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

[RajeshA]

Carl ji,

actually I'm working the other way round. I'm not taking the theory of Chacha's antecedents as a given and then extrapolating Congress's political model, but rather the other way round. I'm today convinced of this model, and am trying to understand why. It is here that the antecedents theory seems credible.

On the other hand, there is also much we do not know.

What I have heard is that Feroze "Gandhi's" mother was originally a Parsi, but not his father.

[RajeshA]

Simply put, the Bharatiya plan must ensure that what happens to TSP is not allowed to happen in India, that India does not get Balkanised by the UPA along the lines caste and religion.

Bharatiya Plan goes further. It is to completely free Indian Subcontinent of Islamic memes and bring the Subcontinent in sync with the Bharatiya Civilization.

Survival is not enough!

[PratikDas]

Pseudosecularism needs to be uprooted and torched for what it is. That will go a long way in freeing the India of Islamic memes.

As for freeing the Indian Subcontinent and not just India, RajeshA ji, with due respect for your writings, you right as if the UPA I didn't happen and UPA II didn't get re-elected, as if despite all the wrongs of UPA I and II there isn't a distinct chance of UPA III ruling India, as if the US and China will suddenly drop support for the hedge that nuclear-gifted TSP is to India, as if a Bharatiya revolution will bring down SG and her associates like Marie Antoinette was brought down.

[RajeshA]

Pseudosecularism needs to be uprooted and torched for what it is. That will go a long way in freeing the India of Islamic memes.

As for freeing the Indian Subcontinent and not just India, RajeshA ji, with due respect for your writings, you right as if the UPA I didn't happen and UPA II didn't get re-elected, as if despite all the wrongs of UPA I and II there isn't a distinct chance of UPA III ruling India, as if the US and China will suddenly drop support for the hedge that nuclear-gifted TSP is to India, as if a Bharatiya revolution will bring down SG and her associates like Marie Antoinette was brought down.

PratikDas ji,

you're quite correct. That is exactly how I write it. I write from the perspective that India is being ruled by a government which believes in Bharatiya Plan.

It would of course sound like "who will bell the cat?"!

But one needs to put it out there this hypothetical scenario as well. Why would someone opt for a Bharatiya Vision if nobody has put it down what it is. There are others here who too write from that perspective. There needs to be some clarity as to where the path leads to. Only if the path is clearly visible would anybody be willing to walk on it.

That is the whole illusion that UPA regimes have created, there is no other way - One cannot choose one's neighbors; War is not an option; Dialogue has to be uninterrupted and uninterruptible; etc.

[Prem]

While Acharya Rajesh and Pundit Carl have now done Gagar Mey Sagar in articulating real strategic and security issue to Bharat and Bharti Civilization ,the main area to keep watch on is the repeated attempt from now on to weaken and undermine the defense forces as internal security is already compromised. Defense forces are truly secular in contrast to PSislam practiced by RNIs like CongIsi. Defense forces are the sore in the eyes of current cursed cabal working with Qabila otherwise its hard to imagine the meeting of mind among Shinde, Saeed , Khur and Khar on one issue.The game is not about Indian people , so naturally their aspirations are not taken into account in RNIs calculations. Elections are manipulated and cant be a remedy to this RNI disease. IT have brought instant information to Mango Public and soon boiling point will arrive where the choice of Guillotine will be the only option left for Gandh and Mandh on top refusing to go through Bhudhi Shudhi.

[RajeshA]

Jhujar ji,

the future lies in our Armed Forces and the power of Internet!

[RamaY]

I think the simple question is, if Pakistan is foundation (space/people) of Islam, what is the need for Islam once Pakistan is destroyed?

Added Later: I am talking in the context of Indian Sub-Continent.

[member_22872]

RamaY garu, I think it is Pakistan which thinks and feels that It is the very definition of Islam, but others (islamic states) as you know, never considered TSP as some torch bearer of Islam, it is only this TSP which goes about thumping its chest for being synonymous to Islam. So I think Islam will not end with the end of TSP, but it could very well start a process of soul searching in Islamists.

[Agnimitra]

...we always had an alternative ideology and system and they chose to walk away from all that by forming their own state. At what point did we forget this basic fact?

When we curled ourselves into such defensive rigidity that our own society became so egregiously unjust and stultified that that attitude itself caused more and more people to leave this "alternative ideology", or fight for its reform.

"Bharatiya" is not one single ideology, but rather is an attitude. This attitude to life spawns different ideologies for different desha, kaala, paatra, i.e. places, times and maturity of recipients.

One derivation of the Vedic word "Bhaarata" is "one who is addicted (rata) to light (bhaa)", i.e., one who is constantly seeking the flame of knowledge/love, even at the cost of self-annihilation and rebirth, like the moth is attracted to the flame.

So in modern space-time and the varied maturity of the recipients within the Indian subcontinent itself (incl. TSP), we need to create a new ideology that would bring them closer and gather around Agni (in either his constructive, or otherwise his destructive form), and even if they gather round on opposite sides! Therefore, apart from an Indic right, and Indic left must emerge as a credible force.

Why do we choose to ignore the fact that their future generations are being prepped for Hindu hatred by relatively recent modifications to their history books?

We're not "ignoring" anything, but I talked of countering or neutralizing such insistent obsessions. This can be done by exposing the hypocritical agenda and mind-games of those who control them, which has already been started by some of their own people. Second way is by inserting Indian non-state actors to fight for justice there. Instead of Taliban fighting the landlords in Swat, it should be Indicized Naxal non-state actors with bases in India. Same should be extended in Sindh and S. Pakjab. Etc.

When did India become the designated nanny state for the people of Pakistan?

Who talked of nanny state? Rather, Bharatiyas should unleash ideological and non-state actor forces that will rattle the Paki qabila and get the masses thinking.

What would a poll of Pakistani people indicate as a majority opinion today if one were to be conducted - that they want Muslims to rule Hindus or they want Hindu help in addressing some of their "legitimate needs"?

Actually you may be surprised by the results of such a poll. But many in TSP who want cooperation and help with development from India are thinking from within a Muslim League mindset, of sharing in development while remaining more than just a separate electorate. We need to take that aspiration for development, but destroy the framework in which it finds form and expression.

How do you think a US supported Islamist fundamentalist Pakistani Army and ISI is going to simply disappear so that the people of TSP may suddenly find air to voice their grievances?

India-based non-state actors running amuck in TSP, and building local support networks, will become a factor that the ISI, Army and its US backers would need to consider. Either it will lead to civil war, or the US will recognize that now India has a handle within TSP - a non-Islamist handle. I think for all its pigheadedness, the US will tend to encourage a non-Islamist handle in TSP. There would be many other game theory details that would emerge, and we cannot speculate. But whatever ideology Bharatiyas do mobilize, that should extend not just to TSP, but to the wider Middle East as well, including Iran. It should become an active component of foreign policy orientation - an Indic alternative model for relations and development.

Simply put, the Bharatiya plan must ensure that what happens to TSP is not allowed to happen in India, that India does not get Balkanised by the UPA along the lines caste and religion.

Yes, but this defensive strategy must be part of a larger offensive model. If you curl yourself up into this defensive strategy, then it will lead to a problematic situation as it happened in the past - where only a section of Indics prospered by interfacing with the globalized marketplace and educational system (which at that time was Islamist dominated), and the fighters carved out areas of dominance, but the rest of the people and castes were expected to merely tag along obediently.

Why is all this so difficult to comprehend? And more importantly, why are attempts by the UPA to marginalise the Hindu opinion in concerto with our 50 paisa journalists and retired personnel of the armed forces, as evident from recent events, not seen as alarming?

People who keep ranting about these threats are either seen as alarmists, or as paranoid communalists, precisely because they do not have an alternative, creative, positive universal message and practical model that is relevant to the problems of Present Time, both within India, the region, or the world at large. There must be something vitally good to want to "defend" -- not just some encrusted memorial to a past golden age that is used as the cornerstone of many people's "identity" politics.

Currently and for the past 80 years, "Hindutva" is attempting to carry the "Bharatiya" mantle. But Hindutva has modeled itself on something like Japanese nationalism, with space for greater caste diversity, and in a very defensive and irridentist mode. But that just isn't capable of having a wider appeal. Rather, it can form a part of a more universal model of varnashrama dharma, which must work as much to eliminate the old as create anew.

[paramu]

But after the beheading and Salman Khursheed's non-response, that it will pass, and after Sushil Kumar Shinde's words about Hindu Terror, I've had to change my position of staying above Indian politics.

But the question is why is INC drinking the secular kola so much to undermine Hindu majority and Bharatiya concept? what is it gaining and what is it losing if it lets Nation be Hindu yet let allow religious freedom? is it the lure of ghaddi?

I think it has a lot to do with Chacha's own Islamic antecedents. There are some theories about his Islamic ancestry. Then there are theories about Iron Lady's Muslim husband. Then there was the Catholic input in the form of the current Viceroy. Even the daughter was married into a Christian family.

Considering this influx of Islamic and Christian identities into the dynasty and the suspicion that it was Islamic to begin with, I am not surprised at the strong but hidden anti-Hindu agenda. If the origins are Islamic, then not even a shred of sympathy is to be expected for Bharatiya Civilization.

In India, the big challenge is the 83% Hindu majority, so one can understand why the Islamics and Christianists would form an alliance.

It is the social changes in India. INC is working on a new alliance with foreigners (Pak) .
This is just like in 1880 when INC was formed with foriegners (British labor) and they formed alliance with foriegners.

[RajeshA]

What does the Bharatiya plan offer minorities, including the people of TSP?

