Managing Pakistan's failure

[Karna_A]

Brihaspati,
TSP is a rabid dog. What Chicom/UQ is doing is to hope the full fury of the dog falls on India and not on them and wounded India gets rid of the dog.
However, on a scale of 0-10 with 10 the highest, if TSP Islamic rank is 9, India's islamic rank is 5.
But UQ is 3, Unkil is 2 and China is 0.

So the best way for India to manage TSP failure would be to divert the Islamics towards the non islamic nations as above particularly the Godless ***** unless they stop meddling in SA.

The main point is even though India is the main enemy of TSPA and ISI, the main enemies of Islamics are different. Some of it is occuring naturally.

http://www.srilankaguardian.org/2010/07 ... istan.html

According to Uighur sources, the authorities of the two countries were probably concerned that a joint exercise in the wake of the anger over the Chinese role in the Lal Masjid raid in July 2007 could lead to fresh attacks on Chinese nationals in Pakistan.

[surinder]

Brihaspati, we definitely should do extensive nuce drills in all major/minor cities. This has drill will have a very surprising impact on the psyche of Indians. To me that psychic impact would be its greatest value.

[RajeshA]

X-Posted from India-US Strategic News & Discussion

If we want to put fear into the hearts of the nuclear proliferators, all India needs to do is to start preparing the nation for a nuclear exchange. Build nuclear shelters, order medicines against radiation poisoning, prepare contingencies regarding administrative control, prepare for the protection of our medical, scientific and engineering experts, ityadi. Also invest properly in Air Defences including BMD.

Only then would the others know, we are serious.

The sheer population and size of India makes it impracticable to build nuke shelters.

Nuke shelters in India make a nuclear attack by Pakistan or China less probable. Would Pakistan attack India using nuclear bombs, if they know that we would have no compunction retaliating using nukes, as we feel secure.

If we know that Pakistan knows that we are not afraid of a nuclear exchange, they would be less likely to threaten us with nukes, even if there is conventional war between India and Pakistan.

So India could march into PoK, and Pakistan would be afraid of using the nuclear card.

Preparation for a nuclear war, is the only thing that neutralizes Pakistan's nuclear blackmail, which it uses for terrorism, Kashmir insurgency, arming Naxalites, etc. etc.

[JwalaMukhi]

What if Pak's nuke bluff is really called? I think only two voices will rise shrill high in pitch in panic, that of the US administration and all of Paki regime. Perhaps they really do not exist at all.

Bji, please allow me to add that Indian politicos and establishment would also be upset with the equation if the pak's nuke bluff is really called. That is the biggest issue. The other two voices are just coincidental and should not matter. Let me explain.

The nuke threat of pak's bum is convenient fig leaf for the Indian politicos to indulge in inaction. If that is removed they will be forced to act. All the new clear drill is mainly going to cater to the policy makers to take some concrete action and it is not about Indian public. Indian public is not exactly shaking in boots and having nightmares about baki bums. If anything Indian public is upset why situation has come to such a pass that India has allowed itself to be blackmailed. Indian public is going to be more concerned about the ability(inability) of Indian government's retaliation. So far the record on dishing out eye for eye or a jaw by the Indian establishment has been pathetic to non-existent.
The guaranteed response to bakis should be modus operandi with or without nukes in the equation. The threat of baki bums is proving to be "fig leaf" that allow the Indian establishment to be in "perennial preparation mode". And asking such a mindset to implement nuclear response through drills is god send opportunity for the politicos to be in "perennial preparation mode for eternity".

[A_Gupta]

Would you lose your cool or temper while presenting Newton's Laws of Motion? Probably not, because the weight of truth of them outweighs any denier of the general validity of the laws. If somebody denies the obvious, you can only be sorry for them.

All desis, when talking to Pakistanis should keep the same calm - that the weight of the truth on India's side is so much that one can only feel sorry for the denier.

Just thinking - that might be a way to have a psychological impact.

[shiv]

So how do we manage those. My take:

Condition 1: If the Talibs are in complete control of nukes, everyone worries, US, UK, China included along with India. The source of conventional armed funding for the Talib will come down. Militant Kashmiri movement may calm down on seeing the brutality Talibs met out to their countrymen. Ironically India may remain calmer on the borders as the Talib are busy purifying the rest of the countrymen. But on the other hand they may stupidly try their Ghazwa with nukes and then we reach a situation where we would have to handle once again Refugees.

