Managing Pakistan's failure

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 20 Oct 2010 14:58

In order to change the dynamic between Islam and China, Pakistani Army must fall.

IMO we can safely say that we are all agreed to the above pressing need only.

The question is how if ever this can be achieved without causing permanent damage to our country. Whilst most sane analyses show that TSP as is is unsustainable etc etc, the determined bid to keep it alive by its sponsors overrides merely sane analysis only. Something tells me we'll have to wait years, decades even, for the PA to fall under its own weight. Humans have lived in far greater misery for far longer (dark agaes, anyone?) than TSP's aam aadmis today. The situ can continue indefinitely, as far as I can see.

abhischekcc · Post by **abhischekcc** » 20 Oct 2010 15:06

The only wild card from India's POV, should pak collapse, is the status of the nuclear weapons. The rest all can be handled.

1. Jehadi groups will lose their main protector (PA), hence, we will be able to take punitive measures agains them without fear of reprisals.
2. Jehadi groups will lose their main soure of income (opium) since the manager (ISI) will be decimated.
3. Chinese army's presence in Baltistan is overstretched, and they know it. They may make some noise, but should India really get busy to dismantling pakistan, PLA/China will not be in a position to stop us.

The only wildcard is Jehadi with nukes. This is the main thing holding us back.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 20 Oct 2010 17:54

Hari Seldon wrote:
In order to change the dynamic between Islam and China, Pakistani Army must fall.
IMO we can safely say that we are all agreed to the above pressing need only.

The question is how if ever this can be achieved without causing permanent damage to our country. Whilst most sane analyses show that TSP as is is unsustainable etc etc, the determined bid to keep it alive by its sponsors overrides merely sane analysis only. Something tells me we'll have to wait years, decades even, for the PA to fall under its own weight. Humans have lived in far greater misery for far longer (dark agaes, anyone?) than TSP's aam aadmis today. The situ can continue indefinitely, as far as I can see.

India spends so many billions on all sorts of weapon systems to countenance Pakistan. All India needs to do is to invest 10-12 billion USD in Pakiban and Pushtun Nationalists and see how they bring down Pakistan. Americans pay the Pakistani Army to kill Al Qaeda. India can pay Jihadis of all types to take down Pakistani Army. Depending on the seniority, relevance and number of TSPA soldiers taken down, the Jihadis can be given bonuses. The point is such services from groups in Pakistan are up for sale.

Some Afghan Pushtun elite would be more than willing to serve as brokers and conduits of such special services.

In Afghanistan, India has a ready made proxy. After all, one needs to look at how much terrorism the ISI has sponsored in Afghanistan alone. Afghanistan has every right to retaliate. India can financially support Afghans' endeavors.

Afghanistan is India's strategic backyard, not Pakistan's. Why else do you think, Kiyanahi pisses in his khakhis when he talks about Indian consulates in Afghanistan. Only we have been very reluctant in exploring all the possibilities.

In the end, India salvages Gilgit-Baltistan, Baluchistan and Sindh, supports Pushtunistan's self-determination and let Pakistan sink into the dark ages for the next 30 years.

Hari Seldon · Post by **Hari Seldon** » 20 Oct 2010 17:57

^^^ Wow. Nice idea RajeshA garu.

Truly, crowdsourcing works and the forum is indeed able to bring together new perspectives....let's hope this above gem of an idea has been noted and will slowly work its way into the right policy circles and all only.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 20 Oct 2010 18:45

let us accept that the US and India in principle agree that TSP has to be dismantled. Who else then has to agree?

1. China
2. Saudi + UAE
3. nod from Turkey
4. rubber stamp from NATO members

i only see 1 as being problematic, others can be managed. even then, if US and India are agreed, then China can be taken on

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 20 Oct 2010 21:02

shiv wrote:
Johann wrote: Pakistan's national security elite is a different kettle of fish - high quality universal primary and scientific education is not seen as the vital enabler for national security. They've always counted on Pakistani diplomatic maneuvers to bring in access to the weapons and funding they need. Pakistan only needs education for ideologically motivated cannon-fodder, not to build and maintain a world beating military industrial complex, or a vibrant developing economy to pay for it all.
Absolutely Johann. Pakistan was like India in 1947. It had missed the industrial revolution by a century. Germany was right there in the middle of the scientific and industrial revolution and Japan was not going to be left behind. So the education, industry and culture related to that were all developed in the 19th century itself.

One only has to read about German technology in WW1 to see how Pakistan in 1947 cannot even be compared.

India has struggled to catch up with the industrial and tech revolution and still remains a tier 2 industrial power in many ways. Pakistanis have assumed that they are "equal to India" without actually putting in the effort and investment either in education or tech. That is how they still basically only offer value added agricultural products for export.

I have an important disagreement about the state of industry, and defence industry in the subcontinent at independence, and its effects on the present.

When India became a republic in 1950 it was the 10th most industrialised country in the world. Of course this was in part a reflection of the destruction in Europe and NE Asia, and the level of underdevelopment in the rest of the colonised world (including 'white' colonies).

Much of that industry served either the British Indian armed forces, or the Indian Railways, or export oriented industries like textiles, hemp, etc.

That level of industrialisation was both a source of optimism, as well as a source of concern for Nehru who rightly felt that far too much of the GoI's resources in general had been directed towards defence rather than development.

Most of the quite substantial state-owned defence production Ordnance Factory system (which had been substantially built up in the 1930s and 40s as war approached), as well as the private industry that sub-contracted during the war was inherited by India rather than Pakistan at partition.

Of course the problem was that these were *factories* - the key research, design and development of weapon systems took place in the UK or US, and the ability to build and assemble an Enfield, or even a Spitfire was good enough to beat the Japs and the Nazis but wasn't quite good enough when you're entering the age of computers, guided missiles, jet aircraft, automatic weapons, etc.

What Pakistan has done is to replicate the situation in pre-1947 India where it has the industrial capacity to re-produce transferred foreign designs in sufficient numbers. That is what POF and the Taxila complex represent. That is what PAEC and KRL represent. My guess is this has much to do with the fact that Pakistan's overall direction was set by Mohajir bureaucrats from the ICS who replicated old models, rather than the kind of intellectual activists who led the Indian independence movement and who had much broader intellectual horizons.

India on the other hand (since the 1965 in particular) has concluded that no one supplier is reliable enough for its defence needs, and has sought to maximise its ability to design and develop suitable weapon systems, or at least master as many of their key technologies as possible. That is what BARC and DRDO represent.