1. Women Liberation - They may have a different social role, but would have the same individual freedoms as men.
2. Religious Freedom - Full freedom to pursue individual moksha maarg, as long as it doesn't impinge on the domain of the Dharmic system, which decides on aspects of social relationships, law, political system, military matters, economics!
3. Freedom of Speech - Anything goes as long as the intent is not humiliation of other individual, his moksha faith and mythological icons (see above), or slander.
4. Right of Education - The state would ensure that every kid in the Indian Subcontinent gets a decent school education. Everybody is given a chance, encouragement and support to learn and succeed.
5. A Singular Identity - A Unified Cohesive Bharatiya Identity which sources its aspects first and foremost from Subcontinental Origins, long history, culture, singular common language (Sanskrit).
6. End to Feudalism
7. Respect in the World

[RamaY]

Religious Freedom - Full freedom to pursue individual moksha maarg, as long as it doesn't impinge on the domain of the Dharmic system, which decides on aspects of social relationships, law, political system, military matters, economics!

The religious path must have an end goal of self-realization and self-awareness such that this self is not different from the God-consciousness. Secondly this religious path must accept the existence and validity of other such paths.

[PratikDas]

...we always had an alternative ideology and system and they chose to walk away from all that by forming their own state. At what point did we forget this basic fact?

When we curled ourselves into such defensive rigidity that our own society became so egregiously unjust and stultified that that attitude itself caused more and more people to leave this "alternative ideology", or fight for its reform.

It was the unjustness of Hindu Indian society that drove Jinnah to create Pakistan? This is WKK-esque hog wash. No, Sir. It was the behaviour of the British that drove the Indian armed forces to mutiny, Subhash Chandra Bose to create INA, and the peace-loving to join Gandhi and his disobedience movement. Jinnah simply seized an opportunity to build an empire out of a fake construct of Muslim insecurity. So they absolutely did walk away from the concept of unity in diversity that was India at the time.

"Bharatiya" is not one single ideology, but rather is an attitude. This attitude to life spawns different ideologies for different desha, kaala, paatra, i.e. places, times and maturity of recipients.

One derivation of the Vedic word "Bhaarata" is "one who is addicted (rata) to light (bhaa)", i.e., one who is constantly seeking the flame of knowledge/love, even at the cost of self-annihilation and rebirth, like the moth is attracted to the flame.

And none of this has changed for eons. It was as valid then as it is now. If you agree to this then you will also agree that Jinnah led people away from this attitude, this philosophy, this way of life.

So in modern space-time and the varied maturity of the recipients within the Indian subcontinent itself (incl. TSP), we need to create a new ideology that would bring them closer and gather around Agni (in either his constructive, or otherwise his destructive form), and even if they gather round on opposite sides! Therefore, apart from an Indic right, and Indic left must emerge as a credible force.

An Indic left that is Hindu in every sense of what it means to think of oneself as Hindu without calling oneself as Hindu? Why the censorship? No. Hinduism and The Hindu Way, whatever that might be to the vast spectrum of Hindus in India has proven to be a more restrained, responsible and sustainable formula than Islam, and I say this despite deviations in society on both sides from their respective "righteous" paths. It so happens that a deviation on the Hindu side is attributed as a flaw of Hinduism and a deviation on the Islam side is simply a personal flaw of someone who doesn't know what it means to be a Muslim. Whatever. That is a digression.

Why do we choose to ignore the fact that their future generations are being prepped for Hindu hatred by relatively recent modifications to their history books?

We're not "ignoring" anything, but I talked of countering or neutralizing such insistent obsessions. This can be done by exposing the hypocritical agenda and mind-games of those who control them, which has already been started by some of their own people. Second way is by inserting Indian non-state actors to fight for justice there. Instead of Taliban fighting the landlords in Swat, it should be Indicized Naxal non-state actors with bases in India. Same should be extended in Sindh and S. Pakjab. Etc.

Are we talking of the same UPA-led India with a SG-MMS chimera at the helm, and Rahul, Chidambaram, Shinde, Kurshid and others for limbs? The same India wherein IK Gujral did the opposite of what you write of? Exactly how many would have to be wajib-ul-cutlet for this dream to materialise? Where will the 50 paise journalists and retired armed forces personnel for hire go? Lets say red became the colour of the season, for argument's sake. What would happen to the constitution, the world's largest democracy, and all that baggage? Can the proponents at least have the balls to write in plain speak here because if you can't even write, possibly for very real reasons of self preservation, then you sure as Islamic hell can't expect anyone to do all this in real life.

When did India become the designated nanny state for the people of Pakistan?

Who talked of nanny state? Rather, Bharatiyas should unleash ideological and non-state actor forces that will rattle the Paki qabila and get the masses thinking.

Same response as above. What is a realistic timeline for Rang de Basanti transitioning from a movie to reality?

What would a poll of Pakistani people indicate as a majority opinion today if one were to be conducted - that they want Muslims to rule Hindus or they want Hindu help in addressing some of their "legitimate needs"?

Actually you may be surprised by the results of such a poll. But many in TSP who want cooperation and help with development from India are thinking from within a Muslim League mindset, of sharing in development while remaining more than just a separate electorate. We need to take that aspiration for development, but destroy the framework in which it finds form and expression.

Yes, we just simply need to do away with this democracy-vemocracy because no foreseeable Indian government will allow the Indian armed forces do their best. I agree. Not going to happen though.

How do you think a US supported Islamist fundamentalist Pakistani Army and ISI is going to simply disappear so that the people of TSP may suddenly find air to voice their grievances?

India-based non-state actors running amuck in TSP, and building local support networks, will become a factor that the ISI, Army and its US backers would need to consider. Either it will lead to civil war, or the US will recognize that now India has a handle within TSP - a non-Islamist handle. I think for all its pigheadedness, the US will tend to encourage a non-Islamist handle in TSP. There would be many other game theory details that would emerge, and we cannot speculate. But whatever ideology Bharatiyas do mobilize, that should extend not just to TSP, but to the wider Middle East as well, including Iran. It should become an active component of foreign policy orientation - an Indic alternative model for relations and development.

Once again, SG and UPA associates will have to be physically removed from the milieu for this to happen. Lots of red.

Simply put, the Bharatiya plan must ensure that what happens to TSP is not allowed to happen in India, that India does not get Balkanised by the UPA along the lines caste and religion.

Yes, but this defensive strategy must be part of a larger offensive model. If you curl yourself up into this defensive strategy, then it will lead to a problematic situation as it happened in the past - where only a section of Indics prospered by interfacing with the globalized marketplace and educational system (which at that time was Islamist dominated), and the fighters carved out areas of dominance, but the rest of the people and castes were expected to merely tag along obediently.

Yes, I've curled myself up to reality, which as we all know is a bitch. The last Indian PM with a pair of cojones was a woman who tackled Pakistan, Khalistan and Naxals successfully. SG is married to a completely different agenda.

Why is all this so difficult to comprehend? And more importantly, why are attempts by the UPA to marginalise the Hindu opinion in concerto with our 50 paisa journalists and retired personnel of the armed forces, as evident from recent events, not seen as alarming?

People who keep ranting about these threats are either seen as alarmists, or as paranoid communalists, precisely they do not have an alternative, creative, positive universal message and practical model that is relevant to the problems of Present Time, both within India, the region, or the world at large. There must be something vitally good to want to "defend" -- not just some encrusted memorial to a past golden age that is used as the cornerstone of many people's "identity" politics.

And you think what you've written above constitutes a universal message and practical model for India? Are you serious?? At best what you've proposed would require some "Hindu terrorists" to take up arms - perfect fodder for the whole international community to scream "equal equal" from the rooftops. Kiss your universal message goodbye.

Currently and for the past 80 years, "Hindutva" is attempting to usurp the "Bharatiya" mantle. But Hindutva has modeled itself on something like Japanese nationalism, with space for greater caste diversity, and in a very defensive and recidivist mode. But that just isn't capable of having a wider appeal. Rather, it can form a part of a more universal model of varnashrama dharma, which must work as much to eliminate the old as create anew.

When salmon swim upstream against unimaginable currents to spawn, they morph into something quite unappealing visually. They're still the same salmon.

If Bharatiyata has morphed into Hindutvata in the eyes of some such as yourself, it is only because Bharat-vasis, Hindus, have been cornered for generations by the Mughals, the British, and then the collective Western powers using select Indian Hindus [added this later - why beat around the bush?], Christians and Muslims as proxies. In a similar situation, Muslims would have been running around with machetes and AK47s screaming AoA for no particular reason. But the Hindu is still Bharatiya, whether you choose to believe it or not.

[RajeshA]

Religious Freedom - Full freedom to pursue individual moksha maarg, as long as it doesn't impinge on the domain of the Dharmic system, which decides on aspects of social relationships, law, political system, military matters, economics!

The religious path must have an end goal of self-realization and self-awareness such that this self is not different from the God-consciousness.

RamaY ji,

I think the nature of Moksha Marg should not be qualified.

Secondly this religious path must accept the existence and validity of other such paths.

This is already taken care of the Dharmic system in place determines the relationship between individuals. Everybody would need to acknowledge and accept the right of everybody else to have his own moksha maarg. Also any religious congregation would also have to abide by the Dharmic principles. That is not 'individual' anymore.

[Agnimitra]

PratikDas ji, a lot of your post is railing against p-sec ideas and attitudes. That is NOT where I am coming from.

I completely agree that the Congress and Reds need to go. Part of this would automatically happen when a credible alternative Left emerges. In doing so, I believe a significant section of existing Leftist intellectuals, Maosits and Naxals can be "converted" to the new cause, with new direction.

US and others hyping up "Hindu terror" is no big deal. They're doing it anyway, so might as well create a serious movement -- across the border on TSP territory. In any case, non-state actors fighting the RAPEs in TSP will limit their activities there. Not a threat to anyone else at all. Thought it would presumably attract the attention of irridentist Europeans, the kind that drive around with bumper stickers like "Get Constantinople back!"...

In any case, they're non-state actors, and the GoI will do everything it can to catch mice as quid pro quo for a more understanding gestures and resolution of the "core issue" of the feudal-religious qabila mechanism in TSP. Dismantling TSP would be one way to resolve the core issue, etc.

I was not talking about Jinnah creating TSP, but of the continuous conversion and ghettoism that he had built on. He himself was a 2nd or 3rd gen convert.

