Managing Pakistan's failure

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 29 Jul 2010 01:19

Tit for tat wont work. India doesnt have non-state actors. Besides they are doing a great job as it is. If India takes action they all stop what they are doing and rally.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Jul 2010 01:44

I've mentioned it once before. I'll venture to do it again.

India must consider entering into a secret understanding with the bigger devil than Pakistan, at least the bigger devil from American PoV.

There is much help that India could give the Base, in return for picking off Pakistani Professors, and the crore kammandus. We have the same enemies in Pakistan, so why not cooperate.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 29 Jul 2010 03:38

If the secret negotiations is with the Talebs then yes it will be a tactical score, but we will be making the same blunder as USA or UK. They can afford to create a Frankenstein because the Frankestein is far away from their shores and will be biting its own neighbours first. However for India it means creating a Frankestein at its own doorstep.

Its tempting but should not be undertaken thinking of the long term.

The key of power in TSP-TSPA are the feudals and the landed elite which spreads around into government and the military. It is their stranglehold on the state and land that is at the root of Islamism, militancy, and increasingly becoming a nation of Sus Barbatus Oi.

Land redistribution is the single most explosive weapon that will be many times more powerful than using a nuke on PA. The Islamists will try to use the Sharia and Islamic concepts of private property to protect themselves and the feudals. Land reforms will not be possible unless the Paki occupied territories come under foreign occupation.

The only preparation for the future is perhaps for a future Indian regimes to promise land reforms and redistribution once India occupies the land. Prior to defeat, most feudals will escape to the west - and a scenario very similar to the "white Russian" emigre phenomenon in Europe. There is little choice for next generations of Indians. Pakistan has to be erased from existence as an independent nation with claims and stakes in world order. But we should make it clear that it is only the feudal elite and their supporting theologians who are the target - not the common abdul of Pak.

If US favours the status quo, we need to make it more attractive for US commercial interests to override their need to keep Pak afloat. This can be done. But I do not think Indian regimes have so far shown any inclination to do this. Probably a larger instance of innate hatred of the Muslim and Pak we sometimes see in BRF, on a grand scale which masquerades as "secularism" in the Indian political scene.

But both US and Indian regimes will face crises that they cannot face up to in the old ways. There will be factional infighting that has reflections on external actions. Do not treat them as monolithic political blocks - no more. People are searching for new ways of dealing with the situation, and not all thinking is headed the Aman-ki-asha or Clintonisque Pak love-fest way.

Needed a sufficiently strong willed Indian regime to put in all the pieces on the chess board.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 29 Jul 2010 06:03

x-posted.

ramana wrote: This is my understanding and the lever that US has on India. If India wants to break the impasse it has to prepare for non-war collapse of TSP. And MMSji is trying for that. We can discuss in Pak failure thread.

And ramana garu, that is by doing what?

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 29 Jul 2010 07:06

SwamyG wrote:x-posted.
ramana wrote: This is my understanding and the lever that US has on India. If India wants to break the impasse it has to prepare for non-war collapse of TSP. And MMSji is trying for that. We can discuss in Pak failure thread.
And ramana garu, that is by doing what?

By simply being around, growing stronger by the day without "appearing" to do anything...

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Jul 2010 07:08

Cross post
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 13#p912913

Muppalla wrote: US will stay as long as it takes to achieve the above.

For all the people who think the US is quitting Afghanistan soon - including Paklurks - the US is going to stay in Pakistan. Long term.

I have read (in some news item or the other) that US technicians are on hand to see what is being done with F-16s. That does not mean that they will interfere in case of war with India. But it is a hard enough echandee blow for the Paki army to indulge in some rhetoric.

The great thing for the US is that it does not have to control Pakistan all by itself. It can calibrate control on Pakistan by using the India threat. For example Headley access and Wikileaks could be a way of pressurizing the Pakistan army. "PALs" and "We don't want the nukes to come out" are ways of pressurizing India.

But no matter how nasty a role we attribute to the US there are some things outside US control. Clinton has stated it clearly in her interview, but it is well known. For Pakistan to survive as a state it will ultimately need trade with India. US billions can only support an elite and the infrastructure they need. If you ignore the fact that Indians do not give a sh1t about Paki goods, you sre still left with the brainwashing of Pakis. No trade with India can work until Pakis are unbrainwashed or Pakistan is split into a state or two that is India friendly, leaving an unstable stat in which war has to be continued for decades to forever clean up the Af Pak region.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 29 Jul 2010 07:09

Atri: How is it different from any of the former PMs?

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Jul 2010 07:15

A_Gupta wrote: BUT - Indian netas have the same weakness of money stashed away in foreign bank accounts. If they create such a weapon where a person's Swiss bank account can be frozen, they fear that it will be turned upon themselves, sooner or later. Therefore, they will **never** attempt such a thing.

Arun - just like the almost non existent chink of light between Paki and Indian demographic stats - India has to work on this internally - making Indian rich men store their wealth in India and within Indian laws alongside pressurizing the Swiss. I think we need to look at a phase in world history where we are able to consign Switzerland to where it belongs - a non entity for anything except some hills and valleys. There is institutionalised racism combined with institutionalised SDRE corruption at work here, of the same genre as cooperating with brits for personal gain.

Sorry. OT

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 29 Jul 2010 07:32

If the USA can be so dogmatic about what is required to stabilize Pakistan - clearly their actions have resulted in absolute crap.

