If Pakistan desires to remain economically violable and respected in the region and the world, only defeating the Taliban or other extremist forces is not enough: the whole structure of privileges, feudal or state-sanctioned, has to go
While Pakistan may have a sufficient defence deterrent, when it comes to the economy it is no match for India or even Iran. The Soviet Union was more than capable of destroying the US and all of Europe many times over with its nukes, but no weaponry could save it from colossal collapse. If a superpower could not avert disaster by strengthening defence and neglecting the economy, how can small countries like Pakistan avoid such an ill fate?
The balance of military capabilities between India and Pakistan has not changed drastically in the last three decades. Pakistan’s ultimate deterrent was and remains its nuclear arsenal. Pakistan cannot prevail over India in any conventional war no matter how much it tries to match its arsenal with India’s. Therefore, if Pakistan’s military plans to continue its obsession of competing with the Indian military might at the expense of economic growth, it is making a fatal mistake.
India’s global image has improved not because of enhancements of its military might but due to unprecedented economic growth in the last two decades. It has even been invited to world economic summits, reserved for the top economies in the world, a couple of times in the last few years. Consequently, it is getting better economic and defence deals.
On the contrary, Pakistan has been on a slippery slope: perpetual economic crisis along with the rise of anti-state forces in different shapes and forms have undermined its economic viability and sovereignty. Therefore, it is being lumped with Afghanistan these days.
Like Pakistan India, has it own share of religious extremists and other anti-state forces, ranging from Khalistan to the Sangh Parivar to Maoist guerrillas. Indian bureaucracy is inefficient and corrupt. India may also have more complicated class, cast and regional issues than Pakistan. However, India has grown steadily and Pakistan has declined. So what has been the major difference between India and Pakistan in the development process?
Most commentators and politicians will say that India progressed due to the continuum of democracy and Pakistan lagged behind because of military interventions. But this is not the whole truth. Many countries like South Korea, Chile and Brazil remained under long military spells and yet they have made tremendous economic progress. As a matter of fact, South Korea, the closest example, tasted real democracy after it had sufficiently industrialised. There are other pertinent factors that have dragged Pakistan into a deep ditch.
Probably the most important factor has been the existence and expansion of the privileged classes at the expense of the general population. To start with, Pakistan had no land reform, unlike India and South Korea, who implemented thorough land reforms after they became independent countries. Both in India and South Korea, not only did the distribution of wealth become more equitable but also, rather more importantly, the land reforms dethroned the feudals from political power and opened the way for middle class politicians. Most Indian prime ministers and presidents came from non-feudal middle class intelligentsia.
The other sections of Pakistani society who were part of the governing structures emulated the feudal privileges. Every section of the governing elite competed to gain political control and appropriate economic wealth. It was a brutal competition in which the mightiest military and bureaucracy led the pack though other sections had their share as well. Even Pakistan’s industrial-trading class used the state to the hilt for undue benefits to avoid world competition. In this environment, equity, fairness and an impartial judiciary became alien to Pakistani society.
In comparison, India abolished the feudal system and therefore the governing elites’ system of privileges remained under check. The highest levels of bureaucracy and the military, and political leaders could not accumulate wealth, and remained part of the regular middle class. The only way to be wealthy was through industry and trade or Bollywood. India had a large pool of entrepreneurs, and Hindu-Sikh migration from Punjab and Sindh gave this class a big boost. Therefore, India’s expansion of industry and commerce was inevitable.
The establishment of world-class universities and technical institutes has also played a great role in India’s economic growth. The graduates of high level Indian educational and training institutions helped the middle class enter the world’s best institutions and markets. They transmitted new skills to their home country and new avenues of wealth creation were inducted into the Indian economic system. Therefore, in India, money making and accumulation of personal wealth remained in the private sector.
However, in Pakistan state power was used for enhancing personal wealth and privileges. Probably, Pakistan’s higher level of officials from the army and the bureaucracy are the richest in the world as compared to most countries, especially India. Even the lower rung of bureaucracy and technocracy has received privileges in the form of cheaper land, creating professional residential societies. This is not fair to the private sector.
Pakistan’s ruling elites have not manoeuvred the state for only economic gains; they have also used the legal system to fit their personal preferences. Consequently, a lawless society has emerged in which genuine industry and commerce never thrives and only destructive forces mushroom.
If Pakistan desires to remain economically violable and respected in the region and the world, only defeating the Taliban or other extremist forces is not enough: the whole structure of privileges, feudal or state-sanctioned, has to go. Presently, entrepreneurial classes have no incentive because money can be made through much easier and less risky ways in Pakistan.
