One slogan that reverberated in the jostling crowd, raised in chorus by small groups of young enthusiasts, was simply, “U-S-A, U-S-A”. The entire scene was so surreal and I felt overwhelmed by the sheer experience of being there at that somewhat ungodly hour. And though I was truly not a participant in that spontaneous demonstration of joy, I could understand the feelings of that crowd. I was actually a pensive observer, thinking about how that event could impact my own, beloved country that has for long been under attack by terror and bigotry and intolerance.
Yes, I was there at the White House in Washington D C soon after midnight after President Obama had made his address to announce the killing of Osama bin Laden. It was almost fifteen minutes’ walk from my daughter’s apartment where I was staying and we both walked at a brisk pace in near silence, engrossed in our thoughts. There were other people emerging from surrounding streets in twos and threes and as we reached the patch blocked for traffic, the excitement became palpable.
There was the façade of the building as famous in the world as the face of Bin Laden had become in recent years, bathed in floodlight. A flag-waving crowd was brimming with the kind of patriotism that I, as a Pakistani, could easily identify. We are two countries that wear our patriotism on our sleeves and 9/11 had a lot to do with the waving of the American flag.
We were there for about an hour, as the crowd continued to grow, prompted by its live coverage. As I have said, I was ambivalent about what it meant to me as a Pakistani. Let me make clear that during this period, we didn’t seem to be strangers in that place. Yet, our feelings, pulsating on a different beat, set us apart from that entire crowd.
Frankly, I was not at all unnerved by that vociferous expression of joy. As someone who has agonised over the spread of Islamic militancy in Pakistan, I was happy that Bin Laden had been found and been dealt with. However, the details of how it had happened seemed inexplicable at that moment when many details had yet to be revealed. Not that we are able to get the necessary clarifications almost a week after the event.
I stayed in Washington for four more days and had the occasion to meet a number of area experts and commentators, mainly of Pakistani origin. We had long and serious conversations on the Bin Laden affair, on the evolving situation in Pakistan and on what possibly lies ahead. There was this exhaustive coverage in the media, an example for our media practitioners of how a major event should be explored. We had a steady flow of statements and analyses by high officials and political pundits. Still, the fog has not been lifted.
Some aspects of this made for Hollywood thriller may never be known. We have become used to never being able to get to the bottom of our mysteries. This is why we lean on conspiracy theories in trying to interpret such developments. There is this totally baffling question of how Bin Laden could have lived in that manifestly conspicuous building in a garrison town without the knowledge of our otherwise very efficient security agencies.
Equally astounding is the military operation conducted by the US without any interception by the Pakistani forces. Obviously, these questions engender so many more queries and assumptions. At one level, the central issue is the future course of relations between Pakistan and the United States. You hear these strident voices that call for suspension of aid to Pakistan or at least to wait for answers from Pakistan. There are others who stress the need to be calm and deliberative.
One observation is that those Americans who have visited Pakistan and have interacted with its educated elite are more realistic about the imperative of working with Pakistan against the backdrop of their involvement in Afghanistan. But all of them are anxious to find out if the Pakistani authorities had any knowledge of Bin Laden being located where he was found.
My own thoughts, while moving with the crowd in front of the White House, were focused on the urgency for Pakistan to set its national sense of direction by finally recognising the threat that is posed by Islamic radicals and by the ruling ideas that have promoted these elements. Pakistan can only survive as a liberal and plural society.
Our establishment, instead of playing both sides, must make genuine attempts to establish peace in the region.
We do have to deal with the jihadi factions that have prospered for the lack of a rational and realistic approach to resolving our many predicaments. It is quite valid to protest against the violation of our sovereignty by the American forces when they put their boots on our ground to get Bin Laden. But wasn’t the presence of Bin Laden and all those Al-Qaeda and Taliban terrorists in Pakistan also a blatant breach of our sovereignty?
I also worry about the surge in emotions against America, a country that has given nearly $20 billion civilian and military aid to Pakistan during the last decade. American foreign policy has traditionally led to antagonistic feelings in many parts of the world and these feelings are largely justified. But in our case, such emotions also reflect an animosity towards western ideas such as democracy and human rights. Just look at the world-view of those who bizarrely demonstrate an appreciation of the role that Bin Laden and the Taliban have played, in spite of the severe damage they have done to our country.
Osama bin Laden’s killing was not at all a topic for consideration in the international conference held in Washington to celebrate the World Press Freedom Day, though we kept reverting to it during casual encounters held on the sidelines. I attended two full days of deliberations held at the Newseum and the National Press Club. Mainly sponsored by UNESCO, the conference was attended by about 200 delegates from all over the world.
And Pakistan kept popping up in many different contexts. When I entered the main hall of the Newseum to attend the opening session, Karen Kariekar of the Freedom House was presenting the annul Freedom of the Press index and I heard the name Pakistan, as a country that had become dangerous for journalists. In a breakout session on investigative reporting, a Latvian journalist spoke of a network of fake marriages in which men from Pakistan had figured. And I overheard a conversation in which a TV anchor was saying something about “Pakistan, one of those nasty places”.
0 comments:
Post a Comment