burqaposhx

be declared non-Muslim.

But in reality, religion matters little if Pakistan is a failed state. Just ask Afghanis, or Sudanese or Somalians.

it is kind of elementary to realize that there are many views of the world. Perhaps divided in three main categories!

--- Middle Eastern view
---- Far Eastern view
--- European view.

Anyones' success or failures in the long term (500 years or so) come from the very views he/she holds.

Once can easily go back 500 years to allow the removal of the biases due to European conquests and find out which of the views have resulted in success or failures for a nation.

It may help to see if the the holders of these views have changed in the last 500 years or stayed pretty much the same.

Europeans 500 years ago were pretty low compared to the other world powers around them.

However they slowly clawed their way out of the hole and the last 400 years have been dominated by one European power of the other.


Far Easterners too were non-players in the global scene except perhaps Japan. Following Japanese rise and fall and rise, Chinese and South Koreans changed and updated their views especially after WW-II or later. The result have been a phenomenal success for the people of Japan, China, and S. Korea.

People from the regions of modern day Pakistan and India too had a world view during Mughal or earlier times. But they too quickly adopted to the European views from the late 19th century onwards. All our major leaders from that era and our modern day institutions are simply copies of the Europeans.

The result was a rapid conversion of the language, education system, and general infrastructure of the government and the two countries. Indians and Pakistanis leaned the latest in their desired traits from the Europeans.

While the Far Eastern and the South Eastern people adapted very quickly to the European view (either liberal or capitalist), some regions of the world particularly Africa, and the Middle East remained mired in the age old traditions and never got around to learn the latest from the Europeans.

The result has been devastating for the Africans and the Middle Easterners. They have suffered constant defeat and anarchy and tribalism. Even when some of these Africans and Middle Eastern countries were blessed with the natural resources like gold, diamonds, and oil they are still suffering (few exceptions like UAE are there).

AT the start of 21st centrury, there is a choice for Pakistanis.

Behave like middle easterners, or Afghanis,

Or

Update their view to match the Far Easterners' (Chinese, Japanese, S, Koreans, and Indians).

Or

adopt the purely European view of the world.

Whatever we choose (and it is strictly our choice), Pakistan will turn into country based on the views we hold.


So if our views are like Egyptians, Yemenis, Somalians, Lebanese, Liberians, or Sudanese, then Pakistan will become or remain like basket case country like Egypt, Sudan, Liberia, Somalian, or worse Afghanistan.


If our views change to become like Japanese, Chinese, S.Koreans, or Indians, then Pakistan will become like China, Japan, S. Korea, or post-communism India.

If our views change to match those of Germans, French, Brits, Americans, or Scandinavians, then Pakistan will surely become a new Germany, France, UK, or Norway.

Choice is ours!

niden

chutyon key baad, aathi tamaka. Government of Israel is 100% relegious, relegion is their main ingredient to rule the country, is one of the most successful government in world. How?

burqaposhx

Sorry for the confusion.

If you read the sentence again you will see the real emphasis on "failed state".

That is "If Pakistan is a failed state", it doesn't really matter from world view if we are Muslims are not.

In fact it may harm the view about our religion if Pakistan is not doing well.

I mean look at Afghanis or Somalis.

They can all jump up and down and use big names like "Islamic Emirates of Fulana Fulana", the world will simply laugh at them and their ways and their culture and their religion.

Hope that clarifies the point in the original post.

Back to your question about Israel.

State of Israel has two religious branches: Ashkenazi and Sephardic.

Ashkenazi Jews pretty much hold the European view of the world. And the formation of the state of Israel was mainly the work of Ashkenazi Jews.

Thus the argument! That the religious view doesn't matter. What matters is the world view one may hold.

One may say that religious views may drive the world view. And thats a valid point.

But my feeling is that we hold a world view, and then we use/abuse religion to support that view.

I may not understand the detailed and intricate analysis of the social structures.

But the examples of European view, vs. Far-Eastern view vs. Middle Eastern view, are too obvious to ignore.

Jalaluddin

The OP is on point.

But i wouldn't be too sure that India is post - communist; I think it suffers a little less than before about communist influence - which was never a dominating factor but a non-trivial influence. Don't know if you include the socialistic make up of India into that as well - this has been also a big factor and in fact the biggest influencer in India until perhaps 15 years ago. The babu culture, the sanctioned corruption and the unbridled growth of bureaucracy came from that.

Besides your remark about religion, look at innovation amongst the 3 groupings you've made. Inventions, discoveries and standard of life seem to be stratified amongst these three as well.

