- Jul 22, 2014
- Reaction score
I agree with what you said that what's causing the environment that people wanting to leave the country. There are several different things, but my stance is that if people in my country stay and form a resistance or a collective force, then at least this cycle of going out and leaving space for others(like Chinese businessmen filling the space) would stop and something could be done pragmatically about it. This would then persuade the elite or establishment to do something about it and it would help the people getting their duly worthy rights which they don't see it here and which make them leave.That being said is my perspective on the issue, but I'll respond first to you The Outlier
What you seem to be referencing here in regards to your country (you didn't specify which) is what's known as the brain drain on available future talent and human resources, no?
Perhaps what's needed is indeed a modern Marshall Plan, in order to rebuild proper infrastructure and better finance conditions within your country. Especially if those conditions were a result of past U.S. interventionism. We also need to establish fair trade (not free) with countries like these, so parasitic multi-national corporations do not exploit developing countries, leading to a lot of the issues that you've touched on.
This may be counter-intuitive to what you're asking, but you can't expect to rebuild the issues of your country without the right kind of proper investment into its people which could inspire them to want to be there in the first place. I do get the anti-globalism sentiment in regards to exploitation and leading to a lack of people willing to improve things there, opting for a better life elsewhere. But, there is a better way of going about it than burning bridges on Trump's or the far right's false populism. Your country sounds like it may need an actual populist movement of some kind in order to put capital in the hands of the people, rather than in those who won't invest to fix the lives of your citizens.
If there is something I'm not understanding about your country due to ignorance, then please, educate me on the issue and clarify. I'd like to know about a solution, so that U.S. foreign policy can be more readily intelligent & respectable to the issues of other countries.
You asked about my country. So first I should give a little bio. I'm born and living in Pakistan. The tribe which I belong to were a group of settlers who came somewhere from the Western direction. I don't want to mention the name of my tribe since I don't want myself to be associated by it for personal reasons. It's not that it's bad to mention or anything like that, it's just my personal taste about it because I don't like additional attributes(tribe's name as well as ethnicity) written after my name which is a very cultural thing supposed here. They first settled in area along Afghanistan and Iran border many centuries back from what I heard from different people like my grandmother friends(this could be taken as a grain of salt because a sister tribe might have existed there too). In short, they came from Western side. Then later, they made their way into Soon Valley which is the valley my ancestors belong to. I'm the first one in my family who was born in an urban city. My parents, grandparents and their grandparents and so on, they all were born in that valley.
From the thinking which have been established in my mind from many years of experiencing different things here and which could change in the future depending upon the situations, but as of right now, I personally think there is no cure for subcontinent's miseries and mess. This region is bound to be doomed sooner or later. In other words, it would implode.
Let me first share a very small portion of history as an observer. It's different to what textbook histories are written or taught in schools here. I'm not saying that history isn't right; it's just a different perspective and people from my region should be exposed to different perspectives so that they have broader sense of sane judgement in correcting the future course. I won't go way far back in centuries ending up in Indus Valley Civilization, but relatively recent.
After world war, Britain began to lose money as war with the Germany had depleted their finances. A colonized subcontinent was being seen as a burden to rule. I share some of these perspectives regarding Britain's colonization in the subcontinent:
---> We the people of subcontinent were either incompetent in our defense mentality that outsider forces invaded, ruled and sucked the resources out OR we can't coexist with each other until an outsider force ruled us. It's the story of tribes who would fight with each other unless a superior outside force rule them. When the outsider force would go away, we would then again fight with each other. This theory of mine is only applicable after the 7th century(Muslim conquests towards East).
---> Tribal issues of land, power, culture leading back to many centuries has made us uncivilized. We forgot science in that process and how to harness the resources for whole of our people. More importantly, we simply don't know how to rule over our people politically and how to manage them.
---> The population time-bomb...It was there at that time, and it's here right now waiting for imploding. By world regions, South Asia has the biggest population and the basic problems remain the same and growing. It's quantity over quality of life making living a cheap breathing.
---> Britain built institutes, infrastructure, justice system, military and political system.
I do believe in this idea that the more we have institutes about different aspects of life, then with the passage of time, the extreme tribal behaviours could be lessened by changing people behaviour to mould things in a different way. In short, those behaviours could be accommodated and diluted over time. The problem is that persons run the shows instead of institutes functioning as a whole in their spirit. The acts of persons behaving superior over the institutes make them weak. Then, the people working under those institutes look up to the persons as some sort of tribal leader who have an agenda. The chain reaction goes from upper to lower. They value the worth of a single person versus the worth of whole institute and there seems to be no way to change that because there is a hypocrisy in the intent.
