Elections, Pakistani Style

Great story! Hope there will once again be elections in Pakistan. And hopefully yu will once again be ensuring democracy in Ghaznikhel.

Thanks.

ussa

Layman #29: ``Not that I think such loans are in Karnataka`s interest, though.``

I would worry about this more than about other countries not getting loan approvals...

RE: Umairr # 26

I was not implying that you had neglected to
mention people in uniform in the list of the corrupt. My main point was that we have left all the blame for all our ills on corruption with
the people in uniform as judge jury and executioner. How can I say without questioning this group`s own agenda that people who have taken
up politics in Pakistan are the corrupt ones?
I made it a point to equate Naveed to ZAB as a
part of the landed elite who were not in politics for the money. I did not equate him to Zardari
whose family was most famous for owning Bambino
Cinema in Karachi. BB married into this family
of questionable ambitions!
People with old money in Pakistan (those that are left) have had more class and are less corrupt then these Zardari characters.
I have no information on the units privatized
during Naveed Qamar`s tenure, nor am I going to
pursue this venture because I have not lived in Pakistan for over 25 years. But to charge a person
for selling a product at too low a price in a country where the most thriving business since
Zia came to power is the proliferation of ``Intelligence`` Agencies should be questioned.
We have to question NAB`s intentions especially its choice of targets, at least those of us who have the best interests of Pakistan at heart.

Ras

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1015000/1015587.stm

``The World Bank has announced a $2.5bn loan for the southern Indian state of Karnataka.``

Found it interesting that at a time when Pakistan is struggling to get a few hundred million $$$ from the IMF, one state in India gets $2.5 billion. Not that I think such loans are in Karnataka`s interest, though.

Re : Umairr #23

I think feudalism in India has been on the decline on account of the following :

a) More than Vinoba`s ``Bhoodan`` (literally - donation of land) the Zamindari Abolition Act of 1956 introduced significant land reforms. Incidentally, Vikram Seth`s ``A Suitable Boy``, which is set in the 1950s, presents an interesting account of the debate surrounding this legislation.

b) The communists pushed through land reforms in West Bengal in the 1970s, and have endeared themselves to the Bengali countryside ever since, notwithstanding their otherwise abysmal administration

c) In some other states, notoriously feudal historically, the cocktail of demographics, democracy and conscious use of caste-based politics has reduced the exploitation of rural poor (e.g. UP, Bihar, Tamil Nadu and parts of Madhya Pradesh). In the short term this has been sometimes violent, often economically destabilizing and has led to comic politics, but I feel this churn will have positive effects in the long term.

d) Some states, notably Maharashtra and Gujarat, have successfully experimented with rural co-operatives in a very big way, and raised the bargaining power of small individual members through collective production and marketing of commodities. Sugar and dairy industries in these states are good examples.

Sincerely,

Nachiketa

looking at the way that the ``elections`` have become almost an yearly tamasha in india, may be you guys could consider yourself lucky. atleast, you aren`t draining resources on elections.

Ras Siddiqui: #24: My intention was not to state that people in the military are not corrupt. I don`t think I mentioned the military anywhere in my reply. All corrupt people should be prosecuted, regardless of the group they belong to. Two wrongs definitely don`t make a right.

I was only requesting some information on the units that were privatized during Naveed Qamar`s stint as the head of the Privatization Commission. On the whole, my experience has been that the wealthier people in Pakistan are more corrupt than the poor people. The, ``already rich`` are generally the ones who carry out most of the corruption in Pakistan. Corruption has more to do with attitude and morals, and less to do with the wealth one has already accumulated.

I have not assumed that Naveed Qamar is corrupt just because he was appointed by BB to a lucrative position. I am just interested in finding out whether he was or not. A good criteria for that would be to study the transpency of the process thru which the govt. owned businesses were privatized during his time.

On the whole, the overall effect of the BB regime was nearly suicidal for Pakistan, specifically for the Pakistan economy (it is quite possible that this happened despite of Naveed Qamar`s efforts, and not because of his efforts). The amount of foreign investment was neglible during her rule, and is still negligible. However, the net loss of this money thru corruption was very high during BB`s rule. That is why BB and Zardari`s are in the international elite group whose photograph (with explanations) is sent out to everyone who joins Transparency International. I received one a few years ago, and it made me proud to be a Pakistani :-)

Anyways, I am not too interested in qualitative comparison of regimes. I also think it is unethical to put people in jail without a trial. So I am on the same page as you on that. However, since you are a personal friend of Naveed Qamar, I am hoping you could provide some info. on the industries etc. that were privatized during his tenure.

Most things rural strike a chord in me. Liked reading some lines - earthy!

`I browbeat the poor man in fluent english and he retreated.` - city people!

