5 truths about the unconventional modern career path

Technological advancements and the "digital workplace" affect everything about how young professionals and seasoned job seekers mold their future career paths.

From traditional industries like finance or retail to flexible jobs at startups, today's career landscape looks drastically different than it did even as few as ten years ago. While technology is fundamentally changing the nature of many jobs, it's making others nearly obsolete and, on the other end of the spectrum, creating new and interesting fields that are slowly emerging as highly coveted, lucrative career goldmines.

A number of trends are on the rise, including a focus on STEM and big data, careers that centre around sustainability, and remote work. Below, reed.co.uk share a few truths about the modern career path and how its evolved over the course of the past decade.

1. Flexible/remote work is on the rise — but it's not ubiquitously accepted just yet

Many people consider living "the dream" to involve working remotely from any number of idyllic locations — a hammock on a scenic beach, a boutique coffee shop in a hip neighborhood downtown or even from bed, wearing pyjamas and sipping a cup of home-brewed tea.

This type of work environment is a possibility for many careers today, even within traditional, surprising industries such as law and even medicine. In 2011, a study conducted by Intuit found that one-tenth of the British workforce was already telecommuting at least some of the time. Remote work in general in the UK has increased by more than 30% over a 10-year period.

However, the trend hasn't fully taken flight quite yet. Despite the promising statistics cited above, the same study found that 62% of UK employees still commute to an office every day. And it seems as if priorities in the UK may differ from other regions around the world: While 59% of workers in Brazil would be willing to accept a lower salary for more flexible work options, only 28% of employees in the UK would make the same sacrifice.

Regardless, with mobile usage in the UK skyrocketing, it's clear that remote job opportunities abound in a wealth of industries, and the trend will likely increase in the coming years.

2. Tech-focused jobs can turn even a traditionally dull industry into a cutting-edge career

Perhaps a career in "data migration analysis" wouldn't have interested much of anyone outside of a very niche, tech-savvy circle ten years ago, but today, data is the name of the game for anyone in fields ranging from computer science to marketing.

Additionally, sustainability is a huge push for many industries, meaning that professionals and graduates with degrees in environmental matters have exponentially more job opportunities than their counterparts from a decade ago. Job titles such as director of energy, sustainability architect or carbon emissions analyst are becoming more and more common, and companies ranging from large corporations to small businesses — in essentially every industry imaginable — are seeking to capitalise on both the positive financial and social implications of an eco-friendly footprint.

If you're on the hunt for a job in such a field or within an energy-related industry, be sure to check out the open listings at reed.co.uk.

3. Productivity is more important than time spent in the office

More frequently than not, today's workplace emphasizes the quality of work produced, as opposed to the number of hours of face-time that employees put in. A recent report by Sodexo found that workers who are judged on output rather than hours worked tend to obtain higher levels of productivity.

This goes hand in hand with the trend of more flexible work options, as well as the tendency for office planners to focus on open floor plans, and the rise of co-working spaces. Many of these updates to the traditional workplace are directed toward millennial employees, who tend to favor collaborative work environments and cite personal learning and development as the number one priority when selecting a career, according to a recent PricewaterhouseCoopers report.

4. Online academics and resources are fundamentally changing advanced education

The trend of lifelong learning is increasingly common in today's digitally driven society. While heading back to school to get an advanced degree after the age of 40 used to mean becoming a social pariah in a traditional university atmosphere, today's online resources have made that mindset a thing of the past. Many online programs stem from extremely reputable universities and organisations and can provide as quality an education as one obtained in a classroom.

Whether you're seeking a mid-life pivot, hoping to pick up a new skill in order to advance to the next pay grade or making a complete about-face in your career, looking into online courses and programs — even free ones such as CodeAcademy — can pay off in spades.

If you're looking for a place to begin, reed.co.uk offers a wide breadth of resources for continuing your education or developing sought-after skills in nearly any industry.

5. STEM and data-driven jobs top the charts for lucrative career paths

Last year, the Office of National Statistics released the list of the highest-paid jobs in the UK. Unsurprisingly, many were tech-focused roles: Information technology directors came in fourth place, with air traffic controllers and rail engineers also making the top 10.

Tech and big data has infiltrated job descriptions from entry-level all the way to senior management in most industries you can name, so it's no secret that having technical skills in programming, data analysis, dev and design, engineering, etc. can pave the way for the career of your dreams — perhaps even that coveted job that you can perform from the comfort of your bed.

Do you have an unconventional career and tips to share for job seekers? Tell us in the comments.

BrandSpeak is a Mashable Studios program that allows advertisers to share their content with our audience. Mashable's news department was not involved in the creation of this content.

5 truths about the unconventional modern career path
by Rachel Johnson, mashable.com

http://mashable.com/2015/10/19/unconventional-careers-brandspeak/?utm_cid=p-ree-2-tw-main-bc#zCoGG76nCiqc

