“I WILL tell the people at Davos that the world does not need war, the world needs peace and understanding,” said President Lula da Silva to a cheering crowd of tens of thousands in Porto Alegre, a sunny port city in Southeastern Brazil. If there is one theme that unified this year’s World Social Forum — and captures the irrationality and destructiveness of letting a handful of people determine so much of the world’s fate — it is opposition to the looming war against Iraq.

Some 100,000 people participated in the third World Social Forum (WSF) in Porto Alegre on January 23-28, as part of the movement to build an alternative to a world dominated by economic crisis and war. The World Social Forum began three years ago — under the slogan “Another World is Possible” — as an alternative to the World Economic Forum, an exclusive gathering of the rich and powerful held at the same time at the mountain resort of Davos, Switzerland.

As part of a delegation of the Progressive Muslims Network (PMN), I had the privilege of being in contact with some of the most exciting individuals, groups, movements, and tendencies from all over the world. “I will never forget what I saw and who I met here,” said Larissa Berbare, a college student from Sao Paulo, Brazil. “It’s a unique opportunity to meet people from around the world and see them exchange and defend their ideas.” The ideas discussed at the WSF — at the big panel discussions, the hundreds of smaller workshops, and the non-stop discussions in the hallways and plazas — ranged from environmentalism to racism, from war on Iraq to the liberation of Palestine, and from women’s oppression to opposition to the free-market policies known as neoliberalism.

But two main themes formed the background to late last month’s World Social Forum meeting. One was the threat of a devastating war against Iraq within weeks. The other was the swing to the left in Latin America, expressed in the victory of left-wing candidates in presidential elections in Brazil and Ecuador, and in the failure of the coup attempt against Hugo Chavez’s government in Venezuela.

Both themes were present in the big demonstration of 140,000 that marked the opening of the forum, and many of the discussions over the next four days. A 40,000-strong rally greeted new Brazilian president, Lula, when he visited Porto Alegre and rapturous applause greeted Chavez two days later. People understood that Lula had won the election because he seemed to promise hope to the mass of people. They also understood that Venezuela’s rich had tried to overthrow Chavez with a lockout, disguised as a strike, because he had promised reforms for workers, peasants and the poor.

Along with the applause for Lula, however, went some questioning of his policies. He is immensely popular as the first person from a working class party to win an election in Latin America since the overthrow of the Allende government in Chile in 1973. But his decision to accept a deal with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) made by his neo-liberal predecessor Cardosa, his appointment of a former executive of a US bank as his economics minister, and his willingness to consider the formation of an American free trade zone with the US are worrying many of his admirers.

The most spectacular event was the launching of a global coalition against the war. More than 1,000 people from more than 60 countries came to a day-long assembly to discuss organizing a network. Everyone who spoke agreed that the campaign against war on Iraq was of crucial importance. Activists from the US, Brazil, Palestine, India, Portugal and almost every other part of the world committed themselves to organizing anti-war activity on February 15.

Speakers from the US all agreed that their movement was already bigger than the anti-Vietnam war campaign in the late 1960s. Hundreds of Latin American delegates applauded speakers who said a global campaign against war on Iraq was crucial to weakening imperialism in their continent. There was tremendous excitement in the hall. We all recognized we were building something unprecedented, something with huge potential. Hundreds of delegates from scores of organizations signed up to an international e-mail list, and a group of video activists started organizing a global video link for the demonstrations on February 15. Slogans about global resistance were becoming real in front of our eyes.

The WSF has grown enormously, attracting more than 100,000 participants to Porto Alegre for this year’s series of events. And among the delegates from 126 countries, the largest contingent outside Brazil this year is — to the surprise of many — from the United States. The entire spectrum of the left was present — from moderate politicians and non-governmental organizations to radicals and revolutionaries. The size of the crowds and the number of workshops created an atmosphere of one enormous, nonstop meeting. Overall, 20,763 foreign delegates representing 5,717 organizations in 156 countries attended. The event attracted a huge number of young people from across Brazil and neighbouring countries. Some 25,000 stayed at the WSF youth camp.

