DAWN - Opinion; February 09, 2007

Published February 9, 2007

Education: signs of hope

By Pervez Hoodbhoy


THERE is good news: the “White Paper” to “debate and finalise national education policy”, distributed in December 2006 by the ministry of education, though incomplete and flawed, is an enormous step forward. So is the new school curriculum — which somewhat mysteriously and improperly preceded the White Paper. These may persuade even a few hardened cynics that the country’s school education system still has a future.

One is pleasantly surprised that this comes from a government ministry that has been in shambles for decades and is now headed, rather inauspiciously, by a former ISI general. Of course, there are problems aplenty. The White Paper, among other things, is manifestly unfair to Pakistan’s minorities because it pretends that they do not exist; it contradicts itself in places; its multiple authors appear not to have communicated well with each other; and the treatment of the problems of higher education — as well as madressah education — is unsatisfactory. But it is an accomplishment in spite of these failings.

First, a government document that aims to have a debate about policy in consultation with ordinary citizens is a welcome concept. Pakistanis have occasionally had political leaders who were elected, but never a bureaucracy soliciting people’s views on crucial public matters. The invitation given to intellectuals and civil society organisations is novel, as is the apparent willingness to incorporate suggestions which these debates may generate. A revised White Paper in March 2007 will hopefully contain important changes.

Second, the White Paper draws upon new statistical data recently collected in a national education census on enrolments, dropout rates, geographical distributions, private schools, etc. This provides a framework for conducting an informed and reasoned debate, rather than vacuous theorising.

Third, the White Paper team, headed by a respected retired civil servant, Javed Hasan Aly, starts with the premise that Pakistan seeks progress and prosperity: “Recognising education as a right of the citizen, it is the aim of the state of Pakistan to provide equal and ample opportunity to all its citizens to realise their full potential as individuals….preparing them for life, livelihood, and nation-building.”

This is in stark contrast to earlier education policies which saw Pakistani education as a tool to forcibly remake children’s minds. An official document, issued 11 years ago by the same ministry, had required that school children be taught to “make speeches on jihad and shahadat”; be aware of “India’s evil designs against Pakistan”; that they must “demonstrate by actions a belief in the fear of Allah”; go on field trips to “visit police stations”; and must “collect pictures of policemen, soldiers and National Guards”. (These are direct quotes.)

This grim — if not terrifying — set of goals, has now been replaced with a relatively moderate vision of a Muslim Pakistan in which, “We have to unburden ourselves of the weight of centuries of nostalgia, suffocating our capacities to find our way out from the darkness of ignorance.”

Fine words, but surely real change will need more than vague hopes typed on white sheets of papers. The federal ministry of education and the four provincial education ministries are in a disastrous state. Their inefficiency, disorganisation, and corrupt practices are legendary. Are there actually 12,737 non-functional “ghost” schools (as officially stated) or more like 30,000? Does the latest count of madressahs actually stand at 12,979 or is it closer to 22,000?

The management of educational institutions could not be poorer. The collapse of public schools comes from the inability of the state to deliver even half-decent education or to effectively monitor what is happening around it. This is what caused an explosion of private schools which, starting from near zero, now cover about 33 per cent of Pakistan and as much as 70 per cent of its cities.

This is bad news. Mere moralising or proposing reforms and new curricula to the nation — but not knowing how to implement them — will make us despondent once again. Without reviving the public school system, education will become even more inaccessible to the poor and make it impossible to ever create a just society. Unfortunately, on this matter, the White Paper has no action plan that actually shows the way forward. We really should be told who will do the job. But even more importantly, what exactly needs to be done? It is therefore time to construct workable plans and address real needs, albeit in ways not considered earlier. As one example, consider the issue of monitoring the country’s schools, without which successful management of a large system is simply impossible.

Imagine a situation where a real (not fictitious) data profile exists on every one of the 245,682 Pakistani schools. These would be public and private, rich and poor, located in the cities or in remote mountainous or desert areas. The more details one has the better, but anything is better than nothing. Individual school profiles could be used to rationally apportion the correct quantum of government and private resources, check wastages, improve school administration and teaching quality, etc.

Such a huge project is impossible by traditional means. But space-age technology is changing the world, and Pakistan can use it to clean up its educational mess. Effective school monitoring, a vital but unfulfilled task, has suddenly become possible.How? One satellite in geosynchronous orbit over Pakistan can locate every single school and also determine certain crude parameters. Information sent down by its cameras can easily reveal when a certain school opened and closed on a particular day, roughly how many students entered and left, etc. School buildings used as warehouses or cattle sheds could be instantly identified; there would be fewer ghost schools. All information would be stored in that school’s dossier located in a computer system, accessible to the federal and provincial education ministries.

In most cases, school inspectors on the ground could supplement the satellite pictures. There is, of course, nothing new about school inspections. But what if an inspector is required to take pictures of the school he or she periodically visits, as well as to fill in required student and teacher attendance numbers, various assessment forms, the textbook and supplies situation, and then upload the information directly to the satellite above?

