Managing Pakistan's failure

[shiv]

hmmm.....this strange fascination with 1958-2001 is very interesting! and the aversion to post 2001 is also illuminating. was it not in the post-'01 era that the US increasingly came into loggerheads with Pak? selling weapons to Pak has been a constant US policy. whether in 1958 or 2001 or 2012, it's been happening. what makes anyone think that US taking forces out of Pak will reduce US weapons sales to Pak? isn't this too much myopia? US forces leaving from Af-Pak just means that US will be more shielded from the direct consequences of their actions and therefore will show less inhibition in showering its grace on Pak.

The dates 1958 to 2001 came up only in a discussion between me and brihaspati in which he was posting lists of arms sales after 2000-2001 and I asked him to go back to the 1950s for that. The US can certainly continue to pour money and arms into Pakistan after leaving and your contention seems to be that at least if the USA stays in Pakistan they will get punished. By leaving you feel the US will be shielded.

I think that 10 years is such a long time that you have forgotten the events of the last decade and can be excused for being totally ignorant of US Pak relations in 50 plus years. Most people are ignorant in any case.

The US supplied arms to Pakistan from the mid-1950s till 1989-90 when the USSR withdrew from Afghanistan. The arms supply and largesse to Pakistan in this period was to keep the Pakistani army loyal to them So while the Taliban required mainly small to medium arms, the Pakistani armed forces got heavy ticket items like F-16s, Stingers, artilery and Firefinder radars that were applicable only against India.

The period 1990-2001 was the period when US money and arms to Pakistan dried up. This was the period when all the extra small arms and the trained Islamists went on a rampage in Afghanistan and in Kashmir. They succeeded in taking over Afghanistan and they failed to take over Kashmir. Afghanistan became the de-facto "home" of Islamic terrorism, and Pakistan escaped the pain. Pakistan did not actually feel any pain until well after 9-11.

9-11 brought Pakistan much largesse from the USA and brought the US mostly pain. But the US and NATO did manage to push back Islamic militants from Afghanistan to Pakistan. The US (stupidly) expected Pakistan to kill/arrest/check those militants. Pakistan did not do that. They just gave them a safe haven. But Pakistan was no longer able to use those militants in Kashmir because the border was sealed. Pakistan's anti-India action shifted to audacious "punishment" of Indian "soft targets" in cities from 2000 to 2009.

And in the period 2000 to 2009 Pakistan

• Got more than US$ 1.5 billion a year in US arms aid
• Did not lift a finger to actually control the terrorists who were being pushed into Pakistan from Afghanistan, but protected them
• Found it difficult to enter Kashmir and embarked on the plan of hitting targets all over India

From 2010 to 2012 we have a situation where

• Pakistan is full of Islamic militants who are ever ready to attack Afghanistan and are not cowed down by US/NATO forces
  The Pakistani army is stronger than ever before to face up to an Indian attack
  The US is getting tired in Afghanistan and wants out

More than any other country it is the US that seems to be hotly debating the way forward. Disparate voices have been coming out of the US ranging from asking India to do more, to helping Pakistan more, to ditching Pakistan. The US has no firm Pakistan policy like it had from 1958 to 1990. In that era the policy was to help Pakistan against india as long as Pakistan helped the US in the cold war. Exactly the same policy was re-established in 2000. The US decided to help Pakistan against India, in exchange for Pakis fighting the Taliban/Al Qaeda, not the Soviets. This is a war that the US is losing but only a minority in the US seems to want to disengage from Pakistan. From Hilary Clinton down the idea seems to be to "stay engaged" in Pakistan.

Guess what would make the US stay in Pakistan really pleasant?

My take on this is that if the US is considered a foreign occupying force the Pakistanis would make things warm for the USA. If the US is considered a positive contributing force in Pakistan, the antagonism to the US would go down. From 1958 to 2012 the primary US tactic of making Pakistanis welcome the US has been to provide Pakis with arms against India.

If the US wants a comfortable stay in Pakistan, that arms aid is likely to feature prominently. If the US is kicked out, they are less likely to be sympathetic to keeping Pakistan a "most favored non NATO ally".

Unless the Pakis see the US as an occupying imperial force, Pakistanis are not going to fight to free themselves from the grip of the US. Now how to show that the US is an occupying imperial force so that Pakistanis can fight for their freedom?

[A_Gupta]

It has been pointed out to me that the Pakjabi + Mohajir elite are responsible for periodic mass deaths. The first was in 1947, the next was in 1971, then the post-Soviet mess in Afghanistan in the 1990s. In each case many hundreds of thousands, if not millions, died because of the ambitions and/or insecurities of these elite. Going by the approximately every 25 years of such eruptions, the next one is due this decade. It would be wrong to close our eyes to such a pattern.

[shiv]

Just a short summary:

1. The US will try and stay engaged in the region
2. The traditional US tactic of making themselves acceptable to Pakis is to arm them against India
3. Pakis love US arms and money, but are ambiguous about the US presence in the region. They do not welcome the US presence but are not fighting it either.
4. Pakistanis will need to see the US as an imperial occupying force to resist the US
5. To stay in Pakistan, the US will need to show Pakistan that they are allies. For Pakistan an ally is an ally against India, and that is what the US has always done.
6. It matters little to India whether the US goes or stays as long as the US does not make Pakistan stronger against India
7. Provoking Pakistanis to see the US as an imperial occupying force is one way of forcing a stalemate into a confrontation.
8. Indians begging the US not to supply arms to Pakistan will have as little effect as Indians begging the US to stay or leave. The Indian viewpoint does not matter to the US
9. Indian actions do matter to the Pakistanis though. What is good for India is considered bad for Pakis. What is bad for India is loved by Pakis
10. Provoking Pakistanis by calling the US an imperial Christian occupying force with the Islamic Pakistan army as US slaves is a way of shaming Pakistanis. That is all. It will have no more effect on US Pakistani relations than begging the US not to supply arms to Pakistan.

But I see it as a good policy to follow. It puts Pakistanis in an Ajit like "Liquid oxygen" situation. If India wants the US to leave then it means Pakistanis must ask the US to stay. But if the US stays, Indians are laughing and calling Muslim Pakistanis slaves and the US as a Christian occupying force.

All fun onlee. It will have no effect whatsoever. But if it works it would be totally hilarious.

[devesh]

If the US wants a comfortable stay in Pakistan, that arms aid is likely to feature prominently. If the US is kicked out, they are less likely to be sympathetic to keeping Pakistan a "most favored non NATO ally".

Unless the Pakis see the US as an occupying imperial force, Pakistanis are not going to fight to free themselves from the grip of the US. Now how to show that the US is an occupying imperial force so that Pakistanis can fight for their freedom?

the rest of your post is known to all. it was simply you, once again, assuming something and then bestowing your gyaan in your belief that everybody else doesn't know all that. anyway, we can all be excused for our delusions of grandeur every once in awhile!!

the above 4 sentences are the the only place which are relevant in this debate b/c the main contention seems to be "kicking out US, so Pakis can benefit". it is your contention that "if US is kicked out, it is less likely to fund Paki military". this is a very complex statement. if this has to materialize, then US has to stay on in Pak for some more time. that is the only way to generate enough animosity in Pak to "kick" US out. would you agree with this contention of mine, that US has to stay on for longer if Pak has to be motivated enough to kick them out?

another assumption is that US will continue to play around in Pak even after they detect that they are no longer welcome by the power centers (army and feudals, with mullah support). if US detects this trend increasing, why do you think US will continue to hand around in Pak? they are likely to have learned the lesson of the British. the British managed to "get out" without being "kicked out". the same lesson America might put into practice, no? in which case, Paki animosity against US will never materialize to the extent needed, but it will have gained the foundation of a unifying Islamist meme against "white Christian" menace. if such a meme develops and then US conveniently "gets out" without getting "kicked out", where will the unifying Islamist meme turn to next?

"Pakistanis fighting to free from US grip": this is an interesting statement. which "Pakistani" are we talking about? the Mullah Pakistani, the feudal Pakistani, non-feudal elite Pakjabi Pakistani, Army-wallah Pakistani? which Pakistan are we talking about? I'm making the reasonable assumption that when you mean "Pakistani", you mean all Pakis from different sections of the population. when there are such obvious division in "Pakistanis", you are talking about uniting them into a more cohesive group of "Pakistanis", which can together rally around a foreign "enemy". once again, why should India play a role in erasing obvious differences and creating a unifying meme in Pakistan?!?!

and the last sentence/question faces the same choices as the previous one: why should we be hoping for such an outcome? why should India help develop a unifying theme in Pak?

until you answer that question, I'm afraid all of your esteemed knowledge is mere hot air. and this will be the last post from me, if you don't answer the question of why should India help in developing a unifying theme in Pak? this is what I have a problem with. and if you simply insist on assuming the "ignorance" of everyone else, then I will keep pointing out that you are not answering the above question, but merely keep repeating that Pak needs to be "united" against "foreign enemy", without answer how/why that is good for India. and don't say military sales: that's a bunkum argument; those sales will continue whether they are in or out of Pak. no difference. so please do take some time and answer that question.

