Friday, December 8, 2017
Saudi Arabia’s Leader Spent $450 Million On A Painting. Here’s What That Could Do For Victims Of His War In Yemen.
The Journal noted that news of the prince’s purchase ― the highest ever in an art-world auction ― damages his claim that he will impose more transparency on the money accumulated by various members of the sprawling Saudi royal family. It suggests a huge amount of hidden wealth and, damningly for a man whose supporters paint him as a populist, excess.
Above all, it throws into stark relief the way the oil-rich monarchy continues to spend on luxuries while it pummels neighboring Yemen, the poorest country in the Arab world.
The New York Times corroborated the Journal story independently on Thursday. While the Saudi Embassy in Washington and the government of Abu Dhabi ― where the painting is to be displayed ― disputed that the crown prince was behind the purchase, and said a friend of his bought the piece on behalf of Abu Dhabi, the Financial Times later reported that the Saudi leadership bought the artwork as a gift for the Abu Dhabi government, a close regional partner.
The Yemen intervention is the chief product of the bond between Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Pioneered by Mohammed in his capacity as defense minister, the U.S.-backed and Saudi-led campaign has now lasted more than two-and-a-half years and claimed thousands of civilian lives, many of them children, while causing the some of the worst starvation and disease crises in the world.
The Saudi-UAE coalition has caused significantly more pain there since Nov. 4, with the tightening of the blockade on the entry of shipments to Yemen. That action was taken in response to a missile strike over Riyadh launched by the Iranian-aligned Yemeni Houthi rebels they’re fighting, which Saudi officials say was a result of Iranian weapons transfers.
World leaders and humanitarian groups have urged the kingdom to ease the restrictions so food, fuel, medicine and other aid can get in ― so far to no avail. President Donald Trump, a vocal supporter of the Saudi leadership, joined the chorus on Wednesday with a surprise statement calling for complete aid access “immediately.”
“The past month’s escalation has killed thousands and condemned thousands more to die in the near future,” Oxfam America said in a statement Wednesday. “Millions will die in a historic famine and public health crisis if President Trump’s call is not heeded.”
Given the unprecedented suffering in Yemen ― and the failure of countries involved like Saudi Arabia, the U.S., the U.A.E. and Iran to fully supply the close to 21 million people there who are in need ― the hundreds of millions of Saudi dollars spent on the painting could perhaps have been put to better use. Here’s a few examples of the impact that money could have had:
Every single one of those people in need could be fed for more than 5 weeks. (Oxfam told HuffPost it estimates that the cost of feeding one person in Yemen for one week is $4.)
Every single family in need in Yemen could receive a sanitation kit that would help protect them from the huge outbreak of cholera, a vicious waterborne disease that was far less common before the outbreak of the war. (One kit to help a family costs $23, Oxfam said; around 3.5 million families are in need, so the total cost would be $80.5 million.) $450,000 spent over a year in a United Nations-managed project helped more than 12,800 people receive mattresses, blankets, gas stoves, buckets and emergency food rations. Those provisions could be supplied many times over. For the price of the painting and a yacht the prince bought last year, he could have filled the gap in the U.N.’s emergency plan for Yemen, journalist Samuel Oakford noted on Twitter. Saudi Arabia does fund significant relief for Yemen, and its officials note that it has accepted hundreds of Yemenis displaced by the fighting.
But experts say peace is nowhere in sight and that there’s little sign of any serious talks to end the conflict between the Houthi rebels and the Saudi-backed international government.
In the meantime, as the Saudi-led campaign continues to drop bombs and block access to sea and airports, Yemen’s desperation continues to grow.
By SABRINA TOPPA
Aisha was 14 years old when she married a man almost a decade older in a match arranged by her parents. “I was just thinking I would have the opportunity to wear good clothes and high heels,” Aisha, now 35, tells TIME.
Living in Pakistan’s northwest Mianwali district, the marriage festivities made her feel glamorous, even though she would no longer attend school and her elders had forged a marriage certificate saying she was 18. Soon after the marriage was solemnized, however, the abuse from her husband began: Age 16, Aisha’s pregnant body was hurled against a cupboard, leaving her covered in bruises. Her husband later burned his daughter’s hand on a heater and dropped icy water over his wife’s head as she slept. “He was torturing me in small, cruel ways,” says Aisha, who asked TIME not to use her real name for safety reasons. Her husband sought a second wife, but ordered Aisha to initiate a divorce first, fearing the risk to his reputation in the family.
