Reforms! What Reforms? HEC vs Dr. Hoodbhoy: The Controversy Continues

By Mamoona Amjed

ISLAMABAD, July 18: With reference to a rejoinder by Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy captioned: “Pakistan Buying Costly, Obsolete Scientific Junk” it is stated that in his response to the rejoinder by the Executive Director, HEC, Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy continues to distort, falsify and twist facts to fit his own viewpoint.

It is absolutely incorrect that HEC has spent or is spending Rs400 million on the purchase of a Van de Graaf Accelerator. HEC is not purchasing any equipment! HEC had allocated a total of Rs180 million to the National Center for Physics, (NCP) Quaid-e Azam University, Islamabad for the establishment of an Accelerator and an associated experimental Physics Laboratory. Out of this amount only Rs90 million were estimated to be spent on the purchase of the Accelerator and not Rs400 million as claimed by the writer.

The worthy writer finds it “shocking that no meeting of potential users of this large scale project was called, as is the practice in the rest of the world. And no one will have a clue of what to do when this machine finally arrives in Pakistan”.

It is to be noted that the top scientists of the country in the discipline of Physics were involved in the preparation and submission of the project to HEC. The project was prepared by Dr. Riaz ud Din, HI, a top notch physicist of the country and the Director of the National Center for Physics. Prof. Hoodbhoy claims that Prof. Riazuddin has acknowledged to him that he made a mistake. Even if his statement is true, how, is that the fault of HEC?

The project for the purchase of the Accelerator was reviewed by Dr. Samar Mubarakmand, NI, HI, SI, Chairman NESCOM and a top nuclear scientist and submitted to HEC by Dr. Ishfaq Ahmad, NI, HI, SI, our leading nuclear scientist, in his capacity as Chairman Board of Governors of National Center of Physics.

The actual specifications and type of the Accelerator to be purchased are still under consideration. A committee of scientists constituted for this purpose will take the final decision.

It is highly unfortunate that by making remarks about the project such as “stupid decision” and ridiculing the competence of those who are involved in establishing this facility, the worthy writer has insulted the above mentioned top scientists of the country as HEC is only sponsoring a project prepared, recommended and submitted by them.

Regarding the objections raised on the research proposal of Dr. Saadia Chishti, it is clarified that only Rs.400.000 and not Rs5.5 million have been released for the project. While processing the case HEC procedure of a rigorous peer review by top experts in the field, in line with international norms and practices, was strictly followed.

The project as well as the total amount to be allocated was approved on the recommendation of the Referees. Later on, HEC has had the progress report of her project evaluated by experts and the case is being processed for final decision in the light of evaluator’s comments. No further funds beyond Rs0.4 million were released after July, 2004.

The honorable writer has also falsely contended that the Allama Iqbal Open University (AIOU) has only a distance learning program and questioned the feasibility of carrying out chemistry research by Prof. Atta-ur-Rahman at such an institution.

He seems to ignore the reality on ground that AIOU has a first rate chemistry laboratory with a functional gas chromatograph, mass spectrometer system, Fourier transform infra-red spectrometer, ultra-violet spectrometer, high pressure liquid chromatographs and other sophisticated equipment installed and fully operational.

Students are carrying out M.Phil and Ph.D. level studies in AIOU with the help of these facilities. Prof. Atta-ur-Rahman is the leading scientist in the country who has written/edited 87 books published mainly in USA, Europe and Japan, many of which are used in courses in the West. He also has over 600 research papers, chapters in books and international patents to his credit which have won him numerous international prizes.

He had the rare distinction of becoming a Cambridge Don (1969-1973 ) and he is the only Pakistani scientist (besides late Prof. Abdus Salam) to have been honored by the University of Cambridge with award of an honorary degree of Doctor of Science (Sc.D.) by Cambridge University.

He is also the only scientist from the Muslim world to have been awarded the UNESCO Science Prize by the Director General of UNESCO in the 30 year old history for his eminent scientific contributions. Yet Prof. Hoodbhoy feels that being incharge of more than one institutions Dr. Atta-ur-Rahman should not carry out research.

Regarding the “Best Teachers” awards, the worthy writer now acknowledges that it was impossible for HEC to interview 250,000 students (note that this is what he had recommended earlier -- that the students opinion should have been sought!) -- this time he has now changed his stance and made a different set of allegations against HEC saying that the “Administrators simply nominated themselves as best teachers” (presumably he means departmental heads).

