| 02 October 2004 | Saturday | 16 Shaban 1425 |
A settlement is within grasp
The World Bank's force of nature
Real issue is female education
Given the prevailing scepticism and uncertainty about the future of bilateral relations, prior to their New York meeting, President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh showed political courage by agreeing to take the peace process, initiated in January, to its logical conclusion.
The important features of the "agreement", reached between the two leaders, on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly session, are: the two governments will implement confidence-building measures (CBMs) of "all categories under discussion - keeping in mind practical possibilities"; to address the issue of Jammu and Kashmir with a view to exploring "possible options for a peaceful, negotiated settlement - in a sincere spirit and purposeful manner"; and to let the CBMs contribute to a trusting and peaceful environment at the people-to-people level.
As a matter of fact, the New York agreement is a reiteration of the peace process, initiated by President Musharraf and Prime Minister Vajpayee, as reflected in their joint statement of January 6.
The substantive point of the New York agreement is that Islamabad and New Delhi have agreed to persevere with the process of "normalcy and cooperation" in their bilateral relations. Before proceeding with the normality process, Pakistan wanted an assurance from New Delhi that it was serious about resolving the Kashmir issue.
The understanding reached between the two leaders in New York seems to be that purposeful negotiations on finding a peaceful settlement of the Kashmir issue will take place amidst a process of normalization of bilateral relations. This way both sides have won: Pakistan on Kashmir and India on normalization process.
The joint statement, issued after the New York meeting, emphasized the need for "a peaceful negotiated settlement" of the Kashmir dispute, a phrase the Indians have agreed to be used for the first time because they have insisted on Kashmir being their internal problem.
Also, the joint statement was more noticeable for what was omitted than what it contained. It contained no reference to the Indian claim of cross-border infiltration, a clear gesture of goodwill towards Pakistan.
An important diplomatic document, the statement's emphasis is on accommodating rather than confronting each other. In this respect also, it is a departure from the past as it avoids terms and phrases which had embittered relations between the two neighbours.
Since the current peace process was initiated by Prime Minister Vajpayee during his January visit to Islamabad, one would have expected the BJP to welcome the progress made in New York.
But surprisingly, the BJP, the main opposition party in India, has reacted in a completely different way. Its spokesman, former Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha, has criticized the joint statement for "diluting" India's traditional position of refusing to give "centrality" to the Jammu and Kashmir issue but treating it "as one of the issues - among many".
Mr Sinha has also attacked the New York statement for leaving out the specific 'reassurance' given by Pakistan in the January joint statement not to allow any territory under its control to be used for supporting terrorism in any manner.
Mr Sinha is also unhappy with treating the possibility of a gas pipeline via Pakistan as "a stand alone issue", instead of linking it with the demand that Pakistan extend the Most Favoured Nation treatment to India.
The negative attitude adopted by Mr. Sinha is all the more surprising because it was the BJP which had initiated a bold political process to improve relations with Pakistan.
It could have, instead, claimed credit for bringing India and Pakistan closer to each other. But the negativism of the BJP clearly shows that the hold of the moderates, led by Mr. Vajpayee, over the party has weakened and the hard liners have taken over after the party's defeat in the recent elections.
This is an ominous development for the future of India-Pakistan relations as the BJP has a substantial presence in the parliament and a sizeable following in the country. Though not mentioned in the joint statement, India has made it clear to Pakistan that unless the cross-border infiltration stops, talks on Kashmir cannot move forward.
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told a press conference after his meeting with President Musharraf: "We cannot discuss any substantive issue and CBMs if terrorist acts are not controlled. Therefore there should be no doubt that this is the precondition for moving forward."
The New York meeting was marked by a lot of rhetoric from both sides. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh described it as a "historic day" and claimed to have made a new beginning.
He was confident that he and President Musharraf "will together work and succeed in writing a new chapter in the history of our two countries." President Musharraf described the positive outcome of the meeting as "a victory of peace which augurs well."
He found Mr. Manmohan Singh "an extremely sincere man and saw a desire in him to address the lingering issues sincerely." The problem with such utterances is that they raise expectations of the people on both sides which are hard to fulfil.
The time has come when the two governments should start educating their people about the need for a change in the approach to the Kashmir problem as it has failed to bring us any nearer to the solution during the past 56 years.
