Pak Tea House » Pakistan » Where we are?
Where we are?
—Yasser Latif Hamdani
From Daily Times:
Obama’s warming up to India has not gone down well with our super patriots, and rightly so. Despite 40 odd years of service to the US and now a decade-long alliance that has cost Pakistan many a life and limb, the US has now established a long-term strategic paradigm in South Asia, which sees India as a close ally and Pakistan as a nuisance at best.
Instead of going back to the drawing board and trying to understand why it is that we are increasingly unable to compete with our eastern neighbour, our super patriots have invented another self-defeating narrative. They want us to engage another 50 years in another mini-cold war around an imagined zero-sum game that pits Pakistan and China against the US and India. Even if the Americans were naïve enough to hold such ‘strategic’ hogwash as a legitimate view, neither the Indians nor the Chinese are going to buy into it. Contrary to what a naïve New York Times columnist recently wrote, the Indians know that the big truck their friend in Washington owns has a flat tyre and no spare.
This is the Asian century and enough people in India realise it, which is why there will be no confrontation between China and India — at least any confrontation that mirrors the Soviet-US clash. China is rising and the US is, at best, a fading power, in a position very similar to the British Empire after the Second World War. It will continue to be an important power like Britain but its sole superpower status has irrevocably been shaken. As it grows more multicultural, the melting pot will become less effective and consequently a more fractured polity is likely to hold the US back in the future. India therefore is more likely to play both sides instead of blindly jumping into bed with the Americans. Our response therefore should be similarly cautious.
That we have not thought things through is apparent even from our approach to China. There is little or no recognition in Pakistan that China’s might is derived not from its military but its economic might. Yet how many of our institutions of higher learning have programmes in Chinese language, culture and law? None. It is not enough that Pakistan will become a conduit of energy for western China and, subsequently, an international trade route. Pakistan must realise that it will be important to China only if it remains internally stable, united and moderate. For this to happen, Pakistan must choose a pragmatic path to international geo-politics. It can no longer fool itself with some Pan-Islamic ambition and pursue a policy of Muslim interests. Our military establishment’s cynical flirtation with Islamist groups is dangerous given the Islamist rebellion in some parts of China.
Pakistan faced the full force of Chinese pressure on the Lal Masjid issue where Chinese citizens were attacked by a band of brigands who were, for the most part, seen as a ‘strategic asset’ by our establishment.
Pakistan must realign itself internally to face external challenges and seize opportunities. The reason Pakistan was respected and sought after by the Americans in the 1950s, 1960s and some part of the 1970s was because we were ideologically soft but economically and socially a strong state. By the 1980s onwards, Pakistan has been ideologically hard but economically and socially a very weak state. In doing so we have not only alienated the Americans but our trusted friends such as the Chinese and the Turks. If things continue as they are, even the Saudis will leave us in the lurch.
If — and this is an almost impossible task — Pakistan can roll back project Islam of the Ziaist variety, which requires a major overhaul of our laws, education and media, and can present itself as a moderate, democratic and internally stable state, Pakistan is ideally placed to profit from the changing global economic and political scenario. As a long-term ally of both the US and China and having a shared past with India, Pakistan can either be doomed by history or use it wisely to create a state that exists for the benefit of its people. The latter course will not only keep Pakistan united but will allow it to become one of the most prosperous nations of this century.
However, none of this can be done if ‘independent’ courts in Pakistan sentence to death a mother of five for alleged blasphemy. In the coming days, brace yourself as the entire world condemns us for our barbaric treatment of women, and rightly so. We must make up our minds. Are we going to be a medieval dystopia that is a pariah country like the Islamic Republic of Iran — which is absolutely the worst place to live in, I can assure you — or are we going to be a normal state that the world can do business with? Those of you who question the abolition of the Blasphemy Law on religious grounds must be reminded of what a wise man once said, “Is this the first time in the history of legislation in this country that this council has been called upon to override Musalman Law or modify it to suit the time? The council has overridden and modified the Musalman Law in many respects.” The wise man in question was our founding father, Mr Mohammed Ali Jinnah. He had also cautioned against the misuse of the original Blasphemy Law — Section 295 of the Penal Code — by saying, “We must also secure this very important and fundamental principle that those who are engaged in historical works, those who are engaged in the ascertainment of truth and those who are engaged in bona fide and honest criticisms of a religion shall be protected.”
