A Fool’s Errand
Feroz R Khan January 6, 2004
#126 Posted by Shawaiz on January 16, 2004 1:54:41 pm
#125 Feroz
As to the Puktuns opting for Pakistan, what other choice did they have? India or Afghanistan? In reality, they would have opted for Afghanistan and once that seemed untenble, they started to clamour for independence under the name of Puktunistan.
Afghanistan had never been an option. The Khilafat movement and the massacre of Qissakhwani Bazaar persuaded the khodai-khidmatgaar to assist the Congress in its bid for independence. Unlike Jinnah, the Congress had supported the khilafat movement and the Khilafat movement had a major impact on the politics of NWFP. The massacre of muslims in Bombay, Calcutta and Bihar swung the public mood away from the idea of inclusion with India, and Punjab`s decision for Pakistan made it almost impossible. The demand for Pukhtunistan, made by Ghaffar Khan at Bannu, was a consequence of all these events, and this demand was made only three weeks befor the referendum because the Frontier Congress saw their defeat preordained. But the option of Pukhtunistan was refused by the British. The proposed referendum would offer only two choices, inclusion with Pakistan or India. Despite the boycott of KK and Congress, 99% of the votes went to Pakistan.
There is no sense denying that Islamabad is and was at fault in dealing with the provinces of Pakistan. However, Islamabad did not start the FATA zone of exclusive privileges. Islamabad cannot do much if the sardars and maliks are not interested in spending the money on schools and other areas of socio-political/economic developments. The army might have changed its policy under American pressure, but the reality was that Islamabad no longer had the money to pay off the guardians of the FATA to heed Islamabad`s writ. FATA had to be incorporated into Pakistan sooner or later and with the American encouragement, it is being finally brought under the rule of the federal government of Pakistan.
Please read this articla published in the TFT today.
Khoda hafiz
Imtiaz Gul:
Recent events in South Waziristan show the area is still home to Al Qaeda and Taliban elements. This is how the script would go. The recent military crackdown in the area, which resulted in the deaths of four soldiers, reveals that hardcore Al Qaeda and Taliban elements maintain camps and hideouts. Sources indicate an area about 15-km in radius and snaking along the Afghan border in South Waziristan, where they move and operate at will across the border. The majority of them are foreigners, primarily Chechens and Arabs. Besides playing hide and seek with Pakistani and Afghan border troops, these militants hold sway even over the local Pashtun tribes, essentially the Ahmedzai Wazir and its sub-tribes Yargulkhels and Zalikhels. All of them are hostage not only to radical anti-American pan-Islamists stalking the forests, mountain passes, and difficult valleys, they are also prisoners of poverty, ignorance and darkness. There is little electrification and even fewer educational institutions in the area, though there are many mosques and madrassahs.
Thrilling, isn’t it. And the setting is almost medieval. Many people in South Waziristan want the world to believe it. Afghan officials love to get this flashed across the media. Many living away from the wily region would tend to buy it, while Pakistani officials, as usual, will brush it aside altogether.
So where does the truth lie? Perhaps, somewhere in the middle.
Personal interviews with tribal sources – maliks, traders, officials – in North and South Waziristan – and a recent tour through the region yielded conflicting accounts of the situation. Most people, born-Muslims, continue to adore Al Qaeda and Taliban for ‘their love for Islam’. But fewer would be ready to pick up arms and rise in support of the cause Osama and Mulla Omar have been peddling all along.
Still, a couple of spine-chilling incidents, though not fully verifiable, do merit a mention. Soon after the operation in Wana (administrative headquarters of South Waziristan) and Angoor Adda in early October last year, which led to the killing of eight foreign terrorists and the arrests of about 19 of them, the son of Mir Zalim Khan, attended a meeting of tribal elders with the political authorities to discuss ways as to how to tighten the noose around radical, Al Qaeda militants. The young man was shot dead at the Angoor Adda bus stand. Many believe that Naik Wazir, Haji Sharif and Maulvi Abbas who top the list of 22 wanted tribesmen for sheltering terrorists, were responsible for the murder.
A few weeks later, a tribal young man (name being withheld) was caught near the Kalooshah hamlet, the scene of the January 8 operation, allegedly by Chechen-looking Al Qaeda militants. They roughed him up and he was released only after a local intervened and assured the militants the incident would not be reported to the press. Though hard to verify independently, this is still exciting stuff.
But should one believe it or take it with a pinch of salt? Keeping in view the stiff resistance the Pakistan army and paramilitary troops encountered, and the human losses they have suffered, one would say that certain ground realities require to be looked at closely rather than being blamed on ‘anti-Pakistan propaganda’. Here are some questions:
a) Is the area really a haven for unwanted elements – i.e., local and foreign terrorists
b) Is the porous, rugged and mountainous region opposite to Paktia, Paktika, Khost, and Kunar provinces of Afghanistan adequately guarded with the roughly 25,000 Pakistan army and para-military troops
c) Has all the territory within Pakistani boundaries been brought under the government control
d) If yes, why are the commandos, army and para-military troops facing resistance with tribes refusing to surrender terror suspects
e) Lastly, is the government sincere in bringing all the tribal agencies under the state’s writ?
As to the first question, the disappearance of the Punjab minister for sports in North Waziristan and the resistance met by the authorities in South Waziristan do underline the fact that rogue elements – criminals, gun-runners, and religio-political extremists –still count as a formidable force in the area.
The current level of deployment – some 65,000 regular and para-military troops in the Frontier and Balochistan provinces – looks hardly adequate to plug the big holes that dot the 2,200 km-long border with Afghanistan and provide smugglers and militants alike with easy passages.
The dicey nature of the terrain simply requires a much bigger force on both sides of the border. And that force needs to act in cooperation whenever the need to scour the area arises. Regarding the last question, the government needs to shake off the decades’ old argument about the ‘sanctity of tribal traditions and customs and the respect for the independence of thousands of tribes’. The area must be brought under the state’s control. Period.
The British had raised the façade of FATA and armed its representatives and set up the system of the political agent for each of the seven agencies with the questionable Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR) 40. If viewed against the current standoff in South Waziristan, the FCR 40 has only delayed and spoiled the ‘search operation’. Under this law, the political agent (PA) must seek the help of the local tribal chieftain if a wanted person is hiding in the area. If the locals fail to turn in the wanted person(s), only then can the PA move in action with the help of his militia and possibly also the Army to arrest the wanted. In the process, the FCR 40 empowers the PA even to demolish houses of suspected people and impose a collective fine on the tribe.
