Pakistani Mango Reigns Supreme

India is a great nation. A billion Indians on the most fertile patch of land on our planet know a thing or two about flavour, spice and the harvest. Unfortunately, they know nothing about the excellence of the Pakistani Mango. I feel sorry for them.



Anwar Ratol - The best mango in the world.

I grew up on mangoes. Anwar Ratol was our family favourite. Every summer, crates of Anwar Ratol mangoes were purchased almost on a weekly basis. In the sweltering heat of mid-summer Punjab, our father would get buckets of iced water and pour into it dozens and dozens of greenish, gold tinged mangoes. We helped in the ritual; picking bits of husk from the sticky resin that perfectly ripe mangoes ooze from the bud.  We would wait a little, just enough for the mangoes to get deliciously cold.

Eating Anwar Ratols is a competitive pursuit. You don’t eat them; You gulp them after mushing the pulp with your thumbs and sucking the rich, flavoursome chunky nectar from the stalk end of the fruit.  You dress for the occasion too. It must be the kurta that needs to go to the wash the same afternoon. Sleeves must be rolled up and you must be seated on the cool floor as close to the bucket as possible. You carry on until there are no more mangoes. Then you calm your stomach with a nice glass of ‘kachi lassi’ - an ounce of milk watered down to repel the heat of the greatest fruit on earth.

Then you sleep.

We were also treated with the whole range of mango varieties throughout the summer. Our kitchen and the fridge remained fragrant with mangoes for the summer holidays. Monsoons brought the best crop to the shops and a good chunk of our food budget would go to the fruit sellers.

Sindhri - A gift from the mighty Indus river

Pakistani mangoes are the greatest fruit on earth. There is no doubt about it. We prepare for our thermometer bursting, electricity deprived summers by consoling ourselves in the hope of mangoes.

I know that some Indian friends are under this illusion that Indian mangoes are better. I have no doubt that their home grown fruit is more appealing for them. Had they ever tasted the Anwar Ratol ripened in the humid, unbearable heat of southern Punjab, they would change their mind.  They have never been invited to a mango party which happens under some trees by the canal. They never tried the mango Ice-cream frozen by rolling the barrels for hours by hand on the streets and plentiful scoops of it presented with chunks of mangoes freshly sliced over it. They have never stopped in a busy night market in urban Faisalabad, ogled at the golden Dueshri and Malda bobbing among the ice-cubes in a glass tank of a roadside vendor, and ordered a few kilos to share with your friends. The vendor also presents you with the watery sweet milk remedy in the end. That is on the house, usually.


To not know the earthy fragrance of a sweet Sindhri and the irresistible, bursting with a bouquet of flavours Chaunsa is one of the greatest misfortunes akin to not visiting Lahore or disliking cricket while being an Indian.



I have nothing against Indian cultivars. They seem to be adequate for the Indian palate. I also accept the fact that Pakistan is part of the Indian subcontinent, so nothing which claims to be a product of biology can ever be inherently purely Pakistani. We are all Indians.

But with the creation of Pakistan, we had effectively firewalled a few things for our great nation. The best mangoes, fast bowlers, fried breakfasts, classical singers, pop musicians, dictatorships, good TV dramas and bad films etc etc. I can carry on.  Did I say mangoes? The humble Indian mango was allowed to thrive by our nation of talented horticulturists, and fertile sandy soil planes of Sindh and Punjab. Saplings of top quality cultivars were nurtured with love and affection. A mango farmer in Sindh cries over his flood or wind ravaged mango plants as if a beloved family member died. The harsh summer season in the planes of the mighty river Sindh has given an evolutionary edge to the Pakistani mango which is apparent in its manifold qualities. Pakistan has been an evolutionary hot spot for a few choicest things. Islamists, mystery spinners, con men, mangoes!

A mango farm in Sindh - Tando Allahyar

Compared to the Pakistani mango, the Indian mango is mediocre at best in taste and flavour. Like an Indian batsman, it only gets high scores in home conditions and is ridiculously overrated by its adoring fans. I have been forced to try the Indian mango once or twice.  Alphonso, the so-called ‘king of mangoes’ is mostly skin. Not impressed! Kesar, the other famous variety, looks good, but barely tastes like a mango. Sweetness aside, both mangoes provided ample fibres to floss ones teeth while eating them. 

