One Afternoon
Feroz R Khan October 21, 2003
#67 Posted by tahmed32 on October 25, 2003 10:10:17 am
ferozk #81 agreed then that the basic hindrance to free trade is national politics, and there is no economic rationale for it. i wouldnt call the resulting trade regime to be `` fair trade`` though. That is simply the politician`s euphemism for government meddling in the trade. ``trade corruption`` would be more accurate I think since it causes populations in both countries to lose the benefits of free trade in order to benefit special interest groups in the importing country.
in third world countries in fact government intervention in trade causes far greater corruption - since for every form you have to fill, there is the outstretched hand of a bureaucrat you need to put some cash on: the bureaucrat may be a customs agent who can delay or even damage an entire shipment (as happened once with someone I know who refused to pay off the customs agent and the next thing he knew his carpet container had been opened for ``inspection`` and the carpets stretched out in the open under a heavy rainfall) and thus cause loss of a valuable foreign customer; or it can be a senior official responsible for authorizing ``export promotion rebates`` and may enter into deals with fake exporters to overvalue the value of the export and split the rebate. The list goes on.
in third world countries in fact government intervention in trade causes far greater corruption - since for every form you have to fill, there is the outstretched hand of a bureaucrat you need to put some cash on: the bureaucrat may be a customs agent who can delay or even damage an entire shipment (as happened once with someone I know who refused to pay off the customs agent and the next thing he knew his carpet container had been opened for ``inspection`` and the carpets stretched out in the open under a heavy rainfall) and thus cause loss of a valuable foreign customer; or it can be a senior official responsible for authorizing ``export promotion rebates`` and may enter into deals with fake exporters to overvalue the value of the export and split the rebate. The list goes on.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#66 Posted by ferozk on October 25, 2003 6:21:51 am
re: veeresh
The offical Pakistani reponse to the Indian proposals will be luke warm and that is due to the nature of the proposals themselves and how India wants to structure the discussions. Pakistan wants a complete discussion, or a composite dialogue, and that does not necessarily means Kashmir in this sense. Pakistan is willing to discuss all the 12 suggestions put forward by India, but it wishes to do in their entirity and not piecemeal as desired by India.
India has put the restoration of the airlinks and over flight rights on the top of the heap and says that once that is agreed to, the discussions will move to the second the item and then so forth down the list. This conditionality is unacceptable to Pakistan, because though it is in agreement with the idea, it wants an Indian gurantee that it will not again unilaterally break the agreement and snap the over flight-air links if the politics demand such an act. India so far has refused to provide that gurantee. Again, there is no gurantee that India will moe to the second item of discussion once there is an agreement on the first item. As to the rest of the proposals, most of them are feasible except for the bus service between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad; and that too only on the condition of a visa-less travel within the two halves of Kashmir itself.
All in all, it is about trust and these CMBs will not generate the required trust between the nations. It is the nature of these CBMs, and how India wants to discuss them, which is causing Pakistan to be weary of entering into an agreement. On a generic level, there is no disagreement in Pakistan on the Indian proposals, because these terms were offered in Agra 2001 and they were agreed to in their totality. The proposals are acceptable to official Pakistan, but not how India wants to structure the dialogue on them.
re: Shankar # 60
Shankar, the story you narrated about your family and views on Kashmir is identical to what most Pakistanis will say and again, the issue has become too emotional to be rationally discussed. The height of arrogance is who are we or you, for that matter, to decide what is the best interest of the Kashmiris.
As I said and wrote a long time ago, the Kashmir problem is a domestic issue in India and Pakistan, because of its vote bank potential in the key political constitutencies of Indian and Pakistani politics.
Still, the only viable solution left open is the conversion of the LoC into an international border and that means both nations give up the dreams of uniting Kashmir under their indivdual flags.
Ciao
The offical Pakistani reponse to the Indian proposals will be luke warm and that is due to the nature of the proposals themselves and how India wants to structure the discussions. Pakistan wants a complete discussion, or a composite dialogue, and that does not necessarily means Kashmir in this sense. Pakistan is willing to discuss all the 12 suggestions put forward by India, but it wishes to do in their entirity and not piecemeal as desired by India.
India has put the restoration of the airlinks and over flight rights on the top of the heap and says that once that is agreed to, the discussions will move to the second the item and then so forth down the list. This conditionality is unacceptable to Pakistan, because though it is in agreement with the idea, it wants an Indian gurantee that it will not again unilaterally break the agreement and snap the over flight-air links if the politics demand such an act. India so far has refused to provide that gurantee. Again, there is no gurantee that India will moe to the second item of discussion once there is an agreement on the first item. As to the rest of the proposals, most of them are feasible except for the bus service between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad; and that too only on the condition of a visa-less travel within the two halves of Kashmir itself.
All in all, it is about trust and these CMBs will not generate the required trust between the nations. It is the nature of these CBMs, and how India wants to discuss them, which is causing Pakistan to be weary of entering into an agreement. On a generic level, there is no disagreement in Pakistan on the Indian proposals, because these terms were offered in Agra 2001 and they were agreed to in their totality. The proposals are acceptable to official Pakistan, but not how India wants to structure the dialogue on them.
re: Shankar # 60
Shankar, the story you narrated about your family and views on Kashmir is identical to what most Pakistanis will say and again, the issue has become too emotional to be rationally discussed. The height of arrogance is who are we or you, for that matter, to decide what is the best interest of the Kashmiris.
