Friday is designated as a rest day but I have been summoned for yet another outing towards the peripheries of Dadyaal.
I won't go though. Friday is my rest day from physical exertion as I am increasingly exerting myself for the other 6 days of the week.
I also need to develop on this thread as we gradually transition from public opinion research to economic research:
Offer from a citizen of #AJK & #GilgitBaltistan :— Tanveer Ahmed (@sahaafi) June 4, 2020
10,000 rupees for each #Pakistani citizen per month is what we are offering, subject to their personal income being less than 6 lakh rupees per annum.
In return for #Pakistan agreeing to reduce its military presence in AJK. pic.twitter.com/iz7kHq9Ljg
The above proposition is geared towards addressing the welfare of Pakistani society, which has suffered needlessly for the sake of Pakistan's doomed expansionist strategy in Jammu Kashmir & Allied areas. We have always held good intentions for our neighbours and want an end to this mutual destruction of the region. A seemingly intractable lose-lose situation for all concerned.
For that, we need to transform this conflict economy environment to a peace economy environment. As the tweet above clearly suggests, we are willing to pay for this transformation.
One must bear in mind that this proposition is a form of income support for working people or those that are in a position to work but can't practically find employment. It would subsidise the earnings of those whose income falls below the threshold mentioned and those who are actively seeking work. Unfortunately, unlike some trolls and ill-intentioned propagandists (which Pakistan has too many of), this is not a blanket offer for every citizen of their country.
It excludes the vast majority of people.
For example:
1) Those under the age of 16.
2) Elderly/retired people.
3) Those whose income or assets exceed the threshold.
4) Women who are not active in the workplace.
5) Students and those engaged in other pursuits distinct from full time work.
Finally, it should be reiterated that this proposition is a goodwill gesture to transform the region into a healthy array of peace economies and encourage people to work and conduct business - increase economic activity essentially - and it is not designed as a free for all handout to make people even lazier then they may already be.
It should also be noted that the funds for this 'regional economic package' will come from the public treasury of the whole State of Jammu Kashmir & Allied and not just from AJK. It will be designed, monitored and executed by our own government and not simply handed over to the Pakistani State. We will - needless to say - afford these associated costs too.
The package is clearly designed as a genuine incentive for demilitarisation. The Pakistani retreat will be in calculated phases while an alternative indigenously led security framework is put in place. This initiative will then open avenues for an Indian military retreat in a likewise manner. Consequent to which, discussions can begin to negotiate a Chinese military withdrawal.
This financial package is not intended for India or China as the context of their presence does not warrant such an initiative. The Indians entered when the Pakistani invasion provided that pretext to them, thus a Pakistani military withdrawal will cancel India's reasoning for its military presence here. Even if you study the UN template on this region, the emphasis on initial Pakistani withdrawal is a conditional feature of that mechanism.
In short; given geopolitical, diplomatic and economic realities it is 'relatively' easier to make Pakistan withdraw from our territory compared to India and China. Given that they are our Muslim neighbours they should understand our point of view better than others and also understand that this is for their benefit. We deferred to them for 73 years and suffered even more than them for our blind allegiance, now it is their turn to listen to us, not blindly as we did but with very open eyes and ears. Likewise, it is relatively easier to make India withdraw from our territory compared to China.
Overall, we do need a global agreement to protect our neutrality and ensure that our territory is not used by any country to the detriment of any other country. We want to close the doors of conflict in our region and pre-empt looming water wars.
This applies to India and Pakistan as much as it does to China and America.
....
Meanwhile, the above Twitter post generated a far more energetic conversation on Facebook, where it was initially posted yesterday:
No comments:
Post a Comment