Should Pakistan Honor the Lahore Resolution?

Krashid (#281):

I was looking for an entry into this board again. My very limited knowledge about LR kept me away on Friday but, thanks to you, with statement like, “Karachi alone generates 67% of total revenue (most recent statistics) and Punjab gets 55% of total share on the basis of population. It means that people in Karachi work for Punjab” provided me the opportunity to ramble back into discussion.

I have heard of Karachi’s share of revenues to be above 60 percent for a long time. Do you know of any URL or printed material, providing such data in detail? I checked the Pakistan’s government site at www.cbr.gov.pk/ that provides salient features of budget for 2000-20001. The budget at a glance provided at www.cbr.gov.pk/budget/home.htm reveals some very useful data although it does not provide the information about collection of revenues from various provinces and cities. Total revenues were 694 (all data is in billion of Rs.). Something like 412 was resulted from income tax and taxes on products (sort of sales tax charged at the manufacturing sites, like cigarette tax etc. The price consumer pay already includes this central government tax). Rest was generated from property tax, taxes on natural gas and gasoline and deficit financing (taking out loan from both internal and external sources). I would not be surprised if 67 percent from Karachi is actually figure that either includes petroleum surcharge (levied at Karachi on all imported items and commodities) and internal borrowing from banks (who have their head offices in Karachi) or it represents share of income tax part only. Whatever the case, it is wrong to assume loans from banks or petroleum surcharge as revenues of Karachi residents or 67 percent of income tax from Karachi since income taxes are about 2/3 of the overall revenues. Similar statement, as yours, was made before 1971 suggesting West Pakistan generating 81 percent of the overall revenue and East Pakistan demanding 56 percent of it, based on population. Both statements are/ were wrong if you look at the breakdown of federal government expenses. A large portion of revenue comes from federal government institutions and properties. Just like a person living in Florida collects rent from his/ her properties in NY and NY state can not force the person to spent it in NY state, federal government can not be forced to utilize its revenues from their institutions/ properties preferentially at the site of its generation.

Lets look at the federal spending picture provided on the right hand side of the web page I mentioned above. The federal govt. collects 182 as provincial taxes (since there is no provincial income and property tax department) and gives it back to provinces. Punjab probably gets about 100 of this (182 x 0.55) and other provinces according to their size of population. The federal government gives additional grants of 44 to provinces with Punjab getting 21, NWFP and Sindh each getting 9 and Baluchistan 5.6. In all, Punjab gets 121 from federal government, which includes provincial taxes collected by the center. The largest federal government outlays are debt servicing, 305, defense 135, running government 80 and special projects 40 (mostly defense related). You would be better off making a statement for Karachi working for debt servicing or defense budget than Punjab. If you make a case for defense spending primarily benefiting Punjab, then I would refer you back to Umairr’s post breaking down the military spending.

Actually all provinces are generating enough revenues from property taxes and various forms of agriculture taxes, to run the affairs of their respective states. It is damn those two big items of federal spending, leaving nothing for developmental programs either by the center or provinces.

Re: Punjab

The constant whining about Punjab’s domination on both sides of the border often perplexes me. Sure, in Pakistan, Punjab is the largest province and more bureaucrats and military people come from there. I am really very interested to know about, what is it about Punjab and Punjabis which irks people as distant from Punjab as Tamils or Bengalis? Here is one of my observations on the cultural scene. Being an avid follower of Hindi music and movies, I have read many articles, both in print and electronic media, about almost cabalist type domination of Punjabis in this industry. The Kapoors, Chopras, Pancholi, Madan Mohan, Sehgal, Rafi, Samshad Begum, Surriya are often cited as a proof of Punjabi domination during the last 30-40 years. However, a similar case for Manna Dey, Pankhaj Mullick, Salil Chaudhary, C. Ramachandra, Burmans, Guru Dutt, Yogita Bali, Geeta Dutt, Ganguly brothers (Kishore Kumar and Ashok Kumar) etc. has not been made for Bengali domination. They are often talked of as very talented (which I do not doubt for a moment), but can’t some Punjabis be as talented individuals. At present, four of the topmost singers, namely Kumar Sanu, Abhijeet, Kavita Krishnamoorthy and Alka Yagnik are Bengalis and very talented indeed. Despite general dislikes of Hindi/ Urdu by Bengalis and close resemblance of Hindi/ Urdu with Punjabi, it is not considered a Bengali domination. As soon as couple of Punjabis, Daler Mehndi and Sukhvinder Singh succeed on Hindi pop music scene, a case for Punjabization (or bastardization) of Hindi music is made because these guys use Punjabi folk tunes in their music. Well, Bermans and others had used Bengali folk tunes in Hindi music for a long time and it did not bother any one. Actually it was beautiful. In Pakistan, when there was a movie industry in Lahore, non-Punjabis dominated it and no one complained. But complains were made against late Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan that he was too Punjabi, speaks Hindi/ Urdu with Punjabi accent and sings mostly folk Punjabi qawwalis.