Condition 2: Talibs take over Pakistan but Balochistan and Sindh fight pitched battles defying Taliban and PA. Country slips into civil war mode. India observes the situation so do 3.5, nobody dares venture into the cesspool. Refugees again are what India has to handle.

Condition 3: With Pasthunistan formed once again Baluch and Sindh independence will be very much a reality as the idea of Pakistan comes crumbling. Once again India suffers or has to face a refugee influx and manage that.

Condition 4: A Somalia like state. Rule of central power slips away to an extent who goes and who’s in matters little. Problem loose nukes and refugees escaping the chaos mostly again to India.

Great post harbans.

Some thoughts. A whole lot depends on the "Third entity" of Pakistan (aside from mango abduls and jihadis) - the Pakistan army

The Pakistan army is currently like a caged animal. It has been "caged" (in my view) by a mix of threats and bribes from the US.

There are 3 possible scenarios that can appear from this:

1) The army stays caged as long as what passes for the "civilian government" does things that the army has no objection to seeing (this seems to be the current scenario). The US get its supplies into Afghanistan

2) The army gets upset by the civilians overstepping their mandate and takes over, but continues to support the US and the US gets its supplies into Afghanistan

3) The army takes over, revolts against the US and stops US access to Afghanistan.

But no matter which of these 3 scenarios holds, Pakistan still does not have total control over parts of its territory, and its human development and economy are dependent on US support.

Can the Pakistan army revolt and kick the US out? That would have to be an Iran type revolution. It also happened in Vietnam - where a US puppet was removed. So the question is how deep does US influence run in the Pakistan army? Currently this influence runs pretty deep because there is no "chatter" in the media as one would expect of US influence in the Pakistani army was waning.

What would happen if the Pakistan army "broke free" of the US? Perhaps the US would sit back and do nothing? But I doubt if the US would continue military aid to Pakistan which has been the single most important factor in making the Pakistan army bolster its defences against India since 1999

Secondly, we on BRF are all fond of saying how much influence the US has in checking India's action. Would the US still "check India" after the Paki army breaks free? If it does not check India, what the hell would India do - attack Pakistan?

Before we talk of what India or the US might do, it is worth looking at the Paki army's fears.
It resorts to covert war because it knows that direct war is not possible. It has to keep fighting India to justify its own bloated existence. Pakistani military strategists have openly declared that any hot war with India will be stopped by foreign intervention - they know that India too will suffer from sanctions. But if the army breaks free from the US this "insurance cover" vanishes and the US will have no interest in seeing the Paki army protected against an Indian attack. And that will reduce the Paki army's freedom of action and legitimacy. Besides they fear that India-US cooperation is to denuke them. So the Paki army needs the US and the US knows that.

But what can the US deliver to the Pakistan army in return for cooperation. Arms and funds is one thing. Protecting the Paki army from destabilizing forces is another thing. Too much democracy destabilizes the Paki army. India is a destabiizing force. So the US has to keep India talking about talks and not about war and the US cannot insist on free and fair elections in Pakistan.

But the US can only go so far wrt India - because it cannot continue to protect Pakistan if more Mumbai like attacks occur. So the US has to additionally demand that Pakistan somehow desists from terror - if not wind down the network. Also Pakistan is gradually going downhill and the longer democracy takes to be established the further downhill Pakistan will go.

Ultimately if India, Pakistan and the US all follow the dictum of self-interest and self interest alone, there is a greater risk of uncontrolled chaos in Pakistan including the ultimate risk of lost nukes, nuclear war, profound effects on the global economy and environment than if there is some cooperation between players. It would take too long for me to list out the various scenarios - some of which I can.

The best way forward would be "managed chaos" in Pakistan. For managed chaos, the Pakistan army has to be kept happy for a long time, but it must "be encouraged" to make peace with India and stop terror. If the Paki army can be encouraged to stop terror, India will be encouraged to not wage war.

