Managing Pakistan's failure

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by ramana »

Pioneer Book Review

A lost Nation
A lost Nation
Saturday, 10 March 2012

The Future of Pakistan
Author : Stephen P Cohen (ed)

Publisher: Oxford University Press,

Price: 695

Stephen Cohen's book raises great expectations which, says Ved Marwah, are not fully met. There is inexplicable hesitation in calling a spade a spade
The future of Pakistan is of vital concern not only to India but also the entire world. The time for doublespeak on Islamabad’s role in supporting and sponsoring terrorism is over. The US can no longer have the luxury of looking at its role only in the regional context.

Not very long ago, instead of treating Pakistan as an epicentre for terrorism, the US was calling it as a “frontline state in its fight against terrorism”. Instead of taking Islamabad to task for what it had been doing for a long time, it used to lecture Delhi to settle its disputes with its western neighbour, even if it had to be done on the latter’s terms. That perception is now slowly changing, but not quite. Many contributors in this volume, The Future of Pakistan, are still harping on that line, though the assessment about the role of Pakistan in sponsoring, training, financing, equipping and even spreading terrorism across the world has radically changed, especially after the gunning down of Osama bin Laden by the US Navy Seals near Islamabad last year.

A book edited by Stephen Cohen, a well-known authority on Pakistan and its army, coming as does only a few years after he published his masterpiece on this very country, raises great expectations. These expectations, I am afraid, are not fully met. Even after what has happened in the past few years, there is inexplicable hesitation in calling a spade a spade. The reader will find all sorts of materials in this extremely informative book, but not all the answers to his questions about the future of Pakistan. Instead of giving their considered views about where Pakistan is likely to head, many contributors still hedge by laying out various scenarios and leaving it to the reader to make his or her own judgement. Of course, no prediction can be 100 per cent correct in such a complex scenario, but ducking the issue neither helps the reader nor the policymakers.

Pakistan has a history of fomenting religious extremism inside and outside its national border. It has expansionist designs from the very beginning. There is a perceptible consistency, a method in its madness, in its internal and external policies irrespective of who ruled that country. There is no evidence that this is going to change in the foreseeable future. If the authors had analysed these trends and their possible consequences on what these mean for Pakistan and the rest of the world, especially India, this volume could have been more interesting.

It has taken a long time for the US to “see Pakistan as a deceitful partner”, states Bruce Riedel in the ‘Foreword’. While there is no easy answer to the question as to what the future holds for Pakistan and the rest of the world, it is still a useful addition to literature on this important subject. Whether the events in the near future will push Pakistan over the edge — edge being variously defined (at the minimum as another military takeover, and at maximum as the break up of the state) — is no longer the thinking only of the so-called Pakistan-bashers but also its well-wishers. The difficulty, as rightly pointed out by Cohen, is that while its capacities are limited its “ambitions are too great”. The all-powerful army finds it difficult to get down from its high horse and the Frankenstein it has created in the jihadi infrastructure refuses to back down. It continues to flaunt its muscles to bully its eastern neighbour because it is convinced that “India understands only the language of force”.

Unfortunately, “India bashers” like Christine Fair has little hesitation in putting the blame on Delhi. According to her, “India for its part is appallingly short-sighted. India demurs from making any policies towards Pakistan that may be conciliatory.” It is time such scholars realise that giving in to Pakistan’s demands under threat of jihadi terrorism will only embolden Islamabad to make more impossible demands. She would do well to read some of the most recent anti-India speeches of Lashkar chief Hafiz Saeed and other extremist leaders who enjoy popular support in Pakistan. Their target is not just Jammu & Kashmir but the Indian Union. Even Steve Coll makes the similar mistake when he says that Kashmir is at the root of the problem, exhorting the outside power to bring about a settlement.

Identity crisis that Pakistan has been struggling with right from its birth has only worsened. The India bogey and the jihad against Jews, Americans and Hindus are a clever ruse by the venal ruling oligarchy to maintain its hold over power. This is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. This is not to say that India should not continue its dialogue with Pakistan and do all it can to reassure Islamabad that Delhi holds no animosity towards it, as security expert B Raman, one of the contributors, states.

Unfortunately, “Pakistan’s India-focused security concerns will continue to provide a powerful driver for its geopolitical behaviour, including its not so deniable support to radical Islamist groups in Afghanistan,” says Aqil Shah. He, however, does not say the obvious that Pakistan has become the epicentre of Jihadi terrorism across the world. Cohen quotes one of the Pakistani scholars residing in Britain, Farzana Sheikh, saying that the problems of a “country on the brink” or “failed state” will not go away unless the army reviews its policies. Pakistan’s problems stem from its very origin and that its identity has never been clear nor has consensus been developed on the purpose of the state.

The trends where Pakistan is heading are clear. There is no evidence to suggest that these are likely to change in the foreseeable future. The world has to ensure that it is not allowed to continue on this disastrous path. Sidestepping the issues will neither help Pakistan nor the rest of the world. This book — like Cohen’s earlier ones — should be a compulsory reading for all interested in Pakistan and its army.

The reviewer, a retired IPS officer, is former Governor of Jharkhand and Manipur
Comments in that page:
0 #1 Roucheforte 2012-03-11 04:10
All organisms, that is, until they are able to evolve more deep insights and thought, are fundamentally programmed to self-preservation. We may not expect others to act in altruism or with inspired insight and intelligence, but beyond the lobbies, beyond the material allures etc., at the very core of the biological programme is self-preservation. It is very apparent where our neighbour intends to take itself and the rest of the world, terrorism of the kind that we are witnessing is not new, look back at Timur and Ghazni, or even in the conquest of Persia, the methods are the same, the strategies the same, the goals the same, and the cruelty and decisiveness of the perpetrators and the clumsiness and foggy indecision of the victims the same. The question is why India has not been able to communicate the existential threat, backed by clear contemporary evidence and historical patterns, to the world at large?