Karachi vice: inside the city torn apart by killings, extortion and terrorism

A shop set alight by rioters in Karachi. The city of close to 20 million people is plagued by ethnic and sectarian killings and kidnappings.
Shortly after 11pm on 8 June 2014, 10 men dressed in military uniforms split into two groups outside the Jinnah International airport in Karachi. Armed with automatic weapons, hand grenades and rocket‑launchers, they entered the complex, one group going over a perimeter wall and the other through an entrance generally reserved for top government officials and foreign dignitaries. The assault was tightly planned, and the men were prepared for a long siege. Some wore suicide vests under their uniforms. A few minutes later, Zille Hyder, a crime reporter for Geo, then Pakistan’s most popular news channel, heard an explosion from his home, around 10km away from the airport. Hyder had recently been told by a police contact that the intelligence services were anticipating an attack on the airport, so he called the Geo office to report the disturbance. His colleagues on the news desk immediately ran a ticker along the bottom of the screen announcing an explosion at the airport. It was Hyder’s evening off, but he got into his car and raced to Jinnah International. After 12 years of reporting, Hyder has become one of Karachi’s most respected TV journalists but the job has swallowed his life whole. He is on a Taliban hitlist; his friends are the police and criminals who feed him his stories; his phone is filled with hastily snapped crime scene photos of dead bodies. When Hyder arrived at the airport, around 20 minutes after he heard the blast, police had yet to cordon off the area and he quickly slipped inside. A violent battle was under way, as troops from the Airport Security Force exchanged fire with the militants. Inside, staff and passengers hid anywhere they could. Outside, on the runway, hundreds of terrified passengers were trapped on grounded planes. By around 1am hundreds more police and soldiers had arrived at the scene and sealed the airport complex, locking Hyder inside and the other journalists out. As the battle continued, television camera crews broadcast footage of smoke plumes rising from what looked like the main runway. Anchors speculated about what was happening inside. Journalists and photographers vied for information, calling police contacts and gleaning what they could about the battle in progress. Hyder, who claims that he was the only reporter inside the airport, used his phone to record videos and to text colleagues with information. This proved useful not just to viewers at home. As the battle was unfolding, Pakistan’s relentlessly competitive media did not hesitate to report everything as it happened. News tickers revealed which gates the army was entering from, where police were situated, and which areas were being cordoned off. Inside the airport, the militants were keeping up with the TV updates and adjusting their positions accordingly. “I accept this is the wrong thing,” Hyder said later, with a guilty laugh. “But what can I do? It’s my work.” Around 4am, an hour before dawn, the fighting stopped. Security forces had shot dead eight of the 10 militants; the last two killed themselves by detonating their suicide vests. Four airline employees had been killed, as well as 14 security forces. The death toll rose a few days later when the corpses of seven people were discovered inside the airport’s cold storage facility, frozen to death while they hid. The Pakistani branch of the Taliban, the Sunni-extremist TTP, claimed responsibility for the attack. The Taliban attack on Jinnah International airport in which more than 30 people died. Photograph: Rizwan Tabassum/AFP/Getty Images In the past decade and a half, terror attacks have become just another element of a crime wave in Karachi that is virtually an insurgency. In May, gunmen entered a bus and shot dead 46 Ismaili Shia Muslims; in 2011, 20 militants stormed a naval base; bombings of religious parades are so frequent that on public holidays the city is placed on high alert and mobile phone networks are shut down. When Pakistan gained independence in 1947, Karachi was a cosmopolitan coastal city of 500,000 people, that carried the hopes of this new nation. Sixty years on, it is one of the most violent places in the world. For the 23 million people who live there, crime has become a central part of life, as commonplace as traffic jams and power cuts. In 2013, at least 2,700 people were murdered, more than in any other city in the world. The wealthy have armed guards at their homes; even bakeries in the elite districts have metal detectors and weary security guards sitting outside, rifles slung across their shoulders. The Express Tribune, an English-language newspaper, publishes a crime map every day in its Karachi edition, under such headlines as “Shootings and raids” or “Mishaps and bodies found”. It is not just the high rate of crime that marks Karachi out, but the entanglement of crime with the very highest echelons of politics: the gangsters who stand for parliament, the politicians who sanction street killings. Karachi’s criminal syndicates do not limit themselves to slums. The bhatta (extortion) economy, is worth billions of rupees. A few years ago, I visited a poor district in the east of the city, and met a local youth leader who told me that most families spent at least a third of their income on water sold from tanks; the “water mafia” siphoned off the mains supply and charged outrageous rates to sell it back to people. The “transport mafia” has repeatedly stymied attempts to build a proper public transportation system. At some point, most citizens have to do business with criminals – to buy a house, start a business, get running water, take a bus. In recent years, militant groups have taken advantage of the city’s lawlessness to establish a foothold, effectively taking control of certain areas. Now, suicide bombings and violent attacks on state targets have been added to the regular gun battles between rival criminal gangs and the steady stream of targeted killings of political party activists. It falls to Hyder and the city’s crime reporters to make sense of the throbbing disorder of Karachi. The fact that crime has infiltrated every aspect of life there puts them in the curious position of being minor celebrities; Hyder regularly receives fan mail and is often recognised in public. The Karachi airport attack shows that reporters can sometimes go overboard – but deciphering the shifts in ethnic conflict and gangland alliances is a vital job. The fate of Pakistan depends on Karachi, the megalopolis that provides a quarter of the nation’s GDP, and the fate of Karachi will be decided by the power struggles between its gangsters, terrorists, police and political groups. Where Hyder’s right forearm meets his wrist, there is a bullet. Within minutes of my first meeting with him this spring, he pointed it out to me. “It’s a very exciting job,” he laughed, as he traced the outline of a small, hard bulge lodged just under the skin. Hyder acquired the bullet three years ago, while filming a night-time shootout between two militant groups in Sohrab Goth, a Taliban stronghold in northern Karachi. He was caught in the crossfire, and was rushed to hospital, where a surgeon managed to remove three of the four bullets lodged in his arm. His TV channel Geo made the event into a cause celebre, putting up huge posters bearing Hyder’s image. “While chaos, bullets, and explosions cause most people to flee, Geo’s field staff is fearless and brave,” read the caption. “Taking their life in their hands, they fulfil their duty.” In recent years, much of Hyder’s reporting has focused on the Karachi police. Overstretched and underfunded, the force has just 30,000 officers. (London’s Metropolitan police employs nearly 50,000 for a population of 8.3 million.) Since 2013, the force has been engaged in an effort to bring the city under control. Announcing the mission, known simply as the Karachi operation, interior minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan told reporters that the police and the Pakistan Rangers – a paramilitary force under the direct control of the Ministry of the Interior – would focus on the “four heinous crimes of target-killing, kidnapping, extortion and terrorism”. The result has been a dramatic increase in extrajudicial killings or “encounters” as they are euphemistically known. Since the operation began, 800 people have been killed by police. Officers, who generally claim they are acting in self-defence, are rarely held to account. Hyder says that he has covered more than 3,000 police “encounters” over the years. Despite the questionable legality of these raids, police often invite journalists along, eager to show a disillusioned public that they are at least doing something. It is a beat that has made Hyder a target for terrorists. In November 2014, he was told by a police contact that his name was on a hitlist drawn up by the Tehreek-e-Taliban Swat (TTS), an offshoot of the main terror group in the country. The TTS believes that Hyder’s reporting on police killings of militants glorifies the force. It also considers Hyder a heretic: like 20% of Pakistan’s population, he is Shia. Hyder is a small man, very thin, with hooded eyes and a sharp gaze. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the threats to his life, there is something evasive about him. He is always reaching for one of his two phones, lighting a cigarette, surveying his surroundings, leaning sideways as if trying to avoid being seen. If you ask a basic question, like his age, he will give three different answers on three different days. (He told me 32, 33, and 38 – but gave his date of birth as 1974, which would make him 41.) Yet he is obsessed with the idea of reporting the truth, regardless of who it upsets. Despite his cagey manner, his Facebook page is full of selfies; at press conferences, at protests, sitting in his office, out for dinner. “It’s life, not just a job,” he told me one evening, flicking through WhatsApp messages from police officers. Later that night, we went for a drive. A rolled up prayer mat sat under the windscreen of Hyder’s car and black netting blocked out the side windows. Since being placed on the hit-list, Hyder is wary of attracting unwanted attention. As we drove through the city, his phones rang constantly. One police officer texted to say that a big shipment of heroin from Balochistan had been intercepted, another to say that two gangsters had been arrested and a cache of weapons seized in a separate raid. Crime reporter Zille Hyder at the scene of a gun battle between police and militants in Ali Town, Karachi. Photograph: Qaisar Khan/Commissioned for the Guardian Hyder stopped the car at Sea View, one of Karachi’s beaches. A group of teenagers behind us were roasting corn over a barrow. Small children ran up and down the side of the beach. In this anonymous space, Hyder seemed to relax. “You see the lights at sea? It’s ships and boats,” said Hyder. “If you travel six hours from here, you reach Bombay. In 2008, the men who attacked the Taj hotel took the boat from Karachi.” To Hyder, the city is a living tapestry of crime past and present; even a serene ocean view has a thread of violence running through it. On 8 August 1979, a young student activist named Altaf Hussain stood before a rally at the tomb of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan, and set fire to the country’s flag. Following decades of ethnic tension, it was an act that marked a new phase in the inter-ethnic violence that would eventually come to define Karachi. The party Hussain went on to form, the Muttahida Quami Movement (MQM), represented Mohajirs, Urdu-speaking Muslims who came to Pakistan from India during partition. For years, the Mohajirs had clashed with the local Sindhi population, who resented the fact that Mohajirs – who tended to be educated, and already spoke Urdu, the new lingua franca – easily slotted into government jobs. Now, with the creation of the MQM, the violence evolved from spontaneous riots into something altogether more organised. In the 1980s, at the same time that the MQM was emerging as a political force, millions of Pashtun refugees from Soviet-occupied Afghanistan arrived in Karachi. Sindhis, Pashtuns and Mohajirs fought over land, influence, and political power. Street warfare broke out in parts of the city. Combatants were equipped with Kalashnikovs and sometimes rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns. In 1992, the army responded with Operation Clean Up, in which thousands of people were killed or went missing. It is generally regarded as the bloodiest period in the city’s history. Most political parties – including the main parties of national government – maintain an armed wing in Karachi. Often, they operate in conjunction with one of the city’s many criminal syndicates. The MQM has long had a militant wing that is said to torture and assassinate opponents. Its trademark is putting corpses – sometimes those of journalists – in body bags (or bori) and then dumping them in vacant properties or drains, ready to be found by members of the public. In a political meeting in London captured on video in 2009, Hussain – who denies that his party is violent – suggested that his political opponents in Pakistan should get themselves measured for body bags. In order to get closer to the stories he is reporting, Hyder has built close relationships with prominent gangsters. Lyari is Karachi’s biggest slum, a dusty and crime-ridden area that has been the centre of an intermittent gang war for over a decade. Until recently, Lyari’s kingpin was a self-styled gentleman gangster named Uzair Baloch, who regularly hosted international journalists at his Scarface-style villa. Over the last few years, he has sought access to mainstream politics, plastering huge posters of himself around Lyari. Some years ago, Baloch tried to bribe Hyder to abandon a story about one of his associates. Hyder politely refused, and the two soon became friends. Baloch allowed Hyder safe access to Lyari. For reporters unwilling to befriend these criminal elements – and some refuse to, on principle – it was inaccessible. “Lyari is Karachi’s most dangerous place, but it’s my favourite place because Uzair is my very best friend,” Hyder told me. (He is given to superlatives.) In December 2014, the two men went on holiday to Dubai together. It was partly a working trip – Baloch had promised Hyder news – but partly for leisure. Hyder says that during the trip Baloch, aware that his political fortunes were turning, told him that he intended to be arrested in Dubai. “He doesn’t want to be in jail in Pakistan because he will be killed in a fake encounter,” Hyder told me. “In Dubai he can stay alive.” Hyder flew back to Karachi, and within days, Baloch was arrested in Dubai. From jail, a few months later, Baloch reportedly confessed to carrying out assassinations on behalf of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). It was a spectacular turnaround in fortunes for a man who was once untouchable. Now that Baloch is no longer at large, Hyder relies on lower‑ranking gangsters for his stories. Many have gone to ground because of the current police operation in Karachi. Instead of fleeing to other parts of the country, well-connected criminals hide out in the wealthy districts of Defence and Clifton, where high walls and wide avenues provide cover. The city is vast: gun battles might consume one area while life goes on as normal elsewhere. Hyder grew up in the middle-class area of Gulshan-e-Iqbal, where he lived with his parents and four sisters. He studied English at the University of Karachi. After graduating, he had a brief and unsuccessful stint running a hairdressing salon with a friend. Then he dedicated his time to seeking out a media job and, in 2003, was hired by Geo TV to work on the entertainment desk. On the side, he began to work as a researcher on a programme called National Investigation Cell that reconstructed crimes. “I’d go to the locations and follow up thoroughly even in no-go areas,” Hyder said. “I didn’t feel at all afraid of going to dangerous spots to discover more. So my bosses thought, ‘OK, he should be in the news.’ My dreams came true. God always fulfils my dreams.” The Geo TV office is situated in the heart of Karachi’s business district, on Chundrigar Road. It is set back from the street by a series of roadblocks. As is standard at media offices in Pakistan, armed security guards and metal detectors obstruct the entrance. One afternoon, I took a rickety wood-panelled lift to the news desk on the fifth floor. Marooned on an island of empty desks – journalists start work late in Pakistan – was Talha Hashmi, senior reporter at Geo and a long-time colleague of Hyder’s. An amiable man with a neatly trimmed beard, he was busy receiving news updates via WhatsApp or telephone, making calls to check facts, and writing news tickers. Police, terrorists, and even gang leaders are all keen to make it onto the tickers. In 2003, when Lyari was consumed by a brutal turf war, gangsters from each side would call contacts at TV stations to get them to broadcast tickers about the murder of prominent opponents. Senior police officer Rao Anwar, the man in charge of the operation to bring Karachi under control, is also a regular fixture. Every crime reporter I met had a wry laugh about Anwar’s eagerness to be personally credited as the killer of suspected militants. Geo was established in 2002, after the military ruler General Pervez Musharraf allowed the licensing of private broadcasters. Until then, there was only one news channel, the state-run PTV. Now, there are scores. For most of the last decade, Geo has been the most popular. There is no shortage of news in Karachi but, on Geo, any lull is considered unacceptable. Anchors hype up the smallest developments and the screen frenetically cuts to different crime scenes. (When I lived in Karachi in 2012, I once saw a ticker on Geo announcing an explosion near my house. I cancelled my evening plans. Later, it transpired that the “explosion” was a car engine backfiring.) Flick to any of Pakistan’s other news channels, and the experience is much the same. They are competing on the same ground: who can be fastest and most exciting. “It’s a rat-race,” said Hashmi. “Now there are so many channels, and in the craze to be the fastest, you have to compromise.” The lives of Karachi’s journalists have been at risk for years, but terrorist groups – which became much more active in the years following September 11 – added a violent new element. Many reporters avoid the subject of terrorism altogether, while others use neutral terminology: “banned organisations” for groups and “militants” or “activists” for individuals. Hyder reports on terrorism, as his place on the TTS hitlist shows, but tends to use the term “activist” even in private conversation. Journalists also face a threat from the security services and political groups. In 2011, Hyder’s colleague at Geo, Wali Khan Babur, was shot dead by activists from the MQM. “For crime reporters, life is calculated,” Hyder said, as we drove to dinner in Clifton. It was evening and the city was cloaked in humid darkness. Hyder’s mood was morose; a contrast to his usual pronouncements about how lucky he is. Hyder’s parents don’t like his job. Neither does his wife, who works in a bank and cares for their two young daughters, aged one and three. “I cannot move anywhere easily,” he said. “I don’t often sit with friends, I don’t go to parties. I have to be very careful.” A few months ago, when he took his three-year-old daughter to register at school, the head teacher recognised him. “I don’t want to receive threats or cause problems for other children,” she said. She would admit his daughter if he agreed to one condition: never to collect or drop her himself. Hyder had no choice but to agree. Increasingly, old friends are slipping away, afraid to be seen with him in public. “I used to play cricket, but now, people don’t want to play with me. If I try to get a friend to go shopping, he’ll refuse – not outright, but they’ll make excuses: ‘I’m busy today.’ It is very painful.” The police and gangsters to whom he often refers as his “very best friends” are a poor substitute. “That’s just for work,” he said. “It’s part of life and a part of the job. If you’re not friends with any gangsters, how is it possible to get criminal news? If you don’t have friends in the police, who will disclose anything to you? True friendship is a different thing.” He was silent for some time, the background chorus of honking horns and traffic noises filling the gap. “I don’t trust anyone.” One morning I woke up to a WhatsApp message from Hyder asking how I was. A few minutes later, my phone buzzed again. I opened the message to find multiple pictures of corpses, close-ups of the bloodied faces of five bearded men, staring blankly into the camera lens. “Police encounter on TTP militants in Sohrab Goth last night,” he typed. A few minutes later, he sent through some cheerful selfies of himself in his new office. A few weeks earlier, Hyder had quit his job at Geo after 11 years, frustrated by diving ratings and long delays in salary payments. These difficulties began when Geo faced off against Pakistan’s powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency after a senior presenter named Hamid Mir was shot. Geo alleged that the attack was ordered from within the ISI. The agency fiercely denied this claim. Geo’s changing fortunes were a sharp reminder that freedom of speech in Pakistan only goes so far. Like many others, Hyder was tempted to join a new network, called Bol TV. It offered handsome salary packages and plush offices, with an on-site barber and gym. There was serious money behind it, although no one I asked seemed to know exactly where it came from. Vans, auto-rickshaws, and billboards all over Karachi proclaimed it: “Pakistan’s imminent number one media enterprise.” Hyder’s new channel was not yet on air, and its launch date kept being pushed further and further back. During the day, he was at the Bol office, building up a team – cameramen, junior reporters, and drivers – and assembling an archive of stock footage of politicians and key public institutions. But he continued to spend his nights circling the streets in his car, waiting for phone calls from police. A small matter like not having a working channel to air his findings did not stop him covering his beat. “I have to keep up my contacts, I’m always the first,” he said when we met that evening. I asked if he had missed reporting since leaving Geo a fortnight earlier. He nodded, his frustration visible. “Oh, very much.” The current anti-crime initiative seems to be working. According to official statistics, at least, the city-wide murder rate is significantly reduced. (970 murders were reported in the first half of 2015, 57% less than in the same period in 2014.) Of course, this does not include the hundreds of people shot dead by the security forces. Police justify these illegal killings by saying that Karachi is in a state of war and that any deaths are an unfortunate result of armed clashes. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, an NGO, has brought several cases against senior officers. Hyder has a complex relationship with the police. In 2011, he reported on a bungled search operation in the north-western district of Orangi Town, in which innocent people were arrested. Police demanded that Hyder hold the story. When he refused, he was badly beaten by officers. (The camera was still running and footage of the assault was broadcast on Geo.) Hyder and his cameraman were detained for seven hours. Nonetheless, he was affronted when I suggested that police might sometimes kill the wrong people. “If police are involved in wrong things, I report it, but above 90% of encounters are genuine,” he said. Late one cloudy, starless night, I accompanied Hyder to meet a police contact in Sohrab Goth, the “no-go zone” where he was shot in 2012, and the frontline of Karachi law enforcement’s battle with religious militants. As we left the city centre, the lights went out: Pakistan’s energy crisis means that only affluent areas have constant electricity. When we pulled up at the police station, the entrance was cut off by an assault course of sandbags and cement blocks. We parked and walked through a side gate and into a small, badly paved courtyard, past a cell with a stained floor where three prisoners squatted. In a back room with cracked paint and visible wiring, station house officer Shoaib Shaikh sat on a bed, chain-smoking. He was a large unsmiling man in his 40s, with a bushy moustache and huge bags under his eyes. Shaikh has shot dead scores of militants in Karachi, including some TTP leaders, earning him the nickname Shoaib Shooter. In February 2014, a case was registered against him for killing a student leader in an encounter. He was briefly suspended, but the case was dropped and he returned to work. He showed us a picture on his phone of a TTS leader, and I asked if this was someone he had arrested. “Arrested, and killed,” said Shaikh. He said that he had arrested one Afghan Taliban leader who continues to coordinate activities from jail. He believes that his only option is to kill terrorists when he can. Despite the current crackdown, money is tight. “This job is very difficult. We have no support from the government, no facilities. We are fighting hand grenades and rocket launchers with Kalashnikovs.” Police officer Shoaib Sheikh – nicknamed Shoaib Shooter – who admits to killing scores of militants, shows a death threat texted to his mobile. Photograph: Qaisar Khan/Commissioned for The Guardian Since 2013, Shaikh has been a prominent target for the TTP. The threat to his life is so serious that he lives at the police station, leaving once or twice a month to visit his family. He showed me a recent text message from an Afghan phone number. “This is the last warning for you. If you don’t stop killing our workers, you are finished.” He took another drag from his cigarette. The power cut out and we were plunged momentarily into complete darkness. As the generator kicked in and the lights flickered back on, I looked around the room. Among the heaps of papers were small signs of a life lived here: a box of cornflakes, a bottle of Gaviscon. Mounted on the wall was a screen showing CCTV footage from outside, so Shaikh could spot intruders from his bed. Faced with the threat of death at the hands of the Taliban, many people – police officers, journalists, politicians – quietly leave the country. But Shaikh is defiant. When I asked if he would give up, his entire demeanour changed, his eyes flashing, his body tense and combative. “I will fight the war on terrorists, against the criminals. They say they are fighting a jihad, but this is not a jihad. Pakistan has good people, and Islam is a good religion. These people show only the evil face. I’m happy to die, because it is good work.” Another officer ran into the room to say that two criminals had been arrested. Hyder translated for me: “They were snatching phones, and the public beat them.” Minutes later, the two men, small and thin, were marched into the room, eyes blindfolded, bloodied bandages around their heads. The blood-stained collars of their shalwar kameez had been hastily washed. I wondered whether it was the public who beat them. Shaikh reached for a clipboard and began to ask questions. They answered obediently; one was at school, the other a mechanic. They were both 17. They confessed to stealing phones and cash. One admitted to owning a 9mm pistol. They were marched out of the room. Zille Hyder with a suspected robber at a police station in Sohrab Goth, a Taliban stronghold in Karachi. Photograph: Qaisar Khan/Commissioned for the Guardian “Nine millimetre is a very famous pistol. It’s used by target killers,” said Hyder. Shaikh leaned over and reached under his pillow. He pulled out a gun and handed it to me. “Like this.” On the drive home, Hyder was thoughtful. “Everybody wants to enjoy the outside with family and friends, but if you’re on the hitlist, you can’t move.” Sometimes he and Shaikh drive out to the sea for an evening, under cover of darkness, to escape from the limits of their daily lives. Crime in Karachi entangles the most unexpected areas in its web. In late May, the New York Times published an investigation into the Pakistani technology company Axact, which funded Bol TV. (The exact size of its stake is unclear.) The report uncovered evidence that Axact was selling fake university degrees online. Journalists alleged there were more than 370 fake American schools and universities. These institutions had glossy websites offering degrees in dozens of disciplines, video testimonials, and staff lists. But the report alleged that these institutions were completely fictional, existing only as a collection of stock photos on Axact’s websites. The company’s CEO, Shoaib Shaikh (who coincidentally shares a name with the Sohrab Goth police officer), was arrested, and Bol’s broadcasting license revoked. Shaikh and four other Axact officials were charged with fraud, forgery and illegal electronic money transfers. The charges were later expanded to include money laundering and violating Pakistan’s Electronic Crimes Act. Shaikh and those allegedly involved deny any wrongdoing, and the case is yet to go to trial. In an online statement, Shaikh alleged that this was a conspiracy “to break our resolve, to derail Bol, to shut down Axact”. Pakistan’s broadcast media relished the chance to bring this new rival down to size. There were allegations of money laundering, of servers being used to air porn films. Prominent journalists hired by the channel began to jump ship. The brand new media titan was crippled before it had even launched. In some photographs of Shaikh being led away in handcuffs, Hyder, reporting on the case, stands at his side. For Hyder, who has made a career of delicately balancing relationships with law enforcement and criminals, Bol’s fall from grace was devastating. On Facebook, he posted messages and links calling for his followers to stand with Bol. Privately, he felt differently. “I was reporting on the scandal, but working for Bol, so I had to stand with another face,” he told me over the phone in September. “My friends and family members were asking me: what about the porn films? What about the fake degrees? What about the money laundering? My father asked me why I had a job there when they are involved in porn films. I had no answer.” With the criminal charges against Bol in process, the government refused to grant a broadcasting licence. Staff continued to go into the office, even going out to film news items, despite having no channel to air them on. Some videos went online, but in a country where only 10% of the population has internet access, this felt futile. Hyder wrote to me: “These are very difficult days in my life. My news is not going on air. I cannot send tickers. I am disturbed, I am mentally disturbed. My family is facing financial difficulties and for me to not be on air, on screen, it’s very difficult.” In September 2015, as the Karachi operation marked its second anniversary, Hyder left Bol and started a new job as senior crime reporter at another new venture, Channel 24. It was a homecoming – he had an audience and a renewed sense of purpose. He is now turning his attention to the times when the police get it wrong. He spent much of his time off speaking to the families of people wrongfully killed in encounters. As police killings of militants stepped up in mid-2013, many terrorists fled Karachi. Police began to victimise their families, demanding bribes. Some of those who refused to pay were killed. Hyder gathered evidence of 50 such deaths. His “best friends” in the police force are not happy. “I am doing my work,” Hyder said, firmly. “I am not a servant of police officers.” The police claim that they have halted the Talibanisation of Karachi. Bombings have been less frequent in 2015, though targeted killings of police and media workers continue. I asked Hyder if he was still on the Taliban hitlist, or if six quiet months without regular television appearances had reduced the threat to his life. “Yes, I’m still in the fourth position on the hitlist.” He burst out laughing. “I am very proud.” He paused. “When you are on a terrorist hitlist, everybody knows that you’re a real journalist.”
by Samira Shackle, theguardian.com

