DAWN - Opinion; October 26, 2005
Human concern comes first
HOW catastrophic has the earthquake been? A total of 53,000 dead, 75,000 injured was the estimate on October 22. Among the injured are many who have had to undergo amputations because their injuries bad become gangrenous when they remained untreated for a week. Among the principal victims are children. The earthquake struck while they were in schools which seemed to have collapsed far more rapidly than other buildings. To say that a whole generation has been lost appears to be no exaggeration.
As if this were not bad enough it is estimated that as many as 10 to 20 per cent of the three million victims have not yet been accessed because of the remoteness of their villages, the impassability of roads, and the acute shortage of airlift capability. Another wave of “massive death”, in the words of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, “will happen if we do not step up our efforts now” to reach these people and equip them and others to cope with the harsh winter that lies ahead. Experts, familiar with the region, point out that in these remote areas food and fuel is stocked up by December to see them through the time for which they are cut off by the heavy snowfall.
What has been the international response? Comparisons are odious when reactions to natural calamities are measured but it is difficult not to note that within 10 days of the tsunami tragedy, 80 per cent of the amount requested by the UN had been pledged and paid while in the case of the earthquake only $86 million or 28 per cent of the $312 million sought by the UN has been offered and only half of that has actually been paid in cash.
The tsunami probably killed twice as many people as died initially in our earthquake but the number of people displaced was only about one million as against the three million rendered shelterless here. The tsunami victims were all on relatively flat terrain in relatively good weather and aid was easily delivered. Here, delivering aid and providing shelter is a logistical nightmare.
It is no wonder that Jan Egeland, the UN’s chief relief coordinator, told a press conference in Geneva, “We have never had this kind of logistical nightmare ever. We thought that the tsunami was as bad as it could get. This is worse.” He echoed Kofi Annan’s appeal for a Berlin airlift type of operation to reach the remote hamlets where currently only soldiers and hardy volunteers on foot or on mules and the occasional helicopter are delivering pathetically limited food and light shelters.
Shortly after this article appears a donor conference called by the UN will convene in Geneva to secure pledges of assistance. I hope that in making the case for additional international assistance our delegates will stress that apart from the assistance needed for reconstruction there is the immediate need to provide succour to the 200,000 to 400,000 people that no one has been able to reach yet. Helicopters, tents, mobile medical units are urgently needed and they can come from the stocks of the armed forces around the world. It is this assistance in kind rather than cash that we need immediately.
This is perhaps also the time when we should indicate that our political sensitivities will take second place to the need for providing urgent assistance no matter where it comes from. The UN representative in Islamabad told newsmen “If the second wave of deaths hits, it’s the major donors that are going to have to look at themselves in the mirror and ask why.” This is a question that we too may well have to answer if because of illusory political difficulties we turn down offers that could save lives.
Paul Wolfowitz, president of the World Bank, and others around the world, have acknowledged that Pakistan would need billions for reconstruction of the infrastructure and the devastated cities, towns and hamlets. This acknowledgement notwithstanding such assistance will come in a measured and gradual manner. For us, this must be the second, not the first, priority.
What has been the reaction of Pakistanis? I was in the US when the earthquake struck. People there, including the Pakistani-American community were still in a state of shock after the destruction wrought by Hurricane Katrina. And yet the response was tremendous. Our embassy and our consulates were deluged with telephone calls offering assistance and asking for advice on the organizations to which donations could be sent. Many Americans of Pakistani origin, abandoned full-time jobs to devote themselves to fund raising or collecting medicines and warm clothing to send to Pakistan.
If the response was tremendous abroad it was overwhelming at home. The nation was united as perhaps it had not been in decades. Parochial and sectarian sentiments which have for long marred our political landscape disappeared at least temporarily. All differences it seemed had been set aside to ensure that the humanitarian task was performed as well as could be.
There was criticism of the government, some of it warranted, some not; there were some reports of fraud and of profiteering; there was some political bickering; there were occasions when volunteers in their enthusiasm hindered rather than helped the aid effort but overall the one heartening facet of this tragedy was the manner in which we rose above the cynicism that had characterized our reactions in the past and focused single-mindedly on the needs of the victims.
Edhi had been looked up to earlier. His dedication acquired a new sheen. Many of us, suspicious of the religious parties, cast suspicions aside and welcomed the services they offered. For most of us there was also a new set of heroes — the Pakistani helicopter pilots who flew countless sorties from dusk to dawn disregarding regulations on flying hours and often taking unacceptable risks. We owe a similar debt to the pilots and crew of the other helicopters and cargo planes. Their performance, too, went well beyond the call of duty.
