A Fool’s Errand
Feroz R Khan January 6, 2004
#62 Posted by tahmed32 on January 9, 2004 9:46:31 am
ferozk #58 my late father used to say that ultimately the fool does the same thing that the wise man does - only, he needs a bit more time and suffering. The reason for this interesting phenomenon of course is as follows: the wise man focuses on external realities, and the fool focuses on internal assumptions of reality.
While there is no doubt that the current peace initiative could run into trouble due to some reason (political assassination, sabotage by hardliners, some other incident), that will simply serve to delay things taking their natural course. Indeed, if one takes a historical view of things, even kargill and the subsequent coup d-etat against sharif as well as last year`s brinkmanship were mere hurdles - not show stoppers - in the path of peace.
External realities always win out over internal assumptions and presumptions. And fools realize in 2003 what wise men like you and me ;-) realized two decades ago.
While there is no doubt that the current peace initiative could run into trouble due to some reason (political assassination, sabotage by hardliners, some other incident), that will simply serve to delay things taking their natural course. Indeed, if one takes a historical view of things, even kargill and the subsequent coup d-etat against sharif as well as last year`s brinkmanship were mere hurdles - not show stoppers - in the path of peace.
External realities always win out over internal assumptions and presumptions. And fools realize in 2003 what wise men like you and me ;-) realized two decades ago.
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#61 Posted by arjun_m on January 9, 2004 8:53:45 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#60 Posted by yogiraj on January 9, 2004 8:53:44 am
`` #51 by Mantolives
Harimau,
I have nothing against trade with India... ``
Manto,
Do not trade with India. No Gain No Loss for US. We will live and so will you. I know you are not a bigot. No ill feelings.
But economically...Protection in short term is AOK. Not in long term.
India tried that for at least 40 years plus. (long term). Unfortunately, did not work. Protection has its limits. ``I will protect but you must open`` is also not AOK in the long run.
Pakistan must limit protection to a limited list of products. That must have some specific gains, reasons and also purpose.
Honestly, all I have heard..read about, seen and ....
NO reason or purpose from your Govt in last ... well...nnn ... years. Only short term gains.
May be things have started to change..
Yogiraj
Harimau,
I have nothing against trade with India... ``
Manto,
Do not trade with India. No Gain No Loss for US. We will live and so will you. I know you are not a bigot. No ill feelings.
But economically...Protection in short term is AOK. Not in long term.
India tried that for at least 40 years plus. (long term). Unfortunately, did not work. Protection has its limits. ``I will protect but you must open`` is also not AOK in the long run.
Pakistan must limit protection to a limited list of products. That must have some specific gains, reasons and also purpose.
Honestly, all I have heard..read about, seen and ....
NO reason or purpose from your Govt in last ... well...nnn ... years. Only short term gains.
May be things have started to change..
Yogiraj
#59 Posted by tahmed32 on January 9, 2004 8:10:44 am
Romair #47 When the former commander in chief of the pakistan navy can be stripped off his rank and put away for 7 years for breaking the law by a civil judge, that is indeed a blow struck against these pirates and on behalf of their victims, namely the people of paksitan.
When the judge who put this former military chief and his henchmen behind bars happens to be a Pakistani hindu, that is indeed an indication of something else: namely, that the judiciary in pakistan has indeed managed to survive despite the criminal attacks against it by both zia (who tried to undermine it by instituting sharia courts) and by nawaz sharif (who did the frontal assault on the supreme court). Much credit goes to the judicial profession in pakistan for standing up for law and order and against these anti-pakistan forces through the darkest days of zia and through the farce to which democracy was reduced under nawaz and bb.
When the judge who put this former military chief and his henchmen behind bars happens to be a Pakistani hindu, that is indeed an indication of something else: namely, that the judiciary in pakistan has indeed managed to survive despite the criminal attacks against it by both zia (who tried to undermine it by instituting sharia courts) and by nawaz sharif (who did the frontal assault on the supreme court). Much credit goes to the judicial profession in pakistan for standing up for law and order and against these anti-pakistan forces through the darkest days of zia and through the farce to which democracy was reduced under nawaz and bb.
