What's new

Pakistan can survive, but not without fundamental and sustained structural change.

Kompromat

ADMINISTRATOR
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
40,366
Reaction score
416
Country
Pakistan
Location
Australia
Quo vadis, Pakistan?
ASHRAF JEHANGIR QAZI — PUBLISHED a day ago

PAKISTAN’S population is probably 200 million today. It will be 350-400 million by 2050. Given climate change and the trend lines of our vital national indices the country’s future is in serious question. Karachi’s wretched plight is engulfing the rest of Pakistan where low lives in high places callously contrive to win zero-sum games against their own people! The people suffer indescribably every single day because of them. Corruption, whether political, administrative or military, is institutionalised and systemic.

Political leaders alternately challenge and pander to the military as part of their degenerate strategies. They treat ordinary citizens as ‘cockroaches’. Those who can stop them, but do not, are complicit. The people desperately want to get rid of them. But they are constrained by political circuses, economic crumbs, intimidation and hopelessness. An informal economy, external inflows and private charity merely delay the day of reckoning.

Pakistan is still manageable. It can survive, even flourish. But not without fundamental and sustained structural change. Incremental approaches are covers for inaction. Specific transformation strategies can be evaluated. But our parasitic elite will never consider good governance which requires them to see Pakistan as larger than themselves. Instead, they prefer being tax cheats, making false promises an art form, stowing away ‘untold billions’ in safe havens abroad, and updating their exit strategies.

Military rule — overt or covert— has no answer to the nation’s challenges. Criminal civilian rule leads to military takeovers, as is happening once again. The concept of civil-military relations is meaningless without civilian supremacy and good governance. In Pakistan CMR is based on the military’s political supremacy which is unconstitutional. Fake “democracy” does not evolve into genuine democracy. It perpetuates the rule of deceit and plunder.

Pakistan can survive, but not without fundamental and sustained structural change.
The military, moreover, cannot become a national institution if it remains a political institution. Pakistan’s interests and Punjab’s interests remain out of joint. That is why the original Pakistan died an early death. If this situation continues, either Punjab will conquer the rest of the country, or the country will break up because of domestic resistance and external intervention. A soft and failing state can never become a democracy. The situation is indeed dire.

During the Long March Mao Zedong wrote “So little time; So much to do!” In 1949 he proclaimed “China has stood up!” Look at China today! Deng Xiaoping believed democracy is what it does, not what it claims. Lee Kuan Yew observed “Democracy is the Rolls Royce of politics provided you can keep it. If you cannot it is the worst investment you can make.” He also noted: “If you give a man a vote without providing him a stake in the nation he will ask for the moon.”

Professor Ernest Gellner observed that Islam is more compatible with modernism and democracy than any of the other great faiths. But unfortunately our faith has been hijacked by wily professionals and extremists who mislead and terrorise honest believers. They have friends in high places.

It has been said ‘one step in the right direction and a journey of a thousand miles is a thousand miles no longer’. We have yet to take that first step although we have travelled far in the wrong direction. The journey today is longer than ever.

We must plan specifically and implement rapidly and resolutely. This requires constant public communication and inclusive feedback to maximise ownership of policies. No one person, party or institution should presume to impose a particular view of the national interest. That has ensured national disunity. Discussions and recommendations are, however, essential.

The national interest: To transform Pakistan from a dysfunctional and failing state into an effective, inclusive and participatory state and society. This is the Transformation Imperative. It requires national priority for human resource and institutional capacity development. It entails the maximisation of the quantity and quality of economic growth based on equitable distribution, the maximum mobilisation of indigenous resources and the full range of rights protections. The security and defence of the country should be optimised within this transformation paradigm. Economic policies must be pro-poor while encouraging responsible and profitable private enterprise.

Democracy: The Constitution does not mandate democracy’s systemic mockery based on the exclusion of the people through irresponsible parliamentary government.

Terrorism: This is a product of a lack of good governance, justice and opportunity. Counterterrorism, without addressing this situation, increases terrorism instead of checking it. Short-term operations outside the context of longer-term nation-building strategies add up to nothing.