While it is fair to say that the level of international assistance has been inadequate and to demand that more be done it would be stupid to suggest that we must examine the motives behind the assistance that has been offered. Cynics say, for example, that the United States, which provided much of the airlift capability and the service facilities needed by aircraft from elsewhere did so to improve its image in a Muslim country. Such cynicism is unworthy. If the American image improves then it will be a well deserved improvement. On our part, gratitude is all we should be expressing to them as well as to the other friends around the world even while pointing out the enormity of the requirement and the need, therefore, of further assistance.
Currently, there are about 80 helicopters available. It is estimated that we need at least another 50 with all of them working full time through the next 40-45 days, before the heavy snowfall starts, to rescue or provide succour to the inhabitants of remote hamlets. It will be dangerous work and perhaps for some humanitarian considerations alone may not justify the risk. If a perceived political advantage provides an incentive so be it. Saving our people must be our priority and duty.
Let me turn in this context to our neighbour, India. The government there has faced its share of criticism for not having acted fast enough and for not having provided the assistance needed by the victims of the earthquake on the other side of the LoC. Whether the announced aid packages have sufficed to silence the critics is difficult to say but it is clear that their offers of assistance to us have found a positive resonance there and in terms of Indo-Pak relations have been important for both political and humanitarian reasons.
Perhaps in providing such assistance political considerations weighed more heavily with some parts of the Indian establishment but are these political considerations in any way at odds with the direction in which we ourselves wish to see our relations develop? I don’t think so. I, therefore, welcome as much for its political content as for its humanitarian not only the assistance sent but also the recent exchange of proposals for the opening of crossing points along the LoC to allow members to meet and to avail of the most convenient relief facilities.
The Indians have made it clear that their proposal envisages only daylight crossings and requires Kashmiris from this side of the LoC to go back by sunset. Kashmiri leaders have criticized this restriction but given our past history even this must have been a difficult “sell” for the Indian government.
Not too much should, therefore, be made of this. It is a step in the right direction but, as in all other Indo-Pak exchanges, further progress will be slow. Right now, despite the great attention that this has attracted in the international press, our focus must remain on ameliorating the plight of the earthquake victims and regarding any political advance as a fringe benefit that we are prepared to give away or receive.
The writer is a former foreign secretary.
Creating new minorities
On the independence day two months ago, we came across many more ideas from government officials and political leaders who are always brimming over with platitudes. For some people to invent fresh nostrums for the national malaise is as easy as for a magician to produce a rabbit out of a hat.
During the last few years, two proposals in this regard were quite remarkable. Apart from hearing from some ulema how the mere addition of religion on a citizen’s national identity card would weld the masses together into one nation for the first time in the country’s history, we had Dr Israr Ahmed of the Tanzeem-e- Islami solving the minorities problem for ever by suggesting the imposition of jazia tax on them. There have been other outlandish ideas too.
Jazia, as you will recall, was an institution of the Islamic state whereby its non-Muslim citizens paid a certain tax into the treasury to ensure their protection. They were not required to pay zakat and other dues like Muslims. I think the last time this happened in this part of the world was during the reign of Mughal Emperor Aurangzeb who tried to prove that there could be an Islamic state even if its Muslim population was in a minority.
Of course there is no such problem now. Muslims are in an overwhelming majority in Pakistan, though the way some fanatics want it this majority may no longer remain overwhelming. The basic consideration as to who and what constitutes a real Muslim is being disputed all the time. I am a Muslim today but there is no guarantee that I shall continue to be acknowledged as such tomorrow.
Dr Israr Ahmed made the proposal about jazia many years ago but has not repeated it, publicly at least. Maybe he has changed his mind. Anyway, if he were to come into power somehow and did impose the jazia on non-Muslims, that would not exclude the possibility of some ulema demanding that since, for some odd reason, he was not sufficiently Muslim, he too should pay that tax.
It’s like this. The Ahmedis have already been pushed out of the pale of Islam. But they were never in large numbers anyway. Now the Anjuman Sipah-e-Sahaba insists that the Shias should be treated likewise. Moreover if you accept the contention of some members of the JUI, anyone subscribing to the views of Maulana Maudoodi is a kafir, a heretic. Many other religious parties and sects say the same about each another. As a result of this process of elimination, maybe hardly anyone is left in Pakistan to be called a Muslim by anyone except himself.
But in that case a rarity might be Dr Israr Ahmed himself as head of state or government. A combination of forces, say, a political-cum-clerical alliance, may then lay down that if he wants to remain the top man of the country he must start paying jazia. And, horror of horror, the good doctor may agree to do so, under protest of course.
I don’t know how much the jazia amounts to but I am told it is not much for an individual to pay. Zakat too is not much, but look at the billions the government is able to collect through its imposition via banks and savings institutions. In fact with the majority of the majority having been declared non-Muslim, jazia could become the biggest source of revenue, if the ruling regime were to give up its secular ideas about managing Pakistan.