This tenuous system has only worked to the detriment not only of the war against terrorism but also the drive to rid the region of professional criminals. The colonial rulers had devised the law to ensure a buffer between India and Afghanistan following several abortive attempts to take Afghanistan. The new situation calls for a serious review of that system.
Now that the United States is on board as far as the border issue between Afghanistan and Pakistan is concerned, this is about time the government moves swiftly to abolish the colonial system, establish its writ over the region through the law of land and underscore its commitment to the cause.
But it must also ensure a speedy expansion of infrastructure, provision of basic facilities like health and education to the people besides mounting a pro-active campaign to allay fears among the tribesmen that the law of land – the main plank of which is the police – might desecrate and fiddle with their social structures.
Given the nature of the task at hand, in terms both of its urgency and complexity, Islamabad cannot afford to drag its feet on it for long. The present circumstances are fraught with dangers as well as opportunities. The government needs to make use of the opportunities to offset the dangers inherent in the situation.
As to the Puktuns opting for Pakistan, what other choice did they have? India or Afghanistan? In reality, they would have opted for Afghanistan and once that seemed untenble, they started to clamour for independence under the name of Puktunistan.
Afghanistan had never been an option. The Khilafat movement and the massacre of Qissakhwani Bazaar persuaded the khodai-khidmatgaar to assist the Congress in its bid for independence. Unlike Jinnah, the Congress had supported the khilafat movement and the Khilafat movement had a major impact on the politics of NWFP. The massacre of muslims in Bombay, Calcutta and Bihar swung the public mood away from the idea of inclusion with India, and Punjab`s decision for Pakistan made it almost impossible. The demand for Pukhtunistan, made by Ghaffar Khan at Bannu, was a consequence of all these events, and this demand was made only three weeks befor the referendum because the Frontier Congress saw their defeat preordained. But the option of Pukhtunistan was refused by the British. The proposed referendum would offer only two choices, inclusion with Pakistan or India. Despite the boycott of KK and Congress, 99% of the votes went to Pakistan.
There is no sense denying that Islamabad is and was at fault in dealing with the provinces of Pakistan. However, Islamabad did not start the FATA zone of exclusive privileges. Islamabad cannot do much if the sardars and maliks are not interested in spending the money on schools and other areas of socio-political/economic developments. The army might have changed its policy under American pressure, but the reality was that Islamabad no longer had the money to pay off the guardians of the FATA to heed Islamabad`s writ. FATA had to be incorporated into Pakistan sooner or later and with the American encouragement, it is being finally brought under the rule of the federal government of Pakistan.
Please read this articla published in the TFT today.
Khoda hafiz
Imtiaz Gul:
Recent events in South Waziristan show the area is still home to Al Qaeda and Taliban elements. This is how the script would go. The recent military crackdown in the area, which resulted in the deaths of four soldiers, reveals that hardcore Al Qaeda and Taliban elements maintain camps and hideouts. Sources indicate an area about 15-km in radius and snaking along the Afghan border in South Waziristan, where they move and operate at will across the border. The majority of them are foreigners, primarily Chechens and Arabs. Besides playing hide and seek with Pakistani and Afghan border troops, these militants hold sway even over the local Pashtun tribes, essentially the Ahmedzai Wazir and its sub-tribes Yargulkhels and Zalikhels. All of them are hostage not only to radical anti-American pan-Islamists stalking the forests, mountain passes, and difficult valleys, they are also prisoners of poverty, ignorance and darkness. There is little electrification and even fewer educational institutions in the area, though there are many mosques and madrassahs.
Thrilling, isn’t it. And the setting is almost medieval. Many people in South Waziristan want the world to believe it. Afghan officials love to get this flashed across the media. Many living away from the wily region would tend to buy it, while Pakistani officials, as usual, will brush it aside altogether.
So where does the truth lie? Perhaps, somewhere in the middle.
Personal interviews with tribal sources – maliks, traders, officials – in North and South Waziristan – and a recent tour through the region yielded conflicting accounts of the situation. Most people, born-Muslims, continue to adore Al Qaeda and Taliban for ‘their love for Islam’. But fewer would be ready to pick up arms and rise in support of the cause Osama and Mulla Omar have been peddling all along.
Still, a couple of spine-chilling incidents, though not fully verifiable, do merit a mention. Soon after the operation in Wana (administrative headquarters of South Waziristan) and Angoor Adda in early October last year, which led to the killing of eight foreign terrorists and the arrests of about 19 of them, the son of Mir Zalim Khan, attended a meeting of tribal elders with the political authorities to discuss ways as to how to tighten the noose around radical, Al Qaeda militants. The young man was shot dead at the Angoor Adda bus stand. Many believe that Naik Wazir, Haji Sharif and Maulvi Abbas who top the list of 22 wanted tribesmen for sheltering terrorists, were responsible for the murder.
A few weeks later, a tribal young man (name being withheld) was caught near the Kalooshah hamlet, the scene of the January 8 operation, allegedly by Chechen-looking Al Qaeda militants. They roughed him up and he was released only after a local intervened and assured the militants the incident would not be reported to the press. Though hard to verify independently, this is still exciting stuff.
But should one believe it or take it with a pinch of salt? Keeping in view the stiff resistance the Pakistan army and paramilitary troops encountered, and the human losses they have suffered, one would say that certain ground realities require to be looked at closely rather than being blamed on ‘anti-Pakistan propaganda’. Here are some questions:
a) Is the area really a haven for unwanted elements – i.e., local and foreign terrorists
b) Is the porous, rugged and mountainous region opposite to Paktia, Paktika, Khost, and Kunar provinces of Afghanistan adequately guarded with the roughly 25,000 Pakistan army and para-military troops
c) Has all the territory within Pakistani boundaries been brought under the government control
d) If yes, why are the commandos, army and para-military troops facing resistance with tribes refusing to surrender terror suspects
e) Lastly, is the government sincere in bringing all the tribal agencies under the state’s writ?
As to the first question, the disappearance of the Punjab minister for sports in North Waziristan and the resistance met by the authorities in South Waziristan do underline the fact that rogue elements – criminals, gun-runners, and religio-political extremists –still count as a formidable force in the area.
