|
| January 19, 2009 | Monday | Muharram 21, 1430 |
Well below average
Where quacks flourish
OTHER VOICES - North American Press
The South Asian stand
Israel’s war refuseniks
WE are now gripped by a solemn fear that the terrorist atrocity on India’s financial capital can trigger new furies across the arc of the subcontinent.
THE Israeli military has told the press there is so much support for the assault on Gaza that more soldiers have turned up to fight than have been called up for what the local media is characterising as a “righteous war”. But the fact remains that an increasing number of Israeli men of fighting age, almost all of whom are military reservists, are refusing to serve the occupation.
THE Pakistan Coalition for Education and Action Aid have done well to draw the government’s attention to the need for prompt action to finalise the education policy it has been working on since 2005. The problems that beset the education sector have been discussed ad nauseam. It is therefore strange that the education ministry has yet to finalise a new policy. The 2008 draft was presented in February and one of the reasons given for initiating the reform process in 2005 was that “new international challenges like Millennium Development Goals and Dakar Education For All principles as well as globalisation have gained greater momentum” and are compelling reasons for revision in policy. With the ministry dragging its feet on input from other stakeholders — especially civil society — it will not be surprising if, by the time the final draft is announced, the authorities are overtaken by many events again. One cannot question the importance of a participatory process which in the final analysis is as important as the policy itself, as pointed out by the author of the 2006 White Paper. An inclusive approach is essential to ensure the cooperation of all stakeholders on whom depends the successful implementation of any policy. But the process cannot go on endlessly as that would prove to be unproductive too. The need is to strike a balance between the time given to the dialogue and the finalisation of the policy. Failure to do so implies a lack of commitment on the part of policymakers.
The 2009 draft drawn up with the help of a Canadian consultant sponsored by Unesco gives an excellent assessment of the flaws in Pakistan’s education system. It starts with the problems of inaccessibility, inequity, gender challenge, rural-urban divide, poor quality and resource constraints, and goes on to groan about the contradictions between the private and public sectors in education. It calls for a paradigm shift in the approach to education — a move from the policy objective of serving the interests of policymakers to one benefiting the students. All this is commendable but without spelling out what the interests of the students are perceived to be, one can only expect a confusing document to emerge with every stakeholder giving his/her own interpretation of what the education goals are. Similarly, the policy speaks in sweeping terms of the ‘implementation gap’, that has been the bane of every programme conceived in this country. One cannot be certain that it will be overcome in this case either. One reason why the best of policies have run aground when it comes to implementation is pervasive corruption. Yet the policy puts emphasis on resource mobilisation without addressing adequately the problem of corruption. Will it prove to be successful?
A UN report has projected that Pakistan’s economic growth will fall to 3.8 per cent during the calendar year 2009 due to political uncertainties, poor law and order conditions and persisting energy shortages. The UN growth projection for Pakistan, as it appears in the World Economic Situation and Prospects 2009 report, remains well below the average growth forecast of 6.4 per cent for the South Asian region — down from last year’s robust average of seven per cent in spite of a slowdown in many regional economies. But even the measly increase in Pakistan’s domestic gross product over the next 12 months looks enviable in view of the contraction in the domestic and global demand in spite of a substantial reduction in international commodity prices over the past few months.
Global demand is suffering because of the widespread and massive financial crisis followed by economic recession in the rich countries that bought the bulk of the world’s exports. The economy in Pakistan, on the other hand, is being allowed to ‘cool down’ deliberately by raising the cost of bank credit to fight runaway inflation — a consequence of the loose monetary policy pursued by the previous government to push consumption-led growth, as well as the rise in the global food and energy prices over the last couple of years.While it is necessary to slow down domestic demand to maintain price stability and ease pressures on the country’s foreign-currency reserves and its currency, it is equally important to protect existing jobs and create new ones to prevent further increase in poverty and head off mass social unrest. But that requires the Pakistan economy to grow at a sustainable rate of at least eight per cent a year, something that appears near impossible over the next several years given the difficult economic conditions as well as infrastructure constraints, including energy and water shortages affecting industrial and farm productivity. If we don’t invest in power generation, water storages, soil fertility, rail and road communications and so on now, tomorrow’s generations will suffer for years to come — in much the same way as we are suffering as a result of the lack of adequate investment in infrastructure in the 1990s and early 2000s. The government’s economic managers perhaps don’t realise the importance and urgency of investing in the development of infrastructure. Otherwise they might have cut the government’s current expenditure, already up by above eight per cent, to bridge the fiscal deficit rather than axing development spending by a hefty 65 per cent at the cost of the people and their economy.
