![pakistan in the role of asian glue pakistan in the role of asian glue](https://i1.tribune.com.pk/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/411736-ShahidJavedBurkiNew-1342973265.jpg)
The military leaders were able to access foreign aid since it was consequent upon subscribing to America’s strategic interests in the area around Pakistan. The military rulers had more degrees of freedom to work with foreign governments. They did not feel they needed to be constrained by public opinion. As can be gauged from Pakistan’s difficulties with the US in 2011-12, a democratic government has to take people’s views into account while fashioning foreign policy. As a recent survey by the Pew Research Centre revealed, a very large proportion of people in Pakistan view the US unfavourably compared with other countries in Asia.
Pakistan’s current economic downturn has been extremely severe, lasting longer than any other in its history. It has lasted for five years and is likely to persist for a while. One way of dealing with this situation is to completely reorient the country’s approach to economic development. It needs to focus more on developing strong links with the Asian nations in its neighbourhood rather than continue to seek a close relationship with the US. For some time now, Pakistan has been attempting to negotiate a free trade arrangement, FTA, with the US. That is an impractical approach since Washington has signed FTAs with mostly small nations such as Panama. These countries could be given tariff-free access since they did not pose much threat to America’s domestic industry. For a large country such as Pakistan with one large sector — textiles — the path to an FTA will be slow and will not be particularly rewarding. Instead, this may be a good moment to think about going Asian.
Given Pakistan’s current chaotic situation in both politics and economics, it would be rather presumptuous to suggest that the country could act as the glue for binding different parts of Asia, a large continent, which is now on the move. Several analysts have suggested that the 21st century will be the Asian century; that the extraordinary combination of demography, the role of the state and recent economic history will take Asia forward. The 19th century was the century of Europe and the 20th that of America. This was now the turn of Asia. According to this line of thinking, Asia could, in the not too distant future, overtake both Europe and America in terms of the respective sizes of the economies of these three continents. There is enough dynamism in Asia for several scholars to be comfortable with the thought that such a repositioning of the continental economies is inevitable. However, the pace of change could be quicker and the result more definite if the various Asian countries, large and small, could work together and enable the continent to become a well-connected economic entity with strong inter-country links. Such an outcome could become possible if there was the political will to act on the part of Asia’s large countries. In this context, Pakistan’s role could be critical even when its own economy is very weak at this time.
Some analysts have suggested that rather than one Asia there were, in fact, two Asias, one dominated by China, the other by India. The question was whether the two Asias would converge into a loosely-bound economic entity, or diverge — each part going its own separate way — developing separate economic and political systems and pursuing different goals. There were just too many systemic differences between these two parts of Asia for them to meld together. The state systems in the two anchor economies, China and India, were so different that working together within a common policy framework would not be a practical proposition. China was a highly centralised state. In India’s evolving political system, federating states possessed considerable autonomy, a trend that was weakening the centre. Political systems were also different. China was able to orchestrate regime change in a fairly orderly manner; a process in which it was engaged in now for more than a year and will reach a well-choreographed finale in the spring of 2013. However, the transfer of power in India occurred through elections and the formation of governing coalitions was not always a smooth process. The two countries were headed in quite different directions. Divergence was the more likely outcome.
However, it is, perhaps, even better to think in terms of not one or two Asias but about four rather different parts. This further division of a geographic entity that many would like to see merge into one cohesive economic system certainly complicates the thinking about the future. But looking at Asia from this perspective is more practical and makes it easier to handle the making of public policy. It also makes Pakistan a central player. I will pick up this subject next week.
Published in The Express Tribune, July 23rd, 2012.
COMMENTS (69)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ
Pakistan must accept the fact that they are a part of Asia not to any Middle East or Gulf.They are pure ex-Indians & belong to Asia.Their economy should complement with the Asian economy & only then they have any chance of progress.Otherwise in the next 20 years they will be like yemen,lebonon, or uganda.i.e failed country.
@Riaz Haq: Indian bureaucracy... It is at least more competant , honest and better regarded tyhan the Pakistani counterparts. Reliable data mirrors reality of the ground. With the current power crisis in pakistan, the economy is surely not surging ahead. Unless you have a different experience.
jism: "any one with right mind would cross verify with independent assessments made by other institutions:
They all depend on the same unreliable primary data gathered by the Indian govt bureaucracy which is not known to be the most competent or honest.
