Pakistan rupee exchange rate news

[Contrarian]

This canard is thrown out by almost every Indian, and is baseless.

Kashmir has cost Pakistan almost nothing economically - no sanctions, no massive funds to wage a war ala US in Iraq etc. The downfall in Pakistan has been that faced by most developing countries - a corrupt leadership with no long term vision.

We have discussed this before, and it is not economical price that Pakistan has paid but a social price. Pakistan's population has been radicalized, the mullah's have power because your government has enpowered them for decades to recruit jehadis. Had Kashmir not been on the agenda, Pakistan would have shut off the terror camps after A'Stan problem. They continued, put more money in it, made Pakistan a weapons conduit and drugs conduit to finance their proxy wars. It has cost a whole lot more than what you even think is possible.

 

[Contrarian]

And just because your leadership hated Pakistan so much from its creation that it wanted to break it apart, and did so in East Pakistan, is proof positive that it would have continued to find ways to undermine Pakistan, regardless of Kashmir. You cannot use your countries blatant aggression and hatred towards Pakistan (in 1971) to claim that Pakistan would have been better off without its legal and just claim to Kashmir - essentially what you are suggesting is that anyone with a valid legal claim should just give it up if the adversary is bigger and more powerful, because the other party will do it harm if the claim is not given up.

Its Kashmir that has cost you the wars. Pakistan tried to get it in '65, waged war, and got nothing in return. The '71 war was a simple retaliation of sorts. You use the 71 war as an act of unprovoked aggression to determine Indian intents for Pakistan, you conveniently forget the war prior to that.

Its Kashmir that has cost you everything. There is a lot of corruption in India as well, but our Generals dont take over the country at their whim. Same for other countries-even in Turkey, the military intervenes when things get out of hand, but it returns power of its own accord to the civilians. Pakistan's militarist attitude is because of its desire to gain Kashmir, and everything has been a direct result of that.

 

[ashfaque]

Just to continue.....
There is great danger that, Paksitan will follow the path of Afghanistan. Due to kashmir policy as Malay says Pakistan society has been radicalised but may not be that deep. But what Pakistan is doing now to fight with Taliban and openly supporting tribals to take the gun and fight with Taliban is more dangerous. Openly arming citizens are going to show result after few years, when they will go against Pakistan.
All Pakistan's policies these days will harm economic development in long term, so overall Pakistan future does not look very good, and going towards Afghan's road.

 

[pkpatriotic]

Rupee rebounds against dollar after SBP intervention
Saturday, October 18, 2008

KARACHI: The central bank’s announcement to inject Rs270 billion in the banking system has left a positive note on the country’s economy, as rupee rose against the dollar after several days of downslide in the interbank market today.

The national currency is being traded at Rs82.50 against the dollar in the interbank market. The US dollar lost Rs1.40 paisa against the rupee on Saturday.

It may be mentioned here that the US dollar hit a new record high of Rs86 against the rupee in the open market, while it reached all time high of Rs84 in the interbank on Friday.

 

[p2prada]

How ridiculous.

This from a guy who admitted on another thread that he knew nothing about Pakistan, now claiming that all the dictators came into power because of India. Any proof, or just more flawed sweeping generalizations?

Almost every dictator that came into power did so because the civilians screwed up so bad that they considered it necessary to intervene (which I disagree with but that is for another time). Just look at what Nawaz Sharif did - putting the lives of hundreds of passengers at risk and essentially hijacking an airplane.

I disagree that trade with India would be as beneficial as you make it out to be - if anything, in conjunction with the corrupt leadership we have had, we would not have developed our industry to the extent it is currently, since imports from India would have taken over the market.

The investment in R&D for military and nuclear programs has also created world class industries and institutes, and several downstream industries and institutes that have bolstered Pakistan.

The only 'loss' for Pakistan over Kashmir has been the lack of trade with India, and I fail to see how that is a loss, since even now most economists are in agreement that free trade between India and Pakistan will primarily boost Indian exports to Pakistan.

