Society in India and Pakistan, 4
Based on the procedings of the seminar "The
Role Of Civil Society in Pakistan and India:
Peace, Conflict Resolution, Democracy" by Jang Group of Newspapers
(Pakistan) & Friedrich/Naumann Foundation (Germany), September
12-13, 1997 at Pearl Continental Hotel, Karachi.
Text edited by Khurram Ali Shafique and Farida Z.
Information dissemination and
with special emphasis on market economy
as an instrument of conflict resolution; parallel channels; role
of economic and business community as a stake holder in India/Pakistan
Dr. Haroon Ahmed
Dr. Navnita Chedha Behera
Dr. Rainer Adams
Quotes from the
Life can only be understood backwards but
it must be lived forwards.
A man cannot touch his neighbours
heart with anything less than his own.
Mans greatest blunder has been trying
to make peace with the skies instead of making peace with
We are not only neighbours geographically
but neighbours as far as statistics of economic development
are concerned, also.
Three subsequent wars have only added to
the stars of partition.
Neither India of today is what Mahatma
Gandhi dreamt of, neither Pakistan what Quaid-e-Azam dreamt
We have to empower people at the village
level to speak up and unless we do that politicians will have
their own agenda.
The budget allocation that we have for
defence, both in India and Pakistan, is at the cost of the
Mr. Khorakiwala pointed out that the
"market" and the business community of both the counties
can play a substantial role in improving the ties between the two
neighbour counties. "Its the market economy that we have
to look forward to because business of business is business."
During the entire length of his speech, he supported
his progressive viewpoint of the two countries forgetting their
past differences and working towards the common goal of uplifting
the socio-eonomic state of its common people.
He presented a comparison of the economic
parameters and statistics of India and Pakistan viz. a viz. eleven
other countries developing countries of the South Asian region including
Philipines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Vietnam etc.
The analysis shows that both India and Pakistan are
very similar in terms of statistics of economic order. With Pakistan
having $440 GNP/capita and 12.2% inflation and India having $310
GNP/capita and 8.2%, they rank 7th and 8th, respectively
in the 11-nation comparison. India, however, is better off in terms
of their literacy rate and child mortality compared to Pakistan.
However, compared to other countries of the block, both the nations
are pretty far behind. The speaker emphasised the need for understanding
the real causes of the low levels of our economies as we both have
abundant and excellent human resources.
|$ GNP per capita
|Child mortality under 5 yrs
|Human development Index
The speaker also pointed out that we have essentially
the same culture and if we are serious about peace, we should rely
less on arms and more on heads. "We have lived together for
centuries, we are people of the same stock. Why allow 50 years of
partition to divide us and mistrust each others intention?"
In this regard, he urged the civil society, comprising
of non-political people to come together as a powerful institution
in order to (a) create public opinion, (b) ensure that the politicians
govern well, and (c) act as a pressure group.
Remarking on the co-ordination and exchange of information,
facts and data banks among the NGOs in Sindh and Punjab, he regretted
that such a co-operation does not exist among the NGOs in India
and theyve certainly leant an important lesson today.
He also acknowledged the role of dirty politics, played
by the politicians on both sides of the border, which has deepened
the divide in the name of religion. Since he was the Sheriff of
Bombay during the time that Babri mosque riots took place, he spoke
from his experiences. His observation has been that the Indian politicians
dont understand their Muslim electorate well. He said that
the Indian politicians were surprised to learn in a meeting of religious
leader, following the riots, when he informed them about the injunction
of Hub-ul-Watan min al Imaan which means that a Muslims
faith is incomplete without patriotism for his homeland. Thus, he
concluded that a colossal misunderstanding and misinformation is
also responsible for this ethnic divide. Yet, he says that he wouldnt
blame the politicians for that as it is also the responsibility
of the Muslims in India to inform their Indian colleagues about
what Islam is and what it really means.
However, making this point of bridging the information
lag, he moved towards presenting his viewpoint of means to resolving
the conflict. Coming from a business background, he feels that in
the past, economy has been driven by politics. However, in the present
post-liberalisation era, it is time that politics be economy driven.
There should be effective partnerships between the governments and
the businesses of the two countries and within the countries themselves.
In this regard, he also pointed out the commonality
of vested interests of these two entities (i.e. government and businesses)
and that this vested interest is not necessarily a bad thing. The
politicians want to remain in power and want to be re-elected and
for that they work towards eliminating literacy, poverty and improving
health and education standards. When this is successfully achieved,
the economic standing of the common man is improved and he acquires
extra purchasing power, which translates into greater profits for
the businesses. Therefore, this inter-connection should be exploited
for the benefit of the common man.
