First off, thanks to @AliZeeshanIjaz
for sharing the following picture with me.
Now I am not sure what to make of this.
We are all well aware of the Pakistan Armed Forces and its commercial
interests. I guess, getting into the business of knock off tablets,
netbooks and ebook readers is just part of the evolutionary process.
However, there seems something very
wrong with how a prominent state organization, in a period of resource paucity, has decided on its own to run a parallel commercial arm.
For one, Pakistan Aeronautical Complex
Kamra, is a state funded organization which on its own accord has now
decided to use its resources, in its own words, to “StrengthenNational Economy Through Commercialization”. Really? Since when is
a nations economy strengthened through commercialization? Whose coffers will be "strengthened" from this venture?
There also seems to be something very
wrong, on how on the one hand our security analysts, op-ed writers
and other retired officers bombard us day after day, on how our
military is under resourced, and how we, as a grateful nation, should
provide what ever budgetary allocations they demand. They further
argue how NATO's presence in Afghanistan and India's shopping spree
on military hardware is harming Pakistan's ability to keep up,
technologically speaking, with other actors in the neighbourhood.
So, in short, we are low on cash, and falling behind technologically! So why exactly are state resources being utilized to develop consumer products?
Chairman
PAC Air Marshal Farhat Hussain Khan therefore decided to optimally
utilize the facilities and resources of PAC to contribute in
strengthening the national economy through commercialization.
So
he can decide to use state resources for commercial purposes as he
sees fit?
Do our best minds, employed at PAC
Kamra have nothing else to do? Are we flush with surplus resources to dable in side projects? Apparently, the radar system along the Western border isnt working, they can start by fixing that to begin with!
Granted, these products appear to be a
result of a partnership between PAC Kamra and INNAVTEK China. Even
so, why are state resources being utilised for such activities? Where
will the revenue generated from the sale of these products go? Who
financed the start up of this project? Are these products unique and
patented, or are they cheap knockoffs of patented hardware which may
potentially open up PAC Kamra to claims of copyright infringement? Are serving PAF officers involved in developing these products?
Further, the use of PAF fighters as a marketing
tool cheapens the achievements of the PAF, and personally, I find it
exploitative and cynical that those entrusted to defend us, use
martial imagery as a marketing tool.
Now, there is no denying, a long history of military technology and expertise crossing over, and helping develop commercial products. However, given the state of the Pakistani economy, the current threats we face and the scarcity of resources; the fact that the PAF has decided that it has the time, resources and manpower to run a money making side project on the side as well, suggests to me, that the next time the military demands for increased budgetary allocations, we should ask them to flog more tablets and netbooks.
Endnote: Please consider signing the following petition, against the increased hate filled rhetoric against the Ahmadiyya Community in Rawalpindi: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-the-ongoing-anti-ahmadi-hate-campaign-in-rawalpindi
This piece is more an effort to lower my
blood pressure than anything else. (Apologies for typos)
The Maya Khan brigade appears to have
gone on a rampage in, wait for it....a park!
Telling your parents that you are going
to the “park” is never going to be the same ever again.
If you still haven’t seen the show
then a clip below kind of sums up the gutter television that SAMAA is
producing.
Now the last time I checked (and I
didnt realise that I needed to check this to begin with), two people,
of the opposite sex, sitting in a park, in broad day light, is not
illegal.
Some people who support this campaign
against “date's” point out that while they“offending” couples
may not be meeting illegally, the fact that they are together is
definitely immoral and against Islam!
Even assuming that a man and a women
sitting together is indeed “immoral”, who is SAMAA TV, Maya Khan
and the chattering aunties to go and hound them in a public space?
Going through the horrid clip above,
you see two dozen women running through a park, shouting “wo hijab
waali”, “dekho uss nai hijab pehna huwa hai”, escorted by men
with name tags and uniformed men, obviously employed by one or the
other private security company. If you had this great “hoard” of
judgement come charging at you, anyone would feel intimidated,
harassed and threatened. The last time I checked, and I may be
completely ignorant about this, when I go to a public space, that is
not what I expect, nor is such behaviour condoned by any legal
authority.
What perhaps magnifies the absurdity of
the behaviour of the women involved is their comments and reactions.
At the end of the clip, all the laughing, high fives and self
congratulation is disgusting! It appears as if they are on a human
Safari, corralling all those that they can look down upon into the
corner and shoving a camera in their face! As if passing judgement is not enough, the women indulge in a race to the bottom as each tries to out do the other, by offering further justification to explain why they are racing through a public space, harassing people!
While the hating aunties share there
views on what a mangni constitutes, even offering some legal
jargon to make themselves sound learned, and where you should and
should not meet your f fiancée, the smugness and self righteousness
increases more than proportionately as each minute passes.
Then comes the flip side of the
argument. That a “free media” can do what it wants and any
criticism of it is an attempt to curtail its freedom. No...the moment
the supposed “free media” uses bystanders to push up their
ratings, they are desperately calling for regulation to mediate their
output. By infringing on the rights and privacy of others, the media,
or any individual for that matter cannot claim freedom of expression
as a right, as they trample those of others.
