The looming crisis
There are many dangerous socioeconomic implications of population explosion
By M Sharif
Over the last six decades, Pakistan has experienced rapid population growth. The country's population grew at an annual average of 3.1 percent between 1951 and 1981, while its current annual population growth rate is 1.8 percent. This rate is higher than the South Asian average of 1.4 percent, according to a World Bank report published this year. Consequently, the country's population has increased to more than five-fold since its independence, from 33.8 million in 1951 to about 170 million at present, making Pakistan the sixth most populated country in the world.

As the dust settles after the rampage in Mumbai, a plethora of questions have emerged relating to the Indian state's willingness and ability to fulfil its primary mandate: to protect the public peace. Inevitably the press and much of the intelligentsia have been in bullish mood, and the calls for 'immediate action' have come quick and fast. Pakistan has predictably reappeared as public enemy no 1 and, unfortunately, the all too vulnerable 'peace process' appears to be in tatters.

Thankfully, however, there does not appear to be any suggestion of serious fallout in Indo-Pak relations, notwithstanding the best efforts of hawks on both sides. On the face of it, the heightened tensions in the days immediately following the attacks was defused by Washington. Indeed, the United States has emerged as the guarantor of 'peace' between the two countries; and one is tempted to suggest that so long as Washington's interests demand it, there will be no meaningful escalation in conflict between the two big players in the subcontinent.

Perhaps it should not matter how peace is maintained. There is much compulsion in the argument that peace should be maintained by any means necessary between two nuclear powers that have been at each other's throats virtually since they were partitioned more than 60 years ago. It is, therefore, important to consider exactly the contours of this 'peace' that many seem so keen to protect.

Since the end of the Cold War, the relationship between the US and India has evolved considerably. For the first four decades after independence, India prided itself as a lynchpin of the non-aligned movement. There were periods when New Delhi opened up to American aid, particularly military, but for the most part the emphasis was on maintaining a principled posture in favour of national liberation struggles and anti-imperialism in the international arena.

Pakistan, on the other hand, distinguished itself as a willing client of the US, depicting itself as a 'frontline state' against communism, never failing to reinforce its status as the major American garrison in southwest Asia. Of course, Washington was careful not to antagonise New Delhi by taking sides in the event of direct conflict between Pakistan and India, but the overall tilt of the US within South Asia remained clearly defined.

After 1991, a special bond seems to have been discovered between the world's 'biggest democracy' and the world's 'oldest democracy'. The bond clearly extends beyond somewhat abstract political commitments; the Indian middle class represents a huge consumer market whereas American multinationals have 'outsourced' all measure of manufacturing, and particularly service industries to India.

How beneficial this shift towards American-style free market orthodoxy has been for the majority of Indians was made clear by the resounding defeat of the BJP in the 2004 polls replete with its slogan of 'India Shining'. The 'new' India is very much the same for the majority of its working people. Meanwhile, India's proud heritage of non-alignment has given way to a far less principled and cynical foreign policy.

Within India, there has been much controversy over the 'nuclear deal' and what this suggests for the sovereignty of the Indian state. What is less talked about is the so-called 'war on terror' that is being played out in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the real reason for Washington's desire to maintain some semblance of Indo-Pak peace.

New Delhi is not the only world capital to maintain a stinging silence over the happenings in what Washington now describes as the home base of a rejuvenated al-Qaeda, the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan. Over the past few months, indiscriminate use of airpower by both American and Pakistani fighter jets has resulted in untold devastation. Hundreds of thousands of civilian innocents have been displaced from their homes and are now languishing in refugee camps across Pakistan. All this in the name of eliminating the threat of 'terror'. Yet, as was made painfully obvious by the Mumbai shootings, 'terrorism' is alive and well.

In a bygone era, India would have been far more inclined to dissent with the United States' notion of 'preemptive war' in the form of the pulverisation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead the Congress Party and the BJP before it have looked on as the Bush administration has wreaked havoc in the name of 'freedom' and 'democracy'. India has also proudly cultivated a relationship with Israel, overlooking its past support to the cause of Palestinian liberation, thereby cementing a Washington-Tel Aviv-New Delhi axis that would have been unthinkable only a decade ago.

A minor digression is necessary here; the alliance between India and Israel (vis-a-vis the US) has little to do with religious faith. The religious right in Pakistan is all too keen to point out the coming together of the Yehud-o-Hunood as a conspiracy against Islam, but this tired 'clash of civilisations' narrative has little to do with reality. As I have already suggested, India was once the vanguard of the global pro-Palestine movement, and the change in its posture reflects the changed priorities of its security and financial establishments, and has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

In any case, New Delhi's strategic calculus is riddled with all sorts of contradictions, the most obvious of which hit home when Mumbai was held hostage to less than a dozen well-trained and single-minded hit-men. Washington prosecutes the 'war on terror' in this region through the Pakistani army, regardless of all the evidence pointing to the covert support that the latter – and particularly its intelligence agencies – continues to provide to at least some 'jihadi' groups. It is a moot point whether 'elements within Pakistan' did directly perpetrate the attacks in Mumbai. What matters is that both India and Pakistan remain committed to protecting the geo-strategic interests of the US, and the people of both countries will continue to suffer the fallouts of this alignment.

If nothing else, the events of the past three weeks make clear that an Indo-Pak 'peace' guaranteed by Washington is hopelessly fragile, always likely to degenerate into acrimony and accusations. In fact, there can be no talk of peace in the region while America's so-called 'war on terror' rages on. Many Pakistanis have been envious of the Indian state's commitment to anti-imperialism, convinced that Islamabad's adoption of a similar policy would be a big step towards peace in the subcontinent. Unfortunately, on this front, New Delhi has emulated Islamabad and taken us further away from peace than ever before.

Referring to US President George W Bush's efforts to push through a $15 billion bailout package for the American automobile industry in the waning days of his presidency, a Fox News analyst said recently that far from behaving like a typical lame duck president, Bush has been "roaring like a duck"!

Not for nothing is it said that Bush has no more loyal supporter in the US media than Fox News. Notwithstanding the fact that News Corporation, Fox's parent corporation, is owned by Australian-media-tycoon-turned-US-citizen Rupert Murdoch, 74, who now lives in New York and is now married to an American girl some fifty years younger than him, if Fox News had had its way, the United States would have invaded another half a dozen Muslim countries by now in addition to Afghanistan and Iraq.

Ever since 9/11, Fox News -- which, ironically and utterly inaccurately, bills itself as a TV channel that presents "fair and balanced" news -- has been several steps ahead of even the most gung-ho of Bush neo-cons in supporting the Bush administration's so-called 'war against terrorism'.

The question is: why? The answer has to do with the fact that under American law, as administered by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which regulates the US television and radio industries, any company that owns a TV channel in a given US market, such as New York (where Fox News is based), is barred from also owning a newspaper in the same market.

In violation of this law, Murdoch's News Corporation had bought the New York Post tabloid newspaper and had also set up the Fox television channel -- taking the name Fox from Twentieth Century Fox, which used to be one of Hollywood's leading motion picture studios in the old days and is now a movie distribution company.

Murdoch also had his eye on acquiring the Wall Street Journal, a prestigious New York-based financial newspaper. But his acquisition of the Post and his establishment of the Fox News television channel had got him into trouble with the FCC, with some of the FCC commissioners insisting that he sell off one or the other.

When 9/11 happened, Murdoch saw his chance to curry favour with the Bush administration by ordering Fox News to pull out all stops in supporting America's invasion of Afghanistan and later of Iraq.

In those days, the FCC chairman was Michael Powell, the son of then-US Secretary of State Colin Powell. Under Michael Powell's chairmanship, the FCC held a series of meetings and did away with the rule barring a company from owning a newspaper and a TV channel in the same market. Though Colin Powell made no public statement on the issue, some critics of the Bush administration speculated that he may well have put pressure on his son to do away with the FCC's cross-ownership ban.

Be that as it may, the upshot was that doing away with the cross-ownership rule got Murdoch off the hook in the Fox News-New York Post case and cleared the way for him acquire more newspapers in the New York market if he wanted to. Two years ago, Murdoch used the amended rule to put in a bid for the privately-owned Wall Street Journal, which the family that owned the controlling shares in the paper then agreed -- after some humming and hawing -- to sell to him for $5 billion.

So Murdoch now owns the Fox News television channel, the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal -- all of them in the New York Market. So when Fox News touts itself as a channel that gives "fair and balanced" news, viewers would be well advised to take such claims with a pinch of salt. Make that, a truckload of salt.

This brings us back to the Fox News analyst's recent statement that Bush -- now into the last few weeks of his presidency's lame duck period -- has broken the traditional mould of quacking like a duck and is now "roaring like a duck" -- the implication being that far from having been reduced to a powerless president in political terms. Bush is still full of vim and vigour, and is using the powers of his office to pressurise Congress into approving the $15 billion bailout for the American automobile industry.

If the bailout is approved by a Congress now controlled by the opposition Democrat Party (ironically, it is a group of members of Bush's own Republican party that is opposing the measure), the cost of the package will, of course, have to be picked up by the American taxpayers -- who have already been hit with the tab for the whopping $750 billion bailout package for the US financial industry approved by Congress in September, following the Lehman Brothers collapse that triggered the global financial meltdown.

Given all this, it could be that Bush may be spending his last few weeks in the White House recalling the words of 'Engine' Charlie Wilson. Wilson was president of General Motors in the 1940s and early 1950 before President Eisenhower picked him for the job of Secretary of Defence in his cabinet. 'Engine' Charlie, as he was nicknamed, was a diehard supporter of the US automobile industry. He once famously remarked: "What's good for General Motors is good for America."

"Yep, those were the days," a nostalgic Dubya may be saying to his father as the two of them lounge around in a lame duck Oval Office. "In those days (sigh), a gas-guzzling American car was every red-blooded American boy's dream. What happened to that dream, Dad?"

"You're a fine one to talk," Bush Senior may reply. "You seem to have forgotten that it is your policies that have brought us to this sorry pass. Sometimes, I think we'd have been better off if we had made Laura president. At least she isn't dyslexic."

As for Fox News' formulation about "roaring like a duck", it is an expression that Dubya himself might well be using during the waning days of his presidency. After all, he's spent nearly eight years murdering the English language, so why not just keep on doing that during these last few weeks of his presidency?

There are plenty of Bushisms, of course. But perhaps my personal favourite is the one when he said, "I stand by all my misstatements."

Barnett R Rubin is a well-known American political scientist and a leading expert on Afghanistan. Since July 2000, he is director of studies and senior fellow at the Center on International Cooperation, New York University. During 1994-2000, he was director of the Center for Preventive Action and director of Peace and Conflict Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. He was associate professor of Political Science and director of the Center for the Study of Central Asia at Columbia University from 1990 to 1994. Previously, he was a Jennings Randolph Peace Fellow at the United States Institute of Peace and assistant professor of Political Science at Yale University. He was special advisor to the UN Special Representative for Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi, during the negotiations that produced the Bonn Agreement in 2001. He also advised the UN on the drafting of the constitution of Afghanistan.

Dr Rubin has written many books, including Afghanistan's Uncertain Transition from Turmoil to Normalcy; Blood on the Doorstep: the Politics of Preventing Violent Conflict; The Fragmentation of Afghanistan: State Formation and Collapse in the International System; Calming the Ferghana Valley: Development and Dialogue in the Heart of Central Asia; Stabilizing Nigeria: Sanctions, Incentives, and Support for Civil Society; Post-Soviet Political Order: Conflict and State Building; Cases and Strategies for Preventive Action; Toward Comprehensive Peace in Southeast Europe: Conflict Prevention in the South Balkans; and The Search for Peace in Afghanistan: From Buffer State to Failed State. Moreover, he has written numerous articles and book reviews on conflict prevention, state formation and human rights. His articles have appeared in Foreign Affairs, Orbis, Survival, International Affairs, The New York Times, The Washington Post and The New York Review of Books.

Dr Rubin's recent article in Foreign Affairs (November-December 2008), titled From Great Game to Grand Bargain, which he co-wrote with Pakistani author Ahmed Rashid, drew strong criticism from Indian officials and press, because it advocates a regional approach to solve the growing problems of violence and terrorism in South Asia, and places the solution of Kashmir at the heart of bringing peace to the region. The News on Sunday interviewed him recently. Excerpts follow:

The News on Sunday: Your recent article in Foreign Affairs has drawn strong reactions from some quarters in India. What do you think are the reasons?

Barnett R Rubin: There has been a harsh reaction against Ahmed Rashid and me in the Indian press because we argued in our Foreign Affairs article that the international community had to address the issue of Kashmir as part of a regional settlement. Vikesh Sood, a former chief of RAW, described us as "leading the charge" on behalf of Pakistani influence in the Obama administration. Of course, we were not acting on behalf of Pakistan. We were just recognising the reality that there is a conflict over the status of Kashmir involving not only the two states, but also the people who live there. Everyone who has contributed to this problem over the years should take some responsibility to solve it. Some of the reaction in Pakistan to the massacre in Mumbai shows a similar mentality; the first instinct is just to assert the innocence of Pakistan. But none of us, including the United States, is innocent. If Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) carried out this act, we also know that the ISI organised and armed the militant group using capabilities the US and Saudi Arabia helped it gain for the war in Afghanistan, and in response to India's failure to address the issue of Kashmir to the satisfaction of its people. Now this conflict has escalated throughout the region and the world. Let's approach it in a spirit of humility and mutual respect to save ourselves. We are witnessing a frightening and dangerous escalation of violence in South Asia, and it is threatening Afghanistan, Pakistan and India equally. There is plenty of responsibility to spread around for this. I won't go into history, because there are different versions. But the spirit, in which Ahmed Rashid and I wrote our article in Foreign Affairs, is to try to remind everyone that this fire threatens to consume all of us. We should step back and try to stop it from spreading.

TNS: How credible is the evidence of LeT's involvement in the Mumbai attacks?

BRR: Of course, I have no access to whatever evidence exists. According to media reports, there are also telephone intercepts, phone records on SIM cards and other physical evidence of the involvement of LeT. Apparently, the evidence was strong enough that the government and army of Pakistan arrested several leaders of LeT.

TNS: Most Pakistani commentators seem to believe that the US is biased against Pakistan over the issue. How do you see the US reaction so far?

BRR: This is an example of the mentality I have mentioned above. Maybe there are some unfair US reactions. I have not surveyed all of them. But instead of complaining about how they are being victimised, Pakistanis would do better to think how they can save themselves and their country from the coming disaster. Blaming America for everything is no substitute for taking your fate into your own hands, even if you are right.

TNS: Is it fair to blame the ISI for every terrorist attack in the region?

BRR: Nobody does this. This question is just another manifestation of that defensive reaction. When an attack is carried out by a group that was allegedly organised, armed and funded by the ISI, it is fair to investigate to what extent the organisation is involved. After all, nobody blames the ISI for terrorist acts carried out by the LTTE in Sri Lanka or by Baloch nationalists within Pakistan.

TNS: Why blame the ISI alone for having relations with non-state actors? All major intelligence agencies of the world maintain contact with such elements. Saudis are now openly brokering truce between the Taliban and Karzai administration. The American and British troops in Afghanistan have deals with local militant commanders. However, when Pakistan enters into agreements with militants, it draws international flak. Why?

BRR: Nobody blames the ISI for having relations with any group, if the aim is to collect information or achieve some other legitimate objective. If Saudi Arabia is approaching the Taliban in order to make peace in Afghanistan, I support that effort and wish it all success. The issue around the Mumbai attacks is whether they were organised with the help of the ISI. According to media reports, the surviving culprit has stated that he and his comrades were trained by Pakistani military officers, serving or retired. Training a group to carry out mass murder is not the same as having relations with it.

TNS: Pakistan claims that it has exhibited responsible behaviour regarding terror attacks. For example, when Samjuta Express was bombed killing hundreds of Pakistanis on the Indian soil, India was quick to place the blame on Pakistan and LeT. It turned out later that it was the action of Hindu terrorists supported by Indian politicians and trained by Indian Army officers. What are your views on this?

BRR: Nobody has a monopoly on irresponsibility or communalism. There are plenty of both in India. There are many Indian political groups that oppose good relations with Pakistan, and want to repress Muslims and do whatever they can to provoke conflict between the two countries. I don't know about this specific incident, but there is no question of putting all the blame on Pakistan, India, the US, or anyone else. We are all responsible for what we do and say. Nobody is entirely innocent and nobody is guilty of everything.

TNS: Are we heading towards a new war in the region? Do the Indian threats to attack Pakistan sound real? If yes, what is your prognostication about the outcome?

BRR: Neither the Government of India nor the Government of Pakistan wants war. Pakistan's decision to arrest the leadership of LeT is a wise move that will help prevent war. If both countries do whatever they can to assure the security of the other, there will be no war. The extremist groups are trying to provoke war and we must do everything we can to assure they do not succeed.

TNS: Have the new tensions between Pakistan and India complicated the 'war on terror' in the region?

BRR: I have never believed in the concept of 'war on terror'. The US should wage war on those who commit aggression against it. This slogan has created a lot of confusion in our policy. For instance, the Taliban did not attack the US, and I don't think that they knew about al-Qaeda's plans. The US should have done a lot more much earlier to bring any Taliban who were willing to separate themselves from al-Qaeda back into the Afghan political system as a legitimate party. Right now, I think that the governments of Afghanistan, Pakistan and India all have common interests in security and cooperation. Outside powers like the US should support this cooperation. The welfare of their people depends on it. But there are small groups of terrorists with a different agenda that are trying to destroy the efforts aimed at cooperation by placing the governments in conflict with each other. We have to keep our eyes on the prize -- peace, security and development with dignity for all the people of the region -- and not let these groups distract us.

TNS: You have been advocating a regional approach to crisis management and conflict resolution in the region. Could you explain briefly how India and Pakistan can move forward from eternal hostility?

BRR: If I suggest anything concrete, that will guarantee it will be rejected. The leaderships of both countries have to explain to their people that this conflict is not in anyone's interest anymore, and is being exploited to keep them poor and powerless. China and India are taking off economically in complementary ways. China is dominating world manufacturing and India is moving quickly into the new information economy. This creates huge opportunities for the development of all the countries in the region. Should billions of people lose such opportunities because some small groups focus on grievances left over from colonialism and the last century? There are real issues, of course, including Kashmir and the use of terrorism as a tool of state policy. Responsible leaders have to talk to each other in private honestly about how to do this and then present a common programme to both countries. Of course, most officials tell me that this idea is hopelessly naive. They say that more wars are necessary first. It may be true, but I am neither going to congratulate anyone over it nor recommend it.

TNS: Would the current crisis change Obama's recently articulated regional approach to bring peace to the region?

BRR: As Obama said on the Meet the Press programme recently, it will reinforce his determination to restore the influence and power of the US, so that it can be used to support peace and security in South Asia. We have to restore our good name first by abolishing torture by our forces once and for all and forever, and by closing Guantanamo and any similar places. And we should extend offers of peace to anyone who agrees not to shelter terrorists who kill civilians, whatever differences or conflicts separate us. And we should use our forces in Afghanistan and elsewhere in a way to protect the people, not cause casualties among them. Only then we will have the stature to help others.

In a bid to cut off the NATO supply line, stretching from Karachi to Kabul, the militants recently launched unprecedented attacks on transport terminals in Peshawar and torched more than 200 vehicles, mostly of military use. The attacks inflicted heavy losses on vital supplies destined for US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, as well as terrorised supply contractors and transporters. Early last Sunday, hundreds of armed militants -- chanting slogans of "God is Great" -- stormed the Al-Faisal and Port World Logistic terminals and torched about 160 vehicles, including 70 Humvees (armoured vehicles). On the following day, the militants burnt at least 53 vehicles at Bilal Container Terminal. Later, during the week, there were more attacks of lower intensity on similar facilities.

After these attacks, the transportation of US and NATO forces-bound supplies has become an extremely risky business. Other businessmen and terminal owners and contractors are also receiving threats to stop dealing in NATO supplies or be ready to face dire consequences. The attacks on NATO supplies in Pakistan are not new, but this time around the level of destruction was much higher. The recent attacks also marked a shift in the tactics of militants. Unlike the past, when they attacked the supply convoys using rockets, improvised explosive devices and remote-controlled devices, they targeted transport terminals this time, inflicting colossal damages on NATO supply vehicles.

These attacks also show that the strength of militants has increased and their tactics have improved, because attacking guarded terminals in urban areas is difficult and risky than targeting convoys. The attacks also exposed the writ of the government and poor state of security arrangements in Pakistan. After joining the US-led 'war on terror' soon after 9/11, Pakistan allowed America and its allies to use its territory for the transportation of necessary logistics for their troops in Afghanistan. These supplies usually contain fuel, food and beverages, construction material, trucks and armoured vehicles, military equipment, and spare parts and other hardware.

According to an estimate, about 70 percent of the supplies to US and NATO forces in Afghanistan are channelled via Pakistan. Of these, about 90 percent are transported via the Torkham border in Khyber Agency, while the rest via the Chamman border in Balochistan. It is important to remember here that Pakistan is earning millions of dollars annually by levying various duties and fees on the transportation of NATO supplies.

To pressurise US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, the Taliban is targeting their vital supplies in a very well-coordinated manner. Since the last few moths, there has been an unprecedented increase in the number of attacks on NATO supply vehicles, especially in Pakistan, because the militants are bent upon stopping the much-needed logistics to foreign forces in Afghanistan. The chief of the banned Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), Baitullah Mehsud, had already warned that NATO's supply lines via the Torkham border would be cut off by the end of 2008.

The Taliban has formed special groups to disrupt supply lifeline of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan. The anti-American feelings among the tribal people, which increased tremendously after the September 3 ground attack by US Special Forces in Angoor Adda, have also created conducive environment for such terrorist acts. Another reason for the increase in the number of such attacks is the continued drone attacks by the US on suspected locations inside Pakistan's territory. The militants have already threatened to continue attacks on NATO supplies if the drone attacks in the tribal areas are not stopped forthwith.

After the ground attack of September 3, the public demand for the suspension of logistic facilities to US and NATO forces in Afghanistan became even more pronounced. After the recent Mumbai attacks, anticipating a possible reaction from India, some religious elements are again calling for the suspension of supplies to US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, and for shifting the armed forces from the western borders to the eastern. The Jamaat-e-Islami has already announced a protest on December 18 to demand an end to the transportation of all such supplies.

The manner of recent attacks in Peshawar and Khyber Agency on transport terminals used for NATO supplies indicates the ease with which the militants operate and conduct their operations smoothly. Despite frequent threats by the militants and repeated requests for security by the terminal operators, contractors and transporters, no concrete measure was adopted to thwart such attacks, and protect the life and property of those involved in the supply and related businesses.

During his recent visit to the NATO Headquarters, Pakistan's Army Chief General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani vowed to keep the alliance's supply line to Afghanistan open and reaffirmed support for its mission there. In recent months, however, NATO supplies have experienced several suspensions. It was suspended for some time after the US ground attack in Angoor Adda on September 3. NATO supplies via the Torkham border were also temporarily suspended for a week last month after the militants hijacked and looted 13 NATO supply vehicles.

Contrary to a NATO official's claims that these attacks were "militarily insignificant" and would have "minimal" impact on its Afghan mission, observers are of the view that the recent attacks would lead to interruption in logistics to NATO / ISAF forces in Afghanistan and would, consequently, adversely affect the anti-Taliban operations. The destruction of about 70 Humvees (sophisticated US-made armoured vehicles that cost about $100,000 each), besides cranes and several goods' containers and oil tankers, at two transport terminals in Peshawar on December 7 is a big military loss. According to a rough estimate, the last Sunday's losses may exceed $10 million.

If the Pakistani supply route continued to be vulnerable to such terrorist attacks, it could negatively affect the performance of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan and put them in a very dangerous situation. Keeping this in view, the US and NATO are looking for other options -- such as Afghanistan's other neighbours: China, Iran and Central Asian States -- to ensure safe and smooth supply of logistics to their forces in Afghanistan.

Looking for an alternative route, NATO struck a deal with Russia in April 2008. This deal allowed for the transportation of NATO supplies to Afghanistan via the Russian territory. But after its row with the US over the issue of Georgia, Russia gave a second thought to the idea. However, it has now once again allowed for the transportation of NATO supplies after signing a new deal with Germany. Still, compared with Pakistan's liberal policy in this regard, Russia has put strong conditions. For example, it does not allow lethal military equipment to be transported via its territory. More importantly, the Pakistani route is the shortest and cheapest.

debate

Can words move mountains? Can words, concepts and talks change reality? Is reality what we see and do, what we say and believe? Is it subjective or objective? And then: can words change wars? The answer is 'yes'. But reality is not only subjective and perceived; it is also objective. Still, the fundamental force for change, especially for political change, is based on concepts, understanding, will and desire. When all this is in place, when old ways become politically, morally and socially unacceptable, we will be surprised to realise how easy it is to mobilise the required means to bring about the desired change.

'War on terror'

Since 2001, we have been told that we live in the times of 'war on terror'. Most heads of state and political leaders, at least in the developed world, seem to believe this. They talk about it, they allocate funds for it and they even send troops to faraway countries where the 'war' is said to take place. The 'war on terror' started after the events of 9/11, but it was forgotten that terrorism also existed in many parts of the world before this tragedy. In fact, 9/11 was the first time a major attack took place inside America, a country that has never experienced foreign invasion on its territory. The United States and its ally countries in NATO saw the 9/11 attacks unacceptable to such a degree that a 'war on terror' was declared. We can fix the time when the 'war on terror' started, but when will it end or will it ever end? And what exactly is this 'war' about?

Correct use of language?

Many issues relating to the so-called 'war on terror' are still unclear. The founder of the New York- and Oslo-based network, Human Dignity and Humiliation Studies, Professor Evelin Gerda Lindner, says that it is entirely wrong to use the term 'war on terror', because it contributes to more anger and frustration, and can lead to escalation of terrorism rather than the opposite. The Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Jonas Gahr Storhe, said at the 2008 Oslo Forum that the next US president should call an end to the 'war on terror', not only change the terminology. He dislikes the term that US President George W Bush started using so casually after 9/11, a term we have been stuck with ever since.

Storhe says that conflicts and wars cannot be painted with one, broad brush. The causes for insurgencies and conflicts in Afghanistan, the Middle East and Latin America are different, and we cannot just use one broad term for all of them, he says. In an interview with The New York Times, he welcomed the more diversified means of action used by the US after Condoleezza Rice became the secretary of state. She began to emphasise more than before the use not only of military means, but also of diplomatic and economic means, such as in the case of North Korea, a country that was said to belong to the 'axis of evil' along with Iran and Iraq. Can you think about a more strategically wrong term to use than 'axis of evil' if the aim is to engage all countries of the world in a genuine dialogue for peace?

Lack of accuracy

Storhe certainly makes good points, but such points are easier to make than put into practice. These points are inaccurate and rather too generalised, something that should worry us all. How come the leaders do not have a more sophisticated thinking and clearer operational plans for how countries should relate to each other? How come we do not have clearer plans for how to avoid conflicts? And once conflicts have started, for how long should they be allowed to go on? If such analyses and plans do exist, this scribe would only be too glad to learn about them.

Afghanistan

The country has been at war since the end of 1979. Before that, there was internal strife for almost a decade. All this adds up to underdevelopment, poverty and structural violence. The current foreign occupation seems to lead to more reluctance to accept the new order and the new leaders introduced by the occupiers. Those who came to occupy say that they want to carry out development works, but how can someone who came as an occupier become a friend? It takes more that increased development works, which should be implemented by entirely separate bodies from the army or other government agencies of the occupying countries. Perhaps their money is even a problem to receive, because the recipients may find that it comes with conditions. It is no wonder then that, even after seven years, Afghan resistance groups and movements still try to regroup and take charge of their country.

Name calling

If words can make or end wars and conflicts, why do we use the word Taliban so indiscriminately and often mix it up with al-Qaeda? It is tantamount to name calling. Moreover, it is factually wrong to talk about the Taliban as one group of people. How often do we discuss the underlying reasons for the existence of resistance groups such as the Taliban? Are they not nationalist groups concerned about their country, even if some of their ideas are outdated in the West? Wrong use of words will only lead to stronger opposition to the Afghan government. Though Afghan President Hamid Karzai has started to emphasise this point more vigorously, it may be too late. Yet, dialogue, inclusiveness and cooperation are probably the only way leading to peace in Afghanistan. It will be 'take and give', not unconditional surrender by the weak and excessive use of power by the strong. The strong must also accommodate the weak and give room for those with whom there is disagreement. Moreover, there must be some common ground and fundamental principles that all parties must abide by.

Language to suit reality

If we all wanted peace, we would have used words that would contribute to peace; and we would have supported actions that would lead to reconciliation, cooperation and development. Indeed, we would have ended the Afghan occupation by the US long ago. Besides, the invasion was probably not justifiable in the first place. Many people have said that about the Iraq war too, which was even termed illegal by Kofi Annan, the former secretary general of the United Nations, before he fell out of favour with Washington.

Development not

destruction

It is nice to know that US President-elect Barack Obama wants to end the Iraq war at the earliest. Let us also hope that he will divert the expenditures in Afghanistan from military to civilian purposes. Currently, the ratio is about one to eight in favour of military expenditures, though it should ideally have been the other way around. Funds should be allocated for development and security of the common people, not for war against ill-defined enemies. Moreover, Obama's understanding of Pakistan will have to improve if he wants to reach out to the root causes of problems. One hopes that Obama's genuinely believes in dialogue and cooperation, not blunt use of power in a war that cannot be won.

Talk about peace, find peace

Can words change reality and put us back on track? Not words alone. But words, terminology, concepts and approaches can help us get started, and make us analyse realistically. If we talk about peace, we will find peace. There is nothing as practical as a good theory, our university teachers told us when we were students. There is also nothing as powerful as positive thinking and positive language. In other words, even the unthinkable can be done if we frame words and concepts that make people believe in a better future. However, the opposite can also happen if negative words and concepts are used.

Change we can believe in

Barack Obama's campaign slogan was an eloquent example: 'Change we can believe in'. And Martin Luther King was even bolder in his 'dream speech' 45 years ago, when he proclaimed his wish for the abolishment of all racial segregation, at a time when we were only beginning to be judged on our character, not colour of our skin. It sounded just like a dream that time, but the dream caught fire in people's hearts and minds, and America's apartheid became history. Obama himself, who is of mixed African and white American background, is an example of how fast change can actually take place.

In South Africa, where the apartheid was even deeper, it became politically and morally unacceptable, and it had to be abolished, not least thanks to the example and the simple words by the country's first 'rainbow government', under the leadership of Nelson Mandela. His words were simple, human and powerful. They are not always many and complicated, but they make us all think and look into our hearts -- as we all try to become better human beings.

Most favoured nation (MFN) treatment is the constitutional principle of the multilateral trading system put in place by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and its predecessor, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The MFN principle prohibits a member country from discriminating among other members in terms of trade concessions, such as tariff reduction and market access, and application of rules and regulations. The MFN principle notwithstanding, countries do discriminate among their trading partners. The discrimination, which is technically called 'preferential treatment', may be reciprocal or unilateral. The country granting unilateral preferential treatment is called the 'donor', while the one receiving it is referred to as the 'recipient' or the 'beneficiary'. The idea behind unilateral preferences is that the MFN principle does not take into account trade and development needs of developing economies and the least-developed countries (LDCs), which require preferential treatment for a meaningful increase in exports.

The principal way by which developed countries impose lower tariffs on imports from developing countries and the LDCs than on similar products from other developed countries is represented by the Generalised System of Preferences (GSP). The legal basis of the GSP is the Decision on Differential and More Favourable Treatment, Reciprocity and Fuller Participation of Developing Countries. Adopted in 1979 for an indefinite period, it is also called the General Enabling Clause and forms part of the WTO Agreement. The GSP was created at a time when developed countries maintained high tariffs on imports, which made it extremely difficult for the less developed countries to have access to their markets. Since developed countries wanted the less developed countries to follow a policy of export-led growth, rather than import substitution, they deemed it fit to encourage exports from the less developed countries through a system of trade preferences.

Every developed economy has its own GSP scheme with different product coverage, preferential tariffs and criteria for benefiting from the same. For instance, under the GSP scheme of the United States, all eligible products from developing countries enter the country's market duty free. The GSP scheme of the European Union classifies imports as 'sensitive' and 'non-sensitive'. The former are granted duty free access, while the latter are subject to a lower duty than MFN duty -- 20 percent reduction in case of textile and clothing products and 3.5 percentage points reduction for all other eligible products. All eligible exports from the LDCs enter the EU duty free under an arrangement called Everything But Arms.

In addition to the GSP, developed countries also accord unilateral preferential tariff treatment to imports from selected groups of developing countries. For instance, under the four Lome Conventions, the EU gave preferential treatment to exports of 79 countries until the end of 2007. Under the Caribbean Basin Initiative, imports from Caribbean countries enter the US duty free. The preferential tariff treatment extended to exports of developing countries is not non-reciprocal. In return, developing countries have to fulfil certain conditions imposed by developed countries and the failure to do so may result in the suspension of benefits. For instance, in 1996, the US suspended preferential benefits to Pakistan under its GSP scheme for failure to comply with its labour standards. Pakistan was readmitted to the GSP scheme in 2004, only after it became an ally of the US in the so-called 'war on terror'.

The GSP legislation of the US sets forth a long list of criteria that a country must meet to qualify to be a beneficiary. The criteria have both mandatory and discretionary components. It declines eligibility to eight categories of countries: 1) communist countries (with exceptions); 2) countries that withhold supply of vital resources from international trade; 3) countries that injure US commerce by granting preferences to other developed countries; 4) countries that expropriate property of US citizens, including intellectual property, without fair compensation; 5) countries that fail to enforce binding arbitral awards in favour of US citizens; 6) countries that aid or abet terrorism; 7) countries that fail to take steps to enforce internationally recognised workers' rights; and 8) countries that fail to fulfil their commitments to eliminate the worst forms of child labour.

The GSP legislation authorises the US president to waive the last five of these conditions in the country's economic interest. After a country passes the above test, it has to fulfil additional conditions to qualify for the GSP. These include, besides the country's level of development, provision of equitable and reasonable access to its markets and basic commodity resources; measures to reduce investment-distorting practices; and steps to afford internationally recognised workers' rights.

The GSP scheme of the EU has a sub-arrangement called Special Incentive Arrangement for Sustainable Development and Good Governance (commonly known as 'GSP Plus'), which grants duty free treatment to beneficiary countries. One condition for getting admission to GSP Plus is that the recipient country must have ratified and effectively implemented 27 international conventions relating to human rights, good governance and sustainable development. Not only that, the EU has the right to monitor the implementation of the conventions by the beneficiary country, which means meddling into its domestic affairs. One reason that Pakistan has not been a beneficiary of the GSP Plus is that it has not ratified all the 27 mandatory conventions.

Benefits given under GSP schemes are not part of any legally binding international treaty, and they can be withdrawn on grounds that are more often than not dictated by political and economic interests of the donor country. In most cases, the donor country's interests, rather than that of the beneficiary country, determine the products to be extended preferential treatment under the GSP. For instance, in America's case, certain articles are prohibited by law from receiving GSP treatment. These include most of the textiles, watches, footwear, handbags, flat goods, work gloves and other leather apparel, import-sensitive electronic and steel articles, import-sensitive semi-manufactured and manufactured glass products, and any other article that the US president may determine to be import sensitive.

Similarly, until recently, the EU's GSP scheme almost totally excluded agricultural products for more or less the same reasons. Textiles remained excluded from the GSP scheme of Canada until 2003. Even now, the benefits are extended to the LDCs only. The GSP scheme of Japan is characterised by low coverage of agricultural products, because this sector is considered very sensitive. In order to qualify for preferential market access, imports from developing countries have to satisfy rules of origin -- which define where a product was made -- devised by the donor countries.

According to the United Nations Commission on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), these rules can also be looked upon in two ways. On the one hand, they are necessary to avoid trade deflection and ensure that GSP benefits accrue to the right country. On the other hand, they increase the cost of doing business. Due to these rules, exporters in the beneficiary countries are forced to purchase inputs that may not be the most efficient. The recipient countries also have to devise an accounting system, which is mostly not only different from their national legal requirements but is also beyond the capacity of local firms.

When the GSP was created, drafting a uniform set of rules of origin for different related schemes was the principal aim of the UNCTAD Special Committee on Preferences. However, the donor countries maintained that because preferences were unilateral and non-contractual, they should be free to decide on the rules of origin. As we see, the donor countries' view prevailed. The conditionalities associated with unilateral preferences add to the cost of doing business in developing countries and, thus, run counter to the idea of promoting their exports. Similarly, narrow product coverage in GSP schemes means that products of major export interest to developing countries may remain excluded from preferential treatment and, as a result, continue to face higher tariffs in the markets of developed countries.

For instance, even though Pakistan is a beneficiary of America's GSP scheme, textile and clothing exports -- being outside the scheme -- are subject to MFN tariffs, which are on the higher side (15 percent on average). This effectively reduces Pakistan's market access to the US, as textile and clothing products account for 65 percent of the country's exports. The problem is not with the notion of unilateral preferences per se, but with the way these are being applied. In conclusion, broader product coverage, inclusion of textile and clothing products in GSP schemes, and absence of strict conditionalities accompanying unilateral preferences will go a long way in enhancing their usefulness.

The tensions that gripped Karachi during November finally erupted on 29th of the month. In three days, 49 people were reportedly killed and more than 100 injured. The most-affected locations included Banaras Chowk, Aligarh Colony, Islamia Colony, Qasba Colony, Rais Amrohvi Colony, Orangi Town, Sohrab Goth, Mominabad, Metroville-III, Quaidabad and other peripheral locations. Clandestine hands were at work with ruthless ease and stretch. A timber market was set ablaze in Godhra, while several other shops and stalls were torched in other location of the city. The people in many low-income settlements were forced to leave their abodes without being able to collect even their belongings.

Many shopkeepers, vendors and petty labourers were scared away from working / operating in locations controlled by rival ethnic groups. At the surface of the muddle, the leadership expressed complete ignorance about the fugitives at work. Needless to say, the mayhem is not the first of its kind. The land, resources and socioeconomic space have been seriously contested between multiple powerful interest groups in Karachi. As a result, the social fault lines in the city have become so deep that its unified existence has been drastically jeopardised. In fact, it is now stretching to a point of no return. This scenario requires a holistic analysis to evolve a corresponding strategy for addressing these issues.

It is now a proven reality that Karachi has been divided along ethnic lines. The entry routes to the city have settlements of Pukhtoons and Afghans, who exercise considerable influence in managing routine neighbourhood affairs. Some of these settlements have existed since the 1970s, when the Pukhtoons came to Karachi in search of employment in the newly flourishing construction industry. Known for their capacity to work hard even in petty labour jobs, the scope of their settlements was bright. With the expansion of road sector and intercity linkages, the Pukhtoons specialised in the operations of inter- and intra-city transport sector.

The Pukhtoons also successfully ventured into transportation of goods, supply of sand through trucks / dumpers to construction sites, building component manufacturing yards, para transport like auto rickshaws and taxis, trading and retailing of dry fruits, wholesaling and retailing of cold drinks and ice slabs, and many other businesses. Pukhtoon hawkers, watchmen, security guards, cobblers and pushcart vendors are a commonplace observation in the streets and market places of Karachi. Over a period of time, they have nested in different urban locations, such as Frontier Colony, Qasba Colony, Banaras Colony, Ittehad Town (Baldia), Quaidabad, Lasbela, Sultanabad, Lyari, Sherpao Colony and many other locations.

However, there is a history of skirmishes and rioting that affected the peaceful coexistence of various communities in the city, especially in the low-income and service sector settlements. In December 1986, the infamous Sohrab Goth operation was conducted by the government to capture the alleged smugglers and drug peddlars. The government also intended to flush out support networks of these heinous rings. As a direct reaction, bloody riots broke out in Aligarh Colony and Orangi, and hundreds of innocent residents were massacred. There were many major and minor repeats of this tragic episode during the 1990s and later. The present chain of brutalities can also be attributed to the same trend.

A healthy city is where people from different colours, creeds, castes and ethnic backgrounds can coexist without any fear of communalism among their ranks. It is disappointing to note that many cities of Pakistan, including Karachi, are losing that texture of harmony. For example, Hyderabad has Latifabad and Qasimabad neighbourhoods that denote Urdu-speaking and native Sindhi population, respectively. Some smaller cities like Jhang and Gilgit are also fragmented along sectarian lines.

There are examples of this syndrome in other parts of the world too. Some of the international examples include Jerusalem, Mostar (Bosnia Herzegovina / Croatia), Nicosia (Turkish and Greek Cyprus) and Beirut (Lebanon). The residents of these cities continue to face the uneasy calm that injects undercurrents of trouble on various pretexts. A pleasant and congenial civic life appears to be a challenge in these peculiar contexts, but conscious efforts can bring about a great deal of difference.

Physical access is another important parameter. In the interplay of rival interest groups, a mentality of besieging the others evolves in order to outwit and pressurise them to subjugation. This tactical victory can only be achieved when control of access is acquired by one group and right to freely move is denied to the others. City planning and management agencies must ensure that this situation does not arise. In short, neighbourhoods should have multiple options of mobility without restraint.

The vehicular and pedestrian movement must be facilitated in any scenario where one group tries to overpower the others. Multiple accesses dilute the attempts of criminal groups; and assist the law-enforcement agencies, ambulances, fire tenders and other emergency vehicles to make ingress without interruption. To ensure this vital facility, civic agencies must carry out satellite image analysis followed by foot surveys. Where restrictions and handicaps are discovered, appropriate measures of urban design and transportation engineering must be employed to design and develop alternative mobility links.

Trauma control is another important matter. Various reasons contribute to this state of affairs. Killings, injuries, extortion, rapes, torture and mugging are some factors that are rampant in various Pakistani cities, especially Karachi. Ordinary helpless people get divided among the oppressors and the oppressed, because both the categories evolve from them. It is also interesting to note that the collateral damage is faced by the poor and downtrodden on both sides of the divide. The household psyche simply transforms into vindictive pursuits, setting aside reason and rationale of sorts.

Countless households now belong to this category that has no recourse to any social support or healing recourse. The political parties and splinter groups at the backdrop of this trauma do not pay any heed to bring normalcy and calm into the lives of their affected followers / sympathisers. It is also evident that many innocent souls have to face enormous damage because of these ghastly acts. Cold blooded murders of pushcart vendors in the Gulshan-e-Iqbal area of Karachi are a prime example in this regard.

Karachi needs a strict weapon control regime. Killing tools and machines are spread out and infiltrated into neighbourhoods and suburbs alike. It is feared that the nature and magnitude of illegal arms and ammunition in possession of warring factions are enough to cause a full-scale civil war. The police and other law-enforcement agencies may find it nearly impossible to control any skirmish that escalates beyond neighbourhood limits.

Karachi needs an effective weapon surrender programme under the aegis of military advisors. With modern intelligence tools and network, it may not be a technically unviable task. However, this initiative can only be expected to deliver when a potent and biding political consensus is build around the issue. This is a tough question to answer, given the clouds of mistrust that have lately engulfed the various political and power groups. At the same time, it cannot be swept under the carpet. Clandestine operations shall have to be stemmed and eventually diffused to evolve a lasting peace that this divided city essentially needs.

For the past many years, we had been consuming a large chunk of our meagre resources on producing PhDs, neglecting other important areas of education and technology development that are essential for rapid economic growth. During presentations at different fora, gross domestic product (GDP) of Muslim countries is compared with that of European and other developed countries, and a case is made that the progress made by the developed world is directly proportional to the higher number of PhDs produced there. During this period, the Higher Education Commission (HEC) successfully advocated this theme and attracted a huge amount of funds for running PhD programmes, both within and outside the country.

However, it is not higher education (PhD level) that has been able to turnaround the economy in both developed and fast developing countries, including Japan, South Korea, Singapore, etc; rather, it is re-engineering, innovation and use of skilled workforce, including technicians and supervisors, that has enabled these countries to make quick progress. In their early stages of development, these countries were not making investment in the development of technologies; still their products were competing well in the markets of the developed world, who were the main suppliers of these technologies.

Later, the suppliers raised the cost of technologies to make products from these newly industrial countries (NICs) non-competitive. At that point, Japan, South Korea and other NICs diverted resources to the development of indigenous technologies, high-tech manpower and basic research. This enabled them to remain competitive in the international market. In short, a well thought out strategy was devised by these countries, based on market and industrial needs. Following this approach, they attained the same level of development within 30-40 years that countries like the United Kingdom took nearly two centuries to attain. Similarly, the United States, Germany and other European countries -- which applied better management techniques -- attained similar level of development in 100-120 years.

It is worth mentioning here that most of the inventions in the UK, US and other Western countries were made by those who had low level of theoretical education, but were highly skilled in their respective fields. People like Thomas Edison, who invented commercial bulbs; James Watt, who invented steam engine; and the Write Brothers, who invented aeroplane, were not qualified scientists or engineers. There are numerous other examples that inventions and innovations by technical people like these were transformed into industrial and economic activities through either support of the government, philanthropists or friends and family members.

Initially, the education sector in countries like the UK and US had little linkages with technological or industrial development programmes. However, the need for such linkage arose later, when space technologies and nuclear technologies demanded a strong scientific base and high-tech manpower. The NICs, on the other hand, had adopted the route of development by switching from market and industrial needs to technological and scientific requirements. Adopting this approach, they stimulated industrialisation and achieved accelerated development as explained earlier. These NICs expanded their economies and exports first -- through re-engineering, application and adoption of technologies, and training of skilled workforce -- and later created demand for high-tech manpower and basic research.

Nations that are not focussed on economic expansion through intelligent use of human resources and selection of appropriate technologies cannot achieve such fast track development. For instance, India is producing a large number of PhDs, but is still unable to achieve the same level of progress as countries of South East Asia, where far lesser PhDs are produced, have. Even a medium-size company in a developed country or an NIC has a better annual turnover and exports compared with Pakistan. Unfortunately, we have not undertaken any formal study to establish the fact that the investment in PhD-level education will pay off in terms of economic development at an accelerated pace. Instead, it is just a slogan propagated without any sound basis.

