It needs more than mere economic reform. It needs the root-and-branch overhaul of its institutions. But there's no sign anyone's capable of leading it.
Interesting piece, Vivek! Just a couple of questions, if you don’t mind answering: you mention that Pakistan post-partition has had ample opportunity to reform, when precisely could these turning points have occured ? Also, what kind of role can international organisations (be it the IMF, World Bank, etc.) expect to play in promoting reform in Pakistan, perhaps to counter China’s influence ?
The turning points could have occurred in the early to mid-1970s before Zia Ul Haq staged his coup and killed off Bhutto or through the 1990s. But unless the army's veto over government and policy goes off, nothing will change. There's no capacity/ability there to take the remote control away from the army, though. I don't think global institutions can play a role. The IMF bailout will not help Pakistan. It's a fraction of the money it needs. Pakistan's politics, its policies, etc. have to change. It's still debating what kind of a state it wants to be. It lacks state capacity for any kind of positive outcomes. It's a rather dismal scenario.
I agree in part. It's had enough opportunity to turn into a strong nation-state, and even though it's going through the worst of times it can reform. It need not die. But that calls for a complete mindset change, which worryingly the Pakistanis seem unable to come to terms with. Even their internal debates involve discussions that seem so completely theoretical and cloudy that one wonders if they're actually aware of what's happening around them.
If China does overreach, an Islamic rebellion will occur and that'll be China's Afghanistan moment a la the Soviet Union. It can't afford to overreach in Pakistan not with Xinjiang and the Taliban around. China's got itself into a trap unfortunately.
Thank you, Vivek! Very interesting. Notwithstanding the bloodshed during Partition, would the Pakistanis in particular and the region in general be better off if they had remained part of India? Maybe a large Muslim population could have averted the Modi regime? Or at least a Hindu supremacist Modi government?
That's a hard one to answer. The Modi govt. is being bashed unnecessarily in the media, especially the Western media which does not understand the sub-continent. The Indian writers who write for NYT live abroad and profess "liberalism" over accuracy. What's not understood is that there were socio-religious forces at work that were surfacing even before Modi. Long before Modi. In fact, had the Modi govt not been around, things might have been worse. The opposition Congress party had long lost its luster and could rule only through coalitions. And coalition politics had resulted in weak governance.
Political parties only reflect the mood of the people, they can capitalize on the mood but can't change the mood unless there is an underlying trend that's veering in one direction or another.
Besides, laws in India are skewed. The Congress party has long been accused of appeasing Muslims at the expense of Hindus and other religions (it's doing so even today) and if you see some of the laws in force that's absolutely true (and unreported in the West since NYT and their ilk don't do deep dives). There is a Hindu backlash and Modi is a part of that phenomenon, not its cause. Had India and Pakistan been united, there might well have been religious bloodshed.
But, yes, one thing is undeniable. The two countries together would have been an economic powerhouse if they weren't broken up by the underlying religion-related issues.
Vivekji, from mythological times it is understood that every time there is manthan (churning), the outcomes may include great things (amrit) but they also include vish (poison). Arguably that happened with independence, with the great thing being independence itself, but the vish being profound and lasting hatred of the Muslim minority within the country - something which Nehru tried to paper over, but which eventually has manifested itself politically and become a dominant theme in our political culture. There was a caste based manthan resulting in the ascendence of caste based parties, which was contained by Hindutva. Now there is a new manthan, resulting in the dominance of Raitas (with Trads snapping at their heels). What do you think the vish from this manthan is, and how do you think it will be contained?
"What's not understood is that there were socio-religious forces at work that were surfacing even before Modi. Long before Modi. In fact, had the Modi govt not been around, things might have been worse...
... There is a Hindu backlash and Modi is a part of that phenomenon, not its cause. "
I'm certainly in the camp of not understanding how all of these things can be true at once. Granted my sources are Western, but I don't see how Modi can be taking advantage of the moment by fanning flames of hate, but also somehow it could have been worse without him. edit - I appreciate any clarity you could provide.