#58 Posted by ferozk on January 9, 2004 8:00:20 am
re: tahmed32 # 56
The point is duly noted.
I have no disagreement with you, sir, but in all honesty I am very concerned about the an unfortunate act of insanity happening, which has the potential to ruin the promise of any peace or prosperity in the region.
Being on the ``wrong side of history`` my friend is not a consolation; we need to be pro-active and be vigilent and prepared to root out these rejectionists from our midsts. My point being, that now that reason has finally triumphed over ignorance, we should not leave anything to chance and it is good that leaders are responding to the wishes of the people, but there is no reason to give up the fight! The fight has just started!
Sirji, please do not underestimate the opposition!
Ciao
The point is duly noted.
I have no disagreement with you, sir, but in all honesty I am very concerned about the an unfortunate act of insanity happening, which has the potential to ruin the promise of any peace or prosperity in the region.
Being on the ``wrong side of history`` my friend is not a consolation; we need to be pro-active and be vigilent and prepared to root out these rejectionists from our midsts. My point being, that now that reason has finally triumphed over ignorance, we should not leave anything to chance and it is good that leaders are responding to the wishes of the people, but there is no reason to give up the fight! The fight has just started!
Sirji, please do not underestimate the opposition!
Ciao
#57 Posted by ballukhan on January 9, 2004 7:45:12 am
#41 by Mantolives on January 8, 2004 10:32am PT
The same protectionist arguments have been around for ages- the bourgeosie and feudals still have everything- and continue to have- the problem is not the infant industry but the bourgeosie who want to continue to work at their existing levels of inefficiencies.
The same protectionist arguments have been around for ages- the bourgeosie and feudals still have everything- and continue to have- the problem is not the infant industry but the bourgeosie who want to continue to work at their existing levels of inefficiencies.
#56 Posted by tahmed32 on January 9, 2004 7:45:11 am
ylh #51 as i understand it, the CAP is a mess due to government tinkering with the economy, and not due to the formation of the common market (and now the EU). this is true for other rich countries too (japan, e.g. and the US).
please note that the economic reality i mention in my post is not in fact on the basis of the economic benefits of removing trade barriers within south asia (although there are clear benefits to greater economic competition). the economic reality i mention has to do with the fact that india has finally shed its historically poor economic performance and is now rapidly moving forward to build up an important role in the global service economy.
so i think instead of thinking along traditional lines of the benefits of lowered trade barriers (and those are undoubtedly there), you should think more broadly in terms of the ``peace dividend``.
PS: On lowered trade barriers: When i was studying economics in panjab university back in 1971, i in fact wrote an article for the econmics dept magazine calling for exactly the reduction of trade barriers with india as is now happening 30 years later - if only these fools had listened to me back then :-) All i got was a friendly warning from my teacher that if i was going to apply for the civil service (which i did), someone could hold this article against me as reflecting pro-india views - he therefore suggested that i retract the article (which i did - getting a job in the CSP was MY economic reality back then).
please note that the economic reality i mention in my post is not in fact on the basis of the economic benefits of removing trade barriers within south asia (although there are clear benefits to greater economic competition). the economic reality i mention has to do with the fact that india has finally shed its historically poor economic performance and is now rapidly moving forward to build up an important role in the global service economy.
so i think instead of thinking along traditional lines of the benefits of lowered trade barriers (and those are undoubtedly there), you should think more broadly in terms of the ``peace dividend``.
PS: On lowered trade barriers: When i was studying economics in panjab university back in 1971, i in fact wrote an article for the econmics dept magazine calling for exactly the reduction of trade barriers with india as is now happening 30 years later - if only these fools had listened to me back then :-) All i got was a friendly warning from my teacher that if i was going to apply for the civil service (which i did), someone could hold this article against me as reflecting pro-india views - he therefore suggested that i retract the article (which i did - getting a job in the CSP was MY economic reality back then).
