| October 23, 2002 | Wednesday | Sha’aban 16,1423 |
Time for media to think positively
Pakistani writers & globalization
Pakistan better erase memory of Sharjah
The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has decided to provide $2.4 billion for two years (2003-05) to fight poverty. What is the basis for their optimism to have shown such generosity after years of reluctance to consider even smaller loans? Pakistan already owes $4.8 billion or 23.3 per cent of its total loans to the ADB.
According to the bank’s annual report 2001, Pakistan’s development expenditure was a record low at 2.9 per cent of the GDP (gross domestic products).
A recent report by the International Crisis Group presents a very poor state of affairs. Pakistan has become unstable with its economy in a state of stagnation amid corruption, lawlessness, ethnic tensions and security risks. If Pakistan is not doing enough for poverty alleviation, what could infusion of dollars do?
In 1992-93, development expenditure, which was 36.4 per cent or a little over one-third of the current expenditure, declined to only 18 per cent in 2000-01. Falling uplift expenditure has synchronized with recessionary trends in the economy and aggravated the problem of poverty. Rising poverty is, therefore, not an accident. The government in its effort to reduce the deficit, with lending agencies breathing down its neck, has adopted the soft approach of cutting the development expenditure without regard to its impact on the poor and the vulnerable.
The Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund (PPAF), funded by the World Bank, is currently in operation and is also intended to reduce poverty. The Special Action Programme (SAP) was meant to serve the same objective. It has been admitted to have failed. The fund’s failure has been deferred for similar admission.
The government, Dawn reported on Sept 25, 2002, have suppressed a report on poverty, which was based on a survey by the Federal Bureau of Statistics, to conceal the extent of phenomena. A clarification only seems to confirm the suspicions. What then is the cacophony of self-congratulatory messages about? How does one explain the world praise for our economic performance? The fact of the matter is that nothing has changed except for our pragmatism in relation to the only surviving super power of the world.
To see that our fundamentals are all wrong, one has only to turn to the UNDP publication, Human Development Report 2002, which represents a worldwide survey of 173 countries with respect to development indicators. These countries have been divided in terms of the human development into three categories: high, medium and low. On the basis of 30 criteria, out of 173 countries, Pakistan ranks 138th, on top of the last category. India has 14th place above at 124 under medium human development countries.
The Human Development Index (HDI) value for Pakistan is 0.499 (0.577 for India). It is the highest for Norway at 0.942. On the HDI trends, Pakistan has progressed from 0.345 in 1975 to 0.499 in 2000, whereas over the same period India has inched up from 0.407 to 0.577.
On the level of polity, Pakistan has been performing very poorly indeed on account of absence of democratic governance even 55 years after independence. It has as yet not ratified the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. ‘On voice and accountability,’which has elements like free and fair elections, freedom of press, civil liberties, political rights, military in politics etc., its scores (-)1.43 against +0.66 for India (on a scale -2.5 to 2.5). While the world is getting more democratic, we are sliding backwards. We have as yet not signed the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (1966), International Convention on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966) and worst of all the Convention against Torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or Punishments (1984).
On the ‘Subjective Indicators of Governance’ (SIG), Pakistan scores (-)6 on polity (-10 is for the least democratic country and +10 for the most democratic). While India scores +9. On the ‘objective indicators of governance’ too, its performance has been equally desultory.
There are 11 elements to the SIG and on each one of them, Pakistan has been assessed to have performed poorly.
On corruption among public officials— corruption as an obstacle to business, frequency of irregular payments to officials and judges, and perception in corruption in civil service— Pakistan scores (-) 0.79 (on a scale -2.5 to 2.5). On the Corruption Perception’s Index (CPI), her score is 2.3 (0 - 10 scale). On law and order, it scores 3 against 4 for India and on rule of law (-) 0.74 against her 0.23.
Under the ‘progress towards millennium development goals’, Pakistan is on track in respect of two criteria out of seven only in so far as halving the proportion of people suffering from hunger or of people having access to the improved water sources are concerned. Information on removing gender disparity or ensuring compulsory primary education for all children has not been provided. It is far behind on goals regarding reduction of infant mortality rates by two-thirds of the existing.