The critical factor missing in Pakistan right now is a leader — democratically elected and popular — who can play the role of a Mao or an Ataturk or a Lee Kuan Yew today. Orphaned soon after birth with Jinnah’s early demise, Pakistan has missed a legitimate strongman that India found in Nehru. I say a legitimate strongman because attempts by illegitimate tin-pots, such as Ayub, Zia and Musharraf, have only worsened our situation. That it has to be a strongman willing to put his foot down is also clear because nothing else will compose the differences of our fractured national identity or have the courage to take on the naysayers, the Islamists and the ethno-fascists who today pose a clear and present danger to this state and its writ. Abraham Lincoln played that role in the US. He was ready to go the extra mile to preserve the union because his integrity was unquestionable and that allowed him to take decisions that were necessary but unpopular such as the emancipation of slaves. Do we have such a leader in our midst, someone who is ready to take on the forces that seek to tear us asunder and then make us relevant in the new era of prosperity that is about to dawn?
Unfortunately, instead of seizing the moment, all our leaders are more concerned with the dictates of petty politics, which is neither democratic nor people-oriented. One had imagined that Zardari would — much like Heracles of Byzantium — make a surprising turnaround and show concern for the country, if for nothing else then his own legacy. Instead, sadly, he has failed to rein in opportunist elements within his own party and has persecuted instead those genuine people within the party like Sherry Rehman and Aitzaz Ahsan who could help him rewrite history. May he still find it in him to finally lead like a leader. May he roll back General Zia and his criminal assault on Pakistan decisively and not just by paying lip service to that very important goal. What is at stake is not just the future of Pakistani non-Muslims; it is the prosperity and progress of this nation.
The writer is a lawyer. He also blogs at http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com and can be reached at yasser.hamdani@gmail.com
Filed under: Pakistan
85 Responses to "Where we are?"
Leave a Reply
Recent Comments
- AKB
said @ ahem
I have never seen a bigger idiot than y... - RajTOO
said Tajender,
you copy and paste machine, do you even... - tajender
said rajtoo like anyother brhmnst u have nothing except... - RajTOO said Tajender is a pure Paki. Just because he copies an...
- ahem
said to rex
Monotheism is inherently totalitarian an... - ahem said tajender reveals himself as a tamilian muslim....
- RajTOO said Rex Minor wrote:
And I was under the...
- Rex Minor said PS
sorry for the wrong spells! I must not miss th...
- Rex Minor said And who should have thought that PTH article on "u...
- ahem said Pakistan and India both contain corruption. But In...
MJ Akbar:
“The moot point is obvious: Pakistan is Obama’s wartime ally, India merely a peacetime friend. Obama cannot afford to upset the only functioning mercenary force at the service of the Pentagon, the Pakistan army. The Pak army’s annual pay grade of about $3.5 billion is a blip on the $700 billion the Pentagon spends yearly. Israel and Egypt get as much in aid for far less work. Come to think of it, the outsourcing of IT jobs to India probably costs America more than outsourcing the Afghan war to Pakistan.”
Wonderfully argued YLH. I believe you are right on the money on India-China-US angle too.Where as playing the china card is beneficial for India in the short term for getting through the technology restrictions,the economic relations between India and china guarantee a safety valve in the long term.Pakistan,if it continues on the disastrous policies may have to face a day when even its all weather friend gangs up with India.What is even more obvious is,given its geostrategic location,Pakistan can easily be the hub through which the two most energy hungry countries which lies to its east can get there supplies from west and central asia.But it seems growth and trade are not the buzz words there,like it is in India
“But it seems growth and trade are not the buzz words there,like it is in India”
Paradoxically… there are three periods in Pakistan’s history when Pakistan was obsessed with growth and trade as buzz words…
1. Ayub Khan 1958-1964 (before he rigged the elections and made a mess of things and then launched that ill-advised Operation Gibralter).
2. Nawaz Sharif 1990-1992 and 1997-1999 (before he allowed the Pakistan Army to launch that ridiculous operation in Kargil)
3. Musharraf 1999-2002 (before he decided to play politics by first rigging elections and then messing everything up by acting like a demigod)
Of this 2 was a collective human failure because it undid the long established paradigm that democracies don’t go to war with each other.
@YLH
Excellent Summation!
Those of us here in the U.S. did notice that “heir” Obama ignored Pakistan on his recent trip. We also noticed that he came back empty handed. Everyone he spoke to on his trip gave him a response of “nyet”!
Unfortunately, if and until we do get rid of him, you can expect only the same!