#55 Posted by tahmed32 on January 9, 2004 7:45:11 am
ferozk #52 What you raise - viz, the force of irrationality - which i agree certainly serves to hide the economic and military that i had listed. However, notice that i also mention political realities: the political reality is that it is not just you and me talking peace, it is the leaders of pakistan and india who are talking peace. And, as i also noted, from all indications the general public in both india and pakistan is either pleased with these moved, or at least not displeased. There will always be people who would like to see a continuation of hostilities, but they are on the wrong side of history and time is against them.
#54 Posted by rsridhar on January 9, 2004 7:45:10 am
re:#41 by Mantolives
``No matter how you put it.... India, with its stronger economy, potential for enormous growth rate, the size of its Bourgeoise, stands to gain from SAFTA/SAARC economically, politically, and otherwise.``
This is a classic case of paronoia. Coming from an economist, it is unfortunate.
It depends on how you view the situation. For some, the cup is half empty; for others, it is half full.
You can either look at the huge Indian market and get excited about the opportunities or say that you are going to be overwhelmed. It depends on the mindset, i guess.
Srilanka has been trading preferentially with India in the last 2 years or so and has gained tremenodously.
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2003/06/21/stories/2003062102630500.htm
Excerpts:
``There has been a huge improvement in two-way trade between India and Sri Lanka after the FTA was signed, Mr Jayawardena points out. All the fears about opening up trade have been removed. For instance, in Sri Lanka there were concerns about a large country finishing off the local industry. That has been proven a myth, he says. ``Even a small country can have an advantage over a large country because of specialisation,`` he says. Likewise, Indian industry was worried about products from Sri Lanka flooding the market. That has also not happened.``
Sridhar
``No matter how you put it.... India, with its stronger economy, potential for enormous growth rate, the size of its Bourgeoise, stands to gain from SAFTA/SAARC economically, politically, and otherwise.``
This is a classic case of paronoia. Coming from an economist, it is unfortunate.
It depends on how you view the situation. For some, the cup is half empty; for others, it is half full.
You can either look at the huge Indian market and get excited about the opportunities or say that you are going to be overwhelmed. It depends on the mindset, i guess.
Srilanka has been trading preferentially with India in the last 2 years or so and has gained tremenodously.
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2003/06/21/stories/2003062102630500.htm
Excerpts:
``There has been a huge improvement in two-way trade between India and Sri Lanka after the FTA was signed, Mr Jayawardena points out. All the fears about opening up trade have been removed. For instance, in Sri Lanka there were concerns about a large country finishing off the local industry. That has been proven a myth, he says. ``Even a small country can have an advantage over a large country because of specialisation,`` he says. Likewise, Indian industry was worried about products from Sri Lanka flooding the market. That has also not happened.``
Sridhar
#53 Posted by ferozk on January 9, 2004 6:51:53 am
re: Mantolives
Good points on the EU CAP (Common Agriculture Policy). EU has a very protectionist CAP, because of France`s patronage. Agriculture is a primary economic industry in most EU nations, including France, and the French farmers` lobby is very strong and it forces the French to maintain and force EU towards a very discriminatory CAP policy. Germany, too, favors a very biased tariff on the import of EU beer into Germany - to protect the German beer industry. The French perchant for high tariffs on agriculture exists, because the French agri-business sector is highly inefficient and it cannot compete against other EU nations let alone the United States.
The United States` has a very high tariff on the import of steel from EU under pressure from Pittsburg based steel lobby. Again, the argument for tariffs resides in the inefficieny of the US steel production. The United States has tariffs on agriculture imports and textile industry and all these tariffs are motivated by the logic of congressional votes in those districts. In such cases, politics takes precedence over economics and the net result is a bad policy, which simply ends up subsidizing inefficiency.
In the late 1980s, I had the opportunity to be involved with the issue of tariffs on steel, between the United States and EU. We analysed all the data from 1950 to about 1975 on the issue of bilateral steel trade between the United States and EU member states. The question, we were trying to answer was how to improve the American steel production and how to make it more efficient. The answer, which we came to was to remove all tariffs subsidizing the American steel industry and instead, to use the revenue as a reinvestment mechanism to upgrade the US steel industry and modernize its scales of production. Tariffs, in our opinion, were hindering US edge in competiveness vis-a-vis steel production in Europe.
