Okara cadet college
Friday, 08 May, 2009
Development without planning has acquired the status of a necessary evil in Pakistan. People cannot wait for the delivery of basic services like health and education before our fractured national polity is able to arrive at a consensus on what kind of development we need and how best we should pursue it. The haphazard development that results from this approach sometimes creates white elephants that people love to have but are loathe to bankroll. A proposed cadet college in Okara seems to have become just that — a fancy project no one seems ready to fend for. First proposed in 1986 and more than half built on 200 acres of land just outside Okara, the project is nowhere close to becoming a cadet college any time soon. In fact, the Punjab government has already notified that it will set up a ‘Danish’ school in the building once it is complete. Residents of the area are unhappy as are some prominent local politicians like federal minister Manzoor Ahmed Wattoo and former federal minister Rao Sikandar Iqbal, both having championed the setting up of the college during earlier stints in power. The Punjab government’s refusal to let them have it stems from the fact that running the cadet college will cost as much as operating 1,000 middle schools. The project is too costly for the provincial education department to let it go ahead, goes the argument inside the Punjab Civil Secretariat.
Okara’s people are hardly convinced. They believe setting up a ‘Danish’ school in a building that has already cost the federal government a whopping Rs200m is akin to constructing a zoo to house a sparrow. They are also not sure if the ‘Danish’ school — part of an official scheme to give free education to the children of the dispossessed — will be half as good as a cadet college could be in imparting quality education. Between the government’s financial worries and the public’s demand for quality education, the project may end up being nothing — neither a cadet college nor a ‘Danish’ school. This will be a costly reminder of how development without planning can degenerate into development without purpose.
************************************************** ********
Drone attacks
Friday, 08 May, 2009
Republican Congressman Ronald Earnest Paul’s query to the House regarding the legitimacy of US drone-bombing in Fata comes not a moment too soon. The matter is of pivotal significance in the Pakistani forces’ efforts to contain the terrorism emanating from the area, and is a divisive factor in the debate over how the issue must be tackled. The justification offered earlier was that Pakistan appeared helpless against the rising tide of militancy and terrorism. But now the army has launched renewed offensives in the militant-infested areas and reports suggest that gains are being achieved. Meanwhile, public opinion is turning against the militants, with many in the citizenry now demanding that no stone be left unturned in bringing them to book. In this situation, the continuing US drone incursions are robbing our security forces of some of their moral legitimacy and are, in fact, undermining the war effort.
For one thing, as Mr Paul pointed out, the drone incursions violate the rights of a sovereign country. Given that the US is not at war with Pakistan — and, in fact, the two countries are partners in what was earlier referred to as the ‘war on terror’ — the US cannot claim legitimacy in unilaterally launching offensives against militants whom the Pakistan military has already engaged in serious combat. The repeated US violations of the country’s territorial integrity subvert our government’s efforts to make this ‘Pakistan’s war’ and lend currency to the extremists’ claim that Pakistan is merely a pawn in what is, essentially, America’s war.
Secondly, the US bombings have resulted in a large number of civilian casualties which, in the public’s mind, outweigh by far any success against the militants. America’s actions stand in danger of being viewed as wanton foreign aggression against innocent populations. And the drone strikes are contributing to the increasing number of refugees fleeing the area. Meanwhile, the Pakistan Army and other security forces continue to suffer heavy casualties in the battles underway on our western borders. These losses cannot help but be juxtaposed with the fact that the US uses unmanned drones to fight without putting any of its soldiers at risk. It may soon be asked whether Afghan or Pakistani lives are less precious than those of the Americans. A serious rethink is in order. The American military must confine itself to the western side of the Durand Line.
************************************************** ********
Afghan trade corridor
Friday, 08 May, 2009
THERE is nothing wrong in principle with the memorandum of understanding signed in Washington on Wednesday for a new transit trade agreement between Pakistan and Afghanistan. Initialled by their foreign ministers, the MoU commits Islamabad and Kabul to talks with a view to achieving an agreement on transit trade between the two countries by year’s end. Pakistan is already a transit route for Afghanistan’s imports and exports through the Karachi port, and it goes without saying that, despite the occasional tensions between the two countries, Afghanistan has continued to benefit from Pakistan’s strict adherence to the transit trade agreement. Wednesday’s accord doesn’t mention India by name, but it is obvious that the intended agreement seeks to provide a trade corridor for Indian goods to Afghanistan through this country. Euphoric, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the agreement would “bring prosperity to the two countries along the trade routes and beyond”. One wishes it were that simple.
Pakistan and India have a history, and no agreement signed under pressure can be seen in isolation from the reality of all that has happened in South Asia since independence. As recently as December, the two countries were close to war following the terrorist attack in Mumbai. India, it ought to be noted, is accused of using its presence in Afghanistan for negative purposes, and Pakistani officials have gone public with their view that New Delhi is helping insurgents in Balochistan. Seen side by side, one is unsettled by America’s anxiety to help India entrench itself deeply in Afghanistan and pursue aims that have nothing to do with the war on terror. There is no dearth of statements from American officials, especially Richard Holbrooke, about giving India a major role in Afghanistan, even though the two are not neighbours. This means that either the Americans are naïve enough to buy the Indian line that New Delhi’s interests in Afghanistan are altruistic, or Washington knows what India is up to but looks the other way.
If America is interested in seeing a lasting regional peace, it should be cognisant of Pakistan’s security concerns. It is unrealistic to assume that the MoU, as it stands, will automatically pass muster with the security establishment even if it makes no public show of disapproval. If the Obama administration really wants cooperation to grow among Saarc members, it must first try to resolve Indo-Pakistan differences instead of expecting Islamabad alone to show goodwill. One hopes former US Ambassador to India Robert Blackwill had some basis for his optimism when he said the other day that America may eventually pressure India to improve its ties with Pakistan by resolving the Kashmir issue. Commitment must be forthcoming from all parties, not just one country.
************************************************** ********
OTHER VOICES - Bangladesh Press Living below the poverty line
Friday, 08 May, 2009
LIVING below [the] poverty line is definitely unbearable, but almost half of the population of Bangladesh … [is doing so]. Speakers at a round-table discussion at the National Press Club on Monday revealed that around 47 per cent of the people in rural areas of the country are still living below the poverty line due to absence of pragmatic policies and lack of coordination among different development partners….
The Bangladesh Today
At different times and on different occasions much has been said about poverty alleviation by successive governments over the years, but the poverty situation continues to remain almost the same….
No doubt, [successive] governments have made an effort to reduce poverty. Under the prescriptions of the donors, the last emergency government had started implementing the second Poverty Reduction Strategic Paper (PRSP) from July last year, setting a target to achieve the Millennium Development Goals by the year 2015. However, the present government has decided to reintroduce the five-year development plan after the implementation period of the ongoing PRSP ends in July 2011. The goals and targets in the PRSP will be incorporated in the proposed five-year development plan. This decision has been taken because the PRSP has failed to ensure … development [in] the country. The government … aims at alleviating poverty as early as possible.It goes without saying that poverty is an acute problem [in] Bangladesh and hence alleviation of it is our national priority. But the progress being made in this regard is very slow and limited…. [T]he main reasons for this hapless situation are the mismanagement of the economy, massive corruption and misuse and wastage and misappropriation of … aid money. In order to take pragmatic steps for poverty alleviation and introduce social safety nets and other development programmes for the poor, the most vulnerable and disadvantaged areas should be identified first. Resource[s] should be allocated to these areas on [a] priority basis. Stepping up the pace of poverty alleviation and helping … distressed people come above the poverty line are the need of the hour. — (May 06)