GENERAL Pervez Musharraf is embarked on a difficult and hazardous journey. He is attempting to modernize the Pakistani economy and its political system. He is trying to maintain at home the support of what he has often referred to as the “silent majority”. He is engaged actively in keeping India at bay without withdrawing moral and political support to the Kashmiris fighting the Indian occupation of their state.

These are the three rocks in his way as he navigates towards what he hopes will be calmer waters. The hard place in his journey is the way he is perceived by the western world. The western view is important since he needs the economic support of Washington, Brussels and Tokyo to pull his country’s economy out of the trough into which it fell in the decade of the 1990s.

How can he manage his way out of this difficult situation? I have two answers to this question. One, recognizing the close link between political power and economic policy, General Musharraf must stay the course on which he has embarked and significantly broaden the political base. One knows this is not a popular position to take these days. Among the many columnists contributing to the Pakistani newspapers, mine is a lonely voice pleading for patience with the process set in place by the general.

Two, President Musharraf must educate the West. He must tell his friends in Washington, London and in other capitals of North America and Europe that in a country in Pakistan’s situation democracy cannot be planted as a fully developed tree. It must be treated as a plant that has to be nurtured with tender loving care. Or else, as has happened so many times in the past, the tree will just wither and die.

A good part of President Musharraf’s message to the people in Pakistan and the world outside must be structured around the close links that exist between those who hold political power in their hands and those who devise economic policy. When political power is held in a few hands as has been the case in Pakistan for decades, economic policy will be crafted to benefit those few hands. That is what we saw in what is now called the wasted decade of the 1990s. But that was also the case in the days of Ayub Khan, until now the golden period of the Pakistani economy.

To illustrate this point let me pick up a page from my own book of experience. I started work in the field of development economics some four decades ago. In 1963, I returned from Oxford to rejoin the Civil Service of Pakistan.

After serving as sub-divisional magistrate in Shujabad and Shadara, and as acting deputy commissioner in Sheikhupura, I was promoted and appointed director of rural works programme, a rural development effort supported by the US Agency for International Development. The programme used the basic democracies structure to build rural infrastructure and increase employment in the rural areas. The programme had a number of successes but, over time, it was captured by the rural elite.

The lesson from this experience was clear to me. There is a very close relationship between political power and control over public sector development resources. No matter how hard we tried, powerful local interests were able to twist the programme in their favour. It is this link between powerful established groups and their claim on public sector resources that General Musharraf is attempting to break. And that attempt poses a serious dilemma for him. Much of the criticism being levelled against his programme of political reform comes from the old establishment which fears that their hold on power will be reduced if a new political structure is put in place.

There are three ways of dealing with the unhappiness that prevails in Pakistan today. We can go back to the 1973 Constitution in the way it was originally drafted, hold yet another election, and leave the rest to the system and the people elected to manage it. Or we can introduce serious checks and balances into the system so that the elected leaders don’t go astray any more.

Or, again, we can move towards an altogether different political structure devised by a group of people who can be trusted to fully reflect the wishes and aspirations of the people.

The powerful political establishment that continues to operate from a narrow base of support obviously favours the first option. It is threatened by any attempt to broaden the base by bringing in people who have systematically been excluded from the political process for so long.

General Pervez Musharraf has chosen the second option. I have been in favour of the third option for some time, arguing that the Constitution of 1973 should not be treated as a God-given document which cannot be touched by human hand. My purpose today is not to open that question but to stay with the option favoured by General Musharraf.

In the two-part article carried in this space last week, I briefly noted the six new elements the military wishes to introduce into the Constitution of 1973. There are three broad objectives General Musharraf and his colleagues seem to be aiming at by proposing these changes in the Constitution. One, to broaden the base of the political system by bringing in more women into the legislative bodies, by using the 1998 census to come up with a new voter list, and to provide local communities to throw up new leadership.

Second, to constrain the elected leaders by creating a mechanism for providing oversight over those elected by the people to perform various state functions. The oversight function will be provided by the four chiefs of the armed forces. Third, to reduce the tenure of the legislatures so that the people elected to them have to return to the electorate every four years.

The reform package has been criticized by the commentators in Pakistan on three grounds: that it does not trust the will of the people, that it assigns considerable power to the military, that it is a move towards the creation of yet another dictatorship. I don’t have the space today to discuss in detail the criticisms levelled at the programme by domestic commentators. I will devote the rest of this article to providing some insights into the foreign reaction.

