Defunct development of
Pakistan's development process is non-performing.
It is non-performing as it has taken on policy situations
which were both obsolete and time had overtaken these or
these were the outcome of some hybrid policies brought in by
expatriates that had lobbied through such international
agencies as the WB/IMF and or the ADB.
That these institutions are the handmaidens of the developed
countries goes without saying.
The interference of the developed countries in the affairs
and policymaking of these institutions need not be gone in
to at this stage.
Suffice it to say that Pakistan has suffered as a result of
these non-functional cultural hybrids coming in to the
These things always happen when dictators are in position.
The wholesale import of these Western CIA induced
individuals started with the Ayub regime.
The institutions developed in the 1960s during his period
had personnel from two American universities here - Stanford
and Boston [later Chicago came with its two anna piece].
The influence started during the Ayub continued with Zia,
and then Musharraf.
These were individuals that had been brainwashed in the
American economic and political system and were furthering
the interests of the western countries.
These were also people that were culturally morons.
It may be interesting to read about these very people in
Ruth's magazine called the 'Old Mole'.
She managed to get hold of secret state document indicating
that the economies of two countries where one Dr Papanek was
posted as an undercover economist had been connected to and
dependent on the economy of the US (see documents revealed
by Ruth first ostensibly from Dr Papanek - who had to be
sent fortnightly report on everyone aspect that they had
been involved in).
Having made this assertion the rule required that those that
were in position of power should have managed these aspects
carefully and responsibly instead of implementing policies
given by these undercover economists to the dictators for
whatever reasons of their own.
It started with liberalisation as a policy function.
Free markets are never free and never fair.
In the developing state such as Pakistan the masses were
ignored and the robber barons and mafia were created.
These became so powerful that there was no way that in later
years this mafia could be handled by a soft state.
Pakistan's policymakers became the handmaidens of these
strong policy matters [in fact Musharraf in one of the three
meetings that the author had with him stated 'Dr Sahib you
have powerful friends and powerful enemies'.
The counter statement was 'discount my friend about I will
tell you the mafia that must be in touch with you'.
I did so and he agreed that that was so].
Institutions created by the Stanford and Boston group
continue in their own obsolete way till today.
These harbingers of liberalization policies that influenced
dictators are now either temporarily or permanently buried.
They will reemerge as 'hit men' again when Pakistan's
policies go into limbo.
It will, sooner or later through bad governance.
Why and what was the rationale for these liberalisation
policies? Was it because the interfering policies were
self-enriching for the bureaucracy and the politicians? Was
it because the wastes that had been created by these
personality-oriented interference policies? Let me give you
an example from Islamabad infrastructure was developed where
Musharraf had planned his luxury farmhouse.
He has not been able to live in it and I doubt that he will
ever live in it.
The road infrastructure and the electricity infrastructure
costs are mind boggling.
Nowhere in the world are such costs incurred.
The tragedy also was that shops belonging to the poor and
mosques that provided dangers to the lordship were
demolished or changed to another locale.
If liberalising policies were based on such negativities
then that were responsible for these? The very policymakers
that wanted these new policies were the ones responsible.
There was another kind of confusion that emerged - the
creators of new policies were using these for their own
Policymakers' ethics was questionable to say the least.
So whether in the hands of the mafia or in the hands of the
liberals the enormous wastes would still be there.
It is the ethical norms that were missing and the ability to
have a self-censorship system in operation.
At the moment no policymaker has been wrong in Pakistan - it
is the 200 million people that are vagabonds and
Ask any self-justified policymaker.
Whereas these policies were supposed to take care of the
rent-seekers and remove the protection and privileges that
were unnecessary, all they did was reinforce these and
created some more of the same.
No one bothered about the failures that had emerged after
the late Dr Mahbubul Haq taken on such policies.
The decision-maker in Pakistan does not see the implications
of policies designed to help individuals and the self.
The interference has to be examined in terms of involvement
and that per se requires that the policies would be designed
for the many rather than the few.
Pakistan's failure has had many serious consequences that
have impinged on the social sectors and made governance by
the few impossible.
Force is no longer an option.
Reason and well-intentioned policies are required.
To my mind if the previous dictators have to be questioned
it had to be on the side of reason and not how they
committed criminal activities.
The argument as to the failure of liberal policies is
secondary to what the legacy of this country was and
continues to be? If one wants to read about the excluded
areas one has to read the literature and authors of the
deprived regions of Pakistan to come to any meaningful
conclusion about police that lead to deprivation and
depraved actions by individuals.
Fata, Balochistan, Sindh (Thar area), Punjab (Cholistan) and
Gilgit-Baltistan all speak of the mismanagement and the
exclusion of these areas from the development process.
So the traditional arguments of the West on liberal policies
are not relevant to Pakistan.
They can never be.
The flip side of the coin is that the natural resources have
been frittered away for personal gains.
The country and its policymakers never learnt from the East
They had abused history instead of using it profitably for
the public good.
Incidentally there are no public goods left in Pakistan, all
these have become useful for personal purposes.
Mindful of the media the policymaker has developed a serious
disease of diarrhea of the mouth.
They will make tall claims and then create another problem -
serious problem for the public and the country.
The two countries that stand out at the moment are Italy and
Both have squandered resources and look at their condition.
It was always maintained that the electronic media is a
self-justified medium for the rich and the powerful.
In Pakistan that is very much so except that in Pakistan the
media is a shouting match between enemies or politicians who
do not seem to like each other; shrill voices on the media
hardly constitute reason and reasonable policies.
Efficiencies are of many kinds and humans have always
glorified at the way that the population requirements have
been met through technological advancements sand
If then we start looking at the mega projects (the favourite
terms) of some of the well-dressed politicians one then
realises the futility to talk to the superficial politician
and bacterial ones.
The opinions of these people is going to be more and more
irrelevant as time passes and as people realise that they
have been taken down the garden path and that there is no
light at the end of the tunnel.
Time and space are always limited.
There is more to this than the present.
So next week hopefully the argument will be further
developed as to what constitutes Pakistan's welfare.
Courtesy: The DAWN