It is axiomatic that we will always be faced with difference in our lives. The way our societies have evolved, or the way we are as a species, we occupy a moment in time where difference and diversity are the name of the game. Everywhere you go, anywhere you look, there are people who are different, the forever present proverbial ‘other’ that is an entity to be reckoned with. In the presence of such diversity, it becomes imperative upon us to not harm each other in the hopes of imposing conformity. Unfortunately though, people have different responses towards difference. And by difference, I mean difference in its starkest of forms: in matters of belief and orientation, as well as behavioural attributes. Some people through the ages have of course taken issue with this strand and have gone on horrific quests to end all difference but, these days, the liberal consensus maintains that discrimination rooted in beliefs and attributes goes against the human ideal. One can oppose this in a knowledgeable fashion but all this notion implies is that since causing harm to others produces self-harm in one way or another, we have to find a way to coexist. One way difference has been accommodated in recent times is through the notion of interaction, the idea that the more you interact with people who are ‘different’ from you, the more you will learn to respect them as a person and stop cultivating prejudice. This is the reason why we have cultural exchanges, dialogues and basically any form of interaction among different people to foster a convergence towards the utopia of live and let live. While this idea has seen widespread application, it remains limited in its effectiveness since interaction by itself is not enough to combat bigotry. The reason behind this is that no matter how tolerant we are, or no matter how accommodating we perceive ourselves to be, bigotry operates in subtle ways and always rears its ugly head from time to time. Nonetheless, the world we inhabit certainly has a mix of people who are tolerant or otherwise, thereby allowing us to place ourselves along a relative scale. That is the case in Pakistan as well, where one sees all sorts of variance in the tolerance levels among citizens. Some people become uncomfortable at the very sight of difference and would rather have all difference suppressed and removed, whereas others are still able to at least tolerate diversity, even though they may not be comfortable with it. A small minority, however, can lay claim to the notion of true accommodation, to the idea that no matter how stark the difference we can always co-exist with each other and even thrive in such conditions. The reason I consider such people to be a minority in our country is because mainstream Pakistani society, through its various formal and informal institutions, has been able to achieve the suppression of difference so completely and absolutely that very rarely do we get to witness difference in its truest forms anymore. Everywhere we go, we see individuals mimicking each other, worried more about vanity and how others perceive them to be rather than getting busy with living their lives as they would want to. It will not be too far from the truth to say that in Pakistan difference has been repressed to the degree where anyone who does not conform is shunned from the mainstream. The most difference, therefore, we come across are deviations in physical or socio-economic attributes, and we remain oblivious to the variances in human behaviour and personalities. Whenever the question of difference arises — as it does most poignantly in the Republic with matters of faith and belief — the accommodating space is largely non-existent. But that is a luxury us Pakistanis are not afforded when we interact with people from other nations and cultures. In countries of a more foreign nature, we come face-to-face with people not only of different ethnicities, but also of different beliefs and orientations. And that is where the chinks in the carefully cultivated homogeneity of a Pakistani upbringing start to show. Now, even the most tolerant among us would not shudder at the proposition that indifference — or sometimes, even bigotry — operates far more subtly than can be conceived. But I would suggest that even for the more tolerant among us, bigotry is still present in one form or another, and that such bigotry becomes more pronounced as interaction with the ‘other’ increases. That, of course, is a radical notion but not because I want to lay claim to some misplaced, revolutionary fervour. Rather, the notion is radical because it challenges the status quo, it challenges the comfort zone that we all have created around us and it does that in painful ways. Furthermore, it challenges the bigotry that allows certain people to cry tears of horror at the subjugation of minorities abroad but who are nonetheless blind enough to be able to ignore the minorities taking their trash out. Given such a homogenous society within the country, how many among us can claim to show tolerance towards matters of faith, orientation and personal preferences when it becomes really personal, to the extent that it starts to impact us, our families, and our relationships? How many among us have thought about accommodating difference when it comes to our own siblings and/or children? The reason I bring these uncomfortable notions up is because I want to contend that accommodating difference when it does not really matter is not enough: if we truly have to accommodate difference, then that requires compromise at a very personal level. Now that is easier said than done. As I mentioned earlier, thanks to the system of conformity we are all brought up in, difference makes us uncomfortable relatively easily, and we therefore are ill-equipped to be accommodating. The ones who are tolerant are so because they are the exception to a norm, which is bent on suppressing difference. Psychologists contend that as a way to reduce stress and ‘tension’ over difference, human beings tend to cling to the known, which is perhaps why we have erected walls of exclusion all around us. So, if one can understand the implications of this idea, which by the way range from militancy to closeted bigotry, only then can one hope to eradicate this discomfort over difference. The way the world works, there will always be some uncertainty and difference operating around us; all we can hope to do is learn to live with it since that is the challenge of being human. The author is a freelance columnist with degrees in political science and international relations