[shiv]

and the last sentence/question faces the same choices as the previous one: why should we be hoping for such an outcome? why should India help develop a unifying theme in Pak?

until you answer that question, I'm afraid all of your esteemed knowledge is mere hot air. and this will be the last post from me, if you don't answer the question of why should India help in developing a unifying theme in Pak? this is what I have a problem with. and if you simply insist on assuming the "ignorance" of everyone else, then I will keep pointing out that you are not answering the above question, but merely keep repeating that Pak needs to be "united" against "foreign enemy", without answer how/why that is good for India. and don't say military sales: that's a bunkum argument; those sales will continue whether they are in or out of Pak. no difference. so please do take some time and answer that question.

Please. Don't confuse me with India. I am merely stating my opinion. My opinion seems to make you and others want to argue with me.

I think the US is a Christian occupying force in Pakistan and I want my Islamic Pakistani brothers (all 99% of them, minus the minorities) to gain freedom from that Christian occupying force. This is an opinion. But I would be happy to see it become Indian policy. If you asked me how I can even hope to make it Indian policy I would not be able to answer that question.

The Jamaat ud Dawa have got one thing right. They understand that both the US and India are enemies. The Jamaat ud Dawa are also an ally of the Pakistan army. the US gives arms aid to the Pakistan army and sees the latter as its ally.

The US is a de facto ally of the Jamaat ud Dawa - the political wing of the Lashkar e Toiba. This is also well known to you I expect.

The Jamaat ud Dawa and the Pakistan army are playing the same game that they have played. They are milking the US and not opposing the US strongly. I would love to see this morph into open antagonism towards the USA.

I do not agree with your contention that the US can continue to supply arms to a Pakistan that is manifestly anti USA. If the US stops it will be better for us. If the US continues it will be just the same for us. No change. But there is no chance of the US stopping arms aid to Pakistan unless relations reach snapping point. Relations will not reach snapping point until Pakistanis understand that the US is actually a Christian occupying force in Pakistan. I predict that US-Pakistan relations will snap if the US is seen as a Christian occupying force in Pakistan. See the way they burned Qurans in Afghanistan? The next Quran burning destination has to be Pakistan

But my prediction cannot be proven to be wrong until the US is recognized as the White Christian occupying force that it is. You are welcome to disagree and I would love to keep hearing your views. Don't stop because they only help me reinforce my views.

[devesh]

my question: how will India benefit when a unifying theme of Islamism develops in Pakistan? how is it beneficial for India if the obvious differences among the various Pakistanis are subsumed under a unifying meme? how is this beneficial to India?

[shiv]

my question: how will India benefit when a unifying theme of Islamism develops in Pakistan? how is it beneficial for India if the obvious differences among the various Pakistanis are subsumed under a unifying meme? how is this beneficial to India?

Islam will not unify. The "islamism" of Pakistan has been artificially unified using India as the enemy. The US has benefited by Pakistan needing to unify against the kafir Indians because Pakis were willing to work for US interests in excahnge for US aid against India. The internal splits of Pakistan will not go away . But if they can unite to push out the US they can subsequently proceed to tear other apart without US aid and without US material and monetary "encouragement" to unify to face Pakistan's Indian/communist/Martian/Iranian/Al Qaeda enemies. India in the meantime has only goodwill towards our Pakistani brothers. The yoke of White Christian imperialism needs to be broken.

Worth a try IMO. At worst nothing will change.

[devesh]

actually, at worst, Islamism will strengthen its hold on Pakis even more. not something to be casually dismissed. "subsequently tear each other apart". not likely. when Islamism and Islamic theological institutions are strengthened, and once they've smelled success by "kicking US out", they will proceed towards the arch enemy. the eternally defiant kafir who dares to live on and still survive in spite of all their pogroms.

and I don't know how you can say that "Islam will not unify". Islam is already unified. at least Paki Islam is. the Sunnis are dominant and that domination will increase. the question is of Paki unification. you yourself are claiming that Islam was used to unify Pak. in which case, further strengthening of Islam, under the garb of "foreign devil", will directly result in "more Paki unity". if Islam was used to "unify" Pak, then more power and influence for Islam translates into more "unity" for Pak.

[shiv]

actually, at worst, Islamism will strengthen its hold on Pakis even more. not something to be casually dismissed. "subsequently tear each other apart". not likely. when Islamism and Islamic theological institutions are strengthened, and once they've smelled success by "kicking US out", they will proceed towards the arch enemy. the eternally defiant kafir who dares to live on and still survive in spite of all their pogroms.

and I don't know how you can say that "Islam will not unify". Islam is already unified. at least Paki Islam is. the Sunnis are dominant and that domination will increase. the question is of Paki unification. you yourself are claiming that Islam was used to unify Pak. in which case, further strengthening of Islam, under the garb of "foreign devil", will directly result in "more Paki unity". if Islam was used to "unify" Pak, then more power and influence for Islam translates into more "unity" for Pak.

You are welcome to hold your views. I will have mine. India has no choice but to face up to islamism. But Islamism minus US arms would be better for India. Ideology minus military strength is easier to handle.

The other thing that i see in your viewpoint is the height of hope that the US is holding Islamism at bay in Pakistan. That means you really must be praying for the US's successes. That explains your vehemence. You haven't stated what will happen if your prayers are not answered and the US fails. I don't care what happens to the US, but for India it will be back to square one - assuming that the US is really protecting India from islamists as you seem to gullibly believe.

The other thing that I call "Hindu stupidity" is to imagine that this is a simple Hindu-Muslim affair and that Christianity is either neutral or looks with benign benevolence at India. That is bullshit. The reason why islamist Pakistan is not mentioning Christians is that they see them as allies who pay them and arm them. It is in my view fully justifiable to raise the Christist alarm of how White Christian imperialists benefit from subcontinental rivalry.

The shit must hit the fan. Imagining that the US will keep the peace is like lying in warm dung and thinking this is nirvana. That is not nirvana for me. I hope it is not your idea of nirvana though.

[svenkat]

Hakim Sahib,
The mango apdul is already anti-US.He has been so for a long time.The mullahs are powerful but not beyond a point.In Pakistan,it is the army that counts.The upper echelons of the army are pro-US.And they have good reasons to be so.US has very good reasons to be pro-pak.The pakis have no love for US.We know that from their sheltering of OBL/faisal shaha/aafia siddiqi etc but the paki-US trust is one of 'honour' among hardened criminals.That will endure so long as there are aam apduls/kaffir available as canon fodder.The Islamic ideal will ensure that mullah-army nexus will endure.Hoping for change in paki society is hoping for miracles.Pakjab is relatively free from the virus.Central and West Punjab have inherited the social stability of Indian civilisation.With the rivers and US support,this will endure until population explosion takes over.

The game changer will be the situation in Kabul.Here US is bogged down.There is no escape for the white christists.The US cannot abandon Afghanistan particularly Kabul and the North for three reasons.1)They can never be sure that Al-Qaeda will not regroup stronger and with aims on Islamabad.2)They need a foothold in Central Asia.They cannot trust pakis for now pakis will have the upper hand 3)Their utter lies,deceptions,falsehoods,hyocrisies on 'freedom,minorities' will be become the standing joke if they run away in Afghanistan.

The US will find its waterloo in Afghanistan.They would love to make the dirty,smelling hindoos pay for it but the aam GI in US will know that the mischief maker is pakistan.Every effort will be made by the controlled press in US to cover up this 'little fact' but the longer US stays in Afghanistan they will be become more demoralised and get hurt as they can never win over the pashtuns with their present policy of appeasing pakis.

Every one has a right to dream and hope.I will hope for US to get mauled and maimed in Afghanistan.The afghan war has broken the facade of pashtun-pakjabi unity.Thats over.Its an open war for who dominates.pakis are hoping for ISI controlled pashtunistan.Much water has flown down the Kubha and Sindhu for paki wet dreams to materialise.

my two paise rants.

[shiv]

Venkat your assessment is right, but what the US is continuing to do is to keep arming Pakistan against India to keep Pakistan pliable. A Pakistani "uprising" against the US would hopefully help the US see the light.

http://idrw.org/?p=8801

On financial constraints, the naval chief said the government had not slashed defence budget because of the ‘precarious security environment in the region’ and its impact on Pakistan.

“I therefore don’t think that our future acquisition programmes will suffer due to budgetary constraints,” he adding that the Oliver Hazard Perry-class frigates fell under the under the US-sponsored Foreign Military Financing Programme and four more these would be supplied in 2013 and 2014 in batches of two each.

[svenkat]

Shivji,
The US funding of Pak will not stop.It is part of the Anglo-Saxon thinking on India which originated from the 'Sepoy Mutiny' in 1857.The Purbeahs could not be trusted.The musalmaans of punjab,balochisation and pashtuns were to be appeased.The baloch and pashtuns are now out of the axis.But the pakjabi will be nourished.And the pakjabi will not turn against US.His very 'marital' identity was invented by anglo-saxons.The insignificant punjabi musalman has given land and geo-strategic significance.Why should he turn against US.He is controlling baluchistan,half of pushtunistan,the other half under his proxy control.It is in the area under proxy control that the war is being fought.Here there is light for India.The US would like to extinguish it but the darkness holds many imponderables for many others.JMTs

[shiv]

Shivji,
The US funding of Pak will not stop.It is part of the Anglo-Saxon thinking on India which originated from the 'Sepoy Mutiny' in 1857.The Purbeahs could not be trusted.The musalmaans of punjab,balochisation and pashtuns were to be appeased.The baloch and pashtuns are now out of the axis.But the pakjabi will be nourished.And the pakjabi will not turn against US.His very 'marital' identity was invented by anglo-saxons.The insignificant punjabi musalman has given land and geo-strategic significance.Why should he turn against US.He is controlling baluchistan,half of pushtunistan,the other half under his proxy control.It is in the area under proxy control that the war is being fought.Here there is light for India.The US would like to extinguish it but the darkness holds many imponderables for many others.JMTs

That is why the Islamists need to be played off against Christists. if you are Pakjabi first and a Mussalman next, you are a traitor.