Our newly elected Republican Legislative Branch will have an uphill battle against the incumbent Democrat Senatorial Branch of our Congress so I’m afraid there will be a stalemate for the next two years. We tried!
Nice article by YLH, he has shown us the future of Asia and has also shown the correct way to move forward, I can’t hope but pray that we follow it as a State.
@Caroline
Its actually not about Obama at all.
“he came back empty handed” simply because days of USA hegemony is OVER.
Its not about dems or GOP , its about DECLINE of American influence globally.
Enjoy:-
“http://www.huffingtonpost.com/juan-cole/obama-in-asia-meeting-ame_b_782364.html”
A good and well-balanced article by YLH after his bashing spree!
Keep it up, dear!
Very good analysis and predictions.. Good economy, growth and human development are the only vaccines against the infection caused by Zia’s virus..
Excellent analysis, may this article find its way into the doors of our selfish rulers.
Why specifically are my comments “awaiting moderation” (censored?). Why am I being treated like some bearded muslim at a US airport?
[...] [...]
Great article.
@ amar
All comments are being moderated from now on fortunately and unfortunately.
“The critical factor missing in Pakistan right now is a leader — democratically elected and popular — who can play the role of a Mao or an Ataturk …”
May be an oversight,as both Mao and Ataturk was not “popularly elected” or may be he was stressing some other point.
But I am not sure whether waiting for a leader of their caliber is the right solution.If somebody comes across well and good.I do not think any of the Indian leaders in the past 20 years qualify for the criteria of strong man.Infact other than Vajpayee and to an extent MMS, I am not sure whether we can call them even popular,the likes of gujral, devagowda and PVN.
Ofcourse the Indian narrative may not work for pakistan, as the challenges that India faced in the early 90s are different from what pakistan faces now.
ps:what is the moderation criteria now.is everybody moderated.would be nice if some body updates
Caroline appears to be a republican apologist.
1. Obama did come back with very specific orders for Military Hardware from India.
2. Obama did not comeback with a deal from South Korea because the South Koreans were trying to shaft us. Had it been a Republican president, he would have signed a deal where South Koreans would sell us stuff while putting barriers for us to sell them anything.
3. Strategic Genius I Pundit states that US influence in Asia is coming down. He needs to read up on erstwhile foes like Vietnam asking the US to get MORE involved in Asia because the vaccum of a US decline will be filled with China – something no Asian country wants.
4. YLH is right about there potentially not being a conflict between India and China because of the trade volume and economic ties. Indians need to realize though that the current Indo-Chinese relationship is similar to that of colony and empire. India provides raw material to China, China adds value and sells back to India. India needs massive investment in infrastructure and labor law reform to even begin to narrow the gap on manufacturing competitiveness.
5. The US – India trade relationship is far more benign for the US compared to China – US. Republicans like Caroline have consistently sold out potential American jobs to China basically through lobbying by Chamber of Commerce types.
@Talha
“All comments are being moderated from now on fortunately and unfortunately.”
I would say rather unfortunately. If amar or I or Sardar Khan cannot freely express ourselves, what’s the use of an online medium? We can all read newspapers and know what’s going on around us.
I think I am going to stop commenting.
My point was that we need a leader to play that role but he should be democratically elected.
As for “leaders of that stature”, it is not as much a question of that stature as it is of our current politicians raising their game to that stature.
You know, India and Pakistan should learn to behave like normal people. We cannot be friends – not as long as there are property disputes between us – and we will never be friends. All this aman ki asha , people-to-people-contact stuff is sheer nonsense. But is it too much to ask to stop being enemies ? Is it too much to ask to start living, co-existing peacefully ? Thats what normal people do.
And by the way Obama said one thing. That a stable Pakistan is in India’s best interests. Pakistan was stable in 1965 I believe. We got a war. Pakistan was stable in 1999 under Nawaz Sharif. We got a war. So really, it does not matter to India whether Pakistan is stable or unstable.
It is really very good analysis of current geopolitical situation viz-a-viz Pakistan.
India and China have a booming trade more than that of Indo-US. It is general understanding in India that although China obviously supporting Pakistan and now and then provoking India but it will not go beyond a certain limit. China is also very tentative about its economic impediment from energy and mineral deficiency. She is comtemplating many sources for energy supply such as central Asia and from Arabs and Iran through Pakistan. China’s over assertiveness, aggressive posturing and its involvement in disputes with its neighbours over the various islands of eastern china sea and southern china sea, which are rich in minerals and petroleum deposits but also claimed by other states are mainly worrying factors.
