| October 6, 2002 | Sunday | Rajab 28, 1423 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Higher education showdown
New crisis in Nepal
THE missile race in South Asia shows no signs of slowing down, much less halting. Friday’s tests by Pakistan and India serve to highlight this unhappy fact for their poverty-stricken peoples. The current series of tests began on September 24 when India fired its short-range missile Trishul on two successive days. Then on Friday, Pakistan launched the medium-range Hatf-IV (Shaheen I) from its Sonmiani test site. Within hours, India tested the surface-to-air Akash missile. The tests come at a time when the military stand-off on the border continues. This will obviously increase tension instead of lowering it. As usual, Islamabad and New Delhi are now exchanging rhetoric, blaming each other for starting a new missile race, with India adding a regal touch to its reaction by saying it was “not impressed.” Islamabad could easily retort that it did not conduct the tests to impress anyone, much less India, but because the rapid increase in New Delhi’s war budget had left Pakistan with no choice.
The missile tests coincide with the impending general election in Pakistan, while New Delhi is conducting its own electoral exercise in occupied Kashmir. Apparently, there is no relationship between ballots and missiles, for it is doubtful if either government’s stock will go up. Nevertheless, the tests should lead to an appraisal of the kind of situation India’s vaunted military ambitions are pushing the subcontinent into. Already, the size of India’s armed forces is more than five times that of Pakistan, but still it does not have a ceiling in mind. In 1974 it conducted its first nuclear test, followed 24 years later by more explosions. All the tests were conducted at Pokhran close to Pakistan’s border. The world might have lambasted Islamabad, too, when it demonstrated its nuclear capability a few days after India tested its own devices in May 1998, but the international community understood why Pakistan was compelled to go nuclear.
Today, more than a million military men are locked in a state of confrontation, because it is India that has chosen to mass troops on Pakistan’s border in the wake of the terrorist attack on the Indian parliament building in December last year. In addition, there is the unresolved Kashmir dispute which has cost more than 70,000 lives so far, because India is obdurately opposed to a negotiated settlement. In contrast, Pakistan has repeatedly offered a dialogue both to solve the Kashmir issue and to effect a de-escalation along the border. Unless there is a change of heart in New Delhi, there is little possibility of a shift away from tensions and conflicts in the subcontinent. India has always suffered from notions of grandeur and adopted a big-brother attitude towards its small neighbours. The coming into power of a hard-line government in New Delhi has added to this chauvinism. Pakistan would be only too willing to reduce its defence spending if only India would reciprocate and agree to a resumption of talks. The aim should not be merely a solution of the Kashmir problem but a long-term relationship that will disengage the two countries from a costly and senseless arms race which they cannot afford and which they must bring to an end soon.
THE harsh police action against teachers and students in Karachi on Friday is another ugly example of official high-handedness against peaceful protesters. The protest was part of a nationwide campaign against the government’s decision to introduce far-reaching reforms in the higher education sector. The police resorted to teargassing and a baton charge against the assembled protesters who wanted to march to the governor’s house to present a memorandum condemning the proposals. There has been an angry response in academic circles to the government’s decision to press ahead with its higher education reforms. The main targets of the ire are the recommendations of the Task Force on Higher Education and the proposed Model University Ordinance, which has been approved by the federal cabinet. Both teachers and students fear that the proposals, which the government claims will improve the management and quality of education at public sector universities, will ultimately commercialize higher education and put it beyond the reach of the vast majority of students. Critics fear that the proposals could pave the way for the privatization of education, with drastic increases in fees and a loss of job security for teachers. The government, however, claims that the proposed measures will stem deteriorating standards in this sector. While there is some merit in both arguments, there seems to be a total breakdown in communications between the two sides. For this, the government must take a fair share of the blame. As in a number of other cases, it seems in a great hurry to push through its recommendations without initiating a proper debate among all the parties involved in the field. If the government feels confident that its proposals are sound and practical and that it has nothing to hide, why should it fear greater public scrutiny of its proposals and a wide-ranging debate on the issue? The present state of polarization between teachers and students on the one hand and the government on the other has wasted a great deal of precious time and energy which could only harm students in the long run. The authorities must invite all the stakeholders in this acrimonious dispute for talks and reach a consensus acceptable to all.
THINGS in Nepal have not been the same since the brutal massacre of its royal family in June last year. And now King Gyanendra’s sacking of Prime Minister Sher Bahadur Dueba’s 13-month old government has plunged the Himalayan kingdom deeper into crisis. The sack came on Friday following Mr Dueba’s request to the king to postpone next month’s general election as his government could not hold the polls amid fear of attacks by the Maoist insurgents, who stepped up their armed raids on government targets after King Gyanendra’s ascent to the throne. Aimed at abolishing monarchy and setting up a communist republic, the six-year-old insurgency has claimed nearly 5,000 lives.
In recent months, the law and order situation has hurt the Nepalese economy, which is heavily dependent on tourism and export of carpets and garments. Both the sectors took a battering this year when tourism fell by 70 per cent and exports by 50 per cent. Forty per cent of Nepal’s 23 million people already live below the poverty line. The ill effects of the rebel attacks were compounded by a political in-fight for the control of the Nepalese Congress between Mr Dueba and his forerunner, Mr Koirala, causing a virtual split in the ruling party. This is the first time since the abolition of absolute monarchy in 1990 that the king has dismissed an elected government, which is not a good omen for a country struggling to break free of the clutches of political and economic turmoil. However, King Gyanendra has asked the major political parties to nominate party leaders — who would not take part in the election — to form an interim national government within five days. Once an interim government is in place, the king is expected to announce a new date for election.