The Strategic Issues & International Relations Forum is a venue to discuss issues pertaining to India's security environment, her strategic outlook on global affairs and as well as the effect of international relations in the Indian Subcontinent. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
JE Menon wrote:the fellow who asked the question is a total moron who hasn't bothered to observe, read (widely) and think. Just swallowed some shite he got from the media and regurgitated. He will get invited again to Pak Track II for sure.
he $hits the familiar crap that we are well aware off..
like "your stuff will be used by hindu rightwing against pakistan and muslims"
At around 44.00 min onward she replies very bluntly to a number of questions about the reality of 'people to people' and Track II
Unfair she still remains - She wants India to own what was broken by Unkil, Auntie, Autistic child and RoP Mullacrazy!
So yes, she is pretty smart, but not so sure about those following her...
Her only value is that some 'peaceful idiot' Indians will only listen to reason when any reason comes from a gora or gori's mouth or worse!
Yes, I know I am a cynic and this is all very depressing!
CRamS wrote:
On a purely rational level, I take one issue with Fair's thesis that TSP is irrational by pursuing policies that ostensibly hurt its national interests. She of course cites the growth of TTP etc and correctly argues that there would be no TTP f there were no Jaishe Mohammed.
Sorry, I missed that. I heard her saying that Pakistanis are very rational, and so India can safely call their nuclear bluff, and that her faith in their rationality enables her to be a hawk, a fan of Cold Start, more so than any Indian, even though she's a Democrat and not supposed to be a hawk.
What she did say was that the Pakistani military's cost-benefit analysis is very different from what Indians would consider to be rational.
How hard must the Israelis be laughing at the entire drama at the Islamic University.
Actually food festival by international students takes place in most of the bigger better Universities including in India. But never heard of the natives running foreign stalls in their name.
But this is Pakistan we are talking about. beg, borrow, steal, copy. All for some H& D. what a bunch of morons.
Pulikeshi wrote:
Unfair she still remains - She wants India to own what was broken by Unkil, Auntie, Autistic child and RoP Mullacrazy!
Well, if I take the Indian thrust all along to have been to reduce India-Pakistan to a two-body problem, Fair confirms that it is not going to happen. The State Department thinks she is crazy; and the IMF/Unkil (and others) will keep bailing Pakistan out from its troubles. She said, but I have believed this long before I first heard of Fair, that since Pakistan does not face the results of its policies - bailed out by its 3.5 friends - and blames it on RAW rather than on home-grown Pakistanis on the occasions that they do - it cannot change. The issue keeps coming up - nobody lets it simplify to a two-body problem.
So we're in the territory of Shiv's Aunt who would be his Uncle with suitable anatomical rearrangements. It is never going to be a two-body problem which India can decisively deal with. The Americans are treating the substance-abuser with methadone, not addressing the substance-abuse. India can't make America pull the methadone feed (and China is there too, as is Saudi Arabia).
Think of it as polio, India got some infection, and a limb is withered. Nothing in our current knowledge enables us to restore that limb. No point in magical thinking. What you are left with is what I hope Modi is doing - grow India as fast as possible; and don't take nonsense from Pakistan.
pankajs wrote:CRamS saar, at the very end UnFair did say that TSPA or was it pakistan is very rational.
@ 1:31:20 "As to whether on not India can be aggressive about Pakistan" Watch her answer that question.
A rough transcript ..
In context of a terrorist attack She says .. I tell the American let India sort this out. When American sit on India .. We say don't escalate .. It should be India's responsibility ..... I am kind of a Hawk. I am a fan of cold start. Take the advantage of limited war that you learnt from Kargil .... going to the issue of noclear war If you going to undermine their ability to coerce you have to be willing to call their bluff ..... Pakistan is very rational .. even students when they think through decision tree rapidly understand that their country (paki students who advocate using noclear at the slightest pretext) won't survive .. I 18 years old can work through this logical desicion three ... btw where are the majority of pakistani assets situated? In the Punjab right, surely all gentlemen in the SPD can go through similar calculations. This enables me to be a hawk. I am ultimately very confident that pakistan is very rational ...
