Posted at 10.14.2018
The paper is a comparative analysis of two novels, Mohsin Hamid's Moth Smoking, and Bapsi Sidhwa's The Pakistani Bride-to-be. It targets two major character types in the novels, Mumtaz Kashmiri in Hamid's Moth Smoking and Carol in Sidhwa's The Pakistani Bride. Through a contrast of the two characters, the analysis highlights some important questions which theories of migrancy and hybridity tend to ignore or sideline. It highlights that cultural connections between your developed and the developing nations of the world occurs in a situation of unequal circulation of electric power. Culture is thus treated as not a privileged space of free conversation but an integral part of the game of political domination that has been played out in the wonderful world of vitality and politics. The study starts with the general theoretical record as expounded in the workds of Homi Bhabha, and Ashcroft, Griffiths and Tiffin. It sets out the question to be explored through the work of Aijaz Ahmed and explains the explanation for selecting the novels and personas for the comparative research. The analysis then analyzes the chosen characters at length. The analysis concludes by pointing out that in the light of the comparative research, it is as yet premature to enjoy the coming of your years of free cultural connections and exchange.
In a globalized ethnical space, just how do we articulate a distinct identity? Variances of race, ethnicity, and land have been dismissed as growing out of essentialism. Sexual differences remain debated; however, the course of the controversy is away from sexual essentialism - maleness of the male and femaleness of the female - and towards a genderless personality. Thus were living in a time where women and men are attributed (at least theoretically) equal company and control over their lives.
All the traditional demarcations of identity have been erased. Theories of hybridity and migrancy have expanded a celebratory gesture towards this dissolution of personality in a globalized space. Countries and cultures combination up with each other as never before. Relating to Homi Bhabha,
America contributes to Africa; the nations of Europe and Asia meet in Australia; the margins of the nation displace the centreThe great Whitmanesque sensorium of America is exchanged for a Warhol blowup, a Kruger set up, or Mapplethorpe's naked bodies.
In what of Ashcroft et al,
The postcolonial world is one where destructive cultural come across is changing to the popularity of difference on equivalent conditions. Both literary theorists and ethnic historians are starting to acknowledge cross-culturality as the potential termination point of any apparently endless human history of conquest and annihilation justified by the myth of group 'purity', so that the basis which the postcolonial world can be creatively stabilized.
This special event of hybridity, however, needs to be observed in its full political, economic and cultural framework. Leela Gandhi warns, "But if the words of hybridity is to maintain any seriously politics so this means, it must first concede that for some oppressed peoples, in a few circumstances, the fight is merely not over. Hybridity is not the one enlightened reaction to oppression. " Since 9/11, immigration procedures have become increasingly more stringent, visa constraints have been increased, hate offences in the developed countries have escalated. There can be an increasing focus on alienness of the migrants among the list of natives of the developed countries. A Pakistani passport will probably differentiate you from other fellow travelers by the sheer suspicion and scrutiny it arouses in the immigration representatives of the developed countries. In addition, the price tag on travel and house has also increased. Those that migrate need to pay a big price because of their travel and stay in the developed countries. Therefore, only the affluent classes are able the expense of travel and property in the developed countries. Remember these realities, Leela Gandhi (Gandhi, 1998) asserts that "we need to ensure that the euphoric utopianism of the discourse [of hybridity] does not degenerate into a early politics amnesia. "
Aijaz Ahmed also offers these realities at heart when he launches a scathing criticism of ideas of hybridity and migrancy. Relating to him,
"The basic proven fact that informs the notion of ethnic hybridity is in itself simple enough, specifically that the traffic among modern ethnicities is now so brisk that one may hardly talk about discrete national ethnicities that aren't fundamentally transformed by that trafficThe steps that follow this truism tend to be more difficult, however. At two ends of the same argument, this condition of ethnic hybridity is reported to be (a) specific to the migrant, more pointedly the migrant intellectual, living and working in the Western metropolis; and, at the same time (b) a generalized condition of postmodernity into which all contemporary cultures are actually irretrievably ushered - so that the physique of the migrant, especially the migrant (postcolonial) intellectual surviving in the metropolis, involves signify a general condition of hybridity and it is reported to be the main topic of a Fact that that folks living of their national ethnicities do not hold.
