THE UN wants its economic assistance programme to be more useful and less wasteful. At around 12 billion dollars a year, the aid offered by the UN and its agencies is a little more than the publicized aid offered by the World Bank and its concessionary arm, the IDA. Hence it is natural for the UN to want its aid to be more effective and very purposeful.

The UN has, hence, set up a high-level panel for strengthening its activities, with three prime ministers as co-chairmen, including Shaukat Aziz of Pakistan. The panel and the UN headquarters in New York endorsed Mr Shaukat Aziz’s proposal that each developing country must formulate and execute its own development plan. There was consensus at the meeting that the developing countries should have the primary responsibility for evolving developing, and executing their own development strategy.

Of course, if a developing country needed assistance in formulating a development plan, the UN would be there to help, but everyone agreed that owning all development activities at the country level was essential.

Ownership of development plans has been an issue for some years in international aid politics. The World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the IMF want development plans to be owned by the developing countries themselves. They don’t want developing countries to see the plan as a package imposed on them from outside which the aid-receiving country must accept and implement willingly.

In the last three-year IMF programme for Pakistan, the poverty reduction and growth facility was evolved by the money-lending institution as a measure of last resort to save the economy, but Pakistan was forced to accept it as its own programme. Pakistan’s experience of that was so sour it did not want a renewal of IMF assistance after that facility expired even when the IMF was ready for it.

When it comes to development plans, a country can evolve and implement them if it does not depend on external assistance and if it does not have a heavy external debt or seeks heavy new borrowing.

But even if a country does not like the IMF programme, it has to follow broad IMF guidelines if it wants to borrow money from outside. A clean bill of monetary and fiscal health and a capacity to use the funds well are essential if a country wants to borrow from other countries’ private sectors or monetary institutions. So, there is no getting away from the world’s monetary institutions. Each country has to abide more or less by IMF rules to make rapid or sustained economic progress.

Mr Shaukat Aziz said in New York that some countries were large and resourceful enough to prepare their own development plans while some middle income countries could prepare their plans with some international assistance. But the least developed countries would need external or UN assistance which should be truly appropriate for the purpose.

But, despite plenty of economic talent, projects have been put on hold because of excessive corruption. Aid agencies want to develop the social sector and come up with more and more funds for education, women’s literacy and public health. But there is corruption in this sector in many countries. Earlier the same problem was there in respect of the Social Action Program 1 and 2 in Pakistan which resulted in their interruption.

When it comes to development the question arises for whose benefit the development should take place and who should pay for the project apart from the global donors. In a country ruled by tribal sardars, the rulers think of their own interest first and the more reactionary among them use their development plans to preserve the old order and benefit personally. The assemblies, too, are packed by such elements as in Balochistan where political representatives go along with tribal chiefs.

Development expenditure in a country with a predominantly feudal setup is aimed at benefiting the feudal order primarily as has been happening in Pakistan for the last 50 years. So, the feudal social system has not changed much in Pakistan compared to India, and what Pakistan has is a mix of feudal rule with tribal supremacy.

In such a political system, drafting a credible development plan takes time. The delays are great when there is a federal setup where the approval of the provinces is essential for major changes. The history of the Kalabagh dam for the last several years is ample proof of that and when such projects need international cooperation, as in the case of the Balighar and Kishenganga dams, the delays can be much longer.

First of all, the money has to be found for the projects in a development plan. Then it has to be included in the budget. Thereafter the money has to be released in time for use. All this takes a great deal of time. Until the year 2000, only 26 per cent of the development funds earmarked in the annual development plan used to be released. But lately, the situation has improved and now the Planning Commission says 55 to 60 per cent of the funds earmarked in the annual development plan has been used in the first nine months of the year.

Political changes can interrupt development programmes or distort them. The new rulers may abandon costly under-construction projects and promote hastily evolved plans to keep up with the promises of the new regime. Budget reallocations follow.

For some years now, legislators in the assemblies and the Senate have had their own development plans on the basis of annual allocations. When they lose their seats after an election, their projects are often abandoned or put on hold, and the money invested in them is wasted.

The minister for water and power, Liaquat Jatoi, says that work on six major dams will begin in two years. What the people want to know is when the work will be completed and what kind of power would be available from the dams to them. Quite often, development projects are delayed as the centre is slow in appointing the relevant senior officials. Sometimes the work is interrupted because an official is transferred.

