Bharat Rakshak

Maybe removing the remaining Sikhs, Hindus should be a first priority. If they remain in Pak they get converted and their women add to the Paki breeding population. They can then compensate for the peaceful, and non-terror supporting Muslim population levels of roughly 25-30% in the Gangetic Valley - by adding more peaceful Hindu, Sikh populations to match the growing threat of "Hindu terror".

Isn't it about time India openly voiced a protest about the treatment of Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan and welcomed them to India? In the past there may have been a fear that this would alienate Muslims - but not doing that did not help Hindus and Sikhs in Pakhanastan. Now there may be some fear of victimization - but hey what the heck, not saying it will not save them.

It's high time India grew some teensy weensy cojones and spoke up.

SSridhar wrote: I would say, it is far more than that and it reflects the progress made by the Islamist society of Pakistan. Judge Bhatti had the powers to acquit and he did so and earned the wrath of the far right clerics. Governor Taseer had no such powers and was only pleading the case of the Christian woman in public forum and was appealing the President to pardon her. Nothing more. But, the intolerance of the society had grown to such an extent that a bodyguard decided to pump in 29 bullets while the rest of the bodyguards chose not to intervene. The behaviour of the rest of the society throws even more light on the progress of the society since the Bhatti case.

True, excellent observation!

We were trying to find objective measures of Pakistan's collapse. This seems to be a good one - how much (or little) one has to do in order to get the death sentence.

Also on how much people can do without getting a death sentence. There should be two groups of activities. The progress should be measured by how little in one and how big in the other.

Over 100 Hindu families in Pak want to migrate to India

brihaspati wrote:Maybe removing the remaining Sikhs, Hindus should be a first priority. If they remain in Pak they get converted and their women add to the Paki breeding population. They can then compensate for the peaceful, and non-terror supporting Muslim population levels of roughly 25-30% in the Gangetic Valley - by adding more peaceful Hindu, Sikh populations to match the growing threat of "Hindu terror".

shiv wrote:Isn't it about time India openly voiced a protest about the treatment of Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan and welcomed them to India? In the past there may have been a fear that this would alienate Muslims - but not doing that did not help Hindus and Sikhs in Pakhanastan. Now there may be some fear of victimization - but hey what the heck, not saying it will not save them.

It's high time India grew some teensy weensy cojones and spoke up.

I once wrote a few posts on Kashmir. At that time I was told, it is not even clear whether Hindus and Sikhs would want to migrate from Pakistan to India. May be the ground situation has changed.

A Possible Kashmir Solution
The logic behind my question goes as follows: -

1. Often the host population (in this case Kashmiris) hold the ethnic cleansers or human rights violators responsible, if there is a large-scale refugee crisis. For example, if Tibetans come streaming down to India, then we will hold Chinese responsible for causing the refugees to flee, etc. Similarly the Kashmiris would be angry at the Pakistanis for causing such an exodus, for which the Kashmiris have to suffer.
   
   This is the usual dynamic. I don't know if it works in case of Kashmir.
2. Secondly when there is a population displacement, usually the host country (India) tries to decide, where the refugees will settle down. Often it is near the border region. If the refugees enter India, say through the various transit routes which have been opened for inter-Kashmir travel, then the refugees might end up settling down in refugee camps near those border crossings (in Kashmir itself).
   
   So there is a perfect logic, why the refugees settle down in Kashmir.
3. A refugee exodus usually entails a humanitarian crisis, and for humanitarian reasons, it is not nice to deny them asylum and comfort.
   
   So the Kashmiris cannot just deny the refugees shelter. They can deny Indian citizens the right to abode in Kashmir, but refugees from outside India are not Indian citizens.
4. The tent cities that will come up would at first be declared temporary. With time things become more permanent.
5. 3 million refugees in Kashmir Valley would change the ethnic complexion of Kashmir for ever.
6. There will be anger amongst the refugees towards the Pakistanis for causing them to flee their homes, and there will be anger amongst the Kashmiris towards the Pakistanis for causing them this trouble.
7. Hindu & Sikh refugees will organize themselves politically snatching the control of the Kashmir state from the hands of the thankless Kashmiri Muslims. Something like what the Muslim Urdu-speaking Mohajirs did to the Sindhis in Karachi, and the Pushtun immigrants have done to Mohajirs in Karachi.
8. After 10 years, the Hindu+Sikh refugees in Kashmir will be naturalized as Kashmiri Indians, giving them the right to abode in Kashmir itself. It will cause a lot of consternation, but what the hell.
9. Then the Kashmiri Pundits who fled Kashmir can start returning to Kashmir as the overwhelming number of refugee Hindus and Sikhs in Kashmir would provide a much more secure environment to the returning Kashmiri Pundits.
10. The Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan are used to living in an extremist Muslim dominated area, so they are much more comfortable dealing with the associated problems.
11. Since J&K itself has been responsible for the displacement of so many Kashmiri Pundits from there, and other areas of India have had to take in these refugees, J&K has lost the moral space to complain about refugees coming from elsewhere. If other areas can take in refugees from J&K, J&K can also take in refugees from elsewhere.
12. The irony of it all would be that Pakistanis would have lost any chance of recovering Kashmir due to their own barbarity at home against the minorities.
13. India would have secured Kashmir for ever without violating Article 370. The Kashmiri Pundits would have returned. The Kashmiri Muslims would learn how to adjust to a Hindu majority.

A Possible Kashmir Solution - II

On the one hand we see that only 3.2 million Hindus is all that is left in Pakistan. In a couple of decades, there may be none left. Those who were Hindus would have been converted by then, and there would still more Pakistanis to worry about. Indic values mean nothing if we can't show solidarity with those Indics who live in fear.

Elaborating on the above ideas -

• The Islamists in the Valley would also not be able to point fingers at Indians, that we are conspiring against them, because those Hindus and Sikhs fleeing over the border/LoC into Kashmir would have been made refugees by Islamists themselves. How can they complain about a problem they themselves created?
• The ever present 'international community' too would not be able to accuse India of anything sinister in the Kashmir Valley, simply because we could respond, that India is having to bear the burden of millions of refugees, and all the 'international community' can do is complain. If they have problems with how India is looking after the refugees, perhaps the Western countries themselves may be interested in adopting a couple of thousand refugees themselves. The 'international community' would be on a very weak wicket, should they so much as criticize the Hinduisation of Kashmir.
• The Muslim countries too would not be able to complain about it, as their co-religionists - The Pakistani Jihadis - would have been responsible for ethnic cleansing themselves.
• The Central Funds that flow at the moment to Kashmiri Muslims would start flowing to the refugees. The financial burden for India would be manageable, IMVHO.

A Possible Kashmir Solution - III

I hope, that we do not make history into a guide here. I hope, we can break out of this mold where we think neither strategically nor empathize with other Indics in trouble, thinking that either they are by nature less troublesome, nor would they be making too much trouble for the state they identify themselves with. As such trouble-making minorities always get a sympathetic ear.

We can only make some suggestions here, which we believe can be helpful in healing some of India's strategic trouble-spots. We can hardly say or do anything, which can make the Indian 'leaders' think or act differently, give them a conscience, a nationalistic outlook, some courage.

There is however some rationale to think that knowing how they are, the Indian politicians could think differently on this issue:
I don't know how many of these refugees from PoK came into India, but I presume their numbers were not such to make a big dent in the composition of the local populace. The local Muslim population would still have remained a majority. Any major program of settling refugees in Kashmir would not have made much of a dent, but could have agitated the local population sky-high. At that point of time, India needed the support of the Kashmiri people to make J&K's accession to India official.

