A stable, prosperous Pakistan is NOT in India's interest

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 28 Jul 2009 02:51

i think some western thought leaders, particularly military ones argue for a stable pakistan as that model being the least likely to start a nucler war. these military leaders having grown up in the nato/warsaw pact 70's are very fearful of a nuclear war and think its worth doing anything to prevent one. hence perversely they reward bad behaviour from the upstart who's actually willing to start one in order to keep them toeing the line

negi · Post by **negi** » 28 Jul 2009 03:10

^ Yes a stable (to clarify ....stable as in a Govt/Military control over TSP assets (men both in and out of uniform,material and ofcourse the nukes) body which controls Pakistan is very much in interest of US , not only because of the nukes (these came in what 90's ?) but serves as a dispensable pawn in Asian region.

A stable ruling entity also serves as a single point of contact for US admin to quickly mitigate Indo-Pak tensions as in case of 26/11 or even Kargil . A fragmented Pakistan parts of which might be under Taliban or PA is simply a nightmare for GOTUS.

Lastly Unkil will never allow Pakistan to fail for it would mean a vindication of what India has stood for and

for all these years .

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 28 Jul 2009 03:31

Philip wrote:I suppose in debating this,we must also consider the mirror image,that an "unstable Pak is is not in India's interests".The answer would lie in the behaviour of Pak if stable and prosperous.How did it behave when it was so? Pak has been kept alive and prevented from catastrophe by two powerful godfathers or sugar-daddies,the US and China.Is there any reason to believe that they will abandon Pak even now? NO. The US wants a permanent military foothold in the subcontinent,so that they can dominate the Gulf and the Middle East and the oil wealth of the region,plus giving it the base for dealing with China and ...India in the future.

Unkil is interested in NWFP and Bhaarat is having troubles from Pakjab.. China too is interested in NWFP as it has more pronounced aspiration of supplanting USA. The nuisance value of Pakjab in arresting Bhaarat's growth is the additional benefit for PRC, not the primary one.

Location wise, Pakjab is not of Unkil's or PRC's concern. And location wise , Pakjab is Bhaarat's concern. So, the zones of interest do not coincide and conflict between Bhaarat and Unkil. Of course, everybody likes to have more in his plate. But, with increasingly powerful Bhaarat, USA can sacrifice this extra-piece for India as long as they get to control NWFP and Afghanistan.

The new avenue opening for Bhaarat is the sea-lanes and Andamans is the new Khyber-Durra. Similarly, Myanmar is the new Bolan Pass for enemies of Dharma to enter and harass the Dharmics. And Unkil is won't be displeased with Bhaarat's control on these passes. If USA is able to form a Pashtunistan or greater Afghanistan containing Balochistan, they will happily abandon Pakjab to be finished off by Bhaarat.

Without fixing Pakjab, Bhaarat cannot think of permanently fixing its Northwest. The future Vikramaditya who consolidates Dharma in Bhaarat and unifies the motherland by conquering NWFP and Afghanistan and bringing it firmly under Indic influence will need a strong Indic Punjab from Attock to Bharatpur and Multan to Jammu. I guess the medium term interest of Bhaarat is delineating NWFP and balochistan from Pakjabi identity.

In fact, partition was for stronghold of the west in NWFP. Punjab had to go for providing strategic depth against Russian invasion. It served its purpose in 1980's.

The question is how to segregate the other three provinces (most importantly Balochistan) from Pakjab?

Regarding The topic - Stability is something of an inherent character. An entity known as "Stable Pakistan" never existed since its birth. With true stability comes prosperity. Hence Stable and Prosperous Pakistan is a hypothetical entity at very high energy level which is made possible temporarily by tremendous support from three and half friends of TSP, iron hold of Army and constant invocation of fear of Allah and Evil Hindus.

It is moot-point to discuss the effect of a mirage on process of planning the water-supply of a city which is real. As long as the planners know that mirage is not real and they are not devising their policies based on clarity and resolution of mirage, I don't think this is any issue at all.

Just my thoughts.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 28 Jul 2009 05:15

Chiron wrote: Regarding The topic - Stability is something of an inherent character. An entity known as "Stable Pakistan" never existed since its birth. With true stability comes prosperity. Hence Stable and Prosperous Pakistan is a hypothetical entity at very high energy level which is made possible temporarily by tremendous support from three and half friends of TSP, iron hold of Army and constant invocation of fear of Allah and Evil Hindus.

You raise a key point Chiron -
We need to look at TSP as a intrinsically unstable, but useful region,
whose stability has been maintained by others by expending high-energy.

This means either the energy levels required to maintain stability ought to be increased to the point of pain for others or the stability should be degraded sufficiently if there are constraints on increasing energy-levels.

Perhaps either of the options could be achieved more easily by letting each of the preponderants duke it out and expend increasing energy levels till it becomes unsustainable. If India can step in at that juncture -
There will need to be a good understanding of what the new "stable" ought to be.

What most get messed up on is either bhai-chara or pure absolute hatred or revenge -
normative mode of thinking rarely bring anything of value to the table, even if the end goals are often normative!

Chiron wrote: Location wise, Pakjab is not of Unkil's or PRC's concern. And location wise , Pakjab is Bhaarat's concern.

Not sure I understand why you think only NWFP is Chinkil's concern?
Also, why is Pakjab the only area of Bhaarat's concern?

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 28 Jul 2009 05:56

I would like to present the scenario from a different angel.

Prior to partition of India, the United India is one of the top 3 nations in terms of its relative strength when certain key aspects of a nation state are taken into consideration (see graph below - All values as a percentage of world total). UK was successful in denying that rightful place to India for its own national/geo-political interests. Most of us know this for a fact. When converted into hard cash most of these natural resources dwarf the national GDPs in real terms. So, while the economic growth is very important to a nation, it can never substitute the value of these natural resources.

Just because Pakistan stands as a separate nation doesn’t mean it has to be that way in future. The artificial nation-state of Pakistan was created to disable United India from rising post-partition and to serve external interests by being a banana republic. This brings us to the point Anujan-ji eloquently put in the S-e-S thread. What should be India’s Pakistan policy?

Before going in to the solution, let us understand the problem. The rationale behind Pakistan was

1. To provide a (perceived) safe haven for sub-continental Muslims - Pakistan ceased to exist as the safe haven to sub-continental Muslims the day more than 30% of them preferred to stay back in new India. The second blow to this hollow logic came in the form of Bangladesh in 1972. The final blow came in the form of Taliban, who proved that they are more pious than Pakistani ideology thus taking out the Muslim-cause from Pakistan. So today, Pakistan lost its purpose as the last resort to sub-continental Muslims.

2. To offer mercenary services to UK and USA – Pakistan successfully did this for more than 50 years until it decided to play its own game in Afghanistan thus hurting the very same USA/UK interests in the form of 9/11. After 9/11 Pakistan again and again proved that it is anything but inimical to western interests in the form of Islamic terrorism. In addition to that, Pakistan’s eagerness to become the b*tch of PRC and KSA removed whatever sole-ownership USA/UK has had on this rentier nation.

