that\'s the difference b/w india and pakistan...
I can\'t think of anyone, at least in my circle of aquaintances, who is truly "happily" settled in pakistan, or perhaps i should just say karachi, my hometown.
of course, pakistan faces all the problems that india does, but i believe we have managed to add quite a few of our own. most of them spring from the fact that the common, decent, hardworking people of pakistan have been completely disenfranchised. despite whatever anyone would like to believe, pakistan is, and always has been, an oligarchy. the common man is completely subject to the whims of the ruling clique, which has been in power since pakistan came into being. the primary component of this clique is the landed feudal class, and their flunkies that make up the largely self-serving bureacracy. i would go so far as to say that this ruling clique thwarted any efforts at communal reconciliation in the years leading up to independence and division in 1947, and fomented much of the turmoil in areas that became pakistan (e.g. kahuta, feb 1947). one just has to read the works of true historical researchers like ayesha jalal and h.m. seervai, who do not put any "official spin" on their recounting of history. as events immediately following the creation of independent india demonstrate, specifically, the ending of absentee-landlordism in that country, the pakistani feudal aristocracy had shown remarkable forsight.
an objective and irrefutable proof of the power that the feudal class wields over pakistani policy is that all feudal landowners are exempt from income tax!
quite early on, in 1958, the feudal rulers of pakistan invoked the support of the army to stifle popular dissent, and since then, the pakistan armed forces have become the second component of the oligarchy. normally, the pakistan armed forces are content to live their country-club like cantonments, and lord it up with domestic servants paid for by the tax-paying salaried class and businesses, and play with their big-boy-toys, also paid for by tax money. sometimes, though, events will cause army to assume the role of primary ruler, as has currently happened, when the last elected prime minister refused to stay off the army\'s toes. the precedent for this, after all, was set by the feudals themselves.
so, is it in the interest of pakistan armed forces to see the kashmir dispute with india solved?
often, some "malcontents" will attempt to take on the system. if they are religious zealots, the government will help deflect their zeal into areas outside pakistan (e.g. afghanistan, kashmir). if, on the other hand, these malcontents (for want of a better word) turn their attentions to the domestic situation, they are brutally crushed (witness events in karachi, early 1990s).
what never changes is the lot of the common people. they continue to toil under the latest burden placed on them by their rulers, trying to make ends meet, to live with some semblence of dignity, often which is denied them by the powers that be.
I know this is hardly the place for expounding all of this, so i will get off my soapbox now.
