Adil Najam
Mohammed Hanif, the brilliant author of the engrossing book “The Case of Exploding Mangoes†(I have been planning to write about it ever since I first read it many months ago; and I will) – known to many for his stint at Herald before he joined BBC’s Urdu Service – has just written a most cogent and readable op-ed in The Times of India which is wroth reading; whether you agree with it or not. It is a good argument as well as a good read. And I say that even thought there are more than one points here that I might quibble with. But before we quibble, lets give Mohammed Hanif the floor – and a full and proper hearing. Here is the op-ed he wrote in The Times of India, in full:
Ten Myths About Pakistan
Living in Pakistan and reading about it in the Indian press can sometimes be quite a disorienting experience: one wonders what place on earth they’re talking about? I wouldn’t be surprised if an Indian reader going through Pakistani papers has asked the same question in recent days. Here are some common assumptions about Pakistan and its citizens that I have come across in the Indian media.
1. Pakistan controls the jihadis: Or Pakistan’s government controls the jihadis. Or Pakistan Army controls the jihadis. Or ISI controls the jihadis. Or some rogue elements from the ISI control the Jihadis. Nobody knows the whole truth but increasingly it’s the tail that wags the dog. We must remember that the ISI-Jihadi alliance was a marriage of convenience, which has broken down irrevocably. Pakistan army has lost more soldiers at the hands of these jihadis than it ever did fighting India.
2. Musharraf was in control, Zardari is not: Let’s not forget that General Musharraf seized power after he was fired from his job as the army chief by an elected prime minister. Musharraf first appeased jihadis, then bombed them, and then appeased them again. The country he left behind has become a very dangerous place, above all for its own citizens. There is a latent hankering in sections of the Indian middle class for a strongman. Give Manmohan Singh a military uniform, put all the armed forces under his direct command, make his word the law of the land, and he too will go around thumping his chest saying that it’s his destiny to save India from Indians. Zardari will never have the kind of control that Musharraf had. But Pakistanis do not want another Musharraf.
3. Pakistan, which Pakistan? For a small country, Pakistan is very diverse, not only ethnically but politically as well. General Musharraf’s government bombed Pashtuns in the north for being Islamists and close to the Taliban and at the same time it bombed Balochs in the South for NOT being Islamists and for subscribing to some kind of retro-socialist, anti Taliban ethos. You have probably heard the joke about other countries having armies but Pakistan’s army having a country. Nobody in Pakistan finds it funny.
4. Pakistan and its loose nukes: Pakistan’s nuclear programme is under a sophisticated command and control system, no more under threat than India or Israel’s nuclear assets are threatened by Hindu or Jewish extremists. For a long time Pakistan’s security establishment’s other strategic asset was jihadi organisations, which in the last couple of years have become its biggest liability.
5. Pakistan is a failed state: If it is, then Pakistanis have not noticed. Or they have lived in it for such a long time that they have become used to its dysfunctional aspects. Trains are late but they turn up, there are more VJs, DJs, theatre festivals, melas, and fashion models than a failed state can accommodate. To borrow a phrase from President Zardari, there are lots of non-state actors like Abdul Sattar Edhi who provide emergency health services, orphanages and shelters for sick animals.
6. It is a deeply religious country: Every half-decent election in this country has proved otherwise. Religious parties have never won more than a fraction of popular vote. Last year Pakistan witnessed the largest civil rights movements in the history of this region. It was spontaneous, secular and entirely peaceful. But since people weren’t raising anti-India or anti-America slogans, nobody outside Pakistan took much notice.
7. All Pakistanis hate India: Three out of four provinces in Pakistan – Sindh, Baluchistan, NWFP – have never had any popular anti-India sentiment ever. Punjabis who did impose India as enemy-in-chief on Pakistan are now more interested in selling potatoes to India than destroying it. There is a new breed of al-Qaida inspired jihadis who hate a woman walking on the streets of Karachi as much as they hate a woman driving a car on the streets of Delhi. In fact there is not much that they do not hate: they hate America, Denmark, China CDs, barbers, DVDs , television, even football. Imran Khan recently said that these jihadis will never attack a cricket match but nobody takes him seriously.