The culmination of the forum came when 18,000 people crowded into the Gigantinho Stadium to listen to Noam Chomsky and Arundhati Roy speak about “resistance to empire.” Chomsky talked about how those who liked to think of themselves as “the masters of the universe” were damaging people’s lives: “We have been talking about life after capitalism. It would be better to say life, because there is not going to be any unless we do something about capitalism.” He exposed the hypocrisy of Bush and Blair and called on people to oppose their war against Iraq.

Arundhati Roy roused the whole stadium to applause as she denounced the way the world’s rulers were destroying people’s lives, their cultures and their environment in the search for profits. She said, “Resistance to empire — or, to call it by its proper name, imperialism — is growing.” The whole audience rose to their feet as she ended, “We are many. They are few. They need us much more than we need them.” Everyone felt all the issues debated over the previous four days had been brought together, and they left the stadium inspired to fight against the horrors George Bush has in store for us.

My own group, the Progressive Muslims Network had attempted and succeeded in conveying to many from the global network of activists that Islam can most certainly be a part of this international movement for social justice. We outlined to the thousands of activists, through our speeches, discussions, and reading material, that the Islam we were bringing to them was one of action and liberation.

We affirmed that there is a revolutionary tradition in Islam which has always refused to reach accommodation with an unjust status quo — a tendency which has sought to challenge existing structures of illegitimate authority and oppression. We anchored ourselves firmly in this tradition, and were enthusiastically welcomed into this powerful movement of international solidarity.

The most important thing coming out of the WSF was the enthusiasm expressed — a new confidence that the mass of people of the world can fight back after miserable decades of defeat and demoralization. Most people will have gone home with the awareness that the global movement is growing, and even more committed to fighting capitalism’s byproducts: debt, hunger, ecological destruction, economic crisis, and, above all, in the next few weeks, the threat of war on Iraq.

My only hope is that the fighting spirit, the uncompromising desire for justice and peace, and the love and international solidarity that I saw in the faces of the tens of thousands of ordinary Brazilians can spread to the Muslim world. Muslims can take guidance from the constructive way in which poor Latin Americans have wrested power away from both local and foreign elites, have taken control of their lives, and have developed a potent resistance movement to imperialism and the global capitalist system.

A couple of years ago, it would have been unimaginable that so many activists from so many countries could get together and express their solidarity with the peoples of Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir, Colombia, Venezuela, and Chechnya. Today, it is a reality which is not going to go away.

The writer is an activist and a member of the Progressive Muslims Network (www.progressivemuslims.com). He lives in Virginia, US.

GENERAL Pervez Musharraf, the Chief of the Army Staff and the president of Pakistan, has recently promulgated the Federal Universities Ordinance, 2002, replacing earlier ordinances and acts. This would also serve as a model framework for all the public sector universities of Pakistani. The ordinance has been drafted on the basis of the recommendations of the task force, and the steering committee headed by Shams Lakha, the president of the Aga Khan University. The publication of the report of the task force has evoked criticism among certain sections of university teachers and students.

Most of their apprehensions are primarily based on disinformation and a lack of comprehension of major loopholes in the earlier ordinances and acts. At the same time, its critics fail to appreciate the rapidly declining standards of education in the universities during the past decades. It seems that the whole issue is being politicized unnecessarily. Perhaps some of the objections raised by the academics may be valid, and deserve review and sympathetic consideration.

However, the basic postulates underlying the proposed reorganization of the universities in respect of their academic structure, administrative machinery, management and overall policy-making visualize some fundamental changes in view of the past experience. Ever since the promulgation of the 1972 Ordinance, and the subsequent enactment of University Acts of 1974, the teachers of all categories, and even students were given representation in all academic and administrative bodies of the universities on the basis of elections, and these also provided for students unions. But in actual practice this had resulted in an unfortunate politicization of faculty, students and employees of the universities because of the growing impact of the ideological cleavages of the political parties. Thus the universities became the hotbed of regional, ethnic, and religious politics.

