Managing Pakistan's failure

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by harbans »

=>While doing the right thing part may resonate with many people influenced by Dharmic thoughts, the inherent contradiction with the stratification of the Hindu society will also confuse those are trying to understand Dharmic society. How can people who believe in doing the right thing, treat so many of their own, poorly? This specifically creates a stick by which Dharma can be beaten down with, and has provided the moral crutch for the White Man's Burden.
Good post Vikram Ji. But just wanted to point out that no one has beaten Dharma by any stick so far. No one grew a pair or had a stick that big to beat Dharma. If at all they did want to undermine it, they pretended to be moralistic in XYZs name. It happened with the Islamists, it happened with the Whte Chritisian denominations, Imperialists, colonists. But they all in the name of natural morality tried to impose their warped versions on others. And when they did beat Indic society up, they did so not challenging Dharma, but attempted partly successfully in breaking up Dharmic Indic people into different strands. So they separated Buddhist from mainstream, then Jains, then Sikhs, then Hare Krishna'ites, Arya Samaji's and next in line will be Vaishnavite's and so on, till the majority Indic faith as defined by Hinduism will only be defined in terms of Caste and culturally or socially prejudicial indices.

That is an excluvist onslaught we have failed to recognize here, and i have attempted to bring that up on several occasions, including advocating a constitution with fundamental Dharmic principles as being central to the Indian nationhood. That would unite different Indic strands and separate/ isolate out the cultural or social prejudices that have crept into our society. By it's isolation we make clear that such prejudices are not Dharmic and will tend to die out faster. By the linkage of these prejudices to 'Hinduism', we raise feelings of inadequacy about doctrine, ideals in our society leading to vast sections revolting from their Dharmic roots also to doctrines like Communism, Maoism and simpler but inherently excluvist doctrines that tend to divide and not unite us as fellow Dharmics.

The mistaken assumption that Dharmics will be soft in battle is just that, a mistaken assumption. Sikhs for example will never hesitate if someone calls their warriors a 'Sword of Dharma', but they will object if you call them a sword of Hinduism. While compassion, equanimity are core in Dharma, and Truth is equated with God, in no way it implies Dharma has no sword. A cursory reading of the Gita shows Krishna himself exhorting Arjun to battle the forces of Adharma. Because Dharma has power, it has soft power too. Most will accept without a fight the principle embodiments of Dharma, because it comes inherent and natural.

Today everyone is claiming Dharma. The Chinese have gained Tibet, because we rejected the plurality inherent in Dharma in favor of the assumed plurality of Secular politics that was essentially a step forward by European states to separate the Church from their internal political affairs. So essentially while the White Christiandom countries evolved a step to Dharmic constitutionalism, we took a step backwards and devolved to Secularism. When we did so, we lost our empathy for the slaughter of Dharmic cultures by imperialist and colonial forces in Tibet. We let the Dharmic institutions die there. Now China too knows India is not living up to it's legacy on Dharma, so why not claim it completely. For that it has isolated HH DL, it has laid claim to ArP, it lays claim to Bhutan, Sikkim, Leh, Nepal and Bodh Gaya will soon come too. White Christiandom too is laying claim, they tried it via the Aryan invasion theory by attempting to say that major Dharmic texts are a result of some hypothetical Aryan white race. Now they are trying to say Christs teachings and Dharmic teachings of Buddhism and Upanishads are similar (note, not Hinduism..which has been relegated by them as a collective of social and prejudicial practices by people who believe in Idols, polutheism etc). They are appropriating Yoga in all it's forms, including creating the excluvism of Christian Yoga..

We must understand that these appropriations are the real core danger to India. The moment these people who seek to divide the Dharmics, know India stands firmly by and for Dharma we have won a major battle. They will also know then India will defend Dharmics anywhere and our sword arms defend them with all our might. White excluvist Christiandom, the Chinese imperialists know they cannot stand up to the forces that a Dharmic united India can unleash. They after all want to be it's claimants. They indeed are welcome to evolve to Dharma, but it will not be defined by them through a warped excluvist principle which they have followed and viewed others mostly in their history. It's India's duty and Dharma to define that. That also is the start of claiming back Indics who have strayed to excluvist doctrine.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

AKalam wrote: About Islam and governance, the problems in states with significant Muslim population were and are mainly because of disruption or break in historical continuity IMO. Ottoman and British India are two main examples, whereas Iran and Indonesia did not suffer this discontinuity because they retained more or less their original areas of state without a break from the past, which probably is the reason for their relative stability. Islamic lifestyle may contribute to a general backwardness in people's outlook and make them resistant to change, but Arab spring shows that this also is not absolute. Change is an inherent part of human social evolution, regardless of their belief systems. But in case of Islamic society the change may be slower than others.
Interesting observations. Actually large Muslims populations are able to live harmoniously as a minority among non Muslims precisely because they are allowed more freedom than in an Islamist society and non Islamic laws generally stop Sunnis from killing Shias or Ahmedis. Or killing if there is an unwanted romance. But the act of living as a minority is a grievance in Islam right from the outset.

Maybe your perspective is actually correct. Before the "break in continuity" Islamic countries had many "bright areas" of learning, art and architecture. And the art and science of war I guess. But there was never any real tolerance of anything outside of Islam. As long as there was expansion, all was well. Central "stable" areas thrived. But European renaissance followed by the flowering of modern science and the industrial revolution caught the rest of the world on the wrong foot. Europe's time had come. Islamic nations had zero chance of being victorious in conflict with industrial Europe. Europe/Britain more or less "walked in" to an India that was racked by infighting often among Muslim kings but also with other Indian civilizations. The Islamic kings in India had to coexist/co-rule parts of India with several civilizations including the Vijaynagar empire initially, and more recently with the Marathas and the Sikhs. Britain took over like a maelstrom. And Britain played with minds more than anyone else. they first divided Hindu society into high/low/black/white. the admire the high and white initially and later pulled them down and said the "low and black" needed saving. Finally they jumped on the Muslims grievance bandwagon - the continuous Islamic caterwaul that a society with non Muslims cannot be perfect. No matter how happy Muslims might be in a mixed society, the theory says the must be dissatisfied. This is a bug in Islam and if Muslims can't kill it, kafirs will do it for them sooner or later. Probably with less bloodshed than if the job were left to Muslims.

