Why Democracy?

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

dilliwala admits to being srao...but he will never be banned coz he is a sikh...the only sikh on chowk...and chowk wants to be good to it`s minorities....

here is the admission of his guilt:
#97 by delhiwala on October 27, 2005 9:01am PT
Listen Up you twisted, sicko, whoever you are....
You have no buisness accusing others of what you do best.

Dont` come near my posts if you dont like what I write.

Sau Choohay Kha Ke Billy Haj Ko chalee!!

FROM NOW ONWARDS DO NOT ADDRESS ME IN ANY WAY ON CHOWK AND I PROMISE I WILL DO THE SAME

DO NOT USE MY NAME IN ANY THREAD OR POST
AND I WILL DO THE SAME

I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT NEITHER DELHIWALA OR SRAO WILL REFER TO YOU EVER.

PS: QUAIDON AND ROBINHOOD WERE ALREADY BANNED TWO MONTHS AGO, JG/MANNYD CAN CONFIRM THAT. I DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER NIC.

mirmir #82

`` Yes, mohar, Southern and Mid-Western U.S. are hardly centers of enlightenment - exactly the opposite. You apparently speak from personal experience. Do you think that it serves the U.S.`s ruling class interest to keep people poor and ignorant? Isn`t that what most totalitarian governments do? ``

I would never call the folks in Upper Midwest backward. I do not think you can think blindly
stereotype the whole South. There are considerable areas that are extremely well developed in all aspects.

`` I don`t believe that there`s even a ``Democratic Republic of India.`` ``

The official name is ``Republic of India``. There is some reference to Secular Socialist Democratic republic in the constitution.

mirmir

Re: # 123

bbabu...
I commend your desire to participate in discussions, however your contributions would be of more benefit to you and to others if you would first seek help in reading, writing and comprehension of the English language. mirmir

fuzair #114

`` As I`ve pointed out before, Pakistan`s GDP growth rate during the 1960s is essentially irrelevant because the good FM did not (i) spend money on primary education, (ii) on building infrastructure, and (iii) insist on export-led growth and increasing the value-added component of Pakistan`s exports. It is as pointless to talk about Pakistan`s spectacular GDP growth performance in the 1960s as it is to talk about the former USSR`s high growth rates. Why? Because neither of them was sustainable in the long run.``

I am curious when people talk about Pakistan`s economic performance in the 1960s what are they talking about ?

economic performance of West Pakistan + East Pakistan
economic performance of West Pakistan only

Fuzair $114: ``It is as pointless to talk about Pakistan`s spectacular GDP growth performance in the 1960s as it is to talk about the former USSR`s high growth rates. Why? Because neither of them was sustainable in the long run.``

I am not the one talking about it. Quite a few prominent economists are........There was a great deal of infrastructure that was constructed in Pakistan, during this time. There wasn`t much available in 47. But in the proceeding 30 years, quite a bit got built. Dams, highways, roads, complete cities. Out of the three main cities in Pakistan - Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad/Pindi, other than Lahore, the reamaining were literally built after 47. All of this didn`t appear from thin air. Did it?

More could have been spent on education. But Pakistan is far more educated today, than it was in 47. The export-led growth I will have to check up on. But on all other issues, had this growth rate not occured, Pakistan could have been Afghanistan. It could have crumbled back into India.......

As for being sustainable in the long run: 40 years is a pretty long time, don`t you think. It was quite sustainable, had the wealth distribution been handled correctly. And most importantly, had Bhutto not nationalized everything. That is something I have always highlighted. Wealth creation has always been there. Wealth distribution has been the problem...........And a sustained long term policy has been missing from the 70s onwards.....

USSR is ranked around 50 in the human development index, regularly. Orders of magnitude ahead of Pakistan and India, which are 135 and 127, respectively. So they seem to be doing ok, in comparison to us.......I wouldn`t mind Pakistan switching places with them, with or without their sustained growth rates......

