A Fool’s Errand

tahmed #80 ``The recent switch changes in the indian economy provides the following strategic benefit that i discussed earlier: the ``peace dividend`` includes hitching a ride on the indian bandwagon (to put it bluntly) as an emerging global service center. ``

So Mother India is going to take Pakistan and the rest under its wing and lovingly nurse its beloved brood?? I really don`t know how anyone can be so naive. We are talking about Pakistan and India here, not Canada and the USA or Belgium and France!

The first thing Vajpayee sahib on landing in Islamabad was make a jibe about taking orders from America. The next thing he did was talked of a common currency (which pissed a lot of ordinary Pakistanis off!) and then he had the audacity to talk about a union and common defence (common defence against whom??). India wants to be the Boss in South Asia not a partner - not even a senior partner but a plain old Master giving orders to its serfs. But you STILL can`t see where the Indians are coming from?? How can you ignore the Indian national neurosis which is on display every where from jay and arjun on chowk to PM Vajpayee? And how can you ignore the past half century of history?

Manto #86

I`m not saying that we should ape the Middle East and Central Asia, or in your words become `wannabees`. I am primarily talking about economic cooperation, but when people interact cultural exchange naturally follows. It`s already happening. Go to Pindi, Islamabad and Peshawar and see for yourself. You will see and meet Afghans, Farsiwaans, Tajiks, Uzbeks, Iranis, Arabs and Turkestanis in the bazaars, on the streets and in the residential areas. Some (the Afghans) are here as refugees, but many come and go or even have moved here for good for economic and educational reasons.


SAARC and South Asia?? What a joke!! We have a border with only ONE South Asian country, India which also happens to be our No 1 enemy. But we have borders with one Middle Eastern country, Iran; one East Asian country China; one Central Asian country, Afghanistan, and only a very narrow strip, the Wakhan Corridor, separates us from another, Tajikstan. More than a quarter of our population is Central Asian/Middle Eastern and more than 65% of our landmass (Baluchistan, NWFP, and the NAs). Even in Punjab and Sindh the cultures and languages have stong Islamic cultural influence. I`m not saying the Centrals Asians etc are our kith and kin but we have as much, if not more, in common with Tajiks and Afghans than we do with Bhutanese, Tamils and Keralites. We don`t need to feel apolgetic about seeking closing ties with the ME and CA.

Ref dionysus #78

[Especially if you consider that, unlike the EU, SAARC has the huge disadvantage that one nation has a bigger population than all the rest put together.]

Even in ASEAN, one nation (Indonesia) has more population than all the rest put together but it is Singapore that leads the pack.

When the EEC was being formed, there were fears about German economic domination of the EEC.

ironman #85 so what you are saying is that the indian public supports the indian government, but that the indian government is really not interested in strengthening positive links with pakistan beyond cricket matches etc. and that in pakistan the only force behind the peace initiative is the army, and that the army is doing this only to buy time to regroup and attack india. or something like that.

are you serious when you write such things?

manto #86 first, sorry for adopting the demeaning tone in my earlier post - didnt mean to sound as demeaning as it appeared in the post.

second, your main concern seems to be that indian goods will cause joblessness in pakistan. but remember that if indian producers gain a market of 140 million, pakistani producers gain a market of 1.2 billion. As an early example of a pakistani ``producer`` tapping into that market look at this turncoat (just joking) sami khan - he has generated more revenue (to put it in stark economic terms) by performing for the much bigger indian market than for the pakistani market alone.

third, as i mentioned earlier, trade is only a very small part of the economic picture. you seem to agree but say that pakistan needs more time. that is the standard infant industry argument of the 1950`s, and time has shown that that is not the case.

finally, on the cultural aspects - in pakistan, ``foreign culture`` is generally equated with western culture, not indian culture. indian culture, to the extent it impacts on pakistan, is the ``bollywood culture`` which of course is itself a ripple effect of the hollywood culture. there will always be resentment against this culture (and no doubt some of it for good reason). What is NOT resented in pakistan are the deeper aspects of western culture that pakistanis tend to ignore - the culture of rationality, scientific endeavor, and so forth. And here again, india can serve as a conduit for these undoubtedly very positive aspects of western culture.

