Sunday, July 25, 2010
SECULAR examples
A secular Pakistan? Or an Islamic Pakistan? Before this past Monday, I wasn’t aware that these two types of Pakistan were mutually exclusive. But according to Javed Jabbar’s recent lecture on civilian and military life within Pakistan at the United States Institute of Peace (USIP), secularism and Islam define each other in their contrasts. In response to a question about the role of religion in Pakistan, Jabbar emphasized that Pakistan is very secular. From General Ayub Khan, who was extremely “non-religious”, to General Yahya Khan, who “had no religious doctrine”, to the more recent General Pervez Musharraf, Jabbar used the lack of a religious compass and the abundance of a penchant towards drinking within these generals as living proof that Pakistan had, and continues to have, a secular attitude. Thankfully, Jabbar also managed to highlight other things such as the fact that Pakistan gives two votes to non-Muslims as a means of promoting secularity.
But secularity, as I have known it, promotes an exclusion of religious considerations from civil and public affairs. Examples of drinking, while they might promote the exclusion of religious consideration from civil and public affairs, do little to show me that overall the country of Pakistan has invested in secular reforms. This anecdotal defense of Pakistan’s secularity might be amusing in the moment, but ultimately I would prefer more examples of Pakistan’s leaders striving for their country rather than for their drinking glasses to have more secular views.
The issue of drinking is not the problem; the fact that it was used as a defense of Pakistan’s secularity, however, is. To be short, upholding secular ideals is not and should not be proven by the amount of liquor one can uphold. Instead, give me examples of a working democracy and of working religious differences as proof that Pakistan is becoming increasingly secular. These are the examples, in my opinion, that are truly universal and secular.
But secularity, as I have known it, promotes an exclusion of religious considerations from civil and public affairs. Examples of drinking, while they might promote the exclusion of religious consideration from civil and public affairs, do little to show me that overall the country of Pakistan has invested in secular reforms. This anecdotal defense of Pakistan’s secularity might be amusing in the moment, but ultimately I would prefer more examples of Pakistan’s leaders striving for their country rather than for their drinking glasses to have more secular views.
The issue of drinking is not the problem; the fact that it was used as a defense of Pakistan’s secularity, however, is. To be short, upholding secular ideals is not and should not be proven by the amount of liquor one can uphold. Instead, give me examples of a working democracy and of working religious differences as proof that Pakistan is becoming increasingly secular. These are the examples, in my opinion, that are truly universal and secular.
Monday, July 12, 2010
"The foundation of every state IS its youth...
“The foundation of every state is its youth.”
Short. Simple. To the point. It’s a fact that was articulated in the third century by Greek biographer, Diogenes Laertius. Why then do some countries remain oblivious to this easy and accessible truth? The country of Pakistan currently boasts one of the lowest literacy rates in the world. That, coupled with a booming population of 180 million, more than half of which is under the age of 17, presents Pakistan with two options: either to cultivate or neglect its youth. From its dismal statistics, including the fact that Pakistan’s illiterate population is currently growing and that Pakistan has something close to 6.8 million out-of-school children, it appears that Pakistan has chosen to neglect its youth.
In youth lies opportunity. The youth represent a form of weaponry and defense that no amount of missiles can surpass. I believe that this opportunity comes in either education or extremism. And it is my utmost belief that these two opportunities are, indeed, mutually exclusive. If the government chooses to provide a consistent education, a well-balanced life is promoted. If there is a lack of consistent education, the opposite of a well-balanced life is promoted, including, but not limited to, extremism in poverty and ignorance. Without an education, the only opportunity to exist lies within extreme tendencies.
Two opportunities: education or extremism. With the government overspending on military matters and under spending on education, Pakistan has opted for extremism in its finances and, ultimately, in its country’s own agenda. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the foundation and very literal future of any state, and in especial, Pakistan, lies within the youth. With Pakistan’s largely and largely growing youth-oriented population, the overspending on the military is a statistic that is inversely affecting the youth as a whole. Understandably, Pakistan has had to face certain setbacks. Its counterinsurgency and war on terror have definitely made domestic priorities hard to balance. But education should never have been out the balance in the first place. Like government, ideally, it needs to be a staple in Pakistani society. The disparate educational system that spreads across public and private schools needs to be modified; while three fourths of Pakistan is learning the bare minimum, if that, an elite one-fourth is learning the maximum and then some. The shadow cast by Pakistan’s infamous ghost schools – schools that the government has on record but in actuality do not even exist- make ghosts out of the children who purportedly attend them as well. The absentee rate of teachers in Pakistan competes with the American urge to cut class. And the national curriculum remains outdated and in need of mass revision.
