Categories
Commentaries

Brief Guidelines for Applying to US Universities for Doctoral Studies and Post-Doc Research

Introduction:

This draft document elaborates the general application process to US research universities. For a more detailed understanding of the process, the candidates should research the application criteria on the particular University websites. These draft guidelines are prepared voluntarily to aid the aspirational guidelines of Higher Education Commission as contained in the HEC Vision 25, Section D and are primarily focused on the Pakistani scholars interested in applying to US PhD programs or Postdoc research projects.

Applications to Doctoral Programs:

General:

Most US universities require certain general qualifications that apply to all Doctoral candidates regardless of their discipline of study. Please bear the following in mind before applying:

  • Most US universities only consider PhD application for the fall admissions (Starting in August or September).
  • The application deadlines are usually in December or January: For example, if you are applying for admission for Fall 2019, your application deadline could be either Dec 31, 2018 or January 31, 2019.
  • US universities very rarely admit doctoral students in the Spring semester.
  • The reason for this schedule is connected to funding. The Universities decide their graduate funding once a year, and thus all funding is made available for the fall semester as the beginning semester of the academic year.
  • Admission to a good US university, therefore, is almost a one year process.

Basic Requirements:

The admission at all universities is a three-tier process and you will be dealing with three entities on any US university campus: The Office of International Studies; The office of Graduate Studies/ Admissions, and the College or department to which you are applying.

First Stage (Required by the International Office/ Graduate Admissions Office to Move your application to the College/ Department

  • An Official TOEFL score (Unless you have masters from an English-Speaking Country (Pakistan does not qualify for this).
  • Transcripts of all your previous work
  • A GRE/ GMAT Score depending on your area of study.
  • A statement of Purpose (Usually up to 700 words)

Second Stage: College/ Departmental Requirements

  • Three letters of recommendation
  • A Writing/ Research sample

Final Stage: (After Admission has been granted)

The Office of International Studies will ask you to provide proof of Payment ability. Usually a bank statement or a letter stating that you have a scholarship. [Note: Ability to pay is not considered in making a decision about your admission; that is why you are asked for finances only after you have been admitted]

Issuance of I-20 Student Visa Form.

Transition to US:

Here are some of the important steps:

  • Accommodation: if the institution provides graduate housing, immediately apply for it through their online request forms.
  • If you cannot get University accommodation, contact the International Office to suggest any off- campus accommodation. Reach out to Pakistani/ South Asian Student associations on campus to see if they can help you find a place to live.
  • Arrange with the International office to see if they will arrange picking you up at the airport; most universities will make this arrangement.
  • Get in touch with the Grad advisor in your future program to seek guidance about registering for classes etc.
  • Bring all your credentials in original to the US.

Post-Doc Applications:

The US universities do not charge a bench fee for post-docs. The post-doc students come under the J1 visa program. In order to get the visa, you may follow the following steps:

  • Contact a specific faculty member who works in the area of your interest.
  • Send them a query email, clearly stating your research interests and ask if they would be willing to work with you as a mentor.
  • If they agree, then send them your research proposal.
  • It takes only a few days for a faculty member to fill the necessary forms and refer you to the Office of International Studies.
  • The office of International Studies will gather more of your information including your ability to bear the cost of your stay [usually calculated based on cost of living statistics of the state]
  • After you have proved the ability to sustain your stay, they will issue you a J-1 visa.
  • As a J-1 scholar, you can also work on campus for up to 30 hours per week.
  • Your spouse can also accompany you on a J-2 visa if you can prove your ability to pay the cost of his or her stay.
  • You will also need the proof a health insurance plan that meets the J1 Visa stipulations.

Useful Links:


Categories
Commentaries

Women’s Rights in Islam, By Sayed Mumtaz Ali

Translated by Masood Ashraf Raja

Preface

In these few pages I have explained the crux of my thoughts about the rights of women, a subject upon which I have often thought and reflected. Although my thoughts have gone through slight changes over a period, my views on all- important aspects of this subject have neither weakened nor changed too drastically. In fact, I believe that these reflections have strengthened my resolve and bettered my character. I am hopeful that my expression of these thoughts and the attendant practice of these ideas would enhance the cultural development of our nation. And that is the reason I am daring to share my thoughts openly.