Our Indian neighbours are lucky to have proper democracy, first dibs at most of our shared history, a definite sense of identity, batsmen and a booming economy. But with partition, us Pakistanis got the frail economy, a constitutional crisis In every decade, Urdu humour and the best mangoes.

Chaman's mango Ice cream. One of the best!

In addition to a robust mango based summer sub-culture, mango parties, the mango Ice-cream and millions of tons of mango produce every year from Sindh and Punjab, mangoes also helped rid us of our worst dictator. Our diplomacy, both domestic and international relies heavily on the greatness of our mango. We are a nation indebted to the mango. And we wish to share this gift with the world. That is why our mango is distributed far and wide.
 
The Indian mango has its place in the world market. That is in the canned goods isle, next to the Bombay mix and Tilde basmati rice.

King of the canned goods isle

 


It is not all lost for the Indians. After all, Anwar Ratol was a migrant from India. They can definitely have some pride in its heritage. Also, they still have the best coconuts and papaya fruit.  Why not settle on that? Leave Pakistani mangoes at their rightful place. Top of the World!

A response to "The Apostates of Pakistan" by Aakar Patel

Aakar Patel's recently published article "The apostates of Pakistan" was penned a couple years ago, but did not see the light of day until now. He states the reason for this delay as reluctance of seemingly liberal Pakistani English language papers to publish some material. Reading through the piece, I could easy spot a number of problems that an editor may see with the article. It mentions the persecution of the Ahmadis in Pakistan, it also tries to explain Ahmadiyya beliefs, history and the bigotry of Pakistani society. The editors may have imagined a backlash from many of their conservative readers. An influential section of Pakistani society has always managed to keep this topic out of public eye for decades. But, as an Ahmadi, I would have sent the article back to Mr. Patel with red lines all over the text. For factual inaccuracies, incomplete research and almost slanderous accusations. 

Let me say that I admire Mr. Patel's attempt to look into the Ahmadiyya history to give a fresh perspective to his readers. I wish more people could go to the source materials and inform and educate their readers. I also hope that they make a better job of it.

Mr. Patel narrates a vision received by Hadhrat Mirza Ghulam Ahmad, the founder of Ahmadiyya Muslim Community, which is recorded in in his own writings as follows;

 "I presented the document containing divine decrees for attestation and He, Who was manifesting Himself in the form of a Ruler, dipped His pen in red ink and first flicked it in my direction and with the rest of the red ink which remained at the point of the pen He put His signature to the document. Thereupon, the state of vision came to an end and when I opened my eyes to look at the material world around me, I witnessed several red drops falling on my clothes. 2 or 3 of the drops also fell on the cap of one ‘Abdullah of Sanaur (Patiala State) who was at the time sitting close to me. Thus, the red ink which was part of the vision materialized externally and became visible. Many other such manifestations have been witnessed which it would take too long to 

relate. "

According to the Mr. Patel 

" This message from God qualified Ahmad as a prophet."

The claim of Hadhrat Ahmad as being a prophet did not originate from this experience. In fact such spiritual experiences had started in 1870s when he was still an unknown man, immersed in worship and religious studies. He received many revelations confirming his status as a prophet from 1882. But he did not claim to be the "Promised Messiah" until 1891, when he also revealed that Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him) had passed away and he was appointed as the Promised Messiah by God. The status of Promised Messiah according to Quran and Hadith is that of a subordinate (Ummati) prophet. 

Continuing in the very next paragraph Mr. Patel contradicts himself by stating "Despite his visions, Mirza Ahmad personally did not claim prophethood." 

Hadhrat Ahmad, the Promised Messiah and Mahdi (pbuh) wrote a book to remove any misconceptions about his claim to be an Ummati Prophet called "Aik Ghalti ka Izala". He writes 

"Wherever I have denied being a Prophet or Messenger, it has only been in the sense that I have not brought an independent law nor am I an independent Prophet. I am a Messenger and Prophet only in the sense that I have received spiritual grace from the Messenger (pbuh) whom I follow, and, having received his name for myself, and through him, I have received knowledge of the unseen from God. But I have not come with a new law. I have never denied being called a Nabi (Prophet) in this sense. Indeed it is in this very sense that God has addressed me as  Nabi and Rasul; and it is in this sense that I do not deny being a Nabi or Rasul" (A misconception removed, page 10)

The above is just one example of how Aakar Patel has not done justice to his article by including opinions which could have benefited from some proper research. He also states that Hadhrat Ahmad (pbuh) denouced Judaism and Christianity as error. Islam considers both Judaism and Christianity as true faiths corrupted by their followers. Hadhrat Ahmad (as) made his claims at the time when Christian missionary effort in India was at its peak. He held debates with prominent Christian missionaries of his time and showed to the world that Islam was a perfect religion. He also challenged various Hindu revivalists of his time as they also attacked Islam. 

