now this didn't surprise me at all

[winterbadger]

Pakistan deports ex-PM on return

Heard this on the news this morning and chuckled to myself. Yes, Mr Sharif, you can legally return. But no one said you could *stay*.

Honestly, this man is about as committed to democracy as a pig is committed to dieting. Being prime minister meant for him the ability to line his pockets, find jobs for his family and political cronies, and dream up ways to employ the forms of government to illegally suppress dissent and protect his corrupt governance.

I'm not sure what to wish for Pakistan. I think General Musharraf is undoubtedly the best man to preserve the nation's stability and security at this point. I don't believe that there are any civilian political leaders who can be trusted with government. But I do believe that somehow states need to evolve towards democracy, or they will forever be dictatorships where ruling power is handed (or seized) from one hand to another. I just don't quite know how one gets to a stable democracy from the position that many developing nations find themselves in today.

But I do know that it seems very unlikely to me that an invading foreign army is the way to move forward...

Comments

[wcg.livejournal.com]

What do you think of Madam Bhuto?

[winterbadger]

I think she's part of the more pro-Western, less religiously fundamental, educated elite of Pakistan. But I also think she, her family, and her husband are hopelessly corrupt and no more interested in democracy than Musharraf or Sharif.

The problem is that, IMO, if either Sharif or Bhutto come back and win an election, they will displace one of the few effective leaders Pakistan has had in decades, and they will be distrusted by the most stable element of Pakistani society--the military.

Even Musharraf is not wholly trusted by the military because he has worked to loosen the ties between the intelligence service (ISI) and the fundamentalist terrorist they have used for decades to create unrest in Kashmir and attack the Indian state (even if indirectly at third or fourth hand).

On the other hand, I'm still learning a great deal about Pakistan, so take what I say with a grain of salt. I did a lot of reading in my last AMU class about it, but it's only a drop in the ocean compared to what I'd liek to learn about the country.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

What about the whole "reunite with India" idea?

[winterbadger]

I'm not aware of anyone in India or Pakistan that wants that. Both would like to have *all* of Kashmir, but neither wants anything else from the other.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Oh, I know. Kind of wishful thinking I guess.

One thing I don't get...why is the US friendly with Pakistan more than India? India's the democracy in the region that has actual democracy...

[winterbadger]

India decided from the get-go that they didn't want allies from the traditional Western imperial powers. They've vacillated back and forth between being nonaligned and de facto allies (or at least good friends) with the Soviet Union (and latterly Russia). Now that the Soviet Union is gone and Russia in a steep decline, they are looking toward the United States more for trade and possibly military cooperation.

Pakistan, by contrast, has always been desperate for allies, and was happy to make us welcome in a part of the world very close to the Soviet Union, Afghanistan, and Iran. And while the current administration (and others) have touted our interest in promoting democracy, most US administrations have been focused on practical issues of international relations and less on implementing whatever idealistic notions they espouse. Which is, to be fair, what pretty much all nations do.

[winterbadger]

And, while India is more democratic than Pakistan in general, don't let it's wonderful 'free and fair elections' fool you. There's more voter intimidation, vote-buying, and corruption in India then in Chicago under Richard Daley or Texas under LBJ.

[flewellyn.livejournal.com]

Sure, but is there more than in Flordia in 2000, or Ohio in 2004, I wonder?

[winterbadger]

Trust me, it's much more widespread, much more violent, and much more openly corrupt, especially in rural areas.

[cmlc.livejournal.com]

Have you come across Pakistanis advocating this? I'd be surprised if there were many - it'd be a bit like the USA (or Ireland, or many other countries) advocating reunion with Britain. India's the great enemy, after all, isn't it?

It seems a bit ironic that there are more moslems in India than in Pakistan, according to Wikipedia at any rate. Mind you there are a whole lot more of them in Bangladesh as well so maybe that's unfair.

[winterbadger]

Hm. If 96% of Pakistan's 161 million people are Muslim, and 13.4% of India's 1,120 million are Muslim, Pakistan still comes out about 5 million ahead, I think, unless I've gotten my maths wrong. Given that Pakistan's population is about 15% the size of India's, that's not too shabby, though it is certainly ironic that there are only about the same number of Muslims in the state that was created for them as there are in their neighboring arch-rival.

Of course, Bangladesh used to be part of Pakistan originally. Its 118 million Muslims tipped the scale rather drastically. If the ruling elites in Pakistan hadn't treated the Bengalis as second-class citizens, they might have the advantage of a larger and more diverse population now.

