| 12 May 2004 | Wednesday | 21 Rabi-ul-Awwal 1425 |
Plight of adopted schools
Our nosy habits
It would be no exaggeration to say that the prestige and respect that the United States should command as the world's sole superpower and proclaimed champion of the rule of law are at an all-time low. For American diplomats and others charged with the conduct of American foreign policy and public diplomacy, the present times have been nightmarish.
The revelations of abusive treatment of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison has overshadowed all other events including the escalation of Iraqi resistance in the aftermath of a decision to ban Shia leader Moqtada Al Sadr's low circulation weekly and US operations in Fallujah to avenge the death of four contract employees.
The escalating insurgency has caused more American deaths in the month of April than the ones during the actual invasion of Iraq last year. It seems, however, that initial fears of the military situation getting entirely out of control have not proved correct.
According to the latest reports, the decision to let former Baathist officers raise a force to patrol and control Fallujah seems to be working. The ceasefire is holding.
Even though there has been no progress in identifying the killers of the American contract employees nor in securing the surrender of heavy weapons and in arresting foreign fighters in Fallujah, the Americans and the newly-created Iraqi force have carried out joint patrolling without incident.
Moqtada Al-Sadr still remains in Kufa and Najaf delivering fiery sermons but the mainstream Shia clerics have disowned him and it seems that his Mahdi Army is being forced to withdraw from the public gaze in the holy cities of Najaf, Karbala and Kufa.
The operations mounted in Basra by his supporters have petered out or have been brought under control by the British forces. The Americans have now targeted his party's headquarters in Sadr City - the slum suburb of Baghdad and Moqtada's only genuine base of support. So far this has not provoked a strong reaction.
The general security situation continues to be bad. Foreigners are still being targeted. Many continue to be held hostage. The bombing of the Al-Basra terminal pipeline on the Fao peninsula has halved the export of Iraqi oil from this terminal, the largest in Iraq, from 80,000 to 40,000 barrels a day.
Expectations of similar incidents have pushed the price of oil to new highs of $40 a barrel almost at par with the price levels reached immediately after Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
The planned hand-over of sovereignty to the Iraqis on June 30 has provoked opposition as expected from the members of the Iraqi Governing Council. There are reports that, having initially supported Lakhdar Brahimi's proposal for an entirely technocratic interim government, the United States is now seeking to persuade the UN secretary-general that representatives of Iraq's political parties, particularly those included in the current Governing Council, should form part of the interim government.
Brahimi is currently in Baghdad continuing his consultations and inviting suggestions from Iraqis on both the composition of the interim government and the advisory council that is to supplement it. Progress under the present circumstances is slow.
Moreover, doubts still remain about the degree of sovereignty that will be transferred and the role that the United Nations will play. Despite opposition from other permanent members of the Security Council and from prominent Iraqis, the United States insists that it will retain overall military command including that over the Iraqi security forces.
These issues in themselves may have made compliance with the June deadline for the transfer of power difficult but the prisoner abuse issue and the outrage it has provoked in Iraq, in fact all over the world, will probably make these questions almost impossible to resolve.
Prisoners abuse was, it is now clear, an issue that arose immediately after the American occupation began. The ICRC had sent reports of abuse of Iraqi detainees more than a year ago and much before the US army launched its own investigation in January this year. These were apparently ignored.
But the most revealing and honest has been a report by Major-General Taguba. According to this report, it was an American army team led by Major-General Miller, the commander of the Guantanamo Bay prison, which recommended that in Iraq the army should dedicate and train a detention guard force subordinate to the Joint Interrogation Debriefing Centre (JIDC) Commander that "sets the conditions for the successful interrogation and exploitation of internees/ detainees, and that the (prison) guard force be actively engaged in setting the conditions for successful exploitation of the internees."
(Ironically, this same major-general has now been sent to Iraq to take charge of the prisons. Investigative reporting in the US has now brought out the fact that in April 2003, the Pentagon and the Justice Department had approved interrogation techniques for the detainees in Guantanamo base that departed from the norm. The approval was hedged with conditions and it is not clear that there was any subsequent order permitting the use of these techniques in Iraq but clearly Miller had these techniques in mind when he made his recommendations for prisoner treatment in Iraq).
It was the US commander in Iraq, General Sanchez, who sanctioned the placing of a portion of the Abu Ghraib prison under the jurisdiction of the American intelligence.
This establishes, and further revelations are expected to confirm, that the American administration's protestations notwithstanding, inhuman punishments inflicted on the Iraqis in the notorious Abu Ghraib and other prisons was part of a deliberate policy rather than an aberration perpetrated by low level soldiers and non-commissioned officers.