Forget it Pakistan is never going to allowed to progress let alone be a glue so long as it follows the Mullahs blindly
@Riaz Haq: not second or third hand info that you are quoting. If the world bank has 2nd/3rd hand info just because it shows Pakistan in poor light, there is something seriously distorted in the way you look at the world....
@Riaz Haq:
Besides, there is absolutely no justification for India’s PPP figures because they are based on PPP correction factor of 2.9 which is entirely bogus. Please continue to argue with yourself with your own references, opinions and decisions....... Locked in the wonderland!
@Riaz Haq: How does it matter if Pakistan or India are afew dollars more or less in per capita GDP. Both are fairly poor. The difference is that while one GDP is nearing USD 2 trillion, the other is at USD 250 billion. India has a forex reserves of 300 billion, pakistan is at 15 billion. Qatar has the highest per capita GDP in the world at USD 110000, twice that of USA. That means nothing of qatars influence or power in the world. However it is up to you if you wish to live in a bubble of delusions!
do not harp. for water u depend on indias treaty obligation
Another one looking for a role to play. One has to go through a rigorous trainning regime to be elligible as an actor.Pakistan has not yet left the class room.
@Gratgy: "As per you India’s calculations are bogus but strangely it’s Pakistan that keeps restating it’s GDP"
India has restated its GDP more often than Pakistan. The advance estimate of GDP growth for 2000-01 was 6%, this was revised to 5.2% in 2001, was reduced to 4% in 2002 and then raised again to 4.4% in 2003! The estimate for the 2006-07 agri-GDP growth figures was updated from 3.9 to 6 per cent around the end of January 2007; a rare, but by no means unique, occurrence. But agriculture is not the only culprit. The Index of Industrial Production Manufacturing for Dec ‘06 growth reported in Feb ‘07 was 11.9 per cent, it was then revised upwards to 13.4 per cent and now final estimates in May are at 14.5 per cent.
http://www.business-standard.com/india/news/how-reliableindia%60s-gdpother-figures/286707/
Somesh: "Fair enough you atleast gave a reference but mate handle this from World Bank fot the years 2007 to 2011:"
I quoted the original sources of data which are the 2011-12 Economic Surveys of India and Pakistan ($1143 for India and $1372 for Pakistan), not second or third hand info that you are quoting.
Besides, there is absolutely no justification for India's PPP figures because they are based on PPP correction factor of 2.9 which is entirely bogus.
Pakistan has more influence than India in the world affairs! It's because of its strategic location, natural reserves, Islamic Values & culture. Pakistan & only Pakistan can guarantee peace in Afghanistan which is why all the major super powers que up in front of Pakistan.
Regarding economy, it always is cycle. We need to adopt true Islamic systems for running our economy like Islamic banking. All big capitalistic banks have collapsed, but not a single bank following Islamic banking failed.
Pakistan as Asian glue? No way. "Pakistan a central player". That says it all doesn't it? What nation in Asia would trust Pakistan given it's history of playing both sides at once, against both friend and foe alike.
@Riaz Haq: India’s per capita income for 2011-12 Rs 60,972, according to Economic Survey of India 2011-12. It translates into US $1143.09, using INR 53.25 to a US dollar. Pakistan’s nominal per capita income has increased by 9% to $1,372 in 2011-12 from $1,258 in 2010-11. Fair enough you atleast gave a reference but mate handle this from World Bank fot the years 2007 to 2011: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD
India 1,055 1,028 1,127 1,375 1,489 Pakistan 871 979 949 1,019 1,194
@Riaz
Clutching at the straws aren't you. As per you India's calculations are bogus but strangely it's Pakistan that keeps restating it's GDP. And NO we are not going to click on your sad little web link. But then if you are happy to live in your little bubble then so be it.