Even without the India threat the Pakistani army is in deep trouble. The country is in the doldrums - economy, population, literacy, crime and areas are out of control. And the people who control parts of Pakistan are heavily armed and are also "Muslims" who are fighting jihad and kafirs - just like the Pakistani army itself. Many of these groups in Pakistan were the Paki army's allies and the army can hardly be seen to fight them.

Let me say what can be done (IMHO)

The management of Pakistan has to be done in a step by step fashion - taking say 5 years at a time. The Paki state will never fight the LeT - they are allies. But some appearance of India-US cooperation can scare the Pakistan army enough to keep the LeT in suspended animation. Once ideologues are kept inactive for 5 years and then 10 years the steam gets taken out of violent movements. So what we need to look for is India-US cooperation in coercing the Paki army to keep terrorists inactive. Only that would help to make Pakistan's existential threat- India be less keen on punishing Pakistan. If India is less keen on threatening Pakistan, the Pakistani army will then have to be forced to look at other problems in Pakistan, or else gradually be would up as Pakistan splits.

So one of my lines of thought about "managing Pakistan" hinge first around "managing the paranoia of the Paki army and winding down terror against India" as a first step to managing the other issues that remain. Managing the paranoia of the Pakistani army hinges around making the army face the threat of more India-US cooperation and zero support versus some support and reduced threat of Indian attack.

[shiv]

The ignorance arising from a belief in a complete body of knowledge causes one to force that belief on others.
<snip>
Offense without being defensive - works most times!

Islam is under threat like never before because information systems are now global in reach.

Liberalism, criticism of God etc came easy in India - this has been there for millennia. It took the 30 years war and the wiping out of 25% (or some such figure) of Europe's population for the same wisdom to be imposed on the Church after the 30 years war and the peace of Westphalia.

Muslims just don't have it yet. They have yet to come to terms with the fact that some people will criticise god and their religion. This is punishable by death in Islam, but things start getting a little dicey when half the world is doing it and those people cannot be killed, but have the power to kill you instead.

A huge number of Muslims in the world, including, I am sure a sizeable number of Indian Muslims realise the sort of dilemma this puts them in. They understand that the best way to avoid an unwinnable "Admit that my God is better that yours or or I will kill you" conflict is to allow the other chap to have his religion and you have yours. Those Muslims who accepted secularism had already made this compromise, but what Islam is seeing today is an even bigger challenge.

It is interesting that the challenge that Islam faces has been sparked off by Pakistan, the land of the pure, set up for Muslims. If you look back at events - you find that Pakistan and their partners in sodomy the Taliban have played an instrumental role in sparking off things like Mohammad cartoons and "Everybody draw Mohammad" day apart from widespread global blasphemy and contempt that cannot be stopped and will not be stopped. Pakistan has set off a battle that can only end in a new way of looking at Islam both by non Muslims and Muslims.

But currently Muslims the world over are confused as are their governments. Initially - if you recall from a few years ago there was this idiotic OIC conference in which a Mayalsian or someone actually blurted out those words that have become the joke of the century "Islam is a religion of peace". But gradually over the past few years Islamic governments - unable to control the fallout of Pakistanis stupidity have gone quiet. There is a quiet move among Muslims to "get to basics" away from the reputation of violence and bigotry.

Most Muslims (and believe it or not, I actually feel sorry for them) are going back to basics by just sticking to tradition by getting women to wear the burkha, and men appearing pious. I suspect that most Muslims have been taught that this is the way "good people" must appear. They are not trying to look like belligerents in a war. Unfortunately as a result of Pakistani shitbrains and their Talibaniac whores, the very physical appearance of a Muslim (beard, burkha) is being increasingly recognised as "This is what a terrorist looks like" I believe that most Muslims just do not know which way to turn or what to do.

To a small extent India is doing a better job than most countries in the world. India is one of the few countries where Muslims can wear fully traditional clothes without being persecuted, but yet have secular laws to protect the same Muslims if they wish to appear and behave differently.

In my view it is not a wise idea to link appearance with anticipated behavior. What we require is good behavior regardless of appearance. You can look like a Muslim or a non Muslim. But no terrorism. I think it would be pointless and cruel to demand that Muslims change appearance as well as behavior. What we want is no violence, coexistence and better human and women's rights. You can wear a bikini if you like, or a tent

[RajeshA]

Excellent posts shiv ji!