Also, it is simply very odd to live next door as neighbors, and yet live like suspicious, hostile, strangers. This is no way to live, either for individuals or for countries.

``saarc should not be equated with trade-```

that has been the old Paki official stand (Kashmir first!). Hopefully no one cares about this ``political`` protectionism - the infant industry argument only serves as a regional-bourgeosie-ideology to keep the citizens of that country a slave to its ``infant`` industry for ever by snuffing out the competition external to their borders!!!

``why when the President of the United States slaps tariffs on steel in 2002``

Two wrongs do not make one Right. Local bourgeosie always fund protectionism and US is no exception- perfect competition is the desired state of affairs in international trade which has to be striven for. Anyway, WTO has already ruled against it.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3256197.stm

So a wrong tariff policy by the US does not justify acceptance of protectionist arguments across ALL the SECTORS by developing countries like India or Pakistan. India correctly recognizes the need to have such a negative list by all the SAARC countries of sectors requiring protection- but that is not to justify the type of protectionism that YLH is espousing. Any way who is YLH trying to protect- the neo-feudals who are also the PAkistani bourgeosie??

sorry that is S Akbar Zaidi who wrote `issues in Pakistan`s Economy`



From Dawn`s `Magazine`:

`Let`s give SAARC a decent burial` Dr. C Raja Mohan JNU New Dehli

Maybe he is a closet tnt-protectionist-socialist as well?

Ferozk,

You are dead wrong on both counts:

1) While protectionism in India was prolonged unnecessarily, it is absolutely inaccurate to suggest that it had no benefits. Infact as I see it was because of that period and its gains that India has been able to successfuly make the transition. Most economic historians agree.

2) Z A Zaidi in his book `Issues in Pakistan`s Economy` credits rather emphatically the prosperity, poverty reduction and Economic growth of the early 1980s to the illiberal economic policies of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto`s government... and it had little to do with so called US help that every lay person loves to quote.

Among historians his analysis today is held as the gospel of the truth though I may not agree with a lot of what he has to say.


-YLH

dionysus,

Thanks for the compliments :). As an Economist I do see the benefits of closer ties with oil rich nations (and afghanistan as a middle man)... however, I don`t ascribe to the cultural argument because I tend to reject both `arab/Afghan/irani wannabe-ism` and the `Indianwannabe-ism` which are the two positions currently prevalent in our so called `cultural discourse`.

Ballu Khan,

Why do you assume that TNT will be a gali to me? And what does ideology (whatever that means) have to do with the logic I have given with respect to India`s Economy and our inability to compete?

Instead of making random emotional statements with no apparent purpose ... why don`t you give a counter to my post 51?




tahmed,

I am sad that you have resorted to the usual insulting tone that you love to take.


Nevertheless as far as comparitive advantage is concerned, I believe I was the first one to mention it in my post addressed to arjunm 51... so I am hardly the one ignoring these arguments without reason.

Instead of trying to teach me elementary economics why don`t you show me where does this comparitve advantage lie? And whether a nation of 1 billion people with a growing economy and 300 million strong middle class and 3.1 million annual college graduates coming into the work force every year can afford to cede its absolute advantage in the name of comparitive advantage?

This is the problem with the arguments that you and ferozk seem to be putting up... it is too damn thereotical, but what is really the ground situation is totally lost on you. In any event it betrays a sort of indifference to the condition of the common Pakistani who sadly average chowkie is so confused about that some call him zaid bakar and others call him abdul. In any event I would like the proponents of `free trade` to please inform me how they plan on reabsorbing the millions of the so called `zaids` `bakars` and `abduls` who would be unemployed because of the erosion of our Industrial base? Not to mention the threat to our services sector?

I am all for free trade but the time for us has not come yet. As yogiraj said limited protectionism is key... and nothing is irrevocable ... Perhaps if the great powers were to take a lead instead of being hypocrites about it.