Sorry about my lack of focus in my last interact
here but it should have read ``little hope for improvement in a country that...`` (instead of ``little room`` a possible freudian for the accomodations provided in a Rawalpindi jail to my friend Naveed Qamar.

RE: Reply #: 22 Umairr
It is true that there are are a lot of corrupt people in Pakistan. The ``system`` if you wish to call it that rewards the corrupt.
But what I find really amazing is that these
knights in khaki armor show up every now and then
on the premise that all civilians in Pakistan are corrupt and they are all Momins.
Let us for the moment assume that all the PPP
and the PML are corrupt people who wish Pakistan
harm (I personally do not agree with this assumption). But while all these politicians were
all busy ``looting`` the country, what exactly were
our Khaki Momin brothers doing? And does our poor
land/population all start bathing in milk and honey once the military intervenes?
Benazir Bhutto brought more foreign investment to Pakistan in her terms then the Military Rulers
have to date. I agree that my logic may be colored but our Military has been great at taking
over the country and jailing/hanging elected representatives but continues to be poor at delivering much to Pakistanis as a whole.
Naveed Qamar has been a Progressive all his life. He is a Sindhi friend who being a part of
the feudal elite has tried in vane to change the
poor conditions of his surroundings for the past several years. To automatically assume that he
would make use of his position to enrich himself
would be wrong. He is and was already rich. Like
ZAB he`s definitly not in politics for the money.

Ras

Rdesikan #20: ``It hasn`t been done for over 50 years, but breaking the feudal society is the first step. India was fortunate in having people like Vinobha Bhave and others who fought for land reform--and it ain`t done yet.``

``but if it can be countered in any way, economic liberalization and land reform is the most effective way out.``

In terms of third world countries, Pakistan actually did quite well in economic liberalization, but terribly in breaking the grip of the feudals. By the end of the 60s, Pakistan was poised to take-off economically. According to many economists, Pakistan would have been where Malaysia is currently, had the nationalization not occurred in the 70s (despite of the coups, and the political problems). The nationalization of the 70s is considered by some Pakistanis (including myself) to be the biggest historical mistake ever made by Pakistan. Pakistan was into privatization and a growth oriented economic policy 30 years before the rest of South Asia caught onto it, and even before some of the Asian tigers discovered it. This allowed Pakistan to raise its standard of living to easily the highest in South Asia, from what it inherited (the most backward areas of the Sub-Continent).

At the time of partition, Pakistan had nothing compared to India. No infrastructure, no universities, etc.; only a canal system and some good agriculture land in portions of Punjab. The only educated human resource pool was the one that had migrated from India. However, by 1970 it had put up industries, dams, infrastructure, colleges etc. So in terms of economic policy, Pakistan has traditionally been way ahead of the rest of South Asia (which was completely caught up in beaurecratic and govt. ownership of every industry). It was on the same beat as the Asian tigers in the 60s. However Pakistan was never able to come up with the right leadership, which could utilize its economic growth.

The problem has been breaking the feudal stronghold. I am not familiar with the feudal hold of families in India. It would be interesting if you could highlight it. My own guess would be that it probably was not nearly as much as what we see in Pakistan. Or at the very least, it was not spread out over the whole country. Since a much larger portion of India was literate than what ended up constituting Pakistan. So there may have been a counter-force to the power of the feudals, in India. If this is not the case, then how did India break out of the hold of the feudals?

In case of Pakistan, its politics is still in the hold of the feudal lords. The only areas where they do not exercise power are in the big urban centers. In those areas, they have been replaced by the industrialists (apart from urban Sind, and some of the smaller urban metropolises like Pindi, which have relatively more middle class leadership). However, 70% of the country is still in the hold of the feudals. These families have their tentacles spread out into every arena of power in Pakistan. A few relatives in the ruling party, a few distant relatives in the opposition party. A couple of cousins in the civil service, who appropriately end up getting assigned to the areas where their families have political influence. Using their political clout, they are able to get a few relatives into business, as well. An odd relative or two in the army. If the army relative ends up doing well and rising in the army, then these families have all their boxes checked off.

I have read some very interesting articles in Pakistani magazines, which describe the hold of these families in the Pakistani power structure. The inter-marriages amongst these groups makes very interesting reading. The feudal`s (or local powerful family`s) daughter married to the general`s son, whose uncle is contesting the election from the opposition party`s seat, whose nephew is the deputy commissioner in that district, whose aunt just opened up a sugar factory with the help of her MNA brother-in-law, who happens to belong to a third political party; so on and so forth. So regardless of who is running the country, these families have a foothold.

