| 07 August 2004 | Saturday | 20 Jamadi-us-Saani 1425 |
The Kargil debate
Phasing out child labour
A wave of hatred against Islam and Muslims appears to be sweeping the media in Britain. This is astonishing for a country whose people consider understatement to be the essential quality of the spoken and written word.
The quality of comments in the present case is low and some remarks speak of paranoia. What is cause for concern is that vituperative writings against Muslims are not appearing in Britain's tabloids known for racism and xenophobia; highly provocative pieces are being carried by the mainstream media.
As a report in this newspaper points out, papers regularly publishing Islamophobic pieces include The Times, Sunday Telegraph, Spectator and Mail. In one column headlined "Muslims are coming", a Spectator columnist speaks of the persecution of Jews by Christians in the belief that they had a secret plot to take over the world.
This, says the columnist, was a lie. Those who really have a plot to conquer the West, he says, are the Muslims. Another story in the Mail says Muslim doctors are refusing to treat patients suffering from sexual disease because they believe it to be divine punishment which they deserve.
More hurtful is a comment in the Sunday Telegraph which speaks of the Muslims' black heart and black face and compares them to dogs. The writer of this piece is alleged to be the British Council's press officer, who denies this.
There is no doubt that the 9/11 tragedy has shocked not just the West but the whole world, including all sane Muslims. Worse still, the Madrid blasts brought terror home to Europe.
These events have strengthened Western suspicions about Muslims, leading to close monitoring of all mosques and Muslim community centres all over Europe. The subsequent anti-Muslim wave whipped up by rightist groups has manifested itself in such decisions as the ban on scarves in some European countries.
Britain has, of course, not banned the scarf. To that extent, it has maintained a commendable degree of cultural freedom for its Muslim citizens and tourists. This tolerance unfortunately is being threatened by a section of the British press by pandering to the lunatic fringe, thereby undermining the need for wider unity and harmony in fighting terrorism.
The crime on September 11, 2001, by a band of misguided fanatics has done more harm to the Muslim world and to the millions of Muslims living in the West than to the West.
Though small in number, these fanatics have held the Muslim world hostage to their designs. They can be isolated and rooted out by a Muslim-Christian joint campaign rather than by policies and actions that speak of historical prejudices.
As a Guardian writer points out, "Muslims do not want to conquer the world... it is their lands that are being conquered [by Israel] bit by bit..." What is happening in Palestine, Iraq and Kashmir is before us, while the genocide of the Muslims of Bosnia is still fresh in public memory.
These events have contributed in no small measure to the what the British press loves to call "Islamic terrorism". Muslim governments are no less concerned about this phenomenon than the world at large. But the kind of virulent Islamophobia a section of the British press has unleashed in the West does little to bring the Muslim and Christian worlds closer.
The Kargil debate
The Kargil debate goes on. Prime Minister Shujaat Hussain himself has kept it going by repeatedly questioning Mr Nawaz Sharif's assertion that as prime minister at the time of the Kargil operation he was not fully briefed about the project.
Chaudhry Shujaat has again accused Mr Sharif of not being honest about the circumstances leading to Kargil. In an interview with the same foreign periodical to which Mr Sharif had complained of being out of the loop on the issue, Chaudhry Shujaat has mentioned dates on which army briefings were held to keep Mr Sharif informed. Mr Sharif had said: "I didn't approve of this idea (of occupying Kargil) from day one.
Many things related to this were hidden from me." Both sides agree that briefings were held; the point in dispute is how much Mr Sharif was told. Chaudhry Shujaat's interview doesn't clear up this point.
On his part, Mr Sharif has not quite been able to explain why, if he did not approve of the plan, he did not do more to scotch it or to ask for more details. In support of his contentions, Chaudhry Shujaat says he remembers Mr Sharif asking at a briefing on May 17, 1999, whether the Dras-Kargil road led to Srinagar, implying that the then PM was fairly enthusiastic about the idea.
However, in an address on July 12, 1999, explaining the decision to withdraw Pakistani troops, Mr Sharif had said: "Let me tell you there's no road leading to Srinagar from Kargil and those who think we have lost the opportunity of Kashmir's liberation are not aware of the ground situation."
Much has been said from both sides on the issue, and not many are the wiser for it. How the question has surfaced at this time is itself a bit of a mystery. The truth can only be known if a proper commission of inquiry is established to investigate the episode.
Chaudhry Shujaat's response to the demand for an inquiry is odd for a prime minister: "Will this Kargil commission end unemployment? Will it provide bread or remove poverty?..." The purpose of such a commission would be to see how we blundered into a dangerous and ultimately an unnecessary enterprise and for our political and military leaders to draw the correct lessons for the future.
Phasing out child labour
The International Labour Organization recently announced its plans to extend its focus on child labour in Pakistan to occupations that are most hazardous for children. These include the mining, rag-picking, tanneries, deep-sea fishing, bangles and surgical instrument manufacturing.
A sum of $20 million is to be allocated towards ending the exploitation of children in these occupations. While the ILO's plans are laudable, the number of child labourers in the country continues to rise as more and more poverty-stricken families are sending their young ones to work.
The last count of child labourers, as recorded by the ILO, was concluded in 1996, when the number of young workers aged between five and 14 stood 3.3 million. One can be sure that this number has increased since then, with children continuing to perform backbreaking labours at a great cost to their mental, emotional and physical development.
There are no two views on the need for eliminating child labour. But is it possible to do so immediately, given the current socio-economic conditions where a huge bulk of the country's population lives below the poverty line? While there should be an immediate ban on inducting children into occupations that entail risks to their health and mental well-being, a phased-out elimination of child labour in occupations considered less hazardous is called for.
Also, there must be attempts to put a greater premium on education and offer those opting for school some kind of financial compensation for not being able to contribute to the family earnings through manual jobs. Here, the ILO has claimed success in the football-making industry in Sialkot. Perhaps, its efforts could be replicated in other sectors as well.