Let me state what is required to stabilize Pakistan. Pakistan needs to be split into one or more Indian friendly states leaving uncontrolled areas to be brought under control at some future date. Pakistan has too many people who are indoctrinated to hate India but the good news is
1) The education system is still not good enough to indoctrinate only against India. Many end up hating all sorts of other entities
2) There definitely exists a small group who desire good relations with India.

None of this means that we let Indian fears of islamist infiltration to be ignored.

kubhamanyu · Post by **kubhamanyu** » 29 Jul 2010 08:26

If US stops propping TSPA by leaving entirely, it has to contend with a "what happens to nukes" as someone said here. In that "rapid collapse" scenario, it can easily concede a loss of region to China, if latter decides to prop TSPA at ~$1B a year in the world community's interests of safeguarding nukes while supporting "genuine aspirations."

In case that it decides to go quiet in Afghanistan, but support TSPA through arms and material, then TSPA in a well-known cycle, pulls a coup, redirects Talib attention north, cleans up internally, and subsequently redirects all that attention to Kashmir. It does the usual selling to the world of being a responsible nuke power. America is apparently spending 30 times more in Af than in Pak. A mere 10-fold increase of funding to Pak will still let US "go silent" economically, under the assumption that that money buys "peace." In the long run, we know this won't but there is danger of this scenario coming to fruition because it plays well internally, and offers the kind of leverage US is accustomed to. Even in the US, there is a strong connection in the bureaucracy and forces with TSPA, going back to the soviets. It is not an insignificant factor.

In case the US stays active and present in Afpak, it continues to bleed and if it can't turn TSPA around, which it can't in the way it is going about it, then it has a problem like the "1000 cuts" (e.g. look at number of attacks in wikileaks as a function of time). Here, TSPA pushes the Talib to confront the US forces where it can, and giving safe haven elsewhere. Of course, while "safeguarding" all the convoys heading north. It is a great case of as Hamid Gul recently says on al-jazeera, "selective resistance."

This is a complex situation and it is not clear what the way out is -- i.e. for US to bid adieu, for Af to regenerate and Pak to implode.

Interestingly, but, whenever Pak has had "democracy," regional movements have grown stronger. E.g. the Baloch in 70s. The people themselves are more about allegiance and alliance, rather than citizenship or constitution, and easily ally themselves with the one perceived as powerful. If the TSPA is not perceived as being powerful then it crumbles faster.

The key out, in my view, would be to a) encourage "development and democracy" in pak, b) expose tspa constantly, actively, c) keep US engaged in afpak directly because this gives space for tehreek etc to grow and helps ANA, d) form links with ANA and other groupings for beyond supw, and e) find a way to put pressure to for example i) detach kashmir from equation, or ii) have established space in Af or iii) split off Baloch/Pakhtun, as an outcome of any change in status-quo.

A few key questions that emerge here are: a) Is the US ready to go into Pak. b)What is China doing, and c) do we have will to change Kashmir equation, say by repealing 370.

RajeshG · Post by **RajeshG** » 29 Jul 2010 10:36

I dont know if these links have been posted or not

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... d_rankings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state

The second link even mentions the favorite monopoly on violence theory from Weber.

==========

As far as the definition of failure is concerned, IMO looking for GDP indicators/malnutrition and legal/illegal arms etc is misleading - more so in case of TSP. IMO, the legitimacy of the state is derived from whether the population *identifies* with the state. While the identity issue may be murky for other states, fortunately/unfortunately it is pretty clear in case of TSP.

As many guroos have repeatedly stated, the identity of TSP is Islam. It was a state created by/for/of Islam.

So the barometer for the health of TSP would be the legitimacy of Islam as a governing system and identity within TSP. This is what TSPians identify with. A significant chunk at one point didnt identify with the rest and came up with the two-nation-theory and created this dream-state. Within this dream-state another significant didnt identify with Islam and were thrown out later. But here in the present day TSP, we have a core which absolutely would swear by Islam and Islamic governance. So failure of TSP would be when a significant chunk of population stops identifying with Islam. That would be a failure of TSP.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Jul 2010 13:38

RajeshG wrote:So the barometer for the health of TSP would be the legitimacy of Islam as a governing system and identity within TSP. This is what TSPians identify with.
.......
But here in the present day TSP, we have a core which absolutely would swear by Islam and Islamic governance. So failure of TSP would be when a significant chunk of population stops identifying with Islam. That would be a failure of TSP.

There is some confusion, as to what constitutes "Failure of Pakistan". I'd like to contribute to that confusion.

For there to be a failure of something, there must be a mission statement. For Pakistan, I would consider a potential mission statement to be:

Pakistan is a collective of humans within a geographical space with the goal of furthering Islam.

So all the vectors of failure would be:

1) Humans (Nature) - If humans are to be understood as biological entities, then except for the Pindi Chana Gas, and some Foreskin Loss, Pakistanis are humans. But if humanity also constitutes an aspect of humans, then the increasing barbarity of the people in Pakistan, towards self and through terrorism towards others, the retrogression, is a sign of failure.