In this day and age stupid rhetoric like "The Muslim welcomes death while others are afraid" can cause only ROTFL. the Muslim who welcomes death will be given death onlee. But this has to be understood by the leaders and the ulema. Unfortunately for a country like Pakistan the US just screwed them and took them for a massive ride. For a sophisticated power like the US, meeting yahoos who are willing to die is a God send - so getting the beggar Pakis to create the Taliban had the US laughing all the way. The Pakis have a "sort of genuine" grievance against the US. But if the US was clever, the pakis were stupid in believing the US and believing that Islamic extremism was actually going to be popular and admired (or feared) by everyone.

The Pakis are having a mild "We were jackasses" moment now as they feebly struggle against the US. If the US leaves India is sure to dominate them. If the US stays they remain slaves. Good for them. However as I see it, if the US stays it will be status quo. It is better to try and get the US out and prepare for a post USA subcontinent.

It is utter bullshit to imagine that India wants to take over Pakistan. We have backward states like Bihar, Orissa and Karnataka to develop. That is more than one Pakistan. The best India will do is to trade with them and there will be some tourism. Access to the rest of the subcontinent will be easier. The India threat is a necessity for the Pakistani army to retain power and keep the US helping them.
VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1885
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by VikramS »

harbansji: We are getting too off-topic for this thread but your post needs to be x-posted in some relevant thread. I see Buddhism, Jains, and Sikhs strains of Dharma fixing this but as you said Dharma has lost control over its perception.

On Wikipedia, there is an article on Hinduism and Sikhism and people have actually tried to get it deleted. There is this particular quote which I found funny

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism_and_Sikhism

"Khushwant Singh has written that despite innovations, "this new community, the [Sikh] Khalsa Panth, remained an integral part of the Hindu social and religious system."[17], however Hew Mcleod believes that claims of this nature "can, in large measure, be dismissed".[18]"

Now Khushwant Singh is almost 100 years old, and has lived through at least 20% of the entire history of the Sikh faith. But they have to quote this White guy McLead, a former missionary himself. In the discussion page, there are all kind of stuff about how Hindus do not go to the Sikh temple etc. etc. Anyone who has lived in Northern India knows this is BS. Very often you will see more people without pagdis in the Gurudwaras of Delhi than those with pagdis. And how can a faith which grew when the first born was given to it, be considered not related.
harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by harbans »

Vikram Ji, no it is not irrelevant to this thread. It has meandered to a discussion where White Christiandom as we acknowledge has manipulated the discourse in the Subcontinent. I would say Excluvist philospohies have dominated the discourse. And that has relevance to Pakistan survival and/or dissolution too. See this from the Wiki site:
Sikhs believe there is only one God, who has infinite qualities and names. Hinduism is a diverse system of thought with beliefs spanning monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, monism and historically atheism
The moment they say Sikhism says God has infinite qualities and names but Hinduism is..XYZ, they've not defined what Hinduism is, but slyly put the notion that Hinduism does not believe God has infinite qualities and can have many names. Again,
Page 747, Line 18 - One may read all the books of the Vedas, the Simritees and the Shaastras, but they alone will not bring liberation.
Now this again is repeated in Hindu scriptures multiple times too and made amply clear in the Bhagavad Gita.

I quoted Dhammapada Chapter 28, where in this important Buddhist text they define who is a Brahmin..yet Buddhism is defined as having revolted against the Brahmin.

I am here both strongly exhorting the point that dividing India happened not just on geographical, Hindu-Muslim, ethnic, linguistic lines..but a massive attempt has been made and underway by not just Xtiandom but all excluvist doctrine that divide our common Dharmic heritage. To face the excluvist onslaught it is very important to understand what divides us and what common strand unites us all. Only if we understand that we will have the power of absorption and the conviction of face off as well.

When we unite we evolve ourselves irrespective of our religious hues and present preferences to a higher more common perspective. Excluvist doctrines tend to fix us and halt that evolution by providing us a rigid framework. That evolutionary framework in Dharma, lays the groundwork to our plurality. That lays the very foundation of our support to each other. The foundations of that support system were shaken by excluvism in the 80's in Punjab.

It will be shaken again if we don't water our roots and they become firmer. To absorb Pakistan's failure, we have to provide a unifying framework in antithesis to the excluvism preachings that unite or will divide Pakistan. We all have to understand and internalize, yes we have had social and cultural incongruities creep into society, but these were the antithesis to our Dharma. We need Unity and direction in our operating system framework to guide us in the still ongoing upheaval against excluvism and the repercussions of it in our neighbourhood. Dharma unites us standing, absorbing and facing that off and provides the backbone of that operating system.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

If we really want USA to be screwed and be ultimately forced out - it is tactically important to keep US overt coercive machinery on ground in AFPak. I am surprised but not shocked at the ramge of romantic disconnect I often come across here - where obviosuly people do not interact with subcontinental Islamism at the level required to understand their leaderships mindset and long term agenda.

Almost all who are projecting a future society in the Islam dominated areas in and around the subcontinent where societies would naturally evolve away from mullahcracy led stunted and twisted development and ideological progress [towards a modernist pretension at least of liberality and diversity and freedom of thought] - are doing it on an understanding of Islamism and islamic institutions that is almost totally false and flawed.

Islamic scholars I have interacted with - pretending that I am toying with the idea of "joining" in, invariably change their face when they smell a kill. Without any exception, every such human work of art - slowly and indirectly reveal the degree of tactical sharpness that is obtained by the more intelligent trainee Islamist from the texts and their interpretations. Based on these interactions, I believe many here have fallen for the mullhcracy created impression that what they do, or intend to do, etc - are because of non-Muslim "imperialist" [termed anti-Islam forces, sleeper cells of one-eyed Dajjal, yahudi-amreeki-yindu axis of dajjal/shaitan etc] manipulations and provocations. This is a conscious and deliberate agitprop line which at one single stroke pretends Islamist atrocities to be a "reaction" to imperialism, or when such reactions are successful and helps expand Islamic influence - then also it is not due to inherent mulahcratic plans and agenda but manipulation by "imperialists".

This way, in either case - mullahcracy and islamists themselves remain free from any responsbility for outcomes. They have a very strong incremental approach which I guess most people here have never grasped because they have studied islamism from outside - through equally "outsider" academic delusion in the form of papers, or swallowing what Islamists or individual Muslims say in private in their interactions with the non-Muslim on anything concerning Islam.

Thus this semi-myth about Paki army - fueled by the elite of Pakistan, and the Dawaists networks - being only engaged in stuff because the USA or China backs them up, is really a myth that hides the longer term incremental approach of mullahcracy towards what they view as world-conquest.

