An International Failure

For the foreign policy analysts:

Strengthening ties, shifting power - U.S. helps itself in oil-rich region

http://chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0112120261dec12.story?coll=chi%2Dnewsnationworld%2Dhed

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

Ref Ferozk #: 151

[If India opens its markets, it will have to accept cheap imports with its resultant consequences for the domestic industry and that is more of a political question than it is an economic one.]

The only countries with cheaper goods than India in the general area are China and Southeast Asia. There is nothing that Sri Lanka can export to India; in fact India has liberalized trade terms with Sri Lanka considerably. Bangladesh can export natural gas if they ever get around to extracting it out of the ground. Indian manufactured goods are far cheaper than anything Pakistan makes. If there is a South Asian free trade agreement, India will rule the area, as you yourself admit it later.

[As far as Pakistan is concerned, personally speaking, the onus of proof of good intentions is on India.]

No, you guys can spend twice as much per capita on the military as India does and go looking for alms from the US for development projects. What is that tune we heard a couple of years back? ``We are too poor and we can disintegrate as a country and you really don`t want our nukes to fall into the wrong hands``. Yaaaawn.

[Yes; granted that Pakistan has its past shares of fermenting the regional ``trouble pot``, but Pakistan realistically can never aspire higher than the status of a regional power.]

Pipsqueak is the word that comes to mind. And India should squeeze Pakistan hard until the pips squeak.

[India has the earmarks of a world power - demographically, politically, intellectually, militarily and economically. Pakistan is more of a spoiler in this game than a serious contender.]

You are right about both countries. Thanks for seeing reality.

[If India wants to compete with China, it would be in Indian interests to have a secure western border. Hence, it depends on India and how much it wants to be the ``influential power`` and how willing it is to settle its political problems with Pakistan. India in this sense risks to lose a lot and the spectre of dimishing returns for India is more greater, than China`s, if it allows its problems with Pakistan to fester.]

We will let China invade India and see how China fares the next time around. They have a long supply line in case you have forgetten it and India is NOT saying `Hindi Chini Bhai Bhai` anymore.

[Kashmir is the crux of Indo-Pak problems and in a cynical sense, the question needs to be asked: is Kashmir worth risking the future of a billion people in South Asia?]

There is absolutely no way on earth India is going to raise its poor into the middle class, just as China hasn`t been able to do so. So, we will have 300 million poor but that will be 25% of our population whereas you guys will soon have 70% poverty.

[In other words, Pakistan is only going to be militarily satisfied if India settles the problem of Kashmir with Pakistan and removes this irritant form their bilateral relations.]

Meaning, hand over Kashmir to the tender mercies of the mullah brigade of the Pakistani Army. No fcuking way, Jose!

[The onus is on India, because India wants to be able to ``influence`` the region and India has to establish its credentials to be a regional power.]

You forget India already has one vote on its side in the UN. That is Bhutan. In a few more years, we will find countries like Maldives, Sri Lanka and Nepal toeing the Indian line because, let us face it, what does the US care about what happens in Sri Lanka. That leaves Pakistan looking for some support. Have you considered petitioning Bangladesh for a union, with Pakistan as the lesser partner?

[If India is seen as a beneign influence in the region, a problem solver, it has a better chance of gaining Pakistan`s approval.]

Ho, ho, ho! From Pakistan seeking India`s acceptance as a separate country, we have now come to India having to seek Pakistan`s approval. Contrary to what Pakistanis believe, we can do very well without your approval. Let me give you a hint: the tail does not wag the dog. Never.

[The truth be told, most Pakistanis want a better life and not a perpetual conflict with India and if given the chance, they would opt for peace.]

We all know that. But the fact is that the Pak military establishment doesn`t care a hoot about what the Pakistani people want, so let us not get carried away by sentimentality here.

Ferozk #151
Thanks for your detailed reply. As you say, the signs donot look good :(.