As I said and wrote a long time ago, the Kashmir problem is a domestic issue in India and Pakistan, because of its vote bank potential in the key political constitutencies of Indian and Pakistani politics.
Still, the only viable solution left open is the conversion of the LoC into an international border and that means both nations give up the dreams of uniting Kashmir under their indivdual flags.
Ciao
#65 Posted by ferozk on October 25, 2003 5:59:26 am
re: tahmed32
Thanks for the comments/suggestions. I suspected so much that the problem would be on the political end. What you said nicely dove tails, with I had observed and in my case, it was the question of agricultural subsidies for the French farmers in the EU. Free trade may be possible in the long run, but in the immediate sense fair trade is all that is likely as long as governments, rich or poor, have protectionist tendencies.
re: Fuzair # 61
Fuzair, the arguments which you have made to tahmed32 about free versus fair trade are valid, but the problem keeps cropping up on the political end and yes; there is a degree of complicity to deny competive trade and manufacturing practices, but generally it is mostly political. In an ideal sense, it would make perfect sense to open up trade across the borders, but given for the national limitations of borders, that option is limited. Still, it is the nature of international trade which will cancel this consideration as we move into era of transnational trade, which is another way to define practices of multinational corporations and their trading interests.
Trade itself and not politics will open the way for free trade, because the tranational trade will be based on the access to cheap, work-oriented and educated labor force and this means, companies will locate where market interests favors their capital investment. Politics will resist this development for a while, but to an extent and not always.
Ciao
Thanks for the comments/suggestions. I suspected so much that the problem would be on the political end. What you said nicely dove tails, with I had observed and in my case, it was the question of agricultural subsidies for the French farmers in the EU. Free trade may be possible in the long run, but in the immediate sense fair trade is all that is likely as long as governments, rich or poor, have protectionist tendencies.
re: Fuzair # 61
Fuzair, the arguments which you have made to tahmed32 about free versus fair trade are valid, but the problem keeps cropping up on the political end and yes; there is a degree of complicity to deny competive trade and manufacturing practices, but generally it is mostly political. In an ideal sense, it would make perfect sense to open up trade across the borders, but given for the national limitations of borders, that option is limited. Still, it is the nature of international trade which will cancel this consideration as we move into era of transnational trade, which is another way to define practices of multinational corporations and their trading interests.
Trade itself and not politics will open the way for free trade, because the tranational trade will be based on the access to cheap, work-oriented and educated labor force and this means, companies will locate where market interests favors their capital investment. Politics will resist this development for a while, but to an extent and not always.
Ciao
#64 Posted by tahmed32 on October 24, 2003 2:51:57 pm
fuzair #63 agreed that just export led growth is not enough. but neither is export led growth ``immiserizing`` as Prebisch and others thought in the 50`s and 60`s. The major hindrance to latin american development has been their dysfunctional social system which provided no entrepreneurial incentives to either the wealthy (since the wealthy were basically landlords, and landlords are basically good for nothing other than lording it over the peasants) or the poor (who had no hope of self-improvement). Thus, in the 19th century Argentina had a per capita income at par with the US. The US on the other hand provided strong incentives for entrepreneurship.
Also, Australia provides a good example of a country that is happily exporting raw materials to feed Japanese and other east Asian industries. Of course Australia has a small but well educated population and with the strong egalitarian ethos of the anglo-saxon people everywhere, and so is not dependant on these exports alone for its well-being. But certainly it does not see raw material exports as being immiserizing (otherwise they wouldnt do it).
Prebisch was an Argentinian himself, and I dont think he did his fellow latinos any good by taking the easy route out and blaming external factors (``immiserizing trade``) for what was essentially an internal structural problem for Argentina. This is that same bloody problem that too many third world intellectuals suffer from - the lack of moral fibre to point to shortcomings in their own societies and taking the easy path out of blaming global corporations, the west and so forth. (i see shades of the whinny eddy discussion we had couple of weeks back which got saminasha and others upset :-)
Also, Australia provides a good example of a country that is happily exporting raw materials to feed Japanese and other east Asian industries. Of course Australia has a small but well educated population and with the strong egalitarian ethos of the anglo-saxon people everywhere, and so is not dependant on these exports alone for its well-being. But certainly it does not see raw material exports as being immiserizing (otherwise they wouldnt do it).
Prebisch was an Argentinian himself, and I dont think he did his fellow latinos any good by taking the easy route out and blaming external factors (``immiserizing trade``) for what was essentially an internal structural problem for Argentina. This is that same bloody problem that too many third world intellectuals suffer from - the lack of moral fibre to point to shortcomings in their own societies and taking the easy path out of blaming global corporations, the west and so forth. (i see shades of the whinny eddy discussion we had couple of weeks back which got saminasha and others upset :-)
#63 Posted by fuzair on October 24, 2003 12:36:47 pm
Tahmed,
Thank you. Immiserizing Trade is what led Raul Prebisch to come up with his dependency theory, although to be fair to Prebisch, he did apparently repent and recant much later on in his life. However, I thought that the market power issue and the ability to manipulate the terms of trade argument still had some validity. And there is also strong evidence that most primary product exporters (whether copper or cotton, etc) had had severe economic problems. Just export led growth is not enough, after all, most of the Latin American countries were pretty big exporters of primary products. You have to keep climbing up the higher-value-added product tree AND export this stuff. Perfect examples being the East Asian NICs/tigers.