Interview: Mahathir Mohamad by Joyce Lee

Mahathir Mohamad is the former prime minister of Malaysia. He began his career as a medical doctor before entering politics, and remains the country’s longest-serving premier. From 1981 to 2003, he held office as prime minister and president of the United Malays National Organisation (UMNO), the leading party of the government coalition still in power today.

The Diplomat met with Mahathir in Putrajaya, the administrative capital created during his tenure, to discuss his legacy and Malaysia’s direction.

I wanted to begin with an issue that bookended your prime ministership: racial tensions in Malaysia. In the late 1970s, you gave a speech at the UN calling Malaysia a “multi-racial time bomb…from the colonial past.” At the end of your tenure, you warned that racial tensions were on the rise. How did your policies shape racial tensions and what is the impact today?

This country has a mixed population, and the people who live in this country are so different from each other. Different ethnically, different in terms of culture, language, and different in terms of economic achievement. The difference is very big, and normally differences cause people to confront each other or dislike each other, to fight against each other. So Malaysia is a country where the possibility of racial fights would be very common.

What I think is my greatest achievement is that during the 22 years I was prime minister there were no racial conflicts so serious that there would be clashes. There were no clashes. I had the support of all communities, which is the reason why I always got a two-thirds majority during election. There were still racial tensions, but I think it was less during the 22 years of my prime ministership.

But after, the others did not handle this problem well. They thought that by being liberal, they would ensure all races would be happy. But they did not. If you are liberal, the extremists take advantage. The extremists in each race took advantage of the liberalism to bring up racial issues. Because now you can discuss and say what you like because of the liberal attitude, freedom of speech. Therefore, they made people conscious of their differences, and they began to fall behind these extreme people. So now racial tension has come up again.

If subduing racial tensions was your greatest achievement, what was your greatest regret?

Now, my one regret is for the economic achievement of each race. I wanted them to achieve equally the same status: There would be, of course, rich Chinese, rich Indian, and rich Malay, and there would be poor Chinese, poor Indian, and poor Malay. So there will not be the impression that in Malaysia the Malays are poor and backward, while the Chinese are rich and advanced and they live in the cities. That is a really bad situation; that will create clashes. But we brought them together all to be in the city, all to be well-educated, all to perform better. And because Malays are rather weak in business, we gave them more opportunities. Affirmative action.

Does this relate to your statement last year that Malays are lazy? This caused some controversy, particularly in reference to the current administration’s decision to abolish English-language teaching of science and mathematics in 2009.

I speak the truth. Malays are lazy. We give them opportunities; they do not seize the opportunities. But what was important about the education was that I wanted to use English for the teaching of science and math. [The current administration] reversed it and went to teaching science and math in Malay. And Malay is not a language of science. Other subjects are static, but science moves.

So it seems that economic development and race relations are intrinsically tied. This brings up the question of Wawasan 2020, the guiding policy to make Malaysia a fully industrialized country by 2020, a part of your legacy.

The country was growing during my time, most of the time. There were downturns. But the country was arrested because of improper handling, because of focus not so much on economic development, but on political survival. Each prime minister wants to survive, and they thought they would survive by playing up other issues instead of concentrating on economic development. And therefore the growth slowed down. And when there was racial tension, bad administration, corruption, et cetera, the economy shrinks. So we will not achieve Vision 2020 to become a fully developed country. We will not now. You can see the currency is depreciated, stock market is in a bad shape, people are generally unhappy.

You’ve not been shy about your wish to see Prime Minister Najib Razak go. In August, you wrote on your blog that democracy is dead, a reflection of the cabinet reshuffle in late July, the crippling of the attorney-general’s investigation of missing 1MDB funds, and the co-option of members of the Public Accounts Committee. Just a few weeks later, you appeared at the Bersih 4.0 protests to advocate the prime minister’s removal. Can you expand on your decision to attend in light of your opinion that democracy is dead?

Well, that is a kind of last resort. I feel the need to express my opinion, and since I hold the same view as Bersih, with regard to the removal of the prime minister, I went. It’s not a racial thing. The people at Bersih come from all communities. It’s not a Chinese demonstration against a Malay government. It’s not racist at all. So I went to express my support for what they are demanding.

Does that include Bersih’s other demands, such as electoral reforms, the right to protest, and more transparency?

I’m not against those things, but during my time, there were no protests. There was no Bersih. People were happy to participate in elections. They didn’t dispute the results of elections. It was only after I stepped down that there was Bersih, that [its supporters] demonstrated and made all these demands. These are things that happened after I stepped down. During my time people didn’t complain about elections. There may be extraneous people who will always complain, but to have a general demonstration like that, there was none.

What is your opinion of the counter-demonstration that followed Bersih 4.0, the so-called “red-shirt rally” in September?

That was organized by the government. They turned the Bersih demonstration into a racial thing, Chinese against Malays, which it is not. But they have to divert the attention of the demands of Bersih on 1MDB to something else, and they made race an issue. This is very dangerous, but the government wants to get people to show support for them.

Malaysia’s current credit rating is still A3 at Moody’s. But, as you mentioned, the ringgit has rapidly depreciated, public and household debt are very high, and the 1MDB scandal has cast political uncertainty over the country. Do you see a credit downgrade ahead?

It might happen. The way things are going, it might happen. Because now to pay our debts, which were made in foreign currencies including the U.S. dollar, we need more ringgit. And to make more ringgit, we need to have a good economy. But we are not having a good economy. We are not growing as fast; we are not getting richer, we are actually getting poorer.

How would it be possible to raise investor confidence in Malaysia?

At the moment I think if the prime minister is not there, confidence will return.

Would it be so simple? What about legal redress if he were to step down, or the repairing of supervisory and judiciary powers to check future scandals?

All these things can be done, provided the prime minister is not there.

Do you feel optimistic or pessimistic for such an outcome?

I’m very pessimistic.

It seems that there is a political stalemate, and further public protests are unlikely.

There should be a vote of non-confidence. But that all depends on the members of parliament being conscious about their duties. The members of parliament are indebted or obliged or owe something to the prime minister, so they are not going to do it.

Then what recourse is left to citizens?

The next election. Three years for the next election. Even then there is no certainty because money goes a long way toward changing peoples’ minds. And the people who are close to the prime minister don’t have money; the prime minister has a lot of money. He admitted so.

Do you feel personally invested in the outcome of these events? Tracing your career and your writings, it seems that the progress of the country, the progress of Malays and Malaysia, has been a lifelong project.

Every citizen would like to see his country prosper so that he can enjoy his life. Some are able to do something; some are not able to do anything. But I found myself in a position to do something, so I have become prominent. And since then, people seem to have accepted some of the things that I say. So I have a better chance to do something than most ordinary people. I am an ordinary citizen, but with better possibility of doing something.

Do you have a vision for what sort of leadership you would like to see?

A leader must be concerned about the country, not about himself. You have to, to a certain extent, preserve your position, but the preservation is possibly because it enables you to do things that are good for the country.

