Bombs, Missiles and Pakistani Science Re: SR (reply #27).

Unfortunately I have been unable to directly engage Dr. Hoodbhoy here and in part the statement that has offended you comes from frsutration at his choosing not to InterAct with us. The point I am hoping to make is straightforward. Pakistan`s success with nuclear technology shows that money and official endorsement can achieve quite a bit even in a Third World country like Pakistan. Everything can be approached in a negative way or a positive way. We may not agree with Pakistan`s nuclear weapons program but the achievement was certainly not trivial (even Dr. Hoodbhoy says as much). Rather than send reactionary articles to Pakistani newspapers, I should think the sincere and intellligent well-wishers of Pakistani science would now try to see how the same kind of money and official endorsement can be realized for the more purely scientific areas of endeavor. Articles like the one here may appeal to armchair critics like yourself, but they close off the possibility of dialogue with the government and actually hurt the prospects of scientifc development in Pakistan. I am relocating to Pakistan next year where I hope to devote myself to the science of stroke epidemiology and perhaps to the more general effort at advancing the biomedical sciences in Pakistan.

Saad

PS: I welcome dissent of course, but with civility; I wish you`d stop using words like `Phuckistan.`

Bombs, Missiles and Pakistani Science Re: Ali Minai (reply #17).

Dear Ali,

I think the point of our intellectual and scientific backwardness is a rather obvious and trivial one. With respect, Ali, Pakistanis like yourself and Pervez Hoodbhoy, who have flourishing scientific careers and who seek the advancement of science in Pakistan, need to get off their behinds and do more for the development of Pakistani science than merely pointing out that Pakistan is lacking in scientific progress. Some suggestions:

1. Contest a seat in the National Assembly or Senate.

2. Develop a movement to undo the feudal stanglehold on Pakistan.

3. Join Imran Khan`s Tehrik-e-Insaaf, the only truly middle-class political organization in Pakistan.

4. Lobby with the PM`s secretariat for more funding for the Pakistan Science Foundation.

5. Use your intellects to do good science from within Pakistan (if the gifted can`t do it, how can we expect the rest to ?)

6. Arrange funds and personnel to create a world-class research institute in Pakistan that has enough money to attract the best Pakistani minds from abroad (and retain the ones from within) and enough resources to ensure all the modern necessities of academic work, including proper library and technical facilities, a safe work environment, and travel support.

Saad

Bombs, Missiles and Pakistani Science Re: Ali Minai (reply #4)

Dear Ali,

I find very little in your response to argue with.

I completely agree with you about the subcontinental arms race and the hyperacute need to curb it - I was just trying to say that it`s a complex issue that won`t go away tomorrow.

On the need for elevating the level of intellectual discourse in Pakistan - of course. The need for developing science in Pakistan - of course. But if intellectual mediocrity is the problem, Dr. Hoodbhoy`s article is as guilty of it as our fourth-rate universities.

On the examples of non-G7 countries doing well in science - very interesting. Of the four countries you cite - India, Turkey, Hungary and Israel - only Israel produces the kind of world-class science that is routinely cited in US journals. This is not surprising when you realize that Jews were winning Nobel Prizes even during the Holocaust. Over 33% of the world`s Nobel laureates are Jews, while Jews are less than 0.33% of the world`s population. Thus Jews are 100-fold overrepresented in the population of Nobel Prize winners. I don`t know if they`re truly special, but the numbers sure make it look that way.

The other examples are clearly also noteworthy. Hungary has a strong tradition in science and mathematics going back centuries. And Turkey, Hungary and Israel are also all much richer than Pakistan.

India, the country in your list that most resembles Pakistan, has indeed benefited from the visions of its leaders in educational planning and in quality of professional institutes. But teaching and training professionals is one thing (which Pakistani schools like AKU, IBA, LUMS and GIK can do with world-class quality as well), advancing human knowledge through the creation of new information is quite another. Indian science has volume, but it is little noticed outside of India and even less often cited. Still, I do agree that the quality of the output is superior to Pakistan`s.

