Should Pakistan Honor the Lahore Resolution?

In response to rajanjua (Reply # 448)
Dear Janjua Sahib:

Even if you data challenges the accuracy of Dr. Saleem’s data, the focus needs to be placed on the main argument. As you were unconvinced about the qualification of Khaled Ahmed in strategic matters, I want to draw your attention to the following.

Ziauddin writes (The New, June 13, 2000):

“Some people argue that the economy has limits, beyond which allocation of huge funds for defence cannot continue. There is already a huge budget deficit. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank are in favour of reducing defence expenditure and emphasize more spending in the social sector.

Air Marshal Noor Khan, a 1965 war veteran, thinks that Pakistan cannot fight a sustainable war and, therefore, it should drastically reduce its defence expenditure, sign a security contract with a super power, and divert funds from defence to development.”

In addition to Noor Khan, Air Marshall (retired) Asghar Khan also believes in (drastic?) defense expenditure reduction and diversion of funds to more productive development.

On a side note, Mohammad Aslam Khan, I think he was one of the signatories of the Pakistan Declaration, also has similar views.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to SameerJB (Reply # 443)
Dear Sameer:

Thanks for an interesting analytical exercise. Sameer, I am philosophically unconvinced that your exercise imparts an adequate understanding of the social reality in Karachi and Islamabad, and for that matter other parts of Pakistan.

Let us first deal with the average income (per person) for Karachi and Islamabad: $ 6962 and $7,665 respectively. This means that an average person in Karachi earns Rs. 6,960 X 50 = Rs. 348,000/12 = Rs. 29,000 per month. A similar calculation for Islamabad would give a little higher figure (Rs. 31, 938, to be exact). Now go in you imagination to 10 different equidistant points across Islamabad and ask 10 randomly selected persons at each point about their annual earnings. The result of this exercise will bring us much more close to reality. A similar exercise in Karachi may require us to do the same in 50 or so different equidistant points (because of the share size of Karachi). This exercise will bring us close to another reality. I think, this line of reasoning and analysis fails to address the real issue. Pakistan is a country of poor people, and the privileged represent only a small part of the reality.

During my Karachi University days, I had heard numerous people (including some applied economic researchers) about the revenue generated in Karachi. In the context of Pakistan, this is a non-issue if Karachi is a part of Pakistan. What is at issue is an allegedly systematic denial of government jobs to the people of Karachi (and those of urban Sindh)? This problem needs to be studied carefully. Are you aware of any such study? Another aspect of Karachi`s difficulties is the citizenship and human rights violations of its residents.

Sameer, I am aware of the uneven nature of Pakistani geography and (planned) uneven spatial development. This issue is very broad and complex, it needs to be addressed through a well-developed discourse and a national policy of development. This brings us back to the issue of national development that we have so far been avoiding on this board.

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

``Could you please explain your point and let us know how it is related with Saleem’s view of the situation?``

``We are in an arms race with India. Somehow failing to realise that India`s economy is growing at 7% a year while we are on IMF`s life-support.``

Pakistan:

GDP - real growth rate: 3.1% (1999 est.)

India:

GDP - real growth rate: 5.5% (1999 est.)

Sameer JB#

Let me give you the real picture, so that PPP probably meaning buying power should not be confused with the economic picture. (For a non economist like me I take no responsibility of misstatement).

In 1999-2000 Fiscal year:(GOP statistics)

Total revenue: 542.4

Total expenditure: 744.3 (deficit financing)

Out of total expenditure apart from major debt servicing 150.8 goes to defense.

Now defense expenditure means benefiting not only the country`s defense but also benefiting people of one province at the expense of other provinces.

Now 155.2 goes to provinces. If Sind gets nearly 25-30% that comes to nearly 40-45. Out of a total of 542.4 mainly in the form of Taxes.( i.e 7 percent or so)

I may be wrong in 20 Billion dollars of GDP. But composition by sector in GDP is from 1997 statistics. Agriculture 24.2 %, Industry 26.4%, Services 49.4%.

Agriculture is from Punjab, Sind and NWFP.

Industries are mainly concentrated in Karachi and Lahore.

And services are mainly from Karachi and some other cities.

Go figure for your self, from where the tax are generated. How much tax is returned back to provinces. And how much expenditure is spent to benefit one province to the detriment of rest.

If you think it is fair deal. I disagree.

