Managing Pakistan's failure

[shiv]

As a general philosophical point I want to say that this thread indicates why India has no clear policy about Pakistan.

We may blame the government but this forum itself indicates how Indians gradually start looking at themselves and what India and Indians need to do to themselves in an act of "khud ko jai karein" ("conquer yourself") rather than thinking of what should be done to Pakistan.

If there is anything Indic about Indians it is the deep need to look inside at oneself and correct oneself. We cannot get out of this. India has to work within the constraints posed by Indians. I believe that we have to accept that we have constraints and work around those constraints, but such acceptance has a huge dilemma attached to it.

If we have to accept that the Indic thought process of seeking to correct oneself is "a constraint", it means that there is a non Indic thought process (of not correcting oneself) is a better path to follow. Such an idea seems to set off cognitive dissonance among Indians who end up arguing forever whether we need to correct ourselves first of just hit the other guy first even though we still have his faults for which we are hitting him. Non Indics- eg USA and Pakistan have no such problem. But we are not like them and we are in two minds about being like them.

Being "Indic" is both a blessing and a pain. It's not wholly good. It's not wholly bad.

[harbans]

If there is anything Indic about Indians it is the deep need to look inside at oneself and correct oneself. We cannot get out of this. India has to work within the constraints posed by Indians. I believe that we have to accept that we have constraints and work around those constraints, but such acceptance has a huge dilemma attached to it.

Shiv ji, the truth is completely the contrary. Despite the fact that we are debating terms like 'coercion', 'values' etc it's not that we are dissing or have complete contrarian views. Even on this thread there is more commonality than dissonative discourse despite the apparaently different tacks in approaches. In a topic of this kind, there's going to be a lot of devils advocate kind of discussion. That does'nt lessen the debate, it enhances it. I am sure Rajesh ji would agree to that. That itself is the purpose of the forum. To be argumentative Indians. Trust me to outsiders it looks completely different. Possibly mono---istic in it's views.

It is obvious before the GOI can come up with what it has to do with ***** there has to be some sort of debate within us before we come up with the best way out. So why not lead and say what you think should be done with Pakistan instead of endlessly psychoanalyzing the nation for instance? Piskology of ***** by itself is an invitation to endless debate.

*****'s think like we do things instantly, take decisions and these Hindu's are so slow and dumb. Decision making comes naturally to us after all we have ruled over them 1000000 years..frankly i am glad we look into ourselves first and try developing the necessary consensus and purpose. The argumentative, discoursive Indian is what keeps our institutional freedoms alive and country free in the long run. JMT and IMVHO..

*****=P.O.R.N.I.S.T.A.N = *****

[A_Gupta]

We may blame the government but this forum itself indicates how Indians gradually start looking at themselves and what India and Indians need to do to themselves in an act of "khud ko jai karein" ("conquer yourself") rather than thinking of what should be done to Pakistan.

I disagree. I can barely run a mile, I'm required to run a marathon. I have studied undergraduate mathematics; you want me to solve a cutting edge math. research problem. My response is going to be (a) I have to train/learn to increase my abilities and (b) be patient while I do so.

It is the same - whatever idea you come up with respect to Pakistan the practical capacity to implement that is simply not there.

If I cannot climb over the fence, I have to take a long detour to find the gate. This is the nature of problems, the solution is rarely in a straight line.

If there is anything to be philosophical about, it is the fact that the patience and the perseverance is seemingly lacking.

Independence movement was a similar deal. Whatever the hardcore nationalists may say about greatness of Indians, it is nevertheless true that Indians also did a lot of "khud ko jai karein" and that is why Indians could make a constitution and get a parliament working and so on, where Pakistan could not, and nor could most of the newly liberated colonies of Asia and Africa. Please note: I'm not saying that independence should not have come earlier. I am asserting that the inability to get independence, in say 1920, was nevertheless put to good account.

[shiv]

So why not lead and say what you think should be done with Pakistan instead of endlessly psychoanalyzing the nation for instance? Piskology of ***** by itself is an invitation to endless debate.

Sir.

Please look at what I have been posting on this thread and what direction the thread has taken in your latest exchanges.

I believe you have found it difficult to follow the lead that I set in discussing what to do with Pakistan or in Pakistan - so asking me to "lead" is itself an indicator that you either don't care about following that lead or are not interested in following it, but find a psychological barb that wakes you up from your diversion sharp enough to respond, having failed to notice all this time that I have been asking that we talk about Pakistan and have been leading the way.

Please stop making excuses. I find it irritating to find you asking me to say what I think should be done about Pakistan when I have spent all this time doing exactly that on this thread. You don't seem to have noticed. The accusation you have made against me is as empty and baseless as comparing Pillai to Hafiz Saeed.

[shiv]

Independence movement was a similar deal. Whatever the hardcore nationalists may say about greatness of Indians, it is nevertheless true that Indians also did a lot of "khud ko jai karein" and that is why Indians could make a constitution and get a parliament working and so on, where Pakistan could not, and nor could most of the newly liberated colonies of Asia and Africa. Please note: I'm not saying that independence should not have come earlier. I am asserting that the inability to get independence, in say 1920, was nevertheless put to good account.

