Education Reform: Signs of Hope

#100 hamidm: Why ``assume`` 2 + 2 = 4 when you know it is 4? The vast majority of Abduls in the 17th century lived in a world that was vastly poorer than today - entire lifetimes were spent without going more than 30 miles from one`s place of birth. That is all I have been arguing about with Urstruly.

You take a step forward and ``assume`` that poverty has always been there but hold the military responsible for the fact that Pakistan is not South Korea today. That is a little better than what urstruly writes, but not much:

1. It was a civilian, not military, government (ZABhutto to be exact) that brought Pakistan`s economic growth to its knees in the 1970s by nationalizing everything. Under Ayub (the original military dicatator), Pakistan was in fact was held up as a modern developing country in the 1960`s.

2. The major damage the military has done is to curb the political development of Pakistan at the national level. The economy has been moving forward quite well under musharraf, and (as I mentioned earlier), paradoxically the military dictator has fostered political development in Pakistan at the grass-roots level by replacing DCs with elected Nazims. So, accuse the military by all means of wrong-doing where there has been wrong-doing. But dont accuse it of everything you can think of.

Wikipedia`s quick search says:

Economic historians estimate that India commanded roughly 25% of world GDP by 1800, but perhaps a tenth of that by the 20th century, due in large part to the severe and rapid decline in the Subcontinent`s native industries (Maddison, Bairoch, Frank).

#99 Urstruly: I dont know where Adam Smith got his 50% figure from, but it is clearly wrong if one looks at the levels of development around the world in the 19th century.

On th other matters I mentioned in my post, I will conveniently assume your silence as being full agreement with what I wrote. :-)

Re: # 98


tahmed,

....... let`s say, for a minute, that you are right and that the low gdp per capita has been around for ``time immemorial`` and that the military is not responsible for the abdul`s misery ......

..... okay, then who is responsible for not doing anything about raising the per capita gdp so that abdul canbuy shoes for his runny-nose kids and send them to school instead of rummaging in the garbage collecting paper and bones ......... the way i see it, since the army has run the country for most of the last sixty years, it is responsible ........ of course, there is a distinct possibility that abdul`s kids like to play in the garbage - after all, all kids hate school ............

Re: # 98

Adam Smith`s Wealth of Nations

#97 Where did you get the figure that India was 50% of the world`s GDP in the 19th century? This is an obvious absurdity.

And we are not talking about comparisons with the west - recall from the posts below that what we are talking about is whether the military is responsible for low GDP per capita in Pakistan or not. All I am saying is - the low GDP per capita has been there from time immemorial. That`s all. If you would stick to the point at issue rather than going shooting off in other directions, maybe we would actually reach some conclusions.

As for Sirajudaula: he was no big hero either. He lived his lavish life style off the backs of an impoverished people the same as the mughals (or any king anywhere before that) I mentioned above. The british may have been traders, but sirajudaoula simply took as ``tax`` what he needed for his own purposes. You decide who has the moral edge of the two.

Re: # 96

The statistical data contrdicts your claims. Yes, the economy of subcontinent until the 1st quarter of 19th century was agricultural but still it was puting out half of wolrd`s GDP. That is the era we are talking about. If we make a comparison with West, the economy over there was also largely agricultural and trade based based. The use of steam engine in Industry was first started in post 1760 years; whereas economically viable stean engine prime movers were not availble until 1780 after James Watt introduced some cost effective modifications. That was about the same time when British had defeated Sirajul Doula and changed their role in India from traders to Tax collectors.

#95 Urstruly: Let me then try to explain the ``obvious statement`` by taking the core part of it:

``The economy in pre-british times in the subcontinent was low-productivity agricultural at best

Low-productivity: Check the average yield per acre of the common crops (wheat, cotton, corn etc.) pre-1970s and post-1970`s (when the ``green revolution`` brought about by better seed, fertilizer, etc. came about).

Agricultural: this is as opposed to an industrial economy. The hallmark of the latter is replacement of animal-muscle with some other form of energy (steam engines e.g. or nuclear reactors). If you know of steam engines being used in pre-british India, then you should write about this amazing find and I am sure you will get a Nobel Prize.

But dont bother to even read books. Look at the monuments all over India - they all demonstrate the lavish life style in which the rulers lived. Given that this lavish life style rested on a low-productive agricultural economy, it follows as certainly as 2 + 2 = 4 that there was not much left to go around. The mughal adminstration system was the mechanism through which the sweat and toil of the ordinary farmer was sucked up to provide the lavish life style of those emperors. And of course, the mughals simply did what rulers did in India and other parts of the world since time immemorial - live off the hard work of the ordinary person who basically tilled the soil without the benefit of tractors and fertilizers and agricultural research centers producing quality seed.

Re: # 94

``Obvious statements`` mean squat when we talk about eras. How about this obvious statement ``In this day and age in American society a woman is raped every 20 seconds; this is a society of ghouls and decadence``. The statement is obvious, it is even supported by verifiable statistical data but conclusion is wrong. In you case, your contention about India, is not only not supported by hard evidence, and data but your conclusions are wrong as well.

Adam Smith does not present his opinions by visiting some Nabobs and thinking that whole India was rich; he based his opinion on hard financial data of East India Company and British Government. In Wealth of Nations he refers to that data just as a scholarly thesis is written.

Urstruly: My statement that The economy in pre-british times in the subcontinent was low-productivity agricultural at best, and hunter-gatherer at worst (this included all the invading tribes that entered India), and as such readily falls in the category of what is today referred to as ``backward`` or ``poverty stricken`` economies. is so obvious that you dont even need to refer to any historian to corraborate it.

