| April 30, 2003 | Wednesday | Safar 27, 1424 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Resuming the dialogue
Return of the ‘lota’
Where have all the jobs gone?
The burden of old age
WITHIN hours of an announcement from Washington that US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage would be travelling to the subcontinent to promote detente, the Indian prime minister announced in Srinagar on April 18 that he would be ready for talks with Pakistan as well as with Kashmir groups. Prime Minister Mir Zafarullah Khan Jamali responded positively, saying, “we welcome it, we appreciate it.”
HOW many birthdays should one have celebrated to be called old? In other words, at what age does one qualify to be a ‘senior citizen’? Or rephrased in very mundane terms the question would be, when does one become a pensioner? Of course, many would give cliched answers such as the one in self-help books, if you are young at heart you never grow old. There are others who comfort themselves by saying that the body might age but the mind doesn’t: it improves with age and experience!
MR Prime Minister,
You must be awfully proud of your achievements as you approach the big five-O. From the vantage point of No.10 Downing Street, things have lately been looking up, no doubt.
The contempt in which the majority of Britons held you a couple of months ago may not have altogether melted away, but it certainly has dwindled with the occupation of Iraq.
As a reward for your unflinching loyalty to the most reactionary American regime in living memory, you are about to become the first British prime minister since Winston Churchill to receive the ultimate accolade: a Congressional Gold Medal.
And it appears highly unlikely now that this week’s elections in Scotland will produce a nationalist victory — an eventuality that, in your view, would have spelt “the end of Britain as we know it”.
Come to think of it, large numbers of people across the world would welcome the end of Britain as we know it — a former colonial power so reluctant to accept its modern status as a relatively inconsequential island off the coast of Europe that it is invariably willing to attach itself to the hind quarters of the sole surviving superpower as a means of exercising influence in international affairs.
You, Mr Blair, are by no means the first prime minister of your country to fall into this trap. Even Harold Wilson, whom the Americans suspected of being an agent of influence for Moscow, was more than happy to support Lyndon Johnson over Vietnam in defiance of the Labour Party conference.
But, unlike Australia, at least he didn’t commit British troops to the American effort.
Then, of course, there was Margaret Thatcher. But although she was totally committed to the American neo-conservative agenda and the mutual adoration she shared with Ronald Reagan is the stuff of legend, their relationship did not go quite as far as your affaire de coeur (as Monsieur Chirac may be inclined to put it) with George Dubya.
The existence of the Soviet Union provided Maggie and Ronnie with a focus for their hatred, but it also acted as a restraint on their wilder fantasies. And once Gorby came along, it became increasingly difficult to portray the USSR as an evil empire.
Now all that is gone, but Reagan’s heir in Washington has emerged as an evil emperor, with Thatcher’s heir (that’s you, Tony, as I’m sure you’d be willing to acknowledge, at least in private, possibly with more than a smidgeon of pride) as cheerleader-in-chief.
Your fans in the few remaining liberal sections of the British media have been trying very hard to put a gloss of respectability on your very public indiscretions with George the Younger. You were doing your best to act as a restraining influence, they said.
It has been reported that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, you persuaded President Bush to mount an assault on Afghanistan rather than Iraq, as some of his closest aides were advising.
We’re also told that you were mainly responsible for Bush resorting to the United Nations (where he threatened the Security Council with dire consequences if it failed to sign up to the neo-con plot).
Well, first of all, in both cases it’s much more likely that George W. was heeding Colin Powell’s advice than yours. And secondly, if you were really trying to moderate the madness of the US administration, you’ve been a dismal failure, haven’t you?
Insisting on a second UN resolution before setting Iraq ablaze could conceivably have been construed as a principled stance (even though it wouldn’t have detracted from the immorality of the war).
But the point is that you didn’t insist on it. When it became clear that the Security Council wasn’t going to bend over and let Uncle Sam have his way, you decided to go along with the US anyway.
Trying to cover up your lack of principles and your moral cowardice by blaming Jacques Chirac for hobbling the UN process doesn’t cut much ice.
Except, of course, with the rabidly anti-French cabal among British opinion-makers — the foremost member of which is Rupert Murdoch’s The Sun,
the lowest of the low among your nation’s tabloid press, its high circulation figures a damning testament to the shortcomings of Britain’s education
system.
I’m not surprised that you decided to grant your first post-war interview last week to this particular Murdoch organ. After all, The Sun was instrumental in your first election victory in 1997. Which made a great many of us very, very suspicious.