2) Humans (Survival) - Population-wise Pakistanis are gold medalists. Within a 100 years, they would have increased their population 10 fold. However the resources are limited - food, water and medical care. Considering that Pakistan will be facing a water problem in the near future and their revenue generation is pathetic, there will be a decreasing capacity to feed the populace. Famine could function as a limiting factor. So too can medical care. With growing Talibanism, and flight of qualified medical personnel, new viruses, and little money, the health of the Pakistani nation can also take a beating. However right now, there is no failure to be observed in this aspect. Also Baitullah (RIP) has left too early.

3) Humans (Quality of Living) - The quality of living could be judged by water and power availability, by purchasing capacity of the individual, by levels of education, and other HDI. As the distribution of resources in Pakistan is getting ever more skewed, a small elite seems to be in control of ever bigger portions of the economy. So for the majority of Pakistanis, the quality of living, would take a hit, despite the new consumer goods available in the market. Agricultural losses, standstill in manufacturing, inflation, population explosion will all contribute to the fact that mango abduls standard of living would plummet from year to year. So here one can speak of approaching failure.

4) Collective (Adhesion) - Even as a newborn, the unity of Pakistan was a huge challenge. Islam was to provide the glue. This can be useful if there are substantial minorities, which pose a challenge. As the minorities in Pakistan have decreased to about 4% and they have stopped revolting against the order of Islam, Islam has lost its significance as an adhesive. The inner-tensions within the Muslims become more prominent. In order to overcome ethnic and sectarian divisions, there are several methods applied.

One could try homogenization, i.e. one could try to suppress the sectarian divisions, either by resorting to favoring one sect and suppressing all others. This is the Deobandization and subsequent Wahhabization of Pakistan, and it is being tried. The other method would have been to completely ease the tensions between the sects, but in a one-path ideology like that of Islam, inner-sectarian tension is built-in.

As far as ethnicities are concerned, the gulf between them has only increased. All are feeling alienated from the powerful Punjabi majority. The Baluchis are fighting for their own country. The Pushtuns under the garb of Talibanism are already T-10 years from having their own Pushtunistan. The Sindhis are feeling restless because of water shortages and distrust of Punjabis. The homogenization at the ethnicity level would not work here that well, because Muslims in Pakistan tend to marry within the extended family.

So the only salvation for Pakistan as a collective is through sectarian homogenization and a strong authoritarian hand over the sect. The continued Talibanization of Pakistan allows them to score on this point, but on the whole the growing ethnic gulf would start tearing Pakistan apart. Also the Talibanism adhesive being tried, could cut through society like an acid and also prove destructive. Major failure approaching here, unless Talibanism succeeds.

5) Collective (Functioning) - The administrative capacity of Pakistan seems to be from reports in free-fall. Nepotism, cronyism, corruption, system of entitlement, bad governance, brain-drain, resources crunch, everything is going to compound failure in this aspect. So major wreck expected here. Even if there is a revolution and Taliban come to power, the resource crunch would not dissipate.

6) Collective (Leadership) - The life-expectancy of RAPE class is approaching its end. The next in line, the Taliban have not yet assumed power. It is a stage of transition, which could well take another 20 years. So the leadership of the collective is going to transit to a group with radically different cornerstones. So whereas the transition itself does not constitute failure, the question arises about the capacity of the new power structure to ensure both the adhesive and the functioning of the collective. Adhesion would be based on fear and conformity. The functioning however may collapse. The RAPEs were in one way capable and resourceful. After all they have provided leadership to Pakistan for the last 63 years, and their HDI are not that much different than those of India. Would the Taliban have the capacity to administer 309 million people and provide them with food, water, power, jobs and justice. I doubt it. So a failure here is preprogrammed.

7) Collective (Solvency) - Pakistan has both nuclear weapons as well as the largest manufacturing capacity to create Jihadis. For fear or for national interest, some countries have decided to invest in Pakistan. Since 2001 Pakistan has been able to generate revenue from this support base to the tune of billions of US dollars. This revenue flowed in connection with the American GWOT, from anti-Indian alliance with PRC, from Oil money of Saudi Arabia and UAE. In fact, it is known that no single country can keep Pakistan afloat, so all are trying to share the burden.

But revelations in America about Pakistan duplicity, scaling down and withdrawal from Afghanistan, waning of financial muscle of America would all contribute to the fact, that America will not be wiling to bear the whole burden of keeping Pakistan solvent. PRC is willing to help only on project basis and in security field. Saudi Arabian Oil would probably see its last days in the next 25 years. The combined willingness and capacity to keep Pakistan alive by external patrons would decrease.

Secondly the growing Talibanism and Global Jihadism would make it all the more difficult for these countries to cough up the moolah.

Also the expectation that Pakistan suddenly changes into a highly productive society is nil. The external debt keeps on increasing. So there is going to be major failure on this question in the next 15-20 years.

Geographical Space (Borders) - In 1971 Pakistan has already been bifurcated. The Pushtuns separating from Pakistan is only a matter of time, this is going to be especially so, as Pakistan reaches the economic doldrums. Already the state control only extends to about 40-50% of Pakistan, and this will steadily worsen. Failure on this score is expected by many, but it may be a couple of decades in coming.

9) Geographical Space (Location) - Pakistan has created a Frankenstein's Monster in the form of a very aggressive strain of Pushtun. The Pakistanis would be losing their West. It is questionable how long they would also be able to hold on to Baluchistan, as the Army gets tied down in the heartland, fighting against the Pakjabi Taliban groups. So should Pakistan either lose Baluchistan or PoK, it will signal the end of Pakistan's strategic geographic location.

