The Ongoing IT Revolution and Security Implications for Pakistan

i think if right now pakkistan and india were to open trade india would crush pakistan .i feel like this cuz india produces a large quality and good quantity.

pakistan lacks both so untill we bring our selfs to the standard we should`t open trade with india.

This is a fascinating thread. I have been reading interesting exchanges between VSN and the rest. I clearly disagree with VSN`s view of not recruiting an eligible candidate because he is not a Pakistani. I have often thought of this animosity between the 2 nations as the result of a certain mindset. When the British ruled us, it was the concept of ``British Imperialism`` that was at fault. The British themselves were not a bad lot. So also,IMO,both Pakistan and India have been nurturing some bad concepts (or mindset). That Jihad can solve what diplomacy cannot,that India is to be solely blamed for 1971 East Pakistan fiasco (and hence needs to be avenged),that Kashmir problem is so paramount that everything else including trade with India can wait are some of the bad concepts that Pakistani govt. (and some Pakistanis) nurtures. Indian govt (and some Indians) may be faulted for acting like bullys at times and not being sensitive to some of the issues of neighbours (there are too many to be recounted here). This does not automatically mean people are bad. But bad policies,in at least Pakistan`s case,seem to have outlived their makers.

Having said this,it baffles me to see the route Pakistan is taking. Most Pakistanis outside their country have the advantage of being unbiased and can bring fresh insight into the problems plaguing our relationship. What is preventing the 2 countries from engaging in mutually beneficial trade? As someone pointed out in this thread,Pakistan stands to gain a lot more. There is a huge market in India that is waiting to be tapped,be it energy sector,roads,or IT or what have you. As trade improves and picks up momentum,the 2 countries will be committed to peace because it is obvious you cannot have trade without peace. Pakistan is fritting away a golden chance of earning $600 million annually by just providing safe passage of natural gas through a pipeline from Iran to India. The project is not taking off since India fears that the safety of pipelines may be jeopardised by Taliban in future. I also feel that once enough trade happens between the 2 countries, there will be vested interest on both sides of the divide who would demand peace. Finding a solution to seemingly intractable problems like Kashmir will be easier then. Pakistan govt`s big mistake is to believe that trade can wait. It`s other mistake is to try and see if Jihadis can accomplish what diplomacy has not accomplished so far. It does not realise that these Jihadis will turn against Pakistan itself one day.

So,in order for things to change,i am afraid,first the mindset of governments should change. If and when Pakistani people find a way of electing a political leader without army`s interference and trade between the 2 countries become a reality, I see only good times in store for us.

vsn

i appreciate your actions.

you don`t have to lay open your conscience before this gang of pinkoes.

what is this discussion achieving ?

buying parity between india and pakistan in IT?

better to talk of kashmir and hindu/muslim stuff and leave saner things like IT aside.

nchiket

vsn #262

A innocent child who is without authority or means to make political impact and an innocent citizen possibly without means (or inclination) to make political impact but both of whom are made to suffer for it materially, are not apples and oranges, they are equivalent.

BTW, as far as I`m concerned, you are free to invest anywhere you like or boycott what goods you like. I am happy to see you concede at least `little on the sleazy side` on the discrimination issue.

And superior morality has one advantage(which is why it is superior), you might realise, that it can be made to bring in desired results while minimizing unmanageable and undesired repurcussions. `Finer legal points` often shroud this compelling reality.

Sadhana

vsn #262:

I would say that what you are doing is NOT morally wrong. It could be professionally unethical and even counter-productive and I donot know about the legal aspect.

I am wondering if anyone can actually sue you for employing a dsicriminatory policy for hiring, though it is for your own company. Given the legal strictures in the US against the myriad forms of discrimination, can you escape the legal net, were someone to find out about your hiring practices?

I will reiterate, I dont think what you are doing is morally wrong, since though it is an injustice to each of the Pakistanis rejected by you because of his/her nationality, I think its a kind of non-cooperation with the country that is believed to be involved in all and sundry subversive activites in India. I know Pakistanis have the same grudge against India and I would not call them amoral if they were to start boycotting Indian stores or movies or any other thing Indian. If we can boycott certain cosmetic companies for unethical treatment of animals, to give an example, cant we also boycott a country because of its inimical behavior towards our country?

As for the impact of such boycott of everything Pakistani by Indians, I am not as optimistic as you are. Figuratively speaking, Pakistan is ready to eat grass to wage a thousand year war against India, as was put by Late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Nevertheless, it doesnt mean one shoudlnot try.

