Dangerous signs

While the Opposition parties have continued to resort to protest rallies and marches over the cartoon issue, it is becoming more and more obvious that they want to use the issue to start an anti-government movement.
It is also becoming clearer that ordinary people who, for quite some time, manifested unmistakable political alienation, are joining the protests in large numbers.
Of course, there is a lot of anger over the blasphemous caricatures; and it has been further aggravated by the Danish government's refusal to apologise and its attempts to present the provocation as a press freedom issue. But the people are also unhappy with the general state of affairs prevailing in this country, particularly economic difficulties that offer them little respite. Which is why lumpen youth who joined the initial two protest marches in Lahore and Peshawar, focussed their energies on looting and burning not only foreign businesses but also local symbols of affluence.
Government leaders like to boast about the macro indicators. The GDP, they tell the people, is growing at an impressive pace ranging from 6.5 to 7 percent, one of the fastest rates for this region, and indeed the world. The country's foreign exchange reserves have never been as large as they are now; export activity is robust, and the manufacturing sector is booming. These appear to be all genuine claims.
But the problem with this mode of development is that the gap between the haves and the have-nots shows no sign of narrowing and, on the contrary keeps increasing. The same thing happened during the decade of the 1960s when the government went out of its way to encourage economic activity in the industrial sector. Those who were better placed made big gains; wealth became concentrated in a few hands, while the vast majority of the masses lived in poverty and deprivation, which bred deep-seated discontent and resentment.
As the macro economic picture got better, the government began trumpeting the 60s as the Decade of Development. But then a small increase in the price of sugar - an item of the common man's daily use - rent open the floodgates of cumulative public discontent.
The street protests it triggered led to a chain of events that changed everything in the arena of politics and economy. There is a strong lesson to be learnt from that unsavoury experience: that economic progress which creates rather than reduces inequalities can easily engender social unrest and upheavals, frittering away whatever gains have been made.
What happened in Lahore and Peshawar presents ominous signs of such a possibility. It is important, therefore, that our economic managers pay close attention to these signs and take remedial action promptly. Admittedly, it takes time for benefits of development to trickle down to people on the lower wrungs of society.
This is confirmed by the examples of the two rising economic powers, China and India, which for several years have been consistently posting exceptionally high economic growth rates. In the case of China it took nearly 20 years and for India 8 years to get where they are now. Yet, despite its enviable advancement as a new economic powerhouse, India still has to grapple with serious problems of poverty. The point of it all is that there is no recipe for quick prosperity for all, but the pattern of development has to be such as aims at reducing rather than perpetuating inequalities.