| January 2, 2006 | Monday | Zilhaj 1, 1426 |
Ramay – a versatile personality
OIC’s half-baked attempt at reformation
A vital task for peace in 2006
ISLAMABAD: AMIDST the many comments on the OIC Makkah summit, it has been forgotten that there is not a single reference to democracy or strengthening of democratic institutions in the 10- year programme of action (POA) adopted by the summit. Even the Makkah Declaration and the final communique, the two other documents adopted by the conference on Dec 7-8, make no mention of it.
This is not a New Year column even though it appears on New Year’s Day. The subject that one focuses on here is far too depressing and disturbing and in the outgoing year there has been more confusion than is conceivable. Just about everybody concerned with education has been worried about its “poor state”.
In the last four weeks alone, there have been at least three news items that reflect more adequately on what I am saying here. The first one is a report that appeared in Dawn on Dec 30 dealing with “Academics concerned at the poor state of education”.
At a forum organized by the Action Committee for Civic Problems at the PMA, professionals from a variety of backgrounds expressed their concern over the educational state of affairs in the country, particularly in Sindh, and called for the launching of a joint movement to get rid of the “government’s ill-advised and unilateral policies”.
The speakers at this forum categorically said that the policies of the federal and provincial governments were all “anti-education” and were aggravating an already “depressed and messy educational system”.
Take a pause here dear reader and contemplate the description “depressed and messy”. Those of us who are through with this educational system have reasons to feel relieved, for sure. Pity the families, whose children are vulnerable.
The meeting went into some details that have created an anxiety and the theme of it all was “State of Education in Sindh”. Issues like the semester system, two separate examinations for students of classes 1X and X, and XI and XII, education becoming expensive, interference by the military into the affairs of public education, and retired army personnel working in educational institutions and education boards of Sindh.
A speaker was quoted as saying: “The government had nothing to recount the merits of composite examination (being proposed and a controversy about which is continuing) and that was why its ministers were avoiding debates and meetings with quarters concerned on the issue.”
The second report relates to the rather elitist competitive examinations held by the Federal Public Service Commission (FPSC) in August 2005, the written results of which were announced in late November. Presumably, the brightest and ambitious go for these government jobs, described as the Central Superior Services. It makes one wonder, now in 2006, why are they called superior. Superior to what? Superior to whom?
Anyway, look at the results of these superior services. The pass percentage is was just 7.5 per cent. Some 3,678 students appeared and only 276 cleared the written part. Even the FPSC, announcing the results through a press release, was quoted as saying that this was the lowest percentage in recent years, reflecting the declining quality of education being imparted in the country’s educational institutions.
It makes one wonder that with the medical, psychological and viva voce tests still to go, how many of the 7.5 per cent will get through. That percentage could go down further. And then what will the federal and provincial education ministries have to say to this? That the private and public sector employers are disgusted and disappointed (both) with the quality of graduates and postgraduates (professionals as well) is something that I would like to bring in here as a matter of implied relevance.
One was expecting the federal education minister or the chairman of the Higher Education Commission (HEC) to have responded to the above CSS results. I am saying this keeping in mind a rather unfair criticism that the Federal Education Minister, Lt-Gen (Retd) Javed Ashraf Qazi, made on the Pakistan cricket captain, the legendary Inzimamul Haq, about 10 days ago.
Within a few days of Pakistan winning the cricket series against England, the Federal Education Minister was quoted as expressing his disappointment at the “poor English language skills” that he displayed at the ceremonies after the series was over.
Surely Inzimamul Haq is not the first Pakistani sportsman to have these “poor English language skills”. There are others in the federal government and in other positions of authority and representation with inadequate English speaking skills. Of course, the federal education minister knows this. If so, why then did he choose to speak about Inzimamul Haq?
The education minister was speaking at the Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and complained that because our schools were not teaching our students, Inzimamul Haq had this handicap. The minister then went on to compare Pakistan’s matriculates with those in India and remarked: “Our matriculates cannot utter even two words of English compared to the matriculates of India.” Indeed there is much to be said here.
A senior educationist said the federal education minister was the last person to have criticized the Pakistan cricket captain. He added the problem with this country was that anyone in power and in decision-making places always criticized the past and blamed previous policies and rulers. I knew what he was saying. This brings one to the point about changes that are being made and carried out with haste and swiftness that appear to be somewhat reckless.
It’s not just the composite examination issue, which has been troubling parents, teachers and students, but there are more issues than what one can list here vis-à-vis education in Pakistan.
There is anxiety and protest (and clarification too) about the prayers (mode) being dropped from the Islamiat syllabus. On Friday, there was a countrywide protest observed, and there was a clarification from the federal education minister assuring that this was not being done.
