The struggle for a Polio-free Pakistan

What is behind the the sudden upsurge of violence towards polio vaccinators in Pakistan?

On Sunday 16 June, gunmen on motorbikes shot dead two polio workers carrying out a vaccination drive in Peshawar, a crowded city in Pakistan’s north-west. One of the men who died was a schoolteacher, the other a paramedic. Both left behind grieving families. Their deaths bring the total tally of polio workers assassinated in Pakistan up to nearly 20 since last December.

“People are scared,” says Muslim Raza, who heads the polio team in the Karim Poora area of Karachi. “Before this happened, many local people would come for a day’s training before joining the vaccination drives [which normally run for between three and five days each month]. Now nobody is volunteering to work.”

The attempt to stamp out polio through oral immunising drops has been running in Pakistan since 1994. In recent years, huge strides have been made towards stamping out the disease, which used to affect tens of thousands of people every year. In 2011, there were 198 new recorded cases of the polio virus in Pakistan; in 2012, just 58.

Yet Pakistan is one of just three countries – including Nigeria and Afghanistan – where it remains endemic. While paralysis strikes just a small percentage of those carrying the virus, the effects are devastating. Unable to support themselves, many people disabled by polio beg at the side of the traffic-filled roads in Pakistan’s big cities.

The attacks started on 18 December 2012, when five female health workers were killed within 20 minutes of each other, four in the southern port city of Karachi and one in Peshawar, in a brutal co-ordinated attack. News of the assassinations, shocking even by Pakistan’s blood-soaked standards, spread across the world.

In the aftermath of those first attacks, the three-day vaccination drive, which would have immunised 5.2 million children in Karachi alone, was suspended. In the intervening months, the programme has resumed. The chalk markings which denote that the polio team has been to visit can be seen on gates, doors, and walls outside houses across the country, from the upmarket areas of Islamabad, to slums, and remote villages. But despite high security in the problematic areas – the north-western province of Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa (KPK), parts of Karachi, and the Federally Administered Tribal Area – the death toll has risen. Many, though not all, of the victims have been women.

As yet, no-one has claimed responsibility. The Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan has denied they are behind the attacks, although they have spoken out against vaccinations in the past and are certainly responsible for perpetrating misinformation. The attacks are clearly planned and co-ordinated, but there have been no arrests and no high profile investigation – merely a huge increase in the number of police escorts. The latest development is that the new provincial government in KPK is planning to give polio workers weapons licences to carry their own guns.

Meanwhile, teams of health workers – partly made up of civil servants drafted out to the polio campaign, and partly of local volunteers working for a fee of 200 rupees (£1.50) per day – are continuing to go out to immunise children. Who are these unsung heroes? And why has this senseless campaign of violence begun?

Khoram Shehzad, 29, is a polio vaccinator from Karachi’s Kimari Town area. Like many vaccinators, he comes from the local community. Experts say that employing local volunteers is a crucial component of the programme as it means that the community feels a sense of ownership over the vaccination drive. “More than anything, more than police protecting you, the best protection is from those vaccinators coming from the community itself,” says Dr Elyas Durry, head of the World Health Organisation (WHO)’s polio team in Pakistan.

Shehzad left a job as a computer engineer three years ago to join the polio campaign, and currently earns 250 rupees (£2) per day for each four day immunisation drive. “I didn’t start doing this for the money. I am doing this for the people of Pakistan. These are the children, the future of the country,” he tells me when we speak on the phone. “We are all afraid because of the targeted killings. Some people don’t want to work in the field any more, but it is important for our country and our people.”

The resistance to the vaccine is deep-rooted. Several rumours circulate. One – perpetrated and spread by extremist Islamic leaders – is that the vaccine is a CIA plot to sterilise Muslim children. Another is that it contains materials forbidden by Islam, such as alcohol and pig’s blood.

“Some uneducated people don’t take the drops,” says Shehzad. “They say the medicine in the vaccine is haram [forbidden by Islam]. We tell them the government wouldn’t start this if it was bad for your children.”

The misconceptions are worse among the Pashtun population, who come from the conservative north-west of Pakistan. The rumours and misinformation have been perpetrated through radio broadcasts and other propaganda channels of extremist organisations. Shehzad’s area in Karachi, where there is a high security risk, is 85 per cent Pashto-speaking.

“It is mainly illiterate and uneducated people that refuse the vaccine,” says Fahmeeda Malik, a polio worker from Rawalpindi. “We reason with them, saying, if the government wanted to give you family planning medicine, there are a lot of places they can do it for grown ups. Why children? If they think over it, they normally agree. But if they don’t, we are helpless.”

Across the country, polio workers I speak to say that refusals make up just a tiny minority of the whole. Yet that small percentage is enough to jeopardise the goal of totally eliminating polio. The problem is compounded by the fact that Pakistan’s population is highly mobile, so the disease can easily spread outside the pockets where it is cornered as people are displaced or relocate in search of work.

