Customer Reviews

To Live or to Perish Forever: Two Tumultuous Years in Pakistan

5 star:		(13)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Schmidle grabs your attention from the beginning and in just a few pages introduces you to the real Pakistan and the way it works. The police come to his apartment at night and tell him he must leave the country immediately. Schmidle's wife Rikki, who knows influential people in government, suggests calling a senior "patron," who takes the phone and intercedes with the police to leave them alone. The Schmidles have been in Pakistan for two years, Nicholas on a writing fellowship learning all he can about Pakistan and its people.

The next morning they call their patron again. Schmidle notes that knowing the right people in Pakistan is critical, but it's far more important not to know the wrong people, who can get you in more trouble than the right people can get you out of. Schmidle's patron tells him the matter is "way above his head" in government and they should leave Pakistan immediately. Schmidle had published an article in the New York Times Magazine exposing the new generation of Taliban leaders.

The book begins with a quotation suggesting no one can truly understand another person. Nonetheless, you believe when you have concluded this book that you truly understand the people and the situation in Pakistan better.

As I write this (May 2009), Pakistan may well become, in the next year, the most important place in the world in terms of the security of the United States and Europe. This book will give you insight into this country and these people that will be critical in understanding the news coverage.

Nicholas became fluent in Urdu, wore local mufti, and personally met with all of the key players in Pakistan, as well as many of the common people. Pakistan is not so much a country as a confederation of competing ethnic and ideological groups, each of whom seek complete hegemony.

I was first introduced to this book through an interview heard on NPR and was captivated by Schmidle and his insights. The major networks, with 30-60 second news stories, will never be capable of communicating what is really happening in Pakistan. This book is a must-read for understanding Pakistan today -- and it is compellingly interesting to read.

Journalists who cover Pakistan have a certain bravado to their demeanor that is understandable at one level. Covering the tribal areas of the country is dangerous for foreigners and they certainly have to be credited for undertaking such assignments despite all the travel warnings. However, when the assignment to cover the story is somewhat undermined with a reporter's impulse to "become the story," then the reporting becomes problematic. While Mr. Schmidle's book has some good insights about the Taliban's roots in Pakistan, there is a persistent self-indulgence in the narrative. This tendency can be seen right at the start of the book which recounts the author's expulsion from Pakistan - an episode that he portrays as a mysterious plot by the intelligence services against him. With the help of the Pakistani ambassador he is able to return in 2008 to cover a more benign story on Sufi dervishes for the Smithsonian. Again he claims to be shadowed by the intelligence services and leaves the country under security provided by the US consulate in Karachi. He seems very self-absorbed about his own importance in the narrative which I found troubling and it detracts from the seriousness of the topic being covered. Mr. Schmidle makes his interaction with Pakistan "personal" but in a more self-centered and negative way. At once he says that he pities poor Pakistanis who can't leave the country like he did under US escort while he also envies other foreign reporters who were able to continue to work there. It would have been useful if Mr. Schmidle had also included some self-reflection about why he may have been singled out? One of the reasons may be that his reporting style is caustic and condescending (as exemplified by his little piece for Foreign Policy titled "An Idiot's Guide to Pakistan), and his prose is provocative without persuasion. He also has a tendency to amplify rebellion and dissent to magnify chaos that meets his story line.

The epigraph at the start of the book from Graham Greene's "The Quiet American," is also a bit enigmatic. The statement offers a critique of religious nationalism on the one hand but in correspondence with me via email Mr. Schmidle indicated that he intended the quote to show how reporters need to be embedded in the field rather than being quietly on their desks (which underscores my earlier point about bravado).

While the issue of Pakistan's complex identity should be challenged by scholars and reporters, it needs to be done with nuance, and an appreciation of how the complex identity of this country has still endured against many odds over a period of more than sixty years. In these troubled times reporters have a duty to go beyond writing entertaining stories about their travels but rather to unravel the causes of conflict with care rather than comic relief at the expense of a stressed community.

One could give the book a pass as a travelogue of an itinerant adventurer but the author's base as a researcher at a Washington think tank indicates that his aim with this book was to establish himself as a policy analyst. This book clearly does not meet those standards and media outlets should recognize the distinction between anecdotal travel writing, peppered with self-selected interviews versus carefully fact-checked research.

There are a number of excellent journalists from outside Pakistan who understand the country and the people in a more than superficial way. One of these is Nicholas Schmidle, a freelance journalist who has written extensively on Pakistan for almost three years now for various publications.

