In defence of ‘idling’

CHARMING indeed are the last few lines in Alfred Tennyson’s celebrated poem The Lotus Eaters: “Surely, surely, slumber is more sweet than toil... O rest ye brother mariners, we will not wander more.”

I was humming these lines the other day when my thoughts went to another classic, Robert Louis Stevenson’s essay, “An Apology for Idlers.” I have re-read it and, once again, found it to be both insightful and entertaining.

I am not an idler myself, but I am more than tolerant of those who are. I do, however, confess to procrastination, which is probably a cousin to idling.

Stevenson’s case opens with James Boswell lamenting that “we grow weary when idle,” His friend, Dr Samuel Johnson (the great English linguist) responds: “That is, sir, because others being busy, we want company; but if we were (all) idle, there would be no growing weary; we should all entertain one another.”

To those who urge hard work as the way to making more money the “idler” may say that he is content with what he has, and now he intends to look around and enjoy himself. He is not an “idler” in the sense that he does nothing at all. It is just that the things he does are not included in the “dogmatic formularies of the ruling class.”

Those who have tired themselves out climbing up the rocky road to success resent the “cool person” lying in the meadow with a handkerchief over his eyes and a glass of ale by his elbow. It is distressing to find others indifferent to one’s achievements.

A good deal of idleness is to be recommended during one’s youth. We may be justly sceptical of the old instructor at Oxford who advised his student to “ply your book diligently now... for when years come upon you, poring over books will become irksome.”

Little did he understand that many other things will also become irksome, even impossible, when a man can’t read without glasses or walk without a stick. Books are not a substitute for life. Remember also that excessive reading will not leave you time for reflection. School is fine, but do not undervalue the “odds and ends” one picks up on the street while playing truant.

Let us now consider an exchange between a wise old man and a boy who is cutting classes. “Well now, young fellow, what are you doing here?” The latter says he is just taking it easy. “Is this not the hour of the class? Shouldn’t you be reading your book diligently, so you may obtain knowledge?” The boy says he is pursuing learning even while he is absent from school. Learning what, the wise man asks, is it mathematics, metaphysics, some language, or a trade? None of these, the young fellow says, and adds: “I lie here, by the water, to learn a lesson which my master calls peace and contentment.”

Stevenson’s argument may be exaggerative but it is not entirely invalid. A great many people in every society settle for a life of relative deprivation because they have not had the ambition to enter the ranks of the “achievers.” But idling does not necessarily lead to deprivation.

Take the case of the landed aristocracy that, for several centuries, made up the ruling class in many countries (and still does in some, including Pakistan). The typical feudal lord was at best semi-literate (if he went to school at all), and he did not work for a living. He lived in comfort so much so that he gave no thought to increasing the productivity of his land. Yet we would have to grant that he was, and is, worldly wise and quite capable of dealing effectively with his political and social environment. One might also consider the case of persons who have retired from work at the age of 55 or 60. This is an age at which a person is still rather young and capable of putting in a day’s work. But he chooses not to. How does he occupy himself? Play with his grandchildren? There is no way he can match their energy. Playing with them may be fun for the first 15 minutes, but after that every minute of it is tiresome.

What else is there? Read newspapers and detective novels, do a bit of gardening (if he is outdoorish), try his hand at cooking (to his wife’s considerable annoyance), discuss the “clash of civilisations” with friends over coffee at his club? All of this may bring him happiness but not additional income. Judged by that measure, it would have to be treated as idling.

Many a wise guy will advise that one must not “put off till tomorrow what can be done today”. Howsoever ancient and venerable this maxim may be, it is one to which many of the “free spirits” are reluctant to subscribe. They will ask what and why the hurry is, especially if deadlines are eventually met. They may even cite another maxim which cautions that “haste makes waste.” There is something exciting, dramatic about the “eleventh hour.”

Some 30 years ago only about five per cent of Americans admitted to being procrastinators. I am happy to report that that number has since risen to 26 per cent. April 15 is the “national procrastination day” in the United States. It is the deadline for filing one’s tax return with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for the preceding year.

It is not until about the 10th of the month that I gather all of my tax-related documents and go to the accountant who prepares my return. This being the tail end of the filing season, she has no time for pleasantries. Bearing a stern look, she grabs my documents and tells me to come back four days later to sign the necessary papers.

That would be no more than one single day before the deadline. It is not until noon time the following day (April 15) that I actually put my return in the mail.

I do not question the wisdom of getting things done ahead of time. But I do maintain that postponing the work to a later time is not necessarily a bad idea. Take the matter of tax returns for instance. If you have overpaid during the preceding years and the IRS owes you a refund, the sooner you file your return and get your money back the better.

But if you owe money and have to send a cheque along with your return, why not let the money stay in your bank account and keep earning interest as long as possible? In that case it would make sense to send your return and the cheque some time close to the deadline.

