| February 1, 2003 | Saturday | Ziqa’ad 28, 1423 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Mandela’s indictment
Meals at weddings
AT long last Pakistan seems to have been able to convince one of our major multilateral donors, the Asian Development Bank (ADB), that subsidy on the farm sector is necessary for stimulating growth in the agriculture sector, the lynchpin of this country’s economy. At a press conference in Islamabad the other day, the visiting director-general of the South Asian Department of the ADB, Yoshihiro Iwasaki, said that his Bank would not oppose any subsidy to be offered to the agriculture sector so long as it is targeted and meaningful. One only hopes that the other two important multilateral donors, the IMF and the World Bank, too, would see the economic logic in the ADB’s new position on the issue. Over the years these multilateral donors have been trying to convince Pakistan that subsidies distort the economy and upset the macroeconomic balance by curtailing the rates of economic growth and increasing the burden of debt. The argument in defence of farm subsidies or for a slow pace of their withdrawal went unheeded.
It is widely known that the prosperity of many of today’s rich countries is the result of heavy subsidies channelled into their farm sectors for decades. These countries have been spending billions of their taxpayers’ dollars to keep domestic food prices within the reach of even the poorest sections of their populations while taking care to ensure a reasonable profit for the growers. All champions of globalization, and all wanting strict enforcement of the WTO rules by all developing as well as underdeveloped countries, these rich states have, however, consistently refused to withdraw the massive subsidies that they continue to provide to their agriculture sector. Such practices have rendered even the primary produce of poor countries uncompetitive in the world market and forced even those wholly dependent on farming to become dependent on the rich countries even for supply of food items.
The mainstay of Pakistan too is agriculture. But over the years, impelled by reforms imposed on it by multilateral donors in return for crucial cash assistance, successive governments have been slashing subsidies, making it costly for the local farmers to produce even those crops in which the country has always had a comparative advantage. Because of gradual withdrawal of subsidies on inputs, most of our major crops like, cotton, wheat, sugarcane and rice are becoming internationally uncompetitive. Unless this process is stopped and in some cases reversed, the possibility of Pakistan’s farm products pricing themselves out in its own market cannot be ruled out.
Of course, subsidies which are not targeted and lack direction only end up creating distortions. In Pakistan’s case subsidy policies in the past have been so designed as to make it possible for the rich farmers to corner the concessions and use most of these for non-agricultural purposes. This is the reason why perhaps even when the farm sector was getting heavy subsidies, it was showing no signs of dynamism. It is, therefore, necessary that while formulating future subsidy policies, care should be taken that the taxpayers’ money is spent on those crops that yield the maximum socio-economic benefit for the country.
NELSON Mandela has lent his powerful voice to worldwide protests against what looks like an imminent American attack on Iraq. While a peace plea from a man who has devoted his life to the cause of freedom should surprise no one, what marks his views is the depth of his feelings on the issue. He has criticized George Bush and Tony Blair for their jingoistic stance on Iraq and has taken strong exception to their disregard of the UN in pursuing their war-like policies. In terms of Bush’s war aims, Mandela has made it clear that in his opinion what Bush wants is the control of Iraqi oil. He has accused both President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of undermining the UN, “an idea which was sponsored by their predecessors” — a reference to the two giants produced by the English-speaking world in the twentieth century, Churchill and Roosevelt. Besides calling them both “arrogant,” Africa’s living legend has expressed his doubt whether Bush could “think properly”. And finally he has said what people the world over, including some in his own country, have noted with astonishment — that Tony Blair has reduced himself to becoming America’s foreign minister.
The Anglo-American stand on Iraq lacks a moral content. If weapons of mass destruction were the issue, why has Washington offered talks to North Korea? which has admitted to possess them. Could not the Iraqi issue be solved by peaceful means, especially because the UN arms inspectors have found no “smoking gun”? Is this so because Iraq’s destruction is in Israel’s interest, so nothing else matters? It is these double standards that have prompted Mandela to wonder why Israel is being ignored when it too has weapons of mass destruction. Only a miracle can now avert war. One only wishes Washington would heed this criticism, coming as it does not from a politician seeking publicity or re-election but from one of the modern world’s sanest men.
THE Punjab cabinet has decided to partially lift the ban on the serving of food at weddings, announcing that the groom’s family would be allowed to serve a one-dish valima meal provided the number of guests did not exceed 300. The decision comes in the wake of the Supreme Court judgment in November in which the apex court had declared the Marriages Ordinance of 1997 null and void on technical grounds. The court had ruled that the right to decide whether meals could or could not be served at weddings was a provincial matter. The Punjab cabinet’s decision now treads a middle path, retaining the restriction on meals at weddings but making an exception for the valima reception. Some religious justification exists for this decision, which does not burden the bride’s family. Meanwhile, the other three provinces are free to take their own respective decisions in this matter.
The Marriages Ordinance was made part of the law to curb wasteful expenditure at wedding functions. However, the law badly affected the fortunes of hundreds of caterers across the country. While the intent behind the law was commendable, it resulted in huge job losses in the once booming catering industry. The ban was also regularly flouted by the rich and well-connected while heavy fines were imposed on the less well-off who broke the law. Regardless of whether it is the bride’s or the groom’s family, the fact remains that most Pakistani hosts like serving meals to their guests at weddings, as our traditional hospitality demands. The other three provincial governments would do well to consider this important point while looking into ways of changing the law without encouraging wasteful expenditure. The simplest solution would be to allow a one-dish meal and set a reasonable limit on the number of guests.