Pakistan, will have to take the bitter pill and open up its markets to Indian goods, because if SAFTA is to be truly implimented, Pakistani economy and the rest of SARRC economies will have to become competive or there is no point in intergrating the SARRC economies under SAFTA. Granted, whole scale Pakistan businesses will be erdicated by the infusion of Indian goods into Pak economy and the market place, because the Pakistani cost of production is too high due to chronic mismanagement and generally, from a lack of an efficient scales of economic productive capacity. The steep costs of electric power, for industrial comsumption, in Pakistan lends towards a non-competive price ratios. Pakistani economic concerns will be forced to modernize and improve from the sheer neccesity of a robust competion or risk being economically wiped out from the regional market place.
I agree with you; in the short term, Pakistan will suffer miserably in an economic sense, but in the long term, Pakistan gains to benefit. Pakistan has to liberalize its economy and end its tariff and subsidies structures, because the global economies are intergrating and for Pakistan to join a globally intergrated economy, it has to be competive globally. There lies the benefit and to seek an existance outside of this geo-economic global intergration, risks economic alienation and if that happens, then all economic benchmarks, as far as Pakistan is concerned, will start sliding down hill.
Ciao
Good points on the EU CAP (Common Agriculture Policy). EU has a very protectionist CAP, because of France`s patronage. Agriculture is a primary economic industry in most EU nations, including France, and the French farmers` lobby is very strong and it forces the French to maintain and force EU towards a very discriminatory CAP policy. Germany, too, favors a very biased tariff on the import of EU beer into Germany - to protect the German beer industry. The French perchant for high tariffs on agriculture exists, because the French agri-business sector is highly inefficient and it cannot compete against other EU nations let alone the United States.
The United States` has a very high tariff on the import of steel from EU under pressure from Pittsburg based steel lobby. Again, the argument for tariffs resides in the inefficieny of the US steel production. The United States has tariffs on agriculture imports and textile industry and all these tariffs are motivated by the logic of congressional votes in those districts. In such cases, politics takes precedence over economics and the net result is a bad policy, which simply ends up subsidizing inefficiency.
In the late 1980s, I had the opportunity to be involved with the issue of tariffs on steel, between the United States and EU. We analysed all the data from 1950 to about 1975 on the issue of bilateral steel trade between the United States and EU member states. The question, we were trying to answer was how to improve the American steel production and how to make it more efficient. The answer, which we came to was to remove all tariffs subsidizing the American steel industry and instead, to use the revenue as a reinvestment mechanism to upgrade the US steel industry and modernize its scales of production. Tariffs, in our opinion, were hindering US edge in competiveness vis-a-vis steel production in Europe.
Pakistan, will have to take the bitter pill and open up its markets to Indian goods, because if SAFTA is to be truly implimented, Pakistani economy and the rest of SARRC economies will have to become competive or there is no point in intergrating the SARRC economies under SAFTA. Granted, whole scale Pakistan businesses will be erdicated by the infusion of Indian goods into Pak economy and the market place, because the Pakistani cost of production is too high due to chronic mismanagement and generally, from a lack of an efficient scales of economic productive capacity. The steep costs of electric power, for industrial comsumption, in Pakistan lends towards a non-competive price ratios. Pakistani economic concerns will be forced to modernize and improve from the sheer neccesity of a robust competion or risk being economically wiped out from the regional market place.
I agree with you; in the short term, Pakistan will suffer miserably in an economic sense, but in the long term, Pakistan gains to benefit. Pakistan has to liberalize its economy and end its tariff and subsidies structures, because the global economies are intergrating and for Pakistan to join a globally intergrated economy, it has to be competive globally. There lies the benefit and to seek an existance outside of this geo-economic global intergration, risks economic alienation and if that happens, then all economic benchmarks, as far as Pakistan is concerned, will start sliding down hill.
Ciao
#52 Posted by ferozk on January 9, 2004 6:17:44 am
re: tahmed32
Your post was sane and it made sense, but that is where the trouble lies. To most rational observers, all you said makes perfect sense, but there is a minority, which does not agree to your viewpoint. These people do not care a fig for globalization or economic intergration and they thrive on bitterness and resentment.
