Archive for China

So Much for Free Media in India

It’s an understatement to say that there’s China-bashing in the Indian media.

Occasionally, there are rational and insightful voices, but these, by and large, are often submerged by many a 24/7 news channel and the patriotism-trumpeting column inches in newspapers.

China is always drawn in cartoons as the Fearsome Dragon with a fang, or an Ugly Big Brother with a shadow. Stereotyping is the name of the game.

Recently, an English daily devoted an entire Sunday page to asking prominent Indians: Would you choose to be Chinese or Indian? Really, would any sensible citizen, let alone those “prominent”, publicly opt for another nationality? Worse, the answers of prominent Indian citizens to the question ranged from “They dress like robots” to “Indian Chinese food trumps Chinese Chinese any day”, from “China’s success is overrated” to “We are the best Asian country”.

The crowning glory in stereotyping must go to the piece a fiction writer wrote titled We dream. Chinese don’t dare to, in which the author promptly pronounced, from her one trip to China, that people there didn’t even “know the difference between what the top bosses want them to know and what the truth is”. How did she arrive at such a dramatic conclusion? Answer: The three female guides assigned to her on her recent China trip turned out to be 30-year-olds, single and virgins!

For a moment, forget the Indian writer’s intemperate inquiry. Forget also the care the hosts took to choose suitable guides for her. But isn’t it ridiculous of her to draw conclusions about Chinese society based on the remarks of the three guides? The writer also failed to notice that all three hailed from rural China, managed to learn English and find jobs in cities. Their achievements not only demonstrate their ability to dream but also that dreams such as theirs do come true in China.

Such portrayals of China are indisputably wrong. China today is an open and dynamic society, boasting 360 million internet users. Hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty in the last three decades. Obviously, not all Indians share the author’s perception of China. But hers is representative and inimical to Indo-China relations. It’s often claimed that India is a country where opinions are freely expressed, but this assertion  doesn’t whitewash the fact that these so-called opinions are presumptuous and agenda-driven.

The media’s primary responsibility is to tell the truth. But a section of the Indian media is doing fellow Indians a great disservice by reporting on an important neighbour like China with dogmatic simplicity bordering on contempt.

It seems nothing about China is right—China’s growth rate is always “overrated”; its goods are “cheap and dumped”. What about Indian customers and dealers who benefit from goods otherwise inaccessible to them? When the media talks about work visas, the focus is invariably on China’s attempt to “grab Indian jobs”. Rarely do we read about Chinese workers building roads, power plants and factories in India.

One Chinese project in Tamil Nadu has, no doubt, 200 workers from China, but it has simultaneously created 1,000 local jobs. Has the Indian media written about this?

On the more thorny boundary issue, the ensemble statements of the foreign minister, the army chief and the foreign secretary could hardly tame, let alone douse, the media “incursion” flames.

For building robust China-India relations, and nurturing friendship between the two peoples, it’s imperative the Indian media doesn’t remain stuck in a time warp.

Wang Yaodong is South Asia bureau chief of Wen Hui Daily, China, and has been based in New Delhi for the last eight years.

 

Leave a Comment

China Far Ahead of India Economically

  China India

Gross Domestic Product ($ bn) 3,250.20 1,311.90
Annual growth rate (GDP) 9.40% 6.20%
Population below $1 a day 16.60% 34.70%
Population below $2 a day 46.70% 52.40%
Human Development Index world rank 81st 128th
Adult literacy 91% 61%
PhDs in science and engg each year 15,000 6,000
Training and vocational institutes 5,00,000 12,000

Health
Health expenditure per capita $71.00 $31.00
Child mortality (under five years per 1,000) 24 76.00
Life expectancy (male) in years 70.8 63.20
Life expectancy (female) 74.6 66.70

Infrastructure
Electricity production (bn kWh) 2,199.60 667.80
Electricity consumption per capita (kWh) 1,585.00 457.00
Rail route (km) 62,200.00 63,465.00
Road network (km) 14,02,698 33,19,644

Sectoral break-up of GDP
Agriculture 11.80% 18.50%
Industry 48.70% 26.40%
Services 39.50% 55.10%
Foreign reserves ($ bn) 1,951 250
Defence budget ($ bn) 84.9 30

