|
| October 12, 2008 | Sunday | Shawwal 12, 1429 |
Afghanistan’s narco menace
Mental well-being
OTHER VOICES - Indian Press
Who’s minding the nation’s morale?
Obama to spend more
WE are at war, whether we admit it or not. We are at war physically, economically and politically. There was the 1965 war, the 1971 war and now we are in the midst of the 2008 war.
BARACK Obama will use his financial superiority over John McCain to dominate the airwaves in the final days of the US election with a half-hour, prime-time special.
THE devastating attack on a tribal peace jirga on Friday betrays one obvious truth about the Taliban: they are clearly under pressure. The security forces have been half-heartedly battling them for years but with little success. However, the military operation that began in November seems to have hit them hard. In Swat the situation may be uncertain but in Bajaur the army appears to be gaining the upper hand. But what obviously has rattled the Taliban most is the reaction among some of the neutral tribesmen. Moved by the devastation caused by the war — hundreds of their kinsmen killed and wounded, homes and orchards destroyed, and their means of livelihood crippled — many tribesmen have obviously decided not to sit idle. The lashkars they have organised and the revenge they have exacted on the Taliban by burning their homes and punishing their collaborators through other means are eroding the freedom the militants have enjoyed for a long time. The attack on the jirga near Khadezai in Kurram Agency, killing 50 people, appears to be part of the reaction of the militants.
The Taliban are unlikely to let their home ground slip from their control. They will fight back and perhaps be even more ruthless — on Friday they beheaded four ‘pro-government’ tribal elders. This could result in ferocious battles. At the same time, there is a possibility that the tribesmen may waver if they feel the situation is getting too tough to handle. That is where the government has to realise its duty: it has to do all it can to help the tribesmen continue their fight against the Taliban till the latter are tired out and made to see the futility of their enterprise.
Once again we plead that the rebellion in Fata and Swat cannot be quelled through military means alone. Peace moves are already afoot in Washington, London and Riyadh. Pakistan has to be part of the peace process and make it clear to all parties that Islamabad has never abjured negotiations as a peace strategy. This should also be made clear to the domestic opposition, for some of the MPs attending the in-camera briefing by the military have serious reservations about the government’s strategy. Parliament is of course the place for evolving a national consensus on all key issues, and the current session will not have been in vain if progress is made in that direction. But all politicians ought to know that such a thing as war cannot be viewed through the prism of domestic politics. Today’s opposition could be in power tomorrow. For that reason all parliamentarians must have an open mind on the issue, the ultimate aim being to have peace in Fata and rid Pakistan of the menace of terrorism.
SO closely linked are the problems of insurgency and drug trafficking in Afghanistan that it is no surprise that Nato has extended its mandate to crush the narcotics trade in the country. But the success of such an operation is in doubt. Some Nato members have had valid reasons to fear that destroying the drug economy would mean alienating a large section of the population dependent on it. There have also been apprehensions that assigning another task to Nato would divert the military alliance’s focus from its main responsibility of fighting the Taliban. Nevertheless, the situation cries out for action. Despite the recent decline in production, Afghanistan still generates some 90 per cent of the world’s opium; the drug trade funds the Taliban in a big way (to the tune of approximately $100m); and the illicit drug economy is equivalent to about half the country’s GDP.
Unfortunately, the political government has not been able to root out the narcotics scourge — no surprise since many elements thought to be boosting the narco trade are political figures. Even President Hamid Karzai’s brother, Ahmad Wali Karzai, is believed to be a beneficiary of the drug trade, a charge he has denied. With corruption endemic in the ranks of the country’s political elite, it is no wonder that lower-level officials including police chiefs and judges are not immune from its influence. Warlords and others sponsoring the drug trade are thus able to bribe their way out of possible prosecution.
Given this reality, it would be overly optimistic to suppose that even a foreign force as well-armed as Nato and with the ability to strike at narcotics labs would be able to achieve much in rooting out the menace. It is, in fact, the Afghan government that should be taking the lead in halting poppy cultivation in the country. For this, it is
necessary to ensure good and honest governance besides enabling the judiciary and police to play their part in bringing to book drug barons, warlords and others who have a vested interest in perpetuating the narcotics business. The government can also influence tribal heads to exercise their sway over their people to shun poppy cultivation. Meanwhile, the international community can be of invaluable help by actively helping the Afghan government to encourage alternative livelihoods to make up for the loss of benefits acquired through the drug trade. Such suggestions have been made time and again and it is up to the Afghan government to demonstrate the political will to implement them in all sincerity.
IT was against the backdrop of a volatile security situation that World Mental Health Day was observed in Pakistan on Friday. This year’s theme was ‘Making mental health a global priority’ and it was a day to focus on education, awareness and treatment. It provided an opportunity to take stock of the infrastructure available to the mentally ill and assess the need for healthcare initiatives. In a country of 160 million, 30-35 per cent of the population suffers from various forms of mental illnesses. The high prevalence can be attributed to economic hardship and class disparities in this poverty-stricken country, along with the fact that it is in the grip of militancy, creating an atmosphere of terror and uncertainty. However, mental illness can be found in every age group and knows no socio-economic barriers. Fast-paced modern living can be a factor, as is genetic predisposition.