Romair,

As I`ve pointed out before, Pakistan`s GDP growth rate during the 1960s is essentially irrelevant because the good FM did not (i) spend money on primary education, (ii) on building infrastructure, and (iii) insist on export-led growth and increasing the value-added component of Pakistan`s exports. It is as pointless to talk about Pakistan`s spectacular GDP growth performance in the 1960s as it is to talk about the former USSR`s high growth rates. Why? Because neither of them was sustainable in the long run.

yes..please...all pakis not happy with the US can join their paki brothers in the UK..where they`ll get a chance to vote for a candidate primarily on the palestenian issue(and not on fixing the little problem of pakis being at the bottom of the ladder by almost any measure).

Re: # 112

SR Sahib, There is a family that migrated from India to Pakistan, because (they thought) that they couldn’t live in India. They didn’t like Pakistan either and migrated to England in the early 60s, lived there owned a Chippy but didn’t care much about England either and moved to the USA in the 70s. Didn’t care much about the US either, but didn’t have balls to go back to Pakistan, because hated it there. Now they own a Video store in New York and their kids are as unadjusted in this society as their elders were in many places before settling in New York. The point is that some people are not happy anywhere. Being unhappy is in their DNA.

Romair #104

`` Kindly take a look at how much aid Pakistan has received? If you analyse it, you will find it is not much. Pakistan has received a lot of loans. Not aid. But those have had to be paid back, to the point that they are the largest part of the budget, now. The aid paled in comparison to the expat remittences. These officially come to around $30 billion per decade. And unofficially, through hundi, perhaps much higher. Also there was a lot of drug money in circulation.........This is the artifical semination. I do not consider it artificial because it was generated by Pakistanis (be they drug dealers or expats) ``

Pakistan total foreign debt is less than $35 billion - lot of it interest. That means you could not received more than $25-30 billion in loans.

Pakistan has received in excess of $12 billion from USA alone. There is no official tally for the market value of the aid from Saudi Arabia, UAE or China.

WE ARE CHANGING THE SUBJECT. I do not trust the figures put up by the World Bank Pakistani gurus and am well aware what they do to their country. In 1999-2000, these financial babus could not figure what Pakistan`s external liabilities were.

Unfortuneately even now the poverty is growing and not otherwise.

The irregular sector is retracting and consumerism is a boom. A honad Civic is more expensive than a Caddilac in USA and gas too is more expensive. Cost of living is going up.

These are ground realities.

Ijaz_Gul #100: ``1.........This is the time when the politics of permits and proliferation of wealth in few hands began. 1965 was a shot in the foot..............2. Pakistan`s second resurgence coincided with the Afghan Mock Jehad for another decade........Aid coming in was used to breed puppets like Hamayun Akhtar, Shareefs and a new brand of political upstarts...........3.This is the third resurgence from 2002 onwards and into its third year..........All told this comes to 23 and not forty.``

The statistics, figures and economic analysis do not support the above.......I am not an economist, nor was I around in most of the 60s. But I try to read prominent Pakistani economists, as much as I can. And their arguments are different from the one you have put up.

Pakistan averaged roughly 4 decades of 6% ecnomic growth - from roughly around 1956-1994. Infact, in 91-92, the growth rate was 7.7. That is an average over decades (not per year), as highlighted by Shahid Javed Burki. He covers all this in detail in his books and his weekly articles. Pakistan economy grew from 1951 onwards. In the 60s, Pakistan averaged 6.8% growth rate. In the 70s, it was 4.8%. And 6.5% in the 80s. In addition, it was 6.0+ % from 58 onwards. As well as early 90s.

What you are refering to are the lack of political and social affects of the economic growth. That point is valid. The economic growth did not have the social affects that such an economic growth should have had, and did have on other countries. Also, the growth was not enough to make a dent in the poltically powerful regressive feudal forces in Pakistan. Perhaps because much of the growth occured under military govts. and not political govts.........

You are correct about wealth in a few hands in ther 60s, onwards. That was a problem of distribution. This maybe why Bangladesh separated. However, the process of successful wealth creation was there, before and continued after the 65 war. Companies were IPOing. A robust banking and insurance sector was developing. Industry was being set up. Some of the largest damns etc. in the world were set up. Hospitals, roads, universities etc. All of this was due to sound economic policies

Pakistan could very well have been Afghanistan, after independence, had such growth not occured.......

