Managing Pakistan's failure

[RajeshA]

Paki-Naxalism

Great Idea! What are we waiting for?

Thank you, Manishw ji!

The idea may however need a lot more vetting here on BRF, before it can be pronounced 'great'!

[A_Gupta]

Jinnah's Greatest Blunder
http://pakteahouse.wordpress.com/2010/07/31/blunder/

[Manishw]

Quoting selectively from Brihaspati ji's post from the thread 'Future Scenario of Sub-continent', hope he doesn't mind


brihaspati wrote:

It is with Islam that we see a departure from this pattern in the sense that the religion was founded right from the beginning very clearly as an imperialist doctrine of expansion, subjugation and submission to authority. There was no meaningful state in the middle or even northern Arabic frontier against which the founders of Islam were rebelling.

Thus Islam cannot be understood in the way say Roman Catholicism has been understood. RC has been self-contradictory from the beginning because it had to hammered out of an essentially anarchist, anti-state ideology of individual self-assertive rebellion into one that submits and fuels imperialist expansion and consolidation. Thus the RC Church always had the potential of explosive fissures and deviations. Faced with the potential of scientific knowledge that finally filtered through the medieval contact with the East, it was almost a foregone conclusion that factions weak and chafing under RC papal authority before would lap it up as a tool of defying RC authority.

This is reflected in the fact that "science" was merely a tool as far as utility for war and independence from Papacy was concerned - it did not immediately transfer into the so-called humanitarian values of the modern period - slavery or oppression of the "other" was okay. Only when the net results of self-goals were seen in the world wars and those enslaved before showed the potential of applying these very same techniques back on the "previous masters" did Europe install checks and balances to prevent retribution on themselves for what they had done in colonial regimes.

Islam's reaction to modern science and complexity will therefore be completely different. There are no factions within Islam that seeks to upset the "centre" - for there are no centres, and there is no need for it. It is focused on power and subjugation of others, and unlike the other philosophies it does not suffer from contradictions of "peaceful intent and posturing" with the "need to subjugate". So for Islam science is only useful if it helps in war and subjugation of others, as well as satisfaction in use of power - say the little blue pills [dont know the real colour, have not seen them so far] and totally useless otherwise. You can have intricate knowledge of chemistry that will generate the blue pills which however does not need to ponder genetic mutation and its relation to natural selection and therefore face a crisis of faith.

If there are rebellions from within Islamism which at all counter Islamic theocracy - it has to be an equally self-assured and totalitarian world-view that also incorporates science as another religion [a kind of orthodoxy - no "scientific" belief can be challenged etc.]. I can see only one obvious candidate - the extreme Leftists. I guess, this is why all surviving communists of Iranian origin are basically Maoists. I guess panning this out for India is going to be a sensitive issue to discuss in details.

---------------------------------------------------------------
I Guess the Idea propounded above by RajeshA ji would be great.

[A_Gupta]

If you look at the Nationalist Indian Muslims, they had moved past the above. ^^^^^. The Motilal Nehru Report of 1928 spelling out a constitutional set-up almost won among Indian Muslims - Jinnah had to adjourn the Muslim League without taking votes on a resolution rejecting the report on a couple of occasions because the pro-Nehru Report faction was likely to win.

The current configuration of Islamism in India was not inevitable, but was achieved after a great reactionary struggle by Jinnah & company, and with the aid of some of the British.

This is from the Nationalist Muslim Conference, Lucknow, April 18, 1931. This is Dr. M.A. Ansari, moving the main resolution:

“You are, no doubt, aware of the efforts which the Nationalist Muslim Party made to come to an understanding with other schools of Muslim political thought in order to pave the way for a settlement conducive to the best interests of our country and our community.

I deliberately say, ‘country and community’ for I wish to give the lie direct to accusations impertinently made against nationalist Musalmans that they do not have the interests of Islam at heart.

Our accusers should know that it is the spiritual catholicity of our religious faith which has declared in a set of common ideals the brotherhood of man and the supreme shallowness of narrow bigotry that gives us the strength to take up the whole as against the piece-meal point of view. Basing, as we do, the claims of our community on justice, the conflict of country and community does not arise. It is only when the essentially un-Islamic tendency of sectional interests asserts itself and finds expression in the desire to retire tortoise-like in a shell that the conflict becomes manifest.

We are surely not worse Mussalmans because we refuse to turn our faith into a greedy superstition or an ignoble exercise in political hide and seek, or because we take from it the inspiration of our lives and bring them to the service of the country in which Providence has destined us to live and serve. Our Nationalism is part of our loyalty of our faith and not a betrayal or an infidelity.

Excuse me, gentlemen, for this digression which was necessary in order to repudiate the mischievous attempts to misrepresent our point of view in Indian politics. You are aware, I was saying of the sincere efforts we made to come to a common agreement with other schools of Muslim political thought. You know the result. In spite of all our attempts at accommodation and in spite of the assured possibility of a great measure of agreement on important issues, the conversations broke on the joint-separate electorate issue.

This is not the occasion to expiate on the absolute necessity of joint electorates for the growth of a united nationhood. I am speaking to Mussalmans just now and I wish to tell the Muslim community through you that, apart from wider national considerations, the insistence on separate electorates would prove suicidal to the continuance of the Mussalmans in this country as a political and cultural force of any significance.

Politically, separate electorates are bound to prove the most effective method of perpetuating and accentuating communal bitterness and sectional exclusiveness.

Knowing the case with which in a democracy demagogues can play on the passion and fanaticism of the people, separate electorates cannot but prove most potent means of closing the door to the mutual understanding and appreciation by the representatives, and of ruling out agreement by negotiation on matters even of common concern.

And what does this imply for the Mussalmans ?

It implies in the provinces where the Mussalmans are in a minority and in India as a whole, the absolute impossibility of their being at all effective as a political force in spite of the weightage that it might get.

It implies political impotence, with consequent bitterness, sense of futility, demoralisation, ruin !

In the majority provinces, except where the majority be preponderating, it implies instability, lack of initiative, weak handling of all situations on account of a constant fear of defeat by a determined irreconcilable opposition returned by an intolerant electorate just to oppose !

If there is anybody anywhere anxious to see the Mussalmans reduced to absolute ineffectiveness in Indian politics, he must laugh in his sleeves at their own curious insistence on a measure so obviously calculated to bring about that result.

Culturally, the anxiety to hedge themselves round with impregnable walls would, I fear, result in a false sense of security which would rob the community of its dynamic cultural force and would mean fossilisation and decay. Those who, like me, look back with pride on the great cultural contribution of the Mussalmans to Indian life and who hope to see the Mussalmans play a still more important role in the free India of the future, cannot but view with dismay the assiduous attempt —by some Mussalmans as the irony of things would have it—to remove all possibilities of fruitful contact and appreciation which a group with a living culture and a message should be only too anxious to cultivate.

Those who by means of separate electorates seek to ensure the existence of Mussalmans as a cultural entity in this country seem to have no notion of the dynamic possibilities of the culture they claim to love. They would unconsciously help to preserve it as a dead specimen in a museum of antiquities.

But I believe that Muslim culture in India is a living and life-giving force and would not suffer this ossification at the hands of its ignorant, albeit, well-meaning admirers.

Those being the political and cultural implications of separate electorates and of the self-diffident mental attitude behind their demand, who would accuse us of not having the best interests of the Muslim community at heart if we ask the Mussalmans to refuse to be lured into a trap which some self-seeking men have laid for them and to which a number of honest but mistaken Mussalmans are leading them by their drum beating ?

It would be useless to try to convince the former of the unholy nature of their enterprise. They die hard but they should know that the growing political consciousness among the Mussalmans and the realisation of their great cultural mission in Indian life would not long tolerate this self-aggrandisement to play with Muslim destiny.

But it would be idle to deny that there is a body of honest opinion on their side represented by men who have grown grey in the service of Islam and of India. I am confident they would soon see through the lure.

I respectfully appeal to them in the name of Islam and of India—both of which, I know, are as dear to them as they are to me—to see if the course they have been led to support, really and effectively protects the interests of the Mussalmans and if it can ever help to create that sense of common citizenship which is essential for all political advancement in the country. If it does neither, I do sincerely hope that they would not be led away by appeals to passion made by harping on matters absolutely irrelevant to the issues in dispute.

I am perfectly willing to admit that their anxiety to secure certain safeguards and guarantees for the Muslim community in the future constitution of the country are genuine and I need hardly assure them that so far as the nationalist Muslims are concerned, they will do their best to press all such genuine demands.

But they would be no party to a demand tor separate electorates which, it is their considered opinion, would prove highly dangerous both for the country and for the community.

