In its concluding session at Islamabad (March 22-23, 2022), the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), renewed “unwavering solidarity with the people of Jammu and Kashmir” and expressed “full support for their inalienable right to self-determination in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council and the OIC, and the wishes of the Kashmiri people” . Besides, they condemned “massive violations of their human rights in the Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir” (IIOJK).
The participants reiterated “rejection of India’s illegal and unilateral actions since August 5, 2019 aimed at altering the demographic composition of the occupied territory, suppressing the realization of the inalienable right of self-determination of the Kashmiris, in violation of UN Security Council resolutions, and international law including the 4th Geneva Convention”. The declaration added, ‘We declare that the final settlement of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions is indispensable for durable peace in South Asia. We reiterate our call on India to: a) reverse its unilateral and illegal measures instituted since 5th August 2019; b) cease its oppression and human rights violations against the Kashmiris in Indian Illegally Occupied Jammu and Kashmir; c) halt and reverse attempts to alter the demographic structure and to redraw electoral constituencies in IIOJK; and d) take concrete and meaningful steps for full implementation of the UN Security Council resolutions on Jammu and Kashmir’.
Self determination, an inalienable right
The right to self-determination is not only a moral right but also a legal right. In the case of Kashmir, both India and Pakistan agreed to hold a plebiscite to determine the future status of the disputed state. By flouting its commitment to the United Nations, India qualifies as a rogue state to be subjected to international sanctions. A jus cogen of international law is pact sunt servanda, treaties are to be obeyed.
India’s obligations in regard to the Occupied Territory
In international law, a territory is considered “occupied” when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The definition of occupation and the obligations of the occupying power were initially codified at the end of the nineteenth century. The definition is enshrined in the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land annexed to the Fourth Hague Convention of 18 August 1907 (H.IV). Section III of the regulations details the rights and obligations of the military authority over enemy territory (Arts. 42–56). These are very old regulations that, according to the International Court of Justice, have acquired the status of international customary law (infra Jurisprudence). Contemporary international humanitarian law has clarified and added to the rights and duties of occupying forces, the rights of the populations of occupied territory, and the rules for administering such territory (GIV Arts. 47–78; API Arts. 63, 69, 72–79)
Several recent decisions by international courts have also confirmed that the occupying power is obliged to comply with its human rights obligations in occupied territories and in respect of people placed under its effective control as a result of occupation or detention. These decisions thus confirm that the application of international humanitarian law is complementary to the conventions on human rights in these situations. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has passed judgments on violations of the European Convention committed by European countries in relation to their intervention in Iraq and military occupation of the country (infra Jurisprudence).
According to humanitarian law, occupation falls in the definition of international armed conflict and is regulated as such by the four Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I. The occupying power faces specific obligations where it has an effective control over the territories occupied. These include obligations related to respect for human rights, law, and order, in addition to respect for relevant provisions of humanitarian law related to occupation. The basic obligations of the occupying power under IHL are to maintain law and order and public life in the occupied territory. For the most part, the occupying power must follow the laws that were already in force in that territory (H.IV Art. 43).
India’s perfidious leaders
The Indian Independence Act of 1947 (based on the Mountbatten Plan) provided for the lapse of paramountcy of the British Crown over the Indian states. It also gave each of these rulers the option to accede to the newly born dominions India or Pakistan or continue as an independent sovereign state.
Right after becoming independent, India harboured nefarious designs to annex the princely states through cajoling, coaxing, coercing and even through naked aggression. Vallabhai Patel and Krishna Menon tried every ploy to integrate these states into the Indian Union. At the time of Partition, the princely states covered 48 percent of the area of pre-Independent India and constituted 28 percent of its population.
Under duress, most of the rulers agreed to the dissolution of their respective states, surrendering control of thousands of villages, jagirs, palaces, and institutes, cash balances amounting to crores and a railway system of about 12,000 miles to the Indian government without receiving any compensation.
By 15 August 1947, the process of integration of princely states was almost complete except for a few, who held out. Some simply delayed signing the Instrument of Accession, like Piploda, a small state in central India that did not accede to India until March 1948.
Some states were a hard nut to crack for India. Junagadh formally acceded to Pakistan. Hyderabad and Kashmir declared that they intended to remain independent.
