An International Failure

ylh #164: ``... I`d be willing to concede Pakistan`s name to be Islamic republic or Sultanate Mughalia even .. if the following conditions were met...``

I would have to completely agree with your comment. This is basically what I have been trying to say, all along, i.e. the name, title etc. is immaterial. It doesn`t really matter whether Pakistan declares itself to be a secular or a religious nation, it is the ground realities (which you have described) that are important. A secular Pakistan, without these realities, will be a worse place than a religious Pakistan with these realities. Similarly, a religious Pakistan without these realities, will be a worse place than a secular Pakistan with these realities. And these realities have nothing to do with Islamism and secularism. Due to that, the debate betweeen secularism and Islamism should take a back seat to the debates between the points you have mentioned. These points are much more important. That is also why I am so critical of people who want to convert Pakistan into Turkey, Saudia Arabia, Iran (pre and post Shah) etc. They fail to realize that in those countries, the basic points you have mentioned, have been ignored, and the hollow secular and religious interfaces have become more important. That is why extremist religious parties keep (kept) winning elections in those regions. The govts. are going in one direction without implementing these ground realities, due to which the common man is going in completely the other direction.

As you have stated, as long as these points are implemented, it won`t make too much of a difference whether Pakistan is secular or religious in name and philosophy.

Now onto your points. I basically agree with all of them:

1) I think the current govt. will soon implement joint electorates. The fear of the religious extreme right is now gone, and discredited.

2) Pakistan`s constitution does imply equal rights for all casts, creeds etc. However, this is a social concept, and cannot be implemented until the education and economical level is improved. So in theory it is being applied, but practically, this will take a long time. However, it should be done (at the very least in areas like the military, where due to political interference, the otherwise religious neutral concepts were slowly being removed).

3) This should be done, and is simply a legal issue. I think the current govt. should do it.

4) Same as 3.

5) This should be done also. But for all practical terms, Pakistan`s press, under the current govt., is as free as ever. It is the most free press in the Muslim world, and one of the most free in Asia. The journalists themselves have stated this, again and again.

6) This needs to be done in stages. There should be freedom of expression, as long as it is peaceful and not against anyone (the US laws allow the later also). However, I don`t belive in giving Pakistan`s political parties, in the current stage, absolute complete freedom to create chaos. Under such a law, any religious party could start inticing people towards voilence. And parties like the PML and PPP and JI would do nothing else except shut down cities etc. Peaceful protests should be allowed, and that is it.

7) This is a theoretical concept, and exists also. To put it into practice is a long excercise. Which should be started, but will require Pakistan`s coming out of the third world, to be implemented convincingly.

P.S. I would two requirements even more important than the ones you have mentioned. These include bringing economic prosperity to the common man, and security to the common man. Pakistanis (and other South Asians) happily migrate to areas without a free press, without democracy, with strict laws, as long as they can raise their economic standard and get physical security

Re YLH/Romair:

After today`s suicide attack on the Parliament (following last year`s attack on the Red Fort and the PMO claimed by the LeT, and with threats of even more attacks), Indo-Pak relations are set for a nosedive. So, all talk of free trade will be unfortunately postponed indefinitely. I belive that since the greater beneficiary of free trade would have been Pakistan, Musharraf should do some introspection about where his country`s national interests truly lie -- in letting the leaders who call for these attacks to take place from their safe anchorages in Pakistan, or in normalizing ties with India.

Perceptions do count. An unscientific MSNBC Internet opinion poll indicates that 80% of the respondents believe that Pakistan is responsible for the attacks (and if you factor out the non-Indian respondents the percentage will be even higher). So, when the two sides meet, do you think that free trade will be on top of the Indian agenda?

Re: Ferozk

``...As to a peace between India and Pakistan, the present generation on both sides is not capable of making it...``

I will not share your pessimism if democracy makes deep inroads in Pakistan. I have NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that a DEMOCRATIC Pakistan will make honorable peace with a democratic India. Democracy is a pre-condition for lasting, stable peace. Without it, no peace will be durable. Until democracy returns to Pakistan, I am afraid your pessimism may be true.

Re: YLH

``... free trade with India will only mean Economic ruin for Pakistan...``

Can you define that? I don`t think that free trade will mean economic ruin for Pakistan or for India -- it will benefit both -- actually, it will benefit Pakistan more than it will benefit India. As it is, Pakistan pays a premium for imports (e.g. tea, sugar, steel, trucks, engineering machine tools) that hurt Pakistani consumers and enriches international shipping firms. Free trade will mean that all these commodities will be cheaper in Pakistan. India can buy surplus electricity from Pakistan (India is energy starved), and energy imports from Iran.

The Pakistan market is not going to cause Indian exports to surge, so the benefits there are minimal for India. However, Pakistani exports do have a potential to surge (Indian industry is not as competitive as you think it is), and that will benefit Pakistan relatively more so than it will India. Your anti free-trade arguments are similar to the ones that many were making before NAFTA and WTO went into effect. The impending doomsday scenarios never materialized.

Look at it another way -- countries that do not trade risk being marginalized in the international arena (think Cuba, N. Korea, Iraq, etc.). The risk of not trading is higher than the risk of trading. You do not have to go further than India to see how true this is. India`s decline in global importance since `47 was matched by its decline in international trade. Geographically, the Indus plains and the Gangetic plains are linked. It is far easier to conduct trade across these systems with good rail/road networks, than it is to conduct trade with C. Asian States (total population of the `Stans: 25M), or with Iran (across large deserts, pop. 40 M) or with China (across high mountain passes which are closed for half the year, and the road to eastern China is 4000 km long) or with Afghanistan (GDP per capita $180/yr and 25M population).

re: ylh #164

yeah, keep dreaming...those conditions are as likely to be met as 12-head is to give up chasing madrassah boys...why don`t you try accepting current reality rather than groaning on and on about what should`ve been and could`ve been and will be?

Re: Prem

``...We Indians really have no clue what many Pakistanis mean by Indian hegemony...``

I had asked the same question a little over a year ago, and Fuzair had given a very cogent response. If I remember correctly, from a Pakistani perspective it basically implies the Indian ability to be able to influence domestic and foreign policy. An extreme example of this was provided by India in the Maldives when the government there was nearly overthrown by mercenaries in the 80s. India`s intervention restored the status quo ante. This is an example of Indian hegemony -- intervention restored a government. Same thing with Bangladesh -- after the military govt. of Pakistan proved itself incapable of reaching a political solution with its Eastern wing, the flow of refugees into India triggered a crisis, and India exerted its hegemony. Never mind that in one case a humanitarian crisis was shortened, and in the other a legitimate government was restored.

Ferozk #166
`` The simple fact is that both Indians and Pakistanis love to hate each other and nothing gives them more pleasure than to be, and feel, superior to one another``

Ferozk, I think thats not a real problem, the problem is we want to feel superior to each other plus Kashmir :)

`` As to a peace between India and Pakistan, the present generation on both sides is not capable of making it and I doubt that there will ever be peace between India and Pakistan.
Maybe in 200 hundred thousand years...:) ``

Come now, miracles can still happen surely? and a matter imagination to think of something which covers everything and satisfies everyone..

btw, have you been following the Sri Lanka elections?

One remarkable thing was they have consistently shown the selfconfidence to hold free and fair elections inspite of the civil war ravaging this small country( apart from their Air Force planes getting destroyed and all).

Another remarkable thing in the last election was that apparently Chandrika Kumaratunga went about vigorously campaigning on the line that her opponents are going to make a deal with LTTE and divide the country. The public rejected this alarmist thesis(inspite of being under seige of unrelenting violence) and trusted her opponent with their votes because they supported his stance on peace talks with the Tamil rebels..

S. Asia isn`t entirely without hope of pursuing peace and settling its conflicts based on common peoples judgement, thats my point. Its only a question of its leaders finding workable solutions to offer their people.

Re: Sadna # 152

I agree with you 100 percent that Pakistan needs to define its national identity and its corresponding interests. It was this point that I had argued in my article, which is one of the bigger problems in the creation of Pakistani foreign policy.

As to a peace between India and Pakistan, the present generation on both sides is not capable of making it and I doubt that there will ever be peace between India and Pakistan.

Maybe in 200 hundred thousand years...:)

The simple fact is that both Indians and Pakistanis love to hate each other and nothing gives them more pleasure than to be, and feel, superior to one another.

