| July 31, 2005 | Sunday | Jumadi-us-Sani 23, 1426 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Pipeline assurances
Spin on education
PRESIDENT Pervez Musharraf’s observations during a meeting with the foreign media on Friday reveal a mind that is as worried as it is keen to act. Some of the points he made were repetitious, but the decision about expelling 1,400 foreign students and to disallow foreign students and those holding dual nationality to come to Pakistan is controversial. Foreign students have been coming to Pakistan for religious education for decades. In fact, South Asia has a tradition of running some of the well-known religious institutions to which foreign students flocked. Deoband, founded in 1867 in U.P., India, drew Arab students even during the British period. That tradition has continued in Pakistan, and many madressahs have acquired a reputation as institutions of learning. Most foreign students come to Pakistan from South-East Asian and African countries, and there is nothing on record to show that they have turned into terrorists. In the tribal area, because of its proximity to Central Asia, madressahs there have attracted students from some former Soviet republics, especially Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Some of them may have been bitten by the Taliban bug but certainly not all of them.
As the president said, Pakistan has to proceed with “moderation and prudence”. That calls for basic reforms and liberal socio-political policies and actions — and not a general crackdown on madressahs as the source of all evils. They certainly need to be brought under some government regulation and their curriculum modernized. Also, where madressahs are being used to preach violence and terror as a mode of political action and/or to provide training and motivation to militants they should either be closed down or strict action taken to stop such activities. Aside from these steps, there is no justification for a general crackdown on all religious institutions regardless of their standing or credentials.
The decision to bar foreign students and those holding dual nationality may please ill-informed western governments and media but will hardly make a dent in the problem of terrorism or indeed prove easy to implement. Besides, it is not advisable to try to prevent a Pakistani travelling on a foreign passport and holding a Pakistan-origin card from entering the country of his origin. How does one stop him at the airport when he enters Pakistan to meet his cousins and later goes to a madressah?
Mercifully, the president realized the damage done to “the national fabric” by events following the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 and emphasized the need for restoring harmony in society. This cannot be done by administrative measures alone. There is an acute polarization in the country between those who want to see Pakistan in the Quaid’s image and those who stand for a theocratic dispensation. Ultimately, which way the country goes will be determined by democratic means. In brief, it is through the consolidation of democratic values, constitutionalism and the rule of law that polarization will weaken and lead to the emergence of a pluralistic polity. This requires that the government should behave democratically. Its occasional compromise with the clerics and its ostracization of some opposition parties have not helped matters. Extremism can be eliminated only through society’s willing cooperation. Outside the borders of the country, there is a need for Islamabad to coordinate its activity with the Muslim world and counter the wrongful profiling of Muslims, as noted with concern by Asean’s Muslim Foreign Ministers in Vientiane on Friday. There is no doubt that the root cause of terrorism — Palestine and Kashmir and the occupation of Iraq — have created an anti-western wave. But that truth should in no way deflect from the prime task of setting our own house in order.
INDIAN Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s statement in the Lok Sabha that the US understood India’s need to have “unhindered access” to “adequate and affordable energy supplies from all sources” should allay fears that New Delhi might drop out of the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline project that is strongly opposed by Washington. Doubts arose when, in an interview with the Washington Post during his recent US trip, Dr Singh referred to the “many risks” the project entailed, in view of the uncertain situation in Iran and the likely reluctance of financiers to provide funds for the project. He also talked of “reckless” nuclear proliferation in the region, and referred to militancy in Pakistan. Dr Singh’s assurances to parliament are thus welcome and closely follow those of the Indian Petroleum Minister, Mani Shankar Aiyar, who denied any American pressure on India vis-à-vis the pipeline deal and said that there was “no going back” on the project.
Besides meeting energy needs, the pipeline is also important to the on-going confidence-building process between India and Pakistan. The speculation, set off by Mr Singh’s earlier statements to the Post and his remarks at various points of his US visit, had threatened to block progress on peace. In clarifying Pakistan’s stance, President Musharraf has chosen not to attach too much importance to Mr Singh’s controversial utterances and has said that the peace process remains on track. While one should regard Dr Singh’s swipe at Pakistan (and Iran with whom India has strong ties) as a one-time deviation, one expects him to refrain from saying things that could derail the peace process and also affect potential economic and energy benefits. The pipeline is in the interest of all three countries, and publicly expressing misgivings about its viability can only create mistrust. Security considerations should ideally be talked over directly with the parties concerned and any kind of media speculation should be avoided at this delicate stage of the peace process. Moerover, India may have entered a new era of cooperation with the US, but it should not allow its judgment to be influenced by Washington’s likes and dislikes.
THE scathing indictment of erstwhile district nazims by the Punjab education minister, alleging that the former diverted education funds to politically-motivated schemes, leaves one perplexed. The minister also charged the outgoing nazims of having made political appointments in the education sector. If indeed funds earmarked for education were being diverted elsewhere by former nazims, it was the responsibility of the provincial ministry to put an end to the practice. This is something the ministry failed to do, and the minister concerned cannot absolve himself of his responsibility in the matter just by crying foul now.
The allegations, coming as they do at a time when district governments have been dissolved and fresh local body elections are to be held, amount to sending a political message to intending nazims. The minister’s resolve that henceforth education funds going to the nazims will be monitored, and the authority to make appointments will be withdrawn from them, also comes with the intention of coaxing intending nazims into submission. As it is, the government spends precious little on education, and can ill-afford to lose any of what it makes available. A proper check-and-balance mechanism needs to be put in place whereby misappropriation of funds of any kind can be readily detected and stopped. The Punjab education minister, unfortunately, has offered no such solution. All he proposes to curb the alleged malpractice is that the provincial government officials should breathe more heavily down the necks of nazims. This is hardly a recipe for helping the cause of education. Doing so will only make life more difficult for elected nazims not at the beck and call of the ruling party.