The difference from the so-called trade-based or organic/evolutionary/gentle-persuasion strategies of weaning away and my line is that - I have already concluded that weaning away is only possible under delegitimization and destruction of the theological institutional networks that sustain and reproduce jihad in various forms flexibly.
This weaning away can be done only by a superior countervailing force, with the backing of a modern state apparatus and allies, who are interested and are willing to put assets on the line to delegitimize and destroy the sunni theologic institutional networks. Where are these opposing social, theological, political and military forces? It is fine to lay these principles down in isolation and many folks have been through the whole cycle of Islamism and what they mean - I think very few would disagree with your views on Islamism alone on this board,. But these principles need some semblance of reality to come to fruition. The realities on the ground are so far off from the ideals you present that it is baffling for small minds, like mine, to comprehend the journey and the path you envision.
The only reality that prevents the journey and path - at this stage - without initiative and prepartion for that journey and path, is the character of the current Indian rashtra (but not its nation-jaati). A nation is a more fundamental entity than the rashtra which is its coercive superstructure. Superstructure changes, mutates, gets destroyed, gets rebuilt, but the nation-jaati continues. We happen to be burdened with a colonial imperial setup, practically speaking lock-stock-and-barrel with cosmetic changes in form but no practical change in the underlying ideology of the rashtryia machinery - whose continuation and survival was ensured by the non-revolutionary non-overthrow patronized power-transfer by imperialism. Therefore that inherited rashtra shaped the subsequent politics and politicians as much as the politicians thought they were shaping the rashtra.
Realizing what a problem is before the jaati - is the first step in statecraft. Realizing what the problem is does not automatically imply that we have to surrender to that problem.
For Pakistan, as I have repeated many times before, therefore, my projection was destruction of all the powers, structures and therefore the state - which protect and backup the mullahcracy and the institutional mechanisms.
I am sure you have heard of the term , "if you break it - you own it". It is not like we can afford to do what dumb Americans can afford to such as come in bomb and kill a few 100,000 people and then go back home after a a decade and ask, who is next? Even if we somehow muster the power to break TSP, we will then have the responsibility of owning it. Before we acquire something new, we first have to ensure that we are able to manage, what we currently own. In most peoples view, the Indian republic itself is still a work in progress and has not come out in flying colors and hence trying to own up to new responsibilities at this time or in the foreseeable near future (20-50 years), would be premature.
Every nation is always a work in progress. There are things that a jaati has to do simultaneously, without waiting for one task to be entirely completed before another. If you are seeking prosperity and supposed unity before everything else - you will have to wait for infinity. For desire for prosperity is never satisfied, and there will always be small-hearts jealous of more deserving others to spoil unity. Indian powers have broken that area before and owned it also. Prosperity or unity or resoureces to mount a campaign and hold a area - all are realities of tactics, which are meaningless if first the strategic vision of breaking and owning is not established. I am only trying to establish that starting resolve.
Preparing for war and expansion shapes a country's economic growth, its social reconstruction and realignment, even without actually going to war.
Without soverignty neither the choice nor the protection of choice can be ensured. I would also like to destroy the very structure on which mullahcracy stands in alliance with feudalism and the army - by promising land redistribution and implementing it too.
True, without absolute control, you may not be able to guarantee certain outcomes and have to be able to manage outcomes to certain acceptable degrees, from the outside. Land redistribution is a laudable goal but no magic panacea in a country with a burgeoning population and increasing urbanization, who's issues are not non-similar to the issues we have. It is not land that a new generation looks forward to as its source of wealth, it is industry, education and jobs.
No, land-reforms is a tactical Dandi-march move, and I am entirely aware of its inadequacy to satisfy demand. Whenever I have talked of this, I have mentioned this as a tactical move to force the real power in the Paki state - the mullahcracy+army+feudals - to come out in the open and oppose it. Moreover, the "reality" of Pakistan in its non-urban majority population is still about land.
So, at question here is not not the ideals you set but the path you may undertake to achieve the same. I asked about UCC as a question to make the point that if the Indian polity cannot muster the courage, due to the muslim population veto, to enforce a uniform view of its own laws (even if faulty, IMO) , on its own population then pray how will it muster the wherewithal to consume entire geo-political constructs. Your answer was, once TSP is destroyed, things like the UCC will follow quickly. IMO, that is like putting the cart before the horse and did not answer my question. The Indian state is not strong enough yet, to undertake a venture such as the consummation of TSP. The need of the hour is to strengthen this state and more so the social structures of the nation.
I am a supporter of UCC. But among many other factors the primary reason UCC is not happening is because the rashtra with all its force [ultimately it means its coercive force] including the apparatus of education and thought control - sees it absolutely necessary to protect exclusive identities as a fundamental requirement for continuance of personal power.
Indian rashtra is one more example of making the apparatus of state power dependent on the apparatus of personal power. In this, it is crucial to prevent the unification of the whole jaati into one mobilizing identity - so that distinct identities will run to the glorious individual, preferably hereditary (so that the coteries that develop have some stable profit extraction future), to resolve their disputes. This making the jaati split into factions dependent on individual rulers - necessitates delegitimizing in order of numerical strength - the larger identities, so that the jaati does not develop its own set of values independent of ruler's prerogatives on values.
Its this rashtryia power setup that prevents your desired for UCC.
In this setup preservation of Pak is a crucial aspect too. I have described many time sbefore why a surviving Islamist Pakistan is good for congrez-left type politics. They can then play the swing threat of siding with Islamists against non-Muslims, or with non-Muslims against Islamists. Its all for preserving personal power.
Methods or the path are obvious. It is very legitimate to start off with, and will evolve depending on how the colonial-inherited-rashtra-led by vacuum ideologues serving apparatus of personal power - react in coercion or not. Starting off with cultural unification with the clear consciousness of transformation of the rashtra towards expansion and necessity of coercion on hostile forces, and a rejection of values represented by Islamists and similarly aligned or sympathetic forces.
That area is ours. The process of absorption itself is calculated to generate resistance from those we want to resist us and provide all the right reasons for us to liquidate them. Population is not a problem.