Just this afternoon, I have recvd a vid made at a certain famous "sufi" madrassah conference somewhere on the subcontinent: where transnational ulema arrived and harangued. The max came from UK, also from KSA, and there were others from Pak, Malaysia. In one session - 75% mentioned how they saw the recent positions and statements issued by "white Christian" state leaderships were concessions to Islam, and how Islam has reached even the white house. Soon, they thundered - all of the world will be under the banner of islam. But more importantly they pointed out how case by case, tactic by tactic, they were proceeding on their long term agenda of world conquest. In this, they emphasized - that all possible avenues to use the internal disputes within non-Muslims, especially their confusion over Muslims - should be used. They quoted verses - which I know from my studies of the texts - where the founder had instructed his followers to use the sympathies within non-Muslims for eventual conquest. USA came up as a prime target to be dispelled - because with the upper levels of US rulership they deem now sympathetic towards Islam - it is the lower levels of US forces who remain anti-Muslim who are creating problems on the ground.

Any success of the lower orders of USA on ground against Muslims would sap the morale of the future generations according to some of these ulema. Sometimes Muslims were becoming afraid of "actions" because of possible retaliation. The presence of US forces in the neighbourhood was also encouraging Hindu/saffron forces and the sympthatic "sections" of ruling regimes in India were becoming hesitant too in supporting Muslims on the subcontinent.

They saw the coming decade as a deciding phase in the reclaiming of the whole of the subcontinent - as they felt that they were already at a presence level in controlling or influencing mechanisms, which would make it impossible for non-Muslims to stop their progress if this decade could be made into a decade of consolidation.

The personf rom pak was most interesting. He said that USA had been useful, but now needed to be pushed out because the "foot soldiers" and lower level commanders on ground were not always toeing the higher-up line of pro-Islamism. In this he expected a large section of Indian media to be sympathetic to the Islamist cause - but he regretted that BD media was playing neutral.
Last edited by brihaspati on 25 Feb 2012 23:33, edited 1 time in total.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

Increasingly, the lower orders of US forces are turning predominantly anti-Islam and in most cases anti-anything-Paki. In AFG there has been huge ruckus over the text burning allegation and trouble continues. The forces on ground will increasingly any opportunity they see where they can take potshots at Paki islamists safely without retaliation from their superiors.

If we really want them out - we should wish that they try to stay longer. Each side will wear itself out a bit through this [the Brit soldiers are already showing the reactions]. We need them to bleed each other as much as possible.

Was the Iraqi bleeding bad? yes for the Iraqis and the Sunni-Shia factions. But it has been good for the rest of the world. If US action descends these regions into intra-Islamic bloodshed - well and good. As for India, its time to drop the delusion that any region with well-entrenched Islamist institutions allowed to survive and flourish or protected under the state - will eventually lose steam once "imperialists" leave the place. No history supports that - and even the Turkish experiment ultimately proved that as long a sthe institutional framework remained intact - it would always revive over many generations.

harbans ji's approach may appear esoteric now, but he is on the right track. Those institutions have to be replaced, and for that soverignty is required where the state no longer protects the Dawaists. This is what will have to be needed for the region now called Pak. Any other road suggested will ultimately lead to the post Kemalist Turkish delight of a resurgent and re-established mullahcracy, even if there had been decades of secularist post-Islamist apparent frenzy.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by RajeshA »

AKalam wrote:In the Eastern side of India, an expanded and strengthened ASEAN will have the same effect, to make Bangladesh and Myanmar much more workable, so access to all of South East Asia becomes possible and exploitative influence of China can be stopped on its tracks. Here also Japan, Korea, US led West will be a willing partner to reduce Chinese influence.
AKalam ji,

though this off-topic here, since the issue was raised by you, I'll give in brief my thinking.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, I really don't think Pakistan would be either a viable entity in the future, nor play any major role. Its location is indeed geo-strategically too important, and as its economy starts biting the dust in a couple of years, so too would its capacity to hold itself together. Pakistan would start feeling the air getting thinner in its economy in 2012 itself, but USA would bail it out for now. After 2014 that would not be the case anymore. All bailing out will stop from absolutely all avenues. Political and security chaos would increase, and external powers would start fishing for new maps of the Pakistani state(s).

Either USA would take care of Baluchistan in the next 5 years, or India would take care of it in the next 20 years!

So in Central Asia one would indeed see a new grouping similar to SCO but with India as a major player with full and direct access to Central Asia. The Activation of the North-South Axis in Central Asia would invariably lead to a weakening of the West-East Axis, which favors China.

Southeast Asia too would see some changes. The region was completely dominated by Hindu-Buddhist sanskriti. I think as India starts reactivating the Old Sanskritic Soft Power, one would see Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia coalesce towards India. For strategic reasons Vietnam too would strongly lean towards India. Laos may have more Chinese influence, or may take the same route as the rest of the Indo-Chinese Peninsula. There is going to be a lot more cohesion within this group consisting of India, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam, Singapore!

I am expecting that this group would build a very tight group with not just economic integration but also political and security integration! There would be visa-free travel and there will be highways crisscrossing the region. I also believe sooner or later there will be an additional Kra Channel joining Gulf of Siam and Indian Ocean, secured jointly by Thai and Indian forces.

I would call this group the Dharmic Asian Union!

So where does that leave other major countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Brunei, which are Muslim, as well as Philippines, which is Christian?

I think all these countries would have very good relations with the Dharmic Asian Union! However the Southeast Asian Muslim countries would have to make efforts to keep Islamic Extremism bottled up, and deal with it with a fist. They will have to keep their political stability in order to keep up with the economic development in the Dharmic Asian Union! There will also be far greater integration of Bangladeshi and Indian economies!

But otherwise, I don't see much of a problem between such a Dharmic Asian Union and the Southeast Asian Muslim countries.

