The textbook controversy

IT has been more than a month now since Nihala began her academic year in class 10. But until today she and her class fellows in a federal government secondary school in Islamabad have not been able to find most of their prescribed textbooks in the bookstores. Only very recently they have managed to get their physics textbook, and even that only of part I.

Since the academic session started, says Nihala, our teachers have been teaching us from last year’s class 10 textbooks. I hope that the syllabus in the new textbooks will not be much different from last year’s books, she sighs, otherwise we will have less time to cover the whole of the new textbook before our final exams in early spring next year.

The non-availability in the bookstores of certain prescribed textbooks for public schools is a problem that has cropped up every now and then for decades. The difference this time is the apparent severity of the problem — many of the textbooks from class 1-10 are not available and this scarcity seems to have hit many parts of the country as well.

It was weeks after the new academic session started that the ministry of education took cognizance of the problem. On May 6, the federal minister of education announced that the first term examinations in the federal schools and colleges will be cancelled, and the onus of the textbook shortage was put on the provincial textbook boards. The federal minister even admitted to a mafia in this area, which, she said, would take “five years to break”.

At a meeting on May 10 with the textbook boards and other relevant education departments, together with some teachers, parents and students, the education minister directed the Punjab Textbook Board to make the textbooks available in the market within two weeks. But are the textbook boards solely to blame for the situation?

That the publication of public school textbooks often operates through connections, recommendations from the top, commissions and bribes is no secret. These considerations have often overridden factors like the ability to print textbooks of a certain quality and quantity, and on time.

But the frequency with which the education authorities are changing the syllabi and course work, and therefore the textbooks, also leaves much to be desired. These changes very often are also responsible for textbooks not being available in the market on time.

In October last, just a month after first year student Kiran started her academic year in September, her Urdu textbook was changed mid-term and her class was told that their “sendup” exams in December would be based on the new textbook.

For a whole month, Kiran and her class fellows in a government college in Rawalpindi searched in vain for the new textbook in the bookstores. It was finally available in the market in November, just a month before their “sendups”.

Kiran’s new Urdu textbook, just like her old one, is supposed to be a two-year course book to be used in her first and second year. But now Kiran, who has just completed her first year exams in April-May, has been told that the Urdu textbook has again been changed, and she will need to get yet another new Urdu textbook when her second year starts in September.

This means that instead of having to buy only one Urdu textbook for use throughout her first and second year, this will be the third Urdu textbook that she will be buying in less than a year.

This new textbook is not available in the market yet. Even if it is available before the academic year begins this September, who is to guarantee that it will not be changed again mid-term just as it happened last year? asks Kiran. Why do the education authorities keep changing our textbooks? Can’t they decide on the syllabus once and for all instead of changing our books ever so often? she asks.

The plight of Kiran and her class fellows exemplifies the difficulties which both students and teachers often have to go through because of ill-planned and abrupt changes in the teaching and study materials. Can our public schools and colleges hope to impart quality education with this kind of haphazard service delivery?

Finally recognizing this problem, the federal education minister said at the meeting last Saturday with the textbook boards that from now on the curricula and therefore, textbooks, would remain unchanged for five years. Whether this will really be the case, only time can tell.

The government has been long on commitment to improve the quantity and quality of public education. ESR 2000 (Education Sector Reforms), NEAS (National Education Assessment System) and PEACE (Provincial Education Assessment Centre), and NCHD (National Commission for Human Development) are some of the many programmes and organizations in place to achieve these goals, particularly of enhancing the quality of learning through improving inputs like teachers, textbooks and other learning resources.

There also seems to be no dearth of funding for this purpose, especially from foreign donors. The World Bank and DFID are participating in the Rs241.5 million NEAS/PEACE project. The Asian Development Bank is reported to be collaborating in a project to revise the curricula for class 6-8 in the provinces.

Photographs of the US ambassador to Pakistan giving many a local school a whitewash is also indicative of active USAID funding in local education.

But is government commitment and foreign funding enough to ensure quality in education? Why do students like Nihala and Kiran still have to face the kind of problems they are facing after three years of educational reforms and tens of PC-1s on projects concerning improvement in the quality of education?

What, perhaps, has been lacking so far in the effort to improve public sector education is good governance. Improving governance requires a systems analysis of the entire public education sector, and coming up with a well-planned, concerted and coherent approach towards solving the problems inherent in this sector in order to enhance efficiency.

This will certainly have to include plugging the mismanagement and corruption prevailing in this sector, which in addition to sustained neglect in the past, have been responsible for the poor quality of services rendered.