Following him, Mr. Tassadduq Sherwani very clearly explained:

Under the present scheme it was possible for 30 fanatic Muslims being pitted against 70 equally fanatic non-Muslims and the latter could conveniently ignore the former but in a joint electorate scheme, no candidate aspiring for election could with equal convenience ignore even fifteen per cent of the voters.

_______

There are other eloquent expressions of the belief that capable Muslims would be supported by Hindus unreservedly. E.g., from the very same conference:

So much is said about the share of the Indian Muslim in concession loot. I do not believe that his share can be fixed by statute. His share will be in proportion to the contribution he makes towards the obtaining and maintaining of India's freedom. The Mussalman has nothing to fear. The stalwarts of the North-Western Frontier and the teeming millions of Bengal and the Eastern Frontier are his inviolable security in national India. In the future of India there will be no place for Hindu Raj or Muslim Raj. The sovereignty of the people of India will be broadbased upon patriotism unalloyed by taints of communalism. That should be your goal and towards that end you should make your sacrifices."

Continuing, Sir Ali Imam said that a new political orientation was clearly manifest among the people of the North-Western Frontier. That was a sure sign of nationalistic solidarity which was fast developing in India. There was another source of hope, namely, that even in limited joint electorates, such as universities and chambers of commerce, the communal factor was quickly disappearing. In his own Province of Bihar there were recent instances of the election of Moulvi Abdul Hafiz and Mr. Ali Mansar which clearly showed that the character and capacity of the candidates had successfully overcome communal prejudices. They had both been returned, one to the Provincial Council and the other to the University Senate by overwhelming Hindu votes against strong Hindu candidates. Once there were free joint electorates the character, capacity and personal lead of the candidates would surely overtop communal prejudice.

If we believe in Jinnah's failure, and in Pakistan's failure, then we should not take the separatist ideology they had as inevitable either. In India, after the apparent success of Jinnah, his nonsense of being the sole spokesman of all Muslims was implicitly accepted, and for the last 60 years this perception has embittered Hindu-Muslim relations and politics. In the meantime, Pakistan and at least one of its friends, Saudi Arabia, have done its best to propagate their ideology.

Islamism is something to be fought and defeated, if for no other reason than to honor the Nationalist Muslims who also fought and sacrificed for our independence.

[Manishw]

Just to keep the record straight I myself don't believe that any idea short of a Mahabaharat is going to change the status but being brought on 'indic vaues' Just want to give peace (relatively) a chance before that.Even Lord Krishna tried this approach.In any case this Mahabaharat is 3-5 yrs away in my opinion (based on demographics ) and we have to try something and Rajesh' ji's approach seems to be the best among those peaceful approaches.Anyways my views are expressed in the same 'Future of Sub-continent' thread and selectively quoted below.

manishw wrote

The indics who were never homogenized continue to be argumentative while things are slipping from their grasp.The demographics have been changed in india and the Govt is hiding it.Just look at Assam or most other states of India.People understand that u have to fight the 3.5 friends and pakistan(including bangladesh) but simply fail to see that ten years down the line India will be even more changed than it is now demographically.This battle is ours alone and nobody is going to help us out.Why would countries want a new superpower with all the attendant headaches.Leave that alone facing the Anglo-saxon alliance , the muslim world, china and various assorted forces including enemies within india are too big and formidable to be handled by us.Either we face them in the next 3-5 years or its finished for us.
The only balancer we have are nuclear weapons below the threshold of which we can carry out our indic agenda and it is not such a tall order if the Hindu elites instead of filling their own pockets develop a spine.We just have to make it china specific and china while dying would take care of everybody else.That is the Indian MAD.The common man, here I talk of 85 crore indics is ready in my opinion.They have had enough even from their own elites.

[A_Gupta]

What I am saying:

1. Jinnah was the taqiya face of Islamism. Jaswant Singh, WKKs, Pakistani "liberals" all do not want to accept this fact. The opposition of various fundamentalists to Jinnah because of his unIslamic face is used conveniently to this end; but the essence of Islamism is power, and separatism where power is not feasible - and this was Jinnah's ideology.

2. In contrast, the modernist Nationalist Muslims were willing to chance their fate with a Hindu majority; they believed in a common nationality, and believed that they would get their just desserts in India. Quite the opposite of Islamism.

3. Last time League versus Nationalist was put to the test, the League won.

4. The choice may be reopened in some future, and the outcome may be different.

[Manishw]

What I am saying:

1. Jinnah was the taqiya face of Islamism. Jaswant Singh, WKKs, Pakistani "liberals" all do not want to accept this fact. The opposition of various fundamentalists to Jinnah because of his unIslamic face is used conveniently to this end; but the essence of Islamism is power, and separatism where power is not feasible - and this was Jinnah's ideology.

2. In contrast, the modernist Nationalist Muslims were willing to chance their fate with a Hindu majority; they believed in a common nationality, and believed that they would get their just desserts in India. Quite the opposite of Islamism.

3. Last time League versus Nationalist was put to the test, the League won.

4. The choice may be reopened in some future, and the outcome may be different.

Sir I understand what you are trying to say but can you give me even one example where these 'Nationalist muslims' have managed to co-exist with another especially when their ratio crosses 30% of the population.Eventually islamism catches up to them. So if Jinnah was practicing 'Taqqiya' 'which I do agree with' then it was beneficial to us and this notion of 'Muslims' fighting and sacrificing for our independence is way too over hyped and a load of bull.The choice that you allude to in my opinion will only be opened up when the Adharmic Ideology is eradicated from the face of the Subcontinent at least if not the planet.
JMT

[shiv]

.The choice that you allude to in my opinion will only be opened up when the Adharmic Ideology is eradicated from the face of the Subcontinent at least if not the planet.
JMT

That means never..

[NikhilB]

Paki author compares the Pakiland with Somalia and how Pakis are catching up fast with "failed state" definition.

http://www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/daw ... alia-hh-10

The reason I put this article in this thread is -

...Plagued by a civil conflict since 1991, hundreds of thousands of Somalis have fled to neighbouring countries. According to UN estimates, more than one million out of its nine million population live as IDPs ....

I have mentioned this previously. We certianly will not be disappointed to see failed pakiland but we should be very very careful about large numbers of abduls flooding our bordering states. Remember Berlin Wall Fall ? We don't want that. We don't want to reunite with that sh!t country. We don't want a single abdul to disutrb a life of a single of our countrymen because of their failure. Pakis are surely going down as we can see from all KPIs of their destiny.

We should be prepared. Best way is to build "China wall" kind of stuff on entire border. Yes, we know India has been attacked for 1000 years from that border, let us seal it forever. Build Huge wall, Build electric wired compound, Build anything that will prevent those biogots to come to our country.

Do we see a failed pakiland with abduls running wild in their country and flourishing well fare state of India in next 10-20 years ? In that case, are we sure no abdul will cross our border ? are we sure that our manned BSF / army enough to hold this mass immigration ?

[RajeshA]

We should be prepared. Best way is to build "China wall" kind of stuff on entire border. Yes, we know India has been attacked for 1000 years from that border, let us seal it forever. Build Huge wall, Build electric wired compound, Build anything that will prevent those biogots to come to our country.

Great idea! I suggest we give this contract to the Chinese. They are the best in building "The Great Wall of China"!

Of course, it will be done under Indian supervision, so we do not need to fear anything.

Bright spot : The Pakis will not be taking pot shots at BSF, while we go about building the fence!

[NikhilB]

^
The reason I said "chaina wall" is to give an idea about how big / powerful fence should be - It should not be like wall of house. The intension was not to get "china" factor into this at all but to avoid long description of "would be" wall.

Of course, pakis will trouble BSF as they did when we were building wired fence, but if we do enough chai-biskut sessions for time this wall is being built and if we handle this diplomatically, I don't think it is impossible. But before we go there, first question to ask ourselves is - do we agree the need ?

[RajeshA]

NikhilB ji,

I understood what you meant by "China Wall". I was simply taking the thought further, perhaps a bit tongue in cheek!

Indo-Pakistan relations are entering another period of trough. Fencing and upgrading the border is going to become more difficult. Even though for both Indians and Chinese the idea may sound peculiar, that Indian would place Chinese citizens in the line of fire, and Chinese citizens would be willing to take up the task, it is as such not a completely absurd idea.

I also wanted to play upon the Chinese demands that the Indian market is not open to them (read the telecom hardware sector). Well the Border Fence would be a nice way to dispel that Chinese impression.

Still it was just a joke...

[NikhilB]

well, in that case, it's brilliant idea !

[brihaspati]

There are many fundamental mistakes that we make in analyzing claims of what the direction of Islamism would have taken and will take in India.