I think, India today is civilizationally speaking an under-performer. We would have to start projecting a lot more of our Dharmic Sanskriti into the region. Should India come into her own in the next 25 years, India can stem the influence of China in the region, and make the Indo-Chinese Peninsula a mostly India dominated area.
devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by devesh »

Interesting observations. Actually large Muslims populations are able to live harmoniously as a minority among non Muslims precisely because they are allowed more freedom than in an Islamist society and non Islamic laws generally stop Sunnis from killing Shias or Ahmedis. Or killing if there is an unwanted romance. But the act of living as a minority is a grievance in Islam right from the outset.

where are these "large Muslim populations living harmoniously among non Muslims"? I'd like to know. and also, what do these large muslim populations do when they are no longer minority but become majority? even if the earlier assumption is true, then the evidence of what "large muslim populations" do when they become majority, is overwhelmingly in the direction of ethnic cleansing. perhaps, this is an indicator that the "large minority muslim populations" indulge in a kind of Taqyia which lasts until they become majority or until they are confident they've gained enough demographic clout to not have to commit Taqyia anymore? Kashmir is one example where the gradual tilt in demographics towards the Islamic eventually led to genocide of the non-Islamic. BD, that paragon of "anti-Paki" qualities, has shown several symptoms of that very-much-hated Pakistaniyat, when it comes to Hindus. Kerala, the 100% literacy state and the bastion of the Left/liberal, is also proving to be a mighty example of Islamic demography showing their intent when they feel comfortable with their demographics!!!
VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1885
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by VikramS »

shiv:

That post on the TSP thread about needing strong enemies is true. In fact the more heterogeneous the society, the greater the need for that threat. While many say that the US manufactures enemies it does not need, perhaps it is a necessity in open societies.


RajeshA:

While all the stuff you write about defines a possible trajectory in the future, I am not sure what is needed to lay the groundwork for that. I do believe however, that the foundation is just not there.

I think a big part is restoring the civilization self-consciousness among Indians. How that will happen as above my pay-grade. However as long as Indians continue to be mired in self-inflicted, self-doubt and infighting it will be hard to happen.

Like you, I also see a lot of opportunity ahead. The rise of China has not been benign, and a lot of people both in India's neighborhood, and in the West see that. Many in the West are shell-shocked at how quickly the Chinese have been able to rise up the value chain.

The Chinese recently revealed the J-21, their version of the F-35. With their single minded focus on getting as much as they can as quickly as possible, they have successfully penetrated the US organizations and have been able to access technology often without anyone discovering the breach.

While the US will like to rope in other powers to contain China, I think they themselves have reconciled to a G-2 world, with the Chinese are the other pole.

A big part of the problem is their inability to work with India. Their strategic focus on containing China gets put on the back-burner by their tactical needs in the Middle-East. The Chinese know that and are using it to their advantage.

In a way it is vindication of the premise that when it comes to decisions taken at the gut-instinct level, the ethno-religious aspect end up dominating what the rational mind says. The Chinese are not constrained by any spiritual compulsions; they have had a single minded focus on their need to make their race as strong as possible. The Indians suffer because they are caught up by two forces, one which says that focus on your ruthless self-interest, the other which says that do the right thing.
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Agnimitra »

harbans wrote:I am here both strongly exhorting the point that dividing India happened not just on geographical, Hindu-Muslim, ethnic, linguistic lines..but a massive attempt has been made and underway by not just Xtiandom but all excluvist doctrine that divide our common Dharmic heritage. To face the excluvist onslaught it is very important to understand what divides us and what common strand unites us all. Only if we understand that we will have the power of absorption and the conviction of face off as well.
Fantastic post harbans ji.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

brihaspati wrote: The personf rom pak was most interesting. He said that USA had been useful, but now needed to be pushed out because the "foot soldiers" and lower level commanders on ground were not always toeing the higher-up line of pro-Islamism. In this he expected a large section of Indian media to be sympathetic to the Islamist cause - but he regretted that BD media was playing neutral.
Good! I support the right of Pakistani independence from America. The Pakis have more brains than we give them credit for. We need to understand how the US has used the poor, long suffering people of Pakistan. People who understand Muslims empathically rather than with covert antagonism, will feel the pain of the ordinary Pakistani at what the white Chirstian USA is doing. The slave army of Pakistan must be made to work for Pakistani interests rather than American interests.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

Oh! if chasing out Americans really helps the Pakistani army to serve itself better - and serve the Dawaists agenda better - absolutely! I have no problems with mullahcracy gaining more power in Pakiland. In fact I have long wished for such an Islamist empowerment. Because mullahcracy knows that its main target is the much hoped for conquest of India.

Such a resurgence against India would be good. It will help to identify the real supporters of Islamism within India, and people will have to take sides. That will stamp and identify each and every excusers and helpers - in any possible way - of the Islamists of Pak and BD and any closet liberal pretenders flourishing within India. Then of course appropriate steps can be taken so that this problem does not ever appear again - both from within as well as from outside.

Perhaps the best way to manage Paki failure is to let Paki Dawaists succeed and let them in turn succeed against India. One way to enhance this is of course by chasing USA out - a common refrain across Islamophile sections all along the subcontinent. This is a demand coming out solidly from the subcontinental mullahcracy leadership over the last few months and in a very coordinated manner. I was made aware of this in mid-December. For me it fits into the larger pattern of agit-prop against China ["China is the greater enemy - turn your attention away from Pak - help it stand up etc etc"] while trying to create sympathy for Pak - that has been campaigned for almost since the previous July.

It is good to see this appear on forums. It helps to identify the sources and perhaps also the planned timelines. So the serious focus is the north-western sector, and perhaps within the year?
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

shiv wrote:
brihaspati wrote: The personf rom pak was most interesting. He said that USA had been useful, but now needed to be pushed out because the "foot soldiers" and lower level commanders on ground were not always toeing the higher-up line of pro-Islamism. In this he expected a large section of Indian media to be sympathetic to the Islamist cause - but he regretted that BD media was playing neutral.
Good! I support the right of Pakistani independence from America. The Pakis have more brains than we give them credit for. We need to understand how the US has used the poor, long suffering people of Pakistan. People who understand Muslims empathically rather than with covert antagonism, will feel the pain of the ordinary Pakistani at what the white Chirstian USA is doing. The slave army of Pakistan must be made to work for Pakistani interests rather than American interests.
Err - this was a ranking ulema, and not poor long suffering people of Pakistan. This eminent persons two sons are in USA, and a daughter is in UK. He is on a list which I follow. All children are legally long term residents. Ironically the strongest opposition and demand for chasing out USA comes from the upper echelons of the Dawaists who have most of their children abroad. This one in particular is a wealthy landowner and also a ruler of a "sufi" following. He is quite notorious for using bonded labour and the "enslavement" of the wimmin of the bonded too. No problem for me - but these are equally and sometimes even more direct enslavers of the real poor of Pakistan than the US soldiers.