Ultimately the campuses turned into virtual battlegrounds and witnessed violent clashes leading to death and destruction. Consequently, the focus shifted from academic instruction and research to extraneous issues. The semester system was introduced, but it failed to produce the desired improvement of the educational standards. Ideally, all these innovations were regarded as steps towards improvement. However, a critical review of the working of the universities during past decades would clearly show that the standards of education had steadily declined, and the desired results could not be achieved. The unionization of teachers, students and employees and their close links with the popular political parties created undue pressures on the academic and administrative bodies of the universities.

As a result, the vice-chancellors of the universities became hostages of the political groups, with the result that the teachers could not play their legitimate role. The teachers themselves had aligned with the political parties for promoting their vested interests. Under these circumstances, the very concept of the university autonomy had become a farce since the universities were working under the strains of massive intervention by the political parties, ruling as well as opposition.

It is against such a background, that the Musharraf regime duly recognized the urgent need for reviewing, and overhauling the entire organizational structure of the public sector universities. He had consulted the senior educationists of Pakistan, and a number of think tanks investigated various aspects of university education. A task force was nominated, and its report was duly considered by a high-powered steering committee headed by Shams Lakha, President of the Aga Khan University.

They drafted a Model University Act. According to a report published in Dawn of December 3, President Musharraf has categorically dispelled the impression that the universities are being privatized. Commenting on the ordinance, he observed, “the ordinance can have problems and can be improved but it is unfortunate that vested interests are opposing it through strikes and protests on the ground that the higher education is being privatized”. He further added, “ We are not mad to privatize the education to close the opportunities to our poor”. He elaborated that the real intent was to revolutionize the higher education.

Professor Dr Atta-ur-Rahman, Chairman, Commission on Higher Education with the status of a federal minister, and formerly minister of science and technology, has played a major role in promoting reforms in the system of education. In his new capacity he is trying to provide incentives to the university teachers to undertake research in sciences, technology, social sciences, and humanities. In a recent interview, he has tried to explain some of the basic features of the Model University Act, and has in a clear and positive manner tried to dispel some of the misgivings and criticisms prevailing among teachers and students. It is worth reiterating some of the points he has offered in defence of the MUA, and explains the underlying premises on which the new educational approach is founded.

In a recent newspaper interview Dr Rahman has categorically allayed the fears prevailing among students that fees were going to be drastically increased. Giving assurance to the student communities, he asserted that as long as he was chairman of the HEC and responsible for looking after the universities, he would not allow a substantial increase in fees. He further assured that he would provide a lot of scholarship and additional support.

Dealing with another plank of disinformation being spread by vested interests regarding virtual privatization of education under the proposed reforms, Dr. Atta-ur-Rahman clarified the position and said, “There is nothing in the ordinance to this effect either. I believe strongly that public universities are the responsibility of the government and they should be funded by the government. Admission should be on the basis of merit alone and not on the ability of parents to pay certain amount of fees.”

Focusing sharply on the urgent need for improving the quality of education, Dr Rahman rightly observed, “What I expect out of a quality system is good human beings with well-rounded education.” He added that the students should be equipped with the necessary tools to be able to address the problems of life in an intelligent fashion, unleashing the creativity of our students. At the same time, he emphasized the need for improving the existing standards, so that education was brought at par with the international standards.

In response to a question regarding the major recommendations made by the task force, Dr Rahman stated that there should be a separation between the governance and management of a university. There will be a board that will govern. The vice-chancellor will be the chief executive officer who will be responsible for the implementation of the decisions of the board. He proposed to do away with the existing colonial mode of appointment of the vice-chancellor who “holds office during the pleasure of the chancellor”. He suggested that “this system is to be changed and the vice-chancellor is to be appointed on the recommendations of a search committee comprising eminent professionals rather than the chancellor picks up a person at random”. He opines that the new university ordinance proposes that professional representatives to the statutory bodies be nominated rather than elected by teachers’ societies.