I am not defending Pakistan`s pitiful record in scientific research, but it is interesting to note that none of the countries you cite is crippled by a feudal ruling class. Outside of Pakistan, Pakistanis have done and are doing world-class science. Within Pakistan, a range of constraints keeps us scientifically backward. And the constraints are more complex than simply Nawaz Sharif mistaking an atomic bomb for true scientific achievement.

Saad

Bombs, Missiles and Pakistani Science Professor sahab,

You`re a real complainer. You are a liberal and a pacifist, but there is this hostility fueled by complaining in all your writings and statements that make your liberalism and your pacifism seem positively militant.

You have said that Pakistan`s acquisition of nuclear capability is not a sign of scientific progress. Fair enough. But you use too many words to say this and, in the process, give the impression of a thoughtful analysis. In fact, your article completely ignores (i) the geopolitical dynamic of nuclear power and (ii) the value of pure science to a developing country - the two core issues that make this subject infinitely more complex.

Developing societies can ill-afford spending money on pure research. For example, it is fashionable to complain about how the late Abdus Salam could make only a meager salary as a lecturer in Lahore and was forced to leave Pakistan, only to go on and win the Nobel Prize. But I ask you, what does a developing country do with a theoretical physicist who is seeking to unite the weak nulcear force with electromagnetism ? Not that this question isn`t a good one. Rather, it is too grand. In a country with crushing poverty and all the real pain that comes with it, thought experiments on the nature of matter do not deserve priority. Moreover, thank Allah that Salam sahab left - he needed the Western intellectual environment to realize his true destiny.

You are complaining about the lack of science and mathematics PhDs in Pakistan. Tell me, if you have them what will they do ? There is little money to fund research or to create jobs in science, so you will only end up defrauding many smart young people who could have done something more useful with their lives than work towards a degree that will not get them employment and which their country is too poor to use.

Some people - perhaps you included - would say to this that there is in fact a lot of money to support the pure scientific enterprise in Pakistan, if only we`d stop speding so much on a weapons race with India. To people who genuinely believe this, I have two things to say:

1. Our weapons race with India is a highly complex problem, given the historical, political and geographic realities. This is clearly the greatest need of the subcontinent today, but easier said than done.

2. Even if military expenditure is somehow eliminated from our budget, the funds should be channelized towards sanitation, clean water supplies, vaccine and other public health initiatives including comprehensive state-sponsored health care, roads, bridges and other public infrastructure, primary and secondary education, crime-fighting, and social welfare programs aimed at poverty. Funding pure science should come much, much later. We should feed, clothe and give dignity to all our people before we indulge in the luxury of pure science.

Dr. Hoodbhoy, you are a theoretical physicist but you openly embrace an activist social and political agenda. The former has given you academic success, the latter influence and notoriety. I think you are obliged to do something more substantial for Pakistan than just complain. I do agree that your complaints are more articulate and visible than most peoples`. But everybody can complain - it`s the easy way out.

Saad Shafqat

Hatred Excellent piece, Futema.

Unfortunately, hatred and intolerance are default pathways for humans and need to be consciously overcome by intelligence and affluence. The combination of intelligence and affluence appears to have reached its apogee in modern-day United States, resulting in what is effectively the remarkable spectacle of Christians bombing Christians on Easter Sunday to ensure a foothold for Islam in Central Europe, in the interest of justice.

Whatever the underlying motives for this fact (Clinton`s hunger for legacy, Holbrooke`s contentious personality, US geo-political interests, etc.), the fact remains that Bill Clinton stepped in to stop injustice. He deserves the sincere gratitude of every thinking person with any sense of fairness.

Saad

Talaaq 3 Times She Said AA writes: ``Marriage is just one vehicle. It serves culture. It upholds capitalist divisions of labor. Hence the protection for the more exploited and less propertied of the two workers in this regime.``

Marriage is indeed a cultural product, but saying that it `upholds capitalist divisions of labor` is, I would respectfully suggest, a bit exremist. There are horrible marriages, and there are great ones. Why blame marriage the institution ? Blame those who abuse it.