Double-counting: GDP overestimated, may be slashed by 10% http://tribune.com.pk/story/371594/double-counting-gdp-overestimated-may-be-slashed-by-10/
@BlackJack: " in fact on PPP basis you are now 40% lower than India"
Wrong! Indian government uses an inflated PPP correction of 2.9 which is completely bogus. Pakistan's PPP income is based on PPP correction factor of 2.3 as recommended by international institutions. In nominal dollar terms, Pakistan's per capita income is actually higher than India's, according to Economic Survey figures released by the two nations.
India's per capita income for 2011-12 Rs 60,972, according to Economic Survey of India 2011-12. It translates into US $1143.09, using INR 53.25 to a US dollar. Pakistan's nominal per capita income has increased by 9% to $1,372 in 2011-12 from $1,258 in 2010-11.
http://www.riazhaq.com/2011/06/pakistans-per-capita-income-exceeds.html
Ignoring @kalachakra who always has a way of dismissing India, if we look at the reality of 21st century it is going to be a century of challenges.
The biggest challenge will be food & water. Second biggest challenge will be finding jobs to zooming populations. In first count, both China & India are in problem. But, on second count China has made huge progress vis-a-vis India. So, India does have a long way to go before it could have even the same level of development as China.
Having said that, the world power equations don't depend on absolutes. It depends largely on leverage. India has (or will have) a far higher leverage in the years to come than most other asian nations bar China, beating even Japan. This will happen for two main reasons. Size of Economy & India's alternative model to china. Countries feeling threatened by China, are huddling closer with India, and it is happening already (See what's happening with Vietnam).
So, in that sense Author is right.
@Riaz Haq: The inveterate blogger doth protest too much. Again, I haven't heard ANYONE quote N-11. Has any single nation within the N-11 taken the initiative to have even a single meeting among the group? We all know that the BRICs are taken seriously because this grouping has begun to meet separately and align where possible. Again if India is poor, Pakistan is poorer, nations of comparable GDP have a fraction of the population with similar GDP; shockingly your per capita GDP is also lower than desperately-poor India despite your hogging of East Pakistan's resources for 25 years; in fact on PPP basis you are now 40% lower than India; Your population is 1/6th of India - your exports are not even 1/10th. India will succeed because it wants to; Pakistan (and people like you) are more worried about India succeeding than Pakistan failing - so your fate is also fairly certain. Desist, dear sir, you are wasting your time; try and do some good for your country besides blogging.
BlackJack: "Yes, I have noticed that you keep quoting him – again, you are the only one who quotes him on N-11."
You are showing your utter ignorance by claiming that I am the only one who quotes Jim O'Neill on N11. His book "The Growth Map" and N11 have been extensively reviewed and covered in the financial press.
BTW, who is most often quoted when BRICs are discussed? Is it not Jim O'Neill?
Where do you think BRIC came from? Who coined it? Who gave it legitimacy? Who triggered the massive inflow of FDI in India? Was it not Jim O'Neill of Goldman Sachs?
As to India's "heft" you brag about, it comes from the size of its population, not the productivity of its people. India ranks very low in terms of per cap GDP in the world. India's share of the world GDP is just 2.7% and its population is 17% of the world population. And its share of world GDP has been essentially flat for the last decade.
http://www.riazhaq.com/2012/07/global-power-shift-since-industrial.html
@Riaz Haq: Yes, I have noticed that you keep quoting him - again, you are the only one who quotes him on N-11. BRICS are all in the top 10 economies in the world and have considerable heft - their growth is expected to change the dynamics in the current world economic order. Are N-11 in the next 10? or 20? or 30? or 40? Nope, the spread is across number 14 (South Korea) to number 58 (Bangladesh) with number 46 (Pakistan) preceding it. Note: Pls dont come back telling me that Pakistan is number 27 or so as per PPP, in that case India is number 3. You can continue to delude yourself that O'Neill has mentioned a group that happened to contain Pakistan - as proven, it means nothing. Would have made much more sense if you focused on SAARC where Pakistan is the second biggest economy but still does nothing to leverage the group.
Somesh: "Practcally there have been ONLY TWO YEARS in Pakistan’s so called ‘independent existence’ when it did not receive aid from US – 1949 and 1950….."
Nonsense! Pakistan has had more US aid embargoes and various US sanctions than any other country in South Asia. Check your facts!
