The Munir Doctrine

[kaku]

Yes, I’m contradictory, if only because as @Joe Shearer points out, Pakistan is in no place to make an independent stance. Even the seemly more stable Muslim countries are trying to cut a deal with the global hegemon, the US, to serve their national interests.

What I’m saying is, to avoid being caught in the global contest, you have to satisfy both countries, but especially the US, the current global hegemon. A route to Central Asia is against the interests of Iran and Russia, but not necessarily China. Sure China loses some business, but it doesn’t threaten BRI. Iran and Russia on the other hand will lose influence and security from an American presence in the region, and because both Iran and Russia are allies of India to the detriment of Pakistan, screw em. (India is building up its military capabilities to a substantial extent on Russian tech, so slowing down Russia and helping China (our greatest military supplier) rise, economically, without agitating the US, should be our goal.)

Reaching the CARs through Pakistan is the only land route (the Caspian could be cut by the Russians or Iranians at any moment), and by getting the US on board with a CARs access project it could serve our interests of a stable relationship with Afghanistan (which also helps get them out of the global pariah status to some extent, which we can leverage) and builds a rail route to China for the cheapest costs to us, Free (Afghans have to foot the $5 billion bill for a trans-Afghan railway).

This is not a short terms utility. The US has spend 100 of billions of dollars against Russia and Iran in just the past decade, they want to find a path to their soft underbellies. None of the other Muslim nations are prioritizing Muslim countries over non-Muslim countries. Look at Iran’s behavior to us this year with their out of the blue strike. Besides, the Arabs won’t invest in Pakistan without some kind of utility Of Pakistan to the global economy. A corridor to the CARs is the only unique thing Pakistan can offer, and the opportunity for mining in Pakistan, Afghanistan, and the CARs for the GCC and the west.

Also, the US is looking for a way to bring Pakistan out from the China camp, to consider American interests as a matter of course and not transactionally, and this is one way to do that.

A stable Pakistan with an economy more integrated with US investments could also help ease the relationship between Pakistan and India, which fits US interests.

Again, not necessarily at China’s “expense”, but keeps Pakistan from having to cooperate more with China in ways that might be at America’s expense.

Considering how much the US is counting on India, a South Asia that trades more amongst itself, offers the potential for higher ROI for American investments in India, both financial and geo-strategic. Pakistan finds a way not to get totally left behind, on Indo-Pak matters by America, if Pakistan has some substance to its relationship with the US.

India’s potential is substantially and noticeable limited by its active borders; heck, even Myanmar bombed Indian territory a few months ago. Also, a stable relationship with Pakistan could help manage the water crisis in both nations.

India is seen as not “geo-politically stable” because of its borders. India needs globalization and Pakistan also needs globalization. There is a lot of Pakistani talent that can go into IT and the services economy the way India has done. Even if Pakistan does 10% of the business India does for a while, it will be a huge employment opportunity and a way to get Pakistan all the normalization opportunities with the US, via a vi what Indian talent gets to travel to the US, or do business with the US, or study in the US.

Pakistan also needs FDI, and to look stable, so it can attract FDI from the West, GCC, and China. if US and GCC interests are baked into a CARs corridors, any miscreants hiding out in Dubai or the west can be dealt with legally, and with a secure border with Iran, less capable of disrupting our development in Baluchistan. The West and the GCC could also help keep India more in check (not fully, but substantially more) from sponsoring these kinds of miscreants.

Pakaitan needs to find its niche in the global economy, before someone else captures that niche. Iran and Russia’s heightened pariah status may not last forever, but Pakistan needs to us it to build up itself, and especially Gwadar, and to have an economic model to be able to pay off its debts and make our economy something that is worthwhile when others consider us and not a pity and a vulnerability.

The following excerpt from a recent interview of Ian Bremmer in India is very insightful.

P.s. India has only a 20 year demographic dividend ahead of it. They at a total fertility rate of 2.0 so they have to develop now or never. Pakistan needs to be mindful of this and needs to exploit this moment to rise on the back of India’s interests for a stable region, and to keep pace with India, so it doesn’t have to submit to Indian hegemony.

2nd P.s. Pakistan needs to leverage its good relationship (and promise for SEZ investment by the Chinese) to integrate itself into Chinese supply chains in tech needed in the Middle East and Africa, especially made from mined minerals from Afghanistan and the CARs as well as inside Pakistan. EV Batteries, solar panels, rare earth processing, etc.