In response to rajanjua (Reply # 444)
Dear Janjua Sahib:

I agree with you that Khaled Ahmed is entitled to his opinion, as I and you are. In my post, I said that “Khaled maintains that Pakistan’s “. . . small military budget has become unsustainable by economic and social collapse.”“ You disagree with him. So far so good. Then, you state that Khaled Ahmed is “not an expert on strategic sciences.” Janjua Sahib, the question is not that he (or any Tom, Dick or Harry) is an expert or not. What Khaled has said, appeals to my common sense. This also appeals to the Nobel Laureate Amartya Sen (who is a world renowned economist and social scientist).

Your statement: “Pakistani Prophets of doom have a habit of making sweeping statements.”

Comment: Why don’t you educate them? I think, I also fall in this category. I am prepared to learn. Please remember some of my beliefs are fairly structured, so you may have to be patient with me.

Regarding the issue of national security, I want to quote from an opinion piece by Ziauddin, who teaches management at the University of Peshawar. Ziauddin writes: “Let us reexamine the whole concept of national security. The costly security apparatus is itself a danger to the national security of Pakistan. It is time for the nation to decide if it should continue to stick to the ``neither secure nor developed syndrome`` or should it follow other options?”

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

In response to rajanjua (Reply # 442)
Dear Janjua Sahib:

Your statement: “If you really have to do a comparison, then do it properly. I don`t see any reason for it, though.”

Comment: It seems that your statement is in response to my post (Reply # 439) where I have quoted from Dr. Farrukh Saleem’s opinion piece. In your post, you have provided a broad comparison of India and Pakistan based upon the CIA Factbook. Could you please explain your point and let us know how it is related with Saleem’s view of the situation?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Re: bahmad

Dear Bilal Ahmad Sahib,

``P.S. Khaled Ahmed, unlike Fuzair and Janjua (Sahib), seems to believe that Pakistan’s military budget is already small. Khaled, however, maintains that Pakistan’s “. . . small military budget has become unsustainable by economic and social collapse.” Khaled Ahmed is a well-known Pakistani journalist, who writes regularly for the Friday Times.``



Khaled Ahmed is well known journalist and not an expert on strategic sciences. He is entitled to his opinion though. I don`t agree with him. Pakistani Prophets of doom have a habit of making sweeping statements. Do we even have an idea, how much revenue is lost in unpaid taxes and an estimate on how much of that meagre revenue which finds its way to the treasury is looted or wasted. If Pakistanis start paying their taxes properly (at least all govt. officials do that) and the democrats stop looting the country-there would be enough to bolster the Pakistani economy. And like I said if there`s a legitimate need to reduce the military budget it should be done-BUT not at the expense of national security.

P.S. You can call me a Sahib if you want to. Its ok with me.

Bilal Ahmad, Krashid and Urstruly:

Here is some data from a link that I picked from a letter to editor in this week’s TFT. It is from www.cnn.com/ASIANOW/asiaweek/features/asiacities/ac1999/data/list.html where 40 major Asian cities are compared for living standard and GDP (PPP). The GDP (PPP) of some of the cities in dollars is listed below:

Islamabad 7665.11

Karachi 6961.73

Mumbai 2515.50

Delhi 2128.08

Banglore 1467.20

Dhaka 839.80

These numbers look credible because of number of significant figures, based on UN data and scientifically evaluated. The contribution of Karachi to Pakistan’s GDP (PPP) turns out to be about 25 percent. Given the four-times higher than average GDP (PPP) for Karachi and Islamabad and the progressive nature of income and corporate taxes, the contribution of Karachi to federal government’s revenue will be much more than 25 percent. Flat-rate property and sale taxes and exclusion of income generated through federal government agencies and corporations will offset part of this.

Karachi and Islamabad also enjoy much better standards of living than rest of Pakistan, as seen in the social indicators (click on the cities to find out those figures), though not necessarily four times the national standards. The issue of uneven distribution of wealth is meaningless here because it exists everywhere in Pakistan and rest of the world.

Under no circumstances, knowing the tax codes Pakistan being one of the lowest taxed country, the federal government can get away with 50 percent of Karachi’s income of 6961.73 x 10 million (population of Karachi). It is simple mathematics. If federal government skims off 50 percent, Karachi enjoys a living standard double the national average; a skimming off 33 percent by the federal government, a living standard of three times the national average and so on. In my opinion, MQM and Altaf Hussain do not have a case on economic ground, the areas of social, political and cultural discrimination of Mohajirs are not relevant to this post.

If MQM has a case on economic grounds then MQM (Mumbai Qaumi Movement?) could have a similar case for Mumbai and IQM (Islamabad Qaumi Movement) would have a case for them also. This also gives credence to Umairr’s assertion about a big chunk of military spending actually ending up in Karachi and the average Karachi resident is better of selling pan than joining the non-commissioned ranks of military.