So it is navive to think that it will fight with India on provocation of Pakistan whether Zardari thinks or not China as his second home. Moreover fight with India will not yield any material benefits to China whatsoever.
India is also not going to fight with Pakistan let alone China. If it goes to war it will be behind many decades in the current race of economic development. It knows very well that its current exalted position among various states is due to its economic growth and its booming and consuming middle class. It also knows that it is its economic clout which has compelled US president to visit India and sing and dance with Indian tunes. Otherwise India doesn’t have anything special to offer which other countries couldn’t. If US thought that India will support it on the issue of Myanmar and Iran, India told them categorically that both of the issues are sensitive to Indian defense and therefore India will chart its on course and will not do everything what US wants.
So Pakistan should understand that India is not going to attack Pakistan for no reason. The fear is that some stateless actors can bring both of them to brink of war. So better sense says that both country should alleviate the concerns of others, isolate these war mongers and come to table and try to negotiate whatever possible with slightly flexible position. Pakistan can gain more than India in economic terms as it can give the land transit route to Afghanistan and Central Asian republics and can also benefit from paving the way for Gas pipe line from Iran by giving guarantee of delivery at Indian border, which India in today’s scenario have serious doubts, can also export food and cotton items to India which India wants badly. India can gain from the stabled situation in Kashmir, can devote much time in improving infrastructure which now days are the veins and arteries of economic development.
good article,
hope to read more from u
it looks like pakistani leaders and army are its worst enemy, its a wonder pakistn is still united after want the power to be are doing
everything ring a leader can do is being done
the security is just watch or some element actively suppoting as the shia sunni divide widens, qadians being killed, other religious minorites being treated as 3rd call citizen, ethnic violence erupting regularly bet diff group
why is the sucurity agencies not taking action, noone is evry arrested for any bomb blast or sectararian killings
so it looks from outside someone in power is alloing all these to happen delibrately, for what ends no one seem to know
Excellent analysis. Sure hope the right people are listening.
Kamala
“They want us to engage another 50 years in another mini-cold war around an imagined zero-sum game that pits Pakistan and China against the US and India.”
Who are this imaginary “They”?
The Military? The Politicians? The Bureaucrats? The Feudals? The Industrialists? The Islamists? Who in their right mind in Pakistan want to engage in another ‘cold war’ and then against who?
The US-Pakistan alliance of 50s and 60s is no model for the 21st. century geopolitics and no body is Pakistan is thinking on those lines except the weekly columnists.
In the post WW II era the USA was looking for allies to encircle the USSR and along with Turkey and Iran recruited Pakistan for that purpose. Pakistan on the other hand threatened by hostile India and Afghanistan joined the alliances for reasons entirely different than those of the USA. For the USA it was the ‘cold war’; for Pakistan it was ‘struggle for survival’. At the end both US and Pakistan with each other’s help succeeded in their respective aims.
Pakistan however made the necessary ‘correction’ in 60s and instead of keeping all eggs in one basket opened herself to China as well. Today in her international relations Pakistan is where it wants to be. It is in most cordial relationship with number 1 and number 2 super powers of the world. If America is looking for a new ‘encirclement’ then Pakistan certainly is not a party to that. If there is a 21st. century ‘cold war’ then Pakistan is not in it. No body is Pakistan is looking for a new ‘cold war’ except the weekly columnists.
“Strategic Genius I Pundit states that US influence in Asia is coming down. He needs to read up on erstwhile foes like Vietnam asking the US to get MORE involved in Asia because the vaccum of a US decline will be filled with China – something no Asian country wants. “
Our US-lovers like “stuka” needs to understand that American influence is INDEED going down.
He needs to look at the simple fact that :
Obama had simply NOTHING to offer to anybody during this trip to Asia other than SYMBOLIC SUPPORT ( read meaningless) to India for its UNSC permanent member bid!
Also the article presented by me by well respected Juan Cole needs to be read by him!
Straight-Talk has some very valid points (November 15, 2010 at 10:45 pm).
Under the present balance of power the likely hood of India-Pakistan hostility breakout is minimum. I also agree that both parties should come to table and try to negotiate all disputes with full sincerity. By resolving her disputes with Pakistan India can gain in economic terms by receiving land transit concessions to Afghanistan and Central Asian republics and also benefit from paving the way for Gas pipe line from Iran to Indian border, which energy starved India needs very badly. However Pakistan should only export value-added items to India and not just raw food and cotton. India can gain a lot by resolving the core issue of disputed Kashmir, and instead of maintaining half a million troops in Kashmir it could devote much time in improving infrastructure which now a days are the veins and arteries of economic development.
