The obstacle in social mobility in Pakistan

dost mittar #56 and SR:

Not quite true. Army top brass, above brigadier hardly have any Balochi or Sindhi representation. The perks we are talking about are really for this group. Most military officers don`t make it to this level and retire at major level. The comparison of perks with management of US corporations only holds if Pakistan is considered a military owned corporation with military establishment as management. The mediocre intelleigence rising to the top through military has its own drawbacks. It is counter to talent and hardwork making it to the top. If the cream is poor quality the efficiency suffers. Pakistan is getting terrible output for billions spent on maintaining powerful miltary which is the principal contributor to huge foreign debt also. Military is not at all popular or respected institution among Pakistanis. They only enjoyed popularity once in post 1965 war period due to extensive marketing ``victory`` with media blitz and songs. Actually the unpopularity was so obvious that military had to constantly deny favoring certain candidates even in manipulated elections. In cities, where opposition parties succeeded in labeling PML(Q) candidates as military backed won seats easily defeating miltary backed candidates. I doubt anybody can win anywhere in Pakistan by openly taking pride in support by the miltary.

Here is one recent fraud. Musharraf governemnt sold many of the state owned industries to retired military officers and favorites without bidding process. The money generated by the privatization comission went quiety to stabilize bankrupt faujo foundation. So militray ended up making a killing twice on state expenses. Despite so many raises in utilities prices and cash injection due to post 9/11 situation, not a single new major project in public sector has been intiated.

dreamz and rozaiba have much clearer vision of realistic comprehensive reform package which includes land reform, military reforms, political reforms, economic reforms, social reforms and education reforms. The revenue generated and spend in Pakistan is exclusively urbanite business. Taxes come from cities and used up on military, debt payments and salries of federal and state employess. The rural Pakistan has been treated like tribal belt. No money is generated in the forms of revenue and no money is spent on development. Land reforms mean taking away material from a party who have gotten nothing from the state. I assure you that the big chunk of land acquired from feudals would end up in military kitty. Military does not do a thing for rural population.

SR # 55

You are leaving for London. I do not intend to hold you. There will be other boards to discuss. But very briefly:

(I at once entirely agree with everything you say in its abstract principle)

I think we agree on the principle - civilian supremacy on military.

(Nothing will change in the people’s lives. The whole apparatus needs to be torn down, abolished and replaced with something new. That process is excessively expensive and extremely painful. Nations that go through that process usually sacrifice the entire future of at least one full generation, if they are lucky. It usually takes three generations and untold millions of misery)

Here the difference comes - you advocate a revolution. I am a believer of evolution. The revolutions are bloody - and result in a great misery and loss of life even for a common innocent man. It is the worst kind of oppression. We have seen the Iranian revolution. I have witnessed the Chinese cultural revolution in China.

(The very fabric of the entire state structure is illicit and immoral. It is flawed by design, even all the saints in heaven could not do right if they were to come down and run this flawed system. No amount of cosmetics will change that fundamental fact)

I agree here. But this is all that we have. I also fully agree with your intent of ``flawed design & structure``. But since it can not be undone in the very fundamental way in one go, it can be corrected in a calibrated manner towards that direction. I may assure you that the major political forces in the country, PPP & nationalist parties, are acutely aware of the flawed design & structure.

(When the uniformed employees of the state are not calling the day-to-day shots, the suited, booted CSP (or ICS) officers run the day-to-day affairs)

Here I partially agree. The CSP class has lost its clout gradually since the older Bhutto days. As you have youself admitted BB & NS controlled the CSP class like the dogs.

Only the military deputationists/military quota CSP officers, supported by the military as an institution - can exercise some clout. I think you have not visited Pakistan in the last few years.

(If we were doing a term paper for a civics course, I would exactly tow the same line. But then again, if wishes were horses…)

The priciples are important and are eternal - the details may vary. Our politicians have gone through their period of education - and now they are relatively far more mature. They have sensed their common threat from the Army - and all major political parties are on one platform on this issue. The learning process has been slow but it is there.