The question now being asked is who in the higher echelons of the Pentagon sanctioned this departure from the requirements of the Geneva Convention and the US army's own rules for the administration of prisons? Secretary Rumsfeld has strained credulity by maintaining that he had not read the Taguba report and evaded questions in the Senate about the chain of authority that approved the procedures employed in Abu Ghraib.
Republican Senator McCain, one of the most respected figures in the American political spectrum and deemed extremely knowledgeable about military affairs, put the most explicit questions to Rumsfeld on this account.
According to him, speaking to reporters after the hearing "I did not get answers to some fundamental, and perhaps, the fundamental aspect of this, and that is, what was the chain of command" that allowed the abuse at Abu Ghraib?
In the meanwhile, President Bush, having initially castigated Rumsfeld for failing to keep him informed about the scandal and particularly about the graphic images of prisoner abuse has now offered him complete support saying, during a visit to the Pentagon on Monday, "You are a strong secretary of defence and our nation owes you a debt of gratitude."
Whether this will serve, as the president clearly intended, to mute the stridency of the many calls for Rumsfeld's resignation and the impact this will have on the upcoming American elections will be covered in my next article.
However, it can be said that this support will be viewed in a negative light in Iraq, in the Muslim world and everywhere else in the world. Similarly, the announcement that one of the Americans is to be tried by a US military court in Baghdad on May 19 in the presence of Iraqi and other foreign observers will not have the favourable impact that the Americans are seeking to create.
This is because reports have already appeared suggesting that the trial has been made possible by a "plea bargain" in which military policeman Jeremy Sivits had probably agreed to testify against the other accused in return for a shorter sentence.
According to American newspaper reports, the special court martial under which Sivits is being tried would entail a maximum punishment of one year in prison and a discharge from the army. But he could have been tried under a general court martial in which the sentence could have been longer and there could have been a dishonourable discharge from the army.
For the Arabs and for much of the world, Bush's failure to apologize for the abuse in his comments on two Arabic language TV channels reflected the arrogance of this US administration. His spokesman's subsequent rectification did little to change this impression.
A Canada-based Arab correspondent put it well when he said, "Next time someone asks you the most idiotic of questions - 'why do they hate us' - ask them to see the pictures in question.
Next time someone asks you how Iraqis could have cut US and South African mercenaries to pieces, ask them to see the pictures in question. Next time someone asks you why Iraqis are taking up arms, tell them to shut up."
"Never," says a column in the Washington Post with reference to the Arab outrage, "has the difference between the way Arabs see the United States and the way Americans see their country been so stark."
American generals have been talking openly but anonymously about their apprehension that while they may prevail militarily in Iraq the administration policies were ensuring a strategic defeat.
The major worry is that the United States is prevailing militarily but failing to win the support of the Iraqi people. "It is doubtful we can go on much longer like this," he said.
"The American people may not stand for it - and they should not." Reflecting the same sort of thinking, General Odom, the former head of the NSA, has advocated a withdrawal from Iraq.
While a withdrawal may not be on the cards it is likely that there will be few takers of the proposition that the international community should help out the Americans in Iraq.
Blair may call for Muslim troops from Pakistan to form part of an international UN force in Iraq. But even Pakistan will not respond unless there is a clearer understanding in Washington that the scandal has made it virtually impossible for any nation to be part of a force that is led by the Americans in a country and region where the Americans have become so hated.
The writer is a former foreign secretary.
Plight of adopted schools
Recently, the government of Sindh's education and literacy department (presumably re-named in recognition of the appalling rate of our illiteracy) inserted half page ads in the newspapers on two occasions to proclaim its commitment to the spread of learning.
One appeared on May 1 and read, "Education brings honour to the country. Labour earns glory for the nation." The second was inserted on Eid-i-Milad-un-Nabi reminding people that the Holy Prophet (PBUH) had repeatedly advised the ummah to acquire knowledge from wherever possible.
The advertisements carried an announcement saying primary education was free and compulsory in the province, textbooks would not cost anything and girls would be provided a scholarship of a thousand rupees a year.
It all sounds so utopian. Then one wonders why school enrolment in Pakistan remains so low and dropout rates so high. In fact, statistics quoted recently by reliable sources indicate that the enrolment in government schools is actually falling. To understand this phenomenon one must visit a government school and know what is happening to public sector education.
The physical infrastructure of many government schools is so dilapidated that it is not surprising that few parents want to send their children there. Schools without boundary walls become dens for drug addicts and other unsavoury characters.
Schools without toilets, schools without drinking water and schools without furniture - are the poor not entitled to a modicum of dignity, are their children not entitled to these basic amenities? As for the human resources, that is, the teachers who make or break a school, their expertise and skills are generally so poor and their commitment and motivation so low that they only produce a negative impact on education.