Making Pakistan attractive for manufacturing also depends on what other industries we have in our industrial parks, as well as the talent that is cross trained in these technologies. Chemical engineers drop some of these fields could also be employed in a pharmaceutical industry should Gwadar take off as a mining processing hub and its close proximity to the GCC make it a good place for oil storage and processing by Chinese or western firms.

Now, why wouldn’t China do all this itself. China can build all of this eco-system in a place like Gwadar, but also have the port open to western firms, and Pakistani IT talent to better adapt the product for nearby or even some global markets (with open access to western tech, restricted in China) also at a lower labor cost. India maybe hesitant to work with Chinese tech to this degree.

Gwadar can really be where East meets West and West meets East, and where we can find our Niche.
3rd P.S. bringing back PTI and IK could help get us back to some kind of “normal” in Pakistan. Currently the country seems frozen in decision making. No one wants to be seen to be making bold steps or have the money to back up bold reforms.

Signals to indicate IK can come back, with a national plan to implement what I have outlined above and in the previous post, should mean the general anxiety in the country will come down and real plans to raise the funds (higher taxes and more remittances) to set our fiscal house in order can be made.

Look at how Argentina is resetting itself. It made up the global hegemon, and is doing reforms. Btw, this is not to say we abandon our key interests or our principles like not recognizing Israel till there is a Palestinian state.

When you added, we need to grow to check Indian hegemony, then and there you already lost the whole plot, and sub consciously concluded that what we are doing right now is totally valid path.

 

[FuturePAF]

When you added, we need to grow to check Indian hegemony, then and there you already lost the whole plot, and sub consciously concluded that what we are doing right now is totally valid path.

Checking Indian hegemony on us, Pakistanis (not so much the region). we don’t want to be defacto assimilated into India, and get back to living out the possibilities our founders hoped we would live up to.

This is not losing the plot, on the contrary it is the plot; independence to live up to our potential as a worthy great nation.

Keeping in mind that taking our eye off the ball endangers our very existence, seeing what we could become, depending on what actions we take, we could be an equal neighbor (on a per capital basis) or become a vassal of India. Therefore it is important to think in these long term and grand strategic ways.

“Dream no small dreams for they stir not the hearts of men.” –Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

 

[Nilgiri]

Religion is brought in, to be the moral basis for the nation, but also as a way to judge people on their merits, as equals. As our founding father, a lawyer, had hoped. Individual liberty not carried out doesn’t mean it wasn’t the original intent. Had he lived as long as Nehru, perhaps we could have lived to seen his vision play out.

Religion can be used dogmatically to reinforce the power elite, as in Latin American countries and how the Catholic Church was used by the elite. Or it can be small community churches, as in America where it is an extension of each person and each community’s liberty.

I suspect, Jinnah had hoped Pakistan could become similar to how Tocqueville described America. America is great because it is good. Liberty and religion are intertwined, where the lay person sees religion as a way of being properly American, in the Protestant tradition. I suspect, Jinnah had hoped, being a properly religious Pakistani, would mean be a pathway to being a good citizen.

Could it have been done without religion. I suspect not. To tie together the disparate chords of Pakistan, could only be done with religion, or as we consider Islam, a deen or way of life, a culture.

To bring about a regeneration, back to this original vision, could only be a matter of the decision of a benevolent dictatorship, not unlike the East Asian tigers.unlike North Korea, which is a culture to serve the Kim family, a benevolent society, services its members in a mutually benevolent manner.

I'm pretty sure Pakistan could have made a secular state, and left religion to the nation. Again the Turkish model can be looked at w.r.t Ataturk's approach to statism with secularism and diyanet etc.

It would be far better developed today and also had less conflict as the intelligentsia would be more focused on their people's predicament and addressing their basic needs like education.

But it likely would have been quite difficult as:

a) Jinnah was something of a one man show (i.e in a hypothetical he lived to say resist the constituent assembly push for objectives resolution, if he chose to resist that to begin with). i.e things set into motion with the larger intelligentsia and its complex moving parts.

b) The large inertia set into motion what essentially was confederation against the Hindu majoritarian threat (and Jinnah's own story regarding this given he was first in INC)

c) Immediate mixing of this with militarism and Kashmir providing the immediate hot contact point for it to then fester and renew. Militarism would gain this religious-nationalism aspect unlike in say Turkiye where the military was made thoroughly secular for many decades under Ataturk and then Inonu (so much so that it would intervene against what it saw as islamist threats in Turkiyes politics later that were anti-republican and anti-Kemalist).

