One hopes that the new government will pay heed to recent attempts by its predecessors to finally begin addressing the problem of plastic bags, which has become a major environmental problem for the country.

Neighbourhoods across the country’s cities, peri-urban areas and even the remote villages are inundated by discarded plastic bags, which will take centuries for natural decomposition. These plastic bags pose multiple threats. Not only does the production of plastic bags require millions of gallons of petroleum, their unregulated disposal by burning releases lethal toxins causing air pollution and related health issues. Carrying edible goods in plastic bags — which is a common practice around the country — is also hazardous because of the components of plastic bags. Plastic bags pose a serious danger to birds and marine mammals, several thousands of which die each year, after swallowing discarded plastic bags. The bags also choke up sewage and drainage systems, further aggravating our sanitation management challenges.

The Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a study in 2004 which estimated 55 billion plastic bags were being produced and used annually, and projected that plastic bag usage would reach 112 billion by 2015.

Introduced in the country back in 1982, plastic bag usage spread rapidly because of low cost and convenience. However, the lack of effective recycling and the multiple problems being caused by these bags indicate the need to curb their spread urgently.

It took the EPA quite some time to draft restrictions under the Prohibition of non-degradable Plastic Products (Manufacture, Sale and Usage) Regulation, 2013. Part of the problem was that non-degradable plastics are not only used by ordinary consumers but also have extensive usage in packaging of food, mulches, beverages, leather, textiles, machinery and other products. Subsequent to numerous meetings with plastic bag manufacturers and user associations, a consensus was reached on using oxo-biodegradable bag technology, which can make plastic bags degrade faster. Regulations were finally unveiled earlier this year and the Ministry of Climate Change was tasked with coordinating with the provincial governments to introduce degradable plastics.

It is argued that the new legislation will not only help curb environmental and health related problems within the country but also bring trade benefits since the ban would enable exporters to comply with the environmentally-friendly international packaging requirements. It is yet unclear when compulsory production of these bio-degradable bags will commence.

However, since the recent governmental attention to this issue, large department stores like Metro Cash & Carry and international food chains like KFC and McDonald’s have started using paper bags. Other major brands, including Dawn Bread, HyperStar, Sazgar, and ICI Polyester, also reportedly switched to using biodegradable plastic bags. Whether other big and smaller businesses and industries will follow suit, and stick to this resolve, remains to be seen.

The previous government had taken another ambitious step of trying to place a complete ban on plastic shopping bags in Islamabad, starting back in April, and prescribed fines for those found to be violating the ban. Media reports have since pointed out that shopkeepers in the federal capital are still commonly selling goods using plastic bags.

It was encouraging to note Sindh caretaker chief minister Justice (retd) Zahid Qurban Alavi’s announcement of banning the use of plastic bags as well but then, no official notification was issued by any of the relevant government departments subsequently to enforce this move.

Effectively implementing the plastic bag ban in Islamabad or in other big cities like Lahore, Karachi or Peshawar would be a major accomplishment, but doing so requires serious political will by the newly-elected federal and provincial governments.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 14^th, 2013.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

Despite the significance of forests in helping preserve biodiversity, combating climate change and supporting people’s livelihoods, Pakistan has not paid much heed to protecting its forest cover since independence, which has resultantly been depleting at alarming rates. Recent government estimates admit that the existing forest cover is insufficient. However, the official claims of forest cover (of around 4.5 per cent) are refuted by other estimates, which claim that this forest cover is no more than two per cent of the country’s land mass.

Considering the pace of deforestation, if the cutting of trees continues unchecked, Pakistan is likely to lose most of its forest within the next three or four decades as per assessments by the Pakistan Institute of Development Economics. Yet, relevant state authorities have been unable to curb deforestation in Gilgit-Baltistan, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) and Azad Jammu and Kashmir.

