| 29 January 2005 | Saturday | 18 Zilhaj 1425 |
Pace of composite dialogue
Combating gender bias
Now when Mr George Bush has taken the oath of office for his second term, analysts are trying to figure out what lies in store for the next four years. With second term presidencies, the first two years are more important because, after the mid-term Congress elections, the presidency starts to lose its magic and the incumbent usually becomes a lame duck.
Since the first term was devoted to changing the world, the second term is expected to be devoted to changing America. It is widely believed that the main focus of change will be at home because Mr Bush wants to embark on a Republican New Deal.
Besides other measures, he wants to privatize a part of the pensions system, and ultimately a part of the health system, simplify the tax system and create what he calls an "ownership" society. The magnitude of Mr Bush's domestic agenda is likely to keep him engaged on the home front most of the time.
It may be recalled that even in his first term Mr Bush introduced some extraordinary measures at home: among other things, one of the largest cuts in history, the biggest shake up of American schools for a generation, the transformation of the armed forces and the further consolidation of executive power.
What new trends are expected in American foreign policy in the next four years? Mr Bush told British Prime Minister Tony Blair last November that he would work to deepen America's transatlantic ties with European nations and intended to visit Europe as soon as possible after his inauguration. He is scheduled to arrive in Europe on February 22.
The choice of Ms Condoleezza Rice as secretary of state is significant. Though Ms Rice is less multilateralist than Colin Powell, her appointment will result in a more coordinated foreign policy.
Also, it is taken as a signal that Mr Bush, by asserting greater control over the state department, is preparing to engage more with his European allies. This assessment is confirmed by the appointment of Robert Zoellick as deputy secretary of state.
The former counsellor to James Baker, senior Bush's secretary of state, and at present US trade representative, Zoellick is a known internationalist and will facilitate dialogue with European nations. He fully understands the way globalization serves US interests and the need to manage it with European allies.
The real concern of Europeans is about unconstrained US power and about regaining some control over how it is exercised. Long accustomed to helping shape the world, they do not want to sit back now and let the US do all the driving, especially when it is driving dangerously and sometimes even in the wrong direction.
That is the reason European nations are trying to put relations with Washington back on track ahead of the Bush visit to the European Union and Nato headquarters next month.
Calls for stronger transatlantic cooperation are emanating not only from America's traditional allies - Britain, Netherlands, Poland and the Nordic countries - but also from Germany and France, who opposed the US-led invasion of Iraq. But it will not be easy to bring about genuine understanding and cooperation between the United States and its European allies. The two sides continue to differ on a number of economic and political issues like Iraq's reconstruction, peace in the Middle East how best to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions and cooperation with China.
The issue of China is a sensitive one for both the Americans and the Europeans. Since the beginning of his first term, a lot of change has taken place in the thinking of Mr Bush with regard to China which has moved from public enemy number one to a more nuanced position.
The choice of Zoellick, a known pragmatist on China, as deputy secretary of state, will also be helpful in maintaining good relations with the Chinese. The dispute with the Europeans over China has arisen because the EU is planning, after the visit of French and German presidents to Beijing, to lift the arms embargo on China imposed after the 1989 Tiananmen affair. The Americans do not want the arms embargo on China lifted.
The US grievance is that though in Iraq it did what the Europeans wanted it to do - transferred sovereignty, returned to the United Nations, arranged elections - France and Germany have hardly moderated their hostility.
While the Americans are going to declare the Iraqi elections a success, the Europeans will declare them a failure. The Americans want at least political support from the Europeans on Iraq and preferably much more material help. But this seems a tall order at the moment.
As the domestic agenda sucks in Mr. Bush, there is a possibility that he will minimize his commitments overseas. The first opportunity is likely to come after the Iraqi elections.
After declaring that America has delivered democracy, there may be the temptation to leave Iraq before a new government has established itself in Baghdad, especially if American troops continue to die at the current rate.
Iran presents another problem. The Europeans want the United States to support the efforts being made by France, Germany and Britain to bring to an end Iran's nuclear programme.
Publicly, Washington supports the Europeans, but privately Americans officials maintain that the negotiations are doomed to failure because the Iranians are bent upon acquiring nuclear weapons.
Another bone of contention is that the Americans want the Europeans to agree that if their current negotiations fail and they hit a dead end in Iran, they will support US call for UN sanctions against Tehran.
Throughout his election campaign, Mr Bush repeatedly said that if, re-elected, he would fulfil his commitment to spread democracy throughout the Middle East.
