Bashira In Trouble

Most Pakistanis with an interest in the foreign press have heard of The Guardian but not The Telegraph. The Telegraph, a British publication informally known as the Torygraph to those who find still find British politics interesting, for example British people, American neocons and possibly Elmo from Sesame Street because that’s just the sort of Muppet he is, is the UK’s highest selling broadsheet. In politically correct terms that means it is the ‘house newspaper of the Conservative Party’. In other words it is the print refuge of choice for (mostly) white people who have issues with multiculturalism, single parents and a world that just does not understand how much (mostly) white people who may or may not have been conceived within the bounds of the blessed British isles have contributed to civilization itself dammit.

UK PM David Cameron: "building the negative narrative" apparently (Photo: PA/The Telegraph)

This Weltanschauung is aptly illustrated by two commentators whose reactions to UK Prime Minister David Cameron’s flying visit to Pakistan were published in its World and Politics sections on April 5th and April 6th. Both were irked by Cameron’s remarks to a group of Pakistani students and academics. Answering a question about how Britain could help resolve the Kashmir issue he said, “I don’t want to try to insert Britain in some leading role where, as with so many of the world’s problems, we are responsible for the issue in the first place.”

The first, Peter Oborne, was kind enough to consider justifications for PM Cameron’s inexcusable nod to the gods of veracity, saying:

“The Prime Minister was doubtless seeking to please a skeptical and perhaps hostile audience, angered by our military presence in Afghanistan. There was a smidgen of truth (though no more than that) in what he said. He was in the middle of a long and grueling trip, and may have felt tired and jet-lagged.”

The second, Ed West – who describes himself as ‘Prematurely Right-wing’ on his Twitter profile and thus saves me the effort of establishing his embryonic moronicness – was not so kind, and agreed with still other British voices who were calling Cameron ‘naïve’ and ‘schizophrenic’ and helpfully pointing out that looking back “50-odd years for the problems facing many post-colonial nations adds little to the understanding of the problems they face.” He further pointed out:

"Apologising only builds the negative narrative, so that Pakistanis keen to play on the downsides of British rule can now say to their countrymen: “Look, even their prime minister says so.” That’s human nature. And apologising while handing over hundreds of millions of pounds in aid certainly does not encourage gratitude – only resentment."

Both agreed that focusing for a second on all the things Britain might (or might not) have taken away from this rollicking continent of still rollicking natives – for example wealth, time, love, tenderness AND peace – was a needless distraction from all the things Britain had given it instead. These include, in no particular order, “parliamentary democracy, superb irrigation systems, excellent roads, the rule of law, the English language and, last but not least, the game of cricket.”

 Oborne and West: Tag team duo of the defenders of the British Empire

Mr. Oborne felt that over-education, in the form of years at Oxford University where he “read Philosophy, Politics and Economics, a degree course notorious for skimming the surface of understanding and historical knowledge,” was responsible for Mr. Cameron’s temporary lapse of reason. Mr. West felt that it was PM Cameron’s desire to be liked that was behind his “tendency to go to countries around the world and tell them what they want to hear.” Had PM Cameron been protected from this wishy washiness, he implied, much like the natives had once been protected from the evils of higher education in their own backyards, he would not have bounced like a mudskipper on the surface of diplomacy and focused instead on the things that British people really want to talk to Pakistanis about, i.e. our inexplicable fondness for the “Koran.” And “cousin marriages.”

Mr. Oborne felt that these extenuating circumstances, as well as the millions of pounds of aid his country offered us when twenty million of our people inconvenienced the entire world by going and internally displacing themselves, were reason enough for PM Cameron to never have to play “the politics of apology.” Mr. West went one further and added that the way his ancestors had chosen to “undermine traditional family, clan and religious structures and loyalties” should make it apparent why, for him, sorry seems to be the hardest word.

Mr. Oborne’s editors at The Telegraph were less parsimonious with their use of the dreaded ‘S’ word, opting to title his piece “Sorry, but it’s not right to apologize.” Their gratuitous use of it caught up with them the next day though, and they had to resort to echoing the views of (possibly) a lot of its readers with the heading “Pakistan’s problem is that we did not make it British enough.” In the piece accompanying the latter headline, Mr. Ed West – apparently the Ed Wood of social commentary – weighed in with gems about how the linguistic apartheid enforced by “England, and a host of other, smaller countries in north-west Europe” had helped hostage populations free themselves from the shackles of “Urdu, Persian or Arabic”, replace them with English, and thus “create societies with wide circles of trust.” This is the reason, in his opinion, the world speaks English today. Nothing to do with the legacies of colonial imperialism and global power dynamics, you understand. Mr. West, who is also features editor of The Catholic Herald, omitted to mention that his forebears had also neglected to mention the safeword to the natives.

In a nod to another sadly unacknowledged trend the British gifted us with, i.e. a propensity for foreign correspondents, we turn now to our own resident Pyala in London, Bashira, for further insight into the matter...

Khi Pyala: Bashira, why Cameron in trouble?

Bashira in London: He go put foot in mouth instead of axe in head.