GPS technology allows the satellite to know exactly where the inspector is located. It is easy to make a report uploadable only from the school actually being inspected. Fictitious reports, which are the bane of the present system of school inspections, would become much harder. A report would instantly become part of that school’s dossier, accessible in a centralised location. Even for urban schools in posh areas, this form of direct inspection would provide a source of valuable information.With this kind of technological assistance, the five education ministries could turn into effective watchdogs servicing the needs of schools. The legions of their listless employees, presently occupying vast amounts of building space but doing nothing, could be turned into professionals sitting in front of computers. They would have various data at their fingertips, and be constantly communicating electronically with colleagues, supervisors, and suppliers of books and materials. Surely, the time for new ideas has come.

For the reader who thinks this is utopian, please get yourself a computer, internet connection, and download “Google Earth” for free. A satellite in the sky above you will allow you to see your house, the car standing in front of it, and the general environs. One can, of course, have far clearer pictures by paying appropriate fees.

To be sure, technology must never be considered as a panacea. Structural changes in the system of Pakistan’s educational management are essential. Massive teacher training and examination reform are obviously crucial, as is the need to decentralise the school administration and turn it over to the town and zila level. These problems are also amenable to technological improvements, albeit to different degrees. Clarity of purpose, political will, adequate financial resources for education, and willingness to appreciate and use modern technology — arranged in this order — can transform Pakistan’s school system. Should we dare to hope?

The writer teaches physics at Quaid-e-Azam University, Islamabad.

Email: pervezhoodbhoy@yahoo.com

Saudi Arabia’s diplomacy

ONE consequence of the Bush administration's recent decision to divide the Middle East between "extremists" and "moderates" was to marginalise US diplomacy in the region. The administration refuses to talk to the "extremists" — Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas — but those governments and groups are at the centre of every major conflict from Iraq to the Gaza Strip.

Now one of the administration's "moderate" allies, Saudi Arabia, has stepped into the vacuum. The result has been a revealing demonstration of how talks with adversaries can sometimes be useful — and a hint of what may be lost by Mr. Bush's inflexible policy.

In Riyadh on Wednesday, Saudi King Abdullah was hosting potentially groundbreaking negotiations between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and senior leaders of Hamas. While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been preparing to have her own talks next week with Mr. Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the intra-Palestinian discussions are considerably more important: They could determine whether a Palestinian administration emerges that is both willing and able to settle with Israel, or whether recent Palestinian factional fighting escalates.

Significantly, the Hamas representatives in Riyadh include Khaled Meshal, a militant leader based in Damascus who has blocked previous moves toward a Palestinian accord. Saudi relations with Mr. Meshal's sponsor, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, may be warming; Mr. Assad will soon be in Riyadh for a Saudi-hosted summit of the Arab League.

Saudi diplomats, including former ambassador to Washington Prince Bandar bin Sultan, are also deeply engaged in talks with Iran. The contacts began with a visit to Saudi Arabia by Ali Larijani, the head of Iran's national security council. Prince Bandar subsequently visited Tehran.

—The Washington Post

Fuss over the Carter book

By Muhammad Ali Siddiqi


“IT is impossible for any candidate for Congress,” says Jimmy Carter, “to make a statement like ‘I favour balanced support of Israel and Palestine’.” The former American president, who will be remembered by history for the Camp David accords, was speaking at a book-signing event after he had been branded anti-Semitic.

The problem with America is that either you are pro-Israel or you are very, very pro-Israel. If you belong to the former category, you must be prepared to pay the price, be branded anti-Semitic, sidelined and demonised. Jimmy Carter can perhaps afford to suffer all this because his career is behind him; lesser mortals cannot take on the elite that controls America’s elite.

Being grateful is not a quality that can be found in a people suffering from paranoia stemming from 2,000 years of horrible persecution. In fact, it is not in their genes — to use a word recently popularised by the Dutch foreign minister. What is shocking is that the Zionist lobby is hounding a man who they must be grateful to for normalising Israel’s relations with the most important Arab country, Egypt.

More crucial for Israel, the Camp David accords brokered by Carter strengthened Israel’s security by demilitarising the Sinai peninsula. In any given emergency this priceless advantage given to Israel by the former American president will enable Israeli forces to reach the Suez canal within hours without firing a shot. This Jimmy Carter is now being hounded and accused of being anti-Semitic, because his book, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, has paragraphs that contain a mild criticism of Israeli policies in the occupied territories.

At Camp David (1978), Carter was superb. Unlike Bill Clinton, who turned himself and the American delegation virtually into Israeli delegates during the failed Camp David II summit (July 2000), Carter realised much earlier that Anwar Saadat and Menachem Begin were incompatible. Often they had angry exchanges, making it impossible for Carter to mediate and have three-way negotiations. What Carter did was to negotiate with them separately and convey one’s views to the other. This was a painstaking job, but Carter accomplished it with skill and grace.

