THE future, as it would unfold in a chosen timeframe, is a matter of perennial speculation and planning by individuals, organizations and nations. It is, perhaps, the most fascinating of human endeavours influenced no less by our hopes and fears as by the dynamics of the given circumstances.

But projecting the future can be a very complex exercise, to the point of being meaningless, if one were to take into account all the numerous factors, from the universal to the local, that could impinge on our future. The focus in this article is, therefore, limited; it is limited to those elements of our present situation that are peculiar to our socio-political life, as distinguished from the common elements (illiteracy, poverty, fast population growth) that we share with other developing countries.

The peculiar elements of our socio-political life that could be expected to play a crucial role as the determinants of our future are these: the tension between various ethnic nationalities; the tension between sectarian communities; the tension between the revivalists and the reformists; and the tension between the military and civil society. For the sake of brevity of reference let’s call them ‘the four tensions’. And to begin with, let’s acknowledge the fact that the future of the state of Pakistan would depend on our ability, or the lack of it, to understand and resolve these tensions that can, if allowed to fester, shatter our social fabric and, ultimately, the state itself.

Now, let’s look at each of these four tensions a little closely for better comprehension of the situation that we are in. We begin with the ethnic tension that manifests itself at two levels. First, within each of the four provinces — Saraiki-Punjabi, Sindhi-Mohajir, Pathan-Baloch or Pathan-Hazarawal dissensions.

Second, between two or more provinces which, in fact, is a conflict of interest between Punjab on one hand and the rest of the provinces on the other. It has grown out of the perception, not wholly unfounded, of deprivation of rights and usurpation of resources by the dominant ethnic nationality. In recent months the ethnic political parties have trained their guns (at times literally) at the federal authority on issues like Kalabagh dam, Thal canal, natural resources and provincial autonomy. The ethnic sentiments today are at their worst since after the break-up of the country in 1971.

Second, the sectarian tension that has led to killings all over the country, even at places of worship. In fact the sectarian sentiments today are so intense that the fanatics on either side of the main sectarian divide are willing to lay down their lives as suicide bombers seeking oblivion for themselves and their chosen victims.

How and why has this contagion spread? Could it be that religious violence introduced during the anti-Qadiani movement in 1954 and later has become part of the sectarian mindset, and the exclusionist approach fostered by that movement impels the sectarian fanatics to discover ever new non-Muslims lurking in the fold of Islam who need to be purged by the true believers? Thus, even Shias, Barelvis, Deobandis and Agha Khanis have been purged out of Islam through speeches and fatwas. We should not be surprised if this breeds violence.

Third, the tension between the revivalists and the reformists or, if you will, the orthodox and the liberal. This is a conflict that the Muslim countries all over the world have been involved in for the last about 300 years. It has now acquired global ramifications and has become associated with violence. If the revivalists carry the day through violence and by espousing popular causes (Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya), we can expect the emergence of a Pakistan located on the socio-political scale somewhere between Afghanistan as it was under the Taliban and Iran as it is under the ‘Guardians’.

Fourth, the tension between the military and civil society. This tension is not so obvious as the other three are, mainly because it is a more recent one. To understand the nature and causes of this tension we have to keep in mind three given facts: first, the military does not command that much of popularity as it did until 1965; second, the two military regimes, after the first one, have left deep scars on our collective memory; third, over the years the military has been sucked into competition with civil society in practically every field: banking, insurance, education, civilian jobs, transport, construction work, urban and rural real estate and, above all, governance.

Now, none of the fields where military is in competition with civil society is a traditional or commonly accepted field. The fear is that competition on such a scale could lead to conflict or a series of conflicts between the military and civil society. That would, surely, undermine national solidarity, if not the integrity.

Finally, a common aspect of these tensions: though disparate and even contradictory, these tensions do share a common attribute: they, together and separately, tend to weaken the loyalty to the homeland by interposing substitute loyalties that are ethnic, sectarian, ideological or professional, and are more intensely felt and fostered than the loyalty to the state. It is as if the loyalty to the homeland has been put on the rack and is being pulled and stretched in four different directions. How long could this last without some of the lifelines snapping?

