and maids..and merely that.

What saima said rings very true and it depends on the houshold as to how much affection u recieve, how much schooling, how much decision making. I`m still surprised that this unfinished, half baked ``story`` made it into chowk. The writing was lovely, really it was but, umm..what was point? to let us all now what happens in rural villages? to make us want to get up and fight for womens rights? womens rights EVERYWHERE need to be fought for..BUt that agian, is another tangent that this discussion doesnt need to go into.

just wanted to say...this piece would make a lovely story is ONLY the charactrs wer more drawn out and not so one dimensional.

Re: Mr Khan`s queries on my earlier reply:

1/ I am saying Women do not have `equal rights`. At best we enjoy priviliges granted by mere fact of being borm into a more open minded family. These priviliges range from food,schooling to love and affection depending on how generous or liberal the father is.

2/ Widows don`t get these priviliges.

3/ In general society treats women without men with even
less respect than they do /women/.

4/ Deliberately ostracized? More like thought `manhoos`.
I know for a fact that in Mehndis only married women with
children do the `rasams` for the bride. I think the example
should clarify what I mean by rights and priviliges.

5/ `That pervasive` is a vague term. Do you mean whether
women without men of my acqauintance suffer? Yes.

In our society, fatalism is deeply imbedded. We constantly hear that
a man`s prosperity is due to his wife`s luck. Haven`t you heard
duas like `Allah batiyon ki kismet achi karey. Isko shohar acha miley``?
May be you have not. I have.

What the above leads to is pretty obvious. Somehow it is the woman`s
fault.

Why are women socially inferior but still held responsible (which is
really why a woman can`t sign as witness but can incur debts)? That
is a tangent too vast for this section.

I think we`re beginning to enter urban myth territory here. Could we get a census on how many rural widows the readership actually knows? (pun unintended)

I would take a contrary view and suggest that with the exceptions of witness and inheritance women do have equal legal rights but lack suffrage.

It is not the law that needs changing. It is a defunct and obsolete value system. We are not likely to make that change unless we recognise that fossilisation is not the way to perpetuate a culture.

Re: Saima`s reply on rights of Widows

So are you saying that a widow`s rights are fewer than those of other women??``An extremely inferior status``?? Is it your opinion that in general the society treats widows with LESS respect than women?? Deliberately ostracized because of superstitions like ``Dain upna mian kha gai``?
Are these that pervasive??

My second hand experience does not completely agree with that. The widows life is very empty (and society is to blame for that - for not giving her an opportunity to live again and almost expecting her not to live again) but I can`t say that she is treated as an inferior being because her husband died, that she is somehow held responsible for it.

Re: Query on rights of widows in an ``Islamic Society`` such as ours in Pakistan: Very few. Practically speaking, She may live...but as unobtrusively as possible and with due regard to her extremely inferior status of being A Woman Who Survived Her Man. Was that how it was supposed to be? I frankly don`t know. Being a woman I can`t witness legal documents in Pakistan alone but need another woman`s signature. This is according to the Shariat and passed in the ``Qannoon e Shahadat``. It is interesting also that women may enter and sign contracts, personal guarantees etc. but not witness an act. By the same token, rights of women (or women without men) is a very confusing issue in our set-up. We have not decided whether women should exist on male sufference only or as equal members of society. I think `male sufference`` is a common attitude in most Pakistanis, rich or poor. In other words women get `priviliges` in certain sections of Pakistani society but ``rights`` are only for the men.

I can`t see what the fuss is about, since this is so normal for us sub-continent lot to hear and see. So a woman any woman no matter what age is seen as an object. What is new about that? Nay, what has Islam got to do with it? Islam or any religion is what you (panchayat) make of it. Sorry if I tread on toes here. But really a sociological fact is that the `values` of a society are what serve the purpose of the stronger sections. In this case men are stronger...therefore more `equal` more `right` than a little girl who supposedly made `eyes` at an idiot or a mother who works to fill her sons stomach. Good heavans. Somehow the woman is always more responsible for anything that goes wrong. A wayward boy is some `womans` fault. Sadly the mother blames the little girl never her own son. Woman against woman..how well-conditioned women are to accept this perpetuating role of being children of a lesser god. Thanks for a good story thats too real.

If this is a true story, the author should
say so. If it is, then it should be presented
without dramatizations by the author.

