To witness two realities in one country, one needs go no further than a suburban coffee shop in this cultural capital of Pakistan. Among the fashionably dressed men and women sitting there, the news that some radical Muslim has shot a young girl named Malala Yousafzai for the sin of attending school sounds incomprehensible, as if from another world.
The dissonance between the two Pakistans is even more dramatic as the globalized world reports more on Malala than media do in the stable, educated part of the country.
Since the 9/11 attacks on the United States, Pakistan has evolved to become one country with two disparate cultures. Former President Pervez Musharraf deregulated state control over media, and ever since thousands of local and international channels have opened up in the country, exposing Pakistanis to a plethora of issues, new cultures and hip urban lifestyles of global cities.
Urban middle class youth are quick to adapt their lifestyles to those of peers in Western cities. Yet the Islamic revivalism wave has not left Pakistan untouched, and various traditional and religious organizations have taken it upon themselves to resist influence of foreign cultures in the country, often in unfortunate and violent ways that get plenty of coverage in international media.
The young urban middle class of Pakistan, mostly neglected in international media, are well wired into the world of internet and satellite channels. Managers at multinational corporations, software engineers or customer relation officers by profession, a good number ultimately work for clients and bosses sitting in London, New York and other global hubs. An even larger number of Pakistani professionals maintain active profiles on international freelancing websites, offering services ranging from content writing to iPhone applications development. As a result, Pakistan has been consistently ranked among the top Asian contractors on oDesk, a freelancing website that pays hired workers by the hour. Thousands of young adults who have studied or worked abroad in the Middle East and the United Kingdom returned home to join companies here.
Financially independent, the young Pakistani professionals aspire to a modern lifestyle seen on television or experienced abroad. Until a few years ago, the workday’s end would mean changing into baggy shalwar kameez, traditional dress for men and women, catching an hour-long episode of a family-centric sitcom like Alpha Bravo Charlie on national television and eating a roti dinner before heading to bed. Nowadays a night out could entail going out, dressed in famous Spanish Mango styles, catching Salman Khan in a Bollywood action thriller at the cinema and eating a hamburger at Hardee’s followed by a frozen yogurt at Tutti Frutti.
The impact of foreign channels has altered the very fabric of traditional society, challenging the norm of gender segregation and the institution of marriage. “Having watched Bollywood love stories, everyone wants to date and find their own soul-mate,” says Mobeen Khan, a native of Lahore a supply-chain manager at a grocery chain in Saudi Arabia. Most young professionals have studied in coeducational institutions where they inevitably end up dating and subsequently marrying classmates. Dating, long considered immoral, has become the norm among the urban middle class, and liberal parents accept it. “Most of my friends in college were dating each other, and are now happily married with their parental consent,” observed a student of Lahore School of Economics, a top coeducation university.
Changing values of a younger generation, in turn, make it feasible for the media to display themes that wouldn’t have been discussed in general public a few years ago. For instance, Turkish soap operas, with Western lifestyles and dating norms, have found immense traction in the country. “I doubt there’s anyone in Lahore who has not watched at least one episode of the Turkish drama,” commented a freelance photographer named Mahrukh, referring to Ishq-e-mamnoo, or Forbidden Love, dubbed in Urdu. Explaining the popularity of the show, she continued, “the fact that an Islamic culture was depicted full of adultery and ample eye-candy for both genders gave quite a shock to the viewers who do not have exposure to such mediums.” Although many Pakistanis were shocked by the sitcom’s themes, it sparked a debate in the population about whether Muhammad Ali Jinnah, founder of Pakistan, envisioned a Turkey-like country at the onset. “If Pakistan were to adopt a culture as depicted in the drama, it would inevitably also have to adopt the values of tolerance and openness in line with the ideals of ‘secularism’ and ‘tolerance’ held by its founding father,” Mahruk concluded.