Generally speaking, the root cause of our past failures may be ascribed in a rather philosophical sense to the lack of synthesizing idealism and pragmatism in the context of a stagnant political, economic and social environment inherited by us as a legacy of the British colonial rule. Speaking in terms of pure idealism, the benefits of higher education should be available to only those who deserve it irrespective of caste, creed, colour, gender or wealth. The select ones among the students through successive tiers of education should be allowed to pursue higher education, and the rest of the mass of students should be given a core of general courses, and vocational and technical training providing the required needs of human resource.

The elite upper class of students, however, push their way through sheer academic performance and excellence to the top for obtaining academic and professional degrees. It is on this basis that the admission policies for the professional colleges should be formulated, and all disciplines of science, and social sciences, and all categories of self-finance and quotas be abolished forthwith. Merit alone should be the criterion of admission. Entrance examinations should be held to select the required number of students in each discipline keeping in view demands of the market and public institutions.

Students who fulfil the criteria of merit and excellence should be admitted for university education, and those who cannot afford to pay the cost of higher education should be provided financial assistance, and tuition waiver according to the needs. The main objective of higher education is to produce a body of professionals, bureaucrats, economists, social scientists, teachers, technocrats and a hard core of leaders in different walks of life.

However, in the process of planning for higher education, a proper balance must be maintained between social sciences, humanities, and science and technology. There may not be any problem if in the initial stage, policy is tilted towards giving extra consideration for filling the gap in the fields of science, technology, and other futuristic sciences in order to cope with the rapid advances in these areas of knowledge. In fact, the primary, secondary and higher secondary levels of education are the nurseries of talents, and the colleges and universities are the training ground of leaders.

From this point of view, it may not be wrong to believe that higher education must remain selective and elitist, since it does not cater to the needs of the mediocrity. Therefore, if we agree with this view of higher education, as a natural corollary, democratization of the organizational structure, governance and management of the universities would be counter-productive, and would not produce excellence and talent; it may only quantitatively produce degree holders with only a smattering of superficial knowledge.

Perhaps, it is with this view in mind, the framers of the Model University Act have suggested the separation of governance and management in the administration of the universities.

To be concluded

The writer is former vice-chancellor, Karachi University.

A PAKISTAN TV network rang me up from Karachi the other day to find out how the stalemate between India and Pakistan could be resolved. My reply, somewhat simplistic, was: people-to-people contact. Such a persistent exercise, I said, would generate enough pressure on both sides to make them sit across the table to begin sorting out their differences.

In a way, people-to-people contact has become a cliche. India’s foreign office even challenges its efficacy and wants to know how the Track II talks between non-officials spread over two decades spanned the distance between the two countries. This is, in fact, New Delhi’s defence when cornered on not issuing visas to the known human rights activists and academicians.

Yet Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee favoured people-to-people contact in the musings he wrote from the Andamans only a month ago. He, however, shrugs his shoulders when you tell him that visas are denied to leading citizens from Pakistan. He says he does not know who are the people wanting to come and who in the government is stalling their entry.

Vajpayee should realize that every application is routed through the home ministry. Home Minister L.K. Advani has begun spreading himself all over — he even carries journalists in his special plane for coverage — the shrinking of the prime minister’s space is too apparent. Advani discusses defence deals in France and economic matters in Singapore. No doubt, he is the deputy prime minister but he is essentially the police minister.

Advani’s anti-Pakistan bias may be one reason for freezing visas but another reason adumbrated by top officials is that the relaxation of visas, coming after the withdrawal of forces from the border, would give Pakistan the impression that India “continued to be a soft state.”

It does not make sense. People across the border are from the same stock and share the same history, the same language and the same emotional ties. Individuals like Asma Jehangir and I.A. Rehman, the two human rights activists, are more South Asian than Pakistanis. Such are the people who keep the standard of democracy and fair play aloft in the world. By stopping them New Delhi hurts itself, not Islamabad.

