Fatima's Faux Up

I've resisted the urge to debunk or highlight the inanities that Fatima Bhutto has sometimes recently spouted, both in written or verbal form, for a long time. This despite the fact that since she started writing exclusively for "gora" publications (i.e. The Daily Beast, The New Statesman et al) and undertook a foreign tour to promote her book, her grasp on local reality seems to have become tenuous at best. And this I did simply because a friend laconically admonished me by saying "She's just trying to sell her book, yaar, so let her." Indeed, I contained myself even though her mantra seems to have become that any criticism of her positions or words is simply the work of bitter Pakistanis in the employ of the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) out to get her, and the only people with any grasp of the reality of Pakistan are foreigners who accept what she says unquestioningly (and it's not like I'm the only one who's noticed).

Fatima Bhutto: instant expert (Photo: The Independent)

But, you know, there's a limit to how much ridiculousness I can bear. Especially when that stupidity is lapped up by even more clueless foreigners who present her various twists of facts and reality and her ignorance as some sort of gospel truth to their readers and viewers.

The reason I have been forced to break my self-imposed silence is this latest seemingly innocuous gem of an interview with her about five books she would recommend people to read. I say 'innocuous' because, for once, it doesn't involve her tweaking facts to suit her political agenda but only a bit of unbelievable ignorance. One could argue that I have chosen to focus on a really minor point in a minor interview but, for one, I believe it is emblematic of far greater issue, of people presenting themselves as experts on something they have no idea about. (Maybe that's why the site's tagline is 'Become an instant expert'.) Secondly, this minor bit of ignorance has been blown up as the defining part of the interview by the website in question. And third, I have a natural aversion to English-speaking people bullshitting about non-European languages.

Here is the bit of Ms Bhutto's imparted knowledge (presented in reference to American involvement in Pakistan) that made my head explode:

"In Urdu the word that we have for imperialism I find to be particularly telling. It’s samraj. What you have to realise is that Urdu is not a language where we have words for computer, or wifi or text messaging. It’s not a language that automatically updates itself as others do, like Arabic or French. So samraj is especially important because it literally means the raj of Uncle Sam."

Yes, believe it or not, Ms Bhutto thinks (no doubt with astute research and a wildly associative mind) that 'samraj' refers to Uncle Sam! Tell that to etymologists who trace the word to at least as far back as the ancient Hindu Sanskritic text Rig Veda (dated to between 1700BC-1100BC) when Urdu was nowhere on the horizon and which literally means "emperor." Emperors are imperial, no? (Thus 'imperialism' was easily translated as 'samraji nizam' in Urdu; incidentally 'istemaar' is also often used as a synonym though it technically refers to 'colonialism.')

But Ms Bhutto's faux etymology is not her only bit of ignorance. She decides she must explain why 'samraj' exists as a word in Urdu, mindbogglingly connecting it to the use of English language words in Urdu. First off, her basic understanding of the word's origins is wrong. Then her claims that Urdu has no words for 'computer', 'wifi' or 'text messaging' is inane. Urdu does: they are 'computer', 'wifi' and 'text' or 'sms'. They are as much a part of Urdu as 'telephone' or 'TV' or 'machine'. Incidentally does she know the Arabic word for 'radio'? It's 'radio', but with a soft 'D' since Arabic has no hard 'D'. Does she know the Persian word for 'photocopy' or 'stadium'? They are 'fotocopy' (with a soft 'T' because Persian has no hard 'T') and 'estadyaum'. Even the French purists have a hard time keeping universally used words out of the mouths of their compatriots. Oh, and the word for wi-fi in French? Wi-Fi.

"Not a language that automatically updates itself"??? You would have to be a total ignoramus about the evolution of Urdu as a lingua franca, bringing together words from Arabic, Persian, Turkish, Sanskrit and even English (among other languages) to make such a remarkable claim. If anything, the inclusion of these English language words, among thousands of others, is proof of the language's inherent dynamism and openness. That is how Urdu was essentially formed in the first place. And it is a far more "automatically updating" language than either Arabic or French incidentally.

But on a bigger scale, Ms Bhutto's claims about linguistics fly in the face of how all living languages enrich themselves in general. By her skewed logic, English is a poor language too since most of its words derive from Latin or old French or Gaelic and yes, even Sanskrit and Urdu. Words like 'dacoit', 'doosra', 'balti', 'jungle', 'juggernaut', 'trignometry', 'shampoo', 'bandana', 'sentry', 'pariah', 'khaki', 'bangles', 'cheetah', 'pyjama', 'bazaar', 'cheroot', 'bungalow', 'avatar', 'cummerbund', 'guru', etc. etc. etc. all derive originally from Indian languages but are considered part of proper English.

Oh, and the word 'raj'? Guess where that came from.

Moral of the story: Don't talk about things you know nothing about.



Tailpiece: Incidentally, if you have an interest in the linguistics and evolution of Urdu, you might wish to take a look at this very interesting talk by linguist Dr Tariq Rehman, given at the TEDx Conference that recently took place in Lahore:

Fatima Bhutto Goes Down the Slippery Slope, Sadly

Ok, so I have to admit I have always had a soft spot for Fatima Bhutto. Not only because of all that she has endured growing up and because she is easy on the eyes, but also because she is a fairly intelligent and sensitive young woman who has not let her personal tragedies and lineage turn her into some sort of caricature of an arrogant feudal or a bitter slave to dynastic politics, both of which things her background could easily have fostered in her. For the most part, she seemed also to have her head resting firmly on her shoulders.

