|
| May 25, 2006 | Thursday | Rabi-us-Sani 26, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
No closure of Guantanamo?
Why this slaughter?
Which way higher education?
Al Gore’s comeback
A DISCERNING commentator on the imperial overreach of America had this to say about the changing balance of power in the world: “The world is in the midst of a monumental process of change that, within the next 10 years or so, could leave the US as only the second largest economy in the world after China, and commanding with the rise of China and India, a steadily contracting share of global output”.
ONE can understand why the All Parties’ Hurriyet Conference has decided to boycott the “roundtable conference” called by Indian Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh in Srinagar. The hardline group led by Syed Ali Shah Gilani had already refused to attend the conference, terming it an exercise in futility. Similar views were expressed by Mr Shabbir Shah of the Democratic Freedom Party. Now even the moderate group led by Mirwaiz Umar Farooq has come to the same conclusion. There are speculations now that Dr Singh may separately meet some Hurriyet leaders. This has sent alarm bells ringing in the pro-occupation National Conference, which said it too would not attend the RTC if the prime minister met some Hurriyet leaders separately. It is now anybody’s guess what the conference will achieve when it is attended only by New Delhi’s puppets in occupied Kashmir. Mr Farooq said that Hurriyet had unanimously decided to boycott the conference because it had no agenda and that he did not wish to sit at the same table with “political hypocrites”.
There are some obvious reasons why Hurriyet has boycotted the conference: New Delhi has not kept the promises it made to Kashmiri leaders during their talks with the present government and its predecessor, the BJP leadership. The promises included the release of political prisoners and action to address the Kashmiri leaders’ human rights concerns. None of this has materialised during the intervening period, and the Hurriyet leaders feel justified in having reservations about the promises Dr Singh may make again. The rights situation in Kashmir is more serious than New Delhi would like to admit. World human rights bodies, including Amnesty International, the international media and foreign governments have been expressing concerns over the carte blanche given to Indian security forces in the occupied state and New Delhi’s failure to punish those responsible for the murder of innocent civilians, the torture of political detainees and the disappearances. Earlier this month, the police broke up a demonstration in Srinagar by a group of Kashmiri women who were protesting against a prostitution ring formed for the benefit of local politicians, police officials and bureaucrats. The protesters, led by Asiya Andrabi, head of Dukhtaran-i-Millat, blamed New Delhi for the racket and said India was using prostitution and alcohol as weapons of war. This is just one example of the kind of atmosphere Indian security forces have created in the occupied parts of Kashmir.
One expects Dr Singh to draw correct lessons from the Kashmiri leaders’ refusal to attend the RTC, and an obvious one is that the Hurriyet leaders have detected a lack of sincerity on the part of the Indian government to seek a solution of the Kashmir dispute. India, for instance, has failed to respond to a number of suggestions Pakistan has made to move towards a peaceful solution of the dispute. Its suggestions include self-governance, a joint management of the territory and the demilitarisation of three areas — Srinagar, Kapwara and Baramulla. But India has failed to respond to these suggestions and continues to show a lack of flexibility on the issue. Instead, it continues to harp on the old theme — that Kashmir is “an integral part” of India. With this kind of unrealistic stand, India should not expect the Kashmiri leaders to attend conferences which they think are merely an exercise in propaganda if not futility.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s remarks to an American television channel the other day makes it clear that, despite the growing international pressure on Washington to close down its notorious detention camp at Guantanamo, the Bush administration has no plans of doing so. Calling Guantanamo “a necessity because of the nature of the war on terror”, Ms Rice rejected the findings of a recent report issued by a UN panel examining Washington’s detention policies. The report expressed concern at America’s harsh treatment of prisoners and called for the closure of Guantanamo jail. This is an unlikely prospect considering that a $30 million project to build additional prison facilities on the premises is nearing completion. The other reason for America’s reluctance to close the prison is rooted in its fear of having to face additional international pressure to seal its numerous other detention centres in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere including secret locations.
