Educational Apartheid

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

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

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

The minority issue

Mohammad A. Zaman, M.D. writes from Raleigh, NC, USA.

A COMMENT: I grew up in a small village in Sylhet, half of which was Hindu. I played with them. I grew up with them. I made friends with them. As I went to college, some of my best friends were Hindus. Durga and Saraswati Puja was just like any other festival to me. But the recent events in Bangladesh as reported by The Daily Star and other newspapers is profoundly disturbing. It is even more disturbing to see the reluctance of our elected government to accept the problem as it exists. Smart solution requires identification of the problem and understanding its intricacies. Without the willingness to accept the problem as a problem, establishing a high profile government commission is nothing but a futile venture. To meet the criteria for general acceptance, the investigation has to be independent ( of government) and transparent.

A FEW THOUGHTS: Even though we share a common cultural heritage, bonded tightly by a common language, a dichotomy got rooted with the introduction of Islam in Bengal. Probably most of the conversion in Islam occurred in the downtrodden and oppressed ``have-nots`` in the lower strata of Hindu society ( I bet my forefather was one of them). As they converted, they reaped the advantage of royal favors at the expense of their previous masters of higher strata. So a deep sense of untoward feeling between the two groups was there to begin with. And it is natural. Then came the British-Raj. With the loss of royal patronage, the Muslim society as a whole remained estranged, while the Hindu intelligentia embraced English. It was a complete reversal of the dice. Economically prosperous, culturally advanced Hindu Babus looked down at the Muslim Mians. Thus, despite a very strong bondage, a deep-seated resentment permeated the Muslim psyche. In Bengal, this possibly got worsened during the Bango-Bhango movement. The point, I am alluding to is simple: `` When economic and social parity supervenes, religion usually becomes a back-burner. The apparent ill feeling between the two groups of the same people, originated largely because of socio-economic reason. If the Hindu society was homogeneous to begin with, my forefather, most likely, would have retained his Sanatan faith. And my name would have been predictably different.`` This deep-seated strain is not going to go away anytime soon. In fact, this dichotomy of our very culture, led to the evolution of two different tributaries of a great cultural might. It is like a twin, though not monozygotic. We have two different names. We look different like two fraternal brothers and/or sisters. But our Mother is the same.

If we consider this basic proposition as an established fact, a lot of apparent difference and inconsistencies can be explained without any misgivings. Being Arabic in origin, my name does not betray my cultural heritage. It only affirms the fact that I am flowing from a different tributary.

AN AFTERTHOUGHT: As I mentioned earlier, akin to a tectonic fault line, there is a natural strain in our national psyche. And some unscrupulous politicians are magnifying this strain with resultant atrocities of volcanic proportion against our own fraternal brothers and sisters. It is time to raise a rational voice that reverberates in every rational soul.

Dear Sir,

When an Indian reads your article, the natural reaction would be one of jubilation that Pakistan is worse than India.

But to me, I get dejected when I read this. The prime role of a government is to provide basic services to the people like sanitation, health services, education, drinking water, roads, infrastructure.

In Pakistan the government`s preoccupation with defense has left little money available for anything else. In India the public sector has resulted in scarce resources being diverted to infructuous projects.

One hopes that there will be some improvement in the matter. Both governments must realise the folly of their actions and take steps to improve the situation.

Re; Al Beruni and BG
In my view:
The point is NOT to convert pakorawalas into Ivy leagures or aristos. The point is that the Ivy Leagures ought to RESPECT and acknowledge the contribution of the pakora walla and vice versa. That the contributions of the have-nots should be recognized and given value: Simple Commie idea/democratic ideal/islamic value,/political romanticism call it what you will the idea is liberty and equity. Thats the only way the pakorawalla and the Ivy leagurer will be emancipated as individuals and as citizens of a free state. Specifically, if the pakora sales are enuff to support the Pwala and his kids with some opportunity to realise their potential. Specifically, if the Ivy Leagure with all the trappings of his background is able to be compassionate and human we may say that we are/have addressed the kind of apartheid Mr Najam speaks off.

Re: Al Beruni

It is so easy to believe in social darwanism if the system works for you.

Labelling people commie or capitalist-pig or anything else is not a response to the issues they are raising.

All right Adil, this much we have established:

1) that there is tremendous injustice in the world - discrimination, call it apartheid if you will of all kinds, based on economic status, racial/ethnic grounds, gender, sexual orientation and so on.

