| 26 May 2004 | Wednesday | 06 Rabi-us-Saani 1425 |
The battle against backwardness
Self-publicity through charity
The spate of statements from the new Indian leaders about the importance they attach to Indo-Pakistan relations and the high priority this relationship will have in the new government's external policies have been reassuring to Pakistan.
Perhaps most important in this respect was the statement of Ms Sonia Gandhi in which not only did she promise to carry forward the dialogue process with Pakistan but suggested that the Vajpayee government had been following the policies that her late husband had initiated.
This echoed the Congress manifesto that had assigned the party the task of "fashioning a stable, working, cooperative relationship with Pakistan under the framework of the Simla Agreement and subsequent agreements and confidence-building measures initiated by later Congress governments up to 1996."
At his very first press conference after being nominated as prime minister, Dr Manmohan Singh said, "We seek friendly relations with our neighbours, more so with Pakistan." Later he went on to add that, "We must find ways and means to resolve all outstanding problems that have been a source of friction."
This evoked, as expected, an equally positive response from the Pakistan Foreign Office. In welcoming Dr Manmohan Singh's statements, the spokesman recalled that a process of dialogue and confidence building was already underway and opined that these twin tracks must gain momentum and produce results.
Dr Manmohan Singh's preoccupation with economics has made him acutely aware, if the conversations he had with Pakistani officials during his tenure at the World Bank and the IMF are any indication, of the high cost that animosity has imposed on both Pakistan and India.
It would be reasonable to presume that in discussions within the Indian security establishment his effort will be to suggest that normalization of relations with Pakistan are necessary, not only for security reasons but also to encourage the growth of regional trade and make possible the diversion of funds from defence to more productive development activities.
Of course, Dr Singh has virtually no political base of his own. His one foray into electoral politics proved abortive. But it can also be presumed that in emphasizing the economic benefits of improved relations with Pakistan, Dr Singh will have the support of Ms Sonia Gandhi, the real power behind the throne in India's current political dispensation.
The new foreign minister has been positive in his views on the directions he wishes to set for Indo-Pak relations. Immediately after being sworn in Mr Natwar Singh told reporters, "We will further strengthen, widen and deepen our relations with Pakistan", while recalling that as a former Indian ambassador to Pakistan he had personal knowledge of the "complexities and subtleties of India-Pakistan relations."
He has been cautious in his other foreign policy pronouncements so far stating only that it would be his endeavour to increase the number of friends that India has around the world.
How important a role Mr Natwar Singh will play in the formulation and implementation of Indian foreign policy and particularly that towards Pakistan is not yet clear.
On the face of it, the prime minister's lack of experience in this field would make him rely more heavily on Natwar Singh and the inclination to do so may be reinforced by the close relationship that Mr Singh enjoys with the Gandhi family.
On the other hand, while Natwar Singh remained the principal foreign policy spokesman for the Congress during the years of BJP rule, the Congress has retained a slew of other foreign policy experts including Mani Shankar Aiyar (minister of petroleum in the new cabinet and a former consul-general in Karachi) and former foreign secretary J.N. Dixit, another veteran of Indo-Pakistan diplomacy. It is not inconceivable that they too will be assigned at least an advisory role in evolving a "Pakistan" policy.
It is also likely, despite misgivings that seemed to exist within the Congress, that the office of the national security adviser created by the Vajpayee government will be retained.
Perhaps - unlike in the former case - this post will not be combined with that of principal secretary to the prime minister. The new security adviser would also have a role to play in Indo-Pakistan relations.
All this speculation not with standing, there can be no gainsaying the fact that at least to start with Mr Natwar Singh will be the lead figure in the Indian foreign policy and security establishment.
Mr Singh was in Pakistan as ambassador (1980-1982), and subsequently, in charge of Indo-Pakistan relations as special secretary in the ministry of external affairs (1982-1984) at a difficult time in the relations of the two countries.
Some of the most acrimonious exchanges between the representatives of the two countries occurred during this period. But he was also minister of state for external relations in the Rajiv Gandhi government from 1986 to 1989, and that period seemed to mark a thaw in Indo-Pakistan relations.
The announcement on Sunday that India had sought a postponement of the talks on nuclear confidence-building measures scheduled for May 25 and May 26, was by all accounts, a Natwar initiative.
There have been suggestions that this was an ego trip designed to place a Natwar imprimatur on South Block. This is unfair and mean. Mr Natwar Singh is far too seasoned a diplomat to allow such considerations to weigh in a matter of such importance and of such public attention.
