AKalam wrote:According to my model, Pakistan will not fail, Baluchistan or Gilgit Baltistan or any other part will not go out hand of Pakistan. The situation there may go bad to worse, but it will not disintegrate. So in my view, these are wishful thinking. The principal difference of this situation in Pakistan now with the creation of Bangladesh in 1971 is that the geographic disconnect and distance, which is absent in these cases. So going these routes are a waste of time and energy and misleading the uninitiated IMHO.
AKalam ji
I cannot say much about how Gilgit-Baltistan situation would develop, but it is not as if Pakistan can really lease out Gilgit-Baltistan to China. People there would not be willing to be leased out. There will be revolts. And if there are revolts in disputed land, where the lease is not accepted by the world, nor by India which has legal rights to the place, then that would be untenable, and would increase the cost of occupation for the Chinese enormously, further having a domino effect of instability over their own regions - East Turkestan and Tibet. So as it is difficult for both China and India to get hold of this land, it would remain under Pakistani administration for some time, until a time India makes a concerted move. Considering the increasing power differential between India and Pakistan that can come to happen.
As far as Baluchistan is concerned, you're right, one cannot compare it to Bangladesh case, but then Bangladesh need not be template for each Pakistani split.
The prime difference between Baluchistan Independence and Bangladesh Independence was that Bangladeshis were a big population surrounded by well-meaning neighbors - India and Myanmar, who did not wish to encroach upon Bangladeshi integrity. Baluchistan would not have that advantage - it would be surrounded by Iranians to the West, Pushtuns to the North and Pakjabis to the East. Each have occupied Baluchis in one way or another earlier as well as now. Secondly Baluchi population is also very low and insufficient to secure its borders and ensure non-interference by its neighbors.
That means only one thing - another power would have to sit in Baluchistan and ensure its independence. It can be USA, which puts up its bases in Baluchistan, which would have been given nominal independence earlier. But that would reek of colonialism, and I don't think Baluchis would be willing to allow such an arrangement. Even in Afghanistan, the presence of ISAF/NATO/USA gives the people the feeling of being occupied, regardless of whatever developmental work the Westerners are doing!
The other power which can be given the control over Baluchistan is Iran - a free Iran, freed of its Shi'a theocratic regime and a US ally. That however would also not get, because Saudis would just not allow that its rival is allowed to get Baluchi Sunni land. It also does not really help those who would be in favor of Baluchi Independence for their own strategic reasons to which I get later on.
Third option is India. If Baluchis were to again become part of India as they were part of British India once. But the Baluchis have to make that determination on their own, and I think only the Indian Army can ensure the integrity of whatever borders are agreed to for Baluchistan.
Now why do I think Baluchi Independence is inevitable!
Unlike Bangladesh, I don't think India would play any active role in supporting Baluchi independence, because that would lead to an all-out war with Pakistan, and nobody in India is really looking forward to it, as it can really escalate to a radioactive catastrophe. India can only provide logistical help to the Baluchis, but we would not launch a war with Pakistan on that.
So USA would have to be the political agent of Baluchi Independence, unlike Bangladesh where India played a vital role.
If one were to notice, from the perspective of USA, Asia-Pacific Rim has been extended to include the Indian Ocean Rim and is now called the Indo-Pacific Region. That means that the Indian Subcontinent has been declared as region of America's immediate interest. But Central Asia is increasingly being locked up by Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan, giving India and USA limited access to the region, making USA dependent on Pakistan, and India on Iran. Historically this is something India is not really used to for India had had a very strong presence in Central Asia as its Buddhist past testifies to, but also later. So both USA and India have strong reasons to try to break the hold of Iran and Pakistan over Central Asia.
Secondly Russia too is interested in getting access to the Indian Ocean, which has been blocked by Iran, Pakistan and USA. Russia and India are close partners but our trade is still abysmal, especially because Russia cannot provide us with energy through gas pipelines.