Blame for failure to be on govt: Noorani

Question: What is the political creed of the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal (MMA). Is it just anti-Americanism?

Answer: No, we are not anti-American. We are against the policies pursued by the American administration, particularly their anti- Muslim policy. That is what we are opposing. I believe that Mr Bush is a fundamentalist Christian. Basically, he is influenced by those Christian priests who were propagating anti-Islam feelings. He has himself admitted how faith [in Christian theology] has changed his life. It shapes his agenda against Islamic countries. It is plain that he is working in the crusades spirit. Apart from fighting against American establishment policies, we are also struggling for democracy in Pakistan.

Q:What is your social agenda?

A: In our manifesto it is explained why our policy is against the American administration and why it is not against either America or its people.

Q: What are the objectives of the talks on the LFO and other contentious issues? Have you received any written formulation from the government?

A: Two meetings were held with the prime minister. We agreed to discuss controversial articles, which are 29 in number. In total, there are 69 articles. So we had to deal with them. One important point was the election of the president through a referendum.

Nobody can become president on the basis of the results of a referendum. For this purpose there is an electoral college. They have agreed to discuss this matter, though earlier they were not ready to do so and had insisted that the LFO had become a part of the Constitution. They had also insisted on the National Security Council. But we said no. Parliament is sovereign. Then why this NSC? We have to abolish it in toto. We are opposed to the powers of the president under Article 58(2)b which entitles him to dissolve the assemblies. We don’t like to give the president those discretionary powers. This is being discussed.

Q: Some members of the MMA are not very hopeful about the outcome of the talks. What are your views?

A: I am hopeful. We are trying to resolve these issues once and for all. No individual should amend the Constitution, except parliament.

Q: There is a perception that negotiations between the government and the opposition will lead to some sort of legalizing of the political role of the armed forces.

A: We are opposing that by saying that we don’t accept a president who is not elected through the established constitutional procedure. That is why we are insisting on a president without uniform. There can be no compromise on that.

Q: What choices does the MMA have in case the talks break down and the president remains adamant on his terms? Can it bring out the people on the streets ?

A: That is why we are insisting on saving the country. Now we are preparing for talks with India, but still the Indian armed forces are on the border. In Kashmir more than half a million troops have occupied the territory, killing Muslims. The situation inside the country is not satisfactory either. Another point we should not forget is that there have been three wars between us. But in those wars our western borders were safe. Now the western borders in Afghanistan are not safe. It is an established fact that India is our enemy. It has not accepted Pakistan’s creation.

The reason why the western borders are not safe is that the government established in Afghanistan is not according to the wishes of Gen Musharraf. He had told Bush to ensure that the Northern Alliance did not enter Kabul to occupy it. Even Colin Powell had given this assurance. But the next day the Northern Alliance were allowed to enter Kabul and occupy it along with the American forces. The regime is headed by Karzai, who is a show boy, but the real rulers are the Northern Alliance who are friendly to India.

Q: What is the basis of the PML-Q leaders’ optimism that the Kashmir issue is going to be resolved within three years?

A: We asked Mr Jamali about this. He said that the information he was receiving indicated that the big powers were interested in solving the problem.

Q: Do you think the third option, as proposed by Asghar Khan who in the past had always opposed the idea, was valid in the given circumstances?

A: If you go back into the history of the subcontinent, you will see that India went against us in the United Nations. They had asked the UN for a ceasefire which was imposed in August 1948 and a commissioner was also appointed to ascertain the views of the Kashmiri Muslims, whether they wanted to live with India or with Pakistan. There was no third option.

Q: Did you get any impression in the talks with Mr Jamali that he has been provided with a blueprint of a road map for Kashmir by the Americans?

A: No, the government will not accept any outside influence for a compromise on the Kashmir issue.

Q: So, do you think that the peace talks with India will be substantive or peripheral?

A: I have told the prime minister that the Liaquat-Nehru Pact of 1951 is there. Tashkent is also there, so is Shimla Accord and the Lahore Declaration. Gen Musharraf has also met the Indian prime minister. There have been several rounds of talks at different levels between the two countries. For more than 90 times we have discussed the Kashmir issue. We are not opposing talks. We are in favour of talks because we want to solve the problem for peace in the region. But at the same time we have to think why so far there has been no result.

Q: The government is giving a timeframe of two-and-a-half or three years, but from your comments it looks as it there will be a very long process of negotiations. The allegation of cross-border terrorism is also still there.