It is not clear, however, whether the postponement was prompted by his desire to be fully informed of the content of the brief for the first negotiations - albeit technical - that the new government would be held responsible for or by a desire to give more substantive content to the brief.
It is clear that one purpose of suggesting that these talks be held in early June, and just two days before the meeting of the foreign secretaries, was to reassure the Pakistanis that the dialogue process remained on track.
It is not clear whether the other purpose was to suggest that, in the new minister's view, there would be enough substance emerging from the discussion to permit the foreign secretaries to engage seriously on this issue.
It does seem that if there is a desire to make the talks more substantive, there are two directions that the new brief from the minister could take. First, the minister could direct his team to propose the discussion and finalization of a draft for an agreement that would formally commit the two countries to advance notification of missile tests. (This is being done more or less regularly on the basis of the informal agreement reached at Lahore but a formal agreement has yet to be concluded).
Second, the minister could indicate India's willingness to initiate expert level talks on an agreement to prohibit the deployment of short-range missiles in the vicinity of the border.
Both these would be steps that would help in reducing the chances of an unintended or inadvertent conflict breaking out and escalating to the point of a nuclear exchange.
The other direction could be to indicate a more positive response than the Vajpayee government was prepared to offer to Pakistan's proposal for substantive negotiations on working out a strategic and conventional arms restraint regime for South Asia.
Obviously, this is not going to happen easily. Many in the Indian security establishment have argued that India's security concerns, and equally important, India's perception of its place in the global and regional geo-strategic calculus makes it inconceivable that it should accept any such restraint regime.
And yet, one gets the sense that there are many in India who do fear that pursuing this "vision" or exaggerating security concerns may well contribute to creating the same sort of situation in South Asia as the one that led to the creation of the military-industrial complexes in the Soviet Union and America.
The Americans and the Soviets spent some $5.5trillion on creating and maintaining nuclear arsenals. This expenditure was of course driven ostensibly by the need to "match" what the other side was doing.
The fact, however, is, (as recent American decisions to continue research in developing new nuclear weapons and to deploy missile defence show) that once there are vested interests, erroneous programmes continue to be pursued.
This was the trap that contributed to the demise of the Soviet Union. This trap has perhaps played a part in keeping many people in the United States, the richest country in the world, below the poverty line.
In South Asia, which has a per capita income that comes close to the lowest in the world, the ruin that an arms race could bring is all too apparent. Acutely conscious of this in theory, both countries have talked of maintaining their nuclear arsenals at the minimum deterrent level.
Both have failed, for understandable reasons, to define this minimum and have for less understandable reasons talked about new acquisitions that can be rationally justified as essential for maintaining security but which represent in reality yet another step on the slippery slope of an unaffordable arms purchase spree.
If there was one lesson the election had for Indian politicians it was that more resources must be devoted to infrastructure development aimed at bettering the lot of the poorest sections of society and that the image of "India Shining" was far less important than a full stomach at the end of a backbreaking work day.
One can only hope that a pragmatic economist at the helm of affairs in India, whose abilities are reinforced by the clear message from the electorate, will pursue a revised vision.
A good step in this direction would be to talk to Pakistan, and perhaps later to India's other neighbours, about how security concerns can be addressed without inordinate amounts being spent on unproductive and provocative defence preparations.
The scheduled talks on Nuclear CBMs and the foreign secretaries' meeting immediately thereafter provide an opportunity for doing so. One can hope, perhaps forlornly, that this is why a postponement was sought.
The writer is a former foreign secretary.
The battle against backwardness
President Pervez Musharraf got it right when he told the inaugural session of a security conference in Islamabad the other day that the world was in a turmoil because of inequalities in economic development. He pointed out that the world was divided between the haves and the have-nots and that there was need to wage a war against illiteracy, hunger, sickness, backwardness, poverty, and social injustice.
This might appear to be stating the obvious. This has been iterated so very often that now it fails to make an impact. The fact is that the gulf between the rich and the poor of the world is so great today that it is difficult to fully comprehend its implications.
Of the 6.1 billion people living on the planet earth nearly two-thirds of them are in the developing countries. Their average population growth rate is also much higher at 1.4 per cent compared with 0.5 per cent for the developed countries. This means that in the future over-crowding in the Third World will grow, bringing with it all the interrelated problems.
Even at present, of the 861 million illiterates in the world 98 per cent live in the developing countries. With a rapidly growing population, the Third World is a victim of poverty, illiteracy and ill-health. The president very correctly pointed out that inequity and disparity bred militancy.