Ms Rice and her colleagues in the Bush administration may maintain that the UN report is not accurate, but they are in no position to defend the charges against them. The sordid tales told by released prisoners and the frequent protests, including hunger strikes and suicide bids, by inmates testify to the brutal treatment meted out to the detainees. Although many prisoners have been released and others sent to their home countries to face trial, almost 500 prisoners who remain in Guantanamo are in a legal blackhole of Washington’s making. The Bush administration has denied them prisoner rights as stipulated by the Geneva Conventions and has made no attempts to expedite their trials or to call in international monitors to observe these. Strangely, the US does not realise how futile the whole exercise has been. Few of the hundreds of prisoners who have been detained at Guantanamo have been formally charged. Moreover, the US has been unable to gain any vital information from the prisoners that could prove useful in its war on terror. For Ms Rice to say that the prison contains “hundreds of dangerous people” is sheer perversity.
SOME 1,000 trees have been marked for cutting down along Lahore’s Canal Bank Road. The reason: an obsession on the part of the authorities concerned to widen the road to accommodate the growing number of vehicles. Three months ago, hundreds of trees were chopped down from a portion of the same road to make room for a flyover. Daily commuters using the 16km stretch of the road and residents on both sides of the canal say they do not mind spending a few more minutes on the road during rush hours if they could keep the trees from coming under the axe. But such appeals are likely to fall on deaf ears, as has been the norm in recent years. It is appalling that the authorities out on an unnecessary road-widening spree should be so dismissive of the concerns of the community whose environment they are messing with. Who will save the recently marked trees from being brought down is anybody’s guess.
The explanation given by the city district government and the other civic agencies involved in the project that an environmental assessment report will be commissioned and the public consulted before a decision is taken to widen the Canal Road, is not good enough. If the past is any guide, it is long after the damage has been done that an assessment report is completed. Studies conducted to assess the harm done to the environment by the building of a series of underpasses on the same road last year are yet to see the light of day, and now cannot undo the damage already done. Since the city managers and the Punjab government do not seem open to considering the apprehensions being voiced by citizens and environmentalists, an intervention into the matter by the superior judiciary may be the only way to save the trees in question from wholesale slaughter.
China’s GDP is tipped to overtake that of the US by 2045. It has already overtaken Britain and France as the worlds fourth largest economy. It has experienced 9.5 per cent economic growth for the last 25 years, and its GDP has quadrupled from 1980 to 2000. The US deficit with China is currently running at $200 billion, a quarter of the total US trade deficit.
China has re-invested hundreds of billions of dollars in US securities and stocks, which means that China could influence US monetary policy in a crisis situation. Reflecting the changing balance of power, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office has increased the number of its diplomats to China (up by seven per cent over the last two years) and India (up by 16 per cent).
The Bush visit to India and Pakistan in March was a much-needed lesson in realpolitik for our policymakers. In the whole discussion about the Bush visit to South Asia, and the comparison of the treatment meted out to India and Pakistan, what was missing was a realisation not of the economic strides that India has made, but of the educational revolution that underlies all its progress. It is an understanding of this elemental source of strength and depth of both India and China, which is missing in the Pakistani media.
In the US-India joint statement there was great emphasis on joint research and capacity-building projects including biotechnology, the FutureGen power project, international marine research, the establishment of a bi-national science and technology commission, space programmes and medical research. In the joint statement with Pakistan the whole emphasis is on strategic dialogue. There is some mention of encouraging educational programmes and strengthening research collaboration, but this in no way compares favourably with that offered to India, because Indian research and education has reached a level where the US can be its partner and also benefit from it.
A recent news item mentioned the global rate of salaries that Indian companies are now able to offer to talented Indian graduates, reversing the brain-drain that had been taking place over the last few decades. An Indian company offered a graduate of the Indian School of Business (ISB) $223,800. In the 1960s, the Indian government set up six Indian institutes of management, (IIMs) and seven Indian institutes of technology (IITs), which have been providing quality education to students.
The graduates of Indian business schools are getting international salaries, and Indian companies are able to compete with the salaries offered by multinationals. At one IIM, for 1,300 seats there were 158,000 applicants in 2005. But it is not just the IITs and IIMs which are imparting quality education, their universities are no less behind. The Jawaharlal Nehru University is a case in point.
Chinese policy planners are aware that no sustained growth is possible unless China modernises its educational system, especially its higher education system. Their education minister, Zhou Ji, who has a Ph.D from the US, has just published a book on “Higher Education in China”. In this book he discusses not only the transformation that higher education is undergoing, but also the vision behind this change.
