Dangerous times

What have we come to? What has happened to our country? These were the questions most persistently and commonly being asked in the wake of Friday's attempt to kill Federal Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz. The minister (and putative prime minister) had a providential escape when a suicide bomber hit his car after he had addressed a rally in a village in the Attock constituency where he is contesting a byelection for a seat in the National Assembly. But seven other people, including the bomber, were killed in the despicable attack and scores injured.

The news hit the wires shortly after dusk, and people were immediately reminded of the two murder bids on President Pervez Musharraf and the ambush of the Karachi corps commander's convoy. The war declared on the government by a vicious and apparently highly motivated group of terrorists or militants seems to be continuing.

Mr Aziz appeared briefly before the media on his return to Islamabad to reassure everyone that he was safe and unfazed, and declared that such attacks can only strengthen the government's resolve to persist in the fight against terrorism. General Musharraf has expressed similar sentiments. But there are serious doubts about how ably the fight is being waged and its political repercussions.

The attacks on the president, the corps commander and now the finance minister have thoroughly exposed the inadequacy of the security cover for VIPs, and confirms fears that our intelligence apparatus is not only inefficient but has probably been penetrated by elements hostile to the government's support of US policies. The Wana operation, whose reach may have to be extended to parts of the tribal belt in Balochistan, remains inconclusive and has pried loose more militants to add to the numbers already in the settled areas.

We also remain affected by the turbulent conditions in Afghanistan. There have been successes in arresting foreign trouble-makers hiding in the country, but the threat is by no means over. They endanger not only the government but the safety of the state and the people and must be rooted out. The situation is unclear about the arrests made after the attack on the president in which, it was said, low-level military personnel were involved.

In the midst of the deep trouble we are in, the Iraq factor has been permitted to dangerously interpose. Whether we were forced into adopting our present post-9/11 position or went along willingly in our own interest is now largely an academic debate. The issue is that we are a far more unstable country than we were before the attacks on New York and Washington and we have to ask ourselves how far we want to remain involved with American objectives.

Why are we prepared to assume additional responsibilities in a campaign that is marked by distortions and deceit and that seems to have no end? Our position on troops for Iraq provides an added provocation for those who have an agenda of their own. It should be clearly and firmly announced that no peacekeeping troops would be sent to Iraq as long as it is under occupation and until a representative government is formed. There ought to be no further ambiguity about it. Secondly, there should be no more political concessions to extremists, militants and obscurantists.

The government has no option except to seek the cooperation of all liberal and democratic forces in politics and civil society. We seem to be the only Muslim country to have a bleeding heart for the "ummah" (the word was again invoked after Friday's attack). This hypocritical kow-towing to religiosity doesn't make us safer and doesn't convince the likes of Al Qaeda and its offshoots.

A wise move

The Sindh government's decision to denationalize two leading colleges in Karachi and hand them back to their previous owners is a move that can hardly be faulted. Associations of government teachers and principals, and the student wing of a religious party, have criticized the decision, saying they will resist it.

They argue that since both colleges were already doing well, there is no justification for denationalizing them. This is not quite so, as evident from the fact that standards in general of public colleges have deteriorated over the years and many institutions that once produced graduates of a high calibre no longer do so. It is also generally agreed that the factors behind this decline are poor teaching standards in, and indifferent management of, public sector institutions - both rooted in the government's low priority for education.

Many of those who have come out opposing the move are doing so perhaps because they feel their jobs are at stake. However, a badly-run public sector system of higher education such as ours tends to create a teaching culture where faculty members routinely show up late or not at all for class, where cheating is rampant and where teachers with dedication and good pedagogical skills are seldom rewarded for merit.

The private sector has its own faults when it comes to education but it must be doing something right given that just about everyone wants to have his/her child admitted to a private school. The other fear that has been expressed is that once back with the previous owners, the colleges in question will become prohibitively expensive.

Here, too, it needs to be remembered that many of the colleges and schools that were nationalized in the 1970s were being run by charitable trusts or missionary organizations which had built a reputation for providing quality education at a reasonably affordable cost. Of course, costs today are far higher than 30 years ago and the Sindh government would do well to ensure that once back in private hands, the fees do not become prohibitive.

FIA's strange concern

The directive by the FIA director-general to immigration officers posted at international airports to stop young Pakistani female members of cultural troupes from leaving for the Middle East makes no sense. The directive has been issued apparently after a number of expatriates living in the Middle East complained that some of the women on such trips abroad indulged in 'objectionable' activities, which brought a bad name to the country. While indulgence in 'objectionable' activities by citizens of either sex cannot be condoned whether in Pakistan or abroad, the singling out of women smacks of gender bias and of a patronizing attitude towards women.

The immigration officers' reluctance to enforce this strange edict is understandable because there is no law that bars women performers alone from visiting abroad. The truth is that it is mostly our men and not women who have at times been the cause of embarrassment to the country while living or visiting abroad - a drunken airline official in Saudi Arabia being one recent example.

As for Pakistani cultural troupes going out to perform in the Middle East, the FIA director-general can rest assured that the host countries are quite capable of enforcing their own laws regarding indecent behaviour, whether by men or women. The singling out of women for the purpose is simply absurd.

Instead of wasting their efforts and energies on non-issues such as this one, the FIA and the immigration staff would do well to concentrate on other more menacing problems like human trafficking, including that of 'camel kids', and smuggling of priceless antiques out of the country.