The writer can be reached at manzurejaz@yahoo.com
While Pakistan may have a sufficient defence deterrent, when it comes to the economy it is no match for India or even Iran. The Soviet Union was more than capable of destroying the US and all of Europe many times over with its nukes, but no weaponry could save it from colossal collapse. If a superpower could not avert disaster by strengthening defence and neglecting the economy, how can small countries like Pakistan avoid such an ill fate?
The balance of military capabilities between India and Pakistan has not changed drastically in the last three decades. Pakistan’s ultimate deterrent was and remains its nuclear arsenal. Pakistan cannot prevail over India in any conventional war no matter how much it tries to match its arsenal with India’s. Therefore, if Pakistan’s military plans to continue its obsession of competing with the Indian military might at the expense of economic growth, it is making a fatal mistake.
India’s global image has improved not because of enhancements of its military might but due to unprecedented economic growth in the last two decades. It has even been invited to world economic summits, reserved for the top economies in the world, a couple of times in the last few years. Consequently, it is getting better economic and defence deals.
On the contrary, Pakistan has been on a slippery slope: perpetual economic crisis along with the rise of anti-state forces in different shapes and forms have undermined its economic viability and sovereignty. Therefore, it is being lumped with Afghanistan these days.
Like Pakistan India, has it own share of religious extremists and other anti-state forces, ranging from Khalistan to the Sangh Parivar to Maoist guerrillas. Indian bureaucracy is inefficient and corrupt. India may also have more complicated class, cast and regional issues than Pakistan. However, India has grown steadily and Pakistan has declined. So what has been the major difference between India and Pakistan in the development process?
Most commentators and politicians will say that India progressed due to the continuum of democracy and Pakistan lagged behind because of military interventions. But this is not the whole truth. Many countries like South Korea, Chile and Brazil remained under long military spells and yet they have made tremendous economic progress. As a matter of fact, South Korea, the closest example, tasted real democracy after it had sufficiently industrialised. There are other pertinent factors that have dragged Pakistan into a deep ditch.
Probably the most important factor has been the existence and expansion of the privileged classes at the expense of the general population. To start with, Pakistan had no land reform, unlike India and South Korea, who implemented thorough land reforms after they became independent countries. Both in India and South Korea, not only did the distribution of wealth become more equitable but also, rather more importantly, the land reforms dethroned the feudals from political power and opened the way for middle class politicians. Most Indian prime ministers and presidents came from non-feudal middle class intelligentsia.
The other sections of Pakistani society who were part of the governing structures emulated the feudal privileges. Every section of the governing elite competed to gain political control and appropriate economic wealth. It was a brutal competition in which the mightiest military and bureaucracy led the pack though other sections had their share as well. Even Pakistan’s industrial-trading class used the state to the hilt for undue benefits to avoid world competition. In this environment, equity, fairness and an impartial judiciary became alien to Pakistani society.
In comparison, India abolished the feudal system and therefore the governing elites’ system of privileges remained under check. The highest levels of bureaucracy and the military, and political leaders could not accumulate wealth, and remained part of the regular middle class. The only way to be wealthy was through industry and trade or Bollywood. India had a large pool of entrepreneurs, and Hindu-Sikh migration from Punjab and Sindh gave this class a big boost. Therefore, India’s expansion of industry and commerce was inevitable.
The establishment of world-class universities and technical institutes has also played a great role in India’s economic growth. The graduates of high level Indian educational and training institutions helped the middle class enter the world’s best institutions and markets. They transmitted new skills to their home country and new avenues of wealth creation were inducted into the Indian economic system. Therefore, in India, money making and accumulation of personal wealth remained in the private sector.
However, in Pakistan state power was used for enhancing personal wealth and privileges. Probably, Pakistan’s higher level of officials from the army and the bureaucracy are the richest in the world as compared to most countries, especially India. Even the lower rung of bureaucracy and technocracy has received privileges in the form of cheaper land, creating professional residential societies. This is not fair to the private sector.
Pakistan’s ruling elites have not manoeuvred the state for only economic gains; they have also used the legal system to fit their personal preferences. Consequently, a lawless society has emerged in which genuine industry and commerce never thrives and only destructive forces mushroom.
If Pakistan desires to remain economically violable and respected in the region and the world, only defeating the Taliban or other extremist forces is not enough: the whole structure of privileges, feudal or state-sanctioned, has to go. Presently, entrepreneurial classes have no incentive because money can be made through much easier and less risky ways in Pakistan.
The writer can be reached at manzurejaz@yahoo.com
Comments
Post a Comment