You know, it's a good time to talk about education in Pakistan--especially with the op-ed in the New York Times by Nicholas Kristoff a couple of days ago that's been so much the talk of the Pakistani chatterosphere (online and off) since. But this morning, the talk of the town is a piece of news that the Chief Justice (not Iftikhar Chaudhry, the person currently occupying that office) used his influence to get his daughter's grades/marks in High School "improved", to give her a better shot at various things one wants to do after High School and which are based, in Pakistan, often even more on that performance than it is in other places. [I pretty much started my journalistic career with a piece about that process; back in ... oh, another lifetime.] As usual, you can read a good intro to the topic by Dr. Adil Najam on Pakistaniat.com. He also quotes, in full, the editorial from The News that he very aptly calls "even more dramatic than the story itself". Now, since Education in Pakistan was pretty much the family business in my parents' generation, and having spent an agonizing 7 years at the receiving end of the government-run part of it myself, I have only one comment on the whole brouhaha; and to express it, I can only quote, with a small amendment, Amrita Pritam's tour de force:
ik ro'ee si dhi Punjab dhee thoon lakh-lakh maray veen;
jub lak-haan dhiyaan rondhiyaan tho kith-hay Waris Shah?[One daughter of Punjab wept, and you wept millions of tears;
When thousands weep, where are you to be found Waris Shah?]
Why is this specific case of malfeasance news? Our education system was all hunky-dory till now? I remember one particular time in my own life, the night before an exam at the end of 12th grade when it first hit me up-front, and personally, where it really hurt, how messed up the system was--and I was doing rather well in it till then. But back then, I was just the son of a Professor in the sarkari system; I as just a middle-class kid in a middle class neighbourhood. Today, well, today, you're reading my blog post, and The News, and Naeem Sadiq--who, like I do now, lives "uptown"--and all the nice English-medium Brown Saahibs Imran Khan talks about, and maybe even the New York Times, care about the system that none of them or their kids partake in. [Which reminds me of another story, but I've gotta get back to my day job.]
Cross-posted on the iFaqeer, Wadiblog, ProgressiveIslam.org, Pak Tea House, Doodpatti, by Tohfay blogs.
Technorati tags applicable to this post: Education - Pakistan - Pakistani Judiciary
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Facebook
Technorati
Pakistanis fear India but their greatest enemy is themselves.
Pakistan by all accounts, is a failed Muslim state, no model to the Islamic world as Pakistanis once envisioned their grand experiment to be.
The nation has been partitioned in two with an independent Bangladesh, the nation Islamicized, barbaric traditions define their legal system, and they are economically not as viable as India.
Nations that now are generally considered "paragons" for the Muslim world are Malaysia and Turkey, but even these countries have their problems and are not flawless societies.
India is not perfect, there is communal violence and Hindu nationalism, but India despite its pressing problems and issues, is an emerging Asian power and as recent events off the coast in Somalia show, is a military power willing to take on Somali pirates. Not even the US Navy has been willing to take on the issue of piracy with a show of force.
Pakistan has no centralized educational system, and the education available does not allow for independent thought, inquiry, and the asking of questions regarding taboo subjects.
Furthermore, their seems to be a growing resistance to music, dance, theater, the visual arts, and the arts in general.
I was shocked when I have heard Pakistanis say that their history began in the 13th century, completely ignoring the Brahmanic-Hindu heritage of their country, the "cradle of Indian civilization" began in modern Pakistan, modern Pakistan was home to a magnificent Buddhist kingdom known as Gandhara in present day Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Afghanistan is equally barbaric. But unlike Afghanistan, which was a "hot war" zone in the Cold War era between the Soviets and Americans, Pakistan escaped such a fate.
Pakistan's instability will hamper the ability of Afghanistan to rebuild. The United States should withhold aid from Pakistan, instead of fighting the Taliban, they spend the money on their Kashmiri front with India.
India, like Israel is to the Arabs, is a scapegoat.
Like Arabs must look within themselves, Pakistanis must look within themselves.
Pakistan has all the advantages and human capital pool like India, utilize it!
You know, I've heard arguments that the Islamic system of governance is the root cause of Pakistan's woes, and I've heard arguments that that system is the only thing keeping that nation afloat.
My two cents: Any nation founded on the basis of Islam in its current form will, for the most part, fail.
In fact, I contend that states founded on any religion either fail eventually, or evolve into states with more secular systems of governance that pay only ceremonial homage to religion.
"You know, I've heard arguments that the Islamic system of governance is the root cause of Pakistan's woes, and I've heard arguments that that system is the only thing keeping that nation afloat."
Perhaps Pakistan's reliance on "Islam" as a legal source it's like arsenic eating: it's both poisoning the nation and keeping it alive. To withdraw would be immediately fatal; to maintain the dependence means a slow death.
