What is PAKISTAN?

[muse]

Friends:

I am opening this thread to serve as a portal of discussion of ideas about what the meaning of Pakistan is and what it ought to be - as you will read below, Pakistan is a lot of things, all kinds of people see in Pakistan, a multiplicity of meaning and purpose, some good, some bad, some acceptable and others unacceptable, I invite our forum members to contribute:





Less fragile than we look
By Feisal H Naqvi
March 20, 2013

The writer is a partner at Bhandari, Naqvi & Riaz and an advocate of the Supreme Court. He can be reached on Twitter @laalshah

A Hard Country. Tinderbox. On the Brink. Playing with Fire. Eye of the Storm. Descent into Chaos. The Crisis State. The Unravelling.

It is difficult, if not actually impossible, to find a book about Pakistan whose title does not convey the impression that this is a very fragile and perhaps, ungovernable country, one which could collapse into complete anarchy at any moment. In my view, this pessimism is unjustified. Yes, Pakistan is a mess. But it is neither fragile nor ungovernable.

Let’s begin with the issue of fragility. Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his book Antifragile distinguishes between the lifespan of the perishable (humans, animals, etc.) and the nonperishable (books, states). His argument is that while in the case of perishable items, the younger always has a longer lifespan than the older, the same is not necessarily true for non-perishable items. Instead, in some cases, the “Lindy effect” applies, which is to say that older items actually have a greater expected lifespan than newer items.

Not convinced? Let’s look at the Lindy effect in practical terms. Hundreds of thousands of books are published every year. Most of them disappear after a first printing while some last decades. A book that has stayed in print for 20 years, thus has a much greater expected lifespan (i.e., is far more likely to stay in print for another 20 years) than a recently published book (no matter how critically acclaimed the newer book may be).

Pakistan is a country whose imminent demise has been predicted every day since its birth and yet, it has managed to survive into its seventh decade. Going by Taleb’s analysis, Pakistan today, is far more likely to survive for another 70 years than when it first came into being.

But what then of our myriad problems? How does one govern a country which boasts both Marvi Sirmed and Maulana Samiul Haq as its citizens? How can such disparate individuals be united under one banner?

The short answer is that you do not unite them. No, I’m not saying that Pakistan should be broken apart. What I’m saying is that we need to recognise the incredible diversity of opinion within this country and adopt our legal structures accordingly.

Diversity of opinion is not a peculiarly Pakistani problem. In the words of Yevtushenko — first quoted to me by my ustaad, Aitzaz Ahsan — “Yours is not the only one, my son.” Charles de Gaulle once sighed about France, “How do you govern a country which has 246 varieties of cheese?” I suppose the Pakistan equivalent would be to ask “how do you govern a country with 246 varieties of extremists?”

What then is the magic solution? In a nutshell, we need to take the “Federation” part of this country’s title more seriously and stop worrying so much about the “Islamic” part. Yes, we now have the Eighteenth Amendment. But we need to think about federalism, not just in terms of differentiation between provinces, but in terms of differentiation within provinces as well.

The Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibiting the sale of “intoxicating liquors” was enacted on January 16, 1919. By the time it was finally repealed on December 5, 1933, Prohibition stood as a monument to the limitations of government and the ingenuity of man. Despite more than a decade of efforts, more people drank more alcohol than ever before. But the repeal of prohibition did not mean the repeal of all alcohol prohibition efforts. Even today, almost 80 years after the repeal of Prohibition, approximately 10 per cent of the US lives in “dry” counties where the sale of alcohol is either forbidden or severely restricted.

The point that I am making is simple: law-making needs to be localised, not just provincialised. Obviously, there is only one Constitution for all of Pakistan; but that does not mean that there is only one way in which to run our lives.

Part of the problem with our heritage — whether colonial, Mughal or Ghaznavite — is that it has left us with a mania for centralised decision-making. In our families, all decisions default to the patriarch; in our businesses, all decisions default to the chairman; and, in our bureaucracies, all decisions default to the secretary of the department. Even worse, the provincial Rules of Business provide that no policy can be changed except with the concurrence of the chief minister!