The case for a large number of Keralite nurses was/ is seen in positive light. The case for large number of IT professionals from south is seen for good reasons but a case for large number of small businesses and gas stations owned by Punjabis in NY and NJ is considered cabalist, helping each other, risk takers and so on. Is the general dislikes for Punjabis a new phenomenon or dates back to 1857 mutiny or even further back to Mahabharata times?

Please do not respond to the second part of my post here, because that will be diverting the focus from the main issues under discussion.

ON NATIONAL INTEGRATION: V
Jullanduri on the Quota System

“Along with a division of the provinces, let us also say goodbye to the provincial quota system. The quota system has already done great damage to the country. It has placed apparently less efficient and less competent persons, in highly responsible positions of authority where they take decisions affecting th fate of the nation. Moreover, being aware of the fact that they gained these positions in spite of being low down in the merit list, they could never get out of their inferiority complex during their entire career. Having been selected on the basis on belonging to domiciled in or optees of settlers in a particular province, they were bound to develop a narrow outlook and behave in a prejudicial or parochial manner during their service.

On the other hand, those who had a high merit position but either failed to get a job in the Central Superior Service or got a post in a lower order than they were entitled to, feel the pangs of injustice done to them and nurse a grudge against the system all their life, and become more conscious of belonging to a province rather than the country. All these factors stand in the way of promoting National Integration. It is, therefore, absolutely necessary that provincial quota should be done away with immediately.”

Comment: Jullanduri has identified at least two negative aspects of the quote system: (1) it discredits merit; and as a consequence (2) it hurts many individuals. In both cases it sets a process that damages national cohesion. I have mixed feelings about the quota system. This is a topic that I would like to discuss with others in greater detail. Could somebody provide more details about he quota system (particularly the formula used for the allocation of jobs).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

ON NATIONAL INTEGRATION: IV
Jullanduri on Recreating the Provinces

“So, let us not get into the argument as to whether any province has hegemony over others, but let us look into the problems dispassionately and remove the very source of grievances. Let us, once for all, remove all chances of bickering and complaints, by changing the shape of things in such a manner that there remains no single province with an overall majority. I am fully aware that the suggestion I am going to put forward will hurt the feelings of many and will injure the sensibilities of a large number of lovers of provincial cultures and languages. But, I think, that in the larger interests of the country, we should be living willing to make some adjustments in our way of thinking. The proposal is not a new one. It has been advocated earlier, also, by some intellectuals, but it has not yet gained sufficient support to be taken up seriously.

Of course, this or any other suggestion cannot be adopted or implemented unless and until it gets the support of the majority of the people. The suggestion briefly is, that the provinces of Pakistan to be so reconstituted, that they become roughly equal in size and population and are more easily manageable. For this purpose, I intend to support the suggestion that the present Commissioner’s Divisions may be converted into provinces. This will not only remove all fears of exploitation by any single province, but will also provide all areas of the country equal opportunities of representation and development. One serious objection that can be raised against this suggestion, apart from sentimental reasons, can be that this may lead to very heavy expenditure. But I think that the benefits that are likely to accrue from this proposal would be far greater than the expenditure evolved.