Interesting. I don’t know as much as I would like about contemporary India. Is the Hindu backlash mainly aimed at Muslims, or are Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, and Christians also coming under fire? You’re absolutely correct that Western outlets don’t pay nearly enough attention to India, and that’s why I ask.
David, may I take this opportunity to promote a little book I wrote about India? https://www.amazon.com/Screw-Beautiful-Forevers-Middle-Class-Community-ebook/dp/B01EC7GV7W It's somewhere between an essay and a book. I had a small grant from City Journal to write an essay for them, but after my reporting trip I found myself with so much to say that I couldn't keep it to one essay. I didn't want to waste everything I'd written, so I published it as a little monograph.
No. It involves mainly Islam. Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists and Christians are governed by the same laws. Muslims have their own personal law based on the Deobandi interpretation of sharia and several other legal concessions, besides. Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists are seen as a part of a larger "Indic" diaspora. They frequently inter-marry and it's not uncommon to have one brother, say a Sikh, and the other a Hindu. The so-called Khalistan movement for Sikh independence is funded by Pakistan's ISI. Incidentally the cover of the Sikh holy book always has a Hindu goddess at the center and its old teachers, the gurus, professed their faith alongside invocations to Hindu gods and goddesses and often came from Hindu families.
The backlash against Christians is primarily on the ground that they "convert" Hindus to Christianity. Yes, there is some Hindu fanaticism laced in there because there are those who hark back to the days before the Islamic empires and the Portuguese came to India.
Today, there's also a backlash against the way Indian history has been taught so far. The claim, (and it's not without some merit), is that Indian history has been taught under a British lens or a "leftist" lens that tried to whitewash the atrocities of the Islamic empire under the carpet. Yes, there's an element of Hindu revisionism, but there's a big element of going back to deeper sources that were ignored for decades.
All Indian religious communities are governed by some version of their own personal law. The Indics fit into Hindu Reformed Law but Christians, Parsis and Jews have their own - like (though not so high profile) as the Muslims. Kashmir has its own version as well (different from MPL), not to mentien Goa where all communities are goverened by Portuguese Family Law. And none of this takes into account customary Law for tribal communities or polygynous groups In the Himalyas. You’re welcome, vaisai a big fan.
Not to mentien the Mitakshara and Dayabhaag systems which govern Hindu Undivided Famílies In different parts of the country. And which some West Coast Muslim groups - like the Khojas - still adhere to.
Thank you, Vivek and Zaf Z! Sounds like the biases fall against exogenous religions rather than faiths that originated on the Subcontinent. To borrow a phrase from the great Chris Rock, I don’t support it, but I understand it.
Mmm, the world survived the collapse of the USSR, with its massive nuclear arsenal. I doubt anyone except part of India wants Pakistan to fall apart, but it could be more like Syria or Libya scaled up, not exactly unthinkable.
India doesn't want Pakistan to fall apart either. It's simply too much trouble. It simply adds to the imponderables India has to confront in the region. Yes, a version of Syria, and Libya scaled up is a possibility. But its the outcome of any sort of scale-up that's worrying. Think of who Pakistan's neighbors are-- Afghanistan and Iran. India of course, but India is stable unlike the other two. Note there are Shia-Sunni clashes in the region already. Iran is Shia. Pakistan is Sunni with a large Shia population. The Balochs are on both sides of the Iran-Pakistan border. They're theoretically Sunni but their culture is also Sufi-dominated.
Interesting piece, Vivek! Just a couple of questions, if you don’t mind answering: you mention that Pakistan post-partition has had ample opportunity to reform, when precisely could these turning points have occured ? Also, what kind of role can international organisations (be it the IMF, World Bank, etc.) expect to play in promoting reform in Pakistan, perhaps to counter China’s influence ?