India's willingness to discuss Kashmir with Pakistan without any reservation is a subtle and well-calculated move; it should not, however, make us oblivious to the ground realities.
It is difficult to imagine that the Manmohan Singh government, or, for that matter, any government in India can move away from its traditional position and be willing to accept a change in the status quo in Kashmir.
The Indian strategy seems to be that since the division of Kashmir on the basis of LoC is not acceptable to Pakistan, New Delhi has now decided to engage Islamabad on the Kashmir issue, ask for possible alternative solutions the latter has in mind and demonstrate its willingness to talk about them.
This itself will placate the Pakistani interlocutors, for at least some time. The new Indian approach stipulates to discuss all contentious issues, tackle the less difficult problems and get them out of the way and then take up the more complicated ones, and in the meanwhile let bilateral relations develop in all directions.
The decision to grant Indian visas to 18 Pakistani journalists to visit important places in Jammu and Kashmir speaks volumes for the self-assurance India has now developed over Kashmir. It may well be that India's quest for a permanent seat on the Security Council is also playing a role in its ostensible "sincerity" to solve the Kashmir problem.
Pakistan has succeeded in bringing home its point: that there can be no peace process without discussing the Kashmir issue. After the New York meeting, India has decided to engage in a serious discussion on Kashmir in return for Pakistan's commitment on a cooperative relationship.
India has, however, made it clear that Pakistan has to stop cross-border infiltration in order to move ahead on the composite dialogue. Which means that nothing should be done from our side which brings the peace process to a halt.
The history of past 57 years attests that there is no alternative to a dialogue to settle our disputes with India. At long last, New Delhi has also recognized that resolving the Kashmir issue is in its long-term interests.
If the composite dialogue is to make any headway, it must be kept in a low key and rhetoric should remain out of bounds. Incalculable harm has been done in the past to the dialogue process by the people in power through their uncalled for remarks on sensitive foreign policy issues.
Except for the president, prime minister, foreign minister and foreign secretary, and of course the official spokesmen, everybody else must be required to remain circumspect because nothing vitiates the atmosphere as much as irresponsible remarks and comments. Especially, in the India-Pakistan context, it is so easy to destroy the momentum of goodwill and amity and so very difficult to recreate it.
The writer is a former ambassador.
A settlement is within grasp
Except for the summit meeting between India and Pakistan at Agra, I have not known of any failure at that level. Although Jawaharlal Nehru never liked Martial Law Administrator General Ayub Khan, he did not let the Indus Water Treaty signing go sour.
Indira Gandhi accepted Zulfikar Ali Bhutto's last-minute plea not to let him return empty-handed and signed the Shimla Agreement. Former Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee had a 'successful' meeting with President General Pervez Musharraf although the latter was responsible for the Kargil misadventure that had killed the Lahore Declaration between Vajpayee and the deposed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif.
That way Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has kept the tradition of honouring the summit even though his meeting with General Musharraf was on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.
What is different this time is that both of them have struck 'confidence' in each other's 'sincerity'. This may well be the breakthrough because none of their predecessors has ever put faith in the other so explicitly.
What it means is that the talks between the secretaries of the two governments on different subjects may see concrete results. After the talks had been conducted, the word was that a consensus had been reached but it had to have the final okay from the top.
It seems some of the agreements reached may fructify in the next few weeks, if not days. Musharraf may have to explain the development because there will be progress in other fields without a solution on Kashmir. He can, however, justifiably say that Manmohan Singh's promise to talk on Kashmir itself is an achievement.
His domestic lobby could present a problem. But the manner in which Pakistan's Islamic alliance has welcomed the summit talks indicates that the opposition is confined to the old dwindling group which is anti-India in its approach. Qazi Hussain Ahmed, leader of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), has welcomed resolution of all disputes between India and Pakistan through dialogue. He did not mention Kashmir.
This attitude of MMA may help Musharraf postpone the date of stepping down form the post of army chief. He can argue that his understanding with the Indian prime minister may cut the Gordian knot, that is Kashmir.
A parallel authority that a new chief of army staff may create will come in the way of reaching a solution. Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto is quite right in saying, "If he (Musharraf) sheds his uniform the continuity of policies will break." But that is a stark reality in every military-run country. Pakistan cannot be any different.
