Hi,
The states in the U S are run like one nation---when I talked about mqm--pppp---pml-n---states meant like they are running their own separate countries within a state.
The 50 states have their own state authorities too, don't they? Obviously they are all under the Federal, but they're there. In the early days of America, some of them ran their own Confederacy.
Anyways, MQM, PPP, and PMLN are not running any separate countries. I fail to see how that is even a remotely accurate description of what they are doing. They are simply doing what corrupt politicians do, playing divisive politics to loot the country.
They aren't interested in running any 'their own separate countries'.
If they were interested in that, they'd try to get some more provincial autonomy and actually develop the provinces they govern.
We might actually have better governance if that was the case!
Be it pathan mohajjir or Punjabi----the ideal is the same----live in peace, have the ability to pursue their goals, have the protection of the state---there should be rule of law and order in the society. There is no magic to it---. The heritage is not an issue----we are not looking at the geneology---but matters of running a state.
Bhai jaan then why even mention the heritage? Obviously there should be law and order in society. You said it yourself, there is no magic to it. We'll have to develop Law and Order ourselves, and that takes time .
There needs to be a discussion to find the guidelines but not an argument for the sake of argument----and just going left and right every which way.
Guidelines for Law and Order?
That's pretty simple: don't vote for people and parties you know are corrupt, don't cheat on taxes, don't blow yourself up in crowded places, don't support people who say you should blow yourself up in crowded places.
As for argument for the sake of argument, that is a big problem with our religious leaders.
What does a state need---order in the society---rule of law---enforcement of the rule of law---quick and deliberate justice---and then everything else falls into place----. And for that--we have abundant examples throught our history in the sub-continent---.
It sounds so easy when you put it like that - but let's look at it more in-depth:
Order in the society
A government can enforce the law, but it can not change
mindsets in the society in a day. This first one will take time,regardless of who is in power. Of course, some leaders will be capable of achieving that goal in a shorter amount of time than others - a good example is Lee Kuan Yu of Singapore, who took his country from the third world to prosperity within a few decades.
It normally takes many generations to achieve that.
Rule of Law and enforcement
Sounds good. So, let's say I am the PM. I increase law enforcement budget and tell them to enforce the law. Well, for one, I won't be able to afford increasing the budget because nobody pays their taxes, and the judiciary will be too weak to punish the few criminals that actually get caught. And of course, let's not forget the corruption within the police itself.
The most important thing here is
to have people respect the law. To get them to pay taxes.
These two things, 'order in society' and 'rule of law' are about mindset on a macro level. These will take time.
Law Enforcement, Quick and Deliberate Justice
Things like Law Enforcement and quick and deliberate justice can be done if we get well-intentioned, competent leaders.
For that, we either need an effective democratic system. Again, it will take time: but, electoral reforms are a must. Like you said, we need to recognize our mistakes and work on them. The way our elections work currently, how susceptible they are to rigging, well-intentioned leaders don't stand a chance.
And as Pakistanis do have the habbit of making that 1400 years leap----then in that time period---there are many an example of good governance.
All the examples are good and well, we need someone interested in following them. If I became PM tomorrow, I would certainly look towards some of those many examples for inspiration. But I'm not becoming PM tomorrow, sadly.
And in a similar manner---there are examples of the fundamentalists and the state dealing with them ruthlessly in an expeditious manner.
''Fundamentalists'' need to be dealt with ruthlessly, you say. Who defines what is considered 'fundamentalist'? Logically, of course, terrorism, sectarian hate, violence are included in that.
But I've seen people here saying that beards are included too. I've seen people here say that someone praying in public should be thrown off a bridge. Do we respond to violent religious fundamentalism with knee-jerk reactions against people we deem to be 'overly-religious'? That could be a problem since 90% of Pakistan is religious.
For a society to progress---the religious fanatics need to be neutralized very fast---. The nation cannot progress otherwise. The pulpit must not be allowed to be used against the state---.
Again, same problem. Who is a 'fanatic'? Who gets do decide what constitutes fanaticism is? What is there to stop political opponents from branding each other 'fanatics', in the same way they brand each other 'kaffir'? Do we ban the pulpit because some people are using it against the state?
''the religious fanatics need to be neutralized'' is very obvious and everyone would agree with you on that. The problem is that that is an oversimplification - the fanatics in question don't wear labels on their heads saying ''I am a fanatic, neutralize me''. Lines need to be drawn carefully, lest we label half the country 'fanatic' and create more division than there already is.
As for the nation progressing - the neutralization of religious extremism is part of that progress. The nation is progressing as it combats that extremism, and deciding upon what is extremism is also part of progress. We having this discussion is part of progress. Micro progress, but progress nonetheless.
But it is very important that we do not succumb to polarization and a reactionary mindset.