I am aware that my thoughts would be given various unsavory names: emulating English values will be one of the charges brought against me and my views. A hundred pens will write against me and numerous lips will criticize my attempt. But those true souls who find the way of the Prophet (peace be upon him) better than their own family values will find some truth in my thoughts and will, I hope, attempt to live according to the example of the Prophet. And the barbs of the critics, I am sure, will not deter these true souls.

If my this humble attempt enables, in any way, the rights of one lone old woman to be upheld in Hindustan, I would consider it a worthwhile reward of my efforts.

The False Preference of Men Over Women

Men and women are both part of the human race and cannot, therefore, have any essential preference of one over the other. A few characteristics that privilege men over women are strictly related to the societal role played by men while using those [gender-specific] characteristics. Other than these existential differences, all other differences that fix a male essence and a female essence are just arbitrary and unreliable. These existential differences are always caused by the material conditions such as the differences in one’s regional abode, climate, difference of age, or cultural differences. I will prove that the gender differences that have been normative in our current culture, a difference that should have been based in natural division of labor, are highly accentuated and are based in myth, prejudice, and male ignorance. Thus, our current explanation of gender roles is harmful and based on uncivilized and prehistoric barbaric ideas.

The entire edifice of our culture is based on this false premise: Men are rulers, women the subjects, and that the women are created for men’s comfort.

From this it is construed that men have the same rights over women as they have on other things that they own and in such a relationship women can never be considered men’s equal. Now if men had considered this unclean principle only as a product of their male prejudice, I would have had no problem with it. But the tragedy is that men consider this claim to be rational, just, and divinely inspired. To refute these claims and to prove them wrong is the main purpose of this book.

I will conduct this discussion in five parts. In Part 1, I will refute the evidence used to prove privilege of men over women; Part 2 deals with the question of women’s education and Part 3 with Purdah. In part four I will discuss the rules of marriage, and in part 5 the cultural norms for marriage.

The Arguments Offered in Favor of Men

Following are some of the reasons offered by those who believe that men are better than women:

  1. God has granted more physical strength to men, therefore they are privileged in all those spheres that need physical prowess and mastery. From this it is construed that governance, as it depends on physical power, is a male prerogative.
  2. Men’s mental capacities, just like their physical strength, are also relatively stronger than those of women. That is why historically women have always thought to be less intelligent and their superstitious ways, shortsightedness, and infidelity are all rooted in their weak intellect.
  3. Just as kingship is the most important institution in the material world, the Prophethood is the greatest human role in the spiritual realm. God has always appointed men as prophets but never a woman.
  4. Theologically, one verse of the Qur’an (Al Nisa) is mobilized to claim that men are “rulers over women.”
  5. Another argument offered in favor of men is that God created Adam first and then Eve as his companion. Therefore, it a woman’s role is to be a comfort to man, to obey his rule, and to prefer his comfort over her own in order to be true to her divine purpose of creation.
  6. The Qur’an equates testimony by two women to that of one man and gives half of a male share of inheritance to women. Both these statements are also used to prove that men are superior to women.
  7. As God permits men to have four wives but does not grant the same tight to women, this also is used as an argument for the divinely inspired superiority of men over women.
  8. Another argument in favor of male superiority is that the Qur’an promises them female companions in the afterlife, while women are not promised male companions in heaven.

Besides these rational and Qur’anic arguments, there are also a few other irrational mythological reasons that are offered to prove male superiority [which Munshi Inyatullah mention in his book], but I do not consider worthy of consideration.

In a nutshell these are some of the reasons-you may call them intellectual or religious, that are used by many to render one half of human population as inferior to the other half. As a result the women are reduced to a condition of obedience to men that is even worse than slavery. These arguments have made it so that even the worse kind of sinful men can still consider themselves better than women.

I will now analyze these arguments to see whether they are based in any logical reasoning or are they just falsehoods mobilized by the proponents of the status quo in order to keep the male dominance intact.

Refutation of the Male Superiority Arguments

I will now analyze these arguments to see whether they are based in any logical reasoning or are they just falsehoods mobilized by the proponents of the status quo in order to keep the myth of male superiority intact. Anyone who selflessly and objectively analyzes the above cited arguments would reach the conclusion that these are just base argument without any basis in the shariah or in reason.

