What's new

Pak. funding Mujahideen in Kashmir is counterproductive: Obama

They're not educationally backwards afaik. Are they?

In NWFP, 3,900,000 English speakers, in Sindh, 5,900,000
http://www.linguapax.org/gifs/taula2.gif

Total pop, NWFP: 19 million
Total pop Sindh: 42 million.

% English speaking NWFP : 21%
% English speaking Sindh ; 14%

IRIN Asia | Asia | Pakistan | PAKISTAN: Low literacy rates hamper health, welfare | Economy Education Health & Nutrition | Feature

Literacy levels in Pakistan are today among the lowest in South Asia, with only Bangladesh and Nepal lagging slightly behind.

The Punjab, the most populous province, has a literacy rate of 52 percent.

In areas like Balochistan, or parts of the North West Frontier Province where literacy is only just over the 20 percent mark, these difficulties are especially acute.

The difference in literacy levels among various social groups both in India and Pakistan is more due to historical factors and the inclination of the groups towards education than any grand state design.

The emphasis on education that you now see in India among parents is unbelievable. Even the poorest parents try to get the best possible education for their kids while themselves facing all hardships. No state government inefficiencies can keep their kids uneducated.
 
.
IRIN Asia | Asia | Pakistan | PAKISTAN: Low literacy rates hamper health, welfare | Economy Education Health & Nutrition | Feature

The difference in literacy levels among various social groups both in India and Pakistan is more due to historical factors and the inclination of the groups towards education than any grand state design.

Wrong, the difference in literacy levels among the various social groups is completely dependent on 1) how many schools were there to start with, and 2) how well the area is funded by the government. It has nothing to do with the inclination of groups towards education, and you have NOT PROVED ANY OF THIS with your articles and comments.

The emphasis on education that you now see in India among parents is unbelievable. Even the poorest parents try to get the best possible education for their kids while themselves facing all hardships. No state government inefficiencies can keep their kids uneducated.

Then why are so many Indian uneducated, if no state government can keep people uneducated? If this were the case, why is India not progressing at a faster rate than Pakistan in eradicating illiteracy?
 
.
Wrong, the difference in literacy levels among the various social groups is completely dependent on 1) how many schools were there to start with, and 2) how well the area is funded by the government. It has nothing to do with the inclination of groups towards education, and you have NOT PROVED ANY OF THIS with your articles and comments.

I agree that government can make a difference with a determined effort. But the Indian and Pakistani governments have not done a great job of it. There was no design to keep any group backward. They were just plain incompetent and corrupt for the most part.

I am just saying that the basic dynamics of the difference in education levels is the same in India and Pakistan. I proved that West of Sindhu is much backward than the East with data.

Then why are so many Indian uneducated, if no state government can keep people uneducated? If this were the case, why is India not progressing at a faster rate than Pakistan in eradicating illiteracy?

Literacy rates in India and Pakistan:

Pakistan definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 49.9%
male: 63%
female: 36% (2005 est.)

India definition: age 15 and over can read and write
total population: 61%
male: 73.4%
female: 47.8% (2001 census)

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html

Indian data is 4 years older here. So there is a fair bit of difference. So India is eradicating illiteracy faster than Pakistan. Though various groups and communities are not progressing at the same pace, but progressing they are, all of them.
 
.
I agree that government can make a difference with a determined effort. But the Indian and Pakistani governments have not done a great job of it. There was no design to keep any group backward. They were just plain incompetent and corrupt for the most part.

I am just saying that the basic dynamics of the difference in education levels is the same in India and Pakistan. I proved that West of Sindhu is much backward than the East with data.

Well, that's an all out lie. I gave you data that proved the average NWFP resident speaks better English than the average Sindh resident. So west of the Indus is not neccesarily worse of educationally than East of it.

Literacy rates in India and Pakistan:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html

Indian data is 4 years older here. So there is a fair bit of difference. So India is eradicating illiteracy faster than Pakistan. Though various groups and communities are not progressing at the same pace, but progressing they are, all of them.

