A Fool’s Errand

re: tahmed32 # 138

Agreed!

The sad thing is that it is the American government, which is forcing the Pakistani government to cater to the needs of its citizens and when it does, we as a nation blame the government for capitulating to ``foreign pressures``. We complain when the government ignores our interests and when it is forced to serve the people, Pakistanis complain!

Pakistan needs to be stable economically, because that is in the interest of all concerned including India.

Ciao

re: alias # 133

I am sorry that I could reply to you early, but the power went off because it had rained - one of the charms of living in Pakistan - the uncertainity of life.

Hatred and distrust exists within Pakistan. As citizens of Pakistan, we should highlight it and talk about it openly. Punjab does play a major role in the inta-provincial relations and it does dominate the federation of Pakistan. Blaming Punjab will not solve the problem and the problem will be solved by evolving an infrastructure, which oversees provincial relations and makes sure that one province does not end up dominating other provinces. This will not be easy, but it has to be done. The answer lies in constitutionalism and not seeking to place the blame on a given province.

My education gives me the right to air Pakistan`s problems, because for too long educated Pakistanis have remained silent, while the nation was being politically and economically raped. I am a Pakistani and I love Pakistan, but I will openly call a spade a spade in Pakistan, when I see lies being told. I am a patriot, but my patriotism does not mean to condone wrong actions and my education does not mean that I should feign ignorance in the name of national pride. Education implies an acceptance of reality and not an existence in denial. There is a vast difference between utilizing education as mode of hatred and as means of understanding hatred by talking about it openly and you seem to be confused between the two.

Pakistan has serious problems and the only way to solve those problems is to identify them by discussing them openly and not to chortle debate in the name of provincial harmony. Hatred and distrust exists beteen Pakistanis and we have to accept that; our denial of that fact is not going to lessen the reality that hatred and distrust will cease to exist, because we wish it!

Ciao

re: shahwaiz # 139

Decentralizing power, an idea which I favor, to the provinces sounds good in theory. The problem and the concern is how to decentralize power without causing administrative problems, which translates into hardship for the provincial populations. First of all, you have to replace the existing system with a new one and you have to do this in a manner, which makes the transition smooth; as smooth as possible. The idea of decentralizing power is easy to suggest and very difficult to implment and as a nation we, Pakistanis, are very good in proposing and dismal in implementing ideas into reality.

The article in Dawn, with all due respects, does not offer a solution.

Ciao

ferozk #137 you write ``I just hope that the Americans do not lose interest and keep reminding Musharraf what he has to do! ``

Amen to that!!

Even better: Lets hope someday musharaff (and indeed all our leaders) dont have to be told to do the right thing by the US. Lets hope they get the good sense and the moral compass needed to do the right thing on their own. They would then realize that their job is to improve living conditions for the millions of poor who are invisible to their eyes.

As long as millions of poor go hungry in pakistan, and millions of children grow up illiterate, and millions of pakistanis are virtual slaves to the powerful (be it feudal landlords in sindh or tribal ``elders`` in FATA), it is a monstrous crime and absolute hypocrisy for anyone in Pakistan to talk about liberating kashmir or of introducing islami this or islami that. It is this lack of moral compass that results in external pressures - US primarily, but Indian too indirectly - to get our leaders to do the right thing.

At least let us be grateful that mushy is smarter than mullah omar - the latter was too stupid to do the right thing even when told in no uncertain terms by the US to hand over mullah ben laden or get ready for war.

re: Feroz #136

Blaming the British for creating the system of governance in FATA is useless. The British did not want to police the lawless area and they did not want to pay for the long term deployment of troops into the region. The British interests were well served by having political agents look after their affairs and when ever there was a problem, the British used to buy off the local khans and their jigras.

First of all I`m not blaming the British, although I`ve a right to blame them for establishing such a notorious administrative system. The new masters seem to have learned all destructive politics from their old masters. The same politics, the same subjects but new masters.


The government of Pakistan has no administrative powers and thus, it has nothing to decentralize!

Please read this artilce printed in the daily dawn. The GOP has to decentralize the whole political structure.

In a highly over-centralized financial, administrative and political structure like Pakistan`s, where the federation levies, manipulates and collects more than 90 per cent of the revenues and controls almost all spheres of economic activities, the provincial economy is difficult to define. That is because Islamabad doesn`t encourage the provinces to calculate their own GDP.


khoda hafiz
shawaiz

re: tahmed32 # 134

I am not blaming the people of those areas, but I am holding the politicans of those regions responsible for their malactions and their lack of concern for the common people. The people have no political rights or representation and none of the regional political parties has cared a whit for the interests of the people. My argument is always against the governments and not the people and when I refer to Baluchistan and NWFP and FATA, it is in the sense of governance and not on an individual level of a common person. The people have been ignored by their representatives. Period. They are the victims and not the culprits.