“Often we ask people, who told you this is against the preaching of Islam? Mostly they say it is the leaders of mosques, so we go to them and convince them,” says Dr Khaled Randhawa, district health officer of Rawalpindi. In May this year, a group of international religious scholars met in Islamabad and issued an edict saying that the polio vaccine did not contravene Islam. “Depriving a child of polio drops is equal to committing a sin. Protecting your child from disease is a religious obligation,” said one of the scholars. This was a positive move, although it is too soon to say how much impact it will have.

“I have been working with these misconceptions about the vaccine for my whole life – in Somalia, in Nigeria, elsewhere,” says Durry. “But I don’t understand – nobody does – how it became such a violent reaction here in Pakistan. I don’t know why it has escalated.”

Many point to the CIA’s assassination of Osama Bin Laden. In the run up to the operation, the CIA ran a false hepatitis B vaccination drive so it could gather the DNA of local residents. It was a spectacularly irresponsible policy that leant credence to the conspiracy theories that were already widely circulated. The film Zero Dark Thirty depicted the fake drive as a polio campaign.

Yet is this alone responsible for the sudden upsurge of violence? Many experts believe it goes deeper. “It’s another way of trying to control the population through fear,” says Mustafa Qadri, Pakistan researcher at Amnesty International. “The aim is to terrorise, to make people scared, to make their conditions worse, and in that way to influence the society. Polio is not socially sensitive in the way that, for example, reproductive rights are: it is a very basic health requirement. When you’re attacking people’s access to these basic rights, you’re attacking their ability to live a normal life. And I think that is the overall objective: to control and to suppress the society.”

In the areas of the country where the risk is highest, polio field workers and team coordinators feel under siege.

“There is a big threat to these volunteers,” says Javed Marwat, the deputy commissioner of Peshawar, the provincial capital of KPK. “The situation is not good for anyone in the city. Every day there are bomb blasts, but the daily explosions get ignored. When a polio worker is killed, this news spreads to other countries, in the international media. The terrorists continue to kill polio workers because it has so much impact. More people die in blasts, but nobody cares about that.” Indeed, against the violent context of today’s Pakistan, the daily news of small scale terror attacks no longer makes an impact; the constant news of death is simply the background music to life. Increasingly, it is violence against unexpected or soft targets – the schoolgirl activist Malala Yousafzai, or health workers delivering life-saving vaccines – that makes national and international headlines.

At the District Health Office in Rawalpindi, I attended an evening meeting of polio workers. Here vaccination teams gathered in the evening to feed back on the day’s work. Most of them were women, clad in bright headscarves and face coverings, and drawn from the same conservative communities they are serving. They confidently talked through the day’s results, speaking over their male supervisor with details of refusals and the ways they had tackled them. “The woman in the house would not come out in front of a man, so I told my male colleague to leave,” says Saba, one of the vaccinators. Another, Aisha, added: “Since the last drive, we spoke to local notables about the refusals, and they have told people they should take the vaccine.” Of the 1,700 vaccinations they had carried out between them over the course of the day, there had been just one refusal.

It has been suggested that there is a gendered aspect to the violence. Not all polio workers are women, and some of those gunned down in recent months have been men. However, while the targeting of polio workers has suddenly escalated, there is a recent history of militant violence being directed against “lady health workers”, a body of more than 100,000 women who deliver door-to-door healthcare. The lady health worker programme was initiated by Benazir Bhutto in 1994, and for many women and girls in remote areas, they provide the only direct access to healthcare. A 2012 study published in the British Medical Journal looked at how the Taliban threatened and attacked female health workers in Swat during their brief period of control of the area. It found that not only did community health suffer significantly, but that lady health workers were socially ostracised after public vilification by the Taliban. It also found that many others stopped working or left the area due to their threat to their lives. Against this context, the recent attacks on polio workers could be yet another demonstration of the deep discomfort among the conservative elements of Pakistani society about women in public space, and women taking ownership of their bodies.

“By attacking these workers, the perpetrators of these attacks are cutting down people’s rights to services, particularly women and girls,” says Qadri. “When you target these people, you are effectively trying to destroy those parts of society that allow people to live with dignity.” In addition to this, he explains, the fact that the attacks have been sustained, despite extra security, compounds the desired effect of spreading terror. “Health workers are being targeted even when they have police escorts. They just feel very scared: even when the state is trying its best to protect people, they’re not safe. The impact for the community is profound.“

For the polio workers in the hotspots of Karachi and Peshawar, life goes on, for now. “My heart is full of terror when I hear that more workers, more workers, more workers are being targeted,” says Sadia Zaidi, a vaccinator from Peshawar whose name has been changed for security reasons. “Sometimes we don’t like to stay in one place for too long to convince refusers to take the vaccine, because we are at such risk. But we carry on. Some of my colleagues don’t even take the money because they just want to work for the people. My family is afraid for my safety, but I am doing this so my children can live in a polio-free Pakistan.”

 

A Pakistani health worker administers polio vaccine drops to a young child at a polio vaccination center in Karachi. Photograph: Getty Images

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Getty.
Show Hide image

Hannan Fodder: This week, Daniel Hannan gets his excuses in early

I didn't do it. 

