Pakistan’s Territorial Integrity: Lessons from American Democracy

bbabu...

The attempt was to force Pakistan to ``see its folly`` and return back to the fold.... it won`t ever happen.

The 55 crores of rupees issue is also related to this... or are you telling me that the constant ahsan-jatana of Gandhi`s ultimate sacrifice for Pakistan is just a drama?

#47, you write <<< Suicide rates may be higher. American seniors live longer due to better medical treatment for heart disease, diabetes, blood pressure, cancer etc. They live happier inspite of divorces, living away from kids etc. People live routinely in the 80s and 90s. It is very easy to be lonely when all the people around you start dying. >>>

You are wrong. The discussion was comparative, young vs old. Now if you control for class when comparing Pakistani/Indian vs American seniors, the Pakistanis would win hands down simply because in the US status is assigned based upon position in the economic institution while in more traditional societies it is assigned based upon other criteria. As a result, suicide rates for white males- those that benefit MOST from the US system peak at old ages, while those for Black males- those that are exculded from the system peak at YOUNG ages.

Now, mortality rates for people making less than 9K a year in the US (and there are millions of them) are three times that for those making 25K or more- similar is the prevalence of some of the diseases you mention. And what about the over 46million that have zero health insurance? You have to disaggregate and control for comparisons to be meaningful.

#41, you write <<< and, on side note:-
When I say Pakistan is three centuries behind America, I mean not only progress, but, also Paki society is much too, backwards , when it comes to be civil and to be moral. >>>


Nonsense again, how come the “land of the free” has the biggest prison population in the world and the highest rate of prisoners per capita of all countries ? Please explain how that translates into ``civil and moral`` and the over 1 million rapes of women each year and the fact that 4 to 5 million women are battered blue and black every year in the US.

I think we should run as far away from this ``progress`` as possible, three hundred years is too narrow a gap, I want further distance between myself and such ``progress``.

Two of the old subcontinental sayings worth merit attention in the context of Pakistan :-

1. Boya Beej Babool ka tau Aam kehan sey Hoye, and,
2. Ek Galti ,sau galtiyan karvati hai.

The creation of Pakistan itself was on faulty lines. It was based on the pretext that the Religion is a great unifier. Yes, it is.. but only against an another religion. You can unite Hindus against Muslims, Muslims against Jews, Jews against Christians and Christians against any other. But you cannot unite Hindus, Muslims, Jews and Chrisitians on their own. All of them,amongst themselves, will be as divided as separate religions.

The greatest natural unifier of the human beings is the Land. The second one is the ancestory or ethnicity and third is the culture. A Hindu and a Muslim of Avadh or Punjab or Bengal or Hyderabad will get united on the basis of these three factors but a Hindu & a Hindu and a Muslim & a Muslim of Avadh, Punjab, Bengal ,Hyderabad will never get united.

Pakistan suffers from yet another dilleama which India does not suffer i.e. domination of One particular Group i.e. Punjab. In India, though the Hindi-speakers are in maximum numbers,as a group, but they themselves are in minority. Hindi is the mother-tongue of about 35% of Indians, 65% Indians are Non-Hindi speakers. The total parliamentary seats shared by Hindi-speaking states in about 220 or so, well short of majority of 272. Further, non-hindi speakers are more in numbers than Hindi-speakers in Army, Government and business. This makes India a successful working alliance of different peoples having different History, culture, languages and background.

Punjabis, in Pakistan, are now more than 50% of its population(I understand). The only other worthy comptetitor to them is Sindh, which in itself is too powerless. Its share is Pakistan Army is negligible. Stripped of power from all sides, the non-punjabis in Pakistan are bound to feel uneasy.

Pakistan does not seem likely to get out of its quagmire on the basis of theories and discussions. Only a strong leader like Mao Ze Dong, Lenin or own very own Indira Gandhi can turn the tide to its favour. If such a leader does not appear in the next 5-10 years, Pakistan will not be able to get out of the cesspool its has created for itself.

Fauji-lover Faisal’s gems:

“and obviously these people will resist kalabagh dam and gwader port because economic development is the fail safe way to bring about social change.”

No. They resist Kalabagh Dam SOLELY due to the mistrust created by the Army which has monopolized power. That is the SOLE reason. The 1991 Water Accord under Nawaz Sharif’s regime is proof that democratic governments can unify the nation over the most critical economic issue. And water is the most critical. Sure there are alternatives for what type of economic basis Pakistan should have – agricultural, industrial, services oriented etc – but for all intents and purposes, Pakistan is entirely reliant on the agri-sector and by the looks of it will remains so for a couple of decades. One of the points Nawaz Sharif’s regime made was to forgo Punjab’s share of royalty from the Kalabagh dam if that dam was constructed – of course this point would only be made part of the agreement once the negotiations began. The Gwader port, another one of Nawaz Sharif’s visions would not have faced so much resistance as it does now. Simply because democracies work better. I say this despite not being a supporter of PML(N).

As Najam Sethi says, the Baluch were not ‘ungovernable’ in the past as the various elements were OK with the power-sharing arrangements of previous governments. The current dictatorial govt. refuses to share power. However, there is no option but to share power with the tribals. If the current government was revolutionary in its ideals and had a plan to upstage the feudals and tribals and what not, then you could complain about how the primitive lords are a hindrance to progress. But the current government is completely status-quo oriented. So your nonsense has no basis.

“normal pakistanis otoh have nothing but gratitude for pak fauj officers for putting their lives on the line so that the rest of us can live in peace.”


Good one. Baluchistan burns, northern areas burn, the tribal areas have in their reaction embraced the Taliban and the best the government can do is throw out the building of Kalabagh dam to divert attention from the failures of its attempts to build national consensus.

But there’s the 8% growth rate so everything’s cool right? :D

I agree with Rozaiba...

Most of the development we see today was chalked out by democratic governments of the 1990s... and no one can deny that a popularly elected Punjabi leader that Nawaz Sharif was, he was able to sacrifice a lot of Punjab`s interests for the greater good of the federation... this is what constitutional governance does.

I must repost my post from Farzana`s board given its relevance here...


#3 by Mantolives on January 8, 2006 9:20pm PT
`Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official.` (Theodore Roosevelt)

I believe Musharraf is sincere in all that he wants - modern pluralist relatively secular Pakistan, women`s rights, stable democracy and peace with India... The problem is that his fashion is arbitrary and therefore I am not going to put my money on him...


Sorry to disagree with you but if India really wants to make peace with Pakistan, here is what it needs to do:

1- While demonising Pakistani Military, don`t demonise Pakistan and its people.

2- Instead of clamouring for the rights of ``oppressed groups``, imagined or real, call for and forcefully call for the revival of Pakistan`s constitution and its status as a democracy...


Because these two will win India a lot more friends... it will win India a friend like me... and there are many like me.

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.``

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.

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

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.

#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.

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.

#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.

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.

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