| July 02, 2007 | Monday | Jamadi-us-Sani 16, 1428 |
To send a letter to the Editor
Click here
Shah Abdul Latif University
The mischief of ‘Richistan’
HEC-recognised Urdu journals
Ayub’s diaries
Afghan refugees
Independent politicians
Lahore rains
Readers are requested to restrict their comments to a maximum of 400 words. We reserve the right to edit letters for reasons of clarity and space. Letters, including those by e-mail, should carry the complete postal address of the sender. The views expressed in these columns do not necessarily reflect the views of the newspaper.—Editor
Feudalism is a stagnant mentality permeating most institutions. Dictators crave to maintain status quo. They want power and prestige by keeping the public illiterate and backward, so no one can challenge their writ. Feudalism is passed on to succeeding generations.
The Quaid-i-Azam did not get sufficient time to groom the public to imbibe egalitarian principles. His untimely death provided lacuna to the feudal lords to ascend to the throne, which put national welfare at the backburner and were preoccupied by their insatiable egocentrism.
Frequent change of the government generated perpetual political instability, which provided vacuum to the army to intervene. Ayub Khan transferred power unconstitutionally to Yahya Khan. He launched army operation against the people of East Pakistan. Erratic development priorities and high-handedness alienated the East Pakistanis, who later separated.
This calamity brought Z. A. Bhutto to power who projected himself as the champion of democracy, yet could not tolerate the opposition government in the NWFP and Balochistan. Spate of vehement protests by the opposition, due to alleged rigging of the 1977 elections by the PPP, ended with Mr Bhutto’s incarceration and execution by the succeeding authoritarian regime.
There was no continuity of policies due to wrestling for political authority. Ayub’s ‘industrialisation’ and ‘Basic Democracy’, Bhutto’s ‘nationalisation’, Zia’s ‘Islamisation’, Benazir’s and Nawaz Sharif’s ‘privatisation’ were just cosmetic measures. The fate of the ‘enlightened moderation’ and the ‘devolution plan’ would not be very different from their predecessors.
In Pakistan feudal lords have been philandering with democracy since the birth of the country. They sermonise egalitarianism but believe in social stratification. They frame laws to drive the masses with steel rod. They insult, mutilate and amend the constitution that can transfer maximum political power in their messy hands.
To talk about women rights in Pakistan is to show red rag to feudal bulls. They are physically tortured, mentally strained, socially ridiculed, economically exploited and politically marginalised.
Student unions were the rearing grounds for those in queer street to become democratic national leaders. But feudal lords could not endure those politicians in legislative assemblies. Therefore, they collectively devised a scheme to ban student unions.
Explosive growth alone cannot reduce poverty and socio-economic inequality. During the first Green Revolution of the 1960s, wheat and rice were produced in hefty volume. During the second Green Revolution of 1970s and 1980s, the production of cotton was greatly enhanced. But only the well-heeled landlords garnered top crust benefits because they easily purchased fertilisers, pesticides and agrarian technology.
Land reforms are indispensable to break the back of feudalism. Land reforms pioneered by Ayub and Bhutto failed to bridge the gap between the rich and the poor because the feudal lords transferred their surplus land to their relatives and tenants and later retrieved it from them.
The US also does not want real democracy in Pakistan, which can clash with its vested interests in the territory. It pampers those who look after its concerns.
Pakistan is passing through a miserable phase of institutional crisis, but there is always light at the end of the tunnel. The firm stand taken by the chief justice has shown a glimmer of hope to the rank and file.
Democracy and feudalism are incompatible. Democracy would only bear fruit when feudalism would be eradicated. There is need to reform the system to strengthen institutions instead of personalities and pressure groups.
The army, bureaucracy, judiciary, print and electronic media, clergy and politicians should play a constructive role in beefing up the foundations of democracy.
DR TANVIR HUSSAIN BHATTI
Lahore
RECENTLY, there have been interviews for the appointment of a new vice chancellor, Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur, amid allegations that the university, established as a campus in 1976 and upgraded to fully - fledged university in 1987, has not flourished as it should have been like its sister universities (BZU, Multan; Mehran Engineering University, Jamshoro, etc).