Given that the right to privacy is a
basic human right and Pakistan is a signatory to the various
conventions, the blatant, recorded illegality of the actions of SAMAA
TV is just calling on someone to take action.
But this is perhaps the most
frustrating and cynical part of this whole episode. Maya Khan and her
crew pick on individuals who they know are vulnerable, who would not
want the spotlight or a media trial. Maya Khan and SAMAA have no
right to demand nikkahnama's from anyone and no one has to
explain their relationship to them.
In writing this post, I am probably
participating in the promotion of this video and the “efforts” of
Maya Khan and her ragtag bunch. However, if nothing else, this
episode is a clear example of how the race for ratings and fame has
made our media personalities increasingly desperate.
We can boycott and refuse to partake,
but sadly, there remains a large audience of people who will support
such programming.
The most effective way to lobby these
channels on their programming, is to write to those companies that
advertise and sponsor their shows.
Finally, some argue that what Maya
Khan and her brigade were upto was a good thing. They were helping to
get rid of immoral activity. If we accept that argument, then we
would have to accept the arguments of the Lal Masjid Brigade who
would have rounded up all the women running through the park, beat
them with sticks and demanded that they confine themselves behind
closed doors. I hate to say this, but in this case, perhaps in the
greatest interest, that would not be such a bad thing.
Actually, that would be a bad thing. No individuals rights should be curtailed for the greater good. Hear that SAMAA TV and Maya Khan? Or do you prefer playing the bully that everyone hates in the park?
Now just to cool things down and bring a smile at the end of this post, have a look at the original Hating Aunties:
The coup was just around the corner. The mathai shops had stocked up, this wretched, corrupt government was going to be booted out and Zardari would wipe that cheshire cat smile of his face.
Ex-military, ex-civil service pundits were on the ready.
TV hosts had their hair gelled.
Qadam barhao General Kayani, hum tumharai saath hain status's were being liked and RT'd.
Sadly, it wasnt to be...yet.
Eventually however:
Zardari and the PPP government will be gone.......rejoice!
Its easy to imagine the streets filled with jubilation, as opposition party's and their electoral machines go into overdrive. Eventually, whoever you consider your saviour will come to power (if you are lucky). And all will be well again! ........Not!
This is perhaps the kind of reaction we should look forward to, when overzealous Pakistani news reporters shove microphones into the faces of celebrating voters.
Yep! She thinks that Obama electoral win means that she can start binning her bills! No need to worry about the gas, electricity or mortgage.
Well, we now know how things turned out.
This is the flip side of political campaigns heavy on passion and emotion.
a) Politicians make grand promises and raise expectations
b) Their failure to manage expectations leads to impossible demands and expectations
c) Those demands are not met, in which case, we are back to point (a) for our next saviour to take charge from.
We have evolved into the next stage of political theatre. Leveraged by an easily excitable news media, social networks, the internet etc. So now the promises get even grander, the expectations rise even higher, and yet despite all the tall claims and blunt accusations, we still have no one that offers rational analysis, policy proscriptions or a healthy debate.
Sigh.
Anyone want to take bets on how quickly the post-Zardari regime's ratings fall through the floor?
Overseas Pakistanis have been coming
under some stick recently. The Election Commissions recent decision
that dual nationals will not be allowed to contest the upcoming
elections has been challenged in the Supreme Court.
The current PPP government first
suggested allowing overseas Pakistanis to caste votes a couple of
years ago and a consultation process was initiated. Recently, the PTI
moved a petition in the Supreme Court, calling on it to allow
overseas Pakistanis to vote.
So on the one hand, votes count but
standing in the same elections is to be allowed.
A question of patriotism
Living overseas is enough for ones
patriotism to be questioned. Having a second nationality doesn’t
help ones cause either. Some people say that,
“if you want to join politics, and
serve Pakistan then giving up a second passport is a small thing to
ask”
Perhaps, but what happens if you stand
in elections and don’t win? No one is going to compensate you if one fails. At the same time its also a small thing to ask for voters of a constituency not to vote for such an individual if they consider his or her second nationality unappealing.
Fast track corruption
The second line of argument goes
something like:
“All these dual nationals can pack
up and leave whenever they like. They line their pockets and leave”
Does that mean that people who have
only Pakistani nationality are less corrupt? Or conversely, does this
mean that overseas Pakistanis, because they presumably have
the opportunity to dabble in corruption are necessarily corrupt?
Essentially, they are being accused of being petty opportunists.
The
second argument that they can pack up and leave is the one that I
find most frustrating. Yes, I guess, people with second passports can
leave when they like. But then again, politicians in Pakistan , given
their social and economic status in the country are also quite mobile
internationally. To think that the colour of their passport effects
their mobility to the same degree as the average Pakistani is a gross
exaggeration.
If
people are behaving in a corrupt manner, they do so because they are
confident that they can get away with it. They weigh the pros and
cons and realise that the benefits of behaving in a corrupt manner is
greater than the perceived risk or costs. The nationality of the
individual is inconsequential to the extent that a foreign passport
does not give an individual immunity when prosecuted for a crime. The
fact that a Pakistani, overseas Pakistani or dual national knows that
he or she can get away with a crime in the first place determines his
or her ability to indulge in illegal activity. A second passport may
be a convenience, however, its the system that is at fault, not the
individual.
