Where did Pakistan go wrong?
[How India Wanted to purchase Atom Bomb recipe for $500 (France offered $300) from a Princeton Undergrad.
One is almost brought to tears at the rate of inflation. In the 1960s when a Princeton undergraduate wrote a course project and wrote down the recipe to build an atomic bomb (it was immediately ``classified``), officials of two embassies in the U.S. approached him. India`s agents offered him $500. (NBC nterviewed the student on air even though he was put in hiding by the FBI-CIA twins; ask NBC for their archival reference).]
I have been in the US since 1969. The event you referred to happened in the early 1980s, not in the 1960s.
The Princeton undergrad was given the project to design a working atom bomb for his bachelor`s degree in Physics. When he turned in his paper, his professor was astonished to find that the design would actually work, promptly classified the paper and notified the FBI.
The country that approached the student about buying his paper was Pakistan. In 1974, India had already tested the bomb. Pakistan was the country that was going to eat grass if they had to in order to get at a Bomb.
So, twist the story as you please. I dare you to post an authentic reference. Go to the morgues of either the Washington Post or New York Times and retrieve the story and post it here.
[The Pound Sterling being = $5., at the time it meant 60L sterling.]
The Pound Sterling hasn`t been at the ratio of $5 to a pound since WWII. Even in the 1960s, the rate was $2.40 to a pound and by the 1970`s it was down to $1.60. $500 at the rate of $5 to a pound works out to 100 pounds. Where you get 60 pounds is beyond me. Must be the New Math I missed in high school.
Posted by
Pu Li
Jun 2, 2000 04:25 am
Re salwak #: 78 [How India Wanted to purchase Atom Bomb recipe for $500 (France offered $300) from a Princeton Undergrad.
One is almost brought to tears at the rate of inflation. In the 1960s when a Princeton undergraduate wrote a course project and wrote down the recipe to build an atomic bomb (it was immediately ``classified``), officials of two embassies in the U.S. approached him. India`s agents offered him $500. (NBC nterviewed the student on air even though he was put in hiding by the FBI-CIA twins; ask NBC for their archival reference).]
I have been in the US since 1969. The event you referred to happened in the early 1980s, not in the 1960s.
The Princeton undergrad was given the project to design a working atom bomb for his bachelor`s degree in Physics. When he turned in his paper, his professor was astonished to find that the design would actually work, promptly classified the paper and notified the FBI.
The country that approached the student about buying his paper was Pakistan. In 1974, India had already tested the bomb. Pakistan was the country that was going to eat grass if they had to in order to get at a Bomb.
So, twist the story as you please. I dare you to post an authentic reference. Go to the morgues of either the Washington Post or New York Times and retrieve the story and post it here.
[The Pound Sterling being = $5., at the time it meant 60L sterling.]
The Pound Sterling hasn`t been at the ratio of $5 to a pound since WWII. Even in the 1960s, the rate was $2.40 to a pound and by the 1970`s it was down to $1.60. $500 at the rate of $5 to a pound works out to 100 pounds. Where you get 60 pounds is beyond me. Must be the New Math I missed in high school.
Eqbal Ahmad: Post - Pokhran Days
Would it be possible for Prof. Hoodbhoy to confirm this?
Even more important, this shows that the Pak Army is trying to articulate policy. For a statement such as suggesting the use of nuclear weapons in Korea, Gen. Douglas MacArthur was fired by President Truman. So, even if this particular statement was not policy but one man`s opinion, the fact remains that in any other society this would have earned the general early retirement from the Army.
No Indian Army officer would even suggest something similar with respect to China.
Please do not call the general`s statement MAD (mutual assured destruction). MAD ensures both sides will pull back from the brink. This is madness because the general recognized that India cannot be destroyed totally with the limited number of nuclear weapons in Pakistan`s hands.
Posted by
Pu Li
May 16, 2000 04:52 pm
In this week`s The Friday Times, the news item ``Professor Nayyar of QAU speaks out in his defence`` carries this statement: ``Linking the state of collective paranoia with nuclear weapons, I quoted a serving Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee telling my friend Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy some years ago that he would not mind if Indians in retaliation to a Pakistani use of nuclear weapon destroyed all the Pakistani cities and killed millions, as long as Pakistan could harm India in some manner.``Would it be possible for Prof. Hoodbhoy to confirm this?
Even more important, this shows that the Pak Army is trying to articulate policy. For a statement such as suggesting the use of nuclear weapons in Korea, Gen. Douglas MacArthur was fired by President Truman. So, even if this particular statement was not policy but one man`s opinion, the fact remains that in any other society this would have earned the general early retirement from the Army.
No Indian Army officer would even suggest something similar with respect to China.
Please do not call the general`s statement MAD (mutual assured destruction). MAD ensures both sides will pull back from the brink. This is madness because the general recognized that India cannot be destroyed totally with the limited number of nuclear weapons in Pakistan`s hands.
Pssst...This is Rest of South Asia speaking
You say {My nomination for UNSC seat is Singapore....shows what economics can do for a small island city-state and should be an example to the 1 Billion plus people of South Asia to follow!}
Ah, yes. Singapore. Which has decided to apply its laws extra-territorially just like the US and thus a good candidate for the Security Council. Except that the US applies its laws against non-US citizens whereas Singapore applies it to its own citizens.
Like the time an 18-year-old boy and girl were tested for drugs after returning from abroad. Finding drugs in their urine, the Singapore court sentenced them to 10 years imprisonment each. When they argued that the offense had not taken place in Singapore, the judge suggested that they could seek citizenship elsewhere upon completion of their sentence but right now he was making sure Singapore remained not just drug-free but free of drug users.
And the folks in Singapore are speculating if Annabelle Chong will be able to return to Singapore, having taken a leading role in a XXX-rated movie in Hollywood. She is quite well-known in Singapore despite the non-availability of her movie there. She probably will get the slammer for making the movie in the US.
Yes, the MRT runs on time in Singapore, the streets are clean, and you can get all the consumer goods you want. Really a paradise on earth. Except to the political prisoners who have the distinction of being the longest under detention in the entire world.
What an example for South Asians to follow!
Posted by
Pu Li
May 4, 2000 08:10 pm
Ref Ferozk #: 45 You say {My nomination for UNSC seat is Singapore....shows what economics can do for a small island city-state and should be an example to the 1 Billion plus people of South Asia to follow!}
Ah, yes. Singapore. Which has decided to apply its laws extra-territorially just like the US and thus a good candidate for the Security Council. Except that the US applies its laws against non-US citizens whereas Singapore applies it to its own citizens.
Like the time an 18-year-old boy and girl were tested for drugs after returning from abroad. Finding drugs in their urine, the Singapore court sentenced them to 10 years imprisonment each. When they argued that the offense had not taken place in Singapore, the judge suggested that they could seek citizenship elsewhere upon completion of their sentence but right now he was making sure Singapore remained not just drug-free but free of drug users.
And the folks in Singapore are speculating if Annabelle Chong will be able to return to Singapore, having taken a leading role in a XXX-rated movie in Hollywood. She is quite well-known in Singapore despite the non-availability of her movie there. She probably will get the slammer for making the movie in the US.
Yes, the MRT runs on time in Singapore, the streets are clean, and you can get all the consumer goods you want. Really a paradise on earth. Except to the political prisoners who have the distinction of being the longest under detention in the entire world.
What an example for South Asians to follow!
What are they Teaching in Pakistani Schools Today?
You ask {How come that most of the desi schools attendies in Pakistan always get enrolled in 0ne or two higher grade in the public schools in North America & Britain?.When the graduates of same universities apply their standard is reduced to a grade 10 or 11? Equal to those some of who cannot even read the english newspaper?}
I believe admission to most US colleges and universities are based on SAT scores. I know of several kids in India who write the SAT and get into freshman year at US colleges and universities. Perhaps, instead of claiming that secular schooling in Pakistan is bad and should be abandoned, one should look to improve its standards so that the kids have a good chance of entering Western universities at the appropriate level. Clearly, anyone doing A levels is not going to be downgraded when he applies to the US for college admission.
The point about desi kids doing high school who transfer to the US being admitted to a higher grade, it is primarily because their math and science skills are better than those attained by US kids at the same grade level. And their English also happens to be better. Perhaps this is an argument for science-based education in the English language.
There are some kids who are inherently brighter than the average and they do better in school, whether in the US or back home. The failures of the less-than-average should not be used to denigrate either US schools or science-based education in Pakistan.
Right now, there is a debate going on in Singapore about the role and quantity of religious instruction for Muslim students. Though the Singapore government is walking on eggshells because the issue is both religion and ethnic-oriented (the minority Malays being the Muslims), their fear is that this would keep the Muslims in a lower socio-economic class.