From India's point of view, the agreement on any confidence-building measures is welcome. It can happily link it with Manmohan Singh-Musharraf meeting. This may well be the reason why the news from Islamabad is that if Siachin were to be vacated, Pakistan would not occupy it.
More or less, some years ago this was the agreement initialled by the foreign secretaries to convert it a no-man's land. India unwisely stalled the agreement. Some top brass still propound the theory that Siachin is strategically important to the country. But there is an equal number who pooh-poohs this reasoning. That Pakistan will not try to occupy Siachin once India withdraws from it is one assurance that has to be foolproof.
I believe that there may be an agreement on Sir Creek in Gujarat. Musharraf's statement that there is likely to be an understanding on the nuclear problem is significant.
Islamabad may also extend to India the MFN (most favoured nation) status, something that it cannot help under the WTO agreement. Some trade concessions are also on cards.
What is important is that Pakistan has come round to accepting the step-by-step approach. It does not say now that without progress on Kashmir, nothing can move forward. In fact, Manmohan Singh has underlined Musharraf's view that he wanted "progress on all outstanding issues between India and Pakistan."
Why is this perceptible change in the attitude of Pakistan? And is it real when the anti-India stance is what largely sustains the military rule in Pakistan?
It is too early to give any firm answer. We may get some indication after the US presidential election in early November. But Manmohan Singh may have a point when he says that the general has been "grossly misunderstood."
What needs to be appreciated is that the forward movement between India and Pakistan is largely the fallout from the people-to-people contact at every level and in every field.
Washington's hand may well be working behind the scenes. But it is only one of the factors. The main reason is that both New Delhi and Islamabad, after possessing the nuclear bomb, realize that there is no military solution to Kashmir.
They also see that people want to turn their attention towards economic development. After a long time the Indo-Pak relationship is on the mend and this needs to be hailed.
Still, people need to know more. Transparency will give them a feeling of participation. A bald joint statement between Manmohan Singh and Musharraf does not tell much.
Society on both sides would like to know why the steps contemplated now - they are welcome steps - were not taken earlier. A country's foreign policy cannot be hostage to the mandarins who are hawkish at one time and softer at another.
Foreign policy is not like economic development which can be improved by increasing investment. It takes years - and huge costs - to build a credible foreign policy.
The BJP's criticism that the joint statement gives Kashmir "centrality" is out of pique. When the party was in power, its terminology was different. But Kashmir figured in every statement.
By mentioning it in the beginning or at the end does not matter when the solution sought is to bring normality. In fact, both New Delhi and Islamabad are now looking for alternatives to sort out Kashmir.
The proposals may not be to the liking of India, Pakistan or the Kashmiris but one of them may still be workable. At the meeting with Musharraf, Manmohan Singh requested Pakistan to suggest some options.
This is the time when the activists and experts should muster their thoughts and make some concrete proposals. The two principles to be kept in mind are that religion will not be the criterion for any solution.
The partition of the subcontinent on the basis of religion has not allowed the two countries to settle down even after 57 years. Another division of any sort will revive all the terrible things we have gone through. The two countries will not be able to withstand them this time.
The other cardinal point to remember is that the people of Jammu and Kashmir are directly concerned with the formula devised for a solution. Their concurrence is necessary.
It is difficult to satisfy the hot-headed but the overall consent of the people is essential. What the three parties - India, Pakistan and the people of Jammu and Kashmir - must realise is that a settlement is well within their grasp.
If they let the opportunity go by, they may possibly miss the best ever chance that has come their way after the partition. Generations may have to suffer if the moment is lost.
The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.
The World Bank's force of nature
The Kerry-Bush face-off is a global election, handicapped and gossiped about from Tokyo to Trieste. But there's another global contest brewing, a little off the radar screen. It is a contest that features Colin Powell and Bill Clinton.
It is a contest that could influence the global agenda. It is the contest to become the next president of the World Bank - and master of some $20 billion in loans each year to the world's poorest countries.
There are no officially declared candidates as yet, and the winner won't be known until after the U.S. election. But the rumour mill is churning hard: There's whispering of Powell and Clinton, but also of Robert Zoellick, President Bush's trade czar, and Stan Fischer, former No. 2 at the International Monetary Fund. And then there is another candidate, who should not be overlooked. The man who replaces Jim Wolfensohn, the bank's larger-than-life incumbent, may turn out to be none other than that very same Jim Wolfensohn.