During his post-re election meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair an intention was expressed to "use the next four years to spend the capital of the United States on a Palestinian state."
The opening has come about because of a change in circumstances in the form of the demise of Yasser Arafat and the election of a new Palestinian leader. It is, however, not yet clear whether he will put stronger pressure on the Israelis and Palestinians to come to terms with each other or whether he just wants to build up Palestinian institutions and encourage Palestinian democracy.
All said and done, the fact remains that America's current global predominance constitutes unipolarity. Despite what others have argued or wished, no attempts to equal US power are likely to succeed in the foreseeable future.
The sources of American strength are so varied and durable that the US at present enjoys more freedom in foreign policy choices than any other country in modern history.
As far as the conduct of the US foreign policy is concerned, it appears almost certain that the focus of the second Bush term will be on changing America rather than the world.
George Bush will have less and less time for affairs outside the country. It also appears that there will be no major changes in the US foreign policy in the next four years.
During his recent visit to Canada, Mr. Bush was asked about polls showing fall in America's reputation north of the border. "I haven't seen the polls you look at," replied Mr. Bush.
"We just had a poll in our country where people decided that the foreign policy of the (Bush) administration ought to stay in place for another four years." That confirms the view that no serious reappraisal of foreign policy is being contemplated for the second Bush term.
The writer is a former ambassador.
Pace of composite dialogue
Pakistan Foreign Minister Khursheed Kasuri is not too happy with the progress of the composite dialogue between New Delhi and Islamabad. He suspects that the government of India has deliberately slowed down its pace and he attributes it to "some hawks" in the ministry of external affairs.
"We know this from our own sources," he says. "But neither the president (Pervez Musharraf) nor I have given up hope despite many Pakistanis blaming us for having been taken for a ride once again."
Khursheed feels personally embarrassed because his reputation is that of a pro-India liberal. Since he has been part of Track II - people-to-people contact - in the past, he clutches to any straw in the sea of despondency.
For example, the day I met him at Islamabad, he saw a positive message in the statement by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh that he wanted "out of the box" solutions to settle the country's disputes with neighbours, Pakistan and China.
The breakdown of talks on the Baglihar project was on Khursheed's mind. He did not go beyond Pakistan's stated position that India's design of gates was "defective." Yet, he wished there had been a settlement. He admitted, "all this affects normalization of relations between the two countries."
I told him I could already see the fallout on people-to- people contact. The Pakistan government had refused visas to some 25 NGOs wanting to attend a peace and friendship seminar at Lahore. He said he would look into the matter. I gave details to his ministry's director-general. Still visas did not come through. The seminar had to be postponed.
Is this a warning by Islamabad that people-to-people contact would be in proportion to the progress made on talks about Kashmir? The first shelling by Pakistan on the LoC after the cease-fire was also around the same date, January 18, when the peace seminar was scheduled to take place. It was too much of a coincidence.
But for these irritations, I found Lahore and Islamabad, the two cities I visited, friendly. Leave aside the obsequious intelligence men who are all around you, the atmosphere in Pakistan is relaxed.
People talk less of confrontation and more of peace and friendship. Their warmth towards Indians is overwhelming. The press, including Urdu newspapers, is not that harsh as it was a year ago. Indian films are still banned. But you can see them on TV channels at home or in the comfort of your hotel.
India has suddenly shot up in people's estimate. One, its economic progress is followed admiringly. Two, there is great appreciation for the country's democratic polity - peaceful change of governments, fair elections and the defined role of the armed forces.
A country which has been ruled by the military, off and on, for 29 years in its life span of 57, is understandably envious of free and open society. Yet, seldom do the press and people in Pakistan join issue with the armed forces.
They are conscious of the limit beyond which they cannot go. When a few have crossed it, the punishment has been severe. I did not meet anyone, during my four-day stay in Pakistan, defending the military rule. But then I also did not meet anyone who would tell me when and how democracy could return to Pakistan.
A feeling of resignation has crept in. But the redeeming factor is that people still talk of politics and parties. Religious parties are losing their support rapidly. Even otherwise, the maulvi has never been an endearing entity in Pakistan. But it goes to the credit of President Musharraf that he is trying to give a modern face to Islam. That he is retaining the position of president and that of the chief of army staff is a different story.
The middle class that could challenge the military rule is absorbed in enhancing its standard of living. Economic growth rate is around five per cent and the US aid is substantial, even to finance the students who want to study in America.