And just because your leadership hated Pakistan so much from its creation that it wanted to break it apart, and did so in East Pakistan, is proof positive that it would have continued to find ways to undermine Pakistan, regardless of Kashmir. You cannot use your countries blatant aggression and hatred towards Pakistan (in 1971) to claim that Pakistan would have been better off without its legal and just claim to Kashmir - essentially what you are suggesting is that anyone with a valid legal claim should just give it up if the adversary is bigger and more powerful, because the other party will do it harm if the claim is not given up.

This from a guy who admitted on another thread that he knew nothing about Pakistan, now claiming that all the dictators came into power because of India. Any proof, or just more flawed sweeping generalizations?

I never said anything about my dearth of knowledge about pakistan save for some social problems like poverty. Right now, I dont know the figures in pak for healthcare, tourism, female infanticide etc. I have actually learnt more about india's social problems as so many pak members keep reminding us.

Do u actually believe that the military regimes have nothing to to with india. All the wars fought from 1965 onwards has been under a military regime in pak. 1965, 1971, 1984, 1999. If war has not downgraded your economy, then you are sadly mistaken.

Almost every dictator that came into power did so because the civilians screwed up so bad that they considered it necessary to intervene (which I disagree with but that is for another time).

So, what you are trying to say is that 2 generations of democratically elected paksitani ministers which easily number more than 10000 in strength over the last 50 years have been totaly inept, corrupt and selfish. And that the so called saviours of your country, the dictatorship, have been efficient and honest. The only negative point being 4 bloody wars that even split pak.

Democracy has always been better for pak. You never gave it time to mature.
Indian democratic system always failed economically till 1991, but the military generals in india never took the opportunity to take over. That let the govt mature to what it is today.
For eg: the Manmohan Singh govt went on with the nuclear deal even with signs of the govt falling, which showed the ministers put their country first.

maybe you havent heard about what is coined "hindu rate of growth." which was embarrassing and demeaning for the whole country.

Since the point you were trying to make was that corruption was the bane for progress in pak. Does that mean that india is totally free of corruption. Does it mean that indian leadership has been visionary and honest about their work.
No sir. Even if all of the above points are true, then isnt our claim of kashmir more justified since our ministers have been genuienly working for peace and prosperity while pak ministers have only been squabbling over how to screw the country over.

(which I disagree with but that is for another time).
You yourself made a point u dont support.

The only 'loss' for Pakistan over Kashmir has been the lack of trade with India, and I fail to see how that is a loss, since even now most economists are in agreement that free trade between India and Pakistan will primarily boost Indian exports to Pakistan.

Indias trade with china is the same. But, we are still doing it. We export raw materials while we import finished goods. But, it gives the chinese and indian corporations access to each others markets giving rise to more FDI and employment. The trade between the 2 govts will become a pittance compared to the amount of private trade that is generated from MNCs.
Your economists are leaders only aid and abet conspiracy theories.

ust look at what Nawaz Sharif did - putting the lives of hundreds of passengers at risk and essentially hijacking an airplane.

Another conspiracy theory. There is no way to prove your claim. It is possible Mush himself did it to de-stabalize the nawaz shariff govt. Again, this point cannot be proved.

And just because your leadership hated Pakistan so much from its creation that it wanted to break it apart, and did so in East Pakistan, is proof positive that it would have continued to find ways to undermine Pakistan, regardless of Kashmir. You cannot use your countries blatant aggression and hatred towards Pakistan (in 1971) to claim that Pakistan would have been better off without its legal and just claim to Kashmir - essentially what you are suggesting is that anyone with a valid legal claim should just give it up if the adversary is bigger and more powerful, because the other party will do it harm if the claim is not given up.

You conviniently missed out on the 2 wars pak started to "free" kashmir. The blatantly aggressive posture of pak obviously keeps the indian leadership on its toes. So, when an opportunity arose we did it. It was your country which was in a civil war due to the oppressive policies of the great dictatorships in 1971. 10 million refugees is no joke. Who will feed them, and take care of them.