Theoretically, a proper functioning democracy should have solved that, but if there is a hypocrisy in the intent, I doubt that implementing democracy would bring any fruits. Sure, it would take lots and lots of years, perhaps centuries to achieve that with democracy by slowly diluting the process.
Coming back to history, Britain's control over the subcontinent was fading away. There were uprisings and people here wanted to rule over their own people in the name of freedom which is not a bad idea, but the philosophy which was obtained for achieving that was indeed a bad one. In short, the idea of two nation theory. A new problem started. People began to question their identity in the country or the countries which were going to be formed within the subcontinent.
When the Islamic conquests happened towards the East, and when they reached to certain areas of subcontinent, many locals were got attracted by the scripture and many had gotten fear instilled in their hearts. Let's say this for the sake of this post, it was the 'sword effect'. Invaders with swords. Many settlers and invadors from different regions also came(for instance Genghis Khan, Ghaznavi etc) and there was a mixture of different races and languages.
To counter the 'sword effect', some people instead of countering sword with sword, began to approach people in a very different way which was unprecedented. Something which didn't exist in this region at all w.r.t. Muslim conquests. To counter fire with fire, they countered fire with water. I'm talking about Sufism. In Wikipedia article of it, many things are written about it which are not true. But anyways, different perspectives do exist about it.
To sum up Sufism from my perspective w.r.t. subcontinent, I would refer a Bleach analogy. Consider Ichigo's inner-world and the interactions he faces. But let's say in order to achieve the highest level within the inner-world, he would have to give the real life sword a good bye for good. That would be the condition to achieve the desired intent within his inner world and achieving the level. My opinion on it is that there is no single way or definition that should exist about it since it's more about experience than the philosophy itself. It's just my perspective which I shared.
Now coming back to Britain, the independence movements were exploding. The pressure of political movements for independence forcing Britain to get out from subcontinent became clear. A democratic secular whole of subcontinent or something else too.
From North, Britain feared that Soviet expansion would come down towards the subcontinent which was in the South. A democratic secular subcontinent collided with Britain interests or more precisely, it collided with the Muslim political parties which would want a separate homeland because some leaders feared that with 1:1 voting, the representation of them would never be properly possible for them within a Hindu-dominated democracy.
Fast forward, two countries were carved out in 1947. Elections decided the fate. PK and IND were formed based on the results of elections. The subcontinent was divided. Different interests were collided with each other w.r.t. different things. For example, Britain before dividing subcontinent theorized that military of the Eastern part(PK) of subcontinent would never let the Soviet expansion towards the warm waters. This theory was gotten testified and proved to be correct. The fall of Soviet Union happened and the same military(PK) which Britain made, did the job with local mujaheddins which are now called global terrorists. Now, was it really the victory of the locals or was the Soviet left with its own intent, that's another thing to ponder.
But one thing Britain, US and other think-tanks could not foresee was the aftermath of the fall of Soviet Union would have consequences which might not be controlled. The cost was huge from ideological perspective, economical, political, religious and most importantly, regional. A new wave of hatred has been embedded in different cultures. 9/11 is one such example and this could be just the trailer for what is yet to come(as feared by some intelligence group members). In future, there is a visible threat of nuclear proliferation and a new wave of suicidal nuclear attacks. There is another theory which I read that nuclear proliferation has already happened and it's only a matter of time when there would be executable answers from hidden rogue people. It might be the phase of just planning and execution would come timely.
I read a book(Army of None) in which author had argued about what makes a weapon dangerous. It wasn't intelligence, nor innovation. It was autonomy.
The 'sword-effect' lives but in an evolved way in the form of self-destruction of mortal body(blowing it up) achieving a strategic goal. I would suggest "Strategic Depth" w.r.t. "Great Game" on internet to further get details in regards to my region because these topics are huge. Sufism got nearly died after the New World Order. In my opinion it's the only antidote that could address this so-called radical Islamic terrorism. But nowadays, Sufism has been only left in Shrines of the dead ones who were their pioneers. Nevertheless, it could still be revived and could be mainstreamed.
What I mentioned at the beginning that the people of subcontinent would fight as soon as a greater force over them would go out. As soon as the Britain left, the first war broke out in the same year in which two countries were born and the fight occurred over a piece of land whose fate couldn't get decided. The area of Kashmir. Almost half of the land was gotten by PK in the war, half gotten by IND at the time of ceasefire made by UN. (There are some portions of it which are occupied by China too) That mess have not been sorted out to this day. This alone shows the immaturity of the political consciousness here.