First Argument: Men are superior to women because of their higher physical strength. Their higher physical strength also grants men the right to govern.

The first argument offered in favor of men declares them superior to women because of higher physical prowess of men. This is a rather strange argument. I do not deny that men are usually physically stronger than women. But how can one construe from this argument that simply because men have more physical strength, they are, as humans, superior to women.

A division of physical labor corresponding to one’s physical strength is only natural. No one denies that men can perform more labor-intensive tasks. Men can labor freely: they can carve mountains, cut trees, and, if they so desire, chop off heads of other men. The question, however, is that how does this physical prowess make them superior to women? One can see the sad poverty of this argument, if one were to compare physical prowess of men not with that of women but with that of beasts of burden. Most beasts of burden are blessed with more physical strength than men. So if physical strength is the only criterion for one’s superiority over another, then why are not the laboring animals considered superior to men? Would it be logical to state that since a donkey can carry a heavier load than a man it is, therefore, superior to man? Naturally, we cannot make such a claim nor can we, thus, claim that a man is superior to a woman because he is stronger.

We must also question the very nature of this comparison of physical strengths between men and women. We know that men and women have the same animal essence. We do not designate them as “male human animal” and “female human animal.” The term human animal, in fact, designates both men and women. The term human is a combination of two faculties: animal+speech. Thus, it is the capacity of rational speech that makes humans better than other animals. The humans therefore have evolved beyond their animal nature, and if they have, then how come men are considered better evolved than women. And if the brute strength is a cause of superiority, doesn’t it amount to privileging the very animalistic part of human beings that they have left behind as humans?

We know that human beings are an evolved form of animals; they are humans because God imbued their animalistic spirit with an angelic essence. This new creation–a combination of animal and angel–He named human. Thus the comparison between men and women should not be based in their animalistic qualities but rather their angelic qualities. To prove man superior in animalistic attributes is, in fact, a denigration of his angelic qualities.

Secondly, if for a moment we do accept male superiority on the basis of physical strength alone, does it mean that men are essentially and naturally stronger or is this difference in their relative strengths based in existential material reasons? A realistic observation reveals that this difference in male and female physical strengths is not natural but is temporary and caused by environmental and cultural factors over thousands of years. This difference appears even in men depending on their regions of abode. Looking at men alone, why is it that the Afridis from Kabul are so physically strong and vital while the Baboos of Bengal are dark and weak? Why is it that we consider the Punjabi Sikhs as lions, but find the Bunyas effeminate and less manly? The causes of physical weakness of women are even older than the ones that have caused the Bunyas and baboos to be weak and are mostly environmental. Even if women live in different regions, their physical prowess is strongly connected to the civilizational aspects of their particular cultures. This civilizational difference becomes quite obvious if one were to compare the physical strength and vigor of the women of Ghazni and Hirat with the begums of Lucknow and Delhi. Obviously, the relative differences in their physical prowess are not based in their gender [in which case both these female groups would display the same degree of physical prowess] but in the culture in which they live. The relative physical weakness of women is, therefore, produce over a long period by keeping the women away from the kind of activities that would have made them physically stronger.

The second assumption of the first argument in favor of men is even more ridiculous. Governance and rule are never always a result of physical prowess. This rule of might is right might have applied in the earlier stages of human development when human being lived a savage and unorganized state. During this stage it might have been possible to assume that the strongest amongst men shall be the ruler. But as soon as a rudimentary social order was established, the rule of power and brute strength no longer remains the sole justification for individual rule. Thus, as the social systems develop, the ruler no longer governs through brute force but rather relies on the good will of his friends and allies. This rule [working through the collective hegemonic influence of ones allies] has remained a central tenet of governance in all ages. The mere fact that the ruler must work in concert with like-minded people presupposes that governance is not necessarily dependent upon brute strength f men. In fact, if alliances are important to rule, then, other than the normalized privileged position of men, there is no reason one could not imagine women being a part of such alliances and may even become rulers themselves. Info fact, in every culture women have been known to become rulers at one point or other and in most cases have proven to be great and respected rulers. In India the rule of Razia Sultana, though brief, was a relatively more peaceful and prosperous rule. Similarly, Jahangir’s rule is in truth reign of Noor Jehan, the queen. Currently, one can see how grandly does the Queen of England run this empire. Is there any reason for us to think that governance belongs only to men?

