The Forgotten Economics of SAFTA

#50 SRIDHAR SAHIB

Your enthusiam about India is well founded. It is not in thin air.

If you look at the world, the developed countries have reached a saturation level of development. Their per capita figures speak so. Now, the technoligies are also reaching a plateau. We dont see new products coming up that often as they were coming up in 1970s and 1980s. 1990s were totally driven by Computers. Not much seems to happening as far as new products are concerned. So the future growth is going to come from China and India. The western technology can develop only if it cuts its costs. It can happen only in two ways. One, if the western countries lower their standard of living i.e. accept lesser pay-checks or the technology development is outsourced. Cheap technology is developed and then its fruits can be shared by one and all. India needs the western world for reduction of its poverty and western world needs India for its cheaper labour force. Its not a marraige of convinience,rather it is a do or die for both. So the business and strategic convergence of USA and India is well thought of and practical. USA by keeping India on its side wants to blunt not only China but Europe as well.

Coming to Pakistan, we share a strange love-hate relationship with them. I think Pakistanis are now realising that may be Partition was a mistake..and if not then rivalry with India is definitely a mistake. Whatever Pakistanis may think about us but we know from our hearts that we respect its independence and we respect its religion Islam. What we criticize is certain aspects of both which are detrimental to both of us.

I am quite confident that Pakistan is changing its attitude towards India and we must also change ourselves. We should speak out our hearts to each other and tell that this what we think of you. Now its up to you to change our thinking.

And finally, we should not hide from Kashmir. It is something which is to be resolved. Whether right or wrong, it is one of our international obligations which we have created out of our own foolishness. It is we who have made Pakistan a party to it, we must remember. Therefore, we should discuss with them sincerely, tell them our difficulties, suggest them practical solutions which we can implement. This has to be done at people-to-people level. It is we have to do not the governments because they will never do it.

re:#49 by bolta_aaina
One of the exciting things (at least from an NRIs perspective) that has happened in the last year or so is that India is now seen as forging a stretegic relationship with US, much like the one Turkey has. India`s trade with US was always one sided but now many Indian businessmen are going offshore, buying companies etc etc. This is commendable.
Having said this, i will also say that India can grow and prosper only if her prosperity brings prosperity in the neighbourhood. If India prospers to the detriment of say Pakistan, Pak will continue to play truant and cause trouble for India. Trade is essential to prosper and i hope India will have a booming trade with Pak, Bangladesh much as she has good trade with Srilanka.
Even though i left US many years ago, i keep in touch with India and visit India regularly. So, i am not out of touch with current realities as u seem to think.
Present generation Indians think India is suddenly becoming a developed nation. Far from it. An average American still earns more than 50 times an average Indian. About 200 million Dalits lead wretched lives in India. An additional 200 million live on less than 1 dollar a day. Exciting times are for the middle class, accounting anywhere between 120-200 million. Do your math. India is a long way from becoming a developed nation. One study predicted that if India were to develop at 8% GDP growth, it would take her 20 years to reach the level of Thailand!
Still, i share the enthusiasm. India trying to come out of her poverty with such seriousness is an exciting news indeed.
Sridhar

#46 SRIDHAR SAHIB

How do you I address to you... Look ``Bharat Mata Ki Jai`` is a passe now. India is changing very fast atleast at the mental plane. India-2005 is totally different from India-2003, thoughtwise. Manmohan Singh`s India is totally different from Vajpayee`s India. MS`s India is being more appreciated in being more professional in approach. AB`s India has become a laughing matter particularly Vajpayee`s attitute towards Pakistan and Musharaff like ``Aar-paar ki ladai``, ``Dosti kaa hath``, ``Attot Ang`` etc. etc. The image of Pakistan is also different now what it was during AB`s time. It is being appreciated that Pakistan has done a lot in breaking the back-bone of Jehad in Pakistan--even if under american pressure..no problem.

Most or almost all of Indian Posters in this forum are NRIs(No one posts his comments during Indian daytime). Depending upon when did they leave India, their views express views of those times. Generally, earlyand mid nineties but definitely NOT post 9/11. Post 9/11 and american presence in the region, wot etc. has also changed the perceptions both sides of the border.

