Can Pakistan Work?

Mr. Hoodbhoy

Sometimes the degree of hypocricy that you exhibit really boggles one`s mind. Putting these shannigans aside that you frequently write, I do not see any ideological difference between you and Musharaf. Both of you are hell bent determine to gnaw the ideological foundation of our nation down. If you are a thinker then he is the doer. You want us to disarm ourselves so that we become sitting ducks to the aggresion of your new masters, the neo-imperialist thugs, and Musharaf goes a step further and actually dismantels our defence programs. Our enemies want to divide us and rule over us, you give the direction as to how to divide us, and Musharaf actually does the grunt work by killing our own citizens. You write thesis after thesis on how dictators like saddam have killed his own people while you incite Musharaf and direct him on how to kill his own people and also how to get away with it. Democracy shamocracy what the fukk. You all look the same to me. Please stop making further chutiya out of us and get a decent job that doesn`t involve inciting the murder of innocent human beings ok?

urstruly: Hoodbhoy is not a hypocrite - he is a brave man who lives in Pakistan and who openly takes Musharaff to task. You are the hypocrite - after having migrated to the US (and no doubt stood humbly in line with your visa application form), declare the US to be ``our enemy`` (and dont deny it, your post is quite clear on this point without - like the hypocrite that you are - naming the US). So go to hell, you maududi-worshipper.

It is surprising that Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy, usually an informed and erudite commentator, did not comment upon or question the basic concept of Stephen Philip Cohen`s book, The Idea of Pakistan. The title is a misnomer.

States, as we know them, are dynamic entities, and as such, there is hardly ever an idee` fixe` underpinning them. It is always a combination of geo-political and socio-economic realties that provide the intellectual dynamic for a state at any given moment in history, and such dynamics are subject to change. One does not envisage coming across, for instance, The Idea of The United Kingdom or The Idea of Switzerland.

Had it been The Idea Behind Pakistan, I would not have had any quarrel with it.

Pakistan came into being as the culmination of a movement waged by the broad masses of Insian Mussalmans, inspired by the dregs of the Mussalman aristcracy created by the British and the Mughals. There is no doubt that the actual movement was spearheded by the lower and middle class urban Mussalman youth.

The dominion of Pakistan was born as the consequence of a the partition of British India.
Its growth and maturation into a republic also saw its mutation from a progressive, egalitarian, secular state as envisaged by Jinnah into a vulgar, quasi theocratic state in the early fifties. And just about there it is, till today, despite becoming a declared nuclear power.

Well, this is one view. One must also read writers on military sociology like Morris Jannowitz,David Ordlingar etc to know the other side of the story. Just like his Book on Pakistan Army, Cohen has carried his biases through and through. When he was in Pakistan in connection with writing this book, people like Pervez were always at his side. We must also remeber that Cohen`s perception on Pakistan has been consistently biased, though his insight applaudable.

Dear friends living abroad, its no doomsday.

Cheerios

This is indeed a sobering analysis of the twin dangers that confront Pakistan: the military, and the mullahs. Both consist of individuals who were considered losers in Pakistan`s society. As early as the 1960`s, the military had become a convenient place of employment for students who failed to gain admission in any professional college, and the the mullah was always a good way to give employment to someone not fit enough to even join the military (I say this based on first hand knowledge, since this is exactly what I heard the military recruiter friends of my father joke about).

But all is not lost by any means.

Pakistan has a large middle class that is growing in numbers and in economic clout. The cream of this middle class is exactly the same people who were the ``smarter brothers and sisters`` of those who joined the military or became mullahs. This middle class is growing every day in numbers and in economic clout. This Pakistani middle class is in Pakistan and around the world. It is the natural antidote to the mullahs and the military that are trying to carve out power for themselves on the strength of the guns and the abuse of religion.

This is an aspect not explored by Cohen, and also overlooked by Hoodbhoy in his review, and therefore I think his analysis is too pessimistic. Time is on the side of the Pakistani people.

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

re: tahmed32 # 5

I agree with your comments.

The increasing buying power of the Pakistani middle class is often over looked and there is a lack of awareness as to how much economic empowerment there has been in Pakistan in the last 3-5 years. As to the Pakistani middle class, another argument to consider is that a lot of money is re-flowing into Pakistan and a majority of investments being made in Pakistan is by Pakistanis themselves. It is interesting, because this is the same money, which left Pakistan for Dubai when the process of nationalization under Z. A. Bhutto started and now, it is re-entering the Pakistani market as the process of liberalization and de-nationalization continues.

The mullah and army might be potent politically, but in the end they are no match for Adam Smith`s ideas and historically speaking, democracy follows economic prosperity and it does not work the other way. I agree; time is on the side of Pakistani people and that is why, it is imperative that the economic policies of this government be allowed to reach their logical end point. It is for this reason that Musharraf is not being judged for his politics, but for his economic policies and on this score, the public is supportive of his political policies, which are pro-economic growth.

Ciao

I agree with ijaz_gul`s views. Stephen Cohen is just looking at Pakistan from one (pessimistic) angle. There are dozens of other angles (some overly pessimistic, others overly optimistic, and some simply realistic). All angles are correct but cannot describe the entire picture.

Pakistan has always been a tough country to govern. From Jinnah to Musharraf, every Pakistani leader has had to grapple with these problems. Religious fanaticism, ethnic tensions, military dominance, corruption and economic problems are nothing new. But despite these problems, Pakistan is economically and militarily stronger than it was in 1947. Literacy rates and health indicators are also stronger today than in 1947. Among political parties, people can choose from PPP, MQM, MMA and dozens of other alternatives to the Muslim League. This was not the case 50 years ago.

What appears to be a chaotic country, is indeed a very normal country... albiet at a different stage of its development. With an sustained GDP growth rate of 6% or more, and a stable government... Pakistan will serve as a model of growth for other underdeveloped nations. Economic investment drives employment, which in turn increases incomes and reduces poverty, which in turn weakens fundamentalism and ethnic divisions. There is a positive correlation between income, education and democracy. Spain is a perfect example.

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

I agree with urstruly....
Mr hoodbhoy....has a persistent theme.....especially regarding Dr Abdul Qadeer...
May be its a tinge of Jealousey.... Dr Qadeer succeeded ...where Mr Hoodbhoy ended a Lecturer in Quaid-e-Azam University...

The Other day in a Seminar ... we heard another Gem from Mr Hoodbhoy....
....`` Muslims have No notable invention to their credit..... Like electricity.....``

what a pearl......and orignal thought.......

`` As to the Pakistani middle class, another argument to consider is that a lot of money is re-flowing into Pakistan and a majority of investments being made in Pakistan is by Pakistanis themselves``.

ha ha ha

Siddiqua # 4


Dear Mr. Siddiqui?

Are you new to Chowk? Your postings have consistently revealed a very clear vision. Kindly accept my personal welcome. We will surely disagree at times, but you have earned my respect.

All of you guys waiting for part 2, it was supposed to be up here, but its not. So you can check it out at my ILog journal in chowk, at http://www.chowk.com/show_interactor_page.cgi?membername=umairn

Dear Hoodbhoy...

Can Pakistan work?