All that the government would have to do would be to encourage the official labelling of as many sects and groups as non-Muslim as possible. This should not be difficult considering the enthusiasm with which we are ready to declare everyone else as kafir. The result would be the generation of such a colossal amount as jazia tax that even the machinations of corrupt and rapacious collectors would not be able to make a sizable dent in it.
As an aside on the position of minorities in the country, it is interesting to imagine what might have been. Let us visualize the state of affairs that would have prevailed if mass migrations had not taken place in 1947, since they were not on the cards at all. Hindus and Sikhs would have comprised a sizable percentage of present Pakistan and almost 40 per cent of our Punjab’s population.
Lahore would still be substantially owned by Pakistani Hindus, while Lyallpur and Rawalpindi would have been economically dominated by Pakistani Sikhs. Lahore in Pakistan and Amritsar in India would have been twin cities. Of course there would have been a host of problems — occasioned by a large section of the people being hostile to the very idea of Pakistan — but we might have been spared the induction of new minorities into our system which sectarianism among Muslims is now causing.
Continuing this conjecture to the political field, we might have had, once in a while, a Sikh as chief minister of Punjab. After all, a handful of anti-Muslim League legislators did sustain a Unionist ministry in the province with the help of Hindu and Sikh members in the immediate years before partition. And this had happened when, for more than two years, the largest single party in the Punjab Assembly was the Muslim League. Political coalitions can do the strangest things.
In that case, the declaration of Pakistan as an Islamic state may have been extremely difficult. But there was nothing to stop us Muslims from declaring one or more of our sects as kafir, thus ending in the fantastic, though not impossible, situation of leaving true Muslims as a hapless minority in Pakistan.
As we savour the trite, hackneyed and puerile messages of government and opposition leaders on our national days (or on any other bright day that they think is good for a message) let us also give a thought to what might have been, as detailed by me in the above paragraphs. Most of all, let us not do anything to encourage the creation of more minorities in this benighted land.
Age of tabloid television
HOW do people feel about the electronic media’s approach to the traumatic events that have shaken the country since October 8 when a massive earthquake struck northern Pakistan and Azad Kashmir? With nearly a dozen local news channels telecasting round the clock, there has been a surfeit of coverage of the happenings in the country in the last fortnight or so.
For the foreign television channels — mainly the CNN, BBC, Sky and Fox — the earthquake was big news just as the tsunami, hurricanes Rita and Katrina were. The earthquake was the main story for a few days and then these channels moved on to other happenings since the world doesn’t stand still for any one.
The aspects to be analyzed are the impact of our media coverage and its quality. Three major developments can directly be attributed to the electronic media’s handling of this natural calamity that took the country by storm. One, it has stirred a strong public response which caught many unawares. Although our people have generally reacted emotionally to national tragedies — be it a war, floods or the death of a popular personality — the reaction was more overwhelming this time. The poignant images on television screens that captured the pain and grief of the survivors, the agony of the injured, the trauma of young children and the shock of men and women who had been made homeless and were separated from their families moved the people enormously.
Unsurprisingly, within a week the government had collected Rs 4 billion in the president’s earthquake relief fund. That was the donation to only one collecting point. There were hundreds of others, especially NGOs such as the Edhi Foundation, which collected billions. Thousands of people volunteered their time and services to aid the earthquake victims.
Teams of doctors rushed to the scene to help out. Others, who could, went to the affected areas with whatever relief goods they could put together. Yet others went to the relief camps in their own cities to assist in sorting out things, packing them and loading them on trucks and aircraft. It is doubtful if this groundswell of public empathy would have emerged without the television coverage the earthquake received.
Secondly, with nothing hidden from public view, as has traditionally been the case in times of such disasters, the government could not afford to be caught napping. Although there were weaknesses in the government’s handling of the crisis and one can always find faults, generally the government’s response after the initial shock was better than what would have been expected.
True, the initial delay in starting the rescue operation, the chaotic manner in which it was undertaken and its failure to organize itself promptly on the health front which led to unnecessary loss of lives and limbs disturbed people. But some channels appeared to be indulging in the blame game with a vengeance. They went all out to criticize the administration because they felt that was the only way they could keep the state machinery on its toes.
As a result, the government was under pressure to do much more than what it was already doing. This also forced the military and civil leaders to reach out to the victims as much as they could and the relief effort was certainly more intense than it has been ever undertaken in the country in a natural calamity — be it a flood or a cyclone as hit East Pakistan in 1970.
Thirdly, the role of the independent media in identifying the areas of disaster and highlighting the needs of the people was a positive one since it helped the administration streamline the relief effort and channel it to the areas that were in most urgent need of it. As a result of this a semblance of order emerged from the chaos that had characterized the earthquake scene in the early days.