0 #2 Roucheforte 2012-03-11 04:18
There are compromised individuals, who have provided advocacy for our errant neighbour, the reasons for their being compromised may be many, some driven by a fuzzy pseudo-intellectual haze at the cost of the real processes of history and dynamics of power, some because they are compromised more directly by various failings, including being prey to inducements. That is to be expected, the dynamics of power, political economy, social ideologies that sustain or thwart societies from achieving various aims, intrigue etc. are all a part of history. The question, is why, have we been found wanting in communicating the existential threat to the world at large directly at the level of their self-preservation instincts? Why have we been historically ambivalent for the larger part, hoping somehow to avoid responsibility and ensure survivability when knowing that in doing so we imperil our own existence and achieve precious else always and every time?


#3 Krishan 2012-03-11 12:34
Every American is NOT a friend of India. Every American is not a friend of Israel, either. But unlike Indians, Israelis are not timid and use every lever they have to expose him/her. Should Indians be concerned about the welfare of Pakistan - a country which has given nothing but misery to India from the day it was given by the British on a platter to Muslim League Leadership? Jews do not feel concerned about the welfare of Nazis, why should Indians feel concerned about Pakistan? The sooner it disintegrates, the better for the peace in the world.


Also read Air Cdre. Jasjit Singh's article on IAF where he writes that TSP tested their bomb in 1983 and were going to occupy Siachen and got pre-empted by India.

And until 1998, TSP was the only power to have tested nukes. And its terrorism expanded without controls and egged on by tacit US silence and pressure on India.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by ShauryaT »

RajeshA wrote: 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.
There is a difference between inaction and working for realistic outcomes. In fact, I would argue that it was JLN, who was dreaming, LBS who was pressured to stop the advances of the IA, IG who was callous, RG who had no clue on what he wanted. IKG, who was delirious. ABV, IMO did try something realistic, but without enough preparation and was stabbed in the back - but credit to him, it did not stop him from re-engaging. MMS actually thinks that $$ will solve all issues on earth. So no largely I do not think GoI thoughts are anywhere close, to the way I have put it.

About the only similarity is a recognition that GoI thinks there are no military options and I think the military options does not have enough political will to see it through and are indeed limited in scope and hence useless and do not have the requisite capacities to produce meaningful results.
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"!
I do not think this is true. The doubt of a workable nation state with two halves separated through enemy territory was too obvious to miss. The tragedy is India did not seek to exploit even this obvious a division, until things were brought to her on a platter.

Bangladesh was a low hanging fruit that has been plucked. To repeat the same again is not going to be this easy, until things in TSP implode.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

I know there could be reason why we always fail to see the elephant in the room because we deliberately tie a blindfold around our eyes - but can we not even smell it?

For all the pragmatists - the argument that USA or China can use Islamism and Jihad without any compunction - and promote Jihadi violence from Pakistanis on chosen targets, seems to blind them to considering the fundamental reason they can do so.

They can use Pakistanis so because such use coincides with the Paki rashtras' fundamental mindset and objectives. Paki elite always wanted a separate region where they could preserve their brainwashing and create the future military sterngth from which they could unleash Jihad on "Hindusthan". The US or the Brits or the Chinese could use them for Jihad because it suited the Paki elites objectives. Those who are dreaming of changing gear and direction in the Paki rashtra towards harnessing that Jihadi outreach back against USA or China are forgetting that for the Paki elite - such a direction is not the primary objective, it never was and unlikely to be in the short or mid or long term. They will consider it onlee after they have been able to achieve their Mughalistan.

Maybe this is the reason all of pragmatists demand that we forget history of Islamism on the subcontinent and look at a new invented future diluted faded Islamism. Even during Brit imperial control - there was a huge mobilization based on the Khilafat. What was that for the subcontinental Muslim ? It was essentially against the Brits and in favour of the Ottomans - the deadly enemy and target of British imperialism.

Did that huge hulabaloo about restoring Ottoman legitimacy - prevent the very same Islamist dancers and leadership created out of MKG's legitimization of them in politics - from licking British boots to create their own religio-political space against the majority of Indians? It was always - even in the Khilafat - about establishing the supremacy of Islamic control over the subcontinent.

Paki islamists in state power and outside state power will go against USA and China onlee if these two turn supporters of the "Hindu". The common Paki at the moment has great hatred of the USA - because the mullahcracy has a whisper going around that USA is an obstacle towards expansion of the ummah into the subcontinent, that USA has become a tacit partner and supporter of India==Hindus==obstructors of Mughalistani Islamic dominance over the Kaffir.

If we are thinking so much of reverse taqqyia - a more effective strategy is actually making greater "friendship" with USA and China, which will alienate and turn the Paki propaganda machine against the USA and China.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by ramana »

Bji, The US and its allies are using "Labyrinth" strategy. They build walls out of rules, regulations, DIE and media perception so that India runs along the designated path into their arms or doesnt get out of it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labyrinth
The out of that strategy to realize one is not a mouse and blast the walls.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

ramana ji,
failure to properly assess the mindset and perceptions and hence future reactions to situations leads to disaster. We may be romantically inclined to foist our own dreamy reconstructions about the underlying intent and motivations in Paki regime-core-Islamism, but we need to check that enthusiasm with the actual past record on the ground.

We can pretend as much friendship with USA and China as we are clamouring for friendliness with the Paki regime - can't we? If that blanket friendliness towards the Paki entity is not actually giving-in or bootlicking of Islamism, if all that cannot be construed as hidden motivations of Islamophilia and betrayal or taking inordinate risks of deceiving the common Indian as to the real possibilities of genocide from Pakis by the Indian rashtryia leadership - then surely pretending and formally shouting about love for USA and China is not about betraying the country and not really about giving in to US or Chinese interests?