[johneeG]

actually, at worst, Islamism will strengthen its hold on Pakis even more. not something to be casually dismissed. "subsequently tear each other apart". not likely. when Islamism and Islamic theological institutions are strengthened, and once they've smelled success by "kicking US out", they will proceed towards the arch enemy. the eternally defiant kafir who dares to live on and still survive in spite of all their pogroms.

and I don't know how you can say that "Islam will not unify". Islam is already unified. at least Paki Islam is. the Sunnis are dominant and that domination will increase. the question is of Paki unification. you yourself are claiming that Islam was used to unify Pak. in which case, further strengthening of Islam, under the garb of "foreign devil", will directly result in "more Paki unity". if Islam was used to "unify" Pak, then more power and influence for Islam translates into more "unity" for Pak.

You are welcome to hold your views. I will have mine. India has no choice but to face up to islamism. But Islamism minus US arms would be better for India. Ideology minus military strength is easier to handle.

The other thing that i see in your viewpoint is the height of hope that the US is holding Islamism at bay in Pakistan. That means you really must be praying for the US's successes. That explains your vehemence. You haven't stated what will happen if your prayers are not answered and the US fails. I don't care what happens to the US, but for India it will be back to square one - assuming that the US is really protecting India from islamists as you seem to gullibly believe.

The other thing that I call "Hindu stupidity" is to imagine that this is a simple Hindu-Muslim affair and that Christianity is either neutral or looks with benign benevolence at India. That is bullshit. The reason why islamist Pakistan is not mentioning Christians is that they see them as allies who pay them and arm them. It is in my view fully justifiable to raise the Christist alarm of how White Christian imperialists benefit from subcontinental rivalry.

The shit must hit the fan. Imagining that the US will keep the peace is like lying in warm dung and thinking this is nirvana. That is not nirvana for me. I hope it is not your idea of nirvana though.

Globally and historically, the game has 4 players:
a) Jews
b) Christians
c) Muslims
d) Pagans(Hindus can be placed under this category).

Christianity and Islam are ardently missionary ideologies at the core of their theology. And generally, the victims have been Pagans. Most Pagan cultures have been wiped out by these two missionary ideologies. Since, these two ideologies are inherently missionary, self-righteous and bigoted, they inspire racist and supremacist theories. So, Christianity was the vehicle of "western white man's burden" and Islam has been the vehicle of Arabic monopoly.

Both Christianity and Islam dream of world conquest.

The Jews have had an interesting time. They have allied with Christians and are taking on the muslims. However, we know that Christianity holds the Jews as the "Christ-killers". So, this alliance of Christians and Jews is based on mutual interests only. At any time, the Christians can turn against the Jews. The only thing stopping them is the need to balance the Muslims with Jews.

The Pagans have been the greatest victims. They had no respite. They are caught between Islam and Christianity. Very few Pagan cultures have survived. Hinduism happens to be one such culture. And this survival is indeed a great feat given that Hindus have suffered under the yoke of both Islamic rule and Christian rule.

Hindus have tried to co-opt Muslims when they had to take on Christians. And when they were faced with Muslims, they tried to align with Christians. It is like people choosing 'lesser evil' in every election. But, it is quite clear that there is no 'lesser evil' here. One is as good as the other. And both threatened Hinduism. Both have brutally and heinously leeched on Hindus.

What is the way out? What is the solution for Hindus/India?
I think if Christianity and Islam go against each other and waste each other, then it is great for Hindus. A crusade against Muslims and jihad against Christians(west) is good for Hindus(India) because both groups will be occupied with each. In such a conflict, it is important that no clear cut-winner comes out until both are rendered less-powerful than Hindus(India).

Interestingly, it is the Christians(West) which is practicing the same policy against India and Pak. And the game worked until 9/11. 9/11 opened a new chapter of Christian and Muslim rivalry.

From Indian perspective, Pakistan and US will have to go to a conflict. They will have to go after each other.

From Indian perspective, the ultimate wet dream would be for US and Pak to go against each other. US physical presence in Afghanistan seems to have unleashed exactly this phenomenon.

On a global scale, Hindus need Christianity and Islam to go after each other and waste each other.

---------
Those who think that US is the good boy which will help India against the bad boy named Pakistan, they are way-off the mark. Pakistan without US, is no match to India. This very day, if US withdraws all its financial, diplomatic and other support then Pakis are at the mercy of India, regardless of China or Saudis. Its understandable why these Indians admire US so much. US is the super-power with very effective tools of propaganda at their disposal. US has succeeded in presenting itself as an icon of freedom, values, democracy...etc. Many Indians fall for this, specially the youngsters. Many youngsters in India dream of emigrating to that paradise named USA. And once they go there, they become much more ardent supporters of everything american. They do not realise that America has been and continues to support many anti-Indian elements in many ways. These NRIs defend American actions India saying that America acts in its interests. Sure, America acts in its interests. Everyone acts in their own interests. Osama Bin Laden acts in his interests. So, what?

The point is Indian interests are being hurt. Do these people realise this and do these people support India or US on the issue. That is the simple point.

[johneeG]

Shivji,
The US funding of Pak will not stop.It is part of the Anglo-Saxon thinking on India which originated from the 'Sepoy Mutiny' in 1857.The Purbeahs could not be trusted.The musalmaans of punjab,balochisation and pashtuns were to be appeased.The baloch and pashtuns are now out of the axis.But the pakjabi will be nourished.And the pakjabi will not turn against US.His very 'marital' identity was invented by anglo-saxons.The insignificant punjabi musalman has given land and geo-strategic significance.Why should he turn against US.He is controlling baluchistan,half of pushtunistan,the other half under his proxy control.It is in the area under proxy control that the war is being fought.Here there is light for India.The US would like to extinguish it but the darkness holds many imponderables for many others.JMTs

Saar,
you are thinking like an SDRE Hindu. You are content with what you have. You know that biting the hand that feeds you is not a good idea.

Now, think like a martial pakjabi mussalman...who has swallowed hook, line and sinker the propaganda of being martial and geo-strategically irreplaceable. In their view, whatever US has given them is rightfully due of pakis. They think that US has not done any 'aisaan'(favor). It was business. US gave money, training, weapons and diplomatic help while pakis did the actual dirty work on the ground. They think that they defeated Soviets with US help. Now, can they not defeat US with China help? Given this thinking, they may believe that they can take on the US.

US has, so far, tried to ignore this thinking and continue the business as usual model. Lets see how long this unholy alliance can last.

[devesh]

You are welcome to hold your views. I will have mine. India has no choice but to face up to islamism. But Islamism minus US arms would be better for India. Ideology minus military strength is easier to handle.

The other thing that i see in your viewpoint is the height of hope that the US is holding Islamism at bay in Pakistan. That means you really must be praying for the US's successes. That explains your vehemence. You haven't stated what will happen if your prayers are not answered and the US fails. I don't care what happens to the US, but for India it will be back to square one - assuming that the US is really protecting India from islamists as you seem to gullibly believe.

The other thing that I call "Hindu stupidity" is to imagine that this is a simple Hindu-Muslim affair and that Christianity is either neutral or looks with benign benevolence at India. That is bullshit. The reason why islamist Pakistan is not mentioning Christians is that they see them as allies who pay them and arm them. It is in my view fully justifiable to raise the Christist alarm of how White Christian imperialists benefit from subcontinental rivalry.

The shit must hit the fan. Imagining that the US will keep the peace is like lying in warm dung and thinking this is nirvana. That is not nirvana for me. I hope it is not your idea of nirvana though.

it takes some innovative twisting and turning to reach the conclusion that I am "hoping for US's success". my point was that if we strengthen the hold of Islam, then that renewed Islamic fervor will turn on us. somehow, this translates, in Hakim Saheb's esteemed wisdom, into "praying for US's success".

oh! and once again you move the goal posts. first, it was actively strengthening Paki unity against "common enemy" and "white Christianism". but now, that has conveniently become "raising the issue of Christist racism in the subcontinent". that is one heck of a moving goal post, if I've ever seen one. in one stroke, you've broadened the scope from Pakistan to "subcontinent" and also moved away from "unifying Paki masses against 'white Christian devilry'" to "raising awareness about Christist imperialism".

sorry, but all the arguments we've been having are about the specific issue of Pak and how strengthening Islam in Pak against "common devil" will inevitably bit India spectacularly. that is different, radically so, from "subcontinental awareness of Christist imperialism".