A: Musharraf committed a big mistake. I and other members of the MMA delegation asked the prime minister why Gen Musharraf had accepted that we are responsible for cross-border terrorism. Colin Powell and others have also reminded Musharraf to keep his promises and stop cross-border terrorism. He agreed to that, but it was his big mistake.In the beginning he had been denying the allegation, but then agreed to take steps. The reality is that there are freedom-fighters. Azad Kashmir is part of Kashmir. So if a Kashmiri Muslim is going there or coming here, he is entitled to do that. Freedom fighters in Kashmir have been fighting for liberation against more than half a million Indian forces engaged in plunder of the territory. In the United States also,people had fought against British colonial rule. Could we say that their struggle was an act of terrorism? No.

Q: Gen Musharraf recently said that the greatest threat to Pakistan is from fundamentalism. How do you look at this statement?

A: He is also fundamentalist in his policy of supporting the US. Secular forces are also fundamentalist in their beliefs. First of all, he has to give a definition of fundamentalism. If he says that all mullahs are fundamentalists, then he should know that more than 90 per cent of the people here are Muslims, believing in the oneness of Allah. We are proud of believing in the fundamentals of Islam.

All the component parties of the MMA believe in democracy. We believe in fundamental rights; we are fighting for that. We believe in the supremacy of parliament and the supremacy of the Constitution. This is in the manifesto of the MMA.

Q: At the moment it seems that except for the LFO,nothing else is important for the MMA. It is not highlighting social issues and has not organized million marches in support of social demands ?

A: Actually, Musharraf wanted the LFO and all discretionary powers and to continue the policies he had initiated three years back. But what was he doing in those three years? Unemployment has increased. No doubt debt has been reduced through some charity that we received from the United Sates for the killing of the Muslims in Afghanistan and other places, and for providing the FBI with all the facilities. The government claims to have reduced our debt, and that we now have over $10 billion dollars in our reserves. But much of it was purchased by the State Bank from the open market. We received a huge amount from Pakistanis living abroad. If the government had an empty treasury and now has ten billion dollars in reserves, what benefit has it provided to the people? He (the president) wanted to continue the policies dictated by the IMF, the World Bank and other donor agencies. That is why we want to abolish the LFO and to reduce his powers so that we can adopt a new policy. If we don’t reduce his powers we cannot do anything.

Q: The MMA is a constellation of different political parties believing in different schools of jurisprudence. How have you kept them united and how long can you sustain the alliance on the basis of its present policy?

A: We have differing jurisprudence. We decided that we should respect each other’s faith and practise Islam accordingly. If we can allow the minorities to live according to their faith, then why we can’t we live together. Apney maslak ko chhoro mat, auron kay maslak to chhero mat. At the same time we are united on some basic issues such as fundamental rights, democracy, supremacy of parliament, Islamic laws, justice, social justice. The Afghan factor was also there. Another factor that helped the MMA was the government propaganda against the PPP and PML(N), on the electronic media in particular.

Q: Some of your critics say that MMA was secretly supported by the ISI and other government agencies to create a fait accompli against Gen Musharraf and also against other secular political parties.

A: Before the elections, Musharraf said religious parties had about two per cent voting power, although they had street power. If the ISI was behind us, then we would not have been opposing him or demanding a president without uniform. No compromise on that.

We feel that Pakistan is not safe yet.In view of the threat that we now have on our western borders and the Indian side, we need a full time commander-in-chief. The US think tanks have described Pakistan as a failed state which I think is propaganda because they have a pact with India. The CIA, Mossad and Khad were working together against Pakistan. About 12 years, back they had chosen some people from Afghanistan and had taken them to the US. All those people were trained by them. The same happened in Iraq, where self-exiled Iraqi leaders were provided all facilities by the British and the US governments. They trained them and since the fall of Saddam, all the exiled leaders have been working for the British or the US.

The same could happen in Pakistan. There are many Pakistani Muslims who have been provided asylum by the British government. Any time when they want to do anything against Pakistan, all these self-exiled leaders will come here. They are training a Lawrence of Pakistan.

Q: Prime Minister Jamali has said Pakistan and India are not starting negotiations under pressure. If this is so, what is the significance of the visit of Armitage at this point?

A: We had broached the subject at our meeting with the prime minister. He categorically denied this. Maybe the Indians were under pressure in Kashmir, in Srinagar. Because the first offer came from them, from Mr Vajpayee. And I think it is possible.

Q: There is a perception in the West that Islam is a fundamentalist religion and the religious parties are reservoir of providing training to ‘ terrorists’. How do you look at this allegation that Islam, fundamentalism and terrorism are the same thing?

