In with the
Old, out with the New
By Sir Cam
Cambridge, England
One reason why the electronic
media may bring an early demise of its paper relations
is the damn weight of some books. One such book,
which I’ve been attempting to lift over
the past week, is Forty-one Years in India by
Field Marshall Lord Roberts (1897). It comes in
two volumes, has over 1,000 pages, and weighs
enough to give you a backache.
Fancy lugging a heavy tome from the library? Fancy
carrying it on your
head as you walk home, like those village women
with brick-red clay gharas (pitchers) of water
perched on their heads as they make their way
across the fields? Fancy puffing along in the
heat, defying gravity as you struggle to keep
the book(s) above the ground, without being dragged
to the core of the earth?
Technology has lightened the burden. The CD-ROM,
DVD or those fantastic
new pen drives are like a nimble mammal in comparison
to some of the mega-ton weighing monster books.
It’s certainly easier to carry a computer
disc in your pocket than to cart some books about.
It’s even simpler to plug into the Net.
Is it the end of books? Are books going to become
extinct, like those doomed dinosaurs millions
of years ago? No! We love books. They are magic.
We can touch and feel them. They are real in a
way electronic media is not.
There is even something holy about them. And as
a bonus they help build the biceps. Books will
be around long after the DVD becomes obsolete.
Technology is great, but it doesn’t wipe
out everything that it replaces in the way that
is often predicted. In fact, it enhances the value
of the old and the traditional. The new does not
have to kill off the old. Both can coexist. There
is often harmony and beauty in seeing the old
and the new side by side. It is like seeing black
and white together, or appreciating the juxtaposition
of East and West. It is lovely to see an ancient
book next to the latest laptop computer.
Old does not equate with rubbish; new doesn’t
always mean progress.
Some of the old is evergreen, everlasting: golden
oldies. Some of the new is ephemeral, short-lasting,
exciting at the beginning, but soon doomed to
the rubbish heap. There is something “tried
and tested” about the old, while the new
thrills with its youth.
The problem, as I’ve seen it in desi culture,
is that, except for certain religious and societal
customs (respect for the elders, for example),
the old is deemed fit for the bin, while the new
(often Western) is embraced with open arms. There
is a love affair with the new, contempt for the
old and the past. People boast about having the
latest this and the latest that.
People frown in disgust at the old. Companies
in Pakistan proudly declare “established
in 2000”, while those in England say “established
in 1799” (or at least founded long before
2000).
Sure, Pakistan is a new country, and England an
old one. And, of course, Pakistan has a problem
with the pre-1947 era. It’s as if the geographic
area that is now called Pakistan did not have
a past. It’s as if everything the British,
Sikhs, Hindus, and Buddhists did in this area
is to be condemned or forgotten, and everything
to do with
the Arabs and Islamic past is praiseworthy. The
one does not take away from the other. Pakistanis
can be proud of their extremely rich heritage.
And, one ponders, what is there so exceptionally
great that we can be proud of since 1947? So,
you may like to consider, the new is not always
a giant leap for mankind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
