Kashmir: Time for a Radical Approach?

re:

[ Going even further back, dyou mean to say that the 1965 Ayub Khan initiated war for Kashmir had nothing to do with subsequent political events in Pakistan, including appointment of Yahya Khan, the demand for elections leading to victory of ZA Bhutto and PPP in W Pakistan, and East Pakistani alienation? ]

Dear sadna: Ayub Khan`s pragmatic decision to make peace with India in Tashkent was viewed by Pakistanis as cowardice. General impression was that Ayub has lost a war on the round table that Pakistan had won on the battlefield. Bhutto exploited this resentment to form his Peoples Party.

However, this a minor reason in the anti-Ayub movement. People were already depressed because of income-disparities and repressive Ayub regime. Mujibur Rehman never supported Pakistan`s Kashmir policy yet even he was able to mobilize masses. Except for 22 influential industrial families, the rest of the country was still poor. Economic benefits had not trickled down to the masses.

The anti-Ayub movement was not inspired by Kashmir. It was inspired by income disparities as well as Punjabi-Bengali disparities. In West Pakistan, Bhutto`s Peoples Party won the election on its socialist agenda that promised ``roti, kapra, makan`` for everyone. In East Pak, Mujib`s Awami League won the election on his Six-Point Programme that promised economic parity between East Pakistan and West Pakistan.

None of the major political parties campaigned on Kashmir issue. You can verify this by reading the political speeches of Bhutto and Mujib in 1969 and 1970. Because of luke warm Kashmiri response to Operation Gibraltor in 1965, Pakistan army and politicians had already decided that the issue was not worth an election campaign.

During the last 54 years, few Pakistani politicians (except Mujib) have differed with the Army over Kashmir. This is because the public perceives Kashmir as an issue. The only difference between politicians and Army is over the modus operandi for resolving the issue.

Indians tend to misread the pacifist statements of Benazir and Nawaz Sharif. These politicians say one thing in Riyadh/New Delhi/ London/Washington DC, and quite the opposite when they are sitting in the Prime Minister house in Islamabad.

zabed
Sophistry in service of defending terrorism was transparent. So it was better to discontinue this discussion.

chowk staff, please post this.
HisWhichever #426
The thing you donot seem to understand is that the issue of the Pakistan literacy rate is related to Pakistani educational institutions not Indian educational institutions, so there is no point in cursing my education.

You say that Kashmir played no role in militarys dismissal of civilian governments. Well what was the reason for the post Kargil coup?

And you tell us what WERE the reasons for the dismissal of civilian governments in he 90s, if you are so knowledgeable let us know?

Going even further back, dyou mean to say that the 1965 Ayub Khan initiated war for Kashmir had nothing to do with subsequent political events in Pakistan, including appointment of Yahya Khan, the demand for elections leading to victory of ZA Bhutto and PPP in W Pakistan, and East Pakistani alienation?

``[...to direct the national discourse and priorities away from social development...]

Another arbitrary prejudiced statement. You cannot substantiate this with facts. ``

An ADB report saying so is not good enough, is that what you are saying?

btw, its ironic that the roots of the Pakistan movement lay in Syed Ahmed Khan`s recognition that Muslims were losing out to Hindus in education and employment, but today you say the state of Pakistan should leave education to the dictates of the private sector.

And to tackle literacy, you need more schools, not more colleges as you seem to be arguing. In India illiteracy is due to lack of schools and illiterates donot benefit from government subsidy of higher education.

In India, its been accepted that the higher education subsidies in a sense deprived primary education. An IITian once quoted me figures to the effect that for the resources that the Indian government spent on his BTech degree education, the government could have given primary education to 1500 children. Thats one reason the IITs are moving towards self financing and higher education subsidies are gradually reducing.

As I said to tackle illiteracy, you need more primary schools and secondary schools not colleges, and the government is the only body which can build up the institutions of the scale required. I donot understand how you donot realise this.

Even if Pakistanis are to take the US as model, well public schooling is an important part of US government policy.

People pay taxes explicitly called school taxes to their township governments to run public schools which most of their children attend, while house property values depend on how good the local public school is.

One of the major issues of debate even in Presidential elections is the quality of and choices available(like vouchers) in public education. George Bush claimed his reform of public school education as Governor of Texas as one of his achievements during his Presidential campaign. China also provides government-run education as do other countries.

As for what is taught in public schools, well here too you havenot applied your mind. In India and I would imagine in Pakistan too, even private schools cannot have their own arbitrary syllabus if they want to be government recognised, they must adhere to common `board-approved` or government-approved standards.

