Sunday, August 28, 2016

The Quantification of Private Education in Pakistan

Earlier this month, when the Cambridge O/A Level results were announced in different parts of the world including Pakistan, I was curious to know my own students’ results for the course I taught them. I use the word curious instead of nervous or excited because I strongly believe that grades are not a determinant of success, and have always exhorted this idea to my students. However, this is not a value that most of my colleagues share, or one that I grew up with as an O-Level student ten years ago.
During my school years, the education system and society of which I was a part (and still am) constantly drilled a very rigid notion of success in students, which was that success equals to amassing an impressive amount of material wealth, and that academic excellence achieved from the top institutions is the only route to success. Ten years down the lane, the situation is very much the same. I understand that such materialistic values come from being part of an increasingly consumerist society, but in our race to outdo each other, we as a society seem to have forgotten the basic purpose of acquiring an education, which is to become better human beings.
Generally speaking, we as parents and teachers belonging to privileged socio-economic backgrounds seem to be obsessed with our children’s grades in school, as if a mere grade or percentage will determine whether the child is a success or failure in life. I blame this partially on our national trait of possessing a dichotomous thinking; of seeing things only in terms of black and white. Thus, an A grade means your child will excel in all areas of life, whereas a B grade or lower means the child is just average- she/he will survive, but barely. Needless to say, there are countless examples of individuals who belonged to the latter category in school and later on excelled in their personal and professional lives.
With Pakistan’s economy becoming increasingly capitalist in nature, it seems justified that for students, getting good grades is essential for survival of the fittest. After all, we are living in the modern age (or postmodern, or transmodern-whatever you want to call it), and modernity functions through the logic of separation. Thus, it seems justified to divide and determine students’ intellectual abilities through the grading system But what about those individuals who cannot excel academically? I am referring in particular to students with special physical and learning needs who are made to go through the same standardized exams as other students. The only exception is that these students are given a little extra time to complete their papers, which really does not make the examination procedure an easier one for most of them. So are we, as educational institutions, predetermining such students’ futures by labeling them as failures and as dysfunctional members of society? What is needed in our institutions (particularly the education sector) is a humbling of capitalist modernity. Universality, advancement, progress and development are all part of the rhetoric of modernity- but all of these are carried out at the expense of dismissing and showing disdain for those who cannot perform to the best of society’s expectations of them.
It is safe to say that students these days are schooled to mimic the performance of the educational institution itself, which is mostly about competition (with other private schools to secure the top place) , with very little focus on imparting basic human values such as respect, compassion, honesty and being helpful and supportive. How is it then that a child can make friends at school when she/he is constantly preached by their teachers and parents that they should treat all their classmates as ‘competition’? How can a relationship based on competition be a truly honest and amiable one? As responsible teachers and parents, we need to explore how we can correct this problem within the academia. As institutions, we need to move away from the cult of the self or the obsession with individualism, and move towards forming a communal self. By this I mean that the school must organize itself as a community that inculcates communal values in its students rather than simply teaching them to compete with each other to get the highest grades. Only then can we actually progress as a society which produces good Samaritans who take responsibility for strengthening their society’s social institutions.


The writer is a teacher of O-level sociology at a renowned school in Karachi. 

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Model UN: Breeding pointless leadership – The Express Tribune Blog

Model UN: Breeding pointless leadership – The Express Tribune Blog

I do agree with the writer when she says that nowadays, more emphasis is given my many participants as well as the organisers of MUNs on the social events that take place after the sessions,rather than giving more importance to the sessions and their purpose themselves.

However, since I have personally taken part in an MUN(the lyceum Mun, aka LYMUN), I would beg to differ with Hira Siddiqui's statement that these MUNs are pointless since they achieve nothing. They create an awareness of world politics and issues in young students, a fact which has been dismissed by Ms. Siddiqui, but is nonetheless highly pertinent, because being politically aware,as well as being aware of the major issues surrounding you is much better than being ignorant. Having awareness might, at some point in the student's life, prompt him/her to join the efforts being carried out to resolve world issues such as poverty,HIV/AIDS,gender discrimination,etc. Also, contrary to what Ms. Siddiqui has pointed out, MUNs do involve debates on the Palestine/Kashmir issue-infact,these two are included in the key issues discussed in these conferences.

