A post plagued with ennui nevertheless that is the price for due diligence!
Suman: No laughing and no snickering.. please.. because young Zack Latif has informed us that he will no longer be commenting on the Indo-Pak rivalry on the Blogosphere, and will also not allow bloggers (people like me, I suppose) to continue to tarnish Pakistan's fair name. Er, news flash for Z. The Blogosphere doesn't need to do much tarnishing of Pakistan -
As always his elucidation of my statements fall shorts. My concern is not the opinion of America’s mainstream press nevertheless I will not tolerate Indians peddling their ill-conceived and ill-informed opinions concerning Pakistan and presenting them as the reality of the Sub-continent. An Indian can never know the reality of Pakistan, since our nations have diverged irreversibly and if they want to wish discuss the latter nation let them defer it to the natives rather than claiming to be self-appointed experts. Pakistan and India may belong to the geographic conception of a Sub-continent but the ground reality is that the Ganges and the Indus are distinct! Indeed I can only remember the sublime musings of Shah Wali’ullah in that the Muslims of India were travellers in a strange land dreaming of the roses, nightingales, cypress forests and running springs of Iran and Central Asia.
mainstream media here in the US is doing a fair job of it.
America policy towards Pakistan is borne out of strategic and historic conditions, indeed President Bush is in his terrorism central has created a desk solely concerning Pakistan. Pakistan will be further entwined with the States despite the rants of Jim Hoagland or Sumit Ganguly since America instinctively realises that Pakistan is astride the geopolitical apex of the world (or Middle Asia as I like to call it). The liberal American media has little factual basis from which to comment on the Sub-continent since they recycle the garbage the Indians present to them (I will post shortly an interesting tract by a Pakistani accounting for the hostility of Pakistan by the American press).
Indeed despite the Indian bias, America spurned India’s offer and requested Pakistani facilities in the war against terror. Suman, I would put the fate of my nation’s alliance with America in the hands of Mr Bush rather than Mr Hoagland! Perhaps if the Indian diplomatic corp thought along similar lines, there would be some tangible aspect to Indo-US relations instead of strewn unread articles wasting away in a web-site. Indeed I wish this this articles formed the underlying doctrine for Indian engagement with Pakistan.
Pakistan's role as a clandestine supplier shatters the Bush administration's efforts to paint that country as a flawed but well-meaning member of the coalition against terror. Pakistan today is the most dangerous place on Earth, in large part because the administration does not understand the forces it is dealing with there and has no policy to contain them. Pervez Musharraf's Pakistan is a base from which nuclear technology, fundamentalist terrorism and life-destroying heroin are spread around the globe. American and French citizens and Christians of any nationality, including Pakistani, are indiscriminately slaughtered by fanatics as occasion arises. This nuclear-armed country is in part ungoverned, in part ungovernable.
Jim Hoagland has no grasp of reality! “Indiscriminately slaughtered”, what fine use of fallacious lexicon. Assertions form the basis for his article and his hyperbole makes it unworthy to respond to! Muslims were indiscriminately slaughtered in Gujarat, whilst in Pakistan the perpetrators of the church massacres are on death row. Indeed equivocating the terrorism against Christian churches as that of the failure of Pakistan is akin to claiming that America's negligence caused September 11! How many of the Hindus and Muslims involved in the crimes during the Gujarat and Godhra massacres are in jail and on death row? Indeed yesterday church attack has resulted in the immediate arrest of 4 suspects!
“Pakistan is ungoverned or ungovernable!”