It is true that during most of the nineties, Pakistan had monopoly over Indian Phyche. Jehad in Kashmir and their Cricket Team were the major contributors. In 2005, (sadly) Pakistan is a fading star of the Indian mental sky. The IMS is now being totally dominated by USA. The second heavenly body is China which is being looked as future competitor and also because India Inc is inveting heavily in China. The new stars of the horizon are ASEAN countries Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia. This is beacuse of the rising incomes , cheaper air fares and favourable exchange rates, the much coveted ``foreign travel`` is now possible for Indian Middle Class to these countries. Lahore and Karachi are getting replaced by Singapore, Bangkok and Kualalalumpur, again sadly.

So all in all, India-2005 is much more sympathetic and considerate to Pakistan than it was earlier. It wants to resolve all bystanding issues( taking america`s help and influence,of course) with Pakistan and let both countries move ahead.

Nepal, Bangladesh, Srlanka ,Bhutan and Russia are alomst forgotten. It is America and only America now..not even Japan, UK , France or Germany. ``Shining India`` is actually ``Shining America``.

#44 HP

Thanks for your comments. I shall be discussing the issue with you from time to time.

Thanks once again for your clear and impartial views.

``It does not mean that debate does not take place. It does! In the Pakistani society people that matter have strong links with each other and with think-tanks that operate to help the establishment in defining and understanding the issues. Pakistan foreign office has some bright tacticians who work on different options. So a robust debate does take place but it is never thru the media.``

Didn`t know that about Pakistani political system...I might have to rethink at least some of my impressions, in light of this insider`s view.

re:#14 by masadi
Dude,
why don`t u migrateto Cuba, the only surviving communist bastion today?
Sridhar

re: SAFTA is a non-starter
India is busy fencing off its borders with Bangladesh to curb terrorist infiltration from that nation. It already has such a fence in place across LOC in Kashmir with Pakistan.

FTA with Srilanka has benefitted both nations, more so Srilanka.
TATA wants to invest heavily in Bangladesh.
This investment is supposed to correct the trade imbalance that exists with that nation.
article
.
However, this deal has, of late, run into problems. India haters in Bangladesh are calling this deal a sell out. The deal is in limbo and may not take off.
For trade to happen between nations that share borders, peace is essential. Mexico has benefitted immensely from trade with USA. So has Canada. It is a pity that both Pak and Bangladesh are havens for terrorist ideologies that threaten peace and trade.
Sridhar

#42 by bolta_aaina

“will be acceptable to Pakistani general public and establishment? Will they agree for LOC as the permanent border for India/Pak and soft border for Kashmiris?”

The real truth is that a good number of Pakistanis don’t care about Kashmir at all.
But the people that care have a strong lobby in the Pakistani establishment. Mostly these people are Punjabis that moved from east Punjab after the partition and Kashmiris settled in Punjab and some others from the northern Punjab bordering India.

Pakistani establishment considers the Kashmir issue an important part of its foreign policy. Kashmir issue does help them to maintain their control of the country. Let me say this again that the Pak army would keep this issue alive for as long as it can. I hope you follow me when I say that Kashmir would be another Balochistan for the army and they would never accept Kashmir as part of Pakistan contrary to their stated position on this issue. The “Kashmir banega Pakistan” is a slogan for the masses and fellow travelers.

Now, for the meat of your question; Pakistani media has long learnt to follow the army line on this issue and it is in the best interest of everyone to not to cross the army on this issue. It does not mean that debate does not take place. It does! In the Pakistani society people that matter have strong links with each other and with think-tanks that operate to help the establishment in defining and understanding the issues. Pakistan foreign office has some bright tacticians who work on different options. So a robust debate does take place but it is never thru the media.

The Pakistan media or the journalists don’t wanna tread in the murky waters of the Kashmir issue but have no problem using it to whip up anti Indian sentiments in Punjab.

Soft borders or LOC in Kashmir would be acceptable to most of the Pakistanis outside of North-north eastern Punjab. As I understand it, the army floats many options in the Pakistani media to confound and confuse the diehard groups in Punjab and that enables the army to have a sort of room to maneuver in negotiations with India. In the end, the army has to sell soft borders/LOC ideas to its constituency within and outside the army or they will not fly.