Normally, I would not say this. But you are annoyingly stupid. So I'm just going to say, learn to know your argument beforehand.

My whole point is this. I will break it up into chunks for you, for simplicity. It does not matter what the CURRENT literacy level is, you need to look at the history of the literacy level if you want to compare the two. Here is an example, so that even you can understand this. Please note, I have taken the time to explain this to you, like a child, so please appreciate my effort.

1947
Pakistan had less literacy than India, because the British built schools in India, more than Pakistan.
Literacy in Pakistan: 7%.
Literacy in India 15%

1950
Literacy in Pakistan and India increases.

1990
Literacy increasing.
Literacy in Pakistan 40%
Literacy in India 50%

2000
Literacy again increasing in both countries.
Literacy in Pakistan, 50%
Literacy in Inda. 60%

Can you send a trend of 10% increases every decade for BOTH India and Pakistan?

If India is getting more literate at a slightly faster rate than Pakistan, this also is not surprising given that India's GDP is slightly higher (increases). But there is no clear difference in the rate or eradication of illiteracy between India and Pakistan, as you seem to suggest.
 
.
Well, that's an all out lie. I gave you data that proved the average NWFP resident speaks better English than the average Sindh resident. So west of the Indus is not neccesarily worse of educationally than East of it.

This is hilarious! Why are you converting a literacy % issue into number of people speaking English? We are talking of literacy rate and nothing else.

Normally, I would not say this. But you are annoyingly stupid. So I'm just going to say, learn to know your argument beforehand.

My whole point is this. I will break it up into chunks for you, for simplicity. It does not matter what the CURRENT literacy level is, you need to look at the history of the literacy level if you want to compare the two. Here is an example, so that even you can understand this. Please note, I have taken the time to explain this to you, like a child, so please appreciate my effort.

1947
Pakistan had less literacy than India, because the British built schools in India, more than Pakistan.
Literacy in Pakistan: 7%.
Literacy in India 15%

1950
Literacy in Pakistan and India increases.

1990
Literacy increasing.
Literacy in Pakistan 40%
Literacy in India 50%

2000
Literacy again increasing in both countries.
Literacy in Pakistan, 50%
Literacy in Inda. 60%

Can you send a trend of 10% increases every decade for BOTH India and Pakistan?

If India is getting more literate at a slightly faster rate than Pakistan, this also is not surprising given that India's GDP is slightly higher (increases). But there is no clear difference in the rate or eradication of illiteracy between India and Pakistan, as you seem to suggest.

Ignoring the personal comments (which is a habit with you and shows when one is losing the argument), is it so difficult for even you to understand that you are reinforcing my point.

You are talking of different base. Different starting points for the two countries. I am saying the same for the different communities within both countries.

If even you can understand the difference in literacy levels between the two countries why is it so hard to understand the different literacy levels in different communities?
. And this when your own Western provinces are much more backward relatively than Muslims in India.

Indian Muslims were way lower on the social scale in 1947. They have progressed with the rest of the country and I don't think their literacy rate is lower than Pakistan and definitely better tha NWFP and Balochistan.
 
.
Kashmir May Be the Key to Obama’s Counterterrorism Policy

New America Media, Commentary, Sunil Adam, Posted: Jul 30, 2008

Editor’s Note: Barack Obama’s South Asia policy adviser says coming to grips with Pakistan’s obsession with India is critical to realizing American objectives in Afghanistan and beyond. Sunil Adam is a contributor to New America Media.

If his primary mission was to win the media sweepstakes in the presidential campaign, Sen. Barack Obama’s first visit to global hotspots as the presumptive presidential nominee of the Democratic Party has exceeded expectations. But in terms of practical utility to the formulation of his foreign policy or to the shaping of his worldview, it may not amount to much. A few hours in Kabul, Baghdad and Berlin cannot top the briefings he gets from a whopping 300 experts who are part of his foreign policy team.