Currently and for the past 80 years, "Hindutva" is attempting to usurp the "Bharatiya" mantle. But Hindutva has modeled itself on something like Japanese nationalism, with space for greater caste diversity, and in a very defensive and recidivist mode. But that just isn't capable of having a wider appeal. Rather, it can form a part of a more universal model of varnashrama dharma, which must work as much to eliminate the old as create anew.

When salmon swim upstream against unimaginable currents to spawn, they morph into something quite unappealing visually. They're still the same salmon.

If Bharatiyata have morphed into Hindutvata in the eyes of some such as yourself, it is only because Bharat-vasis, Hindus, have been cornered for generations by the Mughals, the British, and then the collective Western powers using select Indian Hindus [added this later - why beat around the bush?], Christians and Muslims as proxies.

That's true. I had said that this should remain as a component of a larger strategy. I admit I do like taking occasional potshots at "Hindutva", especially the Tejo Mahalaya variant. But I changed the word "usurp" to "carry".

[ramana]

Has wisdom dawned? Isn't the writer editor of Hindustan Times? However there are still saffron colored eyeglasses distroting the views.

.
IT’S ABOUT CHANGING MAPS, NOT GEOGRAPHY - Vinod Sharma

You cannot change geography. This is the mantra often chanted by Indian peaceniks to explain their embrace of and love for Pakistan, the logic being that since you cannot wish away the rogue, it is best to hug him and hope for the best. Some analysts go a step further: they believe India’s interest is best served by so strengthening democratic and liberal voices in Pakistan that they become powerful enough take on and defeat the military-jihadist combine that defines and runs the state.

This is akin to giving milk to a snake in the hope that once its body becomes bigger and stronger, it will act as an antidote to the venom it carries in its head and make the snake wholly non-poisonous. That, as even a shallow understanding of the history of the sub-continent coupled with commonsense will tell you, is unlikely to happen in such a smooth, civilised manner.

The metaphorical poison, we overlook, is not isolated in a tiny gland located in the ‘head’. The whole body, as it were, save the small portions that we conveniently choose to highlight, is toxic, and the levels are rising rapidly.

We also make the cardinal mistake of not seeing ourselves through Pakistan’s religion-tinted eyes. Only that counts. Not our flattering, self-deceiving self-view applauded by liberals there who carry no weight or influence, and exploited with glee by Pakistani generals who take all key decisions.

Consider this : history as taught to children in Pakistani schools is designed to generate hatred towards India. Little is taught about Pakistan’s long pre-Islamic history; the focus is on the glories of Islam and Mughal rule in India. As per a detailed study carried out by the Sustainable Policy Development Institution (SDPI) of Pakistan, history text books “are “full” of material “encouraging or justifying discrimination against women, religious and ethnic minorities and other nations,” and four themes emerge from the curricula: 1. Pakistan is for Muslims alone; 2. Islamic teachings, including a compulsory reading and memorization of Qur’an, are to be included in all the subjects, hence to be forcibly taught to all the students, whatever their faith; 3. Ideology of Pakistan is to be internalized as faith, and hate is to be created against Hindus and India; 4. Students are to be urged to take the path of Jihad and Shahadat.”

Now this is not the handiwork of Mullahs steeped in Wahhabi or Deobandi inspired intolerance. This is the deliberate creation of educated Pakistanis who believe that their nation has to be defined by Islam, sustained by implacable hatred towards India and kept energised by the objective of claiming Kashmir and the rest of India in the name of Islam. It is easy to blame the Pakistani military establishment, particularly Zia-ul-Haq, for this slide into violent extremism. But, one would do well to remember that almost the entire Pakistani elite, including its civilian political leadership, is equally responsible for shaping Pakistan into the dangerous disaster that it has become today. According to some reports, in 2010 Pakistan was producing 10,000 potential jihadis annually out of 500,000 graduates from 11,000 madrassas. The numbers would have only increased since then.

These nurseries have not sprung up on their own. They have been assiduously planted and nurtured to provide extremely motivated fodder to the establishment in the furtherance of its strategic objectives. It is only natural that some such elements have turned upon Ahmediyas and Shias, after having brutally all but cleansed Pakistan of religious minorities, and signalled their determination to turn the whole state into the kind of Islamic Utopia that Osama bin Laden and the Taliban – trained and controlled by the military — had created in Afghanistan before 9/11.

If we look at non-sanitised Mughal history, the reins of two emperors stand out.

Akbar and Aurangzeb both ruled for about 50 years each. During Akbar’s time there was communal harmony and peace. Around this period the Bhakti movement also flourished, with the likes of Guru Nanak, Kabir, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu etc., preaching love and devotion for God, violence nowhere in their teachings. Guru Nanak even tried to establish a spiritual bridge between Hindus and Muslims. Aurangzeb, on the other hand, abandoned the liberal religious views of his illustrious great grandfather and attempted to impose Sharia law with the aim of converting India into a land of Islam. Destruction of temples, forcible conversion of Hindus, imposition of jazia on them, blanket ban on music etc. followed, as did many wars to expand the empire. It was on his orders that Sikh Guru Teg Bahadur was beheaded in Chandni Chowk, after being mercilessly tortured, for refusing to convert to Islam. It was primarily Aurangzeb’s atrocities that inspired Guru Gobind Singh, the Tenth Sikh Guru, to turn lambs into lions – the Khalsa – and change the course of history.

Pakistan sees itself as the modern day Aurangzeb with ambitions that exceed his. This Aurangzeb has a problem not just with Hindu India but with the entire non-Muslim world. It honestly believes that a few nukes, an Army and thousands of brainwashed and armed young boys guided by what many Muslims say is a misinterpretation of Islam, can achieve more than Aurangzeb ever could. This belief has been strengthened by the fact that a much bigger and united India has not been able to do to it what was eventually done to Aurangzeb’s empire by much smaller kings, all acting on their own.

Secular India can be said to be in Akbar’s mould, overlaid by a pathological faith in Gandhian non-violence that worked against the British but was a spectacular failure against Jinnah’s ‘Aurangzebian’ call for Direct Action in 1946.

Akbar’s Pakistan is an impossibility; it would, in fact, not have been carved out of India in the first place had the great emperor got into the DNA of Muslim leaders. Yet, India continues to fool itself that Pakistan will become such a state if its democratic institutions are strengthened. This belief, as we have seen, is based on the erroneous premise that the fundamentalist lobby in Pakistan is a tiny fringe. As Zia-ul-Haq, the brain behind Pakistan’s rapid radicalisation famously said, without Islam Pakistan would be just India. That is precisely what it did not and does not want to be. In Thomas Friedman’s words, Pakistan exists only to be not (Hindu) India. That is one reason why even though most Muslims are of Hindu descent, almost every single one claims Arab, not Indian, ancestry.

Since a Pakistan driven by values that Akbar embodied simply cannot emerge of its own volition from the ‘poison’ that it has consumed and carries in its head, a strong Pakistan that mirrors the ideology and methods employed by Aurangzeb can be nothing but bad news for India.

But there are powerful voices in India who do not want Pakistan and, thereby, the idea behind it, to be defeated. Some, in fact, want to strengthen it as they derive their own strength and bargaining power from the strength of that country. If there is no Pakistan, those who created it out of thin air will begin to look like small, obdurate men who were unable to stop living in the past, in another century and world. Even worse, those in Pakistan who are now trying to sustain it in that mould will show up for what they really are: men fit to rule in an ignorant 17th century, not an aware, connected 21st. Not the kind who will meekly submit to such a body blow sitting across the table.

{He has amisplaced sense of intellect here. Its th e INC that will be negated if there is no Pakistna.}


Warnings that if Pakistan breaks up India will have to contend with fiver rogue states — and uncontrollable armed Talibanis will stream into and wreak havoc in India — are completely unfounded, if not mischievous. Deprived of funding and the patronage, protection and guidance of a powerful state hostile to India, all these radical groups will quickly dissolve into the countryside, just as similar elements did after the death of Aurangzeb.

Even Pakistan knows geography cannot be changed. But it has not forgotten that maps can be, and have been all through history. It’s own was, in 1971. It remains pathologically obsessed with changing India’s map — a thousand years’ war, a thousand cuts. A destructive, violent, even barbaric, energy is at work, ceaselessly. That is why you will never hear Pakistan say that a strong, stable India is in its interest. How, then, can the reverse be true?

You cannot shake hands with someone whose fist is closed. Five fingers, separated, cannot deliver a punch. India has to prise open the clenched fist.

[RajeshA]

You cannot shake hands with someone whose fist is closed. Five fingers, separated, cannot deliver a punch. India has to prise open the clenched fist.

Now that is one hell of a quote!

Give Peace a Chance! Destroy Pakistan!

[ramana]

Yeah, The troubling thing is does he want more lollipops being given to open the clenched fist? The other option is to chop the fist off.
Or ensure the fingers can't clench by way of TTPitis.

[Yogi_G]

I am seeing a lot of journalists calling the pseudo secular bluff in India and also calling a spade a spade when it comes to Pakistan. I think most of them have realized that Modi's ascension is imminent and they want to be on the "right" side when that happens.

[Supratik]

What did Vinod Sharma eat last night?

[Agnimitra]

But there are powerful voices in India who do not want Pakistan and, thereby, the idea behind it, to be defeated. Some, in fact, want to strengthen it as they derive their own strength and bargaining power from the strength of that country.

I think he is trying to say it is the Hindutva "communal" forces in India. But actually it is the so-called "secularist" forces that have this interest.

His article proposes Akbar as the 'good' alternative to Aurangzeb. That's the problem.

Still, its good to see this article.

[Prem]

You cannot shake hands with someone whose fist is closed. Five fingers, separated, cannot deliver a punch. India has to prise open the clenched fist.

Now that is one hell of a quote!
Give Peace a Chance! Destroy Pakistan!

Learn from Sikandar and cut the fisted hand and the opposite side leg . If have to., repeat the lesson.

[ramana]

X-post...

Composite Dialogue with Pak., a failure - G.Parthasarathy, Businessline

For nearly a decade, the UPA Government has relied exclusively on two pillars to deal with Pakistan-sponsored terrorism. The first is the composite dialogue Process, which has been proclaimed as “irreversible” and “uninterruptible”.

