Desire for peace

In an exclusive interview with this newspaper two days before his high-profile visit to Islamabad to attend the Saarc summit, Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee has made a number of observations on India-Pakistan relations.

Foremost is his desire to see a sustained response from Pakistan to the latest bilateral initiative aimed at normalizing relations between the two countries. Most Pakistanis, including the country's top leadership, would like to see a similar sustained commitment being made by New Delhi to improving bilateral relations.

If this happens, then, to quote Mr Vajpayee, there really will remain "no obstacle to the establishment of... friendship and cordiality in which we can discuss our outstanding issues, including Jammu and Kashmir".

Mr Vajpayee went on to enumerate four factors which, in his opinion, should give the two countries the impetus to normalize relations. First, he said, was the existing positive popular sentiment on both sides; second, the dictates of globalization that required cooperation for economic development; third, the national interest of each country demanded that we "join hands in tackling the many common problems in our countries and with the outside world"; and lastly, "how long do we want the world to look at India (and) Pakistan... either as a threat to global peace or as a laboratory for new experiments in conflict resolution?"

No one can disagree with Mr Vajpayee on his enumeration of the reasons which should compel India and Pakistan to live like good neighbours. His assertion that there is an opportunity for durable peace in the wake of the current thaw in relations and the goodwill that exists on both sides also cannot be faulted.

But this is not to say that obstacles do not remain in the way of making meaningful headway in the slow process of normalization, and that these need to be removed. One of the biggest hindrances is the absence of a political dialogue between the two countries.

The flurry of recent contacts at parliamentary and people-to-people levels should leave no doubt in the minds of the leadership on both sides that the desire for mending fences is genuine in both India and Pakistan.

It is time that our leaders also sat down to talk, now that they have finally come round to talking sense instead of hurling insults and inflammatory rhetoric at one another.

Indeed, the language of discourse needs to be drastically changed, and hate words deleted from the lexicon used by state media and rabble-rousing politicians.

The Indian prime minister's statement that the controversial fence being built along the LoC in Kashmir is not an attempt by India to unilaterally settle the Kashmir dispute should calm nerves in Islamabad.

India says the fencing is being done to stop so-called infiltration from across the LoC. Terrorism, of the 'jehadi' brand, is a threat faced by both India and Pakistan, as has been made clear by those who attacked the Indian parliament two years ago or those who twice attempted to kill President Pervez Musharraf only last month in Rawalpindi.

But this is only one dimension of the threat to peace in South Asia. The other and more important one is that there is an indigenous freedom struggle in Kashmir which is sustained, among other things, by New Delhi's failure to engage the representative, non-violent, Kashmiri leadership (such as that comprising the All Parties Hurriyat Conference) in a meaningful dialogue.

Logic dictates that the beginning of a sustained dialogue with the APHC, and with Pakistan, should be the starting point of Mr Vajpayee's 'last attempt' at achieving peace in South Asia. His indication that he might make a response to Prime Minister Jamali's ceasefire initiative during his visit to Islamabad creates hope that the current process will be carried forward.

Reducing returns

The decision by the government to reduce the return on national savings schemes (NSS) by one-half per cent with immediate effect might make economic sense, although its adverse implications for low-income group can hardly be ignored.

According to the government's line of reasoning, as interest rates at which financial institutions lend money decline, the rate of return on savings schemes in which people put their money is also reduced.

This is done so that people or institutions do not end up borrowing money from banks only to put it back into government savings schemes to make a tidy profit. But the problem with slashing NSS rates of return is that this closes off a significant avenue of investment for people looking for a safe and secure instrument in which to put their savings and one that guarantees them a reasonable rate of return.

Small investors are wary of the choices available to them in which to put in their hard-earned savings. The stock market is unpredictable, investment in foreign currency or metals is not a steady source of income, and other instruments in the market are also suspect owing to the number of scams that the country has witnessed in the investment arena in the past two decades.

Another issue that the government needs to look at is the working of the NSS after the reduction in rates of return. The government pays out over Rs70 billion as profit on these schemes annually.

However, in recent years, the amounts invested in these schemes have come down and the new savings are hardly meeting the profit pay out. Keeping this in mind, the government has to work on launching new and innovative schemes under the NSS to attract more investment.

Also, the process of investing in NSS should be made easier. This can be done by opening more savings centres or even by franchising this facility so that people in remote locations can benefit.

The government should also consider allowing banks to resume buying and selling of NSS certificates with closer SBP monitoring. It cannot be over emphasized that the culture of savings in Pakistan needs to be aggressively encouraged. At present, the national savings rate is one of the lowest in the region and this trend needs to be reversed.

Disturbing trend

Over 3,000 people took their own lives in Pakistan last year according to medical experts. This is 20 times more than the figure of 153 recorded just seven years ago for 1996.

Now we have another shocker in the form of suicide figures reported for Karachi, according to which 143 people took their lives last year in the city alone. This number could well be higher because the police maintain no record of suicide deaths and this newspaper's crime desk collated the figure from cases reported in the press.

The increasing incidence of poverty and growing joblessness, coupled with the fact that we do not have a social safety net to help those teetering on the edge, are generally believed to be the primary reasons for the jump in suicides.

While there seems to be no quick remedy for this disturbing trend, some help to the more vulnerable sections of society could possibly save some lives. Take the recent case of a distraught jobless man from Karachi who burnt his four children and then himself to death after a shop in his neighbourhood decided to discontinue selling him food on credit.

A small loan to people in such extreme situations might mean the difference between life and death. Sadly, the system is heavily biased against those most in need of help because micro-credit schemes do not lend to people who are jobless or have no collateral to offer.

The role of the government does not give much cause for comfort, and is limited to the police registering cases against those who survive a suicide attempt. The government could help by setting up a social safety net - in the form of, say, small loans or food stamps - to aid people in distress.

At the same time, NGOs and philanthropists should also step forward to set up helplines and counselling centres so that those ready to give up the struggle at least have someone to talk to who might give them a little hope.