A big omission in the Camp David accords was that Begin’s verbal assurances to Carter that he would freeze Jewish settlement activity in the West Bank and Gaza were not put in writing. Years later, after he was no longer president, Carter met Begin again in occupied Jerusalem, but Begin, whom the British branded “the pre-eminent terrorist in the region”, was a changed man and treated Carter like a cigarette butt. Carter wanted to remind Begin, then still prime minister, that he had not been faithful to the assurances he had given him about a settlement freeze. But Begin showed no interest in the conversation, responded laconically — “just a few words spoken in a surprisingly perfunctory manner” — and made it plain that he wanted a quick end to the conversation. He snubbed the former US president by holding negotiations with him in a small dimly-lit room. As Carter notes in his book, “We had been sitting in a small, sparsely adorned room … The exchanges had been cool, distant, and non-productive. As I left, I noticed that the adjacent room was large, brightly lighted, attractive and vacant.”

Most Arab critics, including Yasser Arafat, of Sadat’s deal at Camp David initially failed to realise that the accords did not merely relate to the bilateral Egyptian-Israeli matters (Sinai, to be specific) but bound Israel to honour UN Resolution 242, which called for a withdrawal of Israeli forces from the West Bank and Gaza in return for the Arabs’ recognition of Israel’s right to exist. Years later, Arafat told Carter that he misunderstood the (1978) Camp David deal. However, Begin understood the deal thoroughly well, confined its implementation only to the Egyptian part of the accords and showed no intention of implementing those parts of the accords that related to the occupied Palestine territories.

To be specific, the accords called for, among other things, Israel’s commitment to 242, the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied territories, and recognition of the Palestinian people as a separate political entity with the right to determine their own future. As Carter observers, for Begin the treaty with Egypt merely meant an opportunity to “confiscate, settle, and fortify the occupied territories”. A continuation of this policy, says Carter, will mean “the Palestinians will be left with no territory in which to establish a viable state”.

The Carter book quotes several Israeli leaders, including prime ministers Yitzhak Shamir, Benjamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon, to unmask their real attitude towards peace and their wicked resolve never to quit the occupied land and return 22 per cent of Palestine to the Palestinian people. Shamir, says Carter, “considered Jews to be the natural rulers of Israel, the West Bank and Gaza”; Netanyahu “promised never to exchange land for peace”; and Sharon considered the Oslo accords to be “national suicide”. Sharon also believed that even the east bank “is ours but not in our hands”.

Carter quotes Sharon as saying what news reports had confirmed him as saying much earlier: “Everybody has to move, run and grab as many hilltops as they can to enlarge the settlements because everything we take now will stay ours…Everything we don’t grab will go to them”.

Carter’s fault is his objectivity with regard to the situation in occupied Palestine, the brutalities which he noted the Palestinians were subjected to, the constant confiscation of Palestinian lands and the construction of the separation wall. (Israel does not like the word “wall” because it reminds the world of the hated Berlin Wall. So the western, especially American, media calls it “separation barrier”). Carter calls it “imprisonment wall”.

His view of the situation in occupied territories and the prospects of peace are summarised in these two sentences: Israel believes in “imposing a system of partial withdrawal, encapsulation, and apartheid on the Muslim and Christian citizens of the occupied territories”; and “Israel’s continued control and colonisation of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land”.

Carter also has the courage to say something about America’s pro-Zionist establishment and blames the continued violence in the territories on “a submissive White House and Congress” because they condone “illegal Israeli actions”. Without using the words Zionist lobby Carter says “Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned or condemned, voices from Jerusalem dominate in our media, and most American citizens are unaware of circumstances in the occupied territories”.

The one to lead the attack on Carter was Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, who said it was an “anti-Semitic canard to say that Jews control media”. Calling the book “shameful, shameless and irresponsible,” Foxman said the Carter book made “outrageous misrepresentations of Israel”. But, at the book-signing event, reported by the New York Times, Carter stood his ground and said pro-Israeli lobbyists had stifled open debate in the US on the Palestinian question. He specially lashed out at the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee and said its aim was not peace in the Middle East but “almost complete unanimity and rigidity in supporting Israel’s policy”. Defending the title of his book, Carter said the choice of the word “apartheid” was “completely appropriate for Palestine”.

One must admire Carter’s courage. At a time when American blood is flowing in Iraq for the benefit of Israel, at least one former US president has the courage to look the Zionist lobby in the eye and speak the truth.



© DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2007

Opinion

Editorial

Judiciary’s SOS
Updated 28 Mar, 2024

Judiciary’s SOS

The ball is now in CJP Isa’s court, and he will feel pressure to take action.
Data protection
28 Mar, 2024

Data protection

WHAT do we want? Data protection laws. When do we want them? Immediately. Without delay, if we are to prevent ...
Selling humans
28 Mar, 2024

Selling humans

HUMAN traders feed off economic distress; they peddle promises of a better life to the impoverished who, mired in...
New terror wave
Updated 27 Mar, 2024

New terror wave

The time has come for decisive government action against militancy.
Development costs
27 Mar, 2024

Development costs

A HEFTY escalation of 30pc in the cost of ongoing federal development schemes is one of the many decisions where the...
Aitchison controversy
Updated 27 Mar, 2024

Aitchison controversy

It is hoped that higher authorities realise that politics and nepotism have no place in schools.