Pakistan: "Nightmare on the subcontinent"

[saiko]

Your understanding of history is quite flawed, for the simple reason that you seem to be comparing historical empires with modern federal states.

Yeah, like the Yugoslavian empire, the Czechoslovakian empire, the Romanian empire .

The point of mentioning the empires is because they were the largest political units and have now ended up in dozens of smaller nation states based on ethnic homelands. I could have started at any stage of the gradual deterioration of impractical national units down to its current form.

If anything, you should be comparing India and Pakistan with countries like the US which have created a successful federation based upon democracy.

Not only is the US not any ethnic groups homeland (minus the natives who are effectively powerless and disorganized at this point in time) but one of the fundamental concepts of the US is immigration.

It is a completely different situation.

Obviously, multinational empires would tend to fall apart because they are comprised of one dominant ethnicity or nationality subjugating a number of weaker ones. This model is not applicable to India because everybody gets a stake in the national interest and no ethnic group dominates the politics in the country.

You just described exactly what the British did throughout its empire (including India) for most of the past 400 years. If you think India is somehow different you are mistaken.

If you aren't even unified on language (referring to the official state-level languages and how varied it is in India) you can forget about cultural unification - Bolllywood will only take you so far. Even Canada came to within 1% of a referendum vote to have Quebec separate. Canada is a modern, prosperous and democratic state light years ahead of India and the language barrier brought it to the brink of independence. The only thing that prevents this is the greed - the Canadian government disproportionately funnels money into Quebec to keep their separatism under wraps.

It's in India's interest to have a Pakistan/China boogeyman until it brings prosperity to the majority of its citizens. As sad as it may be, greed and fear have been the underlying factors of unifying diverse ethnic and cultural groups and that is no different for India than any other nation today, including my own.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It never ceases to amaze me how much dung disguised as analysis pours out of some Western 'analysts'.

Pakistan is unnatural because it 'sits astride the Indus and is multi-ethnic'?

Next thing you know my ancestral village in Punjab will be 'unnaturally incorporated into its district' since the soil everywhere else is a slightly different shade of brown, and we tend to grow rice instead of cotton.

Almost every multi-ethnic state has inter-ethnic tensions to varying degrees. In fact I pointed this out a while back, that in the last decade or two, Pakistan has suffered nowhere close to the communal and ethnic violence that India has.

Even when Bugti was killed and Benazir (arguably the most popular politician of our generation) assassinated ethnic tensions did not boil over, though we had riots and some deaths. And even the riots we had, driven primarily by political supporters, were manageable in comparison to what we have seen in Pakistan historically.

The economy isn't the best right now, but most per-capita indicators were pretty close to India's till last year.

And while most Pakistanis IMO do not want a 'Shariah state', Islam plays a very strong role in the identity matrix of Pakistanis. The younger generation has a very strong sense of 'Pakistaniat'.

Rivers, swamps and deserts don't make or break a nation - a sense of wanting to be part of one and belonging to one does, and on that count Pakistanis have theirs.

P.S: I am still waiting for the analysis from 'Western Think tanks' on the 'unnatural state' that Afghanistan is, which is far worse of on almost every issue these people choose to vilify Pakistan for.

 

[Solomon2]

I am still waiting for the analysis from 'Western Think tanks' on the 'unnatural state' that Afghanistan is, which is far worse of on almost every issue these people choose to vilify Pakistan for.

Keep reading the article, then...

 

[Rabbit.Rabbit]

Yeah, like the Yugoslavian empire, the Czechoslovakian empire, the Romanian empire .

Did you mention those "empires"? If you did then perhaps you could change the font colour from white to black so that people can read it.

Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia simply cannot be compared with India because these ethnic groups had active and ongoing conflicts. there really aren't any such problems within India, and frankly it betrays a complete absence of understanding of Indian culture on your part.

The point of mentioning the empires is because they were the largest political units and have now ended up in dozens of smaller nation states based on ethnic homelands. I could have started at any stage of the gradual deterioration of impractical national units down to its current form.

Your point is invalid, as I said, because the driving force for an ethnic homeland is the perceived persecution or subjugation of one ethnicity at the hands of another. Such issues do not exist federations whose collective identity is exactly that- collective - rather than the glorification of one single ethnic group.

A recent example of the UK being divided up was based on the historical narrative of the subjugation of the Irish by the English. After all, which Irishman would like to be ruled by the king of England?

Similarly, the Soviet Union disintegrated because it was the ethnic Russians which were subjugating the other ethnic groups within the federation, and they failed in creating an identity that all the republics could identify with.

Not only is the US not any ethnic groups homeland (minus the natives who are effectively powerless and disorganized at this point in time) but one of the fundamental concepts of the US is immigration.