The world is indeed moving in the direction you charted and it is thinking more of geo-economics than geo-politics. The world is getting ready to embrace the new century, but a group of individuals are still clinging to the past. The question is how to change their rigid mindsets. It is very easy to say and suggest that if you do not jump on the band wagon, you will be left behind, as the world moves on. These people do not care about such ideas and suggestions, because they are perfectly content to live in the past. You and I and anyone, who is intelligent does not need to be convinced of such sound arguments, but the question and the challenge still remains; how do we convince a group, which does not wish to be convinced?
There is a time to rejoice and presently, it is not a time to rejoice, but to be weary of the future. I am not advocating pessismism, but I am strongly suggesting that India-Pakistan peace moves are very fragile. All it will take to ruin this new found bonhomie, between India and Pakistan, will be one act of insanity and one cry of recrimination. There is no fail safe method to prevent an act of desperation, which can derail the whole process and once the process moves ahead and gathers momentum, there will a backlash from those, who are threatened by this outbreak of peace between India and Pakistan.
Make no mistakes, the opposition to peace exists in both nations and this is a very viable opposition. This opposition to peace, in India and Pakistan, is deaf to all and any sane arguments. Worse than that, they are determined to deny sanity a place in the discourse of the two nations.
I am not afraid of peace breaking out, but I am afraid how delicate this peace process is and how easily it can be shattered.
There in lies my concern.
Ciao
Your post was sane and it made sense, but that is where the trouble lies. To most rational observers, all you said makes perfect sense, but there is a minority, which does not agree to your viewpoint. These people do not care a fig for globalization or economic intergration and they thrive on bitterness and resentment.
The world is indeed moving in the direction you charted and it is thinking more of geo-economics than geo-politics. The world is getting ready to embrace the new century, but a group of individuals are still clinging to the past. The question is how to change their rigid mindsets. It is very easy to say and suggest that if you do not jump on the band wagon, you will be left behind, as the world moves on. These people do not care about such ideas and suggestions, because they are perfectly content to live in the past. You and I and anyone, who is intelligent does not need to be convinced of such sound arguments, but the question and the challenge still remains; how do we convince a group, which does not wish to be convinced?
There is a time to rejoice and presently, it is not a time to rejoice, but to be weary of the future. I am not advocating pessismism, but I am strongly suggesting that India-Pakistan peace moves are very fragile. All it will take to ruin this new found bonhomie, between India and Pakistan, will be one act of insanity and one cry of recrimination. There is no fail safe method to prevent an act of desperation, which can derail the whole process and once the process moves ahead and gathers momentum, there will a backlash from those, who are threatened by this outbreak of peace between India and Pakistan.
Make no mistakes, the opposition to peace exists in both nations and this is a very viable opposition. This opposition to peace, in India and Pakistan, is deaf to all and any sane arguments. Worse than that, they are determined to deny sanity a place in the discourse of the two nations.
I am not afraid of peace breaking out, but I am afraid how delicate this peace process is and how easily it can be shattered.
There in lies my concern.
Ciao
#51 Posted by MantoLives on January 9, 2004 2:47:54 am
tahmed,
The EU Experience especially with respect to Common Agricultural Policy has been a very bitter one ... I suggest you read more about it... When I talk of regional ghettoization, I mean precisely this. EU has really made a mess of things when it comes to agriculture. I am still to see the much talked about advantages of this idiotic idea.
How does a Common external tariff custom`s union help International trade.... I will never know... it is the sort of weird reverse logic that the world has bought into.
Harimau,
I have nothing against trade with India... but it should be to the benefit of both parties. I am against the idea of saarc ... saarc should not be equated with trade.
Arjunm,
Yaar... while we are on the issue of continuing education ... can you please explain why when the President of the United States slaps tariffs on steel in 2002, or the EU continues to employ the most unabashed protectionist tactics for its agriculture... they are not accused of `socialism` but if someone from a developing country says the same thing, he is automatically accused of it?
