Desperately Seeking Dictators and Dissenters
Farzana Versey February 15, 2005
#49 Posted by Romair on February 16, 2005 9:12:46 am
Ferozek/Dost-Mittar/Amit: “just hope that his regime and his current policies are not an exception, but the norm for Pakistan from now on.”
This is interesting. I was one of the first ones on this site (if not the first an only one at the time), who pointed out when Musharraf took over that he would:
- make peace with India
- defang the religious brigade’s street power
- get the economy going
- liberaize Pakistan
- would run a financially honest regime
I have never met him, but having worked for enough Pakistani generals, I think I can tell the ones with their heads on straight, from the ones who don’t have their heads on straight. I was only wrong on one prediction: that he would completely get the Army out of politics, after a certain point. He has only partially done so.
However, I think the economic and/or social honeymoon may be over, once Musharraf is gone. Here’s why:
Pakistan’s politics is completely dominated by three groups: Feudals, Maulvis and Army. This is not specifically in relation to the seats they have in assemblies. It is based on their control of power, directly and indirectly. Army has no seats in the assemblies, yet it has a lot of behind-the-scenes political power. Maulvis traditionally have only 1-5% seats in the Assemblies, yet they have a lot of street power. Feudals, obviously, have all seats and power.
In the short term, any of these groups can be good for Pakistan (as in the Musharraf case). However, in the long term, all of them are negatives as a political leadership, for various reasons. The political leadership of any country needs to come from its educated middle class. For poorer countries, like Pakistan, with a large lower-middle class, it needs to come from its educated urban middle and lower-middle class. This group has almost no representation in Pakistani politics. There are in fact, only two parties that fall into this category: the MQM and Jamaat-e-Islami. Both have strong urban middle and lower-middle class educated bases. However, one is tainted by being too ethnic and the other by being too religious. And they only dominate in very specific political areas.
Musharraf has done two things very well. Even Benazir agrees. He has truly turned around the economy. There can be no doubts about that. This has been done, without Western investments and loans. And he has opened up Pakistan’s society to various liberal freedoms. What will the maulvis and feudals do, when either of them eventually get elected?
I think the maulvis (MMA) will keep the economic side going, because that is what their lower-middle class constituencies want. But they will get rid of the liberalization, because that weakens their parties, poltically. They are politically stronger in a conservative society, not in a liberal one. The feudals (PPP and PML, Baluchi tribals) have occupied the more secular side of Pakistani politics. They will keep the liberalization going. Because they are afraid the maulvis will start defeating them in their Sind and Punjab feudal strongholds, much like they have done in NWFP and Baluchistan. However, the feudals will, invariably, undo the economic policies. A strong economy based on a growing middle-class can never be tolerated by the feudal parties, because it spells their eventual death of their feudal leadership. The first thing any strong middle class will do is introduce land reforms, and force the feudals to work 9-5 jobs, like the rest of us. A middle class will take away the PPP and PML etc. from the Bhuttos, Hayats, and Fahiims etc. and replace it with their own middle class leadership, i.e. The Benazirs will cease to be Chairpersons for life of the PPPs………
It is, thus, not a coincidence that maulvi govts. are traditionally the least liberal. And feudal govts. are traditionally the worst in the economic sphere in Pakistan. So, when Musharraf is gone, one out of the two of his successes, will have to go with him.
The Army is the wild card in this whole situation. What are its priorities? Not the priorities of just its COAS, but the priorities of its rank and file – the enlisted, the Captains, the Colonels etc? Whom do they represent? Do they represent the upper-class feudal interest? Do they represent the lower-middle class maulvi parties’ interests? Do they represent the upper-middle class urban (Chowk crowd) Westernized group? Or do they represent the urban middle-class and lower-middle class interests of Pakistan? Or are their interests completely unique?
More on that later………
This is interesting. I was one of the first ones on this site (if not the first an only one at the time), who pointed out when Musharraf took over that he would:
- make peace with India
- defang the religious brigade’s street power
- get the economy going
- liberaize Pakistan
- would run a financially honest regime
I have never met him, but having worked for enough Pakistani generals, I think I can tell the ones with their heads on straight, from the ones who don’t have their heads on straight. I was only wrong on one prediction: that he would completely get the Army out of politics, after a certain point. He has only partially done so.
However, I think the economic and/or social honeymoon may be over, once Musharraf is gone. Here’s why:
Pakistan’s politics is completely dominated by three groups: Feudals, Maulvis and Army. This is not specifically in relation to the seats they have in assemblies. It is based on their control of power, directly and indirectly. Army has no seats in the assemblies, yet it has a lot of behind-the-scenes political power. Maulvis traditionally have only 1-5% seats in the Assemblies, yet they have a lot of street power. Feudals, obviously, have all seats and power.
In the short term, any of these groups can be good for Pakistan (as in the Musharraf case). However, in the long term, all of them are negatives as a political leadership, for various reasons. The political leadership of any country needs to come from its educated middle class. For poorer countries, like Pakistan, with a large lower-middle class, it needs to come from its educated urban middle and lower-middle class. This group has almost no representation in Pakistani politics. There are in fact, only two parties that fall into this category: the MQM and Jamaat-e-Islami. Both have strong urban middle and lower-middle class educated bases. However, one is tainted by being too ethnic and the other by being too religious. And they only dominate in very specific political areas.
Musharraf has done two things very well. Even Benazir agrees. He has truly turned around the economy. There can be no doubts about that. This has been done, without Western investments and loans. And he has opened up Pakistan’s society to various liberal freedoms. What will the maulvis and feudals do, when either of them eventually get elected?
I think the maulvis (MMA) will keep the economic side going, because that is what their lower-middle class constituencies want. But they will get rid of the liberalization, because that weakens their parties, poltically. They are politically stronger in a conservative society, not in a liberal one. The feudals (PPP and PML, Baluchi tribals) have occupied the more secular side of Pakistani politics. They will keep the liberalization going. Because they are afraid the maulvis will start defeating them in their Sind and Punjab feudal strongholds, much like they have done in NWFP and Baluchistan. However, the feudals will, invariably, undo the economic policies. A strong economy based on a growing middle-class can never be tolerated by the feudal parties, because it spells their eventual death of their feudal leadership. The first thing any strong middle class will do is introduce land reforms, and force the feudals to work 9-5 jobs, like the rest of us. A middle class will take away the PPP and PML etc. from the Bhuttos, Hayats, and Fahiims etc. and replace it with their own middle class leadership, i.e. The Benazirs will cease to be Chairpersons for life of the PPPs………
It is, thus, not a coincidence that maulvi govts. are traditionally the least liberal. And feudal govts. are traditionally the worst in the economic sphere in Pakistan. So, when Musharraf is gone, one out of the two of his successes, will have to go with him.