The issue was still recoverable (with passage of time and say a new constitution downroad) but unfortunately Pakistan's political elite became fractured and a strongman was invited in to take over.... and then the debacle with the Eastern wing would start brewing in its intense way inevitably as simply the islamo-national-militarism was too narrow of a thing to have sitting and lording over things over this stretch of distance both physically and the minds of folks with their own unique identity bandwagon wanting control over their own resources, local politics and relations with the world and so on.

The breakaway of that entire portion of the country has since reinforced the "told you so" "paramount security through us only" dynamic as well for the establishment justification of where it sits and what it controls by any means necessary.

So when you say benevolent dictatorship, that is why I am pessimistic. Just like why I have always been pessimistic with Hobbes take on things overall....to rely on a few coin flips and then hope to counter the vastly larger resolution of things squandered (and even suppressed or destroyed) by that concentration especially for large diverse populations.

All benevolent dictatorships have had a very different course of history to Pakistan. i.e what is required in the unique mix to have a dictatorship turn benevolent. It always comes from pressures outside the dictatorship if it was not benevolent.

How have those pressures changed for the current period of time in Pakistan compared to 10, 20 , 30 years ago? Not much as far as the establishment is concerned IMO. Maybe it will change 10, 20 or 30 years later with more severe falling behind economically and those pressures generated then.

But South Korea (and even former extreme marxist PRC) rise to higher wealth has had little change on North Korea's political system....as simply the latter has consolidated what it needs to (sufficient ideological capture and coercion internally and the WMD for the external threats). Its an extreme but even being in the lower dial settings of this is sufficient for much larger countries to continue as they are a very long time too.

 

[ziaulislam]

Instead of one man's doctrine who'll be here for 2-4 years max

Make a long term national doctrine that'll be followed by all parties on a long term basis

We should make maryum nawaz doctorine. The lady will be here till most of our grandkids are dead. She is a vampire.. can't die doesnt age

 

[EugeneP]

I'm pretty sure Pakistan could have made a secular state,

That doesn't make any sense to me. After fighting for a separate state because of religion, give up on the main driver for separation?

 

[kaku]

I'm pretty sure Pakistan could have made a secular state, and left religion to the nation. Again the Turkish model can be looked at w.r.t Ataturk's approach to statism with secularism and diyanet etc.

It would be far better developed today and also had less conflict as the intelligentsia would be more focused on their people's predicament and addressing their basic needs like education.

But it likely would have been quite difficult as:

a) Jinnah was something of a one man show (i.e in a hypothetical he lived to say resist the constituent assembly push for objectives resolution, if he chose to resist that to begin with). i.e things set into motion with the larger intelligentsia and its complex moving parts.

b) The large inertia set into motion what essentially was confederation against the Hindu majoritarian threat (and Jinnah's own story regarding this given he was first in INC)

c) Immediate mixing of this with militarism and Kashmir providing the immediate hot contact point for it to then fester and renew. Militarism would gain this religious-nationalism aspect unlike in say Turkiye where the military was made thoroughly secular for many decades under Ataturk and then Inonu (so much so that it would intervene against what it saw as islamist threats in Turkiyes politics later that were anti-republican and anti-Kemalist).

The issue was still recoverable (with passage of time and say a new constitution downroad) but unfortunately Pakistan's political elite became fractured and a strongman was invited in to take over.... and then the debacle with the Eastern wing would start brewing in its intense way inevitably as simply the islamo-national-militarism was too narrow of a thing to have sitting and lording over things over this stretch of distance both physically and the minds of folks with their own unique identity bandwagon wanting control over their own resources, local politics and relations with the world and so on.

The breakaway of that entire portion of the country has since reinforced the "told you so" "paramount security through us only" dynamic as well for the establishment justification of where it sits and what it controls by any means necessary.

