My World 

Living forever in an unreal time, an imaginary space
Random destinations full of magic and miracles
With mirrors of disproportionate reflections
And telltales of fictional realities
They call me crazy, mentally disconnected
Yet time to time they join me up here
Some more frequently than others
Depending on their catalyst connections
After all, my world is more beautiful than yours.

The Postmodernist View on the Pakistan Ideology

The World Cup is over for Afridi and his boys and what a world cup it was. Cricket and Team Pakistan won lots of new lovers, inspired countless kids, and pulled back to cricket the scores of recent football converts. Their achievement to reach the semi-final brought pride back in Pakistan cricket with nationalistic jingoes reverberating on every radio, tv, and web channel. Particularly what happened in the 6 days building up to the clash with India; this was something never before seen in the annals of world cup cricket. It was called the ‘mother of all matches’, ‘the greatest game ever’; with countless side stories popping up; the curious case of the black stone, the tale of a butchered parrot, calls for return of a mechanically faulty Express train from Pindi, and even cricket diplomacy, it had it all. Screens popped up all over the country and mass gatherings arranged for that fateful day when India was to meet arch rivals Pakistan and the world of a billion and a half would be put on pause. As far as my hometown of Peshawar was concerned, bullets had become short in the market and were being sold in black. The neighbouring tribes went a step further; Rocket launchers, machine guns, AK47s and all their other heavy artillery was taken out in anticipation of some post match fireworks.

I saw the match at Nishtar Hall Peshawar, the only theatre in the city, and a host to over 800 ‘naujawans’, men and women, for that day. With all the right ingredients, a giant screen, a green crowd, wavin flags, blowing horns, guys dancing to the dhol , the DJ playing blood pumping music, and not to mention great side food, it was a mass party worthy of the occasion. There were also the expected overt displays of religious zeal for nationalistic purposes in the form of ‘Nara-e-Takbeer’ and ‘Pakistan ka matlab kya’ which echoed at various intervals throughout the match. Oh and of course when things started falling apart in the Pakistan innings, the mass dua led by a 20 something boy with a subway sandwich sized beard, for the ‘blinding of the kufars eyes’ in our goal to reach Mumbai; unfortunately judging by some of the shots the Pakistani batsmen played, it seemed the angels sprinkled the blinding powder unwittingly on the men in Green.

Of course all this got me thinking once again on something that had been on my mind for a long time, a far more serious issue. And I finally thought the time was right to put it in words. Today more than ever, 6 odd decades later, we are still squabbling over the ideology of Pakistan, what it represents, and what it means to be a Pakistani. I guess this is a burden that comes with ideological states, be it the Jewish Republic of Israel or the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. We have heard, read and seen both sides of the story countless times in search of ‘Jinnah’s Pakistan’. Of course each side defines and redefines what Pakistan stands for, its idea, and its ideals, in a bid to win people to their side. The numbers are still greatly in favour of one side thanks to years of militaristic embedding of their version of national definition, through state control and various media including school text books. But with the rise of Social media and greater access to information the balance may be tilting back closer to the centre with the urban youth starting to challenge the official narrative of history. And hence today the battle of the ideology of Pakistan is in full swing.

I however am of a slightly different school of thought (some have called it ‘Pakistaniat’) then either. Pakistan is a matter of fact, a truth undeniable, much like Israel for that matter. We may not recognize its existence (officially), but it is there, with all its exceptional contribution to science and medicine as well as all its war crimes and ethnic cleansing, and by denying it, we are only kidding ourselves. In fact we did have clandestine relations with them during the soviet war. Even the Palestinians, whom I greatly sympathize with, are willing to recognize the State of Israel (although not as a Jewish one). The point being, like Israel, Pakistan is.