Pakistan has one of the highest numbers of child brides in the world. Almost a quarter of girls marry before the age of 18, according to a recent poll by Gallup. Although the minimum age limit for marriage is set at 18 for men, women can legally marry at 16 in the South Asian country of more than 200 million. However, some lawmakers are taking action following longtime lobbying efforts of women’s and child rights groups, and have proposed amending the legal age of marriage for women to 18. On Dec. 11, parliament will vote to end child marriages nationwide under the Child Marriage Restraint (Amendment) Bill 2017.
“In a country where people are not allowed to drive or vote before the age of 18, why should marriage be the exception?” Senator Sehar Kamran, one of the main supporters of the bill, tells TIME. “Similarly, why protect only our boys and not our girls under the guise of “values” or “culture?”
However, the bill faces opposition from conservative religious groups who contend that girls as young as 15 can wed. In October, the Council of Islamic Ideology, an advisory body that judges whether certain bills are compliant with Islamic religious law, characterized raising the age from 16 to 18 as “anti-Islamic,” on the grounds that girls who have undergone puberty are of marriageable age. Three years ago, the same Council advocated allowing girls as young as nine to marry if signs of puberty were evident, drawing the ire of rights’ activists around the country.
“The argument that it is un-Islamic is invalid,” counters Anbreen Ajaib, executive director of Bedari, a nonprofit working on combating child marriages in Pakistan. “The Council of Islamic Ideology never gets involved in anything to do with Islam, it just becomes active when it comes to women,” she says. While the Council’s recommendations to lawmakers are not legally binding, the 55-year-old body serves a barometer for potential backlash by religious conservatives in the Islamic republic.
In Pakistan, like its South Asian neighbors Bangladesh, India, and Nepal, early marriage is prevalent, especially in rural communities. Women who enter wedlock before the age of 18 have a higher risk of maternal or infant death or health complications: Eight percent of Pakistani women aged 20 to 24 delivered a baby before the age of 18, and every 20 minutes, a Pakistani woman dies from childbirth or complications in pregnancy. “The children of young mothers are more likely to die at an early age because their bodies are not ready, nor are they psychologically ready,” Ajaib says. In Pakistan, 64 infants die per 1,000 births — the highest rate of infant mortality in Asia, and worse than war-ravaged Afghanistan or Yemen, according to figures from the World Bank. The high maternal and infant death rates in Pakistan have a close link to early pregnancy and marriage, says Sadia Hussain, the executive director of the Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child.
For child brides, the risk of domestic violence, early pregnancy, and marital rape increases significantly, while many drop out of school and have little employment opportunities, according to UNICEF. Aisha, who faced heavy bleeding during her second pregnancy, regrets the physical and emotional toll the early marriage took on her. “It should have been with someone the same age, so that I could have shared my life with them,” she says. “I wanted to grow old together with this person, and be at the same mental level as them. At least then I could have had a chance at a happy marriage.” Multiple factors, including poverty, lack of education, and deeply entrenched patriarchal customs, can impel families to arrange early marriages. In 1929, the British passed a law restraining underage marriage in colonial-era Pakistan, raising the legal age to 14 for girls and imposing a 1,000 rupee fine (around $10) for violations. Since this period, lawmakers have sought to institute checks on child marriage through amendments to both the Child Marriage Restraint Act 1929 and the Penal Code, which was updated in February 2017 to criminalize forced marriages of underage brides. A punishment of five to ten years was imposed, along with fines of up to one million rupees ($9,500). However, these strict penalties only apply when a marriage is classified as “forced” and the bride is under the current marriageable age of sixteen. For this reason, activists have pushed for an update to the Child Marriage Restraint Act itself, to widen the scope of the law.