EFFECTUAL governance is essential to providing an adequate healthcare system in any country — management is key. It is the responsibility of the Pakistani government to scale up the quantity and quality of its health services for the population. However, it is distressful to note that cases of negligence abound. One such case that was brought to attention recently pertained to a female health worker who posed as a gynaecologist. Her handling of an emergency caesarean section case resulted in the death of a patient in 2006. The health worker has been convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to five years in prison. This raises questions about the abundance of unqualified doctors in Pakistan which exacerbates the problem of an already abysmal state of affairs in the health sector. It would be impossible to isolate factors such as lower fees, lack of knowledge and easier access for the poor from the answer to why the business of quacks is flourishing.
Training constitutes a significant factor in what kind of doctors the country will produce. The Pakistan Medical and Dental Council has a vital role to play in this. Its goal is to lay down the minimum standards for the basic qualifications and post-graduation for doctors. The Council also lays down the necessary qualifications and experience for the appointment of the various categories of teachers in the medical/dental colleges in Pakistan. The question that must be addressed is why so many quacks are able to operate all over the country especially in areas where there is widespread poverty and illiteracy. This calls for a crackdown on such ‘medical practitioners’. The government needs to have a monitoring mechanism. It should act as a watchdog and set up regulatory bodies in every district to ensure that the population has access to qualified doctors and medical personnel. Along with monetary issues, a lack of awareness is a major cause why people are compelled to visit unqualified doctors. The onus is on the government to have health workers spread awareness and to establish proper health facilities in all rural and urban areas at subsidised rates. The health ministry should make it a top priority to save the lives of many who are vulnerable and unaware.
But who will drive them?
The New York Times
THE cornucopia of hybrid and electric vehicles showcased at the North American International Auto Show this week suggests that the nation’s automakers — domestic and transplanted — have finally acknowledged the need to deliver the fuel-efficient cars and trucks for a future of expensive gas and increasing environmental pressures.
But a big obstacle remains to the greening of American drivers: the price tag. With gas prices likely to remain low as consumers grapple with recession, drivers are going to need extra motivation to swap their gas gluttons for the novel, environmentally friendly cars and trucks.
If the incoming Obama administration is serious about its commitment to boost the fuel efficiency of the American fleet, it must put in place a mix of policies, beyond tightening fuel-economy standards for carmakers, to steer drivers to the new cars.
The price of Ford’s new hybrid Fusion sedan, estimated to travel a whopping 41 miles per gallon in the city, is expected to start at more than $27,000. The Volt, General Motors’s high-profile plug-in car, could cost as much as $40,000. There are cheaper paths to environmental virtue: the Toyota Prius starts at only $22,000. And Honda’s Insight hybrid — to go on sale later this year — is expected to cost less.
Still, with gas below $2 a gallon and recession-ravaged consumers hanging tight to their wallets, even the cheaper hybrids have to compete with cars that run on boring old internal combustion engines. The Prius was the flavour of the month when gas prices soared to $4. But in December, Prius sales plummeted 45 per cent compared with the same month a year earlier — more than the 36 per cent drop in all car sales.
Do the math. At $1.66 a gallon, the average gas price assumed in the government’s 2009 energy guide, a hybrid Toyota Camry would only save the average driver about $250 a year in gas, compared with the regular Camry. But the hybrid costs $7,000 more.