It better .... for our children`s future... we have no other place to go to. So let us join hands... let us undo Zia-ul-Haq`s legacy... and let us build the liberal polity that will ensure a successful and prosperous Pakistan...


On another note: Here is another article by Dr. Hoodbhoy....

Miracles, Wars and Politics
http://www.naseeb.com/naseebvibes/prose-detail.php?aid=2284&pg=1

M.B.Z.Isphahani # 13

Can you write two posts without blaming the problems of Islam and Pakistan on Jews, Americans, British, Hindus, Thackerys, RSS, Nasreen and Rushdie.

Do you use these words to cast a spell on the minds of Muslims? :)

The evolution of Pakistani society during the last 57 years should be seen in historical context.

America`s path to peace, stability and economic might was not a peaceful and smooth one either:

• After winning independence in the 18th century, America remained a country divided on the issue of slavery for almost five decades.


• The Civil War ended slavery but hundreds of thousands of Americans died in this war. The American president who ended slavery was assassinated.


• Yet this new America still didn`t have proper communication systems until the 1880s when the first railroads were laid.


• Until 1882, America was still a white country with a modest economy (but great potential). After 100 years of independence, America opened its gates to immigrants.


• After decades of economic growth and peace, American society was torn apart by the Wall Street crash and the Great Depression. Millionaires became paupers overnight and crime skyrocketed


• Despite the ban on slavery, America was a segregated nation until the 1960s and 70s. Blacks and women didn`t enjoy the same rights as white men. Another series of feminist and civil rights movement redressed this change after almost 200 years of independence.

Clearly, a young nation like Pakistan has not experienced an economic upheavel like the Great Depression, or a civil war like the American Civil War. There is no segregation in the country. Reform has been slow but it has been bloodless.

Hi,

The nuclear programme began in 1955 with the establishment of the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission, and the nuclear weapons programme began soon after January 20, 1972, after the Multan Conference of senior scientists, attended by Dr. Abdus Salam and others where Mr. Munir Ahmad Khan was made Chairman PAEC and incharge of the bomb project. Dr. A.Q.Khan came in 1976 and KRL was a project of the PAEC (Project-706). A.Q.Khan was handed over KRL only in 1980 when the plant had been commissioned and he was working under Project Director Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmud who reported to the Member (Technical) PAEC who was responsible to Munir Ahmad Khan. Dr. A.Q.Khan was incharge of only one step in a series of equally critical and challenging steps to the bomb, and the PAEC was the overall incharge of the nuclear programme all along. It was only that A.Q.Khan got all the media attention and the government patronized him as the front man of the programme so as to divert attention from the PAEC where the real and substantial work was being done.

It was the PAEC under Munir Khan that mastered the complete nuclear fuel cycle and built the bomb and conducted the first cold tests in 1983 and later in 1998 exploded the bombs in Chaghi. Uranium enrichment too was a complicated process in which PAEC provided most the technical support and manpower and helped A.Q.Khan build advanced generation of centrifuges. A.Q.Khan had brought designs of first generation centrifuge machines which failed to enrich uranium in Iran.

The plutonium contract was cancelled only in 1978, where as A.Q.Khan came in 1976, and KRL had already begun in 1974. So both the uranium and plutonium routes to the bomb were initiated simultaneously by Munir Ahmad Khan after 1972. Thus, A.Q.Khan`s contributions have been overblown by the press and the media all at the cost of a blatant distrotion of facts regarding Pakistan`s nuclear history.

Regards.

Siddiqua, welcome to the Club. I liked your style and approach. You remind me of Dr. Siddiqua of Karachi, an expert on security affairs and very incisive and candid indeed.I have always enjoyed listening to her.

Pakistan`s nuclear Doctrine and Policy. Well I think the biggest contributer has been the Qaid e Azam University Islamabad and no US GI, on an instructional tour of Pakistan. In any case, military men are not the right people to be evolving such doctrines.

Tahmed seems an ISSB reject. His criticism is always very pointed and gives his biases away.

As for the brave man Hoodbouy,he always posts an article but never interacts.

chowk staff: I did not submit #9. My post seems to have disappeared. Could you please look into this?

re ijaz_gul #3:

Writers do carry their biases in their works. A writer who doesn`t carry his biases with him is more like a journalist. In the absence of indigenous talent we are forced to rely upon westerners to tell us about our countries.
The main reason why Cohen`s work is important is because his training as an academic forces him to look at Pakistan in a framework formulated by the familiar talk of social,economic and military parameters. He then tries to fit those parameters to earlier studies of other Asian and latin American countries and tries to come up with some scenarios. And that in a nutshell is what most professions are about. What passes for professional excellence is simply an ability to come up with a suitable remedy or diagnosis on the basis of some data.
As some others have pointed out, there may be pieces of data he may be misinterpreting or ignoring all together. Jim Rogers is a well known financier who invests globally and has been to Pakistan a couple of times-once by car and the other on a motorbike. He strongly believes that the country will breakup in a decade or so. You can take issue with his prediction...and he has been wrong several times, but you have to understand that his analysis is the result of the framework he adheres to that has paid rich dividends in the past. Pakistan may defy all these naysayers and go on to become a prospersous country...but that would simply imply under or overestimating the criticality of some other data point.

re urstruly aka Prostitute #1:

Not getting any clients lately? The mullah really needs your services.

later
-sac

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

Ralph,

You actually get what MBZ Isphahan is saying? I swear I have never managed to figure it out... despite concerted efforts...

#7 by ferozk

if left to a referendum, mushraff will likely get a nobel prize by 97% margin ..
no no not peace prize, the economics one.

By Pervez Hoodbhoy

*****
According to a popular but rather humor­less Pakistani joke, “all countries have armies, but here, an army has a country.”
*****

Separate electorates and the Pakistan Movement in British India were all predicated on the argument that one-man one-vote democracy is unsuitable for a pluralistic society like pre-partition India.

Shrill complaints against the ``tyranny of the majority`` was the foundation of the Pakistan Movement. But it is as ironic as it is apt, that in post-partition era, Jinnah`s Pakistan continued to be plagued by the very same premises that gave it birth, namely, that one-man one-vote democracy is unsuitable for a pluralistic society.

The ruling elite in West Pakistan which had once inveighed against the Hindu majority in pre-partition India, found themselves inveighing against the Hindu-tainted majority of East Pakistan. ``Separate Electorates`` and ``Parity`` were the neo-shibboleths to neutralize the majority voters in East Pakistan from having a significant say in Pakistan`s affairs.

Pakistan`s ruling elite could not live underthe ``tyrannjy of the majority``. So even in independent Pakistan it took to insisting on living under ``tyranny of the minority``!!!

Today, it is Pakistan`s military that has emerged as the crown jewel of Pakistan`s ruling minority.

ferozk #7 Good to hear from you after such a long time.