[Pratyush]

Shiv,


Some thoughts on your excelent post. My points in blue

Islam is under threat like never before because information systems are now global in reach.

1) Just a minor quible that the Friday Mosque crowd is the most effective means of information control in todays world. Unless the faithful stop going the the Mosque the control system will not be threatned.

Liberalism, criticism of God etc came easy in India - this has been there for millennia. It took the 30 years war and the wiping out of 25% (or some such figure) of Europe's population for the same wisdom to be imposed on the Church after the 30 years war and the peace of Westphalia.

2)The problem is that Islamis societies retain the concept of defenedr of faith and of jihad, unless the same is removed from the menu system the seperation of the mosque and the state will not happen. Even a 30 year war will not acheieve it. As it will just serve to reinforce the concept. What is needed is an idea that makes the Mosque irrelevent.

Muslims just don't have it yet. They have yet to come to terms with the fact that some people will criticise god and their religion. This is punishable by death in Islam, but things start getting a little dicey when half the world is doing it and those people cannot be killed, but have the power to kill you instead.

3 ) This may be the reality today but it is also seen as a reason increase in the fervour of the faithful in order to incite them to greater piety.

A huge number of Muslims in the world, including, I am sure a sizeable number of Indian Muslims realise the sort of dilemma this puts them in. They understand that the best way to avoid an unwinnable "Admit that my God is better that yours or or I will kill you" conflict is to allow the other chap to have his religion and you have yours. Those Muslims who accepted secularism had already made this compromise, but what Islam is seeing today is an even bigger challenge.

4)They do realize it but their answer is to wage a jihad to convert the whole world. It is the rest of the world that has not responded to the deceleration of war. When they respond only then will the Muslims realize what options are truly in front of them and take steps necessary to integerate with the ROW.

It is interesting that the challenge that Islam faces has been sparked off by Pakistan, the land of the pure, set up for Muslims. If you look back at events - you find that Pakistan and their partners in sodomy the Taliban have played an instrumental role in sparking off things like Mohammad cartoons and "Everybody draw Mohammad" day apart from widespread global blasphemy and contempt that cannot be stopped and will not be stopped. Pakistan has set off a battle that can only end in a new way of looking at Islam both by non Muslims and Muslims.

5)true, fire burns but also produces light. Light which allows people to see thing more clearly, lets hope that people see things as they are meant to be seen.

But currently Muslims the world over are confused as are their governments. Initially - if you recall from a few years ago there was this idiotic OIC conference in which a Mayalsian or someone actually blurted out those words that have become the joke of the century "Islam is a religion of peace". But gradually over the past few years Islamic governments - unable to control the fallout of Pakistanis stupidity have gone quiet. There is a quiet move among Muslims to "get to basics" away from the reputation of violence and bigotry.

6) That is true but we cannot be sure that it is not taquia by the muslims to decieve ROW.

Most Muslims (and believe it or not, I actually feel sorry for them) are going back to basics by just sticking to tradition by getting women to wear the burkha, and men appearing pious. I suspect that most Muslims have been taught that this is the way "good people" must appear. They are not trying to look like belligerents in a war. Unfortunately as a result of Pakistani shitbrains and their Talibaniac whores, the very physical appearance of a Muslim (beard, burkha) is being increasingly recognised as "This is what a terrorist looks like" I believe that most Muslims just do not know which way to turn or what to do.

7)It is this confusion that frightens me as the more confused the faithful is, the more likely he is to turn to the local mullah for solace. Thereby reinforcing the the control system which we are seeking to undermine, in order to pull the Muslims into modern world. Unless we are able to put a moderate in plase as the local mullah we will always have a reinforcement of the information system

To a small extent India is doing a better job than most countries in the world. India is one of the few countries where Muslims can wear fully traditional clothes without being persecuted, but yet have secular laws to protect the same Muslims if they wish to appear and behave differently.

8)true, but the Persecution complex of Muslims is still reinforced by the mad mullah brigade and the secular politicizations of the country for vote bank. You may say that it is a different matter but I think it is a way of preventing integrating the community with the main stream. Why is it so?