Saad

Talaaq 3 Times She Said AA asks: ``Marriage is a strange habit - an obsessive compulsive union of two for the sake of children, for the security of money, for the fear of stigma, for the nostalgia of a sexual drive, which rises from coma occasionally by force of habit - for lack of options - for economic stability - social security - moral duty - religious obligation - familial unity - what is it really for?``

Additional reasons for getting married include love, companionship, and the pursuit of happiness.

Looking Through Glass Interesting point, Feroz, about the deification of the political architects of partition, but the phenomenon is hardly unique to desi-land. I was surprised to see how the founding fathers of the American republic are also revered as infallible icons, comparable to religious figures.

BTW, you wrote: ``Why did Santanya say, `those who fail to learn from histroy are condemed to repeat it`.``

You managed to both misspell and misquote the great Santayana. The correct quote is: ``Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.`` (George Santayana - Life of Reason.)

Saad

Manto versus Insha I rather think this work was first written (or imagined) in Urdu (or Punjabi) and something Mar-21-99 13:32:58 ESTIt is really difficult sometimes to READ a Play.
An actual performance would be a much better judge
to the merits of this writing. Although even I have to admit, that to put Manto into an Insha mindset is nothing short of blasphemy to some for his most devout followers.

Ras

Manto versus Insha I rather think this work was first written (or imagined) in Urdu (or Punjabi) and something has been lost in the translation.

Accident Shandana,

Another provocative article that got everyone talking! You have a great talent for this. (I think you`re also the current record-holder for the article with the most InterAct responses.)

I was trying to picture where exactly the accident took place. I am confused because I don`t think there is a direct connection between Sunset Boulevard and Phase V as the interconnecting Gizri Boulevard is all Phase IV. So did the accident happen at the steep slope connecting Gizri Boulevard with the water-tanks` roundabout (next to the huge Farooq Hasan/Agha Hasan Abidi house), or is it the smaller slope connecting Sunset Boulevard to Gizri Boulevard ? I wouldn`t be surprised if it`s the latter, because that slope has been the site of numerous traffic accidents. Out-of-control drivers are certainly a problem, but there is also obviously something in the design of that connection that makes it highly accident-prone. It is in serious need of some traffic re-engineering. I think KDA has a traffic bureau that needs to hear about this and do something.

Saad

The Countdown Begins Soem indelible memories of previous World Cups:

In 1975 ...

- Murray and Roberts in last-wicket stand against Pakistan. Pakistan lost that group match to the West Indies (eventual champions) after they had them 9 wickets down needing over 60 more runs.

- Clive Lloyd`d century in the final.


In 1979 ...

- Brilliant 167-run partnership for the 2nd wicket between Zaheer Abbas (93) and Majid Khan (81), as Pakistan chased 296 in the semi-final against the mighty West Indies. The later order could not maintain the initiative and Pakistan lost by 40-odd runs.

- The incomparable Isaac Vivian Alexander Richards (138) and the formidable Collis King (86) in an unforgettable partnership in the final, which was followed by Joel Garner`s unplayable spell to complete a crushing defeat for England.


In 1983 ...

- All the great memories from 1983 have to be of India. Prior to 1983, the only Indian victory in World Cup competition had been against East Africa. In the final they faced an outstanding West Indian team which was generally acknowledged as the best team of the time and one of the best in the entire history of international cricket. Although the West Indies were chasing a modest Indian score, they started badly when Balwinder Singh Sandhu bowled the legendary Gordon Greenidge with an in-cutter that Greenidge had decided to leave well alone. Then Kapil Dev pulled off a catch off Viv Richards for which he had to run several yards and which came from behind his right shoulder - it had seemed a physical impossibility until Kapil actually caught it. The stage was then set for Mohinder Amarnath to rifle through the rest of the West Indian might and win the cup for India. [RanaRansher, please share your memories of the Indian World Cup win with us.]