India and China make an interesting comparison... China`s strong point is manufacturing, not only does India compete with China over that, but India`s forte is the services sector. In any modern economy the tertiary sector accounts for much more than manufacturing. India is the number one destination for any outsourcing from the US... already most insurance claims of US citizens are being settled in India... customer service for AT and T is done in India, Emirates, British Airways and other major airlines are looking towards India... India has a distinct advantage over china... and China is not 9 times the size of India. It is the genius of the chinese people that they were able to offset India`s natural advantage.
While Pakistan has the same strong points as India... eg English language, some what skilled work forceetc , Pakistan enjoys comparitive advantage in none of the areas mentioned above. The disparity between us is far greater ... and trade without any protectionist measures means instant death of our economy and hence our nationstate, something which is unacceptable to me as a Pakistani....
The EU Experience especially with respect to Common Agricultural Policy has been a very bitter one ... I suggest you read more about it... When I talk of regional ghettoization, I mean precisely this. EU has really made a mess of things when it comes to agriculture. I am still to see the much talked about advantages of this idiotic idea.
How does a Common external tariff custom`s union help International trade.... I will never know... it is the sort of weird reverse logic that the world has bought into.
Harimau,
I have nothing against trade with India... but it should be to the benefit of both parties. I am against the idea of saarc ... saarc should not be equated with trade.
Arjunm,
Yaar... while we are on the issue of continuing education ... can you please explain why when the President of the United States slaps tariffs on steel in 2002, or the EU continues to employ the most unabashed protectionist tactics for its agriculture... they are not accused of `socialism` but if someone from a developing country says the same thing, he is automatically accused of it?
India and China make an interesting comparison... China`s strong point is manufacturing, not only does India compete with China over that, but India`s forte is the services sector. In any modern economy the tertiary sector accounts for much more than manufacturing. India is the number one destination for any outsourcing from the US... already most insurance claims of US citizens are being settled in India... customer service for AT and T is done in India, Emirates, British Airways and other major airlines are looking towards India... India has a distinct advantage over china... and China is not 9 times the size of India. It is the genius of the chinese people that they were able to offset India`s natural advantage.
While Pakistan has the same strong points as India... eg English language, some what skilled work forceetc , Pakistan enjoys comparitive advantage in none of the areas mentioned above. The disparity between us is far greater ... and trade without any protectionist measures means instant death of our economy and hence our nationstate, something which is unacceptable to me as a Pakistani....
#50 Posted by gujjubania on January 8, 2004 11:54:44 pm
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#49 Posted by tahmed32 on January 8, 2004 8:15:40 pm
amit #39 writes ``My point is that the current thaw in relations might actally turn out to be a long-term thaw because it is not being done on emotional grounds, rather it is based on harsh geo-political realities.``
This is the central point underlying the thaw. the peace process is being driven by geo-political realities, not ideologies. I think these realities are economic, military, political - and much credit goes to vajpayee and musharaff for recognizing these realities and for gaining broad consensus in support of these realities as well. To expand a bit on this:
a. Economic reality: The huge reality is that India is emerging as a world center for service industries. The gap is larger than the GNP growth gap (7.1 vs 5 percent i believe for this year) would suggest: india is attracting foreign private capital, pakistan is not. The reality is: Pakistan (and other south asian nations) can jump on the bandwagon, or they can lock themselves out. I believe the strong economic team in Pakistan probably has a lot to do with making musharaff understand this fundamental reality. For India, enlarging the local economy to encompass south asia makes sense as well - a peaceful, progressive south asia reinforces foreign interest in the indian economy.
b. Military realities: The fundamental reality here is that after 3 wars and 50 years, we have had a stalemate for the past 30 years. India cannot bully Pakistan (as Advani tried initially to do) in the post-nuclear situation. And Pakistan cannot hope to take kashmir by force.
c. Political reality: The reality here is external as well as internal pressure. Internally, there is a strong desire for peace on the part of the public in both countries, as is evidenced by the huge sigh of relief on the part of the general public. In addition, in pakistan there has been increasing resentment against the military for hogging the economy. The US role has played an important role as facilitator behind the scenes.
d. And one more reality, mushy and vajpayee: Add to the above the human element. Both musharaff and vajpayee enjoy personal prestige from their respective publics. And for good reason. In pakistan, musharaff remains untainted with corruption in sharp contrast to benazir and nawaz sharif. He has moved steadily towards democracy. vajpayee is similarly admired in india for personal qualities as well as for being associated with indian economic progress. Both men have proved highly intelligent, and adept at getting consensus within their countries - there have been no demonstrations by the religious parties of the kind that took place during the lahore visit of vajpayee.