The general’s programme of reform has not won many supporters outside the country. This is particularly the case in the United States. The American media’s response highlights four concerns: First, there is the fear that the general is losing popularity in the country, particularly among the more moderate elements in society.

In a long article published by The New York Times on July 5, the newspaper’s correspondent talked of “Busharraf” having become a subject of ridicule in the country. This composite figure called “Busharraf” is made up of Presidents Bush and Musharraf. Both components of this figure have made serious mistakes in the eyes of the several critics interviewed for the article; Bush by being ambivalent towards Pakistan’s dispute with India over Kashmir, and Musharraf by attempting to concentrate all power in his hands. “Given Pakistan’s recent history of democratically elected prime ministers who lined their own pockets, Mr. Musharraf’s hesitancy to turn over the reins of power is perhaps understandable. But attempts to solidify his long-term role behind the cloak of democracy could do more damage than the mismanagement he seeks to prevent,” wrote another American newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial published on July 16.

The West’s second fear is that in dealing with his growing unpopularity at home which he recognized in his address to the nation on July 12, Musharraf would be forced to rely on the military to prop him up.

This would take Pakistan back to the place it has visited several times before. Extended military rule in the past has not been good for the country, and there is no reason why it should be any better this time round. This was the sentiment articulated by several speakers at a workshop organized recently by the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies.

The third and most serious worry the Americans have about General Musharraf’s domestic situation is that his growing political difficulties will weaken his stand against international terrorism and, therefore, complicate America’s battle against Al Qaeda and other groups of international terrorists. A number of American commentators were prepared to grant General Musharraf a great deal of credit for siding with their country even though that meant taking great personal risks.

“It is clear that some segment of the clergy supports the religious schools, or madrassahs, that have been turning out fanatics ripe for recruitment into Al Qaeda. That’s why Mr. Musharraf’s courageous moves to better regulate the madrassahs are so important to Pakistan’s long-term political health,” wrote The Wall Street Journal in the editorial cited above.

But now, with the wrath of the fundamentalists turned on him, the general may be unwilling to undertake a thorough reform of the religious schools. In that context, the significance of the statement made by Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh following the verdict of death by hanging received by him on July 15 has not been lost on the Pakistani authorities.

“I will see whether who wants to kill me will first kill me or get himself killed,” he is reported to have said on hearing the verdict. Pushed into a corner, the general may not be willing to go as far as he needs to proceed in order to rid Pakistan of religious extremism.

Fourth, several newspapers have argued that Washington should not allow Musharraf to drift towards authoritarianism. Pressure should be put on the general to bring back on the course on which he had earlier embarked. According to The Wall Street Journal article quoted above: “Mr. Musharraf is reneging on a promise to return his country to democratic rule, and that merits more attention from Pakistan’s friends.”

I have serious problems with most of these comments. My argument can be stated simply. Political systems are as good as the people who run them. If they get to be dominated by leaders who have narrow interests and little concern for the welfare of the citizenry, they cannot win the confidence of the people. Without people’s full confidence a political system rapidly becomes dysfunctional. This has been Pakistan’s fate ever since the death of Mohammad Ali Jinnah, the country’s founder. It could be the country’s fate once again if the old system is resurrected and it elects once again the leaders we have known before. General Musharraf needs to be given the benefit of the doubt.

CORRUPTION has become a way of life and it permeates every segment of our society. It is not endemic to the public sector alone but extends to private life as well. We routinely cheat, short-change, lie, adulterate and act in myriad other dishonest ways. But when we talk of corruption, we seem to be referring to transaction cost of dealing with government departments.

The 2001 corruption perception index (CPI) of Transparency International has ranked Pakistan at 80th among 91 countries surveyed. The CPI score relates to a perception of the degree of corruption as seen by business people, risk analysts and the general public.Eleven countries fare worse than Pakistan and these include Russia, Indonesia and Bangladesh.

Poor transparency is often found in countries characterized by unchecked economic or political power. The extent of corruption is linked to bureaucratic red tape, a low level of openness in the economy and a weak legal system.