The Army is the wild card in this whole situation. What are its priorities? Not the priorities of just its COAS, but the priorities of its rank and file – the enlisted, the Captains, the Colonels etc? Whom do they represent? Do they represent the upper-class feudal interest? Do they represent the lower-middle class maulvi parties’ interests? Do they represent the upper-middle class urban (Chowk crowd) Westernized group? Or do they represent the urban middle-class and lower-middle class interests of Pakistan? Or are their interests completely unique?
More on that later………
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#50 Posted by Romair on February 16, 2005 10:20:37 am
Mantolives #21: ``economic growth and options of entertainment are SECULAR concerns.``
I cannot agree. Economic growth, entertainment, security etc. are human concerns. They have nothing to do with religion or secularism. Or they have equally to do with both. Both secularist and religionists and athiests etc. want some sort of economic growth, entertainment (be they naats or rock music) and security and democracy etc.
It is extremely dangerous to place economic growth, entertainment, security, humanism etc. solely in the domain of secularism or religionism. Secularism in fact, says nothing about economic growth or entertainment. It is simply a separation of religion from the State. One can, in fact, run a very authoritative, anti-entertainment, economically disastrous regime that is secular. Iraq, under Saddam being an example. On the reliogious side, Afghanistan, under the Taliban, being an example...
``Another achievement of General Musharraf is the empowerment of Women and Non-Muslim Pakistanis.....somewhat to the extent that it was pre-1979.... this is also a secular concern.``
Yes. This is a huge success, whose affects will bear fruit in the coming years. Especially for women in politics. This is one of the criteria I use to support govts. However, it is wrong to portray this as a secular concern either. Both secularists and religionists, for some reason, tend to take anything good and try to force it into secularism or religion.
Both of these are humane concerns also. Any humane govt., be they secular or religious, will follow them. And any inhumane govt., be they secular or religious, will not follow them.
You need to look at secularism and religion as philosophies, and not simply through the political policies of two political groups in a tiny country called Pakistan that happens to have Islam as its largest religion and a literacy rate of barely 40%. And there is more to minority rights than simply religious minority rights (the one area in which secular groups, generally, will be more progressive than religious ones). There are ethnic minority rights, gay rights, rights to invade other countries etc., which should be considered also.........
So it is thus just as dangerous to portray secular forces as inherently, ``good`` as it is to portray religious forces as inherently, ``good.`` Neither are inherently good or bad........
``That said... Amit has a point about the issue of succession... which is the primary issue in Pakistan`s history. This is where Musharraf needs to work out an exit strategy for the army... and gradually the movement towards a fully functional constitutional democracy.``
There is no exit strategy. There cannot be one. Any election in Pakistan will result in feudals taking over. Doesn`t matter what party they belong to. They have consistently always held 2/3rd of the seats (62% on average, to be exact). And feudals are hell-bent on keeping the economic status quo. Something that Musharraf`s economic policies are bound to change. PPP etc. will keep the liberalization going, threby keeping the upper-middle class (Chowk crowd) happy, since it is already economically well-off. However, they will never, I repeat never, let an urban middle class rise in Pakistan. Thereby keeping the country, as a whole, poor.
Why else are feudals in politics? But to ensure that the same land reform that happened to their Nawab brethren in India, do not happen in Pakistan? They are obviously not there for public service or democracy. This is Pakistan`s Catch-22.
Musharraf is applying the following exit strategy: He is going to keep control of the Army, either through being its COAS or as a civilian President, after 2007. And use his leadership of the Army to control feudal and maulvis, once they come into power........
There is only one long term solution for a progressive succession of power. Take away the feudals lands, and make them compete in elections like everyone else. PPP and PML`s voter base will drop dramatically, if that happens (especially PPP`s, since it controls no urban area any longer, in Pakistan). Nawaz Sharif can be defeated in Lahore, since he doesn`t own it. But Benazir can never be defeated in Larkana, since she and her ilk own big chunks of those areas.........
The other solution is to have enough economic progress to allow a large urban middle class to develop, which can internally take over the PPP, PML etc. and kick out their feudal leaderships, and reform the parties. Such a large middle class would also allow parties like PTI to grow and become powerful.............This is what I am hoping will happen if Musharraf`s economic policies keep going for ten years or so. This is what would have happened had Bhutto kept Ayub`s economic policies going. Which maybe why his group (feudals) discontinued them, even though he was elected on the basis of a combined urban-feudal vote of Punjab......
For some strange reason, Musharraf has attacked the mauvlis, but not the feudals. In fact, no one ever attacks the feudals. Most generals have actually joined them. Luckily Musharraf hasn`t. But he hasn`t attacked them either................
I cannot agree. Economic growth, entertainment, security etc. are human concerns. They have nothing to do with religion or secularism. Or they have equally to do with both. Both secularist and religionists and athiests etc. want some sort of economic growth, entertainment (be they naats or rock music) and security and democracy etc.
It is extremely dangerous to place economic growth, entertainment, security, humanism etc. solely in the domain of secularism or religionism. Secularism in fact, says nothing about economic growth or entertainment. It is simply a separation of religion from the State. One can, in fact, run a very authoritative, anti-entertainment, economically disastrous regime that is secular. Iraq, under Saddam being an example. On the reliogious side, Afghanistan, under the Taliban, being an example...
``Another achievement of General Musharraf is the empowerment of Women and Non-Muslim Pakistanis.....somewhat to the extent that it was pre-1979.... this is also a secular concern.``
Yes. This is a huge success, whose affects will bear fruit in the coming years. Especially for women in politics. This is one of the criteria I use to support govts. However, it is wrong to portray this as a secular concern either. Both secularists and religionists, for some reason, tend to take anything good and try to force it into secularism or religion.
Both of these are humane concerns also. Any humane govt., be they secular or religious, will follow them. And any inhumane govt., be they secular or religious, will not follow them.
You need to look at secularism and religion as philosophies, and not simply through the political policies of two political groups in a tiny country called Pakistan that happens to have Islam as its largest religion and a literacy rate of barely 40%. And there is more to minority rights than simply religious minority rights (the one area in which secular groups, generally, will be more progressive than religious ones). There are ethnic minority rights, gay rights, rights to invade other countries etc., which should be considered also.........
So it is thus just as dangerous to portray secular forces as inherently, ``good`` as it is to portray religious forces as inherently, ``good.`` Neither are inherently good or bad........