Ciao

It is all fine and dandy to make idealistic comments which sound good, but economically complete free trade with India will only mean Economic ruin for Pakistan. Yet there is scope for trade between Pakistan and India, and that should be pursued.

Sincerely

YLH

Perhaps when enough insults have been thrown around, and enough lies have been said, people like Jay, Goldsteen, and Rsaxena will evolve into mature Indian contributors like Shammi, Prem, and

Zafar .... but untill then great nations like Israel, Pakistan,India and Palestine will be held hostage to mad men, crooks, cranks and petty individuals.....

In any event, I wish to address those Islamists today who took umbrage with my suggestion that Pakistan should no longer be an Islamic Republic. Let me assure you whereas I would like to see this inaccurate and chimerical concept of `Islamic` Republic be done away with (for either republic is Islamic or it is not, so it doesnt make sense to have `Islamic` Republic) ... I`d be willing to concede Pakistan`s name to be Islamic republic or Sultanate Mughalia even .. if the following conditions were met...

1) Joint electorates as envisaged by Jinnah`s speeches and statements in that crucial first year... especially the 11 different speeches made especially on this topic between 21st May 1947 to 27th August 1948

2) Equal rights regardless of religion caste gender or creed, meaning that theoretically a non Muslim can hold even the highest elected and non elected posts in the land.

3) Return to the `Muslim Family Law Ordinance` which was repealed under the dictatorship of Zia ul Haq.

4) Enactment of repealing ordinances for the original ordinances enacted by the Zia Dictatorship.

5) Reenactment of Repeal of Press and Publications Ordinance which was approved by the national assembley in 1988 by the Interim Government, and ensuring of complete Press Freedom.

6) Guranteeing complete freedom of speech and expression in Pakistan.

7) Complete and total commitment to the spirit of freedom and equality as envisaged by the Objectives Resolution and Chapter 1 of Pakistan`s Constitution ... which state:

QUOTE:

Wherein adequate provisions shall be made for the minorities freely to profess and practise their religions and develop their cultures; Wherein shall be guaranteed fundamental rights, including equality of status, of opportunity and before law, social economic and political justice, and freedom of thought, expression, belief, faith, worship and association, subject to the law and public morality; Wherein adequate provision shall be made to safeguard the legitimate interests of minorities and backward and depressed classes;

Wherein the independence of the judiciary shall be fully secured; So that the people of Pakistan may prosper and attain their rightful and honoured place amongst the nations of the world and make their full contribution towards international peace and progress and happiness of humanity (Objectives Resolution 1949)

As long as all these rights are guaranteed in Pakistan which Pakistan solemnly promised at its inception, I seriously dont care what you wish to call Pakistan, secular democracy, republic, Emirate, Caliphate or whatever! This is the spirit of egalitarian secularism which in my opinion was taught to us 13 centuries ago by the Holy Prophet, and which we need to implement in our daily lives.

Sincerely

YLH

Ferozek #151: I think Pakistan should open up trade with India. I am not quite sure how much more competitive India is as compared with Pakistan. I do know Pakistan got into the private entrepreneur business in the 60s (30 years ahead of India), but unfortunately went back to nationalization, in the 70s. And Pakistan is the only country in South Asia to have four decades of 6% growth (India has yet to have one). So we have done it successfully once, I don`t see why we cannot reach those levels again.

India is a much bigger market than Pakistan. So Pakistanis would have a much larger cliental in India, than vice-versa. I think Pakistan would benefit far more than India.

The pipeline project would be a good place to start. The current Pakistani govt. is very interested in getting involved in this with India. Pakistan has actually signed off on the pipeline from Iran to India. Iran has signed off also. This would be a huge project, and would economically bind each country together, far more than any kind of simple border trade (that goes on through smuggling, anways). India is the only country that has not agreed to the pipeline, even though it is the easiest and cheapest method for India. If India is serious about its claims for trade, then this is as good a project, as possible. Everyone benefits.

Message from Chowk Staff:

This interactor has been using this id for abusive posts, therefore posts from this interactor will not be validated.

Pyar mat kar,

Come down anytime. Just make sure your sphincter muscle is loose...on second thoughts, I will take care of that too...and come in your frock...I delight in taking those things off nitwits like you.

Yours lovingly.

RE: Reply #: 151 Ferozk

``The best way India can solve its problems with Pakistan and assure Pakistan of its intentions is to solve the issue of Kashmir. ... the question needs to be asked: is Kashmir worth risking the future of a billion people in South Asia?

....The truth In other words, Pakistan is only going to be militarily satisfied if India settles the problem of Kashmir with Pakistan and removes this irritant form their bilateral relations.``

Ferozk, for the firt two decades of it`s existence, Pakistan took on the mantle of Islam in the sub-continent. That fell by the wayside after 1971. Then it started looking Westwards towards the other Muslim countries for it`s Islamicness. Now that strategy has backfired. The real problem is that Pakistan has not defined it`s nationhood other than with one simple slogan ``Pakistan is not India``. No amount of compromise by India on Kashmir will get that out of the system of your leaders. Simple as that.

If Pakistan gets out of this mind warp and embraces genuine peace and friendship based on open borders and free trade, it will reap a reward far greater than any dividend than the solution of the Kashmir problem in it`s favor. Else Kashmir will just be a bone stuck in it`s throat and guess who`s going to die from it.

Reply Ferozk # 151

Feroz Bhai

Re: your question, is India willing to pay the price for its “place in the sun” by opening its markets to surrounding countries.

This has already happened with Nepal and to some extent, in the form of free trade agreements, with Bhutan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka (and Maldives?). We also have free movement of people between Nepal and India. This has demonstrably not made us popular with Nepalis, but I think the relationship has progressed to the extent that the two countries depend on each other (though not equally).

I don’t know about the others, but the FTA with Sri Lanka has been implemented in a manner which is favourable to Sri Lanka – delaying access to Sri Lanka’s markets for some years after Sri Lanka has full access to India’s, special rules regarding tea (important to Sri Lankan economy), etc. A (rare?) example of statesmanship on India’s part – since there is now an important constituency in both countries for peaceful relations, and that constituency is growing at the same rate as trade does. (Because of India`s population of Tamils, this constituency in Sri Lanka will also be supporting a reasonable resolution of the Tamil insurgency there, so a real winner this FTA.)

I don’t believe that the Indian Government believes that trade with Pakistan would result in a strong enough pro-peace interest group there to make Kashmir a minor issue – but once Kashmir is resolved, such a constituency would have an interest (also on the Indian side of the border) in ensuring that the peace was durable and even dynamic. That’s also why certain sections of Indian and Pakistani polity oppose trade relations – once countries enter into such an embrace, war becomes difficult (India and Bangladesh, for example, are going through a rocky patch, but war is not on the cards, and this may be one of the reasons why not. Further along the same process, France and Germany will never go to war again.)

Although (based on your post, I couldn’t say from my own knowledge) India’s industry is more competetive than Pakistan’s, Pakistan will still have comparative advantage in some products. Pakistan and Pakistanis will not lose from free trade with India, although certain Pakistani industrialists may well go to the wall. (Some Indian industrialists would too.) Look at India and China – China is more industrially competetive than us, but trade with them is still good for ordinary Indians. Not least because it is forcing our industries to become more competetive.

Zafar

Re:Reply #: 142

Prem,

``As far as I can tell, this issue of hegemony is a BIG BIG deal with many Pakistanis (though, in Pakistan, it seems to me, it comes carries some negative connotations)...and we Indians, most that I know, have no clue about it.``

I do not think India is really a hegemon in the area. Pakistani media and rulers (especially the latter)have projected India as a hegemon and derived benefits. Anti-India policies have been carefully cultivated by the army brass and often parroted by the politicians to please the former (BB, who is singing a different tune today, used to be severely anti-Indian in her speech when in power). Anti-India rhetorics were justified by the Paki establishment by projecting India as having hegemonistic ambitions in the region. Pak army spends a large % of nation`s GNP on defense. Justification is India as a security risk. No one asks any question. It is taken for granted that the nation has to be defended against a larger neighbor who is a hegemon. Generations of Pakistani army men have made careers out of anti-India rhetorics.

If Pakistanis think of India in such light, it is reflective of the political and media thinking in that country. There is no factual basis to it.

Sridhar