Kashmir: Time for a Radical Approach?

The main difference with Kashmir is that most Pakistanis readily identify with it as part of the nation. Also a great number of people in the most populous Punjab province have Kashmiri blood. The peoples of Punjab and even the Frontier have long interacted and intermarried for as far back as anyone can remember. Wherever you go in the Punjab districts of Gujarat, Gujranwala or Narowal people will refer to the local clans and invariably Kashmiris figure among the biggest. In our district of Sialkot histories interweave with Kashmir- in fact Sialkot was once the Winter capital of Kashmir. My maternal grandmother told me of how her family migrated south to Sialkot two or three generations back. When I did relief work in Azad Kashmir the local dialect wasn`t too far off the Punjabi that we speak at home. I believe when there is peace in South Asia Kashmir will naturally realign itself with Pakistan due to historical religious and cultural links- we don`t a war to do what comes naturally. I agree that the Biharis who are stranded in Bangladesh need to be helped but it`s a different issue altogether. Settling them in Karachi will only add to chaos but now that Pakistan and Bangladesh have good relations, would it not be better to help these Biharis settle within mainstream Bangladeshi society by helping with business and job tranining there.Comparisons with Bihar and Biharis do not resonate with most Pakistanis unless they are Muhajirs in Karachi.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re. Sadna #445
Sadna, I don`t miss the irony of your accusing me of reading dishonestly, on the one hand, and then going on misrepresenting my position, which was clarified in #440.

Perhaps a discussion on the desearbility of a public education that encourages globalization, and on isnutitionalized `poverty`, can be kept for another day, when the air is somewhat clearer.

rgds,
PM

PM #444
The literacy rate/education profile of population is a good measure of the education opportunities available to them, and we know S. Asian countries are not overflowing with education opportunities.

There is nothing wrong with being a carpenter, there is something wrong if his education opportunities have limited the development of his potential. Your carpenter, if educated could well have been running a online business selling furniture he built and designed to customers in S. America, or have documented his traditional designs for posterity or linked up with designers to provide him modern designs.

While you seem to link defining poor HDI of a population with `looking down on someone with low HDI`.I donot see the connection between the two things. Thats is the worst possible pseudo liberal argument which goes, let them be poor, because its OK to be poor, lets not `look down` on the poor.

Its OK to be poor and uneducated if its by choice, but its not OK if someone is forced to be poor, uneducated and lacking opportunities because of the force of circumstances in a society/country/economy. A person may be poor or uneducated, but if he is so NOT by his own choice, others addressing the circumstances which forced him remain poor and uneducated are not `looking down` on him.

And as usual you are lecturing without reading the material provided. The ADB report which I quoted at the beginning of this discussion says in Section E part of which I quoted earlier, that education OPPORTUNITY is also a relevant index of human development, as is literacy:
http://www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/Poverty_PAK/chapter_2.pdf

...ADB`s Povery Reduction Strategy describes poverty as a deprivation of essential assets and opportunities to which every human being is entitled. In this respect, the importance of buiding up human capital assets and enjoying access to basic education and primary health services is a given. The Mahbub-ul-Haq Centre for Human Development(MHCHD) has developed a broad index of poverty in Pakistan which takes into account deprivation in education and health, in addition to income.

.. Poverty, according to all indices, declined throughout the period[ 1970 to 1995] (with the exception of income related poverty in the 1990s which has been on the increase, but the poverty of education opportunity index has always lagged behind the other indices.In 1990, at 62 percent, poverty of education opportunitieswas almost three times the pverty of income opportunities..

..Another measure to evaluate the progress made by a country in achieving human development, as well as to make cross country comparisons, is the UNDP human development index. - (sadna-this too indexes in education- rest of quote in #421)

I donot think you will read this mail honestly either, so lets end this discussion.

re. Sadna #443:
So, your MO is when all else fails, simply ignore, eh? Nice of you to quote my #437 and make no mention of #440 which explained and qualified it.

Or maybe you don`t know the meanings of `context`? Or perhaps you didn`t know that tunnel vision can also be spelled (self) r-i-g-h-t-e-o-u-s. I suspect you`d be huffing and puffing a lot less if the critique of public education were from non-Pakistanis such as Ivan Illich, or say a certain M.K.Gandhi. Or an educationist named, say, Shilpa Jain.

You`re right about one thing though....Indians on the chowk are different from most Paksitanis here. And I share your sense of relief at that.

Earlier, several Indians termed a `terrorist` anyone making or question the `evilness` of the statement ``If members of Class X kill members of Class Y, then it would be jsutified for members of Class Y to do the same to members of Class X.

So, really, given the prevalence this curious Indian `logic` I`m not really surprised that you should interpret the suggestion that factor X not be a necessary component of Class Y as a repudiation of X altogether.

Keep it coming lady. There`s nothing quite like having your foot in your mouth to prove the other`s point!