The reality is that nominations under the program were accepted by HEC only from Vice Chancellors and not directly from any “Administrators``.

The new objection raised by the worthy writer in “Physics Master Trainers Program” is not understandable. HEC has given the project to the Physics Department Quaid-e-Azam University and it is being run by the Head of the Department.

HEC welcomes positive criticism however, articles based on incorrect figures, spinning of facts and those creating public misperceptions about sincere efforts to develop S&T and higher education don’t serve any noble purpose.

Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy responded to this latest rejoinder with these remarks on Saturday, July 16, 2005:

The HEC appears terribly confused. The official rejoinder of the HEC (17 July) to my article states that I have misrepresented facts and that only Rs 90 million shall be spent on a Tandem Accelerator. But this is not what the HEC chairman wrote on 25 June, 2005 (Dawn, Sci-Tech section, http://dawn.com/weekly/science/archive/050625/science3.htm).

According to the above article: “HEC has allocated Rs180 million to establish a 5MW Tandem Accelerator” and, to support its function, “HEC will spend Rs164 million to set up laboratories at the NCP, Quaid-i-Azam University”. Whoever on the HEC payroll is charged with defending the HEC has obviously not read what the boss has written.

I have no idea, or interest, of which individuals are behind this senseless project, one that is an astonishing waste of precious national resources. The author’s attempt to drag in other names is a mischievous move designed to create and inflame conflicts.

My previous statements are correct and can be easily verified: Professor Riazuddin, whose scientific credentials everyone seems to agree upon, has expressed his view saying that he cannot support this project on grounds of scientific merit. He has communicated this in writing to the HEC chairman.

In the matter of Dr. Saadia Khawar Chishty, the HEC web page shows for the project “Quranization Of Science Courses At The M.Sc level” the following entries: Total Amount – Rs5,581,000 and Current Year Award – Rs1,857,000. I do not see the figure of Rs 400,000 anywhere. Where is it?

It is my hope that the HEC will not make yet another attempt to change these figures or tamper with web pages that were created in 2003-2004. One such shallow trick has already been caught and exposed.

Best Teacher Awards: it is alleged by the HEC-commissioned author that I have “changed my stance” on the issue of getting students to evaluate a teacher’s performance in class. Rubbish! I think that without getting this crucial input, the whole idea of a “Best Teacher Award” is nonsensical. The problem seems to lie in the author’s limited comprehension of English. And, yes, I did mean that departmental heads had nominated themselves as the best teachers. It is perfectly normal to call departmental heads as “administrators” in the English language.

As for the other matters raised by the HEC’s second rejoinder: I think I have made my position clear in my initial and follow-up articles. There is no need to prolong a now tedious debate.

Ms. Mamoona Amjed is Director General Public Affairs, Higher Education Commission, Islamabad, Pakistan

Reforms! What Reforms? A Strong Rejoinder to Dr Hoodbhoy by HEC

Dr. S. Sohail H. Naqvi

ISLAMABAD, July 15: Corruption. Dishonesty. Incompetence. Cronyism. These are only a few of the very serious charges laid by Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy at the door of the Higher Education Commission. One would expect such charges to be fully substantiated, especially when made by a distinguished academic. Unfortunately, Professor Hoodbhoy does not seem to believe in research any more.

Let us start with Dr. Hoodbhoy’s dramatic announcement that HEC’s projects are riddled with “gross administrative incompetence.” As proof, Dr. Hoodbhoy refers to the “Best University Teacher” program. Please note that Dr. Hoodbhoy has no objection to the project itself, merely to the manner in which it is being implemented. But what is this highly objectionable course adopted by the HEC?

Admittedly, the HEC selects the “best” university teachers on the basis of nominations received
from university administrations. But those administrators are not supposed to make nominations based upon their personal whims. Instead, those nominations are required to be made on the basis of numerous factors, including student evaluations, a point which has been completely ignored by Dr. Hoodbhoy.

In any event, is the HEC’s approach really so unreasonable as to justify a charge of “gross incompetence?” Is Dr. Hoodbhoy really arguing that no factor other than student opinion can ever be important in determining who is a good teacher? Is he really saying that the opinion of one’s peers is irrelevant?

