By Zia Ahmad
Notable scholar Frederic Jameson famously put forward the idea of the disappearance of a sense of history in his indictment of postmodernism, fitfully titled Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism (1991). The idea briefly referred to the way in which the entire contemporary social system has little by little begun to lose its capacity to retain its own past consequently refusing to learn any lessons from it. In forming a critique of the postmodern condition, Jameson essentially pointed out the disconnection with history and the subsequent fascination with the present.
This broad interpretation holds true for the collective human experience and rings ever so true for Pakistan. It is interesting to note how seamlessly the above mentioned idea blends in with the rhetorical whining knowledgeable Pakistanis indulge in, whenever given the chance, something to the tune of we have forgotten our ways, we have lost our identity, etc, etc.
The loss of a sense of history and identity just may as well be a cultural condition where local indigenous identity is forsaken for a more influential one. A dominant cultural exposure informs another society’s buying habits, the way they conduct themselves socially, usage of language and take on social and cultural notions that are borrowed from elsewhere. The social system begins to live in a perpetual present and in a perpetual change that obliterates traditions of the kind which all early social formations have had in one way or the other attempted to preserve.
Taking India and Pakistan as an example, 200 years of direct and indirect British rule has severely handicapped a diverse and rich legacy of tradition and culture. For generations now both the nations have been struggling with the question of identity. Cultural contact with the West has disproportionately been one sided. Hollywood films and actors, Elvis and the Beatles (the recently departed Michael Jackson yielded considerbale popularity and influence) , the latest accessory and clothing fads have received partial acceptance in urban parts of this region. Schooling in private sector makes use of world history books that are mostly written from a Western point of view. It’s only when regional history is presented that there’s an overwhelming local tinge, that borders on an almost propagandist variety to it and the variations between what is taught across the nations that make up the subcontinent is understandably drastic.
In the wake of information explosion and cable TV there is considerably more exposure to Western media and culture. There are already Indian and Pakistani franchises to MTV and HBO along with KFC, McDonald’s, Coca Cola and other huge multinational concerns as well as local variations of Pop Idol and other mass appeal TV phenomena. Jameson viewed postmodernism as a cultural formation that accompanied globalization and multinational capitalism. This particular facet of postmodernism is criticized for promoting an unthinking, slavish consumerist culture that glosses over the surface and fixated with an “emptied out, stylized present”.
Valentine and Halloween is marked with as much enthusiasm by spatially disoriented parts of the society, as in the west, fully banked by local corporate concerns. Narrowing down to Pakistan, the case for cultural identity is sketchier for the model of the perpetual present as given above is only applicable for those who are informed by Western culture. Those in the shadows take up to Indian influences, massively informed by years upon years of Bollywood adulation and cultural exposure through TV. Hindi terms are used for easily interchangeable Urdu counterparts and Holi is rumored to be an annual event sponsored by a handful of local colleges and schools.
Though for the unflinching custodians of traditional values, this much should be said: Not all tradition and customs can be expected to pass the test of time. Quiet a few are rendered obsolete and in changing times, with the lack of a proper indigenous substitute or revision and evaluation of any number of age old customs, the obsolete model is stubbornly followed in parts of the region. In this cultural version of antiquated tradition and custom, fostering of Western progressive social practices (universal education, health, advanced communication and organized public transport system, jurisprudence, the works) have proven to be justified and has provided grounds for developing nations for international convergence. But then again the need to follow a set of progressive and humane ideals from another culture only became possible because previous indigenous models were not allowed to grow and evolve, either through internal ineptitude or external duplicity and exploitation.
Fredric Jameson’s theory on the disappearance of a sense of history works fittingly well with contemporary media glued target audiences in Pakistan and India. But surely he had the Western society itself in mind when he speaks of retention of the past in a more actively postmodern context. It fits in that context as well as lots of younger people wouldn’t know of actors from the 1950s and before or would have a working knowledge of their own history other than what has been taught at schools. Each successive generation gets caught up with its own existent cultural web and grows distant from its past.
31 Comments
June 27, 2009 at 1:32 am
I think you are in two minds yourself… after making a fascinating observation :
The loss of a sense of history and identity just may as well be a cultural condition where local indigenous identity is forsaken for a more influential one. A dominant cultural exposure informs another society’s buying habits, the way they conduct themselves socially, usage of language and take on social and cultural notions that are borrowed from elsewhere
June 27, 2009 at 4:12 am
http://www.jang.com.pk/jang/jun2009-daily/27-06-2009/col1.htm
June 27, 2009 at 11:08 am
But then again the need to follow a set of progressive and humane ideals from another culture only became possible because previous indigenous models were not allowed to grow and evolve, either through internal ineptitude or external duplicity and exploitation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The above paragraph raises an interesting question:
Are humane ideals universal or are they culture specific?
1. If they are universal then does it matter how we arrive at those values and choose to implement them?
2. If they are culture specific then the question arises as to whether different cultures has truly different set of humane ideals or is it one set of ideals that are implemented by different cultures in different ways and mechanisms.
If one assumes, like I do that humane ideals are indeed universal (for example a sense of fairness and justice) then all that is different among cultures is the mechanism used to implement these universal values; an unimportant difference.
This otherwise well written article appears to me as if it is lamenting the loss of history (or does the author mean culture?)
If so then one can argue that there is nothing new or post modern about it. Since times immemorial cultures have continued to interact with each other and to evolve as a result of these interactions.
Though one culture may sometimes seem to dominate the other, both cultures change in subtle ways as a result of these ongoing interactions.
This is what causes the evolution of cultures.
Moreover there has always existed a strong urge to resist any and all change among the entrenched classes who by definition are conservative.
In this sense too the backlash that we see in India and Pakistan against the so called ‘western values’ is nothing new but is as old as the story of mankind itself.
History records numerous examples of people issuing dire warnings of the collapse of civilization if the ancient history/culture were lost. Usually these people have ended up on the wrong side of history.
I now leave the floor open to the resident historians on PTH for expert comments.
June 27, 2009 at 1:46 pm
Gorki
while we eagerly await the resident historian, may i mention another historian – ibn khaldun. he has answered many of the questions you raise. some of his answers are in agreement with what you have said in your post… in his view of ‘universal history’ and civilisational culture being like a baton that a dominant civilisation passes on to the next one, with necessary adaptations and customisation on the successors’ part. his theory of the cyclical nature of national histories and how they connect to global history, now needs to be even more fully linked to the accompanying evolution of national cultures and how they connect to an evolving global culture. and the science needs to be brought up-to-date, with advances in global travel, economics, business and mass communications etc.
June 27, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Humane ideals are universal and most cultures around the world would strive for health, education, justice and equality. Different culture just might make a bid to own the “universalism” of it all which just might be responisble for championing of the American way,or Islam offering a complete code of life, or whatever the Socialist manifesto has to offer. Essentially all ideals are more or less the same, its the properitership that helps to muddle up perspectives.
I am of the opinion that history and culture is interlinked. Loss of history isnt as much what a loss of a sense of history maybe. But yes Civilian is correct in refering to Khaldun. Cyclical dynasties inform the pattern of times. In this day and age cultures stand in for dynasties.
June 27, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Eventually there will be only one culture. Not coca cola, not pop-but global. Global capital will try to shape it, but humans will surely respond
more to those impulses that have shaped their condition than to the levers that move corporate bottom lines. Modern global culture, specifically, western culture, dominated by the American perspective always tries out non western modes even absorbs and internalizes some. Whether these are mystical, musical sartorial or any other depends upon specific, momentary and random impulses
Post modern analogies to Pakistan’s cultural condition are an inevitable consequence of Pakistan’s search for an identity. Pakistani elites it is said look to the west, or hark back to Islamic greatness. The hoi- polloi make do with Bollywood without worrying about identity or cultural contamination.