The different dynamic this time would be the Collin Powell principle - Either you don't go in, but if you go in you do it with overwhelming force. In case of ethnic engineering, this would read like - No point in changing the Kashmir population mix if one can introduce only a small number of Hindus at a time, as the reaction would be huge and ugly, but if there is a possibility to overwhelm the Kashmiri Muslims, with say 3 million Hindus over a short period of 6-8 months, then go for it.

Secondly for refugees coming from PoK Poonch etc. the closest area across the border would probably be Jammu, as was the case in 1947/1948. This time, the crossing can be somewhere else.

Incentive
I think there is more than sufficient incentive for the Hindus & Sikhs in Pakistan to migrate to India. It is like asking whether a dog likes a meaty bone. In Pakistan, there is systematic harassment of Hindus. There is the constant danger, that some Hindu will be blamed and even lynched for blasphemy. Their daughters are simply kidnapped and 'married' off to some goonda. They are hardly given facilities to progress in real life. Except for some exceptions used for display purposes, most of the Hindus live in poverty in Pakistan. Besides they are under constant pressure to convert, and even after conversion they probably would not be treated well.

In India, initially as a refugee they would be (let's presume) looked after well. Facilities will be provided. Food will be made available. Later on, they can hope for a brighter future, if they are willing to let themselves be educated and integrate into Indian society. Not to mention the backdrop of beautiful scenery of Kashmir!!!

Besides these realistic incentives, there can be many rumors of promises of ghee aur shakker just across the border.

So there are enough reasons for them to want to flee/migrate.

Herding to Kashmir
In times of tension, India usually closes the borders with Pakistan. It would be considered normal if LoC crossings between Kashmir and PoK are kept open, as it is officially "not to inconvenience the Kashmiris". India can let it be known to the Pakistani Hindus, that they would be let in into India only at the Kashmir LoC crossings, and nowhere else. If they wish to flee into India, they have to first travel to that crossing. The Pakistani Hindu community leaders can be informed of this through appropriate channels.

When to migrate
The situation in Kashmir is worsening by the day. Some day soon, the state will lose complete control over society, and Jihadi and ethnic gangs will take over. The first to suffer are always the weak. It is to be expected that the Hindus would be among the first to be targeted. We would know, when the Pakistani State has come to the tipping point, as far as governance and law and order is concerned. It is then, that India can let it be known, that Pakistani Hindus and Sikhs will be allowed in into India.

Is security situation in Kashmir a disincentive?
When the situation in Pakistan goes completely out of control, then any place on earth would be better for a Pakistani Hindu or a Pakistani Sikh. For an individual Indian Hindu or a couple of them to migrate to Kashmir may seem a scary prospect, but to a Pakistani Hindu it will be more like a picnic compared to the emerging situation in Pakistan. Besides they will be coming in groups and droves. When they arrive, there will be a sea of tents coming up in Kashmir. There is security in numbers. I think, the KMs should not underestimate the anger, that they will find in these people. So they better not fool around with them. These will be Hindus willing to hit back after years of subjugation. A Kashmiri Jihadi is hardly going to be more scary than a full Talibani Jihadi.

These refugees would be organizing themselves and arming themselves. In the medium term, there is going to be conflict in Kashmir between the KMs and the refugees. But just as Sindhis and Mohajirs found a detente, so would these two groups as well.

This scenario allows the Indian Security Forces to transit into a new role. Instead of being the target of Kashmiri Muslim ire and brickbats, the security forces can become the guardians of peace between two rival groups.

In the end, there is only so much the security forces can do. They have to act within the straight-jacket of the laws of the land. The current posture of the security forces does not seem pose any threat to the KMs, so they continue with their street protests and Ajaddi demonstrations. They love to show street power. The only way to combat this street power is through a rival street power, which intimidates beyond the levels of law-enforcement agencies.

The model to be used here is really Karachi.


A Possible Kashmir Solution - IV

Any analogy that one offers has to be seen as an analogy with applicability limited to only certain aspects.

The aspect of Karachi that I am interested in here, is that a community (Mohajirs) migrated from outside, forced its way into political supremacy in the area, was able to subdue the local culture and over a period of time was able to find its peace with the previous natives.

There are several things I expect to be different in the Kashmir scenario -

• The Indian State would not allow the same amount of organized crime & lawlessness in Kashmir as is in the case of Karachi.
• There will be a stricter curb on small-arm weapons on all groups in Kashmir.
• The borders of Kashmir will remain tightly controlled. Less chance of smuggling of drugs or weapons.
• The political process in Kashmir will not be interrupted. There will be regular elections.
• There will be a much bigger dose of financial investment in the Kashmir Valley.
• Education will remain a priority in Kashmir.

In the short to medium term my solution, i.e. of getting Pakistani Hindus and Sikhs to migrate to Kashmir is indeed more painful and more chaotic. In the long term though, a crucial part of India would have been secured against threats of secession.

While the Red Menace of Naxalism would over time be brought under control, Kashmir and increasingly the demographic change in India's North East through Bangladeshi influx & Evanjihadists would remain India's demographic Achilles Heel. These two spots would always be targets for exploitation by external forces.

Kashmir has made India tremble in the international fora for decades now, and kept us on the defensive. I am 400% sure, that had India had no open issues of legitimacy of J&K's accession to India, issues like Article 370, UN Resolutions, Dispute over the state with Pakistan, Plebiscite, etc. etc. out there India would have been a very different country. India became dependent on Soviet Union for support on J&K in UNSC. India was not willing to venture into Tibet. India became cowed down by PRC and its aggression into our North-West and North-East. We have always held a submissive attitude towards the Western powers, just in case they don't start some form of activism on Kashmir and expended huge political capital to ensure that they don't, we have made non-intervention in the internal affairs of other countries a cornerstone of our foreign policy out of fear someone might start meddling in Kashmir as well, etc. etc. Kashmir has punched us into a cowardly trembling elephant. Anytime OIC passes some resolution on Kashmir we used to go into a tailspin.

We have also watched how the 'Sufism' of the Valley is slowly making way for the Wahabbism of Arabia. How long would it be that the current bonhomie again takes a turn for the worse. It is extremely premature to feel that India has won over the Kashmiri Muslims or ever will. Their call for 'Azadi' can continue indefinitely. Islamism is on the rise to our West.

In my opinion, the only way to ensure that the Kashmiri Muslims give up their move towards Wahabbism or towards eventual 'Azadi' either as part of Kashmir or as an independent Emirate, or as part of a Caliphate, is when they are convinced that they will never enjoy a demographic majority in Kashmir to see through that change.

The Kashmiri Muslims need two things to really move forward - the Indian Dream of democracy, stability, prosperity, plurality on the one hand, but also Hopelessness of moving sidewards into Islamism and 'Azadi'. We have been pumping money into Kashmir for many decades now. That way we have been keeping the Indian Dream alive, but we haven't been able to kill the Hope of Islamism and 'Azadi', because Article 370 has frozen that Project in time.

A demographic change in Kashmir, without violating Article 370, would give India the last thing India needs as a great power - Confidence. No Plebiscite or UN Article would ever again make us tremble. No neighbor of ours would ever dream of snatching Kashmir away from us. If Pakistan or a future entity in its place has no hope of wrenching Kashmir away from India, there can be peace - the core issue would have disappeared, J&K would have ceased to exist as a Muslim majority State.

There will be many hiccups on the way, and many tantrums, but this is a final solution of Bharat reasserting control over a wayward peripheral region.

