The widening disconnect

IN Pakistan, the sensible position is pessimism. Perhaps this is the only country in the world where its chattering classes wish or predict its early demise. No one ever lost a bet by gambling that things will continue to deteriorate here, or at best that the status quo ante will prevail, whatever you do.

But there is a catch. True, the ruling oligarchy is visionless, inefficient and corrupt. It consists of self-seeking and greedy individuals whose primary aim is to remain in power by hook or by crook and enjoy its perquisites. The personal and institutional interests of these powerful groups take precedence over national interests. As a matter of fact, their own interest is national interest. To them, people don’t count.

But what about Pakistani society? Does it share the callousness, apathy and lust for power of the ruling elite, or does it think and behave differently? Social scientists have been pointing out that a phenomenal change has taken place during the last 10 or 15 years in the thinking and behaviour of the general masses. And it is a positive one. While things at government level are deteriorating or stagnating, at the societal level there is a yearning for change — a realization that this is our own country and we have to do something to improve the conditions here.

If any proof of this transformation is needed the recent earthquake and its aftermath has provided it amply. While the government was slow in mobilizing available resources (some even accused it of callousness because it lost 36 precious hours initially), civil society lost no time in responding to the challenge and organizing relief efforts in a big way.

What one saw was unbelievable. As soon as the news broke and the enormity of the catastrophe become evident, ordinary people geared into action. Those of us who visited the PAF airbase on Shahrah-i-Faisal on the second or third day of the earthquake, were able to see the coming together of the people, their enthusiasm, the outpouring of sympathy and solidarity, the spirit of sacrifice and capacity to organize things in order to achieve the common objective i.e. to help the earthquake victims as quickly as possible.

While government functionaries were dithering and waiting for orders from above, the response of civil society was quick and direct. Earthquake victims needed to be rescued; they needed medicines, they needed blood; they needed eatables; they needed water; they needed blankets — and all thus was to them.

This scribe has seen poor people taking relief goods to the PAF base and other relief camps in rickshaws, taxis even on motorcycles. Whatever they could give, they did not hesitate for a minute to contribute (without knowing whether it was needed or not). Young, and the middle-aged students, businessmen, doctors, engineers, CBOs and NGOs all volunteered their services without anyone asking them to.

Experts say Pakistan is situated on an earthquake faultline. But there is another faultline — perhaps a bigger one: a disconnect between the state and society. There is a wide and growing gulf between the ruling elite and the people. The state with all its power, mandate and huge resources has no clue about the ground situation: how people think, how they live, how they perceive things, what are their needs, what are their priorities. People on the other hand, have no faith in the government.

They think it has neither the capacity nor any seriousness, to deliver things. It cannot come to their rescue even in times of acute need. The earthquake victims’ sentimental outburst (shown on some private TV channels) raised the fundamental question: where is the state? For whom does it exist? Education minister Lt. Gen. (retd) Javed Ashraf Qazi said it was not the duty of the armed forces to provide relief to the victims of natural disasters. People asked whose job it was. Where was the civil and local administration? Did it not stand already decimated? And why do we spend so much money on defence if people cannot be helped in times of urgent need? This was the first faultline.

Once relief and rescue operations were organized to some extent, the second faultline appeared. Our policymakers had no idea how people live in remote mountainous areas. What type of material do they use for house construction? Who makes their houses? What is their source of livelihood? Are they there for the scenic beauty, or do they live a precarious life in far-off locations to eke out an existence? When they (the ruling elite) found it difficult to provide relief quickly, they started saying that the people should come down to the plains and would be rehabilitated in ‘model’ villages. People refused and rightly so.

They said: “We want to restart our lives by rebuilding homes because we own them. If we leave them, somebody else will occupy our land and property. And more importantly, our source of livelihood is here. Our crops are here. Our cattle is here. Our social linkages are here. We have a sense of belonging to this places. In some cases the dead bodies of our near and dear ones are still lying under the rubble. What shall we do if we come to the tented or model villages?”

Thank God, the government realized its mistake and dropped the idea. The third faultline, showing the total disconnect between the state and society is now appearing. This is related to the way the reconstruction of the damaged houses should be undertaken. What will be the cost and who will do what? Also, what should be done to improvise shelters before the severe winter sets in, and what should be done to erect permanent structures once the winter is over?

While the state busied itself in making appeals to the international community for more help, arranging tents and organizing donor conferences, and comparing the Oct 8 earthquake with the tsunami last year, the victims took initiative in their own hands and busied themselves in removing the rubble and improvising shelters with the help of their relatives, neighbours and local organizations.

They simply needed galvanized iron sheets and rubble removing kits, consisting of things like wheel barrows, shovels, iron bars, hammers, cutting axes etc. They also needed nuts and bolts and drill machines. In most cases, these items were provided by their kith and kin living in other cities, or by local NGOs, through money raised from philanthropists and private donors. The government hardly played any role in this activity.