So when you say benevolent dictatorship, that is why I am pessimistic. Just like why I have always been pessimistic with Hobbes take on things overall....to rely on a few coin flips and then hope to counter the vastly larger resolution of things squandered (and even suppressed or destroyed) by that concentration especially for large diverse populations.

All benevolent dictatorships have had a very different course of history to Pakistan. i.e what is required in the unique mix to have a dictatorship turn benevolent. It always comes from pressures outside the dictatorship if it was not benevolent.

How have those pressures changed for the current period of time in Pakistan compared to 10, 20 , 30 years ago? Not much as far as the establishment is concerned IMO. Maybe it will change 10, 20 or 30 years later with more severe falling behind economically and those pressures generated then.

But South Korea (and even former extreme marxist PRC) rise to higher wealth has had little change on North Korea's political system....as simply the latter has consolidated what it needs to (sufficient ideological capture and coercion internally and the WMD for the external threats). Its an extreme but even being in the lower dial settings of this is sufficient for much larger countries to continue as they are a very long time too.

They have not, muslims of South Asia have an entirely different history and experiences. And all the answers lie in Aligarh, not in Turkey.

For Pakistan, and from all the comments, they are still trying to counter India, if thats the position, then India have every right to counter them.
This is not like, we dont understand what he meant when Bajwa mentioned geo-economics, and we would be like "kar lo, kar lo, develop ho jao, fir hum par chadhai kar lena".



Side Note : Furthur, be it South Korea or Japan, they only developed when they transfered their own security to US, and in return got market access of west, which led to adoption of capitalism in these markets. Are we sure if US never deployed troops in DMZ, then South Korea developed like it, how they dealt with combined threat of China, USSR and DPRK? They broke this cycle, with the help of US, for Pakistan to do it, thats very unlikely.

 

[FuturePAF]

I'm pretty sure Pakistan could have made a secular state, and left religion to the nation. Again the Turkish model can be looked at w.r.t Ataturk's approach to statism with secularism and diyanet etc.

It would be far better developed today and also had less conflict as the intelligentsia would be more focused on their people's predicament and addressing their basic needs like education.

But it likely would have been quite difficult as:

a) Jinnah was something of a one man show (i.e in a hypothetical he lived to say resist the constituent assembly push for objectives resolution, if he chose to resist that to begin with). i.e things set into motion with the larger intelligentsia and its complex moving parts.

b) The large inertia set into motion what essentially was confederation against the Hindu majoritarian threat (and Jinnah's own story regarding this given he was first in INC)

c) Immediate mixing of this with militarism and Kashmir providing the immediate hot contact point for it to then fester and renew. Militarism would gain this religious-nationalism aspect unlike in say Turkiye where the military was made thoroughly secular for many decades under Ataturk and then Inonu (so much so that it would intervene against what it saw as islamist threats in Turkiyes politics later that were anti-republican and anti-Kemalist).

The issue was still recoverable (with passage of time and say a new constitution downroad) but unfortunately Pakistan's political elite became fractured and a strongman was invited in to take over.... and then the debacle with the Eastern wing would start brewing in its intense way inevitably as simply the islamo-national-militarism was too narrow of a thing to have sitting and lording over things over this stretch of distance both physically and the minds of folks with their own unique identity bandwagon wanting control over their own resources, local politics and relations with the world and so on.

The breakaway of that entire portion of the country has since reinforced the "told you so" "paramount security through us only" dynamic as well for the establishment justification of where it sits and what it controls by any means necessary.

So when you say benevolent dictatorship, that is why I am pessimistic. Just like why I have always been pessimistic with Hobbes take on things overall....to rely on a few coin flips and then hope to counter the vastly larger resolution of things squandered (and even suppressed or destroyed) by that concentration especially for large diverse populations.

All benevolent dictatorships have had a very different course of history to Pakistan. i.e what is required in the unique mix to have a dictatorship turn benevolent. It always comes from pressures outside the dictatorship if it was not benevolent.

How have those pressures changed for the current period of time in Pakistan compared to 10, 20 , 30 years ago? Not much as far as the establishment is concerned IMO. Maybe it will change 10, 20 or 30 years later with more severe falling behind economically and those pressures generated then.

But South Korea (and even former extreme marxist PRC) rise to higher wealth has had little change on North Korea's political system....as simply the latter has consolidated what it needs to (sufficient ideological capture and coercion internally and the WMD for the external threats). It’s an extreme but even being in the lower dial settings of this is sufficient for much larger countries to continue as they are a very long time too.