What we need instead of one-man rule is a country in which decision-making is pushed down to the lowest possible level. Power now needs to be taken from the provinces and devolved further into the districts, from the districts to the tehsils, and from the tehsils to the union councils.

But what of the human consequences, you may ask? Do we want to live in a world where residents of rural districts have fewer rights than city dwellers? Can a state justify giving different rights to different citizens?

Well, it depends. Obviously, all citizens should have the same fundamental rights. But the same logic does not apply to statutory rights; after all, residents of Punjab already have different statutory rights from residents of Sindh.

Let me make my point in simpler terms: for many years, reformers have argued that the people in the tribal areas should have the same rights as people in Lahore. Presumably, the intent was to improve the lot of people in the tribal areas. However, by tying themselves to the idea that there can be only one law for everyone, we have also made ourselves vulnerable. In other words, instead of Fata-wallahs living like Lahoris, we are now looking at a future in which Lahoris will live like Fata-wallahs. I really don’t want that to happen.

Devolving legislative power down to the districts serves two beneficial functions. First, it gives power to people who, in the words of Taleb, have “skin in the game”. Second, it allows for regional differences. Obviously, only limited differences can be accommodated. But if we don’t bend, our only other option is to break.

 

[Leader]

What we need instead of one-man rule is a country in which decision-making is pushed down to the lowest possible level. Power now needs to be taken from the provinces and devolved further into the districts, from the districts to the tehsils, and from the tehsils to the union councils.

thats the key to development and success.

but extremism/foreign funding needs to be controlled first. that is to say, har koe dair inch ki masjid hi na bana lay apni apni UC mein...

 

[muse]

thats the key to development and success.

but extremism/foreign funding needs to be controlled first. that is to say, har koe dair inch ki masjid hi na bana lay apni apni UC mein...

The political parties are actually, in this instance, a bigger hurdle, our traditional political parties, the PPP, PML-N, even the ANP are actually organized very much like marxist parties, in the sense that local governance is seen by them as a threat to the leadership of the party - this must change.

With your permission, if I may add, you are aware the variety of social problems we are afflicted with, the absurd Jirga decisions or in the guise of tribal customs or declaration of Karo, etc. look at what Naqvi has to say:

Part of the problem with our heritage — whether colonial, Mughal or Ghaznavite — is that it has left us with a mania for centralised decision-making. In our families, all decisions default to the patriarch; in our businesses, all decisions default to the chairman; and, in our bureaucracies, all decisions default to the secretary of the department. Even worse, the provincial Rules of Business provide that no policy can be changed except with the concurrence of the chief minister!

We have argued that while these social problems are tragic, there is hope in that we are seeing more of these problems because of a reaction by those who fear change - our society is changing, but not without reaction -- and our politics are changing, and that will only change after reaction by those who fear this change

 

[Leader]

The political parties are actually, in this instance, a bigger hurdle, our traditional political parties, the PPP, PML-N, even the ANP are actually organized very much like marxist parties, in the sense that local governance is seen by them as a threat to the leadership of the party - this must change.

With your permission, if I may add, you are aware the variety of social problems we are afflicted with, the absurd Jirga decisions or in the guise of tribal customs or declaration of Karo, etc. look at what Naqvi has to say:



We have argued that while these social problems are tragic, there is hope in that we are seeing more of these problems because of a reaction by those who fear change - our society is changing, but not without reaction -- and our politics are changing, and that will only change after reaction by those who fear this change

the divide is getting deeper.. even if the elite hands over power to the lowest possible level, the problem is it will tickle down to whom? me you or him ?