Instead of overspending on the military, I propose that Pakistan invests in an extremely ancient yet equally effective weapon: its youth. As a Pakistani-American, I see the education of my family in Pakistan as a constant struggle upwards. In all my time as a student, I have never once thought that my teachers would not come to school, that my school might shut down, or that I might not have a desk upon which to write. We’ve been lucky. Living in America does that. And if you’re reading this, chances are your educational experience was far from ghostly. But until the government of Pakistan chooses to place youth over weaponry, it is upon those of us who have received an education to give back.
After all, it requires the education of one to cultivate the education of another. Give back. Look back. And strengthen the very literal back of Pakistan- i.e. its youth- by giving back.
Short. Simple. To the point. It’s a fact that was articulated in the third century by Greek biographer, Diogenes Laertius. Why then do some countries remain oblivious to this easy and accessible truth? The country of Pakistan currently boasts one of the lowest literacy rates in the world. That, coupled with a booming population of 180 million, more than half of which is under the age of 17, presents Pakistan with two options: either to cultivate or neglect its youth. From its dismal statistics, including the fact that Pakistan’s illiterate population is currently growing and that Pakistan has something close to 6.8 million out-of-school children, it appears that Pakistan has chosen to neglect its youth.
In youth lies opportunity. The youth represent a form of weaponry and defense that no amount of missiles can surpass. I believe that this opportunity comes in either education or extremism. And it is my utmost belief that these two opportunities are, indeed, mutually exclusive. If the government chooses to provide a consistent education, a well-balanced life is promoted. If there is a lack of consistent education, the opposite of a well-balanced life is promoted, including, but not limited to, extremism in poverty and ignorance. Without an education, the only opportunity to exist lies within extreme tendencies.
Two opportunities: education or extremism. With the government overspending on military matters and under spending on education, Pakistan has opted for extremism in its finances and, ultimately, in its country’s own agenda. Nevertheless, the fact remains that the foundation and very literal future of any state, and in especial, Pakistan, lies within the youth. With Pakistan’s largely and largely growing youth-oriented population, the overspending on the military is a statistic that is inversely affecting the youth as a whole. Understandably, Pakistan has had to face certain setbacks. Its counterinsurgency and war on terror have definitely made domestic priorities hard to balance. But education should never have been out the balance in the first place. Like government, ideally, it needs to be a staple in Pakistani society. The disparate educational system that spreads across public and private schools needs to be modified; while three fourths of Pakistan is learning the bare minimum, if that, an elite one-fourth is learning the maximum and then some. The shadow cast by Pakistan’s infamous ghost schools – schools that the government has on record but in actuality do not even exist- make ghosts out of the children who purportedly attend them as well. The absentee rate of teachers in Pakistan competes with the American urge to cut class. And the national curriculum remains outdated and in need of mass revision.
Instead of overspending on the military, I propose that Pakistan invests in an extremely ancient yet equally effective weapon: its youth. As a Pakistani-American, I see the education of my family in Pakistan as a constant struggle upwards. In all my time as a student, I have never once thought that my teachers would not come to school, that my school might shut down, or that I might not have a desk upon which to write. We’ve been lucky. Living in America does that. And if you’re reading this, chances are your educational experience was far from ghostly. But until the government of Pakistan chooses to place youth over weaponry, it is upon those of us who have received an education to give back.
After all, it requires the education of one to cultivate the education of another. Give back. Look back. And strengthen the very literal back of Pakistan- i.e. its youth- by giving back.
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Pakistan: This Summer's Political Thriller
While summer can bring many things, there’s no doubt that a surplus of movies that would never do well in any other season will debut. For those in the political community, however, it means an excess of reports that- perhaps like their counterparts in the film industry- would never do well during the rest of the year either. This summer’s political thriller? The country of Pakistan. Kicked off by Matt Waldman’s London School of Economics’ report, “Sun in the Sky—Relationship between Pakistan’s ISI and Afghan Insurgents,” the recent influx of reports discussing Pakistan’s state of affairs has come to beg the question: has Pakistan become the new theater for political analysts this summer?
While not stereotypically divided, Pakistan has indeed been divided into something similar to your summer-time movie cast. Like a true play, there are substitutes for each role; the role of the ‘bad guy’ one day is the government of Pakistan, the next day it’s back to the insurgents. And, of course, there remains the eternal question of who exactly the ‘good guy’ is: America? Amnesty International? Political analysts? The suspense is enthralling while the construct is simple and repetitive. Like many movies this summer, however, it promises to overlap.