In infant mortality, Pakistan’s record is despicable at 85 live births per thousand against India’s 69. In the ‘under-five mortality’ of children, Pakistan, which had lower mortality rate of 181 in 1970, progressed only to 110, whereas India with 202 per thousand has shown remarkable improvement in reaching 96 in 2000. However, in terms of ‘under-weight children under 5’, Pakistan performs better than India.
Life expectancy in Pakistan in 2000 is 60 years (63.3 for India), adult literacy rate 43.2 (57.2). Life expectancy for men is 60.2 years and for women 59.8 years. India’s was higher at 62.8 per cent and 63.8 per cent respectively.
Life expectancy has improved almost in tandem with India’s between 1970-75 to 1995-2000. India had a life expectancy of 50.3 years in 1975, whereas Pakistan 49.
On the Purchase Price Parity (PPP) index, the GDP per capita was $1,928 ($2358 for India). India’s GDP of $ 457 billion was almost eight times that of Pakistan’s $61.6 on this basis. India was ahead with $2,395.4 billion against Pakistan’s $266.2. Plain per capita GNP, (un-adjusted for the PPP), according to the Asian Development Outlook 2003, (an Asian Development Bank publication). Pakistan’s $470 was higher than India at $460.
On the Human and Income Poverty (HIP) among the developing countries, Pakistan ranks 68th against India’s 55th. Both countries rank equal under population ‘not using improved water sources’. That means Pakistan is less under-nourished than India.
India is mired in stark poverty with 44.2 per cent of its population earning less than a dollar a day whereas Pakistan’s share is 31 per cent. The poorest country among the developing countries is Niger.
Even for the population below the income poverty line, Pakistan has performed marginally better. Population earning $2 a day is 86.2 per cent for India against Pakistan’s 84.6 per cent.
Cigarette consumption in Pakistan is five times higher than in India with 620 cigarettes per adult per annum against 119 for India. This in itself poses a long-term threat to the health of Pakistan’s population, and imposes greater burden on our derelict health services. Telephone per 1,000 people for India was 32 against 22 for Pakistan. Similarly, in the matter of mobile phones, India was twice as good as Pakistan with four per 1,000 people possessing them. Even in electricity, per capita consumption was lower at 321kwt/hrs for Pakistan against India’s 379kwt/hrs.
By 2015, according to demographic trends, Pakistan will have a high 2.5 per cent annual population growth. India’s growth of 1.3 per cent will be below the replacement level of 2.1 per cent. Will there be enough standing space in Pakistan? And what horrendous consequences will follow in respect of environment, law and order and poverty?
Portents are far too horrendous to contemplate. The sinkhole is getting bigger and sucks in the entire dole. In the absence of change in fundamentals, particularly governance, any effort at improvement will be fruitless and the money will be wasted with the ‘silent majority’ saddled with more debts.
IS the nature of mutual media coverage in South Asian countries, in general, and in the India-Pakistan-Bangladesh subcontinent, in particular, an impediment to the much-needed people-to-people relations, which is very important for the development of this impoverished region?
This question has been raised among the thinking section of Dhaka’s civil society, especially following a couple of anti-Bangladesh ‘news’ items, generated from India in the first quarter of October, which have raked up the jingoistic sentiments of many Bangladeshis, often arguing that a section of the Indian media is always busy making ceaseless efforts to tarnish the image of its neighbours, including Bangladesh.
The jingoistic discussions have been taking place, over the last two weeks, almost everywhere in the capital city — in the national press club, in the bar libraries, in the common rooms of the university teachers, in private clubs, in the middle-class sitting rooms, even in the road-side tea-stalls.
The source of the resentment, this time, was a news item, generated by the Kolkata office of the AFP, which claimed, quoting unnamed ‘sources’ on Oct 4, that an unidentified aircraft coming from Bangladesh had intruded into the Indian airspace in West Bengal and dropped various packets into a pond the day before (on Oct 3). Subsequently, the Indian electronic media, specially the Alpha TV and the Star News, telecast the report. The Star went to the extent of telecasting an animation of the concocted story. The Indian print media also published the news item.
The next day, on Oct 5, the foreign ministry of Bangladesh rejected the Indian media claim, categorically saying that the report, emanating from India, was “absolutely false and baseless. After a thorough verification from all relevant sources”, the acting foreign secretary of Bangladesh told newsmen in Dhaka that “it has been found that no aircraft from Bangladesh intruded into Indian airspace.”