As for the cultural argument that `Indian cultural influence` will marginalize extremism... this is wrong. It encourages reaction, fuels extremism, and marginalizes local moderates and indigenous liberals. For many in this country that creates a perpetual danger for Islam and it simply means that all things liberal are indian which is neither accurate nor productive for the obvious reasons.

-YLH

#77 by tahmed32,

``do you mean that the indian government is conducting the peace initiative without broad support from the indian public?``

Tahmed, we the indian public have nothing `extra` to give you the pakistanis...other than regular civil behavior that we give to all. So what peace initiatives are we talking about. We have `airlinks` and `cricket macthes` with everyone else. Nothing `extra` there.

All the `real` peace initiatives are from your side...from your army that is...not you...the hapless pakistani public. The main initiative being that they will stop their mischief in our kashmir.

Now, is it a `change of mind` that has caused this miraculous initiative? The economic situation perhaps...as some chowkies imagine?

No, to both.

Your army is buying time to tackle a bad situation. Aleph saab has correctly pointed that out. Fix other fronts first, then back to kashmir. kashmir is always there. India is not creating trouble in pok. So there`s no immediate worry on this front. You can always get back to kashmir later.

ballukhan #83 i am not sure what you mean by tnt - if it means being a patriotic pakistani, rest assured that ylh is as much a patriotic pakistani as i am. When i talk about peace in south asia, or free trade, and so forth, that does not imply by any means that i reject the idea of pakistan - indeed the opposite is true. i say this because i believe it is in pakistan`s interest to have a peaceful and progressive south asia - as it is in the interests of all other countries in south asia.

#79 by tahmed32 on January 10, 2004 10:04am PT
I guess you are just confused and just clean bowled your own government`s wicket!! ha! ha!

Miyan! I can spot a TNT hiding behind their pretty sounding discourse miles away- You got it wrong- I pointed out to the fact that YLH remains a closet TNT only then can Kashmir be considered as the unfinished ``dirty`` business of partition.

AlephNull #65
Ambrose Bierce
PEACE, n.
In international affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of fighting.

``There can be no friendship between India and Pakistan because `friendship` is between equals...``

Such pearls of wisdom. This guy is so retarded he does not deserve the nick Gujju Bania coz intellectually he can match up to neither.

Friendhsip between 2 nations is not like 2 countries going to the cinema together or hanging out at each other`s house. It is having a normal relationship with commercial and social links. US and Mexico are friendly nations, so are India and Vietnam etc.

dionysus: what i am saying is that the pakistani economy should be a free market economy, encouraging outside investors and encouraging foreign competition to domestic producers. I see the lowering of trade barriers within south asia (via SAFTA) as a step in that direction. That is the reason i have always supported this idea.

The recent switch changes in the indian economy provides the following strategic benefit that i discussed earlier: the ``peace dividend`` includes hitching a ride on the indian bandwagon (to put it bluntly) as an emerging global service center. This lowering of tensions works to the advantage of both india and pakistan as i said: investors like to go to regions that are peaceful, not ones where you have nuclear armed neighbors spitting at one another.

There is no denying that all this will come with significant indian cultural influence as well. So be it. (personally, i welcome it as a way to balance out the religious extremists).

Manto is the only one showing wisdom and foresight among this sorry bunch of puffed-up clowns. SAARC & SAFTA are just covers for Indian hegemony. And even the EU is now beginning to look shaky. If some of the most advanced nations in the world are struggling to put together such an alliance what makes you jokers think `South Asia` can succeed? Especially if you consider that, unlike the EU, SAARC has the huge disadvantage that one nation has a bigger population than all the rest put together.

Manto is spot on, Pakistan has to go it alone and not seek solace in fake and phoney Unions. But it must seek closer ties with Central Asia and the Middle East. This is the way forward for Pakistan both culturally and economically. Our future lies with Iran, Afghanistan and Uzbekistan, not the Maldives and Bhutan.