Aza’adi Special-Pakistan at the Crossroads: To be, But What to be? That is the Question!
Athar Osama August 14th, 2007
By: Athar Osama
Today is the Sixtieth Anniversary of the Independence of Pakistan. Today, sixty years ago, Pakistan came into being as a state established for the Muslims of the subcontinent to fashion their lives according the requirements of their own religion. Sixty years have gone by and Pakistan has a come a long way from a weak and fragile–almost by design–state that was declared a geographical absurdity to one that has not only survived but, in some ways, thrived as well. In other ways, though, Pakistan continues to struggle to define itself till this day. It is a state where power belongs to a small elite group of individuals and not to the people. It is state where it cannot be said with surety and conviction that the govern-ors govern with the consent of the governed. It is a state where extreme poverty still exists for as many as half of the country’s population and a country that continues to score among the lowest in the world on key indicators of human development whether it is education, health, mortality or economic and political freedom–alongside countries of sub-Saharan Africa.
While we should all be thankful to Allah Almighty for giving us this piece of land, that we can call our home, and its people, our people, we should also not leave any stone unturned to make this piece of land the envy of the world. We are far from that aspiration and there is a long way to go. In fact, some of us may argue that we aren’t even moving in the right direction. Ironically, Pakistan is a country that has not yet come to terms with some of the most important questions that must define a country’s march into the future:
- What is the purpose of its existence (e.g. Whether it was created as a state for the Muslims or an Islamic State?)
- What should be the system of governance that would be put into practice (e.g. Democracy or Dictatorship), and
- And how do we, Pakistanis, see Law and Constitution, whether the latter is a mere piece of paper to be followed, if convenient, and discarded, if necessary or defines “rules of the game” that must be adhered-to to bring order and stability to our lives.
No wonder then, that every now and then, we, Pakistanis, find our country at a crossroads. It is also no surprise then that on this–the 6oth Anniversary of Pakistan’s Independence–a lot of Pakistanis are asking themselves the same question. What was Pakistan created for and why does it exist? Understanding Pakistan has engaged with this debate before (here, here, and here) as we looked at the passage of the Objectives Resolution (here). We add two new perspectives to this debate in this Aza’adi Special Edition of Understanding Pakistan.
Before we answer that question, we would like to introduce our guest pieces this week. Today, Yasser Latif Hamdanilooks at Quaid-e-Azam’s August 11, 1947 speech at the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan to try to understand what Quaid-e-Azam’s vision was for Pakistan? Tomorrow, Dr. Pervez Hoodbhoy takes a similar approach to argue that Quaid-e-Azam may have stood for an Islamic State but his notion of an Islamic state was very different from a theocracy. We balance these perspectives with a re-run of an abridged version of a larger piece (here) that we carried earlier in which Allama Ghulam Ahmed Pervez –a controversial religious figure of his time–argues the opposite.
What does an average Pakistani make of all this?Apparently, Quaid-e-Azam has said so many things, on so many different occasions, to so many audiences that his words can be used–legitimately or illegitimately–to argue for either of the two extreme viewpoints. Did Quaid-e-Azam stand for an Islamic State or a Secular modern democracy? We really don’t know for sure. He perhaps did not explicitly say so either.
In many ways, is that even a legitimate debate today?While we owe a lot of debt and reverence to the Quaid for giving us our freedoms and this piece of land we call Pakistan, I am not absolutely certain if today, after sixty years of wandering around in search of a purpose and identity, we should necessarily try to resurrect what Quaid-e-Azam explicitly or implicitly said that he wanted.
I think that above everything else, Quaid wanted us, all Pakistanis, to live in peace, harmony, and prosperity and would have liked us to decide for ourselves, today, how we want to live our lives. Does it really matter what Pakistan was to be 60 years ago. That Pakistan never materialized in the first place. But it does certainly matter what we can make of it today and it is our greatest duty to make the best of what we have.
Learning about Pakistan’s history and what Quaid thought and did, and why he did it, is an important endeavor but the ultimate choice of what Pakistan will be rests with all of us, the people of Pakistan. The problem with those who argue in favor of either of the two extremes–a Theocratic Islamic State or a Modern Secular Democracy–is that each has its own hidden agenda and neither of them is willing give the people of Pakistan the true choice and control of their own destiny.
