The PPP-led ruling coalition that came to power after the February 18 elections has had to face multiple challenges, ranging from political to constitutional and social to economic. It is no secret that these problems were inherited by the new government and were not of its own making. Considering this, no one was expecting miracles in the Federal Budget 2008-09, announced on Wednesday by Finance Minister Syed Naveed Qamar. However, this did not hinder the government's economic managers -- who were assigned the difficult task of formulating the budget at a time when the country's fiscal, current account and trade deficits, as well as the inflation rate, were at an all-time high -- from resorting to populist measures. In an attempt to do so, not only have they set ambitious and unrealistic targets for the next fiscal, but also forgotten the most important objective of the budget: restoration of macro-economic stability through significant reduction of fiscal deficit; rationalisation of subsidies; reduction in current account deficit; and build up of foreign exchange reserves to a minimum of $12 billion.

One does not need to be a rocket scientist to forecast that the government will miserably fail to achieve this objective. First, it will be impossible for it to reduce fiscal deficit on account of some of the new initiatives, Benazir Income Support Programme to name just one, it plans to launch in the next fiscal. Second, reduction in current account deficit will remain a far cry unless the government keeps its expenditures within set limits, as well as ensures that revenue targets are met -- something that has never happened before in Pakistan's history. Third, while subsidies on POL products and electricity have been rationalised to a considerable extent, the agriculture-related ones have in fact been increased, in an apparent move to appease the PPP's diehard supporters living in rural areas. Fourth, build up of foreign exchange reserves to a minimum of $12 billion is unrealistic to say the least, simply because not enough measures have been proposed in the budget to restore the investors' confidence, and the industrial sector has not been given the same sort of incentives as have been to the agricultural sector.

In view of the above, the fiscal 'discipline' on which the finance minister laid stress time and again in his budget speech will remain an elusive dream -- unless the government opts for financial, rather than political, expediency. Had the government not assumed power just three months ago, one would not have hesitated to say that it is an election budget, especially considering the fact that most of the incentives have been reserved for a specific group that largely supports the major party in the ruling coalition.

In fact, the Federal Budget 2008-09 has brought to the fore the major ideological difference between the country's two largest political parties -- the PPP and the PML-N. While the latter doled out favours to industrialists -- mostly at the cost of farmers -- in the budgets presented during the two tenures of Mian Nawaz Sharif as prime minister, the latter has maintained its tradition of formulating pro-farmer budgets, knowing very well where its support base lies.

For discerning political and economic analysts, it is a clear indication that the ruling coalition is tearing apart -- either the PML-N was not consulted at any stage of the budget formulation process or it intentionally chose not to be associated with a budget based on "fudged figures", knowing very well that only more sufferings are in store for the nation. The fact that the strength of the Supreme Court has been increased to 29 from the current 18 further strengthens this belief, because the PML-N is strongly opposed to retaining the 'PCO judges' who will now be a part of the apex court even after the deposed judges have been restored.

Coming to specific details of the Federal Budget 2008-09, one cannot help saying that the revenue targets have been set ambitiously, while the expenditures have been underestimated. But this is not something unusual in Pakistan, or in other developing countries for that matter. Every government repeats this 'mistake' in the hope that it would be able to clear the financial mess before the next budget. However, success is rare and the next fiscal year normally comes with problems of its own, forcing the government to resort to more borrowings from both foreign and domestic sources, and depriving it of any opportunity to exercise economic sovereignty.

The total outlay of the Federal Budget 2008-09 is estimated at about Rs2,010.0 billion, implying that the government proposes to spend about Rs12,500 per person annually or Rs34.41 per person daily. This shows a substantial increase over the ongoing fiscal year, in which the government planned to spend Rs10,000 per person annually or Rs27.40 per person daily. The government's internal resources are estimated at Rs1,535.530 billion in the Federal Budget 2007-08, meaning that the government plans to raise -- through taxes, non-taxes and surcharges -- about Rs9,600 per person annually or Rs26.30 per person daily. This also shows a substantial increase over the ongoing fiscal year, in which the government planned to raise Rs7,100 per person annually or Rs19.45 per person daily.

As far as the positive features of the federal budget 2007-08 are concerned, 20 percent increase in salaries and pensions of government employees stands out. The minimum wage of workers has also been increased from Rs4,600 per month to Rs6,000, though it remains to be seen whether this is implemented in letter and spirit. Another positive aspect of the next fiscal year's budget is that the defence expenditure has not increased as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP). Even in terms of numbers, the defence budget has been increased by only about 7.5 percent -- from the ongoing fiscal year's Rs275.0 billion to Rs296.077 billion. This increase seems to be justifiable, considering the high inflation rate and the fact that India's defence expenditure alone is more than the total outlay of Pakistan's budget. However, many items that were earlier part of the defence budget are now financed from the civilian budget: pensions of retired armed personnel to cite just one example.

Unfortunately, the current budget for important social sector areas, such as education and health, has only been marginally increased (for education, from Rs24.147 billion to Rs24.622 billion; and for health, from Rs5.24 billion to Rs5.49 billion). In fact, it is not enough to even cater to the 20 percent increase in salaries of government employees working in these two sectors. This leads to only two conclusions: either the government will close down some of the existing educational institutions and health facilities or lay-off some of its employees working in the two sectors. This also makes it crystal clear that the government will not be able to achieve the Millennium Development Goals in at least these two areas.

In short, one can say that despite all the apparent good intentions of the government, the Federal Budget 2008-09 will only add to the existing problems of the masses. The government wants to curtail the fiscal deficit, which it must do, but acquiring more permanent and floating debt -- through sale of prize bonds, floating of new bonds and encouraging the people to invest in various savings' schemes -- is not the right way to go about it. Ultimately the interest on the newly acquired debt will have to be repaid by the people of this country and the poor will have to bear the major brunt. So, even if they are to accrue any benefit out of the relief measures announced in the next fiscal year's budget, it will be nullified by the additional taxes they will have to pay.

Moreover, encouraging the people to deposit whatever money they have with the banks and financial institutions -- instead of investing it in productive ventures -- may lead to economic stagnation and, ultimately, unprecedented unemployment. This is also a reversal of the previous government's policy of giving incentives to the housing sector, which is considered to be most appropriate for stimulating economic growth because of the number of industries involved in the construction of a house and its potential for employment generation. The government must remember that such abrupt policy changes may not go well with both foreign and local investors.

In a bid to woo the disenchanted masses, whose votes count for much, and present a populist budget, the government has made many promises that it will find difficult to keep as the year progresses. This becomes evident if one analyses the government's economic performance in the ongoing fiscal year, which ends on June 30. Because of an enormous increase in the current expenditure, the government has not only failed to ensure full utilisation of the funds allocated for development, but it also had to borrow heavily from both domestic and foreign sources to cater to the increasing current account deficit.

It is an established fact that whenever there is a massive shortfall in revenue generation or an abnormal increase in the current expenditure, the government is left with no choice but to curtail subsidies, the safety nets for the poor and the development expenditure. This has been a common practice in Pakistan for the last many years, but it has not stopped successive governments from allocating more and more resources for the uplift of masses under the banner of the Public Support Development Programme (PSDP). The development budget in the Federal Budget 2008-09 is estimated at Rs 550.0 billion, while the government is all set to fail to even spend Rs450.0 billion in the ongoing fiscal year.

First and foremost, from where are all the resources forthcoming to pay for the huge increases in the PSDP or the current expenditure? The budget framers, with all their sincerity of intent, have not identified the sources of the additional resources to be generated. Thus, it is obvious that ultimately the poor would have to bear the brunt of the monumental increase in the PSDP allocation -- in line with the commitments made under the World Bank-sponsored Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) -- in the form of indirect taxes. Is it not an irony that the enhanced PSDP allocation is actually supposed to benefit the very poor who would be burdened through these additional taxes?

The additional money spent for the people's 'development' in the last few years has so far not shown any tangible results. In this perspective, the government needs to lay more emphasis on quality than quantity. What is required is proper utilisation of the allocated resources and quality service-delivery for the downtrodden, not a mere increase in numbers. The same can be said about the subsidies announced in the next fiscal year's budget, as it seems highly improbable that they would actually benefit those for whom they are intended. Pakistan needs adequate and well-functioning safety nets for the poor, like those in place in other countries of the region; not one-off incentives like the Benazir Income Support Programme, under which .Rs1,000 per month will be more than three million 'qualifying' households.

To sum up, the targets set in the Federal Budget 2008-09 can at best be described as ambitious. The government would have to perform really well; otherwise, very soon the shortfall in revenue would lead it to resort to anti-people measures, such as overburdening taxation. Even if the government meets the revenue shortfall through bank borrowings, the people would have to suffer, as they would have to pay the interest on the borrowed money in the years to come.

Every government thinks it is better than every previous government. This applies to governments around the world and Pakistan is no exception. Indeed, in Pakistan, every incoming government spends much of its time proclaiming how much better it is than its predecessors -- especially its immediate predecessor -- and telling us what a bunch of crooks its predecessors were. Then, in due course (the duration of which can vary from a few months to a decade or more), along comes the next government and the whole merry-go-round starts again.

This merry-go-round would be funny if it weren't so depressing. Is this what good governance has been reduced to in this country? Running down your predecessors? Every government thinks it's the cat's whiskers, the best thing to come along since sliced bread. By corollary, every government thinks its predecessors were an unmitigated disaster who did nothing for the people and ended up leaving the treasury empty.

We can pretty much take all this as a given. The question, however, is: what do the people, that is, the public, for whose benefit every government vociferously claims all its policies and actions are designed, have to say about governments and politics?

Well, one of the things they say is that politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other. That's a pretty neat trick, if one can pull it off. In the United States, they've made a whole industry out of it, complete with spin doctors, publicists and lobbyists.

People say there is no sincerity like a politician telling a lie. This also applies to government spokesmen. Some of them sound so sincere that, if they were a law firm, one could call them Messrs Sincerity, Sincerity & Sincerity. But if an honest politician is one who, when he is bought, stays bought, what is an honest spokesman? Somebody who spends his time issuing clarifications? Some 'clarifications' seek to clarify things that have never been said by the media in the first place. This type of clarification is especially popular among the bureaucratic crowd in Islamabad.

Following the path of least resistance is what makes politicians and rivers crooked. But every politician, no matter how dishonourable, considers himself an honourable man. In the United Kingdom, they even attach the prefix 'Right Honourable' to politicians in government, though many ministers in that country would make slippery eels look like pillars of the community. We, in this country, too, have more than our fair share of slippery customers.

Back in the early 1950s, we had a pretty strong currency with an exchange rate of three rupees to the dollar. By the end of the 1960s, the rate had crept up somewhat, but the rupee was still not doing too badly all things considered. Then, in the early 1970s, the ZA Bhutto government hit us with a staggering 137 percent devaluation in one fell swoop, sending the rupee plummeting to a new low.

January 8, 1982, saw the rupee standing at 9.90 to the dollar. The next day, the Ziaul Haq government's redoubtable finance minister, Ghulam Ishaq Khan, announced that the rupee would no longer be pegged to the dollar under a fixed exchange rate mechanism, but would now be allowed to "float" against a "basket of currencies".

Some float it turned out to be. Sinking would be more like it. The ensuing years saw the rupee sink and sink and sink, as it fell, first, to 19 to the dollar, then 21 to the dollar, then 29 to the dollar, then 32 to the dollar, then 36 to the dollar, then 44 to the dollar, then 56 to the dollar, then more than 60 to the dollar. Today, it stands at almost 70 rupees to the dollar -- an exchange rate which some government spokesmen try to make light of when questioned about it by the media. Any more such attempts to make light of the plummeting rupee and we can all go home.

It is said that a diplomat is someone who can tell you to go to hell in such a way that you will look forward to the trip. We've had some notable diplomats in this country over the years. One well-known Pakistani former foreign minister was said to speak nine languages. Or was it 10? You need somebody like that when you want to tell the Pakistani people, preferably in Greek or Serbo-Croat, that their country's foreign policy is an unqualified success.

Federal regulatory agencies, on their other hand, are self-cancelling. This is especially true in countries like Pakistan where each passing year tends to see the creation of more regulatory agencies. If it's not IRSA, it's NEPRA. If it's not NADRA, it's PATRA. Rumour has it that there are now even plans to create a Regulatory Agency for Regulatory Agencies or RARA for short. If that ever happens, we can all go around waving flags and shouting "Rah! Rah! Rah!" -- a chant that would be music to the ears of the government of the day.

It's budget time these days. But we should remember that, from a historical perspective, all pecuniary matters go back to the land. Primitive societies, not knowing the use of hard cash, paid their debts with heads of cattle. Indeed, the word 'pecuniary' is derived from the Latin word 'pecus', meaning cattle. Wouldn't it be nice if we, in this country, could pay our foreign debts with cattle too, instead of with money? What a sight that would make: millions of cattle suddenly turning up outside the IMF's and World Bank's headquarters in Washington.

Balridge's Law says that if governments knew what they were getting into, they would never get into anything. Socrates had it right when he said: "No man undertakes a trade he has not learned; yet everyone thinks himself sufficiently qualified for the hardest of all trades -- that of government." Some governments believe that the less you do, the less there is that can go wrong, on the theory that it's hard to notice what isn't there.

Dr Mohammad A Qadeer is professor emeritus at Canada's prestigious Queens University, where he has taught Urban and Regional Planning for more than three decades. He is also a fellow of the Canadian Institute of Planners. Born in Rang Mahal, inside Shah Alami Gate of Lahore's famous Walled City, he was only 12 at the time of the subcontinent's partition. He has some horrendous memories of those times, because his family became a refugee in its own city.

After doing his master's in Sociology from University of the Punjab, Dr Qadeer studied Community Planning at University of Rhode Island, the United States, and finally did his PhD in Urban Planning from Columbia University, US, in 1971. He is a tireless research scholar, an intellectual and a prolific writer. In addition to scores of research papers, studies and newspaper articles, he has three books to his credit.

Dr Qadeer's first book, entitled Lahore: Urban Development in the Third world, focuses on policy prescriptions for development of the city as a metropolis. He followed it with his second book, entitled Towns and Villages in Canada, which he co-authored with Gerald Hodge. His latest book, entitled Pakistan: Social and Cultural Transformations in a Muslim Nation, charts the country's social history since independence, and shows how modernisation and Islamic revival are simultaneously acting as agents of social change here.

Dr Qadeer's work on modern multi-cultural cities and urban planning has been termed groundbreaking. Besides teaching, he has been an advisor to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), the Planning Commission of Pakistan and the Institute of Development Economics. His wife, Susan, is a psychological counsellor at a downtown Toronto college. They have three children. The News on Sunday interviewed Dr Qadeer in Toronto recently. Excerpts follow:

The News on Sunday: You started your career as a sociologist, but soon switched over to Urban and Community Planning. Was there any specific reason for this change in focus?

Mohammad A Qadeer: This was a conscious decision. Sociology involved theorising, while I was more interested in application of knowledge to public policy, for making a real difference in the lives of people. However, my grounding in Sociology has provided me with a better insight into real life situations.

TNS: Most people equate modernisation with westernisation. Do you agree with this perception?

MAQ: Modernisation is a process of the industrial and post-industrial times. It means the application of technology for mass production, the spread of cash economy, specialisation by occupations and division of labour. These economic changes are accompanied by social and cultural changes, such as urbanisation, rule of 'rules' rather than that of 'people', reliance on science for solving human problems, representative government, respect for human rights and civic order. Obviously, these characteristics first appeared in the West; therefore, there is a considerable overlap between the two. However, modernisation does not have to be a recreation of the Hollywood-projected lifestyle that we popularly associate with westernisation.

TNS: Is Pakistan moving towards modernisation?

MAQ: In my book Pakistan: Social and Cultural Transformations in a Muslim Nation, my primary finding is that the Pakistani society is modernising very fast materially, but its values, norms and behaviours continue to be informed by an agrarian moral order. A gap is developing between the material and non-material aspects of our culture. Our society is urbanised in its mode of production; even the agriculture now depends on chemicals and machinery, as well as requires a commercial mindset to be successful. Mobility has increased and not many sons follow the occupations of their fathers, yet our imagined ideals and values continue to be steeped in the social system of the agrarian and tribal origins. Our family life has changed, but our ideas about what it could or should be have not; and the results are visible in extravagant marriage ceremonies, unaffordable dowries, subordination of women and other social problems. This cultural lag is currently being felt acutely in Pakistan. We repeatedly say that our problem is feudalism. What we mean by this is that feudal mores and agrarian ideas of the right and wrong are obstructing our country's progress, but feudalism is not confined only to feudal lords -- there is a feudal is in each one of us, in the form of our mentality and values.

TNS: How do you view the recent Islamic revival in Pakistan?

MAQ: Islamic revivalism is another force in Pakistan. Sections of urban middle classes are the real forces behind this revival. Doctors, engineers and other professionals graduating from universities are in the forefront of Islamic revival in their personal life. Undoubtedly, public piety has increased. The social system that the revivalists idealise is in conflict with the emerging economic organisation; therefore, political Islam has become a major force. The society is being divided culturally and socially among three classes: 'modern', 'traditional' and 'Islamic'. These classes are splitting along religious and cultural lines, thus straining the society's cohesion.

TNS: Do you agree that Islamic societies tend to be stagnant?

MAQ: There is some truth in this; but in one sense, they are not stagnant. There is a great material and even imitative modernisation in some Islamic societies. Saudi Arabia and Gulf states have transformed since the early 1970s. They have built universities and educated their younger generations, but their ethos remains tribal. The tensions between their material life and social organisation and beliefs are tearing them apart.

TNS: What are your views on Musharraf's bid for 'enlightened moderation' in Pakistan?

MAQ: Undoubtedly, the Pakistani society needs to promote tolerance and respect for divergent beliefs. Musharraf's slogan of 'enlightened moderation' was an attempt to institute corresponding values, but it remained only a slogan, meant largely for the consumption of his Western supporters. It was not followed by a sustained propagation of the corresponding values in the media. Even as a slogan, it did not address the majority of Pakistanis who do not understand English. As a result, the society has witnessed rise of extremism during the Musharraf rule.

TNS: Why have we failed to create a tolerant society?

MAQ: There is no doubt that sectarianism and intolerance have increased since the 1970s. The former is directly linked with the Islamisation of the society, strongly promoted by General Ziaul Haq in the 1980s. As the society has become more religious, at least in orientation, the notion that 'my Islam is the true Islam and others are deviants, if not infidels' has gained currency. The road to intolerance was laid when the state's powers were used to settle religious differences, by declaring Ahmadis as non-Muslims. Since then the state's authority is sought to advance sectarian agendas, and the intolerance of 'others' has come to be aligned with the economic and political interests of individuals and groups. Sectarian stereotyping is even used to mobilise support in political rivalries. If you want to knock down your boss, you could brand him or her as untrustworthy on the ground that he or she is of this or that ethnicity or sect. Our textbooks are now full of conspiracy theories, as well as intolerant views about other religions and nationalities. Since the 1970s, our children have grown on this 'intellectual' diet.

TNS: How can we build a more tolerant society in Pakistan?

MAQ: To build a more tolerant society, we have to begin with the state vigorously protecting the rights of minorities and persecuting those who advocate violence against others' beliefs from the pulpits and in the classrooms. Our colleges and universities have become arenas for political, religious and ethnic battles in which students and faculty form rival gangs. These institutions will have to be retrieved from all kinds of ideologues, and an environment of debate and discussion will have to be restored. The media should also have a code of ethics to air divergent views and promote mutual tolerance.

TNS: How do you view the current state of city planning in Pakistan? Where did we go wrong?

MAQ: City planning in Pakistan currently suffers from many splits and imbalances. Within our resources, we need to lay a floor of common services for everybody in a city. A city is a community in which the fate of anyone is tied with the fate of all. Sanitation, waste disposal, water supply, efficient street and road network, and public facilities for all make a liveable city. All these facilities and services require rule of rules, sensible laws, good governance, and an efficient land and housing market. Building of monuments or protection of car ownership should not be the yardstick to measure planning in Pakistani cities. I believe that building 10,000 public latrines, with small user charge, will do far more good in cleaning up big cities than any grandiose plans of beautifying them. Similarly, mega projects, such as light rail line in Lahore, may be more harmful than beneficial. Instead, dedicated bus lanes and pedestrian as well as bicycle paths will help solve transport problems in big cities and make them liveable. All this requires a modern and public-spirited mindset, not imitative modernism.

TNS: Why have we failed to get a government responsive to the needs and aspirations of the people?

MAQ: Pakistani governments, both elected and military, have been indifferent to the needs of the people. Pakistani politics is personality driven. Each ruling group tends to seek power to reward its 'tribe', be it military or political parties. The people's welfare calls for rule of law, fairness of public institutions, accountability to clients and good governance. It has to be impersonal and institutional, to some extent bureaucratic for a nation of more than 160 million, and not based on connections and who-knows-whom. What will bring about such a government is known to everyone. In short, just anointing another 'king' through elections is not the sort of government that will bring about peace, order and prosperity.

TNS: How do you view the recent lawyers' movement in Pakistan?

MAQ: The lawyers' movement has certainly shaken the entrenched government of Pervez Musharraf. It has been a ray of hope for political change, yet movements cannot build institutions. They can at best bring down the moth-eaten structures, but the task of rebuilding is of a different scope. Movements cannot do that; they can at best articulate expectations. It would not be out of place to remind that the lawyers' movement is very much in the tradition of Pakistan, where the people react to bad governments and, thus, no government lasts for more than seven to 10 years, no matter how solid it looks.

TNS: Poverty and unemployment are on the rise in Pakistan, and so are suicides. Given the financial constraints, how can we improve the living conditions of the common people?

MAQ: Poverty is in our so-called 'genes', because we are a country of exploding population and low productivity. Now the absence of law and order is compounding our problems, yet we need not drive people to suicides and desperation. We need a modest social welfare system, and sustenance allowances for the jobless, widows and displaced. However, the people's living conditions can be improved only through efficient public education and health, affordable transport, shelter, public facilities, pedestrian cities, freedom from the tyranny of police and bureaucracy, a regime of citizens' rights, etc. Other countries with poor resources, such as Cuba and China before the 1970s, have managed to lay a floor under their people. We can also do this, but only if we can break out of our agrarian mindset.

(The writer is a retired civil servant, now settled in Canada.

Email: zubairmasood@hotmail.com)

The latest American air strike on 'militant targets' in Mohmand Agency has indicated just how little has changed despite the recent change of guard in Islamabad. Notwithstanding the more strident rhetoric emanating from the Foreign Office asserting Pakistan's sovereignty, the fact of the matter is that the relationship between Pakistan and the United States has changed little since February 18.

This is not to downplay the reestablishment of some semblance of democracy in the country, but rather to point out just how deeply implicated Pakistan's ruling class is in the grand imperial project being forged by Washington in the greater west Asian region. By ruling class I mean the military establishment, because civilian politicians now nominally running the government have never really set foreign and strategic policy goals, and still don't. The Pentagon and the American military high command retain direct contacts with their Pakistani counterparts, with the Foreign Office acting as little more than an information clearing house.

The problem of course is that the post-election era was being heralded as one in with American dictates would be resisted, and a new policy vis-a-vis 'extremism' was said to have been formulated. The Awami National Party (ANP), in particular, has gone through pains to tell the world that the use of force against 'militants' would be the absolute last resort; and the emphasis would instead be on dialogue, and integrating the tribal Pakhtun belt into the social and political mainstream.

The detail that the ANP typically avoids mentioning is that the US is providing billions of dollars in aid, which will be directed towards the building of physical and social infrastructure in the tribal belt, reconstituting political institutions, and eliminating the ills of violence and drugs. In other words, the 'new' policy has met with the approval of the imperial patron and this can only mean that it does not mark a fundamental departure from the modus operandi adopted since 2001.

However, it is worth reiterating that the new regime in Islamabad has made a demand from the US to temper the policy of wielding the stick by dangling a carrot here and there, and this is an indication, however limited, of the benefits of a representative as opposed to a dictatorial government. If the ANP and the federal government manage to isolate some groups in the troubled region (and perhaps just as important, those elements of the establishment still playing dirty games), the incursions by American war planes will decrease.

But unfortunately a possibly token lessening of the violence is the best that can be hoped for so long as America sticks around and the military establishment remains unaccountable to the wider public. And this means that polarisation in the Pakhtun society will become more acute as more and more people start to take sides in a conflict that is increasingly difficult to stay aloof from.

On the one hand, the anger and resentment against imperialism and Pakistan's colonial army will mean that those who propagate millenarian violence will continue to be afforded the social space to do so. On the other hand, there will be those who whether in hatred or fear of millenarian groups will end up supporting the authorities. Both of these represent marginal opinions, and of course it is not always clear whether these are really two poles or two sides of the same coin.

The vast majority of Pakhtuns are caught up in what now appears to be an epic battle for the soul of the Pakhtun culture. There is what is called the tribal culture in which violence is considered a way of life, a modernist interpretation of Pakhtunwali initiated by Badshah Khan and his Khudai Khidmatgar movement, and a variety of shades in between. How these various interpretations of Pakhtun culture are articulated with Islam -- and most importantly, its radical political variant -- is of course the crucial question in the current conjuncture.

Numerous scholars have argued that the phenomenon of jihad during the Afghan war of the 1980s cannot be understood without recourse to the history of Pakhtun nationalism. While until recently it was widely believed that secular nationalist traditions among the Pakhtuns had been fatally undermined by the rise of 'Islamist' movements, the recent general election in Pakistan proved that secular nationalism is well and truly alive within the wider Pakhtun society.

It is, of course, known to those who have followed the unfolding disaster in Afghanistan that the conflict in that country has been fought along ethnic / linguistic lines as much as anything else. The Taliban are essentially a Pakhtun force that was opposed by the western-backed Northern Alliance, a conglomeration of Hazara, Tajik and other minority ethnic groups.

This is not to suggest that qualitative changes have not taken place in the Pakhtun society over the past three decades, but only to point out that these changes have been imposed from above and do not necessarily reflect organic trends in the society, and that the contradictions and tensions reflected in the ongoing war within the Pakhtun society must be understood in all of their complexity.

In any case, what is clear is that it is very simplistic to posit that what has transpired in the Pakhtun society over the past three decades is a monolithic trend that has magically displaced all other trends that came before. In other words, even if one is to take at face value that there now exists a culture of jihadi militancy in the Pakhtun society, the active and passive resistance that exists in the Pakhtun society to the machinations of imperialism and both the Afghani and Pakistani states is not necessarily motivated by jihad. Even if it is on the face of it, if one reads between the lines strands of secular Pakhtun nationalism surface.

What can be known for certain is that the battle for the soul of the Pakhtun culture must ultimately be fought among the Pakhtuns, rather than the outsiders. The Americans, in particular, are guilty of first telling the world and Pakhtuns themselves that the Pakhtun society is an Islamic one prone to millenarian violence, and then later deciding that the Islamic streak in the Pakhtun society needed to be made more moderate. Whatever happens, there is a lot riding on this battle.

Budget-makers of the new government, either consciously or unconsciously, have followed the American model of economic development, instead of the European one, while dealing with different economic classes within the country. European countries in general and Scandinavian countries in particular deplore the idea that people should remain mired in poverty. Therefore, they have initiated a number of welfare programmes to help those lagging behind, enabling them to move up both economically and socially. They also resent the sight of thee rich staying at the top and, thus, impose high taxes on them to redistribute wealth and income in their societies. On the contrary, our successive governments since 1962, following the American approach of free-for-all meritocracy, started benefitting the rich through their economic policies.

The Federal Budget 2008-09 is reflective of the American approach of restless uncertainties of market-driven models. Our budget-makers could have followed the European approach that inherently deplores extremes of wealth and poverty. In the European view, social stability is desirable and if a certain amount of inflexibility is needed to underpin it, that is a price worth paying to avoid the perpetual class conflicts and restless uncertainties of market-driven models. In this context, it is saddening to note that our financial wizards have resorted in the next financial year's budget to promoting free-market economy and privatising strategic national assets, which will have disastrous results for the poorer segments of society. The tilt of the entire budgetary scheme, it seems, is towards promoting the interests of the rich.

Our policy-makers could have learnt a lot from Nordic countries that are emerging far more vibrantly, both socially and economically, in comparison with the United States. At this juncture of history, Pakistan needs class stability to avoid chaos, civic strife, lawlessness and religious obscurantism. Two new studies in The Economist confirm that if one compares the incomes of children with those of their parents, or considers for how long people in one income group stay there, Nordic countries emerge as far more mobile than the US. Britain shows less class stability than its northern neighbours, but it is still much closer to them than it is to the US.

The authors ranked countries on a scale from one to zero, with one meaning no mobility at all (a child's income is identical to his to her parents) and zero meaning perfect mobility (a child's income bears no relation to his or her parents). Nordic countries score around 0.2 for sons, Britain 0.36 and the US 0.54. This means that a son's earnings are closer to that of his father in the US than in Britain or Nordic countries. These figures are roughly in line with the conclusions of other studies, though they have the advantage of using standardised data, thereby minimising problems of definition that usually bedevil cross-country comparisons.

The biggest finding of the studies, however, is not about overall social mobility, but about mobility at the bottom. This perhaps is the most distinctive feature of Nordic societies. About three-quarters of sons born into the poorest fifth of the population in Nordic countries in the late 1950s had moved out of that category by the time they were in their early 40s. In comparison, only just over half of American men born at the bottom (into the poorest fifth) moved out of that category by the time they were in their early 40s. This is another respect in which the British has more in common with the Nordics than the Americans: almost 70 percent of its poorest sons escaped from poverty within a generation.

The Nordic countries are also distinct in one other way: the sons born at the bottom earn roughly the same as those born a rung above them (the second-poorest fifth). In other words, Nordic countries have almost completely snapped the link between the earnings of parents and children at and near the bottom. The same is not true for the US. Social mobility at middle-income levels is almost similar everywhere. In fact, it is a bit higher in most European countries, but not by much. That partly explains why the Americans think that their society is more mobile than it actually is -- the middle classes set the political agenda and enjoy genuine mobility. It also explains why only a few Europeans appreciate the movement up and down the income ladder, because much of it takes place off their radar screen.

The obvious explanation for greater mobility in Nordic countries is their tax and welfare systems that, especially in comparison with those in the US, make a deliberate effort to help the children of the poor to do better than their parents. One might expect social mobility and economic flexibility to go together -- in fact, to be two sides of the same coin. But to the extent that redistribution is an explanation, it implies the opposite -- social mobility is a product of high public spending, a bit like the low incidence of poverty or longer life expectancy (on both counts, European countries do better than the US). But greater public spending also tends to be associated with lesser economic flexibility, which is why Nordic countries have sought to limit the more arthritis-inducing features of their tax-and-spending programmes.

Yet redistributive fiscal policies alone cannot bring about such results. If they could, Nordic countries would not do as well as they did -- their welfare states are not appreciably more generous than Britain's. The other part of the explanation seems to be their superior education systems. Education has long been recognised as the most important single trigger of social mobility -- and all four Nordic countries do unusually well in the school-appraisal system developed by the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

That in turn may explain why the bigger continental European countries, notably France, Germany and Italy, are not as mobile as the Nordic ones. With relatively poor education systems, they are bound to perform more like Britain. But that still makes them socially (if not economically) more flexible than the US. For Europe, the secrets of greater social mobility are: 1) tough redistribution policies that particularly benefit those at the bottom; and 2) especially in Nordic countries, a supple and less class-ridden education system, running from top to bottom. Our economic wizards could learn something from this, but for them it is more important to go for the free-for-all American economic model. Education in Pakistan is not only expensive, but also poor in quality.

If we judge our policies in the perspective of these studies, it is more than obvious that the Federal Budget 2008-09 is totally oblivious of redistributive fiscal policies and welfare programmes for social mobility. The poor have been given the so-called 'economic relief package' as a charity. Even this relief is only of cosmetic nature and there is nothing in the policies or the budget that aims at helping the poor to move upwards. Education still gets the lowest priority in our state policies. The federal and the provincial governments must realise that it is not only spending more money on education that matters, but how to use the entire system as an effective tool for social mobility.

There is a complete lack of understanding of this perception on the part of our rulers and the result is that the marginalised segments of society are condemned to remain mired in abject poverty and their children will have no chance to move up, because education is either not available to them or is of no practical use. The Federal Budget 2008-2009 is yet another routine exercise of balancing the books (that too by window-dressing). We need meaningful redistribution policies that specifically benefit those at the bottom. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the next fiscal year's budget to achieve this end.

(The writers are leading tax consultants who also teach at Lahore University of Management Sciences.

Email:

lahorelaw@hotmail.com)

Focus of growth: consumption or production?

"No relief for the poor sections of society," was the instant reaction of most of the Pakistanis after hearing the budget speech on the evening of June 11, 2008. The figures released by the government prove beyond any doubt that the so-called 'wonderful economic performance' of the Pervez Musharraf-Shaukat Aziz era do not mean that the desirable economic transformation has been achieved -- it is still a far cry.

The analyses done by independent economists and observers reveal that the foundations of 'wonderful economic performance' were laid largely on external assistance. Growth after 9/11 is in fact attributable to generous lending and debt-rescheduling by the international financial institutions (IFIs), and remittances by expatriate Pakistanis (which currently constitute about four percent of gross domestic product). Since 9/11, the expatriate Pakistanis have remitted almost $30 billion.

It is an undeniable fact that previous government failed to introduce fundamental economic restructuring, required to ensure the sustainability of the current donor-induced consumer-oriented growth. Musharraf and his economic wizards never paid due attention to production-oriented growth and to making the economy self-reliant. It appears the present government has also decided to follow the same policies.

Growth without equality

The economic indicators, as projected in the Economic Survey 2008 and in the budget speech, are alarming. The figure of increase in per capita income by $500 may be correct, yet the common people are still waiting to enjoy any benefits of the 'wonderful economic performance' of the Musharraf-Aziz era. Insurmountable inflation is making life harder and harder for them. The cost of living is becoming unbearable. There is a general consensus that inflation is twice as high as quoted by official quarters. The extremes of wealth and poverty are squeezing out a true middle class -- a sizeable segment is being pushed below the poverty line on daily basis. The Federal Budget 2008-09 testifies to the thinking of elitists, who believe in 'growth' without equality. Their definition of 'wonderful economic performance' excludes any share for the country's poor.

Because inequalities are growing, everyone is not reaping the benefits of the 'wonderful economic performance'. Profit-making by the stock market and the real estate sector are reflective of the non-budgetary support given to the federal government by the US because of its role in the so-called 'war on terror'. The growth in economy is largely due to import of consumer goods, boom in stock market due to speculative transactions and consumer-oriented spending.

The agricultural sector, which is mainstay of Pakistan's economy productivity, has in fact nose-dived, resulting in unemployment and frustration. Similarly, the manufacturing sector has registered the lowest growth rate in the last one decade. The reality is that due to rising inflation and increase in international prices of POL products, the common people are finding it increasingly difficult to afford even food items. What makes the situation worst is the persistence of wasteful non-development expenditures.

The government has earmarked in the Federal Budget 2008-09 Rs495.095 billion for 'Servicing of Domestic Debt', Rs64.077 billion for 'Servicing of Foreign Debt' and Rs96.185 billion for 'Foreign Loan Repayments'. Do we still need any further proof to show that our rulers are wasting national resources on non-development and wasteful expenditures? In short, they have not yet learnt to live within the available means. It is because of wasteful expenditures on current account and deficit financing that there emerges an artificial lack of funds for investing in social sector projects that benefit the poor.

Poverty in Pakistan is a growing concern, because nearly one-quarter of the population is officially classified as 'poor'. As a measure of support, the government plans to introduce targeted subsidies of Rs1,000 per month for three million 'qualifying' households, gradually increasing to five million, under the Benazir Income Support Programme in the next fiscal year's budget. Targeted direct cash transfer schemes are a good start, but they usually address only a small aspect of a holistic universal social security system. Such fragmented schemes in developing countries like ours prove to be merely promotional 'poverty alleviation' schemes; when electoral need is addressed, they gradually vanish.

Social security is based on a simple truth: secure families build secure communities, and secure communities build secure societies. Greater social cohesion helps prevent crime, conflict and a range of social ills. It also helps overcome economic, social and structural barriers to growth and development. It is the sense of safety provided by social security strategies that transforms into peace and development, through safeguards against hardships and catastrophes in the event of shocks. The United Nations Human Rights declaration lists social security as a basic human right. Being a signatory to the declaration, Pakistan must treat social security as a fundamental human right of its population.

The Constitution of Pakistan holds the right to social security as a basic citizen right. The 1973 Constitution prescribes in chapter 2, article 38(d), a role for the state in terms of promoting the social and economic well-being of its people as "The State shall provide basic necessities of life, such as food, clothing. housing, education and medical relief, for all such citizens, irrespective of sex, caste, creed or race, as are permanently or temporarily unable to earn their livelihood on account of infirmity, sickness or unemployment." Moreover, the preceding article 38(c) of the 1973 Constitution prescribes to "provide for all people employed in the service of Pakistan or otherwise social security by compulsory social insurance or other means." Despite equality and social justice being an essential component of the Objectives Resolution of 1949 and the 1973 Constitution, it has never been implemented.

The current poverty and exclusion situation in Pakistan calls for a determined effort by all relevant stakeholders, to formulate and take forward a comprehensive social security scheme for implementation. Besides low-income and chronic livelihood stresses, the socio-economic environment in Pakistan is replete with risk; for example, health and economic shocks are the most common risks facing households. According to a recent survey, nearly two-thirds of low-income households have been affected by one or more severe shocks at some point in the last three years. Most of these shocks were specific to the individual or the household, but there were also many shocks affecting the entire community, region or country.

Among the shocks specific to the individual or the household, health-related shocks were the most common (55 percent), while family matters (divorce, etc) constituted only four percent. Among the shocks affecting the entire community, region or country, the most common shock was economic -- relating to changes in price and labour market conditions (28 percent). Natural disasters, agricultural shocks, and law and order were reported at seven, four and three percent, respectively, of all the shocks reported by the surveyed households. The average adverse event had a total cost of Rs14,000 in direct and indirect losses, including lost income, as reported by the respondents.

This amount equals to more than one-third of average annual household expenditures, or five months of income from daily labour. Coping with shocks cost the ultra-poor on average 54 percent of their annual expenditures. Nine percent of all shocks were so severe that coping costs exceeded household annual expenditures. Coping with a health shock cost families Rs13,000 on average in health care costs and lost income. However, family-related shocks were the most costly in the survey, with average costs per event about Rs108,000 and Rs42,000 for property disputes and marriages, respectively.

Social security is a set of public measures that a government takes to protect its citizens from the risk of economic and social distress. Social security is a means to transfer the burden of risk management from the individual to the society as a whole. Universal provision of social security is the foundation of a welfare state and the concept of social citizenship -- social rights based on citizenship and not on performance in the market -- is its hallmark. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) has set minimum standards in this regard in its Social Security Convention of 1952, identifying nine areas for social insurance -- medical care and benefits in case of sickness, unemployment, old age, work injury, family, maternity, invalidity, widowhood and death.

Social security is rights-based and meant to be provided to all those in need at all times. It is holistic and integrated, responding to articulated needs, and can be politically radical aiming at social empowerment and rights. It can promote economic growth and several of the Millennium development Goals (MDGs). On the other hand, targeted approaches, such as the Benazir Income Support Programme, are usually short-lived. However, such programmes are a popular form of poverty mitigation with governments, as well as those international organisations that financially support these programmes in return of political acceptability for market reforms. The short-term approach of extending targeted subsidies results in rollback of social policies from universal coverage concepts, stepping down to safety nets and even further to targeting the poor. It is usually residualist, paternalistic and conservative; and causes dependency and throws scarce resources down the drain.

Currently, a few social security schemes, albeit limited in scope and size, exist in Pakistan. They can be divided into formal programmes, such as social insurance scheme for the labour force, and general welfare programmes, such as those targeted to improve the lot of the most deprived segments of population. Prevalent social security structures are fragments and have several limitations. Under the patchwork of social security schemes only three percent of the poor are partially covered, leaving 97 percent without their right to social security, akin to gradual abdication of social responsibility. These fragmented programmes are faced with problems of inefficiencies, mismanagement, and lack of commitment on the apart of the sate for provision of comprehensive social security.

The existing schemes of social assistance -- the Zakat and Baitul Maal funds for the destitute, widows and disabled; social security through employees' institutions; the Workers' Welfare Fund and the Employees Old Age Benefits -- collectively reach out to about 3,064,000 beneficiaries, costing the national exchequer Rs25.98 billion. These measures are simply inadequate. With rapids urbanisation and industrialisation, a very large segment of Pakistan's population is facing difficulty in making both ends meet. If Pakistan has to emerge as a responsible sate among the comity of nations, it has to develop and implement a comprehensive, sustainable and universal social security system. The strategy should envisage a well-integrated and holistic social security scheme that benefits the whole population, especially the poorest and the most vulnerable.

There is a marked difference among the lives of urban and rural women in Pakistan. While most of the former now have access to education, the latter are not so lucky. According to Unicef's statistics, more than 75 percent of women living in rural areas are illiterate, while more than 40 percent of women living in urban areas cannot read and write. "My parents forced me to leave school when I was in the sixth grade," Maryam, 20, tells The News on Sunday. Maryam's father is a labourer and her mother is a domestic worker. The main reason for her having to leave school was financial. "My father could not afford to send me to school. Also, I had to assist in household labour and look after my younger brothers and sisters," Maryam adds.

Women in rural areas are not allowed to go outside their homes even for getting education, so they remain illiterate and unaware of their rights. Because they are uneducated, they do not have access to the available health and education facilities. Poor women with only basic or no education show poor linguistic abilities, feelings of rejection, emotional insecurity, poor motivation, and difficulty in adjustment and absorption in society.

"Life goes on and this is my lot. Even if I were to learn how to read, would it make a difference? Even if I did so, do you think my husband would allow me to do a job in town, away from him? Education does not make a woman socially acceptable or useful. In villages, girls are brought up to be married. That is their only role in life; anything else is a luxury," says Siftan Bibi, 40, a resident of Tarlai Kalan, a village near Islamabad. In many cases, families take their daughters out of school after they have attained puberty. For rural women, the problem is even more complex -- lack of resources, coupled with a culture in which their roles are limited to the domestic sphere and farm work, seriously hampers their access to education.

"I left school when I was in the eighth grade. My father is illiterate and did not care at all when I left school," says Nida, 22. "I did not like going to school, because it was difficult for me to understand the curriculum. There was nobody to help me with my studies," she adds. Though primary education is free and legally binding for both boys and girls, there are only a few programmes aimed at educating rural women in particular. The government, in collaboration with NGOs, is implementing many literacy programmes to impart awareness about the immediate benefits of education, which range from better employment opportunities to greater understanding of their rights. However, both civil society groups and the government still have a long way to go before they can expect to bring about any tangible changes in the lives of rural women.

"The financial pressure on families is the main reason forcing them to take their daughters out of school early. Poverty, ignorance and poor schools are the other major reasons for girls' drop-out, especially in rural areas," observes Mussarat Jabeen, headmistress of Federal Government Girls' Primary School, Golra. The poor quality of education has led to the country's underdevelopment, resulting in widespread illiteracy and poverty. Education at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels compliments and supplements each other -- higher education can be productive only if it rests on quality primary and secondary education; similarly, primary education can be productive only if it is reinforced by quality secondary and tertiary education.

"It is important to tell the girls about the benefits of education. They must garner support of their family and community, as well as enjoy learning and be guided by teachers who are confident in their roles," views Saima Iqbal, headmistress of Federal Government Girls' Primary School, Barma. It is unfortunate that the overall literacy rate in Pakistan is very low, even in comparison with other low-income developing countries. For instance, the female literacy rate in remote areas of Balochistan and the NWFP is even less than two percent. "Education is the best investment that a country can make. It has an impact on the family, the children and the economy," believes Mohammad Ramzan, headmaster of Federal Government Boys' Primary School, Kirpa.

In most villages and rural areas of Pakistan, there are no schools for both boys and girls. Where these schools do exist, they lack even the basic facilities. Coupled with this are other problems, such as the lack of transportation, making these schools inaccessible. Moreover, teachers are underpaid and they lack necessary training or qualifications. In some cases, they do not even show up for classes. In addition, poor families perceive that what their children learn at school does not provide them with skills to earn livelihood.

Even if free education is provided, in many cases the cost of school supplies, books, uniform, meals and transportation stop the poor families from sending their children to schools. Access to education is often not equitable. Children in rural areas and those belonging to marginalised groups are frequently more affected by a lack of adequate educational infrastructure. Girls face many obstacles in pursuing an education, including the traditional attitudes about female roles and a lack of female teachers. Unable to attend school because of low social status or domestic responsibilities, girls are frequently denied the advantages of education. It is for this reason that girls constitute almost two-thirds of all children not attending school in Pakistan.

Despite several initiatives of successive governments to achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), especially with regard to improvement in the quality of education being imparted in government schools, things are very slow to turn around, mainly due to built-in inefficiencies and corruption at all tiers of bureaucracy in the education sector. In this situation, one can safely conclude that despite unprecedented efforts to increase primary education, the government may not be able to achieve its target of providing universal primary education by 2015, as specified in the MDGs.

Water, soil and vegetation serve as the natural foundation for human existence. Changing climate patterns and human activities are destructing the biological potential of the land. Similarly, soil degradation is resulting in increased desertification, which is threatening the very human survival on the earth. Therefore, it is the need of the hour to find ways to confront the challenges of desertification and droughts. Land degradation is one of the reasons for the ongoing global food crisis, because the direct or indirect result of soil degradation is either a reduction in land productivity or the complete abandonment of agricultural land. This leads to food crisis in semi-arid to arid regions. Severe soil degradation may eventually result in complete desertification. Moreover, because of soil degradation, there are signs of considerable reduction in carbon storage in soils, which contributes to global warming and loss of biodiversity.

The decreasing biological potential of the land also generates soil erosion due to the loss of available vegetative ground, while exacerbating water erosion and flash floods, which also accelerate siltation of rivers and reservoirs. In the developing world, the key driving force behind this degradation is a nexus of poverty, rapid population growth and inadequate progress in increasing agricultural productivity. Desertification is a global phenomenon and more than 100 countries of the world, including Pakistan, are affected by it. These countries are faced with problems of environmental degradation, as well as loss of soil fertility and biodiversity. This situation leads to increased poverty among local communities, particularly those whose source of livelihood is agriculture.

According to a research report, one-third of the earth's land surface (or about four billion hectares) is threatened by desertification and more than 250 million people around the world are directly affected by it. Importantly, about 24 billion tonne fertile soil disappears annually. From 1991 to 2000 alone, droughts were responsible for more than 280,000 deaths, or 11 percent of all deaths resulting due to water-related disasters.

As far as Pakistan is concerned, it is predominantly an arid to semi-arid country, with 68 million hectares of land lying in regions where the annual rainfall is less than 300 millimetres. One-fourth of the country's total cultivable land is subjected to serious wind and water erosions, salinity / sodicity, water-logging, flooding, and loss of organic matter. The major causes of land degradation are deforestation, changing of cultivation practices in agriculture and overgrazing. In addition, increasing population and limited land resources are the two other driving forces behind land degradation in Pakistan. The country's population during the last three decades has increased from 65 million to 162 million at present, and is expected to increase to 234 million by 2025 and 357 million by 2050.

The situation of per capita availability of land and water in Pakistan is extremely alarming, and has further accentuated the problem of agriculture productivity. The per capita land availability has progressively declined to 0.15 hectares at present, and is expected to shrink further to 0.06 hectares by 2050. Similarly, the per capita water availability has dropped to 1,200 cusec meters per year, and is expected to slip further to below 1,000 cusec metres per year by 2010. These figures demonstrate that our resources are fast depleting and that the damage poses a threat to our survival. The availability of arable land is also expected to shrink in most regions of the country in coming days.