But one may not entirely agree with President Musharraf when he implies that it is for the developed countries to address these ills to ease the turmoil in the world today.
Admittedly, the inequitable economic system and the terms of trade which operate against the poorer countries make it difficult for their governments to pull themselves out of the morass.
But this inequality is not just at the international level. The economic and social disparities within each country are appalling. It is visible to anyone who cares to see that the poor are really impoverished while the affluent are rich beyond belief.
Hence one cannot deny that ultimately it is up to every Third World country and its leadership to mobilize its resources and improve the quality of life of its people. It is counter-productive crying ourselves hoarse and demanding favours from the rich to resolve our own problems, many of them of our own making. Self-reliance should be the underlying principle of our economic policies.
To begin with, take a look at Pakistan's defence expenditure. The president claimed in his speech that "in the past four years, Pakistan had not increased its defence expenditure". But what do our budget documents tell us? The table below gives the defence expenditure of the past four years as taken from the budget documents:
2000-2001 (revised estimates) Rs 131.6 b
2001-2002 " " Rs 151.6 b
2002-2003 " " Rs 160.1 b
2003-2004 budget Rs 160.2 b
This amounts to nearly a quarter of the revenue budget and with debt servicing taking up another 39 per cent and the civil administration 15 per cent, there is not much left for other sectors. Added to this are the strict economic restructuring conditionalities imposed by the financial agencies which limit the government's options.
In a report he prepared for the UNDP titled Pakistan: National Human Development Report, 2003, Dr Akmal Hussain used the disaggregated human development index to determine the level of development in various provinces.
The disparity between the different regions is enormous. According to his statistics, Punjab ranks at the top with 0.557 points and Balochistan is at the bottom with 0.490.
The urban areas all over the country taken collectively have 0.656 points with the rural areas trailing far behind with 0.496. District-wise Jhelum, which ranks first, has an HDI of 0.703 and Dera Bugti, which is at the bottom of the pile, has an HDI of 0.285.
The gulf between the rich and the poor, when it is as pronounced as it is in Pakistan, results in widespread frustration and unrest. This gives rise to an extreme reaction in the form of crime, violence and militancy. Hence President Musharraf's deduction that a war against poverty and the concomitant ills would reduce militancy and bring enduring peace carries some weight.
But one wishes that this war was waged with equal vigour as the military campaign against the Al Qaeda functionaries. At present we do not see much of the struggle against illiteracy and backwardness being mounted although in many respects it is in our power to do so.
What is the government doing about education? The government school system, which serves the bulk of the people, is in such a state of rot that enrolment is actually falling with even the low income families sending their children to private schools, not all of which are of an acceptable standard.
Teachers' absenteeism, poor pedagogy and textbooks which actually damage a child's psyche by indoctrinating him have left the education sector in a mess. Small wonder we are failing to educate our people and illiteracy is so rampant.
As for the back wardization factor, there are so many powerful forces pulling the people towards obscurantcy, superstition and intolerance in religion and culture that a war against such forces is the biggest challenge of the hour.
These problems are not easy to tackle because these forces are well-organized, ubiquitous and have plenty of resources. Now that they have penetrated the parliament and the corridors of power, to counter them calls for greater political will and ingenuity, than are at work at the moment.
President Musharraf's call for a war against backwardness will win the approval of many people. But who is in a better position to undertake this war? The unfortunate episode about the curricula and the textbooks which triggered a furore all over the country found the government on the defensive.
By giving in to the MMA's point of view, the authorities sent a signal to the people that backwardization was there to stay. Revamping the curricula and exposing children to a rational, progressive and scientific way of thinking would have been the first step in the war against backwardization.
Similarly, the government has failed to remove many of the laws from the statute books which are being projected as Islamic when many religious scholars have questioned their authenticity on the touchstone of the Sharia.
Be they the Hudood Ordinances, the Blasphemy Law or the Law of Evidence, all of them are being blatantly misused by unscrupulous elements to wreak personal vengeance on people with whom they have an axe to grind. Moreover, these laws are presenting a poor image of Pakistan being a backward society.
All this calls for firm action and one hopes that the government will proceed to do what the president has rightly identified as should be our priorities in the war against extremism.
Self-publicity through charity
There are many sayings and adages of unknown wise men about what should be the disposal of a good act, an act of kindness, a benefaction, a work of charity. All of them stress the propriety of forgetting it as soon as it is done, and this is considered the height of human nobility as also of good manners and civilized behaviour.