I will give credit to Musharraf that he is attempting to bring FATA within the political gambit of Pakistani interests, but Musharraf needs to be determined to make sure that FATA is incorporated into Pakistan proper. The area exists within a legal and administrative vacuum and that makes it an area of perfect confluence for terrorists, drug smugglers, power hungry warlords, corrupt politicans and all the scum, which thrives in an environment blessed with an absence of law and order.

I agree. The Pathan`s traditional form of jigra, when seen in its most basic form is the closest example of direct democracy that we have any where in the world and the whole enterprise is tailor made for local government and devolution of power to the people. That reality is still a dream as long as the local power of the sardars, khans, maliks and drug financed war barons is not broken. The Pakistani army`s recent operations in Wana, in South Waziristan, was a step in the right direction. The down side is that MMA, which is in political cohoots with the government and has its political constituency in those regions, is admantly opposed to government plans in FATA. The MMA has coalition government in Baluchistan and a majority government in NWFP and it will not risk losing its political power base in those regions and there is no ironclad surety that the government will not make another deal with the MMA to maintain its fig leaf of political legitimacy.

Sirji, political compromises, which harm the interests of Pakistan litter our history and I will not be too surprised if Musharraf changes his tune again. I just hope that the Americans do not lose interest and keep reminding Musharraf what he has to do!

Ciao

re: shahawaiz # 135

Blaming the British for creating the system of governance in FATA is useless. The British did not want to police the lawless area and they did not want to pay for the long term deployment of troops into the region. The British interests were well served by having political agents look after their affairs and when ever there was a problem, the British used to buy off the local khans and their jigras.

I agree with you that system should have been changed in the last 55 years and as long as it exists, the feeling of colonization, rightly or wrongly, will persist in the smaller provinces vis-vis Islamabad. Decentralization is a myth, because as long as the local jigras hold the power, the people will not be given equal rights. Equal rights to the people of the smaller provinces will have to forced down the throats of local chieftens and their power base needs to be destroyed before there is papable progress in Baluchistan and NWFP. The government of Pakistan has no administrative powers and thus, it has nothing to decentralize! The smaller provinces might not wish to secede from Pakistan, but how long are they going to exist as a colony of Pakistan?

Ciao

re: Feroz 131

We were not talking about FATA exclusively but generally about the both western provinces. FATA comes under the executive authority of the federation. And all the 11 agencies are executively and administratively controlled by the political agents (PA), who have been given unlimited powers under the Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR was introduced by the British in 1901). The tribal maliks work together with these agents which ensures them their influence and position in the tribal ares. These so-called political agents don`t enjoy a good reputation among the tribes. The government could have changed the whole administrarive structure in the last 55 years. But these cunning and power-ridden politicians and dictators cannot administrate Karachi properly, let alone FATA. Anyway, throw it out of your mind that the NWFP, Balochistan or even FATA want to secede from Pakistan. The smaller provinces don`t want to be treated like a colony. They demand equal citizen rights and fair share in the resources of Pakisatn. Pakistan should decentralize administrative power, give more autonomy to the provinces and ensure equal rights to all citizens.

khoda hafiz

ferzok: It is true that the writ of the pakistan government did not extend to FATA. But lets not blame the people of FATA for that - it is the job of the federal government to ensure that federal laws apply across the land. The federal government found it convenient to pay off the tribal chiefs, rather than impose its authority on them. The result was that FATA became a haven for car theives, smugglers, and kidnappers (those being of course a tiny segment of the population, and the average Joe Muhammed of FATA being as much a victim of this lawlessness as the Rawalpindi dweller who had his car stolen). Thus terrorists fleeing Afghanistan found it a natural hideout for them. Now of course we have the government seeking (with encouragement from the US) to root out the terrorists, and in the process is having to exert its authority for the first time in FATA as well.

Clearly, it is not the people of FATA, but the various governments of Pakistan, that have been derelict in its obligations to provide law and order in those territories. And it has required pressure from the US for musharaff to do what he should have done on his own - bring law and order in that society. That is all water under the bridge.

Now I think FATA presents a terrific opportunity for Pakistan: With a little imagination, FATA could I think be converted into a showcase of local self-government in Pakistan. Pathan society is inherently a far more egalitarian one than virtually any other traditional society in Pakistan (relative to sindh, baluchistan, panjab). The federal government`s role should be to lift the yoke of the criminals (car theives, tribal sardars, and now arab and chechen terrorists), and set the conditions for local self-government to flourish. Give it a decade or two, and FATA could well become the switzerland of pakistan.
This is Dr. Tahmed`s recipe, at least.

Feroz:

You speak of hope, wanting a better outcome of decisions made and treaties signed, you speak of the region, Pakistan, looking and hoping towards better days for the people, unified, sucessful. Rightfully said and wanted!

