Eight men own same wealth as half the world, resonated in Davos and beyond. Oxfam upended the World Economic Forum, the 'haves' club that represents what the world is turning against - globalisation and elitism. That one caption said more about the demon of inequality than the tomes of Piketty and his tribe. Even the chic Christine Lagarde had to concede that the IMFs of the world were late waking up to the widening gap between the rich and poor.
Pakistan got its wake-up call years ago but hit the snooze button and went on snoring. The clarion call of 'twenty two families' might have perforated Ayub's 'trickle down' economic model, and spawned a host of 'who owns Pakistan' logs, but couldn't disturb our slumber. Rhetoric rather than action prevailed. Land reforms - 'reformism', really - didn't make a dent. Growth, with little regard for equity but a lot for the flawed Gini co-efficient (income distribution measure), became the scripture. Labour reforms sought peace more than worker welfare; and over time even this pretense of workers' rights was shed at the altar of economic growth.
Today, there is a lot of emphasis on measuring poverty levels - how many subsist on three or six thousand rupees a month, how many fluctuate up and down the poverty line, and how many calories are consumed - but none on bridging the gnawing gap between the rich and the poor. Yes, it is now fashionable to talk about 'inclusive growth', but its mechanics - how to swing it - is unfamiliar territory for our policy makers. Perhaps the good Professor could identify for us the specific policies of the government that can be termed pro-poor? While he is at it, he may also like to elaborate the policies that promote social mobility in relative terms, rather than absolute.
To an extent, informal economy and philanthropy can cushion poverty; they cannot dam the ascending inequalities. To move the inequality needle you need the State. Until there is a realisation that higher GDP growth that is not accompanied with specifically proactive, pro-poor, policies it will be pushing on a string.
Much the bigger threat is the growing inter-regional disparities. While individual income disparities cause despair, possibly provide political space to the fringe parties, and most certainly show the Sate to be amoral, regional disparities constitute an existentialist threat. They tend to question Statehood - as so painfully brought out in the case of East Pakistan.
Balochistan is a troubling case study.Take any measure - social or developmental - and Balochistan's destitution hits you. Even from our poor national standards the province lags behind by quite a distance - and falling further behind. It is more than a sense of deprivation. It is palpable exclusion. It is the strongest possible indictment of a Nation's failure to integrate.
Islamabad's answer to Balochistan's trenchant backwardness is a string of alibis: How do you help those who don't want to help themselves; the Sardars don't want the province to develop; all the resources provided to the province have been plundered, with the life styles of the rich there the envy of the robber barons elsewhere; quality of their human resource is pathetic but they resent outsiders; they are a very suspicious lot who mistake help for colonisation.
As with all alibis, the Establishment narrative is not without some truth. But is it the entire truth? Yes, the leaders of Balochistan have a lot to answer for but does that exonerate Islamabad from its constitutional duty to ensure the uplift of the least developed part of the country? To the contrary, a balance sheet of what we took from and what we gave to Balochistan would show us in deficit.
It will take a lot more than perverse incentives, like subsidies for tube wells that exacerbate the criticality of dwindling water resources, or paltry NFC dole outs as surrogates for a genuine revenue base that is buoyant and theirs, or the hyperbole of CPEC changing Balochistan's destiny without any plans to link major towns to the national power grid. We have to restore their sense of belonging, and trash all this talk of their wanting out, which is not borne out by any study or survey. Let's start with being honest. Let's have a look at the log-books of Federal Ministers to see how much time they spent in Quetta and how much in Lahore. Let's see if there is even a cell in the Planning Commission dedicated to Balochistan's uplift. Let's get serious.
Balochistan friends - some reside in Karachi out of choice others forced by circumstance - tell us security has improved, but not the fundamentals. The fifth insurgency, that dates back to before Akbar Bugti was taken out, has weakened but the causes of disenchantment persist. To them, administrative vacuum is more telling than financial and political issues, humongous as they are. People turn to the local influential because the government officer can't provide relief; they accept the draconian Jirga because normal access to justice is non-functional; they become mafia's unwilling partners in crime because the government cannot come to their rescue.
Paul Collier generated a vigorous debate on greed vs. grievance as a cause of armed conflict in underdeveloped world - greed the short hand for combatants' desire to better their situation; grievance for making people rebel over issues of identity like ethnicity, religion, social class.
Balochistan seems to be a case of genuine grievance leading to greed. To perpetuate greed - it is quite addictive - the 'leaders', living comfortable lives abroad, have to keep playing the grievance card. By not attending to legitimate grievances the government unwittingly plays into their hands.
In his perceptive article (This is the most dangerous time...) Stephen Hawking views Brexit and Trump phenomena as a cry of anger by people who felt abandoned by their leaders - 'the moment when the forgotten spoke'. The forgotten Balochistan has been speaking. We are not listening.
Lincoln's Gettysburg address - nation cannot endure half slave and half free - is a stirring reminder. We cannot afford a two-speed Pakistan, one half aspiring to join the industrialised world and the other struggling to stave-off the pre-industrial age.
Comments
Comments are closed for this article.