Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

[shiv]

Ordered the book you have recommended out of respect for your knowledge. No harm in reading one more work on TSP.

Shaurya - the man rips India and the IAF a new one, but is honest about tall claims made by Pakistan (such as Alam's claim of 5 aircraft shot down in 30 seconds). He explains exactly how the Pakistan army handled its wars and escaped accountability after the worst defeats, and thereby reveals how Pakistan actually functions. It is a valuable historic document coming as it does from a man who was considered a Pakistani hero. And its not all about war despite the cover and name of the book.

[ramana]

Shiv-ji,

All I said was that Pakistan derives its strength from events earlier. Nowhere did I mention that Pakistan ruled India.
To clarify what I said earlier, IMO, Pakis think that if the earlier invading armies could do it, it should be possible for them too. And they will not stop trying.And even if a new entity is born out of a break-up, it will continue that goal.

Neela ji, this is a very important point you make - in understanding the "psychosomatics" of Pakistaniyat.

1. The thing is, the "earlier invading armies" had "done it" mostly to the ancestors of today's Pakis. They were the ones who mostly felt the pain and the humiliation, and all its consequences for individual and collective Memory.

2. This pain-memory has no sense of "time" - i.e. it can restimulate all aspects of the original experience in present-time if any restimulators are present. And in this case all prominent restimulators ARE present, including their own land, the Hindu neighbors, the ashraafs.

3. Subsequently, as multi-valent personalities, when this pain-memory is in restimulation, it provides a seemingly inexhaustible source of energy for the person to "act out". This is important, and is the gist of your post, IIUC. The "power source" for Pakistaniyat is their identification with certain painful historical events - except that instead of identifying with the humiliated valence, they are identifying with the triumphant valence.

4. But that valence manifestation is only the mask, beneath which lies all the subconscious pain, guilt, rage, etc. Without even being in their original valence, they are not even close to diffusing the pain memory and coming to terms with it, thereby denying themselves a psychosomatic release.

5. When such a pain-memory is in chronic restimulation, it leads to illnesses. In the case of an individual it leads to physical illnesses or other conditions. For a society it leads to bouts of violence or a general lethargy and dwindling spiral.

Conclusions:

(a) These pain-memories are deep wellsprings of "power", "inspiration" and "survival potential" for Pakistaniyat that must never be underestimated by its targets. Its the sort of thing that produces Alexanders and Ganghis Khans.

(b) One way to disarm and diffuse Pakistaniyat is by a genuine psycho-spiritual process, but that would require us to build affinity at a mass, people-to-people level. This would be a wonderful thing if it could be done. But the fact that we ourselves are a restimulator makes an approach on this circuit difficult and full of traps. Think of a person trying to play guru to his or her spouse in a violent marriage!

(c) So when that genuineness is not forthcoming, then one must take all precautions to prevent a dramatization of pain-memory -- prevent them from acting out, or punish every such episode. As part of punishment, one could eliminate one-by-one certain obvious restimulators in the environment, such as monuments erected by perpetrators of pain whom they venerate. E.g. the Badshahi Mosque in Lahore, etc. The clinging to physical bodies and perceptics is characteristic of such pain-memory driven identity psychology. Knocking them out may help dissociate such identity.

Punishment and suppression of dramatizations also pushes them down further, though unfortunately it doesn't resolve the problem. But at least it quarantines it ... until such time as the sheer necessity level of survival surges up and dislodges the hold that such pain-memories can have on the psycho-somatic system. Then a space for rational action is created.

and

All I said was that Pakistan derives its strength from events earlier.

Neela Pakistan derives its strength from a powerful military. No military. No Pakistani strength. It is military power that allows Pakistan to get away with a lot of things. The same military power that was created to help the US against the USSR is used to ensure that India is punished severely for military misadventure. The same military power and training has been used to send 3 army divisions worth of men and arms into Kashmir in 20 years. The same military power trained terrorists that came into Mumbai.

That military has one huge superpower ally. The USA. The USA has supplied F-16s in 2011 and P-3 Orion aircraft in 2012.

Any power that the Mughals may have had was based out of Delhi, or some part of India, not out of Islamabad.

[abhischekcc]

NVS in the newsinsight article has got it half right.

It is true that PA is an important stakeholder in the deep state as well as its most visible part. But the deep state is really made up of the elite that dominate the agriculture, industry and other commercial sectors.

This is a country where one family can own 10s of thousands of acres of agri land and keep thousands of people as little more than slaves on their own land. It is this class of people that needs religion and Kashmir to distract the people, and the army to suppress them.

So, while I am all for promoting democracy in pakistan, we must not make the mistake of depending on yahoos like zardari and gilani and others of that sort - they are part of and parcel of the ruling establishment of pakistan.

Instead, India must promote pakistani peoples' rights in areas such as land, property, labour minimum wage, child labour etc. We have a glorious tradition of fighting for these rights in India. We must offer these experiences to their common people to fight for their rights.

It will show pakistani people that India is not their real enemy, it is the leaders of their country that are the real enemy.

[ramana]

x-post...

quote="KLNMurthy"Lab needs observers.

If a djinnah builds a laboratory and the experiment succeeds but the world refuses to observe, is it still a laboratory?

If the experiment succeeds, the laboratory will be destroyed. It is just like cancer. If the cancer succeeds in growing, the person will die.

No no. KLNMurthy has a point, TSP needs an observer and a "handler".

1. It must be "handled" to keep its tamasha contained within itself. This includes suppression and punishment of its violent dramatizations and delusions, and neutering its "tactical brilliance".

2. It also means that we have to, both, be operating at a higher platform than the Pakrat mindset, and at the same time employ controlled processes on the same mental platform as Pakrats.

If we fail to do either one of the above, then we will also die as that cancer grows -- we will become the brain that succumbs to the weight of the growing tumour.

If TSP is "left to itself" then it would be a big mistake. If TSP is treated solely like a "foe" then that would also be an error.

Rather, we need to "bracket and broadside" it in order to achieve two things:

(a) Push TSP down the scale of activity and potential and send it into disillusion, or even apathy (this is lower than anger, lower than fear);

(b) Increase its necessity level for survival, and approach them with a comprehensive solution on a different circuit than moronic "victory - defeat - surrender" logic.

Its going to be a test for Indic civilization.

[Agnimitra]

NVS in the newsinsight article has got it half right.
...
Instead, India must promote pakistani peoples' rights in areas such as land, property, labour minimum wage, child labour etc. We have a glorious tradition of fighting for these rights in India. We must offer these experiences to their common people to fight for their rights.

