Study in temporising

PRESIDENT General Pervez Musharraf is reported to have directed the Council of Islamic Ideology, of which otherwise one hears very little, to draft an amendment to the Hudood Ordinances. This should be done by “consensus”, says the relevant report, and the amendment should be “compatible with Islamic law and values”.

According to the report, the general said: “The Hudood Ordinance (sic) was authored by one man and it can be changed. However, it should not be abused.”

Whether or not the president has taken an interest in this oppressive piece of legislation on account of the recent media debate that has been generated only he can say. But there has been an outcry against the ordinances almost ever since they were promulgated in 1979 by Ziaul Haq, the “one man” mentioned by Gen Musharraf. There have been several committees or commissions that have gone through the ordinances and almost all have recommended their repeal on the grounds both of their anti-women bias and because, in the view of many scholars, they do not conform to Islamic principles of justice. The most notable of the recommendations for their repeal were contained in the reports of the Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid commission and the National Commission on the Status of Women, which was headed by Justice Majida Rizvi.

Two elected civilian prime ministers had two terms each to ponder over the legislation and to amend or rescind it. In view of the fact that Mr Nawaz Sharif at one time wanted to establish a system based on the Shariat, he may not have been too keen on tackling the ordinances. Ms Benazir Bhutto had no such inhibitions, and yet she too shied away from taking on the religious lobby. General Musharraf made some encouraging “liberal” noises when he took over, but he quickly learnt the trick of pushing all socially or religiously sensitive issues into the background.

His latest pronouncement is another study in the art of temporising at which our political leaders excel. He wants the ordinances to be amended, not repealed, and amended through consensus and in a way that is compatible with Islamic law and values. The commissions and committees that have urged repeal of the ordinances apparently did not arrive at a consensus considered satisfactory by the general and, in his view, did not make suggestions compatible with Islamic laws and values.

According to the Hudood Ordinances, women reporting rape can end up by having to confess to zina, adultery, because they have to produce four male eyewitnesses to testify to rape. This is not a dead law that is not invoked: the AsiaNews website quotes the NGO Madadgar as saying that 196 Hudood cases were registered in the first four months of this year alone — 106 in Punjab, 77 in Sindh, 11 in Balochistan and two in the NWFP. Such is our powerful feudal culture that couples marrying without the blessings of their families can be and are charged under the Hudood laws: if a man wants to victimise a woman, all he has to do is to go to the police station and have an FIR registered against her under the Hudood Ordinances.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan says that of the nearly 6,000 women and children in prison, about 80 per cent of the women have been charged with adultery under the ordinances. Most of them come from disadvantaged sections of society, are poor and illiterate. One newspaper article had pertinently asked whether such women were more promiscuous than the rich and the famous.

Thus, again we have a piece of legislation that discriminates against the poor and in favour of the rich.

While referring the issue to the Council of Islamic Ideology, General Musharraf also asked that an ordinance be issued for the immediate release of women prisoners accused of crimes other than murder, robbery and terrorism (and presumably also drug smuggling). The release process was to be finalised by Monday, but the federal law minister now seems to be saying that this will form part of a “package” of reforms. So we can expect a little more delay, a little more of temporising.

General Musharraf has sounded confident and full of bravado on other issues, often invoking the personal pronoun to assert that he will do this or he won’t let that happen. On this issue, he has proved to be as pusillanimous as any other of our political leaders, although he has far more authority at his command. One hopes this is not due to the fact that he holds previous military rulers, — Ayub, Yayha and Ziaul Haq — in some reverence. He should have denounced at least his immediate predecessor as a military dictator when he took over.

But loyalty to the service and no doubt the esprit de corps prevailed over good sense. One should be forgiven for believing so, but the general seems so beholden indeed to the Ziaists in the military that he keeps Ziaul Haq’s son in his cabinet as minister. The son may be gifted with qualities of head and heart of which we are unaware, but wasn’t a principle involved somewhere about bestowing a high office on the progeny of a dictator who inflicted incalculable damage on Pakistan?

One dilemma in all such matters is of course caused by the fact that we call ourselves the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as clearly stated in the Constitution by which we all swear. This “Islamic” provision has not prevented anti-Islamic and anti-social practices to prevail. We have lied and cheated and given and taken bribes and usurped the rights of innocent people, exploited the poor and the downtrodden, sated our appetites while the poor have gone hungry, blown the rule of law to smithereens and behaved in the most uncivilised fashion, and, as a state, patronised regimes that have destroyed historical monuments and have indulged in all kinds of clandestine, extra-legal activities.

