Is IT the Panacea?

I did not write post #77 dammit!

Zamir : ``Sumit Ganguly, professor of Asian Studies and Government at the University of Texas.``

I have never figured out why this guy always shows up in anything related to Pakistan. I have never heard him say anything good about Pakistan, for obvious reasons. I wonder how long he has lived in Pakistan. Perhaps, Americans think since he looks desi, he is a Pakistani.

I am not sure whether it is objective to interview Indians regarding Pakistan, and Pakistanis regarding India. More than likely they are going to show the other country in bad light. The interviewees, specially if they are professors like Mr. Ganguly, should be aware of their own biases, and if they have any integrity, should refuse to comment on the other country. Otherwise they just turn into propoganda machineries. Which is something that a professor should consider below his level of ethics

Ref Sumit Ganguly:

Can you cite instances of his bias?

Ref Romair #: 83

[Zamir : ``Sumit Ganguly, professor of Asian Studies and Government at the University of Texas.``

I have never figured out why this guy always shows up in anything related to Pakistan.]

You should be glad; he has been quite critical of India`s role in Kashmir, going so far as to say that the struggle in Kashmir is indigenous.

Dear All:

I received some emails with great comments on iopwe`s website. It will be great if all the folks who are interested in sharing their perspective/giving the feedback can put their comments in the ``comments section`` on the website.

Or

Just post your thoughts on the bulletin board. Please do care to write a subject in the subject-line. I hope that won`t be asking too much.

Thanks for taking the time to give your feedback.

Regards.

harimau #85: ``going so far as to say that the struggle in Kashmir is indigenous.``

This is exactly my point. When this guy states even the obvious (like the Kashmiri uprising being indigeneous), it is considered objective analysis.

Any buffoon knows that the Kashmiri uprising is indigeneous. Pakistani volunteers are aiding in the uprsing, but the uprising itself is indigeneous, and supported by an overwhelming majority of Kashmiris. The Indian govt. knows this (if it didn`t consider the uprising indigeneous, it would have held a plebescite there decades ago). All the international human rights organizations know it. The US govt. knows it. Deep down in their heart of hearts, all the Indians know this also. The only people who do not know this are the ones who have extremely biased opinions. If the benchmark of a person`s objectivity is that once in a blue moon, he will state the obvious, then wouldn`t that indicate that he is biased?

As a matter of principle, a person who is a professor (not in India, but in the US), and happens to be an Indian, should ethically refrain from commenting on the internal matters of Pakistan; lest his views be considered biased. Or at the very least, that person should highlight the fact that he is commenting about a country with which his native country is at war with, and a country within which he is not considered an objective analyst. If Mr. Ganguly was working for the BJP in the Indian Embassy, one could understand that he has to portray the Indian point of view on everything. But he is not. He is a professor in a third country, USA.

I think, for a person to be considered an expert on a certain country, there should be a pre-requisite that person have at least spent a significant portion of his life in the country on which he/she claims expertise. If he/she hasn`t done so, than he/she should refrain from acting like an expert in that area.

bong_dongs: #84: ``Can you cite instances of his bias?``

I have seen Mr. Ganguly speak on US TV every now and then, and have read various articles written by him on Pakistan. His views are generally completely one-sided, pro-India. One would think he was a member of the Indian govt., not a professor in America. I am not quite sure how he can comment with such authority on the Pakistani society, when he didn`t even grow up there. I am sure there are plenty of Pakistanis who have quite a bit more knowledge of Pakistan than he does. In my opinion, when the US press contacts him, they are generally trying to get the Indian point of view on Pakistan. Even in the article in the previous reply, Mr. Ganguly was shown as the, ``negative`` on Pakistan, while the Pakistani guy was shown as the, ``positive`` on Pakistan.

``At best Ganguly, who called Pakistan`s IT policy is a lot of ``smoke screens,````

I have been following Pakistan`s IT policy since it was put out, and even I cannot say with any amount of certainity whether it is a smoke-screen or not. Even though, IT is part of my profession and I grew up in Pakistan, and worked in the Pakistani beaurecracy for a decade. How can Mr. Ganguly be so sure?

``And that`s not even factoring in corruption, noted Ganguly. A few years ago, a Swiss group ranked Pakistan as one of the most corrupt countries in the world, second only to Nigeria, he said.``

This is true. However,

``NEW DELHI, OCT 26: Transparency International (TI) India, a non-governmental `peoples` coalition against corruption`, said on Tuesday that according to a study it had commissioned, India was among the most corrupt nations in the world.