Briefly,

(1) Error number 1 : idealist expressions of liberalism from a few voices from IM indicates or reflects majority opinion towards such "liberalism"
(2) Error number 2 : remaining in post Partition India indicates departure from Islamism and the ideals or aims behind establishment of Pakistan
(3) Error number 3 : expression of joint electorate is an indication of relinquishing the ultimate aim of Islamizing the whole subcontinent
(4) Error number 4 : estimated majority opinion is proportional to its concretization and effectiveness as real political impact

On the opposite direction the fundamental error is :

Becoming aware of all the four above errors implies that we should not take advantage of the compromising and tactical behaviour in influential or dominant sections within subcontinental Muslims reflected in the real scenario that gives rise to the tactical behaviour by Muslims reflected in the "errors".

The factors described in the "errors" are an indication that these same groups are amenable to tactical and strategical manipulation from the "other" side.

Post Partition India has refused to carry on this manipulation by "secularizing" in the wrong direction - preserving and helping to harden identity boundaries. It is the paradox where "tolerance" is a cover hiding the deepest of distrusts and hatred of the "other" - so much so that all the incompatibilities, and all those features which would make them even less acceptable for integration are protected viciously and cynically by rashtra.

In a way this reflects the reasons behind the failure so-far to manage Pak failure from the Indian side.

Added: There is no greater fatal error for nations to assume that "majority" opinion automatically gets reflected in concrete political actions. Determined minorities can and do carry the day and most of the time majorities are saddled with fait-accomplis carried out by minorities. In actuality this means that the effective strength of the much smaller numbers equal or are greater than the collective inaction of the majority.

[A_Gupta]

(1) Error number 1 : idealist expressions of liberalism from a few voices from IM indicates or reflects majority opinion towards such "liberalism"

It was a really close call. If the choice remained within the Muslim intelligentsia and if Churchill etc., had not put in spoilers, the nationalists might have won.

(2) Error number 2 : remaining in post Partition India indicates departure from Islamism and the ideals or aims behind establishment of Pakistan

Highly arguable. But let's concede it for the sake of argument. Which is easier - this task of eradicating Islamism out of an independent nuclear-armed Pakistan with 3.5 friends, or from within a united India where there are joint electorates, no "Islam first" type politician can get to power, and where because of no Partition, there is not the associated bitterness?

(3) Error number 3 : expression of joint electorate is an indication of relinquishing the ultimate aim of Islamizing the whole subcontinent

Again, mostly irrelevant. How are you going to Islamize India when you have to get along with your Sikh and Hindu neighbors, and fundamentalism cannot flourish?

(4) Error number 4 : estimated majority opinion is proportional to its concretization and effectiveness as real political impact

Not sure what the above means.

On the opposite direction the fundamental error is :

Becoming aware of all the four above errors implies that we should not take advantage of the compromising and tactical behaviour in influential or dominant sections within subcontinental Muslims reflected in the real scenario that gives rise to the tactical behaviour by Muslims reflected in the "errors".

The factors described in the "errors" are an indication that these same groups are amenable to tactical and strategical manipulation from the "other" side.

Post Partition India has refused to carry on this manipulation by "secularizing" in the wrong direction - preserving and helping to harden identity boundaries. It is the paradox where "tolerance" is a cover hiding the deepest of distrusts and hatred of the "other" - so much so that all the incompatibilities, and all those features which would make them even less acceptable for integration are protected viciously and cynically by rashtra.

In a way this reflects the reasons behind the failure so-far to manage Pak failure from the Indian side.

Added: There is no greater fatal error for nations to assume that "majority" opinion automatically gets reflected in concrete political actions. Determined minorities can and do carry the day and most of the time majorities are saddled with fait-accomplis carried out by minorities. In actuality this means that the effective strength of the much smaller numbers equal or are greater than the collective inaction of the majority.

The whole distortion in India politics as far as communal relations is concerned is because of Partition.

E.g., Nehru in 1946 wanted to end the British payoff to the Maliks in FATA, and open up the region to outside influence (Olaf Caroe pooh-poohed it; Pakistan continued British policy; see where we are now?) NWFP would have continued to have a strong Congress presence from Frontier Gandhi and his descendants.

Internationally, the OIC would have had to figure out what to do with India, it would be fun to see their contortions - leave out more than a third of the world's Muslims or what?

Agreed we have to fight the Islamism that exists now, dreaming of something different is pointless. But the point is that it need not have been this way; some of the choices that led up to this could have gone the other way. Nothing should be taken as historically inevitable. All it should be seen as that (if the long-term forces of history are against Islamism) that there has been a many-decades detour.

[RamaY]

^ A_Gupta ji,

Whatever India you are born in existed pre-1947 as well. Even then, Hindus, muslims and people from many other coexisted till the very beginning of partition riots. Many decades (if not centuries) of peaceful co-existence broke in a moment resulting million+ deaths.

Why is this selective blindness, I am curious? Why can't you accept that the India as you see now existed pre-1947 as well? What is the big difference in social conditions between 1930s and 2010s, especially w.r.t Hindu-Muslim coexistence?

[Brad Goodman]

^ A_Gupta ji,

Whatever India you are born in existed pre-1947 as well. Even then, Hindus, muslims and people from many other coexisted till the very beginning of partition riots. Many decades (if not centuries) of peaceful co-existence broke in a moment resulting million+ deaths.

Why is this selective blindness, I am curious? Why can't you accept that the India as you see now existed pre-1947 as well? What is the big difference in social conditions between 1930s and 2010s, especially w.r.t Hindu-Muslim coexistence?

Muslims before 1947 ( I should say 1930's) were not as wahabised as they are now. Least jihadi elements were not as well equiped materially, financially & IEDologically to take on kafirs of India. The social order of India then and India now is different. Hindu's have moved on from their way of life in 1900's to 21st century where we have sucessfully eliminated practices like Sati, Devdasi, Tantra Vidya etc .... We have too much to lose from these loose cannon abdul's who will run from poak lands to take refuge in India and then demand Sharia.

[brihaspati]

A_Gupta wrote
brihaspati wrote:
(1) Error number 1 : idealist expressions of liberalism from a few voices from IM indicates or reflects majority opinion towards such "liberalism"

It was a really close call. If the choice remained within the Muslim intelligentsia and if Churchill etc., had not put in spoilers, the nationalists might have won.

Well, if Churchill's spoilers could be so effective - it does show the balance of power and effectiveness between the "nationalists", the "anti-nationalists" and Churchill.

Quote:
(2) Error number 2 : remaining in post Partition India indicates departure from Islamism and the ideals or aims behind establishment of Pakistan

Highly arguable. But let's concede it for the sake of argument. Which is easier - this task of eradicating Islamism out of an independent nuclear-armed Pakistan with 3.5 friends, or from within a united India where there are joint electorates, no "Islam first" type politician can get to power, and where because of no Partition, there is not the associated bitterness?

There is a political reconstruction device by which all subsequent fall-outs are pinpointed on to a single cataclysmic event in history. Such a thing is politically useful, because it is used to try to justify inaction or reversals or reactions to the possible negative fallouts because "one cannot go back in history".

This is a blatantly mischievous argument because the same logic [of all subsequent historical fallouts specifically starting from an event in the past] when applied to that "mother of all events" shows that even that source event must have had other previous incidents that led up to it. Partition was an outcome of other pre-Partition historical events just as subsequent events have led from Partition. Putting all of the dynamic between Pak and India, post-Partition, on "Partition" only is a false analysis - because that suppresses much deeper processes behind Partition and subsequent events. Partition is an event - a manifestation through violence of an entire process rooted in Islamism. It is Islamism that led to Partition and not Partition which has generated "Islamism".

Historical speculation is always risky. Without Partition, it does not have to be automatic that Islamism or its hold on the rashtra would not have taken place. It would have depended crucially on how the non-Muslims reacted to Islamism or its absence. Just as it would have been possible to foresee absorption of "Muslims" into nationalist mainstream, it would equally have been possible to foresee the rise of a much stronger overtly Islamist party before which even the Constitutional framing and structure might have had to compromise. This could have happened with active collaboration by factions within the "non-Musilm" who would have tried to use the much stringer "Islamist" electoral factor much earlier in Indian politics compared to the trends of appeasement we are seeing now.

In fact the 3.5 factor could still have worked in an open society - where the influences from these 3.5 are otherwise not prevented from coming in even now. A much stronger Islamist party could have entered the army much earlier in much larger numbers and could have resulted in a civil war to gain control of the state for Islam.

Quote:
(3) Error number 3 : expression of joint electorate is an indication of relinquishing the ultimate aim of Islamizing the whole subcontinent

Again, mostly irrelevant. How are you going to Islamize India when you have to get along with your Sikh and Hindu neighbors, and fundamentalism cannot flourish?