Furthermore, to think that governance is dependent only on force is based in faulty reasoning. Development of knowledge, rise of civilization, and mastery of India by Britain has taught us that knowledge is the most powerful force in the world. And those who posses knowledge, whether male or female, have the right to govern over those who lack in knowledge. Thus, we hope that men would no longer use their physical strength as the sole reason for their right to governance and for their superiority over women. It is, in fact, a preposterous argument.

(More later)

Categories
Commentaries

Write for US

Now that we have transformed our blog into a multi-author, newspaper-like format, we would love for you to contribute your work. You can either email us your writings (pakistaniaat@gmail.com) or register with the website as a contributor and upload your content directly.

Our Topics of Interest:

Pakistani Politics and Current Affairs

Pakistani Culture, History, and Stories

Pakistan-Related Announcements

Why Share your Work:

We believe that Pakistan is at a very critical juncture right now and it is imperative on us to foreground and showcase the progressive, enlightened, and inclusive voices of Pakistani intellectuals and writers. So please contribute, pass the word, and place our link on your websites and blogs.

Let us work together to fight the forces of intolerance and hate that seem to have claimed the Pakistani public sphere.

In Solidarity,

Editors, Pakistaniaat Forum

Categories
Commentaries

An anatomy of exceptionalism

(From Dawn.com)
An anatomy of exceptionalism

InpaperMagzine
December 19, 2010 (5 days ago)

Reviewed By Brig A. R. Siddiqi

THE bedrock of Masood Ashraf Raja’s thesis in Constructing Pakistan is a critical study of Muslim ‘exceptionalism’ and ‘separateness’ leading eventually to ‘nationhood’ and partition. The author admits that the book does not offer the history of Muslim nationhood as a ‘unitary progressive narrative’, nor does it pretend to be a comprehensive chronicle of the Congress-led and Muslim League-seconded freedom movement leading to the end of the British Raj.

With regard to the end result — the partition of India — the freedom movement had less to celebrate and more to reflect on the disastrous consequences.

The term Muslim exceptionalism did not necessarily embrace the urge to create a separate homeland on the basis of a divided India. It was much like the natural urge of a Bengali to look, dress and speak like a Bengali and still coexist with a Pathan and Punjabi.

Pakistan, as a separate nation state was contrary to the ulema’s idea of a universal Islamic state without frontiers. They would legitimise statehood only in the name of Islam and hence the constant opposition of theologians and the ulema to the creation of Pakistan. That includes ulema on both ends of the spectrum — a religious reformer like Mawdudi, on the one end, and a nationalist Hussain Ahmed Madani on the other. Mawdudi was as much opposed to Pakistan as was Madani. Both had been bona fide Indian nationals and accepted their status as such.

In his book Composite Nationalism and Islam Madani argued that ‘Partition was the handiwork of the secular elite of the two communities and not of the religious leaders’.

What then was the driving force behind the making of Pakistan? What was the Quaid actually fighting for? A theocentric or a theocratic state?

The question that arises then is: was the driving force Muslim exceptionalism or the Hindu thrust for the re-conquest of India and its re-conversion into a sort of Bharatvarsha after centuries of foreign domination? It could be either. In fact, much more can be explained in metaphysical rather than in simple physical and political terms. There had never been any lack of ‘discourse or social communication between the two communities.’

Amir Khusro, Nizamuddin Auliya and the entire panoply of Muslim saints down to Delhi’s Khawja Hassan Nizami are considered a rare combination of the spiritual and the temporal. Hindus too had their own pantheon comprising Bhagat Sur Das, Tulsi Das, Meera Bai and of course Mahatma Gandhi intonating Ram and Rahim in the same breath.

The term Muslim exceptionalism in pre-partition usage was just another word for the All-India Muslim League’s demand for an independent Muslim state. The demand for Pakistan rose entirely from the prospect of a brute Hindu majority ruling over a Muslim minority and the ensuing inequalities and possible repression.