You say :
``Regardless of the historic/diplomatic stand of India on Kashmir, Kashmir is more of a liablity than it is an asset to India; specically if India want to ``influence`` the region. Pakistan has no other problems with India than Kashmir and India has no problems with Pakistan than Kashmir``

Wouldn`t you think its dangerous for a hegemon or cop whichever we choose to call it to be repeating its mistakes of the past? Nor should countries make policy without any regard for internal consequences in the future. For a country the size and diversity of India to do so would be especially disasterous for the region.

What I am referring to is, that India held the power to impose a settlement of the Kashmir issue once and for all in Simla 1971. However, the slightest wiggle room was left by Mrs. Gandhi and that has a lot to do with the current Indo-Pak exchange on the subject today. Implied mutual goodwill in the future, verbal or written, are worth less than the paper that the Simla Accord was written which Musharraf has disowned.

I would really worry for any Indo-Pak accord which depends solely on paper assurances of future goodwill in the absence of a stable sustainable internal consensus in Pakistan. I don`t doubt many Pakistanis think that way about India too, but I think even they would agree that India`s internal ups and downs havenot seen accompanying ups and downs in its Pakistan policy, which has been pretty stable.

In addition, in the view of Indians like myself at least the situation in its state of Jammu and Kashmir will likely become much MORE of a liability if India subscribes to the Pakistani Army vision for that region. This is another lesson which has unfolded before our eyes in the last decade.

Hence as regards cost-benefit, the argument that Jammu and Kashmir is a liability for the wellbeing of India because the Indian point of view on Jammu and Kashmir is the sole roadblock to a happier S. Asia is not entirely convincing.

``Pakistan has no other problems with India than Kashmir and India has no problems with Pakistan than Kashmir``

I think its hard for Indians to believe, for example that the Assam group ULFA for instance, is assisted by Pakistan (and its leader living in Karachi earlier and Dhaka now) only because Pakistan`s sole issue with India is Kashmir.

IMO, Pakistan too is at an important crossroads where it needs to ponder its priorities, about what role it sees for itself in the Western world/C.Asian/Muslim world context and what role it sees for itself in S. Asia.

Whether its foreign policy with respect to India should be based on either
a. security through a real and committed belief in peaceful coxistence with a large neighbour whose stability can bring Pakistan benefits inspite of not being a Muslim nation or

b.viewing the region as a potential future battleground for defending religion and ideology in which case it makes better sensefor Pakistan to buy security through preparing for/working toward precipitating worst-case scenarios where internal affairs of India are concerned.

This choice depends largely on the internal dynamics of Pakistan, I believe.

The fact is that an ambiguous combination of a and b choices glossed over with appropriate words on a document is not likely to bring either India or Pakistan closer in real terms, nor make the region the subcontinental utopia we all wish it was.

Re: Jay

Thank you for your belated reply. After reading your answer, I was really amused that you know what I believe in! Since you are such an astute observer of international affairs, I wish you the best of luck in your journey towards a Jayisque utopia.

Again, I thank you for your effort and time in posting that reply. I wish you had ignored your eternal urge to wish ill of Pakistan, for once, and had instead answered my question, ``is India willing to pay the price for its place in the sun?``. Since you avoided the question, again, I am still waiting for a reply! :)

Re: Prem & Sadna

I would concur that the word ``influence`` is more apt than a hegemon.

As to your questions, personally speaking, India`s willingness to open its markets depends on its domestic politics. If India opens its markets, it will have to accept cheap imports with its resultant consequences for the domestic industry and that is more of a political question than it is an economic one. Historically speaking, the past hegemons, or ``influential powers`` have always been the advocates of free and liberal trade regimes. Great Britain at the height of its power, was for free trade and the United States has always encouraged free trade and is the most ``export friendly`` country with imports from all over the world.

In the present situation, India`s domestic market is very competive than the regional markets, and India is a huge market, which can absorb the costs of liberalizing the foreign access to its markets. The problem, or the hurdle, would be the domestic India politics dominated by the Indian trade unions and how they would react to this situation.