It is true that while Musharaff`s political actions are offensive, it is the economic aspect that is important. After all, ultimately, what matters is the economy, and political institutions are then forced by economic factors to change anyway. Indeed, the economy has picked up, and much credit goes to the strong economic team (ishrat hussein, shaukat aziz in particular). The growth rate has indeed been quite good past two years (6.4 percent projected this year), and no doubt the improved economic picture benefits from actions taken by the US government to ease the debt burden. Other positive things are the expected opening up of the US market to pakistani goods exports; spillover effects of FDI in call centers; the strategic gwadur port linked to newly constructed motorways, that has a potentially enormous hinterland extending to all of Pakistan and to central asian states and china`s sinkiang.

Whether all this will pay off in the end remains to be seen. Cohen`s pessimistic assesment of Pakistan is nevertheless a useful reminder of the dangers that face Pakistan today. But time (and God) is on the side of the Pakistani people, and the mullahs and the military are bound to be put in their proper place on the margins of pakistani society as the middle class becomes increasingly prominent due to economic growth.

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

Pakistan Military in politics, Indian Jingoists, and the Global Mad Maulvis: a potential for disaster!!

M.B.Z.Isphahani is on a perpetual high induced by god knows what.Isphahani sahib please hire an interpreter, your posts seem insightful - but only if the majority of chowkies could figure out what youre saying! Hey as long as it makes you happy...keep `em coming.

It is not unusal for the people used to looking answers in one book alone are not finding satisfactory answers in this book, reviewed by Pervez Hoodbhoy. No single book alone can tell all past, preset and future precisely. I believe that it is his honest assesssment based on his knowledge, information, training and thinking. He could be right or wrong. One can go to a library and look at number of books published just 10 years ago and see how the predictions, predicaments and conclusion turned out to be partially right or partially wrong.

Knowledge is to be gained, horizon is to be bioadened and thinking is sharpened from reading such a book. One has to read several books on the subject and adding peersonal firsthand knowledge to develop a picture in mind.

This book clearly describes the possible dangers ahead and actually suggests doing something about meeting the challenges ahead of time. This is not a postscript or a history book book like Rise and Fall of Rome or British Empire.

Arguably, there are many assertions made by Stephen Cohen, which can be debated and proven wrong. For example right from the begining, he credits Pakistan creation to Hindu-Muslim divide and TNT. That is highly debatable because none of this mattered to the West of Jamuna river. People did not vote for the Unionists, Khudai Khdmatgars and others for Hindu-Muslim or TNT basis.

Author has rightly pointed out two sacred cows since the creation of Pakistan - Military establishment and Islam. But one does not have to be very smart to know this best known secret. Muslims were behind in every field that matters - social and economic indicators. So the role of Islam predated in letting its followers on a slow suicidal path before military joined in to make the decline path slippery and steeper. Once this broadline or conclusion is reached, one can add filler material to make it a book from the history of the region and Pakistan.

It is wrong to assume independent day as the starting point for everthing Pakistan is today. Nations are made by people and people in the region with aspirations, work ethics and morals existed much before. On many topics, 57 years of Pakistan only add few data points on a plot. The state of Pakistan can not be held responsible for inherent weaknesses of a nation at the starting point. The people of the region, except for some advances during British rule, were screwed due to the fact of converting to something that did not give as much importance to improvement in life as performing certain ritualistic cultural duties. If nothing else, then at least lowering the status of women started this whole screwing up process and people found lagging behind their non-Muslim neighbors in everything that mattered in this world.

Military early on realized their interests at stake under non-military leadership. They started carving out their share of the pie until it was necessary to have full authority over carving out their share of the pie. So they brought the pie to the miliatry headquarters by moving the military at the top of the government. They have the pie, knife and authority to cut whatever piece they like to cut for themselves.

The most important part of Stephen Cohen`s thesis is comparing Musharraf, despite favorable bias towards him, with Yahaya Khan. This part alone is causing most criticism from Musharraf lovers here at chowk. Since Yahya Khan is history and postscript can be written with much more accuracy, the future of Pakistan in the hands of somebody with the thinking of Yahya Khan is a very scary thought. In fact some of the similarity is coming true with the quick decisions to opt for mitary solution in Balochistan and Waziristan. The other similarity with Yahya Khan is poor professional skills, inability to make right decisions at the right time and flip-flopping on very serious matters like Uniform recently, to a childish level.

Like Zia before him, Musharraf was promoted for being dumbest of all and least threat to civilian government and liek Zia he looked absolutely dumb on the day he overthrew civilian government with making a story from Ibn Safi novel. He ran the country horribly until 9/11/2001 and attack on WTC towers came as his rescue just as Russians entry into Afghanistan came as a rescue for Zia. The effects of Zia are still there and the effects of Musharraf will also leave a dark shadow on the society.

Authoritarianism ahs never worked in Pakistan and did not work in the long histry before that due to the triabl frontier mentality of the people living in the region. They people were never trusted or included and in return people do not have fond memories of not a single ruler from the last 1000+ years. Pakistan needs inclusion of people, democracy, weak center, weak provinces and possibly strongest districts. Let the dust fly at the national and provincial capitals and all decisions to be taken at district levels with absolutely no curriculum guidelines for the textbooks. Decentralization along with promotion of native cultures are key to meeting the challenges posed by radicalism and militarism. Pakistan, through stong center, has put all eggs in one basket. Today it is Musharraf, tomorrow it might be a Mullah. The pople who dont want to be effected by the central government should not be effected by the federal government. Leave them alone. The Mullahs might have power in 4 districts but should not be allowed to play havoc with the destiny of remaining 50 districts.

#27 by kkkandk

i agree kkk&k with the partial list. its tough to survive in those arid indian plains with 16-th century economy an all.

``1. Religious extremism dividing the country (Shia/Sunni unity is paramount for Pakistan!) ``

well, at least there is no pesky hindu problem (or sikh, or choora/dalit problem). not too bad. i mean look at the stupid neighbor with the nasty muslim problem they seem to have in godhra among several other smaller ones.

tahmed, why is your cartoon showing a sikh? should it not be a bald bania?

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

jang: I didnt make the cartoon. I just cut and paste it off of the internet. Your concern regarding a bearded sikh representing india rather than a bald single pony tail hindu is duly noted. And indeed, I should also note that mushy is not bearded either - nor indeed are most pakistani generals.

But that wasnt the point of the cartoon...

There is, indeed, an elitist group running Pakistan. If one digs below the surface, one discovers that the Generals, the feudals, the rich, the civil servants, the college-educated expats are all either directly related to each other, or are indirectly members of the same club.

All of us on Chowk, including Hoodbhoy, belong to the above group. Satistically we are all within the wealthiest and empowered 1% or less of the society. I always find it surprising that we keep bleming others, and not ourselves.

There is, interestingly, only one group that represents the poor of Pakistan. That is the maulvis. The lower poor non-Chowk class of Pakistan seems to now have only one outlet to voice its anger.

If people really want to sideline the mullah, they need to somehow or the incorporate the poor into their political and social agendas. I don`t know of any group that is willing to do that. PPP and PML certainly aren`t. The more middle class and lower-middle class the Army continues to become, the more it will align with the religious parties also (not due to ideological similaraties, but due to economic similarities).

The future of Pakistan will not be a fight between secularism and maulvism, as so many people on this site, incorrectly keep highlighting. It will be a fight between the economic haves and haven-nots. The haves will be pushing their agenda through the more secular parties like PPP and PML. While the have-nots will be pushing their agenda through parties that happen to be Islamic. The military will be divided, with the ORs and lower officer ranks siding with the maulvis, and the Generals siding with the secular side.......

