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

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.
A_Gupta
BRF Oldie
Posts: 11627
Joined: 23 Oct 2001 11:31
Contact:

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby A_Gupta » 18 Jun 2014 22:45

{Not really. Its a mnor irritant. Its the Kashmir obsession of Nehurvian Foreign Policy establishment. The real problem is Pakistan and Kashmir is symptom. Incorrect problem statment leads to solving the wrong problem precisely.}


Exactly. Even Prof. Ms. C.C. Fair finally got it, in her talk at the Hudson Institute, about her book, "Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War":
"...I argue in the book that Pakistan's issues with India are ideological, they are philosophical, they are basically - its a civilizational conflict that Pakistan has set up, and therefore how can you resolve a civilizational conflict by resolving a contentious border?"

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby ramana » 20 Jun 2014 22:13

With Modi Sarkar gnan is percolating even in dark corners......

http://blogs.timesofindia.indiatimes.co ... d-state-2/

June 19, 2014, 5:16 pm IST Markandey Katju in Satyam Bruyat | Politics, World

Pakistan — A failed state

Pakistan was created on the basis of the bogus two-nation theory of evil men like Jinnah. This subcontinent has so much diversity that a theocratic state is simply not viable, and only secularism can work here.

Many Muslims (not all) in India before 1947 wanted a separate Islamic state. They got it, and now they are reaping what they have sown. Pakistan has become a madhouse, a Jurassic Park. Shias, Ahmadis, etc, are being slaughtered regularly, and many have fled the country. About 1000 women are stoned to death every year, the latest case being of Farzana who was recently stoned to death near the Lahore high court by her father, brothers, etc, because she married a man whom her father disapproved of. Human rights activists, journalists, etc, are being killed regularly. Children are not being permitted to be vaccinated against polio, etc.

When a country is declared an Islamic state, many problems immediately arise. Firstly, non-Muslims immediately become second rate or third rate citizens, and so the country becomes a house divided within itself, which, as Abraham Lincoln said, cannot stand. In Pakistan, Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, etc, are persecuted and live in fear from fanatic elements, of which there are many in Pakistan.

Secondly, the problem arises, which Islam is the correct Islam, Sunni or Shia, Deobandi or Barelvi? Are Ahmadis Muslims?

The orthodox Muslims believe that Muhammad was the last Prophet, while the Ahmadis believe in a nabi called Ghulam Ahmad who lived the 19th century. It is, of course, open to the orthodox Muslims to say that Ahmadis are not Muslims, but did they have the right to kill Ahmadis, burn their homes and mosques, and beat up their children
.

If Ahmadis say that there was a prophet after Muhammad, are they breaking anyone’s head or chopping of anyone’s limbs? They are not doing any harm to anyone. So why should they not be allowed to believe in whatever they want to believe?

Muslims believe that there is only one god called Allah, and they are against idol worship. Hindus believe in several gods, and do idol worship. So should the two communities fight with each other for this reason? This would be stupid.

The reasonable approach is that everyone should be allowed to believe whatever he/she wants to believe in. Otherwise in a subcontinent of such diversity there will be fights all the time.

Sunnis believe in four khalifas after Prophet Muhammed’s death — Abu Bakr, Omar, Usman, and Ali (the Prophet’s son-in-law). Shias believe that the first three were usurpers. Shias also believe in 12 Imams, which the Sunnis do not believe in. Now, should Sunnis and Shias fight for this reason ? It is stupid to do so. Let everyone believe whatever he/she want to believe in. That is the only sensible way, particularly in a country of such diversity as ours. But in Pakistan Shias are regularly being killed just because they are Shias.

Sunnis are broadly divided between Barelvis and Deobandis. Barelvis (who comprise of the majority of Sunnis) go to dargahs which have graves of Sufi saints, while Deobandis regard this as idol worship.
The basic difference between Deobandis and Barelvis is this: Deobandis believe that if one has to make a request (minnat) to Allah he should make it directly to Allah, and not through some human agency, whereas Barelvis believe that the request can also be made through a human agency, e.g. a sufi saint whose grave is in a dargah, e.g. the Ajmer dargah (which Emperor Akbar used to regularly visit), the Hazrat Nizamuddin Aulia dargah in Delhi, etc. Deobandis usually do not go to dargahs, regarding them to be places of idol worship. They are like the Wahabis of Saudi Arabia, who regard dargahs as places of idol worship (Saudis destroy dargahs if built by anyone).

The interesting thing is that the vast majority of Muslims not only in India but also in Pakistan and Bangladesh go to dargahs.
Even Hindus go to dargahs, and in many dargahs there are more Hindu devotes than Muslims (though the management is always of some Muslims, e.g. the Chishti family in Ajmer).

I myself like dargahs, and regularly visit them. This is because Hindus do not go to mosques, and Muslims do not go to temples, but both go to dargahs. So dargahs unite all communities, and I love whatever unites all communities.

Now, if a deobandi does not wish to go to dargahs he need not go there. But the matter does not end there. In Pakistan, dargahs are being bombed by fanatic elements. Should such bigotry be tolerated?

All this is the inevitable consequence of declaring an Islamic state.
In a subcontinent of such diversity only a secular state is viable here.

Secularism does not mean that one cannot practice one’s religion. Secularism means that religion is a private affair unconnected with the state, which will have no religion.
DISCLAIMER : Views expressed above are the author's own :rotfl:

srin
BRFite
Posts: 1815
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:13

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby srin » 20 Jun 2014 23:23

Two completely unsupported myths that MSM propagates:
1) That a stable Pakistan is in our interest.
2) That we *need* to negotiate a peaceful settlement to Kashmir dispute, and the added corollary that solving Kashmir dispute will make India-Pakistan BFF forever.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby ramana » 26 Jun 2014 21:37

A series of X-posts from the STFUP thread..


shiv wrote:
jash_p wrote:In my analysis after observing US thinking and behavior they are is giving Pakistan retainer fees and thinks those Pakis may be use full in future against Indi, China, Russia, Iran, etc.

The idea that the US is "keeping Pakistan loyal" assumes a client-master relationship where Pakistan is the client and the US is master. We are all eager to award US with the ability to be lord and master over everyone.

However there is no evidence that Pakistanis are either loyal to the US or are willing to serve them. Yes they are accepting money - but they are not delivering the goods. For too long we have assumed that Pakistanis are giving the US something - and we are willing to speculate as you have done.

I don't believe it any more. The US is getting nothing. Pakistanis are not loyal to the US and the US has little or no control over them. It hurts the sentiments of all US loyalists to hear this but I think it needs to be stressed because imagining that the US controls Pakistan only clouds our thinking both about the US and about Pakistan

About the US we simply love to believe that they have extraordinary power over anyone they deal with. And about Pakistan we end up believing that they are slaves who can be bought and that india can somehow emulate the US and buy up Pakistan. We have spent more than a decade on BRF believing this crap and it is high time we rid our minds of these insufferably stupid notions. This is a rut that we have fallen into so deep that BRF is not just behind the curve - we are at a dead end in analysis because of this mythology.



UlanBatori wrote:Mullah Shivullah, b4 u push the soosai button on ur cellphone, consider that Pakistan IS giving "the US" a lot, which is why they have so many powerful supporters who hamstring US policy and keep forcing it into ever-deeper poo.

1. There is the Colonels Club. At least Air Force and Navy. In the US there are a gazillion retired Colonels (advancement past Colonel is based on political pull, so only a few get past this point as you know), and these guys immediately become Conslutants. And in about 2 years, become VPs at armament or Reconstruction companies. In TSPA and TSPAF there are corresponding Aphsars whose cousins and brothers in law run the big family bijnejes.
So these guys all benefit big-time from US taxpayer funds sent to "Pakistan": much of it comes back to the US either directly or via the Cayman islands etc.

2. The Generals Club. These guys become Experts at the Think Tanks and War Colleges, and are in a position to directly influence policy. Again, they benefit big-time through direct or indirect means, from US "aid" to Pakistan. General Chuck Yeager comes to mind. I think Colin Bin Powell also had some deep paki link, I just don't know what it is.

3. The Foggy Bottom Club. In the DK affair we saw the close link between Foggy Bottom and various commercial scams. In Military Aid and Foreign Policy the money involved is hajaar times any Ayah Settlement.

4. The See Aiyyeh Club: Again, retired "operatives" become Experts. Like Charlie Wilson who took credit for the Taliban... until he stopped taking credit in public. There are many, many more.

5. The straight MIL-Ind Complex Club. Rumsfeld, Cheney et al. Old they may be, but they are still hugely feared, and have huge connections that must be fed.

So BRF thinking does need to be somewhat refined, but only in going deeper and finding who influences the so-called "policies" coming out of WHOTUS/SD/COTUS/Pentagon. The victims are not just India, they are also the American soldiers and their families, and most of all the American taxpayer.

Like you, I don't believe either that there is some Master Planner Team sitting in the basement of Foggy Bottom with clear-non-foggy infinite wisdom and control over the Duniya. There is just the consistent assurance that the various power centers will keep influencing and driving short-term policy, with almost assured long-term catastrophe. The motivation, both in Pakistan and US, is $$$$ to the "right" pockets. The decision process ultimately comes down to Hu knows Hu.

So why is there not more noise from the last-named victim group? The answer is something like the answer to the question "why did Indian voters elect SoniaG's brood so many times?" :(



ramana wrote:shiv is right. The Pakis are not under US control. They are like free lance dacoit/goonda in the civilized/ village outskirts hired to terrorize the villagers by the current zamindar/iqtadar.

The dacoit is available for hire by other competing iqtadars (PRC) against the villagers.

The dacoit is smart enough to pin-prick the zamindars of his existence and availability. So 9/11, sucide vests in Af-pak, nuke pistol to head, TTP, Uighers and other nautanki.

The big fear of the dacoit is the villagers and zamindar will make an accomodation there won't be a need for him.

The villagers are even more smart and keep tempting the zamindar and iqtadar with their prosperity and to cut out the dacoit.

What is needed is Bakasura vadha that makes the relationship normal between the zamindars and viallagers.

What this will do is allow the village to grow to a town and even a city and who knows bring in land reforms where the zamindar and iqtadar become banias and not rely on old order imposed with dhimmin psecualr leaders in the village.



shiv wrote:
ramana wrote:shiv is right. The Pakis are not under US control. They are like free lance dacoit/goonda in the civilized/ village outskirts hired to terrorize the villagers by the current zamindar/iqtadar.

The dacoit is available for hire by other competing iqtadars (PRC) against the villagers.

Even in Zia's time it was not a client master relationship but it seemed that way because the Americans got Pakistani cooperation cheap - they just helped Pakistan against India and there was no blowback for the US. Pakistan gained a lot there and the US looked ever so Chankian in winning the cold war.

But with Musharraf post 9-11 it was all pretence and either the US did not catch on or simply went ahead with established policy that could not be changed after Pakistan had been co-opted. And by 2006 enough of the Pakistan army had turned jihadi to ensure that there will never be cooperation.

Did anyone notice that there has been no ground offensive in Waziristan? If that information is wrong - someone please correct me. If the Taliban attack the army and not vice versa it is because the ideology of the Taliban is accepted by many in the army, but the secular, US-friendly aspects of the army are not palatable to either the Taliban or many within the Pakistani army itself. The Pakistan army is not going to conduct a serious anti-Taliban ground offensive. The Taliban and the Pakistani army really are brothers. There are enough jihad pasand Paki army officers to ensure that all pretence of a "secular" Pakistani army has ended.

The nuclear button is already in jihadi hands. It makes little difference to India. We have had nuclear threats forever. But it makes a huge difference to the US. And when people all over the internet and media were predicting that the US would de-nuke Pakistan if nukes were thought to be in jihadi control - not one single person anticipated that the US would be in such severe denial of the Paki army's lack of loyalty to the US that they would fail to recognize that the Paki army is now a jihadi army with nukes getting funded by the US. The army no longer cares about the advance of islamists. They are the Islamists.