Re: # 32

I am afraid it is not. Because, Delhites and Bombayites have accepted themselves to be the part of India but majority of Kashmiris have not. The opinion of Kashmiris is divided amongst joning India, joining Pakistan or becoming independent. We have to accept this bitter truth.

#36 HP

I have gone through the the link and your article on Kashmir.

Looking from here, it seems and looks probably certain that Indian Government/ Establishment does not have any for Kashmir. It just trying to buy time--for what only they know Sometimes some balloons are thrown out through the media followed by contradictory statements by the Govt. The hottest one that a consensus is being reached between India, Pakistan and Kashmiris, with the blessings of the US, that LOC is to be converted into permanent border for India and Pakistan. It will be a soft border for Kashmiris so that they can travel on either side freely. India will give a fair degree of autonomy to its part of Kashmir to the extent that Kashmir may join groups like OIC as a separate entity. Pakistan will also follow suit.

Hurriyat Chairman Mirwaiz Farooq has a floated the idea of United States of Kashmir, which it appears also has the blessings of New Delhi. How I`Bad thinks about it is not very clear. USK is nothing but existence of an autonomous United Kashmir within the soveignty of Pakistan and India. The two Kashmirs would be separate in some sense i.e. may be in their local governance ,and joint in some sense like movement of people, goods and services.

If such an arrangement is proposed before the general Indian Public, it may accept it provided they are assured from Pakistani and Kashmiris as well that by this arrangement ,the thorny issued of Kashmir between Pakistan and India will get resolved for ever and the two countries can then look forward for normalising diplomatic ,trade and cultural relations.

So far, nothing concrete has emerged in Pakistani media that what are the views of GOP and general public regarding this concept of United States of Kashmir? The only thing which is heard from Pak Media is that India is not moving fast in resolving the Kashmir Issue. This creates discontent in Indian public that what are the possible solutions to Kashmir on the table on which any movement can be made. Presently, there are none visible and if some possible solutions have indeed been worked out ,let them come out in the open. The GOI has its standard stand of Atoot Ang, no compromises, maps cannot be redrawn etc. etc. So it all leads to confusion.

Now my question to you is--That as the idea of USK(whatever it may mean in the long run), which is being toyed by a person no less than Hurriyat Conference Chairman who is perhaps the only (Non pro-India) worthwhile Leader left in the valley, will be acceptable to Pakistani general public and establishment? Will they agree for LOC as the permanent border for India/Pak and soft border for Kashmiris?

What do you think?

HP #39
In India a person is literate who has attained skill in reading, writing and comprehending simple text.

Regards,

Faruk

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

aina, aamchi mumbai including the areas you mention is absolutely bustling with rich sindhis. are you for real?

#38

To answer your question: first thing we need is to find out what is the literacy criterion per the Indian census bureau.

I am NOT looking for the meaning of the word ``literacy`` in the dictionary; I am looking for the criteria. Please post that from the Indian census bureau so we can discuss the numbers you posted.

Thanks.

HP #21 “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.”

The literacy rate for Indian Muslims is 59% (2001 Census, should be higher now) Pakistan’s literacy rate is 54% (2004) was lower in 2001. Bangladesh’s literacy rate is 43%. So how is the pace of Indian Muslims’ intellectual development is much slower than Pakistan/BD Muslims.

Regards,

Faruk

Bolta-Aina , I said on some other board that with due respect , you are an idiot. People of India won`t even give away Siachen inspite of the great cost involved. If you think we are going to tolerate losing any control over Kashmir - you are seriously deluded. For India , Kashmir problem is already solved. We got what we want. As long as the land remains with us , there is no problem. But we dont mind wasting time talking about it - all the CBMs , P-to-P and stuff.

#28 by bolta_aaina

Discussion abt Kashmir belongs to another thread “Voyage to the Valley by
Divya Rajagopal” in the Journey section. Please see my reponse on that thread.