But since you chose to rely on books and not on common sense, then I would recommend any good book on the economic history of India. The last one I read (by Keay) is a good one. Then we can talk.

… there is nothing wrong with Pakistan. All you do-gooders and well-wishers need to get a life …

This discussion reminds me of a similar useless discussion … one at a lunch table in an Indian restaurant, in San Francisco bay area. It was a valima buffet. Apparently someone got laid and we all got to eat. A win-win situation of sorts …

… surely enough, I found myself sitting at a table of same-age ex-pat Pakistani men … all working in software industry pulling 6 figures, dressed in dark suites and ill-matched ties, even as they stuffed nihari in their close-shaven faces … who could not stop suggesting what Benazir and Nawaz Shariff should be doing for Pakistan … and how now we should all be heading social movements in Pakistan … and similar idle crap. And I could not take it anymore …

… so I blurted out … “and what exactly is wrong with Pakistan anyway …? If people in a nation have been hungry and naked for millenniums, why is it that today, precisely at 1:35 pm on a Sunday afternoon, that it is a problem? And what makes you think Nawaz Shariff or Benazir wants to help Pakistan anyway? Give me one good reason why they should. Benazir is building a palace somewhere in England and Nawaz is looting the country with both hands … and why should they do otherwise???

… look, we are all married to lovely Punjabi women … there is a buffet table laid out … and it is our day off from corporate life. So let’s enjoy the food, go home and make love to our wives, and take an afternoon nap. Sounds good?

… and if you really want to discuss what’s wrong with Pakistan, let`s do it when people are no longer starved and there is enough for everyone to go around. Only then will I buy your argument that something is “wrong” ... which needs to be discussed. A change as big as this should not go unnoticed; it begs to be understood. And if you can’t explain it, it will turn against you soon and will drag down your loved ones, those still residing there in big bangalows behind iron gates. So as long as there is poverty, misery, and death, everything is fine … it`s business as usual ...”

This pretty much killed the convesation. Faces at the table were staring at me as if I have said something blasphemous. I still see these folks from time to time. Apparently they still remember that Sunady afternoon. I do too ... still miss the lamb biryani ...

Re: # 88

``but pakistann benefited from the mass migration of educated middle class muslims (esp west pakistan). ``

It was a mixed bag. The migration did provide an educated administrative force to run the bureaucratic machinery but it sure did not provide a sustainable leadership. The leadership that migrated faced a huge problem establishing their roots in the local constituencies. For example, the first Prime Minister of Pakistan Liaqat Ali Khan had no constituency in Pakistan proper. He was elected thru a constituency that was now in India (probably Saharnpur); he was elected by Legislative Assembly as a PM. That could be recorded as a wierd and unusual circumstance in the history of democracy. In addition, the migration of Muslim from India caused formidable demogarphic and cultural problems; whereas in case of India the impact of migration was minimal in my opinion.

Re: # 90

``that is a factual statement``

Corroborated by what facts and what evidence? Your statement sounds more like your personal opinion, based on selective reading of history, and your prejudices. Can you refer to any authoritative writers or manuscripts suppoting your contentions. I cited about half a dozen from both end of the spectrum, can you name a few.

#89 urstruly: please note the sentence that I had put in bold - that is a factual statement. Do you seriously think that I am wrong in saying that?

And if you agree that what I am saying is factually correct, how do you reconcile that with what you write in #89?

Re: # 84

Your contentions are still not factually correct. As a matter of fact, Adam Smith, and the author of Rise and Fall of Nations (forgetting his name) both have mentioned the wealth and standard and living of an ordinary Hindustani pre-19th century with amazement(according to the standards of those days). Their contentions are also corroborated by the old writers like Abdul Haleem Sharrar, who is considered the first novelist in Urdu language. Mirza Ghalib`s letters also shed light on existing and declining standard of living of natives. I read an account written by Abdul-Haleem about the life of ordinary people during the last last few years of Aurangzeb Alamgir, which is truly eye opening.

An anology of Hindustani wealth of that day can be made with Americans society of today, where 99% of popoulation does not go for a dinner at Ritz Carlton but still enjoys a relative prosperity. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan`s ``Asaar-ul-Sinadeed`` is also an eye opener, which is a commentary on all the ancient buildings in India and the institutions they housed. Trust me, we were not swinging on the trees before British came in and ``civilized`` us.

Both writers, Adam Smith and that of Rise and Fall of Nations describe a list a whole array of taxes that British imposed on local population to rob them of their money. For example, homeowners were charged property tax, based on the number of windows they had in their house, there was a murghi tax, bakri tax, khota tax, mustache tax, tax if you had a horse, tax if you owned a cart and list goes on ad infnitum, - it not only amazed those two writers but it also amazes the bejesus out of a reader to read about the array of taxes they imposed on natives.

Re: # 86
but pakistann benefited from the mass migration of educated middle class muslims (esp west pakistan). This where the leadership of pakistan also came from JInnah and Liaqat ali were from this pool. The movement for pakistan even in British India was essentially driven by this class - with the people following ala feudal like. So whether JInnah continued to live on or it would not have mattered since the basic propositions were such that the middle classes would always safe guard what they have and had. The trajectory was set on the fateful night itself.

East Pakistan and West Pakistan were very dissimilar. And you have identified some ofthe differences. East pakistan & Bengal were more poilitically enlightened, and the movement had a more mass appeal there. That is why later on, the East and West Clashed - it was more a clash of political cultures rather than anything else - mass, people power VS the feudal/middle class power.