The Summer of ’69

ali mian,

.... don`t be silly - the us also has private schools, schools run by churches, muslim schools, baptist schools, seminaries, yashivas, madrassas and schools for the eternally stupid .........but the majority of children attend public schools which are paid for by local taxes with very little support or interference from the federal government ............private schools have a role to play, but they cannot take the place of public education............

SameerJB:
Post#61
``What`s worse, they force the teachers to give them receipts for a much lower amount than the actual wage paid.`` should have read
``What`s worse, they force the teachers to give them receipts for a much HIGHER amount than the actual wage paid.``

I like your post#62

re: tahmed

{rsaxena #54 just checking to make sure you continue to diligently study my historic posts. }

...how are your parallel parking lessons coming along?

#65 by hamidm2 on June 7, 2003 6:31am PT

I suspect you are saying that because US has govt schools. If US did not have govt schools you would be ranting about the socialist, communist, fundu mentality which makes people think that schooling can be done by the state.

#62 by sameerJB on June 6, 2003 9:21pm PT

Exactly what was the anarchy that prevailed in India that British clamped down?

Economic Historians note (both US as well as Indian) that India had 1/3 share of the world`s GDP when British occupied India. At the time of Independence we know what the situation was.

A graveyard is the most peaceful place if that is what you mean by removal of Anarchy.

aicha #58 I am afraid the behooda part is over for now. so sorry. the writer of this article sits in a corner, shocked over this sudden turn of the discussion from peeping toms (sorry, i meant ``loss of innocence``) to school systems and of the victory of zee vs. zed.
we need farzana versey to turn the discussion back on track by relating her views on heaving bodies and lusty nights.

dost mittar #59 i think what distinguishes a good school from a so-so school is the emphasis on character building (and stemming no doubt from the general emphasis on a strong character from the days of the british empire when ``waterloo was won on the playing fields of eton``). the best missionary schools in pakistan emphasized this aspect i think. religion was interestingly essentially absent as a subject in missionary schools. this emphasis also carried over to the cadet colleges in pakistan where an all-round education was emphasized (i.e. plenty of emphasis on sports and crafts as well as solid education).

i wonder how much of this is present in different types of indian schools.

......... the private sector cannot be expected to educate the masses in any country - it can supplement the public school system and provide a choice to those who can afford it, but it cannot solve the huge literacy problem................ the public school system is the backbone of society in countries like the us, britain, uk, germany and other civilized places where people don`t defecate on the streets..............the situation in pakistan is ridiculous and getting worse by the day .............

.........it is the government`s responsibility to educate its citizens and that does not happen by simply passing a bill that threatens to jail parents who don`t send their kids to schools ..... what schools? ........ you have to build the schools first .......... morons!

..........some of the better private schools are doing a fine job, but very few people can afford to send their kids to beacon house and froebbels ..........it can cost as much as 5-6 thousand a month to send a kid to these schools, and that does not include books and fancy blazers ............even the money making ``computerized english medium`` schools owned by dubai-return day laborers and run by mean-spirited housewives and underemployed government clerks, charge close to a thousand a month ............computerized!.........as the landlord for one of these exemplary instituitons of higher learning, i asked the owner-principal what he meant by computerized........ he pointed to the pc on his desk and told me that he kept all his student`s records on a computer .......... how silly of me to ask! ......even sillier is asking him to pay the rent on time!

........ since ghar ki murghi is dal barabar, my brother sends his five year old son to roots to ``play and learn`` for half a day and pays 4500 hundred a month ...... and the last time i checked, the kid was still peeing in his pants and nowhere close to coming up with the unified theory of anything!.........meanwhile, in the bazaar a few doors down from roots and a few doors up from st mary`s, bare-footed kids scrounge through the garbage all day long competing with the stray dogs for bones and stale bread........... no school for them

sadna: I agree with your statement that Indian nationalist leadership wanted to maintain good relationship with Britain and it was right thing to do given the British Raj`s contribution to bringing India out of total anarchy within 100 years. But good relations were not incumbent upon staying in the commonwealth. Actually in the history of British colonialism, the nation closest to Britain, Ireland, quickly got out of Commonwealth after independence from Britain. Now they have good relations as well as roughly same per capita income after joining the EEC.

A sizeable faction of Congress did not like close relationship and Subasg Chanra Bose and his colleagues got out leaving Congress less hostile towards Britain. Nirad Chaudhry had just the opposite idea of immulating the British. He was not alone. Many less famous leaders, mostly from feudal class, also felt Nirad Chaudhry way. I have changed my mind many times about British Raj and now I do not look at Nirad Chaudhry as mental slave as I used to. If I have to chose between Nirad Chaudhry and Subhash Chandra Bose now, I will admire Bose more for emotional reason but opt for Nirad Chaudhry`s idea for Pakistan in the hindsight. That line of thinking would be in line with Unionists of Panjab to some extent.

Pakistan turned towards USA within three years of independence leaving pro and anti British debate behind. Pakistan supported British actions against leftist gorillas in Malaya and also US/ British/ Israel action in Suez canal whereas India opposed both displaying independence of pro or anti British but also anti- American stands all the way to forming non-alligned movement. India could afford total independent despite hostile relations with Pakistan and China whereas for Pakistan hostility remaining independent of all super powers was only possible with no hostile relationship with India. The cost analysis of hostility towards India remained marginal for Pakistan and easily affordable for 10-15 years after independence but then it exponentially increased in addition to its side effects. Therefore in 1951, it was very easy to join USA camp without making any calculations for the benefit of ending hostility toward India.