It is said also to have arisen from a sense of the loss of past glory that once belonged to the Muslims and the hope to revive it in an independent Muslim state. Muslim exceptionalism remained blissfully untainted by the rabid communalism of Bunkam, Chandra Chatterji, Swami Dayanad Saraswati, Swami Shadhanad down to Tilak, Dr Shayama Murkerjee and many others.

Masood Ashraf Raja has based his explanation of Muslim exceptionalism on ‘foundational’ literary texts of great Muslim writers and intellectuals of the 19th century. He mentions Mohammad Hussain Azad, Maulana Altaf Hussain Hali, Maulvi Nazir Ahmed, Shibli Naumani and Akbar Allahabadi, etc. as its pillars.

Prof Mushirul Hassan, in his classic A Moral Reckoning: Muslim intellectuals in 19th century Delhi simply overturns the argument by highlighting the patriotic sentiment underlying and galvanising the work of the various intellectuals. Even Sayyid Ahmed Khan, wrongly said to be the pioneer of the two-nation theory, had been a great Indian patriot.

Though apprehensive of the status of Muslim minority under Hindu majority in the post-Raj independent India, he remained dedicated to the idea of an undivided free-India. Prof Hassan goes on to quote, at length, from the works of Farhatullah Beg, Zakullah and Nazir Ahmed to demonstrate their love of the land even if in the specific context of the Delhi culture and literary writings.

How could a community of such devoted and creative Hindustanis such as Khusro, Ghalib and Bahadur Shah Zafar subscribe to the theory of Muslim exceptionalism, least of all separatism? Even Iqbal, the ideological father of Pakistan, composed the Tirana-i-Hindi and hymns in praise of Raja Bharatahari and called Lord Rama ‘Imam-ul-Hind’.

The Muslims of India accepted India as their homeland. They interacted with the Hindus to produce a rich Indo-Muslim culture, cuisine, architecture and Urdu as a rich literary medium. The scope and rationale for Muslim exceptionalism remains open to debate.

Constructing Pakistan
(HISTORY)
By Masood Ashraf Raja
Oxford University Press, Karachi
ISBN 978-0-19-547811-2
156pp. Rs495

Categories
Commentaries

Abstracts From Pakistaniaat Vol 2, No 3 (2010)

The first special issue of Pakistaniaat, edited by Dr. Cara Cilano, has now been pblished. Provided below are the abstracts of four wonderful articles inclduded in this issue.

Please support the journal through online/Print subscriptions or by purchasing some print copies.

Abstracts

The Break-Up of Pakistan

Philip Oldenburg
Essay traces what the author identifies as the four phases of the 1971 conflict:  the initiation of military hostilities in March 1971; Kissinger’s visit to Peking; the war with India at the end of that year; and the transfer of power to Mujib.

The Birth of Bangladesh/Nefarious Plots and Cold War Sideshows

Roger Vogler
This Paper examines, from the perspective of an American architect living and working in India at the time, many of the events and circumstances that led to the destruction in 1971 of Pakistan as it had originally ben constituted 24 years before.  Among these were the enormous geographic challenges faced from Pakistan’s inception, its deep-seated ethnic incompatibilities, its huge economic imbalances and rampant political egos, and a devastating typhoon.  The paper also explores the tragic human consequences of an American foreign policy that could only see these events and circumstances through a prism of Cold War hatred and suspicion.

