Unsettling Precedents for Pakistan

Top 12 ``doable`` things that Pakistan should do, and do not cost much: (as opposed to undoable things, which should be done, but are impossible at the moment)

1. Introduce massive affirmative actions for girls and women. Free education for little girls. Massive representation in all govt. bodies for women. End Hudood Laws, specifically those against women. Appoint 50% women representation in any Council of Islamic Ideology. Form a committee of only female politicians, professionals, judges etc., which interprets laws related to women . This committee should include secular, religious, minority, rich, poor - all kinds of women. Men should not be deciding what is good for women.

Cost - none, other than schools for girls
So far- The current govt. has made a lot of progress on this by giving women massive represenation in all elected bodies. Pakistan now has a higher % of women in its Assemblies than the USA (I think). However, in other areas, nothing much has been done

2. Introduce massive affirmative action for all minorities. As far as possible, without completely causing a riot in the Pakistani society. Blasphemy laws should be removed (or at least death penalty should be removed). In organizations which are more tolerant of religious minorities, like the military, appoint non-Muslim as the Chief, etc.

Cost - none
So far - Quite a bit has been done at the political level. Minorities are now more enfranchised than the Muslim majority. They have reserved seats and can vote on joint seats. Chances of a Christian being elected to the Pakistan assembly are 100%. Chances of a Muslim being elected to the US Congress are still zero. But a lot more has to be done, at the social level in Pakistan.

3. Open up the borders to Indian visitors, completely, even if India does not do the same. This will make it easier for RAW agents to get in. But they can get in anyways. The benefits will far outweigh the costs. Indians have been completely brainwashed by their media and govt. about Pakistan. Unlike Pakistanis` access to things Indians, Indians have very little access (read interest) in things Pakistani, at the moment, since their govt. and media have turned all Pakistanis into Talibans and terrorists (without proof, mind you). When they see Pakistan is not what their govt. has told them it is, they will then start to question their govts.` policies. Much like Pakistanis regularly question Pakistani govts.` policies towards India.

Cost - none, in fact it will result in a lot of profit for businesses in Lahore etc.
So far - no progress on this

4. Normalize relations completely with Bangladesh. Go to Bangladesh and say whatever they want us to say. And reduce trade barriers as far as possible. Allow free exchange of students, professors etc. Infact do anything, other than allowing massive immigration from Bangladesh into Pakistan.

Cost - none
So far - pretty good progress. Musharraf went there, with letters from over a hundred Pakistani organizations. As has Gen. Aziz who recently laid a wreath at one of the soldier`s memorial

5. Completely close off border with Afghanistan, for any people movement. Try to adjust the Afghan refugees back into their country, as soon as possible. Only trade items like melons and cement should be allowed to go thru. Nothing good has ever come to Pakistan from Afghanistan. And vice-versa.

Cost - none, in fact it will be a very profitable venture
So far - a lot has been done post Sep 11, more needs to be done

6. Appoint the best possible Pakistani professionals in key financial positions, and give them a free hand to operate. Keep corruption in financial institutions in check.

Cost - none
So far - The govt. gets an A grade on this. Shaukut Aziz, Hafeez Sheikh, Ishrat Hussain etc. are top notch pros. And they have been given a lot of power. And Pakistan`s economy has made excellent progress in three years, specially at the macro level. We have moved from 3% growth rates and declining, to 5% growth rates and climbing, in three years. Great achievement. Only two issues remain a) passing the benefit to the common person, which will happen in due time b) foreign investment - which is more of an image problem, than economic one.

7. Spend all available money on setting up Asian level universities. Combine them with the budget of the military, like NUST. Or with any other organization, if it cannot be done straight out of the education budget.

Cost - quite a bit
So far - A few good univ. have been set up, but a lot more needs to be done

8. Maintain a credible nuclear deterent, while making sure it remains uncontroversial internationally and never gets used.

Cost - quite a bit
So far - so far, so good

9. Do not encourage religious enthusiasms of any kind. This does not mean that religious parties should not be allowed their political space, or that they should be shoved into the sea, a la Ata Turk. It just means that they should also not be allowed to use threatening policies against the govt. They should have to go to the people and get votes to get elected.

Cost - none
So far - This govt. has taken on the religious parties after they had 20 years of free reign under Zia, BB, and NS. I think it is doing enough, without causing a riot in the society. It needs to gradually continue to do the same. It should not be blackmailed by these parties. Nor should it be blackmailed by the other extreme of secularitics, who want these parties to be completely destroyed. It should leave it up to the voters to accept or reject them.

10. Disassociate Pakistan from India. Pakistanis are too obsessed in competing with India. They need to start looking in other directions, and only interact with India on issues which are economically beneficial for Pakistan. There is a big huge world out there, and Pakistanis will not discover it, if they keep discussing/obsessing with India all the time.

Cost - none
So far - no progress

11. Cut down the Army top command to 1/3rd its size and get the Army out of businesses. The military is still the most respected institution in Pakistan, according to the all the surveys. However, that respect is for the jawans and junior officers. The Generals are not respected. There is only one way to fix the situation, and that is to remove the posts of 2/3rd of them, and lower the ranks of those posts to Brigadiers and below (like it used to be). And get the Army out of banks, and fertilizer companies, etc.