Of course, not all sections of the society are pleased by cultural transformation in Pakistan’s cities. Conservatives, both purists and radicals, are opposed to foreign influences for a range of reasons and resist change. Purists expect strict Islamic values, along the lines of Saudi Arabian society, and would prefer an end to cultural accretions. Whether madrassas or high-end schools like Al-Huda, conservative education programs attract diverse students ranging from labourers to upper class women. Pakistani observers attribute some of the success of madrassas to the absence of regular schools for Pakistan’s poor. But success of Al-Huda – an institute that disapproves of photography, festivals, birthday celebrations and other local customs – with urban middle-class women is difficult to explain. Founded by a Scotland-educated woman in the mid-1990s in Islamabad, the school has expanded to 70 locations in urban centres in Pakistan, developed a presence among the Pakistani diaspora in Europe and North America, and produced some 15,000 graduates. Sadaf Ahmed, an assistant professor at the Lahore University of Management Sciences, has conducted research on Al-Huda and describes its graduates as “very intolerant and judgmental toward people who were different from them.” Still, the institute helps women define their role and identity in a strict Islamic society and in doing so attracts a growing crowd.
Radicals go further in their goal of quashing the trends of globalization. Attributing all social ills on rampant Westernization, they’re willing to incite violence to establish a Taliban-style rule for Pakistan. “Western culture, not abuse, is why women seek divorces,” Taliban spokesman Ihsanullah Ihsan recently told Reuters in response to a question about rising divorce rates in Pakistan. But radicals do not stop at denouncing the Western culture with hate-ridden rhetoric that helps recruit young men into their ranks. They’re urged to destroy property: “Burn a KFC!” “Burn a cinema!” “Erase billboards!” All foreign influences are fair game in their pursuit of an ideal Islamic state.
Despite the spread of both liberal and conservative values in sections of society, a large majority of Pakistanis continue to be moderate in views and behaviour. Their culture stems from an amalgamation of Islamic values and sub-continental traditions that evolved over centuries in a multiethnic India under the Mughal and British rules. Whereas educating women is a natural choice, letting them marry without parental consent is unacceptable to many. Watching Indian cinema is acceptable, but many support censorship of any show of skin or sexuality. Easily aroused by religious sentiments, the majority are like conservatives in denouncing un-Islamic practices but act more like liberals in day-to-day activities. A comfortable majority, these moderates so far shrink in silence.
The State of Pakistan and majority of its population has been in search of a cultural identity since separation from India in 1947. Since 9/11, both liberals and conservatives have expanded their circles and intensified efforts to win over the silent, moderate majority. If either side succeeds, Pakistan may become a stable society, without internal cultural conflict, mirroring either Turkey or Saudi Arabia.
Hassan Siddiq studied Grand Strategy at Yale College and is a former investment banker. He is the founder of Lahore-based Hillhouse Tech that provides outsourcing services to clients worldwide. Rights:Copyright © 2013 Yale Center for the Study of Globalization. YaleGlobal Online
Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to read the article and share their thoughts. Out of the arguments made here, there are two that perhaps need answering. So here they go.
1. The first part of the article compares outcomes (relative percentages of population of the religions concerned) irrespective of the process that led to those outcomes - whether immigration, relatively faster population growth or conversions. This was for two reasons. One, to put the figure of 2.3 per cent in "numerical perspective", as the article itself explained. The second reason was that outcomes are ultimately what the crux of debate is about. The rest of the article in any case dealt with process - or conversions in this case, from both a contemporary and historical perspective.
2. Some commenters have tried to cast doubts on the reliability of Census 2001. Those who do this should bear in mind that Census 2001 was conducted by a BJP government. Considering the extreme importance that BJP gives to this issue, it would be reasonable to expect that IF it had perceived a problem with the methodology that was distorting the numbers, it would have fixed it. As the article mentioned, BJP or BJP-supported governments have been in power for 10 of the last 40 years, or about a quarter of the time, and the only reasonable conclusion one can arrive at is that any misreporting of numbers, real or perceived, would be marginal and hence, not of importance.
To all other arguments made, my answer is the following: Please read the article again, with particular focus on the quotations of Vivekananda and Monier Williams, and the history of the missionary efforts in Bengal and their outcome.
The Bihar way.
Only without a Nitish to resurrect it
Questions like the one you have posted are regarded as communal in the citadel of secularism called India.
Is Turkey/Afghanistan/Saudi Arabia any less foreign to Pakistan than USA/UK/"The West"?