He also addressed the issue of Kashmir, which is perceived
by many as a roadblock in improving the estranged relations between
the two counties. The respected speaker was of the view to let the
Kashmir issue be simultaneously resolved. That we need to stop treating
Kashmir as a piece of real estate that needs to be bargained upon
and that the people of Kashmir should be given the choice to decide
their own future.
Therefore, by not allowing the Kashmir issue to hinder
effective resolution of the conflict, Mr. Khorakiwala suggested
that visa restrictions between the countries should be relaxed and
there should be a free movement of goods and people to boost trade.
Also, whatever is allowed to be imported from other countries should
be allowed to be imported from within our two countries. The consumer
in Pakistan has to pay a much higher price for a good of Indian
origin that is imported into Pakistan from Dubai or Singapore and
vice versa. If free trade is allowed, the people of both the countries
Khaled Ahmed (Pakistan)
Quotes from the
Free market is terrible for both India
and Pakistan. Its going to be very destructive. But
both countries will have to decide what they want to keep.
Is their nationalism worth keeping? Is their indoctrination,
stereotyping of each other worth keeping?
And we have a Prime Minister who is a businessman,
who will deregulate the economy, will privatise the economy,
who will make us face the true economic reality of Pakistan
and there will be suffering in that... labour will be exploited.
But India is willing to buy this expensive
power which means that India in the times to come will have
the same rates, at which it will sell electricity, as us.
Otherwise, India will have load shedding.
We think that if we trade with India, the
disputes will be forgotten and we will have to actually pull
down our army budgets. If we pull down our army budgets, we
will not be able to fight over the disputes that are outstanding
And we are both vying for the same money
. India and Pakistan are looking for these foreign funds floating
around the world which cannot be invested in home countries
because the costs are too high.
It also means that external finance will
look at the conditions and those conditions may actually force
you to change your religious attitudes. That is what the free
market is going to destroy.
Journalism is a private sector thing. If
I get my advertisements from the government, I am no longer
Prejudice will not go away because, somehow,
we have not intellectually improved. I dont think we
will improve intellectually. I think the free trade market
will force us to be careful.
Mr. Khaled Ahmed focused on the various aspects of
privatisation and globalisation and its implications for both Pakistan
and India. Free free trade between the two countries, as well as
trade brought about by various treaties of SAARC and external finance
provided by western agencies, was identified by him as one of the
areas of special interest in this regard.
Mr. Ahmed observed that a strong state sector seems
to be an ideological reality, that has been laboriously and gradually
nurtured in India. In Pakistan, however, it was brought about by
nationalisation and therefore pretty weak to begin with
and never flourished to acquire a strong stature. Both the countries
are now faced with the global trend to de-regulate and privatise.
Although, Pakistan has embraced this economic reality facing the
rest of the world, including ex-socialist powers like Russia and
China, India is still going through its moments of hesitation and
still has a long way to go in creating an even playing field. "The
external aspect of free market is globalisation. That you dont
only create an even playing field within your own economy. Remove
the subsidies, privatise the state sector organisations and allow
the private sector to flourish as it should flourish."
While state sectors have their own sets of problems
such as limits to growth, proliferation of bureaucracy i.e. too
many bureaucrats interfering in the affairs of the entrepreneurs
with unnecessary formalities like the permit system, globalisation
is not without its sets of problems. Globalisation aspect bothers
us all alike and that can be witnessed from the number of complaints
that have gone to the World Trade Organisation (WTO). "If you
look at the complaints that have gone to WTO, you will find that
third world countries have complained more often against the third
world countries and not against the commanding, bigger economies
of the world"
Pakistan had to live with the perpetual fear of military
coup for most of its life because it had a large state sector and
hence it was very easy for the military to take over a fear
that is prevalent no more since the army has lost its interests
following the huge losses incurred by the state sector. Although
India had a very large state sector, it was also accompanied by
a healthy private sector and a strong, free press and, therefore,
never had to live with this kind of fear.
