Managing Pakistan's failure

[RajeshA]

Atri ji,

Displaced people looking for shelter and food are in themselves a good opportunity.

1) However we should never allow any refugee from Pakistan to enter India, not even a minority refugee!

2) We could start creating safe zones within Pakistani territory itself for minorities primarily under say UNSC resolution.

3) In these safe zones Dharmic minorities can be catered to. If others want to avail of the facilities, they will have to prove to soldiers that they are deserving of such facilities. I wrote about it here: Process of Total Chaos and Subsequent Redemption!

[ramana]

X-post....
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 6#p1252126

The real issue is how the EIC period historians wrote the history of India during the 18th-19th centuries. The first three hundred years of Islamic rule are depicted in a particular narrative.

The first aspect is Gothic dark narrative of death, destruction and ruination in the early Islamic centuries. It didnt help that the Islamic hagiographers glorified and chronicled that aspect to show their belief in triumph of their religion based conquest. Most of the conquest turned out that way due to chance. It was a touch and go most of the time. Akbar became emperor due to a lucky arrow shot.

The second aspect is the inevitability of the loss of the conquered people. Narrative after narrative, historian after historian writes about how Hindus were only going to lose due to many factors: caste system, out-moded chivalry, ancient warfare techniques, quarreling leaders etc.

Yet the Rajputs had put up centuries of reistance (from Battle of Rajasthan to Rana Sanga, Rana Pratap etc.) and had transformed the Mughal empire into a collaborative rule. This is what tempered teh Mughal rle and made it so glorious.

The Marathas had founded their kingdom in 1680 and in less than a century had become the dominant power in India. They ignore the fact that with in fifty years of the death of Aurangazeb the Mughal Emperor was pensioner of the Marathas.

The third aspect is geographic. One vision is that of a greater India stretching from Afghainstan to Burma from Kashmir to Kanya Kumari. The other is the lesser India shorn of all the peripheral lands and peoples.

In the end it was the lesser India that the freedom struggle agreed to.

SAARC is way to get back to greater India just as EU is way to forget the Thirty year war in Middle Europe.


The unstated thesis of all these historians is that the advent of the British had lesser impact compared to the ravages of the Islamic centuries.

Islamic centuries(1200 to 1550)= very bad
Mughal rule(1550-1700) = not so bad
British (1757-1857 & 1858-1947) = good

First the British wrote such narratives and next the Indian historians followed it. Next the spun a Marxist interpretation which is a mix of the first two themes: Gothic and inevitable defeat.

We don't know the role of Protestant truimph after emerging from the Reformation era Europe in those two centuries of rise of EIC.

[shiv]

I had a direct discussion with Prof. Karnad. He said if India starts dismembering other neighboring states it is entirely in the realm that other countries will start to think to dismember India. Redrawing maps/Boundaries in South Asia is a colonial legacy and India should not actively pursue it.

I agree with Karnad here, but saying why requires re stating of what I have written over many threads.

Remember that "nation states" with absolute fixed boundaries, also known as "lines on maps" were invented in Europe after the peace of Westphalia that sidelined the church in governance. One you invented a state with a fixed boundary, you required a "recognised" body to govern (government) and "nation-al" reasons for staying united. (National language. National religion. National game. National bird (how stupid))

In Europe, where nation states were invented, language and ethnicity were the prime reasons for unity. The European coloniser, esp the Brits considered ethnicities/"races" as nations who would fight each other (as in Europe) unless separated by boundaries. For Brits, the mixing of "races", colors and ethnicities could not make a nation state. It could only be "weak nationalism" with no social glue to hold a nation together. Social glue had to be ethnicity, tribe, religion. These boundaries were considered sacrosanct. Geographic "nation state" boundaries were sough to be drawn based on ethnicity and race or religion. This is racist thought (and scientific racism) applied to politics and governance.

The splitting up of colonies in Africa was on these arbitrary lines. India was already a bunch of kingdoms. The Brits did not realise the existence of the glue that created the independence movement. They would not have recognised it even if it was shoved up their asses lubricated with chili powder because for them "races" were nations, inferior races made inferior nations, and India was mixed races caused man fu*king monkey and India formed castes instead of nations in their "scientific" viewpoint.

The trick of encouraging ethnic minorities to form a "new nation" that will be recognised as a "nation state" in a "world order" run by nations who set up a racist world order is an old colonial/imperial trick. Sikhs are a different nation. "Dravidians" are a different nation. (Who the heck are these Dravidians anyway? If there are no Aryans show me some Dravidians. If Aryans exist, Hitler was right.) Tamilians are a different nation. Baluchis are a different nation. None of these "nations" can survive without external aid. And a "nation" that can survive on external aid alone is a colony. Like Pakistan. The nation that benefits most from a colony is an imperial power.

Ethnicities are not nations. India is a prime example of a nation that is not based on ethnicity. The ethnicity "Baluchi" has never been a nation. It is part of a larger whole. That larger whole is India.

[ramana]

shiv, Finally! Ethnicities are not nations.

Also I agree if there are Dravidians then there are Aryans. If there are Aryans then Nazis were right! We know Nazis are wrong. WWII was fought for that.
There for no Aryans.
So no Dravidians.

[ShauryaT]

I had a direct discussion with Prof. Karnad. He said if India starts dismembering other neighboring states it is entirely in the realm that other countries will start to think to dismember India. Redrawing maps/Boundaries in South Asia is a colonial legacy and India should not actively pursue it.

Moving forward on the promise of SAARC is a way forward to "dilute" these boundaries to the extent that verifiable trust and mutual benefit can be had for its peoples.

[member_20617]

Actually who decides what is red? Aren't those also relative and constantly in a state of flux? Is it not a constantly negotiated ephemeral border which is all the time being moved around? What is red for you might not be red for me. What was red yesterday may not be red tmrw.

Second, those who secure themselves and stay on top - try to manipulate this entire discoures on red-lines, and not simply react to it. We need to pay attention to how we can move those red lines themselves where we want them to be. This is not only about convincing ourselves - but also others - that those red lines that "we" want should be the desirable redlines by most [because it benefits them] as against the wishes of a "minority" who stand in the way of benefits for "most".

The ultimate is establishing redlines in such a way that even the opponents tacitly accept those redlines as desirable even if they do not like it personally. This is where the overturning of thought for what some people have dubbed the slavish mentality to A-S thought - of Indians - is required. So far we accept the redlines set by others - tacitly as valid redlines - even if we fret and fume against such redlines [we cannot retaliate - because so and so will do and say such and such - world opinion will go against us - all these are the result of others having been able to set the agenda for redlines]. So they are winning and we feel boxed in.

They win because we have accepted their demanded for redlines even in our own minds - so that we feel guilty about even thinking about regaining the initiative in setting the agenda on redlines.

Unfortunately BK -ji does not seem to have realized this.

Ramanaji

IMHO, the above post should go under 'Good Posts'

Brihaspatiji

Very well said!Timeless Strategy!

I have said before that our foreign policy (if any)/morality seems to be self inflicted wound!

[brihaspati]

I had a direct discussion with Prof. Karnad. He said if India starts dismembering other neighboring states it is entirely in the realm that other countries will start to think to dismember India. Redrawing maps/Boundaries in South Asia is a colonial legacy and India should not actively pursue it.

I agree with Karnad here, but saying why requires re stating of what I have written over many threads.

Remember that "nation states" with absolute fixed boundaries, also known as "lines on maps" were invented in Europe after the peace of Westphalia that sidelined the church in governance. One you invented a state with a fixed boundary, you required a "recognised" body to govern (government) and "nation-al" reasons for staying united. (National language. National religion. National game. National bird (how stupid))

In Europe, where nation states were invented, language and ethnicity were the prime reasons for unity. The European coloniser, esp the Brits considered ethnicities/"races" as nations who would fight each other (as in Europe) unless separated by boundaries. For Brits, the mixing of "races", colors and ethnicities could not make a nation state. It could only be "weak nationalism" with no social glue to hold a nation together. Social glue had to be ethnicity, tribe, religion. These boundaries were considered sacrosanct. Geographic "nation state" boundaries were sough to be drawn based on ethnicity and race or religion. This is racist thought (and scientific racism) applied to politics and governance.

The splitting up of colonies in Africa was on these arbitrary lines. India was already a bunch of kingdoms. The Brits did not realise the existence of the glue that created the independence movement. They would not have recognised it even if it was shoved up their asses lubricated with chili powder because for them "races" were nations, inferior races made inferior nations, and India was mixed races caused man fu*king monkey and India formed castes instead of nations in their "scientific" viewpoint.

The trick of encouraging ethnic minorities to form a "new nation" that will be recognised as a "nation state" in a "world order" run by nations who set up a racist world order is an old colonial/imperial trick. Sikhs are a different nation. "Dravidians" are a different nation. (Who the heck are these Dravidians anyway? If there are no Aryans show me some Dravidians. If Aryans exist, Hitler was right.) Tamilians are a different nation. Baluchis are a different nation. None of these "nations" can survive without external aid. And a "nation" that can survive on external aid alone is a colony. Like Pakistan. The nation that benefits most from a colony is an imperial power.

Ethnicities are not nations. India is a prime example of a nation that is not based on ethnicity. The ethnicity "Baluchi" has never been a nation. It is part of a larger whole. That larger whole is India.

No, the Brits did not believe in ethnicity as the basis of nationhood - they simply applied the theory first to their continental enemies to keep them divided and then later used it to win colonies. Based on ethnicity and language etc, UK was itself an enforced conglomerate over the Welsh [Bretono-Roman], the Scotts and Picts, the Angles and Jutes, and the Vikings, and finally the Irish Gaeltacht.

The consciousness of separate ethnicities remained, sharpened - internally, while they made common cause when it was moving against and extracting benefits from the external - especially imperial advantages. In one sense, there were misgivings about promoting ethnicities externally within Victorian politics itself - worried about the tide ultimately reaching back on to home shores. UK reaped the benefits of "national" theory wonderfully through Irish independence, and ultimately loss of all its direct milch cow colonies - exactly out of that "nationhood based on ethnicities" concept. Its a double edged sword.

All European identities are constructed and artifical ones - there ar eno pure races, cultures, languages or tribes. There were none even in early iron age and the age of the eastern Med empires.

In the case of Pak, it is an artificial identity not based on ethnicity. It is purely and simply based on religion - and this was the only way it could otherwise distinguish itself from the majority of Indians. In fact even with the religion it is at a loss - because there are more concentrated and "purer" versions available and already appropriated by other "nations" - so Pak has nothing unique. In fact its only uniqueness is the bit about "India" and "Indian" tagged on to "Islam" and the "Muslim". Pakis can earn distinction from the rest of the Ummah by becoming more Indian and not less. Paki identity is always in a crisis and will be increasingly so.

The more nationhood it wants - more religious it has to become, thereby becoming less of a distinct nation. The more distinction in nationhood it wants, less religious it has to become and more Indian it has to be - which in turn means a change in the basis of nationhood itself.

Only if Paki nationhood dissolves in its current religious form and becomes a part of the Indian spectrum can it ever hope to gain back any identity at all.

[Lalmohan]

i think we should encourage pakistanis to rediscover their buddhist past and embrace the path of dharma - at the very least the cognitive dissonance that it will throw up will cause their society to fracture further...

[Agnimitra]

i think we should encourage pakistanis to rediscover their buddhist past and embrace the path of dharma - at the very least the cognitive dissonance that it will throw up will cause their society to fracture further...

