Pakistan Today

re:#55 by tahmed32
Thanks for your input.
Sridhar

rsridhar #54 I would agree with you here. India indeed has a lot to be proud of, and this is indirectly something very positive for Pakistan as well (leaving aside the bloody minded government attitudes we have on both sides). Given that it is one-sixth of humanity, India`s success in democracy, and over the past decade in economics, are indeed a positive development for not just India but the entire planet.

Population growth rates in Pakistan remain high, but are also beginning to come down - about a decade ago, the growth rate was 3.1 % in Pakistan and the lowering of the rate to 2.4% since then is surely good news. I dont consider population growth rate to be the achievement of any government, incidentally - this is a natural result of urbanization. And urbanization is taking place in virtually every country of the world today due to a broad range of factors that result from global changes. Family planning measures no doubt help, but are only part of the reason.

I do think that Stuka, even though I disagree with him here, is able to consider political and economic issues without feeling the need to prove anything about India or Pakistan. This ability is lacking to an almost appalling degree among many posters on chowk, I think.

re:#53 by stuka
``What exactly is India`s achievement? Producing babies? That`s it right?``

Well, in the matter of producing babies, Pakis are outdoing Indians. If you are well informed (which you probably are not), Pakistan has the highest growth rate (population) in the region at 2.4%. India`s at 1.8% is lower and has been so for many years now.
Funny, you ask what has been India`s achievements. Only recently, i was watching the debate (in the question hour BBC) about what form of government Iraq should have and if there should be a representative govt or a one-man one vote policy. The thought that flashed across my mind was: India already has a people`s democracy for 50 years now. How fortunate Indians are!
Countries around India are trying desperately (with foreign help) to have a democratic set up installed. But in India`s case, such a system came in place due to the foresight of India`s founding fathers. You only have to look at Pak`s experience with democracy to see what i am talking about.

But, you do not have to believe me. Listen to what Shahid Javed Burki (Pakistani economist) has to say: http://www.dawn.com/2001/09/18/op.htm

1. ``Politically under-developed societies have not moved towards full-fledged democracy along a straight path. They have normally encountered pitfalls along the way. If the institutions that were created at the very start were strong, any interruption in the move towards the ultimate goal was automatically corrected. A good example of this is from India when Mrs. Indira Gandhi`s proclamation of emergency proved to be short-lived. The political system forced her to face the electorate and she was thrown out of office, the emergency was revoked and the country was put back on the democratic course.

2. ``....My reading of Pakistan`s stunted political development reaches a different set of conclusions. I believe that the numerous difficulties Pakistan encountered on the way towards political progress resulted from the capture of the state by a small group of powerful economic interests...``.
You say:
`` India has been a ``developing`` country and an ``emerging`` market for the past 50 years.``

Wrong. India was not an emerging economy for much of the first 4 decades and became one after the dose of liberalisation in the early 90s. Since then, India has been growing at 5-6% while Pak has been growing at half the rate. In 2002, India`s percapita income nudged ahead of Pak`s, after lagging behind it since 1947.
Again, you do not have to believe me. Listen to what Burki has to say in the matter: http://www.dawn.com/2002/05/14/op.htm#3

1. ``India had the highest rate of economic growth in the nineties - it averaged 6 per cent a year, twice as high as the rate of increase in the first forty years after independence. Raj Krishna, the late Indian economist, once dubbed this anaemic rate of increase in GDP the ``Hindu rate of growth``. But as a result of the quickened rate of growth achieved after India began the process of reform, the country`s economy was 80 per cent larger in 2000 compared to its size in 1990. But India was not the only country in South Asia to outperform Pakistan. Sri Lanka, in spite of the continuing civil war in the country, was the second best performing economy in South Asia. Its GDP increased at the annual rate of 5.3 per cent.``

2. ``Between 1990 and 2000, the country`s population increased from 107 million to 138 million, an addition of 31 million people. Continuing rapid growth in population ate into the little growth in GDP that did take place. Per capita income increased by an insignificant 1.2 per cent a year. On the other hand, the Indian income per head of population increased by an impressive 4.2 per cent a year. This was three and a half times the Pakistani average. In other words, an average Indian was fifty per cent more prosperous in 2000 compared to his (or her) situation in 1990. An average Pakistani, on the other hand, was only 13 per cent better off at the end of the decade compared to its beginning.``