You said in that interview that if the House of Commons had failed to endorse your determination to flout international law, you would have quietly
slid off the prime ministerial perch.
I don’t think it would have been a matter of choice. You would have had to resign. And it would have been best for Britain if you had departed at that juncture, taking Jack Straw and Geoff Hoon with you. It may have been able to avoid ending up with so much Iraqi blood on its hands.
Now we’re being told — and not just by The Sun — that victory means vindication. That, of course, is complete nonsense. Victory was never in doubt.
How could it possibly have been otherwise, with the world’s most powerful nation pitted against one of the weakest, and that too after the latter had been thoroughly strip-searched? True to form, you sided with the mighty against the weak.
Don Rumsfeld had been frank enough to point out, before the aggression began in earnest, that in military terms your contribution was irrelevant.
You took the insult in your stride. You must by now be fairly accustomed to doing that.
The experience will serve you well. It’s surely coming in handy once again in the matter of a UN role in Iraq’s post-destruction reconstruction.
Standing by your side in Dublin, Bush proclaimed that the UN would be offered a “vital role” in the process. That meaningless statement was projected by your spin specialists as a valuable concession.
It has now turned out — surprise, surprise — that the US intends to accord the world body as much respect as it would be inclined to spare for, say, Oxfam.
Can you do anything about that? Actually, you probably could if you really wanted to — just as you could have at least mildly distressed Bush, if not dissuaded him from his Wild West venture, by withdrawing your endorsement in the absence of UN approval. But you didn’t.
Allowing the neo-cons an easy ride appears to be considerably higher on your agenda than keeping up appearances.
And this surprises some people. It shouldn’t. Anyone who has followed your career ought to know exactly where you stand. After all, your aim right from the moment you grabbed the Labour Party’s reins has been to cast off its traditions. Some of those traditions were arguably well worth discarding, while others were what distinguished the party of Keir Hardie and Nye Bevan from the Tories.
It is said of your father that he harboured ambitions of becoming a Conservative MP. You’ve done much better than that, Tony.
You’ve taken Labour rightwards across the political divide into Tory pastures. One of the main reasons you didn’t lose that crucial Commons vote was because the Tories were overwhelmingly on your side.
Your opposition is effectively restricted to the Labour backbenches, where there are some who hope that the party can ultimately be rescued from your malign influence and the myth of the “third way”.
George Galloway’s troubles must have come as a welcome early birthday gift to you, but despite the best efforts of your hatchet men in the media, the allegations against him are unlikely to damage the anti-war movement or reflect poorly on other Labour backbenchers vehemently opposed to your policies.
You appear, Mr Blair, to believe you have guaranteed yourself a Churchillian chapter in history books. That’s extremely unlikely, except perhaps in tomes produced by historians of David Irving’s ilk. You will be remembered, if at all, by your actions. And by the company you keep — not just George Bush but also the likes of Jose Maria Aznar and Silvio Berlusconi, prime minister who, like you, veer towards the extreme right in the European context.
Like you, they have always been on the far right ideologically. Unlike you, they never pretended otherwise.
That doesn’t mean anyone will forget you in a hurry. Your friend George (who’ll be less than thrilled to discover you’ve regularly been seeking Bill Clinton’s advice) thinks of himself as God’s gift to America. Literally. I hope you don’t consider yourself equally infallible. You’re turning 50 next week, Tony.
Whatever else that landmark may signify, it certainly suggests you’re old enough to know better.
E-mail: mahirali@journalist.com
The conciliatory gesture from India was overdue, after the expected resumption of the Agra process was stalled following the 9/11 events. Mr Vajpayee did not drop India’s condition that Pakistan must stop “cross-border terrorism” but he did say that all issues should be settled through talks. “Guns will not solve the matter but brotherhood will”, he said. “We again extend the hand of friendship but it has to be a two-way road”. Prime Minister Jamali also said that while Pakistan stood by its stand on Kashmir,”once talks start there could be flexibility from both sides.”
Mr Vajpayee’s resumption of his leadership role reflects a realization in policy-making circles in India that the extremist stance of the Advani group was becoming a liability. Following the electoral success in Gujarat, the strategy of demonizing Pakistan and Muslims was not working, as evident from the results of elections in Himachal Pradesh. Furthermore, the international community could not remain indifferent to Pakistan’s repeated offers of a dialogue and their rejection by India.