A spate of articles has appeared in the national press in the wake of a recently held national anti-corruption strategy workshop in Islamabad. Not much will change after this workshop or the articles. What is significant, however, is the statement of chairman of the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) that the country was ruthlessly plundered between 1985 and 1999 — as if, before and after these crucial landmarks, the country was free of corruption.

The NAB chairman perhaps equates democracy with corruption and treats them as synonymous. Assuming even a very narrow acceptability of this thesis, corruption should disappear if democracy is outlawed. Countries rated as clean by Transparency International have long-running democratic traditions. Non-democratic governments on the other hand spawn wider and deeper layers of corruption. One such case involves a human rights petition pending in the Supreme Court since 1996 under which it was alleged that the retired army chief General Mirza Mohammad Aslam Beg, former ISI chief Lt. Gen. Asad Durrani, and Younus Habib of Habib and Mehran Banks misappropriated Rs. 140 million to influence elections.

How does one explain the sudden affluence of the sons of two former army generals, having acquired during the longest rule of a dictator millions of dollars without any known family wealth. Another infamous case relating to the ‘democratic’ period is the purchase of five helicopters which were never delivered although Pakistan paid $ 1.1 million for them. The Public Accounts Committee conducted a detailed inquiry and named names but no action was taken. One of the accused official has been re-employed in a very high public office.

There is an equally amusing thought attributed to the Chairman of Ad-hoc Public Accounts Committee, Mr. H.U Beg, relating to curing corruption. While addressing the workshop on corruption, he came up with a proposal that has become a cliche — that “salary structure of government servants should be rationalized (increased) to deal with the problem of corruption”. He has perhaps been the longest serving finance secretary and should have known better that the budget does not permit the luxury of his proposal. The current budget provides for an expenditure of Rs. 742 billion against an income not likely to exceed Rs.400 billion. His thinking is flawed if not entirely fallacious. Corruption, or a major part of it, does not have much to do with the pay structure. It is the corruption in the highest places where the salary structure is already rationalized that presents the greatest challenge.

Mr. Shahid Javed Burki has recently written an article “A drive against corruption”. Among other things, he has suggested that no class of civil servants should be excluded from the purview of the NAB (a good thought); and that it should be concerned only with public servants, a proposal propelled by caution and therefore of dubious value.

In its editorial of July 21, under the heading “Is it real or selective?” Dawn stated that “the war on corruption is a nation’s internal matter”. Although corruption is a national problem and has to be handled internally with a firm political resolve but the outside world has also contributed to the problem by being generous, particularly during non-democratic rule, giving huge loans, knowing full well the extent of misgovernance. According to a study quoted by Dr. Farrukh Saleem, a freelance columnist, (Dawn August 23-29, 1999) the World Bank’s top borrowers happened to be the most corrupt as defined by Transparency International. According to its policy, the World Bank should not be lending to corrupt governments because development requires good governance and this means transparent and accountable public institutions. Corruption is a significant impediment to growth in developing countries.

The Economist in its issue of May 22, 1999, argued that when a government sets about undermining institutions, it is time to start thinking about shutting off the flow of money. It recommended that countries like Pakistan should not be given any money. It went on to say that without an independent and free press, there is little chance of accountability and openness essential to development. It concluded that “this is not the time for the IMF and the World Bank to be lending money to Pakistan and that Pakistan needs an accountable government”.

In another article, he wrote that a firm correlation between economic activity and corruption existed. As soon as the government or any of its department becomes a party to a contract, corruption creeps in.

Corruption does not include commissions and cutbacks a la Admiral Mansurul Haq. He was reportedly jumping with joy at being let off lightly by NAB. It includes tax evasion, write-off of bank loans, shenanigans in the privatization process, smuggling, over-invoicing, grant of state land to favourites, and the bending of rules in appointments and promotions. And far more important is the incidence contracts awarded without tender, a la the National Highway Authority, which cancelled a contract with a Turkish firm and then awarded it to another company, without inviting tenders and at a higher cost. And what about General Ziaul Haq who issued presidential directives violating all rules, allowing himself the allotment of a valuable plot of 2,200 sq. yards in Westridge or air passage to his family and hangers-on for performing Haj year after year, or not filing income tax returns for all the eleven and half years that he was in power. .