In 1987 ...

Both India and Pakistan were formidable throughout the tournament, but lost in the semi-finals. India were undone by Graham Gooch, who scored an impeccable hundred in the semi-final. Pakistan were undone by Umpire Dickie Bird, who erroneously gave Imran Khan caught off the pad to Border when Imran and Miandad were consolidating the Pakistan total at a crucial stage.



In 1992 ...

- The memory of Inzamam-ul-Haq effortlessly butchering the New Zealand bowling attack in the semi-final will live on forever. He came in when Pakistan were in dire straits, having lost crucial wickets cheaply and with the required run-rate climibing steeply. And then he set about picking boundaries, virtually at will. At the other end, the immortal Javed Miandad kept things ticking with machiavellian ones and twos. After Miandad got out, Moin Khan came in and belted a six onto the grandstand balcony. I think he probably also hit the winning run. Up until that match, New Zealand had been flawless, with Greatbatch as the slog opener, Martin Crowe as the batting anchor, Deepak Patel and others as the highly methodical and accurate attack, and everyone throwing themselves into a perfect fielding routine. Unfortunately for them, right at the last minute Unpredictable Pakistan got in the way.

- In the final, Imran Khan and Javed Miandad again came together at a crucial moment in Pakistan`s innings and this time they buried the demons and exorcised the ghosts of Lahore, 1987. Their long partnership set the stage for Inzamam and Wasim Akram, who had superb late-innings knocks to take Pakistan to 250. England started badly, losing Ian Botham in the first over to Wasim Akram off a questionable decision. Then Aaqib Javed had Alec Stewart caught behind. Before they could recover, Mushtaq forced Gooch to mistime a sweep. He then bamboozled Graeme Hicks with a googly that Hicks jabbed at like a novice and was caught plumb in front. Alan Lamb and Neil Fairbrother tried to regroup for England and slowly built a partnership, but just when they were thretening to run away with it, Imran brought Wasim Akram back into the attack. There is no need to try to imagine the most theoretically unplayable delivery because Wasim Akram bowled it in that over to Alan Lamb. Travelling with genuine velocity, the ball pitched at a perfect length heading for leg stump, then sharply cut away and smashed Lamb`s off-stump. When Akram hit the bails on the next delivery by slicing Chris Lewis in two with a huge inswinger, everyone knew it was all over.



1996 ... later.

Saad

Accident To all the drinkers:

I cannot articulate the case against alcohol any better than I already have. Since some of you are getting emotional and defensive, this is altering the complexion of our exchange. I am not condemning any of you personally for using alcohol. I am just presenting a dispassionate case for why alcohol is bad for society.

To Ferozk:

Ordinarily, I would let this go. But some of your statements are so unhinged that I would be remiss if I did not correct you. In the interest of simplicity, I will focus on two statements and try to be as simple as possible.

You have written: `` ... how come someone who does not drink can lecture you on the evils of drinking [?]``

Well, people who do not commit murder can and do lecture on the evils of murder. And people who do not commit rape can and do lecture on the evils of rape. So can you see how people who do not use alcohol can still lecture on the evils of alcohol ? In fact, the only people who can justifiably lecture about the evils of drinking are non-drinkers. I would be hypocritical if I were a drinker myself and then denounced alcohol. I don`t touch alcohol and I denounce it. That is not hypocrisy; it is the opposite of hypocrisy.

You have also written: ``To follow the logic of your argument, if a personal choice of mine affects others, I should discontinue it!``

Indeed. Civics 101: Personal freedom does not extend infinitely in all directions. Your personal choice ends where your fellow human’s welfare begins. Alcohol impairs judgement, causing accidents and violence, resulting in harm to people other than the drinker. Because of this, alcohol is not a personal choice, it is a social choice. Personal freedom is curbed by laws that protect us from each other. This is why we cannot murder, cheat, steal, rape, loot, abuse, slander. These may be personal choices for many of us, but we have to keep them to ourselves because they encroach on the freedom of others.