Celebrated Urdu authors like Qurratulain Haider suggested just that. After partition, she migrated from Lukhnow to TSP. Thought it was a culturally derelict landscape and missed the Avadhi culture, so she came back to India. Wrote a landmark novel called 'Aag ka Darya'. It is a historical-philosophical narrative, depicting iterations of Islamic peoples in India. In it she is clearly drawn to the Buddhist era, finding final peace and perfection in it. Interestingly, 'aag ka darya' (ocean/river of fire) is a reference to a hadith of the Prophet Mohammad, in which he talks of the "end of the age", when Moslems caught in the tribulation of their time will supposedly see a darya that is apparently cool and inviting, and another one that is a sea of fire, and he advises that they jump into that sea of fire, because the external looks are deceptive in that time of tribulation. It is the apparent fire that will cool and save them, whereas the one they think is cool water will annihilate them.

[ramana]

Is her work available in English? She died in Hyderabad. Used to write in Sunday Deccan Chronicle.

[Agnimitra]

ramana ji, apparently English translations are now available:

http://www.amazon.com/River-Fire-Aag-Ka ... 0811214184

I can't vouch for how good the English translation is. I think the original re-published in Devanagari font is a better bet (if it exists), to get the real feel of the novel - its written in very nice and non-Arabized Hindustani/Urdu, easily understandable. Nothing great about the story or anything, but there's clearly a yearning there to merge, merge with the essence of India and find peace.

[RajeshA]

Continuing from 'India-US Strategic News and Discussion' Thread

It has always suited the US for that to continue because that communal riot has kept the brainless Mussalmaans of Pakistan dependent on the US and doing the US's job.

One can understand their game, but why is Bharat Karnad espousing such a view, thus lending credence to it?

This is how I see it currently.

If India Pakistan relations are a giant communal riot gone bad, efforts to control that communal riot could pay dividends to India (and Pakistanis, maybe not Pakistan).

It is possible to accept that partition itself occurred because of (then) irreconcilable differences between a "Muslims only" Muslim league political party and a pluralist (or secular) Congress party. But as is often stated, a large proportion of Muslims who voted for Pakistan stayed behind in India by choice or inability to move, while many who did not want Pakistan found themselves in Pakistan. This state was complicated by the murders of partition and the systematic genocide/elimination of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan in the ensuing years.

Pakistan today represents the "Muslim only" vision of the Muslim league and India continues to represent the structure mooted by the Congress party of the 1940s. The point I made yesterday about people being happier in India than in Pakistan was not done only for fun. I was serious, although the point was lost in some unnecessary stone throwing.

IF the descendants of Muslims who voted for Pakistan (but remained in India) are happier today than Pakistanis, and if the descendants of the people who did not vote for Pakistan continue to suffer in Pakistan, then it would be in their interest to make peace with India. The people who are opposed to them in Pakistan are those who expected to be better off in Pakistan. This latter group are the very people who seek a preservation of Pakistan and opposition to India. This represents an internal split in Pakistan.

The US is doing everything it can to preserve Pakistan. Those Pakis who want to preserve Pakistan not only need to fight India, they need to oppose any Pakistanis who may be unhappy about the state of affairs between India and Pakistan. US aid is not only helping the preservation of the "Idea of Pakistan" by opposing India, but it also helps to oppose those Pakis who would like to mend relations with India. The preservation of Pakistan as a state suits US interests, not Indian interests.

I think many people on BRF are unclear about what they want out of Pakistan. Some would like to see the state "collapse" - but that means nothing. Collapse is somewhat like what we are seeing now - with no single group in overall control. Others would like to see the retaking of PoK. That means that after PoK is taken it is OK for Pakistan to exist. Or there is a hope that Pakistan will somehow cease to exist after that. I disagree with that.

Pakistan as a state must dissolve and all of it or large parts of it need to be reintegrated with India under terms and agreements that are more like the relations between India and Nepal or Belgium and France.

Assessing the viability of reintegration & various considerations:

1. Integrating land is more important than integrating people.
2. Land with low population densities should be prime candidates for reintegration.
3. Land which give India more strategic outreach should be favored for reintegration.
4. Only populations, which are favorably inclined towards India, should be integrated.
5. Their favorable opinion about India can be based on natural affinity or need for protection from third parties!

a) So in the first phase, I think only Gilgit-Baltistan, Baluchistan and Chitral are prime candidates for Accession into India.

b) Pakistani Pushtunistan, Pakjab, Seraikistan, Sindh, Muhajiristan, "Azad-Kashmir" should be kept separated from one another and in a state of conflict with one another. India should try to gain control over all political and militant groups in these states.

c) With Sindh and Muhajirstan, India should have close political relations, in order to provide a land bridge from India to Baluchistan.

d) Pakjab, Seraikistan, Sindh, Muhajirstan and "Azad Kashmir" should be integrated into India only after the ideological "virus" there has been sufficiently neutralized.

[member_20617]

Pakistan is a double whammy!

Pakistan was a part of India before 1947 and given to minority of the minority (majority of the Muslims stayed back in India) by the British colonialists.

This shows how illegal this partition was. Even if the entire Muslim community of India wanted a separate country, it would still have been illegal as minority cannot rule over majority. Also, British had NO right to divide the country.

It is a pity that what Arab/Afghan/Iranian invaders could not achieve in 1000 years was achieved by Pakis in less than 14 years (Pakistan was coined in 1933 by Choudhary Rahmat Ali, a Pakistan Movement activist, who published it in his pamphlet ‘Now or Never’).

The ultimate dream of Pakistan is to take over India and make the entire country Islamic. Hence its continuation of 1000 cuts policy and building up of nuclear arsenal.

If somehow we are able to dissolve Pakistan as a state and reintegrate with India in future, we would still have a massive problem of inherting a large number of Islamic fundamentalists. Secondly, the combined population of Paki Muslims and Indian Muslims would create a very dangerous situation for Hindus/Dharmic population. Even without reintegration, Muslims in India are projected to be in majority between 2060 and 2090 due to higher rate of births compared to Hindus.

In summary:
(1)Pakistan as it is – a major problem for India
(2)Reintegration of Pakistan in India – still a major problem for India

So what could be the solution?

The only solution, in my mind at least, is to convert all Muslims of Indian subcontinent to Hinduism. After all their ancestors were Hindus. But this is easier said than done. If our spiritual leaders can start a massive movement of reconversion based on historic truth and Dharmic values than I am sure one day we will be able to pass ‘Akhand Bharat’ to our future generation. I see this Akhand Bharat as the most powerful nation on earth. This is my dream. There is no harm in dreaming, is it? After all, all things start from dreams/ideas!

[brihaspati]

Assessing the viability of reintegration & various considerations:

1. Integrating land is more important than integrating people.
2. Land with low population densities should be prime candidates for reintegration.
3. Land which give India more strategic outreach should be favored for reintegration.
4. Only populations, which are favorably inclined towards India, should be integrated.
5. Their favorable opinion about India can be based on natural affinity or need for protection from third parties!

a) So in the first phase, I think only Gilgit-Baltistan, Baluchistan and Chitral are prime candidates for Accession into India.

b) Pakistani Pushtunistan, Pakjab, Seraikistan, Sindh, Muhajiristan, "Azad-Kashmir" should be kept separated from one another and in a state of conflict with one another. India should try to gain control over all political and militant groups in these states.

c) With Sindh and Muhajirstan, India should have close political relations, in order to provide a land bridge from India to Baluchistan.

d) Pakjab, Seraikistan, Sindh, Muhajirstan and "Azad Kashmir" should be integrated into India only after the ideological "virus" there has been sufficiently neutralized.

Shiv ji might be under the impression that there is confusion about what to do, but in reality there is no confusion. From Indian sided the opinion is clearly divided :those who want to preserve Pakistan as a quarantine for Muslims they dont want to live with. This includes pseudo-seculars as well as openly anti-Muslims. In fact pseudo-seculars are even more virulent about staying away from Muslims - which comes out when they are faced with proposals for integration. That when the visceral hatred of the Muslim within the p-secs come out.

The other group, and a minority at this moment - is clear about what they want. They want a total dissolution of Pakistan as rashtra, reabsorption of its territories and populations into India, and a cleaning up and destruction of the power basis for the Islamist institutions. They do not want any structure or region left which can be used by Islamists and their institutions to regrow and invite foreign intervention towards separatism and revival of Islamism.

The clever propaganda that saying anything like the second group - the currently minority one - is onlee going to lend wind to the sails of the Paki establishment which thrives on such supposed Indian intention, is designed to disarm the growth of such thoughts into majority.

The redline of Pakistan being aghnaya, like the cow - is a creation fo Pakistan and its friends. The Indians dance to the tune of that manufacture of consent process. Pakistan will think the same whether or not India thinks or not, and it will never give up the idea of one day conquering India in the name of Islam. If that idea in Pakistan is not crossing any redlines - why should Indians play the game according to Pakistani terms.

Yes we want them finished off. Yes we want their elite destroyed. Better still living on their friend's lands and polluting those neighbourhoods too. And no matter how much Paki elite plays this up or not, gains sympathetic ears in India or not, we will do it one day. Moreover that day will not be that far. By 2036-37 Pakistan will be no more. Whoever from that society resists will be crushed. The common Paki is not our target for elimination as long as they give up their old institutions and leaders. We will redistribute the lands of the elite among the commons. If they play along there will be lots of rewards. If not we will eliminate them.

This is the new redline. Pakis better start listening and start overthrowing their elite. Otherwise they get tagged to their elite too and slated for elimination together with the elite.

[Agnimitra]

And no matter how much Paki elite plays this up or not, gains sympathetic ears in India or not, we will do it one day. Moreover that day will not be that far. By 2036-37 Pakistan will be no more. Whoever from that society resists will be crushed. The common Paki is not our target for elimination as long as they give up their old institutions and leaders. We will redistribute the lands of the elite among the commons. If they play along there will be lots of rewards. If not we will eliminate them.

No wonder Paki elites have been playing up how deeply the avg abdul hates India, and India flag burning is a weekly tamasha caught on camera there. With that mix of hatred, H&D, and shahadat, they are trying to present a Samson option to India.

[KLNMurthy]

@shiv you have taken two sentences reported from Karnad--trying to split nations invites retaliation; redrawing boundaries is a colonial game--and used them as a hook to advance your own critique of European racist boundary-drawing legacy. Essentially your exercise looks like putting your own words into Karnad's mouth, and then neatly "agreeing" with those words.

Now I understand you have had some interaction yourself with Karnad. Are you able to confirm that Karnad, in fact, holds the view that you advanced--namely we should use the multiethnic state and soft physical borders to reintegrate Pakistan?

If you are able to assert this and carry conviction, that would lend legitimacy to your "agreeing" with Karnad. Otherwise you are just agreeing with yourself while making it seem like you and Karnad are on the same page.

Your own view is debatable--for example there is no reason why we can't exploit paki ethnic divisions as an interim step--but what concerns me is the dubious attribution of reabsorption goals to the Indian security establishment.

[shiv]

@shiv you have taken two sentences reported from Karnad--trying to split nations invites retaliation; redrawing boundaries is a colonial game--and used them as a hook to advance your own critique of European racist boundary-drawing legacy. Essentially your exercise looks like putting your own words into Karnad's mouth, and then neatly "agreeing" with those words.

Now I understand you have had some interaction yourself with Karnad. Are you able to confirm that Karnad, in fact, holds the view that you advanced--namely we should use the multiethnic state and soft physical borders to reintegrate Pakistan?

If you are able to assert this and carry conviction, that would lend legitimacy to your "agreeing" with Karnad. Otherwise you are just agreeing with yourself while making it seem like you and Karnad are on the same page.

Your own view is debatable--for example there is no reason why we can't exploit paki ethnic divisions as an interim step--but what concerns me is the dubious attribution of reabsorption goals to the Indian security establishment.