#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.

bolta_aaina,
I agree with you that SAFTA would bring social changes in the region. But I donot agree that only Pakistan, BD etc would be the only ones affected. India would be tremendously affected. Also you seem to overplay the importance of religion and underplay the importance of social changes brought in by economics like the moving of jobs.

I personally think South Asia is under-prepared for SAFTA.

Layman,
As far as taxes go, the souther and western states already give up a large part of their tax revenues to states like UP, Bihar courtesy the PLANNING COMMISION.

RE HP,DOST-MITTAR,LAYMAN

HP- I think you have taken my point of cultural and spritual seat well. The portions where Pakistan and Bangladesh are situated have never influenced the mainland. Now for example, what does an Indian Hindu or Muslim have at stake in Pak or BD. Both the communities have all those centres which affect them socially, culturally and religously within their country. But when the thing open up, Pakistanis and BDs will naturally look more and more towards the mainland which has those centres. This may lead to an identity crisis in them as citizens of sovereign countries which would not be without consequences.

DOST-MITTAR- We will leading towards a disaster if we ignore the social aspect of SAFTA by thinking that the economics will be a great leveller. We subcontinentalites cannot be compared to other like NAFTA, EU, ASEAN etc. We were historically one people, decided to separate and then again deciding to unite. Although this step is welcome and our ultimate future lies is living under a single roof--whatever that may mean to different people-- but we have weigh the social costs first. If we fail, we may not get the second chance. If we force something from the above for which people are not ready, then it will be suicidal. The only thing is that before we embark upon something as SAFTA, the common people are to be taken into confidence, they are to be informed of their likely impacts and social & cultural changes it may lead to.

LAYMAN--What exactly will be the final shape of SAFTA, we dont at this moment. Thats what we are trying to analyse. But it is certain that though a large majority of people will integrate but some people will be left out altogether. For example, Sindhi, Punjabis, Bengalis, North Indians and others will definitely integrate. But what about Kashmiris, Pathans, Balochs, North-east Indians? The immediate biggest beneficiaries will be Punjab, Sindh, Gujarat , Rajasthan and Bombay. The people of these places have been doing business with each other since centuries. The others will have to wait till they get the real fruits of SAFTA.

In the final analysis, SAFTA is welcome, but dont ignore its social costs.

#3 bolta_aina: ``Further to Post#2, talking about SAFTA is opening the lock of the gate of Reunification. Are we ready for that or is it acceptable to us in the ultimate?? Because when people, goods and services start moving freely then this question is difinitely going to arise in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh?``

Look at it from another angle. Will SAFTA increase fissiparious tendencies within India? When free trade and free movement of people, goods and services happens all over the sub-continent, what is the additional incentive for people to continue remaining citizens of India? Will they not be better off with greater political freedom, while continuing to enjoy the benefits of an economic union. Will true SAFTA not push us towards an EU type model especially for various large Indian states? Why would a TN or a Maharashtra or a Gujarat want to share their tax revenues with a Bihar or UP or MP?

HP #13

`` For all practical purposes Sindh had never been politically a part of mainland India until it was occupied by the rulers in Delhi both Moghals and British but Sindhi never really considered themselves non Indians. There is a strong sense of independence in Sindhis but that independence never overrode the Indianness. ``

Sind was occupied by Ashoka, Harsha, any reasonably powerful ruler @ Delhi. Sind was a non-significant entity in Indian history until Punjab was developed. That lead to the development of Karachi port.

masadi #12

`` NAFTA has produced misery for the Mexicans, with falling real wages and no rise in the standard of living and a greater concentration of wealth and resulting inequality, and a miserable growth rate for the Mexican economy. Is that the reason why our esteemed author is suggesting troubles with any regional integration between our countries? No that is not the reason, what he is suggesting as scare tactics is because the US will not be involved in such an integration and hense there wont be the usual exploitation of the poor countries whenever the US steps in- like it has in the case of NAFTA. We need to break free from the US dominated world economic system otherwise no regional alliance or free trade zone or whatever will be successful. (period) ``

Mexico cannot compete with USA on the high end. They cannot compete with China in manufacturing and India in services.

The availability of petroluem and easy $$$ in the way of remmittances has prevented the corrupt Mexican elite from introducing any serious reforms.

Blaming Mexico problems on USA and NAFTA misses the boat. Mexican elite never misses a chance to lash out at the gringos.

As an addendum to #12, get a hold of the Population Data Sheet of the Census Bureau`s PRB, and go through the population/economic indicators of various countries of the world. After they received their token independence from the colonial powers, no country of any average size has been allowed to succeed- regardless of culture, government in power, leftist or rightist or whatever none of them have developed- so when you look for an explanation of why that didnt happen you have to look at things bigger than individual countries that is causing them to remain at the same level and that is the global economic system, dominated by the US and a handful of developed (European) countries and US occupied Japan. Now how many more lives have to be lost by poverty and misery before you all will realize what the actual cause is? All these illusions of IT and technology led development are merely distraction tactics, carrots that are dangled before an otherwise starving world.

Unless we break free from this world system of tyranny and set up our own economic system, trading with the developed world only on equal terms when it benefits our economies, there will be no development, there will be no end to misery and there will be no end to the regional BS wars. The FIRST step to take in this after we reject this system is to get rid of the apparatus of enslavement, the colonial nation state system that has bureaucratized colonization.

#11 by dost-mittar

I am not just talking about the cultural affinity but the political undercurrent that run way deep to be neglected by just 60 years of politics. As I look at it, at different times in the subcontinent history different areas of India politically alienated themselves from Delhi or the political centre of India. Sometimes this alienation lasted 100s of years but none of those areas were able to detach themselves completely from the mainland India.

For all practical purposes Sindh had never been politically a part of mainland India until it was occupied by the rulers in Delhi both Moghals and British but Sindhi never really considered themselves non Indians. There is a strong sense of independence in Sindhis but that independence never overrode the Indianness.

Punjabi fought against Moghals and even had an independent state but they were still Indian. Often this independence lasted over 100s years but eventually things stabilized.
As I see it, though, things are bad between Pakistan and India now but looking at the history of India this alienation may not last more than a couple of hundred years.

What intrigues me is the attitude Pathans and Baloch have about India. Pathans, we would assume would look at Kabul for political leadership but they don’t and they look at the East. Similarly Baloch are ethnically more Persian than Indian/Pakistani but they too don’t look at Iran for political leadership but look eastward. Why is that?

Culturally both Pathan and Baloch are closer to Iran and Afghanistan but they would rather affiliate politically with India or Pakistan.

There are many Pathans in NWFP and Balochistan that are still called Congressi and would prefer a political alliance with India rather than with Afghanistan. Baloch never look towards Iran for political help but they would always welcome India for help.

Just some more abstract thoughts...

#8 NAFTA has produced misery for the Mexicans, with falling real wages and no rise in the standard of living and a greater concentration of wealth and resulting inequality, and a miserable growth rate for the Mexican economy. Is that the reason why our esteemed author is suggesting troubles with any regional integration between our countries? No that is not the reason, what he is suggesting as scare tactics is because the US will not be involved in such an integration and hense there wont be the usual exploitation of the poor countries whenever the US steps in- like it has in the case of NAFTA. We need to break free from the US dominated world economic system otherwise no regional alliance or free trade zone or whatever will be successful. (period)

HP, bolta_aina:

I think that one should keep the cultural aspects separate from economic aspects. The cultural invasion/integration will continue regardless of the progress towards SAFTA or even common trade. It started when the VCR made it possible for every Pakistani to have access to the Indian movies and, I might add, Indians got access to the PTV dramas. But the real cultural invasion started with the advent of the satellite TV. TV brings characters characters into the living and family rooms and we start getting ``intimate`` with the ups and downs in the lives of the characters, whether they are characters in ``Friends`` or in ``Ghar ghar ki kahani``. People are affected by those soaps and Krorepati programs because they can relate to the emotions, the relationships and feelings expressed there. I doubt very much if any Arab or Iranian programs would have the same appeal in Pakistan, except for any scene showing Hajj or Namaz. I can see why Pakistanis who want to create a distinct Non-Indian identity for their country would feel uncomfortable, but this process is independent of any economic union, or even any normal flow of trade between the two countries.

#2 by bolta_aaina

“Here we have to keep one thing in mind is that the spritual and cultural seats of both Hindus and Muslims lie in the mainland India only.”

You are so right…
This incidentally is the main cause of Indian-Pak relations not moving forward. I am too of the opinion that Pakistani would go back to looking at their old spiritual and I might add cultural centers for leadership.

I know many Pakistani would not agree with me on this but the reality is that Pakistani already look at Bombay, Delhi and Lucknow as the cultural centres for Pakistan too. The popularity of Indian movies is not because they are in Urdu but the reason is that those movies represent the indigenous Pakistani culture too.

Before Partition, Bombay movies were equally popular in Peshawar, Quetta, Lahore and Hyderabd Sindh and they are still popular there.

Not having access to the cultural seats in India has created an intellectual void in Pakistan. Subcontinent for the last 1000 years was led from Delhi and UP and my gut feeling is that people in Pakistan are still not reconciled with the Pakistan politicians as they are still considered local politicians and not National politicians. National politics still attached with the leaders from Delhi and from the central India.

Manto(Yasser) would kill me for saying this but Delhi is the historical capital of Pakistan too. No snark here. All I am saying is that Delhi is the capital of India and Islamabad will remain capital of Pakistan but the real capital of India and Pakistan is still Delhi. That is the history and eventual everyone would come around to accept that.
I know these are some abstract thoughts I will try and elaborate as time permits.

Botla_aaina,

Could you please further elaborate on your thoughts while I get time to post something on this very important part of the India-pak relations?

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Dear Osama:

I am so glad that you wrote the whole article on SAFTA without mentioning the `K` word. This is an economic issue and countries should assess the potential benefits and costs in economic terms only.

I disagree that the effects of free trade zone have been negative. All three countries in NAFTA have benefitted from the arrangement and attempts are being made to extend the arrangements to all of America. The same is true of ASEAN. The European Union is so successful that new countries are always wanting to join in.

It is also my opinion that in the contemporary world, a country with a smaller and less developed economy will benefit more from the arrangement. The impact of SAFTA on India would be small, but its potential effect would be huge on smaller countries in the group. Smaller countries would also need to build transitionary safeguards to give their less efficient industries to catch up with the more advanced ones. But in the end, the smaller countries, especially Pakistan, would gain more once they have access to the same factor input prices that India has. It is possible that three out of four Pakistani firms in a given industry would fold, but the fourth one which survives would have access to ten times its current market and more than make up for the loss of the other three. Any company contemplating establishing/expanding operations in South Asia, including Indian companies, would have to seriously consider the locational advantage of Pakistan relative to other countries on the subcontinent.

And if it turns out that all Pakistani industries are uncompetitive compared to India`s, that would be an indication of an over-valued Pakistani rupee and an adjustment therein would make the Pakistani industry more competitive.

It is well to remember that at the time of the partition, more than two-thirds of Pakistan`s trade was with India and vice-versa.

Total nonsense trying to discourage poor countries from coming together. Unless the poor countries realize the fact that the US elite with their militarism will NEVER let them succeed or come together, they will always fail in thier unification. We need to get rid of this divide and rule nation state bureaucracy that has been forced by the previous colonial powers upon us to keep this superior/subordinate relationship with them going. Get rid of the slave keeping apparatus and the slave mentality and we are bound to succeed together by going against the system of domination employed by the US elite.

That said, let us see what motivates this person for writing such a piece. To understand that we need to look at the think tanks in the US that are apologists for its permanent war economy and help not only mislead the public in the US but also push the agenda of the Military Industrial Complex in the US. One such think tank is the RAND CORPORATION

Now, go to their website and look under their origin information and they tell you (themselves) that:

<<< The Origins of RAND
World War II had revealed the importance of technology research and development for success on the battlefield and the wide range of scientists and academics outside the military who made such development possible. Furthermore, as the war drew to a close, it became apparent that complete and permanent peace might not be assured. There were discussions among people in the War Department, the Office of Scientific Research and Development, and industry who saw a need for a private organization to connect military planning with research and development decisions. >>>

I would suggest you read the whole thing at their website at http://www.rand.org/about/history/#origins

So we have house slaves like the above author of the article, who wants to scare our poor countries from forming alliances even as he pushes the agenda of the US elite and their permanent war economy. Shame on him, double shame on him becuase he has sold his soul, and double shame on CHOWK for publishing such articles time and again and deliberately censoring the ones that I submit that are critical of the US elite and thier world system of tyranny. We need alternative voices on here, ideas like the above are pushed to the hundreds of millions by the corporate media day and night, why does CHOWK have to be another forum for such nonsense? You do nobody a service by become a mini corporate outlet for their BS.