At around 44.00 min onward she replies very bluntly to a number of questions about the reality of 'people to people' and Track II
From whichever crevice does an individual like the one asking the question starting around 45.25 who appears to have got seduced by junkets to visit the Islamic Republic of Pakistan hosted {funded (?)} by one Pakistani group calling itself the Citizens Archive Of Pakistan and another Pakistani group calling itself Childrens Literature Festival, crawl out from? His comment at around 51.30 “Don’t’ you think some of the stuff you have written, even your data, can be misused by Hindu right wingers in India to continue spewing hatred against Pakistani’s and Muslim’s.”, clearly shows a lack of understanding of our national motto Satyamev Jayate. Seems this individual believes that if the truth is inconvenient then do not seek it .
I wonder if the Quran was being discussed would he have asked the question “Don’t’ you think some of the stuff written in the Koran, even in the hadiths, can be misused by Mohammadden terrorist groups to continue carrying out suicide attacks that blow up Non-Mohammaddens .”? I suspect not.
Anyway I hope it has dawned on the individual that he was administered a spanking, albeit a polite spanking, by Dr. Fair .
An Israeli cultural stall set up at a university here [Islamabad] as part of a U.N. debate contest was closed soon after it created a “wave of anger” among religious and political circles as the organisers of booth described the Jewish state as a “land of peace and prosperity”.
The stall, organised at the International Islamic University (IIU){of all the places, }, was part of the “U.N. Debate Contest” and showcased Israeli culture and products, News International reported on Sunday. However,it was closed soon after authorities came to know about it. {How were the Israelis issued visa to the Fortress of Islam, the only nation founded on Islam ? Blasphemous.}
Pakistan and Israel do not have diplomatic relations as the Muslim nation refuses to recognise the Jewish state.
IIU, where the mighty Abdullah Azzam once taught has been blasphemed.
I wonder if there was a stall at the International Islamic University's “U.N. Debate Contest” that showcased culture and products from "Kaafir Hindu" India and "Kaafir Shia" Iran and if so did the pure and pious insist on its closure
CRamS wrote: . . . as you pointed out many times, Fair didi may have her reasons for dissing TSP, but boy, she is sharp
Of which I have no doubt. She is sharp, she has extraordinary knowledge about Pakistan and she is quick witted.
I have to wonder if the handsome, young, pakjabi escorts provided her by the pak army did perhaps a teeny bit more than maybe just escort her. Her clarity is impressive.
Gus wrote:that crowd is just dumass. dumb as a dead ass. such moronic questions.
said dumb asses seemed pre picked and prepacked for the track two market, some even asking Fai type of planted questions which the amreki mohtarma swatted away with practiced ease.
1. US DOD has learn of the true nature of Pakistan/TSPA given their experience in Afghanistan. OTOH, US SD remains weded to the old ways of thinking. The officers in the US Army who had to bear the brunt of paki duplicity are going to rise to top positions in the coming years and are not likely to forget.
2. While the entrenched thinking is US SD is still that Pakistan is a long term tool against India and hence needs to be supported come hell or high water, seems a section is coming around to the views expressed by Dr. UnFair. Or maybe US SD is using the good dr to send a message to the Pakis. BTW, the US SD position wrt Pak is similar to Pak position wrt jihadis.
3. Her comments about "majority of pakistani assets situated in Punjab" has to be understood in context. One, India does not need long range missiles to deliver massive and crippling blow to Punjab. Two, The assets are concentrated and can easily be taken out in one fell swoop. Three, this makes Pakistan very vulnerable to a first strike. Four, If Punjab is crippled, pakistan will disintegrate. Five, The Pakistani realize this and that is why they talk of very low threshold for noclear war.
4. I think Modi/Doval understand that the previous point represents the most serious vulnerability for Pakistan.
Last edited by pankajs on 28 Oct 2014 11:30, edited 1 time in total.
1. US DOD has learn of the true nature of Pakistan/TSPA given their experience in Afghanistan. OTOH, US SD remains weded to the old ways of thinking. The officers in the US Army who had to bear the brunt of paki duplicity are going to rise to top positions in the coming years and are not likely to forget.
2. While the entrenched thinking is US SD is still that Pakistan is a long term tool against India and hence needs to be supported come hell or high water, seems a section is coming around to the views expressed by Dr. UnFair. Or maybe US SD is using the good dr to send a message to the Pakis. BTW, the US SD position wrt Pak is similar to Pak position wrt jihadis.
3. Her comments about "majority of pakistani assets situated in Punjab" has to be understood in context. One, India does not need long range missiles to deliver massive and crippling blow to Punjab. Two, The assets are concentrated and can easily be taken out in one fell swoop. Three, this makes Pakistan very vulnerable to a first strike. Four, If Punjab is crippled, pakistan will disintegrate. Five, The Pakistani realize this and that is why they talk of very low threshold for noclear war.
