The latest in slick businesses is consulting. Consultants hang around donor offices and planning commissions. They own NGO's and talk in terms of slick jargon like "participation", "community", "empowerment", "M&R", "RFP" "SAP" "AKRSP" "OPP" etc. Us ordinary mortals are always in awe of these super-slick individuals who can speak so eloquently and jargon-intensively if not knowledgeably about the development process. When we hear of the very fancy organizations that they work for, we cringe further in our seats. For how can we simple folk with some rudimentary education talk with someone who is a consultant to the World Bank, UN, UNU, ILO, GATT, UNCTAD, UNDP, ADB etc. God the international exposure of this erudite philosopher must be phenomenal and he must be an international celebrity to be in such demand from all the various international acronyms.

On my last visit to Pakistan, I got to meet a number of consultants at a large , well organized and well-funded seminar on economic policy and economic development in Pakistan. Donor agencies had got together some of the finest as well as various luminaries for seminar- the finance minister opened it, various ministers and other notables chaired various sessions. The numbers of notables was large forcing the organizers to create more and more positions on the dais as well as official designations such as co-chairmen. To accommodate such VVIP's the proceedings were frequently interrupted for welcome addresses. All this was splashed on TV and in newspapers. The organizers and the consultants were exceedingly happy with the media hype that the seminar generated. The purpose of the seminar had been served: projecting the organizers and the consultants and hence furthering the political or bureaucratic careers of one group and the consulting contracts of the other.

I settled in quite intimidated and hoping to learn a lot. After all I was in the midst of these individuals who I could see were very well-spoken, erudite and considered very valuable by all donor and international agencies. I must confess, these people were very eloquent but and enthralling. I heard a lot of wonderful anecdotes, poetry, jargon and glib prescriptions but I found that the discussion at the seminar was full of platitudes. Issues were not researched, no evidence was presented, no fresh ideas or hypotheses were presented or researched. No discussion took place. Only a series of speeches were made. But all the organizers and participants were very happy with headlines and their picture in papers for that is what would lead to their career enhancements.

To my surprise I found that the high-priced academics/consultants/speakers did not feel at all pressured to develop careful research and remain abreast of the latest developments in the area in which they were speaking to us. For example, none of the papers that were presented even felt the need to show any familiarity with work that had been done in the area. Many did not even contain any references and those that did referred only to government publications and the author's own previous versions of the same paper.

At the seminar, there was no discussion. After the speakers lengthy presentations, no questions were raised or even the material that the speaker presented considered. Conference participants had prepared themselves to make a speech that morning and nothing on earth would make them stop. Regardless of the subject under discussion, they proceeded to deliver their speeches. I learnt soon that for evidence and data, these individuals relied on anecdotes. The grandiloquent speakers had not even read the daily paper as I discovered to my horror. That morning's opinion page article was related to the themes of the seminar. Not one individual had even looked at it leave alone thought about and prepared to discuss it.

Borrowing freely from arguments of others, our consultant was free of the dictates of academic honesty. Acknowledging that someone might have made an argument would serve to illustrate that there were fountains of knowledge other than the consultant. Even when pointed out that such and such an argument had been made in such and such a source, our consultant shrugged it off as "I had thought of it earlier, but had not found the time to express it till today". No need to acknowledge intellectual property rights.

Most serious academic endeavors attempt to understand how the world works. It is recognized that a complete explanation of any process may not be possible. However, models and theories are developed to see if the process in question can in some manner be simulated. Reality in that sense is captured by such models or theories for the purposes at hand. The hard part of academics is to keep abreast of such models and theories that are being developed at a rapid rate by those who are working hard in the area. It requires staying abreast of journals and articles by various researchers all over the world even before they hit the journals. The first argument that our academics/consultants/speakers normally make is that theories and models developed in other countries by well-known academics are not applicable to us. Our academic/consultant/speaker is on a grander quest in his speech or consulting report: to understand the world as it is and not as it is theorized. Moreover, all those theories developed overseas are not for us. We need something entirely different, something indigenous and something that is firmly rooted in our society.

Of course the use of such an argument is so convenient. The academic/consultant/speaker is now free of all constraints. He neither needs to keep abreast of any literature since there is nothing that he can learn from others. Nor does he need to research a topic so who should he quite or what references should he cite. He merely needs to tell us off the top of his head what he thinks for that is "something indigenous, something Pakistani".

The "something indigenous, something Pakistani" approach has an additional advantage. It removes the yardstick for differentiating good from bad. Once this norm is accepted, then only the in-house evaluation of the established consultants is acceptable. By means of such a yardstick they manage to segment the market for themselves shutting out external competition. They are able to declare themselves superior to any and all individuals who may have an international academic standing.

Most important of all, his speech or consulting report does not conform to or accept any theoretical framework at all for there are none that is applicable to us. Blissfully unaware of theoretical possibilities or empirical regularity that other may have established, the participants merrily made hundreds of policy recommendations in their lengthy and rhetorical speeches. They were truly free--free of any constraints of the discipline of any subject or its theory. They needed only to rely on their own thoughts and for data, oh! yes there were anecdotes. I sat there listening to high theory "I recollect from my stay in that village...", "I spoke to people at the AKRSP...", "my friend Ashok Bhabani said...." "Akhtar Hamid Khan said..." etc.. Such anecdotes are an expensive method of establishing major empirical regularities for us. But who are we to question? the consultant's approach "have anecdote, will travel!" is paying huge dividends. in terms of making these individuals with limited education and academic credentials very rich.