To the editors of the CRIMSON:

Mr. Beecher's article under the heading "Brass Tacks: Pakistan Palaver," published in the Harvard CRIMSON of November 12, is a remarkable performance. He appears merely to have gathered up bits of information many of which are, to say the least inaccurate. His conclusions are drawn from what are, on closer examination very slim premises.

First of all, take the question of U. S. aid to underdeveloped countries. In the search for a generalization, Mr. Beecher has assumed some sort of a cause and effect relationship between military aid and what he is pleased to call the appearance of military dictatorships. It is enough to cite the example of Burma which was not receiving military aid to refute this. Nor is a change in the form of government peculiar to underdeveloped countries. Rather, it is in an oversimplification to think of the political situation in a country receiving aid in the terms which he has in mind. It is not difficult to see that a country which receives only economic aid is free to divert a large part of its own resources towards increasing the size and effectiveness of its military establishment than would otherwise be possible for it to maintain. The specific nature and purpose of military aid makes it more honest although perhaps less self-righteous and should be an appreciable advantage from the point of view of the donor country. There are no grounds for regarding the new regime as a puppet seeking to perpetuate itself by means of any foreign military aid.

Secondly, in his summing up of the problems facing Pakistan, both ignorance and prejudice are evident. To take up only some of the points mentioned by him, Pakistan's poverty does not "far surpass India's." Per capita income in both countries is about the same. The problem of absentee land holdings was first tackled in the Eastern wing when the State Acquisition and Tenancy Act of 1950 abolished feudal "Zamindari" which was originally created by the British after their conquest of Bengal. In West Pakistan, a somewhat different system of landlordism has persisted, but plans to reform it are a top priority item with the new Government. Pakistan's population is growing currently at a rate slower than that of the U.S.A. and many other developed countries. Karachi is an over-crowded city because, apart from the fact that it was chosen as the seat of central government on securing independence, it has received and is still receiving a large influx of refugees from India. As regards the Kashmir issue, Mr. Beecher, who would not have President Mohammed Ayub Khan "intransigent," himself appears to support the intransigence of those who have successfully resisted the various efforts made by the United Nations to hold a free and impartial plebiscite in order to ascertain the wishes of the Kashmiri people whether they would like to join Pakistan or India. The simple expedient of disposing of the problem by pushing it into the background is hardly a "solution." The severe strain imposed on Pakistan's resources by the problem of absorbing no less than eight million refugees within a relatively short period has been glossed over. The other points are similarly distorted or exaggerated, and it is surprising that not one word has been said about what is possibly the most serious economic problem faced at present by the country: the threat to continued supply of canal waters irrigating millions of acres of fertile land in an excellent irrigation system.

There is little doubt that the country has suffered from a stalemate in recent years. The rate of industrial growth (the index of industrial production in the year 1957 was 384: base--1950=100) has tended to fall off during the last two years while agricultural production showed no increase. These, among other factors, were responsible for a widespread feeling within Pakistan against the ineffectiveness of the then governments and the welcome accorded to the Revolution.

From the beginning, President Mohammed Ayub Khan has emphasized that his aim is to improve efficiency in administration. The emphasis is twofold: (1) tackling the major problems; and (2) on service to the people. Persistent interference by locally influential, corrupt politicians which obstructed the execution of well-formulated policies has died. It is hardly relevant to criticize the new cabinet of talented and practical men on grounds of "political inexperience." Inside Pakistan, stagnation has given way to a new vitality and resignation has changed to constructive puposefulness.

To conclude, if the determination of the people to pursue their economic objectives leads to a corrupt political system being discarded, as in the case of Pakistan, and to a change in the form of government, it is hardly wothwhile to deprecate it merely in order to chime in with some new exponent of a redefined "free world." Shaukat Awan   Graduate School of   Public Administration