What's new

What devoured glamorous Pakistan?

Status
Not open for further replies.

T-Faz

RETIRED MOD
Joined
Feb 16, 2010
Messages
4,962
Reaction score
1
I wrote, a few weeks ago, about how much the attitude to Indians had changed in the West. Once we were regarded as losers, people who inhabited a desperately poor country, continually ravaged by famine or drought, incapable of making a single world-class product, and condemned to live forever on foreign aid. Now, we have the world’s respect and, more tellingly, the West’s envy as more and more jobs are Bangalored away from their high-cost economies and handed over to Indians who perform much better for less money.

That piece was prompted by a visit to London. This one too has been inspired by a trip abroad and by saturation coverage of the Pakistani cricket scandal in the press and on global TV channels. But my concern this week is not with how the West sees India.

It is with the transformation of the image of the global Pakistani.

I was at school and university in England in the Seventies and lived in London in the early 1980s. This was a time when Pakistan was regarded — hard as this may to believe now — as being impossibly glamorous. The star of my first term at Oxford was Benazir Bhutto. In my second term, she became president of the union and was the toast of Oxford. Her father was then prime minister of Pakistan and lucky students vied for the opportunity to visit Karachi or Islamabad as guests of the Bhuttos. They came back with stories of unbelievable hospitality and spoke knowledgeably about Pakistan’s feudal structure, about landowners like the Bhuttos, about an autocracy that had reigned for centuries etc.

Even on the other side of the ideological divide, Pakistan was all too visible. He had come down from Oxford nearly eight years before, but a former president of the union, the charismatic Trotskyite Tariq Ali was still the sort of chap who made English girls swoon. For her first debate as president of the Oxford Union, Benazir asked Tariq Ali to speak. He agreed but then, rather inconveniently, he was detained by the police on a visit to Pakistan. No matter. He phoned Benazir who spoke to daddy and — hey presto! — Tariq was out of jail and on a plane to England. Pakistan was that kind of country, the British chortled delightedly.

In those days, us poor Indians hardly ever got a look in. The Pakistanis were dashing, far richer (they spent in a week what we spent in the whole term), always going off to chic parties or nightclubs in London and charming the pants off the British (often, quite literally).

In that era, the Arabs had just emerged on the world stage (following the massive oil-price hikes of 1973/4) and the Pakistanis were almost proprietorial about them. A Pakistani graduate student at my college, even affected Arab dress from time to time and bragged that he had taught Arabs how to fly planes.

My college-mate was merely reprising Z A Bhutto’s philosophy: the Arabs were rich but they were camel drivers. They needed Pakistanis to run the world for them and to teach them Western ways. It was this sort of thinking that led to the creation of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), the first global Third World bank, run by Pakistanis with Arab money. For most of the 1980s, BCCI was staffed by sharply dressed young Pakistanis who entertained at London (and New York’s) best restaurants, hit the casinos after dinner and talked casually about multi-million dollar deals.

Their flamboyant lifestyle was matched by other rich Pakistanis. In his autobiography, Marco Pierre White, the first of the British super-chefs (he was the original bad boy and Gordon Ramsay worked for him), talks about the Pakistanis who were his first regulars. Michel Roux, then England’s top chef (three Michelin stars) would fly out to Pakistan to cook at private parties thrown by wealthy individuals. In the late 1980s, a friend of mine went to dinner in Pakistan and was startled to be asked to guess the vintages of three different bottles of Mouton Rothschild, one of the world’s most expensive wines.

In that era, Indians knew absolutely nothing about wine or French food and the few Indian millionaires who vacationed in London were vegetarians.

Pakistanis were *** symbols too. The first international cricketing stud was Imran Khan (who finished at Oxford the term before I got there) and his *** appeal was so legendary that even Benazir joked about it. Told that Gen Zia-ul-Haq called him the ‘Lion of the Punjab,” Benazir said, “Yes but Zia pronounces “Lion as ‘Loin’ and this is appropriate.” Years later when Imran spoke about his love for Pakistan, a British columnist sneered, “His heart may be in Pakistan but his loins are in the King’s Road” referring to a trendy (and expensive) London area.

Even Pakistan’s millionaires were more glamorous than ours. In the Eighties when the Hinduja brothers (“we are strictly vegetarian”) first emerged in London, the Pakistanis stole the show with such flamboyant high-profile millionaires in Mahmud Sipra who financed feature films and kept a big yacht in the South of France.

So what went wrong?

It’s hard to pin point any single reason but I can think of several contributing factors.

First of all, much of the Pakistani profile was based on flash and fraud. BCCI collapsed amidst allegations that it was a scamster’s bank. Mahmud Sipra left England with the Fraud Squad in hot pursuit even as he declared his innocence from beyond Scotland Yard’s jurisdiction. Many big-spending Paksitanis turned out to be heroin smugglers.

Secondly, Indian democracy came to our rescue. The Brits who bragged about Bhutto hospitality and the Pakistan aristocracy missed the obvious point: this was a deeply unequal and therefore unstable society. When Bhutto rigged an election, this led to his downfall.