I do not think that in the next Army coup, the opposition party will distribute sweets.

fuzair/SR 59: ``You are absolutely correct except that change ``middle class`` to ``working and lower middle class.`` No one from the middle class on up really goes into the Army any more.``

Interesting comments.

I can give you an update of my colleagues and how they are faring in the military. My colleagues are now senior majors and junior lt. cols, wg. cdrs., cdrs. When I joined, there was a big push in joint training, so all of us got a lot of time to cross train across navy, army and paf. So we saw how everyone lives.

The military probably, now, has one of the lowest standard of living of any profession in Pakistan, other than perhaps teaching. Even teacher can make money through tuitions. All my colleagues are living hand to mouth. The ones who have retired young, without any technical or medical degree, are even worse off.

There were basically two generations of military officers. Those who were commissioned before the early seventies and those after. The first group is now Maj. Generals and above, with most of them having already retired. This group lived as well as anyone, in Pakisatn, and are now settled in places like Islamabad and Lahore and Karachi. They were paid well, went abroad a lot. Those who left early, as Wg. Cdrs. were able to transition into PIA, civili services, etc., where they did even better than they did in the military. They were promoted quickly and were given land in defence societies are junior ranks. There kids are studying in the USA. On this site, perhaps yourself, tahmad, hamidm (??? - not sure) are examples of children of officers of those years.

The ones who are below Brigadier nowdays, are in bad shape. I mean really bad shape. Only the independently wealthy ones are living well. The others barely have enough money to send their kids to half-decent Pakistani schools. Those who retire at ranks below Brigadier literally work as used car salesman, security gaurd managers, selling gas cylinders, ets. My ex-CO used to come to our station just to make phone calls, after retiring. They can barely afford motorcycles. There are no mid-east postings, no PIA jobs, and no jobs in the civil. And, unlike civil services, one has no shot at corruption, until one becomes a General. Some of my colleagues who have been able to migrate outside Pakistan, work as security gaurds in Canada, Wendy`s managers in USA etc. Again, this is for people who are from there twenties to mid forties.

This is why I find it funny when people on this site try to paint these guys as taking all of Pakistan`s money. The only group that applies to are the Generals. And at any one time, there are only around 150 of them. The remainin 525,000 guys are in bad shape.

The military is now number seven or eight on the list of jobs for professionals in Pakistan. I would rank them in this order:

1. Feudals and their children
2. Established businessmen and their children
3. Those able to migrate outside Pakistan (North America, Mideast, Europe)
4. Multinational jobs in Pakistan
5. Lucrative govt. jobs (PIA, etc. - these require a huge sifarish)
6. Civil Services
7. Doctors and Engrs. in govt. jobs in Pakistan
8. Military officer
9. Teacher in govt. university or school

Nearly everyone on Chowk belongs to the first four categories. And thus belongs to elite. Those from 7 downwards is the middle class. I started from 8. Decided to go to 6, but then changed my mind. Eventually, was unemployed in Pakistan. Tried for 5, but did not have the sifarish. Then went to 3, because I couldn`t get anything in Pakistan. The difference between my living standard, financially and in opportunities, between 8 and 3 is huge. I now make more money than my whole military squadron of twenty people combined. In fact more than twice as much as all of them combined. No exageration. None of my friends in the military has a car (unless they got it in jahaiz). Except for the odd one or two who know they will become Generals, and will get plots etc., the rest are quite worried about their future. They work as hard as anyone, have hi-tech qualifications, like fighter flying etc., yet have no future prospects.