Even so, maximum care should be taken to keep the expenditure to the minimum, by confining the number of members of the provincial assemblies and provincial cabinets to the barest needed. We should also adopt simplicity and avoid ostentation. At this stage let me add for those who may find this suggestion palatable for sentimental reasons, that it is better to divide the provinces than to break up the country.”

Comment: Jullanduri want to remove the sources of bickering between the provinces. For this, he proposes recreation of the provinces on the basis of population and size. Given the present natural and social geography of Pakistan, there is no way we could create jurisdictions to be efficient, effective, and fair such that we remove all or most sources of jurisdictional tensions. This is a topic that I will expand in future. Will Jullanduri’s proposal solve the problems at hand? Maybe, in some parts of Pakistan; maybe not, in some others. Musharraf regime’s devolution plan provides a better solution for local administration. But, it is likely to reduce the power of each district in matters of regional and national importance (at least in some parts of Pakistan). In any case, the cultural politics of economic and social inequalities cannot be addressed effectively by any scheme of jurisdictional reorganization only unless all jurisdictions are virtually homogenous culturally. Is there any way, an effort to create homogeneity (a natural desire in the presence of identity politics) will lead to too much conflict, uprooting, and the violation of human rights? So, what needs to be done? Comments welcome.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

ahmadb #321

Bilal,

Thanks for your enlightening thoughts in response my post (clipping of Mr. Altaf’s questions to be precise)

Indeed, after the ruin of the pre-Islamic Kaaba of modernity in which science, and reason (alone) had gained the status of Laat and Mannaat, and various ideologies occupied the status of deities, European/Western ‘postmodern’ thought recognizes that people do not show the same enthusiasm and commitment to ideologies of any sort which they perhaps did 30 or 40 years ago. This view/thought is also supported by some recent sociological studies.

In societies like United States, despite the fact that they are unable to escape from underlying currents of certain ideological convictions, social pragmatism pretty much rules (my personal view).

In Pakistan, as you pointed out, the official position of ruling class (regarding ideology) is their unwavering commitment to ‘Pakistan is an Islamic Republic.’ Keeping in mind the support Jihadis/Mullahs/religious right provides to ruling elite in the name of ‘Islam Republic of Pakistan’, the situation in Pakistani society is comparable (if not strikingly similar) to the stranglehold of aristocracy-church duo on medieval European society.

In my view, an ideology has to exist in some form (other than on the piece of paper it’s written on) to be under any crisis. ‘Pakistan is an Islamic Republic’ does not qualify as an ideology based on the six basic properties of an Ideology you have identified. To put it bluntly, Islamic Republic of Pakistan is a fraud perpetrated by ruling elite with help of Pakistan’s equivalent of medieval church.

As it is, we don’t even know if the vision of our founding fathers or their ideologies were at all practical. We don’t know simply because they have not been put into practice ever… On the face of it, Mr. Jinnah’s ‘Muslims are a nation’ has been proven wrong. But what did he mean when he said ‘Muslims are a nation’? Was he referring to all the Muslims in the world? Or was he referring to the particular situation of Muslims of India, and a need to safeguard their rights/interests in the wake of the fall of British Empire? How did he intend to run his Pakistan? We need to answer these questions honestly to really understand his vision for Pakistan.

The primary reason for the severe criticism of this article from certain sections, in my view, is that it delves into areas, which are shrouded in sacredness in our society and considered unquestionable. On the other hand, some people have (quite rightly I might add) questioned the need to look at a document (LR 1940), which is now a DEAD (in every sense of the word) document. I am not at all surprised that the discussion of LR with reference to the questions you posed never really took off. The reason, in my view, is that we didn’t come to an understanding on the need to embark on this road at all. There is a saying in Punjabi, which translates into something like: “why wonder or ask about the route to a village which we never intend to visit?”

The reason I appreciate your piece is that in the absence of any worthwhile political leadership in Pakistan, and in view of a very real possibility of disintegration of existing Pakistan, it points to an alternative approach of resolving some of our very fundamental problems... why not look back at what some of our founding fathers proposed? we may need to reinterpret their ideas to suit our times, to suit the ground realities of Pakistan in the year 2000 etc etc. …. But lets talk about it. Lets do something to ensure long-term viability of Pakistan. For me, Lahore Resolution 1940 is as good a start as any.