2) that education is a basic human right.

3)that there are no easy solutions to ending the education apartheid (the detached cynic will argue that there are no solutions).

4)that something nevertheless needs to be done.

In the details and approach, we differ. You are an advocate of radical change, and I am more of a realist. I favor slow change, not aggravating the elite needlessly - because if we do, nothing will ever get done, because the elite are in control, and unless there is an ``organized`` ideological revolution, will always remain so - as they are everywhere else in the world.

With this prologue in mind, I`d like to debate the following:


1)Your view: Because Japan, Korea, China, France and Germany have been able to advance using their national language,so can we.

These countries have a major advantage - they do not have our multiple linguistic problem - their national language is spoken by the majority of their people - neither do they have our seemingly unshakable colonial legacy to contend with (Korea was briefly colonized by Japan, but little effort was made to reduce the importance of Korean language). I would love nothing better than to abolish English as a tool of discrimination - but as you state, if only people who go to college learn it, and are regarded as more qualified, then you perpetuate the English elitism.

2)Your view: The Indians do not have a system of educational apartheid, or at least not as bad as ours.
Yes and no. They do technically have a uniform curricula, and no Cambridge system - but the medium of instruction is decided at the regional level, and is not uniform across the country (many schools do use English). Also, they very much have the system of elite schools for the kids of the rich and famous. Their Cathedral and Convent of Bombay, and Doon of Dhera Dun, are if conceivable, even more elitist than our Pakistani variety. And at these schools for the priveleged few, the recommended curricula is followed in name only.

3)Your view:``If somehow the elite are forced to change (and therein lies the rub) they will...``

IF is the operative word here. How can the elite be changed, when the current system benefits them so much - and they are the ones who are making the decisions?

4) Your view:``Most studies suggest that so many kids in Pakistan are not sent to school is not b/c there are no schools, but also there is little incentive to do so...The incentive to stay in school will be enhanced b/c of the leveled playing field (created by a unified system)because now if your kid is really bright, she CAN actually end up at the same point as Saab Ji`s son...``

Agree that for many impoverished parents, there is no incentive to send their children to school, but disagree with the reasoning that a unified system will definitely lead to greater school attendance,retention and acheivement - when parents make the decision not to send their children to school, they are not thinking of their kid`s earning potential 5 or 6 years down the line - they are concerned about daily survival, and what their kid can bring in right now. And sending girls to school holds no economic advantage for the parents in the short-run - but keeping them home does - girls tend to the young ones, so that mothers can do all their daily chores - parents really aren`t in a position to care much about the long-term, when the short-term is so problematic. For this reason, expecting that a unified system will necessarily lead to increased school attendance in the hope of a better economic future, especially for girls (our major problem area), is highly speculative.

5)Your view:...6 years of schooling doesn`t necessarily enhance your earning potential at all...and are you really suggesting that as long as everyone else gets rudimentary education it is OK for a few elites to get really preferential treatment.

Most studies have shown (World Bank data)that investing in primary basic education raises the person`s earning potential several fold, and yes, I do think that our priority should be on providing rudimentary (read elementary) education to all, and not worry about providing higher education for everyone. As a developing economy, we can`t afford to! In fact, South Asia is the only region in the world that spends a much higher proportion of its educational budget on higher education relative to basic (subsidizing college and university education )compared to what other countries spend - and we do this at the expense of providing elementary education for all. If we had unlimited resources, sure, it would be nice for everyone to go to college - but we don`t, and are not likely to anytime soon. The fact that we spend so much money subsidizing higher education makes no economic sense, b/c the rate of return of investment from providing many children a primary education is much greater than providing higher education to a chosen few. In fact, I would argue that until we have reached a goal of near-universal basic and secondary education, we should largely stop subsidizing college and university education except for some need-based scholarships to bright students. All others should have to pay.

6)Your view:``...the fact remains that government educational institutions in Pakistan were the BEST they ever were during nationalization ...
this I will vigorously dispute. For Karachi at least, this is definitely not true.

7)Your view: Privately funded education does not and cannot play a big role in any ``civilized`` society.

