Pakistan: A Failed State?
Bilal Ahmad February 4, 2000
#310 Posted by bahmad on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
In response to PM (Reply # 350)
Dear Patrick:
I am sure that, being an educator, you are aware of the literature on education and social reproduction. I, however, want to draw your attention toward a book ``Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs,`` by Paul Willis (1977). This book is an ethnographic description of the oppositional school culture of a group of working-class boys in England. If you have not read this book yet, I highly recommend it to you. I am sure you would enjoy it.
Willis`s thesis centers on the dialectic of opposition. In rejecting the official, conformist institutional code of the school, the ``working class lads`` defend themselves against incorporation into a class-alien, conformist school culture which offers them an uncertain and distant promise of job qualification and material reward. The consequence of resistance not only prevents their social mobility, but fundamentally rehearses them for enactment of undifferentiated manual labor as work, and for acceptance of the system of social relations to which commodified human labor is central. Unfortunately, through cultural opposition, the status quo of the sale of abstract labor-power and the maintenance of class division is unintentionally reinforced.
In the case of Pakistan, the working class kids have no alternative than to conform to the existing school culture if and if they have the opportunity to schooling. And the number of working class kids who somehow manage to get some kind of higher education and obtain jobs accordingly is still very small. If capitalism by its nature is uneven (as many Marxists I think rightly argue), class divisions are not going to be blurred easily (with or without the support of our educational system). The intent of my writing this piece is not to deny or undermine the fact that education has been a ladder for economic success and social mobility for good number of our youth. Nonetheless, we need both opportunity to education as well as opportunity to employment as a means to ensure enhanced/expanded social reproduction.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
P.S. I was having some difficulty connecting with the Chowk. Now, I see Fuzair has added another dimension to this discussion. If the laziness thesis has some power, maybe the British working class kids are also lazy too. As far as Sindh is concerned, a lot of people have argued for the laziness of ethnic Sindhi. We need to critically examine the culture of so-called laziness.
Dear Patrick:
I am sure that, being an educator, you are aware of the literature on education and social reproduction. I, however, want to draw your attention toward a book ``Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs,`` by Paul Willis (1977). This book is an ethnographic description of the oppositional school culture of a group of working-class boys in England. If you have not read this book yet, I highly recommend it to you. I am sure you would enjoy it.
Willis`s thesis centers on the dialectic of opposition. In rejecting the official, conformist institutional code of the school, the ``working class lads`` defend themselves against incorporation into a class-alien, conformist school culture which offers them an uncertain and distant promise of job qualification and material reward. The consequence of resistance not only prevents their social mobility, but fundamentally rehearses them for enactment of undifferentiated manual labor as work, and for acceptance of the system of social relations to which commodified human labor is central. Unfortunately, through cultural opposition, the status quo of the sale of abstract labor-power and the maintenance of class division is unintentionally reinforced.
In the case of Pakistan, the working class kids have no alternative than to conform to the existing school culture if and if they have the opportunity to schooling. And the number of working class kids who somehow manage to get some kind of higher education and obtain jobs accordingly is still very small. If capitalism by its nature is uneven (as many Marxists I think rightly argue), class divisions are not going to be blurred easily (with or without the support of our educational system). The intent of my writing this piece is not to deny or undermine the fact that education has been a ladder for economic success and social mobility for good number of our youth. Nonetheless, we need both opportunity to education as well as opportunity to employment as a means to ensure enhanced/expanded social reproduction.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
P.S. I was having some difficulty connecting with the Chowk. Now, I see Fuzair has added another dimension to this discussion. If the laziness thesis has some power, maybe the British working class kids are also lazy too. As far as Sindh is concerned, a lot of people have argued for the laziness of ethnic Sindhi. We need to critically examine the culture of so-called laziness.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#309 Posted by Pu Li on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Re Fuzair #: 356
I am familiar with Thomas Sowell primarily through his newspaper columns.
Place yourself in the position of a Malay in 18th century. With abundance of water resources such as rivers and ponds and the sea, he is able to catch seafood for his dinner without too much trouble. He needs to grow some rice and vegetables to complete his meals. Why would he bother to spend his time walking miles up and down hills tapping rubber trees for the British or dredging tin from the marshy land? We can attribute his ``laziness`` to his contentment with his life and this has nothing to do with his religion being Islam. If the average Malay is not overly excited by the thoughts of huge wealth that accrues to people who work hard, one cannot blame him.
The Chinese on the other hand have always had a very tough life in their home country. Hard work may not pay off because there is so much competition. So, as they migrate to an easy-going country like Thailand, Malaysia or Indonesia, they succeed not just because of their work ethic but also because the locals don`t even begin to compete.
Interestingly, I would not classify the subcontinent`s culture as just work avoidance. The Japanese and Chinese are empiricists; they look at what they have done, try to figure out how to improve it. The Indian is a theorist. So long as he works out something on paper he is happy. Perhaps that explains why Indians go into research and university teaching positions in the US.
The other thing is that we have never valued labor at its true worth. By constantly underpaying for physical labor, we have created an environment whereby artisans barely eke out a living.
Re bahmad #: 354
Singapore is a tiny island that could be easily swallowed up by Malaysia or Indonesia. The only way they can survive is to have a culture distinct from the Malay culture that surrounds them. The Malays (this includes the Indonesians because they are racially the same) respect authority, accept direction unquestioningly from their rajas/ sultans/political leaders, and accept that nepotism is a way of life. If Singapore adopts the same attitutde, they have nowhere to go. In order to prove themselves to be different, they have adopted strict meritocracy in the educational system and in civil service. However, political considerations always come into play where sensitive positions are concerned. But since everyone does not generally aspire for political power, meritocracy works well.