``That said... Amit has a point about the issue of succession... which is the primary issue in Pakistan`s history. This is where Musharraf needs to work out an exit strategy for the army... and gradually the movement towards a fully functional constitutional democracy.``
There is no exit strategy. There cannot be one. Any election in Pakistan will result in feudals taking over. Doesn`t matter what party they belong to. They have consistently always held 2/3rd of the seats (62% on average, to be exact). And feudals are hell-bent on keeping the economic status quo. Something that Musharraf`s economic policies are bound to change. PPP etc. will keep the liberalization going, threby keeping the upper-middle class (Chowk crowd) happy, since it is already economically well-off. However, they will never, I repeat never, let an urban middle class rise in Pakistan. Thereby keeping the country, as a whole, poor.
Why else are feudals in politics? But to ensure that the same land reform that happened to their Nawab brethren in India, do not happen in Pakistan? They are obviously not there for public service or democracy. This is Pakistan`s Catch-22.
Musharraf is applying the following exit strategy: He is going to keep control of the Army, either through being its COAS or as a civilian President, after 2007. And use his leadership of the Army to control feudal and maulvis, once they come into power........
There is only one long term solution for a progressive succession of power. Take away the feudals lands, and make them compete in elections like everyone else. PPP and PML`s voter base will drop dramatically, if that happens (especially PPP`s, since it controls no urban area any longer, in Pakistan). Nawaz Sharif can be defeated in Lahore, since he doesn`t own it. But Benazir can never be defeated in Larkana, since she and her ilk own big chunks of those areas.........
The other solution is to have enough economic progress to allow a large urban middle class to develop, which can internally take over the PPP, PML etc. and kick out their feudal leaderships, and reform the parties. Such a large middle class would also allow parties like PTI to grow and become powerful.............This is what I am hoping will happen if Musharraf`s economic policies keep going for ten years or so. This is what would have happened had Bhutto kept Ayub`s economic policies going. Which maybe why his group (feudals) discontinued them, even though he was elected on the basis of a combined urban-feudal vote of Punjab......
For some strange reason, Musharraf has attacked the mauvlis, but not the feudals. In fact, no one ever attacks the feudals. Most generals have actually joined them. Luckily Musharraf hasn`t. But he hasn`t attacked them either................
#51 Posted by Singularity on February 16, 2005 10:28:15 am
Farzana,
1) Muslims again and again fall to this BS Ummah logic. What happens in Palestine or Saudi or Pakistan is ir-relevant to Indians(muslims included). Who cares what US does in Iraq, Afghan,Pakistan etc as long as they dont mess around with India. If you are really concerned about US activities in encouraging dictators to dance to their tune, then you should be worried about Latin America also. But you dont show any concern for them,which again brings you back to the narrow muslim prism. GET OVER IT.
2) It is not the fault of US if the local population in all these muslim countries dont have the guts to make a revolution and bring democracy in. THE PEOPLE GET WHAT THEY DESERVE. The muslim mass is highly brainwashed by the mullahs that democracy,freedom and equal rights to all will reduce their control. So they keep playing the ISLAM card to keep them backward. This suits the dictators also. Thats why the holy nexus between the dictators and mullahs. For this to break people should revolt. Blaming the US wont solve anything. Afterall the US doesn`t meddle in country with a strong center and mass support,including India, China and even tiny Cuba.
3) US gives equal rights to all American citizens ir-respective of their color, religion etc. If racism is there still, it is in the individual level. NOT INSTITUTIONAL. But can you say the same thing about Saudi, where not giving equal rights to NON-Muslim Infidel/Satan is INSTITUTIONAL to the core? Or Pakistan where sending Jihadis into India to destabilize the hindu/satan country is INSTITUTIONAL.
4) Terrorrism is a different ball game. Who said that terrorists have support? The so called support is a lie. The support terrorist get is out of fear. Remove the reason to fear and there wont be ZILCH support to terrorism. The very fact that Shias came out to vote in Iraq or kashmiri muslims come out to vote in fairly high number, DESPITE the fear of terror, is proof enough that there is no mass support.
5) Dont play the Freedom fighter lie. Indians or africans fighting against the Colonizers is different. The ruler had no common history or ethnicity or any commonality to rule. But thats not the case in Kashmir. The people can elect their own leaders and rule themselves.
Let me put it differently. Whenever and wherever the muslims reach a critical mass demographically,they fight for the so called AZADI and launch suicide bombers. And once they get freedom they find difference among themselves and kill each other. Pakistan is a good case in point. THE ROOT-CAUSE is the divisive ideology of MohaMAD that non-muslims are SATAN/EVIL and are fair game to kill or convert. Now once that is achieved then Shias become fair game. Or Ahmediyas or Sufis or Bengali muslims and so on. THINK ABOUT IT.
1) Muslims again and again fall to this BS Ummah logic. What happens in Palestine or Saudi or Pakistan is ir-relevant to Indians(muslims included). Who cares what US does in Iraq, Afghan,Pakistan etc as long as they dont mess around with India. If you are really concerned about US activities in encouraging dictators to dance to their tune, then you should be worried about Latin America also. But you dont show any concern for them,which again brings you back to the narrow muslim prism. GET OVER IT.
2) It is not the fault of US if the local population in all these muslim countries dont have the guts to make a revolution and bring democracy in. THE PEOPLE GET WHAT THEY DESERVE. The muslim mass is highly brainwashed by the mullahs that democracy,freedom and equal rights to all will reduce their control. So they keep playing the ISLAM card to keep them backward. This suits the dictators also. Thats why the holy nexus between the dictators and mullahs. For this to break people should revolt. Blaming the US wont solve anything. Afterall the US doesn`t meddle in country with a strong center and mass support,including India, China and even tiny Cuba.
3) US gives equal rights to all American citizens ir-respective of their color, religion etc. If racism is there still, it is in the individual level. NOT INSTITUTIONAL. But can you say the same thing about Saudi, where not giving equal rights to NON-Muslim Infidel/Satan is INSTITUTIONAL to the core? Or Pakistan where sending Jihadis into India to destabilize the hindu/satan country is INSTITUTIONAL.
4) Terrorrism is a different ball game. Who said that terrorists have support? The so called support is a lie. The support terrorist get is out of fear. Remove the reason to fear and there wont be ZILCH support to terrorism. The very fact that Shias came out to vote in Iraq or kashmiri muslims come out to vote in fairly high number, DESPITE the fear of terror, is proof enough that there is no mass support.
5) Dont play the Freedom fighter lie. Indians or africans fighting against the Colonizers is different. The ruler had no common history or ethnicity or any commonality to rule. But thats not the case in Kashmir. The people can elect their own leaders and rule themselves.
Let me put it differently. Whenever and wherever the muslims reach a critical mass demographically,they fight for the so called AZADI and launch suicide bombers. And once they get freedom they find difference among themselves and kill each other. Pakistan is a good case in point. THE ROOT-CAUSE is the divisive ideology of MohaMAD that non-muslims are SATAN/EVIL and are fair game to kill or convert. Now once that is achieved then Shias become fair game. Or Ahmediyas or Sufis or Bengali muslims and so on. THINK ABOUT IT.