But then you make sweeping emotional and impulsive generalizations saying that the people from NWFP put their tribal beliefs over their nations, what you refuse to understand here, or perhaps it is a barrier in your learning is that what the people of NWFP and Balochistan for the past 56 years have been trying to do is integrate into the rest of Pakistan. The tribes are not what they were 40 to 50 years ago, people have moved on and settled down into cities near by and far, integrating themselves with Pakistan today, Pakistan moving forward. What reality is, is that these two provinces have been left behind, their basic human rights have not been fulfilled and not been granted. They do obey laws, but the law does nothing for them. If you recall, last summer the export of wheat was banned from the Punjab to the Frontier. WAPDA loots the Frontier of their recourses, etc. Cities like Peshawar and Quetta have digressed rather than progressed, why? Because the Punjab infested by Feudalism, the govt their colourful puppet and Sindh feed of their own and the rest of the countries resources, not sharing the output completely. Do not forget, that Balochistan and the Frontier are paying for the brunt, not as Afghans but as Pakistanis of the cold war and the recent war that has taken place in Afghanistan, and the Federal government is hardly doing anything to pay reperations for them to catch up.

Where it all begins is when these two provinces are accepted, and educated people like yourself don’t make sweeping statements like, “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!”

If the educated people, who’s deep rooted passion and life revolves around International Relations think this way, deciphering between, “your” and “them” rather than an “us” will get no where. We should forget the region, forget signed treaties and handshakes infront of cameras, unless we think the Punjan and Sindh are Pakistan.

Your articles sir are always extremely informative and forthcoming, but to see someone make such sweeping statements really doesn’t accomplish anything on anyones side, except make Pakistan a sad place to be.

“as a people, will never reach the promise the land, because we are too secure in our hatred and distrust of one another to forsake it and give opportunity a chance to succeed…” perhaps you speak on India and Pakistan here, but perhaps you should take your own words into consideration when it comes to Pakistan.

Feroz:

You speak of vision, unity, and hope. Hoping for better days for Pakistan and the region, wanting something to come of signed treaties. Well said and wanted!!

But then you make sweeping emotional and impulsive generalizations saying that the people from NWFP put their tribal beliefs over their nations, what you refuse to understand here, or perhaps it is a barrier in your learning is that what the people of NWFP and Balochistan for the past 56 years have been trying to do is integrate into the rest of Pakistan. The tribes are not what they were 40 to 50 years ago, people have moved on and settled down into cities near by and far, integrating themselves with Pakistan today, Pakistan moving forward. What reality is, is that these two provinces have been left behind, their basic human rights have not been fulfilled and not been granted. They do obey laws, but the law and govt does nothing for them. If you recall, last summer the export of wheat was banned from the Punjab to the Frontier. WAPDA loots the Frontier of their recourses, etc. Cities like Peshawer and Quetta have digressed rather than progressed, why? Because the Punjab infested by Feudalism, the govt their colourful puppet and Sindh feed of their own and the rest of the countries resources, not sharing the output completely. We mustn’t forget that the Frontier and Baloacistan are paying off the brunt of the Cold War and the recent war in Afghanistan, not as Afghans but as Pakistan, and still there has been no attempt at paying them any means of reperations.

Where it all begins is when these two provinces are accepted, and educated people like yourself don’t make sweeping statements like, “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!”

If the educated people, who’s deep rooted passion and life revolves around International Relations think this way, deciphering between, “your” and “them” rather than an “us” will get no where.

Your articles sir always extremely informative and forthcoming, but to see someone make such sweeping statements really doesn’t accomplish anything on anyone’s side, except make Pakistan a sad place to be. We should forget the SAARC summit, signed treaties, because the problem is still imbedded very much in Pakistan, unless we think the Punjab and Sindh are Pakistan.

“as a people, will never reach the promise the land, because we are too secure in our hatred and distrust of one another to forsake it and give opportunity a chance to succeed…” perhaps you speak on India and Pakistan here, but perhaps you should take your own words into consideration when it coms to Pakistan.

re: shahwaiz

The statement simply said that provinces, which do not recognize Pakistan and claim a seperate status from Pakistan, cannot secede from Pakistan.

For example, the FATA cannot secede from Pakistan, because it never belonged to Pakistan either federally or jurisdictionally. FATA never accepted the rule, the legal system or the political writ of Islamabad in its territory and it never considered itself as a dejure part of Pakistan. It has always considered itself to be independent from Pakistan in its laws, customs and politics.

Therefore, how can FATA secede from Pakistan, when it never considered itself to be a part of Pakistan? That is like saying an Indian state can secede from Pakistan! Only Pakistani provinces can secede from Pakistan and since FATA has never considered itself as a Pakistani province, the question of its secession is moot and that is what statement was alluding towards.