Murthy I think you need to know that I write things ONLY when I agree with myself. If I happen to agree with anyone else, that is fine with me. Of course there may be errors in what i say but it is up to others to show that up if I have not discovered them myself. Incidentally, the "redrawing boundaries is a colonial game" is hardly Karnad. It has been stated by many people in the past so I have been well aware of that for over a decade. That statement occurs in a very large number of commentaries. "Splitting nations invites retaliation" is a no brainer. It requires no thinking at all beyond a basic general knowledge of history

Actually my interaction (two-way) with Karnad was for all of about 3 minutes, but I did listen to his IISc talk and part of the other talk. However credit goes to Karnad to start making me ask if everyone else is stupid and only those of us who want war are intelligent. On BRF the most comfortable view that requires no explanations and does not make people ask questions such as you have asked me is to say "The government is stupid and spineless". However if you are talking about me personally, what you are missing is the influence Rajiv Malhotra has had on the way I think. Many of my recent views are a synthesis of Rajiv Malhotra's influence and my own thoughts, sparked off by Karnad's seemingly soft approach to Pakistan.

Karnad's views got me thinking. But I have no way of knowing if what I say/think is what the security establishment thinks. I have only guessed and stated as much - but repeated statements tend to carry an aura of authority as if i have some backing. My only "backing" is that I am merely trying to fit observed events/facts with possible motivations.

I don't know if Karnad is on the same page as me. I am only trying to understand why he is on that particular page on Pakistan. The places on which I am not on the same page as Karnad I have stated in the past, but I have no intention of bringing them up. Karnad is terribly ignorant of scientific details and was very shaky about some questions I asked about nukes. He does not have a science background. But my intention is not to tear Karnad's views down. I only want to know why Karnad's views seem to fit in with GoI's soft actions on Pakistan.

The act of going soft on Pakistan makes sense only when you stop looking at the Pakistan question as a two-way "nation state of India versus nation state of Pakistan" dispute and start looking at what influences colonial power, imperial powers and Christendom have had on civilizations and interaction between the Indian civilization, Islam and imperial European powers. Here again Karnad's requires credit for saying something that I find myself agreeing with - the India Pakistan dispute is a communal riot with tanks.

When I look at it that way, the posts that I have made seem to make sense to me. If I agree with Karnad, i am not putting my words in his mouth. He may have put words in my mouth though. I am extrapolating using his ideas and my own ideas. I have no way of knowing if Karnad agrees or not and I am not bothered whether he agrees or not, because the moment I disagree with him I will say so. But knowing his background I would not simply dismiss what he says without giving it some thought.

[shiv]

1. Integrating land is more important than integrating people.
2. Land with low population densities should be prime candidates for reintegration.
3. Land which give India more strategic outreach should be favored for reintegration.
4. Only populations, which are favorably inclined towards India, should be integrated.
5. Their favorable opinion about India can be based on natural affinity or need for protection from third parties!

I think the first thing is access. We must have access to the land. How to get access to any land in Pakistan?
1. War
2. No war

As I see it, all the groups in Pakistan who seek to keep India at an arms length, and who have been making allies like the USA, China and KSA to hold India away, have primarily aimed at thwarting any war plans from India. Pakistan is well prepared for war.

They are less prepared for the idea that war may not be fought. Having said that, Zia's Islamization drive was a step he chose in case Pakistan was defeated in war. Even if the military lost (as it had done in 1971 just before Zia came to power) the islamic jihadis in the population would hold india at bay. The idea was that in case of any invasion, every street and every house would have Islamic Ghazis who would fight India to a standstill. And being Islamic, they would naturally be opposed to the Indians who would never be totally Islamic. This was Zia's brainchild. That is how "Pakistan studies" included military theory and Islamic doctrines taught in Pakistani schools. These are the people who are now coming to power in Pakistan. Hina Rabbani Khar belongs right in there along with the legions of Internet RAPE's in their 20s and 30s. These people are indoctrinated to oppose India. They are ready for war, and all want, all deprivation and strife in Pakistan has been considered as essential in preparation for war with India.

It is not Pakistan's bad luck/bad Karma that causes it to be in trouble today. It is plain lack of foresight and imagining that "there is no enemy but The Enemy and his name is India" Enemies come in different forms. Overpopulation and illiteracy combined with natural disasters are also an enemy. Too much religion is also an enemy and Pakistan's situation today gives me great joy. Allies (against the only enemy, india) who are given too much freedom to play in your country can also become enemies. It is only after 9-11 that the world found out what is happening in Pakistan. And it took ten years for Pakistanis to start finding out what that means to them and how many enemies they are making.

If India is Pakistan's enemy and India sees Pakistan making more enemies what are India's choices?
1. Rejoice and join with Pakistan's new enemies to take Pakistan down.
2. Ask if Pakistan's new enemies really want friendship and alliance with India.

Pakistan's "new enemies" are

• Some factions of the Taliban
• the USA to some extent

China is an ally, but the alliance is under some strain

I believe that Pakistan's new enemies are cut-throats who make unreliable allies. They were all Pakistan's allies against India for decades, so allying with them "against Pakistan" may only help them with their troubles but keep them against India anyway. The only purpose that Pakistan's new enemies can serve for India is to put Pakistan under more diplomatic, financial, military and social stress.

In my view allying with these dastardly turncoats is out of the question. but encouraging Pakistan's enmity with them is beneficial. These are the very "allies" who help Pakistan in wars with India. It is lack of war with India that prevents the healing of Pakistan's ties with these new enemies.

That means that our approach to Pakistan for the time being should be a "no war" approach. How to gain access to Pakistani land without war? Allowing Pakistan to "stew in is own juices" gives them time to see which of their old and new enemies can be fought or befriended. It is tough to fight the US. It is tough to fight India. So Pakis are trying to alternately befriend or fight the Taliban. Such a lovely dilemma. Pakistan needs time to see whom it will need to befriend in the long term. But for that they must suffer in the short to medium term. For Pakistan to suffer India must do nothing to help Pakistan become friends with its new enemies. Befriending India is an option for Pakistan, but India will definitely swallow up Pakistan culturally and economically, and the Islamism that Pakistan espouses will not survive.

So let them choose...

[Prem]

Rich India and wealth flaunting Indians are the Astras which will shoot the Paoq Goose, Nuke or no Nuke. Big Chittar and Big Wallet are the 2 keys to remove the Poaq Nuth sarre aaam in bazar. In their quest to hurt india they have gone to every Goonda , Mushtoonda welcoming them with open mouth and Mushaamdeed. Their search will end when they eventually surrender to their fate and enjoy the love of Indian Pyarelal.
Is it me onlee or few other BR Folks have the feeling that Poaqich frustration resembles that of sexually unsatisfied Middle Aged Dulahan (MAD) with 3 Husband, one Boyfriend and 5 cultutral Cousin Brothers . They all have enjoyed the Poaqshabab for themselves without giving Her the Orgasmic of satisfaction of keeping India weak .

[RajeshA]

1. Integrating land is more important than integrating people.
2. Land with low population densities should be prime candidates for reintegration.
3. Land which give India more strategic outreach should be favored for reintegration.
4. Only populations, which are favorably inclined towards India, should be integrated.
5. Their favorable opinion about India can be based on natural affinity or need for protection from third parties!

shiv saar,
my intent is not to be nit-picky, but I see a fundamental flaw in the reasoning you provided. So I'll start with nit-picking.

I think the first thing is access. We must have access to the land. How to get access to any land in Pakistan?
1. War
2. No war

As I see it, all the groups in Pakistan who seek to keep India at an arms length, and who have been making allies like the USA, China and KSA to hold India away, have primarily aimed at thwarting any war plans from India. Pakistan is well prepared for war.

You are giving us a binary choice: "war" or "no war"! There are several other choices that need to be considered.

• Collapse of the Center, due to overload of Center by the centrifugal forces on the periphery, and disarray at the center.
• Undesired overwhelming by the periphery, resulting in Center itself seeking our protection.
• Attack by external player, as its strategic space shrinks under the current dispensation, and Indian cooperation with the external player.

They are less prepared for the idea that war may not be fought. Having said that, Zia's Islamization drive was a step he chose in case Pakistan was defeated in war. Even if the military lost (as it had done in 1971 just before Zia came to power) the islamic jihadis in the population would hold india at bay. The idea was that in case of any invasion, every street and every house would have Islamic Ghazis who would fight India to a standstill. And being Islamic, they would naturally be opposed to the Indians who would never be totally Islamic. This was Zia's brainchild. That is how "Pakistan studies" included military theory and Islamic doctrines taught in Pakistani schools. These are the people who are now coming to power in Pakistan. Hina Rabbani Khar belongs right in there along with the legions of Internet RAPE's in their 20s and 30s. These people are indoctrinated to oppose India. They are ready for war, and all want, all deprivation and strife in Pakistan has been considered as essential in preparation for war with India.

The problem is how we use the term "Pakistanis"! When we use "Pakistanis", we start obfuscating the very real present and potential fault lines within the "Pakistanis"!

So should the term "Pakistani" be used

1. only to address the group which is invested in Pakistaniyat and the state, or
2. should it address all the people who inhabit the land called "Pakistan"

So while the case of Islamization may be true in the case of most Pakjabis, Pushtuns, some Muhajirs, some Sindhis, one may find that ethnic rights may be the predominant theme among the Baluchis, Gilgitians, Baltistanis, many Pushtun, many Sindhis, many Muhajirs, etc viz-a-viz Pakjabis. In fact, the ethnic self-determination drive among some groups may be so strong, that their Islamic character would become secondary, if they are giving a realistic option of leaving Pakistan by breaking Pakistan.

1. Baluchis, Gilgitians, Baltistanis may be willing to be part of India, despite they being Muslims.
2. Sindhis, Muhajirs may be willing to ally with India, despite their Islamization level.
3. Pushtuns may be willing to accept India's support for their own independence, in spite of Muslim brotherhood.

Pakistan's Islamization cannot be considered to be comprehensive, nor need it be seen as having removed Pakistan's fault-lines.

It is not Pakistan's bad luck/bad Karma that causes it to be in trouble today. It is plain lack of foresight and imagining that "there is no enemy but The Enemy and his name is India" Enemies come in different forms. Overpopulation and illiteracy combined with natural disasters are also an enemy. Too much religion is also an enemy and Pakistan's situation today gives me great joy. Allies (against the only enemy, india) who are given too much freedom to play in your country can also become enemies. It is only after 9-11 that the world found out what is happening in Pakistan. And it took ten years for Pakistanis to start finding out what that means to them and how many enemies they are making.

Again not all groups in Pakistan need to be considered as having declared India as "the Enemy"! Those who did so, still have to contend with those groups, for whom "India as the Enemy" holds no sway!

If India is Pakistan's enemy and India sees Pakistan making more enemies what are India's choices?
1. Rejoice and join with Pakistan's new enemies to take Pakistan down.
2. Ask if Pakistan's new enemies really want friendship and alliance with India.

Pakistan's "new enemies" are

• Some factions of the Taliban
• the USA to some extent

China is an ally, but the alliance is under some strain

Well let's not discount the Northern Alliance led ANA and Baloch Insurgents! Also there is the potential of creating an insurgency in Sindh as well as in Gilgit-Baltistan!

I believe that Pakistan's new enemies are cut-throats who make unreliable allies. They were all Pakistan's allies against India for decades, so allying with them "against Pakistan" may only help them with their troubles but keep them against India anyway. The only purpose that Pakistan's new enemies can serve for India is to put Pakistan under more diplomatic, financial, military and social stress.

In my view allying with these dastardly turncoats is out of the question. but encouraging Pakistan's enmity with them is beneficial. These are the very "allies" who help Pakistan in wars with India. It is lack of war with India that prevents the healing of Pakistan's ties with these new enemies.