The turning points could have occurred in the early to mid-1970s before Zia Ul Haq staged his coup and killed off Bhutto or through the 1990s. But unless the army's veto over government and policy goes off, nothing will change. There's no capacity/ability there to take the remote control away from the army, though. I don't think global institutions can play a role. The IMF bailout will not help Pakistan. It's a fraction of the money it needs. Pakistan's politics, its policies, etc. have to change. It's still debating what kind of a state it wants to be. It lacks state capacity for any kind of positive outcomes. It's a rather dismal scenario.
I agree in part. It's had enough opportunity to turn into a strong nation-state, and even though it's going through the worst of times it can reform. It need not die. But that calls for a complete mindset change, which worryingly the Pakistanis seem unable to come to terms with. Even their internal debates involve discussions that seem so completely theoretical and cloudy that one wonders if they're actually aware of what's happening around them.
If China does overreach, an Islamic rebellion will occur and that'll be China's Afghanistan moment a la the Soviet Union. It can't afford to overreach in Pakistan not with Xinjiang and the Taliban around. China's got itself into a trap unfortunately.
Thank you, Vivek! Very interesting. Notwithstanding the bloodshed during Partition, would the Pakistanis in particular and the region in general be better off if they had remained part of India? Maybe a large Muslim population could have averted the Modi regime? Or at least a Hindu supremacist Modi government?
That's a hard one to answer. The Modi govt. is being bashed unnecessarily in the media, especially the Western media which does not understand the sub-continent. The Indian writers who write for NYT live abroad and profess "liberalism" over accuracy. What's not understood is that there were socio-religious forces at work that were surfacing even before Modi. Long before Modi. In fact, had the Modi govt not been around, things might have been worse. The opposition Congress party had long lost its luster and could rule only through coalitions. And coalition politics had resulted in weak governance.
Political parties only reflect the mood of the people, they can capitalize on the mood but can't change the mood unless there is an underlying trend that's veering in one direction or another.
Besides, laws in India are skewed. The Congress party has long been accused of appeasing Muslims at the expense of Hindus and other religions (it's doing so even today) and if you see some of the laws in force that's absolutely true (and unreported in the West since NYT and their ilk don't do deep dives). There is a Hindu backlash and Modi is a part of that phenomenon, not its cause. Had India and Pakistan been united, there might well have been religious bloodshed.
But, yes, one thing is undeniable. The two countries together would have been an economic powerhouse if they weren't broken up by the underlying religion-related issues.
Vivekji, from mythological times it is understood that every time there is manthan (churning), the outcomes may include great things (amrit) but they also include vish (poison). Arguably that happened with independence, with the great thing being independence itself, but the vish being profound and lasting hatred of the Muslim minority within the country - something which Nehru tried to paper over, but which eventually has manifested itself politically and become a dominant theme in our political culture. There was a caste based manthan resulting in the ascendence of caste based parties, which was contained by Hindutva. Now there is a new manthan, resulting in the dominance of Raitas (with Trads snapping at their heels). What do you think the vish from this manthan is, and how do you think it will be contained?
I wish I had a crystal ball. But I don't. Sadly. :)
"What's not understood is that there were socio-religious forces at work that were surfacing even before Modi. Long before Modi. In fact, had the Modi govt not been around, things might have been worse...
... There is a Hindu backlash and Modi is a part of that phenomenon, not its cause. "
I'm certainly in the camp of not understanding how all of these things can be true at once. Granted my sources are Western, but I don't see how Modi can be taking advantage of the moment by fanning flames of hate, but also somehow it could have been worse without him. edit - I appreciate any clarity you could provide.
Politics works best when it builds vote banks based on latent undercurrents in society.
Interesting. I don’t know as much as I would like about contemporary India. Is the Hindu backlash mainly aimed at Muslims, or are Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists, and Christians also coming under fire? You’re absolutely correct that Western outlets don’t pay nearly enough attention to India, and that’s why I ask.
