Managing Pakistan's failure

The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 28 Jul 2011 15:18

Reclaiming Pakistan Territory

Another area of interest, should India start reclaiming Pakistani territory is the Tharparkar District of Sindh.
Wikipedia wrote:Religion
Muslims constitute over 70% of the population while the Hindus are 30%. At the time of independence of Pakistan in 1947, the Hindus were 80% while the Muslims were 20% of the population. The significant number of Hindus migrated to India during the 1965 and 1971 wars between Pakistan and India.


Image

Disclaimer: Pardon if PoK is being shown in Pakistan Map. All it shows is what land Pakistan controls today, and not what belongs to it.

Now this area is of interest because it is here that the Thar Coal Reserves are, of which Pakistan makes tall claims. So while India is at it, cutting off all avenues of supply of Oil & Gas to Pakistan, India might as well seal off the coal mines for Pakistan as well.

Besides with 80% Hindus in 1947, this area should have been India's anyway. Thar belongs to India!

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 28 Jul 2011 17:01

Reclaiming Pakistan Territory

Published on Jul 12, 2011
By Fasahat Mohiuddin
Mohajir province slogan being raised again: The News International

Code: Select all

http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=57197&Cat=4&dt=7/12/2011

Karachi

In some areas of the city, the slogan for declaring Karachi the province of Mohajirs is being raised again, as ethnic divisions in Karachi have deepened due to the rising political temperature.

According to the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), the slogan to declare Karachi a Mohajir province is the voice of millions of people of the city who have been deprived of their rights despite the fact that Karachi generates 70 percent of the country’s total revenue.

“These people do not necessarily belong to the MQM. They are those who have been deprived of their rights,” said Waseem Aftab, a member of the MQM’s Rabita Committee, when asked that the people in Orangi Town had been seen raising the slogan for a Karachi province.

Waseem said that the PPP’s one-sided decisions had created ethnic divisions in the city and the situation had now reached the point of no-return. He, however, added that the things could only return to normality if the PPP withdrew all its orders that it took during this week. “Such measures are creating frustration among the citizens, particularly youngsters.”

Waseem said these steps of the PPP were forcing the people to raise voice for making Karachi a Mohajir province where they could get their rights.

He claimed that these people did not belong to the MQM but they happen to be the ones being deprived of their rights, as the PPP was taking every measure to push these people against the wall.

”When you (PPP) deprive the people of their rights from every corner then a stage arrives when the people start raising voice for a separate province,” he said, adding: “It is the voice of millions of people who have been living in pathetic conditions for the last three years.”

He said thousands of employees of the now-defunct City District Government Karachi were facing uncertainty and after being rendered jobless these people would be compelled to commit suicide. “What kind of cruelty is this that the CDGK employees have not been paid salaries for the last five months,” he added.

”The PPP has created a rural-urban divide by taking such steps and the government abolished the Sindh Local Government System-2001 just because the city witnessed development under this system and mostly Urdu-speaking people benefited from it,” he said.

“The PPP has given a message that they do not respect the mandate of the MQM.”

Waseem said that the MQM had tried its level best that such voice for a separate province would not be raised but every step of the PPP only brought sheer frustration among the people.

”If there could be Seraiki, Bhawalpur and other provinces then these deprived people can also raise voice for a separate province and the MQM cannot stop these people,” he maintained.

He said criminals had been given a free hand to kill people. “It is shocking that these criminals have been living in Karachi and the PPP leaders are providing cover to these terrorists.”

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 28 Jul 2011 17:07

Reclaiming Pakistan Territory

Some history about the Mohajir Subah Demand.
SSridhar wrote:
arun wrote:Ethno-linguistic conflict in Karachi with the Urdu speaking Muslim Mohajir’s represented by the MQM facing off against the Pashto speaking Muslim Pathans represented by the ANP:

The preservation of the Urdu-sherwani-pyjama culture and their zamindari way of life prompted a set of people in the Ganga-Yamuna belt to create Pakistan, helped as they were by certain elements in western India (the then Mumbai Presidency) and also Eastern India (the then United Bengal). Islam came second to them but a most convenient tool, nevertheless. Islam was used to justify and demand concessions from the British, whip up communal frenzy and eventually divide India. They painted the about-to-be-created state as the new Turkey, all set to assume the role of the new Caliphate. When these Urdu-sherwani-pyjama people moved from Dar-ul-Harb to the newly founded Dar-ul-Aman, they were initially welcomed. Soon, realization dawned on the Punjabis and the Sindhis (the two provinces where the migrants moved), that the migrants were there to stay, were there to compete with them for jobs, were more qualified for jobs and professions than they were etc. The Bhai-biradari broke at that time. The Ansar-e-Medina (those in Medinah who helped the Prophet upon his hijrah from Makkah to Medinah) of Pakistan became worse than the Kufr-e-Mecca (the infidel Hindus of India from whose clutches the Faithful wanted to escape).

Though the Urdu-sherwani-pyjama group was able to impose its Urdu language at great cost to the nation (East Pakistan seceding), they could not even preserve their sherwani-pyjama. The had to later take to the Sindhi dress code and the Arched Sindhi topee wit a slit in the front. The Punjabis were tough and made it clear that they welcomed only Punjabis from the other side, not the strange-looking Ganga-Yamuna inhabitants. Since Karachi was chosen as the Capital and since other prominent migrants like Mohammed Ali Jinnah and Liaquat Ali Khan were there too, the Urdu-sherwani-pyjama clad migrants had no option other than to flock to this sleepy port city. In order to preserve their ethno-cultural belief system and retain their identity, they setup purely migrant-resident places like Qasba, Orangi, Aligarh, Landhi, Malir, Korangi, Shah Faisal Colony etc. They were soon rattled when the Quaid died, followed by the assassination of Liaquat Ali Khan. The announcement of a new capital to be built in the Punjab made their situation even worse. They expected that Fatima Jinnah would become the President but FM Ayub Khan subverted that too. The last nail had been driven into the coffin of the migrants. In late 1972, Bhutto replaced Urdu with Sindhi at primary school level in the Sind province. Army was called in to control the riots in Karachi, Hyderabad, Sukkur and Mirpur Khas. That was when the term mohajir was used to clearly define the Urdu-speaking migrants from Hindustan. Other non-Urdu speaking migrants like Bohras, Memons and Aga Khanis are not part of this classification. The refusal of the Punjabi-Sindhi dominated Pakistan to accept Urdu-speaking stranded Biharis in Bangladesh added to the mohajir insecurity. Slowly but surely, power started to slip from the mohajir hand. The language riots lead to deep distrust between the mohajirs and the PPP. In the meanwhile, the mohajirs demanded a fifth province (Mohajir subah)their own, a demand that was opposed tooth and nail by the Sindhis because such a province could have been created only out of their lands, lands that belonged to them for millennia.

Out of all this misery arose the messiah, Altaf Hussain. Being a protaganist of the Jama'at-e-Islami (JI), he worked with the opposition which was trying to defeat Z.A.Bhutto in the 1977 elections. His APMSO (All Pakistan Mohajir Students Organization) was later created by Gen. Zia-ul-Haq to break the back of the powerful PPP in the Sind. The PPP-Army hatred had reached a high. With the approval of the Army, he also crated the MQM (Mohajir Quami Movement) in c. 1984. However, a clash between the Pashtuns of Sohrab Goth and the mohajirs in 1986 laid the foundation for the perpetual animosity between the two groups. Later the Army intervened to split the MQM and play the Haqiqis (the split MQM), the original MQM and the Pashtuns against each other. The term 'mohajir nationality' was used by MQM after the 1986 events.

The migrants find today that those who didn't do hijrat, are in a far better position in the kufr land than in the 'dreamed-of Caliphate'.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 28 Jul 2011 17:55

Reclaiming Pakistan Territory

Following are figures as per 1998 Census

Code: Select all

District   Province   Hindus    Total    Percentage
JACOBABAD   SINDH    50,693   1,425,572    3.556%
SHIKARPUR   SINDH    15,855     880,438    1.801%
LARKANA     SINDH    27,321   1,927,066    1.418%
SUKKUR      SINDH    29,800     908,373    3.281%
GHOTKI      SINDH    64,817     970,549    6.678%
KHAIRPUR    SINDH    45,452   1,546,587    2.939%
N. FEROZ    SINDH    14,458   1,087,571    1.329%
NAWABSHAH   SINDH    30,824   1,071,533    2.877%
DADU        SINDH    34,490   1,688,811    2.042%
HYDERABAD   SINDH   349,167   2,891,488   12.076%
BADIN       SINDH   226,423   1,136,044   19.931%
THATTA      SINDH    32,139   1,113,194    2.887%
SANGHAR     SINDH   292,687   1,453,028   20.143%
MIRPURKHAS  SINDH   296,555     906,065   32.730%
UMERKOT     SINDH   315,395     662,965   47.573%
THARPARKAR  SINDH   369,998     914,291   40.468%
KARACHI     SINDH    77,131   9,856,318    0.783%


It just shows that some areas are ripe for the picking!

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 01 Aug 2011 18:27

Solving Pakistan: Solution 6

Breaking Pakistan: Baluchistan

Continued from here!

X-Posting from West Asia News and Discussions Thread

Shyamd ji,

Perhaps you should let your GCC friend know, that if Pakistan had no border with Iran, they wouldn't have any strategic partnership with Iran either. In a strategic partnership, they can control the gates to Central Asia. Balochistan needs to be freed from Pakistani grip and either become independent, or accede to India.

Without Baluchistan as a bridge to Iran, Pakistan would again become dependent on Saudi support, and thus will be again available to do duty to win Saudi generosity.

Pakistani subservience to Saudi interests lies in Paki loss of Baluchistan!

Response
shyamd wrote:Baluch will be freed when the US decides to and the GCC is already cooperating on this. Most of the GCC Baloch population already support the BLA and so on. Want evidence? Just take a look on youtube and see how many Free Baluch videos there are. They reckon when they free Baluchistan, the GCC can't say no to it as they protected the GCC till tis day and they are respected citizens of the GCC.

The US knows that PRC/Iran/Pak have formed an alliance. Then all of a sudden - the US is beginning to ratchet up the pressure on all 3. New round of sanctions on Iran, Pak - Baloch appears to be on the boil, PRC - Taiwan/bomb blasts in Kashgar as a result of protests. This is all the US.

For the US this has become a matter of protecting its major interests in the Gulf. The Iranians want to remove the US from the ENTIRE region upto the Persian Gulf. PRC doesn't mind joining the alliance. Pak wants its strategic assets to live. So the US is now in direct conflict with these 3 entities. This is the new cold war.

In Chennai, Hillary asked India to be more assertive. Basically, they want us to be an active partner in their schemes. But we all know the US is there for ITS interests, not ours. India is playing good boy in the world arena and staying out of getting our hands dirty. However we are INDEPENDENT. Hence why we retain the option to join this alliance, but we don't want to be an overt partner. One can see this through our naval exercises and deals.

The lack of overtness is due to PRC. They are a neighbour and we want mutual interdependence of our economies and have a productive relationship with them in order to focus on development for our citizens.

Regarding Pak relations - I'll talk about it another time as I'm out of time. Round 2 of friends searching has started apparently and ideas to have an alternate to Pak security alliance has begun I think. So you may see a new role for security cooperation between India and the GCC and other nations.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 01 Aug 2011 19:19

Solving Pakistan: Solution 6

Breaking Pakistan: Baluchistan

X-Posting from West Asia News and Discussions Thread

shyamd wrote:China to invest in Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline
Cementing the friendship. Will talk about this later when time permits.