This is exactly the sort of statements that Indians want to read to bolster their indoctrinated perception of Pakistan!!! Nonetheless I’m sorry to inform that Pakistan is on the whole a well-governed nation and more integrated than India for instance, where the turbulent North-East or the indigenous tribals out of the central government’s loop. Pakistan's North West Frontier Province is notorious , which even the British coudl not subdue successfully and could ont bring under governance. The writ of British Empire beyond Attock was never fully established and the first Anglo-Afghan war in 1842 resulted in the disastrous retreat from Kabul by the British forces. The Anglo-Afghan wars testify to the fact that even the British could not control Afghania and its tribal population whilst Pakistan has actively integrated the Pathans into the national framework. It is from this most "ungovernable province" that 400 of the Al Qaeda prisoners, who presently languish in Guantanamo Bay, were caught by the Pakistan army and handed over to the American authorities. The writ of law has been established and it was this region for which Rudyard Kipling famously uttered, "when you are wounded and left, on Afghanistan's plains and the women come out, to cut up your remains just roll on your rifle, and blow out your brains, and go to your Gawd, like a soldier."
Would India, with its abysmal record in Kashmir, be able to handle the daunting task of subduing these fierce tribals?
He has paid no price for lying to Powell about ending terrorism in Kashmir or about cooperating fully in crushing al Qaeda.
Hoagland lost any of his residual credibility by issuing this outrageous statement! “Pakistan inhibited the pursuit of Al Qaeda”, does he not know that it was through explicit (& implicit) Pakistani cooperation that the FBI were able to launch raids & successfully capture key Qaeda operatives. Irredentist activities will not cease in Kashmir until India accedes to a referendum for that oppressed populace thus one can place the onus upon Pakistan for providing moral and logistic support to indigenous rebels! India has such precedents when it covertly aided, the Chittagong and Tamil Nadu terrorists! Nations will inevitably seek to participate in the freedom struggles to gain a geopolitical advantage and thus Pakistan cannot be blamed for India's failures to quell the rebellion.
Pakistan's government, led by an unreliable military clique
I suggest Suman read my archives, where I have routinely discussed the benefits of military rule. Our “unreliable military clique” coheres our nation even further and provides for the infusion of British values! (here, here, here, here & here)
The unwillingness of Pakistan's elite to induce political reform has ill-served American interests... the effect of uncritical U.S. aid has been to extend and strengthen the violent grip of the Pakistani military.
A propos what is the qualitative and instinctual aspect of democratic rule that makes it intrinsically superior to other forms of governance? Checks and balances have evolved in Pakistani politics and the excesses of power are always averted in Pakistan. Musharraf may have usurped power but that does negate his following successes!
military rule in Pakistan, particularly under Zia, spawned many of the groups that the United States now so ardently seeks to eliminate.
“Pakistan spawned many of the groups that the United States now so ardently seeks to eliminate!” America gave the green light to Pakistan to train and support the jihadis during the Cold War. Resting upon the shoulders of Pakistan the guilt of Osama and Al Qaeda is not only fallacious but darned annoying since it is a perversion of the historical truth.
This error is all the more tragic because only the United States can force Pakistan to reorder its domestic and external priorities. In the absence of substantial American economic assistance, diplomatic support, and multilateral loans, Pakistan would plunge into economic distress and social dislocation.
Most nations without multilateral loans would fall into a crisis condition thus the statement is not as dire. Let us treat the underlying dynamics of Pakistan’s economy as I tie in Suman’s following passage:
Z. likes to think of his country as an economic powerhouse poised to break into the world in a big way. I understand why he so badly wants to think so. The reality has always been that Pakistan's economy is the result of massive US aid into the country almost since inception, and continues to be the primary reason why it's economy still prospers the way it does..
Primarily I see it as a strength of Pakistan that 97% of the 5mn strong Pakistani diaspora continue to send money back home. It is an indication of the strength and optimism of the Pakistan economy & polity!
Funnelling hawala into legal and formal channels strengthened the capital flows into the Pakistani economy and thereby led to the rapid appreciation of the rupee. It is of great consequence to note that despite the turbulence of last year (threat of war with India and terrorism in NWFP), Pakistanis still choose to send their funds back home! The infusion of dollars in a time of uncertainty shows that Pakistan has a very active diaspora.