Men and women of a lesser God
Now when it comes
to overseas Pakistanis, not all overseas Pakistanis are equal.
The vast majority
constitute Pakistani labourers, who toil away in the Gulf, North
Africa and to a lesser degree in places such as Malaysia. Now these
workers, who primarily leave Pakistan in search of work, save a high
propensity of their income. In doing so, they remit most of it.
Thankfully, due to their efforts over the past few years, Pakistan
has managed to contain its Current Account deficit given the massive
inflows from such workers.
On the flip side,
these overseas Pakistanis are the ones that are conveniently ignored.
Before our grand Arab masters, the Pakistani state is unable or
unwilling to voice any concern over the treatment that is meted out
to them. For example, the seizing of labourers passports in the Gulf
is a common practise which breaks the International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights. The city state of Dubai, which effectively went
bankrupt a year and a half ago, saw many managers and business owners
leave the city in a rush. In doing so, they left without returning
passports to labourers or clearing their wages. What did the
government of Pakistan offer to such workers? Nothing. The BBC's Panorama looks at migrant workers in the UAE:
I dont even blame
the government for such inaction. Dubai and the wider Gulf region has
become a playground for the upper-middle and upper economic class of
the country. The same people who buy second homes, work in managerial
positions and enjoy vacations in these cities have no qualms about
enjoying the fruits of the mass, systematic exploitation of their
fellow countrymen in a foreign land, while complaining about
corruption and injustice in Pakistan itself.
Return to
Pakistan, and its these same labourers who are welcomed by rent
seeking customs and immigration officials. When these same Pakistanis
leave the country, they have to pay of immigration officials due to
the “protector law”.
No, these overseas
Pakistanis, have little hope of support from their host governments
or their governments, but nevertheless the Pakistani state is
grateful for their remittances. Effectively, the savings of poor
labourers overseas, cross subsidises the tax dodging opulence of the
Pakistani upper class, for without their remittances, the Pakistani
economy would be in a much, much worse state at present.
Giving these
Pakistanis the right to vote is little consolation given the
injustice and exploitation they face. However, when we talk about overseas Pakistanis, we are not thinking about the poor labourers. Instead, we are looking at those living in the West. For they, supposedly have sold their souls to a foreign master. However, the Pakistani state selling Pakistanis into second class citizenship in the Arab world is well...just brotherly relations.
The “Western” Pakistanis
No, the problems
and the question of loyalty really comes up when we talk about
Pakistanis who have dual nationality with Western countries.
Pakistani-Brits, Pakistani-Americans etc. Another point that
Pakistani commentator like to take up over and over again is to quote
the American oath of allegiance. In all its glory:
I hereby declare, on oath, that I
absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and
fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of
whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I
will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United
States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I
will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear
arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I
will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United
States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national
importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and
that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion; so help me God.
People complain that how can someone
who has taken this oath be patriotic towards or have Pakistan's best interest at heart? That is utter
nonsense. We live in a globalised world where people move not because
of changing nationalistic sentiments, but because of economic
opportunity or familial pressure. If someone takes this oath that
does not make them any more American or any less Pakistani. If you
believe that this is infact the case, then you should also believe
that when a girl marries a boy and moves to her boys household, her
love for her parents and siblings is compromised. You then, should
also believe that if a non-Muslim, in school in Pakistan, happens to
sit through an Urdu class and comes across a chapter related to Islam
and reads through it, he or she will become more Muslim and his or
her faith in their religion is also compromised.
Why do British-Pakistanis support
Pakistan in a England vs. Pakistan cricket match? I am sure they have
sand God Save the Queen at some point in their life or attended a
civics class in school?
I am not saying that overseas
Pakistanis will always be patriotic towards Pakistan. I am sure they
are now third or even fourth generation British or American
Pakistanis, who probably have no link with Pakistan at all and no
attachment. However, what I do disagree with are the nonsensical
arguments that are made to disenfranchise overseas Pakistanis.
Citizenship for another age
The primary function of oaths and
citizenship was to make sure that they were always men that could be
called upon to fight a war if need be. Through conscription,
individuals could be drafted into military service. However, Pakistan
doesn’t draft citizens into the military. And we are not fighting
battles for local chieftains (or are we?).
The issue here isn't about the colour of
ones passport.
To move beyond questioning ones
patriotism, same sensible rules can be established for overseas
Pakistanis who may want to participate in elections.
More important than citizenship is
residency. For example, the UK along with many EU countries allow non-EU citizens
to vote in local or city elections. An overseas Pakistani may be
asked to reside in Pakistan for a qualifying period before being
allowed to stand for office. He or she should make a declaration of
income and assets, and if liable show a history of paying taxes in
Pakistan.
