Pakistan is Fetish

To return to Pakistan when you have the option to live elsewhere is not like having a bypass for fun, its because Pakistan for you is a fetish and a curiosity.  I realized this quite acutely this when I read Mohammad Hanif's essay about moving back to Pakistan from England, and instantly feeling the obligation to clarify some myths about the country, and thus sinking himself deeper into these very same myths.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/aug/07/mohammed-hanif-pakistan-homecoming


He wrote this two years ago, and I wonder if he twists in his writer's grave now when he sees this because most god fearing people should have nothing to do with what they wrote two years ago.  This essay is like a new born baby first viewing Karachi covered in the amniotic goo of western paradigms.


Hanif should simply admit that Pakistan offers better material.  Its just that life in the U.S, and the U.K., despite the organic lager, becomes sterile and insipid.  Winters turn into freezy Februaries, and everywhere you turn, there is nothing engaging.  Yet in Pakistan, there are peasants, workers, transvestites, bombers, and so many contradictions.  People are religious and sexy at the same time; its cute, heartbreaking all at once.  Got writer's block? Come to Pakistan.  In fact fly PIA, the material will pour out right at you when the air hostess scolds the passengers, "nahin mein aik aur pepsi nahin de sakti."  Take notes.  Smile.  Feel delight.


So here are some of M Hanif's original observations which, in my opinion, reinforce the myth he purports to dispel.


1. Pakistani people talk about the sex lives of their servants and power cuts.  


Queer.  People in America and England never ever talk about the sex lives of their servants(employees)?  I guess Niles and his brother Fraser were an exception then in their obsession with Daphne, their father's 'servant', and whom she brought into her bedroom.  And what about Clinton and Monica Lewinsky.  Interns were technically servants before the term became politically incorrect in the U.S..  People do not simply talk about power cuts: They pray for bijli to come back; they burn effigies in front of local electric supply offices; they invest thousands on generators and UPS(es); they fret and curse Siemens and the botched privatization of KESC if they are aware of it; they lay awake at night sweating and warding off dengue mosquitoes, they die from dengue, and when the light comes back, its feels so nice, they forget it ever went.  They also forget, it will go again tomorrow for seven hours intermittently.  And seriously if he or anyone lost heat in a London's winter, they would burn effigies too, and not just to produce heat.


2.  People in Pakistan they have musical concerts, protests, film festivals, all in the face of an increased number of Islamic channels and hijabis.  


Pakistanis are resilient and persevering, and the country is a living paradox of religion and rock and roll.  There are multiple layers to its little projected multifaceted reality, and its my job to tell you about it.  There is music and film, yet a growing religiosity, and to make things more complicated, hijabis make out in broad daylight with bearded men with the Arabian sea lapping at their feet. 


And then this:  "we stared at a couple who were exploring the full possibilities of the burka, using their motorcycle to lean against..."


Can you be more specific?  Are you sure they weren't just trying to dislodge the folds from the wheels and avoid getting trapped?  With over 60% of Pakistan's population being under the age of 30, you see couples in parks and seafronts, and they are usually very careful about public displays of affection, but sometimes when they do touch, inadvertently or not, we only find that newsworthy because we began with the presumption of religion enforcing rules and controlling sexuality.  The contradictions are everywhere in the world.


3.  Lets find a way to talk about transvestites.  They are so elegant and poised that even our nosey police don't mess with them. 


Everyone and their grandmother wants to make a film about transvestites.  How they earn, where they live, whether they are hermaphrodites, whether they are gay, how they are discriminated against.  And does M Hanif know for a fact its their elegance and poise that keep the police away in homo erotic fascination?  Seriously, I think it is romanticizing the oppressed so you can feel better when you have brunch at Sindh Club.  And to be quite honest,  I am super excited that the CJ rendered a decision granting them legal status and now I can (legally) weave them into every single class of mine.  


4.  My wife has found more old aunts than I can count...


Now that was bound to happen when you shifted out of the two bedroom flat, and where your only other companion besides your cat called "Billi" was your spouse.  Didn't you know your wife had a phuphi, a chachi, a khala, and their cousins and siblings officially classify as aunts too?  And the chances are, most of those 27 old ladies did not migrate to London.  Seriously, can we develop a healthier fetish and curiosity and write about issues for a change?

confessions of a teacher

I've taught in Pakistan for four years.  As a lawyer I had some exposure to teaching in America although more so in a clinical setting.  Let me just say right off the bat - students in America were respectful towards their teachers at a level that is unfathomable to students here. Part of the respect stemmed from the fact that my work was informed by actual law practice, but some of it came from their growing up in a system that works - where schools work like schools and not businesses, and students have no reason to suspect your abilities or your right to be in a position to instruct them.  There was sexism, racism, and accent-ism, but my experience of sexism here in Pakistan is much worse. In some sense, students in Pakistan reflect the system's failure.

