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.
From David Milliband’s blog:
“The Anguish of Mumbai
I think that many in Britain do not realise the scale and depth of Indian anguish over the Mumbai attacks. The Prime Minister came to India in December to show his solidarity and sympathy, and I will be at the the Taj Hotel tomorrow. But India has been struck to its core: its people want a hearing, and they want action from Pakistan against those involved. The anguish is doubled because of the efforts India has made to work with Pakistan. Those need to continue. The support by the Indian government for the Pakistani IMF loan is real leadership and real vision. “
@bloody civilian (you STILL haven’t changed your nick: drat!)
I’m keeping this short to avoid further bolts from Olympus and the unwanted attention of manly types given to direct action rather than words.
I have difficulty considering religious belief or practice to be a valid factor of nationhood, which is why we differ. Perhaps being an agnostic Hindu pinko (that’s about politics, not about sexual orientation, I hasten to add) is not a good way to acquire religious sensitivity.
Your point is valid, with respect to India, if we take religious practice as a category, if what you’re saying is that religious minorities get ploughed under by the huge mass of Hindus. Trouble is, in practical terms, it doesn’t work like that. There’s nothing called a Hindu vote, never was; there was a rabidly communal wave for one election at national level, another infected state and its own state elections – twice. And that’s it. There have been dozens of elections, a few too many, think some. I don’t recall this having been a factor any time else; please feel free to correct me.
I’m not sure how it applies to Pakistan.
What else could we use to define nationhood? Language? If so, India is 16 or more nations within a single state. Also, Bangladesh shouldn’t exist; it should be part of greater Bengal (awful thought: Bengalis are best taken in homoeopathic doses). Also we in the southern Indian states are so far ahead, economically, in terms of literacy, in terms of health care, of the status of women, everything (probably including cricket), of the rest of India, and those four – or five – nations should be sitting planning our own state. But then that brings those sods from Jaffna in. I hate loud noises.
The other great differentiator in India is caste (keeping language aside for a moment), which makes four cardinal points in all. While I personally deplore the coarsening effect of Mandal politics (caste-based politics), it has to be admitted that those parties have made common cause with the poor of all creeds. In a left-handed, perverted kind of way, they are gathering together the dispossessed of all sorts onto a common platform. If something good comes of this, I’m ready to give in and accept Mayawati as a future Prime Minister (it’ll be hard to swallow, though; any jobs for elderly software services managers in Pakistan, just in case?)
I think the trouble is that we don’t have a word which is the equivalent of ‘Pakistaniat’. That non-existent word would have summed up what India is about: not a religious congregation, not a linguistic group, not a dominant caste, but something beyond. It’s real and I believe in it passionately, and so do a surprising number of others. Sorry, it’s clearly a messy situation, but we didn’t really plan for it, pray for it and design it; it happened, and we found ourselves, often reluctantly, fighting for it. We’ll try to do better next time.
That doesn’t invalidate other models of nationhood, but those other models don’t sit well with ours. You may have noticed this already.
At the end of the day, I sincerely hope that you understand that my complete opposition to your intellectual position involves no personal animus. And tongue in cheek doesn’t equate to a curl of the lips.
No, Victoria, that was not a long piece. And no, I couldn’t have cut it down to a couple of lamb chops.
Aamir Ali, for the record, no one in India claims we are perfect or flawless. Not sure where you are getting that from. India has internal problems, huge gaping ones like most countries, but what has that got to do with Pakistan or this forum? Why should those be brought up here when the context of these comments is MH’s myths about Pakistan article? Please elaborate.
Do you want us Indians to flood your Pakistan-related forum with our random myriad problems – our internal fights with Maoists, our internal problems with Christian evangelists or with Hindu extremists, with discrimination against lower castes in places like Bihar and elsewhere, the pitiful state of women’s rights, the cruelty orphaned children endure at the hands of unscrupulous thugs and gangs, the problems with reservations and quotas, the problems with medical admissions and limited seats, etc etc? .. I could go on forever. I think not. This is a Pakistan-related forum, and the topics and discussions here have to deal with Pakistan.
Aamir Ali wrote: “If one cuts to the meat of the long-winded posts by Indians on this forum, one can see that they admit no mistake by India and no flaw in Indians and squarely put the blame on Pakistanis, whether they be
@ ayesha
i meant exactly that swat resembling khmer rouge’s cambodia should be our number one national priority. everything else should be secondary. this
http://www.bbc.co.uk/urdu/pakistan/story/2008/12/0 81216_beheading_react_fz.shtml
kind of thing should be the only thing being talked about for at least a day! it’s Year Zero in Swat!
my pejorative tone, though regretted, is a result of even a possibility (a suspicion of which you too refer to) that the military and the state can be anything less than 100% committed to delivering the people from the beastly brutality of the terrorists! it stems from gen shahid hamid recently saying that there is no danger to the punjab, since it is “a simple matter of plugging four road bridges”. we’ve had more and bigger protests in solidarity with the people of gaza and against american attacks than in solidarity with the people of swat.
the frustration is a result of the fact that the i cannot see how we can allow the armed forces – almost 600,000 strong with all that we spent on them – to have not delivered there fellow pakistanis in swat from this nightmare even after two years! in fact, it has got much worse. all this, on top of the experimental lab that the nwfp was turned in to with zia’s strange ideas about conducting the afghan jehad, no control/organisation of the refugees from that war, and the modern, independent sate of pakistan’s (as opposed to the british colonial power) failure to feel its responsibility to gradually and amicably educate and absorb FATA in to the rest of the country, by taking responsibility for the welfare and betterment of the people living there, rather than making no efforts whatsoever and the state using tradition as an excuse to abdicate its responsibility instead. the imaginary scenario of all this happening in the so-called heartland instead of ‘far away’ in the mountains, was to question the absence of the sense of urgency that the people of swat expect and deserve from the rest of pakistan.
@ rumi
Not sure I understand exactly what you are trying to say. The situation in swat is without question absolutely dire. People in swat that I am in touch with are for good reason deeply resentful of the military and civilian administration. There are many who also doubt whether the military is sincere in its fight. This is just what I know from talking to people. Regarding your hypothetical, I find it very difficult to speculate. I am nevertheless quite surprised at some of your insinuations….you cannot possibly be suggesting that the anger against drones, judiciary, load shedding is all orchestrated to divert attention from swat?! Though I do feel that swat needs to be the number one priority for the nation right now. Your pejorative tone makes it a bit harder to decipher what you are getting at.