In case of former colonies there is however an excuse on the economic front

niden

CM

As always you get it wrong. Being in Sudan for the past 2 years, Sudan by no means is a failed state and religion matters a great deal.

Jalaluddin

^ really? Darfur is not failure?

CIA World fact book:

Military regimes favoring Islamic-oriented governments have dominated national politics since independence from the UK in 1956. Sudan was embroiled in two prolonged civil wars during most of the remainder of the 20th century. These conflicts were rooted in northern economic, political, and social domination of largely non-Muslim, non-Arab southern Sudanese. The first civil war ended in 1972 but broke out again in 1983. The second war and famine-related effects resulted in more than four million people displaced and, according to rebel estimates, more than two million deaths over a period of two decades. Peace talks gained momentum in 2002-04 with the signing of several accords. The final North/South Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), signed in January 2005, granted the southern rebels autonomy for six years. After which, a referendum for independence is scheduled to be held. A separate conflict, which broke out in the western region of Darfur in 2003, has displaced nearly two million people and caused an estimated 200,000 to 400,000 deaths. The UN took command of the Darfur peacekeeping operation from the African Union on 31 December 2007. As of early 2009, peacekeeping troops were struggling to stabilize the situation, which has become increasingly regional in scope, and has brought instability to eastern Chad, and Sudanese incursions into the Central African Republic. Sudan also has faced large refugee influxes from neighboring countries, primarily Ethiopia and Chad. Armed conflict, poor transport infrastructure, and lack of government support have chronically obstructed the provision of humanitarian assistance to affected populations.

burqaposhx

Must we turn every discussion into a personal gali galoch? I don't even know you. Make your point like a sensible person and move on.

Have you learned this debating style from Sudanese militia?

Bring some ideas on the table. We may agree to disagree but at least we still respect each other as human beings. Thank you.


Don't throw around "being in Sudan" to harp on a non-issue. Tell us why are you there? Are you operating a business like 7-11 or grocery store, or driving a taxi, or teaching in a university, or just playing cricket?

Describe the basis of your analysis so that we may have a respectable exchange of ideas.

FYI!

States may never fail in absolute terms as the degree of failure of a state is always debatable.

But keep in mind, that a state fails to a large measure when an "international peace force" lands within its borders.

Weather that international force comes through a UN mandate or without, or comes form African onion, or EU, or NATO, or America, or BDesh. It doesn't matter. The state has "failed" to some degree. May be a large degree.

Remember that as a "Smart" state either you be strong enough to stop outside forces,

or

diplomatic enough to resolve the matters without someone bringing force to your house.

This is precisely why Islamic Emirates such as afghanistan, Somalia, and Sudan are linked somehow.

May be your definitions and criteria are different.

Do you even care to add to the original post. Do you have additional views beside the Middle Eastern view (or other listed views).

peace!


p.s. as a state we the Paks totally failed when Indians brought their dirty feet in East Pakistan. We should have figured out that military solution is not possible due to geographical distances of 1000s of miles. Perhaps we should have made peace with Mujib and given away him that part of the country.

Indians have failed consistently in Kashmir (albeit to a smaller degree) as they have to deploy military within their own area of control. They should have resolved this issue long time ago.

Paks these days have finally taken an action against tribals. We should have done that a long time ago. So that the international community would not need to send in drones to kill Al Q and in the process violate our borders.

Remember the tribals had all the "autonomy" in FATA but they abused it. They should never have allowed Uzbeks and Arabs militants to soil our land with their dirty feet and their nefarious deeds.

The list goes on but hopefully you get the point that state should use every means to resolve the issues of internal chaos. Use peace and negotiations with those who are willing to lay down the arms and use military as a last resort against the armed militias.

niden

Are you free to say anything you like in this forum? Is there any one here to stop your vulgarity and nonsense? Are you part of this forum setup and own this forum to say gali galoch to any one you like?

Spending (wasting) most of your life here by writing 14, 797 posts and 26 Blog entries, you haven't learnt how to respond in a decent manner.

kakaballi

I don't think religion has anything to do with problems with Pakistan. For me, it is our nature of being short-termist. We require instant results.. instant profits... instant wealth. We like shahid afridi more than yousaf.

It shows in our character at this critical juncture of our history where we are fighting enemies all around us and still continue to hoard sugar and wheat.

burqaposhx

Hoarding is an issue for sure. Who can deny that. However the fix of that issue is to improve our supply-chain management and enforcement of anti-monopoly laws. There are very good solutions available from the "European world view" if you care to study them.