Pakistan has already achieved some successes in fighting early marriage: the southeast province of Sindh proscribed child marriages in 2014, levying prison terms of up to three years, along with a 45,000-rupee (around $427) fine. And in Pakistan’s most populous Punjab province, a six-month jail sentence and $475 fine was approved under a 2015 bill. However, a lack of enforcement has done little to stop early marriage in rural Pakistan, where it is most commonly practiced. The new bill would revise the marriageable age of women to 18, and increase punishment to a minimum 100,000 rupee fine (around $950) and a two-year jail term. Those who would face punishment under the law include the adult husband, the child’s parents or guardians, and the person who solemnizes the wedding. In a country where underage marriage is sometimes used as a means to reduce the burden of childcare on destitute families, the stiff financial penalty might dissuade some from arranging early unions, activists say. Previous attempts to raise the national minimum marriage age for women to 18 have failed. In October, parliamentarians scuppered a draft bill, pointing to Muslim theologians who argued that Islam’s lack of an explicit age for marriage indicated that early unions could be approved. Likewise, last year, another proposal was derailed by clerics who labeled it “blasphemous.” Despite these setbacks, a few weeks ago, the Child Marriage Restraint Bill was approved by a Senate committee, paving the way for this month’s upcoming vote. If the bill passes the Senate floor, it will head to the National Assembly for approval. If it’s rejected, activists and lawmakers will return to the drawing board, Kamran says. “We must protect our girls,” the senator tells TIME.
“A 16-year-old girl cannot have property, open a bank account, or travel alone without a national ID card,” says Bedari’s Ajaib. “She can’t even buy a small mobile SIM card without a national ID card, so how can she take responsibility for a family as a wife?” Senator Kamran is optimistic about the prospects ahead for reform. “We are keeping our fingers crossed,” she says, but cautions “Changes don’t come overnight.”
For Pakistani women like Aisha, whose education was cut short by a failed early marriage, the legal change would prevent the setbacks faced by young brides like herself. Now divorced, she is determined not to allow the same fate to befall her young daughter: “A 14-year-old child can’t make a decision about marriage,” Aisha says. “We don’t understand what a husband or marriage is.”
By Niloufer Siddiqui
Three weeks of protests ended in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad, on Nov. 26, with the resignation of the country’s federal law minister — a demand of the hard-line Islamist protesters. The country’s major English-language newspaper termed the deal a “capitulation” and “a devastating blow to the legitimacy and moral standing of the government and all state institutions.”
The protests, which had effectively paralyzed the city after blocking a major highway, resulted in the loss of at least six lives and 200 injured. They were sparked by a minor change to the oath taken by election candidates, which slightly altered the language declaring the prophet Muhammad as the final prophet — a central belief of the Islamic faith. The change was dismissed by the government as a “clerical error” and quickly reversed. However, the protests continued, calling, among other things, for the law minister to resign for his alleged blasphemy in overseeing this change. At the root of the issue was whether this tweak was intended to benefit the widely ostracized Ahmadi sect.
Further underlying the protests, and the state’s response to them, are a number of key, recurrent issues in Pakistani politics: the troubling use of the blasphemy law, the street power of Islamists, the gray zone between political parties and militant actors — and of course, when it comes to Pakistan, civil-military relations aren’t too far beneath the surface.
Here are the main things to understand about the protests — and the trends to watch for.
Who were the protesters?
The protests were spearheaded by a newly formed political party, the Tehreek-e-Labaik Ya Rasool Allah Pakistan (TLP). The party adheres to a sub-sect of Sunni Islam which emphasizes personal devotion to the prophet Muhammad, engages in such practices as the veneration of saints, and has typically been considered moderate and tolerant. As a result of some of these practices, the sub-sect has been a victim of extremist outfits in Pakistan, such as the Pakistan Taliban.
But the TLP itself has violent origins. It was formed in large part to express support of Mumtaz Qadri, who killed the governor of Punjab for defending the rights of a woman accused of blasphemy in 2011.
As the TLP seeks to establish itself as a relevant political force, the already fuzzy boundary between traditional Islamist electoral parties and explicitly militant — but not political — groups such as the Taliban is becoming increasingly blurred. While the country’s largest Islamist parties are no stranger to the art of street protests and vigilante action, the TLP’s open incitement to violence and its avowedly sectarian nature are more emblematic of anti-Shiite movements in the country.
These movements have been responsible for the killings of thousands of Shiites, at the same time as political wings affiliated with them contest elections. Individual clerics associated with such sectarian groups are also increasingly becoming important local actors, controlling vital vote banks, and proving to be valuable electoral allies for mainstream political parties.
What led to the protests?
