Hand Pakistan Over to Foreign Technocrats?

[tor_khan]

I came across Ahmed Rashid's article on the BBC in which he proposes that it is now time to "hand over" Pakistan to foreign technocrats following years and years of mismanagement by successive governments.

He writes:

"Pakistan is under siege - from flood waters that have inundated 23% of cultivable land and extremist Taliban who have killed over 120 people in the past week.

Meanwhile, there is intense political infighting, calls for martial law and an economic downturn that could last for years.

It would seem that years of mismanagement, corruption, bad governance and army rule, punctuated by weak elected governments, have finally taken their toll.

At every turn donor countries, charitable foundations, wealthy individuals or school children inside the country or abroad are refusing to give money to the Pakistani state to alleviate the suffering of nearly 20 million people affected by the floods."


Read more.

[BLS_1919v2.0]

I came across Ahmed Rashid's article on the BBC in which he proposes that it is now time to "hand over" Pakistan to foreign technocrats following years and years of mismanagement by successive governments.

He writes:

"Pakistan is under siege - from flood waters that have inundated 23% of cultivable land and extremist Taliban who have killed over 120 people in the past week.

Meanwhile, there is intense political infighting, calls for martial law and an economic downturn that could last for years.

It would seem that years of mismanagement, corruption, bad governance and army rule, punctuated by weak elected governments, have finally taken their toll.

At every turn donor countries, charitable foundations, wealthy individuals or school children inside the country or abroad are refusing to give money to the Pakistani state to alleviate the suffering of nearly 20 million people affected by the floods."


Read more.

manana just read that article and posted it on facebook.

[tor_khan]

I wonder why Pakistan never quite became like Turkey - after all Jinnah and the early founders looked at the Turkish model for inspiration.

Ahmed Rashid is basically admitting failure of governance and his views probably have a bit of nostalgia tinge to them. After all, many people who recall living under British India always tell you how good it was, and for all their faults, the Brits were good administrators. Compare what the Brits brought to the region that is now Pakistan and what the Indian who became Pakistani achieved in the years since.

Mixed feelings, I guess.

[khyaal]

I came across Ahmed Rashid's article on the BBC in which he proposes that it is now time to "hand over" Pakistan to foreign technocrats following years and years of mismanagement by successive governments.

He writes:

"Pakistan is under siege - from flood waters that have inundated 23% of cultivable land and extremist Taliban who have killed over 120 people in the past week.

Meanwhile, there is intense political infighting, calls for martial law and an economic downturn that could last for years.

It would seem that years of mismanagement, corruption, bad governance and army rule, punctuated by weak elected governments, have finally taken their toll.

At every turn donor countries, charitable foundations, wealthy individuals or school children inside the country or abroad are refusing to give money to the Pakistani state to alleviate the suffering of nearly 20 million people affected by the floods."


Read more.

Technocracy won't work in Pakistan. The real issue which is the mother of all the existing issues is the isse of national rights. Pakistan is not a nation state but a federation, so without giving national rights to Pashtun, Baloch, Sindhi, Seraiki nations as promised in the Lahore Resolution its inherent structural flaws can't be rectified. The issue of terrorism and interference in neighbouring countries is directly related with the issue of national rights where Pakistani tries to use the tactic of self created external threats for the cohesion of the heterogeous population and thus to suppress this fundamental issue. Now Pakistan is almost at the verge of collapse but is still trying unsuccessfully to deny rights to oppressed nations.

[amna.]

I wonder why Pakistan never quite became like Turkey - after all Jinnah and the early founders looked at the Turkish model for inspiration.

Ahmed Rashid is basically admitting failure of governance and his views probably have a bit of nostalgia tinge to them. After all, many people who recall living under British India always tell you how good it was, and for all their faults, the Brits were good administrators. Compare what the Brits brought to the region that is now Pakistan and what the Indian who became Pakistani achieved in the years since.

Mixed feelings, I guess.

It would go against its main ideology which is its an Islamic republic of Pakistan. Remember? Pakistan was founded for Muslims. Its a nation for Muslims.

