http://pakistaniat.com/2009/05/03/finest-hour/

with regards to the furore, the first one happened when we were introduced to the idea that the whole freedom movement was engineered by influential muslim elites in muslim minority provinces. hamza alvi had a term for them, the salariat classes i believe. it certainly had all the mohajirs torn between confusion and pride. the rest of the students weren’t too happy about the evidence that their provinces were really not interested in the idea of pakistan. and the best was the look on the mullahs’ faces when they realised that maududi and co. were against partition full stop.

but the best was post partition history. we were doing secessionist movements when one of the lahori girls turned around and said “but sir, why do they all hate us punjabis?” chaos ensued, as you can imagine. good fun :)

http://www.amazon.com/Indus-Making-Pakistan-Aitzaz-Ahsan/dp/0195778294/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240240321&sr=8-2

Q, let me clarify myself; I would say that the two-nation theory Jinnah would see it of there being two-nations in South Asia (or British India to be more accurate) that of Hindus and Muslims and the consequent implication that each would need their own state – is pretty much decisviely dead. The reality is that there are several nationalities in the region contained within a much smaller number of states. I don’t think ‘Muslims’ or ‘Hindus’ have ever formed ‘nations’ since both categories themselves contain conteding nationalities. How India and Pakistan as states deal with these nationalities will be an important aspect of the future.

Wherever did you get that idea? After all, I have a whole dissertation on Muhammad b. Qasim and his relation to the idea of Pakistan. Do tell more about the furore.

one thing i had realised was that pakistan needed to create a good identity myth, which india and all other nation states have to do, and have done. our myth is comically and tragically flawed.

i think the pakistan that was imagined was one which was supposed to be culturally muslim. because there is a notable difference in people who are culturally muslim (for a vague description, c0nsider Zia Mohiyuddin and any other Lucknow type) verse people who are practicing muslims. the problem was that there was a lot of cultural difference between the urban, north indian muslims who propogated the theory, and the people who actually live in what became pakistan.

at this point, most of us are aware we have an identity crisis, but no one can come up with how to solve it. i think before we construct an identity, we should all work at trying to reconnect that historical severance which happened at partition, and in 71, and under zia. we have no connection with our actual past.

fucking mohmmad bin qasim has nothing in common with anyone of us, yet that’s where our official historical narrative begins.

it might sound silly at a forum like chappati mystery, but when revisionist accounts of partition were first taught at LUMS, there was a furore. and lots of students were profoundly influenced and actually became more invested in pakistan, even while some in the minority became really insecure and defensive. the reason being that no one had ever heard or even thought of an account of history like the one hamza alvi or ayesha siddiqa were providing. yet ironically, it made many of us love pakistan more, because at least now we had a better idea of its true reality.

there is so much beauty in our shared culture, and i have repeatedly seen that when it is invoked pakistanis of all sorts become really interested. they love to hear about the artistic logic behind decorating trucks, or the dances of the sheedis, or the kafis of abida perveen, even when they lack the knowledge to understand these things. because such connections occur at an intrinsic level.

ultimately, the goal is to make us better human beings, not better pakistanis, because the as has been repeatedly mentioned, the nation state is a lie. but to get to this point, of being better humans, we need to cross the point of being better pakistanis, otherwise we would all be engulfed in a delibitating crisis.

PS – that book on the indus civilization is written by Aitzaz Ahsan. you all know him as the leader of the lawyer’s movement.

Is Obama administration making any headway in regards to negotiations with the “moderate Taliban”? Last I heard of it was March 8, 2009 NY Times article and then the subsequent public rebuff by Taliban. Public rebuff doesn’t mean, that there are no closed-door contacts.