Ciao

Feroz, you said:

In order to secede from Pakistan, you have to belong to Pakistan in the first place!

Would you please elaborate on this point?
Thanx in advance.

Khoda hafiz

re: shahwaiz

My cousins live in India and not in Afghanistan.

In order to secede from Pakistan, you have to belong to Pakistan in the first place!

Ciao

Ferozk:

Whether the British refused or ignored, the fact remains that people of NWFP want to join their cousins in Afghanistan.


Stop harping on this same stupid mantra and spreading misinformations here. Who told you we want to secede from Pakistan to join our ``cousins`` across the border? dude, this is our country and if you have some problems accepting this reality then you are free to go there where ``your cousins`` live.

re: shahwaiz

I agree with the article. The whole system of FATA needs to be changed and the Americans, will make sure that Pakistan does not drag its feet on the matter.

Whether the British refused or ignored, the fact remains that people of NWFP want to join their cousins in Afghanistan.

Ciao

#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.

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

#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.

baradaram Ahmed,

This is what I was trying to get across to Feroz but you did it in a better way.

khoda hafiz

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

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

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.

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.

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!]

#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.

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

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.

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

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

#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.

#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!!!!!

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#108 tahmed32:
Tauhid, I did not read 106/7 but I am sure he made you do it!!

dionysus #106/7 May i suggest, sir, that you mind your language and talk like a gentleman, you worthless dump of water buffalo shi!t?

The last part above was to even the score :-)


Coming to your points in #106:

1. You ask what good does Indian democracy do us? I see you are a bit slow in your comprehension. I am a patient man, nevertheless, and will take time out to help you think this through so you are no longer walking around with that befuddled look. The answer is:

a. This belies the argument of elitists in pakistan that democracy is only for the ``advanced`` countries, and thus strengthens the forces of democracy in Pakistan.
b. Because the 50 years Indian experience with democracy yields important lessons that we can learn from. These lessons are at the conceptual level (e.g. the political system is more important than any individual leader) as well as at the technical level (eg. read how the chief election commissioner india - Seshan, i believe his name was - largely eliminated the problem of ballot box stuffing, issues of centralization vs decentralization).
Compare this to central asia or the middle east and the only lesson they have to teach you is how to make sure your son becomes the next dictator, how to ensure 99% votes in your favor, how to pervert islam in order to intimidate your population, and so on.

2. This question confirms my suspicion that you are an idiot . I am not insulting you here, incidentally, just describing you in a scientific manner: That is, an idiot is one who does the same thing as the wise man, but only much later than the wise man and only after having learnt the hard way. So, you can wait ten years, by which India would have moved even further ahead while we are still living in the world of the 1960`s and keep fighting for kashmiris. Or you can wake up now and smell the coffee beans, and then i will re-classify you from idiot to wise-man-of-middle-panjab.

As for india handing over a piece of the pie, i suggest you shake lose of this habit of looking for handouts. Exercise that little piece of flesh between your two ears to figure out the different ways Pakistan can benefit from the economic performance of india (north and south). Let this be your homework assignment, with submission of your best efforts due three days from now.

#102 Shawaiz, salaams. I too am from Central Punjab. It`s not my personal location that distinguishes me from the (naive) likes of tahmed, it`s the location of my head - he has his firmly planted where the sun doesn`t shine.

#105 tahmed

1. India may (or may not) be the perfect democracy, but so what if it is? What good does that do us? What difference does it make either way? China is hardly democratic and look what kind of a mutually highly benificial relationship it has with the Western world. Your point is totally invalid.

2. `Emerging` and `being` are two very different things. India has had a few years of good growth under the BJP and you`ve starting creaming your pants? And do you honestly believe they are going to just hand a slice of the pie over to us? Who has ever done that for anyone? Plus the most developed regions of India are in the South, with whom we have no cultural, ethnic and geographical connection.

India has invaded and occupied a neighbouring country and taken control of our water supply. A commodity that is becoming rarer and rarer. What kind of people would we be if we threw away our principles and our future security just for the hope of a few meagre scraps??

That`s you, mate, not me nor the rest of Pakistanis.

shawaiz #102 obviously the western provinces (nwfp, baluchistan) have more in common with central asia and iran than with india. That is not the point. The point is what do they have to offer to pakistan. I will submit that economically and politically these places have nothing to offer pakistan compared to india:

(a) Politically they will take decades to get to where india is today in terms of democratic institutions. Turkmenistan today has the worst kind of dictator in the stalinist mode. the other central asian republics are not far behind. Iran is a theocracy. The international community is struggling to get the afghans to move out of the stone age.

(b) Economically, they are the economic backwaters of the world, while india is emerging as the global service center. The world`s top notch firms are moving their operations to India, and no one wants to touch central asia with a ten foot stick.

