Never in history has the world been more polarized than it is today. Events of September 11 have injected an acute sense of fear across the globe. The fight against terrorism is very much on, but against whom?
PERCEPTIONS of a country are largely created by its people, culture and products. In today’s world, media access makes it possible for the whole world to identify countries on the basis of their international and national celebrities, their unique cultural norms and traditions and their distinctive products and services. America is recognized by its political leaders, pop culture and its multinationals producing everything from burgers to bombs. In this day and age, the media has created global awareness about different countries and has helped develop both negative and positive images about them.
One does not realize how much the world has changed after September 11 till one moves around in the West. The word terror has become the most commonplace term in places like the US and the UK. The obsession with security and the total occupation in suspecting everything and everybody has rendered these nations economically and socially incapacitated. The September 11, 2001 attacks cost America $98 billion, and billions more annually for heightened internal security. The Bush administration’s constant, politically-timed warnings of imminent Al Qaeda attacks, none of which materialize, and consequent media hysteria, have left Americans frightened and emotionally exhausted.
The Republican Convention in New York is reported to have been guarded by the city’s 37,000 police personnel, a force twice as large as Canada’s entire army. Ten thousand police guarded the convention centre at the Madison Square Garden, backed by thousands more FBI, ATF, Secret Service and other federal agents. Still, rumours of Al Qaeda’s plans to attack other conventions abound.
Road blocks, check points, flashing red lights, heavily armed paramilitaries and armoured vehicles on any political and social gathering has turned New York into a traffic nightmare, disrupted commerce, and made the world’s most important city look like a city sitting on an undetected time bomb.
Bush and Kerry ought to be debating how to pull 150,000 US troops out of two stalemated wars costing $6.5 billion a month. A recent Spanish congressional report estimates that had Bush not invaded Iraq, oil would now be around $30 per barrel, instead of $43. Americans have yet to understand the full cost of the administration’s foreign misadventures. It seems as if everything revolves around bomb scares, blowing up plans and simmering conspiracies. In a recent visit to the UK it was quite apparent that international politics has played a great role in shaping the social attitudes of these two countries. Pakistan has become a very famous country in this part of the world and is constantly in the news; unfortunately, all for the wrong reasons. Nearly three years after September 11, the spirit of the WTC disaster still haunts our country’s image. It was sad to see that every possible terrorism act and plan was somehow linked back to Pakistan, and inevitably a Pakistani, with his name starting with Mohammad, was found involved in such nefarious activities.
The alarming factor in this state of affairs is that though General Musharraf is viewed very favourably in the West as a moderate revolutionary, the same view is not held true of other people of the country. Consequently, the president has inadvertently conveyed an image of a brave, modernized ally of the West who is constantly at odds with the rest of the nation.
This image is reinforced by the political representatives abroad who are busy marketing the president’s image rather than the country’s. It was a sad spectacle on August 14 at the Pakistan embassy in the UK. The Independence Day ceremony was telecast live by some Asian channels and the show was pathetic. The building of the embassy was embarrassingly unkempt and dilapidated, the organization of the function was haphazard and disjointed and the events and activities, especially the opera song sung by Sarah Francis, was shamefully unrepresentative of our culture; and to top it all, the speech of Maliha Lodhi was just an “I” message of the president.
SOCIO-POLITICAL DIVIDE: The UK is a multiracial society with Asians increasingly dominating the socio-economic scene. The fall of the British empire over a period of a century has not only been loss in terms of control over former British colonies overseas, but also in terms of gradual loss of many economic assets to the immigrants and foreign investors in Britain.
For any regular visitor to the country, it has been perceptibly noticeable how the social landscape has changed. Gradually, the Asian prominence is visible. The major commercial centres in and around London, which a few years ago were dotted with Asian economic intrusions, are now predominantly taken over by them. Famous areas like South Hall and Greene Street are hubs of Indian and Pakistani retail outlets. Other rich commercial areas like the Edgeware road are completely taken over by the Arabs including the Lebanese, Jordanians and Egyptians. If we trace down the history of this dominance, we will see that it has taken almost half a century for the immigrants in the UK to really make a mark on this country’s economy.
People from the Indian subcontinent have been travelling to Britain from as early as the 17th century. Pakistanis are now the third largest ethnic minority group in Britain. However, very few details are known about their socio-economic position.
Those Pakistanis who entered Britain before the Commonwealth Immigration Act in 1962 were mainly economically active men. The so-called ‘voucher system’ gave the opportunity for those who were already in Britain to arrange jobs and vouchers for their relatives and friends. The 1962 Act had a decisive effect on the pattern of migration. It turned a movement of workers, many of whom who were probably interested in staying temporarily, into a permanent immigration of families. The voucher system reinforced kinship and friendship bonds and therefore helped the pattern of settlement. The migration of Pakistanis to Britain started slowly and peaked in 1961 and 1962. Two other factors contributed to the migration of Pakistanis to Britain. The first was the partition of India, when Pakistan (east and west) was created; and the second was the construction of the Mangla Dam in Pakistan, in the early 1960s.
At the time of the partition in 1947, a large-scale movement of population took place between India and Pakistan. Various surveys have shown that many of these displaced people came to Britain, thus becoming migrants twice. It is estimated that about 100,000 people were displaced from the Mangla Dam area in the early 1960s. The villagers were given compensation, some in the form of land in Punjab, while others received cash and settled in various areas of Pakistan. But some who had friends or relatives in Britain used the compensation money to come to Britain and to find work. In the 1950s, travel agents established offices in Karachi, Rawalpindi and other cities including Mirpur to help would-be migrants. Pakistani migrants filled the gap for labour work mostly in the unskilled sectors and poorly-paid jobs, available as a result of the reconstruction and expansion of the British economy after 1945.