In fact, Schmidle would rank very high on my admittedly short list of favorite foreign correspondents who have written on Pakistan and South Asia. Owen Bennett-Jones would be ranked first. Schmidle would be second. Carlotta Gall would be third, and Steve Coll would be fourth. David Sanger would be last -- if Pakistan-based journalism was football, Sanger would be Papua New Guinea.

Schmidle practices journalism of the best kind, and this is evident in his fascinating and arresting portrayal of Pakistan in his recently released book, To Live Or To Perish Forever: Two Tumultuous Years in Pakistan. Schmidle does not rely on hearsay or rumors. If he hears something, he tries to corroborate by going to the source, even if doing so represents real physical danger. Schmidle does not rely on a handful of sources in air-conditioned drawing rooms or foreign embassies or alarmist think tanks or compromised intelligence agencies. He meets anyone and everyone willing to talk, including terrorist mullahs and naswar vendors. Schmidle is not a drive-by expert, whose interest and study of Pakistan is a passing fad -- he speaks Urdu, conducted almost all his interviews in the national language, and wore shalwar kurtas whenever the situation demanded it. He is basically an anthropologist masquerading as a journalist.

Once you pick the book up, you will not be able to put it down. It's written very lucidly and features in-depth interviews and stories featuring anyone and everyone you've ever heard of. In a way, being in Pakistan as a journalist is easy -- as long as you ignore the threats to your physical safety and life. Why? Because Pakistanis like to talk. Have you ever met a Pakistani who could keep a secret? Me neither. No one is shy, and if there's one thing that stands out in Schmidle's book, it's the sheer number of people who chose to go on the record, despite some highly sensitive information being proferred.

Schmidle's book is exactly what the title suggests: an account of his time in Pakistan, perhaps the most tumultuous two year period in the country's history other than 1970-1972. Just count the game-changing events and processes that we witnessed from mid-2006 to mid-2008: Chief Justice controversies (dismissed in March '07, reinstated in July '07, dismissed again in November '07); assassinations and assassination attempts (BB, Sherpao, Fazlur Rehman); the Presidency changing hands (Mush to Zardari); the Army changing hands (Mush to Kayani); the lawyers' movement; the Taliban violence (2007 had a suicide bombing once a week on average, and claimed more than 1000 lives); the May 12 violence; ethnic tensions rising between the MQM and ANP in Karachi...the list goes on and on. In fact, reading this book gave me a sense of just how crucial the year 2007 really was. It's the type of year that historians will be talking about for a long, long time. Sometimes while we're in the middle of it, we sometimes lose perspective. But you gain it right back when you read Schmidle's work.

But forget the history for a second -- if there's a reason to read this book, it's the stories. Oh, the stories. You want conversations with the infamous Ghazi Abdul Rasheed of Lal Masjid? Schmidle basically became his best friend (I exaggerate, but only a little). You want an insight into Taliban- and militant Islamist violence? Schmidle talks to Maulana Fazlullah and an assortment of radical elements, traveling to places where, forget journalists, the Pakistani military doesn't have the guts to go. You want to know more about Shia-Sunni tensions in the big cities? Schmidle goes to a 10th of Muharram procession, and even gets invited to Shia Islam by an adolescent. You want to know how many buttons Asif Zardari unbuttons to play with his chest hair? Schmidle will tell you. What about the Balochi low-level insurgency? Schmidle spends days in Gwadar and Quetta, talks to Balochi politicians and locals, and gives you his impressions. What does Farooq Sattar eat as he is driven from Karachi to Hyderabad, and what happens to his mood as they go through Sohrab Goth? Schmidle will tell you. I can't emphasize this enough: Schmidle talks to everyone. E-V-E-R-Y-O-N-E. In this respect, it really is a top-notch book, and I can't recommend it highly enough.

This does not mean I don't have criticisms. I do. Two are primary. First, there is no overarching theme in the book. Schmidle jumps from crisis to crisis, issue to issue, and doesn't really give us any insight on a central thesis he may have. One doesn't know if this was intentional or not, but it doesn't matter, because the reader is often left feeling like (s)he is on a roller-coaster. In many ways, Pakistani society and politics does mirror a roller-coaster ride. But it should be up the author to ground the individual issue areas into a grander narrative, and Schmidle fails to provide us one. In the end, only readers already somewhat familiar with Pakistan will be able to keep pace as Schmidle jumps from Balochistan to FATA to Islamabad to Dhaka in the blink of an eye (the chapters are only about 20-25 pages long on average).