A great deal of Bollywood before partition was shaped by Muslims, including Muslims from Punjab. Many of them stayed on after ‘47. At what point did that popular culture become non-Pakistani? Why worry about it so much?
Popular culture in India is in the same post modern transformation as it is Pakistan. If Pakistanis are surprised at ‘Hindi’ words infiltrating without prior notice into their speech they are no different, linguistically speaking from the millions of Bengalis, Oriyas, Assamese, Punjabis and Tamils in India who are similarly affected. Many of these neologisms are invented by the Government in its Department of official language.
It is futile to worry about culture. It will happen the way it will. The French government has not been able to stop Amerification of popular culture. The Canadians are trying hard with no little effect. In India the purists gave up long ago. There used to be and still is a band dedicated to pracheen Bharitya sabhyata (ancient Indian civilization) whatever that is, but no one pays them much attention.
The great cultural artifacts of the past will always be with us. We are organically connected to them. Imagine though, if you will, some PTH type correspondent discussing culture in the year 3000 CE. Will all his cultural heritage predate 1950? Will humans produce nothing new in the next 1000 years that would have been worth preserving? Should that not concern critics of the post modern condition?
June 27, 2009 at 8:32 pm
@Hayyar48
“Eventually there will be only one culture. Not coca cola, not pop-but global.”
Despite the underlying cynicism in this proclamation, it is a bit confusing as well. The popular assumption is Coca Cola is one of several mascots of global capital and indeed if the globalized culture is to dominate our blue green planet it’ll be represented by any number of corporate monolithic logos. But lets leave the dystopian future scenarios for the time being.
“The great cultural artifacts of the past will always be with us. We are organically connected to them. Imagine though, if you will, some PTH type correspondent discussing culture in the year 3000 CE. Will all his cultural heritage predate 1950? Will humans produce nothing new in the next 1000 years that would have been worth preserving? Should that not concern critics of the post modern condition?”
Yes indeed, even though we have failed to preserve ancient historical wonders of human architecture we still have the pyramids, as we have Vivaldi, Michelangelo,Taj Mahal,celebrating eid, baisakhi, and all that goes to comprise the diversity of historical and cultural artifacts and traditions. They have been with us for hundred upon hundred of years yet dont you think the cultural narrative is hardly consistent over the ages. There is an organic link yet you also have to consider the how we look upon history. Is it a “perpetual present” or fragmented time where we hark on matters of then and now? Correct me if I am wrong but your opinion seems inclined to the former. It is the frustration of finding coherent links between fragmented time that very well is of concern not only to the critics of the postmodern condition.
June 28, 2009 at 5:43 am
Post modernism like most other isms is a continuation of western modes of thought. In my opinion the term is used nowadays to denote failure of western artistic imagination and the cultural effects of that failure.
For non-westerners whose artistic vision never fell within the constantly evolving western canon the issue is a simple one and for Asians particularly the choice is clear; modernize or perish. There are no other schools except the conservative schools of obscurantism, or the conservative schools of a frightened paralysis. It is irrelevant to talk of post modernism to peoples who are in a pre-modern stage of existence.
Innovation in the sub-continent, but also in Asia generally is an adaptation of western ideas, or their rejection. Indian art for example started with the company school, and then even after the innovation of the Tagores reverted to formalized folk art under Jamini Roy. Other Indian artists, (and Pakistanis too I am sure) have innovated in their own ways but no ’school’ has emerged, and therefore no rejection of the school. Contemporary Indian architecture is pathetic. Post modern is a mild way of describing what defaces our cities.
The success of western armies was largely due to their discipline and regimentation. Western culture works largely on the basis of its organization. Of the new ideas some succeed and become a benchmark for further innovation. In Asia we have only memories.
So, when we laud our cultural achievements we are simultaneously expressing pride in the past and admitting failure of our present.
Asians, if they are to create universally acceptable cultural artifacts must either adapt to western canons or generate revolutionary ideas in culture. They rarely do that. Also, though one can ascribe a country of origin to many western cultural artifacts there is no prevalent national cultural school in the west. There are national traits and national cuisines but all else is I think now global or at least western global.
Indians are getting into this mode in a minor way. For example there is no Bengal school now in painting. It is a mish-mash of styles-post modern if you like.
If history seems fragmented it is because we don’t know every bit of it. Of-course there is an organic link; I can’t imagine events having happened in discrete quanta, popping out of nowhere as it were.
The counter question is, in answer to Jameson, that we don’t know whether the post modern confusion is really the introductory phase to a burst in artistic creativity, encompassing, absorbing and eventually subjugating the commercial impulses now perceived as dominant.
The search for identity and the threat you mention in the sub-continental context is in my view misguided. We had identities before 47 and we have them now. Our national identities are only a layer above many subordinate ones. It is more complex in India than it is in Pakistan, and more complex in both than in say France.
The people inhabiting UP and MP in India should have had identity problems but they don’t. They are not in any regional category, and should have developed a complex about it, but it seems to have made no difference. I mean no disrespect to Pakistanis when I say that Indians do not have an identity problem; not because of some heroically achieved homogenity but only because they see Indian-ness as a layer above their regional, religious and caste identity.
There is no reason for the “rhetorical whining knowledgeable Pakistanis indulge”, nor can Pakistani identity be lost because Pakistanis watch Bollywood movies anymore than listening to Michael Jackson make me into an American. But it does bring the coming global culture somewhat closer.
June 28, 2009 at 11:15 am
@ Zia Ahmad
I understood some of what you said, not all. So in what follows, please try to follow the stutters and stumbles of a mind that sees what you have depicted with imperfect vision.
You said:
” ‘Eventually there will be only one culture. Not coca cola, not pop-but global.’
Despite the underlying cynicism in this proclamation, it is a bit confusing as well. The popular assumption is Coca Cola is one of several mascots of global capital and indeed if the globalized culture is to dominate our blue green planet it’ll be represented by any number of corporate monolithic logos.”
Not necessarily, surely. Certainly corporate monolithic logos seem as if they will be part of the future, and seem as if they have become intractably part of the modern mindscape. But is this really intractable, and is this really going to happen? Is there not even a possibility that people will be discovered by global capital to prefer their local solutions to these galactic brands, which offer one global solution to all?
Regarding a global culture which transcends global capital and its dumbing us down into consumers, driven by our brand loyalties into following whatever is prescribed by brand managers rather than exercising our own imagination and power of choice: To me it is the hunger for idli-vade that overtakes me every Sunday, or the availability of pasta in ready-to-cook packets, which my father relishes as a contrast to his strongly ethnic lunches and dinners. It means following what is happening in the theatre world in the west, or looking for holidays in the east. While all this may seem consumerist, most culture is consumerist; some of the best Grecian art was on amphorae, mass produced for sale to the Mediterranean common market of those times.
It was said by Hayyer48 that there might be nothing on this blighted landscape that would be worth preserving, and that in the future, some correspondent might find nothing worthy of mention originating after 1950.
Is this intended seriously, as any more than a rhetorical flourish? Surely not.
It is true, for instance, that architecture seems to be dying out, and that what we have instead in its place is meaningless concrete boxes. But will that remain? The same society and individuals who choose to live in those concrete hen-coops weave wonderful paeans of praise to the Goddess in the form of cloth and bamboo structures every year, paeans which last a week and are then discarded. Why is this not to be taken into consideration? Because it will not last; posterity will see us squatting in our concrete boxes, which will remain to shame us; it will not see our seven-day cathedrals of cloth and bamboo, which will die within the week. So it is not about culture, after all; it is about tangibility, and the persistence of cultural expression into later generations than the creating one.
