Pakistan is a poor and underdeveloped country, whatever indicator one may use to test this fact. There is a myth that circles around here that Pakistan is a resourceful country and that it is inherently rich, which we would examine later in some detail. Suffice to say here that most resource rich countries are poor and underdeveloped, except those who have promoted education, freedom, democracy and science and technology.
From the very beginning, it had to face a grossly unequal neighbour, not very happy with its creation. It inherited no resources or infrastructure. Its population, both local and those coming from India, suffered the prejudice, hostility and unfair treatment from its colonial masters and fellow majority citizens, in the wake of its several hundred years of 'majestic Muslim rule' over India and the mutiny of 1857, spearheaded by Muslim zealots and others alike.
It is very difficult to determine why a nation, people or country develops or does not develop. What is the meaning of development? Is it per capita income, possession of military power, possession of nuclear weapons or is it amassment of industries, plants and consumer goods like the case of oil-rich Arab states? Is it the tiny high per capita income countries such as the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain? And why is Argentina not developed, despite hope and expectations, spread over the twentieth century for its crossing the barrier? It has been on the verge of it and remains on the verge. Portugal in the heart of Europe is almost an underdeveloped country and economy, despite earlier quests of the discovery of the world by its citizen groups like Vasco De Gama and Columbus. Countries in the South of Europe such as Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria are less developed. Mexico, a stone's throw away from Texas and California is an underdeveloped or a less developed country. Japan without resources, small island, with extra eastern values and militaristic past is developed and its more resourceful neighbours less well developed. China is developing at a super fast rate and may surpass the production levels of USA, Germany and Japan in many fields, if not living standards.
Why did India more or less stagnate (notwithstanding the recent high growth years) being so close to China, geographically, having comparable human and material resources, despite democracy and continuity and despite their willingness to ape and copy Western culture, with wine, women and all that goes with it? Why was East Germany the most advanced amongst communist countries and West Germany most advanced in Western Europe? Why is France stagnating now, after centuries of cultural progress? Why could not Egypt progress despite having heavy French cultural input and intervention in the 19th century? Why is Israel an almost developed country and its compatriots in Palestine, groping and suffering? The Lebanese, Christian or Muslims with comparable cultural milieu as that of Israel, do not go beyond a small trading and tourist country, thriving only on Arab market of customers and clients. Why did not Bangladesh improve its lot, despite having separated from Pakistan? Where did their initial zeal and sense of purpose, unity and coherence go?
Pakistanis, who thrive on their historical baggage of Tipu Sultan, Salahuddin Ayubi, Jabir bin Hayyan, Ibne Khaldun, Rumi and Shirazi, seem dejected. The Iranians with the Shah and then the Islamic revolution are also going down. Similar is the fate of Turkey with the legacy of Ataturk. Where is the common thread or explanation for development or lack of it? The paradoxes are unending. Chinese are developing and growing at double-digit growth rate despite massive corruption and mixed up communist legacy. Sri Lanka with one of the highest literacy rates and high human development rankings continues to stagnate and there are no signs of it joining the list of developed countries.
Quebec separated from Canada despite a very liberal constitution and special deal with the federation, rejoined and is normally ambivalent. This same ambivalence is found in Nigeria amongst its many provinces, with grave underdevelopment and poverty, despite huge oil resources production and income. Australians used their resources to build an industrial economy, while the same could not be done by Iran and Iraq, despite the Shah, Saddam Hussain and Khomeini. It is not absolutely essential to nurse grandeur and grand objectives of becoming a great and powerful nation, of conquering and subduing one's neighbours. In South Asia, this disease is not on one side of the border; across the border, they want to be one of the world's six powers despite having hundreds of millions of people living in hunger and abject poverty.
It may not be a small achievement if in the next two or even three decades, we are able to provide a reasonably decent living to the bulk of our people; a hundred percent education, clean drinking water, sanitation, livable and affordable housing and adequate health system. Let us enrich that slogan or dream, as espoused by the late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Roti, Kapra aur Makan (food, clothing and shelter), and add to it education and health. Time passes by. When I was a boy, I used to think that in two to three decades, these objectives would be achieved. Ironically, now that I am much older, I am hoping and arguing that the same may be achieved in the next two to three decades. Will it happen? Unfortunately or fortunately, I will not be there to see the success or failure.
There is an existential point of view also. Out of 150 plus countries, some 30 countries of OECD are having a good time, although not without issues and problems. Another 10 may join them eventually in the coming decades. The rest would keep suffering and enjoying their distasteful livings, some more, some less, amidst corrupt politicians, insensitive and lazy bureaucrats and 'peaceful' armies. The march may continue till the present civilisation is gone through slow climatic change or cataclysmic destruction. Most people, of all religions and persuasions, believe that doomsday is near. Why bother! Most of these countries are not going to go anywhere. They would continue to stagnate; some may perfume their broth and others may stink.
The world has been trudging along; there have been a few rich and powerful and all others have been weak and poor. This will not change. Unfortunately the support and demand of elitist security agenda does not so loudly come from the elite, it is the loudest from the poor and lower middle classes who are at the bottom of the rung, and ultimately may pay directly and indirectly for the marches and campaigns. It is they who directly suffer from a serious lack of public finance in education, health and excess of the same elsewhere. Liberals are most likely to be found among the rich elite than the poor masses.