Jodhpur wanted to accede to Pakistan. But, Patel coerced the state’s ruler Hanvant Singh to accede to India. Patel agreed to connect Jodhpur with Kathiawar by rail and supply grain to it during famines.
Another state that wished to declare independence was Bhopal, which had a Muslim Nawab, Hamidullah Khan, ruling over a majority Hindu population. A close friend of the Muslim League, the Nawab was staunchly opposed to Congress rule. He had made clear his decision to attain independence to Mountbatten. However, the Mountbatten disappointinted him by stating that “no ruler could run away from the dominion closest to him”. By July 1947, the prince became aware of the large number of princes who had acceded to India and decided to follow suit.
Nizam Mir Usman Ali of Hyderabad presided over a largely Hindu population. When the British decided to leave, the Nizam was very clear on his demand for an independent state and consequently becoming a member of the British commonwealth of nations. Lord Mountbatten, however, made it very clear that the Crown would not agree to Hyderabad becoming a member of the British Commonwealth, except through either of the two new dominions.
On September 13, Indian troops were sent to Hyderabad in what came to be known as ‘Operation Polo’. In an armed encounter that lasted for about four days, the Indian army conquered the state. Later, in an attempt to reward the Nizam for his submission, he was made the governor of the state of Hyderabad.
The case of disputed Kashmir
Declassified Nehruvian documents reflect that Nehru was never sincere in holding a plebiscite in the occupied Kashmir. It delayed the plebiscite on one pretext or another until declaring that the United Nations’ resolutions were mediatory in nature. And, it was up to India to accept them or not.
Mirror image of Nehru’s documented perfidy:
Because of Nehru’s failure to keep promises, Sheikh Abdullah had begun to talk of independence. Nehru wanted to keep the bull at bay while concealing his desire to annex the disputed state. He made many assurances to tab Sheikh Abdullah’s over-ebullience.
Avtar Singh Bhasin (India and Pakistan: Neighbours at Odd) tells on page 63 on the basis of Nehruvian diaries, `Nehru addressed a lengthy letter to him [Sheikh Abdullah] on 25 August 1952 from Sonamarg, where he was then camping. After narrating the events since the accession of the State in October 1947, he went on to assure him of his commitment to the people of the State that the future would be decided by them alone, and if they wanted India to be put out of Kashmir, there would be no hesitation. He wrote, if the people of Kashmir clearly and definitely wish to part company from India, there the matter ends, however we may dislike it or however disadvantageous it may to India. If the Constituent Assembly told India to get out of Kashmir, we would get out, because under no circumstances can we remain here against the expressed will of the people.
Kashmir’s assembly’s `accession’ disowned, Security Council owned
Nehru banked on so-called Instrument of Accession and its authentication by `Constituent Assembly’. But in a strange quirk of volte face, Nehru declared, `after consideration of the problem, we are inclined to think that it [plebiscite] should be held under United Nations’ auspices (p. 28 ibid.). He reiterated in New Delhi on November3, 1951 that `we have made it perfectly clear before the Security Council that the Kashmir Constituent Assembly does not [insofar] as we are concerned come in the way of a decision by the Security Council, or the United Nations’(SWJ: Volume 4: page 292, Bhasin p.228). Again, at a press conference on June 11, 1951, he was asked `if the proposed constituent assembly of Kashmir “decides in favour of acceding to Pakistan, what will be the position?”’ he reiterated, `We have made it perfectly clear that the Constituent Assembly of Kashmir was not meant to decide finally any such question , and it is not in the way of any decision which may ultimate flow from the Security Council proceedings’ (SWJ: Volume 15:, Part II, page 394. Bhasin page 56). He re-emphasised his view once again at a press conference in New Delhi on November 3, 1951. He said `we have made it perfectly clear before the Security Council that the Kashmir Constituent Assembly does not [insofar as] we are concerned come in the way of a decision by the Security Council or the United Nations’.
Security Council disowned as just a non-binding mediator
It is flabbergasting that during the period 1947 to 1952, Nehru kept harping commitment to plebiscite. Then there was a sudden metamorphosis in his compliant attitude.