The current level of deployment – some 65,000 regular and para-military troops in the Frontier and Balochistan provinces – looks hardly adequate to plug the big holes that dot the 2,200 km-long border with Afghanistan and provide smugglers and militants alike with easy passages.
The dicey nature of the terrain simply requires a much bigger force on both sides of the border. And that force needs to act in cooperation whenever the need to scour the area arises. Regarding the last question, the government needs to shake off the decades’ old argument about the ‘sanctity of tribal traditions and customs and the respect for the independence of thousands of tribes’. The area must be brought under the state’s control. Period.
The British had raised the façade of FATA and armed its representatives and set up the system of the political agent for each of the seven agencies with the questionable Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR) 40. If viewed against the current standoff in South Waziristan, the FCR 40 has only delayed and spoiled the ‘search operation’. Under this law, the political agent (PA) must seek the help of the local tribal chieftain if a wanted person is hiding in the area. If the locals fail to turn in the wanted person(s), only then can the PA move in action with the help of his militia and possibly also the Army to arrest the wanted. In the process, the FCR 40 empowers the PA even to demolish houses of suspected people and impose a collective fine on the tribe.
This tenuous system has only worked to the detriment not only of the war against terrorism but also the drive to rid the region of professional criminals. The colonial rulers had devised the law to ensure a buffer between India and Afghanistan following several abortive attempts to take Afghanistan. The new situation calls for a serious review of that system.
Now that the United States is on board as far as the border issue between Afghanistan and Pakistan is concerned, this is about time the government moves swiftly to abolish the colonial system, establish its writ over the region through the law of land and underscore its commitment to the cause.
But it must also ensure a speedy expansion of infrastructure, provision of basic facilities like health and education to the people besides mounting a pro-active campaign to allay fears among the tribesmen that the law of land – the main plank of which is the police – might desecrate and fiddle with their social structures.
Given the nature of the task at hand, in terms both of its urgency and complexity, Islamabad cannot afford to drag its feet on it for long. The present circumstances are fraught with dangers as well as opportunities. The government needs to make use of the opportunities to offset the dangers inherent in the situation.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#125 Posted by ferozk on January 16, 2004 6:24:55 am
re: shahwaiz
There is no sense denying that Islamabad is and was at fault in dealing with the provinces of Pakistan. However, Islamabad did not start the FATA zone of exclusive privileges. Islamabad cannot do much if the sardars and maliks are not interested in spending the money on schools and other areas of socio-political/economic developments. The army might have changed its policy under American pressure, but the reality was that Islamabad no longer had the money to pay off the guardians of the FATA to heed Islamabad`s writ. FATA had to be incorporated into Pakistan sooner or later and with the American encouragement, it is being finally brought under the rule of the federal government of Pakistan.
As to the questions of loyality, I might have been harsh but I will not retract my words. Punjab and Sindh can be added to the list of culprits, who have often placed their provincial interests over the interests of Pakistan.
As to the Puktuns opting for Pakistan, what other choice did they have? India or Afghanistan? In reality, they would have opted for Afghanistan and once that seemed untenble, they started to clamour for independence under the name of Puktunistan.
Shahwaiz, the problem is that Pakistan`s four provinces have been unable to create a sense of belonging within Pakistan and often think of themselves as not a nation with provinces, but a group of provinces with a nation.
Ciao
There is no sense denying that Islamabad is and was at fault in dealing with the provinces of Pakistan. However, Islamabad did not start the FATA zone of exclusive privileges. Islamabad cannot do much if the sardars and maliks are not interested in spending the money on schools and other areas of socio-political/economic developments. The army might have changed its policy under American pressure, but the reality was that Islamabad no longer had the money to pay off the guardians of the FATA to heed Islamabad`s writ. FATA had to be incorporated into Pakistan sooner or later and with the American encouragement, it is being finally brought under the rule of the federal government of Pakistan.
As to the questions of loyality, I might have been harsh but I will not retract my words. Punjab and Sindh can be added to the list of culprits, who have often placed their provincial interests over the interests of Pakistan.
As to the Puktuns opting for Pakistan, what other choice did they have? India or Afghanistan? In reality, they would have opted for Afghanistan and once that seemed untenble, they started to clamour for independence under the name of Puktunistan.
Shahwaiz, the problem is that Pakistan`s four provinces have been unable to create a sense of belonging within Pakistan and often think of themselves as not a nation with provinces, but a group of provinces with a nation.
Ciao
#124 Posted by Shawaiz on January 15, 2004 9:48:43 am
#121 Ferozk...
As to Baluchistan and NWFP, geographically they may be considered as parts of Pakistan, but demographically and culturally, they are in reality encalves of Afghanistan. The question is not whether, I consider the people of Baluchistan and of NWFP as ``lesser Pakstanis``. A better question is do they consider themselves as Pakistanis and are willing to put Pakistan`s interest before their own tribal interests? They can prove this by stopping their ``traditional hospitality`` to Taliban, who are using these Pakistani provinces to launch attacks in Afghanistan against the American forces.
This is not the whole truth. If Islamabad would`ve considered these provinces as a true part of Pakistan then Islamabad wouldn’t have opened Madrasas and religious schools into the border areas in order to produce jihadis who would`ve to fight America`s proxy war in Afghanistan and Pakistan`s in Kashmir. If Islamabad would`ve opened schools and good universities, established industry and provided them jobs then the situation would be far more different. Everybody knows now that the Pakistan army and islamic fundamentalists have been in cahoots with each other, but since the army has changed its policy under the pressure of uncle sam the same jihadis now pose a danger to the sovereignty of Pakistan. These provinces are the victim of Islamabads short-sighted policies and not the perpetrators.
They can prove their loyality to Pakistan and be considered as Pakistanis, when they stop this charade of shariat and start catering to the real needs of the people of their provinces; education, good health care, social services, political representative rights for females, funds invested in economic development of their provinces and not efforts wasted in throwing black paints on ad boards!
Don`t you think this is valid for all provinces?
I can understand the arguments of provincial autonomy, but I draw the proverbial line in the sand, when it comes to creating a ``state within a state`` based on a narrowly defined theological viewpoint. They may call themselves Pakistan and I will accept that statement, but I will never forget that they were against the idea of Pakistan. I will forgive them, but I will never forget that the leaders of these people, the Baluch and the Pathans, blackmailed the government of Pakistan in the name of tribal autonomy and have lived, since 1947, as parasites consumping everything Pakistan has produced.