Land allotment for projects is a slow process. Until recently, the land was made too costly which discouraged investors. Sometimes the land is encroached upon before the project starts. Often it is encroached even more after work on the project starts as the price of land is slated to go up. The land mafia is a mighty force and a growing element in the country. It has political clout even if it is not actually manipulated by the politicians for their own political and financial gains.

President Musharraf now says that the new homes for the victims of the earthquake will be modern and cost far more. The price of cement, steel and other building material has gone up and yet there have to be better homes than those destroyed and schools, health facilities and the infrastructure must be made quake-resistant. Enough funds are available from the $6.4 billion in international donations and Rs 10.4 billion locally raised through the President’s Fund. The execution of the project has to be truly transparent, as it will be watched intently by the donors who may hold back part of the funds in case they suspect any irregularity.

The UN had a second high-level meeting in Spain to take the final decisions following the New York session and Shaukat Aziz says more funds will be available from the UN and its agencies, and that the developing countries can now use them better. We hope that for all the exercise in New York and Segovia, the results will be far better now than in the past.

THE Pakistan Muslim League (Q) held a convention on March 23 at Minar-i-Pakistan to mark 100 years of the All India Muslim League, thereby arrogating to itself the lineage of the original Muslim League. At about the same time, Nawaz Sharif was presiding over a meeting of the key honchos of his very own Muslim League, the Pakistan Muslim League (N), in London.

Somewhere in the debris of history lie buried the Pakistan Muslim League (Convention), the Pakistan Muslim League (Council), the Muslim League (Functional) and perhaps other Muslim Leagues with unheard of prefixes. Exactly how many ‘offsprings’ the All India Muslim League spawned is unclear.

The political parties which led the Indian Hindus and Muslims to freedom from British rule were the Indian National Congress, with undeniable Hindu undertones even if it claimed to be secular, and the All India Muslim League which, despite the word ‘Muslim’ in its name, was as worldly as the Congress claimed to be, and a whole lot less doctrinaire than the Muslim religious parties.

Unlike the Congress, which had a relationship of convenience with Hindu extremist parties such as the Hindu Mahasabha and others, the Muslim League would have nothing to do with the Muslim extremist parties which spewed more venom on the League, on Jinnah and on Pakistan than the Congress ever did.

The Indian National Congress continued to hold political sway in post-partition India under the Nehru name until the latter’s death in 1964. Its influence lessened somewhat after that but the strength of the Nehru lineage (Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi) is such that the Congress has remained propped by it to this day (Sonia Gandhi). Sonia’s Italian lineage, which was earlier viewed (in India) as being a drag on her political future in Indian politics, has been completely overwhelmed by the strength of her connection to the Nehru name as Nehru’s grand daughter-in-law.

Unlike the Muslim League, after Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan, the Congress appears not to have sown too many wild oats to spawn sundry ‘off springs’ under varying prefixes.

Whether the fate of the Congress would have been the same in India as that of the Muslim League in Pakistan, if the Congress was not anchored in Nehru’s image and lineage, is not known. Whether the Muslim League would have remained one, if there was a Jinnah or Liaquat Ali Khan anchorage available to it, is an open question. Mercifully, the lineage theory does not seem to hold for generals. Pakistan has its share of budding political aspirants with ‘generals’ lineage’ wandering in the corridors of power wondering when their time to preside over the nation’s destiny will come.

The Congress had a clever strategy to manage its electoral weakness in Muslim majority provinces in a manner that would deny the Muslims the benefit of their numerical strength.

In Punjab, instead of a head-on clash with the Muslim League in elections which the Congress knew it could not win, it consecrated a strategic accord for the formation of a third party, Unionist, among the Hindus, the Sikhs, and those redoubtable wardens and prime beneficiaries of British rule, the Muslim jagirdars of Punjab.

Where the Muslims were in overpowering majority, such as in the NWFP, the Congress presented its most secular face and was at its charming best to disarm the Muslim leaders of the province. Nehru was fronted as the Congress face and the likes of Vallabhbhai Patel kept under wraps. Nehru’s charms worked on the Khan (Abdul Ghaffar and Khan Sahib) brothers and to this day friends, who have visited, say Nehru’s and Gandhi’s pictures adorn the walls of the Khan residences.