Both the countries have not yet been able to improve
their trade ties and when one looks at it closely, the reason is
more political than economic on both the sides. "I do not think
reasons behind objections to trading with India are genuine. I think
they are more political. The Pakistani mind is a very militarised
mind. It concentrates very much on the disputes and jurisprudence
of war between the two countries. Let me put it this way. Whereas
in Europe or anywhere else in the world, war is considered an obstacle
to trade, we consider trade as an obstacle to the prosecution of
war." On the other hand, India may be wanting to trade with
Pakistan but with the same sneaky political agenda in mind. "India
wants trade with Pakistan because it thinks that the disputes will
be forgotten. India is the status quo power and it doesnt
want to resolve these disputes". Since Pakistan is not the
status quo power, its reluctance for trade with India is understandable.
India exerts a tremendous influence in the region
due to its economic prowess. It makes 87% of value added in
South Asia and comprises of 75-77% population in the region. It
has, however, not emerged as a benign trading partner due to lack
of concessions on its part. There exists a lot of uneven playing
field in the form of subsidies provided by the Indian Government
that give India an unfair advantage compared to other nations in
the region. This unfair advantage is accentuated by cheaper labour
and electricity. A case in point is the politically motivated kerosene
subsidy which hurts Pakistan. "The subsidy is equal to our
budget gap. The planned deficit of Pakistan is equal only to the
kerosene subsidy in India" However, the speaker is of the view
that these "uneven playing field" will hurt India eventually
and they will have to do away with these subsidies. Pakistan has
suffered a power crisis and India will follow. It, too, will have
to enter expensive contracts with international companies and when
that happens the difference in power rates across the border, and
the accompanying unfair edge, will cease.
Both India and Pakistan, because of the state of their
economies, require external finance especially to bring about privatisation.
This money that enters their respective countries will exert certain
pressures on both the countries trading practices and inefficiencies
and unevenness will definitely will have to be done away with.
The subsidies will have to go including subsidies like child labour
in our region which has met with a extensive western media disapproval.
"All these unevenness will have to go because there is
no free lunch for either India nor for Pakistan"
The rise of the Private Sector can also improve freedom
of the press on both sides by reducing the presss dependence
on governments for advertisements. Although, it will not get
rid of prejudices, it will at least make our opinions, about one
another, more tolerable.
Mr. Khaled concluded with the proposition: "We
dont have opinions. We have prejudices. I dont think
those will be removed but I don t think those attitudes are
worth keeping. Let me tell you, honestly, that I dont see
anything in India and Pakistan worth keeping. So why not allow this
destructive thing called free trade to come in and sort us out?"
Poonam Barua (India)
Quotes from the
Greater public information and knowledge
are contributing to the pressures for the government to perform
on both sides. The people of India and Pakistan are becoming
overwhelmingly aware of the social opportunities and economic
development in other countries and the complete lack of it
or slow driving of it in their own countries.
Policy making and internal discourse on
foreign policy matters has traditionally been the domain of
civil bureaucracy and politicians and to some extent the military
Ms. Poonam Barua elaborated on the critical role that
the business community can play in the India/Pakistan peace resolution
process along with the other elements such as civil society, media
etc. "The media and civil society has only been tangentially
related so far to this process, if at all, and the business community
as an influential component in this process i.e. foreign policy
strategy, is only evolving now. Unfortunately a bit too late and
yet to be recognised in the sub-continent as a key driver of strategy
and decision making."
The two major influences that are causing the business
community and others to assume a more active role, in her view,
- Media explosion and the consequent softening
of the barriers of communication.
- Forces of liberalisation and globalisation that
is forcing the business community and civil society into seeking
a larger leadership role in the democratic process as well as
the foreign policy process.
These have also altered the context in which the civil
society in both the countries view their mutual relations.
Due to this greater public information and knowledge
influx, the speaker thinks that not only the government on both
sides is under greater pressure to perform better but the people
of both countries have also become more aware of their social and
economic rights. The media has exposed them to the heady economic
successes of other South Asian countries which has brought to light
the rampant corruption and failure of their own governments and
institutions. Both countries can take advantage of this greater
awareness. "Together with the improved information density
and rising public aspirations, I think, both countries are on the
verge of a very, very unique opportunity, which they must take to
improve the India/Pakistan relations.
In recent meetings and rounds of discussions between
the business delegations of both the countries, a very clear and
progressive vision has emerged. "Business community needs to
take on a very large role in creating a public awareness for improving
bilateral relations on both sides." The contentious issues,
however, remain and need to be effectively dealt with. She recognised
them as follows:
- The provision of subsidies by India.
- Pakistan denying the status of "Most Favoured
Nation" (MFN) to India.
- Outdated shipping contracts between Bombay and
Karachi that need to be revised.
- Land routes between the two countries that need
to be opened up so that the trade could be carried out freely.