Good day to you all.

Even if those theorized benefits were to be realized, none of these countries seem to have either a plan in place ( e.g. a social safety net for those who will lose jobs by hundreds and thousands)


social safety nets? Huh? Do these countries have a social safety net NOW when they`re not trading?

All people are better off when countries trade...some people will make millions...some people not as much...but they`ll be better off than when they didn`t trade..

The benefits of trade far outweigh any such imagined concerns...

Re: # 3

Free trade sounds good. It`s a win-win for all sides.

Reunfication???? No thank you. We respect your Pakistan and Bangladesh. I think most Indians and Pakistanis would agree that we are better off as seperate countries.

SAFTA will not have any immediate benefits but would have immediate costs. As far as the long run, we really don`t know how the countries are going to cope up with cross-border effects. For example, lack of common market has insulated the effects of mayhem in one country on other countries. A free trade area would change all that. It would also mean changes in laws in all of countries.

Also common currency as well as reunification are a big ``NO``. The costs of it would just overwhelm any benefits.

Further to Post#2, talking about SAFTA is opening the lock of the gate of Reunification. Are we ready for that or is it acceptable to us in the ultimate?? Because when people, goods and services start moving freely then this question is difinitely going to arise in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh? We cant run from this reality. This issue will have to be discussed openly along with the peoples.

All these issues are to be deliberated and sorted out only then we can talk on economics and trade.

As far as trade and business is concerned, we should not worry too much. The people of the subcontinent have centuries of trade experience. It is not going to happen in the long run that one group will lead and others will suffer.

But the social cost can be tremedous of which we dont have any idea what it may be ?

My opinion on the subject is that a free trade agreement in the subcontinent will not be without a huge social and cultural cost to the smaller countries. We have to accept it first.

If we look at the demography, Hindus and Muslims will be the two most dominant groups. Hindus concentrated in India. Muslims concentrated in Pakistan and Bangladesh. Here we have to keep one thing in mind is that the spritual and cultural seats of both Hindus and Muslims lie in the mainland India only. Indo-islam does not have any seat in Pakistan or Bangladesh. This would tremendously affect the societies of Pakistan and Bangladesh that more and more common people will look towards Indian mainland as their materialistic and spritual destination. This would definitely spark anti-India feelings in Pakistan and Bangladesh. SO HOW FAR WE ARE GOING TO ACCEPT THIS SOCIAL CHANGE NEEDS TO BE DELIBERATED AND DISCUSSED. It should not happen that when Bollywood(which is not Indian but actually Hindu+Muslim Cultural Entity) starts ruling the minds of the people and then there is a hue and cry. The social and cultural impact of SAFTA will be so much so much on Pakistan and Bangladesh that they may be in the danger of losing their identities in the eyes of themselves as well as the world. We have to keep this mind.

As for India, when Hindus and Muslims of the subcontinent in their gigantic numbers come closer, there would definitely be an uneasiness amongst other minorities. How would India cope up with that? What would the Sikhs feel?

I feel before there can be any meaningful talk on SAFTA, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh should ponder carefully how much impact of SAFTA can they take on their societies. Otherwise, SAFTA will prove to be a disaster.

I would request the author to elaborate how these matters are going to be tackled before the economies are integrated together.

It`s not hard to estimate the beenfits of free trade..if you include afghanistan in it Pakistan is naturally suited to be a trade hub. The old stat was $3b of indirect trade between Pakistan and India..and I am sure if you add in trade done through places like Malaysia and UAE it would be a lot higher..similarly Pak-Afghan trade if liberalsied would be in the billions as well..