Pakistan must nationalise the Jamaat-ud-Dawa

No, seriously

The Pakistani government is unable to raise fiscal resources by getting people and businesses to pay their taxes. The Jamaat-ud-Dawa can—it imposes a flat tax of 2.5% of annual savings on each family. It also raises resources through remittances from abroad. And its collection of hides of animals slaughtered for Eid-ul-Adha should bring a smile on the faces of public finance professors.

The Pakistani government is unable to provide basic public services like security, education and healthcare. The Jamaat-ud-Dawa, on the other hand, does so competently.

The Pakistani government has a problem—the Jamaat-ud-Dawa also engages in terrorism, and it will do the whole world a whole lot of good if it would give up this line of business. So why not nationalise the non-state actor? Doing so will not only inject transparency in the links between the Pakistani state and the jihadi establishment but also give the Pakistani government a shot in the arm.

6 thoughts on “Pakistan must nationalise the Jamaat-ud-Dawa”

  1. “So why not nationalise the non-state actor?”

    Nitin, have you learned nothing about socialism? 🙂 The reason JuD is doing so well is precisely because its a private enterprise.

    “The Pakistani government has a problem—the Jamaat-ud-Dawa also engages in terrorism,”

    You mean to say Pakiland govt doesn’t engage in terrorism! I am sure it’s news to PA and ISI….

    One the other hand, may be Pakiland govt should nationalize JuD. That way JuD can be render non-functional, as most govt institutions are.

  2. Apparently the deal is that the schools and clinics will continue to run under government oversight and different names. See here.

  3. Agree with Chandra. The best way to destroy the effectiveness of any organisation is to let it be run by a bunch of babus. Wait, there’s a whole post waiting to be written there!

  4. Is this a prescription to convert non-state actors into state actors, thereby they can be targeted as per rule of law for state actors?

Comments are closed.