No More Hiroshimas Anywhere, Ever

BAhmed #73

Capital is generated through the hard work of people as well as Capital generates Capital.

But it is the production of goods and trade which can lead to the reversal of situation.

Western world is going to impose terms and condition to its advantage. While if we can start some production of goods and trade among third world countrie to provide basic necessaities, it can work as a starting point to not only provide better living condition for our people within our means, but as a leverage against the North.

It is a maamoth task.

But given the dynamism of people in our country, I think we should strive to get our fair share.

Slow painstaking task.

In response to krashid (Reply # 71)
Dear Rashid:

I must apologize for being very casual in my previous post to you. Let me explain in relatively plain English.

Some of Marx’s well-known works (like Capital, Vols. 1-3) are replete with abstract concepts. An abstract concept, or an abstraction, isolates in thought a one-sided or partial aspect of an object. What we abstract from are the many other aspects which together constitute concrete objects such as people, economies, nations, institutions, activities and so on.

The notion of the capitalist mode of production is an abstraction in Marx’s prolematic. Capitalist social formation, on the other hand, is a relatively concrete concept/object. The concept of concrete objects does not merely concern whatever exists but draws attention to the fact that objects are usually constituted by a combination of diverse elements or forces.

The abstract space of Marxian analysis contains relations of economic domination. French Marxist scholar Lefebvre maintains that the essential spatial contradiction of society is the confrontation between abstract space (or the externalization of economic and political practices originating from the capitalist class and the state) and social space (or the space of use values that is produced by the complex interaction of all classes in the pursuit of everyday life). Hence, the creation of a common market of Third World Countries (if at all possible) may be justified as a necessary but not a sufficient condition.

Lefebvre argues that the state is a framework for the exercise of power. The state can act, and most often does act, in the interests of capital, but it can also pursue its own interests, which tend to strengthen the hold of the nation-state framework on society. The state, however, plays a contradictory role. The state may favor or work against the working class or factions of capital, but its complicity in the production of abstract space tends to negate the social space that supports everyday life and the reproduction of its social relations.

In view of the growing power of capital globally, what chances are there that nation-states may develop a strong alliance and strengthen their social space (which in relative terms would tantamount to the weakening of the social space of economically advanced countries)?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

bd #69

I agree with you.

Constitutionally it is good to devolve power locally and to provinces.

But keeping the political parties out to me is going to complicate the already bad political scene in Pakistan where new forces will compete with already established ones leading to further fragmentation of our society.

Involving the political parties in this exercise would be better. If not political parties should be allowed with framework of non party election (what happened in 1986 elections in Karachi).

I will repeat Quaid-e-Azam words that even if they give a lame Pakistan, I will accept it.

I will post later on the advantages to Islamic parties. Shortly they will benefit and Large parties will loose some ground.

BAhmed!

First of all I admit that your post is little beyond my comprehension. Can you put easily.

In my view, this century, was a century of Nationalism. Where people of third world countries break the shackles of colonialism. Although, many names have been utilized and many philosophies propagated like Communism, Islam, Pure Nationalism, but ultimately it was the desire of people to determine their own destiny.

The countries with pragmatic leadership in the long run did better, like China, India, Iran than countries where infighting continued and became fundamentalist like Russia, Nigeria etc.

I am more prone to accept the philosophy of TWC acting as a unit for the betterment of their people, rather than any particular mode of production. The example of China is again relevant where they threw away the old dogma of pure Communism with pragmatism.

Only the genius of Bhutto could grasp at a time and practically to work for it. (Incidentally I was very much Anti-Bhutto along with rest of Karachiites (herd mentality) when he was in power).

With the technological revolution what the world is going to take shape, I don`t know. But two points should be kept in mind.

1- People are primary importance. Meaning benefit to the largest number of people.

2- Independence or liberty of individual is very important.

In response to bd (Reply # 69)
Dear bd and Other Chowkwallas:
Let us not start a discussion on devolution on this board. I have submitted a brief article on devolution, only today.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Bilal and Rashid

Good points, I agree.

On an slightly unrelated note, what do you think about the devolution principles as enumerated by the CE? do you think that his basis of regenerating political institutions from the grass-roots has a chance to succeed? without the political parties involvement, do you think that the religious based parties will have a stronger grip? or would personalities and work ethic/experience be more important?

The other question which I have is, what happens after 2002 when Musharaff gives up the gaddi?

Cheers

bd

In response to krashid (Reply # 67)
Dear Rashid:
Your statement: ``Whether it is Capitalist mode of production or not, the first priority of TWC is its people.``
Comment: The notion of capitalist mode of production (a la Marx) is an abstract concept. Capitalist social formation, however, rests close to concrete reality. It is important that we distinguish between the abstract notions and concrete reality. Marxian problematic stresses the duality of abstract and concrete.
Furthermore, the logic of capitalism prioritizes exchange value derived through various profit maximization strategies. Are exchange and use values mutually exclusive categories? Under capitalism, some sort of profit maximization (and thus exploitation)is necessary. In addition, capitalism reproduces itself through not only production but the sale of various goods and services and dealing with its inner contradictions. This is a lesson that Soviet Union had failed to understand and/or neglect. Have China, India, and several other countries learnt much from the follies of Soviet Union?
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

bd #66

I think I have been unable to convey my point.

I am not talking about Capitalist mode of production for development of society is bad.

The point I am emphasizing is that it should be seen in a Nationalistic content and not left at the mercy of International Capitalist/Imperialist. (I am using term in reference to Lenin, and in reference to Monopoly).

Referring back again to China, when there was no unity of purpose and country was divided into warlords, the Capitalist from Japan and West turned it into a colony. When Communists ultimately succeded and with resolve and later with pragmatism, they have turned the country into the point where it is now.

Whether it is Capitalist mode of production or not, the first priority of TWC is its people.

Given the power of Capital (concentrated in West), they can interfere in our system in such a way that there is one way benefit.

Compare Iran with other Arab countries. Although because of its high population Iran is at disadvantage and because of American embargo, that is doubled. But the resources of Iran are rightly put in the infrastructure building, like education, transport etc which is going to benefit Iranian people in the long run and with time and pragmatism they are going to reap the benefit. As you can see that Nehru`s policies of education, is giving dividend till now and by opening up the economy slightly it is advancing. ( I can tell you that in my field that common Indian have made their family self sufficient due to this.). Compare this to Nigeria, where Capitalist have a hold for one way benefit.

Also, I have pointed out in my post that Capitalist, have been forced to apply compassion (socialist theory of state providing education, old age benefit etc) to stem the tide of Communism in past and not out of compassion.

There is an island under American sovereigninty where the workers from South East Asia work in very adverse circumstances and since they cannot vote, it does not affect American Government.

Simply put, what I believe is that Capitalist by necessity, are going to sell their products to increasing population, to sustain. As a third world countries although we should not negate the benefit of it to our people, but our outlook should be to invest in our people and be strong in that.

Rashid #64

You are correct, i am pointing at capitalism with compassion. You have to be pragmatic in understanding that capitalism given full flow, will not cater for the weak and poor of the society. Which is the reason why certain services and only certain services should be under the control of the government. Defence, Healthcare, universal education (schooling), foreign relations, etc. etc.

As for cost cutting exercises, Rashid, I understand the downsides of cost cutting exercises. Unfortunately, competition has this unfortunate tendency of leaving people behind in the prosperity stakes. Since you are in the USA, you yourself would have noted the problem of structural employment. Have you ever wondered why we, in the south Asian countries, never have structural unemployment, only seasonal unemployment?. Structural unemployment, simply speaking, is defined as people who have been unemployed for over 2 years. Seasonal unemployment, on the other hand is due to the vagaries of physical work, as for agricultural workers or contract workers. That is the ``welfare dependency`` aspect which is missing in our countries. The reason for that is simple, we simply cannot afford a welfare state and it actually is each man for himself. Our extended family system does help, but not to that extent. Therein you see pure forms of capitalism.

