shiv wrote:Gerard wrote:
The British learned divide and rule (divide et impera) from the Romans
Indeed. And if we put on our thinking caps, we could ask
1) Could India use this
2) Who needs to be divided from whom?
The Americans who want to support Pakistan at all costs need to be divided from the Americans who are realistic enough to perceive a greater benefit from ditching Pakistan in favor of India.
We cannot gain anything by dividing Pakistanis from Pakistanis, because the only Pakistanis who have any say in what Pakistan does is the Pakistan Army... who will never, ever cease hostility with India regardless of what inducements may be offered. If there is any Pakistani constituency that wants to end hostility with India, the Pakistan Army and its million proxies will quash them as soon as they speak up. Aman ki Asha is doomed to fail as any sort of divisive exercise here.
We may be able to gain something by dividing Pakhtun groups (including segments of what are known as the Taliban), and encouraging those who want to take revenge on Pakistan. Given the perceived betrayal of the Pakistanis arresting Mullah Baradar this is a good time to pursue that angle. But neither Aman ki Asha, nor doing whatever America asks, will gain us any traction with the anti-Pakistan Pakhtun groups.
As for dividing the Americans (and yes, given the indecisive nature of the Obama administration it is certainly possible)... we need to understand that this cannot be achieved merely by doing whatever America asks. If we do whatever America asks then the faction of Americans who want to support Pakistan at any cost will continue to support Pakistan; and the faction who may have been induced to ditch Pakistan has no incentive to ditch Pakistan, because we are doing everything that is asked of us anyway.
If we want to divide the Americans we need to have levers. We need to behave in ways that they may find at least indirectly threatening to their interests... then, we have a lever in offering to change our behaviour to suit their interests, always incrementally, and always in exchange for something.
We also need to make Pakistan less useful to America by influencing Pakistan to behave in ways directly threatening to US interests.
The best outcome is where India is not cooperating with the US very much, and Pakistan is not cooperating with the US at all.
If India is cooperating and Pakistan is cooperating, the US will back Pakistan as they always have.
If India is cooperating and Pakistan is not cooperating, as we have seen, the US will take India's cooperation for granted and try to bribe Pakistan (with weapons, money etc.) to cooperate.
If India is not cooperating and Pakistan is cooperating, it becomes a sticky, untenable situation for Pakistan because many in Pakistan hate the US and do not want to cooperate with it. Musharraf had to beg his people (including the elite ruling class and TSPA top brass) to go along with his plan to cooperate with America after 9/11, by arguing that if Pakistan didn't cooperate India would. However, if India is not cooperating this argument will not hold. In effect, we end up creating divisions within Pakistan more effectively than through any Aman ki Asha!
But if India is not cooperating and Pakistan is not cooperating, the constituency of Americans who would consider "ditching Pakistan" gains more of a voice than those who want to support Pakistan at any cost. This is because the US is faced with an intractable situation... no one cooperating... and they have to step back and assess things realistically rather than revert to formulae.
Right now we are cooperating with the US to a ridiculous extent... one that can be calculated in Indian lives being lost to Pakistani terrorism as we refuse to impose any sort of cost on Pakistan for supporting terrorism.
Which is no answer at all.