The second is the belief that --- fearing further terrorist attacks after 9/11--- the Western world, led by the US, will pressurise Pakistan to end its support for groups promoting terrorism in India, Afghanistan and beyond. We are told that there is no alternative to the “composite dialogue”’ for peace and security. Is this really true?

Pakistan-sponsored terrorism — described as ‘low intensity conflict” in its military manuals — assumed serious dimensions in Punjab in the 1980s. This was followed by terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir since 1990. Such terrorism spread across India after the 1993 Mumbai bomb blasts. By 1995, Chief Minister Beant Singh had effectively quelled militancy in Punjab. But even today, Punjab militants who were not eliminated, live comfortably in Lahore.

Encouraged by the antipathy of the Clinton Administration towards India, Benazir Bhutto ended all dialogue with India in 1994. Terrorism in J&K continued unabated, but Pakistan soon discovered during the tenure of Prime Minister Narasimha Rao that acts of terrorism elsewhere in India resulted in violence in populated centres like Karachi and Lahore. Terrorism in Indian urban centres virtually ended. {A nice way with words !}

Agreeing to dialogue

Thereafter, I. K. Gujral came to preside over India’s foreign policy. Knowing his nostalgia for his land of birth and keenness for dialogue, the Pakistanis came forward with a proposal in 1997 for a “structured dialogue”. Rather than insist on giving priority to terrorism, Gujral agreed to a dialogue, while discussions on terrorism were to be combined with issues on drug smuggling.

The Pakistani aim was to ensure that discussions on Jammu and Kashmir inevitably failed so that it could then seek internationalisation of the issue. When Atal Bihari Vajpayee assumed charge and international pressures grew after the nuclear tests, the NDA Government was left with little choice but to go ahead with what Gujral had initiated. It agreed to a “composite dialogue process”’ with Pakistan — a process where terrorism was merely the fourth item on the agenda, clubbed with drug smuggling.

It is important to note that in the four years between Benazir Bhutto’s decision to end dialogue with India and its resumption when Gujral assumed office, Pakistan-sponsored terrorism in Punjab ended and was virtually non-existent across India, except in Jammu and Kashmir. This was largely because of measures by Narasimha Rao to ensure that Pakistan paid a high price on its territory for sponsoring terrorism in India. {Slowly, this much-maligned great son of India is being recognized after the INC found him to be the convenient peg on which to hang all their own wrong doings for decades. Many recent articles from diverse sources have praised PVNR}

The resumption of the Composite Dialogue in 1998 coincided with the emergence of the Lashkar-e-Taiba. The Kargil conflict commenced shortly after the first round of the composite dialogue. This was followed by an attack on the Red Fort in Delhi Fort in January 2001 by the Lashkar-e-Taiba and the brazen attack on Parliament on December 13, 2001 by the Jaish-e-Mohammed.

After a tense military standoff, clear signals of Pakistan backing off from terrorism came when Musharraf proposed a cease-fire across the Line of Control in Jammu and Kashmir in November 2003. He thereafter agreed in January 2004 that he would not permit “territory under Pakistan’s control” to be used for terrorism against India.

The UPA Government is responsible for discarding the explicit linkage between terrorism and continuation of the dialogue process, agreed to in 2004. In its anxiety to continue the dialogue process at all costs, the Government insisted the dialogue process was “irreversible”. The diplomatic fiasco in Sharm el Sheikh — when the wounds of 26/11 were still raw — and the decision to welcome the Pakistan’s Prime Minister in Chandigarh for a cricket match, convinced Pakistan that India was ready to forget and forgive.
{Utter shame on us. We are stupid of the highest order. We explain away out gross stupidity by invoking Arthashastra. It is an insult to Chaanakya that we do so. Why do we resort to Chanakya whenever we make mistakes ? That is because, we cannot believe that our leaders can be so stupid. In our denial, we seek some way to get some solace.}

Confident of US support

Pakistan also appears to be confident that the other main thrust of India’s foreign policy -- of getting the Americans to pressurise it to act against terrorist groups -- is floundering. Heavily dependent on Pakistan for its withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Obama Administration has bent backwards to grant immunity from prosecution to former ISI chief, General Shuja Pasha — who had been summoned by a Federal Court in New York for his alleged involvement in the 26/11 attack. The request for the reduction in imprisonment for David Headley was yet another manifestation of the same approach.

The new Secretary of State John Kerry has been effusive over what he claims is cooperation received from Pakistan in dealing with terrorism. This, despite diametrically opposite views expressed earlier by President Barack Obama and outgoing Defence Secretary Leon Panetta. The US Embassy in Islamabad announced that “both sides reaffirmed their commitment to a strong defence relationship”.

Pakistan’s confidence about continuing US support is evident from the manner in which it has reached an agreement with Iran on the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline and virtually handed over the strategic Gwadar port to China. General Kayani will demand a high price for facilitating American withdrawal from Afghanistan.

The main pillars of India’s Pakistan policy, comprising “uninterrupted” dialogue and American backing on terrorism, are falling apart. The least that can be done is to discard the entire composite dialogue process and replace it with a process of engagement that focuses on terrorism. We should remember how Narasimha Rao showed little interest after 1994 in dialogue and made sponsorship of terrorism costly for Pakistan.

(The author is a former High Commissioner to Pakistan.)

[ramana]

Ejaz Haider in an article on Shia’s in the Express Tribune reveals that that the uniformed Jihadi’s of the Army of the Islamic Republic have been stretched by their one time clients, the ununiformed jihadis of the TTP and their ilk. Apparently the operational tempo of the Uniformed Jihadi’s has been stretched to precarious levels:

Fact 1: The total strength of the army is about 550,000 troops. Out of this, around 110,000 are deployed in the operational areas in the west. Approximately 60,000 to 70,000 are deployed along the Line of Control as part of 10 Corps and Force Command Northern Areas. The rest are in peacetime locations, to be mobilised to defend the eastern border when required. Additionally, there are a number of other command and staff duties to be performed.

Fact 2: Armies generally operate on the 33.33 per cent principle. At any time, 33.33 per cent are deployed, the same percentage is in training and equal numbers, more or less, are resting and retrofitting. Pakistan’s internal war has thrown this awry. The deployment has gone up to 44 to 45 per cent, training retains the same percentage and the resting and retrofitting has gone down to about 12 percent. The ops areas tenure has upped from 22 months to over two years and a high percentage of units are now awaiting second and third rotation to the ops areas. Evidently a killer.

Fact 3: The Pakistan Military Academy has had to raise the 4th Pak Battalion because the internal war has taken a heavy toll of young officers. The officer-to-soldier kill ratio is very high, upped from 1:16 to 1:14 and now stands at 1:8. This means a shortage of YOs. (Some officers consider it a matter of pride; I consider it a weakness but that’s a separate topic.)

Corollary: the army is stretched thin. It cannot be everywhere and, quite apart from operations to wrest territory, is not meant to address the problem of urban terrorism. Even the counterterrorism sub-units in the Special Services Group, like the Zarar and Karar companies, are meant for fire-fighting, not gathering intelligence and pre-empting. ……………..

From here:

If a Shia, you are on your own

[ramana]

In calculus terms Pakistan has reached the double limits of impotence and hatred such that the only pleasure/satisfaction they have is to see India hurt/suffer from pin prick attacks at border or in the crown jewel of Indian Muslim city of Hyderabad.

[ramana]

X-Post...

Long back Shiv ji said, TTP taking over pakistan is advantageous for India or something similar to that.

It is a big advantage because the fact is Islamic people are the most backward people on earth. They have not yet figured out how far you can take religion before you shoot yourself in the foot. But the western (ex)-"Christian" nations are the most advanced in thinking (well ahead of India and China). They know exactly how to play the Islamic people of the world who are basically too stupid as a bloc to understand how they can be played.

Way back in the 1920s and 30s suave and sophisticated British diplomacy made suited-booted morons like Jinnah and the Muslim ashraf elite (including the Pakistan army officer class/RAPE class) feel equal to the west and got them eating out of their hands. That elite was hoodwinked into making their Islamic yahoos work for "democracy, freedom and the west". A side effect of this was to give the impression that Pakistan is a modern democracy. It is amazing how the west has made Pakis feel good by talking of them as "democratic", "moderate", "forward looking" etc - as long as the Muslim elite in suits got their moronic illiterate dumb Muslim Abdul hordes to kill the Russians, assorted kafirs and each other.

The rise of the real islamic yahoos from the ranks of the previously downtrodden and rapidly reproducing Muslim hordes in Pakistan will not only serve as a lesson to stupid people who think secularism can fight a religion, but it will also open the eyes of the so called "Muslim world" whose citizens really need to be killed in large numbers by fellow Muslims to understand how far Islam can go if they think religion has the answers to everything on earth. I used to think that the lack of reaction of other Muslim countries to Pakistan's murderous Islam was just being apologetic about the religion. I am beginning to think that all those islamic nations are Pakistan clones in the sense that the elite have been bought by the west while the Abduls are too stupid to think anything other than that religion will solve their problem. The elite now have to kowtow to the west or their hordes will kill them Better to let the hordes kill them. Let the yahoos take over. Things have to get worse before they get better.

Any action to try and stop this will be band aid onlee because the Islamic world is built on a bluff where the west-loving elite have maintained sway over a bunch of illiterate majority Muslms led by half wit ulema.

[Agnimitra]

Tarek Fatah's speech at Human Rights in Baluchistan, UNHRC, Geneva 14-03-2



Suggests a "new axis of evil" - China-Pak-Iran.
Speaks of the difference between Islamofascism and older racist and ethnic fascisms.

[RajeshA]

Two-Caste Theory

Cross-posting from the "TIRP" Thread

Cosmo_R ji,

sure we are the same people, but we are the winners they are the losers, we have Ma and they have GUBO, we are healthy and they are inbred, we have our fierce independence and they are slaves! We may be the same "people", but we are not same.