If Obama’s intent was to use his visits to highlight the effort he would make as president to reorient U.S. foreign policies to defeat terrorism and re-establish the country’s standing in the troubled region, he would have included one more stop in his itinerary – Islamabad. After all, when the Democratic nominee reiterates ad nauseum on the campaign trail that the central front against terrorism is not in Iraq but in Afghanistan, he’s tacitly pointing to Pakistan, which is not only a safe haven for Osama bin Laden and the rest of the leadership of al-Qaida and the Taliban, but also a fertile recruiting and training ground for future terror cadres.

The fundamental shift in foreign policy that Obama proposes is to get the U.S. troops out of Iraq within a time frame of 16 months -- irrespective of the ground situation -- and pick up the gauntlet in Afghanistan. While the candidate himself has not spelled out the specifics of his policy, its likely orientation can be derived from the perspective of the Obama campaign’s principle South Asia adviser, Bruce Riedel.

A former CIA official, Riedel served in the National Security Council as special assistant to the president in both the Clinton and Bush administrations, specializing in the Middle East and South Asia. In an exclusive interview, Riedel, who is currently a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, outlined how resolving the Kashmir issue between India and Pakistan may be inextricably linked to possible American efforts to wean away Islamabad from its relationship with terrorist networks.

While categorically asserting that he speaks for himself and not for candidate Obama, Riedel, however, maintains that for the next American president, there is no issue or country more critical to get right than Pakistan. This means “developing a policy that will move Pakistan away from being a hothouse of terror.” He contends that the United States has to go beyond “threats and sanctions, beyond commando raids and half-hearted intelligence cooperation, beyond aid and aircraft sales,” and find out what motivates Pakistan.

Saying that “fear of India is the driving force” behind Pakistan’s pursuit of relationships with Islamic fundamentalism and Islamic terrorism, Riedel wrote in a scholarly journal recently, “The conflict with India affects all aspects of Pakistan’s worldview and its self-image.” Not only has the Pakistani Army never reconciled with Kashmir’s accession to India, but security concerns with its more powerful neighbor have been central to Pakistan’s actions, including its decision to wage, at the behest of America, a proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan, its support for the Taliban in post-Soviet Afghanistan and even its decision to throw its lot with the Americans after 9/11.

Riedel is among those South Asia observers who believe that Pakistan’s involvement with terrorist outfits has to do with its obsession with Kashmir and its need to use them against India to offset the conventional military imbalance that favors New Delhi. “Coming to grips with Pakistan’s obsession with India and Kashmir is critical to killing the monster,” and the “time may be ripe in 2009 to move,” he writes, clearly alluding to the likely policy of the new administration that will take over next year.

And therein lies the rub as far as India is concerned.

While denying that Kashmir holds the key to ending international Islamic terrorism and admitting that it is more likely that the Arab-Israeli conflict lies at the core of Islamic subnational movements, Riedel seems convinced that resolving the Kashmir impasse will end Pakistan’s support for terrorist organizations.

Riedel’s advice to the next U.S. president is unambiguous: engage India to resolve the Kashmir question. He feels that given the level of maturity that has come about in bilateral relations in the last decade, the United States is well-placed to pressure India on this issue. This is something that New Delhi has, at times politely and at times not so politely, resisted since the signing of India-Pakistan Peace Treaty in 1971, which affirmed that the Kashmir dispute would be resolved “bilaterally.”

Interestingly, Riedel’s solution for resolving the conflict – formalizing the Line of Control as the official border between the two countries – is neither original nor revolutionary. But the caveat is to make the border permeable enough for the people of Kashmir to foster their ethnic and economic links on both sides – along the lines of the arrangement between British Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. It is a formula that the Americans have proposed informally for several years and one that pleases realists on both sides of the India-Pakistan divide who are eager to bury the past and move on to develop mutually beneficial relations.

