|
| November 16, 2008 | Sunday | Ziqa'ad 17, 1429 |
Power-sharing in Punjab
Not a sweet nothing
Crossing the limits of tolerance
A close parallel
OTHER VOICES - Indian Press
IN 1996, the UN General Assembly invited member states to observe the International Day for Tolerance on Nov 16 after Unesco had adopted the Declaration of Principles on Tolerance the previous year.
BARACK Obama’s looming presidency has already attracted comparisons with Kennedy’s Camelot and Lincoln on the eve of civil war, but the increasing parallel is with Franklin D Roosevelt’s first 100 days in the midst of the worst economic crisis of the last century.
RELIGION can be a source of personal solace and serenity. It can help individuals come to terms with themselves and be at peace with the world. On the community level, religious organisations and their workers can be found across the world feeding the hungry, tending to the sick and offering shelter to the homeless, often at great risk in the most stressful of environments. Yet no neutral observer can deny that religion has served as a core issue over the centuries in countless wars and has been exploited to justify incredible human atrocities. From the Crusades to Nazi Germany and from Northern Ireland to Bosnia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Indonesia and India today, the world has seen how the fanatical fringe can distort ‘religion’ to engage in orgies of death and destruction. When religion, any religion, ceases to be a personal belief system and instead becomes a tool in the hands of a violent minority bent on imposing its views on the unempowered, a distinction needs to be made between faith and terror.
Take the case of Pakistan. There is no shortage in this country of hate-mongers who believe that followers of a sect of Islam other than their own are worthy of death. There are people who believe that they will go to heaven if they blow themselves up in a crowded marketplace and kill dozens of innocent civilians. There are people who are convinced that shaving or listening to CDs are abominable acts deserving of the severest punishment. We have amongst us those who think educating girls is ‘un-Islamic’ and that summary executions of the ‘immoral’ are perfectly justified. All this in the name of religion. In an atmosphere such as this it is incumbent on the shapers of discourse to impress upon the people that the perpetrators of such acts are not men of religion but barbarians from a medieval age.
The UN’s ‘Culture of Peace’ gathering in New York, convened at the initiative of Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah and attended by leaders from across the world, was an attempt at cultivating such a message. It was pointed out at the forum that religion cannot be used to justify terrorism and the murder of innocents, or to promote intolerance and bigotry. Along the lines of some inter-faith dialogues held in recent years, the meeting hoped to bring civilisations closer and bridge the gap between the West and the Islamic world. As a start it was commendable. But as UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon rightly said, the next step involves moving beyond “powerful, positive words” to “dialogue that delivers”. It is one thing to collect a group of like-minded people and come up with a consensus resolution. Making the bigoted change their minds is a different matter altogether.
DEMOCRACY by definition is time-consuming. It is supposed to work through consultation, if not consensus, which takes time. But this should be no excuse for deferring and delaying things indefinitely. It is, therefore, shocking that the two partners in Punjab’s provincial government — the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) and the Pakistan People’s Party — have taken more than six months to reach a power-sharing deal. Weren’t they supposed to agree on it before they came to office after the February election? Some mitigating circumstances certainly help explain this disastrous delay. Punjab has passed through extraordinary times since the polls. The controversy — still raging — over Shahbaz Sharif’s eligibility to contest election; the need for an interim government headed by Dost Muhammad Khosa; and the widening gulf between the two parties over the lawyers movement and their subsequent parting of ways at the national level certainly detracted from coalition-making.
Sharif’s ‘personalised’ style of governance also did not help the cause of consensus between the two sides. Ministers from the PPP were often found complaining that the chief minister left little authority for them to wield in their respective departments. Most of them in fact actively lobbied for a government of their own party ostensibly citing political reasons but mainly because of their displeasure at Sharif’s domineering leadership. Shadows of Sharif’s disqualification from holding public office still loom large and the two parties are yet poles apart on many an issue. But the power-sharing agreement they have come up with should allow them to see beyond the pros and cons of working together or separately. If Sharif wants to have a smooth run, he should learn how to share and delegate power. If the PPP does not want to be seen as a spoiler, its members should understand that they cannot topple the chief minister without massive horse-trading and defections.
More than anything else, the two sides should realise that they have a huge job on their hands — improving and maintaining law and order, halting a general slide in every sphere of public life and giving the people of Punjab a sense of security and stability. It is not a tall order considering that the provincial government represents more than a two-thirds majority of the provincial legislators and, therefore, is supposed to have as much public support. A government by many should not be seen as always dithering, bickering and failing. Sometimes it should deliver too.