Unlike North Korea, the people, of all levels of the Pakistani population are well integrated with life abroad. Be it in the GCC, the west, or elsewhere. So a regime that merely survives won’t last long in Pakistan as expectations keep growing. North Korea’s population is falling, the people are in survivable mode, but Pakistan’s population is mostly in rural areas and living a subsistence living, similar to part of Afghanistan, hence why both countries have a higher than replacement birth rate.

The government that supports them comes or doesn’t, they are finding a way to live without the government.

On topic of religion and the state. To separate the two would undermine the premise of the need for Pakistan, as believed by most Pakistanis (and affirmed nowadays by what we see happening in Modi’s India). You may not accept it, and I understand where you are coming from. To not integrate religion into our state would be to not live out being our true selves. Basically you want a European model and I think an American model is more in tune with our true self of being.

As an Indian diplomat himself said it, paraphrasing him, the GCC monarchies happen to be Arab and happen to be Muslim. The are basically tribal people that got oil rich. They hire Indians, instead of fellow Arabs and Pakistanis, because they Indians don’t care about religion and Pakistani make too much noise, getting involved in local politics. This shift happened in the late 70s, early 80s. Pakistanis didn’t notice they were getting played since then.

A good reason for Pakistanis people working in the gulf to keep there opinions to themselves and just go to the GCC to earn, and have no hope on the GCC monarchies anymore on ummah chummah. This is also why Pakistan can’t count on Muslim majority countries to value brotherhood over money, and need to chart their own deal with the global hegemon. Having sunk 50 years into Afghanistan, now is the time to make good on that sunk cost, to extract a long term setup that benefits our other interests, namely our economy and our ability to regenerate to parity on a GDP per capita basis with India (which should means more spending on social services like healthcare and education). We don’t have the local efficiencies to do it on our own, but a deal with the global economy can help us rebuild, and it need not be at the expense of Afghanistan, but could actually help their people.

 

[Nilgiri]

That doesn't make any sense to me. After fighting for a separate state because of religion, give up on the main driver for separation?

If you read my whole reply, there is a distinction between theocratic federation approach and majoritarian confederation approach (with later transition to a more functional federation).

However latter route was really not given a chance in Pakistan to explore. There was a quick amalgamation with militarism.....so we dont have enough to go on for hypothetical arcs anyway.

 

[Nilgiri]

They have not, muslims of South Asia have an entirely different history and experiences. And all the answers lie in Aligarh, not in Turkey.

For Pakistan, and from all the comments, they are still trying to counter India, if thats the position, then India have every right to counter them.
This is not like, we dont understand what he meant when Bajwa mentioned geo-economics, and we would be like "kar lo, kar lo, develop ho jao, fir hum par chadhai kar lena".

If you want to fit your selective take with selective narratives formed out there, by all means.

But there have been plenty of secular minded Pakistanis that have studied Ataturk's Turkiye and Kemalism....or have that as ideal working principle....along with the legal talent it had (and still has if you look for it or know it already).

If Ayub Khan didnt impose himself and essentially blockade the parts of Pakistan's intelligentsia at that crucial formative time (and downstream by what had then arisen by this amalgamation later), Pakistan could have had a better attempt at what I'm describing. Still very difficult, but more do-able.

Folks like @Oscar can describe what Ayub Khan did to the whole early formative period much better than I can.

Pakistan is now in some political purgatory and stasis regarding any civilian political realm (whenever its not a more over militarist one) downstream to that period.

Side Note : Furthur, be it South Korea or Japan, they only developed when they transfered their own security to US, and in return got market access of west, which led to adoption of capitalism in these markets. Are we sure if US never deployed troops in DMZ, then South Korea developed like it, how they dealt with combined threat of China, USSR and DPRK? They broke this cycle, with the help of US, for Pakistan to do it, thats very unlikely.

Korean peninsula is nowhere near some 1:1 equivalency with South Asia. I was just using it as example of how an establishment can secure its existence with sufficient extreme control and curating of the round table process (in that case a full on cultist dynasty and mass ideological permeation to the population around it while keeping them highly insular).