Agricultural and Industrial Production (Million tonnes/year)
Foodgrains 418 210
Steel 163 29
Cement 650 109
Crude oil 160 40
Coal 1,300 300

Trade
Exports ($ bn) 1,465 176
Imports ($ bn) 1,156 287
Indo-China trade volume $51.8 bn  
India’s balance of trade with China -$11.2 bn  

***

Leave a Comment

Fact Sheet of Sino Indian Border Dispute

  • 1914: Simla Conference results in McMahon Line as the boundary between British India and Tibet. China refuses to ratify the agreement.
  • 1947: India gains independence from Britain.
  • 1948: Indian ambassador to China, K.M. Panikkar, asks Delhi to strengthen its claim over areas below McMahon Line.
  • 1949: Communists take control of China and establish the People’s Republic of China.
  • 1950: China sends troops to “liberate” Tibet.
  • 1951: India sends a political officer to establish authority over Tawang, where Tibetans owing allegiance to Lhasa protest the effort.
  • 1954: India signs an agreement with Beijing; agrees to Tibet being “a region of China”.
  • 1956: Khampa rebellion erupts in Tibet. Some Tibetan leaders flee and take refuge in Kalimpong.
  • 1958: India raises the issue of the road built by China through Aksai Chin for access to Tibet.
  • 1959: Large-scale uprising breaks out in Tibet, forcing the Dalai Lama and many of his followers to flee Lhasa for India. India raises the boundary issue, formally, with China.
  • 1960: The Nehru-Zhou summit fails to break impasse on the boundary issue.
  • 1962: India, China go to war after Chinese troops move into India territory.
  • 1963: China withdraws unilaterally from much of Indian territory but retains some areas like Aksai Chin in Ladakh.
  • 1979: Indian foreign minister Atal Behari Vajpayee visits China to break long hiatus in ties and renews dialogue.
  • 1988: Rajiv Gandhi undertakes his historic visit to China, brings about a serious thaw in relations.
  • 1996: India and China agree on confidence-building-measures to keep borders tranquil and peaceful.
  • 1998: Renewed tensions in Sino-India ties after Delhi conducts nuclear test and cites China as the main security threat to justify them.
  • 2003: PM Vajpayee travels to China, agrees to the appointment of special representatives for resolving the boundary issue.
  • 2005: Premier Wen Jiabao visits Delhi; India and China enter into a strategic partnership. The leaders agree on the framework for a settlement of the boundary issue on the basis of the “political parameters and guiding principles”; “interests of the settled populations” to be considered before a final agreement. China also shows a new map with Sikkim as part of India.
  • 2006: President Hu Jintao visits India and announces 10 points to further strengthen bilateral ties.
  • 2007: Sonia Gandhi and Rahul visit China and hold wide-ranging talks with leaders in Beijing.
  • 2008: Prime Minister Manmohan Singh travels to Beijing and reaffirms India’s commitment for strong ties with China. Later in the year, China tries to block nsg
    waiver for India.

Leave a Comment

The Northern Areas’ Reforms Undertaken Due to Chinese Pressure

Political and administrative reforms recently announced by Pakistan for its Northern Areas, known officially as Gilgit Baltistan, are aimed at providing better security cover for the rapidly growing Chinese interests in the territory.100-0048_IMG

Gilgit, the Northern Areas capital, has acquired the status of a gateway to Central Asia in the wake of a Pakistan-China barter trade agreement and accords with Central Asian states.

China has invested heavily in a range of projects in the Northern Areas and is poised to launch several new projects, particularly in power sector, costing billions of dollars. In August 2009, during a visit by Zardari to China, the countries signed a memorandum of understanding on construction of a hydro-power station at Bunji, in Gilgit Baltistan.

The countries also agreed in June to allow market access for bilateral
trade in 11 services sectors and to intensify their efforts to increase
border trade, which constitutes merely 5% of their overall trade, and
takes place through the Karakoram Highway (KKH), whose repair and
upgrade is likely to be completed by 2012.

The Pakistan government has now announced significant reforms for the Northern Areas, including renaming the area as Gilgit Baltistan through the federal cabinet’s approval of the Gilgit Baltistan Empowerment and Self Governance Order, 2009. The area has not been given the status of the country’s fifth province, though it will have a legislative assembly, a chief minister and a governor.