David, may I take this opportunity to promote a little book I wrote about India? https://www.amazon.com/Screw-Beautiful-Forevers-Middle-Class-Community-ebook/dp/B01EC7GV7W It's somewhere between an essay and a book. I had a small grant from City Journal to write an essay for them, but after my reporting trip I found myself with so much to say that I couldn't keep it to one essay. I didn't want to waste everything I'd written, so I published it as a little monograph.
I’m always happy to read one of your books, Claire! Thank you!
And Vivek, let me take this opportunity to suggest to you that you write more about India: I'm certain our readers would be interested.
Speaking for me, the more Vivek, the better! Please do!
No. It involves mainly Islam. Sikhs, Jains, Buddhists and Christians are governed by the same laws. Muslims have their own personal law based on the Deobandi interpretation of sharia and several other legal concessions, besides. Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists are seen as a part of a larger "Indic" diaspora. They frequently inter-marry and it's not uncommon to have one brother, say a Sikh, and the other a Hindu. The so-called Khalistan movement for Sikh independence is funded by Pakistan's ISI. Incidentally the cover of the Sikh holy book always has a Hindu goddess at the center and its old teachers, the gurus, professed their faith alongside invocations to Hindu gods and goddesses and often came from Hindu families.
The backlash against Christians is primarily on the ground that they "convert" Hindus to Christianity. Yes, there is some Hindu fanaticism laced in there because there are those who hark back to the days before the Islamic empires and the Portuguese came to India.
Today, there's also a backlash against the way Indian history has been taught so far. The claim, (and it's not without some merit), is that Indian history has been taught under a British lens or a "leftist" lens that tried to whitewash the atrocities of the Islamic empire under the carpet. Yes, there's an element of Hindu revisionism, but there's a big element of going back to deeper sources that were ignored for decades.
All Indian religious communities are governed by some version of their own personal law. The Indics fit into Hindu Reformed Law but Christians, Parsis and Jews have their own - like (though not so high profile) as the Muslims. Kashmir has its own version as well (different from MPL), not to mentien Goa where all communities are goverened by Portuguese Family Law. And none of this takes into account customary Law for tribal communities or polygynous groups In the Himalyas. You’re welcome, vaisai a big fan.
Not to mentien the Mitakshara and Dayabhaag systems which govern Hindu Undivided Famílies In different parts of the country. And which some West Coast Muslim groups - like the Khojas - still adhere to.
Thank you, Vivek and Zaf Z! Sounds like the biases fall against exogenous religions rather than faiths that originated on the Subcontinent. To borrow a phrase from the great Chris Rock, I don’t support it, but I understand it.
Pakistan has been on the verge of collapse since Mountbatten screwed up the partition.
But nobody can afford for Pakistan to collapse.
Not with unsecured nukes, an unleashed military, uncounted militias, a desperate (and young) population, and nervous neighbors.
So what will happen?
More of the same, just getting worse.
The debts will never be collected, Pakistanis will continue to suffer, and the infrastructure will limp along at reduced capacity.
Until China overreaches and India has to react to encirclement.
Mmm, the world survived the collapse of the USSR, with its massive nuclear arsenal. I doubt anyone except part of India wants Pakistan to fall apart, but it could be more like Syria or Libya scaled up, not exactly unthinkable.
India doesn't want Pakistan to fall apart either. It's simply too much trouble. It simply adds to the imponderables India has to confront in the region. Yes, a version of Syria, and Libya scaled up is a possibility. But its the outcome of any sort of scale-up that's worrying. Think of who Pakistan's neighbors are-- Afghanistan and Iran. India of course, but India is stable unlike the other two. Note there are Shia-Sunni clashes in the region already. Iran is Shia. Pakistan is Sunni with a large Shia population. The Balochs are on both sides of the Iran-Pakistan border. They're theoretically Sunni but their culture is also Sufi-dominated.
And most of all Pakistan is a nuclear power!
There are greater and lesser degrees of collapse, however ...
It wasn’t just Mountbatten.