Besides physical fitness, mental and social well-being are critical to developing a healthy population. Sadly, numerous cases of mental illness go undetected either due to a general lack of knowledge about psychiatric problems or the social stigma associated with them. Mental disorders are increasingly understood by physicians and are treatable; however, the first step towards getting help is acknowledging that a near and dear one is ill. That said, many common mental disorders including depression, mania, drug dependence and schizophrenia are often difficult to diagnose. Consider the symptoms of masked depression: fatigue, low blood pressure, mood swings and eating disorders, among other problems. These are at times hard to identify as manifestations of mental illness. Therefore it is important that information on mental health is widely disseminated and the topic made less taboo. While prevention techniques include rectifying circumstances known to contribute to mental illness, there is great scope for improvement in the treatments available in Pakistan. The over-reliance on medical drugs should be discouraged; psychotherapy, especially counselling and other psychological treatments, must be promoted. Without adequate funding, such measures will never be able to reach a wide cross-section of society. Data from the World Health Organisation notes that in developing countries health professionals are concentrated in urban areas. This network should be expanded in Pakistan and rural areas be provided with the required healthcare.
Pining for Mr Pyne
The Telegraph
WHAT unites, and divides, Sourav Ganguly and Ganesh Pyne? They are both Bengali; and the former topped while the latter ranked last in the CNN-IBN & The Telegraph ‘Bengali Number One’ poll. The list is scandalously entertaining, with 59.15 per cent voting for Mr Ganguly as the ‘Greatest Living Bengali’, followed by Rani Mukherjee at 38.92 per cent. The rest did not even make it past the decimal point. So, there is Amartya Sen in third place with only 0.61 per cent of the votes, and the abyss yawns wider with music, literature and painting, until one finds Mr Pyne down where all the ladders start, with 0.1 per cent of the voters going for him and Jhumpa Lahiri for company (though a notch above him).
It is only when a poll like this is not taken seriously at all that its results begin to appear interesting. For instance, what if one stands the list on its head? Isn’t there a way of arguing that those who feel Mr Pyne is the greatest living Bengali are precisely the sort of people who would never bother to reach for their phones and vote? What the list brings out, then, are two different kinds of ‘greatness’ at the two opposite ends of the spectrum. Mr Ganguly’s (or Ms Mukherjee’s) is a greatness measured by popularity, while Mr Pyne wins on exclusivity.
What if such a poll had been conducted in, say, Maharashtra, and the results put Sachin Tendulkar at the top and Vijay Tendulkar at the bottom? Would cultured Maharashtrians despair at these results with the same sense of doom as their Bengali counterparts? What is it about Bengal that prompts such a reaction when the fine arts lose out to the more popular ones? Why does it begin to look like a Culture in Crisis? Perhaps this has something to do with the nature of Bengali self-definition, and hence, self-esteem.
Such a sense of cultural identity is likely to receive its greatest jolt when asked to redefine itself in terms of sporty aggressiveness or husky-voiced sirenhood, being instinctively more comfortable with Nobels and novellas.
No chasm separates the two Tendulkars in their own state. There are those who know the cricketer, and those who know the playwright — and the two sets are unruffled by their differences from each other. But in Bengal, a lot more is at stake in that difference: Mr Ganguly above Mr Pyne turns the world upside down. — (Oct 11)
The so-called war on terror (a glib phrase crafted by White House speechwriters) started off as the US war and imperceptibly became our war.
There have been blasts in every large city of Pakistan, the latest being at the Marriott in Islamabad. Each time we are shocked, surprised and depressed. These reactions are based on our ‘ostrich approach’ that a war is going on in a faraway land, on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and we have nothing to do with it, nor should we be affected by it. We are shocked when the smell of explosives wafts over our homes in Lahore, Karachi or Islamabad.
The sooner we realise that it is a total war, like the ones in the 60s and the 70s, the more mentally prepared we will be to cope with it. In wars, blasts and casualties are normal. In this insurgency by Islamists, who disagree with the form of Islam being practised by a majority of Pakistanis, the militants want to capture the whole of Pakistan. After having tasted power in neighbouring Afghanistan, they will not be content with wresting control of only a part of the country. The engine of their ‘Trojan horse’ army is driven by madressah-trained manpower.
Most countries in their history have faced insurgencies of various kinds. India faced the Khalsas in Punjab, faces the movement for freedom in Kashmir, the Naxalites in the north-east, etc. Sri Lanka is locked in battle with the LTTE. Russia faced the Chechens, the British the Irish. But most of these countries came out of it unscathed, because they confronted the threat with unity, self-confidence and patience. We, on the other hand, are getting unnerved by each bomb blast or assassination attempt. Are we displaying a fickle national character, a lack of confidence in the state? Or a state where our nerves have been shaken by the repeated presentation of the negatives by the media? While a lack of confidence in the competence of the government prevails throughout the land, the role of the media in spreading despondency cannot be overstated.