China first and foremost wants to be able to dictate the politics of Western South Asia, and by building the pipeline from Iran to Pakistan, they are doing exactly that. The more they control the pipeline, the more they can determine where the pipeline leads to - ends at Pakistan, continues to India or continues to China.

By controlling the energy flow to Pakistan, China controls to some extent Pakistani politics as well, in addition to having influence over Iranians.

Basically China is now barging into an area, which till now was the preserve of USA, where they dictated the world policy for the region, not to speak of that in earlier times not only Indian influence held sway over these regions, but the region was part of India.

In any case, China has thrown down the gauntlet!

The question is how would USA, GCC and India react to an Iranian-Pakistan Entente forming and China grandfathering this entente, an entente that plans to cut off the West, India and possibly GCC itself from Central Asia.

Of course in the middle of this entente lies Baluchistan.

Of course this is happening at a time, when USA seems to be at its weakest, with its debt ballooning, and hardly anybody willing in USA to start yet another war. So even if USA should see the imperative of separating Baluchistan away from Pakistan, would it still at this late stage have the stomach for it?

Can the GCC afford Pakistan going rogue? ISI can still have dreams of making Pakistan the center of the Ummah transplanting the House of Saud; getting domination over Al Qaeda to bring about regime change in GCC; and with an entente with Iran controlling the Ummah. The fact that Pakistan sheltered Osama bin Laden for so long should surely be an indicator of this. Today Pakistan has become intertwined with the whole Jihadi Network from Philippines to Somalia reaching into the West. This is both a broad and a deep integration of ISI and Global Jihad Inc.

The GCC needs to cut both ISI and Pakistan down to size.

Americans have been financing the ISI and along with that its global ambitions, and have been taken for a ride. Now America has lost control over its alleged protege.

With American debt crisis in full swing, it is doubtful that USA would alone have the capacity to do what is needed.

If the Sauds want to retain some influence over the politics of Pakistan, they have to nip the New Great Game Axis of Iran-Pakistan-China in the bud, and that means
  1. taking away their monopoly of Access to Central Asia, as well as
  2. breaking the Iranian-Pakistani Geographic Contiguity.

Only that would chain the beast long enough to first de-fang it and then to re-tame it.

For India herself the stakes are high. Till now India had a warm relationship with Iran and could hope to get access to Central Asia including Afghanistan through Iran, but if Iran is reaching an understanding with Pakistan to make Central Asia off limits to USA, then Pakistan too would be asking Iran to keep India out of it. With China taking over as the main energy importer of Iran, Iran too may not need to indulge India much longer.

That means India is practically shut out of Central Asia completely.

So it is also in India's strategic interest to separate Baluchistan from Pakistan. However India is not known for going out on a limb to protect India's vital strategic interests. However being over-cautious can also mean a new age of chains on India's rise and Indian influence.

Hopefully when USA, GCC and India see that their interests are converging on liberating Baluchistan, they will find a way to do so!

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 01 Aug 2011 19:40

Solving Pakistan: Solution 6

Breaking Pakistan: Baluchistan

Published on 29 Jul 2011
By Pepe Escobar
The allure of Afghanistan: Al Jazeera
Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari visited Tehran twice within only three weeks. He had two face-to-face meetings with Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The House of Saud, to put it mildly, freaked out.

After all, this Islamabad-Tehran lovefest totally smashes the myth that the so-called "Shia crescent" is the greatest threat to Sunnis in the Middle East and South Asia.

Washington, predictably, was also hardly fond of it. The occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq can be seen as an attempt by the US to encircle Iran from both east and west (that's certainly Tehran's view), and Washington believed Pakistan would play the same role on Iran's southeast border.

In a fascinating exchange that must have choked many a throat across the Potomac, Khamenei told Zardari that Pakistan's "real enemy" was the West, "and the US on top of it", while Zardari told Khamenei that Iran was a "model of resistance and path to progress". What next? Karachi taxis sporting Khomeini magnets?

But the most fascinating part is that Tehran and Islamabad are now discussing not only security matters but also business, such as an upcoming free-trade agreement and a currency swap scheme that would move both countries away from the US dollar.

On the security front, Islamabad has proposed what would be an Integrated Border Management Regime - that is, Pakistan, Iran and Afghanistan fighting together against drug trafficking. That also happens to be Russia's number-one priority in Central and South Asia. Over twelve tonnes of pure heroin - that's over 3bn single doses - reach Russia every year from Afghanistan.

On the business front, it was all about the crucial Pipelineistan gambit, the Iran-Pakistan (IP), also known as the "peace pipeline". IP may supply as much as 50 per cent of Pakistan's energy needs.

There are delays, of course. By the end of 2012, Iran will have built its whole stretch of pipeline up to the Pakistani border. Yet Pakistan will only start working on its own stretch by early 2012.

But by 2015 IP should be online, forming a strategic umbilical cord between Shia Iran and majority-Sunni Pakistan and rocking the Eurasian geopolitical equation. IP will cross ultra-strategic Balochistan, which is not only dripping with resources but which also, as a transit corridor, provides the shortest access to the warm waters of the Arabian Sea.

Iran and Pakistan as allies?

So look for another unintended consequence of Washington's obsession with the war on terror: Iran and Pakistan as increasingly close allies. One can already foresee Tehran sharing on-the-ground intelligence with Islamabad on Washington's myriad covert ops inside Pakistani territory.

Another unintended consequence - unthinkable only two or three years ago - is that now Tehran, which is tremendously influential in northwest Afghanistan, views the Taliban the Mullah Omar way: as an indigenous "national resistance" movement against US/NATO occupation and perpetual military bases. Moreover, Tehran is also in sync with Islamabad in their support for the wily Hamid Karzai, who has increasingly distanced himself from Washington.

There are huge problems, of course. Although Zardari told Khamenei that Islamabad supports Karzai and an "Afghan-led and Afghan-owned" peace process, hardly any progress can be made without a substantial reversal of Pakistan's official Afghan policy, which considers Afghanistan as little more than "strategic depth" in a confrontation with India, and which does everything to contain India's influence in Afghanistan.

If House of Saud freaked out, and many a throat got choked on the Potomac, GCC and USA should be focusing a bit on Baluchistan to alleviate their troubles! And India should do a deep rethink on the benefits of passivity!

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 01 Aug 2011 23:45

Minimum Satisfaction

X-Posted from Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): June 30, 2011 Thread

shiv wrote:only terrorism makes people think about Pakistan. if there was no terrorism the Pakistan subject would be forgotten completely.

Most Indians would be happy if the terrorists on India's most wanted list would somehow die violently. India does not need to take responsibility or even make any threats towards Pakistan.

This is the minimum satisfaction GoI should offer the Indian citizens, especially if GoI is not serious about getting rid of Pakistan.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 02 Aug 2011 04:04

Published on Aug 02, 2011
By Talha Jalal
The containment of Pakistan: Daily Times

Code: Select all

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011/08/02/story_2-8-2011_pg3_5

Hillary Clinton’s recent statement in India, as Rothkopf suggests, is a proclamation of an alliance to contain Pakistan
With some (ground) reality checks and some historical sense, the fantastical idea of containing Pakistan starts seeming vague and impractical.

What would be the objectives of such ‘containment’? They can be vague at best. Pakistan is run by nationalist forces and has a deeply divided populace of diverse ethnicities. There is no common national ideology, unlike communism in the case of the Soviet Union. Pakistan is a broken country, while the Soviet Union was a superpower. Let us assume, for once, that a containment policy would seek to weaken Pakistan to the point where it disintegrates or Balkanises (an idea being backed by many anti-Pakistan lobbies). This would mean a catastrophe for the whole of Asia. In whose hands would Pakistan’s strategic assets, which are spread across the country, fall? And, more importantly, who would volunteer to pacify a (massively armed) civilian population that is already brimming with anti-Americanism and is fiercely anti-India?

There is one big problem that is mostly ignored in any analysis on Pakistan — its population. Pakistan’s population is analogous to a ticking time bomb. According to safe projections, it is soon to become the world’s largest Muslim country in terms of population. If containing Pakistan means alienating an already disgruntled 180 million-strong nation, it is inevitably going to prove to be a disastrous policy.

Drawing parallels does seem, on the face of it, quite a neat exercise. But history, as it happens, is not neat at all — it is full of contradictions and paradoxes that cannot be lumped together. There are fundamental differences between both the plot and the principal actors in the present dilemma facing the US and the one that it faced in 1946.

At present, a quid pro quo policy towards Pakistan seems to be dysfunctional at best. A campaign to build public pressure on Pakistan through controlled leaks to the international press has not yielded much fruit, nor has the Pakistani military yielded to the suspension of the $ 800 million military aid; the army, in a recent corps commanders conference, shrugged off the punishment imposed by the US by largely ignoring it. While the carrot and the stick both seem to be ineffective, revisiting the experience with the Soviet Union might seem like an easy policy solution for the US. But it is not. Dialogue is still a better option.

At least Pakistan knows that USA is planning to break it up! They also know that if Soviet Union could be broken up ultimately, Pakistan stands no chance!

The author is merely trying to persuade America to continue to indulge Pakistan, for the only reason that Pakistan has a big population, and it should not become anti-American.

Of course there is nothing convincing in the argument of the author. Pakistan should get ready to be cut up in many pieces.

America may not have the money to contain Pakistani Jihadist factories, but it still has just enough to break Pakistan up!

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4657
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby sanjaykumar » 02 Aug 2011 04:27

Talha mian and I both know that if Sindh were independent, they would eat America's sh!t.

Try another angle.

sanjaykumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4657
Joined: 16 Oct 2005 05:51

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby sanjaykumar » 02 Aug 2011 04:41

err....without the pretense of distaste, as with Pakistan at present.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RamaY » 02 Aug 2011 06:43

RajeshAji

Hats off to you on your perseverance. Keep it coming.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 02 Aug 2011 11:52

RamaY wrote:RajeshAji

Hats off to you on your perseverance. Keep it coming.

RamaY ji,

thanks for your time and appreciation! The Pakistan-USA breakup and the new Iran-Pakistan-China Alliance are a major change in our strategic environment. We are not there yet, but this seems increasingly likely.

We have to see how much we can milk the new situation, and be on the alert whether the situation would milk us.

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

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby svinayak » 02 Aug 2011 18:16

RamaY wrote:RajeshAji

Hats off to you on your perseverance. Keep it coming.

RajeshAji , I need for each of your topic one document with all these posts together.
I want to send it to few people to make them to think with a different view point

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55010
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby ramana » 02 Aug 2011 20:04

RajeshA, Please address the points that Talha Jalal raises in your next series of posts. They are all bogeys.

Also I think the NATO push into Libya is the start or resumption of Reconquista. Europe aka Roman Christian West is reasserting at the end of History ie Cold War.

Now that the Marxist heresy is dead they are going after the other Ishamelite heresy.

So Pak containment is not like FSU which was ideological but more akin to quarantine of the terrorist elements.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 03 Aug 2011 01:33

Acharya wrote:RajeshAji , I need for each of your topic one document with all these posts together.
I want to send it to few people to make them to think with a different view point

Acharya garu,

thanks for your vote of confidence! I will try to have something ready soon. I am on holidays with family right now, so it may take a week or so!
Last edited by RajeshA on 03 Aug 2011 02:43, edited 1 time in total.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 03 Aug 2011 01:36

ramana wrote:RajeshA, Please address the points that Talha Jalal raises in your next series of posts. They are all bogeys.