Towards the end of his newspaper, Aijaz Ahmed asks a rhetorical question, a question that for the purpose of my newspaper I take as an authentic question, and seek to answer through the comparative examination of two personas, Mumtaz Kashmiri and Carol, in two books by Pakistani freelance writers, Moth Smoke by Mohsin Hamid, along with the Pakistani Bride-to-be by Bapsi Sidhwa. Matching to Aijaz Ahmed "these festivities of hybridity foreground the unequal relationships of cultural ability today; alternatively, intercultural hybridity is presented as a deal of displaced equals which somehow transcends the profound inequalities engendered by colonialism itself. Into whose culture is someone to be hybridized and on whose terms?" This is the question I seek to answer in my own paper.
Both individuals under evaluation are women, but Mumtaz Kashmiri comes from Pakistan - a UNDER-DEVELOPED country - while Carol comes from America - the main of the First World country. Both personas are also migrants - Mumtaz migrates to America, while Carol involves Pakistan. Both have had some education in the American academy. Both are hitched to Pakistani men - Mumtaz to Aurangzeb, a westernized Pakistani, and Carol to Farrukh, an average (read jealous, dubious, hypocritical) Asiatic, Pakistani. Both relationships break down - Mumtaz's because Aurangzeb involves demand a normal role from her in caring for their son, and Carol's because she discovers the truth of the Pakistani/Asian uncivilized and brutal attitude towards women.
Thus both books dramatize a contact between Pakistan and America - a UNDER-DEVELOPED and a First World country. The contact however will not bring a social exchange; Pakistan has got the worse of the great buy. Mumtaz Kashmiri, the Pakistani girl, goes to America and gets Americanized (read civilized), while Carol comes to Pakistan and not only keeps her American cultural ideals, but also acquires a deep disgust for the Pakistani population. In both societies it is Pakistani culture and contemporary society that reaches problem, especially in its attitude towards women. However, this criticism of Pakistani contemporary society is made by having a evaluation with American ethnic principles, which also symbolize 'modernity' and 'civilization'. Oddly enough, the two novels seem to offer the familiar colonial discourse of the barbaric and uncivilized natives, the white man's (woman's in the two novels) burden, and the necessity for modernization of Pakistan. The next analysis of both personas brings this out more elaborately.
Mumtaz Kashmiri is a Pakistani born who goes to America to review. Oddly enough, her life before the stay in America is never referred to in the publication, even called by herself as unimportant to know for to understand her storyline:
Where to begin? Certainly before Muazzam [her child] was born. Definitely before I acquired hitched. Before I went to America? Hmm. No. We haven't the time to travel that far again at the moment.
The kind of woman she was before the trip is difficult to assemble from the novel. Her life in the us is detailed very vividly by Mumtaz herself. It is a life not only of fun and frolic, of party and drink, but also of significant amounts of learning:
I bear in mind arriving in the city for the first time, moving with my parents through the first world club's bouncers at Immigration, getting into a massive cab that didn't have a moment to waste materials, and falling in love as soon as we shot onto the bridge and I found Manhattan rise up through the looks of parental terror shown in the home window. I lost my virginity in New York twice (the second one had wished to believe that he was the first one so terribly). I had formed my mind blown open up by the blend of any liberal arts education and a drug-popping international group. I became tough. I put fun. I discovered so much.