The author (and the editors of chowk) need to
feel responsible for all that people take
away from articles posted on this magazine.
I am asuming that both the autor and editor
of chowk are, at least partially, aware of the sort of confusion this article can geenrate among people, specially those not familiar with Islamic principles in any detail. To others, it may serve as false ammunition against Islam. There is a hadeeth to the effect that if one cannot say something good, then one should keep quiet.

I can understand the frustration of people with some of the ways in which things are conducted in rural areas in Pakistan. But I think that if the aim is to fix them, then a direct approach (descriptive, corrective or diagnostic) should be taken. Please feel
responsible for all your actions. If you are angry, it doen`t mean you can say things in any which way you want. Anger does not absolve one from religious resposnibility.

Islam is a way of life. It should be reflected in the way we write our litrature.

May God guide us all and forgive us our mistakes. Aameen.

I agree with the last post. The descriptive passages at the start of the story were far more entertaining than the ending.

The story begins to explore a number of issues, one alluded to by ``Khan`` (anyone else think this is a pretty painful pseudonym for our editor to use?), is that of ownership. The story suggests that the aggrieved party was the parent or ``owner`` of the child, and so the just response was that a possession of the culprit (the mother) be similarly abused. This is probably the truest and most awful of the tenets of our ``black legislature`` although unlikely to be manifested in quite this form.

Another interesting issue, discussed in the replies to ``My Fallible Lord`` is that of maternal instincts. Is the undying love of a mother, driven by a stubborn refusal to face reality, a positive attribute in anyone? I certainly don’t think so and it clearly cost Akbar Mai a great deal.

I would also have liked to have heard more about the implications of Akbar Mai’s own thoughts. Khursheed needed to be beaten up. There is a ten year old girl who is alluded to as a sexually functional adult. I wonder how much of this percolated into the vagrant son.

Much as I would like to jump on M. Sheraz Nasim’s post I’m not going to, since its quite refreshing to hear a dissenting voice on Chowk, however misguided, and while it is not as fashionable as blaming the gora’s for our the ills of our society I don’t think its technically very different.

It appears that the author rushed to bring the ending in, which is unfortunate since I think a lot of us would have enjoyed seeing him explore the other aspects of the story in more detail.

I don’t think we should forget that the story is a caricature. A good caricature notwithstanding the slightly forced ending, but still not necessarily representative of society at large. Earlier posts mention how true to life this story is. I doubt too many of the posters are speaking from direct experience. The thoughts are accurate though.
An excellent first effort. I would like to see more by this author. He simply needs to be a little more patient with his ideas.

Re: ``Shariah``

Exactly! Sayyid Sahib Said....

The problem is not the Shariah but but Sayyid Sahib and his punchayat who can do anything with feudal impunity and CLAIM that it is as per Shariah, tradition etc.

BTW ``rape for rape`` would seem far more logical (and just) than what happened
here. Khursheed is not sentenced to be homosexually raped (which would have been a ``rape for a rape``). Instead of the criminal, an innocent relation of his - the mother - is sentenced to rape. So to say that this story equates Shariah with ``rape for rape`` is wrong on two counts: it does not contain rape for rape and what it does contain, is clearly the device of the judges and not of Islam or Shariah.

Of course in th end as well all know all our ills either are inherited from ``Hindu Culture`` or befall us due to a Zionist conspiracy.

Back to the story: I felt that the realistic depiction of domesticity had a more sustained impact on me than the stunning end.

The way I read it and I quote ``Sayyid Sahib said that it was the only just thing to do.... Therefore, Sayyid Sahib said, the Punchayat, in accordance with the tradition and the Shariah, ...``

Seems like the Sayyid Sahib`s interpretation of the ``tradition`` and the Shariah is the main problem. IMHO opinion, this story describes what is so commonplace amongst us - using religion to serve our pathetic feudal fancies. I know it hurts to see this expressed but I also know that it will hurt more, even eradicate us from the face of this earth, if we dont recognize the problem and attempt to solve it.

To me the story is an allegory for many events. Rape is only one of them.

I found this to be a very stirring read. Especially liked all the urdu words in it. I wish though that the sketchy treatment of characters and situations had been elaborated. More dialogues (perhaps mostly in Urdu?). Some more character development. Khursheed is very one-dimensional in his awaara ways, e.g.

Basically I almost feel that a novel has been hastily summarized in this short story. And the novel has a sequel too.

Anyway, it is very moving tale. Too fantastic to be anything but based on a true happening.