Education Reform: Signs of Hope

ranjit: So India is just like the US, and the Pakistan military is a puppet in the hands of India? :-)

You guys dont need any alcohol in India - you seem to produce your own internal hallucinatory drugs.

Re: # 83

Your thesis could be right; because in 1947 the two new borns were not identical twins. As a matter of fact the two Paksitans in 1947 constituted the most backward areas of the subcontinent. In the two parts probably Lahore, Karachi and Dacca were the only true urban centers; rest of the country was rural with rural and agri based townships. Hence most of the political leadership hailed from rural and agribased economy. Even the two Pakistans were not identical. The East Paksitan was more geared toward urbanization (probably because of British induced famines during the two World Wars) resulting in more political awareness than its Western counterpart.

But on the other hand India had a much much better mix of rural, urban, industrial, and agri composition. Most of the leadership also emerged from urban centers. That is probably the reason why the two countries have different outlook on various issues.

iron_mask: ``the trusts of the army are like a private equity company....they invest and get on to the boards.``

......i am surprised this is what you have concluded from the comments i made.......trusts of the army are not a private company.....they are a private-public company........a company in which part of the money/resources go in from army officers and part of the resources/personnel/financial backing goes in from the army........

nothing wrong with that, if the profits are shared with the public, which, after all is the owner of the army........and if the public has equal say in decision making.......however, none of the decisions are made by the normal public......none of the profits go to the public.......they are all shared within the serving and retired army staff......

.....if we assume that the army is a private corporation, run by its generals as its directors and its officers being the onwer employees, then what you are saying beocomes correct.......ihowever, if we assume that the army is owned by the govt., which in turn is owned by the people, then the army trusts are something completely different from the carlyle group........

.......the carlyle group is not owned by the us army.........nor does it utilize the resources of the us army........if the retired generals want to go and start something independent of the state, like the carlyle group, more power to them..........

#78 urstruly: I am glad you mention facts, because those are easy to establish. Rest assured that those mughal minatures you see of palaces and maidens and royal hunts were enjoyed by a tiny handful of individuals (who had no more right to them despite their godlike titles of Jehan-Pana and what not, than the average Imam Deen). You refer to Adam Smith saying something about the british impoverishing the subcontinent - with all due respect to Smith, whatever he said does not change the obvious fact that life for the average Joe Muhammed or Ganga Ram was one of poverty (not to mention insecurity caused by decoits like Muhammed Ghori and Mahmud Ghazni and other rascals who posing as ``muslim warriors`` as well as local ghoodas like the kali devi worshipping ``thugs``. Bengal may have produced fine silk, but rest assured that aside from a handful of merchants, the rest of the population lived in conditions that were appalling when compared even to bengladesh today.

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. I rest my case.

As for the Pakistani dictators not doing what the Korean dictator Park did - recall that Pakistan was in fact doing so well that Park, before he launched his modernization of Korea, sent a delegation to Pakistan which was then considered a ``model developing nation``!! And while I do not approve of Musharraff taking over the government by force, I do think that time will tell that some of the foundations he is placing in Pakistan will serve Pakistan as well as the reforms Park set about introducing. Most important is the replacement of the government Deputy Commissioners with locally elected Nizams - I saw a Nizam being pilloried on Geo-news a couple of days back by ordinary residents of a small town demanding things like road improvements and so forth in ways that would be unheard of during the days of the Deputy Commissioner.

Re: # 82 urstruly maybe that is the case...however, wouldnt you agree that the basic reason forthe difference is in the basic premise of the two countries is different: one is a peoples country, whereas the other is a middle class & feudals country with the mullahs being the interlopers. The military is nothing but the armed dividion of the middle classes and the feudals.

Re: # 81

All credits go to Nehru. Had Jinah or Liaqat Ali Khan lived few extra years, this Frankestien`s monster would not have emerged in Pakistan either.