Superpower Relations, Backchannels, and the Subcontinent

Luke A. Nichter, Richard A. Moss
In his 1978 memoirs, President Nixon claimed, “By using diplomatic signals and behind-the-scenes pressures we had been able to save West Pakistan from the imminent threat of Indian aggression and domination. We had also once again avoided a major confrontation with the Soviet Union.”[1] Kissinger’s far more detailed chapter on “the tilt,” in the first volume of his memoirs, White House Years, complements and largely corroborates Nixon’s. Kissinger argued that Nixon did not want to “squeeze Yahya” and tried to put forward a neutral posture to the bloodshed in East Pakistan so as not to encourage secessionist elements within an ally, Pakistan, which was divided into two wings over 1,000 miles apart astride India.[2] Above all, before his secret trip to China in July 1971, Kissinger wanted to preserve the special channel to the P.R.C., and he saw three obstacles to handling the situation in South Asia: “the policy of India, our own public debate, and the indiscipline of our bureaucracy.” Kissinger stressed that the U.S. attempted to restrain India by making clear American opposition to Indo-Pakistani conflict and attempting to force the Soviet Union to control their ally, India. Nevertheless, the two South Asian countries marched towards conflict following a string of natural disasters in East Pakistan—later the independent nation of Bangladesh, an election loss for Pakistan President Yahya Khan to Mujib Rahman, and Yahya’s subsequent crackdown in East Pakistan against Bangladeshi independence.

Pakistani-Chinese Relations: An Historical Analysis of the Role of China in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971

Mavra Farooq

The purpose of this essay is to bring into focus the cordial relations that existed between Pakistan and China during the Bhutto Era from 1969 to 1977, and to highlight the role of China during the Indo-Pakistani war of 1971.

Both countries had different ideologies and backgrounds. Relations between the two countries developed on the basis of national interest rather than ideology. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto writes:

States deal with states, as such, and not with their social systems or ideologies. If such an argument was carried to its logical conclusion, Pakistan should have friendly relations only with Muslim states and should isolates itself from the rest of the world. It is a historical fact that Islam, as a political force, has suffered more at the hands of Christian states than of others… It is unlikely that China is going to be responsible for the fall of Granada or Pakistan or for wrestling of Jerusalem from the Muslim States. Our reactions are based on the Bandung principles and on the adherence to the concept of non-interference. Nowhere is it mentioned in the scriptures of Islam that fostering friendship with non-Islamic states involves a compromise of identity.1.

This research article undertakes a historical, analytical and documented study of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s foreign relations and politics with China with the goal of explaining how and why Pakistan had friendly and cordial relations with China. The main question is if both countries have different ideologies why are they so close to each other? In international relations, there is neither a permanent friend nor enemy; interests are preferred.

Categories
Editorials

The First Year of Pakistaniaat–Some Thoughts

It is now the second year of Pakistaniaat’s publication. I thought I should take this opportunity to reflect upon our first year and share some thoughts about our future.
The Decision to Start a Journal
Pakistaniaat, as might be obvious by now, was not really launched on a whim. As a scholar of Pakistani origin living and working in the United States, I had felt a sort of responsibility to my mother country. Finally, after a long process of thought, I decided to launch an academic journal focused primarily on all aspects of Pakistani life. I am grateful to Jenny, my wife, for bearing with me during the whole process and by letting me use her computer to launch the journal.

This decision was also facilitated greatly with my experience of having published in the Postcolonial Text, a wonderful online journal in my field of study. I found the software that the Postcolonial Text used to be very user-friendly and ideally suited for a launching a new open-access journal. The software, called the Open Journal Systems (OJS), was developed by John Willinsky (Stanford University, USA & University of British Columbia, Canada) and made freely available to whole world for publication of academic journals online. Thousands of journals now use this software to publish there content.

Early Steps

The Pakistaniaat website was launched in January 2009, not yet using OJS, but sustained by Audra and Mike of Karma CMS. With the help of Karma CMS I was able to launch the journal in the hope that I will be able to find, eventually, a company with an affordable OJS platform. Besides these technical aspects of the journal, I also needed to put together a professional editorial team. Thus, the launching of the journal had tow immediate fronts, technical and administrative, but the most important aspect of this experience was to start attracting good submissions. I am gratified to say in hindsight that for Pakistaniaat all three important strands of the launching process came together.