The people of Gilgit Baltistan had hitherto been denied any clear
constitutional status and hence system of governance and the delivery of justice. This in part reflects the Kashmir issue, with India maintaining that the Northern Areas has been illegally occupied by Pakistan.

Historically, Gilgit Baltistan was not merged into Pakistan proper due
to concern this might undermine the country’s claim on Kashmir and it was not merged into Azad Jammu and Kashmir, the southernmost political entity within the Pakistan-controlled part of the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir, because it could complicate a settlement on the area.

If Gilgit Baltistan is made a full-fledged province within the constitutional framework of Pakistan, India could perhaps argue that the state it has carved out of the disputed area, Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir, is also a legitimate entity and that it is a settled issue.

Beijing’s profile in the Northern Areas has been rising for the past
decade, with investments in a range of infrastructure projects.
Important China-funded projects include the construction, maintenance and expansion of the KKH, small hydro-power projects, construction of a dry port at Sost, water-diversion channels, bridges, railway projects and telecommunication facilities.

The proposed Bunji dam is estimated to cost up to US$7 billion and will have a capacity to generate 7,000 megawatts of electricity. Under the deal, undertaken on a build-operate-transfer basis, all the investment will be made by Chinese entrepreneurs.

China and Pakistan also plan to link the KKH to the southern Pakistani
port of Gwadar in southwestern Balochistan province through the
Chinese-built Gwadar-Dalbandin railway, which extends up to the Pakistan garrison city of Rawalpindi.

The KKH, which connects China’s Xinjiang province with the Northern Areas, has a strategic importance as it cuts through the collision zone between the Asian and Indian continents, where China, Tajikistan, Afghanistan, India and Pakistan come within 250 kilometers of each other. It connects the Northern Areas to the ancient Silk Road, which runs about 1,300 kilometers from Kashgar city in Xinjiang region, to Havelian in the Pakistan district of Abottabad. An extension of the highway meets the Grand Trunk road at Hasn Abdal, west of Islamabad.

Under a memorandum of understanding signed in June 2006 between China’s state-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission and the Pakistani Highway Administration, the KKH will be widened from 10 meters to 30 meters, and its capacity will be increased three times. The upgraded road will also be constructed to particularly accommodate heavy-laden vehicles and extreme weather conditions.

The dry port at Sost, on the Pakistan-China border, is connected by the KKH to Karimabad, Gilgit and Chilas on the south and the Chinese cities of Tashkurgan, Upal and Kashgar in the north. The port has the potential to act as a conduit of trade for Central Asian states.

Islamabad is also poised to undertake the construction of the $12.6
billion Diamer-Bhasha dam, with a capacity to generate 4,500 MW of electricity per day. Work on the dam is to begin this month and is scheduled to be completed in 2016. The project, on the Indus River, is 165km downstream of Gilgit and 40km downstream of Chilas.

To support such developments, Pakistan expects an investment of $1.5 billion per year from European, Arab and Chinese companies willing to form a consortium on a build-operate-transfer basis on a “supplier’s credit” basis.

China has already agreed to extend 10 billion rupees (US$121 million) supplier credit out of a total cost of 12 billion rupees for the construction of the Karakoram Highway to establish links with the Bhasha dam site to help to transport heavy machinery needed in its construction.

China, rather than have its workers in Pakistan join the exodus of foreigners because of security concerns is increasing its involvement there and planning further projects.

The number of Chinese engineers working in Pakistan has surged to 10,000 in 2009 from 3,000 in 2008, working on 120 projects in different sectors of the economy. China is also involved in a 750-kilometer railway linking the two countries, from Havellian to the 4,730-meter-high Khunjerab Pass in Gilgit-Baltistan, the area until recently known as the Northern Areas. Havellian is linked with the rest of the rail network in Pakistan, and the Chinese will lay track within its territory up to Khunjerab.

China is increasingly interested in investing in Gilgit-Baltistan, shifting its focus from insurgency-hit Balochistan in Pakistan’s southwest, where China is already involved in large development projects including Gwadar port.

A proposed Pakistan-China energy and trade corridor, involving gas and oil pipelines and a rail link, would start in Gwadar and enter China’s Xinjiang region after running through the Gilgit-Baltistan region.