What is the meaning of allying here? It can mean, entering into an partnership for a very specific mission, where one coordinates the strategy with the other. One however does need to be assured, whether they are really invested in some outcome or not.

For example, we need to explore whether the Americans would be interested in seeing Baluchistan separated from Pakistan.

Secondly, as mentioned, there are many groups within Pakistan one can support.

That means that our approach to Pakistan for the time being should be a "no war" approach. How to gain access to Pakistani land without war? Allowing Pakistan to "stew in is own juices" gives them time to see which of their old and new enemies can be fought or befriended. It is tough to fight the US. It is tough to fight India. So Pakis are trying to alternately befriend or fight the Taliban. Such a lovely dilemma. Pakistan needs time to see whom it will need to befriend in the long term. But for that they must suffer in the short to medium term. For Pakistan to suffer India must do nothing to help Pakistan become friends with its new enemies. Befriending India is an option for Pakistan, but India will definitely swallow up Pakistan culturally and economically, and the Islamism that Pakistan espouses will not survive.

So let them choose...

I think the route of "Pakistani befriending India, because it sees no other alternative" is a very very pale dream with zero chance of success.

Only a Pakistan that has been broken up is vulnerable to that consideration. Pakjabis would never look to India, until and unless it has ripped apart from all its peripheral regions. Unless Pakjab becomes a land-locked land, thinking of it coming to its senses, is itself being out of one's senses.

So the way to go is to

1. become a solid partner to all anti-Pakistani Afghans - both Northern Alliance and Pushtuns alike
2. give massive support to all forces which are willing to rip Pakistan apart - Pushtuns, Baloch, Gilgitians, Baltistanis, Sindhis
3. give controlled support to those forces which are willing to undermine TSPA - TTP, Shi'a militias, Barelvi militias, Ahmediyyas.
4. give financial support to all those Americans who are urging the US government to stick it into the Pakistanis. Channel the support through Indian Americans.
5. try to further emasculate Pakistan economically
6. see if one can find partners in the international community willing to also take Pakistan apart, or at least parts of it. I can well imagine that Baluchistani independence can be of interest to USA, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Oman.

So only allowing ourselves the options of "War" or "No War" with Pakistan, is self-defeating.

[shiv]

Rajeshji, there are some problems with your post. In this post I will deal merely with your nitpicks.

Baluchis, Gilgitians, Baltistanis may be willing to be part of India, despite they being Muslims.
Sindhis, Muhajirs may be willing to ally with India, despite their Islamization level.
Pushtuns may be willing to accept India's support for their own independence, in spite of Muslim brotherhood.

agreed

Again not all groups in Pakistan need to be considered as having declared India as "the Enemy"! Those who did so, still have to contend with those groups, for whom "India as the Enemy" holds no sway!

Agreed

Given what you have stated above, if you declare beforehand that Baluchis, Gilgitians, Baltistanis, Sindhis, Muhajirs and Pushtuns are NOT Pakistani, then the following assertion can be true. If you count them among Pakistanis, the statement is false.

I think the route of "Pakistani befriending India, because it sees no other alternative" is a very very pale dream with zero chance of success.

However, you did ask:

So should the term "Pakistani" be used

only to address the group which is invested in Pakistaniyat and the state, or
should it address all the people who inhabit the land called "Pakistan"

Currently a person who lives in Pakistan and carries a Pakistani identity card or a Pakistani passport is Pakistani by definition. Any Pakistanis who travels to India without those papers is by definition a terrorist who is up to no good.

You have to make Pakistanis non Pakistani by dissolving the ability of the Pakistani state to dictate their actions.

Merely declaring them non Pakistani is not good enough, and is meaningless unless we can support them to come and live outside Pakistan. Since we cannot arrange for asylum in say the US or EU, they would have to be given shelter in India. Now isn't that what everyone seems to be afraid of? Allowing Pakistanis easily into India? Do you support that or oppose that? Surely we could declare all Sindhis as non Pakistani and allow them into India by using the statement you made:

The problem is how we use the term "Pakistanis"! When we use "Pakistanis", we start obfuscating the very real present and potential fault lines within the "Pakistanis"!
<snip>
Again not all groups in Pakistan need to be considered as having declared India as "the Enemy"! Those who did so, still have to contend with those groups, for whom "India as the Enemy" holds no sway!

You said:

You are giving us a binary choice: "war" or "no war"! There are several other choices that need to be considered.

Your "other choices" are quoted below

Collapse of the Center, due to overload of Center by the centrifugal forces on the periphery, and disarray at the center.
Undesired overwhelming by the periphery, resulting in Center itself seeking our protection.

This is the same as my "no war"scenario

Attack by external player, as its strategic space shrinks under the current dispensation, and Indian cooperation with the external player.

This is "war"

[shiv]

So the way to go is to
become a solid partner to all anti-Pakistani Afghans - both Northern Alliance and Pushtuns alike
give massive support to all forces which are willing to rip Pakistan apart - Pushtuns, Baloch, Gilgitians, Baltistanis, Sindhis
give controlled support to those forces which are willing to undermine TSPA - TTP, Shi'a militias, Barelvi militias, Ahmediyyas.
give financial support to all those Americans who are urging the US government to stick it into the Pakistanis. Channel the support through Indian Americans.
try to further emasculate Pakistan economically
see if one can find partners in the international community willing to also take Pakistan apart, or at least parts of it. I can well imagine that Baluchistani independence can be of interest to USA, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Oman.

In your view, is this what is required to defeat Pakjabis, or to defeat " the group which is invested in Pakistaniyat and the state". Or are they both the same in your view?

[RajeshA]

So should the term "Pakistani" be used

1. only to address the group which is invested in Pakistaniyat and the state, or
2. should it address all the people who inhabit the land called "Pakistan"

Currently a person who lives in Pakistan and carries a Pakistani identity card or a Pakistani passport is Pakistani by definition. Any Pakistanis who travels to India without those papers is by definition a terrorist who is up to no good.

shiv saar,

Perhaps we do need to put some nuance in our terminology. I'll give it a try:

1. Pakistanis are those who are citizens of Pakistan.
2. Pakistanists are those who are in favor of preserving Pakistan, who believe in Pakistaniyat, i.e. Pakistanism. These can be subdivided into:
   1. Establishment Pakistanists - Many Pakistanis also refer to this as the Deep State. The TSPA, aka the Qabila, belong to the Establishment. So do many Islamist Tanzeems. Pakistani bureaucracy is invested in the Pakistani state. The Feudals also see Pakistan as an enabler for their feudal satraps. RAPE too could be classified here.
   2. Ethnic Pakistanists - I would consider all those ethnic groups who have merged their ethnic identity with the Pakistani nationhood, as Ethnic Pakistanists. Basically this includes the Pakjabis. At the time of Independence and for a few decades I would have considered Muhajirs too as Ethnic Pakistanists, as the Pakistan Movement was started by them. Many Pushtuns, often termed Lahori Pushtuns, or Pakjabized Pushtuns would also be considered Ethnic Pakistanists. Sindhis too are a candidate for Ethnic Pakistanism. The Ethnic Pakistanists profit from the fact that the Establishment derives from them and thus their benefits which accrue to them.
   3. Islamist Pakistanists - These are all those who have been successfully Islamized to think that Pakistan is Islam and Islam is Pakistan. These are highly islamized Pakistanis, who would do anything for Islam, and since Pakistan is Islam Central, they think it needs to preserved at all costs. These get more religious satisfaction from Pakistan's existence than any material benefit.
   4. Nationalist Pakistanists - These Pakistanists simply believe that one should be patriotic towards one's country, just like everybody else in the world is patriotic towards his/her country. Since Pakistan is their country, they tend to be nationalist Pakistanis in their outlook.

Now for any Pakistani, he could belong to many categories of Pakistanists, as these categories can overlap. Or he could be a Pakistani, who is not a Pakistanist.

As such there are many Pakistanis who are not Pakistanists, like mainly Baloch, Gilgitians and Baltistanis. Even among the Pakistanists, there are fault-lines that can be exploited

1. Establishment Pakistanists - There is some tension between the Qabila and the Feudals on the spoils of the state. As the resources shrink, these tensions may increase. Secondly we can pull some Feudals over to the Indian side, if India becomes their major market for agricultural produce, and they get a better price in India than in Pakistan itself. Also if the rich Pakistani are allowed to invest in India, their loyalty to the concept of Pakistan may decrease.
2. Ethnic Pakistanists - As mentioned earlier, Baloch, Gilgitians and Baltistanis are not Ethnic Pakistanists at all. But also as ethnic groups, the loyalty of Sindhis, Muhajirs and Pushtun may also be fickle, and depending on circumstances, these ethnic groups may even be willing to revolt against Pakistan, leaving only Pakjabis as the only true Ethnic Pakistanists.
3. Islamist Pakistanists - Among these groups there may be sectarian and ethnic tensions, which can be exploited. Also groups like TTP may think that TSPA is not Islamist enough and hence need to be resisted and attacked.
4. Nationalist Pakistanists - As long as Pakistan stays in one piece, this group would remain loyal to Pakistan but were Pakistan to disintegrate, the group would readily change their loyalty for Sindh, or Pushtunistan, or Muhajirstan.

You have to make Pakistanis non Pakistani by dissolving the ability of the Pakistani state to dictate their actions.

Merely declaring them non Pakistani is not good enough, and is meaningless unless we can support them to come and live outside Pakistan. Since we cannot arrange for asylum in say the US or EU, they would have to be given shelter in India. Now isn't that what everyone seems to be afraid of? Allowing Pakistanis easily into India? Do you support that or oppose that? Surely we could declare all Sindhis as non Pakistani and allow them into India by using the statement you made

Now that we can differentiate between Pakistanis and Pakistanists, it becomes somewhat clearer how we deal with them.

We help all Pakistani non-Pakistanists, and we also try to exploit the fault-lines among the Pakistanists, to weaken their combined hold on Pakistan.

If we declare Baloch, Gilgitians, Baltistanis, Pakistani Hindus, Pakistani Sikhs as non-Pakistanist Pakistanis, then we should help them in whichever way we can including giving sanctuary. It must however be made clear that sanctuary would be given only if they help liberate their lands from Pakistanists. The advantage is that these populations are small and support to them can be managed.

As mentioned earlier, we would also be supporting several groups which would be considered Pakistanists. We would be providing them support, only to exploit the fault-lines among the Pakistanists. These groups we DO NOT give sanctuary.

Pakistanists are shot at the border if they try to come into India for whatever reason. For those groups who turn their loyalty to India, for them India could try to create safe havens within Pakistan, possibly sanctioned by the UNSC. But they would not be let in.

The only ones who would be entertained are those from the Establishment who have both influence within it, and can help India to topple much of it.

You said:

You are giving us a binary choice: "war" or "no war"! There are several other choices that need to be considered.

Your "other choices" are quoted below

1. Collapse of the Center, due to overload of Center by the centrifugal forces on the periphery, and disarray at the center.
2. Undesired overwhelming by the periphery, resulting in Center itself seeking our protection.

This is the same as my "no war"scenario
[*] Attack by external player, as its strategic space shrinks under the current dispensation, and Indian cooperation with the external player. [/list]

This is "war"[/quote]
I would consider it war when India allows its soldiers or weapons fired by Indians to "violate" Pakistani territory. Giving covert or logistic help to external players like USA or Afghanistan, I would not consider as "declared" war!

In your view, is this what is required to defeat Pakjabis, or to defeat "the group which is invested in Pakistaniyat and the state". Or are they both the same in your view?

Pakjabis, I consider, as the core Ethnic Pakistanists, but there are ways to view Pakistanists as mentioned earlier.