#52 Posted by kaurasach on February 16, 2005 10:30:58 am
There is no distinction in Pakistan between religious or political fanaticism. It is intertwined. His rigid (not anymore due to circumstances) stance and support of Kashmiri terrorism should be called by what name? Isn`t it religious based?
He came to logger heads with the ``religious`` tide only due to internal power struggle in Pakistan - and not his good intentions. He was arrogant during the Agra summit. He saw the futility of his earlier actions. Shunned as a pariah in international circles, he is now trying to get as many brownie points as he can.
He has no recourse than the one he is taking or being dictated to.
He came to logger heads with the ``religious`` tide only due to internal power struggle in Pakistan - and not his good intentions. He was arrogant during the Agra summit. He saw the futility of his earlier actions. Shunned as a pariah in international circles, he is now trying to get as many brownie points as he can.
He has no recourse than the one he is taking or being dictated to.
#53 Posted by jang on February 16, 2005 11:05:37 am
#47 by amit
I agree that musharaff has shown wisdom, and have praise for it. But its also clear that this wisdom is an expression of American foreign policy and that is what I am also praising and invite those who praise Musharaff (policies) to join me. What is double-talk to some is more obviously explainable as plain carrot-n-stick.
so, mush-pak zindabad (with one eye open offcourse)
I agree that musharaff has shown wisdom, and have praise for it. But its also clear that this wisdom is an expression of American foreign policy and that is what I am also praising and invite those who praise Musharaff (policies) to join me. What is double-talk to some is more obviously explainable as plain carrot-n-stick.
so, mush-pak zindabad (with one eye open offcourse)
#54 Posted by mohar11 on February 16, 2005 1:04:29 pm
#47 by amit
//....A leader must have the flexibility to change course when things are on the wrong track. To that extent, Musharraf has certainly shown wisdom...//
Consider this: let`s say tomorrow, for whatever reasons, US policy makes another 180 degree turn ............ jihad comes back into vogue ..... Mujahideen are once again in demand to tilt at some other windmills.............. Now - how much time do you think it will take for Mushy to reopen those jihadi training factories? ..........How much time before his ``enlightened moderation`` goes out of the window? .......And how much money would pakis dump into jihad donation boxes the very next day?
See - that`s the problem with people like you and DM and bunch of other jokers singing paeans to ``Greatest Leader Pakistan has ever had``. You guys can`t see beyond the facade - even after all these years............ Mushy is the a classic case of General Wh0re - this guy bends to whatever dominant force is in vogue any given point of time. ....... When Jihad was in vogue - he was beating to jihadi tunes - breeding jihadis and wet-dreaming about Kashmir. When jihad went out of favor - he started singing the ``enlightented moderation`` song. That pleased Uncle Sam, the P!mp and money poured in - power and pelf was again in abundance. For pakis - happy days are here again.....
So if the wind changes again for Jihad - Mushy will be again first in line railing at hindus and baying for their blood. You can bet your naive a$$ on this. So don`t get fooled with this ``Greatest Leader of Pakistan`` bullsh!t. Pakistan was born to be a wh0re - always selling to the highest bidder.
It`s a good thing that India got this un-exptected break from the Jihad mania - so make best use of this time and make sure that india can defend itself better when the jihad tide turns. ........ And it will turn - sooner or later.
//....A leader must have the flexibility to change course when things are on the wrong track. To that extent, Musharraf has certainly shown wisdom...//
Consider this: let`s say tomorrow, for whatever reasons, US policy makes another 180 degree turn ............ jihad comes back into vogue ..... Mujahideen are once again in demand to tilt at some other windmills.............. Now - how much time do you think it will take for Mushy to reopen those jihadi training factories? ..........How much time before his ``enlightened moderation`` goes out of the window? .......And how much money would pakis dump into jihad donation boxes the very next day?
See - that`s the problem with people like you and DM and bunch of other jokers singing paeans to ``Greatest Leader Pakistan has ever had``. You guys can`t see beyond the facade - even after all these years............ Mushy is the a classic case of General Wh0re - this guy bends to whatever dominant force is in vogue any given point of time. ....... When Jihad was in vogue - he was beating to jihadi tunes - breeding jihadis and wet-dreaming about Kashmir. When jihad went out of favor - he started singing the ``enlightented moderation`` song. That pleased Uncle Sam, the P!mp and money poured in - power and pelf was again in abundance. For pakis - happy days are here again.....
So if the wind changes again for Jihad - Mushy will be again first in line railing at hindus and baying for their blood. You can bet your naive a$$ on this. So don`t get fooled with this ``Greatest Leader of Pakistan`` bullsh!t. Pakistan was born to be a wh0re - always selling to the highest bidder.
It`s a good thing that India got this un-exptected break from the Jihad mania - so make best use of this time and make sure that india can defend itself better when the jihad tide turns. ........ And it will turn - sooner or later.
#55 Posted by nasah on February 16, 2005 4:01:16 pm
Chowk Staff -- please remove my post # 36 from this forum....Musharraf is a dictator but he is not a crook....
just heard the good news of Indo-Pak agreement about pipe line -- Kashmir bus service and Sindh train services!!
Great day for Indo-Pakistan amity and friendship -- congratulations to both Musharraf and Manmohan Singh -- Natwar Singh and Mr. Kasuri.....
Chulo ek baar phir say ub gulay lug jaayeN hum donoN
after Independence -- another great day.....
just heard the good news of Indo-Pak agreement about pipe line -- Kashmir bus service and Sindh train services!!
Great day for Indo-Pakistan amity and friendship -- congratulations to both Musharraf and Manmohan Singh -- Natwar Singh and Mr. Kasuri.....
Chulo ek baar phir say ub gulay lug jaayeN hum donoN
after Independence -- another great day.....
#56 Posted by aslam644 on February 16, 2005 4:05:02 pm
farzana
“Tomorrow, if we have Puerto Ricans demanding a separate state here, will we give it?”
What’s all that about ?
But if she had said “tomorrow, if we have mirpuris demanding mirpuristan in Bradford, will we give it?” she’d have point.
The AJK president, prime minister, opposition leader are currently in the uk, they spend half the year here, who knows in the future there might be such a demand.
There have been cases of immigrants getting separate states i.e Singapore, northern Ireland.
UK is a voluntary union if any of it’s countries decide to go it alone, they are free to do so.
“Tomorrow, if we have Puerto Ricans demanding a separate state here, will we give it?”
What’s all that about ?
But if she had said “tomorrow, if we have mirpuris demanding mirpuristan in Bradford, will we give it?” she’d have point.
The AJK president, prime minister, opposition leader are currently in the uk, they spend half the year here, who knows in the future there might be such a demand.