Your point about the Chinese is well taken. Deng`s motto, lets get rich, totally changed the orientation of that economy. The state sector is getting slowly dismantled (with its consequently problems), but they are trying to create an economy which is single party driven - capitalistic in nature, hopefully trying to ride the capitalistic storm out and avoiding the USSR`s example. Within a single generation, the whole country has been turned into a different country, specially trying to get rid of the excesses of the cultural revolution.

Rashid, I tend to disagree with the ``self - dependence bit`` with reference to china. China has realised that you cannot be self sufficient in everything in a single economy, specially when the rest of the world is getting connected and integrated. If you look at China`s accession to the WTO and its negotiations, the various trading partners opened up China so much that it will have major problems satisfying the requirements. In short, it will have to dismantle the remaining vestiges of the public sector and other regulatory hurdles. Notwithstanding all the arguments made against the WTO, once you dig down into the arguments, you will find that they are all either untrue, or lacking in fact, or are protecting national interests. In fact, it has been proven that when you reduce trade boundaries and treat everybody equally, the country actually gains and the consumer gains even more.

When you say capitalists, it tends to create an impression of a separate group of people with a distinct agenda. Unfortunately, its not as simple as that, The world has recognized that competition is here to stay, given scarce resources, people and products have to be more efficient. As for Nehru, the fact that he insisted on a scientific and engineering educational framework helped. On the other hand, if you study the first Indian Industrial plan, you would see the problem. Nehru`s orientation was socialistic, and he wanted to drag India into the industrial age by industrialisation. If you look at the list of strategic industries, you will be amazed. With the sheer amount of raw materials, labour and markets available in India, you wonder why industrialisation didn`t pick up more than what it has right now. Instead of concentrating on the infrastructure, health and primary education, unproductive investments in industries created monopolies and tied up scarce capital. While Nehru is being congratulated for the education business, he and his compatriots turned India down the socialist path (with the best of interests mind you) with all the consequent issues.

On your last point, I somehow suspect whether this Hindutva creation has a chance of succeeding, given the economic progress being made, anyway, lets see, its a bad situation right now, we have seen the repurcussions of letting the religious genie out of the bottle in too many countries.

Cheers

bd

Urstruly #62

You are welcome, we will not take it offline, and this rather calm discussion group is fascinating, and nobody has mentioned Kashmir even ONCE! Dont sell yourself short, dear Urstruly, mistry`s are very necessary indeed. You can bring common sense and a clear cut outlook on this discussion.

Bilal Saheb, #61

You are very correct indeed, an excellent point in terms of spatial expansion in terms of geography. If I understood you correctly, capitalism exists on the basis of expanding its boundaries all the time. I agree completely, and I would comment right after I dealt with the ``crisis prone`` bit. I would rather term it as a chaotic system, which is forever evolving, with dips and troughs. Needless to say, having a chaotic system in place, the initial conditions are extremely important (specially when you consider our countries), but the constant mutation or crisis which happens is a function of the lack of smoothness in the markets (due to taxes, capital controls, and what have you). When the geographical limits are reached by outside capital, they tend to billow inside and break these boundaries down. This actually rejuvenates ``stale`` capital and has certain side effects, so to say, for example, say South Asia had to lower its tariffs on, say textiles.

That immediately will have a drastic effect on the whole mass of antiquated textile mills, distribution systems and raw material suppliers, not to mention the labour. The other type of effect would be that the consumers will get a better / different quality at a different price (not higher or lower, but different). If the national industries get their act together, then they can react better, if not they are subsumed and the entire industry is lost. For example, the jute industry in Bangladesh and India. Crisis like this act like shocks against the ``inertia of rest`` syndrome in our countries. Given the profit maximisation motive, it allows utmost flexibility to entrepreneurs, labour and resources to react or proact as and how they wish as long as profit is maximised. Space is bounded, but economic space is not bounded, because space assumes that the elements are constant after a certain period of time or geographical spread. Firstly, economic space is multi-dimensional, and secondly, technological and process improvements keep on re-defining the economic space, and finally, market changes to the regulatory environment shape existing dimensions and create new ones. Lets take an example by using the simple example of a razor. One may think that the number of people involved in shaving activities is relatively constant with only the new adults being the new market, therefore the space is bounded. Its not really as simple as that. For example, we have examples of shaving implements starting from straight razors to the Mach 3. When the Mach 3 was introduced, it cannibalised sales from the existing market, but the technological innovation caused ripples across the ``shaving`` dimension and across most of the related raw material industries (primarily the special steel sector), at one stroke, the top end of the shaving market was redefined. The whole market has now been reshaped, the space re-drawn and dimensions re-jigged. Given this constant innovation, space is not a constant per se` but a living space, forever changing.

I do take your point about the geographical landscape being unevenly developed AND strongly differentiated, and that allows capitalism free flow, since capitalism, by its very definition, hates to be kept out of markets. Logically speaking, that would mean that there is an end to the expansion capabilities, but due to the technical and process innovation and regulatory changes, the economic space keeps on getting modified, hence falling into a cycle. As you can see, I am not ignoring the spatial aspects of capitalism, in fact, it is to be encouraged at all costs, since prosperity of humans depends on a significant degree on the ability to grow.

To steer the topic gently back to the original discussion, nuclear weapons, nationalism, boundaries, taxes, governments are the impediments to free trade and profit maximisation. Fortunately or unfortunately, there will always be a tension between these ``meta`` factors and macro/micro economics, but on the whole, I firmly believe that economic prosperity will reduce the need for nuclear weapons.

Sincerely

bd

bd #

Your points are well taken.

What you are pointing as Capitalist with compassion.

(I am not economist, so please take my words in a political sense).

If you remember the Capitalism in last century, and the poor condition of workers in Europe and America, the compassion factor was missing. People sweating in factory for 18 hours a day just to be able minimally to survive.

As Maxim Gorky wrote in Mother:

a worker at the age of 28 sick with T.B said that the mill owner has taken away all the energies of his youth, so that the mill owner can buy a pot of gold for his concubine.

The bad time on Capitalism arise when the revolution in Russia started and Communist movement started to spread in other parts of world. So it was not for compassion, that Capitalist suddendly decided, to abandon their profit. If you see that FDR, and Atelly in US and UK announced it in 1940`s.

And more the threat of Communism increased, more compassioante the Capitalist countries became.

Apart from China, which is a big hindrance now, I don`t see any real threat to Capitalist economy.

If you are viewing the recent events, you will be aware of cost cutting measures, by Capitalist like mergers, laying off decreasing people`s dependence on Government funds and other cost cutting measures. (I work in a rural Hispanic area and I know that with good times with economy in such a boom, if people are living like this. If the times are little hard, people will be in much worse condition).

Now as I have alluded to before, that Capital does not means Capital, but power and absolute Capital means absolute power.

On a different note. Although, you have to say, that China has to adopt Capitalist mode of production. But the reason of its economy for me is self dependence.

Because, for the same reasons you are giving, maximizing profit, Capitalist will not like or want self sufficient economies emerging, who can challenge them. Its manifestation is seen in the actions all over the world by Capitalist Countries.

Although, some are loathing Nehru, for backward economy of India. But isn`t it the Nehru, whose investment in Education and Institutes are bearing fruit for India, now.

If it was left to Capitalist, would Indian people had a chance.

I am pretty sure Capitalist will be very happy at the situation in India, with multiple divisions and weakening of Nationalistic forces (Hinduvta is very disastrous for India in long run and is not Nationalistic but forced as nationalit). In appropriate time they will be making inroads to maximize their profit without much resistance.

Just ramblings.

Bilal Saheb #58

I am sorry for the delay in answering your comment. Actually, my research specialisation was in financial markets and financial economics, hence my reference to Batra. While I do share your doubts about the viability and reliability on economic forecasting, I found Batra`s thesis fascinating more from the viewpoint of Sarkar`s Law. I am personally doubtful about the viability of long term economic models (On the other hand, real options theory in financial economics do offer a fascinating way of judging long term investments such as power stations etc.). There are just too few data points to draw meaningful comparisons or models, and these mostly dont stand up post sample or when the assumptions are relaxed. Considering that I work in the financial markets, I have to judge models with a very simple rule, do they make money?. Unfortunately, they dont, but do offer broad guidelines. Thank you for the reference, I will make it a point to look it up.