As for the situation today, even honest senior civil servants have stopped opposing illegal orders. Their honesty is limited to not accepting money. There is hardly a senior civil servant who would not rush to comply with orders from above. Their disagreement extends to the seriously limited comfort zones of their bosses. This means that real disagreement is conspicuous by its absence. There is a provision in the rules that if a secretary to the government disagrees with his minister he can forward the case for adjudication to the prime minister. Unfortunately, this provision has hardly been invoked.

The last prime minister, too, was averse to the principle of merit and among other appointments he put incompetent and failed candidates as MDs of Nespak and the PPIB. Surprisingly both were confirmed in their jobs after the overthrow of the last elected government.

Defining corruption as a disease is wrong since it really is a symptom of a wider malaise. No one pays much attention to the disease. If Pakistan is lucky to have a prime minister who is not only honest but also competent and believes in strengthening weak institutions, then there would be some hope for optimism. Until that happens no amount of articles in the newspapers or workshops on the subject is going to persuade the rulers to change their ways. The feudal mindset — an attribute of the middle classes as much of the Jam Sadiq Alis of this world — will prevent this from happening.

The only course of action open to the few upright people left in the civil service is to show fearlessness and be able to use their spine to stand up and be counted, even if in the process they may come to grief.

The right kind of people are always in a minority. But what is important is to allow this minority to grow to be able to make a difference. In both France and Italy, it was a handful of determined upright magistrates who brought about a welcome change in their political culture. Honesty should not remain limited to not accepting graft, it should extend to standing for principles.

Writer’s email: sshusain@hotmail.com

THE nearest I came to meeting Charles Chaplin was being introduced to his son, Sydney, by Gussie Moran, the tennis player. Gussie and I were friends and she used to associate with Hollywood-types and play tennis at their private courts in their homes in Beverly Hills and the San Fernando valley. I got the impression from Gussie that father and son were not on the best of terms. Sydney, therefore, was not the path that would lead me to Charles Chaplin.

It had been an ambition of mine to meet Charles Chaplin and to tell him that I had first heard about him from my mother who considered him to be the funniest man in the world. And Charles Chaplin, as Charlie Chaplin, had been just that in the silent films she had seen, the lovable tramp in baggy trousers and bowler hat, twirling his walking stick. He had a moustache that in later years would be associated with Hitler.

There the similarity ended for in his film, the Great Dictator, he mercilessly lampooned Hitler, long before it became fashionable to see Nazi Germany as a scourge. That film was not only funny but it sent out a powerful message: at heart, dictators were clowns, albeit, very dangerous ones. If Hitler could have got his hands on Charles Chaplin, he would have personally throttled him. Such was the impact of the film.

In his film, Modern Times, he foresaw factory workers being turned into assembly-line robots, stripped of their humanity and this film had a social message and it did not endear Charles Chaplin to Big Business in the United States and alerted J. Edgar Hoover and his G-men and they kept a watch on him and no doubt had a file on him which included the errant ways of his personal life.

I write about Charles Chaplin because secret documents unsealed two weeks ago reveal that Britain postponed knighting him for nearly twenty years under American pressure. There was the fig-leaf of his questionable morals but the Americans considered him a communist sympathizer. It must have come as a rude awakening to the British that Her Majesty’s Honours List too had fallen prey to McCarthyism. Charles Chaplin had never become a US citizen and this riled the Americans and was seen by some as ungrateful for the prosperity that his successful career in America had brought him. But it was as a perceived “communist sympathizer” that he had been hounded and he had left the United States to live in Montreux, Switzerland, with his wife Oona who was the daughter of the renowned playwright Eugene O’Neil.

Nobody in the United States or anywhere else for that matter knew what a “communist sympathizer” entailed. It certainly did not mean that he was a card-carrying communist, nor was he a part of a conspiracy to overthrow the US government and put in its place a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, nor was he a secret agent of the Soviet Union. But none of this counted in the McCarthy years. He was too much of an individualist to conform to any dogma. In his films, he pitted the little man against the bullies. If this was subversion, he was a subversive. But to stand up against social injustice was considered ‘treasonable’. That, by some convoluted logic, made him a communist sympathiser.

I am surprised that the British chose to disown one of their subjects, for such was their tolerance that they allowed Moseley, a fascist, to operate openly. One had only to go to Hyde Park on Sunday evenings to know how much the British valued fee speech. I once heard a speaker rousing his audience to blow up Buckingham Palace and a London Bobby was present who seemed vastly amused.

