[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jagjeevan: *
SAARC is dumb? so why all this ruckus about not being able to host it?
[/QUOTE]
Yes, it is dumb as it is dominated by India. No offence, this time again India include politics against charter of the SAARC.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Pakistani Tiger: *
Yes, it is dumb as it is dominated by India. No offence, this time again India include politics against charter of the SAARC.
[/QUOTE]
i heard you the first time when you said SAARC is dumb - no need to explain why you think that. my question though was, and I repeat, if it's so dumb, why are you (i mean you and pakistan) making such a big deal of it?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jagjeevan: *
I repeat, if it's so dumb, why are you (i mean you and pakistan) making such a big deal of it?
[/QUOTE]
In your defence, reducing tension isn't a big deal?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Pakistani Tiger: *
In your defence, reducing tension isn't a big deal?
[/QUOTE]
SAARC is not needed for that. you (not personal, I mean pakistan) can do that tension reducing stuff with one single unilateral decision to stop c.b activity
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jagjeevan: *
SAARC is not needed for that. you (not personal, I mean pakistan) can do that tension reducing stuff with one single unilateral decision to stop c.b activity
[/QUOTE]
Mr. Jeevan,
I've a better idea. India can do that by stopping it.
P.S did you read the article of an Indian Author posted by me? Just read the highlighted words by him and you'll get the picture for sure!
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jagjeevan: *
why would Sri Lanka play in a regional association that doesn't have India?
[/QUOTE]
Because, Sri Lanka is a soverign nation, or did you decide to consider it an 'integral part of India' as well? Also because Sri Lanka has good or neutral relations with all South Asian countries. It can deal with India on a bilateral level, but the point here to tranform SAARC. We would rather see a productive organization minus India. Indeed SAARC is a dumb organization and we (as Pakistanis) shouldn't care about it because it has done nothing for us..if a restructured organization could be created then ofcourse theres incentive.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by RajputFury: *
Because, Sri Lanka is a soverign nation, or did you decide to consider it an 'integral part of India' as well?
[/QUOTE]
You have to remember, the Muslim Burning Hindus are having difficulty getting over their 'Self-proclaimed greatness syndrome' :)
Economic cooperation is the way to move forward, but if India believes it is too big a super power to work with other South Asian countries, then so be it.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by RajputFury: *
It can deal with India on a bilateral level, but the point here to tranform SAARC. We would rather see a productive organization minus India. Indeed SAARC is a dumb organization and we (as Pakistanis) shouldn't care about it because it has done nothing for us..
[/QUOTE]
you are all over the place contradicting yourself. Do a simple math first. Total the economic activity of SAARC member nations and remove India's from there. What's left is a small number. Since you yourself accept Sri Lanka can and is doing all it wants with India on a bilateral basis, there i sno reason for Sri Lanka to mess with the rest of the gang, again not out of any disrespect or superiority complex, but out of sheer economic sense.
and again, all of you seem unanimous that you shouldn't care about SAARC yet all ranks are yelling till kingdom come because India wouldn't come and so no SAARC.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by 2bornot2b: *
You have to remember, the Muslim Burning Hindus are having difficulty getting over their 'Self-proclaimed greatness syndrome' :)
Economic cooperation is the way to move forward, but if India believes it is too big a super power to work with other South Asian countries, then so be it.
[/QUOTE]
Can you show me one country that doesn't proclaim its own greatness? Why does India asserting her rather well established rightful place surprise you?
I agree economic cooperation is a way - whether the way or not depends on the circumstance of your economy. And everyone knows that India has to work with all countries in the sub-continent as well as the rest of the world. Why do you suspect they think otherwise? If you're coming to that conclusion because ABV wouldn't attend SAARC in pakistan, that's more to do with pakistan than to do with SAARC.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jagjeevan: *
you are all over the place contradicting yourself. Do a simple math first. Total the economic activity of SAARC member nations and remove India's from there. What's left is a small number. Since you yourself accept Sri Lanka can and is doing all it wants with India on a bilateral basis, there i sno reason for Sri Lanka to mess with the rest of the gang, again not out of any disrespect or superiority complex, but out of sheer economic sense.
and again, all of you seem unanimous that you shouldn't care about SAARC yet all ranks are yelling till kingdom come because India wouldn't come and so no SAARC.
[/QUOTE]
Where do you see contridictions? I am talking about a free market zone under SAARC like the EU. Being part of an organization like the EU doesn't prevent the Germans from doing business from the US on a bilateral basis so the same can apply for SL.