You never had a legal claim over kashmir. it has been proved in your forum that pak had been the aggressors in 1948. Had pak not invaded, india would never have got the chance to take over kashmir. at first pak tried to take over kashmir. Since pak lost kashmir to india. Pak has only been trying to pitch in for independence for kashmir. Pak has never had a legal claim over kashmir and has only fought fruitless wars against a bigger and more powerful adversary and continue to bask in the glory of dictatorships.

 

[p2prada]

Notwithstanding the fact, that soon after Qauade Azam jinnah died, the Indians invaded Hyderabad and Junagadh, annexing it. If ever there was an open threat to the integrity of Pakistan, that was it. And this was in 1948

India also invaded daman & diu, dadra & nagar haveli, goa, manipur, and nagaland. but it wasnt because Jinnah died. India had its own policy.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

We have discussed this before, and it is not economical price that Pakistan has paid but a social price. Pakistan's population has been radicalized, the mullah's have power because your government has enpowered them for decades to recruit jehadis. Had Kashmir not been on the agenda, Pakistan would have shut off the terror camps after A'Stan problem. They continued, put more money in it, made Pakistan a weapons conduit and drugs conduit to finance their proxy wars. It has cost a whole lot more than what you even think is possible.

Completely incorrect - The Talibanization and spread of Islamic extremism in Pakistan has been the result of the conflict and chaos in Afghanistan and the resulting rise of the taliban due to extremist Deobandi and Wahabi Maddrassa's. This argument has been had several times already and it has been pointed out to be factually incorrect every single time.

Its Kashmir that has cost you the wars. Pakistan tried to get it in '65, waged war, and got nothing in return. The '71 war was a simple retaliation of sorts. You use the 71 war as an act of unprovoked aggression to determine Indian intents for Pakistan, you conveniently forget the war prior to that.

Its Kashmir that has cost you everything. There is a lot of corruption in India as well, but our Generals dont take over the country at their whim. Same for other countries-even in Turkey, the military intervenes when things get out of hand, but it returns power of its own accord to the civilians. Pakistan's militarist attitude is because of its desire to gain Kashmir, and everything has been a direct result of that.

That is incorrect as well - Pakistan tried to ferment an uprising in Kashmir in 1965 after India had unilaterally walked away from all peaceful diplomatic options to resolve it (an argument I have validated in another thread with Nehru's own quotes), and moved to integrate it through constitutional provisions - against the plebiscite condition in the IoA and against UNSC resolutions. The decision to actually escalate into a full fledged war was India's.

Secondly, to assert that Pakistan lost the 1965 war is ludicrous - at best India fought Pakistan to a stalemate.1971 was unprovoked, and in sovereign Pakistani territory, unlike Pakistani actions in disputed Kashmir. Indira Gandhi's quotes preceding Indian aggression in East Pakistan clearly show what motivated her to pursue that policy, and it was hate and nonacceptance of Pakistan. And if you want to talk about indirect responsibility, the blame once again falls on India for unilaterally walking away from the diplomatic options for dispute resolution agreed upon. But this argument is just juvenile - that India wanted to start another war so it could 'get back' at Pakistan, over something that India caused in the first place. What are we, nations or third graders?

Why the military has staged coups in Pakistan is due to a host of reasons, but Kashmir is not one of them, and I have not yet seen anyone present any facts that tie Kashmir to all of the coups in Pakistan. Not one single fact to validate that assertion. On the other hand, corruption, mismanagement, weakness of democratic institutions, feudal politics etc, have all been discussed as weaknesses in the political structure of Pakistan, and shown to be the causes, that led to military rule.