Coming back to these broad guidelines, Sarkar suggests that the transformation of society from teacher led to soldier led to business led to worker led and back to teacher led and this is fascinating. That instinctively appealed to me as a concept to explain societal movements on a broader scale. Do you have any other references on this kind of social theory?

Sincerely

bd

RE: BD, Bilal and Rashid

I have been following your discussion for a while and found it to be a great learning experience. I would really appreacite if you dont take this discussion off of this thread yet-it is invaluable.

Being a ``mistery`` by profession I wont be able to contribute much but I am a good listener.

Thanks

In response to bd (Reply # 59)

Dear bd:

Thank you for sharing your personal, academic, and other background with me. I wish to make a few additional comment for your consideration.

I treat capitalism as a necessarily growth oriented, technologically dynamic, and crisis prone system. Marxian scholars have paid considerable attention upon an understanding of capitalist crisis. One of the ways capital can temporarily and in part surmount crisis of overaccumulation of capital (particularly idle productive capacity and unemployed labor power) is through geographical expansion. This is what David Harvey calls the “spatial fix” to capitalism’s contradictions. No study of capitalism ever makes much sense if it neglects the spatial component of capitalist development and its consequences. Remember that space is bounded and the resulting geographical landscape is not only unevenly developed but strongly differentiated.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Urstruly 57

Why you are reminding me of my grey hairs which have become grey early. Sir.

I forgot the name of person, but if you remember the mass suicide in Jonestown. There are evidences according to a documentary, that CIA or some other agency was very interested in him. Because it was for them emperiment in mind control. And as far as my meagre knowledge goes, they are very interested in experiments to control mind.

There is no way out. Once the accumulation of Capital is sufficient and money concentrated in few hands. As a group or class, they will be able to manipulate practically everything and we will acting like a robots in a very predictable fashion.

Particularly, if the voice of dissent or a different voice has no means to express itself, except by himself.

I have not seen but heard about a movie of Charlie Chaplain where in the end he acted strangely because he was as much a machine as the machines (or something of sort).

I don`t think this is going to happen. Because, I think it is not God`s wisdom. The knowledge and technology and continuous strive has its survival advantage over lethargy and acceptance of status quo. And with the expansion of knowledge and technology, the power is going to be distributed more equitably. But its price is continuous struggle, rather than accepting status quo.

Just think about the actions taken against Microsoft with full Government force under many garbs. My opinion is fuzzy, but I think growth of microsoft, would have changed the current power structure of American Business and Government. But this technological revolution I think is going to expand the knowledge base and increase in scattering of power.

Just ramblings.

Don`t remind me of my grey hair.

The last line was a joke not serious.

Bilal and Rashid,

I am combining your questions in one response here, since Bilal sahib is asking a macro justification while Rashid sahib is commenting on the ``dark`` side of capitalism. I wish I could have given my background, that could have explained quite a lot behind my statements, but as you would appreciate, I fear that it will compromise my independence and objectivity behind my statements and comments on chowk. Lets just say that I have experience of military duties, entrepreneurship, rigorous academic studies and very extensive international financial markets including personal work experience in more than 40 countries. My love for my country took me through many areas (including various religions), trying to find the best way to ``help`` my country, and I have come to the following conclusions (wrongly or rightly).

1. Man is essentially greedy and self - centred.

2. For man to care about his fellow man, some third party motivation/compulsion is required. That third party can be religion, money (greed). If you want to go philosophical, its fear and / or desire which drives man.

3. Man has a fantastic capability to surprise you by being extremely cruel as well as becoming extremely altruistic.

4. The first 2 conclusions operate independently of time, or of social units more than an individual, family, neighbourhood, city/town/village, state, country, continent.

Bilal Sahib, I will not bore you with the economic theories behind political systems or economic systems. Simply speaking, in an ideal world, profit maximisation is in equilibrium between the forces of demand/supply/price, given the other equilibrium between raw materials, labour and services. Profit will be maximised given the above mentioned equilibrium constraints and this has worked quite successfully across the world and within our countries as well. Other economic systems, like socialism break this relationship down. This introduces a inconsistency within the system. Governments, by virtue of being a monopoly, is a very inefficient distributor of resources. Consequently, the cost of production, the cost of distribution and the cost to the consumer does not have any relationship at all within a socialist system, simply because this relationship starts to include extraneous factors.

Let me give an example, say a government has a public sector enterprise making a consumer good - say bread (dont laugh, India has a huge public sector company making bread - dont ask why). The stated objective, of making the bread at a cost effective price is submerged or overshadowed by labour, capital and raw material objectives. Consequently, the massive dislocation of resources does nobody any good. Given a reasonably free market, capitalism works for its stated objective to provide goods at equilibrium prices, wages and capital. This again as been observed all over the world, and there is no reason why this will not continue. This allows the satisfaction of conclusion #1. For provision of natural monopoly services such as electricity, travel, education, healthcare etc., private enterprise combined with a strong and effective regulatory regime is preferable to total government control (re Canada, united kingdom and the host of countries in Europe and Asia).

The final nail in the coffin of socialism and bouquet in the arms of capitalism is that this greed / selfishness of man is best captured in the form of a strict meritocracy. If you wanted to look at an example, just look at India, as Rashid Sahib mentioned, who would have ever thought that India will take off at 6-8% growth after 1990?, its the same for Pakistan as well but the political situation and lack of institutions make it difficult. That is a different argument and no place here. But I am a firm believer in our people. If the shackles of corruption are dropped and a good capitalist framework given to our people, they will rock the world. In case you doubt that, I would just point to the millions of South Asians who generally perform excellently once they are outside our countries. Meritocracy usually exists extremely poorly with utopia and socialism, hence my distrust. I would prefer to work with what we have and what we are, then assume what we dont and work from there, building on sand, so to say, make the greed, selfishness and meritocracy work for our countries.

With respect to conclusion #2, the third party compulsion to make an individual man care for his fellow man. This is where the government, NGO, faith based organisations should and do step in. This includes societal facilities, starting from defence of the realm to provision of elementary, primary and secondary education to make citizens functionally literate (that`s all), universal health care and caring for the aged (difficult and contentious one). I again point to the UK, Canada and Europe for examples of such frameworks, similar organisational structures also exist in South Asia) There is a fine balance between a government managing social responsibilities and using resources efficiently/effectively but it can be met. I personally doubt and fear faith based organisations, simply because monetary compulsions can be managed, religious based compulsions have a nasty habit of devouring good intentions and shooting off into unknown directions (mainly because of conclusion #1). I hope, Bilal Sahib, I have managed to explain why I think that the capitalist model with a strong social conscience is the best possible framework for the development of our countries. I have no problem with people maximising their profits, subject to the equilibrium conditions mentioned above and a strong institutional framework.

Rashid, you have raised some very very interesting points, I dont know whether I would be able to explain it satisfactorily, in any case, here goes.

1. In a capitalistic meritocratic society, every man is a common man. Every man has certain disadvantages and certain opportunities. What should NOT happen is that the disadvantages should be put on you deliberately, that is wrong and I condemn it strongly. With a good rule of law, this problem should be avoided. People will always be poor and people will always be rich, expecting everybody to be equal is an utopia which I have no belief in, plus it violates the law of nature and laws of physics. Your point of wealth sticking to one class is a misnomer, Rashid Sahib, these classes are artificial classes, and they keep on breaking down over time, new classes emerge and so on and so forth. I take your point about built in racism in USA in 1993, but could I give you the counter example? if I am not wrong, the entire south Asian ethnic group is overall the richest in USA?, even more than the whites? do you see my point here? given free flow of ideas and a meritocratic society, people do rise up above their class/station. Just like you and Bilal Sahib, education, jumping at opportunities, etc. all drive people to succeed.