Even assuming that resistance to such a formula by India’s left and right can be overcome, a greater challenge will be to bring in line not only the Pakistani Army but also religious fundamentalists who regard Kashmir as a jihadic cause. That would mean the next president will not only have to use the American military aid leverage with the Pakistani Army, but also launch a Marshall Plan to strengthen that country’s economy and democratic polity so moderate centrist forces can prevail.

It is a risky proposition, considering that democratization could work against American interests if it throws up the “wrong” people -- as happened in the Palestinian territories. Only an American president with resolute political will and the ability to inspire confidence in an alien people can pull off the Herculean task of resolving one of the most intractable conflicts of the post-World War II era.

If “President” Obama demonstrates such will and inspires such confidence, he will have delivered on the slogan: A (foreign policy) Change We Can Believe In.

Sunil Adam is the editor of The Indian American, a general-interest magazine published from New York. He can be reached at sunil@theindianamerican.com. This story appears in the Sept-Oct issue of the magazine.

Kashmir May Be the Key to Obama’s Counterterrorism Policy - NAM
 
.
This is hilarious! Why are you converting a literacy % issue into number of people speaking English? We are talking of literacy rate and nothing else.

This is just a bit tiring. Here, just take it from here

"According to the latest NES, Balochistan’s total literacy rate is 34 percent against the national literacy rate of 52 percent – 57 percent of which is for the Punjab, 50 percent for Sindh and 49 percent for the NWFP."
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

A percent difference in the literacy rate of Sindh and NWFP. Someone should indeed be shot over this East West divide. :rolleyes:

Ignoring the personal comments (which is a habit with you and shows when one is losing the argument), is it so difficult for even you to understand that you are reinforcing my point.

You are talking of different base. Different starting points for the two countries. I am saying the same for the different communities within both countries.

If even you can understand the difference in literacy levels between the two countries why is it so hard to understand the different literacy levels in different communities?
. And this when your own Western provinces are much more backward relatively than Muslims in India.

Indian Muslims were way lower on the social scale in 1947. They have progressed with the rest of the country and I don't think their literacy rate is lower than Pakistan and definitely better tha NWFP and Balochistan.

Let me summarize so you understand why the conversation went this way, since you've clearly not remembered what you typed in the preceding 5 minutes.

Roadrunner said:
Originally Posted by roadrunner View Post
Then why are so many Indian uneducated, if no state government can keep people uneducated? If this were the case, why is India not progressing at a faster rate than Pakistan in eradicating illiteracy?

To which you replied that India was eradicating illiteracy faster than Pakistan :

Vinod0000 said:
Literacy rates in India and Pakistan:

Indian data is 4 years older here. So there is a fair bit of difference. So India is eradicating illiteracy faster than Pakistan. Though various groups and communities are not progressing at the same pace, but progressing they are, all of them.

To which I responded with an explanation of why only current figures (from 2005 or whenever), do not provide and indication of literacy growth rate:

Roadrunner said:
Can you send a trend of 10% increases every decade for BOTH India and Pakistan?

If India is getting more literate at a slightly faster rate than Pakistan, this also is not surprising given that India's GDP is slightly higher (increases). But there is no clear difference in the rate or eradication of illiteracy between India and Pakistan, as you seem to suggest.

I even gave an example of why the literacy of India would currently be higher than Pakistan, but you claimed Indian literacy growth was higher than Pakistan's. I proved, with my example, that Indian literacy growth was not higher than Pakistan literacy growth, and therefore that when you said that "India is eradicating illiteracy faster than Pakistan" that you were incorrect to quote only the literacy figures of the two countries at the moment.

Can you understand this? Or would you like me to get my cousin to explain it to you? He's only 4, but I think he has already grasped the idea that literacy is growing at the same rate in India and Pakistan, and India is not "eliminating illiteracy at a faster rate than Pakistan.

