The Long Shadows of Hindu Kush Re: # 82
Interesting idea with the hub and spokes. The only quibble I have is that you idolise India a little too much. Indians declaring India to be a great nation does not mean you are a great nation. In order to be a great nation, that title has to be bestowed by other countries.

You dismiss secessionism as if it were merely a footnote in history. India is in no better shape than Pakistan. With the larger area, India seems to have proportionately fewer problems. In fact, India has yet to effectively deal with Kashmir, Chinese occupation of Aksai Chin, Sikh discontent in Punjab, the eastern hill rebellions, Naxalites etc.

You talk of India being a showcase, but India is still a land of enormous inequalities. Certainly there is a growing and wealthy middle class based on the ``software revolution``. However, there are still hundreds of millions of dirt-poor people with little hope of being noticed by urban elites. Don`t be too confident of the software industry either - bigger bubbles have burst than this.

Come back to us when you are able to show that the vast majority of your citizens have access to schools, hospitals, jobs, drinking water etc. Then maybe you can talk about how strong you are.

By the way, the USA suffered disunity too (look up the Civil War and tell me that wasn`t secessionism). The greatness of the USA was built on the deaths of many innocents - is that your role model?

Stop looking up to distant nations and do something positive for your own poor people and your neighbours.

The Need For Writing Across the Curriculum The issue of education is one that receives lip-service in Pakistan. The basic problem however is not just with the curriculum. There is chronic under-investment in education with certain government minsters favouring the private education system.

In most cases, until recently, a new primary school teacher has barely graduated from secondary school. If poorly educated teachers teach infants, those children will grow up illiterate, and not interested in educating themselves. What is needed is not teenaged primary teachers but entry qualifications to involve at least three or four years of post-secondary education.

I have long been a proponent of countries such as Pakistan starting from scratch and designing a curriculum to match their specific situations. Pakistan is a land rich in natural resources and a potentially huge labour-force. With the right investment in education and health, there is no reason why Pakistan`s people cannot become the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world in a matter of years.

There is of course the old argument - money has to go to the defence budget. If we look at that argument we can see that much of the budget goes on maintaining a large poorly-equipped infantry force and a few prestige projects like the never-ending F16 saga. I say cut the infantry by at least one-third and get rid of some prestige projects. Split the savings between education, health and new defence projects. Why send your soldiers on foot when you could build them a couple of thousand decent APC`s to replace that pile of crap M113`s. Instead of sending large delegations abroad to mull over other countries military industries, look within Pakistan. Pakistani`s are not idiots - they too can manufacture advanced technology like fighter jets. All it takes is some faith from the government.

By investing large amounts on indigenous projects, you create job opportunities, raise your technology threshold and boost your economy. Why bother to buy anything for defence from foreign companies? When push comes to shove and a war looms, you don`t want to be begging foreign nations to send you spare parts. You want to be confident that those new fighter jets and APC`s will get spare parts from the factories you built in your own country. You will ask yourself why you feared military sanctions all those years ago?

Another important area to invest in is a strong air force and a NAVY. Some foolish officials still believe the Pakistani Navy should be a coast guard. What they fail to appreciate is that a coast guard can do little against the warships that India will inevitably send during a war. What Pakistan needs is a strong, self-reliant, indigenously-built navy. Aircraft carriers (air defence ships as India likes to call them), crusiers, frigates, minesweepers, patrol craft, resupply ships and especially submarines. Give your defence forces a bigger toolkit to fight with and give your economy much needed security.

Along the way, that spare cash will improve your schools and hospitals without jeopardising national defence.

I know my reply here diverges a little, but I think the problem is a lot bigger than just the curriculum.

Interview with the Vamp Re: # 29
I am guessing that by the Taliban, you are referring to Pakistani support for that motley crew. If you read recent history, the refugees were initially created by the Soviet Union`s interference with the politics of Afghanistan. The fault lies not with Pakistan, Iran, India or even Afghanistan. It lies with the Soviet Union which sent 80,000 troops to support it`s puppet regime. The fault lies with the USA which financed the mujahadin, only because of the possible threat to oil supplies. Of course, with history being rewritten in several parts of the world at the moment, it is easy for impassioned accusations to be made (witness the rise of revisionism in ``Indian history``).

On a related note, although UmerMurtaza could have put it a little more politely, I agree with the point about Pakistan being a refuge. Often Pakistan has been accused of doing little for the refugees, but the critics themselves offer the usual ``international aid`` and words of comfort. Their method of helping results in most money being diverted to corrupt officials and a little bit going to relief work. The refugees become addicted to foreign aid. It does not result in refugees regaining their previous lives. Imagine if Pakistan had indeed built superb facilities for these refugees. Imagine at war`s end, would any refugee want to return to their shattered homeland? Of course not, they would want to remain in comfort. However cruel this sounds, it is better that refugees return to their homeland and rebuild their lives, than to remain the pampered guests of another country.

Why is it expected that Pakistan should be a good-natured benefactor, when it`s own economy was struggling with other problems. Even at the best of times, many western nations have ambivalent attitudes towards refugees (witness the rise in hatred for ``asylum seekers`` in the UK). They can hardly expect another country to shoulder responsibility for their wars.

Pakistan did not start the war in Afghanistan, but once they had refugees, was it wrong to allow a militia to form with the original intention of regaining stability in Afghanistan. Should Pakistan have cracked down on the Taliban then and there? Certainly the Taliban became a force for evil but could that have been predicted? What difference is there between Pakistan supporting one militia and the USA eventually succouring another militia?

These kind of questions tend to be brushed under carpets by the very people who initiated these problems.