Besides the obvious problem that we are not civilized, the World Bank estimates that right now a third or more of the money being spent on education in low-income countries is coming from private sources.
The question is: Is education a priority? Yes. Should our government do something about it? Yes. Is our government going to do something about it? Probably not. So we need some innovative strategies. Tapping private money from individuals and agencies who are interested in human resource development sure makes sense - and the money can be used both to improve government schools and to start private ones.

The solution is not to do away with elite schools, but to increase the access of ALL children to go to better schools than they can go to right now.

8)Your view:South Africa abolished political apartheid, therefore they`ve gotten rid of economic and educational aparthied.

I would love to use the analogy of S. Africa as a glorious success story to advance the cause of the oppressed and impoverished. However, the South African story is an evolvng one, and only history will tell if economic disparities between blacks and whites will really be resolved, and whether the ordinary black citizen will get the same opportunities as whites. As things stand right now, poor blacks are actually worse off - 50% unemployment among adults, rampant crime and corruption.
There are also many important differences between S. Africa and us. They have a modern economy based on manufacturing and mining. Their per capita income is in the thousands, and social indicators such as IMR and literacy rates, even among blacks are much better than ours (our IMR I seem to recall is twice theirs - will confirm). On top of this, they only have 30 million poverty-stricken people to take care of, we have a 130 million!

8)To get back to the issue of what kind of unified system of education might work, given all the difficulties - I think a compromise is in order. It must be obvious by now that I am against abolishing elite schools b/c abolishing them will not rid our population of its elite. However, we surely can do more than has been done to promote literacy and not have our current fragmented system of education. One approach could be to get rid of the Cambridge system, improve our current curriculum which should be standardized and enforce primary education in the region`s NATIVE (which often will not be Urdu) language. At the secondary level, schools should be able to decide if they will continue in the native language or switch to English or Urdu - teaching both English and Urdu as a second language, if they pick the former option.

You probably are sick of writing about this by now (but then may be not) - we can continue to argue tomorrow and summarize our consensus opinion for Chowkwallahs. With your Phd in negotiation theory, we should be able to arrive at one!

Anita

Anita

The points you raise are all valid, but don`t really change my call for abolishing apartheid on the basis of education. However, I must insist that what you describe as the fundamental ones are really the secondary ones. At the bottom of it all, I think, there is one and only one question to be answered: Is the current system of educational aparthied unjust or not? If it is, then despite all the difficulties we have a duty to address it. Let me address some of the points you raise.

1. The education medium thing is certainly important but as I read what you have written I get the impression that all you are saying is that because it is difficult to address it therefore we should leave things as they are ... i.e. perpetuate the apartheid! Or if we wait long enough, thing might miraculously become better by themselves ... maybe through the magic of civic associations. I must confess that I am not, yet, pessimistic enough to accept the first and no longer optimistic enough to believe in the latter. More specifically the thesis that English is necessary for advancement of nations is less true than that it is necessary for the advancement of individuals. Japan, Korea, China, France, Germany are just a few examples of countries that are doing well enough (certainly better than us) with their education in the national language. English can be taught at the college/University level to those who will require it rather than creating a master race from birth so that only they can reach the top! This is NOT an argument for abolishing English but merely for ceasing to use it as a tool for differentiation. The problem of making people literate in English while maintaining a non-apartheid system has actually been solved in many other places in the world and is now no more than an excuse for inaction in our case. The problem of translation etc. exist, but pale in comparison to the larger problem. Actually, the Indian system (they share many of our problems including the ones about regional languages) while not perfect is certainly better than ours on this count and maybe we can learn from them. Will Pakistan as a whole be worse off if a few of us are no longer able to quote Shakespeare verbatim? I have seen no evidence why it would. Would particular Pakistanis be worse off in a unitary, non-apartheid system? Yes, they would and that is the real (and to my mind only) reason why things are difficult to change since this is the same group that has in its power the ability to make a change. As you very rightly point question: ``do you really think anyone will be able to convince the policy wonks that their children should be educated in Urdu. Most of these policy wonks probably don`t even know how to read and write Urdu.`` And therein lies the real problem... solve that and all excuses will fizzle away in the wind (more on WHY they will fizzle below).