As far as a renewed international interest in Kashmir is concerned, it would be because of the many Hindu & Sikh refugees in Kashmir fleeing religious persecution in Pakistan. If anybody objects, they are free to share our burden of refugees.

We have an issue with Pakistan as a state and the ideology on which it is founded, i.e. the two-nation theory and the Muslims need a separate homeland of their own in the subcontinent. We do not have any problems with Pakistan people. Especially those which can help India, like qualified engineers, doctors, scientists, artisans, artists, etc.

We should aim for what america does to the world. It attracts the best of the talent regardless of the source, even communist China or Islamist Iran/Saudi Arabia are not taboo. It leaves the target country poorer as the best brains go out of the country and are basically unavailable to the host country. We can do the same to Pakistan, deprive it of its best people. Make them work for India and Indian interests.

With pakistan in a hole that it is such an activity will increase their troubles main fold.

Christopher Sidor wrote:We have an issue with Pakistan as a state and the ideology on which it is founded, i.e. the two-nation theory and the Muslims need a separate homeland of their own in the subcontinent. We do not have any problems with Pakistan people. Especially those which can help India, like qualified engineers, doctors, scientists, artisans, artists, etc.

We should aim for what america does to the world. It attracts the best of the talent regardless of the source, even communist China or Islamist Iran/Saudi Arabia are not taboo. It leaves the target country poorer as the best brains go out of the country and are basically unavailable to the host country. We can do the same to Pakistan, deprive it of its best people. Make them work for India and Indian interests.

With pakistan in a hole that it is such an activity will increase their troubles main fold.

They may be reviewing this after fort hood massacre,times square bomb plot etc... India as such has too many terror attacks. we don't need Pakistani guys. Let them go to the west. Having spoken to several pakistanis, Even the most moderate guy has fairly extreme views. Naa baaba Naa. Touba Touba...... No Way Jose. Lets leave Pakhanastan for the west and let us concentrate on the rest.

Christopher Sidor wrote:We can do the same to Pakistan, deprive it of its best people. Make them work for India and Indian interests.

With Pakistan in a hole that it is such an activity will increase their troubles main fold.

Christopher, one thing we should be very clear of Pakistanis when it comes to India. They all have the same burning, and all-consuming hatred for India. Some of their better brains may come to India if offered jobs but will still work to sabotage and terrorize us. As Maram says, let them go to the countries of their friends. We do not want any Pakistani here. And, let's enjoy the mischief that their tight buddy, most allied of the allies creates in their lands.

I think one needs to look at, and understand the following maps (at bottom) to see why Pakistan's future is with and India India alone. The ideology will have to change - maybe by a sufficient number of Pakistanis killing each other. But as I said earlier - Pakistan MUST remain a separate entity or broken up entities. All people of Pakistan must be treated as foreigners and not as Indians or friendlies. That is the key to reintegrating the land over the long term. The maps are linked at bottom but let me state my case first.

Pakistan was part of India for millennia not because the British brought it together but because the land around the Indus is fertile and the fertile plains continue for thousands of kilometers to the east into India. But all that lovely fertility dies towards the west starting from Baluchistan. Those regions are desert or mountains and difficult for people to survive. Teh natural route for trade id towards the east.

If Pakistan had become a Japan - they could import raw material from the sea and send out finished good the same way and remain independent of India. But Pakistan i no Japan. Pakistan is a BIMARU state to the West of India in an era when the BIMARU states are doing better than Pakistan.

If my aunt had a dik er If Pakistan had a lot of oil - it could have exported that via the sea - but even then the most lucrative exports would have been towards india in any case.

Pakistan is an agrarian nation. Its people are farmers. Farmers live by farming, not by manufacturing or software services. And the target market of those farmers have always been India. We need to mould the farmers of Pakistan to sell their goods to us and not make war. But not making war means disempowering the Paki army first. Ideology will change when there is no power to force it on anyone.

Check the map. Fertile towards India. Brwon towards the west and north
http://www.mapsofworld.com/physical-map ... al-map.jpg

Permanent crops
http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/Maps ... index.html

Christopher Sidor wrote:We should aim for what america does to the world. It attracts the best of the talent regardless of the source, even communist China or Islamist Iran/Saudi Arabia are not taboo.

Ah, but try being a Nazi or Communist party member or a polygamist in America. India is not done settling on a national consensus, and is as liable to see Musharraf as first chaprasi of Rahul Gandhi/Digvijay Singh as it is to make productive use of their talent.

Pakistans' Sikhs and Hindus can be safely assumed to be free of the WKK disease. The question is the process by which their migration can be arranged. Any interest shown by India towards this will be immediately turned to an advantage by Slumabad by treating the Sikh and Hindu population as hostage to extract as much concessions as possible from India. At the very least all their property and wealth [whatever remains] would be legally or illegally confiscated, and maybe most of their women appropriated- that is what the traditional texts recommend in Islam, and is always, always, always applied by each and every Muslim community anywhere in the world and at any time point in history whenever there is no immediate threat of retaliation.

Exchange of population is a way, but no Muslim in any Indian territory would be willing to migrate permanently to Pak, and Pak will do everything possible to discourage them. Even the Deobandis will hype up their nationalistic prestensions and ask the Muslims not to migrate to Pak. For Pak, the non-Muslim population in Pak is a good hostage value. Muslims in India is an added reverse hostage value because it manages to keep the Indian rashtra hostage into serving Islamist demands within India, and indirectly a psychological hidden factor in keeping the pressure on GOI not to take damaging action against Pak. For the Deobandis, increasing Muslim population within India and blackmailing capacity on the government and rashtra is a way forward to eventually Islamizing the whole subcontinent - an ultimate objective that they have never been shy of declaring openly and a hedge for the Pak experiment which does not show great prospects at the moment.

If there is too much pressure by the US-UK brigade to concede on Kashmir, one way that could perhaps be considered is only agree to consider a population exchange as to those separatists in the Valley who want to join Pakistan should now be deported to Pakistan and Sikhs and Hindus be returned to India.

Territory exchanges can only be considered after India has militarily conquered parts of Paki territory. But then if we really do it why stop and retain any indepndent Pak to come back biting again?

Did not see this posted earlier:

"In the first few days of this year, Pakistan's coalition government was thrust into crisis after losing a coalition partner, and then a top politician--Punjab Governor Salman Taseer--was assassinated. A leading expert on the country, Stephen P. Cohen, says these incidents are symptoms of the profound problems tugging the country apart. "The fundamentals of the state are either failing or questionable, and this applies to both the idea of Pakistan, the ideology of the state, the purpose of the state, and also to the coherence of the state itself," Cohen says. "I wouldn't predict a comprehensive failure soon, but clearly that's the direction in which Pakistan is moving." On a recent trip, he was struck by the growing sense of insecurity in Pakistan, even within the military, and the growing importance of China."

http://www.cfr.org/publication/23744/pa ... ation.html

"If it is anybody's problem in the future, it is going to be China's problem. I just spent several weeks in Pakistan. One thing I discovered was the country insecurity in a way I had never seen it, even in military cantonments. The other was that China's influence in Pakistan was much greater and deeper than I had imagined it to be. In a sense that's India's problem, but in the long run, it will be China's problem."

Cohen goes on to say: "Hope is not a policy, but despair is not a policy either. We have to do what we can do and prepare for the failure of Pakistan, which could happen in four or five or six years."

To that last bit, I would add that the US policy has not been a policy either.

shiv wrote:I think one needs to look at, and understand the following maps (at bottom) to see why Pakistan's future is with and India India alone. The ideology will have to change - maybe by a sufficient number of Pakistanis killing each other. But as I said earlier - Pakistan MUST remain a separate entity or broken up entities. All people of Pakistan must be treated as foreigners and not as Indians or friendlies. That is the key to reintegrating the land over the long term. The maps are linked at bottom but let me state my case first.