Khi Pyala: Bashira, why saying sorry is wrong only?

Bashira in London: Because if you open floodgates the Indus will do the dirty with your plumbing only.

Khi Pyala: Bashira, they say we not British enough. How we get more British?

Bashira in London: More bad teeth. Why you think Lala bite ball only?


Khi Pyala: Bashira, why British columnists stupid like Pakistani columnists?

Bashira in London: Because that once angry generation of pseudo leftist radicals in the UK grew up and started leaning right when they realized viscerally introspective discourse on wrongs would not help their children gain entrance to public schools. The world goes further into lager every day. And when I say lager I mean pints not defensive wagon circles ala the Boers.

Khi Pyala: Bashira, why they so angry about cousin marriages?

Bashira in London: Because inbreeding is the exclusive preserve of the monarchy (don’t be worry, I read these two from cue cards held up by cousin at SOAS)

Khi Pyala: Bashira, how they make sure this not happen again?

Bashira in London: That Cameron, next time he go talk to Pakistani primary school students instead of Pakistani academics.

Khi Pyala: Bashira, why these chittas think denial is a river in Egypt still?

Bashira in London: Because that was Thames, this is now.

Burn, Baby, Burn?

First a couple of disclaimers.

1) I don't like Asif Ali Zardari. I think he is a venal, ill-educated and ruthless man who should never have risen to the position of power he is currently in. It is the tragedy of Pakistan that it must contend with the stupidity, arrogance and insensitivity of "leaders" like him.

2) I think the government's crude attempt to muzzle Geo by forcing cable operators to take the channel off air, by burning copies of Jang and threatening newspaper hawkers who carry it is just plain wrong and needs to be resisted by all who believe in a free media.

I have explained where I am coming from for the simple reason that what I am about to say next may fly in the face of conventional wisdom, or at least the overwhelming consensus that seems to have been manufactured in the country. And make no mistake, it is a manufactured consensus.

I may not like Asif Zardari as a person but it does not take away from the fact that he is the elected president of the country. And people can say all sorts of things about the shambolic nature of a democracy that resulted in him being elected president, but those were the rules everyone agreed to play by and those are the rules we have to accept. And the reason I bring it up is that much of the manufactured consensus against him in the media is implicitly or blatantly a refusal to accept those rules.

Zardari with Cameron (Photo: Kirsty Wigglesworth / Reuters)

Let's take the case of his trip to France and England which has been the source of much of the venom spewed against him. Should he have undertaken the trip at this time, with UK PM David Cameron's pointed barbs in India against Pakistan preceding his trip and the floods wreaking such devastation across Pakistan? No. The former demanded a sense of dignity from any self-respecting leader and the latter simply a sensitivity to public perceptions.

But even though we know that it was really the former issue - and Asif Zardari's ignoring of the entreaties of even his own Foreign Minister - that really pissed the establishment (read military) off, what we have been constantly hearing is that Zardari should have been taking care of the floods situation at home.

Nowshera, July 30 (Photo: A Majeed / AFP-Getty)

Really? What exactly would Zardari have done in Pakistan? This is a man who does not even venture outside his presidential palace, unless it's to his bunkered home in Nawabshah, and who has never even once visited the frontline of the battle against the Taliban in two years, and we expect him to be directing flood relief efforts? And more importantly, didn't he just hand over all executive power under the 18th Amendment, making him just a figure-head president? Isn't PM Yousuf Raza Gilani at least correct in his rhetoric that he is the chief executive of the country and it is he who is responsible for directing relief efforts? Him and the provincial chief ministers who seem to have got away pretty unscathed so far. Yes, Zardari failed miserably on the optics and in basic decency, but does anyone seriously believe that the floods' devastation and the ineffectual state response would have been ameliorated by Zardari being in Pakistan? I don't think so. But that is the constant refrain we now hear as if it is the gospel truth, particularly on Geo.

Taunsa near Multan, August 1 (Photo: Khalid Tanveer /AP)

So Zardari was an insensitive ass. But is that such breaking news that the media focus shifts entirely to undermining him? Were he not the president, would the suffering of the affectees of the biggest floods in Pakistan's history be any less? Would the administration become super-efficient? Isn't the issue of the inherent lack of capacity of the Pakistani state to deal with such crises a bigger issue than Zardari and his jaunts? Criticise him by all means but is a man chucking a couple of shoes in his direction really a bigger story than the tens of millions displaced from their homes? Or have we become so blinded by our rage and the cult of personality that we are willing to jettison all sense of proportion?

The question then becomes, to what end is this consensus being created? You only have to watch Aaj Kamran Khan Ke Saath to get a clear sense of the game that is cynically being played.

Here's a clip of last night's programme. Watch from 5.10.




Here's the other myth that is being perpetuated: that the flood relief efforts that the army is undertaking are somehow divorced from the government's response, almost, it would seem, in opposition of government directives. Is the army separate from government? Isn't the military hardware being used in the airlifts and food drops, as well as the soldiers, paid by the government and people of Pakistan? And to take nothing away from the brave work of the jawans who endure hardship and danger to rescue people and provide them food, but why are we being made to feel that the army is doing the people of Pakistan a favour? As if this were not really their job but are doing this only out of the goodness of their hearts?