Some 767 development projects are to be carried out in Gilgit-Baltistan in 2009, with a particular focus and the help of China on the power sector to harness the huge hydro-power potential of the region.

China’s determination to maintain its interest in Pakistan was underlined recently by Chinese Ambassador to Pakistan, who said  “A number of foreigners [have] left Pakistan, but we are committed to complete all the projects on which Chinese are working.”

China has expressed satisfaction over the security being provided to its nationals in Pakistan, where the Chinese embassy has a joint task force with the interior ministry and has a 24-hour hotline.
Beijing has already given US$1 billion in two tranches to boost Pakistan’s foreign reserves, which last week reached a two-year high at $14.31 billion. The reserves have also been strengthened by a $1.2 billion installment from the IMF, part of a larger payment agreed last November.

Pakistan is the only country in the world to which China has given such a huge amount on very low interest rate. The two countries have agreed to cooperate in modernizing and strengthening existing Pakistan Railways tracks and converting them to meet international standards. During a recent visit to China, Pakistan’s Railways Minister Haji Ghulam Ahmed Bilour agreed with his Chinese counterpart Liu Zhijun to establish a consortium for the work. China is to send its experts to assist in feasibility studies for the railways projects, which would be carried out on a build-own-operate basis.

China has also shown interest in early laying a track between the Pakistan border town of Torkham and Jalal abad in Afghanistan, as the Chinese want to use the Pakistan Railways network to transport their goods and equipment for the development of copper mines and various other projects in Afghanistan. Separately, Pakistan Railways has completed a feasibility study for a rail section between Chaman, in Balochistan, and Kandahar in Afghanistan that is part of a proposed link across Afghanistan to Turkmenistan.

In a further indication of the close involvement of China in Pakistan’s railway upgrading, the executive committe of Pakistan’s National Economic Council last week approved the import of 202 rail coaches from China at a cost of 15.9 billion Pakistan rupees ($191 million).

The Hindu                      15 Sept 2009

Disappointed at what they say is a “package of gimmicks,” the people of the remote region have voiced protests against the Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self Governance) Order 2009.

But they are also leery of New Delhi’s diplomatic protest against it, saying they are as much victims of India as of Pakistan.

Gilgit-Baltistan is the northern-most territory governed by Islamabad and an important element in the India-Pakistan wrangle over Kashmir. It is also in the middle of a geo-strategic hot-spot.

To its north, it shares boundaries with Afghanistan and China’s Xinjiang Autonomous Region; to the west is Pakistan’s troubled North-West Frontier Province; to its south is Pakistan Occupied Kashmir; and to the east, India’s Jammu & Kashmir state.

New Delhi claims it as part of J&K, and therefore as an integral part of India. Pakistan also links the region to the Kashmir issue, but in contrast to “Azad Kashmir”, has kept the territory in a constitutional limbo, referring to it until now only by the geographical appellation of Northern Areas.

About the only thing that has been welcomed in the autonomy package is the renaming of the area as Gilgit-Baltistan, which better conveys that people with a distinct identity live in that region.

Identity is key to the grievances of Gilgit-Baltistan people, estimated at 1.5 million since the last count in 1998. They do not consider themselves Kashmiri and have little in common with them. The majority are Shia, and a significant number are Ismaili. They belong to several non-Kashmiri ethnicities, and speak a host of languages, none of which are Kashmiri.

Their first link to Kashmir came with the British sale of the region to the Dogra ruler of Jammu and Kashmir in the 19th century. After many twists and turns over 100 years, the people of the territory successfully rebelled against the maharaja on November 1, 1947. They put their future in the hands of Pakistan but found the clock turned back on them when Pakistan linked their fate to that of the Kashmiris.

Accepting Gilgit-Baltistan’s accession would have undermined Pakistan’s international case for Kashmir. In later years, Pakistan did not want to forego the votes from Gilgit-Baltistan in the event of a plebiscite on Kashmir.

But unlike Azad Kashmir, which got some make-believe autonomy, the Northern Areas remained an undefined entity.

Analysts believe the remoteness of the region, its scattered population, the absence of links between local leaders and the Pakistani leadership, all combined to deny Gilgit-Baltistan the comparative political largesse bestowed on PoK.