So much for the causes and nature of the socio-political tensions that, if unchecked, would determine our future in ways that none of us would like. But such are the oddities of human life that things that none of us likes may yet happen entirely because of our own actions. We must, therefore, move towards a resolution of these tensions before it is too late. And here are a few thoughts, not all of them new, on the resolution of each of the four causes of conflict.

First, the ethnic conflict. Apart from taking the obvious steps, such as greater provincial autonomy and more equitable share in jobs and resources, the time has come to give serious thought to the creation of ethno-linguistic provinces. The Indian experience shows that creation of separate provinces for the ethnic communities is the only realistic response to the ethnic aspirations.

However, new provinces should not be imposed but created through referendum in the areas or districts that are proposed to be constituted into a separate province. This would resolve the ethnic tensions within the existing provinces, and also reduce the tension between the provinces by ensuring that no province is too big to dominate the other provinces.

Second, the sectarian tension. It is possible to root out this menace to social cohesion if the government, with the support of the ulema, takes, as a matter of course, legal action against those who preach hate and violence at places of worship and elsewhere. If the law needs to be made more stringent, the Penal Code should be amended to achieve this purpose.

But more important than the legal code is the support of the ulema who exercise immense moral authority over the activists of their respective sects. The only problem is that there are some ulema who are part of the problem, not of the solution: they must be identified and isolated. That again is the responsibility of the ulema who owe it to the people to take a firm stand on this issue and take practical steps to resolve this tension. The government should encourage and support the ulema who are willing to do what they must.

Third, the tension between the revivalists and the reformists, or the orthodox and the liberals. Unfortunately for the Muslim world this conflict that started as a theological debate a long time ago, has now got mixed up with the on-going conflicts in Palestine, Kashmir, Chechnya and Mindanao where the orthodox (as jihadis) have assumed the role of champions of the cause of the Muslim communities there, and the liberals are seen as the apologists for the West. Thus, the resolution of this conflict, or even the softening of the militancy of the orthodox is inextricably linked with the conflict in Palestine, Kashmir, and elsewhere. Such being the facts of life there is not much that we can do to resolve the orthodox-liberal conflict in its violent form except wait for the resolution of the political conflicts in the occupied lands, and do whatever we can to resolve those conflicts.

Fourth, the civil-military tension. Now, this is a tension that is rather insidious, and wholly indigenous compared with the other three tensions that are quite open and have some beyond-the-border connections or implications. Since it is insidious it has to be openly acknowledged and debated as an issue. Because it is wholly indigenous, it should be amenable to relatively quick solution. As it is a civil-military tension it has to be tackled at the highest level on both sides of the civil-military divide.

Perhaps, one such forum could be the National Security Council (NSC) where both the civil and the military sides are represented at the highest level. The civil side is fairly representative too as it includes the Leader of the Opposition and the chief ministers of the provinces. If the NSC could initiate a dialogue on this issue, it would have done a great service to the nation, and more than justified its creation.

The future, as said at the beginning, is a matter of perennial speculation and also planning by individuals and nations alike. Here in Pakistan, however, the future is not a matter of much planning. We have left the future to the twists and turns of circumstances to shape it, although some of the determinants of our future are fairly obvious, and those that are likely to exercise evil influence on our future can be checked and corrected. But we refuse to intervene. How would, then, the future look like? Well, one has not been blessed with the ability to ‘look into the seeds of time’ and just as well, I think.

E-mail: tvo@isb.comsats.net.pk

LAST week’s judgment by the Sindh High Court on an MPA’s degree verification issue was not the first of its kind. Justice Mushir Alam dismissed the petition of Malik Imran Khan who had questioned the action of the Sindh anti-corruption department and the University of Karachi for holding an enquiry into the authenticity of his B.Com degree.

This gentleman who was elected on the PML-N ticket to the NWFP assembly in October 2002, later found his election challenged by his rivals on the ground that his degree was “bogus”.

The University of Karachi has confirmed that he had not cleared two papers in his bachelor’s examination in 1994 and therefore he did not qualify for a degree. What is at stake is not the degree but the assembly seat which depends on his having a valid degree.

A number of legislators — at least one MNA and two MPAs — have already been disqualified on grounds of having fake degrees. Other cases are believed to be before the courts. This is not a new problem for quite a few of our universities have been famous for being involved in the paper chase. True, the university may not be officially involved in the game of doling out degrees for the asking. But as is well known there are cells operating on their premises with the connivance of some corrupt members of their staff which issue counterfeit degrees on payment of a heavy sum.