Bhasin points out that `there was a perceptible shift in his [Nehru’s] stand on July 24 1952` about the future of the State _ `if the decision of the Security Council was at variance with that of the Constituent Assembly’. Nehru said, `Unless the Security Council functioned under some other Sections of the Charter, it cannot take a decision which is binding upon us unless we agree to it. They are functioning as mediators and a mediator means getting people to agree(SWJ, Volume 19, page 241. Bhasin page 56).
Security Council re-owned
Bhasin points out (page 57 op. cit.) `At the same press conference on 24 July, 1952 when asked what the necessity of plebiscite was now that he had got the Constituent Assembly, he replied “Maybe theoretically you may be right. But we have given them an assurance and we stand by it (SWJ: Volume 19, pp. 240-241. Bhasin p. 57).
Nehru himself invokes UN’s intervention
Bhasin points out that Nehru made a ‘tactical error’. One `of committing himself to the UN’ (p. 28. op. cit.). But the real question to consider is how far the settlement in Kashmir would affect the rest of India’ (Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru: Volume 8: pages 335-340. Quoted by Bhasin, pages 26-27). Nehru spelled out Indian policy towards Kashmir. Extract: `In Kashmir, we or many of the Muslims there’.
Post-Nehru equivocal rhetoric
For about 70 years, India continued to abide by UN resolutions describing Jammu and Kashmir as a disputed state. Simultaneously, it continued to harp that Kashmir was her integral part (atoot ang). At the same time India told the world that Kashmir is a bilateral dispute extraneous to UN. With communication links cut off, food supplies blocked, even on Eid (Muslim annual prayer), occupied Kashmir remained a prison.
The lockdowns has made people’s lives miserable. Winter exacerbated their misery. Suspension of 4G internet made E commerce and online education a farce.
Apple orchards stands destroyed as also wood-carving tradesman. A December report of the Kashmir Chamber of Commerce and Industry, reported successive losses of Rs. 14,296.10 crore and Rs 17,800 crore, besides loss of 4.9 lakh jobs between August and December. In July 2020, it reported revenue loss of Rs 40,000 crore.
New domiciliary policy changed Kashmir’s demography. Currently, at least 17 lakh migrants have applied for a domicile certificate.
Also, with a nudge from the Centre, the underprivileged from other states like Bihar could rush to the Valley for a better life. According to the Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy, the unemployment rate in Jammu and Kashmir is currently 17.9 per cent, far higher than the national average of eight per cent. The domicile law has come at a time when, according to the Union home ministry, there are 84,000 government vacancies to be filled. That would reduce the job chances of real Kashmiris (365 since 370A, The Week, August 09, 2020).
The last nail
India abolished statehood of the disputed Kashmir to control it from the Centre. Large expanse of Kashmir land was allotted to the occupying forces. Now the draconian Unlawful Activities Prevention act is being clamped on women and children.
It is eerie that the whole architecture of India’s stand on Kashmir is erected on the mythical `instrument of accession’ and its endorsement by the disputed state’s assembly. Accession documents are un-registered with the UN.
The G20, the Global South and India
The G20 summit in India turned out to be not ordinary event. The summit of representatives of the largest economies and military-political potentials showed global trends in the struggle for leadership and development. The G20 meeting demonstrated India’s diplomatic triumph, which proved a rather profound understanding of world processes and trends. The most important consequence of the summit was the adoption of a new global economic and infrastructure project to export goods from India through the Middle East to Europe. In addition, the countries of the Global South have shown that they are not ready to oppose Russia openly and do not want to politicize the Ukrainian crisis.
The Group of Twenty originated at the turn of the XXI. During the deep economic and financial crisis in Asia, the developed countries of the West sought to formalize a new coordination structure. The idea was to create a forum to exchange views and global coordination of financial and economic issues. Then, the finance ministers of the Group of Eight solicited an initiative to expand the range of countries to discuss financial policy issues, inviting such large and actively growing states as China and India.
By the beginning of the XXI, there was an objective viewpoint in Western capitals that it was impossible to solve world problems without involving India and China in the problems of global governance. The idea of globalization was becoming dominant among intellectuals and development leaders during this period. After the collapse of bipolarity and the disintegration of the USSR, the world lost unnecessary dividing lines, ideological enmity and confrontation between the two blocs. Globalization was becoming a natural and necessary aspect of development. The idea originated in the UK and the USA and has become prevalent in the capitals of developed countries. Thus, the Group of Twenty was created.
