The Forgotten Economics of SAFTA

#24 by dost-mittar

First let me make it clear to you none of the Pakistanis on this site, AFAIK, are anywhere near Pakistani Elite. Don’t buy into Romair’s limited view of what Pakistani elite is. At least not the current crop of chowkies.

Now akhand Bharat crowd is stupid but that is not what I am talking about. Better relations with India don’t lead to Akhand Baharat. Better relations between the two countries would eventually lead to a Delhi leading the Subcontinent and Pakistan being comfortable in its own world. That is what I was driving at in my previous post. The process would be slow but once it picks up momentum things would move swiftly. Free trade or Safta etc are still about 5 to 10 years away in the subcontinent. So I don’t worry about that too much.

Hussain Haqqani is stating the obvious it may be a surprise for you but people who follow Pakistani politics in India know a whole lot more than that. Please read my post #21 again I have already touched on what Haqqani is saying and just think why he is allowed to say that in India…There are plenty of “characters” in Pakistani politics and they have to play a role assigned to them. Anyone who can serve two inimical Prime Ministers in Pakistan has links in some other areas of Pakistani establishment.

#25,
Given your history on this site, it is hard to respond to you. I was not talking about the economics factors at all. Sorry to burst your bubble but many Pakistan from Sindh(mostly Urdu speaking)who now visit India regularly are not impressed with the living standards and the civic amenities in Indian cities. The whole thing is cultural and that is the only common ground between the two countries. Rest of your post is as usual childish and needs no comments.

#27 by bolta_aaina
“Another 5000 Punjabi Tourists walking the streets of Chandni Chowk/ Janpath will not be without resentment from non-punjabis.”

No! you misunderstood me. That’s not what I was saying it is much more subtle… I am talking about the well to do mohajir from UP/MP/CP/Bihar (now karachites) visiting Muslims in India. That will have the impact that I am talking about.
Native Sindhis don’t visit Bombay or any other city of India…..Some go to Rajasthan for trade etc but nothing more than that.

#33:

Sorry, it was pre-1953 status, not pre-1963.

There seems to be some serious movement on the Kashmir issue. For the first time, there seems to be a sort of consensus among the political forces in the valley. The consensus is around the National Conference resolution which seeks to take Kashmir back to the pre-1963 status, which restricts the Indian control to foreign affairs, defense and currency. Mufti`s party has agreed to it and there are mute voices from the major faction of the Hurriyat indicating that they might accept this arrangement, too. This still leaves the people of Jammu and Ladakh who may not want any change in the status-quo. They probably could be coopted by a promise of greater local autonomy for those regions.

#31 by bolta_aaina on December 22, 2005 2:04am PT

a tip: a vast majority of Indians feel the same way he does...They think Indian Kashmir is India`s just as much as bombay or delhi...

Re: # 30

Your views have been noted.

#28 bolta_aaina: ``An autonomous region within joint control of India and Pakistan is the fair solution. The same is widely accepted in India.``
Speak for yourself - do not assume that it is widely accepted in India.

As an Indian, I`m for the status quo.

RE #28

I would like to hear the free and frank views of two gentlemen i.e. HP and ROMAIR on my Post #28.

I dont know whether I would be commiting a blasphemy if I say that the contention of India that Kashmir is an intergral part of India is a non-starter.

I feel Kashmir is a problem which is to be resolved. The problem has been compounded by Jawarahar Lal Nehru when he took the matter to UN, much against the wishes of leaders like Sardar Patel and Rajendra Prasad. Not only that. Instead of going to UN and making a complaint against Pakistan, he went there and commited self-determination of Kashmir through the magic-wand of Plebiscite. Perhaps this was his master stroke. By commiting plebiscite and then back-tracking over it, he ensured that India and Pakistan walys remain hostile to each other and that would ensure polarisation of Hindus and Muslims in India. Solid Indian Muslim votes ensured Congress Rule for two and a half decade when other secularists like Jai Prakash Narain and others were able to sway the muslims away from the congress.

The Kasmiris are first of all interested in unification of their bi-furcated land. India, after going to UN in 1948, has never shown its inclination, either through words or deeds, that it is anymore interested in getting PAK and other areas under control of Pakistan back. So the only way the Kashmiris see of their reunification is that if Indian Kashmir merges with Pakistan. But here the point comes to their minds is that their economic future is better in India than Pakistan. So all in all its all confusion and when confusion reigns, violence follows.

Regarding Kashmir, generally the world opinion is that nothing can be done now of the LOC. It cannot be shifted to either of the sides. That is India will never get those areas which are in control of Pakistan and Pakistan will never get those areas which are in control of India. Making LOC as International Border will not help the Kashmiris. They are not going to accept it. An autonomous region within joint control of India and Pakistan is the fair solution. The same is widely accepted in India. I think Pakistanis need to make up their minds that nobody can do anything more than this in Kashmir. Its a very tough decision for them, one can understand. But there is no other escape.

Naturally ,for Pakistanis ,it tentamounts to ``Losing of the Kashmir War``, but Indians on the other hand should think how can they assuage this feeling of winning or losing.