The Malays hold down a large number of low-level civil service jobs. They are happy because they get a steady salary and housing, the one high-cost item, is subsidized by the government. The government is careful to include a certain number of Malays and Indians as ministers but they are groomed over a decade by being asked to participate in elections and by being given increasing responsibilities. Thus, the minority communities are co-opted. The government supports the construction of mosques in new housing developments so that the Malays cannot complain that their religious sensibilities are being ignored. The government maintains very tight control over the lives of the people (by assigning apartments, running fair price shops, etc.) and by not permitting freedom of political activity. The population is constantly harangued about all the wonderful things the government has done for them. The people are acutely aware of how bad the neighboring economies are compared to Singapore`s and decide to give the government a pass to continue their current policies. Thus, there is not much opposition from either the Indians or Chinese to the system of meritocracy. In fact, they accept that the rules are fair and any failure is due to their lack of efforts.
I am familiar with Thomas Sowell primarily through his newspaper columns.
Place yourself in the position of a Malay in 18th century. With abundance of water resources such as rivers and ponds and the sea, he is able to catch seafood for his dinner without too much trouble. He needs to grow some rice and vegetables to complete his meals. Why would he bother to spend his time walking miles up and down hills tapping rubber trees for the British or dredging tin from the marshy land? We can attribute his ``laziness`` to his contentment with his life and this has nothing to do with his religion being Islam. If the average Malay is not overly excited by the thoughts of huge wealth that accrues to people who work hard, one cannot blame him.
The Chinese on the other hand have always had a very tough life in their home country. Hard work may not pay off because there is so much competition. So, as they migrate to an easy-going country like Thailand, Malaysia or Indonesia, they succeed not just because of their work ethic but also because the locals don`t even begin to compete.
Interestingly, I would not classify the subcontinent`s culture as just work avoidance. The Japanese and Chinese are empiricists; they look at what they have done, try to figure out how to improve it. The Indian is a theorist. So long as he works out something on paper he is happy. Perhaps that explains why Indians go into research and university teaching positions in the US.
The other thing is that we have never valued labor at its true worth. By constantly underpaying for physical labor, we have created an environment whereby artisans barely eke out a living.
Re bahmad #: 354
Singapore is a tiny island that could be easily swallowed up by Malaysia or Indonesia. The only way they can survive is to have a culture distinct from the Malay culture that surrounds them. The Malays (this includes the Indonesians because they are racially the same) respect authority, accept direction unquestioningly from their rajas/ sultans/political leaders, and accept that nepotism is a way of life. If Singapore adopts the same attitutde, they have nowhere to go. In order to prove themselves to be different, they have adopted strict meritocracy in the educational system and in civil service. However, political considerations always come into play where sensitive positions are concerned. But since everyone does not generally aspire for political power, meritocracy works well.
The Malays hold down a large number of low-level civil service jobs. They are happy because they get a steady salary and housing, the one high-cost item, is subsidized by the government. The government is careful to include a certain number of Malays and Indians as ministers but they are groomed over a decade by being asked to participate in elections and by being given increasing responsibilities. Thus, the minority communities are co-opted. The government supports the construction of mosques in new housing developments so that the Malays cannot complain that their religious sensibilities are being ignored. The government maintains very tight control over the lives of the people (by assigning apartments, running fair price shops, etc.) and by not permitting freedom of political activity. The population is constantly harangued about all the wonderful things the government has done for them. The people are acutely aware of how bad the neighboring economies are compared to Singapore`s and decide to give the government a pass to continue their current policies. Thus, there is not much opposition from either the Indians or Chinese to the system of meritocracy. In fact, they accept that the rules are fair and any failure is due to their lack of efforts.
#308 Posted by digit on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Fuzair (#356) wrote:
``Muslims everywhere, but especially in S. Asia, generally fall into the ``lazy`` category at least as compared to Hindus or Parsis or Chinese. There is something about the values that our culture teaches that denigrates hard-work and knowledge. ``
Being the expert on Muslims everywhere, especially in S. Asia, can you please enumerate precisely those values that denigrates hard-work and knowledge?
Further, what pains me is that this self-loathing has also been demonstrated to me by Chinese and Hindus themselves. So I wonder if what is truly a S. Asian/Asian trait is this kind of self-mutilation of character. It`s unwarranted and certainly racist in tone. That it comes from a member of the community doesn`t diminish the absurdity of the comments made.
It is in my experience that work ethic and lust for knowledge tend to manifest themselves on an individual level in Islamic countries...all except where there is an institutionalized education system. For example, Iranians, Turks and Indonesians have struck me as being hard workers, and fair quite well in the intellectual arena. The common thread among them is an educational system that a nation like Pakistan should envy.
``No majority Muslim culture values science or knowledge (other than memorizing the Koran and Hadiths).``
This is, of course, inaccurate. The pursuit of knowledge is fostered and developed through proper schooling. Most imperative is schooling during
the childhood years. Perhaps it`s the case that the only type of knowledge that many of the Muslims downtrodden are familiar with are those they have been exposed to: memorizing the Koran and Hadiths. Everything else is unheard of...
one thing majority Muslim countries lack is good governance. Weather secular or ``Islamic``, the literacy rate is abysmally poor and the ruling elite are more interested in consolidating power than nation-building.
In any case, Muslims have demonstrated themselves to be great consumers of technology. Further, from my brief travels to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and back home to Pakistan, I do see a willingness to learn...a fascination with all this gadgetry. What is lacking is a means for individuals to go out and learn.
Try teaching a class without textbooks. Better yet, try learning without a school or a teacher. That`s where the problem lies. It`s not a matter of ``values``.
``Muslims everywhere, but especially in S. Asia, generally fall into the ``lazy`` category at least as compared to Hindus or Parsis or Chinese. There is something about the values that our culture teaches that denigrates hard-work and knowledge. ``
Being the expert on Muslims everywhere, especially in S. Asia, can you please enumerate precisely those values that denigrates hard-work and knowledge?
Further, what pains me is that this self-loathing has also been demonstrated to me by Chinese and Hindus themselves. So I wonder if what is truly a S. Asian/Asian trait is this kind of self-mutilation of character. It`s unwarranted and certainly racist in tone. That it comes from a member of the community doesn`t diminish the absurdity of the comments made.
