Development does have its downside

IN response to what we shared in this space last week, there have been a few mails arguing that the establishment of the Higher Education Commission (HEC) and the subsequent introduction of the four-year Bachelor of Studies (BS) are decisions that should be considered as having been dictated to us. There have been others suggesting that the students should partly share the blame for picking up their options without considering the pros and cons of their choices. On the first count, there is little to be done except to concede. The establishment of the HEC was, indeed, part of the holistic, all-inclusive growth strategy adopted by the donors in the last decade or so. Since they had funds for higher education — or at least because they thought it should have priority over the primary phase — it became a Hobson's choice for us. We could take the dole on offer or leave it like the proverbial plague. We, as a nation, have a certain reputation when it comes to dealing with such choices. And our track record only authenticates that reputation. So, we did what we did because that was the only thing that we wanted to do. We took the money and voila! The basic argument, however, related to the recent decision of business schools in the country to insert a two-year employment buffer between the BBA and the MBA stages. That is very much a local decision. As for the second argument related to the responsibility of students to pick up career choices with a bit more homework, suffice it to say that career counselling does not happen to be among the basic characteristics of the nation. Besides, the new rule has been incorporated slightly abruptly and the responsibility to have in place a proper interface with the job market rests with the business schools and those supervising them, and not with the students. Period. Let's now get back to the issue of "dictation" that we had initiated last week. The issue of child labour is a universal phenomenon and there has been so much said and written on the matter and in such tone and tenor that it seems almost criminal to voice any other view. But there is another view that needs to be highlighted from time to time because what is good for the West may not — is not — necessarily good for the rest of the world. With dole-outs and grants linked with the stuff, it has been taken on face value by the authorities as well as the NGOs, the self-styled stakeholders of the civil society. For reasons that do not need much of a comment, the two parties concerned have been unable to see the ground reality. Ali Khan, a Lahore-based member of Pakistani academia, did a wonderful research on the effects of forcing kids out of the job market in the name of education. His study, later published as Representing Children: Power, Policy and the Discourse on Child Labour in the Football Manufacturing Industry of Pakistan (OUP 2008), must be read by those pursuing the agenda blindly. Describing it aptly as "Hegemonic universalism", the book describes the modern development paradigm as an entity "constituted and reproduced within a set of material relationships, activities and powers — social, cultural and political". It further argues that the "ability to export and propagate Western norms and values as universal is a reflection of the existing power structure between the developed and the developing countries." As he found during his research, football manufacturing was more of a cottage industry in Sialkot where whole households were involved in the activity. Men would return from the fields or jobs to lend a helping hand. Women in the house would do their chores and still find time to stitch a couple of footballs everyday. And, the children would return from their schools and spend time at home alongside their elders to learn the trade and then become part of it. The child labour controversy changed the work pattern and the whole activity was centralised under the supervision of International Labour Organisattion (ILO) and rights activists. This, in effect, musculanised the trade as women were not comfortable spending the whole day in a stitching centre away from home for it disturbed their household routine. The men returning from the fields had no scope left in the activity for it became a full-time employment. And, the kids, the focus of our attention in the context of these lines, were totally barred from entering the centres. As a result, the time they used to spend at home is now being spent on the streets, lanes and back alleys of their localities away from the sight of their elders. The project has been termed a success in official files of the commercial brands concerned, the ILO, the NGOs involved, FIFA and the US government. But the burden is being carried by those least able to do that. In the words of one victim quoted by the study, "We used to use our hands in honest labour — now we will be left opening our hands, palms up, asking for help from donors." Hmmm, pretty depressing. With poverty on the rise, access to education — "the sacred cow of modern development discourse" — is getting even more difficult. This is what we call intervening without understanding the dynamics of the ground reality. The modern development paradigm has once again marginalised the people it is meant to benefit. Those sitting in the West are not as much at fault as the local collaborators. Think about it. humair_iq@hotmail.com