There is the Bharatiya caste, and there is the Baki caste! We are two different castes! Some RAPE want to belong to Bharatiya caste, but cannot!

Rajeshji, think evolution.

We have evolved. They have not. Inbreeding keeps it all in the family.

We are now a different species. They are digging in the dirt for insects. We are looking towards the sky.

Different forks in the evolutionary road.

I tend to think of it somewhat differently - more in terms of not Two-Nation Theory, but Two-Caste Theory - the Bharatiya Caste and the Baki Caste. Each Caste is progressing according to its intrinsic memes as codified in their respective ideological genes.

My views on Varna are clear from my expositions on the Bharatiya Thread, but in this case I would like to put the Islamo-British model of caste to its maximum rhetorical use.

The more one forces the India-Pak dynamic into the Two-Caste Paradigm the more one would see the Pakis squirming. I think Pakis are even more sensitive to meaning of caste than Indians.

We should not use 'jAti' or 'varNa' in this case, but 'caste'. It will be both a case of digestion as well as excretion.

[ramana]

A bunch of X-posts from the TSP thread....

quote="shiv"As I see it the only way to bring down the most egregious aspects is by publicly and indirectly shaming the supporters by showing how hypocritical they are by resorting to murder and suppression of Muslims who disagree while denying that it occurs. Killing of kafirs by Muslims does not matter one bit. A live kafir slave or dhimmi is held up as a sign of liberalism in Islam./quote

shiv saar,

even here, in green-on-green violence, there is a growing acceptance. The greener ones think that they are stopping shirk and the less greener - they will continue to plead for brotherhood and consider all violence a conspiracy by the Yahud-Hanud-Nasara and Takfiris. From Iran's reaction, we see that they continue to speak in favor of Pan-Islamism, even as Shia die by the hundreds every week.

The more one tries to tell them that they are dying because of Islam, the more they will consider you as part of the conspiracy.

So even here there are defensive psychological mechanisms. Perhaps what may help is a lot more video coverage of the gory details of green on green. Too few videos are coming out!

True. Part of the problem (and part of Islam's powerful defence) is the fact that most Muslims in the world are taught to be proud to be completely illiterate and believe that the Mullahs fart=great knowledge handed down from Allah. Illiteracy and backwardness is a patented Islamic tool. As you point out it is difficult to cut through such formidable differences.

Illiterate Muslim masses will simply be killing each other and non Muslims. The first obvious step is to reduce the threat to non Muslims with adequate safeguards. As non Muslims become more secure and safe from being killed by Muslims, the percentage of Muslims killing each other becomes evident and visible to the world. This is the stage that has been reached in Pakistan, Syria and Iraq.

The educated Muslim elite probably understand but they are powerless to change the course of Islam. But among the educated elite are a bunch of educated power brokers - for example the Paki army and RAPE class of Pakistan who profess to be devout Muslims and use the support of illiterate Muslim masses to simply kill someone or the other for personal goals/glory. Illiterate Muslims make great slave armies that can be manipulated by controlling the Muslim elite.

The West has learned this trick of manipulating the Muslim elite for their own ends, so the entire "Muslim world" especially the more moronic Muslim countries in the "Green crescent" from Egypt to Pakistan are all slaves of the west, except Iran. Whenever an Islamic country tries to "break away" that is, when the moronic illiterate bulk of Islamic masses break away from control of their elite who are slaves of the west, the west punish them by various means ranging from sanctions to military action. But as long as Muslim masses follow the lead of the elite Muslims (who are slaves of the west) the countries get praise and aid that caters to Islamic pride. This is how Muslim countries are armed against Zionist Israel and Hindu India or against "Godless communists". In other words radical moronic Muslims actually earn praise and rewards from the west as long as they are killing each other and killing people and forces that the west seeks to keep "balanced" and unstable.

Islam is too primitive to understand this along with 90% of the world's Muslims. Such a situation was not even dreamed of 1300 years ago.

So I think twin goals have to be aimed at. The first is the breaking away of stupid brainless Muslim forces from western control. The second is shaming of all Muslims in the world by holding a mirror to their faces and showing them how barbaric Islam is in encouraging killing fellow Muslims. Kafirs must protect themselves first and ensure that they are safe no matter which way Islamic forces turn. Reform of Islam is possible, but that is by reforming 1 billion Muslims. This can only be done by shakinah. Kindness and arguments won't cut it.

quote="shiv"

The educated Muslim elite probably understand but they are powerless to change the course of Islam. But among the educated elite are a bunch of educated power brokers - for example the Paki army and RAPE class of Pakistan who profess to be devout Muslims and use the support of illiterate Muslim masses to simply kill someone or the other for personal goals/glory. Illiterate Muslims make great slave armies that can be manipulated by controlling the Muslim elite.

/quote

Not necessarily true. Osama Bin Laden was a civil engineer. Many among the 9/11 attackers of US were educated in the US or Europe. Islamism affects both educated and uneducated.

No I think you have misinterpreted my statement. I am not getting into that fake argument of educated/uneducated. In Islam, only the educated have a remote chance of being exposed to what is wrong and understanding it. They get killed/exiled if they so much as squeak about it. Many more educated Islamists like Osama and the Paki elite remain Islamist because they can use the uneducated Muslims as ready assassins while they retain power. It is the educated Islamists who can pretend to be moderate and still maintain relations with the west and the uneducated Muslims soosai masses. In fact Saddam, Gadhafi, Osama, the Paki establishment are all examples of educated Muslim elite who used their own masses as fighters for their own or someone else's cause. (or both)

But when Osama stopped listening to the west, he was eliminated. Same thing for Gadaafi and Saddam. The Paki army and ISI are still slaves of the west. Ultimately they take money from the west to try and stop the west's applecart from being upset. The Taliban need to get out of their control and stop being vicarious servants of the west. They will continue to murder, but the educated elite who are currently using them (Pak Army/ISI) will lose their power over them and their ability to make the mad uneducated Islamists follow the porders of the west.

The Taliban have understood that the Paki army and ISI are ultimately slaves of America. As long as the US-Paki army combine keep the Taliban in check the cosy relationship of western powers controlling idiot Muslims masses will continue. It is the way the western powers control the elite Muslims that makes Islamism more dangerous to non western nations. If the Taliban are allowed to become their murderous selves, out of the control of the slave Pakistan army and their western masters it will be easier to expose true Islam to the whole world.

Osama was a freedom fighter
Saddam was a secular leader
The Pakistan army are a secular army in a moderate democracy

Iran got F-14s and Phoenix missiles, Cobra gunships
Saudi Arabia gets F-15s and AWACS. Even NATO nations did not get F-15s.
Pakistan got F-86, F-104, F-16, C-130, Orion, Harpoon, Sidewinder, AMRAAM, Cobra, Stingers
Taliban got logistics and comm from Pakistan army and their own Stingers

The west arms Islamist nations as long as they support the West. Just check which Islamist nations are still being armed by the west to see which nations are still helping the west implement their work.

"Islamism" is defined as "not supporting the west"
"Moderate, enlightened, secular" is "supporting the west"

Are the Taliban right or wrong in fighting the west?

I want to point out even less educated or uneducated muslims can turn against islam.

I have no doubt about this/ I have Muslim friends who know the reality and distil what they want from islam. But in Islam the poorer and weaker you are the smaller your chances of rebelling. You have to be elite/educated. You then have two choices
1. Be a genuine opponent and take exile
2. Become a pretender like Jinnah/jernails who enjoy kafir things in life and yet serve as a "mediator"/leader between brainless Muslim masses and western modernity, getting Islamic privileges among/Muslims and getting money/honor in the west.

I would like the pretenders to be killed. I am sure all Paki jernails are pretenders. I am beginning to think that Hafiz saeed also is a pretender

shiv saar,

We have the Saudi Sheikhs and TSPA Crore Commanders managing the finances, recruitment and logistics of the worldwide Jihadi networks.

The West depend on these two to keep the Jihadis under their control. These two make sure that the Americans do not allow any Jihadi networks to crop up which are outside the control of these networks. The bad Taliban is targeted by US for this reason also.

What we need is a parallel Jihadi infrastructure, independent from ISI oversight and Saudi money, which goes after the TSPA and ISI with a vengeance and removes them from the equation completely. Also Sarkari Jihadis like the Hafeez Suar need to be taken out.

Once the West loses its mediators, it will be forced to deal with the situation, especially the one with so many Islamic extremists in their own countries. And then there are the nukes.

That is why Indian presence in Afghanistan is dangerous for both Pakistan AND USA. India should team up with Afghani Pushtuns and run the biggest, most vicious Jihadi network in the Subcontinent, and take out most of the TSPA leadership.

2 billion USD a year for 6-7 years would get us rid of Pakistan forever, and give USA its biggest headache!

[ramana]

Ian Talbot is former British ICS and BIA officer. He is an expert on India and Pakistna. I have two editions of his books. He served in Pakjab before Independence.

Book Review in Pioneer:

Turbid History, Turbulent Future

Pakistan: A New History

Author: Ian Talbot

Publisher: Amaryllis, Rs499

Despite a few factual inaccuracies, there are some insightful observations in the book which serve as a teaser for anyone interested in knowing Pakistan well, writes SUSHANT SAREEN

Biographers, whether of persons or nations, generally tend to either tear into their subject or else write with a soft (some would say, blind) spot. There is, however, another type of biographer, one who manages to mix the two. Ian Talbot falls in this third category of chroniclers. He doesn’t pull his punches in highlighting the numerous warts of, and blunders committed by, the Pakistani state since it came into existence and which today pose a clear and present existential threat to the state. But at the same time, Talbot seems to harbour an abiding faith in the ability of the Pakistani state and society to overcome the monumental challenges confronting it. This becomes clear from the literature review by Talbot in which he points to the ‘diversity and dynamism’ in Pakistan and gives credence to the volume edited by the quintessential Pakistan establishment figure, Maleeha Lodhi, whose book Pakistan: Beyond the Crisis State, is more like a Press Information Department publication which seeks to put a positive gloss on things and ignores the ugly and almost insurmountable realities and problems facing Pakistan.