It will show pakistani people that India is not their real enemy, it is the leaders of their country that are the real enemy.

Indeed, very well said abhishek.

India needs to keep developing a moral narrative in modern times, and maintain a forceful communication of it with other countries, esp. TSP.

This communication is by way of public discource and commentary, political statements, as well as developing resources and movements within that country. An anti-feudal movement there would be one example, modeled on Naxalism. Instead, we find the reverse -- the anti-feudal movement in Swat was marshalled by Taliban types, and Indian Naxals are in bed with anti-national forces!

So before we can start preaching to TSP and others, we have to have a genuine Indic movement that is left of center, intellectually coherent, and strongly for social reform and progressive outlook, innovative in present time. When that positive change is generated inside, we can use it to communicate to others.

Launching a moral tirade against a rival civilization is an old trick, used by even the most predatory Western colonials as white man's burden. But in this case its not just a trick - its a matter of our survival, and the Pakis are, after all, our own lost people.

[ramana]

End India’s one-sided love affair: Vikram Sood.

Two pictures say it all: Pakistan foreign secretary Jalil Jilani on the extreme left of the frame shaking hands with his Indian counterpart Ranjan Mathai on the right of the frame. The distance is symbolic and possibly the handshake was limp as well. The other picture is of Mr Jilani in a clinch with secessionist Syed Ali Shah Geelani. The contrast is obvious and both happened on my territory. Incidentally, the government has fairly stringent rules for its civil servants about meeting foreign diplomats. Why are there no rules for secessionists?

Yet another exercise in futility has just been concluded and it was expected. Both sides asserted their stated positions. One should be reasonably certain now that the character of the Pakistani state today does not allow it to be flexible; it is fighting too many battles for its ghairat and it is far too down the road on the path drawn by its Islamic radicals. Diplomacy requires us to be courteous, not foolishly soft; it also requires reciprocity. There is no rule in diplomacy that says we should indulge in strategic masochism just to look good; the other side just makes use of us and walks away. No nation works only on theoretical ideals when it deals internationally. It merely pronounces them periodically. Any state worth its superpower status, functions on interests defined by itself for itself, not by others.

The United States coddled Pakistan for decades and got a spoilt child in return. And we coddled Kashmiri terrorists and terrorised the people. Instead of ensuring Pakistan remained out of the equation, successive governments in New Delhi thought it could solve the riddle by pleading with Pakistan. It was obvious to anyone following developments in the region and, given Pakistan’s attitude towards India, that it was never going to want to solve disputes with India. It just did not suit the Pakistan Army and the ruling elite attached to the Army, who had become dependent on a certain way of life and on largesse from abroad, to change its position.

One of the ways of conducting policy includes a determined counter-insurgency operation which is never pretty, but that’s the only option —to tackle the instigator of insurgency at its source. In India, successive governments have assumed that the best way to solve our problems in Kashmir is to try and get Pakistan on board, through grand gestures and grander statements. Pakistan has remained adamant as we have made overture after overture, in the hope that Pakistan would see value in peace. Each Indian government has been disappointed and yet there has been no new thought in changing our tactics.

For more than two decades we have been defensive and apologetic in our policy towards Kashmiris which has brought neither peace nor satisfaction to the people of the Valley. Instead of being stern and firm with Pakistan and instead of showing Pakistan that it has to pay a price for its actions that hurt India, we have been harsh on the people of the Valley. Kashmir’s so-called leaders, in fact, have played havoc at Pakistan’s bidding, so much so that till today one of these so-called leaders, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, has not had the courage to name the killers of his father.

He prefers, instead, to break bread with those who ordered the killing. We have another leader, Yasin Malik, now described as a moderate leader, who roams the streets of Srinagar free as a bird after murdering four Indian Air Force officers. We have another, Syed Ali Shah Geelani, who openly says he wants to become a Pakistani and take Kashmir there, yet his open secessionism goes unpunished. This is not magnanimity. This is weakness of resolve.

So obsessed have we been with our self-image as a responsible state and the desire to look good in the West’s eyes that we have ignored what our apparent goodness of the heart means to our neighbours. For years, we have ignored what Pakistan was doing to Kashmir and us through terrorist organisations like the Lashkar-e-Tayyaba. Instead of making the Pakistan Army pay a price all these years, we chose to take the dossier route.

What has it got us? Frustration at home and scorn from Pakistan. Our neighbours must be saying to themselves, if a huge country like India cannot look after its own interests then how or why would it look after their interests. Maybe they say to themselves: it is better to be friends with China and Pakistan, who together can keep India in check. It is time to change this.

Our interests lie in peace, not in coddling Pakistan, not necessarily in pursuing “most favoured nation” status, trade and visa issues with that country, but in ensuring it remains irrelevant in Kashmir and realises it is irrelevant. This will not happen by our mere say-so. It will happen with a little bit of firmness in New Delhi, which does not include drift and coddling as policy options. The old adage — it is sometimes necessary to be cruel to be kind — remains valid.

The two main political parties in Jammu and Kashmir, the National Conference and the People’s Democratic Party, will use the extremist elements for political mileage even though the rest of us know that neither Omar Abdullah not Mehbooba Mufti would want to lose political power to the Hurriyat as they are both the children of the electoral process not the gun. We have to remove the fear of the gun, but this needs firm action at home and, if necessary, suitable action across frontiers.

A state worth its future standing on the international scene especially needs to be seen to be safeguarding its interests. It owes it to its citizens and to the future.

[Johann]

As far a Taliban takeover in Pakistan, its important to understand just how something like that would actually work in order to judge its likelihood of occurrence.

- There can be no Taliban takeover at the centre unless the 'Punjabi Taliban' is at the front, not just in Multan, but in Lahore. That is a bottom line. Pakjab, and central Pakjab in particular is the political centre of gravity.

- Revolutions can not succeed without solid middle class support. That is also a bottom line.

College educated Islamists are much more likely to be drawn to the Jamaati Islami or Ahle Hadith than the Deobandis at this time. Either those affinity patterns would have to change, or these groups would have to agree to subordinate themselves to the Deobandis.

- The Deobandi Mullahs moral authority in the Punjab must grow at the expense of the Supreme Court and the Corps Commanders.

- The Deobandi Mullahs must consistently appear to Punjabis as bigger, more effective and sincere nationalists than the PA's officer corps.