Why are such foreign policy gestures not deceptions of Indian aam in favour of a foreign power if it is about Pakis onlee - and become an anathema, a serious betrayal of interests - suddenly - onlee if a GCC country or a Paki regime is not at the other end? Why are they betrayals or serious lapses or sincere intent if it is a non-Islamic country?

But we would see nicely - that if that pretended friendship proves sincere on the ground [so that sympathetic voices are not whispering reassurances to Islamists that Indians are not really sincerely making friends with China and USA] through issues and incidents, the anti-US and anti-China feelings will gain ground among Pakis. While no amount of campaign or propaganda or love-fest will bring that response if Indians try to inspire USA or China hatred in the Paki. They will take all the concessions and love and still get ready for Jihad.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

Constructing moderates where moderates are absolutely negligible in number is a dangerous and fatal fantasy. It exposes genuine moderates to execution and destruction in totalitarian societies like those under majority Islamic, and serves a dual purpose : on the one hand it nips in the bud any thought of future moderation, and it consolidates the remainder behind the sadistic banner. It also prevents a proper assessment of strengths, unity of purpose where it concerns the perceived enemies or non-members of the totalitarian society.

This under assessemnet and sometime deliberately criminal mis-assessment and public propaganda in constructing a false image of totalitarian societies like Islamic in pre-Partition India - led to the massacres and rapes on a psychologically unprepared and unsuspecting population.

We want to repeat that crime?
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

When we say we need to make love to Pakis and focus all our energies in raising Paki hackles against USA - we are still playing the game according the other's terms. We are still not sure about the need to erase Pakistan forever. Once that ultimate end is clearly understood, we can do whatever taqyia we want. We can pretend anything - USA hating and bashing, or love-festing - any and all can be employed. But let us not hide our fear and overestimation of Islamic strength behind excuses.

Labyrinth it is indeed. But at the end of the maze the target should be clear - its ethe elimination of the labyrinth setters and all of its walls - brick by brick, stone by stone. In this let us not help the aspiring cat to get strengthened by believing that the cat will help the mouse and attack the creator of the labyrinth.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

From Carl ji's followup post
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 3#p1254953

By the way, do we see hopes of any moderation in the police escorts, the judges, the state, the journalists, the madrassah which has custody of the girl over and above the state ? Does anyone think we can turn these potential moderates against the USA?

Such determination might come in very handy in a determined resistance against the USA perhaps?

Or is it possible for India to make friends with them? Since none of the populations seem to have come forward to resist or protest this peaceful conversion - we can assume that the height of moderation was being shown by these custodians of the girl and they have the support of every other moderate in Pakistan. Since we desperately need to create a class of moderates in Pakistan who will see eye to eye with Indians on common issues like the need to bash up USA for example, should we start seeing eye to eye with these moderates on such conversions for example as a first gesture?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

brihaspati wrote:
They can use Pakistanis so because such use coincides with the Paki rashtras' fundamental mindset and objectives. Paki elite always wanted a separate region where they could preserve their brainwashing and create the future military sterngth from which they could unleash Jihad on "Hindusthan". The US or the Brits or the Chinese could use them for Jihad because it suited the Paki elites objectives.
This is well known and since you have repeated what is well known, let me repeat what is also well known but not mentioned, given the dominance of the west in the mind of the west sympathetic media and educated Indian. What is rarely mentioned in a "let's us go soft on the friendly secular West" approach is that Pakistani misbehaviour has suited the USA, Britain and China too. Pakstan's singular obsession with "Hindusthan" has allowed them to get Pakistanis to do their own private jobs while they offered material support to Pakistan's opposition to India.

Pakistan's dysfunctional anger should be directed against their sponsors the USA and China who have not given the Pakistanis Kashmir or victory over India. The strength and zeal of Islamic jihad is so pure and irresistible that Pakistanis would have occupied Kashmir by now if the US and China had not ditched them with false promises.

In 1965 China merely kidnapped goats at the Indian border rather than putting pressure on india

In 1971 the US did nothing to save Pakistan. The US had given permission to China to attack India in 1971, but they did not attack.

In 1999 Bill Clinton applied pressure on the traitor general Musharraf to stop the war, or Kashmir would be out of Kafir hands by now.

Pakistan has done a lot for the Americans and Chinese. Pakistan has lost more men to America's war on terror that any other country (LOL you stupid gits and your mullah-brains) and still Americans are killing innocent Muslims. The Chinese have been gifted land from Kashmir but still they are not making war against India. These countries are not friends of Pakistan. Otherwise Pakistan would have easily dominated India by now - as they did for 1000 years.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

^^^^Maybe Pakistanis know their reality behind all the bravado and bluster. That these countries have helped them survive at a time when they could not have survived on their own against India. Pakistan was not a survivable entity when it was created. The Paki elite knew that for their long term objectives to be satisfied they needed to survive first. Islamists have always understood the importance of surviving at any cost and wait for eventual relaxation of vigil by others and gaining whatever strength could be gained from allies so that when opportunity arises they can strike out on their own.

How is that inconsistent with knowing fully well what the taller, deeper friends are really useful for, and still not giving up on the eventual objective?

As I pointed out - what was common between the Khilafat movement against the Brits and in favour of the Ottomans and the smooth transition to pro-British ML genocide? The commonality was the target of eventual domination of the subcontinent. Even if the west thrashes them down to the bone, as long as there is the hope of gains from them, Paki elite will go on licking western boots. As long as China and USA show their hatred of the majority community and plays safe with India - Pakis are not going seriously against them.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

brihaspati wrote: How is that inconsistent with knowing fully well what the taller, deeper friends are really useful for, and still not giving up on the eventual objective?
<snip>
As long as China and USA show their hatred of the majority community and plays safe with India - Pakis are not going seriously against them.
Persistence is a game that anyone who wants something done has to play.

