IT seems that we have failed to learn anything from our past which includes botched strategies of helping the Taliban conquer Afghanistan and our ‘slow boil’ strategy in Kashmir.

According to a report in this newspaper filed from Washington: “Pakistan plans to arm tens of thousand of tribals in Fata, to fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda militants”. It further states that “the US military, which used Iraqi tribesmen to fight Al Qaeda, supports this plan, hoping to replicate its success in Iraq”.

To me this is almost a conspiracy to kill the spontaneous uprisings of the tribals against foreigners and the misguided locals. The welcome movement of locals raising lashkars against the Taliban and foreigners started this summer. It indicated the end of the patience of the vast majority of tribals, who did not agree with what was happening. The consistent policy of the armed forces, where they have taken on the miscreants firmly, must have encouraged the silent majority to stand up and be counted. But it was obviously a spontaneous movement in line with the tradition of collective responsibility, a part of their riwaj.

Why are we trying to give it the look of a foreign-sponsored move? This will surely make it suspect in the eyes of the locals and make them look like the agents of the US, a perception which can make anyone the No 1 target in the tribal areas. The US military was not even aware of the existence of the tribal areas of Pakistan when the tradition of raising a lashkar to fight a common cause of a tribe became part of local custom. How could it have followed the policy in Iraq, which it was supposed to be replicating in Pakistan’s tribal areas?

Assuming the news report from Washington is correct, there will be two serious consequences. First, as mentioned above, the identification of a perfectly indigenous move, as per local traditions, with the US will make it highly suspect in the eyes of the locals and all those associated with it will be branded American agents, which will immediately kill the movement and make the task of the Taliban easier.

Secondly, there will be repercussions of officially arming a civil population. Have we not seen the effects of our past strategies of arming and training a civilian population, both on our eastern as well as western borders? According to the news report, we are going to supply the tribesmen with arms again, reportedly purchased from China, even though that is a commodity which is not in short supply in the area.

Supply of arms will be followed by weapons and some tactical training. We will perhaps even concede to the tribals’ request for more lethal weapons. After all, the idea is to make these people match the enemy they are trying to defeat.

In the process we will have a few scores of tribal armies, who will be battle hardened at the end of this phase. Assuming that the current enemy is annihilated, the battle-hardened tribals will turn in unpredictable ways on new ‘enemies’.

A majority of the tribals are caught in the crossfire of a war that has been thrust upon them. They are poor people, living in primitive conditions, trying to eke out a living. Because of lack of economic opportunities of any kind, including agriculture, they have traditionally indulged in trade which is perceived to be illegal by usually accepted norms. Their business is to smuggle luxury goods into the country.

Growing poppy and extracting heroin is the most financially rewarding occupation for some, considering the limitations of land, but it means being involved in the drug business. Kidnapping for ransom (they usually do not kill) is another ‘business’ they find profitable for their financial survival. All this cannot be condoned by a civilised society; then again society should reflect on what it has done for the tribesmen to enable them make an honest living.

Even in this conflict, while the US is willing to send arms and experts for capacity building, can we think of a scheme to help put money in the pockets of these people? Infrastructure is fine, but the economic impact of that takes time to trickle down. We have been hearing of Reconstruction Opportunity Zones (ROZs) for the last two years and will probably continue to only hear about them for the next few years.

Even if 10 per cent of the money spent by the US in the tribal areas was put into schemes which would have directly benefited the tribals, we would have had the Taliban on the run much earlier.

Arming lashkars with US money will enable some general in the US to claim credit for his innovative policy, but will discredit and kill the only hope that the area has to fight Talibanisation.

The local political administration system, which may be weakened because of the blunders of the Musharraf era, still exists. I understand that the current government is trying to reinforce the old system. These are the right people to interact with the lashkars. They have their own riwaj and locally accepted ways of helping anyone they choose to. The political agent and his team are the most appropriate people to be strengthened and provided resources to nurture and support the popular uprising.

The tribals are risking their lives confronting the extremists because they are aware that their riwaj is under threat. Let them do it their way. Let us keep our smart alec strategies to ourselves.

tasneem.m.nooran@gmail.com

THERE is much to applaud in the resolution that the two houses of parliament unanimously passed in their joint sitting on Oct 22.