EDIT: Since i know you still have not grasped this. I will repeat it a couple of times.
Literacy Growth rate is equal between India and Pakistan
Literacy Growth rate is equal between India and Pakistan
Literacy Growth rate is equal between India and Pakistan

This was in response to you claiming:
So India is eradicating illiteracy faster than Pakistan.
So India is eradicating illiteracy faster than Pakistan.
So India is eradicating illiteracy faster than Pakistan.

Edit(2): I should put your name down, in case you forgot it: Vinod2070
 
Last edited:
.
:) 90 % of MPs in Indian parliament are criminals and most of them are Hindus.

So what do you expect from them to do for Indian Muslims.


Secondly for getting education you need money while Indian Muslims are hardly able to get two square meal in the Hindu dominated society how on earth they can afford to send childern to educational institute.


Plus what you say about millions of Hindu uneducated people ????

What is impeding their education ????
Corruption in any developing country is quite normal. I went through the rankings of countries in corruption . India was little higher ranked as compare to similar countries like Thailand, Vietnam, China and on a much higher ranked as compare to similar country like Indonesia and high middle order country like Russia also. While other south asian countries like Bangladesh, Pakistan were among top last performers :).

=> 2007/cpi/surveys_indices/policy_research
 
. .
:) 90 % of MPs in Indian parliament are criminals and most of them are Hindus.

So what do you expect from them to do for Indian Muslims.


Secondly for getting education you need money while Indian Muslims are hardly able to get two square meal in the Hindu dominated society how on earth they can afford to send childern to educational institute.


Plus what you say about millions of Hindu uneducated people ????

What is impeding their education ????

Ver much off topic.

1. If the govt builds roads - they dont say only Hindus can drive - can they ?
2. If 90% people in parliament really hated muslims - they would not have let THE son of India President Abdul Kalam to become a president.

Some weak arguments will come up, say he was missile scientist - this is why.....

But then, I post in advance -

3. The vice president of India - was no nuclear scientist.
Shri Mohammad Hamid Ansari

Link
Vice President of India : Profile

Yes, there have been some really ugly incidents like Godhra, Babri. But India is not driven by religion, it is driven by the tradition of the glory and the values of the great empires of Akbar and Ashoka.

Yes, I agree that millions dont have education in India, but there is no discrimination. Its basically the poor and those staying in remote parts of the country who do not get education.

And do you know that GoI increased education funds by 21% in this Budget session, which was the highest increase ever.

We are in the Right track.
 
.
This is just a bit tiring. Here, just take it from here

"According to the latest NES, Balochistan’s total literacy rate is 34 percent against the national literacy rate of 52 percent – 57 percent of which is for the Punjab, 50 percent for Sindh and 49 percent for the NWFP."
Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

A percent difference in the literacy rate of Sindh and NWFP. Someone should indeed be shot over this East West divide. :rolleyes:

Let me summarize so you understand why the conversation went this way, since you've clearly not remembered what you typed in the preceding 5 minutes.



To which you replied that India was eradicating illiteracy faster than Pakistan :



To which I responded with an explanation of why only current figures (from 2005 or whenever), do not provide and indication of literacy growth rate:



I even gave an example of why the literacy of India would currently be higher than Pakistan, but you claimed Indian literacy growth was higher than Pakistan's. I proved, with my example, that Indian literacy growth was not higher than Pakistan literacy growth, and therefore that when you said that "India is eradicating illiteracy faster than Pakistan" that you were incorrect to quote only the literacy figures of the two countries at the moment.

Can you understand this? Or would you like me to get my cousin to explain it to you? He's only 4, but I think he has already grasped the idea that literacy is growing at the same rate in India and Pakistan, and India is not "eliminating illiteracy at a faster rate than Pakistan.