Are you not a bit unfair here? Who were against the creation of pakistan? If you are referring to the politics of Khodai-Khidmat`gaar then the unionists of Punjab too were not a big supporter of this ideology until almost the very last moment before the partition and we`re fully aware of those circumstances which compelled them to do so. When Pakhtuns were given a chance, 99 % of them opted for Pakistan.
Every time an electric pole brings light into the dark ages of the tribal lands, I as a Pakistani tax payer, pay for their electric bills! When two Baluchi tribes have an agrument, they blow up a gas pipeline and the people of Pakistan suffer and the foreign investors think of Pakistanis as half illiterate savages and refuse to invest here and create jobs!
Yes! I will start thinking of them as Pakistani citizens when they start acting as one! If they want to be considered as part of Pakistan and be thought of as Pakistani citizens, they better start obeying Pakistani laws, no matter how flawed and imperfect, over their tribal and family laws, or they can all damn well move to Afghanistan or anywhere else for all I care!
Sirdari system is a big problem. ZAB had started a programme to dismantle this system but Zia rolled back all reforms. I know it very well many Baloch and Pakhtuns want to get rid of this old system but they cannot do it on their own. And it become even more difficult when the central government work together with these corrupt sirdars.
We should start obeying the laws as though the rest of the country is very civilized. Don`t forget those were Pakhtun tribes who helped in liberating the NA and AK from the yoke of Dogras. Many Pakhtuns and Baloch have died while defending this country. We`ve problems in our provinces but Islamabad should help us to get rid of these problems and not misuse us.
As to Baluchistan and NWFP, geographically they may be considered as parts of Pakistan, but demographically and culturally, they are in reality encalves of Afghanistan. The question is not whether, I consider the people of Baluchistan and of NWFP as ``lesser Pakstanis``. A better question is do they consider themselves as Pakistanis and are willing to put Pakistan`s interest before their own tribal interests? They can prove this by stopping their ``traditional hospitality`` to Taliban, who are using these Pakistani provinces to launch attacks in Afghanistan against the American forces.
This is not the whole truth. If Islamabad would`ve considered these provinces as a true part of Pakistan then Islamabad wouldn’t have opened Madrasas and religious schools into the border areas in order to produce jihadis who would`ve to fight America`s proxy war in Afghanistan and Pakistan`s in Kashmir. If Islamabad would`ve opened schools and good universities, established industry and provided them jobs then the situation would be far more different. Everybody knows now that the Pakistan army and islamic fundamentalists have been in cahoots with each other, but since the army has changed its policy under the pressure of uncle sam the same jihadis now pose a danger to the sovereignty of Pakistan. These provinces are the victim of Islamabads short-sighted policies and not the perpetrators.
They can prove their loyality to Pakistan and be considered as Pakistanis, when they stop this charade of shariat and start catering to the real needs of the people of their provinces; education, good health care, social services, political representative rights for females, funds invested in economic development of their provinces and not efforts wasted in throwing black paints on ad boards!
Don`t you think this is valid for all provinces?
I can understand the arguments of provincial autonomy, but I draw the proverbial line in the sand, when it comes to creating a ``state within a state`` based on a narrowly defined theological viewpoint. They may call themselves Pakistan and I will accept that statement, but I will never forget that they were against the idea of Pakistan. I will forgive them, but I will never forget that the leaders of these people, the Baluch and the Pathans, blackmailed the government of Pakistan in the name of tribal autonomy and have lived, since 1947, as parasites consumping everything Pakistan has produced.
Are you not a bit unfair here? Who were against the creation of pakistan? If you are referring to the politics of Khodai-Khidmat`gaar then the unionists of Punjab too were not a big supporter of this ideology until almost the very last moment before the partition and we`re fully aware of those circumstances which compelled them to do so. When Pakhtuns were given a chance, 99 % of them opted for Pakistan.
Every time an electric pole brings light into the dark ages of the tribal lands, I as a Pakistani tax payer, pay for their electric bills! When two Baluchi tribes have an agrument, they blow up a gas pipeline and the people of Pakistan suffer and the foreign investors think of Pakistanis as half illiterate savages and refuse to invest here and create jobs!
Yes! I will start thinking of them as Pakistani citizens when they start acting as one! If they want to be considered as part of Pakistan and be thought of as Pakistani citizens, they better start obeying Pakistani laws, no matter how flawed and imperfect, over their tribal and family laws, or they can all damn well move to Afghanistan or anywhere else for all I care!
Sirdari system is a big problem. ZAB had started a programme to dismantle this system but Zia rolled back all reforms. I know it very well many Baloch and Pakhtuns want to get rid of this old system but they cannot do it on their own. And it become even more difficult when the central government work together with these corrupt sirdars.
We should start obeying the laws as though the rest of the country is very civilized. Don`t forget those were Pakhtun tribes who helped in liberating the NA and AK from the yoke of Dogras. Many Pakhtuns and Baloch have died while defending this country. We`ve problems in our provinces but Islamabad should help us to get rid of these problems and not misuse us.
#123 Posted by Shawaiz on January 14, 2004 7:27:16 am
baradaram Ahmed,
This is what I was trying to get across to Feroz but you did it in a better way.
khoda hafiz
This is what I was trying to get across to Feroz but you did it in a better way.
khoda hafiz
#122 Posted by ferozk on January 14, 2004 7:13:44 am
re: Dost-Mittar
There was a recent article in Daily Times of today (January 14, 2004), which said that Pakistan is interested in buying diesel fuel from India, because the transportation costs would make it cheaper than buying it else where. Secondly, it also said that India wants to buy surplus electricity from Pakistan for its Rajistan (sp?) state.
Pakistan gains to benefit from SAFTA and I remember those arguments about NAFTA very well! :) In the end, as tahmed32 said so nicely, it is the welfare of the people that matters!
re: Shahwaiz # 119
Thanks for the corrections. Appreciated!
Ciao
There was a recent article in Daily Times of today (January 14, 2004), which said that Pakistan is interested in buying diesel fuel from India, because the transportation costs would make it cheaper than buying it else where. Secondly, it also said that India wants to buy surplus electricity from Pakistan for its Rajistan (sp?) state.
