| 18 January 2005 | Tuesday | 07 Zilhaj 1425 |
Haphazard urbanization
Increasing crop output
True to form, Mr Ariel Sharon has scuttled whatever chances there were for reviving the peace process in the post-Arafat era. On Sunday, the Israeli prime minister gave his military full powers for a crackdown on Palestinians.
The news agencies spoke of "a tough crackdown" - as if what the Israeli occupation authorities have so far been doing wasn't tough enough. More amazingly, a western news agency - unabashedly biased - said Mr Sharon had "lost his patience" with the new Palestinian prime minister.
Mr Abbas was elected prime minister in polls held on a Sunday. He took the oath of office the next Saturday, and on Sunday Mr Sharon lost patience with the new prime minister.
While giving orders to his trigger-happy soldiers, Mr Sharon authorized them to "operate without any limits on time or their modus operandi". Immediately after Mr Sharon issued the order for what is likely to lead to the murder of more Palestinian civilians, the Central Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization called for a halt to all military action.
In his speech after taking the oath of office, Mr Abbas condemned all acts of violence, saying he was seeking a "mutual cease fire". Yet as he spoke, Israeli fire in Gaza killed seven Palestinians and wounded 12.
Two days earlier, Palestinian resistance had killed six Israelis. With Mr Sharon giving a carte blanche to his security forces, there is little possibility that there will be an end to violence, much less a revival of the peace process.
There are now endless comments by western analysts and media focussing on Mr Abbas's personality and on his ability or otherwise to control terrorism. A successful crackdown on terrorists by Mr Abbas, we are told, could lead to a revival of the peace process.
If the violence continues - which obviously it will - the peace process will remain on hold. The truth is that these are inanities designed to obfuscate the real issue. The real issue in the holy land is the continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza by Israel.
This occupation must end, and a sovereign Palestinian state with Al Quds as its capital must come into being. If Israel does not pull out - and under the Sharon government there is little possibility of that - the Palestinians will be justified in fighting for freedom and trying to expel the occupiers and illegal settlers.
Already, Israel consists of 78 per cent of the Turkish sanjak of Palestine. The remaining 22 per cent has been under its military occupation since 1967. All peace formulae have essentially conceded this point - that Israel must withdraw from the occupied territories, so that a Palestinian state can live in peace with Israel.
However, with full help form Washington, Tel Aviv has undermined all peace processes. They include the Oslo process and the roadmap initiated by President George Bush in April 2003.
Accepted by the Palestinian Authority immediately, the roadmap was sabotaged by Mr Sharon. The American president agreed with Mr Sharon that Israel would retain "some" West Bank land even after withdrawing from Gaza.
He also reneged on the 2005 deadline fixed in the roadmap for a Palestinian state to emerge. Now with Yasser Arafat no more on the scene, there is a fresh opportunity for the US to revive the peace process. If Washington panders to Mr Sharon's wishes, there will be little possibility that there will ever be peace in the Middle East.
Haphazard urbanization
The Frontier government's official study on the problems associated with unplanned urbanization in that province reads like a white paper on the state of affairs in our big cities everywhere.
The report concludes by blaming it all on the lack of planning and coordination among various tiers of the government as well as several development and civic agencies. Migration of the rural poor to cities is the defining factor in the haphazard growth seen by many of our big cities over the past two decades.
This has increased the number of the urban poor who are condemned to live in subhuman conditions and without access to basic amenities of life. The ghettoization of large urban spaces in our cities has led to an increase in crime, social discord and diseases, and decapitation of what could have matured into a productive urban workforce.
Karachi by far is the worst hit city in terms of these problems, with Lahore, Peshawar, Quetta and others steadily following suit. By conducting the latest study on the phenomenon, the Frontier government has identified key areas of development where attention needs to be focused to avoid compounding the problems of unplanned urbanization.
Migration of the rural poor to cities is a common Third World phenomenon which the countries concerned are least equipped to address. The 'for tressing' of the developed world, whereby strict visa regimes and border surveillance by governments have drastically limited the number of economic migrants from poor countries, has added to the problems faced by many Third World cities, including our own.
It is estimated that the world's 10 most populated cities will be in the developing world by 2020. The dubious distinction means that these will also be the most unlivable urban centres in the world.
The task of setting things right to avoid a doomsday scenario is a colossal one and far beyond the capacities of the poor countries. There is therefore an urgent need to prepare for this challenge on a global basis, where the rich and poor must join hands to avert the worsening of human misery.
Increasing crop output
Pakistan is set to reap a bumper cotton crop this year with predictions in excess of 15 million bales. Despite this, agriculture experts have said that yield per acre for cotton, as well as other major cash crops, remains well below its potential.
A comparison with crops grown in other countries with similar farming conditions confirms this. For example, in Indian Punjab yield per acre is higher than what it is in our Punjab.
One of the reasons for this are the intensive farming techniques adopted there by farmers as a result of small land holdings. In comparison, land holdings in Pakistan are much larger and it is here that inefficiencies come into the equation.
There are differences in the mode of cultivation, the level of mechanization achieved and the farm management system that ensures productivity. However, a more vital differential is that on the Indian side farmers are the owners of the land they till while in Pakistan, in most cases, they are either tenants or share croppers under the pervasive feudal system.
The prospects of financing in the sector are also looking bright. The State Bank has said that loans to the agriculture sector from private banks have increased during the current fiscal year.
The agriculture sector is witnessing a turnaround under which more investment will be made in mechanization and this should translate into higher crop yield. The government, however, needs to play a more active part in raising crop yields.
For one, investment in agriculture research has to be increased considerably. At the same time, the quality of fertilizer and pesticides also affects crop yield significantly. In this, there should be strict monitoring of these two agriculture inputs so that the quality as well as correct usage can be ensured.
Water supply is another area of worry. This needs to be sorted out among the provinces. With Pakistan aiming at exports to rise to about $20 billion in the next four years and textile exports increasing to $14 billion from the current seven billion dollars, the demand for cotton is bound to rise. If this rise in demand is met through local production, the economy as a whole will benefit.