Decline in Bush’s popularity

SINCE my last article on this subject the results of two other opinion polls carried out by the Washington Post and ABC have appeared. The first carried out immediately after the indictment of Vice-President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, “Scooter” Libby, found that President George Bush’s overall job approval rating had fallen to 39 per cent, the lowest he has been in Post-ABC polls since he became president, and that 46 per cent Americans say the level of honesty and ethics in government has declined rather than risen under Bush.

The second carried out more recently found that among registered voters 49 per cent preferred the Democrats over the Republicans who scored only 38 per cent. This was an almost exact reversal of the trend in the 2002 mid-term elections when the Republicans were preferred by 51 per cent as against 39 per cent for the Democrats. This sort of finding bodes ill for the prospects of the Republican Party in the mid-term elections of 2006. Analysts have been quoted as saying that this is the sourest environment for the Republicans since 1994 when they won 53 House and seven Senate seats and acquired a majority in both Houses.

The only bright spot for the Republicans in the poll was the fact that a majority felt that the Democrats had no clear vision or direction to offer that was different from that of the Republicans and that the Republicans had stronger leaders to offer than the Democrats. There is, therefore, a growing perception that if the current trend persists the Republicans may in the 2006 elections find themselves losing control of one or both Houses. Some Republicans attributing the waning fortunes of the party to Bush’s flawed policies are already indicating that they will distance themselves from Bush and from the policies he has advocated and the proposals he is trying to push through.

Such poll results apart, political analysts in Washington have been busily looking at past precedents to see if Bush’s current dilemma differs in material measure from that experienced by almost every recent American president starting from Roosevelt in his second term. Similarities have been found between the scandals besetting Bush and those that plagued Reagan and it has been suggested that Bush, too, could apologize to the nation for the misdoings of his aides, get a fresh team to staff the White House and then get on with the task of leading the country.

In this context it has been suggested that Karl Rove over whom the threat of a possible indictment still stands should be made to resign, Cheney should no longer be allowed to play the role of the “eminence grise” of the administration, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, too, should be replaced and the pre-eminence of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in the formulation and implementation of security policy should be emphasized.

It is by no means clear that Bush, noted for his stubbornness and loyalty to his close aides, would be prepared for such a drastic house cleaning. Karl Rove is acknowledged as the brain behind the campaign that brought Bush into his second term, and Cheney, the most trusted and most powerful vice-president in recent times, has placed a chain of supporters throughout the structure of the administration. The point, however, is that even with such radical surgery it is highly unlikely that Bush will be able to rescue his presidency in the same fashion as Reagan did. In part this is because Bush has none of the “likability” and few if any of the communication skills of Reagan. Largely, however, it is because the circumstances are vastly different.

Reagan in his second term was negotiating arms control agreements with the Soviets and doing so from a position of strength. The Soviet defeat in Afghanistan and setbacks to Soviet positions in other parts of the world were making it evident that the US had been able to establish a measure of superiority over the prime adversary. Much could, therefore, be forgiven.

Bush, on the other hand, labours under the disadvantage of Iraq where despite the much touted advances of “democracy” all that could be perceived from the media reporting is that:

— more than 2,000 American servicemen have been killed,

— there is little to show for the $30 billion committed in aid for Iraq with the Iraqis complaining that electricity and clean water, were in shorter supply than under the heavily sanctioned Saddam Hussein regime,

— there was a remarkable display of support for the dictator when his trial opened,

— there is growing evidence that the mishandling of the post-war situation has widened ethnic and sectarian divides in Iraq and produced ominous portents of the possible breakup of the country,

— most importantly, there is no sign of the abating of the insurgency or of the Iraqi forces acquiring the competence and the equipment needed to take over security functions from the Americans in the near future.

It is likely, therefore, that throughout his second term Bush will have to contend with the fact that even as increasing questions are asked about the wisdom of the Iraqi war and about its impact on the battle against terrorism, he will have to maintain the present level of troops in Iraq and daily read headlines on the casualties suffered by the Americans in Iraq.