In UP, and other areas of the Gangetic plains or in Kerala, getting along with Sikh, Hindu neighbours have not prevented gradual planned expansion of "Islamic" areas, whereby conditions are managed in such a way that the region is more or less cleansed of non-Muslim presence and a geographically consolidated, contiguous Muslim majority chain of regions are created. There is no guarantee that "fundamentalism" would not flourish in an undivided India, unless there was a common civil law, and the state reserved the right to disqualify any and all claims of any religion if it felt that those claims came in between a modern relationship between the state and its citizens. A stronger Islamist party could have obstructed this process just as the congress under JLN voluntarily relinquished this right in Partitioned India.

If we accept the official history of India, muslims were initially a minority and very peaceful and syncretic in nature to start with. From that overwhelming minority, peaceful, and syncretic beginning to the violent Partition is difficult to explain officially but what it means is that such a transition is entirely possible.

Quote:
(4) Error number 4 : estimated majority opinion is proportional to its concretization and effectiveness as real political impact

Not sure what the above means.

There is no greater fatal error for nations to assume that "majority" opinion automatically gets reflected in concrete political actions. Determined minorities can and do carry the day and most of the time majorities are saddled with fait-accomplis carried out by minorities. In actuality this means that the effective strength of the much smaller numbers equal or are greater than the collective inaction of the majority. Just because there were some voices against Partition or separate electorate from the Muslims, and a large population of Muslims did not participate formally in the violence does show that they were also not effective in preventing the "anti-nationalists" from being successful.

[RajeshG]

http://www.youtube.com/user/KashifHKhan

I was watching some videos posted on the above youtube channel. Forget which one exactly but in one of the videos Najam Sethi draws a distinction between a nation and a state. He was doing this in context of US role in Afghanistan. He said that state-building was a short term project and US is doing that and has even failed at that but nation-building is a long term project. Per him the state is the govt machinery - the public services, health, police, judiciary, military, economics. And a nation is what the pakis have and afghans dont. He gave an eg of how pakis rejected the talibs outright as a threat to the paki nation. He didnt say or clarify what made the paki nation.

Maybe its a 19-20 kaa farak to others, but IMO, the paki-nation (as opposed to the paki-state), however the pakis define it, is the one that needs to fail.

[A_Gupta]

On Dawn TV, there was a public-awareness advertisement about hepatitis.
It said that the incidence of hepatitis had increased 18% over the last year in Pakistan.

PS: more info:
http://www.globalissues.org/news/2010/06/24/6100

[shiv]

Does Pakistan need to fight the "Taliban" at all?

The answer has come from two posts
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 66#p915466

...the Taliban are functioning cleverly as two separate units though they have a bayat to Osama and report to Mullah Omar for directions. One faction is the Quetta Shura helped by the Haqqanis and increasingly Hekmatyar. This combination has ISI written all over it.

<snip>

The second unit of Taliban is the Punjabi Taliban and local warlords in FATA and Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa who are choosing their Pakistani targets for attacks according to the exigencies of their situation.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 75#p916075

shiv-ji, the bad taliban are the ones who are pro-afghan nationalism (by pak definition) and the good taliban are the ones who get their bread buttered at GHQ. interestingly, that is also probably 180 degrees to Unkil's definition

however, it seems as though the pashtun nationalism card is definitely being played... so perhaps ombaba's end game is to create a national pashtun identity, some autonomy for the NA territories and whatever happens across the durand line... so be it

Yes there is one section of the Taliban that the Pakistan army must fight - and they are the ones who fight the Pakistanis. As long as the Taliban fight the US, the Pakistanis see them as an asset. They are "freedom fighters" in Afghanistan. Such freedom fighting is not allowed in Pakistan. This double standard allows the Taliban to hide in one group or other. No Talibunny, threatened by the Paki army is going to behave in a needlessly suicidal fashion - unless he is a dedicated soosai.

That means that the Paki army definitely does have "war against the Taliban" that it did not have prior to 9-11, when it could happily target India.

The second war that the Pakistan army is fighting is its major war - war against India. The Pakarmy's India focus has been reiterated by Kayani and is indicated by the presence of 2/3rds of the Paki army at the Indian border.

The Paki army has a third war and that third war is the war that they are being paid for by the US to fight all of the Taliban and hand over Al Qaeda.

Can the Pakistan army ease pressure on itself in any way? Can they stop fighting any of these wars? Can they call a truce with any group and terminate one or more of these 3 wars? Or can they have outright victory in any of these 3 wars?

War 1: Against the "bad Tailban" (the anti-Pakistan Taliban). If Pakis stop this war they are allowing anti-Pakistan forces to survive. Self goal.

War 2: War against India. Technically the Pakistan army can sue for peace with India because India is willing. India is also the most powerful adversary it faces. The reason why the Pakistan army does not sue for peace with India is more difficult to explain. Reasons include

• A continuing conviction that India is weak and can be eventually defeated by continuous war.
• The Pakistan army is too ideologically indoctrinated to fight India and cannot make u-turn without seriously affecting its own internal unity and discipline
• The Pakistan army's power and privileges in Pakistan can come under threat if they are not seen to be continuously holding a dangerous India at bay.
• The Pakistan army still enjoys the support o US cold warriors who are paying the Pakistani army to remain opposed to India

War 3: This is the US's war that Pakistan is supposed to be fighting - taking on all of the Taliban and handing over Al Qaeda. Instead of fighting war 3, the Pakistan army is fighting War 1.The is Pakistan's biggest headache because the US is gradually losing patience with Pakistan and military funds could dry up. Fighting war 3 is not possible for the Pakistan army. They are too closely linked with the Taliban. The furthest they can go is fight war 1.

From this we can clearly see what Pakistanis doing to reduce pressure on itself.
1) It is continuing to fight war 2 against India, but may be biding its time before unleashing more terrorism
2) It is fighting war 1 instead of war 3.

By not attacking India for while the Pakistan army hopes that the situation on their Western front will ease. That situation can only ease if the US gets off their backs and tells them that there is no need to fight the Taliban any more, Al Qaeda or no Al Qaeda -- in other words a US withdrawal.

The US of course has made a big mistake in encouraging Pakistan to continue War 2 with India without being able to force Pakistan to fight its war (war 3).

What can the US do?

1) The US cannot force the Pakistan army to fight the Taliban
2) But the US can stop paying and arming Pakistan to fight India. That policy has not helped the US war on terror.

Will stop for now. More later

[RamaY]

^ A_Gupta ji,

Whatever India you are born in existed pre-1947 as well. Even then, Hindus, muslims and people from many other coexisted till the very beginning of partition riots. Many decades (if not centuries) of peaceful co-existence broke in a moment resulting million+ deaths.

Why is this selective blindness, I am curious? Why can't you accept that the India as you see now existed pre-1947 as well? What is the big difference in social conditions between 1930s and 2010s, especially w.r.t Hindu-Muslim coexistence?

Muslims before 1947 ( I should say 1930's) were not as wahabised as they are now. Least jihadi elements were not as well equiped materially, financially & IEDologically to take on kafirs of India. The social order of India then and India now is different. Hindu's have moved on from their way of life in 1900's to 21st century where we have sucessfully eliminated practices like Sati, Devdasi, Tantra Vidya etc .... We have too much to lose from these loose cannon abdul's who will run from poak lands to take refuge in India and then demand Sharia.

Really?

Then how did all those incidents like Khilafat movement, Direct Action Day, and Partition riots happened?

P.S: The reference to Sati, Devdasi, and Tantra Vidya is OT here. I request you to remove that.

[RajeshA]

Saving Pakistan

This is basically an agenda for the American Pakistan Policy:

There are a few dynamics in Pakistan which is leading it into ever more severe extremism, putting Pakistan ever more outside American control.

1) Extremism emanating out of the ruins of the anti-Soviet War in Afghanistan - This is the most dangerous type for Pakistan. The Pushtuns have become exceedingly radical. For whatever reasons and by whichever parties Taliban were created and encouraged, the fact is that Afghanistan and Pakistani Pushtun areas have become a net exporter of extremism into Pakistani mainland, i.e. into Pakistani Punjab and Sindh.

2) Kashmir-devoted Terrorists - America would need to keep on putting pressure upon the Pakistani Establishment to come to some understanding with India, and to shut the terrorist networks and terrorist camps directed at Kashmir or India Proper. If they do not do it, in the end, there would be only more trained terrorists in Pakistan itself, who could be co-opted by Taliban or Al-Qaeda to spread terror within Pakistan itself. The Pakistani Army would be kidding itself if it thinks it can keep control over these people and put them on hold for war against India. Punjabi Taliban is a manifestation of such extremism.

