shiv wrote:As I see it there is one "attitudinal" issue that clouds thinking about US-Pakistan relations. That is the idea that American officials are all rich, very happy, content and uncorruptible and that Pakistanis are always begging, poor and corruptible. These are the exact attitudes that were created about the west and about the Orient in 200 years of Oriental studies and Indians also believe this. You can replace the name Pakistan with India and exactly the same attitudes hold.
What this blinkered view fails to reveal is that Pakistanis have managed to charm the pants off a large number of Americans. Americans are humans like everyone else and prone to the same fears and insecurities. Pakistanis pick even obscure Americans and treat them like royalty. I must mention over here another observation about "Orientalism" as it was propagated in Europe and in the west.
The Orient of books was a place of mystery and charm - the oriental woman quiet and submissive, and hot and sultry like the Orient itself. But the real political orient was one of a corrupt people who were inferior to European races who needed to be controlled. So there is a twin idea of the Orient that exists. Pakistanis play beautifully upon the former and twist Americans round their little fingers.
But we Indians, brought up to believe that Americans are upright and incorruptible while we Orientals are lazy and corrupt cannot believe this. Even today on BRF we find Indians making post after post after post that push exactly these stereotypes.
We will never find out how many American army and private contractors have become rich by cutting out working engines from vehicles and allowing the Taliban and Pakis to buy them at scrap rates while new engines are ordered from the US. But we think Americans are controlling Pakistan.
Colonization runs deep.
Does every American control every Pakistani? No.
Is it possible that Pakistan has bribed some Americans to become their lobbyists? Very probable.
Is America unaware about Pakistan's general behaviour? Less likely.
Does Pakistan exist only because of American help? YES. YES. YES.
So, does America have complete control on actions of individual elements of Pakistan? Not likely.
Does America have substantial control on many elements of Pakistan? Very likely.
Will Pakistan disintegrate if America abandons them? Very likely.
The first question is: how is Pakistan kept afloat by America?Ans: Easy money and weapons.
America provides huge amount of aid to Pakistan directly and indirectly. Most of this is provided in the form of easy dollars. No other country can give this kind of aid. Why? Because America literally prints money. No other country can print global currency. Only America can do it and it does it quite frequently. It prints money and distributes it to those it wants to prop up. This free money also allows America to wage proxy wars all over the world. This free money is not available to any other country. Therefore, American empire will not be thwarted as long as Dollars reigns supreme.
These free dollars are used to prop up many regimes which are seen as useful for America in short-term and long-term. One such country happens to be Pakistan.
what does Pakistan do with this free money?Well, firstly, a good percentage of that money goes back to America in the form of fees to lobbyists or bribes or some such thing.
Secondly, it goes into the coffers of the elites of Pakistan. Zardari was known as Mr. 10%.
Thirdly, it goes into creating human assets in other countries like sympathetic politicians, journalists, babus, ...etc.
Finally, it goes into creating army(regular and irregular).
The irregular army of Pakistan happens to be jihadhi terrorists.
The next part of US support to Pakistan is weapons. Without US weapons, Pakistan can never hope to fight any war against Bhaarath. Forget fighting against Bhaarath, Pakistan will not even be a single country without US help.
For example, if US with-holds the money and weapons to Pakistan army and instead provides the same money and weapons to say Balochistan Liberation Army, then Balochistan Liberation Army will be able to easily defeat Pakistan Army. Pakistan Army is able to suppress Balochistan Liberation Army only because of US support. In short, Pakistan is a single country because US wants Pakistan to exist as a single country.
America is known for its military-industrial complex. So, America has many weapons which it can sell or even gift to friendly regimes. Pakistan happens to be one such friendly regime.
Can China or Russia or anyone else replace America as Pakistan Army's patron?Of course, some other country can patronize Pakistan Army if America abandons them, but it is unlikely that any other country can support Pakistan Army in the way America is able to help them. Because America has weapons and free money. No other country has a combination of these two and therefore no one else can support Pakistan in the way America supports them.
The obvious question is: why is Pakistan kept afloat by America from the time of its inception?
Well, there can be many reasons like:
a) cold-war politics(Bhaarath joined with Soviets, so Pakistan was taken under the wing of US).
b) foothold in south-Asia.
c) Access to central-Asia.
d) mercenary army
But, all these things seem like a collateral advantages to me. I think the real reason is:
America inherited its empire from British. British were the masters of the world until they controlled Bhaarath. The moment British gave up control of Bhaarath, British were relegated to the coat-tails of America. America would surely understand this simple concept.
So, it was actually Bhaarath's empire on the world and British were only the masters of Bhaarath. Why is Bhaarath able to run an empire?
Population.
British were able to run an empire because Bhaarath provided them with soldiers, labour, and raw-resources. These were used by the British to establish an empire all over the world.
Only China and Bhaarath have such enormous populations. No other country in the world has that. Infact, majority of humanity is mostly Bhaarath and China. The rest are a minority. So, China and Bhaarath will also be major markets because they have the largest populations.
In short, Bhaarath and China are the natural leaders of the world. And in fact, they were the leaders of the world for most of the history. European rise was due to colonialism based enslaving, looting, drugs and piracy. As soon as colonialism has ended, europe is going back to its natural pecking order.
Given, these simple dynamics, Pax Americana would notice that its important to control China and Bhaarath. Note that America supports divided China(by supporting Taiwan) and divided Bhaarath(by supporting Pakistan). So, there is a consistent policy to keep Bhaarath and China divided.
The other aspect is to Christianize Bhaarath and China. The idea is that the christianized people in the region would look up to the west just as the islamized people in the region look up the middle-east.