Like many other Western scholars, Talbot places a lot in the store of the so-called resilience of the people of Pakistan to pull through the myriad crises that have engulfed the country. But resilience is really a euphemism for helplessness. After all, what is the choice before the people who face economic distress, physical insecurity, political dysfunction, administrative collapse and societal breakdown but to lower their heads and hope the storm passes over. This, in a sense, is exactly what the peoples inhabiting the lands that today form Pakistan have done over the ages in the face of dislocation, disruption and devastation caused by the marauding invaders.

This so-called resilience, coupled with sheer inability of the state to undertake rescuing reform, is what has given rise to the ‘muddling through’ thesis regarding Pakistan’s future glide path. Talbot, too, seems to subscribe to this thesis, and discounts the possibility of cataclysmic change. This is either because the implications of that are too horrible to contemplate or because he actually is convinced that Pakistan can muddle through endlessly. But clearly, even as Pakistan muddles through, it is in secular decline and this cannot continue indefinitely because sooner or later something will give.

While there can be quibbles over some of the underlying themes in Talbot’s book and on some of the conclusions he draws, there is a lot to commend in the book. For long-term Pakistan watchers, the book serves as a good refresher, and for those interested in studying Pakistan it is a very good primer on the seminal events and developments that occurred in the early years after Partition. Talbot gives an historical insight on how things have become such a mess, something that is often missing in most recent works on Pakistan which tend to concentrate on more contemporary issues. Of course, since Talbot has picked on his past works to write this volume, some of the information is dated. For instance, he mentions Balochistan as the main supplier of gas to Pakistan (page 23). The fact is that today Balochistan only supplies around 20 per cent of the gas while Sindh supplies almost 70 per cent of gas.

Asides of these small factual inaccuracies, there are some insightful observations in the book which serve as a teaser for anyone interested in Pakistan to delve in deeper. Talbot talks about the impact of the Punjabi migration as a result of Partition and the influence that the refugee has had on not only policy-making towards India but also in the rise of Islamism inside Pakistan. Unlike India where in the overall national context, the impact of the refugee influx as a result of the Partition riots was marginal (Punjabis are at best only around 4-5 per cent of India’s population and the refugee component is a part of this), in Pakistan the refugees, by some estimates made up nearly 40 per cent of Punjab’s population, which is around 20-25 per cent of Pakistan’s population. It is this segment of the population which is most vocal and visceral in its hatred of India and Hindus.


{However these are already absorbed into Pakjab. The term Mohajir is used for the migrants from UP and Hyderabad. These are the bulk of Altaf Hussain's MQM in Karachi}

Even as he acknowledges Pakistan’s use of terrorism as a policy instrument against India (not to mention its own people, for example in the erstwhile East Pakistan and currently in Balochistan), Talbot indulges in the typical Western complaint that India could have done more to alleviate Pakistan’s security concerns. But he refrains from suggesting what, short of abandoning Kashmir and disbanding the Indian Army, would actually address these mostly manufactured concerns of Pakistan. On more contemporary developments in Pakistan — the Janus-faced state under Gen Pervez Musharraf and the torturous tenure of Asif Zardari — Talbot’s analysis is unexceptionable. His description of the Chief Justice conducting himself more as a politician is absolutely bang-on as is his apprehension that judicial over-reach and activism could destabilise the democratic system more than any executive action. He also correctly traces the current economic crisis to the Musharraf era’s faulty policies and the failure of the quasi-military regime to initiate structural reforms. The artificial boom of the Musharraf period (which some Indian economic analysts in the National Security Advisory Board couldn’t stop glowing about) was bound to collapse sooner rather than later.

{So we have deluded individuals in the Indian NSAB? All they had to do was read BRF Pak threads and get real.}

While Talbot compliments Zardari’s politics of reconciliation and the efforts to promote federalism through the 18th Amendment and the 7th National Finance Commission (NFC) award, the impact of the latter is only now manifesting itself and that too in not a very nice manner. The NFC award has shifted the balance of power (at least in terms of resources) in favour of the provinces and has thereby weakened the Centre but without strengthening the provinces. As a result, the state’s capacity and ability to manage affairs has been severely impaired.


{Glimmer of hope for the states to assert their self-determination rights? If they can get loot without the kindness from the Pakjab center they might be induced to be even more free.}

Apart from the various existential crises that currently confront Pakistan, Talbot also points to other even more serious crises that are likely to emerge in the future — demographic explosion and youth bulge, water and energy crises and the failure to evolve a positive nationalism with a vision for the future. Even a normal stable state would find these a huge task. How an atrophying state like Pakistan proposes to handle these threats is something that remains beyond imagination and thus conjures up images of a cataclysmic future. But by flagging these issues, Talbot does add to the debate on what the future holds, not just for Pakistan but the entire region.

The reviewer is Senior Fellow, Vivekananda International Foundation, and Consultant, PakistanProject, IDSA

[Austin]

Building trust

[ramana]

Lets start from collapse of FSU.

It was first time a nuclear weapon super power collapsed on itself, without spreading outward instability in the modern world.

How did that happen?

The US thinks it went like this.

US strategy:

It had a purpose: Win the Cold War
It had a plan: Leverage economic resources among others to accelerate instability in the rival superpower as it struggles to reform.
It had a sequence of interdependent or coupled events : US increase defence spending, causes FSU to increase defence spending, leaving less money for basic goods, making people angry, putting more pressure on FSU leadership to call for more reforms, making the government even more unstable leading to insiders to stage a coup leading to a collapse.
It has a distinct measurable end goal: At the end there is only one super power.

Now if we blindly apply the template to TSP we find TSP itself is doing its utmost to accelerate instability inside TSP!!!

{Same with NoKo!!!}


So the US is rushing money under various AIDs programs to provide basic goods and military power to keep the state running.

The above template has wrong reasoning. If we read it again the key was the anger of the people for a workers utopia not being achieved by the leaders.
In TSP the desired utopia is the Islamist state. And the leaders are not being able to usher it in fast enough. And that leads to the instability paradigm we saw before. The last step is a Islamist section of the military to stage the coup and for a popular figure to emerge.


So Indian Aman Ki Asha, WKK delusionitis, NPA grumblings, give them Cashmere, Siachen etc will not lead to any deceleration of the instability.

[ramana]

Two related posts:

India is headed to be the third largest economy of the world. It will therefore have the third most powerful military and one of the most advanced militaries in the world.
Detente with Pakistan non withstanding, India's defence preparedness will continue, I think.

There is one scenario where India's security situation might worsen. That is one where the Talibs get a hold of the Pakistani Nukes and threaten all and sundry with retaliation. Or I suppose some India specific Pak-army trained group like the LET getting hold of one.
However that scenario will bring in massa, NATO and India in and the result will be a de-nuked pakistan. Cheen will have to stand by and wave from the sidelines, just as it did in '71, Kargil and numerous other occasions.

But otherwise, there is a difference between talibs getting nukes and Pakistan's sarkari jihadis getting nukes. The Talibs are more intelligent than we give them credit for, they probably won't want to make India an enemy and they don't have any interaction with India to want to nuke India.

The Sarkari Jihadis are == Pakistan Army, and them getting nukes and threatening retaliation == Pakistani army threatening India. The response from India will be against the Pakistani army - Generals and their right and left hand possessions, Pakistan's military and Industrial infrastructure. Pakistani Army want's to pinprick India, 1000 small cuts but they are not suicidal yet.

Another possible situation might be if there is more islam coming into pakistan. More green on green violence brought into the Punjabi heartland by the purest. Where there are large scale massacres and ethinic cleansing, and everyone in Punjab makes a beeline for the Indian border. I know this scenario has been discussed at the highest levels in India, and this is an eventuality that is a possibility. This has happened before in 1971 when the Pak fauj was conducting a genocide in East Pakistan. There has been some discussion within India and even here on BRF on how to go about dealing with such a situation.

Otherwise, Pakistan will be perpetually be unstable, the Talibs will for ever try to use violence to bring in a purer form of Islam, there will for ever be murders, shoot-outs, corruption, ethnically targeted killings going on there. That is the unstable-stable situation that Pakistan is settling into for the foreseeable future.

Otherwise, shiv-ji is absolutely correct, Pakistan has been unstable for decades, nearly all its existing life. And India's calculus has evolved to live with that instability.

from Carl:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 9#p1434109

Resurrection of the Karma Kanda

Carl ji,

It would be interesting to know your views on how the Purusha-Prakruti is playing out in Pakistan!

RajeshA ji, I'm assuming you mean Pakistan w.r.t. its 'self', rather than w.r.t. Bharateeyam as a whole.

1. Is Pakistan an 'Organism'? What is its Purpose?
Applying the theory to 'Pakistan' is tricky because Pakistan doesn't really qualify as an 'organism'. We already have some understanding of that on BRF: Pakistan is not really a nation-state, but is a qabila guard in the disguise of a nation-state. It is a nerve center of a trans-national narco-terrorist power infrastructure that spans not just the Ummah, but also the Anglosphere and increasingly China. This network has cornered an important piece of real-estate and demographics, and is using it to claim all rights of a legitimate nation-state in international politics. But even the semblance of a nation-state does not quite hold up to the definition of an 'organism', because geographically and logistically the area of 'Pakistan' has always been deeply dependent on India, not just for river water but also in terms of import and export of essential commodities that its populace needs. But due to its perverted purpose, 'Pakistan' finds it imperative to maintain inimical relations with India and hold all forms of integration as ransom. So this sets it apart from all those other ethnic nation-states that have their boundaries, but have a good working relationship with the neighboring countries to whom their destiny is tied by Nature.

Because of this rather imbalanced and incomplete geographical, logistical and organizational picture plus its inimical relation with its actual stem (India), it is not easy to treat Pakistan alone in terms of applying its theory - because its very purpose and function is actually not that of a nation-state. The purpose and function of most nation-states is the welfare of the people and service to a cultural ideal and being a constructive member of a world order. This is not Pakistan's function or purpose. Its purpose is as a foil state (vis a vis India and parts of the ME and CA), as a legalized front for international criminal-politics nexus, and as a means to use the areas bio-physical resources (includes its own converted and brainwashed aam abdul population) as fodder for this elitist project. So Pakistan is an artificial viral construct and not a living, breathing 'organism' in an adequate sense.