Only a tremendously callous attitude of pretended sympathy [not meaning your attitude Shiv ji, which I believe you have taken up in all sincerity of belief] for the common/poor Paki, can ignore the real enslavers as they appear to the vast majority of rural labour in Pak. For the vast rural majority, USA is the ephemeral dajjal only heard of from the mullahs, shaikhs, pirs - who in turn are the real human enslavers on ground.
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Agnimitra »

brihaspati wrote:Perhaps the best way to manage Paki failure is to let Paki Dawaists succeed and let them in turn succeed against India.
I understand the first part, but not the second (bolded) part. Let them succeed against India in what way?
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

In ways that clearly show the ideological and imperialist agenda behind - all the Mughalistan crap, which is increasingly being talked about within the Dawaist circles, especially around port-city.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

If we are really keen on empathizing with the really poor, exploited and the downtrodden of common pakis - we have to look beyond the urban loudmouths. Chasing out USA is a good slogan, jiust as bashing India and chasing India out of "Kashmir" is a good slogan. Each indulged in by the Dawaists networks, the feudals and the army whenever they feel pressurized, as a national rallying cry, and especially before they plan subversive activities on their pet targets - which reduces to Balochis and Baltistanis and Qadianis and Christians [SDRE versions onlee not the TFTA versions] inside, and India outside.

But looking beyond the elite shenanigans, the real vast majority see these elite as their main exploiter - against whom they are powerless. Because the Paki army is in cahoots with these exploiters. Even their theology's supreme is behind the exploiters because the exploiters also have the halo of theology.

The real explosion that can rock Paki society right through the middle is a demand for redistribution of the vast lands of the feudals and the various "spiritual" leaders and their families. Liberation of the bonded labourers, giving them land and cancellation of all debts - this is the demand that needs to be sown as seeds of hope.

If ever the situation arises that the commons of Pak are in a position when seeking Indian sovereignty wil become an option - we should promise land to the landless and the bonded, and cancellation of all their debts. We underestimate the Muslim women. I have had too many encounters with them to deny that they can be a tremendously subversive force that can strike at the very roots of islamism - but for that they need rashtryia protection. The landless, marginal peasants, agrarian labour, bonded and the women are the key. That is the section we should promise what they want, and back it up with concrete force. Pakistan problem will be solved for ever.
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Agnimitra »

brihaspati wrote:But looking beyond the elite shenanigans, the real vast majority see these elite as their main exploiter - against whom they are powerless. Because the Paki army is in cahoots with these exploiters.
The Paki Army - there are socio-ideological fractures within that institution. On one hand, isn't it true that it is through the Army that lower classes have climbed the social ladder there? So is there a possibility of revolution and social justice via mutiny within the Army?
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

Mutiny is very much on the cards. But the potential is at the moment in a flux becuase of the deomographic composition manipulation. Problem is even with climbing a bit - they do not get the "land" - the fundamental esteem point there.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

There are many sources and detailed studies : but this one is a good intro as to how land is the key to power, bootlicking of foreign imperialism, and theological retrogression:

http://www.pakistanpolicygroup.com/wp-c ... kistan.pdf
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

brihaspati wrote:If we are really keen on empathizing with the really poor, exploited and the downtrodden of common pakis -
Yes. If we are really keen
brihaspati wrote: Only a tremendously callous attitude of pretended sympathy
Given your views, why would pretend sympathy be callous?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

brihaspati wrote: The real explosion that can rock Paki society right through the middle is a demand for redistribution of the vast lands of the feudals and the various "spiritual" leaders and their families. Liberation of the bonded labourers, giving them land and cancellation of all debts - this is the demand that needs to be sown as seeds of hope.

If ever the situation arises that the commons of Pak are in a position when seeking Indian sovereignty wil become an option - we should promise land to the landless and the bonded, and cancellation of all their debts.
The Islamists of Pakistan - especially the Jamaat ud Dawa, the "political wing" of the LeT are far ahead of these plans.

Loyalty to Islamist groups is now serving as an alternative to being forced to follow the dictates of feudal politcians. The "grass roots" work being done by the JuD allow as escape from the grip of feudals and at least some of the grip that feudals have had in Pakistan has been broken even if land redistribution has not taken place. The LeT/JuD work by extracting taxes that are recycled to educate and feed people and provide relief during natural disasters.

For a long time it has been recognised by the more knowledgeable Pakistan watchers on BRF that islamists are replacing feudals in Pakistan and appear set to take on the Army. The army and the feudals need the USA to retain power and clout. The US wil stay as long as its work is being done, and will do what it can to help what the army and feudals claim is their bigest threat, India.

I am unable to find a specific article I was looking for but here is a good one by Christine Fair about how the JuD works that was discussed in detail on BRF many months ago

http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media ... timony.pdf

The Pakistan that India will have to deal with will be an Islamist Pakistan. That Islamist Pakistan has state of the art weapons now that will remain more or less up to date for the next 10 to 15 years.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

If sympathy is given to the whole Paki nation without distinction by banding together all Pakis as say poor and exploited by foreigners - then that becomes pretended and callous. Pretended because of ignoring the very real social-antagonsims between the landowners and the landless for which one can get information without going to Pakistan, in the same way that most of us have grown deepky knowledgable about the dynamics of Paki society from a distance. Callous because most of the Paki nationalist slogans - aimed at rousing anger against foreign sources - comes from the Dawaist+feudal+army sections. These are the very sections who actually exploit the vast majority of poor, common Pakistanis - and the Paki army is very much a preserver and protector of the landowner's power.

Another article posted a long time ago by me - looked at how JuD itself has been entrusted with the functions of the state that the Paki army is unable or unwilling to finance and the feudals have blocked such financing by blocking every taxation measure that taxes land and agricultural product anything signficantly. JuD owns and controls or manages vast tracts of land. But it also gets a lot of external funds - mainly from the Gulf - to carry out minimal state public activities. JuD does not bypass the land-ownership problem. In fact none of the isalmist parties and orgs like the JuD differe from the Pakistani Supreme Court or the Sharia authorities as to un-Islamicity of land reforms.

JuD claims it runs on Islamic taxation system - but the population is so poor that this claim is not supportable in the areas where JuD holds sway. C.Fair has little or no access to the rural labour which is acknowledged quite openly. The vast majority of JuD's clients needing benefits are themselves poor and have little or no means of production - forget access to land or land ownership - the main source of any economic surplus in that region.

In that sense JuD is an extension of the Paki ruling system and not confrontationist with the feudals or the army. The process had started in earnest right after the fall of Yahya.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by ShauryaT »

shiv wrote: I am unable to find a specific article I was looking for but here is a good one by Christine Fair about how the JuD works that was discussed in detail on BRF many months ago

http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media ... timony.pdf

The Pakistan that India will have to deal with will be an Islamist Pakistan. That Islamist Pakistan has state of the art weapons now that will remain more or less up to date for the next 10 to 15 years.
This book is also a good read. The Story of Lashkar-e-Toiba by Stephen Tankel.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

brihaspati wrote:If sympathy is given to the whole Paki nation without distinction by banding together all Pakis as say poor and exploited by foreigners - then that becomes pretended and callous.

