The Millenium Manifesto or ’Ikeesween Sadi Dastoor’

zeemax:

i had read this article in the form of one of your posts in one of the threads earlier. i can`t comment on the parts that deal in the internal matters of pakistan due to my lack of knowledge in that, but i must commend you for putting a rational policy under `defence`. i remember there were people who disagreed with you in this and i assume they would come back.

nevertheless, you deserve praise.

Dear Zeemax:

Your article is an interesting exercise. It would generate a lot of heat (if taken seriously). My first reading of this article suggests that you have over-simplifed the process of national development. Shouldn`t a manifesto focus more upon a broad-based set of values, such as life, liberty, pusuit of happiness, equality, justice, and peaceful coexistence?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

You have presented a very very good plan. I agree with almost 100% of it. There are however a few areas in which I agree with the implementation, but do not think the solution will work. They are as follows, along with the reasons:

``Software Parks to be developed in cooperation with the Banglore industry of India.`` Software definitely will have to be developed, however Pakistan will have to proceed on it alone. Why would Banglore be interested in helping a potential competitor? If Pakistan`s software industry picks up like India`s, then Pakistan will end up taking away a huge portion of India`s market share. So I doubt India, or any other country, will be too interested in helping its potential competitor.

``Nuclear program to be maintained in line with the regional balance of power. CTBT to be signed unilaterally as well as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Nuclear program to be developed solely on computer simulated testing basis.`` This is a good suggestion, except the last line is impractical. Pakistan does not have, nor will it have in the near future, the ability to develop computer simulated nuclear testing. This requires supercomputers. So Pakistan should just agree not to test, unless it feels under threat.

``Defense Budget to be reduced in proportion and reciprocally with India in view of a no-war-pact`` I agree with this also, but this will not work either. India is not interested in signing a no-war pact with Pakistan, since it has numerical superiority and its military is designed for an offensive war vis-a-vis Pakistan (Pakistan`s military is designed for a defensive war vis-a-vis India). By signing a no-war pact, India loses its offensive advantage. A no-war pact has been offered to India on several occasions, by Pakistan, but India has always refused due to the above-mentioned reasons. So a proportional reduction of military hardware with India is not possible. Pakistan has been proposing such a reduction for decades also. India is positioning itself as the local superpower to counter China, in the region. So even if it signs a no-war pact with Pakistan, it will continue to grow its military forces for power projection purposes, in proportion to China`s military. If Pakistan wants to reduce the size of its military, it will have to do so unilaterally.

Finally, I think your solutions on Kashmir are quite good, though too optimistic. They require complete cooperation from India. And because of that, we are back to square one.

``No-War-pact to be signed with India. Bilateral and simultaneous withdrawal from the Line of Control and the International Borders.`` India has never given any indication of agreeing to a no-ware pact.

``Human rights violations in Kashmir are wrong and the party will continue to raise it`s voice on purely humanitarian grounds as called for in Chechneya or Kososvo or any other such spots in the world. The Party has faith that the United Nations and other bodies also will intervene to prevent human rights abuses in Kashmir.`` Pakistan has been presenting the UN side of the argument for decades. India does not accept the UN argument. If it had done so, then this whole Kashmir problem would have been solved long ago. I do not think India should be allowed to turn Kashmir into Chechnya or Kosovo. But this is exactly what will happen, once Pakistan accepts the LOC as the border. The UN will never intervene.

However in the unlikely scenario that the UN does intervene in Kashmir, and even in the more unlikely scenario that India listens to the UN (this would basically mean a plebescite in Kashmir, which in my opinion would result in an independent Kashmir) then I think Pakistan should definitely accept the following:

``Line of Control to be made permanent into an International Border in return for India agreeing to withdraw from Siachen. Siachen to be declared as no-man`s-land by mutual treaty...

Immediate cessation of active militant interference in Kashmir...

``Kashmir does not belong to Pakistan regardless of historical events during partition, and is not likely to belong to Pakistan even after a referendum or self-determination.``

UN intervention in Kashmir, no-war pact, proportional military reduction are India-dependent. And India has never agreed to accept these, regardless of anything offered by Pakistan, in return. So those won`t work, unless India completely changes its stance, and there is no indication that it will change its stance. All the Pakistan-dependent ideas sound quite doable.

An excellent manifesto (first draft). Here are some comments.

Political :

1) 1973 constitution: Ok, let`s dust it off and take a look.

2) Freedom of gathering, expression, and speech: 100% agreed.

3) A two party system: Disagree, since it conflicts with 2) above. Instead suggest: set ground rules for political parties to ensure that democracy flourishes WITHIN parties as well, as in mature democracies like US, UK and increasingly, India. So BB or NS would have lost party leadership after failing first time in power.

4) Clarification of national identity...reverted to the original basis as envisaged by M.A Jinnah, i.e. economic consideration. Agree. Let our national identity be that of a humane, economically prosperous, and peaceful people. Let us practice our religion with dignity at home, not wear it on our sleeve for reasons of personal gain. Let us expose the canard promoted by the mullahs that Pakistan was created to be a theocratic state.

Provinces :

1)All provinces to be made fully autonomous: Add provision for federal override (as in India, or as in case of Washington DC) where provincial government misgoverns. ALSO: Have 100 provinces, not 4, to ensure focus of government on improving neighborhoods. All else dealt with by a center that focuses on foreign policy, defense, economic regulations, transport infrastructure.

2) Two new provinces to be formed. See above.

3) NWFP to be renamed: Disagree. This penchant for changing names (Bombay to Mumbai, Lyallpur to Faisalabad, Negro to Black, etc.) is a symptom of a people who are not comfortable with themselves and their heritage and the practice detracts from real issues.

4) Quota system in government jobs to be abolished. Agree 100%. The goal of public service should be ensuring highest quality of public service, not providing jobs for sons of the rich from poor provinces.

Foreign Policy :

1)Regional Cooperation For Development (RCD) as initiated by Ayub Khan to be revived. OK, but I wonder how eager Turkey would be to stir up questions in EU regarding the green light recently given for Turkey to become member there. Also, poor countries generally make poor trade partners.

2) Irritants to be removed in relations: OK. I am all for removing irritants in human relations.

3) Complete Disengagement from Afghanistan: Sorry, but a couple of generations down, the Afghans will curse Pakistan for inflicting Taliban and civil war on them. Let us try and repare the damage to the extent we have influence.

4) Status Quo to be maintained in relation with the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia: Agreed. When you become prime minister, please make sure you do the Haj before (or after) you become prime minister, not during.

Q : While speaking of displaced people in Kashmir, are people who retain Kashmiri heritage but were driven out a few centuries ago pertinent to the issue ?

In south-eastern Karnataka there are people who claim Kashmiri origin. They fled persecution from Islamic rulers a few centuries ago.

-arun gupta

In response to Zeemax (Reply #: 6)

Dear Zeemax:

Your reply suggests that you do not disagree with the significance of broad based values.

Yet your reaction to my comment suggests a difference in the way we wish to conceptualize and operationalize the issue at hand. A vision without a possibility of implementation is useless. For example, Jinnah`s two well-known visionary speeches found little support in the reality of Pakistan. Why? One major reason is the way our power elite developed a dominant discourse through which our simple common people were indoctrinated to believe that Islam provides a perfect way of life and it is a panacea for all of our problems. The history of Pakistan is full of a struggle in which a gap has clearly existed between our Islamic ideology and our material realities. This tension is not the product of Pakistani history only, it has been there in different forms throughout the entire history of Muslims (nor Islamic history).

Nation building is an extremely complex and cumbersome process. A holistic and visionary approach is necessary. We first need to honestly and realistically decide whether we are Sindhis, Punjabis, Baluchis, Pakhtoons, Saraikis, Mohajirs only or we are Pakistanis with different ethno-linguistic and other bases of collective identity who want to form one unified multicultural state and society. If our honest answer is the former, we are bound to disintegrate in due course of time. If it is the latter, then we need to find a way of understanding our socio-spatial reality and focus on some fundamental principles and values as our guideline and as a basis of resolving our conflicts. Only idealistic recourse to Islam is not sufficient. It has never been sufficient, it may never be sufficient.

Yes indeed a combination of a vision and its implementation is needed. The question is: What kind of vision with what kind of implementation?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

loooks more like a copy of my pakstudies notes... :)

chowkwala..

Adnan.

IF WISES WERE HORSES THE POOR WOULD RIDE. All this appears to a big pipe dream. The powers that be, will not give in this easily. Rest assured we will still be debating this next year;it will be a cold miserable winter that awaits us. SWEET DREAMS.

sounds pretty damn good on paper but the fact of the matter is that after reading a few books and writing a few papers one cannot even begin to understand the problems Pakistan faces at the dawn of this millenium. Politics and economics are as interconnected as doodh patti! The new government has some very crucial decisions to take vis-a-vis fundamentalism and the political structure of Pakistan. defaulters, corruption etc are all secondary issues that evoke public support but they won`t jumpstart our economy or our stagnating society. Change will come only from radical and comprehensive steps that every government has been afraid to take to date. Heads will have to roll before anything is achieved...the questions is whose will roll?

It is always interesting to see so many people trying to define the cause of the creation of Pakistan. The common theme seems to be that Pakistan was a state created solely because Muslims in India wanted their own country, just because they were Muslims. I think this is a completely incorrect argument.