This would be bad enough in itself and would be enough to erode his ability to seek congressional cooperation for the ambitious domestic legislation that he had in mind to reform social security and to cut taxes further. But that is not all.

— Iraq is also bringing to light new scandals about the misuse of funds appropriated by Congress for the reconstruction and those generated from Iraq’s oil revenues. The UN commissioned audit body having being denied access for the most part to Pentagon records has recommended on the basis of findings by the Pentagon’s own auditors that $208 million paid in fees to Kellog, Brown and Root, a Halliburton subsidiary should be recovered and paid to Iraq. It also drew attention to the fact that it had been denied access to Pentagon records. In my earlier article I had mentioned other instances of embezzlement or misuse of funds by both the American contractors and by the Iraqis during Prime Minister Iyad Allawi’s government. More such instances are bound to come to light as the Iraq war drags on and development work falters.

— The Democrats, sensing the opportunity provided by a bloodied Bush, are forcing the issue with regard to the examination of the intelligence failures or the deliberate misinterpretation of intelligence that provided the pretext for the Iraq war. The Republicans have had to agree after the Democrats used a rarely used rule to invoke a closed door session of Congress to expedite the process of determining the origins of the intelligence failure and/or the misuse of intelligence by the Bush administration.

Already, the leaks point to serious manipulation by the administration. It has now been more or less conclusively established that the intelligence community had questioned the reliability of the information provided by an Al Qaeda operative about Iraq’s links with Al Qaeda and about the training that had been provided to Al Qaeda nominees in the use of WMD, but the administration officials, including Bush himself, chose to use this in public speeches as evidence of the danger the Saddam regime posed to the US.

— The special prosecutor has said categorically that neither the indictment of Libby nor his trial should be thought of as investigation into the whys and wherefores of the Iraq war, but this flies in the face of reality. It will be the main subject of the trial and the main subject of the testimony of the prosecution and defence witnesses.

— In prosecuting the war against terrorism the administration has sanctioned the use of torture or unusual punishments forbidden by the Geneva Conventions. Congress is now poised to adopt a bill that would make this illegal. The debate on the subject is bound to highlight the dubious role played by Cheney’s aides in the formulation of the legal opinion that allowed the circumvention of the Geneva Conventions.

— A recent report that the CIA has been maintaining secret prisons for the most sensitive of Al Qaeda operatives in some East European countries has provoked calls for inquiries from European circles since all the countries in question are signatories to conventions that specifically forbid the maintenance of such detention cells and the torture that is employed there. Again, the revelations that are bound to come can only embarrass Bush and his team.

— Iraq will continue for all these reasons to dominate the headlines for the remainder of the Bush term and what emerges in the various inquiries can only further erode confidence in Bush and his team no matter how much that team is changed around.

The picture is not much better on other fronts. Already in the name of financial restraint, Congress has cut drastically the funds he had requested for the millennium account — a fund set up to help such developing countries as met certain good governance criteria. The liberal media has already challenged him to veto any bill that fails to provide the necessary funds for this purpose while pointing out that the US is devoting only 0.18 per cent of its GNP for aid to the developing countries against the 0.7 per cent which the developed nations have agreed should be the desired minimum.

The American economy, performed remarkably well in the third quarter of the current year registering a growth of 3.8 per cent. This seems, however, to have left the American public unimpressed. In the poll quoted above, 30 per cent of the 68 per cent who felt the country was off track attributed this to such economic factors as gas prices, jobs, incomes, inflation, the deficit etc.

It may be premature to dismiss the rest of the Bush term as a lame duck term. It is possible that Bush can somehow effect a recovery. All the indications, however, are that this is not likely to happen and the best that one can hope for is that Bush will limp along and will be able to control in some measure the rapid erosion not only in his own effectiveness as a leader but in the popularity of his party.