If you really have to do a comparison, then do it properly. I don`t see any reason for it, though.

PAKISTAN

--------

Economy - overview: Pakistan is a poor, heavily populated country, suffering from internal political disputes, lack of foreign investment, and a costly confrontation with neighboring India. Pakistan`s economic outlook continues to be marred by its weak foreign exchange position, notably its continued reliance on international creditors for hard currency inflows. The MUSHARRAF government faces $32 billion in external debt and has nearly completed rescheduling with Paris Club members and other bilateral creditors. Foreign loans and grants provide approximately 25% of government revenue, but debt service obligations total nearly 50% of government expenditure. The IMF has remained silent on future disbursements from its $1.56 billion bailout package initiated in 1999, and other international financial institutions are gauging the current administration`s resolve to implement necessary fiscal reforms. MUSHARRAF`s ambitious economic agenda includes measures to widen the tax net, privatize public sector assets, and improve its balance of trade position. Pakistan has made privatization a cornerstone of economic revival, but may have difficulty attracting new investors until it receives positive endorsement from the World Bank. The Bank has withheld its approval pending resolution of the pricing dispute between the government and independent power producers.

GDP: purchasing power parity - $282 billion (1999 est.)

GDP - real growth rate: 3.1% (1999 est.)



GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $2,000 (1999 est.)

INDIA

-----

Economy - overview: India`s economy encompasses traditional village farming, modern agriculture, handicrafts, a wide range of modern industries, and a multitude of support services. More than a third of the population is too poor to be able to afford an adequate diet, and market surveys indicate that fewer than 5% of all households had an annual income equivalent to $2,300 or more in 1995-96. India`s international payments position remained strong in 1999 with adequate foreign exchange reserves, reasonably stable exchange rates, and booming exports of software services. Lower production of some nonfoodgrain crops offset recovery in industrial production. Strong demand for India`s high technology exports will bolster growth in 2000.

GDP: purchasing power parity - $1.805 trillion (1999 est.)

GDP - real growth rate: 5.5% (1999 est.)

GDP - per capita: purchasing power parity - $1,800 (1999 est.)

Source: CIA Factbook

I believe Nehru had included a written statement in the UN record during 1948-49 where he stated clearly that India was not going to wait for the plebiscite indefinitely.

-arun gupta

shammi #432: The information about the cost of nuclear weapons is quite interesting. Assume that Pakistan has gone through the R&D, construction, and testing portion of nuclear weapons, and has tested delivery systems (aircraft, missiles); how much do you think it would cost Pakistan to maintain 35 or so nuclear warheads, on a year to year basis. This would include all the costs that you have mentioned in your reply, covering stockpile stewardship. I am assuming the $150 billion covers the complete US arsenal, which is probably hundreds, if not thousands, of times the size of the Pakistani stockpile. Do you think 35 warheads be enough to act as a deterrent against India`s conventional forces? Maybe my plan for defense budget reduction still has a shot.

It is difficult for me to tell whether you are of Indian or Pakistani origin. I guess that is an indication that your views are quite unbiased. You could be shammi as in Shammi Kapoor, the Indian. Or you could be shammi as in Abdul-Hafeez Shammi, the Pakistani. I am hoping you are Indian, because apart from Amit (who currently seems to be on vacation), Shankar, and Macgupta (on a sunny day), and a few others, it is becoming harder and harder to find Indians, on this site, who are willing to understand Pakistan`s side of the story :-) Then again, you could be Abdul-Hafeez Shammi, from India. Now that would be really interesting, since the Indian Muslim point of view seems to be completely missing from this site. So here is to hoping you are A.H. Shammi from the other side of the border.

``In light of the above, do you not think that the military should quit pandering to the jehadists to minimize the risk on Pakistan?``

This is the million-dollar question that everyone is trying to answer. Are the benefits, Pakistan is getting from allowing the jehadists to operate freely thereby bogging down the Indian military in Kashmir, greater than the risk of them eventually ending up controlling Pakistan`s domestic policy? Will Pakistan be able to eventually control them, if they get too far out of line, domestically? Most newspaper writers seem to think the answer is in the negative. This is evident from their articles. The Pakistanis govts. (from Musharraf to NS, BB and Zia) seem to think in the affirmative. The international community (primarily US) thinks no, as well. However the US opinion is completely self-serving, since it was the biggest supporters of these same jehadists, when they were fighting the Soviets.

Tough question, and I don`t really know the answer. The ideal situation for Pakistan would be one, in which, these religious volunteers don`t attempt to exercise any power domestically, but keep the Indian military bogged down in Kashmir. This is primarily what they have been doing, so far. However, as you have stated, their domestic influence seems to be growing, so who knows what may happen in the future.