The Indian authorities eventually drew the same conclusion. Following investigation by a team of the Indian air force that visited the spot, some 550km north of Kolkata, the Indian air force said that “no plane, Indian or foreign, had dropped any packet into any pond”. A slap on the wrist of irresponsible reporting, indeed.
The next controversial report about Bangladesh appeared in the Indian media in the second week of this month. On Oct 13, the Hindustan Times published a story, generated by the Press Trust of India, claiming that “Bangladesh is a hotbed of terrorists waging war against India” and so on. The PTI pegged its story on a write-up carried by the current issue of the New York-based Time magazine.
As usual, Bangladesh protested the PTI report. A foreign ministry spokesman in Dhaka told newsmen on Oct 14; “It is at best a figment of someone’s wildest imagination and at worst a reflection of an irresponsible and malicious attempt to harm the prevailing friendly and smooth relations between India and Bangladesh, two of the largest democracies in Asia.”
What is more important is that the PTI ate its words. The news agency on Oct 15 released a rejoinder, issued by the Time’s India correspondent, Alex Perry, claiming that the “magazine (Time) had never described Bangladesh as a hotbed of anti-India terrorists”. What he said was, according to the rejoinder, “signs abound about Bangladesh having become a safe haven for Islamic jihadis, including Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters fresh off the boat from Afghanistan” a few months ago.
The Time article, although it did not describe Bangladesh as “a hotbed of anti-India terrorists”, has also faced serious criticism in Dhaka for its controversial contents. Enayetullah Khan, a senior editor running (weekly) Holiday for more than three decades, wrote in the paper’s Oct 18 issue:
“Time magazine’s ‘Deadly Cargo’ of Al Qaeda survivors coming ashore in Chittagong from a ship, aptly cited as MV Mecca, is another terror fiction hitting the news-stand... The story, it would seem, was coming quick on the heels of Bertil Lintner’s sneak narrative of Cocoon of Terror in the Far Eastern Economic Review and the Asian Wall Street Journal, repackaged since for London’s Intelligence weekly and some internet upstarts.”
Khan went on: “Mixed-bag terror stories are now the latest hot commodity in the print business. The marketing of such stories has witnessed a new sales pitch of the odd stringer as is the case with Bertil Lintner, but also that of an accredited correspondent in the person of Alex Perry said to be based in Delhi.”
Even the US ambassador in Dhaka, Mary Ann Peters, reacted negatively to the Time article. In a press statement on Oct 20, she rejected the article, saying: “The article appeared to contain numerous unsubstantiated allegations. While international terrorists can be found anywhere — as they have been in the US itself and in dozens of countries from Spain to Singapore — Bangladesh is certainly ‘not a hotbed of radical Islam’.”
However, to come back to the original point of mutual media coverage in the subcontinent, there is hardly any scope to deny the most perceptible fact that the mutual media coverage in the SAARC region “is extremely limited”. And “whatever little coverage does happen manages to convey extraordinarily negative images”, observes Thomas J. Mathew, Associate Editor of the Kathmandu-based monthly, Himal South Asian, while addressing an international conference in Dhaka in the second week of October. “When the coverage is not offensive or hostile, it is invariably either bizarre or trivial.”
In this regard, Mathew gives an example. The only news the Asian Age of India carried about Bangladesh, in the paper’s Oct 2 edition from Delhi, was the mauling to death of keeper at the Dhaka Zoo by two belligerent bears. Then he rightly argues:
“It is only reasonable to suppose that on Oct 1 there must have been more important news of Bangladesh that was worth carrying in an Indian newspaper. What is generally passed off as neighbourhood news are snippets of acid attacks in Bangladesh, of a man in Pakistan killing his daughter for going to school, and such other details which, without providing any deep insights, nevertheless colour the reader’s perception of these countries as being in some way un-uniformly degenerate.”
The Himal editor accused the media of Pakistan and Bangladesh of similar negative attitudes. However, many in Dhaka believe that this is high time the subcontinental media, in general, and South Asian, in particular, changed the attitude for the sake of creating a congenial atmosphere of mutual cooperation.