[RajeshA]

Breaking the Islamist Hold

Reformatting Pakistan with a Cultural Revolution

OPTIONS

What Islam has done in Western India aka Pakistan is that it has formatted a perfectly Dharmic land with an Islamic Cultural Format. As one may have suspected, the analogy is indeed one to formatting a drive. It deletes all that was before and format the drive anew to accept content in a single format - Islamic!

If it had not been a sad tale, it would indeed have been a marvelous feat.

Islam has proven to be a formidable cultural reformatting system. Many other countries and societies have lived and experienced the sweeping force of Islam - Arabs, Persians, Berbers, Indonesians, as well as in the Indian Subcontinent. Islam has been able to write over Pagans (Arabs), Zoroastrians (Persians), Buddhists (Central Asia, Bangladesh), Hindus (Indonesia, Western India), Christian Orthodox (Caucasus, Kosovo), etc. The Catholic Church was quite organized and as such has lost far fewer followers to Islam. But there seems to be a paucity of other virulent ideologies which have been able to subdue Islam.

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk had some success in Turkey. The Soviets had some success in the Central Asian Republics. The Pahlavis in Iran too were able to bring some modernity. But all these efforts were of short duration and after some time the regions and its people returned to Islam with even more vigor.

The fact is that what certainly doesn't really lead to permanent change is education. Education has only served Islam to the extent that educated Muslims have become simply a bit more sophisticated in defending Islam as well as supporting its military expansion.

There are several proselytization ideologies which do reformatting of entire populations, and each has certain attributes. Reformatting with Islam leads to a ever more Islamic society. The one interesting development would be if Iran were to throw off Islam, but the weakness of Iranian Islam was its own progressiveness, which allowed women to study. Another weakness of Islam there is the nationalism of the Iranians lurking just under the skin of Islam. Both of these are circumstances that need not be repeatable in all cases, and even with that it is still uncertain which way Iran moves. Other than that, Islam has usually led its adherents to ever more stronger adherence.

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism MLM) is also a proselytization ideology, with the difference that it is a broad-band wiper of culture - whatever culture. In Soviet Union, it almost led to a complete wipe out of Christian Orthodox Church. In China, the Cultural Revolution finished off Buddhism. So MLM is a wonderful option if one wants to wipe out any culture and write on top of it with another culture. In China today, Christianity is winning many followers, but only after the people were left with no culture they could call their own.

And as previously mentioned, Christianity too is a proselytization ideology which has historically been spread out in a quite organized manner. It however rides the coattails of Western advancement in all fields - technological, military, political and economic. It uses well-tried proselytization methods based on psychology, material needs, first-mover advantage, inculturation, etc. However the grasp of Christianity over its adherents may not be strong enough to last multiple generations and a post-Christian society usually turns to secular and scientific individualism.

Dharmic Awareness too has been a proselytization ideology, which started from India and in various variants spread out over much of Central, South, Southeast and East Asia, either as Buddhism or as Hinduism. After all we had Hindu kings ruling as far away as Vietnam and the Philippines. Similarly Buddhism spread far and wide. Dharmic traditions however can spread to areas where either only animism in some form has been prevalent or where the society is materially so advanced that it is ready for spiritual upliftment. Of course, it is always possible to produce a somewhat differently organized Dharmic tradition which is based on a different set distribution strategies.

So even as we discuss means and ways to bring back Pakistan back to the Dharmic path, the problem is that the environment in Pakistan steeped in Islam, makes it nigh impossible that the populations can be administered Dharma using Dharmic means. The social dynamic would not allow any Pakistani to pay heed to any Dharmic teaching. Nor do I think, Pakistani minds are receptive to Dharmic thought. So a direct formatting of Pakistan with Dharma, I feel, is not a convincing option.

That is why I think one needs another intermediate ideology for formatting Pakistan. The only two in question are Marxism-Leninism-Maoism (MLM) and Christianity. However Christianity in a non-developed society remains a stubborn obscurantist ideology similar to Islam. The less the development level in Pakistan, the stronger they will remain attached to Christianity. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism on the other hand offers just the right ideology which can wipe the slate clean of Islam in Pakistan, upon which Dharma can be imprinted later on.

[AKalam]

=>Modern PRC has cut of its roots completely from their Dharmic past and what some would call spiritually barren. You need to be in that state to murder tens of millions of your own. I smiled a little when AKalam ji said that the Chinese will stop their noe-imperialistic activities, if everything else falls in place. I did because, I think the Chinese took the lessons of the Imperialists to heart, and there is no moral compass preventing them from taking it to the extreme. The Christian Imperialists used the moral crutch of the White Man's Burden to lean on; the CPC/PRC does not even need a crutch to lean on since they have taken the doctrine of "Self Interest" to the extreme; while it is OK to talk about no "Permanent Alliances, only Permanent Interests", the situation can become dangerous when there is absolutely no moral restraint.

=>When it comes to detachment from their pre-Islamic History, I believe Bangladesh is more like other Islamic states of the East than than the TFTAs cousins on the West. I agree that if LEFT to THEIR OWN DEVICES, Bangladesh will not have any problems to facilitate the train from Amritsar to Thailand (and beyond). The element of Bengali pride is alive in Bangladesh, and not subsumed completely. Any thoughts AKalamji?

VikramS ji, completely agree on the current neo-Imperialism of the Chinese state. When I mentioned that they will stop, what I meant to say was that they will be forced to stop, because of the regional union solution that will hopefully be a remedy for this existing and evolving scenario of neo-Imperialism, not just in Central Asia, but in South East Asia, Africa as well as Latin America.

Not sure about Bengali pride thing, but Bangladesh is different from Pakistan for many reasons, I will just mention some obvious ones:

- 98-99% in Bangladesh belong to one ethno-linguistic group, whereas in Pakistan there is at 4 major ethnic groups and many minor ones
- Bangladesh do not have an Afghanistan next to us, so we were lucky that the imported extremist meme was not unleashed in our space and become a tool of state-craft
- unlike most regions of Pakistan which has a much longer history with Islam under various Muslim states, Bengal came under Muslim rule from around 1200 AD, conversion was a gradual affair mostly happening under Mughal rule just a few centuries back, so Bengali Muslims naturally retain much more of their pre-Muslim culture and language compared to Muslim ethnic groups in Pakistan. So in that respect, yes we are more similar to Muslims in ASEAN countries who are also recent converts, with an important difference, that Islam in ASEAN region came mostly from Arab maritime traders, whereas in Bengal, it was the last eastern most part of the "Turko-Mongol push" from Central Asia, which we have in common with India and Pakistan

I think having a train route from Amritsar/Delhi to Bangkok and beyond is entirely feasible within a few decades if not less. Doing that with Pakistan and Central Asia may not be much more difficult either, if the right strategies are identified and pursued. Rather than being a hindrance, USA/West might be a willing partner in a constructive solution, as with increased stability (less chances of Al Qaeda safe haven), they have nothing to loose and everything to gain. More resistance will come from China as it will face more competition from India in both South East Asia and Central Asia. It is in Chinese interest to keep this status quo situation continuing, meaning instability in Af-pak and Myanmar-Bangladesh and hence no criss crossing of functional roads, railways and pipelines. In the Eastern front, the Chinese are working to build roads and highways connecting to China from each neighboring ASEAN states as well as Bangladesh, but may work to slow down any internal inter-connection within ASEAN states that might be good for both Bangladesh and India, but may not directly benefit China. In this space, US/West as well Japan and Korea can be a willing partner in ASEAN integration with more roads and railways.

[RajeshA]

Breaking the Islamist Hold

Reformatting Pakistan with a Cultural Revolution

IDEOLOGY

Is Islam and Muslim Society at all receptive for Communist Ideology? Yes and No!

It is not because Islamic Society itself is quite aggressive and violent, and would not allow anything negating it to expand its footprint in the society! Secondly Islam, at least ideologically and rhetorically, claim that it is a an egalitarian creed, which stands for equality to all and justice to all! Some of its more passionate adherents are also found among the poor masses and usually the clergy are often critical of the elite, considering their ways as haraam! On the surface, it looks that Islam itself tends to claim the right of Inquilab (Revolution) for itself.

So why would Communism have a chance to make headway, where Islam already seems to have occupied the poor man's mental terrain?

It is here that the Marxist Ideology with special emphasis on Islam needs to be expanded upon! Marx described religion in the "Zur Kritik der Hegelschen Rechtsphilosophie" as the "Opium of the Masses", ! It is this thought that needs to be further developed.

Islam was founded by a man whose occupation was "businessman", who used to have "slaves"! Islam is a religion which allows people to collect wealth and land based on their service to Islam. Islam is a religion which allows the rich to pass on their large land holdings to their children.

In Pakistan, the Islamist parties have unequivocally pronounced that land redistribution is against Sharia, against Islam. That means Islam cannot be the vehicle for a more equitable land distribution in Pakistan. The Zamindars, the Waderas, the Sardars would continue to hold on to their large tracts of lands, they themselves attained through dubious means. However Pakistan is primarily an agricultural country with prime land, much of which is owned by a few families! If the people wish to hope to break their bondage with poverty, ownership of land is the only way, and Islam in Pakistan seems to be blocking the way of the common people and strengthening the hands of the feudals.