Yet the provision provides a reference point to question the government on any matter that someone considers to be contrary to what he believes to be Islamic values or Islamic laws. Few individuals have invoked this provision to challenge the actions of the government, but the religious right merrily uses it any time that it wants to make political capital out of a particular situation. It’s the easiest thing to describe something as un-Islamic and then watch ministers and rulers run for cover.

The second problem is lack of religious scholarship and of men learned in Islamic jurisprudence. As a result, most public discussion on matters concerning religion is uninformed. The discourse has been cornered by the mosque imams, many of whom are barely literate, by clerics motivated by sectarian prejudices, and by politically bankrupt politicians who turn to religion to justify their actions. What many of us consider to be Islamic may on closer scrutiny turn out to be totally contrary to our religious values.

Unnecessary confusion and schisms have been created in society. Many of us believe that since we don’t know enough about religion, we should keep it out of political argument, which should be conducted on secular lines and on the temporal political issues confronting us at every step. Others think that we should imbibe enough of religious learning and scholarship to take on the mosque imams and leaders of the religious-political parties on their own wicket.

The secularists have been fighting a losing battle because our state is constitutionally a religious state. Thus, it has become easy for the more reactionary minded to mix up “secularism” with being anti-religion or irreligious. No one stops to ask how this can be possible in a country where the majority is religious and consists of what are described as practising Muslims.

Secularism as a belief system that extols tolerance and acceptance of all religions is never considered pertinent to the Pakistani situation. This has bred much of the hypocrisy that we see around us and which results in laws like the Hudood Ordinances, described by eminent Muslims jurists as un-Islamic. The contradiction that is at the root of many of the bewildering problems we face should at some point of time at least be recognised even if at the present moment it seems impossible to resolve it.

If the Hudood Ordinances are not altogether scrapped, which is the demand of civil society, then any revision of the legislation must take into consideration the views of women representing all sections of society, and the link between the misuse of the legislation and the feudal system should be thoroughly investigated. Any insular exercise conducted in the airconditioned comfort of Islamabad, away from the district towns and hamlets where the ordinances provide only another means of terrorising and exploiting women, will prove meaningless.

Population and poverty

“One thing is sure and nothing is surer; The rich get richer and the poor get — children”

— The Great Gatsby

THERE is much talk amongst economists about poverty alleviation. Politicians also pay lip service to it. What most people are hoping is that if a spectacular growth rate is achieved some of this would trickle down to the lower income groups.

In actual fact such a trickle-down has always been rather slow, if not non-existent, depending very much on other policies. Market liberalisation regrettably doesn’t do the trick; it only makes the rich richer.

We did achieve a spectacular growth of 8.3 per cent in 2004-05. However, it was fuelled by low interest rates encouraging consumption. It was not export-led. It resulted in rising inflation, a fall in the savings rate and pressure on our foreign exchange reserves. This was to be expected. The government has also claimed a marked reduction in poverty; vindicating a trickle-down. If there was any improvement in lower incomes, it was probably the result of a bumper cotton crop and general growth in the agricultural sector which resulted in increased incomes for smaller farmers. It is not likely to be repeated this year because of drought condition. Whatever the criticism of economic policy, it is far better than the policies perpetrated by Ms Bhutto and Mr Sharif.

What is it that can be done for the poor? Provision of better health facilities, education, sanitation, clean drinking water — these are all indirect poverty alleviation measures. There are so-called poverty alleviation organisations but nobody knows what they are doing. Direct action for poverty alleviation involves providing food at reasonable prices, and for the urban poor, improved housing and affordable and efficient public transport from home to workplace.

Unfortunately, we are stuck with the wrong economic paradigm. There is fiscal austerity, from which in any case there is little escape except through more efficient tax collection which cannot happen overnight. Market liberalisation though desirable is not the panacea touted by the “Washington Consensus” and which if carried out without a proper assessment of consequences can lead to negative results as happened about 10 years ago when under IMf persuasion, we went in for open market operations and interest rates went above 20 per cent. It reduced investment and retarded growth.

Lastly, there is privatisation which has become inevitable because of Pakistan’s miserable track record in managing the public sector industry. Nobody seems to have noticed that the bidders for PTCL were all public sector companies. Etisalat, to which it has been sold, is the public sector telecoms monopoly in the UAE.

We are one of the few countries where public transport even in urban areas has been handed over to the private sector. Our public sector has always been a disaster for the simple reason that no attempt was ever made to appoint competent people. Once in a while, by mistake a competent and honest person was appointed, but since he was not sufficiently amenable to political pressure he was summarily removed. The present government has not managed any better. However, it has been relentless in its pursuit of privatisation.