Everyone expected an Islamist revolution like Iran that could be resisted by putting in people like Benazir to shake up the political scene. But no. This revolution was quiet and without fanfare - leaving the US with its underwear around its ankles.

it is only a matter of time before Pakistanis realize that they live in a proper Islamic state. The single best idea to unite Pakistan is an Islamic alliance between the Taliban and the Pakistan army. All these things are easy to see from India. The problem is the US and the inertia of the US led media who will take years to figure this out.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23385
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby Austin » 28 Jun 2014 13:14

Not sure where to post but this is an interesting interview.

Drones can't win over the Taliban – Interview with Former Pakistani ambassador to the US

Times are not easy for Pakistan – the country is waging a seemingly endless and futile war on the Taliban, American drones in the north are seeking their prey, and the war is claiming the lives of innocents as well as jihadists. The new offensive operation by the army has led to hundreds of thousands of refugees. The country itself is being torn apart by the political struggle, with anti-government leaders promising a revolution. Will Islamabad ever see the end of the Taliban? Is there any sense to the negotiations? What about the US – how much of an ally is it for the Pakistani people? We ask these questions to Pakistan's former ambassador to the US and a professor at Boston University. Husain Haqqani is on SophieCo today.
Follow @SophieCo_RT

Sophie Shevardnadze:
Former ambassador of Pakistan to the US, international relations professor at Boston University, Husain Haqqani, welcome, it’s great to have you with us today. I’m just going to start from the current events. There are threats to the Pakistani government from hardline extremists, but also, from what I understand, the military takeover – is an army coup likely?

Hasan Haqqani: I’m not sure whether the army would like to take over directly – the army wields tremendous influence, and I think it would like to continue to wield that influence. Unfortunately what that does is that it paralyzes decision making – the civilians cannot make decisions because the army is constantly looking over their shoulder and the army doesn’t really control everything, because after all it has to contend with the civilians. So, it paralyzes decision-making, it’s not a good situation to be in, but that’s the situation we find: the army not liking the civilians, the civilians not liking the army, and yet, the army takeover not necessarily imminent.

SS: There’s another factor – the anti-government cleric Dr. Tahir-ul-Qadri led a mass revolt last year, and he is now promising to lead the revolution. Now, in your opinion, is he backed by the real force, or is he just being delusional?

HH: I think he has basically a few thousand supporters – even the last time when he came to Islamabad there were a few thousand supporters. The question is why he is doing it. He has lived abroad for quite a few years, why does he feel confident enough to bring his supporters into the streets, challenge the authority of the government? A lot of people suspect some foul play. You must remember that in Pakistan’s history, street demonstrations have sometimes been used by the intel services, intelligence, as a means of trying to exert influence on civilian government, and sometimes even to depose it. Is something like that happening? We don’t have evidence, but we certainly have a lot of suspicion.

SS: Why do you think the current parliamentary government is in such a weak position? How did it come to this? It’s besieged from all sides: extremists, the military, now the Qadri threat. Why?

HH: First of all, the best way to run Pakistan under a civilian government is building relationships across the board. No civilian political party has sufficient strength to run the country on its own, even if it wins an absolute mandate like Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s Muslim League did, the Muslim league doesn’t have support beyond Punjab; Pakistan is a country of several regions – it needs a little bit more consensus building. That’s one of the problems. The other problem, of course, is the civil-military divide. The civilians have to be very adept at handling the civilian-military issues. A third is the ideological divide. Pakistan is ideologically still very polarized between those who want Pakistan to be some form of an Islamic state – everybody has their own version of an Islamic state, but they want an Islamic state – and those say that Pakistan needs to be a pragmatic, functional state. And then, above all, that is the whole Pakistan ideological DNA of constantly wanting either parity with India or competition with India, which makes it very difficult to invest in things like healthcare and education and run a functional economy – when the civilian government makes decisions about the economy, sometimes a military thinks that those decisions are motivated by corruption, not pragmatism; courts interfere, the institutions have not yet worked out a manner in which full democracy can move forward.

SS: Let’s talk about the Taliban, for instance. I mean, for many the Taliban represents extreme, extreme Islam, and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was in strong favor of engaging the Taliban militants in peace talks. What do you make of that? Why do you think it's there?

HH:
First of all, we must understand that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in 1998 said that he actually admired the Taliban because of their commitment to Islam. This brings us to the problem that I have been writing about and speaking about openly. Pakistanis now need to revisit the very fundamental idea of Pakistan as an Islamic state, because if it’s going to be an Islamic state, people in jackets and ties are not going to be able to define Islam – Islam is going to be defined by the mullahs, and every mullah will offer a different explanation and different vision of what an Islamic state is going to look like. And that is the real reason of why Pakistan is in such a mess. Now, the Taliban represents the most extreme form, and there are Taliban that have been used by the Pakistani state for influence in Afghanistan in the past, and there are Taliban who are now coming back and hunting and fighting the Pakistani state inside Pakistan. There needs to be much greater clarity about Pakistan’s future direction. Prime Minister Sharif said he could talk to the Taliban who are fighting in Pakistan and persuade them to accept some kind of a compromise – not realizing that you become Taliban because you are uncompromising. Your belief system is so hardline, that you do not like people who do not do exactly what you tell them to be. So, these are not people who are amenable to reason. Now, as far as fighting them is concerned, fighting them would require a national consensus, or some kind of national support. If the Pakistani public opinion remains divided between those who think, “Well the Taliban are at least good Muslims,” and those who think, “the Taliban are just being mislead by some foreign forces to attack Pakistan,” then in that environment, how is the soldier supposed to decide in the battlefield which Taliban should he shoot, which Taliban should he negotiate with?

SS: Well, that’s exactly my next question, actually, because if the government does pin its hopes on a peace treaty with the Taliban, isn’t launching a military offensive a strange step in that direction?

HH: Absolutely! Look – it reflects confusion, it reflects ideological confusion. The real ideological confusion is: are the Taliban just some people who are angry with the state, who are angry with America in Afghanistan, or are they people who have a vision that means taking Pakistan, and everywhere else, everywhere where there are Muslims, into the VIII century. All evidence points to the fact that these people want to drag our society into the VIII century. They don’t want young girls to go to school, they don’t want to have religious pluralism, they want to kill anybody who doesn’t conform to Islam as they see Islam. They don’t consider Shia as Muslims, they don’t consider Sunni, Barelvis as Muslims, they don’t consider Ahmadis as Muslims, they don’t want Christians, they don’t want Hindu. They want the purification of society, they slaughter people like goats. These people are not people of the 21stcentury, so how does the 21stcentury negotiate with the eighthcentury? What can be the compromise? Look, Sophie, negotiation always means finding middle ground. So, for example, you want 100, I am willing to give 20, we can settle on 50...But here, these are people who believe that either everything that they think God has ordered them to impose has to be imposed, or there is nothing else. Such people will never be amenable to negotiation.

SS: Talking about 21stcentury fighting the eighth century – I mean, we see that even NATO’s latest armament is unable to defeat the Taliban. So, for example, this latest anti-Taliban North Waziristan offensive is one amongst many previous ones that have also proved futile – or is this one any different?

HH: The big difference is that the eighthcentury uses 21stcentury means of destruction to impose eighth century ideas. So, my point is that you cannot have a negotiation between the ideas. Now, as far as the military tactics are concerned, the Taliban has the advantages of terrain, they have advantages of surprise, and they have the advantage of confusion within society. Look: in Russian, when, for example, extremists have ever attacked in any city, the terrorist attack – the whole nation has been united in thinking: “These are terrorists, we need to fight them” – and so, your military, your intelligence service, all kinds of law enforcement people are all on one page. In Pakistan, we have deliberately created confusion over the last six or seven years – we have always said “No, no, no, people who operate in the name of Islam are good people” – even when they are slaughtering people like goats! So, what we have is a confused state apparatus. And, a confused man, even if he has 21stcentury NATO weapons, cannot really prevail. What you need is clarity – what are we trying to do? Are we trying to build a modern Pakistan, which allows people to practice Islam, which encourages people to remain moral, but which is not going to be bound by any clerical vision of an Islamic state? We are not doing that, and the Taliban has an advantage.

SS: So, just a tiny bit more about the Taliban. Pakistani Special Forces and the military helped create the Taliban, hoping to wield influence in the region through them. So why is Islamabad so involved with the Taliban now? Has it been worth it? What do you think?

HH: I think the Pakistani military does realize that the Taliban has become a problem for Pakistan, but it is just too late. The Taliban has sunken deep roots in Pakistan, and now it’s very difficult to beat the enemy when it was previously your friend and your creation.

SS: Now, Washington’s drone program has been active in Pakistan for years now, targeting the Taliban, mainly, but also causing civilian casualties, and that has been kind of a problem. But is that now becoming less of an issue for the Pakistani government? What do you think?

HH: I think the current government has been able to work out some kind of an arrangement with the Americans, whereby most of the drone strikes are now taking place only with some kind of coordination between Pakistan and the US. So we don’t hear too much about them. When the drone strikes were not coordinated, Pakistan used to leak the information to the media – we are not seeing those leaks, and therefore we are seeing less of a reaction as well. And groups like Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek Insaf, which was running the campaign against the drones, have now shifted their emphasis to other issues.

SS: But what do you think of the whole thing? Just, like, in general, the bigger picture – the US drones attacking extremists in Pakistan – is it a good thing for you?

HH: Well, very frankly, the drones were used primarily because Pakistan was not launching a ground offensive and there was no other way of paralyzing those people. You know, the American attitude was “We have a list of people who need to be paralyzed, who need to be taken out, so that they are not a threat internationally” – they don’t attack Americans abroad, they don’t attack Americans in America. That was the strategy, it was not only for Pakistan or Afghanistan, it was also for Yemen. Everywhere where there was no ground capability or air capability in the region to fight the terrorists. I think that if the Pakistani military manifests its interest in fighting the terrorists inside Pakistani territory, then there will be less drone strikes. Now, there are other issues relating to drones, which I think are even bigger: can drone warfare be deemed regular warfare? It’s basically war by assassination, you are just assassinating people. In a regular war, a soldier can point a gun on another soldier and say “Surrender” and the man can surrender. There is no option of that in this particular warfare. So those are moral issues, ethical issues, that the international community needs to sort out, but, I think, in the case of the Pakistani northern territories, and northwestern areas primarily, it was the lack of action on the ground that made the Americans use drones.

SS: But let me ask you this – putting the moral factor aside, can the Taliban be defeated without the drone offensives? What do you think?

HH: I think that drones were only a way of eliminating leaders, but the Taliban has shown a remarkable capability of recruiting new members and I think basically the idea of Talibanization needs to be confronted. Somebody needs to stand up in Pakistan and say: “This way forward is not a way forward. These people represent ideas that are not acceptable to Pakistani society, and these people are not Pakistan’s partners for regional influence.” Unless that happens, the Taliban will continue to recruit all the way from Karachi to North Waziristan. Look, the North Waziristan operation will result in a lot of internally displaced persons. These people will include the future Taliban; as long as the ideology of the Taliban is alive, they will continue to recruit all over Pakistan.

SS: I’ve spoken to many Pakistanis who are actually surprised when people are interested in their internal politics, so, like, you know, “it’s not about your business” – but I’m thinking, obviously, the internal politics of Pakistan are a concern for the rest of the world, at the very least because of its nuclear program. Can Pakistan insure the safety of its nuclear arsenal against any threat?

HH: I think Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal has the same kind of safety arrangements that most countries do. The real problem is – is Pakistan a secure nation? It’s a different question...

SS: Well, that’s what I mean by the internal problems, because there is so much turmoil around who is governing the country.

HH: What happens when extremists take over the country, for example – and that is something the Pakistanis should be open to talk about. Unfortunately Pakistanis have become very, very defensive in their arguments with the rest of the world. Look, Pakistanis can travel to fewer countries without a visa than even North Koreans. Pakistan has become the country that is being held responsible for the revival of polio in the world. These are things that Pakistanis should be aware of. We can’t turn around and say “our internal problems are not the problems of the rest of the world” – no, they are, because our internal problems are causing problems for the rest of the world. Also, polio is a global problem, terrorism is a global problem, extremism is a global problem – either we control it, or the world will have to come up with ideas to control it, and nuclear weapons proliferation is one of them. As long as we can assure the world that the nuclear weapons are in the control of an authority that itself is responsible – and we have not done that in the past, if you remember. Our nuclear designs ended up in Korea, North Korea, and Libya and Iran. We blamed one man, Dr. A. Q. Khan, but we must come forward and hold all those who did it accountable. Either we are a responsible nation, or the rest of the world will continue to wonder about us and our ability to be responsible nation.