The core or the root of the terminology of what constitutes a 'First Pakistani' and what constitutes a 'First Indian' as an identity is this (as understood by me/my perspective only):
1) First Pakistani is the first person who gave up polytheism and joined monotheism in subcontinent OR was monotheistic to begin with(if monotheism came before polytheism...like chicken and egg which came before thingy)
(There is another twisted perspective of "1)" which is totally wrong that the first invader who brought monotheism in the subcontinent either with a sword or with a heart is the First Pakistani. No, that invader would either be an Arab Muslim or an Uzbek Muslim or any other for example or simply Muslim too, but not Pakistani. A standalone Monotheism consciousness without the the sword or invasion could exist too on its own in the subcontinent which also nullifies this perspective. There is another misconception I keep reading from the majority of people that the First Muslim of the subcontinent should be the First Pakistani. But there is no consensus among Muslims about the definition of a Muslim. Since there is no consensus, that doesn't have any weight and no conclusion can be done. The word Muslim itself means submitter(to one god) and that is the consensus within the core aspect of being the Muslim and that is what a Muslim should believe in one god only(monotheism)).
2) First Indian is the first person from Indus River.
3) First Pakistani can happen to be the First Indian ONLY from the First Indian perspective if the different settlers from other lands settled here are excluded except Indus River people.
3) First Indian cannot be First Pakistani from First Pakistani perspective.
(Just like Hindutva and being Indian mean two different things, being a Muslim and being a Pakistani mean two different things.)
I believe both theories could be merged in some way in the future, but some events would have to play the role.
I can agree with what you said about populism, but only to some extent which is that if the leadership manages to change the trends for the betterment and not for the sake of pleasing everyone. We have our PM now who is arguably the most popular celebrity that have come out since the creation of the country. But would it work? I doubt it because populism for the sake of new popularity trends would make it worse in the end.
I witnessed the era of Musharraf while I was growing up and experienced life in it. It's my personal opinion that era was the best in our country considering how difficult the security situation of the country had become. There was almost daily a bomb blast in urban centers and no one could do anything about it because public lacked the will to choose the path. Besides lacking the will, there was utter confusion what ideology to be chosen for that. Should it be PK first(slogan of Musharraf) or should it be Islam fist, that was the short point, but Musharraf put the idea of PK first. It was perceived as mixed opinion. The true urbanites and left-minded people welcomed that, but villagers and rural centers disregarded it. From what I saw, there were hooligans and hysteria within the society and it was engineered by intelligentsia. Perhaps it was a bit too early for them to digest the idea, but people's lifestyle improved right before my eyes despite the mess. A new middle-class emerged from poverty.
I would blame so-called lawyers movement(w.r.t. Musharraf) which brainwashed people and did a dirty politics for their vested agenda just to restore a highly corrupt chief justice who was doing dirty politics and now in these years they realize that were only fooled by intelligentsia and were pawns.
So far, Khan is failing miserably, and I have no doubt in my mind that he would eventually fail because there is a societal collapse. Khan wants to please everybody including the persons the world calls terrorists. This would not work. I agree with the dictator Musharraf that militarily defeating was more viable option which he adopted in his 9 years tenure. I also feel that Trump-Khan alliance in Afghanistan would fail too. Musharraf did things which he said and he was very direct towards the things he said and what he did. He didn't back up from the stance he had. Khan takes U-turns. lies and tries to please or accommodate different factions of society, but in the end, when the dust would settle, no one would be happy with him. He would only repeat the story of a father, a son and a donkey who could not please anyone from Aesop's tales.
The stuff happening in Afghanistan w.r.t. the region is a reverse reflection of her past regimes. Their armies trampled the lands here and tried to conquer the subcontinent several times and that's historical fact. But that should not be the justification of what is being done morally wrong to them now. A wrong policy is a wrong one and it doesn't have to justified from past blunders or history.
I understand the policies of the US could seem very unjust but Britian has to be blamed more for that. And even more, the real blame should fall to past AFG regimes which never let printing press, loud speakers, or a railway to have them served for their people there as they were considered inventions of 'infidels' and this mentality under the wrong context of freedom, it fell so behind the world due to its past mistakes. The remnants of this mentality in the form of political accommodation now enjoys social media. They would play with the sentiments of people and systematically instill hatred, extremism, and radicalization in their minds. This creates a sympathy factor for them.
Sometimes it feels like US tries to clear the mess UK created in the past, but it creates more problems than a visible solution. Simply put, the initial Soviet study done of AFG has somewhat proven to be true now. The study said that if one bomber is destroyed, three end up popping up more.
The war created refugees. AFG refugees here are in millions living yet their officials or government have not officially recognized PK as a country nor its western border called Durand Line. This is a problem of the ego.