The strong interest in India even before independence in mastering, producing, and profitably using modern technologies for both development and defence was a key driver in its continued investment in higher education, especially the elite institutions like the IITs, as well as the basic sciences needed to keep those going - TIFR, IISc, etc. In this I see strong parallels in Israel, and to a lesser extent Brazil in the same time period. Unlike Israel, and more like Brazil a very hierarchical society meant that far more effort was put in to elite higher education than basic primary education for the masses, with the exception of the communist states. Of course Pakistan was so much worse when it came to primary education, as well as neglecting higher education.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Oct 2010 21:16

I think this "India was the 10th most industrialized nation in the 1950" is hogwash in terms of quality and variety. It may have been true for the volume of textiles churned out.

The ability to clone artillery shells and guns does not count for much in terms of industrialization. What matters is whether you are able to produce pins, ball bearings, nail-clippers, motors, radios and machine tools. These are the things that set India apart from even a moderately industrialized nation. The list may sound silly but every item requires a degree of development of industry.

No doubt Pakistan drew the short straw, but India was far from being anything like a decent industrial power.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 20 Oct 2010 21:17

^^^ that is pretty much what Johann said

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 20 Oct 2010 21:34

Slightly OT - but here is a Current Science paper written in 1942 about the state of Heavy Chemical Industries in India by my grandfather. It says volumes about the state of industrialization. Check what he says about explosives manufacture in India - and this at the height of the war when industrialized nations were producing explosives in thousands of tons.

http://www.ias.ac.in/jarch/currsci/11/183.pdf

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 20 Oct 2010 21:44

Shiv,

There's no doubt that India's industrial landscape was *highly* uneven, but industrialisation was measured in part by things like steel output. Before WWII, India exported pig iron and imported steel, but by the end of the war it was capable of processing all of its iron in to steel.

In 1952 it was second in Asia after the USSR in terms of steel production - Japan, and Japanese industry in Korea had been devastated, and India was ahead of China. This was not enough, and India was still a major importer of steel at the time.

Where did this steel go? Transportation costs made it too expensive to export, and all consumption was domestic. The chief uses were the railways (for coaches, engines and track), shipbuilding, textile machinery and bridges/infrastructure, etc produced locally.

Pakistan's iron and coal deposits were pretty negligable, as were much of the industry that went with it at partition.

Please see "The Iron and Steel Industry in India" by John E. Brush in Geographical Review Vol. 42, No. 1 (Jan., 1952), pp. 37-55

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 20 Oct 2010 21:57

Thread is meandering. Please discuss industrial policy and capacity in Economic Forum.
Thanks, ramana

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 21 Oct 2010 01:21

In an earlier post I wrote the following about why China is willing to accept USA in Pakistan:

RajeshA wrote:There is no competition between US and China to be expected in Pakistan.

PRC understands that USA has been paying its whore and supporting her lifestyle, and frankly it doesn't mind, because the whore likes to buy too many shoes, and PRC cannot buy her all that; PRC is still not rich enough. PRC also knows that USA would someday move on, but hopes that it would be when PRC has a good job and enough change to buy her services. PRC knows, that should USA move on before PRC is ready to buy her services and support her lifestyle, the whore might simply go and marry the bania next door, and then it is curtains for PRC.

Even in CARs, China allows Russia to pay for the region's security but through SCO is first to claim the mineral wealth of the region.

PRC motto is simply: why pay for something, when others are paying for it, and it still gets to use it.

Someday USA will retreat from Pakistan, and then PRC will take over the whore. PRC earns enough now anyway to own her, and would also make sure that the whore gets a part-time job at the Walmart store, so that PRC does not need to pay too much. The whore will stay in business, and will keep on hurling her trash over into the garden of the neighboring bania angering him no end.

Why is USA willing to accept Chinese influence in Pakistan? I wrote:

RajeshA wrote:Whereas American interests in Pakistan have historically been to curb Soviet expansionism, jointly fight GWOT in Afghanistan and perhaps put sufficient pressure on India to make India come into the American camp, all of which were time-bound projects

USA does two things w.r.t. Pakistan:

They tolerate Chinese proliferation to Pakistan
They give TSPA weapons.

What America wants is that its projects in Pakistan or using Pakistani cooperation are successful. They need TSPA cooperation. So they do what TSPA desires. In fact to keep Pakistan as attached to US interests, US would continue to pay Pakistan, regardless of Pakistan's transgressions.

If India wants a straight rivalry between USA and China, and to allow herself the option of deciding how the balance of power tips, then India should work to decrease areas of strategic cooperation between PRC and USA. If India wants to be wooed by both USA and PRC, India needs to muscle in into a decisive position.

If TSPA is destroyed, PRC loses its most important strategic alliance in the world. USA would be less perturbed about the demise of TSPA. USA would quickly move on and try to look for different solutions, for new partners in the region able provide services to USA. But as things stand USA would not let their munna fail.

It is up to India and India alone to take care of Pakistan. Some Indians think USA has much influence over India. That is not true, because anything less than a full nuclear assault by USA, India can take anything US has to offer, which includes sticks like a tightening of outsourcing laws, technology denial, UNSC permanent seat obstruction, etc. USA does not have any real leeway over India. India is free to follow her own policies in Pakistan.

India needs to make Pakistan useless for both PRC and USA. This can be done doing on to Pakistan, what Pakistan has done to India.

Iran supports Hezbollah and weakens Israel, without having a common border with Lebanon. Similarly India can support Pushtun Nationalists and Pakiban and weaken Pakistan, evehn if India is forced out of Afghanistan as USA withdraws or US protests India's presence there. If USA pays Pakistan to take on Afghan Taliban, India should pay the Pushtun to take down Pakistani Army. And paying and controlling is something India can do even without a physical presence in Afghanistan.