What you are talking about is persistence and in your view it is the persistence that is dangerous, whether it is effective or not. As you state, it is not necessarily effective or successful in the short term.

But let me ask you a question.

You said "As long as China and USA show their hatred of the majority community and plays safe with India - Pakis are not going seriously against them."

Fine.

But it is my desire to get the Pakis opposing their sponsors using any means possible. Should I stop persisting with my own (feeble) efforts just because your opinion differs from mine on this issue? Or that it will be ineffective or counter productive? Should I (or others who agree with me ) just give up and not persist because some people feel it will not work?

Surely the very advantage of persistence that you cite for Islamists should apply to others as well. In persistence Islamists are not the only ones who have long terms ideas or goals.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

Yes, but the persistence of Paki islamists is based on a definite preference pattern. In that the first target is India and Hindus, and until that objective is achieved all else comes secondary. They will and they are trained by their theologians and theological texts - to sequentially ally with non-Muslim tribes to eliminate the weaker non-Muslim tribe and take over its resources.

Now tell me - in the Paki islamist view - which tribe is weaker between the "white Christian USA" and "SDRE Hindu India"?

In fact, from the days of early expansion - Islamics actually allied with Christian Arab tribes in the frontier between peninsula and Palestine-Syria, to eliminate non-qitab Arabs. Even when some Christian tribes played on both sides and often stayed aloof at crucial times. Muhammad and after him the pious ones, never wavered until the non-Christians were eliminated. This was on the basis of a cold calculation of who had greater resources to spend and who had greater military power.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

brihaspati wrote: Now tell me - in the Paki islamist view - which tribe is weaker between the "white Christian USA" and "SDRE Hindu India"?
In my view, Pakistani islamist views are neither wholly uniform, nor wholly rigid so I am not going to state any rigid opinions on the question above. In fact one thing I know about Islamists and any fanatics, they are dogs who will attack the weakest available target. Who is the weakest available target reminds me of a joke about two men running from a Tiger. One man said "Run now! The tiger can run faster than us." The second man laughs and says "I'm not worried. I can run faster than you".

The implication (for those do do not get it) is that the tiger will catch the one it gets first. As long as there are many targets for Islamists to hit before they can reach India - we can be the man who runs faster. That is assuming that one believes that india will just capitulate in the face of Islamism, but that is a separate issue.If that is true, then we have everything to gain by offering islamists more easily available nearby targets.

Islamists will attack all sorts of targets. It is only the people whom Rajesh aptly described as "Pakistanists" who are interested specifically in India and Hindus. In Pakistan the army and the Jamaat-ud Dawa (now called defy Pakistan" or Difa-e-Pakistan) are the most powerful members of this group.

But there are Islamists who are attacking Shias, Baluchis, Gilgitis, Ahmedis, Barelvis and assorted kafirs like the Americans. Even Chinese. May their tribe increase.

brihaspati wrote:In fact, from the days of early expansion - Islamics actually allied with Christian Arab tribes in the frontier between peninsula and Palestine-Syria, to eliminate non-qitab Arabs. Even when some Christian tribes played on both sides and often stayed aloof at crucial times. Muhammad and after him the pious ones, never wavered until the non-Christians were eliminated. This was on the basis of a cold calculation of who had greater resources to spend and who had greater military power.
This tells us who our friends really are and with whom we might gain by showing pretend friendship. Taqiya and dhimmitude are useful games, when applied judiciously. The meaning of "judiciously" is vague enough to warrant a thousand pages of forum discussions.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by RajeshA »

As I read the interaction between shiv saar and brihaspati garu, I would like to offer the Middle Road!

And I think that Middle Road can be ascertained if we knew what our final aim is! I can speak only for myself, but some may agree with that.

My problem with Islam is not that it is a religion in Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, etc.. My problem with it is, that it is has established itself in the Indian Subcontinent and is on a domination and elimination course against Hinduism in a mult-century program!

If I am super-Dharmically charged particle, then I would probably object to the former situation as well .....

I have no compunctions dealing with Islam or Muslims in general, but I do have one desire, and that is to remove Islam as a threat from the Indian Subcontinent on a permanent basis.

As far as Pakistan is concerned, the objective is to get a land-bridge to the resource rich regions of Asia - to Central Asia, to Iran, etc., and the more important objective being reclaiming the Indus for Dharma. More specifically I would like to see Pakjab and Sindh reclaimed by Dharma, and Baluchistan, Gilgit-Baltistan reclaimed by India.

If one would agree on that objective, then we cannot have Islamism grow in strength in Pakjab or Sindh, be it by default or for resisting American games in Pakistan.

It suffices to create conditions in Pakistan due to which neither TSPA can provide services to America, nor need America throw money at those who cannot provide those services.

Why do Afghans hate Pakistan? Because Pakistan tries to attain strategic depth in Afghanistan. So the thought occurs, when would Pakjabis hate the Pushtun! Of course, when the Pushtuns try to attain strategic depth in Pakjab. I say this, because how the who region moves depends on the relative strength of Pakjabis vs. Pushtuns.

As long as TSPA has Sindh and Baluchistan in their control; as long as they can provide services to America, China, Saudi Arabia, and others, and they receive monetary backing; as long as TSPA is the strongest outfit in Pakistan, thus assuring Pakjabi dominance; so long the power equation would remain in favor of Pakjabis. When the power equation changes, Pakjabis would change, and they would try to look for succor across the border in India.

It is how we play our cards, that would determine whether Pakjab and Sindh become receptive of Dharma or not!

