Failure to Launch

My friends (from India) posed an interesting question over dinner last night: "Do you think Pakistan should have been made?"

Now how do you answer a question like that? Isn't the answer obvious? Well the answer might be, but the reasoning, or lack thereof, merits some attention. I just said: "It's a moot point. Pakistan is here, and we are better off staying seperate."

It may be a moot point in terms of reunification, but it's very relevant as we try to answer some painful but neccessary questions: How did we get here, and where are we going next?

Pakistan is a failed state, and the BBC (pdf) has confirmed this (though how we went from 34 to 9, above Afghanistan, seems very partisan). Our fathers' and forefathers' generations have failed. Will our generation be a failure too? We certainly will be if we live up to our own expectations.

So why did Jinnah make us Pakistan? I suppose it's a relevant question to ask, not just because we revere and idealise him so much, but also because it might explain our crisis of nationhood and failure of leadership and state. I dug up my past meandering on the topic. Some juicy tidbits:

"[There is disagreement over] the professed contradiction between Jinnah’s plans and the resulting Pakistan... Jinnah never wanted a Pakistan that contained a severed Punjab and Bengal... [he] always wanted a strong center where there was equal representation of the two Indian ‘nations’, namely Hindus and Muslims. His desire to serve as ‘sole representative’ and protect the interests of minority Muslims could only have seen fruition in a common constitutional arrangement, that certainly wasn’t possible through partition."

"[There is] much credence in Moore’s assertion that Jinnah was aiming for sovereignty but only after the rights of minorities had been decided through common constitutional arrangements. This argument seems to explain the contradictions in the Lahore Resolution best, i.e. the demand for an ‘international’ sovereign state and the need to satisfy the requirements of minorities through constitutional arrangements."

But regardless of what the founder wanted or imagined, he was spared witnessing the true ramifications of the tragedies he helped create. It is up to us to stop making excuses and write our own destiny; or continue being failures. And in answer to the question, no, this is not the Pakistan that should have been made.

Paternal Instinct

From "The New Father," by Armin A. Brott:

When most of our fathers were raising us, a "good father" was synonymous with "good provider." He supported his family financially, mowed the lawn, washed the car, and maintained discipline in the home. No one seemed to care whether he ever spent much time with his children; in fact he was discouraged from doing so, and told to leave the kids to his wife, the "good mother."

Hmm... so does this make our good father's of yesterday, bad fathers in retrospect? Isn't providing for the family just part of the job description? Of course we're going to do that. I would probably feel bad if I didn't do the 'extra' stuff, or should I say the essential? In fact, shouldn't the 'extra' stuff be the perk for all the hard work and responsibility?

But the equation has changed as well. As women are spending more time outside the house, the sharing of responsibilities is shifting too. Men spend more time in the house so women can spend less. Or maybe women can spend less time because men want to spend more time. Better for both of them? Also better for the baby? Dad and baby get to spend more time together that way, so that's a plus!

Yesterday's "good father" has now retroactively become an emotionally distant, uncaring villain. And today's "good father," besides still being a breadwinner, is expected to be a real presence -- physically and emotionally -- in his kids' lives. This, in a nutshell, is exactly what most new fathers want... The problem is that we just haven't had the training. The solution? Quit complaining and jump right in. The "maternal instinct" that women are supposedly born with is actually acquired on the job. And that's exactly where you're going to develop your "paternal instinct."

Bechara Faiz. He gets to be my paternal instinct test platform.

Thumbsearching

No, this has nothing to do with the Algorithms class I just took the final for (though I'm sure a lot of caffine could produce an algorithm for that too -- note to self).

Thumbsearching is what Faiz does when he's looking for comforting. He knows where his thumb is, but forgets that it might be under his fingers. So he just tries to jam his whole fist in (picture below).

Isn't that what we're all looking for? Happiness, just within grasp?

Conditionally Unconditional?

So I floated some thoughts on unconditional love, but it's not really that simple is it? Certainly you feel 'helpless' love towards your children, i.e. you cannot help but love them (is there is a better word for that?), so it's not just a decision. But to continue to express love no matter what they do, that is a decision.

And love needs qualification, since it's thrown around so heedlessly. Love is support. Being there when you're needed, and having it known that you are there even when you're not needed. And especially being there when you might not be wanted. That is the unconditional love that parents have for their children.

Exhibit A: He left us no choice...
Blissfully loved and thumbsearching.

And please Faiz, dear, don't put my theories to the test! He he.