MEDIA
According to the print-line, the report �€œPakistan�€™s Provinces�€ has been written by a think-tank of India under the name and style of Strategic Foresight Group, but the manner in which authors have dealt with the research and analysis of internal dynamics of each province, it looks like the artifice of India�€™s Research and Analysis Wing �€” the RAW. The mala-fide intentions behind the so-called free intellectual enquiry are obvious from glancing the preface by Sundeep Waslekar the president of the group. He explained the reason for discussing the provinces instead of Pakistan and explained that the bottom-up approach has been adopted in view of the multitude of cultures that coexist. �€œIn 2004, political discourse is increasingly references to the 1971 situation. It does not mean that provinces will secede in 2004 or 2005, yet it remains to be seen whether they will be together until 2010,�€ he asks the question, and this speaks volumes about the purpose of the book. Secondly, the book has come at a time when India and Pakistan dialogue is passing through the crucial stage, and they have already taken a number of confidence-building measures. One could infer from the double speak that India�€™s rhetoric about resolving all the disputes with Pakistan including the core issue of Kashmir is meant for the US and West�€™s consumption only.
The report is based on a number of hypotheses including the one that General Pervez Musharraf will doff his army uniform in December 2004, and Pakistan will embark on a new trajectory when Pakistan�€™s biggest challenge will be in the context of relations between the Federal Government and the provinces. The authors have frequently mentioned about the need for democratic dispensation, but perhaps unwittingly mentioned in the report that �€œThe 1960s till 1980 were the best years for Pakistan�€™s economic development�€. This era spanning over three decades saw three military and one civil Martial Law Administrators. The report referred to 1990s as the worst period, as it witnessed the lowest growth rate and seven per cent increase in poverty. And this was the period when two major parties ruled the roost. The intention here is not to prove that dictatorship is better than democracy, and of course no right thinking person will do that; but to highlight the point that if democratic government is not honest, and it tries to function as democratic dictatorship, then there is hardly any difference in civil and the military government. At least this will not make any difference to the people.
In the presence of an eidetic reality of overall performance of the economy for last 5 years starting from 12the October 1999, the authors had to acknowledge the extraordinary turn around, but they observed it was owing to post 9/11 circumstances. It has to be said that 9/11 presented challenges as well as opportunities, and Musharraf Government on the one hand accepted the challenges, and on the other made good use of the opportunities. There was, indeed, an unprecedented increase in the remittances from overseas Pakistanis due to crackdown on �€˜havala�€™ transactions; but were there an inept leadership, a large part of it might have been squandered on the profligacy of the rulers.
Chapter �€œInter-provincial comparisons�€ deals with supremacy of the Federal Government, regional prosperity and disparities, provincial economies, human development, revenue generation and contribution. According to the data presented in the report, there is not much difference in the living conditions of the people of the four provinces. There are of course some areas in the provinces, which are more developed than the others. For example, Karachi was the only port Pakistan had, and it became the commercial hub since all imports and exports were to be handled through this port. During Ayub era, most of the industries were established in Karachi because of the advantages that accrued from the port city. The report under reference seeks to highlight the point that Punjab gets 57 per cent from the revenue collected at the Federal level, whereas it contributes 23 per cent. About Sindh it was stated that it contributes 57 per cent, but gets 23 per cent only. The source of the figures was �€˜Sindh�€™s case for a better NFC deal�€™ published in the Press giving figures from 1991-92 to 1995-96 but the authors were not reliable. The fact remains that Sindh is collecting more revenue because the Federal Government had allocated major part of its funds and loans to develop infrastructure for industrial estates in Karachi, where entrepreneurs from all over the country invested. The government also put up Machine Tool Factory and basic industry like Pakistan Steel Mills with foreign funding, and the initial investment was made by the public sector.
Therefore, people of all the provinces have the right to benefit from the public sector development and also the revenue that accrues from the sacrifices made by them. To date, the revenue sharing criterion for all finance awards was based purely on population, which is, indeed, universally accepted formula. Since the federating units of Pakistan vary widely in size, population, density, ability to raise taxes, the present Government seems to be alive to the need to give weightage to the least developed, with a view to bridging the gap between the lowest and the highest per capita Gross Provincial Domestic Product. If the Government accepts the sharing of revenue on the basis of collection, then Balochistan and NWFP will stand to lose immensely, and of course Punjab, which has to sustain a large population.
Working on �€˜bottom-up approach�€™ the authors have allocated four chapters to four provinces. At the end of each chapter, they have given under the sub-headings Forecast, Trend, Discontinuity and Wild Card. What they have presaged is figment of their imagination, or is reflective of the Indian leadership�€™s wish that Baluchistan, Sindh and NWFP will seek separation because Punjab is �€œexploiting�€ them.
In the chapter Punjab, the report said: �€œPunjab would be devastated, as the next war with India will see concentration of the Indian assault on Punjab. Making Punjab the battleground will greatly affect Pakistan�€™s economy. Pakistan�€™s retaliation can be more aggressive and might take the form of nuclear warfare�€. At the end of the chapters for the provinces, the authors have given four future scenarios. In the first scenario they discussed the ideal situation such as democratic government embarks upon a reorganization of provinces, creating many more provinces and giving them autonomy, contains jihadi activities, as such internal stability will bring investment leading to development. Relations with neighbouring countries also improve which will also realize the benefits of good relations with Pakistan. The other scenarios in one way or another portend gloom.
A brief survey of the shelves of any bookshop will among others show books on India such as �€œThe Corrupt Society�€ �€œFoul play: Chronicles of Corruption 1947-97�€ and so on. Many of the politicians are as bent as the system they should be straightening out. A study mentioned in The Economist of 1999 revealed that 40 members of Parliament in India had criminal records. In a latest survey, the figure has exceeded the 100. Coming back top the report, it should be borne in mind that if course of disintegration is set rolling, India is much more vulnerable to disintegration than Pakistan. Had the authors been honest, they would have told the truth that in a war between the two nuclear powers, the vanquished and the defeated would not exist to see what happened to the other side.