At any rate, at least we communicated with each other in the real sense of the word… Talked about our resentments/differences and disagreed with each other on vaious view points. I think it’s more positive, and productive to engage in honest, and open discussions and disagree with each other than to stick together as “one nation” on the basis of our enmity for India/Indians or on the basis of empty slogan/rhetoric of ‘Islamic Republic of Pakistan.’

Some of my comments may have sounded discriminatory/biased. I apologize to Umairr, urstruly and all Punjabis on this board if they felt hurt by any of my comments… Let me assure you that I have opposed “Jeya Sindh” movement, BB, and MQM more vehemently than this. When in the company of Sindhis, I am the most ardent supporter of Punjabis, and Mohajirs.

NATIONAL INTEGRATION: III
JULLANDURI ON PUNJAB

“After having lost the eastern wing of the country, we once again have a province, the Punjab, which has more population than the population of tall the other three provinces of the remaining country. The main difference in the past and the present is that, whereas in the past, the majority province left deprive and neglected, at present the three minority provinces feel that all power and resources of the country are being monopolized by the majority province. We notice that slogans for Sindu Desh and Pakhtoonistan are getting louder, and one new political part includes in its charter, the establishment of a “Confederation” of the existing provinces.

Allegations against the majority province may be based on misunderstanding or misrepresentation. Some representatives of the majority province have written extensively to argue that this province is, in fact, voluntarily surrendering its rights and privileges in favour of the other provinces, in almost all fields, including its quota in services and finances for development. Even so, being the majority province, it may still have a larger number of jobs held by the Punjabis than others, and may be using more funds for its development than used by other provinces. But it may also have a much larger number of poor and unemployed persons, and on an average, it may not be better off than the other provinces. In fact, the exploiters do not belong to any particular province. They are found in all the provinces, and it s people like them, who divert the attention of the exploited, by putting the blame at the door of one group or another.

However, as long as the province of the Punjab remains the province with the existing majority of population, there will be no dearth of complaints and grievances by those political exploiters who exploit the credibility of the other provinces.”

Comment: I find Jullanduri’s article fairly reasonable. So, I will not doubt much about the accuracy of his claims and allegations. The slogan of Sindu Desh is alive and well. Sindhis are one of the most organized people around the world. Musharraf has recently asked to make some sort of inquiries against the World Sindhi Congress (particularly with reference to WSC’s London meeting). I know, (late) Feroz Ahmed was a regular participant of this group. Is this group anti-Pakistan and the root cause of separatism in Sindh? I am not sure; what I am sure that its members do complain vehemently about the conditions in Sindh and Pakistan. I was under the impression that the Pakhtoonistan movement is over. I fully agree with Jullanduri that millions of Punjabis are poor and unemployed (or not fully employed). I also agree that domination/subordination relations and thus exploitation and deprivation exists in all provinces of Pakistan.

I am, however, of the view that we shouldn’t leave the matter at essentially this level of argumentation. One better approach would be to publish information about clearly how and how much revenue is generated by each smallest administrative unit in the country and how of it goes to the center and how much of it comes back to the source. In other words, we need to fully know the allocation of resources in the country both sectorally and spatially. We also need to know the logic of distribution. I am not against a policy of equalization (which was presumably intended by the quota system in government jobs) provided such a policy does not lead to too much inefficiency in the system (remember the role of geography in this respect). I also believe, like Jullundari, that the state must provide accurate and unbiased information about the state of Pakistan (I mean all parts of Pakistan). Is the state geared to such a level of transparency? I doubt very much. Comments welcome.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to shammi (Reply # 332)
Dear Shammi:

Your statement: ``But none of this can happen if Pakistan continues to devote an estimated 30 percent of its national budget to defense.``

Comment; This is exactly what I have been arguing all along. I want a national policy of demilitarization and peace to be developed such that we gradually reduce the burden of the so-called defense. If India and Russia can sign a no-war pact, why shouldn`t India and Pakistan.