2. Rashid, as for the defence of the country. This is going to be contentious, but here we are. People in defence forces are there because of 1. its just a job and there are no others, 2. they have a religio/nationalistic drive, 3. it educates them for free (short service commissions), 4. it allows them to legally kill. Except for the points 1 and 3, there is no economic consideration involved at all. So, even within a capitalistic society, the defence forces can be formed and people join up. That is an entirely different dimension to the capitalistic/socialistic discussion.

3. As for the rest of your points, I totally agree, resource investment in war industries is logically if not economically correct, but as you said, that is what is real and happening in the world. We have to manage around it. My hope is that given freedom to trade in a capitalistic meritocratic society, the incidences of war will reduce (for example, for more than 400 years France, England and Germany or their ancestors fought to the death, now they are in economic and political brotherhood in just a matter of 10-15 years post WW2. We have to get the greed and self-centeredness of man to work for us instead of against us.

I do realise the above sounds extremely cold blooded, too black and white and extremist. Unfortunately, I seem to have lost patience with egalitarian ideas of utopia and decided, if you cannot beat them, work with them and gradually turn them around. I look forward to your comments.

Sincerely

bd

my email address is beady@visto.com, in case you want to take this offline :)

In response to bd (Reply # 53)

Dear bd:

Are you aware of the literature on longwave cycles of economic growth and decline? If not, I would like you to read pages 85-88 of Paul Knox and John Agnew’s “The Geography of the World Economy” (Arnold, London, 1989). These pages provide a concise and critical discussion of the contribution of Kondratieff‘s 50-year long cycles. As far as Ravi Batra is concerned, I have reservations about his scholarship. The science of economic forecasting is still in a rudimentary. Ravi Batra has to date failed to come to grips with the complexity of economic forecasting.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

RE: KRashid# 56

Very genuine and intelligent arguments, Sir.

bd #48

It appears that you are some form of economist.

I seem to agree with your idea of Capitalist production and spill over to common man leading to overall progress.

Will the society always remain the same, and is it a law of nature, against which human particularly born poor are destined to go in.

With Capitalist production, wealth is accumulated in one class, with its attendant political power.

Let me give you an example, situation in 1993 in US when I first came in, although the times were not very bad but still in magazines like Times there was an air of Foreigner bashing.

Due to accumulation of Capital, the ruling class are more secure than common man. In bad times, the common man struggles among themselves, manifesting in biases and trampling of other people on the basis of race, creed, color, netionality etc etc. Another manifestation is going to war by soldiers. Why would a person go for the defense of his country meaning Capitalist of his country except by necessity, when he can earn a good living without war and act as a mercenary(save a few heavily indoctrinated people).

If the sources of power mulitiply, and there is enough power to common man, both of which are related to economic strength only then there is a chance of realizing potential of man to full extent.

You are right practically, that is what is reality. But this reality, is very dark.

Like once accumulation of wealth is enough, the power that may be, can work the common man like robots. They will find enough workers to fight war. Enough people as journalist to justify war and killing of people, enough people to prepare machinery of war, creating conditions in the world for war to sell weapons. (The irony of this is that this war business is a very important part of capital development and economy with its attendant benefit to people working in it). Some manifestation is everyday experience in America, which if got worse will be as I am saying above.

I think, I am talking utopia. But human development should be the target. Although Capital generation and human development go hand in hand, but prioritizing human development will take a effective arsenal out of Capitalist armentararium.

Wishful thinking on my part.

In response to bd (Replies # 52)
Dear bd:

Your statement: ``My simple hypothesis is that economic welfare is best achieved within a capitalist framework, a pure meritocracy which is matched with concern and action towards poorer sections of society and the environment.``

Comment: Is this your view? If so, what is the basis of your hypothesis. Isn`t it profit maximization that lies at the heart of capitalism? If yes, how profit is maximized with what consequences? Please explain.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to bd (Replies # 52 & 53)
Dear bd:
Thank your for the citations and various URL`s. I will get back to you if I have any more comments or questions.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Bilal Saheb

Here are the references that I could procure at short notice:

Sarkar, Prabhat Ranjan, ``Law of Social Cycles`` in _Human Society_ Part 2 (Calcutta: A.M. Press 1967)

Batra, Ravi, _The Crash of the Millennium_,

1999, Harmony Books; NY?

The book on amazon:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0609605127/o/qid=966479581/sr=8-1/026-6189724-8301252

You may find this url interesting as well, fascinating as a matter of fact.

http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/future/j7/SOMERVILLE.html

Another discussion on Sarkar`s Law

http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv.aol.com/msg24282.html

I apologise, I dont have all the papers and references to hand, but if you are still interested, I would be happy to try to procure the original paper as well as Batra`s book and we can discuss further.

Sincerely

bd

Dear Bilal Saheb

Thank you for your comments. I hope I can do as much justice to your comments as you did to mine :)

Point 1&2. Good and Bad consequences of nukes. Bilal Saheb, the good and bad consequences have been discussed in exhaustive detail for the past 50 odd years. Very simply speaking, the decision to abandon nukes (a special class of weapon - this distinction is very important - the reasons are beyond this message) or to keep them is roughly a dynamic between security/international relations needs versus disarmament/liberalism and to a smaller extent, economic factors). Well, I suggest we briefly analyse 3 countries who have ``given - up`` nukes ``voluntarily``. These countries are South Africa, Brazil and Argentina. I would like to distinguish this group of countries with countries who have NEVER taken up nukes or have extremely strong opinions against them, for example Japan, the Nordic Nations, many European nations and to a lesser extent, Canada. So what made the former group of countries, take such a drastic step?. (this also answers your second point). In the 3 countries, the entire social system was overturned, ending of apartheid in case of South Africa, Military Rule and severe economic difficulties in case of Argentina and severe economic difficulties in Brazil. You would also note that each country came out of these massive social dislocations with an extremely charismatic leader in tow, who personally sponsored the removal of nuclear weapons capability or plans. So the answer to your question is, yes, nukes can be removed, but as you can see, only after significant social system disruptions capped with a charismatic / powerful leader.

Translating this to the South Asian scenario, I am afraid I am extremely doubtful that India or Pakistan will have such kind of situation in the immediate future. In India, coalition governments are here to say and the chances of a very powerful NATIONAL leader has gone. Nehru was one, Rajiv Gandhi had power thrust upon him by virtue of his massive majority, but both did not use it. India also didn`t have an economic implosion and wont have it either (just due to the sheer amount of static agricultural sector - IT and services notwithstanding). Which leaves war to trip the dynamic over to the disarmament side. Now for Pakistan. After the Quaid, there has been only ONE strong leader appealing to all sections of society, Bhutto and then to a lesser extent Zia ul-Haq. I do not have to repeat why they would or did want nukes. Economic implosion is a distinct possibility, but I can say, with fair certainty, that this will not happen, specially not on the scale of hyperinflation in the times of the Weimar republic. A nuclear state is NOT allowed to implode economically (Ukraine and USSR). Which leaves war.

I have to admit that the religious factor and the willingness to die/kill for religion puts another wildcard into play. Logically speaking, we come to the conclusion that only after a nuclear war, will disarmament take place. Now, while posturing and sabre rattling is quite common, this should not trip over to nuclear exchange, which is the reason why I am suggesting strengthening of the command and control systems. If we manage to keep the hotheads under control, then hopefully the generational change and economic upliftment of our people will slowly tip the balance. Another point to be considered which is VERY important within the South Asian framework is the relative cheapness of human life. Till we value human life as worthless (or near worthless), killings and nuclear weapons are nothing bad per se`. In any case, how many times you have heard this statement, there are too many people in our countries anyway.

Point 3, a. impossible to attain a sense of global community within a capitalist framework, b. advisability of social change, c. initiating and movement towards a global community.

I agree whole-heartedly on points b and c. I am afraid I would place more emphasis and faith on the very same capitalistic system than any other social system. That could be because of my prior history, training and inclination and I am willing to discuss it in greater length. My simple hypothesis is that economic welfare is best achieved within a capitalist framework, a pure meritocracy which is matched with concern and action towards poorer sections of society and the environment. Call it compassionate conservatism or a centrist political philosophy (I think the UK and Canada have managed to achieve a reasonable balance). Given the WTO machine, lowering of tariffs and import/export duties, trade is mushrooming and economic upliftment does reduce the dangerous aspects of ``nationalism``.