From the London School of Economics to Amnesty International to the RAND Corporation, the list of reports continues to grow exponentially while the presentation of information does not. All three institutions conclude the same thing: that the government of Pakistan and its intelligence agency (ISI) support rather than deter the Afghan Taliban movement in some way. The solution, all three suggest, is enforced transparency coupled with reduced assistance from the United States. Yet, the reports, like many movies of the summer, are inherently flawed with respect to their script. Waldman’s LSE report is conflicting on several accounts: the reliability of his sources is extremely unclear and unsubstantiated, the implications of his findings place the Taliban, the Pakistani government, and, by extension, the United States at fault simultaneously, and the author’s own excessive caution regarding his assertions that the ISI and Taliban are working together leave the reader both uninformed and confused.
While there can be no chance of a monetary refund for reading these reports as can be the case with poor films, the fundamental question remains: Why? Why are these reports being published in such likeness and bulk? At least with movies, the genres purport to be different. Yet with these reports, the scenes are always the same. As with Amnesty International’s two reports, “‘As if Hell fell on me’- Human Rights Crisis in Northwest Pakistan” and the analysis of Pakistan’s human rights situation released in its annual report, the focus largely remains to be Pakistan’s government or lack there of. Placing greater emphasis on the “indiscriminate and disproportionate force” carried out by Pakistani security forces, Amnesty International neglects the root of the insurgency and instead, like Waldman, implicates the Pakistani government of playing a double game.
Don’t get me wrong- there is value to these reports. With two more reports from the Brookings Institute and Foreign Policy detailing Pakistan’s educational system and questioning its ability to be a successful state, readers should by this point, if anything, be able to spell Pakistan correctly. Yet with it being summer, it comes as no surprise that the authors of these reports feel pressured to publish something, even if that something is all the same. They, like their readers, seem to be stuck in a sort of report fatigue. All in all, however, there can be no doubt that Pakistan is definitely the blockbuster hit of the summer.
While not stereotypically divided, Pakistan has indeed been divided into something similar to your summer-time movie cast. Like a true play, there are substitutes for each role; the role of the ‘bad guy’ one day is the government of Pakistan, the next day it’s back to the insurgents. And, of course, there remains the eternal question of who exactly the ‘good guy’ is: America? Amnesty International? Political analysts? The suspense is enthralling while the construct is simple and repetitive. Like many movies this summer, however, it promises to overlap.
From the London School of Economics to Amnesty International to the RAND Corporation, the list of reports continues to grow exponentially while the presentation of information does not. All three institutions conclude the same thing: that the government of Pakistan and its intelligence agency (ISI) support rather than deter the Afghan Taliban movement in some way. The solution, all three suggest, is enforced transparency coupled with reduced assistance from the United States. Yet, the reports, like many movies of the summer, are inherently flawed with respect to their script. Waldman’s LSE report is conflicting on several accounts: the reliability of his sources is extremely unclear and unsubstantiated, the implications of his findings place the Taliban, the Pakistani government, and, by extension, the United States at fault simultaneously, and the author’s own excessive caution regarding his assertions that the ISI and Taliban are working together leave the reader both uninformed and confused.
While there can be no chance of a monetary refund for reading these reports as can be the case with poor films, the fundamental question remains: Why? Why are these reports being published in such likeness and bulk? At least with movies, the genres purport to be different. Yet with these reports, the scenes are always the same. As with Amnesty International’s two reports, “‘As if Hell fell on me’- Human Rights Crisis in Northwest Pakistan” and the analysis of Pakistan’s human rights situation released in its annual report, the focus largely remains to be Pakistan’s government or lack there of. Placing greater emphasis on the “indiscriminate and disproportionate force” carried out by Pakistani security forces, Amnesty International neglects the root of the insurgency and instead, like Waldman, implicates the Pakistani government of playing a double game.
Don’t get me wrong- there is value to these reports. With two more reports from the Brookings Institute and Foreign Policy detailing Pakistan’s educational system and questioning its ability to be a successful state, readers should by this point, if anything, be able to spell Pakistan correctly. Yet with it being summer, it comes as no surprise that the authors of these reports feel pressured to publish something, even if that something is all the same. They, like their readers, seem to be stuck in a sort of report fatigue. All in all, however, there can be no doubt that Pakistan is definitely the blockbuster hit of the summer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)