Which is precisely why we face fear of the unknown; why we look at our heritage of the pyramids, of Vivaldi, Michelangelo and the Taj Mahal, of celebrating Eid, Baisakhi and all else that forms our culture, material culture and the intangible kind alike, and wonder if we too will contribute something to the ongoing cultural narrative which will be consistent.
Who knows? I don’t; kal ko kaun dekha hai? What I do get is that when some of us talk of turning our faces away firmly from one aspect or the other of our past, we are playing with fire. Our links with the past, with our heritage, are tenuous enough, fragile enough to fear for our losses, for the failure of coherence and continuity, without inflicting what the military calls ‘self-inflicted injuries’ on ourselves. Adding to our culture cannot be directed by executive fiat; destroying it can. I fear that we have much more flattening of the cultural landscape around ourselves into paved parking lots to see before we understand fully the fragility of the human condition, and stand away from attacking it further with blunt instruments of control.
June 28, 2009 at 12:22 pm
“The old order changeth, giving place to new,
Lest one good custom, should corrupt the world.” -The Passing of King Arthur
The above posts by both Hayyer and Zia Ahmad are thought provoking and a rich mine of interesting ideas. I found them to be especially fascinating since they touch upon the tantalizing questions dealing with culture and identity that has been discussed and debated in detail under previous posts on the PTH.
I find myself in complete agreement with Hayyer when he says the following:
“Contemporary Indian architecture is pathetic. Post modern is a mild way of describing what defaces our cities”
I also agree when he says:
“It is futile to worry about culture. It will happen the way it will”.
And finally agree (and even secretly wish for) when he says:
“Eventually there will be only culture”.
I will come back to this last statement later, but first let me say that one can argue that Hayyer may be too broad in his generalization when he says that:
“In Asia we have only memories.
So, when we laud our cultural achievements we are simultaneously expressing pride in the past and admitting failure of our present”.
This may be true to some extent in a narrow confines of the Indian sub continent (even in that one can argue that 60 odd years (or 200 even years) is but a split second in terms of history; too short to pass judgment of a failure) but if one were to take a global view of the developments in rest of Asia (the non-western world) we can not ignore the experience of first Japan and now that of China which stands in contrast.
While no one can argue that these nations were reinvigorated culturally by their contacts with the west, this is neither a unique phenomenon nor a historical first if one were to look for similar examples in the past (Romans adopting from the Greeks or the more celebrated renaissance being stimulated by contact with Arabian centers of learning.)
Japan though influenced immensely by American culture has now come into its own and has innovated enough to teach a thing or two back to the Americans.
China is an even more amazing example. It is perhaps the longest continuous civilization in the history of mankind.
It has survived contacts with outsiders ranging from the barbarian Mongols to the colonial adventures to the Marxist ideologues, all the while taking these cultures then repacking them under its own stamp and then exporting them back.
In the process it has reinvented itself several times.
Today though it bears a heavy stamp of western ideas, it is adapting them to local conditions once again. Thus new architecture, new movies new technical innovations continue to come out of this fusion of ideas.
So are other cultures evolving and yet converging the world over; Mexico, South America, even tiny Singapore. You name it.
This brings me to the question; where are we all headed?
In this I agree with Hayyer when he says that:
“the post modern confusion is really the introductory phase to a burst in artistic creativity, encompassing, absorbing and eventually subjugating the commercial impulses now perceived as dominant”.
In fact I would hope that he is right when he predicts:
“Eventually there will be only culture”
To those who may be alarmed by this statement either out of nostalgia for a romantic notion of cultural diversity or from a dread of change as a part of inherent conservatism, I would say that it is not such a bad thing if one believes (as I do) that humane impulses are truly universal and a global culture based on these universal values may be the salvation of all humanity.
In fact I would argue that embrace of universal ideas is already happening piecemeal in many different areas.
Consider modern medicine.
Every culture had its own system of medicine but modern medicine; a product of western empiricism has established unquestioned dominance world wide. There would be very few people in the world who would argue that it was a bad thing.
So if we as humans are all better off today by accepting a universal system of healing which often requires us to submit willingly to trauma and violation of our bodies but was developed by another culture, then one can argue that such universal principles can be developed in terms of social norms and laws; morality and justice, too and that they too can be adapted for the use of entire mankind.
In the contentious climate of the contemporary world such ideas certainly sound a utopian fable yet slowly but surely the world is changing.
) historians.
The world may not arrive at one overarching mega culture for another several hundred years but once men develop enough trust in universal values as they have with modern medicine, they will become willing to submit their individual group identities to the larger universal identity of mankind. That day the cultures of many will fuse under one big tent of a universal culture.
In a way that day will signify the end of history as many contentious issues surrounding ideological, theological and geographic claims and counterclaims will surely lose their emotional value and will simply become academic debating points for (out of work?
Regards.
June 28, 2009 at 12:59 pm
@Gorki
Clearly the future holds out bleak prospects for (out of work?
) historians, except for those fortunate few who make the transition as barefoot doctors. Now where did those shoes go?
June 28, 2009 at 6:01 pm
The article simply started out as an attempt to understand Jameson’s critique on the postmodern condition within the context of history. As I went along, there were certain implications that seemed very apt to the subcontinetal milieu. Its interesting to note that the relevance to postmodernism isn’t confined to only Jameson’s critique of it. As a trend of thought it is defined as reactionary to modernism and all that came before in Western thought. The misfortune of postmodernism is the way it was hijacked by Western academics and by injecting specialized esoteric terminologies and concepts it led Moe the bartender from the Simpsons to offer his own definition of the postmodern: “weird for the sake of weird.” It is reduced to avant-garde artistic and sub-cultural formations. As Hayyer mentioned, “For non-westerners whose artistic vision never fell within the constantly evolving western canon the issue is a simple one and for Asians particularly the choice is clear; modernize or perish.” The evolutionary process in Western thought ensured its survival and proliferation. Eastern thought resided in stasis for ages. Then again, unlike the Western counterpart the Eastern trend is problematic to consign to one convenient box. Islamic, Indian, Confucianism, Buddhist models had the potential to lead the charge in a different model of Renaissance, the subsequent enlightenment and so forth. Kim Stanley Robinson’s “Years of Salt and Rice” conjectures a rich and intelligent account of what might have been. But in this world we are left with the Western models and a smaller world than it used to be, say only a hundred years ago. Global capital has borne its own culture which is contingent with the postmodern condition. The fascination is with the present. There is a “sense of loss of history” and Bonobashi is right in his observation when he says, “Our links with the past, with our heritage, are tenuous enough, fragile enough to fear for our losses, for the failure of coherence and continuity”. A sense of past and history has to be retained to continue forward but for me that is confounding when “one culture” is hoped for around the world. How the connection to history would be looked at under one culture. The sheer diversity of human experience brings a lot of color to existence. The prediction of a uni-culture seems far fetched and the ascent to Clarkian/Kubrickian Star Child status may seem thousands of years ahead. But here we are eight years after 2001 and this is the present…with a solid line to history. Jameson overplays his anxieties with the perceived disconnection to history.
On another track, I don’t think postmodernism is entirely a Western construct. The set of perspectives fit in perfectly with the post war 20th century cultural climate and got to be the next phase of Western thought. Certain tendencies associated with the postmodern were already prevalent in the story within story meta styling of the Arabian Nights, the 11th century theological arguments that took place between books, Ibn-Rushd’s “Incoherence of Incoherence”, responds to Ghazali’s “The Incoherence of Philosophers”. This forum (like others on the web) itself takes a sort of postmodern significance.
