No Man-Istan

One day after giving a lecture, I was approached in the computer lab by a part-time teacher with a job proposal. “Let’s face it. I know you don’t do ‘shit’ in the afternoon” he said to me. He presented me with an opportunity for an easy job which would only use up a few hours of my time in the evening. (Actually I did do shit, such as writing this here blog, it’s just that I didn’t get paid for my non-work activities). He’d do it himself, he assured me, but he just didn’t have time. He knows the head of the World Flower Association (of Pakistan) who is preparing for an international floral art exhibition in Lahore. The gig entailed writing correspondence letters to various agencies (public and private) for about 15,000 rupees a month (the equivalent to about $275 US). Flower arranging? Not something that particularly fascinates me. I decided to think about it, and after deliberating for a few weeks decided to give it a go.

Arriving at her office, a large house on the same property as her private house, I was impressed with the beautiful courtyard in between the two abodes. It was a green oasis that helped me forget about the dull yellow and brown of Karachi. Flowers, particularly Jasmine, exotic plants, a fountain with pool and aquatic life – it was quite a site. I met her husband as well, a well-heeled chinoiti (an elite class of wealthy industrialists from a region of Punjab) with a perpetually bored affect. “I like how the place is landscaped,” I said to him, to which he barely registered any notice, not even a perfunctory thank you. 

When I interviewed with her, she enticed me with a proposal to write a book. Besides the promise that it will be read internationally and could have a decent generation of sales, she also appealed to my idealistic side. She mentioned how her organization gives money to charity, how she wants to promote international friendship, highlight the importance of environmentalism, portray her country’s better side, and encourage new avenues of economic development. I must say, she hit all the right chords. So much so that it overwhelmed my common-sense.

Indeed, right from the beginning of the meeting I knew things weren’t right. The first thing that rubbed me the wrong way was a series of personal and inappropriate questions she asked about my family. After assuring me of the sophistication of her ethnic group, versus the other primitives of this society, she mentioned how she has traveled around the world, but it wasn’t until she made her pilgrimage to Mecca that she got in touch with her spiritual roots. Despite her ostentatious display of worldly sophistication, she gushed about how Islam is so simple (in her case, simplistic might be a better word). Indeed she made sharia law sound like it was a completely logical and fair arrangement for the modern world.

She mentioned how she was opposed to honor killings (OK, good) but then said that it’s not about Islam, but is a Hindu custom. Honor killing is actually a custom Muslims brought to India, though it is not Islamic in origin, but stems for the cultural practices of Arabs and Turks. Suttee, or widow burning, is a Hindu custom, but it’s a different one. A roughly equivalent custom that India has had a problem with is dowry killings, but then again, dowry, as opposed to bride-price, wasn’t practiced in India before Islam, and even then it didn’t appear until the beginning of British rule. I felt like saying all this to her, but I held it in. Who was I to lecture her?

One thing that was telling was the literature she had in her office. Ostensibly religious, she dutifully performed her evening prayers at maghreb and always graciously covered herself with a dupatta. She was also critical of extremists. Her father was a military man, and she is a nationalist, not a fundamentalist, she assured me. Among picture-books of floral art and Pakistani scenery (I recall the fondness in her voice when showing me a picture of a woman in a shuttlecock from her ancestral territory), I noticed copies of individuals verses from the Qur’an. This is a common feature of a Pakistani household, as sections of individual suras, or chapters, are often used in special prayers or recitations. Nosily browsing through them one day, I found that all of them contained verses about Jews. Strange, I thought.