So for the syllabus of Pakistani public schools you must hold the Pakistani education ministry responsible, which I might remind you was headed by a military appointee for three years until recently.

As for nonstandard proliferating madrassas, well even General Pervez Musharraf found himself unable or unwilling to get them to register with the government, much less allow the modernizing of their syllabus. Well, unregulated madrassas are what you get if you leave education to the private sector as you say.

Of course given that the jihadi/religious organisations running madrassas are able to muster 100s of millions of dollars in donations from the public , while the rest of the education sector has to make do with depleted govt. budgets and whatever the business interest of the private sector dictates, its no surprise why even a military general President could do nothing about the madrassas. IMO, thats part of the skewed national discourse-social priorities.

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

#425 by HisExcellency on April 11, 2003 11:07am PT
``Don`t feel offended if Pakistani chowkies do not idolize India. We have found a better example than India to follow. Why idolize a third-world country like India? ....there are bigger and much more humane civilizations to idolize than India.

So it is more fun licking the bums of US(they use only toilet papers). But `idolizing` you must do. And then you call us Indians `idolaters`.

``It makes more sense to idolize USA than India for Pakistanis. I suggest the Indian chowkies do the same. ``

No thanks. We guys have our own brains to use, our own decision makings and are not puppets in the hands of US.. It has the strength and character to walk alone even if the rest fo the world is against it(not that it is).
In recent Iraq war... how open and quick was India to voice its disapproval, whereas Paksitan hesitated(did not want to annoy `idol` of God Bush). India was not involved in US `chamcha-giri` so as to please it, like many other nations did in the name of `allyship`.
India has never idolised any country, nor will. But we will use the technologies and good points of others to our advantage and betterment ..withour idolising anyone.

re:

[The sooner the Pakistani elite impoverish their people and nation due to their own sense of entitlement to the state`s freebees and their obssession with Kashmir , the better it is for India which can, under any circumstances, expect nothing but enmity anyway. ]

Don`t mistake my disagreement as enmity towards Indians. I agree with your opinions about Pakistan`s flawed Afghan policy. In many ways, this policy was forced upon Pakistan. The Soviet Invasion necessitated a resistance movement. Pakistan was the only place where Afghan refugees could flee. Pakistan was the only country through which USA could funnel weapons to Afghan mujahideen.

Finally when the Soviets were driven out, America packed its bags and left. No effort was made to rebuild Afghanistan. No effort was made to disarm the Afghans. Pakistan was slapped with discriminatory sanctions and left with millions of Afghan refugees to feed.

Therefore, until 1992, Pakistan did not have an Afghan Policy. Pakistan had an Afghan Crisis. The policy began after 1992.

The first major mistake was in 1992, when Pakistan started backing Hekmatyar against Burhanuddin Rabbani and Ahmad Shah Masud. From that point onwards, the policy became mired in short-term gains. All this snowballed into a major liability. In 2000, Pakistan`s relation with USA was at the verge of hostility because of Osama and Taliban.

I just don`t agree with arbitrary jingoistic opinion that tries to shift the blame from India to Pakistan for mistakes that India made in Kashmir. I perceive a consistent denial by Indian chowkies of Indian errors in Kashmir.

Before Lahore yatra, Indian chowkies blamed Pakistani politicians for Kashmir. Then they started blaming Pakistan Army and Mullahs. After 9/11, they couldn`t blame the Mullahs so they continued blaming Pakistan Army. To sum it all, Indian chowkies will rather blame somebody, somewhere in Pakistan for Kashmir... instead of being honest enough to admit that it was Nehru followed by various Indian governmentsand security forces that messed up the issue with consistent manipulation and human rights abuses.

re: sadna

++++++++

[...the issue of how the emphasis on Kashmir has allowed the Army to dismiss civilian governments...]

Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. And this statement of yours deserves to be in the Hall of Stupidity. This ludicrous assertion exposes the hollowness of Indian educational institutions. Since you are so keen on rewriting history, I suggest you write your own version of false history and self-serving political theories. Let me know if you manage to sell even 10 copies of the book :))

You are absolutely ignorant about Pakistan`s political history. Even a cursory reading of authentic history books (written by non-Indians) will help you in getting rid of your prejudices. Perhaps then we can have a real discussion about the role of military in Pakistan.

++++++++

[...to direct the national discourse and priorities away from social development...]

Another arbitrary prejudiced statement. You cannot substantiate this with facts.