In Pakistan, research is a neglected field because its impact on the economy is insignificant; therefore, the approach of producing PhDs without taking into consideration the industrial and other economic requirements is quite unrealistic. Following the model of NICs, we need to focus on programmes that are instrumental in the expansion of our stagnant economy. Unless a more pragmatic approach is adopted, the current rate of gross domestic product (GDP), export growth and revenue collection will not be able to solve the problems of unemployment and poverty for the majority of Pakistan's population.

It is, therefore, imperative to prioritise investment in programmes that stimulate economic activities. These include skilled manpower development to enhance efficiency and productivity in all sectors of the economy in general and agriculture and industrial sectors in particular; strengthening of accreditation, metrology, standards and quality infrastructure to ensure conformity of our goods and services with the international standards to stimulate exports; setting up of industrial extension centres to assist small and medium enterprises in product development, training, testing, etc to enhance their competitiveness; risk financing to attract investment in new technologies; re-structuring of research institutes to undertake need-oriented research in industry and agriculture; and diversifying the country's industrial base to access new markets and generate additional sources of income.

Once technological programmes successfully boost the economic expansion, it will absorb workforce of all categories. This has been the experience of both developed and fast developing countries, a reality that is unfortunately totally ignored in our policymaking and implementation. The sooner we follow these strategies, the better for our country's development. The National Quality Policy and Plan, approved by the Cabinet in 2004 after extensive consultation, and the export plan approved by the government in 2007, envisaging export enhancement and economic development, are facing serious implementation problems that require immediate attention.

The policy of spending limited resources on producing PhDs, who ultimately find their way abroad for more lucrative jobs, requires in-depth review. A balanced investment approach is, therefore, necessary not only at different levels of education, but also for other important areas of technological development. Moreover, PhD scholars must be retained and used effectively in projects and programmes that contribute to Pakistan's industrial and economic development.

Over the last six decades, Pakistan has experienced rapid population growth. The country's population grew at an annual average of 3.1 percent between 1951 and 1981, while its current annual population growth rate is 1.8 percent. This rate is higher than the South Asian average of 1.4 percent, according to a World Bank report published this year. Consequently, the country's population has increased to more than five-fold since its independence, from 33.8 million in 1951 to about 170 million at present, making Pakistan the sixth most populated country in the world.

Pakistan's population is expected to increase to about 200 million by 2020 at the current rate of population growth, according to an estimate given in the Economic Survey of Pakistan 2007-08. By 2045, it is expected to double, making Pakistan the fifth or fourth most populated country in the world. This calls for reducing the country's annual population growth rate, which should at least be brought on par with the South Asian average of 1.4 percent, if not less than that.

Checking the population growth rate is also important for addressing socioeconomic imbalances created over the years, which have resulted in high incidence of poverty, high rate of unemployment, growing income inequalities, and inadequate education and health care facilities. According to Human Development Report, 0.25 million children die annually due to unclean drinking water and unhygienic sanitation. Similarly, only 54 percent of Pakistani children currently get immunised through vaccinations, according to the United Nations Fund for Children (UNICEF).

A fast growing population is a big hurdle to achieving overall national development goals of sustained economic growth, poverty alleviation and improving essential socioeconomic indicators. In order to check the increasing population growth rate, reducing the fertility rate is vital. Successive Pakistani governments have been trying to reduce these rates since the launching of the Public Welfare Programme in the mid-1960s.

The fertility rate -- the number of children born per woman in the reproductive age -- has reduced from five per woman in the 1960s to 3.8 per woman in 2005-06. It is still much higher than the fertility rate of 2.1 per woman, the standard replacement level of population. The government plans to achieve this rate by 2020, according to the Economic Survey of Pakistan 2007-08. The use of contraceptives is estimated to be as low as 26 percent, and it needs to be enhanced to reduce the population growth rate.

Extremely low allocation of funds and lack of commitment to address the issue of fertility rate are the prime reasons for the high population growth rate in Pakistan. During the first eight years of the current decade, the average annual allocation for the health sector stood at only 0.58 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), according to the Economic Survey of Pakistan 2007-08. It is estimated that the annual expenditure on health in Pakistan is about $16 per person, of which the government contributes only $4.

The rapid increase in population also resulted in rapid urbanization, at a rate of about seven percent a year. The country's urban population was six million, or 17.8 percent of the total population, in 1951. Currently, it has increased to 57 million, or 32.5 percent of the total population. It also resulted in sprouting of slums, especially in big cities. Pakistan's population density also increased from 42.5 people per square kilometre in 1951 to 203 people per square kilometre at present. This is just an estimate and does not reflect much higher density in big cities and thickly-populated areas.

The rapid urbanisation overstretched the fragile infrastructure of housing, transportation, education, health care and community services, with the result that a good environment and facilities for quality life have remained elusive for the majority of the country's population. The rapid urbanisation also influenced political landscape, reshaped economic geography, and negatively impacted family social structure and individual behaviour.

A literate, skilled and educated population is an invaluable human resource for national development. The education sector has also suffered because of inadequate allocation of funds, only about 2.1 percent of GDP on average against the South Asian average of 3.5 percent. The overall literacy rate for population of 10 years and above, recorded at 43.9 percent in 1998, however, increased to 55 percent, (67 percent for males and 42 percent for females) in 2006-07, according to the Pakistan Social and Living Survey. The urban and rural literacy rates currently are 72 percent and 45 percent, respectively. However, the literacy rates in the four provinces are at variance. Achieving 100 percent literacy rate, besides improving the quality of education, is one of the biggest challenges for both the government and the private sector.

Pakistan's demography is also challenging to say the least. According to the population census of 1998, children below the age of 14 constituted bulk of Pakistan's population (43.4 percent). Those between 15 and 29 years accounted for 26.7 percent; those between 30 and 64 years for 26.3 percent; and those above 65 years for 3.5 percent. Over The country's demography has changed substantially over the last decade. Despite this change, about 70 percent of Pakistan's population is still young, under 30 years of age.

That is where the real challenge and opportunity is. The challenge is meeting educational, vocational training, employment and other socioeconomic needs of the population. The opportunity lies in using the latent potential of this young population for economic and social development. However, the basic question is how to meet the challenge and avail the opportunity? It remains a dilemma because of the inadequate progress made over the past six decades in developing human resource.

The socioeconomic imbalances currently faced by the society are a direct result of marginalising a big chunk of the population. In case the same trend persists, the fear of the youth becoming economically and socially marginalised once again on a larger scale in the foreseeable future is not unfounded. The consequences would be much bitter than anticipated. Some of them are already visible: social conflicts are on the rise and the 'jihadi' elements opposed to well established norms of a state have successfully exploited these weaker links.