Pakistan’s Territorial Integrity: Lessons from American Democracy

mohsin hamid of the moth smoke fame wrote in time about his visit to gwader. his comments on people causing the law and order problems are particularly interesting:

:...Trade has brought them increased prosperity and access to goods they could not previously afford. That may not be the paradise I had in mind, the sanitized and glamorous paradise of a world-class tourist resort. But it is certainly a kind of paradise nonetheless, something for which most of Asia`s billions pray every day.

...I ask him what he thinks of the plans for Gwadar`s future. ``We are very happy,`` he tells me. ``Here there has been no development for so long. We don`t even have a hospital. Pakistan had forgotten about us. But now things are changing.``

I remember walking along the beach a few days earlier and seeing the shattered glass that marked the site of the recent car bombing. I ask Babu why, if the people of Gwadar are so happy about the project, someone targeted the Chinese. ``It was not one of us,`` he says. ``But outsiders sometimes come. Strange people from Afghanistan and Peshawar and Islamabad. They do not come for business. We do not know why they are here. But I know that we did not do this thing to the Chinese.``

He invites me to his home for lunch, and I eat with the men of his family. I ask them about reports I have read that tribal leaders in Baluchistan are opposed to the development of Gwadar, because they fear it will only benefit non-Baluch outsiders. They admit that this is true for some of the inland Baluch tribes, but not for the people of Gwadar itself. That said, they also tell me that they are disappointed that locals have so far been given few jobs. ``We want other Pakistanis to come here and invest,`` Babu says. ``But we should not be excluded. It will not be fair to us if outsiders buy all our land and leave us without work.``

also these bla fuc***s killed three chinese engineers much in the same manner as jehadis killed daniel pearl. yet the daily times crowd who want us to do matum everytime pearl`s name comes up want us to give freedom of pak to killers of people who are our best friend. really makes my blood boil::

``... car bomb has killed three Chinese engineers in Gwadar. The Pakistanis in the lounge are expressing their gratitude for the work the Chinese are doing and for their decision to persevere despite the attack. ``Pakistan, China, good friends,`` a middle-aged Chinese man says to an elderly Pakistani, who looks pleased to hear it. I am pleased, too. Pakistan`s friends are few and far between these days. Much of the world seems to look on our country with a mixture of suspicion and fear. But these Chinese engineers appear calm, professional and not in the least resentful or hostile.``

manto, thats your opinion. i dont agree with it. and it seems to me that other pakistanis are not enamoured of the constitution either. otherwise they would have done something to save it. as things stand now, 1973 constitution in its original form will not see the light of day.

So the constitution which is Pakistan`s only real chance at unity is ``dumbass``

Wonderful logic.

link to the imf report:

http://imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2005/cr05408.pdf

and as a bonus, a profile of an another military man who was smart enough not to believe in the supremacy of a dum-ass constitution:

http://www.time.com/time/asia/asia/magazine/1999/990823/park1.html

At the end of a long silence, I asked Park if he ever compared himself to Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of modern Turkey. The President shifted his heavy gaze to the questioner, contemplating him as a rattlesnake might look upon a mouse. After a pause, he replied, ``I do not know much about Kemal Pasha, but I would like to do for Korea what he did for Turkey--make it economically strong and militarily secure.``

_ _ _ As it turned out, he was just the man Korea needed. In 1961, per-capita income in South Korea was less than $100 a year. North Korea, with mineral resources and an industrial base, was regarded as the stronger power on the peninsula.

_ _ _Recognizing the need for large infusions of foreign capital, Park took the vital but highly unpopular step of normalizing diplomatic relations with Japan. This sparked campus demonstrations in Seoul in 1964, and Park responded by imposing martial law until quiet was restored. Normalization with Japan was achieved in 1965, bringing with it $800 million in economic aid.

_ _ _The 1972 yushin (revitalizing reforms) system was a swing back to authoritarianism. Many political leaders were arbitrarily arrested, and the security apparatus entered its most draconian period, putting down dissent and becoming infamous for its use of torture. (Kim Dae Jung escaped arrest only because he was out of the country.) Park was fortifying his political base in preparation for an attempt to establish a dialogue with North Korea.

