Haven't found the Essay You Want?
For Only $12.90/page

Critique “Whither Pakistan? A five-year forecast” Essay

In international relations, peacetime is not only the absence of war or conflict, but also the presence of cultural and economic understanding. We often say things without really realizing what we are saying. It does not make sense to take moral umbrage at the expression of such opinions and label people with differing perceptions as traitors followed by the use of force to coerce them into staying together. That kind of a reaction can further strengthen the desire to break off. In this article “Whither Pakistan?

A five-year forecast” Pervaiz Hoodbhoy, who has taught for 35 years in Quaid-i-Azam University Islamabad and currently teaching at Lahore University of Management Sciences, mentions the perception of declining speed of Pakistan in the US media and some insiders surprised by the declining speed. His concerned audience is the public of Pakistan and the government and army as well in some exceptions. He states that the army and government of Pakistan have a big role to play until the whole nation accepts this extremist threat.

Hoodbhoys limited self-analysis and contradictory support for the main argument ultimately fails, to convince the reader completely, of the credibility of his case. He presents his argument effectively using simple vocabulary, convincing tone, coherent progression and organization of ideas. In this article, the writer states that officials and the US media have exaggerated how close Pakistan is to collapse while some insiders are surprised by its declining speed. To save the nation, Pakistan political leadership and army must face the extremist threat, something they have finally begun to do.

In this article “Whither Pakistan? A five-year forecast” Pervaiz Hoodbhoy explains the perception of decline of Pakistan by the extremist threat in the US and inside Pakistan. The article is organized in such a way that it attracts the attention of the reader. The author does not discuss whether the decline of Pakistan is good or not. He makes the pedagogical point that we need to examine all the assertions we make. One agrees with the authors point on the decline of Pakistan being exaggerated in US media. It’s the impact of mass media what people usually perceive of something.

There will be a conflicting opinion of readers when author describes the response of insiders. They are surprised by the actual declining pace of Pakistan. Here one definitely thinks what these insiders would have thought the declining pace of Pakistan will be and what does the US think of it. What if the thinking of insiders was the same of the US media? Discussing upon the point that Pakistan actually nurtured the Taliban and their current threat to Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal, Hoodbhoy doesn’t explain why there was the need to actually accept them to their territory.

He doesn’t explain the double game Pakistan government were playing with the US and the Taliban. Although the reader does agree with the point that the cost of this all is immense that Pakistan is still paying yet does not find the explanation of the double game Pakistan government wanted to play with. Regarding the issue of Taliban impact on nuclear arsenals of Pakistan, Hoodbhoy does not define an Urban Taliban which leaves a gap in the context. For reader, there seems to be a big difference to the approach of an educated scientist and the normal person approach.

From the experiences, one has learned to understand life with reason and logic; one has established his idea of reality; and believes that reality is what one senses and perceives. The reader does agree with the point that the presence of the scientists with radical Islamic approach makes the outside invasion to the nuclear assets improbable. The reader does agree with the point of author when he suggests the US its role for the eradication of the extremist threat. The US and some other countries have also suffered with the widespread extremism throughout the world.

They should carry on their financial assistance; otherwise the economic collapse of Pakistan seems probable. Some of these terrorist activities of these extremists include the 9/11 incident, attacks in Denmark, Mumbai attacks etcetera are all the consequences of extremism. So it’s the need of hour to chalk out a proper plan against this threat rather than just killing the humanity (Killing Terrorists vs. Eradicating Terrorism). Hoodbhoy suggests that Pakistani leadership and army must face the extremist threat until the whole nation agrees with them. It is the difference in the way of thinking of people of Pakistan towards Taliban.

Due to anti-American nature some supported them as fighter against the US and some thought them to be Islamic fighters. The attitude of people towards the US and the Taliban need changes if they seek to prevent from the deterioration. Hoodbhoy makes use of a convincing tone to get an ascent of the reader to his approach. He highlights those points which grab the attention of the reader. He uses a serious tone while describing the US media perception and the insiders surprise on declining speed of Pakistan. He uses emotional appeal while describing the role of Pakistan army in nurturing Taliban on their territory and its consequences.

In Pakistan’s Government double game during war in Afghanistan, they wanted to use them both in Afghanistan as well as in a low intensity fight in Kashmir. But they didn’t know the consequences of this double game. The price of the prevarication of Govt. was immense including, Swat destruction, which was once a tourists point, and terrorizing of about 10% territory of the country. Suicide bombings, destruction of schools and eradication of all modern and secular things includes in the consequences of those nurtured Taliban’s.