Point 4, I agree with your points totally.

As for Sarkar`s law of social cycles, I will have to check out my research papers, its been a long time since I referred to it, if I find the references, i shall post them here.

Hope to hear your comments.

Sincerely

bd

#49 krashid

So Indians should reorient their thinking? You say this because (a) India is the problem (If only India gave up all will be well), or (b) Indians are the only ones equipped to reorient their thinking because they are more reasonable. Which is it?

In response to bd (Reply # 48)
Dear bd:

Your statement: “Perhaps I could use Rashid`s ``economic`` framework to express my hypothesis that nuclear weapons are here to stay in the subcontinent.”

Comment: Given the status quo, the nuclear weapons are very much likely to stay in the subcontinent. However, we need to ask a different set of questions regarding the good and bad consequences of possessing the nuclear weapons. Should we maintain the status quo or should we make a reasonable effort to transform our planet earth into some kind of global “community”? The choice is ours, the task is extremely difficult.

Your statement: “. . . it is my hypothesis that nuclear weapons are here to stay until and unless there is a equal or more than equal social reality change. This bigger change can arise, unfortunately, due to the following reasons: 1. nuclear war, 2. conventional war, 3. economic implosion, 4. extremely significant social movement (arrival of a Jinnah or for India, a similar situation as to when Rajiv Gandhi was elected by a stomping majority right after Indira Gandhi`s assassination), etc.”

Comment: It is good that you see the possibility of “change.” Is there any way that we bring social change without the wars and economic difficulties? You are right that we need social movements to overcome some of our difficulties.

Your statement: “Your comment that until and unless India and Pakistan become friends or desire peace, nukes will not be removed. I suggest that there is a intervening stage, that is of strengthening of the command and control systems with a system of hot-lines, graduated response levels and the whole nuclear control structure. . . . Since they cannot be removed, make it as difficult as possible so as to obviate accidental release. In any case, if someone wanted to chuck a weapon of mass destruction NON ACCIDENTALLY (HA!!!), its quite easy to get a CBW weapon in a small aerosol canister and dunk it into the headwaters of Indus, jhelum, ganga, bhramaputra.”

Comment: Destruction is a much easy process than construction. Weapons will be produced as long as the entire global community allows them to be produced. A New World Order is possible if and if the more powerful nations in conjunction with other nations honestly desire to construct a mutually acceptable sense of global community. Is this possible under a predominantly capitalist set of social relation? I doubt very much. Should we try to bring social change? I would argue: Why not? Should we make an effort to slowly and gradually move toward the formation of a global community? Without any reservation, yes (not in a naive sense).

Your statement: “In any case, friendship will NOT obviate the need for nukes nor the desire to retain them.”

Comment: Friendship and the desire for peace are likely to reduce some unnecessary tensions between the two countries. The desire to become a nuclear power is not merely guided by the internal factors. The means of destruction will be produced as long as the global community would allow them to be produced. Are we a global community? Surely not. Am I asking for a major change in our attitudes over a short time period (my life time; our life time)? Definitely not. Finally, I tend to agree with your view that national and international reconciliation is a generational game.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. Please inform us more about Sarkar’s conceptualization of social reality.

Anamika #47

There is a term called Empathy, when you feel the situation what other person is.

But for empathy first thing is sinceerity.

Does India want solution of Kashmir or is just hoping to buy time, so that some miracle happen and Kashmir remains with India (it is purely empathetic).

The survival of Vajpayee depends only on Hindu Nationalism. And once Kashmir issue is solved, he has to find other targets in his home country, to continue his politics.

But Indian politics demand secularism to be successful, because confrontation is the anti thesis of progress.

Either BJP has to present as a moderate, which it is slowly trying to do, as induction of Dalit on its higher echeleon and taking actions against Bal Thackeray (resignation of minister accepted by Vajpayee) are some examples.

What is in hold in future nobody knows. Who in 1990 thought that India will regain economically. (I had a talk with foreign office person who came from a meeting in 1992(one of my friends brother). The prediction at that time was for the most bright future for Bangladesh among Pakistan, India, Iran, SriLanka etc).

But one thing is for sure. Indians should reorient their thoughts more realistically. Kashmir will never be solved in Indian constitution.

Dear Bilal and Rashid

Fascinating discussions going on here and I commend you on persevering with this board while the rest of the chowkies have moved onwards. Still, it allows us to have a rather interesting discussion, perhaps not interrupted with ``rude`` messages. Perhaps I could use Rashid`s ``economic`` framework to express my hypothesis that nuclear weapons are here to stay in the subcontinent. Economics and Financial theory and modelling assume that markets do not change their fundamental behaviour. In other words, if you model the market/system properly, the residuals are independently and identically distributed across time. Unfortunately, this does not happen. To carry on with the analogy, the impact of computers, or the mobile phone, or e-commerce, or railways, or the Euro, WTO, etc. etc., has had dramatic effects in changing the entire system. Bringing the analogy back to the nuclear weapons and substituting market with social reality, it is my hypothesis that nuclear weapons are here to stay until and unless there is a equal or more than equal social reality change. This bigger change can arise, unfortunately, due to the following reasons: 1. nuclear war, 2. conventional war, 3. economic implosion, 4. extremely significant social movement (arrival of a Jinnah or for India, a similar situation as to when Rajiv Gandhi was elected by a stomping majority right after Indira Gandhi`s assassination), etc.

Your comment that until and unless India and Pakistan become friends or desire peace, nukes will not be removed. I suggest that there is a intervening stage, that is of strengthening of the command and control systems with a system of hot-lines, graduated response levels and the whole nuclear control structure (not going into details here - go read a tom clancy novel :-) ). Since they cannot be removed, make it as difficult as possible so as to obviate accidental release. In any case, if someone wanted to chuck a weapon of mass destruction NON ACCIDENTALLY (HA!!!), its quite easy to get a CBW weapon in a small aerosol canister and dunk it into the headwaters of Indus, jhelum, ganga, bhramaputra.

In any case, friendship will NOT obviate the need for nukes nor the desire to retain them. Taking your example in #44, even though France, Germany and GB are in an extremely tight relationship, I would find it extremely surprising if GB and France would get rid of the weapons. Nukes are considered (and excuse me for being crude but very appropriate considering south asian skewed notions of honour and masculinity) national genetalia. Leaving jokes apart, you would very clearly see the relationship between nukes and countries in South Asia. When you add to this potent mix, the lingering miasma of colonialism and imperialism, one gets reminded of the quote, ``The Gulf War would have never happened if Iraq had a nuke``. Interesting enough, it was said by an Indian General. Again, I let you draw the obvious conclusions from this.

The above hypothesis and proposed solution may sound cold blooded, but I am trying to address the short term issue here. Longer terms issues of national reconciliation or even international reconciliation is a generational game. A quick look at Sarkar`s Law of Social Cycles is fascinating. Sarkar proposed that societies have major systemic changes when generations re-cycled every 30 years or so (he used the classical Hindu caste system - Brahmins - kshytriyas ....) to illustrate his thesis. There was a book published on this, just before the 1987 crash, and the author used Sarkar`s law to great accuracy. Given his in sample and out of sample predictive accuracy, he became quite famous back then. Right now, we have the genetalia waving crowd in control right now, once it moves down / up to the ``business`` class, Rashid`s hypothesis should kick in. (30 years??? - moves to mars)

On a separate note, and this is rather important, Harmonic #21, could you please give me the references to your reply? I have tried to search for the decrypted messages or other references, but perhaps I am not looking at the right place. I would highly appreciate if you could provide those references. It seems to be akin to the Thule incident and the American / Danish reaction thereof.