Pakistan gains to benefit from SAFTA and I remember those arguments about NAFTA very well! :) In the end, as tahmed32 said so nicely, it is the welfare of the people that matters!
re: Shahwaiz # 119
Thanks for the corrections. Appreciated!
Ciao
#121 Posted by ferozk on January 14, 2004 6:58:40 am
Dionysus
As to Baluchistan and NWFP, geographically they may be considered as parts of Pakistan, but demographically and culturally, they are in reality encalves of Afghanistan. The question is not whether, I consider the people of Baluchistan and of NWFP as ``lesser Pakstanis``. A better question is do they consider themselves as Pakistanis and are willing to put Pakistan`s interest before their own tribal interests? They can prove this by stopping their ``traditional hospitality`` to Taliban, who are using these Pakistani provinces to launch attacks in Afghanistan against the American forces. They can prove their loyality to Pakistan and be considered as Pakistanis, when they stop this charade of shariat and start catering to the real needs of the people of their provinces; education, good health care, social services, political representative rights for females, funds invested in economic development of their provinces and not efforts wasted in throwing black paints on ad boards!
I can understand the arguments of provincial autonomy, but I draw the proverbial line in the sand, when it comes to creating a ``state within a state`` based on a narrowly defined theological viewpoint. They may call themselves Pakistan and I will accept that statement, but I will never forget that they were against the idea of Pakistan. I will forgive them, but I will never forget that the leaders of these people, the Baluch and the Pathans, blackmailed the government of Pakistan in the name of tribal autonomy and have lived, since 1947, as parasites consumping everything Pakistan has produced. Every time an electric pole brings light into the dark ages of the tribal lands, I as a Pakistani tax payer, pay for their electric bills! When two Baluchi tribes have an agrument, they blow up a gas pipeline and the people of Pakistan suffer and the foreign investors think of Pakistanis as half illiterate savages and refuse to invest here and create jobs!
Yes! I will start thinking of them as Pakistani citizens when they start acting as one!
If they want to be considered as part of Pakistan and be thought of as Pakistani citizens, they better start obeying Pakistani laws, no matter how flawed and imperfect, over their tribal and family laws, or they can all damn well move to Afghanistan or anywhere else for all I care!
Ciao
As to Baluchistan and NWFP, geographically they may be considered as parts of Pakistan, but demographically and culturally, they are in reality encalves of Afghanistan. The question is not whether, I consider the people of Baluchistan and of NWFP as ``lesser Pakstanis``. A better question is do they consider themselves as Pakistanis and are willing to put Pakistan`s interest before their own tribal interests? They can prove this by stopping their ``traditional hospitality`` to Taliban, who are using these Pakistani provinces to launch attacks in Afghanistan against the American forces. They can prove their loyality to Pakistan and be considered as Pakistanis, when they stop this charade of shariat and start catering to the real needs of the people of their provinces; education, good health care, social services, political representative rights for females, funds invested in economic development of their provinces and not efforts wasted in throwing black paints on ad boards!
I can understand the arguments of provincial autonomy, but I draw the proverbial line in the sand, when it comes to creating a ``state within a state`` based on a narrowly defined theological viewpoint. They may call themselves Pakistan and I will accept that statement, but I will never forget that they were against the idea of Pakistan. I will forgive them, but I will never forget that the leaders of these people, the Baluch and the Pathans, blackmailed the government of Pakistan in the name of tribal autonomy and have lived, since 1947, as parasites consumping everything Pakistan has produced. Every time an electric pole brings light into the dark ages of the tribal lands, I as a Pakistani tax payer, pay for their electric bills! When two Baluchi tribes have an agrument, they blow up a gas pipeline and the people of Pakistan suffer and the foreign investors think of Pakistanis as half illiterate savages and refuse to invest here and create jobs!
Yes! I will start thinking of them as Pakistani citizens when they start acting as one!
If they want to be considered as part of Pakistan and be thought of as Pakistani citizens, they better start obeying Pakistani laws, no matter how flawed and imperfect, over their tribal and family laws, or they can all damn well move to Afghanistan or anywhere else for all I care!
Ciao
#120 Posted by tahmed32 on January 13, 2004 4:53:24 pm
shawaiz #119 agreed on most of the corrections you make to ferozk. thus, e.g., on IVC it is a fact that it stretched all the way to herat in western afghanistan. and the western borders of pakistan are indeed porous, with nomads being ``afghan`` one day and ``pakistani`` the next. the baluch are to be found in pakistan, iran, afghanistan.
one thing i disagree with - on respect given to pakistanis in the ME: in the middle east, as in other places, respect ultimately is given to money. If you are well off (and there are pakistanis and indians driving in rolls royces in abu dhabi, according to a WP article i read today), then you are accorded respect (and i used to go to saudi arabia at their request to give them advice, and found had no problem with the ``respe. other pakistanis have held important positions in saudi - and it goes back to the 1960`s when a pakistani staff member of the IMF went to saudi arabia to set up their monetary agency, and stayed on for many years as their top financial adviser).
i agree with ferozk on many things, but i think he went too far this time and you have provided an accurate correction.
one thing i disagree with - on respect given to pakistanis in the ME: in the middle east, as in other places, respect ultimately is given to money. If you are well off (and there are pakistanis and indians driving in rolls royces in abu dhabi, according to a WP article i read today), then you are accorded respect (and i used to go to saudi arabia at their request to give them advice, and found had no problem with the ``respe. other pakistanis have held important positions in saudi - and it goes back to the 1960`s when a pakistani staff member of the IMF went to saudi arabia to set up their monetary agency, and stayed on for many years as their top financial adviser).
i agree with ferozk on many things, but i think he went too far this time and you have provided an accurate correction.
#119 Posted by Shawaiz on January 13, 2004 2:58:47 pm
Pakistan does not belong with the Middle East.
Dionysus says that Pakistan share its border with a ME country Iran and not that Pak itself lies in the middle east.
Geographically, Pakistan is seperated from Central Asia by mountains in the north and to west, with Afghanistan.
The Hindu-Kush mountains are nowhere separating Pak from Afghanistan but they are joining these two countries. It`s what the history tells us and the latest example is the Afghan jihad, see how it`s effected Pakistan.
The Indus Valley civilization, which Pakistan claims as a legacy lies in the subcontinent of India and not in Middle East.
The IVC had its centre in Pakistan though many settlements have been found in Iran, Turkmenistan and in the border areas of India with Pakistan.