Relaxing visa facilities would have been another feather in the Vajpayee government’s cap. It has already won international support in not having talks with Pakistan till it stops cross-border terrorism. US Ambassador Nancy Powell in Islamabad only underlined the point when she said to General Pervez Musharraf’s embarrassment to make good his assurance “to prevent infiltration across the Line of Control and end the use of Pakistan as a platform of terrorism.”

Apparently, this had little effect on Islamabad. Infiltration is said to have increased. It is counter-productive. It has not brought the solution of Kashmir any nearer. It only allows the BJP-led government to heighten suspicion against Islamabad and gives credence to the impression that the democratically returned Jamali government had made no difference to the army’s policy of infiltration.

New Delhi’s anti-Pakistan posture fits into the calculations of the BJP-led government. In Gujarat it reaped a big harvest in the state election when it aroused feelings against Pakistan. And it looks as if the BJP will pursue the same policy till the end of the Lok Sabha polls, nearly 20 months hence. By then 10 states would have also elected new assemblies and tell the BJP whether it is on the right lines. So far the anti-Pakistan card has tended to polarize society. True, the loss of around 14 per cent electorate, the Muslims, is substantial in the keenly contested constituencies. But the BJP believes that it can offset the loss of Muslim votes if it converts the election into a battle between Hindus and Muslims.

The RSS, mentor of the BJP, is already harping on the partition days to re-ignite the embers of hatred, which are cold after the lapse of 55 years of India’s division. Hatred against 150 million Muslims living in India is sought to be created to remind people that the Muslims had created Pakistan.

RSS chief Sudarshan has blamed Mahatma Gandhi for the partition. This is not true. Lord Mountbatten told me in 1972 at his residence Broadlands near London that Mahatma walked out of the room at the viceroy’s lodge in New Delhi when the partition formula was spelled out to him. Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel had accepted the formula, much to the helplessness of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. It’s futile to argue about who was responsible for the partition of the subcontinent. Such an exercise can only be an academic distraction. But the differences between Hindus and Muslims had become so acute by the beginning of the forties that something like partition had become inevitable.

Has partition served the purpose of the Muslims? I do not know. In Pakistan people avoid the word ‘partition.’ On August 14, they celebrate their deliverance not so much from British rule as from the fear of Hindu rule. During my trips to that country, I have heard people say that they have at least “some place” where they feel secure, free of “Hindu domination” or “Hindu aggressiveness.” The Gujarat carnage seems to have confirmed them in their belief. But I feel that the Muslims have been the biggest losers; they are now spread over three countries — India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Imagine the influence their numbers — their votes — could have commanded in the undivided subcontinent. They would have been more than one-third of the total population. But it is no use going over the partition exercise. How we can overcome its ravages, still exploited by some political parties, is the question. How the prejudice built and sustained by the Sangh parivar against Muslims can be demolished. The BJP thrives on the anti-Muslim bias because it gives the party an electoral advantage. It is a power-oriented game even at the expense of India’s unity. When power becomes the end, the means cease to matter.

My purpose of visiting Pakistan a few weeks ago was to tell Pakistani how their policy of cross-border terrorism had strengthened the BJP on the one hand and harassed Muslims on the other. I found very few responsive ears. At the government level, I suspected a fiendish satisfaction over the emergence of Hindu fundamentalism in India. In any case, what Indian Muslims might face because of Pakistan’s policy was not a factor in the reckoning of Islamabad.

Undoubtedly, India is responsible for its own citizens and a government that creates hatred against a particular community is anti-India. It is betraying the constitution based on secular ethos and destroying the concept of equality before law. Still if Pakistan allows its territory to be used by terrorists and finances their preparation in India, the Muslims of India, I am afraid, might have to pay the price. This is unfair and a travesty of justice. But when the terrorists, dead or alive, turn out to be Muslims, and some from Pakistan, the BJP’s accusation sticks.

The battle could be fought more effectively if peoples believing in the pluralistic ethos in both countries were to join hands. In this context, people-to-people contact becomes all the more important. The atmosphere is too stifling and dreary at present.

The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi