During the trip which started this chain of thought more than two decades ago, I saw the majority of Pakistani passengers of my train form lines, three times in the space of only four hours; for exit, checking and entry at Koh-i-Taftan, the border with Iran. The train was carrying about five hundred people, and twice the lines were disturbed by four or five miscreants.
When the line formed by about two hundred people, who were getting tickets for the passage from Mir-javeh to Zahidan, was disrupted for the fourth time by the same four persons, who were now crowding a ticket window, some of the others who were standing in line began to make wisecracks, as Pakistanis often do to vent irritation.
One said; let them go ahead, the train will take them first.
A second suggested that perhaps they had to feed the children who were crying for milk.
Another suggested they might be hoping for a rebate in the fare which was only Rs. 10/=.
A fourth piped up, “after all they are Pakistanis”. This being a sore point with me, I flared up and asked why he did not consider the long line of persons Pakistani? What entitled the four who were crowding the window to be considered representatives of our nation?
It was only after my aggressive response that I realized how valid the question is; why are miscreants labeled as Pakistanis while the law-abiding ones are not eligible to the title?
Are there no law abiding Pakistanis? If there are any, are they an actual or a perceived minority? Are we perhaps promoting the violation of law by eroding our norms and by communicating a logical but fallacious message? It seems that the miscreants thrive on the idiocy of the pseudo-intellectual who mocks everything which is Pakistani, including our culture, especially the practices of the commons. Both the parties: those who flout our laws and those who ridicule our values, label misdemeanors and illegalities as character traits of Pakistanis. The lower-middle class, upwardly mobile cohort of Pakistanis, seems to have developed the argument that if we cannot deter the powerful from the violation of law, it is not right that it should be enforced it on the weak. I find the argument logically very powerful but flawed in practice. No society can remain functional with a policy that marginalizes the law abiding citizen and creates a perpetual state of anarchy.
This book is my attempt to portray the logic of who we are today, what it derives from, what is right about our colonial heritage, what is inevitable about modernization and what is immutable in our culture which has roots going back several millennia; a heritage that was rooted in civic sense and communal harmony but was also constructed by passionate ideological commitments. If the Vedic Hindu mindset lives on in our society, so also does a Buddhist antidote; if the Muslim ideal of statecraft beckons to us, so too does a colonial and modern formula; and the fifty years since we lost East Pakistan have left their mark.
The style I have tried to employ is conversational, highlighting our national temperament; those good or bad Pakistani attitudes which need to be rationalized through social debate. I neither intend to pontificate nor be mundane, rather to elucidate with a hint of humor, a mood of patriotism not absolute approval for what we are. Sometimes apportioning the blame on segments of society, like civil society/elites, bureaucracy and organs of state or government, teachers, politicians, urban communities, occupational cartels such as cab drivers and hand cart salesmen, industrial or agricultural workers, subordinate employees in offices, picketing in roads for weddings, or youth from colleges and universities. Some rationalizations may be chosen from a cultural, historic, ethnic or communal-social angle. Comments on modern/traditional value systems would include suggestions and options or a plan of action. This book is from the heart and isn’t embarrassed about it. People in love may be shy of advertizing it yet are not ashamed of their affections; but it is normal for people to be clandestine about lust. A modern, pragmatic, and scientific mind lusts for the soul and spirit; but it feels that if it cohabits, consorts or collaborates with the heart it will have betrayed a trust or been culpable of dereliction of duty; the lover has no qualms.