Having lesser resources than Iran and Saudi Arabia does not mean that we cannot progress or develop. And did these two countries develop at all in any meaningful way. There are some 30 other failed states, which have very high mineral deposits. Most Asian countries like Malaysia, South Korea and Japan developed without much physical resources. Yes, it would have been better had we more land and water and a bit more oil and gas, just for one's needs. This is, however, a myth that Pakistan is a resource rich country, a subject that we would take up in another series. Also, the bogey of strategic location seems to be overblown. These assumptions breed unnecessary romanticism, unrealism and conspiracy theories among the people.
Without reducing the political and security profile, and postponing the elitist and fancy programmes, and shunning meaningless and aggressive political agenda, budgets cannot be balanced and priority sectors of education and health cannot be provided the requisite resources. One had only hoped that with acquisition of nuclear deterrent, we would reduce the expenditure on conventional defence. Unfortunately this has not happened. And now ever more resources are required to meet 'The Taliban Menace'. One would not argue for any major reduction in military expenditure at this stage, but would ask and expect that economy and cost effectiveness be brought in the defence sector as long-term pursuit and objective. It is fortunate that Pakistan has managed to reduce expenditure in relative terms. Last year only 15% of the budget went into defense, while in the 1980s this percentage used to be 30- 36%. We will discuss the subject in more detail separately.
If one studies the post-World War II growth trends, Japan picked up speed in 1950 and grew at the rate of around 10 percent p.a., increased its GDP real growth rate by 2 percent and per capita income up to 74 percent in services sector. In the 1970s, Japan slowed down (5%) comparatively due to saturation and was replaced by South Korea, which grew at a 10 percent p.a. and increased its GDP by 39.4 percent.
In the 1980s, China started growing, and we are already witnessing the "Chinese Miracle". Chinese economy has grown at more than 10 percent p.a. and its GDP real growth rate a whopping, consistent 9% and per capita income in industry at 48.8 percent. By that logic and history, it appears from the recent Indian recent economic growth, that India is poised to grow in the tradition of Japan, South Korea and China. And that the recent trend is going to be sustainable, as many economic models have suggested (Price Water House, Goldman Sachs and Carnegie Endowment). While world economy has contracted and most countries have posted negative growth, India's growth rate has dropped only marginally, (5.6% from 7.3% in previous year) and is projected to again grow at 7.70% in 2010 while China's to grow at 10% pa.
It used to be said that when China was stagnating in the 1950-1980, and India was registering poor growth rates of 2-3% in the 1970s up to 1980s that large countries cannot grow fast due to inertia. Chinese and Indian growth has belied that assumption or perception. Even more, Europe is being projected to insignificance due to negative population growth and ageing issues. Even China is expected to slow down, due to largely slower population growth eventually due to one -child policy. India is projected to grow, as the population growth continues. Largely due to dynamic immigration policy, the US is projected to continue growing without any plateau arriving.
The next new comer is projected to be the populous Indonesia. It is becoming very clear that population is no more a liability but is rather an asset provided you are able to feed and educate the incoming workforce. In that case increasingly skilled and trained manpower in larger numbers is an essential input for high growth.
In Pakistan, the national cohesion was destroyed by the likes of Generals Ziaul Haq, Musharraf, Ayub Khan and Yahya Khan. General Ziaul Haq gifted us with a discontented Sindh province, millions of displaced Afghan immigrants, weapons, narcotics, Taliban and al Qaeda. Musharraf created unrest in Balochistan while Yahya gave us a dismembered Pakistan. I am not sure that vital lessons of history have been learnt by our military rulers. A two-thirds of the world is living under some kind of democracy, half of the world under better democracy and one-third in ideal democracy. In a multi-ethnic society, democracy is a necessity rather than being just desirable.
The current economic crisis of Pakistan largely owes its existence to terrorism, floods and high oil prices and high dependence on oil. While one cannot blame high oil prices on Musharraf regime, high dependence on oil has been brought about and exacerbated by facile and wrong energy policies. Oil fired plants continue to be installed, while ignoring local Thar Coal, mishandling Chinese investors which offered reasonable terms for Thar Coal exploitation.
Pakistan is a much smaller country than India. It has somehow competed with India, politically and in the wake of better and higher economic performance than India, in earlier periods. It is vitally important for Pakistan to end its current social and economic malaise and start growing at 7% plus. Growing at 10% plus is not possible. It has been done earlier in Japan and South Korea and later by China. If Pakistan fails to grow at a suitable and comparable rate, the gap between India and Pakistan would become politically unsustainable and there would be serious challenges to its independence if it loses the next two or three decades. It will plunge into political and economic insignificance and may have to perforce accept Indian hegemony. Rising disparity in literacy, education and living standards would cause despair, dependency and the will to fight and be independent may taper off in an international environment, highly tilted in favour of India due to the new found economic status.
Pakistan must be better off in per capita terms than India, if it wants to survive politically. The challenge cannot be met by military dictatorships suffocating initiative, freedom and cohesion. The nation has to grow politically, socially and economically in a milieu which discourages monopoly, permits and encourage people to come forth with their energies and vitality in a market place which is encouraging, fair and supportive, unhindered by non-competitive forces and agents of stagnation and status quos. The choice is between becoming North Korea, famished and brandishing nuclear weapons or South Korea and Canada, with burgeoning democracies and economies.
MY HUMBLE PROPOSALS
I am proposing a few steps that need to be urgently undertaken by the government, the current one or the one that would be installed after the conclusion of this government's period of five years, although I originally conceived these in the beginning of the reign of the present government. On strengthening democracy, political parties and broadening and deepening political participation, we have already spoken in the early part of this series. These are selected issues only and not all the issues. Selected, because I have no pretension of knowing all and everything despite a wide and varied agenda included in this series. We will take up the elaboration of the following in a separate series.