Also I think the NATO push into Libya is the start or resumption of Reconquista. Europe aka Roman Christian West is reasserting at the end of History ie Cold War.

Now that the Marxist heresy is dead they are going after the other Ishamelite heresy.

So Pak containment is not like FSU which was ideological but more akin to quarantine of the terrorist elements.

ramana garu,

I will try to address Talha Jalal's article as far as I can.

Airavat
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2326
Joined: 29 Jul 2003 11:31
Location: dishum-bishum
Contact:

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby Airavat » 03 Aug 2011 07:55

Seraiki province is imminent

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani on Tuesday held in-depth discussions with parliamentarians and ministers from Multan, Bahawalpur and Dera Ghazi Khan. If the proposal for the new province gets materialised, all these regions will be merged. Punjab Governor Sardar Latif Khosa, Minister for Textile Makhdoom Shahabuddin and Minister for Foreign Affairs Hina Rabbani Khar also attended the meeting.

The parliamentarians discussed with the prime minister possibility of launching new development projects to bring about a positive change in the lives of people. Most of the projects dealt with construction of new roads and bridges to link the far-flung areas and to shorten distance between southern Punjab and rest of the country. There was also a demand for swift measures to curb loadshedding and to strengthen existing river banks to protect the people from any flooding.

On the other hand, Pakistan Muslim League-N chief Nawaz Sharif this Monday formed a 15-member party committee to formulate suggestions relating to demand for new provinces........the PML-N is left with no other option but to support creation of new provinces.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55010
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby ramana » 03 Aug 2011 19:34

So they are Balkanising themsleves!

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 04 Aug 2011 15:45

Revisiting Talha Jalal's article

Published on Aug 02, 2011
By Talha Jalal
The containment of Pakistan: Daily Times

Code: Select all

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2011/08/02/story_2-8-2011_pg3_5

Talha Jalal wrote:As I have developed an odd proclivity for drawing parallels between apparently disparate objects of interest, David Rothkopf’s blog post for Foreign Policy magazine, titled ‘Innovations in diplomacy: introducing the anti-ally alliance’, caught my eye at once. Rothkopf is a lifelong Washington insider so one should not dismiss him lightly. Hillary Clinton’s recent statement in India, as Rothkopf suggests, is a proclamation of an alliance to contain Pakistan — an idea that he fervently supports.


Since Talha Jalal mentions Rothkopf, let's look at what Rothkopf says.

Published on Jul 19, 2011
By David Rothkopf
Innovations in diplomacy: Introducing the anti-ally alliance
David Rothkopf wrote:So when Clinton said that the U.S. would not accept any nation offering "safe havens and free pass" it is clear who she was talking about. It is clear that the discovery of Osama bin Laden being nurtured in the bosom of Pakistan has had a permanent impact on the relationship and that the subsequent bristling of the Pakistanis and their push back on key aspects of U.S.-Pakistani cooperation in combating terror have pushed the alliance to being, in key respects, to use the words of one U.S. government official with whom I recently spoke, "stubbornly dysfunctional."

The U.S. has had, in the past, myriad dysfunctional alliances. But you have to go back to that with the Soviets in the waning days of World War II to find one in which a leading ally was simultaneously viewed as a leading threat. While the statements in New Delhi today do not suggest that our alliance with Islamabad is finished, it does send a clear message that, as was the case with the Soviets, flawed alliances can be turned into dangerously adversarial relationships almost overnight if the sides involved do not work in good faith to resolve their differences.


Talha Jalal wrote:It is now obvious that the Pak-US ‘partnership’ is becoming frustrating for both sides and the frustration is being vent on petty tit-for-tat manoeuvres. But, let me concur that the idea of a US-led containment of Pakistan is an interesting prospect; it is, at first sight, quite a fantastical idea. However, it is far from an innovation in American foreign policy.

The Pak-US "partnership" was based on a certain overlap of strategic interests, Pakistan's services for the advancement of US interests, US's willingness and ability to pay for these services, US willingness and ability to justify and invest in propping up a state which offers US such services, and of course a huge amount of goodwill and support Pakistan was able to build up deep within the US establishment.

What one sees are the first symptoms of a complete rupture of this partnership. The overlap of strategic interests is fully gone - be it being the need to push back the Soviets, be it keeping India down (a British legacy and a Cold War mindset), be it acting as a cat's paw in the Ummah, be it in conducting a war against Jihadism!

As far as services are concerned, Pakistan is not helping USA in strengthening its US position in the WANA region, but has in fact refashioned itself as the middle-man for PRC. The War against AQAM and Pakistan cooperation in it is having diminishing returns as the ideology of the Pakistani Army has moved from Jihad against India using American resources to one of Jihad against Crusaders, Yehudi and Hindus, something they have taken over from the Global Jihad Inc. which they were destined to marry.

In fact, it turns out ISI with its global reach through the Pakistani diaspora, its partnerships with Jihadis from Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, Chechnya, Uzbekistan, East Turkestan and those embedded in the West; military resources donated to it by the Americans and Chinese, and its threat of nukes; is in fact become the main director of Global Jihad Inc..

Operation Geronimo was the most visible display of a divergence of strategic interests.

The pool of goodwill started evaporating dramatically during the Raymond Davis episode.

The biggest service the Pakistani Establishment provided US with was the free run of American intelligence agencies within Pakistani territory. In fact that WAS the main argument, Pakistan's advocates in Washington D.C. and Langley had to protect American relationship with Pakistan. That big fig leaf was burnt by Rawalpindi either in a fit of arrogance or because they had become to Islamized themselves. All events that have taken place subsequent to that be it stoppage of visas for CIA contractors, stoppage of cooperation between US military trainers and Pakistani forces, closure of Shamsi Airbase for the Drone Program, rejection of a US Consulate in Peshawar, Travel Restriction on US Ambassador to Pakistan and not permitting him to travel to Peshawar, etc. etc., all have contributed to the erosion and decay of one of the major pillars of US-Pakistan Alliance.

What Talha Jalal is calling petty tit-for-tat maneuvers was the foundation of US-Pakistan relationship - free run for American agencies.

In fact Pakistan's proclivity for going to various regional countries, and advocating that they cut-off their relationship with US and jump into bed with China, and that too after US had given Pakistan substantial amount of money, was quite shocking. Pakistan has become a Chinese paw trying to manipulate the mood in countries like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, and most importantly in Afghanistan against both USA and India; hardly a sign of an ally.

Besides Pakistan has American blood on their hands - in Afghanistan and very very probably in 9/11 as well.

Talha Jalal wrote:There is a striking parallel between the relationship the US shared with the Soviet Union during World War II and the one it has with Pakistan during the ongoing war on terrorism. The Soviet Union was a wartime ally and a post-war threat at the very same time. So, it seems, is Pakistan. Pakistan’s military has been dependent on American aid throughout the duration of the post-9/11 conflict in Afghanistan and within Pakistan; so was the Soviet army. The USSR was relying, although to a lesser extent than Pakistan, on an American lend-lease programme during the World War. Moreover, the alliance with the Soviet Union, much like the one with Pakistan, was a transactional alliance. The post-war agendas of both sides differed greatly.

It was the anticipation of the post-war scenario that led to the standoff with the Soviet Union, and a very similar scenario is leading to an intensifying confrontation with Pakistan.

In February 1946, after the Truman administration had reached a virtual impasse on its policy towards the USSR, a relatively junior diplomat based in Moscow, George F Kennan, broke the ice with his 8,000 word ‘long telegram’ — paving the way for the long haul of containing the massive communist mammoth. And, as we see things now, there is once more a breakdown of relations with a wartime ally and Washington is again looking to re-invent its relationship with a wartime ally in a post-war scenario.

The US’s relationship with Islamabad has always been viewed with scepticism on both sides — there never was any trust between the two allies — much like the relationship with the Soviet Union. Even while the war was going on, as John Lewis Gaddis argues in his Strategies of Containment, US President Roosevelt was conscious of the risks of Soviet influence in post-war Europe.


The reference is being made to George F. Kennan's Long Telegram, his role in shaping the US Containment Policy towards Soviet Union as prescribed in the Clifford-Elsey Report, and the "The Sources of Soviet Conduct" Article he authored which was published in Foreign Policy.

There are obvious differences, especially regarding the depth of alliance, the duration of the alliance and the level to which USA helped an erstwhile partner.

But the parallel that is put up by David Rothkopf is more or less correct. In both cases, America is facing a sharp U-Turn in policy from partnership to opposition and both opponents pose a difficult challenge.

Talha Jalal wrote:And, as it happens, Pakistan’s duplicity in the fight against the Taliban and al Qaeda is a similar predicament forerunning the endgame in Afghanistan.

This whole story makes up for a nice prologue to a Cold War against Pakistan. But analysts sitting in crisis-embroiled Washington should not run towards a conclusion just yet. Pakistan is no communist Soviet Union, nor is it run by Taliban-style ideologues. And, moreover, Afghanistan is no Germany to be stabilised, tamed and reined in like post-war Europe.

With some (ground) reality checks and some historical sense, the fantastical idea of containing Pakistan starts seeming vague and impractical.

What would be the objectives of such ‘containment’? They can be vague at best. Pakistan is run by nationalist forces and has a deeply divided populace of diverse ethnicities. There is no common national ideology, unlike communism in the case of the Soviet Union. Pakistan is a broken country, while the Soviet Union was a superpower. Let us assume, for once, that a containment policy would seek to weaken Pakistan to the point where it disintegrates or Balkanises (an idea being backed by many anti-Pakistan lobbies). This would mean a catastrophe for the whole of Asia. In whose hands would Pakistan’s strategic assets, which are spread across the country, fall? And, more importantly, who would volunteer to pacify a (massively armed) civilian population that is already brimming with anti-Americanism and is fiercely anti-India?

It is here that the author seems to be too clever by half.

First and foremost trick of hand is the misrepresentation of what Pakistan is. Pakistan is basically a geographical region recognized by the UN as a country in the modern sense of the word, but which is in fact simply a region over which the Kabila of Pakistani Army and its leadership in the ISI Directorate has a free run to plan, organize and execute global jihad using terrorism, nuclear blackmail and duplicity. The land and its people are simply used as a source of resources and recruits and controlled through Islamic networks and conspiratorial propaganda.

Then the author goes ahead to postulate that the disintegration of Pakistan would represent a catastrophe for the whole of Asia. In fact it will have just the opposite effect. This would have been the case as the author claims, if Pakistan was ruled by a military, united and determined to fight terrorism in all its forms, and any weakening of such an institution would have meant a free for all terrorists taking away their fiercest enemy - the state army. That however is a fantasy! Pakistani Army is already a Jihadist Army, with a small layer of officers which allow some hesitant cooperation with the international community, but as the institution does not deliver on its promises, as it can't and won't, there is no duality, no army standing up against the scourge of terrorism.

By breaking up Pakistan into many parts, USA would in fact be using a granularity strategy to combat an amorphous enemy. Since 2001, in its wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, American military commanders have found out that it is far easier to work at the local level, working together with local warlords, provincial governors, etc. and work with the federal government is often cumbersome and difficult. Federal Governments are often weak, do not have a pan-national military strength, and where they do, they are often compromised by Jihadists.