The writer uses emotional appeal to describe all these consequences. The author describes the aim of Taliban with a tone including a sense of warning. He does not use taunting but a mixed sort of approach while describing the attitudes of the public of Pakistan towards the US and Taliban. Those people are hesitant to accept the war on terror against Taliban due to their anti-American nature by considering them fighters against the US as well as the Islamic fighters. He says that Pakistan leadership and army have to take the challenge until the attitudes of their public matches theirs.

The writer does make use of logical reasoning in discussing different aspects of decline of Pakistan. He is logical in most of his opinions yet misses out on some of them. The writer is using the claim to make the point that we need to examine all the assertions we make. We often say things without really realizing what we are saying. “If in 1945 someone had written an article entitled Whither India? A five-year forecast that began as follows: “First, the bottom line: India will not break up. That’s the good news. ” Clearly there would have been many people in India who would indeed have considered that good news.

But the many demanding a Muslim state at that time would have considered the same news terrible. And those people were actually very happy that India did break up. ” (Dissecting Hoodbhoys Logic). At the very least the possibility of such a perception should remain open. It cannot be taken as a self-evident truth that has universal acceptance. Similarly he is logical in explaining how Taliban’s are actually nurtured by us ourselves by accepting them on our soil during Soviet Union invasion of Afghanistan yet he misses out on the fact that why and what were the reasons Pakistan actually accepted them.

These Taliban’s might have wanted to fight against US with their counterparts in Afghanistan yet at that time no one knew that what cost they ‘ll eventually have to pay for this. Pakistan did help them fighting in the war in Afghanistan but they didn’t know the plan of Taliban’s to eradicate the radical system from society and implement Shariah throughout the country, fortunately which is not going to happen, according to the author, until army is in control.

The author states that to save the nation, Pakistani leadership and army must squarely face the extremist threat until the whole nation agrees to fight against them. Then the author also describes his opinion to the nuclear arsenal threat but his opinion does not appear to be logical. He states that the scientist and engineers with radical Islamic views are also a threat. Here the author is prone to a logical fallacy that. It goes to William James psychologist’s fallacy which was marked as “It occurs when an observer presupposes the universality of their own perspective when analyse a behavioural event” (152).

Although he approaches urban Taliban as a threat to our nuclear yet he does not bring into account the fact that there is a large difference between the approach of an educated scientist and an illiterate person. The writer thinks logically in stating the US role. He states that the US role is critical in this scenario as extremism is a worldwide threat now which is that the US, in alliance with China, India and Iran, should formulate a plan against extremist’s threat.

Pakistan should not be left alone in this war on terror and the US has to continue its financial assistance; otherwise the collapse is just a matter of months. Although, the writer uses logos throughout the article yet there are some exceptions where he misses out.. The author organizes his writing with a purpose to highlight that how Pakistan got on the track of declining. He organizes them properly starting with his opinion on the perception of declining speed of Pakistan in the US and the surprise for the insiders. In fact the picture looks different from either side.

The perception of Pakistanis is different in US just because of its portrayal of mass media of the US. The author states that the collapse is not impending yet it is like a burning fuse. The situation is not that critical which has eventually surprised some insiders who had long ago warned against extremist threat when it all started. For these insiders, the threat was imminent as they had already judged the results of this threat. They knew that it was not only war against US, but they would also try to eradicate the secular systems in society throughout the country to implement Shariah values.

He states the role of Pakistan army in nurturing Taliban and gives an account of their double game. He also describes his opinion to the nuclear arsenal threat that the scientist and engineers with radical Islamic views can cause. Although this makes the foreign seizure improbable yet the inner threat is probable. Here the author is prone to a logical fallacy that. At this particular point, the author misses out on explaining the difference between an urban and rural Taliban. He describes the role of Pakistani leadership and army until they get the support of their nation.

He also describes the US and its ally’s role in this regard. The writer organizes the article perfectly to attract the attention of the reader. In a nutshell, the extremist threat can only be eradicated through a properly formulated plan. The perception of what others think can only be changed through mass media as it has a great influence on the way of thinking of people. Although it was our own mistake to nurture the Taliban in our own soil yet the nation needs to support their government and army at this critical hour to eradicate the extremism.

The role of international allies is important as well to aid Pakistan financially and chalk out a proper plan against the extremist threat as it’s not only a threat to Pakistan but the whole world as well. Works Cited “Dissecting Hoodbhoy’s Logic. ” TheSouthAsianIdea Weblog. Web. 12 Apr. 2012. . James, William. Psychologist’s fallacy: The Principles of Psychology, p. 152, Vol 1. H. Holt and Company, 1918. Print. “Killing Terrorists vs. Eradicating Terrorism. ” Assassination Science. Web. 12 Apr. 2012. .

Essay Topics:

Sorry, but copying text is forbidden on this website. If you need this or any other sample, we can send it to you via email. Please, specify your valid email address

We can't stand spam as much as you do No, thanks. I prefer suffering on my own