Satyavadi

sadna #261

You are comparing apples with oranges. We are talking about citizens

of warring countries in a neutral country. Don’t you expect discrimination among

them? Obviously they only place they can meet is on neutral ground, not

in each others countries. It is natural that they wont be in a very

cooperative mood. It is a natural consequence of wars. There is a

a lot of pain that comes with the territory.

As long as you obey the laws of the land, do you have a moral obligation

to cooperate or help people who have a direct connection to our enemy country.

There are lots of economic activities, which require cooperation between

people beside employment. What about doing business with Pakistanis? Can’t I spend

my dollars wherever I like? Do I have to fund Pakistani companies? Would people

come and sue me if I do not give 10Million dollars to a Pakistani even though his

idea is better than some XYZ company`s idea? I would like to fight that case:)

I concede that my not hiring a Pakistani is a little on sleazy side even

though it is for my own company and not for anyone else. But in reality

I lose more than he does, by not hiring him. The programmers

are in driver seat everywhere.

If Pakistanis count on the superior morality of Indians in saving them

from their retaliation all over the world they may be half right.The other

half suffer from moral apathy:) But there is a limit for everything.

Do we care half as much about as poor innocent lives lost everyday in Kashmir as we

argue about the finer points of law ensuring that there be no small

discomfort to a Pakistani exptraite`s luxurious life style in US? By not

taking a moral stance on issues we are only showing apathy. And are we morally

right in demanding rights from people to whom we deny the same right?

When the threshold is reached Pakistanis may not be able to stop the wave of resentment and will lose a lot economically. To preempt that educated Pakistanis should actively dissociate themselves from the military govt, lobby for democracy,

lobby for secularism and bring about pro Indian policies in Pakistan. It is

a tall order but future prosperity depends on it.

vsn #219

Your logic is spurious.

You say `` am not doing it solely because the numbers favor me. Numbers favor me to discriminate against lot of people you will surely agree. I am doing it because i want the people sitting in ivory towers to feel the heat and do something to influence the politics of their country.``

What you do in your capacity as an individual is one thing. What you do as a professional with responsibilities to his employer and to his profession (even if you are self-employed, a company cannot act with the freedom of an individual) is another. Here is an example. Suppose you had a daughter who attended soccer coaching at school. Suppose India had just tested its nuclear devices, giving the world a nasty surprise. Suppose your daughter`s soccer coach was a Cold War veteran who feels really angry at the nuclear genie being out of the bottle again and his family and country living under the nuclear threat again, reminding him of those insecure sixties when children used to have nuclear war drill. He may choose to mistreat your daughter or refuse to have her on the team saying `I am doing it because I want the people sitting in ivory towers to feel the heat and do something to influence the politics of their country.` According to you he would be justified, right? Wrong, he or you have no right to use your professional position to play politics.

If you want to guard against unfair discrimination against yourself, first you have to not resort to such unfair practices too, get it? You are not really in a position to have it only your way anywhere or anytime though you may think you are. And you are doing other Indians only disservice if you behave in an unethical manner.

As an individual if you want to organise an interest group or even a hate group, thats your business, but neither you nor your employer(where you yourself are concerned) is justified in discriminating solely on basis of your political affiliations in a field of work where these affiliations have no relevance.

``But dont you discriminate against dumb people, arrogant people, irresponsible people, obnoxious people``
When you make a blanket assumption about given nationality=arrogance, irresponsibility, whatever, you open the door for blanket judgements to be passed on yourself, too. What will you do then? And one must surely be a really bad manager if one is so prone to generalization or bias.

Sadhana

Regarding vsn and the legal discussions:

I think that there are two different things - law and morality. Something that may violate one`s moral code (eg infidelity) may not immoral but not necessarily illegal. Similarly, something that is illegal (eg littering?) may not go against a person`s moral code. Secondly, morality is individual - each person has his/her own moral code of what is acceptable and what is not (eg lying, cheating, stealing etc), whereas the law is common to all - ideally reflecting what is moral according to the majority of people.

Then again, laws differ from country to country (or even state to state), as what is moral/immoral according to the majority may differ from country to country. Eg: infidelity is illegal in India, not so in the US; sodomy is illegal in India, not so in the US; bigamy is illegal in the US, not so in India (for some communities).

So vsn`s decision to not hire Pakistanis as it would indirectly strengthen India`s enemy (through $ remittances, political clout etc) may be moral according to his code, and it certainly would not be illegal in India, but it may violate laws in the US (I am not sure). If there is a conflict between one`s moral code and the law of the land (`foreign` land in vsn`s case), it is upto vsn to decide which one he should follow.