Does the building up of the army's reputation come always as the cost of undermining civilian reputations? The tragedy for Pakistan is of course that its stupid civilian leaders play exactly according to the script. And only seem to prove their cluelessness with interventions like this:

What will such a demolition, in public perception, of everything other than the armed forces mean for Pakistan? Is that what is intended? Are we destined to go back to Square Zero every time?

But coming back to the issue of Geo's forced blackout: as much as I oppose it, I for one am not buying into the claims of hurt innocence that Geo is now loudly proclaiming. Yes, the government has responded in typical hamhanded fashion and has probably added fuel to burn itself. But was Geo simply reporting news as an unbiased and neutral observer? Does it have no hidden or obvious agenda? I think we all know the answer to that, at least in our hearts.

You could also do worse than read this assessment in The Independent by Chatham House fellow Farzana Shaikh. It is probably not something you will see quoted with relish on Aaj Kamran Khan Ke Saath.

Aaj Cameron Khan Kay Saath

So Asif Zardari is off to be feted by the British Prime Minister David Cameron at his Chequers country retreat. This despite the fact that the ISI chief is in a huff and has called off his trip because the fresh-faced one said all kinds of unflaterring things about our country in India, of all places. To add to the callousness of it all, most of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa is under water at the time of filing this post. And yet our president just can’t resist the temptation of grinning a broad grin before the British cameras for a huge photo-op, probably at vast public expense.

President Asif Zardari: Chequers, mate?

Predictably, there has been a storm of outrage in Pakistan, where people obviously cannot be counted upon to appreciate the finer things in life. I mean how many people get to sup tea in the countryside with the British prime minister, or, more importantly, visit Oxford for their son’s graduation and attend the coronation of the heir apparent in Birmingham, all in the same trip?

Brace yourself for a ringing denunciation of this evil journey on 'Aaj Cameron Khan Kay Saath'.

The UK Prime Minister braces to take on the ISI

While having self-respect and being Asif Zardari might well be two contradictory concepts, the political leaders who have shouted foul are not exactly covered in glory themselves.

Among the outraged patriots is a certain Altaf Hussain who slammed our president for going ahead with his trip. How could Zardari, he spluttered, even think of going to the UK after Cameron accused Pakistan of sponsoring terrorism? So passionate and shaken was the king of Azizabad-in-exile that I felt he would set his British passport on fire in protest and take the first flight home. No such luck. The British may be evil, but Edgware is actually a fairly comfortable place, thank you very much. And, thank goodness, there are not many cases of target killing reported from there. Nor are there many land-grabbing Taliban Pakhtuns this far up the Northern Line.

More outrage came from Shahbaz Sharif, the chief minister of our largest province. How could Zardari do this, he thundered as he tended to the miserable of Mianwali. Not only has Cameron called us terrorists but what about the hundreds of thousands of flood victims that have been left behind stranded on their rooftops, desperate for Zardari’s loving embrace?

In common with Altaf, Sharif said that the president should have better utilized the funds squandered on the UK trip by donating them to the victims of the floods. Noble sentiments indeed. We are now waiting with bated breath for the same statement from Shahbaz denouncing his Quaid and big brother. I mean Nawaz Sharif seems to get on a London-bound flight every time a reporter looks set to ask him a tough question or force him to take a stand on anything of any importance. Big brother, for example, was at the Allama Iqbal airport before you could say ‘Kayani’ just a week or so ago.

Let’s just say that Nawaz is not dependent on welfare handouts while in London. His Mayfair flats are among the most expensive real estate in the world and his nocturnal nihari and sri paye cravings must demand a sizeable retinue in his London kitchen. How about Shahbaz demanding that a small part of brother’s kitchen budget is donated to people who have lost somewhat more modest homes in the floods? Just the hara dhaniya budget might help rehabilitate a village or two in Charsadda. Or, closer to home. I mean Rajanpur and Mianwali and Taunsa, far away though they may be from the Motorway, are still part of the Punjab. Surely, you can money-order the funds from Park Lane, if only as a sadqa for poor ailing Kulsoom.

Nawaz Sharif in England: how green is my valley anyway?

And can’t Nawaz take a firm stand against Cameron at the upcoming meeting of the PML-N women’s caucus in Walthamstow, where he could speak in Punjabi for maximum international impact?

Not to be outdone and ever the patriot, Imran Khan has also boarded the same bandwagon. With an ex-wife, two children and many happy memories in Britain, the former cricket captain, is not exactly averse to the odd UK sojourn himself. Can we expect a denunciation of the anti-Pakistani propaganda campaign by Britain from his brother-in-law, who Imran so passionately campaigned for as the pro-Muslim candidate in the recent British elections? After all, Zak Goldsmith is from Cameron’s Conservative party. And given his surname, he must not exactly be begging on the streets of London. And among his Pakistani admirers in Britain, Imran could launch a passionate special appeal for saving the few remaining Taliban from drowning in Matta.