Pakistan is an economy akin to Italy, where there is a underlying informal economy that accounts for most of domestic output. This is exactly what Hernando De Soto, the famed economist, has discussed “the enormous entrepreneurial energies of the poor, and that they know better than any policymaker how to improve their lot”. The extra legal activities do not imply an anarchic nation nevertheless just that the regulatory policies have not captured the shifting dynamics of the population. Pakistan has been adapting its legal structure to incorporate this huge swathe of the economy into its formal sector nevertheless that is the inevitable process for a progression from third world to first world. Contrast this to India where over regulation (McKinsey articles require free subscription) has resulted in the systematic exclusion of the private industry and artificial hikes in property prices (land in Bombay costs more than in Shangai!).
Pakistan, by not adopting socialist policies and promotion of the national industry at the cost of trade (as India) encouraged foreign investments. This developed the sugar (our side of the Punjab had only one sugar caning factory compared to 70 now), textile (two textile factories to 980 now) and cotton industry. The total Pakistan economy predicated on PPP, is $125bn and would be even larger if one included the informal and unregulated sectors. Per capita (based on PPP, important factor to assess) hovers around 2000$ and standards of living is much higher than in say India. The PPP calculations are instructive in that they allow us to assess the comparative conditions in each of the two economies. The Rupees appreciation should in fact precipitate a larger standard of living increase according to the more orthodox measures.
It is instructive in any assessment of the Pakistani economy to view its origin during 1947. The high percentage of indebtedness is rooted in the fact that the dearth of infrastructure required massive investments by the federal government. At the time of partition the electrical output of Pakistan was 200 MegaWatts compared to 14000 now, which implies the thermal and hydral energy generated has been immense.
West Pakistan and Bangladesh were the fringe economies of British India. The West Punjab had only been a British Presidency for a century before Independence thus the nascent Pakistani economy’s only redeeming virtue was the canal colonies. Pakistan was bereft of the facilities that other nations, including India, could take for granted. There were no metal roads, the infrastructure was abysmal, there were no doctors (my grandfather was one of 6 in the Sindh province) and the civil servants were Muhajirs. Pakistan’s precariousness at the time of independence and its established position now make it a nation that has progressed further than India (Pakistan’s GDP, that of Pakistan & Bangladesh, was 3.2% of the economy British India before 1947 and now West Pakistan forms 22% of the joint Indo-Pak GDP).
Thus our economic achievements are many however Pakistan is still fundamentally an agrarian economy. The economic cycles correlates with crop output and the late 90’s resulted in low economic growth because of low yields and famine. Nevertheless Pakistan has fertile land per capita far exceeding India and unlike the latter does not have the mass concentration of population in deprived regions. Pakistanis tend to be nutritionally balanced (two HDI reports for Pakistan & India) and though they are less literate, our economy exhibits a more international flavour (trade forms a greater percentage of GDP) and the general Pakistani population is much healthier than Indians. Pakistan’s infrastructure is generally better than India and surprisingly Pakistani women received the right to vote & stand for officer earlier than Indian women (1947 compared to 1950).
result of massive US aid into the country almost since inception, and continues to be the primary reason why it's economy still prospers the way it does..
As to American aid, India receives double the aid of Pakistan and the Pakistani economy has grown to such an extent that now aid only accounts for only 1.1% of GDP (compared to 0.3% in India) having weaned off it from a high of 2.8% in the 90’s.
Finally not so much related to economics but to politics is the “price of independence”! Pakistan spends 5.8% of its GDP on the defence because that is the sacrifice we must make to safeguard the nation from overbearing neighbours. The defense burden has contributed to a higher proportion of the total debts (Pakistan 4.6% and India 2.2%) nevertheless it is a necessary?