FRIDAY was marked as World Diabetes Day with disconcerting announcements that we may witness a sharp rise in diabetes cases by 2025. The day, which was launched in 1991 by WHO and the International Diabetes Federation, has been observed since then with informative seminars, walks and free medical camps and has been aimed at generating consciousness and distinguishing high-risk segments. Thereafter the UN’s Landmark Resolution of 2006 recognised diabetes as a “chronic, debilitating and costly disease associated with major complications”. On this occasion some regrettable facts have come to the fore. There are 6.2 million diabetics in Pakistan and the number is expected to reach a whopping 14.5 million by 2025. The Sindh health minister also stated that by 2020, the affliction is expected to become a worldwide epidemic whereby “every second person will be suffering from the disease”. The phenomenal rise in these incidents can also be attributed to the fact that diabetes can no longer be viewed as an illness of the rich or simply of a sweet tooth. It has crossed all social divides and is now seen as a lifestyle malady.
However, health professionals, the media and NGOs must be applauded for being considerably forceful about communicating its symptoms and various means of prevention. Perhaps, given our fraught times, there is no better time than now to inculcate lifestyle changes in our masses. These will go a long way in stress management and disease prevention and control. Measures such as dietary changes, exercise, staying safe from ailments such as pneumonia and flu, and stress management techniques are mandatory to avoid health complications, particularly if a person is genetically predisposed to a disease like diabetes.
Another area that requires attention is wide-scale availability of low-cost life-saving drugs such as insulin, the absence of which can cause the death of a diabetic, glucose-monitoring devices and blood tests. Pharmaceuticals can play a key role by providing these medicines at lower prices and the government can help by dropping taxes on these drugs and making them available free or at subsidised rates at its hospitals and health facilities, particularly in low-income localities. More often than not, economic burdens stand in the way of well-being.
This declaration was aimed at establishing world peace by promoting tolerance among people. It was felt that the only way out of ethnic conflicts, discrimination against minorities and xenophobia directed against refugees was by teaching the values of tolerance to mankind.
As per the declaration, tolerance is the respect and acceptance of the rich diversity in world cultures, forms of expression and lifestyles. This acceptance can be fostered by knowledge, openness, communication, freedom of thought and conscience. It is underpinned by the innate recognition of universal human rights and fundamental freedoms.
In prehistoric times, man displayed great intolerance especially when it came to territorial rights and the individual existence. This phenomenon was basically born from an acute sense of insecurity. With the development of civilisations and advancement of science man felt more secure and gained insight and sophistication with education. This brought a greater sense of security that resulted in greater harmony among people.
This pattern changed with technological advancement as man discovered the power he had to control others through superior technology. The focus shifted to individualism compounded by capitalism. The media played a decisive role in promoting this trend as it led to the erosion of critical thinking while enhancing egocentricity.
At the same time, men were gripped by an inner sense of insecurity — in fact they started regressing towards their prehistoric behaviour. This was quite noticeable in many societies where it assumed a collective form. Today, we witness wars, intrusions and marginalisation all over the globe where bigger powers attempt to dominate the weaker ones. Political and religious intolerance has caused havoc of tremendous magnitude all over the world in recent times.
In Pakistan, what we see today is the break-up of the traditional family system and the rupture of the social fabric leading to intolerance towards religious and ethnic minorities, which has been widely reported by the media and human rights activists. At a time when social adversities and economic upheavals have disrupted societies and selfishness is their hallmark a government’s policy of fear-mongering promotes intolerance.
Studies on adults indicate that psychological characteristics play a much more important role in determining tolerance levels than do traditional demographic factors. Individuals with high self-esteem who are less dogmatic and less authoritarian tend to withstand the threats of ideas at odds with their own. A number of personality factors also play a role in creating intolerance among people. The general human psyche has a number of fragility points that are vulnerable to external threats and stress. Depending upon the environmental factors, each individual has a level of coping ability and emotional resilience.
The stress model in this context and especially in the face of emotional chaos can lead to a decline in resilience, impair the coping ability and produce intolerance as a by-product of catharsis with its manifest behaviour. Personality traits like narcissism and paranoia in view of existing personal inadequacy can perpetrate intolerance in both subtle and manifest ways. When intolerance is displayed by groups then it may reflect a collective neurosis that is determined by the collective personality traits of a community. A number of antisocial traits and psychopathology have reflected themselves in violent behaviour as a result of intolerance. Though mental health professionals are constantly accused of medicalising all behavioural issues, we cannot rule out a medical connotation for intolerance while witnessing its wild repercussions in our daily lives.
Examples of intolerance that are commonly witnessed are: screaming and shouting on roads during traffic jams, outbursts of rage on the slightest provocation, resorting to destruction of property, and killing frenzies. Courts are replete with examples of family members litigating against each other for trivial reasons. Other social behaviour indicating intolerance are those of spouses seeking divorce on minor issues, youths leaving their parents following an argument and a general display of disrespect towards elders.
Bullying is another manifestation that is becoming very common even among highly educated individuals. This behaviour is manifested in the form of allegations, character assassination, rumour-mongering, levelling unsubstantiated allegations and questioning people’s personal and professional integrity. The popular belief that education promotes tolerance has been disproved since highly educated people are also resorting to such behaviour.