It is a myth that most of the Pakistanis are decendents only of Muslims who came with Mohammad Bin Qasim or some Central Asian tribe.
Is it also a fairy tale that many tribes came here from central Asia namely Sakas, Aryans, Kushans and many other and most of the Pakistanis are their descendants? How many Pakistanis have you come across who claimed lineal descent from Bin-Qasim.
Some might have, but chances are that most of the present day Pakistanis are probabaly former Hindus, who converted to Islam in the last 1000 years.
Many Pakistanis were Hindoos and many were Budhists and many were Zoroastrians and many practised none of these religions before they converted to Islam, so what are you trying to prove here?
In a cultural sense, Pakistan has more of an affinty with India than it does with Middle East; we share a similar language, cultural ethos, similar foods, and music.
Although I don’t agree with you, what about those Pakistanis who share their food, language and music with Afghanistan.
One more point of observation. If Pakistan rightfully belongs in Middle East and the Middle Easterners are our ``rightful`` siblings, then why are the Pakistanis treated with such disdain in the Middle East? You may be dying to be considered as a part of Middle East, but have you ever wondered why the people of Middle East never accepted Pakistan as a part of Middle East?
Not only Pakistanis but also other Arabs are sometimes treated badly, ask any egyptian or palestinian who has worked in a gulf country, an egyptian friend of mine who completed his Phd in germany has been working in SA for 2 years and his experience is not very much different than that of a normal pakistani labour, though he is a highly educated person. And by the way if your point is valid then tell me why the ``real`` Pakistanis normally look down on Bangladeshis and other indian immigrants .
If some pakistanis desperately want to be a part of ME then you Sir are overly obsessed with India and both of you have identity crisis.
Dionysus says that Pakistan share its border with a ME country Iran and not that Pak itself lies in the middle east.
Geographically, Pakistan is seperated from Central Asia by mountains in the north and to west, with Afghanistan.
The Hindu-Kush mountains are nowhere separating Pak from Afghanistan but they are joining these two countries. It`s what the history tells us and the latest example is the Afghan jihad, see how it`s effected Pakistan.
The Indus Valley civilization, which Pakistan claims as a legacy lies in the subcontinent of India and not in Middle East.
The IVC had its centre in Pakistan though many settlements have been found in Iran, Turkmenistan and in the border areas of India with Pakistan.
It is a myth that most of the Pakistanis are decendents only of Muslims who came with Mohammad Bin Qasim or some Central Asian tribe.
Is it also a fairy tale that many tribes came here from central Asia namely Sakas, Aryans, Kushans and many other and most of the Pakistanis are their descendants? How many Pakistanis have you come across who claimed lineal descent from Bin-Qasim.
Some might have, but chances are that most of the present day Pakistanis are probabaly former Hindus, who converted to Islam in the last 1000 years.
Many Pakistanis were Hindoos and many were Budhists and many were Zoroastrians and many practised none of these religions before they converted to Islam, so what are you trying to prove here?
In a cultural sense, Pakistan has more of an affinty with India than it does with Middle East; we share a similar language, cultural ethos, similar foods, and music.
Although I don’t agree with you, what about those Pakistanis who share their food, language and music with Afghanistan.
One more point of observation. If Pakistan rightfully belongs in Middle East and the Middle Easterners are our ``rightful`` siblings, then why are the Pakistanis treated with such disdain in the Middle East? You may be dying to be considered as a part of Middle East, but have you ever wondered why the people of Middle East never accepted Pakistan as a part of Middle East?
Not only Pakistanis but also other Arabs are sometimes treated badly, ask any egyptian or palestinian who has worked in a gulf country, an egyptian friend of mine who completed his Phd in germany has been working in SA for 2 years and his experience is not very much different than that of a normal pakistani labour, though he is a highly educated person. And by the way if your point is valid then tell me why the ``real`` Pakistanis normally look down on Bangladeshis and other indian immigrants .
If some pakistanis desperately want to be a part of ME then you Sir are overly obsessed with India and both of you have identity crisis.
#118 Posted by dost_mittar on January 13, 2004 11:30:26 am
ferozk, manto:
I haven`t been visitng chowk regularly as I am travelling these days but this thread seems to have taken an interesting turn.
I think that there is a lot of misunderstanding about the consequences of a free trade zone. From an economic perspective, while free trade beneifts all partners, it should give proportionally greater benefits to the smaller than the larger economies, other things remaining the same. There was a very strong opposition to NAFTA in both Canada and Mexico and yet the gains from NAFTA have been the greatest to Mexico, followed by Canada.
In the context of India and Pakistan too, it is reasonable to assume that Pakistan will gain proportionally more from a free or freer trade. Indeed, India doesn`t need a free trade arrangement with Pakistan as much as Pakistan does, since the Indian market is already fairly large and the incremental benefits -and losses- will be small. The logic is simple. Since the Indian economy is ten times larger, Pakistan will benefit even if it is more competitive in 10% of the industries. I can readily think of textiles, sporting goods and fruits where Pakistan has an edge over India. The reality however is more interesting. In every industry, even the entertainment industry, one or more players will emerge who, with the access to the same inputs that are available to their Indian competitors, will be able to take on the Indian competition. Pakistan also has certain advantages in physical infrastructure; I believe that it is in some respects superior to that of India. Even the higher cost of electricity is higher in Pakistan only because it is highly subsidised in India and all efforts at reform have so far not succeeded; ultimately, the power crises in India will force govts. to charge an economic price for electricity. In any case, most private companies in India are forced to use their own electiricity generating plants which are much more expensive to run than the govt. controlled price.
There is however a kebab-mein-haddi in these optimistic scenario for Pakistan. The adjustment process will be a lot more for Pakistani industries than for Indians; on the positive side, the ordinary consumer will gain significantly in both countries, more so in Pakistan than in India.
[feroz and manto, check your emails!]
I haven`t been visitng chowk regularly as I am travelling these days but this thread seems to have taken an interesting turn.
I think that there is a lot of misunderstanding about the consequences of a free trade zone. From an economic perspective, while free trade beneifts all partners, it should give proportionally greater benefits to the smaller than the larger economies, other things remaining the same. There was a very strong opposition to NAFTA in both Canada and Mexico and yet the gains from NAFTA have been the greatest to Mexico, followed by Canada.