Once TSPA collapses, India can expect a change in the demeanor of both PRC and USA towards India.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 21 Oct 2010 01:28

I had jokingly suggested doing a Ribbentrop-Molotov with the Talebs and divide up Pakjab between them and us. Seriously, that imagery should be kept in mind while dealing any such tactical line. That means while doing the "Poland" remember to prepare for the subsequent stage - of having to deal with the Talebs themselves and liquidate them too.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 21 Oct 2010 02:48

brihaspati wrote:I had jokingly suggested doing a Ribbentrop-Molotov with the Talebs and divide up Pakjab between them and us. Seriously, that imagery should be kept in mind while dealing any such tactical line. That means while doing the "Poland" remember to prepare for the subsequent stage - of having to deal with the Talebs themselves and liquidate them too.

brihaspati garu,

I think in the calculation with Jihadis and Talebs, the following 6 considerations are of relevance:

Which power is being hurt by the Jihadis the most? Which power is spending most of its resources in containing or eliminating the Jihadis?
Which power is showing the most influence over the Jihadis, directly or indirectly?
Which power is profiting most from the nihilistic doctrine of the Jihadis?
Is the global strength of sympathizers of Jihad sufficient to support the movement over the long term? (Oil running out, alternate energy sources becoming available, alternate basis for economies in Muslim countries, and other considerations)
Are the Jihadis in possession of or in a position to gain weapons of mass destruction, such that India can become a casualty?
What threat priority do the Jihadis have for Indians?

I am of the opinion Jihadis base of support would seriously lack financial, political and technological muscle over the medium to long term. As such I am willing to look at Jihadis not as the movers and shakers or as soldiers but more as guns in the hands of various global powers. In Pakistan, the Jihadi's services are up for hire. Anybody can hire them, provided one has the money and approaches them through suitable pious-looking middle-men. You can pay them to shoot anybody you consider your enemy, and you can pay them to not shoot you, which costs a bit more.

Pakistan's 'ulema' and Taliban have ensured that Islam is corrupted beyond repair and there is much disillusionment, just not enough, and also no credible alternatives in that prison.

So I would proceed by answering those questions. I would try to determine if that calculus can be changed in India's favor, and if yes, how.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 21 Oct 2010 13:37

Hari Seldon wrote:^^^ Wow. Nice idea RajeshA garu.

Truly, crowdsourcing works and the forum is indeed able to bring together new perspectives....let's hope this above gem of an idea has been noted and will slowly work its way into the right policy circles and all only.

It is an attractive idea to do a Chanakyan "parvata raja" (use them / buy them as allies to destroy TSP and then destroy them in turn) with the Pakiban but obviously there are huge risks involved in "using" jihadis, as Americans have found out. In our own history, Rama Raya of Vijayanagar used turko-Jihadist troops in his conflict with the Bahamanis, and said troops, as is well known, turned on their king at the opportune moment. Even more, Rama Raya was like a second father to the heir apparent to the Golconda throne, and the latter, once he assumed the throne, gleefully joined in inflicting a civilizational catastrophe on Vijayanagar at Rakkasi-tangadi in 1565, taking special care to take part in the brutal murder of his erstwhile "second father."

Between the Pakiban and Afghans, we are probably better off with the Afghans as allies, primarily because we are buffered from any potential treachery from them by the physical presence of TSP territory.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 21 Oct 2010 14:52

the pakiban will not play, the pashtuniban may play but are risky
might be time to turn to the uzbeks again?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 21 Oct 2010 15:47

Lalmohan wrote:the pakiban will not play, the pashtuniban may play but are risky
might be time to turn to the uzbeks again?

Lalmohan ji,

I said:

RajeshA wrote:Anybody can hire them, provided one has the money and approaches them through suitable pious-looking middle-men.

These pious looking middle-men could be Indian Muslims, they can be Baluchis, they can be Afghans/Pushtun diaspora living in the West or India, they can be Afghans in Afghanistan, Karzai's network of friends, etc.

Indian intelligence need not approach the Pakiban directly. The Pakiban does not even need to know that they are working for Indians.

James B · Post by **James B** » 21 Oct 2010 15:51

RajeshA wrote: Indian intelligence need not approach the Pakiban directly. The Pakiban does not even need to know that they are working for Indians.

How can India use Pakiban without knowing that India is using them?. I mean, how are we going to approach them without showing our hand.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 21 Oct 2010 16:08

James B wrote:
RajeshA wrote: Indian intelligence need not approach the Pakiban directly. The Pakiban does not even need to know that they are working for Indians.
How can India use Pakiban without knowing that India is using them?. I mean, how are we going to approach them without showing our hand.

Through Afghans who have an axe to grind against Pakistan as well. What the Afghans need is

A vision - Free Pushtunistan
A means - 10-12 Billion USD
An excuse - Vengeance for terror perpetrated by the ISI in Afghanistan (plausible deniability for India, as well as sufficient distance from the foot-soldiers of this vengeance - the Pakiban).

I mean do the Afghan Taliban know that they are being financed by the Chinese and working for the Chinese by sapping the strength of USA?!

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 21 Oct 2010 18:24

Using any of Pashtun/Afghan/Pakiban/AfTaleb has to be done with a very clear understanding - that it is only going to be a temporary alliance of purpose. While you collaborate, you have to prepare to start the liquidation struggle almost immediately the first purpose is over.

Once again the Poland partition between Hitler and Stalin should be dangling in imagery. Even if Stalin is supposed not to have believed that the Germans had invaded, he had indeed started out preparations for such a war before. Only that he had destroyed his command group before for personal rivalry and perhaps was expecting more time to be given to him.

But both sides knew that Poland and Finland was just a temporary collaboration. Moreover they knew that they would have to go for each others jugular immediately afterwards.
Same goes for India and all the groupings to the west of the current Indian land border in the west.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 21 Oct 2010 19:33

brihaspati wrote:Using any of Pashtun/Afghan/Pakiban/AfTaleb has to be done with a very clear understanding - that it is only going to be a temporary alliance of purpose. While you collaborate, you have to prepare to start the liquidation struggle almost immediately the first purpose is over.

What if India can think beyond just the immediate purpose, of many more purposes for which a strategic alliance between India and Pushtunistan/Afghanistan can be of value?

Just the break up of Pakistan does not end the history or a future of geopolitical struggle for India in the Central Asian region - there is the question of transit between East Asia and West Asia of both people, but more importantly of goods and armies, there is the question of pipelines, there is the question of freedom for our adversaries to exploit mineral wealth in the region, there is the question of Xinjiang, there is the question of safe haven and training camps for Islamic adversaries of other powers in Asia and beyond.

Would India want to give up our 'assets', our friends in Pushtunistan, once the first project of disassembly of Pakistan has succeeded?