Nonetheless, after the founding conference in Berlin in December 1999, the G20 was almost forgotten. Before the new financial crisis in 2008, there were no summits: the main format was the annual meetings of finance ministers and heads of central banks. The fact that the situation in the global economy was critical is indicated by the fact that the G20 summits met not once a year but as emergency meetings. The first, named “anti—crisis”, was held in November 2008 in Washington, the next in April 2009 in London, and, in Pittsburgh in September of the same year.
The severity of the economic crisis has passed over time, and the G20 has upgraded to the political level. The Forum, which unites countries from different parts of the world, is much more representative and balanced than the G7 and allows world leaders to meet without organizing an official visit to discuss current affairs. The Group of Twenty, major advanced and emerging economies collectively represent about 80-90% of the world’s gross national product, 70-80% of world trade, and two-thirds of the world’s population. The Group includes 19 major national economies, as well as The European Union as a joint participant.
The G20 Summit in New Delhi on September 9-10 was an outstanding event in the life of this organization. Three aspects can be stressed out. First, the G20 has expanded at the expense of the African Union. Secondly, the summit reached an agreement on creating a transport corridor that will be completed by India and its partners and is considered by New Delhi and the West as an alternative to the Chinese One Belt, One Road project. If this transport project is successfully implemented, it can change the balance of power in the global economy and significantly strengthen India’s position in the international system. Thirdly, the topic concerning the Ukrainian-Russian conflict was essentially secondary for the first time since February 2022 at a representative interstate forum. The countries of the Global South refused to politicize this conflict and take sides.
All three developments have become possible thanks to the successful work of Indian diplomacy. Apparently, it is safe to talk about India as a growing and established contender for the status of a great power. The last day of the summit was marked by a visit of its participants to the Raj Ghat memorial, created at the cremation site of the national hero of India – Mahatma Gandhi.
From the perspective of world politics, the most important idea was the creation of a new transport corridor, which was supported by all the largest economies in the world. It was decided to develop an action plan within a few months and start implementation. Its goal is to launch a large–scale project for the construction of railways and ports intended to transport goods from India to the Middle East and Europe. The memorandum of understanding, based on which the project is being created, is signed by Joseph Biden, Narendra Modi, and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman al Saud.
China’s excessive and active growth worries the most developed countries of the world, especially the United States and Great Britain. Some concern is also present in a number of Asian capitals, including Japan, India, South Korea, and partly Vietnam. Growth generates China’s ambitions, and intentions to spread its power and influence have a particular impact on the actions of other major players. Having a complicated history of relations with China, several countries are looking for formats and systems of cooperation to deter possible aggressive attempts to expand their influence and growth. Many intellectuals are convinced that the confrontation between the United States and China will become the main and determining factor of the XXI. The idea of a new transport corridor, which has become a demonstration of the success of the diplomacy of India and its partners in the West, has a specific potential for diversifying transport supplies and hedging the risks of Chinese growth.
Therefore, the G-20 summit was a success for India and demonstrated a sufficiently deep understanding of world processes, stability, and professionalism of its diplomacy. New Delhi’s ideas and projects have been supported by many players, including the conflicting West and East. India has become a conductor and mentor of the interests of the Global South. The expansion of the G20 at the summit in India at the expense of the African Union has become a symbol of this. In addition, despite the high level of conflict in current international relations and pressure, India managed to protect the economic summit from excessive politicization and collective condemnation.
The G20 New Delhi declaration: Is “One future” possible?
The G20 New Delhi Declaration, themed “One earth, one family, one future,” stands as a remarkable diplomatic achievement for India, even in the face of intricate geopolitical dynamics challenging the notion of “one future.” It demonstrates how India’s diplomatic masterstrokes, whether the breakthrough on Ukraine or the inclusion of the African Union as a permanent G20 member, transformed the seemingly impossible into reality. Specifically, the joint statement on the war in Ukraine by the West and the Russia-China bloc was unimaginable. The absence of Russian President Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping raised questions and concerns, but India’s Foreign Minister Jaisnakar addressed it as “not unusual.” Against all odds, India’s diplomacy successfully built bridges between the divided powers. How did the G20 New Delhi Declaration work this magic?