I am not saying that its not the need of the hour to delegate power but just imagine it done without implementing ideals and values that a modern society cherishes?

how this re-education will be done with 200 million population?

imagine a jury or panchiyat or jirga making decisions with parameters that Mullahs have preached as Islamic ?

will it go towards betterment or worsen the situation? saying that delegation of power is just about the magic solution is just about a hypothesis actually.

if we want to go about that way, first intangible traits are needed to be tackled in the new generation atleast, currently we have 25 million kids out of school, let alone those who are going to schools and learning whatever nonsense is being taught, this over night societal change is 2 decades business to be instead, only if we start working now.. otherwise as you see reaction to change has more audience !!

 

[muse]

the divide is getting deeper.. even if the elite hands over power to the lowest possible level, the problem is it will tickle down to whom? me you or him ?

I am not saying that its not the need of the hour to delegate power but just imagine it done without implementing ideals and values that a modern society cherishes?

how this re-education will be done with 200 million population?

imagine a jury or panchiyat or jirga making decisions with parameters that Mullahs have preached as Islamic ?

will it go towards betterment or worsen the situation? saying that delegation of power is just about the magic solution is just about a hypothesis actually.

if we want to go about that way, first intangible traits are needed to be tackled in the new generation atleast, currently we have 25 million kids out of school, let alone those who are going to schools and learning whatever nonsense is being taught, this over night societal change is 2 decades business to be instead, only if we start working now.. otherwise as you see reaction to change has more audience !!

With regard to just the bold part, I think we can deal with that in the following way:

All such decisions and laws are open to challenge through the constitution of Pakistan, in other words if a decision or local law is not in accord with the constitution, then of course it cannot stand ---- What do you think?

 

[Leader]

With regard to just the bold part, I think we can deal with that in the following way:

All such decisions and laws are open to challenge through the constitution of Pakistan, in other words if a decision or local law is not in accord with the constitution, then of course it cannot stand ---- What do you think?

last week Mujib ur rehman shami was discussing the same issue, that during British Raj, hardly any decision would be taken up by High court, most appeals faced rejection.. the idea was that local issues be settled by lower courts and their decisions be final... if again it has to go to Supreme court, what is the benefit of delegating power? instead it should be made possible that decision made by lower court be base on justice and common law practices and on the other hand there should be an independent inquiry board that should put a check on Judge's decisions, find deviation from the principles and laws, he/she should be punished accordingly. this way delegation of power can better serve by keeping it local.

 

[muse]

So if I understand your position correctly -- you are suggesting that we follow the tradition of the Raj because ______?

It is tradition? it is effective in keeping local issues local?

But what if the local issue/decision is not in keeping with the law of the land? This was the point I was hoping to highlight

 

[Leader]

So if I understand your position correctly -- you are suggesting that we follow the tradition of the Raj because ______?

It is tradition? it is effective in keeping local issues local?

But what if the local issue/decision is not in keeping with the law of the land? This was the point I was hoping to highlight

example only, just as I dont want cambridge schooling system here, instead a uniformed Pakistani system inspired by the modern values, similarly I am suggesting to have a unified localized justice system based on modern values..

as I suggested there should be a check on lower judge's decisions whether they are with accordance to the law of the land or not instead of challenging his authority and good intentions of doing his job, not saying the right of appeal is taken away but only marginalized, the decision of lower court should be comprehensive and final, only be taken by Higher court if solid reasons of injustice.

 

[muse]

Pakistan: A vanishing state
By Shabbir Ahmad Khan
Published: April 1, 2013

The Writer is a PhD Scholar at West Virginia University in the US

Both empires and states fail or collapse. Examples include the Roman, Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, Mughal and British empires. From the recent past, the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Sudan are the best examples. Professor Norman Davies, in his book Vanished Kingdoms: The Rise and Fall of States and Nations recounts the history of 15 European states which disappeared. Professor Robert Rotberg, in his book When States fail: Causes and Consequences provides empirical description on a state’s failure. Similarly, the Fund for Peace and Foreign Policy magazine publishes a list of failed states each year, on which Pakistan ranks 13. Pakistan’s score is just 13 points below that of the most failed state in the world, Somalia, and just five points below that of Afghanistan, which is at number seven on the list.