This is the delivery of the crossbreed and the migrant. She manages to lose her virginity or purity of her culture double, once through the liberal arts education and the other through mingling with the drug-popping crowd. The past clinching sentences of the passing sum it up well. She's become tough, no longer the humble, earth-gazing Oriental girl, which perhaps she never was. She has had fun, drink, dance and drugs, and she has learned very much - a liberal arts education. That is the sort of migrant celebrated in postcolonial criticism. The voyage to the centre is the voyage abroad and from the culture of home. A crossbreed is person who accepts and imbibes the Western values and cultures. Corresponding to Leela Gandhi "The Western remains the privileged assembly ground for any ostensibly cross-cultural interactions. " Back, Mumtaz is constantly on the live out her Western ways. A Pakistani-American become an American-Pakistani.
Reading Moth Smoke cigarettes, one will be stunned to find that all heroes, situations, and topics seem to own been taken from an American underworld movie. Gender, party and drugs characterize this atmosphere. This world is the world of the top notch of Pakistan. The feudal lords, bureaucrats and higher levels of the military make up this class. Whether Mumtaz belongs to this group of people before her wedding to Aurangzeb, or joins it after her marriage is not clear from the book, which significantly doesn't identify her life prior to her sojourn in america. The liberating experience of liberal arts education, and a liberal and promiscuous culture will seem to attended to her as a surprising rvelation.
What part will the 'liberal arts education' play in hybridizing Mumtaz? A look at the curriculum of the liberal arts education offers such things as People Sexual Behavior, Introduction to Women's Studies, Issues in Feminism, Women and Community Action, etc. Going through such courses does 'start up' one's brain to issues one would never have considered while moving into a conventional culture like that of Pakistan. However, more than studying specific subjects, it is the proven fact that any subject matter can be studied by anyone, without the restriction of age, gender or culture, that seems to be 'liberating'. Therefore, the liberal arts education serves as a niche site of initiation in to the 'postmodern' culture of endless choices. It is not unusual that she views her vocation on paper. Many Pakistani English freelance writers are women residing in the united states.
Arif Dirlik has linked the popularity of postcolonial criticism in the American academy with the looks of the postcolonial intellectuals in America. However, his 'postcolonial intellectuals' are intellectuals prior to the entry into the American academy. There exists on the other hands a group of 'intellectuals' who acquire their 'intellectuality' only after they have been an integral part of the American academy. The fantastic value and welcome given to international level holders in Pakistani academies is proof of this 'bought' intellectuality. College or university education from America or any of the First World countries, including Australia, is information enough of a person's qualifications as an intellectual. The ideas of these international educated individuals are given great weight in Pakistani colleges specifically, and in Pakistani modern culture generally. After her go back to Pakistan, Mumtaz Kashmiri's transformation into Zulfikar Manto, a writer whose writings are greatly adored or hated but never disregarded, is facilitated by her American education.
After her return to Pakistan, Mumtaz begins writing under the pseudonym of Zulfikar Manto. The choice of the particular name discloses her belief of her self-identity and the objective that such an identity confers. The explanation for choosing this name, as she says Darashikoh is that Zulfikar is the name of your sword, while Manto is the name of the South Asian author notorious for working with intimate issues:
"Why Zulfikar Manto?" I [Darashikoh] ask her.
"Manto was my most liked short story writer. "
"And he composed about prostitutes, alcoholic beverages, intimacy, Lahore's underbelly. "
"That you ought to have guessed: Manto's pen was his sword. So: Zulfikar. "
She doesn't appear to be aware that Zulfikar was the sword of Hazrat Ali RA, and therefore, the name posesses strong spiritual flavour. The name is, therefore, a strange hybrid, combining religious beliefs and liberalism. However, once we reach see in the book, Mumtaz's writings have hardly anything regarding religion. The one use of the sword is in slashing down the chains of suppression and hypocrisy which may have bound the world of Pakistan. This change of name shows that in Pakistan, an example may be inhibited by the norms of the culture, and for that reason one has to create a false identity for oneself. Paradoxically, one has more potential for being his/her own do it yourself in this fake personal information than in his/her real personal information. As Zulfikar Manto, Mumtaz fulfills all her needs that cannot be fulfilled while she acts as Mumtaz.