It is in my experience that work ethic and lust for knowledge tend to manifest themselves on an individual level in Islamic countries...all except where there is an institutionalized education system. For example, Iranians, Turks and Indonesians have struck me as being hard workers, and fair quite well in the intellectual arena. The common thread among them is an educational system that a nation like Pakistan should envy.
``No majority Muslim culture values science or knowledge (other than memorizing the Koran and Hadiths).``
This is, of course, inaccurate. The pursuit of knowledge is fostered and developed through proper schooling. Most imperative is schooling during
the childhood years. Perhaps it`s the case that the only type of knowledge that many of the Muslims downtrodden are familiar with are those they have been exposed to: memorizing the Koran and Hadiths. Everything else is unheard of...
one thing majority Muslim countries lack is good governance. Weather secular or ``Islamic``, the literacy rate is abysmally poor and the ruling elite are more interested in consolidating power than nation-building.
In any case, Muslims have demonstrated themselves to be great consumers of technology. Further, from my brief travels to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and back home to Pakistan, I do see a willingness to learn...a fascination with all this gadgetry. What is lacking is a means for individuals to go out and learn.
Try teaching a class without textbooks. Better yet, try learning without a school or a teacher. That`s where the problem lies. It`s not a matter of ``values``.
#307 Posted by akhlesh on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
In response to bahmed (Reply #: 295)
Dear Bilal:
You wrote that you are ``prepared to seriously entertain the views of your former Muslim colleagues. However, I find their explanations somewhat inadequate as that of my Indian Muslim friend.... There seems to be an element of historical over-generalization in their views``.
I tend to agree that, probably, they do over-generalize. My friends` views are probably more
relevant to UP than other parts of India.
You also wrote that ``the notions of `forward looking` and `economic deprivation` are important
categories to concentrate `if` there is any noteworthy systematic injustice.``
Having lived in Lucknow for several years, I
would say that any systematic injustice in UP used
to occur regardless of religion. The large majority
of Muslims in post-Partition UP were artisans
(concentrated near Bahraich, Rohilkhand and Faizabad) and subordinate urbanites (in the chief administrative centers of Lucknow, Agra and Allahabad). Their lot did not appear any worse
to me than of Hindus in the same economic situations.
In Lucknow, and I am writing abut the 1960s and
the 1970s, progressive Muslims were common and
they seemed to take their rightful places in a
secular democracy. Everybody in Lucknow was much enriched by their presence.
But the lot of Muslims in
Moradabad, Bulandshahr, Rampur and Farrukhabad
was indeed poor. These were mostly rural people,
with little or no (non-Islamic) education.
They chiefly worked as artisans -- on brassware,
sari embroidery, woven fabrics, etc. In my opinion, however, the number of Hindus who
were in worse economic and educational situations
was much higher.
I do not really know from personal experience
what has happened since about 1979.
All the best.
Akhlesh
Dear Bilal:
You wrote that you are ``prepared to seriously entertain the views of your former Muslim colleagues. However, I find their explanations somewhat inadequate as that of my Indian Muslim friend.... There seems to be an element of historical over-generalization in their views``.
I tend to agree that, probably, they do over-generalize. My friends` views are probably more
relevant to UP than other parts of India.
You also wrote that ``the notions of `forward looking` and `economic deprivation` are important
categories to concentrate `if` there is any noteworthy systematic injustice.``
Having lived in Lucknow for several years, I
would say that any systematic injustice in UP used
to occur regardless of religion. The large majority
of Muslims in post-Partition UP were artisans
(concentrated near Bahraich, Rohilkhand and Faizabad) and subordinate urbanites (in the chief administrative centers of Lucknow, Agra and Allahabad). Their lot did not appear any worse
to me than of Hindus in the same economic situations.
In Lucknow, and I am writing abut the 1960s and
the 1970s, progressive Muslims were common and
they seemed to take their rightful places in a
secular democracy. Everybody in Lucknow was much enriched by their presence.
But the lot of Muslims in
Moradabad, Bulandshahr, Rampur and Farrukhabad
was indeed poor. These were mostly rural people,
with little or no (non-Islamic) education.
They chiefly worked as artisans -- on brassware,
sari embroidery, woven fabrics, etc. In my opinion, however, the number of Hindus who
were in worse economic and educational situations
was much higher.
I do not really know from personal experience
what has happened since about 1979.
All the best.
Akhlesh
#306 Posted by narain on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
After reading the 350+ mails in response to Bahmad`s article what has become clear is that, in Pakistan today, there is no consensus on what the nation stands for. There is even some doubt about how the nation came about: was it an acident or not? Some responses have focussed on Islam as being the raison d`etre for the state, while others (including the author) have argued that it was intended to be secular. It is also clear that there is little consensus on where the nation is headed: should it become more ``Islamic`` since that is what it was meant to be, or should it adopt a more secular path?
In fact the only consensus among the Pakistanis seems to be on what they are not: they are not Indian. What exactly this means is not clear, but what it has been taken to mean is that Pakistan should be in a continual state of war with the ``other`` in order to define itself. If there is no reason to fight, then a reason must be invented: whether it be Punjab or Kashmir.
I can only hope that Dr Bilal`s proposal for a new discourse is taken seriously in his nation: otherwise a nation that exists solely on a negativity, with little consensus on its future is only going to bring more instability to the region.
-narain
In fact the only consensus among the Pakistanis seems to be on what they are not: they are not Indian. What exactly this means is not clear, but what it has been taken to mean is that Pakistan should be in a continual state of war with the ``other`` in order to define itself. If there is no reason to fight, then a reason must be invented: whether it be Punjab or Kashmir.
I can only hope that Dr Bilal`s proposal for a new discourse is taken seriously in his nation: otherwise a nation that exists solely on a negativity, with little consensus on its future is only going to bring more instability to the region.
-narain
#305 Posted by bahmad on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
In response to Pu Li (Reply # 337)
Dear Pu Li:
I am pretty much satisfied with your post. Do you support the notion of meritocracy in the context of Singapore? Is meritocracy somehow challenged by the Malay population of Singapore? What is the attitude of the Indians in Singapore toward the Malay and their demands?