Does Pakistan want to maintain its sovereignty or does it want to be Nepal? Resisting a nation of a billion makes Pakistan an indebted nation! India is chagrined that they can not make Pakistan a satellite (Suman especially!) and the reason is 500 planes of the Pakistani air force (stronger than the Indian Air Force) and a fledging, nay fully developed, nuclear program. The price we pay for national independence and the ability to muster ourselves to withstand feeble Indian threats. Independence is a precarious balance and Iraq violated Kuwait’s on Aug’90 whilst India tried to do the same in 1965. This was a war Pakistan emerged victorious because the fortifications of Lahore were able to repel Indian invaders. Such a nation disparity would have ensured the succumbing of Pakistan nevertheless that was not so. Pakistan is the smaller nation and to remain the geopolitical equal of India, as we continue to remain, then we must be prepared for the debt burden.
Zack does not need to look to (Indian) bloggers like myself to watch his nation get slammed around in the eyes of the world. His beloved leaders who he believes will lead Pakistan to strength after strength are doing it all by themselves..
Pakistan’s leaders will indeed lead it from strength to strength whilst Indians will rely on a powerless left-leaning media to parrot its cause. Pakistan may be attacked nevertheless our critical role underpinning the global order implies that we are a nation of immense worth, unlike our fringe neighbours. A nation of 140mn continually outwits that of a billion, a feat unparalleled thus Suman and Indian webloggers should try to treat Pakistan with a modicum of respect!
The fate of Islam, and the myth of racial memory..!:
I would argue that the best hope for Islam (at least in the Central Asian context) is not Pakistan, but Iran, a country on the throes of reforming not just its religous face, but almost everything. It is Iran which has the greatest potential for influencing the rest of the Arab-Muslim world. In the east, I would put my money on Indonesia, or Malaysia, as Muslim countries to watch for.
I am of Zoroastrian ancestry; I converse in Persian rather than Urdu (since it is my mother's language) and I’ve actually been to Iran. Nevertheless I still continue with my “assertion” that Pakistan is the greatest hope for Islam as opposed to tottering Iran. I have discussed Iran and Islam at length in my archives, (here, and especially here).
Iran is a hierarchical society, and indeed Tehrani university students will not determine the course of that nation. The disparity between the rural and urban areas as in the Shah’s time no longer exists, with the infusion of funds into the countryside and the stagnation of the cities. The theocracy commands a fanatical support amongst the grass root population and the sway of the mullah still holds strong from Eslamabad (a town in Western Iran) to Kerman. Iran is following its inherent evolution as a theocracy and reflects the national propensity for fanaticism, as I argued earlier.
Islam is evolving in these nations in ways that would be unthinkable in Pakistan! Far from being the savior of Islamic practice, Pakistan may become a relic of the old ways, as Islamic fundamentalists driven from other countries make their home in its lawless frontier areas. Z-man goes on to claim..
“Islam is evolving in these nations in ways that would be unthinkable in Pakistan!” interesting in light of the fact that Pakistanis are authoring articles in Pakistani newspapers, where they criticise Islamic civilisation (or the lack thereof) and Osama Bin Laden.
I believe the Blogsphere in general should not make fluffy pronouncements about Iran because Vogue stated that a few Iranian women were donning makeup underneath their Hijab.
Pakistan is where the evolution of Islam will take place not in Iran, where reformist newspapers are shut almost immediately, or in fringe “Islamdoms” in Central Asia & East Asia. Pakistan is the living heart and the hegemonic power of the Islamic Crescent. Pakistan provide the intellectual dynamism, military & nuclear power, economic weight and religious authority to Islam otherwise without such a nation Dar-ul-Islam would be a meaningless concept.
Bihar Syndrome marching across their lands. Imagine that.. ten thousand years of culture and they end up the rotten apple at the bottom of the barrel..!
Equivocating the god-forsaken state of Bihar with that of Pakistan is inherently fallacious. Pakistan, through embrace of Islam, broke free of the hierarchical affliction that besets India and Iran.
(To be historically accurate the imperial kingdom of Magdha is situated in Jharkhand and that state recently culminated because of an established elite. Nevertheless it would still be instructive to examine the dynamics of Bihar.)