There are approx. 220 seats in the Pakistan National Assembly. On the whole, there are probably around 300 to 500 families that control almost all of these seats. They fight over these seats between each other. If one traces their intermarriages, 1/3rd or so end up being related to each other. Nearly all the members of these families live and grow up in Lahore, Peshawar, and Karachi etc. They go to school there, etc. Their lifestyles are more in touch with the USA, then the backward rural areas they represent. They have an odd house or haveli in their rural lands, which they visit every now and then. At every election, they shift into these havelis, make them their election headquarters, and fight to become the representatives of these extremely backward rural areas (even though none of them or their off-springs would ever think of living or growing in the rural areas, they are bent upon representing).

It is difficult for Pakistan to break out of their stronghold, because their family tentacles extend into every area (politics, military, civil service, business, etc.). Out of these areas, the military is probably the only one where the progress of their family members is purely due to merit. Everywhere else, it is mostly due to the last-name factor.

Currently, the parties which are not infiltrated by these last-names are MQM, Imran Khan`s PTI, the religious parties, and a few other small ones. However, the major powerhouses like the PPP and PML are completely owned by them; half the family in one party, half in the other.

I would be interested in finding out how the feudal structure in India was/is setup, and broken/not broken. Is it in the in the control of any last-names?

Ras Siddiqui: #13: Naveed Qamar`s name used to come up in Pakistani politics quite a bit; unfortunately not in a very good light.

Anyone who worked with NS and BB in generally considered corrupt (an overwhelming number of them probably are corrupt, although there are some honest ones also). In case of Naveed Qamar, he was sitting on the gold chest, i.e. the privatization commission. Everyone and their grandmother, including Zardari`s pals wanted to buy the govt. owned corporations, at throw away prices. Because of this, people generally assume the head of the privatization commission is generally, ``more corrupt`` than the other corrupt colleagues of our distinguished leaders (the other appointment that falls into this category is the head of the Ehtesab Bereau).

I do not know whether Naveed Qamar was an honest or dishonest man. If he is an honest man, then BB would have gone against her nature to appoint an honest person to a position that could prove so lucrative to her colleagues. You have described him as an, ``idealist.`` Would you happen to know which industries were privatized in Pakistan, while Naveed Qamar was the head of privatizaion? That would give a good indication of his honesty/dishonesty. I agree that no one should be kept in jail without a trial.

Really funny article nicely returned and laughed.

The sad part is it is a real experience and tragic.

RE Ferozek

Don`t forget that India is not too different. Both were cut from the same piece of cloth--which also means that there is hope for your end of the world as well. If it works well here, so can it over there, even taking into account demographic and cultural shifts over the last 50 years.

It hasn`t been done for over 50 years, but breaking the feudal society is the first step. India was fortunate in having people like Vinobha Bhave and others who fought for land reform--and it ain`t done yet. From an economic perspective, we know that small farming is not cost effective, but it has a huge psychosocial impact on this part of society. The feeling of ownership does wonders and that brings them into the democratic process and the mainstream. These small farmers are not competing with Archers Daniel Midland to feed the world, but are fighting for their subsistence and anything is better than nothing.

Intolerance however is a sad side effect of years of religous bumbling and coddling by various regimes in Pakistan, but if it can be countered in any way, economic liberalization and land reform is the most effective way out. When people get busy, they have less time to spend worrying and therefore turn less to religion as a panacea for all things.

In the words of Dylan, when you`ve got nothing, you`ve got nothing to lose. Too bad that the most recent crop of bumblers in power dont have what it takes to right the course.

Re: Zeejah

1970 was an interesting year! I still remember flashes of it...!

Elections in Pakistan are more about personal egos than goverance and I hope that Pakistan breaks out of this cycle and really mirrors the voice and concern of its citizens, but I will not hold my breath!

Pakistan is a feudal society at heart and it will always remain so despite all the modern facade we put on!

Feudalism is about intolerance and is antithetical to democracy and elections!

Pakistan is a theocracy and theocratic states have no need for elections!

Ciao!

Re Ferozk #8

The ONLY election I have experienced in Pakistan was in 1970. U wouldnt remember I guess as you were still a lil kid then... :)

btw ... is Rati online too?

Ferozk#8 It is true that Pakistan has a sad history of three military takeovers (Ayub, Zia, Musharraf). Unlike the previous military regimes, however, the current one is finding the global climate unexpectedly hostile to military takeovers (the cold war being over, and military rule being no longer in fashion around the world) and also recognizes that Pakistani people will tolerate military rule only to the extent it solves some problems and then steps out of power. The storming of the Supreme Court a few years ago was a disgraceful act and, by helping turn public opinion against NS, sowed the seeds for his downfall.

I think it is in everyone`s interest, including that of the Indian people (this may be hard to believe for some people), for Pakistan to end military rule and have elections. The real task of making South Asia a peaceful and prosperous part of the world lies ahead for all of us.