Development or tribalism?

THE vexed question of oil and gas exploration in Balochistan has once again hit the headlines, with news that a new committee has been set up to negotiate on this vital matter with the local Baloch sardars. The previous ministerial committee headed by the interior minister has been dissolved to make way for one under the Balochistan chief secretary. In recent months, there has been a bitter stand-off between paramilitary troops and local Baloch tribesmen in the Dera Bugti area, home to the largest gas reserves in the country. The forces were sent in following a series of rocket attacks on the installations which caused serious damage. While the government blamed the tribesmen for being responsible, the locals denied their involvement in these acts of sabotage. For several months, there have been prolonged negotiations between the government and the powerful local sardars to bring matters to a peaceful end. However, the talks seem to have ended in failure, with the tense stand-off continuing. As many as 20 companies have been keen to restart their exploration activities in the area but have been prevented because of the poor law and order situation there.

Gas and oil exploration in the area has always been a sensitive issue. The area is the fiefdom of certain powerful sardars who have traditionally resisted such ‘incursions’ into their territories and have often extracted a high price from those wanting to carry out exploration. Successive governments have always faced a serious dilemma in dealing with such situations. On the one hand, they are convinced that such development is vital for the overall economic progress of the country. If oil and gas companies begin work, local people will benefit and get greater job and business opportunities. The sardars, however, claim that locals do not receive any substantial benefit from such activity. While they have traditionally demanded ever greater shares to allow development activities, the authorities have come to see these demands as a form of blackmail and extortion. However, the problem is not simply a case of locals versus outsiders as depicted by the powerful local chieftains. What in fact has been happening is that the sardars increasingly demand that all jobs and development activities should be routed through them. This enables them to maintain their stranglehold on the members of the tribes by being able to dole out patronage.

Most sardars have been traditionally hostile to large-scale development in their areas for purely Machiavellian reasons. They fear that the building of roads and schools, which would bring with them awareness and greater contact with the outside world, would weaken their hold on the populace. With the exception of a failed attempt in the seventies, when Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s government tried to open up the area to development, governments have been wary of alienating the sardars. Instead, they have pursued a policy of appeasement aimed at keeping the local chieftain in good humour. This has to yield place to a more positive and progress-oriented policy stance. The government must not shy away from its duty of bringing development directly to the people of these extremely backward areas, regardless of the priorities of the local vested interests. Given the sensitivity and strategic importance of the area, it should, of course, go about its task judiciously and thoughtfully. The best policy would be to win over the hearts and minds of the local people rather than persisting with the current strategy of keeping their overlords on the right side.

Unethical & hazardous

THE secretary-general of the Pakistan Medical Association has revealed that many gynaecologists working in private clinics and hospitals prefer to deliver babies through the caesarean section, rather than the normal procedure, in order to extract hefty fees out of the patients’ families for their services. The practice must have gained the scale and reputation of a racket or else it would not have attracted the attention of the PMA, the representative body of the medical profession. That the motive in many such cases is only to make monetary gains at the expense of expecting mothers is all the more reprehensible because maternal mortality rate is five times higher in C-section cases than when childbirths follow the normal course of delivery. Indeed, it is shameful that the practitioners of a noble profession should stoop to such a base level of greed and professional malpractice.

But that is not where the abuse ends. Many privately owned and managed hospitals, among them some otherwise reputed health care providers, offer incentives to the doctors on their staff to prescribe certain unnecessary procedures and tests in order to generate good incomes for their institutions. Fleecing of the general public under the cover of professional care and advice, thus, has become quite common in a section of the private health care sector. The PMA, in its capacity as a representative body of the country’s doctors, must formally take up the issue with the government in the larger public interest, and push for legislation that would curb such unethical practices. As for the revelation that the C-section exposes expecting mothers to a much higher risk of death — at 500 per 100,000 women, Pakistan has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in the world — this practice must be curbed with a firm hand. The government would do well to have some kind of a regulatory mechanism in place to control this and other forms of violation of medical ethics.

Reno’s boogie night

IT MUST have been quite a sight seeing Janet Reno dance. As Bill Clinton’s attorney-general, Janet was considered the only “man” in his cabinet. Clinton chose her after two earlier nominees — both women — turned out to be disasters: both had employed illegal immigrants as nannies for their children and thus violated American laws. How could Clinton, asked the media, nominate as attorney-general someone who herself had violated American law? The Senate, which must approve all appointments, behaved most sensibly. Instead of rejecting the two nominations one by one, it asked the two nominees to withdraw themselves instead of suffering the disgrace of being rejected by the Senate. Furious with his staff for recommending people without a thorough vetting, Clinton then decided to go for someone who had no babies: he chose Janet, a spinster. Known for her gung-ho style and toughness, her most controversial decision was the crackdown on David Koresh’s fortress where the self-proclaimed messiah had many followers besides alleged hostages. The crackdown proved disastrous, for there were heavy casualties. The media went after Janet Reno hammer and tongs, but she retained Clinton’s confidence till the end.

Now a candidate for Democratic nomination as Florida’s governor, Janet Reno played to a boogie beat well into dawn at a popular nightclub while the guests at the 2,000-dollar a head party watched in sheer amazement. If elected governor, she will be her own boss in a state that is just across a strip of water from Fidel Castro’s Cuba. With a constant stream of illegal human trafficking going on between Cuba and Florida, it will be quite a match between the former attorney-general and the veteran communist leader, who has survived all his great revolutionary contemporaries. Will he survive Janet?