So Pakistan as fact was carved out of British India, and while I understand that maybe an ideology was a necessity in Pakistan’s creation, or during its nascent years when people needed a basis to justify having undergone such a ginormous change, I strongly feel that it has no use today. I am not talking about a specific ideology, rather calling the idea of having an ideology as obsolete. Confused? Well here is why. I am a third generation Pakistani. The younger lot of today, also known as the bulge because of their massive percentage of the population, are fourth generation Pakistanis. This is to say that I was born and bred as a Pakistani to parents who were born as Pakistanis themselves. I have always been a Pakistani and know not what it means or feels to be Indian, Afghani, Iranian, Arab or any other ancestral nationality of yesteryear. My NIC, driving license and passport are green and the world makes sure to remind me of that at international airports. Pakistan for me is geography, a place where I was born, a place where I will live, and a place where I will most likely die. Just like citizens of 99% of all the counties in the world.

After Bengal split, the concept of ideology was reinforced on us because it was thought that Pakistan could only stay united under the banner of Islam. Which is in essence shying away from the mistakes we made then and continue to make today in Balochistan. The Aghaz-e-Haqooq-e-Balochistan by name is recognition by the federation that it denied justified rights to the people of Balochistan. Something we did with the Bengalis; it had nothing to do with ideological reasons, as both of them are muslim majority.

But anyone seeing the world cup would agree that Pakistan as a country in itself has the power to unite. I celebrated Imran Khan’s cornered tigers just like any other kid in Lahore, Karachi, Islamabad or Quetta and I cheered Lala’s boys like everyone from the Durand line to Dhaka(sic). Pakistan has enough cultural greats like Noor Jahan, NFAK, Faiz etcetera; enough sporting legacy with cricket, hockey, squash among others; enough breath taking landscapes to marvel the world; enough historical heritage to indulge in; and enough heroes to inspire generations. Despite all its ailing’s and all its failings, Pakistan has enough for itself to stay united and enough for us to embrace, without the need of an ideology to stick us together. If we do away with the battle for what Pakistan was meant to be and how we want it to shape up, maybe we can resolve each individual problem on its own merit. It is time to break the shackles of the past in pursuit of the future. It is time for Pakistan to elevate itself from being an ideological project into being mere geography; and it is time for us to stop trying to be more than a Pakistani.

The Fallacies of an Us Vs Them Approach to the Influential Right Wing Media

If it's anything we need to learn from our British rulers of yesteryear it is their doctrine of divide and rule. Unity means strength, something we have been told with numerous anecdotal stories as children. So when tackling a number far superior to yours, it makes absolute sense to seek fragmentation. The US made this mistake when tackling Al Qaeda in 2001. Instead of isolating them from the Taliban, and the Taliban from the Pushtun, they pushed them together and got stuck into fighting a population. It is worth remembering that back in October 2001, two weeks into the US invasion of Afghanistan, the then Deputy Prime Minister Haji Abdul Kabir of Afghanistan offered up Osama Bin Laden to the international community in exchange of stopping the aerial bombings that were taking a massive civilian toll, only to have the offer turned down by George Bush. Probably over confident of the all powering American War Machine at the time. It may be plausible knowing what we know now 10 years later, the present dismal state of Afghanistan despite hundreds of billions of dollars, that today he may have thought twice before turning down the offer.

Today Pakistan faces a similar situation with the troubling growth of extremism in the country. The general response to this ideological war from the left has been an all out attack(written, blogged, printed) on everyone ranging from the guy who pulled the trigger, those who endorsed it, anyone who failed to condemn it, those who showed indifference, all the way to those who feared retribution and chose silence. It is true the crime was heinous and deserves every bit of condemnation, but we can not afford to make this an 'us verses them' war, a liberalism vs extremism ideological war, where we define an extremist as all of the above. By using terms such as closet extremists we keep on stacking them together not only giving them more numerical strength but also legitimacy in pursuing an anti liberal agenda. And the biggest problem is most liberals have a very limited audience, an english speaking, internet capable, rational minded audience who can see through all the various types of entertaining conspiracy theories available on youtube. On the contrary those that are being taken on, have a massive audience running into millions through their frequent tv shows. Today we have TV presenters who till some time back could be occasionally expected to talk against extremism, now always juxtaposing extremism with liberalism as antithetical poles and the problem of our present dilemma. Now with a lot more hostility towards the left, usually by adding accusations of class distinctions in the mix, the result is a conscious or unconscious indoctrination of hate. Which is kind of ironic because they probably make a lot more money than anyone in the print media. If this war continues like this there is only going to be one winner and it is not those tweeting. A change of strategy is needed.