So, i am afraid that both you and dionysus are looking in the wrong direction. Pakistan of course will still maintain the friendly relations it has with neighbors to the west - but that does not mean that we should close our eyes to the realities of today`s world.

#93 by dionysus

Salam,

You`re one of those very few interlocutors on this board who seem to know what they are talking about. People tend to forget that the Indus valley has always been influenced from the people and cultures of central asia and middle east. You`ve correctly pointed out that Balochistan, NWFP and the northern areas make up more than 60 percent of the whole landmass of Pakistan and over 20% of its population ( and not to forget that millions of Baloch and Pakhtuns are living in Sindh, Punjab and in Karachi as well) and culturally and historically are a part of Central Asia. Actually most of the interlocutors here hail from central Punjab and to some reasons ignore this reality. But fortunately, there are some people like you who are well aware of it.

Anyway, I don`t know much about SAARC, the government has to decide what Pakistan can gain from SAARC. For me it`s mere a forlorn hope if they`re thinking that they can make another EU out of these countries. Unlike EU, SAARC isn`t a homogenous entity. I come from Zhob and have spent some years of my life in Karachi, where many people of Indian origin are living. It will be better if Islamabad pays its more attention to the internal matters of Pakistan, educate its people and bring them closer. Mr. Manto has rightly said that SAARC is a pipe dream and every country for itself.

Regards
Shawaiz

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

re: Indo-Pak economic co-operation
I am not an economist, so i apologise if i try to bring everything down to some ``common sense`` argument. I may be wrong but my instinct tells me i am not.
I think Pak stands to gain tremendously from a free trade with India.
It is true that India may flood the market with cheap goods. But in the end, even this will be beneficial for Pak.
Take for instance pharmaceuticals. India produces drugs at a much cheaper rate than Pak. So, Indian drugs would find their way into Pak market. This may result in sudden fall in price of many medical drugs coming into Pakistan. Pak pharmaceutical industry will have to face this tremendous challenge. It will either have to improvise (improve its technique) or perish. It can improvise by either collaboration or innovation. In either case, it will result in betterment of the pharmaceutical industry in Pak. If it perishes, then a uselsess enterprise would have vanished and the only people who would shed tears are those who own the company or the ones who talk about H and D. Pak consumers stand to gain as they get drugs which are much cheaper than ever before. OTOH, Pak pharmaceutical industry may choose to collaborate with Indians. Then, they would give gainful employment to many graduates in Pakistan and stay competetive.
Take another instance. Bollywood movies may flood the Pak market. May be Lollywood will be wiped out. Or there may be increasing collaboration, joint production of movies giving gainful employment to many artists,actors etc. Cinema halls which are empty today will see more life and will span new commerce.
The list is endless. Only the lazy and the one`s with vested interests will lose out. In the end, consumers will gain. I have given only one sided argument. India too stands to gain.

Two days back, i got a call from an Indian offering me a new service for phone at 21 cents a minute for calls to India (from USA) and 5 cents a min for interstate US calls. This is an Indian company which has gone global and offering services in US. The rates are cheaper than the best that US company has to offer. I was tempted but said no because the company was relatively unknown.
People who take risks and who are creative will survive and flourish in a free market.
Sridhar

dionysus #93

I fully support my friend Dinoysus. Pakistan belongs in the middle east, with the Arabs, and with the countries of Central Asia, whatever their silly names are. Afghans, Farsiwaans, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Arabs and Turkestanis are the natural brothers and sisters of Pakistanis (Iranians don`t belong in this group for powerful historical and cultural reasons. They are closer to India than many Islam-blinded Pakistanis will realize, until they get a bad jolt).

dionysus #92 You have just articulated the ``sum of all fears`` of many pakistanis -namely, that pakistan will be gobbled up somehow by india. Aint gonna happen.

I agree that calls for a common currency from sinha were childish - you dont go from one extreme one year (putting a million men on pakistani borders) to the other extreme (common currency) the following year. Trust and friendship take time to build. I will also agree that such statements COULD reflect a conscious or unconscious wish to (to put it bluntly) undo partition. But if wishes were horses...and if a million man army could overrun pakistan...then i would be concerned. We need to look at capabilities, and (as the pakistani response to the million man army proved) the capability simply is not there to overrun pakistan, regardless of what Advaniji would like to see. So I think we need to have some confidence in ourselves: regardless of the mess our governments have made of everything else, the one thing they have all done consistently and well is to ensure pakistan has an adequate defense. I dont think future governments are going to be so foolish as to drop this guard until a long time from now.

So, I am not advocating letting our nuclear guard down - I am just advocating seeking peace while maintaining this position of miltary parity. But just as important as the military reality are the economic realities that i mentioned earlier.

