PKPolitics Discuss » Current Issues

New Role for SAARC

(33 posts)

  1. gv
    Member

    Out of sheer academic curiousity and with no hidden agenda(zionist or otherwise) (cross my heart and kiss my elbow!!!)

    What do you guys think of the following?

    - An enlarged role for SAARC along the lines of EU encompassing a Free Trade Zone and free borders for all Saarc members

    - Kashmir to be created an autonomous region and capital territory for SAARC (i.e. financed and funded by all members)

    - Military collaboration on all external fronts and Armed forces to conduct joint exercises on a regular basis

    - Joint Macro economic policy to foster collective trade and economic growth throughout the region (but no Monetary Union)

    (SAARC Members include: Afghanistan, Bangladaesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka)

    Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jun 2010 10:33 #

  2. haider3
    member

    Hello gv. The way things stand, I'd say why not? I suppose the main problem lies in the definition of what constitutes an autonomous region. Why not simply an independent country? But let's see what Hariskhan and others think about this suggestion.

    Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jun 2010 11:07 #

  3. gv
    Member

    Well i dont see Pk and India agreeing to an independent country status but maybe they would be more amenable to it being granted special status (like the District of Columbia) for the SAARC union

    Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jun 2010 12:17 #

  4. semirza
    Moderator

    How sad! Everyone is concerned about Kashmiris without ever providing a chance to Kashmiris so that they may speak for themselves.

    Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jun 2010 12:36 #

  5. gv
    Member

    @semirza

    unfortunately that's the world we live in so lets try and play with the cards that we've been dealt instead of wishing for the impossible ?

    what i would like to hear is your views on the suggestion

    Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jun 2010 12:53 #

  6. Hussain Farooqui
    Member

    Kashmir is one of the problems of this region. There are many problems common in all the SAARC countries like pvoerty, literacy rate, administrative indiscipline,,etc. Not a single SAARC country has so far been able to attain any good standard of living for common people. Joint efforts and cooperation can be helpful in uplifting the standard of living in this region.

    Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jun 2010 12:55 #

  7. gv
    Member

    @HF

    yes i agree in theory its a good idea but does it sound achievable?

    Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jun 2010 15:01 #

  8. semirza
    Moderator

    It won’t happen because India and Kashmir are possible obstacles in realization of this vision.
    India considers itself the biggest stake holder (and looks down on its neighbours) backed by unmatched resources compared with other SAARC members, as usual will always go for an upper hand because India aims to be recognized as a regional economical and military power against China. For this India is backed and armed by America.

    On the other hand Nepal has suffered for long and is still suffering at the hands of India. Nepal gets is bulk of imports through India and release of Imports to Nepal is always intentionally delayed that the Nepalese complain. Secondly Nepal has shifted its national status of being the only Hindu state to a Maoist enclave, regretted by India. Maoists hold a large chunk of Indian lands mass (above 30 to almost 40%) where no writ of Indian government is found. India blames this on China and Nepal.

    Bangladesh is wary of India, is suffering from lack of water that is controlled by India through Farakha and other dams. Lower parts of Bangladesh suffer water shortages, very low to almost no fish catch and extremely high levels of arsenic in its water table since Farakha Dam came into being. Border skirmishes are common. India is also very upset about a large number of Bangladeshi settlers in Assam and adjoining states.

    Sri Lanka is bitter with India about the Indian creation of LTTE. They have trade but relations are covertly not friendly. Sri Lanka looks towards Pakistan more than its close neighbor India.

    Bhutan has improved relations with China shifting away from Indian hegemony. Both Bhutan and India do not have a warm but cold relationship that cannot be called friendly at all.

    Minus China, same is true for Maldives that has an Indian problem what Sri Lanka had in the past.

    Afghanistan has always been on Indian side. With Karzai as president there should be no doubt that India has a vote.

    Kashmir being the core issue is not just an issue of a Muslim majority state now is also the source of rivers for both sides. The Indus and the Gangatic plains are irrigated for agriculture with glacial melt that flows down through rivers originating from Kashmir. Ironically all rivers originate from the Indian held Kashmir with an exception of one from Chinese territory.

    India is not willing to move its army out of Kashmir because of fear of losing Kashmir.
    India is not willing to allow any foreigner (observers) to enter Kashmir (IOK) so that the true conditions of Kashmiris would never be known to the rest of the world.

    Once again, Kashmir being the core issue where India is unrelenting, I don’t see this happening.

    Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jun 2010 15:49 #

  9. gv
    Member

    @semirza

    Thank you sir for that extremely concise and insightful analysis. I really enjoyed it and it greatly enhanced my knowledge of the inter-member relations of SAARC

    However, would not the Indians see this as a way to continue to enhance their economic growth (via economies of scale) and as a face saving solution for Kashmir which does not see Pakistan as the net gainer?

    Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jun 2010 16:07 #

  10. semirza
    Moderator

    Of course they will and sure it would enhance their economic growth even further than what they enjoy now.

    Regarding Kashmir they call and claim Kashmir their 'atoot angh'. I am afraid this unfair divide or 'bander bant' of the subcontinent specially Punjab, Kashmir and Bengal was all on the agenda of retreating colonials who were feeling spent out and miserable after their participation in the World Wars.

    Lord Mount Batten (himself an imperial) has served his imperial masters well by creating another hotspot (among many all over the world by Britain), a future market to dump product from their major manufacturing industry - arms, an ever present battle field where two nations will fight with imported arms; a present from their former white masters.

    Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jun 2010 16:37 #

  11. gv
    Member

    "Of course they will and sure it would enhance their economic growth even further than what they enjoy now."

    So why would they be obstructive to something where they gain on all fronts?

    Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jun 2010 16:45 #

  12. semirza
    Moderator

    Nice question gv!
    I am not sure if you will concur to what I am going to say but I will give it a try:
    As you said a majority will benefit but a minority is not in favor of this. Their own control of a much wider Indian population would be at stake. The real rulers of India are the elected lot but in-depth observation reveals something totally different.

    A huge majority of Hindu population due to a curse in the form of cast system is divided and subdivided. They do want to shed this curse but are unable to because no cast means a non Hindu or simply put, death of Hinduism. Other religions too stand influenced by this system of 'jat pat' or biradri system.

    Brahmin is the unchallenged top cast among the four. Brahmins do not add up to more than 4 to 5 % more or less of total Indian Population but to keep their position secure they have created a phobia among Hindus that Hinduism is insecure and will be taken over by other religions that is totally false. Their main enemy being a Muslim.

    The creation of RSS, Bajrang Dall, and Shiv Saina are the major extremist Hindu factions among countless others that have been created and maintained through Brahmins (pundits etc). The movement of Hindutva has not died down yet rather it’s in a full swing. All these factions (some are armed) invent and promote various propagandas and phobias against Pakistan and internally against other religions. They are headed by/directly or indirectly controlled by Brahmin Hindus. As long as Brahmins are in power India and Pakistan will always be in a state of war if not actually fighting a war. A vast majority of common Indians (non Brahmin) have no animosity with Pakistan or other religions. They simply don’t care. Only the Brahmins are more active and vocal in this regard.

    Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jun 2010 17:21 #

  13. gv
    Member

    @semirza

    Thanks again for this. It is always a pleasure to read your socio-political commentary.

    I do concur with pretty much all you have written. However does not the ever growing juggernaut which is the Indian Middle Class wield sufficient power to silence the hindu extremists among them?

    Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jun 2010 17:39 #

  14. semirza
    Moderator

    Youre most welcome and thanks for your kind words.

    Yes in the forth coming future as Hindus mostly who have been out of India do undergo a certain change in a way that they do not remain much of a Hindu (extremist) at last. Perhaps it is a whole different world out of India that changes their perception of other religions regardless of India being one nation in the whole world that can boast many religions in its folds.

    Both those out of India and Indian Middle Class Hindu in India will bear heavily on saffron clad usually racist Sadhus and Pandits.

    Education being the key factor is doing a lot in this regard.

    Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jun 2010 17:49 #

  15. gv
    Member

    @semirza

    so all in all it is just a matter of time before such collaborative solutions may be implemented for the region?

    Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jun 2010 18:01 #

  16. LiberalKarachi
    Member

    I don't see SAARC being of much use because of the conflicts between Pak and India. My opinion is that SAARC will break down under the strain of these conflicts. Some wounds run too deep for healing.

    Pakistan's preferable option would be to align to China and her Shanghai group. Building better ties with Turkey and East Asia muslim countries would also be crucial.

    Posted 1 year ago on 25 Jun 2010 20:23 #

  17. hariskhan
    member

    Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

    I'll be slow to respond or be unavailable in July, 2010. I have 3 certifications exams to clear in 5 weeks .. before they expire.

    Posted 1 year ago on 26 Jun 2010 16:44 #

  18. semirza
    Moderator

    SAARC has never been of use and never will.

    Posted 1 year ago on 26 Jun 2010 19:05 #

  19. hariskhan
    member

    Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

    I feel like repeating the same stuff that has been said many times over;

    There's big problems with SAARC. Without resolving them, there's no future for SAARC. It will remain as it is, useless and worthless to people of its member states.