Pakistan was part of India for millennia not because the British brought it together but because the land around the Indus is fertile and the fertile plains continue for thousands of kilometers to the east into India. But all that lovely fertility dies towards the west starting from Baluchistan. Those regions are desert or mountains and difficult for people to survive. Teh natural route for trade id towards the east.

If Pakistan had become a Japan - they could import raw material from the sea and send out finished good the same way and remain independent of India. But Pakistan i no Japan. Pakistan is a BIMARU state to the West of India in an era when the BIMARU states are doing better than Pakistan.

If my aunt had a dik er If Pakistan had a lot of oil - it could have exported that via the sea - but even then the most lucrative exports would have been towards india in any case.

Pakistan is an agrarian nation. Its people are farmers. Farmers live by farming, not by manufacturing or software services. And the target market of those farmers have always been India. We need to mould the farmers of Pakistan to sell their goods to us and not make war. But not making war means disempowering the Paki army first. Ideology will change when there is no power to force it on anyone.

Check the map. Fertile towards India. Brwon towards the west and north
http://www.mapsofworld.com/physical-map ... al-map.jpg

Permanent crops
http://www.fao.org/countryprofiles/Maps ... index.html

This post if for keepers. This post highlights potential long term solutions to the vexed nuisance west of our borders. Top quality post Shivji. The chicom pandas have cottoned on this fact and so are trying their hardest to build links via karakorum highway/pass in order to mould pakistani punjabi farmers who are radicalised and hate India due to decades of putrid indoctrination. Chinese activity in Gilgit/baltistan needs to be seen in this perspective.

http://www.schizophrenia.com/sznews/arc ... 05716.html

The above link shows rising mental health problems. Pakistan has extremely high rates of illicit drug use. There is illiteracy,unemployment,break down in social order, a failing state, a failing army, failed political system.. The question is how do you deal with folks who have high incidence of mental health problems??? The folks we have to educate may not have the cognitive wherewithall to digest,process all information available and make logical conclusions.... Expecting the unexpected must remain the guiding parable.

For those interested in further information on the effects of poor mental health of those in power and how it has affected the humans through our history.Pakistani President is rumoured to have depression.Nawaz Sharif is thought to have Post traumatic stress disorder. Essential reading on this subject are :-

1) "In Sickness and in Power" :- Lord David Owen
2)"Evil Genes " :- Barbara Oakley

Fascinating subject to read and to consider how the poor health of our leaders affects millions of people in a very significant way. We don't know the mental health of Pakistani Generals, but worried if the next suicide bombing is targetting them must be detrimental to their mental health to say the least!

An article by Feroz Khan, a Pakistani with a rare real clarity of mind.

Published on Jan 10, 2011
By Feroz Khan
The Lost Soul: Pak Tea House

Pakistan is not the country I was born into and it is certainly not the country, which is for me anymore.

It is a country ruled by the emotions of a mob driven insane by its own self created versions of a religion that is nihilistic in its outlooks. Islam and the purpose of Islam in Pakistan, as professed by the many of the Pakistanis, is a genocidal desire to cleanse the country of any opposition to the idea of an unmasked power, ordained in the name of religion, and to silence any voice of reason and decency that exists.

Pakistan is an experiement in the making of an unholy kingdom of heaven on earth. There is no soul left to fight for in Pakistan. The fact will have to be accepted that the people, who showered rose petals on the killer of Salman Taseer did so, because he respresented their best hopes and wishes. He came from the same mindset the vast majority of Pakistanis have and which is based on the logic of an unquestioning obedience to an irrationality as propagated by the self-appointed priests of Pakistan; its clergy.

The killer of Salman Taseer, in killing Salman Taseer, was not only registering a blow against the profaners of the religion, in his view and in the view of the majority of Pakistanis, but was also standing up for the rights of the oppressed majority of the Pakistanis against the oppression, which the Pakistanis feel they have suffered at the hands of their politicans and rulers.

To the people who are idolizing the killer of Salman Taseer, he was “one of us” and mark my words, the shots which killed Salman Taseer were the opening shots of a war that will engulf Pakistan as its citizens, who cheered the killer, believe will set them free from the clutches of a small minority of blasphemers, who govern this country and are denying the people of Pakistan their right to live in a nation created in the name of religion and under the laws of Islam.

To most Pakistanis, educated and bred in the tradition of an Islamic inspiration in their lives, there can no identity in this world other than being a Muslim and to kill for a cause in the name of their God is not only justified; it is also permissable. To understand this mind and the values which shape it, it is important to understand the process of dehumanization which has been underway in Pakistan in which anyone who disagrees with the narrative of an Islamic state is progressively denied their legal and consititutional rights to the point that they cease to be citizens of the state.

Once they ceased to be citizens of the state, they can be killed with impunity. Any one who disagrees or has the tamerity to question the prevailing atmosphere of a religiously minded sense of purity, will be first declared as worthy of being killed and by this act, their humanity will be denied to them and this also, in a wrapped sense offers a theological defence to the idea in Islam that a murder of an innocent is the murder of humanity.

Those who are railing against this idea and are holding candles of desperation in hopes that the tide of vengence, unleashed upon them in the name of Islam will turn, do not understand the hinge of fate which has turned against them and their visions of a Pakistan. The people, who represent the wishes for a moderate, enlightened, and a progressive Pakistan are a minority that does not have the political power or the political patronage to combat this rising tide of theocracy that will soon wash over Pakistan.

The tragic and very lamentable irony is that after the murder of Salman Taseer, the very people who are suddenly championing the causes of tolerance, were the very people who for the sake of their own personal comforts and for the sake of their own ideas of status quo, kept silent while the process of turning Pakistan into a religious garden of eden was underway.

Where were these well intentioned souls and their cries of indignation, when it mattered?

The sad reality of Pakistan is that Pakistanis are not Muslims by the dignity of their birth, but only by an act of parliament which defines who is and who is not a Muslim in Pakistan. Pakistanis will try to labor very hard to make the nation into a Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which will be neither a republic or in the implication of its name Islamic but a vertible morass of draconian laws, moral hypocrisy and the best embodiment of the idea of human cruelty towards another human being.

There can be no battle for the soul of Pakistan. Pakistan has no soul and one cannot attain that which does not exist or fight for an idea that never existed. To say that there is a battle for the soul of Pakistan means that the people, who are running riot in the name of religion and are progressively creating Pakistan into a religious concentration camp, have a conscience is a laughable idea and only shows the depths of an intellectual bankruptcy of those, who wish to re-convert them to the idea of a more moderate, tolerant, Pakistan. Not only those, who are creating mayhem in the name of religion are souless, but so are the people who are now starting to think of their own sense of morality and how limited it will be in a new Pakistan, an idea which will not be remembered as a country created in the name of a religion as much as a religion created in the name of a country.

Where was the soul of Pakistan, when the first step towards this insanity was undertaken? The soul of Pakistan is timid; it is afraid, and it is that of a moral coward. The soul of Pakistan is selfish, it is shallow and above all else, it is that of an appeaser and that too an appeaser of morality and conscience.

The only thing, which will save this rotten state of Pakistan and its moral cowards is nothing else than a revolt of the conscience. Pakistanis will have to stand up and in the process not only reject everything on which their ideas of an identity are rooted, but will have to ask them themselves the question as to if they stand for humanity, decency and moral courage or for the forces of inhumanity and cruelty?