A: Actually you will find that fundamentalism, as defined currently, began in 1907 in New York when some of the Jews and Christians organized a procession against the introduction of science subjects in their schools. They were the fundamentalists. Before the 1990s there was no Osama bin Laden, no Mullah Omar no Zawaheri and others. No terrorism. But when the US allied forces and British forces entered Middle Eastern countries, especially Saudi Arabia, then voices were raised, asking who had given them the right of entry. The western forces insisted there was a danger from Saddam Hussein. There was reaction in Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Afghanistan against the policies adopted by the US administration. When Bush Senior called for a new world order everybody, including Muslims, started thinking why a new order was necessary.

Kashmiris say that there was no Hizbul Mujahideen before 1980. Why then after 1980 why? Because earlier they had thought that the UN would fulfil its responsibility in implementing its resolutions. But when the UN failed, they started a movement. This was because of US policies which had not allowed the UN to implement its resolution on Kashmir, on Palestine. The Kashmiris were dejected. But the US was patronising those who are humiliating and ruthlessly killing us, whether in Kashmir or in Palestine. So the they (US) are the actual fundamentalists. They are the creators of terrorists. Let me tell you about Bush Junior’s confession. He says that early in the morning he gets up and goes to his private room where he reads sermons delivered by the priests in the First World War when the Australian and New Zealand forces in Cairo were planning to enter Palestine to establish Jews there [quoting from a Newsweek article]. A person who reads biblical sermons for fighting against the Muslims in Palestine, occupying Baitul Maqdas, in retaliation for Salahuddinn Ayyubi, what would you call him?

Q: Western think-tanks have warned of Balkanization attempts in the region. Do you think that the policies of our present rulers could lead to that?

A: May be. Unfortunately they are not using their wisdom. So unknowingly they are working on others’ agenda. From Pakistan, as I have mentioned earlier, they have picked up some people. They have given them political asylum and when the time comes they will use them against Pakistan, to divide the country — Punjab, Sindh, Karachi the seaport — all these things they are going to do. But unfortunately Muslim rulers, despite having knowledge of that, rely on the US administration and are proud that they can talk to Bush or Powell on the telephone. Shahbaz airbase and Shamsi airbase in Kharan, especially these two airbases and Karachi also partly, and Dalbandin airbase were opened up for them. In the beginning they said that they would vacate in a few months. But more than one and a half years have passed and they are here and all the facilities are being provided to them. The FBI with its trained dogs is freely moving here and there and picking up people whom it dubs as terrorist. Foreigners who are here are our brothers. If the US or somebody claimed that some of them are enemies of the US, then we should hand them over to their own countries, not to the US. Let their own countries decide about them.

We have created big enmity against Pakistan in the Arab countries where a perception has grown that we are working as agents and receiving dollars for the arrest of the people whom we received as our guests in the 1980s and 1990s and who were fighting in Afghanistan. They were our guests but now for dollars we are arresting them and handing them over to the US.

Q: We asked before about the social agenda of the MMA.

A: It is to abolish usury, establish an interest-free economy, justly distribute zakat. The distribution of zakat has not been properly managed. Pakistan has to become a welfare state which means education, free health services for all, and one syllabus throughout the country. Through the present different syllabuses, we are creating a privileged class. We have to demolish that totally. There has to be one curriculum. We must provide equal opportunities to Muslims and non-Muslims. The fundamental rights of the non-Muslims are equal to the rights enjoyed by any Muslim Pakistani.

Q: What about the rights of women?

A: The same. You have to give them full rights - rights which have been provided to them in Islam. The main problem for our Muslim sisters in this country is that they are not receiving their rights of inheritance. Fifty per cent of their problems can be solved. A big landlord does not give a share to his daughters. So the law of inheritance of Islam should be enforced effectively. and the right of women to file petition in the High Court should be recognized.

Q: Some of the women activists have criticized the Hudood Ordinance and law of evidence. What do you have to say on that?

A: A commission is there which is preparing a report. Most of the NGOs are receiving huge amounts from foreign countries, countries which are opposing Islam and the Ummah. Unfortunately the government is not taking care of that. The government has to check their accounts. I believe, and the MMA also maintains that any assistance coming from abroad must come through the government. We have to monitor the policies of the NGOs carefully because most of them are working for foreign powers. There are many people from the NGOs, visiting the US many times in a year and are given a red carpet welcome there. On their return they work for their masters.

Q: The prime minister is on record as having said that Gen Musharraf is his boss and his policies are Jamali’s policies. On the eve of constitutional talks Gen Musharraf said that there would be no compromise on the LFO and his uniform. Despite this the prime minister has initiated talks. Don’t you think the government is buying time? Your basic demand is that the LFO should be presented in the parliament for validation. But now there are reports that they are going to present a bill, not the whole LFO but the amendments. On this the talks can fail.