The second criticism centers on the acute pessimism reflected in Schmidle's book. I am in two minds whether this constitutes a valid criticism or not. On the one hand, there is an awful lot wrong with Pakistan, and none of what Schmidle says or reflects is untrue. On the other hand, I think if one were to land on earth from outer space and read Schmidle's book, one would have expected Pakistan to collapse a long, long time ago. To reiterate, none of what Schmidle says is untrue. But in a book -- as opposed to a journalistic article or report, where writers are often constrained by editorial requirements and word limits -- Schmidle should have told us a little bit about how, despite the many challenges Pakistan faces, it continues to trudge along, just barely. In social scientific terms, Schmidle's account overpredicts state collapse.

That said, Pakistanis and followers of Pakistan could do worse than pick up Schmidle's book. Considerably worse. He weaves history into his excellent work as a journalist, and I for one am thankful to him for writing this book. I am also thankful for the following sentence, which to my mind summarizes Pakistani society better than most articles or books:

Connections were a double-edged sword, and knowing the wrong people could land you in more trouble than knowing the right people could get you out of.


Reading To Live Or To Perish Forever, you realize that Schmidle speaks from experience, a quality that underlines the entire book.

Now, if only we could get him to organize a workshop, and have David Sanger attend.

Schmidle is a brave journalist who got his start on a two-year, all-expenses-paid fellowship in Pakistan. He made the most of it, traveling to remote regions of the country and hanging out with some of the country's notorious opposition leaders.

He used to make regular visits to Lal Masjid (the Red Mosque), just down the street from his house in Islamabad, to hang out with its leader. But then, in the summer of 2007, it became international news when then-dictator Musharraf decided he'd had enough opposition from Lal Masjid, where they were preaching against the government and stocking up arms.

Schmidle gained access to people in Pakistan that few foreign journalists have, and in To Live or to Perish Forever, he uses it to give a fascinating look into the stories behind the bombings and conflicts that get reported in the western press. One quibble about the reporting, however, is that he mainly seems to hang out with the leaders, and doesn't talk to average people as much. If he did talk to average people much, it's not clear it influenced his ideas.

Toward the end of the book, it might seem a bit disappointing when he writes: "I thought back to the question my grandfather had put to me more than a year earlier, when he asked, genuinely curious, 'What's wrong with that place?' I realized that I was no closer to offering a comprehensive answer now than I had been back then. That bothered me. The political, social, economic, and religious dynamics embedded in Pakistan seemed to become more and more complicated--and volatile--with time, and less and less solvable."

But I've lived in Pakistan nearly two years now, and although I haven't spent time with the kind of people that Schmidle has, I have the same feeling as he does. There's no clear answer about where things are headed, or what to do about it. When I've gone back to the U.S., people want to know what I think about Pakistan, what should be done. But it's really hard to say much.

Perhaps the best answer is simply to curb corruption, to help make development faster, and much more fair. That's not the kind of answer people are looking for, though, because it's a solution that would take decades, and no one can see the benefits on the horizon, it seems.

I also think Schmidle is on the right track when he writes: "I disagreed with those who said that ethnic tension, the Taliban, economic crises, years of military dictatorship, the lack of a cohesive identity and so on would eventually lead to Pakistan's breakup. That would almost be too linear and neat: creation, extended crisis, and then dissolution. It seemed more likely that Pakistan would continue to exist in a perpetual state of frenzied dysfunction; alive, but always appearing to be on the verge of perishing."

I wish he'd backed this up a bit more, since statements like this can seem like little more than personal bias. Some people see looming collapse everywhere--not just in Pakistan--whereas others see things stumbling along indefinitely. I do think he's right, though, to argue against Pakistan's collapse. People talk about that a lot--to the point where it made headlines when the President said the government is not going to collapse. What President would say that it would?

I don't think it will collapse because things are still developing. In the western press, all you hear about is things being blown up. But new buildings are going up. Pakistanis place a high value on education, and even the very poor still pay to send as many of their kids to school as they can.

It's true that not everyone in the country identifies as Pakistani first--they might have more allegiance to their sect of Islam, or to their tribe. But there's still a fair amount of people from the tribal areas who think of themselves as Pakistani first. No one seems to know what to do about the rampant corruption, but most do recognize it a big barrier blocking improvement here--and recognizing that is a crucial first step.