As for Umairr who quoted all the advanced first-world and third-world countries who teach in their native languages, Singapore forces all its students to learn English and one other language (Chinese, Malay, or Tamil). The English-stream students get the best jobs and opportunities and currently Singapore ranks in the top 10 nations of the world in terms of per capita income. So, education in one`s native language is not necessarily the tool that improves a nation`s wealth. It all depends on the individual`s efforts to better himself.
Posted by
Pu Li
May 1, 2000 12:37 pm
Ref FARANGI_KUSH #: 138 You ask {How come that most of the desi schools attendies in Pakistan always get enrolled in 0ne or two higher grade in the public schools in North America & Britain?.When the graduates of same universities apply their standard is reduced to a grade 10 or 11? Equal to those some of who cannot even read the english newspaper?}
I believe admission to most US colleges and universities are based on SAT scores. I know of several kids in India who write the SAT and get into freshman year at US colleges and universities. Perhaps, instead of claiming that secular schooling in Pakistan is bad and should be abandoned, one should look to improve its standards so that the kids have a good chance of entering Western universities at the appropriate level. Clearly, anyone doing A levels is not going to be downgraded when he applies to the US for college admission.
The point about desi kids doing high school who transfer to the US being admitted to a higher grade, it is primarily because their math and science skills are better than those attained by US kids at the same grade level. And their English also happens to be better. Perhaps this is an argument for science-based education in the English language.
There are some kids who are inherently brighter than the average and they do better in school, whether in the US or back home. The failures of the less-than-average should not be used to denigrate either US schools or science-based education in Pakistan.
Right now, there is a debate going on in Singapore about the role and quantity of religious instruction for Muslim students. Though the Singapore government is walking on eggshells because the issue is both religion and ethnic-oriented (the minority Malays being the Muslims), their fear is that this would keep the Muslims in a lower socio-economic class.
As for Umairr who quoted all the advanced first-world and third-world countries who teach in their native languages, Singapore forces all its students to learn English and one other language (Chinese, Malay, or Tamil). The English-stream students get the best jobs and opportunities and currently Singapore ranks in the top 10 nations of the world in terms of per capita income. So, education in one`s native language is not necessarily the tool that improves a nation`s wealth. It all depends on the individual`s efforts to better himself.
Is the new CE any different?
[Pu Li: I read the report on the BBC website re:banning rallies. I suspect the reason for that was illustrated in the photo they had accompanying it, of a mob burning the American flag. Will they be able to keep mobs of extremists from holding rallies anyway?....]
While Musharraf banned political rallies, he merely *requested * the extremist groups to refrain from violence. Are the various militants so powerful and the Army and the police so weak that the militants have to be requested not to do things which are not obviously in Pakistan`s best interests? But the usually unarmed political rallies are banned by law?
What about banning strikes? So what if the Karachi dock workers go on strike when Clinton arrives at Islamabad airport? For that matter, even the burning of the US flag will not be visible to Clinton when he spends 4 hours at the sirport and flies back home.
What is a political rally? Can a single person burn the US flag without that being considered a rally? Even Section 144 bans only assemblies of 4 persons or more.
It is your type of rationalizing that will provide comfort to Musharraf that the country is with him. I sympathize with you in your attempts to give Musharraf a fig leaf but he is the one who is wantonly throwing it away.
The issue is not whether Musharraf stays in power for 20 years. The issue is: will the army stay in power 20 years and will it institutionalize its role in politics?
Regarding BB and NS`s corruption, at least one can point out that BB inherited some wealth and NS was an industrialist before he became prime minister. What you see in other countries is people without any visible means of earning an income becoming rich after entering politics. Compared to that, the personal corruption of BB and NS is small potatoes. That has been used an excuse by the army to get its hands on the budget so that more money can be siphoned off for the military. This business of not matching India`s defense budget hike is hogwash. Musharraf is making a virtue out of necessity.
What exactly has changed 5 months after the coup? Has industrial investment gone up? Has the economy increased in size and output? If it is going to take time to turn the country around, could NS have done it? Is Musharraf and the army better qualified than BB or NS for the job? We can wait another 5 months (do we have a choice?) and I am willing to bet that things will be not much different.
Posted by
Pu Li
Mar 16, 2000 08:39 pm
Re Assad_K #: 203 [Pu Li: I read the report on the BBC website re:banning rallies. I suspect the reason for that was illustrated in the photo they had accompanying it, of a mob burning the American flag. Will they be able to keep mobs of extremists from holding rallies anyway?....]
While Musharraf banned political rallies, he merely *requested * the extremist groups to refrain from violence. Are the various militants so powerful and the Army and the police so weak that the militants have to be requested not to do things which are not obviously in Pakistan`s best interests? But the usually unarmed political rallies are banned by law?
What about banning strikes? So what if the Karachi dock workers go on strike when Clinton arrives at Islamabad airport? For that matter, even the burning of the US flag will not be visible to Clinton when he spends 4 hours at the sirport and flies back home.
What is a political rally? Can a single person burn the US flag without that being considered a rally? Even Section 144 bans only assemblies of 4 persons or more.
It is your type of rationalizing that will provide comfort to Musharraf that the country is with him. I sympathize with you in your attempts to give Musharraf a fig leaf but he is the one who is wantonly throwing it away.
The issue is not whether Musharraf stays in power for 20 years. The issue is: will the army stay in power 20 years and will it institutionalize its role in politics?
Regarding BB and NS`s corruption, at least one can point out that BB inherited some wealth and NS was an industrialist before he became prime minister. What you see in other countries is people without any visible means of earning an income becoming rich after entering politics. Compared to that, the personal corruption of BB and NS is small potatoes. That has been used an excuse by the army to get its hands on the budget so that more money can be siphoned off for the military. This business of not matching India`s defense budget hike is hogwash. Musharraf is making a virtue out of necessity.
What exactly has changed 5 months after the coup? Has industrial investment gone up? Has the economy increased in size and output? If it is going to take time to turn the country around, could NS have done it? Is Musharraf and the army better qualified than BB or NS for the job? We can wait another 5 months (do we have a choice?) and I am willing to bet that things will be not much different.
Is the new CE any different?
[There is no comparision of Indonesia`s Soekarno toppling with current coup.]
You are comparing the reasons for the two coups. I am talking about the net impact of the coup on the Indonesian populace and its political system.
[But still people don`t want the kind of democracy we had. So people have no desire to fight for sham democracy and bring back the looters.]
Democracy does not spring up overnight just because there is a written Consitution guaranteeing the right to elect one`s leaders. Democracy happens slowly as people learn of their rights, their ability to right the wrongs done to them through a justice system and the ability to modify the laws if needed through an elected assembly.
Was democracy perfect in the US in 1776? How many elections to the Congress and the Senate, let alone City Halls across the country, have been stolen? In England, the mother of parliamentary democracy, didn`t people buy their way into the Parliament (Robert Clive did, with his loot from India)? It was common practice to buy common people food and drink on the day of the vote. But that doesn`t happen anymore. If you will not put up with the slow evolution of democratic norms, you will end up having coups all the time.
[Nobody blames democracy. But still nobody wants the kind of sham democracy we had.]
If you are going to have some man, rather than the law, tell you how to behave, you do not have democracy. Is General Musharraf planning on passing tough campaign-reform and anti-corruption laws? What prevents him from doing that right now? After all, he is proclaiming any ordinance he wants without an assembly to debate the issues. He could pass the laws needed to govern the country properly and get out. Does he need 20 years? Or is he talking about a way to insitutionalize the Army`s participation in politics? If so, he is going for the Indonesian model which has been discredited. As I said before, the only difference between Turkey and Pakistan is that in Turkey, they got the mullahs under a little bit of control (but not much). The fact that women are demanding the right to wear the veil is an indication that after some 70 years of Kemalism, literal interpretation of Islam is on the rise again. The Turkish army exerts the same behind-the-scene control that the Pakistani Army did. If you do not believe the Pakistani Army exerted political control, the coup is proof that they did.
Posted by
Pu Li
Mar 16, 2000 02:36 pm
Re krashid #: 192 [There is no comparision of Indonesia`s Soekarno toppling with current coup.]
You are comparing the reasons for the two coups. I am talking about the net impact of the coup on the Indonesian populace and its political system.
[But still people don`t want the kind of democracy we had. So people have no desire to fight for sham democracy and bring back the looters.]
Democracy does not spring up overnight just because there is a written Consitution guaranteeing the right to elect one`s leaders. Democracy happens slowly as people learn of their rights, their ability to right the wrongs done to them through a justice system and the ability to modify the laws if needed through an elected assembly.
Was democracy perfect in the US in 1776? How many elections to the Congress and the Senate, let alone City Halls across the country, have been stolen? In England, the mother of parliamentary democracy, didn`t people buy their way into the Parliament (Robert Clive did, with his loot from India)? It was common practice to buy common people food and drink on the day of the vote. But that doesn`t happen anymore. If you will not put up with the slow evolution of democratic norms, you will end up having coups all the time.
