No Man-Istan

Living in such a large city, it’s amazing how you can be in an area for nearly two years and still find new hangouts spots. Sometimes these places seem hidden due to a lack of knowledge from the locals, or  uneven or poor advertising, but either way it’s possible to drive by a place every day and not even know what it is.

One example is a multi-purpose recreation zone, billed as “family entertainment,” called Arena. www.arena.net.pk/about-us.php I always thought it was a convention center or something. I just went there last Saturday and had a blast, and I plan on going back.

Of the many excellent American-style eateries, mostly clustered in or around Zamzama road, there is one that stands out called “Gunsmoke.” www.karachisnob.com/gun-smoke-restaurant-karachi.htm. An old Western-themed restaurant, it had excellent food, and a bar serving “mocktails.” (Alcohol is illegal in Pakistan, so most places serve mocktails. Of course, there are places you can go to get the real deal).

Another cool place is Area 51. http://members.virtualtourist.com/m/749e0/140465/d/ Modelled on an sci-fi theme, as you would expect from a place named for the legendary military base said to be the site of an alien spaceship crash in Roswell Arizona, it has good food, music, and bowling. Arena also offers bowling, but has much more, so this is the place to go just for bowling.

For other hidden wonders, there is a general website for Karachites:  http://zagtalk.surferzag.com/?p=319

I usually try, successfully or not, to temper any negative comments or entries about the country I’m currently living in with something positive. As long as you’ve got your eyes open to any sign of hope, even something hidden within the cracks, there is solace.

I’ve mentioned Herald Magazine, good books I’ve read, and other enjoyable items for my purchasing pleasure. Now there is something to read that won’t cost me anything – an online magazine made by Pakistanis.

“Chay” is a term that has multiple meanings, including a derogatory term for sex and for women. Like any culture with a high level of misogyny, paternalism, modesty, and shame, there is a lot of silence on the topic of sex. When sex is talked about (by men mostly) it is usually done crudely, i.e. dirty jokes, and not in a mature manner (some religious people openly talk about the need for sex education and health, but not many). But women in this society have managed to break the taboo and start an intelligent discussion on sexuality in a country starving for it.

Why this issue, and why now? After all, the need for open sexual discourse doesn’t seem as urgent and burning (excuse the distasteful pun) an issue as other problems facing Pakistan. But now is as good a time as any. I won’t go as far as saying that repression, patriarchy, or sex-negativity cause fanaticism, but they certainly don’t create a healthy environment.

I don’t know if they are still accepting submissions, or are even still running, but you can see the last issue here: http://chaymagazine.org

This video shows an amusing moment that somehow summarizes the strange relationship between the U.S. and Pakistan right now. I’ll let others generate interpretations rather than add my own commentary.

This is overdue, but I would have mention him sooner or later. Am I surprised that Asif Zardari was sworn in as president nearly a month ago? No, not really. I had no doubts that Mr. 10% would be able to wiggle his way into high office. I’m sure it’s been his ambition for decades. If anything, I was surprised it didn’t happen sooner.

I don’t hate the man (some of the allegations against him might be false or exaggerated, serving the interest of his enemies), but I really don’t have any illusions that he will save this country. I don’t even think his late wife could have really pulled it off, at least not by herself. I’ve been told that as bad as he is, he’s an angel compared to many politicians, but considering just how dirty politics is here, that’s cold comfort. In Pakistan, corruption and mafioso maneuvers are not just ways to get ahead, they are practically necessary to survive.

As usual, I feel that my analysis is moot compared to Time, probably the best magazine of its kind. I marvel at how they can summarize complex events so succinctly, and without dumbing down the issues. The Sept. 22 issue of Time (Asia Edition) had Zardari on the front cover with an article that hit the nail on the head: “Pakistan – A Nation At Risk.” Unfortunately, I don’t have a link to this article, but here are two other relevant ones: www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1839935,00.html

www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1699642,00.html.

Besides Time, I would highly recommend a book by Ron Suskind – The Way of the World: A Story of Truth and Hope in an Age of Extremism – that was so gripping I finished it in a few days. Brilliantly written, it is exactly the kind of book I’d like to write.

This post is a little overdue, but I thought I should get back into the habit of writing regularly again.

