Why Democracy?

Re: # 109

>>>>As one who, until 2004, spent 24 years in the US (i.e., Southern and Mid-Western US), and recently migrated to the UK,…<<<<

Aren’t we a little too slow that it took us 24 years to realize that? Don’t worry moving from one shythole to another, I am sure that the transition will be smooth for you. Not to mention how the South and Mid-Western US will benefit, in terms of intelligence per capita, from this move. Thanks from the bottom of our hearts, and good luck in your new and not so dark home. Just don’t start blowing up tubes there.

Re: # 99 {``...I said ``Southern and Mid-Western U.S. are hardly centers of enlightenment - exactly the opposite.`` I was born in Tennessee and I spent all of my childhood and most of my adolescent years there. As a mature adult I spent time in Mississippi and Alabama during the civil rights movement. I occasionally return. I speak from considerable first hand knowledge. It is in these regions (Southern and Mid-Western U.S.), strongholds of fundamental religion, that the teaching of science is most vigorously opposed, in particular Darwinian evolution as it has been elaborated over the years by reputable scientists. I have had the good fortune to teach at Preparatory and University level with faculty educated in England. I assure you that the level of their intelligence and understanding could not be found among secondary teachers in Southern and Mid-western U.S.A. ...``}

As one who, until 2004, spent 24 years in the US (i.e., Southern and Mid-Western US), and recently migrated to the UK, I could not agree with you more. But you are wasting your breath here. Most desi admirers of the ``US wonderland`` are concentrated in pockets of relative cosmopolitan urban areas along the West Coast or the Northeast. The vast hinterlands are like the dark continent which most only view through a TV camera`s lens.

...SR

Romair #104

`` Kindly take a look at how much aid Pakistan has received? If you analyse it, you will find it is not much. Pakistan has received a lot of loans. Not aid. But those have had to be paid back, to the point that they are the largest part of the budget, now. The aid paled in comparison to the expat remittences. These officially come to around $30 billion per decade. And unofficially, through hundi, perhaps much higher. Also there was a lot of drug money in circulation.........This is the artifical semination. I do not consider it artificial because it was generated by Pakistanis (be they drug dealers or expats) ``

Pakistan total foreign debt is less than $35 billion - lot of it interest. That means you could not received more than $25-30 billion in loans.

Pakistan has received in excess of $12 billion from USA alone. There is no official tally for the market value of the aid from Saudi Arabia, UAE or China.

WE ARE CHANGING THE SUBJECT. I do not trust the figures put up by the World Bank Pakistani gurus and am well aware what they do to their country. In 1999-2000, these financial babus could not figure what Pakistan`s external liabilities were.

Unfortuneately even now the poverty is growing and not otherwise.

The irregular sector is retracting and consumerism is a boom. A honad Civic is more expensive than a Caddilac in USA and gas too is more expensive. Cost of living is going up.

These are ground realities.

Re: # 105

Mirmir Sahib,

And where in your brilliant analysis does it say that the enrollment to Higher education will fall among low-income families? If all you can bring up is a little stupid speech by some unknown Congresswomen representative, I think there is nothing more that needs to be said. If you are looking for academic analysis, look for studies conducted by the experts in the area, and not some editorial garbage in some radically stupid magazine or rhetorical garbage by some unknown politician. Sky is not yet falling.

If you need any references, I will be more than happy to oblige.

Re: # 102
“At the end of our analysis we are surprised to find that there are sufficient family and financial aid resources to fully meet college attendance costs for the 5.2 million full-time, full-year undergraduates enrolled in 2003-04. But these resources are wildly misallocated. Students from low income families lack resources to pay their college attendance costs while students from the highest family income levels have far more family and financial aid resources at their disposal than they need to pay college costs. In the current political climate of the country we doubt that there exists vision, leadership and will to reallocate resources to make college equally affordable for students from all parental income backgrounds.”
http://www.postsecondary.org/home/default.asp

http://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/tx30_johnson/morenews/RiseTuitionHurts.html

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200401/washburn

Ijaz_Gul #100: ``1.........This is the time when the politics of permits and proliferation of wealth in few hands began. 1965 was a shot in the foot..............2. Pakistan`s second resurgence coincided with the Afghan Mock Jehad for another decade........Aid coming in was used to breed puppets like Hamayun Akhtar, Shareefs and a new brand of political upstarts...........3.This is the third resurgence from 2002 onwards and into its third year..........All told this comes to 23 and not forty.``

The statistics, figures and economic analysis do not support the above.......I am not an economist, nor was I around in most of the 60s. But I try to read prominent Pakistani economists, as much as I can. And their arguments are different from the one you have put up.

Pakistan averaged roughly 4 decades of 6% ecnomic growth - from roughly around 1956-1994. Infact, in 91-92, the growth rate was 7.7. That is an average over decades (not per year), as highlighted by Shahid Javed Burki. He covers all this in detail in his books and his weekly articles. Pakistan economy grew from 1951 onwards. In the 60s, Pakistan averaged 6.8% growth rate. In the 70s, it was 4.8%. And 6.5% in the 80s. In addition, it was 6.0+ % from 58 onwards. As well as early 90s.