Since Daniel Hannan, a formerly obscure MEP, has emerged as the anointed intellectual of the Brexit elite, The Staggers is charting his ascendancy...

When I started this column, there were some nay-sayers talking Britain down by doubting that I was seriously going to write about Daniel Hannan every week. Surely no one could be that obsessed with the activities of one obscure MEP? And surely no politician could say enough ludicrous things to be worthy of such an obsession?

They were wrong, on both counts. Daniel and I are as one on this: Leave and Remain, working hand in glove to deliver on our shared national mission. There’s a lesson there for my fellow Remoaners, I’m sure.

Anyway. It’s week three, and just as I was worrying what I might write this week, Dan has ridden to the rescue by writing not one but two columns making the same argument – using, indeed, many of the exact same phrases (“not a club, but a protection racket”). Like all the most effective political campaigns, Dan has a message of the week.

First up, on Monday, there was this headline, in the conservative American journal, the Washington Examiner:

“Why Brexit should work out for everyone”

And yesterday, there was his column on Conservative Home:

“We will get a good deal – because rational self-interest will overcome the Eurocrats’ fury”

The message of the two columns is straightforward: cooler heads will prevail. Britain wants an amicable separation. The EU needs Britain’s military strength and budget contributions, and both sides want to keep the single market intact.

The Con Home piece makes the further argument that it’s only the Eurocrats who want to be hardline about this. National governments – who have to answer to actual electorates – will be more willing to negotiate.

And so, for all the bluster now, Theresa May and Donald Tusk will be skipping through a meadow, arm in arm, before the year is out.

Before we go any further, I have a confession: I found myself nodding along with some of this. Yes, of course it’s in nobody’s interests to create unnecessary enmity between Britain and the continent. Of course no one will want to crash the economy. Of course.

I’ve been told by friends on the centre-right that Hannan has a compelling, faintly hypnotic quality when he speaks and, in retrospect, this brief moment of finding myself half-agreeing with him scares the living shit out of me. So from this point on, I’d like everyone to keep an eye on me in case I start going weird, and to give me a sharp whack round the back of the head if you ever catch me starting a tweet with the word, “Friends-”.

Anyway. Shortly after reading things, reality began to dawn for me in a way it apparently hasn’t for Daniel Hannan, and I began cataloguing the ways in which his argument is stupid.

Problem number one: Remarkably for a man who’s been in the European Parliament for nearly two decades, he’s misunderstood the EU. He notes that “deeper integration can be more like a religious dogma than a political creed”, but entirely misses the reason for this. For many Europeans, especially those from countries which didn’t have as much fun in the Second World War as Britain did, the EU, for all its myriad flaws, is something to which they feel an emotional attachment: not their country, but not something entirely separate from it either.

Consequently, it’s neither a club, nor a “protection racket”: it’s more akin to a family. A rational and sensible Brexit will be difficult for the exact same reasons that so few divorcing couples rationally agree not to bother wasting money on lawyers: because the very act of leaving feels like a betrayal.

Or, to put it more concisely, courtesy of Buzzfeed’s Marie Le Conte:

Problem number two: even if everyone was to negotiate purely in terms of rational interest, our interests are not the same. The over-riding goal of German policy for decades has been to hold the EU together, even if that creates other problems. (Exhibit A: Greece.) So there’s at least a chance that the German leadership will genuinely see deterring more departures as more important than mutual prosperity or a good relationship with Britain.

And France, whose presidential candidates are lining up to give Britain a kicking, is mysteriously not mentioned anywhere in either of Daniel’s columns, presumably because doing so would undermine his argument.

So – the list of priorities Hannan describes may look rational from a British perspective. Unfortunately, though, the people on the other side of the negotiating table won’t have a British perspective.

Problem number three is this line from the Con Home piece:

“Might it truly be more interested in deterring states from leaving than in promoting the welfare of its peoples? If so, there surely can be no further doubt that we were right to opt out.”

If there any rhetorical technique more skin-crawlingly horrible, than, “Your response to my behaviour justifies my behaviour”?

I could go on, about how there’s no reason to think that Daniel’s relatively gentle vision of Brexit is shared by Nigel Farage, UKIP, or a significant number of those who voted Leave. Or about the polls which show that, far from the EU’s response to the referendum pushing more European nations towards the door, support for the union has actually spiked since the referendum – that Britain has become not a beacon of hope but a cautionary tale.

But I’m running out of words, and there’ll be other chances to explore such things. So instead I’m going to end on this:

Hannan’s argument – that only an irrational Europe would not deliver a good Brexit – is remarkably, parodically self-serving. It allows him to believe that, if Brexit goes horribly wrong, well, it must all be the fault of those inflexible Eurocrats, mustn’t it? It can’t possibly be because Brexit was a bad idea in the first place, or because liberal Leavers used nasty, populist ones to achieve their goals.

Read today, there are elements of Hannan’s columns that are compelling, even persuasive. From the perspective of 2020, I fear, they might simply read like one long explanation of why nothing that has happened since will have been his fault.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @JonnElledge.