I think that until Afghanistan needs is resolved, it will be difficult for Pakistan to contain Pakistani “Taliban”. Tariq Ali suggested last year that the way out of Afghanistan “would require a withdrawal of all us forces, either preceded or followed by a regional pact to guarantee Afghan stability for the next ten years. Pakistan, Iran, India, Russia and, possibly, China could guarantee and support a functioning national government” http://www.newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2713
Barnett R. Rubin and Ahmed Rashid suggested a similar approach in a Foreign Affairs article (“From Great Game to Grand Bargain”)in late December 2008. Getting as diverse a star cast as Pakistan, Iran, India, Russia and, China to sit at a table and agree on a viable solution seem like an arduous task. But what are the alternatives? A continued stalemate is unsustainable for a long period of time for the US, while a Talibanate next door to Pakistan is perhaps not the kind of neighbor Pakistan would want.

About people saying “this is not Islam” I really think people need to get to a better dialogue on such issues. Sure, you can say it’s not Islam. But that doesn’t change what happened and the fact that some other people might disagree (vehemenantly). People can’t cling to what is/isn’t Islam because 1st, who cares, that’s beyond the point, or, at least, only a part of it, and 2nd that’s not going to solve the real issues.

On the topic of Sharia, I think it has to be approached in a totally different way. I think that using the Qur’an to map out a society, with human rights, civil liberties, and a democracy, is wholly feasible. Now, I am not a fan of much of the shari’a that has been created and maintained in many countries, but I think an open dialogue about sharia in Pakistan and what it could mean might be beneficial. I think a reformed sharia could work in Pakistan, not that I think that that’s the best solution but a solution. Many people would feel more comfortable with the creation of Pakistan as a Muslim state. Now this goes back to what sepoy said – what kind of Muslim state is Pakistan? Well, many thought, a home land for South Asian Muslims. But there are so many problems with that – Islam could have been wholly accepted as just another part of India if many didn’t view it as a conqueror but as another part of India’s tapestry, like the Parsis. But it did, and some say Hinduism as a formal school of religious thought was formulated as a response to the foreign incursense of powerful Islam (I don’t think I’d go that far). SO there has always been that unsettling factor – But the fact remains, India IS secular and not every Pakistani IS a Muslim or Sunni for that matter.

And this goes back to the question of how logical it is to create a nation on the basis of religion or ethnicity (Israel anyone?) I have always had an aversion to nationalism (when I was much younger, I thought I’d give up my citizenships – but then I realized the absurdities involved), but the fact is that Pakistan is a nation and a nation needs to have some sense of what it is. I think that people (and by people I’m referring to Pakistanis) should strive to put an end to sectarianism (Kerala anyone?) while recognizing those differences and either embracing or tolerating them. The hard part – as always – is taking a hard look at the past and realizing the lies that almost all nations have been partly built on. In Pakistan’s case, this deals with partition and coming to terms to what it was – an artificial, hasty, ill-thought out, world-changing event. This is hard for all nations to do – I’m still waiting to see a great film about American slavery but that kind of national baggage is uncomfortable for people tied into identity politics. I think that Pakistan needs to recognize and come to terms with its diversity while recognizing that all Pakistanis do share some common culture and that can propel and stronger national image. I am, on the whole, against the whole concept of nationalism, but we humans have got to make do with what we have.

So Pakistan still does have a common culture, even though it’s a tapestry of culture. This might sound lame, but I think reinforcing that tapestry and weaving it together is something that should be undertaken.

There’s still the question of India. Qalander made a good point talking about people being able to play the religious/idealilogical card if they take partition as a given. I think it’s important to have a growing dialogue about the mistakes and assumations made during partition and in such idealoguey (Romila Thapur anyone http://www.amazon.com/Early-India-Origins-AD-1300/dp/0520242254/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240028393&sr=8-1 ?) to realize how people in South Asia got to where they have now. Conrad said that there’s the natural big brother mentally with India, and I think that the consolidation of whatever national identity is possible can help curtail those feelings (though that is a problem). Desi Italiana also mentioned India and how it passes itself off as plural – it may not be plural now, but it’s going to have to be if it wants to prosper and Pakistan is going to have to be if it wants to survive

However, I think that there’s a deeper problem. I think that it lies with corruption, education, and equality – Amartya Sen made a good point in an essay on nuclear weapons – some people in Pak or India talk about nuking the other without even realizing what it really means to use a nuclear weapon, like most people don’t. He cites an article Arundhati Roy wrote (The End of Imagination) and said that people can’t fully comprehend such destruction and that many of these are the very people their govs have not done enough for (jobs, etc). As long as there is misery, there will be dissent, and when there’s dissent, there’s the possibility of terrorism. Pakistan has to unify (which it does in varying degrees) but more importantly the government has to take care of these problems – stop landgrabs, put the military under the government, reporters should root out gov corruption, I don’t know, it all sounds impossible for any country. But improvements have been made in some areas (like civil protests against Mussharaf) but there needs to be more and they need to happen fast.