The issue here is not about excluding
individuals from running from office. The issue here is that
constituents are being deprived of choice on the ballot. If the
voters of X, Y or Z want to vote for an overseas Pakistani that’s
their choice. What however, needs to be discouraged is for potential
candidates not declaring dual citizenship, not because there is
something wrong in having a second passport, but because that may
raise questions on what else he or she is hiding.
In a
future post I hope to talk about the economics of overseas Pakistanis
and the role immigration plays in supporting our economy. However, in
terms of politics, disenfranchising individuals should not be our
goal, to serve some warped understanding of patriotism. On the one hand
lobbying for overseas Pakistanis to vote, while denying them the
right to stand in the same elections is setting dual standards and
denies voters a full spectrum of choice.
Asma Jahangir has spoken on the issue of military-civil imbalance today. Quite rightly, any deference to the words
of General Kayani and Pasha that compromises individual rights doesn't
say much for either the supremacy of the law, or a “free
judiciary”.
Back in May, right after the Abbottabad
raid, a lot of people quite excitedly, heralded this as a
unfortunate, but at the same time fortunate opportunity to put the
military in its place. Get it back into the confines of its
constitutional mandate. Then came the in camera briefing in the National Assembly, but after a few weeks it was obvious that the military was running the show.
The PPP government started off by emphasising
its determination to guide Pakistan's security and foreign policy.
Zardari spoke of a grand free trade area and our then foreign
minister SMQ smiled sheepishly with Hillary Clinton as Kayani looked on from the margins. Alot of choreographing, but Zardari's ideas didn't come to much and SMQ is well, batting for the other team now. Even then, few
believed that the Army had relinquished influence over foreign and
security affairs. Effectively, it could exercise its veto over
civilian decisions if and when it wanted.
In the recent past, one has to be quite
naive to still believe that its Zardari who shapes Pakistan's
foreign policy. Unlike most PTI supporters and reactionary critics,
its not as if Zardari allowed drone strikes or handed over Pakistani
airbases to US control. Neither was it Zardari who extra-judicially
handed over foreign and Pakistani citizens to the US without due
process who later ended up in Bagram, Guantanamo etc. And before I
forget, the most hated of documents, the infamous NRO was facilitated
and negotiated by our very own COAS General Kayani, however, being in
khaki he's above criticism or responsibility.
That said, whenever the issue of
civil-military relations come up and people talk about balancing it,
a lot of emphasis is placed on politicians doing the “right”
thing and exercising their mandate and forcing the military to relent
before there constitutional superiority. That's why the mere mention
of the possibility of the PM sacking Kayani and Pasha unleashed a
storm. Mind you that storm was much louder in regards to a possible
decision that a sitting PM might which is his prerogative and
constitutional, while a coup, orchestrated by the military unleashes
jubilation and a fiscal stimulus for mathai shops.
The biggest slice of the cake
I
would argue that any balance between the civilian side and the
military side of the state can only be achieved if the military
economic influence is decreased. The military through its various
arms has its fingers in every commercial pie. Resources are skewed
favourably in the hands of those in khaki and their institutions; for
the industrial, capitalist class knows who to deal with if they want
to get things done.
Now
the military property empire is a ubiquitous part of Pakistani urban
life. The nexus between Bahria Town-HRL-DHA for a few is “national
progress” but for those forcibly displaced, the state that misses
out on tax revenues, the banks that are forced to offer concessional
loans and later write them off, the abrogation of the constitution
within these areas; the costs are massive and they keep on piling up.
The following DAWN Reporter Episodes paint an ugly picture of the
cartel that is now the military-commercial interest which is a law
unto itself. (Thanks to @shahidsaaed)
You
can tick through a list of industries in Pakistan, and one way or the
other, either through outright ownership or in partnership the
military is a major stakeholder. Nothing comes of cases of
corruptions against generals, so there is no surprise that
ex-military types pack commercial organisations. Capitalists vote
with their feet, and it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that
they vote for the team with the bigger stick.
Incentives in action
Now
politicians are a fragmented and competitive group. Sure, they make
poor decisions and may be corrupt, however, they act in their self
interest, where ever that might take them. Given the might of the military, its monopoly over the use
of force, coupled with its huge economic clout, a fragmented group of
politicians have no chance to exercise their will over the military. Instead, they are co-opted by the military to do their bidding, and why wouldn't they?
Now
the next obvious question is: Do we want these incompetent civilians
dictating policy to the military?
The
answer to that is yes. The simple reason is this: Given Zardari's 11%
approval rating, the dismal approval rating of the PPP, and overall
image of politicians as incompetent, we can be assured that every
decision they take is the talk of the evening news cycle. Columns are
written, opinions are formed, news is shared and retweeted.
However,
decisions taken by the military fall under two categories. Either the
military makes a decision, and then civilians are made to face the
negative fall out of it. Or the military makes decisions and no one
is the wiser. When questioned, you are not offered a policy outline.
Instead you get a long emotive speech about sacrifices and bravery
which somehow qualifies someone to make decisions on a nations
foreign policy or other associated matter that is not even that
persons job.