There are a number of ways one can address the issue of intolerance. The most important is by creating a healthy environment for children where the parents should emerge as positive role models. Promotion of harmony among siblings, imbibing good moral values in them and educating them about the beneficial effects of being accommodating towards each others’ point of view can go a long way in developing the spirit of tolerance.
Teachers in educational institutions can also play a key role in helping young people develop the capacity for independent judgement, critical thinking and ethical reasoning. Current curricula need extensive revamping in view of new global trends of access to information. If religious teaching is balanced, insightful and open-minded it can direct the youth towards a realistic world of harmony. The government should promote justice and discourage prejudices while paying special attention to vulnerable groups which are socially or economically disadvantaged.
There is need to focus on the economy so that people enjoy equal opportunities and are not denied social justice The government should observe the principles spelled out in the International Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice. This clearly states that “all individuals and groups have the right to be different”. The aim should be to end marginalisation, hostility and fanaticism. Mental health services need to be expanded so that they can address personality disorders and mental illnesses that often result in intolerance and pathological behaviour towards other fellow beings.
It should be noted that the divergence of views plays an important role in the human psyche. Those negatively affected by it suffer from mental disequilibrium. Currently, all over the world and especially in Pakistan the ‘me’ syndrome is widely prevalent and has led to a great social turmoil. If this is not addressed urgently mankind will destroy itself.
The writer is a practising psychiatrist based at Memorial University,
St John’s, Canada.
amin.muhammad@med.mun.ca
Roosevelt is the standard against which other Democratic presidents are measured. His New Deal was the antidote to the Great Depression. In those first 100 days, he signed 15 major pieces of legislation to help the US out of recession.
Obama, on the campaign trail, said he did not want to be judged on what he did in his first 100 days, but over his first 1,000. But expectations for his presidency are exorbitantly high.
The president-elect said last Friday he was rereading the 1984 novel Lincoln in preparation for taking office, but Paul Begala, a member of his transition team, said on the Larry King show that Obama has been quoting from the book The Defining Moment: FDR’s Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope. The vice-president-elect, Joe Biden, is also reading it.
The book’s author, Jonathan Alter, sees a parallel between Roosevelt and Obama, and said the 15 laws reassured the public that progress was being made against the Depression, even though it was another six years before America came out of it.
“He restored public faith that the government was on their side,” said Alter, who is to write a book about Obama’s first 100 days. “Obama would be well advised to follow that lead and not get bogged down. The danger for Obama is not that he moves too quickly, but that he moves too slowly.”
After Roosevelt took over in 1933, with his inaugural speech promising action and telling his fellow citizens the only thing they had to fear was fear itself, he created dozens of federal programmes to stimulate the economy and create jobs. n
— The Guardian, London
It doesn’t burn
The Navhind Times
THE claim that the state has achieved major success ... in enforcing a ban on smoking in public places is not convincing. Even before the Union government banned smoking in public places a ban was in place in Panaji. Otherwise too smoking has not been a part of Goan lifestyle.
Basically this is the reason why there are not too many shops selling cigarettes. As in the other cities of Goa, in Panaji too there are some shops which cater to the needs of smokers. In fact smoking has been mainly confined to the beaches, shacks and bars. While the order banning smoking has proved to be a complete failure in these places, even in Panaji smokers do not ... face any major problem in procuring cigarettes….
[T]he smoking ban is very urban and elitist ... and ... this is the reason that it is not being seen as an expression of national or political will to end a public health scourge. It would be wrong to see it as the obsession of one person, the health minister ... but the urban emphasis is clear. The ban has proved unsuccessful in most places. Governments have preferred not to tighten the enforcement screws. This [can] be seen from the fact that the sales of cigarettes are not down. Had the ban really proved to be effective, the cigarette industry ... would have been up in arms. Nevertheless the state government should keep up its campaign.... — (Nov 14)
Sourav’s legacy
The Hindu
SOURAV Ganguly changed the course of Indian cricket. His record of 21 wins in 49 Tests is the best ever by an Indian captain. He negotiated Indian cricket’s time of troubles — which arose from the match-fixing scandals — with integrity and helped restore credibility….
The legacy of Ganguly ... is complex. His initiation in 1992 was forgettable, and when he returned four years later, his choice was derided as a quota selection. His classy 131 on Test debut at Lord’s followed by a century in the next innings at Trent Bridge put paid to all that nonsense…. As his batting form nosedived in 2004-05, his well-publicised spat with strong-willed coach Greg Chappell shook Indian cricket. To his great credit, ‘the prince of Kolkata’ emerged from adversity more determined than ever…. The last word can be left to Shane Warne’s Century: My Top 100 Cricketers ... “Sourav Ganguly,” the great leggie says, “might not be my cup of tea as a bloke, but what he has done for Indian cricket has to be respected. He is…not short of self-confidence.…When I played, I liked the fact that Ganguly was a fighter. Whatever happened, whenever he was hit, he gritted his teeth and fought back. With his confidence, he always backed himself to come good in the end.” He certainly did…. — (Nov 12)