Pakistan, ideally, should opt for a trade arrangement with India and recind its present policies and give India the ``most favored nation status`` to help the trade matters between the two nations. There is a thriving black market trade between the two nations and Indian products are imported into Pakistan via the Gulf states. Pakistan needs the Indian markets for its goods, but at this stage, Pakistani industry is not competive enough to compete with the India`s industry. The cost of production is still cheaper in India and Indian products are relatively cheaper than the Pakistani products.

This would suggest that India could bear the costs of opening its markets to Pakistan, but conversely Pakistan cannot take the political risk of being flooded by cheap Indian exports. The reason is that Pakistani industry, unlike the Indian industry, is highly nationalized and is based more on the logic of command economy than on a market economy. The only market economy in Pakistan is the ``black market`` and it is thriving because of the reason that it is based on the principle of supply and demand. Being a state monopoly for a better part of 30 years, Pakistani industry has lost its ``market compass`` and it has become more bureaucratic than an economic institution; reactive instead of being pro-active.

Hence, the decision on both sides to open their trade regimes is more political than it an economic one. The problem on the Indian side, other the one mentioned above, is also that the biggest hurdle to Indian market liberalization is not the fear of the competion, but the bureaucratic red tape of the Indian government`s regulations on trade. The Indian market is more handicapped by the ``babu mentality`` than it is by the regional competive environment.

Again, the obstacle is a political one, because it is the politics of the India and Pakistan, which is posing the biggest Gordian Knot towards the economic prosperity in the region.

Hence, the solution is to solve the outstanding political problems between India and Pakistan, but that is easier said than done!

Since the problem is a political one, it gives voice to the security concerns in the region. As far as Pakistan is concerned, personally speaking, the onus of proof of good intentions is on India. Yes; granted that Pakistan has its past shares of fermenting the regional ``trouble pot``, but Pakistan realistically can never aspire higher than the status of a regional power. India has the earmarks of a world power - demographically, politically, intellectually, militarily and economically. Pakistan is more of a spoiler in this game than a serious contender. Pakistan`s nuclear weapons do give it a diplomatic ace, but economically, politically and militarily Pakistan does not have the wherewithal to support a world power ambition.

The onus is on India in this sense that India being the bigger power of the two, has to convince Pakistan of its good intentions. A Pax Indica would be better with a Pakistani consensus than without it, because if India want be the ``influential power`` in the region, it needs the diplomatic assent of Pakistan. India, on the other hand, does not require the support of Pakistan and it can impose its fiat in the region and no regional nation can oppose it. However this would mean that system, which would emerge would be more prone to conflict than cooperation and that would undermine Indian aspirations.

In a real sense, the only viable competion to India is China; population wise, military force projection and economic growth considred(present and forcasted for the next 25 years). If India wants to compete with China, it would be in Indian interests to have a secure western border. Hence, it depends on India and how much it wants to be the ``influential power`` and how willing it is to settle its political problems with Pakistan. India in this sense risks to lose a lot and the spectre of dimishing returns for India is more greater, than China`s, if it allows its problems with Pakistan to fester.

Just like China has to deal with Taiwan and China can only emerge as the Asian power if it convinces Taiwan of its good intentions, India has to convince Pakistan of its good intentions in order to rival China as the second Asian power of this century.

The best way India can solve its problems with Pakistan and assure Pakistan of its intentions is to solve the issue of Kashmir. Regardless of the historic/diplomatic stand of India on Kashmir, Kashmir is more of a liablity than it is an asset to India; specically if India want to ``influence`` the region. Pakistan has no other problems with India than Kashmir and India has no problems with Pakistan than Kashmir. Kashmir is the crux of Indo-Pak problems and in a cynical sense, the question needs to be asked: is Kashmir worth risking the future of a billion people in South Asia?

In other words, Pakistan is only going to be militarily satisfied if India settles the problem of Kashmir with Pakistan and removes this irritant form their bilateral relations. The onus is on India, because India wants to be able to ``influence`` the region and India has to establish its credentials to be a regional power. If India is seen as a beneign influence in the region, a problem solver, it has a better chance of gaining Pakistan`s approval. The truth be told, most Pakistanis want a better life and not a perpetual conflict with India and if given the chance, they would opt for peace.