You are correct about social mobility in the military. It is really one of the only places in Pakistan, where a poor person can make it to the top. More importantly, it is one of the only places where a poor person, or a minority, can exist as equals with the kids of the very rich and powerful. In my parallel Army course the guy who won the Sword of Honour was the son of a JCO/NCO. He is now a Lt. Col., and we are all sure he will become a General. The guy who won the S.of H. two course below me, had no running water in his tiny lower middle class family home, when I visited him. The one six courses below me, lived in a lower class workers` colonies. I am dead sure, barring any medical problems, these guys will make General. At the same time, they had some colleagues whose families were quite well off. I think Jamli`s son is in the military, as was Nawaz Sharif`s son-in-law (NS got him transfered into civil services, immediatly after marraige).

Had these S of H winners been civilians, no one from Islamabad or Clifton etc. (i.e. the rich Chowk crowd) would be from their lower middle class societies These guys were from a completely, ``Urdu-medium, shalwar qameez`` culture. Yet they are outperforming the Defence society crowd.

Of course from 1947-1975 or so, the above was not the case. The upper class sent its kids into the military. It was common for a feudal or big businessman to have one kid in the military, one in business, one in civil services, and one looking after the family lands. In fact, if you look at Gohar Ayub`s extended family, it is connected into all political parties and into all big business.

Nowdays it is completely different. Anyone of my friends in the military, except for the most die-hard patriotic ones, would switch places with anyone on Chowk, in a hearbeat. I certainly did, when the opportunity came up.

Re: SR #45
You said: The military is one of the few avenues of political advancement for an average calibre, mediocre, middle class individual who otherwise would never reach above the glass ceiling that his family`s economic circumstances would determine.

You are absolutely correct except that change ``middle class`` to ``working and lower middle class.`` No one from the middle class on up really goes into the Army any more. Someone like Lt. Col. Isfandyar Pataudi (yes, one of the Pataudi`s, Gen. Sher Ali`s son and Tiger`s cousin, I think) is the exception that proves the rule. The largest number of officers are the sons of JCOs and NCOs, the sons of ``feudalists,`` officers and the civilian middle class are in a very distinct minority. When I spend some time at Mona a looooong, time ago, I was very surprised to hear that the two sons of the Droga (Head Groom) were both Army officers, but good for them. My father`s batman`s nephew was/is a commissioned officer, wonder how they sorted precedence out at home! The batman asked my father to ``speak`` to the JCB ISSB, ``saab, oos ki angrezi itni achi nahin hai`` and my kid sister used to give him her old English books/primers/etc. Now, most of them aren`t going to go beyond Lt. Col or so but thats no big deal. The vast majority of all officers don`t go beyond Major/Lt. Col, anyway.

So the army is perhaps the only place in the country where someone without connections (OK, sometimes you need the basic ones to get you past the ISSB!) has a chance to make something of himself.

So don`t knock the Army! Its the only place in the country where hard work does pay off sometimes!

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

arjun,

.... yeah, how about them fish! ......... while we were debating something as trivial and stupid like ``land reforms``, the civilized world was playing baseball ..............

............ and what is this land reform nonsense anyway? ......... who is going to do it ,and exactly what are they supposed to do?............ take away a hundred acres from leghari and distribute it to allah ditta and his forty hookah smoking cousins?......... that would be one point three five acres for someone who doesn`t have a jackass to ride on or a pot to piss in ............. what is he going to do with his miserable plot of land ?.............grow three cotton vines and a tomato tree?.......... like the share croppers in mississippi? ........ allah ditta couldn`t grow a weed without supervision from leghari sahib`s son with his graduate degree in agricultural economics from texas a&m?......... who are we fooling?............ why don`t we educate allah ditta and put him to work assembling television sets or making micro-chips?............. that is the only way to get his miserable behind off the chaudary sahibs farm and up on the social mobility ladder?............. this crap about ``land reform`` sounds like something out of the nineteen fifties .........for god`s sake, the world has moved on ................ i can`t imagine all these wonderful educated people on the chowk so seriously discussing this nonsense instead of watching baseball !.............what a pile of manure!

