From Jinnah to Jamali

#73 by jay on May 7, 2004 6:11am PT

I appreciate your concern, but you are being critical just for the sake of it. Everyone has a right to cite anything through any source, and everyone has a right to be critical about the news, instead of getting into useless debates on where the news is coming from. And actually that`s where it all started when I was told that what I was saying was just government propaganda, and I felt compelled to cite the source. And yes, I feel privileged to be able to get information from a number of diverse sources (including you). By the way, you don’t seem too keen to accept the numbers either. I would like to quote your response about numbers in your post #61: “Thses are simply some numbers cooked up to satisfy the WB and IMF.” Thanks.

It is refreshing to see someone taking the responsibility to think earnestly and not for the sake of mere dinner/drawing room conversations. Way to go Farrukh Khan!

#70 by fmk on May 7, 2004 0:58am PT

Farrukh, one can`t live in isolation in the 21st century. Overseas Pakistanis can (and should) play a very important role for Pakistan. There is a difference between people who go abroad for education and/or job, and those who leave the country suffering from some kind of inferiority complex. I would like to see more and more Pakistanis excelling in leading universities and organizations all over the world. This is bound to bring plenty of good stuff back home: capital, fresh perspectives, new skill sets, better international image, and what not. Yes, it will be determined by our readiness to work for it, but that readiness wouldn’t be there if we start doubting the viability of Pakistan. Thanks.

Carpadium:

Sir, I am sorry for inadvertently hurting your feelings through the use of the word sensitivities without qualifying it with an explanation why it has been used. The word has been used in the specific context of society and its evolutionary context. Our friend, kakka, specifically said that he didn’t care much for the collective and societal ... he is more involved in paying his personal debts (whatever that means). .., and from where did you derive the notion of being `not desirous of prosperity`???? I think my friend, kakka, is very much interested in prosperity albeit at the personal level ... hence the reference probably to his personal debts as more important than the collective.

Farrukh M Khan

Previlaged Truth

ahmedbilal,

What I pointed out about you quoting the words of your brother is an entrenched notion in pakistan, of previlages, secret access to truth. What you are essentially claiming is that you are previlaged, you have a brother in WB, and as such you have access to truth which no one else in the world has got. It is the same idea that seeps out in romairs posts, and also that of YLH, tahmed and others.
It is this exclusivity to private truths that has prompted mushy to take over, it is the same that gives powers to the honour killers. There is no concept of a socially constructed concensus truth, it is always previlaged to a few, consult the book, ask the mullah, oir better still, look inside you.

If you have any inkling of the what I posted above, never again mention your brother, quote the numbers.

No, ahmadbilal, it will neither be the Indians nor us Pakistanis who will decide whether Pakistan is a viable state or not ... Nor will our wanting for it to be so will decide it; the fate of Pakistani societal/economic/cultural/institutional edifice will be determined by our readiness to pour blood and sweat into its foundations. Getting immigration visas to the Western world wont do it; it will be the Pakistanis who live in Pakistan by choice and for love of the people and motherland who will do it.
It will be the merciless process of history that will give us the certificate of being a failed or viable state. And going by our history so far, we don`t have much of a claim for viability.

Farrukh M Khan

I think it is time for us to rise above ourselves and for once look beyond our ``personal debts`` and work towards a future that all of us can be proud off...

I agree with the poor fellow, if I may say it on ` 62-kakka`s` behalf…difference of opinion should not be regarded as an excuse for you `66frk` to delete his name from the list of people not `sensitive among us` or not desirous of prosperity. Not agreeing to what you think or believe does not make any of us less `sensitive`. Refrain from implying as you so vehemently have advocated in your response to others on this forum. However, your zeal for collective prosperity is admirable. I am sure your contribution will keep the ball rolling…

Please people, don’t turn this forum into an India Pakistan war zone. Don’t we have enough of this hate venting elsewhere? I thought Chowk was meant to bring people from both sides together for a meaningful discussion and dialogue. No dialogue can take place if people remain entrenched in their basic ideas/prejudices and use their intellects only to garnish the recipe/dish that they got handed over to them unconsciously from their environments and experience of previous generations. No wonder people are calling Chowk a hate site.

Farrukh M Khan

#59 by jay on May 6, 2004 2:16am PT

I was giving reference of my brother in context of the World Bank loan. And I certainly have more reasons to give more authenticity to what I would hear from him coming out of a meeting regarding that loan, instead of a rumor floating in some random newspaper found through Google search. Anyway, should I understand from your post that picking on irrelevant stuff just for the sake of criticizing is the best example of Indian mindset?

tahmed dude....

So you started calling people jahil eh ?