4. I think Modi/Doval understand that the previous point represents the most serious vulnerability for Pakistan.
That is why afghanistan is cursed as the strategic depth and the pakis will use it to de risk their war assets and less reaction time is why cold start frightens them.
Nuclear war is just talk. We will survive substantially but will annihilate the pakis. The pakis are all about survivability and not self annihilation. The amreki mohtarma also mentioned this important aspect.
Just look at how they went crying to the UN when the BSF retaliated on the border.
chetak wrote:That is why afghanistan is cursed as the strategic depth and the pakis will use it to de risk their war assets and less reaction time is why cold start frightens them.
Nuclear war is just talk. We will survive substantially but will annihilate the pakis. The pakis are all about survivability and not self annihilation.
Just look at how they went crying to the UN when the BSF retaliated on the border.
Saar on the "strategic depth" I have a different take. The Punjab Paki army does not want to disperse its "war assets" and I take that to mean its war fighting hardware. In my view the "strategic depth" is required to host the jihadis out of pakistan. One, for deniability and two because the jihadi virus is infecting the body of the host. They want that to happen in Afghanistan. Thirdly, they want total control of the drug trade that is be used to fund the jihadis. Fourthly, they fear an Afghanistan that is not in their pocket will somehow collaborate with India. Finally, they fear the pastun nationalism and want to control the discourse on both sides of the Durand line. So their obsession in controlling Afghanistan.
Rest I agree as would be apparent from my previous posts.
Last edited by pankajs on 28 Oct 2014 12:40, edited 1 time in total.
pankajs wrote:CRamS saar, at the very end UnFair did say that TSPA or was it pakistan is very rational.
@ 1:31:20 "As to whether on not India can be aggressive about Pakistan" Watch her answer that question.
A rough transcript ..
In context of a terrorist attack She says .. I tell the American let India sort this out. When American sit on India .. We say don't escalate .. It should be India's responsibility ..... I am kind of a Hawk. I am a fan of cold start. Take the advantage of limited war that you learnt from Kargil .... going to the issue of noclear war If you going to undermine their ability to coerce you have to be willing to call their bluff ..... Pakistan is very rational .. even students when they think through decision tree rapidly understand that their country (paki students who advocate using noclear at the slightest pretext) won't survive .. I 18 years old can work through this logical desicion three ... btw where are the majority of pakistani assets situated? In the Punjab right, surely all gentlemen in the SPD can go through similar calculations. This enables me to be a hawk. I am ultimately very confident that pakistan is very rational ...
If one understands Islam and Feudalism, Pakistani Army is quite rational and predictable. When I was watching The Gruffalo with my kids, this scene reminded me of the TSPA
Not to nitpick, but UnFair says at one point that it is noteworthy that "even" the Taliban went easy on Naqshbandi centers in Afghanistan, unlike the Pakistani Deobandis who persecute Barelvis. Well that's because Naqshbandis like Imam Rabbani (Sheikh Sirhindi) are the high priests of Talibanism, the types that created Aurangzebs and killed off others. A branch of the Naqshbandis, the Qadiris, are the driving force behind Chechen militancy. Etc. OTOH, a lot of Barelvi stuff is soft and silly, the famous Pakistani Rat People type tamasha. There is a pervasive idea that any kind of "sufism" is antithetical to the austere fanaticism of Wahabandi style Islam. That's a falsehood, and apparently UnFair isn't immune to it. The Naqshbandi reverence for mazars is alive in Chaharshanbeh in Istanbul - and is also where Turkey's most virulent Islamist revivalism is found. So it all dovetails and is not treated like other Barelvi mazar-worship. Etc.
Pakistan has been using the same strategies since 1947. Generally, you expect states to get rid of policies that don't work and certainly you expect states to get rid of policies imperilling the state itself.
If Pakistan says "how can we be accused of supporting terrorism when we are ourselves victims", you need to reply that there would be no TTP if there were no Jaish-e-Mohammed.