A stabilization of Afghanistan or at least that of a North-South corridor in Western Afghanistan and independence of Baluchistan would ensure that energy can flow freely, and not just energy but all resources from Central Asia can reach markets in India. USA would like to be able to tap into the resources of Central Asia, and Russia would like to be able to use the passage to provide those resources to the growing market in India.
A Baluchistan under India would also suit Russia because even as it gives USA the freedom to get economically involved in Central Asia, it restricts USA from indiscriminate political interference in Central Asia, unless it is in the framework agreed to by India with possible Russian approval.
The SCO arrangement can work only if all powers are given equal access to Central Asia. At the moment USA and India do not get that level of access except by expending valuable political and economic capital and allowing ourselves to be blackmailed.
So what I would expect over the medium term is that USA would keep some bases in Afghanistan, in places like Herat, Mazar-i-Sharif and North Afghanistan, etc. India would control Baluchistan and have a military arrangement with USA giving them more or less free land and air access to Afghanistan for a couple of decades.
Now one can consider this opinion to be partisan, as I am Indian, but the way I see it, I don't know how else USA can secure access to Central Asia. A change in Iranian regime could allow that, but it is still not in America's hand. They cannot set up a regime in Iran which would be under American thumb, especially not if USA gets involved in attacking Iran. The radicalization of Pakistan has made working with Pakistan increasingly difficult.
So as long as USA is in AfPak, it is dependent on Pakistan, but once it comes 2014 and the majority of the forces leave, all bets are off between USA and Pakistan. USA has not been able to bring Afghanistan under its control, thereby ensuring access to Central Asia, simply because Pakistanis have not played fair and double-crossed USA. USA has expended all this political and military capital for not much reason.
But an Indian Army securing Baluchistan's borders would be a major force for stabilization in the region, and finally allow USA to secure the North-South Access to Central Asia.
USA sees India as a facilitator which allows USA to project a much bigger level of power in Asia. In Hillary Clinton's address in Chennai, she touched upon India needing to play a much bigger role in Southeast Asia and Central Asia. The Central Asia bit came as a surprise, especially as Indian presence in Afghanistan though benign is still very tentative, and we have no access to Central Asia. Breaking away of Baluchistan would allow India to again become a player in Central Asia.
The more region of Asia India secures against encroachment by China, the more positive it plays out for USA because then it need not counter China everywhere. It does not mean India and USA are going to be allies in the traditional sense, or that India would become some American stooge but there is scope for strategic cooperation, which allows both parties to strengthen their standing in Asia.
Now this is one trajectory that the evolution of Baluchistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Central Asia can take. But this is more likely than the alternative and that is to allow SCO to strengthen its hold over Central Asia, which does not allow India to project influence independently of other powers.
Many here would doubt this scenario, but they are those who would rather see the worldview of the
West USA through the prism of historical evidence and ideology. But one often overlooks that USA is prone to change its partners as they see fit depending on which arrangement best suits them. So just because USA has been Pakistan's No. 1 supporter does not mean that that is written in stone and they will not rethink it.
It also does not mean that USA would all of a sudden become India's best friend and do everything to help India. Far from it, USA would try to retain some levers of power, both external and internal, to influence India, something many in India would also resist, and justifiably so! But all that is the process of transition to a stage where USA would have little say in Asia and India would take over American soft Empire in Asia, using India's own brand of hard and soft power.
I believe your model sees Pakistan as a place where the security and economic situation deteriorates but the country stay together! Left to their own devices, that may be the case that just the situation would deteriorate without any change in political boundaries, were it not for the strong strategic interests that other powers have in Baluchistan. Those interests and Baluchi discontentment with Pakistan would necessitate the break up of Pakistan again.
There is some reason to believe that Pakistan can resist this break-up - especially as they have nuclear weapons, but the sheer political and security instability in Pakistan, its plummeting economy, external dependence of its military for arms, hostile neighbors would ensure that Pakistan does in fact break up.
After 2014, Baluchistan is the place to watch out for!