Let`s see who wins........

#20 SAC,
Good analysts follow the Research Methodology exercising empericism with a nuetrality. As head of one of the biggest research organisation of the world, Cohen should have excercised some nuetrality and that is what I contest.

Now why some foreigners write? Your rationale is that we Pakistanis are not capable to write about ourselves. The quality of some comments even on this page, indicates that there are many who can and do. Have you ever heard of Hafeez Malik, Bilal Hashmi, Gardezi, Syed, Iftikhar Malik, Tariq Rauf, Dr. Askari, Dr. Siddiqua and many others. Just pick up some of the centre page articles of the Urdu dailies. They make a lot of sense.

Cohen represents a school of writers with a mayopic view of Pakistan and this theme has been consistent in all his writings. In the end he always plays safe by coming up with inconclusive and open ended conclusions. I wonder if he does any sampling or modelling while doing his research. I could pick up hundreds of indicaters in the US society and come up with a conspiracy theory that US is about to collapse. But would it stand the test of an apriori, let alone demarcation or epistomology.

Ills in Pakistani civil society and the ruling elites are all well known to us. We dont need a Hoodbouy to paste articles written by others legitimised by a few sentences of his own. Hoodbouy does not even belong to the class of writers who represent the consience of the nation.I suggest he confine himself to Physics or follow the course of the likes of Imran Khan, Ibrar ul Haq or Edhi and show some concrete performance.

I pity Pakistanis, who cannot hide their glee when they read such articles. Why dont they come back to Pakistan and begin a vibrant reformist movement?

Cheerios

Ref jang #31

[tahmed, why is your cartoon showing a sikh? should it not be a bald bania?]

The bania is busy selling the army rations. He won`t be enrolling in the army.

Sikhs are a good representation of the Indian Army as they are over-represented in the Army compared to their population.

It could even be an Indian Muslim, for all you know! Just look at both figures; they are dressed identically.

Romair: ``The future of Pakistan will not be a fight between secularism and maulvism, as so many people on this site, incorrectly keep highlighting. It will be a fight between the economic haves and haven-nots. The haves will be pushing their agenda through the more secular parties like PPP and PML. While the have-nots will be pushing their agenda through parties that happen to be Islamic. The military will be divided, with the ORs and lower officer ranks siding with the maulvis, and the Generals siding with the secular side....... ``

Do you have any clue about who the maulvis are? Ask their big boss Qazi Hussein Ahmed whose son is happily studying in the US. Or fat Mullah Fazloo - check with him how he got so fat, and why he fancies those royal robes.

As for the poor, they are not so stupid and understand better than you what the mullahs are about. That is why they always gave the mullahs humiliating defeats in elections, and the mullahs came to power only because the generals found it convenient. Having been on chowk so long, one would think these simple undeniable facts would have sunk into you. I think the name Captain Clueless that your good friend Arjun uses for you is not entirely out of place.

ferozek,

``money is re-flowing into Pakistan and a majority of investments being made in Pakistan is by Pakistanis themselves``........... but isn`t most of this investment in real estate because of the huge returns compared to the measely 1-2% we have been getting on dollar accounts abroad and the floundering stock markets ?........... i speak from personal experience - i know a lot of people, including me, who have bought plots, but i don`t know anyone, other than the satay baz, who has recently bought stock in the two companies of pakistan (ptcl and hubco!).......... on the other hand there are a lot of pakistani entrepreneurs who are hedging their bets by investing their money in dubai and canada ............

Here is excerts from an op-ed in today`s Nation daily by Husain Haqqani....interesting read.

[The transient nature of the stability provided by military rule in Pakistan can best be understood by revisiting some of the positive assessments of previous military rulers made while their control seemed unassailable. A secret CIA analysis of the situation in Pakistan in March 1983, almost six years after General Ziaul Haq`s 1977 military coup, which has since been declassified, begins with the words: ``President Ziaul Haq faces no substantial challenge to his rule for now. [He] has proved a shrewd political survivor and could buy more time for his regime if the economy continues to grow, the opposition remains divided, and the political initiative remains in his hands.``

The CIA analysis goes on to say: ``Zia`s authoritarian regime has avoided overly repressive policies, though it has dealt firmly with organized demonstrations. It has given the country nearly six years of domestic stability and substantial economic progress. Zia has also been able to deal effectively with external threats. He has stood up to the Soviets on Afghanistan, while keeping channels open to a negotiated settlement; he has improved relations with India; and he has succeeded in gaining major economic aid and arms assistance from the United States. The President ultimately depends on the Army to remain in power. Zia rules through a closed highly centralised circle of military and civilian advisers. The Pakistan Peoples Party, the party of late Prime Minister Bhutto, and the strongest group in the MRD, remains the most popular party in Pakistan but it lacks strong organisation and is factionalised. It depends on a dispersed constituency of the rural and urban poor that is best mobilised at the polls.``

Replace Zia with Musharraf, substitute Soviets with terrorists and read ARD in place of MRD and the same analysis can probably pass off as a recent account. One is forced to ask, what has changed in Pakistan in the 23 years since this intelligence estimate was written, and can a nation going through the same motions once again be considered a nation making progress? Regime survival and the appearance of stability is not the same thing as national consolidation. Professional economic management, aided by external inputs, under General Ziaul Haq resulted in an annual economic growth rate of 6 percent. ]

Now once again some people are cheering an externally manufactured 6 percent projected growth rate based on influx of aid, for the first time in a decade.

the `stability` of Ziaulhaque regime should remind individuals with insatiable ambitions -- not to take themselves too seriously....

...as Ismail Meeruthy would say: sub thaath paRaa ruh javegaa jub laad chalay gaa bunjara...

Musharraf has put all his eggs in ONE basket -- called Musharraf -- a kick and the whole outfit will Devolute to absolute zero.......so delegate, -- diversify, -- decentralize and disappear......and live for ever......

It is difficult to detach oneself from where one belongs. But if that can be done, what Cohen says is mostly true - though it may be painful. It is no different than what Pakistani media keeps saying day in and day out.

War on terror has, in many ways, been a blessing in disguise. It has postponed two crucial issues that the international community finds uncomfortable - Democracy & Nuclear.(besides radical Islam)

Might as well use this borrowed time before it is late. Democracy is a self-inflicted injury and Army needs to recoil itself back into the Cantonements. As for the Nuclear issue, the only acceptable solution to the world community may be sound safeguards under the SAARC regional umbrella.

there is no alternate to open genuine politics to resolve national issues. Musharraf needs to get out of that fear of Benazir & Nawaz. Let the people throw them out of office.

nhk

nasah #39 true. as habib jalib put it:

Shakhs tum say pahlay yahan takht nasheen tha
usko bhi khuda honai peh itna hee yaqeen tha

Translation (although with something lost in the translation):

The ruler before you
Was also sure he was God

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

What is Brown Bum`s contribution to the Western Sciences??