Average Pakistanis still have hope for the future, and that's the most basic reason I can see why the country isn't going to collapse any time soon.

This is an extraordinary book by an extraordinary young man. It describes the turmoil and chaos that is the political and social maelstrom known as Pakistan. Schmidle spent two years on a fellowship (2006-2008) obtaining a very visceral and personal view of Pakistani society and politics. Well, almost two years, because a month before his scheduled departure, he was deported. The book, he declares, is "my humble attempt to explain the many identities and histories that exist throughout Pakistan.
He succeeds brilliantly. The only constant in Pakistani life seems to be its "chronic instability". Even dedicated Pakistani-watchers have trouble tracking the ebb and flow of destructive, destabilizing forces. One reason is that political assassination is so prevalent and , in this age of suicide bombers, terrifyingly efficient. Too many Americans seem to think that all Muslims are alike or that all militant Islamists are alike. Schmidle provides us with a much more believable and chaotic view.
Schmidle is a story teller, and a darn good one at that. In fact, he makes many of his points more through story-telling than analysis, and it gives his work a wonderful vitality. So, for example, he opens the book with the account of the police showing up at his apartment with deportations orders that they were going to execute without any delay. He managed to make a phone call to an important person who just happened to be playing bridge at that moment with the President of Pakistan's national security advisor, who told Schmidle to give the phone to the policeman in the room. In a matter of seconds, the policeman was apologizing for the inconvenience and left the apartment. "Connections...(he tells us, in case we missed the point)...meant everything in Pakistan".
Schmidle seems to have an uncanny ability to make those connections with all sorts of prominent and sometimes downright-scary people. He has the courage of a bandit, and he must be as engaging a talker as he is a writer because he talks himself into and out of countless dramatic encounters. As a result, the reader gets to be part of his involvement with important government officials, Islamist radicals, both leaders and potential suicide killers, and a variety of others who simply make things happen.

Nicholas Schmidle, a newly wed 26-year old research fellow, went to Pakistan for a two-year stint. His instructions were to go; don't come home, learn and write about what you hear and see. And this he did with astonishing clarity, depth and objectivity. There he lived as a Pakistani, learning to speak and write Urdu. What he learned and how he learned it were both dangerous, and eventually did put his life and that of his family at constant risk. Yet, compelled by his own inner drive, the author persisted.

We, the reader, are the beneficiaries of this exceptional author, his determination, his uncommon skill as a writer and the many revelations that seem fresh and indispensable to a full understanding of both the complexity and the dynamism that is Pakistan the country -- as well as the volatile region of which Pakistan is a pivotal part. What he discovers confirms a treatise by one of his mentors: that Pakistan is not yet a country, but a land of basically five side-by-side ethnic amalgams: independent ethnic strains held together only tenuously by their barely stable Islamic identity. Even the religious glue that holds together Islam, is no guarantee of an eventual stable nation state.

Riddled with world-class corruption and hypocrisy, all of the well-known problems of religious and class strife are greatly exacerbated in Pakistan. For the most part, radical Islamic groups such as the Taliban, are "backfilling the void" left by an ineffective and uncaring government, as the divide between rich and poor continues to grow dramatically and alarmingly. Schmidle's stories and vignettes give texture to the reality and the problems that are everyday Pakistan. It relates his stories region-by region. Following in the footsteps of, and feeling the ghost of Daniel Pearle, he learns his way around just enough to stay in trouble, interviewing radical Taliban tribal leaders, taking risk that only some one of his age and bullet-proof courage would take.

The upshot of his stay is this: There is far more at stake in Pakistan than we can even imagine. It is the most dangerous, the most dynamic and the most important country in the world as far as U.S. interests are concerned. And unless the civilian government wakes up, Talibanization of the country will continue. Because of the corruption, hypocrisy, and most of all the profound differences in wealth and lack of viable concern for the poor, this difference cannot be long sustained. Something has to give: There is a collision course in Pakistan's social and political future, perhaps on the order of what happened to the Shah of Iran in 1979. A hellava read: Ten stars

I won't be traveling to Pakistan but I feel like I have already been there by reading this very descriptive book. It made every thing very real and alive and took me into a culture that I would otherwise never know.