Having said this, the final word on this issue will be a political decision and that, given the present situation, does not leave much room for optimism.

Ciao

re: pyar kiye ja

``Zhangia utaar diya hey, Prem Mian ka.``

hehe...prem dude, please go get dressed before returning to Chowk

POWER OF ONE percent

At last the world knows that pakistan is a moderate country, supported the americans, no great protests in pakistan. At last there is proof that only one percent of pakis are jihadists, and they heve been beaten along with the taliban.

Now is the time for mushy to bring about the fundamental changes, a closet ataturk that he is. Is he changing the blasohemy laws, is he banning the honour killings, is he changing the ahemedia laws, is he changing the seperate electorates for the hindus, is he changing the hoodod ordinance. Well ladies and gentle men he is not changing any of those because thay are supported by most of the pakistanis.

The educated on the chowk are out to prove again that it is only the one percent who wnats the abaove laws, but themn they are the powerful. The pak law, the power of one percent

re: Pyar kiye Jaa # 146

Arre mere bhai, if I was a Momin by birth, life would have been much much much easier for me...I would not go through mental hell every day, and would have gone and grabbed the biggest goal of my life this very moment...

But that doesn`t matter to me. If I was born a Momin I would not have been a different kind of person. I am Hindu because I was born one. If you have a problem with that, you can go and screw yourself.

tahmed321 # 143

I thought a bit about your suggestion that we use the word ``influence`` in place of ``hegemony,`` and I agree with you.

Conceptually, I think, shorn of its extraneous connotations, the word ``hegemony`` comes closer to describing the stable systems Ferozk brought up. But the word ``influence`` will do perfectly as well, particularly since it highlights the multiplicity of forces, and doesnt suggest an outdated ``hegemon-centric`` thinking.

Regards.

Ferozk #140
In your reply re US-India-China, you seem to be saying international relations are in a flux at all times or there are always likely though not imminent confrontations in the making as nations` interests, circumstances and mutual leverages change.

In the context of shielding ourselves (S. Asians) from the China-US-etc flux and creating a more stable situation in our neighbourhood with common intent, it would be interesting as Prem says #142 to hear more on the Pakistani point of view on this matter, namely
``Is India willing to pay for the cost of military security of the region and use its military to promote political cooperation and not armed intimidation of its neighbors?``

Prem #138 On hegemony: I think influence is a better term. Hegemony has to do with the sword, while Influence has to do with the pen. And the pen is mightier than the sword. In any case, hegemony is a 19th century concept, and increasingly irrelevant for the future. Societies that are concerned with progressing and creating good living conditions for their own members, rather than with imposing their will on other societies, end up influencing other societies. That is why the US, as it persues life, liberty and happiness for it`s people, influences the whole world, whereas societies seeking to impose their will on others (from Nazis to Communists to the Taliban) sooner or later end up in the garbage can of history.

I think for India the proper goal to seek is Influence, not Hegemony (whether that of a cop or whatever). Same for Pakistan (where the military`s attempt at seeking some form of control over Afghanistan has proved a disaster for everyone concerned).

All these visits can`t be making Musharraf very happy...

{{Afghan defence minister likely to visit India this week

In a bid to forge good relations with India, the interim government in Afghanistan is likely to send its Defence Minister Mohammed Fahim this weekend to Delhi to hold crucial talks on building defence cooperation.

On its part, New Delhi also expects its mission in Kabul to become partially operational by December 22, sources said.

Fahim, who is likely to arrive in the capital on December 18, would hold talks with his Indian counterpart George Fernandes, External Affairs Minister Jaswant Singh and other civil and military officials during his stay, which is expected to be for three days, the sources said.

The interim administration in Kabul was quick to send its Interior Minister Younous Qanooni followed by Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah, who will be arriving in Delhi in the wee hours of Thursday, to India.}}

Ferozk # 140

I largely share your views. In any region that has nations with highly unequal ``powers,`` only two real outcomes are feasible: hegemony or conflict.