#78 by Urstruly on February 15, 2007 7:34am PT


Pakistan army is the bastard offspring of that very British Indian Army,


The british Indian army had one coup, the thing in 1857..The Indian army has never overthrown an elected government. then again, I can bet you a million $$ that if the Indian army ever dared to overthrow an elected government, the people would be out on the streets protesting(which is counter-intuitive since deep down, most Indians don`t think their elected government is any good)

Re: # 79 the trusts of the army are like a private equity company....they invest and get on to the boards.
If it was Carlyle group Romair, you would not be squealing like this...nothing wrong with the army investing is there now....if the country wants to sell itself 9ITSELF=ECONOMIC ENITITIES LIKE INDUSTRIES BANQUES ETC)...just a thought...

zeemax #72: ...no one is saying there shouldn`t be an army.....there obviously should be one....however, its size should be the minimal possible to defend the country.......if it has excess resources and personnel, which are going into running banks and fertilizer factories, then those should be cut down.......the taxpayers aren`t paying money into the army for its serving and retired officers to be employed in fertilizer companies........nor are they paying money to buy army trucks which are used to haul bricks for housing socieities....

after all, there is a reason, no other army in the world works like this......the job of the army is to defend the borders........not to be the largest industrial conglomerate in the country.......which it currently is.....

.......secondly, there is nothing wrong with retired (or even serving officers) using their savings and investing it into a company or a trust.......however, that trust should not utilize the use the budget, resources, personel of the army to run itself.........

.......as mentioned earlier, if the retired officers of the army feel comfortable with each other and want to get into the corporate world, they should form a corporation.......they should then elect the directors from amongst the retired officers.....they should hire some of the retired officers as the corporation`s employees.........they should then form a fund, into which all the retired officers pool their money......and then this corporation should compete in the open market as a private company, using the pool of funds from the savings of the officers........that is how you and i would set up a corporation......

.......what happens is that the retired officers` money goes into a fund to run corporations which stand on the shoulders of the army....they use the army`s personnel, budget (as financial guarantees), resources, influence, etc. to run the corporation.........in addition, the army bails them out, if they get into financial difficulties.......

this would be fine, if the army was a private institution, like tata or ge or jaffer brothers......however, the army is owned by the govt......it is paid for by the taxpayers.......i.e. th taxpayers are th owners of the army........the retired officers don`t own the army.......

.......so the retired (and serving officers) are basically using the taxpayers` money to run a corporation.....they are then putting some of their own money into the corporation......they are relying on the taxpayers` to bail them out, through the army resources and budget if the corporation goes into a loss........however, the profits are not shared amongst the taxpayers........they are only kept by the army officers..........

surely you can seem something wrong with this.......as i asked you earlier, if the retired officers want to start a trust, why don`t they start a normal private corporate trust, like a private company and pool their money to run it........nothing wrong with that.........why do they ensure that the trust completely overlaps with the army........

as an example, if the army puts all its budget into askari bank, then obviously it will be profitable.......however, the army generals don`t own the budget, the budget belongs to the people of pakistan........what if the people want the budget to go to habib bank?........if askari computers is given the contracts for the army`s own projects, it will run in a profit for years.......however, the army projects don`t belong to the generals or retired officers.......they belong to the people of pakistan.........

........there are too many other examples like that which can be quoted.....one cannot start a, ``private`` trust and leverage the budget/resources of the govt. to run it and to bail it out when it faces problems.........

the army welfare trust is, thus, not a trust run by the money of the retired officers.....it is a trust run by the money of the retired officers, plus the resources of the pakistan army (i.e. the pakistan govt.).......the later comes for free and no other trust in pakistan has access to such a pool of resources for free......actually it doesn`t come for free.....it comes out of the pockets of the poor taxpayers, who never see an ounce of profit, for funding this trust.......

Re: # 70

``Poverty was not introduced 40 years ago in Pakistan. Like I said, it was here 100 years ago, 200 years ago, 4000 years ago and so on. ``

This is not factually true. According to Adam Smith, in his Wealth of Nations (and many more), right until the first quarter of 19th century Hindustan was turning out more than half of the world`s GDP. That made it one of the wealthiest nations on the planet. Perhaps the phrase ``sonay ki chirya`` ring a bell? The way Hindustan was exploited during and after the last three quarters of 19th century had even stunned Adam Smith, which he has expressed in WoNantions. Similar sentiments have been expressed by many othr Western historians and economists. If memory serves me right, Adam Smith, did serve as a British government employee in India for sometime, which helped him write his thesis.

