She was one of six writers of Pakistani background whose work had been collected in an anthology called “Pakistani Creative Writing in English: Tracing The Tradition, Embracing the Emerging,” a special issue of the journal South Asian Review co-edited by myself and Waseem Anwar. The publication was being honored at the evening’s gathering, a launch ceremony I had begun planning with Mr Haqqani back in September. He had said:
“the Embassy should honor its creative writers and artists, who shatter the current western stereotypes of Pakistan as a cultural wasteland and synonymous only with terrorism.”
His late arrival was accompanied with a clutch of photo-journalists flashing their cameras running after him as he walked up to the head table, and a band of folk accompanying him and some seated at the back of the room clapping loudly at his entrance. Naturally, as the organizer of the event, I was miffed at the interruption his arrival caused as one of “my” writers was in the midst of presenting her work. I was, too, surprised at the rather zealous nature of the press photographers who kept the cameras clicking at the head table for quite a while after the Ambassador had seated himself. I hadn’t realized his attendance at, and in support of, our literary function was such a big deal!
The last piece that was performed at the ceremony before the Ambassador got up to make his speech to the audience gathered in the room, was from a play I had co-written called “Jihad against Violence”. A friend and I did a dramatic reading of a scene from this play in which two women are discussing “Act Two, Scene 1” of an imaginary play-within-a-play, a scene which one of the characters insists hasn’t yet been written. The other woman insists that it has—or that it is being written even as they are speaking. And what is this “scene”?
It is one which follows a series of previous short scenes the two women had presented, referring to bearded men and hijabi women participating in a variety of violent and scandalous scenarios, including getting their bodies possibly dumped in oceans. The scene which one of them claims hasn’t been written yet and the other insisting it has or is in the process of being written, is one in which Obama becomes their beloved director (of the play)—and who both women friends realize they’ve been waiting for ever since their “wretched play” started. They now hope that when he arrives in Pakistan for the delicious dinner they plan to cook for him, he will, having become enamored of the “sexy spiciness” they represent, not bomb them and their country mates to smithereens. They do worry, however, that since he may bring along some uninvited guests with him such as the Browns and Blairs and Camerons, they would need to slaughter more chicken than they can afford. But in the end, they decide not to worry too much about the menu and the quantity of chicken they would need to slaughter since, as one of the women points out:
“After all, we are great cooks, and have a great tradition of hospitality. And as you know…everyone is welcome in our country.”
As the audience laughed and enjoyed the political satire of the dramatic reading, I could see that the Ambassador, though he smiled now and then, remained looking rather tense at his seat. And when he came up to the podium immediately following the conclusion of our reading to make his remarks, it became clear from the nature of his comments that our “dramatic reading” was rather uncannily linked to the drama unfolding in the present involving the Ambassador himself.
Mr Haqqani praised the importance of the creative arts and the role of writers as the cultural vanguard of Pakistan, whose work, he said, was so important to highlight as an antidote to the extremist ideologies that had taken hold of the Pakistani nation in the decades post-Zia-ul-Haq,. However, Mr Haqqani’s remarks continued to berate the shortsightedness of Pakistani leaders and citizens, who held on to regressive, rather than progressive and forward-looking thought and action in the country and thus held it back from taking its rightful role as a future South Korea. In fact, he compared its current status to that of a militarily repressive regime such as that of Burma’s, its citizens held hostage to ideologies harkening back to a regressive Islamist past, where progressive politicians like the late Minister of Minorities Mr Shahbaz Bhatti and the late Governor of Punjab, Mr Salmaan Taseer, who both took a stand for women’s and minorities rights in Pakistan, could be so easily assassinated.
We all clapped when he made these comments speaking out for human rights and for the need of a progressive culture of peace as the need of the day in Pakistan. I and others agreed with his sentiments when he said we don’t need “those nuclear weapons encased in plastic” rather than investing in peace and prosperity that comes from education, jobs, and healthcare and the creation of proper infrastructure in the country. He said he had been moved to offer the Embassy as the location to launch our Special Issue of Creative Writing from Pakistan because of its title: “Tracing the Tradition, Embracing the Emerging”—precisely because to him, it conveyed the importance of “moving forward,” acknowledging the traditions of the past, but recognizing the need to move away from those aspects of “tradition” that do not belong in the contemporary world and embracing instead, the new and the progressive elements of thought and action necessary for our survival as a nation in a globalized world.