Cost - none, in fact it will save money
So far - no progress, in fact the military is getting more into civilian businesses

12. Shift the intellectual debate in Pakistan from irrelevant and historical concepts, which will only cause fissures in the society, like secularism/religion, Jinnah/Nehru, TNT/no TNT, identity crises etc. etc. and move it to more practically useful ones like ecnomics, education, urban development, philanthrapy, women`s rights etc.

Cost - none
So far - not much progress. Too much brain power is still wasted on theoretical and historical problems mentioned above. And too many people are fighting too many unnecessary battles in these areas against each other, which should be left for a later time, since most Pakistanis could care less about these issues.

Non-doable, but important

---

Massive land reforms, thereby taking the feudals completely out of politics

Cost - none. in fact this is the biggest factor holding Pakistan back.
So far - apparently impossible to do, since not even military govts. have been able (or willing) to do this

and an equally popular name amongst Sunnis too: we love the Ahlul Bayt e At-haar! :-)

In response to ahmadzai, #21:

``USA cannot deal with Pakistan like Palestine unless it totally declares a war on Islam, which it can if it wants to, but then, using the same line, can India do any thing against America``

I see your point on India, however do note that currently there is a convergence of interest between India and America. Pakistan works against that interest, so it`s a mistake to draw a parallel between the two.

I also don`t see the link between being against Pakistan, and declaring a war on Islam proper. To be honest, I don`t think the latter will ever be the case, since clearly this is about American military/economic interests, and not ideological differences. America is out of the ideology business. By this I mean that America wants Islam out of the way insomuch as it interferes with their interests. Other than that, they really don`t care...


``Men in Khaki are a requirement for Pakistan for the time to keep stability and economic prosperity...``

The army is an institution that looks after it`s own interests before that of the state. It will maintain stability, however a catalyst for economic prosperity? I find that hard to swallow...time will tell...

``Also, Pakistanis should leave India on its own. India will continue in the viscious circle of mob violence, riots, bombs, attacks on terrorists, counter-attacks, etc. We should leave them on their own to solve their problems. In the meantime, we have our problems to solve.``

I agree, both countries have loads of problems that need to be dealt with. Rather then spend so many billions on 1970`s era military hardware, both would be better to invest in infrastructure and industry. However, Pakistan`s arms build up to counter India`s, and India`s to ensure superiority over Pakistan`s, (...funny how Indians insist on spelling Pakistan C-H-I-N-A when rationalizing their massive arms build up...), is a trend that I think will continue for some time so long as this Kashmir issue is around. Bloody well divvy the place up and get on with life...sheesh.

#22

Nice wet-dream there Mullah ahmadzai... :)

Don`t look now, but you will see that India`s problem is not with Islam...it is with Pakistan. Contrary to your wet dream, a Sindh problem, a Pakthoon problem and a Baloch problem is currently simmering. It will come to boil soon. As is a Balwaristan problem and a Baltistan problem.

You all should focus on sharing water among all provinces like good children before it is too late.

I wonder how the dam across the Chenab -- Baghlihar? -- is coming along..

adnan_rafiq at # 11 & Stuka at # 12:

The current leadership of Pakistan under President Musharraf seems to have defined a vision for Pakistan as follows: Pakistan first for developing militarily, economically and socially so that we become a role model of a moderate Islamic country for the world. During the current visit of Pakistani leadership to foreign lands, especially Muslim countries, they have been asking Pakistan to take the leadership of the Muslim countries. President`s today`s interview with BBC clearly shows that Pakistan is beginning to assume that role with a nod from the West. BBC chose Presdident Musharraf to speak loud and clear on 9/11, its consequences and the future role that Muslim countries and the West will have to play to bridge the current gap.

sameerJB at # 16:

What made you think that Muslims of other countries are not worried?

Banjara, Stuka, Naqshbandi:

Zeynab Ali is of Arabic origin, but quite a popular female name amongst Shi`te Muslims. proves that the bearer is a leader and bold speaker like bibi Zainab and brave and full of wisdom like Hazrat Ali.

:-)

My apologies to the author for bringing an unnecessary comment in the thread.

digit at # 18:

1. USA cannot deal with Pakistan like Palestine unless it totally declares a war on Islam, which it can if it wants to, but then, using the same line, can India do any thing against America.

2. Men in Khaki are a requirement for Pakistan for the time to keep stability and economic prosperity. Any populist Government at this juncture will give in to the pressure of extremists (terrorists) and start running populist short-term agenda that will be counter-productive. The need of the hour is that Pakistan continues with the current level of democratic set-up (call it whatever you like). The real democracy will come in automatically in future at the right time.

Also, Pakistanis should leave India on its own. India will continue in the viscious circle of mob violence, riots, bombs, attacks on terrorists, counter-attacks, etc. We should leave them on their own to solve their problems. In the meantime, we have our problems to solve.

adnan_rafiq:

And btw, my friend, you don`t have to worry about Iran`s pacts with Indians. Its their compulsion at this time to make friends with all their neighbors. If they have executed some pacts with India, they have done the same with Pakistan.


And about your mission statement of India, less said the better. India has been a country that has turned a war against terrorism into a war on Islam. Unfortunately, they will continue to see increasing civil strife in their society. Otoh, its states will also fight for economic independence from the center, who will be busy in buying arms and sending spacecrafts into moon. As a Pakistani, I would be worrying about the instability of our neighbor. I bet that the USA / West will try to keep it stable so that 1 billion people do not get de-stabilized and further de-stabilize the whole region.

A very interesting article. Some comments:

``From the ‘success’ in Iraq, it appears that launching preemptive strikes with overpowering force can vanquish enemies without appreciable collateral damage``

From Gulf War I and II, it certainly seems that way. However, with the latter an important point must be kept in mind: the Iraqi`s put up a nominal resistance. There should be no doubt if Baghdad, or any other city, was heavily defended and stiff resistance was produced, then the Americans would not have hesitated to blast the place to bits. The mindset during the war was that any amount of civilian casualties were acceptable, so long as in the end it could be reasoned that those casualties saved AMERICAN lives. This idea is fundamental to American war-time thinking - with exception of a vocal, but relatively small minority. I was expecting Israeli-style smash-up operations on a city-wide scale...mercifully the Iraqi`s didn`t resist in the manner that would have forced a savage American response (not that the shock-and-awe terror bombings were anything but savage).

As for Pakistan, I think it`s too late. It pretty much has to do whatever America tells it to, otherwise it will face the consequences. No amount of back-tracking or policy shifting will change this so long as Pakistan challenges India, and America decides to buy the Indian line. We see this between Palestinians and Israeli’s. Even if Pakistan had an elected leadership, any policies that go against American interests will prompt the Americans to ``advise`` the Pakistani citizenry to choose a new leader - or else.

In the end, though, I agree with the author`s conclusion. As painful as it is, the best bet is to give up on Kashmir, lay low, and focus on domestic issues. I may be wrong, however I don`t think it`s in the American interest to see Pakistan fail as a state...so I don`t buy the argument that they will conspire to ensure Pakistan fails in any kind of development agenda. The only thing stopping such an agenda are the men in khaki`s.

Zainab:
Pakistan need not worry about an American invasion in the short or even medium term. The US hands will be full with Iraq for a long time to come. However, if the Afghanistan situation keeps worsening and more evidence of the Pakistani collusion in supporting taliban keeps emerging, then all bets are off.

In the long run, the security of Pakistan lies in not continuing to make itself and its relationship with India a hostage to the Kashmir issue. The support for jihadis in Pakistan will continue to be strong as long as hostility with India continues.

Why are Pakistanis more worried about this alarming scenario than Bangladeshis, Turkish, Indonesians, Egyptians or Malian Muslims? Are there more reasons than the Nuclear bomb? Are Pakistanis self-appointed thekedars of Islam and, therefore, worry about the implications?

stuka: yes, Zaynab/Zainab/Zinab is a well-known female Muslim name of Arabic origin.

????The author is a girl?

Zeynab,
A little digression. Are you by any chance Shahid`s daughter?
Regards.

``And, by Pakistanis, I mean Pakistanis - not Arabs, Muslims, Iraqis, Afghans or the so-called ummah. ``

Adnan Rafiq sach kehta hai. I would only add this...

The Mission statement should also include what you want your foreign policy to get for you? Until you clearly define national interest, you cannot have a viable foreign policy. What is Pakistan`s national interest? Is it economic growth? Iis it a compromise between military and economic growth? Are there national security challenges? How can they be dealt with? How important is Kashmir? What trade-offs are we willing to make for it? etc etc.

The question is who asks these questions and who answers them. If it is just the military, you are back to square one. The military should have a role, but so should civil socity and all shades of politcal opinion.

I am surprised the author did not have much to say about the recent pacts signed between India and Iran. Everyone needs friends to survive - including nations. Unfortunatley, our myopic leadership has rendered Pakistan completely friendless in the 21st century.

ahmedzai:

Before we start talking about suggestions and ten-point lists regarding foreign policy, I think we should come up with a mission statement. This mission statement should then drive every aspect of our foreign policy. Also, the statement should be powerful and concise, yet simple enough so the masses can undertand and relate to it. This is what I propose:

PPF: Put Pakistan First!

For too long, our foreign policy has been driven by delusions of grandeur and pure emotions. Our leaders have been all too willing to sacrifice our national interest in the name of glorifying the ``fictitious`` ummah. A sound foreign policy should always keep the interests and well-being of Pakistanis in the forefront. And, by Pakistanis, I mean Pakistanis - not Arabs, Muslims, Iraqis, Afghans or the so-called ummah.

I believe our neighbors to the East have always embraced this mission statement. Their economic success and stature amongst the nations of this world is a testament to this simple yet powerful ideology.