- The Taliban offers a parallel system for those not served by the official system. The fundamental appeal of the Taliban to ordinary Pakistanis is that their judicial system is faster, fairer and more predictable than the nightmare of Pakistan's 'secular' legal system.

Therefore a significant portion of those who benefit from the current system - ie those with some measure of power and influence - would have to decide that its in their interest to abandon the current system.

[ramana]

Err, Taliban is in Afghanistan.

Earlier in the chaos after the FSU left Afghanistan, the Taliban did takeover Afghanistan. They had the backing of TSP and US.


Pakiban aka TTP is in FATA/WANA.
Punjabi Taliban is a branch of TSPA.

[shiv]

The Taliban offers a parallel system for those not served by the official system. The fundamental appeal of the Taliban to ordinary Pakistanis is that their judicial system is faster, fairer and more predictable than the nightmare of Pakistan's 'secular' legal system.

Therefore a significant portion of those who benefit from the current system - ie those with some measure of power and influence - would have to decide that its in their interest to abandon the current system.

Johann - no disagreement with this analysis, but for many years Pakistan has achieved a "steady state" between these two systems. There are areas where the state works better and most Pakistanis can see that. The state, in particular maintains the foreign relations that bring in foreign aid and allow foreign travel to the west. Local justice, disaster/accident relief, education, food distribution, the Kashmir issue and some other areas are where the state is seen to fail at which time the grass roots Islamists meet the needs of people.

The state does not take on the Islamists. The Islamists did not take on the state until recently.

For anything to change in Pakistan, the islamists need that extra push to make gains, because the state will always be happy with this "neither here nor there" situation that brings in secular foreign aid while feeding he Islamist needs of people. Pakistan needs the Taliban to take over and I am all for sparking off anti-US sentiment to such a frenzied level that the islamists do take over - because the state opposes Islamists only to the extent necessary to please the Americans who are paying them to do that.

[Johann]

Punjabi Taliban is a branch of TSPA.

Not really.

The core of the Punjabi Taliban is the former SSP and Lashkar e Janghvi, not Masood Azhar's JeM.

You can see that in the way they kidnapped, humiliated and executed heros of the Pak military jihad like 'Col. Imam' (Brigadier Tarar) and Khalid Khawaja.

These are sectarian outfits that emerged from conflicts between lower middle class small town Sunnis and wealthy Shia landlords well integrated with the rest of the Pakistani establishment.

Their mullahs view is that the Ahmediyas and Shia, etc are the reason why Pakistan is not actually an orthodox Sunni Sharia state yet.

The PA briefly supported them as a check on pro-Khomeini militant Shia activism in the 1980s, but like the TTP's antecedents (TNSM etc) they are in competition with the state for power on the ground.

Nawaz Sharif and Musharraf both went after them the way they went after the MQM in Karachi.

That is why the Punjabi Taliban was with the TTP the first to respond to Zawahiri's call for Pakistanis to kill Musharraf for his post 9/11 betrayal. Musharraf's assassination attempts both stemmed from this milieu.

[Johann]

Johann - no disagreement with this analysis, but for many years Pakistan has achieved a "steady state" between these two systems. There are areas where the state works better and most Pakistanis can see that. The state, in particular maintains the foreign relations that bring in foreign aid and allow foreign travel to the west. Local justice, disaster/accident relief, education, food distribution, the Kashmir issue and some other areas are where the state is seen to fail at which time the grass roots Islamists meet the needs of people.

The state does not take on the Islamists. The Islamists did not take on the state until recently.

For anything to change in Pakistan, the islamists need that extra push to make gains, because the state will always be happy with this "neither here nor there" situation that brings in secular foreign aid while feeding he Islamist needs of people. Pakistan needs the Taliban to take over and I am all for sparking off anti-US sentiment to such a frenzied level that the islamists do take over - because the state opposes Islamists only to the extent necessary to please the Americans who are paying them to do that.

We have to make a distinction between different Islamist movements, and different places in Pakistan because not all of them have the same relationship with the state.

The LeT distributing aid in Kashmir after the earthquake - no threat to the state. The LeT is from the minority Ahle Hadith, and has no revolutionary tendencies. The state's own limited capacity for assistance was already overwhelmed by the disaster.

Pro-PA Deobandi jihadis ('good Taliban') running Sharia courts in Wana, South Waziristan? No threat to the system, since it never bothered building courts there in the first place.

Deobandi jihadis own parallel Sharia courts in DIK, Multan, Peshawar and Karachi eclipsing the regular courts? A major threat to the system. That undermines all existing elites in these areas, elites with whom the PA has a mutual dependency.

Thats like the TTP takeover of Swat. The PA would literally have to bring out the heavy artillery because all other indirect channels of control would have collapsed.

The PA will happily Islamise systems, but it will not cede control of the core to other parties. When the Deobandi mullahs tried to take over Pakjab in 1953 using the Ahmediyya 'issue', they shut them down quickly, and the product was the Munir Report. 20 years later Bhutto with PA backing turned the Ahmediyyas into second class citizens. The mullahs got their stated demands, but not much else.

[shiv]

We have to make a distinction between different Islamist movements, because not all of them have the same relationship with the state.
<snip>
The LeT distributing aid in Kashmir - no threat to the state. The LeT is from the minority Ahle Hadith, and has no revolutionary tendencies.

You will have to pardon me Johann for pointing out that you are using the word "we" to describe what the US has always done. The US supports the Pakistani state, and the US never ever applied pressure on the Pakistani state to check Islamists who did not threaten the state. The US bought fully into the idea that islamists come in two types just as you have described. One type does not threaten the state and can be let off, and allowed to exist. The other type threaten the state and need to be eliminated.

This of course is utter bullshit. The late tube-lights that are flickering on in Washington is what prompts Madam Clinton to say that "You cannot keep snakes in your back yard and hope that the snakes will bite only your neighbors". However I am sure that the US, in a nanosecond, would be quite content to live with anti-India Islamists if the Pakistani army could promise that they would not touch US interests. India is lucky that this is a stupid expectation that will not happen.

But the US is promoting and perpetuating the "steady state" situation that you described where the islamists will not lose, but cannot win, and the state cannot win, but will not be allowed to lose by the US. The Islamists must win. Things must get worse before they can get netter. Things are not half bad enough yet.

[Johann]

Shiv,

America is a distant, distant force at the grass roots level of the struggles in Pakistan - unless of course you live in Waziristan.