“It is irrelevant to talk of post modernism to peoples who are in a pre-modern stage of existence.” The world has changed, radically so, it has to be run on new trends of thought and in the absence of anything this will have to do as capitalism, with its share of inequality and exploitation, works with the lack of a substantial alternative.
June 28, 2009 at 7:39 pm
For my money anything modern is better than post modern; in architecture particularly; and the global culture may be many centuries away but jump started as we stagnant Asians are into western modes of thought we cannot fail to learn something. The first lesson would be that the past even with our organic connection is dead. It is in the museums, and in the constantly declining sales of classical CDs. Classical western music is in fact almost muzak now much like the reproductions of impressionist paintings that we see in bathrooms of the art conscious in the US. We can only talk of the past, not participate in it or revive it. Can we improve it? Isn’t that the history of the changing canon of the west, at least trying to, and the failure of our own, if any, by giving up. Enjoy the past, take pride in it, but look to the future if you can.
If capitalism is the only beast that can carry us forward, why not?
June 28, 2009 at 7:50 pm
I would say yes. Capitalism is an ugly beast but gets the work done. So as long as it gets the results lets keep on with it. But also know it for what it is. Keep it in check. And another affirmative for not allowing the fascination with the past to turn into obsession. Thats what knowledgable Pakistani people hint at when they call for reverting back to the old glorious ways. They never lived in the time of the Khalifas, so ….. Anyway, the negotiation of history should be conducted in service of tomorrow. Modernism might not be passe’ and postmodernism is far from perfect, but I’ll go with the Po-Mo crowd.
June 29, 2009 at 1:39 am
Actually my ‘end of history’ comment was a little bit more tongue in cheek than the much more serious (and widely off the mark work; I may add) by Francis Fukuyama by the same title.
I don’t think history or the interest in history will ever end or can ever end as long as mankind walks this planet. If a several hundred year spell of the so called dark ages could not wipe out our interest in the ancients, nothing can. We are way too curious a species to give up history and search for our past and our roots is a part of our DNA.
While the non stop advertising around us may make us believe that crass commercialism (or living in a perpetual present as Ahmad says) is all that we humans have been reduced to, we must pay attention to a quiet revolution taking place all around us. Not all consumerism is of the Coca Cola kind. The interest in history and culture is at an all time high if one goes by the number of new book stores opening annually in the US; the Mecca of so called capitalism and consumerism. Most of these sell serious and not so serious books about history and culture.
History and cultural tourism from the United States to Europe is also a rapidly growing business and in the universities interest in humanities remain high.
I think the issue of capitalism as a core defining philosophy of our time is overrated. In fact I predict that five hundred years from now, our culture will not be defined as an age of shallow materialism but an age of connectivity. The internet and not the Coca Cola will be the icon that will define us.
This is not to say that shallow drivel does not dominate the mass culture; it does.
Like Hayyer says classical music CDs sell far few copies than the ‘instant hits’ of the day yet this phenomenon too has always been part of mankind.
I am certain that for every Hamlet like play that Shakespeare wrote there were scores of bawdy ones written for the masses. They are forgotten today as most of the today’s garbage will be a thousand years from now yet a Schindler’s list will still be remembered for its style as well as the substance.
Personally I couldn’t agree more with Hayyer about his comments about the hideous nature of the modern\post modern architecture but pardon the cliché beauty is indeed in the eyes of the beholder. Who knows how the future generations will see us.
Consider that while Guy de Maupassant may or may not have had lunch on the Eiffel tower every day to avoid looking at it as is claimed but the fact remains that this architectural marvel was detested by many for having defaced Paris when it was put up.
I personally may not like the Getty Museum in LA or the Lotus temple in Delhi but who is to say they will not become endearing icons in the future. (I must admit that I first hated the idea of the Louvre Pyramid but it has slowly grown on me since it was put up)
Lastly I do not think that the future world with a single overarching mega culture will be a one dimensional desolate cultural moonscape that Kubrick or the Orwell predicted.
Rather it will be something like the European Union today, a world of universal commitment to a set of core values yet separate group identities celebrating their past but also acknowledging the interconnected nature of each individual narrative.
In such a scenario a Shakespeare will not be forgotten but adopted and rejoiced not only by the Britons but also by the Germans and the Poles. Then a boy humming a ‘Jai ho’ tune in Lahore may still be a Pakistani Muslim boy but the fact would not provoke any more anxiety or envy among his listeners as say a Christian woman going to a Zubin Mehta directed concert in Germany.
And BTW Bonobashi; in the future the doctors will have one pill to cure for all diseases e.g. a pill for cancer and a pill for heart attack. The doctors will then be called “which doctors” as in the ‘one who can tell you which pill for which disease’.
.
Then with all the free time on their hands they will spend most of their time on the net, asking dumb and silly questions from the professional historians.
June 29, 2009 at 5:50 am
the link between the political and the cultural has been mentioned a few times but, I think, not explored any further. Bonobashi mentioned the futile, harmful efforts to suppress parts of history. Zia mentioned ‘fragmented time’. Hayyer48 pointed out us in the subcontinent, for example, being ‘primitive’ and in need of modernising before worrying too much about post-modernism. One thing India has done, despite its lack of modernism in other things, is to organise itself politically by emulating, with minor adaptations and many indigenous adjustments, democracy. Or to look at it in the two parts that it should be – representative government and a secular constitutionalism. The other modern concept borrowed/inherited from the west is the legal system. May I suggest that it is this adoption of a modern way of organising a country that has contributed much, over time, to whatever progress hayyer48 is able to point to in terms of a lack of an identity crisis. In contrast, it is the lack of success in organising politics in Pakistan in any such modern manner is what has lead to the apparent, so-called ‘identity crisis’. It is because of being dogged by dictatorships that Pak identity has not been able to come to the fore. It is the inherent inability of this medieval system of govt to provide health, education, justice and, especially, equality that has weakened the concept/idea, and not the other way round.
Partition is a good example of the ‘fragmented time’ feeling. It was a short but extra-ordinary time in history. Yet it is such extra-ordinary moments in history that often become the defining moments. Deliberate efforts to suppress or pervert parts of the history of the extraordinary moment, or history leading up to it, often as part of effecting a particular ‘definition’, are never as successful in the long run as originally envisaged. And there still is the link with culture. We all know that the political partition of India also resulted in a partition of various degrees. the ‘partition of urdu’, as josh maleehabadi called it, is one interesting example. Urdu-lovers in India lament the ‘step-motherly’ treatment it receives from the state there. Purists in pak lament the bastard-isation of the language in this country. So, there are kids singing ‘jai ho’ in Lahore.. with or without eyebrows being raised; there is also the question of not only faraz being read and understood in delhi but also ghalib (a delhite).
The cultural ‘revolution’ of the 1960’s in the west, might be seen as an interesting case study where many of the factors discussed by the contributors here came together, it would seem: the experience of the Land Army girls, the discovery of the teenager/young person as a consumer well worth focussing on, the pill.. etc.
June 29, 2009 at 6:04 am
“resulted in a partition of various degrees” = resulted in a cultural partition of various degrees
June 29, 2009 at 8:53 pm
Zia’s piece was about identity, culture and the postmodern interpretations of it. Indian identity, as it emerges after 1947 is tentative to start with, and greatly concerned with induced uniformity. Hindi was not only the wet dream of right wing Hindu chauvinists of the Hindi heartland but also a cloak that the RSS hoped would contrive to cover India’s multiple identities. Urdu suffered on account of the Hindi lobby, and because Muslims had surrendered their rights and were in no position to re-assert them. We are talking about North Indian Muslims here. Muslims in Bengal and the South were not concerned.