The term `hegemony` is often used with negative connotations but, like you, I do not view hegemony in negative terms. Those who believe that highly unequal countries somehow can be perfectly equal in every way are living in a dreamworld: The US will never look upon India as an equal; China will never treat Burma as an equal.

The trick in the real world, as opposed to ideal world, is to create institutions that regulate the use of hegemonic power - institutions that make the excercise of hegemonic power more orderly, remove capriciousness, and make it worth everyone`s while to behave according to commonly accepted rules. Every country will do its own cost-benefit analysis, and every country must feel that its net costs of not being part of that hegemonic system are higher than the net costs of being a part.

You highlighted two dimensions of such institutional arrangements:

Economic/market: ``can India open its markets to the products of its neighbors and this way encourage economic growth in those nations?``

Military: ``Is India willing to pay for the cost of military security of the region and use its military to promote political cooperation and not armed intimidation of its neighbors?``

That is a great start.

Again, to Indians, we must understand this issue deeper. As far as I can tell, this issue of hegemony is a BIG BIG deal with many Pakistanis (though, in Pakistan, it seems to me, it comes carries some negative connotations)...and we Indians, most that I know, have no clue about it.

ferozk,

``My question still is: is India willing to pay the price of being a regional hegemon and secondly, why are you avoiding this question? :)``

My understanding of a hegemon is like the US, its dealing with panama, now afgh are good examples. You have been a believer of the jihad under the mushroom clouds myth, that india will never assert itself because of the bomb.

This time mushy narrowly saved the bomb by sacrificing a few thousand of the jihadits. There are demads for intorrogating pak scientists, there are talks of safe keeping the bomb with china. There is a general perception that there is something absurd about the pak bomb.

I have ststed my view before, it is just a matter of a decade at most when pakistan is iraquised. Today all pak banks have been asked to stop retail cash banking, there is an emerging global concensus that terrorism can only be contained by monitoring the jihadic frontiers and for men and technology.

In conclusion, if you are taking of a decisive conflict, and the price, i do believe that india and the world needs it, sooner the better. ``Weapons of mass distruction in the hands of the terrorists``, that is the key sentence, it had been spoken a few times, a few more times and iraquisation is not far off.

regards

jay

Re: Prem

As you have pointed out, India needs to understand what hegemoney is; and that depends on how India sees itself and what its interests are in fulfilling that role.

A hegemon, as Sadna points out, is not a negative word. The word hegemon has been often misused in the past and in political science terms, it basically means a power, who has the authority and the influence to maintain the status quo ante. A nation, which aspires to the hegemonic status creates a system, which maintains the international relations in an even balance and prevents the system from breaking down into conflict.

The Roman empire was a hegemon of the ancient world and Pax Romana was the system, by which Rome regulated the affairs of Europe. Pax Britannica was a system, by which the government of Great Britain maintained an European balance of power and that European peace was predicated on the ability of the British Royal Navy and British diplomacy. Pax Americana was the role played by Washington during the Cold War and its diplomacy to prevent a war with the Soviet Union.

In a similar sense, Pax Sino could be China creating a new system of international relations, which mandates a new set of realities in Asia. Pax Indica could be considered as a set/system of international relations, specific to South Asia and the periphery, which disallows conflicts and encourages cooperation between the state of the region.

A hegemon, to be successful, has to convince the other nations that its influence will be for the better and states, who agree to the hegemony of a given state, will benefit in terms of trade, economic growth, political cooperation and above all else, military security.

A hegemon has to be willing to aborb the costs of the system it wishes to influence; it has to open its markets to the products of the neighboring states and it has to promise them military security from external threats.

In terms of India, the question is: can India open its markets to the products of its neighbors and this way encourage economic growth in those nations?

Is India willing to pay for the cost of military security of the region and use its military to promote political cooperation and not armed intimidation of its neighbors?

Re: Shammi

I was merely joking! Kunwar Idres is a friend of the family and I have known the gentleman for over 30 years. He is a proper gentleman, but both my mom and I agree that old age is begining to get the better of him. To prove our point, we just tell people to read his articles in Dawn and we pity the editor that he has two nuts on his paper; the other being that old Parsi called Cowesjee - also a friend of the family.

