Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Wednesday, August 15, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version Print | Comments

Document After 60 Years, Will Pakistan Be Reborn?

by Mohsin Hamid

Reposted from:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/15/opinion/15hamid.html?th&emc=th

SIXTY years ago, British India was granted independence and partitioned into Hindu-majority India and my native nation, Muslim-majority Pakistan. It was a birth of exceptional pain.

Handed down to me through the generations is the story of my namesake, my Kashmir-born great-grandfather. He was stabbed by a Muslim as he went for his daily stroll in Lahore's Lawrence Gardens. Independence was only a few months away, and the communal violence that would accompany the partition was beginning to simmer.

My great-grandfather was attacked because he was mistaken for a Hindu. This was not surprising; as a lawyer, most of his colleagues were Hindus, as were many of his friends. He would shelter some of their families in his home during the murderous riots that were to come.

But my great-grandfather was a Muslim. More than that, he was a member of the Muslim League, which had campaigned for the creation of Pakistan. From the start, Pakistan has been prone to turning its knife upon itself.

Yet 1947 is also remembered in my family as a time of enormous hope. My great-grandfather survived. And the birth that year of his grandson, my father, marked the arrival of a first generation of something new: Pakistanis.

My mother recalls a childhood of sugar and flour rations. The 1950s, she says, were a decade of a young country finding its feet. She grew up in a small town and she describes a fierce love for Pakistan felt by her and her schoolmates. Pakistan was theirs, a source of pride and identity, symbolically both a parent and, because it inspired such feelings of protectiveness, a sibling.

In the 1960s, my mother's family moved to Lahore, which had been the cultural and governmental center of Punjab Province before the region was ripped apart at independence. By then, Pakistan's economy had begun to boom. My parents speak of cinemas showing the latest films, colleges producing idealistic graduates, and young couples walking along the banks of the River Ravi.

Yet Pakistan's true glory at that time was the southern port of Karachi, where my uncle, then a young banker, went to live. It was, he says, a vibrant and cosmopolitan city, a place of cafes and sea breezes and visiting international flight crews; it hummed with the energy and ingenuity of millions of former refugees who had come from India.

Still, these rosy family recollections paint an incomplete picture. For the civilian government of Pakistan had been deposed by a military coup in 1958. Gen. Mohammad Ayub Khan was a steadfast American ally against the Soviet Union and the recipient of large amounts of American weaponry and aid.

But deprived of democracy for much of my parents' youth, Pakistanis were unable to articulate an inclusive vision of what their country stood for. Making things worse, the country was divided in two, separated geographically by India. West Pakistan, the army's heartland, received far more than its fair share of resources. After years of mistreatment and rigged elections, East Pakistanis fought a war of independence, India took up arms on their side, and East Pakistan became the nation of Bangladesh.

I was born in 1971, the year of this second partition, as Pakistan once again turned its knife upon itself.

After the bloodshed, what was left of Pakistan was forced to ask what it stood for. Democracy was restored, and Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto became wildly popular with a simple slogan: "Bread, clothing and a home." In other words, Pakistan existed to lessen the poverty of its citizens.

Even I knew this slogan. At the age of two, I was reciting it on the kitchen table, standing tall as I had seen our prime minister do on television. My mother tried to get hold of me, and in my excitement I ran clear off the table, breaking my head on the kitchen floor. I still have the scar. Bhutto faired little better. He was deposed in 1977 and hanged.

So, like my parents before me, I was born in a democratic Pakistan but spent much of my youth in a dictatorship. And like General Ayub Khan before him, the new dictator, Gen. Muhammad Zia ul-Haq was a steadfast American ally against the Soviet Union. But whereas General Ayub Khan had been largely secular, General Zia envisioned Pakistan as a theocratic Muslim state. It became a staging-ground for the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan and underwent a dramatic process of social engineering called Islamization.

Growing up in Lahore in the 1980s was unsettling. Assault rifles and heroin, byproducts of the war in Afghanistan, flooded the city. I had friends with drug problems, others who sometimes carried guns. Our parents had been able to mingle freely and go to the cinema. But we lived in a time of censorship and of women news anchors being forced to cover their heads on television. Preventing teenage boys and girls from falling in love seemed to be an official concern of the state, and avoiding police checkpoints became part of every date.

Although we disliked our president, my friends and I remained fiercely patriotic. We idolized Pakistani sporting heroes in cricket, field hockey and squash. We felt a thrill of achievement when we listened to bootleg cassettes of the first Pakistani rock bands. For us, the success of anything Pakistani was a source of personal pride.

In 1988, shortly before I left for college in America, General Zia died in a suspicious airplane crash and civilian rule was again restored. But the democracy of the '90s was a disappointment, with power alternated between ineffective, feuding governments.