Thirdly, Pakistan signed its own death warrant by trying to out-Arab the Arabs with a policy of Islamisation. This reached its peak under General Zia who declared a jihad against the Russians in Afghanistan and invited Arabs such as Osama bin Laden to come to Pakistan to fight the holy war. Ultimately, fundamentalist Islam devoured what was left of glamorous Pakistan.

Fourthly, the world just moved on. Flash can only get you so far. In the end it is substance that counts. And plodding, boring India came up with the substance.

It is hard to think, when you look at today’s Pakistan team, that Pakistani cricketers were such *** symbols in India in the 1980s that Imran Khan was able to brag to an interviewer “Indian actresses are chickens. They just want to get laid” (In all fairness, Imran later said he had been misquoted.)

Get laid by today’s team? You must be joking.

Even the Pakistani playboys who are still around no longer seem exciting or glamorous. Poor Imran just looks tired. And the rest look like Asif Zardari — pretty much the archetypal glamorous Pakistani of the Eighties — though perhaps not as disgustingly sleazy.

Of all these factors, two remain the most important. A nation created on the basis of Islam was destroyed by too much Islam. And a nation dedicated to democracy flourished because of too much democracy.

What devoured glamorous Pakistan? | | | Indian Express
 
Of all these factors, two remain the most important. A nation created on the basis of Islam was destroyed by too much Islam. And a nation dedicated to democracy flourished because of too much democracy.

What devoured glamorous Pakistan? | | | Indian Express

A well written article. Simply put & to the point.

On the highlighted part above all I'd like to say / add is there can never be too much of any religion. Islam existed even then as it does now and so shall it be centuries from now.

However, there can be misinterpretation of a religion both by its followers and those who see it from the outside.

I maintain that Zia in his time knowingly or unknowing did incalculable damage.

This I feel is closer to the truth.

My view entirely.
 
I remember an late 90s interview of Imran Khan on NDTV i think ,where Pranoy Roy introduces him to the audience as "once know as the sexiest man alive in the world"(not completely sure).

Based the on what Westerners had to say about Pakistan back then,seems like Bhutto era was similar to that of the Shah era of Iran.

The most important part of the article
the world just moved on. Flash can only get you so far. In the end it is substance that counts.
 
Well the author only saw the sons and daughters of stingy feudal that time as they are the only one who could ever catch a plane ticket. But he failed to see that a volcano was in making right underneath when millions of people left behind who eventually turned to just Somalians instead of real dashing Pakistanis..
 
Of all these factors, two remain the most important. A nation created on the basis of Islam was destroyed by too much Islam. And a nation dedicated to democracy flourished because of too much democracy.

Too much democracy? really?

I honestly have no idea what Vir means by too much democracy. I think he got a little carried away at the end.
 
Well the author only saw the sons and daughters of stingy feudal that time as they are the only one who could ever catch a plane ticket. But he failed to see that a volcano was in making right underneath when millions of people left behind who eventually turned to just Somalians instead of real dashing Pakistanis..

Initially (West) Pakistan enjoyed great years during the late 50's and throughout 60's at the expense of Bangladesh (then East Pakistan). 70% of our federal revenues used to come from East Pakistan and majority of it was spent on West Pakistan. Once the break up occurred, the poor Pakistanis on our side were left to feel the brunt of our collective extravagance.

It wasn't just feudals who enjoyed great lifestyles, civil servants, army men, industrialists, business men and a whole set of other groups were living an excellent lifestyle. Take for example Agha Hassan Abedi, a self made man who got to the top of the banking industry through crook, same goes for Mahmud Sipra. There are others like Gokal Brothers and similar men who made a lot of money but were involved in a lot of scams. Though our original billionaires and millionaires are still around, they tend to keep a low profile for various reasons.

During those times or till the 80's Pakistan could proudly boast that no one in Pakistan slept hungry or on the road. The extremism that spread in the 80's and poverty bomb set off destroyed our civil society. Musharraf and many others even Sharif admit to the mistakes of these decades and regret going down this path.

PIA got Pierre Cardin to design their uniforms and PIA's investment department was buying properties like the Roosevelt Hotel (PIA still owns it) to showcase that Pakistan had arrived on world stage.

But things went terribly wrong because of the unnecessary mixing of religion and state for political purposes (deen aur duniya ki khichri). There were other factors too as we were far too flashy for our own good and took shortcuts to achieve things.
 
But things went terribly wrong because of the unnecessary mixing of religion and state for political purposes (deen aur duniya ki khichri). There were other factors too as we were far too flashy for our own good and took shortcuts to achieve things.

But wasn't mixing of religion and politics inevitable considering the fact that foundation of creation of Pakistan was solely based on religion and nothing else.
 
But wasn't mixing of religion and politics inevitable considering the fact that foundation of creation of Pakistan was solely based on religion and nothing else.

Pakistan was meant to be a Muslim majority state where religion was supposed to play no role in the state affairs, that was the original outlay of the nation.

In his august 11th constituent speech, Jinnah concentrated on the word 'nation' and equality for all regardless of caste, creed or religion. Here is an excerpt from Justice Munir-Kiyani report about the speech.