The Indian subcontinent is home to over half a billion Muslims. India is the strongest country in the subcontinent. If the Indian Muslims had the vision, some self-respect and some spine, they could provide the leadership of other Muslims as well, all in their own respective countries, and by sheer numbers alone the leadership of whole Muslim world. For that they would have had to decrease the friction with people of other faiths in India and to enter a strategic alignment with the Indian State itself, allowing both Indian State and themselves a predominant position in Central, West, South and South-East Asia. But Alas! So theoretically and hypothetically speaking, India could hold sway over Afghanistan, as well as the rest of the Muslim world, influencing their policies towards the other big powers of the world.

I am just using a different lens at the moment to see the world, as perhaps you! But I do understand the logic of your argument.

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 21 Oct 2010 19:41

RajeshA wrote:
India is the strongest country in the subcontinent. If the Indian Muslims had the vision, some self-respect and some spine, they could provide the leadership of other Muslims as well, all in their own respective countries, and by sheer numbers alone the leadership of whole Muslim world. For that they would have had to decrease the friction with people of other faiths in India and to enter a strategic alignment with the Indian State itself, allowing both Indian State and themselves a predominant position in Central, West, South and South-East Asia. But Alas! So theoretically and hypothetically speaking, India could hold sway over Afghanistan, as well as the rest of the Muslim world, influencing their policies towards the other big powers of the world.

RajeshA Ji The Indian muslim can never step out of bounds of the 'Holy Koran' and all such talk are idealistic and not well grounded.Any strategy which expects them to go out of bounds is a non starter IMO.

Ashley Kravitz · Post by **Ashley Kravitz** » 21 Oct 2010 20:00

RajeshA Ji The Indian muslim can never step out of bounds of the 'Holy Koran'

Why does he need to ?

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 21 Oct 2010 20:25

^ We are discussing strategy and this will drag us into religion which is a no-no.Hence wrote IMO in case you missed it.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 21 Oct 2010 20:41

James B wrote:
RajeshA wrote: Indian intelligence need not approach the Pakiban directly. The Pakiban does not even need to know that they are working for Indians.
How can India use Pakiban without knowing that India is using them?. I mean, how are we going to approach them without showing our hand.

It is possible in theory to carefully hide the source of funding. The cautionary note is because these guys hate us Yindoos more than they can ever hate their own misguided momin geniralia. They would be willing to kill our leaders for free after taking the bounty money from us.

KLNMurthy · Post by **KLNMurthy** » 21 Oct 2010 20:45

brihaspati wrote:Using any of Pashtun/Afghan/Pakiban/AfTaleb has to be done with a very clear understanding - that it is only going to be a temporary alliance of purpose. While you collaborate, you have to prepare to start the liquidation struggle almost immediately the first purpose is over.

Once again the Poland partition between Hitler and Stalin should be dangling in imagery. Even if Stalin is supposed not to have believed that the Germans had invaded, he had indeed started out preparations for such a war before. Only that he had destroyed his command group before for personal rivalry and perhaps was expecting more time to be given to him.

But both sides knew that Poland and Finland was just a temporary collaboration. Moreover they knew that they would have to go for each others jugular immediately afterwards.
Same goes for India and all the groupings to the west of the current Indian land border in the west.

I would reiterate my caution against falling into the trap of too-clever-by-half thinking that has been the downfall of Indian empires in the past. We should learn our lessons from the fate of Vijayanagar.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 21 Oct 2010 20:52

X-post....

abhishek_sharma wrote:In surprise appearance, Obama delivers tough love message to visiting Pakistani officials

LINK

Dozens of U.S. and Pakistani officials are meeting this week at the State Department in 13 different working groups spanning all elements of the U.S.-Pakistan strategic dialogue, but the real action is in a few, select side meetings, where participants tell The Cable that the Obama team is taking a markedly tougher tone with the Pakistanis than before.

One key meeting Wednesday afternoon was between National Security Advisor in-waiting Tom Donilon and what's known as the "core" group of Pakistani officials: Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, Finance Minister Abdul Hafeez Shaikh, and Ambassador Husain Haqqani.

President Barack Obama dropped in on that meeting and stayed for 50 minutes, according to an official who was there, and personally delivered the tough love message that other top administration officials have been communicating since the Pakistani delegation arrived. Obama also expressed support for Pakistan's democracy and announced he would invite Pakistani President Asif Ali Zardari to the White House in the near future.

Earlier Wednesday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton dropped in unannounced on another meeting between Special Representative Richard Holbrooke and Kayani. She delivered the message that Washington's patience is wearing thin with Pakistan's ongoing reluctance to take a more aggressive stance against militant groups operating from Pakistan over the Afghan border. A similar message was delivered to Kayani in another high-level side meeting Wednesday morning at the Pentagon, hosted by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen, two senior government sources said.

The message being delivered to Pakistan throughout the week by the Obama team is that its effort to convince Pakistan to more aggressively combat groups like the Haqqani network and Lashkar-e-Taiba will now consist of both carrots and sticks. But this means that the U.S. administration must find a way incentivize both the Pakistani civilian and military leadership, which have differing agendas and capabilities.

"The Obama side is calculating that Pakistan's military can deliver on subjects important to the U.S. but doesn't want to, while the civilian leadership in Pakistan wants to, but isn't able," said one high-level participant who spoke with The Cable in between sessions.

The carrots are clear. A State Department official confirmed to The Cable that the two sides will formally announce on Friday a new $2 billion military aid package for Pakistan, focusing mostly on items that can be used for counterterrorism. Unspecified amounts of new funding for the reconstruction effort related to the Pakistani flood disaster are also on the table. In exchange, the United States not only wants increased Pakistani military operations in North Waziristan and Baluchistan, but also increased operational flexibility for U.S. special forces operating inside Pakistan's borders.

The sticks are less clear . Former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad argued in a New York Times op-ed Tuesday that the Obama administration should threaten to take down terrorist havens in Pakistan, without Islamabad's consent if necessary. The Carnegie Endowment's Ashley Tellis wrote that the United States should condition aid to Pakistan on increased cooperation and even consider throwing more support toward India's role in Afghanistan, an idea the Pakistanis despise.

The timing of these op-eds and the change in the Obama administration's tone is not being seen by many as a coincidence.

The Pakistanis believe that their extensive efforts to expand military operations in South Waziristan don't get enough recognition in Washington. They also say privately that whatever incentives the United States is offering are not enough to compensate for the huge political and security risks that would come with a full-on assault on insurgent groups they have tacitly supported for decades.