You are also right about little interest in education at the federal level during the early years. Muslim league always and even the NS Muslim league or pro government ML (Q) of today lack the intellectual depth compared to leftist parties and even JI. The intellectualism in ML was mostly Bengali in origin and they lost psoition in federal government very early. H. S. Suharwardy might have been the best intellectual in ML, even more so than Jinnah in foreign policy and constitutional matters. Provincial governments played major role in promoting eduacation until Z. A. Bhutto making it very high on the agenda at center. I don`t know the exact figures but during his 7 years rule, the number of schools and colleges went up definitely more than 20-25 percent. He was actually very close to Nehruvian plus Napoleon models without openly praising either.

The British as well as missionary schools in Pakistan catered to upper middle and rich classes. With their family members running the governments. these schools enjoyed free hand and good reputation. For example when I was a student at Government college Rawalpindi, the best maintained buses were taking students from Islamabad to St. Mary`s and St. Patricks, while no special service was offered for college going students. We had to take ride on regular buses on those routes and all requests to start bus servce for college were regularly turned down.

Despite all this, almost no new protestant missionary schools opened in Pakistan for the last 30-40 years because protestants zeal to make converts was not possible in Pakistan. Catholic institutions could do that due to high tution and good reputation, making them profitable even without making converts. I believe actually Pakistan officially bars missionary work to make converts.

With no science and technical education in Urdu and increase in the importance of English worldwide has created a much larger demand for English medium schools than old catholic missionary schools could fulfill, which is being supplied by a large number of pivae schools with no religious affiliation but strictly business. Some peole have turned their big bunglows into schools and making more money than renting the house.

Many English medium schools are opting for American accent and American vocabulary than previously British. Ladies finger is now okra, zed is zee and curd is yogurt for large number of youngsters. Within our lifetimes, British English will be replaced mostly by American in Pakistan, at least.

Kahani buhut lambi ho gai!!!

tahmed#52:
Your post is informative and actually responds to my original post, instead of your earlier posts responding to any non-existing subliminal messages. BTW I now realize that I used the word ``secular`` incorrectly; as many of these private schools are run by religious or semi-religious trusts/foundations, such as DAV, Bal Mandir (?) and SGTB (sikhs). But they all follow the standard curriculla prescribed by the governments.

hamidm:
The situation you describe in Pakistan is the mirror image of that prevailing in India; my impressions in post#40 were just that - impressions based on this thread and the general interactions at chowk. And Indians too have their army public schools, which I believe also take civilian students who pay a higher fee than the subsidized faujee children. I do not know anything about the quality of education in these schools.

sadna:
The Indians continued with the Cambridge system for a few years after independence. And the new system under ISC (?) is, I believe, still patterned after the British Cambridge system.

SameerJB:
Indian schools are very similar to what hamidm described for your country. There are a few good schools in each big city and a lot of commercial shops whose purpose is to differentiate building and fees according to the ability to pay of their client group. Most of them are totally unethical - they charge exhorbitant fees from the students but pay a mere pittance to teachers with mixed qualifications to teach. What`s worse, they force the teachers to give them receipts for a much lower amount than the actual wage paid. The govt. schools are really the pitts. The teachers are well-qualified and well-paid but the students come from poor families where the parents are neither motivated nor have the clout to insist on a proper education for their kids.

I was thinking along the lines of - if parents ever share their past (the colorful past) with children or would that be considered behooda or too personal? ahh cant get the question right right now. Maybe later!!

rsaxena #54 just checking to make sure you continue to diligently study my historic posts. there will be a test next friday.

Sameer #53
``The correct statement would be to boot out the domination of British.``

You are right. However, if Indian leaders wanted to maintain good relations with Britain in the post-Independence aftermath, this was the pragmatic thing to do. But I doubt Nehru or any other Indian leader for example allowed the British to interfere in governance or believed(like Nirad Chaudhuri) that the elite of India must accept British/European civilisational ideals, symbolisms and intellectual traditions wholesale as being `better` than the corresponding S.Asian ones.

I am wildy guessing that Pakistani leaders didnot think so in education at least, because thats one way to explain why Pakistan newspaper articles in English are liberally sprinkled with references to American/European classics/thinkers/ideas which while interesting, often seem to be rather disconnected from the contemporary S. Asian reality and milieu.

I am commenting on effects only, I donot know enough of the early decisions on education in both countries.

And I meant booting British primacy out of the curriculum in general not from the management of missionary schools. In any case, the managements of missionary schools in India are more closely linked to the Pope/Vatican or American Jesuits/American Protestant evangelists than to the British ( British names and British looking school uniforms are selling points, though)

In India, British-era public schools in hill stations and public schools in former princely states must surely be maintaining British public school traditions but not so missionary schools in general which cater to general public - this is my perception, which may be right or wrong.

....india`s only fault in higher education is not having enough of the elite universities (IITs and IIMs)...i am sure the kid who ranked 1201 on the IIT exam (instead of < 1200) and just missed the cut would easily give most kids at harvard and yale a run for their money...but in india, he`s missed one of the few chances at a fat salary and plush life....