[Nobody blames democracy. But still nobody wants the kind of sham democracy we had.]
If you are going to have some man, rather than the law, tell you how to behave, you do not have democracy. Is General Musharraf planning on passing tough campaign-reform and anti-corruption laws? What prevents him from doing that right now? After all, he is proclaiming any ordinance he wants without an assembly to debate the issues. He could pass the laws needed to govern the country properly and get out. Does he need 20 years? Or is he talking about a way to insitutionalize the Army`s participation in politics? If so, he is going for the Indonesian model which has been discredited. As I said before, the only difference between Turkey and Pakistan is that in Turkey, they got the mullahs under a little bit of control (but not much). The fact that women are demanding the right to wear the veil is an indication that after some 70 years of Kemalism, literal interpretation of Islam is on the rise again. The Turkish army exerts the same behind-the-scene control that the Pakistani Army did. If you do not believe the Pakistani Army exerted political control, the coup is proof that they did.
Is the new CE any different?
That seems to provide the answer to the question raised in the title: is the new CE any different.
We can wait and see what will be the next right taken away from the people of Pakistan.
The middle-class Pakistanis can sip their chota pegs (or chai for those who take the Quranic injunction against alcohol seriously) and take solace in the fact that the buses would run on time since there will be no traffic jams caused by street protests. Most of them are probably hoping that this little curtailment of liberty would pass unnoticed by the world. But as General Musharraf whittles away slowly at the rights of every Pakistani, we will get the Pak version of Turkey, Algeria or Indonesia.
It is indeed heart-rending to see how the people of Pakistan continue to accept this assault on basic freedoms. If General Musharraf would deliver results, there would be no political demonstrations or strikes. It is obvious he has no clue as to how to deal with dissent since the army brooks no dissent. It is equally obvious that the people are not buying his theory that democracy (as represented by NS and BB) was the root of all that is evil in Pakistan.
Long live the new Caliph! Long live the new khilafat! Let us avert our eyes because our eyes are dazzled by the Caliph`s new clothes.
Posted by
Pu Li
Mar 16, 2000 02:16 am
Just now, the BBC reported that strikes, political meetings and demonstrations have been banned in Pakistan.That seems to provide the answer to the question raised in the title: is the new CE any different.
We can wait and see what will be the next right taken away from the people of Pakistan.
The middle-class Pakistanis can sip their chota pegs (or chai for those who take the Quranic injunction against alcohol seriously) and take solace in the fact that the buses would run on time since there will be no traffic jams caused by street protests. Most of them are probably hoping that this little curtailment of liberty would pass unnoticed by the world. But as General Musharraf whittles away slowly at the rights of every Pakistani, we will get the Pak version of Turkey, Algeria or Indonesia.
It is indeed heart-rending to see how the people of Pakistan continue to accept this assault on basic freedoms. If General Musharraf would deliver results, there would be no political demonstrations or strikes. It is obvious he has no clue as to how to deal with dissent since the army brooks no dissent. It is equally obvious that the people are not buying his theory that democracy (as represented by NS and BB) was the root of all that is evil in Pakistan.
Long live the new Caliph! Long live the new khilafat! Let us avert our eyes because our eyes are dazzled by the Caliph`s new clothes.
Is the new CE any different?
In Indonesia, the army intervened and took control away from Sukarno in the late 60`s. The army then wrote a constitution that institutionalized its role (to the extent that the army had parliamentary representation). It has taken more than 30 years, total economic collapse when the currency lost 75% of its value, corruption unmatched in the history of the world, and the savagery so clearly seen every evening on our TV screens whereby every building in Dili (East Timor) was destroyed, before the country could get out from under its long nightmare.
You are now asking for the Turkish model. In Turkey, every elected prime minister knows how far he/she could go before the army would intervene and stop them. There might have been no coups in Turkey since the 1960`s but that doesn`t change the fact that the elected politicians there are under the watchful eyes of the army. To that extent, the Turkish model was already operational in Pakistan. All you could ask for is for the mullahs to be restrained.
The statements of Gen. Musharraf that it will take 20 years for the army to clean up the mess is not encouraging for the return of parliamentary democracy in Pakistan anytime soon. People living in the West confuse the relatively corruption-free politics there with democracy and assume that because there is corruption in Pakistan, democracy has not taken root there. If you look at India, corruption exists at all levels. That doesn`t mean that the army should intervene and clean up the mess. Believe me, the middle-class in India would like nothing better than for a strongman to take control and shake up the country. Then the trains would run on time, the garbage would get picked up, and the beggars would be relocated away from the metropolitan areas. One could buy this ``visible`` progress at the cost of democracy. Thank God, we haven`t done so.
For all the talk about there being no alternative to BB and NS, what was the alternative to Nehru from 1947 to 1964? Who was the alternative to Indira Gandhi from 1966 to 1979? As these undisputed leaders leave, democracy finds a way to fill the vacuum. If you feel so bad about BB and NS, you could do what they did in Sri Lanka to Sirimavo Bandaranayake: for excesses committed under her rule, they stripped her of all constitutional rights for 6 years. She couldn`t vote, she couldn`t run for election, she couldn`t address public meetings. No, they did not throw her into a dungeon or hang her though she probably deserved such a fate. Because, in the final analysis, she did what she did in her capacity as the leader of the country, no matter how self-serving her actions might be.
Indonesia could survive 30+ years of military rule because of her immense oil and natural gas deposits, because of her strategic location in Indian Ocean, because of her anti-communist government, etc. But today the cost of a coup is isolation from the world community. Can Pakistan afford 20-30 years of that?
Posted by
Pu Li
Mar 15, 2000 05:33 pm
Those level-headed Pakistanis who welcome the coup as the only possible way Pakistan could be saved must go back in history and look at another country where the army intervened.In Indonesia, the army intervened and took control away from Sukarno in the late 60`s. The army then wrote a constitution that institutionalized its role (to the extent that the army had parliamentary representation). It has taken more than 30 years, total economic collapse when the currency lost 75% of its value, corruption unmatched in the history of the world, and the savagery so clearly seen every evening on our TV screens whereby every building in Dili (East Timor) was destroyed, before the country could get out from under its long nightmare.
You are now asking for the Turkish model. In Turkey, every elected prime minister knows how far he/she could go before the army would intervene and stop them. There might have been no coups in Turkey since the 1960`s but that doesn`t change the fact that the elected politicians there are under the watchful eyes of the army. To that extent, the Turkish model was already operational in Pakistan. All you could ask for is for the mullahs to be restrained.
The statements of Gen. Musharraf that it will take 20 years for the army to clean up the mess is not encouraging for the return of parliamentary democracy in Pakistan anytime soon. People living in the West confuse the relatively corruption-free politics there with democracy and assume that because there is corruption in Pakistan, democracy has not taken root there. If you look at India, corruption exists at all levels. That doesn`t mean that the army should intervene and clean up the mess. Believe me, the middle-class in India would like nothing better than for a strongman to take control and shake up the country. Then the trains would run on time, the garbage would get picked up, and the beggars would be relocated away from the metropolitan areas. One could buy this ``visible`` progress at the cost of democracy. Thank God, we haven`t done so.
For all the talk about there being no alternative to BB and NS, what was the alternative to Nehru from 1947 to 1964? Who was the alternative to Indira Gandhi from 1966 to 1979? As these undisputed leaders leave, democracy finds a way to fill the vacuum. If you feel so bad about BB and NS, you could do what they did in Sri Lanka to Sirimavo Bandaranayake: for excesses committed under her rule, they stripped her of all constitutional rights for 6 years. She couldn`t vote, she couldn`t run for election, she couldn`t address public meetings. No, they did not throw her into a dungeon or hang her though she probably deserved such a fate. Because, in the final analysis, she did what she did in her capacity as the leader of the country, no matter how self-serving her actions might be.
Indonesia could survive 30+ years of military rule because of her immense oil and natural gas deposits, because of her strategic location in Indian Ocean, because of her anti-communist government, etc. But today the cost of a coup is isolation from the world community. Can Pakistan afford 20-30 years of that?
In Defence of Benevolent Dictators
You seem to blame the lack of economic development on democracy. That is not the case. The fact is that economic development depends on sound policies, not just a dictator telling people to march in one direction. When people look at the economic miracles in South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Thailand, they come to the conclusion that the only thing common to all of them is dictatorship, military or civilian. Why do such people ignore Japan which has not had a dictatorship after WWII and had to totally rebuild its industrial base after the destruction of WWII and the resulting conclusion that democracy is NOT antithetical to economic development? If you talk about the corrupt democracies of South Asia, how can we forget the scandals that have brought down several prime ministers in Japan?