One of the major reasons for the decreasing forest cover is the absence of a comprehensive forestry policy. The attitude of politicians has also not shown much foresight. The chief minister of Punjab created quite a stir during his last stint due to a proposal to hand over forestry department land to agricultural graduates to undertake farming. Another controversial timber movement policy for Diamer district in Gilgit-Baltistan was approved by the outgoing prime minister, just a day before his term expired, which allowed the transportation of around four million cubic feet of timber from Diamer to other parts of Pakistan. Previously, the timber movement was restricted within Gilgit-Baltistan, as a measure to curb deforestation. Environmentalists and civil society representatives fear the movement is likely to increase illegal logging because of weak enforcement and monitoring mechanisms. Even the newly-formed Ministry of Climate Change has opposed this policy and seems in favour of its reversal.

Given the lingering absence of political will to preserve our national forest cover, it is unclear if newly-emerged political forces, such as the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), will help improve the existing situation. Unveiling its environmental policy just prior to elections, the PTI had made bold promises of focusing on action rather than rhetoric to meet the prevailing challenges. The PTI had particularly highlighted how environment degradation can be reversed through reforestation and other sustainable development measures. The PTI, in fact, promised it would create millions of jobs as a result of turning the economy ‘green’. Now, the PTI has a chance to prove these assertions, in K-P in particular, where it has been given the chance to form a government and is empowered by the Eighteenth Amendment to address the deforestation challenge.

There is no doubt that deforestation is threatening the livelihoods of many poor people in our country who depend on the forests for their fuel and livelihood needs. Deforestation is also blamed for exacerbating the damage caused by natural disasters such as floods and landslides, since the absence of tree cover causes soil erosion and diminishes groundwater absorption. Researchers have also identified deforestation as a major factor behind expansion of the country’s heat zone, reduced flow in the Indus River as well as shrinkage of the Indus River Delta.

Countering deforestation requires tackling a range of other major issues such as the multiple pressures of rapid population growth, as well as the well-entrenched interests of the commercial and illegal timber mafias. It remains to be seen if the newly-elected political parties, along with new entities like the Climate Change Ministry, will be up to the task of not only preserving our scant forest cover, but actually increasing it.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 31^st, 2013.                    

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

A new government has been elected after a historic democratic transition. It faces Herculean tasks including revival of the economy, addressing the pervasive inequalities and improving the dismal security situation. Another issue is the need to be prepared for any future disasters. With monsoons around the corner, the new government must also take needed steps for mitigation of another potential natural disaster rather than dealing with the havoc which it may subsequently unleash. This issue, in fact, merits serious attention given that our country has suffered three years of consecutive havoc caused by floods.

There is urgent need to be on alert and remember lessons emerging from the previous years of disaster management. It was encouraging to see the recent caretaker government in Sindh, which was the worst hit province during the floods last year, constitute a committee under the chair of chief secretary Sindh and involving relevant departments to monitor advance preparedness for the current year. The other provinces should also do the same; while last year, the brunt of the floods was faced by Sindh, the preceding year, none of the provinces was spared, and it is not yet known what the current year will bring.

It is thus imperative for the new government to pay attention to this issue of disaster preparedness. Human lives can be saved with responsive advance warning systems. It is also vital to redouble efforts for strengthening river embankments with special focus on vulnerable points, so as to curb the massive inundation of croplands witnessed in the past three years.

Doing this is especially important for the multitudes of Sindh’s villages which have not yet recovered from the impact of previous years of flooding, whose residents fear that their circumstances will become even more miserable with another flood. Over a million people were displaced by the monsoon floods last year and many of them have still been unable to resettle in their homes.

The need for more effective rehabilitation of flood-hit people is another important issue. With local governments in disarray, the new government needs to adopt effective rehabilitation plans in coordination with specialised humanitarian agencies and the provincial disaster management agencies.

There is also a need to review funding arrangements for ensuring effective relief and rehabilitation. Although humanitarian agencies did what they could over these past years, critical gaps remained since only a portion of the requested amount needed for relief and rehabilitation was received, due to which, on-ground efforts were delayed and their ambitions severely curbed.

