Shit-kickers
October 25, 2007
A couple of days back I reproduced here an article by Jemima Khan, erstwhile spouse of Pakistani cricketer-turned-politician Imran Khan. Most of the comments it generated evidence an inability to distinguish the personal from the political: they focus on the writer’s person, rather than the merits of her argument. Shit-kickers of the Pakistani press — perennial apologists for the feudal order — took umbrage at JK’s insolence and responded, predictably, with more of the same (Check out that risible attack on Fatima Bhutto further down). However, I was disappointed to see CounterPunch, where JK’s article was first published, provide platform to more of this vacuousness.
After reading this particularly silly article I was compelled to write the following to the author:
Granted: Jemima Khan is no paragon of virtue. But in your puerile ad hominem attack on her you seem to overlook the simple distinction between the realms of personal and the political. JK’s personal failings may be of great interest to you — and to Pakistan’s miscellaneous gossip columnists — but they are of absolutely no importance to the millions of Pakistani indigent who struggle to eke out a living under impossible conditions. Benazir Bhutto’s political failings on the other hand have directly contributed to the exacerbation of these conditions (not to mention the role of her Interior Ministry led by Nasrullah Babar in establishing the Taliban movement which she now is vowing to combat on Bush’s behalf). Whereas JK’s criticism of BB’s politics was necessary and on the mark, your criticism of JK’s person is petty and vacuous, and belongs to the sordid tradition of mudslinging that perennially obscures issues of real significance in the Subcontinent’s politics.
Sometimes our leftist friends forget that merely carrying a ‘native’ name is not ample qualification for dispensing political wisdom.