This dynamic itself should be sufficient to charge the ranks of a Communist group in Pakistan. Islam is their enemy because it favors the rich over the poor, and uses Islam as a means to hold back the masses from a rebellion against the feudals! "God" as such simply becomes another tool to sedate the people, an opium for the masses, a means to steer the people to be passionate about all causes which have nothing to do with improving their own lives, but simply to increase the bargaining power of the Islamic rich viz-a-viz the other elites of the world.

[RajeshA]

Breaking the Islamist Hold

Reformatting Pakistan with a Cultural Revolution

STRATEGY

Can a Communist movement survive in Pakistan? Not the general kind! Not the intellectual kind! But a Communist Movement which is just as ruthless as anything the Taliban can come up with, would have very good chances of survival.

However as long as the Pakistani Army is a dominant player in Pakistan, it is unlikely that such a movement will be able to survive. An organized force can better coordinate a search and destroy strategy, as there will be many Islamists and Islam-sympathizers in society to squeal on the Communists to the "authorities"! So any such effort would have to await a serious weakening of the current order in Pakistan. But hoping that something like that is possible, as was explained in a previous scenario by me called 'Process of Total Chaos and Subsequent Redemption', then it becomes possible to initiate these strategies in the region.

In a Pakistan which is simply an area controlled by various political, religious, ethnic armed groups, it is possible for a new group based on a quasi-Communist ideology to spring up. Even when the Pakistani Army is still in charge it is still possible to nurture such a group. We can use Paki-Naxals as a working title for such an armed Communist group.

They would have to be provided with all needed resources - arms, medicines, money, intelligence, coordination, training, etc. by India. This is one more reason, why India needs to become a big producer of small arms for export markets. Since there are criminal networks active smuggling stuff between India and Pakistan, it should be easy to get arms and ammunition to the Paki-Naxals.

Indian intelligence would have to be initially heavily involved in seeding and nursing the Paki-Naxals into group which can stand on its own feet.

I would say, the most ideal place for the Paki-Naxals group to grow roots is South Pakjab area, which is quite poor and rural. Besides it borders India so arms smuggling can also become easier.

This movement should have two distinct phases:

1. Anti-Feudal Phase
2. Anti-Islamic Phase

In the Anti-Feudal Phase, the Paki-Naxal Movement should strive simply to raid the rich Zamindars and to distribute the spoils to the poor. In the beginning it would be difficult to hold onto the land for the movement so it would mostly be a hit and run strategy, aka Robin Hood! Good intelligence would allow the group to plunder food grain, vehicles, weapons, etc.

At some point in the future, it would also become possible for the Paki-Naxal Movement to dislodge the Zamindar completely and to acquire his land, which can then be redistributed among the people in its ranks, who would get their relatives to continue tilling the land. They can perhaps even organize themselves into communes.

As the successes and exploits of the Paki-Naxal Group become common knowledge they too would gain the aura of the Taliban, and they would also get more recruits.

It is only when the group becomes established quite well, should they start espousing their anti-religious ideology more openly. In this case it would be rhetoric aimed squarely at Islam and its imperialist and capitalist pedigree.

Sooner or later, they will have to take on Islamist groups as well as remnants of the Pakistan Army. Then they would need even more arms support from India.

Important is that in this phase, the Paki-Naxals are ruthless in uprooting all Dawas, Mosques, Ulema, etc. from their region of control.

As another inoculation against Islam, the Paki-Naxals would have to give its members non-Muslims names, perhaps Indic names to announce their full disassociation from Islam.

[RajeshA]

Breaking the Islamist Hold

Reformatting Pakistan with a Cultural Revolution

INDIAN STAND

It is important that India holds all the organizational reigns of the Paki-Naxal Movement. It is important that all of the leadership should have a good rapport with India and Indians.

But it is also important that India not be considered the Movement's Godfather.

For one thing, Anti-Indianism is rampant in Pakistan, and it would be much easier for others to declare the Paki-Naxal Movement as simply a hand-maiden of "Indian Expansionism" and meddling. If the Movement is branded as traitors to Pakistan by terming them as India-based, the struggle of the movement would be much more uphill.

Secondly if India is not seen to be behind the movement, it gives India a lot more freedom to undertake various other moves in the region. It would be easier for India to wash off our hands off any excesses of the movement, and there will have to be many excesses before the tide is turned. After all the Paki-Naxal Movement would have to be just as brutal as any Taliban group if not more in order to show that they mean business in the land of brutality. If India is not considered as the sponsor of the group, nobody is going to be putting pressure on India to help in curtailing the activities of the group either. We are free of responsibility to international norms on this.

So other than the issue of giving their followers Indic names, no other ideological trail should lead to India. The Paki-Naxal Movement should openly display posters of Mao other than Marx, Lenin, Che Guevara, Ho Chi-Minh, Prachanda, etc. It would indeed be better if Mao is displayed more prominently as the ideological father of the Movement.

This can be done regardless of what the Chinese say. In fact it would be better if the whole thing is given a Chinese spin. It can portrayed to the Pakistanis as if the Chinese are trying to gain a foothold in Pakistan using the Paki-Naxal Movement, as it is in their strategic interest to stretch their region of control through Gilgit-Baltistan, where they are already perched all the way to the Indian Ocean. The Pakistanis should believe that it is the Chinese hand behind this attack on Islam in Pakistan.

It is also perfectly well if the Paki-Naxal Movement every now and then use scathing attacks on India and Indian Capitalism. Even some pro-Dalit propaganda and the evil Hindu Bania propaganda is acceptable! Such anti-India propaganda would put even more distance between India and the Paki-Naxal Movement in the Pakistani public's eye!

All India needs to keep on doing is to keep on wiping away our tracks of helping the Movement. We keep on giving them everything the Movement needs in terms of weapons and training, intelligence and logistics. We keep on interfering in the rest of the war zone in Pakistan through our influence over other groups and manipulating the battle field so that the groups with which the Paki-Naxal Movement has to fight with have already been weakened through infighting and fighting with other groups.

At least one can hope that all of South Pakjab or Seraikistan and rural Sindh can be liberated using this strategy!

[brihaspati]

Focusing on the foreign devil unifies a country like no other. It papers over gaps in the society and intra-society conflicts. During high tides of anti-foreign jingoism - crime decreases, internal feuds decrease, and ruler versus rule contradictions become toned down in their expressions.

Thus railing and ranting against the "chrsitian" [not white because Paki elite relish this colour based esteem in the absence of any other qualities] USA is a good excuse for the Paki elite to gloss over very real internal contradictions.

The extrenals we are railing here so much against - the so-called homogeneous white christian identity [although no such homogeneous identity apparently exists for the islamic] targeting the Hindu and the India - do take great care to create separate internal identities for India and attack one projected faction while staying neutral or even reinforcing other factional identities. They do not put up external devils for India - so that Indian internal divisions are papered over. Even while they are manipulating Indian opinion towards a focused attack on China and become more forgiving of Pak - they never cease to attack the Hindu==caste==pagan darkness.

We on the other hand seek every chance to consolidate the identities of our enemies. Maybe we should learn from their technique - that provoking a country towards attacking a third is not incompatible with sharpening the internal divisions within the country.

Those who do not want to destory Pak as a state, preserve Islamism on the subcontinent - will studiously avoid any projection or issue that sharpens the internal real contradictions within Pak that damage the power of the Dawaist+feudal+army combo. They will help the elite cry of a false jihad against christians or any others deemed to be monkeys in Islamism. But never ever something to deconstruct the system.

[shiv]

Focusing on the foreign devil unifies a country like no other.

<snip>

Those who do not want to destory Pak as a state, preserve Islamism on the subcontinent

If "those who want to destroy Islamism" can be shown to be foreign devils, that will unify Pakistan

That has gone on for 60 plus years. India is the very country that stands accused of wanting to destroy Islam, let alone Islam"ism" and that has united Pakistanis. And US help has been sought and gained for holding the Islam hating 'foreign devil" at bay.

That is where we are now.

I want to see the US become the foreign devil so that my dear Pakistani brothers are freed from this Christian evil that is enslaving them. Let Pakistanis unite behind the cause of kicking the White Crusaders, killers of Muslims and Quran burners out of Pakistan. Once the US is kicked out India will open its borders to all Pakistanis so they can re unite with their old friends and visit their ancestral lands and all will be well. That is a promise. But the US needs to go first.

An intact and healthy Pakistan is good for India, but not one that is occupied by Christist imperialists. India will ensure Pakistan's integrity once the christian devils are gone.

[Aditya_V]

Yes yes, Pakistan , please declare an open war till the death with America.

[brihaspati]

An intact and healthy Pakistan is good for India, but not one that is occupied by Christist imperialists. India will ensure Pakistan's integrity once the christian devils are gone.

That is where you and I differ. Because an intact and healthy Pakistan is not good for itself, and India's ensuring Pakistani integrity is reinventing 60 years and 1947 over and over again.

There have been a sizeable portion of Indians who have in the past and continue to admire Islamism and have survived within or helped strengthen Islamism under various pretexts - often and usually at the cost of tremendous pain for other Indians in numbers many time over than the panderers to Islamism themselves.

Preserving Pakistan, or its health and itegrity - is preserving the Dawaists, and therefore the army and therfore the feudals - with every component of Jihadi mentality and its regeneration preserved for posterity. This cannot be allowed. I do want the jihadis to succeed and the Dawaists gain prominence so that both the external and the internal chhupa-hua friends of the Dawaists get exposed. It will be easier for the rest of Indians to deal with both the internal and the external once and for all.