3) Purification Extremism - This is the variety that has been encouraged by the Establishment to further cement the Pakistani State. As Pakistan was created for the Muslims and it has been declared to be an Islamic Republic, it is natural that the various parties would start to assert more rights over the state, by showing that they abide more strongly to the foundation ideals. The minorities have been sidelined more and more. First it was the Hindus, then the Christians, then the Ahmediyas, the the Shias, and then the Sufis. This disease is a genetic disease and was there from birth itself. This form of extremism can only be fought by infusing more liberalism in the society, etc. Sipaha-e-Sahiba and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi were two outfits preoccupied with the purification.

All these sources of Islamic Extremism poses challenges for Pakistan. America needs to help Pakistan to cope with these challenges, especially as America needs to ensure that the nuclear weapons of Pakistan are in no danger of falling into the hands of Islamic extremists.

The danger posed by the Extremism emanating from North-West is the most dangerous to the Pakistani State. The only way to stop Pakistani heartland to fall prey to this extremism, is to set up a high firewall between Pakistani Punjab and Pushtun areas. As long as Punjab and Pushtun areas remain an open border, it is impossible to stop Pakistani Punjab from finally falling to Taliban - be it through an overtake by Pushtun Taliban, or by an usurping of power through Punjabi Taliban using elements in the Pakistani Army sympathetic to the cause, or be it by Pakistani Army changing its complexion and turning into an anti-American Taliban-inspired Army.

The areas of FATA were always no-go areas for Pakistanis, but Pakistani policies and the Soviet Afghan War have radicalized this area to such an extent, that elements who are inimical to the Pakistani State and its alliance with the West, have made FATA home and a new platform to launch their ideological and sub-conventional war against Pakistan.

American strategy to bomb these elements from the air using drones will not succeed. Nor is there any chance that Pakistan would find the necessary support at home to overrun these areas without even more of the youth turning against Pakistan.

The only viable method to protect the Pakistani heartland is to put up a wall between Pakistan and Pushtunistan, to get a better grip on these elements that wish Pakistan unwell. Secondly as long as Pakistan does not give up control of these areas to the Pushtuns, the Pushtuns in one garb or another, be it ANP or Taliban would keep on pushing Pakistan to stay out. This pushing back can take a very subversive form, of shaping the Pakistani heartland into Talibanism, just like them. The influence from the North-West can as such unravel the Pakistani State, in its current form.

The Pakistani State is a crucial ally for USA, and USA must do everything possible to avoid this outcome.

Pakistan would however not agree to such a partition, even though it is to their own benefit. America would need to create the conditions necessary and to prod various parties to agree to such a partition.

The Pakistanis are selling the notion to USA, that they are capable of controlling the Taliban. That is all bluster. They can control the Taliban only as long as America is in Afghanistan and America needs to be fought. Once America leaves, Pakistani control over the Taliban would crumble. Even in the 90s, the Pakistanis did not have that much leeway over the Taliban. Otherwise Pakistan would have ensured that Osama bin Laden be delivered to American justice.

The Taliban would again have their own mind. The difference this time, is that Pakistan is now itself under the grip of Talibanism. The Taliban can influence the security situation in Pakistan as and when they like. Once Afghanistan come under the control of Taliban, Pakistan would naturally be the next target of the Taliban.

The region can only be stabilized if the Americans support the establishment of a new State of Pushtunistan comprising of Southern and Eastern Afghanistan, FATA, Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, and Nothern Baluchistan, and Pakistan be made into a fortress with walls around Pakistani Punjab, Sindh, Southern Baluchistan, Azad Kashmir and Northern Areas.

It is important that America protects Pakistani Punjab from falling to the Taliban and ensures that Taliban stay away from nuclear weapons.

Secondly America needs a free hand in Pushtunistan to hunt Al Qaeda. As long as the Pushtun areas in Pakistan are under Pakistani sovereignty there is not much USA can do. Pakistan can also not do much, as these people are considered Pakistanis. Once this region becomes Pushtunistan, using both American and Pakistani forces under UN resolutions, one could hunt down Al Qaeda better. American forces would have full access to all areas in Pushtunistan, and Pakistanis would have lesser inhibitions.

For America to get a grip over this region, creation of Pushtunistan is a necessary condition, even if it should involve riding roughshod over Pakistani objections.

[A_Gupta]

^ A_Gupta ji,
Why is this selective blindness, I am curious? Why can't you accept that the India as you see now existed pre-1947 as well? What is the big difference in social conditions between 1930s and 2010s, especially w.r.t Hindu-Muslim coexistence?

1. The existence of Pakistan is one big difference from 1930s and 2010s.
2. Muslim Intelligentsia who in a united India would have helped with UP, Bihar, MP, etc, instead departed to Pakistan.
3. The emergence of oil wealth in the Gulf - prior to the 1970s, the US domestic production set world oil prices; but with growing US demand and declining production, US lost that power in the late 60s, early 70s. A cartel was formed in the middle east and prices were raised. Many results:
a. Petrodollars used to propagate Salafi Islam.
b. Middle East became a destination for Indians seeking employment, making the spread of the non-Indic Islam so much faster.
4. Nobody thought that a Hindu-majority country could run a stable secular democracy in the 1930s.
5. In the 1930s separate electorates had been in place for two decades. In 2010 joint electorates have been in place for 6 decades.

6. This kind of nonsense is done and over with:

To prove the eternal superiority of Muslims over Hindus it was proposed {1926} by one Maulana Akbar Shah Khan of Najibabad in all seriousness, that the Hindus and Muslims should fight, under test conditions, fourth battle on the same fateful plain of Panipat. The Maulana accordingly issued a challenge to Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya in the following terms :

" If you Malaviyaji, are milking efforts to falsify the result at Panipat, I shall show you an easy and an excellent way (of testing it). Use your well-known influence and induce the British Government to permit the fourth battle of Panipat to be fought without hindrance from the authorities. I am ready to provide. . . . . a comparative test of the valour and fighting spirit of the Hindus and the Musalmans.... .As there are seven crores of Musalmans in India, I shall arrive on a fixed date on the plain of Panipat with 700 Musalmans representing the seven crores of Muslims in India and as there are 22 crores of Hindus I allow you to come with 2,200 Hindus. The proper thing is not to use cannon, machine guns or bombs : only swords and javelins and spears, bows and arrows and daggers should be used. If you cannot accept the post of generalissimo of the Hindu host, you may give it to any descendant of Sadashivrao or Vishwasrao so that their scions may have an opportunity to avenge the defeat of their ancestors in 1761. But any way do come as a spectator ; for on seeing the result of this battle you will have to change your views, and I hope there will be then an end of the present discord and fighting in the country. . . . . In conclusion I beg to add that among the 700 men that I shall bring there will be no Pathans or Afghans as you are mortally afraid of them. So I shall bring with me only Indian Musalmans of good family who are staunch adherents of Shariat. " -from B.R. Ambedkar's Pakistan

[A_Gupta]

Well, if Churchill's spoilers could be so effective - it does show the balance of power and effectiveness between the "nationalists", the "anti-nationalists" and Churchill.

IMO, compared to India, Great Britain was relatively speaking stronger than US is today.

[surinder]

Did Pt. MMM respond to this juvenile drivel?

[shiv]

The areas of FATA were always no-go areas for Pakistanis, but Pakistani policies and the Soviet Afghan War have radicalized this area to such an extent, that elements who are inimical to the Pakistani State and its alliance with the West, have made FATA home and a new platform to launch their ideological and sub-conventional war against Pakistan.

American strategy to bomb these elements from the air using drones will not succeed. Nor is there any chance that Pakistan would find the necessary support at home to overrun these areas without even more of the youth turning against Pakistan.

The only viable method to protect the Pakistani heartland is to put up a wall between Pakistan and Pushtunistan, to get a better grip on these elements that wish Pakistan unwell. Secondly as long as Pakistan does not give up control of these areas to the Pushtuns, the Pushtuns in one garb or another, be it ANP or Taliban would keep on pushing Pakistan to stay out. This pushing back can take a very subversive form, of shaping the Pakistani heartland into Talibanism, just like them. The influence from the North-West can as such unravel the Pakistani State, in its current form.

The Pakistani State is a crucial ally for USA, and USA must do everything possible to avoid this outcome.

Pakistan would however not agree to such a partition, even though it is to their own benefit. America would need to create the conditions necessary and to prod various parties to agree to such a partition.

The Pakistanis are selling the notion to USA, that they are capable of controlling the Taliban. That is all bluster. They can control the Taliban only as long as America is in Afghanistan and America needs to be fought. Once America leaves, Pakistani control over the Taliban would crumble. Even in the 90s, the Pakistanis did not have that much leeway over the Taliban. Otherwise Pakistan would have ensured that Osama bin Laden be delivered to American justice.