There should be no doubt that Mr Armitage, when he comes, will address the issue of terrorist incursions into Kashmir as well as the resumption of the Indo-Pakistan peace dialogue. This was also implied in the announcement of his visit. The high level of tension between the two South Asian neighbours has remained a source of deep concern to Washington. The US has not bought the Indian thesis that those struggling for their right of self-determination in Kashmir are all “terrorists” and “separatists.” After having achieved the occupation of Iraq, with comparative ease, the US would be keen to revive its image of a peacemaker, and a backer of democracy and human rights.
The resumption of dialogue, when it takes place, has a ready-made agenda of problems that must be addressed. Since the terrorist attack on the Indian parliament on December 13, 2001, the BJP government has brought down the level of interaction between the two countries steadily. The cessation of travel by road and rail and the ban on the use of air space for flights were enforced almost immediately. India also withdrew its high commissioner, and when Pakistan did not follow suit, virtually expelled the Pakistani high commissioner five months later. The number of visas issued was curtailed drastically, and cultural and sporting links snapped.
Among the earliest steps to be taken would be the resumption of travel links by land and air, starting possibly with the lifting of ban on overflights. India had shown readiness to relax on this point, since it was much more seriously affected but Pakistan would not relent on a single issue when India was keeping up pressure on other counts. Given the stormy nature of bilateral relations and the threats of pre-emption used lately, one needs to be cautious about the prospects ahead. The influence of the hawks in India, headed by Mr L.K. Advani, will not disappear suddenly.
There was an expectation that some preliminary moves might materialize before Mr Armitage actually travels to the subcontinent in early May. As the bigger country, and the one that initiated the estrangement, it would be up to India to set the tempo for a process of detente. However, from the statements made in the Indian parliament during a discussion on the prime minister’s visit to Kashmir, it appears that India is demanding certain steps by Pakistan as a quid pro quo. Two conditionalities are: putting a stop to infiltration of militants across the Line of Control and the dismantling of the “terrorist infrastructure.”
These are by no means new, and one is left with the impression that Mr Vajpayee has made a gesture of friendliness but tied it to conditions that it expects to be meet. The LoC lies in a mountainous terrain and it is always possible for small groups to cross it if they are determined to do so. India has over 500,000 regular troops as well as a large border security force to deal with that problem.
After India’s rejection of the idea of joint patrolling, Pakistan has repeatedly suggested an increase in the strength of the UN observers of the United Nations Military Observers’ Group for India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP), deployed along the LoC. India has rejected this proposal too since it does not even allow the UN observers to operate on its side since 1972 on the technical ground that this is no longer the cease-fire line demarcated in 1949.
Unless India shows greater flexibility or Pakistan can give assurances that are acceptable to New Delhi, it is clear that the US might be called upon to play the role of a facilitator to get a dialogue going. Mr Armitage will be starting his visit to the region with a trip to Kabul, where the situation remains unstable. The agenda of his talks, when he comes to Pakistan, will possibly cover Islamabad’s relations with both Afghanistan and India.
The US has a greater stake in reducing tensions between Pakistan and India, as was made plain by Secretary of State Colin Powell. Soon after the launching of the war on Iraq, he had announced his intention of visiting South Asia where tensions had again been rising to a dangerous point. The repeated Indian threats of pre-emption reflected the view apparently held by India that Pakistan was vulnerable both politically and economically and therefore could be pressured and put on the defensive on the question of “cross-border terrorism.” New Delhi has followed the internal divisions in Pakistan between the military and the political forces that want to curtail the role of the men in uniform in the running of the government.
The US regards President Musharraf as its reliable partner and has reservations about the increase in the political influence and role of the religious parties, which have reacted strongly to the US intervention, first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq. The religious parties agitated strongly against the US invasion of Iraq, and organized “million man” marches in major cities, which the government could not oppose. The hard-liners in Washington would like to use Indian pressure on Pakistan to keep the military-dominated government in line. the propaganda that has continued about Pakistan’s alleged supply of nuclear technology to North Korea makes it necessary for Islamabad to keep its nuclear assets under effective command and control.
Mr Armitage has performed well as a trouble-shooter in relation to the Indo-Pakistan military standoff, even though analysts think that India’s coercive diplomacy since December 2001 has been sustained by Washington’s tacit approval. He comes after the Saddam regime has been eliminated in Iraq, and Washington is considering follow-up moves. Mr Armitage will deal with two nuclear rivals, whose friendship is considered important by Washington and whose mutual hostility is fraught with enormous danger.