Shah Abdul Latif University was established in 1976 by the ZAB government to provide people education at their door steps and thereby trigger economic and social change in society that hitherto had remained neglected as far as socio-economic development was concerned.
For the development of phases I and II, grants of Rs150 and Rs92 million, respectively, were granted.
The apparent reason for the undergrowth of the university is said to be the cancer of corruption as it has prevented its academic and administrative organism to develop into the well - nurtured body of academic learning and teaching. Undoubtedly, corruption has been encouraged by political interference due to which vice chancellors are being appointed on the basis of political connections, not merit.
This phenomenon has ravaged the university to the extent in the recent ranking of the universities, conducted by the HEC, that Shah Latif University has performed very badly and secured 20th position.
One of the factors responsible for this situation is said to be the lack of discipline among teachers and the administration that are two wheels of the chariot, and if any one wheel is not functioning properly, the chariot will falter.
It is unfortunate that the vice chancellor appointed on the political basis has so far shown less drive to change the academic atmosphere of the university and, thereby, inculcate amongst teachers and the taught the enthusiasm about the learning and research.
Today, Latif University is facing an acute shortage of the facilities required for standard teaching and research. Not only is there dearth of books, journals, computers, but also of the proper environment where students and teachers can sit to realise their teaching and research pursuits.
This can be judged from the fact that there are only 10 computers in the central library for more than 5,000 students and 200 teachers and researchers.
Once Napoleon had said that if soldiers are not brave, discipline makes them brave. This maxim of Napoleon can be applied to our institutions as the lack of discipline is rendering them useless for delivering to the masses in terms of service.
The lack of discipline and the absence of any seriousness of purpose on the part of the university administration to work for the promotion and strengthening of educational standards have given rise to individualism where every person in the university is busy in seeking his own interest at the cost of the university.
Amid the doom and gloom scenario, I have still sanguine hope that the search committee, which consists of people who have impeccable professional integrity, and the governor of Sindh, being guided by the values of justice and merit, will appoint the new vice chancellor on merit and the one who is equipped with professionalism and capacity to develop the so far neglected university of upper Sindh, which caters to the educational needs of millions of young people, into one of the respectable educational institutions.
MANZOOR ALI ISRAN
Shah Abdul Latif University,
Khairpur
IN her article, ‘Rise of the super-rich’ (June 26), Madeleine Bunting has revealed that the wealth of Britain’s top 1,000 quadrupled since 1997 and the rate of growth is now spiralling out of control. There has been a massive 20 per cent jump in it during the past year.
She says that the protests against this (use of tax loopholes and other factors enabling to become super-rich) have oddly been muted — until now. Ironically, it was Sir Ronald Cohen, himself a member of the super-rich, who warned that the widening gulf of inequality could lead to riots.
One can only sympathise with their lower and middle class populace, as is the case in the US, Pakistan and many other countries. However, one would like to take issue with the use of the term ‘Richistan’ by a Wall Street reporter for this virtual country within a country of the super-rich in the US, as cited by Ms Bunting.
This is because the suffix ‘stan’ or found exclusively in the names of Muslim countries and provinces etc ‘istan’, is now being derogatorily used by some in the West and Israel to demonise Muslim communities due to the Islamophobia generated by the war on terror. Some examples are Londonistan and lately Hamastan, whereas the Fatah-occupied West Bank is not being called ‘Fatahstan’ or ‘Fatahistan’ but ‘Fatahland’, because it is the darling of Washington and Tel Aviv.
It must be pointed out that Islam, being egalitarian, is absolutely opposed to the concentration of wealth in a few hands. That is why it has imposed a compulsory poor due (zakat) of 2.5 per cent, in addition to recommending very generous alms-giving. Interest-free banking is another measure to prevent exploitation of the needy.