Now that the Pakistan lost its USP on the world stage, it naturally opens up interesting alternative solutions. If Pakistan is not the only representative of sub-continental muslims, does it need to exist as a separate nation? What stops India from reclaiming Pakistan? After all, Indian in the past 60 years demonstrated that –

a => That it can safeguard its Muslim minority. Not only that, the secular India ensured that the Muslim population is allowed to keep whatever unique values it has.
b => That it can control Islamic fundamentalism without resorting to usage of heavy machinery causing massive internally displaced population.
c => That it can handle religious/racial pluralism.

IMO, this should India’s Pakistan policy.

Once we have such a policy in place, the implementation strategies flow from that.

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 28 Jul 2009 06:00

Let's consider the question:
"Why is it bad for India if Pakistan is destabilized?"

The GroupThink assumption that I hear/read is:

instability in Pakistan will hurt India FAAAAAAAAAR worse than the present. If u think things are bad now,

But I have not heard exactly why, and had that subjected to debate. The ASSUMPTION is that the "South Asia Experts" doing the warning are referring to:
1. The Nucular weapons will fall into the hands of the jehadis and they will promptly use them against India.
2. Many more terrorist acts will occur in India because there is no kind and gentle Strong Central Govt. in Pakistan to hold them in check.

With all due respect to these experts, I say

to both.

1. The nuclear weapons are in FAR WORSE hands today, than the hands of the "jehadis". Today they are in the hands of those who ORDER the jehadis to commit terrorist mass murder, and they are using the weapons for extortion and extended terror. This way THEY get to choose when to use them. Should the Pak military lose control of them, they will either fall into the hands of more responsible authorities, or be destroyed promptly. If they are launched, the deterrent is still the certainty that Pakistan will be rendered totally "stable". Glass-covered.

2. Right now, the terrorist acts are being prevented not by the Pakistan Govt, but by the Indian security and intelligence forces. Destroy the central authority in Pakistan, and there won't be all the infrastructure available, that the Paki terrorists who committed mass murder in Mumbai so clearly enjoyed.

So these South Asia Experts need to be tossed out.
However, there IS a third problem with instability inside Pakistan:

The recent festivities in Swat/Mingora generated a refugee population of 3 million. This was essentially 80 percent or more of the population, and this is due to the nature of the PAKISTAN FAUJ's "security operations" - they just use artillery and aerial bombing against the towns and villages.

When Pakjab and Sindh are deservedly rendered into a Swat-type state of bliss, there will be, say, 50 million refugees trying to get across into India.

However, my take is that this problem is BECAUSE of the presence of a central Pakistani Fauj with air power etc. Should destabilization proceed to its logical results, there will be no central Paki Fauj, and no capability to conduct air attacks. As for the artillery, I sincerely hope the "Taliban" get those and use them against Rawalpindi, Lahore, Muzzafarabad, Skardu, Gilgit and Islamabad, unhindered by Paki air power (as they have been doing so far).

If Pakistan breaks into 5, the IDPs will merely roam between the different pieces as ethnic "cleansing" proceeds against minorities in each piece, unless there is mass starvation and they all want to come across to India.

In the last case, the best solution is to keep the borders sealed, but help the UN etc. set up tent cities sufficiently far from the Indian border, and airdrop food to those stranded in other places.

Then again, one happy ending would be if the 5 pieces got WMD and used them against each other until all decide they have had enough of the exports to Houristan.

So an "unstable Pakistan" is merely an intermediate state. A stable standoff between 5 mutually suspicious entities is the desired result for lasting peace.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 28 Jul 2009 06:10

A stable Pakistan with western borders with Balouchistan, northern western border with Pashtoonistan, eastern and northern border with India, a south and southwestern border with Sindh, very well land locked country will thrive much better and serve as model state to the world. And yes such a Pakistan will be in the best interests of India too, even to look afterwards

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 28 Jul 2009 08:36

Pulikeshi wrote:
Chiron wrote: Location wise, Pakjab is not of Unkil's or PRC's concern. And location wise , Pakjab is Bhaarat's concern.
Not sure I understand why you think only NWFP is Chinkil's concern?
Also, why is Pakjab the only area of Bhaarat's concern?

Pulikeshi ji,

Geographically, historically and civilizationally, Punjab is the integral part of Bhaarat. To be more precise, since the days of Pushyamitra Sunga, many of the central empires of Bhaarat have stopped their expansion at Sindhu river. Including guptas and at the latest, Marathas. Sindhu river, although an illogical one, but have acted as frontier of central power of Bhaarat on many occassions. Although the strategic and scientific frontier of Bhaarat is Hindukush, the land to the east of Sindhu river has been Bhaarat, beyond anybody's doubt. The land between Sindhu and Paariyatra ranges (Sanskrit name of Hindu-kush) has acted as buffer zone on many occasions.

I define Bhaarat as the region on the earth where Dharma-based meme-complex has been the principle world-view of majority of population since dawn of civilization. Punjab, thus, is part of Bhaarat beyond any doubts. It has more continuity with culture of mainland than the trans-Sindhu lands. Same is the matter with Sindh. The existence of these two regions as separate entities from Bhaarat is in fact very high energy state which gives the sense of apparent stability. How long can unkil provide the energy externally?

The benefit of maintaining NWFP in hands of UK, then Unkil was obvious. The reason of coupling Punjab and Sindh along with NWFP was merely for strategic-depth and trade-off respectively. NWFP has one more problem, that it was civilizationally distanced from Bhaarat much earlier. It never really happened in Punjab. Furthermore, Gaandhaar and surrounding region resisted the Islamization for 250 years before giving up. And once they succumbed to Islam, they gave birth to some of the nastiest invaders of desh. It may take longer time to shift the socio-political equilibrium of NWFP towards Dharma-based-Meme-Complex than it would take in Pakjab.

Furthermore, for unkil, Pakjab was an added free feature. If an independent entity of Pashtoonistan including Balochistan comes into existence and stays under influence of unkil, massa will willingly sacrifice its interests in Pakjab. Because, Bhaarat's civilizational pull is immensely high towards Punjab, than it is towards NWFP. It will be difficult for unkil to withstand that pull in spite of growing power of Bhaarat. Same goes with Sindh.

Unkil won't give up their interests in NWFP that easily, though. given the harshness of terrain, degree of Unkil's vested interest and civilizational distance between NWFP and Bhaarat, it may take at least 2-3 generations before people from NWFP start remembering the pull towards Bhaarat. For this to happen, Pakjab has to be thoroughly under Indic influence. Hence Pakjab and Sindh is the primary area of Bhaarat's concern. Land to the east of Sindhu should be incorporated in Bhaarat with primary emphasis.

And as long as unkil (yavan-desh) can have his influence on lands to the west of Sindhu thoroughly, he will allow the eastern part to fall in Bhaarat's hands.

narayanan wrote:So an "unstable Pakistan" is merely an intermediate state. A stable standoff between 5 mutually suspicious entities is the desired result for lasting peace

enqyoob ji,

Remembered the fragmentation of Bahmani empire and the way Krishnadevaraya toyed with the 5 deccan sultanates for long time. And then I remembered Talikota and images of devastated city when I visited Hampi few years back.

Once you break them, eat them one by one.. don't play around for too long. Engulf and digest at peace. Engulf Pakjab and Sindh first.. Once their digestion and assimilation is complete, and if massa has grown weak or desh has grown strong, think of eating remaining pieces.