This is a really good book if you are interested in broadening your knowledge of Pakistan; it is one of the best books out there, if you don't know much about the country. Nicholas Schmidle did a superb job, and I strongly recommend this book.

However keep in mind that the author did not go to Pakistan as a historian, nor on in-debt political research assignment; for this reason the book presents a journalistic view of how the situation is on the ground, not the history behind it. If you are interested in why Pakistan is the way it is, or want a better analysis of where it might be heading, I would strongly recommend "The Duel: Pakistan on the flight path of American Power" by Tariq Ali.

The book is an easy read, in chronological order (for the most part), and even though it is non-fiction, it holds the feel of an interesting novel. Schmidle did start the book by describing how authorities showed up at his residence with a deportation order. Someone here, in the reviews, implied that the author did this to point out his own importance, but I don't think that is the case. I think he just wanted to start the book with a hook to get the reader's attention; Schmidle is actually very humble. If I was in a foreign country, I learned the language, wore local dress, followed local customs, interacted with some very dangerous individuals, and was bothered by authorities, I would do a lot more self-promoting in my book.

I don't think the author has "Gone Native" but he does hold some views that most people in the West, and a number of people in Pakistan, generally don't hold. For example, he gives the extremists responsible for the "Red Mosque" incident far more credit; that is my opinion anyway.

Overall the reader does get the feeling that Nicholas Schmidle genuinely cares about the people of Pakistan, and holds deep respect for the country. It seems like he did his best to gain a better understanding of the situation on the ground. It is unfortunate that he could not be able to do his work in Pakistan for longer period.

Like most reviewers I found this book invaluable because of its attempt to map the internal politics of Pakistan. Schmidle appears to be not only an exceptionally brave and resourceful journalist, with the nous to construct and maintain relationships with a large number of 'dangerous' people but also a guy who is very well read and committed to the country he made his home and lived in for two years. He also has emotions, viz his experience at the Sufi festival and his clear personal regard for some of these 'dangerous' people.

Some reviewers who are from Pakistan seem to resent what they feel is an unfavourable view of their country. It is their country and they would know best but from my perspective as an outsider I get a lot of respect and admiration for its people albeit with also a lot of concern for the political chaos that Schmidle portrays.

One reviewer at least, however, has pointed out that perhaps chaos is 'overpredicted' and that Schmidle doesn't give much evidence of talking to ordinary people, only to those at the hub of political/religious movements. This is a fair point.

Nevertheless if like me you were puzzled at what you read in the newspapers about how the government seems to support and not support the US or the Taliban this book might help explain that and other issues such as the relative positions of Musharraf and Bhutto.

Finally some criticise Schmidle for having an ego or writing from a personal point of view. I see their point but also feel this has advantages because it is in reading about how the many people he met reacted to him that we can try and put ourselves in the situation.

Fantastic book.

This young American risked his life exploring Pakistan (and Bangladesh). Some time ago a French magazine had a searing headline labeling Pakistan as the `most dangerous country on the planet'. Mr. Schmidle does not disprove this. Beyond a doubt (as other books have also done) Mr. Schmidle demonstrates that the Taliban use the North West Frontier province as their fiefdom - this with the active support of Pakistan's ISI. This double game of supporting radical Islamists is starting to catch up with the Pakistani government itself as it becomes the target of these extremists. The Pakistani government is being encroached upon more and more - witness for instance the seizure of the Red mosque in Islamabad, the capital city.

Pakistan appears to contain several competing states within it. Balochistan has its own independence movement. As mentioned the FATA areas are administered in some areas by Taliban proxy governments and the Pakistani army ventures there only sporadically. The author describes riots in Karachi where the police were unable to intervene against armed groups

Radical Islam permeates the entire country - the government is compromising itself by constantly seeking accommodation with it. Both Pakistan and Bangladesh started as secular states (Bangladesh seceded from Pakistan in 1971). Hinduism is barely tolerated in Bangladesh. Unfortunately the secularists are the upper classes and do not have the power or numbers to effectively deal with Islamists. I also imagine many of them are choosing to leave.

It is an exciting but also a sad book because Pakistan is obviously disintegrating and where this will lead is anyone's guess. Most of the interviews conducted by Mr. Schmidle were with men - Benazir Bhutto was assassinated. The author was `forced' to leave by cryptic messages from mysterious government agencies. It almost seems that Pakistan is as far removed from Western democratic values (and human rights) as can be imagined.