What impact will this have on South Asia? It is likely that the policy towards Pakistan, linked as it is with the question of the global war on terrorism, will remain largely unaffected. The same cannot, however, be said with regard to the radical proposal Bush has made with regard to changing American non-proliferation policies so as to accommodate India’s desire to be treated on par with the NPT recognized nuclear weapon states in return for India accepting full scope safeguards on such of its nuclear sites as are designated as civilian. The non-proliferation lobby is strong and it will take full advantage of Bush’s weakened position. This, combined with the suspicions the Indian establishment entertains about the sequencing — the Americans have made it clear that they will propose changes in American law only after the Indians have clearly identified the sites that will be for purely civilian use — makes it likely that the proposed “historic” agreement will not move forward.

The writer is a former foreign secretary.

An uncalled for controversy

A LANGUAGE controversy has been brewing in Sindh for the last five weeks. It would have assumed the shape of a full-blown crisis had the earthquake of October 8 and its aftermath not diverted public attention. But as life returns to normality, attention is once again focused on the language issue which can become quite explosive if not handled promptly and tactfully.

The venom being spewed out is reminiscent of the tumultuous days of July 1972 when Karachi went up in flames, curfew had to be imposed and people lost their lives. It may be recalled that the cause of provocation at that time was the Sindh (Teaching, Promotion and Use of Sindhi Language) Act, 1972, which the Sindh Assembly adopted on July 7, 1972. This prescribed measures for the teaching of Sindhi in accordance with Article 267 of the Constitution which provided that a provincial legislature could promote a provincial language without prejudice to Urdu, the national language.

The Urdu-speakers, who migrated to Sindh in 1947 in substantial numbers, felt unhappy about it. They believed that since Urdu had been recognized as the national language of Pakistan it should not be displaced by Sindhi in the province of Sindh. According to them, the special status of Urdu was self-evident. Being spoken and understood by a large number of people of all provinces it served as a link language.

The language controversy of 1972 should be seen in the perspective of the political climate in the country in the post-Bangladesh era when the very existence of Pakistan as a federation was at stake. After the breakaway of East Pakistan there was widespread discontent in the minority provinces where the feeling was strong that their culture and language had been suppressed. In Sindh the Sindhi language had been a compulsory subject of study in educational institutions for a long time. It had been discontinued by the verbal orders of the martial law authorities.

Hence, many sensible Urdu speakers with political foresight condemned the reaction of their chauvinist compatriots and a compromise formula was found as enshrined in the Language Act. Sindhi was recognized as the provincial language of Sindh and Urdu and Sindhi were to be taught as compulsory subjects of study in classes IV to XII. No timeframe was laid down for the introduction of Sindhi which was to be “by stages”.

Thus the process of transition to Sindhi was started and by the mid-eighties all Urdu speakers appearing for their Matriculation examination studied ‘salees’ (easy) Sindhi in class IV to class X. The matter was not pursued at the college level where the nationalization of colleges had thrown this sector into turmoil.

It was only in July this year that the Sindh Professors and Lecturers Association (SPLA) called for among other things the teaching of Sindhi in colleges as provided by the Language Act. The matter was referred to the ministry of education’s curriculum wing in Islamabad which sets the course of study for the provinces — from the primary to the college level. This in itself is an example of excessive centralization in our system where even a matter such as what a child is to study in a remote village in Tharparkar is determined by Islamabad.

On September 27 the ministry of education notified the scheme of studies for the Higher Secondary School Certificate which the Sindh education and literacy department was “pleased to adopt”. Under this notification, the Sindhi-speaking students were to study salees Urdu (100 marks) in class XI and Sindhi compulsory (100 marks) in class XII. The Urdu speakers would study salees Sindhi (100 marks) in class XI and Urdu compulsory (100 marks) in class XII. Previously everybody had been studying Urdu compulsory (200 marks).