The language used in the 37-page G20 New Delhi Declaration is a testament to the power of wordsmithing, persuading everyone involved. While Western nations were eager to address the conflict in Ukraine, India deftly navigated this sensitive terrain. The declaration tactfully states, “Today’s era must not be one of war” in reference to the Ukrainian conflict, avoiding explicit condemnation of Russia. Notably, Prime Minister Modi engaged in a telephone conversation with President Putin just before the summit, demonstrating Russia’s willingness to engage in discussions regarding the Ukrainian conflict without falling into the blame game. In contrast, the Bali Declaration from the previous year used more robust language, explicitly condemning the “aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine” and demanding a complete and unconditional withdrawal. Foreign Minister Jaisakar aptly remarked, “Bali was Bali, New Delhi is New Delhi,” signifying the evolving dynamics of diplomacy.
Prime Minister Modi specifically emphasized India’s desire to become the voice of the Global South. Another notable achievement was India’s successful push for the African Union’s inclusion as a permanent G20 member. This strategic move reflects India’s commitment to representing the Global South, considering the African Union’s growing significance, representing 55 states and a quarter of the world’s population by 2050.
The recommendations enshrined in the New Delhi Declaration hold the promise of fostering “One future” if diligently implemented. Initiatives such as the Green Development Pact, Climate and Sustainable Finance, Financial Institution Reforms, and Gender Equality are vital objectives that benefit both developed and developing nations. The declaration made significant strides toward addressing climate and sustainable finance concerns by advocating for a robust replenishment of the Green Climate Fund. It underscored the imperative of securing $5.8 to $5.9 trillion by 2030 to support developing countries in fulfilling their Nationally Determined Contributions.
Nevertheless, the question lingers: Can the G20 New Delhi Declaration genuinely usher in “One earth, one family, one future”? In the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, the G20 witnessed a convergence of positions between Western nations and Russia-China, aligning with India’s aspirations. However, Western nations may face domestic scrutiny for their approach toward the war in Ukraine at the G20 meeting. While India may have achieved diplomatic success with the G20 Delhi Declaration, the core issue between Western nations and Russia remains the war in Ukraine. In my opinion, India has no interest in becoming a mediator between Russia and the Western nations to find a solution to the war in Ukraine. Without resolving this conflict, India will not be able to bridge the gap between Western nations and Russia in a true sense.
Even though PM Modi has been trying to become the voice of the Global South, China is far ahead of India in Africa. The truth is that “funds are power” in the Global South. If India and other Western nations fail to provide funds in the Global South, then India’s dream of becoming the voice of the Global South will remain unreal. In the BRICS meeting, President Xi Jinping emphasized industrialization in the Global South, which implies more infrastructure projects. Now it will depend on how far Western countries are willing to go in the context of the Global South.
The absence of China’s President Xi Jinping at the G20 summit in New Delhi raised eyebrows. Recent developments, such as the joint commitment by President Xi and Prime Minister Modi to resolve border issues during the BRICS meeting in Johannesburg and China’s release of a controversial map laying claim to Arunachal Pradesh and Aksai Chin just before the G20 summit, have added complexity to India’s diplomatic agenda. Post-G20, the China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, under the Ministry of State Security, accused India of ‘sabotaging’ the G20 for its own interests. This underscores China’s unease with India’s deepening ties with Western powers. The “No Limit Partnership” between China and Russia is a concern for India, prompting a closer alignment with the West. While the G20 confirmed the centrality of the US-India partnership to the US Indo-Pacific strategy, it is evident that New Delhi may have to face difficult national security issues with Beijing. As India approaches elections, Prime Minister Modi’s firm stance on China is expected to persist.
Achieving Sustainable Development Goals and addressing climate change concerns are paramount priorities, as agreed upon by all member countries. The real challenge lies in translating these goals into tangible actions on the ground. As witnessed with the Paris Agreement on climate change and the challenges related to it, the G20’s aspirations must not remain mere objectives.