The fact is that the majority of Pakjabis are not Deobandis by sect yet, and I have no idea when that would change. Barelvis are the majority, and they have much to fear from the Taliban, i.e. Deobandis. These two Sunni revivalist groups have been busy denouncing each other as kafirs since they first emerged in the Doab in the 19th century.

Every now and then demands emerge from the Deobandis that resonate with the average, non-Deobandi mango-man of Pakjab. The PA has always dealt with it by cracking down on the Deobandi and co-opting the idea. The result is steady Islamisation while the PA remains in control.

Please see my earlier post on conditions for a Taliban takeover. That's more or less what would have to happen first in order to win support of a critical mass of Pakistanis and actually seize power from the PA.

[svenkat]

Pakistan is already talibanised.Only the Anglo-Ameicans who have under written paki existence since 1857 and protect pakhanastan from collapse cannot see it.

Ofcourse,what else to expect from those who cannot see the political oppression in Saudi Barbaria or Bahrain but trumpet about 'political freedom' in Middle East..

[Johann]

Pakistan is already talibanised.Only the Anglo-Ameicans who have under written paki existence since 1857 and protect pakhanastan from collapse cannot see it.

Did you actually read what was said? The PA has been 'Talibanising' Pakistan without ceding power to the actual Taliban who come from a different class, educational and sectarian background. Shiv is hoping for the latter, and that requires some very specific changes.

Ofcourse,what else to expect from those who cannot see the political oppression in Saudi Barbaria or Bahrain but trumpet about 'political freedom' in Middle East..

I'd prefer not to have what I'm saying completely mangled and misrepresented. Lets start with the basics please, so there's no room for misunderstanding.

Revolutions succeed when the majority feel physically and economically threatened by the current system, but still have some representation within the state organs of power.

Saudi Arabia has an awful political system, but the majority of its citizens are not completely fed up with it yet because of very generous handouts, a tribal culture and general xenophobia. But things can not stay the same forever - there will have to be change, or there *will* be a revolution given the discontent.

Bahrain is suppressing its majority, but the majority are at a disadvantage because unlike the rest of the Middle East the majority are completely unrepresented in the armed forces. Bahrain's ruling family is now tying Bahrain Saudi Arabia to turn its majority into a minority.

Given these basic facts Saudi Arabia is likely to see change before Bahrain does.

[svenkat]

The TSPA will collapse before Taliban but for western support to TSPA/TSP.The West wants a moderately enlightened TSPA to hold off Taliban and moderate Taliban/Haqqanis etc.Without US support to TSP,theres nothing to distinguish between Taliban and TSPA.

This is the received wisdom in BRF.I am willing to be corrected by gurus.

[Johann]

The TSPA will collapse before Taliban but for western support to TSPA/TSP.

In Pashtun areas, perhaps, since the Deobandis are the dominant sect.

But in Pakjab, the heart of Pakistan? It seems unlikely, given that majority of Pakjabis love and cherish the PA, and aren't Deobandis.

The periphery has a problem with the system, but the core has far fewer complaints.

Lets assume the PA faced a Western aid cutoff - would it cease to be the most powerful and prestigious institution in Pakjab?

From what I've seen over the last decade, the PA's weaselly two-faced compromises with NATO have done far more to damage its standing with Pakistani nationalists than anything else, ever. The drone attacks, the Abbottabad raid, rounding up people and sending them of to Gitmo, standing by while the Taliban was thrown out of Kabul - this are worse than actual defeats at India's hands because of the collusion involved.

Support for the PA as a proud, Islamic, sons-of-the-soil force would actually increase if they confronted the West rather than half heartedly sucked up to it. There's a lot of Pakistanis who are very disappointed that the NATO supply route has been reopened by the PA, even though they will gladly take the money for it.

[svenkat]

The Wests support to TSPA is institutional,financial and not so tacit in promoting the Armys pre-eminence in Pakistan to bolster its fractured polity which will implode without Western support in IMF-World Bank.

The US has looked the other way while thousands of its soldiers have been killed.The US has overlooked nuclear proliferation,genocide in Bangladesh.The TSPAs transgressions have been overlooked time and again,the US patience has never run out despite TSPA support to Haqqanis and the neverending ultimatums from US Defence Authorities.

Well,what more can I say? Please carry on.

[devesh]

I'm not sure that revolutions really need a "majority". what they do need is a disgruntled section which sees its potential being "put down" by the existing system. all the way back to the American Revolution, we see the same trends. in the AR, it was mainly a section of disenchanted urban intellectuals and a section of equally "anti-govt" rural farming section that colluded to bring about the American Revolution. the notion that the "majority" of Americans at the time were decidedly against British rule, is very hard to prove, if not impossible. there were several sections among the rural peasantry and urban classes which colluded with Brits. several famed personalities joined the "movement" only much later, once it was clear that the local resistance had enough military potential to organize a long-war, if needed.

Mao's rebellion is also a similar case. at no point did the commies command the loyalty of a "majority". there is absolutely no proof of that. but once it became clear that Mao's band had a solid organizing potential, even if they didn't win battles, that is when the traders and middlemen in the administration started colluding with Mao's followers. this ultimately tipped the scale in favor of Mao, when the Nationalists could no more suppress the Commies, regardless of winning some pyrrhic victories.

even in India, the Maratha rebellion followed a similar pattern. during the long 27-year war, at no point did the Marathas command the loyalty of a "majority" in the Deccan, not even in Maharashtra proper. but the ability to be the "last man standing", regardless of how many blows you receive, is what counts as a "revolution". this is what ultimately gave the Marathas the legitimacy as the "victors" of the war.

the mid-19th century Leftist movements in Europe too followed a similar pattern. although they never became revolutions in the sense that they achieved regime change, they did have a similarity to the modern "protest movements", but they relied on a committed minority which was disgruntled at the ruling regimes. they achieved "reform" and "progress" without regime change.

it seems to me that the revolutions happen when there is a committed, disgruntled minority, which is "tolerated" my the rest of the population. if the rest of the population is actively opposed, no chance of revolution. but the active participators are often a minority, not a majority.

[KLNMurthy]

...

Support for the PA as a proud, Islamic, sons-of-the-soil force would actually increase if they confronted the West rather than half heartedly sucked up to it. There's a lot of Pakistanis who are very disappointed that the NATO supply route has been reopened by the PA, even though they will gladly take the money for it.

They are proud of these sons because they have extracted tribute from the west for 65 years. With what resources are these TFTA sons going to wage war on the west and delight their adoring populace? China will give very limited help. The "soil" doesn't produce anywhere near enough to sustain such a war.