Siphar!!!
And these brown bums in all their hypocricy claim that Einstein and Newton have flinched their theses from `their` great traditions!!

It is time these rascals admitted that it is their hypocritical tradition that does not give them the humility to admit the contribution of Western Civilization in elevating them to their existing statuses. They deserve to live in the tents they so admire.

It is hard to make out where Stephen ends and PH starts in this review but the central question remains: Can Pakistan work?
It appears to me that PH has put words in Stephen’s mouth as Stephen’s book does not suggest anything like that. All Stephen did was to bring out some legitimate concerns that US academia has about Pakistan. Some of his analysis is reasonable but most of it as pointed out by other here pure baloney.
I think there are four major elements for Pakistan that determine whether the country is workable or not.
1. Geography 2.Political system 3. Culture 4. Economics.

Most of the US academician and some Pakistani analyst including PH and some on the left, when analyzing Pakistan and it problems, base their scrutiny on two models. First, Pakistan’s uniqueness as it was carved out of another country. Secondly, the idea behind its creation that resulted in another unique geographical feature that was a rarity.
These truly are difficult models to work with and often analyst jump to conclusions based on where they stand ideologically themselves.

Pakistan was not a workable geographical entity in 1947 and most of the analysts were proven right when Bengal separated. But once Bengal went its way, doubts in analysts mind about “Can Pakistan work” geographically, should have vanished. But it seems that most of the analysts hung on to their theses that are well over thirty years old now. These analyst including PH and Stephen fail to take cognizant of the changed Geographical situation of Pakistan after 1971, where it is apparent that it is a geographically integrated country and chances of its becoming undone geographically, are next to nothing. In fact, Pakistan is geographically more integrated than its two neighbors; India and Afghanistan. The infrastructure that connects a country geographically is in shambles or in pitiful state in India. Afghanistan is still in Stone Age and barring a few cities Iran too is not better off.
Ironically, only country that can hurt Pakistan geographically is India and we know it just does not have political will and enough nuke muscles to do that.

Before I take up political side of “Can Pakistan work”, let me say that culturally too Pakistan is much more integrated than any other neighboring country. All four provinces share similar Feudal Culture (good or bad) with language difference being most prominent. Personally, I would like to see all four Languages becoming national languages of Pakistan but in reality Urdu has pretty much become a language that does bring cultural cohesiveness to Pakistan.

The thorn on Pakistan’s side is its political integrity and that I think it is a legit question to ask whether Pakistan can work politically?

Again the uniqueness of its creation gives rise to doubts for many analysts. Two elements came together in creation of Pakistan. The economic demands of minority religion (Muslim) followers and the desire for political and economic autonomy of some border provinces in India that happened to have a Muslim majority population. The ruling feudals of 47 have given way to the army and the religious minority has given control to the idiots but these two basic elements of the compromise that resulted in Pakistan still provide the idealogical substance to Pakistani political system.

Pakistan is not a democratic country partly for the reasons put forward by Sameer in his post # 28 but largely because Pakistan army has acquired so much interest in Pakistan that moving that behemoth from power would take another army of equal size.

Can Pakistan not work without democracy?

The whole thrust of PH and to some extent Stephen is that Pakistan may not work w/o democracy.
Is that really so?

Now I am in favor of democracy and civilian rule in Pakistan and I believe that there are more benefits of democracy than the oligarchic power structure that we have in Pakistan.
But the argument can be made that the western democracy is a representative system for the middleclass and it does not represent the majority. Poor classes are there to vote but the wars of ideas, which are contested in a democracy, have their origins and roots in Middleclass ideological struggles and have nothing to do with the common man.
The clear reason that democracy fails to take hold in Pakistan is that the growing middleclass in Pakistan, still is not convinced that democracy is something that would help it in controlling the country. Therefore, the middleclass cedes the authority to run the country to the elite and the army has taken the mantle to represent the elite and the Middleclass in Pakistan as Stephen and PH point out. This does show a weakness that barely one percent controls the country but that is only because the other 25-30 percent middleclass is not convinced that it can take over the country yet.

PH points out that Stephen is advocating “This latter goal points to the need for broad political reform in Pakistan to build responsible civilian leadership”.
Easier said then done.

As the middleclass in Pakistan progresses and economic and political benefits become important and worth fighting for, a responsible civilian leadership would emerge. Until then, honestly, there is no chance that Pakistan will have democracy. Pakistan never had a civilian government w/o military’s blessings and if in future current political leaders BB or NS ever take over in Pakistan that too would be with the help of the army and not by defying the army.

In the current world no country has disappeared because of poor economic conditions. Pakistan will continue to work even when economic progress is slow or even non existent.
So Stephen and PH, despite your doomsday scenarios Pakistan will continue to work mostly and limp occasionally.

HP
//...In the current world no country has disappeared because of poor economic conditions..//

True. Countries breakup mostly because of ethnic problems. But sometimes poor economic conditions add fuel to existing ethnic problems which may work towards break of the cohesion of a country sooner or later.

So to say that pakistan will just limp along no matter what the economic conditions are - is fraught with risks.

M.B.Z.Isphahani #30

Thank you for the explanation. Best regards.



Yasirz and Manto

Mr. M.B.Z.Isphahani doesn`t say anything. He follows a standard but very effective rhetorical technique. This rhetorical technique consists of throwing in button-pushing words amid paragraphs of 1) utter, disjointed nonsense - as in his case or 2) endless mind-numbing verbiage - as in the case of hobbyty and sometimes romair. The button-pushing words Mr. Isphahani uses constantly are UK, USA, RSS, Advani, Naipaul, Jew, Bajpai, Hindu, Zionist, Hitler etc.

The strategy works very simply. The few who can think dismiss him as a cynical fool or a dishonest moron. The rest, a much larger population, try to search for something deep in his garbage. Among the latter there are some readers who also implicitly hold that most Islamic problems can be blamed on UK, USA, RSS, Advani, Jew, Bajpai, Zionist, etc.. Using gobbledygook, Mr. Isphahani reinforces in the minds of the latter readers the vague and soothing impression that another issue has been explained, even if there is no clear idea how, by blaming the above-mentioned anti-Islam forces. Once again, the problem is not within, but without. Perfection within, evil outside. Glory within, chicanery outside.

This is demogoguery at its worst, but not unexpected given where Mr. Isphahani
is coming from and what he represents.

Can pakistan work?

Only if the pakis make some effort to make it work. Pakis need some serious reorientation in various departments. First thing to do is stop dancing in the streets whenever Army taked over the country. Second - realize that there is no such thing as ``ideology of pakistan``. Third - remember, Muhammad was a trader. So trade!

Nothing succeeds like economic success!! That`s the ultimate salvation.

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

Romair,

Your constant attempt to present the `religious parties` as the party of the masses is beyond me ... living here in Pakistan I just don`t see it... MMA does not represent the `havenots`... PPP has that vote bank... some 3 times as much without even the presence of its leadership.... MMA`s votebank (significantly less than PPP) was based on the anti-American sentiment and the registration of Afghan Pushtuns... Now you can say all you want about how the rural vote is skewed by the feudals... fine but ask any thelay wallah, any sweeper, any chaprasi, any naib qasid, any rehri wallah and they will say PPP.