Even if the Kashmir problem is fixed by a border angel, India is going to have a Pakistan problem. Pakistan's "civilizational adversary" is India and this is emphasized in military publications, school textbooks, and media making Pakistan an "uncivil society". This adversity ids formed in religious terms and it goes back to the 2-nation theory. Citizenship is identified with religion. this opens up the question, "Who is the real Muslim" and this is exactly what Pakistan is facing today. Today, you have to be a Sunni deobandi. Even the Afghan Taliban did not go after the Naqshbandi shrines. Pakistan must have realized that its strategies not only did not work but were dangerous. Yet, Pakistan pursues the same strategy, I wanted to understand why.
When Americans think about Pakistan, they think that Pakistan is inherently an "insecure state". This implies that it could be made secure. In other words, Pakistan is a "security-seeking state". It gives rise to dangerous assumptions that by encouraging a resolution on Kashmir, Pakistan will behave better, put-down proxies and be less threatening in Afghanistan. Ahmed Rashid & Barnett Rubin therefore feel that there should be a grand bargain on Kashmir. However, Pakistan Army's concerns are not about Kashmir, it is about India. This is a really important thing to understand.
Pakistan is an "ideological state" as defined by Charlie Glaser, a political scientist. Such a state desires additional territory even when it is not required. Pakistan doesn't articulate Kashmir on "security". For example, Pakistan could have made a "water" argument about Kashmir. That would be a very reasonable and rational thing to do, like or example they can say "we are concerned about our future and security of our water supplies". Not in any article over six decades have I ever encountered that argument. When they talk about Kashmir, it is always about the incomplete partition process and always about the 2-nation theory. They can't let go of the 2-nation theory because it is the basis for their Kashmir claim. It is a vicious circle. The second point that Glaser makes that fits Pakistan to a Tee, is "the purely greedy state pursuing revisionism to increase prestige, spread ideology and/or propagate their religious worldview. When I went through their defence literature, I found nothing else articulated than these. If you look at the literature of greedy states, if they are treated as "security-seeking states", they behave more egregiously. There is ample evidence for this. What Pakistan has learned is that it gets rewarded for being dangerous. They have made a living out of saying that they are too dangerous to fail. This is how Pakistan perpetuates itself as a rentier state.
The data I use are 6 decades of their defence publications, key memoir, bunch of jihadi literature, survey and the PA recruitment data which has a lot of implication for India.
The key conclusion is that Pakistan's revisionism is not tied to security concerns. This may not surprise the audience here but it is fairly surprising for Americans. I am always surprised that that is surprising. Part of the problem is how the American government assigns people to work on Pakistan. It is constantly going through new personnel. None works on this portfolio for more than a few years. So by the time someone figures out that Pakistan has been lying, or misrepresenting, they are shifted out. The only place where it is not true is DoD. If you go to the Pentagon today, the anger you would find among the military personnel [against Pakistan] would surprise you. Many Indians think that the US military is pro-Pakistan. After fighting in Afghanistan for 13 years, the US military knows that the SSG fights along with the Taliban. the DoD is learning fast that the Pakistanis take "our money" and use it "to kill us". You are not going to find any love for Pakistan in DoD. Those days are over.
Repeatedly, Pakistanis say from their COAS downwards, that the Pakistani Army defends both the geographical and ideological frontiers of Pakistan.What is the ideological front? Ayub Khan first stated this in an article in the Foreign Affairs magazine. He opened his essay with a reference to Allama Iqbal and the 2-nation theory. In his book, "Friends, not Masters", he has a whole chapter on the ideology of Pakistan. If we think that this started with Zia, we under-estimate the gravity and the durability of the problem as it goes all the way back to its first Army Chief. The other thing that comes across is this idea that if they let go of the 2-nation theory, then Pakistan is not worth living for. So, every COAS has said (the present would say that too soon) that the terms of peace with India is if they accept Pakistan is their equal and the 2-nation theory. This is how Pakistan sees itself as defending the ideology. These are problematic demands. When you read their [Army's] literature, they say it over and over again, "Our job is to protect the Islamic nature of Pakistan". If an Indian or an American Army were to make such statements, there would be outrage and riots.
Another thing that comes across clearly when you read their literature is that their concept of defeat is not defined in terms of how many soldiers were killed, how much territory was lost, what was the strategic value of that real-estate, or how many PoWs were captured, but, rather that Pakistan is able to continue resisting India's rise. Even after the 1971 war, Pakistanis say that they are still the only country in the region which could challenge India's hegemony.