In the context of the present war on terror, McCarthyism has returned wearing a different mask. This time, the target is Arab- Americans and Muslims generally and a close watch is being kept on them and they are being picked up and grilled and those who watch the television series NYPD Blue in which the police are the heroes, will get an idea of what this grilling entails. Many stories have appeared of Pakistanis being arrested (though abducted might be more appropriate) for “suspicious behaviour”. Even a troupe of Indian film artistes were hauled because a passenger on a flight reported them to be behaving suspiciously since they kept changing their seats, apparently to get a better view of New York City.

I cannot presume to tell the Americans how best they can safeguard their country against terrorists. But it would be a pity if in the process they were to turn their land into an East Germany or even a Soviet Union. The strength of America does not come from its military might but from its Constitution, from the freedoms it enshrines. If these freedoms are abandoned or put to risk, then the war against terror will be lost. Eternal vigilance may be the price of liberty but this kind of vigilance must ensure that America remains a free and open society and this means that those with Muslim names should not be treated as if they are terrorists.

As it is, it was an unnerving sight to see television pictures of a 16-year old African-American boy handcuffed and being pummelled by policemen in Los Angeles. But it was even more horrifying that the policemen claimed to be acting in self- defence and that they were applying proper police procedures. Since when has the beating up of a suspect — manacled — been part of correct police procedure?

And I thought about the ‘prisoners’ at Guantanamo, those suspected to have links with Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Many confessions had been obtained from them. Did they volunteer their confessions or were these extracted from them? In the criminal justice system of America, a person is deemed to be innocent unless proven guilty, beyond all reasonable doubt.

How many of these ‘prisoners’ simply happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time? Due process is the bedrock of the criminal justice system. That too, like other freedoms must be safeguarded. Without it, society becomes lawless. The world looks to America for military leadership. It should also be looking up to it for moral leadership and it is here that America seems to be on a slippery slope.

THE prospect of national elections in a country, ruled by non-elected governments during a large span of its national existence, is an occasion for agonizing reappraisal as well as for deep soul-searching. It has been brilliantly stated that recognition of the frailty of man requires the democratization of authority. A single insightful sentence sums up the case for democracy: ‘Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible; but man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.’

Unlike previous elections, where key issues of education and health were accorded marginal attention, it is high time to push them so that they occupy centre-stage in the forthcoming polls and to create a climate of opinion for prompt legislative enactment of universal compulsory education in the country. ‘Education makes a person easy to lead’, Henry Peter has written, ‘but difficult to drive, easy to govern but impossible to enslave.’

The availability of universal primary education goes to the heart of the matter in examining the fundamental values to be adopted in democratizing our society and in choosing egalitarianism as a national goal in preference to elitism and feudalism. We are nowhere in the realm of an elitist society in Pakistan, if ‘elite’ is defined as the best part or choice of a country. Keeping in view the necessity of social change as a prelude to reduction of poverty, our elites, with their indifference to mass illiteracy, are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Our elites are not an aristocracy of talent or worth but a privileged minority enjoying the benefits of birth or money. We are more of a feudal than elitist society where exploitation is rife and individuals seek patronage from power-wielders in exchange for compliance with their arbitrary wishes. In the battle for the choice of values that lend dignity and meaning to human life, the scales are weighed heavily in favour of egalitarianism involving equal access to social and economic opportunities as well as equal justice.

‘Equality and justice’, says Robert Hutchins, ‘the two great distinguishing characteristics of democracy follow inevitably from the conception of man, all men, as rational and spiritual beings.’ The denial of education is the breeding ground of much misery and takes away the ladder from the disadvantaged for climbing up into the sunlight of a decent existence.

In 1996, the UNESCO Commission on Education for the 21st Century released for publication, ‘Learning: The Treasure Within’. Jacques Delors, the chairman of the commission, commented in the introduction that the commission did not view education as a miracle cure but regarded it “as one of the principal means available to foster a deeper and more harmonious form of human development and thereby to reduce poverty, exclusion, ignorance, oppression and war.”

He quoted La Fontaine: “Be sure (the ploughman said) not to sell the inheritance our forebears left to us. A treasure lies concealed therein.”

Later Delors crafted his climactic lines: “But the old man was wise to show them before he died that learning is the treasure.”