The Union Government failed to impose Hindi but Bollywood succeeded. Today Hindi is broadly understood in suburban areas all over the country. But it is does not define identity. Nothing does in India. There is an overarching Hindu culture, and this does affect other faiths, subliminally if not overtly, but culturally there is no unity.
North Indians has pockets of Ghalib lovers, and even many younger Muslims now relate to their now relate to their mother tongue through the Devanagri script rather than the Arabic. But Bengali literary culture is quite foreign to non-Bengalis, and that would be true of all regional cultures. Culture therefore cannot be said to create an Indian identity. Neither does religion despite the best efforts of the Hindutva vadis.
Capitalism doesn’t help either, though TV channels north, south, east and west numb our collective senses with the same rebarbative hardsell in 25 languages;, whatever postmodernists may say. Does cuisine create Indianness? The South Indian vada, dosa and idli, have conquered the north and east as much what passes for Punjabi has conquered the rest of India. It is familiar even desirable stuff, but does not create an identity.
The fact is that we have just stopped bothering about the issue. Indians living abroad segregate into their regional groupings, meeting only, if ever, at the Indian grocery stores or restaurants.
There is only one pan Indian cultural marker and that is music. The Hindustani style pervades as far south as Dharwar off the coast of Karnataka and bordering Kerala. The Karnataka style holds sway in the rest of the South.
BC blames the Pakistani army for the crisis of the identity issue. He may be right, but did it happen just by suppressing democracy?
Other writers on PTH have expressed hope that their identity is in a process of emergence and will burst forth one day fully formed. God willing!
But they hope for a transformation from what was, into something new that is now , and is not what it was.
North Indian culture and to some extent even that of Bengal bears a heavy impact of Islam and the invading races. Hindustani music, the khayal style of singing, the sitar are all a result of the interface with Islam. Indian cuisine, North Indian languages and literature, dress and manners, painting and architecture, even Kathak, all bear the impact of the intense interaction between, let us say for want of a better, Hindu and Muslim.
Some Pakistanis say that all this is Indian and they must turn their backs on all what exists and deliberate and consciously create some new synthetic culture distinct from the one that existed before 1947, not just in the Punjab but also among the Mohajirs.
I have been trying, quite unsuccessfully, to ask in some of my comments on PTH how such a thing is possible. You may think that you need to throw out the baby with the bathwater but what are you left with?
Which brings me back to the subject of BC’s comment on the Army. Pakistan’s identity arising out of a ‘Pakistan Ideology’ as defined by the army began as I learnt from Haqqani’s book, with Ayub Khan. Haqqani says it was based on being Muslim, opposition to India and economic development.
Taking economic development to be a universal human concern except perhaps in Tahiti, or among the Himalyan sages reportedly meditating in high altitude caves, we are left with only two determinants that define Pakistan’s ideology, as the army would have it. Anti Indian, and Muslim. Now India has as many Muslims as Pakistan, so the essential component of ideology simply becomes anti India according to the Army’s way of thinking.
So BC is right, the Pakistani army which has worked so hard and so long to create a Pakistani identity as they see it are actually subverting efforts to create one; or to live with the ones Pakistanis have.
The Turkish tribes as they travelled from their homeland in the Mongolian steppes across Asia into the fringes of Europe created multiple distinct cultures. There is no reason why Pakistanis cannot create a new culture uncorrupted by an Indian heritage, even if that Indian heritage bears the imprint of an Islamic past. But why is it so important to create one. Can’t Pakistanis be just as good Pakistanis speaking the same language, singing the same songs, reading the same poets as they have done for decades if not centuries? This post structural discourse of the need for differentiation can be taken too far.
Biologist say that in the US different species of fauna have begun to evolve in fields divided by busy highways. For decades now, not being able to cross alive, animals have begun to develop specialized markers that may lead to distinct sub species much like Darwin’s finches. Something similar may be happening across our borders. Of course the net, movies and TV delay the process but we have the example of North Korea before us. Cultural contact can be terminated. Followers of Iqbal and Ghalib can evolve into distinct schools which over hundreds of years can become mutually exclusive languages and modes of thought. Pakistanis can claim to have written the Vedas, perfected Sanskrit and produced the great grammarian Panini. India already owns the Taj Mahal and claims Ghalib and Amir Khusro as Indian.
From the ridiculous it is only a short step to the ludicrous. Some days ago I read young Pakistanis mocking claims that Taxila had anything to do with India. They were right. India did not exist then, if it ever did before the British. By that standard Benaras is not Indian either excepting from 1947.
I have gone somewhat off-track. No amount of analysis can help Pakistan, or India for that matter, only mutual goodwill can.
June 29, 2009 at 11:06 pm
H48
the reason why ayub khan was wrong even on the economic front is that pak is not a homogenous country like south korea. or a tiny one like singapore.
much of what you see as the pakistanis’ quest for an identity, is actually a reaction to one being thrust upon us. and the reaction is varied. it’s more an effort to shout that we’re not what we are being told we are. we’re not zia’s muslims. nor ‘TNT was the original sin’ Indians. nor even alqaeda supporting terrorists. but it’s difficult to differentiate between a quest for political rights, which the pak movement was about, and that for identity (which it was not), under dictatorships where politics are a sham and culture is propaganda.
give us 30 years of democracy, long enough for us to know that it’s there to stay, and see how identity will no longer be a crisis – ridiculous or ludicrous, not unsimilar to India… in that one respect. otherwise, of course, there would be differences.
June 30, 2009 at 2:44 am
BC:
much of what you see as the pakistanis’ quest for an identity, is actually a reaction to one being thrust upon us.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This may be part of the problem; with us others diagnosing Pakistan’s problems for it and then thrusting our advice on top of it.
Someone once told me that all advice (including the free one) is worth what you pay for it.
June 30, 2009 at 3:22 am
suffered on account of the Hindi lobby, and because Muslims had surrendered their rights and were in no position to re-assert them
this is where india started off. the secular constitution and the electoral process being a leveller at some plane, despite all its gaping flaws and shortcomings, has meant that indians have a stake in the ountry. a sense of ownership. of belonging. but the tussle continues. nehru himself lamented the fact that ‘many congress stalwarts were closet mahasabha-ites’. bjp has its umblical cord attached to the RSS.
this is not at all where pak started off. the muslim equivalent of the parivar was staunchly anti-pak and anti-AIML. while the AIML was not free from closet ‘islamists’, there wasn’t the kind of acute and widespread tension that the muslim question was causing in india. 40 million indians were being asked to prove their loyalty. there was a clear ‘us’ and ‘them’. ‘we’ were india, ‘they’ were not until they proved it by deeds. except no one could specify what such a deed ought to be. TNT was in full force and thriving in india. the following decades have been a tussle between those trying to contain it, manage it somehow, and those thriving on it. in the 1990s, the fruits of economic success, or prospects thereof, added to the mitigating effects of the competitiveness of the electoral process, a constitution proving itself robust and a judicial system (bar and bench) showing strong signs of holding it up.
gorki
it’s not just the abundance of free advice. that is the smaller problem. the biggest reaction, by far, is to the internal attempt(s) at imposing a conveniently constructed identity. indeed, the over-sensitivity to free advice wouldn’t have been there at all, had it not been for the trauma of being mutilated by your unrepresentative own.