While I certainly do not claim to know the truth of the allegations leading up to Mr Haqqani’s offer of resignation as Ambassador later that same night, I can say the following for sure. We who had gathered there earlier that evening in the Pakistan Embassy, were celebrating the talents of writers who use words , not guns or bombs as their weapons in the fight for a tolerant and just society of the future. Ambassador Haqqani, who has been recalled to Pakistan even as I pen these words, on charges of conduct unbecoming of a senior Pakistani diplomat for allegedly requesting, in a memo to Admiral Mike Mullen (known as “memogate”) on May 10, the help of the US general and his government in “preventing yet another a military takeover” of Pakistan, was clearly making the case for civil and civilian, democratic rule in Pakistan, against the military-mullah nexus that has dominated Pakistani society for the past three decades. It is this dangerous nexus that has led to the implosion of Pakistani society and culture, and I for one, am glad that this Ambassador spoke of the need to reign in the Pakistani military.
Pakistan and its citizens deserve democracy, justice, and a culture of peace and progress While I want to be unequivocally clear that I do not support the intervention of any foreign power including the US under Bush or Obama or, (heaven help us) Romney and his cartoonish caste of Republican contenders, or of Nato or the Browns, Blairs, and their progeny—into the internal affairs of a sovereign state like Pakistan, I absolutely believe in the principle of what Ambassador Haqqani was saying that fateful night of Nov 17: roll back the hijabi curtain that has fallen like a shroud on the thinking of Pakistani society. While the irony that the “scene being written even as we [were]speaking” that night, may have been that of Ambassador Haqqani’s resignation and recall, the larger, more important scene, is the one that can be re-written and imagined: the path that Pakistani society and its culture follows from this moment onward.
The views expressed by the writer and the reader comments do not necassarily reflect the views and policies of the Express Tribune.




Nobody wants to return to the Musharaf era or any military era. Most of us (yes even the non-liberal types) want democracy to flourish and Pakistan to economically prosper. But what we do want from future ambassadors and politicians is to make sure they don’t beg for foreign interference to counter domestic military interference inorder to implement so called noble goals. Regardless of what Haqqanis intentions were, what he did was a fire able offence in any part of the world and amounts to shooting oneself in the foot. I dont care which party comes to power, but if leaders just do their job and focus on delivering to the public, both US and military interference will become weak inface of popular support.
Fawzia,
Enjoyed reading your note. As you know, I really don’t have much of an aptitude for literature, poetry, or music, so I can’t comment on that – but the last couple of paragraphs in your note got me thinking about how we decide whether certain acts are “fire able offences” (as OhLaLa) says. Governments are very fond of defining these as anything that is intended to overthrow or undermine the legitimacy of the government – or challenges the sovereignty of the government.
This phrase is confusing to me – my thinking is that in a democracy, sovereignty lies with the people, who elect representatives to act in their best collective interests. So any claim to legitimacy or sovereignty that a government has, depends on its record of acting in the best collective interests of the citizens. So, what happens when the electorate widely believes that the elected government is not acting in their best interests, as in Greece, or the US (based on some of the claims of the OWS movement), or in Pakistan. When/how do we decide that the government itself is committing a “fire able” act by not acting in the best interests of its electorate (as defined by literacy, infant mortality, health, human rights, rule of law, etc. ….)? The answer to this question I think helps us decide whether to fire people who speak up, or celebrate them.
Think of the example of the US Pfc Bradley Manning who leaked the video of the Blackhawk helicopter shooting up civilians in Iraq – and was arrested – amid wide public outrage – many people believe he did the right thing and that his duty was first to the US constitution and the rule of law rather than the reputation of the US military. I’ll stop now – this is getting long.