Good post Rajesh. I would like to dovetail these thoughts with what I wrote about Pakistans "3 wars"

In brief the 3 wars are:
War 1) War against "bad" (anti-Pakistan army) Taliban (essential for the Pak army)
War 2) War against India
War 3) US driven war against all Taliban and Al Qaeda.

War 1 is summarized by the first para of your post quoted above

The areas of FATA were always no-go areas for Pakistanis, but Pakistani policies and the Soviet Afghan War have radicalized this area to such an extent, that elements who are inimical to the Pakistani State and its alliance with the West, have made FATA home and a new platform to launch their ideological and sub-conventional war against Pakistan.

The US who wants war 3 to be fought is unable to make Pakistan fight war 3. War 3 is actually "War 1 plus"

India's real problem is that Pakistan and the US have played each other. The US has made the Pakistan army more powerful to fight India without getting much further in its own war. The US has acted like a surgeon who operates on the balls when brain surgery was required.

What can make the US change its course? What can convince the US that its policy of paying Pakistan and arming Pakistan against India has no effect on reducing the threat to Pakistan from the Pashtun nationalists or on getting Pakistan to fight its war against the Taliban? If the US wants to change its course now, what can the US do to achieve its aims? How can India help modify those aims so that they do not end up being bad for India?

I think that just like there are "legitimate Pakistani concerns" there are "legitimate Pashtun concerns" that need to be addresed. The anti-Pakistan Taliban are merely Pashtun freedom fighters and all they want is a homeland on both sides of the Durand line.

More on this in another thread..

[Prem]

Did Pt. MMM respond to this juvenile drivel?

Lets say if any BDY from this guy's ideology want to test the theory.

[RamaY]

A_Gupta ji

Got your point. Deleting unnecessary rant

[A_Gupta]

^^^^ RamaY, I have no idea what you're arguing about.

To reiterate what I'm saying, Pakistan's Islamism need not have happened. The modern mess begins around 1909 with the introduction of separate electorates. There have been many steps along the way where decisions could have gone another way, the forces were closely balanced, and chance events and personalities made it the outcome what it is. As a simple example, if India had prosecuted those among the 92K prisoners responsible for war crimes in 1971, the subsequent history of Pakistan (and Bangladesh) would be rather different. There are N such examples.

[RajeshA]

What can make the US change its course? What can convince the US that its policy of paying Pakistan and arming Pakistan against India has no effect on reducing the threat to Pakistan from the Pashtun nationalists or on getting Pakistan to fight its war against the Taliban? If the US wants to change its course now, what can the US do to achieve its aims? How can India help modify those aims so that they do not end up being bad for India?

I think that just like there are "legitimate Pakistani concerns" there are "legitimate Pashtun concerns" that need to be addresed. The anti-Pakistan Taliban are merely Pashtun freedom fighters and all they want is a homeland on both sides of the Durand line.

Very pertinent questions! I'd like to go in to this question, but before that I'd like to quote a few posts I'd written, which may be tangentially relevant, as context.

Post from 10 Jun 2009 09:38 am

Islam is intrinsic to the human society. If Islam had not been there, it would have to be invented, and that is what happened. It represents the irrational, the anarchist, the destructive, the hypocritical, the megalomaniac, the absolutist, the fanatic, the aggressive, the predatory, the self-destructive, the revisionist urge of human society, et voilá! There you have it, ta ta! ISLAM!

Islam is also the bestest proxy, any power broker in the world can hope for! Islam is a zealot collecting machine! Once the word goes out, thousands of zealots heed the call, and are ready for Jihad! That makes the operationalization of the plans of any power broker quick and fast, just like he would have it! Of course, just like in case of cigarette packs, there is a warning on the pack - Hazardous to life, Blowback can be severe.

So generally all other powers in the world have 'learned' to wield this force of nature, just like they would wield wind-power. Perhaps the example of nuclear energy would be much more appropriate. One needs many layers of containment, to protect the one who wields this power.

The Americans, the British, the Pakistanis, the Chinese all use Islamists as their proxies. One just paints the musharraf of one's foe in bright red, and then wait for the bull to charge, the problem being one gets enough red color on one's hands as well.

Question is: Can India, should India also wield the Islamist weapons of mass destruction or not? Can there be a situation in the future, where the kafirs of Hindustan, can directly or indirectly direct the discharge of the Islamist exhaust pipe? Could it become a weapon in India's hand to weaken other competitors for power in Asia and beyond?

One thing is clear! If anybody wants to ride the tiger, then one would have to have more strength than the tiger, otherwise it is best that one simply makes sure, that the tiger is dead. Currently as we can neither ride the tiger, nor kill it, India would probably opt to keep it out of our house as much as we can. Even in that endeavor, India will fail as India's paper walls will not suffice. We have a long way to go! First step is however to get rid of the fear!

DISCLAIMER: I mean 'instrumentalized' Islam, which one finds in the region where the Great Game is being played

Post from 04 Jul 2010 03:42 pm

My theory is that all Muslim societies and countries are being fcuked by the great powers and the Muslim anger is being channelized, call it a pressure relief valve, call it exhaust pipe, towards somebody else, some other power! The British are past masters in this, and Muli-in-Bund was a student of this school. It is a game of maximizing Muslim anger towards somebody else.

Post from 26 Jul 2010 10:19 pm

I still fail to understand about America's apprehensions when it comes to dealing with Pak. The talk about 170 million strong country armed with nukes is all good, but if that was really their biggest concern,shouldn't the immediate policy post 9/11 been to dismantle Pak's nukes and then go deal with the Taliban? I am sure nobody in Pentagon or at the whitehouse loves to see their troops come home in bodybags, so if they do have such specific intelligence,why not cut off the root?

I'll let you in on a secret, just don't tell anybody!

Nuclear weapons are useless in this world. The jihadis are the new weapons of power.

With the fall of Communism in the world, the appeal of Maoists & Shining Path is waning, even if Naxalites in India don't see the things this way. Ethnic secessionists have become purchasable with the consumer revolution. What is the need to have a separate country, if the chocolates you eat have the same brand on them.

So the only people willing or stupid enough to go into other places and wage war and that too dirt cheap are the Islamic Jihadis. Jihadis are highly coveted resources. Jihadis are weapons of mass destruction in the 21st century. Those who control Jihadis controls chaos. Chaos is the weak spot, the Achilles heel, of 21st century managed states.

The Muslims will never control the jihadis. They are the idiots. It is countries like USA, UK, Russia, PRC, Israel, and once India sees the potential, India which would control the Jihadis.

Ever heard of the phrase - It is not guns that kill people, people kill people. So just having guns, is like having a lot of scrap metal, until you have the people who are willing to use those guns. And which people would do that - only those who are stupid enough to fight other people's fights - the Naxalites, the Jihadis.

So control over Jihadis is the battle being fought. America wants Pakistan to put all Jihadis in the service of America. China has its own fingers in the pie, networking with Jamaat-Islami Pakistan and others. Russia lends support in its own way to Syrians, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iranians, and others. U.K. is the H.Q. of Jihad International. The Jihadi is everybody's best friend.

India is just a market, but Pakistan, Pakistan is the place to mine Jihadis.

Pakistan Zindabad!

Disclaimer: Just my take on Zbig's mind!

[RajeshA]

America's National Interests in Pakistan

Pakistan is living off America, and in order to assess Pakistan's evolution, one would have to consider USA's Pakistan policy as well. Some of the cornerstones of that policy could be:

1) USA wants a Muslim Army at its disposal, doing its dirty work, at an affordable price. This Army is the Pakistani Army.

2) USA wants to avail of the chaotic potential of the Jihadis for its own plans of neutralizing the influence of other powers in Central Asia and beyond.

3) USA wants Pakistan as a country to put a check on India's power projection in Asia. Through Pakistan, USA wants a say in how India projects power - with what policies, with what tactics, at what speed.

4) USA wants Pakistan to keep its nuclear arsenal out of the reach of anti-Western Islamic and other elements.

5) USA needs Pakistan to provide access to Central Asia. This is needed for reasons of supply routes for troops, access to mineral wealth as well as to neutralize the influence of powers in Asia.

6) USA needs Pakistan as a military platform for some of its operations against Iran.

7) Pakistan serves US needs to keep Shia Iran under pressure, by putting up an alliance of Sunni States, Saudis with money, Egypt with Arab Leadership and Pakistan with military resources including a nuclear capability. The expansion of Shia power on the other hand serves American needs to keep the Sunnis in check. Why else were the Shi'ites allowed to come to power in Baghdad? Because the balance of power was going to much in favor of their 'allies' the Sunnis. At some point of time, the Sunnis would have freed themselves from American patronage, unless a the Shi'ite threat was increased. Also the focus on Iranian nuclear program helps in keeping the Sunnis on their toes.