One night after a long writing session, I was invited to sit down with her and her husband for dinner. After some polite small talk she decided to ask me about my political views. “This is the first time I’ve had the chance to ask an American what they think about …” it started. She wanted to know my opinion of the standoff between the U.S. and Iran. I said that the U.S. should put past issues behind them. She agreed with me that Iran could actually be a good stalwart against Sunni fundamentalism. I admit that this Machiavellian game of pitting Sunnis and Shiites against each other in the Middle East is not a viable strategy (In the last 30 years we supported Saddam Hussein with money/military support when he ruthlessly defeated his rivals in the Ba’ath party and then attacked Iran, and at the same time we gave weapons to Iran while they were committing human rights violations against their internal enemies and were supporting Hezbollah, who was attacking our biggest friend Israel, who themselves have been oppressing the Palestinians and were occupying Lebanon). I said that while the hostage crisis was not nice, and before I could finish, she abruptly cut me off. “Not nice! Not nice?” She shrieked. What about Vietnam, what about the millions killed here, there, in x, y, and z? She must have assumed that I was a typically ignorant American who didn’t know or care about such things. My point was simply that the U.S. should get over the hostage episode and move on because there are much bigger issues at stake right now. That she mentioned Vietnam really got to me. I was close to Vietnamese people in the states, many of whom were refugees. None of them liked the Vietnam war, but they’re a very forgiving people, and I’ve never sensed any malice from them towards American people. Even Ho Chi Minh said that once the U.S. left, he’d roll out the red carpet! If I wanted to be petty I could’ve mentioned how the Pakistani army killed as many Bengalis in one year as the U.S. did in ten years in Vietnam, but tit-for-tat arguments get you no where. And I made it clear to them, as I have to others, that I’m not an apologist or propagandist for my country.

She asked me about bin Laden. After giving my assessment of the events 9/11, she said she didn’t believe bin Laden was responsible because the biggest victims in the world after 9-11 have been Muslims. She asked me what he gained from this. Hmmm, let’s see. Besides scaring the crap out of the West and disrupting the global economy? Besides provoking the very over-reactions he needs in order to organize a war against Western governments? There’s that eternal reward in the afterlife and the avoiding of hell-fire thing. All of his demands are on public display. I’ve read his manifesto; he’s quite specific about what his agenda is. Not surprisingly, Iraq was a boon to Al Qaeda, drawing in thousands of fresh recruits.

Then her husband piped in, and they both concurred that the biggest beneficiary of 9-11 is, you guessed it – Israel. When I told them that I happened to know an Israeli businessman who certainly didn’t benefit from the events in the world in the last 6 years, she at least met me half-way and admitted that politicians have more to gain than ordinary citizens. But no, not her husband.

A man who admits that he’s “not religious” nonetheless poured out his religious-inspired venom that night. While my relatives in America don’t want to listen to it, he told me, I know the truth. Here was his theory: The Jews fixed the elections to get Bush into office so that they could manipulate him into killing Muslims. Bush is not a bad man, he’s just stupid, that’s all. So those clever Jews manipulated the outcome by making sure Lieberman was Gore’s running mate, knowing that the millions of Muslims in America would not vote for him, thus costing Gore the election.

He looked at me with a proud, Cheshire Cat grin to see if I would go along with it. I offered a more mundane explanation: Gore chose Lieberman in order to reach out to moderates, Republicans, and swing voters, as he has a record of reaching across party lines. Lieberman also has a moralist reputation, which suited the climate in America at the time as the GOP in congress, and their support on the religious right, went on a moral crusade against Clinton for his personal indiscretions. As Gore was Clinton’s VP, this image was hurting his campaign.

He admitted that he had no evidence for his theory, but nonetheless upheld his belief in Jewish wickedness. I tried to dismantle this notion with a failed ploy. Doesn’t the Qur’an state that Jesus wasn’t really crucified on the cross? If so, doesn’t that mean that the traditional Christian charge of deicide is invalid? Yes, he admitted, as a Muslim you have to believe that. On the other hand, Jews (not Romans, mind you) schemed to kill the prophet Isa (Jesus) just as they later tried to kill the beloved prophet Muhammad.

Suffice to say, I didn’t last long at this job.

I never intended this blog to devolve into cheap gossip or sensationalism. I’ve only wanted to present thoughtful entries, and I’m confident that I’ve succeeded in doing that so far.

One thing I will not ignore is when educated, intelligent, and otherwise decent-seeming people revel in an unashamed, and usually poorly informed, bigotry. It’s not my goal to confirm stereotypes in order to slander Pakistan or its people. At the same time I will not hide dirty laundry.

So I’ve decided to dedicate further entries (I don’t know how many) to some personalities I’ve come across in the working world of Karachi. I won’t name names, but I will put the comments of those I’ve had to pleasure, or displeasure, of working with on full view. Why hide the sentiments of the elite? Many of them have studied abroad and have traveled in several continents, so you’d think they would be the most likely to be sensitive, progressive, and modern. These are supposed to be the best this society has to offer. Why hide my sheer disappointment?