The thing is that when "Establishment Pakistanists" are defeated, they would retreat to Pakjab.

[KLNMurthy]

Murthy I think you need to know that I write things ONLY when I agree with myself. If I happen to agree with anyone else, that is fine with me.
...

I don't know if Karnad is on the same page as me. I am only trying to understand why he is on that particular page on Pakistan. The places on which I am not on the same page as Karnad I have stated in the past, but I have no intention of bringing them up. Karnad is terribly ignorant of scientific details and was very shaky about some questions I asked about nukes. He does not have a science background. But my intention is not to tear Karnad's views down. I only want to know why Karnad's views seem to fit in with GoI's soft actions on Pakistan.

OK so neither of us has anything close to the full picture on Karnad's views on ending TSP, which are in turn a window to the GOI security establishment's views on ending--or not ending--TSP. And by "ending" I mean seriously thinking out a vision and strategy whereby no such malignant entity will continue to exist; specifically the question is not about war, peace, terrorism, risks and dangers of acting, Islam, or the spinefulness of GOI or the awesomeness of USA. It is only a question of, do we see it as our destiny to put an end to Pakistan or not? Once there is clarity and agreement on this question, other, more particular, debates can follow on that premise.

...
When I look at it that way, the posts that I have made seem to make sense to me. If I agree with Karnad, i am not putting my words in his mouth. He may have put words in my mouth though. I am extrapolating using his ideas and my own ideas. I have no way of knowing if Karnad agrees or not and I am not bothered whether he agrees or not, because the moment I disagree with him I will say so. But knowing his background I would not simply dismiss what he says without giving it some thought.

Well, if we don't really have a proper measure of Karnad et al's thinking, what does it really mean to "agree" with them? The reason I keep asking this question is (a) projection of our views--advertently or not--onto those of actual actors (I count Karnad as an "actor" in this context, at least relative to me) leads to error and more uncomfortably, (b) it is entirely possible that "we" here on BRF are the only wise ones, and the others--GOI and its peripheral establishment--are all fools, albeit clever and learned fools--if we define a fool as someone who is wrong, but is incapable of realizing that and changing.

Let me briefly elaborate on (b):

"Do you think you are the only wise man, and everyone else is a fool?", or its variant, "Look at this person's background. You can't hope to match that, so who are you to question him?" is usually enough to intimidate a budding revolutionary thinker into silence, especially an Indian one. (alternately, he could lapse into an endless orgy of self-pity and vanity, constantly shouting, "why these fools/cowards/scoundrels don't listen to me?' making himself irrelevant, which is tantamount to a noisy silence.) But, as T.S. Kuhn spelled out in his seminal Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and Chomsky echoed later in his Manufacturing Consent, there is indeed a kind of groupthink, or "dominant paradigm" that rules any effective intellectual establishment, which is in fact necessary for that establishment to function. In an establishment culture ruled over by a dominant paradigm, background of an individual is only a second-order effect--everyone more or less believes the same thing (which has enough space to accommodate a certain amount of variation), and the cleverer ones or ones with superior "background" are simply relatively more successful within that same paradigm, which is itself erroneous--in the context of current dominant paradigm--like the geocentric theory or the medical theory of humours.

(Incidentally, much of the kolaveri about the spinelessness or perfidy of the establishment or individuals within it, is due to collision with this dominant paradigm, and mistakenly attributing its existence to evil design or stupidity, when it is in reality just the price we pay for having institutions.)

So, those taking on the role of espousing a revolutionary idea--namely that Pakistan is an evil that needs to be ended, not an errant state that needs to be normalized--cannot allow themselves to be intimidated or even excessively influenced, by anyone's "background" (of course "background" offers some relevant information about the individual but too much should not be made of it), but need to take their ideas--insofar as they are communicated and understood--on their own merits. And, they need to realize that theirs is bound, by the nature of things, to be an uphill struggle.

In this context, an individual member of the establishment like Karnad is of interest to me, mostly insofar as he is able to be receptive to revolutionary thought, and his inclination and skills as a subversive thinker who can insinuate elements of this revolutionary thinking into his own institutional groupthink. On the other hand, qua respected member of the establishment, and by implication a guru, he can be valuable in affording insights into the contours and texture of the dominant paradigm (especially as, like India's TSP policy, it cannot be simply learned from a textbook).

One of the meta-communication signals I have learned over the years is to distrust the intellect of anyone--especially Indians from roughly my social milieu--who seems overly fond of the pithy summarization of complex issues; thus Karnad went into my "questionable" box once I heard his "communal riot" aphorism. And what you say about his inability to handle, even at broad outline level, the science of war materiel, only reinforces my view of him as an inadequate guru.

[brihaspati]

Kuhns theory of paradigm shifts works more clearly in "science" because of pressure to explain observed phenomena with the minimal set of assumptions. This tendency to minimality of assumptions came out of a philosophical reflection of the ideological contest within the "western" intelligentsia trying to break out of Church control.

In politics or international relations or policy research as an academic peer group a la Kuhn, problem is that the pressure to explain observations can be deflected through a variety of mechanisms, including means of ideological control or influence.

The ability of the peer group to maintain its paradigm comes from its simultaneous control of state power. Thus people like BK need not change their paradigm to suggest apparently contradictory methods or approaches at different points in their career.

In this case the paradigm is that Pakistan must be preserved. When the theory arose it probably started out as a belief that the problem will disintegrate on its own so that Indian leadership will not have tod eal with it. Simultaneously probably this was reinforced by the hidden perception of the need to quarantine the more "virulent" of the Jihadi drive in a confined region - so that it did not contaminate those that remained outside. From these it came to the comfort of discovering a Cold War support for the entity so that the anxiety of having to take any action or even deciding about what to do with Pakistan - could now be shifted on to the shoulders of permanent devils. With the Cold War gone, now we need to fish out race and religious proclivities in the permanent devils to continue the paradigm.

[KLNMurthy]

Kuhns theory of paradigm shifts works more clearly in "science" because of pressure to explain observed phenomena with the minimal set of assumptions. This tendency to minimality of assumptions came out of a philosophical reflection of the ideological contest within the "western" intelligentsia trying to break out of Church control.

In politics or international relations or policy research as an academic peer group a la Kuhn, problem is that the pressure to explain observations can be deflected through a variety of mechanisms, including means of ideological control or influence.

The ability of the peer group to maintain its paradigm comes from its simultaneous control of state power. Thus people like BK need not change their paradigm to suggest apparently contradictory methods or approaches at different points in their career.

In this case the paradigm is that Pakistan must be preserved. When the theory arose it probably started out as a belief that the problem will disintegrate on its own so that Indian leadership will not have tod eal with it. Simultaneously probably this was reinforced by the hidden perception of the need to quarantine the more "virulent" of the Jihadi drive in a confined region - so that it did not contaminate those that remained outside. From these it came to the comfort of discovering a Cold War support for the entity so that the anxiety of having to take any action or even deciding about what to do with Pakistan - could now be shifted on to the shoulders of permanent devils. With the Cold War gone, now we need to fish out race and religious proclivities in the permanent devils to continue the paradigm.

If you are saying it is harder to unseat a dominant paradigm in the case of international relations / political science etc., than in the case of science, I would generally agree with you (though there can be interesting OT debate about the political economy of scientific research etc.) .

That the uppe-crust "liberals" of the Hindu establishment fear and loathe "the Muslim" even more than the middle-rung average Hindus, and therefore seek to contain them, is a new and intriguing idea that I have received from your postings. It does explain quite a bit.

The paradigm that I had read into India's post-Partition policy is that no distinction is made between TSP and the Indian Muslims, and it was decided to follow a policy of focus on development, accompanied by silence as to an honest discussion of Islamist depravity, along with suppression of overt Hindu assertion, probably with the idea of achieving a dilution of Islamist supremacism by (a) containing its more virulent and overt expressions and (b) presenting it with a positive alternative of embracing, or at least accepting pluralism in exchange for peace and prosperity.

shiv's thesis as I understand it has been on these same lines, with the proviso that American support to TSP distorted this project and must therefore be ended posthaste to give it a chance.

What I think is that (a) the element of the paradigm which conflates Indian Muslims with TSP is founded on flawed premises--it is telling that not too many of us know that the vote for Pakistan in the legislative elections of the early 1940s was one in which only the privileged 14% or so of the Muslims were allowed to participate, thus there is no logical justification for conflating "Muslims" with "TSP"; (b) the "silence" part of the policy has made it impossible to even discuss and evaluate the effectiveness of the policy, and in fact has had the effect of any blatant Big Lie (such as the righteousness of the Kashmiri struggle for azadi) to remain unchallenged and be accepted as truth by default.

I think the most immediate action, 60+ years after the institution of this policy, is to force a breaking of the silence.

[brihaspati]

The paradigm that I had read into India's post-Partition policy is that no distinction is made between TSP and the Indian Muslims, and it was decided to follow a policy of focus on development, accompanied by silence as to an honest discussion of Islamist depravity, along with suppression of overt Hindu assertion, probably with the idea of achieving a dilution of Islamist supremacism by (a) containing its more virulent and overt expressions and (b) presenting it with a positive alternative of embracing, or at least accepting pluralism in exchange for peace and prosperity.

shiv's thesis as I understand it has been on these same lines, with the proviso that American support to TSP distorted this project and must therefore be ended posthaste to give it a chance.

This can be our impression and is perhaps our attempt at a guess, in the absence of any explanatory material coming out of the so-called nationalist leadership. But if we analyze it we will see that each and every action by the leaders of the INC that crystallized around MKG contradict each of our assumptions.

If you say they thought dilution of Islamist supremacism could be achieved by "development" then the pre-Partition experience should have told them that the greater the need for development - for example among the poor and landless Muslim peasantry, or lowest of the lowly Naval ratings, the greater were the participations in joint movements and struggles against the Brits and the so-called exploiters of both Hindu and Muslim origin. This fact was there right before their eyes well into 1948. The Jihadism increased in proportion to advanced Islamic education, English education, westernization and wealth.

If they thought Islamist supremacism could be achieved by silencing honest discussion on Islamic depravity - MKG had started the policy of whitewashing Islam the religion and disassociating any criminal or deprave action as individual and completely disconnected to the religion itself - right from the start of the Khilafat movement. henceforth each and every theoretical or dogmatic output from the coterie around him is singularly devoid of any such connections. If this did not suppress supremacim over the 25 years of this policy being stringently applied - there could be no honest reason for claiming success for this policy.

Same goes for suppression of "overt Hindu assertion" - which started in earnest from MKG's take over of the INC org in the 1920's and then even when he virtually abandoned INC after the disastrous consequences of his Khilafat misadventure - INC continued in this Hindu-suppression policy. This need not be out of any Muslim "appeasement" or reassurance drive. We can look at the interanl communication fo INC leaders in the period 1924-1928 to see that they were pretty p**** off with Islamist nakhra that ended the Khilifat move. In fact these arguments and mindset led up to the infamous 1928-30 break with Jinnah. But during this period the alternative militant insurrectionists were seeing a revival on a larger mass scale - than the earlier individual assassination modes. These insurrectionists were deriving their motivation primarily from their Hindu identity and memes which were equally pluralistic in tendencies [Bhagat Singh for example] and thus were in competition with INC and MKG's group.

Containing the more virulent part had been attempted before by trying to split the Islamic clergy and pretending concessions, with the creation of the category of "nationalist Muslims". But it failed already by the end of Khilafat movement and the peculiar but predictable rejection of Jinnah by the coterie by 1930's. The very phrase "nationlist Muslim" coined by the INC leadership, and significantly mostly used by JLN in his speeches or writings - shows the underlying Freudian slip of Muslims as a distinct identity and not necessarily coinciding with the identity of the "nation". The INC had already recognized in its political subconscious that the Muslim was a "separate" entity and there were by default "anti-nationalist Muslims".