Your friend`s son has identified another good factor for the under-representation of Muslim Indians in the American educational institutions. My older brother also fall in this category (the only one out of six). Marital status also creates difficulties for mobility, in some cases. Thanks.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
Dear Pu Li:
I am pretty much satisfied with your post. Do you support the notion of meritocracy in the context of Singapore? Is meritocracy somehow challenged by the Malay population of Singapore? What is the attitude of the Indians in Singapore toward the Malay and their demands?
Your friend`s son has identified another good factor for the under-representation of Muslim Indians in the American educational institutions. My older brother also fall in this category (the only one out of six). Marital status also creates difficulties for mobility, in some cases. Thanks.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
#304 Posted by bd on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Dear Prof. Ahmed and friends
Sorry about the truncated messages, chowk for some reason doesnt seem to like my messages. I would really like comments on the Iran Election article by David Hirst, on www.iht.com. Its fascinating and provides an interesting hypothesis.
The article will only be there for another 2 3 days
cheers
bd
Sorry about the truncated messages, chowk for some reason doesnt seem to like my messages. I would really like comments on the Iran Election article by David Hirst, on www.iht.com. Its fascinating and provides an interesting hypothesis.
The article will only be there for another 2 3 days
cheers
bd
#303 Posted by Pu Li on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Re PM #: 350
[I think you interpreted my rhetorical question in the exact opposite vein to which it was posed.]
I was in fact quite puzzled because I know from your writings that you do not hold such views. But I felt it might be best to lay out some facts.
[Thank you for the thoughtful comments on the issue of ``Why ...?``. It has struck me that the language both you and Dr Ahmed use begs the question against the equating of higher education with happiness. Your premise seems to be that higher education in `quality` universities (and the resulting `benifits`) is indeed percieved as desirable by all. By maybe many from lower socio-economic strata don`t aspire to a university edcation because they ARE happy with their lot in life-- and not necessarily in a defeatest, resigned manner either. Would like some thoughts thrown in this direction...]
The predominant type of work available in countries with serious development issues is physical labor. While there is nothing wrong with labor, the level of underdevelopment assures that these activities would be carried out with primitive tools, lowering the productivity of the worker. One has to only look at the way agriculture is carried out to see how it actually contributes to serious rural unemployment. While everybody is seemingly hard at work, the results are not what one sees in a country using mechanized agriculture. Without the ability to move out of the villages, these people have nothing to do during the times the fields lie fallow (such as between growing seasons).
The abundant supply of labor, even when it moves to cities and towns, has the impact of lowering wages because there are more people competing for jobs such as factory worker, auto mechanic, gardener, chaprassi, etc. This is because they have no marketable skills at all. While one might think that the jobs of factory worker and auto mechanic need some training, how many of us have seen self-taught auto mechanics by the sides of highways fixing trucks and cars the best way they can with primitive tools?
On the other hand, a good professional job, which requires a university education, propels the person into the next economic stratum. My colleague comes from a little town at the southern tip of India. With a degree in Computer Science from a no-name local school, he is now in the US. His father was a little provision merchant who had failed in business once and had to look for employment. With the earnings of the son, he has re-established his business. This guy`s younger brother, who didn`t have much of an aptitude for studies, decided to go into business after high school. He is now a contractor who erects pandals (I noticed that this Tamil word is in use in Pakistani press, having migrated to English) for weddings and political meetings. This guy makes a reasonable living but he is not in the same position as the brother in the US who has also bought a house for his parents. Just the fact that one person in the family got a reasonable university education in a good field has suddenly changed the fortunes of the family.
In a similar manner, I know of a daughter of a taxi driver who used to live in the slums of Madras now working in the US. Certainly, she is in a position to contribute to the improvement of her family`s situation.
While you might think these cases to be exceptions, don`t you think something similar happened even a couple of generations ago? Those who understood the litigious nature of Indians studied law and became wealthy. (Motilal Nehru, Gandhi, Jinnah.) Which then enabled them to pursue other avenues dearer to their heart. Others went into business and made millions. But if you do not have a middle-class background to begin with, a college degree seems to be one way to get there in a hurry.
If education spreads to villages and prople change their age-old methods, the possibility exists that rural unemployment might be reduced through simple activities connected to the land. A totally rural society such as Bhutan now has a few small industries that make jams from fruit that is locally grown. The jam is exported to India and Bhutan is able to make money from fruit that otherwise would have rotted away.
I agree with you that education needs to be tied to the type of work one does. How many land-grant universities in the US offer degrees in animal science so that a farmer can raise animals scientifically? UC-Davis has contributed significantly to the development of the wine industry in California and to the citrus fruit industry. In this instance, the experience of China wih its barefoot doctors is commendable. For primary health in rural areas, it is not necessary to have a full-fledged doctor if you employ public health measures and first aid for injuries. Having done that, the local nurse is in a position to send the patient to the nearest hospital when he/she recognizes the case to be treated by a real doctor. Thus we need to adapt the education system to meet the needs of the people. In fact, isn`t Computer Science really vocational education, since it turns out programmers who get ready employment?
If one considers the fact that education can be used to brainwash young people, one might consider education to be actually inimical. For instance, haven`t the states with the highest literacy rates, Kerala and West Bengal, elected Communist governments? But at least they enabled the local population to overthrow 3000 years of tradition. After all Communism was overthrown in Russia in 70 years so there is still hope that these states will recognize the faults of Communism.
Random musings, as usual.
[I think you interpreted my rhetorical question in the exact opposite vein to which it was posed.]
I was in fact quite puzzled because I know from your writings that you do not hold such views. But I felt it might be best to lay out some facts.
[Thank you for the thoughtful comments on the issue of ``Why ...?``. It has struck me that the language both you and Dr Ahmed use begs the question against the equating of higher education with happiness. Your premise seems to be that higher education in `quality` universities (and the resulting `benifits`) is indeed percieved as desirable by all. By maybe many from lower socio-economic strata don`t aspire to a university edcation because they ARE happy with their lot in life-- and not necessarily in a defeatest, resigned manner either. Would like some thoughts thrown in this direction...]