My dad always maintained, jokingly, that Cowesjee never writes his own articles - he has a ghost writer!

As to your questions, the Pakistan army has to change and change the political system, because otherwise there is no salvation for it. Pakistan cannot go back to the old system, which pre-dated October 12, 1999, because that would discredit the army in the eyes of the people and once that happens, the army loses its moral high ground of being the defender of Pakistan.

Secondly, the army has no choice in the matter; either it changes the system or the system will destroy the insitution of the army in Pakistani politics. In this sense, Musharraf is only one who can do this feat, because in order to save Pakistan, he would need to re-organize the army`s way of doing business in the politics and more importantly, how the army thinks in Pakistani politics. Lets admit one truism.

No politican in Pakistan has the courage to take on the insitution of the army and reform it. Reforms in the military can only be an ``in house`` process and only then it will work. In other words, Pakistan army needs to make up for the lost generation, officers who rose up the heirarchical laddar during Zia`s time, and regain its liberal and secular political bearings.

Re: sada

Far as Chinese-Indian interplay is concerned, that depends whether the relationship matures into an economic based interaction or a military confrontation. If the United States parleys India into a regional counter-balance to the growing Chinese influence, then India becomes the proxy in the Sino-American confrontation and its relations with China will be seen in that prism. If, on the other hand, India maintains its independence of foreign policy, and helps to bring China and the United States closer, then China will give due consideration to India`s role and not see India as an extention of American influence in the region.

A hegemon is not a bad term; that depends on your intentions and how you want to define a hegemony. in other words, consider it this way. A hegemon is the local cop, who walks the beat and makes sure that the streets are safe and there are no robberies in the neighborhood and if there is a conflict between the neighbors, he listens to them and tries to solve for the benefit of all concerned. However, if the cop turns out be bad...then all bets are off! :)

I hope this answers your questions!

Ciao

What Pakistan WAS -- and what it is TODAY -- is an interesting article by Khalid Hasan of DAWN.

The great disconnect

By Khalid Hasan

It is difficult to believe today that Pakistan was once a gentler, essentially tolerant country, largely free of violence and serious crime. There were no drugs and no drug addicts. Those who smoked pot or opium were seen as figures of fun rather than a social problem.

Nobody saw, much less own, automatic weapons. In any residential neighbourhood of any city in the country, one could count on the fingers of one hand those who owned a licence 12-bore shotgun to hunt wild pigeons with at weekends. There were no unlicenced weapons.

Only some retired police or army officers retained their duly permitted service revolvers. One rarely saw them worn on the street. These weapons were kept more for sentimental reasons than for bringing down one`s neighbours.

Yes, there was no shortage of mad mullahs but they were at war with the devil, not their fellow Muslims.

Neither did they operate armed militias or private armies for terrorism within and jihad without. Sectarian fights remained more or less in the realm of the private.

It was inconceivable that men, women and children at prayer could be massacred in mosques, temples or churches. The authority of the state, even if manifested in the least important of its servants, was respected. Riding a bike without a light was a bit of an adventure for students.

And all that was not so long ago either.

Today, we live in a harsh, unforgiving, violent society where the writ of the state is to be experienced more by its absence than by its presence. There is little sense of well-being and most people are genuinely concerned about their safety and the safety of their families.

The police is seen more as an adversary than a friend. The state has nearly given up on what were once considered its basic responsibilities.

Education, health and protection against crime are now in private hands. Those who have the means employ private security guards (all of whom wear paratrooper wings without ever having flown).

Only the children of the poor go to state-run schools. Public transport is also for the poor. The rich drive around in cars.

State-run hospitals are viewed as butcher houses, and not without reason. You can enter them alive but your chances of emerging from there in the same state are none too bright.

We should ask ourselves one simple question. What is the image of Pakistan that is seen on the world`s television screens today?

Wild-eyed, angry men, wearing round skull caps, brandishing effulgent, ill-kempt beards like weapons, screaming obscenities and burning effigies of their own or someone else`s leaders.