“All comments are being moderated from now on fortunately and unfortunately.”
There has to be a better way to filter known malicious elements ..
I’m a Libertarian! Unfortunately, none of them on the ballot! Republicans are too far right and the Democrats are too far left!
I have NEVER apologized for the Republican Party! I am one of their their most vociferous critics!
PMA,
“India can gain a lot by resolving the core issue of disputed Kashmir”
So long as K is going to be the core issue, no development on peace is possible. Rest is all wishful thinking.
“India can gain a lot by resolving the core issue of disputed Kashmir”…….those who peddle this line should know that by the same token Pakistan can gain a lot by laying off Kashmir, engage India in trade irrespective of status of the “core issue”. So will the Pakistanis try to gain ” a lot”?
Pakistanis tried their best to get the Big (K)ahuna, all ways possible. They over-extended big time, now they are trying to get what they couldn’t through appealing to India’s commercial interests. Something tells me its not gonna work.
Yasser (Latif Hamdani) saheb,
‘Do we have such a leader in our midst’ ?
We should have someone ofcourse …
The situation, for Pakistan, can be reversed only, repeat only, if the USA and Saudi Arabia stop dealing directly with the army of Pakistan …
These two countries should be stopped immediately to give money and arms/ammunition for/to the army of Pakistan …
This one single act on part of USA and SA will cleanse Pakistan … otherwise, nothing will change … it is wise to leave the country for the good of our children.
Thank you
Kashmir will be fought to the last Sunni terrorist in the Valley. I dont think Pakistan should let go Kashmir issue. No talk, no relation with India till this core issue is solved .There is nothing better that this an Indian can hope for and a Pakistani can dream of. Jihad-e Kashmir must go on at every cost .
“Under the present balance of power the likely hood of India-Pakistan hostility breakout is minimum”
Like in 1999?
A number of articles have appeared in Pakistani news papers after the Obama visit
All analysts are asking the question why India is being favoured and why is Pakistan being looked down upon by the west.
The answer is that Pakistanis have not changed their 2 desires that defeating India and ruling Afghanistan
The conventional war and unconventional war ie terrorism have nt been able to defeat India
But the west is now firmly convinced that Pakistan Army will not leave its strategic assets in Afghanistan .
SO the conflict of interest between Pak Army and NATO is being reflected in the growing number of Anti Pakistan statements
And on the economic front Pakistan brings nothing to the table
PMA:
“Pakistan on the other hand threatened by hostile India and Afghanistan joined the alliances for reasons entirely different than those of the USA. For the USA it was the ‘cold war’; for Pakistan it was ‘struggle for survival’. At the end both US and Pakistan with each other’s help succeeded in their respective aims.”
I have been trying to understand what it was and is that drove Pakistan’s search for security. Post ’71 it was the fear of a vivisection again as in Bangladesh, and one can comprehend the genesis of that fear somewhat even if it is misplaced. The ‘struggle for survival’ prior to ’71 is another matter. I have come to understand on PTH that Pakistanis in the first decade or so felt threatened by India because they thought that it wanted to undo Partition, or, that India had not accepted the reality of Pakistan, or even that she expected Pakistan not to survive for whatever reason.
Even if Pakistani’s apprehensions are a true reflection of Indian sentiment it must be accepted that Indian hostility was of a passive kind-that is, India expected Pakistan to fall apart without India having to do anything. Pakistan’s alliance with the US and UK in anti Soviet and anti Chinese security pacts as a defense against India would have not allayed India’s hopes, whatever Pakistanis believed they were.
Pakistani joined these pacts a full seven to ten years after ’47. India had not started any offensive manoeuvres that could have justified Ayub Khan’s offer of Pakistan’s army to the US as a mercenary force (‘our army can be your army if you want’). Pakistan must have done so to build up an offensive capacity against India which it did use in 1965.
Invading Kashmir in ’47 and attacking India (even if only across Akhnur) in ’65 was not the best expression of a purely defensive posture.
Also post ’71, it is a strange trauma that seeks a cure by sending terrorists to Kashmir, Mumbai and to our parliament, and attacking India in Kargil.
Kashmir is a sticking point between our two countries. Kashmiris want independence, they do not emphatically want Pakistan. Alas, in India there is no scope for further vivisection. It is not only the official discourse, it is the only possible discourse. There is no morality involved; it is a question of survival. Where would Pakistan be if the Baloch, and perhaps the Sindhis became independent. After Bangladesh the only way Pakistan can exist is as as it is.
