Are we faring so well?

PRIME minister Shaukat Aziz’s statements of late should come as great morale boosters, given the rosy picture he has been painting of the national economy and the state of social sector development in Pakistan. According to him, the poverty level in the country has fallen from 32.1 per cent to 25.4 per cent since 2001 and the per capita income will touch the $800 mark by the end of June. He has also said that we are doing fairly well in attaining the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Such talks would have gladdened many hearts but for the fact that figures can be played around with and the objective realities on the ground distorted to present a rosy picture of things as is being done these days. As for the millennium goals being achieved, as Mr Aziz has claimed, one will have to be a diehard optimist with blinkers on one’s eyes to believe him. Even if one were to go by the statistics released by the government’s own agencies, the claims made by the prime minister seem too far-fetched.

If one were to analyse the figures for the poverty level given by the State Bank, it is quite clear that the government’s interpretation of who is above the poverty line is pretty unreal and more technical. Thus a large number of those classified as non-poor (34 per cent) are admitted to be “transitory vulnerable” and “transitory non-poor”. They are borderline cases and will go below the poverty line in case of a shock at the macro level. What is significant is that the Pakistan Millennium Development Goals Report, 2005, which is the Planning Commission’s monitoring record of the government’s performance is cautious in its assessment of the achievability of the eight MDGs. Over all its finding for practically all the goals — poverty eradication, promotion of universal primary education, gender equality, reduction in child mortality, improvement in maternal health, the combating of Aids, malaria, etc, environmental sustainability, and the creation of a global partnership for development — is that they are achievable but call for greater and more timely efforts in terms of strengthening institutional capacity, addressing root causes of poverty, incentives for enhancing learning achievement, and greater government intervention. The report admits that many of the goals are too ambitious for Pakistan and its past record makes the underachievement of the MDGs a possibility.

Since all the goals have been spelt out in numerical terms, the importance of collecting statistics and organising surveys on scientific lines assumes great importance. One cannot be certain that this is being done. Those working on the ground — be they doctors or teachers — are sceptical about the statistics quoted so liberally by the government leaders. Those concerned with these surveys and statistics are themselves at times not certain if their findings are accurate. We do not know what is the source of Mr Aziz’s evaluation of the state of Pakistan’s economy. It would be a good idea if he were to check and counter-check the information he has by comparing the findings from different sources. It would be more realistic to evaluate the state of the economy and social development with complete honesty and then work out strategies which may actually succeed. The MDGs serve as a yardstick that should help a country measure its success in improving the quality of life of its people. They are designed to help governments assess their own performance and improve it if it falls short of what is needed.

Pakistan in the UNHRC

PAKISTAN’S election to the newly formed UN Human Rights Council has been criticised by international human rights organisations which are against the inclusion of countries known to violate human rights. While the charge is true for Pakistan and other newly inducted members like Saudi Arabia, China, Iran, Cuba and Russia, one hopes Pakistan will use this opportunity to examine its own performance on the issue before branding itself as a champion of human rights. It is no secret that some of Pakistan’s laws are discriminatory towards its minorities and women, many of whom have suffered at the rigours of draconian measures like the blasphemy laws and Hudood ordinances. Moreover, since 9/11 the government has used the ‘war on terror’ as a pretext to illegally detain its citizens, many of whose whereabouts remain unknown to this day. For these actions it is criticised by international watchdogs like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International as well as the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, all of whose annual reports are usually dismissed by the government as trivial. Pakistan should not therefore see its inclusion in the new UN body as a validation of its human rights record as that will defeat the purpose of engaging in any valid discourse on the state of human rights around the world. Rather it should use this occasion to set its own house right so that it can be taken seriously when it chooses to tackle important issues like the defaming of religions.

It will take some time to effectively assess the performance of the UNHRC. But with the inclusion of nations whose own human rights record is dismal, many questions are being asked as to how effectively member states will take action against those who commit serious human rights abuses. To ensure the body’s impartiality, the “contentious” member nations should offer themselves up for a human rights review to show their commitment to addressing this serious matter. This move should allay fears of those who are already dismissing the UNHRC as an ineffective body which is likely to meet the same fate as its predecessor, the now defunct UNCHR.