There is realisation that if China were to sustain its social development and economic growth at the present level, the 1.3 billion Chinese population would have to be further educated in order to become a dynamic pool of human resource. At present, 94 per cent of the population has received an average education of eight years. By 2020, every child will have completed compulsory education of nine years. Enrolment in higher education institutes increased from 9.8 percent to 19 percent of the relevant age group, during 1998-2004. The Chinese have opted for a decentralised structure and heterogeneity within higher education. In this the Chinese system is like the US educational system, where different educational standards coexist.
Since sound teaching standards lie at the heart of any improvement in education, incentives for teachers have been combined with regular assessment of the quality of their teaching and research. Teachers traditionally have had a high status in Chinese society, but now with the drive for a better education system in full gear, the average salary of teachers is amongst the highest of all professions. The result is that students strive to get into the best universities, and there is stiff competition to become a university teacher.
China is trying to achieve its objectives by sending some of its top students abroad for studies. About 120,000 students go abroad each year to 100 different countries. More importantly, they are not state-funded, for about 93 per cent pay their own fees. There is also a drive to form alliances with universities abroad. Beijing University has formal collaboration with 200 universities in 49 countries. Interestingly, the largest numbers of foreign students at Cambridge University are from the US, but China is a close second.
So what about higher education in Pakistan? Currently, 2.9 per cent are enrolled in higher education institutions, and this percentage will be raised to five in an equal number of years, and 10 per cent in 10 years. But as one authority on higher education pointed out, in order to strive for international standards the per student recurring cost should be at least $10,000 per annum.
The projected enrolment of 500,000 students by 2010 will require $5 billion per year of recurring expenditure. At current rates of exchange this will work out to Rs 300 billion per year. Compare this with about Rs 200 billion as the total development expenditure of Pakistan in the current year. It is obvious that such large inputs will just not be possible.
The plan is to increase the number of PhDs in the public sector universities from 1,700 to 15,000-20,000 in five years. But our public sector universities are dinosaurs, and what is desperately needed is their restructuring. The creation of nine new engineering universities along the lines of the Indian IITs is welcome, but what about the existing universities?
The thousands of students being sent for PhD degrees abroad have signed bonds to serve their country for three years, but at the end of the period are they likely to stay on given the obsolescent state of our universities? When awarding PhD scholarships is there some vision as to which disciplines need to be developed for the country? If there is, where is the document?
The teachers have a new payscale, called the Tenure Track System or TTS, which has been adopted by some universities. All this sounds impressive, but what is relevant is how many faculty members have been awarded the TTS, not how many universities have accepted the TTS system three years after this scheme was launched.
I met a young lecturer from one of our engineering universities who had just graduated from Cambridge University with a degree in one of the sciences. I tried to persuade him to return to his parent university but he was not interested, because while his university had adopted the TTS, hardly anyone on the faculty was being paid according to the new payscale. There is an obvious failure to attract young Pakistanis graduating with doctorates from the world’s top universities.
The high priority that President Musharraf has given to education, and higher education in particular, has led to an inflow of unprecedented funds into this sector. However, what is of concern to the observers of higher education in Pakistan is that many programmes that have been launched are not only badly conceived, but also poorly executed. The idea is not to negate the many initiatives that have been taken, but there must be more openness and discussion as to which way we are headed. So far this is missing. As the discussion about the impressive strides India and China are making in higher education shows, we have a lot of catching up to do.
F. SCOTT Fitzgerald’s principle that “there are no second acts in American lives” does not apply to Al Gore.
The man who had the most powerful job in the world wrested from his grasp by an ill-designed ballot paper and a capricious supreme court is making a comeback almost unheard of in a country where second place is nowhere.
Having recently appeared on the front covers of Vanity Fair, Time and Wired, and with his documentary on climate change, “An Inconvenient Truth”, opening nationwide in the US this week, Mr Gore is in the limelight and, it seems, in the running for the White House.
So far Mr Gore’s responses to questions of whether or not he will run have been inconclusive: “I have no plans” and “Politics is behind me” are two of his recent formulations. But his new-found celebrity and relaxed manner have made many think a “Gore 2008” campaign might be the antidote to Hillary Clinton’s inevitable run for the presidency. Mr Gore may be the only candidate who could deny Mrs Clinton the Democratic nomination - and it would make for a riveting primary campaign.
—The Guardian, London