You have presented nothing to bolster you case that Kashmir has had a cost for Pakistan, though I understand the sentiment, similar to one found that India has caused Pakistan to go bankrupt through an arms race, since it sadistically appeals to some to try and link Kashmir to Pakistan's downfall to discredit Pakistan's claim. The facts just don't bear that claim out.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

India also invaded daman & diu, dadra & nagar haveli, goa, manipur, and nagaland. but it wasnt because Jinnah died. India had its own policy.

And that policy was one of aggressive and illegal territorial expansionism.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I never said anything about my dearth of knowledge about pakistan save for some social problems like poverty. Right now, I dont know the figures in pak for healthcare, tourism, female infanticide etc. I have actually learnt more about india's social problems as so many pak members keep reminding us.

Do u actually believe that the military regimes have nothing to to with india. All the wars fought from 1965 onwards has been under a military regime in pak. 1965, 1971, 1984, 1999. If war has not downgraded your economy, then you are sadly mistaken.

So, what you are trying to say is that 2 generations of democratically elected paksitani ministers which easily number more than 10000 in strength over the last 50 years have been totaly inept, corrupt and selfish. And that the so called saviours of your country, the dictatorship, have been efficient and honest. The only negative point being 4 bloody wars that even split pak.

Democracy has always been better for pak. You never gave it time to mature.
Indian democratic system always failed economically till 1991, but the military generals in india never took the opportunity to take over. That let the govt mature to what it is today.
For eg: the Manmohan Singh govt went on with the nuclear deal even with signs of the govt falling, which showed the ministers put their country first.

maybe you havent heard about what is coined "hindu rate of growth." which was embarrassing and demeaning for the whole country.

Since the point you were trying to make was that corruption was the bane for progress in pak. Does that mean that india is totally free of corruption. Does it mean that indian leadership has been visionary and honest about their work.
No sir. Even if all of the above points are true, then isnt our claim of kashmir more justified since our ministers have been genuienly working for peace and prosperity while pak ministers have only been squabbling over how to screw the country over.

(which I disagree with but that is for another time).
You yourself made a point u dont support.

Indias trade with china is the same. But, we are still doing it. We export raw materials while we import finished goods. But, it gives the chinese and indian corporations access to each others markets giving rise to more FDI and employment. The trade between the 2 govts will become a pittance compared to the amount of private trade that is generated from MNCs.
Your economists are leaders only aid and abet conspiracy theories.


Another conspiracy theory. There is no way to prove your claim. It is possible Mush himself did it to de-stabalize the nawaz shariff govt. Again, this point cannot be proved.

You conviniently missed out on the 2 wars pak started to "free" kashmir. The blatantly aggressive posture of pak obviously keeps the indian leadership on its toes. So, when an opportunity arose we did it. It was your country which was in a civil war due to the oppressive policies of the great dictatorships in 1971. 10 million refugees is no joke. Who will feed them, and take care of them.

You never had a legal claim over kashmir. it has been proved in your forum that pak had been the aggressors in 1948. Had pak not invaded, india would never have got the chance to take over kashmir. at first pak tried to take over kashmir. Since pak lost kashmir to india. Pak has only been trying to pitch in for independence for kashmir. Pak has never had a legal claim over kashmir and has only fought fruitless wars against a bigger and more powerful adversary and continue to bask in the glory of dictatorships.

You misunderstood my post - I am not saying I disagree with democratic rule, I am merely pointing out the rationale behind military rule, and that it was considered essential for the survival of Pakistan for the military to intervene, or so thought the power brokers at the time. My disagreement is with the military intervention, since I do not think that Pakistan would have faced existential threats had the military not stepped in, but that is in hindsight. It is that argument (of military intervention being unnecessary) that I left for another day.

Secondly, I am not at all saying that the military was better or is better, I am merely pointintg out the rationale behind the coups, and Kashmir is nowhere on the list of reasons why they occurred.