EDIT: Since i know you still have not grasped this. I will repeat it a couple of times.
Literacy Growth rate is equal between India and Pakistan
Literacy Growth rate is equal between India and Pakistan
Literacy Growth rate is equal between India and Pakistan

This was in response to you claiming:
So India is eradicating illiteracy faster than Pakistan.
So India is eradicating illiteracy faster than Pakistan.
So India is eradicating illiteracy faster than Pakistan.

Edit(2): I should put your name down, in case you forgot it: Vinod2070

Couldn't agree more about the tiring part.

The discussion was about the mischievous insinuation that Indian Muslims being less literate than Hindus is some kind of deliberate grand conspiracy. I said it just reflects the lower starting base for Muslims in 1947 and other social factors. The same prevails in different provinces in Pakistan too. It does not matter if it is Balochistan or NWFP or Wajiristans which are backward. These are just examples of disparities within Pakistan. I thought it would have been clear to even you. Now of course I am having second thoughts. May be I should have targeted a lower mental age group in my post.

You yourself quoted the 8 % difference between Indian and Pakistan literacy 60 years back which you have not managed to shrink by even a single %. Rather it seems to have only increased by few % points. Isn't it clear that it may apply to Indian Muslims as well.

Read the previous para 5 times.

Read it 5 times? OK, now proceed further.

Someone indeed should be shot down for imagining conspiracies from thin air. Wonder who it should be! Can you guess?

You seem to have forgotten in the space of a few posts what the discussion was about and started discussing the number of English speakers in NWFP!

So, have a good day. :cheers:
 
.
Normally, I would not say this. But you are annoyingly stupid. So I'm just going to say, learn to know your argument beforehand.

My whole point is this. I will break it up into chunks for you, for simplicity. It does not matter what the CURRENT literacy level is, you need to look at the history of the literacy level if you want to compare the two. Here is an example, so that even you can understand this. Please note, I have taken the time to explain this to you, like a child, so please appreciate my effort.

1947
Pakistan had less literacy than India, because the British built schools in India, more than Pakistan.
Literacy in Pakistan: 7%.
Literacy in India 15%

1950
Literacy in Pakistan and India increases.

1990
Literacy increasing.
Literacy in Pakistan 40%
Literacy in India 50%

2000
Literacy again increasing in both countries.
Literacy in Pakistan, 50%
Literacy in Inda. 60%

Can you send a trend of 10% increases every decade for BOTH India and Pakistan?

If India is getting more literate at a slightly faster rate than Pakistan, this also is not surprising given that India's GDP is slightly higher (increases). But there is no clear difference in the rate or eradication of illiteracy between India and Pakistan, as you seem to suggest.


Dear roadrunner kindly excuse me if I am butting in, as I had experience in this field let me put the following.

Those in development profession especially the multilateral ones such as WB, UNDP, UNICEF etc work using indicators that are derived or are based on MDG goals. One of the primary MDG goal is 100 % literacy rate by 2020, which both India and Pakistan will not achieve by comfortable margin based on forecast models. However it can be said that though India's literacy has been linear in the past century it can be argued that it is now exponential, however in Pakistan's case it is not so. So what this means is that by 2020 India will have literacy rate of 83%, using the most conservative forecast models, which means we will miss the MDG margin by 17 %. But the interesting aspect here is allmost the literacy rate will be 100% in practtical terms by 2020 but it is 83% on paper due to backlog that existed before 2000 ie thiose that were uneducated and are now 50 years old will still live in 2020 and will remain uneducated at 80 . Thus in actual terms India will achieve 100% literacy by 2020. This is due to renewed efforts in education sectors, effrts like SSA etc . However there seems to be no major push on Pakistani side to achieve MDG, thanks due to unstable governments and less priority for primary education sector. Thus your growth will be linear and Pakistan will miss the MDG goal by a comfortable margin.

I am saying this to point to you that comparing previous rates between the two nations is a useless exercise, both nations vary significantly in forcasts for MDG. Unless and untill your education department does not pull up its sock in primary education you shall lag behind India in education by 2020.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom