Tendoo Mian

Faryal Gohar the other day wrote in the Daily Dawn. I normally do not read articles that are longer than a few words unless they are really interesting or really important. Had heard about her and read few of her articles previously so thoght that this one might be worth the time. And it really was.
Here is what she had to write

Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz,

Prime Minister's House, Islamabad

Dear Sir,

I write to you today after many long days of serious consideration, wondering whether it was worth the effort, even worth the paper I write on, to speak to you about the things which trouble me, which keep me awake at night, pulsing like a river whose banks will surely collapse with the weight of the water which gathers bit by bit, even in this barren, desert landscape which stretches before me.

Two months ago I began another letter to you, congratulating you on your achievement of the highest office in the land and asking you the questions I have asked each time I have had the privilege to meet you.

These were questions the answers to which had been deferred by you, questions leading perhaps to further questions, enquiring about the desperate times we have entered, demanding resolutions.

I never finished that letter, Sir, because at a certain point I lost all hope, and even as I saw the smart, young armies of adolescent ministers swell the ranks of your stately cabinet, I feared the terrible disaster which awaits us, sharpening its claws on the flesh of my beloved homeland, smacking its purple lips in smug anticipation of the feast which awaits.

Sir, it appears to me that the method one adopts to seek solutions should reflect the nature of the problem itself. In other words, in terms of state craft, the policies which are formulated in order to redress issues and grievances must take into consideration causality.

Obviously, in order to understand the essential relationship between cause and effect, it is necessary to first understand the cause itself, and for this one needs to be informed, one needs to peel off the layers of acquired meaning and to seek the source of the rot which besets us.

For some reason, Sir, it appears to me that this most evident, simple truth has been obfuscated by insidious design, intended perhaps to skirt around the issue and to beat a drum which no one hears, promising to lead us further into dangerous complacency.

What is of grave concern, Sir, is the state's perilous effort to cling on to some vague notions of modernization and development which came into vogue following the decolonization of what is now known as the less developed world.

At that time in history, the armies of the newly independent states were considered to be the forces of modernization. Given that military officers often received their training within the various institutions of the colonial administrative structure, it was considered that this training would serve to create a new paradigm of development, new ways of thinking and moving forward.

And so we saw the emergence of military juntas in much of the decolonized world, stretching from Argentina to Indonesia, uniformed men wielding power and preening their moustaches meaningfully, comfortable in the knowledge of their supposed infallibility.

Along with military rule came military hardware and the consultants who drew up the long list of demands to further enrich the depots where our nation's security supposedly lay, safe beneath weapons intended to annihilate the enemy.

We were told that our borders were not safe, that we needed to invest in armaments in order to protect the fragile state. We were told that Harvard educated economists would draw up development plans so that our country can achieve its fullest potential, so that our people can enjoy the benefits of independence.

And so we saw the men with the Mont Blanc pens flourishing signatures on pieces of paper which have held us hostage to international lending institutions for half a century.

Exactly 50 years ago, Sir, our government signed a joint Pakistan-American communique announcing a grant of $105 million in economic aid, representing an increase of $80 million over the previous programme.

At the signing of this agreement, the US government announced that it will "endeavour to accelerate the substantial military aid programmes for Pakistan" which began in October 1954 and lasted till 1965. By the mid-1960s, the focus of US policy was shifting on South Asia.

A US arms embargo was imposed in 1965 which lasted for ten years. The period of relative neglect by the US ended abruptly with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979.

Pakistan was hailed as an indispensable ally of America, and over the next eight years its military dictator, General Ziaul Haq, received some $7 billion in military and economic aid from the US.

These loans, contracted by an undemocratic government and devoted to unproductive ends, formed the nub of a debt burden that would be serviced far into the future by the poor of Pakistan.

Three years ago, our position as a state of geo-political significance was given a massive shot in the arm. After 14 years on the sidelines, in September 2001, Pakistan once again assumed a position of great strategic importance to the US, this time as a crucial ally in the West's so-called "war against terror".

This unenviable role has placed huge additional demands on the country's economy at the end of a period which had already witnessed a steady increase in poverty. By 1999 some 47 million people were living below the poverty line, and the incidence is now estimated to be significantly higher.

During this period the servicing of Pakistan's escalating external debt, which by 2000-01 amounted to 54.9 per cent of the country's GDP, had severely curtailed pro-poor policies, and the costly support now required by the US makes it all the more imperative that this unsustainable burden be properly addressed.

Sir, I need not remind you that the current war into which we have been subsumed is a war created by the policies of the United States in this region. It seems ironic that the poor in our country should be made to foot the bill for US foreign policy objectives.

It is also ironic that the louder the talk about our economy "taking off", the shallower and more insidious the argument for increasing foreign interference in our policies.

It is beyond dispute that conditions have worsened for the poor of Pakistan over the last decade. The Asian Development Bank in its Poverty Assessment Report of 2002 observes that "since 1999, growth has slowed down even further, the fiscal squeeze has intensified, development spending has declined, and the country has experienced severe drought...the incidence of poverty in Pakistan is now significantly higher than in 1999".

While admitting that exogenous shocks such as drought and global recession have adversely affected the economy, the country's western creditors and their institutions typically conclude that bad governance and political instability lie at the root of the problem.

They assert that if these were rectified, the usual package of macro-economic stabilization and structural reforms would lead to growth and a general increase in prosperity.

Sir, I have heard this argument countless times, and I have heard the refrain about the enriching effect that this supposed growth will bring to the poor of our country.

I have been distressed at the ease with which this mythology has been created and then perpetuated, spoken eloquently through the mouths of the scions and heiresses of feudal lords who have taken it upon themselves to become Their Master's Voices raised in unison. I have been even more disturbed by the bandying about of figures which would make any economist worth her salt cringe.

Sir, it is absolutely not true that with a growth rate of 6.7 per cent the poor of our country shall be pulled out of the poverty trap. The "trickle down" effect spoken about ad nauseam does not occur until an economy has achieved a 13-14 per cent growth rate, which is, in most cases, unsustainable.

In any case, Sir, the very same theorists who came up with the rather patronizing concept of "trickle down" have reconsidered it and thrown it out of the proverbial window.

I believe even at the premier international lending institute, poverty is being examined for structural causes, not for symptoms, but for the very root of deprivation and inequity.

The economic legacy inherited from General Zia in 1988 already consisted of a huge and escalating external debt burden, including military loans, and was further marked by a neglect of development expenditure.

The IFI-led stabilization and reform policies in the decade following General Zia's death simply led to an increase in the debt, and inherently required continued cuts in development expenditure in order to transfer assets to creditors.

Over this time, real wages fell, inequality and unemployment increased, and Human Development Indicators lagged behind those of comparably low-income developing countries in South Asia.

Moreover, although fiscal austerity measures impacted adversely on the poor, debt servicing and defence spending requirements prevented the fiscal deficit from falling in any substantial way.

Sir, it is my humble submission that the reality of poverty in our country needs to be looked at through the eyes of the poor, not through the designer-bespectacled gaze of the privileged elite which make up your cabinet.

It is not possible for one who has not known hunger to eradicate it, it is not possible for one who has not known injustice to deliver justice. It is not possible for one who has been fattened on the wealth of the land to know the deprivation of land and one's intrinsic connection to it.

And it is certainly paradoxical to expect genuine land reforms if parliament is populated with feudal lords and ladies whose primary interest would appear to be the perpetuation of the oppression which enriches them and which allows them the privilege of "representing" their constituencies.

Perhaps it is time to take a long, hard look at our country's reality, at the lives of the poor who have never been called to the table when decisions regarding their lives have been formulated.

Perhaps it is time to consider that it is not only bad governance and tempestuous politics which are not conducive to a thriving economy. It is time, Sir, to recognize that poverty in our country has increased to a large extent as a result of IFI funded stabilization and structural adjustment programmes, the very policies which were meant to dig us out of the quagmire which threatens to suffocate progress and prosperity for all.

And it is time to take cognizance of the fact that unless resources are shared equitably, in particular land, hunger shall claim our people while suited booted charlatans beam and amuse themselves with meaningless portfolios and empty rhetoric.

It is a fact, Sir, that while the rulers of our country speak in glowing terms of the "progress" we have supposedly made in the past five years, thousands of rural poor are borrowing money to take a bus ride into the cities, in the hope of employment, in search of a life.

Listen to their voices, Sir, if you genuinely wish to rectify the wrong done to our people for over 50 years. Listen, for they shall show you something different from either your shadow at morning striding behind you; or your shadow at evening rising to meet you; they will show you fear in a handful of dust...

Yours truly,

Feryal Ali Gauhar