The security situation in Baluchistan, on the route from Karachi to Afghanistan, and in PoK to a large extent also influence the worth of strategic location of Pakistan.

External factors like an alternate access route from IOR to Central Asia through Iran could also decrease Pakistan's worth. Similarly a warming up of relations between USA and Russia could also change the dynamic.

10) Furthering Islam (By conquest) - Pakistan was able to take away a big chunk of Indic Civilization away from it. That was a roaring success of Pakistan's mission statement. However, Pakistan has in the last 63 years made no progress on this score in India. It has been able to radicalize the Kashmir Valley youth, but that in itself does not constitute success, and there is little chance for Pakistan to either capture Kashmir Valley or do Ghazwa-e-Hinds.

Also it is debatable whether Pakistan has acquired strategic depth in Afghanistan through their Taliban proxies, or whether they will lose land in the end. But Islam has triumphed in Southern Afghanistan nevertheless, so it is a measure of Pakistan's success.

Other places which Pakistan could claim as successes are places like Britain and Norway, where their kin have expanded and contributed in the Islamization or Population Export. On the whole, slight success here.

11) Furthering Islam (By Purification) - Here Pakistan seems to be a roaring success. The Kafirs are being forced into Islam, the Sufis are becoming Deobandis, and Deobandis are becoming Wahabandis. Wahabandis are taking up the cause of Jihad. High success rate.

12) Furthering Islam (By Emulation) - On this score, the Pakistanis have been complete failures. In fact Pakistanis have brought so much disrepute to Islam world-wide, that there will be few who would want to convert to Islam. Pakistan has made it difficult for the soft missionaries and Sufis to sell their wares about Religion of Peace, and Respect for Women. Most converts that Islam is getting right now is from prison populations, but for that the judicial systems in the other countries are responsible and not necessarily the message of Islam. In the age of Internet taqiyya becomes far more difficult. So a total failure on this score.

13) Furthering Islam (By Plunder) - Since Pakistan has nuclear weapons, it has been very deft in extracting concessions from neighbors and from the various powers. The money that USA now pumps into Pakistan is indeed a sign that Pakistan has been able to live up to this aspect of Islam.

14) Furthering Islam (By Prosperity) - AoA here that Pakistan was not given unlimited Oil deposits, like other Arabs and Persians. Without it, Pakistan has shown little productive capacity and ability to expand Islam using money, like Saudis do it. Total failure here!

So in some aspects Pakistan is a major failure, in others a major wreck waiting to happen while in others it has also had successes.

JMTs

Atri · Post by **Atri** » 29 Jul 2010 15:27

SwamyG wrote:Atri: How is it different from any of the former PMs?

Swami ji,

It is not very much different from former PMs and India's policy so far. Although it implies exponential escalation of covert actions by India in Pakiland which we have NOT indulged in so far. MMS, just like other PMs, has been trying hard to isolate Pakistan by demonstrating evidence, showing restraint, displaying the carrot of Indian market in exchange of some diplomatic victories alongside. MMS has, after 26 November 2008, aroused so much dust that it has left everybody clueless and confused about friend and foe. I have a feeling that this may help India in long run. It will force people and the parties involved to arrive at some conclusions and act upon them.

But although India's stance is unchanged and remain so relatively in next few years, what has changed is stance of NATO. As Shiv ji has stated in his thesis, the "world" is threatened more by terror emanating from pure-land than before. The public awareness has increased in the west and for what they are worth, these wiki-leaks have contributed towards slightly higher degree of awareness and better resolution between the goodies and the badies. That's what aam abdul wants to know, anywhere - who are the goodies and who are the badies. The idea that pakis are the real badies is slowly sinking in the minds of people. This is the only contribution of wiki-leaks and nothing more should be expected out of them. There are two implications of this increased awareness. Either it denotes that ground is being prepared for eventual "punishment" of Pakistan. OR, it means ground is being prepared to "eventually strike a deal with baddies" and get the hell out of badlands. They might declare Osama as dead, or kill him publicly if he is already in their custody or simply leave.

Regarding existence of India - The very fact that India exists and is growing stronger is refutation of "two-nation theory" and "nazariya-e-Pakistan". The keepers of the Paki-Kabila (using Ramana ji's kabila theory), will have to be slightly more accommodative than before to keep on extracting similar rewards from unkil; in other words, they will have to GUBO harder. This will piss off the bious abduls there, it already is pissing them off. Hence, the words. India's stance has not changed, but the stance of the world (most importantly in terms of public opinion) is changing drastically. The talks about partitioning AFG means Unkil having a permanent residence in Pakiland (Pakjab-Sindh) and northern Afghanistan, staying off the pashtoon badlands - this further pisses off the bious brigade which is now established in Pakjab and Karachi...

There has to be an internal tipping point where purest of the pure discharge the pure TSPA from its duty.

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 29 Jul 2010 16:07

X post

Folks, just a thought.

When I found BRF in the aftermath of IC 814. The discussion and the international narrative was bout the India Pak fight over Cashmere and how it is the most dangerous place in the world. Over the past almost 10 years. The Discussion is more bout the threat represented by TSP to the western world.

I don't think that India has won half the battle but rather TSP has lost half the battle. Indian will have won the battle when TSP is recognised as athreat to India as well.

Why I have posted the above?