2. Why am I brushing aside the problems that you mention. If, somehow, the elites are forced to change (and therein lies the rub) they will--for the sake of THEIR children--be forced to improve the state of the normal curriculum and schools. They will also rush in to get the `difficult` tasks of translation etc. done overnight... we know from experience elsewhere in the world that it can be done if their is a will... if the children of the elites are in those schools I am sure that the `will` shall appear suddenly... nothing moves the immovable like self-interest. Sure we may get a few batches of doctors who have a tougher time than their predecessor but that will be no tougher than what Urdu medium students in medical schools have to go through now. And why should we let the petty interests of a few dictate the destiny of the many anyhow? More important than this, unless something like what I am suggesting happens there will never be any incentive for the powers that are, to solve the smaller problems you mention and they will remain as they are fulfilling their purpose of being good excuses and sustaining the status quo.

3. How will a unified system help solve the problem of those who do not even get to school. Actually, I think it will help things in the right direction. Most studies suggest that the reason so many kids in Pakistan are not sent to school is not simply that there are no schools but also because there is little incentive to go to school. The reasoning IS very rational. You and I were warded off to school by our parents because school would enhance our possibilities. That reasoning is NOT true for most Pakistani parents and children. In an apartheid system 6 years of schooling doesn`t necessarily enhance your earning potentials at all. It is much better spending those 6 years learning a skill. The best you could are likely to do by going to the lower tier in an apartheid system is MUCH LOWER than the best you should be able to do in a unified system (because of the leveled playing field). The incentive to stay in school is also enhanced because now if your kid is really bright she CAN actually end up at the same point as Saab Ji`s son. That difference, I think, will give an added incentive for parents to keep children in school (which is itself a big part of the problem). Sure we will also need money etc. (which we also do now) but the conditions may actually become more favorable. Again, your last point disturbs me... do you suggest that as long as everyone else gets rudimentary education it is OK for a few elites to get really preferential treatment. (Maybe its the name my parents gave me, but to me injustice is injustice is injustice!) I am NOT suggesting that we do not need to invest more money in education.... I am, however, saying that as long as the core remains rotten not all the money in the world is going to solve the problem.

4. Whatever other criticism you may levy on nationalization that fact remains that government education institutions in Pakistan were the best THEY ever were during nationalization because now the big wigs had to send their children there. As soon as Zia reversed that with rampant ``Aangraizi mediums`` the standards of the government schools fell precipitously. Also, lets not rag on nationalization too much (I accept its many faults otherwise). Because of nationalization of education the ``upper crust`` of Pakistan today actually comes from a (comparatively) larger base in the nation than it did before. Gone are the days when everyone you found at the Federal Secretariat in Islamabad came from Government College Lahore or D.J. Science College or Islmia College Peshawar. Sure the majority still comes from a select set but that set itself is somewhat larger than it was before. I repeat again... education SHOULD not be a primarily private sector responsibility and IS NOT in any civilized society that I know of.

5. All your points lead to a perpetuation of the current apartheid just because it is so difficult to change things. What heartens me, on the other hand, is that you really don`t make any point against abolishing apartheid, as a principle. You suggest that it is not easy. Sure it`s not easy. But is it necessary? Will things become better if we leave them the way they are? Your analysis does not convince me that they will. The basis of change, I think, should not be whether something is easy or not, but whether it is necessary or not.

In sum, you seem to be arguing that the issues you raise have to be addressed BEFORE we can do anything about the apartheid. I would, on the other hand, argue that the ones you raise simply cannot be addressed UNTIL you first do something about the apartheid which is at the systemic core of the crisis. The analogy to South Africa is very valid here. One could have argued (and many did) that apartheid could not be abolished because the blacks were so much poorer, uneducated, blah, blah and that only when they became similar to the whites in all those indicators could integration happen. One could similarly have argued (and Botha was very fond of doing so) that the solution was `economic upliftment` of the Blacks through privatization and trickle down economics. In fact, he was also fond of saying that blacks in SA townships were economically and social services-wise better off than average Africans anywhere else in the continent (technically he was right!). But did any of this make a case against the abolishment of apartheid? I hope not.