My ambassadorial assignment to Japan in 1985, till 1988, made a lasting impact on me. As a resource-poor country, as Japan was in the nineteenth century, it accorded a high priority to development of human capital and dissemination of education. The young leaders of the Meiji government in Japan fully comprehended the indispensable role of education in absorbing technology and in achieving equality with the West. In 1871, only the fourth year of the new government’s existence, it created a ministry of education and the next year in 1872 it promulgated a fundamental code of education inaugurating a universal system of education. With universal literacy all the people of the country acquired a sense of personal responsibility for the future well-being of the country.

As Mori Arinori, minister of education in 1872, put it: “Our country must move from its third class position to second class and from second class to first and ultimately to the leading position among all countries of the world. The best way to do this is by laying the foundation of elementary education.”

Why have the ruling circles, politicians, and planners in our land relegated basic education to the bottom rung of the developmental ladder? The incontestable truth is that the constituency of protest and change in the status quo is quiescent and has been ignored with impunity by successive governments.

We have to attempt a dispassionate but searching analysis of why we lag behind other emerging nations in providing access to education as a primary tool for reduction of poverty and for participation of poor people in decisions shaping their lives. First, we are not an education conscious society compared to the Confucian nations in East Asia. Second, we have to overcome the inegalitarian legacy of British rule in the subcontinent which provided powerful props to class consciousness and status symbols.

David Cannadine, in his book provides a perspective on the British empire in its heyday from the late 1850s to the early 1950s: “The British empire was not exclusively about race or colour but was also about class and status. The impulses to empire were ancient rather than modern and there was a powerful social vision. The British empire may (or may) not have been the highest stage of capitalism but it was certainly the highest stage of hierarchy.”

With its repudiation of collective ethos, the path was cleared for the imperial nation to embrace university education as the sanctuary of a cloistered elite. The inequality of educational opportunity at home in Britain was reflected in segregated schooling and in the socially privileged background of students admitted to universities in the topmost bracket. We loathed foreign rule but unable to shed the social philosophy of class and status that had permeated our decision-making circles, we opted for the British educational model. Third, feudalism, with its boastful credo that the best fertilizer for a farmer is the sound of footsteps of his landowner, is the arch-enemy of spread of education. Fourth, feudal values have penetrated all segments of our society, including the urban elite and the ruling circles. Fifth, we have short-term horizons and are reluctant to look upon education as a gift from the present to the future generation. Education is a long term investment and quick results cannot be expected.

A penetrating comment on education as an investment in future merits quotation: “If you plan for a year, plant a seed. If for ten years, plant a tree. If for a hundred years, teach the people. When you teach the people, you will reap a thousand harvests.” Sixth, the focus on ballot box as the sole route to democracy has been accompanied by a massive devaluation of public education. ‘Democracy without literacy’, says a sage, ‘is hypocrisy without limitation.’

Our neglect of education is beginning to attract adverse comments in developmental circles. William Easterly, in The Elusive Quest of Growth, has dwelt upon his officially sponsored visit to a primary school for girls in Sheikhupura district near Lahore: “As we arrived, a pre-school girl and a boy gave each one of us a bouquet of flowers. The older girls were lined up in two columns, each holding a paper plate full of colourful flowers. As we walked between the two columns, they pelted us joyfully with flowers. Other children were sitting quiet in their classrooms as we entered the class. Each class stood up as we came into the room. They had no textbooks and no papers and pencils and the headmistress told us that their parents couldn’t buy the textbooks and the papers until the end of the month, when they get paid. And this was the school the district shows off for visitors!”

Our single greatest failure in the field of nation-building since 1947 has been the sustained neglect of basic education which provides children resources that will endure as long as life endures and facilitates their socialization. The prevailing crisis in the educational sector should come up in primary colours on the radar screen of the membership of the October 2002 elected assemblies and stir them to rise equal to the challenge.

We should, individually as well as collectively, prevail upon the elected representatives to make a solemn pledge that the first legislation to be adopted by them will relate to the introduction of good quality universal primary education together with the inscription for the attainment of that goal within a decade and the setting up of a mechanism to monitor its implementation. The pledge will infuse a new spirit into our bruised democracy by enshrining the goal that there shall, in future, be no community with an illiterate family or a family with an illiterate person. Every society needs a promised land inhabited by a population consisting of educated persons.

The writer is a former ambassador of Pakistan.