The resolution includes, among other things, guidelines for combating militancy and terrorism. Like many other notable political declarations, it contains elements of ambiguity and internal inconsistency. Three items in the parliament’s prescription — stress on national sovereignty, designation of dialogue as the principal instrument of conflict management and a call for a review of the country’s foreign policy — merit consideration.

Parliament’s concern with national sovereignty arises from the unilateral American military incursions into Pakistan’s tribal territory to hit suspected Taliban hideouts. Like some 200 other states in the world, Pakistan has always been sovereign in terms of international law. But it has only rarely acted like one in the context of its relations with the US or in its transactions with international financial institutions.

Americans have been participating in Pakistan’s domestic affairs through US military and economic assistance programmes much of the time since the mid-1950s. It has all along been a common saying in Pakistan that nothing happens here without America’s concurrence.

Pakistan’s vulnerability in this regard is not unique. In this age of globalisation no state, not even a great power, is fully sovereign in the sense of being free to treat its people as it deems fit, if its idea of fitness violates universally accepted human rights and norms of civility. Note also that working through their intelligence agencies foes, more than friends, routinely intervene in each other’s domestic affairs for the purpose of disrupting them.

Parliament has asked the government to stop the aforementioned American incursions into Pakistani territory, but it does not say how this is to be done. Condemnations of these American moves and diplomatic protest have been of no avail. The only other course is to use military force to repel them, which would mean going to war against the US. Prime Minister Gilani should go back to parliament and ask if that is what it wants his government to do.

The militants who make trouble for Pakistan are of more than one kind. There are those among the Taliban who want to expel American forces from Afghanistan. They make trouble for Pakistan because it enables the Americans to fight the Taliban. They do not want a dialogue with Pakistan if it wants them to quit harassing the Americans or to give up their safe havens in Pakistani territory.

Chiefs and other notables in the tribal areas are unhappy because the government’s anti-Taliban operations are disrupting their traditional governance and lifestyles. They would like the task of controlling the militants to be left to them. They would also like to be given the necessary funds and other means. In addition they want social and economic development projects to be launched in their areas, preferably under their own management. Dialogue with them on their concerns and the mechanics of addressing those concerns can be productive and should be initiated.

Lastly, there are the ideologically motivated Taliban who want to enforce their version of Sharia, the ones who burn down schools for girls, demolish cinemas, close down video stores and music shops, attack government personnel and installations, and send suicide bombers to kill innocent people. They are at war with the state and society of Pakistan. They do not think of themselves as our people, nor us as theirs. They do not want to talk with us; they want our unconditional surrender.

It is not clear whether the parliament’s strong urgings of dialogue apply to this group of militants. Parliament’s resolution recommends a dialogue with those who are willing to abide by the constitution and law of Pakistan. The group under reference here rejects this country’s law and constitution. It would then seem to follow that parliament did not have this brand of militants in mind.

But we know that quite a few members of parliament and others do nevertheless favour a dialogue with all militants, including this particular group. Since this feeling is shared by many Pakistanis, it may be prudent to invite the spokesmen for the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) to a dialogue, assuming that they can be found.

Government spokesmen have often said that they will talk with the militants if they lay down their weapons. This precondition is not necessary, for as we know adversaries in war have at times held peace talks even while the fighting was still going on. If the dialogue is to be perceived as a serious undertaking its terms of reference should be identified.

Dialogue involves negotiation which necessarily implies willingness of the parties to make mutual concessions. The government has to figure out what it will offer the Taliban in the unlikely event that they agree to stop their killings and burnings. Will it, for instance, agree to enforce the Tablian’s version of Sharia in Pakistan, or will it let them retain control of the areas they have already taken?

Lastly, there is the parliament’s call for a reappraisal of the country’s foreign policy. This refers primarily to policy towards the US. In effect it asks the government to tell the Americans that the lawmakers and the people of Pakistan are no longer willing to support their anti-Taliban operations.

That this is ‘vox populi’ (voice of the people) is not likely to carry any weight with the Americans. If Pakistan withdraws its support, it should be prepared for the withdrawal of the various types of assistance it receives from America and others whom it can influence (namely allies in Europe and Asia and the international financial institutions). It should also be prepared to be branded as a state that gives aid and comfort to terrorists. America’s retaliatory actions could cause Pakistan a lot of distress and that at a time when it is so stressed by political turmoil, economic recession and an acute financial crisis.