But this is only a minot problem with this piece, easily corrected by a letter to editor. My problem lies with what follows in the last part of the article. According to Mr. Patel, Ahmadis should share some blame for being persecuted in Pakistan. He states that Ahmadis supported the two-nation theory and Sir Zafrullah Khan Islamized Pakistan by supporting the Objectives resolution. 

Do Ahmadis do deserve to be punished for their support of Muslim league? There are many so-called revisionist liberals who may think that the creation of Pakistan was an accident brought about by a mixture of British and feudal Muslim interests. 

Please also note here that the most conservative amongst the Muslims supported Indian National Congress. Same Muslim leaders saw opportunity in Pakistan and started agitations against Ahmadis in 1953. Ahmadis supported Pakistan because the ground realities of British India demanded Muslims to defend their rights. Qaid-e-Azam was right, but unfortunately, Pakistan also inherited the Ahrar, the spiritual forefathers of present day militant outfits. To add to our misery, Maulana Maudoodi also chose Pakistan despite his aversion to its very idea before 1947. The purpose of Ahmadiyya Movement has always been to cleanse Islam of the oppressive and suffocating ideology of such Mullahs. This "war" has been waged since the inception of the community and will carry on until the true Islam is made manifest to the world.

It is obvious that majority of the people who helped create Pakistan including the leadership, were tolerant, democratic and liberal. The very same people accepted Ahmadis in their ranks as their equals and even sought guidance from the Khalifatul Masih on important matters. Kashmir Committee (of 1930s) is one shining example of Ahmadiyya contributions to the Muslim cause in India.

Objectives resolution has also been blamed for Islamization of Pakistan. I can understand that in some circles it causes concerns because of its religious tone. I disagree with the critics. To me, objectives resolution was a document written by idealists who had high hopes for Pakistan. Their Islam was not the totalitarian oppressive Islam that Ahrar and Maudoodi had unleashed in the streets in 1950s. For an Ahmadi scholar and a secular Jurist of Sir Zafrullah's calibre, Islam can only "impose" a secular government which affords full freedom to its subjects. Please also note the emphasis of fundamental rights, freedom and democracy in the text of objectives resolution. 

That brings us finally to the matter of "Furqan Force". A battalion of Ahmadi volunteers which supported the Pakistan Army in 1948 Kashmir conflict. Mr. Patel thinks that this was a religiously motivated move and a betrayal of "Gandhian" non-violence that the Ahmadiyya community followed. First of all, our non-violence is Quranic non-violence. Mr. Gandhi was a respected politician and I admire his achievements and philosophy. But Ahmadi Muslims follow the teachings of Quran, as explained to us by Promised Messiah (pbuh). He also taught us that loyalty to our state is a religious duty. So if Pakistan was at war with India, Pakistani Ahmadis were duty bound to protect their country. Besides, Hindu rule of Kashmir was no Gandhian rule. It was probably the most oppressive and cruel rule in the history of subcontinent. 

I can also clarify here that Jihad as taught by Promised Messiah (pbuh) includes fulfilment of our duties to protect our faith. And loyalty to our homeland is part of our faith. 

Mr. Patel ends his article on a very harsh note. He started the piece with sympathetic statements, included examples of persecutions and his own dismay at the hatred he saw in Pakistan. He then moves to blame the Ahmadis for their own bad karma; for supporting Pakistan movement. Sir Zafrullah, a prominent defender of human rights and freedom of religion on the global stage, becomes the reason for Islamization of the country.  And the article then ends with a statement I can only call a fallacy. Aakar Patel writes;

 "Such bigotry against other faiths usually invites punishment against your own". 

i.e., Ahmadis opposed an oppressive cruel Hindu ruler; they supported equal rights for Indian Muslims etc etc; so they deserved to be punished in their own country for this. What twisted reasoning brought you to this conclusion?