I was talking to a senior/prominent Pakistani journalist, in person, who argued that their some hidden expenditures and the real figure comes to around 47 percent. If this is true,the situation becomes much more depressing.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Umairr #326

I wonder what you think about this article published in Foreign Affairs?

Pakistan`s Jihad Culture

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/issues/0011/stern.html

I am especially interested in what you think the military`s role is in promoting this jehadi culture at the peril to Pakistani moderate society. Here are the closing paragraphs from the article:

``...Pakistan must make its own changes. It must stamp out corruption, strengthen democratic institutions, and make education a much higher priority. But none of this can happen if Pakistan continues to devote an estimated 30 percent of its national budget to defense.

Most important, Pakistan must recognize the militant groups for what they are: dangerous gangs whose resources and reach continue to grow, threatening to destabilize the entire region. Pakistan`s continued support of religious militant groups suggests that it does not recognize its own susceptibility to the culture of violence it has helped create. It should think again. ``

Umairr #326

I wonder what you think about this article published in Foreign Affairs?

Pakistan`s Jihad Culture

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/issues/0011/stern.html

Re: Umairr # 326

“The only institution that can tame the jehadists is the army”

Umairr, Khaled Ahmed of The Friday Times will disagree with your line of thinking (see my post #317). I quote Khaled Ahmed, “If he (Musharraf) clamps down on the militant clergy, he might be forced to deploy the army against them. He is scared that the army might not like this war and turn on him instead…”

Using the jehadists for any leverage is a dangerous strategy – there is no popular ‘feedback loop’ on the army or the jehadists should their politics take a trajectory that is inconsistent with a progressive, moderate state. The military is riding a tiger, one that might end up eating it! Such a scenario is speculative, but not impossible. That scenario is a nightmare for both Pakistan and India, and a far cry from Jinnah`s vision.

Re: Tahmed321 #318

``However, my point is - if you get stuck with a lemon, it is better to try and at least make some lemonade.``

That was genuinely funny! I agree with you -- Pakistan does indeed face a Hobson`s choice, and in comparison to all that is wrong in Pakistan`s civil society, the military does deserve limited credit. However, the harm that it has caused Pakistan far outweighs the benefits. The reason that I am so skeptical of the military`s ability to set things right is that they have had their opportunity for no less than 4 occaisons spanning 27 years, and what do they have to show for it? I say that we should throw in the towel, step away from the solution that they are propounding and demand a fresh start without their participation.

ON NATIONAL INTEGRATION: II

I have prepared a synopsis of Zia Jullunduri’s article that I mentioned in my previous post (Reply # 322). Jullanduri’s article is simple and covers most important aspects except the share in the national pie.

CAUSES OF NATIONAL DISUNITY
Lack of democratic values
Authoritarianism
Desecration of the Constitutions
Army intervention

CORRECTIVE MEASURES
Establishment of true democracy
Appointment of representative bureaucracy
Local control/government
Civil liberties (freedom of expression)
Formal and informal education of people
Transparency (proper information)

MAIN HURDLE TO NATIONAL INTEGRATION
Interprovincial tensions

SOLUTIONS
Jurisdictional (provincial) reorganization
No provincial quota system
Tolerance and broad-mindedness: Language policy
Justice and fairness to all

A discourse on national cohesion needs to critically examine every aspect of the problem, plus the national defense expenditure. In my next post, I will provide a few excerpts from his paper. Comments welcome.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to Urstruly (Reply # 320)
Dear Urstruly;

I vaguely understand the contributon of Ivan Pavlov. However, I fail to understand what you are trying to say.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. It seem that my article has hurt the sensibilities of a few Chowkwallas, which was not intended. If you are one of them, do write me at bahmad@home.com and I will try to remove all misunderstanding.

shammi #317: You have made some good points. I agree with most of what you have stated. I do think however, that you are underestimating the situation Pakistan was in, under Nawaz Sharif, last year. Things may not be great right now, but they were much worse at the same time last year. That is why when NS was kicked not even five hundred people out of a population of 130 million came out to protest.