PM #437
````Education and Literacy? Phooey! There`s a strong ccase to be made for leaving it out of the HDI.``

I don`t know about Pakistan, but in India this would imply that ``its not important that he and his children be provided the OPPORTUNITY for education``

What interacting on chowk has made clear to me is Pakistan and Pakistanis live in a different world that I live in, and speak a different language and have different values. Thank goodness.

Sadna, re. 441:

Here we go again! Can you point out where I said (or implied) that anyone should be deprived of an equal opportunity for an education.

If you can say ``word twistng``, I`ll actually rehash my point. Alternatively, you could try re-reading after taking ten slow breaths. You`re quite intelligent when not hot under the collar.

Ta!

PM#440
I am sure your carpenter wouldnot mind taking any insult from you, if only you gave him your degrees in return. He is sure to know even if you don`t that his life, his livelihood options and earning capacity(also deciding what opportunities his children will have) donot improve because you say you donot look down on him.

As an empowered citizen by saying that its not important that he and his children be provided the OPPORTUNITY for education, you are already giving him the worst put down you could.

Sadna,

Surely you could recognize a tongue in cheek when you see one? The context of my statement was all-important, citing, as I did, the proclivities of the msot educated political class in Pakistan, and noting the underdeveloped reading comprehension skills of many an Indian poster on this very board --something that still astounds me... I mean... just look at the response of that joker arjun_m. You feel you could be discussing the relative strenghts of our cricket teams and he`d throw in the IITs!-- never mind that the fact that educated oversears Indians are the chief donors to the new Hindu Right. Development Indeed!)

Of course I value literacy very highly as a `common` value. (Education-- I`m really not so sure). I would still think that there IS a case (albiet a weak one) to be made for not equating it with development. My reasons have more to do with what I perceive as the cultural arrogance of the `educated`, who IMO, should not have the right to define ideas --and thus create `realities`-- like `poverty`, `development` etc. I was quite shoiced to learn lately that I was brought up in a `poor` family, and that my preliterate grandmother, bless her soul, was an `underdeveloped` human being. (following frm the logic of the HDI). So, I would scarcely feel the need to inform my unschooled carpenter friend of his `deficiency` as a human being.

I do understand the usefulness of Indexes as pointers to where emphasis must lie in social `development`, but I remain very skeptical of parochialism in this regard.

To answer your queries, I have deliberately chosen to live as little as possible off my `literacy` (and am thus in danger of sinking below the poverty line. Shudders!!) ... not because I think it an undesriable element in the leat, but because it does tend, at times, to rob one of the appreciation of the work, ethics and general worldview of those engaged in labour not dependent on their literacy.

rgds,
PM

PM #437
``Education and Literacy? Phooey! There`s a strong ccase to be made for leaving it out of the HDI.``

Really. What portion of your monthly income do you derive from being literate? Are you willing to forgo this portion of your income?

How much of your personal development do you ascribe to being literate? Would it be OK with you if tomorrow you became illiterate along with your family and friends?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re. #431
To cry ``sophistry `` is particularly specious when the accusor has not only failed to point out a single instance of the alleged sophistry but also avoided answering questions that would show where the real inconsistencies-in-position lie.

And I see that the eye-for-an-eye ethic has now been made synonomous with terrorism. Shall we put this down to sophistry-by-ignoring-less-than-subtle-details or merely poor comprehension skills?
------------

(Chowkstaff, any idea why my old password hasn`t worked these past few days?)

HE, #various lately
Very informative posts, tank you. Als very balanced for the most part, IMHO.
Cowasjee`s cuurent cloumn (http://www.dawn.com/weekly/cowas/cowas.htm) should provide some insight into some of the biggest spanners in the wheel of Pakistan`s progress.

Education and Literacy? Phooey! There`s a strong ccase to be made for leaving it out of the HDI. After all, remember the MQM are as a group the most educated among politcal parties. Also, looking across the border, we see an abundance of highly educated folks without the basic ability to think without being carried away by their emotions (and with awful reading skills to boot!)

Good on ya!

HisExcellency #various

Thanks for your detailed replies. Hope you realise there are alternate explanations given of the dismissals of BB and NS as well as the reason and aftermath of Kargil and the 1965 war( I am not talking of the Indian press), and the pro-Pakistani Army POV on this and Pakistan`s Kashmir policy is not the one universally accepted by any means.

I can understand the shamelessness of corrupt politicians but the bottomline is I think the Pakistani Army beats them all in shamelessness. I feel extremely sorry for civilians of Pakistan whose Army has shamelessly mangled their constitution on multiple occasions and who are told by their Army that their birthright to choose their own leaders has to be curtailed because `civilians got their chance and blew it`.

I donot consider Pakistani politicians pacifist, I just think they are forced to be more realistic about relations with India than the Army because politicians can prosper and rule only till the next election while the Army prospers and rules for perpetuity.

re: sadna

[ You say that Kashmir played no role in militarys dismissal of civilian governments. Well what was the reason for the post Kargil coup? ]