There are more than 250,000 university students in Pakistan. The HEC cannot interview those students itself. The HEC therefore has no option but to work with the existing administrations of universities to implement its programs. So, once the hype is stripped away, what we are left with is a program which Dr. Hoodbhoy admits is innovative and desirable, which the HEC is trying to implement in a self-evidently reasonable manner, and yet the program, according to Dr. Hoodbhoy, is conclusive proof of gross incompetence.

The real problem here is that Dr. Hoodbhoy sees the rest of Pakistan as a problem, not as an opportunity. The HEC, however, does not have the luxury of living in an ideal world. Instead, it has to make do with the human resources which exist today in Pakistan. Dr. Hoodbhoy is right when he says that the HEC sees existing faculty members as “part of the solution.” Unlike Dr. Hoodbhoy, the HEC feels no reason to be ashamed of that vision.

We come then to Dr. Hoodbhoy’s other example of “gross incompetence “– the Master Trainers in Physics program being run by Quaid e Azam University. Once again, we can safely assume that Dr. Hoodbhoy has no objection to the concept of the program itself since two years ago, when the project was first proposed, he demanded that he be placed in charge of it.

Once again, his only objection to the program is the manner in which the project is being implemented. But, the HEC is not in charge of the implementation of that project. That responsibility belongs entirely to the Physics department of Quaid e Azam University, of which Dr. Hoodbhoy is supposedly a very senior member.

Contrary to what Dr. Hoodbhoy says, HEC has not selected (let alone “hand-picked”) a single “master trainer.” Instead, each and every “master trainer” has been selected by the Physics Department at QAU. Dr. Hoodbhoy may be justified in his criticism of the master trainers but that is something for him, as a senior member of the QAU Physics Department, to raise first with that department.

Of course, Dr. Hoodbhoy chose to spend the last year on extraordinary leave so perhaps he was not in a position to offer his views. Dr. Hoodbhoy also alleges that the Master Trainers are being grossly overpaid. Perhaps Dr. Hoodbhoy has forgotten that he spent part of his extraordinary one-year leave giving lectures at Rs. 45,000 per hour. The Master Trainers are only paid a fraction of that amount; but then perhaps they lack Dr. Hoodbhoy’s facility with the truth.

It should be noted that the object of this article is not to unfairly malign Dr. Hoodbhoy. However, Dr. Hoodbhoy has not given a single name of a single Master Trainer whom he believes to be unqualified. Instead, he has simply slandered the entire lot of them without bothering to give any details whatsoever.

To the extent Dr. Hoodbhoy has specific and verifiable details regarding the Master Trainers he should first try to resolve his qualms at the departmental level and if that fails, then approach the HEC. If the HEC then refuses to listen to him, he can justifiably claim that the program is a disgrace. Till such time he bothers to substantiate his allegations though, it is only Dr. Hoodbhoy who can be considered a disgrace.

We come then to Dr. Hoodbhoy’s allegation that HEC is throwing “enormous sums ... at half-baked proposals.” Dr. Hoodbhoy’s first exhibit in this regard is the grant sanctioned by the HEC for the purchase of a Van de Graaf accelerator. Admittedly, a Van de Graaf accelerator’s use for “cutting-edge” research is limited but that was never its purpose. Instead, it was always intended to be used for teaching and general research for which purpose it was, and remains, a very useful machine. Cutting-edge particle accelerators cost billions of dollars which is why HEC has partnered with other developing nations to have access to the SESAME project in Jordan.

It should also be remembered that the proposal for the accelerator was submitted by the National Center for Physics, whose board is manned by the most eminent physicists in Pakistan. If Dr. Hoodbhoy is to be believed, those physicists are all either fools or criminals. The alternative does not leave Dr. Hoodbhoy in good company.

Similarly, Dr. Hoodbhoy pours much scorn on the grant to Dr. Saadia Chishti. But, Dr. Chishti holds a PhD in education from Cornell and has been a senior research fellow at both Oxford and the Divinity School at Harvard. Her project, like any other research grant proposal funded by HEC, was not examined by HEC itself.

Instead, as per standard procedures, the proposal was sent to be examined by the focal person in that subject (normally, the single most eminent and recognized scholar in that area in Pakistan) who then referred it to other competent scholars, who examined and reviewed the proposal. That internationally recognized method remains the standard method by which HEC reviews all grant proposals. Dr. Hoodbhoy asks “how true is this?”