Vehicles on the road have increased in number. So have people at restaurants and hotels. Shops are well stocked and a large number of customers are milling around the malls and markets. Familiar screaming slogans and posters have disappeared from the roadside walls.
Lahore is clean. Its airport, compared to the poky one at Delhi, is elegant and impressive. There is a welcome change even in the drab advertisements which meet your eyes.
Women too figure in the ads. I counted four in the arrival lounge. Unlike India, porters, to the relief of women and senior citizens, collect the luggage from the conveyor belt and take it right to your vehicle.
At the immigration desk, a young lady clears you in no time. She is least bothered about your religion - its deletion from the Pakistan passport under the government's instructions has evoked opposition from the extremists. My surprise knew no bounds when I found the lady reading news on PTV bareheaded.
Pakistan is not a failed state. It is a troubled state. All the four provinces of the country, Balochistan, Sindh, the NWFP and Punjab are in the midst of one problem or the other. Sectarian violence is increasing, suggesting unrest.
Primarily, it is a protest against too much centralization. The one-man rule in the army-led government has emasculated the provincial governments. On the other hand, politicians have very little space to operate from.
Both the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) and Nawaz Sharif's Muslim League in the opposition are constantly harassed so that their members are forced to join the King's Party, the Muslim League (Quaid-i-Azam).
The most disturbed province is Balochistan. True, a rape case triggered the trouble which led to the attack on Sui gas installation - now taken over by the army. But essentially, it is the feeling that the Balochs are always pushed to the wall.
Musharraf reportedly promised them autonomy, the demand that late Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto suppressed even by resorting to air bombing. Even he started on a different note: he appointed Nawab Akbar Bugti, chief of Bughti tribe, as the state governor.
I recall meeting Bugti at Quetta when he was governor. Even then he was full of rancour and bitterness for not getting the autonomy that Bhutto had promised. When I told Bhutto at Islamabad that the Balochistan governor did not like the shackles, he said Bugti should not be saying so, after unburdening himself for four hours in a meeting with an Indian journalist.
Another incident that has rocked Pakistan is the sectarian violence in Gilgit, up in the north. Agha Ziauddin, a Shia leader, and his guard, Tanvir Hussain, were murdered the other day.
The army has intervened to restore peace. Against religious fanaticism, this action by the military comes as a relief. This reaction may tell upon democracy but many Pakistanis have come to regard the army as protectors.
The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.
Combating gender bias
The plight of women in this country is not restricted to the evil they face in obscurant laws enacted by an oppressive and regressive dictator or indeed to honour killing alone.
Nor anymore is women's emancipation linked to the packing of the assemblies and local bodies with 33 per cent female members. This has proved to be little more than the fad of an enlightened and moderate autocrat.
The entire attitude towards women is degrading. For the multitude of women who may never be subjected to the Hudood Ordinances or found sullying the family honour, nor indeed make it into assemblies, gender bias begins and ends within the four protective walls called home.
For many, their only window on the world is the electronic media, which we are told has never been freer. Ironically, that freedom is now being used by some educated and seemingly liberal women, who appear as experts in TV talk shows, to reinforce gender stereotypes.
Tune in any channel on the 'free' media, that is if you are liberal enough to have your freedoms beamed into your home and PTV is not your only choice, and you'll know what is meant here.
Better still, why do you think so many men call into live FM radio shows to complain about their wives being demanding; the answer: only to be put at ease by an educated and respected female soothsayer.
The advice offered to an errant woman inadvertently is: 'mend your ways or you shall burn in hell.' One anchorwoman said the other day that no man is expected to feed his wife without being charmed by her. Another on another channel broke into a pathetic soliloquy when a man called in to complain that his wife was 'probably' cheating on him.
Suspicion, the obvious evil, did not cross the mind of the wise soothsayer, who said men cheating on their wives was bad but a woman cheating on her husband is infinitely worse and unacceptable in our culture. Religious values were also cited to lend credence to the admonishment.
And this was in Karachi, arguably the most liberal of our cities. What then to speak of the rural hinterland and the tribal/feudal customs prevailing there? The problem is so pervasive that it is sickening.
Why must a gender distinction be drawn between a wrong act committed by either sex? What is wrong is equally wrong for both, but for our messed up values based on hypocrisy rather than religion or culture. It is in reality the negation of the latter.
It has become fashionable to ascribe such phoney values to the prevalence of feudal/tribal culture or to rampant ignorance in the far-flung hinterland, of which many of us urbanites only have little experience, if at all.
