Branchless banking
A RECENT State Bank report has provided a snapshot of the growth of branchless banking in Pakistan and is grounds for optimism that seemingly daunting challenges can be overcome with the new architecture of payment systems that technology has made possible. Two major trends appear to dominate the landscape. One is the transfer of funds between parties, where technology is rendering the age-old practice of hundi obsolete. And the other is merchant payments, where technology can possibly render cash obsolete. Thus far, the former is where the bulk of the growth has taken place, according to the State Bank, accounting for over 80pc of the growth in volumes being processed through branchless banking. Also encouraging is the rise of newcomers in the field, where the largest share of growth in such banking transactions has come from two players that entered the field just over a year ago. This indicates that competitive pressures are now kicking in, and can spur further growth in the years ahead. Branchless banking holds tremendous promise for a country such as Pakistan, where the informal sector dominates in important ways, and where cash remains the preferred medium of exchange and store of value. The promise of this form of banking lies in its ability to document the massive number of small transactions that are the expression of domestic demand. The State Bank has done an admirable job of ushering in this transformative trend in our economy, by building the architecture for its success and incentivising players in the private sector to pursue the idea. It now remains to be seen if policymakers in government will take full advantage of the potential of this technology to also put in place the right legislative architecture to leverage the promise of branchless banking into a coherent policy framework that will encourage greater formalisation of the economy over the medium term.
NSC meeting
THE Cabinet Committee on National Security may have become the National Security Committee, but it does not seem to have evolved beyond rhetoric and non-substantive decisions. Fortunately, both Pakistan and India may be signalling elsewhere — the welcome reduction in violence across the LoC and the Working Boundary yesterday, for example — that both sides are looking for an exit from the present round of fighting at least. As ever, neither Pakistan nor India is willing to concede an inch on who is to blame, with both countries steadfastly maintaining that each country’s border forces were merely responding to attacks from the other side. That may be in the nature of Pakistan-India relations, but that may also be the case because it is often the security establishment on both sides dictating such responses instead of the politicians demonstrating the courage of leadership. Be that as it may, a military fierceness that is mitigated by a sense of proportion and implications for regional stability can at least be cautiously welcomed — and both security establishments ought to know how to choreograph de-escalation until the guns fall completely silent.
Meanwhile, return to the scene of the NSC meeting yesterday. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was right in emphasising that the desire to seek peace does not mean a willingness to accept violence. Leave aside the inadequacies of the government response for a moment, however. What is the point and purpose of the Indian government led by Narendra Modi when it comes to issuing bellicose statements on Pakistan and Kashmir? Mr Modi’s foreign ministry cancelled talks with Pakistan at the foreign secretary level in August, but to what end? Surely, there are very real concerns that New Delhi has when it comes to Pakistan’s policy on India. But there are also very real concerns that Pakistan has when it comes to India, even if they gain less traction internationally. Consider that for all its non-substantive pronouncements, the NSC meeting yesterday brought together the political and military leadership of Pakistan and yet nothing harsh, fierce or unreasonable was said. True, Pakistan must do more when it comes to responding to not just Indian allegations, but also international concerns about the militancy threat emanating from Pakistan. However, there’s little to suggest that Pakistan is spoiling for a fight with India, be it at the military or civilian tier. A more forthcoming and peaceable Indian response is needed.
Pakistan’s braveheart
COURAGE is not a rare quality in Pakistan. Adversity that would break most individuals has produced some of our finest — human rights activists, journalists, not to mention ordinary people fighting against formidable odds. But Malala Yousafzai is a special case; it’s hard to find such courage in a 17-year-old coupled with a clarity of thought and an eloquence that can make cynics catch their breath and the world sit up and take notice. Yesterday, Pakistan’s braveheart won the Nobel Peace Prize, giving a nation starved of glad tidings and buffeted by crises on multiple fronts, a reason to celebrate. By awarding the prize to an education rights activist, the Nobel Committee has delivered a symbolic rebuke to the forces of regression typified by the likes of the Taliban, Boko Haram, and the Islamic State that seek to impose a system in which, aside from a slew of other depredations, children — particularly girls — would be denied the right to education; in effect, deprived of a future. From a young girl simply wanting to go to school in Swat Valley during the savage rule of the Pakistani Taliban, to a global icon who represents the millions of children out of school in the world, whether for reasons of war, militancy or state neglect — Malala’s story is inspirational on many levels.
Even after militants shot her in the head in October 2012 — a shot that veritably rang out across the world — for consistently propagating girls’ education, she did not waver. In fact, the near-fatal attack boosted her profile, although she had to move abroad for treatment and for security reasons. Since then, many international accolades have come her way, including the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought. Malala’s latest award, while undoubtedly prestigious for Pakistan, should also make us reflect on how the state has failed in its obligations towards the people in many ways. Purveyors of intolerance and bigotry have been tolerated for too long here. Malala’s own struggle was forged in this environment; the fact that she has to remain abroad testifies to the continuing potency of these forces. And lest we forget, our first Nobel prize winner, Dr Abdus Salam, died away from home, his magnificent achievement ignored in Pakistan, only because he was an Ahmadi. And then there’s education. With five million children aged five to nine out of school, there is no place better than Pakistan to further Malala’s cause in a meaningful way. Finally, the fact that the joint peace prize winner is an Indian, Kailash Satyarthi, also for work in child rights, highlights the commonality of issues between India and Pakistan; it would serve their people well if these could take precedence over politics. As Malala has said so succintly, “I raise my voice not so that I can shout, but so that those without a voice can be heard.”
Published in Dawn, October 11th , 2014