I would request Mr. Patel to review his whole article, but in particular this last statement. He should go and read about the message of universal brotherhood that the founder of Ahmadiyya Muslim community sent out to the whole subcontinent just days before his death. Ahmadis stand by every word our Mahdi and Messiah (pbuh) has said and this is apparent through our actions. In fact, it is our belief that all major religions are based on truth and we give great respect to their founders like Raam, Krishna, Buddha, Zoroaster and Baba Nanak (may peace be upon them all). You will see evidence of this respect throughout Ahmadiyya history. 

To Mr. Patel, I can also suggest humbly that having an influence on your readership is a big responsibility. I am sure he will correct the factual errors he has made. I hope his opinions are also altered after these corrections.

As an Ahmadi, I believe that the revival of true Islamic ideals has been ongoing for the past century and Indian subcontinent is its epicentre. It is also my belief that Islam as presented by Promised Messiah (pbuh) will be victorious in this struggle. 

Why British Muslims should wear a Poppy?

War is the greatest injustice mankind can inflict on itself. Unfortunately, not a day has passed for centuries when somewhere and somehow one nation was not at war with the other. It appears that war is a natural state of being for our species. And as we are still learning to attain peace in our world, we sometimes have to take sides in such wars. Especially when our country, nation or way of life is under threat. It also becomes necessary to use moral judgement when taking sides in war. For example, one must not initiate a conflict or show aggression without a just cause. A just cause according to the principles of Islam is to defend one’s life, property, territory and freedom.

90 years ago, the Royal British Legion started to commemorate the war dead of the WW1. The poppy appeal, which collects funds to support war veterans and serving personnel of the British armed forces is in the noble tradition of being grateful for the “sacrifices of a few”. In essence, it is a very Islamic idea fulfilling our duties to be charitable, thankful and loyal to our country.

Many British Muslims do not feel obliged to participate in the appeal. One reason for this could be the fact that NATO contributes to so much misery in the Islamic world. I do not disagree with this criticism of our opportunistic foreign policy based on greed and make-belief sense of moral duty. But Poppy appeal is not to support our politicians or their allies in Brussels and Washington. This fund is to pay our respect to the courage which saved our country and the countries of our fathers twice. These red plastic flowers are not to show the world who was the victor; but to show that we respect our soldiers who risk their life and limb to serve our country. If these poppies are to be taken as a symbol of something more than this, then these are a symbol of defiance against aggression and totalitarian and fascist ideologies.

British Muslims should wear the poppy with pride to show their non-Muslim countrymen that close to 80,000 Muslim soldiers laid down their lives in both world wars. These soldiers were all volunteers who left their homeland to fight in the battlefields of Europe and Africa and died along with their comrades from the commonwealth.

We should wear the poppy with a renewed sense of duty to remind our fellow countrymen about the idea of sacrifice. That one must look for ways to contribute to the peace we have in today’s Britain.

We should wear the poppy with a feeling of gratitude for all the freedoms we have in this country. Freedom to worship, practice and preach our faith; and live without the fear of persecution and discrimination.