That leaves the west paying TSPA to wage war against the west. Which is what we are seeing now. Till 10 years ago we saw the west paying TSPA to wage war against India, regardless of any avowed intentions. Only now is the absurdity more dramatic.

Without western support TSPA is a defanged snake. People hardly adore toothless useless parasites, not if they want to survive.

[ramana]

Johann, You are looking at a toxic toad and trying to idenify which parts can be considered frog. The TSPA, Taliban, Pakiban what not are all bad.

And what is this artifficial distinction between Barelvis and Deobandis? Both get their insipiration form the Wahaabis! Only Deoband is British sarkar supported madrassa to check the Barelvi movement.

[KLNMurthy]

Johann, I never stop learning fascinating details and nuances from your and others' posts; however, in the larger scheme of things, there is a big difference between how I and other BRFites see the idea of a "revolution" or taliban takeover in TSP and the default western view of the same.

In the western view, suited-booted whisky swillers will be replaced by pyjamas, burkhas, beards, no womens' rights and so forth. Because pyjamas are less moderate than suits, it means nukes(which America connived to put in the hands of the suits I might add) in the hands of pyjamas are more dangerous. Therefore suits must be supported at all costs.

Indians especially most on this forum think this viewpoint is a joke. Our country is crawling with pyjamas, burkhas and beards. We think they are mostly harmless, certainly less harmful than the suits and scotches who kill Indians at will and point nukes at our cities now, all with western support. For us, the takeover by one of the alphabet soup "taliban factions" is the equivalent of a cabinet reshuffle in a coalition and not a revolution. So we will cheer if the taliban takeover means withdrawal of western support.

[KLNMurthy]

Johann, You are looking at a toxic toad and trying to idenify which parts can be considered frog. The TSPA, Taliban, Pakiban what not are all bad.

And what is this artifficial distinction between Barelvis and Deobandis? Both get their insipiration form the Wahaabis! Only Deoband is British sarkar supported madrassa to check the Barelvi movement.

IIRC Qadri is barelvi.

[Johann]

Johann, You are looking at a toxic toad and trying to idenify which parts can be considered frog. The TSPA, Taliban, Pakiban what not are all bad.

Ramana, KLNM,

I am not in the Good Taliban vs. Bad Taliban business. I am making no value judgments about who is 'better' for India or anyone else.

Rather its the very specific question of when and if the Taliban itself can come to power.

Its worth talking about because of the insights it offers into power relationships and socio-religious groupings within Pakistan.

And what is this artifficial distinction between Barelvis and Deobandis? Both get their insipiration form the Wahaabis! Only Deoband is British sarkar supported madrassa to check the Barelvi movement.

Ramana,

Actually, it was the Deobandis who were the most consistently anti-Colonial of any Muslim group in India after 1900. Deoband was founded as a retreat by three ulema who participated and survived the war of 1857. They despised the Aligarh movement, which is why they were for the most part allied with the Indian National Congress.

As for the intensity of sectarian feeling in Pakistan between different Sunni revivalist movements, who do you think is bombing Sunni mosques in Pakistan? Its not the Shia or Guruswamy Goldstein Gandolfo! Its Deobandi on Barelvi violence. Not surprising since they have been declaring each other kufr for over a century!

For background details please see Usha Sanyal's "Devotional Islam and Politics in British India: Ahmad Riza Khan Barelwi and his Movement, 1870-1920" and Barbara Metcalf's "Husain Ahmad Madani: The Jihad for Islam and India's Freedom" on the Deobandis before partition.

[nakul]

I sense a slight distinction between westerners and Indians' views of the Taliban. Westerners view Taliban as the entity that ascertained itself after the fall of the Afghan government in 1992. Indians see them as the bunch of people that fought throughout the 80s with covert US support.

Going by this definition, the Taliban run on power lasted from 1994 - 2001. The radicalization that occured in the 70s and 80s are not considered part of the Taliban. IOW, Taliban are the radicals who oppose the west openly. They were not shy to call OBL as a guest.

Having experienced radicalism at home, Indians consider all terrorists supporting Islamic fundamentalism. In short, the Pakistani minister who provides only 'moral and diplomatic support' to 'Karshmir freedom fighters' is as much Taliban as Mullah Omar. For the west, only the latter is Taliban.

[ramana]

nakul, They are all like the "Ice Candy man" in the book "Cracking India". Once they know there is no chance of retaliation they all become Islamists.

[shiv]

Shiv,

America is a distant, distant force at the grass roots level of the struggles in Pakistan - unless of course you live in Waziristan.
<snip>
Please see my earlier post on conditions for a Taliban takeover. That's more or less what would have to happen first in order to win support of a critical mass of Pakistanis and actually seize power from the PA.

Johann. You've got to be joking.

What is the real difference between Pakistani society and the Taliban? The difference that you choose to highlight is merely the fact that Pakistani society currently still allows the existence of a westernized elite. That is to say that there are a significantly large number of people who do not start rioting and shooting in order to get rid of the westernized elite and what they represent - with TV, music and women's education. To you, this represents a moderate side of Pakistan that has not yet gone as far as what you call "the Taliban" who are to be treated differently.

But Pakistani society carries all the hallmarks of the Taliban. I would like to see a list of things that the Taliban do that do not happen in what you call the non-Talibanized Pakistan.

What you are talking about is exactly what the US and the west are supporting - that is a vertical split in Pakistani society in which people who support the west and hold up western ideals are given money, support and arms to survive in a society that is virtually no different from the Taliban. If that western supported group are removed, Pakistan will be the Taliban. You may or may not see all the horrifying shootings of women in stadia on TV, but the fundamental tendencies and behaviour are all there in Pakistan and have been there for a long time, covered up by a veneer of sophistication and westernization among a powerful minority, oiled by an innate ability to read and suck up to western desires.

And you mention "far away Waziristan". If you go back 10 years the problem was judged as being even further away - in Afghanistan. The problem really was in Pakistan even back then but Afghanistan was attacked. The problem merely resurfaced in Pakistan. Now, instead of recognizing the fact that the Taliban, Islamists and Pakistan are one and the same - there is a new found desire to declare "Waziristan" as a far away problem, with "nearby" Pakistanis still possessing elements of moderation and goodness.

I will state up front what I and others have stated time and again. The west in in denial about how deep Islamist extremism runs in Pakistan. They (that is the west, and you too) choose to beat about the bush by claiming 20 years ago that the Taliban were freedom fighters. 10 years ago Taliban were OK, Al Qaeda was the problem. Today Al Qaeda is dead but Taliban is the problem. This is all nonsense. The problem is Pakistan.