What you are refering to are the lack of political and social affects of the economic growth. That point is valid. The economic growth did not have the social affects that such an economic growth should have had, and did have on other countries. Also, the growth was not enough to make a dent in the poltically powerful regressive feudal forces in Pakistan. Perhaps because much of the growth occured under military govts. and not political govts.........

You are correct about wealth in a few hands in ther 60s, onwards. That was a problem of distribution. This maybe why Bangladesh separated. However, the process of successful wealth creation was there, before and continued after the 65 war. Companies were IPOing. A robust banking and insurance sector was developing. Industry was being set up. Some of the largest damns etc. in the world were set up. Hospitals, roads, universities etc. All of this was due to sound economic policies

Pakistan could very well have been Afghanistan, after independence, had such growth not occured.......

In the 70s, the momentum of the 60s kept things going for a while, as Bhutto destroyed the economy methodically. But things did not hit a dead end because the Dubai boom started. Expats started sending money in. This continued into the 80s, when a transition away from Bhutto`s disastrous economics started.

Kindly take a look at how much aid Pakistan has received? If you analyse it, you will find it is not much. Pakistan has received a lot of loans. Not aid. But those have had to be paid back, to the point that they are the largest part of the budget, now. The aid paled in comparison to the expat remittences. These officially come to around $30 billion per decade. And unofficially, through hundi, perhaps much higher. Also there was a lot of drug money in circulation.........This is the artifical semination. I do not consider it artificial because it was generated by Pakistanis (be they drug dealers or expats)

So, Pakistan`s problem, other than the 90s, has not been capital generation. It has been capital distribution as well as a stable govt. system to support the growth. The reason growth is always high during miltiary regimes is because of consistency of policy; something that has been difficult for political regimes to maintain........

Paksitan by 1990, had its lowest poverty levels in history, at 18%! By 2000, these were back up to 33% or so. In one decade. It is only in the last year, that the ship has turned around. And Pakistan took 5 million people out of poverty, in 2004. Now that number should keep reducing........

Re: # 99

Thank you Kulharee.
mirmir, I value your opinions but I will have to disagree with some of your points. Kulharee has put it plainly.

Intelligence is not the same as ``educated``. I live in the mid-west. I am sorry if you had to put up with nonsense.

I also differ on the point that religion is an oxymoron to enlightenment. You are correct that nations, groups etc have misused religion to conquer, rape, pillage and more. ``The Enlightenment`` was very very ugly. As is the case with ``The inquisition``, witch trials, pogroms and the like. These events must not be confused with a religious expereince. It is my thinking that enlightenment can be reached with religion. I believe that he subject of enlightenment is relative. Can it only be obtained by Buddists or believers of Hinduism?

Re: # 99

>>>>…..faculty educated in England. I assure you that the level of their intelligence and understanding could not be found among secondary teachers in Southern and Mid-western U.S.A.<<<

That’s a bigoted and a racist statement.

>>>>This is pure rot. One of the fears that I have, in common with a good many ``enlightened,`` educated people in the U.S.A., is exactly the fact that the cost of higher education in the U.S.A. is skyrocketing and that it will soon put a university degree out of reach of poor and lower middle class youngsters. It`s already happening. Higher education was only within reach of (almost) every American during the years immediately following the Second World War when the G.I. bill allowed many to attend college who could not otherwise have afforded it.<<<<

Pure garbage. University enrollment has been steadily on the rise for the past 25 years. Let me quote a recent UCLA study “California state demographers estimate that 609,000 high school graduates will seek admission to the state`s two-and four-year colleges and universities by 2010, a 28.6% increase over 2000.” ….. “Total UC enrollment will swell by 63,000 in the next decade and by as much as 207,000 by 2050, says a study by UC-Berkeley professor John Douglass”. In Texas, the rise is estimated at 10% in 2006 school year over previous year, in Arizona it is 15%… the list is long and exhausting… but if you like, I can provide references. More and more corporations are increasing their research dollars. In New York City, where I live, the Universities have trouble finding campus space to meet the increased enrollment challenges.

#100 by ijaz_gul on October 20, 2005 10:49am PT

So Pakiland only does ``well`` when it`s on the dole?

No wonder Pakiland doesn`t have anything matching the IITs/IIM, nothing matching the Infosys` and the richest south asian muslims is an Indian...

For UK,
``Here lies our sovereign Lord the King
Whose word no man relies on,
He never does a foolish thing,
and never does does a wise one``

Romair,
1.Pakistan`s first decade of progress with rapid influx of the Harvard Model, tied aid and trade, and dependency was because of the containment theory. This is the time when the politics of permits and proliferation of wealth in few hands began. 1965 was a shot in the foot.

2. Pakistan`s second resurgence coincided with the Afghan Mock Jehad for another decade. This was the time of Islamisation, drugs, Klashinkovs and intolerance. Aid coming in was used to breed puppets like Hamayun Akhtar, Shareefs and a new brand of political upstarts.