Pakistan could have expected something from America over Kashmir if India were to be as dependent on American money as Pakistan seems to be, but she is not, and America has nothing to offer India, now or in the foreseeable future, that will make India compromise on Kashmir-Neither the nuclear pact, not sensitive technology, not the Security Council seat. India was down and out in 1963 after the China war and even then Nehru weakened as he was and a dying man did not give an inch-what chance now? From 1974 to 1999 various US sanctions have made not an iota of difference; lifting those sanctions makes no difference either.
There is a way to solve Kashmir but it is not the one that follows the contours of the TNT or the UN resolutions. Pakistan should try another approach since it is now quite evident that neither, the UN, US, terror or freedom fighters are able to provide a solution. More of the same medicine is just wasting time.
Some Pakistanis would like the issue solved only so that Pakistan can turn its back on India and cultivate links west, north, and northeast too probably- Which may be a good thing by itself, I don’t know. Official Pakistani sentiment about India need not be altered in such a case. No school texts to modify, no official histories to be corrected, no humanizing the demonic people living immediately east.
On the other hand what excuse will the PA have to continue its dominant role. It needs India. As Musharraf said a decade ago, hostility will continue even if Kashmir is solved. Your former President blurts out many truths in his frank style.
It was not Pakistan’s security concerns that drove you into the arms of the US and now China. It is the PA’s hatred for India and the official discourse, which Pakistan does not want to abandon, that India is a country of vile people. This sentiment also breeds other malaises (yes, there is such a word) in your society which the beating of wings on PTH can do little to cure.
I’ve expressed this before in the What devoured glamorous Pakistan thread (http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2010/10/14/what-devoured-glamorous-pakistan/), but it’s worth reiterating in a different way.
As a premise: Imagine that Pakistan was not a fanatic Muslim country with a raison-d’être of being not-India. Imagine that each and every one of their policies was not about being anti-India – whether it was controlling Afghanistan to gain strategic depth against India, or raising territorial issues.
From my Mumbaikar perspective, such a country would have been and could still be a paradise on earth.
1. It has vast natural resources and a relatively small population (imagine the population is not Islam-obsessed). This makes for a great combination to launch a modern educated country.
2. It is geostrategically well-situated. Imagine freeways and railways allowing people to drive or travel from Mumbai to Paris, and on to Indo-China and China. In fact, until the 60s, it used to be commonplace to travel by road between Germany and India. We used to get European tourists all the time who had traveled by road via Greece-Turkey-Iran-Pakistan. The attendant economic benefits to Pakistan would be enormous in terms of tolls, roadside malls, eateries where people would stop to shop and eat, leading to employment for Pakistanis and tax for the Pak state, not to mention that the country would be well-integrated into the global economy. India and China are building highway and railway systems connecting the two via Indo-China. There is no reason why these should not be extended to West Asia and Europe. It is a known fact that the American freeway system built in the 50s led to massive economic growth by creating new employment opportunities and speeding up the transport of people and goods.
And of course, Pakistan would also stand to get a lot of revenue from ushering gas from West Asia to energy-thirsty countries like India.
3. Pakistan’s upper reaches like the Swat and Neelam valleys could easily become Asian tourism destinations, dare I say, akin to Switzerland in Europe.
4. As a neighbor to India, Pakistan has such a gigantic and hungry market for all kinds of goods that it produces from simple foodgrains to sophisticated stuff like automobiles. Again, leading to huge employment and prosperity for Pakistanis.
5. Kashmir could become a place that Pakistanis could visit just by driving over or taking a bus or train, like they used to before Partition.
6. Pakistan would be standing shoulder to shoulder with India, China, Indonesia etc as we define the Asian future and secure the interests of developing countries that we all are.
I could go on, but suffice it to say that were Pakistanis to leave (or had they left) their anti-India obsession aside, as well as their state’s mission to impose supremacy of Islam on all of us non-Muslims (and let’s not be under any illusion that this isn’t exactly what is being attempted), it could very easily (have) become a paradise on earth and a model to emulate for the rest of the developing world. The early years were a pointer that this was a possibility. So much time has been wasted for absolutely no reason, fighting a windmill. It is really up to Pakistanis to decide if the next 50 years are going to be more of the same.
talha writes:
“All comments are being moderated from now on fortunately and unfortunately.”
All? No.
Some favorites are being given special leeways.