The case with Pakistan is not that dissimilar, except that one would really have to break up Pakistan to overcome the dysfunctional and antagonistic attitude of the federal government.

Smaller countries in Pakistan allow the problem to be contained to a single country and its direct neighborhood. One would need to expend far fewer resources to get the problem in a smaller country under control. It would be far easier for for the countries in Anti-Jihadist Coalition to get permission to operate in their area of sovereignty, as smaller countries would be far more dependent on major powers for their viability and their relations with their neighbors. A finer granularity of sovereignty is much more effective to prevent the area to be used by Pan-Islamist networks, as they flourish in areas of chaos, no governance and unlimited freedom of movement. Fine-grained sovereignty helps in disrupting these networks and stopping them from functioning that easily. At finer-grained sovereignty level, the leaders are far more motivated to take responsibility, when empowered appropriately.

In fact fine-grained sovereignty IS the main strategy in fighting trans-national networks. The "Divide and Rule" principle should be understood here in geographical terms and through harnessing the multi-polar dynamic that arises in the region.

Talha Jalal wrote:There is one big problem that is mostly ignored in any analysis on Pakistan — its population. Pakistan’s population is analogous to a ticking time bomb. According to safe projections, it is soon to become the world’s largest Muslim country in terms of population. If containing Pakistan means alienating an already disgruntled 180 million-strong nation, it is inevitably going to prove to be a disastrous policy.

Drawing parallels does seem, on the face of it, quite a neat exercise. But history, as it happens, is not neat at all — it is full of contradictions and paradoxes that cannot be lumped together. There are fundamental differences between both the plot and the principal actors in the present dilemma facing the US and the one that it faced in 1946.

The population has become a ticking time-bomb because it was left to the forces of Islamism and Pakistaniyat. They have turned the population into such a monster. The Pakistani leadership and the cobras they nurtured are alone to blame for the plight of the population.

By breaking up Pakistan, the emerging parts would be much smaller, and the leaders who come up would be far more responsible to the populace than it has been till now the case. That is the only way of mitigating the growing Islamism and despair among the population.

Besides if USA helps areas like Baluchistan, Balwaristan, Pushtunistan and ultimately Southern Sindh to break up from Pakistan, then due to the fact that either these areas are sparsely populated (Baluchistan, Balwaristan), or that the ensuing part is geographically limited (Southern Sindh) or that the part may find peace in another structure (Pushtunistan) would help cutting off Pakistan's claws and teeth.

It is Pakistan's monopoly of access to Central Asia which makes it so strategic. Baluchistan's liberation would change that. It is Pakistan's access to sea that makes it reach so global. Taking away Southern Sindh would put an end to that. It is Pakistan's access to China that makes it revolt against Western control and India's outreach. Taking away Balwaristan would shatter that dream.

So whereas one the one hand one would be breaking up Pakistan to make it more manageable on the other hand one would also be amputating Pakistan and making it weaker to pose a challenge.

One can first take away these regions from Pakistan - Baluchistan, Balwaristan and Southern Sindh (Muhajirstan) eventually integrating them with India giving America's partner in Asia the ability to take care of these areas. One can also break away Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa and join it with Southern Afghanistan creating a Pushtunistan, forcing the Taliban and other Pushtuns to think nationally rather than Pan-Islamically, as well as breaking away the sway of Pakistan's ISI over Afghan politics for once and ever. The real hornet's nest - Punjab, Seraikistan and North Sindh then can be isolated and by controlling the borders of this land-locked Pakistan-Rump without sea-access, without access to Central Asia, without access to China, without access to Iran, one would force the genie of nukes and terrorism back into the lamp!

Talha Jalal wrote:At present, a quid pro quo policy towards Pakistan seems to be dysfunctional at best. A campaign to build public pressure on Pakistan through controlled leaks to the international press has not yielded much fruit, nor has the Pakistani military yielded to the suspension of the $ 800 million military aid; the army, in a recent corps commanders conference, shrugged off the punishment imposed by the US by largely ignoring it. While the carrot and the stick both seem to be ineffective, revisiting the experience with the Soviet Union might seem like an easy policy solution for the US. But it is not. Dialogue is still a better option.


Talha Jalal wrote:The reality is that Pakistan is an immediate neighbour of Afghanistan, sharing with it a 1,610 miles long porous border — and a foreseeable long future too. Moreover, Pakistan has a larger Pashtun population than Afghanistan itself. While the US is looking for cooperation from Pakistan in view of its short-term objectives — those of troop withdrawal and Obama’s re-election — Pakistan on the other hand has to deal with Afghanistan for the long haul. It is the failure to recognise the fact that Pakistan has a genuine interest in the endgame in Afghanistan that has led to the present stalemate. A solution to this stalemate is the reconciliation of American short-term objectives with Pakistan’s long-term relationship with the Afghans. And such a solution can only be arrived at with negotiated give-and-take from both sides. But, at the same time, Pakistan must also shun the manner in which it deals with the US — a now obsolete routine that has an aura of duplicity. The Pakistani leadership should come clean with the US, telling it clearly what they can and cannot do.

Containment, however, should be left to the books of American history students.

In the ultimate analysis from the PoV of USA, stabilization of Afghanistan is not main point, as was the case with Germany. However even that can be made possible if Northern Afghanistan is separated from the Southern Afghanistan which goes on to become part of a united Pushtunistan.

The main emphasis for USA should be to burn away the logistic roots of Jihad, which lie not in Afghanistan but in Rawalpindi, Abbotabad, Islamabad, Muridke, etc.

With a diminished Pakistan - just Punjab, Seraikistan and Northern Sindh, Pakistan would have absolutely no "genuine interest" in Afghanistan, and hence the whole Jihad in Afghanistan that has been responsible for the death of so many American soldiers would be mute. Also the border with Pushtunistan would be the border, Pakistan-Rump would have to worry about and not the Durand Line, and the border with Pushtunistan would be better demarcated and recognized than Durand Line ever was.

The author is speaking from a position that a Islamic Garrison called Pakistan, punching far above its weight, can have "genuine interests", even after its utility is past its expiry date.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55010
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby ramana » 04 Aug 2011 21:55

Brilliant. Very good summation of the ideas so far. am glad I asked you to critique the Jalal article. Again good job!

Do you have blog for this or will ask ShyamD and SSridhar to host it as guest article?

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 04 Aug 2011 22:27

ramana garu,

Thanks for your words of praise. I had one blog which I don't use anymore and its purpose was also different. Please feel free to request SSridhar garu or shyamd ji to host the post.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 05 Aug 2011 00:20

Exploring Indian Supination

as I argued previously, we are witness to a full-scale rupture between USA and Pakistan at the moment. Brick by brick the whole edifice of US-Pakistani cooperation is coming down, but as we only see only one brick falling at a time, we sometimes miss the woods for the trees.

Once the NATO forces become totally independent of their supply lines through Pakistan, either because they leave Afghanistan or because the Northern Distribution Network is able to take the full load of supplying NATO troops, then we will see a more sudden collapse of the edifice.

The confrontation between the ISI-led Global Jihad Inc. and US-led West is pre-programmed, and Pakistan is the main war theater.

So if one should expect USA to attack Pakistan, what could constitute this attack. Most probably Baluchistan would be up for liberation. Balwaristan itself may be an area where USA tries to unsettle the Pakistanis. More importantly Americans would go after Pakistan's strategic assets. Any such attack would of course first involve incapacitating Pakistani Army's fighting ability - especially air defenses and the aircraft.

Now India has been told time and time again by Pakistanis of all hues, ”Hum to doobenge hi sanam, tumko bhi le doobenge”! Any attack on Pakistan from whatever quarter, would involve a Pakistani nuclear attack on India. If this is the case, India has a lot to lose from any American war on Pakistan. What is the use of denuking Pakistan for India if it involves India becoming collateral damage.

If for Indian Policy Makers it is a foregone conclusion that USA and Pakistan are up for a serious confrontation, then the most sensible thing for India to do is to convince Pakistani establishment, that they should not attack India. That can only happen if there is excessive love making, love making over and above all levels of comprehension. To any normal country, India would probably be showing our usual warmth and friendship, but for Pakistan, the opinion in South Block could be that the love-making needs to be excessive, for it to be visible even for the most blind of the Pakistanis.

This is the only reason I can really think of why we have been so diplomatically supine in the last years. When the last time Indian F.M. Mr. S.M. Krishna was in Islamabad and had his press conference with Pakistani F.M. Mr. S.M. Qureishi with the backdrop of Mr. G.K. Pillai's comments on Pakistan, Qureishi was extremely rude and accusatory, and the talks collapsed. The Pakistanis heaped insults on the Indian Foreign Minister and Indian Home Secretary and we took the blows. What was shocking was, that Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao, went to town saying playing down the significance of Qureishi's remards and said the talks had not collapsed.

We were kicked and we said it was nothing, no big deal.

Also India went ahead and declared that talks between India and Pakistan were now independent of any terrorist attacks on India.

And we all wonder how supine can we really get?!

Unless of course we are the biggest idiots that humanity had the misfortune of bringing forth, the only explanation I can find for all this is, because we are extremely afraid, and for good reason.

We are not afraid that Pakistan would start throwing nukes on us out of the blue, because that would be suicidal. Unless the Kabila can simply move elsewhere with its leadership, they are not going to attack us just for the heck of it. This is my personal assessment, and I may very well be wrong on this.

We are also not afraid of the terrorism. A big country can take such punches.

I think we are afraid of a turn of events, in which Americans go after Pakistan's crown jewels, and Pakistan decides to hurl them over on India.

When this happens, we want to be on the best of terms with the Pakistanis. We want the Pakistanis to feel that they have a share in India. We want the Pakistanis to feel that we are simply an extension of their house. That is why we have been busy inviting all sort of Pakistani nobodies to our TV show panels, to Bollywood, to Big Brother House, etc. etc. That is why we are going to have cricket matches again with Pakistan.

The more it seems that America is getting serious to attack Pakistan, the more supination and pappi-jhappi we will be seeing. In fact, most probably America would be attacking Pakistan on the very night when India and Pakistan will be playing a cricket match at some venue in India.

Also expect our leaders to go in front of the camera and severely criticize Americans for their arrogance, when they attack. We would in fact be the first ones to raise the issue in the U.N. Who knows we may even offer some form of military assistance to the Pakistanis, of course with a wink from the Americans. But still...

Anyway, just a theory!

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 05 Aug 2011 00:52

Solving Pakistan: Solution 6

Breaking Pakistan: Baluchistan

Originally posted by BijuShet
Published on Aug 04 2011
Balochistan is of importance to US: Munter: The News (Pakistan)
QUETTA: US Ambassador Cameron Munter said Pakistan and specially Balochistan is of importance to them and US would continue to work for strengthening democracy in the country, Geo News reported.

He was talking to media after a meeting with Balochistan Assembly Speaker Mohammad Aslam Bhootani here today. Munter noted that we US would always be there whenever needed.

'People of Balochiatan are very hospitable and I have always receive respect by them.' He told journalists that US would cooperate in Balochistan's water and energy projects.

In meeting with Speaker Aslam Bhootani, they discussed matters of mutual interests.