As for taking jibes about taking orders from america - i didnt read anything about vajpayee said that when he came to pakistan. If he did, he would have to be as dumb as these idiots from india who come to a pakistani website (chowk) and assure us year after year that they couldnt care less about pakistan or pakistanis. Heee! heeee! I dont think vajpayee is that dumb - i think he is what we badly need in both india and pakistan: a man with a mature vision for the future, not a idiot who cannot see beyond hate and grudges.

As for ignoring 50 years of history: dont ignore it. But think of the 50 years in the future - that is more imporant, since the 50 years in the future is where we will all be living. Go back far enough in history, and no two people in the world would be talking to one another.

ballukhan #95 whatever. cheers.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

``#68 by Mantolives on January 10, 2004 0:20am PT

I think the solution lies along the lines of what Yogiraj has suggested``

Monto,

Divide and rule ``WAS THE`` thing of past. I always did fall for it, emotional that I am. Aren`t we all.

Get your economy in order. Be confident with a firm foot on mother earth. Both of them if possible. We are trying at our end. I will wait whatever it takes, time wise. Then and then only we will talk of friendship.

I like smell of hing BTW (of course not directed at you. But you know it )

Yogiraj

re:#92 by dionysus
There is a saying in Tamil: ``one has to die first to know where the graveyard is``.
Give peace and trade a chance. Unless you have tried, how will you know it will not work? If it does not work, you can always come back to your age old position of spewing venom, in which i know you guys excel.
Sridhar

``i am not sure what you mean by tnt... -``

Are you pretending to be dumb??

``Patriotic pakistani``
It means that you keep on talking about the ``unfinished business of partition`` before you talk trade with India! You guys piss me off more than you think it will hurt the Advanis and Nickerwalas. Forget it ! I live in a secular country and believe it to be my country . I have nothing to do with your pure land.

``...reject the idea of pakistan - indeed the opposite is true...``

The opposite of the rejection of the idea of your pure land called PAkistan is the road to Jehadistan.

tahmed #80 ``The recent switch changes in the indian economy provides the following strategic benefit that i discussed earlier: the ``peace dividend`` includes hitching a ride on the indian bandwagon (to put it bluntly) as an emerging global service center. ``

So Mother India is going to take Pakistan and the rest under its wing and lovingly nurse its beloved brood?? I really don`t know how anyone can be so naive. We are talking about Pakistan and India here, not Canada and the USA or Belgium and France!

The first thing Vajpayee sahib on landing in Islamabad was make a jibe about taking orders from America. The next thing he did was talked of a common currency (which pissed a lot of ordinary Pakistanis off!) and then he had the audacity to talk about a union and common defence (common defence against whom??). India wants to be the Boss in South Asia not a partner - not even a senior partner but a plain old Master giving orders to its serfs. But you STILL can`t see where the Indians are coming from?? How can you ignore the Indian national neurosis which is on display every where from jay and arjun on chowk to PM Vajpayee? And how can you ignore the past half century of history?

Manto #86

I`m not saying that we should ape the Middle East and Central Asia, or in your words become `wannabees`. I am primarily talking about economic cooperation, but when people interact cultural exchange naturally follows. It`s already happening. Go to Pindi, Islamabad and Peshawar and see for yourself. You will see and meet Afghans, Farsiwaans, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Iranis, Arabs and Turkestanis in the bazaars, on the streets and in the residential areas. Some (the Afghans) are here as refugees, but many come and go or even have moved here for good for economic and educational reasons.


SAARC and South Asia?? What a joke!! We have a border with only ONE South Asian country, India which also happens to be our No 1 enemy. But we have borders with one Middle Eastern country, Iran; one East Asian country China; one Central Asian country, Afghanistan, and only a very narrow strip, the Wakhan Corridor, separates us from another, Tajikstan. More than a quarter of our population is Central Asian/Middle Eastern and more than 65% of our landmass (Baluchistan, NWFP, and the NAs). Even in Punjab and Sindh the cultures and languages have stong Islamic cultural influence. I`m not saying the Centrals Asians etc are our kith and kin but we have as much, if not more, in common with Tajiks and Afghans than we do with Bhutanese, Tamils and Keralites. We don`t need to feel apolgetic about seeking closing ties with the ME and CA.

Ref dionysus #78

[Especially if you consider that, unlike the EU, SAARC has the huge disadvantage that one nation has a bigger population than all the rest put together.]

Even in ASEAN, one nation (Indonesia) has more population than all the rest put together but it is Singapore that leads the pack.