I’m convinced that the most common, and most counter-productive, psychological defense mechanism in this society is denial. It might make you feel better, it might improve your self-esteem, but acting like severe problems are no big deal allows them to fester until reality rudely intrudes into your personal life (but even then you can give it some bogus religious interpretation).

I’ve written this before and I’ll write it again, I’m convinced that the majority of Pakistanis are moderates. They want to live in a secular country with the modernist principles of the constitution intact, to abide by international standards of human rights, and a separation of religion from state authority. It might just barely be a majority, but it is. However, it seems this majority is an all too silent one. It’s an easy temptation to just lie down and accept the status quo. That’s because the majority is also conservative, in the sense that they are averse to messing with tradition, whatever their private opinions might be. Those who’ve had enough of business-as-usual, or are simply desperate for a better life, give up and leave. Is it any wonder so many Pakistani human rights activists work outside the country? Others are consoling themselves with hopes that a military dictatorship can do a better job running the country than corrupt civilian governments. Then there’s that recent book Military Inc. by the brave researcher Ayesha Siddiqa that punctures the image of the military as anything other than a greedy business bent on expanding their territory. It hasn’t been easy for her to come out with that, but the fact is that the book is out. It could’ve been banned.

Not only is much of the public in denial, the government is too. Or at least they must think others will go into denial if they pretend that facts don’t exist. Even the illiterate know bullshit when they see it, let alone Hollywood activists all too familiar with appearances and imagery over substance.

Angelina Jolie got involved in another important project, this time a recently released film about the death of New York Times journalist Daniel Pearl called “A Mighty Heart.” The incident happened right here in Karachi. One of several embarrassments for Pakistan, the current regime thought it fit to deny Jolie’s request to film the movie in their territory. I’m sure they did for “security reasons.”

Indeed, this is a dangerous time to be a journalist. Since the Iraq invasion, journalists have been targeted from all sides of the war. I haven’t seen “A Mighty Heart” in stores or theaters, and I suspect it would be a long time before it would be released, if ever. I bet most Pakistanis think it’s just some Hollywood Jewish conspiracy (it’s worth pointing out that BradJolina are not Jewish, but I bet there will be rumors that they are). I know some insiders who can certainly vouch for what happened, but if people don’t want to believe it, they won’t.

So why would the Pakistani government allow a film in their country that makes them look bad? Not only do they come off as incompetent when dealing with extremism, some of them might even be complicit in it (with some subtle orchestration, naturally, as America is constantly looking over their shoulder). I mean, here was a guy who was genuinely trying to understand these fanatics from their point of view, and he made sure to point out that Islam is a good religion that’s been dragged down by “cultural baggage.”

The world already knows that Daniel Pearl was beheaded in Pakistan. Here was a chance to begin a sort of Truth and Reconciliation Commission. The decision to deny their request, sending them off to archrival India to make the film, just makes Pakistan look even worse.

I will comment on the Red Mosque saga, but not now.

It’s rained a lot this summer. It always rains in Karachi in the summer, and for this reason it is more appropriate to split up its seasons as wet/dry. Well, it’s not like southern India or Bangladesh. There is a summer, a spring, not really a fall, for the leaves and flowers stay put, and a winter with autumn-like weather. Monsoons are rarer over on this side of the subcontinent, but we get them, and they happen at this time. One of them just missed us, and it blew off to Baluchistan, battering the poor fisherman who were not even warned (some say on purpose; the local political establishment is already selling off land and water rights to wealthy developers from the UAE). Rural Sindh and Baluchistan are flooded.

We had a storm that knocked out our power. We’ve already had a major increase in blackouts since spring, and this made it worse. Small businesses have been rioting. Students have been complaining about having trouble studying in the heat, and by candle-light, and that their exams had to be canceled several times. Who can blame them for being frustrated? You cannot blame the storm for all this either.

Since the government started privatizing utilities to a foreign company, they have decided to reduce the availability of electricity to all of us. This is not a “technical problem,” as they say, but a clear financial decision. It’s taken us until July for things to sort of get back to normal.