We should wear the poppy with a prayer for peace. Ameen

On Iqbal day, 2010

Growing up in Pakistani educational system in the eighties, I was made aware of Allama Iqbal from the first day when I heard "lab pe aati hay dua" being recited in the school. The poem is prayer by a child that God may make his life a guiding light for others. Iqbal teaches the child that he must stand by the poor and help those in need. To be honset, children at school assembley just followed the tune. We had no idea what it meant. This was a generation which will grow up to live the democracy of post-Zia era and post-democracy Musharraf times. And now post-Musharraf democracy. We learnt that our collective lives were not a glowing beacon for people to follow, neither were we a generation to help our nation's poor and downtrodden. Iqbal's first dream is being broken every single day in Pakistan.We have seen enough carnage of racial, sectarian violence, a war in Kashmir, an insurgency in Baluchistan, a mutiny in tribal areas and the rise and further rise of terrorism. We have suffered natural calamaties of Biblical proprotions. Iqbal's prayer, recited by millions of Pakistani children remains unanswered.
During my middle school years, I was told that Iqbal was the person who saw the vision of Pakistan and Quaid e Azam fulfilled his dream. I imagined Iqbal, the wise sage, waking up from his dream in his candle-lit quarters, looking for a piece of paper to write down the description of this Divinely inspired vision. It turned out that this "dream" was a well thought out speech in a political conference, and later explained in a letter to the Daily Times, London. In these days, I became fond of Iqbal and borrowed his poetry books from the library and tried to memorize many of his poems. His Shaheen Momin was my hero, my ideal. His rhetoric of superiority of a praciticing Muslim and his message of revolution was very appeasing to me. At that time, I was also a keen reader of Naseem Hijazi, Barbara Cartland of urdu literature. Except for he was a man, and wrote novels around the glorious Muslim conquests in Middle-East and Europe. The comparison with Barbara Cartland is due to his fixation with just one era and with one aspect of history.
Iqbal's portrait appears in many offices across Pakistan. In many of his protraits, he appears in a contemplative pose with an eagle soaring in the background. The eagle or falcon represents a true Muslim. A soldier of Islam who is proud of his Islamic heritage and superior understanding of the world around him. To us, Iqbal was one of these super-Muslims. How bravely did he stand up to the British and Hindus to guide the Muslims to find their pride and recover their prestige. And Muslims of India did just that by creating Pakistan. I read about Captain Sarwar, Major Aziz Bhatti etc. and thought of them as personifications of Iqbal’s Shaheen. In the 80s, Gen. Zia’s american Jihad was taught in school books. India was always evil, Israel a mortal enemy and Russian was the official language in Hell. Iqbal’s selective poetry in school books, and many religious sunni teachers, no wonder Pakistanis have such a one-sided view of Iqbal.
Then I found Ghalib and Meer. Iqbal’s poetry did not seem as brilliant when I compared them. I discovered in college, that to consider Ghalib better than Iqbal was to confess that you preferred wine and women over your faith. But Ghalib’s poetry agreed with my thoughts more than Iqbal. Ghalib’s honesty and humour had much more to offer than Iqbal’s dry slogans. But when it came to politics, I was still in agreement with Iqbal. Muslims needed the strength of character, the military advantage to win their place in the world. Ghalib was always busy ruing his bad luck and failures. Meer was crying himself to sleep. But Iqbal was challenging the accursed satan himself. He even went as far as questioning God's Wisdom on why Muslims were in decline.
But then I found Faiz. Ghalib had a match. Iqbal was No. 3 in the list. Faiz teaches us to be stubborn in the face of adversity, but he also keeps one foot in the dreamland. He trusts God's Wisdom and accepts that pain and persecution is all a part of our collective experience. He may have been a communist, but his metaphors are more closely connected to the Holy Scriptures than Iqbal's.
What was my reason to demote Iqbal from my list of literary heroes? (He still is on the list.. but somewhere at number 25 or below). I read a comment once that Ghalib resorted to writing Qaseedahs for the British Monarch. I also found a lament Iqbal wrote at the death of Queen Victoria, where he equated the day of her death to Muharram. I have no problems with people writing praises for the Kings and Queens. Both did what they though was right. But Iqbal’s deep study of Greek and modern European philosophy had an impact on his own thinking. He was a student of history, but was not such a great revolutionary as portrayed in the books. He himself denied in a letter that he never wanted a separate homeland for muslims, but was only throwing options to ensure peace in India. I think muslims in India made Iqbal into a celebrity too soon. As soon as he returned after his overseas education, he was treated like a leader. His poetry was lauded as the best in the whole country. But was his phiolsophy as sound as his linguisitic abilities? I find that today, everyone claims Iqbal to be one of them. Secularists love him because he condemned the mullah. Mullah quotes him as he was a Jihadist. Scholars like Ghulam Ahmad Pervez (of Tolu-e-Islam) claim that Iqbal was a rationalist like Sir Syed. Indians revere him, Pakistanis claim the ownership over Iqbal. What was Iqbal? I think, he was a poet, who could never make up his mind.
A freethinker like he was, Iqbal dismissed orthodoxy for most of his life, until he required guidance (or was pushed to seek it) by the Ahrar. In 1935, just three years before his death, Dr. Iqbal felt the urge to oppose the Ahmadiyya Sect, despite his four decades long active relationship with them. His close relatives were Ahmadis. His eldest son, Aftab Iqbal was sent to Qadian to study in the Ahmadiyya boarding school. These last three years of his life, gave Iqbal the popularity among the ultra-orthodox Ahrar, and later Jamaat e Islami and other deobad and even salafi-wahabi movements.
I would like to believe that Iqbal’s vision was a federation of fucntioning muslim provinces who followed rationalist Islamic ideology like his. But who can tell? Our Jihadis find the ailing, angry and vindictive Iqbal more agreeable.