Understanding Pakistan carried out an online poll to ascertain what system of governance would our readers like to be establish in Pakistan. The poll was available online for 2 weeks in July and was responded to by over 50 UPP readers. While this is, in no way, generalizable to all Pakistanis, it is perhaps reflective of the general tendencies. The results are graphically presented in the figure above.
In short, there is almost a tie between those who want to establish an Islamic Democracy (46%) and those who would like to see a Modern Secular Democracy (44%). Note that none of these numbers are greater than 50% hence neither of these groups of individuals are in a simple numerical majority. What is safe to say, however, is that the people of Pakistan (as imperfectly represented by those who responded to this poll) choose democracy over any other form of government by an overwhelming majority. They also probably want it to be moderated and enshrined with the values of Islam–perhaps a brand of democracy unique to the Pakistani people? Whether Islamic Democracy is an oxymoron or whether, as argued by many notable Muslim scholars, democracy is an inherently Islamic concept, is a debate we will return to at a later date. However, the writing is clearly on the wall!
There is also some interest in creating a Socialist State (11%) and a somewhat larger number who preferred an Islamic Socialist State (17%).The latter concept was first introduced by Liaquat Ali Khan and later by Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. Neither of them probably elaborated upon what it constitutes and perhaps didn’t even fully grasp what it meant at that time. Regardless, however, it is unlikely that a majority consensus will ever develop on these options. Another group of interest is the one that tends to favor an Islamic State or a Theocracy (17%). Once again, while this is a significant minority, it is a minority nonetheless. Overall, though, between Islamic Democracy, Islamic State, and Islamic Socialist state, we have a clear majority of voters (exact numbers cannot be determined because of double counting since we allowed people to vote for more than two systems of governance, if they so chose).
Finally, we come to those system of governance that are not quite as popular. An Oligarchy(rule of the few, e.g. the Establishment) is preferred by only 4% as is a Martial Law. None of the respondents preferred a Constitutional Military Rule(that really is an oxymoron!) and only 2% preferred a Constitutional (Benign) Dictatorship. Finally 11% of the respondents favored a Meritocracy (where people’s capabilities mattered).
The lack of support for Martial Law comes as somewhat of a surprise to me. I remember discussing Musharraf and the Martial Law with groups of Pakistani Americans only a year ago who often turned out to be die-hard fans of both. “Pakistani Qoum Danday Key Ilawa Kuch Nahi Samajhti”(”Pakistani nation does not understand any other language but the stick”) was a comment I heard often from my Pakistani American colleagues. Seems like things have changed in a year and the ”Danda” is not popular anymore.
The poll is clearly indicative of the general tendencies and preferences of the Pakistani people. That Pakistani people are inherently democratic is clearly evident not only from this poll results but the fact that time and again Pakistanis have risen up against military dictators and forced the latter to bring democracy back. That Pakistanis also want Islam to play some kind of role in their system of governance–a role that remains as yet undefined–is also clearly evident. Does that sound an alarm to those who argue for either of the two extremes (a theocracy or a secular state)? Should it?
We believe, it should not. Ultimately, Pakistan should be what its people want it to be and would be most comfortable living with, not what some opportunistic politician, religious or military leader wants us to believe it must be. This is perhaps the most important conversation that we Pakistanis need to have.
Let the poor people of Pakistan, for once in their lives, decide their own fates and not impose it upon them. All power to the people, not only in letter (like Pakistan Peoples Party) but also in spirit!
May this 60th Independence Day bring us nearer to that goal…
Pakistan Zindabad !
- Ideology , 2007 , UPP Survey , Democracy , Mohammed Ali Jinnah , 1947 , Constitution , Religion , Politics , Editorial Comment
Loading ...