Pakistani officials — President Zardari, Prime Minister Gilani and others — were asking the international community to bail out this country with an injection of tens of billions of dollars at the time that parliament passed the resolution being discussed here. I wonder if those who propose to put a distance between Pakistan and America have considered, and if they are willing to live with, the likely consequences of this course of action. Alienating America may be easier said than done.

The writer, professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, is currently a visiting professor at the Lahore School of Economics.

anwars@lahoreschool.edu.pk

A CHILD broke his neighbour’s window. The neighbour complained to the child’s father who replied, “He’s just young and foolish. Forgive him.” The next day, the child broke his neighbour’s car window. Again the neighbour complained to the father who once again replied, “He’s just young and foolish. Forgive him.”

The following day the child broke his neighbour’s television. Now the neighbour got very angry and once again complained to the father, who said, “He’s just young and foolish. Forgive him.” “How come he never breaks his own television?” asked the neighbour. The father proudly replied, “He’s not that foolish!”

I heard this joke a long time ago but today this joke has become my frustrating reality. It appears that whenever someone tries to change the education system here government teachers tend to protest claiming that their schools are the best and hence do not require any change. It is indeed tragic that their ‘best student’ is incapable of writing a grammatically correct letter. I suppose the big question is why these teachers don’t send their own children to these government schools if they are so good. But of course, the teachers are not that foolish!

Today, not a single government teacher protests against outdated textbooks that have not changed in 61 years. Or against dilapidated school buildings, one of which collapsed and killed children not too long ago. Why are the teachers not bringing their students out on the road to protest marriage ceremonies on school grounds?

Instead these people only protest when legends like Adeeb Rizvi, director of the Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation (SIUT), and Akhtar Hameed Khan, founder of the Orangi Pilot Project (OPP), come out and address the right issue. The protesters level false allegations against the two men because they have no other grounds on which to oppose their efforts. But history has proven that despite this opposition, the good work of these legends has prevailed and is outstanding till this day.

When I set out to reform government schools, people told me not to get involved. They said my efforts would be reversed some day and the project will roll back. But Adeeb Rizvi told me that the work I was doing was not a carpet that would roll back. He said it was a philosophy that might pause for a while but would never be reversed.

I have learned that a government school teacher will go to any extent to make sure her child has a modern education to compete in the world but vehemently rejects such advances when it comes to her students at school. The reason is self-interest: the government-school teacher wants to preserve her own domain in which she works at her convenience.Most people are worried about the children who are not going to school at all but I am worried about the children who are going to our public schools. Parents have lost their faith in the system and they prefer that their children earn a living rather than study for free. Rather than seeing schooling as a long-term investment, parents see it as a waste of time here.

At the government-owned SMB Fatima Jinnah School we are convincing parents that schooling improves not only their children’s standard of living but will also improve the parents’ living standard too in the long run.

The civil society elite talk of revamping the education system for the entire country when we don’t even have one decent public school! While schools in urban areas may have better infrastructure, the quality of education is barely better than that in villages. What future do our children have if they study 61-year-old textbooks in a rapidly progressing world?

When the principal of the CAS and I took the decision to try and turn around public schools one school at a time, we asked the government to give us their best school so we could create a centre of excellence with fewer variables.

The ‘best’ was the SMB Fatima Jinnah School, a school in an appalling state when it was handed over to our administration by the government. There were dogs in the school building, broken sewerage lines, buildings on the verge of collapse, no drinking water and no bathrooms.

In Pakistan a ‘public school’ is nothing more than a room, chalkboard and a teacher — enough for the underprivileged on the principle that something is better than nothing. The principle should never be used when it comes to health and education. A school is a well-functioning building with a library, health room, administrative offices and sports grounds. There must be art classes, library periods, sports, photography and a range of other modules that discover and nurture a child’s talents.

The Zindagi Trust and Bookgroup have achieved this paradigm at the SMB Fatima Jinnah School. In this enabling environment, most of the teachers have drastically improved their performance and are taking the initiative to be trained in order to improve their teaching methods. Why can’t this model become a catalyst for reforming every other school in Pakistan? The government wants this school to be replicated. But then what is stopping this model from being carried forward?

The writer, a pop singer, is president of Zindagi Trust, an organisation working for child welfare and education.

royzad@gmail.com