Now the issue is how to combat desertification and droughts. Solutions to these problems require technological improvements and new approaches to reverse land degradation. Acknowledging the importance of the issue, the United Nations has designated June 17 as the World Day to Combat Desertification and Droughts. Nevertheless, addressing this issue requires expertise in such disciplines as climatology, soil science, meteorology, hydrology, range science, agronomy, veterinary medicine, as well as geography, political science, economics and anthropology, as part of a committed and integrated effort to contain desertification. Many universal solutions have been offered to tackle the problem of desertification, but they need to be modified accordingly because the situation may vary from one country to other.

All stakeholders should adopt innovative approaches to tackle the multi-faceted challenges posed by desertification and droughts. Agro-research-based efforts should be made in the form of innovations that enable more prudent use of natural resources, and foster policies that help the poor cope with desertification and droughts. For instance, drought-tolerant crops should be cultivated on dry lands. The International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics has achieved important gains in improving drought situations and disease resistance in millet and sorghum, as well as in the leguminous crops chickpea, groundnut and pigeon pea. These hardy crops are a bulwark against hunger and a major source of livelihood in the dry lands.

Similarly, the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) has been developing resilient rice varieties that can withstand droughts and yet give high yields. IRRI also introduced aerobic zero-tilled rice. Through this intervention, the water- and labour-intensive conventional puddle transplantation is replaced with zero-tilled direct-sowing of rice. Dry land framers in Pakistan should also try IRRI's resilient rice varieties to improve productivity and fight droughts. Similarly, drought-resistant potato and sweet potato corps should also be cultivated.

Besides this, effective methods should be introduced for sustainable soil management. In Pakistan's dry lands, many framers are so poor that they cannot afford to buy and apply appropriate doses of fertilisers. That is why agricultural specialists educate them on how to apply small doses of the most essential fertilisers directly to the plant at the right time. Thousands of farmers in western and southern Africa got benefit from this micro-dosing method. Sustainable water management is another vital issue to be addressed along with that of droughts. The International Water Management Institute is combining satellite technology with on-the-ground assessments for drought monitoring. Pakistan can also benefit from these water management techniques, and can improve groundwater governance and the use of water harvesting as a strategic tool for drought mitigation.

To resist desertification and droughts, sustainable use of biodiversity is another essential tool. The International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI) implemented such a project with NGOs and other partners in Mali and Zimbabwe, which demonstrates how dry land farmers manage and conserve their plant genetic resources to resist desertification and droughts. Since communities have the greatest stake in biodiversity conservation and management, and they have the best knowledge of their lands, the government should initiate projects that empower local land-users to co-manage their lands with its concerned departments in such a way that the livelihood needs and the desire to improve long-term sustainability could be harmonised.

Combatting the problem of land degradation requires a multi-pronged approach, focusing on three key components: first, agro-research-based support for solving land, water and food-security problems; second, capacity building of all stakeholders to enhance their knowledge and organisational capacity to tackle land problems; and third, appropriate incentives at the policy and institutional levels to encourage land-users to adopt conservation technologies.

In 2004, a former US envoy to Pakistan, William Milam, identified perhaps the most important aspect for Pakistan's survival. He concurred that the conflict in the country was between ideas of modernism and anti-modernism. Milam recalls that during a meeting in the Pakistan Foreign Office, a Pakistani diplomat declared: "We are in a struggle for the soul of Pakistan." He did not identify the official who had made this dramatic announcement, but added that he agreed with him. The situation today has only taken a turn for the worse.

Understanding the location of Pakistan is detrimental to the realisation of its problems. Pakistan, being the second largest Muslim country in the world, is the gateway to Central Asia because of its geo-strategic location. In addition, because of its role in the so-called 'war on terror', Pakistan has landed in the eye of the storm. Moreover, the country offers a complex case study on account of the diversity of its population.

With various internal forces and external influences at play, especially after the reports that Osama bin Laden is hiding in the country, Pakistan finds itself in dizzying circumstances. In this scenario, the biggest threat that we face today as a nation is that of the lack of direction. The much talked about road to 'prosperity' seems a far-fetched dream, because the nation has lost the compass of its core values.

We are faced with a battle of not only ideas, but also of ideologies. The nation is divided between those who embrace modernism and those who are stubbornly opposed to it, between the fundamentalists and the liberals, between the rich and the poor, etc. The complications have gain further momentum because of high inflation rates. In short, only one thing is clear: a profound confusion exists in all aspects of life.

Many believe that in autonomous states power travels from a higher concentration to a lower one, just like wind patterns. Following this line, Pakistan falls in an area of low-power concentration. Having powerful neighbours in Russia, India and China leads to fears that these military and economic giants have a swirling power gradient that threatens our own far weaker one. With the security dilemma that has its hinges locked onto the domestic front, the one single factor that Pakistan lacks is that of a common national identity. All state players and institutions are well aware that to streamline the country's resources, there has to be synergy in all its appendages. This is called a common national identity.

Any misrepresentation of national identity will have drastic effects on the future of any nation. It also has implications for the political, economic and cultural state of a nation. It is true that importance of culture or economics cannot be underplayed in the make up of a national identity, but the need of the hour is to bring this debate to the forefront. The educational institutions of the country have totally overlooked the study of nation building. As a result, the common people have no knowledge of the vital and peripheral interests of the country.

A proof of this is that the first book published on the country's national security issues, written by Farida Aziz, was as late as in the early 1980s. As a result, the concepts of national security and identity are still fragile in the nation's mind. The point worth emphasising is that the curricula taught in the academia and the government are not giving due importance to this core issue. Therefore, the whole nation is steering into the abyss of a lost national identity. With no direction to navigate our course, we have grown but only apart.

The political arena is filled with ambiguity and a strategic game to oust the opposition. The concept of nation building is hot and an all-envisaging one. Indeed it is a valid concern, yet a pre-requisite for this is the very concept of building a nation in the first place. In order to build a nation, there has to be a nation in the first place. In all seriousness, a nation cannot exist if there is no commonality of interests among its people.

For this reason, the core issue that needs to be addressed in Pakistan is that of a common national identity that becomes a defining force for national interest. Defining our common national identity in terms of religion, language and culture is too simplistic a statement. Other more complex issues, such as deciding whether we are descendants of Arabs or central Asians or even the natives of the subcontinent, can also be brought into debate.

Amid all the hullabaloo of democracy, we have forgotten the need to first bond ourselves together. The looming shadow of suicide bombers is creeping behind us, as the nation sits breathless as to which political leader will checkmate who. These suicide bombers are our own policy disasters as a nation. The failure of a state to give direction to its nation results only in a social, economic and political meltdown.

It is important for a prosperous Pakistan to mould the correct national interests into common beliefs. The benefits of doing so will result in complete integration of the people. As a result, the state will become secure itself. Being a Pakistani should not necessarily mean holding a green passport, but should revolve around certain values, such as that of social justice, equality, freedom and tolerance.

The ruling coalition as well as others should go back to the basics and re-evaluate our common values. Failure to do so will enforce the concept of survival in the minds of the people. We must bear in mind that the destiny of nations lies in the hands of their peoples. Similarly, no society will accept a foreign induced identity. It has to emerge from within its people. When ideas are implanted in the minds of people, and nurtured through debate and legal procedures, they do succeed in exercising a powerful influence on them and society as a whole.