++++++++++++

[This is a unique theory of government policy I have never heard anywhere, one which seems rather selfserving if one is part of the ruling elite which expects to be enriched by government handouts while asking the less fortunate others to take care of themselves `in the private sector` . I wonder what the state and its government is for, if not to take the ultimate responsibility for the development of its people. ]

This is neither a unique theory nor self-serving. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge can tell you about Pakistan`s bitter experience of government spending in education. During much of the 1950s and 60s, all the quality educational institutions in Pakistan were privately-owned. As a result, the quality of education was equivalent to most public British universities. The University Grants Commission (or whatever it was called then) has already accreditized these Pakistani colleges.

Then came Bhutto and he nationalized the colleges. He wanted to subsidize education for the lower-income classes. Suddenly, politics entered the college campuses. All political parties formed their student wings. Violence and strikes ensued. Education became cheaper but also suffered enormously from political interference. Soon all the better qualified faculty resigned and joined the few private colleges or migrated to UK/USA.

Government control of educational institutions also introduced corruption and favoritism. Children of government officials would squeeze the arm of college staff for better grades and leaked exam papers.

In the effort to make education affordable for the poor, governments ended up destroying merit, fairness and the sanctity of educational institutions. This contributed to brain drain as the elite preferred US/UK colleges instead.

Government spending in education results in government control of education. This means that if a Mullah government comes to power, it could turn every college into a madrassah by spreading anti-Hindu, anti-Semitic, anti-USA and anti-modernity syllabus.

During the late-1980s, governments realized this mistake. The policy was reversed in favor of private investment in education. As a result, quality institutes sprang up all over Pakistan. World class faculties, modern campuses in a depoliticized environment became available to Pakistanis. To help poor students, private donors and government started a scholarship fund as well as zero-interest loans.

+++++++++

I don`t expect you to change your supercilious opinions because you have been brainwashed by the Indian educational system and media. If you are able to crawl your way out of your myopia, you will realize that sometimes government should be kept as far away from education as possible. This is the only way of preventing politicization (or saffronization, in India`s case) of education. There are other ways of subsidizing education instead of direct government interference.

HisWhichever #423

My opinion of Wharton keeps falling day by day.

Apparently you didnot read even the excerpts posted by me, much less the report itself or else you have incredible comprehension problems.

A simple example of failed comprehension : the report clearly faults the Afghan policy, not for itself, but for the associated effect namely ``the growth of extremist groups, spread of weapons and frequent breakdowns of internal security. The uncertainity created by these frequent changes of government, the associated economic policies and lapses in internal security has had a negative impact on private investment and growth.``

So even though the flawed Afghan policy `is no more`(something contradicted even by Hamid Karzai recently), it doesnot imply any improvement if the associated `growth of extremist groups, spread of weapons, etc` persist due to other policies.

Also you neatly sidestepped the issue of how the emphasis on Kashmir has allowed the Army to dismiss civilian governments, to exercise control on government spending to the detriment of nondefence expenditures and to direct the national discourse and priorities away from social development.

``Budgetary allocations for education are low because the government expects private sector to foot the bill. Public schools and universities are a sufficient, but not a necessary condition for raising the literacy levels.
``

This is a unique theory of government policy I have never heard anywhere, one which seems rather selfserving if one is part of the ruling elite which expects to be enriched by government handouts while asking the less fortunate others to take care of themselves `in the private sector` . I wonder what the state and its government is for, if not to take the ultimate responsibility for the development of its people.

And given that the Pakistani government has succeeded in handing over security/defence to the private sector jihadi organisations to organise and fund themselves, to the extent of committing government departments to help AND provide training and arms, including in Afghanistan in the past, I wonder why there is NO government initiative of equal vigor seen in the private sector for education.

You may also like to see the section of the ADB report which talks of nontranparency of resource allocation which is the second most important issue of bad governance.

`politically motivated`

Actually, I suspect it would be a better political choice for Indians like me to watch silently and not point these things out. The sooner the Pakistani elite impoverish their people and nation due to their own sense of entitlement to the state`s freebees and their obssession with Kashmir , the better it is for India which can, under any circumstances, expect nothing but enmity anyway.

re: #422 arjun_m

[I posted a list of top schools in Asia which had 3 Indian IITs in just the top 5 S&T schools..He then tucked his tail between his legs and went away... ]

You are making nationalistic arguments that may appeal to fellow Indians but will bounce off from the Pakistanis chowkies.

The problem with Indian chowkies is that they belong to a poor third-world country that oppresses its minorities and is facing several secessionist movements... yet they want the rest of the world (and especially Pakistan) to cringe in awe/admiration/praise of India. When that doesn`t happen, they feel offended.

