Tanks guarding a ‘jhuggi’

[ajpirzada]

Monday, May 04, 2009
The people of this country have been made fools for 60 years in the name of ‘national security’. With every new “Ghauri and Ghaznavi” launched, chants of Allah-o-Akbar were raised and we were told that we were safe. With each ugly replica of “Chaghi Hills” and these missiles installed on the road crossings we were assured that we had arrived on the world nuclear scene. So what if East Pakistan was gone but Kashmir would be ours one day, we were told. When independent analysts cried hoarse saying that governments and the state needed to do something to improve the quality of the human capital and divert resources from weapons and defence, they were labelled as traitors. And look where we are now.

The situation of Pakistan seems like that of a ‘jhuggi’ with 170 million hungry, illiterate and impoverished souls living inside it waiting for a miracle to happen. Outside there are tanks installed with nuclear bombs and missiles for the safety of the jhuggi-walahs. The ‘security guards’ who protect these jhuggi-dwellers are all well-fed and live in modern homes.

How many times have we — and the rest of the world — been assured by our political and military leadership that our nuclear assets ‘are safe”? Yes, they are safe, but what about the people, what about the nation itself — are they safe? It’s time to ask such questions and it’s time to raise our voices. Heads must roll, starting with a debate on holding those accountable who created these monsters in the name of national security.

Zarqa Javed

Islamabad

Tanks guarding a ‘jhuggi’

 

[ajpirzada]

i might not agree with it but i do find it quite interestin and espacially the heading

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

i might not agree with it but i do find it quite interestin and espacially the heading

The defence budget for 2009 was 3.3% of the total budget, lets say it averaged 5-6% over the last decade or so.

You mean to tell me that the remaining 94-95% of the budget was not enough to alleviate any of the issues referenced?

People look for easy scapegoats, right now the military is an easy one, since they are 'killing their own Muslim brothers' and the decision of the people themselves (the political parties) have proven to be completely inept.

So instead of introspection over why out society is intolerant and why people continue to vote along biradri and zaat lines, instead of taking the hard decisions of military action against a barbaric group of people bent upon beheading anyone who opposes them, many Pakistanis are very content with criticizing the military as the source of all their ills.

A simple, singular target.

Guess what - disband the entire military and the Taliban will still not stop, the corruption in the government will continue, the voting along Biradri and zaat will continue, the intolerance creeping into society will continue, development will continue to take a backseat so long as the government is inept and politicians corrupt.

Zarqa Jawed doth rant.

EDIT: A 4.4 billion USD defence budget with an estimated GDP of 160 billion USD works out to be about 2.7% of GDP, and approximately 13% of the total budget.

 

[wtf]

There is a controversial view of this (mostly popular in Indian circles).

If you look at the income distribution of Pakistan you'll see that 57% of the population make about Rs 3,000 -10,000 a month(Slide 3 of the attachment )
http://www.iri.org/mena/pakistan/pd... Pakistan Public Opinion, June 1-15, 2008.pdf

These are the people who do not own much land or resources while just about 2% of the population make more than 25,000 a month. One easy way of getting to this top percentile is to join the Army. So this lack of social mobility is the reason Pak Army is so powerful. This make the "Tanks around Jhuggi's" a self sustaining situation with Army remaining powerful and able to command contribution from the rich which they then funnel as salaries to the poor.
Also explains why Taliban is so attractive to the poorer sector - they promise income equality and egalitarianism.

------------------------
Before this turns into an India vs Pak argument, I'll offer up some data - atleast if we have an argument, it would be an informed one.

India and Pakistan are pretty similar in income and income inequality, but India has a larger middle class and social mobility. (23% above $3000 vs 16% for Pakistan and 11% > $6,000 vs 2% for Pakistan)
http://pdf.wri.org/hammond_india_profile_xls.pdf (Page 2).

 

[wtf]

The same information, Graphically.

( I used an exchange rate of $1=60 Pak Rs to get at the Pak Income distribution. The current rate is $1=Rs 80 for Pakistan, but I think that is not the long term average. Using $1= Rs 60 improves the figure in favor of Pakistan)

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

So this lack of social mobility is the reason Pak Army is so powerful.

The question is more along the lines of how defense expenditure has been the primary cause behind a lack of development and progress - as I pointed out, even with defence expenditure at record low levels, development and progress continue to be hindered by what I would argue are factors that have always been the primary cause - corruption, nepotism and feudalism.

 

[wtf]

The question is more along the lines of how defense expenditure has been the primary cause behind a lack of development and progress - as I pointed out, even with defence expenditure at record low levels, development and progress continue to be hindered by what I would argue are factors that have always been the primary cause - corruption, nepotism and feudalism.

There is nothing that is uniquely corrupt about Pakistan - Pakistanis are not by nature corrupt or nepotistic any more than India or Bangladesh is. It is the legal and social structure that promotes corruption not the nature of the people.A stable, growth focused government is the best tool to fix poverty in my opinion.