I have had (perhaps) a unique opportunity of watching both generals and civilian private enterprise leaders in action, up close. I have unfortunately not had a chance to witness too many politicians, except for the odd friend or relative, in action. However, I have read about them, quite a bit.

I will be the first to admit that generals are not good candidates for running civilian affairs. Just like a civilian cannot lead an air strike, similarly a soldier cannot solve civilian problems and disputes. Generals of any country have many shortcomings that prevent them from being good civilian leaders. They are used to black and white, and are not used to gray. They have a very narrow outlook on most matters. And generally, they rely more on emotion and morale, rather than a levelheaded long-term outlook. I am saying this, not because Zia-ul-Haq was unsuccessful as a statesman, but because these are inherent limitations that most military personnel have, as long as they are in the military. They have to have these limitations to become good soldiers. This is why I think Martial Law should be the very last resort of governing a country.

However there is only one thing worst than Martial Law, and that is no law at all. Pakistan was in this situation last year under NS. An honest sincere general, with all the shortcomings of a military mind, is still much better than a completely dishonest self-serving civilian dictator. Pakistan can survive only so many Nawaz Sharifs, Benazirs, and Altafs. One can state that NS and Altaf are the creations of the military. This is probably true, but how does that solve the current problems. Musharraf is not Zia, and Zia was not Musharraf. One needs to keep all the above points in mind, when judging the current regime.

Lets compare the points you have brought up, i.e. freedom of press and religious extremism:

``I salute the writing of the miniscule minority in Pakistan who have not yet been completely silenced and are still allowed (for how long, I do not know) to carefully write the truth as they see it(with guarded criticism of their government).``

The Pakistani press right now is freer than it has ever been before, for as long as I can remember. Every writer in every newspaper of Pakistan has stated this. It is far freer than it ever was under NS. The editor of the newspaper you have quoted from, was kidnapped from his bedroom, and locked up by Nawaz Sharif, for having made a speech in India. Ironically, it was Musharraf, the COAS, who got him out of NS`s jail (this has been stated by the editor himself in an editorial). Another one of the writers for the Friday Times, was taken to an unknown location and beaten up by Nawaz Sharif. The current Pakistani ambassador to the USA, was on Nawaz`s hit list, when she was a journalist for a newspaper.

``The jehadists cannot be tamed by the military -- only a broad-based political party can.``

My understanding of this situation is exactly the opposite. The only institution that can tame the jehadists is the army. Civilian political parties are extremely scared of them, even though none of the religious parties ever win any seats. The worst action of the NS govt. would have been the passing of the Shariah Bill. That would have spelt the end for Pakistan. I encourage you to read its text. Nawaz Sharif authored it to run the country through a selected group of, ``religious scholars.`` NS never raised a finger against any religious violence. Shia-Sunni killings were the norm.

In my opinion, the Army could take out the militant Islamist groups right now if it wanted to. However, it feels that it is gaining leverage through them in Kashmir (this point is debatable, and has been debated to death, depending on which side of the fence you stand on). This was the same policy used by Nawaz Sharif, and Benazir. So no better, no worse. It also wants to get a handle on the economy before opening up new fronts. However, Shia-Sunni killings are way down. Musharraf backed down on the Blasphemy Law, but he did get rid of the Shariah Bill. What exactly did NS or BB ever do about the Blasphemy Law? They never even brought it up. In fact, the Shariah Bill, after passing, would have made the Blasphemy Law look like small potatoes. And there was nothing more pathetic than watching Benazir, holding a tasbeeh, day and night, while she along with her husband were robbing the country silly.

There are many other issues like that. The economy may not have improved yet, however it has been taken out of its free fall. People at least have some fear of God in them now, and aren`t taking out millions of dollars of loans from nationalized banks, that they will never pay back. And the Finance Minister is an internationally recognized banker, and not the chief accountant of the NS personal industrial empire. The minister of Science and Tech. is an internationally recognized scientist, and not a fuedal horse breeder. So on and so forth.