The next few days will be important in establishing whether the possibilities of Indo-Pakistan rapprochement will follow the dynamics of the Agra process. India’s conditionalities that relate to terrorism and therefore resonate well in Washington, require Pakistan to start treating the Kashmiri struggle as terrorism, which is what India wants. The US also has not declared Pakistan a terrorist state, because of its principled political support to the indigenous Kashmiri freedom struggle. Mr Vajpayee’s announcement in Srinagar had also shown readiness to interact with the Kashmiri groups struggling for their right of self-determination.
If the two South Asian neighbours do not break new ground, Washington may have to resume the role the sole superpower has played in facilitating a dialogue and preventing Indo-Pakistan tensions from getting heated up again. One cannot, however, pin high hopes on the long-term efficacy of the US role, since Washington is unlikely to favour a solution that disturbs the status quo.
IS there a law against floor crossing in the assemblies, or is there none? Sorry to be ignorant about such an important political fact but it is sometimes difficult to keep count of the amendments in Pakistan’s statutes pertaining to political parties and people’s representation.
Add to this the confusion created by the Legal Framework Order and you will understand the predicament of a person like me whose only connection with the laws of the country is to follow them faithfully. You get properly acquainted with a law only when you decide to break it.
Remember the word “lota”? It was once a favourite topic for columnists. Lota became a synonym for legislators who changed their loyalties. Among their other achievements Mian Nawaz Sharif and Ms Benazir Bhutto are credited with creating them in their scores, if not in hundreds. But I assure you no disgrace was attached to the appellation. In fact, it is a tribute to the broadmindedness of the ordinary voter in Pakistan that he makes no distinction between the lota and the member who, in his rigid dogmatism, sticks to his party through thick and thin.
Even the enlightened citizen here is not bothered by an Assembly member’s past and present affiliation. Some of the most powerful ministers in the federal cabinet today have crossed the great divide from the opposition to the ruling party without batting an eyelid. Fastidious commentators on the political game may call them lotas, but they are not. We have it from them (they are on record on this point) that they have only answered the call of their conscience and had no other motive in shifting their loyalty. In fact in order to convince themselves of this they have retained the original party name with a slight amendment.
Before I wax eloquent on the delights of the lota, let me tell you a story about this utensil. A young lady visiting Pakistan from the West was answering the usual trite questions about what she liked about this country. In return she too asked a question about our ways and said, “Tell me, why do you people keep a teapot in every bathroom?” Of course this has nothing to do with the political uses of the lota.
This was the first time I heard the humble but ubiquitous lota being ennobled and described as a teapot — the lota which plays such an important role in our domestic living and to which we don’t give a second thought when we use it every day. It has been more or less ignored by history and culture and journalism in Punjab. For all I know it may have occupied a prominent place in the politics and culture of the Urdu-speaking areas of India. But in the geographical entity comprising Pakistan it neither acquired fame nor ill-fame. Except once.
This was in the days leading up to Partition. There was a gentleman in Lahore at that time by the name of Dr Muhammad Alam. He had earned the reputation of a turncoat, a weathercock, one day swearing allegiance to the Muslim League and the next day letting down the League at the behest of the Congress or the Unionists in power. The whole of Lahore and the province of Punjab came to call him Dr Lota.
It is not a recognised attribute of the lota, the vessel, to let down friends and ally itself with its people’s opponents. No one has ever accused it of treachery in this respect. But the poor thing is physically so shaped, especially the one found in mosques, that at the slightest push it rolls over — on the other side sort of. It is recalled by old-timers in Lahore that sometimes, in order to leave no doubt about his identity while speaking on the telephone, the much maligned doctor had to refer to himself with that sobriquet. “This is I, Dr Alam. Which Dr Alam? Yaar, Dr Alam Lota, who else?”
Some years ago the poor lota became a public issue when it gave rise to a law and order situation. I have in my scrapbook a quaint newspaper photograph. It shows a group of boys from deeni madressahs, holding lotas in their hands and demonstrating in favour of this indispensable utensil which that young Englishwoman had called a teapot. One of the Urdu placards carried by the boys says, “O Governor, perhaps you are not aware of the significance of the lota.”