There is just one world in Pakistan and eminent indian journalist M J Akbar has captured that very well
"A question for the internationally recognised terrorist, ideologue and mastermind of the 2008 Mumbai attack, Hafiz Saeed, resident of Lahore, who has just offered sanctuary in Pakistan to our superstar Shah Rukh Khan. Pakistan was carved out in 1947 to ensure security for this subcontinent's Muslims in a separate homeland. Why, six decades later, has Pakistan become the most insecure place for Muslims in the world? Why are more Muslims being killed each day, on an average, in Pakistan than in the rest of the Muslim world put together?
This continual mass murder is not being done by Hindus and Sikhs, who were once proud residents of Punjab and Sindh but are now merely a near-invisible trace. Some Pakistan leaders even express pride in the fact that non-Muslims , who constituted around 20 per cent of the population in 1947, have been reduced to less than 2 per cent. In contrast, the percentage of Muslims in secular India has increased since independence. Hindus and Sikhs are not killing Muslims in Pakistan; Muslims are murdering Muslims, and on a scale unprecedented in the history of Punjab, the North West Frontier and Sindh. Why?"
Questions for Hafiz Saeed
"Pakistan was carved out in 1947 to ensure security for this subcontinent's Muslims in a separate homeland. Why, six decades later, has Pakistan become the most insecure place for Muslims in the world? Why are more Muslims being killed each day, on an average, in Pakistan than in the rest of the Muslim world put together? This continual mass murder is not being done by Hindus and Sikhs, who were once proud residents of Punjab and Sindh but are now merely a near-invisible trace.... Muslims are murdering Muslims, and on a scale unprecedented in the history of Punjab, the North West Frontier and Sindh....Muslims today are safer in India than in Pakistan."
We at Outlookindia.com welcome feedback and your comments, including scathing criticism
1. Scathing, passionate, even angry critiques are welcome, but please do not indulge in abuse and invective. Our Primary concern is to keep the debate civil. We urge our users to try and express their disagreements without being disagreeable. Personal attacks are not welcome. No ad hominem please.
2. Please do not post the same message again and again in the same or different threads
3. Please keep your responses confined to the subject matter of the article you are responding to. Please note that our comments section is not a general free-for-all but for feedback to articles/blogs posted on the site
4. Our endeavour is to keep these forums unmoderated and unexpurgated. But if any of the above three conditions are violated, we reserve the right to delete any comment that we deem objectionable and also to withdraw posting privileges from the abuser. Please also note that hate-speech is punishable by law and in extreme circumstances, we may be forced to take legal action by tracing the IP addresses of the poster.
5. If someone is being abusive or personal, or generally being a troll or a flame-baiter, please do not descend to their level. The best response to such posters is to ignore them and send us a message at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT
6. Please do not copy and paste copyrighted material. If you do think that an article elsewhere has relevance to the point you wish to make, please only quote what is considered fair-use and provide a link to the article under question.
7. There is no particular outlookindia.com line on any subject. The views expressed in our opinion section are those of the author concerned and not that of all of outlookindia.com or all its authors.
8. Please also note that you are solely responsible for the comments posted by you on the site. The comments could be deleted or edited entirely at our discretion if we find them objectionable. However, the mere fact of their existence on our site does not mean that we necessarily approve of their contents. In short, the onus of responsibility for the comments remains solely with the authors thereof. Outlookindia.com or any of its group publications, may, however, retains the right to publish any of these comments, with or without editing, in any medium whatsoever. It is therefore in your own interest to be careful before posting.
9.Outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for how any search engine -- such as Google, Bing etc -- caches or displays these comments. Please note that you are solely responsible for posting these comments and it is a privilege being granted to our registered users which can be withdrawn in case of abuse. To reiterate:
a. Comments once posted can only be deleted at the discretion of outlookindia.com
b. The comments reflect the views of the authors and not of outlookindia.com
c. outlookindia.com is not responsible in any manner whatsoever for the way search engines cache or display these comments
d. Please therefore take due caution before you post any comments as your words could potentially be used against you
10. We have an online thread for our comments policy:
You are welcome to post your suggestions here or in case you have a specific issue, to directly email us at Mail AT outlookindia DOT com with the subject header COMPLAINT