[brihaspati]

For the moment I am against the against-Christians line, so to speak. There are internal calculations that makes me say this. I can understand, that people not that much getting continuous feedback from the north will not appreciate why I am saying this. If shiv ji is prompting us to play the game - I think I am all for it. But I will do it my way - and in that, attacking the Christian or the USA at this point via Dawaist false propaganda is a wrong course.

Things are changing a lot within the Indian Christian communities, and I maintain connections with both the Islamic as well as the Christian.

Lets play the game then.

[RajeshA]

India doesn't really need to do anything to promote Islam vs White Christianity tussle in Pakistan. Pakistanis are themselves quite busy in spreading and increasing Anti-Americanism in Pakistan. It is not just the "Islamists" who are doing so, but the Army is actively encouraging this! Why? For the following reasons:

1. To increase their bargaining power with USA. They get more money and arms for the same "service"!
2. They get more leeway to reject uncomfortable requests from Unkil.
3. They can get more support from the Aam Abduls by citing an external enemy!

[johneeG]

India doesn't really need to do anything to promote Islam vs White Christianity tussle in Pakistan. Pakistanis are themselves quite busy in spreading and increasing Anti-Americanism in Pakistan. It is not just the "Islamists" who are doing so, but the Army is actively encouraging this! Why? For the following reasons:

1. To increase their bargaining power with USA. They get more money and arms for the same "service"!
2. They get more leeway to reject uncomfortable requests from Unkil.
3. They can get more support from the Aam Abduls by citing an external enemy!

Exactly. And India cannot stop it. Further, India doesn't need to do anything to promote Islam vs White Christianity in west either. It is already happening. And India cannot stop that also.

So, India can neither start it nor stop it. But it is happening. It is beneficial to India because both are historically tormentors of India and the stage is set so that they will fight with each other.

Actually, I don't think Indian thinking is going to change anything in this conflict. Pakis are not going to turn against Western Christians, just because Indians say so(or say opposite of it). At the same time, Pakis are not going to befriend White christians, just because Indians say so. Similarly, Indian thinking is not going to have any affect on Western White Christians attitude towards Pakis(or muslims in general). So, all this piskological stuff seems needless.

The only thing India can do is: Decide whom to support? So, India has to make up its mind on whom to support? and how much to support?
Ideally, India should be neutral or play both sides until both are wasted.

So, we need to lend one side only as much support as it needs to get emboldened to go after the other. This can be done directly or indirectly. For example, as long as pakis feel India will not attacks them, they may be game for taking on USA.

[harbans]

There is great danger to India if Indians are led to believe all evils emanate from the White Christian domination theory. Because if that theory is propagated, it's bastions will be the left and Islamists within India. They will get a massive fillip and boost if we propagate that line of thought. Once they get a boost, that will alter Indian political equations. Bring us in line of direct conflict with the West. Will destroy our economy back several decades. Bring Chinese imperialism to our homes via Naxal and Maoism. Bring about a loss of the entire NE, Nepal, Bhutan and consequently India moving away from it's Dharmic heritage. Already Pakistan is steeped in Anti Americanism, without us trying to do anything Chanakyan.

[Prem]

Not to mention that Paki Islamist threat is immediate. Adding the names to enemy list at this juncture is plain stupid, regardelss of Pyssdoclystic Mystric Headphiric Gyrrations.

[svenkat]

The plain truth is that the white christists are the real criminals.

Shivji,
The pakjabi is sycophant/turncoast first,foremost and last.He is a musalmaan somewhere in between.But the issue is complicated by the latent virulence in Islam which was given resurgence by christism.We must understand Punjab history.The Sikhs/Hindus had crushed the muslim power in punjab when the british came.The musalman was a spent force.The white barbarians resurrected them through the 19th and 20th centuries.Even the romantic myth of pashtun is nonsense.If the US wants(I agree with CRS on this) the pashtuns can be blown to pieces.But they are fearful of the impact in the ethnically split pakjabi/pushtun army of pakistan.

The US wants TSPA to be jihadi enough to be anti-India but not anti-US.The white man is not a fool.He is confident of controlling the jihad in TSPA.The white man ruled for 90 years in Punjab.He knows the pakjabi.But the unknown is the pashtun nationalist+pure jehadi element west of sindhu.This was crushed by Sikhs east of Sindhu(except in DIK and like places).The jehadi element can still be crushed in seraikistan/muridke as of today,but has now developed a life of its own in North Waziristan and nearby areas.. Also a pakistan without Hindus or Sikhs for 60 years is ready for halal seeding.

I would maintain the required Islamic virility to become a total jehadi state is still to be found only west of Sindhu.After sufficient seeding,LeT would be able to contribute to the critical mass,but now LeT,LeJ,JeM are not sufficient.This sufficient seeding is not a given either.The pashtuns might turn their back on Taliban barbarism given half a chance.The Amirkhan perfidy is that much greater because they want to control the degree of jehadism but do not how to do it.They cannot find a way out.

johneeGji,
pakis are the greatest cowards on earth.They are taking liberties with US because the US needs Pak desparately to contain India

[AKalam]

The problem with any extended foreign presence specially ground troops (high school graduates that could not find other jobs) or even drones (run like video games remotely) in any far away country of non-Europeans is that no matter how high sounding the strategy is from top poltical and military echelons, lets say to stabilize Afghanistan and leave it with a stable democratic order and a capable army and law enforcement is that, eventually it devolves into calling people jap, sand nigger, haji (not sure what they call Afghans), shooting and killing them for fun and revenge and urinating on corpses or burning Quran. Obama's surge (it was a myth that it worked in Iraq) in Afghanistan was a bad idea from the start and sooner the troops leave the better it will be for all concerned, the region and the world. On this part everyone is on agreement, I think, starting with the majority voting public in the US, in Af-pak region and the people of the world. If India takes this stand and convey this message on all channels, it could mean a lot for people of Af-pak region.

The question still remains for the world and the US led West, who think that they collectively run the world, is how to stabilize Pakistan and prevent nukes getting into hands of extremists and how to prevent a safe haven for Al Qaeda under proxy Taliban rule in Afghanistan.

I think there is a simple and obvious solution for this in any unstable country. Invest in the development of civil society, democratic institutions and of course proper education (not madrasa education) that builds a foundation for these structures. The more representative a democracy we have, the closer to the people this democracy is, the more the army will be sidelined in running the affairs of the country (just like we have seen in Bangladesh, Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt and other places). A change in Pakistan will automatically open up similar democratic opportunities in Afghanistan. If extremist Talibans can win elections in Afghanistan, let them run the country, it will expose them for what they are. People will soon get tired of these incompetent yahoo's and elect more capable people. The Army should be used to ensure that there is no vote rigging both in Pakistan and Afghanistan (like we did in Bangladesh), instead of using extremism as state-craft. The simple weapon of choice I am suggesting is democracy, to which no one can object to and everyone can agree on, including Islamists. Land and wealth re-distribution can be done with new laws and change in the constitution, there is no need to bring in the failed idea of god-less communism/marxism/leninism/maoism which Muslims are allergic to.

People of Pakistan and Afghanistan never had a chance IMHO, given a good enough chance for a democratic future, I think they will be able to show the world that they can create and function as productive and law abiding countries, work with others and improve their situation, even within Islamic rules and standards, just like we see more "Islamic" forms of democracy sprouting up in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and soon in Syria.

So it will be in the interest of all stake-holders to invest in the creation of a proper democratic order in Pakistan, reduce the influence of the Armed forces and then let that change in Islamabad and Rawalpindi roll over into Afghanistan. A resulting reduction in extremism and instability will be welcomed by Chinese as well, but the bigger future implications of an evolving Central Asian union will definitely be something that they will not welcome, although it will be a boon for Indian access to Central Asia and relief of head-ache for the US, with no safe-haven for Al Qaeda and no nukes in the hands of extremists.

In response to Harbans ji's concern, I think the Indian people can think for themselves and make the right choice, if all angles are shown. If I am not mistaken, there is a saying "Truth shall set us free" and the Indian version "satyamava jayate".

[johneeG]

The plain truth is that the white christists are the real criminals.

Saar,
one should not fall into this trap of marking either of them as 'lesser evil' or 'greater evil'. Both are evil. Period. And both are real evil.

Presently, one party may be more powerful than the other. But one should not confuse lack of power as 'lesser evil'.

Shivji,
The pakjabi is sycophant/turncoast first,foremost and last.He is a musalmaan somewhere in between.But the issue is complicated by the latent virulence in Islam which was given resurgence by christism.We must understand Punjab history.The Sikhs/Hindus had crushed the muslim power in punjab when the british came.The musalman was a spent force.The white barbarians resurrected them through the 19th and 20th centuries.Even the romantic myth of pashtun is nonsense.If the US wants(I agree with CRS on this) the pashtuns can be blown to pieces.But they are fearful of the impact in the ethnically split pakjabi/pushtun army of pakistan.