As I said earlier and maybe in a different thread, TSP is at cross roads. The fork is clearly getting identified: Islamist or moderate? The course/path will be taken by TSPA.

Kiyani is the single most individual who can set the path. A lot depends on his decisons.

RajeshA wrote:An article by Feroz Khan, a Pakistani with a rare real clarity of mind.

Published on Jan 10, 2011
By Feroz Khan
The Lost Soul: Pak Tea House

Pakistan is not the country I was born into and it is certainly not the country, which is for me anymore.

It is a country ruled by the emotions of a mob driven insane by its own self created versions of a religion that is nihilistic in its outlooks. Islam and the purpose of Islam in Pakistan, as professed by the many of the Pakistanis, is a genocidal desire to cleanse the country of any opposition to the idea of an unmasked power, ordained in the name of religion, and to silence any voice of reason and decency that exists.

Pakistan is an experiement in the making of an unholy kingdom of heaven on earth. There is no soul left to fight for in Pakistan. The fact will have to be accepted that the people, who showered rose petals on the killer of Salman Taseer did so, because he respresented their best hopes and wishes. He came from the same mindset the vast majority of Pakistanis have and which is based on the logic of an unquestioning obedience to an irrationality as propagated by the self-appointed priests of Pakistan; its clergy.

The question is that this has been going on for the last 20 years. Why now such articles are coming.

Two very good posts summarizing the TSPA changes:

Ssridhar wrote

Muppalla wrote:
(1) The divisions between the bearded ones and the army has widened from 2004 onwards and the gap has increased due drone attacks.
(2) There is serious need to remove this gap to take the relationship between beards and Army if Pakistan has to get back to glorious past
(3) All the security guards and other security is nothing but the ones carefully drafted by Army
(4) In pursuit of show of loyalty to the beards inside Army and outside - the Army has orchestrated dumping few RAPES. Army itself has many fellow RAPES but however, in the larger interest of the nation it is okay to dump few of them.

Muppalla, I have a refinement to what you have written.

I feel that the PA is not completely in control of itself, and that includes the ISI and MI as well. In that sense, the outside world may tend to ascribe every action to the PA as a whole while in fact some of them might have been carried out by factions not entirely under PA control. The reason for this suspicion is not far to seek.

In earlier days, the RAPEs formed the officer corps of the PA just as the aristocrats and nobles did in the Prussian Army. The foot soldiers came largely from the traditional recruiting grounds of Potohar plateau and Pashtun badlands. As PA lost some of its sheen and as other avenues opened up for the RAPEs, the PA began to widen its net for the officers. The Islamization of the PA by ZAB and then Gen. Zia made matters worse as explicit demonstration of Islamist fervour became an important measurement for promotions etc. within the PA. The Kakul syllabus was radicalized. The current batch of top Generals might well be the last pre-radicalization batch. The Tarbela SSG mess suicide bomb attack or the refusal of several PA units to fight the more pious Taliban are indeed pointers. So, beneath the very top Corps Commanders, the radicalization may be more rampant than what we might give credit for.

All that we know is that by his own admission, the then DG, ISI, Lt. Gen Mahmoud Ahmed estimated as far back as circa 2000, that 15 to 16% of the army officer corps were religious extremists. As we know the Pakistani penchant for underplaying (or overplaying) figures according to exigencies, we can safely assume that the figure should be somewhere between 45 and 50%. Since c. 2000, rather cataclysmic events have taken place that have enormously caused a surge in Islamist fervour and extremism all over the country and PA officers could not have been any exception to the goings on. . In July 2009, the fundamentalist Hizb-ut-Tahrir announced that four Pakistani Army officers sent to Sandhurst for military training had been ‘converted’. One can easily give up any hope for the foot soldiers in this environment. Preachers and jihad motivators like Professor Hafeez Saeed & Masood Azhar have been regularly giving kutbahs in Army mosques. While very large sections of the society, and hence the PA too, are Sunni Hanafi Berelvi, the PA mosques (because of the officially sanctioned easy access by JI, LeT, JeM and Hizb-ut-Tahrir clerics to them) are easy hunting grounds for conversion of these Berelvis to harder core Wahhabi/Deobandi/Salafi/ Ahl-e-Hadees thought processes. This may be more difficult to achieve in the villages or towns where these foot-soldiers come from because the mosques are largely controlled by the Berelvis still.

It is therefore no longer possible for the top-level PA commanders to be completely in charge of the PA. That is one of the reasons for the PA to delay even a token North Waziristan operation in spite of huge American pressure because of the fear that the PA might unravel.

The other issue is the increasing inability of the PA to hold the flock of the PA-pasand sarkari terrorist tanzeems. We now know that one of the reasons for the 26/11 is to show the jihadists that LeT and the PA were still capable of mounting a spectacular assault on India to arrest the flow of deserters from LeT to other Punjabi Taliban groups. I believe that the Khaled Khwaja issue or Maj. Gen. Alavi's case were handled at different levels within the PA and by groups that were aligned with the Punjabi Taliban. Taseer's case might be a similar one. When the PA graduates to the next level of enlightened moderation Insha Allah, such orders to assassinations might well flow from the top, but that may be a few years away yet.

In earlier happy days, the PA split and merged all the various tanzeems whenever it willed and according to its requirements. It no longer possesses that sway because the Punjabi Taliban are fighting for a greater cause than the PA and are also more pious than their PA brothers. The PA is split vertically into TTP-pasand and sarkari-tanzeem-pasand types with the former slowly assuming a bigger following. When the tilt happens heavily in their favour, we will see the fireworks.

---------------

Shiv Wrote:

To me it appears that there are definite signs that the Pakistani army now cannot wantonly grab power as Musharraf and his army predecessors did. Ever since he took office - Kiyani has gone out of his way to placate the rank and file of the army, starting with the statement that India remains the main threat and openly refusing to carry on with an offensive in the northwest. But Kiyani has been trying to douse a fire that was lit earlier. The Taliban, Islamic armies and the Pakistani army were brothers fighting a common cause shoulder to shoulder. This magic was lost by the pressure that unkil applied to move forces across to fight the Taliban, the drone attacks on jihadi brothers and Lal masjid. Try as it might the Pakistan army has lost focus on Kashmir. They have tried to fight a desperate rearguard action by saying that India is responsible for all the troubles in Afghanistan, but that does not appear to be good enough.

Some magic has gone out of Pakistan - a light that Pakistan had preserved has gone out forever. Let me explain that using a personal example of a pre-independence "old world mindset". Right up to my early 30s we had at home an old servant who used to serve my grandfather. My grandfather died around the time of my birth but the man stayed on - glued by loyalty and a vassal like attachment to the servants quarters he had for his family. He would bow in front of the durbar coat that my dead grandfather wore when he opened the cupboard to clean it. He was as much like Harry Potter's house elf Dobby as a human can get. This man is no more and his son was less indebted to my family. I don't even know his grandchildren. They all moved out after he died. But the man's attitude was one of utter loyalty. Master could get drunk or angry - but this man would always be loyal.

The Pakistani army had low ranking men of this type. Completely loyal. Men who would not bat an eyelid when his RAPE afsar master got drunk, smoked or was with women. With Islamization - that has gone. The lower cadres judge people by islam and not by the old world loyalty of the type my grandfather's servant showed.