Therefore, a truly appropriate name for the domain of this class of people would be ‘Richtain’, ‘Richdom’ or ‘Richland’ from Britain, United Kingdom or a more global term, respectively. One would appeal to the worldwide Islamic media and the fair-minded section of the western one, not to use the label ‘Richistan’ at all because it is scandalous.
S. QADRI
Karachi
SOMETIMES good decisions do not bring positive effects because of a lack of proper planning. The Higher Education Commission has made same policies for all the subjects of science and arts. However, there are basic contradictions in the method of research and curriculum activities between different fields of science and arts.
In this way some steps may prove useful for sciences but not for the arts. A peer’s review of research article is one of those decisions which are beneficial for science but not for the arts, because there is no tradition of peer’s review in subjects like Urdu, for example.
According to new rules and regulations of the HEC, all the research scholars of PhD are bound to ensure publication of a research paper in an HEC-recognised and approved research journal of relevant field. No doubt it is a good step aimed at improving the standard of research at international level.
Urdu research scholars are also ready to fulfil this reasonable demand. A list of Urdu journals was approved up to June 30, 2005 by the HEC. After a long dry spell of two years, the HEC has notified a list of 10 research journals of Urdu from Pakistan and only two from India which is a mockery.
It is also an irony that all the approved journals are of public universities.
There is a need to take some immediate steps to decide the conditions and methods of peer’s review in Urdu because the publication of a paper is not enough for research scholars and teachers.
The approval of the list of Urdu research journals also must be appreciated and hopefully this list will be expanded to other private literary journals of Urdu. But the most important job is to create a panel for peer’s review in all the subject of arts, including Urdu. All the research scholars and teachers of Urdu are waiting for this kind of progress immediately.
QAISER GURMANI
Multan
FIELD Marshal Ayub Khan's diaries, published 33 years after his death, have opened up new debate on his role and many of his contemporaries and adversaries.
Most of the disclosures and allegations made by Gauhar Ayub on TV and in newspapers about the role of Z. A. Bhutto, Gen Yahya Khan, Air Marshal Asghar Khan and Dr Mahbubul Haq and others seem to be correct, and it is also true that none of them was really sincere or faithful to Ayub Khan and they all contributed to his downfall.
To the general public, Bhutto gave the impression that he was not in favour of the Tashkent declaration but in the National Assembly session of 1966 in Dhaka he strongly defended it and elucidated its cardinal points as a foreign minister. Sitting in the visitors’ gallery I could not believe my ears. One could cite many other double-faced stances.
None of the gentlemen mentioned above had any loyalty towards Ayub Khan. They were there only for power and politics and, therefore, they acted according to their own self interest.
However, the greatest damage to Ayub Khan's image was done by his own sons. Ayub Khan's concept about the political system in Pakistan may be flawed but nobody can deny that he was sincere about the industrial development of the country and the number of new industrial units put up during his tenure has not been matched by any later regime.
When he took over in 1958, he had a good image and the vast majority believed that whatever he was doing was for the good of the country and not for the enrichment of his own family. Very soon Gauhar Ayub and Akhtar Ayub started demolishing that image by their pursuit of power and money and all the evil that goes along with it.
In the early days Pakistan was short of funds but for the betterment of the Services, some of us were sent to England for training at considerable cost to exchequer, and we were morally bound to serve the country for at least 25 years.
Capt Gohar Ayub left the Army as soon as his father became the president. He was neither medically unfit nor superseded. In those days it used to be an honour to be a commissioned officer.
Capt Gohar Ayub showed us to respect the money. He set a new trend and gave a new value to life. Within five years he was one of the leading industrialists of the country. In the 1964 elections people did not criticise the policies of Ayub Khan so much as they resented the arrogance and the phenomenal rise in the fortunes of his sons, which was perceived to have been achieved through unfair means and under the patronage and blessings of Ayub Khan.
Until 1964 Ayub Khan was a national leader and in spite of political differences, there was no ethnic divide. Victory celebrations and processions led by Gohar Ayub after the election of 1964 and burning and looting of houses in Nazimabad and Liaquatabad reduced Ayub Khan to the stature of a Pathan leader and alienated him from the support of other communities.