As nothing is extraordinary for the education department functionaries, the notification was issued after the classes had begun and there was no arrangement for books and teachers for salees Sindhi. That gave the college principals cold feet and they resisted the move. The SPLA also changed its mind. There was a flurry of notifications making changes and a verbal announcement before the chief minister took off for his spiritual mission to Makkah for umrah. The matter has been left in the limbo.

There are two dimensions of this matter. One is the administrative and academic aspect. Can arrangements be made overnight to teach a subject for which it is estimated only Karachi would need over 150 teachers?

The second question is whether Sindhi should be taught compulsorily at the college level. Some even question the wisdom of teaching Sindhi to all Urdu speakers.

The administrative aspect needs to be considered with an eye on the practicalities involved. It is plain that for the decision to be implemented smoothly and efficiently, more time, planning and organization must go into it. There are indications that the implementation may be put off for a year or two to give the college principals some time to work out the arrangements. It would also make sense if the language marks are not counted for students seeking admission in professional colleges where competition is tough. More worrying is the controversy surrounding the learning of Sindhi. A lot of hot air is being blown around by both sides. The nationalists and the regional press feel that Sindhi is under attack. The Urdu speakers have set up the Urdu Bachchao Tehreek which has taken up cudgels on their behalf. How the teaching of Sindhi would undermine Urdu is not clear at all. All this is unnecessarily politicizing the language issue which is an unfortunate development. At this stage, we can hardly afford a new controversy when so many disputes (water sharing, building of dams, distribution of financial assets and so on) are already on the cards.

If we are to promote social, political and cultural harmony in the province, it is essential that all Urdu speakers should learn Sindhi. Given their substantial presence in Sindh and their concentration in Karachi and other urban centres, they manage quite well without learning Sindhi. But justice and fairness demand that they must learn the indigenous tongue of the province they have moved to. Sindhi is a highly developed language with a literature of its own.

Some of the arguments that have been advanced against the learning of Sindhi are ridiculous. A child acquires language skills either by the natural process (by imbibing it from his surroundings) or through formal teaching. Children are known to pick up three or four languages simultaneously if their parents are bilingual and a servant speaks another language. But the mind is open to this process only till the age of four/five.

But when it comes to formal teaching of languages, experts are of the opinion that until the age of nine or 10 a child must be taught in his mother tongue — the language he speaks at home. A very highly qualified Montessori trainer, the only one in Pakistan qualified in the field from the AMI, Amsterdam, Farida Akbar, insists that it affects the development of a child’s mind if his early education is not in his mother tongue. Once the foundation of the language skills in the mother tongue has been laid, other languages can be introduced gradually in formal teaching and they will not burden a child. Sindhi for Urdu speakers in class IV, when a child is about nine years of age, should, therefore, pose no problem at all.

After all the teaching of Sindhi to students appearing for their Matriculation examination has found acceptance. The only problem that needs to be brought to the attention of the policymakers is the poor standards of the teachers. The fact is that all language teachers — Urdu, English and Sindhi — are ruining the communication skills of our children who do not learn to express themselves correctly in any language even after 10 years of schooling. If Sindhi teachers are provided a crash course in teaching Sindhi with modern pedagogical methods they could make the Urdu speaking students fluent in Sindhi with ease. Thus the population of the province with its mixed ethnic composition would become truly bilingual. We failed to do that in East Pakistan and lost half the country. Language has a powerful emotive pull and language crises can be most lethal. States with a multi-ethnic population have learnt how to conciliate the different communities rather than polarize them on the language issue. Belgium where Flemish and French are spoken, Switzerland with German, French and Italian speakers and Canada where people speak English but the Quebeckers speak French are best examples of how different languages can be accommodated in one fold.

Our attitude towards women

“Haae be-chaaron ke aasaab pe aurat hai sawaar” was said long ago for the poets and writers of the subcontinent, though the name of the author escapes me at the moment. If you look around you will find that the verse applies appropriately to almost the entire male population of the country.