Officers have to be more and more careful of their personal appearance and behavior. At best - morale would be affected - but at worst - an Islamist soldier may revolt. The second largest segment of the Pakistan army - the Pashtuns are having their villages bombed by the army or by the national bird. The largest faction - the Punjabis are desperately poor and are increasingly islamized. They are wondering why the enemy is no longer towards the east. Can a Kafir not be an enemy? Can one's own people be enemies? Surely something must be wrong. Islam can't be wrong - so it means they are not pure enough. It is the impure people who are diverting people from piety and the true enemy.

I believe the Pakistani army has a problem.

I believe Pakistan is going to sink into chaos. But in that chaos the US will keep funding the army to keep a core group in power. But Pakistan itself will fall into chaos. I may be wrong - but it's looking like that to me now. The US is no stranger to the idea of allowing nations to sink into chaos...They may actually have a point there?

Another assessment:
Nightwatch, 1/9/2011

Pakistan: For the record. An estimated 20,000 to 30,000 people gathered in Karachi to rally against a proposed amendment to blasphemy laws that was recently used to sentence a Christian woman to death, police stated.


Demonstrators supported the killer of Punjab Province Governor Salman Taseer. A banner said in Urdu that "Mumtaz Qadri is not a murderer, he is a hero. " Another stated, "We are ready to sacrifice our lives for the dignity of the Prophet Mohammad."

Comment: The most telling detail about the strength of Islamist extremists from last week's murder is that none of the so-called moderates or secular leaders of Pakistan attended the funeral of Salman Taseer. Pakistan is lost to the modern world. This occurred during the reign of Zia ul-haq. No internal actions or outside intervention has slowed the Islamist cultural infection. Military government actually has made it worse, but elected civilian government is failing to stop the spread of Islamic fundamentalism among the electorate.

The politicians cant do anything without the military backing them. The Ialamization of TSPA was supported by US by benign neglect.

What he ignores is who is behind the military? The US offcourse with their past is past type of acts.

ramana wrote: Pakistan is lost to the modern world . This occurred during the reign of Zia ul-haq. No internal actions or outside intervention has slowed the Islamist cultural infection.


The politicians cant do anything without the military backing them. The Ialamization of TSPA was supported by US by benign neglect.

What he ignores is who is behind the military? The US offcourse with their past is past type of acts.

Zia Ul Haq was in Pakistan more than 25 years ago. The amount of aid money and armaments given to Pakistan since then is more than $50B. And here after 25 years they are talking about Pakistan being lost.

Brookings says KSA is nervous about TSP's slide down the Islamist slope.

Watching Nervously

Bruce Riedel

No country in the world, except maybe India, is more concerned with the outcome of the political crisis that is gripping Pakistan than Saudi Arabia. The Saudi kingdom has a longstanding and intimate relationship with Pakistan. They faced common enemies in the past successfully and face a common enemy today in al Qaeda. They have had a deep strategic military relationship for decades and today have an unacknowledged nuclear partnership to provide the kingdom with a nuclear deterrent on short notice if ever needed. Understanding the Saudi-Pakistani relationship is important to understanding the future of both countries, the nuclear balance in both the Near East and South Asia, and the crisis in Pakistan today.

Pakistan has received more aid from Saudi Arabia than any country outside the Arab world since the 1960s. For example, in May 1998 when Pakistan was deciding whether to respond to India’s test of five nuclear weapons, the Saudis promised 50,000 barrels per day of free oil to help the Pakistanis cope with the economic sanctions that might be triggered by a counter test. The Saudi oil commitment was a key to then Prime Minster Nawaz Sharif’s decision to proceed with testing. It cushioned the subsequent U.S. and EU sanctions on Pakistan considerably. Official aid is matched by large investments from Saudi princes and from religious institutions. Much of the Pakistani madrassa educational system, for instance, is Saudi funded by private donors.

In turn, Pakistan has provided military aid and expertise to the kingdom for decades. It began with help to the Royal Saudi Air Force to build and pilot its first jet fighters in the 1960s. Pakistani Air Force pilots flew RSAF Lightnings that repulsed a South Yemeni incursion into the kingdom’s southern border in 1969. In the 1970s and 1980s up to 15,000 Pakistani troops were stationed in the kingdom, some in a brigade combat force near the Israeli-Jordanian-Saudi border. The close ties continue between the militaries today.

Economic and military ties are matched by close intelligence and security relations. During the 1980s, the Saudis financed more than half of the jihad to support the Afghan insurgency against the Soviet 40th Army in Afghanistan and worked more closely than anyone else with the Pakistani intelligence service, ISI, to support the war effort. Those ties continued in the 1990s when the Saudis and Pakistanis assisted the Taliban for a time. Former Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Sultan has said “It’s probably one of the closest relationships in the world between any two countries.”

Today the intelligence focus is on al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden, the child of the earlier Saudi-Pakistani joint project in Afghanistan, has declared war on both countries and has been responsible for dozens of terrorist attacks in both countries. He has called for the overthrow of both King Abdullah and President Musharraf. From his lair along the Afghan-Pakistani border he issues calls for their death and trains Saudi and Pakistani jihadists to kill them. The Saudis foiled a major plot by al Qaeda in December 2007 to attack the Hajj pilgrimage in Mecca, and Interior Minister Prince Nayif said the kingdom had countered over 180 al Qaeda terrorist operations since 2003. In Pakistan there were 56 suicide bombings last year, 36 targeting the army (two at ISI headquarters). Most had an al Qaeda connection, including the two attacks on Benazir Bhutto. By one count Musharraf has been the target nine times so far.

The two Sunni states also share a concern about Shia Iran. Both seek to keep ties with Tehran as normal as possible but have a deep fear that Iran might encourage unrest in their Shia minorities. Both have had serious frictions with Iran in the past and work together to minimize Iranian influence in the region. A nuclear Iran worries its neighbors to the south and to the east.

Shortly after Pakistan tested its nuclear weapons in 1998, Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan visited Pakistan and toured its nuclear and missile facilities outside Islamabad. Pakistan’s famous A.Q. Khan provided some of the color commentary for these unprecedented tours. At the time, U.S. officials expressed concern that the Pakistanis might be providing a nuclear weapon to the Saudis. Sultan has been Defense Minister since 1962 and today is also Crown Prince. Saudi connections with Pakistan’s nuclear program go back almost as far. Prime Minister Zulfikar Bhutto sought financial help for the program from Saudi Arabia in the early 1970s, according to some accounts. Then King Faisal of Saudi Arabia provided some money in return for a promise that Pakistan’s nuclear program would provide a security umbrella for the kingdom. Bhutto repaid the favor by renaming a city in the King’s honor, Faisalabad.

After Sharif’s ouster in a coup by Musharraf in 1999, he went into exile in the kingdom, an agreement negotiated by the Clinton administration to forestall Nawaz’s execution. The nuclear relationship continued and matured under Musharraf. In October 2003, then Crown Prince Abdullah visited Pakistan for a state visit. Several experts reported after the trip that a secret agreement was concluded that would ensure Pakistan would provide Saudi Arabia with nuclear technology and a bomb if Saudi Arabia felt threatened by a third party nuclear program in the future. Both countries, of course, denied the stories.

Assuming an agreement exists, it is likely the two have practiced the deployment of Pakistani warheads to Saudi Arabia for use with Saudi delivery systems. It would also make sense for RSAF and Pakistani pilots to jointly train for their use. More frequent exercises would help assure Riyadh that it can count on Islamabad in a crisis and that any deal is for real. Saudi Arabia’s Chinese-made intermediate range missiles, now increasingly obsolete, are also widely assumed to be a possible delivery system for Pakistani warheads in a crisis. It was, of course, former Saudi Ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who arranged their purchase.