In my opinion, the current regime is willing to go all the way to the edge of the cliff, before it changes its policies. It is hoping it can pick up the Pakistani economy, before time runs out. It will thus not be forced to implement all of the US demands to save Pakistan from bankruptcy. If it becomes 100% certain that Pakistan will default, or the jehadists can start taking on the army, then the current regime will restrain the actions of these religious organizations. While the jehadists are nowhere close to taking on the Pakistan army, Pakistan is jumping back and forth attempting to avoid a default. So I don`t think the current regime is oblivious to the influence these organizations may start excercising domestically, and the image problem they create for Pakistan internationally. However, the current (and previous) regime`s definition of the, ``edge of the cliff`` is somewhat different than that of many other commentators in Pakistan. This is what has many people in Pakistan worried.

The militant religious groups in Pakistan cannot gain control of Pakistan unless they have a supporting political party in power. This means a party that is not only willing to support their actions in Kashmir (which all Pakistani parties support), but one that supports their domestically influence also (which very few parties support; the current regime does not support their domestic influence either). The only parties that may give them this much freedom domestically are some of the religious parties. However, the chance of religious parties being elected in Pakistan is 0%. All of them combined cannot even get 5% of the seats.

The only chance these groups have of gaining domestic influence/control is through the back door. That could have happened through Nawaz Sharif`s Shariah Bill, which would have certainly passed by now. But now the Shariah Bill is history (this alone is enough justification for the coup, if you ask me). Also the leadership of these religious militant groups is too fragmented on domestic and religious issues, to put up a united front, domestically. I think in the best-case scenario for the Pakistan think tank, these groups will be able to keep Indian troops occupied in Kashmir, thereby lessening Pakistan`s burden at other borders. Their assistance to the indigenous Kashmiri struggle will force India to the negotiating table on Kashmir. And their domestic influence, though an annoyance to most Pakistanis, will be tolerable. In the worst-case scenario for the Pakistan planners, these groups will be able to keep Indian troops occupied in Kashmir, thereby lessening Pakistan`s burden at other borders. Their support to the indigenous Kashmiri freedom fighters will not be enough to force India to the negotiating table. And domestically, even though these groups will not be able to gain political power, they will fight each other and the Pakistan govt. through domestic terrorism, if the govt. tries to control them.

If the Kashmir situation is resolved, then I think any Pakistan govt. will control and completely regulate the domestic activities of the militant religious groups, to the extent of disarming them completely. If the Kashmir situation is not solved, then I think the Pakistani govt(s) will continue to attempt to perform the balancing act they are currently performing. So its anybody`s guess on what will happen. We will know the answers in a few years.

DEFENSE BUDGET HIKE

Dr. Furrukh Saleem writes:

India jacked up her defense budget by a colossal 30%. We have gone from Rs135 billion last year (Rs142 billion less Rs7 billion taken out for Poverty Alleviation Fund) to Rs159 billion (Rs133.5 billion plus Rs26 billion military pensions transferred to ``civil government``). That`s a 20% jump.

We are in an arms race with India. Somehow failing to realise that India`s economy is growing at 7% a year while we are on IMF`s life-support.``

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. In a way General Musharraf could argue that he has reduced the military budget. Could anybody inform us how much we have allocated for education and health (separately).

PAKISTANI TWEEDLEDUM AND TWEEDLEDEE ?

In an opinion piece, Dr. Farid A. Malik writes (The Nation, November 4, 2000):

“. . . `What has changed in Islamabad in the last one year`? . . . An example can shed more light on the change in Islamabad. Last year in March 1999 [an?] advertisement appeared for filling the key position of a Research Organisation in Islamabad. Several applicants responded. The Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister got his brother-in-law appointed without an interview. After the change of government the individual was terminated. The post was re-advertised in August 2000. After shortlisting interviews were held to complete the process. The candidate had been pre-selected by the influence brokers of Islamabad. The interviews were a farce.

There is no political ad hocism in Islamabad today. Order has been restored. The ministries are peaceful. Due to army monitoring, punctuality and attendance have improved. Merit and service to people has not been achieved. Islamabad has never delivered, the system was never designed to produce results.”

Comment: What kind of standards should we meet in our personal behavior to constitute a respectable, progressive nation? If these are the standards of individual responsibility, equality and justice, then how could we cultivate them in our society? One answer lies in providing good, free, public education to all of our children. How could we fulfill this national objective? Does it require us to reform our political system? If yes, what kind of reform is needed?