[cmlc.livejournal.com]

It all depends which population statistics you use :-)
I was looking at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_India#Population_statistics
... which says that the 2001 census found 174 million muslims or 16.4% of the population, but that estimates place the percentage at easily 20% or even 30%. And of course India's population has grown by quite a few million since 2001. Wikipedia also gives Pakistan's 2007 population as 156 million:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan
and Bangladesh's at 129 million in 2001 and 150 million today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh
I remember it being said when I was in India in the mid 90s that it had the second biggest muslim population in the world, after Indonesia, and wikipedia seems to agree.

[winterbadger]

You're right; it does all swing on what numbers you use. I was looking at Wikipedia too, specifically the sections in the country entries on demographics.

which says that the 2001 census found 174 million muslims or 16.4% of the population, but that estimates place the percentage at easily 20% or even 30%. And of course India's population has grown by quite a few million since 2001.

My figures came from the statements that

"With an estimated population of 1.12 billion, India is the world's second most populous country and is expected to be the most populous by 2030."

and

"...Muslims, who make up 13.4% of the population."

Note that those larger percentages (20-30%) cited in the Islam article are highly political figures, not based on any kind of readily apparent census work. One (the larger) comes from an extremist Hindu nationalist group, while the other comes from a Muslim-rights activist (a retired judge, not a demographer).

You found

Wikipedia also gives Pakistan's 2007 population as 156 million:

whereas as what I was reading said

"Pakistan has an estimated population of 161,161,000 as of 2007 as per the IMF."

Likewise with Bangladesh, you found

and Bangladesh's at 129 million in 2001 and 150 million today:

whereas I found

"Recent (2005-2007) estimates of Bangladesh's population range from 142 to 159 million, making it the 7th most populous nation in the world."

And the article Islam by country actually puts Pakistan in second place ahead of India by more than the demographic figures from the country articles suggest.

But this is all, admittedly, splitting hairs. Yes, the Muslim population of India (a huge country) and Pakistan (a much smaller one) are about the same. However, the Muslim populations of Pakistan and Bangladesh (the original plan at independence) taken together are considerably larger than India's, by some estiamtes almost twice as large. (Especially, as many Pakistanis would point out, if you shifted the roughly 6.5 million Muslims in Jammu and Kashmir from the India total to the Pakistan total.)

I remember it being said when I was in India in the mid 90s

You've been to India? Cool! Were you living there or traveling? Where did you go?

As for "largest Muslim population", a friend who worked at DHS said that she got into a debate with the "intelligence analyst" in their section (which worked with State on visa issues). He was insisting on referring to *Malaysia* in an official briefing as the largest Muslim nation. Totally crackers, but he stuck to his guns until she actually went out and got an almanac...

[cmlc.livejournal.com]

So the same wikipedia page says that the 2001 Indian census says that muslims make up 13.4% of the population, and 16.4% of the population? Oh well, maybe it's true what they say about Wikipedia :)
http://www.censusindia.net gives the total figure at 138188240 - I can't be bothered working out the percentage, but it sounds closer to your wikipedia figure than to mine :-)

[cmlc.livejournal.com]

I travelled there a few times (he says casually). Actually my sweetheart loves the place and views it as his spiritual home. I first went there at his suggestion in 1994 and joined one of those adventure bus trips. We started in Kathmandu, went through Pokhara and Chitwan into India, then Varanasi, Delhi, Agra, and out west to Rajasthan, eventually driving up to the Punjab and seeing Amritsar (the Golden Temple is lovely). It was there I was unexpectedly pushed into having dinner with the ex-ambassador by my guest house landlady! Then got the train to Delhi and flew home. Subsequent trips were made with my sweetheart, with him organising everything (he's good at that). We saw Delhi and the tourist sites in that part of the world, but we also went to southern India, which was in general rather less hectic than the north. We toured round Kerala, went to Mysore, flew in and out of Madras, put our feet up and relaxed for a while in Mamallapuram/Mahabalipuram, and hit other places too - Trichy/Thiruvananthapuram, Cochin/Ernakulam, all round there.

I have to be honest - he loves it there but I hated it with a passion. Nobody leaves you alone. Someone's always hassling you, trying to get you to buy something. You can't look anyone in the eye, you can't stop anywhere, you can't linger anywhere, you can't go into any shops, for fear of being hassled. The only exceptions are government-run cottage industry emporiums and supermarkets (of which I gather there are a lot more now). And half the time, any transaction involving money is done dishonestly - you're not given enough change, you're not given any change at all, even at Delhi airport the Thomas Cook travelex bureau deliberately gave me too few rupees. It seems on bad days as if everyone you meet is determined to rip you off.
There were good times too, and there are lovely places to be seen there, great food, amazing temples (though sometimes run by racists, but that's ancient Hindu culture for you I suppose, just as racist as any other) and I'm sure there must be loads of lovely Indian people, but I didn't meet many.