A comment should not be deleted merely because someone does not like it. A sudden interruption in a conversation is a jerk. Some of my best comments were simply not allowed to reach those to whom they were addressed. That is unfair.
to Arjun
Pakistan is a product of islamically-motivated slander and hatred against hindus, against everything hindu. Since hindus in Pakistan fled or were exterminated hence there is no counter-balance anymore in Pakistan. God allowed Pakistan to be created in order to demonstrate to mankind that a good human society cannot be founded or maintained on the basis of this arab religion and this proof has been amply given now.
Where are we? Indeed, where are we? This reminds me of this couplet of Ghalib:
“Hum wahan hain jahan se hum ko bhi
Kuchh hamari khabar naheen aati”
First we need to be “ba-khabar” about ourselves, to exercise sincere introspection, to remind ourselves that we were never and shall never be infallible and as humans, will always be susceptible to decline.
Quoting from Shakespeare:
“And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance or nature’s changing course untrimm’d”
Have we declined? Yes, we have declined, but not by chance. We have been trimmed by “nature’s changing course untrimm’d”. Now it’s time to correct ourselves. It’s time to do our own trimming ourselves. It’s time to realize that mixing of Statecraft and Religion has cost us the the honour of both the State and Religion.
We have to start from somewhere. This could serve as a good beginning .
@PMA
Thanks for your support
I am quite intrigued about the differences among the political class of both the country. The matter can be resolved, if sincerity and accommodation along with little bit hard decisions are taken. In the negotiating table nobody can claim full, and nobody can claim outright victory. There must be give and take policy, hard bargaining, little bit territorial adjustment and some out of the box thinking/ solutions can resolve any problems leave alone Kashmir.
But I have serious doubt about the intentions and motives of some power centers, who have serious stakes in keeping Kashmir problem flared and Danger from Kafir India/Islam in danger/Pakistan in danger alibi keep on alive, lest they’ll be irrelevant. In Pakistan, they get money from US and in Kashmir, they get money from India.
These powers centers must be brought in line with the thinking of right minded people. The people who thinks country first, its ethos and its welfare first. How can? I don’t know but they should tow in line, must know, share and respect countryman’s desire and theirs hopes.
I just want to ask? how many more years they will keep on harping on old stinking problems? neglect their people, amassed their coffers, make new and adjust old alliances. If these alliances can bring peace then very good, go ahead take benefit of this peace and devote some time for resolving out standing issues and invest in countrys’ future and its development and if not then why go for alliances, tackle problem head on, negotiate and solve it once for all and then….. well go ahead and do for something for country’s future and its development…… very simple, Isn’t it?
Hayyer (November 16, 2010 at 9:32 am):
Thanks for taking time to post your comments. I’ll try to be brief so that it does not become a long drawn argument.
About the security issue:
Regardless of the thesis advanced by my friend here at PTH, the Radcliffe line was drawn with dry ink. Pakistan with time would have forgotten Indian opposition to its creation except that war of 1948 and Indian occupation of Kashmir made any such rapprochement impossible. Pakistan and the USA approached each other for their respective security concerns as early as 1949-50. The first tangible movement in security and economic cooperation took place in 1951 when Liaqat Ali Khan visited the USA. The world only came to know the details when Eisenhower administration formalized the security agreements in the form of SEATO & CENTO. In 1953 Vice President Nixon met Prime Minister Khwaja Nazim-ud-din and asked him what is that Pakistan would like to see happened in return for her security cooperation with the USA. His answer was ‘economic help and security cover’. You ask ‘what it was that drove Pakistan in search for security’. The answer is very simple: India. She has been an existential threat to Pakistan from the day one and continues to be so to this day. India has yet to realize the benefits of making peace with her next door neighbor. You are right that ‘Kashmir is the sticking point between our two countries’. Without resolution of Kashmir, there will be no peace between the two. But Musharraf also has a point. There is more than Kashmir between the two countries. It is called ‘attitude’ towards each other. Since there is nothing Pakistan can do to modify others attitude, she must maintain her full security paradigm, just in case.
Pakistani experiment must continue till Kashmir issue is solved . As PMA explained , this is an experiment in psychology and religious influence on human mind. Pakistan is winning by making whole humanity aware of their experiment by sharing the daily achievements in highest sphere of human life. Just take a look at the monetary help promised by kaffir duniya to serve the cause of Pakistan in search of purity .
@PMA
November 16, 2010 at 10:58 pm
“Since there is nothing Pakistan can do to modify others attitude, she must maintain her full security paradigm, just in case….”