2. Is Pakistan in a Condition of Chaos? Can it ever be?
Having said that, firstly one finds that Pakistan alone can never be assigned a Condition of Chaos - because the indicator is that no particle leaves the system (which means there is no production). But Pakistan was created as a conduit for particles to be used up and leave and enter the 'system'. Therefore even though there may be "chaos" from a responsible nation-state's perspective, it is not a Chaos Condition for Pakistan, because Pakistan is actively producing what it is meant to produce as per its actual purpose of creation. For this reason, any rascal pseudo-intellectual who tells Indians to be proud of their "secular" heritage because compared to Pakistan they are doing well is a liar or a fool. From Right Foot Forward:

Nor, in my view, is a "secularist" who is unwilling to acknowledge the depth and real context of India's civilization as a valid (and valuable) starting point in modern times, much less take pride in it. What is he willing to fight and die for? - That question undergirds his qualification to dialogue on behalf of the nation, rather than merely his "pacifist" unwillingness to fight. Or worse. (See this interesting speech by M.J. Akbar on the Idea of India.)

This is all the more important because this generation of warfare has stepped out of the conventional framework of Westphalian states, and its driving force goes beyond a primitive nationalism and even political-economic ideology. In this scenario, there are "countries" today that are not really nation-states in the proper sense of the term, they are sly foxes in the garb of law abiding nation-states. Their behaviour confuses naive observers, who call them "failed states" that are not quite failing. But the fact is that they were never meant to be successful as nation-states. Their success lies in something else, something much larger. Taking advantage of the protocols of being called a nation-state and especially a failing one that cannot control "non state actors" is part of that larger war, specifically its diplomatic aspect.

When this is the big picture, a nation that is in a make-believe delusion that the context is about nation-states is decidedly out-of-place and a naive oddity, setting itself up for others to play games with it. Therefore, those Indian commentators that try to distract the nation by calling a strangely idiotic "pride" to the fact that India is not considered as "failed" a state as some others are deluding the people. Knowingly or unknowingly, they are a direct hazard to the future crystallization of India's national purpose, much less ideal representatives in dialogue with others.

When chaos itself is one of the functions and purposes of the entity, then the Condition of Chaos for such an entity w.r.t. itself is true when its material chaos is resolved and it regains a greater status as a real 'organism' as part of its natural ecosystem. From a Prakrti standpoint, it must be made entirely innocent of 'plan' and 'ideology'. That means the removal of the mullacracy and its coercive machinery, to use BRF lingo.

Moreover, when chaos itself is one of the functions and purposes of the entity, it becomes tricky to evaluate the other conditions also.

3. Is Pakistan in a Condition of 'Treachery by Inaction'?
Not really w.r.t. its 'self'. As long as the deep state qabila guard and its connections with the 3.5 are secure, it is fine. Because of the mafia-client nature of its relations with the 3.5, the temporary dips and rips in these relations cannot be seen as a sign of weakness, but is just part of that dynamic.

However, certain sections of Pakistani society could be liable to move towards a Condition of Treachery by Inaction. Certain trading and legitimate business networks are one case in point, and can be cultivated selectively by India.

4. Does Pakistan face an 'Active Enemy' Condition?
Baluchistan comes to mind, and so does Afghanistan and its leverage if any within TSP. If these can work together to provide TSP's main clients with legitimate and safe routes for energy and sea access, then the increasing negative spinoffs of Pakistan's other 'services' would outweigh its total utility. In that case West Pakistan faces the prospect of becoming a further truncated rump state of Pakjab.

One does see this condition being attempted to be handled in Pakistan according to the Formula. There is a national debate there about what it really means to be Paki - TNT, 1Ball, Mahdiism, etc. Religious conversions and violence, defections, etc as a means of consolidation show an increasing statistic.

So we can say that this Condition does apply to a certain extent to Pakistan, in the sphere of ethnic identity. (The same organism can have one condition for one aspect of its life and another for another aspect. E.g. my finances can be in Prosperity but my marriage can be in Danger.)

5. Does Pakistan face a Condition of Uncertainty?
Without a doubt, but not predominantly. Due to aarthic attenuation, this condition is sliding into 'Active Enemy'. That backsliding robs the ability or inclination to investigate or inform oneself honestly about the real nature of one's group and the nature of other groups painted as 'enemy'. One finds only some wealthy Pakis or overseas Pakis doing this soul-searching and coming out understanding the nature of Malsi, suddenly discovering they are 'Indian', and other such things. Most Pakis are sucked down into the fight for resources and so the likelihood is that they will resolve uncertainty by resorting to false certainties. In turn, this will accentuate the Condition of Active Enemy. We have to ensure that the chosen 'false certainties' create a bigger than manageable Active Enemy. Otherwise it is possible that they can use that to consolidate.

6. Is Pakistan in a Condition of Danger?
I think the most appropriate condition is that the deep state infrastructure of Pakistan is entering a Condition of Danger. Certainly, it has experienced some Emergency Conditions for a protracted period. Even if we accept Rudradev ji's suggestion of mutual 'hool' favours between Unkil and ISI, there is good evidence that a large portion of jihadi activity is not strictly controlled, and is creating a wide spillover. This means that critical clients such as the UK feel they are losing control there.

The white economic stat is tanking. (Black economy is flourishing, though.)

The Army is not yet stepping in to take control of the executive post. Given that this is TSP, that doesn't mean much. So it is not the Army's direct intervention to look at but that of certain other actors - such as the UK. I'm not sure yet who and what the UK is trying to use to step in and salvage and take more direct control of TSP. It does seem that of late the UK has been trying to exert more direct control to set things right. We thought Im the Dim was its candidate, but not sure yet. I think they're trying a mix of Im, TuQ and others, and trying to gauge the situation. Recently the British Council held a widely publicized poll about what Paki youth want (not democracy they say, but Islamism or Army). So it does appear that the godmother of Pakistan is stepping in to bypass less co-operative elements and take more direct control and save her child. This in itself indicates that the deeper state in TSP is in trouble and in a Danger Condition.

As controller of international level media, Pakistan has already been publicly assigned labels such as Failing state, etc.

There is talk of fundamental reform and IK is in the forefront of that kind of speech. That he combines state reform with personal moral reform via Islamism is also significant.

So I would assign a Danger Condition to Pakistan in terms of its fundamental creation and purpose, its godmother and fourfathers.

But despite PTI's reform proposals, unless Pakistan changes its operating basis, it will keep lurching from one emergency to another and persist in Danger Condition, and depend on life support from the 3.5.

...Unless something happens and India caves in or gifts away additional space/resources to Pakistan that will help it increase its status as a fuller 'organism'. I think this is exactly what certain RAPEs are hoping and trying for. Maybe even Tarek Fatah types are knowing or inadvertent agents of such an attempt. See this guy for example, he feigns complete and hopeful confidence that GoI believes that a stable and prosperous TSP is in India's best interest - despite the 'paranoia' of other elements in India's society (see later in the interview, after 30th minute or so):

[RamaY]

^ Another alternative w.r.t Paki nukes

http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/2012/ ... eover.html

Nuclear Weapons
o USA & West will try to buy Paki nukes & Taliban might accept that deal. Assuming ~100 weapons, we can expect a $30-40 billion multi-year deal made with Taliban.
o TSPA/Taliban will act more than smart and will keep a handful number of nukes hidden away. My gut feeling is that, they will limit it to 2-3 weapons.
o There is a very high possibility that India will share majority of this financial burden. Western consultants will (even I can) come up with enough reasons why it is in India’s best interests to make this deal happen and India will agree
§ This will be sold as a chanikyan move by seculars, media and WKKs as a way to get some influence over Taliban/Paki behavior.
§ There is a possibility that India will be pressurized to get rid of its own nukes as a good will gesture. I have a strong feeling that India will not budge even under immense internal and external pressure. India already made its case that Indian nukes are against China threat.
o China will try to cover its traces amidst this chaos. It will end up paying the west to avoid international embarrassment. It may also make a deal with TSPA/Taliban to keep some of the weapons in its control (against submitting them to the west) and Taliban will accept this deal, because they already have a couple kept away for emergency.

[ramana]

X-post...

Cross-posting a post by Rudradev from the "Thesis: Peace unlikely in next 25 years" Thread

Shiv,

I do see your point. General convulsions about Islamism become too much of a shotgun approach to the problem. However, we can't fully address the problem if we don't talk about ideology... and in this case, the ideology is not Islamism per se (although it uses Islamism like a conjoined twin's endocrine system). It is Nazariya e Pakistan, or NeP.

NeP says that all of the Indian subcontinent must revert to an imagined Muslim domination that (fictitiously) existed under the Mughals before the British came. It is the reason behind all that you ascribe to Pakistan that makes it unwise for us to seek "peace" with it... political supremacy of the army, inculcation of anti-Hindu hatred in the educational system etc. The West, in fact, supports these facets of NeP even as they actively fight against other strains of Islamism directed against them.

Certainly, NeP is specifically a Paki thing, not an Islamist thing per se. If you ask a Muslim in Oman or Jordan or Morocco whether the whole Indian subcontinent should be ruled by Islam... he may even say "yes", if the price to him is no greater than checking a box on a survey. But apart from a very small minority, people from these other Muslim nations will pay no more than lip service, if at all, to the idea. It is only within the Indian subcontinent that millions of Muslims feel an ideological affinity to NeP, to such an extent that they would engage in organized violence willingly in support of the cause. They are motivated not only by the fact of being Muslim but by the adherence to a specific historical narrative centered on the Indian subcontinent, as an article of faith. So our focusing on "Islamism" conflates the specific issue we have regarding "peace with Pakistan" into some much wider and blurrier picture.