She also hailed the efforts of the Chambers of Commerce
and Industry of both the countries in assuming leadership roles
in the peace resolution process. On this occasion, she quoted the
chairman of the Islamabad Chamber of Commerce and Industry "I
call to the business leadership to helping in create a public opinion
to improve the relations on both the sides. She also quoted the
President of the Indian business delegation, Mr. Vanai Kumar, who
said,"The business community can play a key role in shifting
the paradigm between business and politics." She also mentioned
the extremely unilateral offer that the President of the Indian
delegation made to the Chamber of Lahore Commerce and Industry of
opening an export office in the premises of the PHT Chamber of commerce,
Lastly, she made key resolutions of areas, which she
thinks, should be receiving greater attention for involving the
business community, in a broader way, and the civil society, in
a much more specific manner, for the conflict resolution process.
- The people to people contact. There is no substitute
for it and therefore the exchange and involvement of people
on both sides should be increased.
- Information-sharing. The internet and other modes
of technology should be used more adequately to supplement the
exchange of vital information and statistics.
- Sharing of ideas. Exchange of views between the
different channels in conflict resolution. i.e. The NGOs, the
business community, security, politics and academicians should
work together rather than in isolation.
- Bi-lateral trade. Inter-SAARC trade is 3% and
Indo-Pak trade is only 1% of this. Trade between the two countries
should be increased not only to improve relations but also to
alleviate the massive poverty prevalent in both the countries.
Trade can also be enhanced by removing all artificial trade
barriers such as visa regulations, tariff and non-tariff trade
barriers, subsidies etc.
- Sharing of information on human resource development
for e.g. by exchange of faculty between Lahore School of Management
Sciences (LUMS) and Lucknow school of Management.
Haroon Ahmed (Pakistan)
Quotes from the
My humble submission is to consolidate
messages and pack them so they are acceptable to the current
The respective governments
well that they cant go through the arms race perpetually.
Ever since the last decade of this century
had forced a major perceptual change, it has amply demonstrated
that no amount of weapons or military might could halt the
already deteriorating social situation from getting worse.
The myth of contrived security has been
broken yet the mindset created by military industrial complex
There are lessons to be learnt from the
two armed conflicts between India and Pakistan . Instead,
we distort history and worse of all, we believe in it.
We cannot afford arms race, still the demands
of the so-called defence need continues. The emergence of
Bangladesh should have taught us the basic lessons in the
track of democracy, justice and human rights. We have repressed
them three and I dare say successfully.
To my mind, there is one objective which
should be pursued and that is to convey to the people a few
relevant messages which relate to their needs and demands.
Sermons are known to be endured; knowledge,
changed attitude and call to reason does not arouse more people
but arousing emotion works.
Dr. Haroon Ahmeds topic was "Parallel Contacts"
with special emphasis on the mental set of the people of these countries
i.e. India and Pakistan. He began by defining a "mentally fit"
person. In terms of psychiatry, he/she is one who can take care
of himself, his family members and above all, abide and participate
in civic and civil responsibilities. So in support of the efficacy
of such discussions he said that "such activity does not only
help the development of civil society but proves to promote the
mental health of the participants because the sense of collective-ness,
belonging-ness reduces alienation."
Dr. Ahmed was of the view that both countries cannot
engage in the arms race perpetually and it was time that public
opinion was built to help the inert governments on both sides to
take a bold initiative. He also spoke about the mental set of the
people of both the countries who perceive each other as enemies.
This mindset created by the on going arms conflict between the countries
makes people on both sides insensitive and inhumane. "People
under this mindset are contemptuous of democracy, insensitive to
human rights and have their own brand of justice."
As to how to alter the negative thinking of the people
he proposed that a few relevant messages need to be conveyed to
the people in an effective and attractive manner. "The formula
is concentrate knowledge, generate emotion for behavioural change."
In order to achieve this objective and bring about real change,
he advocated a greater use of the science of advertising, electronic
media and modern methods of communication. In this regard, he proposed
that inter reaction between "people who matter" can be
brought about by two ways. Firstly, that people should explore more
avenues of people to people exchange through exchanges between professional
groups, cultural troupes etc. And, secondly, by arranging melas
and moots that give an opportunity to the common citizens of both
the countries to understand each other better. "Seminars may
not touch the common man but melas and thelas do."
Navnita Chadha Behera (India)
Quotes from the
There are a few positives, I think we need
to build upon them.