Sure, she had her failings - for example when she wrote about her aunt with a little too much personal vitriol than necessary, or let her crafty feudal uncle Mumtaz use her to further his political goals, or wrote about her father Murtaza's untimely death when she was just 15 with all the objectivity that a young loving daughter can muster about a father - but one reasoned she was, after all, only in her early twenties still. One could forgive her her youthful passion and naivete. And most of all, because she kept insisting that she would rather write than enter politics as everyone assumed she would. The way she was built up as the next great white hope for Pakistan - mostly by Western journalists - was after all, a construction of their minds, not hers.

And now look what's happened to her. Like all people exposed too much, too soon in the media, Fatima has let the limelight bloat her head. One could see it coming for a while now, ever since she got her own column in The Daily Beast. Slowly, but surely, her heartfelt prose started giving way to rhetoric and political vitriol that made one really question whether it was political ambition that was driving her or a misguided sense of her own importance.

Unfortunately, this gradual deterioration has led to this latest piece, which not only overreaches in its flamboyant rhetoric - telling off Hillary Clinton for the Peshawar blast that  has claimed over 115 lives so far, and instructing her to go home, when most agree that whatever they may think of US policies, Hillary has taken great pains to add nuance to her interactions with Pakistanis - but also makes some truly egregious mistakes in its statement of facts. Does Fatima really believe what she has written? - in which case, one can question her understanding of matters - or has she deliberately spread untruths? - in which case, one can question why she gets to hold forth in places like The Daily Beast.

I will quote just three examples of "facts" that Fatima gets severely wrong.

1) About Waziristan, she writes:

"One week ago, the Pakistan army—aided by U.S. drone technology, no less—launched its offensive against the South Waziristan region, the new home of our fabled local Taliban. The Taliban moved there after last summer’s Swat offensive, which was declared a resounding success. So successful, apparently, that the militants were able to pack up and shuffle right into a new region of the country."

South Waziristan, the 'NEW' home of the Taliban??? They 'moved there after last summer's Swat offensive'??? The militants 'were able to pack up and shuffle right into a NEW region of the country??? I don't really know which world Fatima has been living in - perhaps access to news is difficult at 70 Clifton - but South Waziristan and North Waziristan have been the ORIGINAL home of the Taliban in Pakistan since 2002! For the record, the Pakistan Army first went in there in 2004 only to get beaten black and blue by the militants. It has long claimed that the linkages of most suicide attacks in Pakistan extend to the Waziristan region. The Swat Taliban - Fazlullah et al - were loosely allied with the Waziristani Tehrik-e-Taliban - i.e. Baitullah et al - but were distinct from them and if anything, it was Baitullah's fighters who were alleged to have infiltrated into Swat. Not the other way round.

2) About the NRO, she writes:

"During its one year in office, the Zardari government has passed two measly but scurrilous bills. The first, called the National Reconciliation Ordinance..."

Ok, Fatima, we KNOW you hate Zardari and we're not fond of him either. But out and out lies to bolster your argument are just pathetic. First of all, the number of bills passed by the government is certainly NOT "two measly" bills. I would be the last person to hold up Pakistani parliamentarians as a model of conscientious lawmakers, but hell, even the Finance Bill is a bill you know. All you had to do was go here to see what legislative business the current parliament has been involved in. But no, that would probably skewer your argument wouldn't it? Or is a little bit of conscientious research now passe for columnists?

To add stupidity to ignorance, you claim for your American audience that the bill "National Reconciliation Ordinance" - by the way, by definition an ordinance is not a bill - has been passed by Zardari's government. As any child in Pakistan knows from the endless stream of verbiage on television about it, the bill to make the NRO permanent is currently being debated in parliament, and there is no guarantee it will actually pass. Which by the way, is the hottest topic pertaining to Zardari's future, at the moment.

3) About the Kerry-Lugar Bill, she writes:

"The Kerry Lugar bill promises $1.5 billion a year (for “development”) but the fine print is a gift that keeps on taking. While Pakistan will be flush with development dollars, we will have to send the U.S. government detailed reports regarding our armed forces, including assessments of the civilian control of our very independent army, updates on our prevention of nuclear proliferation, and expertise and analysis of how much we have expanded or diminished our nuclear programs."

Ok, so Fatima, now you are really beginning to scare me. It would seem your source of news is Hamid Mir or Dr. Shahid Masood. How else to explain your parroting of the line put forward by the establishment? Personally, I don't think we should be taking on aid in the first place and that if you must beg, it is the donor's prerogative whatever conditions it wants to tack on. But leaving aside my personal opinion, the KLB is an AMERICAN law. The stipulations about "detailed reports" such as the ones you mention are for the US administration to provide to the US Congress, not for Pakistan to "send" to anyone. Of course, proper accountancy is called for from Pakistan - and why shouldn't it be? - but that is not what you have an issue with. I can even understand the establishment - read army - making up this myth, of Pakistan having to submit its internal policies for approval to the US, as a nice brick to beat Zardari on the head with, since it wants him out or at least neutered. What's your excuse as an "honest reporter"?

The point is this: If this is the credibility of her "facts", can one really trust Fatima Bhutto's analysis? It would be a good friend who could tell her to just stop writing for the time being. Then again, maybe politics is her thing.