The courting of all sections of Baloch society has started. :)

Expecting all hues of Baloch politicians making a bee line to Washington D.C. and being entertained and celebrated there, including those who were considered by Islamabad as being their own people.

shyamd
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6908
Joined: 08 Aug 2006 18:43

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby shyamd » 05 Aug 2011 01:15

Ouch.... A clear signal to Islamabad/Beijing. US is going overt after they got BLA to hit pipelines. The TSPA ops for thelast 5 months have reflected that they are trying to tie down the insurgency by targeting the leaders/anyone involved with freedom both in Karachi or in Baluchistan. Those camps in the Sultanate of Oman are not closed down.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RamaY » 05 Aug 2011 01:19

RajeshA wrote:The author is speaking from a position that a Islamic Garrison called Pakistan, punching far above its weight, can have "genuine interests", even after its utility is past its expiry date.


RajeshA garu, Excellent summary!

Putting my PAkI-diaper on (bliss to note that I giving lot of credit to Pakis here) -

Somebody at sometime sold these Pakis a bucket full of jam jam cola, saying that they have the potential to be the new Kalipha. That vision is what driving this kabila to go global (of course thru the religiously sanctioned jihad) by spreading its tentacles.

The strategic interests of Pakis and US overlapped during 1970-2000. Paki's brilliantly (I must say) used this time to gather funds, nukes and communication network.

There are two logical conclusions to this monster -
1. World community cuts all its tentacles and puts the genii back in the bottle using your strategy. This however will not do much to the ideology (it might find another location to accumulate)

2. Pakis will win this game and become the center of Ummah (in the medium term ~50 years using nukes, population, and terror). It is said that Bharata varsha is a karma bhoomi (one must pay for their past karma). The end game in this scenario will be dissolution of Islam as an ideology for good.

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

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby svinayak » 05 Aug 2011 01:24

RamaY wrote:
There are two logical conclusions to this monster -
1. World community cuts all its tentacles and puts the genii back in the bottle using your strategy. This however will not do much to the ideology (it might find another location to accumulate)

2. Pakis will win this game and become the center of Ummah (in the medium term ~50 years using nukes, population, and terror). It is said that Bharata varsha is a karma bhoomi (one must pay for their past karma). The end game in this scenario will be dissolution of Islam as an ideology for good.

The world community(US/West) wants to transform India using this opportunity and change the region once and for all to their advantage.

RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RamaY » 05 Aug 2011 01:27

Yep/ In that vision (Should I call it EJVision Vs JihaVision) Pakis are a tool to control Bharat.

I am talking from JihaVision only. We need to see the interactions of these EJ/Jiha/Hun visions from IndiVision perspective.

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

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby svinayak » 05 Aug 2011 01:28

You got it. You are close to it. Go higher at 100k feet and look at it from history.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 05 Aug 2011 11:57

Fighting Jihadism in Pakistan

Global Jihad Inc. and even the Local Mullah are proving very resistant to GWoT, to COIN, to the modern state's security measures.

It is a many-headed Hydra. You cut one head and another one would grow instead. The Mujahids feel they are doing Allah's work, so any opportunity to take greater responsibility in Jihad is considered a normal promotion. If the predecessor was mowed down by security agencies of a modern state, that in itself does not seem to act as an impediment. As long as they live in their new positions as commanders, they will enjoy the respect of their colleagues, other Mujahids, they will enjoy being able to put fear into the hearts of the infidel, they will enjoy their exalted position in society, which honors Mujahids who "do Allah's work"! When these Mujahids die, there are prospects of getting 72 virgins along with the virility of a 100 men to satisfy them and to relish the experience. Plus, the organization, the dawa, would ensure that their families would be looked after and would receive a monthly stipend.

There is as such from their PoV, no reason to not opt for a lifetime of service in the cause of Jihad and to become a martyr in the same cause. Considering that there is no other work, is all the more reason.

So just killing off Jihadis one by one is a never-ending task. Americans are finding that out in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Yemen, and elsewhere.

Israelis tried breaking out of this dynamic. It was considered as insufficient to simply kill off the Palestinian fighters. What the Israelis did in Gaza, was to use collective punishment on Palestinians to relent - the blockades, sanctions, withholding of tax revenues, counter-bombardment, etc. That just increased the resolve of Palestinians. The whole community felt bound by a collective destiny and so they pulled themselves together and their determination to fight and die together increased as well.

Some would use that example to prove that collective punishment does not pay.

So if killing mujahids does not pay and collective punishment does not pay, then how does one go about fighting Jihadism?

Any social dynamic is based on understandings and contracts. When these understandings and contracts are not heeded or adhered to, then the society starts falling apart - any society, even a deeply conservative society. One has to see what these understandings and contracts are. One would however notice that an outsider does not really have the ability to intervene to such a high degree, so as to ensure that social compacts are violated.

There are basically two ways:
1) Corrupt society: A community works like one big block sharing resources, sharing space and sharing secrets valuable to the security of the whole community, sharing trust. It is often not possible to change the behavior of the majority in the community in a way that the previous social compacts are not honored, but certain individuals can always be turned around. The poorer a society becomes, the more vulnerable the individuals are to being bought off by giving them some rewards. As such one can buy people's loyalty, and make them work for you against the interests and wishes of the wider society. Similarly if somebody has much to lose, in terms of wealth, then again the other one would be willing to cooperate with outside forces, and may sell out the mujahids.

The avenues of corruption need to be explored to the maximum. The challenge is of course gaining access to those individuals who would be willing to break the social compact, and be willing to trade the community's secrets and trust for some favors and rewards. Normally a community would be very alert against such turncoats and anybody acting funny would be investigated. Also punishments are always severe and quick against traitors, in Jihadized communities.

As such increased trade and interaction with the outside world, even aid organizations working in the area, all provide a better backdrop for infiltration and recruitment of possible 'traitors', a standard operating procedure for gather HUMINT.

2) Care for the Family: The choice to wage jihad comes easily as the mujahids know that after them their families would be respected and looked after properly, they will not be allowed to starve. Moreover their families would receive funds and protection from the dawa, from the tanzeems.

That is the basis of the social compact a mujahid enters into with the community, before he swears his allegiance to jihad. So the question arises, would a mujahid willingly go for Jihad if the safety of his family was not guaranteed! Now the outside world does not have any say over whether the mujahids tanzeem would make that promise, but the outside world very well has the capacity to decide whether mujahid's tanzeem would be able to keep that promise.
  1. Outside forces can ensure a dynamic, where the potential mujahid needs to be afraid of the consequences of his decision on his faith and on the rest of his family. If there are consequences, then they should be of a nature which would really give the potential mujahid some cause for rethinking, something shocking enough for him to rethink his decision, a decision he has been told, is sanctioned by Allah himself.

    Something shocking enough on the faith front for him would be say after his death his body is not turned over to his family or community but is in fact defiled in a way completely contrary to his beliefs - say fed to the pigs, or cremated.

    Something shocking enough on the family front for him would be say the death of all his male offspring regardless of age, and if he doesn't have any, than those of his next of kin - his parents, his male siblings. Something shocking would be say, if his female offspring, or his female siblings were to be kidnapped and taken as women, forcibly or otherwise, by men belonging to a different faith as Islam.

    Should this happen to each and every mujahid, that is either caught fighting or dies in the battlefield, or is simply identified as a fighter, then it would establish not a probability but an almost certainty in the minds of potential mujahids, about the consequences.
  2. Moreover he should also be angry at those who suggest to him that he should become a mujahid. The argument should go something on the lines that he would be the only one making the sacrifice, while others would be sacrificing nothing.

    This anger would come only only he is being asked to make this sacrifice, while the others suffer no consequences at all. That is why the above punishment should be very discriminatory. There should be no collateral damage if it can be avoided, so that the recruiters cannot claim on behalf of the community, that the war is being waged on the whole community, and they should pick the gun and do likewise. The punishment should be so surgical and discriminatory, that it is difficulty to make this argument.

    The "traitors" as such can then help in ensuring that the punishment is very surgical and precise.
  3. Thirdly, there should be people around him, who should be making the argument to him, that he should decide against becoming a mujahid, and their argument should carry more weight than those who want to push him into Jihad citing the interests of religion and community.

    Here the talk is of grown up adults, possibly the brothers of a potential mujahid who talk him out of becoming a mujahid. They would make the argument only if they also share in some of the consequences spoken of earlier, should he become a mujahid. Only then would they have the motivation to speak up. They should be able to make the argument that only their family would suffer, while the others would not.

As a civilized society, we tend to think of punishments which would only dissuade one belonging to such a civilized society who prizes his freedoms and desire to be with his family, to whom prison can be insulting to his dignity, etc. etc. If however we are waging a war, then we have to think of punishments which can act as discouragement for the enemy community, and not the same laws apply.

The implementation of consequences on the dead body of a mujahid can be justified on the basis of a declaration that, "he was a terrorist, and we do not consider him a Muslim, for terrorists have no religion!"

The implementation of consequences on his family would have to be carried out extra-judiciously, using some organization which specializes only in the above, and uses HUMINT from within the community to aid them in carrying out their missions.

So if we want to wage a successful war against Jihad, we would have to rethink the basics again.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55010
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby ramana » 05 Aug 2011 20:16

X-post....
Lalmohan wrote:i am coming to the conclusion that the window for pakistan to have a controlled soft landing has closed. now on, there can only be a catastrophic meltdown of the state, society and polity and something new will have to be built from the ashes. there will be a major crisis one way or another

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55010
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby ramana » 05 Aug 2011 22:34

Lalmohan and RajeshA,

Nightwatch says

Nightwatch 3 Aug 2011

Pakistan: Update. Hundreds of extra paramilitary troops have been deployed to Karachi where 58 people have been killed in political violence in the past five days. More than 200 people were killed last month.

Comment: The Islamabad government has exhausted its options and ideas for halting politically-motivated violence in Karachi.

Pakistan is heading for a military takeover of government, based on precedent and barring a surprise improvement in economic, law and order and social conditions. In other words, the economic and social conditions that are necessary but not sufficient conditions for a military takeover are present. The instrumental and sufficient conditions -- security force dissatisfaction with the civilian leadership and refusal to carry out lawful orders - do not yet seem present, but can appear in a short time without additional warning.


RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 05 Aug 2011 23:36

Indo-Pak Trade and MFN Status for India

X-Posting from TSP Thread

jamwal wrote:
Hari Seldon wrote:Humiliating comedown apart, I'm concerned India will unwittingly help prop up Pak by trading with them. Aak-thoo. Demand transit rights to Afgn & CAR as part & parcel of the open trade deal, I say!

Through Pakistan for what ? Just to get our vehicles burnt like NATO ? :lol:
Sri wrote:Trade in Pakistan is No problem as long as we manage a surplus. Otherwise no fun in it.
ArmenT wrote:^^^
That should be pretty easy to achieve, considering that there is actually demand for Indian manufactured goods on the Paki side. The reverse is not true however.

Not only Bollywood movies, the Pakis have got the idea that stuff like Rooh Afza, soaps, medicines, tyres, soft drinks, cement, cars etc. which are made in India are higher quality than Pakistan made items, even if they are the same brand, made by the same multinational! There is actually demand for Indian goods on the other side and many of these are already on sale at Paki black markets.

Now if anyone goes to an Indian black market like Burma Bazaar, none of the shops have ever had anything for sale from Pakistan. If anything, they have a lot of Japanese goods imported from Malaysia or Singapore. If India is interested in anything from Pakistan, it is only raw materials and agricultural produce (dry fruits, vegetables, sugarcane etc.)
Lisa wrote:IMHO. What the feudal landlords and generals wish to do in pakistan vis-à-
vis screwing their economy should not really concern us. Any trade with
India will first and foremost assist an average pakistani saving money and
even at a minuscule level driving some efficiency into his economy with
the saved penny.