For the record:

My views on alcohol have little to do with my profession or my religion. Rather, my stance on alcohol stems from being a concerned member of society who is loath to see unnecessary pain and suffering. I am tolerant of diverse practices, except when they do little other than harm humankind. Traffic deaths, rapes, homicides and child and spousal abuse do indeed occur in the absence of alcohol, but the availability of alcohol makes them more numerous. For example, approximately 50% of traffic deaths in the US are attributed to alcohol. Traffic deaths are happening all the time, but if there were no alcohol, their numbers would be reduced by half (in the United States).

To Omar Mirza:

You have written: ``If we were all dry sods (pardon my use of poetic license, thankyou kindly) like doctor Sahib here, where would the world be without our humor? That is my strongest argument against prohibition. Refute THAT, if you can.``

Interesting point, Omar! If you were a Josh or a Ghalib (or even one of `The Doors`), I would be more sympathetic to this view :-).

Saad

Accident RanaRansher, Ferozk & Omar Mirza:

I agree that many people use alcohol responsibly. However, while drinking and drunk-driving may be distinct issues in principle, for all practical purposes they are inextricably linked. You see, there is no effective way of separating out the responsible users from the irresponsible ones. Since alcohol serves no meaningful purpose, the best solution is simply to get rid of it altogether. It is no great loss.

The effects of alcohol are not limited only to the consumer. Alcohol leads people to behave irresponsibly, which affects the people who come into contact with the drinker (sometimes fatally).
Alcohol is a major factor in violent behavior including homicides, in addition to traffic deaths. Red meat is not like alcohol. The overconsumption of red meat may kill the consumer (eventually) but it does not drive him/her to kill others.

And then there is of course the addictive potential of alcohol, which ruins individuals as well as families.

The deleterious health effects of alcohol (liver damage, dementia, neuropathy, etc.) are a separate issue. I have less problem with that since, as Ferozk points out, these consequences are limited to the drinker. It is the consequences that affect nondrinkers that are the most troubling.

Saad

Accident RanaRansher & Ferozk:

Virtually everything has side-effects, but we tolerate the potential for side-effects if something of value can be gained. So, one can slip in the shower and die, but the risk is small and outweighed by the benefit of good hygiene. Similarly, cars can kill, but their benefit is so enormous that we tolerate their lethal potential. Same is true for Tyelenol.

Alcohol, by contrast, contributes little other than mischief.

Alcohol consumption is not a personal choice. It has clear ramifications that affect others. Therefore, alcohol use cannot hide under the camouflage of individual freedom or personal rights.

Alcohol is implicated in approximately 50% of traffic deaths in the United States. These are lives needlessly lost, pain and anguish needlessly suffered by family members left behind.

Most instances of drunk-driving do not result in accidents. This, however, does not condone drunk-driving. In the same vein, even though most instances of alcohol consumption do not result in drunk-driving, this fact cannot be invoked to condone the use of alcohol. No good comes of alcohol. My sincere advice is to stop drinking.

Accident The problem is not drunk-driving, it is drinking. As long as there is drinking, there will be drunk-driving, not to mention all the other ills that come from alcohol consumption.

Alcohol is a mind-altering substance. The use of alcohol clouds judgement. If we are prepared to deal with alcohol, we should also be prepared to deal with the consequences of clouded judgement. If we do not want to deal with the consequences of clouded judgement, we should not be willing to deal with alcohol. Trying to separate alcohol from its consequences is myopic and schizophrenic, not to mention foolhardy. Any movement in Pakistan that speaks out against drunk-driving but not against drinking is doing little more than aping a fashionable trend in popular American culture.

Alcohol should be regulated with same rigor as narcotics. It is the cause of much unnecessary pain and suffering. Alcohol is a bad thing. People who consume alcohol are doing humanity a disservice because they are sustaining an evil. We should know better.