“Sixty years have gone by and Pakistan has a come a long way from a weak and fragile–almost by design–state that was declared a geographical absurdity to one that has not only survived but, in some ways, thrived as well”
Well survived is ok but how it has thrived? I dont see reasons for making fancy claims. The whole articles describes that there is nothing that can suggest Pakistan has thrived. It is better to admit as it exisits in reality which is stated above as
“other ways, though, Pakistan continues to struggle to define itself till this day. It is a state where power belongs to a small elite group of individuals and not to the people. It is state where it cannot be said with surety and conviction that the govern-ors govern with the consent of the governed. It is a state where exterme poverty still exists for as many as half of the country’s population and a country that continues to score among the lowest in the world on key indicators of human development whether it is education, health, mortality or economic and political freedom–alongside countries of sub-saharan Africa”
“we should also not leave any stone unturned to make this piece of land the envy of the world”.
With all above mentioned problems can we do this? Please be realistic not idealistic in what you write. You have written facts but dont take the gloss off by masking with fancy words.
“May this 60th Independence Day bring us nearer to that goal”. There is something called test of time. Is 60 years enough for that test or do we need more?
With understanding Pakistan project or knowing history one has to take an unbiased approach. Can I suggest that you dont use title QUAID and instead refer to him as Muhammad Ali Jinnah because there are many people and growing awareness who dont think he deserved it. Forexample read the following:
http://www.altmuslim.com/a/a/a/2583
“Sixty years after the partition that created India and Pakistan, Irfan Yusuf explores why some of the barriers between nations never really kept people apart.”
While well intentioned, I am afraid this article does not take into account certain basic facts of partition:
1. Mahomed Ali Jinnah was the only politician in the subcontinent to be called the Best Ambassador of Hindu Muslim Unity for 30 years of his career. He tried longer than any other Indian Muslim politician to keep India and Indians together. At the end he was the most reluctant of partitionists.
2. Till 1946 Jinnah still tried to come to an arrangement with the Congress Party on the basis of the Cabinet Mission Plan which would have kept India together but it was the Congress ultimately vetoed the Cabinet Mission Plan because it did not satisfy their centralising concerns.
3. I am afraid it is not ok to claim that Jinnah made a fortune represent the wealthy in London. Jinnah’s fortune came from hard work … he was a thoroughly self made man who rose to the level of the elite because of his extraordinary legal ability. To top it all of Jinnah has a legislative career spanning three decades in which he fought for the rights of women, depressed classes and minorities.
4. Jinnah’s vision of Pakistan-India relations was clearly one of porous borders and free trade. He expressed this vision on several occasions. You should read Khushwant Singh’s views on the Muslim League’s demand for Pakistan to see that Jinnah atleast did not envisage the kind of hostility that exists between Pakistan and India today.
5. The gentleman who commented above is also wrong when he makes blanket claims. The biggest beneficiaries of partition of India are people like myself whose families were living in areas that form Pakistan today. Before Pakistan came along this region was a raw-material producing “martial” region. Muslims of this region especially were employed mainly in agriculture and the army. Pakistan’s creation changed all that. Muslims of this region were forced to take up professions that were till then considered the exclusive domain of the Non-Muslims. Furthermore.. this region which had a single industrial unit in 1947 … and 1/10th the number of Industrial workers actually saw an industrial revolution only because of the creation of Pakistan.
Whatever Pakistan’s failings… it today has a bourgeoisie that is trying to hold its own in a globalised world… had there been no Pakistan, this region would be a remote part of the Indian republic.
Why Pakistan has not reached its potential has very different and much more concrete reasons than abusing this man or that man…
The Muslim bourgeoisie i.e. Salariat behind the creation of Pakistan belonged entirely to the Hindustan regions and had no real roots in indigenous Pakistan. Those who had roots in the regions of Punjab and Sindh etc were mostly feudals. Thus the feudals and the army in collusion with the civil bureaucracy found it really easy to over throw the bourgeoisie … in 1954 and then the army assumed command in 1958.
Why were feudals stronger in Punjab etc… had its roots in the British theory of Martial and Non-martial regions… whereby the British ruled Punjab with consensus of the feudals who were given a free rein … and the democratic and bourgeoisie institutions of Bengal and rest of India just did not take root here for a long time. How are you going to blame this on Jinnah or his party League which struggled as much against the Unionist Party in the 1940s as Congress had (against the Unionist Party) in the 1930s…
Pakistan thus was faced not just with general Muslim backwardness (because of their preference for either soldiery or farming) but also the fact that the regions that constituted Pakistan were industrially a half century behind the rest of India…. Pakistan’s creation in fact has provided that impetus and fire required to create a modern industrial economy and a bourgeoisie…
As for democracy in Pakistan… I think its time has now come and not even the greatest army can stop the march of an idea whose time has come.