The major tool to enforce this exploitation was the British Indian Army, which constituted of upto 95% of the natives. It must take a lot of brainwashing and inculcating of immorality and corruption in the minds of native soldiers to make them point their rifles and canons towards their fellow citizens and massacre them without giving a second thought.

Pakistan army is the bastard offspring of that very British Indian Army, who has inherited the same brainwashed mentality of corruption and , self-imporatnce from its predecessor. Over the years it has been proven time and again that self preservation and self-interest for this organization is prime and has more priority for it than the country itself. Losing half the country to India, and losing the sovereignity of the country to Americans, currently, should be an undeniable evidence. Not to mention the repeated gang rape of Constitution by this entity, which has expressed explictly that it considers Constitution no more than that of ``toilet paper``. Interestingly enough the Article 25 of this ``toilet paper``, mandates the Armed forces as a legal entity in the first place. So just when Armed forces gang rape the Constitution they negate their own legality in the first place. The fact of the matter is that state of Pakistan is being ruled by an organized mob - the largest crime family in the world.

Having said that, please keep in mind that during the three military dictatorships, Ayub, Zia, and Musharaf (I am deliberately leaving out the m/c Yahaya), we had West and America by the balls. If South Korean dictatorship could turn their country into one of the Tigers then why couldn`t these bastards? The reason is the mindset that they inherited as discussed above. That is the reason we are still a cesspool of corruption and incompetence,. whereas countries like China and Korea and even India have left us decades behind.

I donot see why the army should really run the country. They are full of nut cases and low IQ guys who shoul dbe living in all male barracks and enjoying their all male lifestyles. Real world is full of women too....maybe that is why they are in bed with the mad mullahs

Re: # 74

you guys are missing the point.....
if the various factions and parties within the categories of feudals, the money men (industrials et al) and the mullahs agree to a common minimum standard and institutions this problem would not arise.
The only thing they agree on is that the army is a good thing - as some one said here they the army have plenty of people who can follow orders without questioning....and the rest follows....as night day and day night or like the tides.

Re: # 74

you guys are missing the point.....
if the various factions and parties within the categories of feudals, the money men (industrials et al) and the mullahs agree to a common minimum standard and institutions this problem would not arise.
The only thing they agree on is that the army is a good thing - as some one said here they the army have plenty of people who can follow orders without questioning....and the rest follows....as night day and day night or like the tides.

Re: # 69 ranjit {``...They call us hindus banias, when their entire army is a bania army!! At least our army focuses on fighting rather than being shopkeepers...``}

You guys simply cannot understand... To see reality as it is, and not as it is supposed to be, you must make a paradigm shift.

Your army is probabaly just a regular army... left-right-left-right-left-right-halt... attension, stand at ease... fall out... aim -- fire... that sort of idiotic stuff. And that`s probably all they do. Simple straight forward. You have a subservient army in a sovreign country.

Not so with our army. We have a sovreign army of a subservient country. I am not being cynical ... its our most organised political party, I vote for the army. It is also our biggest corporation. This political party cum mega corporation does have a ``security department`` that deals with things like wargames, shooting and marching left-right-left-right... but that is hardly the primary function. Once you understand this basic fact then the rest of it all falls in place. You don`t have to act surprised at the way things happen. In any country the dominant party rules. In some countries there is only a one-party rule. While in some other countries the one-part rule is concealed behind a thin veil of a ``multi party`` system, for appearance sake. Call it a kinder gentler one-party system. That is what we have and it works fine, thank you very much. There are times when we put on a fig-leaf and have a game of musical chairs between the politicians. Then at other times the ``Law of Necessity`` requires that we remove the fig-leaf. But whether there is a fig-leaf ``democracy`` or not, it`s still one-party rule at the foundation.