This is definitely not in our interest. Adding cost, enhancing inefficiency
and constricting growth is what we must assist pakistan with for any
improvement in their lot will inevitably be contrary to our interests as they
will use it against us.

More importantly, if push ever come to shove almost every Indian exporter
with a market in pakistan will align himself with WKKism. Correct?
Sri wrote:That's why I am insisting on a surplus scenario. We must strive to have a substantial surplus and insist on Dollar to dollar settlement. Say if the trade hits $3bn the first year and we manage a $1bn surplus, that means a good amount of their foreign reserves from Pakistan will actually land here. Right now it's going somewhere else anyways....

Trade is good in general if you maintain surplus...
SSridhar wrote:Lisa has valid points. The objective of Pakistan is very clear. Hina Rabbani Khar is there as FM for a specific purpose. To mount a charm offensive, not only with India, but with others as well. With India specifically, Pakistan has already decided to give MFN status and only a formal announcement is to be made. We should recall that when the Indian Foreign Secretary visited Islamabad this June, Kayani gave a speech at PMA, Kakul and said "nation’s honour should not be traded only for prosperity." I thought he was warning the civilian government from giving MFN status to India. He might have also meant the US (or both India and the US) but I thought it was a reference to India. Normally, PMA speeches to gentlemen cadets are loaded with aphorisms on India because the idea of revenge has to be instilled in fresh recruits. Certainly, the MFN status could not have come without PA's approval. If PA today has turned about in slightly over a month's time, there is something else seriously wrong that the PA feels compelled to seek adjustments with the arch enemy, even if only temporarily.
krisna wrote:^^^^
previously TSPA /RAPES were against giving MFN to India. Now what has changed the stance.
The only things I can think of – If TSPA agreed to it then it is a worsened sign for TSPA sake.
Deteriorating economic conditions-
3.5 friends getting tougher on TSPA not getting easy money/alms etc. for free or thru’ IMF etc.
Not winning any quotas in oiropean markets
Floods having an impact- recall feudal lords with large tracts of land poor electricity
Soossai bummers violent clashes poor industrialization no increased productivity internally displaced peoples etc.

The above are all well known.
But what takes the cake is – the whole conditions are biting the RAPE/TSPA class also in their musharraf.
Slowly but surely the tightening economic crisis is what making them open to MFN with India. Now India though is kaffir, they can exercise taqqiyya till economic conditions stabilize with India’s help. It is a delicate balance.
Previously they used to laugh at our MFN proposal knowing that 3.5 friends would bail them out. Though aam pakiabduls used to suffer because of increased prices in black market for Indian goods purchased thru’ dubai RAPES were relatively immune.

The questions now is for how long TSPA will give MFN status to kuffr nation, how will aam pakiabduls look at this new status.
In the short run it will embolden the RAPES to tighten their economic hold on the populace. once that happens they will rescind the MFN status. They will avoid long term MFN status IMO as it will benefit the common folks there.

JMTs
--
edited- thanks SS
SSridhar wrote:
krisna wrote:It could be a shot in the arm for other small countries in saarc comity who will be seeing this. India should seize this and enter into local agreements/saarc and enhance trade and commerce with our smaller neighbours.

krisna, the SAARC regulations require each member to bestow MFN on the other members. It has happened a long time back among others. Pakistan was the only exception. The only reason it has been obstinate about this is because of its thinking that the term 'Most Favoured Nation' would blunt the enmity & hatred for India among the Abduls.
shiv wrote:If you look at the figures for smuggling between India and Pakistan and "unofficial trade" it runs into a huge figure. Pakiatan, I believe is an importer of lots of Indian stuff from automobile parts, tyres and drugs. Smuggling benefits smugglers - with D company at the top, and the Paki government has naturally been reluctant to kill the golden goose that ensures that the wrong set of people make a handsome profit.

There are Indians who lose out from ths smuggling. It is far better to have a system in place that allows trade with Pakistan.

In some ways the Pakistani elite have us fooled. They invoke ideology to stop legal transactions with India while a few elites benefit from illegal transaction. We fall for this ideological excuse and put up a rigid ideology of our own and refuse trade with Pakistan only to our detriment.

Imagine a situation in which Rajasthan stopped trading with Gujarat. That would not stop trade. It would only encourage illegal channels. The goods would get through via alternate channels where other middlemen would make money. So for example if an Indian company were able to sell pain killers to Pakistan because of low Indian prices, the price advantage would go to China because of the need to have a midddleman smuggle the drug.

I have already mentioned how, in the last thread, hoarders and feudal lords in Pakistan would oppose free trade because lower Indian prices would kill their ability to hoard and fix prices in Pakistan.

The other striking thing that I think people are missing is the striking similarity betwen Pakistan and India in terms of ordinary day to day objects. For example the moulded cement kerb stones which appeared in India in the last 10 years are the same in Pakistan. There is some foreign/third party company that is selling the moulds/machinery to both countries. Pakistan has Maruti Alto and Maruti Omni cars under some other name.. A third party is making profits from Pakistan - possibly even sourcing from India because of lack of a trade agreement.

Bollywood movies are a significant export from India. I betcha not a single penny comes from Pakhanastan despite Bollywood's popularity because the whole thing is in the hands of the mafia. And teh mafia are in cahooots with the Pakistani elite/army/establishment/feudals.
shiv wrote:For Pakistan, trading with India would be drinking from a poisoned chalice.

For example - prices of commodities like foodgrains would stabilize in Pakistan, but profiteering would be reduced. It is the hoarders and profit makers who are worried about free trade in Pakistan. If a period of free trade is allowed and then stopped - prices once again would be destabillized in Pakistan. At that time it would be impossible to the local authorities in Pakistan to resist demands that trade with India should be re established because of the stabilizing effect on prices.

For the Paki army, that requires the support of a rabid anti-India population free trade that would make Pakis addicted to the Indian trade drug would be a terrible blow. Kiyani is no ideologue. He like his mullah brothers are crooks.
Suppiah wrote:If TSP gives MFN to India we should encourage the import of furniture and rice and other vegetables from TSP. For one the furniture is of good quality as I have seen in shops in ME, the other it reduces TSP's tree cover. Importing rice is just importing water, only much easier to transport..we can divert to other crops that save water..
shiv wrote:
Suppiah wrote:If TSP gives MFN to India we should encourage the import of furniture and rice and other vegetables from TSP. For one the furniture is of good quality as I have seen in shops in ME, the other it reduces TSP's tree cover. Importing rice is just importing water, only much easier to transport..we can divert to other crops that save water..


reduces tree cover !! :rotfl:

The structure of feudal farming is that the landowner gets all the produce to sell while the tiller/sharecroper get a pittance if they get anything at all. In Pakistan the landowner is the member of "parliament" and his brother/son is the major/colonel/sq ldr.

Drought or bumper harvest the landowner has plenty of food for himself. There is also grain available at subsidized rates for army from army farms who are doing pretty much the same thing. In times of plenty will hoard to create artificial scarcity and raise prices. At a time of drought he will sell his hoard at extortionate prices. In either case he will be paying his tribute/agriculture tax to the Jamaat ud Dawa. In other words an artificial scarcity is created when there is a good harvest, and the hoarded stuff is sold at high prices at the time of real scarcity. The tillers and workers get some payment when there is plenty and get nothing at a time of scarcity. This is how Pakistani farming works and the profits help the Pakistani state at the expense of mango Abdul.

This is how trade with India will affect these guys. If there is a bumper crop any attempt at hoarding and raising prices artificially will price them out of the export market. At the time of scarcity, they will not be able to sell hoarded grain because cheaper imports will be available.

Is it surprising that the Army and army personnel who own a large proportion of agricultural land opposes trade with India?
shiv wrote:One cautionary note. "Free trade" with Pakistan with "MFN" and all that has to be watched with great care. It's not all milk and roses. There is plenty of scope for golmaal and it may come back and hit us in the face. But it has some benefits that must be squeezed, while not allowing misuse.
Theo_Fidel wrote:MFN status is the first step towards the liberalized Indian visa policy the RAPE have been demanding. This will allow every random TSP 'business' person (Adnan & Heera anyone) to demand a visa to enter the country. It was the business class in TSP that opposed the MFN. Their business class has been looking for an exit plan for some time. This might be part of it.
RajeshA wrote:The inflation in Pakistan is starting to bite the population badly, and basically importing all the stuff from India is the easiest way to push down the prices.

Pakistan has no other alternative than allowing Indian products to come in.

The less Pakistanis have to spend on basic necessities that need to be imported, the more money the population has for buying all that what is produced in Pakistan itself. That allows more money with the population to buy hoarded wheat, rice and sugar.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 06 Aug 2011 02:18

ramana wrote:Lalmohan and RajeshA,

Nightwatch says

Nightwatch 3 Aug 2011

Pakistan: Update. Hundreds of extra paramilitary troops have been deployed to Karachi where 58 people have been killed in political violence in the past five days. More than 200 people were killed last month.

Comment: The Islamabad government has exhausted its options and ideas for halting politically-motivated violence in Karachi.

Pakistan is heading for a military takeover of government, based on precedent and barring a surprise improvement in economic, law and order and social conditions. In other words, the economic and social conditions that are necessary but not sufficient conditions for a military takeover are present. The instrumental and sufficient conditions -- security force dissatisfaction with the civilian leadership and refusal to carry out lawful orders - do not yet seem present, but can appear in a short time without additional warning.


ramana garu,

some time ago I proposed a timeline, for the sake of rough orientation.
RajeshA wrote:I would like to propose a list of stages, I believe, the region occupied by the entity 'Pakistan' would go through before attaining some stability and peaceful integration with the rest of the region.

Here an initial draft of the rest-lifecycle of Pakistan:

1) A flare-up of Pakistani confidence (2010 - 2012) - Victory in Afghanistan; Kashmir in Turmoil, American & Chinese support.

2) Blowback from Afghan Victory (2013 - 2016) - PML-N in power, though muddled political situation. Growing Talibanism in Pakjab, Breakdown of Governance, Financial Crisis, Secessionist voices in Sindh & Baluchistan, American pullback from Pakistan.

3) Next Martial Law (2017 - 2022) - Insurgency in North Baluchistan, Pukhtunkhwa-Khyber & FATA, resulting in full Army retreat from Pushtun Areas. Terrorism in Pakjab. Secession in Sindh and Baluchistan receive international traction. Hyperinflation.

4) Breakup of Pakistan (2023 - 2025) - Americans reiterate their support for Pakistani Army. Denuking of Pakistan. New Pushtun Dispensation in Southern & Eastern Afghanistan, Pukhtunkhwa-Khyber, FATA, North-Baluchistan. Sindh and Baluchistan receive international recognition. Pakjab remains in turmoil from all the fanatic groups. International Conferences to find a solution.

5) Fall into the Abyss (2026 - 2030) - Warlordism, gun culture, Islamist groups wide-spread in the region. Economic collapse. Hunger, Famine, Lawlessness, Refugees.

6) India steps in (2030 - ...) -

One can of course try to correct this timeline based on what we know now! I am just reposting here, because in the post I talked about a military coup sometime in the future, the issue of discussion.

I think, the military would take over power, not when there is a breakdown of law & order somewhere in the country, but rather when some power center tries to undermine TSPA's power.

As the saying goes, "If you break it, you own it"!