When the current political crisis began in Pakistan last year, the Saudis assumed Musharraf would weather the storm. Like all the other Arab monarchies their sympathies are clearly with Musharraf and they made these known to the United States and other powers. After Nawaz sought to go home in the early fall, Saudi Arabia reluctantly agreed to take him back into exile at the General’s request.

But when the Bush administration persuaded Musharraf to allow Benazir Bhutto to return in October the Saudis found themselves in an unsustainable position. If Nawaz’s rival could go home, it was impossible for them to keep Nawaz in the kingdom against his will. The Saudis summoned Musharraf to the kingdom and Nawaz was allowed to end his exile. The Saudi intelligence chief Prince Miqrin abd al Aziz is said to have arranged the return.

The Saudis’ leverage to ensure a favorable outcome of the crisis is significant if limited. With oil prices hovering around $100 to a barrel, cheap subsidized Saudi oil is critical to the Pakistani economy and energy can be a major leverage point. Their close connections with the Pakistani army and intelligence services, their longstanding ties with the Sharif family and their connections with the Sunni religious establishment give them more clout than most outsiders, but they are also widely resented in the country for encouraging the fundamentalists in the 1980s and 1990s. Should Sharif emerge as the next kingmaker in Pakistan after the February 18 elections, the Saudis will probably do all they can to smooth his transition to power and encourage the army to work with him. Ironically, that could make Musharraf the next recipient of an exile in the kingdom.

Whoever emerges as the leader in Pakistan, Saudi leaders will seek to ensure their understanding about a nuclear deterrent remains in place. If that requires more aid and assistance, it will be a small price to pay. For the kingdom, Pakistan will remain a unique partner.

Don't forget the writer's role in earlier administrations. I think he is slowly revealing that TSP's proliferation wasn't limited to supplying axis of evil but also the backers of evil (KSA). In other words Iran's quest is not the first ME country but after KSA got them.


Also he is saying that is Badmash emerges as a power center the KSA will arrange for his acceptance by Army and hence by US.

ramana wrote:Brookings says KSA is nervous about TSP's slide down the Islamist slope.

Watching Nervously
By Bruce Riedel

Don't forget the writer's role in earlier administrations. I think he is slowly revealing that TSP's proliferation wasn't limited to supplying axis of evil but also the backers of evil (KSA). In other words Iran's quest is not the first ME country but after KSA got them.

Also he is saying that is Badmash emerges as a power center the KSA will arrange for his acceptance by Army and hence by US.

I think Bruce Riedel is trying to tell the Obama Administration and the Congress, that USA should not just look at Pakistan from the prism of GWOT, but also through the Saudi-Pak dynamic and them making common cause against Osama. He is trying to bolster Pakistan's standing and importance.

The problem is that Al Qaeda has succeeded in partial delegitimization of the Sauds amongst Pakistan's Jihadist networks, and even though proxies of both sides across the inner-Wahhabi rift cooperate, it does not automatically mean more support to the Sauds. The ISI is also involved with groups who are proxies of those who do not look at the Sauds favorably.

Basically Pakistan is ceasing to be a trustworthy partner for Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia should look for more stable partnerships. The same trust and cooperation that Pakistan inspired in Saudi Arabia in the past, would not be forthcoming in the future.

Just a general meandering, Are we gaming the wrong time period (next 5-15 years) where it looks like Pakistan Army will backed by AmirKhan/Chicom Panda and KSA in varying roles and degrees at various time frames ( within the next 5-15 years). The whole thing will come come to head if :- (Its a BIG if)

1) Iran was to become an American Ally and allow America to drill Iran for Oil
(OR)
2) KSA runs out of Oil (whenever that is)
(OR)
3) Chicom Panda does not toe the Amirkhan Line(no matter what Chicom Panda finally negotiates his way out rather fighting it for supremacy.. History is evidence of that, except when they deal with very weak willed governments courtesy JLN Government)

Until a cataclysmic event like the 3 options below happen, nothing much will change apart from the chai-biskoot bonhomie like ombaba's visit..JMT

ramana wrote:As I said earlier and maybe in a different thread, TSP is at cross roads. The fork is clearly getting identified: Islamist or moderate? The course/path will be taken by TSPA.

Kiyani is the single most individual who can set the path. A lot depends on his decisons.

rammana,

Whatever happens to the TSP, dont count on it to follow the voice of reason. Or follow a moderate path. The solution to the problem will have to come when the Indian tanks roll into whats left of the TSP following a nuke war. That is, if the Indian leadership has the guts to nuke TSP in retaliation to a TSP Nuke strike in India. If not, then brace your self for a Nuke attack on India every other year.

But what ever happens dont expect the Khakis to chose the moderate path. They will pretend to act in a half hearted manner. Like it was done during the Mush era. Hoping that they can turn the Militias to the Pet cause of fighting India. But that's not going to happen. Not now, not without an open war with India.

But the TSP lacks the Guts to take on India in an open war. So expect the Status quo to endure.

Just a confused ramble............

http://changinguppakistan.wordpress.com ... iq-tufail/

To sum it up: Pakistan is simply not economically viable. This has nothing to do with patriotism, national pride, Islam, Indian or Jewish conspiracies. It is simply a question of mathematics.

RajeshA wrote: Basically Pakistan is ceasing to be a trustworthy partner for Saudi Arabia, and Saudi Arabia should look for more stable partnerships. The same trust and cooperation that Pakistan inspired in Saudi Arabia in the past, would not be forthcoming in the future.

I doubt that is the case, now or in near future.

The Saudi-Paki nuke relation is more stronger than the AQ threat any given time.

TSP is kept on artificial life support system by 3.5 so as to protect TSPA's interests, as it is the holder of Paki nukes. The moment Pak becomes nuke-nude, it becomes not large-enough entity to be "protected at any cost".

Similarly KSA's USP (comparatively) is the two holy masques. If/when AQ or any Islamic jihadi makes an attempt on those sites, KSA will get support from all muslim countries around the world to suppress that threat.

As long as KSA has oil (at least another 50 years) and oil wealth deposits, KSA remains a full partner to Pakistan and as long as Pakistan has nukes, it will be KSA's full partner given Iran variable.

As we can see in that article, the close relationship for many decades is between KSA ruling family and TSPA (and its intelligence agencies). The equation is always, you give me financial support and act as economic cushion and I will act as your military arm. And that equation hasn't changed and will not change. Even a overt islamization of TSPA will not be in incongruence to KSA systems or values.

From India's perspective how to break this alliance?

Option 1: KSA route - develop economic ties, offer nuke-umbrella, establish defense cooperation, seek special consideration for Indian diaspora, cut the roots of Paki creeper (as explained in Chanakya thread).

Option 2: Iran route - bet on Shia faction, nuclearise Iran, let Iran balance Pakistan-KSA tangle.

The second option has two side effects. One is that it would mean distancing Israel and secondly we are dependent on a proxy to hurt our enemy.

The biggest risk is the impact of these Foreign Affairs tango on IM population given our [sic] secularism.

RamaY, If you take the long view Shias despite their lower numbers will overpower the Sunnis due to their doctrine being more flexible. In addition by taking over Persia, modern Iran, they have latched on to the more creative of the Middle East people. Further historically Iran has been the power in ME for millenia: Cyrus, Sassnian, Safavid etc. So in long run I would bet on the Iranis. No wonder Saddam last words were "Beware of the Persians!"

So Pakis, KSA. oil, nukes etc are all aberrations and like all aberrations will subside. Outsiders can prop up locals and paly balance of power only so much.

That could be India's strength and fear as well.

Can India develop a mutually beneficial relationship with Iran? Which sections of Indian polity is against this?