The predominant type of work available in countries with serious development issues is physical labor. While there is nothing wrong with labor, the level of underdevelopment assures that these activities would be carried out with primitive tools, lowering the productivity of the worker. One has to only look at the way agriculture is carried out to see how it actually contributes to serious rural unemployment. While everybody is seemingly hard at work, the results are not what one sees in a country using mechanized agriculture. Without the ability to move out of the villages, these people have nothing to do during the times the fields lie fallow (such as between growing seasons).
The abundant supply of labor, even when it moves to cities and towns, has the impact of lowering wages because there are more people competing for jobs such as factory worker, auto mechanic, gardener, chaprassi, etc. This is because they have no marketable skills at all. While one might think that the jobs of factory worker and auto mechanic need some training, how many of us have seen self-taught auto mechanics by the sides of highways fixing trucks and cars the best way they can with primitive tools?
On the other hand, a good professional job, which requires a university education, propels the person into the next economic stratum. My colleague comes from a little town at the southern tip of India. With a degree in Computer Science from a no-name local school, he is now in the US. His father was a little provision merchant who had failed in business once and had to look for employment. With the earnings of the son, he has re-established his business. This guy`s younger brother, who didn`t have much of an aptitude for studies, decided to go into business after high school. He is now a contractor who erects pandals (I noticed that this Tamil word is in use in Pakistani press, having migrated to English) for weddings and political meetings. This guy makes a reasonable living but he is not in the same position as the brother in the US who has also bought a house for his parents. Just the fact that one person in the family got a reasonable university education in a good field has suddenly changed the fortunes of the family.
In a similar manner, I know of a daughter of a taxi driver who used to live in the slums of Madras now working in the US. Certainly, she is in a position to contribute to the improvement of her family`s situation.
While you might think these cases to be exceptions, don`t you think something similar happened even a couple of generations ago? Those who understood the litigious nature of Indians studied law and became wealthy. (Motilal Nehru, Gandhi, Jinnah.) Which then enabled them to pursue other avenues dearer to their heart. Others went into business and made millions. But if you do not have a middle-class background to begin with, a college degree seems to be one way to get there in a hurry.
If education spreads to villages and prople change their age-old methods, the possibility exists that rural unemployment might be reduced through simple activities connected to the land. A totally rural society such as Bhutan now has a few small industries that make jams from fruit that is locally grown. The jam is exported to India and Bhutan is able to make money from fruit that otherwise would have rotted away.
I agree with you that education needs to be tied to the type of work one does. How many land-grant universities in the US offer degrees in animal science so that a farmer can raise animals scientifically? UC-Davis has contributed significantly to the development of the wine industry in California and to the citrus fruit industry. In this instance, the experience of China wih its barefoot doctors is commendable. For primary health in rural areas, it is not necessary to have a full-fledged doctor if you employ public health measures and first aid for injuries. Having done that, the local nurse is in a position to send the patient to the nearest hospital when he/she recognizes the case to be treated by a real doctor. Thus we need to adapt the education system to meet the needs of the people. In fact, isn`t Computer Science really vocational education, since it turns out programmers who get ready employment?
If one considers the fact that education can be used to brainwash young people, one might consider education to be actually inimical. For instance, haven`t the states with the highest literacy rates, Kerala and West Bengal, elected Communist governments? But at least they enabled the local population to overthrow 3000 years of tradition. After all Communism was overthrown in Russia in 70 years so there is still hope that these states will recognize the faults of Communism.
Random musings, as usual.
#302 Posted by bahmad on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Federalism, Provinces, and Devolution
I argue that the crisis of Pakistani nation-state rests essentially in a failure of her dominant discourse. Since the inception of Pakistan, Pakistani ruling elite took shelter under this discourse to legitimize: (1) an authoritarian centralized system of governance; (2) too much reliance upon the coercive state apparatus; and (3) intolerance of opposition, counter-hegemonic struggles, and sectionalism. The present regime of General Musharraf has expressed its desire to bring some change. This regime is prepared to devolve power and reduce inter-provincial disharmony. In each of the four present provinces of Pakistan, there exists one dominant and at least one minority group. The constituent members of the Pakistan Oppressed Nations Movement (PONAM) have, in one way or another, long been challenging the nature of Pakistan`s federation. Some demands of this movement are: (1) a new constitution of the Federation of Pakistan; (2) creation of a new Saraiki province; and (3) provincial autonomy.
Our existing provinces are a legacy of the British Raj. Some people want to protect the boundaries of these provinces religiously. I am not opposed to the creation of a few additional provinces in Pakistan, provided it does not lead to a new political crisis entailing a lot of violence. Creation of additional provinces is a political issue which must be carried out through a carefully considered and peaceful political process. PONAM does not recognize the Mohajirs as a nation. It supports the unity of Sind. The recent apparent alliance between MQM and JSQM suggests that the residents of Sindh ``may`` keep their province intact. The human geography of Sindh also suggests that Sindh would be better off as one unit provided it is not guided by narrow ethno-linguistic political interests.
I shall appreciate comments on the following piece in light of my preamble (or otherwise).
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
Dawn Internet Edition
February 22, 2000; Features
Interest in debate on devolution
By Nadeem Saeed
DEVOLUTION of power down to the level of local councils is one of the main objectives of the present regime. Political parties have also started taking interest in the debate on devolution.
The Pakistan Seraiki Party organized a seminar the other day on the ``Constitutional crisis, provincial autonomy, devolution of power and Seraiki province`` at the Multan Press Club. Participants belonged diverse ideologies such as the Jamaat-i-Islami`s Malik Wazir Ghazi and veteran communist and president of the Seraiki Qaumi Inqalabi Party Malik Manzoor Doharr. Other speakers were trade union leader Comrade Iqbal, Christian Liberation Front leader Nadeem, PSP secretary-general Mansoor Karim Sial, Akbar Bughti`s Jamoori Watan Party provincial chief Marghoob Khitran and intellectuals Masiullah Khan Jampuri and Shabbir Hasan Akhtar. PSP chief Taj Langah was in the chair.