Do as the Chinese do
In China the Divestiture Act of 1998
banned all the commercial activities of the People’s Liberation
Army (PLA). Like their Pakistani counterparts, the PLA had invested
itself in banks, hotels, factories, property developments, retailing
etc. During the Tienanmen uprising in 1989, China came dangerously
close to a military coup. As the vanguard of the revolution the PLA,
was a central part of the Communist Party and the Party heavily
invested in the PLA. The PLA eventually sided with the pulitburo and
the Tienanmen protesters, and protesters across the country were
crushed. These events helped accelerate the PLA's independence from
CCP control and widen its economic activities. By the mid-1990s as
China bombed, so did the PLA's financial interests. In an effort to
encourage professionalism in the PLA and in a display of its
authority, the CPC promulgated the Divestiture Act of 1998 banning
its commercial activities. Without it, the PLA would have gained
undue influence, both by wielding weapons and cheque books.... Sound
familiar?
Without reducing the military's
economic dominance and access to resources the dream of civil
authority over the military will not come to pass. This is not a
matter of budgetary allocations. Its about a parallel economy that
sucks away resources without any accountability. It rewards itself
for taking the risks, but given that its “too big to fail”, the
costs are passed on to the losers. The military and those associated
with it, sail through bureaucratic red tape, judicial and legislative
oversight, and political interference.
This is also why, I don’t agree with
suggestions that the only way to save the Railways or PIA is to
privatise it. Pakistan has toothless regulators that are easily
co-opted. Recently, a newspaper report claimed that the National
Logistics Cell, which has single handedly destroyed the Railways
freight transport market is going to take over parts of the
organisation to run as a “private” initiative. Then again, NLC,
with its association with the military is above any critique. Until the state has a capacity to regulate privatised industries, there is no point in transferring a public monopoly to a private one. Tax payers keeping a state organisation afloat for better or worse is one thing, however, tax payers of inflationary borrowing doing the same to prop up a privatised industry to line the pockets of shareholders is criminal.
If I may digress for a paragraph, this
is also another reason why I dont buy Imran Khan's and PTI's rhetoric
on jusitice and ending corruption. How can they talk about justice
and reducing corruption when they remain silent on the military and
its role in the economy? Why the silence? PTI supporters like to talk
about Turkey's example and the Erdogen model of gradual civilian
dominance, but Erdogen as an activist and campaigner would not shy
away from putting the Turkish military in its place.
Given that the military is the “winning
horse” in the race to the bottom, its not surprising that those
seeking an economic advantage find one way or another to cling to it.
Some argue, that this proves that the military is a disciplined
institution and people trust it with its money. However, the flip
side is that no competitor is allowed a fair chance to compete with
the military's might. And those individuals and organisations who are
lucky enough to tag along under the khaki umbrella...well not only
are they minting money, but they are also called national heroes. And
when there great money making enterprises go belly up, it will be the
patriotic duty off every Pakistani to bail them out.
Since the early 1990s, inequality has intensified in Pakistan. The consumer boom under the Musharaf regime, coupled with high inflation since 2007 has widened the gap between the rich and the poor.
While the rhetoric in the media is largely made up about issues of access to resources and state services, the wider implications for ignoring inequality are ignored.
Some quick thoughts on this.
1) Given the minuscule number of tax payers in the country, the idea of having a progressive taxation system that redistributes wealth from the rich to the poor is non-existent. We still live in a system where individuals, even those who can well afford it, expect the state to provide them services for free.
2) The states inability to raise enough taxes forces it to borrow money from the State Bank, commercial bank or foreign sources. In all of these cases the increase in inflation and the burden of repaying the debt is borne primarily by those who the state should be protecting. The "haves" however are net beneficiaries through low or non existent tax obligations.
3) Links between politicians, civil servants, the military, industrialists and feudal networks insures that resources are allocated in a manner that serves their own interests. Laws, systems and methods that would help to reduce inequality either by redistributing wealth from the rich to the poor, or by improving the state of the poor are non-existent or co-opted to suit the interests of a small segment of society.
This list could go on for several more points, but I think you get the picture. As we rally against price hikes, increase in the cost of gas, oil and electricity, corruption and mismanagement, we should stop to remember that even in the worst of times, they are winners and losers. The winners continue to win big, while the losers lose more badly. The long term costs of increased inequality are mostly ignored.
The following talk best summarises alot of the points I would agree with.
One of the favoured opinions in Pakistan nowadays is that education should be about merit. Of course merit is well and good, however, that in itself is not good enough. Students from different, social, linguistic, geographical and economic backgrounds have various advantages and disadvantages that a pure meritocracy cannot account for. This allows a certain, often narrow, social elite to monopolize areas of influence dominated by certain educational qualifications and backgrounds. That is, in cases where educational achievement actually contributes to professional success.
Further, the arguments surrounding merits and achievement comes down to testing. Now its the emphasis on testing that I want to deal with in this post.
Gaining good grades and scoring high marks acts as a proxy to judge intellectual and academic ability. That does not mean that good marks is always equal to academic success.