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 28 Jul 2009 11:24

n^3,

Valid point about the IDPs. In my earlier post when the first news of widespread mutiny in Pakistani Army, titled "Can we afford a Policy of Drift?" I had mentioned this. Same is still available in my blog.

shiv,
you raise another important point. So far, be it the Congress or BJP or the Communists, all have maintained the li(n)e of a stable Pakistan being in India's interests. Barring the communsts, I do not think that either of the two principal parties ascribe to this view. Having said that, both of them have gone beyond realistic and even acceptable (to Indian interests) time and again to strive for peace where Pakistan has been repeatedly assured of India having accepted the reality of Pakistani, even though we do not agree to the causes or the rationale for setting up Pakistan.

Why has that happened? Is it because till now we have been led by a generation that was witness to the partition and had known of an India that was united? If so, what does the march of time and the change of generation mean? When the anointed yuvraj or some one from the next generation takes over in India, they will represent the post midnight's children generation. I was born in India that was without Pakistan. For me Pakistan is always some other country. Not the same Indic civilization. I may have an interest in it because of the threat it represents to my country, no love for it or emotional attachement. This despite, the fact of repeated reinforcement in my history books of "shared culture" "syncretic civilization" "South Asian identity" and what not.

Across the border, the situation is even more different. A complete repudiation and systematic building up of hatred and "we are different and we are superior and we are rulers" mentality through organised brainwashing.

So while we are the cusp of transition, it may be the right time to turn away from "political correctness" and assess Pakistan for what it means to us. Stable or unstable this artificial rentier state is NOT in India's interest. Therefore, it may be proper to take such a stand openly. Governments may not take such a stand openly, but can act on that basis. Don't say that we want Pakistan to dissappear but do everything you can do achieve that objective.

Outside of the government and other circles, one can take this line and this may be an appropriate enough time to do so. Over a period of time, as n^3 has pointed out this reality will also seep into common discourse just as Pakistan = terror central has happened. So much so, today governments across the world openly state this. India should lead in that effort as we are the most to gain from the dissapperance of Pakistan.

philip,
You had mentioned two sugar daddys for Pakistan. You have to make that as three. KSA, is the third guarantor of pakistan. The dynamics and interests of these three guarantors with pakistan are different and sometimes even very divergent. But there is a convergence amongst them on the aspect of survival of the pakistani state. These play out in realpolitiks of the region as well. And this is where the fundamental divergence of views on Pakistan happens between the GOI and USG.

Here again, it is my view, that there is now a window of opportunity. The utility of Pakistan to the US has diminished considerably from years past. Pakistan played a multiple set of roles and the Paki rulers always ensured that there was a role that they could play for the US and delivered on the same. Not anymore, their resolve in finding some role for themselves in the US is there, but their capacity to deliver to US requirements are getting diminished.

Pakistan has played a careful role of managing these 3 relationships in a way that they all have a vested interest in keeping them afloat. In the window of opportunity that is presented by US desire to get out of the quagmire it is in, the economic recession, Chinese pre-occupation with Uighurs and tibetans, not to mention taiwan, the KSA's struggle to keep up with US pressure and the internal pressure on the Al Saud family - India can take the initiative to dilute US interests in a stable Pakistan. It can also limit the capability of the other guarantors to stabilise or cramp their room.

How and what options exists is not for this thread, so will not go there here. But overall, I think when India is transitioning in many dimensions, it just might be the right thing to start publicly demand and work towards the peaceful implosion of Pakistan. Instead, if we follow a policy of drift, the inexorable march by pakistan to implosion may still continue, but it will cost a lot more in terms of collateral damage. Additionally, if India does not take an active part in it, the implosion of Pakistan can also newer challenges to India, in terms of overt and long term presence of powerful foreign powers at our borders for a long time.

Chiron,
From a civilizational aspect, what you say makes sense in terms of integrating at least 2 of the resulting five entities. But a question sir, given the kind of change in terms of thinking that has happened over 60 years of brainwashing, will there be a desire to integrate by these people, especially the post partition generation from their side? Will the pull of the shared past be so great to remove the effects of the 60 year brainwashing and more than 1000 year alien religion influence? I am not having an opinion either way on this, but I am intrigued by the questions.

To be a global power, India has to ensure that immediate neighbourhood of India is seen to be as India's backyard/frontyard or whatever. Others should be kept away. I do not think the GOI looks at it this way though. Both Congress and Non-congress governments seem to be resigned to having these powers in our region for a long time. That is why I keep saying, India awaits its second struggle for Independence - that of freedom from a shackled mind.

As usual a ramble, please take it for what it is worth.

vera_k · Post by **vera_k** » 28 Jul 2009 11:35

Might be useful to see the BJP's official position on this. It looks like the hope is for a stable Pakistan and Bangladesh as long as these countries do not define themselves in anti-India terms.

http://www.bjp.org/content/view/2947/394/

How do we move ahead in the direction of peaceful, goodneighbourly and cooperative relations? Today I wish to put forward three ideas:

1.The idea that a community becomes a separate nation just because it professes a different faith goes against the essence and ethos of the Indian civilization. In 1965, our leader Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya and Socialist leader Dr. Lohia made a historic statement advocating a Confederation of India and Pakistan. Bangladesh had not been formed yet. Otherwise, that country too would have found mention in the statement

2.However, for any movement forward in this direction, the biggest stumbling block is the anti-India and anti-Hindu attitude in a section of the society and polity in Pakistan and Bangladesh. This anti-India and anti-Hindu attitude manifests itself in many spheres – from school curricula to military strategy. So long as Pakistan and Bangladesh define themselves in anti-India terms, there can be no real solution and no lasting peace.

3.The most barbaric manifestation of the anti-India attitude is cross-border terrorism, fueled by religious extremism. Pakistan has aided, abetted and exported terrorism into India, even though it has itself had to pay a heavy price on this score. Its hostility towards India has made it play with fire. However, one thing must be clear: there can be, and there must be, no compromise with terrorism.

What is the INC's official position on Pakistan? Do they believe in a stable Pakistan as well?

And how big (numerically) is this section of society that has an anti-India and anti-Hindu attitude? Is there a strategy that can excise or isolate this section of society?

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 28 Jul 2009 11:52

Where/ when was the report of widespread mutiny in the Pak Army? I must have missed that. So far the lack of such mutiny has been the depressing aspect. Is there hope then? More to the point, is the Taliban really getting heavy weapons without Pak Army knowledge? Are Paki soldiers going over to the Taliban and pointing artillery at the PA?

rohiths · Post by **rohiths** » 28 Jul 2009 12:11

A stable prosperous pakistan is an oxymoron. It is impossible for the next 50 years given the kind of demographics and society that Pakistan has.
As long as Pakistan exists it will continue to be a headache to India in whatever form it is in.
If pakistan becomes totally destabilized and becomes like Somalia then India will have a huge problem.
If pakistan becomes strong, "secular" and stable it will do what it used to do during 1947-1970
The best situation from India's point of view is that Pakistan remains suffering like what it is doing now.
Pakistan is a virus. If the virus is strong it will cause disease. When the virus is weak it will create immunity for its potential victim

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 28 Jul 2009 12:32

Arun,that was a nice reminder of P-Eye's take on Imran! It sums up the "elitist Paki " approach to issues.

