Is There Space for Middle Class?

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

India and Pakistan may differ in the size of the middle class as well as in their respect for demicratic insitutions, but our common colonial past does lead to some similarities especially in city management.

Both countries have absurd sity development rules that seem to freeze cities in time. In both countries, large amounts of land in urban centers coninues to be owned by government--a legacy of colonial times. In both coutnries, government officers conitinue to recieve housing as a perk, a practise that is discountinued in any advanced country and a practice that destroys urban management.

Of course, Pakistan carries these items to an extreme. It is amazing we still maintain huge governor`s mansions in the heart of cities. No average Lahori has seen inside the wall of hte govenror`s mansion. Whereas despite 9/11 most Americans can still see inside the White house and can even take a guided tour. The White House is also smaller than the Lahore Governor`s masion.

In Pakistan, we still do not allow honest real estate development. Hotels of course are only given to favorites.

How can sities develop in this policy regime

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

‘Ravian’ is a regular contributor to the Daily Times. The offending article can be found here:

ECONOMY: The unease about India

Ravian’s article is a prime example of the massive sense of entitlement and self-centred self-absorbed narcissism of Pakistan’s self-styled ‘liberals’ (i.e. well-heeled well-connected English-speaking Pakistanis with links to that country’s ruling establishment).

His first assertion, that ‘both India and Pakistan’ are elitist societies is highly questionable. If by ‘elitist’ he means ‘elite-ruled’ or ‘elite-dominated,’ that may be true of Pakistan, where a fairly small group of people have conspired to rule the country for fifty-seven years, whether through overt military dictatorship or military-guided ‘democracy’. In India, the people deliver a humbling reality-check every five years. Small groups who think the country exists primarily to further their interests are rudely disabused of such notions at these times. Indians who are plainly non-elite do have a substantial voice. If on the other hand ‘elitist’ is supposed to mean ‘run on merit principles’, that is still true to a degree in India in competitive admission to educational institutions and appointment or promotion in some jobs. But I very much doubt that that is what Ravian meant – as his article makes plain, he is concerned with the interests of well-connected ruling-class Pakistanis. His equating the ‘middle-class’ in the two countries in terms of proportion is probably also incorrect though it is an article of religious faith among many Pakistanis, stubbornly reiterated in the absence of any supporting evidence.

In any case, the point of Ravian’s article is to voice misgivings about whether ‘normalisation’ of ties with India will have any payoff at all for the Pakistani ‘middle-class’, i.e. ruling elite. Ravian tries to position elite Pakistanis as the strongest proponents of normalization of relations with India. It is more likely that this class of Pakistanis has historically benefited the most, at the expense of the general population of Pakistan, from maintaining tension with India. Now that they are running out of other options, the elite want a soft landing and concessions of various kinds from India so that they can continue to live in the manner they regard as their birthright. Ravian seems to think that ‘middle-class’ Pakistanis visiting India ought to have their path smoothed so that they do not have to suffer the same bureaucratic run-around that the sweaty Indian masses do. In self-respecting democratic countries, citizens no matter how humble, are given somewhat better treatment by officialdom than are foreigners. If elite Pakistanis regard this as ‘bureaucratic rigidity’ and ‘hegemonism’ of the Indian establishment, this is a revealing insight into their own mentalities.

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

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

The size of the middle class is proportionally miniscule to its population. And what meagre middle class exists it is more focused on subsistence. And a minor segment who is at a post-subsistence level is trying to indulge in consumerism. Civil socities are nourished by the middle class; a middle class is essential for the economic progress of a nation, witness the Asian Tigers. But what the middle class there achieved was predicated on certain requisites: education, a culture of savings, impeccable work ethics and eradication of feudalism. Fedualism today is the most invidious enemy of Pakistan`s middle class, and indeed of its economic progress, not least due to its leverage on power and money.

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