So, clearly, while Pakistan was surging ahead in development until the 80s, India has stolen a march over Pak in the 90s. This happened after economic liberalisation of the Narasimha Rao era.
You say:
``Indians are too obsessed with history, too intellectual and too pedantic to ever get out of the rut they have been in for the past hundreds of years.``

Actually, Indians have been in the rut for the simple reason that they were ruled by a foreign power and are a free nation in the last 50 years or so. India`s progress can be gauged from the fact that the country today makes its own Airplanes, sends satellites into space made indegenously and is talking about a lunar mission. Considering 50 years is a short time in the history of any nation (US has been free for over 200 years), this is a great leap indeed.

I however, agree with you that Indians need a large dose of self-confidence and self-respect. Read the following article by Adam Osborne to know what i mean: http://www.hvk.org/hvk/articles/0303/109.html.
Indians reading Chowk must archive the above article written by Adam Osborne, who pioneered the first portable PC and became a millionaire in the early 80s only to become bankrupt much later as technology and events overtook him. To people who know who Ramana Maharishi is (a great modern day sage who preched Advaita), it would interest them to know that Adam Osborne was the son of Arthur Osborne, a disciple of the sage. You may read more about Adam Osborne in the url:
http://www.theworkcircuit.com/news/OEG20030325S0002

Sridhar

RSridhar:

``The world simply cannot ignore a democratic nation of 1 billion people, a thriving emerging market and a major power in South Asia. ``

What exactly is India`s achievement? Producing babies? That`s it right?

India has been a ``developing`` country and an ``emerging`` market for the past 50 years. Indians are too obsessed with history, too intellectual and too pedantic to ever get out of the rut they have been in for the past hundreds of years. Till the Indians achieve self respect, they should not expect others to respect them.


Besides, US may want a more balanced representation, with France turning hostile. Of late, US and India have been speaking in a similar voice.

#50 by HisExcellency on April 24, 2003 11:33am PT

[Here is a primer on Politics 101: Watch out for what Bush, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Powell, Richard Perle, Tenet, Ari Fleischer and Condy Rice say about Kashmir. Also watch out for statements made by Musharraf, Kasuri , Jamali and the Foreign Secretary himself.]

Tenet did you say? Here`s an excerpt from his recent testimony to the senate:

``On the Pakistan-India border, the underlying cause of tension is unchanged, even though India`s recent military redeployment away from the border reduced the danger of imminent war. The cycles of tension between Indian and Pakistan are growing shorter. Pakistan continues to support groups that resist India`s presence in Kashmir in an effort to bring India to the negotiating table. Indian frustration with continued terrorist attacks—most of which it attributes to Pakistan—causes New Delhi to reject any suggestion that it resume a dialogue with Islamabad.``

http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/dci_speech_02112003.html

re:#42 by stuka
When the Security council does expand, India will be a permanent member, whether you like it or not. This has nothing to do with ``bloody brahmin`` delusion, as you put it. The world simply cannot ignore a democratic nation of 1 billion people, a thriving emerging market and a major power in South Asia.
Besides, US may want a more balanced representation, with France turning hostile. Of late, US and India have been speaking in a similar voice.
My own take on this is: it does not matter. US is the world superpower. Which member is in Security council does not matter, as we saw recently during the Iraq war.
Sridhar

re: #48 sri

[As long as chechen cockroach supporting jihadi pinheads roam around freely in pakiland, russia is going to despise pakistan.]

Name one such cockroach and you will win a free shipment of credibility signed by HisExcellency :))

re: arjun_m

[These aren`t my words. They are the words of the director of the Pakistan institute for strategic studies. ]

Read my post again. I am not attributing these words to you.. I am simply exercising my democratic right to ridicule your arguments that are based on selective opinions of political nonentities in Pakistan, Afghanistan, US and India. Base your arguments on objective facts, credible news reports or statements made by the key players in each country.