In this region of the sub-continent,there are several states whose interests are all affected.India,Pak,Iran and Afghanistan,directly affected,the Central Asian states on Afghanistan's border less so and China least of all.In recent years after 9/11,the US became the latest "Great Game" player and invader of Afghanistan.It roped in NATO and others to assist it in its task of defeating the Taliban and preventing Al Q using Af. as its HQ.However,Bush took his eye off the region and allowed the Taliban to regroup within Pak and storm back into the country.The ungodly forces now control about 70+% of Af.Crucial to their operations is the fact that Pak is their hinterland,which they can use as their main base for conducting ops into Af.,with the massive assistance of the ISI.The US is now trying to rein in Pak and the ISI from such support so that it can quieten the region after its catastrophic disaster in Iraq and cement a permanent military presence in he subcontinent as well as Iraq.

The Interests of India and the US do not mesh at all,except on one issue,that of the control and security of Paki nukes.I now wants the Taliban to be taken in by the Afghan regime of Karzai (with whom it has fallen out with because he wants them to leave) Regarding our relations with Iran,we are on different wavelengths,as Iran is a key nation that enables us to outflank Pak and is the key route for Indian goods into Afghansitan and Central Asia.Shiite Iran is also a natural counter to the radical Sunni forces in Pak,inimical of India.The US has been for quite some time using Baluchistan as a launching pad for anti-Iranian covert ops through the CIA,which had an unfettered agenda to destabilise Iran,by indoctrinating Iranian students in urban areas to take to violent protest and undermine the Islamic regime,the same way in so-called "orange" revolutions in former Warsaw Pact states were conducted.

The Central nation in this regional crisis is Pak,as its military through the ISI apart from trying to regain control over Afghanistan,are conducting destabilising terror operations against India using Nepal,Bangladesh,Sri Lanka,the Maldives and Afghanistan as launching pads.The contradictions within the Paki tribal warriors ,both in and out of uniform,are now widening the cracks in its structure and its ethnic fault lines.A strong united Pak can only spell disaster for India,as there is no limit to its mischief making.The latest mischief at S-Al-S, bringing in Baluchistan into Indo-Pak issues of contention,only indicates to us that even in its present state of crisis,Pak will never give up chicanery,treachery,butchery and buggery as the cornerstones of its relations with India.Imagine the level of evil that it could conduct if it were in better shape.

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 28 Jul 2009 13:06

narayanan,

there were reports on the net and on Indian TV channels like Times Now about how officers and jawans of the pakistani army pressed into anti taliban action in SWAT were deserting and not obeying orders. This was lined in the usual TSP threads. I had then posted on this event stating the significance of it in a post titled "Can we afford a Policy of Drift". Maybe if you look into TSP thread archives, we can retrieve the links to the report.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 28 Jul 2009 13:15

Raja Ram wrote:philip,
You had mentioned two sugar daddys for Pakistan. You have to make that as three. KSA, is the third guarantor of pakistan.

It is actually 3½. The consistent support from Japan diplomatically and economically to Pakistan qualifies it to be a ½ sugar daddy.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 28 Jul 2009 13:22

narayanan wrote: More to the point, is the Taliban really getting heavy weapons without Pak Army knowledge? Are Paki soldiers going over to the Taliban and pointing artillery at the PA?

The conduits for getting the arms & weapons were created by the PA and the Taliban should have become independent of the PA after some time. These conduits will not vanish. DI Khan and Peshawar are quite capable of restoring war damaged and war seized PA equipment. The Taliban have also seized a lot of NATO equipment passing thro' Landikotl, helped of course, by the PA. I do no believe that in the on-going conflict of 'Rah-e-whatever', the PA soldiers are deserting the PA. That was along time back (even 9 months is a long time back in Pakistan). However, I believe that the Taliban still enjoys assistance in planning, battle management etc from retired and serving PA officers.

Raja Ram · Post by **Raja Ram** » 28 Jul 2009 14:26

narayanan,
here is a report in India Today on the mutiny. This is dated 16 June 2009. Talks of mutiny in 3 brigades.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/index.php? ... ectionid=4

I thought you and Sridhar would never have missed this.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 28 Jul 2009 16:04

It was perfectly possible for GOI to state within all bounds of diplomacy, that "It is in India's interests that stability and prosperity reaches the people currently residing within the territory of Pakistan" - thereby bypassing commitments to uphold the terrorist state of Pakistan, and still showing ultimately Bharatyia ethical commitments for the good of all humankind.

No GOI which does not want to go down into history as traitor to Bharat, should commit to bring stability and prosperity to the rashtra of Pakistan, but equally vigorously commit to bring stability and prosperity to the people residing currently in territory occupied by this terrorist rashtra. Yes, some among these people may resent any attempts at bringing such "stability", but India has to consider all people in the subcontinent as its own, and just as unruly children in a family sometimes need to be firmly "leashed" and "thrashed" for their own good as well as that of the family - but still they cannot be abandoned.

Regarding "mutiny", I think we have speculated long ago, in this forum that there was always the risk of certain portions of the PA sent into Taleb territory to go over to the Talebs. But a large scale mutiny does not have to be obvious and necessary, as the ISI+PA can arrange for delivery of resources and equipment by the innocent act of moving equipped PA troops into Taleb territory and report some "losses" and tactical or temporary "retreats".

enqyoob · Post by **enqyoob** » 28 Jul 2009 17:24

Talks of mutiny in 3 brigades.

Shows how much my work has been interfering with my internet surfing these past 7 months. I completely missed all that. Thanks.

But this sounds like mutiny as in "We're outta here, bye. Whooosh! Downhill skiing, here we come!" not an outright change of sides and shooting back with full weaponry and battle order. Hope it gets there real soon.

Ahr soldiers went to war
Ahr soldiers fought well..
Ahr soldiers shoved their bayonets
Up the Major's Ahrsole!

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 28 Jul 2009 17:58

It has been a while since that mutiny story came out on IT ..... but there are no other sources which corroborate this story..... may be it is SDRE intel leak.... but we need more than one source... don't we?? plus we don't have the extent of damage to TSPA.

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 28 Jul 2009 18:20

Raja Ram wrote: ...
From a civilizational aspect, what you say makes sense in terms of integrating at least 2 of the resulting five entities. But a question sir, given the kind of change in terms of thinking that has happened over 60 years of brainwashing, will there be a desire to integrate by these people, especially the post partition generation from their side? Will the pull of the shared past be so great to remove the effects of the 60 year brainwashing and more than 1000 year alien religion influence? I am not having an opinion either way on this, but I am intrigued by the questions.

To be a global power, India has to ensure that immediate neighbourhood of India is seen to be as India's backyard/frontyard or whatever. Others should be kept away. I do not think the GOI looks at it this way though. Both Congress and Non-congress governments seem to be resigned to having these powers in our region for a long time. That is why I keep saying, India awaits its second struggle for Independence - that of freedom from a shackled mind.