How does Mumtaz see her role as Zulfikar Manto? She conceives her role among the 'enlightenment missionary' as detailed by Ian Almond. This enlightenment missionary, in the words of Almond, is a "Western-educated protagonist who detects himself [or herself], to his [or her] dismay, surrounded on all sides by way of a sea of ignorance and superstition he [or she] simultaneously deplores yet is intimately familiar with. " Almond explores the type of the missionaries based on these questions:
How do such enlightenment information operate in the postcolonial contexts? What do they understand as their project, and how would it change their romance to their parent or guardian culture? What kind of cross, schizophrenic self is needed for them to continue using both vocabularies? & most importantly, the type of indigenous subjectivities do such moments of enlightenment fervour produce?
Zulfikar Manto's writings reveal how Mumtaz recognizes her role in her 'home country'. "I published about things, " Mumtaz explains to us, "people didn't want seen, and my writing was found. " When Darashikoh asks him why she was fascinated with [Saadat Hasan] Manto's subject matter, she replies, "Finding I don't quite match what's expected. I'm considering things women do this aren't spoken about. Manto's stories let me breathe. They make me feel like less of your monster. " However, anyone acquainted with the works of Saadat Hasan Manto, and Ismat Chughtai will at once notice the difference between their works and this of Mumtaz/Zulfikar Manto. The reviews of Manto and Chughtai are reviews of human beings powered by their most primal intuition. There is a genuine desire in their works to bring out the most essential human passions and wants, and to give words to the marginalized classes in the Indian contemporary society. Manto's involvement in the prostitutes is certainly not pornographic, it is extremely humanistic. The prostitutes are treated as human beings with sense and sentiments, rather than as the devilish temptresses of genuine and pious men.
Zulfikar Manto's works are scandalous. His interviews of prostitutes, and stories of abduction of ladies, rapes and other crimes against women are not expected as a interpersonal criticism of the Pakistani culture. Instead, they are merely provocative, aimed at arousing hatred and offence among the readers. Mumtaz exults in the type of reaction her writings arouse in the visitors. Between her work and that of the true Manto, the difference is between that of journalism - plus some very bad journalism that thrives on sensational reviews and scandals - and art. As the real Manto snacks sex as part of individual life, Zulfikar Manto snacks intimacy as a scandal.
Theorists of hybridity also assert that a cross/migrant is gifted with a 'dual perspective'. In the words of Rushdie, the migrant freelance writers "are at one and the same time insiders and outsiders in this culture. This stereoscopic eye-sight is perhaps everything we can offer instead of 'whole view'. " Thus, the migrant, cross types writer has a much better understanding of both the First and the 3rd World civilizations, than any of the inhabitants of just one of these cultures may possess. In Mumtaz Kashmiri's circumstance, there doesn't seem to be any dual perspective. Her give attention to the atrocities dedicated against women in Pakistan is not driven by any desire for social action. There is absolutely no genuine interest that she's in the lives of these women she creates about. Actually, her own status as the 'elite' in Pakistani population keeps her far away from the ladies she creates about. Thus, in writing about the fighting of Pakistani women, she makes the same problem that Mohanty has identified in her essay, "Under Western Eye: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourse". Matching to Mohanty, feminist scholars derive their beliefs from European culture, and have an extremely superficial understanding of the lives of the women of the 3rd World culture. This insufficient understanding limits their understanding of the status of women in Third World cultures, and why atrocities are dedicated against them. (Full quotation from Mohanty's article is given later). The dual perspective that Rushdie attributes to migrants and hybrids increases out of a committed action to the home culture - a genuine regard for the anguish of the house people - and an gratitude of the followed culture. Though Mumtaz shows great appreciation of the followed culture, she lacks the determination to her home culture, the dedication that the true Manto experienced.