Why do empires and states fail or fall? There are a number of factors for state decline, including social, economic and political. The most common factor is global; it includes intervention by external political agents or forces. In such situations, the empires or states first fail to cope with the new challenges and later collapse. There is a new challenge before Pakistan, which no state in history has ever faced. Today, the world community is unified against religious extremism of any kind and a nuclear Pakistan is heavily convulsed by internal violence linked to religious extremism. After World War II, colonial powers gave independence to many nations, including Pakistan, with a clear rationale or prime motive. At a very critical juncture in history, if states lose their rationale, they lose their right to survive. Pakistan is passing through a critical juncture of her history. If she loses her rationale, she loses her right to exist.

Two questions are important to answer the above-mentioned query. Who creates states and what is their rationale — i.e., the cause of their birth? More than 140 states got independence after the two world wars. The winners of the wars designed the world map by decolonising nations. The process of giving self-rule to new states was intentional and purposeful. British rulers, in congruence with the US, wanted to split India for their long-term interests in the region. In my opinion, Pakistan — the same way as the state of Israel — was created as an independent state to guard Western interests in the region. In both times of war and peace in history, Pakistan proved herself as the guardian of vested interests of Western powers. In return, Pakistan also got the liberty to do a number of things, including attaining nuclear capability. Throughout history, Pakistan changed herself with the changing demands of the West to fulfill her utility and her indispensability.

Thus, a militant, extremist, rigid and nuclear Pakistan was in the larger interests of Western powers, particularly to contain the Soviets and its allies, i.e., India. Now, the Western world has changed its policy towards the region where Pakistan is located and has demonetised its political currency by putting immense pressure on the country to change her course accordingly. But Pakistan seems reluctant.

Is a nuclear Pakistan, with its extremist image, acceptable to the world? The answer to this question is simple: no. In the 21st century, an ideological nation in possession of nukes and facing extremism has no place. We have two options: a) start behaving like a nuclear power by modernising our political and social institutions in order to become partners of global forces instead of becoming their rivals or b) keep insisting on the old course declaring extremism as a tactical weapon and wait to join the club of African nations like Guinea or Somalia. We have to choose between a modern, progressive, secular and stronger nuclear power or a conflict-ridden, tribal and conservative society with extremist leanings. Ideology is no more relevant in modern global politics. History tells us that nations or states collapse only when they refuse to change and insist on being foisted to the moorings of a decadent and eroded social and political order

 

[muse]

I has posted this earlier but I did not think that it was posted in the appropriate thread -- Many in Pakistan talk about National Security and the scourge of religious extremism, but how and we understand this issue better, below, the author offers us a framework to think along:

In times of uncertainty
M. Zaidi

THE term “national security” is heard often but there is little comprehension of its integral component, the concept of national security uncertainty.

This refers to the presence of ill-defined or ill-understood threats that can arise to challenge states, usually after paradigm shifts (such as the events of 9/11) or major turbulences in history.

One of the main problems is that if a state is unsure about the intent of its opponent, it will not be adequately prepared to meet the challenges presented by the opponent’s goals, interests and capabilities. A state facing such a dilemma will not be able to make a decision as to when and how to prepare for a war, counterinsurgency, engagement or any other challenge.

The dilemma escalates when there are other challenges facing the state as well, such as economic problems. This will exacerbate the uncertainty horizon, since what may be a perfectly viable option for a financially secure state may not be feasible for one facing an economic crunch.

Socio-cultural factors also result in limited choice, such as the influence of religion in a state facing national security uncertainty, ethnic or nationalist violence etc.

National security uncertainty is not usually the result of a single factor but is often multifaceted, with an overlay of socio-cultural and socio-economic factors that can increase or decrease uncertainty in conformity with the changing context.

A state that has made no enemies within and without may still have to make choices about its national security. A classic example is the traditionally neutral state of Norway, which has joined the Nato alliance in the most dramatic shift possible and away from its neutral posture.