Sincerely

bd

In response to Shankar (Reply # 43)
Dear Shankar:
I agree with the spirit and content of your post. I, however, think that the problem is more at the level of the state than the common people. If this statement has some merit, we need to express our views as clearly and loudly as possible to provide necessary resistence against the follies of our so-called leaders and the state apparatus.
Although the state of affairs between India and Pakistan may hurt Pakistan much more than India, the future of India appears no less bleak to me given the size of her growing population.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to anamika (Reply # 45)
Dear Anamika:
With reference to the plight of over a billion people in South Asia, you maintain “[it] is hard to think of the entire mass of people unless their lives are in immediate danger. But by then it may be too late.” You indeed are right because time is flying and both India and Pakistan are engaged in a policy of mutual self-destruction. This policy, however, may prove more destructive for Pakistan than India.
You also maintain that “we have had wars and, IMO, will have more in the future. Kargil was a war and could easily have led to a wider conflict.” I don’t doubt the power of your observation. But, aren’t you diagnosing the problem without any “apparent” concern for the solution? What kind of future do “we” want to have for a region that provides “us” some sense of identity?
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

#39 bahmad

It is hard to think of the entire mass of people unless their lives are in immediate danger. But by then it may be too late. Anyway, we have had wars and, IMO, will have more in the future. Kargil was a war and could easily have led to a wider conflict.

#42 krashid

You haven`t given me a straight answer. You are simply justifying what happened. Why don`t you pretend to be an Indian for a moment and tell me how you`d see things. This is what needs to happen if enemies are ever to reconcile.

I believe you are also unreasonable in expecting the Indian government to drive towards a peace plan. They made a start and that has now been scuttled. Why doesn`t Pakistan say, we are willing to give independence to those areas that want it - let`s have a plebiscite. The Pak view has always been that Kashmir belongs to it. No big moral concerns there. Look at what Israel and the Palestinians are doing. They started talking and save the hardest problems for last. The momentum is unstoppable. Even Israelis acknowledge now that some sort of accomodation with the Palestinians over Jerusalem will have to be worked out.

Let`s look at what Musharraf wants on the other hand. He has an one-point agenda: Kashmir should go to Pakistan. No talks are possible when your intentions are clear from the outset. I am more liberal than most Indians on Kashmir. Even I say no talks with Pakistan unless something changes there - either a change of leadership or their position regarding the agenda.

If the current intrasigence continues and if the jihadists continue to be unleashed on India, a war will be inevitable.

In response to krashid (Reply #: 41)
Dear Rashid:

Your statement: “I [Rashid] am simple minded. 2 + 2 = 4.”
Comment: There is nothing wrong in being simple. It constitutes a part of our reality and our way of comprehending reality. Reality, in my view, is both simple and complex. We cannot, therefore, be simple minded “only” if we wish to understand the complexity of our existence.

Your statement: “What is meant by social relations.”
My response: The notion of social relations seeks to capture the relationship between various segments of our reality (such as class relations or power relations). Hence, we human beings live our lives in relation to all other objects around us (which include other human beings too). This suggests that our actions are in part a product of our relationship with others. In the case of India and Pakistan, the nature of our relations are predominantly a product of our mutual dealings/actions. Peace cannot be achieved between India and Pakistan unless both parties seriously and unceasingly desire it (perhaps at all costs).

Your statement: “I see everything starting with economics.”
Comment: Social reality, even in a simple/abstract form, cannot be explained in terms of economy (or material reality) only. We need to understand the complex interrelationships between the state, economy, and civil society.

Rashid, we need to consider why we South Asians (and the neighboring countries) have not yet been able to form a supranational alliance of the kind of the European Common Market.

Rashid, we all need to read more, sort out our thoughts, and adopt a more consistent approach for dealing with our reality. I am, nonetheless, not sure if I ever tried to put you on spot (about your inadequacies) as you seem to allude.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Bilal & KRashid,

I feel our biggest impediment to peaceful coexistence is our failure to get past what happened in our history. There is a lot of bad blood & both sides are guilty.

When you see movies like ``Braveheart`` or ``Patriot``, one sees that there was a lot of bad blood between the Scotts & Americans against the British. Today ,they not only coexist peacefully, but are good friends. But then they have the advantage of the passage of time & generations. I hope with the passage of time & generations our countries will learn to live with each other peacefully.

In this nuclear age, though, I wonder if we have the luxury of the passage of time.

Anamika #37

Let me give you the current example.

India wanted to talk to Hizb-ul-Mujahideen and probably cut a deal with them on Kashmir, bypassing APHC, probably Sheikh Abdullah and Pakistan, important players in the game. And if Indian politicians cannot think straight that they cannot achieve their objective by such move. Instead of blaming others, they should do their reality testing.

Same with trip to Lahore by Vajpayee. Nawaz Sharif was loosing his popularity. Pakistan army (and Vajpayee will be knowing this) is very strong in decision making (particularly on as big issue as Kashmir) and would not approve anything short of giving rights to Kashmiris. Psyche of Pakistani people particularly Punjab, which historically as far as Kashmir is concerned are brothers. (people in Punjab proudly tell their Kashmiri origin). Punjab has borne the main brunt of wars with India. And I am pretty sure such a politician as Vajpayee knew all these. So you can understand that he played his cards well and Pakistan was labelled as not interested in peace, and he gained popularity as a peace maker and got votes. If he was really serious knowing the whole situation, I would advise him to do a reality testing. And as far as Nawaz Sharif is concerned, he probably was Euphoric as leader and thought the whole nation will follow him. He does not need reality testing. It is confirmed.

Why Vajpayee is not interested now.

Only Government which can bring peace can be Army in Pakistan and BJP Government in India, who can take decisions without being LABELLED.(Particularly if the other decision maker is Italian (I think), who is already a foreign born liberal).

BAhmed # 36

I am simple minded.

2+2=4.

What is meant by social relations.

I see everything starting with economics.

Major issues resolved between India and Pakistan. It is a very big market for both of us. Plus access to the market East of Pakistan for India. And other countries East of Pakistan to India can effectively form a good starting point for the weak economies of the region. Inter trade.

In fact I had posted an article still in queue/dust bin of chowk where I have mentioned few points.

De Dolarization of economy of TWC. i.e for our intertrade we can use a common currency, related to our economics in some form.(Buying in Dollars is too hard on all of us and makes us subservient to Western Interest who dictate their terms and condition i.e string attached with Aids.

At least meeting the basic needs of our people like food, clothing and shelter with our own resources i.e TWC.

It will effectively put not only India, but other TWC in a better position to have a better bargaining position vis-a-vis North.

The North South divide is not only going to worsen with time, but people of our countries will be poorer in buying power with each passing day and slave of the North.

I think that is not only beneficial to the people and economy of the region, but also Industrialists trader and agriculturist, who will have access to a larger market without the quota etc etc.

This in no way will come in the way of expanding in any other direction economically by any country of the region.

I think South Indians probably will be more appreciative considering they want to expand further than more jingoistic North Indians.

You are right that I have to read a lot, to form my thoughts more maturely and consistently.

Please disregard my post # 38. Thanks, Bilal Ahmad

In response to anamika (Reply # 37)
Dear Anamika:
Your statement: ``I am extremely skeptical that another war can be avoided.``
Comment: A war could be avoided if we realize that a policy of peaceful coexistence is a prerequisite for ensuring a mimimum level of social justice to over a billion unfortunate human beings in South Asia.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to anamika (Reply # 37)
Dear Anamika:
Your statement: ``I am extremely skeptical that another war can be avoided.``
Comment: A war could be avoided if we realize that a policy of peaceful coexistence is a preremay help ensure a mimimum level of social justice to over a billion unfortunate human beings in South Asia.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

krashid #33

Regarding peaceful coexistence of India and Pakistan, are you forgetting that the ``jihadis in power in Delhi`` undertook a historic trip to Lahore even as the jihadis in Pakistan were quietly preparing for Kargil? Please answer this question as objectively as possible: How could anyone in power in India risk another peace overture with Pakistan given that the Lahore Declaration was unceremoniously dumped by Pakistan, or that you don`t hear about Simla any more? What is clear to Indians is that Pakistan will not settle for anything other than a complete control of Kashmir. And that any treaties or agreements that Pakistan signs is worthless unless such turn over Kashmir to Pakistan. If you WERE an Indian, how would you see things differently?

