Anti-Other-ism is not a Pakistani-only phenomena, as anyone here can attest to. An example I had was a physics professor in CEGEP who was horrified that I didn't drink. He proceeded to tell me that he "knew all about that Pakistan-India" business - through his Hindu Indian wife. Truth mixed with bigotry was the kindest way to put his newfound opinions. (Even then, it would not be fair to say that /her/ identity was based on being Anti-Pakistan or even a bigot)
Really, the concept of reducing a nation's entire identity to a strong negative emotion is ridiculous. It would be about as fair as saying that the American identity is about being "Anti-Brown" or the Japanese identity is about being "alien from the rest of the world". Nonsense, except for the smallest fraction of crazies that you could find in any sufficiently large population.
I'll take the critical-but-fair opinion of a third party such as Eric Schmidt over a compromised local like MJ Akbar any day.
Interestingly, here in India too we have had controversies with textbooks. Our current ruling coalition has been accused of pandering to Muslims to tap the votebank!
Isn't that a relatively common situation for countries - especially those with a historical connection to a much larger neighbour?
For example in the UK there is the well known "Anyone but the English" thing where people in Wales/Scotland/Ireland support teams in major sporting events based on this selection criteria. And the "unofficial" Scottish national anthem is about a war 700 years ago against the English.
Of course, when it comes to a cricket match between the two, you're spot on.
> The press are generally hyper-critical of the United States policies in the region and take the view that the India-US relationship is driving much of our countries behavior.
It's put in diplomatic terms, but anyone from a western country will recognise it as saying that the public discourse about India (and the US) is far from rational. Your other comments are a lot more precise, so thanks.
Schmidt has not seen Pakistan for what it really is - a cesspool of corruption and poorly educated people.
Pakistan has two major problems. Primarily, education of the people ... what good is a democracy if people cannot understand the democratic system - nor see past the public visage and look deeply into what kind of person a political candidate is.
This poor education leads Zardari (a corrupt politician who has ties to the murder of Murtaza Bhutto) only coming to power due to a three way effect of a sympathy vote (assassination of Benazir Bhutto), bribery and threats to people who work on his land (he is one of the largest land owners in Sindh). Nowhere else in the world would a criminal become the president of a nation.
The secondary problem is ALL the corruption from the upper levels of politics, to the police itself. If you're caught speeding in Pakistan, simply apologise to the officer who has caught you and slip him a few hundred rupees.
Want to get out of the airport faster by not having your bags security checked? Slip 500 rupees to the security officer.
Are you the prime minister of the country being investigated for money laundering? Make the lives hell for judges and lawyers.
Fix the education problem and everything else will fall into place and this is something that I truly hope that PTI will do, should they on the unlikely chance get into power (I say unlikely as I envisage that the PPP will somehow manage to bullshit their way through another election).
No it's not. I won't go further.
Education is an issue but only in the long term. Assuming Pakistan managed to overcome several of its other problems, uneducated would become Pakistan's most important resource. Uneducated people are what make industrialisation possible. They make low wages possible and so the country becomes interesting as a manufacturing base (as Thailand has become for example).
With more economic activity will come education and then the country will have to find an alternative economic source.
More education will also affect corruption as educated people tend to be less willing to put up with it.
This is of course overly simple but for a big picture, it does hold some truth.
I believe that focusing prematurely on education, is actually counter-productive as the tissue of companies in need of educated workers simply is not there and makes low wages more difficult.
The West is also a good example of other issues with educated people. Countries full of educated people are more difficult to manage. For example France is badly in need of deep reforms but they will simply never happen because French would go on strike as a result of such reforms.
For what it's worth, in France you'd get a 90 Euros fine for speeding on a standard road. I'm not arguing whether it's good or bad, the answer simply isn't black or white. I do know though that 90 Euros is not sustainable for many a family in France while a 250 Bath (in Thailand) is fairly cheap for car-owners.
Your average police officer, or fireman or customs official probably gets paid a tiny amount of money per month maybe $30-$50. But as an official of the government they have the opportunity to levy "additional taxes" during their day to day life. That's why often you'll find such countries have thousands of official regulations which on the face of it make no sense, how can anyone get anything done legally with all these regulations? The answer of course is that these regulations merely exist to create opportunities for the relevant officials to "collect taxes". You pay the official directly, you don't need to comply.
And their superiors know, their superiors get a cut of every bribe, it feeds up the chain of command within the relevant organisations. The officers on the beat or the fire department official who checks building fire regulations collects the "taxes" for himself and his superior.
So when you talk about stopping corruption in these countries you've got to replace this system of "taxation" with a real one that works. But that's easier said than done because the real corruption (fuelled by greed) also exists here and no one in their right mind is going to pay serious tax money to their government because it will disappear never to be seen again.
I can't claim that I know what the solution is to that, I thought I'd just put a different perspective on it.