As a Pakistani- born and raised in Pakistan- then frankly I am quite insulted by some of the assertions here. All nation states are born out of conflict. If after 60 years, people are still going to question something that is my identity … then is it any wonder that Pakistanis react the way they do?
The above comment is in response to the article linked by Maqsood.
“The biggest beneficiaries of partition of India are people like myself whose families were living in areas that form Pakistan today”
At the expense of all those who got displace/murdered?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/6922293.stm
“Partition left 10 million people uprooted and more than half a million Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus dead in riots and massacres.
Sixty years on, the status of Kashmir remains unresolved despite a tenuous peace process between India and Pakistan, following three wars. Communal unrest continues to surface from time to time in both countries. The good news is that the economies are growing, especially in India.”
The foundations of your success is built on the blood of others and which is still spilling over? Many people are still paying the price. Does this make you proud of your identity?
It is quite sad that people like you don’t look at the substance of the issue.
The reason why violence happened at partition was not because of the Pakistan demand but because of Mountbatten’s insistence on partitioning Punjab and Bengal against Jinnah’s wishes and the failure of the British government to deploy the boundary force.Furthermore.. how was Kashmir problem created?
To continuously question our identity… sixty years later…when all nation states are formed out of conflict is indicative of a mindset unwilling to accept realities and let people be.
I am very proud of my Pakistani identity because I was born a Pakistani- India was to me a foreign country and I could care less what hang ups you carry… whether people like you like it or not.
No my mindset was what that you now have. This is because how we are raised in Pakistan through all the curriculum of Pakistan studies that is rammed down our throught starting right from Two nation theory from early years. And starting the day at schools with National Anthem. That tantamounts to ‘brain washing”. This contributes towards our racist upbringing. No decent nation would do this. There was a time when word India and Indians would just bring emotions full of hate in me. India was enemy, Indians are enemies, India for hindus and hindus has always treated muslims with contempt. Thats what I have learnt in my 16 years of education in Pakistan. Can you deny that?
While in Pakistan you think the way you are thinking. You read things to justify your beliefs or mould it to satisfy your predominant beliefs. And this is what you are proving above. And you are not alone its like this. Including me until i was able to break free and started to take a close rational look.
You cant deny the fact that you have Indian Roots. Your parents and grandparents were indians. Same as mine. I am Australian now but called Pakistani Australian because of my roots people think here trace back to Pakistan. So that makes you Pakistani Indian.
Jinnah a very wise man if he was, should be able to foresee what could be happening if the partition went ahead. Getting an elite group along with him to rule the country and then hoping this elite group would bring an equality to every one in the country was just plain crap. Jinnah was the intelligent man so he knew this all the way through. You cant say he was tricked by mountbatten or tricked by other members of the party.
Again the very basic idea of partition which has its roots in Two Nation Theory was wrong. Jinnah being the wise person and secular himself should have advocated against it. He should have fought to death not to go ahead with the Partition and bring the unity. Just getting the title of best ambassador of hindu muslims unity was not enough. This shows how diplomatic he was. And that makes it really shrewed and cunning person.
Partition divided the muslims numbers and strengths. If Pakistan was for Muslims why there are muslims numbers more in India than in Pakistan now. THe forming of east Pakistan and West Pakistan was geographically absurdity which had its effect when it seperated and formed Bangladesh.
Muslim population in subcontinent now is about 500 million. 170 million Pakistan and almost samein India and Bangladesh thats make it 500 million. Hindu population is about 800 million. With 500 million Muslims are no minority. But in present India with 200 million against 800million definitely cant be considered majority.
By considering Hindus a totally alien nation was the biggest blow to the Islamic belief and that would have stopped the conversion of people from Hindu from becoming Muslim. Dont forget it was a Hindu region and all muslims that you say now are muslims are converts. How can you accept someone to convert into Islam or becoming muslim if you first develop hatred against them and tell them you are dirty , you dont desrve to live with us. Make sense?