    Posted 1 year ago on 27 Jun 2010 11:10 #

  20. hariskhan
    member

    Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

    (1) First, India and Pakistan are in the same group. These two nation states are enemies, forever, without any reservations.

    Our history, our present, our future, that which can be projected according to current trends proves this.

    India and Pakistan have been at war since Pakistan was created. We are at war even right now.

    There's hypocrisy in this group. You can't have a strong SAARC when two of its most powerful members are enemies, forever.

    ----------------------------------------

    Second, people or (so called) leaders of SAARC members states do not adhere to;

    (1a) Honesty
    (1b) Justice
    (1c) Bravery
    (1d) Self Reliance
    (1e) Education

    They do not have the will to continuously improve ones self (in individual as well as collective capacity).

    ----------------------------------------

    Third, SAARC draws its strength, its power from individual SAARC member states. As long as;

    (1a) honesty is not adhered to
    (1b) justice doesn't reign inside SAARC member states
    (1c) people in SAARC member states won't become brave
    (1d) people in SAARC member states don't adhere to self reliance
    (1e) people in SAARC member states don't have education
    (1f) people in SAARC don't want to improve themselves with each passing moment/day/week/month/year

    SAARC will never have strength. It will never become powerful.

    ----------------------------------------

    Fourth, SAARC member states deny their people basic necessities of life

    Individual member state do not invest in their people. Untill this remains true, SAARC cannot become powerful.

    Posted 1 year ago on 27 Jun 2010 11:39 #

  21. hariskhan
    member

    Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

    (2) Kashmir is unfinished business of plan of partition of Subcontinent in 1947. That plan/deal has to be completed by giving people of Kashmir the right to self determination, as per the plan of partition.

    There is damned good reasons why Mr. Jinnah called 'Kashmir' 'sheh-rag' (in urdu) of Pakistan.

    Kashmir is part of Pakistan (i.e., Muslim UMMAH) forever!, without any reservations, without any compromise, without any wavering.

    So called 'our leaders' have tried policy of wavering, of almost giving up on Kashmir to India, yet India has not budged from its position since 1947.

    We are Muslims. We are Mujahideen. ALLAH be willing, we will never! compromise on Kashmir. We will INSHALLAH make sure people of Kashmir get the right of self determination.

    For this to happen, we need to improve Pakistan's condition .. internally. We need to invest in people of Pakistan. We need people of Pakistan to gain strength, power. We need Pakistan to gain strength, power.

    We need the same to happen inside ALL SAARC member nation states.

    Posted 1 year ago on 27 Jun 2010 11:45 #

  22. hariskhan
    member

    Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

    (3) What's the point of collaboration in military excersizes between two enemy nation states ? I'm talking about India and Pakistan.

    However, yes, there should definitely be collaboration in conducting military excersizes between friendly member states of SAARC.

    I agree.

    I agree to the fact that there should be a strong! military block/collaboration between SAARC member states, after the fate of Pakistan or India has been decided.

    We desperately need this, as one part of our overall strategy, if we want to fight off;

    (a) local oppression in this region by India
    (b) foreign oppression in this region, coming from the west

    Posted 1 year ago on 27 Jun 2010 11:49 #

  23. hariskhan
    member

    Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

    (4) There can be no Union of any kind as far as the two powers of this region remain at odds i.e., Pakistan and India.

    Time has proven this over and over again.

    Collective interests of these two nation states are exactly opposite to each other.

    Collaborative interests of these two nation states are exactly opposite to each other.

    Posted 1 year ago on 27 Jun 2010 11:57 #

  24. zia m
    Member

    I think China should be able to join SAARC.This could create worlds largest market.India will object to it but most other countries should have no problem.

    Posted 1 year ago on 27 Jun 2010 12:37 #

  25. hariskhan
    member

    Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

    I agree, Pakistan has a critical part to play for betterment of this region.

    In-fact I believe, people of Pakistan + Afghanistan have the ability, the resources to change this entire world for the better of all mankind. What we lack is the will for doing it.

    The question is why ? Why are our people not doing it ?

    The answers is, lack of;

    (1) justice
    (2) honesty
    (3) bravery
    (4) self reliance (living within one's own means)
    (5) education
    (6) the will to improve one's self

    Posted 1 year ago on 27 Jun 2010 14:05 #

  26. semirza
    Moderator

    If Afghanistan is Included than why not China. This way Indian hedgemony would be diluted because coutries like Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh and Pakistan feel more comfortable with China than with India. Only country that favours India is Afghanistan.