Changing tactics: Challenging Extremism with Liberalism

Extremism as it has manifested in Pakistan is defined as not only an act of extreme consequence under religious pretext, for example suicide bombing or vigilantism, but also the passive acceptance of such or perceiving extreme acts as such acceptable. This is a much broader definition and one which engulfs a much larger percentage of the Pakistani population; also it means the action, or inaction, of this increased percentage will naturally be of larger significance. Although there were always some elements of extremists throughout the history of this region, they were never of significant number and were always thought of as a fringe. However the rapid growth in numbers over the past decade is alarming to say the least and has reached a threshold point where it is no longer possible to avoid or discard the problem.

While terrorism is an act of violence and terrorists are physical beings that can be acted against; extremism is a mentality, based on extreme ideology and thus much more difficult to combat. Extremism can not be jailed, maimed or droned. Also extremists of today in Pakistan are not Al Qaeda or a small group but rather an entire chunk of population. This may seem an exaggeration to some but recent events have been an eye opener in terms of polarity in this country. This is a battle that can be won only through rationality and argument, and thus will be long and testing. However there is a problem, most voices in Pakistan that speak of rationality and logic against extremism are quickly discredited and labelled as anti religion, agents of the west, or 'liberal extremists' by conservative voices and thus are shunned by the masses.

This is a consequence of the popular perception of the stratification in Pakistani society; religious extremists, moderates, and liberal extremists. This has now become a widely used stratification and is quoted not only by popular television frequenters but also the masses of urban youth on the internet. The 'liberal extremists' argue that the tag is unfair as they have never blown themselves up against anyone, and equating holding liberal opinions with terrorists is nothing but absurd. The conservatives of society argue that their love for alcohol, parties, fashion shows and western attire is an extreme act in the context of Pakistani tradition and one that corrupts the 'land of the pure'. An example of this was when a popular journalist on the most popular private news channel said on a prime time show that “there are one crore liberal extremists in this country who consume alcohol and it is their mission to make the remaining 17 crore also alcoholics”. This is an appalling statement to give at the very least and one that is grossly misleading, however it is also a reflection of the popular belief in society at large. Lets then just say for the sake of argument we take this definition of liberal extremism. If that is to be the case then the entire stratification of Pakistani society is wrong and has to be redressed because it is not reflective of the wide variety of opinions amongst the 180 million people of this country. I propose rather then the 3 categories, we redefine it into 5 as the following: Religious extremist, conservatives, moderates, liberals, and liberal extremists.

This I believe is absolutely essential in order to restore some sanity in the country and reduce the hostility towards either camp by decreasing the polarity. As the ideology of religious extremism is to be countered not by bombs but rather by promotion of moderate religious views and by liberal arguments, these liberal arguments must not only be heard but also listened to. This is only possible if they are not discredited by a label or a tag. Liberal views such as democracy, pluralism, equal rights for women and minorities, freedom of opinion and expression, the idea of live and let live, etc, must not in any way be connected or associated to alcohol and parties. If the definition of 'liberal extremist' remains, and this new stratification is established and popularised, then it is very possible to promote liberal ideals among the religiously inclined masses who now are stuck having to chose between the two 'poles'. A liberal may be defined as someone who holds the above mentioned perfectly reasonable views but does not indulge into 'vices' associated today with 'liberal extremists'. Such a person can not be discredited and shunned under pretexts of character and may command greater influence among the masses.

In this war of ideas, if this view of stratification spreads then it will be easier to pull more people from the right to the centre through moderate teachings, and more people from the centre to the left through liberal ideals; for the eventual goal of a progressive society.