Pakistan have a great potential, a hardworking population, a very fertile land with rich source of water, situated at very important strategic and geopolitical position. So if they want to boost their economy, they must restructure and reorient some of their policies/priorities......they could be the land bridge for India, the second biggest economy in Asia to Afghanistan, Iran, west and Central Asia and vice versa. They also can be the glue of so called two Asia, they can bound the China and India instead of being a reason for usual fissures between two biggest Asian economies. They should cede the mentality of confrontation with India, should not be feared from them, instead like China they should maintain the status-quo over the existing problems till solution not found and march on their economic relations. The use of terrorism and terrorist is like playing with fire, you never know when it burn you and your home. Pakistan has burn quite lot and should now at least change it policies towards its neighbour. India will never danger its economy and high growth rate to indulge unilaterally in any sorts of misadventure called war. It wants status quo on Kashmir till it is not resolved. The whole Kashmir for Pakistan or India is NEVER possible and if anybody thinks on that line he is only day dreaming and living in false paradise. What a irony!!!!.......we speak same language, have same foods habbits, follow the same customs, like the same songs, movies ..... Alas.....takes pride and feels happy on destroying one another.......
@BlackJack: "Sir, no one other than you seems to be very enamored with this Next Eleven, as there are just too many potential groupings for anyone to pay any heed to this one."
No one is more enamored of N11 than Goldman Sachs' Jim O'Neill, the man who coined BRIC and reaffirmed N-11 prospects it in his recent book on the subject in 2011. As to the commonality among N-11, it's no less than the commonality among BRICS in which Russia is very rich and highly developed with high per cap GDP and India is very poor and the least developed with the lowest per capita GDP.
Pakistan can use its Islamic identity and loyalty towards Qasim and other middle eastern invaders to get preferential treatment in trade from the middle eastern North African Islamic countries. There is money to be made there if you press the right buttons. Pakistan itself needs a glue to stay together so I don't think it can be a glue to others. The others are doing well enough without any glue. Pakistan should focus on internal issues and it has many.
@Riaz Haq: Practcally there have been ONLY TWO YEARS in Pakistan's so called 'independent existence' when it did not receive aid from US - 1949 and 1950..... http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jul/11/us-aid-to-pakistan
The author has put forward a well-reasoned hypothesis which certainly has its merits. To be able to capitalize on this opportunity, there needs to be a fundamental shift in the political and societal trajectory of the country. Whether it will happen or not remains to be seen. The rest of Asia would only be happy if Pakistan does make this shift in the coming future.
“Pakistan in the role of Asian glue” ! ------ it's not only "rather presumptuous" but outright superarrogance almost a case of madness. We need some "glue" to hold us together and forget about others.
There are two Asias, one dominated by China, one dominated by India… Wrong, economically China has arrived. India has only a potential and is moving niggardly in the right direction, unlike Pakistan. True, India's democracy is something to celebrate. Economically there are two Asia's, one Chinese and the other Asian plus Japan etc. Though economically they are significantly integrated with China, politically Japan, Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam, Philippines are all adversaries. Do all Chinese (I mean Mongoloids) look alike for the author?
@Riaz Haq: Sir, no one other than you seems to be very enamored with this Next Eleven, as there are just too many potential groupings for anyone to pay any heed to this one. Let's look at the countries in the N-11 for a minute and where they see themselves - Bangladesh, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Turkey, South Korea, and Vietnam. First of all South Korea is a developed nation in comparison and sees nothing in common with the rest; next removing OPEC nations - Iran, Nigeria; then remove ASEAN members - Vietnam, Indonesia, Philippines; then nations which are highly dependent on the NAFTA/ EU - Mexico, Turkey. What are you left with? Egypt, Pakistan and Bangladesh. Yep, I guess they are going to rule the world from Dubai.
Indonesia is doing good than pakistan another muslim country
its a shame that your very small brother 'Bangladesh' is also doing gr8 in terms of economy.
Lets wait for the next article which should show what material pakistan can bring to the table to be considered as a glue of entire asia. well there is no doubt that if pakistan , the land of indus valley civilization can bring its acts together and return to the right path it will definitely help, to begin with- lowered terror threat for the entire world.
