RajeshA wrote:
For a moment, I would like us to simply close our eyes (to reality and probability) and consider that Pakistan becomes India's munna; that Pakistanis, vipers as they continue to be, do not attack India or Indian interests; but they continue with the rest of their evolution and become a jihadi monster of unimaginable proportions for the rest of the world. In essence Pakistan becomes India's kitten and the world's man-eater.
It can only be possible if all of Pakistan's watering holes in the world become poisoned, and India remains as the only watering hole left for Pakistanis. What does India need to do for that?
In fact I had a similar train of thought although the vision I has was different. Pakistan's watering holes in the world are indeed already becoming poisoned. That does not mean that India should let toxic Pakistanis into India. However - as I said earlier there are two levels of existence" for any country. Level 1 is subsistence level with a hand to mouth existence, people living off food grown in the land, buffeted occasionally by natural disasters, migrating from one place to another as a result.
This was the model until perhaps a few centuries ago. But modern industrial economies changed all that, creating a Level 2 of existence. A modern economy requires trade, and in that trade you import what you don't have and export what you can. If you have a mineral such as oil you export that. If you can export agricultural produce like New Zealand that is fine. Or else you need to have an manufacturing economy like China or just plain tourism. If you have none of these it's back to subsistence economy. But in the old days you could migrate. If your people are considered toxic you can't even migrate. All migration will be inside your own borders where people will fight and kill for resources.
Pakistan is a Level 1 economy. It made forays into a higher level with some manufacture (value added agro produce like textiles and leather goods), tourism and export of manpower. That manpower export has now become toxic and the competition for textiles is high. Pakistan has no alternative other than to sink into a subsistence level economy. Many countries still exist that way. Why not Pakistan?
In the old days a country that had a powerful army could conquer other lands and loot would improve the economy, apart from the provision of employment driven by the military conquest. You need people to support the army and that generates employment and the lot supports the economy. The people of the conquered land "can go to hell". This was "normal" in the world until just 200 years ago. But the industrial age put an end to that. "Conquest" and "colonial power" reached their zenith with some countries getting modern arms before others and conquering and looting the whole world. But once the world was conquered infighting set in, everyone got similar arms and colonialism collapsed.
Pakistan is a child of the colonial mindset in which a military class got "allies" with an ultimate goal of "conquest". For the military elite of Pakistan, nurtured by the last dregs of the British empire and later by the new maharaja - the USA, conquest variously meant conquest of Kashmir and/or conquest of India. But the era of conquest has moved on. It is no longer as easy as it used to be to conquer a land and declare "to hell with the conquered people" simply because guns are available to everyone. Even holding Tibet or Afghanistan or Iraq require a mix of sealing borders and attempting to "win over" a population. That means conquest is expensive, unlike the free looting and genocide of an earlier era. The USA has fed Pakistan's conquest mindset. The US had not figured that out until 1965. After 1965 Pakistan's "conquest" mindset had to go covert. They used the US's (and former colonial) "global" tactics of subversion and said "
if not conquest, sow the seeds of violence and chaos for possible future control". Pakistan's conquest policy has failed.
Pakistan's only available future is as a toxic nation with no useful means of building an economy that is integrated with the rest of the world. Internal strife and infighting is to be expected in a country like Pakistan and that is exactly what is happening. The only way to build up a future for Pakistan in the eyes of "well meaning foreigners" like the USA would be to open up trade with India apart from training (education) of Pakistanis to lead a modern life. But the USA does not understand the rabid hatred of Hindus that has been built up in Pakistan. There is a tendency to say "
Oh Muslims hate Hindus, Hindus hate Muslims so why don't you kiss and make up" Clearly this is a gross misrepresentation of reality - but that reality is difficult to explain.
Muslims and Hindus can and do live together as occurs in India, but Pakistan is a special case of a Muslim nation being created on the basis of hatred for Hindus by a subset of Hindu hating Muslims of pre-1947 India. There is no way India's relationship with the people of Pakistan can be normalised until this poisonous indoctrination is removed. But the way forward is to first stop arming and funding the champions of the ideology of hate. Like Sadler said the USA would be content to fund the ideology of hate as long as it did not attack white Christians because India and Hindus are irrelevant and do not appear in the consciousness of the US as anything but a wild tribal and obsolete mindset. Which is exactly the view that is convenient for Pakistaniyat. Pakistan in fact spent decades fighting India/Hindus alone while appearing "secular" to their American financiers and armorers. It was India successful integration of its own Muslims and the earlier creation of Bangladesh that killed Pakistan's plan. The Muslims of the subcontinent were no longer represented by Pakistan and the morons desperately tried to seek uniqueness in islam. With Saudi funds and Wahhabism - that refuge in Islam turned Pakistanis against the USA.
But how to explain this complex history to "our American friends"?
.
.