<snip>

In that sense JuD is an extension of the Paki ruling system and not confrontationist with the feudals or the army. The process had started in earnest right after the fall of Yahya.
Now concatenate the first sentence you wrote and the last sentence and then see what US aid is doing. The US is doing what your first sentence says. Pakistan is what your last sentence says.

This US needs to either see light spontaneously after due meditation and contemplation. Or it needs to be taken out of the area.

Here is more Christine Fair
Obama Should Apologise
American anger over this duplicity is justified. Pakistan's ruling generals have taken U.S. funds with one hand and funneled them to their murderous proxies in Afghanistan with the other. But who got us into this situation? Ultimately it is the fault of the U.S. government, which chose to wage a war that was not winnable, whether with the allies it has or the allies it could cultivate. Pakistan is the only viable logistical route for the war in Afghanistan. How could the United States think it could defeat Pakistan's proxies in Afghanistan while depending on Pakistan to fight that very war? It is a maddening fact to any realist that while Washington found a way to funnel $20 billion (and climbing) into Pakistan despite its history of supporting terrorism and nuclear proliferation, it could never find a way to move logistics through Iran's deep sea port in Chabahar, even though Iran initially supported the war in Afghanistan. Washington grimaces at the suggestion of working with Afghanistan's western neighbor even though Tehran's record on both terrorism and nuclear proliferation is but a shadow of Pakistan's.

And the absurdity doesn't stop there. In the most twisted of realities, some of Pakistan's most anti-American trucking barons have enriched themselves by facilitating the logistical supply for the war with the hope of keeping the Americans in the Afghan killing fields as long as possible. After all, any dedicated insurgent seeking to end the war would have had better luck blowing up trucks piled up at either the Chaman or Torkham border crossings. Yet loss due to pilferage or destruction never exceeded 5 percent all of cargo. Why? Thanks to the Pashtun trucking mafia, the various Taliban organizations and petty officials along the routes make a killing from U.S. military's logistical needs. Five percent (or less) is an optimal level of loss that keeps everyone rolling in cash.
You were saying that the US needs to stay longer in Pakistan because..?
devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by devesh »

it is one thing to post Fair's articles when they might be showing useful research in statistical methods of analyzing Paki population. it is completely another to post a blatant propaganda that is the typical fare of Fair. she is known for her Paki sympathies. she recently called the Balochi agenda a "political gimmick" or something to that effect. it is clear where her agenda lies. there is no need to lend credence to the nonsense that spots from her. her argument is simple: the US should withdraw so that Pak can go back to being a thorn in India's side. this has always been her tilt, including the incessant need to talk about Cashmeer. she is merely faulting the US for spoiling Pak's fun. she comes from the same school of thought which believes that India needs to be "restrained" and "beaten back" into its home. for that Pak is the lynchpin. and this is where their sympathies lie.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

devesh wrote: her argument is simple: the US should withdraw so that Pak can go back to being a thorn in India's side. this has always been her tilt, including the incessant need to talk about Cashmeer. she is merely faulting the US for spoiling Pak's fun. and this is where their sympathies lie.
I am not sure I understand what you have written. Let me state what I understand from what you typed above so you might be able to explain

You said:
devesh wrote:the US should withdraw so that Pak can go back to being a thorn in India's side.
Do you mean that Fair considers the US presence in Pakistan as a blessing for India? And that a wihdrawal of the US from Pakistan would redress that situation?
devesh wrote:she comes from the same school of thought which believes that India needs to be "restrained" and "beaten back" into its home. for that Pak is the lynchpin.
This part I understand even less. The US is depending on Pakistan to do this? How?

Actually I find that I have some profound areas of agreement with Ms. Fair. Your post does not actually change that in any way. In fact even if she were what you say she is, I think the US should leave Pakistan.

But I will listen to any explanation you may write about the passages I have asked about.
Satya_anveshi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3532
Joined: 08 Jan 2007 02:37

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Satya_anveshi »

Unkil kept sending jihadis back into Afghanistan after their initial pick up early after the war began in Oct 2001. They were duly trained (not detained) and repaired of their missing limbs etc and sent back to Af-pak for fighting.

example Mullah Dadullah was sent back from Guantonamo after providing artificial leg after due training. He came and scewed the things up massively with suicide bombing introduction. Before that people of that part of the world did not take to suicide and infact considered it against religion.

Similarly, this ghazwa-e-hind stuff which posits that sub-continent bites the dust well before the final battle for Palestine is fought.

if you consider these two things, you will see Unkil and Joos have screwed up things at ideological level and directed the violence against others while making themselves convenient.

If Indian strategic community finds that Pukes are irreparably beyond reconciliation and there are no sane forces to work with, we should bring that sanity via extreme insanity. We too have powerful leverages that we can use and direct stuff away from us. If that means, pukistan's 21st century journey detours via 7th century, they can enjoy that ride.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by RajeshA »

VikramS wrote:RajeshA:

While all the stuff you write about defines a possible trajectory in the future, I am not sure what is needed to lay the groundwork for that. I do believe however, that the foundation is just not there.

I think a big part is restoring the civilization self-consciousness among Indians. How that will happen as above my pay-grade. However as long as Indians continue to be mired in self-inflicted, self-doubt and infighting it will be hard to happen.
VikramS ji,

I do see reasons to be optimistic. Logic and Truth is a sword which can cut through all layers of Dhimmitude, if given a chance!

I think there are good things happening
  1. I think, Rajiv Malhotra has started a revolution, bringing back clarity and reason for pride to the Indian Elite about themselves and their heritage. I think, this will have a snowball effect!
  2. I think, Indian national thought as expressed on BRF has a trickle down effect in the media, and more people would have it difficult to stand up to arguments of national interest which have been debunked here.
  3. I think, exposure of Indians to best analytic and managerial practices would spurn us to improve ourselves. Revolutions in greener living, sustainable development, etc. would change a lot in India.
VikramS wrote:Like you, I also see a lot of opportunity ahead. The rise of China has not been benign, and a lot of people both in India's neighborhood, and in the West see that. Many in the West are shell-shocked at how quickly the Chinese have been able to rise up the value chain.