_ _ _South Korea is full of monuments to Park Chung Hee, from the giant steel mills, shipyards and factories he built, to the superhighway system he launched. All are reminders of the man who, more than any other, made South Korea what it is today in economic terms.

rozaiba man, here is a word of advice: if you want to avoid looking like a fool, dont posting on chowk while high on charas. if 90`s was a decade of limited democracy, please explain how nawaz sharif managed to fire the following leading lights of the establishment?

i. the chief of army
ii. the president of pakistan
iii. the head of supreme court

also can you point to the source which leads you to assert that pak`s growth has been financed by loans from uncle sam? according to the following imf report (pg 92), pak`s foreign currency (fcy) debt has been stable since mush came to power. also fyi, pak`s fcy debt in the decade of democracy doubled from around us$20bn to us$40bn before default under ns. your statement therefore that pak did not have excess to external funding is false as well. also your comparison of nyse and pak is nonsensical and does not merit a response.

as for surviving without democracy, here is a list of countries that did fine without it:

chile, china, korea, taiwan, thailand, spain, portugal, turkey

i dont need to say any more on democracy cause furqh saaf zahir hai

re:#56 by xosmanx
(No, Sir, I diasgree. We did not have a referendum in India before partition but a majority of people wanted Independence.)
Again, that is just a speculation. Only a referendum would have showed if majority muslims in India had wanted independence. Do u have any muslims in Pak who migrated from the South in large numbers? Basically, the muslim elite of North India decided on the issue of Pakistan and conveniently moved to that country to preserve the status quo viz feudal system, other previleges. No wonder Sindhis, Baluchis, even people of NWFP are not happy, with complete Punjabi domination hurting their interests.
Quoting GBS does not impress anyone. This quote was perhaps speciall meant for Pakis, most of who live in the world of their own making.
Sridhar

re:#59 by faisaluno
Did not Pakis vote for Nawaz Sharief with an overwhelming 2/3rds majority? was that voting rigged too, just like your dictator`s referendum?
Why do u complain after electing a leader with such a large majority? If he did something wrong, the correct way is to throw him out of office in the next election. Surely, this is no reason for Army coup!
Sridhar

re: #56 by xosmanx
(Ask ordinary Baluchs (not people on the payroll of those warlords) and they will tell you what the situation is.)
It depends on who u ask. If u ask the Baluchis being killed by your Army, they will tell u that they want out. If u ask Baluchis who will ultimately benefit by Army action, they would tell u it is good for the country. Who is in the majority? The surest way is by a referendum conducted by an international agency.
In Kashmir, there is a state govt elected through ballot. Now, u can go on debating whether the elections were free or not till the cows come home (many International agencies have vouched for its fairness) but the fact is there is a state govt in place with a Kashmiri CM as the head. There are many disgruntled Kashmiris in the valley who want either independence or join Pak (latter being a minority). So, even in the valley(with a clear muslim majority), the house is divided.
In the rest of J and K, muslims are in a minority. Ladakh has a buddhist majority and will never vote in favor of Pakistan. Jammu has a hindu majority population.
The reason why India refuses a referendum is the same reason why Pakistan will refuse a referendum in Balochistan viz India considers J and K to be an integral part of India. Constitution of India says so implicitly but gives that state a special place with special provisions. To change that, rest of India must agree. This will never happen.
Pak is on shakier grounds. Balochistan is also claimed by Iran. Tomorrow, Balochis may want to secede and join Iran or become independent. You cannot blame India for supporting their cause as Pak has never been good to India and has exploited sentiments of Kashmiris to the hilt for its own personal agenda.
A word about Pak occupied Kashmir. It is now a haven for terrorists, as recent earthquake clearly revealed.
AlQaida thrives in POK
The atmosphere is viciated by terrorists. If Pak sincerely believes that terrorism is not coming from its soil, it should have not problems shutting down a number of
Terrorist camps all across Pakistan as the above link will show (go to the bottom of the link for a list of terrorist camps).
Pak does not have a democracy. Its Army, that rules the nation, was once supporting AlQaida but took an about-turn in its policy after US threat. It is unable to completely dismantle terror apparatus. On top of all this, it was allowing Abdul xerox khan, the nuclear scientist, to continue with his nuclear proliferation.
How many nations in the world would have faith in your ruler do you think?
When Paki ruler says he wants justice for Kashmiris, only Pakis believe it. Nobody else does.
Sridhar

Another attempt at the Fauji-lovers to run away from the debate by posting their wild economic growth numbers.

The 90’s decade cannot be touted as a failure of democracy. It is the failure of ‘limited democracy’ and the only conclusion to draw is the need to enforce complete democracy. That Nawaz Sharif was forcing the Islamic amendment through reflects the institutional malaise that was prevalent in the absence of any institutional existence – a condition that was there due to an unwilling establishment playing with backdoor conspiracies and ensuring no system take root.

In any case, if Nawaz Sharif ATTEMPTING to ram through an Islamic Amendment can be used as a reason to justify the rejection of limited democracy, then what would you say of Musharaf’s raping the ENTIRE constitution? Of course logic is probably not the forte of fauji-loving freaks :D

But I would go so far to say that even if NS had managed to install that amendment, there was STILL more hope for democracy in Pakistan than there is today. A democratic government has the power to give direction – toward one religion or toward no religion. I accept that since I believe in the supremacy of the constitution.