I believe the reason for corruption is that the rich tend to guard their privileges very strongly - for example, the story here
The Dawn Blog Blog Archive Of guns and shoes

Not much different from India, except that in India the "privileged" include politicians, lots of businessmen and celebrities (sports, entertainment etc.) unlike just landlords and politicians in Pakistan. This means that Indian corruption would be in diverse fields like business (Satyam scandal, black money in real estate), entertainment (black money in movies) and politics unlike in Pakistan.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There is nothing that is uniquely corrupt about Pakistan -

Which is not what I was suggesting - my point remains that the author's suggestion of defence expenditure suppressing development does not come across as a plausible for the reasons I mentioned.

 

[S-2]

The letter goes to core strategic and socio-cultural forces which have driven Pakistan from it's inception. It has little relevance to the immediate moment yet cannot be ignored as anything less than CENTRAL to your current condition.

Governments have come and gone in your country-civil and military. What hasn't accompanied them in any case is a change to your security objectives in context with your overall objectives for progress.

The armed forces as an institution remains remote and unapproachable. Occasionally your appointed governor-general is rejected and democracy again stumbles to it's feet. The institution of your armed forces, however, remains unchallenged.

The rewards of service seem great relative to the travails of the general populace who slave daily on behalf of Pakistan with greater productivity for less reward.

Such is the cost of their shield whether used or not. Whether effective or not when so employed.

So we read of a battle in Buner last February. The citizens rise. Where's the army? Many are wounded defending themselves. The local hospital has no medicine. Where's the medicine? Islamabad is sixty miles away. One hour by vehicle on road.

Balouch insurgency.

India.

Kashmir.

Envelopment from Afghanistan.

Do any of these things matter much to some family in Buner today?

 

[wtf]

Which is not what I was suggesting - my point remains that the author's suggestion of defence expenditure suppressing development does not come across as a plausible for the reasons I mentioned.

The author may have been wrong there - Pakistan won't gain much by diverting money from defense to social development, but it will nevertheless gain a lot if it diverts attention from military to income distribution.

Also, since India and Pakistan have so many complementary goods, they both will gain through trade if peace is achieved. But peace will also reduce the privilege and prestige of the army, so army has no intrinsic need to make peace. Look at this from a army mans' perspective - he is faced with 2 choices, either spend money buying new weapons and making his formation more powerful (and himself more prestigious) or talk to the opposition army (benefits the nation, but loses prestige for army). My guess is that for a long time the army has been choosing option 1. It is not the money that really counts, but the willingness to have peace.

Country gains from peace, army loses.Hence no peace as long as army is powerful.

 

[wtf]

Which is not what I was suggesting - my point remains that the author's suggestion of defence expenditure suppressing development does not come across as a plausible for the reasons I mentioned.

Tough economy helps spur Army recruiting - Silver City Sun-News

From the example of US - military actually increases recruitment when economy is doing badly. Military everywhere remains a tool for poor to move to middle-class or to wealth.
Taken to the extreme, it becomes Jhuggi's guarded by Tanks.

 

[S-2]

From the example of US - military actually increases recruitment when economy is doing badly.

Strongly suggests a successful economy will out-compete the armed forces for the best and brightest in the absence of poor economic performance or an immediate national threat.

 

[wtf]

From the example of US - military actually increases recruitment when economy is doing badly.

Strongly suggests a successful economy will out-compete the armed forces for the best and brightest in the absence of poor economic performance or an immediate national threat.

Yep. It can be seen with US needing to turn to conscription in Vietnam (In spite of having a pretty large population) or with India which facing a shortage of qualified officers (the youth all want to join IT industry ). In India's case the Kargil war actually boosted recruitment for a couple of years and now the economy slowing down will add another burst of "enthusiasm" for the army.

 

[blain2]

Tough economy helps spur Army recruiting - Silver City Sun-News

From the example of US - military actually increases recruitment when economy is doing badly. Military everywhere remains a tool for poor to move to middle-class or to wealth.
Taken to the extreme, it becomes Jhuggi's guarded by Tanks.

Well the exact point of the counter argument is that Pakistan's case is not one the extremes where the tanks are guarding the jhuggis regardless of what is claimed by the writer of the letter...however perceptions stick and such is the case with this issue. Pakistan suffers more, not at the hand of the military and its financial appetite as it is quite often claimed, rather due to the whims and fancies of the landed aristocracy of Pakistan. Two of the most populated provinces have vast majorities of their rural population living under the yolk of this class and they have no way out. This is what is holding Pakistan's lower class from moving up into the middle class ranks and beyond.

There are very many in Pakistan who take pot shots at the military on baseless grounds...in many cases its a case of not understanding how the military is funded, whether its needed or not etc. and in most cases its a combination of the former and sour grapes.

 

[blain2]

From the example of US - military actually increases recruitment when economy is doing badly.

Strongly suggests a successful economy will out-compete the armed forces for the best and brightest in the absence of poor economic performance or an immediate national threat.

That would be the logical conclusion anywhere. At least in Pakistan, in the officer corps, I would say at least 95% join out of conviction to serve or due to the fact that they like the lifestyle. On the side of ranks, economic well being could definitely be a major factor however the same cannot be assumed for the entire Army.

Lets also keep in mind that the military of Pakistan employs less than 1% of the workforce. So its not really a huge workplace alternate for many. Those who have an interest join, otherwise life goes on in the private industry or in the civilian government side.