SS: Especially that no one in the international community has the right to come and check up on your nuclear arsenal – that’s also a problem. But, there is another thing. Seeing how the Taliban threat is getting stronger and relations with India are actually getting smoother...I mean, originally, the nuclear bomb in Pakistan was created because India seemed to be a threat. But what does Pakistan need the bomb for now?

HH:
I won’t get into what Pakistan needs the bomb for or not, because I have my own views on Pakistan’s nuclear deterrent. I am, personally, one of those who feels that Pakistan should be part of some international nuclear restraint regime, but I am a very small minority in Pakistan. The problem in relation to India is that relations may be smoother on the surface, but deep down there – not. Every Pakistani child is still taught in schools that India is still Pakistan’s eternal enemy. I am one of those who advocates a reorientation of Pakistan completely. Pakistan needs to think of itself as a trading nation, not as a warrior nation. We need to trade with India, we need to trade with Afghanistan, we need to de-emphasize this whole Islamic identity that has made us into jihadists rather than productive people who engage with the rest of the world in a more reasonable way. I think, unless that is done, the nuclear issue will only be one part of the bigger problem. The bigger problem is what is the purpose of Pakistan in the world? Is Pakistan always going to be a warrior nation that wants to be India’s equal, without having the economic resources or the size of geography and population – or is Pakistan willing to be a nation that pays attention to its 180 million people?

SS: You know, a while ago there were reports that the US Special Forces were getting ready to move into Pakistan and seize the nuclear arsenal in case pro-Taliban elements came or come to power. Now, do you think that’s a realistic plan? Do you think Washington still has that plan in mind?

HH:
Look, Americans make all kinds of plans. I don’t know if you know that the Americans even have a plan to deal with some kind of zombie takeover of the world, so they do these exercises, but I don’t think it's practical for American special operations forces to arrive in Pakistan without some kind of support base inside Pakistan. And you must remember – 83 percent of Pakistanis have a negative view of the US. So if American troops ever come to Pakistan, it will result in a kind of chaos and a war-like situation which I don’t think the Americans want. I think the Americans would like to have a government in Pakistan that takes responsibility for Pakistan’s nuclear program, and I think it’s in Pakistan’s interest to make itself part of the global community with restraints rather than an un-restrained country that doesn’t allow international observers into Pakistan even for normal check-ups on its nuclear technological facilities. This kind of isolation is not good for Pakistan. It makes Pakistan more like North Korea, rather than like South Korea, which is an economically prosperous and open society.

SS: Talking about North Korea, you know that US intelligence spends just as much time spying on Pakistan as it does on North Korea and Al-Qaeda. Why is it that they feel they need to spy on its ally?

HH: I think that the Pakistan-US alliance is essentially now just a charade. Everybody knows that Pakistan's strategic calculus is very different from America’s strategic calculus. I’ve written a whole book called 'Magnificent delusions' in which I say that the Pakistani delusion is that it can maintain its strategic calculus with American assistance and their support, whereas the American delusion is that they can change Pakistan’s strategic calculus by giving it aid and arms. These two countries need to review their relationship in a very significant way, and we must come to terms with the fact that there are people in Pakistan who have ideas about how they will fight America and there are Americans who think that Pakistan needs to be brought under restraint much more than they say publicly. So, I don’t think that the alliance is really an alliance anymore, and I agree that the Americans are conducting the kind of surveillance in Pakistan that they usually reserve for countries that are deemed as hostile. And that is not good, by the way, that is not good either for the US or for Pakistan.

SS: Just a little bit more about the nuclear program. I mean, the ISI, Pakistan’s intelligence service, is responsible for safeguarding the nuclear arsenal – but is it really as untrustworthy as the US thinks it is?

HH:
No, I don’t think…look, I think sometimes these questions are framed wrongly. I mean, who is it untrustworthy for? No Pakistani would want Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal to fall into the hands of either the Americans or Indians or anybody else. People like me worry about what happens when people with jihadist sympathies take over Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. Nuclear weapons were designed primarily as a deterrent. We already have that deterrent capability. Why do we need to expand on our nuclear weapons program when 42 percent of our school-going age children do not go to school? We need to think about the bigger picture, and the bigger picture is that it’s not just Americans, Sophie, many other countries also are getting concerned about Pakistan as a petri dish for global terrorism. Most of the people arrested in Europe have had some kind of relationship – either they went through Pakistan or were in Pakistan when they became radicalized, and those are things that we need to address for ourselves. So a radical Pakistan which is also nuclear is definitely a problem. But a nuclear Pakistan that is responsible and takes responsibility for its nukes? I don’t think that needs to be confronted in the same way.

SS: Ambassador Haqqani, thank you very much for this insight about Pakistan’s internal and foreign policies. We were talking to Husain Haqqani, former Pakistani ambassador to the US, international relations professor at Boston University. We were talking about the threat of the Taliban and Pakistan’s nuclear program. That’s it for this edition of SophieCo, we will see you next time.

anupmisra
BRF Oldie
Posts: 8279
Joined: 12 Nov 2006 04:16
Location: New York

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby anupmisra » 28 Jun 2014 17:09

Austin wrote:Not sure where to post but this is an interesting interview.

Drones can't win over the Taliban – Interview with Former Pakistani ambassador to the US


Most times, for me, its hard to tell if this paki is a "good" Haqqani or a "bad Haqqani or is he just being a Haqqani (viz., he bows in whichever direction the wind blows that day).Clever and cunning! He is certainly making hay while the spotlight is on bakiland. He is on TV and in print everyday, and sits on various think tanks. He has certainly finagled his way into limelight.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby shiv » 13 Jul 2014 08:06

Baikul wrote:
shiv wrote:............................
I used to dismiss this attitude with the term "cognitive bias" where you assume that your personal (RAPE) environment and ambiance represents the environment and ambiance of all of Pakistan.

But in the ensuing years it appears to be that even though that is correct - I am missing something extra - an extra vulgar twist that Pakistanis seem to have. In most functioning countries - certainly in India - people have or have been made to develop a sense of ownership of the whole land. This feeling makes one sorry when you see injustice or poverty and want to do something to address it. Everyone may not feel that way but even if one in ten people feels that way it constitutes a huge percentage of patriots or nationalists.

But Pakistanis, particularly the cabal of Pakjabis, Sindhis and mohajirs - have been continuously rejecting parts of Pakistan that they see as "the other, other Pakistan" and do not give a damn about what happens there. Anything from that part of the country has nothing to do with them - be it deaths, bombs, polio or maternal mortality. They did that with Bangladesh. They are doing that with Baluchistan and Waziristan, in fact large parts of KP/NWFP. They did it very long ago with PoK- so people have forgotten about that.

As is this was not enough - there is yet another layer of the same rejection/ denial of inconvenient poverty and dirt within core Pakistan (Pakjab and Sindh) where the RAPE speak like Salman Taseer. I haven't figured out the exact mental process and education that gets them to be this way. the closest I can get is like the minor Muslim chamchas and functionaries of bigger rulers being satisfied by overlordship across a small area of land and great personal wealth. This is not nationalism. Pakistan is a fragile state and can be knocked over. It should be knocked over.


Shivji, sorry for the long post.

A while ago- don't have so many posts on BR so it should not be hard to find- I'd proposed the filter of (IIRC) 'Rejection and Divorce' for understanding the actions of a Pakistani individual, group, caste, sect, organization or even the entire nation state.

In short, the Pakistani's mental conditioning forces drives him to reject 'everything that is not him', and divorce it with usually violent consequences. Anything can and has been defined as the 'everything that is not him'.

This rejection could be of a philosophy, an individual, a group, a religion, a car, a building..anything. It's happening all the time, over or under the surface.

1947 was Jinnah's rejection of and divorce with the rest of India, a process begun under Syed Ahmad Khan. India was defined as 'everything that Jinnah and others like him were not'.

The 50s saw the Armed Forces rejecting of and divorcing with the politicians post Jinnah. The politicians were everything that the army wasn't.

1971 was Pakistan's rejection of and divorce with Bangladesh. Bangladesh was a 'low lying country with low, lying peoples', according to the Pakistani elite at the time.

Baluchistan is continuing evidence of the same work in process. Thus far the divorce has not been completed.

Zia separated and divorced himself from Bhutto, Qadri from Taseer's philosophy, the TTP from the Pakjabi army. The son of a senior Pakistani air force officer who set up a car bomb in the NY, USA, rejected America and tried to violently divorce what it stood for.

And so on.

Note; they also reject their own mango abduls. They reject other families, clans, castes, tribes, other regions and provinces. Your point of "...the cabal of Pakjabis, Sindhis and mohajirs - have been continuously rejecting parts of Pakistan" is very valid.

It gets more insidious- at the heart of who they are, Pakjabis and their other elites, have also rejected their own identities in favour or a Saudi, Turkish, Iranian world view. This is IMO the biggest and most recurrently exploding time bomb of all.

Because they don't want to be who they are, they are rejecting and divorcing their very self, which is the ultimate font of violence.

Whereas other healthier cultures also 'accept and assimilate' apart from 'rejecting and divorcing', Pakistan and Pakistanis can only do the latter.

I have found this framework to be useful if one wants to predict how they will react over a period of time to pretty much anything.

My 2 cents. AoA.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby shiv » 13 Jul 2014 08:07

sadhana wrote:1. I am guessing, historically, the Turki/Persian speaking ruling class lived in isolation from the ruled, separated from them via language, class, origin, walled cities.
Some Pakistanis actually have that historical isolation as their cultural inheritance, and remain mentally separated from those they rule over. Pakistan nationalism would have been the modernizing way out of that isolation via common nationhood but didn't have sufficient success.

2. The custom of marrying cousins perpetuates insularity of a community with the rest of the population. A study done in UK and quoted on BRF some years ago noticed this major difference in how Sikh and Muslim immigrants from adjoining regions in India/Pak assimilated in wider UK society. Sikhs are forbidden from marrying within family/relations so had to cultivate widening circles of people after every marriage with strangers. Muslims married within family, often importing brides from back home so became more and more inward looking and insular as a community in contrast.

3. In my view, the Pakistani elite have scant memory or tradition of or respect for any anti-colonial struggle. They consider themselves inheritors or associates of the departing British rulers- independence and self-rule was won from Hindus not the British. Nationalism and common cause among Pakistanis is defined wrt Hindus not the British. The British connection was/is desired and the loss of it lamented. Hence, the feudal social and economic relations between Pakistanis of various classes that existed before the British continued unexamined and unchallenged for many decades(by and large). (My wild guess is -no such thing as an Indian independence movement is taught in their textbooks).

4. Muslim society respects force and power as source of legitimacy among rulers more than public consent via elections or anything else. So caring for other people is less successful than individual efforts to gain power. Any Muslim social reformer/activist will be respected, but will gain little (moral or any other) power over people from the respect he/she earned. To be respected, he needs to have a militia or enormous wealth.

JMTC.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby ramana » 20 Jul 2014 21:04

We have studied TSP for over a decade and half and found it to be an unstable country with a a facade of stability. The facade of stability is from the military that is ever ready to launch a coup, the theocracy of mullahs and politicians. Its stable by being closed to India.
It has to become stable while being open to India if it wants to survive as a state. Otherwise it will split like many of the stable when closed states of the 20th century eg. Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Ethiopia and others that split up when they opened up.

Does TSP show any signs of being able to open to India?

So far there are no signs as they fear the outcome.
TSP cannot with stand the internal forces that will be unleashed if i opens to India for it survives on a fear psychosis of itself.

ISIS in Iraq is an example of the TSP trajectory.


TSP is a special case due to WMD, social unrest, ethinic strife. capital transfers, and hub of trans-national terrorism. A perfect basket case.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby ramana » 11 Aug 2014 19:57

X-post...

shiv wrote:
Paul wrote:It is panning out exactly as Shiv said. In this in-depth discussion on the J-U-D, the pakistani author Arif Jamal lays it out clearly. "India needs to prepare for a Islamist caliphate in Pakistan." "EVery Paki army officer is either a nationalist Jehadi or an Islamist Jehadi". Worth watching every bit. Watch in particular the comments from 1:00:00 onwards.