Finally, what is moral or what is legal may not be constant over time. Slavery, bonded labour, caste system etc have been practiced in the centuries gone by, even by otherwise pious and `good` people, but have become abhorrent over time. Who knows how the future will judge us, with our abortions, killing of animals and birds for food, our jihads and so on.

Anamika,

Youre right, I`m not a lawyer. However, I stand behind my point. You dont HAVE to be a doctor to know whether something is grossly unhealthy or not.

Your argument about maintaing morale/colleguality in the office leads to a very very slippery slope.

Lets agree to disagree on this

VijayAmrit #251

The people here are busy Government of Pakistan and Government of India officials.

So better go to a lighter area.

shankar #256

Are you a lawyer? If not, please desist from straying into legal territory. There is discrimination and there is discrimination. Bad-tempered, hard-to-get-along-with persons are denied tenure on university campuses every day and not many of them win reinstatement and tenure with a lawsuit. Stuff happens. As to morality, the situation is very specific. Just because A is sort of B, etc. (the famous Sac Logic) it just doesn`t make any two random things equal. There simply is no historical discrimination or a pattern of discrimination of Pakistanis by Indians in the US. If there indeed is any discrimination - which I am aware of only through vsn`s public confessions, it probably has not been around long, not systematic and you have no case.

anamika

#212, 252, 255

You are skating on very very thin ice.

When you justify hiring or not hiring someone because it would effect colleguality or morale in the office; it smacks of racism & bigotry--pure & simple. A trial lawyer could have a lot of fun with you on the witness stand. (I`m assuming you live in the US).

The bigots made those very same arguments when the US military wanted to racially integrate itself. They say the same thing when women or gays want a job in the military.

I disagree with your logic on both, legal & moral grounds.

This level of goofup is too much even for me. I`ll correct the most significant of many. Please read (1) If you thought hiring someone will be disruptive to collegiality,

would you still hire that person who might be qualified in every

other respect? If the answer is NO, then may be we differ on

where you set the threshold. If the answer is YES, then presumably

you run a charity for South Asian workers in which case your

situation is unique and does not apply to what is being discussed

here.

Rsaxena #245, ``Good point you raise. I wonder what people think of firms throwing out resumes from students who don`t come from Ivy League or

other top-10 schools. Is that a type of unfair discrimination? ``

What world do you live in? Discrimination on the basis of race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation is constitutionally illegal and morally wrong. That is what this VSN jerk is doing. Personal characteristics such as responsibility, ability, intelligence etc are determined by the interview process. I`m sure you know this but your hatred for Pakistani blinds you into accepting vsn`s arguments as sound.

scout

Manoj,

Ah, the old cartographic aggression bit again.. been reading up on the SAAG papers or something?

Re:1971, oddly enough, Indian troops were already in East Pakistan a full 2 weeks before the `official` start of the war (started by the `Pakis`, natch). And heck, Pakistan beat India into opening the conflict in the Western theatre by what, a couple of days? We may as well have waited those tw0 days, for all the good it did us.

Pakistani commandoes were looting and pillaging who, exactly, in the Kargil mountains?

Umairr #222

I will make the following points in response to what I believe is the gist of your characteristically l..o..n..g piece:

(1) If you thought hiring someone will be disruptive to collegiality, would you still hire that person who might be qualified in every other respect? If the answer is yes, then may be we differ on where you set the threshold. If the answer is no, then presumably you run a charity for South Asian workers in which case your situation is unique and does not apply to what is being discussed here.

(2) As to the equivalence of Siachin and Kargil, pardon me, but it sounds like a *post facto * justification. The road from Siachin to Kargil (figuratively of course) is not continuous except may be in Pakistani military minds. There had been several peace overtures on the political front between the two countries, with the latest being Lahore. Your type of thinking where past actions are just as valid as present ones, peace will NEVER be possible. There are two related points.

(1) As someone else has said already, to the generation that is dominant among Indians in the valley, Kargil is a big deal. They are too young to remember other conflicts. OTOH, to a Kanwal Rekhi, Kargil may be just another blip in history and he can continue to claim to be a product of the Indus valley.

(2) Prior to Kargil, among educated Indians at least, you`d have found the feeling that continuing to hold on to Siachin at an enormous human cost is foolish. There were any number of press reports/articles on the stypidity of Siachin. It was the (Indian) military that had always deemed Siachin to be strategically important. Popular opinion, or whatever passes for it, was unconvinced but unsure now of what to believe after Kargil. Your backhanded condemnation of Kargil notwithstanding, it is hard for an Indian mind to believe that you really mean it when you say Kargil=Siachin=every other confict.