| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Why parents can’t cut the apron strings | Main | The untold stories of rape during the Holocaust »

June 26, 2011

Pakistan Unhitches Hitchens

Anjum Altaf in The South Asian Idea:

ScreenHunter_01 Jun. 26 11.04 None of this is to argue that Pakistan is not plagued by very severe problems, some of which Hitchens has enumerated. The appropriate response to Hitchens is not a defense of Pakistan’s civil and military elite, of the kind Christine Fair has penned for The Huffington Post, with its accounting of Pakistan’s cooperation in the war against terror. Nor is it the dismissive posture adopted by many Pakistanis, pointing out their country’s various positives. These are weak defenses, the staples of many a domestic fight: This is all I’ve done for you, think of the good times, we were happy once, and ultimately those defenses are as far from the point as a Hitchens-style diatribe.

The response calls for the kind of unglamorous analysis that won’t make it into Vanity Fair or The Huffington Post. At any given time, a society is characterized by many currents and counter-currents, positives coexist with negatives, and struggles for human rights wax and wane. So has been the case in Pakistan. Hitchens’ statement that “Pakistan takes its twisted, cowardly revenge by harboring the likes of the late Osama bin Laden” is so unnuanced as to call into question the author’s credibility as an analyst; the greatest damage he has done here is to his own reputation.

There is no one Pakistan: There are many Pakistans, and the question to ask is why the forces of repression have been gaining the upper hand in the country.

More here.

Posted by S. Abbas Raza at 11:07 AM | Permalink

Comments

The article is pretty disappointing. Its a rebuttal of a single throwaway mention of India by Hitchens and ignores most of the other 100+ sentences in the Vanity Fair piece.

Posted by: addicted | Jun 26, 2011 7:17:23 PM

A mention of India by Hitchens and a whole post devoted to why India is not-so-awesome after all. Kind of childish.

Not a word responding to Hitchens other arguments, like Pakistan “dispatching death squads” across its borders.

Posted by: ganji | Jun 26, 2011 11:23:37 PM

I won't re-hash the many cogent rebuttals that you received from the (mostly Indian) readers of your blog. Suffice to say that your attempted comparison would be justified the day that India milks the US for billions of dollars, which are utterly wasted, and then turns around and stabs it in the back.

Posted by: Sam | Jun 28, 2011 9:44:28 PM

My attempted comparison is not between the respective relationships of the US to Pakistan and India. Based on the comments, I have reframed the issue that interests me more narrowly:

Testing the Hypothesis of Sexual Repression in Pakistan

http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2011/06/29/testing-the-hypothesis-of-sexual-repression-in-pakistan/

Posted by: Anjum Altaf | Jun 29, 2011 8:45:27 AM

Tangential to the above discussion, but somehow relevant: The problem in writing about Pakistan (for pakistanis) is that for very complicated reasons, we have arrived where we have arrived. And there are NO good options any more. Reasonable people are not good at choosing between very bad options.
For example, I think that IF the US "neocolonial", interventionist, militarist etc etc project in Afghanistan FAILS, Afghanistan will see a worsening civil war for many years to come, with terrible blowback for Pakistan as well. What option to pick between working WITH the CIA or going for a bigger and more violent mess in the aftermath? No good choices. Especially for a well meaning liberal with a Western education and its attendant prejudices.
If Pakistan survives the American withdrawal from Afghanistan, it will be because it has made relative peace with India and given up on its "stategic depth" fantasies and it will then be fighting residual jihadi terrorists for at least ten years, probably longer. If Pakistan opts for accomodation with jihad and pro-taliban intervention in Afghanistan and more zero-sum competition with India (these tend to go together)...and with Iran (even though nobody in Pakistan really WANTS to fight Iran)since our Jihadi brothers are true believers and no calculation will induce them to stop killing shias.. then it may end up in regional war and may not survive intact. In that case, mohajirs may opt for a poor man’s Hong Kong under Indian protection. The fate of the rest is hard to predict. I hope the second scenario does not come about and I do think its chances are less than 50%, but its not out of the question. No good choices.
In such circumstances, what is a liberal pakistani to do? I think they should be expected to be all over the place. And to swing wildly from one position to another, adopting and discarding contradictory opinions, trying to have their cake and eat it too, accepting various theses but not their logical consequences. Then changing their opinion under duress. Probably no human population can do better once things have reached this pass.
Prevention would have been better than cure. But Jinnahbhoy was not too far sighted or deep thinking to begin with, and its been downhill after him, so here we are...between the devil and the deep blue sea.