Just a reference of the extreme. Adoption of even 10% of that is a high degree of control estabishments can impose on populations in other contexts. But it guarantees quite a lot within it for them, at expense of the larger population.

 

[Nilgiri]

Unlike North Korea, the people, of all levels of the Pakistani population are well integrated with life abroad. Be it in the GCC, the west, or elsewhere. So a regime that merely survives won’t last long in Pakistan as expectations keep growing. North Korea’s population is falling, the people are in survivable mode, but Pakistan’s population is mostly in rural areas and living a subsistence living, similar to part of Afghanistan, hence why both countries have a higher than replacement birth rate.

The government that supports them comes or doesn’t, they are finding a way to live without the government.

On topic of religion and the state. To separate the two would undermine the premise of the need for Pakistan, as believed by most Pakistanis (and affirmed nowadays by what we see happening in Modi’s India). You may not accept it, and I understand where you are coming from. To not integrate religion into our state would be to not live out being our true selves. Basically you want a European model and I think an American model is more in tune with our true self of being.

As an Indian diplomat himself said it, paraphrasing him, the GCC monarchies happen to be Arab and happen to be Muslim. The are basically tribal people that got oil rich. They hire Indians, instead of fellow Arabs and Pakistanis, because they Indians don’t care about religion and Pakistani make too much noise, getting involved in local politics. This shift happened in the late 70s, early 80s. Pakistanis didn’t notice they were getting played since then.

A good reason for Pakistanis people working in the gulf to keep there opinions to themselves and just go to the GCC to earn, and have no hope on the GCC monarchies anymore on ummah chummah. This is also why Pakistan can’t count on Muslim majority countries to value brotherhood over money, and need to chart their own deal with the global hegemon. Having sunk 50 years into Afghanistan, now is the time to make good on that sunk cost, to extract a long term setup that benefits our other interests, namely our economy and our ability to regenerate to parity on a GDP per capita basis with India (which should means more spending on social services like healthcare and education). We don’t have the local efficiencies to do it on our own, but a deal with the global economy can help us rebuild, and it need not be at the expense of Afghanistan, but could actually help their people.

I'm just saying if there is no pressing need to hand over and hedge power away from a current entrenched power class....they are not going to do it. Everyone is kind of happy (maybe except for IK these days)....the generals and most political parties being subservient to them as outer layers to carry their water.

The outside pressure hasnt changed much given the WMD deterrent (that was my whole basis to bring up North Korea). The people then dont matter much, they are serfs to be corraled and set on each other as required

You are coming at this like the economics is going to impact their thinking much. It will always be case of doing the minimum degree needed to lubricate the existence of their personal economics around them..... DHA elitism and all.

They have gone out of their way to not listen to wise counsel regarding these things on the most basic of basic things (like running a tighter fiscal scene to improve credit rating to then improve the capital acct scope/size to induct more into the capital acct to then start prioritizing parts of the current account).

This is all very strange to them as it means rolling some measure of dice that could impact their status, privilege and inertia with way things are run now that puts them first always. If larger body of Pakistanis have to to rot at some new level compared to world setting than before....its just a notch on the dial that will be tested and handled....still plenty of room sociologically to reach in further there.

You can see what I mean this decade and next yourself. I see very little change happening, these people hate basic free thinking intellectuals and delegation to them....as such people want some measure of accountability and larger trust in larger principles past zero-sum power and privilege.

 

[FuturePAF]

I'm just saying if there is no pressing need to hand over and hedge power away from a current entrenched power class....they are not going to do it. Everyone is kind of happy (maybe except for IK these days)....the generals and most political parties being subservient to them as outer layers to carry their water.

The outside pressure hasnt changed much given the WMD deterrent (that was my whole basis to bring up North Korea). The people then dont matter much, they are serfs to be corraled and set on each other as required

You are coming at this like the economics is going to impact their thinking much. It will always be case of doing the minimum degree needed to lubricate the existence of their personal economics around them..... DHA elitism and all.

They have gone out of their way to not listen to wise counsel regarding these things on the most basic of basic things (like running a tighter fiscal scene to improve credit rating to then improve the capital acct scope/size to induct more into the capital acct to then start prioritizing parts of the current account).

This is all very strange to them as it means rolling some measure of dice that could impact their status, privilege and inertia with way things are run now that puts them first always. If larger body of Pakistanis have to to rot at some new level compared to world setting than before....its just a notch on the dial that will be tested and handled....still plenty of room sociologically to reach in further there.

