choices..for the nation, for the people..are we doing what is right
Here are a couple of questions.
Pakistan can gain lasting peace with India on the Kashmir Issue by just living with the LOC as border and then reduce the spending on military and divert that to social and educational programs, should it do so.
what would it mean in terms of numbers. I need some help understanding this sceanrio as well. how much would we be saving on an annual basis if the defense spending is cut by 25%, or 50%.
what is the amount of taxes uncollected by the govt due to massive scale tax cheating in the country. how much is it that we are missing today per estimates.
Let me just share my initial uneducated hypothesis. I think that in lookign out for rights of kashmiris we are ignoring the rights of other Pakistanis, and their wellbeing.
another hypothesis is that this military cut combined with incremental gains in tax collection could give us enough funds to really take a good stab at education, social programs and healthcare.
I dont have data to prove or disprove this hypothesis and would invite all to help assess this hypothesis.
One request, lets keep personalities and politics out of this please. I would love to cooperate with those I usually disagree with on politics, in doing an assessment of the impact.
I whole-heartedly agree on Kashmir, be it recognising LOC as The Border or negotiate (give n take), but I don't see it happening the reason being army... perhaps we should keep 'buts' out of this thread as well.
2ndly, I bet the overall income tax collection is around 15-20%, this does not include the amount hidden by lies and deceptions.
Kashmir issue should not be resolved just because of economic benefits (to cut military spending to meet the "Kashmir" demands) rather for a peaceful life in the two countries which would cut the roots of 'extremist' organizations (at least the ones based on Kashmir conflict).
Income Tax recovery should be boosted, big fish should be investigated in details for income tax purposes. Tax base should be increased, more focus should be 'wealth tax'.
On the face of it, the military president looks willing to surrender on Kashmir front, which makes me wonder what he was doing sending men across LOC in his Kargil adventure. A desire to be 'thrust' into chief executive role?
I for one do not support turning LOC into international border.
captan sahab, I wholeheartedly agree that kashmir issue should be resolved and compromised on more for peace than for numbers, but I want to kinda understand what this has cost pakistan over the years, how much is it costing us each year and at the expense of what.
as far as taxation goes, the net needs to be cast wide. because its not just the big industrialists that are not paying their share, but your corner store kiryana store guy is also not paying, essetially anyone who is not a salaried employee is not paying due taxes.
Kashmir is one of the primary reasons why the military has such a hold on the country. At this rate the military will run the country down and everyone has to simply like it in the name of false pride. Therefore your idea that LOC become permanent border has a lot of merit. I will however add one thing - While recognizing the border, some sort of free trade zone arrangement should be worked out so that there would be free flow of goods, services and tourist dollars.
Because of the history of the govt I do not think we can place any plans on the numbers declared by the govt. I think all govt stats from the Musharaf regime are bogus made up and agenda motivated.
I simply googled "Pakistan military spending and GDP" and the very first result was an article titled "Indo Pak Defence Spending". Acc to that while India spends 2 to 2.5% of GDP, Pakistan is spending between 4.5 to 5.5%! that is huge and if it can be cut by 50%, I believe the effect will be enormously positive. (I have no idea whether the article is right or wrong but the numbers sound right - I have read somewhere else that China and US spend 1.5 and 3% respectively)
Assuming 2% is normal spend on military I'd attribute anything over that to Kashmir related. Which means a full 2.5 to 3% of GDP for the past ALL years can be considered the cost paid on Kashmir account. Someone can go find the GDP for the past 60 years and multiply
LOC as IB is the only viable solution. Its the ground reality. Pakistan knows nothing will change the ground reality, and it may as well make the most of it. Have peace, have brotherhood with India.
We spend about $5bn on defence annually, its far too much. With Kashmir solved, we could reduce defence spending, concentrating on a strategic nuclear force and having a small army for conventional purposes.
This would free up much money as noted. Rising tax collection, rising economic growth etc would allow proper social development.
If the army is to retain its size after a hypothetical Kashmir fix, then much of it would need to be geared towards public works, using those skills and materials to build roads, dams, schools, irrigation systems.
So the assumption is we should change our stance on Kashmir because we *believe *that we’re spending 1 or 2 percent of GDP on Kashmir and this ‘solution’ of Kashmir dispute will not only curtail our defense expenditure, (which will make Pakistan a prosperous nation) but also end military intervention in political sphere?
Well, the hypothesis looks rather unrealistic to me. You can oppose army rule or Musharraf by directly opposing army rule rather than giving a military ruler carte blanche to ‘solve’ everything himself.
In my humble opinion, army’s role in politics, Kashmir dispute and Pak economy should be viewed as different issues.
I support Musharraf. Its him or the mullahs, who I frankly detest. Its a case of Pakistan's stance on Kashmir being futile. For all its moral soundness, we cannot (a) get JK of India by force and (b) India will not give it up.
That means for practical reasons we should accept LOC/IB. Keep our 1/3, we won it in honorable battle in 1948-let it stand as a monument of sorts. And let us by accepting LOC/IB move on, reduce tensions with India, and by extension cut the forces and divert those funds to social development.
We are a developing nation, our people need food, water, shelter and education. We cannot afford to sustain any kind of standoff.
So we should give up Kashmir *because *our people are poor? Why doesn't India give up Kashmir when its people are poorer? The whole issue is about one or two percent of GDP (assuming that one or two percent goes to Kashmir, which I believe is not the case)? Is that the most convincing argument anyone can come up with for turning LOC into border?
No...so we have to accept LOC = IB. Its the only choice we have, unless we opt for endless tensions over Kashmir, endless wasted lives.
Get it?
My sloution is not to 'get Kashmir of India'. There could be other solutions acceptable to Pakistan and more importantly Kashmiris. And these solutions can be reached without any military conflict.
We have tried to find such a solution for years brother. It wont happen. India wont budge, we cant force there hand.
Its that or perpetual tensions!
Perhaps joint administration of Kashmir as a dual terriroty, with a seperate currency, pegged against both at set rates, a small commision to run it (a few Pak, a few Ind, few Kashmiris)...
great discussion guys, I see both the for and against arguments. I dont have stats here yet to really assess what either of the hypothesis mean yet, but appreciate the efforts of everyone to keep this as a positive, constructive discussion, we dont have to agree on everything to keep things positive. I would like to have this approach for all our discussions, because in the end we all want what is best for the nation and the people, we just have different views and perspectives due to different knowledge, upbringing, and exposure.