There have been cases of immigrants getting separate states i.e Singapore, northern Ireland.
UK is a voluntary union if any of it’s countries decide to go it alone, they are free to do so.
#57 Posted by HisExcellency on February 16, 2005 4:15:33 pm
mohar11 #54
Amidst your choicest profanities for Pakistan, you did manage to make one sensible point i.e. Pakistan is adept at calibrating [or even jettisoning] its policies in response to evolving global and regional circumstances. Well bro, this is what all politics is about. As George Washington advised in his farewell address in 1796,
And for the record, India ``took off her robes`` even before America entered the brothel. That America still refused to avail Indian ``services`` (wink, wink!!) just after 9/11 must have punctured the self-inflated Indian ego. Then America went ahead and showered Pakistan with economic assistance, debt relief, military-to-military contacts, removal of sanctions and the Major-Non-NATO-Ally without even informing India.
I think you should reorient your thinking to the way foreign policy actually works i.e. on the principle of mutual interests and quid pro quo. Describing a sensible foreign policy as `prostitution` only reflects the contours of your own mindset.
Amidst your choicest profanities for Pakistan, you did manage to make one sensible point i.e. Pakistan is adept at calibrating [or even jettisoning] its policies in response to evolving global and regional circumstances. Well bro, this is what all politics is about. As George Washington advised in his farewell address in 1796,
- there are no permanent alliances, only permanent interests.
And for the record, India ``took off her robes`` even before America entered the brothel. That America still refused to avail Indian ``services`` (wink, wink!!) just after 9/11 must have punctured the self-inflated Indian ego. Then America went ahead and showered Pakistan with economic assistance, debt relief, military-to-military contacts, removal of sanctions and the Major-Non-NATO-Ally without even informing India.
I think you should reorient your thinking to the way foreign policy actually works i.e. on the principle of mutual interests and quid pro quo. Describing a sensible foreign policy as `prostitution` only reflects the contours of your own mindset.
#58 Posted by BeeJay on February 16, 2005 6:06:36 pm
Dear Farzana:
In my view, when you write about human issues, you are one of the best champions of the underdog around. But I have a tough time understanding your political leanings. This article is so full of weaknesses that taking it apart does not even appear to be a challenge. Since I know that you are very smart, I can only surmise that you are on purpose throwing some readers a line so they will get provoked.
Anyway, here goes.
[There is every likelihood of Indians celebrating the disclosures…]
I don’t think anybody in India is “celebrating the disclosures”. However, acknowledgement of one set of facts (that many Indians feel they have known well for a while) from one section of the U.S. Government is a good sign, from the Indian viewpoint.
[Do we truly believe that the West is sparing us because we do not have problems? No.]
The west has not “spared” India. And that is a good thing, because maybe there will be more pressure on the Indian government to do something about the problems it has.
[The simple reason is that we are a bigger marketplace and the ‘civil war’ within our boundaries is too diverse and unlikely to make any radical difference to the West.]
It is a simple FACT, but nobody in U.S. believes that is the REASON. U.S. state policies (since the time of George Washington) have been rooted in the prevailing national interest of the country. There have never been any permanent friends or foes (not even England or France).
[America is the largest dictatorship in the world today. There is greater racism there than there was in South Africa; its crime figures are staggering;]
It is simply untrue.
[ in terms of nuclear arsenal, it beats everyone else.]
It is an absolute fact (which deterred the Soviets a good deal during the cold war). However, U.S. never used its arsenal to threaten others, or used the logic “give me what I want, or else…”
[Worst of all, it encourages disputes.]
It is a characteristic of dictators to “discourage” disputes (using all their might). So, the U.S. is NOT acting like one!
[But the United States administration continues to have a strong Jewish lobby and it takes great pleasure in creating rifts among the Arab states, and its friends are those with money power or ones who make for convenient sitting ducks.]
A myth and a stereotype (I am saddened by your acceptance of this stereotype as a given). Let me repeat… “it is the NATIONAL INTEREST, smarty!”
[So, how does President Musharraf qualify as a dictator?]
Let us see…(1) threw out a democratically elected leader (then jailed and banished him), (2) “amended” the constitution through memos, (3) always keeps his own counsel on decisions made in the name of his country, (4) feels bound to no one (within his country), not even by what he says on a given day, …. Hmmm, I guess we can call him a dictator until a more apt word gets created to describe just HIM.
[There are many interesting contradictions his life and career. In a largely feudal set-up, he comes from a family of working parents. It is said that he was promoted in rank because he was not from the ruling Punjabi class and would pose no threat.]
Irrelevant. All it proves, if anything, that he rose from the ranks and now heads the topmost class of rulers, the Pakistani army.
[But what Nawaz Sharif forgot is that not all soldiers are willing to suffer the humiliation of being asked to retreat.]
Who was “humiliated” (certainly not the average Pakistani citizen). Besides, the official Pakistani line (at the time) was Kargil had no Pakistani military connection. I remember one of his news conferences right after Kargil (before he grabbed power) where he endorsed the Sharif decision. Are you telling us that the General is a liar AND a loser.
[Post Kargil, Musharraf became an unlikely hero. Sharif’s attempt to do away with him was met with an announcement from the cockpit, “Nobody can sack me.” Was it bravado? It seems like conviction, because the people were with him then.]
Whose hero? What people with him? Only the army!
[He promised to get back the looted monies. He promised equal rights for the minorities, the first leader since Jinnah to do so.]
Promises, promises! What did he DELIVER?
[He has admitted that “decision-making is an individual process, and the more you are supposed to take decisions the more alone you feel”.]
So he is not a dictator, just a misunderstood soul! He certainly has me fooled.
[Merely going to the polls is not fortification enough.]
But it is a good start, and the correct approach!
[No government in the world can contain terrorism as it comes in varied forms and often in unexpected ways. Timothy McVeigh ….]
Yes, individual terrorists may be nuts and there are only limited things one can do about them. However, organized terrorism (supported by dictators who have access to the purse of their people, feel not bound by these same people, and have visions of grandeur) is a recipe for disaster. Something CAN be done about it, and Musharraf’s turn will eventually come, just a matter of time.
[What was it that made people follow Malcolm X …..What can governments do in such cases? The militants have no fear; they are not seeking to get sanctified. ]
Malcom X had a very limited following. By contrast, Dr. Martin Luther King had a large body of followers, and he chose the path of the Mahatma.
[Why is it that virtually every state in the world has at least one strong terrorist group?]
Why are loonies born? Because they are born loonies.
[One dead relative is enough to make people ready to lay down their lives. In the heat of anger, they lose all reason and are sucked into the womb of a cause they believe is just.]
Not every one. You obviously did not watch the sober (although heart-breaking) reactions of many, many relatives of 9/11 victims.
