Main Page «
Front Page «
Metro «
Business «
International «
Sports «
National «
Op-Ed «
Home «
Timeout «
Letters «

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

THE parliamentary standing committee on education recommended on Tuesday that rendition of the national anthem should be made mandatory in all madrassahs. The recommendation was made after ‘more than one committee members’ had come to know that ‘there are some madrassahs where the national anthem is not sung,’ its chairman, Rashed Khan Menon, told New Age after presiding over the committee’s meeting at the Jatiya Sangsad Bhaban. The committee also recommended that the government should withhold its contribution to teachers’ salary if any madrassah or, for that matter, any educational institution were to be found non-compliant in this regard. The committee’s recommendation is indeed welcome.
   It is important for a nation state to instil in its citizens, especially in their formative years, a sense of belonging and a connection with the values and ideals that the nation stands for. Rendition of national anthem, which embodies the secular spirit of our nationhood, at morning assemblies or at the beginning and/or closing of a ceremony or function at educational institutions, especially at the primary and secondary levels, is an effective part of the process through which such a sense can be strengthened, especially as is laying of flowers at Shaheed Minar on Ekushey February and the National Martyrs Memorial on Victory Day and Independence. It is, therefore, only right for schoolchildren to grow up singing national anthem and watching the national flag hoisted on nationally important days such as March 26 and December 16. Such practices should be in place across all educational institution, regardless of their medium of instruction or curriculum.
   Regrettably, many madrassahs across the country have displayed a degree of apathy, if not antipathy, when it comes to instituting such practices. Worse still, the education authorities have preferred to let the madrassahs be in this regard. In May, the education ministry issued a directive to all government and non-government junior-secondary and secondary schools asking them to remain open on nationally important days such as International Mother Language Day, Independence and National Day and Victory, and arrange functions to make the students understand the importance of these days. Intriguingly, madrassahs were kept out of the purview of the directive. The official issuing the directive reportedly said since madrassahs did not have a separate directorate, they were kept out of the purview of the directive.
   As it stands now, three disparate streams of education, namely Bangla-medium, English-medium and madrassah, have already created three disparate groups of citizens with distinctly different ideals, aspirations and opportunities. While the successive governments have talked of a uniform education system, none has gone the whole hog. Worse still, madrassahs have been treated as a world unto themselves. Such an attitude has further isolated the madrassahs and their students. The apparent division has naturally induced simmering discontent, which has more often than not found manifestation in religious extremism and associated destructive acts.
   It is, therefore, imperative that the state works towards eliminating the divisions within our education system. Indeed, the process will be long and difficult; however, it has to be set in motion sooner than later.

Shortage of headmasters speaks
of a systemic flaw

THAT nearly five thousand non-government schools have been functioning without any headmaster for months speaks volumes of the condition of our primary and secondary education in the country and the government’s indifference to it. As reported in New Age on Wednesday, among more than 17,000 non-government secondary and junior-secondary schools across the country, severe paucity of headmasters has been hampering educational activities and affecting the studies of thousands of students. The scenario has been like this for quite sometime now. Of late, the authorities seem to have woken up from the prolonged slumber and have decided to relax the recruitment regulations so as to offset the problem. From now on, as a government circular issued on Tuesday last says, a teacher having 12 years experience without any break can be recruited as headmaster. Earlier, the requirement used to be 15 years of service as assistant teacher including three years as assistant headmasters. For the assistant headmasters, 10 years’ service without a break has been made mandatory, instead of 12 years.
   Under the current circumstances, changes in the recruitment regulations may have been necessary; however, if the authorities are really sincere to rid the secondary and junior-secondary education of the multifarious problems that they are afflicted with, they need to move away from stopgap arrangements to comprehensive solutions.
   A major reason why the posts of headmaster at so many schools have remained for so long may be lack of incentive for the teachers. The salary of schoolteachers, especially non-government ones, are sometimes pitiable, to say the least, often lower than what a peon in a government office gets at the end of every month. No matter how lenient the government gets with the recruitment regulations, until and unless the pay structure becomes competitive, the lack of sufficient number of efficient teachers will remain. The government also need to focus on providing in-service trainings for teachers, especially those outside the urban centres, as new ideas and techniques are always evolving. Training should also be subject-specific for gone are the days when a schoolteacher of any subject could replace a teacher of any other subject.
   The incumbent government has pledged to give utmost effort in streamlining the education sector. If it is sincere, it needs to avoid taking short-term and piecemeal actions, and come up with strategies to make the ineffective educational institutions work efficiently, appoint experienced and capable people to run those institutions more professionally and successfully, provide incentives to the thriving ones and ensure accountability while strengthening the government’s monitoring activities.

THE west, particularly America, and Israel never wished for Pakistan to possess a nuclear bomb. But on May 28, 1998, they woke up to the fact that Pakistan had become a nuclear state and blamed their intelligence services for failure to anticipate the nuclear tests. Countless books, articles and speeches called Pakistan’s nuclear bomb the ‘Islamic bomb’, as loaded a term as any, as many considered it a doomsday weapon directed against their interests. Every effort was made to dissuade Pakistan from owning the bomb. American secretary of state Henry A Kissinger frankly told then Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, ‘If you make the bomb, we’ll make an example out of you.’
   Mr Bhutto, the founder of Pakistan’s nuclear programme, was, of course, hanged. Gen Zia al-Haq, who Islamised Pakistan and consolidated its nuclear programme, was murdered. More recently, Benazir Bhutto, Mr Bhutto’s daughter, was assassinated. Others still may face a similar fate.
   The question, however, is: Why do neither the Americans nor the Israelis want Pakistan to possess the bomb?
   Pakistan is a Muslim country. In fact, Islam is the very foundation for the existence of Pakistan. Except for religion, there really are no other factors that unite Pakistanis. This explains why the Pakistanis are fanatic about religion. It is the essence of their nationhood. Islam is for the Pakistanis as Judaism is for the Israelis, a matter of existence. This is not the same for other countries. China, for example, would be China with or without religion. Similarly, Iran would be the same even without religion. The same applies to Turkey. Pakistan is unique. There can be no Pakistan without Islam, as Islam was the basis for its separation from India and its raison d’etre as a state. Truly, the Pakistani nuclear bomb is a Muslim bomb. Islam for the Pakistanis is not a question of faith only but also a question of identity.
   Pakistan is witnessing dramatic changes because of its complex demographic structure. Socially, it is composed of various ethnicities and fierce tribes – bordering Afghanistan – that have no loyalty to either Pakistan or Afghanistan. This is a heterogeneous structure comprising people who speak different tongues, which disunites them rather than bringing them together.
   Pakistan faces challenges even within its region. It is threatened by the Shi’ite Muslim state of Iran and the Hindu and Buddhist India. Islam in Pakistan does not exist in a safe region. It is surrounded by a hostile environment that provokes its very Muslim essence, facing Buddhism and Hinduism as well as fanatic doctrines and intolerance.
   This is the reason behind the formation of violent Muslim groups affiliated with the fierce tribes in Afghanistan as well as al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. These groups, such as the Jama Islamiya, the Association of Muslim Scholars, the Ulamaa of Pakistan, the Ahl-e-Hadith, the Islamic Movement and others, in fact, provided protection for bin Laden and his movement. They are numerous, vocally declaring their fanatic concept of Islam.
   The danger such fanatic groups constitute for the Israelis and Americans is that they may hold the reins of power, to which they indeed aspire. If these groups governed the state, which is a possibility, that would be a very dangerous outcome for the Americans and Israelis. On the other hand, if political parties, such as the Pakistan People’s Party, or even the army, ruled, things would be relatively safe because they presumably constitute responsible institutions. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that they can form sustainable governments.
   If any of these extremist groups were to hold power, the key to the nuclear bomb would be in their hands. This has created the Pakistani quagmire for the Americans and Israelis. To address this potentially dangerous situation, they have attempted to further drive a wedge of hostility between Pakistan and neighbouring India.
   The Pakistanis are told that their enemy is the Hindus, not the Jews or Christians, and therefore their bomb should be directed toward them, the Pakistanis’ immediate enemy, and not anyone else. Similarly, the Indians are led to believe their real enemy is Pakistan and that the Pakistani bomb was directed toward them rather than the Israelis or Americans.
   This policy aims to preoccupy Pakistan with India and India with Pakistan. Perhaps this is why America has not been willing to contribute to solving the Kashmiri problem, whereas the Israelis will try to keep it always flammable.
   Tension and anxiety will continue, as will the danger posed by a nuclear Pakistan. Attempts by the Israelis and Americans to extricate themselves from this quagmire, by all means, also will never cease. Either way presents a dangerous endgame to the region and the world.
   The Washington Times, May 29. Moammar Gadhafi is the leader of Libya.