Do you have anybody in mind as the next leader?

Well, I think normally it would be the former deputy president of UMNO. But now, of course, things are very free.

So no comment on specific names?

Maybe the former deputy prime minister.

If you were to reprint your 1986 treatise The Challenge this year with a new chapter posing the modern challenge to Malaysia, what would that chapter say?

I have always thought that leadership would be concerned with getting on with the tasks of a leader. But I now find that being a leader alone is not enough. The kind of leadership we have should be one that has the capacity to focus not on himself, but on what is good for the country. Now I find that not anybody can be a leader. You need somebody that is dedicated to the cause of doing something for the country.

I wanted to ask about the major international frameworks facing Malaysia, including the U.S.-led Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the China-backed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. What are your thoughts on these agreements, and in particular, Malaysia’s balance between the U.S. and China?

During my time, the concentration in foreign policy was to be friendly with all countries. But in particular we paid attention to the smaller countries, developing countries. We initiated South-South organization. I have always been critical of the U.S. because of U.S. policy. The U.S. tends to have a finger in every country, and when they come in, there will be trouble. You see this in the Middle East and elsewhere. They wanted to come to Malaysia also, but during my time I rejected their approach.

Now they have proposed TPP, as you know. And TPP is a device for them; obviously it is for their own good. And what they want to do is open up markets everywhere so that they can come in. The opposite is that “you can come into our country,” but we don’t have the strength to go there. We don’t have the products to sell there, whereas they have everything. They have the capital, they have the knowhow, they can buyout small or big companies here. And eventually, they will rule all the businesses. And that means also political control.

Many think that Najib’s administration will pass the TPP. Do you agree?

He doesn’t study the implications enough. Even if he does study, his policy is to be friendly with Americans. So he is prepared to disregard the national interest in favor of being friendly with America and complying with American ideas.

Regarding China, what I thought was very interesting was your proposal of the East Asian Economic Caucus in December 1990. This pioneered an identity of East Asia, moving away from the Cold War-era concepts of Southeast Asia and Northeast Asia. Now, ideas of Asia are dominated by China. How should Malaysia posture itself toward China?

Well, the EAEC, or East Asian Economic Caucus or Community, was suggested because of the failure of GATT, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Because of that failure, we found ourselves having to confront other countries, economies of the West. But they enhanced their strength by Europe coming together, North America coming together. If Malaysia is to counter their moves, we need to strengthen ourselves. We need a bigger bloc. And that bigger bloc should be East Asia. Not just Southeast Asia because it’s too small, too weak. Southeast Asia plus East Asia will be very powerful. Then we can go to any meeting and speak with a powerful voice, with one voice. But of course the Americans shot down that plan to Japan, Korea, Singapore, and Indonesia – “they must not do this” – because America does not want anybody contesting them. So we couldn’t go ahead with that.

Then China emerged as a very powerful economy. Our policy is to be friendly with all countries, but we think China is the counterbalance to America. So we developed a policy of being friendly to China. China and Malaysia have very good relations.

What about South China Sea issues?

Well, that is a problem, and we will try to deal with that.

Are you worried about competition from other Southeast Asian countries, like Indonesia, Thailand, and now Vietnam as a new “tiger economy”?

No, we had a policy that says “prosper thy neighbor.” We believe that if the neighbors are prosperous, they give you less trouble. If they are poor, they tend to migrate to our country, create a lot of problems and confrontations, et cetera. But if they are prosperous, we can benefit by exporting to them, trading with them. I think we had an edge because we started earlier. Despite everything, we were better industrialized than Indonesia or Philippines or Vietnam.

But now, because the administration does not focus on economic development, we are falling back. We are not growing as fast as Indonesia, as fast as Philippines, as fast as Vietnam. That was the government’s mistake. Because they either don’t know or they don’t care whether the country grows or not. So our neighbors, when they have become prosperous, they will benefit from our lack of ability to compete.

It seems your mood today is overall quite pessimistic on Malaysia’s reputation, its state of democracy, and economic prospects. Is there something to give Malaysians hope?

The people are very good people. Malaysians are very tolerant. In other countries, with the kind of divisions in terms of race and culture and economic wellbeing, there would be confrontations, there would be violence. But here, they may have tensions between races, but it doesn’t escalate to the point of violence.

So you have faith that, even with racial tensions rising, there will not be violence?

Unless of course somebody does something very wrong. One has to remember that, way back, there was a communist uprising in this country to overthrow the government by violence. It has happened before. In 1969, there was race violence. But generally, people in Malaysia here are quite peaceful.

Interview: Mahathir Mohamad
by Joyce Lee, thediplomat.com

Joyce Lee is currently a master’s student at the London School of Economics, completing a dual degree in international affairs between PKU and LSE.

US exploring deal to limit Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal

7The Obama administration is exploring a deal with Pakistan that would limit the scope of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, the fastest-growing on Earth. The talks are the first in the decade since one of the founders of its nuclear programme, Abdul Qadeer Khan, was caught selling the country’s nuclear technology around the world. The talks are being held in advance of the arrival of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in Washington next week. They focus on American concern that Pakistan might be on the verge of deploying a small tactical nuclear weapon — explicitly modeled on weapons the United States put in Europe during the Cold War to deter a Soviet invasion — that would be far harder to secure than the country’s arsenal of larger weapons. Read: Pakistan likely to secure civil nuclear deal with US: report But outside experts familiar with the discussions, which have echoes of the Obama administration’s first approaches to Iran on its nuclear programme three years ago, expressed deep skepticism that Pakistan is ready to put limits on a program that is the pride of the nation, and that it regards as its only real defense against India. The discussions are being led by Peter R Lavoy, a longtime intelligence expert on the Pakistani programme who is now on the staff of the National Security Council. At the White House on Thursday, Josh Earnest, the press secretary, was asked about the talks and broke from the administration’s previous position of refusing to comment. “A deal like the one that’s been discussed publicly is not something that’s likely to come to fruition next week,” he said. “But the United States and Pakistan are regularly engaged in a dialogue about the importance of nuclear security. And I would anticipate that that dialogue would include conversations between the leaders of our two countries.” The central element of the proposal, according to other officials and outside experts, would be a relaxation of strict controls put on Pakistan by the Nuclear Suppliers Group, a loose affiliation of nations that tries to control the proliferation of weapons. Read: Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal could become world’s third-biggest: report “If Pakistan would take the actions requested by the United States, it would essentially amount to recognition of rehabilitation and would essentially amount to parole,” said George Perkovich, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who has maintained contacts with the Pakistani nuclear establishment. “I think it’s worth a try,” Perkovich said. “But I have my doubts that the Pakistanis are capable of doing this.” David Ignatius, a columnist for The Washington Post, first disclosed the exploratory talks in a column a week ago. Since then, several other officials and outside experts have talked in more detail about the effort, although the White House has refused to comment. The activity of Abdul Qadeer Khan, who lives in retirement in a comfortable neighborhood in Islamabad after many years of house arrest, prompted more than a decade of American-led punishment of Pakistan’s nuclear enterprises. He ran what amounted to the world’s most sophisticated black market in the equipment needed to make nuclear fuel, and he did business with Iran, North Korea and Libya. When Libya turned over the equipment it bought, in late 2003, it included a nearly complete design for one of China’s first nuclear weapons. Read: No choice: Pakistan obliged to develop nukes, says Aizaz Pakistani officials denied that any of the country’s leaders knew of Qadeer Khan’s black market activities, a story American officials did not believe because some of the equipment was shipped on Pakistani Air Force cargo planes. While Qadeer Khan is not under formal restrictions today, he has not left Pakistan in years and has been prohibited from talking to most outsiders. Even before entering office, President Obama was interested in addressing the Pakistani nuclear problem, considered by most proliferation experts to be the most dangerous in the world. But until now, most efforts to manage the problem have been covert. During the Bush administration, the United States spent as much as $100 million on a highly classified program to help secure the country’s nuclear arsenal, helping with physical security and the training of Pakistani security personnel. Those efforts continued in the Obama years, with State Department, Energy Department and intelligence officials meeting secretly, in locales around the world, with senior Pakistani officials from the Strategic Plans Division, which controls the arsenal. They used those sessions to argue to the Pakistanis that fielding the small, short-range nuclear weapons, which Pakistan designed to use against an invading Indian ground force, would be highly risky. Read: Pakistan seeking US cooperation on civil nuclear energy American officials have told Congress they are increasingly convinced that most of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal is under good safeguards, with warheads separated from delivery vehicles and a series of measures in place to guard against unauthorised use. But they fear the smaller weapons are easier to steal, or would be easier to use should they fall into the hands of a rogue commander. “All it takes is one commander with secret radical sympathies, and you have a big problem,” said one former official who dealt with the issue. The message appears to have resonated; an unknown number of the tactical weapons were built, but not deployed. It is that problem that Lavoy and others are trying to forestall, along with preventing Pakistan from deploying some long-range missiles that could reach well beyond India. But American leverage has been hard to find. Unlike Iran, Pakistan never signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the international agreement that prohibits nations, except for existing declared nuclear states like the United States, from possessing a nuclear arsenal. Pakistan is not alone in that distinction: India and Israel also have not signed. (North Korea has twice declared that it has withdrawn from the treaty, in 1993 and 2003.) Ordinarily, any country’s refusal to sign the treaty would preclude American nuclear cooperation. So Pakistani officials remain angry with the American decision to enter an agreement with India in 2005 allowing India to buy civil nuclear technology, even though it remains outside the treaty and put no limits on its nuclear programme. Read: US providing precision strike technology to Pakistan: Jilani Under that agreement, India’s nuclear infrastructure was split with a civilian program that is under international inspection, and a military programme that is not. Pakistani officials have demanded the same arrangement. That does not appear to be on the table. Instead, the United States is exploring ways to relax restrictions on nuclear-related technology to Pakistan, perhaps with a long-term goal of allowing the country to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group, which regulates the sale of the technology. That would be largely symbolic: Pakistan manages to import or make what it needs for its nuclear arsenal, and China has already broken ground on a $9.6 billion nuclear power complex in Karachi. PM Nawaz presided over the ceremony.