They are devoid of idealism.  Most times they will instinctively side with the empowered, the propertied, the establishment.  Even when shaken to question power dynamics, they show a cynical adherence to them.  Thus its not for lack of exposure, but a conscious and cognizant choice they have made -- thereby representing what what I like to call 'screw the subaltern' attitude   If people want to come up, we'll make sure we're kicking them down.  If people trespass, its not out of necessity, but cunning.  A show of compassion becomes a sign of weakness.  Giving latitude to the weak means relinquishing control.

Over the years that I have taught, R v Brown, the case of the sado-masochistic homosexuals who were convicted of battery and denied the defense of consent, I've toned it down, and made it more about a legal principle they can relate to and respect because its more than 200 years old -- the courts are usurping the role of the legislature and criminalizing something they find morally repugnant.  This gives them the space to dissociate their own moral repugnance, and accept the criticism of the case as a separation of powers issue.  And it makes sense that our feisty lawyers of the movement were fighting for separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary, and not the rights of labor, minorities, women, homosexuals, or the landless -- at least not explicitly.  If the oppressed need to assert a right, instead of us developing a law debate around it, pressing for parliamentary reform, litigating for progressive precedent -- lets leave to the CJ-- an obsessive and compulsive suo motu culture until the skin peels and to the point of evading all responsibility.

Students like to pigeon hole you: She's a feminist; she approves of homosexuality; she emphasizes reading, but pay no heed.  A few years ago, I would go livid explaining to them the importance of reading; then I started talking about it sparingly and breaking down only when the intellectual chemistry was zero.  Now, I almost never tell students to read.  I admit I do not want to sound like a broken drum.  Its a terrifying thing to say something that will be disregarded, and then say it again, and be mocked for it, and then say it a third time, and be dismissed as mental in the chat rooms and hallways of student power.  So out of mortal fear of the phenomenon I like to call...'She's like this only...'  I have learned that if students want to be dumb asses, I need to stop popping nerves about it.

In their quest for short cuts, and do the minimum amount of work in order to pass, students do not believe in reading.  In fact they abhor reading and will spend more time convincing each other that reading is futile, and acquiring notes and figuring tricks than it actually takes to read a case.  They have decided reading a long case gives them no tangible, short term benefits.  The idea is to pass and get a degree, not dwell on arguments.  Cleverness reflects how you accomplish that without hard work.  Its apparent and most classes lack depth.

But they like to be told that they are ingenious.  They like to be given facts and scenarios and even legal arguments on a platter that they then like to dissect, except their ignorance squeaks though, and its embarrassing.  You see, as a teacher, you have to be positive and encourage students who speak up and critique a case, but I can promise you this -- no teacher in the world -- however progressive, however liberal, sweet and unassuming-- can tolerate uninformed commenting two thirds of the way into a college level course.  So I have to shut them down when they speak with such confidence -- yet without reading, and this does not come from a desire to reprimand or assert authority -- I am simply fatigued by stupidity.  I am bored of the audacity of ignorance.  I am not here to crush spirits, but really, it must be done.  If you are talking rape and sexual offences, sensitive subjects, you want to create space for people to speak out even if their views are offensive -- but there comes a time when the classroom ceases to be a safe space for me.  When talking about these things is less about learning, and more about creating a spectacle.  That is when you need to stop.

I had a teacher who taught me employment law, and I found his method practical.  He read portions of cases from his notes.  But if you glance at your notes in a Pakistani classroom, it is automatically seen as a sign of -- she does not know the material.  Of course, not wearing a suit exacerbates things.  So many times, I will look down to read something, and students will see this as an inability to teach impromptu, rather than a way of giving them detail.  It does not take a genius to teach someone impromptu what duress means or that self defense is allowed only when its reasonable;  but teaching is more than delivering the basic concepts, and you can't really teach without talking about what was said.

The sadness I feel when I am challenged by a non reader who quickly reads the judgment, a date, or a head note is inexplicable.  I could destroy them on substance, but that would humor them and reinforce their world.
Some students suffer from what I call a self induced infantilism;  they want to be scolded almost as if -- if they were not, it would jeopardize their chances of passing.  Getting a share of a teacher's wrath is a rite of passage;  it is a way of reasserting your youth, reaffirming your stereotypes about a student-teacher relationship -- its about your comfort zone and learned helplessness.  They greet me loudly as if I don't get it.  I once had a student remind me she was only 19 -- hence smirks, giggles, and texting should be understandable.  I find all this creepy.  I mean, go smoke you bong, but don't be giddy.