What had happened was that the then Governor of Punjab, Mian Muhammad Azhar, visiting a religious seminary, had the temerity to criticise the curriculum of these institutions. He said the ulema think that by placing a lota in the hands of a young boy and making him pull up his shalwar to uncover his ankles they have created a scholar of Islam.
After making this brutally frank and realistic statement, the Governor went home. The next day he found to his consternation that the maulvis of Lahore had taken umbrage at his observations. There were demonstrations on The Mall against him, and the poor man had to retract, or clarify as best as he could, the only intelligent thing he had said in his life. This is the same Mian Azhar who led the revolt against Mian Nawaz Sharif to form PML(Q) and was then sidelined by the Chaudhries of Gujrat who took over the party.
But the great joke lay in the clarification itself. I have spent a lifetime in government public relations and I’m thankful I didn’t have to issue that kind of explanation on the Governor’s behalf. The spokesman’s words stated that what the Governor had actually meant was not this but that, and found that there was no difference between this and that.
After those demonstrations the lota simply cried out for recognition by us so-called English-educated and irreligious Muslims. At least my own education was considerably bolstered by a slogan on another placard carried by the madressah boys that day. It said, “A lota is the premier requirement for the Muslims.”
How times change! Because of his behaviour as a political shuttlecock, one man sixty years ago had the pet name of lota foisted on him, and didn’t mind it. Now, when you can’t trust your own father to keep up his political tryst with one party, and when there are people who have made the round of all the parties in the country and thus acquired valuable political experience, they can’t bear to be called lotas. So let us respect the sentiment that when they crossed the floor they were only acting in response to their conscience.
MEANWHILE, back on the home front ...
“Where have all the jobs gone?
Gone, gone, far away.”
The domestic job market gets worse and worse. Gerald Grimsaw came home the other night and told his wife Anna, “I just lost my job.”
Anna said, “Oh heavens. You’ve been with the company for 23 years. Who got your
job?”
“Fang Shu Wo in Shanghai. The Happy Greeting Card Company is sending all their work abroad and closing the factory.”
“How do you know the name of the man in Shanghai?”
“Mr. Albutton, VP in charge of birthday cards, told me. He said he had just been in Shanghai to meet with the president of Morning Glory Greeting Card Manufacturers, who spoke perfect English. Fang told him he could print our cards for a quarter of the price and throw in the envelopes for free.
“I argued with Albutton that Fang might know about birthdays, but he doesn’t know the American mind when it comes to condolence and Mother’s Day messages.
“Albutton said Fang told him that he makes Christmas cards, graduation cards and bar mitzvah cards for Pakistan.”
Anna cried, “The Happy Greeting Card Company is losing its main brain. You were the greatest. I’ll never forget the cards you made for April Fool’s Day. It was your idea to introduce a new line of get-well cards. When you opened one up, there was a semi-clothed nurse, and when you squeezed her she winked at you.”
Grimsaw sighed, “How soon they forget.”
Anna said, “Surely with your reputation as an idea man you can get another job.”
“The Stars and Stripes Greeting Card people are moving their headquarters to Malaysia. The God Bless America Company is opening up a factory in Cambodia, and the Mimsy Lindner Buy America Company is sending all their cards to Kabul.”
Anna said, “Why don’t we write to President Bush and tell him what is going on with the economy? I’m sure if he knew he would do something about it.”
Gerald said, “I could send him a card —
‘You’re the kind of president who lights up a room.
But you have a job, and I don’t.’”
Anna said, “how about one of those inspirational cards you are so good at?
‘You won the war — now win the peace and don’t worry about me — I can always get unemployment insurance.’”
Gerald said, “how about ‘if I had a job I could enjoy my tax cut.’”
Anna chimed in, “what about a Father’s Day card?
‘Roses are red
Violets are blue
So is your budget
What else is new?’ ”
—Dawn/Tribune Media Services
Be that as it may, sociologists, economists, administrators and demographers have to come to grips with the facts of life: ageing is one of them. They have to be more precise in determining the role of the biological age of people in policymaking. In days gone by, this was a very personal matter. If a person reached a ripe old age and had to be cared for or provided for, it was the family that took it upon itself to attend to his needs. That is why children — rather sons — were regarded as old-age insurance. They took care of their parents in their twilight years.
The only factor which figured in public life — government planning and the personnel (now they call it human resource) policies of private sector organizations — was the age of retirement. At one time it was 55 in Pakistan. Then it was moved up to 58 and now it is 60 — but 65 for judges. The retirement age is conventionally linked to life expectancy and it is therefore higher in many countries of the West where better health, sanitation and environmental conditions ensure that people live longer and healthier lives on an average.