My summer was not that eventful, other than moving into a new house. When school got out I, naturally, had a lot more free time. I’m proud to say that I read over five books in a month and a half, but I’m not so proud to say I also watched a lot more TV than I normally do. But I must say, certain types of programs dismissed as mere entertainment can actually be quite prescient and informative.

One series I watched was on the Discovery Channel. A British travel journalist did a special on India. Informative and fascinating, he exhibited curiosity and respect for India’s great history, and its current culture, but still managed to be level-headed and not overly fawning (a hard feat). What I liked most was that it focused solely on India’s pre-Islamic history, which you rarely get a chance to see in Pakistan (as it is seemingly obsessed with the Mughal era, when India was ruled by Muslims). I think it also showed pictures of Lahore in Pakistan at one point, when he was talking about Shah Jehan (of Taj Mahal fame).

Around the same time National Geographic had a special about a British journalist who traveled to Pakistan (she is of Pakistani origin). She (re)discovers a country that is very different from how it’s portrayed by the media. She visits beautiful regions like Hunza, a lush valley with multi-tiered green farm terraces cut into the hills (which reminds me of Nepal) and inhabitants who live essentially the same lifestyle as their ancient ancestors. An old route runs through its mountains that was once part of the silk route, and to the locals it is just another road (they talk about those times as if they were yesterday). Other places included the equally beautiful northern areas like Kashmir and Muree (a country-side villa near Islamabad). And of course she went to all the major cities, many of them also brimming with history.

I could resonate with her sense of pride in her heritage and her overcoming of the prejudice that comes from two opposite directions; a disorienting condition many second generation children feel as, caught between two worlds, they have trouble figuring out what their identity is. If you face rejection and/or acceptance from both sides, it’s hard to know who you really are.

One thing she said towards the end of the program was that she was overwhelmed with emotion during this journey (I resonate) and then she triumphantly cried: “Pakistan Zindabad” (long-live Pakistan).

Honestly, I’m not sure how I feel about this. In these troubled times, when this country is being torn apart by sectarian violence and terrorism, and some fear it’s on the verge of civil war, I can understand this nationalist sentiment. Pakistan needs some unity (in addition to faith and discipline, the three pillared slogan of its founder). But I don’t resonate with the ideology of partition or Muslim supremacy (cloaked in cries for autonomy and independence). Although the vision of Pakistan that Jinnah proclaimed was admirable for the most part, this country has continued to stumble since its violent birth, and stumble badly.

I prefer the slogan “sons of the soil” or the similar slogan I see posted on street signs “Pakistan, love the soil.” It might be a poor translation into English from the Urdu idiom, but it gets the message across. To me it means this: Take pride in your heritage, both Islamic and pre-Islamic. Be loyal to your land, history, and fellow country-mates, despite what religion, ethnicity, or political affiliation they belong to. We are all brothers and sisters, so let’s make this country a more decent place to live.

Instead of giving you a cliched piece about the Musharraf resignation, I’ve decided to present the final installment of my “Muchie Rots from the Head Down” series.

When I first arrived in Pakistan, I went a month without work, and I started getting a little ancy. What I really wanted was money so that I could travel, support myself, and just have some cash for myself. I ended up teaching at the first place that hired me.

When I started I was only teaching two classes. Full-time teachers must stick around until the afternoon at my school, so a natural place to congregate is the staff lounge. I met a lot of interesting people, most of whom I liked. But after long, sometimes intense conversations, you really find what’s on people’s minds.

I’ll present you with a case study ->

One of the former sociology teachers at my school was a slim, energetic, articulate young lady. A lot of boys found her physically attractive. She talks with a fast-paced, staccato, upper crust American accent; like a Pakistani Ann Coulter.

At first I tried to look past her tough exterior. I understand that progressives have a lot to be angry about, particularly when it comes to U.S. foreign policy, but I was sure she was basically an open-minded person, as I deduced from some early conversations.

However, a few things made me question my initial perception. The first was her gushing over Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. I can understand an endorsement of the former, though I have mixed feelings about him, but the latter is not a leader that someone who claims to support human rights should praise. I was further confused by her admission that she adheres to Machiavelli’s notion of “power at all costs.” And she had this odd habit of mentioning that she comes from a prominent family of feudal Balochis, as though everyone was suppsed to be impressed.