Some whisperers doubt this possibility. In nearly a decade as World Bank chief, Wolfensohn has infuriated people on a bipartisan basis, and he will soon turn 71. But having gotten to know Wolfensohn as I've written a book about his time at the bank, I'm not fool enough to rule him out. He is a screamer, a schemer, an astonishing force of nature. If there's something that he wants, he usually winds up getting it.
Even before he went to the World Bank, Wolfensohn had racked up quite a resume. He was an Olympic athlete. He amassed a fortune of more than $100 million on Wall Street.
He played his cello alongside Yo-Yo Ma and Isaac Stern and Vladimir Ashkenazy. He was the chairman of the Kennedy Centre for the Performing Arts, of Carnegie Hall in New York and of the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton; he won the Gay Men's Health Crisis Award for Distinguished and Pioneering Philanthropy.
You could never quite be sure who was going to appear at his Manhattan offices. It might be Jimmy Carter, or the queen of the Netherlands, or an opera singer, or a basketball player, or a Harlem dance group, or a South American president.
The World Bank president gets appointed by the U.S. government, and when the job last came open, in 1995, Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin did not want Wolfensohn to get it.
Rubin seldom lost an economic policy battle during the Clinton years, so his opposition looked insurmountable. But phone calls from around the world began to blitz Rubin's colleagues, and each caller emphasized Wolfensohn's Renaissance-man achievements.
Wolfensohn was known and loved in environmental circles, in population-control circles and in financial circles, naturally: He ran circles around all his opponents. His lobbying won him an audience with Bill Clinton, and the World Bank job was his. The candidate charmed the president so completely that Clinton celebrated his birthday at Wolfensohn's home just five months later.
Twice during his World Bank tenure, the whisperers intimated that Wolfensohn was on the outs. In 1999, when his first five-year term was coming up for renewal, the Clinton Treasury was mad at him: He was harbouring Joe Stiglitz, the bank's grenade-throwing chief economist, and Stiglitz had savaged the Clintonites during the Asian financial crisis.
There was talk that Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers wanted to make Wolfensohn's reappointment conditional upon Stiglitz's dismissal. But Wolfensohn rode out this storm serenely, confident that Clinton's backing was solid. I once asked him how he would have responded to a Summers ultimatum. "I'd have told him to [expletive] himself," Wolfensohn responded.
Wolfensohn faced another storm at the start of the Bush administration. Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill took such a dislike to Wolfensohn's flashy charm that he sought out candidates to replace him. But Wolfensohn proved his mettle once again.
He cultivated Colin Powell at the State Department and worked hard at the White House. At a meeting in March 2002, when O'Neill tried to provoke a fight with Wolfensohn that might have provided the excuse to push him out, Wolfensohn responded with a quiet calm. -Dawn/ Washington Post Service
Real issue is female education
Participants at a seminar in Karachi the other day discussed curriculum issues in Pakistan, and very rightly, recommended that the portrayal of women in textbooks needed to be changed. As it is, very few female personalities from history are mentioned in the Urdu, English or Pakistan Studies textbooks.
Even those who do get mentioned in these texts usually happen to be the mothers, daughters, wives or sisters of famous men. They and their achievements are usually described in those particular contexts.
Also, most female characters are shown in traditional roles where a woman's job is to make sure that she does what society - patriarchal and male-dominated - assigns her to do.
Hence, women in these texts appear as the housewife or the housekeeper, the bearer of children, the one who is committed to her husband and devoted to her family. There might be nothing wrong in this per se were it not for the fact that even in a society like Pakistan's, this is not the only thing that women do.
They do work, in increasing numbers, and not all of them come from high-income backgrounds. The majority comes from the burgeoning urban middle class. While such recommendations are indeed welcome and need to be implemented, the larger problem, as shown in the widening gap between the number of males who are literate and the number of females who have acquired education, needs to be paid perhaps even greater attention.
This is particularly important since there is no disagreement or controversy over the fact that much needs to be done to bring the literacy rate for females, currently at around 30 per cent, at par with that of males, to approximately 60 per cent.
This has to do with the fact that education spending is still pitiable, being at less than two per cent of GDP and that most of it is consumed in salaries and administrative costs.