Posted by: omar | Jun 29, 2011 1:05:54 PM

Anjum, your new post should be titled "Testing the Hypothesis of Sexual Repression in Pakistan AS IT RELATES TO INDIA", because (hard as it is to believe) you have made India an even greater focus of your critique of Hitchen's article.

And it is not sexual repression that is the main theme of Hitchen's piece, it is the revved-up male hyper-aggression (and chauvinism) of the Pakistani military, and the shameful enabling of this behavior by the US that is Hitchen's key point. He excoriates the US because it participates in the treachery that kills and maims its own young men and women in uniform.

It is Rushdie who invoked the theme of sexual repression in his book, Shame. Hitchens was using Shame as a springboard for his broader criticism of Pakistan's failed and deadly policies, and the US's deep complicity in excusing this psychopathic behavior.

Posted by: Sam | Jun 29, 2011 3:24:48 PM

Sam: "Hitchens was using Shame as a springboard for his broader criticism of Pakistan's failed and deadly policies."

Is it allowable for an academic to question the validity of this use while agreeing that the criticisms themselves are justified?

And, is there some sort of a ban on a Pakistani academic mentioning India?

Posted by: Anjum Altaf | Jun 30, 2011 1:12:14 AM

Omar: The situation in Pakistan is by no means unprecedented. Countries have found themselves in worse circumstances and found a way out of them. However grim the circumstances, groups within countries take positions on the issues of importance and compete against each other for dominance with or without external support.

The process can be no different in Pakistan. Individuals should be spelling out the values or positions they support and articulate the policy choices that are consistent with those values. The next step would be to build coalitions around those positions and rally support for them.

I am not using the term ‘liberal’ deliberately because a liberal is defined relative to the centre and the understanding of the centre in Pakistan is very speculative at this point – more is assumed and imagined than known. In addition, I always recall the words of the late Daniel Bell that he was “a socialist in economics, a liberal in politics, and a conservative in culture.”

The task is to articulate and argue for policy choices that are consistent with the set of values one is comfortable with and then to participate in the political process based on an expression of those choices in whatever capacity best matches one’s comparative advantage.

A lot more discussion is needed on this subject and I look forward to your comments.

Posted by: Anjum Altaf | Jun 30, 2011 9:54:50 AM

I didnt want to target you in particular. I think you are doing a very good job.
And I agree that the problem is not insoluble, its just hard. My comment was about the difficulty all western style liberals have with such hard choices....you are actually doing much better than average!

Posted by: omar | Jun 30, 2011 1:04:38 PM

Stephen Colbert channeled Hitchens' Vanity Fair article on Thu night. It would have been hilarious if it weren't so close to the truth.

Posted by: Sam | Jul 1, 2011 3:25:49 AM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

soubriquet on Tuesday Poem

Eli on Unknown Mathematician Proves Elusive Property of Prime Numbers

Jim on Tuesday Poem

Josef Stern on Unknown Mathematician Proves Elusive Property of Prime Numbers

Shelley on Is the Brain No Different From a Light Switch? The Uncomfortable Ideas of the Philosopher Daniel Dennett

Bill on The Beautiful German Language

Eleutheria on The Bystander Effect in Medical Care. Why Do I Have So Many Doctors Not Taking Care of Me?

Eleutheria on Tuesday Poem

Raza Husain on the culture animal

musafir on The Bystander Effect in Medical Care. Why Do I Have So Many Doctors Not Taking Care of Me?

KRS on Tuesday Poem

Félix E. F. Larocca, MD on Tuesday Poem

LWR on Tuesday Poem

Joss on Tuesday Poem

LWR on POETRY IN TRANSLATION: CORDOBA

Rashid on Aftermath: Pakistan Elections 2013

Yoann on The Bystander Effect in Medical Care. Why Do I Have So Many Doctors Not Taking Care of Me?

Dave Ranning on Aftermath: Pakistan Elections 2013

sadhana on Aftermath: Pakistan Elections 2013

Carol Westbrook on The Bystander Effect in Medical Care. Why Do I Have So Many Doctors Not Taking Care of Me?

Ken Bryant on Aftermath: Pakistan Elections 2013

Umer Vakil on POETRY IN TRANSLATION: CORDOBA

Kabir on Aftermath: Pakistan Elections 2013

seth edenbaum on Aftermath: Pakistan Elections 2013

Nina on White Indians

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed