Mohammed Hanif’s Ten Myths About Pakistan

Posted on January 11, 2009
Filed Under >Adil Najam, Books, Foreign Relations, Politics, Society
163 Comments
Total Views: 87574

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

By Mohammed Hanif

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.

163 responses to “Mohammed Hanif’s Ten Myths About Pakistan”

  1. Arjun says:

    Another point I forgot to add: India is and has been home to nearly every religious belief in the world from time immemorial. There is not a single country in this region that has the diversity of religious belief and tolerance that India does. From the big ones like Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism to minorities like Jainism, Baha’i, Zoroastrianism, Judaism and others, thought is allowed to flourish freely in the land with no persecution. This diversity is another of India’s strength and reflects the plurality of our society. And is another reason the world sees India positively. In the last couple of years, our Prime Minister is Sikh, our Leader of the Ruling Coalition is Christian, our President was Muslim. Many top movie stars belong to various different religious faiths. How can you call these stark realities “media manipulation”?

  2. Arjun says:

    India is a master of media manipulation, esp after the world saw how USA manipulated the media after 9/11. Indian media is on a roller coaster ride whereas our media is busy mud slinging at each other. As a result India is perceived as a sucessful state where as we have all the negative labels attached to ours.

    Such posts convenient ignore the facts. India is perceived as a relatively successful state for valid reasons. Some reasons include:
    1. Steady democracy, which no other post-colonial state has achieved.
    2. Indian arts and culture, both present-day and age-old. From yoga, ayurveda, the kamasutra, to today’s cultural products like movies and novels, India’s cultural and arts output is phenomenal and the world gets a positive impression from that.
    3. Indian scientific achievements, again age-old astronomical, mathematical, medical to today’s IT prowess and nuclear physicists, India contributes to the world.

    In contrast, Pakistan has relatively fewer contributions given the strength of its population and it’s being a new country. But it’s being a meeting ground of terrorists is obviously giving the country a bad image. Eliminate terrorism and work towards the country’s development, and the image will automatically follow.

    I would seriously rethink your “media manipulation” theory when you contrast the points above with Pakistan’s checkered history. My aim is not to beat India’s drum, but to prove your post wrong which feeds an invalid and untrue paranoia about why India is seen positively. Saying it is *media manipulation* is insulting to all the contributions people of Indian origin have made to mankind.

  3. kosar says:

    I agree with Mohd Hanif on the issues he has raised. However he fails to touch on a very important subject: PERCEPTION. As we all know, perception has nothing to do with the truth, and if it does its only incidental. India is a master of media manipulation, esp after the world saw how USA manipulated the media after 9/11. Indian media is on a roller coaster ride whereas our media is busy mud slinging at each other. As a result India is perceived as a sucessful state where as we have all the negative labels attached to ours.

  4. gorki says:

    @ Behzad Saqlain
    To hear a voice from the Pakistani side calling India Pakistan twins is very encouraging and I agree with your comments. More voices (not less) like these are needed from both sides if we are to combat extremists on both sides who would like our two nations to remain in a perpetual war like state.

    Regarding Sundar, Bonobashi has pretty much summed it up. I suspect Sundar means Pakistani side thinking too much ‘negatively’ is bad rather than thinking per se.
    @ Bonobashi, Bloody Civilian, Arjun, and other like minded individuals, thanks for a lively and a civil discussion. I did learn a thing or two myself from your thoughtful posts.
    @Bonobashi and Bloody civilian: I am very impressed with you overall understanding knowledge and decency.
    Although it may not be possible to meet (since I understand bonobashi lives in Calcutta) I would like to continue communicating with you both once in a while even outside this forum.
    What do you both think?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*