Thus Mumtaz considers her role as that of the enlightenment missionary, aiming to spread knowing of things people disregard. In doing so, she has to keep a dual id, that is certainly what causes the trauma in her life. On one hand, she is necessary to play the role of a wife and a mother in the traditional manner, a role she finds herself unfit to experience. Much though she tries to love her child, she never succeeds. Finally, she abandons this role. It is however, in her role as the enlightenment missionary that she discovers fulfillment. As Zulfikar Manto she finds a way of expressing her 'do it yourself'. Therefore, the schizophrenic, hybrid self applied that Almond has described destroys her relationship with her man and child.
Thus Mumtaz Kashmiri becomes Zulfikar Manto after her come back from America. The need to construct a new identity advises the alienating impact of her sojourn in America. Having been initiated in the cult of modernism, she actually is no more fit for the Pakistani population. This is actually the impact of hybridization.
The storyline of Carol in Sidhwa's The Pakistani Bride-to-be is that of another migrant. However, her movements is away from the centre and towards periphery. She marries a Pakistani because she prefers the way he behaves towards her. Farrukh, her husband, is very possessive and jealous towards her, and she basks in the light of his attention. She vacations to Pakistan and settles in Lahore. It really is here that she realizes that "what she experienced thought was a unique attraction for Farrukh possessed in simple fact been her desire for the spectacular. " Despite living in Lahore with Farrukh's family, she keeps her Americanness, the principles and practices of the Western world, such as a disregard for any superficial restraints after 'natural' instincts - sexual instincts to be more exact.
Dressed in close fitting trousers and half-sleeve t shirts, she actually is an thing of fantasy for Pakistani men, who lose no opportunity of ogling at her. This migrant does not undergo any enlightenment of the type Mumtaz goes through in america. Everything that she discovers about Pakistani culture is the 'atmosphere of suppressed sexuality':
Slowly Carol had begun to understand that even among her friends, where wives did not wear burkhas or live in special women's quarters, the general parting of the sexes bred and atmosphere of sensuality. The individuals seemed to absorb it from the air they breathed. This sensuality charged every come across no subject how trivial.
In this kind of atmosphere, Carol got found herself dropping her 'American beliefs': "It had corroded her innocence, stripped her, level by coating, of civilized American niceties. She was frightened to see a part of herself change into a hideously vulgar person. " However, she will enjoy the privileged position she has thanks to her being an American:
One of the nice surprises of her matrimony to Farrukh was her very special status. As an American married to a Pakistani she was allowed much more freedom when compared to a Pakistani better half. She could say things and escape with behaviour and dress that would have been stunning in a Pakistani - and even in an American. Cut loose from the constraints of her own culture, she did not feel limited by the new.
But her face with the native girl Zaitoon finally makes her opt to go back to her home.
She does try to choose herself to Pakistani culture. She tries to restrain her frankness with men, even with her husband's friends: "God knows Carol had tried out to modify her behaviour. She experienced conformed as well as anyone raised to be free and easy with men could! - she thought, reflecting on the advancements she had resisted, initially casually, then with increasing strain. " She even fantasizes marrying Sakhi, the Kohistani hubby of Zaitoon. She dreams:
He'd think her so special For his sake she would make an impression on all the women and men and children of his community. In the remote control reaches of his superb mountains, she'd enlighten a clan of savages and cavemen. She'd be their smart, beloved goddess, ministering Aspro and diarrhea pillsShe would champion their causes and focus the harmless glare of American academia upon these beautiful people, so pitifully hidden from the earth by a fold in the earth.
How much this dream retains the Orientalist and colonial vocabulary is apparent from this interior monologue.