The word 'nation' is used more than once, and religion is stated to have nothing to do with the business of the State and to be merely a matter of personal faith for the individual.

Here is the speech in it's entirety and even Advani admitted that this was a truly secular speech which could lay the foundations for such a state. He further stated that it was worth emulation.

Mr. Jinnah's address to the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan
 
Why do i get the feeling that instead of moving forward Pakistan has taken a giant leap backwards? Any way's Zia 's era wasn't that bad(Remember the last Dam which was built in Pakistan was during his time) but things went down the hill during 90's Thanks to ppp & pml they have been screwing Pakistan since then. BTW it was also Zia under whose leader ship Pakistan was able to develop nukes, i am not trying to advocate his legacy but just stating that we should give credit where it's due. Why no dams were built in Pakistan during 90's? Does any one know that to which extent the shortage of electricity has crippled our economy? Of course we should blame Religion for that matter & not these thugs who come in the name of Democracy & amass their personal fortunes........ As for the article as a pakistani i know where we stand & i don't have to take the words of some one who thinks he knows all about us just because he lives on our eastern side of the border.
 
Zia may have been a devil but if he created a mess he better knew how the handle it. Things went down the hill due to diplomatic and political incompetency of civilian politicians as well political fueds between PML and PPP.

Talibans were basically given a free hand while state turned a blind eye during PPP era and PML tried to use the same talibans for balancing its differences with MQM.

Basically Pakistani democracy = big failure.

@ontopic

India might be turning into a pool of talent but the conditions and international image of india hasnt changed much. Infact the world opinion towards India has become not nascent due to continous flooding of cheap labour, a strategy which amounts to "economic terrorism" which has backfired into riots and protectionst measures against India world wide.
 
Misleading in my opinion.

As if all Pakistanis were playboys and flaunting money. The vast majority of the Pakistani diaspora in the West today comprises of hard working folks who toiled as doctors, engineers and in other professions. These were the folks who came to the West in the 50s, 60s, 70s and they have, for the most part, retained their Islamic outlook and have grown more religiously inclined over the years yet they maintain their belief in Quaid's Pakistan.

Secondly, the class that is being discussed in this opinion piece thrives to this day in Pakistan as the so called elite of Pakistan. They have not gone away, they still shop and eat in the West and throw lavish parties. Its just that they do not have as many Westerners visiting them so their glitzy way of life is kept away from the Westerners and Indians. Suffice it to say these very same people live on as they have before and they never represented Pakistan fully, only a part of it thus basing one's opinion on the class or a few of them at Oxford (a school frequented by foreign elite for its name), is a massive stereotype.

Pakistan's Islamization is shaping the country for the future. It won't be without violence and disruption (I tend to believe its probably better that all of this stuff is being sorted out as it had to). However the argument of the Indian side is to always put down the Islamic nature of Pakistan to make a point that Pakistan was not needed. Well you can pick gripes with our Islamization, sooner or later we had to come to terms with it and once all is said and done, it will bring stability to Pakistan.

Yes Pakistanis are a flashy bunch and sometimes this gets the best of them, but looking at today's Indian Bollywood and cricket, one can say the same that the hubris may get the better of them one day too.
 
Last edited:
A Indian friend of mine told me this quite seriously: "Do you know why there is a 100% difference between Indians and Pakistanis? We Indians like to live 50% below our means, and you Pakistanis like to live 50% above yours!"
 
A Indian friend of mine told me this quite seriously: "Do you know why there is a 100% difference between Indians and Pakistanis? We Indians like to live 50% below our means, and you Pakistanis like to live 50% above yours!"

True to some extent, but having visited the West and the East, I have observed that consumerism and living at and beyond one's means is afflicting the Indian communities quite a bit as well. There is a lot of "keeping up with the Joneses (I mean Vikrams ;-)" within the desi communities which include Indians, Pakistanis and BDs. Its part of getting caught up in the game.
 
True to some extent, but having visited the West and the East, I have observed that consumerism and living at and beyond one's means is afflicting the Indian communities quite a bit as well. There is a lot of "keeping up with the Joneses (I mean Vikrams ;-)" within the desi communities which include Indians, Pakistanis and BDs. Its part of getting caught up in the game.

You are absolutely correct that blatant consumerism is present in both the East and West. My anecdote was relevant just to the original post and intended as light-hearted comment based on my having lived on three continents now, in several countires and cultures.

Coming back to the topic, the decline in the image of Pakistan, is not only personally saddening for me, but is also tragic to watch like a slow motion train wreck in evolution, and is increasingly attracting the attention of the entire world, with some spectators clapping with glee, and others hanging their heads in shame and sorrow.

The causes have been mutiple, but now is too late to turn the ship of the state around I fear, and the proverbial waterfall is not too far away now.

I apologize if I sound depressed, but I am trying to be honest as I cling to my very last reserves of hope, wishing for the Pakistan of old that I knew and grew up in to come back, to claim its rightful glory in the international community, as it once was on the path to achieving.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom