Whither academic culture?

WRITING opinion pieces in a newspaper is a tricky job. While many people may agree with the opinion expressed, there are others who become extremely unhappy.

There is nothing surprising about such a divide in opinion especially in a country of 160 million people.

I am not assuming that all these people read newspapers but some do. And not to forget those who access newspapers on the Internet these days. The unhappiness of readers relates to the fact that they expect more from an article than what, in their view, was presented. So, there is always the accusation of all sorts of bias of the writer on a certain issue.

This is where the readers must also be blamed for their unhappiness with opinion pieces. There are two issues which must be kept in mind. First, these columns or opinion pieces are not necessarily written by trained journalists (in any case, there are very few trained journalists in this country. The list of those who joined journalism because they didn’t have any thing better to do is rather long.) Second, opinion pieces are more like teasers to highlight a certain issue and present a certain perspective on a matter and nothing more.

These daily columns are meant to draw attention towards what the writer thinks is significant. The biases, of course, are there. And why not? Opinion pieces are not academic articles which are meant to present all arguments or the thesis and the anti-thesis on an issue to be followed by the synthesis which is the writer’s opinion on the subject.

Unfortunately, the above-mentioned method of argument is not the forte of scholarship in many countries, particularly South Asia. So we see lots of books that are not strong on their scholarly credentials. However, as far as op-ed pieces are concerned, these are certainly not meant to do the job. The basic parameters of newspaper columns, as mentioned earlier, is to make people think about an issue — perhaps get emotional about the issue and feel angry about or agree with what was written.

What is even sadder in Pakistan is that op-ed pieces are treated as scholarly articles which are meant to present both sides of the argument, which is certainly not possible in the limit prescribed by a newspaper. Such confusion is owed to the advent of the modern media, particularly the electronic media, which in the past decade or more seems to have produced ‘scholars’ who would otherwise fail the test of scholarship in a decent academic environment. So, not only do we have people pretending to be scholars but we also have trained academics who have stopped doing the job they were actually trained for and are using the print and electronic media as the main source of information and forum for expressing their views.

Resultantly, there are fewer books being produced by Pakistani scholars, especially those based in the country. The majority of publications are memoirs of retired civil and military bureaucrats. Of course, the media is not the only reason for the dearth of scholarship. In social sciences, in particular, local academics rarely get access to information and are ostracised and rejected the minute they come up with an opinion or hypothesis that is not supported by the establishment. The other day, someone asked me why there wasn’t any book-sized work by a Pakistani academic on the Afghan war of the 1980s. The answer is simple — locals aren’t trusted with information that is provided to foreigners, especially those with acceptable skin colour. Furthermore, why should anyone burn the midnight oil if ultimately he will be accused of being a foreign agent?

The blame must be shared by academics as well who fall into the trap of immediate publicity by appearing in the media. The number of non-journalists writing in newspapers creates the false impression that op-ed pieces are scholarly articles, which are meant to go into the intricacies of issues, discussed in a 1,100-1,200 word space. These pieces are at best what fast food is to cuisine; they showcase a larger concept. So, it is interesting when people argue that someone has left out such and such an idea.

Perhaps, it is the information age that we live in which attracts people towards such fast-lane scholarship through column writing. However, a greater problem is due to the nature of the public sector university system which does not encourage great scholarship, particularly in the social sciences. Research and writing requires availability of resources including money and material which means books, access to information and the ability to meet people. All public sector universities are short on resources. There is no concept of travel grants, meeting people for interviews or getting access to published journal articles and books. There is so much published material being produced outside the country all the time which a scholar must access for his work. The inability to stay up to date has a negative impact on academic work.

Not to mention the fact that public sector universities lack intellectual autonomy which means that once there is a tradition of holding back ideas people slip into the habit of not producing at all. It is very rare for Pakistani academics in public sector universities to have written books. This is not to say that private sector universities are doing any better. The academic staffs of most private universities are either engaged in consultancies or teaching which means that quality academic work in the form of a book is not produced.

The Higher Education Commission’s policies of the past nine years have not favoured the social sciences either. There was little encouragement in this field which means that the next decade will be barren in terms of social scientists, who are needed by every country that seeks to progress. While pure and natural sciences are vital for technological, scientific and industrial growth, the social sciences provide direction for the future. Sadly, even those monitoring the Vision 2030 programme at the Planning Commission were natural scientists.

At this juncture, Pakistan lacks a third generation of analysts based in the country. Most of the good research on Pakistan is being conducted outside the country for reasons given above. But the most important reason for the dearth of local analysts is the lack of an academic culture in educational institutions. The responsibility for such a state of affairs does not fall solely on the government but also on senior scholars who have used universities as launching pads or platforms for themselves rather than for the growth of academics in the country. A glance around and I can only find one professor at the University of Karachi who has made consistent efforts at mentoring students and encouraging them to work.

In the absence of good social scientists we will find it even more difficult in the coming years to project ourselves as a sane society. We will all have to pay a cost for politicising our universities.

The writer is an independent strategic and political analyst.

ayesha.ibd@gmail.com

Fighting terror in South Asia

“THERE is no terror, Cassius, in your threats,” Julius Caesar tells him. Pakistan could have told India the same thing at the meeting of the joint anti-terror mechanism: recent bomb blasts at Malegaon and Modasa were not the doing of ‘Muslims from across the border’.

Nor did the Pakistani delegation point out that India had its own Hindu terrorists, led by a woman and trained by some ex-army men belonging to an old Sainik school. The meeting, fourth in the series, was ‘positive’, although quiet.

The earlier ones generally ended up with New Delhi demanding the custody of criminals who had taken shelter in Pakistan and Islamabad asking for more evidence. New Delhi has given ‘more evidence’ of the ‘involvement of the ISI’ in the attack on India’s embassy in Kabul. Yet, the purpose was not to put Pakistan on the mat because it was conceded at that very meeting that there could have been ‘some other elements’ involved in the incident. The matter was left at that pleasant note. It was a new beginning of sorts.

On the day the representatives of India and Pakistan met in Delhi the prime ministers of the two countries discussed terrorism in Beijing. Both reiterated that they were committed to work together to clamp down on terrorist forces. “Terror is a common enemy of both India and Pakistan,” said Manmohan Singh and Yusuf Raza Gilani concurred with him. The equation between the two holds promise for the future.

What creates doubts is that a similar exercise was done more than a year ago. But that wasn’t translated into a joint anti-terror mechanism. The Musharraf-led army dragged its feet. However, Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has put terrorism at the top of his agenda. This may mean the end of infiltrators into India. But if the policy has changed the reasons are not difficult to comprehend.

One, the terrorists have become a menace to Pakistan itself. But the most important development is the change in the attitude of the rulers. President Asif Ali Zardari is at the helm of affairs. His approach to Pakistan’s problems with India is different from that of the earlier regimes. He wants to befriend India.

I saw this happening from close quarters when I heard the national security advisers of the two countries. At a small dinner given by the Pakistan high commissioner in Delhi, they said certain things which were unbelievable. India’s National Security Adviser M.K. Nayaranan admitted that he was a hawk but had come around to believe what Manmohan Singh told him: “India and Pakistan were destined to be together.” I do not know what transpired between the two during official meetings but Pakistan’s National Security Adviser Mahmud Ali Durrani told me that the talks were more successful than he ever expected.

It looks as if the clouds of hostility that loomed over India and Pakistan are thinning. Both Manmohan Singh and Zardari reached some understanding on how to fight terrorism in the two countries when they met at New York. Both Narayanan and Durrani were asked to prepare the ground which they did at Delhi. The joint mechanism will be built on it in the days to come. It is obvious that the different agencies operating in the two countries will have to fall in line, stopping what they are doing within and without. In the next few days, the Pakistani training camps which are a sore point with India may be dismantled.

All these measures are laudable. But they are only the means, not the end by themselves. The end is to normalise relations between the two countries. This is not possible until both curb radicals, Hindus and Muslims, in their own territory and stop efforts at mixing religion with politics.

India, a secular polity, is under pressure. Hindutva is gaining ground. Despite their anti-national activities, New Delhi is reluctant to take action against the Sangh Parivar which has spread all over, opening Hindu Jagran Manch offices in every state. The members recruited are getting training and weapons. With its eyes on the forthcoming assembly elections and later to the Lok Sabha, the Congress is found too timid, too faltering.

It is already a bit too late because the politics of hate is spreading as has been seen in Bihar and Maharashtra where the lumpen are fighting on the streets. Hindu terrorists want an ethnic purity in the areas where they live. A new avatar of the Shiv Sena, Raj Thackeray, has created his counterparts in Bihar. One of their leaders came to Mumbai this week and killed four persons while looking for Raj Thackeray to wreak vengeance.

This trend is reminiscent of MQM’s violence in Karachi and it is tearing apart the society in both countries and creating fear in the minds of ordinary people. How will the joint mechanism check those who have communalised terrorism in India and politicised it in Pakistan? Both are contaminating the liberal and democratic atmosphere as the Tamil extremists (the LTTE) are doing in Sri Lanka and the Harkatul Jihad-i-Islami (HJI) in Bangladesh.

The entire South Asia requires a common mechanism to fight against the growth of disruptive tendencies. India had kept them in check with some courage and determination. But lately it looks as if politics has taken over because of the impending elections. India cannot fail South Asia when liberal, democratic values are beginning to matter in the region.

For that reason, Islamabad cannot afford to talk to the Taliban in the NWFP and Fata. This would look like buying peace. It makes no sense to New Delhi if the Taliban are won over for the time being. They will resume pushing their archaic thinking after having consolidated themselves.

It is a pity that Nawaz Sharif, who is all for a strong viable Pakistan, favours a settlement with the Taliban. He should have drawn a lesson from what has happened to Asfandyar Wali Khan. Wali, along with his family, has taken refuge in London because the Taliban tried to kill him and threatened to eliminate the entire family. They are against any liberal thought. Nawaz Sharif’s Muslim League should stand by the Pakistan People’s Party to eliminate the Taliban who have a dream to rule both Pakistan and Afghanistan. The region’s dream is different.

The writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi

Old wine, new skin

EVERY political season produces its own mascot, a figure for comic relief amidst the darkness. ‘Tis the season of Shaukat ‘Over my dead body’ Tareen. Like Superman, Tareen is everywhere; unlike Superman, he can’t seem to save even himself from spouting rubbish, let alone the country from an economic meltdown.

Call him the violator-in-chief of the public record. His statements defy belief.

The floor of the stock exchange will be removed; unless it isn’t. Electricity tariffs will be raised; unless they aren’t. We need $4bn; until we need $10bn. Make that $15bn on a rainy day. Or $100bn if you’re taking cues from your political godfather, President Zardari. (Funny thing, in Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery a clueless Dr Evil tries to hold the world hostage with a nuclear weapon for a $100bn ransom. Life imitating art? You decide.)

There’s more from ‘Over my dead body’ Tareen. Money will pour into our coffers; unless it doesn’t. The Saudis will give us oil; or perhaps the Iranians will. Banks have money; unless they don’t. Petrol prices will be decreased; until they aren’t. Power outages will decrease; unless they increase. The incidence of poverty is five per cent or 44 per cent or 26 per cent or 70 per cent — or whatever you want it to be really since accuracy is only important if the poor matter. They don’t. Inflation will be down to five per cent in nine months; unless it’s 95 per cent in five months.

The government has decided, yes, decided, according to ‘Over my dead body’ Tareen, to increase the tax-to-GDP ratio to 15 per cent. It will also tax agriculture and force investors to pay capital gains tax on real estate and stock market earnings. And, in case you missed it, a crack team of flying pigs will swoop in to take charge of the economy and overtake the Chinese by 2015, or within the next millennium. Oh, and those upstart Indians with their fancy rockets? We’ll put them in their place by growing a mountain of wheat and simply climbing to the moon.

What exactly is Tareen up to? How would he react if a VP at one of his banks stood up and spouted pie-in-the-sky figures and ideas? I’ll bet he would fire the man on the spot. Then why are we being treated to such fantastical ideas? Tareen isn’t fooling the market or the IFIs or foreign governments with his bluster.

It’s obvious Tareen hasn’t gotten to where he has by being naïve — so he’s clearly pandering to someone. Question is, who? Perhaps he’s concluded that the president likes to hear good news? Which would be very bad news for the rest of us, for the surest way to economic hell is to have the people in charge say the things their boss wants to hear.

Turns out, Pakistan is a poor country. Yes, really. Forget what your flat-panel TV, shiny new car, laptop, top-of-the-line mobile and gold credit card suggest — we were living the future these past few years. It’s a good future, one where the middleclass is rewarded for working hard. The sin wasn’t of the consumers coveting a better lifestyle, but of the financial architects who gave them a dream without knowing how to pay for it.

Now that we’ve seen the future, we have to figure out how to go back to it. The problem is that our government is like a rich man in a mansion who steals from his servants to keep up appearances. Tareen’s pabulum misses the point: rather than locking up the valuables, the solution is to take the rich man to a doctor. But therapy isn’t easy. Same goes for the economy: if reform was easy, Pakistan wouldn’t be prostrating itself before the IMF yet again.

You hear it all the time — structural change, institutional reform, systemic overhaul, top-to-bottom cleansing. What that all boils down to is fixing the system, which can only be worked towards by hunkering down away from the glare of the cameras and getting your hands dirty. That does not include polishing your sound bites and buying a bulletproof limousine.

About that limo Tareen has so proudly purchased with his own money (it’ll make a fine status symbol once he’s gone back to private life): how endangered are finance czars anyway? The job description essentially involves running the economy into the ground every decade or so — for what it’s worth, I’ll throw my hat in the ring for a measly Corolla.

Since nobody is serious about our problems, we have wacky new ideas bandied about as fix-alls. No cash for development? No worries, public-private partnerships to the rescue. Joe Stiglitz was on the ‘Colbert Nation’ recently joking about the secret of PPPs: the profit is private; the loss public. Sounds like that other PPP we’re more familiar with.

Fact is, this government inherited a balance sheet splattered with red ink. That is a cross that the Musharraf legacy will have to bear. But the change of guard at the finance ministry was badly botched. Three heads in six months is disgraceful — and cannot be blamed on anyone else.

There are some things that Tareen could do though. A damning institutional legacy of Musharraf is the breakdown in communication between the finance ministry, the State Bank, the SECP, the competition commission and sundry financial regulators.

Last year the Shaukat Aziz-Salman Shah combine capitulated to Musharraf’s demand to not rock the boat in an election year and allowed subsidies to explode, borrowing heavily from a state bank pursuing the opposite monetary policy. While Aziz and Shah didn’t rock the economic boat, they set it on a course that led to it being smashed on a rock, after they had jumped ship of course.

If Tareen is serious — and he has a good track record as an administrator according to people who have worked with and know him — this is an area he must urgently address. But will he? That’s a political question which can only be answered in the negative if he keeps publicly pandering to his boss.

And what about the poor, growing more poor by the day? They will have to take solace from the Beatitudes, the biblical promise that the meek shall inherit the earth while the kingdom of heaven belongs to the poor. You see, everything in between belongs to the less spiritually privileged. That’s a reality even a crack team of flying pigs will struggle to change.

Final thought: is it just me or are we hurtling towards the depths of depravity? Inured to women being beaten, raped, maimed and murdered, 2008 has brought us the horrors of women buried alive and deliberately set upon by dogs. And for what? Sex and money. Grotesque as the women’s fate was, thank God for those amongst them who dared to love: in death they have proved there still beats a heart in the soulless carcass of this land.

cyril.a@gmail.com

Perfidious Albion & Chagos Islanders

FOR arrogance, hypocrisy and sheer nastiness, few organisations in the world rival the British Foreign Office. Exhibit A in the case against it, for the past decade, has been its marathon legal struggle to deny the former inhabitants of the Chagos Islands their rights. Last week, it cheated them again.

The Chagos Islands, a group of seven atolls in the middle of the Indian Ocean, were settled in the late 18th century by slaves who were brought there by the French to work in copra plantations. Britain took the islands from France in 1814, but little changed for the descendants of the original African and South Indian settlers, by now a blended, French-speaking population, until 1967 — when Britain suddenly expelled them. All of them. The islands now have no permanent population.

The islands have many thousands of temporary residents, though, all of them working for the US armed forces except for a few British service personnel. The Chagossians were deported from their homeland to make room for a giant base from which the US Air Force could dominate the entire Indian Ocean, and part of the deal was that there should be no local inhabitants to complicate matters.

Most of the Chagossians were simply dumped in Mauritius but some eventually made their way to England. They started demanding to be sent home which they were denied. Their long struggle ended in the House of Lords last week with a triumph for injustice, cynicism and realpolitik.

Nobody in Britain now defends what was done to the Chagossians, not even Foreign Secretary David Milliband. On the contrary, the Foreign Office has waged a bitter struggle through the British courts to deny the Chagossians the right to go home. The British High Court ruled in 2000 that they could return to the islands although not to the specific atoll, Diego Garcia, on which the Americans had their air base.

It did happen, however, and the subsequent mania about security made the British and American authorities determined to keep the islands uninhabited. So in 2004 the British government issued “Orders in Council” — essentially an exercise of the royal prerogative that sets aside court judgements — renewing the ban on anybody returning to the Chagos islands.

The Chagossians went back to court, and in 2007 seven judges of the Court of Appeal unanimously ruled that the use of Orders in Council was invalid. This meant that the islanders could rely on the 2000 High Court judgement and demand to be returned to their homeland, so the Foreign Office appealed once again, this time to the highest court of all. And last week the House of Lords Appeal Committee decided that the government did indeed have the right to ignore the islanders’ wishes.

The US-UK agreement that created the Diego Garcia base in 1966 gave each party a veto on who is allowed on the islands, and it is the United States which has been exercising its veto behind the scenes throughout this whole ugly episode. Indeed, one of the dissenting judges, Lord Bingham, referred to “highly imaginative letters written by American officials” that had been placed before the court, although he personally doubted that Osama bin Laden was planning any attacks in the middle of the Indian Ocean.

The French used to refer to Britain as “Perfidious Albion,” and the British Foreign Office is indeed steeped in perfidy. But latterly it has also learned servility, and it is the latter attribute that is driving its current behaviour. Diego Garcia is an American base, and it is really the US State Department that is denying the Chagossians the right to go home.

— Copyright Gwynne Dyer