By no means is this a generalization.  Every year I find a handful of students, mostly women, who are smart and inspirational.  And they make it worth it.  Seriously, I love teaching.  No one would not believe me now.  I believe classes have souls.  Sometimes you get a beautiful group of people who complement each other.  Recently, I asked about 15 people to leave the classroom, and taught the remaining, and I understood instantly how the soul of the class shifted.  You see if 70% of the students are not getting the nuances, it creates dead space;  that dead space feeds into your mood, and diminishes your capacity to teach, and you.

Lastly, a note on loyalty.  Don't ever get fired and expect the students to stand up for you.  Don't take a position, and expect them to rally behind you.  As a teacher you should always remind yourself, that you are a 'dulhan aik raat ki'.  And after the exams, many people will not even make eye contact.  Teaching is about constantly moving on.

pappu girls

Two ads deserve scathing comment.

The first, a Tuc (Lu) biscuit ad featuring the VJ and model Mahira playing a cute girl about to be married.  In between shopping for bridal dowry, she feels the urge to snack.  She complains to us in pouty faced and put on innocence that her mother disapproves of her eating because her clothes may not fit, and she may look "bigger" than her groom.  But now the problem is solved because Tuc offers a light snack for in between shopping cravings.

The second is an ad for Candyland chocolate bars featuring another cute girl about to be married.  Her even cuter brother teases her about her changing status, and how she won't be able to cook for the family.  She huffs and scowls.  Later when she is leaving with her new husband, her brother, now sorry, makes it up to her and leaves a candy bar for her in the car.  The siblings exchange tearful glances.

What exactly is the not so subliminal messaging here?  Promoting a culture of childish brides who are trying subconsciously to hold onto their baby fat, and with their stashes of candies and cookies?

Messaging 1: We like brides to be young - the younger, the smaller, and 'fresher' the better.  In fact right out of A-levels will work too; and its so cute that they lisp and talk like babies because we tacitly approve of our subculture of paedophilia.  Not of the indictable type but where women are condemned to enact a life of childlike imbecility in the hope that it will win the favor of people in power.  And when the act gets old, we can just condemn them for being pathetic.

Messaging 2: Girls are hesitant and apprehensive about marital life yet submit to its coercive nature.  The tuc girl is pressured by her (invisible, overbearing) mother.  Instead of questioning why it matters that she is bigger than her groom, and asserting her right to delay marriage until she's held down a few jobs, she acquiesces to it with coyness and  "mommy knows best" attitude.  A small spirit shines through, but she's not ready to challenge the status quo, and she succumbs to futility of resistance. The chocolate girl is about to leave the comfort of family, and her brother reminds her of the unpredictability of life ahead.  Instead of having a talk with her brother about how they'd split their book collection over a pina colada, or who will water the plants (like normal people), she whines and complains about his teasing like a 12 year old.  Also, playing into a playful, sexually tense brother-sister relationship rather than a casual, caring one.

Messaging 3:  Welcome eating disorders and substance abuse when life won't look so cheery.  Turn to food and drugs and hopeless diets.

Ultimate messaging to girls: Get married young when you're plump and shy (sly).  Be tender and sweet and you will get what you need from a patriarchal culture.  No wonder you see grown women flitting around bosses, superiors and men in power, acting like little girls (and batting lids) -- but really they want jobs, promotions, and benefits, or a short cut from male bureaucracy.

Who are we to judge call girls when we are intent on raising girls in a culture where marriage is rape, and sexuality stripped of agency.

This is disturbing messaging, and violence of an insidious type, and I sure as hell don't want my daughter preening herself for marriage, and then getting bulimic, and expecting a Rs.5 lakh jora as a rite through cuteness. It ain't happening.  I am protecting her from this teenage obsessive shaadi culture for as long as I can, and if the system beats me to it, it sure as hell won't be because I did not try.

Raymond, the terror suspect

Here is Raymond Davis being interviewed right after his arrest by the police.  


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/8316093/American-Raymond-Davis-police-interview-after-shooting-two-Pakistanis-dead.html


This is a man who has just been involved in the homicide of three people; yet he shows little remorse, just irritation at the inconvenience of being caught.  He says he is a "consultant" at the consulate, and then asks for bottled water.  He is anxious and annoyed, enunciates his words to be understood, and clearly thinks it is his right and privilege to get out of the situation as quickly as possible.  No doubt, his racism towards Pakistanis is psychopathic, and whatever consultancy mission he is carrying out for the consulate is not good news for the people of Pakistan.  The police officers themselves are a little confused and almost wanting to give him white protocol, and then one of them reminds everyone - "he's killed people" -- I shudder at the very thought that dangerous men like him, men who act as guilt free as he does after putting away three people -- are working in diplomacy.  It must be diplomacy of a very fatal kind.