At least Sindh has prepared a Monsoon Contingency Plan 2013 — and though it needs to be carefully reviewed, other provinces can also be encouraged to have their own plans in place as well. Just because the other provinces were spared the brunt of flooding last year does not ensure that such a natural disaster will spare them again.

While preventing natural disasters or even the broader causes for their aggravation, such as climate change, lies beyond the control of any single developing country, it is possible to minimise vulnerability to such disasters and consequent loss of lives, livestock, other property and damage to the already scant infrastructure and public institutions present across our rural areas, by being better prepared for flooding than we have been in the past.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 20^th, 2013.

Attacks on places of worship, on places of residence, targeted killings, forced conversions and blasphemy allegations are the different forms of persecution that minorities in Pakistan have incrementally faced over the past few years.

Given this reality, it is understandable if the international community criticises us for failing to adequately protect the rights of minorities. Besides the international press and human rights groups continuing to highlight the shrinking space for minorities in Pakistan, the US Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) has also taken note of this alarming situation.

In its latest report, the USCIRF has suggested that the US government designate Pakistan and eight other countries as a ‘country of particular concern’, where sanctions are advised if there is continued failure to protect minorities.

It is easy to become defensive and begin accusing the US for its blunders, such as its dealing with the Muslim world, especially since 9/11. However, it is more instructive to take a closer look at what is evoking this evident concern about our country’s inadequacy to protect minorities and which other countries are we being compared with.

Countries already included on the USCIRF list include not only the US nemesis, Iran, for its mistreatment of anyone who is not Shia, but also Saudi Arabia, with which the US government maintains close relations, due to its dismal treatment of Shias and Ismailis. Even China is on the list due to the serious repression of Uighur Muslims and Tibetan Buddhists.

Besides Pakistan, the USCIRF has recommended that Vietnam also be placed on this list of countries, evoking most urgent concern due to the persecution of Christian sects, as is Egypt for the growing threat to Coptics.

In the specific case of Pakistan, the USCIRF findings describe our country as being plagued by chronic sectarian violence, which has escalated recently given the targeting of Hazara refugees, who also happen to be Shia. Moreover, we are being blamed for the failure to protect Christians, Ahmadis and Hindus. The USCIRF also points out how Pakistani authorities have not brought perpetrators to justice or taken action against those who incite violence.

To counter charges of an anti-Muslim bias, the current USCIRF report has dedicated a chapter to Western Europe, which during the past few years, has seen increasing restrictions on various forms of religious expression despite the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights allowing individuals not only the right to believe, but to manifest their beliefs. The USCIRF rightly expresses particular questions about the ban in secular France and Belgium on Muslim women wearing veils in public, which restricts their social integration and educational and employment opportunities.

Further, the USCIRF reports contain a section of thematic concerns which discusses issues like ‘religious violations by non-state actors’ and the ‘legal retreat from religious freedom in post-Communist countries’ like Russia and Central Asian states. Yet, there is no mention of the US itself in the USCIRF analysis. The report, for instance, does not take note of the US complicity in promoting militancy in a country like Pakistan to combat the Soviets in the 1980s. It also does not acknowledge the adverse role of the US in aggravating religious tensions due to its ‘war against terror’.

Unless the USCIRF becomes more self-reflexive, the countries it has highlighted will have a ready excuse to continue dismissing its findings as being biased.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 13^th, 2013.

Given the spate of recent natural disasters, growing malnourishment and lingering basic health problems, such as the prevalence of easily preventable diseases, require redoubled efforts by development workers to help meet the challenge of reaching out to help vulnerable communities.While the need for relevant programmatic interventions to be designed effectively — and to be given enough funds — remains vital, there is also the prerequisite of development workers being able to safely access those most in need. However, the growing security threat has now become an evident deterrent in allowing development work from taking place in our country.

While development aid and relief work is meant to be impelled by basic humanitarian principles, including neutrality and operational independence, aid workers in developing countries do often find themselves caught up in political, ethnic and religious tensions.