The territory came under direct rule of the federal government through the Ministry of Kashmir and Northern Areas (KANA). The military had a big role in administering the region. In 1974, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto ushered in a directly elected “council” but left the administrative system untouched. More reforms packages followed in 1990s, and by the Musharraf regime in 2007, when it was on its last legs. Each promised “maximum autonomy” but contributed only cosmetic changes. To date, the people of the region are only de facto citizens of Pakistan.

The Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowerment and Self Governance) Order 2009 of August 29, signed by President Zardari on September 7, yet again promises maximum autonomy to the people of the region.

Under the package, Gilgit-Baltistan will have a Governor as in the other four provinces of Pakistan, without constitutionally being made a province. The leader of the Legislative Assembly will be known as chief minister; the Assembly will have 33 members, of whom 24 are to be directly elected; it will have powers to legislate on 61 subjects.

In addition, the Governor will head a 12-member Council, with half the members from the Assembly and half appointed by the Governor. A fresh election for the Legislative Assembly is to be held by November. The territory will also have its own chief election commissioner, a public service commission.

The government has described it as a “province-like” status for Gilgit-Baltistan. But the new measures have failed to satisfy any segment of the Gilgit-Baltistan population.

Those demanding self-governance see it falling well short of empowerment of the local people. Instead, they see the package tightening the federal government’s hold by the appointment of a Governor. The Council is seen as a move to dilute the Assembly’s powers. While the Assembly has been given powers to pass the budget, it does not spell out how much say the Chief Minister will have in framing it. The Assembly does not have the right to legislate on its natural resources, including water and minerals.

Nationalists, whose demand for independence has gained ground over the years thanks to the denial of basic rights to the region, have also rejected the package.

Pakistan did not consult anyone in Gilgit-Baltistan for this package. The provision for chief minister and Governor is illegal because this is not a province of Pakistan.

Many see it as a separate state, and the least Pakistan could do, according to them, was to treat it on par with Azad Kashmir until the resolution of the Kashmir issue.

They see themselves as the fourth party to the Kashmir dispute and want to be included in the talks as such.

Human rights activists have rejected it saying Pakistan has yet again failed to make any constitutional arrangements for the people of the territory, while those demanding complete integration with Pakistan say it has fallen short of their demand that the territory should have been incorporated as the fifth province of the country.

Bar the PPP, national mainstream political parties active in the region view the package as “pre-poll rigging” for the fresh Legislative Assembly election.

Opposition has also come from Kashmiris, who have seen in it an insidious move by the PPP government to dilute their cause by giving a region internationally considered a part of the Kashmir issue a province-like status within Pakistan.

But it has rankled the people of Gilgit-Baltistan even more that while moving to assuage the fear of the Kashmiris —Foreign Minister held a special briefing for PoK leaders on September 4 — the government did not take them into confidence even after announcing the package.

Instead of winning hearts and minds, the package has spurred a major debate on the motives behind it. The Kashmiris see pressure from the U.S. or Indians as the reason for the package as according to them, it is a move by the PPP government towards a tacit acceptance of the status quo on Kashmir.

According to one theory being circulated in the blogosphere, the government had hoped the package would act as a sop to clam down opposition in Gilgit-Batlistan to the government plans for construction of dams in the region.

During a recent visit to China, President Zardari signed an MoU for the Bunji Hydroelectric Project in Astore, to be constructed by the Chinese on a “Build, operate, transfer” basis. The dam, estimated to cost up to $7 billion, all of it to be invested by the Chinese under the BOT agreement, will have a capacity to generate 7,000 megawatts of electricity.

Some think China, with its high profile investment in several projects including telecommunications, the expansion of the Karakoram Highway, and the construction of a dry port on the Xinjiang border, is behind the government’s latest move keen that there should be no unrest in the region.

“Without a legitimate government in the area, no outside power in the region has a right to start any infrastructure project. We will consider it illegal and illegitimate unless there is a representative government in Gilgit-Baltistan,” said Ali Ahmed Jan, a founder member of the Karakoram Students Movement, now an Islamabad-based human rights activist.

Some also see it as a move to pacify Western donors concerned about the denial of rights to the people of Gilgit-Baltistan.