Thanks for posting. The statement "Every Paki army officer is either a nationalist Jehadi or an Islamist Jehadi" is exactly in line with that Indian article that classifies the Paki army into Army One and ArmyTwo. Army One are the nationalist jihadis and Army Two are the Islamist jihadis.

Although no western country admitted it (therefore no Indian elite/WKK adimtted it) - Pakistan's assaults on India have ALWAYS been Islamist jihad right from 1947. For those who will believe a gori aurat, Ms Fair also says that.

So when it comes to the question of "What should India do?" the counter question is "What's new that India should do something different?" The real difference between jihad against India and jihad against a whole lot of others in addition to India should be obvious to all the parties involved.

I think the US and China are still arming Pakistan. I believe India should do everything to help direct jihad against both these kafir nations so they understand the meaning of jihad.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby ramana » 11 Aug 2014 20:00

Three related X-Posts on Pakistan's self idea of new Medina....


Agnimitra wrote:
KLNMurthy wrote:Can someone explain the Medina metaphor?

The old Arabian city of Yathrib, to which the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) migrated from Makkah, was later just referred to as "Madinah" - "The City". It was the first political capital of Islam, even before they captured the holy citadel of Makkah. In the Golden Age imagery of those times, and in the End Of Times imagery of Islam (which at that time was supposed to be round the corner, but has been slightly postponed for 1400 years now), Medina was the Ideal City on Earth, where Justice was perfect under God. Just after the Prophet's departure from this planet, at the height of that Golden Age, the Caliph Omar Farooq could be spotted walking down the main street of Medina intimidatingly, with a whip in hand.

There is a sort of Platonic socio-political ideal embedded in Islam, and that is the concept of the perfect City and its hinterland, viz., Madinah.

The attempted creation of an ideal Caliphate State like Madinah is also a harbinger of the Mahdi.

Thus, Pakistan was tooted as that Madinah, its brand new Capital City fleeing the heat, dust and crowds of short dark subhumans, trying hard to approach Khorasan if not the hallowed plateau of Arafat. Closer to the real Khorasan, Islamic Iran also tries to parade itself as such a Medinah ready and waiting to welcome the Mahdi, and Allah even takes note of minor points of duplicating Sunnah, such rows of life-size plastic datepalms adorning the medians of boulevards in Tehran as the snow melts in spring, in a sort of strange version of a Christmassy atmosphere as Nowruz approaches...



---
KLNMurthy wrote:
.........

Thank you for the explanation. This is the Islamic version of Camelot. I suppose that the Indic version would be Ayodhya of Rama's time or Ujjaini of Vikramaditya's time.

Except that I suspect the Islamic version can never approach being a reality because in real life it is based on nomadic banditry and not a settled civilization. That could explain the divide between RAPE aspirations and their reality.

Wonder what the reality of fabled, pre-hulaku Baghdad was, did it approach the idyll or was it mostly a myth?


----
Agnimitra wrote:
KLNMurthy wrote:Except that I suspect the Islamic version can never approach being a reality because in real life it is based on nomadic banditry and not a settled civilization. That could explain the divide between RAPE aspirations and their reality.

Wonder what the reality of fabled, pre-hulaku Baghdad was, did it approach the idyll or was it mostly a myth?


Well Abbasid Baghdad or Ottoman Turkey or Sultanate/Mughal Delhi/Lahore etc were all built on other civilizations. So in a Qabila sort of way, there was a setup that created certain limited opportunities, within certain parameters, and with the addition of being connected to a trans-national Islamic world and its mercantile networks.

The fact that certain communities from Dark Ages Europe found it attractive to migrate to Ottoman Turkey means there was something there. Same with all the migrations into North India.

Islamic Qabila tried to absorb civilized memes from all these other civilizations, but invariably did so in a reductionist way. So (after large scale destruction of previous knowledge resources) they were able to re-duplicate some of the artifacts of those civilizations, but could rarely ever reproduce the culture of knowledge production and investigation. The reins of the Shari'a wielding Ulema always made sure that never happened. This has recurred in modern day Pakistan, where the miscegenated Ashraf's strategic commingling with their British fourfathers failed to inseminate Lahori madrassahs with Oxford culture, and the Salman Taseers find themselves turned to fertilizer and the Pervez Hoodbhoys find themselves a cry in the wilderness...

But, mind you, the Xerox Khans will thrive...


ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby ramana » 21 Aug 2014 20:21

X-Post...
Raja Ram wrote:Time for a ramble once again gentle readers!

The recent calling off of Foreign Secretary level talks with Pakistan is not a trigger response to what the Pakistani Ambassador did in Delhi. It was a culmination of a clear message given to Nawaz when he was invited for Modi's Swearing In ceremony. That message was simple.

(i) Cease and desist all terror activities and networks against India. All incidents, that occur, whether by State or Non-state actors will be held against the Pakistan government

(ii) There has to be a clear movement and accountability in the Mumbai Carnage trial and the masterminds must be punished, handed over to India or eliminated. Similarly there is a list of persons wanted by India in the earlier Mumbai blasts. There should be movement along the same lines.

(iii) If Nawaz is not able to deliver the above, there will be no talks of any kind. The actions will be evaluated not their statements. If the terror war continues, then the India will exercise a slew of options in retaliation and no sovereignty considerations will be considered.

(iv) If he is able to deliver the above, then in a calibrated manner Pakistan will be ensured of a peace dividend and allowed to partake on a South Asian economic growth story that will be anchored by India

(v) India will continue to be present in Afghanistan and will not allow Pakistani proxies to gain power there.

Parallely, there has been a comprehensive review of options and analysis of the situation in Pakistan. The GoI will have to plan for different outcomes as the painfully slow Pakistani descent to civil war and anarchy unravels. The backers of Pakistan, would like to ensure that the entity that has served them well continues to exist. Hence the bank rolled operations and putsch that is orchestrated across the world to engineer regime change has an active Pakistani Chapter.

It is to be noted that there is an India Chapter too and we saw that morph into the usual motley crowd called AAP and others. That failed here because of the counter actions taken. The establishment in India is now aware that Pakistani entity is now caught up in a cross current of powers that want to sustain it, after neutering it, and Jihadi networks that want it to be a base of pure Islam. The ruling elite of Pakistan is now getting increasingly confused and consequently increasingly nervous as events take their own velocity and direction.

This was something that people who matter in the Indian Government were aware. However, a decade was lost to drift and marching to some distant drum beats. That has now stopped. There is now a realization that India cannot be a mere bystander, nor is it in our interest to participate in either saving Pakistani establishment or plotting to destroy it. What is in our interest is to how to handle the fall out and ensure that we are not faced with a drag on our resources when the entity collapses.

There is a section amongst Pakistani elite, that realizes that what will happen to Pakistani finally depends on what India will do or not do. They know that the usual backers of Pakistani survival will find the cost of doing that increasingly prohibitive and the returns that they gain by doing so is increasingly diminishing. Indeed, over the last few years, for all the backers the strategic benefit of Pakistan has reduced substantially and the only major benefit that Pakistan provides is that it can be a break on Indian ambitions and growth.

The recent watershed elections means that India is on the move and once it consolidates and cleanses the system (which is seriously compromised today) then that ability of Pakistan will also be diminished. That would be the time when the 3 powers that back Pakistan - the US, China and Saudi Arabia - will see the reality and accept the same. That this artificial entity has no longer any value. When that happens, they will of course do their best to work with the resultant entities and rump state to try and forge a new set of allies and balance India.

That is why it is imperative for Indian planners to keep a watch on the slow implosion and make sure that the resulting scenario does not work against Indian interests. Towards that, the Indian Government must take steps now to ensure that there is a connect to the very survival of the resulting entities post Pakistan on having a stable and security relationship with India.

The rise of India is thus something that will work for the future benefit of the present residents of the artificial entity. For these populations to realize that they have to go through a cleansing process of going through and experiencing a pure Islamic regime. It is only then that they will realize the futility of adopting a world view based on an intrinsically foreign ideology that masquerades as a religion. When that mental barrier is broken the residents of this artificial entity will have to find first an ideological home that is rooted in their DNA. They will see that in India that is resurgent, confident and realize how far they have travelled away from it.

This may take a decade or so. The state of Pakistan will probably go before that is my estimate.

Just the usual ramble, take it for what it is worth!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby ramana » 02 Dec 2014 04:31

X-Post....
viewtopic.php?p=1758545#p1758545

Raja Ram wrote:Decoding Signals from the Noise - The Need to think a bit differently!

Gentle readers of the forum. I do believe that the famed "ahead of the curve" BRF is slowing down. Hence thought it is time for another ramble from yours truly can gently point out to certain facts and trends amidst the noise. A better signal to noise ratio, should ensure that our collective thinking is more focussed.

So in that spirit, it would be pertinent to point out a few interesting trends of the last few months since a new GoI dispensation took over

1. A far more integrated approach to National Security across all its dimensions i.e. Geo-political, Economic, Military, Socio-Cultural and Science & technology has been adopted. Evidence of the same is there to see if only we pick up the signals. The Inner Mandala (immediate neighborhood) being engaged, Act East, Engagement with Paki sponsor states in a new manner, revving up economic engine, Make in India, Cleansing of institutions, drawing up a plan for rapid military industrial complex building, intel up gradation, border areas being focused for development etc

2. A clear demonstration of National interest being reinforced be it with WTO negotiations or taking an offensive defence action against pakistani entity in the latest standoff, or standing our ground against Chinese bala pariksha during their President's visit

3. The clear acceptance that things have change in India by the western power elite, in terms of the long queues to get Modi to their country, from the USG's attempt to mend fences, to Australian and British efforts to reset their relationship with Modi. Not to mention, the almost daily wailing across Pakistani channels about how India is way ahead and how they are getting to be irrelevant.

4. The willingness on the part of GoI to engage the diaspora and integrate the vast presence and influence that they represent into articulation of Indian power projection. The positive response that this has evoked and very visible changes in processes and government attitude to them shows another intent. That India is ready to take on the responsibility towards them and work towards being a global player.

5. The very clear signals that the PM has made to the rest of South Asian region - offering them a choice and chance. They have all been clearly told to make a stand in terms of building a region that is open, sensitive to each others interests and becoming more integrated. That is the choice that they have been asked to make. In terms of chance, by electing to be aligned with the overarching Indian vision of an integrated region, the neighbors will be allowed to partake in the economic resurgence and growth of India. They will be able to get Indian capital, expertise, access Indian infrastructure.

These five mega trends are pretty obvious. What does it therefore portend to the artificial entity called Pakistan and its international benefactors?

1. First and foremost, India will act without recourse to any other consideration to any other power, to protect its national interest. Any Pakistani misadventure will be dealt with a composite response that will inflict disproportionate pain. It has already been demonstrated. Their backers in terms of the US and its allies, the Saudis and the Chinese are now very aware that India will not be acting in a purely defensive defense manner any more.

2. The survival of the artificial entity called Pakistan will be left to themselves. India will not do anything in terms of throwing a life line to this entity or a set of the power elite that controls that entity to ensure its survival. Indeed, should the entity or the power elite there continue to act against Indian security or export terror, India will retaliate and ensure everything possible is done to hasten the implosion.

3. Indian position with regard to Pakistan will not be based on any notions of what it will mean to Indian Muslims or potential fault lines that it might breach internally in India. There is a clear departure of sub-conscious linking of Indian Muslims to the problem that the artificial entity called Pakistan poses to us. No longer will the GOI be shackled by those imaginary chains.

The above messages are being increasingly understood by the Pakistanis as well as their benefactors, as they are not mere posturing but what they see as action on the ground by India. It is another matter that the biggest benefactor of the artificial entity called Pakistan, the USA, the sole super power is finding it increasingly difficult to maintain or control events in the rentier state. It is a reflection of the slow erosion in their capacity to use their still unsurpassed power and capabilities at the altar of geo-political constraints. What is not noticed or given any recognition and acknowledgement is the new found clarity of purpose and unity in action on the part of GOI. Even less understood is the full geo-strategic impact of the General Elections and what it has meant in terms of expression of National Will by the people of India. This has been a true "Black Swan" moment that should be understood.