In the context of India and Pakistan too, it is reasonable to assume that Pakistan will gain proportionally more from a free or freer trade. Indeed, India doesn`t need a free trade arrangement with Pakistan as much as Pakistan does, since the Indian market is already fairly large and the incremental benefits -and losses- will be small. The logic is simple. Since the Indian economy is ten times larger, Pakistan will benefit even if it is more competitive in 10% of the industries. I can readily think of textiles, sporting goods and fruits where Pakistan has an edge over India. The reality however is more interesting. In every industry, even the entertainment industry, one or more players will emerge who, with the access to the same inputs that are available to their Indian competitors, will be able to take on the Indian competition. Pakistan also has certain advantages in physical infrastructure; I believe that it is in some respects superior to that of India. Even the higher cost of electricity is higher in Pakistan only because it is highly subsidised in India and all efforts at reform have so far not succeeded; ultimately, the power crises in India will force govts. to charge an economic price for electricity. In any case, most private companies in India are forced to use their own electiricity generating plants which are much more expensive to run than the govt. controlled price.
There is however a kebab-mein-haddi in these optimistic scenario for Pakistan. The adjustment process will be a lot more for Pakistani industries than for Indians; on the positive side, the ordinary consumer will gain significantly in both countries, more so in Pakistan than in India.
[feroz and manto, check your emails!]
#117 Posted by dionysus on January 13, 2004 9:08:48 am
#114 Ferozk
Dear Ferozk,
I EXPLICITLY mentioned Baluchistan, NWFP and the Northern Areas. Unless you are saying Baluchis, Pakthuns, Baltistanis, Hunzakuts, Chitralis, Kohistanis, Nooristanis and all the rest are lesser Pakistanis, kindly keep your sermon to yourself.
Dear Ferozk,
I EXPLICITLY mentioned Baluchistan, NWFP and the Northern Areas. Unless you are saying Baluchis, Pakthuns, Baltistanis, Hunzakuts, Chitralis, Kohistanis, Nooristanis and all the rest are lesser Pakistanis, kindly keep your sermon to yourself.
#116 Posted by ferozk on January 13, 2004 7:43:47 am
re: tahmed32 # 73
Political power being the end result of all public policy from a realist`s perspective is perfectly logical. In international relations, my field, political power; pragmatism makes more sense than people`s wefare. However from an economic viewpoint and I am guessing that your field is in economics or related to it, the welfare argument makes sense. I am a disciple of Realpolitik and now, I am more inclined to be partial towards Realeconomiks, which is a mixture of geo-economics and political economy. This is a very interesting subject, if you have the time to delve into it.
On the second half (point B), I agree with you. The only thing, which will harm Pakistani business in competion with India are our outdated and mothballed ideas of economics, which still hark to Jean Baptise Colbert and 16th century French mercantalism. Pakistan is more benefically poised to gain from SAFTA if we get rid of our protectionist tendencies. The point I am making, was that Pakistan has to liberalize its economy and remove the influence of the government from the realm of economics and if does that, then the transition to SAFTA will be a lot painless. Still, some of the government controlled businesses will be wiped out and unless Pakistan lowers the price ratios of electricity for industrial consumption, Pakistan will remain at a disadvantage vis-a-vis India.
Again, who runs WAPDA? WAPDA is a government organization; it is inefficient, corrupt and it has stranglehold on about 80 percent of nation`s industrial output. Basically, the role of the government in Pakistani economics will have to be ended otherwise Pakistan will have a hard time competing under SAFTA.
Hope this clarifies the issues.
Ciao
Political power being the end result of all public policy from a realist`s perspective is perfectly logical. In international relations, my field, political power; pragmatism makes more sense than people`s wefare. However from an economic viewpoint and I am guessing that your field is in economics or related to it, the welfare argument makes sense. I am a disciple of Realpolitik and now, I am more inclined to be partial towards Realeconomiks, which is a mixture of geo-economics and political economy. This is a very interesting subject, if you have the time to delve into it.
On the second half (point B), I agree with you. The only thing, which will harm Pakistani business in competion with India are our outdated and mothballed ideas of economics, which still hark to Jean Baptise Colbert and 16th century French mercantalism. Pakistan is more benefically poised to gain from SAFTA if we get rid of our protectionist tendencies. The point I am making, was that Pakistan has to liberalize its economy and remove the influence of the government from the realm of economics and if does that, then the transition to SAFTA will be a lot painless. Still, some of the government controlled businesses will be wiped out and unless Pakistan lowers the price ratios of electricity for industrial consumption, Pakistan will remain at a disadvantage vis-a-vis India.
Again, who runs WAPDA? WAPDA is a government organization; it is inefficient, corrupt and it has stranglehold on about 80 percent of nation`s industrial output. Basically, the role of the government in Pakistani economics will have to be ended otherwise Pakistan will have a hard time competing under SAFTA.
Hope this clarifies the issues.
Ciao
#115 Posted by tahmed32 on January 13, 2004 7:13:44 am
dionysus #112
Dear Mr. Dionysus,
This to to request that you do not put words in my mouth. All you have done in your post is to write up your own stuff, attribute it to me, then declare me insane. I have seen mosquitos and house flies that have demonstrated a higher IQ than you have demonstrated so far on chowk.
In order to rise to the level of a house fly, cut and paste what I have written, THEN explain why it does not make sense to you. Otherwise people will think you are hiding from not just from reality but from posts written about reality as well.
Regards.
Dear Mr. Dionysus,
This to to request that you do not put words in my mouth. All you have done in your post is to write up your own stuff, attribute it to me, then declare me insane. I have seen mosquitos and house flies that have demonstrated a higher IQ than you have demonstrated so far on chowk.
In order to rise to the level of a house fly, cut and paste what I have written, THEN explain why it does not make sense to you. Otherwise people will think you are hiding from not just from reality but from posts written about reality as well.
Regards.
#114 Posted by ferozk on January 13, 2004 7:12:11 am
re: dionysus
Pakistan does not belong with the Middle East.
Geographically, Pakistan is seperated from Central Asia by mountains in the north and to west, with Afghanistan. The only land link it might have with Middle East is a via Iran through Baluchistan. Historically speaking, the gateway for the invasion of the plains of India lay through the Khyber Pass and those armies, which marched through the Khyber Pass were seeking to invade India and not Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or Dubai or Iraq. (On the other hand, I could be wrong and you could be one of those people, who still believe that the defence of East Pakistan lay in West Pakistan and then there is that proverbial argument about strategic depth, which we will leave for another time).