Who are these people and how has it happened that Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar are now projected as our heroes?

How are they our heroes? What have we got to do to them?

I thought the only hero we had was Quaid-I-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah who got us a country we have done little to protect and even less to deserve.

So you look at these hate-distorted faces and ask yourself: is this the real face of Pakistan or is the nation become hostage to ignorant, violent, irresponsible and dangerous men with guns and money?

Mona Eltahawy, an Egyptian woman journalist who now lives in the United States, wrote a piece recently that could have been written by someone about Pakistan.

Of Ayman Zawahiri, Osama bin Laden`s companion and chief of staff, she wrote, ``I have looked into the eyes of Zawahiri`s followers and seen an intensity that can only be described as ferocious (she could have been writing about the ``soldiers`` of Lashkar-i-Taiba or Jaish-i-Muhammad).

Defendants in Egyptian courts are kept in cages. The militants who stood before the military courts were always loud; they would start their religious chants as soon as the truck that brought them from jail pulled up at the courthouse. While their relatives sobbed outside the cage, the militants spewed rage. Nothing is as chilling as the sight of men cheering and congratulating each other on a death sentence.``

Mona Eltahawy asked herself a question that many of us today ask ourselves in Pakistan.

``Where were the best Egypt had to offer? It was not that Egypt`s liberal intellectuals and civil rights activists lacked conviction.

Many bravely bucked the tide. But how could they possibly outdo the intensity of someone convinced God was on his side?

More insidiously, how could they offer any sort of resistance when their hands were tied by a repressive government that cracked down not just on Islamists bent on fighting it to the death but on intellectuals, whom it saw as equally threatening.``

In Pakistan since Zia-ul-Haq and even earlier, the ground has been ceded to just such people who believe that they alone have seen the light and their medieval vision of what the country should be is alone the true one.

Anyone who does not share that vision is not only damned but deserves to be silenced, if not killed. Mona Eltahawy wrote that while the government fought the militants (which has never happened in our country), ``it also tried to outdo them in religiosity (this happened in Pakistan).

It helped foster an environment in which increasingly conservative interpretations of religion were acceptable.

Human rights leader I.A. Rehman told the new Lahore magazine `Independent` the other day, ``The progressive and liberal elements were marginalized by the state, whereas conservative and irrational elements were provided with a licence to carry on.

These elements enjoyed state patronage in promoting irrationality and intolerance. It shows that the state was determined to decimate the civil society and only few will argue that it has not been decimated.

It started with the demonization of the political party systems.

The unity and organization of the working class was torn. How can there be a society without a labour movement?

Academia was ousted from public affairs and the students have no unions.

The state is not prepared to protect the rights of women.

The concept of the state has flopped in Pakistan.

We have just put trappings of assemblies and ministries on a framework that is essentially oligarchic in nature.``

My friend Akhtar Mirza writes an agonised letter to me from Lahore, ``The people of Pakistan have waited for over fifty years for a change that would restore their self-respect to them.

They are tired of running from pillar to post. Every institution has gone under and the average person is exhausted by the various government offices and courts where he is knocked about by one petty official after another. What has our life become?

The day dawns and you leave home with a list of things you have to do, almost all of which involve a succession of uncaring, unresponsive outlets of the state machinery.

A monster hand of steel is constantly at our throats. It doesn`t entirely strangulate us, but allows us to breathe just enough to stay alive.

There is no private enterprise here because the state refuses to cede authority or share power.

If something good happens, it happens at the top; it never filters down. I challenge any wealthy Pakistani to state on his honour that his money was made honestly.

Only the affluent have access to justice and it is only the bureaucracy and the politicians whom the system has benefited.

A country where the better part of a citizen`s day is spent chasing paper in one government office after another can never move ahead. In other societies, things change, often for the better. Down here, we go from bad to worse.``

King Lear wanted an ``ounce of civet`` to ``sweeten`` his imagination. In Pakistan, we would need a billion tons of it, obtainable, I suppose, for a price on the Bara market.(DAWN)