If these basic signals or understood, we can understand that the coming decade will be one that will change the region in many ways as yet unimagined.

So gentle rakshaks, I do hope that this little ramble will set us all thinking a bit differently and act a bit differently. For after all, as I keep saying, the toughest shackles to break are the ones in our minds.

Just a ramble as usual take it for what it is worth!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby ramana » 02 Dec 2014 04:37

A short answer to why Pakistan is its a result of modern jihad.

Early on raiders came and invaded India.
They established kingdoms.
All this is military jihad.

In modern times, jihad takes many forms : political (Muslim League), cultural (Bollywood male actors and non-Muslim heroines), love (all those marrying non-Muslims) so on and so forth.
The objective never changes. Take from the unbelievers.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby ramana » 29 Jan 2015 22:58

X-Post from STFUP thread....
LokeshC wrote:
pankajs wrote:{quote="pankajs"}@LokeshC on you last post ... Something that occurred to me this morning while watching a bak talk show but I promptly forgot.

Bakmil Sharif has been on a worldwide tour the latest being China. He visited US but also Bartania. Why Bartania before Barbaria?
IMVVHO, The two biggest source of *moral* support for Bakis outside of the usual suspects has been Bartania and India and we have done more than Bartania or the rest to elevate the Baki status in the world. We are guilty of treating them as equal by our actions if not by words even while strongly protesting the western equal-equal.

It hit me when I realized that following Modi's disengagement with Bakistan and his firm position on the matter, the uncalled for *advice* from around the world has suddenly gone down instead of going up!! given all the talk of nuclear overhang and all the rest. And this is beyond a bullet or two even three for every bullet at the border. And I will bet that even within the BJP most will not understand this beyond the bullet for bullet.{/quote}


Brishits are the ones that are the REAL fourfathers of Bakistan. They created Bakistan. Saudis are secondary and USA is a sugar-mama.

The very Baki thing about Brishitstan is that Brishitland has always been a murderer of Indians, directly (Victorian, Ch*thchil famines), or indirectly Bakistan, Cashmere etc. I am willing to wager a bet that it will always remain a murderer of Indians, until we develop overwhelming capacity to show them their rightful place in the world (of being a god forsaken gloomy binge-drinking-seasonal-affective-disorder infected $hithole).

I believe that Baki RAPEs are closer to the Brishits and the Amrikis. Only the more greener ones in the Baki Army are closer at home in Barbaria than in the west. The day we see a transformation of Baki RAPEs being closer to Barbaria than the west it would have completed a greening process (with a lot of bloodletting from within the armed forces).

That said, I do agree with you. We should ignore them and always respond to any provocation either in a "matter-of-factly" or covertly and always in highly disproportionate manner, hitting them where it hurts the most.


Another uncle is the Congress party. I think a hidden bargain to enable INC to rule India was that Pakistan is kept alive no matter for Anglo Saxon compulsions in West Asia.

Israel getting stronger and reaching out to India makes this compulsion weaker.

Now with Congress Mukth Bharat at the center and most of the states this uncle will go away.
Secondly Britianistan is forced to add human trafficking to show its GDP is still growing. IOW its losing its capability to support murdering leeches. One more Swiss Franc type big bang will collapse the money laundering outpost in Londonistan. That brings us to Oil funds from the West Asia which are parked in London.

The recent drop in oil prices is taking the steam out of excess funds that West Asia can park in London and the regime change in KSA due to Abdullah going to jahannum and getting the rest of his 72 raisins(hopefully Shirleen clones) is a factor in reducing the second of the four father.

Obama's visit to Delhi and attending the R-Day shows that Us has to make up with India for its own geo-political compulsions. This will have its own dynamic in diminishing the role o the sugar-mama.

Its Cheen, the fourth father that needs to be negated and I think NaMo's Beijing visit in February will do that.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby ramana » 29 Jan 2015 23:09

From Suraj....

Suraj wrote:Core Sector

While looking for steel production stats, I was surprised worldsteel data has no reference to Pakistan output. Digging further, it appears they simply do not have any significant native steel production capability, with an annual production ranging between 1.1-1.5 million tonnes, which is approximately 3-4 days worth of steel production in the US or India (both of which produce ~85 million tonnes/annum). Additional steel - approx 3MT - is imported, or recycled from their shipbreaking industry. Even the Gulf states like UAE and Qatar produce 2-3 million tonnes a year. KSA and Egypt produce ~6MT .

Electricity production installed capacity is 23GW. Operating efficiency does not seem to exceed 50-60% at most, because quoted peak demand is 12.5GW, and generation is quoted at 9GW out of 23GW installed capacity, translating to a current operating efficiency of 39% . Comparative data for India is 260GW, which is still below what we need, despite output growing fast and being the 3rd largest electricity producer behind China and the USA. Annual installed capacity addition in India exceeds the current total installed capacity in Pakistan.

Coal production seems to be stagnant - data suggests it's stuck between 3-4 million tonnes a year, for the past 20 years. In some years, production spikes to 5MT, but falls back to 2.5MT too. The extreme variability suggests poor production management, and stable but stagnant consumption, without any significant investment in growth. The insignificance of this output is gauged from comparative data - India produces 650 million tonnes and in addition, imports a lot. Even Indonesia, a comparable sized country, produces 490MT.

In summary, this is essentially a pre-industrial economy. There's practically no coal or steel production of note. Steel output is comparable to Peru, Hungary or Colombia. The entire national power generation by Pakistan would not be sufficient to feed the demand of New Delhi and Mumbai simultaneously. Annual coal production is about a days production in India. This looks like an economy primarily fed by agriculture and services, because there's not sufficient core sector output to feed a viable industrial production base.


Only highlighted items of note.....

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby ramana » 29 Jan 2015 23:42

lament from a Paki. Kind of comes to similar conclusions about being abandoned by four fathers......

Posted by Jhujar...

It Takes little to Push Punny Paki From The Puull Edge: Pain in PaKi JugularVein
Rain on New Delhi’s parade
( This Pakanimal is soon to be Arrested Cardiacully)

Emperor Obama was in the neighborhood doing what the empire thrives upon: pitting neighbor against neighbor to grind its blood-soaked axe of global hegemony. For Pakistan and China, two clear targets for the upgraded US-India cooperation, it’s a good sign that it rained on New Delhi’s parade. As the cherry on the top, the brutal Saudi king died and the emperor rushed off to Riyadh. After all, the empire he leads has many neighborhoods to control, many wars to perpetuate and manage.The gradual fall of India into the US embrace has been happening for years, from even before the Soviet Union broke up. The process had been impeded somewhat by India’s non-aligned and socialist past, but it has continued under different governments. Under Modi, the process is as good as complete. India is all set to be the empire’s chamcha number one in the region. On the face of it, that’s not such a good thing. But maybe it is.For one, the lines are more clearly drawn after the Obama-Modi bear-hug. Modi’s India is clearly ready to follow the dictates of the US-led empire’s war agendas and of its hyper-capitalist economic model. This is likely to push other countries in the region closer together, and hasten the consolidation of the new pole of global power around China and Russia. India is a natural member of this emergent bloc that promises some respite from the ever-hungry jaws of the empire. But the tea-boy of corporate imperialism had to do what he’d been propped up to do; turn a potential regional power into a client state.India will now push wars; against neighbors as per imperial strategic design, and against its own people through deeper integration into the exploitative hyper-capitalist economic framework of the empire. It’s already mouthing the US Pivot-to-Asia rhetoric on South China Sea directed at China, high on the gas of being inducted into the US axis with Japan and Australia. These are powerful pillars of the entrenched world order and Modi’s India is happy to be mentioned in the same breath, regardless of the real worth of its place on the table.
Regardless of the corporate media spins on the deepening relationship and all the boons it promises to bring India in terms of world status and dollars, it is weighed far more heavily on the empire’s side. The mini-me hegemon will echo the imperial narrative like a parrot, mimic its belligerent doublespeak and fight as a foot-soldier in imperial wars. It will sacrifice its poor hundreds of millions at the altar of the IMF’s neo-liberal wizardry and corporate profit. Hopefully, this kiss of death will not last long.
Each day, the hypocrisy of the empire and the mirage of its one-sided partnerships are being exposed for what they are. If our leadership needed any further proof of the imperial war being waged against Pakistan, the recent Modi-Obama joint statement and posturing should serve the purpose. Our war against terrorism obviously does not fit into the US war on terrorism of which we are the target.
The factories of terrorism in Afghanistan are not an oversight but an important and integral part of the occupation and imperial game plan in the region. Like in so many neighborhoods around the world, from the Middle East to North Africa, from West Africa to South America, from Ukraine to Central Asia, the US-led empire is bent upon using terrorism as a tool to destabilize Pakistan
. Modi’s India is happy to be a part of the nasty project and hopes to reap better rewards for being an ally than we did. Good luck, neighbor.
So, if any doubt still persisted about the need for Pakistan to align itself decisively with the China-Russia nexus, they should evaporate completely now. No more talk about improving relations with the US and cooperating with it on fighting terrorism. Any assurances by the occupation forces to clamp down on the terrorist factories in Afghanistan are an eye-wash, designed to distract us. This war can’t be fought with the US. How can it be fought with it when the war is against it?The UK will not help us by cracking down on Hizbut Tahrir and other terrorists it is nurturing, and neither will its assorted European cousins whose bleeding hearts can’t stop bleeding for convicted terrorists to be hanged. The House of Saud is not about to turn a new leaf and close down the assembly line manufacturing violent barbarians and propagating sectarian hatred. India is not about to stop unprovoked firing on the Line of Control.The Pakistan military is coming out of the spell of US cooperation. As Obama hugged Modi, he was in Beijing cementing defence and strategic ties with China. Headway is being made with Russia on these counts as well. It is these countries we need to cooperate with to fight the empire’s violent designs for the region. It is with them that intelligence sharing makes sense. . But then, even the well-entrenched democratic governance in the world’s largest democracy next door hasn’t produced any better results on that count. We surely need to reinvent democracy. The world is changing fast and to ensure that we end up on the right side of this change, so should we.

rgsrini
BRFite
Posts: 738
Joined: 17 Sep 2005 18:00

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby rgsrini » 30 Jan 2015 00:35

^^ If you still don't understand how Pakistanis feel about India-US bhai bhai Republic Day summit, take a minute and watch this.
Pakistan is seriously hurting!!!

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby ramana » 05 Feb 2015 23:39

Anujan wrote:
shiv wrote:I mean that Soorpanakhi brown haired strategic expert sits there and passes judgement on nukes and she calls "ICBM" as Intermediate Continental Ballistic Missile and CEP with a similar cooked up expansion. She does not know.

So I wonder, why are Pakis doing this? Are they really that stupid or is there some compelling reason to pretend?


There are deeper pisko reasons. There are also superficial reasons. People make hay while the sun shines. In any security-seeking state, there are a lot of "strategic analysts" funded by the country, various arms companies, various consortium of vested interests and so on. These people gather around, circle jerk and talk nonsense with serious faces. None of them have ever seen a division move or know which side of a gun the bullet comes out of. Massa is a good example. This is from a briefing during war in Afghanistan:

Image

Someone was actually paid to do this. Probably a "respected" strategic analyst expert who pretends to understand what fuels insurgency in Afghanistan. The reason is simple: Massa's army was standing in street corners handing out bundles of money to people who could understand and recommend how insurgency in Afghanistan can be solved. Suddenly a thousand expert bloomed. Sports commentary is like that too. There is plenty of money to be made in sports. There was a match I was watching and the commentary (not kidding) was "If Side A can attack well and then defend well when side B is attacking, side A has real chance of winning. If they fail at both, side B will win". Okay sherlock! who'd have thought of that?!!

Point is, when there is money to be made, a thousand self declared experts bloom.