Is it to create appropriate conditions under which a call for actions be launched by them at a future date

In my view it is not a wise idea to link appearance with anticipated behavior. What we require is good behavior regardless of appearance. You can look like a Muslim or a non Muslim. But no terrorism. I think it would be pointless and cruel to demand that Muslims change appearance as well as behavior. What we want is no violence, coexistence and better human and women's rights. You can wear a bikini if you like, or a tent

9)You may say it is not wise to link appearance to anticiapated beheavour by an individual. I disagree, the individual will tailor his appearance to conform to certain norms. Those norms will also indicate the socio economic behavior of the individual. By wearing a beard and being particular about it or for that matter a burqua. One is showing a regressive inclination and a continuing power of the Idea of separation from others. If the idea is to reinforce exclucivity and seperation. Then the dress code and the grooming code will force an individual to behave in a certain way in order to conform to the whole. It is not a problem in times of peace. But today when the Muslims are seeing it as Muslims vs ROW it is not a good thing.

On the matter of personal choice I am with you, but the individual choice is a function of a society as a whole. If the society is not prepared to accept the emancipation of the individual then wearing a bikini will not be conducive to maintainace of good health of the woman. She will have to wear a tent in order to be safe. Moreover, as society is a collection of individuals the individuals will have to be made supportive of individual choice. Some thing which is not possible in the current societal menu of the Muslim world.

[Aditya_V]

Pakistan's 3.5 friends. US, UK, China and 0.5 Japan.

And what about Saudi Arabia and GCC?? or some parts of western Europe. 3.5 friends would be more Saudi, China, USA plus .5 UK ( .5 only due to ability not due desire)

[A_Gupta]

Oxford's Multidimensional Poverty Index
http://www.ophi.org.uk/policy/multidime ... rty-index/

What is the MPI?

The lives of people living in poverty are affected by more than just their income. The Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI) complements a traditional focus on income to reflect the deprivations that a poor person faces all at once with respect to education, health and living standard. It assesses poverty at the individual level, with poor persons being those who are multiply deprived, and the extent of their poverty being measured by the range of their deprivations..

...
The MPI uses 10 indicators to measure three critical dimensions of poverty at the household level: education, health and living standard in 104 developing countries. These directly measured deprivations in health and educational outcomes as well as key services such as water, sanitation, and electricity reveal not only how many people are poor but also the composition of their poverty. The MPI also reflects the intensity of poverty – the sum of weighted deprivations that each household faces at the same time. A person who is deprived in 70% of the indicators is clearly worse off than someone who is deprived in 40% of the indicators.

Why do I mention it?
Because Pakistan is not going to collapse because of poverty any time soon.

Pakistan's Multi-dimensional Poverty Index: 0.28 (India 0.3)
Number of MPI poor people 88.3 million (India 645 million)
Percentage of people who are MPI poor Pakistan 51% (India 56.4%)
Average intensity of MPI Pakistan 54% (India 53.5%)

Well, either someone is lying, or even with all the mess and rapid population growth in Pakistan and India's rapid economic growth and investment in development, Pakistan has managed to keep up.

PS: Looking at the individual country briefings - the 10 measures used in MPI are:
Schooling
Child Enrolment
Child Mortality
Nutrition
Electricity
Sanitation
Drinking Water
Floor
Cooking Fuel
Assets

Nutritional deprivation is apparently not a problem in Pakistan.

[A_Gupta]

This is Bangladesh news, but I post it here because it is relevant to this thread:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10661454

The Bangladeshi government has ordered mosques and libraries across the country to remove all books written by a controversial Islamic scholar.

The chief of the government-funded Islamic Foundation told the BBC that the books by Syed Abul Ala Maududi encouraged "militancy and terrorism".