The question which Dr. Hoodbhoy needs to be asked is, “where is your proof that this method is not being followed?” Dr. Hoodbhoy tries to gain much mileage from the fact that some of the research proposals he reviewed were dubious. But clearly, HEC is not responsible for the quality of research proposals sent to it, only for the quality of research proposals actually funded by it.

Assuming Dr. Hoodbhoy did indeed review a proposal containing a request for a $90,000 fridge, how is that proposal in any way represented of HEC’s performance?

Dr. Hoodbhoy drops dark hints about how his refusal to fund $90,000 refrigerators has resulted in his no longer reviewing research proposals. It is a routine matter for reviewers to reject unreasonable requests submitted by scientists, and Dr. Hoodbhoy`s rejection of such a request was a normal response. The item was thus never funded by the HEC. Dr. Hoodbhoy is here trying too hard for the halo of martyred sainthood. HEC has no control over who is selected by the focal person to review proposals, nor has it created any “black lists.”

If Dr. Hoodbhoy is not being selected to review proposals by the focal point in Physics, that would be the focal point’s decision, not that of HEC. It should further be noted that the focal point for Physics is Professor Dr. Riazuddin, one of 25 Distinguished National Professors in Pakistan, the Director of the National Center for Physics, and according to one internationally accepted method of ranking scholarly achievement (the “Impact Factor Assessment”), having an impact factor nearly eight times as that of Dr. Hoodbhoy.

The same shoddy approach can also be seen in Dr. Hoodbhoy’s discussion of the grant to the Allama Iqbal Open University. He notes that according to the project summary, “this work aims to correct the mistakes made in this area by a Nobel Prize winner in chemistry” and that “such grand notions of challenging Nobel Prize winners are highly suspect.”

What the abstract of the proposal actually states is that, “In our earlier investigations . . . we had found the earlier work of the Nobel Laureate Sir Ropert Robinson and two of his eminent colleagues Sir W. H. Perkins and R.H.F. Manske . . . to be incorrect.” The project abstract clearly states that the initial work was done in 1972 by Dr. Atta-ur-Rahman, that the resultant research did in fact show the work of the Nobel Laureate in Chemistry to have been incorrect, and that the current work is only an extension of that research.

In fact, the 1972 article by Dr. Atta-ur-Rahman was one of the works specifically cited by the United Nations when it awarded him the UNESCO Science Prize. Dr. Atta-ur-Rahman remains, till date, the only Muslim scientist to have received this honor. It is tempting to believe that that Dr. Hoodbhoy simply misread the project abstract. Unfortunately, it appears more likely that he has deliberately misrepresented its contents.

Dr. Hoodbhoy’s allegations with respect to HEC’s efforts to increase the number of PhDs in Pakistan is one of the few instances in his article where he actually substantiates his allegations with concrete facts. Unfortunately, those facts are all wrong.

Dr. Hoodbhoy specifically alleges that in the Physics department of QAU, as many as 15 PhD students are registered with one supervisor while in the Biology Department at QAU, there are as many as 40 students with one supervisor. The Quaid-e-Azam University has confirmed that these allegations are incorrect. It should first be noted that as per HEC rules, the maximum number of PhD fellowship holders allowed to be registered with any one supervisor is eight.

Furthermore, so far as the Biology department at QAU is concerned, HEC has not approved even a total of 40 PhD fellowships, let alone 40 for one supervisor. Instead, HEC has only approved a total of 20 PhD fellowships at the QAU biology department, which are being supervised by 10 HEC approved supervisors. Similarly, so far as the QAU physics department is concerned, HEC has only approved a total of 33 fellowships which are in turn being supervised by 11 professors. It should also be noted that none of those 33 students are enrolled with Dr. Hoodbhoy. In fact, Dr. Hoodbhoy has not published any work with a Pakistani student for almost a decade now.

It is unfortunate that the HEC’s efforts continue to be greeted with scorn and suspicion. Dr. Hoodbhoy, like many other education reformers in Pakistan, has called for more funding of the sciences on numerous occasions. Now that funding is being provided, it is necessary for Dr. Hoodbhoy to remove the blinkers of the past and give the HEC a fair hearing. For example, Dr. Hoodbhoy says that the PhDs which will be produced locally as a result of the HEC’s efforts will be worthless.