Is it possible to have a state that is based in faith but also in the real world? Theoretically, yes, just as democracy theoretically promises that the will of the people shall be done. Does the promise of "divine" and secular rule pose an irresistible temptation to tyrants and bullies everywhere? I'm afraid so.
The subcontinent should have never been partitioned in my opinion.
The irony of Pakistan was that the Muslim League, led by the Aga Khan (Ismailis) were vocal and strongly supportive of the creation of a "Muslim Indian commonwealth."
Now Shia, about 1/5 of the population of Pakistan, are occasionally subject to anti-Shia intra-Muslim communal violence.
When Pakistan was partitioned, 1/3 of the population were non-Muslim, now only 3% of the country is Christian, mostly confined to Karachi, the "Mumbai of Pakistan" by all accounts.
However, even in this most liberal of all Pakistani cities, even Christians have been targets of terrorism.
Pakistan has sponsored terrorism in Afghanistan and India alike.
Pakistan does not have the best relations with Tehran.
Even the Iranians accuse Pakistan of supporting terrorism in cross-border raids with Pakistan-backed Baluchi rebels.
It seems Pakistan's strategy for clout in the region is supporting barbaric Islamist gangs.
Iran makes no secret of its desire to influence nations in the Middle East and Central Asia, but it does in large part with at least some support and sympathy from local populations like in Lebanon in regards to Hezbollah and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
In the American mosque, Pakistanis have a disproportionate level of influence in dictating the "mood" of the American Muslim congregation.
Iranians, who make up about 10% of the American Muslim community, are largely absent in the American mosque, and I always wondered why?
Shia Muslim Americans are either segregated in their own mosques or in my opinion, largely secular or non-observant.
In my experience, in Los Angeles, Iranian and Afghan Farsi/Dari speaking Shia are largely non-practicing.
But with the Pakistani community, Islam is worn on their lapels, not even Indian Muslims seem to have as much clout in the mosque or Bengalis.
But I've noticed that many Pakistanis here in this country are extremely conservative, I've noticed many parents object to their children participating in music education, which is common in American elementary schools. Many Pakistani Americans have in my experience been excused from such activities till normal curricular activities were resumed.
Pakistan is frigtening. They have nuclear weapons, they are an unstable government. And they are likely being controlled by extremist. When will Pakistan crumble, when will the fake facade fall and the real controllers step up? Will Pakistans nuclear weapons fall into the hands of terrorists before things are fixed? And who can fix it? Though Benizar Bhutto was not a true answer, at least she was capable of saying that Pakistan was no longer going to be the puppet to Afghani rebels and to Islamic extremism. But they killed her....Woe on Pakistan
Pakistan's problems lie in political Islam.
The nation is a frontier of the Indian subcontinent.
The Northwestern Frontier is Afghanistan.
Baluchistan is a former province of Iran.
Kasmir is a unique region in South Asia, with its own identity, unique in South Asia.
The heart of Pakistan, the Punjab is severed from its smaller companion in Western India.
The Sindh is also unique.
Pakistan is basically held together on the premise of political Islam.
However, the nation has no unity or order.
Pakistan interferes in Afghan affairs because they fear the nation will go towards a pro-Indian direction.
India has already made generous overtures to Kabul, it is in India's interest to do so.
Afghans are culturally enamored in Indian culture and the Desi culture of Pakistan, but the political situation does cause a rift between Muslim Pakistanis and nationalistic Afghans.
Saudi Arabia may export a rigid interpretation of neo-purist Islam, but Saudi Arabia is tightly controlled and orderly.
Pakistan is disorderly.
India is chaotic too, but India has managed to stick to secular nationalism over religious nationalism.
Pakistan's problems definitely include those that stem from political Islam, but the partition, the uncontrolled regions, the fact that part of Pakistan's territory includes a region more Afghan/Persian/etc. than Indian, all make for some instability. The imbalance of power and the fact that justice is more or less for sale owe nothing to religiously based rule and everything to corruption and repression. Pakistan is ailing, but secularism would only treat one affliction of several.
That said, Pakistan was a wealth of potential; its weaknesses could be transformed into its strengths with a new vision and commitment. To pretend that all Pakistan needs is to become a poor man's India is folly; Pakistan needs to become itself.
The problem is that too many--even here, I see--equate "Islam" and "Political Islam" with the thought/world view of Maududi, Qutub, Wahab, et al. If that is the definition, then yes, those are the problem:and not just in Pakistan, but in India--Indian Muslims have been in denial for a while; Afghanistan; the Arab World; American policy in the Middle East (the deal FDR made with the House of Saud); American mosques; British mosques and, well, pretty much most everywhere.