Of course, the weather has played a part. From what I hear, the summer rains are more severe now than they used to be, and so is the heat and humidity. Climate change on a global scale is no longer debated, though scientists disagree on exactly how much of it is related to human activity. But I have no doubt in my mind that human activity in Karachi, which is a relatively new city, has certainly had an effect. There is abundant evidence that Sindh in general has been over-irrigated and mismanaged, partially responsible for eventual desertification, and industrialization and out-of-control population growth is not helping.

I have many other things I want to write about, but the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) machinations keep popping up and grabbing attention. I can only hope this is a last gasp of desperation, rather than just the beginning of a dirty and painfully long civil war. Imagine if Waco or Ruby Ridge happened in Washington D.C. This should give an indication of the danger, real and symbolic, these extremists pose to the writ of Pakistan’s secular political authority.

The world can see what cowards they are. One of their clerics was caught trying to sneak out in a burqa in order to escape the authorities. Of course, had it really been a woman, she would not necessarily have been any more pleasant to deal with. I’ve heard their newest trick is to kidnap and beat women with short hair because, according to their metaphysical beliefs, which grow ever loopier and loopier, during Judgment Day our naked bodies will be resurrected from the earth, and since women must obviously cover themselves (there’s nothing God hates more than the exposed body parts which He Himself created), they have hair long enough to protect their modesty. That’s the funny thing, compared to seemingly gender-transgressing short-haired modern women, these martyrs have no discernable feminine qualities at all. They’re like black ninja turtles radiating pure anger. Protecting female modesty and family values? Would you want a mother like them? Yes, the glorious religion does (almost) prescribe gender equality, and institutions like this ensure that in the process all students become ultra-masculine warriors.

Here’s the deal. The standoff between Lal Masjid and the police/army has been going on for months. The faithful have decided to take part in vigilante justice, including killing a woman suspected of being a prostitute, and taking over a children’s library until their demands are met (I’m not sure which ones exactly). Last Tuesday militants guarding the front of the mosque opened fire on the soldiers, who understandably fired back. For the past few days I’ve been fearing blowback, but there hasn’t been any as far as I can tell. I know of no casualties related to this incident outside of Islamabad. Today on the news I saw that they accepted a conditional surrender. We’ll see how long it lasts.

What bothers me is how they became so well equipped in the first place. Police tried to use tear gas, and they already had gas masks. They have the same types of guns that the army has. I wonder if someone within the government has been arming them, or at least tipping them off. Also, some have pointed out how convenient this all is. With elections coming up, if this continues and martial law is declared, Musharraf can remain head of the army and head of the government and suspend elections indefinitely.

Nothing in my previous post was meant to imply that an eventual secularization of Islamic society could not happen naturally, provided that there is not too much Western interference. One source of influence are the khutba, or sermons, which occur after group worship in mosques. This can be an opportunity for angry, and often bored, Muslims to spout vitriolic rhetoric and incite the overthrow of their respective regime, or call for an attack on foreign enemies. Many Islamic schools are attached to mosques, and to remove them is to stand in the way of Muslims being able to fulfill their all important duties of prayer, communal business, and the learning and recitation of sacred literature (which could be done at home, but it’s not as fun). As we’ve seen in Islamabad in the last few months, taking away this outlet will not go down well with the yearning masses, especially as they see elite schools being built around them which exclude them from educational opportunities. But whatever you call it, some separation between the state and religion will have to happen, or else the Islamic world will continue to slide into medieval backwardness.

What I enjoyed most about Ali’s book was a reprinted “Letter to a Young Muslim” whom he met a protest rally. In this spirit I sent him an email. He did not respond, probably because it was rude. But I really do enjoy his work, honestly. Supposedly, this is the guy who the Rolling Stones based their song “Street Fighting Man” upon.

I’ll let readers decide if I was disrespectful in my email or not:

Is this what, as you stated in an interview in Mother Jones, you consider a legitimate resistance?

“Amal Saad-Ghorayeb, a Shiite scholar and assistant professor at the Lebanese American University, indicates that Hezbollah is not Anti-Zionist, but rather Anti-Jewish. She quotes Hassan Nasrallah as saying: ‘If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli.’ [98] Regarding the official public stance of Hezbollah as a whole, she indicates that while Hezbollah, ‘tries to mask its anti-Judaism for public-relations reasons … a study of its language, spoken and written, reveals an underlying truth.’ In her book, Hezbollah: Politics & Religion, she explores the anti-Jewish roots of Hezbollah ideology, arguing that Hezbollah ‘believes that Jews, by the nature of Judaism, possess fatal character flaws.’ Saad-Ghorayeb also indicates that ‘Hezbollah’s Quranic reading of Jewish history has led its leaders to believe that Jewish theology is evil.’ ”

98 “In the Party of God: Are terrorists in Lebanon preparing for a larger war?“, The New Yorker, October 14, 2002. Retrieved on 2006-08-21. 