Balochistan: The Baloch people have been denied their rights and entitlements. The government — civil and military — remains in denial. A Baloch-Pakhtun divide is being created to facilitate exploitation and dominance. Indian interference is a consequence of this pathological situation. The Baloch narrative is one of alienation and exploitation, not external interference. The murder of non-local residents and workers is a crime facilitated by political exclusion and repression. A truth and reconciliation commission is indispensable to facilitate solutions to the tragedy of all ‘missing and murdered people’ and the creation of social and economic conditions for political stability.

Foreign policy: This largely consists of policies towards India, Afghanistan, China and the US. Rational and coherent policies on these fronts will create conditions for foreign investment and an improved international image. It will maximise Pakistan’s options.

A peaceful neighbourhood and conflict-free relations, even with countries with which unresolved issues inhibit full normalisation, are essential. An improvement of ties with India can significantly facilitate Pakistan’s transformation.

This does not mean unprincipled compromise on Kashmir or any other issue. However, policies towards India and a Kashmir settlement must not obstruct Pakistan’s domestic transformation. Otherwise, it will only disguise class conflict, betrayal of the people, and continuing failure to meaningfully support the political and human rights struggle in Kashmir.

Our Afghan brethren must begin to experience the credibility of our highest level undertakings to them. Otherwise, we will once again outsmart ourselves. Rhetorical assurances and statements may satisfy for a while. They cannot substitute for consistent policy.

Pakistan cannot strategically partner a globally emerging China without transforming itself.

The writer is a former ambassador to the US, India and China and head of UN missions in Iraq and Sudan.

Published in Dawn, June 30th, 2015

Quo vadis, Pakistan? - Newspaper - DAWN.COM

@Icarus @Hyperion @Oscar @Atanz @Armstrong
 
Nothing new, we have been discussed this before like 250,000 times almost everyday.

What are we going to do to fix Pakistan ? Do they done something good?
 
India is a enemy state of Pakistan, but, by God, the kind of threat People such as Altaf Hussain issue is much bigger threat to Pakistan's unity than India can ever be. And even the bigger problem is everyone knows that nothing can be done to Altaf Hussain by Pakistan.
 
@Horus
Pakistan cannot strategically partner a globally emerging China without transforming itself

Of all the strategic issues facing Pakistan in my view this is going to be decisive. If we can tango with China then I feel that would give us the inertia to go on and sort our other problems. We have the historical and strategic capital to partner China and harvest some of the incredibile energy of that nation.

A lot hinges on this relationship. Are we going to be able to consumate this partnership or like with USA will this also become a broken down relationship where both partners just about put up with each other. The only reason US/Pak have not divorced is because of overriding circumstances force them work togather but that barely covers the simmering hatred just below the surface.

So how will things play out with China? I am rather worried. Like I said there is no doubt we have lot of goodwill and shared strategic outlook. I have had some exposure to Chinese in UK. One of things I find about them is they are very inhibited in their view. Similar to iceberg you only get to see the top because of self restraint. Since most Chinese only interact in Mandarin rest of us ( in particular Pakistani hardly every get to tap into what the Chinese are taking about or think. In other words most of us are more aware what America is about ( despite it being far away ) yet know little about are giant neighbour next to us beyond the public handshakes and posturing.

Now let address the the reason for my concern. The Chinese are ultra secularists. To give you example of this the chances of Mosques sprouting all over Washington are far higher than that happening in Beijeng. In Pakistan waering religion on your sleaves is endemic. In fact overt religousity is a must nowdays. We know it has had no postive effect on our spirit considering the rampent crime rates in our country but madaris, mosques, bearded mullahs are gainig ground.

At the most fundamental level we are going to collide with China. So far our relationship with China has been limited to few officials going there and few of theirs coming to Pakistan. However as our partnership moves forward expect thousands of Chinese moving to Pakistan and vice versa. That is when we are going to see clash of cultures. Watch how our religious people are going recoil and watch how the ultra secularist Chinese are going to react. As more and more people get acquinted with each other the honeymoon is going to turn into repulsion. They probably will not say much to us but behind closed doors they will fulminate.

