KARACHI CHRONICLE: student gangsterism: gun battle at Nobel laureate's PSIT in Karachi

What is the connection between this year's Nobel Peace Prize winner former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari and the Pakistani Swedish Institute of Technology (PSIT) in Quaidabad? Ahtisaari helped establish the institute, working from 1960 to 1963, training teachers and managing the students' hostel.
On October 10 he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work in developing and sustaining peace in troubled areas around the world. On October 12, peace was shattered at the PSIT as rival student groups clashed and exchanged gunfire in which eight persons suffered bullet wounds.
The PSIT incident in brief was this: a clash took place between students belonging to the Islami Jamiat-e-Talaba (IJT) and the Pakhtun Students Federation (PSF) at 10.30 am when 1,250 candidates were to take the entrance test. Both groups pulled out guns and a battle ensued. The police were called in but could not control the rioters, who also closed the gates. The Rangers arrived and scaled the boundary wall to lob teargas shells to disperse the warring students. The clash ended around 2:30 pm, after which the entrance test was conducted peacefully.
What can one say except thank you, dear students, for this fiery celebration of the Nobel Peace Prize honour, which your institution shares as a reflected glory, that its winner was a founder of the PSIT. The timing of the clash was perfect, just two days after Ahtisaari was honoured. It is a shame your clash was not reported world-wide, as it deserved to be. The headlines should have screamed: "Gun battle at school set up by Nobel Peace laureate". Unfortunately, the students were denied their moment of international fame because these days, the hot news is the verbal battle raging between the Democrats and Republicans in the run-up to the Presidential polls in the US.
Appreciating what the students did, the police did not arrest them and no firearms were seized. Allegations and counter allegations were levelled by both student organisations. The police could not decide who were the actual culprits, so it registered separate cases against unnamed students of the IJT and PSF on behalf of the state.
In its early days, the PSIT was a fine institution. Among the technologies it introduced, if I am not mistaken, was the making of modern style furniture using cheaper woods and laminates which had recently come in the market in the late 1960s. The standard of teaching was excellent and many students found highly paid jobs in the Middle East.
A point worth noting is that the PSIT succeeded in altering the mentality of the middle class. It was once believed that only those jobs are respectable which require a degree. But when students of the PSIT got lucrative jobs in the Middle East and earned nearly as well as their siblings who had studied accountancy or medicine, the middle class began to recognise the value of technological education, and such students had also good marriage prospects. Marriage in our social order, is the best yardstick to judge socio-economic status.
This is no longer true, unfortunately, and middle class mentality is back where it was forty years ago. A technician is no longer a suitable boy and mamas are once again focusing their attention on doctors and the three-piece-suit wearing clerks called chartered accountants and business administrators.
Gradually, as has happened to nearly all Karachi's fine educational institutions, deterioration set in the PSIT. There was chronic shortage of funds to upgrade equipment and to pay the staff. The quality of teaching suffered. But even then, unlike the other good teaching institutions which went downhill, the PSIT did not suffer any noticeable students' unrest. Until October 12.
The final stage of degradation, students' unrest, has taken a little longer to manifest at the PSIT, but the process has been exactly as in other fine institutions such as the Karachi University, Dawood College of Engineering and Technology, Urdu College, now university, Dow Medical College, also now university and so forth. The pattern is identical. A promising start, then shortage of funds, inability to upgrade teaching tools (reference libraries, lab equipment etc), shortage of teaching staff due to lack of expansion funds, backbiting and intrigue in the existing staff to retain their jobs and push out others in the way of their selfish goals, politicisation of students' unions, students' unrest and arrogance based on political clout and, of course fire power.
The cause of deterioration is blamed on students' unrest. But the real cause, in every case, has been denial of adequate funds to run the institution and for its expansion. What a criminal waste! When will the government realise the importance of allocating large funds for Education?
One often hears responsible and intelligent people propound that students' unions ought to be banned. Students' unions are vital, but their importance and function has been misunderstood. Democracy must be inculcated in youth, so of course unions will have a political definition.
That, however, has been taken to mean a loyalty to some political party or other. In short, our students' unions are just the youth wing of various political parties, which is not the same thing as unionism of college level. The party commitment means the student is bound, put into a mold, indoctrinated, brainwashed.
Instead of banning students' unions there should be a ban on political party involvement in student politics. It is virtually political parties that call the shots in students' affairs. Such coersion is possible only by force. That is the reason for the prevalent gun culture in colleges and universities. I have not heard any political party condemn what happened at the PSIT on October 12. As they say, silence means acceptance.
The purpose of students' unions is to teach democratic practice, that is, tolerance of a variety of points of views; awareness of social and national objectives; freedom to express views on politics without being branded a partisan. The forum of union battles is debate which teaches the student to see the negative and positive sides of any issue. None of these characteristics of typical students' unions can be noted in today's unions. All they know is the political party they belong to, and treat all other unions as their enemies. Enmity, aggressive behaviour, intolerance and ignorance of real issues characterise the students' unions now. Ban political party sponsorship of students' unions and bring back the old traditions. But under no circumstance forbid students' unions.