8 ) USA is Pakistan's patron, because it does not want PRC to completely take over their rental-boy.

9) USA remains Pakistan's patron, because of a history of patronage. Bureaucratic and strategic inertia does not allow USA to break this relationship.

10) Last but not least, USA requires Pakistani intelligence inputs to avoid another 9/11 or similar attacks, to fight the war on terror. This is the major argument given for the partnership.

Now some of the above reasons seep in into the public discourse and in official American policy statements, while other reasons remain unspoken. As the public discourse is only occupied by a subset of the above reasons, often American policy appears illogical and disjoint from American national interests, and totally divergent from 'American values'. It is not.

India is often stuck at wondering how America can stand for certain 'American Values' and then go and support a regime, or regimes, which totally in variance to those values. If this is the stand of Indian bewilderment, then it becomes far more difficult to comprehend how America moves to protect its even officially stated national interests. And we are still not even grappling with the undisclosed American interests and policies.

Another thing we should try to avoid is to becoming excessively normative about these interests. We are not the ones who would be telling America what is in their national interests. So it makes no difference if we throw abuse at the Americans, calling them hypocrites, and what not. Hypocrisy is a valid and just national policy.

The question remains, what can India do, considering the above restraints, and mind you these are just some considerations about just one of 3.5 friends of Pakistan. There are other friends propping up Pakistan, but for the present let's just stick to America.

[RajeshA]

Weaning America away from Pakistan

Some developments in India's interests could be:

1. The anti-American sentiment in Pakistan and Pakistani Army reaches a crescendo, which threatens US-American cooperation. This is possible if American pressure on Pakistan becomes so overbearing, that the stick cracks, like asking PA to march into North Waziristan, etc.
2. The duplicity and double dealing of Pakistan irks the American policy makers so, that there is a backlash. If more and more Americans become aware that their tax-dollars have contributed to the deaths of their boys, that ISI is the culprit, and the American Government a mute accomplice, then the seas could become rough. Perhaps a dossier should be sent to the parents of each American soldier who died in Afghanistan, telling them about Pakistani duplicity and American complicity.
3. Pakistani state failure is so absolute, that American money cannot keep Pakistan afloat. America has to jump ship. America's financial woes would make the Americans to tighten their belts, and it would be more difficult for American friends of Pakistan in US Congress to find the money for their buddies. Not all Congressmen have been inducted or converted to the above mentioned American interests, so they may not support this spending.
4. Once the Afghan War winds up, America's need for Pakistan would decrease substantially. As long as American soldiers are dependent on supply lines going through Pakistan, America needs to keep Pakistan in good humor. There is no going around that fact. Other American interests in Pakistan are of secondary order, and perhaps being nurtured by only a select few in the American establishment. Americans are prone to get distracted by other problems, and the nurturing of Pakistan after an American withdrawal from Afghanistan may indeed get overlooked and fall of the screen.
5. Pakistani State becomes so diseased with Talibanic and Pushtun extremism, that USA sees only amputation as a solution to save the life of their friend from the spreading gangrene. Any part of Pakistan which cannot serve American interests either directly or indirectly, or harms American interests is dead body tissue for American, and it can amputated. Should the Americans see that Pushtun areas would only increase instability in Pakistan, perhaps they would insist on partitioning Pushtunistan from Pakistani heartland. Clearly the Pakistanis will not enjoy the amputation operation, but it can be explained as only being in Pakistan's best interests, and that Pakistan should accept de-jure, what is already de-facto, that Pakistan has lost control over the Pushtun Areas. Repetitive Amputations of Pakistan would solve India's Pakistan problem.
6. "A terrorist attack on US soil which can be traced back to Pakistan, would have devastating consequences on US-Pakistan relations", so says Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. If the attack is a major one, then in the heat of the moment, USA can decide to put all their national interests in Pakistan aside and just bomb Pakistan to pulp. Such an outcome is not all that unthinkable. As the Afghan War draws to a close for American, many Taliban and other Jihadi elements would become autonomous of Pakistani Army control. It would indeed be difficult for Pakistan to keep their promise to USA.
7. Pakistan-based terrorism in the world makes American support too untenable. At some level America too has to show that it is a model citizen of the world, and if there are too many terrorist incidents in the world being linked to Pakistan, then Americans could have trouble justifying their support to Pakistan.
8. India buys so much clout in USA, that USA is forced to reassess American national interests viz-a-viz Pakistan. India has accommodated American interests on the Indian Subcontinent. Secondly there is a rapprochement between USA and India in a number of fields, with generally friendlier atmospherics. Also the Indian Americans in USA have played an admirable part in becoming an Indian Lobby as well as a source of campaign funding for American lawmakers. Given time, US might start seeing things differently.
9. Steady international criticism of US policies. This takes place in a two-pronged fashion. On the one hand, America's resolve to be involved in the region is undermined by a steady barrage of criticism regarding the handling of the war. A second attack vector is, if certain responsible powers in the world, including EU, Russia, China, and India openly express their distrust of what America is trying to achieve in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The hidden agendas are brought to the fore.

JMTs

Please feel free to add to this list. Perhaps there is a need to assess the interests of the Chinese, Saudis, British and Japanese in Pakistan as well.

[kubhamanyu]

The weaning away list is depressing at how weak a leverage it appears to be. Pak is not going anywhere anytime soon; it has at least three benefactors to hold it up. And despite all its machinations, they will hold it up because of how valuable it remains to them. All the righteous protestations will do no good, they need the place mucked up to "play."

India needs to set these benefactors on a collision course with each other, which would be the first step in conquering that space. As preparation, India needs to become a little unpredictable and, in the short term, change to an offensive posture. It needs to strategically commit to expand north and west at every opportunistic moment.

Immediately, if we remove 370 and its consequences, then it will draw TSPA and possibly taleb here. That will either make the US stay longer or leave sooner; in the former case US also reduces what it doles to TSPA that is paying less attention to it, the taleb could possibly expand in pak given this space, and we can create leverage for space in Af. Or things come out in the open and the US is fighting us along with pak and taleb. In the latter case, we try to enter in the space the us departure creates, along with the chinese for those many trillion dollars and Genuine Democracy Restoration Project. Pak still gets no dole.

Will America fight us if we throw the gauntlet, or will it negotiate as two democracies would; what does history say? Yeah, someone is going to say this is a sure way to get us in a three-front war, but two of those three are guaranteed now, anyway.

We need to draw the line, now, about our neighborhood. But we aren't. We are hoping America will do it for us, but why would that be? Has the US got so much control behind the public face that all we have left are Survivor Moves?

[A_Gupta]

World Bank does think there is serious risk in Pakistan in the next few years. But it doesn't estimate that Pakistan is failing.
here

If that link does not work, go to worldbank.org, and follow the country link to Pakistan and Country Partnership Strategy Link.

PS:

The priority lending program amounts to an estimated $3.7 billion (IBRD/IDA) through FY12, equivalent to about 60 percent of a total potential lending envelope of up to $6.0 billion during the 4 year CPS period (FY10-13). IFC intends to invest between $1.3 and $1.5 billion provided that the economic and security situations do not deteriorate significantly, and will continue with its robust program of Advisory activities. The Bank on behalf of development partners will administer complementary grant financing of at least $100 million for the MDTF for the Northwest Border Region. This amount may
increase depending on developments in the region and results achieved.

Risks and Mitigation

xiv. Given the serious and multifaceted challenges that Pakistan faces, this CPS poses greater than normal risks. The FY10-13 CPS will be implemented in the context of economic austerity with the potential for policy reversal as well as other uncertainties. Notably, although Pakistan has made much progress in stabilizing the economy, reviving growth of GDP, exports and foreign exchange reserves and reducing inflation and the current account deficit, the fiscal situation remains vulnerable and inflation high and hence there is a risk of macroeconomic slippage. In addition, ongoing conflict within Pakistan and in Afghanistan poses a risk to stability while proposed Bank Group activities in the conflict-affected northwest greatly increase the Bank’s exposure to such risks. Finally, there are implementation risks which impact the Bank Group’s program. The Bank Group will seek to mitigate these risks through proactive measures to reduce exposure of staff to security risks and through alternative means of supervision along with continued attention to capacity building and robust fiduciary arrangements such as those involving third-party monitoring. By design, the Bank program is largely structured to be dependent on results, with disbursements for a significant part of priority program and commitments against the contingent part of the overall program firmly dependent on program and results achieved during implementation.