    Posted 1 year ago on 28 Jun 2010 6:50 #

  27. hariskhan
    member

    Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

    A Pakistan friendly Taliban Government was present in Afghanistan. (sarcasm) But some genius higher ups in Pak Army didn't want a friendly Afghanistan. They wanted an India friendly Govt. in Afghanistan. They thought that would benefit Pakistan (/sarcasm).

    LAANAT! on them.

    There was ZERO soldier on Pak <-> Afghan border and there was complete peace.

    Posted 1 year ago on 28 Jun 2010 10:01 #

  28. gv
    Member

    @all

    There is a large degree of shared cultural heritage between the current SAARC member nations - that does not exist with China.

    Would not the combined forces of the other 7 members act as a sufficient counter to India.

    Look at the EU as a precedent - originally dominated by Germany but now is a better balanced comity of states.

    Posted 1 year ago on 28 Jun 2010 10:05 #

  29. hariskhan
    member

    Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

    @gv: Is India active in war with all or most of these states, even if it is 'hidden' ?

    (1) Afghanistan - yes
    (2) Bangladaesh - yes
    (3) Bhutan - not sure
    (4) India - yes (plethora of worse off internal conflicts)
    (5) Maldives - not sure
    (6) Nepal - yes
    (7) Pakistan - yes
    (8) Sri Lanka - yes

    As I see it, India is conducting/fighting war in 6 out of 8 SAARC member states, against the interests of the people of those states. How is it going ?

    Posted 1 year ago on 28 Jun 2010 10:23 #

  30. hariskhan
    member

    Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

    Let me add here, if Kashmir was to become an autonomous state, or area, it will very quickly be taken-over or over-shadowed by western countries or their military presence, for the benefit of Zionists/Unjust Jews.

    Do you understand the prospects for people of this region if USA + Nato or the west entrenched their military presence in Kashmir ? It would mean many decades of fighting of war. Which means what ? No development, no education, no peace, no tranquility, no prosperity, no nothing. Just war. Decades of war to fight.

    Look at how USA or the west coerces other smaller nations in the EurAsia region to do their bidding, which goes against the interests of people of those nations in the long term.

    It wouldn't USA or the west much time to bring as well as entrench their military presence in Kashmir.

    Once USA + Nato or western countries have military presence established inside Kashmir, they will unlimited power in this entire region. It will then become a far far bloodier war for us to fight off, than it is right now.

    It would add a new theater of war for us to engage our enemy in. It would cost us much more destruction of lives, money, land that could be cultivated, resources, time at the state as well as individual level.

    Are we this stupid that we'd allow our enemy to start war with us in yet another area ?

    We don't want this nonsense.

    Posted 1 year ago on 28 Jun 2010 10:36 #

  31. gv
    Member

    @hk

    Would not the opportunity for India to increase its economic markets be incentive enough for it to stop any covert military operations which are aimed at increasing its political hegemony?

    "Let me add here, if Kashmir was to become an autonomous state, or area, it will very quickly be taken-over or over-shadowed by western countries or their military presence, for the benefit of Zionists/Unjust Jews."

    Well not if its the capital territory of this new proposed South Asian Union

    Posted 1 year ago on 28 Jun 2010 10:37 #

  32. hariskhan
    member

    Assalam-o-Alaikum-Warahmat-ULLAH ALL,

    (1) India already has market access of these states or is being given access through use of force/coercion by USA + Nato and their allies

    (2) This Union means nothing. It has no political, financial, social, judicial, military strength or power that can fight off USA + Nato or their allies

    O yes, the west will gain military access to Kashmir, since most of the so called 'leaders' of these states bow down to USA+Nato or the west. We'v already seen this on many occasions. For example;

    (a) Look at how these states bowed down to USA+Nato and their allies for this false 'war on terror'. ALL or most of them bowed down, didn't they ?

    (b) Pakistan Govt. is ready to allow India transit to Afghanistan through Pakistan, against the interests as well as well-being of people of Pakistan, Afghanistan as well as people of the rest of this entire region

    (c) Pakistan has been and still! is allowing transit of military supplies to USA+Nato through its land

    Do you understand its implications for this entire region ?

    (d) Pakistan dropped the Iran <-> Pakistan <-> India gas pipeline because of USA+Nato and their allies, didn't it ?

    (e) Pakistan is accepting pressure from USA+Nato to stop collaboration with China, isn't it ?

    (f) etc etc

    I can go on and on and on.

    Pakistan has gained nothing but loss for taking part in this false 'war on terror'. Can you or anyone prove otherwise ?

    Posted 1 year ago on 28 Jun 2010 10:41 #

  33. siddiqi73
    Member

    Lol, who in the right frame of his mind would want to promote PPP on this forum.

    Posted 1 year ago on 28 Jun 2010 11:11 #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.