Procrastination kicks in when the work to be done is unpleasant such as painting the outside of your house, removing the leaves that fell during the preceding autumn and have been covering the grass in your front and back yards all winter, paying bills, standing in line for your turn to get your car inspected or renew your driving licence, writing a term paper in a course you are taking at the university or, if you are a professor, reading and grading student exams and papers, knocking on your neighbour’s door to solicit donation for your favourite charity, answering mail when the sender has been critical of your writing, to name only a few of the onerous chores that you would rather do later than sooner.

You discover other things that had better be done now. But if you have time on your hands, and even “unimportant” chores do not materialise, you can make up for the accumulated sleep deficit and meet the world well rested.

Delay may provide opportunity for introspection, self-analysis, second thought and save you from acting impetuously. It is not without good reason that parents, who have money enough, will send a young daughter for an extended vacation in Europe, hoping that the experience will change her mind about marrying an older man with whom she is currently infatuated. Delay can bestow other advantages. If there are piles of unsolved cases on a police inspector’s desk, he can decline additional work. But if his desk is clean because he takes care of work promptly, he will keep getting more than his share of it.

Occasion for procrastination arises when there is work you have to do, meaning that you are forced to do it. You resent being forced, and the inclination to postpone it comes in as a defence mechanism to keep away the pain. When the deadline approaches, the pain of not doing the required work overrides the pain of doing it, and so you do it.

Bureaucrats everywhere are known for procrastination, especially in societies that value stability more than change, even if it might possibly be the improving kind. Routine operations may be handled expeditiously, but caution will set in when a new situation arises, which calls for fresh and innovative thinking.

That is an exercise of the mind that a normal bureaucrat wants to avoid as much as possible. The tendency to procrastinate is likely to be greater where higher civil servants, more than their political superiors, have a significant policymaking role.

Inducing procrastination is the fact that bureaucrats have much greater staying power than politicians serving as ministers do. The latter come and go, but bureaucrats keep their jobs even if they have made errors of judgment, or committed blunders, during their extended careers. Inaction will not hurt them. On the positive side consider also the possibility that postponement of action to meet a problem may make the problem itself go away.

I am not commending idleness or procrastination to those who work hard and get things done promptly. But I do suggest that there is something to be said for those who act differently.

The writer is a visiting professor at the Lahore School of Economics for the spring semester.
Email: anwarhs@lahoreschool.edu.pk

Surrendering to the militants

MAULANA Fazlur Rahman, leader of the opposition in the National Assembly and overlord of a radical clerical establishment, and Bashir Ahmad Bilour, chief of the country’s avowedly largest secular party, both suspect that the Lal Masjid-Hafsa affair is being stage-managed by the government. So does Prof Ghafoor, a cool-thinking leader of a regimented ideological party.

Their reasons differ and relate to the political orientation of their parties. The maulana suspects that by encouraging, or conniving at, the delinquent behaviour of the Lal Masjid clerics, the government is preparing for a crackdown on the institution of the madressah as a whole which it had been long planning but holding back for fear of provoking a public outrage.

Mr Bilour, on the other hand, alleges that the government has engineered it all to divert public attention from the lawyers’ protest against the suspension of the Chief Justice and the public dismay at the humiliation inflicted on him.

The suspicions, or allegations, of the leaders find credence in the manner in which the administration has conducted itself all along. The forcible and continuing occupation of a children’s library by the Hafsa women and their raid on a private home to kidnap its female inhabitants and an infant child (whatever the motive or inspiration) both constitute serious and cognisable crimes under the country’s penal laws.

The government at the ministerial level, however, is treating the behaviour of the women and their master clerics as a political issue. The spectre of bloodshed is raised at any observation that the women could be forcibly dislodged from the public building and prosecuted for trespassing and kidnapping.

There is no evidence that the women carry arms other than bamboo staves. Even if they do the police should use the minimum possible force without worrying about its attendant risks. The indications are that a forceful intervention would be welcomed by civil society and not resented by religious circles. Water hoses should suffice unless the women and their wardens are the first to use firearms which they are unlikely to do.

Chaudhry Shujaat, rushing back from America in the midst of his medical treatment to talk to the Lal Masjid-Hafsa clerics, has lifted the crime of trespassing and kidnapping, entirely and formally, to a political plane. The press account of his dialogue with the clerics shows the latter to be unrepentant and unwilling to yield any ground. Still Chaudhry Sahib hopes to keep negotiating till the clerics and their enraged wards are pacified.

After the meeting he assured a BBC correspondent the problem would be resolved soon and amicably. The writ of the state doesn’t matter, the approaching election does.

Chaudhry Shujaat may be the chief of a political party but is in no way a part of the law and order administration. He has no power or right to negotiate a compromise in a criminal offence. Trespass and kidnapping constitute crimes which are not compoundable, not even by a court of the highest jurisdiction. His intervention is, thus, illegal and, at the same time, tends to undermine the authority of the administration and the courts.