Don`t feel offended if Pakistani chowkies do not idolize India. We have found a better example than India to follow. Why idolize a third-world country like India? I acknowledge India`s progress in IT industry, but there are bigger and much more humane civilizations to idolize than India. Look at USA. They have both an excellent human rights record, much better educational institutions than India, genuine democracy and no imperialist designs on other nations. I would prefer Pakistan to emulate that example no matter how much time it takes, than the hyptocritical Indian example that Pakistan can easily emulate in the next 5 years or so.

The difference between Pakistan and India is scale, not quality. India`s strengths and weaknesses are 10 times as large as Pakistan because of its sheer size and population. Fundamentalism, poverty, illiteracy, militarism and intolerance are almost at the same levels in both India and Pakistan. In contrast, USA has neither of these problems. It makes more sense to idolize USA than India for Pakistanis. I suggest the Indian chowkies do the same.

re: sadna

As you yourself admitted in your post, the IMF and ADB believe that Pakistan`s economic problems are due to:

a) Afghan Policy
b) Political Instability
c) Low budgetary allocations in Education sector
d) Erosion of rule of Law
e) High defence spending
f) Debt servicing

The flawed Afghan Policy is no more.

Political instability is bad only when economic policies are changed by successive governments. With the Army`s role institutionalized in politics through LFO, economic policies will not change even if governments do. India also had unstable governments during the mid-1990s but the economic policies were not changed drastically. As a result, the investment climate did not undergo drastic fluctuations. Army`s institutionalized role in politics will prevent coups in future. Basically Pakistan has tailored democracy to suit the needs of its people.

Budgetary allocations for education are low because the government expects private sector to foot the bill. Even if the economy picks up, budgetary allocation for education will remain low for the same reason. Public schools and universities are a sufficient, but not a necessary condition for raising the literacy levels.

As a result of Pakistan`s support in War against Terror, a lot of external debt has been rescheduled with a 15-year grace period. More loans with low interest rate have been given. As a result, Pakistan has been able to substitute high interest debt with low interest debt. This has brought down the debt servicing expenditure significantly.

High defence spending is only a problem when the government needs to ``crowd`` private investment in. This is the old ``Top-Down Economic Development`` paradigm of the 1960s that went out of vogue in the 1980s. Under that paradigm, governments would invest in mega projects, run them profitably and then privatize them. Economic benefits would trickle down to the masses after a lapse of 4-5 years.

This paradigm has been replaced with a ``Bottom-Up Economic Development`` paradigm. Under this paradigm, the government does not compete with private sector in critical sectors. It just encourages investment through tax holidays and good investment environment (law & order). As the microeconomic environment improves, small firms mushroom and later conglomerize. The government does not need to divert spending from defence, law/order, etc to industry.

IMF and World Bank still subscribe to the 1960s paradigm more or less. That is why most countries that follow IMF and WB policies, suffer an increase in poverty and political unrest. Malayasia, for example, shunned IMF and WB policies and still progressed economically through home-grown policies.

Of all the arguments that you made, only the erosion of Law and order is a valid and indisputable one.

The rest of your arguments are debatable and politically motivated.

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

HisWhichever #420

Re the opinion of IMF and ADB, they are not quite free of worries:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_11-4-2003_pg5_1
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_10-4-2003_pg5_1

Re causes of poverty and poor human development in Pakistan:

http://www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/Poverty_PAK/default.asp
Poverty in Pakistan, Issues, Causes, and Institutional responses
July 2002

Check out Chapter 2 Poverty Profile
http://www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/Poverty_PAK/chapter_2.pdf

Section E goes `it is evident [from 1999 figures] that Pakistan`s level of human development is low for its level of income as indicated by the fact that its GDP per capita rank is higher than its HDI rank. In comparison with other South Asian countries, Pakistan did not appear to be worse off in terms of the health(life expectancy) index relative to most countries, but the education index for Pakistan is the lowest in South Asia. The fact that the education index in Nepal and Bangladesh, two countries with significantly lower per capita incomes than Pakistan, was 10 to 20 percent higher than Pakistan is a clear indicator of the low priority accorded to education in Pakistan`s development policies..``


And check out Chapter 3 Causes of Poverty:

http://www.adb.org/Documents/Reports/Poverty_PAK/chapter_3.pdf

At the top of the list of causes is A. Poor governance

``..Poor governance is the key underlying cause of poverty in Pakistan..``

Under poor governance are listed - political instability and the dominance of the military in politics, the excessive public spending on defense, and erosion of rule of law.