Assembling an Editorial Team

A good journal, it goes without saying, must have a highly professional editorial team. I was lucky to find from amongst my friends and colleagues a brilliant team of scholars and writers to head various sections of the journal. Deborah Hall, Valdosta State University, a close friend of mine from Florida State was the first one to join us as our Fiction Editor. Jana Russ, an accomplished poet and a Lecturer at the University of Akron rendered her support as the Poetry Editor. We were  also lucky to garner the support of David Waterman, Université de La Rochelle, France, an emerging scholarly voice on Pakistan Studies, as our Review Editor. Mahwash Shoaib, an accomplished translator, and Yusaf Alamgirian, a journalist and writer from Pakistan, joined us respectively as our Translation and Urdu editors. We were also lucky to have Waqar Haider Hashmi, a dear friend, who handles our contacts with Pakistan. But we also needed, besides these brilliant scholars and writers, a computer wizard to join us as out layout editor. The layout editor has the crucial job of formatting all submissions into the wonderful and professional format in which they are made available to the public. My colleague and friend Jason W. Ellis volunteered to perform the task of our Layout Editor, thus completing my search for an editorial team. I was also, simultaneously reaching out to the senior scholars of Pakistan Studies to join our Editorial Board.

Editorial Board

During the early stage of launching the journal, I wrote approximately 5000 emails. Some of those emails were addressed to senior scholars, requesting them to join our editorial board. The board was crucial to us in two respects: it would would give us a chance to draw on the expertise support of these scholars for the progress of the journal, and it would also allow us to rely on the scholarly prestige of these scholars to bolster the image of of our newly launched journal. The following scholars were kind enough to join our editorial borad and I am grateful to them for lending us their support:

Tahera Aftab, University of Karachi, Pakistan
Fawzia Afzal-Khan, Montclair State Univeristy, United States
Waseem Anwar, Forman Christian College, Lahore, Pakistan
Kamran Asdar Ali, University of Texas, Austin, United States
Katherine Ewing, Duke University, United States
Robin Goodman, Florida State University, United States
Pervez Hoodbhoy, Quaid-e-Azam University, Pakistan
Babacar M’Baye, Kent State University, United States
Mojtaba Mahdavi, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Hafeez Malik, Villanova University, United States
Muhammad Umar Memon, University of Wisconsin, Madison, United States
Tariq Rahman, Quaid-e-Azam University, Pakistan
Amit Rai, Florida State University, United States
Amritjit Singh, Ohio University, United States
Anita Weiss, University of Oregon, United States

The Submissions

We received our first submission two weeks after we launched the journal. It was an Interview of Fawzia Afzal-Khan by Nilanshu Kumar Agarwal.  The rest followed at an amazingly astonishing pace. I would specially like to thank Dr. Muhammad Umar Memon (University of Wisconsin, Madison, United States) and editor of the Annual of Urdu Studies who has supported us throughout by contributing his works to the journal and by supporting us in our quest for funding. Now in our second year, we keep receiving submissions related to Pakistan from all over the world, but this has been made possible by those brave few who took the risk of sharing their work with Pakistaniaat during its first formative year.

Financial Support and Move to OJS

We started the journal with no promise of institutional support. Help came from various places. Ron Corthell, Chair of Kent State English Department, was the first one to give us financial support by paying our hosting fees to Karma CMS. In March we finally found a wonderful hosting company with and OJS Platform. Scholarly Exchange, a non profit organization, provides the hosting free of charge for the “First Year” and then makes it available for the subsequent years at a very affordable rate. Our transition to OJS was facilitated by Julian Fisher of Scholarly Exchange, and we are grateful for his constant support throughout our first year. During our first year, we were also lucky to garner the support of the American Institute of Pakistan Studies, who adopted us as one of their “supported” journals and gave us enough funding to host and run the journal for the year 2010.

Besides the institutions, we also got a lot of help from individuals who either subscribed to our print version or donated for our cause. Here are the names of these generous friends of Pakistaniaat:

David Waterman, Université de La Rochelle, France
Deborah Hall, Valdosta State University, United States
Akbar Zolfaghari, University of Putra, Malaysia
Donald E. Schmid, New York, United States
Mashhood Ahmed Sheikh, University of Tromsø, Norway
Andrew Smith, Florida State University, United States
Saba Waheed, California, United States

The Future

We are now publishing three issues/ Year and the future looks really bright. The journal is now self-sustaining and has already garnered attention from all over the world. I have no doubt that we will continue publishing quality works from/about Pakistan.

Ways of Helping Us

The best way you can help Pakistaniaat is by sending us you work and by passing the word around. You can also help us:

We do not ask for a lot, but would be thankful for whatever you can offer to help us continue publishing this wonderful journal. Thank you all for your support so far.