Rudradev wrote:
Joseph, you seem to suggest that we should stand aside and let the situation in TSP get worse on it's own, until by sheer weight of obviousness everyone in the world recognizes that PA and Pakjabis are the problem, and that fragmentation is best for all. You then bring up Bangladesh, as a benchmark for atrocities arriving at that degree of obviousness where world public opinion may reach a "tipping point" consensus that Pakistan should be fragmented.
Now this begs the question: for whom was the "tipping point" reached, even in the instance of Bangladesh four decades ago?
Not for the West or the US. They didn't care a hoot about the Bangla holocaust and would have preferred to see East Pakistan remain a part of Pakistan. Even dissenters at the level of Archer Blood were silenced in service of the West's "greater" cause.
Not for the Chinese, who for strategic reasons would similarly have loved to see Pakistan remain intact. Ditto, it was no tipping point at all for the Arabs, Israelis, Australians, Europeans, Japanese, Russians, Koreans or sundry other African or Latin American nationalities. Whatever humanitarian sympathies the citizens of these countries might have had, public opinion did not override the calculated interest of these nations in determining policy on the BD situation. It did not even come close.
Even India, when we acted, did not do so out of public opinion on the BD situation, despite the very real and widespread outrage. The bottom line underpinning our decision to go to war was national interest of the coldest kind: IG determined that the cost of dealing with 10 million Bangla refugees, and the possibility of many more, was greater than the cost of a three week war.
Had we waited for world opinion to turn in favour of bisecting Pakistan then, Bangladesh would have turned into a Rwanda type situation that bleeding-heart liberals clucked their tongues about for a few months... only to be swept under the rug when the Arab Israeli war , Vietnam war and other events distracted public attention.
Finally, independence for Bangladesh was achieved because the GoI decided it was in India's interest and took appropriate action. Not because the world had decided that Pakistan was a barbaric terrorist state that needed dividing... in fact both superpowers pressured India not to carry the division any further than the liberation of Bangladesh.
And when (or if) Pakistan itself is to be fragmented, it will happen for the same reason. We will have to do what's in our interest regardless of world opinion.
Rudradev,
I agree about the opposition by the superpowers to more splitting of Pakistan than was done in 1971.
The Baloch had been restless for many years, but I don't think that other parts of Pakistan had strong anti Pakjabi feelings in 1971, so the fragmentation process was still in its infancy at the time.
The
state that is Pakistan is now more fragile than it was four decades ago, but the fragmentation process still isn't advanced enough for Pakistan to shatter into pieces in the near future.
When the time draws near...
Continental Europe
As long as it doesn't infringe on their lives or finances, they are indifferent about the events in Pakistan.
Russia
Likely has little love for Pakjabis and wouldn't utter any serious opposition against it.
OIC Bloc
Of course they would be opposed to India having even a tiny part in the fragmentation of Pakistan. But, they are not likely to do anything but talk and make speeches in the UN. If there are sizable organized groups in Sindh, Balochistan and FATA - NFPW that are catching worldwide attention to their plight at the hands of the Pakjabis, then the OIC would be a bit more muted with its complaints.
OIC members: Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen have serious problems that they have been unable to solve by themselves. Yet, the OIC takes no collective action to intervene and solve those problems. In some instances such as with Sudan, the OIC tries to shield the Sudanese leadership from criticism and/or arrest. Much posturing from the OIC, but not interested in stepping forward and actually solving any problems.
Iran
Has had both high points and low points over the years when interacting with Pakistan. The fragments that were once part of Pakistan would still be Sunni dominated, so nothing will change for the Iranians.
Great Britain
They already have enough RAPES and wouldn't want more as refugees. As much trouble as Pakistanis have caused Great Britain over the years, they should welcome a change in course for Pakistan.
China
If the PA is busy in suppressing its own population, then its ability to annoy India is lost. An unstable Pakistan presents no trade opportunities for China other than arms shipments and China might lose interest in
gifting them to the PA - Pakjabis who might not retain control of Karachi and Gwadar. The natural resources and Gwadar are in Balochistan while the population with an attitude is in the Punjab. China wouldn't be happy with India being viewed favorably in some of the freed parts of Pakistan, but what alternative scenarios are more favorable to China?
I can't imagine Chinese troops on the ground supporting the PA in a situation similar to Bangladesh of four decades ago.
Saudi Arabia
Has long been a friend of Pakistan, but seems slightly more perturbed than in the past. Even with the recent warming between India and Saudi Arabia, the Saudis would have difficulty in supporting any intervention by India in Pakistan. Assurance that India was intervening on humanitarian grounds and had no intention in staying might smooth some of the unhappiness by the Saudis.
United Sates
It is tired of overseas ventures such as Iraq and Afghanistan. It might vocally oppose Indian intervention, but is unlikely to do anything to stop it.
There needs to be organized opposition throughout the country against the Pakjabis just as there was organized opposition in East Pakistan four decades ago. That opposition would need to be able to catch the attention of the world media and effectively plead their case to make it more palatable for India to intervene.
The catch in the above comes back to the inability of capable groups to band together and form a creditable opposition. Shiv has touched on the plight of the poor Abduls and the limited middle class in Pakistan.
The ones that have the power, profile and contacts to form opposition groups would be the non Pakjabi Feudals. If they side with the PA and Pakjabis Feudals, then it will take much much longer for credible opposition groups to form throughout Pakistan.
I agree with your assessment about India ultimately deciding the "tipping point" in regards to a refugee situation, but the leadership in India is not the same as it was four decades ago and likely would be much more cautious in doing something.
Would India intervene on its own accord or would it need groups within Pakistan pleading for help from India before it could justify doing something?
Fancy that!