So the conflation of Indian Muslims with TSP Muslims could not have been possible.

Similarly the option of pluralism had been offered and peace and development in a shared common future had also been offered by the 20's, which still had not stopped the tide of Islamist violence.

What I think is that (a) the element of the paradigm which conflates Indian Muslims with TSP is founded on flawed premises--it is telling that not too many of us know that the vote for Pakistan in the legislative elections of the early 1940s was one in which only the privileged 14% or so of the Muslims were allowed to participate, thus there is no logical justification for conflating "Muslims" with "TSP"; (b) the "silence" part of the policy has made it impossible to even discuss and evaluate the effectiveness of the policy, and in fact has had the effect of any blatant Big Lie (such as the righteousness of the Kashmiri struggle for azadi) to remain unchallenged and be accepted as truth by default.

I think the most immediate action, 60+ years after the institution of this policy, is to force a breaking of the silence.

I agree that conflation is not supported by the social reality, but neither is it necessarily true that INC leaders actually conflated or even if they did it was not driven by their actual political experience on the ground. In that case if it still did happen - it was counter experiential and likely out of ideological preconceptions.

In fact most of the early 40's elections still managed to weed out more than half and ins ome cases on an average 2/3 of the adults of all denominations.

I think the silence cannot be or could not be rolled back - because from the 20's INC had whitewashed and disconnected the Islamic memes from violence and genocide or culture erasure drives. An entire generational effort was wasted in trying to conflate this religious infrastructure with that of the nationalist effort because the leaders perhaps tried to be too clever by half in denying the history of Islam and its elite's record on the subcontinent. Their interactions had been with their counterparts in Islamic elite - and this was the model that shaped all their perceptions of Islamism. Having spent nearly 90 years in perpetrating a lie, and ruining millions of lives in the process - how can INC now break this silence? It will totally delegitimize its only claim of legitimacy - that its one single leader and mentor of that leader singlehandedly delivered freedom to India.

Pakistan in many senses is a joint tri-partite creation - by British keen on putting up a religious bootlicker against another religious community which sources its anti-British nationalism from its own distinct and Brit-indigestible religion/culture [Ireland, Israel and India], by Jinnah and his hunger for personal power and the Islamic elite and mullahcracy who saw the opportunity, and a section fo INC leadership who saw their Muslim-policy crumbling to the ground and proving a total falsity as well as a threat to their own personal powers and legitimacy.

The dominant theme in India determing attitude towards Pakistan stems from a continuity of this pre-Partition blindness and post-Partition guilt, which has worked itself into a defensive corner from which it cannot get out without ruining its own political legitimacy.

The sooner we understand that any INC related [including the Left and perhaps even sections of the Right] regime or rashtryia entity can never break the silence you want broken - the better.

[shiv]

The paradigm that I had read into India's post-Partition policy is that no distinction is made between TSP and the Indian Muslims, and it was decided to follow a policy of focus on development, accompanied by silence as to an honest discussion of Islamist depravity, along with suppression of overt Hindu assertion, probably with the idea of achieving a dilution of Islamist supremacism by (a) containing its more virulent and overt expressions and (b) presenting it with a positive alternative of embracing, or at least accepting pluralism in exchange for peace and prosperity.

shiv's thesis as I understand it has been on these same lines, with the proviso that American support to TSP distorted this project and must therefore be ended posthaste to give it a chance.

Oh no - I think the goals I envisage are more short term, mundane and hardly as lofty as trying to change Islamic extremism in any way. As I see it ideological battles must be long term, well beyond my lifetime and require commitment by people after I am dead. Ideological struggles involve keeping an idea alive even if that idea is not getting very far. And once you have an idea that someone else will keep alive, one can move on to other things that are achievable in less than a lifetime.

In my mind there is no exchange of X for Y, no "accept pluralism for prosperity". Of course the exchange possibility exists for those Pakis who want to take it and use it, but those who don't can only be promised violent opposition or death. What I am looking at is a more clinical end goal of access to Iran and Central Asia and a land route to Africa. The future of the Indian exports will go towards Africa and Central Asia - areas that have been occupied, dominated and discarded. This is where Indian technical skills and the young of India will be able to help "develop" the world.

For access/land routes to Africa/Central Asia the current "world order" is dictated by the USA which has armed Pakistan all these years against India and is now using a Shia-Sunni, Arab-Persian cleft to keep the states in turmoil while they pick up the spoils. For India, Pakistan will have to be a trade route, not a mission in curing Pakistanis of Islam. If Pakistan happens to agree that it is a good idea to make hay by cooperating, that is fine.

But most of my concerns have centered around the fact that Pakistan is not cooperating to make hay serving as a conduit for India. And this is where India faces a choice of trying to make war with Pakistan. The problem is that Pakistanis see all Indian actions as ideological. Islam is under threat. Even if I am not bothered about islam and am thinking of Pakistan as a "secular trade route" Pakistanis see it as an assault on Islam. Pakistanis are saying "When you attack us you are attacking Islam". An Indian trade route through Pakistan is seen as Hindus trampling on Islam. If "Hindus" really want to do that it only justifies and aggravates traditional Islamic paranoia. This pathological fear of Hindu India has served as a useful tool for the USA and China in getting Pakistan to do their job.

Neither the USA nor China have been worried about the nuances of Islam. Neither country has actually asked whether it is right or wrong to support Islamism against India. Both the US and China have had the short term goals of getting their job done by Pakistan while feeding Islamic extremism. In the last 50 years, the biggest difference between the actions of the US and China on the one hand, and the actions of India is that both the USA and China have had no qualms about arming Islamic extremists and supporting Islamic irredentism from Pakistan. India has consistently killed islamic extremists and opposed all irredentism.

Somehow, under our "intelligent BRF noses" india has been playing a great game, but we have been blind to it. What I am saying is to take it one step further. Split Pakistan ideologically into moderates and extremists without tying ourselves down in our usual philosophical arguments of whether Muslims can be moderate or not and how the Quran says blablabla and all Muslims agree with that blablabla. The so called moderates in Pakistan may be merely doing taqiya, but the are designated moderates as long as they don't obstruct the long term goal of land route access for all of Asia and Africa to be connected up. Any Paki who opposes this is an extremist and "seeks to subvert the peaceful well being of the people of the subcontinent <wink>"

With such a plan, in the medium term India will definitely find itself in opposition to the US. If India ties itself down opposing Islam and trying to teach them pluralism etc, we are only playing a game that the US enjoys playing and has an upper hand. The game the US has encouraged and accepted is a "Hindu India versus muslim Pakistan" game. The India needs to bypass that game. That can only be done IMO by appearing non threatening to Pakistan and by extending a hand to those Pakis who are showing moderate behavior (either for taqiya or other reasons), while being ruthless against violence.

[ShauryaT]

Split Pakistan ideologically into moderates and extremists without tying ourselves down in our usual philosophical arguments of whether Muslims can be moderate or not and how the Quran says blablabla and all Muslims agree with that blablabla. The so called moderates in Pakistan may be merely doing taqiya, but the are designated moderates as long as they don't obstruct the long term goal of land route access for all of Asia and Africa to be connected up. Any Paki who opposes this is an extremist and "seeks to subvert the peaceful well being of the people of the subcontinent <wink>"

+1.

[RajeshA]

For access/land routes to Africa/Central Asia the current "world order" is dictated by the USA which has armed Pakistan all these years against India and is now using a Shia-Sunni, Arab-Persian cleft to keep the states in turmoil while they pick up the spoils. For India, Pakistan will have to be a trade route, not a mission in curing Pakistanis of Islam. If Pakistan happens to agree that it is a good idea to make hay by cooperating, that is fine.

But most of my concerns have centered around the fact that Pakistan is not cooperating to make hay serving as a conduit for India. And this is where India faces a choice of trying to make war with Pakistan.

Actually there are a lot more concerns emanating out of Pakistan

• Terrorism
• Nuclear Threat
• Radicalization of Indian Muslims

All these threats may not be solved by pursuing a single strategy! For the sake of discussion, let's assume that land access to Central Asia is the major issue of focus.

The problem is that Pakistanis see all Indian actions as ideological. Islam is under threat. Even if I am not bothered about islam and am thinking of Pakistan as a "secular trade route" Pakistanis see it as an assault on Islam. Pakistanis are saying "When you attack us you are attacking Islam". An Indian trade route through Pakistan is seen as Hindus trampling on Islam. If "Hindus" really want to do that it only justifies and aggravates traditional Islamic paranoia. This pathological fear of Hindu India has served as a useful tool for the USA and China in getting Pakistan to do their job.

There is good reason, why Pakistanis see all Indian actions as ideological. Any sustenance to Indian economy and strategic outreach would end up by strengthening the dominant identity-based group in India - the Hindus. Pakistanis, who consider themselves as the spokespeople of Subcontinental Muslims, would be strengthening the nemesis of their constituency in the Subcontinent - the Hindus.

Now INC may have managed to de-Hinduize much of our Elite, and are probably making the case to the Pakis, that we are not Hindu anyway, I don't think the Pakistanis are buying into it. That is why Hamid Gul says: "Indian secularism is a ruse as Babri Mosque proved it. This is my reason for dislike of India. The rift with India has a solid basis and that is why the Muslims living in the subcontinent — whether in Pakistan, Bangladesh or India — are one nation." The Pakistanis consider the whole Indian secularist bandwagon as Taqiyya.

Neither the USA nor China have been worried about the nuances of Islam. Neither country has actually asked whether it is right or wrong to support Islamism against India. Both the US and China have had the short term goals of getting their job done by Pakistan while feeding Islamic extremism. In the last 50 years, the biggest difference between the actions of the US and China on the one hand, and the actions of India is that both the USA and China have had no qualms about arming Islamic extremists and supporting Islamic irredentism from Pakistan. India has consistently killed islamic extremists and opposed all irredentism.

Islamic expansion into USA and China is still minimal. They can afford to be unconcerned about the nuances of Islam. China has no spiritual ideology to propagate, so there Islam is even less in conflict.

With India, that is the Indian Subcontinent, Islam is running almost neck to neck with Hinduism. The only check on it are the borders between India and Pakistan on the one hand and India and Bangladesh on the other, and thus the minimal restraints. Pakistan can thus look at China as the land of the Chinese (non-Muslims) and at America as the land of Americans (non-Muslims), but doesn't see any reason to give Hindus any rights over the Indian Subcontinent.

Somehow, under our "intelligent BRF noses" india has been playing a great game, but we have been blind to it. What I am saying is to take it one step further. Split Pakistan ideologically into moderates and extremists without tying ourselves down in our usual philosophical arguments of whether Muslims can be moderate or not and how the Quran says blablabla and all Muslims agree with that blablabla. The so called moderates in Pakistan may be merely doing taqiya, but the are designated moderates as long as they don't obstruct the long term goal of land route access for all of Asia and Africa to be connected up. Any Paki who opposes this is an extremist and "seeks to subvert the peaceful well being of the people of the subcontinent <wink>"

With such a plan, in the medium term India will definitely find itself in opposition to the US. If India ties itself down opposing Islam and trying to teach them pluralism etc, we are only playing a game that the US enjoys playing and has an upper hand. The game the US has encouraged and accepted is a "Hindu India versus muslim Pakistan" game. The India needs to bypass that game. That can only be done IMO by appearing non threatening to Pakistan and by extending a hand to those Pakis who are showing moderate behavior (either for taqiya or other reasons), while being ruthless against violence.