The idea of pan-Islamism has failed. Ever since the discovery of oil in middle-east, their oligarchy exported their hegemony under the brand wahhabism towards East, funded huge number of mosques where parents admitted their children who didn't have the capacity to raise them. Although that brand had played its role for overthrowing of the caliphate in the past, their bringing of ideology towards East created big problems especially in my country. People in my country don't realize, but soon they would that it was only an Arab hegemony disguised in that brand. It protected their interests and did a great job, but at the cost of blood of innocents. All the so-called infrastructure happening, there are blood and bones of innocent which paid the price.
Our military establishment did their dirty bidding for the past 72 years and now they should realize they have become nothing more than their stooges. Islamic Military Counter Terrorism Coalition is nothing more than a threat against Iran. Once the world go beyond oil-driven economy, KSA might fall into crises and might eventually collapse in its current form if the Theory of Relative Money is accepted. Iran would make use of the situation and would want to establish its foothold and this is very important. Independent Iran is very crucial to balance Arab hegemony no matter how the entire world views it differently and hypocritically.
As a person living in the region, I'm not a fan of CPEC(China-PK Economic Corridor). Those Western countries which are criticizing it calling it a debt trap, they are true about it theoretically but they don't have any alternative thing to offer w.r.t. the region here. Merely blaming or criticizing without any practical backup is useless. If they have good plans, they should bring it to the table as well for a fair deal. Overall, I hope this project fails quick in its early process because our future generations would fall in permanent debt trap.
Here are the flaws which I see in the project:
---> Chinese and Urdu have no communication link. This in my opinion is the biggest flaw. Both are entirely different civilizations. PK and IND who are supposed to be enemies have better communication link because both sides of the people are better able to understand and communicate verbally despite the written script difference.
---> China have a burden of its own too. This project (CPEC) would put extra burden on the local industries and they would eventually die out. So I don't think this project would generate any money from our region to which it could be utilized to its own people. It would only do quick infrastructure big projects based on loans and then what?
---> PK is already on the verge of bankruptcy. It has already debts to pay to WB and IMF. Loans from China would make situation worse and would add further debts to reach new heights.
---> When the local industry would be in strain due to it, it would create an effect of people not wanting to create new industries in the first place. This would make local economy dry.
--> EIC(East India Company) did have the same kind of scenario and then colonization happened through that. There is a fear of colonization in the new modern form with this project. It would create the dependency syndrome to reach new heights.
I have lots of more stuff to talk about and the post has become a little big and there are lots of things I missed. So I think I should end here with a summary note (TL;DR):
- Subcontinent is on the path to implode.
- The population of subcontinent is booming to unprecedented levels and the idea of two major nation states is failing. The management problems cannot be justified in the current standards.
- Environment problems(which I wasn't able to discuss in the post) are gone to the level where a massive amount of money is needed to sort it out. The entire region could turn into civil war if the future water crises is not managed.
- Islamic conquests towards East influenced the local cultures and tribes. Different cultures incorporated different values of it. There was a fear generated with swords within different cultures and there was a movement which tried to balance and neutralized the sword effect.
- It's been slowly recognized by the masses in the first quarter of 21st century that the Islamic conquests proved beneficial to the Arabs. One could now say that it was Arab conquests for hegemony.
- The infrastructure which Arab world has build, it's superficial and there is no mechanism which justifies its merit. The conquests created a gap from different centuries which is being filled in the 21st century by the terrorists elements from various regions and sides.
- Iran should exist to neutralize Arab hegemony and balance. In fact, there should be Iran-like at least 3 countries to further generate a force, but one is enough if Russia backs her up.
- Britain's division of subcontinent was poorly handled and hasty. If the institutes are not strengthened and are not made to be stronger than individuals, it would be devastating for the region and the justification of imperialism in the name of responsibility would completely fail. This would make Britain a great evil in the whole spectrum of events and some view it already.
- US interests in the region aren't clearly defined. They change with the events and time quickly. It's like it's handling the job as a part-timer. It should completely describe the goals and objectives.
- The fall of Soviet Union has happened but the cost is huge. The world powers are failing to control the aftermath of it. US might lose its superpower status in the process and it's already happening. That gap of competition is being filled by China, but that's also an illusion. The real benefactor would be Russia for obvious geopolitical reasons.
- If there is to be peace ensured, the idea of destruction over construction should be countered with a supreme ideology. So far, no such ideology exists on a political level.
- It's not the intelligence which could be dangerous. It's autonomy. From the book "The Army of None", the Pentagon author gives convincing ideas of how being dumb but fully autonomous is more dangerous than being intelligent but semi-autonomous. He gives the example of mines. Mine is a dumb device, but being autonomous, it's dangerous.