It would be an exasperating experience for any professional administrator not to be able to enforce the rule of law even when the complainant (ruling party) and the aggrieved (the kidnapped and humiliated women) are too scared to report the crime and then follow up the investigation to a just conclusion in a court of law.It remains the duty of the state to pursue the case to the end even if the victims, for whatever reason, give in or give up. The offence first is against the state and only then against the individuals.

It is a case that cries out for suo motu action by the superior courts. If the courts do not act on their own to enforce the law in this case and right the wrong, will they do so later? To punish crime and to dispense justice is the ultimate responsibility not of the government, not even of the president, but of the courts. But these days the judges have other worries and priorities and the lawyers are shouting on the streets instead of pleading in the courts.

It is hard to find a reason for the hesitation of the government to do its basic duty. No political party, not even of sectarian character, is backing the defiant clerics of Lal Masjid or its unruly students. Almost every political leader of any worth, Altaf Hussain above all, has condemned them in terms as no religious establishment has ever been condemned.

So have the heads of madressah boards. The custodians of Lal Masjid and Hafsa have confirmed what the world community has been alleging — that Pakistan’s mosques and seminaries raise terrorists and not scholars.

Minister Ijazul Haq, who was the first to be intimidated into laying the first brick to rebuild the mosque the authorities had demolished for encroaching on public land, has now chosen to inform the public that the two clerics (Aziz and Rashid) were hauled up for harbouring terrorists not long ago. He came to their rescue when they undertook not to indulge in illegal activities again. Yet to appease them Chaudhry Shujaat is reportedly agreeing to rebuild all the demolished mosques and that too at public expense.

Moreover, the education minister has now chosen to disclose that the entire complex — the mosque, madressah and hostel — was raised by encroaching on public land in the last four or five years while this enlightened government looked the other way. To top that, the two clerics are employees of the Islamabad administration and, apparently, bound by its discipline like all other employees.

Despite all this, the decision to surrender to them or to punish them is to be made by the president aided by his civil and military advisers. A governor of better times, Mustafa Khar, is rightly piqued. This decision should have been made much earlier by the district magistrate of Islamabad in consultation with the superintendent of police. The politicians should have been kept at bay including head honcho Chaudhry Shujaat.

On assuming power, Pervez Musharraf, though inspired by the ideals of Kemal Ataturk’s statecraft, was driven into the arms of the politicians who were Ataturk’s antithesis. Musharraf then had no other choice for those closer to his political thinking were in the dock for graft or treason. As a modernist relying on the reactionaries to make a political career for himself he is anathema to both, having left the country rudderless politically.

Now, after more than seven years when tamed ambitions and dulled vendettas offer new opportunities to forge more natural alliances, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain has stepped in once again. Speculation about the future has never been gloomier. If conciliating the militants and criminals becomes public policy it will not remain confined to the clerics and the Hafsa women, nor would Chaudhry Shujaat be the last politician to run the conciliation shuttle. The country is once again headed for the politics of brimstone and gunfire.

Skilled labour

SELDOM has it been so clear that US immigration policy is counterproductive to US interests as it was on Monday. That's the day companies began filing applications for high-skilled foreign workers — and it's also the day the quota was filled.

Technology companies and other businesses filed more than 100,000 petitions requesting H-1B visas for their employees, easily surpassing the annual 65,000 quota. With the demand for skilled workers clearly exceeding the arbitrary limit, Congress should raise the cap so fewer US companies have to turn to outsourcing and more skilled people can work in the United States.

H-1B workers, typically Indian and Chinese people with technological degrees, are promised a prevailing wage. Their employers, mostly technology companies, have to attest that they have not displaced US workers if more than 15 per cent of their workforce is here on H-1B status. Employer demands for an increase in the H-1B quota (and the quota itself) have fluctuated with the economy. During the dot-com bubble, pressure to increase the cap was almost constant. In the years since, the pressure has receded, and the US decreased to 65,000 — from 195,000 — the number of foreign workers it accepts on H-1B visas. Now pressure to allow more workers into the US on H-1B status is increasing again.

More skilled immigrants would be able to remain in the US if Congress allowed the H-1B visa cap to fluctuate with the market. Strictly enforcing the prevailing wage and other requirements, while also encouraging US students to pursue science, would also ensure that Americans can participate in these dynamic job markets.

And — as with immigration policy generally — H-1B visa changes must be approached comprehensively. The H-1B is a three-year, temporary visa that can be renewed only once. Visa holders who seek to become lawful permanent residents face enormous backlogs that will only grow if more H-1B visas are granted. Ideally, an increase in H-1B visa quotas would be accompanied by an increase in the quota for green cards. Skilled workers are also more likely to stay and contribute to the US economy if their immediate families can join them here; currently, family members also face severe backlogs.

— Los Angeles Times