پښتانه او ګلوبلايزيشن

با سواده كه بيسواده؟

د متحده عربي اماراتو د دوبۍ هوايي ډګر په دوهم ترمينال كي يوه ډله پښتانه له ټولو نورو خلكو ډير توپير لري. دوې چي غالبا د خوست، پكتيا او پكتيكا ولايتونو څخه وي په عربي هيوادونو كي په ساختماني، موټرچلونې او ورته نورو درنو كارونو بوخت دي. هغه څه چي دغه مسافر-كارګران له نورو جلا كوي د دوې جامې، د كالو غوټې، نصوار او بيسوادي ده. كه څه هم ګڼ دغه كارګران له كلونو راهيسي د ډوبې په څير په عصري ښارونو كي كار او ژوند كوي خو په پايله كي دوې بيله نقدو پيسو نور هيڅ كور او كلو ته نه وړي.

پداسي حال كي چي موږ تعليم يافته پښتنو خپلې جامې، ژبه، كور كهول او ډير نور ارزښتونه د بدلېدونكۍ نړۍ له دود او فيشن سره د سمون په موخه بدل كړي او د بدلون دغه بهير اوس هم روان دى د سواد او بيسوادۍ په اړه يوه فلسفي پوښتنه رامنځته كيږي: آيا بيسواده پښتانه د باسوادوو په پرتله د ګلوبلايزيشن (نړيوالتوب چي ګڼ يي د امريكايي او غربي كيدو بهير بولي) د كلتوري يرغل په وړاندي ډير ځواكمن او غښتلي ندي؟

زه مخصوصا د ګلوبلايزيشن پر كلتوري اړخ ټينګار كوم او د دغه بهير له ټكنالوژيك او پرمختيايي ځانګړتياوو يي جلا ارزوم ځكه خو هيله كوم چي د موبايل او كمپيوټر كارول له كوباي-پتلون او ټي-شرت د اغوستلو سره بايد ګډ نكړو.

مدرني نړۍ موږ ته دا تعليم ښه راكړي چي بيسوادوو كسانو ته په كښته سترګه وګورو او هغوې تر ځان كم عقله وګڼو، خو زه فكر كوم لږ تر لږه له يوه اړخه بيسواده پښتانه تر ډيرو باسواده پښتنو د پښتو او پښتونولى ښه ساتنه كوي.

زما هدف هيڅكله دا ندې چي بيسوادي تر باسوادې او تعليم غوره ده. زه غواړم د باسواده پښتنو يوې سترې نيمګړتيا او كمزورتيا ته ګوته ونيسم او دا ووايم چي كه ډير نه حداقل د خپلو بي تعليمو وړونو او خويندو په څير بايد موږ هم خپلې خاصې ځانګړتياوې وساتو او وي پالو.

Brits are too unpopular in Karzai’s Kabul

Long after British colonialism ended in South Asia and despite its substantial development aid to Afghanistan, mutual trust is still absent between Kabul and London.

Mr. Karzai has too many reasons for his increased suspicions on British policies in his country.

He is particularly incensed about the chaos in Helmand Province where thousands of British soldiers and intelligence officers have created a mini satellite state. President Karzai has repeatedly said – both in public and private – that since Brits have gone to Helmand his government has lost control there and he is personally unaware of the decisions made in Helmand.

The October 2006 deal between UK forces and the Taliban over Musa Qala District; the ouster of Helmand’s former governor Shir Mohammad Akhundzada; and Helmand’s booming opium production are some of the issues which have seriously frustrated Mr. Karzai.

In the international arena Britain’s cordial relationship and massive aid to Karzai’s utmost rival Islamabad has further soured relations between Kabul and London. Karzai wants London to use its leverage over Pakistanis to end their covert support for Afghan Taliban.

Britain’s post-colonial approach to the region could be understandable to Pakistanis and Indians, but it has only confused and embarrassed Afghans.

In late 2006, after the Musa Qala’s dilemma, Karzai started purging his administration from Afghans who were educated and/or had returned from the UK. A close aide told me that Mr. Karzai cancelled several senior level appointees only because they were perceived “too close to the UK”.

The bizarre rejection of the British politician Paddy Ashdown as UN envoy to Afghanistan marked President Karzai’s impatience towards the UK.

Mr. Karzai wants more authority over the affairs in Helmand Province and asks for transparency in Britain’s involvement with Pakistan.

London, on the other hand, considers Karzai a weak and impotent leader whose authority does not stretch beyond his palace, leave aside the far-fledged Helmand.

Over the past two years Kabul and London have unwittingly maintained a hate-love scenario only because both want to keep vital partnership with the U.S.

Ironically Washington has spared genuine efforts to reconcile frustrated Karzai with London and has not done enough to revive trust between the two.

Perhaps the understanding in the U.S. is that it would be wise to leave the problem for new administrations in Washington, London and probably Kabul in 2009.

[ENDS]

Peace-building, reconstruction and development with “peanuts”?

The donation of a single laptop by German military to a hospital in Balkh Province prompted the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force on 7 September to issue a press release which also includes the happy photo of two donating German soldiers and two recipient Afghans.

The press release is titled “Afghans, Germans start first joint scientific project” which apparently makes a reader to think that Afghanistan and Germany are probably undertaking a major joint scientific project. This disillusionment immediately fades away upon a glance into the content of the press release which is solely about donation of one laptop and one digital camera to a hospital.

What kind of a “joint scientific project” could be conducted when only one laptop bridges the partnership between two countries?

The press release reminded me of former Pakistani military dictator General Zia-ul-Haq who rejected an offer of US$325 million by the then U.S. President Jimmy Carter to help Afghan Mujahideen fight against Soviets in 1979. Haq rejected the offer and had called it “peanuts”. A short while later Ronald Reagan increased the offer to $3.6 billion.

Over the past several years many donors have boasted about their generous aid to reconstruction and development in Afghanistan.

Almost 20 donor organisations put their logos and emblems on banners in Kabul to demonstrate they were supporting a ceremony of Youth’s Day!

A while ago Lithuanian prime minister went to Ghor Province – where a Lithuanian Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT) is based – to inaugurate three public toilets which were built by the PRT!

To “win hearts and minds” faster I think it’s wise to advise NATO soldiers and donors to take photographs while they pay a few cents or a loaf of bread to beggars at Kabul streets and issue press items such as: “X donor is working to eliminate poverty/ fight hunger”.