When the EEC was being formed, there were fears about German economic domination of the EEC.

ironman #85 so what you are saying is that the indian public supports the indian government, but that the indian government is really not interested in strengthening positive links with pakistan beyond cricket matches etc. and that in pakistan the only force behind the peace initiative is the army, and that the army is doing this only to buy time to regroup and attack india. or something like that.

are you serious when you write such things?

manto #86 first, sorry for adopting the demeaning tone in my earlier post - didnt mean to sound as demeaning as it appeared in the post.

second, your main concern seems to be that indian goods will cause joblessness in pakistan. but remember that if indian producers gain a market of 140 million, pakistani producers gain a market of 1.2 billion. As an early example of a pakistani ``producer`` tapping into that market look at this turncoat (just joking) sami khan - he has generated more revenue (to put it in stark economic terms) by performing for the much bigger indian market than for the pakistani market alone.

third, as i mentioned earlier, trade is only a very small part of the economic picture. you seem to agree but say that pakistan needs more time. that is the standard infant industry argument of the 1950`s, and time has shown that that is not the case.

finally, on the cultural aspects - in pakistan, ``foreign culture`` is generally equated with western culture, not indian culture. indian culture, to the extent it impacts on pakistan, is the ``bollywood culture`` which of course is itself a ripple effect of the hollywood culture. there will always be resentment against this culture (and no doubt some of it for good reason). What is NOT resented in pakistan are the deeper aspects of western culture that pakistanis tend to ignore - the culture of rationality, scientific endeavor, and so forth. And here again, india can serve as a conduit for these undoubtedly very positive aspects of western culture.

Also, it is simply very odd to live next door as neighbors, and yet live like suspicious, hostile, strangers. This is no way to live, either for individuals or for countries.

``saarc should not be equated with trade-```

that has been the old Paki official stand (Kashmir first!). Hopefully no one cares about this ``political`` protectionism - the infant industry argument only serves as a regional-bourgeosie-ideology to keep the citizens of that country a slave to its ``infant`` industry for ever by snuffing out the competition external to their borders!!!

``why when the President of the United States slaps tariffs on steel in 2002``

Two wrongs do not make one Right. Local bourgeosie always fund protectionism and US is no exception- perfect competition is the desired state of affairs in international trade which has to be striven for. Anyway, WTO has already ruled against it.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3256197.stm

So a wrong tariff policy by the US does not justify acceptance of protectionist arguments across ALL the SECTORS by developing countries like India or Pakistan. India correctly recognizes the need to have such a negative list by all the SAARC countries of sectors requiring protection- but that is not to justify the type of protectionism that YLH is espousing. Any way who is YLH trying to protect- the neo-feudals who are also the PAkistani bourgeosie??

sorry that is S Akbar Zaidi who wrote `issues in Pakistan`s Economy`



From Dawn`s `Magazine`:

`Let`s give SAARC a decent burial` Dr. C Raja Mohan JNU New Dehli

Maybe he is a closet tnt-protectionist-socialist as well?

Ferozk,

You are dead wrong on both counts:

1) While protectionism in India was prolonged unnecessarily, it is absolutely inaccurate to suggest that it had no benefits. Infact as I see it was because of that period and its gains that India has been able to successfuly make the transition. Most economic historians agree.

2) Z A Zaidi in his book `Issues in Pakistan`s Economy` credits rather emphatically the prosperity, poverty reduction and Economic growth of the early 1980s to the illiberal economic policies of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto`s government... and it had little to do with so called US help that every lay person loves to quote.

Among historians his analysis today is held as the gospel of the truth though I may not agree with a lot of what he has to say.


-YLH

dionysus,

Thanks for the compliments :). As an Economist I do see the benefits of closer ties with oil rich nations (and afghanistan as a middle man)... however, I don`t ascribe to the cultural argument because I tend to reject both `arab/Afghan/irani wannabe-ism` and the `Indianwannabe-ism` which are the two positions currently prevalent in our so called `cultural discourse`.

Ballu Khan,

Why do you assume that TNT will be a gali to me? And what does ideology (whatever that means) have to do with the logic I have given with respect to India`s Economy and our inability to compete?

Instead of making random emotional statements with no apparent purpose ... why don`t you give a counter to my post 51?




tahmed,

I am sad that you have resorted to the usual insulting tone that you love to take.


Nevertheless as far as comparitive advantage is concerned, I believe I was the first one to mention it in my post addressed to arjunm 51... so I am hardly the one ignoring these arguments without reason.

Instead of trying to teach me elementary economics why don`t you show me where does this comparitve advantage lie? And whether a nation of 1 billion people with a growing economy and 300 million strong middle class and 3.1 million annual college graduates coming into the work force every year can afford to cede its absolute advantage in the name of comparitive advantage?

This is the problem with the arguments that you and ferozk seem to be putting up... it is too damn thereotical, but what is really the ground situation is totally lost on you. In any event it betrays a sort of indifference to the condition of the common Pakistani who sadly average chowkie is so confused about that some call him zaid bakar and others call him abdul. In any event I would like the proponents of `free trade` to please inform me how they plan on reabsorbing the millions of the so called `zaids` `bakars` and `abduls` who would be unemployed because of the erosion of our Industrial base? Not to mention the threat to our services sector?