This attempted hybridization, very correctly given the name of a fantasy, a wish brings only disillusionment. The writer has already warned us before Carol comes across a woman's cut off brain in the river: "But Carol, a child of the excellent Californian sunlight and browse, could forget about understand the beguiling twilight world of veils and women's quarters than Zaitoon could comprehend her independent life in the us. " Her finding of an tribal woman's sliced off head swimming in the river shocks her into the impossibility of the realization of her fantasy. Disillusioned, she finally realizes the 'otherness' of Pakistan and Pakistani people, specifically Pakistani women, even those 'hybridized' women 'with British isles accents', who 'used jeans from the US and tops from Paris, and whose children analyzed in Eton or Harvard: "She possessed related to them right away: and all of the sudden their amiable eyes flashed a secret quality that drew her into an incomprehensible world of sadness opulence of early intelligence and sensuality and cruelty"
Initially she acquired felt a bond between herself and Zaitoon, a Pakistani female, because of their common identities as women: "In the moment their eyes fulfilled, the renewable and black of their irises fused in a day and time old communion - an understanding they shared of the vulnerabilities as women. For an intuitive instant Carol felt herself submerged in the helpless drift of Zaitoon's life. " However, after her finding of the floating mind, she considers herself and Pakistani women as poles apart: "A branch of Eve acquired parted a way with time from hers". Finally, she actually is disgusted with her fantasy for the tribesman. She now thinks in the familiar vocabulary of the colonial immigrant: historic and modern. The Pakistani civilization and folks were too old on her behalf American modernity. She could "study them, notice every detail of their life, maybe even know them, but become one of these, never! She wasn't designed to match. She'd need an inherited recollection of old rites, taboos and reactions: inherited immunities, a new group of genes". With this realization, she actually is ready to go home, and tells Farrukh: "Your civilization is too earlytoo differentand it offers techniques can injure mereally injure meI'm heading home. "
A very important issue in this framework is lifted by Mohanty in her paper "Under Western Eye: Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourse". Matching to Mohanty,
assumptions of privilege and ethnocentric universality, on the one hand, and inadequate self-consciousness about the effect of Western scholarship or grant on the other, characterize a big extent of American feminist work on women in the third world. An evaluation of 'sexual difference' by means of a cross-culturally singular, monolithic notion of patriarchy or male dominance brings about the construction of your similarly reductive and homogenous idea of what I call the 'third world difference' - that steady, ahistorical something that evidently oppresses most if not absolutely all the ladies in these countries.
Carol's analysis of Pakistani world, particularly the intimate norms are coloured by her Western upbringing. When she looks at Pakistani women, she can't help borrowing from American feminist scholarship, as pointed out by Mohanty above. In Mohanty's words, such techniques tend to 'colonize' the Third World women through European feminist discourse.
It is interesting to notice the use of a complete selection of colonial vocabulary in Carol's contact with the Pakistani people and culture. Her marriage to Farrukh and migration to Pakistan is dependant on her pleasure in the spectacular. Pakistan is the land of dream and desire. In Carol's face with Pakistan, her 'gaze' is given much prominence. It is the familiar gaze of the colonizer, who observes, data, and transforms a culture and people into knowledge. The first time we meet Carol, she actually is "exploring the Himalayas", with her "green sight conveying their pleasure at the sight of the mountains and stream hurtling by in its urgency to hook up with the Indus. " In Lahore, she 'stared at the artisans making silver and gold jewellery" and seems "spellbound by the swirl of shade and feel. " However, her gaze is returned with twice the durability from Pakistani men, and with added malice from the tribesmen. Her sight arouses ogling among Pakistani men because of her dressing and the way she carries herself casually. However, the horror that she feels in the returned gaze is just a representation of her own sexuality which she admires in the sight of the 'civilzed' Pakistani men, including the major ('She realized the way of the major's sight and was warmed by an exultant female confidence"), but hates in the eyes of the tribesmen. The following passage brings this out more elaborately:
Now looking into Mushtaq's raffish sight, she thought light headedShe wanted to revel in the appreciativeness of his stare. But she realized better. Earthy and brazen, the men here expected subtlety from women. She experienced already responded too much.