Parallel channels basically, the way I
look at it, is different bodies, different groups of people
from all walks of life in two countries who are meeting in
an organised manner and discussing issues which are of concern
to both of us especially sensitive issues.
Like a given is that you cannot question
whether Kashmir is an integral part of India or cannot question
whether Kashmir morally belongs to Pakistan.
Just dont give them visas, they dont
get to see each other it is as simple as that.
We need to build upon these constituencies
which are in a very nascent stage, which are in a very incipient
stage but they are there. That there are alternatives. That
there is no one way of looking at India/Pakistan relations.
It is sad to know that not a single woman
from the Pakistani side, with the sole exception of Sadiqa
Ji, was there on this panel.
Visits should be encouraged to clarify
The only way to learn is to come here and
interact with people like you
and then you learn what
the realities of life are.
Dr. Navnita Chadha Behera focused on "parallel
channels" and looked, exclusively, at non-official dialogues
especially concerning bilateral issues aimed at creating a better
understanding between citizens of the two countries.
She approached the topic using the conventional jargon
of "track 2 diplomacy" (Track 1 means government to government
channels) which refers to non-governmental channels.
In "track 2" dialogues, groups of citizens
of the two countries set up information channels, channels of operation
or links independent of their respective governments and look at
specific issues such as Kashmir, opening up of trade, nuclear arms.
They try to see how they can resolve these sensitive issues and
then provide recommendations to their respective governments.
The speaker was of the view that track 2 have evolved
over the last few years and increasingly being used as a "testing
ground" to explore ideas that are difficult to pursue from
the governmental platforms of the respective countries. "But
what is increasingly happening is that the kind of dialogues that
are taking place are going far beyond the vision or the conception
of what we understood by track 2 dialogues"
She also looked at "track 3" dialogues,
which, according to her, were more "visionary." Track
3 is more focused towards creating a social and political space
outside the governmental network which would hopefully address India/Pakistan
issues in a more open manner and build "alternative constituencies."
They seek to mobilise public opinion and pressurise their respective
governments to change their thinking and question their conventional
beliefs or "the givens"
In her view the distinction between track 2 and track
3 lied in (a) the nature of people who are involved, and (b) the
way or the modus operandi by which objectives are sought.
She emphasised that a South Asian study that had been
conducted last year to document these dialogues showed that 40 such
parallel channels existed between South Asian countries including
India and Pakistan both at the bilateral and regional level. The
exchanges have been made between people of all age groups from all
walks of life from journalists to social workers and from school
going kids to retired military officials.
Trying to sum up the net result of such interactions,
she said that the results were mixed. The biggest criticism levelled
against such dialogues has been that successes in track 2/track
3 dialogues are not being translated into track 1 dialogues. "The
governments are not getting any better, the visas are not any easier
to get, so what does it all amount to, ultimately, when you look
at the ground realities?"
But then she also commented that the very nature of
this process i.e. creating civic space is difficult. She also made
us realise since it is difficult to create social space within ones
own country viz. a viz. ones government, then addressing foreign
policy issues, especially when they touch upon concerns of national
security of the respective countries, is bound to be a very slow
and painful process. In this regard she felt that the ultimate veto
power remained with the governments in the form of visa restrictions
which hindered people to people contact. Nonetheless, she concluded
that "it is making a difference because its spreading"
and expanding in its reach.
There are positives, even though they are fewer than
the negatives, and the speaker stressed that we need to build upon
Ms. Barua identified the following problem areas in
track2/track 3 level dialogues:
- Dialogues at this level were not getting translated
into governmental level dialogues.
- We often blaming western or outside forces for
creating the differences within us. Instead, we need to decide
how we are going to buildbridges. Also, we shouldnt hold
reservations if a third party steps in to facilitate the peace
- Generation and gender issues. She felt that participation
of women from the Pakistani side is not adequate and also the
youngsters of both the countries are not getting to see each
other as frequently as they should.
She ended on an optimistic note saying that both the
sides need to loosen up a little and the people can do rest for
Kaiser Bengali (Pakistan)
Quotes from the
Pakistan does not have local government.
It doesnt exist. The constitution of the country only
refers to local bodies and that too only in one sentence.
It just says that the provincial governments shall organize
local bodies for managing local affairs.
But the private sector/market in order
to operate requires a super structure which I would call the
It is the economies of agglomeration which
determines the growth of economic activities and the concentrations
of population that give rise to urbanization.
Mr. Kaiser Bengali explored the relationship between
the civil society, the state and their interdependencies. He was
of the view that civil society cannot be built outside the state
or apart from the state. Also, he emphasized the need for civil
society to be strong to influence the character and composition
of the state.