In Sindh, where the Muslims were in overwhelming majority but the economic power was with the Hindus, the Congress strategy was to back the Hindus and to flatter and heap with enticements the Muslim waderas, who held the Muslim population of Sindh in virtual bondage. The Congress reasoned that with economic power in the hands of the Hindu minority, and the waderas in their debt, the Muslim majority factor in Sindh would be neutralized as in Punjab and the NWFP. The Sindhi landed class, however, turned out to be made of sterner stuff. It was not taken in by the Congress’s strategic designs to overcome its electoral weakness in Sindh. In Muslim majority provinces in the west, the Congress moves were received with scorn only in Sindh.

The All India Muslim League was not only faced with the Congress’s clever strategic moves and actions, it had to also contend with the hard knocks of the Hindu extremist parties. The League had to stand up to the vitriol of the Muslim religious groups, cope with Muslim political power in Punjab and the NWFP which was against the League and deal with several dissenters and doubters amongst the leading Muslim luminaries of the time. And, not to be discounted, it had to live with Nehru’s influence over the Mountbattens.

Altogether it was a formidable opposition. Far more formidable than anything the PML (N), the PPP, the MMA or any of its other detractors can individually, or jointly, muster against the PML (Q). Only the focused style of Jinnah, never losing sight of what he wanted — a fair deal for the Indian Muslims with constitutional safeguards for their rights as equal citizens of India — nothing more, nothing less, kept the Muslim League moving forward and overcoming all hurdles.

While Jinnah stood out as a giant, personalities like him are not a common happening. The handful of men and women who played significant roles in the All India Muslim League, while blessed with adequate intellectual faculties, leaned heavily on Jinnah. They gave strength to the Muslim League by their steadfastness and undaunted devotion to the cause, their commitment, and their loyalty to the leader.

Their calibre lay in subordinating personal interests to the party’s interest; it lay in their integrity. Corruption or money scams were not heard of.

The PML(Q) has now anointed itself as ‘successor’ to the All India Muslim League of Jinnah. It may not have a Jinnah as its president but its lord and master is none other than Chaudhry Shujaat Husain.

Some of the other leading lights in the Pakistan Muslim League (Q) government, entrusted to bring the country out of its travails, are Sheikh Rashid, Parvez Elahi, Arbab Rahim and Liaquat Jatoi.

There are also many others who must remain unnamed for reasons of space. All are names not exactly renowned for political values or for political convictions, nor for fidelity and steadfastness. They are names that would have made Plato re-think his thoughts on democracy had they lived in his time.

Come the next elections, and it is a safe bet whichever party wins, there would be the usual rollover, and the luminaries of the present PML (Q) ruling dispensation would be adorning the rosters and rolls of the winning party.

THE Sindh Education Foundation’s three-day symposium in “Rediscovering Childhood” has received ample coverage in the media. Its aim was spelt out to be to gain an understanding of what childhood is ideally meant to be, to explore the role of the family and schools in children’s development and to analyse the impact of the media and technology on children in the context of globalisation and consumerism that are reshaping childhood.

Attended mainly by teachers, educationists and school proprietors, this symposium served a useful purpose by focussing attention on the main issues that confront the policymakers, education managers, teachers, children and parents in elementary education today. Many articles have appeared on the symposium lamenting the children’s loss of childhood thanks to the system we have developed over the years. Parents have also received a lot of flak for not providing the children the family environment which is so essential to nurture their minds and souls.

Many issues were discussed at the SEF’s symposium but its key concern was that children are being robbed of their childhood on account of the overly exaggerated concern of teachers, parents and educators for the ‘academic’ excellence of their students/children. That is the case in the best of schools for all classes. Since the worst of schools don’t function one can’t blame them for robbing the child of his childhood by loading him with work. They commit this theft in other ways. The major sin of the schools that are functioning, and this includes the elitist private schools as well, is that they destroy the child’s intellectual creativity and his inherent non-conformist individuality by their ‘stifling regimentation and monolithic routine’ — to use the SEF’s words.

One serious complaint that was voiced at the symposium was against the parents. Mashood Rizvi, who works for the SEF and was one of the organisers, lamented in an article in this paper the failure of parents to push for radical change in the current pattern of education. “Many of us are concerned about how much damage schooling is doing to our children, and the burden and stress it is putting on them...Yet very few of us have the courage or the conviction to do something about it,” he writes.