The politics of aid and the manner in which relief work is conducted can cause varied forms of tensions amongst different stakeholders. Besides cultural infringements by aid interventions or workers, which can lead to disgruntlement within the communities they intervene, more genuine attempts to reach out to those most in need can also incur the wrath of the local elite, who feel sidelined from exerting control over development schemes. And, of course, aid workers provide soft targets to extremist, militant and criminal elements, which is, perhaps, the biggest concern in Pakistan at the moment.

Governments of developing countries in a similar situation like ours become reluctant to allow relief and rehabilitation interventions in conflict areas, despite the urgency of alleviating suffering in such environments. On one hand, governments hesitate in allowing development interventions in problematic areas to prevent bringing these areas into the glare of public scrutiny. On the other hand, however, there is genuine lack of state capacity to adequately offer protection to development workers, so it finds it more convenient to increasingly regulate their activities.

Both local and international aid and humanitarian workers are now increasingly complaining about being unable to reach out and help marginalised people in different parts of the country without being hassled by the authorities or without peril to their own life. A number of aid agencies have closed, paused or restricted their services. Their actions are justified given how many aid workers working on flood and drought relief and education have been targeted in Balochistan over the past year. International development workers have been abducted and killed in Lahore. A series of militant attacks have been linked to the ongoing national polio eradication campaign in Karachi and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa. Pakistan, thus, remains one of the few countries where polio has not yet been eradicated. Other preventable diseases, like measles, have also reached epidemic proportions.

Delegating the police and Rangers to accompany polio vaccination teams is not a sustainable solution. Similar protection cannot be offered to the range of community-level interventions across the country. Instead, a more secure environment needs to be created for NGOs and aid agencies to do their work.

The government can take stricter action against those who falsely accuse NGOs or aid workers of being spies, Christian proselytisers or trying to sterilise Muslim babies through polio drops. Humanitarian agencies must also look inwards to prevent any actions which undermine their neutrality and independence, and the media, too, can play a positive role and create a less hazardous and more enabling environment for development workers to work in.

Published in The Express Tribune, May 6^th, 2013.

Manifestos are meant to provide a roadmap highlighting the unique vision of different political parties for tackling major challenges facing particular countries. Political manifestos can thus provide a tangible means for voters to assess and reward political parties on the basis of their performance, which is vital for countries like our own where democratic governance is still a fragile and evolving phenomenon.

While focusing on manifestos is important, it is not uncommon for these documents to contain rather grandiose aspirations aiming to attract as many voters as they can. It is, however, important to separate rhetorical statements from assertions with more substantive policy implications.

Given this context, a recent research report released by the Jinnah Institute (JI) in Islamabad makes for interesting reading. The “JI’s Assessing Implementation of Political Party Manifestos” provides a comparative analysis and review of the manifesto pledges of political parties since the 2008 general election.

The report studies important areas of governance including education, energy, unemployment, women, minorities, counterterrorism and youth. It briefly examines the promises made in manifestos of the PPP, PML-N, PML-Q, MQM, ANP and JUI-F and what was, in turn, done by these parties to fulfill their pledges, when they got the chance to exert their political influence.

Although the analysis undertaken was brief and lacked sufficient cross-comparison between approaches of different parties, the analysis does yield some interesting findings. It noted, for instance, that despite variations in policies and targets, all major political parties had emphasised the need for education, tackling economic problems, such as the energy crisis and unemployment, as well as the need to empower women. While a range of efforts were also made to address these challenges, albeit with mixed results, some other important issues remained completely neglected. In particular, the need for addressing youth and minority concerns.

The JI report does not assess the underlying assumptions of political manifestoes including their increasing endorsement of neo-liberal rather than redistributive policies, nor the lack of attention by different parties to tackling complicated issues such as the environment or gender biases, which require a much more cross-cutting approach. However, the JI attempt is a good step which sets a precedent for other think tanks to continue this process of monitoring manifestos and their implementation in order to hold policymakers accountable to their pledges.

The JI also rightly points to the need for major political parties to develop internal evaluation systems, so that they may themselves regularly begin to assess successes and failures in terms of what was proposed in their manifesto, and what they have actually been able to deliver. The JI notes that the PPP conducted an internal assessment of its previous two governments under Benazir Bhutto. However, this analysis does not compare the performance of the previous government with the party manifesto. The PML-N’s 2007 manifesto also included a brief note on the party’s performance in previous tenures, but this was hardly a comprehensive performance review. The MQM and the ANP also seem to have developed internal review processes, but their findings have not yet been made public. Upcoming political parties like the PTI would also do well to pay heed to undertaking such an initiative, if their party wins enough support to exert an influence on policymaking.

Recurrent analysis of their own performance vis-a-vis their stated manifestos would certainly help political parties become more self-reflexive, accountable, and in turn, help them espouse more truthful and realistic political visions.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 29^th, 2013.

With election fever building, development organisations have been highlighting their concerns to major political parties. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) organised a dialogue recently to discuss what politicians should do about environmental problems facing the country.

The need to pay more attention to environmental issues is evident given the series of major floods that have hit Pakistan over the past few years, accompanied by our growing water shortage and our alarming levels of deforestation. The Global Climate Risk Index has ranked Pakistan as the eighth most vulnerable country in the world. Pakistan is also estimated to be losing up to six per cent of its GDP annually because of environmental degradation.

Despite these challenges, the results emerging from the IUCN-organised dialogue did not seem very heartening. The scant press coverage of the event noted how environmentalists and NGO personnel participated with more enthusiasm than the politicians themselves. Politicians from some prominent parties were present, but they did not put forth very innovative solutions.

The Jamaat-e-Islami claimed it would respect nature and animal rights according to Islamic injunctions, and use the historic model of Medina to manage environmental challenges. How the role model would be adapted to contend with climate change, pollution, population pressures and the need for balancing the imperatives of growth and conservation in an increasingly globalised world, however, were not revealed.

Conversely, it was encouraging to see a former state minister for the environment present the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf’s (PTI) environmental vision, which in turn, placed emphasis on creating a “green economy” through sector-based initiatives, including small-scale sustainable farming, ecotourism and more effective water management undertaken at the union council level. The PTI also put forth a goal to reverse deforestation and increase forest levels from three to six per cent.

While the PTI’s assertions seem relatively appealing, they, too, lack cohesiveness and contradict some of its other policies. In agriculture, for instance, the PTI remains a proponent of corporate farming, emphasis on which hardly qualifies as small-scale sustainable farming. The PTI also did not indicate how it would overcome resistance from vested interests of industrialists, the timber mafia or multinational agribusiness firms, which repeatedly create stumbling blocks in the implementation of lofty environmental aspirations.

Pakistan has already formulated several environmental policy frameworks but they cannot be implemented properly by a handful of officials assigned the task of environmental protection. The devolution of environmental issues after the Eighteenth Amendment is feared to make matters worse given that provincial officials have even less capacity to monitor and enforce environmental laws. There is an increasing need to think of the environment as a cross-cutting issue which must be integrated into all planning and development processes. Politicians need to demonstrate more political will and their party manifestoes must also begin reflecting a more comprehensive approach towards environmental issues.

Instead of organising last-minute conferences, specialised agencies like the IUCN should work more intensively with politicians and decision-makers on addressing the above gaps.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 22^nd, 2013.

With election fever escalating, it was interesting to note a seminar recently organised by several prominent NGOs entitled “Land and Agrarian Reforms on Political Agenda of Pakistan: Critical Review of Election Manifestos”. While several prominent politicians took some time out to be at this event, it was disappointing to see no real concrete results emerge from the gathering.

Bringing about tangible reforms in the agricultural sector remains vital in a country like Pakistan. Much of our population resides in rural areas and a large proportion of the people still depend on farm activities to secure livelihoods. Since there is a high concentration of land in the hands of a few, a large proportion of poor farmers do not have enough land, while others are landless and must work as sharecroppers or agricultural labourers.

Despite rhetorical statements, state and donor policies for agricultural development continue to sideline poor and landless farmers, and instead, place emphasis on the need for capital-intensive measures such as corporate farming, and the use of expensive agri-inputs (hybrid seeds or more pesticides/fertilisers).

Donor supported market-based schemes, such as the provision of microcredit, offer little opportunity to the rural poor to purchase assets like land, which remains a prerequisite for them to become sustainable farmers.

Conversely, redistributive land reforms have not been attempted in the country after the 1977 attempt and the subsequent decision by the Supreme Court to declare land reforms “un-Islamic”.

Since that time, most political parties have increasingly begun to rely on donor-endorsed, pro-growth agrarian reforms. The recent PPP government also emphasised the need for top-down rather than bottom-up agricultural growth strategies. It did no more for poor farmers than launch a tokenistic scheme to distribute a limited amount of state-owned agricultural land to poor women (Benazir Landless Hari Scheme), which unsurprisingly also fell prey to the usual problem of political patronage. Given this backdrop, rhetorical statements by politicians at an NGO-organised seminar, that they would launch effective agrarian reforms after coming to power, seem less encouraging. None of them seemed to articulate specific plans to address the challenge of inequitable land ownership.

While it is easy to reiterate the need to distribute more state land to poor farmers, there is hardly enough of it to go around, given how many poor rural people are landless. The MQM drafted a new bill on land reforms in 2011 but it completely failed to stimulate any significant debate in parliament.

The PTI is emphasising the need for taxing agriculture, yet it remains to be seen how the party would generate revenue from the rural sector in a progressive manner and redistribute these resources to benefit the poorer rural populace, given that it has opened its doors to many prominent landowners as well. One of the most prominent corporate farmers in the country, whose sprawling corporate farming ventures have leased thousands of acres of land and displaced numerous sharecroppers, is one of its senior leaders.

It is only politically insignificant entities like the Awami Workers Party (AWP) which seem serious about empowering poor farmers. The AWP has a pending appeal in the Supreme Court seeking a review of the decision that declared land reforms to be against Islam. Whether the judiciary will revoke its earlier decision, which has prevented land reforms in the country for the past two decades, remains to be seen.

Instead of organising seminars with vaguely defined agendas, NGOs need to sharpen the focus of their advocacy campaigns to address the above-mentioned gaps if they want to help alter the lingering status quo of rural disparities.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 15^th, 2013.

Hitting a child at school — or outside it — is banned in many countries which recognise it as an evident form of child abuse. However, in countries like our own, corporal punishment has been rampantly used with children at school, at home, and in the workplace where many poor children are forced into labour.

Provincial governments have officially tired to ban the use of corporal punishment in government schools. Education departments in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, Punjab and Balochistan issued directives to this effect over a decade ago, while Sindh took longer to follow suit. In effect, however, the directives were not strictly enforced since corporal punishment was considered a valid form of maintaining discipline.

Institutionalised corporal punishment within the education system has been commonly cited as a major reason for children not completing their studies. According to one study, 30 per cent of the children found to have left government schools by the fifth grade in the past year had done so due to being beaten up by their teachers

In 2005, the UN Children’s Fund, in collaboration with Save the Children and the government, conducted an in-depth survey to determine the extent of corporal punishment. Over 3,500 children were interviewed in three districts during this survey, all of whom reported being subjected to some form of physical punishment. The Islamabad-based Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan and the Pakistan Pediatric Association have also been highlighting the lingering problem of teachers using physical violence in schools.

Given this scenario, it was encouraging to see the National Assembly unanimously adopt a bill last month, just prior to its dissolution, providing up to one-year imprisonment and up to Rs50,000 penalty for the person found guilty of inflicting corporal punishment on children. Additionally, the person found responsible for the punishment can also be charged under separate laws if physical injury occurs. While the Senate still needs to pass this bill for it to become a law, this move is a welcome step.

Also, there is need to create more awareness about the damage corporal punishment causes. Child psychologists and educationists point out how corporal punishment instills fear in students and has an adverse impact on their school performance. Being subjected to violence by teachers also suppresses creativity and initiative in children even when they are older. Corporal punishment has been blamed for the wider forms of violence prevalent in our society, ranging from domestic violence to crime.

Corporal punishment can, however, easily be replaced with the use of more constructive pedagogical approaches. Placing responsibilities on students who are not found to be paying due attention to their studies, for instance, has been found to make them more responsible as well as better learners. Involving parents in ensuring students do their homework or to prevent their school absence can also deliver more effective results than hitting students. Such techniques require more effort by teachers, aided by supplemental measures such as more manageable classroom sizes, but they have been shown to deliver more effective results than inflicting physical punishment.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 8^th, 2013.

Improving the quality of education deserves serious attention in a country like ours, where a significant proportion of children enrolled in school cannot read or write properly. Teachers obviously have to play a vital role in improving the quality of education. There is, however, a range of problems which prevents effective teaching across schools in our country. While teaching-related problems are evidenced in both public and private (especially low-income) schools, this article will draw attention to a major factor deterring teachers from performing their duty within government schools in particular.

There are a range of interrelated issues relevant to improving the quality of teaching in Pakistani public schools, ranging from teacher training issues to the need for providing effective support to teachers, as well as adequately supervising their work. Educationists argue for putting in place a structure of teacher incentives, which provide recognition to achievements of teachers in improving their knowledge and skills. At the same time, it is also very important to prevent political interference in teacher appointments, which enables “ghost teachers” to keep drawing generous salaries despite frequent absenteeism and inadequate performance of their school duties.

Yet, just as political interference in teacher appointment needs to be curbed, it is necessary for other government departments to stop placing demands on teachers which evidently distracts them from performing their duty.

Public school teachers have long been complaining about the government policy of allocating them additional assignments, such as election duties or involving them in vaccination drives. The prevailing insecurity in the country, which led school teachers to be targeted during anti-polio drives, as well as the ongoing controversy surrounding the use of schools for the upcoming elections, have recently brought this problematic policy practice to the forefront.

While usually more proactive when it comes to safeguarding remuneration and job security, this time around, teacher unions are taking a strong stance against the practice of placing extra burdens on schoolteachers, which have nothing to do with their main professional responsibility.

The All Primary Teachers Association (APTA) has strongly denounced the prevailing practice of making teachers do the work of election officials and health workers. In a recent statement, the provincial president of APTA in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (K-P) has declared these added tasks as having nothing to do with their primary job responsibility. The leaders of the Punjab Teachers Union had also been protesting against teachers being dragged into non-teaching activities and at the end of last year, the Punjab government gave assurances that teachers would no longer be called upon to undertake this extra work. However, the pressure on teachers to participate in vaccination drives and in the upcoming election remains.

Overlooking teachers’ concerns, senior bureaucrats have defended their existing policy by pointing out how public-sector teachers are, in fact, government employees and are, therefore, required to perform any government duties assigned to them.

Given this ongoing tussle, teacher associations have legitimately highlighted the inherent contradiction of government priorities, whereby there is constant rhetorical emphasis placed on the need for improving the standard of education on the one hand, and on the other, teachers are compelled to perform additional duties, on top of vaccination drives and election duties, such as further election-related tasks like compiling electoral rolls and assisting with collecting census information.

This debate of expecting teachers to perform a wide range of duties, completely unrelated to imparting education, is not only confined to Pakistan. Countries like the Philippines and India are also struggling with similar problems. Yet, given the fact that the state of education in our country is, perhaps, the most dismal in the broader region, we have the greater need to not only enable but to also allow teachers to focus on ensuring effective student learning.

Published in The Express Tribune, April 1^st, 2013.