Because the start has been made by the western world (By recognising ) that TSP is a threat to peace and stability if not contolled. Its a start, we still have a ong way to go. I have full faith in the ablity of TSP to do some thing brilliant to make it a complete Indian victory.

Altair · Post by **Altair** » 29 Jul 2010 16:29

Pratyush wrote:X post
Because the start has been made by the western world (By recognising ) that TSP is a threat to peace and stability if not contolled. Its a start, we still have a ong way to go. I have full faith in the ablity of TSP to do some thing brilliant to make it a complete Indian victory.

I too have complete faith in tactical brilliance of Pakistani Army jernails. But earlier they have been bailed out by 3.5. I see that 3.5 can quickly become 2 or even 1. Assume for a moment,David Cameron's warning has a ill effect in Downtown London this weekend we can see a significant change in policy of West wrt Pakistan.Their tactical brilliance ensures such outcomes.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 29 Jul 2010 18:53

The Mughal Empire was a success in terms of longevity, maintaining its boundaries, etc. But in terms of control of the economy by a few families, being an autocracy, it resembles Pakistan. Of course, applying modern standards to the Mughal empire is not appropriate. So Pakistan could be a "success" like the Mughal Empire. Converting the intuition that Pakistan is failing to a more precise formulation is not easy.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 29 Jul 2010 20:16

My formulation would be:

Pakistan has destroyed itself for the glory of Islam!

or

With Islam, the destiny of Pakistan was to be destroyed!

As terms of failure, I would say:

Islamic Republic of Pakistan was a roaring success as an Islamic experiment, but an abysmal failure as a state.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 29 Jul 2010 20:52

RajeshA, the more I read, the more I see that during 1940-47 much of the Islamic world was against the idea of Pakistan; those whom we would term Islamic fundamentalists and that includes some nationalist Muslims (that were for joint electorates, and did not want any exceptional protection for Muslims onlee) were against Pakistan; it is only after Pakistan became a fact that they reconciled themselves to it in various ways. So this "Islamic experiment" is purely a delusion in the heads of the All-India Muslim League and its descendants.

e.g, this in 1943, right in the middle of the battle, we are told (B.G. Kaushik, The House thtat Jinnah built, published 1944)

The Muslim League leaders positively disapproved of the statement when M. Atay, the leader of the Turkish press mission to India, in a press interview in Lahore on January 28, 1943, stated, "We are Turks first, Muslims afterwards. Religion is an honourable institution but it is individual and personal and has no place in the politics of our country."

There are other disapprovals vocied from Arab states, Chinese Muslims and so on.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 29 Jul 2010 21:35

^^^ no other muslim nation has ever had any interest or sympathy for the concept of pakistan, have they? i think this is what gets their goat!

RajeshG · Post by **RajeshG** » 30 Jul 2010 00:57

A_Gupta wrote:The Mughal Empire was a success in terms of longevity, maintaining its boundaries, etc. But in terms of control of the economy by a few families, being an autocracy, it resembles Pakistan. Of course, applying modern standards to the Mughal empire is not appropriate. So Pakistan could be a "success" like the Mughal Empire. Converting the intuition that Pakistan is failing to a more precise formulation is not easy.

Arun,

The main difference between the mughal-empire and pakistan is that the mughal empire was not established on the basis of two-nation-theory. It was based on an empire based on conquest. In TSP we have a state that was established of/for/by Islam. Anything that undermines Islam as the nation-building-foundation for TSP leads to TSP failure (eg formation of BD) and anything that strengthens Islam as the nation-building-foundation for TSP leads to TSP success (eg Kashmir). And when we say "success" or "failure" we cannot think of these things in our terms - this has to be success/failure in terms of how TSPians think. While success/failure for India has to be measured in terms of not-this-not-that (eg India is not a Hindu nation) for TSP its a clear ( it-is ) definition -> TSP was an Islamic nation built to provide home for subcontinental muslims who thought they couldnt live in a non-Islamic nation and instead opted for the Islamic way of life.

The GDP/infant-mortality stuff are side-issues.

I also think the precise-formulations are unneccesary. I doubt if there would be nations built/destroyed on statistics. They may add fuel to fire but i doubt if BD people (for eg) studied statistical figures before they decided they had enough of TSP.

RajeshG · Post by **RajeshG** » 30 Jul 2010 01:00

RajeshG wrote:... TSP was an Islamic nation ...

Sorry I meant to say - TSP IS an Islamic nation.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Jul 2010 10:04

RajeshG wrote:And when we say "success" or "failure" we cannot think of these things in our terms - this has to be success/failure in terms of how TSPians think. While success/failure for India has to be measured in terms of not-this-not-that (eg India is not a Hindu nation) for TSP its a clear ( it-is ) definition -> TSP was an Islamic nation built to provide home for subcontinental muslims who thought they couldnt live in a non-Islamic nation and instead opted for the Islamic way of life.

The GDP/infant-mortality stuff are side-issues.

I also think the precise-formulations are unneccesary. I doubt if there would be nations built/destroyed on statistics. They may add fuel to fire but i doubt if BD people (for eg) studied statistical figures before they decided they had enough of TSP.

This is like saying, one should measure the success of heroin on an heroin-addict by the level of euphoria it causes, and not by the physical harm it does.

On this thread, we are just trying to predict how much time the patient has left to live.

Of course medications like American Aid, etc. does prolong the life of the patient, but the patient needs ever greater dosage, and even then the medication can only do so much. At some point of time the organism is bound to collapse, especially with the patient's continued use of heroin.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 30 Jul 2010 10:36

How big is Pakistan's underground economy?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Jul 2010 10:44

A_Gupta wrote:How big is Pakistan's underground economy?

What does that mean? If less than 2% of Pakistanis pay income tax, then everything else is above board or underground, depending on how you see it.

Pakistan’s Elite Pay Few Taxes, Widening Gap

Out of more than 170 million Pakistanis, fewer than 2 percent pay income tax, making Pakistan’s revenue from taxes among the lowest in the world

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 30 Jul 2010 11:12

RajeshA wrote:
This is like saying, one should measure the success of heroin on an heroin-addict by the level of euphoria it causes, and not by the physical harm it does.

On this thread, we are just trying to predict how much time the patient has left to live.

Of course medications like American Aid, etc. does prolong the life of the patient, but the patient needs ever greater dosage, and even then the medication can only do so much. At some point of time the organism is bound to collapse, especially with the patient's continued use of heroin.

Saar ji,

One of the ways of killing an addict is to cause and overdose of the Drug. Moreover, the tolerance for drugs increases over time so the addict will look at new and more potent combinations to fuel his addiction. Leading to a chance of ODing.

I think it is already happing to a large extent. Just like the drug addict out mutual concern has not recognized that he is not getting the high that he was used to. so he has increased the intake. The 3.5 are looking a ways of weaning him away from addiction but are not succeeding.

What we can do is to increase that addiction. Only then will the problem be solved.

A_Gupta · Post by **A_Gupta** » 30 Jul 2010 19:17

RajeshA wrote:What does that mean? If less than 2% of Pakistanis pay income tax, then everything else is above board or underground, depending on how you see it.

True. But e.g., corporations and businessmen in Pakistan under-report earnings. What is the estimated gap between reported earnings and actual earnings? The reason for trying to get a handle on this is to get a better estimate of the Pakistani economy.

e.g., see this: http://claimingourworld.org/blog/?p=291

PS: Here is an answer of sorts:
http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/2226/1/M ... r_2226.pdf

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 30 Jul 2010 19:36

X-post

Regarding the Friedman comment on Khan helping TSP to balance out India. I have lost track of which thread is now where it is discussed, so I might x-post in others also:

+ Some have said that this Khanate desire to keep India tied is due to its hatred for Hinduism or paganism etc. This has nothing to with that.

+ Khan, like poodle before, has learnt the art of dominating the world. No power, however great it may be, can rule the world and fight everyone. IF it does, it will quickly fritter away its energy. US fighting Iraq & A'stan is an excellent example. So to control the world, you balance out all powers and keep them locked in conflicts and check their growth. This essentially is Balance of Power, or also its cousin Divide and Rule.

+ UK did that excellently for 5 centuries. One of the main reasons of its rise was that it kept the European Continental powers balanced by each other,while it remained free to pursue colonizaton of the whole world.

+ UK's declince eventually came because France & Germany decided to not fight it out. This unity undermined UK's power more than anything elese. UK could no longer balance European powers and while they were busy, be the winner.

+ UK avoided direct fight, although it did fight when there was a need. But mostly it kept proppong up the weaker power to balance the stronger. When A & B were fighting, and A was weak, then UK found moral reasons to support A. When the fight tilted and A became stronger, it abandoned A and supported B. The fight hence continued (almost) ad infinitum. This is the essence of BOP. TSP is weaker, support it. That is all there is to it.

+ UK supported at various times (using financial muscle and its control of India) practically all powers at one point or the other, eg. Portugal, Brazil, French, Germans, Dutch, Greek, etc.

+ US has inherited the same idea. It has sought to balance out each power it thinks is a competitor. India certainly qualifies.

+ I have posted on BRF many times essentially what Friedman said. Khan's conduct of war in A'stan is perplexing that it is allowing its own soldiers to die by not checking TSP. This because Khan is optimizing not the A'stan war, but it is optimizing its overall power. That dictates that TSP must not go under. India is one power it balances, but it also provides a lot fo dirty services and access to Muslim world in different ways. Friedman did nto mention that.

+ State department and Pentagon conduct foriegn policy by analysis which tries to find solutions to problems both at the local level, and also at global levels. Sometimes sacricing one for the other.

+ In A'stan Khan has already accepted that nothing more can be achieved. Why destablizie TSp over a war which is practically over. Now the problem is that poor kids from small town are enlisted in the Army. Those 21 year olds die, and that is just too bad. But the SD & Pentagon cannot go public that in A'stan it is not just conducting a war, but also taking care of other power projection capabilities. It is just too bad for those kids. But that has been the way in Anglo wars, fighting wars in the name of high principles (which suckers in small towns fall for) but the real objective is only gaining world domination.

+ This Balance of Power does have limits. There are ways in whcih the chakraviye can be broken. We should discuss this.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Jul 2010 19:41

America does things for "America's interest" and not just for "an American's interest". So if "America's interest" is in conflict with an American - a soldier's interest - it is "America's interest" which wins.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Jul 2010 19:46

Actually, France and Germany remained locked in battle - and UK basically formed a team with France against Germany. It was resolved only with WWII.

The alliance theory may not work with Pak - for no attempt by India to form an alliance with Pak will hold as long a sthe fundamental power structure of Pak is not crushed and liquidated. AFG is possible but it sis fundamentally weak so - it may help against Pak. Neutralizing USA has to be done through a different route - forming a pseudo-alliance with PRC and buying USA off.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 30 Jul 2010 20:30

In the short term we need not ally with Pakistan as they have opted out.

But we can:

1) Support the control of the Pakistan army by the US even as we oppose the Paki army itself. The Paki army becomes a proxy with which we "fight" the US balancing game

2) Wean away Pakis by telling them what their army is doing i.e raping the country and serving the US

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 30 Jul 2010 21:14

Shiv, excellent point. A book on Balance of Power that I read said something on the line of "balance the balancer.". An example of this is that Khanate used PRC to balance Former SU. PRC was the weaker power and hence used as a proxy. But PRC has proven to be very skill and adept too, it is now slowly using the Khanate to Balance Russia.

Briahaspati, very well said. I had to read it a few times to get it. It is a quote that I could use it in future, if you do not mind.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 30 Jul 2010 21:58

i agree with the gist of your post, but i am not sure i understand how you've come to some of the conclusions, i'll try to comment so that i may learn better from your and other responses...

surinder wrote:X-post

+ UK did that excellently for 5 centuries. One of the main reasons of its rise was that it kept the European Continental powers balanced by each other,while it remained free to pursue colonizaton of the whole world.

5 centuries ago, Spain was the dominant power, england barely managed to defend herself from the spanish fleet thanks to a huge amount of weather driven luck. its only following the defeat of the armada does british power (naval) start to rise. on the continent, France replaced Spain as the dominant power, england was still considered to be french possessions but increasingly with a mind of its own. i would say 300 years may be more appropriate. i also dont think it was english brains that kept the french in balance with the germans... they did that all by themselves

+ UK's declince eventually came because France & Germany decided to not fight it out. This unity undermined UK's power more than anything elese. UK could no longer balance European powers and while they were busy, be the winner.

oh but they did, england and germany were more natural allies, almost until just before WW1, france was the 800lb gorrilla on the block until england, prussia, russia and the austrians combined to defeat napoleon. france and germany only stopped fighting in 1945 (having started in roman times - the word france comes from frank - a german tribe)

+ UK avoided direct fight, although it did fight when there was a need. But mostly it kept proppong up the weaker power to balance the stronger. When A & B were fighting, and A was weak, then UK found moral reasons to support A. When the fight tilted and A became stronger, it abandoned A and supported B. The fight hence continued (almost) ad infinitum. This is the essence of BOP. TSP is weaker, support it. That is all there is to it.

yes, and this pattern marks british AND french colonial wars from Canada to Indonesia, with the Dutch and others caught up in the wake - from around 1700 to 1800

+ UK supported at various times (using financial muscle and its control of India) practically all powers at one point or the other, eg. Portugal, Brazil, French, Germans, Dutch, Greek, etc.

not sure i fully understand the above, the protestant countries worked very hard to undermine the catholic ones - particularly at sea, and england then swept the dutch out of the way. england/france/germany have formed different alliances through this period. greece would have been a non-entity. happy to be corrected on this. they chose the sea because first the mongols and then the ottomans were blocking the land routes to china and india where commercial opportunities lay

+ US has inherited the same idea. It has sought to balance out each power it thinks is a competitor. India certainly qualifies.

US ofcourse first applied this principle to the UK and France, having militarily defeated germany and japan. it sought china as its asian poodle, and played a large role in ending british rule in india by withdrawing support from a weakened british government post WW2. also later in getting the british and french out of egypt in 1956

anyway, just my interpretations, happy to be corrected

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 30 Jul 2010 22:02

shiv wrote:But we can wean away Pakis by telling them what their army is doing i.e raping the country and serving the US

The biggest divide in Pakistan is the one between the privileged and the poor. It is a divide that transcends the bonds of Islam even, for otherwise there would be no chance that the poor may someday revolt, when they see no bread on their tables.

I would say, this country is ripe for some good old fashioned Marxist/Maoist/Naxalite revolution. Even the Ulema in Pakistan has spoken out, that in Islam there is no sanction for land-redistribution. So the poor have to take a different road.

The contention of the Paki-Naxalites should be, that the Turko-Persian-Arab elite have imposed Islam on the Bhumiputras and taken away their land. They are using Islam to keep the poor in slavery. Islam has become a tool for bondage. In order to win back one's rights to a fair distribution of resources and land, one would have to first discard the ideology of the oppressor.

The next step is of course "lock, load, aim and fire"!

I think it is time for cross-pollination of ideas across the KKH!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 30 Jul 2010 22:03

surinder, ideas here should be in the creative common domain! feel most free!But it need not be original - I vaguely remember something along similar lines from Costa Gavras's Missing. Might not be the concise expression I have used.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 30 Jul 2010 22:53

Lalmohan,

England behaved as a power that appeared to be pacific with regard to European affairs. It understood that to be involved too deeply in Europe is an endless series of energy-wasting dead ends. But at the same time, it did not want Europe to compete in far places like India & Africa. It needed to free itself from the menace of the neighborhood. The best way was the policy of "Balance of Power". This meant that no one single power was allowed to be dominant (and hence feel free to threaten England). So it had to prop up the enemies of this dominant power.