Mr. Burki is a well regarded and seasoned Finance and economics specialist. His column is indeed very anticipated. Mr. Burki is right that Pakistan, which is the 4th largest country in Asia, must be part of Asia's growth. All countries will contrbute. India/China/Japan/korea, and others need pakistans market of 200 million people. Asia also needs Pakistan to play its part in leaving Afganistan alone, so that the central asian republics, and Iran can integrate with Asias energy needs. Pakistan has a strong textile base, but that cannot survive unless it integrates with rest of Asia( bangladesh/srilanka/indonesia/vietnam/cambodia), all of whom are low cost producers. Also as world economy slows down, World needs newer ,virgin and unprotected markets. Pakistan is a good example of that.
The only things of importance is how Pakistan positions itself. Only, only by being a tolerant open society with good infrastructure and an highly educated population can Pakistan make sense. otherwise the ten-year average growth path will be negative. It has reached zero in real terms. Given this situation the next few years could be the final straw unless we chanse track.
India excelled not because of pluralism, but because of the success of its IT industry and the strength of its large houses - Indian economy minus Tatas, RELs, Vipro's/Infosys etc would be down to one of the worst performing. Nothing to take away from India - they had giants and those giants played their game well. In terms of China, the guaranteed health and education that Chines of 2 decades ago is gone and so is a guaranteed wage and a guaranteed pention. China's rise, though has been great for the resourceful, has taken away to large extent the freebees of the past. The conditions in most Chinese factories are deplorable. Good for China though. What about the U.S.? pick up any newspaper or walk down a major U.S. urban center or apply for a real job in U.S. and soon you will realize that the time where the american dream was available to all are long gone. You are well in u.s. if you are in the top 1% or working on wall-street/silicon valley. Otherwise, you'd spend your life loading groceries over the weekend and working overtime during the week to have a minimal lifestyle. Welcome to the 21st century. Unfortunately, Pakistan has neither done well by its people nor by its innovators and industry.
@Polpot: "But Pakistan would be part of the Gulf."
Answering a reporter's question about the growth prospects of GCC (oil-rich nations of Gulf Cooperation Council) at a recent investment conference in Dubai, Goldman Sachs' Jim O'Neill of BRIC fame said: "Some GCC countries are well placed to be hubs for the BRIC and N-11-influenced world. I often think of Dubai as a kind of N-11 center, even the capital of the N-11 world, given its business adjacency to Egypt, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, and, of course, India and Russia."
http://www.riazhaq.com/2012/03/pakistan-on-goldmans-bric-n11-growth.html
" I will pick up this subject next week." +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Thank you Sir, we are now well informed what to skip next week.
In Diplomacy there are no friends and no enemies. Links and bridges with every country must be strengthened and synergies must be found and exploited. However this will not be possible if modernism is eschewed in favour of an alien seventh century ideology OR if one group of people want to impose their views on others using the Gun.
Pakistan is gifted with fertile land and people. Pakistan seems to lead the world in many industries, for instance IT (international Terrorism) conspiracy theory and intolerance.
Nice article by a well read person but what is the whole point? Author clearly states that Pakistan is floundering econimically in region which just had a booming decade, so logically the issue must be internal i.e. in terms of competitiveness or productivity but why is this obsession with outside world? Exports and remittances, two major factor of benefit to Pakistan represent about 15-17% of its GDP hence 85% of economic value is added internally! Would not it be normal to focus on internal economic factors to achieve catchup growth rather than external ones.
@kaalchakra:
India, the soft super power by Shashi Tharoor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9F_zcrY3Fw&feature=related
@kaalchakra: Whom does India dominate? Bhutan? Let’s not inflate India’s importance to the world. It has little real influence. Ask this to the Saudis who gave Abu Jundal a Pakistani passport holder to India...... They know what 'influence' means and they certainly know that 'religious rhetoric' is different from diplomatic maneuvering.......