It is true that the people of the East Asian Tiger economies put (or were forced to put) their political aspirations on hold so as to recover from the ravages of war (Korea, Taiwan, Singapore) or economic underdevelopment (Thailand). But, given the chance to express their opinions, they have come out resoundingly against those same dictators who have given them so much material wealth. One might argue, in the case of Thailand and South Korea, that the wealth did not dribble down to all segments of society and that was the cause for the dissatisfaction of the masses. How about Singapore, where full employment is the norm, all types of food and consumer goods are cheap and readily available, and 90% of the population lives in government housing far superior to middle-class homes in South Asia? That country still elects opposition members to Parliament as a mark of displeasure with the authoritarian nature of the government.
Even in South Asia, hasn`t Bangladesh (the basketcase of the world, according to Kissinger) shown that they would much rather elect their leaders than put up with military dictatorships? Doesn`t the electoral loss of Indira Gandhi after the 1975-76 Emergency in India (when the middle-class enthusiastically supported the Emergency as a much needed dose of discipline) prove that people do have a need to express themselves politically? Why, in God`s name, do some people claim Pakistan is different?
The issue that exercises the arm-chair pundits in South Asia is corruption in public life. This has nothing to do with democracy. Are you telling us there was no corruption in Pakistan during periods of military rule? Can you name the politicians who were jailed, who were made to pay restitution, in almost 30 years of various military dictatorships?
The fact is that the British left behind a system of governance that has two hallmarks. The first is that the civil service and the top leadership ruled the country as an occupying power, with an antagonistic relationship between the rulers and the ruled. The fact that the level of rapaciousness was considerably less than that encountered by the subcontinent`s people under native rulers does not alter this fact. Secondly, the British authorities in India were under the watchful eyes of the British government and were held to strict standards of probity. When the British left, we have chosen to keep the former and discard the latter, wheras the expectation was the reverse would be the case once we attained independence. This is the real cause of dissatisfaction with the political process in the subcontinent. The people are still treated as being irrelevant and the politicians and civil servants are able to amass wealth through corrupt means. We have reverted back to the days of the Nawabs and the Maharajas.
In such a situation, the one chance the common man has to humble the neo-Nawabs is the election process. At least during that time, the politicians have to go to the slums, walk through garbage-ridden alleys, breathe the foul air, and ask for the votes. A dictatorship under the current rules of engagement relieves those in power of having to do even this.
If Musharraf would put in rules of accountability similar to what one finds in Singapore (where anyone can call in complaints about corruption and several ministers/politicians have been jailed or have committed suicide in order to avoid prosecution) and provides a government that is responsive to people, one could say that the military coup was justified, even if the economic lot of the common man does not improve one whit. But so long as the rules of engagement do not change drastically, then you have taken away the one chance the voter gets every 5 or so years to rub the noses of the powerful in the dirt.
[There is fine line between imposing our liberal values on others and acting responsibly to protect any segment of population (women, the poor, children) from an abuse of their rights to a full
personhood.]
You do that by enacting and enforcing laws that ensure economic and social rights for individuals. You spread the knowledge among people that such laws exist to protect them by village outreach programs. You inculcate the respect for such laws by educating the next generation of children. But, if you do not do any of these, then you will always have the need for a ``benevolent`` dictator, the Great White Father in the US, the Burra Sahib in India, to whom the dispossessed can look in order to redress their grievances; that is, if such grievances ever reach his ears.
[So, Pu Li, it is not always with a patronizing superiority that we more influential (you say ‘educated’) urbanites seek to secure the rights of
those without voices or whose voices are held at ransom by their lords and masters—whoever they may be.]
Yes, it is. And you know better than to advance this argument. It IS patronizing to tell somebody that you, not he, will be in charge of his life and destiny. It does NOT matter that in actuality you know better.
Wasn`t this the same argument the British advanced why they should rule over India?
[Puh-leez, Pu-Li!! It’s laughable that you should suggest that the ‘elite and privileged’ should be angered by the end of the farce put up by politicians. While there may be a tiny grain of truth in that claim, you would have had to be pretty out of tune to the spirit on the streets to
suggest that the underprivileged were not in favour of this takeover.]
By `the privileged few`, I do not mean the super-rich who anyway really run the country because they can buy off anybody, including Musharraf. (If you point out that Saigol has been jailed by Musharraf, I will point out that Kirloskar was jailed by Indira Gandhi for income-tax evasion in 1975. Kirloskar and his family are still running his companies and his wealth is bigger than before. I am sure Saigol will be out soon.) It is the middle-class that suffers the most in any system because they have to abide by the rules. If there are quotas in admission to professional colleges based on caste, domicile, etc., the rich circumvent that by sending their children to schools abroad. The middle-class loses out to the favored community: rural Sindhis in Karachi, Backward Classes in India. The middle-class is the most aggrieved party in any society and these are the people who welcome dictatorships because it brings a semblance of order and they value order over anything else.
[... you have unwittingly betrayed how much yourself have bought into the essentially Western deification of democracy. That may be an idea that
fits well their current position in history, but in blindly suggesting its applicability to all cultures, aren’t you yourself guilty of that imposing your own urban, western ideas on others?]
I am just for individual liberty. The statement by Thomas Jefferson ``I have sworn eternal enmity against all forms of tyranny over the mind of Man`` is something that I personally cherish. If you consider that deification of democracy, so be it. Anything other than democracy is tyranny over the mind of Man.
[Personally, I see it (democracy) as little more than fashionable dogma. Go sell it to the growing number of unemployed youth prone to suicide during our flirtation with democracy, Pu Li.]
Is Musharraf guaranteeing full employment with a living wage?
May God save the comman man of Pakistan from all those people who mean him so well.
Posted by
Pu Li
Dec 23, 1999 01:24 pm
Re PM #: 188 You seem to blame the lack of economic development on democracy. That is not the case. The fact is that economic development depends on sound policies, not just a dictator telling people to march in one direction. When people look at the economic miracles in South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Thailand, they come to the conclusion that the only thing common to all of them is dictatorship, military or civilian. Why do such people ignore Japan which has not had a dictatorship after WWII and had to totally rebuild its industrial base after the destruction of WWII and the resulting conclusion that democracy is NOT antithetical to economic development? If you talk about the corrupt democracies of South Asia, how can we forget the scandals that have brought down several prime ministers in Japan?
It is true that the people of the East Asian Tiger economies put (or were forced to put) their political aspirations on hold so as to recover from the ravages of war (Korea, Taiwan, Singapore) or economic underdevelopment (Thailand). But, given the chance to express their opinions, they have come out resoundingly against those same dictators who have given them so much material wealth. One might argue, in the case of Thailand and South Korea, that the wealth did not dribble down to all segments of society and that was the cause for the dissatisfaction of the masses. How about Singapore, where full employment is the norm, all types of food and consumer goods are cheap and readily available, and 90% of the population lives in government housing far superior to middle-class homes in South Asia? That country still elects opposition members to Parliament as a mark of displeasure with the authoritarian nature of the government.
Even in South Asia, hasn`t Bangladesh (the basketcase of the world, according to Kissinger) shown that they would much rather elect their leaders than put up with military dictatorships? Doesn`t the electoral loss of Indira Gandhi after the 1975-76 Emergency in India (when the middle-class enthusiastically supported the Emergency as a much needed dose of discipline) prove that people do have a need to express themselves politically? Why, in God`s name, do some people claim Pakistan is different?
The issue that exercises the arm-chair pundits in South Asia is corruption in public life. This has nothing to do with democracy. Are you telling us there was no corruption in Pakistan during periods of military rule? Can you name the politicians who were jailed, who were made to pay restitution, in almost 30 years of various military dictatorships?
The fact is that the British left behind a system of governance that has two hallmarks. The first is that the civil service and the top leadership ruled the country as an occupying power, with an antagonistic relationship between the rulers and the ruled. The fact that the level of rapaciousness was considerably less than that encountered by the subcontinent`s people under native rulers does not alter this fact. Secondly, the British authorities in India were under the watchful eyes of the British government and were held to strict standards of probity. When the British left, we have chosen to keep the former and discard the latter, wheras the expectation was the reverse would be the case once we attained independence. This is the real cause of dissatisfaction with the political process in the subcontinent. The people are still treated as being irrelevant and the politicians and civil servants are able to amass wealth through corrupt means. We have reverted back to the days of the Nawabs and the Maharajas.
In such a situation, the one chance the common man has to humble the neo-Nawabs is the election process. At least during that time, the politicians have to go to the slums, walk through garbage-ridden alleys, breathe the foul air, and ask for the votes. A dictatorship under the current rules of engagement relieves those in power of having to do even this.