Of all the conflicts you pointed out, 2 were direct and unprovoked Indian aggression, that would have occurred regardless of who was in charge - so using them as justification is completely disingenuous. 1965 I have argued was not an intention to wage war, but initiate an uprising to force India to resolve Kashmir, that she had unilaterally closed off diplomatic options on. In hindsight it was a bad idea, but then the people back then did not have a crystal ball to see the future either, and covert operations had long been practiced and looked at as viable tools by the US and the UK to advance policy, and continued to be for a while.

Do point to me where it has been proved that Pakistan had no claim to Kashmir.The UNSC resolutions and the condition of plebiscite in the Instrument of Accession in fact completely validate the argument that Pakistan's claim on Kashmiris legitimate and valid. Were India's claim valid, the UNSC wold have ruled in favor of India outright.

On the economic front, I am in fact referring to analysis by Indian economists who argue that trade with India would benefit Pakistan since it could export some raw materials and onions and cement. If that is the best incentive for trade with India that even your economists, who are trying to sell the idea to Pakistan, can come up with then blame Indians for the 'conspiracy theories', not Pakistanis. The analysis from both sides is pretty similar, trade benefits India primarily benefit India, unless we start talking about Indian companies investing in Pakistan, and there would have been no guarantee of that given the relatively small market size of Pakistan.

 

[Evil Flare]

Right know what happening in Afghanistan is the Natural Response of accupation by Another Nation

The Amercians are the evil who killed their OWN people in 9/11 & now accupy Afghanistan , so what will Afghani do ??? Sit & see ??


The Invasion of Afganistan is not for War on terror but the MAIN Target is PAKISTAN , Its Nuclear Program ...




Sorry for my Bad English

 

[Contrarian]

You misunderstood my post - I am not saying I disagree with democratic rule, I am merely pointing out the rationale behind military rule, and that it was considered essential for the survival of Pakistan for the military to intervene, or so thought the power brokers at the time. My disagreement is with the military intervention, since I do not think that Pakistan would have faced existential threats had the military not stepped in, but that is in hindsight. It is that argument (of military intervention being unnecessary) that I left for another day.

Secondly, I am not at all saying that the military was better or is better, I am merely pointintg out the rationale behind the coups, and Kashmir is nowhere on the list of reasons why they occurred.

Kashmir gave the generals the importance. They were thought of as the men who would give Pakistan what she wanted, and thus their unnatural stature in Pakistan. It gave them the power to dictate policy to the government of the day and undertake operations without informing their civilian superiors.

Of all the conflicts you pointed out, 2 were direct and unprovoked Indian aggression, that would have occurred regardless of who was in charge - so using them as justification is completely disingenuous. 1965 I have argued was not an intention to wage war, but initiate an uprising to force India to resolve Kashmir, that she had unilaterally closed off diplomatic options on. In hindsight it was a bad idea, but then the people back then did not have a crystal ball to see the future either, and covert operations had long been practiced and looked at as viable tools by the US and the UK to advance policy, and continued to be for a while.

Mate, sending thousands of military people over the border including commandos to sabotage military installations and airbases is hardly an attempt at intiating an uprising. Its an act of war. This was '65, the same was done previously in '48. Now these are unprovoked agressions, what India did in 71 was a response, not unprovoked.

On the economic front, I am in fact referring to analysis by Indian economists who argue that trade with India would benefit Pakistan since it could export some raw materials and onions and cement. If that is the best incentive for trade with India that even your economists, who are trying to sell the idea to Pakistan, can come up with then blame Indians for the 'conspiracy theories', not Pakistanis. The analysis from both sides is pretty similar, trade benefits India primarily benefit India, unless we start talking about Indian companies investing in Pakistan, and there would have been no guarantee of that given the relatively small market size of Pakistan.

How do you expect private parties to give assurances that they will invest in Pakistan. They are private companies, they will invest only if they see a larger return in their profit. But trade with India will certainly help save Pakistan a LOT of money that it loses buying the same goods, at higher prices from elsewhere.

And mind you, the FTA with China is what will be most damaging to your local industry, not trade with India.

