Font size: 
The restive population is welcoming the Mullah ideology because its promises of honey and maidens in the afterlife are more attractive than living under a corrupt self-serving military government.
Although a bit of economic progress has been being made in the last few years with U.S. economic and military assistance, much of it has been wasted on military hardware. This has left the general population high and dry. A concerted effort must be made soon to pull Pakistan away from this slippery path. Not only the United States, but also Pakistan's neighbors must play an important role.
Early in the 20th century, the United States was developing fast. It was attracting talent in big numbers from all over Europe and elsewhere and putting it to good use. They innovated, developed and built a completely new order. Within four decades, from 1900 to 1940, a strong industrial and agricultural base had been built. In this period the gross national product kept doubling every eight years.
All this put the United States in excellent economic shape. A few misfortunes also struck, like the depression of the 1930s. Also the United States fought two world wars on the winning side, which sealed its role as leader of the free world.
Canada, in true British style, had adopted all the methods that had made England great in the 18th and 19th centuries. But these methods were outdated for the 20th century. Britain lost its world leadership role to the United States after World War II, and also lost all its profitable colonies soon after. After World War II, Britain was only a shadow of its past glory. It was more like a sick old man with a lot of pizzazz but no ideas. In the 100 years prior to World War II, the social and government systems of Britain had been transplanted to Canada. This made Canada neither very prosperous nor did it attract talented European immigrants in large numbers.
At the beginning of the war, the United States was a mighty industrial power with a population base of 135 million. Canada was like Britain, very proud, very British and short on manpower resources and everything else. Only 12 million souls made Canada a home, a bulk of which came from Britain or the British colonies.
Very early after World War II, it dawned on the Canadians that it may be wiser to pair up with the United States than with Britain. The Americans were next door, the British were 4,000 miles away and less prosperous. As Canada made overtures to the United States for an economic partnership, the Americans responded with understanding. In the early 1950s an understanding was reached that Canada would open up its north to the United States for North American defense and the United States in turn would open up its monetary floodgate for investment in Canada.
One economic tie-up after another with its southern neighbor improved the Canadian lot. In 1965 the auto pact brought greater prosperity to central Canada. Later, investing in the resource industry in the Canadian west became a U.S. obsession. Still, later a free trade agreement in 1989 cemented the relationship further. Some 45 years after World War II, the United States and Canada were almost on par, economically.
The key to success in this U.S.-Canadian model was the opening up of each other's gate to an economic free market without impacting each other's political and social institutions. The Americans are freethinking, with the freedom to pursue all avenues for generating wealth. The Canadians are still attached to the British monarchy and are a bit conservative, but they are moving away from this attachment to Britain. New immigrants have begun to opt for Canada and they are coming from all over the world. The Canada of today is a lot more cosmopolitan and prosperous than that of yesteryear.
Could India and Pakistan set up a similar economic partnership that would ensure prosperity for both? The answer is yes.
India and Pakistan have been in existence for only 60 years. Like India and Pakistan, the United States and Canada fought bitter wars very early on in their nationhood. Later common sense prevailed and they came to terms. In the same way India and Pakistan can also bury the hatchet.
India is seven times bigger than Pakistan. Unluckily for the Pakistanis, India has progressed a lot farther than Pakistan and has established an economic system ready for bigger and better things to come.
Pakistan on the other hand is mired in the past, with enmity toward India as its national obsession. It is predominantly an agrarian society with only a few people owning the land and running the government. Repeated military takeovers have weakened the people's confidence in the government. Now they have become dependent on foreign aid, mostly from the United States and Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia's influence on religious lines is filling the void created by the people's lack of faith in their government. Guns and bombs rule the streets today, and unfortunately this reality is being exported to neighboring India and the rest of the world.
How can this slide of Pakistan toward fundamentalism be stopped?
Not much can be done until the United States winds up its military adventurism in Iraq and Afghanistan. The next step will be to send the Pakistani military back to the barracks and dismantle all its self-serving institutions.
Once the army returns to the barracks, brilliant civilian minds can take over the management of political, social and economic institutions. The U.S.-Canadian model can be used to pair Pakistan with India. For Pakistan's benefit, India is next door. This will make the movement of goods and services easy. Both nations will benefit.
As the economies advance, a common market for all goods and services in South Asia could become a reality. The populations on both sides of border would benefit tremendously. River water disputes would disappear. As prosperity took over, Mullahs and Sadhus would find fewer listeners.
The success of this venture would be eagerly awaited by dirt-poor Bangladesh. Good things are always the envy of all; hence Bangladesh would have no trouble in vanishing the military and Mullahs to their respective places.
What will it require to trigger this dramatic change in the sub-continent?
The coming elections in Pakistan are unlikely to be free and fair. President Pervez Musharraf will have to step aside as a first step. Second, Pakistan will need time to reinvent a new leader to replace Benazir Bhutto. Third, free and fair elections must be held with civilian leadership in control. Fourth, the Inter-Services Intelligence, the dreaded intelligence agency, must be wound up and replaced with a civilian agency. Fifth, the current army's half-hearted approach to wiping out terrorists in the border region must be accelerated. Sixth, the newly elected leadership must seek U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and open accelerated negotiations with India to improve ties.
India should respond to all Pakistani overtures for peace and prosperity in kind.
The above scenario requires guts and bravery to implement. A lot of leadership is required on both sides. How much blood is to be shed before it is achieved is anybody's guess. But nothing has been achieved ever without sacrifice. This would likely be another example of achievement with more sacrifices.
--
(Hari Sud is a retired vice president of C-I-L Inc., a former investment strategies analyst and international relations manager. A graduate of Punjab University and the University of Missouri, he has lived in Canada for the past 34 years. ©Copyright Hari Sud.)