A lot of your points also seem to be in the direction of ``pragmatic`` issues about why removing apartheid will be difficult. I do not disagree that it will be difficult. It wasn`t easy in South Africa either... a change of systems never is (and at a deeper level should never be!). But is that reason enough to not stop something that is patently wrong. I think not. Should South Africa have continued with apartheid until the differences were removed otherwise to make the transition easier? Should we have delayed independence to make that transition easier? The danger is that the conditions you want removed before doing away with apartheid CANNOT be removed until apartheid is removed and in essence we are then condemned to its continuation. This is not rhetoric, this is a very real. All I am arguing is that keeping a large majority disenfranchised, either through political apartheid (as in South Africa) or through educational apartheid (as in Pakistan) should be seen as a case of systematic injustice. And those who benefit from that injustice will never find the conditions right for its removal. Sorry to say so but to me the ``reasons`` against removing this systematic injustice sounds too much like excuses... some of them valid excuses but excuses none the less!

(P.S. I agree with the bit about abolishing the army... or at least diverting its resources to education)

Altaf

Agree with your sentiments. If we have an uprising, I doubt that it will be initiated by ``rebels with a cause``. More like a higher level of the anarchy that currently exists.

Adil, you obviously really feel for the educational apartheid business, but I sense a touch of rhetoric in your writing (you sound like a politician!:). The questions that remain unanswered are very fundamental ones. If we have a unified policy of the same system of schooling for all (with which I agree in principle assuming you mean the same curricula for all), the following need to be addressed. 1)which language? - I know, you skimmed over this in your essay, but it is THE critical issue. We can hope that it is Urdu, but I just don`t see that happening - for a number of reasons. Firstly,versatility in English is valued all over the world, and you know better than I, the effect that globalization has had and will have on the importance of English. Secondly, English is the language of science and technology. As it is, our matric curricula are hopelessly outdated. The effort that will have to go into translating and updating all this information in today`s fast-paced world, I think is beyond our capacity. Thirdly, we have a history of trying this in the past, with little success - the elite just won`t buy it, as they didn`t in the past - do you really think anyone will be able to convince the policy wonks that their children should be educated in Urdu. Most of these policy wonks probably don`t even know how to read and write Urdu. Fourthly is the problem of regional languages that feel neglected if urdu is given undue importance (the majority of our population doesn`t use urdu as a first language). So, if we decide on English, well then the problems are innumerable, the most obvious one being the money needed to train (or more likely hire new teachers who speak English well enough to teach in it). I am not even addressing the sociocultural dimensions of requiring all our children to forcibly convert to English.

2) Let`s say we have a unified system - same curricula for all. How does that address the biggest problem right now - that 70-80% of our children don`t even go to school and can`t read or write proficiently in any language? These are the truly disenfranchised, the ones who have no hope of reaching their maximum potential. The child that does go to school and learns how to read and write at least has the potential to overcome the odds and go for higher education. I know many people who have done this, as I am sure do you. The unitary education policy would do nothing to address our basic illiteracy. To do that we need to have money. The problem isn`t that we have elite private schools that should be done away with - the problem is that we don`t even have rudimentary schools that the majority of the population can attend.

3) If we have a unitary education policy, but the system of private and government schools is maintained, the apartheid is perpetuated. Educators at these elite schools will follow the national curriculum (which will have to be very easy otherwise, all the economically disadvantaged will fail) and finish it in a couple of months, and then go back to their imported texts, take the SAT, and off to the US. You haven`t solved anything-then some of them, like you and I, will return and become the truly obnoxious elite - the MIT-Harvard returned!

4) If by unified education policy you mean uniform curricula and nationalization of schools, to end the apartheid system, - well we`ve been down that road before. All our colleges were nationalized. Is it an improvement? It would mean even more money for the government to come up with to pay all the staff, maintain buildings etc. Government-run schools as they are right now are a model of how schools should not be run. Many of our children who go to government schools do not learn even basic skills - I worked for a year in a village in Gilgit Valley with no health care (it was off the Karakorum highway, therefore no paved road),where my job was to teach young women, all allegedly matric pass, how to manage common illnesses in the community, with the assumption that they would know the three Rs. Needless to say, I spent the first 6 months, just teaching them reading, writng skills and how to add and subtract). It all boils down to money. We just don`t have the money to run good government schools.

Is there a solution? I think we should make peace with India, give up on Kashmir, slash our military budget, spend the money on social services and industrialization, hope for a leader with vision and drive, lots of philanthropic money, and take it from there. Doable? A long shot by any stretch of the imagination.

In the end, I quote you:...``as far as I can see that is [the ``brain-drain`` to the US]no loss to the country...when was the last time that anyone in the intelligensia did anything that changed the life of ordinary Pakistanis for the better``.