The scare is back. The brain-eating amoeba, Naegleria Fowleri, has already claimed 12 lives this year — the oldest victim was a 57-year-old person and the youngest victim was a 9-month-old baby girl. Its latest prey was 25-year-old Humaira Bano from Karachi’s Malir locality. Following her demise, Karachi Health Director Dr Zafar Ijaz went on record to state: “It is unclear how Ms Bano came into contact with the deadly amoeba. She mostly stayed at home, and like other previous cases, she had no history of swimming”. So what exactly happened?
In our context, Naegleria Fowleri enters the nose during ablution — a practice that is routine in most homes and mosques in Pakistan. This is problematic, since the amoeba enters homes and mosques through the pipeline that supplies water to them.
When the lawmaker insisted that the House should know of the safety measures taken in this regard, the Speaker assured her that nothing could harm Karachi as long as Abdullah Shah Ghazi's tomb was near the sea.
“(Saint) Abdullah Shah Ghazi has saved us many times before and he will save us this time as well,” he said.
Durrani went on to say those afraid of ‘Nilofar’ could move towards the Sindh’s countryside.
Btw at some point, the constraint that the US has put on Pak about no terrorist incidents in India will also end. Does this constraint come from Kerry-Lugar, coz that's ending too, right?
SSridhar wrote:Another thing that comes across clearly when you read their literature is that their concept of defeat is not defined in terms of how many soldiers were killed, how much territory was lost, what was the strategic value of that real-estate, or how many PoWs were captured, but, rather that Pakistan is able to continue resisting India's rise. Even after the 1971 war, Pakistanis say that they are still the only country in the region which could challenge India's hegemony.
UnFair Auntie seems to have repackaged BRF wisdom into a book!
I have read on twitter one or the other ex-Indian Army soldiers, saying we should answer Pakistan bullet for bullet. Here is a conversation.
My point has been always to make Pakistan pay for its transgressions in a currency, which proves costly to them. We should grab some land from them after every terrorist attack or after a border flare-up. Loss of land, regardless of how much it is, would hit Pakistanis hard, because it would be under the leadership of Pakistani Army that Islam would have lost Ummah land, Dar al-Islam land to the Kufr. The greener guys would chew up the leadership of Pakistani Army if that happens. This makes the Jernails in Pindi vulnerable.
As UnFair says, the lives of Pakistani soldiers is not really any worth to the Establishment. So simply an exchange of gunfire with a few Paki casualties does not solve anything.
Following up from one of Mohtarma Fair's comments, kindly see below (not sure if it's been posted here earlier) but looks like a fairly good way to gauge Pak military view...
SSridhar wrote:
We must invite her to a BR meeting somewhere. She may decline though. If Uneven also makes it, it would be wonderful.
maybe something like a google hangout or some such online meeting? would be interesting to have her take questions from pak experts like yourselves, shiv, anujan etc..
A_GuptaJi, pankajsJi, indeed I stand corrected. She did not use the word irrational (matter of fact she did say TSP is rational towards the end), but I thought she was implying that TSP is being irrational in the beginning when she talks about states like TSP pursuing policies that clearly hurt them. My point was that from TSP's PoV, even if those polices hurt them, as long as it hurts India too (and thats key), these policies work in TSP's national "interests" in their worldview.
CRamS wrote:A_GuptaJi, pankajsJi, indeed I stand corrected. She did not use the word irrational (matter of fact she did say TSP is rational towards the end), but I thought she was implying that TSP is being irrational in the beginning when she talks about states like TSP pursuing policies that clearly hurt them. My point was that from TSP's PoV, even if those polices hurt them, as long as it hurts India too (and thats key), these policies work in TSP's national "interests" in their worldview.
You need to read the book. It is specifically about the Pakistani army, not about any other Pakistani entity.
For the Pakistan army defeat is not being seen as constantly opposing India, even if their actions earn them only pain. What you are saying is that their action of constantly opposing India and feeling that they have won by doing that is actually a defeat for India because they are incessantly hurting India in some small way.
From what you imply, only the utter disappearance of Pakistan with India feeling nothing whatever from Pakistan would constitute Indian victory. The Pakistani army has exactly the same viewpoint as yours. They say that their survival as a constant thorn in India's flesh is their victory and India's defeat, because Indians (according to the Pakistan army) want to see Pakistan disappear off the map completely. As long as that does not happen, Pakistan is victorious. Seen the way you and the Pakistan army view it, India stands defeated.