Pakistan is like that. There are various "think tanks". Set up by ISI media wing, fauji foundation which wants their monopoly to make cornflakes and so on. These people employ people who know nothing about weapons or war but can speak decent english. And they come out and say ridiculous things, many of them scientific nonsense. Anyone remember the non-proliferation ayatollahs who had big takleef with Cryogenic engines because supposedly they can be used for ICBMs? Or the set of people who for decade or more said "India might have more bombs, but Al-Bakistan has integrated them better with missiles" -- without any basis in fact? Finally it took AIII and Mirvs to shut people up. And this was years after India had demonstrated capability by multiple lauches of satellites atop the same PSLV rocket and put several IRS into space.

There is plenty of money to be made in Al-Bakistan in defence related issues. So you have many many strategic analysts and experts. And they all use similar words. Like "Pakistan itself victim of terrorism due to strategic stability in South Asia because of China-Pakistan taller than mountain friendship and Pakistan has lost $100 billion due to war on terror".

It is nothing but money making business for them.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby ramana » 05 Feb 2015 23:40

RCase wrote:
shiv wrote:These "denial" videos from Pakistan are good news because they mean that the (abomi)nation has not woken up. But I wonder - how can such a huge bunch of serious looking sooted booted peepals sit around and talk so much crap and pretend so much. I mean that Soorpanakhi brown haired strategic expert sits there and passes judgement on nukes and she calls "ICBM" as Intermediate Continental Ballistic Missile and CEP with a similar cooked up expansion. She does not know.

So I wonder, why are Pakis doing this? Are they really that stupid or is there some compelling reason to pretend?

Is there a possibility that the 190 million illiterate "masses" of Pakistan will lynch these people if they start telling the truth about Pakistan? Is this simply a way of postponing the revelation of facts? Or are they simply trying to make themselves feel better by lying to themselves? One possibility is that the TV stations are fully under army control - i.e they will not chirp one word that says Pakistan is weak in any sense compared with India - because the army will be the first entity that will have to answer questions if the beepuls of Bakistan start hearing that they are not as powerful as they claim. What gives?


Some observations from watching Paki TV:
- Most of the talk/news shows seem be the same cozy set of people (RAPEs) in different permutations
- Every Baki RAPE from childhood gets to learn the words - 'geo-strategic', 'strategy/ strategic', 'strategic assets', 'core issue', 'plebiscite' etc. apart from standard vocabulary for all abduls/ ayeshas - 'jihad', 'Kashmir', 'sazish' etc.
- Quite a few anchors are medical doctors dabbling in geo-strategic political issues. E.g. Moeed Pirzada, Shahid Masood, Danish etc. If these hakims were good, they would have been pursuing their primary career of medicine or at the least become anchors of medical TV shows.
- Most of the TV anchors have degrees in floozy subjects like Military History, Defense and Strategic Studies, Art History, International Security Studies, Pol Science
- Quite a few seem to have 'managed' to get an education from US and UK universities on a scholarship!
- Yet others thrive ('Dr.' Liaqat Ali) with a bogus degree from unknown/ dubious reputation universities.
- Toadies like Najam Sethi have the pedigree of a good education, but will knowingly twist the facts and peddle their lies.
- Based on the views expressed and the depth of knowledge, I am inclined to think the calibre of education in Bakistan is suspect, save a few exceptions like Hoodbhoy, who truly got 'brainwashed' from his undergrad degree days at MIT. Add to this, Lokesh's hypothesis of BBBS holds true.
- Not to forget the comedy king, defense anal-ist Jahil HamIED, with true jihad against a superpower experience, talking of conspiracy theories, theology, art of war etc.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby ramana » 05 Feb 2015 23:41

SSridhar wrote:
shiv wrote:Is there a possibility that the 190 million illiterate "masses" of Pakistan will lynch these people if they start telling the truth about Pakistan? Is this simply a way of postponing the revelation of facts? Or are they simply trying to make themselves feel better by lying to themselves? One possibility is that the TV stations are fully under army control - i.e they will not chirp one word that says Pakistan is weak in any sense compared with India - because the army will be the first entity that will have to answer questions if the beepuls of Bakistan start hearing that they are not as powerful as they claim. What gives?

Making sense of Pakistan is not difficult. IMHO, it is all of the above plus the following. BTW, I am not stating anything that you or other forummers do not know. I am simply re-stating facts.

It all boils down to the decision to secede from India on the basis of religion. Their notions of nationhood, sovereignty, identity (at least at one level though there is great confusion at another level), ideology, geography et al come from 'Islam' without which Pakistan, as a piece of real-estate, would not exist today. That was the raison d'etre for the British to carve out this piece of real-estate and call it a nation, that was what sustained the US interests etc. Jinnah & Co invested a great deal in Islamic symbolism. The Muslim League even demanded that the whole of India be handed over to them when the Crown ceased its presence in British India because they were the legal successors to the Mughals from whom the British acquired India. ZA Bhutto claimed the Kohinoor on this basis. Such fake intellectual and political arguments have been invented to sustain the myth of Islamic claims on India. Politicians like Jinnah, Liaquat Ali, Suhrawardy, ZA Bhutto et al as well as Islamists like Mohammed Iqbal, Madani and above all Mawdudi participated in this spurious dissembling.

Of course, there were other interests too such as land-holders, those motivated by a quick rise in their stature in a small Muslim country rather than a large secular India etc which too played its part but they invariably played the Islam card nevertheless. Clumping all Muslims under one group for 'communal purposes to achieve a separate nationhood' hid within itself the unbridgeable faultlines and fissures but for the time being they were given a short shrift. This facade collapsed soon after Independence, which is a different story. Soon fighting erupted between emigrees from India and the local, native population, followed by demands to declare Ahmedis as non-Muslims, then Shi'a as non-Muslims and now anyone other than a Sunni Deobandi/Wahhabi as a non-Muslim.

So, the staple diet was Islam and naturally India became the 'other', and to strengthen and perpetuate this religious basis for its own existence among its own masses, the 'other' was conveniently characterized as 'Hindu' by the Pakistani leaders. If the first part of the project was to extoll the non-existent hold of Islam over Hindu India, the second part was to disseminate the 'evils' of Hindu India to its own masses. Thus, 'tall, fair, martial-race' Pakistanis were juxtaposed to 'short, dark, rice and wheat eating' Hindu Indians, the 1:10 ration between a Pakistani Muslim soldier and his Indian Hindu counterpart (a ratio that Ms. Benazir Bhutto even raised to 1:100), derogatory references to Hindu practices and places of worship, how Pakistanis speak better English or how they have better infrastructure, how the SUPARCO engineers relocated the orbit of a satellite in GSO which India would have struggled with, how Pakistani musicians are far better than their Hindu Indian counterparts, how Pakistan was ahead of India in economy or aerospace engineering etc.

Until the 90s, the interaction among the peoples of India & Pakistan was low. With explosive inter-communication these days, Pakistan is struck with a cognitive dissonance that only top leaders of Pakistan were privy to in earlier times. The human tendency is always to eliminate the dissonance. Now, Pakistan cannot resort to drum-beating its own achievements to counter India because there is nothing in their kitty. Of course, they fire a borrowed Hatf or Ra'ad every time the dissonance reaches an unbearable level. Or, they decide to resume their Pakistan Day parade and invite Xi Jinping etc. The other way to reduce dissonance is to be contemptuous of and to diss Indian achievements. Thus, the internal harmonious balance is re-established and everything is blissful all over again until another event rocks this feigned state of Nirvana.

The gap between the normal and dissonant cognitive state is also called by Pakistanis as 'Honour & Dignity'.



shiv, I wanted to x-post your post but SS has already quoted it....

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby ramana » 24 Feb 2015 22:39

X-Post with highlights by me

SSridhar wrote:
disha wrote:{quote="Anujan"}There are two possible outcomes now:

1. China gets into a strong alliance with the Saudis and they both squeeze Pakistan's testimonials
2. Saudis squeeze Pakistan's testimonials by themselves.

It is a survival issue for the Saudis.{/quote}

Bakistan could be angling for the third option., get into a taller and deeper alliance with China and squeeze Saudi's testimonials. China will play both sides of the game and will not part with its nuke option easily.

Bakis will try to get their plutonium designs going., their uranium based nukes are useless.

Interesting discussion.

Clearly, Pakistanis see an opportunity with the Saudis. The Saudis are now on the backfoot. Oil prices have fallen steeply. Their support for terrorism against Bashar has not only not gone well but even backfired. There is a chill in their US relationship, with the US and Iran moving towards sorting out the nuclear issue. There is a temporary setback in relationship with the Pakistanis whose forces protect the Yamama and whose promise of transfer of nuclear weapons that the Saudis rely upon. Saudi Arabia would also not have any say in the emerging scenario in Afghanistan, like how it used to play the jihadi role before 1989 and the political role after that. Even the Taliban have opened their office only in Qatar, the sworn enemies of the Saudis. There is an inimical Shia Houthis seizing power in Yemen, a country with which it has a boundary dispute. No one knows for sure if the succession after Salman would be a smooth affair as it is expected that Salman himself would not be around for long. KSA is in a bad shape.

Pakistan might sense that jumping the bandwagon once again might be the best way to protect its core interest, which remains destruction of India. Their calculation would be that the Saudi linkage, which has been immensely beneficial since the 1970s up until a few years back, is giving negative returns now and there is no likelihood of it turning positive. The sense I get from recent utterances in Pakistan is that it is trying to link the 'bad Taliban' with the Saudi influences. The Establishment is trying to ensure that its India-centric goal is not distracted by anything else just as the Afghan situation is turning in its favour. There is now a Pakistan-pasand Ashraf Ghani in power in Kabul, China is assuming a mediatory role there (not KSA), the US-Pakistan relationship is on the mend, Pakistan's relationship with Russia is improving by leaps and bounds etc. The inconvenient elements among the 'bad Taliban' have either moved to IS or are being targetted by the Pakistani Army which now expects the ANA to also help it now that Ashraf Ghani is in power. The recent characterization by the Establishment of IS as 'dangerous' after having claimed nil presence in Pakistan, clearly shows how Pakistan is redrawing the lines.

These actions, Pakistan will hope, will earn for it a good name for having taken tough action against the terrorists, while still preserving those tanzeems that are subservient to it and are focussed on India. The aim is therefore four fold, change the image of Pakistan, consolidate its influence in Afghanistan, remove elements attacking the Army and the State while preserving those who support it and reduce Indian influence in Afghanistan. If relationship with Saudi Arabia needs to be toned down, then so be it.

But, I still believe that the Pakistan-Saudi relationship would still sustain with hiccups as Saudi impotency increases (in spite the Houbara). Both the countries may still see value in each other's company though it may be limited in the near term.



I think Salman's long term prospects are a key. He seems to be supporting jihadists everywhere.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby ramana » 26 Feb 2015 20:36

http://www.kforcegov.com/Services/IS/Ni ... 00041.aspx

Pakistan: Former President Musharraf spoke to the American press about Pakistani policy during his tenure. He admitted that Pakistan supported the Afghan Taliban as a counterweight to India. He said India and Pakistan waged a proxy war in Afghanistan, with Pakistan supporting the Taliban and India supporting the established government.


He used this disclosure as the departure point for asserting that the Afghan government must share power with the Afghan Taliban and that India and Pakistan must keep hands off.


A spokesman for India's Ministry of External Affairs said: "We don't need to respond to voices from the wilderness. Such voices just try to occupy news space." :mrgreen:



Comment: The facts in Musharraf's revelations are well known. However, no Pakistani president has ever confirmed state policy in this fashion. Facing charges of treason and murder, Musharraf continues to offer advice to people whom he tried to undermine or neutralize when he was president of Pakistan.



Afghanistan-Taliban: Pakistani media sources reported that agents of the Afghanistan government and the Afghan Taliban have been talking. The Afghan Taliban's office in Doha has been revived and the Taliban are now holding initial talks with the Afghan government, with Pakistan acting as facilitator.



A top Pakistani official with access confirmed the resumption of initial contacts between the two parties for the purpose of crafting the rules and the agenda of formal talks. Talks are expected to begin in March 2015.



Another official said Chief of Army Staff (COAS) General Raheel Sharif had given the green signal for facilitating the resumption of dialogue when he met Afghan President Ashraf Ghani in Kabul earlier this week.



The official also confirmed that the Afghan Taliban have held two rounds of talks with senior officials in Beijing. Chinese officials supposedly briefed the Pakistanis about the talks.