I am extremely skeptical that another war can be avoided.

In response to krashid (Reply # 35)
Dear Rashid:
Your statement: ``Peaceful co-existence is only possible if we respect other individual groups or nations.``
Comment: I concur.
Your statement: ``The behaviour of India vis-a-vis all its neighbours is against all norms of peaceful coexistence.``
Comment: I personally don`t appreciate the role of both Indian and Pakistani administrations (ruling elite). If the state of India has failed to behave like a good neighbor, so has the state of Pakistan. A short and simple, yet critical, history of the Indo-Pak relations is sufficient to come to grips with our ``mutual`` weaknesses. In short, we need to understand the ``social relations`` of our existence (not just one-sided allegations and counter-allegations). We need to develop critical scholarship, not just a knowledge that is based on heresay, misunderstandings, unfair values, and unwise everyday social actions and practices.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

BAhmed!

I see it like this.

I have many differences with my family member.

But in all these differences, whether we fight or keep quiet, we respect the individuality of each other. Differences of opinion, harsh words etc happen, But in the end we live happily together.

Peaceful co-existence is only possible if we respect other individual groups or nations.

The behaviour of India vis-a-vis all its neighbours is against all norms of peaceful coexistence. And it will be a folly to think, that there can be peaceful coexistence in such atmosphere.

In response to krashid (Reply # 33)
Dear Rashid:
Your statement: ``Peaceful coexistence is very important.``
Comment: In view of the nature of our polity, it seems highly improbable that we may prioritize peaceful coexistence in our dominant national discourse(s).
As individuals, we may much more easily prioritize the need for peaceful coexistence in our everyday lives.
Peace (or its lack of) is actually a social relation between ``two`` or more parties. A necessary condition for lasting peace is, however, the recognition and establishment of justice and fairness. What do we need to transform this world into a just place for all kinds of people around the world?
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

BAhmed!

Peaceful coexistence is very important.

And sooner or later both parties viz India and Pakistan are going to realize this. (Hopefully before the opportunity slips).

Although on surface it might appear that Pakistan is putting hindrance in this process. I think we have to look back at 52 years old history to see that it is mutual destruction of each other.

It is just a matter of luck for India that in last 8-10 years that it has come economically forward, and has started to realize what an irritant Pakistan is for its progress. But shirking away the 52 years history for Pakistanis and probably thousand year history for Indians will not be an easy job. Particularly, since the Jihadis on both sides have reins of power.

In my opinion, regionally ball is in India`s court and old age idiom is true that you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

In response to Krashid (Reply # 31)
Dear Rashid:
Your apology is a sign of your good nature. I, however, have no bad feelings/memory. We all need to concentrate on more important issues, like the peaceful coexistence and global unevenness. Are`nt these issues intertwined?
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

BAhmed #30

Subah Ka Bhoola Agar Sham Ko Ghar Aa Jaye To Use Bhula Nahin Kahte.

I apologize for my remarks made months ago.

I hope you accept it.

I miss your posts very much.

Regards.

In response to KRashid (Reply # 29)
Dear Rashid:
My reference to a global social contract was simply an utopian desire. I personally do not see the possibility of such a contract under a predominantly capitalist world.
If Emmanuel`s theory of unequal exchange between the rich and poor countries has some merit, greater trade and exchange between somewhat equally developed nations ``may`` (it seems) be more beneficial for the less-developed parts of the world.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

BAhmed #25

What kind of social contract you are proposing between economic giants and dwarfs.

It is better if we have some reconciliation between TWC and increase in trade and exchange between them as much as possible.

bahmad #27

bahmad, here is a simplistic reply, as I have no knowledge of theory.

You may have seen this news item:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_874000/874490.stm
South Asian brokers urge ties

Present-day European countries and the interlinking of their economies may be a good example of one country`s well-being invested in another`s? Hope it willnot take a war like WWII to accomplish something similar on the subcontinent.

Sadhana

In response to Sadna (Reply # 26)
Dear Sadhana:
Thanks! In my post, I used the word ``social`` in its widest possible sense. Marxist scholars describe antagonism as an essential product of the nature of the capitalist mode of production. Why (under capitalism) would any country invest in the well-being of any other country? This brings us to the issue of exchange and use value of the world we live in.
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

bahmad #25

Glad to see you.

My 0.1 cents worth: It may have to be a global socio-economic contract. If formerly antagonistic countries have too much invested in the well-being of the other, possession of nuclear bombs will not make sense anymore.

Sadhana

Beena Sarwar has drawn our attention toward an extremely important matter concerning the humanity. Pakistan and India must denuclearize,though the issue of (de)nuclearization needs to be addressed on a global level in light of a new global social contract. What form should such a global social contract take? What do we need to do for its effective implementation? Any comment?
Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Sorry for this deja vu! :)

Another thing which needs to be stressed is that the Second World War, though dominated by military campaigns, was basically a political war; democracy versus facism versus communism with communism and demcracy joining forces to defeat facism.

Political aims determined the flow of the battles in WWII and influenced military strategy. Also, as Karl von Clusewitz said about wars being the continuation politics by other means, military strategy in WWII has to be understood as it was operating within the political limitations of the time.

Ciao!

Re: Harmonic # 22

Thank you!

If you read one of my earlier posts, I had mentioned that the decision to drop the nuclear weapons on Japan was made on two levels; political and military!

There was a definate need to keep the Russians out (political reason for dropping the bomb)and there was a fear in the US military about the casuality rates (military reason). I think that it would be extremely myopic to underestimate the levels of Japanese resistence to the Americans during the campaign in the Pacific and based on the horror of Iwo Jima, American strategic planners really foresaw a prolonged war to subdue the Japanese.

The estimate on the ability of the Japanese cities to withstand the punishment was correct, but you have to remember that the Japanese government, at the time conducting the war effort, was a military one and not a civilian one and as long as the Japanese war making industrial output remained viable, Japanese armed resistence was to continue at all costs.

Also, this is the perhaps the most salient point to remember about the American decision to drop the bomb on Japan. At the time of the decision, Harry Truman was meeting Winston Churchill and Isoef Stalin in Potsdam, Germany, to decide the future fate of Europe and the Americans and the British were finding that Stalin had his own ideas about Europe and a Russian role in it! It was becoming apprent to the Allies (UK and USA leadership) that their war time alliance with the Soviets was begining to crack and that, this is critical part, there would be a potential for disagreement with the Soviets in Europe and there might even be an armed conflict with the Soviets in Europe. Truman, by dropping the bomb wanted to send Stalin a message: back off!

With this potential conflicting looming in their minds, the Americans wanted to end the war in the Pacific quickly to concentrate their efforts in resisting the Soviets in Europe; hence, Truman`s decision to drop the bomb on Japan!

Nearly a year later, Churchill would deliver his ``Iron Curtain`` speech. Hence, the perceptional conflict with the Soviets was already visable in July 1945 at the time of the Potsdam talks!

Re: Fairdinkum # 20

I agree with you...no leadership...no hope!

Ciao!

harmonic #21

Exactly!
I think Fuzair is busy now…. But don’t worry, he will write a good one soon… It’s always good to disagree with Fuzair; he then comes up with amazing historical facts and research work on all sorts of things…. I am still waiting for a contribution from him on this site…. hope he is listening :)

Ferozk,

As expected, a well thought out, and eloquent reply from you. I don’t think we have slightest of idea about the true meaning of “the mournful mutter of a battle field.” And the devastating effects a war can have on the civilian population. I had the opportunity of working with Bosnian refugees and then later on with refugees from Kosovo. Some of them had lost their entire families…. no amount of counseling ever motivated them to get out of their intense grief and sadness…men (most of them in their sixties or seventies) hardly ever spoke about the atrocities they had gone through or witnessed…. They wouldn’t agree to having an interpreter talk to them about their experiences in front of us… women were more willing to talk…. One woman told us how Serbian soldiers entered her house, drank alcohol in front of them and sketched crucifix on the walls and then started beating her and her family & eventually ordered them out of the house and shot her husband and her two sons (5 & 7) right in front of her…these women narrated some of the most horrific stories I have ever heard… a lot of young women committed suicide after they were gang raped by soldiers… amongst the survivors was an 11 year old girl, she always kept herself wrapped in a blanket kind of cloth, and she never ever spoke to any of us… another young lady told us that she was raped by a group of soldiers in every which way possible… her mother, two brothers and her father were killed by Serbian soldiers in front of her. This is the price civilian population pay for a conflict of this nature.