[I was speaking with an Indian settled in London a while ago. ….. Besides, how are Puerto Ricans lesser in any way? ]
As far as I know, Puerto Rico is a U.S. possession (not British). Puerto Ricons certainly are not “lesser” in any way. They are U.S. Nationals. They do not have U.S. citizenship (right to vote) because they have chosen not to become a state and the U.S. respects their rights to decide for themselves.
[Consciously or subconsciously, a section of the public tends to sympathise with the terrorist persona. It probably reveals a part of our repressed selves.]
Not the “people-blowing” kind of terrorist.
[We are all in situations we may not like, but social cowardice makes us complacent. We may occasionally want to give in to a sudden desire, but fear of consequences and maybe the lack of a consolidated ideology makes us hold back. We remain respected members of society whereas the terrorist goes about doing the dirty work. But does he have a uniform agenda? Is it not often a response to the issues of the moment? ]
Every action is a response of some kind and there is always room for dissent and divergence of opinions. The means used to express dissent are the all-important difference.
[Therefore, world opinion declaring the Pakistani leader a dictator and the country as a hub of terrorist activity is a futile exercise. ]
But definitely worth a try! To do otherwise would be tantamount to acquiescing.
In my view, when you write about human issues, you are one of the best champions of the underdog around. But I have a tough time understanding your political leanings. This article is so full of weaknesses that taking it apart does not even appear to be a challenge. Since I know that you are very smart, I can only surmise that you are on purpose throwing some readers a line so they will get provoked.
Anyway, here goes.
[There is every likelihood of Indians celebrating the disclosures…]
I don’t think anybody in India is “celebrating the disclosures”. However, acknowledgement of one set of facts (that many Indians feel they have known well for a while) from one section of the U.S. Government is a good sign, from the Indian viewpoint.
[Do we truly believe that the West is sparing us because we do not have problems? No.]
The west has not “spared” India. And that is a good thing, because maybe there will be more pressure on the Indian government to do something about the problems it has.
[The simple reason is that we are a bigger marketplace and the ‘civil war’ within our boundaries is too diverse and unlikely to make any radical difference to the West.]
It is a simple FACT, but nobody in U.S. believes that is the REASON. U.S. state policies (since the time of George Washington) have been rooted in the prevailing national interest of the country. There have never been any permanent friends or foes (not even England or France).
[America is the largest dictatorship in the world today. There is greater racism there than there was in South Africa; its crime figures are staggering;]
It is simply untrue.
[ in terms of nuclear arsenal, it beats everyone else.]
It is an absolute fact (which deterred the Soviets a good deal during the cold war). However, U.S. never used its arsenal to threaten others, or used the logic “give me what I want, or else…”
[Worst of all, it encourages disputes.]
It is a characteristic of dictators to “discourage” disputes (using all their might). So, the U.S. is NOT acting like one!
[But the United States administration continues to have a strong Jewish lobby and it takes great pleasure in creating rifts among the Arab states, and its friends are those with money power or ones who make for convenient sitting ducks.]
A myth and a stereotype (I am saddened by your acceptance of this stereotype as a given). Let me repeat… “it is the NATIONAL INTEREST, smarty!”
[So, how does President Musharraf qualify as a dictator?]
Let us see…(1) threw out a democratically elected leader (then jailed and banished him), (2) “amended” the constitution through memos, (3) always keeps his own counsel on decisions made in the name of his country, (4) feels bound to no one (within his country), not even by what he says on a given day, …. Hmmm, I guess we can call him a dictator until a more apt word gets created to describe just HIM.
[There are many interesting contradictions his life and career. In a largely feudal set-up, he comes from a family of working parents. It is said that he was promoted in rank because he was not from the ruling Punjabi class and would pose no threat.]
Irrelevant. All it proves, if anything, that he rose from the ranks and now heads the topmost class of rulers, the Pakistani army.
[But what Nawaz Sharif forgot is that not all soldiers are willing to suffer the humiliation of being asked to retreat.]
Who was “humiliated” (certainly not the average Pakistani citizen). Besides, the official Pakistani line (at the time) was Kargil had no Pakistani military connection. I remember one of his news conferences right after Kargil (before he grabbed power) where he endorsed the Sharif decision. Are you telling us that the General is a liar AND a loser.
[Post Kargil, Musharraf became an unlikely hero. Sharif’s attempt to do away with him was met with an announcement from the cockpit, “Nobody can sack me.” Was it bravado? It seems like conviction, because the people were with him then.]
Whose hero? What people with him? Only the army!
[He promised to get back the looted monies. He promised equal rights for the minorities, the first leader since Jinnah to do so.]
Promises, promises! What did he DELIVER?
[He has admitted that “decision-making is an individual process, and the more you are supposed to take decisions the more alone you feel”.]
So he is not a dictator, just a misunderstood soul! He certainly has me fooled.
[Merely going to the polls is not fortification enough.]
But it is a good start, and the correct approach!
[No government in the world can contain terrorism as it comes in varied forms and often in unexpected ways. Timothy McVeigh ….]
Yes, individual terrorists may be nuts and there are only limited things one can do about them. However, organized terrorism (supported by dictators who have access to the purse of their people, feel not bound by these same people, and have visions of grandeur) is a recipe for disaster. Something CAN be done about it, and Musharraf’s turn will eventually come, just a matter of time.
[What was it that made people follow Malcolm X …..What can governments do in such cases? The militants have no fear; they are not seeking to get sanctified. ]
Malcom X had a very limited following. By contrast, Dr. Martin Luther King had a large body of followers, and he chose the path of the Mahatma.
[Why is it that virtually every state in the world has at least one strong terrorist group?]
Why are loonies born? Because they are born loonies.
[One dead relative is enough to make people ready to lay down their lives. In the heat of anger, they lose all reason and are sucked into the womb of a cause they believe is just.]
Not every one. You obviously did not watch the sober (although heart-breaking) reactions of many, many relatives of 9/11 victims.
[I was speaking with an Indian settled in London a while ago. ….. Besides, how are Puerto Ricans lesser in any way? ]
As far as I know, Puerto Rico is a U.S. possession (not British). Puerto Ricons certainly are not “lesser” in any way. They are U.S. Nationals. They do not have U.S. citizenship (right to vote) because they have chosen not to become a state and the U.S. respects their rights to decide for themselves.
[Consciously or subconsciously, a section of the public tends to sympathise with the terrorist persona. It probably reveals a part of our repressed selves.]
Not the “people-blowing” kind of terrorist.
[We are all in situations we may not like, but social cowardice makes us complacent. We may occasionally want to give in to a sudden desire, but fear of consequences and maybe the lack of a consolidated ideology makes us hold back. We remain respected members of society whereas the terrorist goes about doing the dirty work. But does he have a uniform agenda? Is it not often a response to the issues of the moment? ]
Every action is a response of some kind and there is always room for dissent and divergence of opinions. The means used to express dissent are the all-important difference.