You can't even begin to compare the corruption of North countries and South countries. The level of corruption in U.K. is far less, with surely bigger impact on the world because of the power of U.K. in the world than what you can find in a country like Pakistan or Nigeria.
In short, yes corruption is everywhere that in itself is not an argument.
Of course there is corruption everywhere, but in most countries it's nowhere near as endemic or systematic as it is in Pakistan (and India and China). I can get by in my life here in the UK without needing to bribe anyone, but bribery is a daily fact of my parents' life in India (and similarly for parts of the family in Pakistan). Deflecting this issue does you no credit.
> Countries full of educated people are more difficult to manage. . For example France is badly in need of deep reforms but they will simply never happen because French would go on strike as a result of such reforms
So, how would you explain strikes in Pakistan against reforms to the blasphemy laws?
> in France you'd get a 90 Euros fine for speeding on a standard road.
So what?
Anyway, I'll be interested to see if technology and communications are the panacea to education problems that Schmidt says they are. If so that's good for South Africa, the Internet is growing tremendously here.
Interestingly, we have had things like the Learning Channel for many years (think Khan Academy but on videotape, and starting in the late 1980's), but the copyright, now held by Avusa, a media company, makes it very expensive. The CC licenced Mindset Network doesn't strike me as being of comparabile quality.
With broadband penetration and open access to remote learning materials we could at least try to break the cycle of mediocrity caused by under-skilled teachers.
You're overstating it; Berlusconi is a counterexample.
I think Schimdt is smart enough to see the truth. He's just playing the role of "diplomatic reporter" for the crowd. His calculus is probably that it's better to be very shy about exposing the truth and hope for change in the long run. It does not make sense to antagonize the people you will have to be working with in the future. Better to praise them slightly, acknowledge a few flaws that are non-controversial in nature, and express some sort of vague hope for the future.
Might work. Might not.
I wouldn't ever go to a Muslim country because some rich dude said it's quite alright. What works for them needn't work for me.
[1]http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-13/asia/world_asia_pakistan-... [2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamza_Kashgari [3]http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/iran-must-halt-execution-web-...
Wow, I'm amazed that this comment can take top spot on HN. How does this even happen? There are plenty of 'muslim countries' that are perfectly fine. Jordan, Turkey, Morocco, Dubai and Oman strike me as immediately safe 'muslim' places to go to. Millions of tourists go to these places every year and are fine.
The problems in Pakistan are not about whether or not it's a "muslim country" as you put it. The problems are based on what is societally and culturally acceptable which is a progression of traditions and norms, not Islam itself.
Let me put it this way, try swapping Muslim out for Jewish and re-read that statement, or Muslim for Christian. How do you think a muslim Pakistani would feel dressed normally for Pakistan in the bible belt of the US? Does that mean that they shouldn't go to Mardi Gras in New Orleans?
I'd hoped to see more discussion on the specifics in HN rather than sweeping statements with an undercurrent of racism.
In Morocco, a court ordered a teenager to marry her rapist. She killed herself. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/03/moroccan-teenage...
The Dubai Sheikh torture clip is infamous now. Amazing how you can torture a guy and not go to jail if you're a Sheikh. We know about this specific incident because of the video leakk. Who knows what else goes on there. http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=7402099
Oman will throw you in jail for dissent with the govt http://gulfnews.com/news/gulf/oman/oman-crackdown-on-dissent...
A lot of these emirates are guilty of encouraging human trafficking to allow supply of cheap labour. When your rich american/european visits the UAE, he doesn't see the human rights violations going on right around him - partly because his environment is sanitized of ill treatment of labour from poorer countries and partly because he chooses not to see. Should we all just shut up about the UAE's behaviour then?
The reason turkey, morocco etc are better behaved are because they're dependent on EU for economic support. I didn't mean to go muslim bashing with my comment but as you can see, they're easy to classify in this fashion. I wouldn't go to China either for the same reason I wouldn't go to a muslim country.
It's a sweeping statement but it clearly has nothing to do with race. For instance, this dude would be happy in Singapore or Thailand but not in the bit of Malaysia that lies between 'em. I doubt it's because of the marginally different racial mixes you're likely to find as you cross the borders.
Trying to make a story with three links pointing at different countries.. Try the same with Hungary, Spain and the USA. You will hardly say anything interesting.
As far as Pakistan is concerned, make sure that you don't consider the Tribal Areas the same way you would consider the country itself. They are independent in many regards.
Knowing is understanding. I suggest you say no to your condition and discover other cultures and people. You will certainly become a much more interesting person in the process.
"The U.S. is openly accusing the Pakistani military of collaborating with Islamic terrorists, particularly the Haqqani Network, which has long enjoyed sanctuary in North Waziristan. The U.S. publicly agrees with many Pakistanis that the Pakistani military of being out-of-control and a threat to Pakistani democracy. Pakistanis who express these beliefs openly in Pakistan can get arrested or killed."