Comment: The number of reports of talks from diverse sources supports the judgment that talks have some preliminary momentum. The mention of Beijing as a venue is new information.



A NightWatch hypothesis is that one of the factors prompting the Taliban to engage in talks is the emergence of Afghan Islamists who have pledged allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). In this scenario, the Taliban leaders - Mullah Omar and his acolytes -- are afraid of losing control of the anti-government movement.


Explains why Mushy demands the good Taliban to be part of Afghan govt setup.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby ramana » 14 Mar 2015 04:25

X-Post...
Swapan Dasgupta in Telegraph:

Borderline Questions



Borderline questions
- It is often convenient to misread history to avoid harsh truths
Swapan Dasgupta


The public commemoration of anniversaries is drearily routine and, at best, a marketing opportunity for the publishing, postage stamp and collectibles industries. Yet, which birthdays, death anniversaries and momentous events a country chooses to remember often tells us more about contemporary realities than the past. Likewise, any landmark anniversary a society chooses to overlook is a commentary on collective awkwardness with a facet of the past.

March 23 marks the platinum jubilee of the Muslim League's Pakistan resolution. On that day in Lahore, with Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah as the presiding deity, the Bengal peasant leader, Fazlul Huq, moved the momentous resolution that proclaimed that no future political settlement "would be workable... or acceptable to the Muslims" unless "geographically contiguous units... in which the Muslims are numerically in a majority as in the North-western and North-eastern zones of India should be grouped to constitute 'Independent States' in which the constituent units shall be autonomous and sovereign." The resolution triggered political developments that culminated in the Partition of India and the creation of Pakistan on August 14, 1947.

It is understandable that today's India will be disinclined to remember that day in Lahore. Although time can be potentially a great healer, the wounds inflicted by Jinnah's successful advocacy of the two-nation principles still rankle in the collective psyche of India. The creation of Pakistan was a body blow to the idea of Indian nationalism and constituted a major defeat amid the triumph of Independence. Neither the vivisection of Pakistan in 1971 nor the existential agonies our troublesome neighbour is at present experiencing has quite served to sweeten the bitter pill the country had to swallow as a result of the Lahore resolution.

However, it is not an acknowledgment of defeat - and barring B.R. Ambedkar, the nationalist pantheon was unanimous in seeing it as a colossal tragedy - that makes it embarrassing to address the hiccups of history. The sequence of events from March 1940 to August 1947 raises very awkward issues that seem best to run away from.

After the creation of Bangladesh - an event that punctured the belief that Islam constitutes a sufficient basis of nationhood - there has been an increasing tendency to view Pakistan as an unintended consequence of the Lahore resolution. Jinnah, it has been contended, and not entirely without basis, was basically using the threat of Pakistan to press for a federal India where the powers of the Centre would be limited. By this argument, it was the determination of the Congress leadership - and particularly Jawaharlal Nehru - to ensure a strong Centre that thwarted Jinnah's attempt to achieve Hindu-Muslim parity. The Cabinet Mission Plan was a missed opportunity.

Jinnah, it was also claimed, was using the Muslim community as the pressure point for his constitutionalist thrust and, consequently, never had too much time for abstruse debates on the proposed Pakistan's Islamic identity. For Jinnah, Pakistan meant a modern nation with a Muslim majority.

Extending this argument to politics on the ground, it has been suggested that the idea of Pakistan was always kept utterly vague and confusing, so much so that Muslims in the 'minority provinces'- the Muslim League's core support - were completely unaware of what separation actually involved. Likewise, it has been suggested that the Muslim ulema was resolutely opposed to Pakistan and, had the franchise been extended to the poor Muslims, the social limitations of the Muslim League as a party of the landed gentry and the educated middle class would have been thoroughly exposed. According to this version of history, Partition was a knee-jerk response to Lord Mountbatten's hasty withdrawal timetable and the communal riots resulting from Muslim League's Direct Action Day in August 1946.

In a just-published book, Creating A New Medina: State Power, Islam and the Quest for Pakistan in Late Colonial North India, that may well be at the centre of a new bout of revisionism, a young historian, Venkat Dhulipala, has challenged the new orthodoxy. Basing his research on the speeches, writings and poetry of those who were actually involved in the hard slog of mobilizing Muslims, particularly in the United Provinces and Bihar, he has, in effect, resurrected a memory of the Pakistan movement that was shared by the participants (and opponents) but which has somehow not found place in recent history writing.

First, Dhulipala has questioned the claim that Pakistan was insufficiently imagined. On the contrary, using evidence from the 'minority provinces' that were Muslim League strongholds, he has documented a vibrant engagement between the protagonists and opponents of Pakistan over the implications of separate statehood. This was a debate that touched not merely the clergy but also involved the participation of the Muslim professional classes. Almost every aspect of Pakistan ranging from Hindu-Muslim differences, the viability of the new country vis à vis India, the likelihood of an Islamic state and the boundaries of Pakistan were hotly discussed at different levels from March 1940 till the moment of Partition. Therefore, far from the idea of Pakistan being shrouded in deliberate vagueness, Dhulipala suggests it was "imagined... plentifully and with ambition".

Second, contrary to the claims of a repentant and orphaned Muslim League regional leadership in the 'minority provinces' that it was unaware of the serious implications of separation, Dhulipala documents the openness with which the plight of Muslims in UP, Bihar and the Central Provinces was discussed. The anti-Pakistan Muslim politicians attached to both the Congress and the Jamiat-Ulema-e-Hind were quite explicit that there was nothing in Pakistan for the Muslims in the Hindu-majority provinces. Curiously, the Muslim League leadership did not disagree. Instead it posited the strong support for Pakistan among the Muslims in the Hindu heartland as evidence of "sacrifice" for a lofty cause: the creation of a new Medina that would become the focus of an international Islamic brotherhood. The Muslims there were assured that no harm would come their way after separation because the Hindu minority in Pakistan would be "hostage" to their security and well- being. In short, the Muslims in the 'minority provinces' waved the flag of Pakistan knowingly and with their eyes wide open. Their post-Independence repudiation of the Muslim League was born of sheer expediency.

Third, contrary to the impression of the Muslim clergy opposing Pakistan, Dhulipala reveals a vertical split with only the Syed Hussain Ahmad Madani-controlled JUH endorsing the Congress, and the rest - including a large chunk of Deoband-trained maulvis - joining the Muslim League campaign for separation. The schism was essentially over two issues: composite nationalism versus Muslim nationalism, and the likelihood of an Islamic State in Pakistan. Indeed, both the pro-Congress and pro-Muslim League clergy were united in their endorsement of an Islamic State as the ideal for all Muslims. Contrary to what Jinnah said in his speech of August 11, 1947 to Pakistan's constituent assembly, the mood of the Muslim League's foot soldiers was unambiguously for a state that would replicate the early Islamic experience.

Finally, it would seem that Pakistan struck a deep emotional chord among most of the Muslims in united India - a reason why established regional parties and regional leaders proved powerless to combat it. Jinnah may have kept the doors of a federation of self-governing states open till the last minute. However, the passions the Lahore resolution aroused meant that any last-minute compromise would not have endured. By 1946, Muslim India was unwaveringly committed to a separate Pakistan. The alternative was civil war.

Dhulipala has raised a host of uncomfortable issues that politicians and intellectuals on both sides of the Radcliffe Line would prefer to shy away from. In the quest for an elusive modernity, this denial is understandable. Unfortunately, history often comes back to haunt the present.

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23760
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby SSridhar » 17 Mar 2015 09:17

^ The Great Jinnah Admirer, the one and only intelligent human being, YLH (Yasser Latif Hamdani), has been on a trashing binge of Dhulipala for a few months now using vacuous and circular arguments.

Prem
BRF Oldie
Posts: 21089
Joined: 01 Jul 1999 11:31
Location: Weighing and Waiting 8T Yconomy

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby Prem » 17 Mar 2015 09:55

Strange that Pa-kitanus are invited at Maulana Azad's Hydrabad Madirassa for some kind of celebrations
by WKKKambakhts.

Paul
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3546
Joined: 25 Jun 1999 11:31
Contact:

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby Paul » 17 Mar 2015 18:26

YLH had tough time defending Jinnah defense of rangila rasool killer in 30s on Twitter.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby ramana » 01 Apr 2015 02:55

Berlin Wall collapsed as East Germans had a yearning to be together with West Germany and a preference for democracy.
In TSP neither exists.


So it has to collapse with four fathers.

Hopefully KSA will get sucked into Yemen and start the process.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby svinayak » 01 Apr 2015 03:28

ramana wrote:Berlin Wall collapsed as East Germans had a yearning to be together with West Germany and a preference for democracy.
In TSP neither exists.


So it has to collapse with four fathers.

PAk project has the foundation based on the WWI and the Arab states emerging into Islamic states

Once the Arab states and their identity as a modern version of the Islamic caliphate fails the TSP project also will fail.

TSP identity is based on the gulf states which gets legitimacy from the British empire and colonial empires. Once the BRitish and colonial legitimacy is removed from the middle east there will
1. Chaos and Sunni Shia war
2. Tribal groups will control land and there will be no modern state
3. Break down of the economy
4. Islam as a political structure will not be perceived as a modern state foundation
5. End of all Islamic states

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby ramana » 11 May 2015 08:42

Tuvaluan wrote:
JE Menon wrote:This is effing awesome :rotfl:

R how on earth did you dig it up!!! Every one must watch and save it. It will probably be taken down from sheer embarrassment


JEM Saar, just the usual trolling of paki and chinese blogs and forums. I think this has been posted here before...had to repost it when I saw this one again. :rotfl:

As an aside, this video seems so very instructive on how pakis go through a series of phases with each new power that rents Pakistan:

Phase 1) absolute grovelling and showering praise on donor for bringing all that cash (like this "started in the dejjert" song)

Phase 2) Continue servile behavior as long as cash is flowing in from renting power (houbara hunting, free oil, All pakis pretending arab heritage etc.)

Phase 3) Donor country starts asking for results for money being lent and more privileges, and starts to cut out pakis from visiting country etc. (Pakis thrown out of KSA and deemed not worthy of marrying saudi wimmens and mens)

Phase 4) Finding a new renting power and asking older power to get lost and blame it for a variety of paki problems (Pakis now claiming that KSA destroyed pakistan with its version of islam...as if Dar-ul-uloom deoband is any better), open refuse cooperate with donor country on all issues, especially if it has local political repercussions.

If the Pakis can do an about turn on the leadership of the Ummah, it is certain they will do so with the chinese too. Xinjiang is the soft underbelly of the chinese, and there no reason why the pakijihadis won't show up in Xinjiang if the chinese put too much pressure on the pakis. Paki mindset is the mindset of a criminal, and there is no honour among thieves.

Pakis will certainly get back to an electrical power crisis when china responsds, and will start whining about how China has used them and discarded them, like they did with the USA. Most of the paki citizens won't care as they probably won't get much power anyway, even after Chinese power starts flowing (we already know this is going to be too expensive for the ordinary pakis, and the paki govt. is not going to provide subsidies for the average paki on the street.)

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby ramana » 13 May 2015 22:41

ramana wrote:In the daily chasing the news we are loosing sight of big picture in TSP.
We need a dashboard to see where it is.

Need SS and shiv to come up with metrics and we can create one.





What I am thinking are a set of fuel gages type graphics for Military, Political & Economy.

E.g. http://www.brookings.edu/research/inter ... -dashboard

Would like a metrics based system to drive the gages.

Eg- News reports from Google News TSP site in the three categories will drive the needle.

And update these once a month.


And a weightage factor for all these three E.g. 3x Mil +2x Pol + 1x Econ gives composite TSP status?


And above all three members will take over the respective gages.

RoyG
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5180
Joined: 10 Aug 2009 05:10

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby RoyG » 14 May 2015 01:42

ramana wrote:Berlin Wall collapsed as East Germans had a yearning to be together with West Germany and a preference for democracy.
In TSP neither exists.


So it has to collapse with four fathers.

Hopefully KSA will get sucked into Yemen and start the process.