What I am trying to state is that military men are never the ideal candidates to run any country. They should only be the last resort. In Pakistan’s case that situation had arrived, at least in my opinion. Ideally, Pakistan should be ruled by a sincere elected ruler. However, the current choices are corrupt Nawaz and urban cronies, corrupt Benazir and feudal cronies, honest Qazi and narrow-minded maulvis, and honest Musharraf and short-sighted generals. Given the choice between these four groups, I choose the last one. I wish there were a fifth group available, but unfortunately there isn`t.

One needs to judge Musharraf`s team`s performance in comparison with the other options available. One also cannot hold them responsible for anything Zia and Ayub may have done. Different individuals behave differently under similar situations, even if they belong to the same country, religion, province, ethnicity, institution (army) or even the same family. There is a big difference between Musharraf and his military predecessors. As long as this difference remains, I support him for three years. I think, if Musharraf does whatever he can and leaves within three years, in the long run, most Pakistanis will think of him in good terms.

Someone has to run the country. It cannot run on autopilot. It also cannot run on a utopian hope that, sooner or later, the system will automatically change itself.

BAhmed #285

I was one of the most vocal opponent of MQM. While I was in New York I wrote few articles in Urdu Newspaper regarding the mafia style of MQM.

Neither do I believe in politics of ethnicity.

But, the solution is taking care of the problem, so that we can concentrate as single people in nation building, realizing that all of us will get our due share in this process.

Setting this aside, it was the common man in Karachi who bore the brunt. And sometimes, I would wonder how the people can survive such amount of stress.

I have seen enough. A Sindhi Engineer was killed by MQM. He had a eight year daughter. People were happy. A Mohajir killed in Sukkur. Sindhis were happy. Poor people mostly from South Punjab and NWFP were afraid to go out for daily wage work, because they feared their death.

When Karachi was burning, you are right, I could see the satisfaction and comments from people from other parts of Pakistan.

If we are not one nation, and one people we should speak so and part ways in an amicable manner. If we are one, we should act as such.

Umair # 312

Your post is too generalized to see which institution or ethnicity etc you are referring to.

Every sane person is aware that Army is currently the only option available.

But you should also realize that Army is also the creator of problems facing Pakistan.

In the combined Pakistan, there was no way to keep the majority of population under control. i.e East Pakistan, and so the necessity of Ayub Khan dictatorship. And it achieved its purpose by keeping East Pakistan under control and in the process alienating them.

Who brought the coup of Zia-ul-Haq and who was backing it. Not the majority of Pakistanis.

Who brought the hand-made ISI backed politicians, like Altaf Hussain and Nawaz Sharif. It was not the people.

Whenever elections were held, people voted according to the wishes of Military. Because, after hanging of Bhutto, and in 1988 electing Benazir, whatever happened. One thing is clear, people understood very well, that HOW MUCH POWER they exert through their vote.

Now they played according to the rules set by our rulers. First voting Nawaz Sharif, then voting Benazir, and again voting Nawaz Sharif. (or may be angels filled the balot boxes).

So now they want the people to behave in a certain way. Don`t worry people will behave.

But the hidden anger which is accumulated over decades will takes its toll.

Now on the point of ethnicity. Most people`s decisions are related to their material interest. And if a certain arrangement benefits a certain group, at the expense of other groups, the first group justifies it somehow whether it is just or not. The prime example is America in its foreign policy, where its people justify all atrocities in the name of some greater good. If you understand this premise, you will realize what is meant by politics of ethnicity.

Definitely, it is not advantageous for the group benefitting with arrangement to play politics of ethnicity because it will bring out the total picture regarding ethnicity.

But precisely for the same reason, it is the disadvantageous group who is forced to do the politics of ethnicity.

So, I don`t think there is any solution except not only to tackle the local problems, but also the provincial question in the context of Pakistan.

Hope this might help.

These interactions and other discussions are only a means to understand different point of views, so as to understand better the ground realities and hopefully reach at a solution which is beneficial to the majority of population in all parts of Pakistan.

ylh #315: Generous of you to post your email address, but I would like it very much if you would agree to enlighten the Speaker`s Corner on Chowk, with your Pak ruler-like opinions on all and sundry. Please post a reply to this there. Thank you!

---

Dear Bilal - we shall leave the board for the detailed discourses and diagnosis of the LR and related/assorted links and books.