US exploring deal to limit Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal By David E Sanger
Tribune.com.pk
This article is in partnership with The New York Times.

The right to education

In the elite’s quest to put an end to the unwritten private school ‘policy’ of draining parents’ bank accounts, many arguments — for and against — have been heard. Much media attention has been drawn to the cause. In September, the prime minister stepped in and ordered that no private school was to raise its fee this year. While this debate on private school fees continues, the crucial issue that should have actually been debated has been brushed under the carpet. The reality is simple and yet often dismissed as ‘naive’ or ‘impossible to achieve’. If the public system of education was given the priority it deserves, the debacle of increasing fees could have been avoided and, more importantly, the education system would benefit those it is intended to benefit: the students. Between 2003 and 2013, private school enrolment has increased from 26 per cent to 39 per cent. Out of the estimated 225,711 schools in Pakistan, only 66,089 are private schools, i.e., 71 per cent of schools are government schools and 61 per cent of children attend these government schools, while a mere 39 per cent are enrolled in the private education system. Similarly, out of the 1,406,090 teachers in Pakistan, only 680,908 are private school teachers. These statistics, provided by the state itself, are demonstrative of a reality the state must accept: significantly more resources are an immediate necessity in the public system of education in Pakistan. After all, Pakistan is not a state where the right to education is only to be guaranteed to children growing up in higher-income households. Article 25A of the Constitution states: “The State shall provide free and compulsory education to all children of the age of five to 16 years in such manner as may be determined by law.” Similarly, Article 38(d) delineates the obligation of the state to “provide basic necessities of life, such as food, clothing, housing, education and medical relief…” Following the 18th Amendment, education has become the responsibility of the provinces. There exist a handful of laws across some of the provinces that guarantee the right to free and compulsory education, whether in the form of a legislative instrument or ordinance. Yet, implementation of these provisions is nearly impossible to identify. In addition to its own domestic law commitments, Pakistan has undertaken international legal obligations with regard to the provision of education. Pakistan is party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Under Article 13 of the ICESCR, Pakistan has undertaken to achieve full realisation of the rights to compulsory and free primary education for all and the progressive introduction of free secondary education. Moreover, Article 14 of the ICESCR binds Pakistan to “work out and adopt a detailed plan of action for the progressive implementation, within a reasonable number of years, to be fixed in the plan, of the principle of compulsory education free of charge for all”. Similarly, under the CRC, Pakistan is to ensure that primary education be “free and compulsory for all” and higher education accessible to all “on the basis of capacity by every appropriate means”. Moreover, Pakistan is to “take measures to encourage regular attendance at schools and the reduction of drop-out rates”. The fact remains that 47 per cent of Pakistani children are out of school. In other words, 25 million out of 53 million children, between the ages of five and 16, are out of school. It isn’t that the legislative framework for free and compulsory education does not exist at federal and provincial levels. There is a complete lack of political will on the part of each successive government in prioritising education. While those of us lucky enough to afford a private school education have platforms through which our voices can be heard, and the issue of our fees discussed, the majority of our population does not share that blessing. Instead of selfishly seeking benefit for a minority of the population (the elite), those in influential positions must voice the concern of the nations’ children: revamp the public education system. The government cannot be allowed to hide behind the excuse of ‘financial constraints’ when it comes to its lack of attention on education, especially when we have multi-million dollar projects in other sectors. Education is a priority and must be dealt with as such.

The right to education By Imaan Hazir Mazari
The writer is a Research Associate at the Research Society of International Law
Trubune.com.pk

Why The World Is Spinning Into Crisis Everywhere?

Israel vs. Hamas. Ukraine vs. Russia. Unaccompanied minors at the Texas border. Syria in flames, with a militant “caliphate” at the door. Iran stalling for time on nukes. A rising China sowing fear throughout the rest of Asia.
The world seems dangerously unmanageable these days.
President Barack Obama is paying a political price at home, with 55 percent of Americans polled by Pew now disapproving of his handling of foreign affairs -- a dramatic reversal from 2009, when his approval rating was 56 percent. While experts argue about how much Obama and his policies are really to blame, the truth is that he occupies the Oval Office at a time of historic flux and of diminished clout, not only for the U.S. but also for the idea of a dominant global power.
To understand that, you need to revisit an influential article published in Foreign Affairs in 2008 by Richard Haass. It’s called “The Age of Nonpolarity,” and Haass wrote it as he was advising presidential candidates behind the scenes in both parties.
Advertisement

AdChoices
Haass, the longtime president of the nonpartisan Council on Foreign Relations (and before that a staffer for President Jimmy Carter and the two Bushes), painted a grim picture of an unsettled, chaotic and dangerously diffuse world Familiar methods of diplomacy, statecraft and war had become feeble, if not useless, in the 21st century, he wrote. The ages of “unipolar” power (i.e., a dominant United States) were over; so were the times of “multi-polar” power, such as the first half of the 20th century.
Now the world faced a free-for-all in which “non-state actors” -- terrorists, global corporations, religious and ethnic tribes, sovereign wealth funds and nonprofit charities, to name a few -- were as crucial as countries in shaping the order of a “nonpolar” world.
To be clear, non-state actors -- which also include alliances such as the United Nations and the European Union, "civil society" foundations and academic institutions -- could be forces for healing as well as mayhem. As Haass noted more recently to The Huffington Post, "If you are talking about education or health care globally, for example, it wouldn't make any sense not to have the Gates Foundation involved." But still these new entities do not follow the familiar playbook of nations.
The Internet and international floods of capital were empowering these non-state players, Haass wrote in 2008. No nation or set of nations was “in charge.” Ethnic, religious and regional rivalries had been set free by the weakness of nation-states, and by an Internet that enables digital forces who couldn't care less about the wisdom of Metternich or Gorbachev-Reagan diplomacy.
The U.S. had to figure out how to operate in this new world, in which my-way-or-the-highway wouldn’t work, and neither would traditional nation-to-nation “talks,” Haass wrote. Military power would be just as important as before, he wrote, but it would have to be shrewdly and surgically applied, and almost always in concert not only with other countries but with other non-state players.
Although Haass had spent many years working for Republicans, his article caught the eye of then-Sen. Obama. Early in his presidency, Obama journeyed to Cairo to give a speech designed to reach out to the Islamic world and, in doing so, to enunciate the core of his own global theory. He declared that the real America did not fit the “crude stereotype of a self-interested empire” -- and certainly would not do so while he was in charge.
The new interdependence of the world, the president said, was in conflict with a “human history [that] has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests.
“Yet, in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating,” Obama said. “Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.”
It was an idealistic, uplifting message -- and one that seemed to fit the changing times described by Haass. Four months later, officials in Norway announced that they were giving Obama the Nobel Peace Prize.
Six years after he wrote his original article, Haass is busy writing another, and it's an even more timely call for a new understanding of how to manage world crises. The evidence that we need to do better is in the headlines and the videos.
“Things have gotten much worse,” he told HuffPost. “It’s even more urgent that we figure out a new form of world governance, because the old ones don’t work.”
The disruptive forces he wrote about before have become more potent and unsettling, and President Obama, while he understands the challenge, hasn’t always executed as well as he could have, Haass said. There's a rising factor Haass didn’t predict: the waves of immigrants and refugees “within nations and between them,” who are not easily dealt with by traditional diplomatic or military methods.
“I’m updating the piece,” he said, for a world that is now at nonpolarity plus.
The tangled flare-ups around the world are made more intractable by the fact that one leader can’t phone another and cut a deal that guarantees results. The organizing principals are in flux. Consider these trouble spots:
Israel and Hamas. Once upon a time, the lid was kept on the Levant largely by two great powers, the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. Those days are over, thanks to Shia sectarianism, Sunni terrorism in the form of al Qaeda and now the Islamic State in Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), and the Israelis’ growing willingness to ignore U.S. pressure.
Ukraine and Russia. Ever unsure of its identity, Russia is once again on the march, albeit not as in the days of uniformed soldiers driving tanks into Slavic city squares. President Vladimir Putin has empowered Ukrainian separatists whom he can’t quite control, with disastrous results.
Two major petro-theocracies. One is Iran, the other Saudi Arabia. Old-style notions of statecraft don’t rule these two oil-rich players. Instead, they are the modern spear points of a 14-centuries-long sectarian war, in which religion is nationhood.
“The Caliphate.” Nothing demonstrates the deterioration of the very idea of “nation” more than the pop-up caliphate declared by ISIS. Sunni insurgents have seized territory in Syria and Iraq, the modern borders of which were drawn by the so-called Great Powers a century ago.
According to Haass, the Far East is the only region where world affairs are being conducted along old lines. “The China situation is the most traditional,” he said. It's a rising major power dealing with its longtime regional rivals.
But even in and around China, there are non-state players and problems. China is exporting tens of thousands of its own workers throughout Southeast Asia, an international business model that is causing friction in Vietnam and Cambodia. And the People’s Republic is being harassed on its western flank by Islamic separatists, who want nothing more -- or less -- than the freedom to worship as they wish.
China’s rulers have responded with a vicious military crackdown.
But that method won’t work in the rest of the world anymore. It may not even work in China.