If Raymond Davis were a Pakistani man consulting with the consulate in New York and was caught with cellphones, and multiple business cards in Brooklyn right after such an incident, he'd be awaiting a very chilling future of blanks walls and heavy grey doors.  Pakistan would have waived immunity from prosecution in one quick phone call.  He would be in a high security prison.  He would be subjected to several serial, and very serious interrogations.  The media would be awash with news of terror.  He would within days have lost all signs of vitality.  Pretty soon he'd be disoriented, he'd be asking for kiblah and halal food and the people fighting for him back home would be the fundamentalists.


But Raymond Davis just might get away because our government is weak and spineless, caught up in America's war, and anxious for military aid, while the people of Pakistan suffer blast after blast. Just two this morning in Karachi and Hyderabad.


The case has brought lawyers out of the woodwork doing somersaults and handstands reading the Vienna Convention.  Gist of the matter is, in light of his own initial revelations about his status as consultant to the Consulate, and business cards found on him revealing his association with a non existent Florida company Hyperion LLC, and as a defence department contractor -- it is seriously doubtful that he was a diplomatic agent.  This status is defined in the convention as including heads of the mission or a person of diplomatic rank.  If he had diplomatic rank, he would have asserted his immunity right away.  Regardless, he is not free from a civil lawsuit as he was acting outside his official functions. (Art, 31(c) of the Vienna Convention, 1961) -- unless official functions now include sinister operations and the use of military grade knives and high capacity magazines.  It is also doubtful that he is technical and administrative staff (I mean, we're speaking of paper pushers and IT people here, no?)-- and even if he were, he is not immune from civil prosecution (Art. 37) for his negligence causing a wrongful death.  Whatever his status, it can not be altered secretly after the fact of the killings to avoid criminal prosecution.  Also, consular officers are not protected from detention and prosecution for grave crimes under Article 41 of the Vienna Convention 1963, and murder certainly is the gravest crime of all.  Other crimes include the carrying of illegal military grade weapons -- also serious and grave crimes.


More importantly, he sure as hell looks like a bastard; he killed people, and he did not do it in self defence. The first two were murder, and in the third case, he was aidor and abettor to gross negligence manslaughter.  Jane Perlez reported that the forensic evidence that first two of Davis’s victims were shot in the back.


The opening to the Vienna Convention reminds us of the "sovereign equality of States, the maintenance of international peace and security, and the promotion of friendly relations among nations."  It is set in the belief that these privileges and immunities from criminal and civil suits would contribute to the development of friendly relations among nations, irrespective of their differing constitutional and social systems.


None of this preamble is applicable here.   In a country where private mercenary companies from the U.S. are gathering intelligence and facilitating drone attacks - where the state allows the U.S. to carry out drone attacks in violation of the law and principles of human rights,  the Vienna Conventions aims and purposes, otherwise noble, forthright, and logical seem bookishly ludicrous.  There is no semblance of sovereign equality between the two countries - and specially not in light of the fact that the U.S. is threatening to withhold aid until Davis is released.


The article below by Dave Lindorrf says that there "is speculation in Pakistan’s media that Davis may have been involved in some kind of covert U.S. program to actually finance or orchestrate some of the bombings that have been rocking, and destabilizing Pakistan."


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27441.htm


Not surprising.  This is what was on him at the time of arrest: (from the same article)
a Glock handgun
a flashlight that attaches to a headband
a pocket telescope
a large number of cellphones
one satellite phone
a collection of batteries
bucketloads of bullets for the Glock and  Beretta 
a load of M-16 shells
military-grade knives
wires
an array of high-capacity magazines for the handguns


In the 1830s, the Talpurs had failed to take note of the significance of the surveying instruments carried by the traveler Alexander Burns who made it down the Indus - and later paved the course for the invasion of Sindh.  In contrast, Davis's instruments are overtly violent.  We should demand an explanation for each one of his instruments.


The biggest mistake we will make is let his issue be relegated to the jamatis.  If the jammat picks it up and carries forward a protest, rest assured all the legitimate arguments will be mixed up with rightist psycho-religious babble, and acquire a sense of lunacy, and be dismissed as wild eyed-speculation and conspiratorial.  The secular minded activists, journalists and lawyers will shy away - just like they shied away from disappearances, detentions, and got amnesia about constitutional rights violations the moment the issue became connected with fundamentalists.


There are few opportunities like this - this case has given us a chance, yet again, to demand answers - and demand that terrorism,of the Ray Davis type, and otherwise, be stopped.  Enough madness!