Last week’s protest by India to Pakistan against the Gilgit-Baltistan Order and the proposed construction of the Bunji dam, has also drawn criticism.

Describing the people of Gilgit-Baltistan as the “worst victims of the India-Pakistan dispute”, Mr. Jan pointed out that they were left out of the numerous confidence-building measures of the peace process. A Skardu-Kargil bus route was proposed but never implemented.

“India’s opposition to the package is unjustified unless it can come up with a plan that will give relief to the victims of the Kashmir dispute,” said Mr. Jan. Pakistan had attempted to do this, he said, even though “it is another matter that what they have given is simply not enough”.

Leave a Comment

Death Sentence in China

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Comment

Sex Trade in Pakistan

SEX IN DEPTH
By William Sparrow
Prostitution in the Islamic nation of Pakistan, once relegated to dark alleys and small red-light districts, is now seeping into many neighborhoods of country’s urban centers. Reports indicate that since the period of civilian rule ended in 1977, times have changed and now the sex industry is bustling.

Early military governments and religious groups sought to reform areas like the famous “Taxali Gate” district of Lahore by displacing prostitutes and their families in an effort to “reinvent” the neighborhood.

While displacing the prostitutes might have temporarily made the once small red-light district a better neighborhood for a time, it did little to stop the now dispersed prostitutes from plying their trade. Reforming a neighborhood, instead of offering education and alternative opportunities, appears to be at the core of early failures to curb the nascent sex industry. This mistake would become a prophetic error as now the tendrils of the sex trade have become omnipresent in cities like Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Karachi and Lahore, not to mention towns, villages and rural outposts.

An aid worker for an Islamabad-based non-governmental organization (NGO) recently related a story: quickly after his arrival in the capital, he realized the house next to his own was a Chinese brothel. The Chinese ability to “franchise” the commercial sex industry by providing down-trodden Chinese women throughout Asia, North America and Europe would be admirable in a business sense if it were not for the atrocities – human trafficking, sexual slavery and exploitation – which cloud its practice.

Chinese bordellos, often operating as “massage parlors” or beauty salons, are across Pakistan, even spread even to war-torn and restive locations such as the Afghan capital Kabul. Chinese in the sex industry have developed a cunning ability to recognize areas where the demand for sex far outstrips the supply.

The NGO worker said that after months of living adjacent to the brothel things were shaken up – literally. One evening a drunk Pakistani drove his car into the brothel. Later the driver told authorities the ramming was a protest by a devout Muslim against the debauchery of the house and its inhabitants. The NGO worker, however, had seen the same car parked peacefully outside the house the night before.

The local sex industry comprised of Pakistani prostitutes has also grown in recent years. One can easily find videos on YouTube that show unabashed red-light areas of Lahore. The videos display house after house with colorfully lit entranceways always with a mamasan and at least one Pakistani woman in traditional dress. The women are available for in-house services for as little as 400 rupees (US$6) to take-away prices ranging 1,000 to 2,000 rupees. These districts are mostly for locals, but foreigners can indulge at higher prices.

Foreigners in Pakistan have no trouble finding companionship and may receive rates similar to locals in downtrodden districts. More upscale areas like Lahore’s Heera Mundi or “Diamond Market”, cater to well-heeled locals and foreigners. At these places prettier, younger girls push their services for 5,000 to 10,000 rupees for an all-night visit, and the most exceptional can command 20,000 to 40,000 rupees for just short time.

Rumors abound online that female TV stars and actresses can be hired for sex. “You can get film stars for 50,000 to 100,000 rupees but you need good contacts for that,” one blogger wrote after a trip to Lahore.

“The Lahore, Karachi and Rawalpindi sex scenes are totally changing and it’s easier and easier to get a girl for [sex],” another blogger wrote. “Most of the hotels provide you the girls upon request.” Bloggers also reported that it is easy to find girls prowling the streets after 6 pm, and foreigners can find young women hanging out near Western franchises like McDonald’s and KFC. Such women, the bloggers claim, can lead the customer to a nearby short-time accommodation.

Short-time hotels offering hourly rates can be found all over major cities, underscoring the profits being reaped by the sex industry.

Pakistan can also accommodate the gay community with prostitution. Unfortunately, this has also given rise to child prostitution.

A Pakistani blogger wrote, “We [ethnic] Pathans are very fond of boys. [In Pakistan] the wives are only [had sex with] once or twice a year. There are lot of gay brothels in Peshawar – the famous among them is at Ramdas Bazaar. [One can] go to any Afghan restaurant and find young waiters selling sex.”

As in many societies, access to technology, the Internet and mobile phones has only facilitated the sex trade in Pakistan. “Matchmaking” websites serve the male clientele, while providing marketing for prostitutes.

The root causes of prostitution in Pakistan are poverty and a dearth of opportunities. Widows find themselves on the streets with mouths to feed, and for many prostitution offers a quick fix. A local Pakistani prostitute can earn 2,000 to 3,000 rupees per day compared to the average monthly income of 2,500 rupees.

Forced prostitution is not rare. Women in hard times are often exploited and pushed into prostitution. Sandra (not her real name), said that after the death of her father she was left alone; friends and relatives deserted her after the grieving period. As a middle-class, educated woman she was surprised to find herself forced into prostitution from her office job.

“My boss initially spoiled me at first,” she told Khaleej Times. “[But] now I am in [the sex industry].” Sandra first thought her boss was being gracious, but quickly learned he was grooming her for sex for his own pleasure, and then acting as her pimp.

Many of Pakistan’s contemporary sexual mores may have evolved from traditional practices. For example, the polygamy permitted in Muslim society stemmed from the need for larger family units, the better to support familial ties and tend for widows. Until such ancient customs are updated, women such as Sandra will continue to be bought and sold.

It’s time for Pakistan to admit that prostitution is doing a roaring trade within its borders, and will continue to prosper until it is addressed in a modern manner. Let us hope that the people and government of this proud Muslim country will stop pretending the problem simply isn’t there.

William Sparrow has been an occasional contributor to Asia Times Online and now joins Asia Times Online with a weekly column. Sparrow is editor in chief of Asian Sex Gazette and has reported on sex in Asia for over five years. To contact him send question or comments to Letters@atimes.com.

Leave a Comment

NGO Accountability in China

I was in Beijing for the last couple of weeks for conferences and setting up CSR Asia’s new office there. One of the conferences that I attended was very interesting and caused me to think a lot about its central issue; the accountability of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in China.
The “International Conference on NGO Accountability” was hosted on 26-27 April by the NPO Research Centre of Renmin University and co-organized by the China Social Enterprise Foundation and Fuping Development Institute. It was sponsored by the Ford Foundation.
The introduction to the conference stated “while social organizations and NGOs are growing vigorously, self-discipline and accountability issues have caught attention too. In the past few years, abuses have emerged in the process of public interest service provision by foundations, public interest organizations and voluntary organizations. These involve illegal operations, financial abuse, and personal deals that have led to public doubts over the credibility of NGOs, and have reduced people’s enthusiasm to participate in charity or public interest causes. Now that the lack of credibility has seriously limited NGO development, it is about time to establish an NGO accountability system”. 
To a certain extent, I agree with this statement, but there are other issues that need to be discussed before talking about accountability of NGOs in China.
Due to the high sensitivity of the term “NGO” in China, similar events previously could only be organised on a small scale and with less publicity. As one of the first large-scale conferences discussing civil society publicly in China, I think that its focus could have been more on the linkage between the situation of NGOs in China and accountability, rather than “how to be accountable”. The pre-condition of being accountable (such as the survival of NGOs in China) was not discussed, which I thought was a pity.
My other disappointment was that most of the participants were from foundations, academia, government-operated NGOs (GONGOs), international NGOs, and well-known NGOs in China. If there were more participants from small grassroots NGOs discussing their difficulties in being accountable, the conference would have been much more meaningful in the sense of explaining what accountability means for them. This is an important aspect because the number of grassroot groups in China is much bigger than so-called social organisations.
After attending the conference, I think there are various questions that need to be considered before discussing the accountability of NGOs. The first question is “why should NGOs be accountable?” Is accountability of NGOs similar to the way it is understood in the language of sustainability, or it is just an obligation for those organisations because of ideology and social purpose? I agree that NGOs should be accountable, but in the sense that there is space for survival and promoting social good. Accountability comes after rights. But what if a grassroots group does not have the right to survive (i.e., they don’t have legitimate status)? Should they be accountable to their stakeholders? Another related question is about incentives for being accountable. This is a point that almost no participant mentioned during the conference.
The second question in my mind is “for whom should NGOs be responsible?” Is NGO accountability for regulators, funders, beneficiary group, society, or the organisation’s ideology of establishment? If we use a stakeholder model to look at this issue, regulators, funders, and beneficiary groups are the major groups that NGOs in China should be accountable to.
I believe the Central Government really does believe that civil society is an essential element for the sustainable development of the country in the sense of providing social goods for which the government may not have sufficient resources. President Hu Jintao made an interesting but important announcement at an event in 2004; he said that social organisations are able to contribute a lot in constructing a “well-off society”. Moreover, officials from the Ministry of Civil Affairs acknowledge that these organisations have “exerted a positive influence in boosting China’s economic growth and helping maintain social stability.”
The Chinese government often supports the development of civil society organizations to help address social problems, such as poverty and AIDS. However, just like other policies and laws, how this is implemented locally is a critical difference between success and failure. According to official Chinese statistics, the number of registered civil society organisations increased from 288,936 in 2004 to 381,000 in 2007, but academics have estimated the number of unregistered organizations to be as high as 2 to 3 million. Registering an NGO in China is a major challenge.
There are various requirements for registering a social organisation in China. The “Regulations on Registration and Administration of Social Organizations” issued in 1998 require that civil society organizations (social organisations, private non-enterprise units, etc) have a government-approved sponsor organization to register and obtain legal status (for which the government limits sponsor organizations to designated government and Party bureaus). Based on my personal experience, if the leader of an NGO does not have personal connections with any party or government-related body, it is extremely hard for them to register as a private non-enterprise unit. The only option in this situation is to register as a business entity, but this then raises issues such as taxation and financial deposits, which small grassroot groups may not be able to bear. Therefore, in most of the cases, grassroot NGOs just work on the ground without registration. If there is no legal right to being a legitimate organisation, is there any obligation to being accountable to regulators? If accountability is applied, what basis should grassroot groups follow? Should they follow laws and regulations for civil society, social organisations, or business entities? This is a question that we can think about.
I agree that NGOs should be accountable to their funders, but in a balanced way. Consider the following question: do funders have responsibility to help local NGOs be accountable? Civil society is a relatively new concept in China, and so too is accountability. In many cases, NGOs in China are established by only a small number of people. For example, unlike many labour NGOs in the West, most labour groups in China are formed by one to two injured workers instead of students, academics or lawyers. They have great passion to help labourers and specialised knowledge on labour related issues. However, they often lack capacity on issues such as organisational, financial and project management, communication, and so on. There is an increasing number of organisations such as the China Association for NGO Cooperation (CANGO) to provide NGO capacity building, but in relation to the large number of grassroots groups it is only a drop in the ocean.
In my opinion, funders must bear part of the responsibility for assisting local NGOs to build capacity for accountability. When funders provide money to local NGOs, do they think of procedure such as monitoring mechanisms to ensure the transparency and effectiveness of programmes? In the past ten years, we have seen many cases where big sums of money have been thrown into specific fields such as labour by foreign foundations. They support local NGOs to work on projects such as workers’ training programmes, capacity building of manufacturers, labour rights awareness raising programmes, etc. There are a lot of similar programmes running in China, and the financial contribution of these projects is huge. But how many organisations, including foundations, have asked workers what they really want? If we assume the needs of beneficiary groups without consulting them, is it accountable?
I raised a question during the conference on impact assessment. I do think that it is essential for funders, no matter whether they are foundations or business donors. Some foundations with good practices have comprehensive mechanisms, such as needs assessment, project management and monitoring to ensure the effectiveness of programmes. Impact assessment can be a meaningful tool to ensure accountability for both funders and beneficiary groups. But for many it is still a relatively new concept that needs to be developed.
Currently, NGO accountability, especially for grassroot groups, is internal; there is no incentive for them to be accountable to other parties. This is the result of a lack of legal status, resources, and capacity. I hope that there will be more discussion on NGO-related issues in China following this conference so that the policy framework for civil society can be adjusted to ensure the survival of NGOs. ■

Comments (1)