I believe 63 years is long enough to move on. "Khud ko jai karein" is an admirable tactic but if the people who think this way are eliminated, what will be left of the philosophy?

One of the fundamental rules in realpolitik is not to worry that you have the same faults as your enemy. Just punish him for that. You can think about correcting or not correcting your faults later. The US has many of the same faults as Pakistan and the US like Pakistan, hardly pauses to introspect. As someone pointed out in a beautiful post - the west used the most bloody and treacherous tactics in reaching a position of domination after which they set up rules like Geneva Convention, MTCR, NPT to prevent others from reaching domination using the methods they used.

What can we do with Pakistan?

Ok - of the various things that have been suggested let me pick up one controversial issue that seems to spark off mixed feelings including those of the "khud ko jai karein" type.. Islam

What to do with Islam and Muslims in Pakistan? Talk about that issue without being colored by what needs to be done in India. It is talk after all.

[harbans]

Shiv Ji sir apologies if you felt that way. I did'nt intend to accuse one bit, but justify psychoanalysis of Pakistan/ Pakistani's/ our own mindset when we start talking about implementing say coercive measures when dealing with this failing entity. So i don't see the need for any acerbity here. To set matters straight i mentioned lead only in context to your criticism of Indic 'self cynicism' or 'self analysis' in the previous post. For that matter any thread and you would be knowing that much better than me, does take many directions, twists and turns. So saying say Pakistan should be dealt with in XYZ manner will entail legitimate questions/ dounbts/ queries as to whether we do have internal capability/ consensus to say deal with it in such manner as suggested even in the case one is in agreement. IMVHO.

What to do with Islam and Muslims in Pakistan? Talk about that issue without being colored by what needs to be done in India. It is talk after all.

How can one talk about what needs to be done in Pakistan without consensus/ will/ discussion/ legality of doing such within India itself? Say X says i want to go to war with Pakistan and teach them a lesson. End of matter/ discussion? NO you also know that entails immediate discussion on internal capability/ will/ economy and many other reasons.

[RamaY]

What to do with Islam and Muslims in Pakistan? Talk about that issue without being colored by what needs to be done in India. It is talk after all.

For argument sake let us assume Indian Islam is different from Paki Islam (This is oxymoron, but what the heck, it is talk after all) {This itself is blasphemous and deserves death-by-stoning }

Let us also assume that key traits of Paki Islam are -
(1) militant religious Intolerance (especially against Indic religions)
(2) Struggle for islamic purity (within themselves)
(3) Disrespect for Human rights (especially when it comes to women rights, education etc)
(4) incompatibility with democratic concepts, processes and institutions
(5) Conscious exploitation and abuse of environment
I am talking about ordinary abduls and not TFTAs, which are minority

What should do about these things, issue by issue?

[shiv]

Thanks for the clarifying post Harbans, but there is a fundamental problem that I see that hounds India. There is an analogy that I have wanted to post for years about this but have never managed to get it right. I will try.

In a two-man comedy show in the UK called "the Two Ronnies" (Ronnie Barker and Ronnie Corbett) each show would end with a spoof on two-anchor newsreaders who would end the news where one would say

"It's goodnight from me.."
and the other newsreader would then say
"..and its good night from me"

The two Ronnies changed this to one of them ending the show with
"It's good night from me.."
and the other would say
"..and its good night from him"

What is relevant here to the point I want to make is that if you go past the humor in this, you find that one man says a polite "goodnight" while the other man has no intention of saying goodnight and just says a disclaimer "I am not saying goodnight - its the other guy who is doing that"

This is what characterizes Indian relations with Pakistan, the West, EJ groups and islamists.

Indians are always willing to own up their faults. There is almost an expectation from Indians that once we own up our faults the other guy will concede his faults and then both groups can accept that all humans have faults and we can move ahead. This is the Indian way of accommodation by introspection but it is not reciprocated.

So we have Indians saying

"We have faults like caste system, sati etc" and we expect the other guy to admit his faults.

but like the two Ronnies spoof, the other guy says

"And India has all these faults - caste system, sati etc"

Nobody. Not Pakistanis. Not Americans. Not the Chinese. EJs or islamists will admit their own faults. But they all readily jump on India and Indians for being forthcoming about our faults. As Arun Gupta pointed our the admission of our faults has helped us make a better India in many ways and it is an essential and positive trait.

But it puts us in a poor negotiating position with dastardly entities like Pakistan. They are on the lookout for our faults and our admission of our faults helps them to divert attention from their faults to our fauts. This is the manner in which our "khud ko jai karein" introspection feeds anyone who wants to bash India on the head.

There is a simple way to get past this - ie by "sticking to the topic". When we are talking of Pakistans faults or Islamism' faults we speak nothing of our own faults. That is a separate subject. If we introduce our own faults into a discussion about other people's faults - we are handing them a way of escaping by pointing fingers back at us.

[shiv]

What to do with Islam and Muslims in Pakistan? Talk about that issue without being colored by what needs to be done in India. It is talk after all.