To counter these trends the Sindh Education Foundation, under the stewardship of its managing director, Prof Anita Ghulam Ali, launched the adopt-a-school programme in 1993.
On paper it sounded perfect. Sponsors were invited to take up a school and help improve its working by investing in its infrastructure and mobilizing the teachers. The scheme started with a bang.
Many enthusiastic volunteers came forward and gave time and money. Now there are 251 schools which have been adopted. I know of a set of retired teachers who adopted a school in Clifton.
They take turns to be present in the school every day. They raise funds and have had the building painted. They arrange for donations to pay the salary of the additional staff which they feel is needed. Moinuddin Haider, a former governor of Sindh, has adopted five schools.
Yet this scheme which has so much potential in it is facing problems of all kinds. I got an idea of the problems the sponsors face when I received from Prof Ghulam Ali a copy of the letter she had written to the nazim of Karachi, complaining about the indifferent attitude of the headmasters/headmistresses of schools.
According to her, "the condition in schools is deteriorating by the day and the quality of education is reaching irretrievable depths." With Anita Ghulam Ali's letter was attached a communication from an adopter listing her observations.
They mostly highlighted the laid back attitude of the teachers, who arrive late, leave early and are very often on leave. In one school the children were taught for only 44 days in the whole academic year. Another complaint pertained to their lack of knowledge and interest.
In her letter Prof Ghulam Ali suggested that the carrot and stick method be employed to make the school teachers work better. But that by itself will not be enough as I discovered when I visited a school in Nazimabad which Haider Karrar (the son of Prof Karrar Husain) had adopted three years ago under the aegis of Helping Hand, a trust he founded. After his death in March his widow, Azra, continues to look after it.
Haider Karrar raised Rs 15,00,000 in donations and spent it on the adopted school - namely the Government Boys Secondary School, Nazimabad 1 (morning shift).
With five schools on this campus (two secondary schools, one primary school and two lower secondary schools), the benefits of the adopter's efforts accrued in varying degrees to all of them, The money was spent on cleaning and painting the premises, building a boundary wall, setting up a computer lab (with a teacher), renovating and equipping the school library (with a librarian), arranging a medical check-up of the students, sending 118 teachers to training workshops and appointing a full-time education adviser.
Normally this should have led to a turnaround. It has in some ways. The enrolment in the secondary school which had been steadily falling from year to year has stopped and the headmaster hopes to have a strength of 1,025 students on the rolls - there were 925 last year.
The computer lab and teacher have done the trick as word has spread round that this school offers computer studies at no substantial extra cost with computers which actually work and a teacher who actually teaches.
Now the adopters feel that the optimum benefit is not being derived from their contributions. The presence of five schools on this particular campus has hampered progress. The schools are grossly underutilized.
In fact, one of them has not had a single student on its roll for the last three years. But three teachers come regularly and leave after a while. According to what I was told, there are barely 200 pupils in the other three schools. Between them they have 43 teachers.
Apart from the waste of resources, the presence of these redundant schools entails, the secondary school which has been somewhat revived can function for only four hours since the classrooms have to be vacated for the afternoon shift - which has a dwindling number of children.
There is a lot of duplication and space is taken up for separate staff rooms, libraries and head teachers' offices for every shift. The massive grounds are lying unused because the sports teacher wants his classes during school hours which are already too short.
The other sections cannot benefit from the computer lab which was set up for the morning shift. Now the adopters are trying to persuade the headmaster to share it with the afternoon shift.
The sensible solution would be to rationalize the working of these schools all of which should be merged into one primary school and one secondary section. But there are too many vested interests resisting a change in the status quo. Three head teachers would lose their jobs here while many teachers would have to be transferred.
The education department has so far failed to address the issue, as it has failed to tackle the complaints against the teachers by several adopters. All this is symptomatic of the authorities' apathy.
One may blame the provincial education department for the mess but after the devolution scheme came into effect last year the nazims of various areas also share responsibility.
The problem is not so much of funding as it is of organization and management, motivating the teachers and monitoring their work. The lax approach of the authorities encourages indiscipline among the teachers.
Many adopters complain that if they try to enforce the rules, the teachers actually defy them and question their jurisdiction. But when there is even a slight improvement in the condition of a school - in terms of teaching, discipline and physical environment - the enrolment starts picking up.
It is therefore important that the teachers be made accountable to the adopters so that discipline can be enforced. This is possible only if those adopting a school are given more powers in the management of a school.
There is a precedent in this context. The Book Group has been given these powers under a notification from the Sindh government transferring temporary management of three schools in the province to the group, which has secured the management of one school in Rahimyar Khan as well.
This has enabled the group to tighten discipline and introduce better pedagogy and textbooks. With the government's dependence on the private sectors growing for the improvement of the public sector school system, there is need to allow a greater say to those who are actually working for the uplift of a school.