The Chinese recently revealed the J-21, their version of the F-35. With their single minded focus on getting as much as they can as quickly as possible, they have successfully penetrated the US organizations and have been able to access technology often without anyone discovering the breach.

While the US will like to rope in other powers to contain China, I think they themselves have reconciled to a G-2 world, with the Chinese are the other pole.

A big part of the problem is their inability to work with India. Their strategic focus on containing China gets put on the back-burner by their tactical needs in the Middle-East. The Chinese know that and are using it to their advantage.
In my view India's influence would increase manifold if we get two things right:
1) Build up our MIC into an efficient and innovative complex!
2) In some few cases, show unbridled ruthless action, say in taking down a few personalities, who have been giving India a hard time, perhaps leaving a little trail which leads puna karma back to us!

This is sufficient to show that when India wants, we can be ruthless! "Political Will" is what other countries don't see in India, so instead of standing up there with an authority commensurate with our power, we get ignored and sidelined.

If we want to prevent G-2, it all lies within our hands! All we need to do is to show the above, that we are power with political will.
VikramS wrote:In a way it is vindication of the premise that when it comes to decisions taken at the gut-instinct level, the ethno-religious aspect end up dominating what the rational mind says. The Chinese are not constrained by any spiritual compulsions; they have had a single minded focus on their need to make their race as strong as possible. The Indians suffer because they are caught up by two forces, one which says that focus on your ruthless self-interest, the other which says that do the right thing.
VikramS ji,

for India, there is zero gap between ruthless self-interest and doing what is right! Anybody who sees a gap there either doesn't understand India's self-interest or doesn't understand what is right!
devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by devesh »

This part I understand even less. The US is depending on Pakistan to do this? How?
if you have to ask this, then I got nothing more to say to you. please continue to believe that you have reached the final truth while the rest of us idiots and spending time in darkness, whatever suits your fancy. with a question like that, there is nothing I can say to you. it would be a waste of my energy and yours.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

devesh wrote:
This part I understand even less. The US is depending on Pakistan to do this? How?
if you have to ask this, then I got nothing more to say to you. please continue to believe that you have reached the final truth while the rest of us idiots and spending time in darkness, whatever suits your fancy. with a question like that, there is nothing I can say to you. it would be a waste of my energy and yours.
Thanks. But your permission for me to believe what I want is not required.

If the US depends on Pakistan, it does not have to stay in Pakistan. Let them get out and do their darndest - like they did from 1958 to 2001.
Altair
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2620
Joined: 30 Dec 2009 12:51
Location: Hovering over Pak Airspace in AWACS

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Altair »

India need to develop a new weapon against Pakistan
Food packets to be dropped in Pakistan.

Contents of food packets:
Spicy pork soup
Sausage Pulao
Pork Vindaloo
Sorpatel etc..
saip
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4231
Joined: 17 Jan 2003 12:31
Location: USA

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by saip »

Yes and they all should be marked 'HALAL'!
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

shiv ji,
you seem to be enamoured of C.Fair's opinion pieces, but you have ignored the joint paper based on apparently real data and sound statistcial analysis - that I quoted in the previous page.

It tries to show based on actual "data", that
(1) more economic prosperity for Pak relative to India leads to greater support for anti-India militancy
(2) political or other internal factional considerations do not affect support for the more extremist militancy - that is constant and independent of economic or other factional considerations
(3) possibility of retaliation from US or Indian forces deters support for more extreme actions as the most likely determinant of caution or conditional support for militancy

So takling your various moves from one position to anopther as to why you want the USA out of Pak:
(a) "USA needs to get out of Pak so that TSPA can no longer get arms or money with which it supports anti-Indian militancy"

Counter points: TSPA can still get arms from China and other sources. I have not even gone discussing the alternative non-governmental and perfectly legal ways in which USA and UK and France and Germany can still stock up TSPA [and which they do by a clever use of shipping laws and networks].

If you say that USA moving out of Pak means USA stops giving money to TSPA, then that also is not guaranteed. USA supplies money to regimes and armies without its own army being present on their soil. Given that USA has continuously fed into regimes which had overtly even bitten US hands - this is a pious wish, not grounded in US practice so far. If you are privy to information that has US promises to behave otherwise than it is commonly known to do - then that is different.

(b) "USA needs to get out of Pak because it is a white Christian enslaver of the common Paki"

Counter points : The common Paki is more directly enslaved and mistreated by its own landowning, Dawaist+army officer class where the US is not directly visible on the social front as the exploiter. This representation of the US as the devil and source of all trouble for the common Paki comes from these very same Dawaists.

The anger against the Christian - is given out on the common Paki convert, but not on "white Christians". So hoping to enhance the hatred against the Christian serves to ethnically cleanse Paki society of SDRE Christians but has no impact at all on "white Christianity". Or you give a damn to the SDRE common Paki Christians life? I thought you were concerned about all common Pakis.

The real exploitation of the common Paki is based on hugely skewed land ownership and access to capital as well as educational inputs to use capital - patterns. If US inputs helps these very lanowning classes would you expect any real support from the ruling classes for the call to oust the USA from Pakistan.

Heightening the hatred of Pakis along colour-religious-identity only helps the Dawaists, and helps producing gazillions of future religious zombies - which given the primary ambitions of the Dawaists like JuD - is to conquer the mythical Mughalistan. Your demand is aligned to this outcome.

If we really want to weaken the TSPA based regime we need to change the focus of the entire basis of internal contradiction within Pakistan. We need to find an issue on which the entire society and ruling regime included have to take sides. This is the issue of land reforms and redistribution of land. This puts all of JUD, all the Dawaists, the Supreme Court jackals, the TSPA, and the feudals - all on one side against land redistribution [declared as anti-Sharia by the courts and the Dawaists] and the landless and marginals and landless agrarian labourer on the other side.

This is what we should sponsor.

Every profound political and social transition in a society needs a Dandi march question. An issue on which rulers and elite and dominants of a society are forced to take sides against the majority of the people. Every other issue you mention - religion, ethnicity, foreign devil - all of that confuses the commons because they have overlaps with the interests of the rulers, and do not show the contradiction between the rulers and the ruled.

Land redistribution is one single, simple issue that splits Pakistani society between its existing ruling interests and the larger mass of the common Paki society.

We will promise and carry out land redistribution in terms of ownership [which JuD does not support in fact and have openly opposed] for the common Paki as and when they come under our sovereignty.