Protecting forests

ONE must welcome the NWFP government’s decision to launch a long-term forest conservation programme with a view to preserving the existing greenery and to increase the area under forests. The NWFP has only 17 per cent of land covered by forests. Efforts made during the last three years increased it to 17.08, which is far below the province’s potential, given the heavy rainfall in some parts and the hundreds of big and small snow-fed rivers, rivulets, brooks and waterfalls that give parts of the NWFP an idyllic look. Places like Dir, Chitral and Swat have beautiful forests consisting of cypresses and other coniferous trees that cover its slopes and valleys. But neglect has led to a gradual shrinkage of the area under forests, especially because villagers cut trees to get firewood. This is unfortunate for Pakistan, where less than five per cent of the area is under forests.

Under the 10-year plan, launched with the financial assistance of the Swiss government, the forest department proposes to increase land under forests to 25 per cent of the Frontier’s area. This by any standard is an ambitious project and needs constant efforts by way of new plantations, maintenance and monitoring. The purpose of setting up forest management committees is to monitor the situation in the selected districts — Hangu, Dir Lower and Hairpur. The aim is to educate the people on forest conservation, biodiversity, eco-system and a cleaner environment. The NWFP and the neighbouring Northern Area have three of the world’s mightiest mountains — the Himalayas, Karakoram and Hindukush — within their territory. The scenic beauty of Dir, Swat, Chitral, Gilgit, Hunza and Baltistan is enchanting and constitute one of Pakistan’s major tourist assets. It is a pity that, except for some mountaineers, the world remains unaware of this beauty. As a foreign journalist once remarked, Pakistan is the world’s best-kept tourism secret.

‘Look before you don’t leap’

THE strife-ridden battleground of Indian politics has entered a phase of curious and paradoxical stalemate: the government is ceding space but there is no one to occupy it. In a sense, the government is losing the battle with itself. There is no one else to lose it against.

This fits in with a standard operating law of Indian politics: no one wins an election but someone loses it. But sequence must not overlap with consequence. We are still in the sequence stage. A wit might add that power is such a con that it takes no time at all to attach itself to sequence.

It is an old joke that the only success ever achieved by a government-appointed committee was the King James 1 Bible. The new, wry and sardonic joke in Delhi is that there is no one left to appoint to any more committees. Everyone is a member of some committee or the other. The ruling class of Delhi has three components: the has-beens, the wannabes, and those stuck in the middle. The has-beens are politicians and bureaucrats who have retired from government. But despite being closer to 70 than 60, they have not yet tired of power and continue to exhibit an athletic hunger for minor perks and privileges. Even the has-beens, in other words, are wannabes.

Dr Manmohan Singh, the most successful bureaucrat in history, has found the perfect solution to this problem. He has converted governance into hundreds of committees. Tell him about any problem, from Kashmir to a shortage of knitting needles, and a committee is born out of the conversation. It is axiomatic that nothing gets done. But that, presumably, is the point. The point of existence is survival, not service.

It is entirely in character that the most successful bureaucrat in history has become prime minister of Delhi after being appointed prime minister of India. Dr Manmohan Singh understands Delhi. He is comfortable in Delhi. He knows the dance of the faithful in Delhi: two steps back and one step sideways keep you at a safe distance from trouble. The absence of trouble is the first principle of survival.

The governance of India is a different story and requires a different mindset. India needs a leap of imagination. Dr Manmohan Singh’s motto is simple: look before you don’t leap.

Delhi is not a single fact. There are at least two Delhis, and I am not talking of the old city built by Shah Jehan and the new one crafted by Lutyens. There is one Delhi in which Indians live, and another Delhi where the men and women who rule India live. Sheila Dikshit is the guardian of the first Delhi, of real people, and a pretty capable one too. Dr Manmohan Singh is the presiding spirit of the other Delhi: of ministers, bureaucrats, and their service providers, from the humble dhobi to the obsequious magnate.

The prime minister of Delhi has extraordinary, even great, virtues. He is, to begin with, ruthlessly honest. Wisely, he never lets his personal morals extend to his ministers, who can be as corrupt as they want to be, as long as they don’t get caught. Dr Manmohan Singh is even more ruthlessly diligent. Prime ministers normally leave three quarters of the files to their principal secretary; Dr Manmohan Singh’s ratio is the opposite. He gives his personal attention to virtually every file. But that is not the virtue needed of a prime minister of India, because all problems are not equal. When everything is sought to be done, there is the great danger that nothing might be done.

The government of India is structured to look after all problems, which is why it has so many departments. The prime minister of India must concentrate his vision on the vital organs that keep a nation in the best of health during his temporary possession of office. At this point of time, the three great priorities should be, at least in my view, security, Naxalites and power.