The literacy gap between men and women was 25 percentage points 25 years ago, and by 2001 it had increased to 29 per cent. Given our population growth rate, though literacy rates have gradually gone up, the number of illiterates too has doubled since 1951. Even worse, the number of illiterate women has tripled.
Education experts are of the view that though the funds set aside for education are not adequate enough for a country with development needs like Pakistan, they could be better utilized and distributed.
However, the fact is that overall spending on education is dismal and should at least be five times more than what it currently is, if we are to really achieve 100 per cent literacy any time soon.
Countries much admired in Pakistan, and whose examples our policymakers and political leaders love to give at the drop of a hat, such as Singapore, Malaysia, South Korea, Thailand or China were able to perform miracles because they invested considerably, often more than 10 per cent of GDP, on education.
Some might say that the recent emergence of a well-funded proactive Higher Education Commission proves that at least this government has the right approach on the issue.
This is a welcome development but the fact remains that the primary area of concern in education reform has to be primary education and especially schooling for girls. By often hogging the media spotlight, the Higher Education Commission diverts attention from other more important issues and makes people think as if by doing this our education system will come closer to Malaysia's in 20 years.
Spending on universities and higher education is good but should not come at the expense of primary education especially when the latter faces problems as serious as high dropout rates, especially among girls, poor quality of teaching and so on.
All this makes for sorry reading, given that research has shown that investment in girls' education can yield much higher returns compared to that in education of boys, especially when the literacy gap between the two is as wide as it is in Pakistan.
Some mostly donor-funded schemes have been launched targeting increased enrolment for girls in some rural districts by giving them incentives like free lunches or free uniforms and textbooks. But a lot more needs to be done.
One serious impediment is the disturbingly high dropout rate for primary school students. According to the government's Pakistan Integrated Household Survey, in 2001-02, up to a third of all female students were leaving school after completing class VI.
What is equally worrying is that this figure hasn't really changed since the early 1990s suggesting that if any measures were being taken to address this issue, they were not effective. In fact, the figure for boys drop-outs after class VI - 24.4 per cent for 2001-02 - has also not changed much over the same period.
The main factors associated with the high dropout rate such as corporal punishment (now banned but common in most government schools), an outdated curriculum, mostly uninteresting textbooks and poorly-trained (and often truant) teachers are all problems that the federal and provincial governments have failed to address despite promises, tall claims and rhetoric.
The dropout rate is also closely linked to poverty levels as well since four-fifths of all dropouts happen to be from low-income families. One hopes that the government's much touted and much-appreciated (especially in foreign capitals) poverty alleviation campaign is able to make some kind of positive impact on this depressing situation.
There are other equally important reasons why the government should ensure that girls do not drop out. For instance, the country's high fertility rates (among the highest in the world and one reason why the population growth rate is so high) are believed by experts to be strongly linked with the level of female literacy.
A girl who goes to school and does not drop out will have an opportunity to enrol in higher education. With that comes the possibility of her acquiring a decent job and some degree of financial independence.
While this arrangement might not suit the family or her husband, it will certainly be of some benefit to the educated woman. Even otherwise, a literate woman is more likely to have less children and, regardless of her own financial condition, she will make sure that they all get education. Besides, her children are more likely to have better health and nutrition compared to those whose mother is illiterate.
Having more educated women is a boon for the community and the nation. Pakistan's very low level of female participation in the labour force will get a turnaround from this.
The consequence of that will mean that GDP and standards of living will rise. Besides, recent studies have shown that there is a difference in the way men and women spend household income. When women control the purse strings, they tend to allocate more for the family's nutrition, education and health than what men may do.
Hence, increase in girls' enrolment in schools should have a high priority in any government plan whose main aim is economic growth and primary development. The enlightened segments of society, like concerned individuals and private sector NGOs, must realize the importance of female education and play their due role in promoting it.
Unfortunately, our record is not all that admirable on this count. A large section of our intelligentsia is more fond of arm chair lecturing and academic nit picking or attending seminars in luxurious hotels, discussing "strategies", "action plans" and suggestions that have already been presented, discussed and debated ad nauseum.
Changes in textbooks with a view to portraying women in a more positive light is a laudable move but there can be no substitute for increased spending and focus on increasing girls enrolment in our schools, both by the government and by the private sector.
Reform should not be top-down like in the case of the Higher Education Commission. It needs to begin from the bottom up and can only happen if this issue is addressed with the seriousness it warrants.