This old problem has suddenly assumed a new and grave dimension because of the Musharraf government’s decision to make graduation one of the requisite conditions for contesting the October 2002 elections. That generated an extraordinary demand for ready-made degrees. Way back in December 2003, Dr Farooq Sattar, a Muttahida Qaumi Movement MNA, had declared at a public forum that the assemblies were full of people with fake degrees. He had called the members of parliament with dubious degrees “political quacks”.

Less than 15 months later one of his own party members, who is a minister of state for religious affairs and conducts a popular television programme to indoctrinate the ordinary folks, was accused of having obtained fraudulent master’s and PhD degrees. These allegations generated a lot of hot air and evoked a weak denial. But the concerned member’s seat was not challenged because his graduation was not in question. The only positive aspect of this bizarre phenomenon is that the political interest it has generated has created watchdogs and monitors — those who lost the election — who are willing to challenge and expose the false degrees of their rivals. That would explain why these cases are being unearthed under the glare of publicity.

But politicians are not the only ones who have been chasing fake degrees. Others in public life who need a degree to pursue their vocation or for promotions are allegedly seeking the easier way out. In fact a heated debate on the issue has been taking place after Qazi Isa Daudpota, an academic, wrote about the nature of the institutions and the doctorate degree conferred by them on high dignitaries of the academia. Although the chairman of the higher education commission, Dr Attaur Rahman, has declared the charges against the vice chancellor of the Quaid-i-Azam University as baseless, his explanation has been challenged and many questions still remain unanswered.

The fact is that given the high level of corruption that prevails in some of our universities, one knows that obtaining a fake degree from these supposedly sanctified institutions of higher learning is not an impossible task. The credibility of the universities has already sunk low. We now know that many universities abroad do not accept the degrees of Pakistani universities at their face value. They revert to local institutions for official verification of degrees when a candidate applies for admission, even though this is a time consuming process.

This corruption combined with the appalling standards — Dr Attaur Rahman himself conceded that many of these universities are at best glorified colleges — has undermined Pakistan’s higher education system. Even when the degrees are genuine, they carry little weight because the standards are so low that the students pass with the minimum of effort. Hence even in Pakistan, many institutions are not admitting students solely on the basis of their exam results but prefer to conduct their own admission tests. Even prospective employers hold written tests and put the applicant through a rigorous interview before making a job offer. Degrees now mean little. They are only used for screening out people and stemming the flood of applicants.

The question has been frequently raised in pertinent quarters: whose responsibility is it to investigate the authenticity of the degrees issued by a university? Can any one challenge a degree? What should be the higher education commission’s role in cleaning up the prevailing mess?

It is important that the HEC and the universities create a mechanism for checking the authenticity of degrees. Obviously every university will have to create an independent cell for this purpose. In order to ensure that the investigations are impartial and fair, some outside observers should be associated with it. As for the HEC, it may not be equipped to actually carry out the probe, but it should be empowered to order a university to look into a case. When should a case be investigated? Whenever charges are brought against a person who holds a public position and his appointment/promotion is dependent on the degree he holds. There should be absolutely no question of the HEC refusing to look into a charge of a false degree.

This may have to be spelled out clearly so that the HEC is not hauled to the court every time it investigates the authenticity of a degree. Interestingly, in the afore-mentioned case before the Sindh High Court, the petitioner didn’t challenge the finding of the university but was upset by the fact that the anti-corruption department had decided to investigate his degree. It gives the impression that it is the right of a person to obtain a fake degree!

Another issue — with a slightly different nuance — that needs some elucidation and must be addressed immediately is the acquisition of degrees from dubious institutions — many of them on-line ones. Any one with a computer and Internet would be familiar with the spam e-mails one receives every day offering a degree on line. “No classes, no study, no exams” the offer reads. It could be quite tempting to those who are not interested in books and studies.

In this globalized world of ours all the names of the universities, which crop up from time to time, are not familiar to people here. Hence it should be mandatory for a person to get such degrees issued by unheard institutions authenticated. This will have to be the responsibility of the higher education commission.

This is not a matter to be taken lightly. One hopes that it will be addressed in earnest and without much delay.