SR#45
``One could also argue the opposite. The military is one of the few avenues of political advancement for an average calibre, mediocre, middle class individual who otherwise would never reach above the glass ceiling that his family`s economic circumstances would determine``

I think that you have pointed out perhaps the most important factor for the enduring popularity of the Pakistani army. It is perhaps the only institution which is fully representative of the various classes in the country. Most families in villages would have someone from the family or a close relative in the army. So, in a sense the army may be more attuned to main street more than others. The exception to this rule is perhaps Sindh, which is also the province where army is not as popular as it is in Panjab and the Frontier.

tahmed32:
``And land redistribution is the most effective way to do that. This was done in Indian panjab with excellent results in the 1970`s, and there is no reason not to do it in pakistan as well.``

Land reforms in India took place much earlier, in the `50s. I dont think they had much impact on Panjab. Agriculture in Indian Panjab (and I believe also in the Lahore and adjoining district) was mostly of the peasant owner variety. And those who were above the permitted ceiling simply rearranged land titles through benaami transactions. But your analysis is valid that it was the peasant-ownership which motivated the farmers to spearhead the green revolution in Indian Panjab.

nazarhayatkhan # 47 [“…issue … is not … [the] individuals – They… [are] …all bad… The issue: should the people be the masters of their own destiny - through the elected representatives. Or should the uniformed employees of the state… , run the state. …”]

Nazar sahib, I at once entirely agree with everything you say in its abstract principle. But then that is no different than me agreeing with your equally true statement that the Marquis of Carabus was the master of Puss in Boots and that Cinderella’s glass sandal could not fit any other maid’s foot. In the imaginary world of fairytales those are undisputed facts. The reality on the ground is something else.

When the uniformed employees of the state are not calling the day-to-day shots, the suited, booted CSP (or ICS) officers run the day-to-day affairs. Ministers come and go, but the first secretary, the joint secretaries and section officers have tenure. At the end of the day its either the old boys of Kakul academy or the old boys of the Civil Services Academy that run the whole show. The civilian politicians are an additional layer of superficial tissue that serves a cosmetic purpose from time to time. It has always been the chief secretary that runs the whole provincial machine. The cheap minister (or the governor) are mere obstacles that sometimes insert themselves in the regular flow of day-to-day business. Even there, it is the principle secretary and his secretariat and the military secretary and his secretariat that actually conduct the affairs and “guide” the provincial cheap minister or the central crime minister. Underlying the decade long BB vs NS rivalry were two rival “schools” of CSP officers who were having their own internal tug-of-war. To give just two examples, both honorable men, please recall that Bandyal and his cronies, for instance, were the Buhtto loyal dogs. He was one of the main “seven dwarfs” of BB Cinderella. On the other side (the late) Anwer Zahid and his chamchas were doing the bidding of the brothers NaJHa and SaJHa while abba jee and maulvi Tarar held itiqaaf.

The absurd artificiality of the whole situation screams “imperialism” and “colonialism.” There is no representation or participation “of the people”, nor can there be. Period. The very fabric of the entire state structure is illicit and immoral. It is flawed by design, even all the saints in heaven could not do right if they were to come down and run this flawed system. No amount of cosmetics will change that fundamental fact. Fine tuning around the margins will only change the newspaper headlines. Nothing will change in the people’s lives. The whole apparatus needs to be torn down, abolished and replaced with something new. That process is excessively expensive and extremely painful. Nations that go through that process usually sacrifice the entire future of at least one full generation, if they are lucky. It usually takes three generations and untold millions of misery. Initially it is always like going from the frying pan into the fire. Thus the status quo lingers on because no one wants to go through the pain to get to where they need to be. Everyone wants to go to heaven, yet no one is willing to die.

After acknowledging that “…[t]he elected representatives have failed us…” You finally come up with a wish: “…Musharraf needs to gracefully bow out. …” To that I say, aamen, why not. But truly, it matters least who the dead stooge (I mean ‘head stooge’) is as long as you accept the basic legitimacy of the utterly failed Islamabad state.