Who are you to do that there "is no reason for SL to mess with rest of the gang"?? No one has given you the right decide what any country does or doesn't do. India may be an economic power because of it's size but when it comes to utilization of resources and maximazing of labor and capital power it lags behind China, and the gap is widening. This discussion involves how India has become an hinderance of progress for SAARC, thus it would be more beneficial to have an organization where all countries can work on a cooperative basis.
The only reason many guppies are complaining is that unfortunately India IS included in SAARC as we speak. I think once more people realize that the organization (with a new name ofcourse) without India will be more productive, then there will be no such complaints.
rajput,
you are fighting shaddows here, missing what I am trying to say. or more likely playing ostrich in arabian sands because it is kind of hard to miss for a smart dude (or dudette) like you obviously are.
All I am saying is this: "Regional Org" needs a "region" in the 1st place. If you exclude 65% of the "region", then you're dealing with triva. Imagine for a moment, that you form a mini-SAARC w.o India. From the Sri Lankan p.o.v, what would that offer them? They may sign up and attend a conference or two for a boondogle, but their real economic activity will continue to be with Singapore/Malaysia, India and Australia/New Zealand.
Given that, you then have Bangla Desh, Nepal and Pakistan. Do you seriously think Nepal will conduct significant trade with Pakistan? on what?
Which then reduces this to Pakistan and BD. We've been there before, haven't we?
You have a point about India not being very efficient about deploying resources though.
In my opinion, pakistan's economic focus ought to be grabbing the bulk of Afgan reconstruction dollars, utilize the strategic value pakistan provides to China for real trade and perhaps work the supply route to India & China angles.
you are fighting shaddows here, missing what I am trying to say. or more likely playing ostrich in arabian sands because it is kind of hard to miss for a smart dude (or dudette) like you obviously are.
No I do understand what you are saying. I wanted to clarify my positions. Thanks for the compliments...and I am very much a dude :)
All I am saying is this: "Regional Org" needs a "region" in the 1st place. If you exclude 65% of the "region", then you're dealing with triva. Imagine for a moment, that you form a mini-SAARC w.o India. From the Sri Lankan p.o.v, what would that offer them? They may sign up and attend a conference or two for a boondogle, but their real economic activity will continue to be with Singapore/Malaysia, India and Australia/New Zealand.
I realize that by excluding India, it would be exclude the center of South Asia, but that isn't the point. A regional organization must not have EVERY country in the region as a member. If it does, we end up in political deadlock. Take my example, of the OAS (Organization of American States) where there are constant disagreements between the latin American countries and the North American ones, Cuba & Venezuela against Mexico & Argentina and so forth. Would you say by including all members was a good idea economically? I do not believe so. We should remove politics from the arena and try to make a mutually beneficial economic organization. The problem in the history of SAARC has been the India-Pakistan rivalry, that has killed off any chance for REAL economic change. From the SL point of view their products could (possibly) gain access to the markets of Pakistan, Nepal, Bangladesh through a creation of a economic free market zone, while a positive gain would be lower shipping costs to the S.Asian countries mentioned. A full economic integration could be achieved in little as 15 years, leading to a gains for specialization in trade. I know this hypothetical but SL or any other country would see it's trading partners become permenant unlike the temporary partners like Austrialia etc.
I think India doesn't need an organization. It can do very well in integrating all of it's states to the Andhra or Kerala models. The way I see it, India is a superstate built upon many nations.
You have a point about India not being very efficient about deploying resources though.
Right..I mean just the other day I was discussing this with an Indian colleague of mine, where we both came to the conclusion that India's opportunities are certainly there but politics has been a stumbling block, and I don't mean with Pakistan but rather internal bureaucracies, etc. This is the chance for India, I certainly hope the potential is realized.
In my opinion, pakistan's economic focus ought to be grabbing the bulk of Afgan reconstruction dollars, utilize the strategic value pakistan provides to China for real trade and perhaps work the supply route to India & China angles.