(By the way, I’m not calling for Sharia law, but think that a reformed form of Sharia could work in Pakistan. And there will be South Asian Union – just not in out lifetime.)

Well the problem here is two-fold. Just to respond to some of your comments though; Bhutan is a special case, given that we have effectively made it a protectorate and it has to defer to Delhi on Defence and external relations. Nepal too is constrained by the fact that almost all the major transit route for trade go through India and these can be sht off effectively isolating Nepal in economic terms from the outside world. Something that was done in the latem 1980s much to Nepali consternation and the 1950 Friendship treaty has caused no end of irritate to Nepalis politicans. No major Nepali party from the NC to the Maoists is well disposed towards India and Indians shouls ask why this is the case. Similarly, one can think of Bangladesh where it took only a few years for Mujib to become anatagonistic towards India and where today no major politician can be afford to be seen to be “soft” on India. This despite the instrumental role India played in its creation. OF Sri Lanka I will not speak, since the IPKF fiasco says it all.

Our MEA mandarins tried to seel the intervention to restore Gayoom in the Maldives as a successful forieng policy venture but now it seems we were propping up a corrupt and unpopulas dicatator. Though the only good thing to come out of this is that Maldives is one of the few countries we have very good relations with and where visa restrictions for Indian citizens have been abolished.

Part of the problem is tha natural ‘big brother’ pehnomenon and the fear of being swamped by a bigger and more powerful neighbour. Part is also down to the fact that all SAARC countries have borders with India and not with each other; so disputes naturally tend to take on a Indo-centric affair. however, Indian policy which could have alleviated or addressed these fears has not done so. Instead we have pursued a policy of what some scholars have called ‘relation control’ whereby we have sought to influence, usually indirectly, the internal regimes of neighbouring states and asserted our dominance over them. In negotiations instead of realising that quid-pro-quo are not suitable basis of biltaral relations when such large power imbalances exist; we have insisted on the facade of equal treatment on a range of issues. When there is an attempt to break this pattern and go down a more enlightened route such as the “Gujral Doctrine” it is vilifed as somehow selling out Indian interests. This short-sighted approach has reinforced prejudices and fears of Indian policies and intentions instead of diffusing them.

We need to distinguish between the state, the nation and the people at large. I would say while there is a lot of regard and good feelings for Indians as a people amongst neigbouring peoples; there is much less so of India as a nation or Indian nationalism and as regards the Indian state and its policies there is downright hostility. This is a state of affairs that needs to be changed.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/world/asia/17pstan.html

My praise for you? I’d send a copy of this to Obama even before I send my own articles from MAG, News or from http://imran.com/media/blog/ or any other writers’ opinion pieces.

All the best.

Imran
Will Your Life’s Work “Live, Forever”? http://neternity.org

That being said, we will also have to face the obvious: the liberals/secular-types simply lack the cultural credibility to make this argument. Someone like me, who is not at all religiously observant, cannot make this case. And the legacy of colonialism is such that the “metropolitans” do not even share a language — of faith, and to a large extent even in the literal linguistic sense — with those who have for the most part been mere “subjects” of the colonial order, and its nation-state heirs…

http://blogs.cricinfo.com/thebuzz/archives/2009/04/france_v_england_in_cricket.php

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=20094\16\story_16-4-2009_pg7_3

Sepoy, things ain’t looking good. Don’t know how much more pervasive and widespread these Taliban antics/tactics are going to get, and while I don’t want to jump on the bandwagon of “OMG, Pakistan is going to become a Talibanate soon!” these kinds of things are worrisome.