Only after the Kashmir Issue is resolved, we can think of something likeSAFTA. Otherwise, its a wild goose chase.

Re: # 21

You are correct in your analysis. For example, Delhi is predominantly Punjabi. Another 5000 Punjabi Tourists walking the streets of Chandni Chowk/ Janpath will not be without resentment from non-punjabis.

Take Bombay. What would happen to ``aamchi mumbai`` if the Juhu Beach and Marine Drive get crowded with rich sindhis?

Indians on the other will not be able to impact that much in Lahore and Karachi, I feel. They will be lost in the crowd.

Re: # 19

You are correct. We are still unprepared for SAFTA. But at the same time, we must work for it so that it can come true in future may be after 20-25 years.

Re:HP

There is a saying,``Na baap bada na bhaiyaa, sabse bada Rupaiyya``. Everything boils down to economics. Pakistan was created because India at that time was desperately poor and muslims felt that they would never get politcal power; ergo they would be poor and miserable in India and it would be better to separate. All this cultural similarity was there at 1947 too since the two communities had lived together for 1000 years. Yet it did not stop them from separating and committing a holocaust at that time.

Now the situation is different. India`s economy is booming at over 7% growth rate and poverty rates are shrinking at amazing rates. India`s HDI rankings are way above Pakistan and everyone is referring to India as a would be economic superpower. Politically India is NOT hindu dominated, in fact hindu nationalism is disappearing. With a sikh prime minister, muslim president and an italian catholic woman as the most powerful politician, one can hardly call India a hindu nation. Overall, India is an example of powersharing among various communities.

On the other hand, Pakistan has not lived up to the expectations that were there during its creation. In virtually every socio-economic metric, Pakistan has lost to India hands down. Also Pakistan has made very little impact on the islamic world. Iran, Afghanistan, cental asian countries all mistrust Pakistan and keep an arms length. It is not a coincidence that Pakistan has no free trade with ANY islamic country!!

As a result, Pakistanis are beginning to see the virtues of India. India`s growing economic clout and opportunities are an attraction. India`s mature political system along with an open, free society causes envy among Pakistanis. Suddenly 1947 does not make much of a sense anymore. If Manmohan Singh can become prime minister, how hard would it have been for a muslim to become prime minister of united India with all the demographic clout? In other words, a united India would have most likely resulted in several muslim rulers along with the control of a vast economic machinery. On top of that, Pakistanis are generally treated very well in India. It is probably way better than their experience in islamic countries. So no wonder Pakistanis are rediscovering India.

HP:

I was basing my comments on my observations here at chowk and in personal experience, not on any stereotypes. Although stereotypes, too, have often grains of truth in them.

But I can see the point you are making. I dont think that the realisation has sunk into among Indians yet, especially among the Akhand Bharatis, that if their dreams were to come true, Muslims would be a much stronger political force in India than they are now.

In any case, here is a different view from a well-known Pakistani who thinks that ``The internal dynamics of Pakistan has a larger impact on India-Pakistan ties than the internal dynamics of India.``


``Pakistani elite not ready to embrace India: Haqqani

New Delhi: India and Pakistan may be talking peace but the ruling elite in Islamabad is not ready to strike genuine friendship with New Delhi, visiting scholar and former prime ministerial adviser Hussain Haqqani said Wednesday.

Haqqani, a Pakistani who resides in the US and whose book ``Pakistan: Between Mosque and Military`` has made waves, said the time had come for Pakistan to give up competing with India.

``What is needed to restore the knotty problem in India-Pakistan relations is political will,`` Haqqani, attached to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washongton, told a gathering at the India International Centre here.

``That political will does not exist in the Pakistani military and intelligence,`` he said, calling them an oligarchy.

The Pakistani rulers, he explained, were of the opinion that the peace process was meant to checkmate India.

He added: ``Although it (elite) says normalisation in relations is needed with India, it has not made a paradigm shift...

``The core issue is: can Pakistani oligarchy sustain itself without some level of hostility vis-à-vis India?

``Pakistan needs a stable relationship with its largest neighbour for its own internal stability.``

Haqqani, visiting New Delhi as a guest of the Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, said the Pakistani establishment was treating the current peace process with India as a dance, not a marriage.

``A dance is not an engagement,`` he said, underlining the need for genuine friendship between South Asia`s two most bitter neighbours who have been locked in an uneasy peace process since 2003.

At the same time, Haqqani said India needed to make it amply clear that it had no desire to undo the sub-continent`s 1947 division that gave birth to Pakistan and to pursue policies that strengthened the peace constituency in his country.

But Haqqani`s concentration was mainly on Pakistan, where he has served as an adviser to Pakistani prime ministers Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi, Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto. He was Pakistan`s envoy to Sri Lanka in 1992-93.

He said the Pakistani decision making elite remained ``ideological`` while the military was ``conservative``.

Their three main pillars of their thinking, he said, was that Islam was the unifying factor in Pakistan, competition with India was a good rallying point, and that the US would compensate for Pakistan`s relative weakness.