Why The World Is Spinning Into Crisis Everywhere
By  Howard Fineman Global Editorial Director
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5614634

Anti-Muslim hate crimes to get own category, bringing Islamophobia in line with anti-Semitism

Anti-Muslim hate crimes are to be recorded as a separate category for the first time by police in England and Wales, Prime Minister David Cameron has announced. The move brings Islamophobia in line with anti-Semitic attacks targeting Jews, which have been recorded separately for some time. It was announced as the Home Office prepared to unveil new statistics which are expected to show a rise in numbers of hate crimes over the past year, continuing the trend seen in 2013/14, when offences involving religious hatred soared by 45 per cent and race hate crime by 4 per cent in the wake of the murder of soldier Lee Rigby. Offences involving religious hatred soared by 45 per cent since the murder of Lee Rigby Mr Cameron also announced he will provide new funding to boost security at religious buildings, as he hosted the first meeting of a new Community Engagement Forum at Downing Street. The Forum brings together representatives of faiths including Islam from around the country, and is intended to provide the PM with an opportunity to hear directly from those challenging extremism in the community. Announcing its creation in a speech in Birmingham in July, Mr Cameron said it was part of a drive to isolate extremists and "actively encourage reforming and moderate voices" in Muslim communities. Downing Street said the Forum will discuss the objectives of the Government's upcoming counter-extremism strategy, which is due for publication later this month and will include plans for a national coalition to challenge and speak out against extremism. The meeting will also consider what more the authorities can do to help support young British Muslims. Speaking ahead of the meeting, the Prime Minister said: "We all have a role to play in confronting extremism. That's why I have invited important Muslim and non-Muslim figures to join the new Community Engagement Forum, so I can hear directly about their work in our communities, the challenges they face and so that they can be part of our One Nation strategy to defeat it. "I want to build a national coalition to challenge and speak out against extremists and the poison they peddle. I want British Muslims to know we will back them to stand against those who spread hate and to counter the narrative which says Muslims do not feel British. "And I want police to take more action against those who persecute others simply because of their religion." Official Home Office figures showed that police forces in England and Wales recorded 2,273 crimes perceived to be motivated by religious hostility in 2013/14, up 45 per cent from the 1,573 recoded in 2012/13. Over the same period, recorded race hate crimes increased by 4 per cent from 35,889 to 37,484. The increases were ascribed by an official report at the time in part to the fallout from Fusilier Rigby's murder by Islamist extremists in south-east London in May 2013. Home Secretary Theresa May said: "Hate crime has no place in Britain and I am determined to make further progress to ensure we can eradicate this deplorable act. "Working with police to provide a breakdown in religious-based hate crime data will help forces to build community trust, target their resources and enable the public to hold them to account. "Our Counter-Extremism Strategy will be published later this month and will introduce a wide range of measures to defeat all forms of extremism. These will empower communities to confront extremist ideologies, and build more cohesive communities where everyone feels able to succeed." Downing Street said no figure has yet been decided for the additional funding to protect places of worship, which will be fixed following discussion with members of the new Forum.

by Andrew Woodcock, independent.co.uk

Assessing the state of democracy in Pakistan

The press and electronic media are frequently reminding us that the civil and military leaderships are on the ‘same page’ and there exists a smooth relationship between the two. This is only partially true. Considering that we have a long history of direct military rule and that even during civilian tenures there has been a pervasive influence of the military in foreign, defence and internal security matters, the imbalance in favour of the military is taken as a normal phenomenon. The reality, however, is that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, during the current tenure, has tactically conceded additional powers to the military in its traditional areas of interest and in return has developed a good working relationship with the institution. In essence, civilians are losing space to the military through incompetence, infighting and a poor public image. Where will this slide end and how damaging is it for the country’s national interest, are serious questions that need to be addressed. Formulation of the Afghan policy, relations with the Taliban and facilitating talks between the Taliban and the Afghan government, all fall under the purview of the military, with little contribution from the political leadership. With India, too, it is the military that primarily influences policy, whether it is the Kashmir issue, progress on the Mumbai case or granting of the MFN status. With the US, it is Pakistan’s contribution to the security and stability of Afghanistan that determines the quality of relations. On the domestic front, due to the incompetence of civilian governments over the years, the primary responsibility of the internal security of Karachi has shifted to the Rangers. In Fata, where the military has cleared militant sanctuaries, civil authority has yet to assume responsibility. In Swat, the army remains deployed to maintain peace whereas it was expected that the civilian government would have started normal functioning by now. In addition, the government has undermined its political power by remaining disinterested in parliament and in the functioning of important committees that deal with foreign policy, national security and defence. The Public Accounts Committee, too, seems to have lost its power and importance. The opposition’s role in weakening political parties has been no less influential. While Imran Khan’s agitation-based politics and crusade against corruption may have raised awareness among the people of their rights, conversely these have also been a huge drag on institutional development and have contributed towards destabilising our fragile democratic structure. The PTI’s indifference towards legislative matters and major national and international issues betrays Khan’s obsession with a single-point agenda of electoral reforms and dislodging the government. The PPP’s performance during its previous stint at the federal level and its present quality of governance in Sindh is a slur on its leadership. Its callous attitude in parliament as an opposition party has further soiled its reputation. The Rangers’ present drive in Karachi to link corruption with terrorism has tightened the squeeze on political parties and degraded politicians in the eyes of the public. With such serious shortcomings in our political parties, it is not surprising that it has provided the military with the opportunity to fill the vacuum and extend its influence in affairs that normally fall in the civilian domain. The military richly deserves praise for the sacrifice of its valiant soldiers and the single-minded and resolute determination of General Raheel Sharif to combat insurgency. It has truly changed the course in favour of the state. But until military success is combined with civilian law enforcement and development, peace will be short-lived. The government should address issues of governance, take the lead in spreading education and create economic opportunities in Fata. It seems oblivious of its responsibilities in this regard. As the military gains success in battling insurgency and expands its reach in civilian affairs, it has created an impressive profile on the national scene. Modern sophisticated techniques also help in its image-building that is being used astutely by its media managers and rather amateurishly by the civilian leadership. However, it is worth learning from our own and other countries’ experience regarding the consequences of the prolonged dominance of the military on the domestic and international scene. Here, the relevant question is: does this serve the long-term interest of the military itself, apart from satisfying its narrow institutional motivations? We have the clear example of how Pakistan got entangled in the Afghan imbroglio and pursued security-oriented policies, the ill-effects of which we suffer to date. Pakistanis are generally ignorant of the importance of the country’s soft power and what can help enhance it. With the civilian leadership being overshadowed by the military due to the former’s incompetence and other factors, its international standing isn’t that high. When institutional interests do not harmonise with national goals, the country cannot reach its full potential. The question is: how can this be corrected, if at all? We have the example of developing countries, including Muslim ones like Turkey, Indonesia and a few others that were subjected to prolonged military rule and have partially succeeded in transitioning to a stage where the civil-military balance has been largely restored. This transformation was made possible only when the performance of the civilian government and that of political parties improved to the satisfaction of the people. Once the people gain confidence that there is a distinct improvement in performance, then their support and confidence in democracy increases. It is rather unfortunate that Turkey, lately, is facing grave internal and external challenges that have placed a great strain on its democratic credentials. Experience shows that when the military leadership develops a clear vision and understanding that it is in the foremost interest of the country to have strong political and state institutions, this realisation can greatly facilitate the democratic process. We’ve had military leaderships in the past that wanted to institutionalise the military’s role. There were several self-serving politicians and opinion-makers, who echoed and even led the discourse that Pakistan needs such a system. We are fortunate that there is a relatively better understanding of the long-term benefits of strengthening democracy despite the generally disappointing performance of our political parties.
By Talat Masood:
The writer is a retired lieutenant general of the Pakistan Army and a former federal secretary. He has also served as chairman of the Pakistan Ordnance Factories Board

http://tribune.com.pk/story/972275/assessing-the-state-of-democracy/

Education Map of Pakistan

Mapping education in Pakistan 2015
DAWN.COM
This map is a unique tool that gives an overview of situation of education in each district allowing the user to pinpoint the key reasons behind their district’s performance.

It intends to serve as a bridge between politicians and the user, allowing you to send a letter to your elected political representatives about education issues in your district.

The themes of the letters hosted on the map change regularly making it possible for you to take up a range of issues with your elected representatives.