Then there are reports appearing in the media that the subject of Pakistan Studies is being eliminated from the Intermediate and graduate level syllabus. The federal education ministry believes that it is enough if the students are taught this at the school-level. The federal education ministry and its spokesmen have been arguing that English be taught as a compulsory subject from class one at school.
There are other issues too. There is a climate of change and while change is necessary, there is lack of not just consensus, but also trust. There is no faith in what is pushed through in haste and hurry. There is no confidence in what is being suggested and proposed.
There is much that can be said on the subject of education. Revisiting it here makes one realise the shortcomings and poverty of the education system, and the short-sightedness of those who are managing it. But an obvious thought also goes out to the quality of the educated man and woman whom the system is presenting to the Pakistani society. Often they appear not just poorly educated, but also very poorly brought up. Even basic manners are lacking, complains a mother who feels that parents and teachers work in an academic environment where they cannot do their jobs well.
Having begun with the mention of the New Year makes it obligatory that I conclude by wishing you a Happy New Year.
BORN in a village of Sheikhupura district on March 15, 1930, and brought up in Lahore, Muhammad Haneef Ramay grew into a versatile personality: writer, politician, artist. He did his Master’s in economics from the Government College, Lahore.
Mr Ramay was elected a member of the Punjab Assembly in 1970 on a PPP ticket, and in 1972 was appointed as finance minister. He was sworn in as chief minister in 1974 but was replaced the very next year because of his differences with Mr Ghulam Mustafa Khar, then governor. His opinion on different issues was also not in consonance with that of Mr Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, a factor which led to several difficulties during the period he stayed in power.
In 1975, he was elected a member of the Senate, and remained a senator till Gen Ziaul Haq overthrew the PPP government after the failure of talks between the PPP and then opposition, the Pakistan National Alliance.
Mr Ramay went on to challenge the dissolution of the upper house of the bicameral legislature before a court, arguing that under the Constitution the Senate was a permanent body and could not be sacked under any circumstances. However, the court threw out the case.
Mr Ramay edited the weekly Nusrat and the daily Musawaat, and was a popular figure among journalists and writers.
He remained an active member of the PPP, but when he developed differences with the leadership he joined the Pakistan Muslim League of Pir Pagara, contesting the controversial 1977 elections from the PML’s platform. Later still, he launched his own political party, the Pakistan Musawaat Party, which could not stay afloat for too long. Dismayed, Mr Ramay again joined the PPP and was elected speaker of the Punjab Assembly during 1993-96.
A staunch supporter of Islamic socialism, Mr Ramay lived for quite some time in the United States during the Zia era.
After his return to Pakistan, he once told this reporter that Pakistan needed a leader who was something between Iran’s Ayatollah Khomeini and Turkey’s Ataturk. And in his opinion Zia had the qualities he was referring to.
He was also in favour of cooperation between the PPP and President Gen Pervez Musharraf as, according to him, the programmes of the two had many things in common.
Mr Ramay wanted maximum provincial autonomy as he considered it necessary for the integrity of the country.
He always complained that some people had exploited the rights of the smaller provinces, brining a bad name to the country’s biggest province.
At the same time, he was a strong advocate of Punjab’s rights.
He held that Punjab had never usurped the rights of
the other provinces, although some unrepresentative governments might have ignored these rights.
He always believed that Punjab was not given its due share of water, and that Punjabi leaders had never raised the matter with the relevant authorities.
In the Bhutto period when he raised his voice on the issue of Punjab’s share in the country’s water resources, he was taken to the notorious Lahore Fort and tortured.
Subsequently, he spent time in the Sihala, Attock and Kot Lakhpat prisons.
Mr Ramay’s book, Punjab Ka Muqadma, argues Punjab’s case on provincial rights.
He took pains to explain that Punjab was not denying smaller provinces their rights; instead it, too, was being denied its rights by the rulers.
Other books authored by Mr Ramay were Dubb-i-Akbar, Islam Ki Roohani Qadrain, Maut Naheen, Zindagi, Again and Baaz Aao Aur Zinda Raho.
Mr Ramay had a passion for Islamic calligraphy. When he was the chief executive of Punjab, he took various steps to promote Punjab’s culture.
For this purpose, he set up arts councils at divisional headquarters.
It was Mr Ramay who as chief minister had decided to construct a shrine for poet Waris Shah.—Ashraf Mumtaz
But then what does one expect from an organization that is dominated by kings and amirs, kingdoms and monarchies?
The 23 pages of the three documents adopted are long on rhetoric, echoing buzz words like good governance, human rights, moderation and tolerance. Also, there seems to be an over- emphasis on combating terrorism, extremism, fundamentalism and Islamophobia.
While the official line has been that the recently concluded session of the pan-Islamic body was a “great success,” serious questions remain unanswered. Even representatives of some OIC member-states privately concede that it fell short on several counts.