The speakers almost unanimously agreed that a constitutional crisis existed in Pakistan since its creation. They observed that the constitutions of 1956 and 1962 were products of unelected regimes. Similarly, the 1973 Constitution was not a unanimous contract as at least two members from each of the smaller provinces had disagreed with the final draft. Besides, immediately after the making of the constitution, an emergency was claimed on the country and the document was amended seven times, that too without consensus. Furthermore, Ziaul Haq pulverized the constitution with the 8th amendment. Since then, seven more amendments had been carried out.
All the participants except the Jamaat`s representative demanded a fresh social contract based on the resolutions of the 1940 session of the All-India Muslim League. They said provincial autonomy should be ensured to the federating units, including a fifth one comprising the Seraiki-speaking areas. A Seraiki province, it was said, would balance the present imbalance in the federal structure.
The Jamaat`s representative was of the opinion that with certain amendments regarding a balance between the powers of the president and the premier, the constitution of 1973 was still workable. He did not object to the demand for more provinces, but objected to the name Seraikistan, saying it was ethnic based. At this, Mr Langah said Seraiki nationalists were not rigid on the issue and any name acceptable to the people of the Seraiki belt could be considered.
The participants noted that provincial autonomy was more important at this time than devolution as redetermination of powers between the federation and its units was crucial for creating harmony among the four provinces. After deciding this vital issue, devolution could be effected down to the local councils through the provinces.
With the exception of the Jamaat representative, the participants asked for a national commission for a new constitutional formula and elections for a constituent assembly.
I argue that the crisis of Pakistani nation-state rests essentially in a failure of her dominant discourse. Since the inception of Pakistan, Pakistani ruling elite took shelter under this discourse to legitimize: (1) an authoritarian centralized system of governance; (2) too much reliance upon the coercive state apparatus; and (3) intolerance of opposition, counter-hegemonic struggles, and sectionalism. The present regime of General Musharraf has expressed its desire to bring some change. This regime is prepared to devolve power and reduce inter-provincial disharmony. In each of the four present provinces of Pakistan, there exists one dominant and at least one minority group. The constituent members of the Pakistan Oppressed Nations Movement (PONAM) have, in one way or another, long been challenging the nature of Pakistan`s federation. Some demands of this movement are: (1) a new constitution of the Federation of Pakistan; (2) creation of a new Saraiki province; and (3) provincial autonomy.
Our existing provinces are a legacy of the British Raj. Some people want to protect the boundaries of these provinces religiously. I am not opposed to the creation of a few additional provinces in Pakistan, provided it does not lead to a new political crisis entailing a lot of violence. Creation of additional provinces is a political issue which must be carried out through a carefully considered and peaceful political process. PONAM does not recognize the Mohajirs as a nation. It supports the unity of Sind. The recent apparent alliance between MQM and JSQM suggests that the residents of Sindh ``may`` keep their province intact. The human geography of Sindh also suggests that Sindh would be better off as one unit provided it is not guided by narrow ethno-linguistic political interests.
I shall appreciate comments on the following piece in light of my preamble (or otherwise).
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
Dawn Internet Edition
February 22, 2000; Features
Interest in debate on devolution
By Nadeem Saeed
DEVOLUTION of power down to the level of local councils is one of the main objectives of the present regime. Political parties have also started taking interest in the debate on devolution.
The Pakistan Seraiki Party organized a seminar the other day on the ``Constitutional crisis, provincial autonomy, devolution of power and Seraiki province`` at the Multan Press Club. Participants belonged diverse ideologies such as the Jamaat-i-Islami`s Malik Wazir Ghazi and veteran communist and president of the Seraiki Qaumi Inqalabi Party Malik Manzoor Doharr. Other speakers were trade union leader Comrade Iqbal, Christian Liberation Front leader Nadeem, PSP secretary-general Mansoor Karim Sial, Akbar Bughti`s Jamoori Watan Party provincial chief Marghoob Khitran and intellectuals Masiullah Khan Jampuri and Shabbir Hasan Akhtar. PSP chief Taj Langah was in the chair.
The speakers almost unanimously agreed that a constitutional crisis existed in Pakistan since its creation. They observed that the constitutions of 1956 and 1962 were products of unelected regimes. Similarly, the 1973 Constitution was not a unanimous contract as at least two members from each of the smaller provinces had disagreed with the final draft. Besides, immediately after the making of the constitution, an emergency was claimed on the country and the document was amended seven times, that too without consensus. Furthermore, Ziaul Haq pulverized the constitution with the 8th amendment. Since then, seven more amendments had been carried out.
All the participants except the Jamaat`s representative demanded a fresh social contract based on the resolutions of the 1940 session of the All-India Muslim League. They said provincial autonomy should be ensured to the federating units, including a fifth one comprising the Seraiki-speaking areas. A Seraiki province, it was said, would balance the present imbalance in the federal structure.
The Jamaat`s representative was of the opinion that with certain amendments regarding a balance between the powers of the president and the premier, the constitution of 1973 was still workable. He did not object to the demand for more provinces, but objected to the name Seraikistan, saying it was ethnic based. At this, Mr Langah said Seraiki nationalists were not rigid on the issue and any name acceptable to the people of the Seraiki belt could be considered.
The participants noted that provincial autonomy was more important at this time than devolution as redetermination of powers between the federation and its units was crucial for creating harmony among the four provinces. After deciding this vital issue, devolution could be effected down to the local councils through the provinces.
With the exception of the Jamaat representative, the participants asked for a national commission for a new constitutional formula and elections for a constituent assembly.
#301 Posted by PM on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Re. Pu Li (#339)
Sir, I think you interpreted my rhetorical question in the exact opposite vein to which it was posed. Perhaps I am at fault gramatically. It should, properly, read:
``And what ABOUT [not `is`] the [reasonable] representation of Muslims in the Indian army, knowing fully well that they might be called upon to fight their `brothers`?``
I thought the above meaning should have come through from the context anyway.