Hanging over the whole discussion are reports that the United States is supporting and even providing escorts for the reconciliation talks in Kabul between the Afghan government, led by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, and senior Taliban officials. The New York Times reported Wednesday that these talks were going on without the approval or involvement of the Pakistani government, ostensibly to prevent elements of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) from moving to thwart them.

"Pakistan is still resisting [moving on groups in North Waziristan] because it still hasn't fully finished with its ongoing operations [in South Waziristan] and also because it doesn't know what will happen with the talks with the Taliban and would much rather not antagonize the Haqqani network at this juncture," said Shuja Nawaz, director of the South Asia Center at the Atlantic Council.

Nawaz noted that the Strategic Dialogue with Pakistan has now reached the third set of meetings, and that there is more pressure to show concrete results to validate the need for such a high-level format. "I hope there will be some clarity on what the objectives are on both sides and also some clarity on red lines so we don't have to relive this movie again and again," he said.

Nawaz also predicted that another point of contention will permeate the chatter in the hallways between Pakistani and American interlocutors -- Pakistan's desire to have Obama visit sometime soon.

"The big underlying issue that won't be on the agenda but will probably be discussed is President Obama's upcoming visit to India and that he won't be coming to Pakistan," he said. "It will point to the imbalance in the relationship."

In a read out, the White House said that Obama has committed to visit Pakistan some time in 2011.

Qureshi, Holbrooke, and USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah will talk about all these issues at a joint Brookings/ Asia Society event Wednesday evening.

The significance is the US is working with TSp in 13 working groups to prevent the state failure we are talking about.

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 21 Oct 2010 22:43

RajeshA wrote:
brihaspati wrote:Using any of Pashtun/Afghan/Pakiban/AfTaleb has to be done with a very clear understanding - that it is only going to be a temporary alliance of purpose. While you collaborate, you have to prepare to start the liquidation struggle almost immediately the first purpose is over.
What if India can think beyond just the immediate purpose, of many more purposes for which a strategic alliance between India and Pushtunistan/Afghanistan can be of value?

Just the break up of Pakistan does not end the history or a future of geopolitical struggle for India in the Central Asian region - there is the question of transit between East Asia and West Asia of both people, but more importantly of goods and armies, there is the question of pipelines, there is the question of freedom for our adversaries to exploit mineral wealth in the region, there is the question of Xinjiang, there is the question of safe haven and training camps for Islamic adversaries of other powers in Asia and beyond.

Would India want to give up our 'assets', our friends in Pushtunistan, once the first project of disassembly of Pakistan has succeeded?

The Indian subcontinent is home to over half a billion Muslims. India is the strongest country in the subcontinent. If the Indian Muslims had the vision, some self-respect and some spine, they could provide the leadership of other Muslims as well, all in their own respective countries, and by sheer numbers alone the leadership of whole Muslim world. For that they would have had to decrease the friction with people of other faiths in India and to enter a strategic alignment with the Indian State itself, allowing both Indian State and themselves a predominant position in Central, West, South and South-East Asia. But Alas! So theoretically and hypothetically speaking, India could hold sway over Afghanistan, as well as the rest of the Muslim world, influencing their policies towards the other big powers of the world.

I am just using a different lens at the moment to see the world, as perhaps you! But I do understand the logic of your argument.

RajeshA ji,

Thanks for articulating what I have been hinting at for a long while. All my calculations, analysis and gut feeling for the future points to this direction - that Muslims of the world and Indian Muslims as well as sub-continental Muslims in particular must move in this direction in the long term. If it happens it will be good for both India and Muslims of the world. Partition did a lot of damage, some demographic shift took place, but it still could not change the larger demographic realities of South Asia and of the historic Indic civilization in its home domain. By writing off 30-35% and making them adversaries or at best neutral observers cannot be a rational policy for the very long term for any civilization (of course it can be argued that the unwanted part have betrayed and left the mother civilization, which has some validity).

China and the West can both be surpassed if an alignment (unthinkable as it may seem today) like this takes place, I believe. But a starting point for that kind of thinking might be a few decades away when some or most of the irrational historical baggage and recent partition bad blood hopefully will wash away. Unfortunately, both you and I and others who think like this are probably way too much ahead of our times - and we are at risk of being identified as traitors from both of our respective camps, rather than being visionary.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Oct 2010 00:24

Akalam bhai and RajeshA ji,
none of you are traitors to your "camp" - for that you have to belong to some "camp"! Do you?

Yes, I think you are both a bit too far ahead but that's not so bad, for this is just another vision - which can lead people to explore "options". You would be traitors, if you had recommended steps in your enthusiasm, that would have provided chinks for our enemies to destroy the very society that would fuel your visions in the future.

What if India can think beyond just the immediate purpose, of many more purposes for which a strategic alliance between India and Pushtunistan/Afghanistan can be of value?

Just the break up of Pakistan does not end the history or a future of geopolitical struggle for India in the Central Asian region - there is the question of transit between East Asia and West Asia of both people, but more importantly of goods and armies, there is the question of pipelines, there is the question of freedom for our adversaries to exploit mineral wealth in the region, there is the question of Xinjiang, there is the question of safe haven and training camps for Islamic adversaries of other powers in Asia and beyond.

Would India want to give up our 'assets', our friends in Pushtunistan, once the first project of disassembly of Pakistan has succeeded?

I think the major error that we could be making in this line of thinking is that we are modeling the Pashtuns as a "nation" as we understand it now, considering both versions of "modern European nation states" and the Indian "cultural nationhood" (proposing which I had a merry fight from "militant" "deniers" in the previous strat scenario thread).

Pashtuns are struggling between a bi-directional struggle to define or construct a common identity - the trickle of western ideas and influence providing a tempting template under which ambitious elite can mobilize all the tribes and clans into a single force behind themselves on one side. On the other side a certain highlighting of apparent "universalist" elements in Islam that also appear tempting to provide a unifying mobilizing factor for personal power.

Problem is that obviously those who are now known as Pashtuns only share a language (but with several different dialects proving internal isolation and factionalism) but were not culturally so strongly rooted as to be able to resist Islamism and maintain even a core of pre-Islamic identity. This is inevitably a problem of "borderland" or "frontierland". That zone has always been a cultural "no-mans land", and has always been the crossroads but never the source of culture. So they have either belonged to the Persian-Mesopotamian sphere or to Indian heartland sphere. They will remain culturally an "in-between" and never "properly belong" to any side.