By the same logic, India should not trade with China, because we sell them raw goods and they export finished(value added) products! The onus is on us to improve upon what we sell, not on them to convince us whether we should trade or not!!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Kashmir gave the generals the importance. They were thought of as the men who would give Pakistan what she wanted, and thus their unnatural stature in Pakistan. It gave them the power to dictate policy to the government of the day and undertake operations without informing their civilian superiors.

No, if you want to follow that logic, Indian and Nehruvian perfidy and rejection of international agreements and obligations on Kashmir is what gave rise to the need for a strong military. And your argument does not bear out since by that logic, the cold war would have meant that the US military should have taken over the country.

Merely having a powerful military does not mean that the military will take over, it was the failure of civilian institutions that caused the intervention. I still have not seen a single fact that supports the argument that Kashmir caused the interventions, just subjective and theoretical circular arguments of 'powerful military due to Kashmir' - which runs into the contradictions of other cases of powerful militaries not intervening in other nations.

Mate, sending thousands of military people over the border including commandos to sabotage military installations and airbases is hardly an attempt at intiating an uprising. Its an act of war. This was '65, the same was done previously in '48. Now these are unprovoked agressions, what India did in 71 was a response, not unprovoked.

1948 was no attack against India, since the IoA had not been signed, even with the extremely limited and haphazard support for Tribals that Pakistan was able to muster at that point, it was support for a local movement against the atrocities of the Maharahaj subsequent to a local rebellion against his rule. It was only after Indian forces came in to quell the rebellion (some reports arguing that the IoA itself was signed after the Indian forces had entered, therefore making official Indian intervention illegal) that the Pakistan military joined the fray - after much hand wringing and wastage of time by the British officers I may add, in the absence of which India would probably not even control as much of Kashmir as it does now.

And once again, to point out the distinction between 1965 and 1971 - one was an intervention in disputed territory, after India unilaterally backed out of international agreements and obligations to resolve the dispute, to force India to resolve the issue - the other was blatant support for what woudl now be considered terrorism and sabotage in a sovereign, undisputed part of Pakistan with the intent to dismember and damage Pakistan.

Also, 1965 ended with an agreement on the cessation of hostilities, to then argue that it was 'revenge' is really perfidious and deceitful of India, since any concerns should have been raised at the Tashkent Agreement.

How do you expect private parties to give assurances that they will invest in Pakistan. They are private companies, they will invest only if they see a larger return in their profit. But trade with India will certainly help save Pakistan a LOT of money that it loses buying the same goods, at higher prices from elsewhere.

And mind you, the FTA with China is what will be most damaging to your local industry, not trade with India.

By the same logic, India should not trade with China, because we sell them raw goods and they export finished(value added) products! The onus is on us to improve upon what we sell, not on them to convince us whether we should trade or not!!

I don't expect private businesses to give assurances on anything, that is a mischaracterization of my comments - what I am pointing out is that in the existence of equivalent quality and price imports from India, Pakistani industry, that was non-existent bar a few mills, at independence, may not have developed to the extent it did. And given the small market size in Pakistan, and the realtively low cost and ease of transporting goods from factories in India to the Pakistani market, I see no overwhelming reason why Indian companies woudl have put up the money to set up shop in Pakistan.

Now perhaps trade with India might be on a more even keel, since the industry has come along further. I am in support of requiring a certain percentage of any Indian products coming to Pakistan to be manufactured in Pakistan, but we shall see how that goes.

The same logic does not apply to Sino-Indian trade since Indian industry and companies are more mature and diverse and therefore will be able to compete on a more even keel with a nation of comparable size.

 

[p2prada]

And that policy was one of aggressive and illegal territorial expansionism.

I don't deny it. I was only saying Jinnah's death isn't the reason for our policy.

 

[p2prada]

That is incorrect as well - Pakistan tried to ferment an uprising in Kashmir in 1965 after India had unilaterally walked away from all peaceful diplomatic options to resolve it (an argument I have validated in another thread with Nehru's own quotes), and moved to integrate it through constitutional provisions - against the plebiscite condition in the IoA and against UNSC resolutions. The decision to actually escalate into a full fledged war was India's.