PPS: World Bank figures elsewhere contradict their own Country Partnership Strategy numbers.
http://devdata.worldbank.org/AAG/pak_aag.pdf

The CPS report is IMO, made up statistics, to provide a rationalization to throw in more money into Pakistan (as opposed to say, Somalia).

[RajeshA]

shiv's post

Talking with them makes them think that the other guy is weak, so he wants to talk.

Well in Hollywood movies, whenever a party is willing to negotiate, it is only to squeeze out more time for itself to prepare for battle!

So the Pakistanis, thinking that the Indians are going to capitulate come to talks with their lists of demands, and get nothing. Indians come to the table with their dossiers and get nothing.

But isn't the real reason, why India wants talks, is to squeeze out more time for itself to grow economically and militarily, and to give Pakistan sufficient time to collapse!!!

[shiv]

Pakistan has taken a very interesting attitude towards India. This is especially true of the Paki army and Pakistani nationalists". In fact it is a classic "zero sum game" but I hate that goddam expression "zero-sum game" because you read it and you will never understand it without explanation. It like saying "shiv displays floccinaucinihilipilification when he says zero-sum game". Whatever.

The attitude taken by the Paki nationalist establishement is as follows:

If the two nation theory was wrong, and if Pakistan should not have existed, then India needs to take Pakistan down. As long as India is unable to take Pakistan down, Pakistan and Pakistaniyat is the truth, and India is wrong. The meaning of "zero-sum game" in this context is "If India is right, then Pakistan is wrong. But for Pakistan to be wrong, India must take Pakistan down and we will make sure Pakistan is not taken down"

In any war between India and Pakistan, India has not taken Pakistan down. Therefore India is wrong and Pakistaniyat is correct. Pakistan is a necessary "foil" for evil India and its very existence is proof to that. there are of course Indians, even on BRF who voice and feel the mirror image of that "zero-sum" sentiment - i.e that the existence of Pakistan is an insult and India's inability to take down Pakistan, and India's tolerance of Pakistan is a daily reminder of India's weakness and defeat.

In real terms the Pakistani attitude has advantages for the Pakistani establishment. they have shown right at the beginning that they really do not give a damn for the improvement of the life of ordinary Abdul in the manner that "developed countries" and even India are looking at. All that is needed is the survival of a "core Pakistan" of Pakistan army and Pakistani nationalists to serve as proof that Pakistan needs to exist as an opponent of india which will forever oppose India and "hold India back". The advantage of not caring about the life and condition of the ordinary Abdul is that military defeat and further economic suffereing of Abdul makes no difference as long as core Pakistan survives. And if you look back "core Pakistan" has survived 1971 and 1999 despite a gradual decline in the condition of Abduls.

India's main problem is that india is looking for a model of development that brings a better life and better living conditions for mango man. A debilitating war with Pakistan may be technically "won" by India but it leads to
1) Continued survival of core Pakistan despite military defeat
2) economic misery and slowing down of development for mango Indian.

So a war is technically victory for the Pakistani establishment unless the establishment is wiped out. The Pakistani establishment have ensured that they will not get wiped out easily by saying "We will nuke you if you try wiping us out". So in fact the Pakistan establishment have 2 trump cards against India in order to permanently prove that Pakistan is a great idea:
1) As long as they survive, Pakistan is successful
2) They will definitely survive because of nukes.

The trick to solving the Pakistan problem is in my view not to play to the strengths of the Pakistan army and establishment,. They are trying to prove that their survival is a victory. And they have ensured their survival despite losing control of most of their country. It is better not to dispute their right to survive - since destroying them directly is calling for nuclear war on their terms.

It is far better to look at their failures and at what can be done to make it costly for them to keep opposing India. Pakistan's population and its strife are great opportunities to be exploited as is Islamism. Islamism minus nukes can be squashed like a sausage.

The other thing is to eliminate the effects of survival of the Pakistani establishment. The Pakistani establishment, because of their belief in the "zero sum game" - "We exist and therefore we will oppose India" have continuously tried to damage India. first it was wars. Then it was drugs, counterfeit notes, harboring of Indian criminals and terrorists, infiltration and terrorism. India has actually grown past Pakistan despite all this.

The only route that remains for the Pakistani army and establishment is to try and bring about a commonality of interest between Islamist groups and Pakistaniyat. That is to say that they have to create a situation in which it is said that "The survival of Islam is threatened by the survival of India". This is yet another zero sum game in which any damage done to India is a "victory" and as long as an Islamic Paki army and establishment survive, it indicates a further victory. This is exactly what is being attempted now.

The only thing I foresee here is the eventual acquisition of nuclear arms by the Islamist groups so that nuclear war is required to damage India and prove that the Pakistan idea is successful. In fact the desperate Paki ploys to link Pakistan's problems with India, cashmere, water etc are clearly indicative of a cry for help from the world community to take India down before Islamists take Pakistan.

The world community are not going to take India down.

Are the islamists going to take over Pakistan or not? What do we want? What can we do?

[RajeshA]

I'd like to paste here a post I wrote earlier.

There are many clocks ticking:-

Clock 1: How long would the US stay on in Pakistan? This decides how long the Pakistanis would have their military and economy supported by global cash. (Pre-9/11 Pakistan)

Clock 2: How long would it take for the Pakistani economy to come crashing down with hyperinflation and scarcity. This basically decides how long the Pakistani Government retains a semblance of Governance. (Zimbabwe minus Army Control)

Clock 3: How long can the Pakistani Army hide the cracks in its teeth behind the big mustache? Too much revolt from the Islamism inspired, Pushtun-bonded in the Army against the Pakistani Army's various actions in FATA etc could cause a snowball effect. Of course the actions are cosmetic, but there is still hardship for the people there, and some mujahids are inevitably trapped. (Somalia)

Clock 4: How long can the Pakistani Army hold out against the TTP and other Pushtun groups from seizing complete control of Khyber Pukhtoonkhwa and FATA and declaring themselves a separate Emirate? A Bangladesh situation where the splitting off of the country becomes apparent could induce a Yugoslavian situation with Sindh also opting for Independence, etc, rather than letting Pakjab lord over the rest of the country. (Yugoslavia)

Clock 5: How long can the ISI in fact have something to offer the various Islamic outfits and the Taliban? When the ISI lose all control over the country for one reason or another, why should the LeJ, Sipah-e-Sahiba, LeT, JuD, HuJI, etc. need to heed ISI's agenda or control? (Frankenstein Monster)

Clock 6: The Islamization of the Pakistani Army proceeds in so far as that the RAPE class within the Army is completely sidelined, and the radical faction completely takes over, which sees no need for Pakistan's bonhomie with USA and introduces change in the set-up of the civilian facade as well to correspond to that of a Theocracy or a Caliphate. The nuclear weapons are taken over by this group. (Sunni Iran -minus all civilization)

Clock 7: How long can India hold back its hand against an incessant barrage of terrorist attacks? An intervention by India resets all other clocks! (MKG)

Clock 8: How long it would take external powers to defang Pakistan of its nuclear weapons and put them beyond reach of Pakistanis of whatever color, green or dark-green? To some extent this depends on a change of agenda in Washington as well as the readiness of the RAPE to exchange their toys for a new haven for their families and themselves when the ship sinks. Attacks on the RAPE and the Army by the jihadists could facilitate this outcome.

Clock 9: How long it would take India to reach an acceptable level of military readiness and political courage to take on the beast? Dependent on also a lot of factors, among them our GDP growth, our industrialization, change of political guard
to the new generation, more strategic insight, military modernization, internal stablity, communal peace within India, a credible missile defense shield, etc.

Anytime any Pakistani clock strikes 12, it speeds up all other clocks too.

[RajeshA]

In fact the desperate Paki ploys to link Pakistan's problems with India, cashmere, water etc are clearly indicative of a cry for help from the world community to take India down before Islamists take Pakistan.

The world community are not going to take India down.

Are the islamists going to take over Pakistan or not? What do we want? What can we do?

The 'Pakistani core' is the Pakistani Army leadership, the Pakjabi soldiers, the sarkari Mullahs (The brain, the muscle and the ideologues)! Probably some 45 richest families in Pakistan could also be included in this core.

I think one possible way to influence Pakistan is through these richest families in Pakistan. Should the Taliban ever take over Pakistan, these families would be the first to be fleeced.

These families ought to be brought under pressure and be asked to help influence the direction of developments in Pakistan.

[RamaY]

^ Could the recent undoing of "enemy properties act" by MMS govt a step in that direction???

Paki rich families were the ones who funded/promoted separate pakiness program all along using the unwashed as cannon fodder. I really do not like the idea of giving them any space in shaping this area.

Let Taliban take over Pakistan and let them bringdown the whole place. It is better for India to offer peanuts to common abduls when the lose everything that is worth mentioning and build it from bottom...

JMHT...