The epistemic violence of the Raj

As far as it is my understanding the word, 'tribal' is a misnomer used administratively. It is used by the Raj and the Pakistani state to keep the Fata at the periphery. I guess, the word tribal became synonymous with governing with laws and rules which are driven by customs and traditions and not debated or written by an assembly/gathering. I don't see it is an existential identity. It is only an instrumental identity which the state imposes to make a region the periphery and outside the ambit of legal protections and constitutional guarantees for its strategic and development interests. It also is arbitrary. For instance Swat is also a tribal area in the parlance of the state but I have yet to come across anyone from Swat who calls himself a 'tribal'. The internalization of the word and concept of tribal, in my view, is a function of the level of mainstreaming.

The question that how come that we or some of us also believe themselves to be 'brave' and agree with the narrative of the state can be explained by presenting how knowledge is produced about Pasthuns and how we are made to consume it. Yesterday I came across a brilliant concept, though it was used in the discourse on feminism in Pakistan, I believe it can be generalized to a lot of other discourses. It is called, "self-orientalization" where the subjects see themselves through the lens and hence the stereotypes of exquisiteness of the orient! What has been happening to us is the same process, call is "self-stereotyping". We have taken the theories, idioms, narratives and such of the rulers or oppressors and have begun to see ourselves through those lenses and stereotypes. Our own interaction with ourselves is limited by the parameters of knowledge that comes down to us from the hegemonic structures. Most of the rash displays of bravado can be explained by calling it internalizing of 'their' subjectivities. For instance, the videos where a "bahadur Pathan" threatens India with AK-47 in hand is that self-stereotyping at play and that self-stereotyping is also the result of "narrative dominance" in that the man doesn't have that much easy access to other narratives and his "self-realization" is hindered forever because of erasure of other discourses which can make him see himself in another way.

As far as Pasthun poets are concerned who have talked about the glories of war and have sung paeans to bravery and chivalry can be explained by the perpetual wars that the Pasthun lands are in. While Khushal's poetry can be cited in support of celebrating the warrior's qualities, this is countered by poets and perhaps in the proportions of hundreds to one who celebrated other aspects of human condition and wrote on scoio-political and cultural conditions. Khushal baba was in war for much part of his life, yet his literary contribution like translation of a chapter of Quran into Pashtu and his other literary works makes him into a prolific writer. Peer-e-Rokhan was at the battlefield in his life but the book he wrote, Khair-ul-bayaan, is about spiritualism and theology. Malak Ahmad and Sheikh Milli were on battlefields much of their later lives but Sheikh Milli wrote a treatise on organization and distribution of lands! Ashraf Khan Hijri, Khushal baba's son, wrote on pain and suffering while being the leader of his tribe and the rebellion. Kazim Khan Shaia wrote on aesthetics using the idiom of nuance and subtlety that no one till now can match. Hafiz Alpuray wrote on spiritualism and mysticism when the whole land was gripped in the misery of war. I have quoted these few poets because they are few of the earliest ones. Many more can be cited of the later centuries.

It is not that only war is celebrated in our poetry and culture. War more than often had become a necessity as it was brought to our lands by the 'mainstream'. Chivalry and bravery are not celebrated as absolute qualities but because they had become necessary to maintain freedom.