This is not to defend what goes on in the rural areas, but it is not these areas from where we beam into homes our so-called new-found freedom via the idiot box. How many times have we heard that exposure to media can bring about big change in our society? It is this very media that we need to change social attitudes towards women.
In many educated urban households around the country grown-up daughters continue to be seen as a burden on the family. Though most middle class parents will put their daughters through college and university, many would not allow their qualified daughter to take up a job after she graduates.
There are cases even of young women holding professional degrees in medicine, engineering and architecture who have been barred by their families from joining the job market.
So what do these young women do sitting at home all day? Many are expected to help their mothers in household chores or give tuition to neighbourhood youngsters, preferably girls, that does not involve leaving their parents' protective home environment.
Mothers worrying about their daughter's marriage are also known to raise sons who forbid their sisters from working in a mixed office environment where, it is believed, prying male colleagues have an eye for women co-workers.
What then is the vocation of an educated girl whiling her time away at home? She joins her mother in the gloom that has descended upon the family in the form of 'no eligible bachelor is seeking her hand in marriage'.
The resulting self-pity becomes so pronounced with every passing year that the educated girl often falls victim to manic depression, with old parents complaining they can't even die in peace.
This attitude is entirely self-imposed and derived from misconceived notions of what our society and culture should or should not permit, as opposed to what they do permit.
With the passage of time, however, social attitudes towards the girl child are undergoing change, some for the better, others for the worse. A new breed of young mothers has evolved over the past few years that comprises women raised in a liberal family environment back in their parents' homes. Many of these young mothers may themselves have gone to co-ed schools and colleges, with some indeed having married for love.
Converted somewhere along the path to new found religiosity of the showcase variety, many can now be seen hounding co-ed school management's insisting that their daughters should not be subjected to co-education beyond the primary level.
A number of top-notch schools in Karachi and Lahore have been forced to separate girls from boys as they promote schoolchildren to class six. Others force their daughters to leave the non-compliant school and seek admission in an all-girls school.
A class six entry survey in a given girls' school will reveal how prevalent this trend is, with some schools forced to add more sections to their secondary levels to accommodate the rush.
A section of affluent young 'begums' who would not allow their daughters eligible for class six and above the freedom of studying in a co-ed environment will squarely put the blame on media exposure.
It is customary to say that back in their teens they themselves were not exposed to the kind of lewdness their impressionable girls are now exposed to via the cable in their own homes. And this is where the hypocrisy of it all lies.
Who controls TV viewing in the home? one may ask. 'You can't', will be the standard answer. This is because many parents, even the most highly educated ones, have nowadays come to believe that it is the school's job to do the upbringing too. Hence the shifting of the emphasis on 'what school is your daughter going to?'
The point missed here is that while the school will only provide the schooling, the parenting will have to be done by the parents themselves. And that responsibility does not end at getting your daughter into the right school.
There is nothing wrong with making a choice whether one wants to send one's children to a co-ed school or not. What is depressing to note is that the question will rarely be raised by mothers about their male children.
More surprising still, the same mother who would be wary of sending her daughter to a co-ed school would find nothing wrong with it when it comes to making the choice for her son. This is not only hypocritical on the part of the parents but is also indicative of the gender bias that continues to exist across all strata of urban society.
There is something seriously wrong with such attitudes. Where, one wonders, are the writers, scholars and opinion-makes who would challenge these false notions of chastity that have such a pronounced gender bias built into them.
At the end of the day the onus of society as a whole having good or bad morals continues to be put squarely on women - be it city life or that in the backwaters of the tribal rural hinterland.
Unless enlightened opinion makers, writers, politicians and sociologists come forward, a society in transformation such as ours has little hope of leaving behind the notions of family honour resting on women's chastity alone.
Every household that makes the dubious distinction between what is socially and morally right and what is not based on gender alone is guilty of killing the honour of its own daughters within the protective walls of its own home.
Is it any wonder then that our 'graduate' assemblies and 33 per cent of women sitting there, and presided over by an all-powerful president who advocates 'enlightened moderation', have failed to do away with legislation as inimical to women as the Hudood Ordinances? But the truth remains that the government's failure to do so does not absolve the urban intelligentsia of its social responsibility to step in and make its voice of sanity heard.
It also does not absolve those mainstream political parties who claim to espouse enlightened, liberal and secular ideals. It is a sin to blame a handful of obscurant parties for the dismal state of affairs without the more responsible ones doing what is expected of them.