I personally do not have any problems in retaining the Wild regions of Pakistan - the Waziristans, Bajaurs, and Swats for use against the Chinese, or having regions where Islam stills holds strong sway in West Asia or Horn of Africa, which can be used against the West. My aversion against Islam does not go so far that I am not willing to give it a breather, but it does go so far that it should not get a breather in the Indian Subcontinent where Dharma should rule unchallenged.

That is the clincher, the main difference! Just because Islam deserves no place in the Indian Subcontinent, shouldn't mean we cannot do business with it elsewhere. Strategy determines how we keep the two separate.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Lalmohan »

B-ji, whilst I have done some reading on the topic, I'd like to seek your opinion as a professional. the regions of greater india we know today as af-pak - in the dharmic times, did these regions have good or bad relations with the heartland? i know for example that the young ashoka was away in taxila quelling revolts, etc. my point being - are the modern day afpaks continuing an age old tradition of being sob's regardless of their religion? or is their current religious persuasion merely aggravating their own sob tendencies, or have they been genuinely corrupted by their current religious persuasion?
member_20617
BRFite
Posts: 194
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by member_20617 »

[quote="shiv 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.

[/quote]

CAR keeps getting mentioned on this Dhaaga.

From Wiki:
In modern contexts, all definitions of Central Asia include these five republics of the former Soviet Union: Kazakhstan (pop. 16.6 million), Kyrgyzstan (5.5 million), Tajikistan (7.6 million), Turkmenistan (5.1 million), and Uzbekistan (29.5 million), for a total population of 64.7 million as of 2012. Other areas included are Afghanistan, northeastern Iran, northern Pakistan, Mongolia, and sometimes Xinjiang and Tibet in western China and southern Siberia in eastern Russia.

Is CAR so important for India which it cannot do without?

Of course it is beneficial to have access to CAR for trade but India will not suffer if we do not have direct access to CAR.

There are nearly 200 countries in the world and we do NOT depend on CAR alone.

The only exception is Afghanistan. We need to have a strategic depth there to control Pakis.

As far as Africa is concerned, Pakis have not shown any signs of obstruction though India could and should do better here.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

Shankaraa wrote: Is CAR so important for India which it cannot do without?
True. Not a blade of grass grows there. We have managed quite well from 1947 so I think I am pushing it a bit too far. Even Pakjab and sindh are not that important. And Baluchistan is desert.

I would like to see the day when Indians are happy to live with what they have.
ShauryaT
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5350
Joined: 31 Oct 2005 06:06

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by ShauryaT »

It is not just CAR. It is about land access to the entire Eur-Asian land mass. Without this access, India is more or less an island.
Last edited by ShauryaT on 13 Mar 2012 15:21, edited 1 time in total.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Lalmohan »

CAR was significant historically because it was where the trade routes between china and india passed to the west - and were choke points
then it became important for oil and gas
and as leverage against russia and china (for america)
i am not sure that access to the eurasian landmass is necessarily attractive if our markets are accessible by sea, though it wouldn't hurt to have direct land access to the CAR's to spread our soft power and as secondary markets for our goods
member_20617
BRFite
Posts: 194
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by member_20617 »

shiv wrote:
Shankaraa wrote: Is CAR so important for India which it cannot do without?
True. Not a blade of grass grows there. We have managed quite well from 1947 so I think I am pushing it a bit too far. Even Pakjab and sindh are not that important. And Baluchistan is desert.

I would like to see the day when Indians are happy to live with what they have.
I would be the happiest person on earth if the whole world belonged to India!
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

Lalmohan wrote:CAR was significant historically because it was where the trade routes between china and india passed to the west - and were choke points
then it became important for oil and gas
and as leverage against russia and china (for america)
i am not sure that access to the eurasian landmass is necessarily attractive if our markets are accessible by sea, though it wouldn't hurt to have direct land access to the CAR's to spread our soft power and as secondary markets for our goods
Unless I am mistaken even today the best roads that connect up India and China with west Asia and Southern Europe go via Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran. Not directly through Baluchistan. Iran has a mountain range going from Northwest to South East. Going into Iran via Baluchistan the road either hits the mountains or goes via desert. The best routes from India to Iran and Southern Europe are via central Asia. There is a southern route along the coast - but the sea is a better alternative.

India has good access to Eastern Africa via the sea, but land routes have a different dynamic. When India and China were the prime economic powers on earth, these land routes were vital. The routes were constantly under dispute mainly because of Islamist and Christianist wars. The same thing is still happening today. The development of sea power by Portugal, Spain and Britain made colonialism big.

Mineral exploitation of CAR will demand better routes towards the east and south.
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by svinayak »

Lalmohan wrote:CAR was significant historically because it was where the trade routes between china and india passed to the west - and were choke points
then it became important for oil and gas
and as leverage against russia and china (for america)
i am not sure that access to the eurasian landmass is necessarily attractive if our markets are accessible by sea, though it wouldn't hurt to have direct land access to the CAR's to spread our soft power and as secondary markets for our goods
Maritime nations did not have access to these land routes and hence created sea routes for trade.

If these land routes are revived then there will be new trade routes created which the supr powers cannot control.
Fundamentally the current world trade has potential to change if these land routes are opened up across the Eurasia.

Hence they need to keep these land routes closed if they want to have monopoly over the current global trade
Last edited by svinayak on 13 Mar 2012 19:23, edited 1 time in total.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Lalmohan »

right, so the question arises - do we need those roads for our trade with others? (or for trade with the CARs?)
for the first part, the answer is no - the sea is a far better alternative
for the latter - if we are buying oil, gas, raw minerals then roads and more importantly railway and pipelines will be needed
the value of goods going the other way may not be very large

acharya - i am not sure that the economics of the landroute are viable
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by svinayak »

See above again.

The 70% world population resides in the hinterland of these land routes and hence are viable.
Sea routes was made cheaper with bulk carriers and these are transported to the inland areas by land routes.