June 30, 2009 at 4:23 am
Well the us and them thing did exist in East Pakistan. The west, having lost nearly all Hindus and Sikhs was hardly likely to suffer from this syndrome, us being Pakistani Muslims.
In India on the other hand the majority of the Muslims had voted for the Muslim League and the TNT. It has taken a long while for Indian Muslims to re-establish themselves as Indians primarily.
It was not TNT that operated so much in the early years as the sentiment that the best sort of Indian was a Hindi speaking Hindu of the upper castes. The current level of comfort with multiple identity came later. Consider the stock caricature of the Sardar in Bollywood movies. Nowadays he is seen as a romantic hero. We have yet to see south Indian characters as romantic heroes in Bollywood, or Maharathas and Mizos, but it cannot be two far away. Bollywood is more representative of the contemporary ethos than one might imagine. The Muslim income tax Inspector in ‘Bheja Fry’ is openly supportive of Pakistan’s cricket team, yet no one makes a fuss.
I think Pakistan may attain its sense of identity sooner than 30 years, and I suspect that identity may not be radically different from what it is now. Good luck with your search.
June 30, 2009 at 10:14 am
@hayyer48
If I might agree with you in a backward kind of way:
Is identity in the sense of national identity linked to culture at all, is there any difference between national identity and cultural identity, are these mutually exclusive or co-existent, and what is the impact of modernism on these identities, constructive or destructive?
It doesn’t come out at all convincingly that one can impose national identity through a state attempt to homogenise culture, and the reference is not to Hayyer48 but to an apparent over-arching belief stretching across the entire background of this debate.
This is the usual mistake of chauvinists, whether they are politicians, bureaucrats, newspaper editors or academicians with a loud axe-grinding noise obscuring most of what they have to say.
Speaking about India in particular, some, not all, of this impulsive behaviour may have stemmed from a general Indian sense of panic after partition, when the cultural narrative was taken over by current events. While there was a section of politicians which advocated partition with an insouciant air, when it was an abstract concept being debated within the smoke-filled back rooms and the corridors of power, that section was overwhelmed and awed into temporary silence by the monstrous happenings that ensued. How much of the maladroit acts of the government in India immediately following partition was due to the stunning denouement? We shall never know; these secrets of their souls have gone to the grave with the concerned politicians.
On the other hand, while these politicians were reeling back in shock, and trying their desperate, and for some time, their inadequate best to cope with new circumstances, there was another section which looked at events with huge surprise as their predictions came right with consistency and in the manner that they had foreseen for years, but had never expected to see in their lifetimes.
There must have been a solemn sense of vindication in RSS headquarters in Nagpur, notwithstanding the general public obloquoy that surrounded them just then immediately after the murder of Gandhi in January 48. Perhaps some of the effort at homogenising culture that ensued in the early days of India may have emerged from this section of the population; banned the RSS may have been, but there were enough RSS-manque figures within the INC, and many more in the administration, in the ranks of academe and within the journalistic profession. Soft Hindutva was a fact of life long before the congress took it up as a pale, washed down alternative to the real stuff.
Against what Hayyer has said, it can be argued that identity doesn’t stem from culture, identity stems from a sense of nationhood which is quite distinct from culture. It is possible to pick out the threads of a number of concealed and openly flaunted sub-cultures in any European country: In England, one has the Cornish, the Cockney, the Home Counties, the Lancashire, the Yorkshire, the northern in general, and so on. These, differentiated by dialect and by dance, in earlier days, by music and folklore, for instance, were no bars for the development of a strong national identity, forged out of the forced, military union of several older kingdoms and their rule by central authority.
The same can be said of Scotland, and its union out of disparate elements. We tend to forget these days that in the days of the birth of Islam, there was no Scotland, only a collection of highly diversified kingdoms with completely different agendas of political domination of their surrounding areas. So, too, in England; England was unified as late as the 10th century. The reader is invited to compare this to the corresponding reach and extent of the Khilafat’s rule.
Conflating national identity with cultural identity in a grossed up ‘identity’ question is an easy error to make, but captures little or nothing of reality. Consider Pakistan, for instance; as has been pointed out twice already within this discussion, its cultural identity is divided and distributed between several cultural sub-groups, the Pathan, the Punjabi in all its manifestations, not singular but plural, the Sindhi, the Baloch, without even going into the multiplicity of sub-sub-cultures that exist. Or consider China; its core Han cultural identity is confined to less than 50% of its present land-mass. Examining the cultural identity of Xinjiang, Qing Hai and, erm, Xizang would be interesting. Even more interesting is an exploration of language, myth, dance and music of Guanxi and Guangdong.
It is important, it seems, to be clear about the difference between a nation, a political entity which demands loyalty from its constituent individual citizens, and has a clearly defined political system, and methods of administration of justice, maintenance of law and order, defence of the borders of the nation and clearly-defined national myths and symbols, and a cultural entity, for instance, the East Bengali resident in West Bengal as a citizen of India. An East Bengali resident in West Bengal carries a burden of cultural differentiation which is quite acutely felt in the street, or in day-to-day life, and was a point of friction some decades ago, only gradually subsiding into its current status as good material for comedians and film-makers and authors. It does not, to the best of my knowledge, compromise its bearer’s national identity as an Indian.
Is it relevant to ask what is the cultural identity of the Indian, as Hayyer seems to be doing? In my personal opinion, not so; there is no cultural Indian, any more than there was a subject of the Mughals, or a subject of Ranjit Singh, or a subject of the Lodis, or the Mauryas, for that matter. Not even in the fiercely self-referential German nation is there a heritage of a single culture; the first time one encounters a Gruess Gott in Bavaria, one is made acutely aware of the underlying German nations, their stem duchies, which earlier defined the Germans and which still exist just below the surface. Even the now-mythical Swabians exist, very much as the Bengali gentleman will claim descent from a family from Vikrampur, a place as real and tangible as Camelot, which disappeared from the maps perhaps ten generations ago.
This, one notes with ironic amusement, was the precise point of the protracted discussions that we have had on PTH, across several threads, across many weeks: that a cultural, or an ethno-linguistic identity is not the same as a national identity; that a statesman who called for the protection of these multiple cultural identities need not stand convicted of planning vivisection of the nation as a consequence; that a desire to protect minorities, essentially cultural minorities, whether seen as that or as ethno-linguistic, such as the Dravidians, or as dominated castes, such as the Dalit, need not preclude a desire to form a strong Indian nation.
What then of the attempt to ‘create’ a cultural identity for either India or for that matter, for Pakistan?
One needs to ask: do not the same criteria apply? Why do we have this frantic need to bring people into our Procrustean bed? Where did this model come from, that demands that a nation sacrifice its children to the cause of a non-existent uniform cultural identity? So I like idli/vada/ dosa; and yet this does not transform me into a Unified Indian, Mk. I. So what? Hayyer complains that this does not create an identity; what identity is it supposed to create? In fact, none; he answers himself soon enough by pointing to the composite culture of North India, which borrows heavily from two and more separate religious identities to offer the North Indian a smorgasboerd of cultural opportunity and cultural sanction.
Culture is essentially voluntary; national identity is not; one cannot reside within a nation and demand separation without fatally injuring any claim to membership of that national identity. No doubt some shrewd reader will draw the appropriate conclusions from this.
In my opinion, Hayyer is mistaken to leap to arms and to man the barricades at the sight of an apparently Indian mass disintegrating into its regional components once resident abroad. This is a mistake because the Indian not resident in India is a special case; he, or she, may or may not retain national identity, he, or she emphatically retains a regional identity. Very often, the votary of a singular culture is put off at the sight of Punjabis gathering and making merry, violating their national identities of Pakistani and Indian. This is unfortunately inevitable, considering that the regional identity, or correctly speaking, the underlying cultural identity, which may or may not correspond to a region, however that is defined, is the primary identity for human beings, not the national identity.