Is the west just stupid or deliberately malicious in this game? Either way the best solution would be to let the Taliban win. That would remove all blinkers, pretend or real. India, having faced the combined might of the Pakistani army, Islamists and Taliban, with US and Chinese support for decades is ready. India may not be happy, but I think Indians are reconciled to having to fight.

[Johann]

And you mention "far away Waziristan". If you go back 10 years the problem was judged as being even further away - in Afghanistan. The problem really was in Pakistan even back then but Afghanistan was attacked. The problem merely resurfaced in Pakistan. Now, instead of recognizing the fact that the Taliban, Islamists and Pakistan are one and the same - there is a new found desire to declare "Waziristan" as a far away problem, with "nearby" Pakistanis still possessing elements of moderation and goodness.

If I go back 10 years to 2002 Waziristan was a problem, actually, and Afghanistan was not.

I have no idea why you've chosen to repeatedly misrepresent what I've said. The post had nothing to do with 'goodness'.

It was about what the Pakistani state finds threatening, and why. The Pakistani state has long been willing to treat the tribal areas as a buffer zone and permit things there that they can not permit in 'mainland' Pakistan for fear of eroding their power base.

Simply mentioning this isn't some sort of recommendation that the Pakistani state's sensitivities ought to be catered to by the West or India, or anyone else.

I will state up front what I and others have stated time and again. The west in in denial about how deep Islamist extremism runs in Pakistan. They (that is the west, and you too) choose to beat about the bush by claiming 20 years ago that the Taliban were freedom fighters.

Well its interesting that you seem so sure what my personal views were 20 years ago. The fall of Kabul in 1992 was not a particularly happy day for me. It was a worrisome one.

I'd appreciate it if you stopped projecting your frustrations with American policy onto what I'm saying, or why you imagine I'm saying these things.

Johann. You've got to be joking.

What is the real difference between Pakistani society and the Taliban? The difference that you choose to highlight is merely the fact that Pakistani society currently still allows the existence of a westernized elite. That is to say that there are a significantly large number of people who do not start rioting and shooting in order to get rid of the westernized elite and what they represent - with TV, music and women's education. To you, this represents a moderate side of Pakistan that has not yet gone as far as what you call "the Taliban" who are to be treated differently.

What you are talking about is exactly what the US and the west are supporting - that is a vertical split in Pakistani society in which people who support the west and hold up western ideals are given money, support and arms to survive in a society that is virtually no different from the Taliban. If that western supported group are removed, Pakistan will be the Taliban. You may or may not see all the horrifying shootings of women in stadia on TV, but the fundamental tendencies and behaviour are all there in Pakistan and have been there for a long time, covered up by a veneer of sophistication and westernization among a powerful minority, oiled by an innate ability to read and suck up to western desires.

Once again, thanks telling me whom I must be thinking about. I had no idea. Or perhaps I was only joking?

We have had more than enough discussions that you ought to remember that I hold Pakistan's ruling classes the most responsible for the radicalisation that has taken place in that country.

But Pakistani society carries all the hallmarks of the Taliban. I would like to see a list of things that the Taliban do that do not happen in what you call the non-Talibanized Pakistan.

I have a feeling you haven't been reading what I've actually written on this page - perhaps that would be un-necessary since you're so sure of what I believed and said two decades back.

But if you do look back, I said the PA has attempted to coopt those ideas of the Taliban that resonate with average Pakistanis, thus gradually Talibanising Pakistan without ceding control to a different set of players.

As for the difference for people on the ground between Talibanisation and the Taliban the answer is not that complicated. The available accounts of the Taliban's occupation of the Swat valley, and the ways in which that pushed ordinary people to actually resist is something you can look at, if you're interested that is.

What was clear to me was that there were few who enjoy living in totalitarian conditions where the slightest thing might get one taken away, killed or your business burned down. Especially when they were denied more or less every form of entertainment other than public executions and floggings. Nor were ordinary people quite as keen on denying all education and opportunity to half the population.

Its human nature that people weren't keen on letting other people take what they already had, used and liked. Its much easier to live with bans on what most people have never/rarely had and enjoyed. Its human nature that ordinary people didn't enjoy living in absolute fear. People want a system that conforms to their own notions of justice. The Taliban or any fundamentalist movement for that matter can only hold on in areas if they meet local expectations.

That is why conservative as they were the tribes of Iraq in places like Al-Anbar ended up throwing out Al-Qaeda themselves. Many communities may want sharia, but they want it on their own terms, with some measure of influence over the system.

[shiv]

What was clear to me was that there were few who enjoy living in totalitarian conditions where the slightest thing might get one taken away, killed or your business burned down. Especially when they were denied more or less every form of entertainment other than public executions and floggings. Nor were ordinary people quite as keen on denying all education and opportunity to half the population.

Its human nature that people weren't keen on letting other people take what they already had, used and liked. Its much easier to live with bans on what most people have never/rarely had and enjoyed. Its human nature that ordinary people didn't enjoy living in absolute fear. People want a system that conforms to their own notions of justice. The Taliban or any fundamentalist movement for that matter can only hold on in areas if they meet local expectations.

That is why conservative as they were the tribes of Iraq in places like Al-Anbar ended up throwing out Al-Qaeda themselves. Many communities may want sharia, but they want it on their own terms, with some measure of influence over the system.

I think you have misread the state of 60 to 70% of Pakistani society. Most of them have never had education. Most never had women's rights. Most girls remain uneducated. The movie industry has been dead for years. Secular entertainment (women, dancing, alcohol) has been illegal for decades and will continue illegally under the Taliban. They did not have television on a large scale till about 10 years ago. Summary executions, rapes and floggings have been the norm for a large number of the most downtrodden people in feudal Pakistan. No one knows the percentage of people involved because no statistics exist.

So Pakistanis by and large do not miss secular education. They do not miss women's rights. They do suffer from summary punishment and discrimination - but that is being replaced by sharia which is seen as more just. It is only the "creamy layer" who have not had all this.

It seems to me that you support the idea that somehow Pakistanis will miss all their freedoms and might revolt like in Iraq. I am saying that most did not have those freedoms in the first place and will not revolt under the Taliban that makes no changes to their freedoms. What that does is creeping Talibanization where the state is replaced by sharia. There is no other change onther than implementation of Quranic law rather than secular state laws. And even as the state has continuously retreated under the pressure of Talianization, there seems to be some fond hope that Pakistan is a moderate nation where people will start missing things under the Taliban that they previously had. Not too many Pakistanis had all those "good" things in the first place to start missing them. That is what makes Islamization/Talibanization so attractive.