India was ranked 73rd among the 99 countries covered by the study conducted by Gallup International (GIA), a press note by the TI said....Pakistan was perceived as being more corrupt than India, though only marginally, ranking 88`` (http://www.indian-express.com/ie/daily/19991027/ige27045.html)

So if India can achieve so much IT success, despite being marginally less corrupt than Pakistan, then why cannot Pakistan do the same.

As far as his documented biases are concerned, as much as I would like to satisfy your request, I currently do not have the time to go through all my notes. I would suggest you do a search on his name, and you will find plenty of articles covering his views on Pakistan. If you are unable to come up with any info, in a week or so, kindly let me know, and I will be happy to assist you.

I wouldn`t be surprised if his views fit in line with the views held by most Indians. So they may not appear biased to you. However, this is the whole point I am trying to make, i.e. if a person`s views only fit into the views of one party in a conflict, those views cannot be considered very objective.

It should obvious from Chowk, that it is impossible for Pakistanis to be objective about India, and Indians to be objective about Pakistan. Keeping that in mind, I would encourage everyone to rely on the information provided by independent analysts from third party countries, and internationally recognized human rights organizations. Mr. Ganguly does not fall into either of those categories.

Sridhar, romair

gremlins seem to have caught my posts, let them have a rest.

regards

jay

Umairr/Romair,

What the heck should I call you these days?:) I think your post #87 was a masterpiece! Your unique way of arguing a point makes a believer out of me; even if I conciously may disgree with some of what you say. I think you are a FANTASTIC spin doctor. I sincerely mean that as a complement & I `ll tell you why.

Let me argue some of your points ( which I both agree & disagree with). You place great faith (perhaps faith is not an accurate word) in the opinion of ``neutral`` ``experts``.

I`ve put both those words in parenthesis because of the following. It is impossible for ANY human being to be absolutely neutral. Biases are built in every human mind. For instance, your biasis will always be pro Pakistan (no matter how much you criticise Pakistan); the same goes for me--no matter how much I condemn GoI`s policy re Kashmir, my biasis will be pro India. Then again, if we have to compare Germany to France, even if we think we (as in S Asians) are neutral--we will have our own biasis about them. Sure our own opinion will be less bias than a Frenchman or a German. But you cant completely eliminate bias.

As for the term ``expert``. You got to forgive me, but I`m very cynical. Soon after my residency in psych (in the mid 80`s) I worked as a court psychiatrist (with a few other psychiatrists) for about 6 months.. The chief judge in question was sick & tired of ``expert psychiatrists`` bought into court (for a handsome fee) by both plaintiff & defense experts. Those ``experts`` would give diametrically opposite opinions & conclusions of the same issue! So he dissmissed them as being ``hired guns`` who are completely biased to ``which side their bread is being buttered``. So he figured that if the court paid the psychiatrist, he/she would be absolutely non biased & neutral.

So he started a pilot program of getting funding from the State to have the Govt of NY pay our salaries. Heres the funny thing--even us ``completely neutral`` psychiatrists came to diametrically opposite opinions & conclusions about the same issue!!!--it all depended on whether we were subconciously conservative or liberal!!!

Now thats what happens with ``experts`` of ANY inexact science---be it psychiatry, economy, foreign policy, domestic policy, religion/morality, IT policy etc etc etc. So if you can quote an American expert with pro Pakistan views, I can turn around & get an American expert with anti Pakistan views. Now both these guys will be telling the ``truth``. But it all depends on how they SPIN the truth. Incidentally, its perfectly legal & ethical to put a SPIN on the truth because ALL of us have our own biasis about almost EVERYTHING.

The only power that is completely neutral, completely, non biased(? I wonder sometimes) is GOD. Needless to say, He`s a complete expert on everything.

However, we live on Earth, not Heaven. In the ideal world we could have the ``luxury`` of an American raised in Pakistan being a TRUE expert of Pakistan. But do we always have that luxury in the real world? Besides, would that NEUTRAL American ``expert`` be completely NEUTRAL? How do you know?!, maybe he was insulted by some Pakistani & subconciously he hates Pakistanis (because of a stupid prejudice) or conversely treated like a king in Pakistan ,in which case his opinions are totally biased pro-Pakistani.