If Musharraf would put in rules of accountability similar to what one finds in Singapore (where anyone can call in complaints about corruption and several ministers/politicians have been jailed or have committed suicide in order to avoid prosecution) and provides a government that is responsive to people, one could say that the military coup was justified, even if the economic lot of the common man does not improve one whit. But so long as the rules of engagement do not change drastically, then you have taken away the one chance the voter gets every 5 or so years to rub the noses of the powerful in the dirt.
[There is fine line between imposing our liberal values on others and acting responsibly to protect any segment of population (women, the poor, children) from an abuse of their rights to a full
personhood.]
You do that by enacting and enforcing laws that ensure economic and social rights for individuals. You spread the knowledge among people that such laws exist to protect them by village outreach programs. You inculcate the respect for such laws by educating the next generation of children. But, if you do not do any of these, then you will always have the need for a ``benevolent`` dictator, the Great White Father in the US, the Burra Sahib in India, to whom the dispossessed can look in order to redress their grievances; that is, if such grievances ever reach his ears.
[So, Pu Li, it is not always with a patronizing superiority that we more influential (you say ‘educated’) urbanites seek to secure the rights of
those without voices or whose voices are held at ransom by their lords and masters—whoever they may be.]
Yes, it is. And you know better than to advance this argument. It IS patronizing to tell somebody that you, not he, will be in charge of his life and destiny. It does NOT matter that in actuality you know better.
Wasn`t this the same argument the British advanced why they should rule over India?
[Puh-leez, Pu-Li!! It’s laughable that you should suggest that the ‘elite and privileged’ should be angered by the end of the farce put up by politicians. While there may be a tiny grain of truth in that claim, you would have had to be pretty out of tune to the spirit on the streets to
suggest that the underprivileged were not in favour of this takeover.]
By `the privileged few`, I do not mean the super-rich who anyway really run the country because they can buy off anybody, including Musharraf. (If you point out that Saigol has been jailed by Musharraf, I will point out that Kirloskar was jailed by Indira Gandhi for income-tax evasion in 1975. Kirloskar and his family are still running his companies and his wealth is bigger than before. I am sure Saigol will be out soon.) It is the middle-class that suffers the most in any system because they have to abide by the rules. If there are quotas in admission to professional colleges based on caste, domicile, etc., the rich circumvent that by sending their children to schools abroad. The middle-class loses out to the favored community: rural Sindhis in Karachi, Backward Classes in India. The middle-class is the most aggrieved party in any society and these are the people who welcome dictatorships because it brings a semblance of order and they value order over anything else.
[... you have unwittingly betrayed how much yourself have bought into the essentially Western deification of democracy. That may be an idea that
fits well their current position in history, but in blindly suggesting its applicability to all cultures, aren’t you yourself guilty of that imposing your own urban, western ideas on others?]
I am just for individual liberty. The statement by Thomas Jefferson ``I have sworn eternal enmity against all forms of tyranny over the mind of Man`` is something that I personally cherish. If you consider that deification of democracy, so be it. Anything other than democracy is tyranny over the mind of Man.
[Personally, I see it (democracy) as little more than fashionable dogma. Go sell it to the growing number of unemployed youth prone to suicide during our flirtation with democracy, Pu Li.]
Is Musharraf guaranteeing full employment with a living wage?
May God save the comman man of Pakistan from all those people who mean him so well.
He had no Choice!
[i believe that delhi, apart from the dtc (delhi transport corp), has a bus-load of private indian companies running bus-services there. however, the standard of `services` offered by all leaves much to be desired. perhaps the `craze for phoren` could be justified here, if it leads to some healthier competition between the `phoren` and the `desi`.]
Are the roads in Delhi capable of handling an additional 3000 buses? Should someone be looking at some sort of light rail or some similar form of transport?
Can an Indian company run a good bus system? Sure; the TVS organization used to run inter-city and city buses in several cities in the South. You could set your watch by their buses and their freight system`s lorries. The buses were washed every night so that they would be clean. On the other hand, getting a Sardarji to clean his pyjama and kurta is impossible (look at all the private buses in Calcutta with Sardarji drivers), so there is no hope for the Delhi buses unless the Japanese also import bus drivers and conductors from Japan.
Posted by
Pu Li
Dec 22, 1999 08:04 pm
Re concerned #: 924 [i believe that delhi, apart from the dtc (delhi transport corp), has a bus-load of private indian companies running bus-services there. however, the standard of `services` offered by all leaves much to be desired. perhaps the `craze for phoren` could be justified here, if it leads to some healthier competition between the `phoren` and the `desi`.]
Are the roads in Delhi capable of handling an additional 3000 buses? Should someone be looking at some sort of light rail or some similar form of transport?
Can an Indian company run a good bus system? Sure; the TVS organization used to run inter-city and city buses in several cities in the South. You could set your watch by their buses and their freight system`s lorries. The buses were washed every night so that they would be clean. On the other hand, getting a Sardarji to clean his pyjama and kurta is impossible (look at all the private buses in Calcutta with Sardarji drivers), so there is no hope for the Delhi buses unless the Japanese also import bus drivers and conductors from Japan.
In Defence of Benevolent Dictators
[the chattering classes of pakistan and their supporters based abroad in free western socieities should show some abiding faith in the masses and give them the opportunity to exercise their democratic chocies. what ever you may say, the fact remains that howsoever imperfect demcracy may be as a system, it has no alternative. the only remedy for failure of democracy is more democracy,and not any dictatorship hosoever
benevolent or well-meaning it appear at the first stage]
Bravo! Well said!
How much of this anger against politicians and democracy is really a reaction to the slipping of power from the hands of the elite and privileged few? A little bit of soul searching is in order.
India for instance has undergone, and is still undergoing, changes that most people do not like. Sometimes, it manifests itself as this extremist RSS ideology. Nevertheless, the people there are willing to give democracy the opportunity to correct itself. As opposed to the stability (5-year terms for governments) of the 1947-1972 era, India now has 1-2 years for the federal government. Indians have taken that in stride and yet this is being pointed out as a fault of democracy in Pakistan. We have to give people the means to express themselves so that, in their genius, they will find the way to govern themselves. Trust the people, poor and illiterate though they might be. We trust them to produce the food we eat and will starve without them. Why do we feel that, just because of our schooling, we have a right to tell them how to run their lives? As it is, we do that in the economic sphere. Doing that in the political sphere as well is nothing more than slavery in a different form.
Posted by
Pu Li
Dec 21, 1999 09:14 am
Re anilsharma #: 174 [the chattering classes of pakistan and their supporters based abroad in free western socieities should show some abiding faith in the masses and give them the opportunity to exercise their democratic chocies. what ever you may say, the fact remains that howsoever imperfect demcracy may be as a system, it has no alternative. the only remedy for failure of democracy is more democracy,and not any dictatorship hosoever
benevolent or well-meaning it appear at the first stage]
Bravo! Well said!
How much of this anger against politicians and democracy is really a reaction to the slipping of power from the hands of the elite and privileged few? A little bit of soul searching is in order.
India for instance has undergone, and is still undergoing, changes that most people do not like. Sometimes, it manifests itself as this extremist RSS ideology. Nevertheless, the people there are willing to give democracy the opportunity to correct itself. As opposed to the stability (5-year terms for governments) of the 1947-1972 era, India now has 1-2 years for the federal government. Indians have taken that in stride and yet this is being pointed out as a fault of democracy in Pakistan. We have to give people the means to express themselves so that, in their genius, they will find the way to govern themselves. Trust the people, poor and illiterate though they might be. We trust them to produce the food we eat and will starve without them. Why do we feel that, just because of our schooling, we have a right to tell them how to run their lives? As it is, we do that in the economic sphere. Doing that in the political sphere as well is nothing more than slavery in a different form.
He had no Choice!
[The Singapore example cannot be generalized since it is an amalgam of widely conflicting concepts.]
True; the intervention by the state in economic activities would brand it as a Soviet system. The laissez-faire attitude toward the welfare of the people (meaning, no social safety nets for the poor; if you don`t work, you starve as there is no welfare system to support the poor) would brand it as the worst form of capitalism. The only reason the poor didn`t rise up in Communism in the early days was that Lee Kwan Yew projected himself as a leftist to get elected and promptly slapped all leftists into jail.
But one cannot deny the amount of wealth that has been created in Singapore since 1965, when it became independent. The labor surplus was not wiped out in a day; it took a long time for the multi-nationals to invest in factories in Singapore. The fact that textiles were not under strict quotas as they are now enabled them to employ hundreds of thousands of women as seamstresses to make the clothing. The initial build-up of wealth was slow and painful. The CPF contribution initially wasn`t 20% from the workers; I believe it was 12-15%. The employer contribution varies almost year to year based on how well the world market is doing. It has been as high as 25% but it was lowered in response to the 1997 Asian financial/currency crisis. The Singapore Mass Rapid Transit system was conceived as a tool for full employment during the recession of 1982-84. This kind of rapid reaction to the marketplace is what distinguishes Singapore. That is why a civil servant there could run Singapore Airlines successfully as a business whereas PIA and AI (variously called Please Inform Allah and Allah Informed!) lose money. The most pathetic news is that the government in India is asking foreign companies to run bus services in New Delhi to cope with the transporatation load! One would think that this would be the opportunity for private Indian companies to get into the market but the craze for `phoren` is so much that we will in all likelihood have some Japanese company importing Japanese-made buses and running the services.