These are rock solid foundations for the peace movement. Lots of people will have trouble switching their minds, but finally the idea that life is not be a win-lose situation (or, in case of extremists, a lose-lose situation), but a win-win situation has come to south asia. And it is because of these realities that it is an idea whose time has come.
YLH #41 I dont see how you can talk of a regional ghetto when in fact the indian economy is growing BECAUSE it is integrating with the global economy.
This is the central point underlying the thaw. the peace process is being driven by geo-political realities, not ideologies. I think these realities are economic, military, political - and much credit goes to vajpayee and musharaff for recognizing these realities and for gaining broad consensus in support of these realities as well. To expand a bit on this:
a. Economic reality: The huge reality is that India is emerging as a world center for service industries. The gap is larger than the GNP growth gap (7.1 vs 5 percent i believe for this year) would suggest: india is attracting foreign private capital, pakistan is not. The reality is: Pakistan (and other south asian nations) can jump on the bandwagon, or they can lock themselves out. I believe the strong economic team in Pakistan probably has a lot to do with making musharaff understand this fundamental reality. For India, enlarging the local economy to encompass south asia makes sense as well - a peaceful, progressive south asia reinforces foreign interest in the indian economy.
b. Military realities: The fundamental reality here is that after 3 wars and 50 years, we have had a stalemate for the past 30 years. India cannot bully Pakistan (as Advani tried initially to do) in the post-nuclear situation. And Pakistan cannot hope to take kashmir by force.
c. Political reality: The reality here is external as well as internal pressure. Internally, there is a strong desire for peace on the part of the public in both countries, as is evidenced by the huge sigh of relief on the part of the general public. In addition, in pakistan there has been increasing resentment against the military for hogging the economy. The US role has played an important role as facilitator behind the scenes.
d. And one more reality, mushy and vajpayee: Add to the above the human element. Both musharaff and vajpayee enjoy personal prestige from their respective publics. And for good reason. In pakistan, musharaff remains untainted with corruption in sharp contrast to benazir and nawaz sharif. He has moved steadily towards democracy. vajpayee is similarly admired in india for personal qualities as well as for being associated with indian economic progress. Both men have proved highly intelligent, and adept at getting consensus within their countries - there have been no demonstrations by the religious parties of the kind that took place during the lahore visit of vajpayee.
These are rock solid foundations for the peace movement. Lots of people will have trouble switching their minds, but finally the idea that life is not be a win-lose situation (or, in case of extremists, a lose-lose situation), but a win-win situation has come to south asia. And it is because of these realities that it is an idea whose time has come.
YLH #41 I dont see how you can talk of a regional ghetto when in fact the indian economy is growing BECAUSE it is integrating with the global economy.
#48 Posted by harimau on January 8, 2004 8:15:38 pm
Ref Mantolives #41
[As an economist I have nothing against trade.... it is this idea of regional ghettos and you got my back mentality that I hate.
No matter how you put it.... India, with its stronger economy, potential for enormous growth rate, the size of its Bourgeoise, stands to gain from SAFTA/SAARC economically, politically, and otherwise.. and benefits for Pakistan marginal as they are, are out done by the losses... especially to the Industrial base that will be destroyed.
Unless and until Pakistan cuts radically the cost of production, there is no use for such lovey dovey steps. There is no need to apologize for protectionism...
I find the entire idea (SAFTA etc) disgusting aimed at further dispossessing the masses of what they have got.]