So ultimately, in my opinion, the views of ``neutral experts`` about ANYTHING are just about as valid or invalid as those of ordinary laypeople Chowkies, who are obviously biased towards the side of the border they were born in.

Re: ROmair

``When this guy states even the obvious (like the Kashmiri uprising being indigeneous), ``

You are supposed to be some hotshot Paki IT fellow aren`t you? This says doesn`t say much about your intelligence.

Ref ROmair:

``I wouldn`t be surprised if his views fit in line with the views held by most Indians. So they may not appear biased to you. However, this is the whole point I am trying to make, i.e. if a person`s views only fit into the views of one party in a conflict, those views cannot be considered very objective``

I didnt say I consider him unbaised.

Do you consider your views as objective?

Romair #87

Roamir, can I ask you a question?

Would you say that the Taliban were an indigeneous Afghanistani phenonmenon?

re ROmair #87:

``Any buffoon knows that the Kashmiri uprising is indigeneous``

Thank you for confirming my suspision.

later

-sac

ROmair,

People fight for their rights in all the countries of the world. They do that in India and they do that in Pakistan. Would it be acceptable if Indian volunteers went to Pakistan and

helped the Pakistani people fight for their rights?

When Sheikh Abdullah, the universally accepted leader of the kashmiris, swore by the

Indian constitution, the kashmiris became Indian citizens. The legitimate complaints of those

Indian citizens must be addressed by the Indian govt. Pakistani volunteers have no business

doing their voluntary work in India.

#96 AeishA

The horrific violence against women is the flip side of the wealth that is being created. Men in the lower rungs try to climb up quickly by extracting bigger and bigger dowries. If the bride`s family had the kind of money that is demanded, they could support her for life. (Of course she could work and support herself too if she had minimal skills/education). What the woman gets then for the money is sex. There is another name for that. We Indians look the other way when confronted with the problem of dowry and justify it many different ways (without condoning the violence, I hasten to add - but violence is a significant byproduct). The Indian middle class has caught money fever and we will sell our souls and burn our women and put our elderly out to pasture if need be!

AeishA # 96

Dear Aeisha,

You have asked very relevant and appropriate questions. So long as the social issues of dowry, bride-burning, casteism, female infanticide and the economic issue of poverty are not addressed systematically and collectively, Indian will continue to carry a blotch of shame on their heads. I do.

Thankfully, we here on Chowk are not a representative sample of Indians. There are many many Indians who are actively trying to purge India of such evils. But you are right: the challenges are huge and all of us need to focus on these real tasks more than we do.

It is much easier to criticize others than to focus on one`s own shortcomings: one of the reasons human problems never seem to go away.

Dost-Mittar

``Almost all these entrepreneurs come from the middle or lower middle class in India. If you look at the who`s who of the Indian IT-wallahs in India and the silicon valley, none of them (with the possible exception of WIPRO`s Azim Premji) was born with a silver spoon in his/her mouth. ``

This is the most heartening aspect of IT revolution in India. That it is powered by people from average middle class and not by the rich elites makes me more hopeful about India`s future. To be specific, I can tell you about Kanpur. A decade back, people used to think that one can not become rich no matter how educated he is, until he is the son of some wealthy person/politician. Today ten years later I see a drastic change in their attitudes. Most of the people are heavily investing in education as a means of moving upward in the society. People have now realised that inspite of all corruption, you can go up if you have the required skills. So obsessed are people with higher education that they are prepared to sell their property to educate their children. And no doubt, the visible success of a lot of people from the lower middle class who made it to the IITs/RECs is playing a pivotal role. Consequently a lot of new and better secondary schools have sprung up and the existing ones are desparately trying to improve the quality of education that they provide. This strong schooling system is laying the foundation of a sustainable knowledge revolution in India in the next decade. A revamp of public school system in response to the demand of educated and highly trained people is the core area that would ensure the availability of a large pool of qualified technocrats in future. As you might know that the poverty decline has shown the steepest gradient in the last decade and only 26% of Indian population is below poverty line against 37% previously. Thus it appears that the prosperity is not limited to middle class but is seeping down to the poor classes raising the standards of living of the population as a whole. There is a sense of exuberence among most of the Indians today and a hope that a better future awaits them. And most importantly, a feeling that they ``control`` their future. The weapon this time is education of course.