Pakistan is a state where (in my estimate) 80% of people are Talibanized enough to be happy with Sharia and no secular laws. I think you are talking about the last 20% and hoping that they will put up a stand. The US is hoping exactly that by funding and arming that 20%. The possible outcome of this struggle remains uncertain to me. It is right now in a steady state where the 20% are holding out against and increasingly Talibanized 80%.

If I were the US/west I would sincerely hope that the Talibanized 80% would turn their attention away from the west and concentrate on hitting someone else, like India. And for that reason I would pin my hopes on the last 20%. That is what the US seems to be doing. For an India that knows that Pakistan is Taliban and has faced the consequences for several decades, the faster the Taliban win and kick out the meddling pesky Americans, the faster the Pakistan issue can be brought to a satisfactory conclusion.

Of course this might well mean war. But at least all the warring parties will have no doubt about which side they need to fight for.

[svinayak]

I will state up front what I and others have stated time and again. The west in in denial about how deep Islamist extremism runs in Pakistan. They (that is the west, and you too) choose to beat about the bush by claiming 20 years ago that the Taliban were freedom fighters. 10 years ago Taliban were OK, Al Qaeda was the problem. Today Al Qaeda is dead but Taliban is the problem. This is all nonsense. The problem is Pakistan.

Is the west just stupid or deliberately malicious in this game? Either way the best solution would be to let the Taliban win. That would remove all blinkers, pretend or real. India, having faced the combined might of the Pakistani army, Islamists and Taliban, with US and Chinese support for decades is ready. India may not be happy, but I think Indians are reconciled to having to fight.

The western concept of Taliban is different from Hindu conecpt of a Islamist.

The west accepts the sharia and christians have a place within the Sharia/islamist society.

Hindus dont have any of this and hence their perception is *all* Islamist.

Taliban have different talk with US west and different with Indians

[SSridhar]

There has been an interesting discussion going on here on a whole gamut of issues. It is this wide spectrum of discussion that may fog clear thinking. The discussion here is about Taliban, Punjabi Taliban, take-over of Pakistan by Taliban, which Islamist theology rules the Punjab the Ahl-e-Hadiths or the Deobandis etc.

However, I feel that we have to be clear about the Punjabi Taliban as they are going to play a significant role in determining the destiny of Pakistan in the next few years.

IMO, the Punjabi Taliban are certainly not an authorized agent of the TSPA, as LeT is, but has had (and continues to have) significant support within it. There are two possible explanations for this support. One, we have to understand that the TSPA may not be monolithic and that there are extremist elements who subvert from within the TSPA and that group uses the Punjabi Taliban (why specifically the Punjabi Taliban, we will see next). The top TSPA Generals, even if they have extremist views and sympathies for the jihadi islamist causes, may not openly display them and so it is difficult to pin them down. OTOH, they openly associate with Professor saheb and Dawood Ibrahim, thus giving an impression (to the so-called Western powers) that this unholy nexus has to be understood in the inevitable context of India. The Western powers have so far been quite understanding of that Pakistani nuanced position until LeT began to bite their interests too.

Two, we also need to understand Qari Saifullah Akhtar himself. He is a Pashtun from Waziristan and a product of Karachi’s Jamia Binori, and was involved along with Army officers Maj. Gen. Zaheerul Islam Abbassi and Brig. Mustansar Billah in Sep 1995 in a military coup to establish an Islamic Dictatorship in Pakistan. He was planning to kill Benazir Bhutto in 1995 and also Gen. Abdul Waheed Kakkar, the then COAS. However, Qari turned approver in the case and was surprisingly released in November, 1996, when he became political adviser to Mullah Omar in Afghanistan. Qari Saifullah Akhtar was requested in c. 1996 by Maulana Nizamuddin Shamzai, the head of the Binori mosque, to help bring Osama bin Laden from the Sudan to Afghanistan by brokering a deal with Mullah Omar. It was this which made him close to both Osama bin laden and Mullah Omar. He built terror training camps in Kandahar, Kabul and Khost. Because of his closeness to Mullah Omar, his group, HuJI was originally called ‘Punjabi Taliban’. At some point of time, the nationalistic view of the Afghan Taliban got enlarged and coalesced with the worldview of Al Qaeda and it was no wonder Qari Saifullah Akhtr's too merged with them. HuJI calls itself "second line of defence" of all Muslim states. As the Punjabi Taliban began to unleash terror on Pakistan after c. 2004 (though in the period between 2002 & 2004, they were targetting individuals such as Musharraf or PA Generals and the PA itself), it changed later into targetting the State itself. Also, due to Kaloosha and similar operations in the FATA by the TSPA under US pressure, there were desertions from LeT & JeM as well to the ranks of Qari Akhtar's Punjabi Taliban. Some of LeT's India operations were indeed orchestrated to stem this tide. Qari Akhtar has been arrested and released many times and it was his proximity to the ISI that helps him. It was no wonder therefore that Qari Akhhtar's 'Azad Kashmir' commander, Ilyas Kashmiri, so quickly rose up in the ranks of Al Qaeda to briefly hold the 'operational commander' position. And, we know Ilyas Kashmiri was from the SSG.

The Punjab Taliban had never hesitated to attack PA Generals if they were found to be inimical to their objectives. Thus, the attacks on Gen. Waheed Kakkar, Gen. Musharraf, Gen. Faisal Alvi, Col. Imam & Sqn. Ldr. Khwaja. The attack on PNS Mehran was carried out by the Punjab Taliban with inside support from the PN.

So, I would say that the Punjab Taliban may not be the official sword arm of the TSPA, like the LeT, but has powerful support within it.

[pentaiah]

The end game suggested by Shiv is the best way things to happen for India, The US leaves us alone to do the last rites of a failing nation TSP on its last crutch.

It helps if The US also cuts off aid till Indian finishes the job..