On fertility rates, projections are made based on surveys - but, they are then confirmed
by a national census.
Jay does ask a valid question - when was the last national census in Pak carried out ?
if it was not - can you tell us why it was not done so ?

So, instead of evading the issue and calling people names - why dont you answer his
question. If you dont know, then say so and try to find out more about it.

#56 by AlephNull

1. “If the Pakistani ruling establishment has not been more successful at colonization, it is not for want of trying.”
2. “Is there any reason to believe that the Pakistani establishment actually wants the country to make progress”
3. “East Pakistan was colonized for 24 years”

Good Catch!
Number 3 first. Colonization of E. Pakistan would IMO, classify as exploitation of resources strictly keeping Pakistan’s junta in mind. E. Pak was not exactly colonized by Pakistan. It was part of the parcel, which was thrown at Pakistan. There are always going to be some provinces in any given country whose resources would be distributed to the other less endowed provinces. Since Pakistan had not from the very outset, showed the ability to create a system of sharing the resources, E. Pak appeared as a colonized area.
The core period of this exploitation was 1955 to 1965. That is when the main crop of E. Pakistan became important factor in keeping the economy going. After 1965 the cost to maintain E. Pakistan economically or politically became too much for the center. Around that time Center felt the need to rid of East Pak.
If you look at it carefully, the 1971 was designed to get rid of East Pak. If the Army wanted to keep it, there were methods available to prolong the whole saga. Though eventually east Pak would have gotten away anyway. Afghanistan is actually tied with 1 and 2 above.

The reason Afghanistan was never colonized before in the modern history is obvious. It had nothing to do with the bravery or treachery of the afghan. It had more to with the benefits of the colonization.

1 and 2. This leads to the core question: whether Pakistani rulers in the last fifty odd years were ever intellectually, politically or philosophically aware of what they were doing? I think you are giving them too much credit. The intellectual make up of the Pak society is some thing that I would like to write about for Chowk later. If they don’t publish it, I will post that somewhere. But the point to ponder is; whether there were any efforts in encouraging the intellectual dialog in Pakistan? From all counts there were none. In the absence of any such endeavor, besides the ordinary citizen, the rulers themselves suffered too. While the population suffered, the leadership itself becomes enamored in petty adventures and often a commentator looking in from the outside ends up believing that all those juvenile actions were linked and there was some conscious effort to get some results.


PS. I will read your post again this evening. I may have missed something but right now it would be hard to concentrate on that.

Kakka:

Sir, instead of jumping to hasty conclusions, if you had read carefully, my appeal was for `` Only the sensitive among us, who feel emotive repugnance towards our existing cultural pothole ... [as] a debt we owe to our future generations and the price that we have to pay for having deeper sensitivities and better understanding``. Those who want to pay their personal debts while wallowing in the misery of where we stand today, will never become a part of this process. They will ridicule the building of Noah`s Ark until the moment history opens the floodgates of destruction upon them. Like the two main characters of Satyajit Ray`s film `Shatranj ke khiladi` who looked for a secluded spot to continue with their unfinished game of chess while Lucknow was being overrun by the British army.

I salute you for the `sacrifices` that you have made `in the name of duty`

Cheers to you as well!

#61 by jay on May 6, 2004 8:06am PT

Your wishful thinking reflects nothing more than a general Indian attitude of denial regarding Pakistan`s existence. It is for us Pakistanis (not you) to determine whether we want Pakistan to be a viable state or not. We have made some correct and timely collective decisions in the past (rejection of Indian nationalism being one of them). And I would let time validate our viability too. Thanks.

Economy of pakistan,

Pakistan is a non viable state, the countries strategic assets, the bomb was sold by one man, a bunch of jihadis occupied pak border with india and the pak army did not know anything about it, pak army is negotiating with a bunch of tribes men to capture and hand over alquida...well you call this a nation, and a govt in charge to keep national accounts, they have more pressing things to do.

Any one who talks about pak economy, the national accounts should look at the following absurdities. There is something called curb rates in pakistan, in which the central bank sends in officials with wads of pak currency and buys up the $ from the road sides illegal dealers.
Then there is the burra marlets where smuggled items are sold. They do not try to curb this, the tax man go their and try to get some tax money based the number of shutters the shop has.
Thses are the economic principle practiced by pak govt, and you want them to have some accounting. Thses are simply some numbers cooked up to satisfy the WB and IMF. This is like the tahmeds talking about human rights in kashjmir, just want to be with the crowd, just wants to look fashionable.
Pakistan is no more a failed state, it is simply non viable. Now it exists because of alquida, the day osmam is gone, pakistan will vanish into the sea.

... ` We have to pay a collective debt of accountability for the past three hundred years`..kindly spare me from that...i have made enough sacrifices to the sense of duty...please speak for yourself alone.
cheers my friend!