Here is a primer on Politics 101: Watch out for what Bush, Rumsfield, Wolfowitz, Powell, Richard Perle, Tenet, Ari Fleischer and Condy Rice say about Kashmir. Also watch out for statements made by Musharraf, Kasuri , Jamali and the Foreign Secretary himself. These are the only people who have been designated by Pakistan`s Foreign Office as their official spokesmen. Any statement made by Chaudhry Shujaat or Shaikh Rashid are pure masala, but not the official position of Pakistan.

Statements made by nonentities like Khalilzad, et al are personal views.. not the views of any administration, agency or organization. Like it or not, personal views amount to nothing in the framing of public policy in 21st century politics.

#44 yourexcellency,

Unfortunately for pakistan, russian foreign interests are very much based on heart rather than anything else. As long as chechen cockroach supporting jihadi pinheads roam around freely in pakiland, russia is going to despise pakistan.

Too much doom and gloom here.

Let us stress solutions and alternatives.

Complaints alone will not do.


Ras

ArjunM

They are the words of the director of the Pakistan institute for strategic studies. ....

who is obviously a member of the Hindu Monkey Brigade, the Bajrang Dal.

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

Dost Mittar:

I had read this and enjoyed it ealier. You and old time Chowkies may remember the running feud I had with Ali_1 at one time and that was initiated because he said something about Khatris, which obviously hit close to home.

The only thing I do not understand is his politics, because he gave gaalis to YLH, but also gave gaalis to the Maulvis, and on occaision the Faujis, with Indians and Hindus being obvious targets.

So, what is he for?

NadeemKr:

``If India thinks that it can become a super power and a member of SC, it is as mistaken as Pakistan is when she claims to be invincible. ``

Hain?? When did I say this? The world will do itself a great disservice if it allows India to be part of the UN. Bloody Brahmins enjoy unnecessary delusions of intellectual supremcay and they will bore the rest of the world.

I was making a very narrow point. The BJP bogey is recent. The issues between India and Pakistan are much more basic and have to do with national priorities. The entrenched interests are bureaucratic in India and military in Pakistan.

re: arjun_m

[It seems as if anyone representing the US government feels free to threaten Pakistan with hostile rhetoric - and for some strange reason Pakistan`s response to such tirades remains muted. ]

Tirdes! Hahaha.. What tirades?? The only serious criticism during the last 18 months came in February 2003 when Nancy Powell criticized Musharraf for infiltration. Pakistan immediately snubbed her. Ever since, the State Department has toned down its criticism. Now State Department is urging India to talk to Pakistan DESPITE the infiltration.

[US government official Zalmay Khalilzad...had the gall to ``warn`` Pakistan]

You certainly have a good sense of humor in discussing the utterances of His Honorable, the Distinguished Zalmay Khalilzad. I am disappointed that despite your anti-Pakistan spit fest, you could only manage to dig up a statement from a political nonentity such as Khalilzad. You are not living up to the expectations of your Hindu Monkey Brigade (Bajrang Dal) compatriots.. tsk tsk.

Infiltration and Kashmir are India`s problems alone. America doesn`t give a rat`s behind if India ends up losing 10 security personnel every week. That is exactly why you don`t hear the real power players in Washington (Bush, Rumsfield, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Powell, Condoleeza Rice, Tenet) scathingly criticizing Pakistan.

US badly needs friends among the Muslim world. For the same reason, it is trying to forge stronger ties (read: more influence) in Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Qatar and Indonesia. Part of this strategy is to support pro-US regimes by pumping economic assistance. Both the Republican and Democratic Party have recently decided to recruit for allies among the Pakistani parliamentarians. To effect this policy, both parties have already set up offices in Pakistan. Moreover, Pakistani parliamentarians will attend seminars on the working of democracy. Selected parliamentarians will work as interns with U.S. legislators. These are the signs of a long-term strategic relationship, not a strained one.

American foreign policy believes in permanent interests, not permanent friendships or hostilities. Today`s friends can become tomorrow`s enemies if they oppose American interests.

Pakistan is quite aware of the unreliability of American friendship. The Pakistan-China relationship counterbalances Pakistan-US relations. Now, Musharraf is trying to establish closer ties with Russia. The only way to extract maximum benefits in a multipolar world, is by not tilting toward any side permanently. This is the best way of ensuring that Pakistan`s national interests (as defined by Pakistanis) are met. I believe Pakistan`s politicians understand this quite well.