In South Asian wilderness

Could there be a connection between the popular response in a country to something like the Panama Papers leaks and the state of its healthcare?

I concede that this looks too farfetched as an analogy, and am not sure if it works. But that is how I propose to begin: with a reference to the first global assessment of countries’ progress towards the United Nations’ health-related goals.

This report, titled the ‘Global Burden of Disease Study’, was launched this week in New York and, expectedly, Pakistan is located way down in the ranking. We find ourselves at 149 among 188 countries. Since this is how we are routinely judged in the domain of social development, there is a sense of resignation about our dismal performance.

Because the study has evaluated countries on the basis of an overall index score of zero to 100, we can have an exact idea of where we are placed: we get the score of 38. Incidentally, we share this score with Bangladesh and Mauritania.

You would be interested in where India figures in this list. Well, not very well. Just six places above its two populous neighbours. This means that the major countries of South Asia are almost in the same league when it comes to social development.

Now, why did I invoke the Panama Papers? It so happens that tiny Iceland, a Nordic island, has topped this list, scoring 85 out of 100. Countries like the United Kingdom and Canada are among the top ten, with scores of 82 and 81. Still, it is Iceland at the top.

If you remember, Iceland was frequently mentioned in our media after the release of Panama Papers in the first week of April this year. Imran Khan was the one who kept repeating the example of how the prime minister of Iceland resigned after his name was mentioned in the leaks. This was the prompt outcome of a protest staged almost spontaneously by the citizens of Iceland.

Imran Khan has been aiming to achieve the same result with his campaign against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, whose children are named in the Panama Papers. He has quoted the Icelandic example ad nauseam and has tried to get the masses out on the streets, like in Iceland. He is at it with passion and the next show will be at Raiwind on September 30 – in spite of the crisis that has whipped up tensions between India and Pakistan.

The point I am trying to make is that Iceland and Pakistan exist is separate worlds. We now have some evidence of what this means. Iceland is an advanced, prosperous, civilised and democratic nation and its citizens are empowered with certain moral values. Its population is just over 300,000 people – almost equal to a ‘mohalla’ in Karachi.

After the release of the Panama Papers as many as 22,000 people came out in the capital, Reykjavik, which has a population of 120,000. This was not only the largest protest in Iceland’s history, it was said to be the largest by percentage of population in all history. Imran Khan must understand what this means. Pakistan would of course have changed if millions and millions of people had come out in the streets of its major cities. But we are 149th in a list in which Iceland is number one.

Here is an illustration of how a nation draws its strength from its social development and advancement in other fields, be it as small as Iceland. Consider the mammoth size of India and Pakistan and Bangladesh. Such a large chunk of humanity – India alone being more than a billion – is crammed into the wilderness of South Asia. And these deprived people are unable to make their rulers accountable. They are unable to liberate themselves from the primitive passions that are exploited by their political leaders to peddle hate and aggressive nationalism.

Though India and Pakistan have fought wars and have come very close to a war a number of times in the past, the present situation in the wake of a terrorist attack on Uri army camp in Indian-occupied Kashmir is very scary. Both sides are flexing their muscles. The world is watching in suspense and awe because both potentially unreasonable countries possess nuclear weapons.

What I find incredible is that someone like Stephen Cohen, the foremost American expert on South Asia, sees the possibility of the use of nuclear weapons. Or is it just a spell cast by South Asia’s ancient evil spirits?

In any case, there is this New York Times report filed from New Delhi with the heading: ‘In Kashmir violence, a major test for Modi’. It said that escalating tension over the “contested territory of Kashmir” reached a boiling point when 18 Indian soldiers were killed in militants’ attack on an army camp. The report said: “The situation not only risks economic growth but could also send the two nations skidding into a nuclear war”.

This was Stephen Cohen’s response: “It could happen and it would be catastrophic for both countries”. Difficult to imagine, isn’t it? One can only pray that somehow sanity prevails and the two countries are able to attend to the miseries of their people. Apparently, India is making progress in the economic domain but there is great concern among its public intellectuals that little attention is paid to the social sector.

The most recent analysis of this situation was done by Jean Dreze and Amartya Sen in ‘An Uncertain Glory: India and its contradictions’. They make the case that India cannot move ahead without investing in public services such as healthcare and education. Clearly, both India and Pakistan are faced with similar problems. But the hostility that the two countries have sustained since their independence has ruined the lives of millions and millions of ordinary people of the region.

How long can this go on? Is there light at the end of the South Asian tunnel? Incidentally, Stephen Cohen’s last book on the region, published in late 2013, is titled: ‘Shooting for a Century: The India-Pakistan Conundrum’. His thesis is that the rivalry between the two countries, which observers see as one of world’s most intractable international conflicts, will complete its century – it may last until 2047.

Come to think of it, this pessimistic formulation has a silver lining. The two countries will at least survive to continue with their mutual rivalry. And one hundred years of independence could teach them some lessons that they refuse to learn even in their late sixties.

The writer is a senior journalist.

Email: ghazi_salahuddin@hotmail.com