Following Zygmunt Bauman, I maintain that we will be able to find good solutions of our problems once we make our “habitat” more amenable to individual and collective freedom. When people are free to think and act for themselves, they tend to develop a destabilizing effect on the existing power relations. Hence, they emancipate and free themselves of the world of tweedledum & tweedledee.

If agree, then how could we make it a reality? Would the formation of a Federation of Pakistan help? Would this system deliver? Is the key to the problem lies in freedom or federation or both?

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

Re: Shammi #432

I don`t know how many times I`ve heard ignorant Indians, bamboozled by their own propaganda, utter words like these:

``If you take a long view of history, you will notice that the first South Asian country to introduce foreign weapons and even foreign soldiers on its soil was Pakistan in 1954. That cannot be ignored.``

I would assume that, after August 1947, British officers serving in the Indian Armed Forces would count as ``foreign?`` So India had ``foreigners`` as soon as we did. Of course, if you redefine foreigners to exclude Brits and include Yanks, then we were first, when US MAAG advisors reached us in, I believe, 1955. However, on to more substantive matters. India was the first to introduce advanced weapons systems into S. Asia. For example, it started acquiring JET fighters in 1948: the De Havilland Vampire. While pretty easy fodder for F-86 Sabres, the Vampire did stay in service in the IAF until the 1970s, so it wasn`t considered a complete piece of junk, I suppose. The Dassault Ouragan (Toofani), another JET fighter, was inducted in 1953.

Pakistan asked for US military aid and joined CENTO and SEATO AFTER it became clear to us that we could not maintain military parity (on a 3:1 basis) with India without external assistance.

Virtually every Indian I have ever met repeats the canard that we started the S. Asian arms race. I suppose that Indian jets in 1948 were peaceful, non-violent ones while it was only the Pakistani jets, in the LATE 1950s that were aggressive, warmongering, militaristic ones?

In response to rajanjua (Reply # 430)
Dear Janjua Sahib:

In response to my statement that for “. . . long and medium-term development, we need to make a few fundamental changes in the way we think and work. Let us take a few potential security risks and invest in the future of our country,” you ask: “Why does it have to be at the expense of national security? The armed forces budget can be streamlined . . . .”

When I asked for taking “a few potential security risks,” I was speaking in a conciliatory tone without any reference to the national security discourse (which is a different issue). In contemporary Pakistan, the national security discourse has become fragmented among a number of actors. For example, within the army, the discourse of Usman Khalid is not the same as that of Mateen Mohajir or General Musharraf (Mateen, sorry to drag you into this; you need not reply unless you really wish to do so). This fragmented perception of security becomes much more complex if you juxtapose it with the perceptions of those who somehow remain unsympathetic to the establishment’s sense of insecurity (even if they agree with it to a certain degree).

My statement, under discussion, becomes much more meaningful if we realize (thanks to Khaled Ahmed) that: (1) security is in no longer a defensive concept; (2) Pakistan has turned into an imitative security state; and (3) a confrontational, militaristic policy is extremely damaging to Pakistan’s security (which is threatened more from within by economic, social, and political collapse).

Sincerely, Bilal Ahmad

P.S. Khaled Ahmed, unlike Fuzair and Janjua (Sahib), seems to believe that Pakistan’s military budget is already small. Khaled, however, maintains that Pakistan’s “. . . small military budget has become unsustainable by economic and social collapse.” Khaled Ahmed is a well-known Pakistani journalist, who writes regularly for the Friday Times.

Prem #433

In Pakistan military had decided in 1988 voluntarily not to interfere in political process and play from outside.

The politics within last 12 years has been basically a fight between ruling elite among each other for the exchequer and political power.

The people were tired of this, and Military has been as saviour.

Still people don`t approve of Military rule. It is very much evident in the cautious approach taken by Military.

I think there is going to be a new realignment of political forces.

But ingredients of democracy, free press, free justice system, grass root politics should be pursued along with constitutional fight.

For a truly democratic party, these things should be fought for rather than saving their leaders from disgrace and corruption.

For a comparision of Militarism between India and Pakistan, I would recommend you to read some books on war fought by Pakistan and Wars fought by India. You will then realize the difference between rhetoric and actions.

For your information. Afghanistan was the only country to vote against Pakistan for admission to UN and was Anti Pakistan till late 80`s. Iranian majority is of different sect than Pakistan majority. USSR put a red circle around Pakistan with U-2 incident. And SEATO and CENTO alliance of West with Pakistan was against China and Russia.

With this background read the war history of Pakistan.

Also with your own background of Indian relations with its neighbours and within read the war history of India.

Tell me what conclusion you have reached.