While the Kargil coup was a diplomatic mistake, it is now an established fact that Nawaz Sharif was himself involved in the entire planning and decision-making process. Later when some of the assumptions did not play out as expected, he tried to wash his hands off by scapegoating the Army. This created a rift between Army and Nawaz Sharif. But Nawaz cleverly managed to garner public support for his decision to withdraw the mujahideen and paramilitary forces from Kargil.

The real problem started after Kargil. Nawaz Sharif wanted to get rid of Musharraf and install his own man as Army Chief. This of course is a constitutional right of the Prime Minister. However, Nawaz wanted to bypass the top 15 officers of the Army and appoint a political stooge. To effect this policy, he tried to buy off the corps commanders. When Musharraf realized this, he sacked two corp commanders. Nawaz took this as an insult. Musharraf asked him to consult the Army leadership and pick one of the senior officers. But Nawaz Sharif was adamant, for the wrong reasons. He wanted to politicize the most respected institution in Pakistan. This was resented by both the Army and public. The Army didn`t want to move against Nawaz because all the corps commander feared U.S. sanctions. But Nawaz was too rash in his judgement. He moved first by denying landing permission to a commercial airliner contains 200+ civilians as well as Musharraf. In his lust for power, he was willing to kill an Army officer as well as civilians.

It is only Indian politicians and media that religiously believes in the ``Kargil/Kashmir theory`` of Nawaz`s dismissal. This is because of a political motive. The Kargil/Kashmir theory helps them villify Pak Army. Nobody in Pakistan including the educted elite and intellectuals believe that Nawaz was dismissed because of Kargil.


[ And you tell us what WERE the reasons for the dismissal of civilian governments in he 90s, if you are so knowledgeable let us know? ]

Good question.
In 1990, Benazir was dismissed for massive corruption and poor handling of law/order situation. Her husband Zardari had started treating judges, and bureaucrats as his personal servants. One senior judge was murdered in broad daylight in Karachi. It is alleged that Zardari wanted this judge to rule in favor of a friend on a land-commercialization case. Zardari was a 60% partner in that deal.

In 1993, Nawaz Sharif faced political defections in his party. Half of his party formed another faction (PML-J) headed by Manzoor Wattoo. The breakaway faction was supported by President Ghulam Ishaq Khan. This was purely a power struggle with no ideological reasons. Benazir Bhutto supported the breakaway faction. The Army brokered a deal in which both President Ishaq and Prime Minister Nawaz resigned. Fresh elections were held later that year.

In 1996, Benazir was dismissed by President Leghari who was also a former party loyalist. Once again corruption charges were brought against her. Surrey Palace scandal, Pakistan Steel Mills scandal, ARY Gold license, Cotenca Preshipment Inspection scandal and embezzlement of funds in Green Tractor Scheme were brought against Benazir and her husband Zardari. She was accused of amassing assets worth $1.5 billion through illegal means. (Later the Supreme Court convicted her for corruption in 1999 and disqualified her from elected office).

Besides corruption, Benazir government was also accused of extra-judicial killings of MQM workers in Karachi. Her brother Murtaza Bhutto was murdered during September 1996, allegedly on Mr. Zardari`s orders.

If today Pakistan is being ruled by a military dictator, it is because of the selfishness of Pakistani politicians. They had 12 years to run the country. During those 12 years, the Army maintained a dignified distance from politics with only occasional advice/influence to keep the system going.

Nawaz Sharif is the biggest bank defaulter in Pakistan`s history. He used his cronies to get Rs.9 billion of loans that he willfully defaulted on. His land-grabbing mafia dwarfs the meagre land holdings of army officers. No government department was allowed to function unless it created another source of money for Nawaz Sharif.

Benazir was no better either.

All we saw during the 12 years of Nawaz and Benazir`s so-called democratic rule was corruption, kickbacks, land-grabbing and nepotism. Now they are shedding crocodile tears for democracy because they want to lord over the poor masses again. Palatial houses in Surrey, Raiwind, and London bought with corruption money are not enough for them.

Musharraf may be a dictator but atleast he is not corrupt. Under this government, ordinary people can get bank loans. Tax officers do not extort money from businessmen. The press is treated much better than it was under Benazir and Nawaz. Under the present government, ordinary people without polticial connections can become entrepreneurs. Under the previous ``democratic`` regimes, you could only get ahead by paying a 10% to 20% cut for Mr. Nawaz Sharif or Mr. Zardari.

If democracy means the return of Nawaz and Benazir, to hell with democracy. We are better off with a controlled democracy as long as the system works for the ordinary citizen. Who cares if the person in-charge is a general or a civilian? The civilians had their chance and they blew it.

re: sadna

[ An ADB report saying so is not good enough, is that what you are saying? ]

If you read closely, the ADB report does not say that the politicians were doing the opposite. Why rest the blame for lack of social development on military doors, when the politicians did exactly the same thing? This is selective amnesia on your part, not political objectivity. The military is not the source of troubles in Pakistan. Lack of political leadership and credibility is the reason why people in Pakistan are willing to tolerate a soldier as their President.

Refer to the election results of October 2002. If the people felt that military was preventing social development, they would have overwhelmingly voted for anti-military forces. This did not happen. Pro-Army parties won 42% of votes, while anti-government parties won 47%. This does not reflect widespread disgust with the Army or its policies.

No, I am not disputing the ADB report but neither am I taking it as the gospel truth. Only facts are sacred. Opinions and arguments are not.