For India it is the question of being in everything where the world trade happens.
Sea routes could become unviable if the routes are un protected. - by super powers and regional countries
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Lalmohan »

i disagree sir - china is in two parts - coastal, fertile, populous and interior, dry, sparse
the cars themselves have low populations and russia is concentrated in europe
the land routes are not as significant currently as they used to be
svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by svinayak »

River routes and Land routes are still important since population is in those areas and the region will develop with trade
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by RajeshA »

Central Asia has basically four uses:

1) Source of Energy and Minerals
2) Route for Trade
3) As pivot to control political turmoil in the soft underbellies of all powers in Asia.
4) As target region for imperial expansion.
shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 7101
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shyamd »

There is a theory that whoever controls Eurasia controls the world. I recall reading something along those lines in Brezinski's book
member_20617
BRFite
Posts: 194
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by member_20617 »

Dear Rakshaks,

Please search for ‘fifteen largest trading partners of India’ on Wiki. I wanted to paste the information but the correct formatting is not taking place!

I think CAR is important for India but NOT as important as it has been made out. CAR is not one of the top 15 trading partners of India.

Acharyaji
Both the sea routes as well as land routes are vulnerable

RajeshAji
The current game being played in Af-Pak region will NOT allow India any access to CAR for the foreseeable future. Even if we are allowed by Af-Pak governments to trade with CAR by some magic, I still see Islamists torching up our lorries like they do to NATO supplies. If they don’t torch up then they will blackmail us!

This is the reason why we did not go ahead with Iran/Pak/India oil/gas pipeline
Agnimitra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5150
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 11:31

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Agnimitra »

Pakistan's failure to protect its minorities, especially their women

Response to Brihaspati ji's postfrom the Islamism & Islamophobia thread
----------------
brihaspati wrote:what have the current Sufi spiritual masters have to say on Rinkle? Was the act anti-Islamic or simply un-Islamic or no comments?
B ji, I'm not knowledgeable at all. AFAIK, not a peep from any Sufi types. I have also gone out and put the question to some, but have not heard back yet.
brihaspati wrote:do you see hopes of any moderation in the police escorts, the judges, the state, the journalists, the madrassah which has custody of the girl over and above the state ? Do you think we can turn these potential moderates against the USA?
Its interesting that the Paki media has decided to focus on this one case of Rinkle. The madrassah walas who have her in captivity are in the spotlight. Let's see what comes of this - though I doubt anything will happen because there is no strong lobby that really has the balls to stand up for Rinkle herself. No Akal Sena to rescue her.

Some reports say that one out of every two non-Moslem women in TSP are pressured to convert to Islam. Moslem women are the strongest suggestors to their non-Moslem female friends. We see in TSP that when Christian women there are harrassed or preached to by their Moslem friends, they tend to talk back more boldly. There have been very high profile 'blasphemy' cases illustrating this. IMHO, the reason Christian women in TSP seem to be more bold is because the West will stand up for them. "Moderate" RAPEs like Taseer were also posing as defenders because they wanted to look good to the West. But no such help for the Hindu women there. Will India say anything? Will even our Tejos do anything? Some retaliatory strikes?

Maybe women are a uniquely attractive target for a religion like Islam, with its theme of intimidation, alienation and insecurity, and it offers a dominance-slave form of 'security' which becomes an attractive cultural idiom in the aftermath of disgust and breakdown of individual freedom (due to oppression, as in the East, or due to overstretched hedonism as in the West, where certain types of men and women are also attracted to Islam). Women in such a situation develop a mental intolerance of randomity (of thought, and culture) and become ripe for simplistic ideologies and are prone to the power of suggestion, or coercion. In fact, they will be cowed down or even offer themselves as a self-sacrifice to create 'peace' of some sort.

Paki Hindus must be offered asylum and mass migration into India, after making an international hue and cry about all this that has been happening there. In full international media attention, Pak Hindus, and perhaps a few Christians must be given asylum. Then once that is done, retaliatory strikes should begin within TSP.
brihaspati wrote:Such determination might come in very handy in a determined resistance against the USA perhaps?
Where it affects Christians in TSP, it is to India's benefit that the TSP-Western relationship fractures more and more.
brihaspati wrote:Or is it possible for India to make friends with them? Since none of the populations seem to have come forward to resist or protest this peaceful conversion - we can assume that the height of moderation was being shown by these custodians of the girl and they have the support of every other moderate in Pakistan.
I don't see ball-less Indians being able to create a lobby of Hindophile "moderates" in TSP directly. Taseer types stood up against the blasphemy laws only because the cases highlighted were against Christians and their West-funded missionaries. India should at least hook one issue with the other. Apart from screaming bloody murder for injustices against Hindus in TSP and other places, Hindus also need to create an international image of being highly sympathetic to 'Christ' - i.e., Christ's personality and teachings minus Paul's additions and the Old Testament. This puts us equidistant from Jews, Christians and Moslems, but still leans towards the West.

Highlighting these issues we should also loudly offer citizenship and resettlement of Pak Hindus into India. then once that is done we should unleash some fireworks on the qabila.
brihaspati wrote:Since we desperately need to create a class of moderates in Pakistan who will see eye to eye with Indians on common issues like the need to bash up USA for example, should we start seeing eye to eye with these moderates on such conversions for example as a first gesture?
I know you are being sarcastic. Obviously, we need to highlight this phenomenon much much more, making it an international issue, and offering asylum to Pak Hindus. Apart from that we should conduct retaliatory strikes within TSP (not at IMs).
Last edited by Agnimitra on 13 Mar 2012 22:54, edited 2 times in total.
KLNMurthy
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4826
Joined: 17 Aug 2005 13:06

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by KLNMurthy »

@shiv you keep talking about making pakis hate the US as if (a) that is not already happening (b) pakis are stupid and don't know how to apply good cop-bad cop formula.