8. Training camps: There are militant sanctuaries in the tribal areas of Pakistan but definitely not in Muzaffarabad or Muridke, two favourite targets for Indian journalists, probably because those are the cities they have ever been allowed to visit. After all how much training do you need if you are going to shoot at random civilians or blow yourself up in a crowded bazaar? So if anyone thinks a few missiles targeted at Muzaffarabad will teach anyone a lesson, they should switch off their TV and try to locate it on the map.
9. RAW would never do what ISI does: Both the agencies have had a brilliant record of creating mayhem in the neighbouring countries. Both have a dismal record when it comes to protecting their own people. There is a simple reason that ISI is a bigger, more notorious brand name: It was CIA’s franchise during the jihad against the Soviets. And now it’s busy doing jihad against those very jihadis.
10. Pakistan is poor, India is rich: Pakistanis visiting India till the mid-eighties came back very smug. They told us about India’s slums, and that there was nothing to buy except handicrafts and saris. Then Pakistanis could say with justifiable pride that nobody slept hungry in their country. But now, not only do people sleep hungry in both the countries, they also commit suicide because they see nothing but a lifetime of hunger ahead. A debt-ridden farmer contemplating suicide in Maharashtra and a mother who abandons her children in Karachi because she can’t feed them: this is what we have achieved in our mutual desire to teach each other a lesson.
So, quibble if you will. But do tell us what you think about the argument that Hanif is making.
1. Adil please correct the typos in your article.
2. The case of exploding mangoes is a myth in itself. The perpetrator was not the Shia airman from Gilgit (as spake Mohammed Hanif) but the recently-fired “security adviser” General (retired) Mehmood Durrani. This is confirmed by then Vice Chief of Staff General Mirza Aslam Beg and even Durrani himself . The fact that the US Viceroy scolded Prime Minister Gilani for sacking Gen Durrani for committing treason and that Durrani has since then started giving even more controversial statements is evidence that Durrani is an agent of the axis of Zionism and is more loyal to India than to Pakistan.
3. There were other characters such as F K Bandyal too responsible for the crime committed by US Ambassador Rafael on 17 Aug 88. The veteran Pathan politician Muhammad Aslam Khan Khattak (April 5, 1908
Arjun
a series of military men changing the constitution, holding a gun to the nation’s head, is not comparable to a democratic constitution (see pak’s 1973 in its pre-Zia amendments original form). regular military intervention and dictatorship does have more entrenched evil effects where the fabric and nature of society begins to change at some point. they interfere with textbooks, media, official version of culture etc etc. their civilian proteges take over from them and are little better. they systemetically eliminate any promising politicians, and bring in incompetent novices, thugs and thiefs with no danger of ever being afflicted with principles who can be easily blackmailed by them, wholesale, with every period of military rule.
we, the people of pakistan, can at least claim: “not in our name”, “never with our vote”! others, in, say, india, can gloat: “you pakistanis deserve it”. the fact remains that the majority endorsed misdeeds of a democracy are more lamentable. it is also true that your constitution, untarnished by dictators, faces in the right direction. but how much complacency does the country need to show towards the ‘disconnect’ between practice and principle before it turns in to acquiscience and the weight of practice overwhelms attitudes and even principle? (how worried should india be at the jettisoning of M K Gandhi? how invaluable is munnabhai’s contribution of gandhigiri at this time?)
an upside of so many years of rule by the military or its puppets has developed a far healthier skeptism amongst us of the official line, than amongst the indians. half our mullahs will shave their beards off the moment the military truly returns to the barracks for good, and truly and completely stops supporting islamists as both a political and tyranical proxy within and a terror and military proxy without.
as an aside, is it a crime for a minority to ask for its insecurities to be addressed? whose failure was it that india was partitioned: the british rulers, the congress government (Nehru was the Prime Minister of India under the British), or the small opposition party the Muslim League who could not claim the support of more than half the muslim population of India and had a clear majority in terms of number of seats only in Sind)? who was the biggest leader with the most following throughout india: gandhi, nehru, patel or jinnah? If the Muslim League wanted partition then why did it accept the Cabinet Mission Plan? What was it that dictated that partition must immediately be followed by atrition and war instead of reconcilliation and peace? what dictates that the trend must continue?
there is a difference between national and state sovereignty. different nations’ sovereignty within a hetrogenous state, is an embodiment of each nation’s identity. in a pluralistic state, each nation sees benefit and feels secure in VOLUNTARILY sharing state sovereignty with all the nations that form the hetrogenous state. national sovereignty, like ethnic identity, nevertheless, is never surrendered. i doubt the majority community in india will ever be willing to understand that. especially not someone like you. we can agree to disagree. peace ought to be possible, regardless.