Apparently, some key recommendations of the Commission of Eminent Persons (CEP) that formed the basis for the proposals incorporated in the outcome documents were changed, diluted and dropped. Thus the report of the CEP presented to the Islamic conference by the Malaysian Prime Minister was an altered one. The word around is that some member-states had expressed serious reservations at the pre-Summit ministerial meeting about the section entitled challenges of the 21st century. It is learnt that monarchies were vehemently opposed to any reference to the ‘disconnect’ between the people and the state. They wanted all such ‘negative’ references out. Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar were reportedly among the states that had serious concerns. Not surprisingly, these recommendations pertained to political challenges and, in this context, to the need for democracy and empowering people. Eventually, the majesties and highnesses prevailed and amendments were made. In one case a part was replaced while in another it was done away with.
According to one insider, there was no choice but to make changes to ensure approval of the CEP recommendations by the higher body. Thus a compromise document was adopted.
This must have been quite disappointing for Senator Mushahid Hussain who had been instrumental in putting together the democracy-related recommendations in his capacity of Pakistan’s representative to the CEP.
The CEP, constituted as a consequence of a resolution adopted at the 10th OIC Summit in Putrajaya in 2003, was tasked to evolve a strategy and plan of action enabling the Islamic Ummah to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
Astonishingly enough, women had no voice in the 17-member CEP representing the Asian, Africa and Arab regions. There was not one woman among the 17 eminent individuals, including the OIC secretary-general, nominated as commissioners by their respective governments. The nominations came from Iran, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Pakistan, Burkina Faso, the Gambia, Sudan, Senegal, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Morocco, Qatar, Egypt and Yemen.
The question is: can the Muslim ummah achieve its renaissance when women representing almost half the population of the OIC member-countries are left out of the process of reform and restructuring? Unfortunately, despite all the rhetoric about ‘enlightened moderation’ and tolerance within the OIC circles, women continue to occupy a back seat. Women were hardly visible at the recent summit as well. Begum Khaleda Zia of Bangladesh was the only woman leading her country’s delegation. Besides her there were only four women delegates, including the foreign minister of Guinea and one delegate each from Egypt, Indonesia and Pakistan. From Pakistan it was director-general OIC-UN Tasnim Aslam, who is also the spokesperson at the Foreign Office.
Apparently, Iraq was also keen to include a woman in its delegation but failed to get the green light from the hosts. The other countries got away with it because they had not sought a formal clearance!
The 36-year-old pan-Islamic body representing the entire ummah is the largest world body after the United Nations. It represents one-fifth of the world’s population, accounts for about 70 per cent of the energy resources and has tremendous potential. However, as one diplomat put it, the organisation is too big and diverse with member-states having conflicting interests. For example, there was ‘silence’ on the question of withdrawal of US- led coalition forces from Iraq and Afghanistan, while other disputes involving Muslim populations like Palestine and Kashmir were raised. On the summit’s failure to address the Iraq issue, a defence of OIC members is that the Iraqi prime minister was present there and he could have raised the issue himself. “Why be more loyal than the king,” is how one summed it up.
One view is that the OIC should not be allowed to turn into a rag-tag organization like NAM and should remain an exclusively Muslim body representing Islamic states. In the past, Russia and India have expressed interest in obtaining membership of the OIC on the pretext of having large Muslim populations. Diplomats from the non-Arab Muslim countries are also concerned that the OIC Does not turn into an organization that represents only the Arab agenda.
Cosmetic measures such as changing the name of the organisation would be a self-defeating exercise unless changes transcend form and focus on substance. What needs to be promoted is the spirit of moderation that characterises the tolerance of Islam. Being in a state of denial or evading the real issues will continue to make the OIC a subject of disdain and cynicism. A reality check is overdue.
A senior diplomat from a key OIC member-state aptly remarked that irrespective of the 10-year Programme of Action adopted, each country has to act individually to address the issues, and that ultimately the circumstances will force movement in this direction.
THE PEACE process between India and Pakistan cannot possibly be called irreversible, as some of our leaders want us to believe, while the nuclear threat the old rivals pose to each other remains intact. From this perspective one of the most important statements that were made in 2005 came at the fag end of the year from IAEA chief Mohammad ElBaradei.
In an interview to CNN after he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, Mr ElBaradei had expressed serious concern about the nuclear threat that came from three seemingly intractable issues that continue to worry the world — the Palestine question in the Middle East, North Korea and Kashmir.
That Mr ElBaradei’s remarks highlighting the threat from the nuclear hotspots went largely unnoticed speaks volumes of the cavalier attitude many of us tend to betray towards an ever looming calamity.