Lack of long term vision is a valid issue too. If private entrepreneurs are assured stability and protection for their hard work, they will invest long term. If on the other hand if our businesses are subjected to commie and socialist policies, then they will work only on the short term.

The terrorism problem in Pakistan is clearly linked to the fact that many of us have and believe in the "Middle East centric world view". The primary reason why do we so readily sell ourselves to Middle Eastern thinkers is certainly linked to our religion.

So yes we have different problems that need to be resolved based on their priorities, based on the solutions we chose from the following:

--- Middle Eastern view
---- Far Eastern view
--- European view.

yazdi

CM Can I ask you what were doing in Sudan if it is not a failed state ???

kakaballi

Where do you live? You are talking about 'PAKISTAN'. We are corrupt and incompetent to the core. We only care about ourselves, our family, our house, our job, our children and that's about it. We are always willing to sacrifice national interests for our own. This has nothing to do with world views. It is all to do with lack of education. Not formal education but education in the real sense which helps us tell right and wrong apart.

I mentioned hoarding because looking at us, I am disgusted. Our military is at a war, civilians are dying everyday by scores, we are financially devastated and still we continue our corrupt ways of selfishly doing everything that can benefit us and only us.... Departmental body formed to save big fish in Rs50m E&T corruption case

burqaposhx

Yes Siree!



Who are "We" here? Your family, friends, or extended circle?

Do you ever read your statements before hitting the submit button?


Just look around within your circle, and one can bet his bottom dollar that 95% of the people whom you know personally in Pakistan are honest and hard working.

Sure some of them may have pushed through customs, or some other government baboo's desk, but by and large the type of corruption you are talking about in Pak is limited to a small minority. They may be big fish or small, the overall percentage is limited.

What you just said (quoted above) is typical "self-flagellating" aka "matami" statement that many of our so-called educated elite love to repeat.

And unfortunately you are just adding to that repetitive falsehood or at least a major generalization and stereotyping.

The reality is that every society has corrupt people, but the successful societies focus more on hard working people and try to improve their world view aka life view and thus progress forward as a nation.

Many in Pakistan however love to ignore the hard working people and focus purely on smelly dirty $hite of people. And hence we are suffering due to lack of vision and lack of progress.

It is time we figure out what is good and what works in Pak and then try to build on the strengths. Give the hard working people better priorities and they will be as good as anyone else in Europe or the far East.

if on the other hand, you force a defeatist aka fundamentalist aka African aka Middle Eastern style thinking, then they will not be able to put their energies in the right direction.

Got it?

mAd_ScIeNtIsT

The UN has ongoing operations in Western Sahara in Morocco, in East Timor, in Pkaistan and India, and in Lebanon.

Are you saying that just because the UN is ont eh ground in a country, it's a failed state?

burqaposhx

Bhai sahib. kiyon kertay hain aap behs brai behs.

Saray facts dekh lain na! phir muqbalay kerain.

How come you ignored that there is a "foreign military force in large numbers with tanks, and troops" in Sudan.

And you want to compare Sudan with Pak India. Wah bhai Wah.

Reverse Swing

Exactly! Let's not kid ourselves...

This holds true for the vast majority of Pakistanis in responsible positions (both civilian and military). Taking short-cuts here and there is our preferred way of life! jiss ka jahan dao lagta hai use karta hai...

burqaposhx

This is same as our brother Muslim countries like Egypt, Syria, Lebanon (unki to maan he mar gai), Somalia, Afghanistan (unki to nani bhi mar gai) and other third worlders who share the common world/life view. Don't they?

kakaballi

A question:

Which world view do Indians or Vietnamese subscribe to?

CM

The UN mandate in Darfur is to support the peace agreement, the peace process and ceasefire agreed. That by no means it is a failed state. The Sudanese government is facing rebels who are basically insurgents fighting for more political power and wealth.

Its rather amazing that people will mouth off on matters that they do not know much about.

To have a failed state you must have a complete break down of law and order, government fucntions and lose territory to other armed elements where the government does not have control. That was the case in Liberia, DRC and Sierra Leone. Those were failed states that the UN has supported and they have recovered.

Sudan and Pakistan are not failed states. Put it this way sweethearts if Iraq and Afghanistan are not failed states, there is no bloody way Sudan or Pakistan can be classified as such.

And Posh spice you are the one comparing Pakistan to Sudan. Reread your first post.

As for my comments, you don't like what I say you don't have to read it or respond. Its pretty damn simple. It will help with your stick your head in the sand mentality.