RRji

Bharat remained as an unique entity for many millennia and will remain so for the foreseeable future. If you read 20th century history, India not only survived a partition that took more than 30% of its land and natural resources, more than a million deaths due to viciously drawn borders, took upon five direct wars, four state level insurgencies (NE, Punjab, JK, and Maoist) with each one of them bleeding for more than 10 years causing more than 30000 deaths, but also got on to its feet, moved on to economic prosperity, boasts to have built a 21st century armed forces, and becoming a beacon of hope in 21st century. This all was achieved within just 40-50 years since its independence from >1000 years of slavery and colonialism. People on BR may not understand and accept but this agility comes from its unique native civilizational ethos. The aggressors who ruled Bharat for more than 1000 years added zilch to this civilization. One took away more than 30% of its resources and another took away its wealth to build current worldbanks and IMFs.

Bharat for sure can absorb, assimilate, and remove all the suicidal strains of consciousness our beloved brothers on east and west developed. It will take a little longer time because this virus has been allowed to survive and gain strength in the past few hundred years for various reasons. The cleansing process will also take equal amount of time, if not more.

If one looks at these time scales, an IKG or MMS cannot do much damage than that is already done. They can only give the false hope of a near win to the opponents, which further agitates them. The more agitated our brothers become the better it will be for Bharat. The bhumiputras, who are yet to be convinced of their civilizational roots, will have a chance to clearly see the fallacy of westward looking ideologies thru the upcoming flashing mushroom clouds.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 28 Jul 2009 19:10

There are only two dominant strains of thought that unleash the lethal savagery on India from Pakistan. One is the group of religious fundamentalists and the other is the Pakistani Army. They have their own different reasons though but because their aims converge, the two have coalesced.

For the fundamentalists, the failure to subjugate Hinduism and convert the kufr in spite of oft-repeated claims of a thousand-year glorious rule of the Muslims, rankles badly. At other places, where the Muslims had ruled for a considerable length of time, they have been successful in that project. That was why Abu Ala Al Mawdudi was so much against the creation of Pakistan. He wanted to subvert India from within and felt that the Muslims of his time were not sufficiently radicalized for a new theocratic nation. However, events overtook him and he felt it prudent to ultimately jump into the bandwagon and make the best of a bad situation. That continues in Pakistan. Recently, the neo-Taliban have overtaken the Deobandis with their more cosmic scale of operations.

The Army, of course, wants to avenge the various defeats since the unhappy creation of their nation state.

The coming together of these two entities happened in stages, sometimes faster, and at other times slower. While the PA initially felt that water sources and Indian proximity to important Pakistani military centres were causes for concern and hence Kashmir had to be won over, the clergy later converted this to a religious issue. For India, of course, it has remained as a territorial issue.

In the meanwhile, the Afghan jihad came along and fortuitously for Pakistan, it helped enormously in the Pakistani national endeavour of 'destroying India'. The PA and the masses claimed that the Muslims have vanquished a superpower and India was next on target. It is to the credit of Indian military and the police that in spite of an ignorant Indian political class, indifferent Indian masses and an unsympathetic and blatantly pro-Pakistani world opinion until 9/11, they had successfully stopped the Pakistani jihadi juggernaut in the 90s.

Today, Pakistanis feel that they are on the verge of vanquishing the only remaining superpower and Kashmir (and India) would be next once again as it was in the 90s. This enduring conflict, between India and Pakistan, cannot therefore end based on the good intentions of India or even coercion. So long as the entity of Pakistan remains intact, an entity that was 'insufficiently imagined' according to Salman Rushdie, India will have to endure pain and not achieve its full potential.

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 28 Jul 2009 19:52

Raja Ram wrote: Chiron,
From a civilizational aspect, what you say makes sense in terms of integrating at least 2 of the resulting five entities. But a question sir, given the kind of change in terms of thinking that has happened over 60 years of brainwashing, will there be a desire to integrate by these people, especially the post partition generation from their side? Will the pull of the shared past be so great to remove the effects of the 60 year brainwashing and more than 1000 year alien religion influence? I am not having an opinion either way on this, but I am intrigued by the questions.

To be a global power, India has to ensure that immediate neighbourhood of India is seen to be as India's backyard/frontyard or whatever. Others should be kept away. I do not think the GOI looks at it this way though. Both Congress and Non-congress governments seem to be resigned to having these powers in our region for a long time. That is why I keep saying, India awaits its second struggle for Independence - that of freedom from a shackled mind.

As usual a ramble, please take it for what it is worth.

Rajaram ji,

I am a small kid learning ways of life on BRF. However, as far as I can understand, all this hoopla about stable Pakistan in fact, IMVVHO, translates to stable NWFP. When Bhaaratiya policy makers say that stable Pakistan is in Bhaarat's interest, I guess knowingly or unknowingly, they are batting for stable NWFP. Same goes for USA/UK who are even more pronouncedly batting for stable NWFP, when they talk about stable Pakistan.

The equal equal rant by WKK brigade is essential in its own part to keep the civilizational link intact. There is no need to encourage WKKs but it is safe to ignore them and let them do what they are up to.

Thirdly, it is interesting to observe that an alien language (Urdu) was imposed upon the residents of Pakjab, Sindh, NWFP and Balochistan and east Bengal. East Bengal freed its way and asserted its linguistic identity. This is one more splinter in the plank of Pakistan. Punjabi linguistic identity has been silent because after death of Jinnah, the power of army was taken over by Punjabi army-complex and has stayed there for long. Sindhi linguistic identity has suffered under the burden of Urdu and Punjabi linguistic invasions.

I am not contending that it will be easy to forget the brainwashing of 60 years, this time is insignificant in terms of history of civilization. It is the central asian tribal mentality which is occupying the lands to the east of Sindhu in Pakistan. This mentality derives its strength from its strategic hold over Khyber and access to Central Asia and recently China (karakoram highway). In given circumstances when big players are wrestling for control of NWFP, Pakjab has little chance to be an equal player. When NWFP-Afghanistan becomes stable under unkil's influence, Pakjab will be irrelevant to unkil.

Ditching by unkil and decreased input of energy in pakjabi army complex by its three and half customers will further accelerate the realization of their mistake. It has started already where some people are raising their doubts over the very idea of "two-nation-theory". There is relatively less pull across Sindhu.. However, across the border, the pull still exists. In absence of high-energy conditions, that pull will prevail and result in assimilation.

Of course it can't happen in one generation. There has to be a breathing time of at least 20 years between independence and stabilization of NWFP by unkil and political assimilation of Pakjab and Sindh in Bhaarat. After that breathing time, the assimilation will be the only option left in front of pakjab and sindh.

BTW, I watched the video of BRF Chennai meet. The glimpses of presentations given by Sridhar ji and you were awesome. Especially your emphasis on Myanmar was amazingly true. Thank you....

RamaY · Post by **RamaY** » 28 Jul 2009 20:09

Chiron wrote:
Raja Ram wrote: BTW, I watched the video of BRF Chennai meet. The glimpses of presentations given by Sridhar ji and you were awesome. Especially your emphasis on Myanmar was amazingly true. Thank you....

Chiron ji/RR ji/Sridhar Ji,

would it be possible to share the details? you can mail me at ramay.brf at gmail

just curious about the presentations...