Caste has regulated the society to the minutiae and the seedlings of unrest trace to the discontent of indentures towards their landlords. The Kingdom of Maghda and most of Bihari civilisation has been perennially centred amongst the elite, which inhibited the development of a more egalitarian society. A lopsided civilisation, where that legacy is concentrated solely amongst the upper crusts will inevitably lead to violence.
Indeed culture and history in the Sub-continent, west of the Thar desert, has always been clearly demarcated by caste and religion. The preponderance of lower castes in Bihar implies that the society is not one cohered by a common history, rooted in Maghda, but rather one beset by centuries, if not millennia, of caste oppression. This is the legacy of the Biharis, who form private armies and gangs, and is indicative of the failing of Indian culture.
Though Islamic civilisation is ridden with faults, it has redeeming virtues. Muslims perceive themselves to share a common history and legacy unlike in Hinduism where the Dalit must continually pay his obeisance to the Brahman. What use is Maghda to Biharis, when all they know of that their ancestors were continually enslaved by the clean (twice or thrice borne) castes.
Suman attempts to counter my argument by referring to the failings of his culture. Peculiar strategy!!!
Since 1947, the percentage of Hindus in Pakistan has dwindled from 23% to less than 1%.
Suman attempts to disprove Pakistan’s tolerance by referring to fudged and unclear figures. Partition ensued in 5million Hindus & Sikhs fleeing West Pakistan whilst 7million Indian Muslims were absorbed (Bangladesh expelled 2mn Hindus and took in a million Muslims). West Pakistan had a population of 30mn at the time, thus the non-Muslim percentage would have been dramatically altered by the single incident of Partition (the prosperous Hindu population of Karachi remained after Partition nevertheless began emigrating in the 60’s & 70’s because of that city’s altered nature).
Pakistan's minority population before Parittion were established urbanites, who chose to flee the country and consequently were a significant loss to Pakistan. Their economic capital greatly benefited the urbanisation drive in East Punjab and Haryana (Chandigarh is populated primarily by those who fled Pakistan).
I cannot speak for Bangladesh, nevertheless it had always had a higher Hindu minority as compared to Pakistan. Thus further so the independence of Bangladesh would have rapidly precipitated a decline in the Hindu percentage of Pakistan. The implication of the passage is unclear as to whether pre-1973 Pakistan refers to West Pakistan or the entire state? Suman has given an unclear and vague passage in his attack, which must be disregarded.
Pakistan’s Hindus underwent mass conversions to Christianity (who are allowed to proselytise without constant government and rightist interferences as in India) because they are the scheduled castes. Hinduism falters in Pakistan because Hindus elsewhere neither support nor sympathise with untouchables\ Dalits. After all Dalits are not Pandits and thus Indians will not rally to support their “Hindu” brethren.
Christian missionaries are now addressing the theological and economic dearth for Pakistani Hindis, following the emigration of the upper-castes during Partition (just as the pioneers of my religion exploit the situation of the Dalits in India to gain converts). Christianity, being more dynamic, allows for the rapid progression and assimilation for Hindu converts. Hindu (and their kin, the Christians who are of Hindu descent) form 4% of the Pakistani population thus it is not a community, in danger of extinction.
Nevertheless in Pakistan, the Hindu minority (especially the Christians) is embracing education and making significant inroads. Imagine a Dalit minority progressing in Pakistan, when the former are continually oppressed in India thus even when it comes to treating our Hindu citizens the former has a more admirable record. For from rustic origins Hindus are now establishing a presence in the Pakistani consciousness. As Suman has failed to acknowledged the strength of Pakistan's progress when the chief justice of the supreme court is a Hindu! Is there a similar parallel to be found in India, with it's 140mn strong Muslim minority?
From Suman's weblink: When their kindred across the border destroyed the Babri mosque in 1992, for example, Hindus in Pakistan suffered as Pakistani Muslims stormed temples and attacked Hindus.