For Indians, there are two ways of handling this terrible, constant state of abject, persistent and irreversible defeat. One is to bow our heads, shed tears for a bit and then and get on with life and take some pleasure in the gradual degeneration of the Pakistani state and its slow reduction in its influence. And the other is to be constantly moaning that we are defeated. Which would you prefer to see Indians do? I would prefer the former, but I think you seem to like the latter course.
^^I would prefer that we seek to defeat the Pakistani state every day, by proving to it that the two nation theory has failed. Victory to us over Pakistan should be the defeat of this theory.
The breaking away of East Pakistan to form Bangladesh was proof that religion cannot be the foundation of a nation state. Some have argued that the two nation theory was disproved the day Bangladesh was formed but the Pakis keep changing the narrative. New myths are created to keep the two nation theory alive. You cannot convince the pakis and we should not even try and waste our time.
I suggest that we should not define victory or defeat in such stark terms because achieving such a victory would be impossible given the current situation, both inside and outside India. We should not get bogged down to prove or disprove anything. Pakistan's current situation is precisely because it wanted to disprove the concept of India/Bharat. Let them wrestle with this proving/disproving while we work on our positive agenda of development for all.
That we are advancing while we deal with enormous challenges both within and outside the country is in itself the victory for the "Idea of India/Bharat". That is how you defeat the two nation theory every single day. It should be our sole focus.
Pakistan just doesn't realize that it is just a Monty Python, with its arms and legs cut-off with only a bobbing head. So, in some sense it is like an insurgent, which doesn't have to defeat a counter-insurgent but continue to resist the counter-insurgent. Contrast this with the need for the counter-insurgent to decisively defeat the insurgent. Pakistan says that so long as it can get up and fight India, they are not defeated. The former COAS, for those of you who do Track-II might know this well, told me after Kargil " for us, defeat is to do nothing and to acquiesce to India's rise and so we aill always take a calculated risk". Such an acquiescence would have a large domestic implication. How could the Pakistan Army justify a large budget, nuclear weapons and more importantly taking over the country on the premise that they are best prepared to manage the Indian threat? Pakistan persists in this constant war-footing because of the way it redefines victory and defeat. If they acquiesce to India, then this entire logic of the Army prying upon the state [for the resources] unwinds. So, there will never be an India-Pakistan detente.
How do they continuously prepare the Army and the people to continue thinking like this ? The Army has to constantly diffuse this thinking outside of the barracks to the civil society. You cannot go to Pakistan without hearing Pakistani grouses about Kashmir. Most Pakistanis themselves do not have a real position on Kashmir, but, Kashmir is their last link to the 2-nation theory. Their claims to Kashmir have no legality. But, if they let go of that, they have a significant problem with the 2-nation theory because it has so decisively been hammered [into their minds]. The other interesting thing is that a lot of their threat perceptions is inherited from the British. As Indo-Russian relationships changed, their perceptions also changed. Nowadays, Afghanistan is mostly to do with the Indian threat. You can see about their discussion on the 'strategic depth' from the earliest days of their defence publications. I cannot emphasize enough how often the "Islamic Character" of the 2-nation theory crops up. When Americans come across in literature about jihad and the Pakistani Army, they freak out and call the Pakistani Army as a jihadi Army. They do not understand how this imagery is functioning within the Pakistani Army. If you read their Green Books, there is a persistent discussion about how the Pakistani Army is an "Islamic Army". This has some implications. In their narrative, India started all wars. You would never find in any publications that Pakistan admits that it started them. They do this because they can then claim that Pakistan's recation was a defensive jihad. They have a Youm-e-Pakistan in September celebrating that they were not "completely defeated in Lahore".
To write about the Islamic nature of the Pakistani Army in professional journals is quite insane because there are Ahmedis, Sikhs and Christians in the Army. The Ahmedis of course lie really low but the Pakistani Army, as a corporation, expressing an ideology that is deeply offending to the other members of its own force is quite strange. But, Shi'as I have spoken to are OK with such an espousal even though there is a large political discourse in Pakistan that the Shi'as are not Muslim enough. When you define a state on religion, then you open yourself up for different interpretations such as "Who is Muslim enough". They will all say that there is only one Islam but that one version of Islam is "my Islam" and the rest are all kufr. This is a very pernicious discourse that the Pakistani Army directly contributes to.