As my friends married and had children, a third generation of Pakistanis began to arrive. Like my parents' generation, and like mine, these children were born in a democracy but would spend their youth under pro-American military rule, this time under Gen. Pervez Musharraf.

And now Pakistan is once again turning its knife on itself. Insurgencies simmer in the regions bordering Afghanistan, and suicide bombers have begun to kill fellow Pakistanis with increasing frequency.

For me personally, the 60th anniversary of independence, while worthy of note, is not of the utmost importance. My hopes are already dashing ahead and attaching themselves to the elections that are scheduled for later this year.

On one side are the forces of exclusion, who wish Pakistan to stand only for their kind of Pakistani. These include the political descendants of the man who stabbed my great-grandfather, the people who seek to oppress those who are clean shaven or those who toil for meager wages or those who are from provinces other than their own. But arrayed against them is something wholly new.

Pakistan now has private television stations that refuse to let the government set the news agenda. It has a Supreme Court that has asserted its independence for the first time, restoring a chief justice suspended by the president. And it has an army under physical attack from within and in desperate need of compromise with civil society.

A 60th birthday brings with it the obligation to shed some illusions. Pakistanis must realize that we have been our own worst enemies. My wish for our national anniversary is this: that we finally take the knife we have turned too often upon ourselves and place it firmly in its sheath.

Mohsin Hamid is the author, most recently, of the novel "The Reluctant Fundamentalist."

Comments 1 - 15 of 15 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #63639 by howtoplayalone on August 15, 2007 at 7:18 am

 avatarTwo excellent and informative podcasts / interviews on what's happening in Pakistan's 'tribal areas.' (From a great show.)

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2007/07/20070731_a_main.asp

http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2007/07/20070710_a_main.asp

Other Comments by howtoplayalone

2. Comment #63650 by jonecc on August 15, 2007 at 7:58 am

If you're interested in the history above, Salman Rushdie's novel "Shame" tells it very movingly.

Other Comments by jonecc

3. Comment #63657 by epeeist on August 15, 2007 at 8:48 am

 avatarIn a couple of places he raises the point that they suffered because of larger players pushing their interests.

Isn't one of the great problems the doctrine that states only have interests. Perhaps it is time for states to act ethically in the same way as people should.

Other Comments by epeeist

4. Comment #63662 by pewkatchoo on August 15, 2007 at 8:58 am

 avatarIt would also be nice if they stopped blowing us up too!

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

5. Comment #63665 by USA_Limey on August 15, 2007 at 9:06 am

 avatarMy wife, (an American), in a scurrilous attempt to rib me,(a Brit), in public expounds her 'blame the British' theory to explain all of the modern worlds ills; which very simply runs along the lines that most of the worlds trouble places today are relics of the break up of the old empire.

India/Pakistan/Afghanistan.. all old British haunts.

Iraq? Forced into being by the British in the 1920's without any regard to the real makeup of local tribes and loyalties which are simmering into conflict now.

Africa... don't even go there; though the Brits can share the blame with the French on that one.

Isreal/palestine... yup that was us too.

Her theory develops to go on to suggest that the British empire in fact never ended; it just left the homeland and set up shop in a bigger and better place with more natural resources and potential - re branded as the USA.

She is not being serious of course. I think.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

6. Comment #63666 by Oliver Leif on August 15, 2007 at 9:08 am

"She is not being serious of course. I think."

Hehe, it's a funny theory..

Other Comments by Oliver Leif

7. Comment #63672 by Henri Bergson on August 15, 2007 at 9:52 am

 avatarEpeeist,

You write, "Perhaps it is time for states to act ethically in the same way as people should."

But there's really no difference between self-interest and altruism (as even Marx and Engels write: 'morality is false consciousness, empowering a particular class').

The false distinction is a mainly religious one. I.e. you think in religious terms.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

8. Comment #63674 by pewkatchoo on August 15, 2007 at 9:58 am

 avatarUSA_Limey. Of course there is another way of looking at it. The British empire may have been responsible for keeping the peace for all those years. When they left, those countries then reverted to their natural states, war and chaos. Just a thought.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

9. Comment #63675 by USA_Limey on August 15, 2007 at 10:09 am

 avatarComment #63674 by pewkatchoo wrote:

"The British empire may have been responsible for keeping the peace for all those years. When they left, those countries then reverted to their natural states, war and chaos"

... oh yes I quite agree and this has been my counter argument in times past. Not that it is much of a defence though as peace maintained under the boot heel of imperialism is not exactly a great foundation is it?

Or is it?

Maybe I need to re-evaluate Star Wars.