A hefty gas tax would, of course, produce a strong incentive for drivers to switch to more fuel-efficient cars. But confronting a staggering economy, the Obama administration would be right to look for other options in the immediate future. The modest tax rebates offered to jump-start sales of hybrids and plug-ins starting in 2005 already have been phased out for the more popular models made by Honda and Toyota — and are slated to disappear entirely at the end of next year.
These rebates could be extended and increased. Ideally, they would be available to buyers of any car that achieved big improvements in energy efficiency, not just hi-tech vehicles. Another, more aggressive option floated last year by Alan Blinder, an economist at Princeton, would be for the government to buy up the most polluting and gas-hogging clunkers from American drivers and scrap them. That is an idea that has been tested in several states.
These ideas would fit neatly into an economic stimulus strategy, the Obama administration’s effort to save Detroit’s carmakers and its stated environmental objectives. Just hoping that American drivers will buy the fuel-efficient cars that the government wants Detroit to make is likely to achieve little. — (Jan 17)
If the terrorists wanted a mobilisation of troops to the India-Pakistan border and a diversion from the pressure applied on them in Pakistan’s northwest areas, they will soon have their way if the region allows itself to be taken over by nationalist fervour.
Across the world, Indians are outraged by what they see as Pakistan’s alleged complicity. But it might well be that the terrorists, though Pakistanis, were not state-sponsored. It is a difficult fact for many Indians to accept, but the Pakistani state seems to have largely exited this ‘business’.
The fact that India held peaceful elections in Jammu & Kashmir with massive voter turnout points to this. The electoral success would not have been possible if Islamabad had sent in extremists and militants, as New Delhi believes it is wont to do.
Yes, Mumbai’s terrorists may not be state-sponsored agents but, as with other terrorists, they are indeed society-sponsored. For various reasons, Pakistan has become the global epicentre of Islamic terrorism — a problem that has serious security implications for not just India, but for Pakistan itself.
Still, we cannot afford war. It will be political and financial suicide.
Politically, launching targeted strikes against the militants’ facilities will give rise to increased public support for Pakistan’s fiery mullahs and pose a dangerous threat to the country’s stability. Economically, the prohibitive price of battle will hit hard at India’s booming economy and Pakistan’s crumbling one.
Escalating tensions need to be defused swiftly. Now more than ever, we need real statesmen to step up to the plate and act with maturity, restraint and vision. We need a realisation that India and Pakistan are in this together, one cannot succeed while the other falters. Along with a shared history and culture, we now have a shared enemy.
The only real beneficiaries of this are the right-wing religious parties. The Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) accuses the ruling Congress party of being soft on terror. “Fight Terror. Vote BJP,” they say. Can we feign shock if an embittered India votes to sacrifice its pluralism for the sake of its security in the coming elections?
And who benefits the most from Hindu nationalists sweeping to power in India but the Islamists in Pakistan? It gives them justification as the defenders of faith. The two complete each other’s constituencies, they thrive on each other. But if we can knock them out on one side of the Wagah border, we can take the ground out from beneath their feet on the other.
But here it is the failure of Pakistan’s intellectual and social elites. Sipping cocktails comfortably in New York and London, they bemoan the government and old mindsets. But in Karachi, they won’t ever set a bold example. Back home, it’s easier to follow the rigidly conservative social diktats. Social freedoms are better exercised abroad.
They’re educated and modernised, but won’t speak out against anti-Indian rants and hard-line religious doctrine. So from the pluralist, tolerant Islam that was once the case, the country is now held captive to a puritanical version of the faith that is constantly policed by those who believe themselves to be rightly guided. Growing up with this rigid doctrine, young, ordinary Pakistanis are readily subordinating the love of the state to religiously inspired visions.
A crisis is the perfect opportunity for solutions; even radical solutions. So we cannot let this crisis go to waste. It must be used to curb a dangerous national obsession with faith, and to arrange an economic marriage in South Asia. Ultimately, this economic marriage is what will bring long-term peace and prosperity in the region. Businesses must open up across the border. When times are less tense, permits must flow for industries and investments. The impacts on the economy and on the people’s psyches will be huge.