Thank you for the thoughtful comments on the issue
of ``Why ...?``. It has struck me that the language both you and Dr Ahmed use begs the question against the equating of higher education with happiness. Your premise seems to be that higher education in `quality` universities (and the resulting `benifits`) is indeed percieved as desirable by all. By maybe many from lower socio-economic strata don`t aspire to a university edcation because they ARE happy with their lot in life-- and not necessarily in a defeatest, resigned manner either. Would like some thoughts thrown in this direction...
regards,
PM
Sir, I think you interpreted my rhetorical question in the exact opposite vein to which it was posed. Perhaps I am at fault gramatically. It should, properly, read:
``And what ABOUT [not `is`] the [reasonable] representation of Muslims in the Indian army, knowing fully well that they might be called upon to fight their `brothers`?``
I thought the above meaning should have come through from the context anyway.
Thank you for the thoughtful comments on the issue
of ``Why ...?``. It has struck me that the language both you and Dr Ahmed use begs the question against the equating of higher education with happiness. Your premise seems to be that higher education in `quality` universities (and the resulting `benifits`) is indeed percieved as desirable by all. By maybe many from lower socio-economic strata don`t aspire to a university edcation because they ARE happy with their lot in life-- and not necessarily in a defeatest, resigned manner either. Would like some thoughts thrown in this direction...
regards,
PM
#300 Posted by PM on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
To Mr. Naqshbandhi, (re. #333)
(with apologies for mis-spelling your name the first time)
You have indeed answered all my questions at length. Thank you. I regret assuming that you had not questioned your childhood convictions.
Forgive me if I still habour serious doubts about the objectivity of your quest for the truth, coming,as it were, from a man who still holds the conviction that taking taking concubines (no matter how kindly one treats them) . But that`s really MY problem now, isn`t it!
Of course, you are among the few that God has blessed with birth into a a Muslim family, so it would might make it dfficult for you to see that the concubines could, if the dice were rolled differently, actually be your sisters and mother. Or is that another suggestion ``from which you [may] take refuge in Allah``?
Re, the historical incidents showing the benign nature of the early Muslims, I have no doubt that they were among the most civilized during that period. However, that does not make the taking of concubines any less of a human rights violation- then or now!
Interestingly, you point out that you come from a great tradition of sufis. In my limited knowledge of Islamic history, I am aware with a fair degree of certainty that sufic teachings and practices were often in conflict with the schools of Islamic jurispudence. Point to ponder.
regards,
PM
(with apologies for mis-spelling your name the first time)
You have indeed answered all my questions at length. Thank you. I regret assuming that you had not questioned your childhood convictions.
Forgive me if I still habour serious doubts about the objectivity of your quest for the truth, coming,as it were, from a man who still holds the conviction that taking taking concubines (no matter how kindly one treats them) . But that`s really MY problem now, isn`t it!
Of course, you are among the few that God has blessed with birth into a a Muslim family, so it would might make it dfficult for you to see that the concubines could, if the dice were rolled differently, actually be your sisters and mother. Or is that another suggestion ``from which you [may] take refuge in Allah``?
Re, the historical incidents showing the benign nature of the early Muslims, I have no doubt that they were among the most civilized during that period. However, that does not make the taking of concubines any less of a human rights violation- then or now!
Interestingly, you point out that you come from a great tradition of sufis. In my limited knowledge of Islamic history, I am aware with a fair degree of certainty that sufic teachings and practices were often in conflict with the schools of Islamic jurispudence. Point to ponder.
regards,
PM
#299 Posted by bahmad on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Are We Just Two Unfortunate Nation-States?
On the 20th of February last year, Indian Prime Minister Mr. Atal Behari Vajpaee came to Lahore on his bus trip. An American friend of mine who is honestly interested in the issues of global peace and human rights applauded the event as a great development in South Asia. It was my gut reaction, negativity, cynicism or what that I failed to share his optimism. The events of past 366 days clearly suggest that I wasn`t wrong. Although a peaceful and amicable resolution of the Kashmir issue is important for bridging existing canyon-like differences, the actual problem lies in our mindsets, our worldviews, our aspirations, and our inability to communicate and resolve our differences in light of the universal values of humanity, freedom, justice, and peaceful coexistence. Is this lesson too hard to understand? If we already understand this lesson, we simply need to engage in a process of finding creative ways to develop an environment for healthy competition and cooperation in the greater interest of our people and the world at-large.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
On the 20th of February last year, Indian Prime Minister Mr. Atal Behari Vajpaee came to Lahore on his bus trip. An American friend of mine who is honestly interested in the issues of global peace and human rights applauded the event as a great development in South Asia. It was my gut reaction, negativity, cynicism or what that I failed to share his optimism. The events of past 366 days clearly suggest that I wasn`t wrong. Although a peaceful and amicable resolution of the Kashmir issue is important for bridging existing canyon-like differences, the actual problem lies in our mindsets, our worldviews, our aspirations, and our inability to communicate and resolve our differences in light of the universal values of humanity, freedom, justice, and peaceful coexistence. Is this lesson too hard to understand? If we already understand this lesson, we simply need to engage in a process of finding creative ways to develop an environment for healthy competition and cooperation in the greater interest of our people and the world at-large.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
#298 Posted by anwar1244 on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
Pakistan was built as a muslim country. Separation of East Pakistan does not negate that principle.
East Pakistan never reunited with India.
Pakistan is not in crisis. It will stay, inshallah for ever.
East Pakistan never reunited with India.
Pakistan is not in crisis. It will stay, inshallah for ever.
#297 Posted by bahmad on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
In response to zensufi (Reply #: 345)
Dear zensufi:
Many Pakistan people know Rumi fairly well. Some people have also heard about ``Maulavi.`` But, very few people know that Rumi and Maulavi are two titles of the same great Iranian-Turk poet. Your quote of Rumi that ``Not only the thirsty seek the water... the water seeks the thirsty!`` is a great example of the need to understand the unity of our Universe.