Furthermore the `religious parties` have never forwarded any agenda of the masses? Trying to ban the car token tax or the fire arms licence fee was hardly the agenda of the `havenots`.... forcing people to pray is hardly the agenda of the havenots... Colluding with a Military dictator to pass the 17th amendment was hardly the agenda of the havenots...

My dear friend ... it will be much better if you don`t write such things with such awesome conviction.... when you don`t have anything to back it up with...

-YLH

re ijaz_gul #35:

Let`s say I had to golf at Gymkhana`s golf course and I had both Ghulam Rasool and Mike Cowan(Tiger`s ex-caddy) available. Which one would I choose? I`d say Ghulam Rasool because the guy has spent most of his adult life there and knows the course like the back of his hand. Now let`s say I have the same choice but I am playing at Pinehurst. Ghulam Rasool I am afraid doesn`t make the cut here. Same thing with native writers. I`d be more than happy to give more credence to the gentlemen you`ve mentioned in your post with regard to Pakistan but I am not sure if we are playing at the same course! I hope you get my drift.

``But would it stand the test of an apriori, let alone demarcation or epistomology``

Good point. A gentleman by the name of Ravi Batra wrote a book titled ``The Great Depression of 1990`` in the late 80`s. The book was a runaway bestseller and earned Prof. Batra a lot of fame. Needless to say the events of the 90s proved him to be completely wrong. However if you check his website, he is still actively ``forecasting`` and defending his thesis. Does anyone listen to him? I am sure they do...at their own peril. Same thing with Mr. Cohen, it would behoove those who are criticisizing him and Prof. Hoodbhoy to present counter arguments and let time tell who is right and who is wrong. Casting aspersions on the motives of the people involved or questioning the the patriotism of expats will not do anyone any good.

later
-sac

Another baraat with lots of band-baajas and hulla-gullas but with doolah missing!
Pakistan will survive but the military will remain firmly in saddle as long as Pakistani awaam buy the idea of continuous rivalry with India. When they give up this rivalry, they would become another nation like Canada where the civil society rules.

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

Thanks, Parvez Hoobhoy for bringing this discussion to the Chowk.

Cohen`s review seems very reasonable. Musharraf right now is the only hope for saving Pakistan from Chaos. Hopefully, he will be able to educate, cajole or coerce the deluded Pakistanis from heading headlong in to the disintegration.

The most important changes that need to be effected in Pakistan are preventing the Masjids to get the public funds, tightening the educational requirements with emphasis on modernity and quality to put the madarsas out of business of education, separate state from religion`s pernicious influence by adopting the principles of equality - initially for all sects of Islam and sequentially and necessarily of all religions - and finally working for the improvement of the lot of the deprived and poor.

Above can be achieved only when Pakistanis clearly enunciate the objective as betterment of the financial lot rather than delusory religious dogmas and/or competition with India.

Dear Nikki,
That explains why the juggernaut massed up on our border and didnt have the you-know-what to cross over....

besides probably half of your army is malnourished and incapable of waging combat...just like the cricket team :)

Dear Mantolives (#49 by Mantolives on October 20, 2004 10:02am PT)

Romair`s prophecy of war between ``haves`` and ``have nots`` is out of Soviet-era, and communist Chinese era. It has no relevance to modern times. I also think that Romair cannot stand negative criticisms, from inside or outside, of the armed forces of Pakistan and the religion of his choice. He promptly tries to diffuse the criticisms to include wider sections. From some readings of essays and discussions that I have had with my Pakistani friends, it seems that Pakistani army is not just a defensive organization in Pakistan. It has evolved its role in constructing economic, and social fabric of Pakistan society. Another progressive aspect is that Pakistani armed forces are more secular in nature than Pakistani society at large.

Therefore, don`t you think that it would be better for democratic forces in Pakistan to accept this fact. And possibly use it as the start line, and force democratization, and transformation of economic, educational and social organs and institutions that Pakistani army has created and at the same time these democratic forces can insist on spreading secular theme of Pakistani army into society at large through the cooperation from Paksitani armed forces.

In case of economic institutions, for instance demand could be to rid armed forces monopoly, and allow market forces to takeover and come into play. As far as educational and social institutions created by Pakistani armed forces, make them to open and accept civilians as well. Why destroy something which is good, instead let it also train better Pakistanis for non-military roles too and work for the greater good of the society.

Once the above processes start and armed forces role in non-defense area diffuses and transformation of various institutions that attract people aspiring for non-military roles too, I feel armed forces role will automatically start to devolve back into defending the country. many times it is not worth taking the bull by the horn, but sapping its sources of energy and diffusing them constructively is more sensible strategy.

I somehow think that Mushraff is doing an excellent job, in helping this transformation, and he probably sees that the threat to Paksitan is from within and not from outside. Although, there may be a danger of ``renting`` Pakistan to foreign interests, in the game plan he is playing. I also think that evolution of Pakistani institutions is destined to pass through a transformation from a military organization first. There is nothing wrong with this process, as long as it happens. Love to know your views and those of others with progressive thoughts.

Anil

Ref nikki7777 #48

On the other hand, Pakistan has a friend with the following statistics:

Military manpower - military age: 18 years of age

Military manpower - availability: males age 15-49: 379,524,688

Military expenditures - dollar figure: $60 billion (2003 est.)

Military expenditures - percent of GDP: 3.5-5.0% (FY03 est.)

And as you so aptly pointed out on another board, these guys have both their ba!!s intact whereas our men seem to be handing over theirs to Sonia Gandhi.

Ref dost-mittar #51

[Pakistan will survive but the military will remain firmly in saddle as long as Pakistani awaam buy the idea of continuous rivalry with India. When they give up this rivalry, they would become another nation like Canada where the civil society rules.]

No, they would become another nation like Turkmenistan where Turkmenbashi Saparmurat Niyazov was elected President for Life. No, Turkmenbashi does not mean ``he who bashes the Turkmen`` though that is actually what he does. It is supposed to mean something like ``Father of the Turkmen`` which might quite possibly have been true if he had started on a particular vocation when he was younger.

Canada is Pakistan for people like Romair.... their dream country where the people are disciplined, a few ``moderate`` Muslim MPs get elected, they can go to Gerard Street in Toronto for their badaa khaanas and chhota pegs but their women still wear black burqas.

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

anil

I would be indebted if you elaborate how you have reached the conclusion that Pakistan army is more secular secular in nature than Pakistani society at large. [The army constitutes the bulk of the armed forces and calls the shots, the the other services are orphans at worst, shamil bajas at best!]

So far as the religio-political orientation of Pakistani society is concerned, suffice it to say that in all the elections so far held, even those that were massively rigged and tinkered with, the popular vote captured by the so-called ``religious political`` parties was far, far less than those captured by those parties who did not stylize themselves as thakaydaars of religion.

---

There has been talk of Pakistan`s ``burgeoning`` middle class, and its increasing purchasing power during the past five years.

One would have been much enlightened if one had been given a definition of this middle class in terms of their monthly take-home salary packets.

The ground realities in Pakistan indicate a situation that is the exact opposite. The white collar worker, who constitutes the largest phalanx of taxpayers has been thoroughly impoverished.