The weakness of their foundations implies that we cannot build anything strong in relationships with them - that is not backed up by overwhelming force from our side. This will remain the reality for perhaps a couple of centuries, unless drastic climatic and geological catastrophes make it impossible for any human life to be sustainable there.

The Indian subcontinent is home to over half a billion Muslims. India is the strongest country in the subcontinent. If the Indian Muslims had the vision, some self-respect and some spine, they could provide the leadership of other Muslims as well, all in their own respective countries, and by sheer numbers alone the leadership of whole Muslim world. For that they would have had to decrease the friction with people of other faiths in India and to enter a strategic alignment with the Indian State itself, allowing both Indian State and themselves a predominant position in Central, West, South and South-East Asia. But Alas! So theoretically and hypothetically speaking, India could hold sway over Afghanistan, as well as the rest of the Muslim world, influencing their policies towards the other big powers of the world.

I am just using a different lens at the moment to see the world, as perhaps you! But I do understand the logic of your argument.

If the Indian Muslims had the vision - is the key "if". If they really had the potential they would have shown it long ago. There were far greater opportunities to show it in the heady days of nationalist struggle against a "foreign enemy" - typically the most conducive of circumstances for cross-religion cross-ethnic collaboration and breaking down of distinctions. It did not happen. The reason is not that complicated to find - all of Islam's supposed claim of universalism is proven to be false - because of its rigorous insistence on imposition of a particular set of memes (not everything - anything disliked by the founders is Jahilya) from 7th century Arabia. The faith makes it a point to drive home the geopolitical centre of focus of all aspects of the faith (which includes society and politics and military and law) firmly into Arabia and Arabic. This creates its own conflict no doubt because the regional, non-Islamic and pre-Islamic memes are sought to be forcefully and deliberately erased. In the process - the non-Muslim so thoroughly traumatized that never again the faith is trusted - this is also the deliberate purpose of Islamists. On the other hand the converted are forever cut-off from their regional original roots - which forces them to seek identity with a mythical global or universal Islamic identity which has never existed and will never exist - simply because of its obsession with Arab roots of the faith.

I do not think that this feature can be overturned in the way you seek - by which Indian Muslims establish leadership - simply because India is not Arabia and the Quran was not "revealed" in India and not delivered in "Arabic", and none of its supposed spectacular victories happened in India. Every bit of reference, every concept, every framework of thought in that faith has Near East written over and over across it - in geography, society, law, practice, language.

Either the faith moves into oblivion because it proves "insufficient" to face up to evolving challenges, or it is destroyed deliberately and systematically under an "external" influence - or a new faith. So this is why I would rather not calculate on that basis. In another thread I have suggested that "Yavana Haridasa" is perhaps the way to go, where "we" need to drop the memory of that "yavana" part consciously. Unless we ourselves are able to separate the man from his ideology, we will not be able to convincingly change him. But this is a different track I am suggesting obviously - a different type of establishing leadership - but that has a greater chance of being successful as an "Indian venture" because they will have a solid root and background to drive the new "identity".

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Oct 2010 00:53

brihaspati garu,

My response is here.

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 22 Oct 2010 01:12

brihaspati ji,

I appreciate the clarity of your statement in describing your POV. I believe you had the opportunity to meet Kazakh Muslims, I would also like you meet some Turkish Muslims from Turkey, if you have not already. Islam was Arab led only in its first few centuries, since then as it moved to different lands, it fused with pre-Islamic cultures in any given land, which you already know. You are correct in stating that the Quran and its Arabic roots provide for its global unity which is also one of its greatest weakness, which makes it Arab centric and foreign/alien to any non-Arab land.

I can just say that religions or blind faiths, as they are carry overs from our past, are not based on reason or logic, but rather historical baggage, which are there and not going away any time soon, so we do the best we can and make lemonade when we are handed a lemon. Of course some religions are more open to change and more suited to the globalized modern world of today than others.

What you are saying is that you want to throw away the lemon, even at the risk of monumental disruptions, what I am proposing is that let people have lemonade which they seem to want so much and when the lemon vanishes, looses its nice citric taste by itself, in due course of time, of course we have a different reality then.

RajeshA ji,

I saw your post in the other thread, I would say that geopolitics and other scenario within the region and beyond will influence the shape of Islam in the sub-continent, but only time will tell its final shape. But one thing I know, looking at current situation of Christianity, is that it will become less and less important over time.

Perhaps moderators can merge the threads.

Manishw · Post by **Manishw** » 22 Oct 2010 01:20

AKalam wrote: Unfortunately, both you and I and others who think like this are probably way too much ahead of our times - and we are at risk of being identified as traitors from both of our respective camps, rather than being visionary.

Akalam, though you may consider yourself as a visionary far ahead of the times, perhaps wrongly I can ascribe to me being a visionary with vision both fixed on the last century, the present and future.Islam as we know it today is based on expansion of the wrong kind IMO,living on the fruits of another's labours, violence et al is what is seen from the time it has appeared on this scene, any attempt to reform or bring culture etc to the fore is a futile exercise.The day the expansion stops the whole edifice of the belief system is coming to crumble like a house of cards.Islamists and P seculars are very well aware of this. IMHO Indian(subcontinent) version of Islam etc. have no meaning at all and will never fructify.I do not see a happy ending to all this.The people driving Islamism are having a nice time and certainly I don't see them reversing course.I understand what you say and wish that what you said was true but if wishes were horses etc.

This is my last post on this matter since this is a sensitive issue and I don't want to offend anybody.I wish both you and RajeshA the best of luck.I will be the most happy person if such a thing were to come to pass.As usual time will tell.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 22 Oct 2010 01:28

Akalam bhai,
I will just refer to a single issue for BD - how far one of the significant experiments along lines you and RajeshA ji are dreaming of - that by Lalan (Sain/Shah depending on community affiliation of the referrer

) have succeeded in spreading? How far do we see any influence and impact on societal major political alignments and its shadow on the state? Almost nothing. In fact the place associated with his name it itself wrangled over by Islamic theologians who continuously try to alternately denounce him and make him "more Islamic"!

This is what I am trying to point out that the reason Lalan's thought process failed to have a socio-political impact an remained marginal, was because he had not combined the military/state coercion into his practice and philosophy. Without coercion that theologian controllled framework is not going to change from within on its own. Or the fear of retribution that stops the theologians from actively preventing people from "leaving".