Nevertheless, the issue of poverty reduction has to be faced: no mechanism is available to provide staple food including wheat, rice, lentils and sugar at subsidised prices. The clean water programme is too ambitious and even if filler plants are installed their operation will be a problem. It might work in some urban areas.

The real issue for the poor are large families. We are not China that we can enforce it through decree. In South Asia, India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have been much more successful in lowering population growth. Although Ayub Khan was keen on family planning and introduced a population welfare programme, by 1972 the population in the decade had grown by 3.6 per cent per annum. In the next decade, until 1981 the population grew by 3.1 per cent per annum. The rate of population growth slowed down after that and currently is claimed to be 1.9 per cent. This appears optimistic and the population growth rate is probably around 2.2 per cent per annum. For instance, TFR (total fertility rate) was 6.3 in 1974-75 and in 2000-01 it was 4.8. It is probably 4.5 today. If we are lucky it may be around 4.3.

What happens when a child is born? It requires health services from day one; after four or five years it needs to be educated; it generally begins to enter the work force after about 15 years and this raises problems of job creation. While we cannot provide enough jobs there is nevertheless the issue of child labour. There is a lot of idealistic talk about this but if education is not available and the family is struggling to survive, this becomes inevitable.

No one is seriously concerned about the poor, the voiceless segment of society. What we end up with are unhealthy, under-nourished and ill-educated individuals, with a low IQ. This retards growth in productivity, and because of rising unemployment and under-employment, promotes crime and pressure to migrate to more developed countries. The well-to-do who travel to foreign lands bitterly complain about the disadvantages of a “green passport” not realising that it is the better off and educated among us who are responsible for this state of affairs.

A comparison with South Korea shows some of the effects of population growth. In 1950, the population of Pakistan was 33 million and that of South Korea 20 million. The per capita income of both was around $580. By 2001 Pakistan’s population was estimated at 142.5 million and South Korea was 47.7 million, i.e. Pakistan’s population had increased by 430 per cent. South Korea’s population had increased by around 240 per cent. The per capita income in Pakistan was $430 and in South Korea $10,500.

Population planning was introduced in South Korea around the early 1960s. The birth rate dropped dramatically from 4.51 per cent in the 1970s to 1.56 per cent in 1997. It was introduced at around the same time in Pakistan but the birth rate has only dropped from 6.3 in the 1970s to around 4.3 today.

While the entire difference between per capita incomes cannot be ascribed simply to population growth it is nevertheless an important contributing factor in underdevelopment. There are other differences between the two countries. South Korea has had a stable and productive relationship with the US, Pakistan/ US ties rise and fall according to external events. South Korea had a military dictatorship for around 25 years.

After becoming a medium-income country and attaining universal literacy it took the road to democracy and is progressing reasonably well. Pakistan has seen a cycle of civil and military governments. The civilian chiefs behave like dictators; the military chief worries about being popular. Neither attitude is conducive to good governance.

Owing to social and cultural changes, the use of contraception has increased leading to reduced fertility although the provision of family planning services has been inefficient and inadequate. For instance, according to a survey by the Population Council in Pakistan, married women have about one million abortions a year. By most accounts, 33 per cent women of child-bearing age would like to practise contraception but cannot do so for lack of counselling and availability of contraceptives and allied contraceptive services particularly in the rural areas.

While family planning was originally a government programme over the last 20 years or so, the private sector has provided increasing support for contraception. Currently, according to the Ministry of Population Welfare’s estimate, about 65 per cent of family planning services are provided by the government and about 35 per cent by NGOs. The Planning Commission estimates this figure to be closer to 50 per cent for both. The present government has, for the last few years, placed emphasis on family planning but the programme has not received adequate administrative priority.

In view of these developments, there has been much talk about public/private partnerships for more than a year, but nothing concrete has emerged so far. India and Bangladesh have a well developed support programme for NGOs with special emphasis on social marketing — it is the use of business methods to achieve socially desirable objectives. In Pakistan, social marketing provides more than 80 per cent of the contribution made by NGOs to family planning.

While government will ultimately provide support to NGOs, involved with family planning, our corporate sector and private charities tend to distance themselves from such activities. An effective way to mobilise private sector support would be to set up Mother and Child Health clinics in poor urban areas in collaboration with family planning NGOs. Smaller families amongst the poor would help considerably in reducing the effects of poverty along with its concomitant effects, under-nourishment and lack of parental care.