A team from the Orangi Pilot Project that visited two clusters of villages i.e Kot Gallah, Cus Bazar and Bazar Balay in Battagram tehsil (NWFP) and five villages in Chimyati Union Council in Dhirkot tehsil (Azad Kashmir) found that without waiting for any government help people had organized themselves and over 4,000 shelters had already been rebuilt by using GI sheets and usable items from the rubble.

The Orangi Pilot Project team with partner NGOs decided to support peoples’ initiative and raised the required funds. This activity is now gaining momentum but more funds are needed urgently. It was found that for each shelter, the cost of essential items (16 GI sheets + nuts, bolts etc) with transport was only Rs 13,000. That means that if 300,000 improvised shelters are to be financed in hilly areas, the total cost would be around four billion rupees. The material used in these temporary shelters can be reused in raising permanent structures once the winter is over.

Another study showed that once the winter is over for a room measuring 18’ x 12’ and a verandah measuring 8’ x 18’ only Rs. 25,000 would be needed. Even if we double this cost, total requirements for 300,000 units would not exceed Rs 15 billion. It would mean that in hilly areas where over 70 per cent population is to be rehabilitated, the total cost of both types would be around Rs. 20 billion. This could easily be met from local resources. Towns like Muzaffarabad and Balakot need a different strategy. But it appears that the government is treating all cases alike and is planning to give Rs. 1,75,000 to each affected family. The most difficult thing for the government is to reach the target population. This is the weakest link between the people and the state. According to the latest UN report, government relief had not reached many people even after eight weeks. If the government undertakes to build all damaged house by itself, the question is whether or not it can do it.

The only way the reconstruction of houses (both in the short and long-term) in hilly areas can take place is to support the people’s own initiative. The government should make arrangements to make GI sheets and rubble removing kits with cutters and drills machines available at easily accessible locations (clusters of five or 10 villages) so that people can go and purchase them with the Rs 25,000 which the government initially announced for each family. It would have been still better if instead of asking for payments, the government could give these items to them free of cost and adjust it against the relief grant.

At this stage, victims of the earthquake neither need any new designs nor any technical help not even volunteers from outside. Only local activists and small NGOs can help in procuring the these items. People in the rural areas have been making their houses themselves from time immemorial and would do it this time as well. Seismic proof designs and technical support may be needed when they raise permanent structures once the winter is over.

Our planners woefully ignore the fact that rehabilitation and reconstruction do not mean only the provision of shelter. It is much more. If we want the quake victims’ survival, we need to understand their sociology and economics.

For example, what is happening to their standing crops and livestock? How many have perished and how many still exist? What can be done immediately to rescue them? Once there is some sort of shelter, is it possible to arrange fodder for the remaining livestock as they are vital for the mountain people — both for their health and economic well-being. What about seeds and fertilizers for the next rabi crop? What will happen if people are not able to sow in time?

One can see that government has neither the capacity nor the vision to utilize the huge donor money (half of it being loans) it has amassed. Even ordinarily, at the end of each financial year it is found that only 60 per cent of the meagre development outlay is utilized. It is difficult to imagine that the government would change course because it suffers from mega projects syndrome. It is dominated by people who have raised big money and would like to spend it the way it has been done previously, whereas what we need are micro-level interventions, albeit on a large scale.

This shows that the disconnect between the state and the people is becoming wider with each passing day. It looks like these are two tectonic plates which are moving in different directions. Will it result in another earthquake? Only social seismologists will be able to tell us.

Crown losing its shine

WHEN I was India’s high commissioner in London, I posed a question at a gathering of newsmen: how would they behave if ever the emergency were imposed in the UK? I gave them the example of India where, except for a handful, all caved in because of fear of losing their job or the perks they enjoyed. The newsmen mostly kept quiet. Even those who gave a reply were vague.

If there is anything that comes close to that type of situation in Britain, it is the way the government has used the Official Secrets Act to prevent newspapers from publishing an eight-month old memo of how Prime Minister Tony Blair and President George Bush allegedly discussed the merits of bombing Al Jazeera television studios in Qatar. A pro-Labour newspaper, the Daily Mirror, first broke the story about how Blair, to his credit, argued against such an attack on Al Jazeera which had broadcast video messages from Osama bin Laden to Iraqi militant leaders.

Although the memo casts Blair in a favourable light, the immediate instinct of the British attorney general was to threaten prosecution of any newspaper which dared to print the contents of the memo. A few British MPs protested that this was not the way to do things and the truth should be allowed to come out. But not even one newspaper dared to challenge the authorities. A puzzled public could only conclude that there were other aspects of the Blair-Bush discussions that the authorities wanted to keep secret, or that the White House had successfully pressured Downing Street to enforce government censorship.

Institutions like the BBC were once a byword for integrity, but have been systematically undermined from the time of Margaret Thatcher. The BBC did manage to hold its head high until Labour returned to power in 1997 but through direct and indirect pressure it has since been politicized. The organization defers to the government and ensures that there is no programme that embarrasses Labour. Andrew Gilligan was a reporter who was dismissed because he challenged the establishment on the Iraq war. Even after he was sacked the government continued to hound him. Those who remember the emergency days in India would recall how certain tax cases were re-opened to put pressure on government critics.

