Animals love Shakespeare

There is a radical difference between individual borrowings and governmental borrowings. If a particular individual incurs a debt, it is his legal obligation to pay back the debt. If he fails to pay it back, he could be prosecuted for his failure. The prosecution could result in the confiscation of his property. However, if he happens to be propertyless, the prosecution could result in the confiscation of his liberty, for a specified period of time. It all sounds very logical. He who borrows must pay back. But the logic is not operative in the case of governmental borrowings. If a particular government incurs a debt, it 'is not at all its legal obligation to pay back the debt. It cannot be prosecuted for the non-payment of the debt. Nor can it be imprisoned like the individual defaulter. The strange fact is that when a particular government gets a loan, it is not the government itself, but the state which becomes the debtor. If the borrowing government is unable to pay back the debt, it is absolutely free to enjoy its inability. It can bequeath its debts to the successor governments. The successor governments are bound to pay back the debts, which were never incurred by them. The Bible is absolutely right when it says that the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons. No wonder, every child in Pakistan is born, a debtor and dies a debtor. We owe billions of dollars to our foreign creditors. Given the freedom to pass on its debts to its successor, almost every Pakistani government in the past borrowed as much as it could and enjoyed the money as much as it could, and made things as horrible for the masses as it could. The lenders lend only because they have surplus money to lend. What would they do with their surplus money, if there were to be no borrowers? Their money would gradually rust to dust. In order to save it from a dusty doom, they must invest it somewhere. The poor countries are this somewhere. The poor countries are always ready to help the rich countries by borrowing the latters surplus money. The poor countries say sympathetically to the rich countries: Please, dont be depressed. You can depend on us for your rescue. Invest your money here. Well look after your money. It will grow and grow off the bones of our masses. The poor are born to help the rich. If the lending business were to be banned, the rich countries would be the greatest losers. The rich countries advance loans to the poor countries with a specific mission. They know that if loans were not made available to the poor people, these people would be forced to create their own resources. And once they were able to create their own resources; it would become impossible for the traditional exploiters to exploit the traditional exploiters. The extinction of loans would be the extinction of the international economic vandalism. No wonder, the lending countries have been lending to the poor countries with a malicious mission. The mission is to perpetuate the economic serfdom of the borrowing countries. If we desire the poor countries to be affluent, we must assassinate all the present day Shylocks. The poor countries must create their own resources or honourably perish: It is better to rule in hell than serve in heaven. Every past government in Pakistan borrowed as much as it could. It spent the money the way it fancied to spend, but passed on the repayment-obligation to its successor. The successor borrowed as much as it could and spent the money the way it fancied to spend, but passed on the repayment-obligation to its successor. The new successor borrowed as much as it could. Like its predecessors, it spent the money the way it fancied to spend and passed on the repayment-obligation to its successor. The process went on and on ad infinitum. As a result of the transferability principle of the repayment-obligation, our total debts today are kissing the seventh heaven. We have two immortal passions: A passion for borrowing and a passion for transferring our repayment-obligation to our kids. In Pakistan, the fathers are pampered by their babies. The fathers spend, the babies supply the money. When Wordsworth said, child is father of man, he was predicting about our economic affairs. Neither a lender, nor a borrower be, says Shakespeare. Actually, Shakespeare means that both the lender and the borrower are shameless parasites. When a lender lends, he becomes dependent on the interest, which he receives from the borrower. When the borrower borrows, he becomes dependent on the money he borrows. Only animals practise the Shakespearean economics. They neither lend, nor borrow. They create their own resources. They love Shakespeare. We dislike the Bard. Animals love self-reliance. We worship self-humiliation. The writer retired as professor of the Department of English, Government College University, Lahore.