From a personal point of view, I would encourage all school and university students to take part in atleast one MUN during their high school/college years as it would help them gain immense knowledge about world politics and issues.

Sunday, November 21, 2010

The national stupor

The national stupor

I have been an avid reader of Mr. Cowasjee's weekly column since many years,and I know he is well known for being blunt and brutally honest in his opinions about the state of affairs in our nation and about Pakistan's politicians, but this is probably the first time he has written against a leader so openly.While Mr. Cowasjee's excessively harsh and sardonic remarks about the president sound quite valid to me(as well as to many other Pakistanis),I am concerned about his personal safety,which might come into danger if his article is reported by any pro-government person as damaging to the government's image(we have a law for that too,now,in order to ensure no harm is done to the current leaders even verbally). Mr Cowasjee has the courage to say what many citizens of Pakistan would like to say publicly but are afraid of voicing their opinions out of fear of being punished by the authorities for it(and this happens in a so-called 'democratic' nation,imagine).Mr Cowasjee has correctly pointed out that the predicament of a large number of the flood affectees is one of the major concerns that the government should be addressing right now but has conveniently ignored it. As Mr Cowasjee has stated,it has been reported that atleast 6 million out of the 20 million flood affectees are still waiting to be rehabilitated. Since the government seems to be in no mood of entertaining the flood affectees' woes,I think its our job as responsible citizens to do whatever is in our capacity to rehabilitate them .We should collaborate with NGOs who are involved in flood relief work,or should organize as groups and do the work independently.Mr Cowasjee's cries for action will remain unheard unless we actually wake up from our stupor and jolt into action.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

Oklahoma and Sharia law

Oklahoma and Sharia law

I personally support the Oklahoma government's ban on Sharia law,since in my opinion,having a separate system of laws for a minor religious community creates more problems than solutions for the members of that particular community as well as for the rest of the population.

The major problem with the Sharia law is that its implementation varies in different Muslim nations in accordance with their leaders' wishes. This means that the law is not always implemented in its true form,and thus ends up benefitting certain people at the cost of oppressing or harming others.

A classic example of this is the enforcement of the 'Hudood Ordinances' and the blaspemy laws as part of the sharia law under General Zia-ul-Haq's regime in Pakistan in the 1980s. According to the blasphemy laws, any person found disrespecting the Holy Quran or the Holy Prophet(pbuh) was to be given lashes as punishment. It should be noted that this law is not laid down either in the Quran or in the books of Ahadith(sayings of the Holy Prophet). The blasphemy law is implemented in Pakistan till this day,and has often been used by people who wrongly accuse their non-Muslim enemies of disrespecting the Quran or the Prophet in order to take their revenge with them and easily get away with it.

It is also important to note that the Sharia does not address a number of issues facing Muslims,such as marital rape.Since marital rape is a punishable crime in the U.S, implementing the Sharia law in Oklahoma would automatically make many Muslim women who are victims of marital rape unable to seek justice.This in turn will lead to greater injustice, oppression and volence in society.
Hence,to me it seems quite sensible of the Oklahoma government to propose a ban on the implementation of the Sharia law for Muslims in the state.It is an act that will ensure equality and peace for not just theMuslims residing in Oklahoma,but for the rest of the residents of the state as well.

Saturday, November 13, 2010

Movie Review-The Joneses

'The Joneses' is a somewhat social commentary on today's consumerist society(the American society in particular). The movie revolves around a 'perfect' couple, Steve Jones(David Duchovny) and Kate Jones(Demi Moore), and their teenaged children Jenn(Amber Heard) and Mick(Ben Hollingsworth).Their family is envied by everyone in their posh,suburban neighborhood filled with Mcmansions and all the trappings of the upper-middle class.Kate is portrayed as the ultimate trend-setter-beautiful,sexy,dressed head-to-toe in top designer labels. Steve,on the other hand, is the most admired and successful businessman who has it all: a gorgeous wife, a big house and an endless supply of high-tech toys. The children,Jenn and Mick, rule their their new school as they own everything hip and trendy such as cool clothes,fast cars and the latest gadgets.

