Intellectuals are commonly perceived as anti-establishment individuals who advocate on behalf of the nation’s downtrodden. In postcolonial regimes, however, such as Pakistan, a significant portion of intellectualism is not proactive in supporting the masses through constructive criticism of governmental policy. As in the United States and other developed nations, an intellectual critiques government policies through fictional narratives, public discourses, critical works, and classroom discussions. In Pakistan, however, the postcolonial nature and inherent ruling institutions prevent intellectuals from playing their proper role, hence there is little criticism or challenge of state policy. This failure is large because of the socio-political interference of colonial forces, which transformed socio-cultural institutions and constructed new political, educational, financial, and social institutions with such vigor that postcolonial states are still grappling with the problems caused by colonization.
Institutions such as the administration, the court, the police, and the military were all burdened with the responsibility of enforcing and preserving imperial control as well as suppressing rebellions during the British Raj. In addition, people who enlisted in these imperialist services were trained to become “Coconut Classes,” which means they were made to appear brown on the outside but were white on the inside. The fact that the nature of our institutions and the individuals who control them have not altered significantly since the days of colonial rule presents the most fundamental challenge we confront right now. Our bureaucrats are the rulers of the country and have the mentality required for tax collection and revenue extraction, even though they are referred to as “Public Servants.” In addition, they have the title of “Public Servants.” Another cause for the establishment of our institutions was the need to extort money from a public that was both unwilling and under oppressive conditions. Not changing the mindset and aim of our institution to work for the well-being of the public and have a positive developmental approach has created social and regional segregation.
The policies of regional development in Pakistan are more or less the same as those designed by the British Raj which has resulted in the regional segregation and marginalization of different regions. To maximize land revenue and exports, the British built canals to irrigate barren but cultivable land in central Punjab. Because of significant rainfall and engineering advantages, the British created canal colonies there. The sparse population let outstanding agriculturists move there. Rail and road transported canal colonies’ goods. Most South-West regions lacked canal colonies; therefore, transit infrastructure was limited. Except for Multan in the southwest, the remaining districts lack the transit facilities to link center settlements to Karachi’s port. Arid yet cultivable soils and low population in central Punjab were assets. The north was ideal for military headquarters and garrisons to deter Russian assault from the west. Since the 12th century, the north’s troops have fought. This permitted them to join the British army and fight in both wars (WWI-I and WW-II). They joined because of economic opportunities and land concessions in wealthier colonies. War experience and limited agricultural choices attracted them. South-West residents lacked such resources; hence they didn’t enroll. South-West was unaffected. The investment by Britishers for their benefit resulted in regional differences, with north and center Punjab being more developed than south Punjab.
Pakistan’s economic development policies are parallel with the neoliberal economic system. As Pakistan is under the International Monetary Fund (IMF) it must abide by the standard macroeconomic policies. The four major policies of the IMF are tight fiscal policy (Austerity), tight monetary policy (rising discount rate), a Market-based exchange rate (devaluation), and raising utility prices. These four mentioned policies are also known as the Washington consensus. The initiatives that were run by the IMF had a substantial impact on modernizing the country’s financial system, as well as on trade liberalization, privatization, and deregulation, but their effect on main macroeconomic indicators was negligible. However, it was not successful in improving the financial condition of the country, and it did not contribute to the achievement of a sustainable external account or a higher GDP growth rate. Rather than stabilizing the economy, the program that was implemented by the IMF had major ramifications for the economy of Pakistan, including an increase in poverty and unemployment, a slowing of economic growth, and a worsening of the country’s Balance of Payments concerns. These initiatives widened the socioeconomic disparity between the poor and the wealthy and exacerbated inequality.
Austerity and privatization of the education system in Pakistan’s policies have dire consequences in the form of socio-economic and ethnic segregation and marginalization. The privatization of the education system reflects the neoliberal economic system (a free market for commodities). The motivation for decentralization and privatization of education was to cope with the past failure of the policies of free education in the sixth five-year plan.
The nationalization and free education had landed more burden on the government expenditure and loss of education quality, schools run by education-conscious communities, under public control. But privatization has done no betterment rather it has furthered the marginalization of lower-income groups and specific ethnic communities. By relinquishing the provision of education to market forces, the Pakistani government may be burying a great majority of its population. Students having higher family incomes get quality education and students from lower-income strata are out of school or are getting an education in schools that do not ensure quality education. This has further widened the social segregation (rich and poor) in society. In a Pakistani society that is already riven by an increasing divide between rich and poor and divisions based on religion, region, and ethnicity, the resulting societal split by the education system is a matter of grave concern.