Hayyer went on to wonder if Pakistan was not on the wrong track in seeking to do away with its links to the composite culture, and in seeking other models. Of course they are wrong. And of course, we are exactly and precisely the last people who should say so. First, because we have successfully proved to ourselves that a national identity does not rule out multiple cultural identities, on the contrary also, a national identity does not forge a uniform cultural identity. Having come to this conclusion, there is no pre-ordained need for us to turn missionary and either berate the Pakistani or mourn his cultural extinction; as we have already worried out for ourselves, culture is a voluntary matter. If 170 million people should voluntarily head in a particular direction, my own sense is that as a prudent person, I should step smartly out of the way. It is far more likely, however, that they look carefully at some alternative models that are presented to them, and turn away of their own accord. Whatever it is, and from what we have seen of other situations, some of the answers seem clear, the matter is best left to the people concerned.
The point being that if our neighbours turn away from those elements in their existing culture that they hold with us in common (with some of us, I should add), then so be it; it is a matter of regret, but for their regret, not ours. My imagination boggles at the thought of this large number turning uniformly to make themselves good Iranians or good Turks, or even good Arabs, but in what way are we concerned? We surely have our own issues of cultural community to discuss and debate, our own fears of the extinction of Chhatisgarhi dialect, or of the growth of Bhojpuri, or, in a personal case, the difficulty of listening to good drama or watching good cinema in my language in my own state; all while my wife worries over the gradual shift to Kannada away from their composite culture Tamizh among her own kinfolk.
What then of the prospects that we will turn into unique species of finches, following Darwin? My sense is that it is not the national highways that kill composite cultures, it is the brainwashed boobies who come out bright-eyed and bushy tailed, and start spewing venom on all who don’t seem to know what the correct answers are, from the book.
June 30, 2009 at 4:46 pm
hayyer48
the TNT in India was in speech after speech in the CA, in editorials, day after day, of all mainstream newspapers. pak – as unrepetent sinners – was being demonised, by nehru himself, off and on. the muslims were being questioned, and all sorts of absurd demands being made of them. including leaders of the stature of patel downwards. TNT as articulated by the AIML, on each and every occassion that it was articulated, was about pointing out the differences, not making one better than the other. it was about cultural differences between indians, and not about one being loyal or natural indians and the other being traitors or foreigners.
there wasn’t an equivalent of that in the pak CA debates. the leadership was also not speaking of pak hindus as being as good as traitors. what happened in east pak was ethnic violence mostly against a weak hindu community of dalits, with sponsorship and support from sections of the state machinery. any demonising of india was taken up much later… by the authoritarian usurpers of the state of pak.
bonobashi
lacking in the requisite tools/qualification/knowledge, i must rely on personal observation and experience in trying to see why i almost entirely agree to what you have put forth in your trademark majestic style. the greater the ease with which i can be a so-called ‘misfit’ in a family, society or country.. the more unstinting is my loyalty to it. free nations, i.e. free countries/nation states, should be about constitutionalism, rule of law, justice, equality, welfare and liberalism and celebrating diversity… as well as what is commonly shared. i decide my ‘janambhoomi’, or my culture or cultural identity.. but my foremost loyalty will be to my country, for without it i do not have any of the freedom to celebrate all that i cherish and hold dear. that is my personal, lay person’s view on the matter.
the national character of the ‘freedom movement’ was used/exaggerated/abused to monopolise the purely political struggle of succeeding the british as india’s political masters. despite the price that congress was willing to and did pay for it, the monopoly only lasted 30 years, at most. if india was to arrive, after 50/60 years, at the same conclusions in relation to the difference between culture and politics, country and identity, then, was the price worth paying?
not all minorities were treated/viewed the same. there are no nationalist sikhs, dalits, christians, parsis, anglo-indians or, of course, hindus. only nationalist muslims. wasn’t even dr ambedkar putting together a multi-ethnic federalist party, in his last years, rather than an exclusively dalit one? i can owe loyalty to my country and my countrymen, above all else, by virtue of sharing little more than a passport with them, provided i have the freedom i have tried to list the salient features of somewhere above.
there have been suggestions/demands to move on from the history of partition and let it be of interest only to academics. had india and pak, or BD, lived happily ever after, partition indeed would have been of academic interest only. but the tension remains even after 62 years and a lot of other things having taken place in this time. in pakistan, we’ve our very own reasons, nothing to do with indo-pak relations, to keep revisiting Partition and the facts surrounding it. with a mainstream, national, recently in govt, political party’s disturbing relationship to the RSS and larger parivar, i’d have thought there are internal reasons for india too to try and set the record straight when it comes to Partition… and TNT.
June 30, 2009 at 5:40 pm
We have again gotten side tracked again into TNT and partition. It was not my intention when discussing the main article to hark back to these issues. It inevitably happens in any discussion on identity.
My limited point was to discuss the post modern aspects and identity issues in the context of Pakistan’s identity with culture of-course as an undeniable component.
It is absolutely none of my business to talk to Pakistanis about what their culture or identity should be. My concern was with what is, and why that seems inadequate. I spoke of the failure of state imposed cultures in that context. It follows that a Pakistani neo-culture has to build upon what exists. Emphasizing Arab or Persian focus in language can be one way as the Indian Government has done (successfully?) for Hindi using Sanskrit. Words that were in common use three decades ago such as ‘riyasat’, ’suba’, ‘wazir’ are no longer heard in the North. Even ’subah’ and ’shaam’ have transmogrified into pratakaal and sandhya kaal.
No doubt that sort of thing has happened in Pakistan too.
It is more difficult to bring change in other aspects of culture such as music and poetry and even language. Doordarshan has been broadcasting the news in Sanskrit for some decades. Does anyone listen? If Pakistan was to put out the news in Arabic would it make any difference to the man in the street? Will Um Kulsum replace Noor Jehan?
Persian is another matter. It was the official language even in India, and even after the Mughals declined.
Whatever cultural format governments may dictate, the masses will carry on as they are. There can be a mandated high culture which can be made a defining element of identity, but popular low culture does not change so easily. Capital may play a bigger role there than government.
June 30, 2009 at 5:53 pm
There are three sorts of loyalties people cant seem to get away from. Nation, religion and language. For Punjabis it is nation and religion. For Bengalis all three.
All three are learned in childhood. Religion and nation are drilled into tiny tots so that they come to know themselves in these terms. Language comes from the mother and is inescapable part of your identity. Loyalty to what is mine is natural. Surprisingly people do change faiths but no one I know except Punjabis disavow language. Also, people change nationality but retain affection for the old one.
In 1961 BR Chopra made a black and white called Dharamputra. It starred Shashi Kapoor. If you can get hold of a dvd it is worth a viewing as a reminder of what identity is.
June 30, 2009 at 7:40 pm
@Bloody Civilian
It is easy to agree with you agreeing with me, I must confess; in the concluding sentences of your first paragraph addressed to me, you have very simply and clearly paraphrased the proposition that adopting an aspect of culture, any aspect, is a voluntary act, that cultural identity is adopted voluntarily, whereas national identity has an element of compulsion, of predetermined mandate. Indeed so.
The answer to your question: was this price worth paying for 30 years of domination? Well, you will hardly have guessed this, the answer is subtle and difficult to arrive at, but the answer is NO. If I could add sound effects to this declaration, I would.