First it was the Dutch who were strong. Incidently they had the first East India Company. They were a Naval power and much of UK's power is modeled after them. It is said, Dutch were naval power 1.0, UK was naval power 2.0, and US is 3.0. Anyways, it supplied the enemies of the Dutch. Then Spain was dominant, so UK propped up Brazil/Portugal and France. (Helping Brazil in favor of Portugal was to make sure that Spain does not get this colony.) Then France under Napolean became too strong, so it propped up competing states especially Germany (1800's). Then Germany became too strong, so it helped France again Germany (1900).

After world war II, UK found that continental Europe was united. They were not willing to go on a fools errand of balancing each other. That was the death knell of UK's power. If Germany & France had continued fighting, then UK might have had a shot again to be a power. When Germany was getting united, UK was not amused.

How the UK helped is a story in itself. It avoided direct involvement. But UK had a very well developed banking system. It had tremendous amount of capital and had colonies like India. So it lent money to the kings and weaker nations. A book said of France, that France would defeat nation after nation, only to see them come again with UK's help. Like a hydra-headed snake, they would refuse to die out. This without much fighting, it drained the energy of the French. (It reminded me of the TSP-Bharat story. India has thoroughly defeated TSP on battle field, but TSP refuses to wilt. It springs back into power with energy and strength, all due to Khanate doles. It has sapped the Indian will to counter it. The whole description of France being cornered was an eerie reminder of Bharat being cornered.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of ... _relations

Sir Esme Howard wrote that England adopted the balance of power as "a corner-stone of English policy, unconsciously during the sixteenth, subconsciously during the seventeenth, and consciously during the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries, because for England it represented the only plan of preserving her own independence, political and economic".[7]

That is 5 centuries.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 31 Jul 2010 00:25

thanks Surinder, however i think you ascribe too much competence/intelligence to the english/british and not enough to the other european countries! it is not influence in europe that ended british power, it was the loss of india (in my opinion) - from which all else came.

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 31 Jul 2010 04:08

RajeshA wrote:
The biggest divide in Pakistan is the one between the privileged and the poor. It is a divide that transcends the bonds of Islam even, for otherwise there would be no chance that the poor may someday revolt, when they see no bread on their tables.

I would say, this country is ripe for some good old fashioned Marxist/Maoist/Naxalite revolution. Even the Ulema in Pakistan has spoken out, that in Islam there is no sanction for land-redistribution. So the poor have to take a different road.

The contention of the Paki-Naxalites should be, that the Turko-Persian-Arab elite have imposed Islam on the Bhumiputras and taken away their land. They are using Islam to keep the poor in slavery. Islam has become a tool for bondage. In order to win back one's rights to a fair distribution of resources and land, one would have to first discard the ideology of the oppressor.

The next step is of course "lock, load, aim and fire"!

I think it is time for cross-pollination of ideas across the KKH!

Great Idea! What are we waiting for?

RajeshG · Post by **RajeshG** » 31 Jul 2010 04:58

RajeshA wrote:This is like saying, one should measure the success of heroin on an heroin-addict ....

Sorry I dont get the analogy. A heroin addict is not born to be a heroin addict.

Pakistan was born to be the land of Islam to provide (unhindered) Islamic way of life for followers of Islam.

Anything that helps TSP achieve the goal means success of TSP project and anything that undermines it results in a failure.

Its fairly simple. Why complicate it ?

kubhamanyu · Post by **kubhamanyu** » 31 Jul 2010 09:12

The control that the US can assert over pak army is possibly useful in certain activity -- the eye-ball to eye-ball type, or kargil. But how is this going to be useful in preventing terror in India, or reducing it? It hasn't so far for all the control the US seems to have over it (not even headley revelations of course). Also imagine a situation where the US has little control over the Pak army, well that means the Pak Army is getting nothing from them and then it is sustaining itself through some other means, likely china and KSA. Our people continue to be terrorized. If we decide that terrorism is the "instrument" of our "geopolitical" action, then whether or not the US has control over the Pak Army, we need to turn the heat up on them by homogenizing kashmir with the rest of the nation sooner, by providing moral and diplomatic support to the genuine aspirations of democracy among the people, weaning iran away, by training the northern army in af, and by taking out those in their terror leadership we've identified as being directly responsible. Also, if possible, to help the people separate from the "landowner" class, and give them another avenue.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 31 Jul 2010 10:48

RajeshG wrote:
RajeshA wrote:This is like saying, one should measure the success of heroin on an heroin-addict ....

Sorry I dont get the analogy. A heroin addict is not born to be a heroin addict.

Pakistan was born to be the land of Islam to provide (unhindered) Islamic way of life for followers of Islam.

Anything that helps TSP achieve the goal means success of TSP project and anything that undermines it results in a failure.

Its fairly simple. Why complicate it ?

For any system to carry out whatever it deems as its goal or function, the survival of the system is a minimum criteria. If the system supporting the function fails, the goal may fail or unravel as well.

An extreme example would be: if 300 million Pakistanis caged in Pakistan have no food, water or medicine, and the (in)humans do not survive, then how will Islam survive! The dynamics of poverty could overwhelm the dynamics of Islam.

Islamization (heroin) and bad governance are going to cause a system-crash in Pakistan.

In Hindi, one could say, "Na rahega baans, na bajegi bansuri!".

Through analysis, we wish to ascertain whether "baans rahega ki nahi?"