The industrialized western societies have been addressing the problems of ageing for several decades now. But here, with our traditions of filial duty, we have tended to be dismissive about the problems faced by the senior citizens, because it was believed that our ‘superior’ family values would give protection to the elderly. The institution of the family served as the social security net in times of hardship whether it was old age, ill health or unemployment. This worked very well for several generations. But the time has come for us to worry about the impact of old age on society because the family structure as we have known it for centuries is fast disintegrating.
The first important factor that has altered the situation is the changing demographic profile of the country. True, children under the age of 14 still constitute the largest segment (42 per cent) of Pakistan’s population. But the country’s family welfare programme, improved health conditions and growing urbanization have, on the one hand, decreased the size of the families and thus reduced the ratio of young children in the population, and have led to longevity and the break-up of the extended family, on the other. Today, over five per cent of the population of Pakistan is above the age of 60; this is expected to rise to 12 per cent in the next ten years.
There are several issues which must be addressed in formulating a policy for the senior citizens. The major ones relate to social attitudes, the health delivery system and economic policy which entail providing them care, attending to their health needs and facilitating economic self-reliance. These are essential if the elderly must live with dignity and esteem.
Although it is generally not admitted but even the social dimension of caring for the ageing has emerged as quite a key challenge in our society and this can be expected to grow. With the shrinking size of the families — as parents opt for fewer children — and their changing pattern caused by urbanization and other socio-economic factors, it is no longer possible for the elderly to be absorbed in an extended family where there were many young people around to take care of the older relatives.
The presence of family members in the house also provided the elderly some company and eased their agony of loneliness. Besides, with more and more women taking up employment outside the home, older people are left alone in the house to fend for themselves. There is also the migration factor. With so many young men and women having set out in quest of greener pastures abroad, the empty nest syndrome has become a common feature of life in Pakistan.
It speaks of our inability to see beyond our nose, that the health care of the elderly has not received the attention in public health planning in Pakistan that it deserves. That the country’s health delivery system is most inadequate is widely known. If it has failed to make provision for age-related health problems, it is not surprising. We do not even have the branch of medicine called geriatrics: students in medical colleges are not taught this subject and probably many of them have not heard of it.
It took Pakistan several years to understand the significance of paediatrics which has now established itself in medical education and practice. There are yet no specialists in geriatrics around, although it is widely recognized that ageing brings diseases and disorders of a specific nature which call for specialized care.
Closely linked to these problems is the economic one. In spite of being essentially family-centred, Pakistani society — and more particularly its state apparatus — has been quite negligent about providing for the economic well-being and independence of its elderly people who can no longer earn their living. They may have reached the age of superannuation and even though physically and mentally fit find themselves out of job. Others may not be physically fit to work.
Only the civil services and some private sector organizations have a pension scheme in place for their retired personnel. It is a different matter, however, that the scales of payments are so low in most cases that the pension hardly enough for subsistence.
Many pensioners seek to supplement their incomes by saving up in better times for the proverbial rainy day by investing in saving schemes set up by the government. But in their infinite wisdom, the policymakers have lowered the rates of return on the saving schemes over the years to facilitate the flow of capital into the banking system and to decrease government indebtedness.
Whether this has actually happened, bankers alone can tell. But the progressive reduction in the rates of return has had crippling effect on the pensioners, widows and other indigent groups who are among the major subscribers to the various saving schemes. One pensioner pointed out that the monthly income from the national saving schemes has fallen from Rs 1,350 to Rs 826 on an investment of Rs 100,000.
Although Pakistan has failed to take account of the ageing of the population and plan accordingly, this phenomenon has far-reaching implications for the national economy. Apart from the Employees’ Old Age Benefit Institution set up in the seventies — which conceptually was sound but negated its merits by fixing measly monthly payments — there is no other pension scheme that has been instituted in the private sector. Hence anyone who saves in his youth has limited choices for investment for the future.
As these issues are coming to the fore, there have been ad hoc attempts at addressing some of them. The Senior Citizens Association which has been functioning for several years has now been joined by another NGO, the Geriatrics Care Foundation, in this mission. The government has also set up a committee to look into the matter — probably on the urging of the United Nations. But so far these initiatives have acted more as advocacy groups as they have striven to raise public consciousness about ageing and its problems.