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 28 Jul 2009 20:33

RamaY wrote: Chiron ji/RR ji/Sridhar Ji,

would it be possible to share the details? you can mail me at ramay.brf at gmail

just curious about the presentations...

I saw the video onlee. I was not present at the meet. But, would like to read the presentation and the explanations by both Sridhar ji and Rajaram ji.. Will it be possible to upload the presentations or put them on board as images along with explanation of every slide..

if that is not possible, is it possible that the ppt be sent to chiron206 at gmail dot com

Thanks..

AdityaM · Post by **AdityaM** » 29 Jul 2009 10:00

A good article by former chief of the Research and Analysis Wing
http://news.rediff.com/column/2009/jul/ ... kistan.htm

In Havana, we had raised Pakistan to our level by describing it as a victim of terrorism. In Sharm el-Sheikh, we downgraded ourselves to their level by allowing them to describe us as sponsors of terrorism.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Jul 2009 10:03

Let me bring up a question that has come up before:

If a stable and prosperous Pakistan is not in India's interest, is an unstable Pakistan that is not prospering in India's interest?

This question seems slightly more difficult to answer.

Pakistan has not been working for India's interests in any circumstances. Pakistan itself does not appear to be in India's interest, so under the circumstances how does one argue whether a stable/unstable or prosperous/non prospering Pakistan is better or worse for India?

On the face of it, it is tempting to argue that a poor, unstable Pakistan is, on balance, better for india.

Why?

A coherent, powerful Pakistan would be that much more of a formidable enemy than a failing, dysfunctional Pakistan.

It is certainly tempting to argue that a Pakistan that is an industrial/economic powerhouse would be far more difficult to deal with than a Pakistan that depends on bailouts and imports. But this argument has several weak areas.

The examples of states like Vietnam, Cambodia and North Korea show that the amount of suffering and misery faced by the people of a country does not directly correlate with the ability of that country to be a threat or keep fighting an an "enemy". You can have 75% of the population starving (or at least living miserably) - but still have a fighting fit nation that is difficult or impossible to defeat militarily.

But the other side of the argument is "OK OK - both Vietnam and North Korea fought the US and the US was unable to defeat them and both nations remained militarily powerful. But just look where they are now, and look where their "enemy" the US, is today. Certainly - for all talk of the US's "defeat" - Americans in general have led far better lives and have a better outlook than any citizens of Vietnam or NoKo in the last 50 years.

The key argument here is not military victory or defeat, but quality of life for a large percentage of the people of two adversarial nations who may remain adversaries for decades. War between such adversaries leads to varying amounts of suffering on both sides, but the quality of peacetime life is important.

Using this parameter - if India can gradually improve the outlook for a large percentage of its citizens, ensure their prosperity and quality of life -despite Pakistani efforts at undermining India, that in itself would be one way of "neutralizing" Pakistani ill-intent. But this statement ignores Pakistan and does not say whether Pakistan can be moulded in some way to make it worse for Pakistan and therefore better for India. It also assumes that what is worse for Pakistan is better for India and vice versa.

As has been observed by the many experts on this forum Pakistan seems to have acted on the following presumptions:

1) Pakistan is already socially and economically superior to India
2) Pakistan needs to stay militarily superior to India
3) Pakistan needs to reduce any social stability or peace that India might display in order to maintain Pakistan's pre-eminence and avoid any chance of India overtaking Pakistan.

Point 1 " Pakistan is already socially and economically superior to India" should not constitute a problem for india.

Point 2 "Pakistan needs to stay militarily superior to India" would not be a problem if Pakistan was defending against Indian attack. It becomes a problem because India has had to defend against Pakistani attack. This essentially sets up an "arms race". An "arms race" in the absence of war is always better or the person who can show more and better arms on paper. A real war changes everything. Both the Vietnam and Korean wars were "real wars" and the paper supremacy of the US did not change the outcome of the war. But the US's "paper supremacy" reflected an economy that was able to sustain itself better than either Vietnam or Korea in the long term.

So an "arms race" with Pakistan (and China, incidentally) is essential for India. An arms race sets a goal for a nation and demands the setting up of industrial capacity. An "arms race" is also good when an adversarial nation says that it does not want to enter into an arms race. That is a "heads I win, tails you lose" situation. A country that does not have the stomach/capability for an arms race should keep out. But either way - whether it keeps out or not, it will end up being inferior to the nation that sticks to the race. Since Pakistan seeks military parity with India - the goal of that parity should be made a moving target, with Pakistan having to spend more and more money on trying to achieve parity with India. There should be no question of disarmament/arms reduction with regard to Pakistan.

Point 3: "Pakistan needs to reduce any social stability or peace that India might display in order to maintain Pakistan's pre-eminence and avoid any chance of India overtaking Pakistan." . This has been one of India's problems. Fomenting terrorism has been one method of detabilizing the peace in India. We are currently in a quest to address this effectively.

The difficulty here is that if a nation is stable and prosperous and that stable and prosperous nation decides to interfere with another country and introduce insurgencies and terrorism in that country, it would be very difficult for the aggrieved nation (eg India) to do anything about that. A lot of developed/imperial countries have done exactly that to destabilize other countries. US interference in Vietnam started with exactly this. But once hot war starts - the outcome becomes uncertain.

Imposing war on Pakistan changes the balance in the sense that Pakistani leaders don't care about the human condition of their countrymen. India ends up paying more. But if India does not impose war on Pakistan, the latter is still able to impose a cost on India.

Options available to India are limited but not zero.

It is important to continue the arms race until the cost of even attempt to maintain a defensive 1:3 ratio by Pakistan is too costly for Pakistan and its sponsors to bear. But getting into a hot war is a mistake because arms for a hot war can easily be donated to Pakistan at no cost to Pakistan other than human life.

Internal security in India is vital and there is definite scope for improvement here.

Ensuring social instability in Pakistan is mandatory IMO. Apart from forcing Pakistan to spend large amounts on weapons, Pakistan needs to spend effort, time, money and human resources on its own internal security. Anything that can be done to undermine the economy of Pakistan is essential.

All foolish attempts to "mend fences" with Pakistan or help the Pakistan economy are wrong. That includes simple things like visas and "cultural exchanges". Unless we are able to designate Pakistan as a problem nation we cannot bring all our resources in to address that problem. Any suffering of the Pakistani people as a result will not need India to do anything. Pakistan can improve the lot of its own people by stopping competition with India.

But the bottom line seems clear - any attempt by India to wish for a "stable and prosperous Pakistan" is phenomenally stupid. India should have to play no role n Pakistan stability and prosperity. Let Pakistan achieve that despite India.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 29 Jul 2009 10:32

RamaY & Chiron, you have mail.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 29 Jul 2009 11:17

Couple of simple points (some repetitions):

1. Wipe out hatred and baggage when seeking solutions

2. If Pakistan where instead like Nepal (incidentally a Hindu majority country) - India would still have a problem with that region of the world

3. Pakistan is a problem for the world, but is not THE problem for India.
The region of the world not being under India's control is the problem.

4. Love the moderate citizens of the region of Pakistan. However, do not respect the nation-state or the territorial boundaries. An economically prosperous Sindh, Baloch, etc are surely more in India's interest.