Although it is highly unlikely that Indo-Pak conflicts will ever get to stage where soldiers will have the opportunity to victimize their civilian enemies on such a scale, but war will not bring happiness, and no argument is ever going to convince me that South Asia is safer because of nuclear weapons.

As for your socio-political analysis of South Asia in the context of war / threat of nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan, I think your analysis is widely applicable to various other issues in that part of the world. I agree with your diagnosis, and you know that prognosis is not good. It is indeed a frustrating situation. There are more questions than answers…there is no clear vision…no leadership…no nothing… However, I am hopeful. We’ll get there one day!

Dear Ferozk, Fuzair and some others,

Lets just get a few facts out in the open about the summer in 1945.

The US strategic boming survey, set up by the war dept., concluded (after Japan had surrendered) that Japan will surrender definitely prior to Dec 31st and probably prior to Nov. 1st. Could the American leaders have know this in Aug 1945. Of course yes. The Japanese code had been broken and the Japanese messages were intercepted. THey (the Japanese) had intructed their Ambassador in Moscow to work on peace negotiations with the Allies. And it was clear from these messages that Japan was going to surrender any moment as long as the Americans do not insist on unconditional surrender...i.e. if they are willing to accept that the emperor, a holy figure to the Japanese, remain in place. The US rejected all this and actually dropped the bomb before the Russians entered the war against Japan. The Russian were due to declare war on Aug 8th. The bomb was dropped to make sure that Japan surrenders to the American, not the Russians and that US would occupy post war Japan. All that stuff about US lives being lost in a ground invasion etc is just what the state`s version of history is.

Fairdinkum # 19

Thanks!

A practical step would be to begin with some basic education as to what a nuclear will really mean, because I am quite certain that most people in South Asia have no concept of what nuclear weapons can really do! As to the mind-set, that is a bit tricky, because anyone over the age of 5 is a lost cause having been already mentally posioned by the hate being preached in our schools! I think that the mind-set is a cultural phenomenon and unless we break out of our glorification of wars, it will be difficult!

How many of the arm chair war mongers in South Asia really know what the reality is on a battlefield? Does any one one in South Asia understand the phrase ``the mournful mutter of the battlefield?``

I think that Beena is on the right track, but people like her need to work their way from the symptoms to the diease and it all boils down to education and educating the people about what war really is and getting away from this childful CNN fairy tale of war as being something seen only on TV without and existing only in TV!

A basic requirement would be to start telling the truth, but since truth is the first causality of South Asian politics and education is baised in South Asia, the options are rather limited. We can start with awareness, what Beena is doing, but the odds are against her, because political awareness is a liablity in our culture. Are we then doomed to reinventing the wheel?

I am afraid that I have more questions than answers, but I know the path we are trodding upon is only going to end in an early grave! Grassroots effort could be undertaken, but it will wither and die once you reach the main stream of our society, because the nuclear weapons have religious context in our socio-political discourse and you are likely to be jailed for thinking un-Islamic thoughts!

There is a possible way out and it is called tolerance! Are we capable of tolerating different opinions and unless we break from the orthodox thought controls, the future is very dim indeed!

I am not a magican who can solve all our problems, but lets all, for starters, agree on the diease and once we do that, the prognosis will be a logical second step!

Re: Urstruly # 17

I thought you knew! (laughing out sinisterly)

Ciao!

Ferozk #17

Excellent post...well said! I appreciate what you are saying. But what do you suggest we do to change our mindset? What is your prescription for the cure of this disease you refer to? What practical steps can be taken?

I agree that Beena is only offering symptomatic treatment, but don`t you think it is better than no treatment at all? Or is this symptomatic treatment more damaging than no treatment at all?

As for nuclear bombing of Japan, I still believe that it was unnecessary... Historical facts now available (after the end of cold war) clearly point to the fact that there was no need to use those bombs...It actually suits Japan to highlight the use of nuclear bombs because for them it ends the war on a US atrocity....It suits US to say that it would have cost tens of thousands of more US casualties if we hadn`t used the bombs.....One reinforces the other. But in my view it was a human tragedy which could have been avoided if US had not made the decision to drop the bombs no matter what.

In fact, there was a race amongsts the inventors/developers/makers of bombs to use it before the end of war...they were afraid that war might be over before they can finish their job.....They were very keen to use those bombs for their scientific studies....I can provide you with historical facts if you like....

This reminds me of RMS Azam`s article in which he described how keen the two groups of Pakistani nuclear scientiests (one of the groups is headed by Dr. Qadir who stole a lot of stuff from his employer in Holland and ran away..he now claims to be the Guru of nuclear science in Pakistan) were to be the first to perform nulear tests...I reckon they`d be even keener to use nuclear weapons and then study their effects on living beings (provided they themselves survive to see the effects).... Indians are even worese than Pakistanis...An extreme right wing party is ruling the country...And with people like L K Advani at the heart of its policy formulation and decision making, anthing can happen.

RE: Ferozk# 17

Too late Mr., now we know you are as psychotic as the rest of us ;)

This is a minor clarification to a few of my early posts!

Having re-read most of my posts, I can see where the misunderstandings might arise from. I agree with Sigalph that no sane person can justify the use of nuclear weapons and no sane person will hope that nuclear weapons are utilized for any reasons. I will be the first one to admit, on this forum, that my own perceptions of the Second World and use of nuclear weapons on Japan have been greatly influenced in my talks with veterans; those that were earmarked for the invasion of Japan and those who were fighting in the western front and were to shipped east once the European war was over. There is a lack of a general misunderstanding and people, living nearly half a century, after the Second World underestimate the brutality with which the Second World War was fought and fail to realize that it was the planet’s greatest industrialized effort ever at war never since equaled or surpassed.

The day on which this article by Beena Sarwar appeared on Chowk was also the 86th Anniversary of the outbreak of the First World War – August 4, 1914. The devastation wrought by that war on the European continent had not been seen since days of the Black Death and even today in a demographic sense; the birth rate of France has not recovered since the end of the war, when millions of young men were killed at Marne and Verdun. Even in most European nations today there is dissimilarity in the ratio of males and females, with the females in a slightly higher percentile bracket, because of the number of males killed in that war, which the present birth rates are incapable of addressing!

In many ways, the world is still recovering from the sheer destruction of the First World War and the Second World and in many ways the last century, in a symbolic sense, began on April 12, 1912 when the Titanic sank and with it sunk a way of life which was truly representative of the ancien regime. If the sinking of the Titanic was the death-knell, then the First World War was the final nail in the coffin of 19th century world and the beginning of the Twentieth Century; a century of horrors, death and misery unexcelled in human affairs!

The last century was a century of war and it began with wars in the Balkans, the wars of national liberation against the Ottoman Turkish Empire, threatening a European peace and it ended with a Balkan war, the NATO led war against Serbia-Yugoslavia, which was fought to preserve a European peace! Wars were the defining characteristic of the Twentieth Century and the past century will always be a metaphor for war. In the destructive aftermath of the First World War, humanity’s perceptions on the nature of wars changed from the romantic idealized verses of Rudyard Kipling extolling the virtues of war to the bitter poems of Siegfried Sasson and Winfred Owens lamenting the sheer futility of wars as a human endeavor.

To prevent wars one has to understand why wars break out and why the periods of peace have been euphemistically been described as “temporary absence of war”. There are a host of reasons why wars are propagated and fought and these reasons can range from nationalism to religion or to whims of personal glory. Still, wars are not naturally