Re: Polarisation of Pakistan
guys great discussion and some really good points... but i doubt a political government cannot achieve that ...it has to compromise....every political govt has to compromise
so are you guys saying, we need an ata turk type guy? not going to be easy to accommodate such guy in today's global environment
also one more thing, as we do in every red team blue team strategy exercise ... think of the closest comparable and how has he fared? how has india survived? more sects, more religions, more languages, more nationalities, more provinces, more population, more ethnic backgrounds yet moving along.... not in perfect condition but moving along....remember we are fine with a Pakistan that has normal proportion of problems.....so what is the fundamental difference when we compare india to pakistan? think abt it but be unbiased..maybe we will get to some sort of root cause
Ataturk was exactly who I was thinking of in my comments. I don't know too much about his dealings with the British, but I imagine he faced similar pressures from Europe and the Soviets as Pakistan faces from the US. Given the state of Pakistan, the leader would have to be fairly heavy handed in some matters, and subtle in others. He or she would have to play nice with both the West as well as the religious parties.
phoenix, what kind of difficulties are you referring to? Our politicians already break laws and are the poster children of corruption. "Positive corruption", while a betrayal of the ideals of proper governance, would help solve our problems. Of course, they raise further issues, like the erosion of democracy, but that's dependent entirely on the person. Zardari is abusing the government for his own gains. What if someone were to abuse the government's power to help the state? Sort of like a vigilante.
I think the fundamental difference between India and Pakistan is that of identity. Indian history is filled with invading forces bringing different aspects of their culture to that of the subcontinent. As such, any Indian state, even if it's a Hindu majority, has to be secular in order to accommodate such differences.They face problems with corruption and family politics, just like Pakistan, but religion has a defined place in Indian politics. Furthermore, all of the political culture, and the stability went to India. Pakistan had the unique opportunity, just like America did, to define itself. Of course this is double edged sword.
Pakistan's identity has been confused from day one. Religious parties feel that the state was made for them. If not, what reason was there to split from India? Contrary to this view, from his lifestyle, ideas, and speeches, Jinnah clearly wanted a secular state, where a Muslim majority would live peacefully with all other sects. The paradox is solved by understanding the relationship between Jinnah, Gandhi, and the British. Gandhi was a Hindu mystic who wanted a Hindu state, who encouraged the exodus of Muslims out of India. Jinnah wanted unrealistic Muslim representation in the Indian congress. The British, worried about the "communist threat" and India's proximity to these states, played upon these views to encourage the creation of Pakistan. In fact, Jinnah commenced only after obtaining approval from the British. So you can see that from its conception, Pakistan's identity was in question. Had Jinnah lived, I believe a secular form of government would have been established much firmly.
Of course, religious parties will ignore all this, and insist on a theocracy. The fact is that India's identity was provided by necessity and political stability, whereas Pakistan's identity was never established, and the subsequent military coups and political acquiescence to religious parties, were a result of this, and the cause of many of our problems today.
p.s. Like phoenix asked, I would love to hear opinions on who you guys think could provide leadership to reform the country. I don't really have anyone in mind.