I am averse to the ratings and rankings that characterize the junk-journalism of our times. Much like the embedded style of reporting such a view remains partial and often ignorant of the nuances and layers of subtext that are almost unachievable in the pop-view of the world.
Readers might question this apparent paradox as on the one hand I am making my top-five list and on the other I am also being critical. Well, well, this is kosher from a South Asian perspective as we remain a mythical-modern bundle of contradictions.
The real reason for me to ‘submit’ my top 5 is the inquiring spirit of Mayank Austen Soofi whom I don’t know and have never met but who originally asked me to do so for his blog. But I am quite empathetic to his efforts at understanding Pakistan. At least he ventures into the ‘other’ territory and unlike the mainstream media and writers, does not view Pakistan as a threatening collage of burqa clad women, terrorism and gun toting radicals. Even if my young friend employs a cliched format in this series, it is better than ‘high writing’ churning more cliches!
So, here are my top five reasons for loving Pakistan. Maybe ATP readers will add their own reasons to this list.
The Civilization
Pakistan is not a recent figment but a continuation of 5000 years of history: quite sheepishly, I admit, that I am an adherent of the view held by many historians that the Indus valley and the Indus man were always somewhat distinct from their brethren across the Indus. I do not wish to venture into this debate but I am proud as an inheritor of Harappa, Mohenjo-Daro and Mehrgarh (not strictly in this order) and this makes me feel rooted and connected to my soil as well as ancient human civilizations and cultures.
It also makes me happy that no matter how much the present-day media hysteria about Pakistan (and “natives” in general) diminishes my country and region, nothing can take away this heritage and high points of my ancestral culture. Pakistan is not just Indus civilization – it is a hybrid cultural ethos: the Greek, Gandhara, the central Asian, Persian, Aryan and the Islamic influences merge into this river and define my soul – how can I not be proud of this?
The People
I simply love the Pakistani people – they are resilient, diverse and most entrepreneurial. They have survived calamities, famines, upheavals, injustices and exploitation and yet, by and large, retain a sense of humour. I am not naieve to say that they are totally free of the various bondages of history but they display remarkable entrepreneurial and creative potential. Most of them are “real” and rooted and yet not averse to modernity.
There is an urban revolution taking place in parts of Punjab and Sindh and the drivers are neither the state nor external donors but the people themselves. The private sector has even contributed to build an airport. There is an ugly side as well: the absence or predatory activities of the state (e.g. Karachi) has also provided a breeding ground for mafias but this is not a unique Pakistani phenomenon. From Los Angeles to Jakarata, such groups operate within the folds of urbanization.
I am proud of my people who have proved themselves in all spheres and countries – whether it is Professor Abdus Salam, the Nobel Laureate or Shazia Sikander, the miniaturist of international fame or Mukhtaran Mai who has proved her mettle in giving a tough time to forces of oppression.
The Spirituality
There is inordinate focus on Pakistani madrassahs, the pro-Taliban groups and the violent jihadis. How representative are these groups? Only Pakistanis know that such groups are marginal to the mainstream attachment to and practice of religion. The rural folk are still steeped in Sufi worldview and many versions of Islam exist within the same neighborhood. Of course there is manipulated curse of sectarian violence but that mercifully is not embedded despite the attempts of big external players and the octopus-like state agencies.
Ordinary Pakistanis, such as me, value their Islamic beliefs, are God fearing and follow what is essentially a continuation of the centuries old traditions of spirituality that survives in the folk idiom, in the kaafis of Bulleh Shah, and in the verses of Bhitai and Rahman Baba. Our proverbs, day-to-day beliefs are all mixed and laced with history, oral tradition, Sufi lore and of course Islamic simplicity. It is another matter that there are individuals who want to hijack this thread and impose their nonsense on us – but we as a people have resisted that and shall continue to do so. After all we inherited the confluence of ancient religions and practices.
Pakistan is where Buddha taught and Taxila shined, and where Nanak preached and the great saints – Usman Hajweri, Fariduddin Ganj Shakar, Bhitai and Sarmast – brought people into the fold of Islam. Despite the revisionist, constructed history by extremists in India, the sword had little to do with Islam’s rise in this region.
The Natural Beauty
Well the spirituality of my homeland is not just restricted to the intangible belief systems. It also reflects in the splendors of Mother Nature. From the pristine peaks in the north to the mangroves of the Indus delta, Pakistan blends climates, geographies, terrains in its melting pot. Within hours of leaving an arid zone, one enters into a fertile delta. And again a few more hours put you right in front of otherworldly mountains. The deserts of Cholistan radiate the moonlight and the surreal wildernesses of Balochistan are nothing but metaphors of spiritual beauty.