And the fundamental concept of India is the recognition of ethnic homelands along with the larger Indian homeland. The two ideas are complementary, not contradictory as is usually the case.
The idea of India as a single entity is also a historical one, and it is present in the histories of all the communities of India in some form or another.

It is a completely different situation.

It is similar where it needs to be - different ethnic groups and for that matter different cultural groups forming a federation.
Don't get confused boy the homogeneity that you see in today's USA. The situation was completely different two centuries ago.

You just described exactly what the British did throughout its empire (including India) for most of the past 400 years. If you think India is somehow different you are mistaken.

If you aren't even unified on language (referring to the official state-level languages and how varied it is in India) you can forget about cultural unification - Bolllywood will only take you so far. Even Canada came to within 1% of a referendum vote to have Quebec separate. Canada is a modern, prosperous and democratic state light years ahead of India and the language barrier brought it to the brink of independence. The only thing that prevents this is the greed - the Canadian government disproportionately funnels money into Quebec to keep their separatism under wraps.

If you think that its bollywood which is keeping India united then you are sadly mistaken. India's cultural unity is a deep undercurrent that transcends language.

Canada once again consists of two culturally disparate regions cobbled together by one region accepting the cultural domination of the other. Naturally, it would lead to friction.

majority of its citizens. As sad as it may be, greed and fear have been the underlying factors of unifying diverse ethnic and cultural groups and that is no different for India than any other nation today, including my own.

You cynicism is unwarranted, and I'd say that greed and fear are the reasons why states break up, not unify. Unity is something that comes from a sense of higher purpose and an appreciation of what we hold in common along with respect of ones differences.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

No secret police/spy system was stronger than that of the Soviet KGB and GRU, yet in the end these didn't prevent the State from collapsing, why would the ISI be any different? And nuclear arms made no difference in preventing either the breakup of the S.U. or the death of apartheid in South Africa. (The South Africans dismantled their nuclear weapons before the ANC took over.)

The ISI isn't our strength.

As long as I can remember (which isn't too long) the media (especially over the last ten years) and intellectuals have never shied away from being self critical - introspection to the point of self-flagellation.

These people rip apart and lay bare issues related to ethnic tension, where government policies are laying the ground for 'another East Pakistan', why society is stagnating/is not stagnating, negative role of religion/positive role of religion, what is our identity, what isn't our identity, Army is bad/worse/evil/good, normalization with India, kashmir ....

Nothing is left out - the social discourse is broad and deep. 1971 left a lot of scars that haven't healed, and perhaps in some ways really helped us become a stronger nation as we became so vocal about the issues that had an impact on our lives.

Tensions exists of course, but are largely related to economics and development (or lack of it).

Driving through Pakistan and meeting all its people, its hard to explain, but that sense of belonging to the same nation, whether the person you speak to in Urdu has a Pashtun accent vs your Punjabi one - its always there.

The economy, if it gets significantly worse and stays that way for an extended period of time, IMO is the only thing that may impact this sense of nationhood and continued progress towards an even more cohesive nation.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Keep reading the article, then...

Thanks, now I will.

I sort of classified it with the rest of the bash Pakistan literature that comes out.

Any 'unnatural states' based on the 'natural frontiers' of the Ganga, Jamuna, jungles of East India ... ?

 

[Rabbit.Rabbit]

I see you've managed to get your hands on some of that Mexican special...

or is it the Swine flu ?

Do they have a brainwashing school in India or are you guys just born with an inherent hatred of Pakistan and the ability to distort and lie about it?

Whatever lie makes you sleep better at night I suppose.

Just the plain truth Mr. Agnostic. Unpalatable for you of course, the nationalist that you are.

 

[Solomon2]

Personally, Pakistani government policies don't strike as important as Pakistan's lackluster political leadership. For democratically-elected leaders they seem rather lethargic, unwilling to step forward. No one can imagine Zardari as Abraham Lincoln, for example, taking a divisive stand and hiring and firing generals at will. They behave more like consensus-seeking, power-sharing, oligarchs. The weakness of such a system is simply that it doesn't stand the stresses of war very well - how can general fight successfully if they must accede to a half-dozen or more political bosses?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Personally, Pakistani government policies don't strike as important as Pakistan's lackluster political leadership. For democratically-elected leaders they seem rather lethargic, unwilling to step forward. No one can imagine Zardari as Abraham Lincoln, for example, taking a divisive stand and hiring and firing generals at will. They behave more like consensus-seeking, power-sharing, oligarchs. The weakness of such a system is simply that it doesn't stand the stresses of war very well - how can general fight successfully if they must accede to a half-dozen or more political bosses?