The following Al Jazeera report from Hong Kong illustrates the unbelievable pressure students have to face during their schooling. Many in Pakistan would argue that this is a system that we should emulate. "Disciplined" students spending their days studying and carefully managing their times. As a teacher and someone who has studied in Hong Kong and currently teach some Hong Kong students, the cost of this system far out way its benefits. Thankfully, the Hong Kong authorities have also come to the same conclusion and changes and reforms have become. If you ever wanted to see the direction in which education should not progress towards, have a look below:
The same emphasis on textbook and syllabus based learning, uni dimensional and focused on passing exams is a common feature across East Asia. We see it in Singapore, South Korea, Japan, Taiwan and China. In Japan, parents pay upto $5000 to get into what are essentially tutorial centres which focus on drilling in facts and figures, with no emphasis on critical evaluation or independent thought.
The Economist recently published a detailed article on education in South Korea, where the government has finally begun reforming the system to emphasise values that will help students in the global economy of the year 2040, rather than 1900. A bit of a long read but you can access it here: http://www.economist.com/node/21541713
Testing has its place in any educational system. Life is full of tests and there is no point sugar coating schooling so that students are unprepared for adulthood and professional challenges. However, the emphasise on testing is misplaced.
Education has also become a rallying cry for political figures in Pakistan, who are using access to education and its reform as a transformative, egalitarian process that will help provide justice to the majority of have nots. That's all well and good, however, I hope we don't follow the examples of the cases mentioned above!
Much, much more on education in Pakistan in future posts!
----------------------------------------------------------Update---------------------------------------------------------------
Just to build on the arguments above, let me take this as a shameless opportunity to plug my recent post at the Express Tribune blogs. The arguments in that particular piece nicely round up the discussion above.
However, the fact that for most people who will be reading this blog, the privatisation of education in Pakistan means that there is very little incentive to actually do anything about it. Education is a very nice talking point, but from a distance.
But even more worrying is my, ever cynical belief that, there is actually an incentive not to do anything about education in Pakistan. People love to talk about abolishing O and A level and giving their servants kids a chance at sitting the same exams as their own children, but is that really the case? Would you really want O and A levels abolished? Or only after your kids have sat their exams?
Perhaps the simplest way to put it is to consider education as an end in itself rather than a means to an end (employment). I also realise that in a country like Pakistan that sort of thinking is neither rational, economic or pragmatic. That is why, private schooling is limited as a provider of "education", for it will provide what the market demands, and at the moment the market demands grades! Whether those "grades" actually translate to better future financial security and income opportunities is debatable.
A few people wrote in asking me what I mean by "creativity" in education and what should happen. Below is a an RSA animation of Sir Ken Robinson's talk on the need for greater personalization in education and the importance of creativity.
Perhaps the greatest misconception about "creativity" is that its not limited in application to "arts" subjects, as if that was somehow how a bad thing. More on that though later.....
The following post is based on my
observations and interactions with individuals ever since the
Musharaf regime ended. They may be some generalizations and perhaps
given the narrow sample of people on whose comments a lot of the
discussion below is based, the discussion may not neatly fit reality
or apply to a majority of people. I am hoping someone would comment
on any irregularity or inconsistency with the arguments below for
they may have better insight then myself. This is quite a long post,
and it may seem abit incomplete at the end, I hope to extend the
argument later.
The rallying cry
for Imran Khan is justice. For his supporters and detractors alike,
the state of, or the perception of the increase in corruption under
the Zardari is ubiquitous.
For a lot of people
since 2008, the decline in the national economy is linked with an increase in corruption. But then who is to say corruption did not
dominate transactions prior to 2008? Is it that the new, post 9/11
middle class that were able to increase there consumption of consumer
goods under the Musharaf regime have suffered the most post 2008?
Easy money
For a lot of people
the 2000s saw an increase in wealth and consumption. 2 photocopies of
your ID card could get you a car on lease. You could pay Rs. 20,000
to stage a “theft” or “accident” of your car, which on lease
was also insured (in the examples I am aware of, peoples cars would
mysteriously reappear stripped of anything valuable on Kahuta road in
Islamabad/Rawalpindi). Contacts in the bank and/or the insurance
company would do their trick. The car would be written off, new car
would be presented, everyone’s happy.
Alot of wealth was
generated through the development of urban property during the
Musharaf era. Advertisements filled newspapers, people lined up
outside banks to submit forms, a wink and a nudge and the right
“file” could be yours in the morning, and given the rabid
speculation by nightfall you could sell of the same “file” for a
tidy profit. With some more winks and nudges, people were able to
choose ideal plots. The best example I know off are people who bought
plots in Bahria Town and DHA Islamabad, who knew people in these
organizations or in the primary developer, HRL who knew which plots
were allocated on filled in and flattened earth and which plots were
on the original surface. Many of the plots in DHA Phase 1, facing the
Soan river especially, that were earth filled and flattened out,
later sank. Yes, the houses literally sank!
The other example
was when CDA launched the sector I-15 plots and apartment ballot and
people called friends working in individual banks to get forms
submitted and completed on time, while asking them to “go slow”
on other peoples applications. Suffice to say, several phone calls
were also made to friends fathers who were CDA board members,
political figures or high ranking Army officers, surely someone would
pay out.