[“…Just because the civil society can not throw out the military - or does not have the energy or desire to come on the streets to throw out the military - should not mean that we give up on the universal principle of civilian supremacy over the military. …”]

If we were doing a term paper for a civics course, I would exactly tow the same line. But then again, if wishes were horses… ah, quoting Lee Armstrong, “I say to my self, what a wonderful world…”

…SR

re: Land reforms in Pakistan
There is an interesting debate going on here on the necessity of land reforms in Pak. While i do not profess to be an expert in this area, i do know that such reforms happened in much of India except in parts of UP and Bihar (areas which face a lot of violence periodically between the landlords and the common man).
Pak can be seen as a larger version of Bihar. In Bihar, while democracy functions and parties get elected in and out of power, land reforms have not been successful. Even JP`s movement (and prior to that Vinobha`s Bhoodan movement) could not break the back of the landlords, who continue to be powerful and have legitimised their power thr` the political process (not much different from what has happened in Pakistan, where the Bhuttas and the Waderas have legitimised their power thr` the ballot).
There is going to be a violent struggle as the common man gets empowered by the ballot and encroaches upon the power of the landlords. The latter are not going to give up power without a fight. Perhaps the Paki Army brass realise this and have chosen not to rock the boat. When the landlords can be used to further the interests of the Army, why should the army take on these people? Those Pakis who think that Paki Army is there to protect the interest of their nation need to realize that they are there to protect only their own interests.
The real culprit is the Army brass which has not allowed democracy to sprout and has supported the landlords when it suits them.
Sridhar

re: Faiza Hussain

Land reforms are meaningless in Pakistan, because even if you re-distribute the land, you still have the wall of culture, which is still going to exist. One has to travel in the interior of Pakistan to realize that land reforms are not going to change the mind set of the local wadera, or zamindar or malik or khan or sardar and he is still going to be omnipresent in the lives of the villagers he rules over.

Even though you can give the land to a villager, how do you free him from the stigma of mental slavery? How are you going to end the tales of indentured servitude with land reforms? You need to free the minds of the villagers first and make sure they do not live in fear of the local feudal lord, before you can contemplate land reform. How are you going to do that, when the local police follows the instructions of the feudal and not enforces the writ of the state? How are you going to change a culture, which practices honor killings and marries its daughters to the Qu`ran?

Interior Pakistan is a state of mind caught up in the darkness of a perverted and sinister night. What does land reform mean to a person, who knows that he can be killed by a single glance of the local lord and if even if you make land reforms, will you be able to give that man the courage to stand up to the tryanny of the feudal and make him trust that justice does not scrappe at the feet of the local demigod?

Who is going to make these land reforms happen? Will the military give back its land or will the industrialists ask their feudal cousins to give up the land, on which they can set up new industrial units and subsitute one form of indentured service from the farms to one of sweat shops under flourscent lights?

Land reforms for what? Land reforms for a few familes to jerrymander their land holdings and call it a social revolution?

First, have the courage to teach the girls in villages education and teach them how to think and not be cowed by the local gangster, who denies education to his people because he is threatened by an enlightened mind and then, we can talk about land reforms.

Methodology? The methodology is simple. It is called education and once you can insure that in the rural areas and once you have broken the rule of the tryant, land reforms will automatically happen as the people will claim what was rightfully theirs, but was denied to them and if a little blood has to flow in the process, then so be it. This soil has already soaked up too much blood and a little more will not saturate it.