What Dr. Hoodbhoy fails to mention is that the HEC has stipulated that it will not recognize any local PhD unless the thesis has been approved by at least two eminent academics from industrially advanced countries, and the work has been published in an international journal. In fact, the quality control system that has been introduced includes the introduction of an international subject GRE before a student is allowed to be enrolled into the Ph.D. program and extensive course work both at M. Phil. and PhD levels. Dr. Hoodbhoy is well aware of these steps but has conveniently ignored these, and many other measures, taken by the HEC to raise the quality of higher education in Pakistan.

What is most unfortunate is that Prof. Hoodbhoy has ignored the largest programs of the Commission. These include programs relating to sending students on scholarships to foreign universities, post-doctoral training programs, and the foreign faculty hiring program under which hundreds of eminent expatriate and foreign scientists have joined Pakistani universities.

These are the programs that have begun to change the landscape of our universities, uplifting them from their current mediocre status. Professor Hoodbhoy claims that the GRE-type administered by HEC is worthless. But if that is the case, why are professors from Austria, Germany, France and other countries clamoring for these students? Last week alone, 92 students left for France to do post-graduate studies. Till date, foreign supervisors have expressed complete satisfaction with the quality of the students sent to them.

The Higher Education Commission is aiming to be one of the first public sector institutions to implement a fully computerized financial management system in accordance with the New Accounting Model (NAM) adopted by Project for Improvement of Financial Reporting and Auditing (PIFRA).

Already, almost all the financial record of the HEC for the previous financial year has been entered into the computer, and record of every transaction is available at fingertip. The HEC has also implemented a wide-ranging project monitoring system under which every project in every university has been physically visited, and its performance assessed against standard measures.

These reports are subsequently sent to the Finance Division, and the Planning Division. HEC also maintains the most widely accessed web site of any government department in Pakistan in which every single program is listed in detail along with results of all examinations and details regarding the award of research grants. For the record, HEC would welcome any financial or performance audit by any agency. We have nothing to hide.

It must also be realized that the entire amount of Government funds available to nearly sixty public sector universities in Pakistan do not match the funds available to a single reasonable size university in Malaysia. Advanced countries spend an average of about Rs. 6 million per student per year while Pakistan only spends Rs. 35,000 per student per year. Today, out of an eligible pool of more than 20 million people in Pakistan between the ages of 18 – 23, only about 250,000 students are physically studying at universities and degree granting institutions. This is one of the lowest percentages in the world. Is it not time that Pakistan improved this percentage?

Today, as a consequence of the HEC’s efforts and the enhanced funds provided by the government, every public sector university in Pakistan has computers, an internal computer network, high speed connectivity to the Internet, access to more than 15,000 journals and access to state-of-the-art instrumentation. Enrolment in our universities is rising at an excellent rate, four-year undergraduate programs are being introduced from Malakand to Khairpur, faculty members are writing research proposals, collaborating with leading foreign universities, going on sabbaticals and post-doctoral fellowships, and presenting their research work to the world.

Some 500 students have been sent abroad for PhD studies, Australia has offered 500 fully paid scholarships to Pakistan and over a billion rupees scholarship program has been initiated for poor and deserving students to study in private and public institutions which were previously beyond their financial means.

Over the last two years, there has been a 44 per cent increase in the number of papers by Pakistani academics appearing in internationally reputed scientific journals. For the first time, Pakistan is making its presence felt in the international academic world. Is this not progress?

To conclude then, Dr. Hoodbhoy’s diatribe against the HEC is completely unfair and unjustified. The HEC is doing its best to reform and serve higher education in Pakistan with both honesty and integrity. Unfortunately, that statement cannot be made with respect to Dr. Hoodbhoy’s efforts.

The writer is Executive Director, Higher Education Commission of Pakistan and this rejoinder has been issued in response to Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy`s article published on July 9, 2005

The Book is also Just a Book Please read updates to Interact Guidelines. Particularly in regards to images and cut-n-paste of copyright material.

Re: #3 below -- Do not link large images on chowk and also respect the copyrights of other individuals and organizations by providing only links of outside sources instead of pasting their material on chowk without proper permissions.

Two Poems: Attention Please and Say What? Re: # 4

Please use editors@chowk.com to send corrections after an article is posted.

Two Poems: Attention Please and Say What? Re: # 1

Corrected in the original.

The Criminal as Victim To all in particular Prashant123, HP, Kardesh:

Comments inciting hatred or responses thereafter do nothing other than diminish your value as an interactor both in the minds of readers as well as the Chowk interact system.