With practically all the channels sending their teams to the affected areas, there were first hand reports of what was happening and where the action was. Interviews with the people from the affected areas not only captured the agony and the spirit of the people but also identified their needs through their own participation. Besides the call-in programmes which caught on like wild fire also enabled people to convey news and views about the disaster. In the absence of the governments own fact collecting and monitoring machinery, television certainly served a useful purpose.
While the electronic media should be lauded for this role, it also had a negative dimension that cannot be glossed over. With the various channels vying for viewers’ attention the phenomenon dubbed tabloid television emerged in Pakistan. In the cut throat competition that drove many channels to go overboard in adopting innovative and creative methods, many of them resorted to unprofessional techniques. These left the viewers horrified and flabbergasted.
For instance, giving close-up shots of the dead, showing the injured in terrible agony and capturing the death throes of a woman breathing her last was not something a professional television journalist should have done. It is unethical to violate the dignity of a person who has no control over his/her surroundings. Throwing untrained people into the field who did not even know how to address a person who has just gone through a traumatic experience was the most heartless thing to do. Not strangely this resort to sensationalism was not at all appreciated by the viewers.
Many TV channels were also guilty of distorting the truth — even though it was done inadvertently out of sheer incompetence and the compulsion to generate enough footage and programmes related to the earthquake to provide round-the-clock coverage. Obviously, none of the channels had the resources to create new earthquake-related stories and films to keep the audience glued to their TV sets. Hence repeat programmes and replays were quite common but the time and date when the film was shot were never indicated and new viewers were deceived into believing that it was a new shot. This was misinformation of the worst kind.
Thus a shot taken on the second day of the earthquake showed survivors complaining that no relief good had reached them was telecast ad nauseam until several days later giving the impression that aid had still not reached the people in the accessible areas.
But worse was the free rein given to religious scholars, clerics and others laying claim to religious knowledge. Since it was the holy month of Ramazan, religious programmes would in any case have received precedence. But these were directed at the earthquake tragedy. The ‘wrath of God’ was a common theme reminding the survivors that their sins were responsible for bringing this disaster on themselves thus giving a fillip to religiosity that is already on the rise in our society.
This tended to make people even more fatalistic and superstitious than ever before. Sadly missing were programmes of an educative, inspirational and instructive variety that could show the way forward. No one tried to explain in a scientific, historical and sociological perspective the incidence of natural calamities — why they happen, how other societies have coped with them, their impact on people and what can be done to make the people safe in the event of future disasters.
Any channel with some imagination and professionalism would have tried to procure films and the participation of experts (seismologists, geologists, geographers, historians and civil engineers/architects) rather than religious leaders to drive the fear of God in people’s hearts when there is already so much panic and anxiety around.
It is said that calamities can help institutions come of age overnight. This could have been the case with the electronic media in Pakistan too had the various channels focused less on keeping up with the Joneses or rather outdoing them and had sought to be more professional, ethical and less sensational in their approach.
The European maze
HAMPTON Court palace is a far more congenial venue for an EU summit than the fortress-like council of ministers’ building in Brussels, though Tony Blair and his 24 fellow leaders are still not going to be making any big decisions when they gather there on Thursday.
This is one of the informal get-togethers that take place at least once during the six months every member state spends running EU business. But plans for a Tudor-style banquet and cosy fireside chats have been replaced by a single working lunch and an early departure - not least because the issues this week are so difficult.
Mr Blair wants to discuss how Europe should deal with globalisation. That means, above all, implementing economic reforms to help withstand competitive pressures from China and India, never mind the Polish plumbers who obsess the French and helped defeat the EU constitution in May’s referendum. But the omens are poor.
Just when dynamism is needed, Europe’s mood is divided and defensive. Gerhard Schroeder will be there for his last bow, but the stresses of the incoming coalition led by the CDU’s Angela Merkel may make it harder to achieve change in Germany.
Josi Manuel Barroso, the European commission president, wants to set up a multi-billion-euro fund to soften the impact of globalisation - a response to French accusations that Brussels is doing nothing to protect workers threatened with redundancies. Such disagreements about reform of the European social model are not going to be resolved in a day.
Low expectations are fuelled in part by disagreements over the next seven-year EU budget. Mr Blair would like to put off discussion until December, but there is an urgent need to face up to the twin pressures of enlargement to 25 and the unsustainability of current commitments, especially the 40 per cent still spent on agriculture.
Britain’s annual three billion pounds budget rebate, secured by Margaret Thatcher when the UK was much poorer, is now harder than ever to justify, especially to poor eastern newcomers who are picking up the tab and foregoing subsidies.
—The Guardian, London