One never wants to be in a position to say that things will remain the same in Pakistan. But, Pakistan has been civilizationally opposed to India and that will remain so. But, what shocks can make the Pakistani Army re-think the way in which it does business? I limit myself to the Pakistani Army because the Ministry of Foreign Affairsdoes not control any levers of policies in relations with the US, India and Afghanistan, or on when to go to war, or under what circumstance sthe nuclear weapons are fired etc. All the things that I care about are controlled by the Army, not the PM and not the Foreign Minister. Some of the shocks which I am going to say cannot be said without laughing.
One of them could be a major confrontation with the US. For example, LeT blows up something in New York. Osama bin laden was caught an easy stroll from the Pakistan military academy, and we still write the cheque. What more major confrontation can you imagine than OBL being caught near KMA? What more major confrontation can you imagine than the fact that we gave USD 30 Billion to them and most of the American deaths in Afghanistan were due to the Taliban and not the AQ? So, I don't know what they have to possibly do before the American would consider them as a security threat and deal with them appropriately. On the question of international partners, there is no consensus on Pakistan. Saudi Arabia sees Pakistan differently. The British do not want to push Pakistan too hard because they want the ISI to keep a close watch on their citizens when they go to Pakistan for jihadi training camps. We are all trying to get that something different from Pakistan for each one of us that we are never going to agree on how best to deal with Pakistanbecause each one of us has a different and unique problem with that country. Solution to one of the problem actually exacerbates the other problem. There are about six countries that matter for the Pakistan problem. It is like a water-filled balloon. You squeeze on one place and the water just goes off at the other place. It is very hard to make everyone happy with a solution to the Pakistan problem all at the same time. Similarly, people talk about interseting changes happening within Pakistan that may solve the Pakistan problem. I am very pessimistic about that also. everyone talks about the "democratic transition", and how the Pakistani Army can't even think about the coup anymore. I am not so sure that it is true. As long as the Army can control what it needs to control, it doesn't need to have a coup. In fact the Army does not want a coup. if the COAS stays as the President for too long, then the distance between him and the senior Army commanders expands and this means that his relationship with the Army breaks down and he needs to rely upon intermediaries. So, no one prefers a coup and they have to do it only when they absolutely have to. Right now, only if Musharraf is sent to the gallows will there be a coup. Right now, the PA is having the cake and eating it too.
Another thing is that everyone talks about the civil society. I know that some of you here do the Track-II. I hate to be the mean lady but the most effective civil society in Pakistan is not actually "civil". For example, JuD is a very effective civil society but it is just not civil. The liberal groups that want to do business with India or even Israel for that matter, are ery small, elite and do not aggregate interests in a larger way. The ones that aggregate interests are very dangerous. The sectarian groups are civil society too. I find Pakistani youth to be more menacing than their parents. Imran Khan is basically Taliban Khan. he ran on a platform of peace with the TTP. When I was an election observer and also teaching at LUMS, I have seen the youth describing South Asia as a conflict sphere [probably 'dar ul harb'] where Islam was under threat from near and far. I don't see mush hope there. If an economic shock has to be given, then the Pakistanis have to be taken off the "welfare". But, the Americans would be the first to say that it couldn't be done because Pakistan is too dangerous to fail. You cannot convince the Americans that the Pakistanis won't fail. It is the most stable instability.
Ethnicity alone does not shape things but it is also the environment. The only hope for Pakistan is the recruitment from non-Punjab provinces, even Punjabis from these provinces. The disquiet in the PA is that not everyone is getting an opportunity to loot the country. So, they are trying to be more inclusive and in the bargain they may be recruiting people who do not share their traditional view. That may be the only hope for the PA but it is a very slim hope.
She outwits and outsmarts most of the folks sitting in that room, because she is committed to strategic affairs. These folk sitting in the room are not committed enough to get to the bottom of the matter. Until something hits them personally, I doubt many people in India would be in a position to simulate pain of others who are affected by Pakistani terrorism.
. 
I wonder if the Quran was being discussed would he have asked the question “Don’t’ you think some of the stuff written in the Koran, even in the hadiths, can be misused by Mohammadden terrorist groups to continue carrying out suicide attacks that blow up Non-Mohammaddens .”? I suspect not.
.} , was part of the “U.N. Debate Contest” and showcased Israeli culture and products, News International reported on Sunday. However,it was closed soon after authorities came to know about it. {How were the Israelis issued visa to the Fortress of Islam, the only nation founded on Islam ? Blasphemous.}