China showed guts to take on America directly in vietnam using the proxies. At that time, China seems to have differed with Soviets and yet, they did not allow the Americans in their back yard. Similarly, China was heavily involved in Korea. I think the guts shown by the China and defeat suffered by America in Vietnam convinced America that China indeed should be respected and engaged. So, they started engaging with China.
The major advantage of China is that China did not come under full scale foreign occupation like Bhaarath.
On the other hand, Bhaarath has been under full scale occupation of foreign forces. After 1947, Bhaarath started a slow process of consolidation. The process seems to have been slower due to influence of west on kongis. Anyway, Goa was integrated, Tibet was lost, close-ties with Bhutan, Pakistan was broken up and Sikkim was integrated.
Bhaarath also showed great guts during creation of Bangladhesh. Even China has not dared to directly take on Taiwan while Bhaarath has broken Pakistan into two. But, at that time, Bhaarath was in Soviet camp and was therefore seen as a full-fledged enemy. Therefore, the support to Pakistan was increased after the creation of Bangladhesh. The paranoia in Pakistani rulers would have also increased tremendously after seeing the way in which their country broke so easily. It just exposed the artificiality of Pakistan as a nation.
I think Bhaarath showed guts in taking on Pakistan in Kargil because there were threats of full-scale war under the shadow of missiles and perhaps, even nukes. Inspite of such threats, Bhaarath didn't back off from protecting its territorial integrity. Pakistan was hoping that US would intervene on its behalf and force Bhaarath to not escalate the issue. I think that was the whole crux of Musharraf's planning about Kargil. This time, there was no soviet union and still Bhaarath did not budge. I think US thought it could take the place of Soviets for Bhaarath, now that Soviets were no more.
This re-orientation of US policy towards Bhaarath after Kargil seems to have really frightened Pakistan. Pakistan seems to realize the importance of America's role in Pakistan's survival as a nation and that also explains their paranoia about America warming up to Bhaarath. Because Pakistan seems to be afraid that if America warms up to Bhaarath and negotiates some deal, then America might stop supporting Pakistan. If America stops supporting Pakistan, then Pakistan will simply break even if Bhaarath does not directly fight a war against Pakistan army.
Despite engaging both China and Bhaarath, America has kept one thing constant:
It seems to realize that Bhaarath and China are the natural leaders of the world. And hence need to be handled carefully. When Bhaarath and China were weak, America tried to support the renegade elements and secessionists. Once they became little stronger, America is starting to engage them but still not ready to give up support to the renegades or secessionists.
The difference between Bhaarath and China is that China seems to have understood all these issues and has a clear-cut one china policy. Another difference is that Bhaarath is still recovering territory which it lost. While, China is annexing new territory and is getting bloated. China managed to annex Tibet, Mongolia and Manchuria. Bhaarath had lost Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In simple terms, China is already on the offensive. Bhaarath is still fighting a defensive war. Bhaarath does not even have any one-Bhaarath policy similar to one-China policy.
The first step to becoming global leader is to become the regional leader. And this is where Pakistan comes into picture. Pakistan's role is tie down Bhaarath and not let it become even a proper regional leader. As long as Pakistan exists as an entity, it will be used to tie down Bhaarath. Even China understands this and therefore supports Pakistan because even China wants to keep its competitors tied down in silly conflicts.
So, I think the policy of Bhaarath should be to actively work towards disintegration of Pakistan into 5 states:
a) Balochistan - Capital Karachi
b) Pakhtunkwa - Capital Peshwar
c) Sindh - Capital Hyd
d) Northern Punjab - Capital Lahore
e) Southern Punjab - Seriaki - Capital Multan
Disintegration of Pakistan into these 5 states will also mean that POK will land in the hands of Bhaarath. Once POK is in the hands of Bhaarath, Bhaarath will have direct connection to Afghanisthan.
Once these small states are established, then Bhaarath will become a de-facto ruler of the entire region. This is the first step to having a global role for Bhaarath.
Once this critical region is under Bhaarath's rulership, Bhaarath will have a powerful role globally. Pakistan is simply a roadblock in Bhaarath's route. Unless Bhaarath gets rid of this shackle called Pakistan, Bhaarath will remain shackled in the region.
The question is how can Pakistan be disintegrated?
Will US help in such a venture?
If US is against disintegration of Pakistan, can Bhaarath still disintegrate Pakistan?
One reason why US and others might be open to the idea of disintegration of Pakistan is:
Pakistan has been in the process of disintegration despite the best efforts of US and its allies. Pakistan is very very unstable. Even if Bhaarath does not break Pakistan, there are still good chances that radicalism in Pakistan will continue to increase and end up in a situation where islamist warlords rule over their person fiefdoms. It seems that Raheel Shareif has promised the America that he will keep a handle on radicalization in his country. But, is this possible? Even if he is successful(assuming he is sincere in his quest to put down radicalism), is it going to stop the long term radicalization of Pakistan?
The only stable solution to the Pakistan problem is to divide it into stable countries.
What can Bhaarath offer to US in return for US agreeing to disintegration of Pakistan?
US would obviously want access to the markets of Bhaarath. Corporates seem to have enormous influence in US. If Bhaarath can offer any such sweet deal to US, US might be ready for disintegration of Pakistan especially when it is starting to seem that Pakistan will break anyway.
Should Bhaarath wait for Pakistan to break or should Bhaarath proactively balkanize Pakistan?
If Pakistan breaks down by itself without outside help, then such break up will involve lot of bloodshed. It was seen last time during partitions in 1947 and even during creation of Bangladhesh in 1971.
, Where-else 
also lost his eye and hands in Lahore.. -- Per US court documents, this is what he told 
AoA 