Thank you. Immiserizing Trade is what led Raul Prebisch to come up with his dependency theory, although to be fair to Prebisch, he did apparently repent and recant much later on in his life. However, I thought that the market power issue and the ability to manipulate the terms of trade argument still had some validity. And there is also strong evidence that most primary product exporters (whether copper or cotton, etc) had had severe economic problems. Just export led growth is not enough, after all, most of the Latin American countries were pretty big exporters of primary products. You have to keep climbing up the higher-value-added product tree AND export this stuff. Perfect examples being the East Asian NICs/tigers.
#62 Posted by tahmed32 on October 24, 2003 10:28:27 am
fuzair #61 ``immiserizing trade`` was a popular issue in development economics in the 1950`s with economists like Bhagwati, Prebisch, Myrdal basically arguing that poor countries would lose out if they sought export-led growth (which they assumed would be in the form of raw materials, minerals etc.). That theory had become an orphan by the 1980`s, since by then it had become clear that in fact the third world countries that sought export led growth with the west had prospered rather than ``immiserized`` as they had predicted. This was true not just of countries into manufacturing exports (like Korea) but also with countries doing raw materials exports (the oil exporters being of course a major case in point).
The anti-trade, anti-globalization idiots (they are in fact a mixed bunch - some are ``genuine idiots`` but many are ``crazy-like-a-fox idiots`` labor activists who stand on a pious pedestal of protecting the workers of developing countries from the evil western firms, while in fact all they are doing is protecting their ass from competition from cheap labor in the third world). But ``immesirizing growth`` is certainly no longer a weapon they can use with any credibility, so you are not providing them any ammo by referring to ``immiserazing growth`` or whatever.
The anti-trade, anti-globalization idiots (they are in fact a mixed bunch - some are ``genuine idiots`` but many are ``crazy-like-a-fox idiots`` labor activists who stand on a pious pedestal of protecting the workers of developing countries from the evil western firms, while in fact all they are doing is protecting their ass from competition from cheap labor in the third world). But ``immesirizing growth`` is certainly no longer a weapon they can use with any credibility, so you are not providing them any ammo by referring to ``immiserazing growth`` or whatever.
#61 Posted by fuzair on October 24, 2003 8:28:35 am
Re the Fair Trade vs. Free Trade discussion
Its been a veeeery looooong time since my basic grad Trade Theory course but I seem to recall several papers that showed that countries that followed free trade policies while their trading partners followed fair trade ones benefitted more. That is, free is still better than fair. However, not even neoclassical trade theory (the most extreme form of economic orthodoxy--the straw man antiglobalization idiots always put up) argues that free trade is ALWAYS good. When you have trading partners of severely disparate market power, then you can have the interesting phenomenon known as Immiserating Trade--the bigger/rich country can deliberately manipulate the price of its exports so as to force the smaller/poorer country to export more to pay for now more expensive imports. So, the more you trade/export, the poorer you get.
Darn it, I hate to give ammo to the anti-trade anti-globalization idiots (not you Feroze, I don`t consider you to be in the ``idiot`` category). However, this is a pretty unique case and involves acting price manipulation by the rich guys.
Its been a veeeery looooong time since my basic grad Trade Theory course but I seem to recall several papers that showed that countries that followed free trade policies while their trading partners followed fair trade ones benefitted more. That is, free is still better than fair. However, not even neoclassical trade theory (the most extreme form of economic orthodoxy--the straw man antiglobalization idiots always put up) argues that free trade is ALWAYS good. When you have trading partners of severely disparate market power, then you can have the interesting phenomenon known as Immiserating Trade--the bigger/rich country can deliberately manipulate the price of its exports so as to force the smaller/poorer country to export more to pay for now more expensive imports. So, the more you trade/export, the poorer you get.
Darn it, I hate to give ammo to the anti-trade anti-globalization idiots (not you Feroze, I don`t consider you to be in the ``idiot`` category). However, this is a pretty unique case and involves acting price manipulation by the rich guys.
#60 Posted by jay on October 24, 2003 7:14:25 am
Status of Indian Muslims
By M.H. Askari
Contrary to a perception commonly held in Pakistan, Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud Al Faisal, has expressed the view that the Indian Muslims, because of their sheer number, cannot be regarded as a minority.
He made the observation at a press conference in Islamabad which he addressed jointly with his Pakistani counterpart, Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri. He further pointed out that the number of the Muslims in India was greater than ``the entire population of my own country.``
from dawn of today
////I wonder how the perception in pakistan is so different from the perception in saudi. may be the k for kafir education has something to do with it. It is the denial of reality by the pakistanis, trying to mask the institutionalised hatred in the popularity of the hindi movies in pakistan, is the root of hopelessness. Pakistanis like indian movies, pakistanis like india. Pakistanis like the US coke, pakistanis like the americans.
By M.H. Askari
Contrary to a perception commonly held in Pakistan, Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud Al Faisal, has expressed the view that the Indian Muslims, because of their sheer number, cannot be regarded as a minority.
He made the observation at a press conference in Islamabad which he addressed jointly with his Pakistani counterpart, Khurshid Mahmood Kasuri. He further pointed out that the number of the Muslims in India was greater than ``the entire population of my own country.``
from dawn of today
////I wonder how the perception in pakistan is so different from the perception in saudi. may be the k for kafir education has something to do with it. It is the denial of reality by the pakistanis, trying to mask the institutionalised hatred in the popularity of the hindi movies in pakistan, is the root of hopelessness. Pakistanis like indian movies, pakistanis like india. Pakistanis like the US coke, pakistanis like the americans.