[For example the Central Provident Fund would be resented anywhere else as people would like to have control over investment of their savings.]
True again. The CPF paid less interest than even the Post Office Savings Bank. Singapore didn`t want anyone talking about this loss of interest income to the workers. The only good thing was that the CPF money was used to improve housing so that the people as a whole benefited. One could say that this was a reasonable trade-off. Would one want to sleep in shifts as people do in Hong Kong, so that they can share the little space they have?
The key to Singapore`s wealth is really full-employment. So long as unemployment is high, there will always be a reason to pay less than a living wage because there are others who would take the job away from a worker who demands bigger wages. The initial thrust was to pay the workers a less-than living wage in order to attract employers. By tightly controlling the raises workers can be given, the government ensures that Singapore is not priced out of the market. The other important thing is infrastructure. Good electrical power supply (for both homes and factories), good water supply, and a good telephone system all help lure foreigners. Exactly what China has done in its Special Economic Zones which is where the multi-nationals locate their factories. There is no reason a satellite city near Karachi or Bombay cannot do the same in South Asia. At least, we would have taken a first step in trying to get our large labor pool employed.
Posted by
Pu Li
Dec 20, 1999 07:46 pm
Re Zeemax #: 919 [The Singapore example cannot be generalized since it is an amalgam of widely conflicting concepts.]
True; the intervention by the state in economic activities would brand it as a Soviet system. The laissez-faire attitude toward the welfare of the people (meaning, no social safety nets for the poor; if you don`t work, you starve as there is no welfare system to support the poor) would brand it as the worst form of capitalism. The only reason the poor didn`t rise up in Communism in the early days was that Lee Kwan Yew projected himself as a leftist to get elected and promptly slapped all leftists into jail.
But one cannot deny the amount of wealth that has been created in Singapore since 1965, when it became independent. The labor surplus was not wiped out in a day; it took a long time for the multi-nationals to invest in factories in Singapore. The fact that textiles were not under strict quotas as they are now enabled them to employ hundreds of thousands of women as seamstresses to make the clothing. The initial build-up of wealth was slow and painful. The CPF contribution initially wasn`t 20% from the workers; I believe it was 12-15%. The employer contribution varies almost year to year based on how well the world market is doing. It has been as high as 25% but it was lowered in response to the 1997 Asian financial/currency crisis. The Singapore Mass Rapid Transit system was conceived as a tool for full employment during the recession of 1982-84. This kind of rapid reaction to the marketplace is what distinguishes Singapore. That is why a civil servant there could run Singapore Airlines successfully as a business whereas PIA and AI (variously called Please Inform Allah and Allah Informed!) lose money. The most pathetic news is that the government in India is asking foreign companies to run bus services in New Delhi to cope with the transporatation load! One would think that this would be the opportunity for private Indian companies to get into the market but the craze for `phoren` is so much that we will in all likelihood have some Japanese company importing Japanese-made buses and running the services.
[For example the Central Provident Fund would be resented anywhere else as people would like to have control over investment of their savings.]
True again. The CPF paid less interest than even the Post Office Savings Bank. Singapore didn`t want anyone talking about this loss of interest income to the workers. The only good thing was that the CPF money was used to improve housing so that the people as a whole benefited. One could say that this was a reasonable trade-off. Would one want to sleep in shifts as people do in Hong Kong, so that they can share the little space they have?
The key to Singapore`s wealth is really full-employment. So long as unemployment is high, there will always be a reason to pay less than a living wage because there are others who would take the job away from a worker who demands bigger wages. The initial thrust was to pay the workers a less-than living wage in order to attract employers. By tightly controlling the raises workers can be given, the government ensures that Singapore is not priced out of the market. The other important thing is infrastructure. Good electrical power supply (for both homes and factories), good water supply, and a good telephone system all help lure foreigners. Exactly what China has done in its Special Economic Zones which is where the multi-nationals locate their factories. There is no reason a satellite city near Karachi or Bombay cannot do the same in South Asia. At least, we would have taken a first step in trying to get our large labor pool employed.
He had no Choice!
(There are two clear approaches in capitalistic systems towards macro-economy and public finance.
Both work equally well if followed consistently though both are diametrically different in their effect on socio-cultural fabric of the country....)
The model Singapore adopted is one of encouraging domestic savings while simultaneously encouraging foreign investment. Recognizing that the only advantages Singapore possessed were a deep water port in the crossroads of Asia and a cheap labor pool, the government went about improving port facilities while banning strikes or other labor action. Because of its entrepot economy (duty-free import and transshipment of almost all goods), the foreign companies found it easy to set up factories with a minimum of red-tape. This was further encouraged by subsidies such as tax holidays for labor intensive industries. This enabled the city-state to absorb its labor surplus. After starting out in low-tech industries such as manufacturing ready-made clothing and light assembly, this enabled Singapore to move into other industries. Domestic savings resulted when a payroll tax compulsorily withheld 20% of salaries towards retirement benefits.
(The other system is a socio-democratic welfare system....The most successful examples of this system are the Scandanavian countries, and Britain to some extent.)
In Britain at least, the nationalization started after WWII, when wealth had been already built up under the previous laissez-faire system for over 200 years. This only resulted in a society where there was no incentive to work hard. All that was required was to keep the enterprise going or to run it down slowly. Having done this over a 30 year period, it was a shock to the system when Margaret Thatcher came in demanding to de-nationalize the industries. Sure, there were excesses in the laiisez-faire system during the Great Depression of the 1930s (which affected the entire world, not just the US). But the pendulum swung too far under the post-War Labor governments.
(I think it was Lyndon B Johnson who had remarked `` Give me a one-handed economist...)
Truman.
(It was Communism which brought China out of an opium induced slumber. Pure Capitalism has done wonders for the above stated countries as well as scores of others.)
Singapore is primarily Soviet Russia (state capitalism) with foreign investment. The Singapore government has its finger in every pie in that country.
(Given more time for that system to run the wealth would doubtlessly have trickled down.)
Didnt happen in South Korea. Look at all the labor riots thay have had recently.
(The $ 32 billion of our foreign debt is not evidenced anywhere in State assets built up with that amount.)
True and true of India too where the losses incurred by the public sector is hundreds of billions of dollars. I attribute it all to lack of accountability and the opinion that a civil servant is capable of running a modern complex business enterprise. Then, anybody with a modicum of common sense who manages to make something less than hash of an enterprise is hailed as a hero. Most of the heads of public enterprises in South Asia would be hard put to find employment as village idiots elsewhere. Maybe I am too harsh here; perhaps they WILL get employment as village idiots.
Posted by
Pu Li
Dec 20, 1999 12:31 am
Re Zeemax #: 915 (There are two clear approaches in capitalistic systems towards macro-economy and public finance.
Both work equally well if followed consistently though both are diametrically different in their effect on socio-cultural fabric of the country....)
The model Singapore adopted is one of encouraging domestic savings while simultaneously encouraging foreign investment. Recognizing that the only advantages Singapore possessed were a deep water port in the crossroads of Asia and a cheap labor pool, the government went about improving port facilities while banning strikes or other labor action. Because of its entrepot economy (duty-free import and transshipment of almost all goods), the foreign companies found it easy to set up factories with a minimum of red-tape. This was further encouraged by subsidies such as tax holidays for labor intensive industries. This enabled the city-state to absorb its labor surplus. After starting out in low-tech industries such as manufacturing ready-made clothing and light assembly, this enabled Singapore to move into other industries. Domestic savings resulted when a payroll tax compulsorily withheld 20% of salaries towards retirement benefits.
(The other system is a socio-democratic welfare system....The most successful examples of this system are the Scandanavian countries, and Britain to some extent.)
In Britain at least, the nationalization started after WWII, when wealth had been already built up under the previous laissez-faire system for over 200 years. This only resulted in a society where there was no incentive to work hard. All that was required was to keep the enterprise going or to run it down slowly. Having done this over a 30 year period, it was a shock to the system when Margaret Thatcher came in demanding to de-nationalize the industries. Sure, there were excesses in the laiisez-faire system during the Great Depression of the 1930s (which affected the entire world, not just the US). But the pendulum swung too far under the post-War Labor governments.
(I think it was Lyndon B Johnson who had remarked `` Give me a one-handed economist...)
Truman.