One of my Iranian friend is a great admirer of Maulavi. He occasionally visits the USA, and I had the honor to hear him recite some of Maulavi`s poems with translation. The one I like most is where Maulavi describes the story of Luqman (Lughman), the rich man, melon, and his understanding of love. I wish the people of this world in general, and of India and Pakistan in particular, could learn something from great Farsi poets like Rumi and Saadi.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
Dear zensufi:
Many Pakistan people know Rumi fairly well. Some people have also heard about ``Maulavi.`` But, very few people know that Rumi and Maulavi are two titles of the same great Iranian-Turk poet. Your quote of Rumi that ``Not only the thirsty seek the water... the water seeks the thirsty!`` is a great example of the need to understand the unity of our Universe.
One of my Iranian friend is a great admirer of Maulavi. He occasionally visits the USA, and I had the honor to hear him recite some of Maulavi`s poems with translation. The one I like most is where Maulavi describes the story of Luqman (Lughman), the rich man, melon, and his understanding of love. I wish the people of this world in general, and of India and Pakistan in particular, could learn something from great Farsi poets like Rumi and Saadi.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad
#296 Posted by zensufi on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
RE: Bahmad Reply 331
Bilal... I agree with you that $ spent on defence and offence programs are indeed meaningless specially, when the basic necessities of life cannot be supplied. In my opinion, most people have strayed from the path... a path which focuses on the love of God and fellow human beings! A pitcher made of gold and diamonds would not attract me. There actually is no pleasure in such things. When we learn to stop loving, wanting, and getting attached to material objects... the mind is remarkably cleared of excess baggage! Here is another quote for you... :-)
--
Not only the thirsty seek the water... the water seeks the thirsty! [Rumi] www.zensufi.com
Bilal... I agree with you that $ spent on defence and offence programs are indeed meaningless specially, when the basic necessities of life cannot be supplied. In my opinion, most people have strayed from the path... a path which focuses on the love of God and fellow human beings! A pitcher made of gold and diamonds would not attract me. There actually is no pleasure in such things. When we learn to stop loving, wanting, and getting attached to material objects... the mind is remarkably cleared of excess baggage! Here is another quote for you... :-)
--
Not only the thirsty seek the water... the water seeks the thirsty! [Rumi] www.zensufi.com
#295 Posted by sadna on November 30, 1999 12:00:00 am
PM # 248, SameerJB #261
Thanks to both for your patient responses. Do I understand you to say that while in face-to-face `daily` situations, religious hardliners and their harsh rhetoric often prevail , but the general populace considers them at most, to be of nuisance value in the political and religious landscape? You say is what I want to believe, which tallies with the Indian experience. In India, too, most (literate/illiterate, urban/rural, poor/well-off) people are deeply religious but donot always vote with religion in mind. The demand for relief from harsh life circumstances often boils down to voting for caste or community of the candidate, in many places it is often a choice between competing candidates from the same caste which is dominant in the particular constituency.
I would agree that the thrill of religious parties is when they promise all these through vague references to the application of religious dictates in governance. In India, the vague claims of parties would last only till the next elections, which can not easily be put off or dispensed with.
Hence my doubt still holds about fundamentalist parties in Pakistan. The important thing to an average Pakistani is not what the world thinks, but what do fundamentalist parties themselves think or are allowed to think or encouraging others to think about themselves and their power? Do religious hardliners or neem mullahs have to be faced down someday? Everyone (outsiders dealing with Pakistan) would feel a lot more confident about the directions of the current military `auto-pilot` mode if there was as much loudness and clarity in other policies apart from India, Kashmir and `jihadi` organisations.
Regarding `vested interest of Indian and some western media`, I consider India has a vested interest in Pakistan remaining non-fundamentalist. The Pakistani army`s `short-term` support for `fringe` organisations is only cutting down on common areas of agreement between Pakistan and India.
Sadhana
Thanks to both for your patient responses. Do I understand you to say that while in face-to-face `daily` situations, religious hardliners and their harsh rhetoric often prevail , but the general populace considers them at most, to be of nuisance value in the political and religious landscape? You say is what I want to believe, which tallies with the Indian experience. In India, too, most (literate/illiterate, urban/rural, poor/well-off) people are deeply religious but donot always vote with religion in mind. The demand for relief from harsh life circumstances often boils down to voting for caste or community of the candidate, in many places it is often a choice between competing candidates from the same caste which is dominant in the particular constituency.
I would agree that the thrill of religious parties is when they promise all these through vague references to the application of religious dictates in governance. In India, the vague claims of parties would last only till the next elections, which can not easily be put off or dispensed with.
Hence my doubt still holds about fundamentalist parties in Pakistan. The important thing to an average Pakistani is not what the world thinks, but what do fundamentalist parties themselves think or are allowed to think or encouraging others to think about themselves and their power? Do religious hardliners or neem mullahs have to be faced down someday? Everyone (outsiders dealing with Pakistan) would feel a lot more confident about the directions of the current military `auto-pilot` mode if there was as much loudness and clarity in other policies apart from India, Kashmir and `jihadi` organisations.
Regarding `vested interest of Indian and some western media`, I consider India has a vested interest in Pakistan remaining non-fundamentalist. The Pakistani army`s `short-term` support for `fringe` organisations is only cutting down on common areas of agreement between Pakistan and India.
Sadhana
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- usmi: It is quite interesting... Pleas For Sanity as
- Levitate: nkg... dead hindoos :)... Pleas For Sanity as
- Levitate: Zarrar Said are you... Nothing Queer About It
- nkg: HP.... If the world would... Pleas For Sanity as
- Levitate: :) dead hindoos ...... The Future of Indo
- Levitate: :) dead hindoos... Pleas For Sanity as
- borivili_express: jang its a very... Pleas For Sanity as
- dharma: Re: # 217 "dharma says... Pleas For Sanity as
