| January 29, 2006 | Sunday | Zilhaj 28, 1426 |
Of peace parleys & hollow US assurances
ISLAMABAD: The Liaquat-Nehru pact regarding rights of the minorities in India and Pakistan reached 56 years ago found an echo at the recently concluded Indo-Pakistan foreign secretary-level talks in New Delhi. It was the Pakistani delegation that made a pointed reference to this agreement signed on April 8, 1950 by the then prime minister of India, Jawaharlal Nehru, and the prime minister of Pakistan, Liaquat Ali Khan.
RATHER incredible, but true, there is a public alert in education sector, particularly in the higher education. And the announcement to this effect has been made through ads by the Higher Education Commission. What is the likely impact of these large advertisements on the public mind? What is the likely good to come out of this alert, red alert? Given our public cynicism there is a red alert needed for the entire education sector.
These advertisements make one contemplate a couple of other issues in the education field. But let us first have a look at some of the content in these two ads that have appeared in this daily on 24th and 27th January. One hopes that there will be further such transparency in the days ahead about the steps taken by the Higher Education Commission and the federal and provincial education departments with regard to the subject of these ads. How soon the provincial governments will take to act is to be seen?
Have a look at what the huge expensive advertisement says on Jan 24. It lists what it describes as “foreign institutions operating unlawfully.” Then there is a list of “local institutions operating unlawfully without charter”. Then it has a list of “chartered institutions unlawfully operating outside their jurisdictions”. The second ad declaring a “public alert on status of private universities” says that the federal cabinet has decided that those universities/ institutions which do not meet the minimum criteria, laid down by the cabinet, will have their charters withdrawn on Feb 27, 2007.
In this public alert was a category which had universities/ institutions meeting requirements of the minimum eligibility criteria approved by the cabinet. The next category-X had universities/ institutions meeting most of the minimum eligibility requirements of the criteria approved by the cabinet. Then came the “substandard category” which had names of universities/ institutions deficient in many eligibility requirements of the criteria approved by the cabinet. And this advertisement from the Director-General of the HEC had another “substandard category Z,” which had a list of universities/ institutions described as “seriously deficient in meeting minimum eligibility of the criteria approved by the cabinet (likely to be closed in February 2007.)”
The names come from all over the country and reflect on the system that we have created in education sector. The HEC points out that a number of varsities and institutions are operating illegally in Pakistan.
The degrees from such institutions are illegal and are not recognized by the HEC. Parents are therefore cautioned not to send their children to these institutions as they may face subsequent problems in the procurement of jobs. The provincial governments have been requested to close down such institutions immediately as the legal right rests with them.
Quite obviously reflecting upon the gravity of the situation is that the HEC accepts that in addition to the above, numerous unlawful universities and institutions are operating in the country, for which the Commission has requested the provincial governments and the public sector universities to locate and provide information about such institutions operating in their territorial jurisdiction. The HEC has requested public to provide information about any other unlawful universities to Chairman HEC on email.
Quite, like private schools and colleges make money in this society, all over the country, there are now “unlawful universities” which are making their gold. The problem is that the boys and girls, who are enrolled in these so called seats of higher learning, will face the music when they go out looking for jobs in the market which has become exceedingly competitive. The question that one is compelled to ask is how is it that the scale of these unlawful operators is so vast, and there have been no efforts or success to have controlled them. It is also possible that like other unlawful and illegal operations in this society, there are powerful vested interests that will seek to ensure that a status quo remains.
A closer look at the foreign institutions operating unlawfully reveals that the highest number (16) of them is in Sindh. And what really worries is that they are all in this city, Karachi. There are three in Punjab; all in Lahore. And there are three in Islamabad too, with pompous names. Then in the category of local institutions operating unlawfully without charter the majority are in Punjab (43 that is). In NWFP there are none, in Azad Jammu and Kashmir there are two, and there are two also in Islamabad.
And then look at the chartered institutions unlawfully operating outside their jurisdiction there are 29 in Azad Kashmir, 11 in Sindh, 25 in Punjab, and three in the NWFP.
The question that arises is why all this is happening. One obvious answer is that there is money in the education field, at all levels. There is a growing awareness among the young for education and higher education. So whatever opportunity is available is sought. This is happening at the school level too, and a story that schools are demanding tuition fee in advance is disturbing. Private schools are demanding that students pay tuition fees for June, July and August. And obviously most parents are upset. It is not easy to pay that kind of money in advance, when most of us are salaried people, said one parent. Another housewife complained that the school, college and university transport operators, as always, are seeking advance fares. Nothing has changed, really. This was happening in the past as well. And if there was a time when society was protesting about a mushroom growth of schools, we have now reached a stage where we have a mushroom growth of seats of higher learning.
The reference to the pact came up when Pakistan’s foreign secretary told his hosts to refrain from commenting on the Balochistan situation to avoid giving the impression of interfering in Pakistan’s internal affairs. The foreign secretary warned the Indian side that the consequences could entail derailing of the ongoing peace process.