Soon, South Asia’s businessmen will become the region’s most ardent diplomats. They will exert every pressure on their governments to avoid conflict, because conflict will hurt their commercial interests. Perhaps in the long term, the region will become one economic bloc, and share a common market and currency, along with a common culture. Divisions can break down in the face of economic cooperation.
The world has woken up to India’s economic potential. India is being courted as never before. Why should Pakistan, whose people have so much in common with Indians, not do the same? Getting riled up by old prejudices arrests us — Pakistan can only gain from an economic marriage of convenience with India. For Pakistan’s sake, and the world’s, let’s hope that wedding bells are round the corner.
The writer is a New York-based writer.
rakesh.mani@gmail.com
One resisters’ organisation, Courage to Refuse, published a newspaper advert condemning the killing of hundreds of Palestinian civilians and calling on soldiers to refuse to fight in Gaza. “The brutal, unprecedented violence in Gaza is shocking. The false hope that this kind of violence will bring security to Israelis is all the more dangerous. We cannot stand aside while hundreds of civilians are being butchered by the IDF [Israel Defence Force],” it said.
But it is not clear how many have refused to go to Gaza, because the army is sending people home, quietly. So far, only one reservist has been jailed for refusing to fight. No’em Levna, a first lieutenant in the Israeli army, was sent to a military prison for 14 days. “Killing innocent civilians cannot be justified,” he said. “Nothing justifies this kind of killing. It is Israeli arrogance based on logic. It’s saying, ‘if we hit more, everything will be okay’. But the hatred and anger we are planting in Gaza will rebound on us.”
Ben Mocha, who refused to go to Gaza, is hardly a pacifist or anti-Israeli. He grew up in a Jewish orthodox family, attended a religious school, and served full-time in one of Israel’s elite combat parachute units.
He says he joined the Israeli army believing he would be fighting “terror organisations”. He found himself suppressing Palestinian aspirations for freedom and putting down protests of Palestinian farmers “against the incontinent theft of their lands”. He also saw abuses, such as Israeli troops sending Palestinian women and children into houses to ensure they were not booby-trapped, and using civilians as human shields.
“I am not a pacifist. I recognise the necessity of Israel to have a strong defensive army but I’m no longer going to play a part in 40 years of occupation. I told the army I will report for training so that I can always be ready to defend Israel, but attacking Gaza and perpetuating occupation is not defending Israel.”
That is not a popular view in a country where worship of the military begins in school and many political leaders are former generals. But the war is likely to strengthen the resisters once Israelis can reflect on the scale of the killing.
In 2003, the army sent Yoni Ben Artzi to prison for 18 months for declaring himself a conscientious objector. Ben Artzi, the nephew of Binyamin Netanyahu, the former prime minister expected to return to power in the next general election, was called before a “conscience committee”, made up just of military officers. It said he was not a pacifist — on the remarkable grounds that his persistent resistance to the army was evidence of the qualities of a soldier.
He spent longer in jail than any other refusenik, but recently the military has preferred to pretend simply that dissenters don’t exist — as hundreds of soldiers and reservists signed petitions refusing to enforce the occupation.
The government was particularly embarrassed when 27 pilots said they would no longer carry out killings of Palestinian leaders in Gaza, and when a group of elite commandos refused to serve in the occupied territories.
Still that remains a minority view. “Some of my comrades from the army don’t like what I’m thinking. Some said they don’t agree but they support my right to say it. But now, with the war, they say I’m giving my unit a bad reputation,” said Ben Mocha.
He is disturbed that most of the Israeli public and much of the media is blind to the fact that hundreds of Palestinians have been cut to pieces by Israeli fire power. “In the long run, it’s not a war of defence. We are creating a thousand suicide bombers for the future from the brothers of the dead, the sons of the dead ... in the long term, we are creating more terror.”
— The Guardian, London
