pgbhat wrote: ---- Pervez Hoobhoy
Speaking of Hudoodbhoy, he has written an interesting article but ends it with comments that fit in exactly with an editotrs note below the article:
Editors Note: This article has been pulished from Viewpoint Online Edition No 81 for wider circulation amongst the readers of South Asian Idea. Hoodbhoy holds a gun to Pakistans head to make India do the dirty work of resolving Pakistan something which no one in the world except Pakistan can do. Else this epicentre of terror shall descend into more chaos in 2012.
Some quotes from the article (No link available)
The militarys internal difficulties come at a time when its public esteem has hit near a new low, approaching that which existed in 1971. Today it is the object of scorn and open profanities. No longer do people agree that those criticizing the Army actually play into the hands of the enemy. Watching protesters in Islamabads Aabpara market, which is just a short walk down from the main ISI headquarters, I saw protesters tear down a huge military sponsored banner praising the Army and ISI. The onlookers, conservative shopkeepers included, cheered lustily.
<snip>
Dissatisfaction with their leadership is said to run throughout the Army. Junior officers are confronting their superiors with impertinent questions. Stung by criticism all around, Gen Kayani has been stumping the garrisons to raise morale. He was asked why the invaders were not challenged and destroyed. Also, who sheltered bin Laden if we are actually fighting al-Qaeda, our declared enemy? The Express Tribune quotes an unnamed young military officer who made a stinging comment before the army chief: Sir, I am ashamed of what happened in Abbottabad. Replied Gen. Kayani, So am I. He promptly went on to hold Zardaris government responsible for allowing Pakistan to get such bad press.
In its effort to breed the armies of God, the Pakistan Army has fallen victim to its own successes. Self-inflicted injuries generally get little sympathy. Still, it is difficult to be joyful at the prospect of the Armys division, disintegration, and downfall. Should this happen, Pakistan and its people will have to deal with the much deadlier forces. The unfathomable hell of Talibanization lies beneath.
Why is the Army getting weaker? The problem is not the lack of materiel guns, bombs, men, and money. These have relatively easy fixes. Instead it is the militarys diminished moral power and authority, absence of charismatic leadership, and visibly evident accumulation of property and wealth. More than anything else, the Army has sought to please both the Americans as well as their enemies. Recent revelations have brought this contradiction into stark relief
Officially, the Army condemns drone attacks in Pakistans tribal areas, which became no-go areas shortly after 911 after a massive cross border influx of Mullah Omars Taliban. But ordinary Pakistanis have long suspected the sincerity of these routine condemnations. Drone bases are located at many places inside Pakistan, like Shamsi air base in Baluchistan. UAVs are slow moving targets, easily destroyed by supersonic fighter aircraft, or perhaps by ground-to-air missiles if supplied secretly to the Taliban. Their unhindered operation smelled of collusion and complicity. WikiLeaked documents, recently obtained by Dawn newspaper, confirmed this[1].
Religion deeply divides the Pakistan military. Perhaps it might be more accurate to think of it as two militaries. The first is headed by Gen. Kayani. It seeks to maintain the status quo and the Armys preeminence in making national decisions. The second is Allahs army. This awaits a leader even as it launches attacks on Pakistani military installations, bases, top-level officers, soldiers, public places, mosques, and police stations. Soldiers have been encouraged to turn their guns on to their colleagues, troops have been tricked into ambushes, and high-level officers have been assassinated. Allahs army hopes to launch its final blitzkrieg once the state of Pakistan has been sufficiently weakened by such attacks.
What separates Army-One and ISI-One from Army-Two and ISI-Two? This may not be immediately evident. Both were reared on the Two-Nation Theory, the belief of Mr. Mohammed Ali Jinnah, that Hindus and Muslims could never live together in peace. Both are thoroughly steeped in anti-Indianism since their early days in army cadet colleges at Petaro and Hasan Abdal. They also share a deep rooted contempt for Pakistani civilians. This attitude has resulted in roughly half of Pakistans history being that of direct military rule.
Still, they are not the same. The Oneers are soft Islamists who are satisfied with a fuzzy belief that Islam provides solutions to everything, that occasional prayers and ritual fasting in Ramzan is sufficient, and that Sufis and Shias are bonafide Muslims rather than mushriks or apostates. They are not particularly interested in defending the Sunni states of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, or the GCC. But should a lucrative overseas posting come the way of an individual soldier or officer, well, that may be another matter. While having a dislike of US policies, they are not militantly anti-US.