Here I can claim the moral superiority of being in the field of Medicine and Public Health. There are countless individuals (also countless who do not) who do make a difference in the lives of ordinary Pakistanis, and make it every day.

Let me begin by saying that I do not at all assume that revolutions are easy, nor do I necessarily predict what Altaf calls ``progressive social revolution``. I define revolution simply as the overthrowing of one system by another (often, but not always, at the hands of those who considered the earlier system unjust). In this sense the revolution is ALREADY underway... Anita gave an example of it in the report about the doctors car in Karachi. You can call that (as well as rampant corruption, muggings, kidnappings, robberies, etc.) a sign of ``lawlessness`` or a revolution... to me they are undeniably signs of a people who have lost faith in a particular system and have decided to take things in their own hands (pay raises and annual bonuses in the shape of bribes, kidnapping as a form of social protest and economic trade, etc.). To me that is the revolution... the one we really never wanted but are now having to live with because of our own lethargy and short-sightedness.

Coming back, however, to education. First, I shed no tears about the fact that the so-called intelligentia is forced to leave Pakistan... as far as I can see that is no loss to the country... when was the last time that anyone in the intellegentia did anything that changed the life of ordinary Pakistanis for the better. In a way there is a good side to globalization: the very class (essentially people like me) who call themselves the `elite` and have for generations acted like parasites on the sweat of `lesser` folks now have the means to leave the country... unfortunately, new ones come in to fill the vacuum, but as far as the country asa whole is concerned I am not at all convinced that any of us who visit chowk are not living in Pakistan really effects Pakistan in any way (BTW, is it not ironic that the very crowd that would have considered hanging out at a `real` chowk to be very menial would so love a virtual chowk!!!)

But again, I digress. Things CAN change and things CAN change for the better. Willing free medicine for everyone is difficult, but not impossible (all it takes is a couple of F-16s really). However, mending the education system is (theoretically) easier because you really DO NOT need any new money... you only need the social courage on the part of the elites to live with one unitary system.... sure if you had money you could actually hire teachers but in merely removing the Aparthied system you will at least level the playing field and allow each child to at least try to achieve her or his inherent potential.

This is exactly why we need to hold the government`s feet to the fire (and that really means our own feet!). This is a policy issue... this is not an altruism or self-help issue. What I am calling for is not more money to education (though that would also be good) but a policy change... removing the forced aparthied system in our education. Can it be done? Sure it can be done... with one stroke of the pen, in fact! The problem here is not resources. The problem here is that as soon as you do something like this those who are previliged will have to send their children to the same schools and the same system as the rest of Pakistan... and that is against Pakistani Brahminhood!

Let us be clear about the problem here... the problem (in this case) is NOT money, the problem (in this case) is NOT ethnicity, the problem (in this case) is NOT violence on the streets of Karachi, the problem (in this case) is NOT corruption. The problem, in this case, is the disdain, dislike and the sheer disgust that the Pakistani elite reserves for the rest of Pakistan. To me, THIS is the root of all problems!

(... There!!! THis is the best I can do on an empty stomach!)

While we can call (hope) for an uprising
that`ll overthrow the current elitist order;
revoloution is not a simple thing. We take
our hope from other revoloutions, in other
societies, but what we have seen is only the final culmination of a long, decades long process of reflection, study, building of ideologies, and most importantly the actual builging of a movement. My point is that Pakistan is at this point far away from any porgressive social revoloution brought about by the ``masses``. We do of-course, have plenty of reactionary movement be it fanatical islam, or ethnic based conflicts. Nothing says that we can`t start to build a new movment, the process of building which may very well lead to a better society. Which might help change the mentality of the elites, rather than killing, or exiling them.
altaf
http://www.wco.com/

Adil,

Notwithstanding my earlier remarks on the role of private foundations in spreading literacy in Pakistan, I do emphatically share your concern that the masses will rise, and rise soon. Such inequity cannot be perpetuated for too much longer. We are seeing events unfold in Indonesia at a very fast pace. What is the solution for us ``concerned`` Pakistanis who fear for our lives and assets? For most of us, it is to live out of the motherland and watch things from a distance. The intellegensia is here, they don`t have much to fear. for many of us, Pakistan is a place to vacation in the winter, and occasionally bad-mouth - and that is it. And can you really blame us - just yesterday, we were shocked to hear that a physician relative of ours got caught in the cross-fire on Kaala pul where a group of men agitating about the kidnapping/elopement of a Pathan woman threw a petrol bomb in his car, critically injuring him and another passenger. So we can lament all we want, but what can we do in concrete terms. I`d like to say that I want free health care for all, but is that doable?