(It was Communism which brought China out of an opium induced slumber. Pure Capitalism has done wonders for the above stated countries as well as scores of others.)
Singapore is primarily Soviet Russia (state capitalism) with foreign investment. The Singapore government has its finger in every pie in that country.
(Given more time for that system to run the wealth would doubtlessly have trickled down.)
Didnt happen in South Korea. Look at all the labor riots thay have had recently.
(The $ 32 billion of our foreign debt is not evidenced anywhere in State assets built up with that amount.)
True and true of India too where the losses incurred by the public sector is hundreds of billions of dollars. I attribute it all to lack of accountability and the opinion that a civil servant is capable of running a modern complex business enterprise. Then, anybody with a modicum of common sense who manages to make something less than hash of an enterprise is hailed as a hero. Most of the heads of public enterprises in South Asia would be hard put to find employment as village idiots elsewhere. Maybe I am too harsh here; perhaps they WILL get employment as village idiots.
He had no Choice!
[I think the case of Ustad Bade Ghulam Ali Khan is a similar one. His dadra, thumris and bhajans singing were so good that many Pakistanis were regreting later for their treatment of him, practically forcing him to migrate to India.]
Did he live in West Punjab before the Partition? I didn`t know that.
Ustad Bade Ghulam Ali Khan was so highly respected in India, the story goes, that when he visited Madras for a music conference, a leading South Indian musician, and a Brahmin at that, prostrated himself at the Ustad`s feet as a mark of respect to the Ustad`s musical scholarship.
In the last few years, All India Radio released several of the Ustad`s early radio concerts on CDs. The selling price is so ridiculously low: just 85 rupees a CD. Even in the US, they can be had for just $4 - $7. I for one am grateful to All India Radio for making his music available.
Posted by
Pu Li
Dec 15, 1999 04:08 pm
Re SameerJB #: 843 [I think the case of Ustad Bade Ghulam Ali Khan is a similar one. His dadra, thumris and bhajans singing were so good that many Pakistanis were regreting later for their treatment of him, practically forcing him to migrate to India.]
Did he live in West Punjab before the Partition? I didn`t know that.
Ustad Bade Ghulam Ali Khan was so highly respected in India, the story goes, that when he visited Madras for a music conference, a leading South Indian musician, and a Brahmin at that, prostrated himself at the Ustad`s feet as a mark of respect to the Ustad`s musical scholarship.
In the last few years, All India Radio released several of the Ustad`s early radio concerts on CDs. The selling price is so ridiculously low: just 85 rupees a CD. Even in the US, they can be had for just $4 - $7. I for one am grateful to All India Radio for making his music available.
He had no Choice!
The misrule in terms of accumulation of personal wealth did not end with the appointment of Warren Hastings as governor-general of India. In fact, he is the only governor-general to face impeachment proceedings in the House of Commons. He accumulated as much personal wealth as Clive or anybody else, who were referred to as nabobs (nawabs) in England.
Mason says that the Mughal kings and their successors took 33% of the produce as revenues from the peasants. However, this was a nominal figure and was never actually achieved due to a variety of reasons. Mason claims that the British lowered this to 20% and later to 10%, thus motivating the peasant to work harder as he was able to keep more of the fruits of his labor. Of course, by stopping annexations of princely states in 1857 after the Sepoy Mutiny, those peasants left in the princely states continued to pay exorbitant land tax/rent to their kings.
Mason also mentions the extensive irrigation work undertaken in Punjab by the British and the settling os peasants in the newly irrigated land, which was a desert before that time. He also talks about the famine relief work undertaken by the British and does blame the Bengal Famine of 1942 on poor planning by the district authorities.
The British ruled India with a very small group of civil servants. These were dedicated, incorruptible, and in many instances were the only neutral arbiters of justice among competing claims by native Indians. They functioned as tax colectors, engineers laying out roads and canals, magistrates who dispensed justice, and town planners who created parks and other amenities. There was really no check on their authority because the British sincerely believed that the ICS was incorruptible. When the British left and were replaced with local people, the politicians in both India and Pakistan figured out that they could give any orders to the civil servants and they will be carried out. This is the cause of corruption in the subcontinent. There are few legal checks and balances against misrule by the rulers. While such a system was convenient for the British both to subjugate the people with massive force if necessary and to minimize the cost of administraion, the corrupt politicians we elect today use them to their advantage by looting the public treasury and by favoring one group over another.
In some sense, by not educating more people, the British did a disservice to their colonies. But then, in their own country, the landed gentry used to lord it over the rest of the population and they thought this is the natural order of things. Considering that the ICS officers were primarily the sons of impoverished genteel folks, this probably was a natural outcome of their personal inclination towards benevolent rule by autocrats. The Indian population accepted it because it was an improvement over what they had experienced before and because they were used to despotic rule. It was the English-educated elite of India that felt the sting of British racism and led the demand for independence.
Posted by
Pu Li
Nov 30, 1999 01:24 am
``The Men Who Ruled India`` by Philip Mason is a good summary of British rule in India. He treats extensively the land settlement in the Madras and Bengal Presidencies as well as the rule of Punjab by the Lawrence brothers. The real major flaw in that book is that it paints every Britisher as having nothing but the best of intentions toward their Indian subjects.The misrule in terms of accumulation of personal wealth did not end with the appointment of Warren Hastings as governor-general of India. In fact, he is the only governor-general to face impeachment proceedings in the House of Commons. He accumulated as much personal wealth as Clive or anybody else, who were referred to as nabobs (nawabs) in England.
Mason says that the Mughal kings and their successors took 33% of the produce as revenues from the peasants. However, this was a nominal figure and was never actually achieved due to a variety of reasons. Mason claims that the British lowered this to 20% and later to 10%, thus motivating the peasant to work harder as he was able to keep more of the fruits of his labor. Of course, by stopping annexations of princely states in 1857 after the Sepoy Mutiny, those peasants left in the princely states continued to pay exorbitant land tax/rent to their kings.
Mason also mentions the extensive irrigation work undertaken in Punjab by the British and the settling os peasants in the newly irrigated land, which was a desert before that time. He also talks about the famine relief work undertaken by the British and does blame the Bengal Famine of 1942 on poor planning by the district authorities.
The British ruled India with a very small group of civil servants. These were dedicated, incorruptible, and in many instances were the only neutral arbiters of justice among competing claims by native Indians. They functioned as tax colectors, engineers laying out roads and canals, magistrates who dispensed justice, and town planners who created parks and other amenities. There was really no check on their authority because the British sincerely believed that the ICS was incorruptible. When the British left and were replaced with local people, the politicians in both India and Pakistan figured out that they could give any orders to the civil servants and they will be carried out. This is the cause of corruption in the subcontinent. There are few legal checks and balances against misrule by the rulers. While such a system was convenient for the British both to subjugate the people with massive force if necessary and to minimize the cost of administraion, the corrupt politicians we elect today use them to their advantage by looting the public treasury and by favoring one group over another.
In some sense, by not educating more people, the British did a disservice to their colonies. But then, in their own country, the landed gentry used to lord it over the rest of the population and they thought this is the natural order of things. Considering that the ICS officers were primarily the sons of impoverished genteel folks, this probably was a natural outcome of their personal inclination towards benevolent rule by autocrats. The Indian population accepted it because it was an improvement over what they had experienced before and because they were used to despotic rule. It was the English-educated elite of India that felt the sting of British racism and led the demand for independence.
Autobiography of a Forgotten Indian
[Well my friend in secular school why is sanskrit
taught? Even though it has no scope at all other than furthering one`s education in hinduism. How come no ``secular`` schools teach arabic, which has more scope in the real world?]
The required languages in school would be English, Hindi and the local language. In the Hindi belt, since they already are studying Hindi, the third language might be Sanskrit or Urdu because there is no way they are going to teach Tamil or Telugu in UP. Sanskrit would win over Urdu among non-Muslims because the script is the same as for Hindi and so there is one thing less to learn. For the rest of India, Sanskrit is an optional language for students. My brother’s sons studied Sanskrit for 6 years or more in school, went on to Electrical engineering or Biochemistry in college and Computer Science in graduate school. They are not using Sanskrit for any purpose whatsoever. This is probably true of 95% of students who pick Sanskrit. Also because it is taught at such an elementary level you get good grades and get to boost your scores. The few students who finish sixth grade or so and enroll in schools that teach the Vedas are considered losers and do so because their parents cannot afford to feed them. The only jobs they can get would be as a priest in a temple or as a free-lancer who comes to homes for pujas. These guys used to starve to death for lack of jobs. So, don’t think that these guys are turning out to be like the Hindu version of the Taliban. The comparison isn’t there.
Why Sanskrit and not Arabic? Sanskrit is the root language for North Indian languages like Latin is to European languages. That is why European and American schools have Latin in their curriculum. Does Arabic have anything to do with Indian languages?