As for the 6% Economists…well, when we have America’s blessing, we do great. That is the golden rule. Yeh sab tumhara karam hai America! Why do you commit shirk by praising someone else for the ‘great’ growth rates? :D

In the mid-late 90’s the NYSE (New York Stock Exchange for the economics challenged Fauji Lovers) was doing phenomenally well. If the average mutual fund was growing at 30% per year and say Vanguard’s comparable fund was only growing at 15% (which still beats the historical annual averages) the Fund Manager of Vanguard would be fired.

With all the influx of American $$ and American blessings and American investment in the post-911 era, Pakistan should be growing with double the current rate!

That’s the problem with Fauji-lovers. You guys have low standards. In a competitive world, you’d be fired.

Anyhow, even a double digit growth rate is no substitute for an already existing constitution.

#60: M. Asadi:

I am neither softening my stance on anything hor hardening it. I am merely restating that the article says. You may read more (or less) into my article than what It actually means depending upon the color of your glasses but thats a bias that everyone of us brings to the table. My article is not about American democracy. Neither is it an exhaustive and comprehensive review of American constitutional history. At the very most, it begins in 1776 and ends in 1787. One would hardly call it a review of America`s democratic history--its successes or failues. All I am attempting to do here is to look at a particular instance in time in the US Constitution making and draw parallels with problems that we face today. I believe learning from history helps. You may disagree with my comparison. But to take one sentence out of my article (that too a qualified one) and, on the basis of that, reject the entire argument is, I believe, unfair to the argument that I think stands.

Again, I am too humble a student of history, politics, and policy to claim that I am trying to solve a mammoth problem in the space of a single article. But I hope I am making a contribution to the debate.

Athar Osama: Many thanks for your article, but it helps us little in resolving the issue. What you are saying is what every single Pakistani knows. What we should or should not do is apparent to everyone. What we don`t know is how to go about it resolving the situation. Looking at the Civil war confers no advantage. If the purpose was to prove that we have to resolve the issues otherwise we`d be in trouble, it`s an unnecessar waste of effort. Pakistanis remember the East Pakistan conflict, and know the implications too well even without a dose of history.

If you browse thourgh any newspaper today (and I`m sure you do), the same arguments are repeated everywhere. While the sentiment at work is certainly commendable, these suggestions might not take us anywhere. Surely, they inform the public - but I doubt whether our largely illiterate public is going to be that open to argument at this stage.

#58, the author, I am glad to note that you are NOW softening in your blind support for the American system. In the article, you are totally worshipping it when you state

Quote <<< The American democratic experiment, despite all its short-comings--including a civil war after 70-odd years of declaring nationhood--represents one of the most happy if not the perfect union of several states in modern history, if not all human history. It is by far the one and only union of a continental scale that has strengthened with the passage of time while all others ( e.g. the Roman or Islamic empires) have dwindled and evaporated in thin air. >>>

We do not need emulation of the American system of tyranny, or articles that tell us we are hundreds of years ``behind`` America. The facts are, that given the total advantage America faces in the world scene and its share of global wealth, it has millions that live in poverty and a mass soceity that has, in a large percentage absolutely no share of that wealth.

and here is what would have happened under the constitutional government of nawaz had he been allowed to continue. source is manto`s own newspaper:

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_3-5-2002_pg3_6

Writing in daily ‘Pakistan’ (28 April 2002) columnist Ataur Rehman referred to an interview given by General Musharraf to a Turkish publication in November 1999 in which he had criticised Nawaz Sharif’s effort to pass the 15th Amendment whereby Nawaz Sharif could have enforced laws of the Shariah ‘in the practical sense’.

...The 15th Amendment would have empowered Nawaz Sharif to issue edicts that could not be challenged in the court of law. This was an Abbaji sort of legislation that the PML parliamentary party did not like but the lackeys of Nawaz Sharif passed in the National Assembly. No government can be allowed this kind of ‘law-making on its feet’ even under Islam.

Most of the interacts on this article are not focusing on the key argument made in this article. As I see it, the gist of the comments made thus far can be summarized in two arguments.

1. The writers has been ``smoking`` something, is too americanized, or must be day-dreaming to endorse American democracy. The American democracy has serious defects and hence is not a model to be followed.

To this argument, I would like to humbly state that no-where in the article do I make a claim that America`s is a perfect democracy only that it has led to gradually improving inter-state relationships. I acknowledge its failings in the past (the civil war) and today (election of GW!). The only claim that the article makes is that the ratification debates at America`s founding are similar to the situation that Pakistani provinces faces today and hence it is useful to learn from some of the arguments made then (thirteen country solution vs. one United States AND four separate states vs. one Pakistan with four provinces). The entire thesis of the article is that Pakistani provincial nationalists who argue that their problems would be solved if Pakistan were to be broken up in four separate states can probably learn something from history. The history of America`s founding suggests that it might not be the case. Of course, history is devoid of counter-factuals so we don`t know what would have happend had Americans chosen 13 countries instead of one but we do know what did happen when they chose to create one United States. Most of the commentors are assuming that the article says much more (e.g. endorsement of American democracy) than it actually does.