I remember when a teacher asked another if she was Hindu (Pakistanis openly ask such questions, as religion is not really considered a personal matter) she made a disgusted face and said “yuck!” Whenever Hindus were mentioned she never had a positive comment. She had nothing positive to say about Arabs either (few Pakistanis do). But she did say that they have a right to do what they want with their oil wealth. I have no problem with Arabs enriching themselves with a resource in their own backyards, but this is a strange comment considering her animosity towards Saudi influence in her country. Despite her avowed dislike of Wahhabism, she said that Arab regimes show restraint, as they could really hurt the West if they wanted to by raising the price of oil as a weapon. Perhaps she forgot about the OPEC embargo that caused a major energy crisis during the 70’s.

According to her, Americans have “sun shine up their ass.” As evidence, she said that even Stiglitz – who wrote Globalization and Its Discontents – believes it, and he’s an American. That’s classic bigotry: those *fill-in-the-blank* people are *fill-in-the-blank* – even their own people say it.

I do agree with Stiglitz (at least on general ideas, his technical expertise in economics is beyond me) that self-serving U.S. aid programs mandate terms, or “structural adjustment programs,” on developing nations that cause cycles of debt, inflation, and poverty for future generations. Ditto for the IMF and World Bank. But I wonder what she thinks of his latest work Making Globalization Work, which goes beyond complaining and shows how globalization can benefit everyone. Maybe he should get off the Xanax.

She was not above echoing conservatives by blaming racial minorities in the West for their social position. She made another tell-tale bigoted comment “I’m not a racist but …” When asked about whether she thought Canada was better than the U.S., as she’s studied in both countries, she said no. When asked what’s wrong with Canada, she said that Native Americans take too many handouts, which is bad for the economy. She said the same about blacks and Latinos in the U.S.

One of her main problems with Musharraf is that he let the U.S. bomb terrorist base camps (I suppose it would’ve been better for this region had these militants been allowed to kill Afghan, Indian, and Pakistani civilians). She even complained that the U.S. sent wheat to Pakistan instead of weapons, as they had promised. So sending weapons to a dictator is bad, but sending food to starving people, ill-served by an inefficient and unresponsive government after an earthquake, is also bad. You just can’t win.

In general, her big complaint is that America uses money to control Pakistan, and Pakistan has no choice in the matter because if it didn’t accept aid, the U.S. would bomb and invade it. While this isn’t an implausible scenario, the sad reality is that there have been corrupt rulers in this part of world long before America became a major player on the world stage. If local elites didn’t benefit from the arrangement, they wouldn’t be so eager to form an alliance. Pakistan was a U.S. ally and received copious amounts of aid (only behind Israel and Egypt) long before Kissinger, Bush, or the C.I.A. bullied Islamabad. Since 1950 Pakistan has been all too willing to do Washington’s dirty work in return for leverage against its arch-rival India.

It’s strange to hear outrage about the bombing of tribal regions when there is silence about the effects of this growing extremism in these same regions. It’s not so clear-cut that this militancy is merely a response to the bombings; one can just as easily say that it’s the other way around. Why would the U.S. or NATO randomly bomb a poor village? They have nothing better to do than kill defenseless people? Targets in modern warfare are very selectively chosen, based on intelligence on who is likely to launch attacks. If this was a “scorched-earth policy,” it would not look remotely like what we see now. Consider what the U.S. could do if it repeated its previous strategies in Asian wars, such as Japan, Vietnam, Cambodia, or Indonesia.

And I don’t buy the argument that Osama bin Laden merely represents a “resistance.” Al Qaeda is the brand name of a global movement that aims to divide and conquer, as they themselves want to rule as much of the world as possible.

Enough about that; I should get back to my colleague. Not only did she say that she respects bin Laden, she even said that “America needs another 9-11.” Morality aside, this would be counter-productive in a strategic sense, from her own point of view. If you want to stop the War on Terror, get the U.S. to pull out troops from Muslim countries, and bring general stability to the world, that’s the worst possible way to do it! Rather than Americans becoming more sympathetic towards the plight of Muslim countries, it would drive a nail into the coffin of the anti-war movement, pretty much guaranteeing either that a rightwing president would be elected, or that whatever administration was in power would turn more hawkish.

Further, I couldn’t help but take it a little personally. OBL did say that it is the duty of all Muslims to kill Americans wherever they are, however they can.

Gee, thanks for supporting my murder, comrade.