You and I differ on this and lots of issues on Pakistan. Let us carry our own beliefs and respective projections for actions. I seek to destroy the foreign - in ideological, and historical sense - regime and ruling classes of the region currently known as Pakistan. I seek to bring back the common SDRE Paki back into Bharatya framework under a common soverignty. I seek to destory the last vestiges of the theological institutions that serve as a brutal foreign ideologicala and imperialist extension of Middle Eastern memes and allow the option of choosing alternatives to the common Paki. I want to give opportunities for full educational, financial and cultural development to its women and I would not hesitate to be ruthless to the N-degree to crush any resistance from remnants of the theologians or feudals. I also want to carry out land redistribution whereby land is given to the common landless or marginal farmer Paki. In the process I want to secure the land routes into CAR and Afghanistan too.

I cannot do this without sovereignty and therefore we will have sovereignty. I am confident that this is how it will turn out. Time will show which one of us is right although I know that I will be proved right. Perhaps meanwhile our exchanges only throw up the internal differences to be used by the Paki rulers. Shall we desist?
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

In addition - tactically I wanted USA to stay on till they are forced to leave like AFG and Iraq, is that both sides expend each others human and financial resources. Further, the longer the US stays the more is the gradual exposure of the US as an ally of the Dawaist and feudal interests in the eyes of the commons - which helps my ultimate aim.
devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by devesh »

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.

since 2001, US's former policy of military sales to Pak has continued, but what has changed is the fundamental thinking of US regarding Pak. they now have first hand experience of "dog biting the master". how is this bad? I can't for the life of me think that this is in some way bad for India.....it is good. US and Pak are wearing each other out.

if military sales are going to continue for Pak, no matter the status of US forces in Af-Pak, then I'd rather it be in a scenario in which military sales are going hand in hand with other aspects which are wearing both of these forces out. this is a good think. instead of just military sales to Pak and lovery dovey nonsense between Pak and Khan, we now have military sales and increasing animosity in "thinking" and especially a radical recalibration in Khan's public's thinking of Pak. this sets up both US and Pak to constantly be in friction over long term.

yes, I'd much rather prefer the second option post 2001 to that of the mythical utopia of 1958-2001. :roll:
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by RajeshA »

brihaspati wrote:I seek to destroy the foreign - in ideological, and historical sense - regime and ruling classes of the region currently known as Pakistan. I seek to bring back the common SDRE Paki back into Bharatya framework under a common soverignty. I seek to destory the last vestiges of the theological institutions that serve as a brutal foreign ideologicala and imperialist extension of Middle Eastern memes and allow the option of choosing alternatives to the common Paki. I want to give opportunities for full educational, financial and cultural development to its women and I would not hesitate to be ruthless to the N-degree to crush any resistance from remnants of the theologians or feudals. I also want to carry out land redistribution whereby land is given to the common landless or marginal farmer Paki. In the process I want to secure the land routes into CAR and Afghanistan too.

I cannot do this without sovereignty and therefore we will have sovereignty. I am confident that this is how it will turn out.
brihaspati garu,

I agree with you completely on the end state, regardless of how long it takes, that Pakistanis are turned Dharmic and Pakistani territory is integrated back into India.

The way you propose is certainly one way forward. It however need not be the only way forward. I am of the opinion that there are other ways of realizing that goal. I have already proposed a couple. I'll write more about another model.

I am of the view, India should be very careful in becoming involved in taking control over inhospitable lands, as that can become a severe drain on our nation - economically, politically, diplomatically, militarily, and in image. It is better to do things without direct involvement. I think it is important that India remains political stable, and civilizational engineering of our periphery can prove too exacting for the center to hold.

We have to do civilizational engineering on the cheap, without direct involvement!
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

RajeshA wrote: brihaspati garu,

I agree with you completely on the end state, regardless of how long it takes, that Pakistanis are turned Dharmic and Pakistani territory is integrated back into India.

The way you propose is certainly one way forward. It however need not be the only way forward. I am of the opinion that there are other ways of realizing that goal. I have already proposed a couple. I'll write more about another model.

I am of the view, India should be very careful in becoming involved in taking control over inhospitable lands, as that can become a severe drain on our nation - economically, politically, diplomatically, militarily, and in image. It is better to do things without direct involvement. I think it is important that India remains political stable, and civilizational engineering of our periphery can prove too exacting for the center to hold.

We have to do civilizational engineering on the cheap, without direct involvement!
It may turn out to be equally if not more costly to wait for the so-called cautious gentle manipulation. You may not have the time.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by RajeshA »

brihaspati wrote:It may turn out to be equally if not more costly to wait for the so-called cautious gentle manipulation. You may not have the time.
brihaspati garu,

None of the options that I proposed are of the gentle manipulation type. All are extreme violent, but all ensure that India does not get her hands bloody and does not involve the Indian State being seen as acting against or outside the UN norms.

Two of the options, I elaborated on were:
  1. 'Managing Chaos and the Dharmic Inkspots' Strategy
  2. Breaking the Islamist Hold: 'The Neo-Khalistan Movement' Strategy
VikramS
BRFite
Posts: 1885
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by VikramS »

A large number of Indians, especially the "psecular" once, want to look good to Westerners. However, they have a very poor, if any, understanding of how the same Westerners act in their own country. I really wish someone could articulate the happenings of the Republican Nomination Process, and highlight it to the "pseculars" in the Indian Media.

Gingrich is openly talking about these issues. He has been a powerful figure in US politics for the past few decades so he is not some nut.

Secular Left is destroying america.
http://news.yahoo.com/gingrich-warns-ro ... 59746.html

Or his claim that Gay Marriages are like Paganism (the Christians consider Dharmic faiths as pagans)
harbans
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4883
Joined: 29 Sep 2007 05:01
Location: Dehradun

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by harbans »

the Christians consider Dharmic faiths as pagans
That's incorrect. The White Christian faith does not contest Dharma. They cannot, they do not have that power..They can be claimants and that they are trying hard to be. Most here do not get it. They consider ONLY the Hindu as Pagans , Polytheists, Casteists, Idol worshippers and worse. Not Sikhs, Not Jains, Not Buddhists, Not Hare Krishna'ites..and in the near future not Vaishanvites not Shaivites or Arya Samaji's.(did you miss out the Wiki page you posted)..

And frankly God and nature consequently does not stand for those that cannot define themselves properly. And if the former is not possible forget about defending themselves. Islamism and the White Christiandom will overwhelm the debates that take place here. Because here the debates are on staving off the superficial aspects that comes with White Xtian/ Islamist domination. The concepts of Dharma, Karma, Moksha that unite the Indic faith has been rejected in favor of the superficial differences.
Post Reply