The financial institutions in Pakistan, quite a few of them still state-owned, have been plagued by a glut of liquidity that simply refuses to abate. Investment in large scale industry, small and medium scale manufacturing is at a low, and the banks have been constrained to offer credit even for white goods such as refrigerators, deep freezers, television receivers and vacuum cleaners which as a category were never financed by banks till very recently.

If this constitutes an increase in the middle class``` buying power, so be it.

---

There has been much talk about ``enlightened moderation`` too.

The infamous Hudood Ordinance, the Blasphemy Law as well as the other abominations implanted into Pakistan`s Penal Code by the Zia military usurpation are still enshrined in the Statute Books. The Qisas and Diyat Law of 1990 is being amended to make the misnamed ``honour`` killings compoundable.

And of course, in the name of ``enlightened moderation`` the MMA was cobbled together weeks before the 2002 General Elections, and in the name of the selfsame ``enlightened moderation``, Maulana Fazlur Rahman was granted the status of the Leader of the Opposition.

With a view to accelerate the pace of this ``enlightened moderation``, curriculum reform, a long standing demand of the education practitioners was unceremoniously scuttled, and Javed Ashraf Qazi, former head honcho of the enlightened and moderate ISI was made Federal Minister for Education!

---

Come to think of it, shouldn`t the article in question be titled ``Can Pakistan be made to work?``

Or do we subscribe or are just hostages to the spontaneous dynamic of events external to and foreign to our collective will?

Cohen`s analysis, of necessity will be from a standpoint that cannot be congruent with the perceptions and vision of the Pakistanis.

What should the Pakistanis do to make Pakistan work, and to make up for three generations of peace and prosperity that has already been lost?

To the naysayers of pakistan i say this: this article reminded me of tariq ali`s book in the 70s called, `Can Pakistan Survive?` and his hypothesis was it couldn`t and now 30 years later, alhamdulillah, it is still surviving (it`s on life support but still hanging on in there.)

i believe there are only two ways to solve pakistan`s problems: (1) a genuine islamic revolution led by a moderate mainstream muslim (eg a sincere version of tahirul qadri) --but i don`t think that`s going to happen until imam mahdi alayhisalam`s appearance so the probability of this happening before the Mahdi is sufficiently close to zero to be negligible and

(2) genuine democratic reform of the political process leading eventually to our own unique brand of islamic democracy and not a mere attempt to lift a european concept and force it onto the people of pakistan where it doesn`t belong. but we can learn a few things from india such as their respect for democracy as far as the actual process of electing/removing political leaders is concerned. this can perhaps be achieved best by a pakistani muhatthir muhammad or (1) above...

the alternative is to continue along as we have been doing in limbo for the foreseeable future...

This is another typical rant by Dr. Hoodbhoy. No surprises there then. (His thesis: Everything Western = Good; Everything Islamic = Bad).

But what gets me annoyed is not him but the people on here who have always criticised Musharraf for being a dictator, who hate dictators, who think that democracy is the best thing since sliced bread (and i am not criticising it) but just because Busharaf is anti-Islam they have the gall to say that `oh the fact that he is a murdering dictator are not important since his ECONOMIC reforms are good...`

The sheer hypocrisy!

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

SAC and HP,
Good points and I agree. There was one Schumann who in 1947 predicted that Pakistan would fall apart in 50 years. His central theme was the currupt fuedals who had rallied around Jinnah. Though East Pakistan broke away, Pakistan did not fall apart.

In my article on the State and civil Society, I had concluded the foibles of Pakistan and proposed that the state open more spaces for the society in the spirit of instrumentalism and pluralism. This is a more patriotic way of suggesting an evolving devolutionary process that ultimately leads to a pragmatic Pakistan. It means the same.

What I dont like about HB is that he picks up themes with the currents of the western perception. Rather than become a more dedicated teacher of physics in the QAU, he wastes so much time on this stuff. The biggest bluff is, and his friend Nayyer`s desire to suddenly change the education system in Pakistan. Why? because uncle Sam wants it, or that he has good friends with Cohen, Kreppon or Rocca who is touring Pakistan and would surely give him audience.

By the way, the matric and FSC syllabus in Pakistan is far superior to the US high school system. These kids compete with the A levels and do well.Just because they feel that history is framed and there is talk of Jihad in Islamyiat etc, they are condemning the whole system.

Cheerios

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

#48 by nikki7777

+++
it is only a matter of time before the indian military juggernaut flexes its` muscle......
+++

You are applying conventional calculus to a non-conventional military equation. The biggest variable missing from your equation is the number of nuclear weapons that both countries exist. According to Jane`s Defence Weekly, Pakistan has 50-110 nukes whereas India has 55-95. This implies a parity in nukes between India and Pakistan.

A nuclear armed state with a first-strike policy does not need to match the conventional capabilities of its opponent. For all practical purposes, India`s military dominance over Pakistan has been over ever since the 1980s!!

Pakistan does not face any external threat. All dangers are in fact internal (e.g. Islamist revolution, sectarian/ethnic violence, etc.)

Oh yeah thats the word i was looking for....you didnt have the TATA to cross over..thanks.(sorry i can be really corny sometimes).

Actually its that and the Ghauri angel that hoverth on thou as well.

To Busharraf critics...he may be a stooge,he may a dicatator,he may `rape` the constitution but he has however resusciated that unholy b itch known as the pakistan economy.Be grateful. Enjoy the trickles of progress.Now if you`ll excuse me i have to go watch that bufoon on aalim online.
later

HE # 65

You make a compelling case that the manpower strength of Armed forces can now be safely reduced below 100K from the existing 600K.


Naqshbandi # 63

I must disagree; unfortunately, the words of Tariq Ali proved to be prophetic and Pakistan did not survive. What we have now is just the left over remanants of Pakisatn that our founding fathers left for us. Na Pak fauj and people like hoodbhoy work very hard, day and night to dismantel what is left of it. They broke it first, they will break what is left of it. Instead of feeling good that we still have a glass half full we should worry about saving what is left as half empty.

#63, Naqshbandi:
Even though I am not, most of the Pakistanis see me at least as a ``naysayer.`` Hence your post may be applicable to me.
I am pleased to see the rationality of your second paragraph. Though for a believer - in contrast to a rationalist - in the religion even the first paragraph is quite sensible.

harimau

[Sikhs are a good representation of the Indian Army as they are over-represented in the Army compared to their population.]

You forget the most basic thing: The leader of India today is a Sikh.

I have been remiss in not acknowledging the kind thoughts expressed for me by friends here. My thanks and apologies for this late acknowledgment.

---

Education has been mentioned in the context of Pakistan`s future often.

It is interesting, and quite educative to note the very many different views expressed here regarding the schooling of Pakistan`s future.

Pakistan, I believe, has never had an education policy. Ad hocism there was, there is, and if the past is any mirror of the future, there will be.

One of the basic flaws in the vision [in fact it is lack of it] of educationists in Pakistan has been the undue stress on what they call higher education.

Enrollment of children at primary level is still abysmally low. Quality of teachers, at all levels leaves a lot to be desired [The desire most often is to give them a swift, sharp and decisive kick somewhere below the smalls of their backs.]