[Aditya_V]

A_Gupta _> but even a basic census of the Pakistan population has not been obtained in the last 30 years, then how can anyone have the following information about the population
1.Schooling
2.Child Enrolment
3.Child Mortality
4.Nutrition
5.Electricity
6.Sanitation
7.Drinking Water
8.Floor
9.Cooking Fuel
10.Assets

Now Coming to these 10 points I have certain doubts as to how they can be quantified.
1.Schooling- does going to a Madrasa or Vedic Math count, or only convent education or goverment schools?
2.Child Enrolment- can be quantified but what about dropout ratio
3.Child Mortality- Quantifiable
4.Nutrition- how do you arrive at this, per capita consumption, what if rape consumes say a dispropotionate amount of food
5.Electricity- No of connections? or percapita consumption
6.Sanitation- how does one arrive at the no of toilets
7.Drinking Water - how does one calculate how many people have clean drinking water?
8.Floor- again how quantified
9.Cooking Fuel - Is this based on per capita use of LPG?
10.Assets- Again how does one quantify this, and what about accounts in TAx havens

Personally, one feels that many of these numbers are pulled out of ones musharaff

For example: seriously, lets look at the MPI poor for Myanmar 14.2%,Mangolia 15.8%, Ukraine 2.2% Sri Lanka 5.2%, Egpt 8.4% UAE 0.57%,Surinam 7.5% and absoletuly Zero information on Saudi, US, Canada, Europe and Gora Nations

Now tell me that the Oxford report is scientific and not Psy-ops

and Look how India-Pak have been kept equal equal. Nice

[vijayk]

Let me say what can be done (IMHO)

The management of Pakistan has to be done in a step by step fashion - taking say 5 years at a time. The Paki state will never fight the LeT - they are allies. But some appearance of India-US cooperation can scare the Pakistan army enough to keep the LeT in suspended animation. Once ideologues are kept inactive for 5 years and then 10 years the steam gets taken out of violent movements. So what we need to look for is India-US cooperation in coercing the Paki army to keep terrorists inactive. Only that would help to make Pakistan's existential threat- India be less keen on punishing Pakistan. If India is less keen on threatening Pakistan, the Pakistani army will then have to be forced to look at other problems in Pakistan, or else gradually be would up as Pakistan splits.

So one of my lines of thought about "managing Pakistan" hinge first around "managing the paranoia of the Paki army and winding down terror against India" as a first step to managing the other issues that remain. Managing the paranoia of the Pakistani army hinges around making the army face the threat of more India-US cooperation and zero support versus some support and reduced threat of Indian attack.

Great post. Could not have said it better.

The only question I have is about the US-India co-operation. The Bush Administration was far more willing to play that game.

But the current Democratic setup and Obama administration have other ideas. I have a feeling that they think they can satisfy the US electorate if somehow Pakistan and its terrorist network puts their focus on elsewhere (if it is India then so be it) and leave the US alone. Then they can withdraw form that part of the world. That will help their base. The Liberal crowd and US public in general are tired of the war in Afghanistan. I think that attitude is being understood as India containment by lot of people on this forum. But in my view, it is their short-term objective to get out of Pakistan as long as Pakistan and Afghanistan put their focus away from the west.

In ForeignPolicy link of Cohen/Ganguli/Tellis etc round table discussion, Cohen asks the same question. What if Pakistan winds up all the organizations that spread terror in the west but keep the ones that terrorize India? His implication being "Why should we suffer for the sake of India?". Irrespective of so much of evidence that is not possible to allow India-specific terror groups only, they keep coming to that conclusion. Call it Lack of attention span or vision or short-sight or clueless... It does not matter. You keep seeing the discussions/articles on LET , ISI double game, involvement of ISI/Paki army perfidy, links of Paki army/ISI to direct attacks on CIA. They ignore it all in the next minute and somehow push India and Kashmir topics and if somehow India accommodates Pukes on Kashmir, then this will all disappear.

With that attitude, how can US show it to Pakistan that they are co-operating with India. Pakis and their supporters in the west will keep advising Obama that it will increase the unpopularity of the US in the Muslim world. He will get scared. Bush wanted to play the Paki game because he needed their co-operation in maintaining supplies to US bases in Afghanistan. But Bush was never afraid of Muslim reaction to any of his actions. Unlike him, Obama is very conscious of his/US image in the eyes of Muslim world. Pakis keep exploiting it. In essence, the west is afraid that if they strongly come out in support of India, the Muslim/Paki terror network ( and the Paki diaspora in the US and Britain) will harm them. This is a classic case of blackmail.