According to the 1991 census, out of the almost 55 million population of the Great Britain, 477,000 were of Pakistani origin. Of these, about 450,000 lived in England, just over 21,000 in Scotland and almost 6,000 in Wales. Of these, about 227 lived in Gloucestershire, 4,546 in the South West and 4,727 in the West Midlands.
More than half of the Pakistani community in 1996 was British born (estimated to be 66 per cent in 2001) and almost all others have British nationality. Therefore, Pakistanis in Britain can no longer be considered as “immigrants” or “aliens”, “foreigners” or “outsiders” — they are British Pakistanis.
Compared to Pakistanis, Indians have a larger domination in numbers and commercial prowess in nearly every aspect of the business life. The street known as little Asia, South Hall is owned by the Indian community, particularly the Sikh community. They have targeted the South Asian immigrant population and mainly concentrate on the food and clothing business and try to cater to the cultural tastes of the South Asians. Even in the luxurious British dominated business areas like Oxford and Bond street you see Indians competing fiercely with home grown brands like the exclusive designer wear chain, Monsoon, and many other high margin sophisticated products. The Indian movie industry stands shoulder to shoulder to the British and Hollywood movies and constantly figure in the UK top ten list. While Pakistani immigrants have barely moved out of their blue collar status, the Indians due to their higher education, frugal living and more open and flexible lifestyles, have definitely interwoven themselves better in the socio economic fabric of the British society.
THE BRITISH COMMUNITY: UK and US citizens will never be the same after 9/11. In the UK as well as the US, there is widespread opposition to the war in Iraq, but it is less out of sympathy with the Iraqis and has more to do with their own self interest. The economic cost of the war and the death of their soldiers has been the main reason for opposition against their government decision for the last few years. But more recently the reasons for opposition have changed to fear as they see the war on terrorism failing and the repeated failures of their respective governments to root out terrorism from the so-called terrorist centres of the world.
The British fear that since they are regarded as the main allies of the US, they are going to be a victim of terrorist attacks in the future. The media is warning the citizens about some impending danger or the other. Many a time public transport is blocked and stalled, as there would be fears of an attack on the underground train system. Main buildings such as the financial centres have increased their security budgets extensively to deal with these fears. To make matters worse, the plot to target IMF/World bank and Citigroup building was also unearthed recently. Many people employed in these institutions are seriously considering leaving their jobs as the anxiety is too much for them to bear. The British already have become fearful of the terrorist image. Everyday they see the pictures of terrorists in the media, and nearly all of them are Muslims, young and wild looking, sporting beards. The image of such an individual in their neighbourhood, organizations and public places is enough to scare them to death. There are many cases of Muslim workers who have been fired due to their dubious appearance, which, they say, has scared their fellow workers. The Virgin group of companies is fighting a case filed by a young salesman, Mohammad Mohsin, who claims he was asked to shave his beard if he wanted to retain his job.
Take the case of the movie made by Michael Moore, 9/11 Farenheit. It is a very popular movie in the West and is perhaps the best example of freedom of speech in that part of the world. It has revealed Bush as he really is — of below average intellect, lazy, whimsical, a bad manager, corrupt and greedy, but extremely lucky, as by birth and by environment, he is blessed with the fortune of reaching this level almost effortlessly. The movie is not a piece of opinionated view points, but is based on facts and figures. The chilling revelations about the links of the Bush family with the Bin Ladin family and then the Saudi royal family are shocking. It was a sad depiction of corruption, manipulation and ruthless pursuit of riches and power. Such a damming movie would destroy anybody’s image and chances of gaining favourable public support.
Surprisingly, that is not the case as opinion polls still give him an equal wining chance. The American public is extremely ignorant and too self-centred to care about what is happening in the rest of the world. They are only concerned about whether a new president would be able to take the economy out of the mess or not, and whether he will be a better war president. The British, though, more open to criticism of Tony Blair, still feel that the Muslim world is a world of landmines and thus are increasingly condescending, derogatory, and discriminatory towards it. Thus this amazing phenomenon of the perception being stronger than the reality has never been more evident than now.
CONCLUSION: Where does Pakistan stand in this turbulent world? On the edge of a precipice! Is the recent operation in Wana where 60 people were killed by the Pakistan army a step in purging Pakistan from terrorists or is it just another reconfirmation of the perception of the West that Pakistan is the most fertile breeding ground for terrorists?
The image of the country as a terrorist den is firmly established in the western minds. Everyday, the western media is filled with the news of terrorists being apprehended who were involved in explosive activities in Pakistan. Every other day there is news that the conspiracies being planned for attacking various western political and economic centre-points are being master-minded by a Pakistani. Last month, the western media constantly reported about the latest plot for targeting the Citigroup, London underground and the buildings of IMF and World Bank, which was prepared by a Pakistani by the name of Noor khan who made the plan on the computer in the city of Lahore. This is a gradual erosion of the image. It started with Peshawar being branded as the terrorist hub, turned to the unstable Karachi and the virus has now spread to the quietly dangerous Lahore. With such seemingly authentic news of the major cities in Pakistan harbouring terrorists splashing across the western media consistently, it is no wonder that the travel advisory to the country remains bleak and most of the foreigners prefer our neighbouring countries as investment and tourism points.
Government priorities need to seriously look into this factor. As the West pays us empty compliments for our fight against terrorism and doles out left-over aid money rather than providing commercial benefits, what guarantee is there that tomorrow if they do not need our help, cities like Lahore, Karachi and Peshawar will not come under siege like Fallujah and Tora Bora on the pretext of being the hiding grounds for Osama bin Ladin or the weapons of mass destruction?
Never in history has the world been more polarized than it is today. Events of September 11 have injected an acute sense of fear across the globe. The fight against terrorism is very much on, but against whom?