They were people
who were importing second hand cars and selling them off. I forget
the model of the exact Tayota car which was initially imported with a
waived tariff for disabled drivers, which then led to a flood of
people getting fake medical reports declaring themselves disabled.
They of course then sold off the same car at a premium.
Now the thing is,
and I am sure readers of this post from Pakistan would have heard
similar stories in one form or the other from the Musharaf years,
that all these cases are clearly examples of corruption!
What I find
particularly frustrating today is, that the same people who were able
to not only enjoy a marked increase in consumption, but also
accumulated wealth during this period, are now on the vanguard
complaining about corruption under Zardari.
Is it that
corruption has increased over the past 45 months as we are made to believe, or is it that the
people who enjoyed the benefits of corrupt actions previously no
longer can do so or have to pay a higher price to arrive at the same
results?
The bubble burst
It doesnt help that
the speculative bubble that was the Pakistani property boom,
unsurprisingly collapsed. All those multi-billion dollar, in
partnership with this and that UAE property developer went down the
toilet as the global property boom slumped, and Dubai itself went
bankrupt. The highly liquid market of files dried up. Quick money
through property and of course the stock market (should have
mentioned earlier) came to an end. .
What I suspect is
that a lot of people who are unhappy with the current government dont
really want justice or an end to corruption. They are looking for a
return to the past.
This property boom,
egged on in large part by the military run DHA, led to a virtuous
cycle, where rising prices fuelled increased development. It was the
rule of a military dictator that allowed a lot of the expansion into
suburban areas without due and legal process that fuelled this boom.
However, people dont view this as corruption, they see this as
“nation building”.
The Musharaf era
“boom” if you want to call it that, lead to a period of “growth”
which appeared highly tangible. People could “see” the progress.
They could see the mobile phones in their hands, the many many
channels on cable, the TV, Fridge, Refrigerator etc, that had been
purchased conveniently in instalments, while a piece of paper
declaring future possession of a piece of land, gained in value over
weeks and months while sitting ideally. The corruption, the winks and
nudges that facilitated this bomb in consumption is viewed as
beneficial, thus considered desirable. Even if its genesis is plagued
by dubious corrupt actions.
Whether the PPP and
Zardari were handed a poor set of cards; highly tangible examples of
state failure, electricity, gas, law and order etc, is debatable.
People argue that 45 months into government Zardari cant blame
Musharaf for today’s problems. Add, the Army, media, judges issues,
global economic crisis, rising commodity prices etc to the mix, and
even a pretty competent government would have struggled to deal with
things.
Corruption of a higher order
So what does this
have to do with anti-corruption rhetoric today and Imran Khan? Well
for one, I am very sceptical about what exactly we mean by reducing
corruption that has plagued us. To me, it appears more an attempt to
redistribute the winners and losers. I may be wrong, but for a lot of
PTI supporters, the Musharaf regime may be despised for cozying up
with America, but the economic “vision” and “progress” of
that period is still something that they aspire to.
People are more
offended by the corrupt practices of an underpaid, working 12 hours a
day young cop who may palm Rs. 1000, but have no qualms picking up
the phone to further there cause. This more subtle, sophisticated
form of corruption, which is also known as networking or calling in a
favour is part and parcel of how the upper middle class functions the
world over. These small “benefits” however, translate into long
terms financial gains. The few thousands paid to your KESC
electrician, policeman or SNGPL gas worker pales in comparisons to
the financial gains of those in power.
My contention is
that those in power and influence are aspiring for a future that is a
rehash of the past. Justice and policies touted to end corruption
will not distort their own ability to influence transactions.
However, these same policies which hope to end corruption will effect
small rent seekers thus reducing the cost of those in power and allow
them to get on with their business. Not only do I think that Imran
Khan's, PTI's or any political parties rhetoric of ending corruption
is a sham, the people who rally for this cause are selective in their
application and given that their position in the social hierarchy
will remain unchanged. At worst, those below them will be pushed down
further and put in their place.
Disappointment
I believe that the political noise which targets corruption is all well and good, and probably in most cases well intentioned. However, the way the PTI especially, has made it what appears a one point, end game of his politics does not address the deep divisions in our society which allow those with greater influence, resources and power to work what ever law, system or circumstance to their benefit.
To reduce corruption, in word and in spirit, the PTI needs to evolve beyond corruption to actually reduce it. Otherwise, I fear, Imran Khan with all his well intensions is unknowingly doing nothing more than rearranging the winners and losers, to bring back the good times.
The good times (read: Musharaf rule 2004-2007)? Yes, the time when people (urban, middle class) thought things in Pakistan were on the up, corruption was lower, so that "ideal" state is somehow emulating. After all, if you are aged 20-50, middle class and urban, in the past 30 years, nothing in terms of consumption possibilities beats the Musharaf years. That has captured the imaginations of many as what has been lost since Zardari has come into power.
As a quick first post, I am going to replug a previous piece I submitted to the Tribune Blogs when I first started contributing. The emails, calling me names, questioning my patriotism and threatening me the next time I arrived at Islamabad International really got me thinking how polarised Pakistan had become on the one hand, and how blindly follow an emotive, hyper nationalist, manufactured narratives.