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 06 Aug 2011 09:31

Indo-Pak Trade and MFN Status for India

X-Posting from TSP Thread

rajithn wrote:You dont have to look very far. Bajaj, (Maruti) Suzuki and a host of other Indian companies do export to Pakistan. Not directly though. They use Dubai as a re-export hub. The decals of the vehicles are removed in Dubai and shipped onwards to Pakistan. Items are also re-packaged and then shipped onwards. This has been happening for a long time now. Two wheelers, three wheelers, LMVs, soaps & detergents, medicine et al. Dubai is THE re-export hub for many Indian companies that want their products to reach Pakistan, Iran, East Africa besides others.
brihaspati wrote:The trade-no-trade debate throws up some interesting questions for me.

Here is one report I could find on the net about the "grey-market" :
http://www.worldtradereview.com/news.asp?pType=N&iType=A&iID=133&siD=6&nID=27646
Indo-Pak grey market trade worth $965 m in 2005-06: Study

New Delhi: The grey market trade between India and Pakistan was higher by 37.85 per cent than the official trade between the two countries at the end of 2005-06, according to a study conducted by Assocham.

The official bilateral trade figure for the period was around $700 million, while the grey market trade is estimated at $965 million during the period, according to the study.


The reasons further cited for the volume of that trade are interesting actually. Those factors will remain in place until an FTA comes in. So simply more trade through official channels will not reduce the "grey" market, unless the official trading channel becomes cost-competitive for traders on both sides. So maybe staged reduction of tariff/costs/customs on increasing number of items of interest - until the reduction matches "unofficial" costs [including the protection money paid to political apparatus].

But then it also means that on quantitative macro terms - Pak is getting the things it consumes from India anyway. Since Pak population is still increasing it means that sufficient basic factor inputs for reproduction of the population is actually entering the Pak economy. Thus the feudals may pocket profits but they are forced to allow subsistence inputs in quantitative terms.

Even if trade liberalizes, the very existence of the Paki rashtra where feudal-military-mullah complex forms one single block in power terms and only a few families control almost all of the trade and industry, will ensure that profits will still be controlled by this very same complex.

The military may not be against trade liberalization in general - as far as I know they were keen on FTA with PRC. Here either they are simply scared that the feudals may get out of control and come to separate "understanding" with India bypassing the military because of their trading or mercantile interests. Or the military itself carries on the grey-trade and top echelons pocket the profit. But another angle is that grey or "black" flows provide a means of funding away from rashtryia records - that can be used for covert activities.
Multatuli wrote:
Suppiah wrote wrote:If TSP gives MFN to India we should encourage the import of furniture and rice and other vegetables from TSP. For one the furniture is of good quality as I have seen in shops in ME, the other it reduces TSP's tree cover. Importing rice is just importing water, only much easier to transport..we can divert to other crops that save water..


anupmisra wrote:Some 134 food export consignments rejected in last three years.

KARACHI, June 2 -- About 134 food export consignments have been rejected by European countries due to presence of pesticides residues, heavy metals and aflatoxins in the last three years.

...

He said that most of these consignments were of chilies, spices, dry fruits, pickles and brown rice. We are also receiving alert notices from European countries, he added.

I wouldn't put it past Packee's to add additional poisons to any foodstuff they export to India.
shiv wrote:
brihaspati wrote:Even if trade liberalizes, the very existence of the Paki rashtra where feudal-military-mullah complex forms one single block in power terms and only a few families control almost all of the trade and industry, will ensure that profits will still be controlled by this very same complex.

The military may not be against trade liberalization in general - as far as I know they were keen on FTA with PRC. Here either they are simply scared that the feudals may get out of control and come to separate "understanding" with India bypassing the military because of their trading or mercantile interests. Or the military itself carries on the grey-trade and top echelons pocket the profit. But another angle is that grey or "black" flows provide a means of funding away from rashtryia records - that can be used for covert activities.

True on both counts, but para 2 describes how the profiteers of para 1 above can lose business and monopolies. The other thing is the "sanctions factor" can kick in if trade is allowed. If India ends up supplying say 25% or more of the car tires requirements of Pakistan then a stoppage of that can create immediate shortages.

But Indian soldiers have been killed in the last 7 days. One part of Pakistan is interested in maintaining a uniform anti-India policy on various levels - on the ideological level, on the profiteering level etc. We are allowing that group to have it their way by a mirror image, tit for tat stance. By following a more schizophrenic "flexible" policy we can erode the rigid anti-India structures built up in Pakistan.

I think we are gradually going to see a Pakistan that is not getting the sort of help it wants from the USA and China simply because Islam has gone too far in Pakistan and cannot be put back in the bottle (if at all) without much bloodshed. To me this might be an opportunity for India to create splits in Pakistani society by opening trade channels that benefits previously ignored/sidelined people such as border traders/laborers. I would bet that they are all Islamists who support the Jamaat ud Dawa and Lahskar e Toiba. But they are already doing that now and India has no way of putting pressure on their personal lives. Getting a handle on them which can be used to manipulate them is important. One reason why Pakistan resists trade is precisely this ability India will have over mango Pakis.
abhishek_sharma wrote:
shiv wrote: The other thing is the "sanctions factor" can kick in if trade is allowed. If India ends up supplying say 25% or more of the car tires requirements of Pakistan then a stoppage of that can create immediate shortages.

But these sanctions will be opposed by people who were benefiting by selling car tires.

American sanctions did not work after Pokharan 2 because American companies wanted to sell their products to India. Similarly, India's sanctions will not work because ...
gakakkad wrote:
shiv wrote: The other thing is the "sanctions factor" can kick in if trade is allowed. If India ends up supplying say 25% or more of the car tires requirements of Pakistan then a stoppage of that can create immediate shortages.
abhishek_sharma wrote:But these sanctions will be opposed by people who were benefiting by selling car tires.

American sanctions did not work after Pokharan 2 because American companies wanted to sell their products to India. Similarly, India's sanctions will not work because ...

Pakiland is a barely 150 Billion dollar economy . At the most what would be the market size for Indian products if MFN status is granted ? Besides Indian companies are selling in TSP indirectly and making profit. The loser is the mango Paki who has to pay a higher price . Why do we care? There is no way we should relieve them from their economic stress . Besides why do you want to open Indian market towards Paki agro goods. I cant imagine eating rice made in TSP.
shiv wrote:
shiv wrote: The other thing is the "sanctions factor" can kick in if trade is allowed. If India ends up supplying say 25% or more of the car tires requirements of Pakistan then a stoppage of that can create immediate shortages.
abhishek_sharma wrote:But these sanctions will be opposed by people who were benefiting by selling car tires.

American sanctions did not work after Pokharan 2 because American companies wanted to sell their products to India. Similarly, India's sanctions will not work because ...

Nothing is guaranteed to work. No solution can be suggested that is perfectly good. The best we can hope for is to throw the Paki system off balance and make it less predictable for them and hopefully guide things in a direction we prefer. That is about as far as we can go.

The American failure with India is a perfect example of why American sanctions failed on Cuba, NoKo and Iran and will also fail with Pakistan. One of my major rants in the last thread was the burqa of lies we were hiding under by which we imagined that the US was somehow being very effective in Pakistan while India was being ineffective. Ultimately nothing is very effective against Pakistan. Nothing can be effective against 175 million people. Even their own (so called) government is ineffective. Everything is haywire. Everything is chaotic and unpredictable beyond small steps and short time spans.

Solutions, or the lack of solutions become more evident to us if we do not fool ourselves into thinking that anyone is "effective" in controlling Pakistan's course.
shiv wrote:
gakakkad wrote: I cant imagine eating rice made in TSP.

That is the same rigidity that Pakistan shows towards India effectively making Pakistan's game India's game. In the meantime all my NRI relatives and friends in the UK, Germany and the US still buy or find Pakistani basmati and Paki T shirts in thie shops and find Pakistan made surgical instruments (basic low tech stuff like kidney trays) in their hospitals.

We are tying ourselves up to Pakistan's game and the rest of the world does not give a flying fu( other than to occasionally say how IndiaPakistan are arch rivals.

Pakistan has successfully inserted itself into India psyche as India's alter ego. We have the option of breaking away and doing something else. but we are too fixated with doing a tit for tat game with them - which is exactly what they wanted in the first place.
abhishek_sharma wrote:And we watch Dawood-funded Bollywood movies!
gakakkad wrote:Shiv saar my basic idea is not hatred or ideology driven . It is logic driven. When in Khanland I am careful not to buy Paki products . But I don't mind buying from a Patel brothers franchise selling Indian goods that is run by a Paki staff. My basic idea is to further squeeze the paki's economically . India is the only country that can support Pakistan economically .

As far a surgical instruments is concerned , forget Khanland , once upon a time even my dads hospital in Gujarat had stainless steel instruments which were made in Pakistan. (circa 1995) I think their surgical instrument industry has died out. In unkil we usually see low tech stuff from Pandaland . May be England was a bigger market for their stuff.
shiv wrote:Kakkadji the Pakistani surgical instrument business is far from dead. It is not large and it is not unique enough to be a monopoly that's all. Simple economics dictates people's choices.

Your life makes it easy for you to ignore Pakistani products. A farmer growing tomatoes in India just across the Pakistani border is faced with a dilemma if there is a bumper crop of tomatoes and the prices crash to Rs 2 per kilo as they have done. Does he just let his unsold tomatoes rot or sell them across the border to a market that may be willing to buy them? Every year we read about onions or other commodities which are in short supply or in a state of oversupply on one side of the border. Local trade makes sense for short-lived perishables that would otherwise require refrigeration and transport to export them 5000 km while they could be sold 50 km away. With a border that extends several thousand km there are hundreds of thousands of Indians living in close proximity to Pakistanis. The relationship has been one of war where the border people of India have suffered. But if there is no war, what argument can we make for not helping those border peoples of India make a better living selling their produce?

Sitiing in Bangalore, Kerala I can take the attitude that Pakistan should be nuked. No skin off my balls. The fallout won't touch me. I can then accuse people in the border areas of Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat for not being patriotic enough and complaining that they might suffer from fallout of Indian nukes on Pakistan in Indian border states. The people of those states can temporarily move out to other states no? In the name of patriotism. Or even nationalism ( :rotfl: )
RajeshA wrote:
RajeshA wrote:The inflation in Pakistan is starting to bite the population badly, and basically importing all the stuff from India is the easiest way to push down the prices.

Pakistan has no other alternative than allowing Indian products to come in.

The less Pakistanis have to spend on basic necessities that need to be imported, the more money the population has for buying all that what is produced in Pakistan itself. That allows more money with the population to buy hoarded wheat, rice and sugar.

Another reason, they may be going for an MFN with India may be because of the situation in Karachi.

Karachi has been in a state of anarchy, and Karachi may be coming up short in its function as the main commercial port of Pakistan. That means even the goods re-exported from Dubai or even Chinese goods may not be getting through to Pakistan. Some similarity to NATO supplies not getting through to Afghanistan! :wink:

An MFN with India would mean, that Karachi would not be able to strangle Pakjab, as Pakistan would be getting a lot more goods over Wagah itself. So in fact Pakistan may be creating its own version of Northern Distribution Network :) similar to how USA negotiated a deal with Russia.

Another thing would be that China may have persuaded Pakistan to open up trade with India, as both Karachi and Karakoram being blocked, even Chinese goods cannot get through, and with a trade opening to India, the Chinese may be able to sell their goods through Wagah as well. A bit far fetched theory here with the Chinese....

