| May 30, 2005 | Monday | Rabi-us-Sani 21, 1426 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Not merely a talking point
NPT talks’ failure
THE National Economic Council (NEC), the highest economic decision-making body in the country, has approved a development and growth strategy for 2005-06 costing Rs. 272 billion and also a five-year development framework envisaging an estimated total investment of Rs. 7.95 trillion. The outlays for the two programmes appear adequate and the development priorities listed for the annual as well as the five-year plans seem to fit the short- and medium-term requirements of the country. What, however, is still a worrying matter is the poor rate of utilization of allocations. In the outgoing year, only about 49 per cent of the available resources under the public sector development plan could be utilized in the first 10 months. And the actual spending in the social sector, which made up 30 per cent of the total allocation, was even worse. Good rains, increased inflows of remittances and consumer-driven expansion in the manufacturing sector seem to have more than cushioned the consequences of the shortfalls in the Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP) resulting from a very slow off-take of allocated funds. Hence, the projected high growth rate for 2004-05. But even a growth rate of over eight per cent could not bridge the wide social gaps that have emerged from the non-implementation of a large number of social sector projects leading to the further widening and deepening of poverty levels.
The aim of all plans — short-, medium- and long-term — should be to achieve growth with equity. Given that land ownership and distribution is highly skewed, it is necessary to concentrate more on income sources that are independent of land. This would entail providing landless and small farmers easy access to credit, technology and information. Minimum wage laws should also be extended to the agricultural sector and all legislation, including that relating to workers’ protection and non-wage benefits, should be made applicable to this sector. Alternatively, land reforms should be undertaken along with the introduction of cooperative farming, with public sector equity to be provided in the shape of agri-inputs and marketing costs.
At the same time, the better-off should be made to share the hardships of the proposed second-generation reforms equitably with the less fortunate. It is indeed a matter of serious concern that only 1.2 million out of 150 million Pakistanis pay income tax. More scandalous is the fact that out of these 1.2 million, only 55,000 show an annual income of more than Rs. 250, 000. This is the reason why the country has never been able to show a tax-to-GDP ratio of more than 11-13 per cent even when it has achieved a very high growth rate. And that again is the reason why, despite all the grandiose planning and the official rhetoric associated with the exercise, every time Pakistan’s economy has shown robust growth, its benefits have largely remained confined to the higher-income groups with no succour for the middle and lower classes. So, it is imperative that while planning for the future, the government should focus on improving the working of its implementation machinery and the ability of the Central Board of Revenue to collect taxes more efficiently. At the same time, these plans should be tilted in favour of the urban squatters and the rural landless without putting any hurdles in the way of sustained growth.
ONE cannot but wonder about the purpose behind President Musharraf’s statement on Thursday that the Hudood laws deserved the attention of Muslim jurists. Since they were promulgated in 1979, three commissions have been set up — in 1985, 1996, 2001 — to review the ordinances and all have made almost identical recommendations— that it is important to do away with the discriminatory portions against women, of which there are many. The most recent commission set up by President Musharraf was headed by Justice Majida Rizvi who in 2003 recommended a complete repeal. The religious right has been consistently opposed to any change in the Hudood or any such laws. For political reasons, the commission’s recommendations were put on the backburner, ostensibly to please the religious orthodoxy whose misguided notions are given preference over issues like true justice for women. Justice Rizvi retired this year and her term as chairperson was not extended nor has anyone been appointed in her place. This is possibly an indication of even this government’s commitment to redressing the wrongs contained in the Hudood laws. When Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain says that no amendment repugnant to Islamic injunctions will be made in the ordinance, he should be reminded that provisions in the Constitution already exist to ensure that. Moreover, respected Muslim scholars and jurists, who have debated the issue, say that many portions of the ordinances are flawed; that only women are victimized under them and that they are contrary to the principles of Islam. Nor have they served as a deterrent as far as crimes against women go.
When President Musharraf speaks of the need to adopt critical thinking while addressing the Hudood Ordinances, the question arises as to what more reasoning is needed to amend or repeal the controversial laws. It seems that such placatory comments are periodically made to remind us that the government is committed to women’s issues when in reality little is done. The president must have the will to address the Hudood Ordinances in right earnest and not treat the matter as a talking point.
THE failure of the nuclear non-proliferation conference in New York should surprise no one. Given the sharp differences among the 188 members who are signatories to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), only a miracle could have secured a consensus on re-writing the 1968 NPT. The aim before the conference was to plug the loopholes in the NPT that allow the non-signatories to seek to develop nuclear weapons. From this point of view, the drafters of the treaty are nearly four decades behind time. The basic flaw is the original treaty itself, for instead of striving for a nuclear-free world, the NPT legalized the nuclear monopoly of a few nations. Those who possess them are also permanent members of the Security Council with a veto, and they expect all other nations of the world not to aspire for a nuclear status. In 1974, India tested a nuclear device, and in 1998, following the Indian nuclear tests, Pakistan also followed suit. All along, Israel has been developing nuclear weapons with the full knowledge and support of some Nato nations. France gave Israel a nuclear reactor, and the Americans one day discovered that the uranium “stolen” from one of their reactors had landed in Israel.
Today, North Korea and Iran are aspiring to tread the nuclear route and are facing America’s wrath. On the other hand, Israel, the Middle East’s only nuclear power, enjoys Washington’s unqualified support. America also changed the very purpose behind the holding of the conference by saying the issue was not nuclear disarmament but proliferation. Its main concern is that nuclear weapons should not fall into terrorist hands. The goal before the world should be universal nuclear disarmament and not the perpetuation of the exclusive club. So long as some nations seek to maintain their nuclear monopoly, it would be impossible to stop other nations from trying to gatecrash into the nuclear club.