[Therefore, world opinion declaring the Pakistani leader a dictator and the country as a hub of terrorist activity is a futile exercise. ]
But definitely worth a try! To do otherwise would be tantamount to acquiescing.
#59 Posted by ferozk on February 16, 2005 6:25:53 pm
re: HisExcellency # 57
A point of correction, if you will please.
You quoted George Washington, as saying in his farewell address, ``there are no permanent alliances, only permanent interests.`` Washington never said that and what he did however say, was to warn his successors to avoid ``the broils of Europe and entangling alliances``.
This quote was actually stated by Lord Palmerstone, who was the British Foreign Secretary and later the British prime minister in the late 1800s.
Washington was seeking to suggest a foreign policy based on isolationism, while Palmerstone was suggesting a flexible foreign policy. Therefore, if Musharraf had learned Washington`s lesson, he should have followed an isolationist option and should have resisted the Americans to join the war against terrorism. The fact that he changed the orientation of Pakistan`s foreign policy, he was reacting to the Palmerstonian realpolitik in international affairs. Hence, your quote was misplaced in the context in which you were using it.
Ciao
A point of correction, if you will please.
You quoted George Washington, as saying in his farewell address, ``there are no permanent alliances, only permanent interests.`` Washington never said that and what he did however say, was to warn his successors to avoid ``the broils of Europe and entangling alliances``.
This quote was actually stated by Lord Palmerstone, who was the British Foreign Secretary and later the British prime minister in the late 1800s.
Washington was seeking to suggest a foreign policy based on isolationism, while Palmerstone was suggesting a flexible foreign policy. Therefore, if Musharraf had learned Washington`s lesson, he should have followed an isolationist option and should have resisted the Americans to join the war against terrorism. The fact that he changed the orientation of Pakistan`s foreign policy, he was reacting to the Palmerstonian realpolitik in international affairs. Hence, your quote was misplaced in the context in which you were using it.
Ciao
#60 Posted by kardesh on February 16, 2005 7:48:44 pm
Observations about the geopolitical situation in the Middle East and the pressure on Mushy.
There has been much speculation about recent saber rattling involving the United States, Iran, and Syria. This is an exciting time in history. We have a victorious second term president who is headed for the history books as one of the most effective foreign policy executives. When everything seemed to be headed south in Iraq, this administration pulled off a surprisingly smooth election. Even the Sunnis who initially boycotted the elections are running to catch the democracy train before it leaves the platform and leaves them behind in the dust of Saddam’s remains.
With the election of a new Palestinian president and the introduction of democracy to Iraq, this administration is eyeing both Syria and Iran as the next challenge. A nuclear Iran is not in Israel’s, Turkey’s, or our interest. It’s not everyday that we have hundreds of thousands of US troops in that region to restore equilibrium. George Jr. is not going to repeat the mistake that his father made in 1991. A defeated Saddam was allowed to remain in power at the behest of Saudi Arabia and the spectacular Gulf War I victory was squandered. This time, the victory was complete and the aftermath deliberately purposeful. There will be a democratic Iraq, but it cannot survive long with a nasty Syria on the west and a nuclear theocracy in the east. Israeli intelligence and airpower, US might, and plentiful oil resources will make this reshuffling of the political landscape both thorough and lasting.
Some are already predicting the insidious involvement of the Pakistani government in offering Baluchistan as a staging area for US operations against Iran. Of course, if push comes to shove, the US would demand this and Pakistan would have to comply. But this is utterly unnecessary and pure nonsense on the part of speculators. The US has bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Diego Garcia, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkey – almost totally surrounding Iran. Add to this the awesome presence of the US Navy in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. Then, both Israel and the US have incredible mid-air refueling capabilities. There is no need to put undue pressure on the already weak Musharraf regime.
Sure there will be repercussions in the entire Middle East, just as there were when Saddam was attacked in 1991 and 2003, but these will fizzle out as before. Turkey is a democracy and there is considerable resentment over Iraq. There will be some demonstrations, but the pro-Islamic Erdogan government will have to be careful,. The powerful pro-American Turkish military is not happy with the Islamic government and the latter remembers too well the consequences suffered by Mr. Erbakan. Egypt, the largest and most powerful Arab country, will have some protests, but massive US aid will be the catalyst for cooler heads to prevail. If matters change in Pakistan and, for some reason, Musharraf is replaced by a more anti-American leader, there is always the Indian trump card. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf dwarfs will have no alternative but to remember who keeps them protected from their own people. Iranians, while fiercely nationalistic, are sick and tired of this authoritarian Islamic regime. There might even be substantial support for a US-led invasion by ordinary Iranians. Syria is no match militarily for the Israelis, with or without help from any Arab states. Everything is pointing to a change in both Iran and Syria – for the better.
These, of course, are my own personal observations and opinions. You are welcome to offer your own. But please refrain from personal attacks and profanity. I call it as I see it without any concern for popularity. Thanks for your participation in a civilized atmosphere.
There has been much speculation about recent saber rattling involving the United States, Iran, and Syria. This is an exciting time in history. We have a victorious second term president who is headed for the history books as one of the most effective foreign policy executives. When everything seemed to be headed south in Iraq, this administration pulled off a surprisingly smooth election. Even the Sunnis who initially boycotted the elections are running to catch the democracy train before it leaves the platform and leaves them behind in the dust of Saddam’s remains.
With the election of a new Palestinian president and the introduction of democracy to Iraq, this administration is eyeing both Syria and Iran as the next challenge. A nuclear Iran is not in Israel’s, Turkey’s, or our interest. It’s not everyday that we have hundreds of thousands of US troops in that region to restore equilibrium. George Jr. is not going to repeat the mistake that his father made in 1991. A defeated Saddam was allowed to remain in power at the behest of Saudi Arabia and the spectacular Gulf War I victory was squandered. This time, the victory was complete and the aftermath deliberately purposeful. There will be a democratic Iraq, but it cannot survive long with a nasty Syria on the west and a nuclear theocracy in the east. Israeli intelligence and airpower, US might, and plentiful oil resources will make this reshuffling of the political landscape both thorough and lasting.
Some are already predicting the insidious involvement of the Pakistani government in offering Baluchistan as a staging area for US operations against Iran. Of course, if push comes to shove, the US would demand this and Pakistan would have to comply. But this is utterly unnecessary and pure nonsense on the part of speculators. The US has bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Diego Garcia, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and Turkey – almost totally surrounding Iran. Add to this the awesome presence of the US Navy in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea. Then, both Israel and the US have incredible mid-air refueling capabilities. There is no need to put undue pressure on the already weak Musharraf regime.
