The Mob and
the Pakistani Embassy
By Rabia Chowdhry and
Haider Mullick
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
On an early January morning
the Pakistani Embassy stands as a grand edifice
on the international court lane in Washington,
DC right next to Egypt and Malaysia’s embassies.
The seemingly miniature Mughal style palace is
breathtaking for a first timer.
The Pakistani embassy was not always housed in
grandiose buildings. Since President Musharraf’s
aggressive campaign to validate Pakistan’s
role in thwarting militant Islam the Pakistani
Embassy staff has adapted to represent the country
as a ‘modern Islamic state.’ What
better way to do that than a prominent embassy.
However, the staff members and the services provided
and the manner in which they are provided do not
always change by merely changing the exterior.
The Foreign Service bureaucracy is much more rigid
and pokerfaced.
On one of these cold January mornings, two Pakistanis
walked in to apply for a new passport, because
it was stolen; national IDs for Pakistanis living
abroad (NICOPs), and to attest legal documents.
The man had been there before. He remembered how
rushed he was when his mother needed a Power of
Attorney. He had waited several hours before the
embassy staff had notarized his documents after
pleading that a “rush fee” meant that
he deserved the service the same day. The woman
was new to embassy’s culture. Her family
had recently immigrated and she was waiting to
become a citizen. After traveling for hours they
walked into the passport section of the embassy
without presenting their IDs or any security check.
I guess the embassy staff was promoting a liberty-from-fear
atmosphere.
As they walked towards the service window they
saw a middle aged man with an expressionless face
reluctantly murmuring a salutation. The man and
woman got down to business right away. While examining
the various documents the staff member was more
interested in the woman’s photograph and
appalled by the Pakistanis’ poor choice
of expensive mailing option. “You must have
gotten your photos in Pakistan, right? You’re
driving the American photo shops out of business.”
The woman ignored the comment by an innocuous
smile. The man cleared his throat to catch the
bureaucrat’s attention. “Don’t
worry about the photo or how much we have spent
on our mailing option, please tell us about what
we need,” the man asserted. The bureaucrat
replied that both Pakistanis had all the forms
filled out appropriately but he was unable to
take the national ID application because the “office
had closed.” On inquiry he refused to say
when it was closed or when it will reopen. However,
he showed an entire pile of forms left behind
by numerous people without a confirmation receipt
hoping that the “NICOP office will open
soon.” The man argued that they had traveled
from a far away town and were surprised because
the website said otherwise. In either case the
man and the woman decided to submit the forms
on faith.
The stolen passport was another matter. “She
will be interviewed,” the bureaucrat pointed
to the woman as if she was a child controlled
by the man. The man defied the bureaucrats’
implicit chauvinism by directly addressing the
woman. She agreed and the long wait began. After
three hours she was finally “interviewed.”
But before the interview both experienced a wave
of unprofessional behavior from the bureaucrat
and several patrons. Two stories would stand out.
First, a middle aged woman walked in, cut in line,
and demanded that a new passport with a name change
must be issued for her son, because she had a
flight to catch at 3pm the same day to visit her
dying mother-in-law. The window bureaucrat refused
and reluctantly asked her to wait while he consulted
his superior. In the meantime she called “someone
important” and handed the phone to the bureaucrat
while he was talking to another patron. Shocked
by her violation he reluctantly held the phone
only to discover that he would be coerced into
providing patronage by the person on the phone.
His superior was a middle aged bearded man wearing
a shalwar kameez and always in a hurry to leave
his office albeit for a few minutes. The superior
decided that her case was weak and that she was
awfully late regardless of her extenuating circumstances.
The phone call from “someone important”
did work in the second incidence. A young man
dressed in business attire was restless from the
beginning. When his turn came he was perturbed
by the unprofessional and increasingly rude attitude
of the window bureaucrat. He abruptly turned around
and shouted that he would complain. “Please
don’t complain sir I will do as you say.”
Who was really unprofessional? The window bureaucrat
or the angry young patron?
As the young man smiled at the man and the woman
the window bureaucrat finally asked the woman
to come to his superior’s office for an
“interview.” This came after hours
of waiting and constant reminder that the man
and the woman were first in line but seemed to
have been last to receive service. No one knew
of the relationship between the man and the woman,
yet the man was allowed to go in with the woman
without any questions. The interview was for the
woman who had lost the passport but all the questions
were directed towards the man.
Sometimes, the woman was even referred to in the
third person as if she wasn’t even there.
The interview was a joke. The superior was interrupted
numerous times by phone calls and sudden walk-ins
by embassy staff members’ starting conversations
that were anything but germane to the interview.
“I will extend your passport for another
year.” The man and woman were thanking the
superior when the window bureaucrat walked in
screaming “I’m all alone outside and
it’s a like a mob…my co-workers have
left because one of them had a medical emergency
and the other one I’m not sure where she
is…”
He waited for the superior’s reaction, hoping
to receive some help. The reaction was blatant
indifference. What was really going on? Was a
fairly large embassy out of staff members? Or
was it sheer unprofessional ethics embodied in
you’re-on-your-own philosophy of irresponsiveness?
Why were the staff members complaining about a
four- hour five days a week shift? On the other
hand, why were patrons compelled to explicitly
use patronage against the outnumbered, seemingly
over worked, and justifiably inundated window
bureaucrat?
With mixed feelings and shock the man and the
woman left. What they had experienced was not
an isolated incident. Their story is symbolic
of many stories. When one doesn’t know someone
important or when the ambassador is not conducting
a visit the lack of professionalism in bureaucrats
and the lack of civic culture in the patrons becomes
a recipe for inefficient government. The hope
is that one of these days when someone else walks
in on a cold January morning maybe, just maybe,
things will be different on both sides.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