2. The writer is making a fallacious comparison between Pakistan and America because America is a democracy and Pakistan is not.

To this argument, my humble suggestion would be, that there is always a first step. True, Pakistan is not a democracy but that doesn`t mean that interprovincial relations cannot be managed without give-and-take between provinces, and provinces and the center. While struggle for establishing a well-functioning (not ``managed``) democracy is every citizen`s obligation, it doesn`t mean that all functions of national governance would remain suspended until democracy returns to Pakistan. The provinces and center, the governor(s) and the governed do exist at all times and must function to the best of their ability even under the current regime. We can`t wait for the resumption of democracy to try to solve the problems between the provinces or between provinces and the center and let the country disintegrate. Like in the past, the current military government would run out of its steam and then democracy would once again come to Pakistan. Would the Pakistani state, in its current shape and form, last to see that day? I think it must and it will.

I would appreciate if the discussion focusses on how to make the best of the current situation. I am convinced, as of now, that it is in nobody`s interest to let Pakistan disintegrate, not Pakistan`s and not India`s. We must engage positively with this debate in that spirit. However, if the purpose is to let Pakistan disintegrate or even ``facilitate`` that process, then its a totally different ballgame. For those wishing or seeking to do that, my article has nothing to say.

Sincerely,
Athar Osama

here is pkr under mush:



and here is pkr under bb/ns.



as the graphs indicate, financial market participants clearly did not think too much of development under ns. and i am not even going to post the graph of the stock market.
lets also see what imf has to say about growth over the last 4-5 years

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2005/wp05139.pdf

``Pakistan achieved a remarkable turnaround during 2000–04, marked by a sharp adjustment in macroeconomic balances toward external sustainability and a resumption, followed by acceleration, in economic growth. The adjustment was mainly driven by a rise in private savings, though fiscal consolidation helped as well. Both favorable external factors, post-September 11, and greater domestic confidence, resulted in a significant increase in private remittances from abroad and in foreign currency deposits of residents. Structural reforms in the banking and corporate sectors contributed to rebuilding domestic confidence as well as to enhancing productivity and profitability. These factors combined to increase the private savings rate and strengthen the incentives to invest.``

as for political stability under bb/ns, i will let amnesty international have a say on that.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA330011996?open&of=ENG-PAK

as for how much each region contributes to the national khazana, that information can be found on the following link:

http://www.cbr.gov.pk/

so clearly then we have a couple of people here who dont have a clue about the topic at hand.

Sridhar: `` How do u know what the Balochis want? You can know that only if u have a referendum. The problem seems very deep rooted. Balochistan may prove to be Pak`s Vietnam.``


No, Sir, I diasgree. We did not have a referendum in India before partition but a majority of people wanted Independence. So having a referendum is not the only way. It`s a political solution. We kniow that Kashmiris for instance will benefit from a referendum because they would like a a state of their own or join either countries on their own accord. Now, how does one know this? By first holding a plebscite? No, by first opening your eyes and your mind. Then, you hold a plebscite to confirm the hypothesis. This is part of the political progress - you can`t tackle it through `how do you know for sure` style empty arguments. Ask ordinary Baluchs (not people on the payroll of those warlords) and they will tell you what the situation is.

I also think talking about who is better in terms of ethical or moral values is a useless line of controversy. We all know the kind of spiritual and moral values everyone else has.

It reminds one of what Bernard Shaw said in Man and Superman:

``Your friends are all the dullest dogs I know. They are not beautiful: they are only decorated. They are not clean: they are only shaved and starched. They are not dignified: they are only fashionably dressed. They are not educated: they are only college passmen. They are not religious: they are only pewrenters. They are not moral: they are only conventional. They are not virtuous: they are only cowardly. They are not even vicious: they are only ``frail.`` They are not artistic: they are only lascivious. They are not prosperous: they are only rich. They are not loyal, they are only servile; not dutiful, only sheepish; not public spirited, only patriotic; not courageous, only quarrelsome; not determined, only obstinate; not masterful, only domineering; not self-controlled, only obtuse; not self-respecting, only vain; not kind, only sentimental; not social, only gregarious; not considerate, only polite; not intelligent, only opinionated; not progressive, only factious; not imaginative, only superstitious; not just, only vindictive; not generous, only propitiatory; not disciplined, only cowed; and not truthful at all: liars every one of them, to the very backbone of their souls.``