All along there has also been an undue and veritably obscene emphasis on the provision of hardware - buildings, furniture, etc., etc., [designed, as all of us know, to enrich even more corrupt and grasping contractors] whereas the imperative has been the development of appropriate software -- curricula and the teachers who are to be vehicles for their teaching.

It is ludicrous, and in a way tragic, to see children of the age of six and seven toting around satchels weighing somewhere around 20 lbs. full of around a dozen textbooks and almost two dozen copybooks. Class? Three, four. Subjects? English, Urdu, Islamiyat, Mathematics [that`s what they call it!] Social Studies, General Science, Qurani Qaeda, Sindhi . . .

There are English medium schools I have visited in Karachi, Lahore and Islamabad, where the learned Principals cannot speak English - where English is taught in stilted Urdu.

Urdu happens to be the mother tongue of a small fraction of Pakistanis.

Why not not teach the basic learning skills and the 3R`s to the children in their mother tongues.

What they are creating is polyglot mongrels who are neither imparted any cognitive skills nor a love of learning per se. The whole benighted system hinges upon deposition and prescription. Rote.

Within this quagmire there flourish so called ``islands of excellence`` where, at hefty prices, the sons and daughters of the filthy rich are given ``modern, enlightened achooling`` and sent forth into the world as half baked potatoes neither fit to be consumed nor used as seeding. Befittingly, most are chewn and spat out.

How much does Pakistan spend on primary and secondary education? That is one indication of the importance attached to creating a learning society.

P. S.

We have had a general as the vice chancellor the Punjab university, and now we have another general, and the ex-chief of the ISI to boot, as the Federal Minister of Education in Pakistan.

Hail Caeser!

And to hell with the awaam and their future!

Siddiqua (#56) on October 20, 2004 6:34pm PT

``anil

I would be indebted if you elaborate how you have reached the conclusion that Pakistan army is more secular secular in nature than Pakistani society at large.``

My knowledge of Pakistan is limited to reading essays and interactions here on Chowk, and private discussions with my Pakistani friends. I believe that I read Romair`s interactions here at Chowk about Pakistani army being more secular. I stand corrected if this is not the case.

My more important point is taking Pakistani Army, the bull by its horn may not be right strategy for currently weaker democratic forces. They should instead consider democratizing, and opening economic, social structure, and educational institutions to civilians as well. Even separation of Church and State doctrine can wait, if religion plays a very important part in the daily lives.

The distribution of wealth through market forces, social awareness will increase, better education will become more accessible where Army must compete with civilians for benefiting from anything that is not related to defending the country. Also civilians will have access to facilities which are limited to Army only, and when armed force personnel come out to run mainstream civilian industries, the civilians will not loose out.

India mobilized non-confrontational approach to gain independence from more powerful British. I do not know of other dictator run countries of almost 200 million people today. Soviet Union is long gone, and Communist China is changing too. There can be no doubt that Pakistan can not sustain its growth by relying on foreign educated handfuls, and its military for the leadership. The alternative for military to maintain its control, would be to limit Nation`s growth to suit the growth of Pakistan`s military. Besides it must allocate funds to non-productive sectors of economy as well to maintain its command and control in all spheres. It is impractical. Such command controlled economy and societies collapsed elsewhere in late 1980s, because such growth models are not sustainable.

The question is whether political institutions evolve to become democratic and civilian first, or later. India is a wrong model for Pakistan, where politics became more inclusive first through democratic institutions.

Anil

re: hamidm2 # 37

Yes, most of this investment was in real estate. As far as I can determine, the stock market is still considered a more risky proposition than a real estate venture However, there is investment in private telecommunications companies by Pakistanis as joint partners with Arabs, but PTCL is a non-starter because no one wants to deal with its financial mess. A lot of investment, which is flowing into Pakistan is in television and cable channels. A good indication of PTCL`s privatization will be the privatization of KESC promised for December of 2004.

Again, real estate market was rattled by the Bharia Town scam and since then, there is a slight movement towards the stock market and the result has been that the property prices have come down and are expected to decrease by nearly 10-15 percent. Real estate has been always considered as the traditional ``safe bet`` in Pakistan and it remains to be seen how much money is going to be pulled out of it and re-invested in the stock markets.

As to investment in Canada and Dubai, it is true that is being done by Pakistanis. It is not a question of a safe bet, as much as it is need to circumvent the trade laws and seek tax loop holes as means of increasing the profit margins.

Please note, that the people who are investing in Pakistan have the money and required political clout to buy influence in Pakistan and get over the bureaucratic red tape. There is a lot of insider information benefitting people and as a result, Pakistan is presently seeing a lot of monopolies being created, which are controlling the market. In a different context, Pakistan is experiencing the days of the Robber Barons and there is a lack of governmental authority to regulate the exploitation, which comes from such a business practice.

There is a lot of money being invested in construction in Pakistan also. So there is a marked inflow investment in Pakistan in areas other than the real estate. Also, there is a significant investment in defence bonds, which give a high rate of return and most of the military`s money is invested in these bonds.

I hope this answers your question.

Ciao

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

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

anil

``I believe that I read Romair`s interactions here at Chowk about Pakistani army being more secular.``

this is very funny. romair has spent many millions of ascii characters grappling with the word secular. he gets nightmares about seculars and being secular and has bought all the thesauruses from Arabic to Zulu about this word.

#70 by BruceLee #70

{harimau

[Sikhs are a good representation of the Indian Army as they are over-represented in the Army compared to their population.]

You forget the most basic thing: The leader of India today is a Sikh.}

You forget the most basic thing: Manmohan Singh is a neutered Sikh.

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

#75 by nikki7777

+++
Remember, last year Iraq could have been obliterated with one nuclear weapon dropped by the US and all would have been well.Right??.Wrong
+++

I don`t disagree with this statement. American goal was to control Iraq, not destroy it. You can`t change the Iraqi regime, take control of Iraqi oil industry, deweaponize Iraq, democratize Iraqi society at gunpoint, run jails, etc. without troops on the ground.

+++
I end with half a quote from a defense analyst on CNN who said, ``the sheer force of their(India`s) numbers will do it for them``.``Nuclear`` has to be backed up with ``conventional``.Otherwise no dice, baby
+++

The two militaries (India, Pakistan) have different mandates.
Indian Army has an offensive mandate that includes invading another country, and administering it. Without a large army, India could never invade East Pakistan in 1971 or send troops to Sri Lanka in the 1980s.

Pakistani Army has just one mandate: defense. It is not expected to invade India, run jails in Sri Lanka or conduct elections in Afghanistan. A small, well trained, well equipped and nuclearized military is all that Pakistan needs to neutralize the offensive capability of India`s larger military.

When it comes to defense, size does not matter. Size matters only when you are trying to conquer territory and occupy.

BTW, that ``lock and key`` statement about Pakistani nukes is just a bad joke. If America had access to Pakistani nukes, the Americans wouldn`t waste a day in shipping these out of Pakistan, just like they shipped out the nuclear materials from Libya. You don`t control anything, until it is actually in your possession.