The reason why Pakistanis buy into "Hindu India vs Muslim Pakistan" is not because America is selling it to them, but because the Pakistanis generally believe that anything that accrues to India, generally goes into strengthening Hindus vs the Muslims of the Indian Subcontinent.

It just pays for America to sell that what Pakistanis are already eager to buy!

But in one aspect America has indeed been able to dictate narrative in Pakistan, and I don't mean the "Hindu India vs Muslim Pakistan", but rather the "Moderate vs Radical Islam" narrative. The Moderate Muslim narrative is especially designed and cut keeping Western interests in mind. The Moderate Muslim is he, who encourages an entente between Islam and the West, who encourages Muslims to not be aggressive towards the West.

What India may be trying is is to buy some of that narrative from America, asking America to expand that narrative to cover India as well, a sort of "narrative umbrella", so that Pakistani Islamists do not attack India. In return, India is willing to sell to America her services not to destabilize Pakistan and to promote those players in Pakistan who are conducive for America, i.e. those players in Pakistan, who are considered "Moderate"!

That however would have only limited benefits for India. Considering to what level America has lost its ability to dictate narrative in Pakistan - separation of radical chaff from moderate wheat, pushing the chaff to the fringes of society and influence, it is dubious how far America can help India with this "Narrative Umbrella of Moderation". The space for "Moderate Muslims" in Pakistan has dramatically decreased. By the way, it doesn't perturb China, because China was not part of the "Moderate" narrative anyway, and unlike India, was not trying to buy a piece of it either.

India needs a different narrative viz-a-viz the Pakistanis, a narrative I am trying to promote! That narrative is, that 97% of Pakistanis are Ajlaf Islamic Shoodars, and 3% are semi-Ashrafs, and that is how the world treats them, especially the Islamic Ummah!

[ShauryaT]

RajeshA: Let me add my 2 paisa.

Actually there are a lot more concerns emanating out of Pakistan

• Terrorism
• Nuclear Threat
• Radicalization of Indian Muslims

All these threats may not be solved by pursuing a single strategy! For the sake of discussion, let's assume that land access to Central Asia is the major issue of focus.

Actually, the goal of access to CA is not exclusive of some other goals that you have mentioned. The question to ask is what is the "design intent" of a policy for a give time frame. If one has to describe this intent in a few words, what shall those words be? BK has used the word co-option. At its broadest levels, it means we largely live within current borders we control. Recognize some ground realities, which cannot be changed by either party and figure a way out to live with each other as neighbors.

There is good reason, why Pakistanis see all Indian actions as ideological. Any sustenance to Indian economy and strategic outreach would end up by strengthening the dominant identity-based group in India - the Hindus. Pakistanis, who consider themselves as the spokespeople of Subcontinental Muslims, would be strengthening the nemesis of their constituency in the Subcontinent - the Hindus.

Now INC may have managed to de-Hinduize much of our Elite, and are probably making the case to the Pakis, that we are not Hindu anyway, I don't think the Pakistanis are buying into it. That is why Hamid Gul says: "Indian secularism is a ruse as Babri Mosque proved it. This is my reason for dislike of India. The rift with India has a solid basis and that is why the Muslims living in the subcontinent — whether in Pakistan, Bangladesh or India — are one nation." The Pakistanis consider the whole Indian secularist bandwagon as Taqiyya.

Good. Pakistan simply has to recognize that it does not have the power to change this equation in the near term. Just like India has to recognize that its idea of a reversal of partition based on communal lines or the idea of making TSP like India, is not within its power to change in the near term. Now what? Are we to condemn the next 10 generations to live with this curse or is there a half way house that both can meet at?

With India, that is the Indian Subcontinent, Islam is running almost neck to neck with Hinduism. The only check on it are the borders between India and Pakistan on the one hand and India and Bangladesh on the other, and thus the minimal restraints. Pakistan can thus look at China as the land of the Chinese (non-Muslims) and at America as the land of Americans (non-Muslims), but doesn't see any reason to give Hindus any rights over the Indian Subcontinent.

This is where sovereignty concepts of nation-states come in. The choice is to either accept these concepts and work within their broad frameworks or be at perpetual declared/undeclared states of war.

India needs a different narrative viz-a-viz the Pakistanis, a narrative I am trying to promote! That narrative is, that 97% of Pakistanis are Ajlaf Islamic Shoodars, and 3% are semi-Ashraf Islamic Shoodars, and that is how the world treats them, especially the Islamic Ummah!

Quite some time back, I stopped looking at TSP from an Islamic prism. I consider myself, fairly aware on issues of Islamism and the nature of Pakistani society today and the trajectory it has taken in the past 64 years. So, the point is not to ignore this issue but to recognize some core realities. We can continue to dream (no harm) but realistic policy asks the question what is possible and probable in meaningful time frames. BK has defined the short-medium term aspects of co-option.

The longer term "solution" to Islamism actually runs through India. To tackle Islamism, we have to first strengthen our own ideological convictions and evolve a civilizational-state along these lines. We are far, far from such a goal and indeed are hurling ourselves in the opposite direction. Without first, arresting our own straying away from our spiritual paths, I see NO hope of being able to tackle Islamism, within India, let alone in the subcontinent or beyond.

[RajeshA]

Semi-Ashrafs vs. Ajlaf Islamic Shoodars

I have one question: One just needs to open one's eyes and ears and one would be bombarded with propaganda from all sides about how cruelly Brahmins have treated Dalits. One hears about how molten lead is being poured into the ears of Dalits for listening to Vedas, and other blah blah! One hears it from the Pakistanis, one hears it from the Muslims in general and occasionally one hears it from the Western opinion-makers.

And still Indics have not paid it to the Muslims, the Islamics, the Ashrafs in the same coin! Why not?

This is where I think lies one the most darkest blind-spots among the Indics. Indics hear propaganda against them and they go on the back foot, on the defensive! Why?

The Brahmin domination of the Shoodars may have ended ages ago, but the propaganda continues. The Semi-Ashraf domination of the Ajlaf Islamic Shoodars continues unabated on the Indian Subcontinent, and nobody says anything against the phenomenon.

If one can have a Dalit Movement, why can't one have an Ajlaf Movement? That is the question we need to ponder upon.

Some little background on the Islamic Caste System from Wikipedia.

"A classical example of scholarly declaration of the Muslim caste system is the Fatawa-i Jahandari, written by the fourteenth century Turkish scholar, Ziauddin Barani, a member of the court of Muhammad bin Tughlaq, of the Tughlaq dynasty of the Delhi Sultanate. Barani was known for his intensely casteist views, and regarded the Ashraf Muslims as racially superior to the Ajlaf Muslims. He divided the Muslims into grades and sub-grades. In his scheme, all high positions and privileges were to be a monopoly of the high born Turks, not the Indian Muslims. Even in his interpretation of the Koranic verse “Indeed, the pious amongst you are most honored by Allah”, he considered piety to be associated with noble birth. Barrani was specific in his recommendation that the “sons of Mohamed” [i.e. Ashrafs] “be given a higher social status than the low-born [i.e. Ajlaf]. His most significant contribution in the fatwa was his analysis of the castes with respect to Islam. His assertion was that castes would be mandated through state laws or “Zawabi” and would carry precedence over Sharia law whenever they were in conflict. In the Fatwa-i-Jahandari (advice XXI), he wrote about the “qualities of the high-born” as being “virtuous” and the “low-born” being the “custodian of vices”. Every act which is “contaminated with meanness and based on ignominity, comes elegantly [from the Ajlaf]“. Barani had a clear disdain for the Ajlaf and strongly recommended that they be denied education, lest they usurp the Ashraf masters. He sought appropriate religious sanction to that effect. Barrani also developed an elaborate system of promotion and demotion of Imperial officers (“Wazirs”) that was primarily on the basis of their caste.

In addition to the Ashraf/Ajlaf divide, there is also the Arzal caste among Muslims, who were regarded by anti-Caste activists like as the equivalent of untouchables.For Pakistan or the Partition of India The term “Arzal” stands for “degraded” and the Arzal castes are further subdivided into Bhanar, Halalkhor, Hijra, Kasbi, Lalbegi, Maugta, Mehtar etc. The Arzal group was recorded in the 1901 census in India and are also called Muslims “with whom no other Muhammadan would associate, and who are forbidden to enter the mosque or to use the public burial ground”. They are relegated to “menial” professions such as scavenging and carrying night soil."

Hindus don't have to develop some new strategy. The Brahmin-Shoodar Division Propaganda has a long history. All we need to do is to study it and then apply it to Islam in the Subcontinent.

[shiv]

There is good reason, why Pakistanis see all Indian actions as ideological. Any sustenance to Indian economy and strategic outreach would end up by strengthening the dominant identity-based group in India - the Hindus. Pakistanis, who consider themselves as the spokespeople of Subcontinental Muslims, would be strengthening the nemesis of their constituency in the Subcontinent - the Hindus.

Now INC may have managed to de-Hinduize much of our Elite, and are probably making the case to the Pakis, that we are not Hindu anyway, I don't think the Pakistanis are buying into it. That is why Hamid Gul says: "Indian secularism is a ruse as Babri Mosque proved it. This is my reason for dislike of India. The rift with India has a solid basis and that is why the Muslims living in the subcontinent — whether in Pakistan, Bangladesh or India — are one nation." The Pakistanis consider the whole Indian secularist bandwagon as Taqiyya.

True, but let me quote what YOU said in an earlier post. I have merely taken that into account.

So while the case of Islamization may be true in the case of most Pakjabis, Pushtuns, some Muhajirs, some Sindhis, one may find that ethnic rights may be the predominant theme among the Baluchis, Gilgitians, Baltistanis, many Pushtun, many Sindhis, many Muhajirs, etc viz-a-viz Pakjabis. In fact, the ethnic self-determination drive among some groups may be so strong, that their Islamic character would become secondary, if they are giving a realistic option of leaving Pakistan by breaking Pakistan.

Baluchis, Gilgitians, Baltistanis may be willing to be part of India, despite they being Muslims.
Sindhis, Muhajirs may be willing to ally with India, despite their Islamization level.
Pushtuns may be willing to accept India's support for their own independence, in spite of Muslim brotherhood.


Pakistan's Islamization cannot be considered to be comprehensive, nor need it be seen as having removed Pakistan's fault-lines.

Islamic expansion into USA and China is still minimal. They can afford to be unconcerned about the nuances of Islam. China has no spiritual ideology to propagate, so there Islam is even less in conflict.
<snip>
It just pays for America to sell that what Pakistanis are already eager to buy!

But in one aspect America has indeed been able to dictate narrative in Pakistan, and I don't mean the "Hindu India vs Muslim Pakistan", but rather the "Moderate vs Radical Islam" narrative. The Moderate Muslim narrative is especially designed and cut keeping Western interests in mind. The Moderate Muslim is he, who encourages an entente between Islam and the West, who encourages Muslims to not be aggressive towards the West.

This reinforces what I have been repeating. The US is not a friend and cannot be until its actions start speaking clearly. And I predict that any goodwill the US shows will rapidly evaporate when India starts competing with the US as it inevitably will. Mark my words.

[RajeshA]

Semi-Ashrafs vs. Ajlaf Islamic Shoodars

Why do we need to call 97% of Pakistanis as Ajlaf Islamic Shoodars?

In Islam, the promise is that all are equal, there are no hierarchical divisions among Muslims, etc. Nothing of that is really true in reality, but if one asks any Muslim, he will repeat the same old line, "We in Islam are all equal"! He is brain-washed to repeat that line.

Sadly that is not the case in Hinduism, but that is beside the point.