I am all for free trade but the time for us has not come yet. As yogiraj said limited protectionism is key... and nothing is irrevocable ... Perhaps if the great powers were to take a lead instead of being hypocrites about it.

As for the cultural argument that `Indian cultural influence` will marginalize extremism... this is wrong. It encourages reaction, fuels extremism, and marginalizes local moderates and indigenous liberals. For many in this country that creates a perpetual danger for Islam and it simply means that all things liberal are indian which is neither accurate nor productive for the obvious reasons.

-YLH

#77 by tahmed32,

``do you mean that the indian government is conducting the peace initiative without broad support from the indian public?``

Tahmed, we the indian public have nothing `extra` to give you the pakistanis...other than regular civil behavior that we give to all. So what peace initiatives are we talking about. We have `airlinks` and `cricket macthes` with everyone else. Nothing `extra` there.

All the `real` peace initiatives are from your side...from your army that is...not you...the hapless pakistani public. The main initiative being that they will stop their mischief in our kashmir.

Now, is it a `change of mind` that has caused this miraculous initiative? The economic situation perhaps...as some chowkies imagine?

No, to both.

Your army is buying time to tackle a bad situation. Aleph saab has correctly pointed that out. Fix other fronts first, then back to kashmir. kashmir is always there. India is not creating trouble in pok. So there`s no immediate worry on this front. You can always get back to kashmir later.

ballukhan #83 i am not sure what you mean by tnt - if it means being a patriotic pakistani, rest assured that ylh is as much a patriotic pakistani as i am. When i talk about peace in south asia, or free trade, and so forth, that does not imply by any means that i reject the idea of pakistan - indeed the opposite is true. i say this because i believe it is in pakistan`s interest to have a peaceful and progressive south asia - as it is in the interests of all other countries in south asia.

#79 by tahmed32 on January 10, 2004 10:04am PT
I guess you are just confused and just clean bowled your own government`s wicket!! ha! ha!

Miyan! I can spot a TNT hiding behind their pretty sounding discourse miles away- You got it wrong- I pointed out to the fact that YLH remains a closet TNT only then can Kashmir be considered as the unfinished ``dirty`` business of partition.

AlephNull #65
Ambrose Bierce
PEACE, n.
In international affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of fighting.

``There can be no friendship between India and Pakistan because `friendship` is between equals...``

Such pearls of wisdom. This guy is so retarded he does not deserve the nick Gujju Bania coz intellectually he can match up to neither.

Friendhsip between 2 nations is not like 2 countries going to the cinema together or hanging out at each other`s house. It is having a normal relationship with commercial and social links. US and Mexico are friendly nations, so are India and Vietnam etc.

dionysus: what i am saying is that the pakistani economy should be a free market economy, encouraging outside investors and encouraging foreign competition to domestic producers. I see the lowering of trade barriers within south asia (via SAFTA) as a step in that direction. That is the reason i have always supported this idea.

The recent switch changes in the indian economy provides the following strategic benefit that i discussed earlier: the ``peace dividend`` includes hitching a ride on the indian bandwagon (to put it bluntly) as an emerging global service center. This lowering of tensions works to the advantage of both india and pakistan as i said: investors like to go to regions that are peaceful, not ones where you have nuclear armed neighbors spitting at one another.

There is no denying that all this will come with significant indian cultural influence as well. So be it. (personally, i welcome it as a way to balance out the religious extremists).

Manto is the only one showing wisdom and foresight among this sorry bunch of puffed-up clowns. SAARC & SAFTA are just covers for Indian hegemony. And even the EU is now beginning to look shaky. If some of the most advanced nations in the world are struggling to put together such an alliance what makes you jokers think `South Asia` can succeed? Especially if you consider that, unlike the EU, SAARC has the huge disadvantage that one nation has a bigger population than all the rest put together.

Manto is spot on, Pakistan has to go it alone and not seek solace in fake and phoney Unions. But it must seek closer ties with Central Asia and the Middle East. This is the way forward for Pakistan both culturally and economically. Our future lies with Iran, Afghanistan and Uzbekistan, not the Maldives and Bhutan.

ballukhan: I believe you just summarized the position that pakistani governments have taken for 50 years (i.e. kashmir is the core issue and cannot be pushed under the rug while discussing economic issues)!! I guess you are just confused and just clean bowled your own government`s wicket!! ha! ha!

PS: Of course both governments have finally gotten some sense in their heads and softened their historically rigid stands on this point.

ironman #74 So do you mean that the indian government is conducting the peace initiative without broad support from the indian public?