It is true that parents have failed to influence the education of their children as they should have done as the users of the services provided to them — in many cases at a very high price. Although teachers do often complain that parents try to bully them and the teachers are on the defensive before them, parents have failed to influence the trends in education because they do not have a collective voice.

This holds true in every class. Take the case of the village school that has been converted into an autaq by the local landlord and exists as a ghost school in the education department’s records to enable teachers to draw their salaries. What action do the parents, whose child is denied schooling, take to demand the restoration of the institution for the common good of their children? Nothing, because they are powerless. Their case may be dismissed as one of beggars cannot be choosers. After all, in Pakistan free education is seen as charity and not a birthright.

But that cannot be said about parents who pay unaffordable high fees to get their children educated. Why do not they speak up when their child is being robbed of his childhood? There are two factors which account for the parents’ silence. First, there are some who do not comprehend what education is all about. Not all mothers are highly educated and very few of them understand the modern concepts of education. Their aspirations for their own children take the form of pushing their offspring to scale new heights even if this pressure proves counterproductive. Their biggest fear is that their child may prove to be a dropout in life. Since the competitiveness of the new system feeds into this fear of parents how can they be expected to stand up and say ‘enough is enough’? They themselves need a lot of education on the issue.

The second factor is that there are parents who understand that there is something wrong with the system but they feel helpless to do anything about it. They do not have much of a choice. The schools — at least the private ones — that operate as business cartels in the marketplace have the upper hand since what we have today is the sellers’ market. A parent who withdraws his child from school in protest against wrong practices may not easily find another school for his ward. Besides there is no guarantee that the new institution will be any different, thus rendering the entire exercise a futile one.

If one follows the letters from parents in any newspaper’s correspondence column or talks to young mothers whose primary concern in life is the schooling of their children one hears a long list of complaints they have against the schools. Two most common laments pertain to the practice of loading the child with heavy school satchels in the erroneous belief that the more books he has to carry with him to school the more he will learn. Then much is said against the trend to speed up the pace of learning. ‘Catch ‘em young’ is the latest rule and little ones as young as two years of age are being packed to schools which sugarcoat themselves by falsely claiming to be Montessori institutions, which they are not. Since these pseudo Montessoris have no understanding of the child’s mental and physical development, they try to force the pace of the child’s learning doing untold damage in the process.

But will a parent have the “courage and conviction”, to use Mashood Rizvi’s words, stick his neck out? The way the entire system operates, the parents who try to resist it will be left out in the cold. And in a system where a child fails to gain admission to a school because he is over the standard age by two months, there is no time to stop and fight your battles against the system.

The major contribution of the symposium was that it identified this problem succinctly which many are vaguely aware of. Professor Anita Ghulam Ali, the managing director of SEF, was absolutely correct when she observed, “Childhood is a critical phase of life and must be fully protected to be experienced. It should not be hurried.” Hopefully, one outcome of this symposium will be that schools and policymakers will look into the pressures a child faces and attempt to ease them while enlisting parents’ participation in the process.

But parents can play an effective role only if they are given a collective voice. Caught in the web of competition, consumerism and the rat race, parents are not clear what they can do to change the system. They need to be mobilised and made equal partners with the schools in the education of their children. At present, lip service is paid to the concept of the participation of parents in the school system. But in actual practice it amounts to no more than one-to-one meetings with the teacher at the end of the term. In some cases a parent requesting for an appointment might be granted one if luck is on his side. The other interaction they have with the school is when they are invited for events such as the annual concert or the sports day, where the focus is inevitably on the children’s performance.

Why is no effort made to bring the parents together on one platform? One or two schools have a parents’ body but these are the exception to the rule. The fact is that parents can only make an impact on the system when they are allowed to act collectively. That is possible if schools do not treat them as someone on the other side of the fence. Schools should encourage and facilitate the formation of parents’ bodies to hold meetings regularly to discuss their common problems among themselves and with the school management. After all, the parents and the school managements share a common interest — the well-being of the child.

I don’t know how many parents were present at the “Rediscovering Childhood” symposium last week in their capacity as parents but SEF should consider organizing an event that brings the parents and teachers together to talk about these issues.