Here is what Airavat Singh review of Gen Padmanabhans book says

A National Endeavor

So is it about a war with the US? Yes, but with several ifs: if the neocons implement the Project for a new American Century; if America does not play fair at the WTO; if it continues to wink over the wrongdoings of the Pakistan Army; if it bullies the UN. Taking all these assumptions the General concludes that India would have to start preparing now for the eventual war against hegemonism (his phrase) that the emerging economies will have to fight against the lone hegemon. The major part of the book is about this preparation.

some of these are already happening in small ways

[Johann]

There has been an interesting discussion going on here on a whole gamut of issues. It is this wide spectrum of discussion that may fog clear thinking. The discussion here is about Taliban, Punjabi Taliban, take-over of Pakistan by Taliban, which Islamist theology rules the Punjab the Ahl-e-Hadiths or the Deobandis etc.

However, I feel that we have to be clear about the Punjabi Taliban as they are going to play a significant role in determining the destiny of Pakistan in the next few years.

IMO, the Punjabi Taliban are certainly not an authorized agent of the TSPA, as LeT is, but has had (and continues to have) significant support within it. There are two possible explanations for this support. One, we have to understand that the TSPA may not be monolithic and that there are extremist elements who subvert from within the TSPA and that group uses the Punjabi Taliban (why specifically the Punjabi Taliban, we will see next). The top TSPA Generals, even if they have extremist views and sympathies for the jihadi islamist causes, may not openly display them and so it is difficult to pin them down. OTOH, they openly associate with Professor saheb and Dawood Ibrahim, thus giving an impression (to the so-called Western powers) that this unholy nexus has to be understood in the inevitable context of India.

...

The Punjab Taliban had never hesitated to attack PA Generals if they were found to be inimical to their objectives. Thus, the attacks on Gen. Waheed Kakkar, Gen. Musharraf, Gen. Faisal Alvi, Col. Imam & Sqn. Ldr. Khwaja. The attack on PNS Mehran was carried out by the Punjab Taliban with inside support from the PN.

So, I would say that the Punjab Taliban may not be the official sword arm of the TSPA, like the LeT, but has powerful support within it.

Excellent post SS.

Let me try to add to that while pulling together the other threads of 'Taliban takeover' and the role of American influence. The discussion up to this point was about a Taliban takeover in from the bottom up in the context of the current Pakistani general officer corps's composition.

What is different about the Punjabi and Frontier Taliban's influence is that they can persuade Pak armed forces personnel to ignore the chain of command and the institutional interests of the Pakistani military as a whole. In other words, these military men's first loyalty is to the Taliban, not the military. These officers and men are happy to help organise attacks that kill scores of their fellow khaki-wallahs because In their minds these are not their true comrades - they are the servants of the enemies of Islam.

The Americans would rather deal with two-faced, rentable officers than committed jihadis, and use aid as leverage to filter out the latter from the general officer corps. However in the absence of US leverage, these men would probably climb the ranks as they did in the 1980s and 1990s in the Zia and post-Zia period.

Let us assume a prolonged, complete breakdown in the US-Pakistani relationship. Under such circumstances its possible that the next coup (an inevitability) may take place under a COAS (we could call him Zia++) who is a committed Deobandi jihadi, and the result will be to all intents and purposes a Taliban coup.

I would personally class this as a highly plausible rather than probable scenario (even assuming total diplomatic rupture with the US) but that is a different discussion.

[ramana]

If Pakistan implodes or explodes I want all parts absorbed back into India. Its crucial that no rump states are left to fester inimical interests.

Earlier I used to think that a split up TSP (Pakjab, Baloch, Sindh, Pakhtunwa) is good option but its not the best option any longer.
None of them is sutainable and leads to instability in short and long run.

[Kanishka]

If Pakistan implodes or explodes I want all parts absorbed back into India. Its crucial that no rump states are left to fester inimical interests.

Earlier I used to think that a split up TSP (Pakjab, Baloch, Sindh, Pakhtunwa) is good option but its not the best option any longer.
None of them is sutainable and leads to instability in short and long run.

Very true.
The process has to start with dismantling of Pakistan and when that happens India should not shy away from doing whatever is necessary to ensure that the broken parts do not become a playground for the Chinese and Americans to continue to destablize the region and India.
The encouraging news is that some Pakistanis who I have met in recent days realize that the experiment called Pakistan has been the mother of all failures and that Islamism has its limits. One such Pakistani is of the opinion that Pakistan in its current shape and form will not last more than 15 years at the most. I was shocked when he introduced himself as "originally from India" at a conference which we were attending.

[ramana]

Pak exaptriates(via Africa, London, now US) are already saying they are from Lahore region which was formerly part of British India.

[devesh]

in any absorption plans, the power of the long-reigning feudal elites, whether in Pakjab or Sindh (especially Pakjab), has to be broken. they are like a festering cancer. the attitude of arrogance, looking down on the "browns", and the suit-boot Jihadism is not good for India. I am amazed at how many Paki kids I meet in US, who were either born outside of Pak or migrated at a very young age, but still have the Pakjabi arrogance, contempt, and holier-than-thou attitude for India. their power has to be broken in any "take back" plans.

[ramana]

Its exactly that type of statements that made them opt for TSP!

[ShauryaT]

If Pakistan implodes or explodes I want all parts absorbed back into India. Its crucial that no rump states are left to fester inimical interests.

Earlier I used to think that a split up TSP (Pakjab, Baloch, Sindh, Pakhtunwa) is good option but its not the best option any longer.
None of them is sustainable and leads to instability in short and long run.

True - Split is a bad, bad option. The next question is are we ready to absorb this population? If one includes BD in the picture the percentage of muslim population gets to 35% and could creep up to 40% due to birth rate growth differences in the demography. Can a Sovereign, Socialist, Secular, Democratic, Republic of India be a great power under such a polity? can SD thrive?

[devesh]

Its exactly that type of statements that made them opt for TSP!

are you serious, ramana garu? do you really want the Pakjabi elite (as they exist now) to continue unhindered into India? they serve no purpose but as parasitic blood-suckers.

and who was making these statements in 1947? even today nobody makes these statements b/c nobody in India understands the mentality of the Pakjabi elites. we have a tendency to treat Pakistan as a united whole...a single monolithic entity. It took me the longest time to get out of that mold and once my eyes opened, I really had to marvel at my previous delusions. the vast majority of Indians still live in the same delusion. most of us never undertook a serious project to deconstruct the claims of the Paki elites and see where the root problem lies. the overblown, bloated, and parasitic need of the Pakjabi elites to preserve their personal clan-based power networks, is the root cause of Pakistan. any future Indian action in that area will have to clean up this lot. even Communist style radical redistribution of land should not be ruled out. the lower level labor section and the mid-sized farmers, who are the vast majority, need to be brought up and given the land that is occupied by the elites.