Accidental Blogger

5 responses to “Imagine (Omar)”

1. Ruchira

   November 10, 2010

   Omar, thanks for this article. I am not sure how much our non-South Asian readers can appreciate your sentiments but I certainly do. It is heartfelt, written with humor and a touch of despair. I too feel that India and Pakistan need to examine the mutual benefit of a peaceful co-existence if not a loose political / trade federation as you seem to suggest. But since when has this topic yielded to common sense?
   My own feeling on this (and I speak as an Indian born person), that the chief impediment to an understanding may be due to years of Pakistani politicians defining their country as Un-India – eastern Arabia, as you so succinctly put it. The alienation is now a gaping chasm but not something that cannot be bridged by cooler heads and ego-free thinking. The hardening of the stance by Indian nationalists too needs to be countered. Thanks for sharing.

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. Sujatha

   November 10, 2010

   Welcome to A.B., Omar. That was an interesting “What if…”, indeed. But I have my doubts that the newer generations in Pakistan will share the nostalgia implicit in your piece. They may be free of the memories of Partition, but they might look towards a different kind of future with Pakistan modelled on the lines of say UAE, rather than the acceptance of a ‘Western India’ paradigm.

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. Norman Costa

   November 11, 2010

   Omar,
   Thank you for the article. As I ask questions, and make observations, about South Asia, I will be baring my ignorance about the area. I was born in Brooklyn, NY, but I did manage to live and work in Hong Kong for a short time.
   Since “What if” seems to be allowed, I would like to offer a possible comparison to the history of immigration in the United States. Many immigrants (legal and illegal) came to the U. S. for the purpose of accumulating wealth and then returning to their country of origin, where they could have a relatively comfortable standard of living. They did not give up their culture, religion, language, and customs. Many created schools that would educate their children to U. S. standards, but preserve education in their own language. Clearly, their primary identification was with the country of their origin. Contacts with family and friends in the “old” country were preserved. The objective was to return “home.” Some did. Many, many did not return to their country of origin and made the U. S. their permanent home.
   The second generation of immigrants, never wanted to return to the land of their parents. Instead, they became “Americanized” and were quick to cast off the cloak of the foreign countries of their parents. They were U. S. citizens, and were intent on building that identity for themselves and their children. They did not pass on the culture of their parents to their own children, at least not with the same enthusiasm. They were motivated to forget their origins.
   What is most interesting is what the third generation of immigrants did. They felt a loss and deprivation by not being connected to the land of their grandparents. In earnest, they began a rediscovery of their roots, language, culture, and customs. They studied the genealogy of their families and reconnected with distant relatives. Travels back to the country of their heritage was not uncommon. Sometimes they discovered horrors and deprivations in the old lands. Others found an identity and a connection to who they were.
   Your brief description of events following partition suggests a possible (hoped for?) parallel to our experiences in the U. S. See if this makes any sense to you.
   Partition created a migration from an old and familiar origin. Some migrated in fact, others stayed in place, but migrated politically and nationally to a new country. Culture, religion, language, and customs remained intact. There may still be a longing for roots that reside in a different place, on a different soil.
   Let’s hypothesize that the second generation identifies with the new nation, new politics, and a new “them” that complements a new “us.” Let’s hypothesize a greater attachment to the new soil, than to an ancestral soil. Any possible reconciliation with former neighbors seems beyond the possible. The partition is complete and unbridgeable.
   Let’s hypothesize a third generation that is yet to coalesce, and senses a deprivation in cultural identity that once resided in a foreign land. Could this third generation initiate a reconnection that could also spark initiate a tolerance and understanding and peace with the citizens in lands of their grandparents? Of course, this could work in both directions.
   So ends my “What if,” and my hypotheses. If these hypotheses could be entertained as possibilities, then could this spark a hope in a new generation – a hope that only leads to despair in the current climate, but could be realized in the future.
   It may make no sense trying to find parallels to immigration, and subsequent generations, on opposite sides of the globe. To the extent that I have displayed my ignorance, it is now a public record.

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. Ruchira

   November 11, 2010

   Norman, I will let Omar answer the questions you have posed.
   Where and what one calls home is a tricky affair. You are right, sometimes like genes, the change in the concept of home skips generations. Let me draw your attention to this post I wrote more than three years ago. Both mine as well as my husband’s families lost their ancestral homes in the partition of India. Please note how my father and father-in-law reacted differently to their loss.

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. Norman Costa

   November 12, 2010

   Ruchira, it was beautifully written and very moving. Thank you.

   LikeLike

   Reply