@Ahsan Iqbal
Unfortunately, your summation of the situation regarding the religious right is accurate. Having specifically ruled out violence as an option, moderates like myself can only grit our teeth and wait for the electorate to see through them and clean them up. The saving grace is that the Indian electorate is quite ruthless in its judgement. Being an agnostic, I can’t pray, but I can hope till my toes ache!
@Arjun
Honest confession: until I started reading up about Pakistan, I had a very weird picture about Pakistanis in general; your three propositions kind of sum it up, although I’d add that I knew them to be aggressively hospitable and brilliant sportsmen, from squash to hockey to cricket.
Not just these three either. Remind me to tell you about watching Brigadier ‘Hesky’ Baig save the match for us against Ratanada in the Centenary Gold Cup in Calcutta in 1961. He had a painful carbuncle on his thigh and was treating himself through the match with brandy!
The last one month has been a succession of shocks. This particular forum has been the most severe shock, for reasons that you may understand.
@Amir Hussain
I suppose I must reluctantly agree that we each must fight our own battles; our friends can only watch in hope and cheer us on.
We have to clean up Gujarat, and you can’t do much about it from outside. Similarly, please be sure that it is widely understood in India, far more than you might imagine from viewing our electronic media in recent times, that cleaning up terrorists is your own chore.
Proposals to intervene in the anti-terror battle in Pakistan emanating from India are borne out of frustration, pain and anger, coming to a head after suffering the most casualties in the world on account of terror of any country. When you hear extreme views from ordinary people, please be tolerant; this will pass. It isn’t that there haven’t been moments at the reactions of Pakistani officials that I haven’t thought wistfully about ‘surgical strikes’, knowing as I do in my rational moments that this is not only not a solution, it will actually drive the situation headlong into reverse gear. These are moments of temporary insanity, a ‘junoon’.
@ gorki
Your views have been pleasant to read, and made me proud that the Indian point of view is so well articulated.
@D_a_n
It is for Gorki, who is clearly well-spoken and well-read to boot to answer for himself, and I shan’t try to interfere.
Let me say that Modi himself and the present behaviour of Gujarat is a personal embarrassment, and I don’t know how to react. I am glad that there is an active population of Indians in the USA who moved to withdraw the visa Modi was given, and banned his travel there. It isn’t enough, nowhere so, but a lasting solution must come from people’s realisation that he’s pure evil.
Having started work in a Tata enterprise, and being their whole-hearted admirer for their business ethics and principles, it hurt a lot to see the head of the house speak positively about this creature.
The only way to beat him is politically, and it is going to be a long, hard struggle. But as long as we have heroines like Mrs. Karkare, we cannot lose hope – we must not lose hope.
Let me also say that the discrimination against Ahmediyas is wrong, but two wrongs don’t make a right. The rest I leave to Gorki to say. It would be presumptuous for me to speak for him.
@ Arjun….
just need to point out the following… (Please note..my intent is not to attack…I am much too tired for that gibberish)…
you wrote: ‘Yes, parts of Indian society discriminate on the basis of caste, religion, region, language, sex, race, whatever. But point me a society that doesn
D_a_n, which is better: constitutionalized discrimination that Gorki is pointing out, or a constitutionalized ideal and society’s failures to achieve it?
In my opinion, a constitutionalized ideal at least sets a standard and there’s an obvious fact that practice is deviating from the ideal. Constitutionalized discrimination seems to be a more primitive state of society.
I for one am not excusing discrimination. Yes, Indian society has discrimination, loads of it, but it’s not a practice we’ve gone so far as to enshrine into our constitution. And ideals are a precursor to practice.
Yes, parts of Indian society discriminate on the basis of caste, religion, region, language, sex, race, whatever. But point me a society that doesn’t. Not to excuse it, but to say that yes, we have flaws but we know what the ideal is that we need to work towards. This seems to be (just an inch) further along the civilized road than things like the Blasphemy Law (Hudood?) or constitutionalized discrimination against minorities.
As for people cheering Modi on, they’re cheering him for his business savvy and the economic prosperity he has ushered into Gujarat, not for his “genocidal actions”. He’s idolized for being the politician that’s really working for the economic progress of the state, not for his genocidal capabilities.
D_a_n said: “