#59 Posted by shankar on October 24, 2003 7:14:25 am
Romair,
{{My solution for any piece of land is to let the people of the land decide their future, be it India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir etc. Hence I am against pushing my personal opinions on others. That is usually the cause of most of the violence. On the contrary, my opinion is to respect the opinion of the people who live there. I think anyone who is not willing to agree to that actually does not want peace and is putting on a show. Peace can never be at nationalistic terms. It can only be on humanistic terms.}}
I agree with the nobility of that statement.
I gave that same argument to many of my family & friends, during my recent visit to India. I`m going to give a gist of the almost UNIFORM reply I got from my family & friends
(my own ``humanist`` parents included)
...dont shoot the messenger:)
````Kashmir is as much OUR land as its current residents. Our ancestors came from there & it is part of INDIA`S heritage. If the current residents dont like to be Indians, they can very well pack their bags & move to ``Azad`` Kashmir.````
I know you will ascribe various adjectives as ``bigotted``, ``misinformed`` falana falana...
But right, wrong or indifferent THAT is the dominant discourse.
The most sarcastic comment was, ``if we give up on Kashmir, what happens if the current residents of Mohammed Ali Road, Bombay want independance?!``
My Lt Gen(Rtd) uncle said ``too many of my comrades have sacrificed their lives...its either LoC or NOTHING``...funny how soldier boys (irrespective of countries) think alike.
My family & friends may not be in the top positions of power in India. However, in a democracy (however imperfect) their opinions carry a very strong influence. Incidentally NONE of them are supportive of RSS & Hindutva ideology.I`ve come to believe the absolute CORE sentiment of Indians is similarly blunt. Yes, in that respect, Indians have become more hawkish.
Whether Pakistanis think its a freedom fight or not is immaterial....Indians see it as terrorism ...pure & simple..
The natural response of humans (as a nation) to terrorism is one of obstinacy & hawkishness. Otherwise its ``giving in to blackmail``.
Your ``proposal`` to open Pakistan to Indians unilaterally is very ingenious. The only pill for prejudice is knowledge. We may not agree with each other; but I guess Indians & Pakistanis are ``doomed`` to be neighbors.
Somehow, I doubt if any of the brave Corps Commanders of Pakistan will have the guts to OK your proposal.
But then....I`m just a misinformed, transplated Indian American!:)
&...&.. could you please use your influence & tell the ISI in Chowk to cease & desist from drawing lines in my posts??!!!
{{My solution for any piece of land is to let the people of the land decide their future, be it India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir etc. Hence I am against pushing my personal opinions on others. That is usually the cause of most of the violence. On the contrary, my opinion is to respect the opinion of the people who live there. I think anyone who is not willing to agree to that actually does not want peace and is putting on a show. Peace can never be at nationalistic terms. It can only be on humanistic terms.}}
I agree with the nobility of that statement.
I gave that same argument to many of my family & friends, during my recent visit to India. I`m going to give a gist of the almost UNIFORM reply I got from my family & friends
(my own ``humanist`` parents included)
...dont shoot the messenger:)
````Kashmir is as much OUR land as its current residents. Our ancestors came from there & it is part of INDIA`S heritage. If the current residents dont like to be Indians, they can very well pack their bags & move to ``Azad`` Kashmir.````
I know you will ascribe various adjectives as ``bigotted``, ``misinformed`` falana falana...
But right, wrong or indifferent THAT is the dominant discourse.
The most sarcastic comment was, ``if we give up on Kashmir, what happens if the current residents of Mohammed Ali Road, Bombay want independance?!``
My Lt Gen(Rtd) uncle said ``too many of my comrades have sacrificed their lives...its either LoC or NOTHING``...funny how soldier boys (irrespective of countries) think alike.
My family & friends may not be in the top positions of power in India. However, in a democracy (however imperfect) their opinions carry a very strong influence. Incidentally NONE of them are supportive of RSS & Hindutva ideology.I`ve come to believe the absolute CORE sentiment of Indians is similarly blunt. Yes, in that respect, Indians have become more hawkish.
Whether Pakistanis think its a freedom fight or not is immaterial....Indians see it as terrorism ...pure & simple..
The natural response of humans (as a nation) to terrorism is one of obstinacy & hawkishness. Otherwise its ``giving in to blackmail``.
Your ``proposal`` to open Pakistan to Indians unilaterally is very ingenious. The only pill for prejudice is knowledge. We may not agree with each other; but I guess Indians & Pakistanis are ``doomed`` to be neighbors.
Somehow, I doubt if any of the brave Corps Commanders of Pakistan will have the guts to OK your proposal.
But then....I`m just a misinformed, transplated Indian American!:)
&...&.. could you please use your influence & tell the ISI in Chowk to cease & desist from drawing lines in my posts??!!!
#58 Posted by dost_mittar on October 24, 2003 6:56:16 am
Correction:
``Emotions are an undenaible part of the India-Paki equation`` should have read ``Emotions are an undenaible part of the India-Pakistan equation; ``stan`` got erased by mistake.
``Emotions are an undenaible part of the India-Paki equation`` should have read ``Emotions are an undenaible part of the India-Pakistan equation; ``stan`` got erased by mistake.
#57 Posted by dost_mittar on October 23, 2003 9:07:57 pm
Romair#54
Emotions are an undenaible part of the India-Paki equation, especially in relation to North India. Instead of denying it, those who want to bring in peace and understanding should leverage positive emotions just as those who want to create and sustain hostility exploit negative emotions. The dichotomy is that the while an average Indian might hate `Pakistani` as an abstraction, he does not have any such feelings towards a Pakistani known to him. Witness the spontaneous love for baby Noor. I myself witnessed this strange phenomenon 15 years ago. We were at a New Year`s Eve party at the newly inaugurated Hotel Meridien in New Delhi. The function included a draw and the winner of the first prize, a fully paid vacation, I believe, to Nepal, happened to be a visiting couple from Pakistan. The entire crowd stood up on their feet and gave a resounding applause to the winning couple. Delhi is a citadel of BJP and I am certain that more than half of the people there were regular supporters/voters of that party. During the last year`s New Year`s Eve party hosted by the NOIDA army servicemen`s club, the star performers were the Sabri Bothers (qawaals) from Pakistan.
Re. the curriculum, no, it was not a cut-and-paste from a book, but the prescribed syallabus to be used in Pakistan reproduced from an article in a learned journal by two Pakistani academics. And I have read Pakistani media enough to know its pervasive influence. Some Pakistani chowkies have also acknowledged this aspect.
My views on Kashmir are not very different from Khushwant Singh`s. As I have said before, my strictly personal opinion (not shared by most of Indians) is that any solution is okay as long as it does not involve a plebiscite. To repeat my reasons, there is a strong revival of the two nation theory among many Indians and a plebiscite will almost certainly feed this revival even further.
Emotions are an undenaible part of the India-Paki equation, especially in relation to North India. Instead of denying it, those who want to bring in peace and understanding should leverage positive emotions just as those who want to create and sustain hostility exploit negative emotions. The dichotomy is that the while an average Indian might hate `Pakistani` as an abstraction, he does not have any such feelings towards a Pakistani known to him. Witness the spontaneous love for baby Noor. I myself witnessed this strange phenomenon 15 years ago. We were at a New Year`s Eve party at the newly inaugurated Hotel Meridien in New Delhi. The function included a draw and the winner of the first prize, a fully paid vacation, I believe, to Nepal, happened to be a visiting couple from Pakistan. The entire crowd stood up on their feet and gave a resounding applause to the winning couple. Delhi is a citadel of BJP and I am certain that more than half of the people there were regular supporters/voters of that party. During the last year`s New Year`s Eve party hosted by the NOIDA army servicemen`s club, the star performers were the Sabri Bothers (qawaals) from Pakistan.
Re. the curriculum, no, it was not a cut-and-paste from a book, but the prescribed syallabus to be used in Pakistan reproduced from an article in a learned journal by two Pakistani academics. And I have read Pakistani media enough to know its pervasive influence. Some Pakistani chowkies have also acknowledged this aspect.
My views on Kashmir are not very different from Khushwant Singh`s. As I have said before, my strictly personal opinion (not shared by most of Indians) is that any solution is okay as long as it does not involve a plebiscite. To repeat my reasons, there is a strong revival of the two nation theory among many Indians and a plebiscite will almost certainly feed this revival even further.
#56 Posted by veeresh on October 23, 2003 8:05:50 pm
1) Has anybody from Pakistan got any idea on what the official responses / initiatives are in connection with the recent announcements from India? Does this sort of thing set off a spate of letters to MPs, newspapers, discussions in mosques (today being Friday), maybe even enter the ground level psyche? Is the valid true response going to come from the mullahs or the generals or the media or what?
2) On free trade - I think many of us from the educated middle class are living in a bit of a dis-connected world. Ground level realities along the existing land and sea border (LOC or IB) suggest that there is already enough trade ongoing, legal and otherwise. In fact, the illegal trade inertia may simply prevent further growth of the legal trade. In booze, movies and stolen motor vehicles alone, it seems India supports a large part of the Pakistani economy.
+++
Good luck to all of us.
2) On free trade - I think many of us from the educated middle class are living in a bit of a dis-connected world. Ground level realities along the existing land and sea border (LOC or IB) suggest that there is already enough trade ongoing, legal and otherwise. In fact, the illegal trade inertia may simply prevent further growth of the legal trade. In booze, movies and stolen motor vehicles alone, it seems India supports a large part of the Pakistani economy.
+++
Good luck to all of us.
#55 Posted by tahmed32 on October 23, 2003 2:37:44 pm
ferozk: while i am not an expert in anything (other than ranting on chowk), i think your question is nevertheless interesting: how will free trade come about? i think the short answer is that it will result from the erosion of national boundries currently underway due to technological change (aka globalization).
WTO (its predecessor GATT) provided useful forum for this purpose, but they have hardly been successful. Even the US, arguably among the most free trading nations in the world, has been unable to withstand domestic pressures (steel, agriculture) that stand in the way of free trade. But get rid of national boundries, and trade will flow.
The next question then is: how does one get rid of national boundries: first, i think, this is happening as the nature of goods and services being traded changes. thus, it has so far proved almost impossible for export-import bureaucracies to control the flow services provided over voice or data networks of all kinds including the internet (transcription, programming, service centers, financial intermediation services that result in hundreds of billions of dollars going around the world in a single day, and even the porno ``industry``). second, i think it happens as societies mature and start moving out of the ``warlike`` stage that every society has gone through. Thus we have the ever-expanding EU.
So, with all these changes taking place, trade that is subject to national controls is becoming increasingly the exception and not the rule. To take one example, at the start of the 20th century, 50 percent of the US labor force was in agriculture - now it is only 1 percent. However, the problem of course is that for poor countries like Pakistan agriculture is the elephant in the GNP. Thus, protection of a tiny minority of the work force in rich countries gains very little for the rich countries, but costs the poor countries heavily indeed. And if poor countries dont become wealthy in the next couple of generations, the whole world (rich and poor) are bound to find the consequences. I dont know why this simple point doesnt get through the heads of the politicians.
WTO (its predecessor GATT) provided useful forum for this purpose, but they have hardly been successful. Even the US, arguably among the most free trading nations in the world, has been unable to withstand domestic pressures (steel, agriculture) that stand in the way of free trade. But get rid of national boundries, and trade will flow.
The next question then is: how does one get rid of national boundries: first, i think, this is happening as the nature of goods and services being traded changes. thus, it has so far proved almost impossible for export-import bureaucracies to control the flow services provided over voice or data networks of all kinds including the internet (transcription, programming, service centers, financial intermediation services that result in hundreds of billions of dollars going around the world in a single day, and even the porno ``industry``). second, i think it happens as societies mature and start moving out of the ``warlike`` stage that every society has gone through. Thus we have the ever-expanding EU.
So, with all these changes taking place, trade that is subject to national controls is becoming increasingly the exception and not the rule. To take one example, at the start of the 20th century, 50 percent of the US labor force was in agriculture - now it is only 1 percent. However, the problem of course is that for poor countries like Pakistan agriculture is the elephant in the GNP. Thus, protection of a tiny minority of the work force in rich countries gains very little for the rich countries, but costs the poor countries heavily indeed. And if poor countries dont become wealthy in the next couple of generations, the whole world (rich and poor) are bound to find the consequences. I dont know why this simple point doesnt get through the heads of the politicians.
#54 Posted by Romair on October 23, 2003 11:11:57 am
Dost-mittar #50: “I do not believe that Pakistanis hate Indians all the time or Indians do the same wrt Pakistanis.”
Hate is a very strong word. I don’t think either hates the other, at an individual level. In fact, they get along quite well. At least, I get along quite well with the hundreds of Indians I have worked with, talked to, studied with etc. And vice-versa. And that is the general trend I have noticed amongst nearly all Pakistanis and Indians.
“Those peaceniks on either side who blame politicians alone for the coninuing hostility between the two countries are mistaken, the politicians are merely following and not leading the people.”
This is partially correct, in my opinion. I think it is a circle. Politicians create propoganda, which is read by the public, which then supports the politicians, which then requires the politicians to create more propoganda. This is why I think the biggest problem is lack of knowledge about each other. Once you meet someone, then it becomes easier to separate the truth from the propoganda. This is why I think, Pakistan should open up all visas to Indians.
“And yet, the potential of tapping the positive emotions is there. It is especially true in India...I must say that I have never seen such groundswell in Pakistan towards Indians, notwithstanding the very positive experience of individuals and groups of Indians who have visited Pakistan.”
As I stated earlier, please do not reach conclusions before knowing quite a bit about someone or some place. This is a common problem I have seen with Indians, vis-à-vis Pakistanis. I think Pakistanis have accepted far more from India, than vice-versa. Otherwise, we wouldn’t know so much more about India, than vice-versa (note: this does not mean I am saying Indians are evil).
So one needs to look at both sides’ issues. And one needs to know the people and places before reaching conclusions.
“The curriculuums have been reproduced on this website and nobody has denied that they were not genuine or that they are no longer in force.”
The only thing people have done is cut and paste small pieces from certain books. That does not constitute a curriculum. I could paste ten things, pointing in the opposite direction. That would not prove anything either. And I am sure I could find similar arguments in Indian sources. Pakistanis are given Pakistan’s version of Sub-Continent history in school. This is done in all countries including USA, and I am sure in India, as well. But I certainly don’t remember being taught to hate Hindus or Indians.
Infact, if you take a look at the remarks on this site, you will notice that a lot of Indians are quite hateful towards Pakistan. If one were to only look at such Indians, one would reach some incorrect conclusions about India. As an example, take a look at the replies from various Indians, the name calling, hate-speech, etc. specifically against me, in various replies, and on various threads. Take a look at replies of individuals like RationalFaith, Jay, Arjun_M, Cosmic_Citizen, Harimou, etc. These are people I have never even (or very rarely) interacted with. Have you ever, even once, seen me respond, in kind? Infact, if I ever do respond, I only do so to non-Indians (mostly Pakistanis). Never to Indians. Have you ever wondered why such hate-speech never bothers me. Because I have met enough Indians now to know that they are generally not like that. But if I had met none, I would assume they were all like that.
So, I would once again encourage you to go, meet, and socialize yourself with Pakistan and then reach any conclusions. If you go to Pakistani schools and see kids being indoctrinated, then you have a point. You will only find this in various madrassahs (and not even in all of them).
“But your reading of Indian journalists is rather restricted, you only seem to be reading those who support your views.”
My reading of Indian journalists is actually quite broad. I regularly visit many Indian newspaper sites. Gandhi, Roy, Bidwai are internationally recognized for human rights efforts, e.g. Bidwai is a Lenin Peace Prize winner. The organizations I follow, like AI, are internationally recognized also. So I am in pretty good company. I follow them because they give human rights more importance than nationalism. This is the ultimate criteria for me. And this is why their views and mine are the same.
“Nice to know that you agree with Khushwant Singh`s solution for Kashmir. As far as I know, he wants to give greater autonomy to Kashmir but not complete independence.”
My solution for any piece of land is to let the people of the land decide their future, be it India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir etc. Hence I am against pushing my personal opinions on others. That is usually the cause of most of the violence. On the contrary, my opinion is to respect the opinion of the people who live there. I think anyone who is not willing to agree to that actually does not want peace and is putting on a show. Peace can never be at nationalistic terms. It can only be on humanistic terms.
As for Khushwant Singh’s solution, it is as follows:
“He thought that the Kashmir Valley should be turned into an autonomous entity, supported by both India and Pakistan and supervised by a neutral organization such as the United Nations.
``Ladakh and Jammu should remain with India,`` he said. ``The Pakistani Kashmir should remain with Pakistan. This leaves us with the bone of contention, the Kashmir Valley, which is 70 miles long and 30 miles wide.
``This territory should be turned into an autonomous entity because it cannot be viable as an independent state.`` This would end the tensions between India and Pakistan, he said.” (http://www.punjabilok.com/news_files/sikhs_kashmir/khushwant.htm)
I agree with something close to this being the only practical solution, with another variation that if the Valley portion can survive as an independent state, than it should be allowed to. I believe this is what the voting patterns of the area. Similar solutions are presented on the site of the Kashmiri CEO of Ethan Allen, Farooq Kathiawari. His solutions have the support of many distinguished international academicians, diplomats etc.
Following are some more of Khushwant Singh’s writings, answering a question from an Indian. Notice he is saying exactly what I am saying. Because he has interacted with a lot of Pakistanis and I have with a lot of Indians:
“Q. ….but still we talk about exercising restrain when an upstart neighbour employs underhand techniques to bully us. I am sure we have given Pakistan a really long rope, and they have only tried to knot it around our necks. Don`t you think it is time to pull that rope before it hangs us? I think a billion voices (Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian and others) will have but one answer: yes.
Shreyas
I share your patriotic sentiments and am also emotionally moved by the tricolour and the national anthem. But I think it is wrong to pass moral judgements without first examining the point of view of the adversary - in this case, Pakistan. You obviously have not been to Pakistan. I have; many times. I was born there and lived there till Partition. Despite the division, I have close friends who stay with me in Delhi, as I stay with them in Lahore, Rawalpindi and Islamabad. We are the same people, divided by religion, and now nationality. My suggestion to you is to cultivate at least one educated Pakistani as a friend, have a heart-to-heart dialogue with him on all aspects of Indo-Pak relationship, including Kashmir. You might modify your views from belligerence to accommodation.
Hate is a very strong word. I don’t think either hates the other, at an individual level. In fact, they get along quite well. At least, I get along quite well with the hundreds of Indians I have worked with, talked to, studied with etc. And vice-versa. And that is the general trend I have noticed amongst nearly all Pakistanis and Indians.
“Those peaceniks on either side who blame politicians alone for the coninuing hostility between the two countries are mistaken, the politicians are merely following and not leading the people.”
This is partially correct, in my opinion. I think it is a circle. Politicians create propoganda, which is read by the public, which then supports the politicians, which then requires the politicians to create more propoganda. This is why I think the biggest problem is lack of knowledge about each other. Once you meet someone, then it becomes easier to separate the truth from the propoganda. This is why I think, Pakistan should open up all visas to Indians.
“And yet, the potential of tapping the positive emotions is there. It is especially true in India...I must say that I have never seen such groundswell in Pakistan towards Indians, notwithstanding the very positive experience of individuals and groups of Indians who have visited Pakistan.”
As I stated earlier, please do not reach conclusions before knowing quite a bit about someone or some place. This is a common problem I have seen with Indians, vis-à-vis Pakistanis. I think Pakistanis have accepted far more from India, than vice-versa. Otherwise, we wouldn’t know so much more about India, than vice-versa (note: this does not mean I am saying Indians are evil).
So one needs to look at both sides’ issues. And one needs to know the people and places before reaching conclusions.
“The curriculuums have been reproduced on this website and nobody has denied that they were not genuine or that they are no longer in force.”
The only thing people have done is cut and paste small pieces from certain books. That does not constitute a curriculum. I could paste ten things, pointing in the opposite direction. That would not prove anything either. And I am sure I could find similar arguments in Indian sources. Pakistanis are given Pakistan’s version of Sub-Continent history in school. This is done in all countries including USA, and I am sure in India, as well. But I certainly don’t remember being taught to hate Hindus or Indians.
Infact, if you take a look at the remarks on this site, you will notice that a lot of Indians are quite hateful towards Pakistan. If one were to only look at such Indians, one would reach some incorrect conclusions about India. As an example, take a look at the replies from various Indians, the name calling, hate-speech, etc. specifically against me, in various replies, and on various threads. Take a look at replies of individuals like RationalFaith, Jay, Arjun_M, Cosmic_Citizen, Harimou, etc. These are people I have never even (or very rarely) interacted with. Have you ever, even once, seen me respond, in kind? Infact, if I ever do respond, I only do so to non-Indians (mostly Pakistanis). Never to Indians. Have you ever wondered why such hate-speech never bothers me. Because I have met enough Indians now to know that they are generally not like that. But if I had met none, I would assume they were all like that.