US is being made to hug pakis tight exactly because the public hates the US so much that they have to be bought off lest nukes fall into "wrong" hands. By your own thesis, PRC is just as impotent as USA and so we can expect that all the halchal in sinkiang will make no difference.

You also keep harping that those who want India to be tough on Pak are nothing but america-loving NRI kafirs. You had a valid point to make a long time back, but now that's getting old, and more to the point, does it make any sense to not take India's TSP policy on its own merits? Paki antipathy to India is swayambhu and has nothing to do with america and you know this, so what is the point of this harping?

There is such a thing as being too clever, with all this, let's be cunning panchatantra-pasand banias and separate pak from its allies by being nice to them business. In case you are an RK Narayan fan, I suggest you re-read Swami & Friends, the episode where Mani tries to get Swami's money back from the slum kid is a propos.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

Lalmohan ji,
Southern Afghanistan :
As far as we can tell - that region suffers from its geographical location in between the major classical concentrations of sustainable populations and civilizations. It was perhaps once naturally productive in the immediate greater hydration period from 8000-3000 BCE. A part of the region might already have been also known in the ancient world for mineral wealth - especially copper and some speculate, sulphur, from which the southern region might have taken its name. Agriculturally the area had once produced "sugarcane"(!!?) apparently and an alternate but bogus Persian derivation of place name is attributed to the production of sugar/molasses. That it might really have once been productive agriculturally when greater rainfall took place in the post glacial period - is shown by the fact that 20th century irrigation works instituted by the Americans in the south made the area quite fertile, and eventually landed up the area into the more profitable opium cultivation.

But as the area dried up post 4000-3000 BCE, agriculture perhaps declined, and sustaining of the pre-existing culture became dependent on the trade that flowed through the region between other more sustainable economies.

Since then they became pawns in the recurrent triangular struggles that broke out between Indian subcontinental powers and the Mesopotamia and Iranian highland-Caspian powers.

Indus - as a natural boundary seems always to have been a vague civilizational frontier. Ethnically even the female DNA differs. Thus the parts west of Indus formed a buffer zone and a wide frontier between Gulf powers and Iranian powers. For example the Persian Cyrus led "invasions" claimed Sindh as a satrapy yielding tonnes of gold dust as tax. (Wast it the 22nd satrapy?) But when Alex comes, Greeks seem to meet resistance from the north, and independent kings. Even if Bactria/northern Afghnaistan is claimed in the Persian lists!

So there must have been vagueness politically right from the times described or hinted at in MB [the Kuru contest against the Gandhars] and Sudas' war. They were always torn in between the orbits of Iran or Mesopotamian pulls and Indian pulls.

In such frontier civilizations, a class of opportunists will arise which will be permanently looking for swinging with the tide and flow of profits. They switched to Persian Magi/Zoroastrian forms under Persians, switched to Buddhism under pressure from Asoka, switched back to mixed Indo-Greek "pagan" forms when Mauryas retreated under the consequences of Asokas policies, switched back to Buddhism under Kanishka [who needed Buddhism as a binder of imperialism just as Asoka used it], became followers of Mani [Christo-Buddhist-zoroastrian fusion proto-Islam], and switched to Saivism and Surya when Hindus replaced Buddhist overlords, and switched to Islam when Islamic armies succeeded.

These regions try to balance oout affiliations to the dominant theme in the Gulf and to the east in India in the southern part of the region [to the sea]. In the northern part they try to balance out affiliations between Persian/Caspian/CAR and South-East to India and GV.

The calculate as to who will control the trade flows immediately to their west and north, and establish connections with such forces. This stranglehold gave power to the Islamists once they could defeat the weakened Parthians and claimed control of the western reaches - and in turn the SOB's you mention saw wisdom in switching over. I have mentioned the role of the rich urban Buddhist merchant/sramans in Sindh in collaborating with Islamist armies from the Caliphate. [Thaparites gloss over those details to paint a picture of aam Buddhist support for Islamists - in reality the aam had begun to turn Saivite as part of the general Indian reaction turning against Buddhist elite].

To keep them on the straight and narrow path, they need to be firmly controlled under a central Indian "empire" - as in the days of Chandragupta Maurya and his son Bindusara.
Lalmohan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13262
Joined: 30 Dec 2005 18:28

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by Lalmohan »

b-ji, thank you for the insights
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

This whole Islamist policy of living off by controlling the land route of trade between the two economic powerhouses of the south and East versus Europe and the Med -unravelled when the sea-routes bypass was opened up. This was one of the key reasons Islamic power fell.

The land routes are important. But their devlopment now without equal or greater dominance of the sea-routes under Indian hands - implies Islamic power's revival chances increase, based on CAR trade.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

Lalmohan ji,
no mention please!

One persistent characteristic to add is that - the northerners will resist tooth and nail - but once they are defeated overwhelmingly [crushed in near genocidic brutality] they switch over. The Kabul and Zabul "Hindu" Shahyia elite resisted vehemently the Turks and Caliphate. But when Sabuktigin finally defeats Jayapala we already see that some Afghans have already joined him. By Mahmud's time they are all part and parcel of the Yaminian adventure against Indian plains. But they are also intensely fatricidal - it was an Afghan clan which destroyed Mahmud's descendants.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16006
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by RajeshA »

brihaspati garu,

that is one reason, I support some weakening of Iran. Iran would resist the Arabs regardless of whether it is as Shi'a or as Persians, so we need not be afraid that the whole region would become one black region under the sway of singular power in Mecca. A weak Iran would allow India to expand into the region, and draw the region into an Indian orbit, and even Iran may end up in the Indian orbit.