The US wants TSPA to be jihadi enough to be anti-India but not anti-US.The white man is not a fool.He is confident of controlling the jihad in TSPA.The white man ruled for 90 years in Punjab.He knows the pakjabi.But the unknown is the pashtun nationalist+pure jehadi element west of sindhu.This was crushed by Sikhs east of Sindhu(except in DIK and like places).The jehadi element can still be crushed in seraikistan/muridke as of today,but has now developed a life of its own in North Waziristan and nearby areas.. Also a pakistan without Hindus or Sikhs for 60 years is ready for halal seeding.

I would maintain the required Islamic virility to become a total jehadi state is still to be found only west of Sindhu.After sufficient seeding,LeT would be able to contribute to the critical mass,but now LeT,LeJ,JeM are not sufficient.This sufficient seeding is not a given either.The pashtuns might turn their back on Taliban barbarism given half a chance.The Amirkhan perfidy is that much greater because they want to control the degree of jehadism but do not how to do it.They cannot find a way out.

Completely in agreement. Very well articulated. I agree with you that USA has enough firepower and manpower to go after all the jihadis and decimate them. They are not doing it because they have use for them. One of the prime uses is against India.

These days, I see lot of people on this and other paki thread, trying to prove that India is superior to USA because USA 'failed' in WOT(by not being able to eliminate the Taliban in Astan or not being able to tame the Paki jihadis/Army) while India is far more successful(because atleast India does not fund them unlike USA). I think that this is a silly view because the view assumes USA wants to eliminate the jihadis. I think US wants the jihadism to be alive and in the control of US. The whole attempt seems to be in this direction. As far as India is concerned, one does not even know what India's policy is vis a vis Pakis. If we are to believe the PM, then he is trying for friendship. I think one should not make a virtue out of necessity i.e. India's policy against Pakis has been largely a failure. And this fact remains, regardless of USA and its perceived failure.

johneeGji,
pakis are the greatest cowards on earth.They are taking liberties with US because the US needs Pak desparately to contain India

Saar,
I think Pakis are not necessarily cowards. I dont mean to say they are courageous either. And they are definitely not normal. Then, what are they? Well, IMHO, they are myopic or short-sighted. Their behaviour resembles a person who is drunk. The superiority complex and the inferiority complex of the pakis is two sides of the same coin. They are quickly puffed up and jubilant with little reason. And they are equally quickly dejected and throw down arms. Just like an alcoholic or person on a high. 1971 is a classic example of this behaviour. They started out with the theory of 1 Paki soldier ==10 Hindu soldiers(or some such thing). They ended up surrendering very quickly.

About the impact of Alcohol on human behaviour:

Alcohol makes the thing in the foreground even more salient and the thing in the background disappear.

the drinker is, in some respects, increasingly sensitive to his environment: he is at the
mercy of whatever is in front of him.

Example:

A group of Canadian psychologists led by Tara MacDonald recently went into a series of bars and made the patrons read a short vignette. They had to imagine that they had met
an attractive person at a bar, walked him or her home, and ended up in bed—only to discover that neither of them had a condom. The subjects were then asked to respond on a scale of one (very unlikely) to nine (very likely) to the proposition: “If I were in this situation, I would have sex.” You’d think that the subjects who had been drinking heavily would be more likely to say that they would have sex—and that’s exactly what happened. The drunk people came in at 5.36, on average, on the nine-point scale. The sober people came in at 3.91. The drinkers couldn’t sort through the longterm consequences of unprotected sex. But then MacDonald went back to the bars and stamped the hands of some of the patrons with the phrase “AIDS kills.” Drinkers with the hand stamp were slightly less likely than the sober people to want to have sex in that situation: they couldn’t sort through the kinds of rationalizations necessary to set aside the risk of AIDS. Where norms and standards are clear and consistent, the drinker can become more rule-bound than his sober counterpart.

This behaviour matches the behaviour of pakis who can and will plan audacious tactics, when they think they will win or can get away with it. They will also give up pretty quickly, perhaps without fight, when they think they cant win(like in 1971).

So, presentation becomes more important for pakis, then actual facts. Image(Honor & Dignity) is more important than reality. It also explains why Pakis can be tactically brilliant(short-term) but strategically stupid(long-term). Plans hatched by pakis also seem to lack alternatives like Plan B or C i.e. what happens if your initial plan fails? Pakis dont seem to take failure into consideration and are always surprised by the failure. They assume a lot of things in their plans. All of this is classic short-sightedness. So, Pakis are quite capable of being brazenly adventurous and simultaneously also capable of downhill skiing.

What Pakis have done is mixed Islam and 'White man's burden'. The product is pakjabi's burden to get green flag on red fort. They are high on this ideology which is fueled by the Mullahs. Sindhis have been co-opted by Pakjabis in this with the promise of sharing power. Balochis have had no choice. Pathans have had no choice either. Pathans have been used as a cannon fodder.

One interesting thing is that Pakjabis hang on the british theories of martial races as if they were Veda. But, according to british Pathans are the ultimate martial race and pakjabis are inferior to the Pathans. This reflects in how Pathans are viewed by the Pakjabis.

[brihaspati]

"Truth" is often relative and depends often on the ideological wash the brain goes through, and that phrase of "truth shall set us free" has most often been the cover story for Indians who have already planned to passively give over to violently culture-ciding foreign cultures.

No the lines are drawn very clear, now. We can see some very clear positions now vis-a-vis Pakistan.

Position one: Kick USA == white Christians out of Pakistan. USA will stop supplying arms and dole to TSPA which in turn supports terrorists against India. Ignore each and every disclaimer to this much clamoured for behaviuour - as shown up by history and consistent US or Paki elite behaviour. Simply ignore each and every fact, data available that goes against this demand.

Accept Christine Fair's opinion pieces when they appear to support this agenda, but ignore when data-based conclusions from the same person show that Paki hostility towards India is possibly positively correlated with improving Paki economy and decreasing Indian retaliation. Ignore similar findings when they indicate that drive for support for the Caliphatism in AfPak of the AQ type is independent of poverty/economy/group.

Ignore all these pointers because they jeopardize the agenda of lessening the pressure on the Paki elite and state.

Position two: Turn all hostility towards China. Make friends with Pakistan.

What is common to both positions? Don't hurt the Paki state! Please! Help to preserve it, and continue it. What is that Pakis state which is so dear to both positions? The elite ruling combo of Dawaists+Feudals+Army who exploit and keep the overwhelming majority in the cesspool of retrogression.

Now whose agenda is that? Those who are clever enough to realize that Indian society opinion piece deliverers are divide into two - one hates China out of their hatred for anything "Red", and the other hates USA out of their hatred for anything not "red". So raise both slogans to capture both sides of this spectrum of opinion within India.

But then whose agenda does it serve to roll back both the Chinese as well as the USA from Pakiloka?

Those who want to raise the stakes with both USA and China for more dough. If Indians do the job of clamouring for roll-back - the case becomes more convincing for the Pakistatephiles to bargain with USA and China. But more curiously - this is the demand - both against China and USA - which has been making the rounds in the GV Islamist networks for a year or so. The argumenst that are given within inner circles is that to a certain extent these two nations not only help the Pindiwalon's but also restrain them according to their own perceptions as to how far Islamism should go. A wide section fo Islamist leadership feels that both countries are an obstacle towards further expansion of Islam on the subcontinent, and that islamists are now in a take-off position where they can gradually overwhelm the Pakjab-GV-BD belt. For both USA and China this is dangerous - because they will no longer be able to push for their own agenda of connecting to CAR from IOR or to IOR from Tibet.

The bargaining costs extracted by Islamists will be too high if islamists can solidify this northern Indian arc corridor. Neither country wants this to happen - they want corridors under their direct control.

So this is the main source of this demand. Of course there are many Indians who would only be too glad to help out the Islamists out of a vicious hatred of their own. They always need a foreign ideology to back up - against another foreign ideology if needed - without thinking of the consequences for their own society and culture. No matter what the historical experience shows, they would try to blindly convince others that leopards can change their spots.

[Agnimitra]

it will be in the interest of all stake-holders to invest in the creation of a proper democratic order in Pakistan, reduce the influence of the Armed forces and then let that change in Islamabad and Rawalpindi roll over into Afghanistan.

AKalam ji, I doubt its that simple. 'Democracy' is only a system, and its net effect is wholly dependent on the underlying culture it is combined with. Moreover, there is good evidence that ideologically or materially vested lobbies can work within democratic systems and thrive by manipulating public opinion or buying off or seducing sections of the political leadership. We can see this even in the US.

Bangladesh is definitely doing better than Af-Pak at an institutional level, but it is far from clear whether Islamist jihadism is diluted there, or just diffused rather than stark. Moreover, Afghanistan is not Bangladesh, it is far more tribalistic. Similar case with a fringe state like Pakistan, a patchwork of Indic and sub-Indic halves, glued together by a hateful ideology of fear and triumphalism. Even if the US (and China) were to step out of Af-Pak, it is almost certain that Saudi and Irani funding there will continue or increase, especially the Iranian. Besides, democracy in a feudal and tribal society like Pakistan does not make any sense without land reform. That is the pre-requisite. Even in India, those places where land reform didn't happen, like Bihar, are a case in point. Fortunately there was a lot of land reform in large parts of India, thanks to the pincer phenomena of Gandhian Bhudaan and the Naxal menace. That will have to happen first in Pakistan - export of the Naxal movement there.