So, I would once again encourage you to go, meet, and socialize yourself with Pakistan and then reach any conclusions. If you go to Pakistani schools and see kids being indoctrinated, then you have a point. You will only find this in various madrassahs (and not even in all of them).
“But your reading of Indian journalists is rather restricted, you only seem to be reading those who support your views.”
My reading of Indian journalists is actually quite broad. I regularly visit many Indian newspaper sites. Gandhi, Roy, Bidwai are internationally recognized for human rights efforts, e.g. Bidwai is a Lenin Peace Prize winner. The organizations I follow, like AI, are internationally recognized also. So I am in pretty good company. I follow them because they give human rights more importance than nationalism. This is the ultimate criteria for me. And this is why their views and mine are the same.
“Nice to know that you agree with Khushwant Singh`s solution for Kashmir. As far as I know, he wants to give greater autonomy to Kashmir but not complete independence.”
My solution for any piece of land is to let the people of the land decide their future, be it India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Kashmir etc. Hence I am against pushing my personal opinions on others. That is usually the cause of most of the violence. On the contrary, my opinion is to respect the opinion of the people who live there. I think anyone who is not willing to agree to that actually does not want peace and is putting on a show. Peace can never be at nationalistic terms. It can only be on humanistic terms.
As for Khushwant Singh’s solution, it is as follows:
“He thought that the Kashmir Valley should be turned into an autonomous entity, supported by both India and Pakistan and supervised by a neutral organization such as the United Nations.
``Ladakh and Jammu should remain with India,`` he said. ``The Pakistani Kashmir should remain with Pakistan. This leaves us with the bone of contention, the Kashmir Valley, which is 70 miles long and 30 miles wide.
``This territory should be turned into an autonomous entity because it cannot be viable as an independent state.`` This would end the tensions between India and Pakistan, he said.” (http://www.punjabilok.com/news_files/sikhs_kashmir/khushwant.htm)
I agree with something close to this being the only practical solution, with another variation that if the Valley portion can survive as an independent state, than it should be allowed to. I believe this is what the voting patterns of the area. Similar solutions are presented on the site of the Kashmiri CEO of Ethan Allen, Farooq Kathiawari. His solutions have the support of many distinguished international academicians, diplomats etc.
Following are some more of Khushwant Singh’s writings, answering a question from an Indian. Notice he is saying exactly what I am saying. Because he has interacted with a lot of Pakistanis and I have with a lot of Indians:
“Q. ….but still we talk about exercising restrain when an upstart neighbour employs underhand techniques to bully us. I am sure we have given Pakistan a really long rope, and they have only tried to knot it around our necks. Don`t you think it is time to pull that rope before it hangs us? I think a billion voices (Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian and others) will have but one answer: yes.
Shreyas
I share your patriotic sentiments and am also emotionally moved by the tricolour and the national anthem. But I think it is wrong to pass moral judgements without first examining the point of view of the adversary - in this case, Pakistan. You obviously have not been to Pakistan. I have; many times. I was born there and lived there till Partition. Despite the division, I have close friends who stay with me in Delhi, as I stay with them in Lahore, Rawalpindi and Islamabad. We are the same people, divided by religion, and now nationality. My suggestion to you is to cultivate at least one educated Pakistani as a friend, have a heart-to-heart dialogue with him on all aspects of Indo-Pak relationship, including Kashmir. You might modify your views from belligerence to accommodation.
#53 Posted by stuka on October 23, 2003 9:03:19 am
NHK:
Post Kargil, your observation is correct. All I can say that situation was very different when I used to live in India. I think the pendulum is swinging in opposite direction in both countries.
Post Kargil, your observation is correct. All I can say that situation was very different when I used to live in India. I think the pendulum is swinging in opposite direction in both countries.
#52 Posted by nazarhayatkhan on October 23, 2003 8:13:01 am
Jay # 45
(Every street in pakistan, in major cities has jihadic posters, calling for kashmir jihad)
I do not know when you visited Pakistan. But your above statement is not correct. You may find more anti-American posters than on Kashmir. No one in the villages, where the majority lives, talks about Kashmir or India. They are busy with their own lives.
The posters, if any, are the handy work of a very small fundo religious-minority. I do not remember any major Pakistani politician in the recent times ever giving a statement about Kashmir Jihad. War or Jihad has become out of fashion for an average Pakistani. Women, in particular, are for normal relations with India.
Even Jamali talks about Kashmir in muted soft terms. Presently, Musharraf is the only loud mouth on Kashmir issue - and probably his top military constituency.
Situation was quite different 20-30 years back. An average Pakistani was indeed hawkish.
Seeing the ``Question Time - India`` on BBC, now I find that an average Indian is more hawkish - more than an average Pakistani with a desirel for ``teach Pakistan a lesson once for all - and get it over with``.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- _arjun30: Compensation? They should get... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- Cobra: If India gives Kashmir... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- hamidm2: Re: # 96 arjun, ... what... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- _arjun30: HAHAHA..typical hamidm type paki..all... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- akcheema: Re: # 32; madani... Rape Survivor Families Struggle
- _arjun30: #91 Posted by... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- _arjun30: liberate this, pakis... India blocks... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- hamidm2: Re: # 92 ahmedmadani sahib, ...... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
