Zeehsan Salahuddin
A Pakistani actor has been accused by his wife of horrendous domestic abuse, complete with photographs, accounts from witnesses, recorded calls, and explicitly detailed incidents.
In response the actor conducted a press conference. Her platform was a Facebook post, his was a sizable press conference. The obvious power/platform disparity aside, peeling the incredible layers of hyper-masculinity and toxic misogyny will take several encyclopedic volumes. But the presser does serve as a classic case of how, after 72 years of independence, women are viewed essentially from the same lens.
He said: “I’m old-fashioned, we don’t talk about a woman’s respect and honor publicly and in the media but now remaining silent isn’t an option.”
This is problematic on several fronts. For one, the implication here is that his wife, by virtue of bringing this to the fore, has already ruined their respect and honor; to hell with the fact that she may have had enough, and was trying to protect her in whatever way she could muster. For another, his language is that of a victim, and the victimhood card is a theme that permeates every aspect of this narrative. Finally, he claims he is old-fashioned, implying the wholesome, traditional values adhered to by any decent individual.
He also stated that he was “prepared for this day”, and that “She threatened to ruin my career and bring me to the streets. I was just waiting for it to happen.”
This ties back to the earlier point about victimhood. From the outset, while addressing an issue where he is the alleged perpetrator, he is using language, perfected in the ever-burning forges of misogyny, to convey his helplessness. He is but a victim of circumstance, inevitably hurtling toward disaster, owing to his union with a clearly unstable woman. He has simultaneously painted his wife as manipulative, conniving, and unhinged. These themes will also continue to emerge.
What is remarkable about this is that in an earlier statement he had said he was glad this came out, and relieved, and that he will now tell the truth of a toxic relationship. But after formulating the media strategy, and concocting a narrative that painted him as the victim instead, and his wife as Machiavelli, the tone and tenor changed dramatically.
He said his wife was using the “aurat(woman) card”.
The obvious interpretation is that he is claiming she is playing the victim. But that is a pedestrian conclusion and a rudimentary analysis. This goes much deeper than that. The underlying assumption here is that women are weak and vulnerable by nature; and that they can only get ahead /win/put you down by playing the victim card, as they are never really negotiating from a position of power. This further feeds into the pre-established narrative that she is scheming and deceitful. With just two words, Haider invokes more hyper-masculinity and toxic patriarchy than most of us mere mortals do in, say a week?
He added: “Why do we always play the woman card? Not every wailing woman can be right; why can’t men be wronged?”
This is a fair question. The problem is twofold: evidence, and mathematics. Evidence wise, it is overwhelmingly in his wife’s favor. She has photographs, witnesses, and recordings with police officials. Mathematically, the statistics are also overwhelmingly on her side. Pakistan is a country known for despicable forms of violence: the most egregious: honor killings and acid attacks, and the most common: domestic abuse.
His explanation of the various bruises and injuries was “a fall from the stairs”.
Draw your own conclusions.
He said: “I could’ve said after the separation that he’s [their infant son] her responsibility, she should work and take care of her child but I didn’t.”
Translation: “my wife should be grateful that I am willing to fulfill my minimal obligation as the biological father to my child.”
He was accused of being caught red-handed with another woman, an allegation he does not deny. He allegedly beat her up during the incident (among other times). In the presser, he said as reported by Dawn, “Fatema is doing this in reaction to him wanting to get married again, which he said is his religious right and Pakistan’s constitution gives him permission to.”
First, if he can ask the question of why she stayed after all the abuse, the same can be asked of him, if the relationship was that “toxic.” Second, strictly under Islamic law, he is allowed four wives, but according to religious experts, only if he has explicit permission from his previous wives. Third, the Constitution of Pakistan has no such stipulation; it comes under Islamic law and precedent. Ultimately, this paragraph is surface level, an attempt to address factual discrepancies. The real problem is the implication in these statements.
The implication here is that as a Muslim man, he is allowed to have multiple wives. The underlying sub-text here is that he is pious, and righteous, and well within his rights. The statement further implies that she is in the wrong, as she should be an obedient wife, and give him permission to lay with up to three additional women of his choosing, and that by denying him this right, once again, he is the victim and she is the perpetrator.
After 72 years of independence, Pakistan’s patriarchy has perfected certain aspects of its narratives. We are exceptionally good at grafting components of these narratives into any given situation to help the man stand out righteous, and the woman mad. In the service of these goals, religious piety, cultural context, and social taboos are all weaponized and fired with lethal precision. After 72 years, we calmly believe a man when he says he did nothing, but even with evidence, we are unable to side with the woman.
Perhaps, as an experiment, we should just believe women for a year. We have done so for men for 10,000 years of recorded history. Perhaps that will be the shot in the arm we need, to see the depth, breadth, and scale of the problem from the other side.