[khyaal]

Pakistan was never created for the Muslims, it was just a hollow slogan. The real power always lay within the hands of the British cronies, the Unionists turned Muslim leaguers and the Generals from Punjab.

[KhalsaWarrior]

I wonder why Pakistan never quite became like Turkey - after all Jinnah and the early founders looked at the Turkish model for inspiration.

Ahmed Rashid is basically admitting failure of governance and his views probably have a bit of nostalgia tinge to them. After all, many people who recall living under British India always tell you how good it was, and for all their faults, the Brits were good administrators. Compare what the Brits brought to the region that is now Pakistan and what the Indian who became Pakistani achieved in the years since.

Mixed feelings, I guess.

One name might answer your question - Zia-ul-Haq.

I guess Jinnah did have a vision where he saw Pakistan as being a pseudo-secular state. I say pseudo-secular, as Islam would have still been the state religion although he later did invite all minorities to join into the idea of Pakistan and escape from the domination of Hinduism. But that's also where he went wrong. A nation built on the notion of religion and religion alone inevitable ends up mixing religion with politics.

[Son of Mountains]

I would LOVE if Pakistan becomes alike Turkey

[tor_khan]

One name might answer your question - Zia-ul-Haq.

I guess Jinnah did have a vision where he saw Pakistan as being a pseudo-secular state. I say pseudo-secular, as Islam would have still been the state religion although he later did invite all minorities to join into the idea of Pakistan and escape from the domination of Hinduism. But that's also where he went wrong. A nation built on the notion of religion and religion alone inevitable ends up mixing religion with politics.

Pakistan had already lost the eastern wing so clearly things were going wrong earlier - prior to Zia-ul-Haq's infamous rise. Ahmed Rashid basically fails all the people who have governed Pakistan to the current point.

Islam has been used to dull the political senses of the masses, and whilst the reality is different, Pakistan is perceived to be a Panjabee state that protects the sole interests of a select elite (landowners), generals and the (Urduiised) Panjabee middle class (sure, there's more to it*).

Poor Panjabees are also the victims, but they still have a stake in the system, rather unlike poor non-Panjabees who operate at the most extreme fringes.

Though he doesn't say, it, Ahmed Rashid may as well have said that handing Pakistan over to technocrats is partly about taking out that slice of power that serves select (Panjabee) interests.



*the point here is that the current set up doesn't really work for long term strategic Pashtoon interests, no matter how many Pashtoons reside there

[tor_khan]

I would LOVE if Pakistan becomes alike Turkey

Turks were ready to disarm, soften up religion and work collectively.

Is Pakistan ready to do the same?

[Son of Mountains]

Turks were ready to disarm, soften up religion and work collectively.

Is Pakistan ready to do the same?

^ No........due to ignorant Mullahs and *** politicians of Pakistan at the moment.......Maybe in many next years, we 'd not be able for this untill we get a Deewana at the seat of PM

I like Khumeni (plz take non-religiously), M.K. Pasha and Dr Mahateer Muhammad like people to haunt over the politics.

[tor_khan]

^ No........due to ignorant Mullahs and *** politicians of Pakistan at the moment.......Maybe in many next years, we 'd not be able for this untill we get a Deewana at the seat of PM

I like Khumeni (plz take non-religiously), M.K. Pasha and Dr Mahateer Muhammad like people to haunt over the politics.

You are talking about "at the moment". Pakistan has had 63 years to prove itself.

Is it fair to say to people that they should wait for deliverance by some super-human messiah*? It doesn't matter whether we are talking about Khomeni or Attaturk - even if they are polar opposites, Pakistan has caused millions of people to suffer. Either the politicians can't get it right because they will continue to serve very narrow interests or someone should wake up and abandon the plan as is.

*possible?

[Son of Mountains]

^ Still Hope is Alive

[khyaal]

But half of Pakistan's existence has been directly military and in the rest also the military has been the de facto ruler and policy maker, so considering mullah to be responsible for Pakistan's ills is not quite true. Actually the role of mullah in politics itself is the creation of the military.

[Son of Mountains]

^not at this time.....pakistan n pakistanis are suffering only right this time.

However, in future, i expect n pray for any person who may bring a rapid revolution.