This is just an attempt to tell why I say what I say!
I see that there is a great difference in the 'Ghayrat' (Shame, Humiliation) system of people in the East and Modern West.
In West if somebody is found guilty of corruption; that person will be quick to resign out of 'Ghayrat'. If it happens in our land, that person is most likely to stay on the job denying all the charges; for example, there was money found in the bank account of Makhdoom Amin Faheem which was a commission of some sort. He returned the money but did not feel even a speck of 'Ghayrat'.
On the other hand in our areas if there is an affair of some sort – for example the one between Nawaz Sharif and Tahira Syed or Nawaz Sharif and Zeba Bakhtiar – a divorce is quick to follow; it was too much for the 'Ghayrat' of the husbands (Naeem Bukhari and Adnan Sami Khan) to handle. In lower social strata, it could have led to the murder of the women involved. In contrast, this is an everyday story in the West, even princesses have had affairs but still their marriages stayed; for example late lady Diana or Princess Margaret.
In our areas, there is a strong sense of family – familial relationships have attained a sense of sacredness which is now missing in the West. But they have an even better thing sanctified which is the rule of law, rights of the people and a sense of extended family i.e. community.
If we mix both of these qualities of West, we will see that Western men and women are a lot easy to slip in and out of a relationship as they see fit to their comfort. This is not something which exists in today's world. There are historical precedents. Examples abound:
When British East India Company landed in India, Britain was a fringe backwater in the World Economy while India was one of the biggest exporter of produce and manufactured goods in the World. British Crown instructed the East India Company's employees to 'cultivate' relationships with the natives. They tried but the only Indians with whom they could marry was Indian prostitutes. So, the first generations of Anglo-Indians was almost all children of prostitutes. (Source: BBC Documentary)
With passing times, British gained stature and now Indians were also interested in having relationships. So, there was a time when women of Muslim and Hindu nobility were married to British men. Many men converted to the respective religion of bride, to thwart social pressures. In most cases the marriages last for quiet long, but, in the end most Britions reverted back to Christianity. Their children in many cases were sent to England to get a Christian education. In many cases, it was already agreed that all the boys will have father's religion and girls will have mother's religion. 'White Mughals' by Willism Dalrymple gives a detailed account of this age. He tells the story of one Captain James Kirkpatrick, the resident Hyderabad of East India Company and Khair-un-Nisa – a women of Hyderabad nobility. He converted to Islam, but in the end both his children were sent to England and baptised. Captain was buried in a Christian cemetry.
Madelaine Slade or Mirabehn was a disciple of Mahatama Gandhi. She joined Gandhi in 1925 – a time when he was at the peak of his fame and looked like the leader who would lead India to Independence. She accompanied Gandhi in Round table conferences, and was also a witness to Simla conference, Cabinet mission, Interim Govt. and the constituent assembly and assassination of Gandhi. According to wikipedia 'Mirabehn's stay in India coincided with the zenith Gandhian phase of the freedom struggle.' There is at least one recorded incident where she tried to meet Viceroy of India with a message from Gandhi. That was during the waning days of Gandhi's influence when Nehru and Sardar Patel were gaining more importance in the independence movement. Mirabehn eventually left India, Asharam and the Gandhian lifestyle. With hindsight, it is easy to see that she was a British attempt to bring someone to the inner circles of Indian independence movement for the greater good of the crown.
When, Dickie Mountbatten and Edwina Mountbatten arrived in India in the last few months of Raj. It was evident that independence was at hand, so, their job was to keep safe the interests of crown in Post-Colonial subcontinent. Edwina was instructed to 'establish early contact' with women who matter in India. She went, with Dickie's approval, further than that and made an intimate relationship with 'Jawa' – Jawaharlal Nehru. As Gandhi was out, Sardar Patel was not interested, so, Nehru was the best chance of British to cultivate a relationship. In May 1947, Nehru was a guest of Mountbattens and was had the privilege to examine 'Plan Balkan' before any other Indian leader. He rejected that, then, the final plan (V. P. Menon Plan) was presented to him which accepted. The same plan in the end became the plan for independence of India. The whole idea of Edwina's friendship with 'Jawa' and Mountbatten's privileged treatment of Jawaharlal Nehru was to keep India the part of British dominion; which Indians got rid of some time after independence. But, this is a part of annals of history that Edwina Mountbatten was presented as a bait to Nehru and he fell for her. This is something which would be impossible even to think for a women in our areas. What Edwina did was for the greater good of Britain.
During colonial times, most of the world was under the influence of British Crown which had a firm hold of their markets. There was a privileged access of British goods to colonial markets. The emerging superpower, USA, was also keen to expand it's markets. WWII provided Americans with just such an access, British were knee-deep in their debts to USA and Roosevelt was pushing them hard to grant independence to 1/6th of humanity i.e. 1/6th of world markets. During those days, in 1942, Roosevelt sent his personal envoy – Averell Harriman - to put pressure on Churchill and also look for Safety of Britain i.e. American Overlordship. Once in London, Harriman started an affair with Pamela Churchill, the daughter in law of Winston Churchill. It was an affair known to everybody. As Patrick French writes in his book 'Liberty or Death':
In the curious system of power alliances under which the British Establishment operated, this was no disadvantage in Harriman's dealings with the Prime Minister, since Churchill was extremely anxious to, in his own word, 'drag' the Americans in to the war by whatever means possible. Lord Beaverbrook, for one, was delighted by the news of the liaison: 'To have FDR's personal representative, the man charged with keeping Britain safe, sleeping with the prime minister's daughter-in-law was a wonderful stroke of luck'.
British were sacrificing a personal relationship of Prime Minister's daughter-in-law for the greater good of the Britain.
Consider the above 'stroke of luck' happening in Pakistan. Could anybody accept such a situation? Obviously not. My point is only that having relationships – social contracts – mean different things in different societies at different times.
I would again like to emphasize that aspect of Jemima Khan's nature that she is hungry for fame, this can be easily deducted from her post-divorce affairs which were all with 3rd rate celebs: Hugh Grant, Jeremy Clarkson and Russell Brand. She could have chosen a stable, sensible person! No, she chose TRASH. Imran Khan writes that he was much impressed by her 'spiritual curiosity' and 'her strong value system'. I don't find any of these characteristics represented in her subsequent choice of relations.
Also, as I said, IK also tells that her parents were totally supportive and had no objections on her converting to Islam, this was a marriage contracted through the social interactions of the Western Nobility with Pakistani nobility.
Need I say more?
My family voted for IK, but not deified him.
then who really are pashtuns then dear 
any way pary for me that i will go to Kaba again for my Hajj