You can see what I mean this decade and next yourself. I see very little change happening, these people hate basic free thinking intellectuals and delegation to them....as such people want some measure of accountability and larger trust in larger principles past zero-sum power and privilege.

You’re not wrong, but at some point I suspect many of the kids of the elite won’t want to come live back in Pakistan. The current elite have seen the country in 1989 and now, 35 years later, a full generation later. Money will now get syphoned off abroad rather than invested in DHAs in Pakistan if the young get their preference. It’s not like living abroad is cheap anymore either, compared to what it use to be like 35 years ago.

Sure it’s not a pressing matter year to year, but the trend is of negative ROI. External pressure maybe limited, but internal pressure will keep increasing. I fear the situation will get more unstable until there is some kind of incident where a member of the elite will meet a member of the serfs and come to an unfortunate end, such that it will scare away more of the elite to live abroad and take their wealth with them. Like something that could happen in South Africa or Brazil. I hope it never comes to that, but I fear that is where the country maybe going if enough people lose hope or become desperate beyond any hope of survival.

 

[kaku]

If you want to fit your selective take with selective narratives formed out there, by all means.

But there have been plenty of secular minded Pakistanis that have studied Ataturk's Turkiye and Kemalism....or have that as ideal working principle....along with the legal talent it had (and still has if you look for it or know it already).

If Ayub Khan didnt impose himself and essentially blockade the parts of Pakistan's intelligentsia at that crucial formative time (and downstream by what had then arisen by this amalgamation later), Pakistan could have had a better attempt at what I'm describing. Still very difficult, but more do-able.

Folks like @Oscar can describe what Ayub Khan did to the whole early formative period much better than I can.

Pakistan is now in some political purgatory and stasis regarding any civilian political realm (whenever its not a more over militarist one) downstream to that period.




Korean peninsula is nowhere near some 1:1 equivalency with South Asia. I was just using it as example of how an establishment can secure its existence with sufficient extreme control and curating of the round table process (in that case a full on cultist dynasty and mass ideological permeation to the population around it while keeping them highly insular).

Just a reference of the extreme. Adoption of even 10% of that is a high degree of control estabishments can impose on populations in other contexts. But it guarantees quite a lot within it for them, at expense of the larger population.

Indeed non-like minded people did Malabar riots, or is it Direct Action Day?

 

[EugeneP]

If you read my whole reply, there is a distinction between theocratic federation approach and majoritarian confederation approach (with later transition to a more functional federation).

However latter route was really not given a chance in Pakistan to explore. There was a quick amalgamation with militarism.....so we dont have enough to go on for hypothetical arcs anyway.

Instead of abstract concepts, it is better to look at real world examples. You started with good words about Turkey; but they have latent animus against Greece even though they are nominally 'secular'. In fact, President Erdogan has stated his political goal in a memorable quote: “Democracy is like a streetcar. You ride it until you arrive at your destination, then you step off.” He converted Hagia Sophia, a historic church, into a mosque. More recently, he converted another Byzantine church, the Church of St. Saviour in Chora, into a mosque.

So, long story short: If it didn't work in Turkey, it definitely wouldn't have worked in Pakistan.

 

[Signalian]

Sir Gwadar will bring in so much long term investment in Pakistan, people are failing to see the bigger picture.

The PDF members dont want to see the bigger picture. They want to see Pakistan fail as a nation and Pakistan military fail against terrorism so they can hail IK as Pakistan's savior eventually to prove "I told you so" - not gonna happen.

 

[Signalian]

In my humble opinion it is not as doom and gloom as some would have people believe. Sadly we are still a nation with dining room politics but there may be some light at the end of the tunnel.

Without the "doom and gloom" scenario, how will the online tweets and youtube videos get likes and money generated ?

Its appalling to see the difference of facts and fiction. Its stubbornness on part of members here since their creativity of mind born from youtube videos and X tweets is not happening in real life. Pakistan is not falling apart, it never will fall apart. 1971 will never get repeated ever again in future. The terrorism front is a hot battle ground but the normal way of life will not get affected by terrorism. The flailing economy will get pulled up through loans and other forms of projects.
Such online hatred will never give worst results for Pakistan in real life.