So the Operation Gibraltar, Kargil, Parliament attack, Mumbai 2008 etc. are just a part of that ‘just in case scenario’??
PMA:
India went into Kashmir because Pakistan invaded it first.
As for attitude, army generals have it, they need it-civilians don’t.
If nothing is going to change between India and Pakistan despite a resolution over Kashmir then why should anyone bother to resolve it-India, Pakistan, the UN or even the US. Your leaders and ours and Obama should save their breath.
Talk of Angrezon ke waqt ke jailor. Saare duniya badal gayee, hum nahin badley.
PMA,
What is the percentage of people in Pak admin who think like you?
to PMA
Our “attitude” to Pakistan is a result of the fact that Pakistan is a quisling state and the colony and fortress of an alien totalitarian-imperialist ideology on hindu lands (The Sindhu river basin). So don’t enter into that unending pakistani pretension that you pakistanis are the innocent lambs being plagued by the evil others (e.g. the wicked hindus).
Blood flowing in Kashmir, that was Pakistan’s political intention and strategy. Pakistan started it. Since pakistani cannot deny that, hence they puff-up their chests and say that they are proud of having started it – in order to help their muslim “brothers” and bring their cause to the notice of the world. Great!!!
Hayyer (November 17, 2010 at 7:57 am):
No Hayyer. Resolution over Kashmir will change everything. It will usher in ‘Peace’ between the two countries. After establishing peace the two could get on with the business of non-interference in each other’s territory. The way things are right now, Pakistan does not accept Kashmir as Indian territory and therefore does not consider its activities in Kashmir as interference in Indian internal affairs. India on the other hand. Well you know Indian position. No resolution of the dispute, no peace between the two countries. That is where we have been for the last sixty years and unless a resolution, that is where we will be for time to come. Since neither party sees it essential to her existence, there is no movement towards establishing peace. But mind you peaceful coexistence does not mean friendship or strategic alliance. Even after a peace agreement has been made, the two will have to maintain their respective security paradigm. That is what Musharraf was talking about. Disputes or no disputes Pakistan has to maintain a ‘Minimum Deterrence’ against possible eventualities. Now, this Doctrine of Minimum Deterrence could change if India’s military build up vis a vis Pakistan would change. Demilitarization of Kashmir on both sides, removal of troops and air and missile defence system from Pakistan’s border etc. etc. are some of the steps that might help the situation. Nothing is impossible if their is a will. But India being the bigger power and occupier of Kashmir has to take the first step and then Pakistan has to reciprocate. Let us hope that sane minds prevail and peace is established between India and Pakistan.
“..Even after a peace agreement has been made, the two will have to maintain their respective security paradigm…”
If so, then what is the incentive for India as the status quo power to give up Kashmir in the first place?All this talk of will is fine, why doesn’t Pakistan show us the will and let trade flourish, irrespective of the Kashmir issue? Kashmir was demilitarized in 1947, what happened? Kargil was demilitarized in the winter of 1999, what happened? PMA wants India to give up Kashmir by appealing to some woolly Indian magnanimity that doesn’t exist vis a vis Pakistan. The shenanigans of your bearded dogs in Mumbai and all over India has seen to that.
PMA:
It seems from your last post that India needs to kneel, and remain kneeling while offering a series of nazranas to the rhadamanthine PA before the latter even considers acknowledging the supplicant.
The perception on this side of the border is different of course.
What is clear, if your views are representative of those held by the Pakistani establishment, is that it would be foolish of India to retreat even an inch from its present posture.
What does Pakistan want in Kashmir, what is their declared goal, what is their real goal? A quisling state of an alien totalitarian-expansionist-imperialist ideology can never be trusted not to backstab.
India’s bad karma to have such a neighbour. In the Mahabharata there is the story of a demon (called Bakaasur) who lived near a village and the village had to deliver one human being as his food everyday. Bakaasur rhymes somehow with Pakistan (as Bakaasuristan). Hindu blood will be demanded by them for all the times to come. This is god’s unexplainable punishment upon the hindu idiots.
On Eid they slow-slaughter-bleed animals with glee and call it “sacrifice” for “god”. What can you expect from a people with such an upbringing? And what good can you expect from such a god?
The only real comparison Pakistanis have in the Mahabharata is to Pandavas.
@amar
Bakaasur rhymes somehow with Pakistan (as Bakaasuristan).
By that logic Bakaasuristan rhymes with Hindustan too.