However, the Indian side defended its position by stating that Pakistan had also raised similar concerns about the Hindu-Muslim riots in Ayodhya and Gujarat in the past. It was at this point that foreign secretary Riaz Mohammad Khan reminded his Indian counterpart that the Liaquat-Nehru Pact granted Pakistan this right. He asserted that Pakistan was within its rights under this agreement to raise its voice against incidents like Gujarat and Ayodhya which targeted Indian Muslims.
The agreement notes at the outset: “The governments of India and Pakistan solemnly agree that each shall ensure, to the minorities throughout its territory, complete equality of citizenship, irrespective of religion, a full sense of security in respect of life, culture, property and personal honour, freedom of movement within each country and freedom of occupation, speech and worship, subject to law and morality. The Prime Minister of India has drawn attention to the fact that these rights are guaranteed to all minorities in India by its Constitution.”
This pact was made with the Indian government to protect and further safeguard the rights of minorities following the state of tension that had arisen between Pakistan and India in what was then East Pakistan after economic relations between the two countries were severed in December 1949.
It seems India’s unsolicited comments on Balochistan were an attempt by the Indian establishment to give Pakistan a taste of its own medicine vis-a-vis Kashmir. This is summed up in an article that appeared in the Indian daily Pioneer on January 19 titled: To Pak’s K volley, India comes up with Balochistan.
The author of the article, Shobori Ganguli, writes: “Balochistan has finally given India the bargaining chip it lacked when it came to dealing with Pakistan’s weapon of terrorism in Kashmir.” Brushing aside Pakistan’s threat to walk out of the peace process if India did not exercise restraint on the Balochistan issue as “easier said than done” given the intense international focus on it, the author says: “This gives India ample space to flog Pakistan over the ‘situation’ in Balochistan the way Pakistan talks of the ‘situation’ in Kashmir.”
In the end, the inaugural session of the third round of the composite dialogue was more an opportunity for clearing the air and venting concerns than taking concrete steps to resolve outstanding issues. It was more about straight-talking and reiteration of the respective positions on Kashmir and allegations of cross-border terrorism. While Pakistan conveyed the message that this was a “challenging and crucial” round that must show progress on the Kashmir issue, the Indian side talked about Kashmir being an integral part of India and the Indian government not having the mandate to cede territory.
The latest round provides probably the best indicator of the direction that the peace process is headed insofar as the Kashmir issue is concerned. It has been confined to normalization and confidence building with little movement towards dispute resolution.
The two sides are not getting anywhere beyond the rhetoric of their oft-repeated commitment to carry forward a “substantive dialogue” on the key issue of Kashmir.
A final settlement is a far cry as one party is reluctant to even discuss interim measures towards a settlement. The Indian side has not been receptive to the proposals of demilitarization and self-governance in Kashmir that have been widely welcomed by the Kashmiri leadership and the people of Kashmir on both sides of the Line of Control.
Apparently the Indian side advocated “better coordination” between the two Kashmirs and floated some ideas at the talks that were not compatible with Pakistan’s proposals on Kashmir. More so, these ideas seemed to be geared towards maintaining the status quo that is not acceptable to Pakistan and Kashmiris, the two other parties to the dispute.
US ASSURANCE: There has been much talk in diplomatic circles here about the so-called “US assurance” after the Jan 13 Bajaur incident that killed civilians including women and children. While President Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz have both talked about getting such an assurance, no one from the Bush administration including the US president has even mentioned anything about it.
The prime minister told reporters in Washington that he was assured by the US administration that in future there would be better “coordination”, and the president declared in Oslo that Washington had assured Islamabad that it would “not act against Pakistan’s interest”.
According to the Foreign Office spokesperson, this assurance was given at a “very high level” but we still don’t know who actually gave it. Clearly, it does not convey the sense that a categorical assurance has been held out to the Pakistani leadership that there will be no repetition of such an incidenit. And this is not surprising given that there has been no word of apology or regret from Washington despite Pakistan’s protest and condemnation.
While the US president and his key aides have been going on endlessly about the commendable role Pakistan has been playing in the war on terror, the mainstream American media has unleashed a vicious campaign against Pakistan for not doing enough on this count.
One US newspaper, the Washington Post, took it too far when it not only supported the recent Bajaur strike but literally advocated more of the same. No reference being made, of course, to ‘collateral damage’. Notably this offensive coincided with the prime minister’s first official visit to the US where he emphatically declared that Pakistan was a nuclear power and would not be bullied by anyone.
The tone of the Post editorial accorded with the drawl of a cowboy holding a smoking gun, and to think that it was published in one of America’s most influential newspapers.
One view is that the scathing criticism of Pakistan’s role in the war against terrorism in mainstream American newspapers reflects the actual thinking of the US establishment. The bottom line of it may be: the US has had enough and now it will go about its own way to ‘smoke out’ Al Qaeda operatives from their holes in Pakistan even if it means another Bajaur-like incident. Perhaps that also explains the ‘silence’ of the Bush administration on the Bajaur episode.