Clearly, Western nations aspire to strengthen their ties with India. At the same time, India plays an important role for the Global South and the Russia-China bloc. The diplomatic success of the G20 New Delhi Declaration has bolstered India’s position in this increasingly polarized geopolitical landscape. The key challenge for New Delhi will be to navigate its relations with China while bridging the divides in the world’s power dynamics.
Of Game of Priorities
Following India’s moon mission, the Chandryan-3 safely landed over the moon, triggering questions and debate among scientists, political pundits, and laymen of Pakistan, as Pakistan has never been on a moon mission. However, whenever one of the twin nations or even a younger nation makes any achievement or progress in any field whether economic, social, political, or diplomatic, it raises questions for the other country, such as Pakistan and India. Besides, the humongous discrepancy between the global north and the global south also poses questions about why one is progressive and the other is not. The success of developed, developing, and least developed countries is always pregnant with some distinct decisions, so is their fruit. Simply put, only the priorities of a nation can make it or destroy it. Developed and developing countries engineer different priorities that result in different outcomes.
Each country designs its priorities accordingly. It’s the reason Pakistan lags behind in the global race because the world’s developed or most developing countries prioritize the economic and social well-being of their people, whereas Pakistan’s top priority is her security, which consumes most of its budget, leaving other sectors on the verge of destruction, despite the fact that Pakistan is replete with a myriad of natural and human resources. Resultantly, Pakistan undergoes the same fate of backwardness even in the 21st century.
Despite consuming most of Pakistan’s budget, the security challenges remain alarming in some border areas of the country. However, the internal security challenges have been tackled almost successfully. The security agencies failed to terminate the insecurity in the country completely even after two decades of war with Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). As per the research, armed group attacks in Pakistan increased by 79% during the first half of the current year. Basically, the terror-related incidents peaked in 2013. The average was 4 attacks per day, and as a result, nearly 2700 fatalities had taken place. Similarly, the terror-related incidents didn’t stop but ebbed over time. Pakistan’s priority, even regarding tackling terrorists or insurgents, is ineffective. Crushing militants is impractical since Afghanistan is an all-weather safe haven for them. Whenever the Pakistani military attacks them, the top brass of the TTP relocate to Afghanistan. So it is totally difficult to end terror-related attacks and insurgencies within Pakistan, if Islamabad does not find a constructive approach to deal with them. There are two ways to exterminate them. Firstly, there must be a truce under the umbrella of Pakistan’s constitution. Secondly, if the previous doesn’t work, Pakistan must get a clear stance from Kabul to curb their safe havens for TTP top brass and then take actions accordingly. Apart from this, it is equally difficult because the Afghan Taliban and the Pakistani Taliban belong to the same ethnic group.
Previously, the ceasefire between the banned outfit and Pakistani officials could not bear reasonable fruit; instead, spared her time to amass weapons and organize order within the outfit, which in consequence, can be far more dangerous than it used to be. So, it is better to keep everything in mind before making any policy regarding this. Comparatively, no developed country places as much emphasis on security. If anyone pays attention to security, it comes with economic benefits, as demonstrated by the United States. The secure environment also provides economic opportunities. Also, only working on other sectors but security can bear no fruit because in an uncertain situation, no business can grow.
Apart from this, in every budget statement, economic development is prioritized, but the allocation of the budget and the practical approach differ. Key indicators of economic development are deemed Gross Domestic Production (GDP), a low poverty rate, low inflation, human development, etc. However, Pakistan’s performance in each is noncompetitive with even regional countries. Our birth partner, India, occupies the 5th largest economy in the world, whereas Pakistan occupies the 46th largest economy as of 2023. The poverty rate is 37% in FY 2023, as per the World Bank, which is higher than regional competitors; the inflation rate has crossed 30%; and human development is equal to none.
Where the global players’ key focus is economic growth, creating multiple job opportunities, balancing demand and supply, increasing purchasing parity, decreasing or even exterminating current account deficits, and terminating dependence on essential imported goods, Pakistan compellingly, through flawed policies, relies on imports even for essential consumable items, which creates a current account deficit. Mainly, Pakistan’s problem lies in the current account deficit. Low exports burden Pakistan’s current account, which accelerates the prices of consumable items and results in cost-push inflation. Besides, expensive imported raw materials and a higher interest rate increase the production cost of domestic products, which discourages local producers and further burdens Pakistan’s current account by importing those goods. On the contrary, developed or most developing countries encourage local production of essential items instead of relying on costly imports.