Where else can I experience the aroma of wet earth when the baked earth cracks up to embrace every droplet and where else can one find a Jamun tree with a Koel calling the gods? An everlasting impression on my being shall remain the majestic sunrise at the Fairy Meadows amid the Karakorams and the melting gold of Nanga Parbat peak. I love this country’s rivers, streams and the fields where farmers testify their existence with each stroke, each touch of earth. I cherish trees that are not just trees but signify Buddha’s seat or the ones in graveyards nourishing the seasonal blossoms.
The Cuisine
Yes, I love the aromas and myriad scents of Thai cooking, the subtlety of the French and Lebanese or the Turkish dishes but nothing compares to the Pakistani cuisine. Forget the high sounding stuff; ghar ka khana (homemade food) no matter which strata are you from is difficult to find elsewhere.
Whether it is a simple Tandoor ki Roti with Achaar or Palak (in the Punjab) or the intricate Biryani with ingredients and spices of all hues, the food is out of this world. In my house, we were used to at least ten different rice dishes (steamed white rice/ saada/ green peas/ vegetable/ channa/ choliya/ potato Pilau), three types of Biryanis (Sindhi, Hyderabadi, Dilli or just our cook’s hybridized Punjabi version), and my grandmother’s recipe of Lambi Khichdee. The list continues.
In the Northern areas, there are Chinese-Pakistani concoctions, in the North West Frontier there is meat in its most tender and purest form. In Balochistan there is Sajji, meat grilled in earthenware at low heat until all the juices have transformed the steaks into a magic delight. And, the fruits and the sweets -the mangoes that come in dozens of varieties and colors, melons of different sizes, the pomegranates and the wild berries that still grow despite the pollution everywhere!
How could I not love this eclectic cuisine?
And Finally . . .
The sum-total of all five: I love Pakistan as this is my identity – immutable and irreversible. Simple.
Raza Rumi blogs at Jahane Rumi.
and this is a particularly bad piece of writing by me — hope you approve olive
Editorial, The News, June 8, 2007
One-man rule
The dangers of one-man rule are becoming increasingly evident with every passing day. The problem with such a dispensation is that the system of checks and balances, which is an inherent part of any free and fully functional democracy, is either absent or not able to operate in a manner that furthers the public good/interest. Further, even if parliament is there, it is usually ridden roughshod over or bypassed, as happened in the promulgation of a presidential ordinance early this week making several changes to the laws that regulate the electronic media in the country (the implementation of the new ordinance, however, has now been suspended pending a review by a government-media committee). To those who would say that one-man rule is very good when that one man is forward-looking, progressive and is able to get things done, one can place the equally valid counter-argument that what happens when this benevolent ruler chooses to act in a not-so-benevolent manner.
Furthermore, the other problem with one-man rule or with a dispensation where one post has been vested with considerably disproportionate power is that the ruler is under no real obligation to abide by advice given to him by those around him. This seems to be what is happening if one goes by the account reported in this newspaper on Thursday of President Musharraf’s address to a parliamentary meeting of the ruling PML-Q and its various allies. From what the MPs had to listen to, it seems that they are being held in the wrong for not defending the president — in fact, he also told them that he was fighting “their war” for them and hence the implication that they should at least be defending him. Perhaps, it needs to be considered that one reason for the fact that the MPs are not, as the president himself would think it, defending him is because they disagree with many of the policies that are being pursued by the government — particularly after March 9.
Not only this, it seems that much of the rest of the country agrees with the view that the government needs to step back from its confrontation with the judiciary instead of opening another front with the media and the press. The view that the steps taken since March 9 have served to only exacerbate the government’s problems and damaged its credibility, both at home and abroad are much more widespread than some in the government would like to believe and in fact this refusal to see reality and act accordingly is further queering the pitch. The generally held view now is that the events of May 12 and now the frontal attack on the media have compounded the situation. To the struggle for the independence of the judiciary has been added the struggle for the independence of the media and the press and this is surely not good for either the public or the national interest. Valid concerns about the military’s role in the politics and its interference in matters that should be best left to civilians is being equated with a malicious campaign to attack the military. This in itself is reflective of flawed reasoning because it fails to see the point that those who are saying (and this chorus is ever-widening) that the armed forces should stay out of politics are not being traitorous but only pointing out an age-old rule of society and nationhood. This is that the military has a specific and very important role to play and that is to guard the frontiers and not play politics because that would be bad for the military itself and leave it open to public criticism — as has happened. One-man, which usually finds it basis in the military, suffers from the fact that this valid and justified criticism from civilian quarters is usually swept under the carpet and seen as a symbol of unwarranted defiance which must be crushed. Hence the new front against the media and failure to realise that the only way to go forward is to step back.
and i dont think its half as bad as this — besides since when does criticism make one arrogant or self righteous olive?
here is my Sunday column olive —
RIPPLE EFFECT
Censorship
By Omar R. Quraishi
One cannot fathom why the government is bent on cutting its nose to spite its face. Why the need to open yet another – potentially dangerous — front with another institution of society, the press and media, at a time when the judicial crisis is at its peak? Who is advising the president to do this and if he is doing this on his own, can he not see the damage it will do to his and the government’s credibility?