Yes, this leadership issue (political and military) sort of ties into intra-national tensions related to uneven development and a stuttering economic growth.

The corruption, mismanagement and lack of reforms and creative thinking about critical issues takes a significant amount of blame for why Pakistan has not made greater progress.

 

[Solomon2]

Yes, this leadership issue (political and military) sort of ties into intra-national tensions related to uneven development and a stuttering economic growth.The corruption, mismanagement and lack of reforms and creative thinking about critical issues takes a significant amount of blame for why Pakistan has not made greater progress.

It may be too much to ask Zardari to take more initiative - he doesn't seem to be the brightest guy out there. But really, there are plenty of clever Pakistanis out there. Some of them must be brave, too. Are they stepping forward as new players on the political scene, providing the electorate with a democratic alternative? Apparently not enough, because otherwise why would there be people screaming for a return to military rule?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

It may be too much to ask Zardari to take more initiative - he doesn't seem to be the brightest guy out there. But really, there are plenty of clever Pakistanis out there. Some of them must be brave, too. Are they stepping forward as new players on the political scene, providing the electorate with a democratic alternative? Apparently not enough, because otherwise why would there be people screaming for a return to military rule?

My opinion is that barring the cliched 'revolution', new leadership will arise through continuity in the democratic political process (and more assassinations of course - perhaps Zardari and Nawaz should go and try to convince B mehsud personally).

We have traditionally had very low participation in the political process because people are disillusioned about the system, that elections are rigged, people can't change anything etc.

I think that is why there was so much euphoria over the 'lawyers movement' first overthrowing Musharraf and then managing to get Zardari to back down (all largely peaceful demonstrations) - the people accomplished something.

My personal benchmark for Pakistan's continued transition is for this government to complete its term (even as incompetent as it is) and hold free and fair elections. I think that will start solidifying a sense of continuity and fairness of the democratic process and encourage people to look at the system as a real system that will operate through their will and last.

The war against extremism may turn out to be a blessing in disguise, in the sense that Zardari cannot afford to (or get away with) rigged elections - the military won't stand for it (if not being led by a Zardari lackey, since Gen. Kayani is scheduled to retire two years before the government completes its term), an extremely vocal media won't stand for it, the opposition politicians won't stand for it, and the US won't stand for it.

It would be a bigger spanner in the works than the ill advised decision to ban the Sharif brothers from politics and dismiss the Punjab government.

Of course this being Zardari, anything could happen.

I am optimistic for the future, possibly naive, but I prefer optimistic ...

 

[Rabbit.Rabbit]

Pakistan is not going to see a popular revolution. Its society is too stratified, and any uprising by the peasant class will be couched in religious extremism, which will prove to be even worse for its future.
Unlike Iran for example, where society is far more homogeneous and ideas can take hold quickly among a significant cross-section of the population.

The Taliban are attempting to gain support among the locals by positioning themselves as robin hood (several recent reports to this effect) and promising free, fast, and probably fairer justice than what the dysfunctional courts had to offer before. The brutal and arbitrary nature is something the locals seem ready to accept in return.

The political scene is feudal in nature, not professional like the US. Without economic, political and genealogical clout, its difficult to get a party ticket, much less get elected to parliament. Infact, challenging the local strongman would probably the quickest way to heaven for an idealistic upstart politician.

 

[Nemesis]

Almost every multi-ethnic state has inter-ethnic tensions to varying degrees. In fact I pointed this out a while back, that in the last decade or two, Pakistan has suffered nowhere close to the communal and ethnic violence that India has.

Even when Bugti was killed and Benazir (arguably the most popular politician of our generation) assassinated ethnic tensions did not boil over, though we had riots and some deaths. And even the riots we had, driven primarily by political supporters, were manageable in comparison to what we have seen in Pakistan historically.
.

India hardly has any ethnic or region based tension either. Violence in India is restricted to communal clashes between religions. The reason why Pakistan doesnt have communal clashes is because they don't have any religious minorities to speak of, it's a negligible percentage of the population. Dare i say that if Pakistan was as religiously diverse as India, it would face the same sort of violence.

 

[Rabbit.Rabbit]

India hardly has any ethnic or region based tension either. Violence in India is restricted to communal clashes between religions. The reason why Pakistan doesnt have communal clashes is because they don't have any religious minorities to speak of, it's a negligible percentage of the population. Dare i say that if Pakistan was as religiously diverse as India, it would face the same sort of violence.

Pakistan does have frequent communal clashes, just not the ones you're looking for. Shia-sunni riots and rival terrorist attacks have always been present.

 

[Cheetah786]

India is built on an idea of democracy and religious pluralism

I guess this pretty much explains this bigots anti Pakistan BS after this i have no interest reading a article written by self appointed journalist bigot.