| 11 February 2005 | Friday | 01 Muharram 1426 |
Piety at public expense
Jointly fighting Aids
Among the major issues that have defied a consensus in Pakistan is the Kalabagh dam. A proposal more than two decades old, the dam has become controversial because of stiff opposition from some quarters in the NWFP and Sindh, especially the latter.
Large sections of the farming community in these provinces believe that their interests will be hurt if the project sees the light of day. On the other hand, dams are needed.
The country's population is fast increasing, while water availability and power needs have to keep pace with the future demands of agriculture and industry. This is essential if the rate of economic growth is to forge ahead of the current 6.5 per cent. The ground reality, however, is grim. The Tarbela dam is silting fast, and it has already lost 30 per cent of its storage capacity.
This has affected both the availability of water for irrigation and the quantum of power production. De-silting the dam is a costly proposition, and experts do not consider it feasible. This leaves the nation with no choice but to have another big dam, or perhaps several smaller dams.
Regrettably, so much time has passed but no government has been able to secure the approval of all the provinces. Large sections of well-informed people in Sindh feel that another big dam upstream will deny the province its share of water for agriculture. They contend that the reduced flow of the Indus waters into the Arabian Sea will affect Sindh's coastal ecology, damage mangrove forests, and allow saline water to move inland. This will seriously affect Sindh's coastal communities.
These fears need to be allayed. If the fears are unfounded, then they should be proved to be so by confronting the opponents with technical facts and statistics with regard to the flow of water. Pro-dam experts say that a lot of water at present goes into the sea without being utilized, and that the Kalabagh dam will store it and release it when needed. This way no province will be denied its share; instead, it will get it in leaner months.
This government has made its intentions on Kalabagh dam clear. President Musharraf has said that the dam will have to be built. On Wednesday he reaffirmed this position but said the report by the technical committee will go to parliament after approval by the cabinet. There is obviously no better place to discuss the issue than parliament. As representatives of the people of Pakistan, the members of the National Assembly and the senators are the ultimate authority for deciding this sensitive issue.
The country needs a big dam - or perhaps several smaller ones - but a decision of this nature must come from the people's representatives. No attempt should be made to impose the decision on any province or to ignore or bypass any given province or region. At the same time, one expects the anti-dam lobby not to politicize the issue. The dam should be supported or opposed on solid technical grounds, taking into account the effects, beneficial or otherwise, it will have on the country and regions.
Any attempt to exploit the issue for political purposes will serve no one's cause and merely delay a consensus. The government must make the technical report public so that it generates a healthy debate and helps people on both sides of the divide become aware of the issues involved.
Piety at public expense
The revelations made in the Senate on Wednesday that three prime ministers (Mr Shaukat Aziz and his two predecessors) spent Rs 43 million of taxpayers' money on performing umra confirms how those already armed with power and privilege continue to flout all principles of public morality. Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain took an entourage of 134 people during his brief two months or so of prime ministership, and it reportedly included his mother, two sons and two nephews.
Others who went on these similar trips include nine federal ministers, several ministers of state, MNAs, senators, government officials, friends of the prime minister, domestic staff, journalists working with state-owned media, and even a well-known singer. Most of these people, especially the prime ministers, the ministers, and the parliamentarians could have easily gone for umra at their own expense if they felt sufficiently motivated to make the pilgrimage.
We are sure they must have prayed for the welfare of Pakistan and the poor people of this country. But that does not excuse the scandalous misuse of their office. The federal education minister was recently said to have barred all foreign trips by his officials, but this seems to be a step taken in isolation.
This is by no means a new phenomenon. Everyone down the years who has had an opportunity to reinforce his piety and refresh his soul at public expense has done so. This is in addition to the many other trips abroad that are made by ministers and officials with large delegations for which proper justification is hard to find. Members of parliament, especially those with the ruling party, are routinely sent on foreign junkets, often without regard to need or merit, and simply to keep them happy and contented.
This culture of patronage needs to be dispensed with. It is morally wrong and economically wasteful in a country where officials daily voice their concern for poverty alleviation. Mr Shaukat Aziz should issue a ruling banning all such visits, and should set an example by pledging to apply the rule to his own office and by refunding the money spent on his umra trip.
Jointly fighting Aids
The intended visit of a group of doctors and nurses to India for training in anti-retroviral therapy is a positive sign that health authorities in Pakistan are taking the HIV/Aids threat seriously. Besides strengthening collaboration on health problems - many of which are common to both countries - this move, from Pakistan's point of view would be cost-effective.
It would enable doctors here to acquire expertise in dealing with a disease, which killed more than three million people world-wide last year, at a fraction of the cost of training in a western country. While the low prevalence of HIV infection and Aids in Pakistan (estimates place the number of such cases between 70,000 to 80,000) is often cited to explain the absence of an aggressive strategy to combat the disease, it is obvious that health authorities cannot remain complacent for too long.
As long as sexual aberrations, chiefly among the migrant labour class, the sharing of needles among drug addicts and unsafe blood-related medical practices exist, this scourge can only spread. In a matter of years, Pakistan may find itself unable to turn the clock back to the days when an effective preventive strategy would have curbed its spread.
India can help Pakistan cope with the menace. With its own large population of five million HIV-infected people, it has much experience in dealing with Aids. Not only are the doctors there in a position to give advice on the preventive aspect of the disease, given the similar cultural ambiance in both countries, there is also much information to impart on the social dimensions of Aids and on how to raise public awareness. One hopes that due consideration is given to proposals for collaborative efforts on Aids control as these could go a long way in checking the spread of the disease in this region.