| May 7, 2006 | Sunday | Rabi-us-Sani 8, 1427 |
One-dish marriage meal?
A young journalist says that he once did a spot survey asking lawmakers whether they knew the price of atta, ghee and other edibles used daily. None of them knew, he recalls with a malicious smile. That was several years ago. He wonders whether the situation would be any different today.
TRADE unionists, women and brick kiln workers took to the street this past May Day to demand better working conditions, and to condemn the rise in inflation. Opposition politicians, too, were seen addressing workers’ rallies in the city, but in the forefront were only those belonging to the Nawaz League and the Jamaat. The PPP cadres, once the flag bearers of Iqbal’s Uttho meri duniya ke gharibon ko jagado (Rise and awaken the poor of my world) were conspicuous by their absence. Makhdoom Amin Fahim, it may be conjectured, probably forgot to get a clearance from Ms Bhutto for a labour day rally.
The railways’ union was not allowed to hold its rally inside the railway station, where it had planned for the event to take place on platform 4. The authorities concerned denied the union the permission, citing prohibition on holding such rallies along open tracks. Labour leaders and workers made do by gathering together in the park outside the station. Rallies taken out in the city to mark the day by and large remained a low-key, if not a muted, affair. Makes you wonder what happened to the activism you saw back in the 1960s and ‘70s.
There is no dearth of causes or issues today. Inflation, for one, is at an all-time high in many years and wages remain as low as ever. Maltreatment of workers and denial of rights and privileges in the organised and semi-organised industrial sectors have become the norm, with a largely lopsided development-obsessed government practically being a non-player in the arena. Abuse of workers in the brick kiln sector has touched new highs, with bonded labourers’ tales of woe now becoming a routine matter, but it all seems to be a case of what Faiz called Tujh se bhi dilfareb hain gham rozgaar ke (earning a livelihood is but more alluring than you).
The lack-lustre labour day events reminded one of the International Women’s Day celebrations in the city two months ago when a similarly bizarre situation obtained. The NGO-brigade of the upper-middle class variety sprang into action and held a couple of very tastefully arranged functions, the proceedings of which were mainly in English. So here was a bunch of very empowered begums who got together over book recitals and a multi-media presentation, flanked by the regular conscientious lot, students et al, the kind that attend rights groups’ functions. They represented the moral voice of society, morality being the prerogative of the conscientious rich. They worried themselves over the woes of the multitude of disempowered women in this country. None of the latter was among those present at the said events.
No, the May Day’s was not an elitist fair. If anything, the NGO-brigade was all but missing from the labour rallies, and you can guess why. Hardly any funding is available from foreign donors to run NGOs to further the cause of the toiling classes in this country. Labour remains a dreaded word in much of the Third World, with their first-world frontrunners, such as the UK’s Labour Party, for instance, now having embraced Thatcherism, courtesy Tony Blair. Back home, the movement is not only leaderless but also lacks patronage by a potent political force, the successors of the PPP and the old ANP having long abandoned it as an unwanted child. The hopes Iqbal and Faiz used to pin on the movement have given way to the lament by Jalib: Na woh suraj nikalta hai, na apne din badalte hain (The sun that would change our days has not risen).
IT is indeed tragic that even good things coming our way have to become controversial at some point. Just when there was hope that we’d be rid of the noise and pollution machines called rickshaws, angry drivers took to the street in protest of the Punjab government’s phased ban on the rickety three-wheeler. The ban is aimed at cleansing the city of the bane by year’s end, by gradually barring rickshaws from a number of roads on a monthly basis. The rickshaw drivers, it seems, seem to have taken personally the ban imposed last month on the vehicle’s plying on The Mall.
For its part, the Punjab government says ample arrangements have been made to facilitate rickshaw drivers to switch to the more eco-friendly, new three-wheeler. Loans on marginal mark-ups are being made available through The Bank of Punjab, but there do not seem to be many takers. It can’t be just a case of bad attitude on the part of the drivers; the few new rickshaws that you see in the city can well be a driver’s dream streetcar. There have got to be bureaucratic glitches and such sundry problems involved in the process that is keeping the drivers away from making the new purchase.
The government has done well to engage the aggrieved party in a dialogue ahead of Saturday’s indefinite strike call given by the drivers’ association, which only reluctantly withdrew it late on Friday night. Much as you hate the rickshaw in its present, horrid incarnation, commuters have little choice in the absence of enough new rickshaws if the two-stroke ones go off the street in a huff. Besides, there should be some empathy shown to the condition of the average rickshaw driver who takes the vehicle on a daily rent from its owner to earn a living for his family. Is it the rickshaw owners who are misleading the drivers and egging them on to agitate in the street instead of going for a personal loan from the bank to purchase new rickshaws?