3.This is the third resurgence from 2002 onwards and into its third year.

All told this comes to 23 and not forty.

I agree with Yasser.

Cheerios

Re: # 90

Walkman...

``If by enlightenment you mean religious?``

No, I mean what I said - enlightenment, period. In my book there is no such thing as religious enlightenment. That`s an oxymoron. Spain was, and is, the most visibly religious of Christian nations and it is precisely that nation (along with its imperial possessions) that was touched most lightly - if at all - by The Enlightenment. Spain, seat of the most bloody Inquisition, to this day still hasn`t caught up.

``If you mean to say that America is without enlightenment that is a slanderous statement. If that is your intention I am questioning your motives. Please elaborate.``

Well, I didn`t say that. I said ``Southern and Mid-Western U.S. are hardly centers of enlightenment - exactly the opposite.`` I was born in Tennessee and I spent all of my childhood and most of my adolescent years there. As a mature adult I spent time in Mississippi and Alabama during the civil rights movement. I occasionally return. I speak from considerable first hand knowledge. It is in these regions (Southern and Mid-Western U.S.), strongholds of fundamental religion, that the teaching of science is most vigorously opposed, in particular Darwinian evolution as it has been elaborated over the years by reputable scientists. I have had the good fortune to teach at Preparatory and University level with faculty educated in England. I assure you that the level of their intelligence and understanding could not be found among secondary teachers in Southern and Mid-western U.S.A.

I have neither intention nor motives other than to try and spread a little enlightenment. As an educator I realize how difficult a task that is.

``It certainly does not sever (sic) a ``ruling class`` to keep people poor.``

How do you know this? Certainly??? I`m presently re-reading 19th Century Russian literature, particularly Turgenev. In the Russia of this time it very much served the interest of the ``ruling class`` to keep people poor. I don`t believe that old Russia was unique in this regard. Ignorance and poverty among the mass of people in parts of today`s Africa allow cruel, bloody dictatorial governments to stay in power and to kill, rape and pillage at will.

``Please remember that there are funds available to the working poor to attend college. It is within the reach of every American to become educated.``

This is pure rot. One of the fears that I have, in common with a good many ``enlightened,`` educated people in the U.S.A., is exactly the fact that the cost of higher education in the U.S.A. is skyrocketing and that it will soon put a university degree out of reach of poor and lower middle class youngsters. It`s already happening. Higher education was only within reach of (almost) every American during the years immediately following the Second World War when the G.I. bill allowed many to attend college who could not otherwise have afforded it.

ugh... points of view... not point of views...

Romair, Mohar11, Aquaris

I am afraid all three point of views expressed... are wrong. Please consider.. gentlemen where you all went wrong.


1-Romair : Landed aristocracy in Pakistan areas opposed Pakistan- This is wrong. Infact they opposed the Muslim League and Jinnah... but they were committed to a certain level of autonomy as put forward by Sir Sikandar Hayat`s plan... In order to get the landed aristocracy, which ruled Muslim Majority Provinces, on board, a vague Lahore resolution was put up.

2- Mohar11: Landed aristocracy was not the only ones agitating for Pakistan. Many very left-minded and pseudo-socialistic people also demanded Pakistan. The landed aristocracy woke up very late to the possible advantages of having a state. In fact .. it was Punjab Muslim League`s extreme left-oriented manifesto unveiled around 1945 and the subsequent success of the party in Punjab which forced the unionists to try and wrest control of the Pakistan idea and movement.

3- Aquaris: The ``Landed aristocracy of minority provinces`` did not support the creation of Pakistan but supported the Muslim League... why would they- in the minority provinces- support the creation of Pakistan which would not secure their base. Only a fraction of them got the evacuee property... most of them were bound to lose.


Romair has started an unnecessary debate which he doesn`t himself comprehend. Jinnah was never a populist rabble rouser... he did not go straight to the people... who could not speak the language he spoke. His task in main had been to make the Muslim League more representative that it was... and from the landed classes he expanded it to the salariat and the rising bourgeoisie... ultimately this appealed to the socialists with the ``two stage revolution`` theory... and so they also jumped in on the band wagon. It must be remembered that identity formation whether one-nation theory, two-nation-theory or 10-nation theory all existed, as all identities exist today, in these subsets...

After all the hari, the Kissan, the mazdoor (of any faith) could care less whether the British ruled, Congress ruled or the Muslim League ruled... this is ultimately the nature of any political society whether people here want to accept it or not.

-YLH

I think Landed Aristorcracy of Minority provinces Did Wanted to safe guard their interests ... Hence Pakistan, But the ONE where they were already among the muslim majority areas did not wanted Pakistan.

Re: # 94 romair
//..... Hardly anyone from the landed elite leadership of West Pakistan, actually wanted Pakistan created to begin with. ...//

I thought it was other way around ... landed elite wanted pakistan precisely because of their fear of oncoming land reforms in the united India.....

jeez - everyday you hear new stories in chowk...... Or is romair bullsh!ting as usual?