Together with a burgeoning immigrant population, acceptance of the fact that porous borders allow insecurity in Europe to permeate the state’s physical and ideological borders has promoted this shift. This has arisen from increasing national security uncertainty more than anything else, since Norway does not have a clearly defined enemy. Asymmetric attacks such as the one perpetrated almost two years ago by a local man exacerbate the environment of uncertainty.

As regards national security uncertainty, when the threat is ill-defined or ambiguous, it is harder for states to explain clearly to the public who the enemy is. This lack of clear explanation makes it more difficult to mobilise support for any national security strategy meant to counter the uncertainty.

In this dimension, the sort of societal support scholar Michael Howard terms the “forgotten dimension of strategy” is absent or lacking in depth.

A theory that explains why it is so hard to get support from the public when there is ambivalence about the enemy is the prospect theory. The prospect theory states that people will react differently to prospects of gains or losses.

In case of losses which seem imminent or probable, or when a choice needs to be made to accept losses, people will be more amenable to taking chances.

When gains are within grasp, or when a choice is to be made to accept gains, people will not be ready to accept the risk of losses. In other words, people will be more amenable to accepting the prospect of losses if they go for a risky venture than if they go for one where the chances of gains are higher.

The human condition is programmed to be “risk acceptant” for losses and “risk averse” for gains. Incorporating the prospect theory into national security paradigms would mean that citizens are more accepting of losses when they can see a clearly demarcated opponent of the state especially in the face of imminent terrorism.

Thus, public opinion can be mobilised even when a state tells its citizens that acts of terrorism are inevitable. There just needs to be a clearly demarcated enemy, with the state admitting that there will be human or infrastructural losses along the way but that it will fight back with all its might to eventually eradicate this menace.

Goals such as minimising losses in the face of threats can be more acceptable to the public if they are communicated to the latter, rather than the state going on and on about positive goals such as becoming a terrorism-free progressive nation.

The latter will not gain traction with the public in countries facing turbulence. Noble as these positive goals are, and certainly worth aspiring for, they may not help a state gain credibility when besieged by terrorism, an economic crunch and a general deterioration in law and order and governance.

Especially in a state beset by troubles, the people are pragmatic in their outlook — no matter what their level of education — and would be able to conceive in better terms what will be lost than what might be gained.

Of course, when the threat is more or less eliminated, then people will be more amenable to accepting themes that focus on the ideals to which states aspire.

However, once an environment of low threat has lasted for some time, people will not be that willing to take losses along the way for the realisation of positive goals.

In times of insecurity, issues that do not present a clear picture, such as that of an identifiable opponent, it is certainly easier to have a national counterterrorism strategy as compared to a counter-extremism strategy, even though evolving a clear counterterrorism strategy can prove problematic.

This is partly due to the fact that few people will study vague and diffuse threats until they actually materialise. However, there are definite ways in which different theories can coalesce so that national security doctrines remain fluid in the face of diffuse threats. It is time, perhaps, to start studying them.

The writer is a security analyst.

 

[Kompromat]

@muse

Do you mind if i make the text size a little smaller?

 

[muse]

@muse

Do you mind if i make the text size a little smaller?

I have terrible eyesight - but no, not a problem, make it smaller if it makes it work better

 

[Kompromat]

@muse Do you remember what Redcliffe said about Pakistan in 1947?

 

[muse]

@muse Do you remember what Redcliffe said about Pakistan in 1947?

Please remind me

 

[Kompromat]

Please remind me

He said "Pakistan is a temporary tent, that won't survive more than a few years."

He was reassuring Nehru that the "Stow away" with die in a few years and come back to join the "mother".

This Quote in the article you posted reminded me of that.

Pakistan is a country whose imminent demise has been predicted every day since its birth and yet, it has managed to survive into its seventh decade. Going by Taleb’s analysis, Pakistan today, is far more likely to survive for another 70 years than when it first came into being.

This is how i look at it "After making Pakistan a nuclear power, its ALL OURS TO LOSE"
Bura,Bhala, with suicide bombings,extremists on both sides or whatever else, "This is the ONLY tent we have".