Each one of these issues could demand 20 hours of work each day. Security means not only the elimination of terrorism and communal riots, but also a mature peace with Pakistan, negotiated with persistence. Instead we have a fits and starts policy. Every so often, without any particular reason or explanation, Kashmir jumps up on the calendar, shapes headlines for a day or two, and then melts away into indifference. There is no engagement.

The Naxalites get perfunctory lip service, but in fact are treated like someone else’s headache: as a law and order problem to be dealt with by chief ministers. Power needs massive, concentrated, one-horizon, national and nationwide investment. Instead, the problem has been outsourced to the general managers of power plants. If they can raise output, very nice. If not, tough luck: the golden age of Indian civilisation did occur long before air-conditioning, isn’t it? If Chandragupta Maurya could do without electricity, who are you to complain about power cuts?

If this drift to nowhere has not induced any sense of panic (the panic of the lost) then it is largely because there is no opposition. Indeed, if any political party displays the panic of the lost then it is the BJP. Those who have become used to positions, take time to adjust to opposition. That much is understandable. But two years? Getting on top of a chariot is not the best method to find your mind. You have to be on top of issues. The other political formations are like the Indians looking at Rumi’s elephant: you can never be quite sure whether it is a water pipe, a fan, a pillar or a throne. “Had each of them held a lighted candle,” writes Rumi, “there would have been no contradiction in their words.” But illumination commands too high a premium in our befuddled times.

Voters, generally, though not always, are kinder to the opposition than to the government. If the opposition is lost, it only hurts itself. If the government is lost, it hurts the people. It is really as simple as that. Voters have faith and respect for the office of prime minister. The prime minister is the voice of parliament, and often the voice of India. A prime minister who devalues his office betrays this great trust. The King James Bible does tell us that the meek shall inherit the earth. Indeed they might, and probably should, but it were best if they were kept out of the office of prime minister of India. Meek so often blurs into weak.

The temptations of Delhi are magnetic. Let me leave those who prefer Delhi to India with a sobering thought. The Mughal empire never really survived the shift from Agra to Delhi. Shah Jehan moved halfway through his reign; and his heir, Aurangzeb could barely hold what he had inherited, as he himself realised on his deathbed. Does the Mughal empire seem too remote?

The British announced the change of their capital from Calcutta to Delhi in 1911, but effectively moved in 1931. For more than 200 years the British had continuously expanded their possessions and their influence, from Burma to Persia, from their base in Calcutta. Sixteen years after the viceroy of India became the viceroy of Delhi, the British packed their bags. The attractions of Delhi can be fatal.

The writer is editor-in-chief, The Asian Age, New Delhi.

Brown’s balancing act

GORDON BROWN’S interview with BBC was an illustration of the delicate balancing act that the chancellor is compelled to play in Labour’s internal politics as the pressure mounts for Tony Blair to step down sooner rather than later.

No one who knows the workings of Mr Brown’s circle can doubt that lieutenants like Nick Brown and Andrew Smith would not have raised the standard on the leadership issue if the chancellor had not encouraged them to do so. The presence of Mr Brown’s former adviser and long-time supporter Neal Lawson at the heart of efforts to gather backbench Labour signatures in support of a change at the top points unmistakably in the same direction.

Yet Mr Brown also knows far better than anyone that a direct move against Mr Blair could also turn out catastrophically for Labour. As a poll of backbenchers showed yesterday, the party is divided on when (and indeed whether) Mr Blair should go. A majority of the MPs in the survey wants Mr Blair to go by this time next year (half of them now, half of them in 12 months’ time), yet more MPs want him to stay as long as he wants than want him to go immediately.

And the bedrock of any overt challenge now would be leftwing MPs who do not just want to get rid of the prime minister but to get rid of everything he — along with Mr Brown — has ever stood for. As one of these MPs, Lynne Jones, put it on the BBC Politics Show: “I’m afraid the Labour party is a pale shadow of what it was even in the 80s, and so long as Tony Blair remains the leader, that will be the case.” Mr Cameron will be able to make a lot of political mischief out of that.

Mr Brown certainly wants to replace Mr Blair — and most Labour supporters back him to do so — but he quite rightly does not want to capture the leadership at the head of an avenging army of Labour leftists like Ms Jones. That is why he gave a very measured interview to Mr Marr yesterday in which he repeatedly called for a “stable and orderly” transition and in which he wagged his finger at “outriders” who were pressing ahead too fast.

Mr Brown was quick to recognise that the lesson of the local elections last week was that Labour’s main problem is on its right flank, in the centre, where the Conservatives are now making inroads, rather than on its left.

— The Guardian, London