Whoever manages to bag Balochistan will win. This is where it will be us pitted against the Persians. China will be the biggest loser.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby ramana » 07 Jun 2015 01:40

habal wrote:
Falijee wrote:It is an open secret in Pakistan that important foreign ( e.g. India, USA, China, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia) and domestic ( Baluchistan) issues are the exclusivity of the Army and the Deep State . :shock:
As reported some months ago, Nawaz Sharif's decision making role in this area is nil. He has been compared to a Deputy Commissioner of a major city ( like LaWhore, Slumbad) :D . And in charge of inaugurating the Lahore Metro System or making the rounds of the Pindi tarkari bazaar enquiring with the vendors on the price of piaz and tamatar and the impact of it on the common man. :rotfl:
He is not in the loop on important strategic issues, although, his input may be sought . :shock:


you are correct on all counts but there are interesting caveat.

the prime minister of pakistan has the honor of selecting who amongst the eligible lt. general's will be the next army chief. He can bypass seniority and he can do as he pleases. Basically he can select his next lord. It has always been the case even as per revised constitution. Does this happen in any other mulk ? fascinating country this pakistan is. Why does such a capable military mashallah need a damn civvie to elect their leader hain ?

military does not harass state govts or the lahori govt oops central govt in day-to-day or even month-to-month or even year-to-year fiscal affairs. In absence of any functional institutions apart from army and also in absence of any fucntional institutions that yield effective oversight over state policies, it is pretty much loot time from the day the party is sworn into office. This destroys both capital and credibility of state .. again army doesn't interfere in this. This is really funny, because army is directly affected by the health of a state but they can do nothing about it.

the lahore metro bus service was financed by increasing GST to farming inputs like pesticide and urea by 13%. This would accrue additional revenue of pakistani Rs. 5000 crore. Now Lahore, Islamabad Metro Bus System cost was 4700 -4900 crore thus one gets an idea how such schemes are financed in pakistan. This will destroy agriculture, but give Nawaz something to show off to public as his Islamabad-Lahore highway. Again army does not intervene when agriculture is being thus destroyed in Pakistan, they are going to be eventually affected by this and not Nawaz who will shift to Riyadh or London or Dubai after his tenure. It is the army that has to survive as an institution since they are the ones who are responsible for undermining and destroying the remaining functional institutions in that country, yet they have no objection on such budgeting practices.



habal wrote:
Aditya_V wrote:Habal- I think the Pakis know better than you. They survive mainly on Dole, which is disguised in subsidy for weapons(compare Indian and Paki purchases for same weaponry Harpoons, C-130 J upg etc., direct payments to suppliers outside Pak., Hidden as NRP earnings etc. (lot of gulf dole).


you got a point aditya. But even in presence of all this dole, they are failing. Karachi has no water and no electricity except in select areas. Even select areas have no water. As per Zulfiqar Mirza, Zardari gave Bahria Towns new development water permit and they laid a bypass from the main water line that supplies Karachi which spirited off remaining water out of karachi to some new upcoming township which hasn't even begun settlement. So most of Karachi today depends upon water tankers that come as per paying capacity of consumer. Middle-class has once a week tankers and more well off have once every 2 days.

I agree that pakistani folk are extremely strong willed and have this knack to survive akin to a virus which is seeking it's latest host and will not die even if you heat it in boiling water for less than 3 minutes. But in presence of repeated assaults, over long period of time, even such stubborn resistance doesn't hold fort.

Lahore, Rawalpindi etc have some water but no electricity, since electricity comes for 6 hours and then goes off for 6 hours.

Average electricity bills are pakistani rupee 8000 for a small family. And even then this is what they get.

this is the state of an urban pakistani then what about a rural pakistani who naturally will have no electricity. Water from borewell only. This specimen survives on food and hex, which is the only entertainment for rural folk. But these are not folks from central asia who are desperate to survive with no food left in winter. These rural folks receive both food and hex in summer and winter and as such have no will to fight a war and win, as compared to central asian uzbeki folks like babur and those on border like ghazni etc who had scarce resources during winter and all the motivation to seek better prospects in war campaigns elsewhere. There is no possibility of massed formations because airplanes and missiles and nuclear, biological, chemical weapons make such massed formations vulnerable unlike middle ages. Then again those valiant conquerers had to only deal with city states and kingdoms while they had strategic depth that extended from attock to ferghana. To attack even a kingdom in those days, the potential conquerers would have needed such strategic depth. What is the strategic depth of pakistan today ? they can pray to ISIS or equivalent to come and capture pakistan. but even in that case 30% of paksitan is immidiately under threat.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby ramana » 02 Aug 2015 02:01

Small nation vs great power

Easily explains Pakis.

krishna_krishna
BRFite
Posts: 792
Joined: 23 Oct 2006 04:14

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby krishna_krishna » 02 Aug 2015 03:56

Abhay_S wrote:There has been some discussion about the new Grand Master of suhrawardy street in one of the threads. here is some discussion about his 2 recent 'Salafs'. watch from 08:00 mins

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x30041k_aapas-ki-baat-1st-august-2015_news

deejay
Forum Moderator
Posts: 3888
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby deejay » 02 Aug 2015 10:59

krishna_krishna wrote:
Abhay_S wrote:There has been some discussion about the new Grand Master of suhrawardy street in one of the threads. here is some discussion about his 2 recent 'Salafs'. watch from 08:00 mins

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x30041k_aapas-ki-baat-1st-august-2015_news


Interesting video. Najam Sethi explains how IK's dharna last year was a double game to get both the PA Chief and PA PM. Case is being made out as how the PML (N) is trying to be in the good books of the PA Chief.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 53478
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby ramana » 04 Aug 2015 22:51

A_Gupta wrote:If we go by MJ Akbar's talk at Manthan, the Pakistan problem was building up since 1739. In 1739, Nadir Shah sacked Delhi, marking a huge strategic failure of the ruling Muslim power in India. After that, Shah Waliullah of the Delhi madrassa promulgated the idea of "Islam in danger", and since then the politics of fear has dominated Muslim politics in India. It led to separate electorates in 1906, Lahore Resolution in 1940, and so on to Partition, and continues in the 21st century. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmWYyLiOd6s for those who haven't listened to him, starting around minute 13:50 for the roots of Pakistan, for about 10 minutes).

Pakistan is a civilizational problem that has been building up over centuries, there is no easy way to assign blame. It is metaphorically a cancer, not easy to solve. Perhaps India can break Pakistan up into parts that are must less effective at hitting at India; but the 200 million people from whom a fraction arise, however small percentage-wise, but large enough to be a threat, that hate India intensely enough to commit suicide attacks will still be there.



and

SSridhar wrote:
A_Gupta wrote:If we go by MJ Akbar's talk at Manthan, the Pakistan problem was building up since 1739. In 1739, Nadir Shah sacked Delhi, marking a huge strategic failure of the ruling Muslim power in India. After that, Shah Waliullah of the Delhi madrassa promulgated the idea of "Islam in danger", and since then the politics of fear has dominated Muslim politics in India.

A_Gupta, I haven't yet seen that highly-rated MJ Akbar talk. However, I differ slightly in that I want to go a little more back than c. 1739, not much though.

The story actually starts in the 17th century which has an important bearing on Islamism. The Islamist fervor has been alternating between periods of intense expansionism followed by defeats and periods of deep introspection and consolidation. The latter period always led to the decision that solutions to problems can be had only with more intense Islamism and thus the cycle repeated. The 17th century was on such ‘low period’ for Islamist morale. The Ottoman caliphate had been defeated in Cheshma and Kagul leading to loss of territory in Europe. In India, Aurangazeb’s death and people’s hatred for his extremist rule led to the decline of the Mughal empire. In Saudi Arabia too, Sufism, considerd as deviant Islam by the orthodox adherents of the religion, was taking root. Two important Islamist thinkers emerged in this scenario and by a coincidence, they were both born in the same year and educated in Saudi Arabia and developed friendhip that influenced the thinking of each other mutually. One of them was Sheikh Waliullah from Delhi, India and the other was Ibn Abd al Wahhab from Saudi Arabia. Both of them felt strongly that Islam can regain its glory only by reforming itself by going back to the fundamentals and shunning other cross-fertilized influences. Waliullah felt that Indian Islam must be divested of Hindu influences. He thus laid the foundation for the Sunni orthodoxy in India just as Wahhab did the same in Arabia.



Nadir Shah invaded Delhi as it was weakened by Aurangazeb's misadventures.
Moghuls were lost by 1589 when they lost Kandahar to Persia. After that they were dead men walking. The loss cut off their constant supply of invaders.


Need to see this as a Sunni Moghul-Shia Persian fight.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby svinayak » 08 Aug 2015 17:24

A_Gupta wrote:If we go by MJ Akbar's talk at Manthan, the Pakistan problem was building up since 1739. In 1739, Nadir Shah sacked Delhi, marking a huge strategic failure of the ruling Muslim power in India. After that, Shah Waliullah of the Delhi madrassa promulgated the idea of "Islam in danger", and since then the politics of fear has dominated Muslim politics in India. It led to separate electorates in 1906, Lahore Resolution in 1940, and so on to Partition, and continues in the 21st century. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmWYyLiOd6s for those who haven't listened to him, starting around minute 13:50 for the roots of Pakistan, for about 10 minutes).

Pakistan is a civilizational problem that has been building up over centuries, there is no easy way to assign blame. It is metaphorically a cancer, not easy to solve. Perhaps India can break Pakistan up into parts that are must less effective at hitting at India; but the 200 million people from whom a fraction arise, however small percentage-wise, but large enough to be a threat, that hate India intensely enough to commit suicide attacks will still be there.

The new version of Pakistan image was built with american help. The C@A/ISI project to create a state to show state power, Islamic fortress created the mindset of defence of Islam. So any danger to Islam will invoke state power to defend Islam.

State apparatus is used to attack enemies of Islam, eliminate enemies of Islam from within, scheme against outside enemies of Islam, create jihad army to attack anybody against Islam and protect islamic claim of the state(kashmir)

SSridhar
Forum Moderator
Posts: 23760
Joined: 05 May 2001 11:31
Location: Chennai

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby SSridhar » 08 Aug 2015 18:04

svinayak wrote:The new version of Pakistan image was built with american help. The C@A/ISI project to create a state to show state power, Islamic fortress created the mindset of defence of Islam. So any danger to Islam will invoke state power to defend Islam.

State apparatus is used to attack enemies of Islam, eliminate enemies of Islam from within, scheme against outside enemies of Islam, create jihad army to attack anybody against Islam and protect islamic claim of the state(kashmir)

It goes back to the American's MEDO project after taking over from Sir Olaf Caroe. All Muslim countries were supposed to be drafted into a treaty to protect the 'wells of power' (as Caroe put it) and the Suez Canal. Nasser did not like the idea and the US cultivated the Muslim Brotherhood, wined, dined and feted them in the White House. MEDO did not take off, but Baghdad Pact did and the rest is history.

The MB connection was never cut-off, BTW.

svinayak
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14223
Joined: 09 Feb 1999 12:31

Re: Pakistan : A new way of looking

Postby svinayak » 08 Aug 2015 23:33

SSridhar wrote:
svinayak wrote:The new version of Pakistan image was built with american help. The C@A/ISI project to create a state to show state power, Islamic fortress created the mindset of defence of Islam. So any danger to Islam will invoke state power to defend Islam.

State apparatus is used to attack enemies of Islam, eliminate enemies of Islam from within, scheme against outside enemies of Islam, create jihad army to attack anybody against Islam and protect islamic claim of the state(kashmir)

It goes back to the American's MEDO project after taking over from Sir Olaf Caroe. All Muslim countries were supposed to be drafted into a treaty to protect the 'wells of power' (as Caroe put it) and the Suez Canal. Nasser did not like the idea and the US cultivated the Muslim Brotherhood, wined, dined and feted them in the White House. MEDO did not take off, but Baghdad Pact did and the rest is history.

The MB connection was never cut-off, BTW.

This is more geo politics of the ME and not as an Islamic identity.
Pak state is unique in the sense the state formation was founded on the identity and image formation and it is trapped. US involvement created a global image during the cold war as a front line ally and a narrative which fed into the 'protection of Islam'.
State is being used as a Islamic caliphate when it is a contradiction of the Islamic state.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 58 guests