The changes made to the PEMRA law, promulgated via a presidential ordinance on June 4, are such that they can only be interpreted as part of a concerted effort by the government to tighten the screws, as it were, on the media, particularly the electronic one. The amendments go against natural justice which lends itself to natural law, the foundation stone of much of our own law, which comes primarily from British and Anglo-Saxon law. Also natural law is called ‘natural’ in a sense that it relates to rights that are so fundamental that no legislation or government sanction is even necessary for them to hold. It is such crucial and basic rights that the new Pemra ordinance has ridden roughshod over.
For instance, the state electronic media regulator will now be able to confiscate equipment and seal the premises of any TV channel which violates its rules and regulations without even referring the matter first to a complaints council. This means that such action can be taken without due notice and/or warning and without recourse to the channel to seek legal redress to stop such action. You don’t have to be a student of law to understand that this violates the due process of law, which is that any person or entity charged with breaking the law must be given proper notice and warning of the action to be taken against it and — equally importantly — must be given a chance to defend himself before an appropriate justice-dispensing forum (usually a court). The changes made through this ordinance are tantamount to condemning a party without even hearing its side of the story.
The ordinance also empowers the regulator to suspend a channel’s licence to operate after a ‘duly constituted committee comprising the authority’s members’. This means that the regulator plans to be judge, jury and executioner all in one. Now this wouldn’t be so much of a problem were it not for the fact that there is practically no parliamentary oversight over Pemra (or any other industry regulator for that matter) and that the views of all stakeholders, particularly ordinary citizens, are hardly, if ever, taken into account. After all the Federal Communications Commission or the Food and Drug Administration in the US both have considerable sweeping powers as well but both are subject to close scrutiny by Congress and are held accountable for their actions. Most importantly, their actions have shown that by and large they tend to act in a manner that furthers the public good in and does not further any particular vested interest. Also, they are independent of the US government, which is something that certainly cannot be said of how regulators function and operate in Pakistan.
For some, the clamp-down on the media may seem reminiscent of General Zia’s dark days and in general goes to show how quickly media freedom can be taken away by a government/state. Also, it shows desperation, particularly the amendment that brings under Pemra’s purview video images on the Internet and on mobile phones. This means that the government wants to now control what people are watching on their mobile phones and the Internet, clearly an attempt to prevent them from watching videos of the rallies and protests related to the ongoing judicial crisis that can be seen on either medium (particularly in demand after the blanket ban on live coverage by TV channels).
Though one normally abhors giving quotes (because that seems a most unoriginal way to write — borrowing ideas from others), there may be a case for mentioning what others have said on censorship. The first is Demosthenes, a statesman and orator of repute who lived in Ancient Greece in the fourth century BC. He said, “The readiest and surest way to get rid of censure, is to correct ourselves.”
The second is Winston Churchill (who doesn’t really need any introduction). He said, and it probably is very apt of Pakistan today: “Everyone is in favour of free speech. Hardly a day passes without it being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.”
The writer is Op-ed Pages Editor of The News.
Email: omarq@cyber.net.pk
Reading about Top five reasons for loving Pakistan makes me feel proud of the glorious heritage and rich identity this nation is endowed with. It refreshes my urge to appreciate true sense of belonging and strengthens my convicition that this country will rise to its rightful place. These five are indeed valide reasons and thats exactly why i believe in better future for our country despite repeated kockyings for power by few at the cost of many’s desire who are constantly trying to bring some sense to the affairs of the nation. Just a note that on my list of priority, the resilience of the common Pakistani would have obtained an important reason for loving Pakistan.
“this has to be among the most pretentious/immature pieces of not-good writing that i have read in quite some time
The above quote has to be one of the most self-righteous, arrogant and rudest comments I have read in quite some time. Perhaps the author of this comment ought to read some of his own articles to get a taste of ‘not-good writing’.
Raza, fine attempt, but too generic. First off, a close version of these five, varying a bit based on your personal sensibility, would be espoused by practically all people about their country. I think the reasons, if a bit more specific, and unique, would carry more weight.
Going deeper, its not clear what you mean by the ‘Indus man’ and his being ‘always somewhat distinct from their brethren across the Indus.’ Does not make sense off the bat. I guess you are arguing for some kind of racial continuity for the people west of Indus, constituting modern day Pakistan. I dont recollect ever reading anything making/substantiating such a claim.
Spirituality – I dont know the ground situation in Pakistan. Is real spirituality still alive and not drowned out by the more vociferous orthodox religion? Maybe you are referring to the greater subcontinent and the overall predominance of a spiritual bent?