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 22 Oct 2010 02:58

AKalam ji,

My response is here.

BTW The threads are for two different purposes and should not be merged.

harbans · Post by **harbans** » 22 Oct 2010 03:22

Islam was Arab led only in its first few centuries, since then as it moved to different lands, it fused with pre-Islamic cultures in any given land, which you already know. You are correct in stating that the Quran and its Arabic roots provide for its global unity which is also one of its greatest weakness, which makes it Arab centric and foreign/alien to any non-Arab land.

Kalam ji, i must say your posts make excellent and constructive reading and provide at the minimum for me..a very positive impression of Bangladesh.

I trust you'd agree that the above would construct conflicts/ clashes at a local level at the minimum, much like what Westerners in Europe detest alien practises and label as failure to integrate or like the Japanese who don't even grant citizenship rights to comfort girls from Phillipines despite they having Children in Japan and worked their 20 years. Importantly Islamic countries specially the Arab variety offer no rights at all to other religions or nationalities.

Islam in no way encourages or exhorts it's believers into accommodation with the others. It does exhort conversion, elimination or at the most impassive tolerance. The fairy tale is however dreams of Psec libs in our nation that dream of some common venture between true practioners of Islam and the rest in some fairy tale Bollywood story of a 'strong' 8 feet Pathan defending some Hindu practise. It was a fairy tale and will be. Islam will never coexist peacefully simply because it is not meant to. Libs in India don't believe that. They want time to tell while they appease and bash or call bigoted people who may speak the truth.

I can just say that religions or blind faiths, as they are carry overs from our past, are not based on reason or logic,

Sir, all major religions except the Dharmic ones are so. Every Upanishad chapter has been written by a sage who has experienced direct communication with God. The sages who compiled Avadhuta Gita every one is a direct result of meditation.

An avadhuta does not identify with their mind or body or 'names and forms' (Sanskrit: namarupa). Such a person is held to be pure 'consciousness' (Sanskrit: caitanya) in human form.

Avadhuts play a significant role in the history, origins and rejuvenations of a number of Dharmic Traditions such as Yoga, Vedanta, Buddhadharma and Bhakti 'lineage' (Sanskrit: parampara) even as they are released from standard observances. Avadhuts are the voice of the avadhuti the channel that resolves the dichotomy of the left hand path (Sanskrit: Vamamarga) and right hand path (Sanskrit: Dakshinamarga) traditions and left and right channels (otherwise known as the outer channels) of the energetic body, though an Avadhut may or may not continue such dichotomous rites for they are free from ritual observance and affiliation.

Now this is not a revelation by just one person..it's by many over several millenia who've no inclination to wealth, political power, material wealth, nationalistic aspirations etc. India has over ages tried to protect such people and let them share their discoveries..let them preach and document while trying to learn what those experiences mean and entail. We cannot destroy in our subcontinent these thoughts and philosophies because there is one that crudely wants to exterminate others. We want to have a subcontinent that caters to a billion revelations..and provide the freedom for such. Extremism doesn't favor that. The Upanishads daze me till date. They enamoured the best Philosophers in the West, many who candidly admitted learning from them. But none did the pre requisites required for such revelations: """who've no inclination to wealth, political power, material wealth, nationalistic aspirations etc."""We had have them by the thousands in India. Though 99.99999999 % of our population have never come to the level of these unknown Greats..it will be the hour of this planets doom if we allow this land to be subsumed under the onslaught of an Arabic ideology that seeks to destroy this unique ethos. IMHO It will be the biggest shame on this planets history.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 22 Oct 2010 04:24

Harbans ji
Worst part is every one well aware of how its gonna end. There is not easy, beautiful solution ,onlee ugly one , no other way out of the curse.

AKalam · Post by **AKalam** » 24 Oct 2010 01:14

harbans wrote:Islam was Arab led only in its first few centuries, since then as it moved to different lands, it fused with pre-Islamic cultures in any given land, which you already know. You are correct in stating that the Quran and its Arabic roots provide for its global unity which is also one of its greatest weakness, which makes it Arab centric and foreign/alien to any non-Arab land.

Kalam ji, i must say your posts make excellent and constructive reading and provide at the minimum for me..a very positive impression of Bangladesh.

I trust you'd agree that the above would construct conflicts/ clashes at a local level at the minimum, much like what Westerners in Europe detest alien practises and label as failure to integrate or like the Japanese who don't even grant citizenship rights to comfort girls from Phillipines despite they having Children in Japan and worked their 20 years. Importantly Islamic countries specially the Arab variety offer no rights at all to other religions or nationalities.

Islam in no way encourages or exhorts it's believers into accommodation with the others. It does exhort conversion, elimination or at the most impassive tolerance. The fairy tale is however dreams of Psec libs in our nation that dream of some common venture between true practioners of Islam and the rest in some fairy tale Bollywood story of a 'strong' 8 feet Pathan defending some Hindu practise. It was a fairy tale and will be. Islam will never coexist peacefully simply because it is not meant to. Libs in India don't believe that. They want time to tell while they appease and bash or call bigoted people who may speak the truth.

I can just say that religions or blind faiths, as they are carry overs from our past, are not based on reason or logic,

Sir, all major religions except the Dharmic ones are so. Every Upanishad chapter has been written by a sage who has experienced direct communication with God. The sages who compiled Avadhuta Gita every one is a direct result of meditation.

An avadhuta does not identify with their mind or body or 'names and forms' (Sanskrit: namarupa). Such a person is held to be pure 'consciousness' (Sanskrit: caitanya) in human form.

Avadhuts play a significant role in the history, origins and rejuvenations of a number of Dharmic Traditions such as Yoga, Vedanta, Buddhadharma and Bhakti 'lineage' (Sanskrit: parampara) even as they are released from standard observances. Avadhuts are the voice of the avadhuti the channel that resolves the dichotomy of the left hand path (Sanskrit: Vamamarga) and right hand path (Sanskrit: Dakshinamarga) traditions and left and right channels (otherwise known as the outer channels) of the energetic body, though an Avadhut may or may not continue such dichotomous rites for they are free from ritual observance and affiliation.
Now this is not a revelation by just one person..it's by many over several millenia who've no inclination to wealth, political power, material wealth, nationalistic aspirations etc. India has over ages tried to protect such people and let them share their discoveries..let them preach and document while trying to learn what those experiences mean and entail. We cannot destroy in our subcontinent these thoughts and philosophies because there is one that crudely wants to exterminate others. We want to have a subcontinent that caters to a billion revelations..and provide the freedom for such. Extremism doesn't favor that. The Upanishads daze me till date. They enamoured the best Philosophers in the West, many who candidly admitted learning from them. But none did the pre requisites required for such revelations: """who've no inclination to wealth, political power, material wealth, nationalistic aspirations etc."""We had have them by the thousands in India. Though 99.99999999 % of our population have never come to the level of these unknown Greats..it will be the hour of this planets doom if we allow this land to be subsumed under the onslaught of an Arabic ideology that seeks to destroy this unique ethos. IMHO It will be the biggest shame on this planets history.

harbans ji,

If you have the time, please go through a hypothesis I have presented in GDF Harmonization vs Homogenization thread, where I discuss the importance of Historical Continuity and Large Systems.