Anyways, I think that the following post will kind of give you an idea of what I am all about. Over the next few days I'll start populating this blog with some new stuff. Enjoy!
I confess, I am a traitor
My name is Syed Nadir El-Edroos and I am a traitor. For my actions, deeds and words I should receive an exemplary punishment so that no one ever dares repeat the treachery that I am responsible for.
I have received some emails in reference to my general comments on The Express Tribune and in particular to my article “Whose country is this anyways.”The authors of those emails have deemed me a traitor and an all round general sell-out or worse a Mossad-CIA plant, who has been inserted to “defame and malign Pakistan’s most disciplined institution.”
In short, the thrust of the accusations go something like this.
“How dare you question the benefits of Army officers? You no appreciation of the sacrifices they make, the love for Pakistan that they have in their hearts!”
One gentleman added that he would “starve his children so that the Pakistani Army can play its role to defend the nation.” How can anyone compete with such a strong sense of patriotism? Regardless of what I say and do, I will always come off as a traitor!
However, is this even patriotism? Is the relationship between the individual and the state limited to an outpouring of blind support for one institution? Or can someone be patriotic while also critical of the nations armed forces?
We like to present the “Army” as one monolithic institution. However, like any institution it is far from uniform. Present day actors have a monopoly over claiming the “Army” as their own, as it will continue to function long after they have passed on. The only individuals that can actually claim the Army as their own are the public at large, for it’s to protect their interests that the institution is funded and granted a monopoly in the use of arms. Indeed the institution that they represent and the privileged position that society has granted high ranking military officers, should not be equated to the individual. The position of authority and the responsibility invested in the offices of the COAS or DG ISI should ideally be greater than the individual himself.
By extension, the institution is much larger than the individuals that inhabit it. Therefore, any criticism of the Army, is not necessarily a criticism of the institution, rather it’s a criticism of the policies implemented by the actors which happen to be in power at any given time. It seems to me that those in power are merely leveraging nationalism to justify their actions, equating property development and military land grabs with the security of Pakistan.
Likewise there is a big difference between criticising perks and privileges and equating such criticism with treachery. Neither does such criticism take any thing away from supporting our troops who are fighting and dying for their country.
However, in an environment where fake degrees are being uncovered, the government of the day is busy politicking rather than governing, MNA’s and MPA’s are suffering from verbal diarrhea; the role of the military high command goes largely unquestioned.
Why are we hesitant to question or hold those who wield power and influence in the name of the country that we inhabit accountable? Is it because in our chaotic and somewhat dysfunctional state the military represents the only institution to be proud of? Is it because many people have relatives in the military and are hesitant to criticize them? Or is it because we are scared of the consequences of openly voicing criticism?
However, the most important question is why call for greater transparency and accountability of the military to begin with? After all, the plots, the benefits, the 10% quota in the civil service, the appointment as ambassadors and state position, the large military-industrial complex that helps retired officers to find plush jobs etc, is a small price to pay to individuals who lay their life on the line. But where do we draw the line? Where do we say enough is enough?
I was in Fairy Meadows, Nanga Parbat in 2005. On my final day, a military helicopter arrived with mess staff carrying main dishes, cutlery and tables. They promptly laid it out in the grounds of a privately owned hotel without the permission of the owner. Then a second helicopter landed, and this time a group of officers with their hunting rifles strode off to take there places amongst the pre-set feast. Ignoring the sign in the corner that stated hunting was not allowed in this region, the generals prepared themselves for the hunt. The local community was fuming with anger and resentment; however they had little choice but to facilitate their “guests”. Are the expenses incurred on public expense for a helicopter ride up to Fairy Meadows justified? Or what of the moral implication of hunting in an area declared a hunting free zone? Can we draw the line here or are such extravaganzas justified?
I have always been skeptical of those individual who demand respect rather than earn it. Whether generals, politicians or religious leaders. However, while questioning politicians is (rightly) considered socially acceptable, there seems to be some pact between the military and society that I seemed to have forgotten to sign up to, whereby regardless of the action, we patiently and obediently consider every decision that flows through the upper echelons of the military as correct, and our patriotic duty to support it.
How does not publishing the details of the military’s allocation of the budget serve Pakistan’s national security? One can be vague regarding sensitive programs, but the entire budget? Why does keeping the salary, perks and pension of the military high command a secret, make our country any safer? Why does the military get exemption from land taxes in cantonment areas? Is it not enough that the people of Pakistan, who pay their taxes and are indebted to the international community to the hilt, pay for their wages and perks, should also subsidize their local communities?
So why call for greater transparency and accountability? If the military in Pakistan considers itself as the nations most disciplined institution, then surely it must also accept that it must be held to a higher standards. By holding those in uniform accountable to a higher standard than other organs of the state, only then can it truly claim to be the nations “most disciplined institution”. For those who serve their country, society owes them a debt of gratitude. However, we have to draw a line where those who extract benefit from the public’s purse appreciate the reality that surrounds them. I may be a traitor based on certain interpretations of patriotism, however, if the military wants respect, then it should be seen to earn rather than demand it.