Source: “Islam and Anti-Semitism” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_antisemitism

Now, the neutrality of the article has been disputed (naturally, any controversial topic that arouses strong emotions always is). My question is – Do you have good evidence to believe this is untrue? 

The article also cites Hamas as making specifically anti-Jewish, as opposed to anti-Zionist or anti-Israeli, comments. If Palestine is ruled by Islamists who are an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, I’m not convinced Israel will become any less exclusionary and cruel in its treatment of minorities. The cart will simply flip. Al Qaeda and Lashkar-e-Toiba are other notorious examples of pure hatred (remember, the initial name of Al Qaeda was the “Islamic Front Against Jews and Crusaders”). And isn’t Iran just a tad hypocritical when they call for a secular state in Palestine? I believe there are three Muslims and Arabs in the Knesset (though probably without any real clout) but not a single Jew in the Iranian parliament, even though Jews have lived in Persia for thousands of years, well before Islam arrived there. Tehran has one of the largest Jewish populations in the Middle East outside of Tel Aviv. By the way, Israel is the only state in the Middle East that grants rights to homosexuals. Iran’s crackdown on homosexuals and woman after the revolution was even harsher than its Jewish pogroms. And now they have a holocaust denier as president.

This does not strike me the “anti-imperialism of fools,” but simply counter-imperialism of an equally vicious, if statistically smaller, sort. Yes, the Ummah has been divided for a long time; it has been for most of its history. Yes, most Muslims are not radicals. But the ones who are have too many resources, and they are an influential bunch. I’m sympathetic to calls for an Islamic Reformation, but the leaders of this revolution cannot be milquetoast. Any historical claim of Islamic superiority (downplaying the achievements of previous or contemporaneous civilizations, taking credit for this and that, just like Americans love to do) must be challenged. Calling the Ottoman Kaliphat a “model empire” is a rather curious stance for an anti-imperialist. What, exactly, is it a model for? Slavery? Inept bureaucracy? Humiliating minorities? This is not a beacon for the Middle East. Perhaps most important of all, a true reformation in Islam must include drawing attention to the victim narrative and deconstructing it.

One of the latest books I’ve read, or reread, was Tariq Ali’s The Clash of Fundamentalisms. In many ways, it is an admirable book. It presents typical Left criticisms of Western imperialism, mostly British and American, and its drastic effects on the rest of the world, but in a unique style that weaves personal musings with historical expositions full of interesting and relevant information.

Despite his avowed Marxist Atheism, I noticed in spots that he shows strong cultural bias, which is unexpected considering how openly critical he is of his home state of Pakistan and its main religion. For example, when writing about the glories of Muslim rule in Spain, he glosses over invasions by Moors and Berbers, as though Christian Visigoths were happy to lose their territory. While its relative stability, prosperity, tolerance, and inter-cultural development, what the Spanish called “La Convivencia,” has been an inspiration, even Muslims in Spain were not always fair towards minorities, and they often fought among themselves. Ali laments how the once beautiful Great Mosque of Cordoba was ruined by Christians, who turned it into a Church after the Reconquista. His description of the church – that it became crammed with wood carvings, what he calls “graven images,” was “violated” by a Catholic alter and “oppressive wrought-iron” – is rather strange, given that he’s an atheist and shouldn’t have any religious objective to iconography or idolatry.

He’s right to protest the triumphalism of Christians. But one should also ponder the psychological effect the Muslim conquests had on India. Hindus and Buddhists have not forgotten how their temples were looted and torn down to build mosques. The pervasiveness of Islamic architecture, norms, and styles of dress in India, even today with its Hindu majority; many of them see this as the triumph of Semitic/Central Asian culture in the subcontinent.