Historical Continuity of SD is an asset for Indic civilization and for future development of humanity, because of its ancient roots. It is also a matter of luck that most of SD followers now find themselves inside a large system, where they happen to be a super majority, even at the cost of loosing some major part of Indic civilization's former domains land mass and population who have converted to an alien faith. I am in agreement with all about the importance of both of these factors.

What is in question is what to do about the followers of alien faith, who constitute around 30-35% of the Indic population of the subcontinent. It has been suggested that they should be left in separate independent countries and not merged with India for the time being. I think this is quite reasonable as the inclination against merger would be great from both sides. What then is to be done to make sure that these independent and sovereign countries are not used as pawns to divide and rule over the Indic civilization as a whole, which seems to be the case for all preeminent global powers, starting from the British, the US led West and finally the up and coming PRC.

I think I was able to clarify the problem at hand and there is disagreement about possible solutions:

- some argue that there is a military solution, even at great cost of life
- some argue that there should be economic dependence and incentives to keep Indic unity
- some argue that in the long term, all Indics must return to SD, as the alien ideology is inferior and corrosive for any productive society

My argument is based on the hypothesis I have presented, which is that the alien ideology has not lost its steam as yet, it is alive and kicking, though in a very perverted form among some deviants from the historical mainstream (of course many argue that the mainstream and the core ideology itself is the problem). Despite its rather recent beginning, its followers and their resident large systems also had some rudimentary level of historical continuity and breaking of this continuity have already created disruptions because of breakup of former Ottoman empire and Indian subcontinent, which is evident in Arab and Pakjabi/Pashtun led jihad, as none are from the ruling ethnic lineage of the former empires.

What I have suggested before and emphasize here as well is that probably the best course is to skillfully manage the direction this alien force would take, first by influencing the Indic part of this force and use that as a vehicle to influence the global community of this alien force, that has caused much disruption to Indic civilization in the past and continues to be a burden for it. One reason this responsibility and situation falls to Indic civilization is because, wherever the alien force went, it has devoured indigenous civilizations and converted entire populations, it failed to make much headway in Europe and it failed in the sub-continent as well, but it succeeded in part and that became a unique phenomenon in the world and a source of problem for Indic civlization in its native domain. What I am proposing is that we take an innovative approach and turn the problem into a tool of advantage for Indic civlization.

Disruption, if it can be managed and contained, is not a bad strategy, but if disruptions cannot be managed well, they have the potential to bring unexpected and unpredictable results in the future, which is what happened in case of the use of Arab and Turkish nationalism to break up Ottoman empire and use of Hindu-Muslim rivalry in the sub-continent, and finally the use of jihadi political Islam against the Soviets. All of these disruptive actions of divide and rule contributed to the current environment of rot we see among the global Muslim community. So IMO one must be careful about disruptive strategies, which may cost more in the long run, than strategies that are less disruptive.

It is very possible that the virulent deviant jihadi form, may run its course in a few decades, if neighboring large systems can integrate the disrupted parts into their main body or attach them as viable and productive satellites/vassals (as there are no viable large systems that will emerge as the core of the alien force which may lead a unification of the population under the alien ideology, and its probably better that way for future of humanity), which will hopefully make its followers more productive and responsible global citizens from their current rudderless and hopeless pariah state.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 28 Oct 2010 14:44

X-Posting from Future Strategic Scenario for the Indian Subcontinent -II

Peaceful Consolidation of Indian Subcontinent: Summary

We have talked about the dangers that India faces from China, and how our neighborhood is vulnerable to China's advances.

Throughout the various posts, the proposal has been that we consolidate the Indian Subcontinent peacefully, in a somewhat similar way as Europe, but go much further in establishing a true political union.

Due to a unification of India with Bangladesh, for example, there will be a lot more Muslims living in India, and this increase in Muslim population needs to be managed to ensure that the Indian ship stays afloat and keeps its course. Many challenges would arise in dealing with Indic-Muslim Relations. A new understanding would have to be reached between the Indics and the Muslims. We should systematically support liberal and reform-minded Muslims. Perhaps the Bangladeshi merger with India can even be beneficial and useful in reforming the thought process of the Indian Muslims.

An integration of the Indian Subcontinent would help India overcome the Chinese challenge but would also bring benefits to other countries of the subcontinent. Due to this integration process, India would have the most Muslims in the world, which would have negative but also positive consequences to it.

Such an enterprise is not only an imperative considering the situation in Asia, but it is also doable. In order for the enterprise to succeed except for Pakistan, India would need to take all others along. There is a perception of security when in a group.

India can opt for a federal structure, already known and tested by us. In order to solve the political problems arising due to migration between the regions, especially from Bangladesh, as well as to solve the current problem of illegal immigration, India can opt for separate Electoral Zones. Through the Peaceful Consolidation of the Indian Subcontinent there is a possibility to unravel India's enemy to the West - Pakistan, without resorting to war and without needing to accept radical Muslims into the Indian fold. Also we need not wait for an eternity as we can speed the developments there.

We should not lose time in preparing ourselves and our neighborhood to meet the challenge posed by China.

In the process, India would have become bigger and stronger.

Peaceful Consolidation of Indian Subcontinent
Table of Contents:

Pratyush · Post by **Pratyush** » 28 Oct 2010 16:30

Rajesh,

If your work is complete then please post it as a blog so that it may gain wider viewership.

JMT

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 28 Oct 2010 21:33

Pratyush ji,

Thanks for the suggestion.

At the moment, I do not have any plans for a blog. I think BRF has a good readership, especially people of the right sort.