THERE was a time when a liberal writer symbolized a person who possessed an infinite capacity to listen to opinions contrary to his own thinking. In politics and trade the liberal outlook sprang from faith in a polity encouraging dissent for its own sake and opportunities for a free play of market mechanism.
The founder of this country was also heavily indebted to the liberal political thinking of England, and he was not for government intervention in economic activities. But the time came in the 1930s - coinciding with the rejuvenation of the Muslim League in 1937 - when he began expressing his views against feudalism and monopoly capitalism. His address at the All-India Muslim League conference, in 1943, in Delhi was the expression of his firm belief that the anachronistic and obscurantist social structure was hindering Muslim India’s advance towards a more enlightened, educated and developed society. Hence it could be said that ultimately he became an interventionist - opposed to the forces of status quo.
How greatly changed is the present-day trend that a group of conservatives are being called neo-liberals. They are firm believers in the old imperialistic belief that any society or country that prevents the free flow of market economy in the name of religion or an ideology, needs a reckless bashing up - even extermination, needing no regrets. Why? Because this is what the march of human civilization dictates. Therefore any country which seeks to challenge the neo-liberals should be finished off.
Now I look around and see that the writers up till now considered liberals are perplexed. How can they go on calling themselves ‘liberals’ when a strong group from amongst the liberals has come up with a philosophy that has even been opposed by the Ford Foundation, and the German Green Party, under the banner of the World Social Forum, because they believe that globalization would not spare the Christian moorings.
One is, however, happy to note that a significant number of former non- progressive writers are beginning to realize that they have good reasons to support their progressive and even non-progressive friends - even those from the religious right - as it is increasingly becoming difficult for them to stick to their old beliefs.
After having met a good number of writers from each group I have come to the conclusion that there is almost a consensus that governments in the Third World should not dance to the tune of globalization the way they are being made to dance. Granted that neo-liberalism is not letting the United Kingdom and the USA remain what they have been. How does it help us - the small fries - still hoping that our home prescriptions could produce an economic system based on the principles of equity. Who knows that we could also pick up the necessary rhythm of economic development one fine morning instead of opting out of the development process as a consequence of following the prescriptions of the World Bank and the IMF - the main vehicles for the neo-liberal domination.
A group of Lahore writers has expressed its concern at the philosophy behind globalization. In Karachi, as well, the Irtiqa Adabi Forum has openly come out to voice its dissent from blind following of neo-liberalism simply because neo-liberalism has its own definition of humanism, democracy and human rights, and it considers that it is its democratic right to stamp out all opposition. The socialist world was not so threatening for all those who did not want to fall in line with its philosophy. Perhaps they could not behave like that because they were economically not so strong as to dictate their terms.
Let us see what are the main postulates of globalization.
It is a cast-iron doctrine leaving no scope for dissent. The main features, as outlined by Dr Javed Akbar in the NIPA’s journal (NIPA is a Government of Pakistan organization under the Cabinet Division), are as follows:
1) The subordination of national public transport, energy, communication and financial sectors to global capital;
2) The marketization of public-sector wage contracts;
3) The determination of wage levels within the processes of international competition leading to a widening of wage differences in national economies;
4) Enhanced systematic mobility of capital;
5) Abandonment of full employment as a goal of macro-economics;
6) Abandonment of state regulation of financial markets and increased dependence on foreign financial flows;
7) The dominance of financial markets and therefore of national economies by non-bank financial intermediaries. States should increasingly articulate accommodative macro-strategies to fall in line with the preferences of these new global financial giants;
8) The growth of individualism and the weakening of collective expression of individual aspirations; and
9) The new compartmentalization of the work process associated with an increased application of information technology.
The writer of the article affirms that all the above postulates and a few more - which have been left out - seek to universalize human-rights doctrine as a subtle way for constructing capitalist individuality, civil society and a global hegemonic capitalist state.
The last two points - i.e., points 7 and 8 - combined with the human-rights doctrine, were the issues under discussion at a recent meeting of the Idara Zehn-i-Jadeed. There was consensus that we should, as a nation, try to adjust our sails to the new hurricane of globalization and should ensure that the right to industrialize ourselves and determine the parameters of our economy, according to our lights, should not be given up under any circumstances.