However,no one knows the truth about the so-called perfect family, which calls itself a 'unit' when no outsider is around. As the story unfolds, we are shown that the Joneses 'family' actually consists of four unrelated people who are hired by a firm to sell a high-end lifestyle,including the most expensive cars,clothes,etc in different parts of the U.S in order to promote consumerism in those areas. Each member of the 'unit' competes with each other in terms of the percentage by which the sales of the products they promote goes up. In a sense, each individual member of the unit is a salesperson,but has to carry out their job indiscreetly so as not to let the neighborhood find out what they are actually doing.

The movie subtly shows how the concept of increasing consumerism adversely affects the lives of people on a daily basis by focusing on how the Joneses' spending habits lead to their own and their community's downfall.So the lesson the movie teaches is a rather pertinent one in the current age,which is characterized by a never-ending increase in wants,leading to the eventual destruction of many people's lives.

While Demi Moore and David Duchovn played their roles really well,Amber Heard,who plays the Joneses' daughter,is wears an expressionless look throughout the movie,which is somewhat annoying. Overall,the movie is good in terms of the storyline,acting and continuity.

Rating: 4/5

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

Movie Review-Peepli Live

Peepli Live, a low budget movie produced by Aamir Khan and his wife Kiran Rao, is a social commentary on farmer suicides in India, as well as on dirty politics and media sensationalism. Set in the village of Peepli, which has a huge population of farmers, the film stars a number of relatively unknown actors(infact,some of the actors are actually residents of Peepli). The film focuses on one farmer, who contemplates committing suicide in order for his family to get compensation money of Rs 100,000. The money will help the family pay the mortgage for their residential land, which is currently facing the threat of government seizure.

What unfolds next is a plot consisting of several characters and agencies such as various political parties, news channels and journalists, which become embattled in a broil over their varying decisions regarding the farmer's fate.The audience is exposed to the ugly side of the news media, namely sensationalism and propaganda, as well as the (forceful) influence of politicians on decisions regarding pressing social issues (farmer suicides,in this case) and the way they are relayed to the public through the media.

Naseerudin Shah(the only famous actor in the movie), who plays the agriculture minister, is perhaps the person whose role and acting stand out the most. He portrays the conventional, selfish and ruthless politician, and this is highlighted magnificently in a scene where, when being questioned in a television interview about the solution to farmer suicides, he replies in a matter of fact tone,"more industrialization!"

The protagonist in the film does not have many dialogues and has a somewhat blank countenance throughout, but on the other hand, this could have been done deliberately to show his utter helplessness in making a decision about his own life in the faces of journalists and politicians.

The only drawback in the movie is the language, which being a particular Hindi dialect is hard for many people to understand.
On the whole, Peepli Live gives a very realistic and somewhat frightening picture of ugly politics and media sensationalism. The ending left me with a bitter taste,since it gave a very dark and pessimistic view of society and its savagery.

rating: 4/5

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Obama's double standards

DAWN.COM Front Page Obama forced to retract support for NY mosque

President Obama's decision to retreat from his previous stance supporting the building of a mosque near Ground Zero is disappointing for many Muslims worldwide, who had placed immense faith in Obama to bridge the increasing divide between what is now viewed as 'Islam and the West.'

President Obama's succumbing to Republican pressure to withdraw his support for the project puts a question mark on his ability to take independent decisions regarding efforts to portray the Muslim community in a positive light, as opposed to their now widely held image as religious extremists and fanatics.Furthermore, Mr Obama's justification for his action being his belief that his government should ''treat everybody equally'' irrespective of their religion seems to contradict the very principle of democracy,which  his nation proudly declares to be built upon. If his statement is taken into account, then isn't not building the mosque a way of treating the Muslim community as unequal in relation to other religious communities in the U.S? One must ask, would Mr Obama have retreated his position if there had been a temple,synagogue or church instead of a mosque being built near Ground Zero? By retracting his support for the mosque project, Mr Obama has unknowingly  fallen prey to the populist opinion regarding the Muslim community as a 'danger' to freedom and to liberalism,simply because of their common religious practices such as communal prayers.
It is quite sad that Mr Obama's decision is a result of his party's fear that his earlier support for the mosque would have been brought up as a campaign issue during the mid-term elections in November.It indicates that votes have higher importance to the Democrats than the growing issue of the rights of a community (which should technically have the same rights as any other other religious community in the U.S, based on the principles of democracy).