First, the only manner in which Pakistan functions as Asian glue is in uniting regional opinion on its role as the fountainhead of terrorism. Second, I think integration (albeit loosely) of political systems is not on the priority (or even feasibility) list of most nations - greater economic integration can be achieved without this, and will not countenance 2 Asias because the spread of resources is not even across nations such that relations with one can be dropped in favor of another. The day the fabled Chinese pragmatism concludes that stronger relations with India are in its interest will be the next inflection point in the trajectory of Asia. Third, Thoreau had said that the government which governs least governs the best, and I think the Indian Centre that you describe is moving well in that direction; in a diverse (and still young) nation like India, the Centre should take care of defense, foreign affairs, communications (telecom), currency, direct taxes and customs duties and leave a couple of other points on the concurrent list (those covered under ESMA, banking, judiciary relations etc) . The insecurity that bedevils weaker states like Pakistan is receding in India - it has already been 20+ years since Article 356 was last misused.
I think everybody would be happy if Pakistan can keep itself 'glued' in one unit considering its current situation.....
The actual data does not bear out the correlation between US aid and economic growth that the author alleges.
For example, Pakistan had healthy economic growth in 1970s ad 1980s in spite low levels of US assistance. Conversely, Pakistan has had more US aid since 2008 than the prior years under Musharraf and yet the economic growth has been the lowest in Pakistan's economic history.
US sanctions and poor governance in 1990s hurt Pakistan, not the aid cut-off.
http://www.riazhaq.com/2010/09/brief-history-of-pakistani-economy-1947.html
@Azharuddin Masood: Indian economic success has more to do with "inclusive" political and economic institutions and less with her 5 year plans. She has to make her institutions both political and economic even more inclusive, pluralistic, open, and transparent to grow and thrive. There is a reason why policy makers in Delhi keep harping/talking about inclusive growth.
M.I.T. economist Daron Acemoglu and the Harvard political scientist James A. Robinson, “Why Nations Fail” argues that the key differentiator between countries is “institutions.” Nations thrive when they develop “inclusive” political and economic institutions, and they fail when those institutions become “extractive” and concentrate power and opportunity in the hands of only a few. Inclusive economic institutions, are in turn supported by, and support, inclusive political institutions, which distribute political power widely in a pluralistic manner and are able to achieve some amount of political centralization so as to establish law and order, the foundations of secure property rights, and an inclusive market economy. Conversely, extractive political institutions that concentrate power in the hands of a few reinforce extractive economic institutions to hold power. I totally agree with them.
@ kaalchakra
India is the only country in the world whose name is given to an ocean. No other country has this honor.
@kaalchakra: cry baby... but who is listening...
"Several analysts have suggested that the 21st century will be the Asian century" ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ But Pakistan would be part of the Gulf.
kaalchakra : India's importance ?? Does the nuclear deal with US and NSG sound a bell ??
@Kaalchakra: India (the world’s biggest democracy, the world’s largest Hindu nation and the world's second-largest Muslim nation) got 187 out of 190 votes in the UN to become a non permanent member of UN. All the five permanent members and 104 other countries have explicitly and openly support India for UNSC permanent seat. Only Pakistan does not support. What the author meant was China and India offer two different philosophies of development. One is authoritarian and other democratic. At present South Korea, Japan, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and India are in the same boat. And by the way India has more influence over Pakistan than China. Pakistani governance follows the same as India. In terms of legislature, government, judiciary, elections, political parties, press freedom, constitution, arts, etc., Pakistan has followed India and not China or Saudi Arabia.
The 21st century belongs to India and China. Period
Before discussing geopolitics, Pakistan as a nation needs to re-discover the concept of humanity in view of the ongoing sectarian, ethnic and religious conflicts that are claiming lives every day.
Unfortunately, rather than a glue, partly because of its nuclear arsenal and partly because of endless internal conflicts, Pakistan is becoming an existential threat to peace and stability to South Asia.
Azharuddin Sb, u r right, it is also about the lake of leadership but the ideology of Pakistan seems a problem in itself which is based on hatred on the basis of religion and it was imposed on the state from its outset....
@kaalchakra: "Whom does India dominate? Bhutan? Let’s not inflate India’s importance to the world. It has little real influence."