If i miss the substance of the issue you are missing very basic anthropologic issue. It takes centuries over centuries for a certain region and its people to come to an equilibrium and determine/form what is called Culture. Disturbing that equilibrium will result in enormous consequences. And then in such disturbances some people become zero from hero and some become hero from zero. Partition distrubed that equilibrium and (as you said above) you and people like you become hero from nothing. If this disturbance bring good to every one it should be welcome but if this disturbance just bring a win loose solution it should not have been accepted.
Jinnah would have been a hero had he fought till his death to keep the country together.
Again by saying you are proud of your identity doesnt really make your proud or does it? Show me what you have achieved being a Pakistani? If somehow you happen to be belonging to elite group (feudals, armed forces etc) pakistan is heaven for you. As an ordinary pakistani do tell me what you have achieved that makes you proud of your identity? Acknowledge your true roots that might give you something to proud of.
You couldnt care less thats not a problem, all jubiliant hotblooded youth in Pakistan is doing this but some one has to shake your beliefs hard enough so that you pull your head out of sand one day.
regards
The problem with you is that you assume too much sadly and you have not attempted to verify the facts but are operating on your Pakistani education which has quite clearly taught you things which don’t make sense. It makes sense that your new-found rationalism has made you reject the Islamised version of history that is taught in Pakistan which has NOTHING to do with Jinnah or his Pakistan Movement.
On the contrary I was educated in an American school in Pakistan and then got my college education in the United States of America. As a youth in America at College I could have cared less about Pakistan and Pakistani identity, untill I ended up in my alma mater’s wonderful Alexandar Library of Rutgers University in New Jersey. There- at the hallowed hall of knowledge - I discovered Jinnah and Pakistan and the real intent behind making the country - an intent that was both noble and secular. That Jinnah was the one politician who was considered completely incorruptible … (you should read what Dr. B R Ambedkar wrote about the Quaid…. and B R Ambedkar was an indian statesman much greater in stature than any other in my opinion)… is an undeniable fact of history acknowledged by every one from Gandhi to Nehru.
Infact it was there in Alexandar Library that I began to discover just how painfully Jinnah struggled … for 30 years to bring Hindus and Muslims together as Indians and how terribly he failed in doing so. Pakistan was the outcome of that failure that Mr. Jinnah experienced as a minority who dared to think himself an Indian. In that failure ofcourse he towered above the successes of ordinary mortals.
What you don’t understand unfortunately is that neither you nor any Indian has any right to question someone else’s identity. I was born a Pakistani… I am not much of a religious Muslim in the orthodox sense… but I do care about my Pakistani identity which is paramount for me. Unloading your pathetic Australian identity problems on me is unfair. I am not an Australian and I am not Indian. I was born and raised a Pakistani and that is what matters. It is my god given right which is protected by the UN Human Rights charter to have a national identity of my choosing. Since all identities are imagined you DON’T have the locus standi to tell me what I am or am not.
Coming back to partition …. perhaps you ought to read Indian lawyer H M Seervai’s Partition of India Legend and Reality to see just how much Jinnah tried to keep India united even at the last moment and how Jinnah alone was driven by a sense of fairness, justice and fairplay.
Now coming to your hang-ups about the two nation theory…. the two nation theory never sought to demonise the Hindus. It was an attempt at bringing about a negotiated settlement in United India and sought create a consociationalist solution to the complex problem. If Jinnah resorted to two nation theory… it was not out of malice for the Hindus… but because of all his attempts had already failed.
And finally to me being Pakistani does not mean that India is the enemy and Hindus are evil. Here since you’ve confessed to having these feelings, please note that your mindset was NEVER the same as mine. You operated on an exclusivist mindset that was the product of Zia-ul-Haq’s Islamisation and had nothing to do with Jinnah’s Pakistan. I am the votary of Jinnah’s Pakistan … proud of my country and my nation… and yet without any malice or hatred for the Indians or Hindus except those who harbor similar malice towards me. So on this count your argument falls flat on its face yet again.
PS: And also allow me to address your pathetic comment about “zeroes” becoming “heroes” etc. I admit it… my great grand father was a mere railway worker and had it not been for Pakistan, my mother would not have a ghost of a chance of becoming a successful doctor and a leading health professional. Does it bother you that Pakistan has actually helped those it had meant to help? I suppose Pakistan had nothing to do to get you to Australia…
For all your claims about the elite, Pakistan’s single greatest achievement is the creation of a national bourgeoisie that had hitherto not existed in the regions that constitute Pakistan. In 1947 the regions that constitute Pakistan had less than 10 industrial units, 3% literacy and very few industrial workers. Today despite major setbacks the country has managed to create a respectable industrial class with global clout and our literacy rate has gone up from 3% to close to 52% that constitutes more than a 17 fold increase. And this we’ve done despite not having matched our potential which is enormous.
Why Pakistan has not reached its potential has very different and much more concrete reasons than abusing this man or that man…The Muslim bourgeoisie i.e. Salariat behind the creation of Pakistan belonged entirely to the Hindustan regions and had no real roots in indigenous Pakistan. Those who had roots in the regions of Punjab and Sindh etc were mostly feudals. Thus the feudals and the army in collusion with the civil bureaucracy found it really easy to over throw the bourgeoisie … in 1954 and then the army assumed command in 1958.
Why were feudals stronger in Punjab etc… had its roots in the British theory of Martial and Non-martial regions… whereby the British ruled Punjab with consensus of the feudals who were given a free rein … and the democratic and bourgeoisie institutions of Bengal and rest of India just did not take root here for a long time. How are you going to blame this on Jinnah or his party League which struggled as much against the Unionist Party in the 1940s as Congress had (against the Unionist Party) in the 1930s…
Pakistan thus was faced not just with general Muslim backwardness (because of their preference for either soldiery or farming) but also the fact that the regions that constituted Pakistan were industrially a half century behind the rest of India…. Pakistan’s creation in fact has provided that impetus and fire required to create a modern industrial economy and a bourgeoisie…
As for democracy in Pakistan… I think its time has now come and not even the greatest army can stop the march of an idea whose time has come.
So be holistic… don’t give me the occam’s razor. Nation states grow over time. Most nation states take from 200 to 300 years. Pakistan in comparison has done remarkably well despite enormous odds. Remember they predicted we would fall apart in 10 years…. 60 years later we are still going on…
Please note that I am not asking you agree with me. But I have the right to express my opinion and I would appreciate if you drop the air of false superiority you have about your ideas which to me frankly are not so as they inherently based on ignorance taught to you by a ZiaulHaq inspired vision of Pakistan which has nothing to do with Jinnah’s Pakistan or the idealism that created this great nation state.
H V Hodson from his book “GREAT DIVIDE” has left this brilliant portrait of the quaid.. in the chapter “two great personalities”
Not even his political enemies ever accused Jinnah of corruption or self-seeking. He could be bought by no one, and for no price. Nor was he in the least degree a weather-cock, swinging in the wind of popularity of changing his politics to suit the chances of the times. He was a steadfast idealist as well as a man of scrupulous honour.
PPS: Please all comments together:
Here is William Dalrymple writing in the Guardian on 14th August:
“On the ground, of course, the reality is different and first-time visitors to Pakistan are almost always surprised by the country’s visible prosperity.There is far less poverty on show in Pakistan than in India, fewer beggars, and much less desperation. In many ways the infrastructure of Pakistan is much more advanced: there are better roads and airports, and more reliable electricity. Middle-class Pakistani houses are often bigger and better appointed than their equivalents in India.