Sensible advice. Well your right, the Afghan reconstruction dollars could be a boon but unfortunately politics comes in our way. The Non-Pashtun minorities who hold the real power absolutely hate Pakistan. While some inroads have been made in the Eastern-Pashtun dominated parts of Afghanistan, they are rather limited. The trade with China is on better terms, we havve a good all-weather highway system connecting with China. There has been Chinese Interest in Gwadar port. I think that we can certainly do more. With India, we would hope to work on the pipeline via Iran and certainly increase bilateral trade. I think the challenge for Pakistan lies in political stability which could be translated in industrialization but not at the expense of Agriculture. I am always interested in strengthening economic relationships with South Asian countries but our cool relationship with India does mean that if any regional organization will get positive things done, it should not include India.
you almost convinced me (about India not needing SAARC) but I am not there fully yet - what is Andhra / Kerala model?
if the thrust of your message then is that the smaller countries (and by smaller I do not mean any slight to any nation) will benefit by SAARC like association - there is validity in that as long as viable balance exists amongst the members. Sri Lanka is relatively open and strong economy. Nepal is an import economy reliant on tourism more than anything else - they need the Indian tourists and therefore have to be accommodative. As you rightly pointed out pakistan requires political stability to really focus on economics. my point is, as things stand, net net Sri Lanka will not gain anything from such an association.
yes, india has an opportunity to break out of poverty here & now - and yes, communal unrest is the only force that can hold us back.
in that respect, we're in the same boat brother. just what the heck do we have to do?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jagjeevan: *
we're in the same boat brother. just what the heck do we have to do?
[/QUOTE]
Bilateral issues shouldn't come on the forum of SAARC. :)
Follow SAARC charter. :)
SAARC isnt dumb.....the leaders of pakistan and india are......do they even realise how badly this kashmir issue is affecting their economies!!!
all the money that is to be spent for the welfare of the poor people is spent on deployin armies on the borders for 6 months and then calling them back
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Bilal_Tarar: *
SAARC isnt dumb.....the leaders of pakistan and india are
[/quote]
Bilal Tarar,
Have you read the charter of SAARC? And by any chance do you know what Bilateral issues really mean?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jagjeevan: *
you almost convinced me (about India not needing SAARC) but I am not there fully yet - what is Andhra / Kerala model?
if the thrust of your message then is that the smaller countries (and by smaller I do not mean any slight to any nation) will benefit by SAARC like association - there is validity in that as long as viable balance exists amongst the members. Sri Lanka is relatively open and strong economy. Nepal is an import economy reliant on tourism more than anything else - they need the Indian tourists and therefore have to be accommodative. As you rightly pointed out pakistan requires political stability to really focus on economics. my point is, as things stand, net net Sri Lanka will not gain anything from such an association.
yes, india has an opportunity to break out of poverty here & now - and yes, communal unrest is the only force that can hold us back.
in that respect, we're in the same boat brother. just what the heck do we have to do?
[/QUOTE]
The Andhra model is the relatively western free market oriented approach where the middle class flexes its muscles. The Kerala model is one of Socialist policies of providing basic social uplifts such as medical care, education to even the lowest strata of the population. I do think that either one of these models can be applicable to other Indian States, but not India as a whole. India has tried socialism and it simply couldn't work because of the macroeconomic policies being absorbed by the bureacratic structure. Setting economic policies for India as a whole isn't going to work, India is a sperstate made of many nations and their requirements are highly diveregant. I mean the two models that I mentioned are from the South, is there modification necessary for them to be applicable in say, Bihar? I would strongly say so.
As for the SAARC issue, I am glad that you understand my points as I believe that an organization that is a farce does not do Pakistan nor India a favor. To move beyond the gridlock of India-Pakistan tensions overshadowing every meeting (or rather the cancellation of meetings), we could streamline the organization to be result oriented. SL's benefits are numerous to mention, because keep in mind, that I am talking about full economic integration.
I think for India and Pakistan to move beyond the difference we should go our separate ways in the sense that the time is not right to think about friendship or good relations. Let you Indians develop your nation and let us do the same for ours. In order for any progress to be done sincerely, we must make sure that the rhetoric has subsided. Communalism and hate will assuredly tear both countries apart, it is high time for Indians & Pakistanis to reject communalism and hatred in their own nations.
Pakistani tiger
wat i was tryna say was tht the leaders of the two countries shud think bout their ppl and their economies and start a dialogue.I really havent followed the SAARC charter.....but the thing is that the kashmir issue has devastated our economy.....I dnt think the problem can be solved wit Musharraf in power...hes the one who engineered the whole Kargil thing without informing the PM or President, hes the one who refused to meet Vajpayee wen he came to Lahore by bus coz hed have to salute him and now he talks bout dialogue??!?!. If this Kashmir issue is over the generals n the ISI wud have nothin to do.
ive pasted it again tiger.....thats the truth...all this happened!!!