Is it necessary for the media to repeat, ad nauseam, only the bad news and discuss the negatives of the situation ad infinitum? It seems the electronic media has yet to recognise its own power. Getting rid of an unpopular government is one thing, but when the future of the country is at stake self-restraint should be a top priority. British, American and even Indian television is far more circumspect when it comes to reporting on nationally sensitive issues.
I’ve heard TV viewers wonder as to what was the need to run tickers, for hours on end, of the news that the British government had asked the children and wives of their staff posted in Pakistan to leave. Through extensive publicity, news that was of hardly any interest to the general public came to have an adverse impact on the reputation of the country and the morale of the public.
As for the state, where is the sense in publicising, for the benefit of the public, that so many suicide bombers have entered such and such city? That information ought to be meant for the law enforcement apparatus which should be eliminating such threats without creating undue panic. The ‘I told you so’ policy is not necessary because our interior adviser has an explanation for every situation anyway. Like the ‘positive’ side of the Marriott incident highlighted by him — his success in fooling the terrorists into thinking that the president was dining at the hotel!
The leadership of the country, both the president and the PM, has a role to play in leading the country by example and instilling confidence in the nation by its words, actions and deeds. Leaving everything to the COAS is tantamount to abdicating responsibility at this crucial juncture.
The main aim of the terrorists is to shatter the morale of their ‘enemy’. If they succeed in that objective we will fall into their lap. Why, in the wars of 1965 and 1971, was the damage caused to the other side always exaggerated and personal casualties always minimised by both sides? To keep the morale of the nation and the troops high. This is exactly what is required in this war too.
The current run on foreign exchange deposits, among other factors, is a measure of the confidence the rich have in the country. Leave aside the super-rich, even run-of-the-mill owners of modest assets are thinking of safeguarding their resources to secure the future of their children. They need to be engaged and their confidence must be restored by the leadership.
While the Pakistan Army is fighting the insurgents valiantly, the president and the PM should back it up instead of leaving everything to the COAS. Why can’t the president or the PM visit the war-torn tribal areas? Why can’t our media do their duty without sensationalising the issue? Why can’t our intelligence agencies trace and expose the source of the money and weapons the insurgents receive instead of informing the public about how many suicide bombers have entered a city? A group of mullahs can’t fight a full army for so long without external assistance in the form of men, material and training.
Unless the government takes on its responsibility of stemming the despondency being spread by the acts and propaganda of the terrorists, we will be making their task very easy.
tasneem.m.noorani@gmail.com
Campaign officials said on Friday that they were negotiating with CBS, NBC and Fox television for a half-hour broadcast on October 29, six days before Americans go to the polls. The media blitz represents the most ambitious — and by far the costliest — use of media in a presidential election.
“Strategically, this is about as big a megaphone as money will buy at this point,” said Evan Tracey of the Campaign Media Analysis Group. “Obama, as a former lawyer, will probably make a fairly well articulated closing argument with the production value of a Steven Spielberg movie.”
He estimated the cost of airtime would be at least $1m for each network.
Former candidates have departed from the traditional advertising format to buy blocks of airtime. In 1992, Ross Perot bought time on network television and Hillary Clinton paid for an hour-long town hall special on Lifetime television, a cable network aimed at women, during the Democratic primary campaign.
McCain, who took public financing, is on an $84m budget for these elections. Obama has no such constraints. The candidate this week increased his spending on television advertising to $3m a day, and is expected to spend even more as the election approaches. The McCain camp, in contrast, spent about $1.6m a day.
In some key battlegrounds, such as northern Virginia or southern Florida, that amounts to a four-to-one advantage for Obama in airtime.
In an attempt to compete, the McCain camp has resorted to trying to use the media to find an audience for its ads. In recent days, the Republicans have put out daily video releases. The so-called ads are seldom aired on television and instead rely on YouTube or cable television news broadcasts to find an audience.
Friday’s offering from the McCain camp again showed the Republican stepping up the negative tone of his ads. The ad, which the McCain camp said would be aired nationally, directly accuses Obama of lying about his association with former 60s-era radical Bill Ayers.
Obama’s purchase practically guarantees the Democrat a huge prime-time audience because of prior media coverage, as well as analysis after it is aired.
The prime-time programming also increases McCain’s bind. If he tries to match Obama in making his own closing argument, the Republican will have to make hard choices about pulling some of his television ads in battleground states.
There were few immediate details on Friday about the content of the programme. It is widely assumed that the broadcast is intended to make Obama appear presidential. That means he is unlikely to resort to the negative tone of McCain’s public appearances.
Joel Rivlin, a political consultant, argued that the broadcast, which will extend far beyond the battleground states, could help Obama drive up his popular vote.
If he were elected, that would allow Obama to claim a greater mandate to lead — which could help the Democrat in the current economic and political climate.
“Maybe it talks to him trying to run up the score in order to get more of a mandate to govern,” Rivlin said. “It could be something to do with increasing his popular vote nationally.”
— The Guardian, London