So I see problems here. I sincerely hope not but the thought "If wishes were horses beggars would ride" comes to my mind. The average bigoted religious Pakistani with a primitive mindset will clash with the ultra secularist Chinese. Example can be seen by some idiot Pakistani's and their comments on the Chinese academic defends beer festival in Muslim region which shows the barely concieved resentment on part of the Chinese to some of the typical narrow mindesness of the Pakistani's. More of this will come to fore as both sides get to know each other more and inevitable clash of cultures happens.

The initial signs are not promising. Various surveys show Chinese do not view Pakistan in great light. they would much prefer trouncing around in Europe, America or even India then Pakistan.

Not exactly inspiring ....

Ps. We could go down the secular route in Pakistan which help us being at ease with China but the chance of that is less then being able to sell sand to Arabs and ice to Eskimos in pakistan.
 
Last edited:
We and our self-defeatist approach. I totally disagree with the title but better was not expected from somebody writing for Dawn. Survival is not an issue, countries in far worst states than Pakistan are surviving and will continue to survive. Question is what we have to do to thrive.

I wish to hear from morons who put a question mark on the survival of Pakistan that if she were not to be survived (God forbidden), what would happen to the geography called Pakistan today and the people living herein? We would get annexed in Bharat or Afghanistan or Iran? What if Pakistan does not survive?
 
Already posted in the relevant thread.
 
We and our self-defeatist approach. I totally disagree with the title but better was not expected from somebody writing for Dawn. Survival is not an issue, countries in far worst states than Pakistan are surviving and will continue to survive. Question is what we have to do to thrive.

I wish to hear from morons who put a question mark on the survival of Pakistan that if she were not to be survived (God forbidden), what would happen to the geography called Pakistan today and the people living herein? We would get annexed in Bharat or Afghanistan or Iran? What if Pakistan does not survive?

In the last 5,000 years of our history we were 'annexed' for less than 400 years which is barely 8%. The last time India annexed Pakistan was during Mauryan Empire over 2,000 years ago which lasted barely 100 years. The Persians took us over for about 200 years during the Archeamenid Empire. Most of the rest annexures were by external peoples from far away like British or Moghuls even that combined lasted about years. At best 10% of our known history has been spen 'annexed'. Thus if we go by history we have little to fear of being annexed by anybody.

However what is at stake is the welfare of our people. Are we going to be prosperous, secure, safe Pakistan or the killing ground we have now turned into ...

Addendum to Post #4.

Just to illustrate my point I have no problems with any Chinese members in this forum. As most probably know, I am a secularist. Therefore my engagement with Chinese is not loaded with any negative particles. All I look at Chinese is as friends who share a common strategic perspective. However the same cannot be said for most Pakistani's who are driven by vigourous dose of religiousity which makes them intolerant and judgemental. This inevitably clashes with the Chinese with predicatble results. Bear in mind most Chinese on PDF are very pro Pak and thus will flex more and reserve inner thoughts more. Despite this even you can see some reactions on part of Chinese members.

Indeed the Indian's actually are by temperament better suited to friendship with Chinese however the geopolitics puts them at odds.


I would put our relationship with China to where Pakistan was with USA in early 1960s when both countries had very cordial relations. They say picture speaks thousand words. Here is a picture of President Ayub meeting President Lyndon B Johnson of USA back in 1960. The fondness can be easily seen in the picture. Look where we are today with US. So the question is where will we be in 40 years with China?

big_p30a.jpg
 
Last edited:
Those relations were between individuals, LBJ and Ayub, Nixon and Yahya, Regan and Zia and hence there have been ups and downs. China Pakistan relations are between two countries and therefore, relatively consistent. We must never overlook this difference.
 
Is Pakistan's survival assured by God Himself? Of course if things do not go well, Pakistan may cease to exist, but the world will go on, just like it always has. No country has a divine right to exist. All must work continuously to survive, and only those who get it right will do so.
 
Back
Top Bottom