Gohar Ayub is more mature and wiser now. He should search his soul and realise that his contribution to the downfall of Ayub Khan is much more than by all the adversaries put together. He is a well read man and should know that Ayub Khan's two contemporaries, Gen de Gaulle and Gen Eisenhower, had one son each. Gen de Gaulle's only son was a captain in the navy and during 11 years of his father's rule he got only one promotion. Gen Eisenhower's son was a lieutenanti-Col in the army and was superseded while his father was the president of the United States.
The sons retired like ordinary people but with honour, and so did their fathers.
CDR ( r) H.M. KIDWAI
Karachi
THE NWFP's Afghan refugees commissioner, Nasir Azam Khan, has said that unregistered Afghan refugees will be ‘repatriated’ or sent to other camps in Dir or Chitral. It is not a warning for those who are not obtaining registration cards. It seems a half-hearted and reluctant warning, not wanting to hurt their feeling as if he is bleeding with sympathy for Afghan deserters.
All refugees — unregistered or registered —totalling more than 2.5 million should be repatriated as from this July or as soon as possible. All patriotic Pakistanis want to know whether one per cent of the total number of refugees, who stormed into Pakistan during Soviet invasion of Afghanistan from 1979 to 1988, can stay in Afghanistan.
Even the few Pakistani drivers trucking goods to Afghanistan (doing a favour to Afghans) were murdered by Pakistan-hating Afghans (what a return favour). Why? I think President Hamid Karzai should have an answer to this question.
The Islamabad government is requested to arrange deportation or repatriation of all refugees. They have done their job. They have destroyed the “better than Afghan” society of Pakistan — thanks to Gen Ziaul Haq's policy of welcoming those renegades. We have to rebuild our society — and it can only be done when they are gone.
M.K. NAQVI
Karachi
OUR political leaders are demanding independent judiciary, independent election commissioner, independent media, in short, an independent Pakistan, and yet politicians of all shades from all major political parties, on a whistle, made a beeline to see Richard Boucher, the US Assistant Secretary of State, in Islamabad on June 13, begging for US intervention for removal of the present setup, for free elections, etc.
How unfortunate! Is there any further proof required to expose the duplicity and hypocrisy of our ‘independent’ politicians. How humiliating that, according to press reports, Mr Boucher met the election commissioner, checked and talked about the voters’ list. Have the government and the opposition willingly surrendered the independence and sovereignty of Pakistan? Is Mr Boucher the new viceroy of Pakistan?
IFTIKHAR AHMED
Karachi
I WANT to highlight the attitude of Lahore citizens towards the civic amenities like sewerage system. I am the head supervisor at the Samanabad drain works station. It was really painful to see many of the local people dropping waste into their nearby manholes as well as in the rainwater flowing on roads.
These scenes are not uncommon in the provincial metropolis during rains but it was quite hard for me to understand why the public disposes waste that in turn creates multiple sanitation problems not only for them but also for the whole locality?
Last month the Wasa Project Management Unit was tasked to desilt 150,000 tons waste from the central drain, Chhota Ravi Drain, mian Mir Drain, Gulberg Drain and Gulshan Ravi Drain, including Samanabad localities.
The target has been achieved successfully by deploying extra sanitation staff at these drains which led to a significant improvement in the water flow in drains. The basic purpose was to provide improved sewerage system, avoiding stagnation of filthy water on roads and streets.
But many people are still in the habit of dropping waste in manholes or in streets during rains which creates blockades, filthy water enters houses and also affects the sanitation conditions causing outbreak of various skin diseases.
What we all expect of the people is to display a matured attitude towards civic amenities. They should realise that how much public funds and labour have been involved in ensuring these facilities.
KAHLID JANJUA
Lahore
You can also send letters to the Editor
Just send your message to the following address: letters@dawn.com
Make sure you include your full name, postal address, e-mail address, and in the case of Pakistan your day-time telephone number.