Ciao

re: What has the Paki Army done for Pak?
A good analysis from a housewife living in Sargodha, pakistan:
http://www.satribune.com/archives/oct26_nov1_03/opinion_yasmeen.htm
But, even she betrays her prejudice when she says:
``Indian military must be more corrupt than the Pakistani one. The prime difference between these two rival forces however is that in the latter case loot-mar has been sanitized and made a part of the salary package.``
Well, Kargil is a reminder to all that the Indian Army stands taller than the Paki one. Corruption in Indian Army exists but the Tehelka scam exposed some bad elements in the Army. The good news is that defense purchases are now more transparent. Press in India is vigilant. In Pak, press plays on with its masters, the Army brass.
Sridhar

Re 46 and others by author

The author has taken the criticisms, the debate, and the suggestions in a very constructive and professional manner. Most of us here, myself included, can learn from that kind of maturity. Certainly the MNAs and MPAs can.

rozaiba: You are right about the PTI, you can`t rule out anything in Pakistan. 9-11 transformed the religo-political parties into a major electoral force despite many of it`s leaders having been unable to winn seats for over a decade. And lets not forget Pakistan is a country where unknowns like Jamali can be made PM.

Romair as well as rest:

The only reason one argues for processes to take place for institutional growth is so the institutions can demarcate the boundaries of power so that a `checks and balances` way of conducting governance can come into existence.

Only the maturing of such a system towards `checks and balance` will ensure better possibilities for the future. Bangladesh is one step closer toward having such a system. As long as the process is hindered or tampered with, there will never be maturity as institutional faith is crushed by outsiders. The election results in more corrupt and crooked Bangladesh are TRUSTED by the losing candidate despite being so close. The process should be allowed to continue despite the corruption, despite the current feudal control, desipte all the negatives. The faujiz have only backtracked the process and brought in filthiest of crooks to save face.

As for the possibilites of PTI, one should not turn so pessimistic. What PTI lacks is charimatic invidivduals with the image of power. Just cause you or I have an amreekan degree or a `dr.` in front of names does`nt mean one can be a politician or a representative of the people. The problem with the PTI candidate in my constituency was he just couldn`t inspire anyone. so he coudln`t relate. Politicians aren`t `bholay bhalay`. You need the image of power. That`s what attracts. And providing financial resources to candidates can help form that image.

Dreamz #37 analysis is right on the money. It needs to be read and re-read to understand the complexities of civil society. Too often we base our goals on assumptions that are more emotional than anything else.

If land reforms are to come into effect, those most vigorously arguing for them as the primary objective for Pakistan, need to present a COMPLETE ECONOMIC picture of how those can occur and be sustained. In order for the reforms to be successful, the entire strata of society- from police department, to provisions of loans, to education of farmers, to methods of accessing markets and providing the entire array of information needs to be formulated- all the above were previously controlled by a few and by simply wiping off seven hundred or so families isn`t going to get one anywhere.

SR # 45

(Both NS and Princess Pinky are army creations. Pinky was really a sit-in for daddy and was only as powerful as was he (in his grave). She couldn`t even tour the nuclear facilities while she was crime minister. The BB/NS democracy era was nothing more than an illicit child born of the ravaging of the country by that rapist Zina ul-Haq. So what is all the fuss about? Who is kidding whom?)

I think the issue here is not of individuals - Ayub, Yahya, Bhutto, Zia, BB, NS, Musharaf. They could be all bad in their own speciality.

The issue here is should the people be the masters of their own destiny - through the elected representatives. Or should the uniformed employees of the state who have little understanding of the political/cultural/social/historical issues, run the state.

The elected representatives have failed us - Agreed. Most of us welcomed Musharraf. Supreme court further legitimized him. But he has had his 3 years - plus one. Elections have been held. 320 members are in the National Assembly - Prime Minister is elected. Musharraf needs to gracefully bow out.

Just because the civil society can not throw out the military - or does not have the energy or desire to come on the streets to throw out the military - should not mean that we give up on the universal principle of civilian supremacy over the military.

This is a long struggle - and should continue for us and for our children`s sake.

It has been the military governments which have caused the major damage to the state in the past - for the simple reason that they were not qualified to handle this onerous responsibility - this isa long story.