This time India should draw our civilization frontier in Kurdistan, and not in Afghanistan.
brihaspati
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12410
Joined: 19 Nov 2008 03:25

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by brihaspati »

RajeshA wrote:brihaspati garu,

that is one reason, I support some weakening of Iran. Iran would resist the Arabs regardless of whether it is as Shi'a or as Persians, so we need not be afraid that the whole region would become one black region under the sway of singular power in Mecca. A weak Iran would allow India to expand into the region, and draw the region into an Indian orbit, and even Iran may end up in the Indian orbit.

This time India should draw our civilization frontier in Kurdistan, and not in Afghanistan.
Sam Harris in The End of Faith [p 45]:
Religious moderates are, in a large part, responsible for the religious conflict in our world, because their beliefs provide the context in which scriptural literalism and religious violence can never be adequately opposed.
Internecine struggles for the blackest of positions within a uniform black swathe can co-exist with trying to use that uniform black for common black purpose.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

KLNMurthy wrote:@shiv you keep talking about making pakis hate the US as if (a) that is not already happening (b) pakis are stupid and don't know how to apply good cop-bad cop formula.
As far as I am concerned "Pakistani hating the US" means Pakistan attacking more American targets. It's not enough to hold posters and shout slogans and burn flags. Not enough Americans are being attacked by Pakistanis, which suggests that the Pakis have a tight leash on the violence. Actually - it is America's ally, the Pakistan army that has a tight leash on the violence that can be inflicted on American targets.I have never wavered from my demand that the Pakistan army and USA need to fall apart. That Pakisan army is the single most dangerous entity that has been armed and enriched continuously by the USA. And that army has sponsored the deaths of more Indians than any other entity after 1947.

KLNMurthy wrote:You also keep harping that those who want India to be tough on Pak are nothing but america-loving NRI kafirs.
I guess I will report your post for what it is worth. This is a false accusation. I have never ever said that those who want to be soft on Pak are america loving NRI kafirs. And I would like admins to note that you are once again bringing up this bogey. I have time and again pointed out that it is the "going soft on America" is being done by America Rakshaks. I have never accused NRIs in general and you have brought up this lie enough times for an admin to believe it and caution me imagining that I had done that. That was unfair and you are being unfair. Anyhow I will report your post for making fake accusations immediately after this post.

KLNMurthy wrote: There is such a thing as being too clever, with all this, let's be cunning panchatantra-pasand banias and separate pak from its allies by being nice to them business. In case you are an RK Narayan fan, I suggest you re-read Swami & Friends, the episode where Mani tries to get Swami's money back from the slum kid is a propos.
Thanks for the reading suggestions. You want me to read what you read so that perhaps I start thinking like you do? Perish the thought. Just let me be myself. I am not sure why my posts bother you so much. Now you want me to read what you read If I want to be too clever why should it bother you? I think it's odd that you get so much discomfort from what I write. You have the option of ignoring me.
Last edited by shiv on 14 Mar 2012 07:04, edited 2 times in total.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by shiv »

brihaspati wrote:This whole Islamist policy of living off by controlling the land route of trade between the two economic powerhouses of the south and East versus Europe and the Med -unravelled when the sea-routes bypass was opened up. This was one of the key reasons Islamic power fell.
Brihaspati, pardon me for saying this. I mean no personal affront so please don't take it as one.

You see the statement that the control of trade routes "dried up" when sea route were "opened up" is a Euro centric statement which is typically the sort of statement that one reads from Europe based history books. The net result of the sea routes "opening up" (by northern and western Europeans) made Europe independent of those routes and the sea power helped them dominate the sea. The Islamists kept their power on the routes anyway although the traffic was reduced. The net result was that India and China were the losers.

As Indian sea power increases, I believe that India must open up the land routes as well. The nations of Islam who represent the most stupid and most violent forces in recent years sit astride those routes and i would like to use all that power that I can muster have to tell members of the ummah that they are stupid gits who don't know good from bad. Among the nations I suspect that Afghanistan and the Central Asian republics will be amenable to reason, but the problem countries are Pakistan and Iran in the near term.

It is the control of the sea route that helps the US control Pakistan. India's problems with Pakistan started with the British control of the sea route. If we are talking of a future "economy of the world" the whole of Africa needs "opening up" and integration with all of Asia right up to Singapore. A land route must be opened up.
devesh
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5129
Joined: 17 Feb 2011 03:27

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Post by devesh »

^^^
shiv,

actually, the Islamic states didn't really control the land routes anymore, once the sea empires of Europe started rising. it might be a western boast that their sea empire crushed the Middle Eastern land routes based imperialism, but it is also true. if you look at the Ottomans and Persians, you'll notice that as European sea power rose, their control of land routes dwindled. Russia from the North, and later on direct British intervention from the Persian Gulf, made sure that ME states no longer had any capacity to control these land routes. one particular episode which illustrates this: Napoleon tried to establish a link with Iran via land route, and eventually plan an invasion into India; Russia swatted this plan into the dustbin simply by the fact that the land route was controlled by them, not Iran.

the precedent is clear. once the Europeans began their imperialism on the seas, the relative cost of trade by land routes suddenly skyrocketed. this directly led to the eventual power bankruptcy of the ME states, including Iran. Russia took advantage of this expanded over a vast area, especially the mineral rich Central Asia. another thing to note: Russia had a unique opportunity to build a huge road from CA to Europe proper, but they didn't do it. Russia was not a naval power. so, they wouldn't have any incentive to waste a good profit making opportunity on land that they controlled. yet, Russia chose not to any such thing. there might just have been a good reason for that.

"opening roads" is a great idea, but ultimately, somebody has to travel on them. they have to be used. otherwise, it is the PRC strategy of building ghost towns. pumping 100's of billions into a "silk road" is a useless waste if there is no need for it.
Post Reply