Religion, in and of itself, has never been the reason for a group of people to migrate and create their own country. The main cause of massive migrations, and creation of nations is security, and chances of economic growth. Religion is usually quite a bit down the list. Pakistan was created, not because the Muslims wanted their own state, so that they could practice their religion. Pakistan was created because the Muslims of India felt that because of their religion, they would be insecure in a united India, and would not be able to progress economically, as much as they could in an independent state. This is quite a bit different from creating a state, just becuase of a religious identity.

If religion was the overriding motivating force for Pakistanis, then Pakistanis would never migrate out of Pakistan. Yet we see today, that despite the strict visa restrictions, any Pakistani that can get a chance to migrate to the USA or Canada avails the opportunity. Even though they end up being a small minority in these countries. The reason they migrate is becuase they feel more secure in the USA and in Canada, and they feel they have a better economic future there.

So religion, in and of itself, is never a strong enough reason to create a country. I cannot see the Muslims of USA demanding their own country, as long as the USA gives them as much security and economic opportunity as everyone else in the USA. Similarly, Indian Muslims will probably be content in India as long as they feel secure and feel they have the same economic opportunities that Hindus have. The moment they feel, that they are being dominated by Hindus, I wouldn`t be surprised if they started demanding some sort of quasi-independence themselves. If this does happen, it will not be because they are Muslims (although every one may perceive it to be so). It will be because they feel their security and economic future is being harmed, due to their choice of religion. These two things look similar, but are very different.

The cause of the creation of Pakistan was actually not religion. It was an attempt to protect a group of people, practicing a certain religion, against the economic and security discrimination they could have faced in a united India, because of their religion.

Re: Umairr #14

I tend to agree with Umairr`s statements. The creation of Pakistan was more due to insecurity than based on religion. Jinnah, to the best of my knowledge, was a Muslim politically, but not a Muslim in religious terms.

Are the Muslims in Pakistan better off than the Muslims in India? I don`t know, but I think the answer may be a yes, by a small margin. Muslims in both countries are free to practice their religion. It is economically that their Indian counterparts may not be as well off. I think some part of it should be attributed to their `unwillingness` to join the mainstream in secular/professional studies, and their concentration on religious education (Madrassas) which cannot really provide a living for everyone.

The fact that a large number of Indian Muslims did not migrate during Partition and the subsequent years to Pakistan proves one/both of the following things:

- Muslims in India felt reasonably secure/free to practice their religion and prosper economically.

- The ethnic ties (Gujrathi, Malayalee, UP, Bengali etc) and/or patriotic tie (Indian) proved stronger than the religious (Muslim) one.

Jinnah`s own family is based in India, not Pakistan. Isn`t that amazing! His grandson Nusli Wadia is the owner of Bombay Dyeing, one of India`s major textile firms.

Layman: Is it true that Jinnah`s great grandson is engaged to a famous Indian actress?

Zeemax:

Which way is `forward`? Thae farangi is so deep in ``s--t`` that it is a good opportunity for us to not do the stuff they are doing.Allah has given an opportunity to the advanced,albeit poor societies, to learn a lot from `societies` which have gotten rich by their thuggery & terrorism and are now paying the price of it in the form of various depravities & deviations rampant in this soon-to-be extinct ethnic group.Please make sure our next generation is not a part of this.

This viewpoint is shared by my practising(later on this) hindu,sikh,buddhist & chinese & all others who have superior value systems than those of the farangi.The only people who are not happy with this viewpoint are those former socialists & communists who are now masquerading as liberals,humanists,.For these kind anything but religion is better and at the same time they continue to give the impression of belonging to a particular religion.

These munafiqs in every religion are the real problem in our times.They try to look `respectable` by being part of a superior system & when they go to their own groups they say--`oh! but we do just jest`(Does it ring a bell).

For over 1400 years this moral battle is on & it ain`t going to end any sooner--a lot mor radicals have come & gone & all of them have finally succumbed to the advanced civilisations--these poor souls are tame compared to others,like the y2k bug perhaps.

Excellent article! My thoughts exactly. Now who will bell the cats in heat? Rats :)-

FARANGI_KUSH #17

Yar tum sabar hi kar lo to achha hai. Yeh likhna likhana tumharey buss ka rog nahin. Likhne kayliyeea soch ki zaroorat hoti hai aur soch tumharey paas say bhi ho kar nahin guzri.

Main yeh guzertay guzertay dekh kar likh raha houn. So, jawab dainey ka ksht na karna, kuoonkeh main issey dekh nahin paaonga. Agar logon key taffanan-e-tabaa kayliyeea likhna ho to zaroor likho.

Farangi_Kush,

Your posting does not tell me anything about Farangi`s, but it tells me a lot about you. I hope you get better soon.