Other Comments by USA_Limey

10. Comment #63679 by hungarianelephant on August 15, 2007 at 10:35 am

 avatar5. Comment #63665 by USA_Limey on August 15, 2007 at 9:06 am
Her theory develops to go on to suggest that the British empire in fact never ended; it just left the homeland and set up shop in a bigger and better place with more natural resources and potential - re branded as the USA.

Spooky. My slightly different theory is that large numbers of the British (ok then, the English) packed up and disappeared into other cultures, ostensibly integrating but in fact spreading the genes and the memes. You can go all over the world and bump into the English, but never once will a taxi-driver tell you that you're now entering Little England.

Thus the subtle process of world domination continues. Bwahahahahaha!

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

11. Comment #63706 by dhweaver on August 15, 2007 at 1:25 pm

 avatarThe story of post war Pakistan is repeated all over the world. Practically every Latin American country has the same story of one ruthless dictatorship after another with small pockets of time where democracy temporarily worked and then collapsed into another dictatorship. The US has to take their fair share of the blame. Any dictatorship who hated communism more than they hated democracy was considered a friend worth supporting. Unfortunately, support came in the form of money and weapons used to sustain their ruthless power over their people rather than fight communism. The vast suffering of the cold war is often overlooked. It's hard to know what caused more damage...lines drawn on a map by the British in the late 19th and early 20th century, or US's support of evil to fight a greater evil in the later half of the century.

But this is all just bad politics and has nothing to do with religion right? Ummmm...NO!!!

Other Comments by dhweaver

12. Comment #63784 by MrEmpirical on August 15, 2007 at 10:42 pm

Was it Sam Harris who observed that territories once occupied by British and European imperial forces are now doing much better than those territories which were left to their own devices?

Other Comments by MrEmpirical

13. Comment #63811 by hungarianelephant on August 16, 2007 at 1:38 am

 avatarMrEmpirical - I didn't read that, but Niall Ferguson deals with similar issues in "Empire". Essentially he says that British Imperial intervention tended to help economic progress, during and afterwards, where the country was poor to begin with. Richer countries such as India did less well, & he makes the point that Virginia and Maryland did better than Mexico and Peru precisely because they had to be developed rather than plundered.

He also notes that some countries fell far behind afterwards. Zimbabwe is an obvious example, but even in less-troubled Zambia, incomes are now 28x less than in the UK, compared with 5x less at the time of independence. At the time of Ireland's independence, it was one of the richest countries in Europe. By the 1960s it was one of the poorest.

There are obviously a lot of factors involved, but it's pretty lazy to take the conventional view of Empire Bad Independence Good.

dhweaver makes good points about US policy, but of course you have to posit an alternative strategy. Given what Stalin and Mao had done, it was far from obvious at the time that a local broadly pro-US strongman would be worse for a country's population than a Communist dictator. And as he points out, religion has had a role to play in stirring up trouble.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

14. Comment #64009 by kpsri on August 17, 2007 at 9:15 am

From the original article,
Democracy was restored, and Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto became wildly popular with a simple slogan: "Bread, clothing and a home."

--> I didnt know that Bhutto and Indira Gandhi(Roti, Kapda aur makhan translated to pretty much the same thing) used similar slogans during electioneering, albeit at different times.
Comment #63674 by pewkatchoo

The British empire may have been responsible for keeping the peace for all those years. When they left, those countries then reverted to their natural states, war and chaos. Just a thought.

--> That ignores historical facts and the active part British played in sowing the seeds of religious separatism(Divide and rule, separate electorates) in their desire to keep India as their colony.
Not to absolve indians of their stupidity for engaging in massive bloodletting but a large portion of culpability for the bloodshed during partition lies with the British and their policies.

Other Comments by kpsri

15. Comment #64079 by Tumara Baap on August 17, 2007 at 2:27 pm

USA_Limey, every time I hear of "Blame the British for our woes" (virtually ubiquitous in the old colonial lands), I'm reminded of the scene in Life of Brian when a group of Jewish rebels ruminate on what the Romans have ever done for them other than "acqueducts, sanitation, roads, medicine...".
So what have the Brits ever done for India, other than western science and technology, postal services, railroads, goverment accountability, parliamentary system, judiciary, and national unity (which replaced a myriad princely states).
You've got to give it to Manmohan Singh who last year acknowledged that compared to the Belgians in Congo or the French in North Africa, the British were a benevolent colonial power (by so saying he was not conceding that their interests were selfless).
Still, 60 years later, political prisoners in Indian jails are treated much worse than those in British India, and what the Indians/Pakistanis perpetrated against each other in the name of religion eclipses all of the British crimes ever comitted, Jalian wala Bagh and all.

Other Comments by Tumara Baap
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

Send a letter to the editor of the original media outlet.
letters@nytimes.com