As for those who complain about the 2 cents on the dollar cost of land that the company executives are awarded so that they can turn around and sell at market price and pocket the 98 cents, they need to understand that this is just a corporate perk that senior executives of any corporation enjoy. It`s our version of ``stock option awards`` that everyone in the corporate world understands and accepts.

I cannot understand why people have such a hard time accepting all this as normal?

...SR

Re:tahmed

[..And your desire (and no doubt that of the mullahs it is going after in waziristan) to see the Pakistan army beaten and humiliated is shared only by the enemies of Pakistan....]

By ``enemies of Pakistan``, if you are implying India, we certainly enjoy humiliating and beating the Pak army as we have in the past. But, that is our right. We dont want anyone else to beat it, especially the jihadis. Its somewhat like having a younger brother. You may want to beat the crap out of him but you dont want your neighbor to touch him or else.... :-)

The pak army, for all its faults, is actually a pretty useful bunch of people. Uncle Sam has realized it and so has India. It provides a nice buffer between us and the assorted crazy suicidal/homicidal maniacs west of Indus river going all the way to the gulf. While the pak army handles the maniacs, we can focus on economics. For all its services, if it takes over corporate Pakistan, who cares?

#52 by bulleya re #44:

...i can tell you have not studied this deep enough.....who pays the salaris of the military......it is the taxpayer.......the taxpayer doesn`t pay the salaries of the military personnel, or pay for the equipment and resources of the military, so that the miltiary can set up a trust and run corn flakes and fertilizer companies......he pays it so the military defends the country.......

AND #56 by Urstruly

... As bulleya has correctly pointed out, that if military has surplus money to run business ventures, then why that money wasn`t used to provide social services in the first place. What right do they have to steel our money from us in the first place...

These are indeed very weird arguments. You gentlemen are questioning the very need to have an army to begin with. If the same arguement was applied to all civil servants paid by the national ex-chequer, all of whom enjoy post-retirement benefits like pensions and healthcare etc., you would be arguing in favour of parivatising the ENTIRE government and at a much greater cost ... mind you.

Let me elaborate on the above.

The basic difference between the compensation structure of State Sector and the Private Sector is that the State pays significantly less than the Private DURING currency of employment, but continues to pay a part of it after cessation of the same. The Private Sector on the other hand pays everything during currency of service and nothing afterwards. The former encourages a life time career with the same employer, while the latter motivates job mobility for as much as one can earn during active service life. The State cannot function with the latter kind of a motivation and therefore the need for trusts.

Particularly in case of the Military, as Colonel mentioned, the average retirement age is 45.5 years. This is the age at which corporate employees reach their peak earnings. The deductions from armymen`s salaries (or other state employees for that matter) are just to provide the post-retirement assistance which they would otherwise have been able to accumulate in the private sector on their own had they not chosen State service.

I personally know for a fact that the Military does not pay excessively or with `surplus money`. Most military men face financial hardships during service, and it is only through their `Trusts` activities that many become financially secure post-retirement.

It is also wrong to say militarymen are incompetent in private sector. On the contrary, most of them are highly energetic and largely successful in business ventures. The entire private security industry in Pakistan which employs hundreds of thousands was initiated by and run by ex-servicemen. The AWT cement/cereals etc failures are nothing unique and the risks are the same for civilians or armymen. As for Askari Bank, the Chairman of the board is always a serving General because AWT owns the bank, but the President is and always has been a market professional. And it is one of the most successful consumer banks specialising in housing and auto finance.

To conclude with an example, Singapore has a Central Provident Fund run by the Government for ALL citizens through salary deductions. This fund is managed by Tamasec which is the State investment vehicle. Tamasec invests in private equity all around the world and now owns two banks in Pakistan. Would you say why the hell taxpayers of Singapore are funding every Tom, Dick & Harry who is employed by some other Tom, Dick & Harry, who may or may not have any relevance at all to each taxpayer respectively?

Rgds.