Well Americans were constantly asking to sort out the Haqqani network…….It seems the Haqqani issue has been addressed but probably not the one Washington wanted…..OOPS
When will we stop being idealists and be realists. What democracy do we talk about when we uttter that word? Democracy in Pakistan starts with rallies and tall claims and ends on election day at the ballot box; thereon its business as usual. Before we belittle the Army for its periodic transgressions let us consider for a moment that maybe the boots had not come marching in IF the feudal politicians had delivered in the first place. I personally think that at the time of partition of India into Pakistan and Hindustan; we got the lions share of seasoned military minds available, whereas barring the founders of Pakistan, the remaining political material was trash that came our way.
On reading this, for some strange reason, I got the distinct impression that this was more about the author than about other things.
@Shahid Kureshi:
“whereas barring the founders of Pakistan, the remaining political material was trash that came our way.”
Aren’t these the same bunch who said 2 set of human beings are somehow different and cannot live together, thereby creating a Country based on the idea of division? Aren’t these the same guys who thought the greatest Human to walk the Earth(Gandhi) and his political heir(Nehru) were wrong?
Dont you see the inherent contradictions in your beliefs? Pakistan was a communal demand and unnatural birth. It is reaping the rewards today for that folly.
@Asad Aziz:
You say exactly what I am thinking—as are the “people”–actual citizens–of democracies and non alike today, when they speak up and out against their regimes/governments. So, do we “fire” them–or indeed, “at them”–as even the US govt’s agents are doing in Oakland, NYC etc?? You ask the most urgent question of all…thnkx
@ Anoop
Nope, negative, nien, nickht and NO ! I do not contribute to your idea regarding the creation of Pakistan and neither your beliefs as to who were the greatest men who walked this earth. They are your beliefs and you are wecome to them. Period.
To me Jinnah was actually the founder of two nations; left to your greatest people, they were quite content with the Brits. You need to overcome this 60 year old malaise of not accepting this formidable physical reality that is Pakistan.
@Shahid Kureshi:
“They are your beliefs and you are wecome to them. ”
They are also beliefs of Einstein, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King too. The greatest human mind ever, Albert Einstein, has to say this about the people I was talking about: “Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as [Gandhi] ever in flesh and blood walked upon this earth.”
When asked Barack Obama who would he have dinner with he says Gandhi, not Jinnah. I bet he doesn’t even know who JInnah is!
Pakistanis dont understand the greatness and that is the reason they bicker and fight. Jinnah is claimed by everyone, right or left or center. Gandhi and Nehru are claimed by only the most secular and straight-forward people. No wonder Pakistan is still debating about what Jinnah wanted 65 years after its birth.
“left to your greatest people, they were quite content with the Brits.”
Tell me something- Gandhi spent 11 years in a British Jail and Nehru 9 years. How come Jinnah who was in politics/”Freedom Struggle” longer than Nehru pre-Independence did not spend a single day in prison?
The only politicians who didn’t go to Jail in those days were those who were British stooges. That is the reason Pakistan was born. Not because of any act of Nehru or Gandhi or the Congress. Jinnah had earned it after so many years of loyal service to an alien power.
I am a avid reader of History. You have the wrong man to take on, dude. Listen to me and give up on this Jinnah fixation. He will do more harm than good.
@Anoop:
Like I said. They are your beliefs and you are welcome to them. Period. Now go back to your Bollywood productions of distorted history.
@Shahid Kureshi:
I thoroughly enjoyed your intellectual and ‘his’ Bollywood inspired historical debate. By the way, is it a must to go to jail in order to be called a GREAT LEADER! Had we known that somebody might have advised the QUAID to do the same to satisfy ‘them.’ There is a vast intellectual difference in the politics of agitation propagated by the ‘prisoners’ and graceful approach to the political problems!
P.S. Excuse me if I have been a lil wrong in indirectly eluding to the historical facts. I don;t have access to BOLLYWOOD PRODUCTIONS!
@Shahid Kureshi
@ Tahir
Agree with you gents totally. Who says Democracy is the only way to run a country? Why cant the Army and Clergy do so?
And forget Bollywood, we prefer ISPR. After all one of its productions just won at an European film festival.
@Haroon Rashid:
By the way, the producer of said documentary is a friend of mine. I shall pass on your feelings to him as well.