In fact, I have felt disappointed every time I have returned from London. I have found not only old British values vanishing but also the new generation deliberately indifferent to them. Here was a society which not only once ruled more than half the world, but also led it in thoughts and ideals. Harold Laski, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, even C.F. Andrews, were names to treasure. They still evoke respect but I have vainly searched for those who remember them.

The M15 and MI6 security services (the equivalent of RAW and IB respectively) operate freely and it is sad to see that many journalists and newspapers of repute are in their pockets. This is reflected in some of the stories printed. An atmosphere of suspicion is being deliberately generated against Iran through unattributed briefings that are being accepted without question.

No doubt, Blair looks tall. But even those who consider themselves apolitical openly deride him. Sometimes I wonder whether British society has changed after 9/11 and last July’s bombings, or whether the rot set in after the UK lost its empire.

What has happened to the idealism and values this society once cherished? I have seen no written analysis telling the people that the nation has lost its way through sheer greed and selfishness.

There is also a sea change in the Indian community. Many told me that Indians were being sought out by the British and that India was no longer referred to in disparaging terms as the land of snake charmers and elephants. The community is more prosperous than before, particularly the Sikhs. During my time at the high commission, I would hear the demand for Khalistan. On this occasion hardly anyone talked about it.

The Sikhs are proud to be Indians and they mention that the country’s prime minister is a Sikh. In the London suburb of Southall they have built a new gurdwara at a cost of 20 million pounds, probably the best of its kind in the whole of Europe.

The Indian community, on the whole, is more Indian in its living and outlook than it was a decade earlier.

Believe it or not, Bollywood has done the trick. Boys and girls are proud to wear the type of clothing they see on the screen and follow Indian customs within their homes. The white majority community’s ire is reserved for Pakistan and other Muslim countries or the local Muslim community in general. A new law under discussion goes to the extent of closing down a mosque if the police suspect it of being a place for militant activity. The measure reminds one of Pota and Tada in India because similar provisions of detention on suspicion have been provided. Even without the law the daily life of Muslims in the UK is difficult.

As high commissioner in 1990, I was once summoned by Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd to be told that his government suspected India of smuggling weapons to Iraq in food ships. Such finger wagging on the part of the British government is unthinkable today. Now the British government strains itself to even declare that it was misled on Kashmir during the UN debates of the late 1940s and early 1950s. They pin the blame on their UN ambassador at the time who is dismissed in retrospect as being “prejudiced.”

In 1990, I found pride and self-confidence among the majority white community, sometimes verging on arrogance. Today the pride has vanished as people look for ‘freebies’. The country is ready to jump on to the bandwagon of the nation which can attend to their material needs. America is their darling because it gives British society the vicarious satisfaction of being both powerful and rich. Blair is popularly known as an “American lap dog” and most people do not feel any sense of shame in admitting it. India is also the flavour of the age because it is in their eyes doing well. The growth rate of eight per cent has changed our image. We have begun to be counted.

When even the best of titles and honours are reportedly on sale (you can allegedly become a knight for 55,000 pounds or a lord for 250,000 pounds), it is a nation’s twilight time. I felt particularly sad when many of the young told me that their highest aspiration was to be like America and the Americans. Once Great Britain used to be the USA’s guide, now it follows it diligently and faithfully. Have times changed or the people?

The writer a leading columnist based in New Delhi.

Moral clarity

IN his battle against the Bush administration, Sen. John McCain has the one weapon the administration has always said is indispensable in the war against terrorism: moral clarity.

McCain simply wants all US personnel involved in the war to abide by the Army Field Manual’s regulations for interrogation. An amendment he sponsored, attached to the Pentagon’s annual budget bill, would clarify the US position on torture, bringing it in line with US and international laws and basic standards of human decency. Yet the administration has been fighting his proposal with a tenacity not seen since — well, since the president’s primary campaign against McCain in 2000.

McCain’s amendment should be a no-brainer. It would prohibit all US personnel from practising cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment against prisoners — wherever they may be found. It passed the Senate by a 90-9 vote. The administration, however, prefers ambiguous rules that allow it to define torture as it sees fit.

In response to McCain, the administration has tried a number of tactics. First, it threatened to veto the bill. Then Vice-President Dick Cheney made an embarrassing attempt to exempt CIA agents from the amendment (so that they can torture prisoners in “nonexistent” European secret prisons). Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice then offered further legalistic obfuscations (torture is prohibited in the United States and by US personnel abroad, but could occur in prisons outside US jurisdiction).

And now the Army has rewritten the rules on which the McCain amendment relies. The 10 classified pages added to the Army Field Manual offer greater detail on how to walk the line between legal and illegal interrogation. The new rules do outlaw practices once not mentioned specifically — forcing prisoners into stress positions and using police dogs, for example, as was done at Abu Ghraib. Thus they offer the type of clarity that McCain seeks but the administration hopes to avoid. But other additions may stretch the limits on what McCain and his supporters would consider acceptable techniques.

In general, however, the changes are an improvement. The House voted overwhelmingly in support of McCain’s amendment, although not on the amendment itself.

— Los Angeles Times