Currently the map allows you to send a letter to the Finance Minister Ishaq Dar but August onwards it will enable you to connect directly to your local MNA and MPA as well. 》》》》
http://www.dawn.com/news/1182722/mapping-education-in-pakistan-2015

Democracy and governance

GOOD governance, human rights and individual freedoms, and rule of law are among the main features of democracy. A democratic state cannot choose one, or some, of these and reject others. Common citizens may see good governance as a priority because this is directly linked to their daily life needs. But the significance of freedom and other attributes of democracy cannot be discounted; they are equally important to fulfil one’s physical and emotional needs. Denying emotional, spiritual and aesthetic needs to people does not mean these cease to exist. This is as simple as it is evident. Complexities arise when certain state institutions or groups of people start to believe that people need only what the power elites think they need. Eventually, the power elites start seeing the people as their subjects who have only physical needs; other needs, in their eyes, fall in the domain of religion. At the same time, these elites try to also regulate religion because they fear ‘miscreants’ can exploit it and create trouble in the way of good governance. Although the Muslim world on the whole is facing this dilemma, the Arab world is a chronic example of this model of governance that looks after only the physical needs of the people. The Arab Spring epitomised the fact that people are not merely subjects; nor are their needs merely physical. In some cases, power elites provided more space to their people to resolve the crisis. In others, power elites refused to do so thus plunging their states into turmoil. However, it is becoming increasingly difficult for power elites in these countries to use this model of governance as a tool to suppress freedom and democracy. Ironically, Muslim countries including Pakistan, which are in a process of democratic transition, still seek inspiration from failed models. One’s interaction with power elites in Islamabad would suggest that the concepts of democracy and freedom do not figure in the latter’s ideas of state-building. For instance, Middle Eastern controlled-regime models continue to inspire many retired military top officials and some of them even talk about replicating these models in Pakistan. In their case, it is understandable because they come from a disciplined background, but when former diplomats and bureaucrats also start advocating the same, it surprises many. Pakistani political elites, too, have similar views: many politicians see Turkey and Malaysia as model states in terms of governance, democracy and freedom of expression. Power elites conceive of democracy only in the electoral perspective and reject other democratic values. Interestingly, an overwhelming majority of former civil and military officials and politicians also admire Chinese political and governance models even though they know that despite many commonalities, they cannot be fully adopted in Pakistan. Dig deep into their mind and sources of inspiration and you will find one common thing: desire for a controlled regime in Pakistan. Political leaders, however, favour controlled freedom through the power of the vote. Another important common factor in their thought processes is that they conceive of democracy only in the electoral perspective. They hardly believe in other democratic values. Here they use religion as a crutch to argue that the people already have a socio-political code of life provided by religion. This dichotomy exists in other parts of the Muslim world as well. A debate on the compatibility between Islam and democracy still consumes the intellectual energy of Muslim scholars. In Pakistan’s context, this discourse provides an opening for the partnership between the religious clergy and security and political power elites. In many instances in the past, the first segment became a beneficiary in the power-sharing mechanism and developed a comfortable working relationship with both civilian and military rulers. The religious elite’s ability to manipulate street power and provide ideological narratives in support of power elites has furthered their own religious-ideological cause as well. The sustainability and legitimacy of regimes also depends on two institutions: judiciary and media, which limit the absolute power of the state. Both institutions address the need for justice and freedom and enjoy comparatively more freedom in democratic regimes, but controlling these institutions is a desire that remains alive among states in democratic transition. No doubt the process of democratisation takes time, but the media and judiciary are major instruments in this process. If these institutions are not functioning well, that means a blockage has occurred in the transition process. Many scholars maintain that the true spirit of pluralistic and secular democracy has never been followed in the country. For instance, renowned scholar Kamran Tahir believes that the Objectives Resolution of 1949 allowed undue space to religious elements in the country’s social and political set-up. As a consequence, political instability and authoritarianism became an abiding feature. Other scholars see democracy from the perspective of governance and advocate that democracy is not the final or only form of governance. Among them, a few argue in the socio-political context and assert that it is only the elites who rule in the name of democracy. Others bring in the religious argument to advocate that justice should be the ultimate objective of any form of governance. The latter point of view is closely aligned to that of religious scholars who also believe only in the electoral process. Non-democratic tendencies among the religious clergy are very common in Pakistan. Religiously inspired militants also borrow this argument from the clergy that democracy is contrary to Islam. All shades of religious clergy have strong belief in religious identity and value it above democratic norms. The authoritarian power elites see no problem in these views and narratives but are against violent struggle for achieving the objectives. The power elites believe that non-violent clerics should help the state build counter-narratives against violence. Pakistan is not part of the Gulf or Middle East region. Nor is it located in Central Asia or North Africa. It cannot pull itself out from the South Asian region. Though the state of democracy, good governance and freedom of expression is not satisfactory in the region, its fate is nevertheless linked with democratic institutionalisation. What else could be the counter-narrative to extremism than democracy, good governance and freedom of expression?

Democracy and governance
By  MUHAMMAD AMIR RANA
The writer is a security analyst
Dawn.com

Peril of ignoring the building blocks of knowledge

The education of our population, in all its forms, from birth till the time our brain stops functioning, is the one factor that determines the quality of our lives, and collectively, our country. No wonder in all the major religions the word `Iqra` was the first to be mentioned. How has Lahore fared in its long history in terms of its human development? This vital aspect of existence needs to be better understood, researched and written about, let alone discussed in the highest forums, which it definitely is not. Our per capita investment in education is the lowest in the world. That Jinnah wished to spend `one fifth of our income on educating the poor` is ignored, and ignored it is to the peril of the State itself. This piece was inspired by an article in a Lahore newspaper by my friend Dr. Tahir Kamran, a much sought after scholar when he was in Cambridge, though unsurprisingly neglected in his homeland. The learned doctor suggested that we need fewer, but high quality universities based onresearch, with better archives and libraries, and, most importantly, teachers of the highest calibre capable of inspiring the young to question and dare. Imagine a country where it has become difficult to find an appropriate vice chancellor to the numerous universities. Mind you one recent research found out that only eight per cent of the population can actually write a letter themselves. With a functional literacy rate (based on newspapers printed) of 0.01 per cent, what can one expect? If we go back in time we see that almost 3,500 years ago the great Harappa Civilisation had produced important seats of learning. This the few archaeological digs have proven beyond doubt. We can see the lasting results of just two scholars who studied between 1,000-600 BC at Taxila University, were born probably east of Charsadda, moved to Lahore, or nearby, to learn mathematics and the languages from the great scholars of the city. Mathematics and languages are the building blocks of knowledge, and it was here that they produced two books that are stillacknowledged as the greatest books on the rules of grammar and mathematics. Mind you in our villages till very recent mathematics by rote learning of complex multiplication tables and a few languages like Punjabi, Persian and Arabic was normal. Even this has died out. There is a real threat to our very mother tongue. What could be more serious, let alone dangerous,for our very culture and way of life? The outstanding book of the rules of grammar is `Astadhyayi`, or `eight chapter grammar`. Its 3,990 `sutras` (rules) are even today studied by scholars of linguistics. This to the present day determines the basic rules of grammar for all languages of the world. This work of the great Harappa grammarian Rishi Panini took over 20 years of research and data collection. The rigours of scholarship have to be endured. Then we have the great Katyayana who set about 300 years later explaining the work of Panini in a village near Gujranwala, with his `Vartikas` (explanations)ofPanini`s`sutras`. He was followed by Patanjali, another grammarian who wrote `Mahabhasya` or a `great com-mentary` on the works of Panini and the explanations by Katyayana. In these very columns a few years ago I dwelt on the great mathematician from Salatura (Lahore`s ancient name in the Vedas) by the name of Pingala, brother of Panini. While Rishi Panini was travelling, researching and compiling his great `Astadhyayi`, his brother was also delving to advance the science of mathematics and logic. His immortal work is called `Chandahshatra`. In this the very first known description of the binary numeral system came through. What we today term `Pascal`s Triangle` was first described in great detail in this great book. One of his students, the great Halayudha, improved on this work and the first use of (n-1) was seen. The origins of modern mathematics had been trulylaid. But Pingala was the very first man, so it seems, who came up with the concept of a `zero`. The use of the word `shunya`, meaning in Sanskrit `empty, or a void` came about. The empty space that emerged when the sum of anything was nothing was noteddown by a small circle. Arab mathematicians who learnt the Sanskrit word `shunya` termed it `sifr`, meaning `nothing, or empty`. From the word `sifr` the Venetians who travelled the trade routes between Rome and the Arab word called it `zyphrus` which is a Latin-Greek origin word. This is not surprising for the elite used Latin when writing. The word `zefiro` was how they described it in their old texts, which went on to be called `zero` once English influence prevailed. Mind you the massive effort of Al-Mansur of Spain in 773 AD to translate all the old Sanskrit works to some extent formed the foundation of scientific research and thought. The influence of Greek thinking flushed with their scholars excited by the l The end of religious plurality naturally bred intolerance and the Dark Ages set in Europe.Have absolutely no doubt that scholarship needs to be nurtured, tolerated, protected and encouraged, and this is done best in `relative` peace. In periods of strife, and hence intolerance, scholarship is lost as it happened to Sanskrit, the language of our land, and dare I say ancestors, which continuous military invasions from our western borders fuelled. It took western scholars like Heinrich Roth (d 1668), Johann Hanxleden (d 1731) and Sir William Jones (d 1794) to discover the great works of our land, which in turn led to the development of western philology and linguistics. We see in the history of Lahore, and the Punjab periods of immense scholarship but only when periods of great turmoil ceased. In periods of peace there was tolerance, and hence scholarship. Take the recent events of 1947 when extreme communal hatred led to the partition of the land. The `claims` phenomenon triggered a way of life where corruption is, even today, accepted as `normal`. Corruption and tension are a lethal mix. In such circumstances education becomes a lucrative business as the Stateabdicates this basic role. The end result is `relative` economic backwardness. That India and even Bangladesh have overtaken Pakistan in economic development is, therefore, not surprising. What is our heritage as far as human development goes? The answer is that we have had impressive periods where the creative burst of the literate produced great works that still live. Of recent how we treated Dr. Abdul Salam is before us. I remember as a young journalist interviewing him when all my brother `pen pushers` refused. For days official operatives followed me, some of whom I even entertained to tea at home. Those were torrid times. Mind you they still are. Will the cycle of learning return to our land? For that to happen probably great changes will be needed in the way we view our history, let alone the other sciences. But most important will be the changes that will follow once we ensure that every citizen of this land knows the basics of mathematics and languages, the building blocks of knowledge.
Peril of ignoring the building blocks of knowledge by Majid Sheikh, dawn.com