Some time ago there were two reports on the same page of an Urdu daily which illustrated vividly at least two aspects of this contention. I will give you their gist. In an office of the Registration Department in Rawalpindi there was a quarrel between two employees about who should deal with a young lady who had gone there to get her ID card made. Since our public servants have a reputation of being helpful, both wanted to have the privilege of assisting the lady in distress.

The excess of zeal that they exhibited in order to live up to the bureaucracy’s good name and fame for efficiency resulted in an altercation which was not confined to verbal argument but became extended to the use of fisticuffs. The matter of the lady’s identity card remained pending since the fight was inconclusive and was probably continuing when last reports came in.

In a village in Tehsil Jalalpur Jattan the police arrested a man called Riaz for injuring eight women with a knife. While the motive behind these attacks can be understood only by a psychologist, the facts show that the man was in the habit of knifing village women when, just before dawn, they went into the fields which serve as public latrines in our rural areas.

The newspaper which published the story did not say whether Pakistan’s own Jack the Ripper had yet taken the police into confidence about the reasons that impelled him to take up this gory hobby. So I guess we shall have to wait for further details. That is if I am able to find the follow-up story.

Some administrative experts believe that if there were more women in government offices working at all levels, not only would the output of work increase but it would also improve its quality. The instinct to show off before women colleagues would compel officials to work harder and with improved results. In other words, the output, both in quality and quantity, would be directly proportionate to the time spent by female officials on their dress and make-up. In the bargain the dress and deportment of the male workers would also register an improvement. So would their general behaviour because, with an abundance of the feminine sex around, they would no longer have to fight among themselves like the two poor clerks in the Pindi Registration Office. This theory is still to be tested.

Obsession about women gives strange ideas to some people. Misconceptions about what religion actually prescribes is another cause for queer behaviour. As Muslims we lay great stress on what Islam expects from women, but we are not bothered by what it expects of men to do as far as women are concerned. The general reaction of men seems to be, “Hide these women or I’ll go mad!”

Soon after August 1947, a man in Lahore earned notoriety because he went about on The Mall chopping off women’s plaits with a pair of scissors. When arrested, he said that in Pakistan women were not expected to go about unveiled. It would have been interesting to find out who had given him this idea. (So much for the raison d’etre for the demand for Pakistan). and did it not occur to him that catching hold of strange girls in public and snipping off their locks forcibly might not be an Islamic act?

It is not possible to recall now if the man was asked these questions and what reply he gave. But it is a marvel that though that incident took place 58 years ago the man continues to reappear every now and then. His latest appearance is in the form of Riaz the Ripper in the Jalapur Jattan village.

I wouldn’t like to criticize the Taliban for they are fervently supported by our jihadi organizations and I am mortally afraid of the latter’s automatic weapons, but look what they did to the society in Afghanistan. Extreme segregation of the sexes will always give rise to abnormal reflexes and attitudes. Thankfully that period is over for our neighbour and education for the female population there is coming back to normal.

As an old student of the Aligarh Muslim University it is amusing to recall that every Tuesday afternoon used to provide special excitement for the boys. They normally went to the railway station every evening to watch the trains come and go and thus entertained themselves, though these visits were primarily to refresh their memory about how women looked like.

On Tuesdays the scene shifted to the university science laboratories where physics and chemistry students of the girls’ college came in a fleet of veiled tongas. There was always a large crowd of young men waiting to gape at the girls as they trooped in. Since the prescribed uniform for the girls was a black burqa, boys could have a look at their hands only.

In Aligarh there was another phenomenon related to women’s segregation, though it was not connected with the university. In the three cinemas in the city women filmgoers had to sit in the upper gallery reserved exclusively for them. At the foot of the stairs leading up to the gallery was an intriguing notice in bold Urdu words. “Prostitutes found sitting in the women’s gallery will be thrown out.”