The (Re)construction of a liberal Pakistan

David Igntius's Washington Post column, "Our high-maintenance relationship with Pakistan",

Why did it take Washington more than seven months to apologize for the deaths of 24 Pakistani soldiers? But you know the answer: It’s because the United States and Pakistan have the most neurotic, mutually destructive “friendly” relationship in the world.

provoked this response from a reader, indianobserver:

See, till May 1 2011, Pakistan Army was a liberal moderate army of professional soldiers whether on CNN or in far reaches of left and right wing blogs. May 2 after Bin Laden was killed it was difficult for Pak Army to be moderate and liberal but everyone tried, whether on CNN or in far reaches of left and right wing blogs. But plausible deniability Humpty Dumpty fell off the wall. Here's a suggestion on how to get the plausible deniability Humpty Dumpty together again. Write a couple of articles iin WP/NYT on attending a private party in Lahore where you meet all these well speaking Ivy League returns quoting the Greek classics especially a impeccably dressed young nubile one who speaks eloquently on moderation in Islam and running a business/teaching Faust(all ingredients are required). Or you could go to Karachi and report on a fashion show or TV studio where you meet all these well speaking Ivy League returns quoting the Greek classics especially a impeccably dressed young nubile one who speaks eloquently on moderation in Islam and running a business/teaching Faust(all ingredients are required). Do a couple of those articles, and Pakistan Army can go back to being liberal moderate and professional on CNN and in far reaches of right and left wing blogs. I am sure making this sound authentic is within your creative reach. Mr Haqqani will help you get the details right.

English and Urdu

Khaled Ahmed writes in The Friday Times:  (one never knows when the link will no longer be available)

There is no doubt that Pakistan is in trouble. The world says that. Every Pakistani says that too. But the diagnoses of the two are different. That inclines Pakistan to disagree and take on the world for the wrong diagnosis. The world thinks Pakistan tolerates terrorism inside its territory and is either unwilling to counter it or lacks the capacity to do so. Pakistan thinks terrorism is caused by powers from outside (the US, India, Israel); therefore Pakistan has to fight these powers if possible with the help of its 'reformed' terrorists.

The world analyses Pakistan's disease in light of facts; Pakistan analyses the world outsides through strong emotion. It accomplishes the task in two methodologies that mutually undermine themselves.

In English, it reveals facts about itself that are unsavoury. Those who do so can be bullied or even killed. In Urdu, the paranoid response of the state is monolithic. English punctures the microcosm of a nationalist comprehension of the world. Urdu is the carrier of raw emotion and contains textbook solutions of crises. Urdu cannot violate the rule of its discourse. You can get away with the truth in English but not in Urdu. The state, the Taliban and Al Qaeda all scan Urdu carefully. You can get killed.