According to Mr. Kaiser, the civil society consists
of five basic elements: (a) press, (b) NGOs, (b) trade associations,
(c) trade unions, and (d) market
The market plays a very crucial role in the formation
of civil society in any country. Unfortunately, since Pakistan had
been under military rule for the majority of its years, the market
is very weak. "A market economy requires entrepreneurs. Without
an entrepreneurial base, a market economy cannot function and Pakistan
lacks an entrepreneurial base."
Therefore, according to the speaker, the weakness
of the civil society can be attributed to the weakness of the market
economy, which in turn can be traced back to the weakness of the
The State sector in Pakistan is unresponsive to public
needs and the needs of the society and therefore incapable of supporting
the civil society.
Stepping into history, the speaker notes that this
was not always the case. In the pre-colonial era, each village was
autonomous and run by a social contract. If a tribal or feudal culture
prevailed in an area, it also assumed responsibilities and duties
for looking after that area.
However, with the arrival of the British, this self-reliant
village governance system collapsed and was replaced by centralised
bureaucracy in the form of a District Commissioner who was an outsider
and little aware of the needs of the people. Therefore, civil society
became "atomised" and "introverted."
In the post colonial era, the society has transformed
rapidly in terms of demography. Overnight urbanisation has taken
place. People of different tribes inhabit the cities and live together
yet they are divided and do not inter-react. "We have a situation
in Karachi where two-thirds of the population today are those whose
parents or grandparents might have migrated from India around 1947.
One-third of the population comprises of migrants from other parts
of the country. They are in a sense economic migrants"
The social fabric of the cities, according to the
speaker, is rather weak and this is largely due to the lack of local
government bodies. There is no body to look into maintaining the
basic infrastructure of the cities such as water, housing, roads,
health and educational facilities as a result of which the cities
are in a state of decay and disintegration. "In over 50 years,
this commons sense in our cities has not developed and it has not
developed, in my opinion, due to the heavily centralised nature
of the state." The inhabitants, unfortunately do not have a
choice but foreign investment is adversely affected as foreign investors
choose not to return to such conditions. Thus, the market suffers.
In a sense, it is a vicious circle.
Quotes from the
Dr. Rainer Adams, the chairperson offered personal
remarks on the session, pointing out that there are lessons to be
learnt from the fact that for many years the French were the arch
enemies of "us Germans." Now both are partners in the
European Monetary Union (EMU). Change comes slowly and gradually
"but its possible." In the case of Germany and France
it was brought about by economic co-ordination, frequent travel
and personal contacts between the people of France and Germany.
Q. In discussing the inadequacy and poor development
of civil society in our part of the world, the economic dimension
has been by-passed. The economic deterrents need to be addressed
to create efficiency on both the sides.
Q. Problem with our government is that
whenever we have lawlessness, terrorism or chaotic disorder, higher
government functionaries accuse the Indian agencies to have created
the trouble. Why do the political parties blame agencies abroad
to train terrorists and killers? Why cant we have an effective
media to inform the people of the real situation and whole truths?
It all depends on our own perception and unity. Why havent
track 2 been successful in addressing these issues and which channel
would you call that?
Dr. Sri Ram Khanna: Whenever there is a bomb blast
in India, we are told that there was Pakistani hand behind it.
We are made to believe that the Pakistanis want to destroy us.
During this dialogue, we must address the dirty accusations that
we like to push under the carpet.
Q. Seminars like this dont influence the minds
of the masses.
Q. The whole problem between Pakistan and India is
not lack of communication. The real problem is that terrorist activities
here are always said to be emanating from India. This is a very
serious problem as it negatively influences the mind-set of people
who no nothing better. Real friendship can only result when we ask
important questions like "who is doing it" "why are
they doing it" and "how to stop them"
Q. I like the title of this conference
and especially the words in it: "peace, conflict-resolution
Q. Do you intend to pass some resolutions?
May I suggest cutting the defence budget by at least 25% and diverting
the savings from this towards education, health facilities, infrastructure
development and social sector. Also, more people to contact should
be encouraged through relaxation of visa restrictions.
Source: The Role Of Civil Society in Pakistan
Peace, Conflict Resolution, Democracy: Procedings of the seminar
by Jang Group of Newspapers (Pakistan) & Friedrich/Naumann
Edited by Khurram Ali Shafique and Farida Z. Hemani
Back to Top
Search the Republic of Rumi