Besides they were too exposed to the inquisitive stares of the tribals filing over the steep monitor overlooking the yard.
Carol's face solidified. Three tribesmen had stopped on the monitor looking down at her. The performed the ragged ends of these turbans between their pearly whites, and their eyes reviewed her insolently.
The major attempts to clarify their behaviour to Carol. These tribesmen have deep respect for their own women (who religiously take notice of the veil), but "let them spy an outsider and they go berserk in an orgy of view seeing!" It is as an outsider that she views the tribesmen, which is an outsider that they watch her. There may be "orgy of sight finding" on both edges.
The major's justification in this show brings out another fact: conditions of ethnical exchange are carefully controlled in the contact between an initial World and a Third World country, when this discussion takes place in a Third World country. The First World travelers in search of the exotic seldom get to start to see the true picture of the culture of the country they travel. Their dwelling is closely guarded and carefully segregated from the overall population of the Third World country. Just lately, with the spate of bombings at holiday resorts in Muslim countries, the tourist industry has experienced huge losses. At best, these holidaymakers get an opportunity to 'gaze' at the culture of people whose country they head to. Cultural involvement and exchange should never be involved. If at all any connections of the First World culture takes place with the Third World culture in a Third World country, it is with the affluent, westernized, overseas educated class of individuals.
This is what happens with Carol. The major instructs her, "Needless to say you only know the advanced, those Pakistanis who've learnt to mix socially. " Just a little later she matters the reason for her residing in Pakistan, despite severe difference with her man:
Prolonged morning hours coffees and bridge, delightful consultations of gossip with the group of Pakistani women who ever more formed her public group - American, Australian, and English, and other Europeans, committed to Pakistanis, who usually had hardly any in keeping. Sunk into cushions of leisure they shared confidences and wept with homesickness on each other's shoulder blades. In occasions of lonesome alienation, turning hostile, they sneered at unusual customs, at modernization not yet achieved, at native in-laws, and dirt and particles and primitive domestic plumbing.
Thus, in this First World-Third World ethnical contact, the 'other' is conspicuously absent or faraway. It is either a matter of attention ("artisans making gold and silver jewellery") or a subject of horror and hatred ("their eyes examined her insolently"). Cultural hybridity is impossible in this problem of social contact. Carol comes to Pakistan an American, and decides to go back to America without a trace of hybridity in her identity.
The above evaluation provides us an answer to the question Aijaz Ahmed asked rhetorically: Into whose culture is someone to be hybridized and on whose terms? The answer is that social interaction between your First World and UNDER-DEVELOPED takes place on terms and conditions identified by the First World. Itself ensconced behind immigration guidelines, military strength, monetary clout, and cultural ability, the First World overshadows the Third World in cultural contacts like in other connections, political, military, and monetary. Cultural interaction can't be dissociated from the political and economical realities of today. Where American military and economical establishments dwarf such companies of UNDER-DEVELOPED countries, American culture too overpowers the cultures of UNDER-DEVELOPED countries. The experiences of Mumtaz and Carol may be fiction. However they are fiction carved out of the reality of the unequal syndication of vitality - economic, military and ethnic - in today's world.
All this seems fairly simple. However, in the globalized ethnic space i outlined in the beginning, it has powerful implications. What does it suggest to be an American or a Pakistani in this globalized cultural space? May be the similarity in coloring of the Green Passport, and the "Green Cards", also a similarity in culture? Have we finally arrived at a time when allegiances of competition, ethnicity and region, even of gender, have ceased to subject and all humans have become identical? What effect does ethnical hybridity have on immigration plans, visa grants, and travel permits of the First World countries? The above research of Mumtaz and Carol's people implies that we remain far from a period when cultural hybridity will be an equal exchange of ethnicities. Right up until then, shall we enjoy, or shall we withstand?