Yes, you could get new nicks and continue your old tricks but you would be fighting a losing battle because the system will start filtering all future comments by you. Its up to you to make yourself relevant or irrelevant.

Chowk will not allow hate speech.

Chowk Staff

Monsters Unlocked Re: # 2 & #1

Thanks for the correction. The specific line in the article has been updated to reflect this.

The Idea of Chowk The intention behind the system of scoring each reply was to push up content for higher visibility however based on the feedback here it seems scoring was such a huge distraction that it was doomed to be ineffective. So without further ado it has been removed but it is now replaced by a filtering system which will continue to push down interacts that are abusive, off-topic, long cut-n-pastes and flamebaits. The way it works is that you have 3 choices

1) no filter - see all replies

2) use chowk filter - it does not show replies that have been marked down

3) use your own filter - it does not show interacts posted by people on your ignore list which can be set from the edit profile page.

The Idea of Chowk We want to apologize there was a software glitch yesterday afternoon which caused some replies to be set with score zero. This has now been fixed.

The Idea of Chowk The feedback here has been incredible, which can only mean that we will continue to improve this system.

The goal simply is to keep Chowk as the most open, free, and thriving environment for interaction. The fact is that Chowk has been growing steadily at a rate of 20% per month. The challenge for us is to sustain this growth without letting it dilute the quality of interaction, which is what we are trying.

In our role as facilitators we have seen over and again that Chowk is a self correcting organism (if I may call it so). For this reason, instead of emphasizing moderation we have favored these new features which are meant to be tools in this process.

One way of looking at it is that, while some of us like all the smells and sights of a Chowk, others prefer a walk through an unpolluted park. The reality probably is that we all like these things at different times. And the flexibility of these features lets us do exactly that.

So thank you all for your feedback, we will work with it for we are in this journey together with you.

The Idea of Chowk hamidm2,

Your Interact Index (i2) proves couple of things:

1. Chowk-staff is not biased! Personally I think your responses rock! and if only you had written an article you would have started out with atleast a 2.

2. Formulas don`t work - unlike the perception the new system is not automatic scoring. Yes, the initial numbers are a result of factoring in some variables and assigning a number. But going forward the scoring will be qualitative and as explained earlier by a diverse group to avoid individual baises.

The Idea of Chowk There are a lot of comments and questions being raised which we will try and address/clarify so that we can all get comfortable with this new system and learn its pros and cons.

For those who are familiar with slashdot, yes this system is designed like slashdot with some variations/customizations as appropriate to Chowk.

1. Firstly the initial scores assigned to existing registered users is a formula of number of interactions posted/rejested and number of articles published (we had to start somewhere). However moving forward your Interact Index will be determined by the average score of your most recent 10 posts. In other words if your most recent posts were constantly marked down then you Interact Index could go down from a 4 to a -1. However if your posts are marked up then even a -1 could move to 5. It will be determined by the quality of interacts posted by each interactor.

2. Who will score the the interacts? - besides the initial score which is determined by your Interact Index. Some members will have the privilage to score other replies. The pool of these members will be diverse and large enough so that any baises are balanced out.

3. To set your threshold level to your desired number simply go to edit profile (link in the header) and set your options.


Will get to more questions through the day.

Peaceful Strokes We encourage all to participate in discussions.
All we ask you to be is civil.

If your post includes words or masked references that are offensive, crude, repugnant, or obscene, your post will be duly deleted.


We thank you for your participation.

The Responsibility of Students We encourage all to participate in discussions.
All we ask you to be is civil.

If your post includes words or masked references that are offensive, crude, repugnant, or obscene, your post will be duly deleted.


We thank you for your participation.

Books Every Globalized Pakistani & Indian Middleclass Youngster Must Own … test2

A Tale of Two Stars To the interactors below:

Maybe it hasn`t occurred to you that Chowk is the intersection of the Pakistani and the Indian so here by design you often see discussions centered around comparisons of the two countries, cultures, societies, challenges etc.

If you wish to read about Gandhi, Lata, Valayat Ali Khan in their own right then there certainly are publications which do due justice to their greatness. And similarly there is no shortage of published material on Jinnah, Noorjahan, and Rias Khan. But on Chowk it is natural to compare the icons of the two nations when there is so much in common yet so much not known to the people of these neighboring countries.

Hope you can appreciate and enjoy these differences and commonalities without stating the obvious.

ciao