Army-Two and ISI-Two, on the other hand, are soldier ideologues who have traveled further down the road of Islamism. Large numbers of them regularly travel to Raiwind, the headquarters of the Tablighi Jamaat, a supposedly non-political religious organization which has a global proselytizing mission and whose preachers are allowed open access into the Army. The Twoers are stricter in matters of religious rituals, they insist that officers and their wives be segregated at army functions. They keep an eye out for officers who secretly drink alcohol, and how often they pray. Their political philosophy is that Islam and the state should be inseparable. Inspired by Maulana Abul Ala Maudoodi, who preached that 7th century Arab Islam provides a complete blueprint for society and politics, they see capturing state power as a means towards creating the ideal society along the lines of the medieval Medina state. Many Twoers are beardless, hence hard to detect. They
are fundamentally anti-science but computer savvy. For them, modern technology is a tool of battle.
Like the proverbial ostrich, the Oneers fiercely defend the myth of army unity. They dismiss mutineers as isolated individuals. Mumtaz Qadri, the renegade bodyguard who murdered Punjab Governor Salman Taseer out of religious passion, is an inconvenient aberration to be dismissed from consideration. Todays religious terrorism is trivialized as a passing threat notwithstanding the fact that it has claimed more Pakistani lives than lost in all wars with India. Instead, anger is reserved for those who state the obvious truth that Pakistan is in a state of civil war.
Now here is the part that BRFites will really enjoy. India must clean up Pakistan's shit
India, through its confrontational policies with Pakistan, shares some responsibility for the present tragic state of affair and has driven Pakistan into a corner. It is therefore incumbent upon India to help Pakistan overcome its difficulties or, at any rate, to refrain from adding to them. This is in India's self interest imagine the consequences if central authority in Pakistan disappears or is sharply weakened. Splintered into a hundred jihadist lashkars, each with its own agenda and tactics, Pakistans territory would become India's eternal nightmare. When Mumbai-II occurs as it surely would in such circumstances India's options in dealing with nuclear Pakistan would be severely limited. Operation Cold Start is a non-starter, a figment of the imagination of Indian generals that they could avoid nuclear war by limiting the depth and intensity of their initial strikes.
India should derive no satisfaction from Pakistan's predicament. Militant groups see ordinary Muslims as munafiqs (hypocrites) and therefore free to be blown up in bazaars and mosques. In their calculus of hate, hurting Hindu India would buy even more tickets for heaven than hurting Muslim Pakistan. They dream of ripping apart both societies, or starting a war preferably nuclear between Pakistan and India.
To create a future working alliance with Pakistan, and in deference to basic democratic principles, India must therefore be seen as genuinely working towards some kind of resolution of the Kashmir issue. A halfway effort is better than none. Over the past two decades India has been morally isolated from Kashmiri Muslims and continues to incur the very considerable costs of an occupying power in the Valley. Indian soldiers continue to needlessly die and to oppress and kill Kashmiri innocents.
It is time for India to fuzz the LOC, make it highly permeable to non-jihadis, and demilitarize it up to some mutually negotiated depth on both sides. Also, India must entertain Pakistans complaints over the use of the water originating in Kashmirs mountains, which is surely a joint resource. Without peace in Kashmir the forces of cross-border jihad, and its hate-filled holy warriors, will continue to receive unnecessary succor. A helpful symbolic step for Pakistans nervous government would be for India to give ground on the Siachen and Sir Creek disputes.
India also needs to allay Pakistans fears on Baluchistan. Although Pakistans current iniquitous federal structure is the cause of the problem a fact which it is now finally addressing through the passage of the 18th Constitutional Amendment nevertheless it is possible that India is aiding some insurgent groups. Statements have been made in India that Baluchistan provides New Delhi with a handle to exert pressure on Pakistan. This is unacceptable, if true.
It has long been true that a little goodwill and friendship would go a long way in laying the basis for rapprochement between India and Pakistan. But improving relations between the two countries is not an optional extra it has become a matter of survival, particularly for us in Pakistan.
. I won't be surprised if Lydia Polygreen or Jim Yardley with help from some help from local side-kick Vikas Bajaj or whoever has something in the NYT about this Lolaveri craze in "South Asia", and how there is a shared culture and camaradarie but for "extremists on both sides".