A: No, we hope not. But you have rightly pointed out that in the beginning he (Musharraf) had said that there would be no compromise on the LFO as this was part of the Constitution. Now they have agreed to form a constitutional committee under the chairmanship of the speaker of the National Assembly. This means they have accepted (the need) to amend the Constitution through a constitutional procedure. We have to discuss this, and then we have to go to the parliament, and if the parliament by a two-thirds majority accepts it, then it will become part of the Constitution. They have come through the same route which was being demanded by the MMA. Now they have accepted that these are controversial articles and should be amended through the parliament. So the supremacy of parliament has been accepted by them. If Mr Musharraf wants to become President, we are ready to accept him if he comes through parliament and without uniform. The PPPP and PML (N) say no we won’t accept him, whether in uniform or without it. The MMA has given the way, because we don’t want to disturb the country. We want to maintain peace in the country.

Q: You mean to say that LFO will be presented in the form of a bill with amendments?

A: Yes, for validation. And if the talks fail, then the government will be responsible, not we, because we have shown the way. We will support the Muslim League. If it gets the support of the 69 members of the MMA, it comprise two-thirds.

Q: If the talks break down despite the convergence of views of the PML-Q and the MMA on controversial issues, and the PML-Q brings the agreed points before the House, will the MMA support it in spite of opposition from the PPPP and PML-N?

A: When they accept our proposal, we will try to settle the issue with the PPPP and PML(N) because we are a combined opposition. And we are doing that: trying to find a way out to settle the issue forever.

Q: What were the compulsions for President Musharraf to give a go-ahead to Jamali?

A: The compulsions were that the NA and the Senate were not doing their work and the parliamentary year had to start with the president’s speech. The agitation inside parliament by a very big opposition made an impact. When Mr Bhutto ruled there were only 32 members in the opposition. Now it is a very big opposition. So the pressure of “Go Musharraf, go, and No Musharraf, no” was enormous.

— Maulana Noorani was interviewed by Habib Khan Ghori, Bahzad Alam Khan and Shamim-ur-Rahman.

1996 NFC award extension

COMMENTING on the National Finance Commission Award issue, Kawish this week writes that despite opposition from Sindh, Balochistan and the NWFP, the tenure of the existing NFC award has been extended to one more year.

This award has been controversial from the very beginning as all the four provinces had objected to several of its clauses when it was announced in 1996 by the then caretaker government, the paper points out.

Referring to objections to the 1996 NFC award, the daily says that according to the award, the federation receives 62 per cent of the country’s revenue whereas the share of provinces stands at 37.5 per cent. The provinces unanimously demand that their share should be increased. They also believe that interest on federal developmental loans for provinces has accumulated to such an extent that they cannot pay it in anyway, and it should be waived.

The 1996 award takes population as the basis of distribution of the divisible pool among provinces which is strongly resented by Sindh and Balochistan. They believe that nowhere in the world, distribution of the divisible pool among provinces is made according to this formula. It is done keeping in view the revenue and resources of provinces and the level of their development.

However, due to imposition of this formula in the country, says the paper, a particular province gets more funds which creates the impression that it is benefiting from the resources of other provinces. Last year’s intra-provincial meeting had proposed an alternative method for funds distribution, but the centre pushed its recommendations under the carpet by promising that the issue would be reviewed in the next NFC award.

The extension of the 1996 award also means that the census of 1998 will not be taken into consideration which will reduce Sindh’s share against its present population.

Sindhu takes up the issue of job opportunities at oil and gas exploring companies in Sindh and points out that protest continues in the Nara area of Khairpur district against the refusal of the OMV and other oil companies to recruit local people. This trend is not confined to Khairpur district, as residents of Dadu district have similar complaints. The daily insists that it is a universally acclaimed principle that local people should be provided jobs in projects of exploration of natural resources.

The Sindh government should see to it that this principle is not violated in the unemployment-stricken province.

Tameer-i-Sindh refers to a similar problem in a suburb of Karachi where local people recently blocked the National Highway to protest against recruitment of non-local people in Port Qasim Authority. According to the protesters, the port authorities had entered into a written agreement with them that the local people would be given preference in jobs at the port. But the accord was being violated.

Sach writes that with the arrival of summer and the blowing of strong winds, fire incidents increase in rural Sindh. The houses of poor people are burnt down, and they lose their belongings. Sometimes the fire incidents also lead to deaths.

The paper suggests that the provincial administration as well as the district governments should take measures to provide some relief to fire victims.