It was lamentable and short-sighted, and caused more harm than good in the short run; I can hope only that in the long run, it will turn out less harmful, and that its effects will damp out rapidly.
I did not completely understand your third paragraph.
Regarding your concluding paragraph, I agree heartily. It is an undiluted pity that we don’t in India discuss this issue threadbare, for precisely the reason that you have pointed out.
However, having said that, a clarification is needed: it was not my intention to make that the subject of my response on this thread; on the contrary, while I referred to our discussions, it was a great pity that hayyer48 has seen it as a helpless sliding back to that issue. Perhaps that paragraph should never have been written at all, if it distracts us from the culture-focussed issue and the impact of modernism on culture which we are considering here.
@hayyer48
It was a sincere intention not to get side-tracked or reversed in course to return to the TNT, but I seem to have achieved that involuntarily, by an indirect reference to it. This is most unintended, considering that the original intention, in your wording, was precisely “to discuss the post modern aspects and identity issues in the context of Pakistan’s identity with culture of-course as an undeniable component.”
In mitigation of my offence, please permit me to say the following:
The intention of my response was to say in some way supporting your notion that adoption of a cultural identity by the state or by state-recognised intellectuals or by self-appointed upholders of a specific state was doomed to failure, as this was not an issue that could be thrust on people unwillingly.
In fact, it did seem at the time of writing it that the response did achieve that purpose, but perhaps it needs to be re-read and refined; if indeed it achieved some other effect, that was clumsily done and needs to be re-worked. Again, I reiterate, for the state, or selected or self-appointed loyalists of the state to seek to evolve a cultural identity and then impose it on people cannot be enforced for all time to come. If I may illustrate the point, a brilliant couple of examples is from the 1917 Revolution in Russia, and from the 1919 movement in Turkey. In both cases, an artificial ‘cultural identity’ was imposed on citizens, an identity defined by the state, or whoever or whichever group defined himself or themselves as the state; in both cases, today some 90 years later, these are seen to have failed, or, in the case of Turkey, be failing.
There was not enough space to discuss modernism, and its manifestation as an adjunct to Westernisation, or the alternative views that could allow us to see modernism and post-modernism as old concepts from the very mists of the beginning of time which are dressed up in party clothes from time to time and given an outing.
This may have given the entirely undesirable effect of dragging the discussion back towards Scylla and Charybdis; this is neither about TNT nor about Partition.
May I, for your amusement, interject a personal note? Your second response does seem to have the coordinates of a relatively peaceful bylane in Calcutta on its tracking and targetting systems. I quote in parts:
There are three sorts of loyalties people cant seem to get away from. Nation, religion and language. For Punjabis it is nation and religion. For Bengalis all three.
You have correctly pointed out, very indirectly, very subtly, that it is mainly Punjabi (the dominant section) and Bengali (the laid back set) contributions to PTH from the Indian side. The Punjabis live up to their reputation of commanding personalities, who take a position and attract people to support that position. And conversely, the Bengalis.
All three are learned in childhood. Religion and nation are drilled into tiny tots so that they come to know themselves in these terms. Language comes from the mother and is inescapable part of your identity. Loyalty to what is mine is natural.
Some of us have had peculiar paths, not totally in conformity with the norm (I caught myself in time to avoid using the word ‘normal’). For instance, religion was never part of our childhood; I was under the impression that like all other normal people, I was a member of the Church of England!! Realisation that I was heathen or pagan dawned much later.
On language, I have to report a greater deviation. My mother spoke excellent English, to the extent where I was nervous about showing her my written work, or speaking before her; her Bengali, however, was an unfortunate mixture of an extremely broad Barisal dialect and a somewhat utilitarian ‘Hindustani’ originating from the ubiquitous security staff in Calcutta. For some years in my youth, I spoke a derivative.
You have already pointed out that ‘language comes from your mother and is an inescapable part of your identity.’ This is true, and it was the cross that I had to bear in early childhood.
The regrettable result of learning at my mother’s knee was paroxysms of mirth among my schoolfellows between classes 1 and 7, when I was in a Bengali medium school, and suffered the tortures of the damned, until being sent off to a military school which spoke English: a kind of English. The only brief disengagements in this unending cultural battlefield occurred after results were declared; everybody depended on me to read out their results and the remarks appended to every subject. On those occasions, several long-outstanding scores were paid off. Bloody Civilian and D_a_n have nothing much to teach me about revenge best eaten cold.
This may, on the other hand, explain my lamentably otiose English.
Surprisingly people do change faiths but no one I know except Punjabis disavow language. Also, people change nationality but retain affection for the old one.
In 1961 BR Chopra made a black and white called Dharamputra. It starred Shashi Kapoor. If you can get hold of a dvd it is worth a viewing as a reminder of what identity is.
Point taken. I hear and I obey.
I hope I have been able to explain that as a major casualty of the cultural wars, it was far from my intention to drag our conversation back to the politics of the TNT, and that if that was the effect, it was entirely involuntary.
June 30, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Bonobashi: One can see why you won all those prizes. I believe I understand your childhood cultural condition. It has done you nothing but good, eventually.
July 1, 2009 at 12:47 am
Breaking my silence here, in support of Mohammed Rafi. Here’s a good pitch for a good identity that will resolve most identity crises, historical or ahistorical (warning: a tad cloying):
July 1, 2009 at 2:50 am
bonobashi
the ‘third paragraph’ was about trying to point out the fact that of the two largest minorities – dalits and muslims, the muslims were more in a position of taking/demanding a share in political power.
otherwise, in terms of identity… all i wish to bring out, as a pakistani (who can only speak as an individual), that there are three kinds of identities that i have: the caricatured one, the constructed/imposed one, and the real, multilayered one. there is a diversity of real identities, always evolving. the ‘crisis’ or issue is not about defining it, but trying to have it represented (in Islamabad), fairly.
July 1, 2009 at 8:11 am
@Bloody Civilian
OK, got it (I think; won’t do to be too definite, Gorki might have something to say).
That was possibly true pre-Mandal. Incidentally, I am not sure how much is known within Pakistan of the V. P. Singh manoeuvres. This consisted of bringing the other backward castes and the scheduled castes into the political equations.
Currently, the two minorities most agitated and most insistent on being accommodated through violence or the ballot box, they are indifferent, are the Dalits and the Tribals.
The Muslims, if there is any longer such a category, have become good at using the ballot box to exercise power over the politician. They, no longer as a mass called Muslim, but along with every other citizen who knows what can be done, are feared for their ability to make clinical judgements on the performance of governments.
My sense is that there is a split in Indian polity, between those who know what to do with their power, basically contained in three devices or recourses, and those who don’t, who are therefore agitating violently. The three devices used by people against bad governance are the election, the Public Interest Litigation and the use of the fearfully powerful Right to Information act. The first two are known in Pakistan, I suspect the third is not so well known. Its sweeping powers have not been fully exploited within India itself, and already the babus are in complete fear of its use.
Once the Dalits stop making symbolic gestures indicative of their new-found discovery of their political clout, and join the rest of India in using these three weapons, much may be expected. However, their working off of their two-thousand years of oppression is likely to take some bizarre shapes and forms before things settle down. There will inevitably be some decades of antics and pranks, while the rest of us look on in dismay.
My sense is that the siege mentality of Muslims has been washed away except in three pockets – hayyer can probably add a few more: Azamgarh, the square mile around Char Minar and perhaps, this last being questionable, some of the former Moplah areas. I am leaving out two areas which are war zones.
Hope that is useful.
@Sharmishtha
You rock! Brilliant choice.