We should also wait and see what happens to democracy in Egypt, Tunis, etc.

[ShauryaT]

B Ji: Can you expound on your version of the realistic options available to the Indian state in the short-medium term, present-20 years - to manage its affairs vis-a-vis TSP?

No need at least in this one post to go into your reasons, why and any explanations on how you have come to this conclusion. Just a short post on the options and any necessary clarifications of the options themselves, is my request. Thanks.

[brihaspati]

B Ji: Can you expound on your version of the realistic options available to the Indian state in the short-medium term, present-20 years - to manage its affairs vis-a-vis TSP?

No need at least in this one post to go into your reasons, why and any explanations on how you have come to this conclusion. Just a short post on the options and any necessary clarifications of the options themselves, is my request. Thanks.

Briefly, as I have expressed before : once we reach the conclusion that preservation of the Pakis state is unacceptable [various reasons including but not restricted to some very secular and UN Human rights agenda approved/aligned thinking], we need to think of how to bring about that outcome.

Unless we foucs on raising issues that splits Pakistanis into ruling junta composed of the elite+Dawaists+army+judiciary+landowning classes on one side and the majority of Pakis on the other side - this transition cannot take place. There is no other basis for that artifical nation apart from the exclusivity claims of the elite.

Interacting with dissenters from Pakiland and its extended communities [they do exist and I do test for taqyia] gives the possibility that the demand for land redistribution should be something that we should encourage. Raise the issue of land redistribution on every possible fora - it will force all the Dawaists+feudals+army+judiciary -in fact the entire Paki ruling system to come against it. The secularists in desh cannot object - its a noble aim - and the reason why the land-reformers of India never speak of Pakistan in their harangues against yeevil yindoo landwoners. There are ways and means of engaging and supporting dissent within Pak over this.

The details are not necessary: are they? You can see how there is a thunderous silence whenever the question of land-redistribution in Pak comes up - compared to more esoteric Dawaist-pasand slogans which readily reverberate in Indian minds?

[brihaspati]

Here is another view of the exclusive militancy supported exclusively by the USA in Pakistan so much so that no other country can be included in the subcontinental-militancy-fostering-nation list :

[each of the following groupings have representations in the subcontinent - and especially Pakistan.]

http://www.centreforsecularspace.org/si ... 281%29.pdf

1. The Older Islamic Right Political Parties
Jamaati–i Islami (JI)

The Jamaati-i Islami (JI) was formed in 1941 in colonial India and exists today in Pakistani,
Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Kashmir, India, UK and elsewhere. The JI is based firmly on the
ideology of one of the key founders and thinkers of fundamentalist Islam, Abul a’la Maududi.
Maududi was one of the first modern Islamic Right thinkers to have outlined a theory of the
Islamic State and a theory of modern jihad. He developed an Islamic Right political party based on a hierarchical command structure. Maududi opposed initially the partition of India, but became involved in Pakistani politics following independence. The JI developed numerous wings, including an extremely violent student wing (Islami Jamiat Tulaba, IJT). Associates of the JI were directly implicated in the massive genocide in (what is now) Bangladesh during the war of liberation in 1971, as well as other acts of systematic repression, anti-minority hatred or violence in Pakistan. The JI was instrumental in influencing the ideology of Islamicization during the highly authoritarian and repressive Zia dictatorship. Currently, the JI is part of a political alliance of mostly Islamic Right parties that controls the North West Frontier Province in Pakistan. It also has a jihadi wing which is also part of a broader alliance of jihadi forces operating in Kashmir and Afghanistan. The Jamaat-e Islami is also highly active in Bangladesh and has a violent youth wing, the Islami Chhatra Shibir. In the UK, JI influences are bestrepresented in the UK Islamic Mission, the Islamic Foundation, the Markfield Institute of Higher Education, Dawatul Islam, the Islamic Society of Britain (ISB), Young Muslims UK (YMUK), Young Muslim Organization UK (YMO), Muslim Educational Trust, Islamic Forum Europe (IFE), London Muslim Centre / East London Mosque, Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), Muslim Aid, several mosques, madrassah and various other projects and organizations. The Muslim Brotherhood also has key influence or control over some of the organizations listed above.


Muslim Brotherhood (MB)

The Brotherhood was formed in the late 1920s in Egypt under the influence of Hassan al-
Banna and now exists as a large international movement active in Egypt, Jordan, Palestine, Syria, Algeria, Sudan and other mid-East and north African countries, western and eastern Europe, south-East Asia and elsewhere. The MB, like the JI, has an ideology of the Islamic State, political jihad and political struggle. The MB and its offshoots also have a long history of political violence. It is possible to trace the histories of most contemporary salafi-jihadi groups to the ideological thinking of the Muslim Brotherhood and especially to several of its key figures, including (but not only) Sayyid Qutb. In the UK, the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) is the most important MB influence and Islamic Relief is a Muslim Brotherhood influenced charity. MB is also very strongly represented in several organizations listed under JI above.


Hizb-ut Tahrir (HT)

Hizb-ut Tahrir is a political movement based in Europe, the middle-east, Pakistan and Bangladesh, central Asia and elsewhere. Its ideology is based on the political theory of the ‘caliphate’ developed in the 1950s by Taqiuddin an Nabhani, an Islamist ideologue and former MB associate. HT is vigorously opposed in principle to the idea of democracy. In the UK, the HT has presented itself as respectable, though its history in the UK and abroad would suggest otherwise. It is fair to say that HT is committed to struggle for a global Caliphate through political means and ideological struggle, but that offshoot organizations and individuals associated with HT have not necessarily followed this strictly political approach.

2. Sectarian Salafi International Networks

[...]
Wahabbi-Salafism is widespread in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and other gulf
states, Yemen, Egypt, Palestine, Jordan, and among some key (but small) groups in Pakistan,
Afghanistan, Bangladesh and India. Salafi ideology has strong Europe-wide influence, including extensive UK organizational influence, often overlapping with JI / MB organizations. Salafism is mainly (but not exclusively) sponsored by official as well as independent Saudi largesse (especially through the Muslim World League – Rabitat al-Alam al-Islami). Globally, salafism probably represents the views of less than a tenth of all Sunnis (and Wahabbism a tiny fraction of this), and yet it can be the most vocal where it gains a foothold. In the UK, Salafi-Wahabbi groups usually present themselves as ‘moderate’, ‘mainstream’, ‘non-violent’ and opposed to terrorism. For a wide variety of political and theological reasons, they can also severely criticise salafi-jihadi groups, but this can also disguise the authoritarian and dogmatic nature of their own beliefs and ideologies.

3. The intersections of JI / MB and Salafi tendencies

In the UK, there can also be considerable overlap in personnel between JI / MB organizations
and the kind of Salafi-Wahabbi organizations and networks represented under 2. The JI and
MB, under independent and official Saudi and gulf patronage, effectively operate under a
division of labour globally regarding their respective spheres of influence. Usually, the JI and
MB act in concert with each other and in a complementary way. Individuals from both also
work together under a single group, as in the case of several UK organizations. It is not at all unusual to find, for example, a JI-controlled ‘centre’, with strong MB representation in its management (as well as some Deobandi representation). The centre may have extensive Saudi funding, employs a Wahabbi-Salafi (inevitably Saudi approved) cleric for mosque or religious functions, runs salafi study circles for young people (a key inculcation strategy), houses a fundraising charity run by the JI or MB, has a youth branch, receives local authority funding and support, and is considered ‘moderate’ and ‘representative’ by the public sector. For example, key individuals involved in the highly authoritarian (Wahabbi) World Assembly of Muslim Youth (WAMY, Riyadh, London) may also be involved in the MB, the MCB, the MAB and Similarly, in the example of the East London Mosque / London Muslim Centre, there is a noticeable convergence of JI political ideology and authoritarian forms of salafi theology. It is also possible to speak of a broader political ‘axis’ of organizations comprising JI, MB, Wahabbi-Salafis, Ahl-e Hadith, other right-wing political Deobandi groups, and even the Tablighi Jamaat. On sectarian grounds, Wahabbi-Salafi clerics would oppose each of the other groups as ‘deviates’ or worse; but on practical grounds, wealthy Saudis and others would fund them. So, this JI / MB / Salafi /political Deobandi ‘axis’ may have internal sectarian and theological differences, but collectively has come to represent what is called ‘moderate Islam’ by the UK government. It bears little relation to the religious,ethnic, cultural and secular traditions and practices of the majority of south Asian Muslims in the UK.

[A_Gupta]

If you want to deprogram Pakistanis from their ideology, then you need to keep them uneducated until you deprogram them. Here is the analogous result from the USA that I'm relying on to say so:
http://www.alternet.org/story/154252/th ... age=entire

[Agnimitra]

If you want to deprogram Pakistanis from their ideology, then you need to keep them uneducated until you deprogram them.

Any kind of knowledge, material or spiritual, given to fanatics filled with resentment and pride, will only increase their ability to spread denial. Their minds will use the knowledge to bolster their idiocy and invalidate everything else.

upadesho hi murkhaanaam
prakopaaya na shaantaye
payah-paanam bhujangaanaam
kevalam visha-vardhanam

"Good instructions to deluded fools does not calm their rage. Feeding milk and fruit to the hooded serpent only increases its poison."