Is there not indirect trade between India and Pakistan? Why pay some Dubai middleman his profits and pay for additional transportation costs when you can import directly from India and transportation costs would be nothing more than the cost of renting a truck for a day? Would you agree that at least in the case of life-saving drugs, trade should be liberalized between India and Pakistan so that the average Pakistani can afford to buy medicines?
[As an economist I have nothing against trade.... it is this idea of regional ghettos and you got my back mentality that I hate.
No matter how you put it.... India, with its stronger economy, potential for enormous growth rate, the size of its Bourgeoise, stands to gain from SAFTA/SAARC economically, politically, and otherwise.. and benefits for Pakistan marginal as they are, are out done by the losses... especially to the Industrial base that will be destroyed.
Unless and until Pakistan cuts radically the cost of production, there is no use for such lovey dovey steps. There is no need to apologize for protectionism...
I find the entire idea (SAFTA etc) disgusting aimed at further dispossessing the masses of what they have got.]
Is there not indirect trade between India and Pakistan? Why pay some Dubai middleman his profits and pay for additional transportation costs when you can import directly from India and transportation costs would be nothing more than the cost of renting a truck for a day? Would you agree that at least in the case of life-saving drugs, trade should be liberalized between India and Pakistan so that the average Pakistani can afford to buy medicines?
#47 Posted by Romair on January 8, 2004 4:27:58 pm
``Admiral Mansur......who was stripped of his official rank two years ago after a plea bargain with the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), was convicted and sentenced by an accountability court on Thursday to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs 2 million for losing the national exchequer a loss of Rs 1.84 billion in the purchase deal of three vessels for the Pakistan National Shipping Corporation (PNSC).
The court, presided over by Judge Parkash Lal Ambwani, sentenced co-accused commodore Mirza Ashfaq seven years’ imprisonment with a fine of Rs 2 million. Commodore Ashfaq was head of the technical committee of the PNSC on vessels. Both the convicts had been debarred from holding any public office and granting loans from nationalised banks for 10 years. Rear Admiral Javed Ali, who was the PNSC chief when the purchase deal was finalised in 1996, was sentenced three years’ imprisonment in absentia. He later jumped the bail he was granted by the court in the same reference. `` (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_9-1-2004_pg1_7)
I have always thought that Pakistanis are too cynical about themselves, and that things are bad, but not nearly as bad as everyone makes them out to be. Perhaps the above is an indication.
So, in Pakistan, one of the most powerful military men in the country, can be extradited from the USA, brought to Pakistan, tried and jailed. Not only that, but I am assuming Prakash Lal is Hindu name. So a Hindu individual can still reach a position high enough to carry out the judgement, and jail such powerful person. Not bad.
The court, presided over by Judge Parkash Lal Ambwani, sentenced co-accused commodore Mirza Ashfaq seven years’ imprisonment with a fine of Rs 2 million. Commodore Ashfaq was head of the technical committee of the PNSC on vessels. Both the convicts had been debarred from holding any public office and granting loans from nationalised banks for 10 years. Rear Admiral Javed Ali, who was the PNSC chief when the purchase deal was finalised in 1996, was sentenced three years’ imprisonment in absentia. He later jumped the bail he was granted by the court in the same reference. `` (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_9-1-2004_pg1_7)
I have always thought that Pakistanis are too cynical about themselves, and that things are bad, but not nearly as bad as everyone makes them out to be. Perhaps the above is an indication.
So, in Pakistan, one of the most powerful military men in the country, can be extradited from the USA, brought to Pakistan, tried and jailed. Not only that, but I am assuming Prakash Lal is Hindu name. So a Hindu individual can still reach a position high enough to carry out the judgement, and jail such powerful person. Not bad.
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- MantoLives: No one is asking... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Ok nautanki champion answer... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Ok nautanki champion answer... Living Gandhi and King
- jayp: Re: # 200 You forgot... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Frankly I don't understand... Living Gandhi and King
- sadna: Mantolives Your calling something a... Living Gandhi and King
- harish_hyd: #197 by majumdar But maybe... Living Gandhi and King
- MantoLives: Majumdar, There was Jamiat e... Living Gandhi and King