This and other questions need to be answered to get to the root of the problem. A non-vehicle owner should be on the priority list for the bank loan instead of those who have made a mafia out of operating rental rickshaws. The down payment should also be made part of the loan to facilitate this segment of drivers after tying it with a guarantee of repayment given by a local elected representative. Lahore must do without the noise and pollution caused by two-stroke rickshaws, but the way of weeding the menace out should be made less cumbersome for the genuine, potential buyer whose bread and butter depends on plying the three-wheeler. —OBSERVER
I have just seen a private TV channel report in which the journalists asked several members of parliament on what were the approximate prevailing prices of life's essentials like atta, sugar, pulses, and fuel. The answers were revealing, and reflected the attitude of the representatives of the people. The TV channel asked the question: if this is the degree of awareness of the members of parliament about prices that otherwise hurt the common, there are many thoughts that come to mind. Let us not go into those thoughts here.
One needs to recall here that the subject of meals at marriages has been a controversial one for decades now. When there are extravagant sumptuous meals there is criticism and censure on grounds that there is unaffordable waste taking place in this developing society. That the rich and the haves are setting standards and norms that are having a frustrating impact on the poorer sections of society. And when there is a ban, there are all kinds of argument being raised to contend that the ban on meals at marriages is in conflict with our cultural norms and against even common sense. This common sense theory argues that when hosts invite guests to a wedding at night the logic is that meals should be served. Not soft drinks!
Anyway the news (good or bad) is that after a consensus between the treasury and opposition benches on serving meals at marriages, for those who believe that meals at marriages are fun, and welcome, it is time to rejoice. For those who believe that this society cannot afford to have these expensive extravagant dinners and lunches, it is time to contemplate, sulk, get disgusted. It works both ways.
There is one Pakistani who was always cynical about the ban on meals at weddings and valimas. He says that it was his belief that sooner or later the meals would be restored.
It is too strong a cultural norm to be dispensed with. And now with the wedding season back, after the months of Moharram and Safar, the demand and desire for meals at marriages has been raised, and for the time being the issue has been settled.
But what is baffling and altogether enigmatic at this very point in time is the fact that amongst the themes being agitated about is that of rising prices. All kinds of rising prices, including essential foods stuffs, which imply that the costs of meals at marriages would also rise. Then there is also the hike in prices of fuel, cement, steel and gold – and the list is long. Rather paradoxically, Pakistani society is making its essentials expensive while comfort and luxury goods are coming in more and easier manner. That's the face of globalisation, commented one citizen, whose comprehension of economics is rather oblique, if not altogether dubious!
This consensus and the proposal to amend the Marriage Function (prohibition of ostentatious displays and wasteful expenses) Ordinance made by the MNAs who argued that the restrictions were depriving thousands of employment opportunities came as a sort of shock. There were voices, loud and whispered, of dissent and there were low profiled lobbies at work in the media and otherwise suggesting that the ban on wedding meals was working against the economic interests of Pakistani society. Is that the only interest that we need to protect in our lives? What about the psychological and sociological impacts of extravagance at marriages and the grandiose, glamorous manner in which weddings are stretched to a week of ritualistic fun and games?
The fact that the ban was being flouted anyway needs to be mentioned. Those who want to observe the ban and save money lowering costs of the overall marriage are pleased. These would obviously be in a majority. Also bear in mind that the ban is a sort of first symbolic step in the direction of simplicity and austerity at these marriages.
Now that the ban has been lifted, except perhaps some official and technical announcements, a one-dish meal is allowed. And the view being advanced is that this in effect means a full-length meal, with arguments and exceptions coming in, and contacts will come to work once again. As things go with us, can one imagine that the concerned authorities would ever take action against the powerful elite which will violate the rules, in a spirit of defiance? How the upper class defies the rules and seeks to get exemptions and exceptions is a subject that needs to be focused upon more often.
The difficulty, one feels, is that perhaps the war against extravagance is a losing one. Somehow, the lobbies that seek to promote symbols of power and influence in a variety of ways and for all sorts of reasons, often bogus and doubtful, are emerging stronger. Perhaps that is the reason why some economists are contending with certain ferocity that rich becoming richer and the poor turning poorer, notwithstanding all the official claims of poverty reduction.
The decision to allow one-dish meals at marriages should not be viewed in isolation. It is perhaps a decision that would please those who have the money and the clout I cannot imagine the poor being happy, at this, and I cannot imagine that this relaxation will not be abused. Anyway, as the city's marriage season has begun, we will soon witness the change in mood at marriages, which also means that once again we will be staying longer at these occasions. Time and energy consumption will grow.
It will also be interesting to see what happens to the poultry market in view of the bird flu fears. “Will this one-dish meal be a chicken meal?” asked one citizen. Another was cynical and said that it would be one of the two or three course meals at weddings. Enjoy you marriage meals, dear citizens.