Anita

PS. what can we bring for dinner?

Thanks, Muzaffar, for quoting the verses from Faiz that have been my motivation for my current research on education in Pakistan. For those who may not be as conversant in Urdu and Faiz, this is a part of a long (but never fully completed) ``Dedication`` poem from Faiz. The lines quoted by Muzaffar were:

* *Woh Maasoom jo bholpan mein
* *wahan apnay nannhay charaghon mein lau ki lagan
* *lay kay pohncheay jahan
* *Butt rahay they, ghita toop, bay ant raaton kay Sai

A non-lieteral transliteration goes something like this:

++ Those innocents (children), in their simple search for knowledge,
++ With flickering flames in their tiny little lamps,
++ Reached the citadels of learning where
++ All that was being distributed were the shadows of all-encompassing and never-ending nights of darkness.


As to the solution that Muzaffar seeks.... Faiz can be a good guide there too. We DO have a choice. We can selfishly pursue our own limited good and prolong the reign of injustice from which we have benefited so much or we can pre-empt ourselves the day when ``takht uchaalay jaiN gay aur taaj gira-aiN jaiN gay`` (when the thrones shall be overturned and crowns trampled).... and let us not fool ourselves here... the Takhts and the Taajs do not refer to the Bhuttos and the Sharifs... they refer to you and me... for it is us who have benefited (and prolonged) the injustice of educational aparthied. On the other hand, we could take another path.... one that is induced by equal selfishness (although of the `enlightened` variety).... we could reverse the trend and demand an end of aparthied not simply because we care for the downtrodden (even if it is we who trod on them) but because we realize that when the multitudes rise it could not be pretty for us and our children..... and the one thing history proves is that they WILL rise!

Maybe I am being too dramatic here. But this IS a dramatic situation. We can do what most elites have done before us... continue with business and ussual and assume that the multitudes will forever remain as docile as they have, even under prolonged tyranny. Or else we can pre-empt a bloody revolution simply by being sensible. History tells us--our own and of others--that good sense has never been a distinguishing feature of the self-annointed intelligencia!


* *Lazim hai ke ham bhi dekhen ge.
* *Ham dekhen ge.
* *Woh din ke jis ka waada hai.
* *Jo loh-e-azal men likha hai.
* *Ham dekhen ge.

* *Jab zulm-o-sitam ke koh-i-garan
* *roiee ki tarah urh jaeen ge.
* *Ham mehkoomon ke paoon tale
* *yeh dharti dhar dhar dharke gi.
* *Aur ahle hakam ke sar oopar
* *jab bijli kar kar karke gi.
* *Ham dekhen ge.

A non-literal transliteration:

++ It is for sure that we too shall see
++ Yes, we shall see!
++ That day (of judgement) that has been promised to us
++That day which has been written in the annals of eternity
++ Certainly we shall see it!

++ (That day when) the majestic mountains of injustice and agony
++ Will crumble like cotton wool and be blown away
++ When under the feet of us mere `subjects`
++ The Earth itself shall tremble
++ And over the heads of our `benevolent` masters
++ Lightening shall thunder like mad
++ YES! It is for sure that we shall see that day!

We are traped in a cycle, here is it how:
Most of our teachers are unqualified to teach subjects that they are teaching. They don`t even know the basics, how they can create scientific minds. Students who
go to these schools are left with nothing but sham. A small percentage go to colleges and most of them drop out.

I think we have to educate teachers insted change the slabus. Teachers should know that spanking a students is not healthy. I still hate those teachers who used to beat me on regular basis..

Great article, Adil!

I wanted to mention a related phenomenon -- the division of the nation according to language not only as privilege but also as shapes our conceptualization of the world. I mean, we are also divided in the way we think about life. For instance, I would be hard pressed to explain the terms ``capitalist-patriarchy`` to an ``average`` Pakistani, who is not familiar with English. It is difficult for me to access discourses in Urdu, with all their nuances and connotations (let alone regional discourses) because of being ``stuck`` in English and anglicized ways of thinking.