Also, the black economy of Pakistan adds to the problem because it is unaccountable and doesn’t come into the tax net, thus reducing revenue. The black economy includes a wide range of illegal activities such as corruption, money laundering, tax evasion, and underground and concealed economic activities from the eyes of the government. The black economy of Pakistan is estimated to be worth billions of dollars, and it’s increasing rapidly. As per surveys by many organizations, the black economy is going to be worth trillions of dollars. If these economic activities come under the tax net, strengthening Pakistan’s revenue and proper expenditure, Pakistan will be among its top global competitors.
Additionally, Pakistan’s salt mines and coal resources are the second- and third-largest globally. Pakistan ranks fifth in terms of the country’s greatest gold resources. Pakistan’s copper is one of its most abundant natural resources, and the country ranks seventh in the world in terms of its amount. Despite being rich in terms of natural resources, their improper use renders Pakistan a poor country. Negligence towards the proper utility of natural resources is one of the major contributors to existing economic woes. If natural resources are prioritized and contracts are provided to local companies instead of international ones, more than half of Pakistan’s problems will be resolved. As local companies will hire local engineers and workers that will provide employment, hence increasing purchasing power and impacting poverty.
Apart from this, the most prioritized issue among developed nations is the social well-being of their denizens. For this, their key focus remains on education, an effective health care system, life expectancy, nutrition, empowerment of vulnerable groups, quality of employment, quantity of free time, availability of clean water, cost of living, and gender parity.
But, the education system in Pakistan is in the worst condition. It is mainly based on theory, an outdated syllabus, incompetent teachers, and an unfriendly learning environment where students are not encouraged, leaving a few institutes. Our literacy rate stuck between 60% and 65%, not even crossing 70%. But when it comes to learning ability, the rate even decreases. However, global competitors have garnered even more than a 90% literacy rate. Not to mention others, even India and Bangladesh have surpassed Pakistan in adult literacy rates. Apart from that, Pakistan has established universities, but scarcely have they managed any slots even among the 500 best universities in the world. Consequently, Pakistan’s graduates remain unable to compete globally. In contrast, India’s MIT and IIT are fully competing in the global race. Since technology is the future, India has culminated at a higher level, but Pakistan is too far away. As they have occupied key positions as CEOs in top tech companies such as Google, Microsoft, IBM, and many more.
Besides, the health care system in Pakistan is also not up to par. As per the world population view, Pakistan is ranked even after India, Bangladesh, Iran, and Ecuador. This is a matter of concern for Pakistan. Since it’s one of the fundamental rights of denizens of a country, this sector too must be focused and invested in. However, the world’s countries invest hefty amounts of their resources in their health care and health research because a healthy individual contributes constructively to the well-being of society and brings about positive change.
Apart from this, Pakistan is also behind the eight ball in life expectancy, nutrition, empowerment of vulnerable groups, quality of employment, quantity of free time, availability of clean water, cost of living, and gender parity. Apart from being fundamental rights of the people of a country, these are the indicators that show the development of a country.
To encapsulate, the priorities of a nation play a crucial role in shaping its future. If any country prioritizes anything other than the basic rights, social well-being, and economic growth of the country, the kismet of that country remains in the doldrums. So, Pakistan too should reset its priorities and put into action their words so that Pakistan can be a global player and equally confer each basic right and facility on its citizens.
World News2 days ago
Seymour Hersh: “Zelensky’s army no longer has any chance of a victory”
Finance4 days ago
Russian response to sanctions: billions in dollar terms are stuck in Russia
Science & Technology4 days ago
From rockets to spider silk, young scientists wow the jury – and each other!
Eastern Europe4 days ago
How is Iran’s growing paranoia affect its relations with Azerbaijan?
World News3 days ago
Is America in decline?
Travel & Leisure4 days ago
Exploring Italy by train
Eastern Europe3 days ago
The Solution to Ending the War in Ukraine Lies in the Ability to Get the Other Side’s Point of View
Defense3 days ago
U.S. Sanctions and Russia’s Weapon Systems: A New Game in the Quest of High-Tech Microchip