It means that the cultural agenda of globalization, that is, individualism, should be paid due attention and we should do what we can do to save our souls. If this problem is not addressed by us then the underprivileged - banking upon a self-reliant economy promising maximum employment opportunities to the maximum number of people - will be justified in seeing globalization as a threat.
Reason sees individualism as a philosophy that seeks erosion of national sovereignty and an attempt to put national economy on the back-burner.
MUHAMMAD Ali (as Cassius Clay) taunted Sonny Liston mercilessly, “float like a butterfly and sting like a bee” was the least offensive of his taunts. But he won, he knocked out Liston. In the context of the quite extraordinary taunting of the Waugh brothers by Richard Pybus, Pybus was not Muhammad Ali. He was Liston.
Steve Waugh had the last laugh and one hopes that the Pakistan team coach will take Allan Border’s advice and “shut up.”
In fact, rather than be chastened by the humiliating defeat in the second Test match, there has been a spate of statements by the team management, which have only served to irritate the cricket public in Pakistan. The need of the hour was to re-group and to do so with humility and in silence.
The PCB should have issued a ‘gag’ order. For a team whose sole objective should have been to avoid a whitewash, silence should have been the highest virtue, to say nothing of being the best strategy.
Waqar Younis should be given a medal for gallantry. Pakistan went into the third Test match with only four bowlers and in the circumstances, did a creditable job by confining Australia to only 444!
Shahid Afridi was flown out as a replacement for Abdul Razzaq but was not played. Afridi is an all-rounder and would have given the team a bowling option, more so since Shoaib Akhtar pulled out, reportedly, because of a niggle or a back-strain. The team management is on the spot and knows best.
From the distance of Karachi, it seemed to me that Pakistan had opted for an unbalanced team. In Australia’s innings, Saqlain Mushtaq and Danish Kaneria bowled 45 and 36 overs respectively in that searing heat. If there was something ‘personal’ against Afridi, there was the option of Mohammad Zahid who has been with the team and by now must have had his fill of sight-seeing.
I believe that sports should be kept out of politics. Horrendous as the bombing of a nightclub in Bali may have been, and it has been condemned by the Pakistan government, I think a Test match seemed an inappropriate occasion to express one’s grief.
Many Australians died in the Bali bombing and if the Australian players wanted to honour those that had died, they were entitled to wear black arm-bands and fly their flag at half-mast. But why should the Pakistan players have worn black arm-bands and the Pakistan flag at the ground lowered to half-mast?
I am against terrorism but all kinds of terrorism including that of Ariel Sharon against the people of Palestine. I consider the killing of innocent men, women and children to be repugnant. But that includes the men, women and children in Palestine and Afghanistan. Why no black arm-bands for them? All things considered, it might have been better to have kept our grief private and not turned it into public sorrow.
I write this at close of play on the third day of the Test match with an innings defeat staring Pakistan in the face. The last two matches have been nightmares for Pakistan and with the end of the series in sight, Pakistan should look to erase the memory of this series except for some positives. Pakistan is richer by two quality batsmen, Faisal Iqbal and Hasan Raza.
Hasan first played for Pakistan in 1996, and then like so many other young players, he was cast adrift and but for his own tenacity, he would have been out of the mainstream. His selection for this tour came about because senior players were either not available or were injured. That he played in the third Test match was because Razzaq was unfit. Hasan was not deemed good enough for the first two Test matches. He got his chance and he grabbed it with both hands. In both the innings, he batted with grit and determination, put a very high price on his wicket and was certainly not willing to give it away. He is one batsman who can hold his head high. Before he left for Colombo, he came to see me.
I had written about how we had squandered a talent like his and had we kept faith with him when he first played Test cricket, we would have had an established middle-order batsman by now. I wished him the best of luck and told him to focus on his cricket and when his chance came, to seize the day. I hope that he will play for Pakistan for a long time and will not become a victim, yet again, of whimsical selection.
I don’t think that young players should be too discouraged. The secret of success is to learn from one’s mistakes. Cricket is an unforgiving game. It wasn’t going to be easy for them against Australia.
The Australians are the best team in the world because they work really hard at being the best. There is no other way. That’s what is lacking in our team — hard work, application, more perspiration and less reliance on inspiration. Ask Hasan Raza!