Sure there will be repercussions in the entire Middle East, just as there were when Saddam was attacked in 1991 and 2003, but these will fizzle out as before. Turkey is a democracy and there is considerable resentment over Iraq. There will be some demonstrations, but the pro-Islamic Erdogan government will have to be careful,. The powerful pro-American Turkish military is not happy with the Islamic government and the latter remembers too well the consequences suffered by Mr. Erbakan. Egypt, the largest and most powerful Arab country, will have some protests, but massive US aid will be the catalyst for cooler heads to prevail. If matters change in Pakistan and, for some reason, Musharraf is replaced by a more anti-American leader, there is always the Indian trump card. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf dwarfs will have no alternative but to remember who keeps them protected from their own people. Iranians, while fiercely nationalistic, are sick and tired of this authoritarian Islamic regime. There might even be substantial support for a US-led invasion by ordinary Iranians. Syria is no match militarily for the Israelis, with or without help from any Arab states. Everything is pointing to a change in both Iran and Syria – for the better.
These, of course, are my own personal observations and opinions. You are welcome to offer your own. But please refrain from personal attacks and profanity. I call it as I see it without any concern for popularity. Thanks for your participation in a civilized atmosphere.
#61 Posted by ballukhan on February 16, 2005 9:57:57 pm
Look who is getting desperate enough to praise the Paki dictators?? It is all obvious!!
#62 Posted by taqat-e-parvaaz on February 16, 2005 10:03:51 pm
#48
are you trying to say something mr. RSS? hahahaa..
are you trying to say something mr. RSS? hahahaa..
#63 Posted by antihypochrist on February 16, 2005 11:14:10 pm
Why does this woman always write articles on premises?
``There is every likelihood of Indians celebrating the disclosures, but wait a minute. How will it help us?``
Good Lord! The educated Indians are busy making money in their lives, and are trying to compete with their peers elsewhere. The poor are working their butts off to make their ends meet. Who is really worried about Pakistan at this juncture? Other than armchair writers with a know-all attitude. It takes a hell lot of time and energy for one to come up with issues that are non-existent, write articles, and rake dust
``There is every likelihood of Indians celebrating the disclosures, but wait a minute. How will it help us?``
Good Lord! The educated Indians are busy making money in their lives, and are trying to compete with their peers elsewhere. The poor are working their butts off to make their ends meet. Who is really worried about Pakistan at this juncture? Other than armchair writers with a know-all attitude. It takes a hell lot of time and energy for one to come up with issues that are non-existent, write articles, and rake dust
#64 Posted by avenger on February 17, 2005 1:25:28 am
Whats really silly is this new trend that we see in Pakistan ....boasting about their IT industry ...which in their opinion is superior to India IT industry or will be , sooner or later...naturally , as the thinking goes in Pakistan , given the wildly held perception there that they speak english far better than the Indians....(and no doubt `far better loking and far fairer too` , although I`m not sure if thats any help at IT and stuff like that...)
Its insane for Pakistanis to even contemplate competing with India at IT...for facts are that
1. Pakistan`s IT exports for the year 2004 was worth $40 million.
2. India`s IT exports for the same year was worth $15 billion.
3. India`s IT exports have been growing at extraordinary rates of 25-30% every year since 1999...
Since Pakistanis are rather poor at math , ( manto-ji in particular has great trouble grasping these simple concepts....he still doesn`t get it..)
1 billion = 1000 million.
So basically , India made $15 billion or $15000 million at IT in 2004 , compared to Pakistan`s $40 million. So for every 1$ Pakistan makes at IT , India makes 375$.
And of course , Manto-ji and no doubt the great editor omar jeeeee will say thats all in the past and from now on Pakistan will start outperforming India...but that ain`t that simple.....
...for India`s IT exports grow at a rate of 25-30% every year....
Now Pakis will say , ` ha ! big deal , India only good at IT`....
India very good at IT...but not so bad at other stuff either....
Consider this. India`s overall exports (not just IT) for 2004 - was worth $65 billion , is same as Pakistan`s entire GDP.
However Pakistan`s GDP grows at a rate of 5-6% a year , while India`s exports grow at 15% p.a.....
Basically it all boils down to one single fact. India has 6.5 times the population of Pakistan , but 11 times the economy. India`s economy grows at a rate of 7-8% , which is 2% greater than that of Pakistan`s , while Pakistan`s population grows at a rate of 2.9% , which is 0.7% greater than that of India`s.
Indeed , if Pakistan is good at anything , it has to be at population growth. For Pakistan has one of the fastest growing populations in the world...congratulations .
Its insane for Pakistanis to even contemplate competing with India at IT...for facts are that
1. Pakistan`s IT exports for the year 2004 was worth $40 million.
2. India`s IT exports for the same year was worth $15 billion.
3. India`s IT exports have been growing at extraordinary rates of 25-30% every year since 1999...
Since Pakistanis are rather poor at math , ( manto-ji in particular has great trouble grasping these simple concepts....he still doesn`t get it..)
1 billion = 1000 million.
So basically , India made $15 billion or $15000 million at IT in 2004 , compared to Pakistan`s $40 million. So for every 1$ Pakistan makes at IT , India makes 375$.
And of course , Manto-ji and no doubt the great editor omar jeeeee will say thats all in the past and from now on Pakistan will start outperforming India...but that ain`t that simple.....
...for India`s IT exports grow at a rate of 25-30% every year....
Now Pakis will say , ` ha ! big deal , India only good at IT`....
India very good at IT...but not so bad at other stuff either....
Consider this. India`s overall exports (not just IT) for 2004 - was worth $65 billion , is same as Pakistan`s entire GDP.
However Pakistan`s GDP grows at a rate of 5-6% a year , while India`s exports grow at 15% p.a.....
Basically it all boils down to one single fact. India has 6.5 times the population of Pakistan , but 11 times the economy. India`s economy grows at a rate of 7-8% , which is 2% greater than that of Pakistan`s , while Pakistan`s population grows at a rate of 2.9% , which is 0.7% greater than that of India`s.
Indeed , if Pakistan is good at anything , it has to be at population growth. For Pakistan has one of the fastest growing populations in the world...congratulations .
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- tahmed32: hamidm: and how does... Year 2008 in Review-Pakistan
- ellora: "Every Pakistani shares and... Babel
- hamidm2: tahmed mian, .... you can... Year 2008 in Review-Pakistan
- TahirQazi: Dear Dr. Gill Sahib: Thank... The Palestinian Puzzle
- tahmed32: pandit jayp#124 writes "these... Year 2008 in Review-Pakistan
- nkg: Re: # 4 simply61... if you... The Magician
- parthaab: " women no more... Swat Calls For Civil
- nkg: Mohammed... "But does it make... The Palestinian Puzzle