India does not believe instarting wars - so any domination that India does will be through ts ideas not weapons. Indian movies are atched throughout Asia - from Japan to Gulf countries and definitely all over South Asia. Yoga is practiced all over Asia. Buddhism which was born i India is practiced in large parts of Asia. Using non-violen methods to attain political objectives against a much stronger adversary was used by Gandhiji and later on used by Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela. India along with Egypt and Yugoslavia was amongsth the founding members of Non-Aligned movement which provided a great 3rd alternative during the cold war period. India will continue to spread its ideas throughout the world. This is called soft power.
Well said. Pakistan needs to stop relying on foreign aid. I would also say that Bhutto's nationalization plan was a huge step backwards. Consider fact that it took place a few years before China, now the top manufacturer in the world. began its economic reforms. Since you were at the World Bank you should now that the township and village enterprise have played a key role in reducing Chinese poverty. Pakistan is overly reliant on agriculture when it is not even managing its water resources properly- a common flaw of developing countries. Yes profligate water use can also be found in a developed country like US;but it also has regions that do responsible water management. Consider how El Paso Texas is dealing with its water shortage or the water management districts of Florida.
Pakistan "Land of Pure" is/should be a part of Middle East. We have nothing to do with Pakistan. Pakistan is a sinking ship. The earlier it sinks, the better for the whole world.
Nice thoughts, but if Pakistan choose to correct some of its geo-political and ideological way...
There are two Asias, one dominated by China, one dominated by India...
Whom does India dominate? Bhutan? Let's not inflate India's importance to the world. It has little real influence.
What exactly is Mr.Burki trying to say here?
Never in history had Pakistan any development policy for itself but in contrary India has come a long way since independence and the economic success is a result of 5 year development plan and that plans are rigorously developed, executed, monitored and implemented by the Planning Commission of India with prime focus on uplifting economic condition of some economic segment with first plan emphasized on agriculture including investment in dams and irrigation. Then the second 5 year plan was focused on development of Heavy Industries. Right now India is into 11th five year plan with the objective of accelerating income of its population and bringing masses out of poverty. Never in history had Pakistan got any visionary leader or had any plans for its development. Right from its creation Pakistan looms as a country deemed to be called a failed state. Every industry is on decline in Pakistan while the one which are working now are not working well. Pakistan is trapped in its own quagmire and lacks good leadership to bring it out of the chaos and the first, foremost and last challenge to Pakistan is their own creation “terrorism” which they have to eradicate it seriously and then think of developing Pakistan.
Never in history had Pakistan any development policy for itself but in contrary India has come a long way since independence and the economic success is a result of 5 year development plan and that plans are rigorously developed, executed, monitored and implemented by the Planning Commission of India with prime focus on uplifting economic condition of some economic segment with first plan emphasized on agriculture including investment in dams and irrigation. Then the second 5 year plan was focused on development of Heavy Industries. Right now India is into 11th five year plan with the objective of accelerating public income and bringing masses out of poverty. Never in history had Pakistan got any visionary leader or had any plans for its development. Right from its creation Pakistan looms as a country deemed to be called a failed state. Every industry is on decline in Pakistan while the one which are working now are not working well. Pakistan is trapped in its own quagmire and lacks good leadership to bring it out of the chaos and the first, foremost and last challenge to Pakistan is their own creation “terrorism” which they have to eradicate it seriously and then think of developing Pakistan.
"Pakistan in the role of Asian glue"
A touch of megalomania there?
"However, the transfer of power in India occurred through elections and the formation of governing coalitions was not always a smooth process". Facts 1. Transfer of power in India happened through elections. 2. Frequently the government is a coaliation of parties. Incorrect conclusion by author 1. Transfer of power was ot a smooth process. It has always been smooth. With the exception of Emergency in 1975 when the elections were postponed by a year (in 1977 instead of 1976) , transfer of power has always been very smooth.
i believe autocratic rule with single party cannot go forever.........democracy may not be the best but it is the only possible form.......for China to sustain it has to make political reforms......China looks very strong but they have a very insecure political class who censor everything.Even the arab spring was censored......
Pakistan can be part of Asia only if Saudi Arabia is a part of Asia. Otherwise, we belong to the Gulf.