The protests last month were related to the status of Ahmadis, a minority group that identifies as Muslim but diverges from other Islamic sects over the belief that the founder of their faith is the last messiah. For their beliefs, Ahmadis have long suffered mob violence and targeted attacks by Islamist groups.
Street protests have played a central role in the Ahmadi issue, with protesters demanding, and state authorities largely acceding to, a steady erosion of Ahmadi rights. The Pakistani state resisted anti-Ahmadi street agitation in 1953, but since then, it has frequently capitulated to Islamist demands, including adding a 1974 constitutional provision that Ahmadis were non-Muslim. The alleged change in the election act in 2017, which precipitated the most recent crisis, was perceived as softening this constitutional amendment.
The protests’ success threatens to embolden those who seek to use blasphemy accusations — a capital offense — as a tool in personal or political disputes. The law minister who resigned as a result of the protests was forced to apologize and, to counter these accusations of blasphemy, assure the nation that he believed in the finality of the prophet.
Civil-military relations: a perpetual challenge
The manner in which the protests ultimately disbanded demonstrates the outsized role of the military in Pakistani politics. The protest’s leader made clear that he would negotiate with the army and not the civilian government, and the list of demands to which the government ultimately agreed includes a note of gratitude to the chief of army staff for “saving the nation from a big catastrophe.” The army’s role was such that an Islamabad high justice released a scathing order criticizing it for extra-constitutional meddling.
A video showing a member of an army-controlled paramilitary force distributing money to the protesters further raises questions about the army’s motivations. Coupled with the army calling for nonviolence on both sides, which was seen as equating the civilian government with the hard-line protesters, journalists and political analysts have asked whether the army is seeking to — once again — influence upcoming national elections.
In particular, the entry of the TLP and other newly formed religious parties into Punjabi electoral politics can make a dent in the vote bank of the ruling Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N), whose support base stems largely from a right-leaning religious electorate. The power of Islamists — who have historically failed at the polls — emanates primarily from their ability to get people out on the streets. However, their ability to weaken the vote share of mainstream parties is proving increasingly important. The recent release of a militant leader thought to be responsible for the 2008 Mumbai attacks is being interpreted in a similar vein.
The army’s role aside, parties such as the PML-N know that they must ally with such religious actors — or, at the very least, avoid antagonizing them — or risk losing voters. Opposition political parties were quick to capitalize on the PML-N’s failure to manage the situation, publicly siding with the protesters. These electoral considerations encourage appeasement of militant actors by strengthening and entrenching them in politics. The state’s most recent capitulation to the protesters remains a continuation of a dangerous trend of ceding space to militant actors.
By Ammar Rashid
Fascist movements are not an uncommon sight in the world today – across the globe, movements have resurfaced that have transformed the economic and cultural anxieties of ordinary people into political projects that scapegoat racial and religious minorities.
Pakistani progressives – insufficient or ineffective?
A return to a constructive class politics
In order to be effective, our politics must also be constructive. It must seek to mobilise and deploy common resources to meet people’s collective needs.
Reporting on religion is one thing, reporting religiously is another, but it is totally different to be a religious extremist journalist. Extremism, like racism, has many facets. It creeps into our skins through known avenues of culture and stays there unnoticed. The moment others notice it, is often too late. It is even later that we ourselves recognise our extreme face in our own mirrors of consciousness. Is it possible to be a balanced journalist in a country where being a zealot is rewarded while moderation might land you in trouble? The least one could expect is being disliked, seen as incompetent. It could get worse. One might lose the job, life, or live in insecurity. Even if the person is not a moderate but belongs to an organisation that tries (or claims) to be, the dangers are imminent.
This poses an existentialist ethical question. What should the professional do? Side with the extremists to reap the immediate benefits of fame, security, acceptance and career promotion? Or fight the onslaught, losing career, job, life, or security? The two extremes are unwanted and unprofessional. There is no story worth dying for. We need to live another day to fulfill our social and professional responsibility as journalists. But this doesn’t mean siding with the wrong side of the history. The life of a society is much longer than the generations we know or work for. Ensuring physical and moral survival is a tricky question to answer in the middle of the havoc we are living through.
The first golden rule is to develop a deeper understanding of our own world and the world around us. Individual reading habits and critical self evaluation are really good tools for professionalisation. But this is not all. These traits need to get institutionalised. Media organisations, be it the owners or the journalist unions, need to understand and debate the current crises of professionalism. Being self righteous would not help us. If all are right, where does the wrong come from?
Before devising any strategies to deal with the problem, we need to understand the problem first. Extremism is not simply rewarded due to it being attractive. We didn’t have it in the present shape before the war in Afghanistan. International media attention in this God forsaken part of the world has drawn young men (mostly) into covering war and violence. It gave them international fame and recognition besides illustrious careers, never even imagined by any of their predecessors.
Extremism and violence doesn’t depend on media to begin or end. But it is complemented by our naivety, gullibility and uncritical nonchalance. Media persons give space to hatred due to our zealous activism in favour of any cause that heralds the ownership of a single truth
Like a war economy, conflict and war journalism also became an industry. Every new entrant into the field aspired to become a conflict reporter. It was during these troubled times that local journalism, social sector reporting and development and solution journalism never got a chance into this industry. They were not worthy competitors. The battle for modern and responsible journalism was lost before it even began.
The warring parties, parties to conflict, did develop ideological basis in the society. This also gave the then weaker dogmas of conflict and hatred a chance to prosper. Together, they attracted the youth and many of those entered the profession of journalism with the new zeal to transform the transformer. This mindset brought the illusion of the sacred into journalism. Serving a higher purpose spread like jungle fire and many espoused it as a moral value. The problem with abstractions is that once you begin following these, you do it uncritically.
This is what we call a leap of faith. This leap in the void cost the professionals their fair judgment, the inner daemon, the voice of conscience that says no to the inhuman while lauds the humane. And this is the point where we got famous and glamorous extremists. The ones donning the celebrity mantle in the media industry. They unknowingly (and knowingly) helped extremism grow to the limit of a juggernaut, an unstoppable monster. But as it happens in all such cases, they were amongst the worst victims of their own creature.
Extremism and violence doesn’t depend on media to begin or end. But it is complemented by our naivety, gullibility and uncritical nonchalance. Media persons give space to hatred due to our zealous activism in favour of any cause that heralds the ownership of a single truth. We represent the uncompromising opinion in our media, thus supporting radicaliation of all sorts. This lands us in a life where the radical ideas with most physical force trample us under their feet. The point we fail to understand is that we have lost our right to the profession because of our active promotion of creeds in a profession that is responsible for giving enough information to make informed decision making. Instead of informing people through investigating, the real reasons behind happenings, we have decided to mold the investigation in favour of our presupposed truth. Imagine a world where each and everyone in the media tries to force the audience in favour of a half truth they support. This doesn’t land us in problem. We, indeed, become the problem.
The inquiry report of the Model Town massacre prepared by Justice Ali Baqar Najfi has been made public. The Punjab government made the report public by the website of its public relations directorate. The report has been divided into two parts; one highlights the statements and positions that each party has taken, and the other comprises of the order sheet. The Judicial Commission which was formed earlier based its result on the statements of government functionaries, police officials, administrative officials, and the Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif himself.
The report does not blatantly accuse any party of being responsible for the incident. However, it does point out instances where the situation could have been handled in a better manner. One such instance is the decision by Law Minister Rana Sanaullah to not let the political objectives of Tahir ul Qadri materialise. This urge led to the authorities questioning the placement of barriers around Minhaaj ul Quran. Although their placement was illegal but it had remained such for over three years. They wanted to disperse the crowd with immediate effect, which then resulted in the needless loss of lives.
The government feared that making the report public would result in sectarian violence, as several people who were being thrashed were calling out Hazrat Ali (RA) to save them from the wrath of the police force. Even though the report has no legal value but it will go on to damage the political position of Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N). Law Minister, Rana Sanaullah, has been clearly pointed out as the obvious reason behind the clash. Had the report been made public earlier, it would have lessened the pain of those families who were waiting for justice and hoping that someone would listen to their demands, and a lot of damage would have been prevented.
At this point, accommodating the dissenting voices should be of top priority. Families of the victims are demanding certified copies of the report. Such demands and the allegations of tempering the report should be dealt with seriously. The time to make amends is now and there should be no delay in ensuring that the families are satisfied with whatever action the authorities decide to take. Even if the authorities are not at fault, shying away from the victims and their families is not an intelligent option.
#Pakistan - اسکولوں سے زیادہ مدرسے بنے، تعلیم ناقص نظرثانی کی ضرورت - چیف آف آرمی اسٹاف جنرل قمر جاوید باجوہ
کوئٹہ (رائٹرز؍این این آئی ) چیف آف آرمی اسٹاف جنرل قمر جاوید باجوہ نے کہا ہے کہ حکومت کرنا فوج کا کام نہیں، فوج سیاستدان سب نے غلطیاں کیں، اب وقت آگیاہے کہ سب اپنا کام کریں، جمہورت پسند ہوں اور ووٹ کی طاقت اہم ہے، پاکستان کی ترقی کیلئے میرٹ کی بالادستی،تعلیم، انتظامی امور میں بہتری کی ضرورت ہے۔ آرمی چیف نے کہا کہ اسکولوں سے زیادہ مدارس بنے، ملک بھر میں پھیلے مدارس زیادہ تر دینی تعلیم دے رہے ہیں تاہم اب اس پر نظرثانی کی ضرورت ہے، ملک میں مدارس کی تعلیم ناکافی ہے کیونکہ یہاں جدید دور کے لحاظ سے طلبا کی تربیت نہیں ہوپارہی ہے۔ جنرل قمر جاوید باجوہ نے کہا کہ وہ مدارس کے خلاف نہیں لیکن ہم مدارس کا اصل مقصد بھول چکے ہیں، حال ہی میں انہیں بتایا گیا ہے کہ ایک مکتبہ فکر کے مدارس میں 25لاکھ طلبا زیرتعلیم ہیں۔ انہوں نے سوال کیا کہ تو وہ کیا بنیں گے، یہاں سے نکلنے والے کیا مولوی بنیں گے یا دہشت گرد؟ ۔ انہوں نے مزید کہا کہ اتنی مساجد نہیں جتنے مدارس ہیں اور یہ بھی ممکن نہیں کہ اتنی بڑی مدارس کے طلبا کی تعداد کو روزگار کی فراہمی کیلئے مساجد تعمیر کی جائیں۔ انہوں نے کہا کہ ہمیں ان طلبا کو جدید تعلیم دینے کی ضرورت ہے۔ جنرل قمر جاوید باجوہ نے کہا کہ ناقص تعلیم خصوصی طور پر مدارس قوم کو پیچھے لے جارہے ہیں۔ انہوں نے یہ بات جمعرات کو کوئٹہ کے مقامی ہوٹل میں وائس آف بلوچستان کے زیراہتمام بلوچستان کے نوجوانوں میں افرادی قوت کی بہتری کے حوالے سے منعقدہ انٹرنیشنل سیمینار سے خطاب کرتے ہوئے کہی۔ آرمی چیف جنر ل قمر جاوید باجوہ نے کہا کہ پاکستان صرف جمہوری عمل کے ذریعے ہی ترقی کرسکتا ہے میں جمہوریت پسند انسان ہوں لیکن جمہوریت کا ہر گز یہ مطلب نہیں کہ ہم عوام کے ووٹوں سے منتخب ہونے کے بعد ان کی خدمت کرنے کے بجائے اپنے مفاد کو ترجیح دیں۔ انہوں نے کہاکہ سیاستدان کے پاس عوام کے ووٹوں کی طاقت ہوتی ہے جو کہ کسی بھی طاقت سے زیادہ اہم ہے۔ انہوں نے کہا کہ بلوچستان کی سرزمین زرخیز ہے یہاں کے نوجوانوںمیں بے پناہ صلاحیتیں موجود ہیں ، صوبے کے نوجوانوں کو صحیح سمت دکھانے کی ضرورت ہے ہمیں اپنی ترجیحات کو طویل المدت کرنے کی ضرورت ہے کیونکہ اسی طریقے سے قومی ترقی ممکن ہے۔ انہوں نے کہا کہ بلوچستان کی پسماندگی کی اہم وجہ یہاں معیاری تعلیم کا فقدان ہے، 1960کی دہائی میں کوئٹہ میں پاکستان کے بہترین اسکول ہوا کرتے تھے لیکن یکایک 10ہزار اساتذہ جب یہاں سے گئے تو تعلیمی معیاری خراب ہوا ،گزشتہ 40 برسوں میں اسکولوں سے زیادہ مدرسے تعمیر ہوئے یہاں مدرسوں میں صرف دینی تعلیم دی جارہی ہے جس کی وجہ سے مدرسوں میں تعلیم حاصل کرنیوالے طلباء دوسرے بچوں کی نسبت پیچھے رہ جاتے ہیں اور ملک کی ترقی میں اپنا کردار ادا نہیں کرپاتے۔ انہوں نے کہا کہ امن وامان کی مخدوش صورتحا ل اور افغانستان کی جنگ نے ہمیں بری طرح متاثر کیا ہے بلوچستان کی ترقی میں بھی امن وامان رکاوٹ رہا ہے۔ انہوں نے کہاکہ ہمارے پاس اچھے بیورکریٹس کی کمی ہوتی جارہی ہے کوئی بھی بلوچستان آکر فرائض سرانجام نہیں دینا چاہتا سابق وزیراعظم میاں محمد نواز شریف کوتجویز دی تھی کہ بلوچستان اچھے بیوروکریٹس بجھوائیں لیکن بلوچستان سے ہی تعلق رکھنے والے افراد یہاں آکر کام نہیں کرنا چاہتے اگر ہم نے نوجوان نسل میں سے بہترین بیوروکریٹس نہیں بنائے تو مسائل مزید بڑھ سکتے ہیں۔ آرمی چیف نے کہا کہ پاکستان بلوچستان کے بغیر ادھورا ہے، بلوچستان کی ترقی پاکستان کی ترقی ہے، پاک فوج نے بلوچستان میں 6کیڈٹ کالج تعمیر کئے ہیں جبکہ مزید تین کیڈٹ کالج بنائے جائینگے، نسٹ کوئٹہ کیلئے زمین مختص کرلی گئی ہے جبکہ استحکام اگلے سال شروع ہوجائیگا ۔ انہوں نے کہا کہ صوبے میں ٹیکنیکل تعلیم کا انسٹیٹیوٹ بھی تعمیر کیا جائیگا جبکہ پاک فوج کی جانب سے تربت کو ایم آر آئی مشین بھی فراہم کی جائیگی، ایک وقت تھا جب بلوچستان سے تعلق رکھنے والے گنے چنے افسران فوج میں ہوتے تھے لیکن آج میں فخر سے کہتاہوں کہ بلوچستان کے 600 افسران، 20ہزار سے زائد اہلکار اور 232 کیڈٹس اس وقت پاک فوج میں فرائض سرانجا م دے رہے ہیں ۔انہوں نے کہاکہ پاک فوج میں میرٹ کا خصوصی خیال رکھا جاتاہے یہی وجہ ہے کہ میں عام شخص سے جنرل بنا اور پاک فوج کی کمان کررہاہوں ، انہوں نے کہا کہ اسی طرح ہمیں ملک کے ہر ادارے میں میرٹ کی بالادستی لانی ہوگی کیونکہ اسی سے ترقی ممکن ہے ۔انہوں نے کہاکہ میڈیا کو بھی بلوچستان کو مزید کوریج دینی چاہئے پاکستان میں 93فیصد ان ڈائریکٹ ٹیکسوں کا براہ راست اثر غریب عوام پر پڑتاہے جبکہ ٹیکس کلیکشن بھی انتہائی کم ہے ، انہوں نے کہا کہ ہر سال 32بلین ڈالر خرچ کئے بغیر ضائع ہوجاتے ہیں ان معاملات پر ہمیں توجہ مرکوز کرنی ہوگی ۔ اس موقع پر وزیراعلی بلوچستان نواب ثناء اللہ خان زہری ،کمانڈر سدرن کمانڈ لیفٹیننٹ جنرل عاصم سلیم باجوہ ،آئی جی ایف سی بلوچستان میجر جنرل ندیم انجم ،ڈپٹی چیئرمین سینیٹ مولانا عبدالغفوری حیدری ،وفاقی وزراء میر حاصل بزنجو ،میر جام کمال،اراکین قومی اسمبلی سردار کمال بنگلزئی ،جہانگیر خان ترین ،سینیٹر آغا شاہزیب درانی،صوبائی وزراء اور دیگر رہنمائوں سمیت طلباء وطالبات کی بڑی تعداد نے شرکت کی۔