At least the western countries don't build and finance terror networks to attack neighbours. And so on.
It is a pity for the country, the economy should go like India or China if the place was better managed. I hope the article is correct in its optimism.
(I read that site for fun and to get the opposite perspective from my local Swedish media, which aren't that dependable.)
Gosh, I sure hope so. Maybe Eric should talk to some of the Green Revolution folks.
I don't mean to be cynical, but the desires of the emerging middle class are going to have to compete -- perhaps with great violence -- with the desires of the established interests. That's what happens when political systems aren't able to auto-correct and run for many decades.
The question I would have like Schmidt to answer is this: is Pakistan a country? That is, does it control its borders, is the government the sole user of force against the population, is there a place where international partners can go and ask for and receive redress when wronged by citizens of Pakistan?
I don't think it is. Or if it is, it's a close call.
Having said all of that negative stuff, I wish the people living in Pakistan the best. An emerging middle class, along with a decent education and unfettered internet access, is their best shot at a happier tomorrow.
Pakistan's position is really very unique and it takes time to understand it. The usual labels take very different meanings. For instance what the western world calls "middle class" almost doesn't exist in the form that they expect it to. Even if it did, it has nowhere the clout or the purchase. The country is deeply, and I do mean deeply, feudal. "Middle class" either means of a feudal family decent or of military lineage. Feudal land holdings and military are the two, and pretty much the only two centers that drives the economy and are locked in their desire to keep their privileges intact. If you are interested in this topic, do take time to find out what percentage these two forces account for.
And then you have the significantly large radicalized population. And even here it is very different. You would think radical groups are fringe groups, but not quite so in Pakistan and this has been cultivated by deliberate intent over several decades. The identity of a victimized population that the world has been unfair to because of their religion gets ingrained very early in the education system. Such a belief of persecution is rampant even in the mainstream, sometimes given a modicum of a veneer. Its difficult to catch these undertones unless one is familiar with the language and reads the same newspapers that the Pakistanis read, or watch the same TV shows that Pakistanis watch. Find out about Zaid Hamid and then consider the fact that there he is as main stream as vanila ice-cream.
Next word: army. It is very different from an army one would expect to see. It is a cross between a rich political party that has an unprecedentedly militarized cadre and a mafia house doling out favors (in the form of jobs and other privileges) to keep the population in control. On one hand it controls what you would call the civic life and on the other it also controls albeit at a very decentralized way the different Jihadi outfits which are again smaller mafia houses as entrenched in an economic endeavor as much as a religious one. Its common to dismiss these radical outfits as religious whackos, but you would get a better understanding if you also follow the money and see how the business side of it works.
Entwined with the feudal system is a deep ethnic undercurrent and you would often find the different parties locked in a perverse game theoretic equilibrium trying to gain control. All this goes unreported in the western media, or well in their own country as well. To see what I am talking about, dig up statistics of violence related civilian (police personnel included) deaths in Karachi in the past year, and Karachi is the most liberal city there.
The funniest comment by Eric Schmidt was about freedom of the press. That does not exist. Unless you have some seat of power guarding your life you cant say what you want to say at least not while residing in Pakistan.
If you have interest you can follow this sarcastic blog of a faux major http://majorlyprofound.wordpress.com/2012/04/10/prospects-fo... but you have to read between the lines because beneath the sarcasm there lies a lot of deliberate thought.
Given that there is no real agreed definition as to what exactly a country is, it's unlikely that Schmidt could answer that. Also your definitions about what a country is are strangely arbitrary and seem to have little to do with whether a country is a country or not.
But, but almost any definition of country, Pakistan is a country. It may have many problems, but it's absurd to suggest that it might not be.
What actually amaze me most of the time that people consider Pakistan similar to Afghanistan and they believe that Pakistan == FATA region. The reality is that Fata is not even 5% of Pakistan and the region is disturbed because of invasion in Afghanistan and closed cultural ties between FATA and Afghans.
Totally agree about Mobile penetration in Pakistan. It is something similar to Africa. The difference that in Pakistan there is no wider acceptance of mobile usage other than sending useless SMS and Spams. There are only 2 companies offer mobile payments and that are also not TRUE mobile payments.
The technology is quite enjoyed by Pakistanis both in rural and urban areas. The biggest obstacle is corruption and politicians itself who don't let people to get educated.
There also seemed to be an air of optimism about the prospects of Imran Khan becoming the next Prime Minister. I asked my taxi driver what might cause Imran Khan to lose and he mentioned if America does not want him, he wont become PM.
Here is an interview of Imran Khan with Julian Assange - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WacS98ATtIM
http://www.vice.com/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-guide-...
I'm not an expert on the topic, but if Karachi[1] can be regarded as "relatively safe", the Pakistan has bigger problems that I imagined.
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/30/karachi-ethnic-f...
Julian Assange interviews Imran Assange