My BRIC = Bharat-Russia-Iran-China. These are the four pillars of Eurasia

-deleted after Ramay's change-

Pls read Bharat-Russia-Iran-China

ramana wrote:RamaY, If you take the long view Shias despite their lower numbers will overpower the Sunnis due to their doctrine being more flexible. In addition by taking over Persia, modern Iran, they have latched on to the more creative of the Middle East people. Further historically Iran has been the power in ME for millenia: Cyrus, Sassnian, Safavid etc. So in long run I would bet on the Iranis. No wonder Saddam last words were "Beware of the Persians!"

So Pakis, KSA. oil, nukes etc are all aberrations and like all aberrations will subside. Outsiders can prop up locals and paly balance of power only so much.

Response

There is one primary conflict with Iran - India's current or future need to secure the gulf. But the more visible conflict is actually secondary - India's need apparently to secure its supposed current ally's interests. This is the USA, and therefore the related interests of US tails in the region - the sunni-wahabi lobby in ME, and the Gulf countries.

Iran's second problem is that it still runs as a purely theocratic state. Even if there are formal elections. Any alliance that is built up by India will have to be built with the current theocratic oligarchy. This may cause severe reversals as and when Iran faces internal rebellion, revolution and change of regime. It is kind of the same dilemma that India faces with KSA or Myanmar.

From Pioneer

Zulfie's Lab

Zulfi’s lab for ‘Islamic experiments’
January 13, 2011 2:55:39 AM

Nadeem F Paracha

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto had once famously described Pakistan as a social lab for ‘Islamic experiments’. It may have been a cynical comment. But four decades later, that’s what Pakistan looks like as zealots run amok. Prophetic words?

In the 1970s former Prime Minister ZA Bhutto once described Pakistan as a social lab to conduct various ‘Islamic experiments’. I don’t know whether Bhutto was being cynical or enthusiastic about this, but yes, it most certainly seems that this is exactly what this unfortunate republic has been all the while.

Forget about secular societies in the West that just can’t make head or tail about the way many Pakistanis behave and react in the name of religion; I have also seen people belonging to various Muslim countries sometimes scratch their heads when contemplating the behaviour of Pakistanis in this context. Are we as a Muslim majority nation really all that unique? For example, why only in Pakistan do people rise up to demand that a particular sect be declared non-Muslim — as if considering everyone else as heretics makes us feel and look more pious?

Why only in Pakistan do people remain quiet when certain man-made ‘Islamic laws’ are openly exploited to conduct personal vendettas against minorities?

Why only in Pakistan do people go on strike when a Government even hints at amending such laws, despite the fact that the more sober Islamic scholars have over and over again termed such laws as having few, if any, historical and theological precedents or justification? Are such laws yet another way for us to loudly mask the glaring social, political and economic hypocrisy that has become a way of life for us?

Then, why only in Pakistan do people come out to destroy their own cities and properties for an act of blasphemy taking place thousands of miles away? And anyway, in this respect, how seriously should the Almighty take a nation that won’t even bother to manage its own garbage dumps or dare speak up against the many gross acts of violence and injustice that take place in their Islamic republic and for which many are ready to burn buses and shoot people?

Why only in Pakistan do many people still consider violent extremists and terrorists to be some kind of gung-ho mujahids fighting nefarious infidels and superpowers, even when on most occasions it is the common Pakistanis that are being slaughtered in their own markets, schools and mosques by these romanticised renegades? Why only in Pakistan, as more and more people now pack mosques, wear hijab, grow beards and lace their sentences with assorted Arabic vocabulary, society, instead of reaping the social and cultural benefits of this show of piety continues to tumble down the spiral as perhaps the most confused and contradictory bunch of people?

Of course, we always have a handy set of excuses for all this. We lash out at ‘Islam’s enemies’ (most of whom exist only in our heads and in our history books); we scorn our politicians and ulema, but at the same time we are ever ready to kill, loot, plunder and go on strikes on the call of these very people. We blame western and Indian cultural influences, but have no clue what to exchange these with. So, unable (rather unwilling) to appreciate the fact that we share an ancient, rich and regal culture with the rest of the subcontinent, we look towards the West Asia.

We reject our own culture but adopt a half-baked understanding of Arabian culture as our own. No wonder a Pakistani continues to smile and keep quiet about the insults he constantly faces in various oil-rich countries, but he would make a huge hue and cry if and when he faces the same in a European or American city. After all, we are Arabs, and so what if our Arabic is not up to the mark, we’re getting there. But unfortunately, that’s all we’re getting at.

I pity myself and my nation. Each one is now a serious causality of all the brazen experiments that have taken place on us by those who wanted to impose their own concept of Islam in our Governments, schools, streets and homes. So the next time you meet a hip, young Pakistani dude quoting a religious text, or a Pakistani who stops you from jogging at a park because he wants you to join him for prayers (you can’t ask him to join you for jogging, though), or a burqa-clad woman claiming she is a better woman than the one who does not wear a burqa, or watch a cooking show host talking more about god than the biryani she is cooking, or a bearded barber advising you not to shave, just forgive them all.

Treat us as causalities of the faith which we ourselves have distorted beyond recognition. A faith that was supposed to make us a vibrant, progressive and tolerant set of people, has, instead, and due to our own warped understanding of it, turned us into a horde of very ripe looking vegetables.

The writer is among the most popular Pakistani columnists. He writes for Dawn. Courtesy: Dawn.

Dont know how many recall my comment son watching a paki cookign channels which had three cooking show hostesses dressed in three different styles :Western, Burqa, and Punjabi and all three baking English cake! The Western dressed one was saying inshallah for every other word.

I got an interesting write up yesterday in the email... Apparently it's been circulating on the net for a couple of days. Here it is for download... Not sure who the author is, but it has some interesting observations and propositions... Distribute wide and free, as it says a lot of things we on BRF have been talking about for a while.

http://www.2shared.com/document/G_Qr6nt ... nge_P.html

JE Menon wrote:I got an interesting write up yesterday in the email... Apparently it's been circulating on the net for a couple of days. Here it is for download... Not sure who the author is, but it has some interesting observations and propositions... Distribute wide and free, as it says a lot of things we on BRF have been talking about for a while.

http://www.2shared.com/document/G_Qr6nt ... nge_P.html

I got this too. I would have said it was a brfite but the source of the email was from a "liberal mailing list" some whose members are bitterly critical of BRF. Must be something about that article that lit up a whole lot of tubelights to get past that crowd. A must read.

No shite...? Very BRFite in content, but I got it from someone totally apolitical and more on the financial side. Investment guy... and it was sent to a mailing list of which I was one. But you are right... article is a must read.

JE Menon wrote:I got an interesting write up yesterday in the email... Apparently it's been circulating on the net for a couple of days. Here it is for download... Not sure who the author is, but it has some interesting observations and propositions... Distribute wide and free, as it says a lot of things we on BRF have been talking about for a while.

http://www.2shared.com/document/G_Qr6nt ... nge_P.html

Now which BRFite wrote this piece? It can't be an American! They are incapable of such insight!

Well, i tend to agree... don't think it is an American author... feels very BRF like I must say. On the other hand, people are increasingly copping on to the reality of Af-Pak so it could be just about anybody in fact.

RajeshA wrote:Now which BRFite wrote this piece? It can't be an American! They are incapable of such insight!

Excuse me?

anupmisra wrote:

RajeshA wrote:Now which BRFite wrote this piece? It can't be an American! They are incapable of such insight!

Excuse me?

I think, you know who I mean by that!