In the 70s, the momentum of the 60s kept things going for a while, as Bhutto destroyed the economy methodically. But things did not hit a dead end because the Dubai boom started. Expats started sending money in. This continued into the 80s, when a transition away from Bhutto`s disastrous economics started.

Kindly take a look at how much aid Pakistan has received? If you analyse it, you will find it is not much. Pakistan has received a lot of loans. Not aid. But those have had to be paid back, to the point that they are the largest part of the budget, now. The aid paled in comparison to the expat remittences. These officially come to around $30 billion per decade. And unofficially, through hundi, perhaps much higher. Also there was a lot of drug money in circulation.........This is the artifical semination. I do not consider it artificial because it was generated by Pakistanis (be they drug dealers or expats)

So, Pakistan`s problem, other than the 90s, has not been capital generation. It has been capital distribution as well as a stable govt. system to support the growth. The reason growth is always high during miltiary regimes is because of consistency of policy; something that has been difficult for political regimes to maintain........

Paksitan by 1990, had its lowest poverty levels in history, at 18%! By 2000, these were back up to 33% or so. In one decade. It is only in the last year, that the ship has turned around. And Pakistan took 5 million people out of poverty, in 2004. Now that number should keep reducing........

#100 by ijaz_gul on October 20, 2005 10:49am PT

So Pakiland only does ``well`` when it`s on the dole?

No wonder Pakiland doesn`t have anything matching the IITs/IIM, nothing matching the Infosys` and the richest south asian muslims is an Indian...

For UK,
``Here lies our sovereign Lord the King
Whose word no man relies on,
He never does a foolish thing,
and never does does a wise one``

Romair,
1.Pakistan`s first decade of progress with rapid influx of the Harvard Model, tied aid and trade, and dependency was because of the containment theory. This is the time when the politics of permits and proliferation of wealth in few hands began. 1965 was a shot in the foot.

2. Pakistan`s second resurgence coincided with the Afghan Mock Jehad for another decade. This was the time of Islamisation, drugs, Klashinkovs and intolerance. Aid coming in was used to breed puppets like Hamayun Akhtar, Shareefs and a new brand of political upstarts.

3.This is the third resurgence from 2002 onwards and into its third year.

All told this comes to 23 and not forty.

I agree with Yasser.

Cheerios

ugh... points of view... not point of views...

Romair, Mohar11, Aquaris

I am afraid all three point of views expressed... are wrong. Please consider.. gentlemen where you all went wrong.


1-Romair : Landed aristocracy in Pakistan areas opposed Pakistan- This is wrong. Infact they opposed the Muslim League and Jinnah... but they were committed to a certain level of autonomy as put forward by Sir Sikandar Hayat`s plan... In order to get the landed aristocracy, which ruled Muslim Majority Provinces, on board, a vague Lahore resolution was put up.

2- Mohar11: Landed aristocracy was not the only ones agitating for Pakistan. Many very left-minded and pseudo-socialistic people also demanded Pakistan. The landed aristocracy woke up very late to the possible advantages of having a state. In fact .. it was Punjab Muslim League`s extreme left-oriented manifesto unveiled around 1945 and the subsequent success of the party in Punjab which forced the unionists to try and wrest control of the Pakistan idea and movement.

3- Aquaris: The ``Landed aristocracy of minority provinces`` did not support the creation of Pakistan but supported the Muslim League... why would they- in the minority provinces- support the creation of Pakistan which would not secure their base. Only a fraction of them got the evacuee property... most of them were bound to lose.


Romair has started an unnecessary debate which he doesn`t himself comprehend. Jinnah was never a populist rabble rouser... he did not go straight to the people... who could not speak the language he spoke. His task in main had been to make the Muslim League more representative that it was... and from the landed classes he expanded it to the salariat and the rising bourgeoisie... ultimately this appealed to the socialists with the ``two stage revolution`` theory... and so they also jumped in on the band wagon. It must be remembered that identity formation whether one-nation theory, two-nation-theory or 10-nation theory all existed, as all identities exist today, in these subsets...

After all the hari, the Kissan, the mazdoor (of any faith) could care less whether the British ruled, Congress ruled or the Muslim League ruled... this is ultimately the nature of any political society whether people here want to accept it or not.

-YLH