Our nosy habits
Some family friends were talking about interference by people in other people's affairs. I told them of a great-aunt of mine who can perhaps qualify as a classic example of this type. She was a widow and lived with her married younger brother whose wife was thoroughly fed up with her nosy habits.
One day the brother asked her, very patiently and tenderly, "Apa, why do you have to interfere in everything and torment your sister-in-law like this?" The irrational but rather interesting reply was, "Brother, as long as I live in this house I shall interfere. When I am gone she can do as she likes."
Everyone agreed that it would be difficult to match this most unreasonable of reasons for poking one's nose in other's business. We then set to discussing the phenomenon - why are we so fond of interfering in matters that don't concern us, specially when most of us are not capable of ordering our lives with any credit, and why are women the worst offenders in this regard.
There were various views, but the answer probably lies in our national psyche and the fact that we belong to the East. people are more gregarious than the people of the West, and are much more involved in each other's lives without even being directly connected.
In the subcontinent in particular we are never taught to draw a line between matters that are strictly our own and those which are not our concern at all. Brought up as we are on the system of biradari and mohalladari (which still prevails along with modern lifestyle), everyone takes it as understood that whatever happens in the neighbourhood in the collective concern of the biradari or the mohalla. Actually no one calls it interference.
But then, social life in our cities is no longer based on the old pattern. The composition and complexion of the clan and the neighbourhood have changed beyond recognition since independence, and rapid and persistent urbanization has helped alter our attitudes to things which we previously took for granted.
In the myriad of new urban colonies that are cropping up all over the place, everyone is a stranger and nobody is bothered any longer as to who is who. By the time you get intimate with your immediate neighbours, they move out and somebody else comes to take their place.
This state of affairs has its adverse side too, and has reduced people's genuine interest in one another's problems and the willingness to help each other in time of need.
Perhaps the greatest contribution to this change was made by the migration of millions of people during and after Partition. The old way of life, wherein everyone knew everyone in one's immediate environs, and even beyond, was so disturbed as to never surface again.
Families which had been your neighbours for as long as you or your grandparents could remember were dispersed, sometimes to remote corners of the country. While this may have done away with the praiseworthy practice of responsibility and regard for one another it has also reduced the habit of interference to mere gossip and now only a remote interest in the misfortunes and shortcomings of neighbours remains.
The grace and goodwill have gone out of the connection. However, the habit of gossip and scandal, and a malicious curiosity about the ups and downs of others is still thee, and this is almost an obsession with women. They just cannot do without it.
Their lives would become dull and drab if they were required to rid themselves of this preoccupation. There would be no excitement left in living, and more than half the fun of communal existence would be lost.
But gossip and scandal are not always fun. There is sometimes a streak of tragedy in them. If someone were to analyze the causes of broken marriages, shattered homes, estranged couples, children going wayward and becoming disobedient, parents losing trust in their offspring, and similar other family misfortunes - it would transpire that interference by others was the main reason.
In almost all such cases of break-up, the hand of well- meaning but interfering friends and relations can be seen. It is our bad luck, or rather our faulty education and upbringing, that very few among us are able to play a positive role in bringing people together.
Most of us are somehow designed and conditioned to spreading discord and disunity, mostly because instead of acting as good-natured intermediaries we want to impose our preconceived views on everyone around us. Our interference knows no bounds.
Irrespective of whether our relationship with a family is intimate or not, we want them to lead a life as we live it, to hold opinions that we hold, and meet only those people whom we approve of.
On the slightest of acquaintance, our women announce bonds of sisterhood with strange women and either allow them to run their lives for them or try to make them lead their lives in their fashion.
We must interfere in their plans to educate their children. We must tell them how a wedding ceremony or a celebration in the family is to proceed. We direct them what to eat and how to eat it, and what to wear and what not to wear.
We want to decide what people are to give to their daughters for their weddings, and we take it as our duty to criticise if their daughter-in-law has come with an insufficient dowry.
We take it as a personal insult if we are not consulted in these matters. I have known brothers and sisters breaking off relations just because they were not taken into confidence in arranging a match for a son or daughter or in buying or selling a house.
It is a different matter altogether that we may be neither qualified to give sensible advice nor gifted with superior wisdom or greater common sense. We may be unfeeling husbands, quarrelsome wives, ignorant mothers, careless brothers and inconsiderate offspring, but we must try to order other people's lives for them.
All the time we could very well do with some of the homilies that we want to foist on others. The new way of life in which any women are involved in jobs has done much to diminish this propensity. But that is because generally people have much less time for such trivialities and not because we have realised the senselessness of interfering with others. I am sure the desire is still there.