Pakistan enjoyed the privilage of friends in 1965, compared to india. Mainly cause of Nehruvian beliefs in NAM. The UNSC resolutions have always been one sided. India was holding all the cards when the resolutions were made. But, pakistan had all the right friends which obviously pushed to pak's favour.
India decided to escalate only cause we knew pak did not have the resources to continue the war after that. Plus, it helped get international attention which pak did not like as much as india did.

The failed uprisings also go on to indicate that the kashmiris were more interested in being part of india.

Secondly, to assert that Pakistan lost the 1965 war is ludicrous - at best India fought Pakistan to a stalemate.

Militarily, it was a stalemate. But, pakistan lost a lot of foreign support after that. You dont go to war just cause the other party walks away from the table. It just means the warring faction was the aggressor.

1971 was unprovoked, and in sovereign Pakistani territory, unlike Pakistani actions in disputed Kashmir. Indira Gandhi's quotes preceding Indian aggression in East Pakistan clearly show what motivated her to pursue that policy, and it was hate and nonacceptance of Pakistan. And if you want to talk about indirect responsibility, the blame once again falls on India for unilaterally walking away from the diplomatic options for dispute resolution agreed upon.

10 million refugees, roughly half of of australia's population, run away to india. Do u know why this happened? People running away from their own country, that too into another country already with around 200 million in poverty. The refugees and the request for help from political establishments in east pak gave enough credibility for indian invasion.

But this argument is just juvenile - that India wanted to start another war so it could 'get back' at Pakistan, over something that India caused in the first place. What are we, nations or third graders?

yea, and you dont have to tell that to malay or me.

Why the military has staged coups in Pakistan is due to a host of reasons, but Kashmir is not one of them, and I have not yet seen anyone present any facts that tie Kashmir to all of the coups in Pakistan. Not one single fact to validate that assertion. On the other hand, corruption, mismanagement, weakness of democratic institutions, feudal politics etc, have all been discussed as weaknesses in the political structure of Pakistan, and shown to be the causes, that led to military rule.

Corruption, mismanagement, weak democratic institutions exist in india too. Why else do u think we have states like UP, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan. These are some of our most backward states. Farmers in Punjab, Haryana etc enjoy the usage of touch screens and access to the internet while the farmers in MP commit suicide due to debts. why do u think India is home to poverty, hunger, disease etc. Military dictatorships just give the EXCUSE of social degradation instead of other ulterior motives to seize power. EG: Pakistan's military spending always go UP during military regimes. How is that going to help?

Even with 33 years of military rule, poverty rate in pak has not declined while at the same time india's poverty declined to 24% from the post independence figure of 55%.

None of the military regimes before mush have made any significant contribution towards pakistans economy. Any progress was made only through american aid.

Mush came to power immediately after the loss during the kargil war. The political unrest over kashmir was the reason Mush came to power. Yahya khan lost power in 1971 after the loss in east pakistan. So, the dictators came to power or lost power because of their relationship with india.

The recent zardari govt made an announcement that pak's defence budget will become more transparent and will not rise any further for sometime. This is the first time a democratically elected govt in pak has ever challenged the military head on.

You have presented nothing to bolster you case that Kashmir has had a cost for Pakistan, though I understand the sentiment, similar to one found that India has caused Pakistan to go bankrupt through an arms race, since it sadistically appeals to some to try and link Kashmir to Pakistan's downfall to discredit Pakistan's claim. The facts just don't bear that claim out.

Examples of Mush and Yahya should be enough.

 

[p2prada]

unless we start talking about Indian companies investing in Pakistan, and there would have been no guarantee of that given the relatively small market size of Pakistan.

I agree, there is no economy on earth with a bigger market than india and china. But, calling pak's market "small" is not entirely justified. Pak will soon become the 5th largest by population in the world.