5. Once a breakup occurs - plan on which pieces to absorb (via autonomous regions, etc.) and which pieces to keep engaged with other boundary actors such as Iran or Afghanistan.

5. Don't take any of the above seriously - neither will the older generation (in power) in India that still thinks they are dealing with a misbehaving sibling.
The countless terrorist attacks, the skulduggery, equal-equal, games will continue.
The chai-biscoot will flow until India sees a transition of power from leaders who either were born in Pakistan or have a hankering for what was united India..., to a newer generation. Expect even worse than S-e-S like stupidity!

Finally, it is not that a stable and prosperous Pakistan is not in India's interest, or that a stable and prosperous Pakistan will not have a stable India in it's interest -
It is that India does not have control over the region of the world and hence will be less than a regional power at the mercy of other contender or preponderant global powers.
Perhaps, India has made a subaltern choice or perhaps these are unspeakable!

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 29 Jul 2009 13:07

Miliband says a stable Pak is needed for a stable Afghanistan

Stan_Savljevic · Post by **Stan_Savljevic** » 29 Jul 2009 20:24

Let me take a leaf out of Zbig's book and make a bold statement: The stability of no country other than India is in India's interests.

arun · Post by **arun** » 30 Jul 2009 16:11

For those who did not get to read Capt. Bharat Verma’s article in the Apr-Jun 2009 Edition of Indian Defence Review titled, “Stable Pakistan Not In India’s Interest”, which had been linked earlier on Bharat Rakshak.

To read: CLICKY

Kakkaji · Post by **Kakkaji** » 31 Jul 2009 20:12

Vivek_A wrote:TFT is out

In the highlights: Khaled Ahmed has an article on how TSP is falling behind and how it's all because India is unfair to TSP

Here is the full article from Khaled Ahmed. Interesting perspective:

Peace with India or Indian pax?

Khaled Ahmed

Realistically speaking, peace is possible only among equals. If you want peace with a Big Power, what you get is pax, a Latin word denoting the imperial outreach of an empire that guarantees peace within the ambit of its influence. India is too big for any of its neighbours to have peace with. As for pax, India may have the size but lacks the ‘habit’ of a big power; and the reason may be that it is still quite poor.

India is nearly 80 percent of the land mass and population of South Asia. It has more population than the continent of Africa. It began with hostile relations with Pakistan because Pakistan ‘unfairly’ separated from India, and that meant East Pakistan too. Sri Lanka and Nepal have nationalisms meant to push India back. Bangladesh, initially grateful for the help it got from India in 1971, is now quite hostile towards it, or at least one-half of its population.

Peripheral enemies and Sri Lankan model: Pakistan offers the ‘challenger’ model. It fought wars with India till in 1998 it reached a ‘parity’ of nuclear threat with India, giving it the illusion of equality. Sri Lanka offers the ‘realist’ model, accepting India as the big bully nextdoor, its realism enabling it to defeat domestic terrorism finally without India jumping into the conflict. Bangladesh and Nepal remain under pressure, at times courted by India and Pakistan to take part in their proxy conflict. SAARC, with its illusion of creating ‘equal partners’, has not taken off.

Sri Lanka is attractive as a model. It eliminated internal disorder by aligning with India and accepting Indian economic clout through a free trade treaty. Can Pakistan too eliminate internal disorder by reaching out to India? For Pakistan, too, there is the example of India not seeking power projection into Sri Lanka based on the presence of the Indian Tamil population in Sri Lanka. Can Pakistan similarly buy peace by ceasing to project power into Afghanistan on the basis of the Pashtun population straddling the Durand Line? Can Pakistan learn from the failure of India’s power projection into Sri Lanka?

The China-India example: Why leave China out? India has behaved differently with it after the 1961 border conflict. In this case, India is the smaller state seeking an ‘unequal’ peace with China. As opposed to Pakistan, which seeks to upturn the status quo, India seeks to ignore it. Indian scholars say India has avoided becoming a revisionist-challenger state vis-à-vis China by assuming that the part of Kashmir annexed by China is ‘strategically unimportant’. The part of Kashmir that India has annexed is designated its jugular vein by Pakistan. India is thus free to develop economically without the ideological onus of fighting a ‘just war’ with China.

What China did to India in 1961 is not a good model to follow for the smaller states located on the periphery of India. Only Pakistan has followed it and has suffered non-success or defeat. Its economy has suffered, its social development has become retarded because of this deeply embedded, textbook-propelled approach. The jurisprudence of Pakistan’s non-success has increasingly convinced India that as the status quo power it has to do nothing to ensure peace.

Status quo power with grievances: India is happy to leave things as they are. This means that its neighbours can continue to be unhappy. Given the inability of the neighbours to impose their will on India, in fact it suits India to be in a state of semi-war with them. It can actually make counter-claims to baffle the plaintiffs. According to Nawa-e-Waqt (16 July 2009) India has complained that Pakistan was in illegal occupation of 78,000 square kilometres, China was in illegal control of 38,000 square kilometres, and Pakistan had illegally given to China an additional 5,000 square kilometres of Indian territory.

Yet, India knows that Pakistan is different. It can’t behave with Pakistan the way it behaves with the others. Before Pakistan became a nuclear power, it had backbone enough to go to war with India. It didn’t get anywhere, and over the years it has had the realism of reinterpreting ‘military victories’ as non-victories. Its people are no longer aroused when it goes to war with India.

Enter the non state actor: But the backbone came from the Cold War bargains. India joined the Soviet bloc and Pakistan joined the American bloc, mainly to fight India. But its revisionism made it one-sided, neglectful of the national economy and adventurist in behaviour. Textbooks diminished the politician and aggrandised the general. Civilian rulers followed the revisionist nationalism and made themselves weak vis-à-vis the army. Pakistan became ‘path dependent’ on policies such as low-intensity warfare thought up by the military strategists.

The non state actor figured in Pakistan’s ‘defence’ right from the start. His role expanded as territories outside Pakistan became more and more vulnerable to infiltration. The US helped this trend along during the Afghan war against the Soviet invasion. India’s bungled policies in Kashmir opened Kashmir to Pakistan’s non state actors. No longer formally at war, Pakistan sat pretty denying interference but offering ‘talks’ if Kashmir was accepted as the core dispute. Yet, Pakistan was flouting a fundamental rule of state sovereignty by employing private warriors.

Machiavelli on non state actors: In Chapter 12 of The Prince , Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) wrote: ‘Mercenaries and auxiliaries are useless and dangerous. For mercenaries are disunited, thirsty for power, undisciplined and disloyal; they are brave among their friends and cowards before the enemy. In peacetime you are despoiled by them and in wartime by the enemy. Mercenary commanders cannot be trusted because they are anxious to advance their own greatness, either by coercing you, or by coercing others against your wishes. Experience has shown that only armed princes and republics achieve solid success, and that mercenaries bring nothing but loss.’

After the Cold War, India has adjusted to the world. Pakistan has not. In fact it has become more and more alienated with the new order. It continues to hate its enemy but now also hates its friends. This persuades India not to have peace with it but wait till it is defeated by its own non state actors internally and tamed by an increasingly worried international community through economic manipulation. Before we consider why it is in India’s interest to have peace with its neighbours, let us look at the nature of change in Pakistan and Bangladesh.