The Indus Valley civilization, which Pakistan claims as a legacy lies in the subcontinent of India and not in Middle East. The agricultural plains of what is now Pakistan are geographically linked with an area of land known as Indo-Gangetic plains and the last time I checked, the Indo-Gangetic plains were in South Asia and not some where between Sharjah and Riyadh. The valley of Kashmir slopes into the plains of Punjab and not into the deserts of Arabia.
It is a myth that most of the Pakistanis are decendents only of Muslims who came with Mohammad Bin Qasim or some Central Asian tribe. Some might have, but chances are that most of the present day Pakistanis are probabaly former Hindus, who converted to Islam in the last 1000 years. In a cultural sense, Pakistan has more of an affinty with India than it does with Middle East; we share a similar language, cultural ethos, similar foods, and music. On the other hand, if Pakistan belongs with Middle East, as you claim, then why do Pakistani wedding ceremonies have more in common with Hindu and Indian wedding ceremonies than a Middle Eastern one? Islamic requirement for marriage is only a nikkah followed by a walima. Most of the Pakistani wedding are not all Islamic and have no connection to a Middle Eastern wedding ceremony.
One more point of observation. If Pakistan rightfully belongs in Middle East and the Middle Easterners are our ``rightful`` siblings, then why are the Pakistanis treated with such disdain in the Middle East? You may be dying to be considered as a part of Middle East, but have you ever wondered why the people of Middle East never accepted Pakistan as a part of Middle East?
Ciao
Pakistan does not belong with the Middle East.
Geographically, Pakistan is seperated from Central Asia by mountains in the north and to west, with Afghanistan. The only land link it might have with Middle East is a via Iran through Baluchistan. Historically speaking, the gateway for the invasion of the plains of India lay through the Khyber Pass and those armies, which marched through the Khyber Pass were seeking to invade India and not Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or Dubai or Iraq. (On the other hand, I could be wrong and you could be one of those people, who still believe that the defence of East Pakistan lay in West Pakistan and then there is that proverbial argument about strategic depth, which we will leave for another time).
The Indus Valley civilization, which Pakistan claims as a legacy lies in the subcontinent of India and not in Middle East. The agricultural plains of what is now Pakistan are geographically linked with an area of land known as Indo-Gangetic plains and the last time I checked, the Indo-Gangetic plains were in South Asia and not some where between Sharjah and Riyadh. The valley of Kashmir slopes into the plains of Punjab and not into the deserts of Arabia.
It is a myth that most of the Pakistanis are decendents only of Muslims who came with Mohammad Bin Qasim or some Central Asian tribe. Some might have, but chances are that most of the present day Pakistanis are probabaly former Hindus, who converted to Islam in the last 1000 years. In a cultural sense, Pakistan has more of an affinty with India than it does with Middle East; we share a similar language, cultural ethos, similar foods, and music. On the other hand, if Pakistan belongs with Middle East, as you claim, then why do Pakistani wedding ceremonies have more in common with Hindu and Indian wedding ceremonies than a Middle Eastern one? Islamic requirement for marriage is only a nikkah followed by a walima. Most of the Pakistani wedding are not all Islamic and have no connection to a Middle Eastern wedding ceremony.
One more point of observation. If Pakistan rightfully belongs in Middle East and the Middle Easterners are our ``rightful`` siblings, then why are the Pakistanis treated with such disdain in the Middle East? You may be dying to be considered as a part of Middle East, but have you ever wondered why the people of Middle East never accepted Pakistan as a part of Middle East?
Ciao
#113 Posted by ferozk on January 13, 2004 6:37:38 am
re: Mantolives # 87
First of all, you seem to have misunderstood me. I never defended protectionism in India as you falsely alleged.
Secondly, as to Z. A. Bhutto`s illiberal policies, they ruined Pakistan economically and we, as a nation, are still paying the price for Z. A Bhutto`s enlightened economics of nationalism.
Lastly, arguments for protectionism makes for flawed economics.
Ciao
First of all, you seem to have misunderstood me. I never defended protectionism in India as you falsely alleged.
Secondly, as to Z. A. Bhutto`s illiberal policies, they ruined Pakistan economically and we, as a nation, are still paying the price for Z. A Bhutto`s enlightened economics of nationalism.
Lastly, arguments for protectionism makes for flawed economics.
Ciao
#112 Posted by dionysus on January 13, 2004 6:04:49 am
#110 arjuan
Dear arjun,
You area raving lunatic in dire need of psychiatric help. I`m being totally serious here. Please seek help for your condition ASAP.
Good Afternoon.
Dear arjun,
You area raving lunatic in dire need of psychiatric help. I`m being totally serious here. Please seek help for your condition ASAP.
Good Afternoon.
#111 Posted by dionysus on January 13, 2004 6:04:49 am
#108
Dear tahmed,
Let me get this straight. You are saying that we should accept a humiliating climbdown on Kashmir, throw away our principles, and jeopordize our future by leaving our water supply in the hands of a hegemonistic enemy, because then nice Mr. Indian enemy will teach us all about democracy, all about politics, all about buisness, all about civilization. And if we REALLY behave ourselves like good little peasant serfs, nice Mr. Indian enemy will even hand out candies and other little goodies.
You are insane. But at least nazar has some company in La La Land. ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Dear tahmed,
Let me get this straight. You are saying that we should accept a humiliating climbdown on Kashmir, throw away our principles, and jeopordize our future by leaving our water supply in the hands of a hegemonistic enemy, because then nice Mr. Indian enemy will teach us all about democracy, all about politics, all about buisness, all about civilization. And if we REALLY behave ourselves like good little peasant serfs, nice Mr. Indian enemy will even hand out candies and other little goodies.
You are insane. But at least nazar has some company in La La Land. ROTFLMAO!!!!!
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- guru: Ana Didi and Baki... Ahmed Faraz: The Light
- laddu: Zardari is soon going... How real is your
- laddu: I predict : 1.NS would... How real is your
- masadi: Majumdar writes "Yes, but... How real is your
- masadi: Majumdar writes "Yes, but... How real is your
- masadi: HP sahib, You are absolving... How real is your
- masadi: PM writes "Re Working... How real is your
- VRV: NK, In a limited way... How real is your
