You want to make it famous? Then ban it

I just read this on Dawn News that a Canadian Muslim group has banned the wearing of head scarf by Muslim women as it, and I quote, ‘marginalizes women’. I find this whole banning business to be quite amusing to say the least. I mean, don’t they know, if you want everyone in the world to wear a head scarf, then just go ahead and ban it completely!

Amazing stuff, this. And it always, always works. You being the government or in power, find something that is offensive for whatever reasons, so to get rid of it, you do what all governments or people in authority do, you ban it. And a wonderful thing happens: the thing you banned, yeah, that very thing that you wanted to just go away, that very thing becomes famous beyond belief. Sure, for a brief period, the ban seems to work. There is less of that banned stuff going around. But it reemerges and with a vengeance. It has worked like this so many times that it is purely amazing that no one seems to get it.

That’s how Rock n Roll became the language of rebellion for America. The *ahem* church of America found Elvis to be evil. They despised the new ‘dance inducing’ music and publicly tried to ban it. They came on TV, men in suits and oozing decency, breaking LP records by smashing them onto tables. They wanted the evil of rock and roll to go away, so they banned it. Of course, Elvis still has the most number of fan clubs in the history of the world. And that is the reason Rock and Roll is still considered to be the language of rebellion (something that Pakistani rockers get confused over, but that’s for a different post).

Let’s get a bit closer to home, let’s come to Iran. This guy, let’s call him Salman (because er… that’s his name) wrote a book that offended the powers-to-be. They banned the book and banned the existence of the author. I hadn’t heard of him here in Pakistan, but then I wanted his Satanic Verses to ’see for myself’ why the book was so bad! Sulman Rushdie is, was and will remain a technically sound writer (he won the Booker Prize in early 80’s, before he wrote the Satanic Verses), but he was shot into the world’s consciousness by the ‘death warrant’ of a ban.

If you have had the pleasure of reading Richard Branson’s autobiography, in it he narrates the story of how they had hoped for the controversial rock band Sex Pistols to get banned by the UK government. Being in the music publishing business, they knew that the moment the band would get the boot from the government, the crowds would buy the record either out of curiosity or rebellion or both. And the government did ban them, and the crowd did make Sex Pistols’ album one of the most sold album in British history.

America banned alcohol in the 20’s. That gave them Al Capone and organized crime. Bootlegging was the thing to do, because the people wanted it, and now it was not allowed. Compare that with the situation in Pakistan: alcohol is not allowed to be openly consumed and a small underground economy is running as the bootleggers cash in. But no one’s getting the riches a bootlegger in the States would get in the 20’s. Why, what’s happening? The public opinion in Pakistan about alcohol is what’s happening. People, generally, do not approve of this and hence a government ban or no ban, the thing doesn’t get ‘famous’. The solution always remains what I’d like to call tableegh and some call education (both are the same, really). Banning doesn’t change public opinion, and public opinion is what makes thing stay or go away.

Ban this ban that

There are more subtle variations of this attitude of ‘banning’ that really destroy the intended reaction. Take for example, you average Father ‘banning’ the kids to play with the revolver tucked in his bedside drawer. Of course, the moment kids get a chance, as they always, always do, they will somehow get into the drawer to just ‘look at it’. I know of a person who, being a gun collector, gave his two sons, then aged nine and seven all the guns to actually play with. He sat with them for an hour or so, with the guns with the boys. He casually talked about how guns could be dangerous, how one can avoid gun accidents and how to handle guns safely etc. Compare that approach to the Father who strictly ‘bans’ the handling of guns by young kids. You get the picture.

I see this ‘banning’ attitude everywhere, and it is quite understandable, agreed. But that does not make it acceptable. Bhutto (the real one) effectively ‘banned’ the Ahmedis by declaring them non-Muslims, whereas they still claim to be Muslims. This pushed them further into a corner, and as minorities always stick closer together, so did the Ahmedis. A more cohesive, tolerant approach would have laid the whole Mirza of Qadian controversy bare.  Ban them, and it will all go away. Damn it man, it never does because that’s not how it works!

Consider what the Talibans are doing? Or have done. They found a few things unbearable, so they banned the women from going to school, they forced men to grow beards (or banned a clean shaven face) and what happened? They didn’t and still don’t get much support from the population. You may consider this example to be ’stretching it’ a bit too far, but given the time, I can show you how this is directly linked to this attitude of “I will ban it if I don’t agree to it”. This only pushed people in a corner, and that gives them all the support they need to resist over time. Reasoning with people, or *gulp* tolerating another person’s take on things is not easy, agreed. But that is how it should be. Convenience should be considered, only to be discarded. Do what is right, not what is easy.

Please note, I have deliberately tried to stay away from commenting on the decisions of banning themselves. Banning Rushdie was right or wrong? Declaring Ahmedis as non-Muslims was right or wrong? Elvis? Sex Pistols? Yes, banning ‘anything’ almost always proves to be a wrong decision, and that is the point. I am only considering the effects of banning something; the effects are usually the exact opposite of what is desired.