How can one talk about what needs to be done in Pakistan without consensus/ will/ discussion/ legality of doing such within India itself? Say X says i want to go to war with Pakistan and teach them a lesson. End of matter/ discussion? NO you also know that entails immediate discussion on internal capability/ will/ economy and many other reasons.

I am sure you are capable of thinking of a hypothetical scenario where there is no need for consensus or any internal Indian preconditions.

First talk of what is theoretically needed, We can then come to what is practically possible. If we do not talk if what is needed because it might not be possible we are needlessly curtailing thought, even if that thought is pure fiction.

[shiv]

Let us also assume that key traits of Paki Islam are -
(1) militant religious Intolerance (especially against Indic religions)
(2) Struggle for islamic purity (within themselves)
(3) Disrespect for Human rights (especially when it comes to women rights, education etc)
(4) incompatibility with democratic concepts, processes and institutions
(5) Conscious exploitation and abuse of environment
I am talking about ordinary abduls and not TFTAs, which are minority

What should do about these things, issue by issue?

Exactly sir. Exactly

I would only add to the list "The preferred use of violence to solve disputes and the tendency to demand negotiation or goodwill only from a position of weakness"

These are the issues that "need to be addressed"

I suggest coercive indoctrination and punitive means to change hearts and minds because the defining character is to use violence when they are strong and to negotiate only when they are weak. become stronger, or use available strength to coerce. that is a language that is understood well. Coercion is for the first generation. It becomes a grievance for the second generation. For the third generation it is life as we know it. For the fourth generation it is "This is how we are"

[Pulikeshi]

What to do with Islam and Muslims in Pakistan? Talk about that issue without being colored by what needs to be done in India. It is talk after all.

What is the end goal? Islam I do not know....

Pakistan -> The end goal is a loose conglomeration of states in economic union
in the Indian sub-continent along with Nepal, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, etc.

PS:
The ignorance arising from a belief in a complete body of knowledge causes one to force that belief on others.
Thought strains from India do not succumb to this ignorance. However, such wisdom comes at the high cost of being handicapped in imposing any belief or idea on others...
Something to ponder...

Shiv, one way forward is relentless pursuit to make Pakistan and their denizens seek self-reflection.
Example: Paki says, "But you have your Bajarang Dal chaps...."
Indian says, "Yes, but we accept our short comings, can you expound on yours or do you feel you have no shortcoming because your society is perfect...."
Paki says, "Hindus are caste ridden, etc...."
Indian says, "Yes, but we accept that we have short comings, but can you expound on Islam's short comings, or do you feel it has been perfect...."

I've had interesting traction with that approach. One Paki idiot kept telling a large audience that BJP was primary responsible for Nuclear India. A innocent question on, "Not sure when, Do you know when India first exploded a Nuclear device?" eventually led the gent to "So who was in power when that happened?" which lead to said Paki being shown an idiot that he was....

Offense without being defensive - works most times!
What you are correctly pointing out is this self-defecating (sic - deprecating) nature of Indians in general. However, many liberals in the West suffer from that affliction as well. Hence, their mixed result in handling Islamists.

I am sure you have thoughts...

[A_Gupta]

I suggest coercive indoctrination and punitive means to change hearts and minds because the defining character is to use violence when they are strong and to negotiate only when they are weak. become stronger, or use available strength to coerce. that is a language that is understood well. Coercion is for the first generation. It becomes a grievance for the second generation. For the third generation it is life as we know it. For the fourth generation it is "This is how we are"

Good! And what coercive indoctrination power does India have w.r.t. Pakistan at present?

[RajeshA]

Bajrang Dal, need not really go on the rampage. That's supposed to be just acting.


Rajesh ji, on one hand you're talking coercion on the other hand you're talking about a GOI passing a law in a cowardly fashion firing on someones shoulders. A contradiction?

Why not confront the problem head on. Have a debate one year on freedom of speech.

harbans ji,

Touché! You're right. The suggestion was cowardly - something like taking steroids secretly, to make oneself stronger!

I have in some earlier post in some other thread tried to make a case for overhauling our Constitution, one layer of foundation at a time, and building on that for the next layer. In those arguments I too did mention, we should go the way of an open public discussion, etc. But all this is less relevant on this thread!

[RajeshA]

Regarding Navel Gazing:

I would like repeat here:

The aim of the discussion here is not "khud ko jai karen".

It is to have an "Indian Sanction for 'Reform' of Pakistan".

Recommended Scenario: Pakistan has broken up. Rampant Islamism, Warlordism and Gangs. No Law & Order. Huge Population suffering from famine, drought & disease. Also applicable to scenarios of lesser decay and chaos.

A proposal was to have a Value System which works both as an inspiring ideal for Indians and one which we claim we uphold (regardless of what the reality is on the ground). We should be ready to enforce this Value System in our "extended house", which has fallen to decay and chaos. I called this doctrine, the Indian Coercive Virtues Doctrine (ICVD). For marketing purposes, it can be called something else.

The ICVD is faith-neutral, but some faiths or some sects in some faith could have problems with it. If a faith's preachings are inconsistent or in conflict with the provisions of ICVD, it is still possible for a sect within that faith to claim compliance. The sect itself pledges to uphold ICVD, and third parties can certify on a continuous basis on the basis of monitoring and verification, that the sect does indeed abide by it. Otherwise ICVD requires that the individual chooses a different faith or a compliant atheistic ideology. ICVD also requires an enduring education and reeducation program in a region, where ICVD adherence is minimal or less than satisfactory.

For those, who choose to resist ICVD, they get the short end of the stick. Depending on resistance type, India's strategic goals or tactical requirements in the given region, there can be different responses from Indian forces and 'NGOs'. Those who resist:

• will be given lower priority w.r.t medical treatment, food and water.
• will be given lower priority w.r.t land redistribution
• may have their property confiscated and converted into care centers for the poor and the needy
• may lose custody of their children, due to irresponsible upbringing, damaging to the healthy development of the child
• may lose their job positions as they cannot certify, that they pose no danger to the civil society
• may have to undergo regular checks of their property and person, due to suspicion of harboring unwanted violent elements or having unregistered weapons.
• may not be allowed to congregate in big numbers, so as not to cause public disturbance. {Everybody prays at home}
• may be dealt with more 'aggressively' due to their potential and history of violent behavior

RamaY ji and shiv ji have listed what aspects of Pakistaniyat (~ Paki Islam) would have to be treated. Summarizing:

[list]
[*](1) militant religious Intolerance (especially against Indic religions)
[*](2) Struggle for islamic purity (within themselves)
[*](3) Disrespect for Human rights (especially when it comes to women rights, education etc)
[*](4) incompatibility with democratic concepts, processes and institutions
[*](5) Conscious exploitation and abuse of environment
[*](6) The preferred use of violence to solve disputes and the tendency to demand negotiation or goodwill only from a position of weakness[/list]

[RajeshA]

An analogy perhaps to underline, that the case should not be "khud ko jai karen".

In USA & UK, there are white supremacist groups, and as long as they do not undertake violent activities they are left alone. But in World War II and its aftermath, the Allies went after the Nazis in Germany hammer and tongs. Today Germany is a pluralistic democratic society, part of the Western bloc. Nazism has been arrested in Germany.

Similarly, the Islamists in India would have to be tolerated, so as not to lose the social stability, but that does not stop us from going aggressively after the Islamists in Pakistan and imprint Pakistan with a nobler thought process. Islamism can also be arrested in Pakistan.

[A_Gupta]

Pakistan has broken up. Rampant Islamism, Warlordism and Gangs. No Law & Order. Huge Population suffering from famine, drought & disease. Also applicable to scenarios of lesser decay and chaos.

RajeshA, sure we can prepare for such and lesser scenarios. Whether any of these actually materialize is another matter.

[RajeshA]

Pakistan has broken up. Rampant Islamism, Warlordism and Gangs. No Law & Order. Huge Population suffering from famine, drought & disease. Also applicable to scenarios of lesser decay and chaos.

RajeshA, sure we can prepare for such and lesser scenarios. Whether any of these actually materialize is another matter.

That is the working assumption on this thread.

[shiv]

I suggest coercive indoctrination and punitive means to change hearts and minds because the defining character is to use violence when they are strong and to negotiate only when they are weak. become stronger, or use available strength to coerce. that is a language that is understood well. Coercion is for the first generation. It becomes a grievance for the second generation. For the third generation it is life as we know it. For the fourth generation it is "This is how we are"

Good! And what coercive indoctrination power does India have w.r.t. Pakistan at present?

The only power of any sort India has over Pakistan at this point in time is the ability to prevail in case of war and the ability to resist border intrusions.

It is pure luck that Pakistan has actually got into trouble under the circumstances. I guess it would be moot to ask if India has anything much to do with Pakistan's current happy circumstances - I am sure it does - to an extent. In 45 years Pakistan has changed from a state that hoped to overrun India to one that is now asking for talks to resolve disputes and for reducing Indian forces to they can feel less paranoid.

This is what I mean by the ability of coercive power to change hearts and minds from a tendency to use force to the need to come to the negotiating table. Getting Pakistan to the negotiating table is only the first step. Reaching any solution with them will have to be based on demands that they wind down the hatred. In Pakistan's current situation I see them as having few options and one of those options is to make peace with India. That peace must be conditional and the conditions are the stopping and reversing of indoctrination and religion based hatred. None of this will come unless Pakistan remains under pressure i.e it will happen only under duress, and that "duress" is the multiple pressures that Pakistan faces, including Indian pressure.

Can Pakistan slip out of this situation and suddenly find itself in a situation where India has no ability to pressurize Pakistan? I am unable to foresee anything that will rescue Pakistan so easily. To me it appears that the only way out for Pakistan is to wind down its hatred towards India and start making peace. People say that we will be back to square one if the US leaves Afghanistan and leaves Pakistan in control of Afghanistan. I see that as a temporary setback if it occurs - but ultimately Pakistan will have to make peace with India . And that peace will come at a cost to Pakistan. In my view it will take 60-75 years before the hatred that Pakistan has created can be washed away. If any peace is achieved minus hatred, there has to be some mechanism for at least 25 years to ensure that indoctrination is not restarted.

I am not sure how that can be done. But it won't happen unless we make Islam and those who speak for islam accountable. I doubt if an Indian state policy can ever achieve that. That is why I want to "talk about what should be done" long before anything much can be done.

[A_Gupta]

One thing with psychological impact will be if India starts doing well in things like Olympic track & field and FIFA soccer and so on. The Pakistani image of perhaps brainy but not brawny Indian will start taking a beating.

[shiv]

One thing with psychological impact will be if India starts doing well in things like Olympic track & field and FIFA soccer and so on. The Pakistani image of perhaps brainy but not brawny Indian will start taking a beating.

I am noticing Indians popping up in odd places - usually individual events rather than team events (?more piskology?) - badminton, tennis, shooting, archery, boxing, chess, snooker/biliards, golf.

[Pulikeshi]

Sorry to say this:

If you define yourself and your context with a single mortal enemy, then all is lost before it began.
Guess no one paid attention in school to the adventures of Captain Ahab.

[brihaspati]

^^^another way out is to keep on inventing new "single mortal enemies" - like what USA does.

[brihaspati]

I don't see, why we always keep on taking up this "sequential" mode of thinking and implementation. Such a line is useful in analysis and playing out scenarios and helps us focus. But we have to understand that real life national or collective interactions and policies include a much more complex process. Here multiple factors and threads work in parallel, and come together in certain aspects or develop independently on other aspects.

So I don't really see why we are getting divided up into opposed schools of thought, whereby two distinct positions appear to be emerging. First school : Take care of Pak, without thinking of what should be done about or within India, and separate out the question of Islamism. Second school : How can you take care of Pak, when you cannot tackle islamism within india which in turn has overlap with Paki Islamism and therefore Pak.

There are four threads of thoughts being mixed up here : (1) Pakfail (2) India-failures [<nation>."failures" being distinct from <nation>."fail" : in the first form certain aspects of the <nation> can appear to be failures by some "common" predefined criteria, whereas the second represents the whole nation a failure by the "common" predefined criteria], (3) Paki Islamism (4) Indian Islamism.

It is a mistake to think that these threads are all completely disjoint from each other. It is equally a mistake to think that they are so interrelated that no progress can be made in any one of them without moving forward in all of them over short periods or stages. In the long term the correlated of all four will become prominent, but that does not mean that they are deadlocked over small units of time.

What is important to analyze and explore are the possible impacts of movement in small bits along any one of these threads and their corresponding impact on the others, and then the feedback from those other threads and their collective impact on the initial thread. In mathematical terms, I am talking of taking directional derivatives or partial derivatives while keeping it firmly in mind that the nature of the "surface" of evolution can be uneven or non-smooth, and these "derivatives" should better be thought of as functions of the instantaneous values of the "coordinates". [Actually more complex perhaps : something known as an evolving function where the shape of the entire function depends on the path taken up to that point, and not a fixed function in time].

The analysis has to be composite one on all four, but take it in small steps of time so that some degree of independence can be assumed safely.

[Brad Goodman]

An analogy perhaps to underline, that the case should not be "khud ko jai karen".

In USA & UK, there are white supremacist groups, and as long as they do not undertake violent activities they are left alone. But in World War II and its aftermath, the Allies went after the Nazis in Germany hammer and tongs. Today Germany is a pluralistic democratic society, part of the Western bloc. Nazism has been arrested in Germany.

Similarly, the Islamists in India would have to be tolerated, so as not to lose the social stability, but that does not stop us from going aggressively after the Islamists in Pakistan and imprint Pakistan with a nobler thought process. Islamism can also be arrested in Pakistan.

Just to add some more details to your example. Germany belnged to same ethnic and religious school as rest of Europe & America. The other example is Japan which was hammered into submission and now majority of Japanese are aethiest. Same time Koreans have converted enmass to Christianity same with Philipines and other countries of SE Asia.

[ramana]

Maybe massa wants to make all TSPians masihs? There was an obscure article about the apostles being in what is now TSP so they can claim reconquista.

[Manish_Sharma]

Can't remember the name of the book by Bertand Russell in which he wrote that after studying the religions, he found that Gautam the Buddha is the greatest man with greatest teachings ever to have walked the face of earth. But then he wrote that I had to wait whole night 'cause from his past conditioning a voice was coming "how can anyone be greater than Jesus". Even a man like Bertand Russell !!!

How can we ever even dream of even toning down the dream of Islamic rule on Indian Subcontinent by 170 million pakis. According to shiv's book such a big %age being under 14 who have been brainwashed in madarsas created by Zia + KSA into religious fanaticism.

Even if Pakistan self-destructs and is merged into India. The individual paki muslim will not see it as failure of "Pureland vision" but "due to greed of people like zardari and sharif". The outsiders like KSA etc. will continue their support. Anyway US & UK will never let it happen.

One big difference I have noticed between Hindus and Muslims is, that even the moderate modern muslims like Jinnah who used to be perfect specimen of english gentleman, eating pork sandwiches or Iqbal with his nationalist poetry "sare jahan se achha hindustan hamara" can suddenly turn 180 degrees and demand separate nation for muslims.
While in Hindus I have been watching K.R. Malkani, Advani etc. the more they grow old the more secular and moderate they become.

Anyway Mushirul Hasan had summed it up very aptly in TOI editorial at the onset of GW 2. He wrote something on the lines of: "It doesn't matter whether muslims conquer or are conquered, it is muslims who convert even the conquerers eg. mongols attacked and conquered Iraq but within 100 years they were converted".

[KrishG]

Just to add some more details to your example. Germany belnged to same ethnic and religious school as rest of Europe & America. The other example is Japan which was hammered into submission and now majority of Japanese are aethiest. Same time Koreans have converted enmass to Christianity same with Philipines and other countries of SE Asia.

The fall of Ottoman Empire and the rise of secular Turkey would be an interesting analogy in this case. The people of Turkey were so disillusioned by the Caliphate that they sought respite in a system of governance which was completely opposite to whatever the Caliphate stood for.

[brihaspati]

Ethnicity, religion etc are almost always invented or constructed as homogeneous based on some assumed or perceived commonality. It is not entirely true that the Germans were a homogeneous nation even in the early modern period. Almost every century saw peasant uprisings against the "bosses", (one of which was taken advantage of by Luther and his feudal backers and then backstabbed). Marx uses another adding fuel to his thesis. There were Protestant- Catholic divisions, which run even today. Unification was done by both hook and crook, and the results are still persistent in north-south divides, regional mutual disparagement, etc. Almost two thousand years of effort has gone into creating a mythic "homogeneous" German identity, and most of it was done by force. The rest of the allies did not go after the Germans because of the Nazis, but because under the Nazis the Germans were upsetting the British empire which the Americans wanted to take over. They were perfectly okay with the genocides that were going on and as long as the Nazis were bashing up communist Russia - a seemingly Asian power. The targeting of Nazis with the ferocious intensity post-war was to divert attention from the early days of virtual collusion, and because it is always easier to tar and feather the defeated.

Same goes for bulldozing Japan. These two were crushed because they were in the way of a mutually agreeable transfer of power from a jaded empire to a hungry one. Plurality was neither the intended nor the immediate consequence. Both countries were carefully handed over to groupings that practically had a monopoly over power for decades. Apart from a few spectacular decapitations at the top rung of the leadership, most of the older establishment was revived and reinstated in power. In Germany for example a lot of Nazi's came back to lower or middle level gov power, while the Nazi secret service won a new lease of life in the name of containing the Red menace. The lesson was simple : your methods and you as executioners of that method are quite acceptable, but you must execute according to our - the new empire's wishes and commands.

We do not want that for Pak. We do not want to restore any of the officials, and instruments of control that have developed between the feudals, the Islamic orgs running Dawa, and the PA and ISI, to be restored to power. They have to be eliminated, without any consideration whatsoever. Historical experience, shows that such officials and personnel have always betrayed and chosen the side Jihadi violence when it would be impossible to retaliate back from the side of the Jihad targets in India.

[brihaspati]

Turkey was an example in a different mode. The Turkish fall came in the classic confirmation of the adage that "the greatest danger for an authoritarian regime, is when the regime relaxes its authority and ruthlessness". The Pashas were trying to modernize Turkey for quite a while before 1914. In fact the power of Kemal and his birathers actually came from this exposure and encouragement for modernization of the forces. Very little lower social level sentiments were actively involved against the "Caliphate", but it was more the prestige of Kemal in bashing up the military genius called Winston Churchill at Gallipoli. So there was little opposition to his taking over a charismatic Bonapart - which was actually a win win for both the victorious allies as well as the group around Kemal.

As I have pointed out before, there is no "Bonapart" for Pak. The only possible way out for them, and no obvious future potential for such a Bonapart. In fact if any Paki general is tempted or can be encouraged to b etempted to act so, it will be wonderful.

[RajeshG]

Ethnicity, religion etc are almost always invented or constructed as homogeneous based on some assumed or perceived commonality.

...

Unification was done by both hook and crook, and the results are still persistent ...

Exactly.. And perhaps the converse is also true.

Our babus and netas know how to deal with this.

What if Behenji opens a university for lower castes from TSP ?

Or JNU opens a center for studies of whatsitzai tribe ?

accomodation/stipend and phd degrees ?

[Kamboja]

Anyway Mushirul Hasan had summed it up very aptly in TOI editorial at the onset of GW 2. He wrote something on the lines of: "It doesn't matter whether muslims conquer or are conquered, it is muslims who convert even the conquerers eg. mongols attacked and conquered Iraq but within 100 years they were converted".

This might be OT, but...
One of the greatest signs of the depth and power of Indic culture is that the flood of Islam that washed away ancient civilizations in Persia, Egypt, Central Asia and Anatolia, foundered in only two places: in the West, it was met with an enemy equally (and eventually more) brutal and violent in the form of the Catholics of Europe, who turned the Turks and Moors back.

In the East, however, Islam lost its seemingly unstoppable momentum and ground to a halt in India, but it was not through violence. It was because India, even more so than Islam, has the capacity to convert the conqueror, to become the civilizational colonizer. Hell, without fighting a single war our culture conquered China (and thence Korea and Japan) and all of SE Asia, not to mention parts of C Asia and Persia (before they fell to the Islamic flood). We should never forget this.

[harbans]

Firstly we have to bench mark what failure means in the Paki context. Can visualize a few scenarios:

1. Taliban takeover of the GOP. With state intact:
Taliban takeover State Institutions as they are including PA and ISI with nukes complete.
This can happen in a stunning coup, with the help of elements in the PA/ ISI. Mass slaughter of RAPE elites in Pindi. TV screens blaring head Maulvi taking over declaring complete and pious Sharia all over Pakistan and in force with immediate effect. Slaughter continues and within days Baluchistan and Sindh are subdued by PA and Taliban faithful.

2. Taliban takeover of Pak with massive fighting and slaughter in Sindh and Baluchistan:
With elements in Sindh and Baluchistan revolting and giving a bloody nose to the Taliban. Result civil war and possible refugee influx to India in case nationalist Sindh, Balochi elements are on the verge of losing. Possibility of male members staying back and sending women and children as refugees to India.

3. Taliban confined to an emergent Pashtunistan carved from Pakistan NW and Afghanistan:
Pretty hard to say what the emergent picture would be, but Pashtunistan would certainly bring Talibanization of Punjab rapidly, unless Punjab realizes they don’t want to be like the Pashtun. However with rapid decline in economy the 3.5 fiends may help arm Punjab to keep Sindh and Baluchistan quiet and deal with Pasthun adventurism. With Pashtunistan out, Baluch independence is imminent and it ends warlordism and/or broken up Pakistan.

4. Pakistan existing as it is but with very little state control over almost all of Pakistan: Something like Somalia, edgy, networks of Jihadi’s, slowly losing control to the extent who is in Pindi matters little. With investments from 3.5 going down a rat hole, they’d stop investing and then it would’nt matter.

In all this the only things that would matter to India would be Refugees and Nukes (loose or organized).

So how do we manage those. My take:

Condition 1: If the Talibs are in complete control of nukes, everyone worries, US, UK, China included along with India. The source of conventional armed funding for the Talib will come down. Militant Kashmiri movement may calm down on seeing the brutality Talibs met out to their countrymen. Ironically India may remain calmer on the borders as the Talib are busy purifying the rest of the countrymen. But on the other hand they may stupidly try their Ghazwa with nukes and then we reach a situation where we would have to handle once again Refugees.

Condition 2: Talibs take over Pakistan but Balochistan and Sindh fight pitched battles defying Taliban and PA. Country slips into civil war mode. India observes the situation so do 3.5, nobody dares venture into the cesspool. Refugees again are what India has to handle.

Condition 3: With Pasthunistan formed once again Baluch and Sindh independence will be very much a reality as the idea of Pakistan comes crumbling. Once again India suffers or has to face a refugee influx and manage that.

Condition 4: A Somalia like state. Rule of central power slips away to an extent who goes and who’s in matters little. Problem loose nukes and refugees escaping the chaos mostly again to India.

Observations: We see in the scenarios mentioned a failing state will lose conventional weapons capability very fast to take on a much more organized power like India. The warlords that rule Pindi would also be more busy in internal purification processes that would take time. If I recollect the Taliban in Afghanistan hardly threatened any neighbor with aggression. When one tries to regress society back to 7th century focus on external campaign will come down. Same has applied to Somalia except the warlords have found money in piracy off coast. Sudan as a neighbor is in the same crap state Somalia is in, possibly more pious and regressed.

With warlords in power I doubt the West will sit back. They don’t have to deal with a refugee problem like India does but the fear of nukes. So they’ll form some sort of understanding with India, make India buy Patriot systems , park a few runways off Karachi and start bombing nuke sites all over Pakistan over and over. India would possibly join in the fun at the juncture but one cannot discount the seriousness of them managing a few nukes cross over Indian territory.

So I see the liberal lobby in India clamoring for GOI to let in refugees in possibly millions along the IB, but I do also envisage a lobby in India that arguing relentlessly for doing a 71 (which was also prompted by the influx of about 10 million refugees) on Pakistan. However because of the Nuke factor, India would take that step along with the US and others. A very likely scenario. So we’d be housing millions till we clear and liberate that part of Pakistan from the clutches of the Black Flags and meanwhile coach/ coax a leadership aka Mujib type leadership friendly to India back in power in Pindi on the condition maximum of returning POK and leaving K alone. Or in a familiar burst of misplaced magnamity our leadership may ink an agreement sealing LOC as IB and come beaming to the electorate as if they’ve scored a big breakthrough.

Pakistan would exist once again, this time without nukes or K word. India-US would manage it’s affairs indirectly by altering text books, providing funds for reforming Madrassa education and encouraging liberal attitudes. An free trade economic federation of sorts would come up in South Asia..so ultimately Pakistan may emerge from the failed state status once again in a a more positive avatar minus the ISI, PA, K word etc..possibility?

[Manish_Sharma]

^^Harbans, what is 3.5?

[harbans]

Pakistan's 3.5 friends. US, UK, China and 0.5 Japan.

[brihaspati]

What if the whole Pak-nuke is a Kissinger-esque hoax? Everything about Pak seems to come back again and again to Pak-nuke.Why is USA so sure about Pak nukes being under secure lock and key? Only surety can come if the nukes do not exist, especially for a regime like that of Pak!

What if Pak's nuke bluff is really called? I think only two voices will rise shrill high in pitch in panic, that of the US administration and all of Paki regime. Perhaps they really do not exist at all.

[surinder]

B, TSP did explode nuclear devices in 1998. Is that proof not enough?

[RajeshA]

Pakistan's 3.5 friends. US, UK, China and 0.5 Japan.

There is some confusion in this!

I would say it is
USA, China, Saudi Arabia and 0.5 UK.

I think SSridhar garu would say it is
USA-UK, China, Saudi Arabia and 0.5 Japan!

[Karna_A]

What if the whole Pak-nuke is a Kissinger-esque hoax? Everything about Pak seems to come back again and again to Pak-nuke.Why is USA so sure about Pak nukes being under secure lock and key? Only surety can come if the nukes do not exist, especially for a regime like that of Pak!

What if Pak's nuke bluff is really called? I think only two voices will rise shrill high in pitch in panic, that of the US administration and all of Paki regime. Perhaps they really do not exist at all.

There is absolutely no info that can make this nuke nude assertion.
A nook has basically three main components: enriched Uranium or Plutonium, timer and delivery mechanism.
In today's age, all 3 are easy for any determined regime particularly when one has experienced friends to give all 3.

The only way to make Pak's nook useless is by guranteeing that Indian response would not only destroy TSP, but also all countries from where India was ever invaded in last 1000 years, which means all of West Asia.
The price of Ghazwa would be radioactive desert in whole of middle east for 10K years.

It's surprising why Indian leadership is not overtly(though maybe covertly) planning for this. As TSP descends into chaos and dog bites self stage, its policy would become more and more twisted and perverse and best way to deal with it is to lock it in and throw away the keys.

The Indian leadership is still mostly old and still playing 5 day cricket in 20/20 world. The brash new generation of Indians are as aggressive as anywhere else and once there is generational shift in politics around 2025, a new paradigm shift in defence policy making would be seen.

[brihaspati]

Islamizationof Pathan nationalism within Pakistan - that is what is really driving Pakistan dynamics. The crucial group to note and track will be the MMA and it is not being cornered or pushed out by PML. By the collaboration between the military and the PPP in keeping Nawaz out of action, the Deobandi domination of the north-west and of Pakjab is accelerating. This shows in the increasing tendency of PML to compete along "more Islamism" for legitimacy, but it appears that Nawaz ultimately will fall behind. Deobandis have completed their domination of Pathan politics and nationalism within Pakistan. The political process and strategy is very similar to what happened in AFG installing the Talebs.

Until the temporary fall of Talebs, Deobandis competed with the PML for control of Pathan politics in Pakistan. The PML was able to remain relevant in mainstream Pathan politics. However, the PA under Mushy went after PML also while trying to roll back the Talebs overtly. In reality they could have done this deliberately to create a breathing space for the Talebs in Pak while appearing to collaborate with the US drive against them in AFG. The demise of the PML opened the door for Deobandis to move beyond madrasahs and militants to fill space. This accelerated the Deobandization of Pathan politics in Pakistan. The Deobandi ascendancy in the NWFP, Baluchistan,and AFG has in effect created an Islamist-Pathan belt stretching from Kandahar to Quetta and Peshawar. Since October2002 the MMA has retained its cohesion and has proved quite flexible in evading military attempts at controlling it.

As pressures mount, the military cannot retain political power without fuelling Islamism. There can be no secularizing Pak military. As the military faces stiff resistance to its authority, it will give in to the MMA, returning to the framework of the 1980s Islamist Military arrangement. However the ideological and political position of the Pak military is much much weaker, and the MMA will not agree to playing a secondary role. The balances of power and ideology are very different from that under Zia. The MMA can emerge as powerful claimant of political mainstream expression and act as political front for Talebis. PM L may join up to form a common front or Nawaz's personality cult based movement's support may merge with the Talebs - something beyond the control of PA.

The PA cannot survive unless it agrees to share power with teh Talebs or their political reps in Pak, the MMA or a future MMA+PML combine.

[brihaspati]

Surinder, that supposed explosion could have been a test kindly carried out by PRC on Pak grounds.
Karna A ji, I think the nuke threat has to be psychologically nullified, by openly training Indian cities and population centres for emergency nuclear fall out drills, every year. While at it run a massive propaganda blitz - saying that this is to prepare for likely nuke attacks on civilian centres by Pakis and Islamists and even third countries willing to lend their nukes to Pakis. Those drills can also be good timing to mount future campaigns.