[Can you please inform me if RELIGION is not part of the curriculum, how come Indian school curriculum is full of reference to hindu reformers (Swami Vivekanand etc) or Hindu king/queens. How come Emperor Aurangzeb is demonized, and Akbar is put on the pedestal? Is it because Aurangzeb was a pious muslim, whose foe was Shivaji a devout maratha hindu and Akbar was a muslim by name only, who invented his own religion and whose top minister Birbal was a hindu? How come when it
suits the Hindu academia, they are secular when the subject is of hindu flavor and then cling to their religion when the muslim is shown in
favorable light?]
Indian history is going to include Hindu reformers. After all, didn’t Arya Samaj, Brahma Samaj, etc., campaign to abolish child marriages and sati, promote widow remarriage, etc.? Shouldn’t students learn that or ahould they be taught that every progressive thought came only from Englishmen?
Regarding Aurangzeb, if you tell anybody that he was a great king because he was so pious that he discriminated against Hindus but Akbar was bad because he employed a Hindu minister and married a Rajput princess, people are going to have a serious problem digesting that particular bit of logic. A king is supposed to treat all his subjects alike and that is why Asoka, Harsha or Akbar are held out to be model kings. Let us turn the tables: how would you like for Aurangzeb to be quoted as an example and the Indian government levies a special tax on Muslims today? If we teach students that Aurangzeb was a wonderful king, that could be the logical result.
[Where do you get the absurd idea of if one reads or learns Qu`raan then he does not have the mental capability to study science?]
Hindus have the choice of learning their Vedas. Even 50 years ago, Brahmin children in small villages would go to the river banks for an hour of Veda recitation and then go off to regular school. I don’t think there are many villages where that happens today. The Hindus have lost 90% of their Vedas just in the last 200 years. The Vedas were never written down; they have to be transmitted orally because the inflections and accents were critical; the Sama Veda has to be sung and there was no way to notate the music. Are Hindus concerned about their loss? Perhaps some pandits and Sanskrit scholars. Does anybody else give a hoot? No. If that one hour of reciting Vedas could be used to prepare for the IIT entrance exams, that is what a kid would do and his parents would approve. If, as a Muslim father, you believe that you must personally see to the survival of the Qu’raan, feel free to do so. But don’t complain if your kid has 365 hours less a year to study for his competitive exams. In your shoes, I would simply say that the Qu’raan is safe as it is written down, there are thousands of mullahs from Morocco to Malaysia to safeguard it, and my kid is going to computer class for that hour.
[Can you tell what is the percentage of muslims are employed in govt services? Negligible. Why? You can`t control them , if they are successful.]
How about getting a good education, such as degree in medicine so you can be in private practice and not depend on government handouts? I am not talking about unani medicine, either.
[Muslims in India are responsible for their predictament. They are abandoning the way of Islam, or busy doing bida`h. I am sorry to
generalize but that seems the case. For us to wake up, we have to revert to the way of Allah (SWT) and his Prophet (PBUH). This is true for all
the Muslims. We have to educate our future generations in Islam and importance of education.]
What is the way of the Prophet? How are we going to live according to his precepts in today’s world? You can spend several lifetimes researching this and probably arrive at a very satisfactory answer or get on with your life, adjusting to the events around you. Christians in the West and the Japanese have done it, the Chinese and the Hindus are doing it and Muslims have to figure out what they are going to do to live in a modern world which they cannot control. The model seems to be Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or the reactions we read about in Turkey, Algeria, etc. Not a pleasant choice, I am sorry to say.
Posted by
Pu Li
Nov 11, 1999 02:11 pm
Reply adsmfg #: 43 [Well my friend in secular school why is sanskrit
taught? Even though it has no scope at all other than furthering one`s education in hinduism. How come no ``secular`` schools teach arabic, which has more scope in the real world?]
The required languages in school would be English, Hindi and the local language. In the Hindi belt, since they already are studying Hindi, the third language might be Sanskrit or Urdu because there is no way they are going to teach Tamil or Telugu in UP. Sanskrit would win over Urdu among non-Muslims because the script is the same as for Hindi and so there is one thing less to learn. For the rest of India, Sanskrit is an optional language for students. My brother’s sons studied Sanskrit for 6 years or more in school, went on to Electrical engineering or Biochemistry in college and Computer Science in graduate school. They are not using Sanskrit for any purpose whatsoever. This is probably true of 95% of students who pick Sanskrit. Also because it is taught at such an elementary level you get good grades and get to boost your scores. The few students who finish sixth grade or so and enroll in schools that teach the Vedas are considered losers and do so because their parents cannot afford to feed them. The only jobs they can get would be as a priest in a temple or as a free-lancer who comes to homes for pujas. These guys used to starve to death for lack of jobs. So, don’t think that these guys are turning out to be like the Hindu version of the Taliban. The comparison isn’t there.
Why Sanskrit and not Arabic? Sanskrit is the root language for North Indian languages like Latin is to European languages. That is why European and American schools have Latin in their curriculum. Does Arabic have anything to do with Indian languages?
[Can you please inform me if RELIGION is not part of the curriculum, how come Indian school curriculum is full of reference to hindu reformers (Swami Vivekanand etc) or Hindu king/queens. How come Emperor Aurangzeb is demonized, and Akbar is put on the pedestal? Is it because Aurangzeb was a pious muslim, whose foe was Shivaji a devout maratha hindu and Akbar was a muslim by name only, who invented his own religion and whose top minister Birbal was a hindu? How come when it
suits the Hindu academia, they are secular when the subject is of hindu flavor and then cling to their religion when the muslim is shown in
favorable light?]
Indian history is going to include Hindu reformers. After all, didn’t Arya Samaj, Brahma Samaj, etc., campaign to abolish child marriages and sati, promote widow remarriage, etc.? Shouldn’t students learn that or ahould they be taught that every progressive thought came only from Englishmen?
Regarding Aurangzeb, if you tell anybody that he was a great king because he was so pious that he discriminated against Hindus but Akbar was bad because he employed a Hindu minister and married a Rajput princess, people are going to have a serious problem digesting that particular bit of logic. A king is supposed to treat all his subjects alike and that is why Asoka, Harsha or Akbar are held out to be model kings. Let us turn the tables: how would you like for Aurangzeb to be quoted as an example and the Indian government levies a special tax on Muslims today? If we teach students that Aurangzeb was a wonderful king, that could be the logical result.
[Where do you get the absurd idea of if one reads or learns Qu`raan then he does not have the mental capability to study science?]
Hindus have the choice of learning their Vedas. Even 50 years ago, Brahmin children in small villages would go to the river banks for an hour of Veda recitation and then go off to regular school. I don’t think there are many villages where that happens today. The Hindus have lost 90% of their Vedas just in the last 200 years. The Vedas were never written down; they have to be transmitted orally because the inflections and accents were critical; the Sama Veda has to be sung and there was no way to notate the music. Are Hindus concerned about their loss? Perhaps some pandits and Sanskrit scholars. Does anybody else give a hoot? No. If that one hour of reciting Vedas could be used to prepare for the IIT entrance exams, that is what a kid would do and his parents would approve. If, as a Muslim father, you believe that you must personally see to the survival of the Qu’raan, feel free to do so. But don’t complain if your kid has 365 hours less a year to study for his competitive exams. In your shoes, I would simply say that the Qu’raan is safe as it is written down, there are thousands of mullahs from Morocco to Malaysia to safeguard it, and my kid is going to computer class for that hour.
[Can you tell what is the percentage of muslims are employed in govt services? Negligible. Why? You can`t control them , if they are successful.]
How about getting a good education, such as degree in medicine so you can be in private practice and not depend on government handouts? I am not talking about unani medicine, either.
[Muslims in India are responsible for their predictament. They are abandoning the way of Islam, or busy doing bida`h. I am sorry to
generalize but that seems the case. For us to wake up, we have to revert to the way of Allah (SWT) and his Prophet (PBUH). This is true for all
the Muslims. We have to educate our future generations in Islam and importance of education.]
What is the way of the Prophet? How are we going to live according to his precepts in today’s world? You can spend several lifetimes researching this and probably arrive at a very satisfactory answer or get on with your life, adjusting to the events around you. Christians in the West and the Japanese have done it, the Chinese and the Hindus are doing it and Muslims have to figure out what they are going to do to live in a modern world which they cannot control. The model seems to be Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, or the reactions we read about in Turkey, Algeria, etc. Not a pleasant choice, I am sorry to say.
- Pu Li
- Interacts: 73
- iLogs: 0
- Gallery: 0
- Page views: 219
- Last visitor: guest
- Member since: Sep 21 1999
- Last signin: Dec 1 2008
- Send a message
- Add as friend
- Add to ignore list
- Add to block list