And if Kashmir is a nuclear flashpoint as a person of Mr ElBaradei’s eminence no less suggests it is then the year 2006 has to see to it that the threat is weeded out with utmost priority. The proposed visit to South Asia by US President George W. Bush can go either way in this regard. It can legitimize India’s and Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal by giving them Congressional approval, while leaving the Kashmir issue simmering. Or it can leave India and Pakistan with the key task of resolving their bloody dispute with the kind of seriousness that has so far eluded them, more worryingly as nuclear states.
Opening up new routes along the Line of Control plus a few other confidence-building measures in Punjab and Rajasthan-Sindh areas have marked a tectonic shift in India-Pakistan bilateral relations no doubt. In 2002 these measures would have looked unthinkable. But seen together with the frequent negative comments that keep interrupting these signs of hope, such as the jingoistic remarks that came from the Bharatiya Janata Party on Kashmir last week, there are serious reasons to worry for the future.
The medieval sultans of Delhi used to be addressed as a Zill-i-Ilahi, or shadow of God on earth. President Bush may consider himself the latter day avatar of the Delhi sultan with a global mission. But he needs to heed the warnings from history if he wants his mission to Delhi to be successful.
A 10-year old article by George C. Herring, Professor of History at the University of Kentucky, deals with the problems faced in the Middle East and South Asia by the Kennedy administration. There are vignette’s from history that could serve as lessons for President Bush and for our policy-makers too.
“In both the Middle East and South Asia, the Kennedy administration launched bold initiatives to shift the world’s balance of power in favour of the United States. In each case, the initiative ran afoul of regional rivalries. In South Asia, John F. Kennedy’s efforts to cultivate goodwill with India merely antagonized the United States’ longstanding ally, Pakistan, without tearing India away from its neutralist cold war stance.
“In the Middle East, the administration’s efforts to befriend Gamal Abdel Nasser’s United Arab Republic (the shrot-lived marriage between Egypt and Syria) resulted in only limited, short-term success while alienating the United States’ traditional ally, Israel, and the more conservative Arab states such as Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
“The United States enjoyed the most success where it attempted the least, with neutral Afghanistan. Fearing that a 1961 border dispute between Pakistan and Afghanistan might force the latter into the arms of the Soviet Union, the Kennedy administration dispatched diplomat Livingston Merchant to encourage a peaceful settlement. Merchant failed, and tensions between the two northern-tier nations persisted, but the result was not what the United States had feared.
“As Pakistan leaned toward Communist China in the aftermath of the Sino-Indian war of 1962, Afghanistan eased away from Moscow. A visit to the United States in September 1963 by the Afghan king and queen seemed to confirm Afghanistan’s neutralism and establish it as one of the prime showcases of East-West ‘competitive coexistence’.
“In contrast, the Kennedy policy toward the more complex and intractable rivalry between India and Pakistan was a notable failure. Kennedy and his advisers agreed that the Eisenhower administration had erred in condemning Indian neutralism and tying US fortunes in the region exclusively to India’s bitter enemy Pakistan. The administration attached special importance to India, the world’s largest democracy, and set out to cultivate its goodwill. The president initiated a warm, personal correspondence with Indian prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru, dispatched Vice President Lyndon Johnson to New Delhi on a personal goodwill mission, and initiated a large economic aid programme to support India’s industrial development.
“Washington’s tilt toward New Delhi was already well along when a border war between India and China in October 1962 provided what seemed a splendid opportunity to tighten the relationship. The United States immediately sent military aid to beleaguered India. To mollify an increasingly concerned Pakistan, the administration sought to use the leverage provided by aid to India to work out a settlement of the bitter dispute between the two nations over Kashmir.
“US policy failed on all counts. Under pressure from the United States, India and Pakistan did agree to talks on Kashmir, but the gap between the two could not be bridged and the talks broke down without tangible results.
“Deeply alarmed at the US tilt toward India, Pakistan moved noticeably toward Peking. It concluded a provisional border demarcation agreement with China in December 1962 and arranged a series of much-publicized state visits between the two nations’ top leaders. Still enticed by the idea of luring India into close ties with the United States, Kennedy in his last months in office toyed with the possibility of a vastly expanded military aid programme. The administration eventually bowed to budgetary pressures and Pakistani protests, however, and approved a programme of only $50 million per year. Annoyed at Washington’s lack of support, India turned increasingly to the Soviet Union for aid. US policies thus broke down in the face of intractable regional tensions, alienating Pakistan while failing to gain the United States significant influence with India.”
The China factor is again being touted by President Bush’s advisers as a reason to engage more closely with South Asia. Unlike Kennedy’s $50 million military aid to India they seem even willing to commit the disaster of changing the definitions of non-proliferation to indulge India and Pakistan. President Bush perhaps needs to have a word with Mr ElBaradei before coming here in late February or early March.
jawednaqvi@gmail.com