``..During the period of 1988 and 1999, there were four national elections and nine changes of government. In addition, Pakistan`s involvement in the war during the 1980s and 1990s in Afghanistan was responsible for the growth of extremist groups, spread of weapons and frequent breakdowns of internal security. The uncertainity created by these frequent cahnges of government, the associated economic policies and lapses in internal security has had a negative impact on private investment and growth.

Three of the last four civilian governments were dismissed prematurely by successive presidents on charges of corruption...``

``..In general, political instability and macroeconomic imbalances have been reflected in poor creditworthiness ratings, even compared to otehr countries of similar income levels, with resulting capital flight and lower foreign direct investiment inflows..``


Under same Chapter III, Causes of poverty - C. Social determinants 3. Low level of Human Development

``.. As detailed in Chapter II, Pakistan lags behind other South Asian countries with respect to its socila indicators. The social sectors have been consistently neglected in Pakistan, with the bulk of budgetary expenditure being concentrated in defense and debt servicing..``

----
Now let everyone know, what role did the Pakistani Army play in political instability due to repeated dismissals of the civilian governments during the 90s?What role did Pakistani Army play in deciding Pakistan`s Afghan policy?

And what role does Kashmir play in this predominance of Army interests in national priorities, in Pakistan`s pursuit of Afghan policy, in dismissal of civilian governments? What role does Kashmir policy play in putting social development at a lower priority?

`loose cannon`
I accept apologies from 9 am to 11 am on all weekdays, excepting national holidays. Of course you can call the ADB report a loose cannon too.

re; #418

Whether human/social indicators are equally/less/more/not important viz-a-viz other national interests is a purely subjective matter. Some people feel that Kashmir should be resolved first; trade and human/social indicators can come later. Others may feel the exact opposite. There is yet another strand of public opinion that believes Pakistan can achieve both goals through careful calibration. I don`t believe the Indian chowkies have made a convincing argument that Pakistan will flounder because of Kashmir. Kashmir issue is not a new issue whereas Pakistan`s economic problems are new. There was no recession in Pakistan throughout the 1960s and 1980s. However, Pakistan was still investing in military build up during those decades. Moreover, Pakistan`s economic performance (on per capita basis) was also better than India until 1990.

I am afraid critics of Pakistan`s present Kashmir policy have failed to establish a strong causal relationship between the insurgency and economic problems.

To put it another way, there are too many different explanations for the economic problems of 1990s. The massive corruption, poor cotton crops due to leaf curl virus, increasing debt burden, U.S. sanctions, over-reliance on textile sector and freezing of Foreign Currency accounts by Nawaz Sharif... all these actions impacted the economy. None of these is linked to Kashmir. How can every Tom, Dick and Harry simply claim that Pakistan`s economy is bad because of the Army or because of Kashmir?

Only a loose cannon will make that generalization. An unemotional or unbiased analysis reveals structural and macroeconomic reasons. BTW, most of these causes have already been removed. As the IMF and World Bank suggest, Pakistan`s economy has shown extraordinary resilience during a tumultous 2002. If the reforms continue for another 4 years, the trickle-down effect of economic recovery will also improve the socio-economic indicators (health; education; urbanization; gender, etc).

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

HisExcellency #416
Take a look at Pakistan`s human development and literacy figures sometime.

PM #412
Huh? You and the chochweet Hafiz Saeed are the ones `trying` for something.

re: #413 harish_hyd

We have heard about different scenarios from Indian chowkies in which eventually Pakistan will crumble under the weight of economic problems and cost of Kashmir struggle.

Suppose this doesn`t happen. Suppose the opposite happens.

*India refuses to talk.
*Pakistan continues support for Kashmir insurgency at full throttle.
*Indian security forces continue to take a pounding in Kashmir from Jihadis.
*Whenever India threatens war, Pakistan stands defiant.
*Whenever India conducts a missile test, Pakistan reciprocates.
*Pakistan fails to bring India into talks. India fails to pressurize Pakistan into curbing infiltration.
*Pakistan continues to facilitate US interests against Al-Qaeda
*Pakistani economy continues to recover thanks to debt reduction, exports, remittances
*America continues trade with India but ignores its complaints over Kashmir

In the given scenario, neither will Pakistan collapse nor will it discontinue support for insurgency. What choices does India have except war and talks? Since no sane leader can wage war against another nuclear state, the war option is practically ruled out. That just leaves talks as the remaining option. Since eventually India may have to negotiate, why not do it right away and get the Indo-Pak relationship normalized again?