But the point is that the vocabulary of Arabs, does offer the terminology of Ashraf and Ajlaf (and Arzal too)! If the vocabulary does offer these distinctions, then we are good to go! Then it becomes possible to overlay the "Hindu Divide Dynamic" on to Islam in Pakistan.

So the term Islamic Shoodar tells this group that they have not been able to escape casteism just because they jumped from Hinduism into Islam. In fact even those castes which were not the lowest in Hinduism but they converted, went even much lower, they became Shoodar. It says that casteism exists in Islam just as prominently as in Hinduism. There is no escape. Anybody who protests that has an additional label of Ajlaf attached to him, to remind him that there is the terminology of Ajlaf. What else does Ajlaf mean if not Islamic Shoodar?

Semi-Ashrafs are all the Elite in Pakistan - all the TFTA fawjis, RAPE, Mullahs, etc. who speak of them having Arab, Turkic or Persian roots. How can one call them Ashraf, if they are not pure-blood Arabs, Turks, or Persians. They are the offspring, the outcome of Arabs, Turks and Persians raping "lowly" Subcontinental Hindu women! Or by being for generations among low-caste Muslims in the Subcontinent, and not in the holy sands of Arabia or elsewhere in deserts of West Asia, they have degenerated to only half Ashrafs. Any way one debates it, the Elite of Pakistan can only be called Semi-Ashrafs, the would-love-to-be Ashrafs but remain can-never-be-true Ashrafs. The true Ashrafs, the true Muslim Martial Races - the Arabs, the Turks, the Persians - would never allow any Pakistani to be considered equal to him.

[shiv]

Pakistaniyat is promoted by Pakistanists to dominate and rule over the Muslim Ajlaf shoodars of Pakistan who have been told lies that Allah wants them to eat grass and suffer while the semi-Ashraf get fat from foreign aid.

[member_20617]

If we look at Government of India’s policy for Pakistan for the last 64 years it largely boils down to ‘inaction’. I have not seen any visible signs of ‘actions’ against Pakistan except Bangladesh.

It is my impression that GoI thinks that inaction is actually action!

If we compare the Government of India with the Government of Pakistan, one finds that Pakis (government, military, ISI, terrorist groups) actually implement their 1000 cuts policy. Some Paki actions have been successful and some not.

The Government of India keeps analysing, reanalysing and overanalysing whilst Pakis keep inflicting their 1000 cuts on us!

I feel that Government of India does not have a clear strategy against Pakistan. However if it does then why doesn’t it implement it?

Israel is openly hostile to Iran’s nuclear capability. In comparison, GoI has taken no steps against Pakistan’s nuclear capability. We shouldn’t have allowed this to happen. We should have destroyed Paki nuclear capability long time ago. We should still do it. Pakistan is in a very turbulent state at the moment and we should seize this opportunity to take covert actions to inflame it further to our advantage.

We don’t need to be kind to Pakistan!

We need to take proactive action against Pakistan to weaken it. This will help us tremendously to avoid a 2 front war in future!

[RajeshA]

Semi-Ashrafs vs. Ajlaf Islamic Shoodars

How do we dig a deeper rift between the two?

1st Strategy
Pakis are good at shifting responsibility for everything onto others. If Pakistan is going down the toilet, then the Pakistani Elite would shift the responsibility onto Indians or Americans or somebody else. If the poor in Pakistan are going hungry, then it is the fault of India, because in order to save Pakistan and save Islam from the evil Yindoos, they have to buy new toys for the fawjis.

If Pakistanis do not have water, then it is the fault of Yindia, because they have stolen our water.

If Pakistanis do not have any infrastructure, then it is because America's Global War on Terror next door has caused them a loss of 3 Trillion Dollars.

The responsibility should not be able to shift. The poor Ajlaf Islamic Shoodars are getting no food, no daal, no meat, because the Semi-Ashrafs are exploiting them. The Semi-Ashrafs have built their empire in Pakistan by capturing all land, especially all irrigable land, by capturing all business, by capturing all government top jobs, and by capturing all electoral seats and political power, by capturing all Jernail posts, by capturing the Mullahship of all mosques. Nothing is left for the Ajlaf Islamic Shoodars.

Even if Ajlaf Islamic Shoodars are fawjis in the Pakistani Army, they still do not have any status, because they are just the proxy of Semi-Ashrafs in the Army or act as their cannon-fodder.

The Semi-Ashrafs keep their tight leash on the Ajlaf Islamic Shoodars through Islam and Mullahs are simply their outsourcing service providers responsible for the quality of these leashes.

If the Ajlaf Islamic Shoodars want to escape their condemned lives, they will have to get rid of both Ashraf domination as well as their Islamic leashes. The whole Elite needs to go, including the Mullahs.

2nd Strategy
Now there will be those who would say there is no discrimination in Islam, and there is no such thing as Ashraf-Ajlaf divide. No Ashraf would refer to himself as Semi-Ashraf, but would call himself Ashraf. Similar Ajlafs may call themselves as Ajlafs and not Islamic Shoodars. As long as the difference is being made it is good.

One good argument the proponents of the Ashraf-Ajlaf Divide Theory can make is that if there are no Ashrafs and Ajlafs, why do Pakistanis need a visa to enter into Saudi Arabia. If Semi-Ashrafs want to prove that there is no divide, then they should convince Saudi Arabia to do away with all visas for Pakistanis and let Pakistanis live in Saudi Arabia if they want to. The Saudis should distribute similar amount of dole to both Saudis as well as Pakistanis. Oil Money needs to divided equally between Pakistanis and Saudis.

Would the Saudis do so? No! That means Ashrafs control the Ummah, Semi-Ashrafs are only doing their bidding trying to control the Ajlafs. The Saudis are all hypocrites, who use Islam for their benefit only.

So the only solution is Inquilaab!

[RajeshA]

Semi-Ashrafs vs. Ajlaf Islamic Shoodars

This reinforces what I have been repeating. The US is not a friend and cannot be until its actions start speaking clearly. And I predict that any goodwill the US shows will rapidly evaporate when India starts competing with the US as it inevitably will. Mark my words.

As far as sharing with us the benefits of "Moderate Muslims" in Pakistan goes, America is extracting a price from India.

If India wants to further a pro-India narrative in Pakistan, it would have to be something other than what the Americans have been pushing. If Indians want independence from Americans in our Pakistan policy, we would have to give up this "Moderate Pakistani Muslim" thing.

We need a new narrative. We need to divide the Pakistanis into "Free Pakistanis" and "Enslaved Pakistanis". Free Pakistanis are those who have understood how the Ashrafs in West Asia are controlling Ajlaf in Pakistan using Semi-Ashraf Elite. Free Pakistanis are those who have understood how Islam is being used as a tool by the Semi-Ashrafs to keep the Ajlafs on a leash.

Why else are Saudi Ashrafs investing so much money into Islamization, into Wahhabization? They are doing so because that is their tool of control of Pakistani masses.

Why are the Pakistani Elite, the Semi-Ashrafs allowing this Islamization of Pakistan? They are allowing it because they are the tatoos of Ashrafs, and the Semi-Ashrafs use Islam to keep the Ajlafs on a leash, in the meantime the plunder Pakistan.

Any Pakistani who has understood this vile method of mental slavery is a Free Pakistani. Any Pakistani who doesn't understand this narrative is either a Semi-Ashraf, having stakes in continuing this slavery; or is an Enslaved Pakistani.

----------

Now this "Free vs. Enslaved Pakistani" is an alternative narrative to the "Moderate vs. Radical Muslim" narrative of the West.

If we Indians were to push some "Moderate" constituency in Pakistan whose sole purpose is to try to bridge the narrative of conflict between Hindus and Muslims, between Indians and Pakistanis, it would not work. Only a few would write some columns in some English-speaking dailies in Pakistan, with little readership, or put up some views on some blog on the Internet, but that would have no effect on the ground.

We need to give Indian proxies in Pakistan some real teeth, some real strength. And that is where the "Semi-Ashraf vs. Ajlaf Islamic Shoodar" narrative, the "Free vs. Enslaved Pakistani" narrative are going to come in handy. It provides political and ideological space in Pakistan for Indian proxies.

The "Moderate vs. Radical Muslim" narrative in Pakistani context is a freeloader on the "Hindu India vs Muslim Pakistan" narrative, because the Moderate in Pakistan can gain some political and ideological space in Pakistan, only by showing himself as a believer in the Two-Nation Theory (TNT), as a fierce opponent of India, as a confessed Anti-Hindu.

That is why the "Moderate vs. Radical Muslim" narrative for Pakistan cannot work for India. The "Moderates for India" platform in Pakistan would remain narrow. Those Pakistanis who are pleading for some Indo-Pak Rapprochement are doing so because Pakistan in the deep poo right now, and they have an understanding with other sections of Pakistani Anti-Indians that it is only temporary and just Taqiyya to get concessions. There is no ideological conviction among the Pakistanis for such a stance.

Now the thing is that "Moderate vs. Radical Muslim" narrative which the Americans are pushing may get diluted, because as said the political and ideological constituency of "Moderates" in Pakistan was Anti-Indianism. And if due to the "Free vs. Enslaved Pakistani" narrative, Anti-Indianism as a political and ideological platform gets diluted, then "Moderates" would be left with no platform, and would lose the ability to influence Pakistani policies in favor of America.

America however needs to understand that even if the "Moderates" build their platform on Anti-Indianism, they would still lose out, simply because the Anti-Americanism platform has gained so much strength in Pakistan lately, and that it too is based on the Islamist power in Pakistan. American presence in West Asia and AfPak are all nourishing this constituency. So the Anti-Indianism platform would bring no dividends.

Much better for America would be to join India in pushing for the "Semi-Ashraf vs. Ajlaf Islamic Shoodar" narrative, the "Free vs. Enslaved Pakistani" narrative. That political and ideological platform would be Anti-Ashrafist and Anti-Saudi, and it may harm the interests of their allies, the Saudis, but it would help America win a new constituency in Pakistan, that of "Free Pakistanis", who would stand for good relations with both India and America.

Long Live the Ajlaf Movement! Inquilaab Zindabad!

[RajeshA]

Pakistaniyat is promoted by Pakistanists to dominate and rule over the Muslim Ajlaf shoodars of Pakistan who have been told lies that Allah wants them to eat grass and suffer while the semi-Ashraf get fat from foreign aid.

Perfectly Expressed!

[RajeshA]

Quite some time back, I stopped looking at TSP from an Islamic prism. I consider myself, fairly aware on issues of Islamism and the nature of Pakistani society today and the trajectory it has taken in the past 64 years. So, the point is not to ignore this issue but to recognize some core realities. We can continue to dream (no harm) but realistic policy asks the question what is possible and probable in meaningful time frames. BK has defined the short-medium term aspects of co-option.

The longer term "solution" to Islamism actually runs through India. To tackle Islamism, we have to first strengthen our own ideological convictions and evolve a civilizational-state along these lines. We are far, far from such a goal and indeed are hurling ourselves in the opposite direction. Without first, arresting our own straying away from our spiritual paths, I see NO hope of being able to tackle Islamism, within India, let alone in the subcontinent or beyond.

ShauryaT ji,

At every moment in those last 64 years, India has thought exactly the way you have put it! Let's look for realistic practical policies rather than "dreaming"! There must have been some reason why those "realistic practical" policies did not bear fruit.

Basically there were many many things that India could have done in those last 64 years, but did not do. This thread "Managing Pakistan's failure" is full with ideas from a wide spectrum of BRFites. So there wasn't much ever done by the Indian Political Elite to change Pakistan (except the 1971 Thaparh)! Before 1971 happened, and if somebody in say early 50s or 60s would have claimed that the "dream" of Bangladeshi Independence could have come true, "realistic practical" people would have laughed at him, and would have advised him to be also "realistic and practical"!