So I am in agreement with you to leave Islamism out of it. But we cannot leave NeP out of it. And the principal aspect of NeP is that it has adherents both in India and in Pakistan; its adherents didn't all go to Pakistan, and many of them are well-ensconced at many levels (business, industry, government, media, clergy, politics, organized crime) in India.

They are a wealthy and powerful lobby who hold the interests of the vast majority of Indian Muslims to ransom. They are (BOTH in Pakistan AND India... witness Farooq Kathwari, Omar Khalidi and Ghulam Nabi Fai) backed by the West.

Now as you say, there are certain parties in India... not just the core NeP lobby but WKKs and others... who benefit copiously from the ongoing process of "engaging" with Pakistan in the stated interest of "peace". They continue to benefit while a far larger proportion of Indians lives with deadly danger of Pakistani terrorist attacks.

The WKKs and anti-Hindutvavadis who benefit from this process are able to ignore the Indian wing of the NeP lobby, and sweep their true motivations under the carpet, by claiming that those who oppose efforts to make "peace with Pakistan" are jackasses and bigots. That is exactly as you say.

The need of the hour is to work against the entire set of groups with an agenda to benefit from continuing engagement and accommodation of Pakistan, through OTHER means than raising the Islamism threat (otherwise the agenda-driven groups will demonize us as yahoos who shout "Hindu Dharm Khatre Mein Hai" and say that Jinnah was secular compared to us.)

Yet, in formulating the strategy we cannot ignore that our primary enemy is motivated by NeP; that NeP exists within India; and like it or not, NeP is correlated (if not causatively related) to Islamism. Even if we do not say this publicly (until a strategic opportunity presents itself to bring it out for maximum gain)... in our own minds we must know that this is so.

Rudradev brilliant conclusion.
My further comments:
Firstly by proclaiming Nazariya-e-Pakistan in place of "Islam Khatre me hain" (Islam is in danger) where Islam stands for Pakistan after the 1971 split with East Pakistan, Pakistan has in essence allowed regional identity to gain ascendency over Islamist Ummah aspirations. So now for last forty years they have adopted a regional identity which is essentially Pakjab, yet all Pakjab based polititcal parties do not have total presence in Pakistan and leads tot he instability paradigm.

I think your conclusion that N-e-P is in India is brilliant for it is a continuation of the two nation theory of Jinnah which did not get excised out of India due to the horrors of Partition.

The real problem is to deal with N-e-P in India that will take care of TSP and allow the kabila to settle. So far the GOI and psec elite policies are to fester the India based N-e-P and sustain it instead of extinguishing it by a variety of positive and neagative disincentives.

[RamaY]

Certainly, NeP is specifically a Paki thing, not an Islamist thing per se. If you ask a Muslim in Oman or Jordan or Morocco whether the whole Indian subcontinent should be ruled by Islam... he may even say "yes", if the price to him is no greater than checking a box on a survey. But apart from a very small minority, people from these other Muslim nations will pay no more than lip service, if at all, to the idea. It is only within the Indian subcontinent that millions of Muslims feel an ideological affinity to NeP, to such an extent that they would engage in organized violence willingly in support of the cause. They are motivated not only by the fact of being Muslim but by the adherence to a specific historical narrative centered on the Indian subcontinent, as an article of faith. So our focusing on "Islamism" conflates the specific issue we have regarding "peace with Pakistan" into some much wider and blurrier picture.

It 'appears' so because a Muslim in KSA/Oman/Jordan/Morocco need not send their own to Indian sub-continent to Islamicise because they already have fellow-Islamists settled there in the form of Pakistan.

Imagine a scenario. Islam is kicked out of entire Indian sub-continent. Would then we see the islamists in West-Asia and even Persia clamoring for Jihad on Indian sub-continent?

I think so. This is why we see muslims from all over the world join Jihad against non-believers anywhere in the world, be it Afghanistan or Iraq or EU.

That makes the NeP an Islamic thingi. A hindu pakistan would be as good as Dravidian-Tamilnadu.

We don't want to see it that way or say it that way, because we are afraid of it and think it somehow makes us un-secular.

[ramana]

X-post from BB thread....

In the end it may urn out these two are maladjusted, failing to assimilate pissed off duo who were successful in showing their bile and are claiming Islam and US foreign policies as grievances to justify their heinous crimes. Its like the Maoist bandits who claim to be inspired by Charu Mazumdar and Kanu Sanyal by way of analogy.

Will develop it to TSP as a failing, angry pissed off mass of people with nukes who threaten the world.

[Rudradev]

Certainly, NeP is specifically a Paki thing, not an Islamist thing per se. If you ask a Muslim in Oman or Jordan or Morocco whether the whole Indian subcontinent should be ruled by Islam... he may even say "yes", if the price to him is no greater than checking a box on a survey. But apart from a very small minority, people from these other Muslim nations will pay no more than lip service, if at all, to the idea. It is only within the Indian subcontinent that millions of Muslims feel an ideological affinity to NeP, to such an extent that they would engage in organized violence willingly in support of the cause. They are motivated not only by the fact of being Muslim but by the adherence to a specific historical narrative centered on the Indian subcontinent, as an article of faith. So our focusing on "Islamism" conflates the specific issue we have regarding "peace with Pakistan" into some much wider and blurrier picture.

It 'appears' so because a Muslim in KSA/Oman/Jordan/Morocco need not send their own to Indian sub-continent to Islamicise because they already have fellow-Islamists settled there in the form of Pakistan.

Imagine a scenario. Islam is kicked out of entire Indian sub-continent. Would then we see the islamists in West-Asia and even Persia clamoring for Jihad on Indian sub-continent?

I think so. This is why we see muslims from all over the world join Jihad against non-believers anywhere in the world, be it Afghanistan or Iraq or EU.

That makes the NeP an Islamic thingi. A hindu pakistan would be as good as Dravidian-Tamilnadu.

We don't want to see it that way or say it that way, because we are afraid of it and think it somehow makes us un-secular.

Highly oversimplistic, and ultimately a useless argument.

Muslims from all over the world give lip service to a lot of stuff. In a West Asian/North African Islamic nation with a population of 20-30 million... yes, you will see 20,000-30,000 of them go online and pledge their support to Islamist causes in other countries on Twitter, Facebook, Websites etc.

Of those, how many will actually go to the theatre of action and take up arms, simply and only because the cause is touted as an Islamist cause? Even 20-30? Even 2-3?

Look at Israel-Palestine, the oldest Islamist cause in the book. Thousands of Arabs will jump and shout in street demonstrations yelling Death to Israel, etc. in the safety of their home countries. But actually, how many of them from Jordan, KSA, Iraq, Libya, Yemen etc. have gone and taken up the gun to fight the IDF on behalf of Palestinians? Almost none. The actual fighting is done by Palestinians and to some extent, Lebanese Muslims (who are culturally the equivalent of Pakis if Israel is the equivalent of India.)

If you look at other instances of alleged "anti-Muslim atrocity" in other countries the numbers of random foreign jihadis who turn up to fight are even smaller. How many Muslims from general WWU (World Wide Ummah) went to Thailand, Philippines, Xinjiang to fight the government forces there? Tiny units of Wahhabi fighters if at all. Not capable of posing any degree of serious threat to the respective states... and that's the key point here.

On the other hand, if you take a serious look at the places where significant numbers of foreign Muslim fighters DID go to wage Jihad against state structures... Afghanistan ('80s), Chechnya, Bosnia, and J&K... you will find that "Islamism" alone was not the effectuator. It was only the excuse. Many interested parties internationalized these jihads in a big way... for geopolitical reasons having nothing to do with Islamism, even though they used Islamism as a tool.

What is even more strange... these days you hear a lot of Islamists yelling about "atrocities" against Arakan Muslims in Burma. But do you see significant numbers of the yelling people going with gun in hand to fight the Burmese security forces? No. You DO see violence, but you see it in the home countries of those Muslims, Bangladesh and India, against targets that have nothing to do with Burma!

So it is, quite frankly, myopic to universalize this "because of Islam onlee" theme and project it as THE framework for understanding the India-Pakistan situation. Nazariya e Pakistan has Islam as one, but ONLY one of its components. There is MUCH more to it: issues of country-specific historical narrative, class narrative, justification of economic and political privilege, and cultural associations of imagined "supremacy" with Subcontinental Islam in the minds of a uniquely Dhmmified non-Muslim Indian population.

Also, the nature of the NeP threat to India is both distinctly different and far, far worse than anything faced by Russia, China, Thailand, or even the Western countries. WE are not talking about 2-3, 20-30, or even 200-300 West Asian jihadis coming and creating fidayeen mayhem. We are talking about lakhs of NeP faithfuls who compete against the very identity of India for the mindshare of crores of Indian Muslims.


Looking at the issue with a naive "Islamism/Secularism" lens does not contribute anything to our understanding of the NeP threat... any more than repeating Multiplication Tables 100,000 times contributes to an understanding of tensor calculus. Islamism is fundamental, but at far too trivial a level to matter. Frivolous speculations like "what if Islam was wiped out from India" are even more useless in terms of garnering any real understanding of the issue... more appropriate to sixth-graders than Bharat Rakshak.

[RajeshA]

One should also keep in mind, that West-Asian & North African (WANA) Jihadis actually only fight in two scenarios either

• against a force which they consider superior to them racially or militarily, say a superpower, as only that brings the kudos back home, or
• against a historic enemy like the Shi'ites, which is then either an internal WANA fight or along historical fault-lines like Arab-Persian.

If some Muslim Hindistanis, say in Pakistan or in India have problems with Hindoos, or some Rohingya have with Burmese, or some Yawis have with Thai, is really of zero interest for Jihadis. These problems are only of interest for public posturing and Ummah solidarity rhetoric, but something which does not translate to active Jihad.

In fact Paki Islamists and Chauvinists are often shocked to see that many in WANA do not really share their extreme hatred for Indians. However this posture may change if people in India directly attack their prophet or the book.

[ramana]

By passing strictures against Mushy, the Pak judiciary is putting the kabila guards back into the barracks. We are seeing a Yeltsin moment.