But he warned: ``The Pakistani elite should give up competing with India. It is not working, it cannot work.``

Haqqani, a former journalist, also found fault with New Delhi for trying to negotiate with Pakistani military rulers who lacked democratic sanctity and genuine popular support, be it the late Zia ul-Haq or the present President Pervez Musharraf.

The India-Pakistan relationship, he underlined, would change if only Pakistan`s political dynamics changed. ``The internal dynamics of Pakistan has a larger impact on India-Pakistan ties than the internal dynamics of India.``

Haqqani emphasized that despite the growing visibility of Islamic political parties in Pakistan, there were fewer people in the country who wanted war with India.

``I don`t think there is a war constituency any more,`` he said. ``And the peace constituency in Pakistan is much larger than it is thought here.``

And he conceded that Pakistan, while seeking concessions from India, also had to keep in mind the sensitivities of its larger neighbour.

``Smaller countries also have to take into consideration and accept that there is a 800-pound guerrilla and learn to live with it.``

#21 by HP on December 21, 2005 8:33am PT


And why the Indian governments are afraid to resolve the Kashmir issue?


The Indian government has solved the Kashmir issue. It`s decided that Indian Kashmir is part of India and isn`t afraid to defend what it thinks is rightfully it`s own...case in point: Kargil..If you`re so confident about your rights to Kashmir, why didn`t you stick around and hold ground like India does in Siachen?

It`s the pakis who`re afraid to accept the reality that India isn`t going to give up Indian Kashmir and there`s nothing you can do to change that...

Thank you for your time everyone and goodbye to you all. It was fun, I learned quite a bit hopefully you all did too. Since CHOWK is baselessly censoring all of my articles, in protest, I will not be posting here anymore, until they get rid of their biased pro-US elite stance. You all are welcome to visit http://www.asadi.org and use the forum over there

Dost mittar

“One does not get the impression from Pakistani chowkies that they think Delhi to be their political centre, nor did I get this impression during my visit to Pakistan. It is true that chowkies represent Pakistani elite but it is only the elite who think about these things, isn`t it?”

Mittar, you give in to stereotyping so readily.
Have you ever tried to think deeply why Pakistani elite or the Indian elite put so many hurdles between the good relations? It is just not the army or its unabashed rule over Pakistan. Even the Islamic types share this with the elite. They are afraid of the subtle things that would begin to happen. Indian rulers too worry about the total impact of the better relations between the countries.

I can argue from the Pakistani side too but just consider this: why is Kashmir an unsolvable problem for both countries? Why just a couple of million more Muslims living in India be a problem when there are 150 million already living there? And why the Indian governments are afraid to resolve the Kashmir issue? It is just not the backlash alone. The policy makers in both countries realize that the better relations between the people would seriously impact the way they rule over their countries.

This is a fact that Pakistan is an artificial country. It is not a product of some geographical realignments or a result of some moving tectonic plates. Since the country is artificial its capital is artificial too. The elite in Pakistan have to do many things to keep the country going as the country lacks the natural-ness.
Over the coming years Pakistan would evolve that natural-ness but currently there are too many uncomforting factors that can drift the country.

I hope you are able to count the factors that make Indian elite scared too and one of them is the resurgence of Muslims in the mainland India, if they are strengthened by a friendly and ever present Muslims in Pakistan or Bangladesh.

Currently there are gaps developing between the Muslims in India and Pakistan. The pace of Indian Muslims’ intellectual development is much slower than Pakistan/BD Muslims. Their confidence level is whole lot lower than the Pakistani/BD Muslims and generally Indian Muslims look up to Pakistan and Pakistani Muslims. Open communications would impact the current structure of the India society and the society may have to shift priorities to accommodate resurgent Indian Muslims.

Just think why India movies are not allowed in Pakistani theatres when people can see them on TV. It is just not the monetary impact thing- it goes far beyond. They love Indian movie stars in Pakistan but they would have difficulty putting even Salman Khan or Shahrukh Kahn’s huge posters and billboards over the Mall road in Lahore.

For Indians, they don’t wanna see the successful Karachite roaming in Delhi and Lucknow freely. They will have an impact on Chandni Chowk and Billi marran.


“Pakistani elite but it is only the elite who think about these things, isn`t it?”

Pakistani certainly thinks about these things and they apply counter measures. It is not something new. We have been looking at this for a long time and it has been discussed in Pakistani circle whole lot more than you will see on the surface.

This really needs an article to discuss fully… I hope I can get some collaboration on this.

HP:

One does not get the impression from Pakistani chowkies that they think Delhi to be their political centre, nor did I get this impression during my visit to Pakistan. It is true that chowkies represent Pakistani elite but it is only the elite who think about these things, isn`t it?

bolta_aaina:

I do not think that your analysis applies to Sikhs whose cultural and religious centres are still in Pakistan. Even other Indians relate strongly to the Indus Valley civilization. It may surprise you to know that Mohenjo Daro is on the must-see list of most Indian visitors to Karachi but is rarely visited by Pakistanis themselves.

My point was that in this age of satellite TV, socio-cultural interaction will take place even without SAFTA. And as people-to-people contact takes place, this interaction will only become more intense. BTW, this interaction may not always produce positive results; it may even reinforce some of the stereotypes that people are carrying in their minds.