Your article goes to prove that a dictator can manage the economy better. I think this is true to some extend. In our democratic culture it's a normal practice for politicians to call shutter down strikes, long marches and train marches. Govt. is changed every five years along with it's economic policies and so are the people in bureaucracy. Nepotism makes banks to lend to the govt. officials rather than businesses. All these things make economic conditions very unstable and unfavorable for industrializtion. We need good political environment to develop economy . T
This is incorrect interpretation of my post. It just happened to be that Musharraf government closed down Bara markets and managed to register a lot of traders for the VAT. UK, USA and many other countries where the main source of revenue is Income Tax and VAT; are stable democracies. Main reason why there is better economic management under the Military rule was explained to me by a retired Brigadier. If you order a wall to be built during a military regime. It would probably be smaller in length, of less height and made from of lower quality materials, but it would be built for all to see. Whereas under the civilian government it is possible that full payment is made to the contractors without any work done what so ever.
Revenue Collectors (Diwans) stealing Government tax to enrich themselves was prevalent in nearly all the societies. Other societies improved over time but not ours. I came across travels notes of an 18th Century Colonel of the East India Company who was liaison officer in Rajputana (now Rajasthan). His comments gave me an insight as to why Indian Nawabs and the Rajas agreed to have a Resident without too much resistance. Resident managed the affairs on Nawabs behalf. Resident simply ensured that there was little theft and that correct amount of tax was collected.
Previously so much of the states revenue was being siphoned off by the revenue collectors that once Resident managed to stop theft; even after paying the Nawab/ Raja what they thought was their fare share, there was substantial surplus left over for the Company to make it worth their while to insist on Resident being appointed in each and every instance. Naturally, after a few years, British did away with the Raja altogether and took over direct control.
Just look at the mega projects completed during British times. Railways, roads, irrigation systems, new cities, universities etc, all out of the revenue generated locally. What was left over made British rich. India was called Crown Jewel of the Empire for good reason.
We have learned all the bad habits from the British but not Honesty. That is why areas comprising Pakistan were rich under the British whereas we now have continuous budget deficit. We have Income Tax officers, Excise Inspectors and Custom Preventive Officers who earn hundreds of thousands of illegal money. Long time ago in the series Fifty/fifty, a bride chooses a Peon in Customs over an engineer and a doctor. Many a truer words spoken in jest!
Point I was trying to make is that reason for Pakistan being poor or why any so called developing country is poor, is paucity of manpower resource. Not that Pakistanis are not clever. Overseas Pakistanis; despite all the xenophobia have made it good wherever they went. Sadly not so in our own country, because of corruption, nepotism and outright dishonesty endemic in the society.
Here either you join the rest or get out.