The Urdu advice in this respect, "Do good and throw it in the river," appropriately reflects this attitude. Equally apt is the English maxim, "Don't let your left hand know what the right is doing."
The fact is that the giver, the donor, loves to feed his vanity by dwelling again and again on his goodness. But it is also a fact of life that the sensibilities of the poor man or woman at the receiving end resent the thought of being reminded about it.
They may have been in dire need when the good was conferred on them, but their innate self-pride hates the rubbing in of the kindness. That is as it should be, for why should it be presumed that the down-and-out, forced by circumstances to accept charity, have no self-respect?
I think nothing brings out this pride and bitterness more than the story about Hazrat Ali and his indignant censor. When told that so-and-so disliked him intensely and was always saying hateful things about him, Hazrat Ali is said to have remarked, "It is strange, for I have never done him any favour. Why should he feel resentful towards me?"
These are not traits and reactions that one can only learn from a deep study of human psychology or research into human behaviour. These are ordinary truths supposed to be evident to every sensible person, even though not highly educated, especially if he is in public life and has had the privilege of helping the needy and the dispossessed.
All cabinet ministers are in that position, though the bounties that they proudly dispense among the poor are never from their own pocket and are always paid for by the state.
Then why did Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif do what he once did? This is a very interesting story and among my favourites. For one cabinet meeting he took along one Maulana Tariq Jamil of the Tablighi Jamaat with him and the whole caucus intently heard him wax eloquent on the duties and responsibilities of government leaders in an Islamic society.
I do not know what all Maulana said there but it was given out (rather imprudently I should think) that he particularly described the act of publicizing charitable acts as undesirable in the eyes of God.
Maybe Mian Sahib did not know that this would also be one of the Maulana's topics and that this would be the only part of his lecture that would go out to the newspapers. Actually I recall that it was not released to the press officially and we just heard about it.
But the fact remains that it sort of recoiled on him because prime ministers in this country make it a habit to distribute cheques to the distressed or provide relief to sufferers of various calamities, but only in the glare of flashlights and TV cameras.
One admires the consistency in the attitude of succeeding heads of government that the Maulana's homily did not make any difference to the official policy of according publicity to this kind of charitable acts.
We continue to see press photographs and TV clips of elderly men and women standing humbly in a line, their right hand stretched out to receive the handout from the great man himself, having subdued their self-esteem and personal pride for the sake of the much-needed gift.
Maulana Tariq Jamil couldn't have found a more insensitive audience for his laudable advice. All this flows from a distorted and mindless sense of pictorial publicity undertaken by the ministry of information and the provincial departments of public relations.
Either those responsible in these agencies are devoid of finer feelings, which I would not believe is the general state of affairs, or some effort to stop the practice at some stage failed when the high-level PRO said, "How can you not show the PM doing such a fine thing.
Look at the image of his as a benevolent leader that it creates!" The fact remains that the photographer and the TV man have become the most important appendages of a chief executive's retinue in Pakistan. I have known relevant experts being dropped to accommodate them in the VIP's helicopter.
Just look at these examples of their handiwork. The VIP, in genuine sympathy, with his hand placed on the head of a young girl who has been gang-raped. Indigent old men and women standing in a queue to receive zakaat to which the government and its ministers have not contributed a penny.
Poor peasants being given the relevant documents to make them owners of land. Victims of scams, which could have been nipped in the bud before they proliferated, getting their compensation cheques in which the government's monetary share is nil.
The VIP raising his hands in fateha on a visit to a bereaved family (but looking at the camera all the time) as if he is conferring a state favour on them and not merely performing his social duty.
Whatever you may think of these instances, whether they are justified or not from the routine propaganda point of view, I think the most revolting example of the government's pictorial publicity that I recall were pictures showing the prime minister handing out compensation to the families of the martyrs who had laid down their lives for the country on the Line of Control.
I forget now who it was who presided over this shameful act. Is there any concept in Islam of compensation for participating in jehad? Admitted that the dead warriors' dues etc. had to be paid to their heirs, but was it necessary to flaunt the act of doing so? It is equally shameful that there was no protest at this demeaning proceeding from any Muslim quarter.
When it comes to doing good, we are all hungry for recognition, and if our act of generosity or munificence can appear in the press, so much the better. And of it can be engraved in stone then nothing like it.
I have seen announcements soliciting contributions for putting up a school or a mosque or a hospital carrying the promise that if you give more than a certain amount, a marble plaque bearing your name and the sum donated by you will be affixed in a prominent place. You may die but your deed will live forever, at least as long as the building stands. What is it supposed to be, a passport to paradise?