That may be so but what is oft admitted is that the causalities were low (one Hindu citizen killed though of course this is still a blight on our nation) and that the Pakistani government immediately apportioned funds for the repair of any damaged temples, by the mob. Contrast the ruins of Babri Masjid, which were the tinder for the massacre of thousands of Muslims in Gujarat.
By contrast, the Muslim population in India has risen from 8% to nearly 18% over the same time period. (This is not evidence of religous tolerance in India, BTW, just an interesting contrast.)
The Indian Muslim minority is repeatedly understated and undercounted (many officials estimate to hover in the 20's), Muslims are dispersed through the country (heavily concentrated in some parts and there are Muslim regions such as the Lakhswadeep Islands off the Western Ghats) and it is not surprising as to the large Muslim minority (I would hazard it to be even higher, akin to the Arabs of Israel, in that they are perennially undercounted because of political tensions). Anyway why is it so that despite the preponderance of Muslims in India, they account for such a low proportion in the civil services (hovering around 1%)?
(Even in neighboring Bangladesh, it has dropped from 40% to 8%, and this *after* the Bengali genocide)
The Bengali genocide cost half a million lives (both Hindu and Muslim) thus it would not have altered the religious demography of Bangladesh.
It was the Pakistani army, see.. it was all their fault, not the fault of people. I'm so stupid! The officers and men of the Pakistani army were not Pakistanis, they were aliens from mars.. no, no, no.. they were Zionist aliens from Mars.. ahh yes, or course!).
I believe I adequately answered why Bangladesh was not genocide perpetrated by the Pakistani people. Errant Pakistani officers conducted widespread massacred as opposed to the Pakistani population. There is a fundamental difference, which must be observed. The Jewish population of Europe was exterminated because their Gentile neighbours readily collaborated with the Nazi authorities! The Pakistani people were wholly unaware of the goings-on in Bangladesh and certainly would not have condoned the military’s action.
The complaints of Pakistan’s minorities are being addressed nevertheless I fail to understand the link provided by Suman? The Hindu and Christian community have grievances, which must be addressed, nevertheless is Suman trying to imply that they are being subjected to genocide? Intolerance exhibited by Muslim Pakistanis in this day and age has no valid bearing on my statements concerning Bangladesh.
It is indicative of Suman's implicit ideological bearing whne he includes the word, "Zionist". His attempt to depict me as an anti-Semite and his continual sarcasm is indicative of his inherent biases!
400,000 Pandits would beg to disagree. There is no evidence that exists today to assure them that their lot in a Pakistan-controlled Kashmir would be luxurious and peaceful.
Pakistan only desires the Muslim Vale of Kashmir and the freedom of the Pandits would be assured just as that of the scheduled castes in Sindh. Terrorism perpetrated towards Kashmiri Pandits does not have any bearing on the internal situation of minorities in Pakistan.
The Pandits naturally were driven from their homes primarily because the voice of the Muslim-majority were ignored, for despite their clamouring to unite with Pakistan, India continued her occupation. Thus the irredentist rebellion was inevitable and it is quite amusing that Suman states, "no reason to believe their lot in POK would be luxurious and peaceful" because Indian occupation fails to guarantee this for even the Hindu population.
As I can attest from personal experience and empirical evidence Pakistan’s minorities since the recent report on Human rights in Pakistan lambasted the blasphemy law as the greatest crime against religious minorities. As enunciated before the blasphemy law has never been effected and thus it is ultimately a futile obeisance to the Islamic status quo, nothing more!
With a tiny, ghettoized minority population of Hindus and Christians, Pakistan is remarkably free of religous oppression.
Ghettoised minority? Suman must be thinking of the Muslims in India not the Hindus of Pakistan! The latter has a minority population of over 5 million (According to a local magazine, there are approximately 3 million Christians, 2.7 million Hindus, and several hundred thousand Ahmadis in the country) thus I fail to see how that is “tiny”? In any case tolerance afforded to a minority should never be correlated to the size of that minority!
Zachary Latif 16:33 latif.blogspot.com |