It may also be a political tool to cut down MQM in size, which controls Karachi.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 06 Aug 2011 10:31

Solving Pakistan: Solution 6

Breaking Pakistan: Seraikistan

Airavat wrote:Seraiki province is imminent

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani on Tuesday held in-depth discussions with parliamentarians and ministers from Multan, Bahawalpur and Dera Ghazi Khan. If the proposal for the new province gets materialised, all these regions will be merged. Punjab Governor Sardar Latif Khosa, Minister for Textile Makhdoom Shahabuddin and Minister for Foreign Affairs Hina Rabbani Khar also attended the meeting.

The parliamentarians discussed with the prime minister possibility of launching new development projects to bring about a positive change in the lives of people. Most of the projects dealt with construction of new roads and bridges to link the far-flung areas and to shorten distance between southern Punjab and rest of the country. There was also a demand for swift measures to curb loadshedding and to strengthen existing river banks to protect the people from any flooding.

On the other hand, Pakistan Muslim League-N chief Nawaz Sharif this Monday formed a 15-member party committee to formulate suggestions relating to demand for new provinces........the PML-N is left with no other option but to support creation of new provinces.

Most probably Seraiki Province is being allowed as a form of amputation. Since Southern Pakjab has been heavily Jihadized with Punjabi Taliban coming up there, Pakjab Proper is trying to amputate the part, so that it can put up some level of inter-provincial defenses and push away the jihadi pressure on Lahore.

Secondly Southern Pakjab is basically a poor region, at a time of resource crunch Pakjab Proper is trying to get rid of Southern Pakjab, so that the Pakjabi Government does not have to spend on the region.

Thirdly PML-N may feel that its hold on Pakjab Proper always get diluted due to the contribution of PPP seats to the overall tally. Hence it needs to look for some partners like PPP itself or PML-Q, etc. to form the government. With Southern Pakjab cut-off PML-N would get its own uncontested fiefdom in Pakjab Proper. Of course PPP too would have its own fiefdom in the new Seraiki Province, but since that province would be poor anyway, it doesn't really matter.

Then there is of course the theory that Pakjab is too big for a province within the federation and it causes dissatisfaction among the smaller provinces (population wise), which has given rise to centrifugal tendencies among them. A new Seraiki Province would act as a counterfoil to Pakjab, channeling anti-Pakjabi feeling away from the Pakistani State. Sometimes it would align with the other states, weakening the opposition to Pakjab Proper from inside the opposition tent, and sometimes it would align with Pakjab openly in questions of national policy. In effect Pakjab would be getting another vote at the national level.

What does it portend for the future of Pakistan?

Well, a new Seraiki Province could act as a stabilizing factor in Pakistan, but only marginally. Pakistan is headed for a head-on crash for several reasons - insecurity, dekho-no-money, and falling out with USA. None of these plagues can really be pushed back into Pandora's box.

USA will increasingly start dabbling at the periphery of Pakistan Proper, and there is very little Pakistan can really do about it.

Seraikistan provides another line of retreat for the Kabila of Pakistani Army. The strategy to control a nuclear-armed Pakistani Army is to push it further back with its nukes to an ever smaller area, which it can call its home base, and then to try to separate away the outlying provinces and areas from Pakistan Proper. The smaller the area, the more land-locked the area of retreat of the Pakistani Army, the better would be the chances of disarmament of this army, as the limited area will not be able to support either the ambitions of the Kabila nor its requirement of resources.

Any breakup that takes place in Pakistan - Soviet Union style would mean that the ultimate Pakjab would be a state much smaller than as would be the case with the present Pakjab. A smaller Pakjab would untimately be much more easier to control for India as a separate entity.

A Seraiki provincial government provides India with another dialogue partner, through which we could exercise influence.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 06 Aug 2011 11:20

Doing Business with Pakistanis

Continuing from here.

X-Posting from TSP Thread

menon s wrote:INMHO , This region will have peace if and only if the Pakistani army is neutered and brought under military control. Any action that India needs to take in its bilateral relationship with Pakistan should be on that platform.
Im all for trade with Pakistan, as long as it does not benefit the Army and the RAPE class.

Well actually doing business with Pakistan is going to help exactly this strata of Pakistani society.

Pakistan is not allowing Indian goods any transit facility through to Afghanistan. But now they say they will allow MFN status for India. What does that mean?

Muslim groups were known for making money by controlling the trade routes between East and West. This seems to be the wisdom Pakistan has got after all its other business models are going bust. Obviously Pakistanis want to be the middle-men who want to sell Indian goods to Central Asia. They want to control the trade, and make a nice commission on all the trade.

India would be making money producing those goods, while Pakistan will make a commission on selling them. That seems to be the model India and Pakistan have agreed to.

Of course we have to arrange for an alternative direct way to Central Asia, and I have been pleading on digging one through Southern Sindh (Muhajirstan), Baluchistan, Afghanistan and onward.

However the question is: whether we should stop our trade with Central Asia as it involves the Pakistani establishment making a killing by it?

I say, as long as we don't have an alternate route, we keep this one. However we don't make ourselves dependent on any pipelines passing through Pakistani territory. In the mean time we let US break Pakistan by separating Baluchistan from it.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 07 Aug 2011 03:15

Dealing with Jihadist Infrastructure

Some ideas on the issue are here!

X-Posting from Af-Pak -> Pak-Af Watch Thread

Cosmo_R wrote:I think what the rest of the world may have overlooked is making life very difficult for the Mullahs. Imagine reverse Fatwas or is that Sawtaf? where recalcitrant Mullahs keep having mysterious accidents such as running head on into bullets or exploding due to spontaneous vacuum bulb expansion.

If they have to keep looking over their shoulder and seeing backpacks in a whole new way, who knows how their worldview might change?

Let us think about it. :)

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 07 Aug 2011 03:20

X-Posting from TSP Thread
menon s wrote:Pakthoon Nationalism and the break up of Pakistan.
i hope this was not posted before, http://newsgram.com/2011/04/is-pakistan ... ssolution/

Here is the historic pattern previously alluded to. Whenever there was a weak state in the Punjab region, it has fallen before invaders from the northwest. This was the case when it was invaded by Darius, Muhammad of Ghazni, Timur, Babar and Nadir Shah. On the other hand, whenever the Punjab was part of a powerful state, it has turned back the invader. This is what happened when the Greeks, the Huns and Afghans in the time of Ranjit Singh tried to invade the planes. (Incidentally, history books are wrong in claiming that Alexander was victorious. It was as much a disaster as Napoleon’s march on Moscow. This is clear from early accounts. But British controlled textbooks presented it otherwise, to emphasize European superiority. The correct perspective was provided by the great Russian general Marshal Zukhov. Alexander’s troops mutinied, and he himself died a year later broken in health and spirit.)
Saving Punjab is as much India’s responsibility as it is Pakistan’s. India cannot let these invading forces cross the Indus and turn West Punjab into a wasteland. The only way for Punjab to survive is to let the frontier be frontier and rejoin India— its natural home. But is the Punjabi ruling elite capable of such vision? As one Pakistani (Punjabi) journalist told Kaplan, “We have never defined ourselves in our own right — only in relation to India. That is our tragedy.”


This attitude represents a historic truth: Punjab is India or it is happy hunting ground for the frontier tribes. If the Punjabis do not cure themselves of their hatred, it may soon lead to an even greater tragedy— of Afghanistan and the frontiers consuming Pakistan itself. Punjabis should see for themselves that Pakistan is a fantasy that died the day Bangladesh broke away. They should also recognize that the Punjabis never asked for Pakistan; the people who planted that poison seed remained in India. And the same people — of the Deoband School of Lucknow — planted also the poison seed that grew to be Taliban. And Jinnah, not a Punjabi, defrauded them by holding up a vision that had no chance of being realized.

RajeshA
BRF Oldie
Posts: 16001
Joined: 28 Dec 2007 19:30

Re: Managing Pakistan's failure

Postby RajeshA » 07 Aug 2011 03:22

X-Posting from TSP Thread
shivajisisodia wrote:While we are on the subject, ladies and gentlemen, allow me to make one other point.

Let us look first at some general facts.

1. US is like a composite of two personalities. One, that of a simple minded muscle kid in school who loves a good fight. His genetic makeup causes him to relish a confrontation. This kid particularly loves a fight that he has a great likelihood of winning. He further loves a fight that fits within the framework of a "narrative" or a dogma, prevelent in his family of his general culture. Two, that of a rich kid, who likes to treat others as pawn in his larger game, by leveraging his money.

2. US has a general narrative after 9/11 which continues to the present dayr which is reasonably ingrained in its social psychie, which is that Islamists are the enemy and that it should be confronted.

Let us now look at some specific current day facts.

1. Despite the general animosity towards the Islamists, the US population right now has battle fatigue due to its inability to have a clean win in Afghanistan. Then the American economy is in a depression coupled with the extreme debt that its government has. It therefore, has no appetite to expend either money or lives in another misadventure against any Islamists.

2. Because of this fatigue, it is desperately looking to get out of Afghanistan and in this desperation is willing to make deals with Taliban and basically secede a lot of poltical and military space in Afghan to Pak.

3. On the other hand, Paki actions over the years since 9/11 and particularly recently since Bin-Laden's killing has created palpable anger in the enlightened US population, particularly in a lot of the policy making circles such as the CIA and other intelligence agencies that have become intimately familiar with the true nature of Pak.

4. Therefore, the American animosity towards Islam coupled with its particular current anger towards Pak combined with American "natural" pre-disposition to fight, makes it very open to "alternate" ideas on how to successfully engage the Islamists and particularly Pak, as long as they can do it without spending too much money or expending many lives.


I humbly contend that India can provide a relatively cheap solution to this problem. India can present to the US the following, which I had touched upon my earlier post:

1. By all means withdraw the bulk of American forces from Af-Pak.

2. Continue a small American strategic presence, which is a combination of conventional army, intelligence, air force etc, in well fortified and discrete bases.

3. Have Americans covertly and heavily arm a well organized and lean and mean Northern Alliance type militia to create a sort of a permanent civil war situation in Afghan, possibly for decades or until there is so much war fatigue amongst even the most isolated cave dwelling Afghan populatin that Taliban and Pak completely loses any civilian support base that it currently enjoys and in fact the civilians start hating the Pakis, the hate whose seeds already exist in most Afghan hearts already, including the PAshtuns

4. Have the American "establishment", civil society and the media start thinking aloud the possibility of American recognition of all of JK as Indian territory

5. Have Americans heavily arm the Baloch nationalists and unleash the American propoganda machinary to prop up their cause

6. Clearly, gradually scale back and end all military and economic aid to Pak

7. Covertly finance very indirectly some Uigher groups within Pak to create periodic tensions in Xinjiang, which can be attributed to cross border groups in Pak, so as to keep that modicum of distrust between China and Pak

8. Wait for the Paki poodle to come and lick "massa's" feet or cry "Uncle" whichever it prefers.


It will be a challenge to Indian diplomacy to present such a narrative to the US in a serious way that brings out its cost efficient and low risk nature. In fact, it will be a collossal failure of Indian diplomacy if it fails to put forward such a solution to the US and doesnt successfully carries this through the various Congressmen, Senators, policy types and the White House.

Hillary Clinton invited India to play a bigger role in its neighborhood, let us take her up on it and present this as our first initiative to meet her challenge. Let us see how US responds.


Return to “Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 36 guests