Moreover, the Pakistani economy is undergoing a construction and consumer boom similar to India’s, with growth rates of 7%, and what is currently the fastest-rising stock market in Asia. You can see the effects everywhere: in new shopping centres and restaurant complexes, in the hoardings for the latest laptops and iPods, in the cranes and building sites, in the endless stores selling mobile phones: in 2003 the country had fewer than three million cellphone users; today there are almost 50 million.“
I have done extensive research on the reasons behind our miseries, based on which I am trying to promote that Pakistan must have 25 years of stable authoritarian rule. Few of my communications with various groups are given below:
…………
If Pakistan becomes a fundamentalist state, then the religious extremists deserve the success, because they feel that this is their country, and are giving big sacrifices to carve out the nation according to their vision. They are making extensive efforts by running free madrasas, training militants, writing books, magazines, newspapers, holding regular gatherings and rallies, distributing free audio tapes and leveraging modern methods such as internet to propagate their vision Feudal lords also believe that they own this country and are giving sacrifices to retain their control The criminals, corrupts and ‘gonda’ are also making intensive efforts and participating in the political process to achieve their objectives
The silent majority (the educated middle class) neither have any rights on Pakistan nor do they deserve anything. If they had any sense of belonging to Pakistan, then they would have also struggled like the others to make it habitable for them and their children. They are a silent spectator waiting for a new master
…………….
NO country in the world has ever achieved progress or democracy without continuous authoritarian rule from an honest leadership. We should all get worried that once more we are tearing down our country, as we had done with Ayob & Bhutto. Why can’t we be like China, Malaysia, Singapore and other Asian giants, which may not have freedoms that we enjoy, but have respect around the world because they are rich, strong and civilized. The cost of enjoyment is that very harsh. We are extremely poor, most corrupt and have no respect in the community of nations. Sometime US president threatens us, some time India threatens us and now even Afghanistan.
The point is: If the freedom and democracy leads us towards a better future, then it is good. But I have seen that it is progressively taking us in our graves. Pakistan needs 25 years of continuous authoritarian rule like Malaysia.
……………
I think first we have to brainstorm that this is the solution. Then the next step would be how to achieve the desired solution. I would like to add that India is not a real democracy. Definition of democracy is ‘Of the People, By the People, For the People’. Just casting vote to select a PM is not democracy. Due to this they have same problems that we have i.e. corruption of civil service and judiciary, power cuts as bad as Pakistan, poverty worse than Pakistan etc. The export of Hong Kong is more than India. We started with zero economy, and they started with huge industrial base. Similarly they also have issues of Kashmir, Sikhistan, Nagaland, demolition of muslim shrines, terrorist attacks, suicide bombers etc. In fact our press is more free, and now it seems that our judiciary is also more independent than theirs. If any member would like more points comparing Indian democracy with our partial democracy, then I can provide these. In my earlier message perhaps I didn’t explain fully, which is; we need 25 years of stable authoritarian rule to implement democratic principles and institutionalize the practices i.e. to transition us into democracy, because no country in the world has been able to sucessfully transitioned without such burning in period.
Moreover, I feel that we have not given sufficient understanding to the Local Government System introduced by this government. This is an attempt to comply with the basic definition of democracy i.e. ‘Of the people, by the people and for the people’. About 25000 of middle class are involved in local government system, who are getting trained in the system. So this is the breeding ground for new leadership to replace 50 zamindar families who are ruling Pakistan for the last 60 year. This is just one of the benefit of the local government system. All strong democracies practice local government system. If local government system is not derailed and sabotaged, then it has the potential to put us on the right track.
With regard to U.S; as you must be aware, the recent past of U.S was cowboy culture, gang wars, mafia kidnappings etc. Edgar J. Hoover is considered to be the archirect of modern U.S, who was head of CIA for 42 years up until 1972, who eliminated all this with an IRON FIST. It is believed that the Kennedy brothers were killed on his instructions. Please read more about Edgar Hoover on the internet.
Ghulam Mohammed
Dear Gulam Mohammed:
Thank you for your comment. We understand and appreciate your viewpoint. However, it would be nice if you could support your assertions with actual data. Would be nice to if you could share your research on the subject. If it really stands the test of rigor, we’d even like to feature it on this website. UPP does not take a position this way or that way–although individuals writing on UPP may. So, we’re really open to any viewpoint as long as it is empirically justifiable and rigorous.
We’d be hoping to hear from you more.
-Editor.
The CNN-IBN Pakistan and India polls are out.. (State of the nation polls)
In this context Jinnah got an approval rating of 97% in Pakistan and 43% in India.
Gandhi got an approval rating 29% in Pakistan and 85% in India.