Islamism and transnational emotion: The death of Nasserism or leftwing Arab nationalism in the Islamic world has resulted in the rise of religious leadership among the Muslims of the world. Social retardation, accepted as a side-effect of the Palestinian issue, has spread across the Islamic world with the rise of Islamism, much of it pushed by Arab petrodollars. The social retardation of Pakistan is because of Kashmir. The people of Pakistan and Bangladesh are more ‘transnational’ in their emotion than they were in 1947. The consequent hatred of America as an enemy of Islam has benefited India which has moved strategically close to America.

The threat to India from Pakistan and Bangladesh is no longer from the militaries of the two countries. It now comes from Islamism. But that also means that India is not threatened with destruction by its enemies but by their self-destruction. India has not dealt fairly with Bangladesh on the questions of river waters and maritime boundaries, but an increasingly non-viable Bangladesh has taken its revenge through the influx of large numbers of refugees into India. India has not dealt fairly with Pakistan on the Kashmir issue, but an increasingly implosive Pakistan may finally yield possession of its nuclear weapons to non state actors as it goes down.

Threat from the threatened states: India is supposed to ‘shine’ with economic success, ‘facing east’ for a bigger share of the world market and linking up with the big powers at the UN Security Council as an ‘equal’ big power. But in South Asia it is faced with two imploding Islamic states. The world thinks that the two can be helped out of their crises. India thinks it can still avoid getting involved in a process in which its enemies are defeating themselves. But this may be the moment of engagement rather than retreat, from the point of view of India’s own safety. Pakistan will recognise Indian engagement as peace; South Asia will accept it as India’s pax.

Strategy is an act of imagination based on how factors of force are deployed on the map in front of you. But imagination is also the dominating asset of a paranoid person. Warrior nations don’t need imagination at all, for if they had it, they would never go to war. The small peripheral state needs more imagination, more suppleness of response, than the status quo India. It seems that neither the peripheral states nor India are using imagination for the good of South Asians. Being a status quo power tends to dull the imagination, but that doesn’t mean that the revisionist state should think of nothing but mischief.

Pulikeshi · Post by **Pulikeshi** » 31 Jul 2009 21:27

having read BV's article a while ago - a humble suggestion - rename this (& any future) article(s) along the lines of:

"Why a stable Balochistan/Balwaristan/Sindh/etc. are in the interest of world stability" etc.

Speak of the region, do not name the "insufficiently imagined" nation-state.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 31 Jul 2009 22:00

Threat from the threatened states: India is supposed to ‘shine’ with economic success, ‘facing east’ for a bigger share of the world market and linking up with the big powers at the UN Security Council as an ‘equal’ big power. But in South Asia it is faced with two imploding Islamic states. The world thinks that the two can be helped out of their crises. India thinks it can still avoid getting involved in a process in which its enemies are defeating themselves. But this may be the moment of engagement rather than retreat, from the point of view of India’s own safety. Pakistan will recognise Indian engagement as peace; South Asia will accept it as India’s pax.

Strategy is an act of imagination based on how factors of force are deployed on the map in front of you. But imagination is also the dominating asset of a paranoid person. Warrior nations don’t need imagination at all, for if they had it, they would never go to war. The small peripheral state needs more imagination, more suppleness of response, than the status quo India. It seems that neither the peripheral states nor India are using imagination for the good of South Asians. Being a status quo power tends to dull the imagination, but that doesn’t mean that the revisionist state should think of nothing but mischief.

Very interesting onlee, in other words Muslims have fcuked themselves but with India's help may survive to limp along and be a nuisance for longer.

Or what? Imploding Muslims states will inundate India with reverse Muhajirs. Yes you will be welcome in Bengal but will receive a very warm welcome in J$K, Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat. Go for it if you will. But I would advise emigration to Saudia.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Jul 2009 23:11

sanjay, Its the Pakis who are in trouble and Khaled Ahmed is demanding India bail them out. On BRF we have been saying tis the RAPE that will demand Indian help to bail them out. And see his acceptance in return.

I see no value in bailing them out. They have to agree to following and as need:

De-Partition.

Administration:
- Union territory status for thirty years to be renewed as needed to all the provinces in that state
- Governors appointed from Dilli and re-selection of local govt officials
- Govt officials will be re-absrobed on case by case basis

Armed Forces:
- Force reduction and selection board for re-absorbing the armed forces. The regiments will be reaffliated immediately but the personnel will have to be re-selected. The board will be composed of proper armed forces officers.

- Loot by crore commanders, pols and officials. They can keep the loot if they want to opt out but have to turn it in if they want to continue in service. Funds will be used for local development and not merged into all India funds.

Business as usual

Indian penal code applies everywhere

svinayak · Post by **svinayak** » 31 Jul 2009 23:27

ramana wrote:sanjay, Its the Pakis who are in trouble and Khaled Ahmed is demanding India bail them out. On BRF we have been saying tis the RAPE that will demand Indian help to bail them out. And see his acceptance in return.

I see no value in bailing them out. They have to agree to following and as need:

De-Partition.

Administration:
- Union territory status for thirty years to be renewed as needed to all the provinces in that state
- Governors appointed from Dilli and re-selection of local govt officials
- Govt officials will be re-absrobed on case by case basis

Armed Forces:
- Force reduction and selection board for re-absorbing the armed forces. The regiments will be reaffliated immediately but the personnel will have to be re-selected. The board will be composed of proper armed forces officers.

- Loot by crore commanders, pols and officials. They can keep the loot if they want to opt out but have to turn it in if they want to continue in service. Funds will be used for local development and not merged into all India funds.

Business as usual

Indian penal code applies everywhere

THere is much more.
Reverse Jaziya Tax on the people.
All Hindu cultural spots in Pakistan will be open to Indians/Hindus.

Gagan · Post by **Gagan** » 31 Jul 2009 23:27

ramana wrote:De-Partition.

No not for the next 10 years. Until the cancer that pakjab has built within is eliminated.
The only solution is to break up pakistan into 5 states. Two of these will more likely opt for India - Balochistan and Sindh, POK and Northern Areas we will re-integrate with the indian mainland. Pashtoonishtan will create an entity out of Afghanistan and pakistan.

Pakjab should be allowed to be a land locked entity, denuclearized, dependant on Sindh and India for trade, water etc.

This is the only solution I see to the IT originating out of pakistan.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 31 Jul 2009 23:39

Gagan, We are on same apge. however I dont want them independent. See Chiron's ref to Bahamani states and Talikota. So India has a mechanism to absorb them and its UT status for a fixed eriod of thirty years to be renewed as needed.

And Acharya I want re-absorbtion and not create lingering takleefs and grievances.

In fact Art 377 is model of reverse millat for them if they want but that will keep them backward.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 31 Jul 2009 23:41

I am aghast-departition indeed. That should be only as a last resort to pacify the wild tribes of the frontier ie reabsorb them and civilise them- a hundred year project. Only to be undertaken if there is an existential threat from demographic aggression/invasion.

I know the Pakistanis are secretly hoping for just this-that they create such havoc that India will be forced to accept them back. Please scan the press and commentary in Pakistan over the next 1-2 years as India's economy and technological base grow, I will be demonstrated correct.