In his presentation of Islamic history, he uses a bold conceptual framework that is less than flattering: Islam is essentially the creation of an Arab businessman (caravan trader), and warlord/ruler who laid the foundations of a religious empire. Yet, not once does he apply the term “imperialism” to Islam’s wars. Indeed, it’s almost as if Palestine, Byzantium, Persia, North Africa, and eastern/southern Europe were just asking to be taken over!

In the case of India, he repeats the party line that Hindus who converted to Islam did so because it offered better teachings. In some cases this was probably true, but I doubt all Hindu converts were simply bowled over by Islam’s theology. It’s the teaching that “all people are equal under God” that Muslims cite as the major attraction. “Under” is telling, because this describes how many Hindus today feel about Islam’s One God – a cosmic tyrant who wants to rule everyone and stamp out other gods, or religious ideals, allowed to seekers in Hindu culture. Indeed, it’s questionable whether traditional Islam teaches that all people are really equals. In practice, Islam has a mixed record when it comes to religious tolerance and cultural sensitivity. I think it’s more accurate to say that all who testify that Allah alone is God and that Muhammad was His (last) messenger are considered equals in Islam. There is also the teaching that, historically, everyone was originally a Muslim, and individually we are all born as Muslims. Thus, to a fundamentalist, converting to another religion, adopting a secular way of life, or simply reaffirming your pre-Islamic heritage are all seen as deviations from the Truth, and in some cases these acts are actually punished rather severely. If every religion is a version of Islam, than the Islamic system is de facto supreme.

In the conflict between Pakistan and India, he concludes that it’s solely the responsibility of India to make peace, as though Pakistan, the terrorists it has supported, and the U.S. and Muslim allies who have helped fund Pakistan’s military regime play no part. I don’t understand how on the one hand he points out that the paranoia about India is used by successive governments in Pakistan to justify its military dominance, but practically in the same breath make Pakistan out to be the victim. If Russia gave India an edge, then you cannot deny that China has given Pakistan an edge as well; a country that’s poised to eventually become a world superpower and surpass the U.S.

Another thing I noticed about the book is the amount of space devoted to Israel. Not mentioning Israel and the role it plays in world affairs and U.S. foreign policy, of course, would be very silly. But other leftist intellectuals are usually able to put it in context. Chomsky will point out that Israel is just one among many human rights abusing governments that the U.S. props up, not some unique category of evil. Even good old secular Turkey has committed atrocities. But in Ali’s book, Israel gets its own appendix, featuring an interview with a socialist Jewish critic of Israel, as if to say “see, even their own people say it.”

Lastly, there is his portrayal Shiites. To him, it seems, this sect has always been a bunch of crazed political radicals. Why not mention how the tradition of ijtihad (independent reasoning) was never abandoned among Shiite clerics, or the blending of intellectual and mystical cultures which made the Safavid Empire world renown? Fortunately, despite the fanaticism of the 1979 Islamic revolution, Iranian citizens still maintain some of their colorful pre-Islamic traditions.

One thing we definitely agree on, besides the need for a major shift in the domestic and foreign policy in the United States, is the need for the Islam to go through its own Reformation/Enlightenment period. He uses the term “separation of mosque and state,” and though I understand what the term means, and agree with it on principle, I hesitate to call it that. The Reformation in Europe was an outgrowth of nationalism and was a protest against the domination of the Holy Roman Empire as much as it was a theological revolution. It was the humanistic value of individual liberty, and not just the advancement of rationalism, which eventually led to Enlightenment ethos. So while it’s possible that Islamic thought could have a similar development without embracing capitalism – as Ali deftly points out, it only took a few centuries for major intellectual achievements in Islamic empires, including rationalists who even went as far as doubting Allah’s very existence – I don’t see how reform can happen without strong national governments.

Totalitarianism is bad for cultural development, but so is the breakdown of law and order which creates a vacuum that militant Islam quickly fills. When they gain control, militants quickly turn their sights to pre-modern boundaries as much as pre-modern ideas. If Iraq is the test case, it seems nationalism will have to co-exist with a strengthened Ulema (clerics and scholars) running the show, as they are a respected source of tradition, law, and order. They certainly have more legitimacy than foreign occupiers. There is no institution like the Vatican for Muslim nationalists to break away from, so if there is going to be a separation, it will have to happen in some other way, and it’s too soon to say how this complex process will evolve.