[brihaspati]

A very nice and hopeful line of thought it is to think of pressurizing the PA and threaten increased USA-India cooperation. But I think the tactical flexibility of PA or its core leadership is being blissfully forgotten. One of the dilemmas that India perhaps is facing is in focusing the onus on specific terror organization and individuals. By focusing on the LeT or HS, actually allows the Pakis to play around. They can periodically put up new terror outfits, under total deniability, and concentrate on its posturing that it is busy fighting the Taleban.

The pressurizing tactic will fall apart as long as Islamabad can play the game of "fighting Taleban" and that any weakening of the PA will threaten the integrity of Pak occupied territories and make the shell of Pak as a claimant to nationhood - defunct. If Islamabad can continually shout this out to the "west" then it can neutralize the pressure. This is all that the USA needs to deflect any tantrums India wants to throw at USA.

Not this or that LET : but any terror act should be the condition. There is only one tactic to really pressurize USA over its sponsorship of Pak, that is, activating a much larger alliance, with Ruskis and PRC. Instead of Gov-to-gov, let the Cong send off teams directly to engage CPC, at a political party level. Don't get worried at the fallout and bombard me with all the dangerous linkages possible. If there is a space for greed to operate, it will, regardless of the overt barriers put in. There is no guarantee that such factors are not driving Chinese lobbies into Indian "interests". Why not use it?

Lets get it into our heads clearly : the proposals to contain Pak do not contain sufficient profits for the USA to actually work on them. The price of not doing India's bidding has to be made much higher to overcome the combined influence of race, religion, and strategic dominance mindsets. This could be done in two ways : one is to threaten toying with the idea of joining with the competitors of USA.

The other, is to offer a secure passage and infrastructure to go into CAR for USA, if USA allows India to absorb and clean up the regions currently occupied by the occupation gov at Islamabad. There are obvious advantages for the USA in doing this, and India simply has to convey those advantages and a willingness to look for other allies in achieving this if USA does not respond.

[shiv]

Cohen asks the same question. What if Pakistan winds up all the organizations that spread terror in the west but keep the ones that terrorize India? His implication being "Why should we suffer for the sake of India?". Irrespective of so much of evidence that is not possible to allow India-specific terror groups only, they keep coming to that conclusion.

In fact I have often struggled to ask myself why Pakistan cannot retain India-specific terrorist groups.

In fact the Pakistani army is an India specific terrorist group. We only need to step back 30 years to see that Pakistan was India focused and the cheerful attitude of "Why should we care" that Cohen speaks of was the norm.

That has changed. Why did that change?

It changed because of the following reasons

1) Despite help from the same 3.5 and more the Pakistani army was unable to prevail against India in wars started by the former. The 3.5 or 3.75 were hardly interested in Pakistani victory. they were only interested in influence and balance of power. It may have been a Pakistani army delusion of the post 1947 generation that a Pakistan victory was desired. Note that the 1965 war is remembered fondly in Pakistan as a time of great unity when India was defeated. This mindset was in for a huge shock after 1971

2) Pakistan after 1971 (just 6 years post 1965), initially under Bhutto and later under Zia, finding itself incapable of "defeating India" faced the problem of a nation breaking up and the army needed an excuse to survive and the politicians needed an excuse to unite people. Hence Islamization and the quest for a nuclear bomb were started. Pakistan remained firmly anti-India

3) The clever clever US cold warriors, smelling an opportunity with the Soviets in Afghanistan realised that idiotic religion crazed ideologues like Pakis could be would serve as a useful tool to finger the Soviets and helped the Pakistan army (and ISI) to develop the expertise in covert warfare via proxy groups. Ideology was supplied via the Wahhabis of Saudi. The US funded them, armed them and even printed textbooks that spoke of Mujahiddeen killing Soviet soldiers. These were exactly the methods later used in Pakistan to start jihad against India. In other words, despite Pakistan serving as a base for anti-Soviet operations, Pakistan remained India-focused and Cohen's "Why should we care" attitude prevailed in the US - which in those days clearly described the HuM and the JeM in Kashmir is "Freedom Fighters" (this is all in my book)

4) Something changed between 1990 and 2001 and that "something" led to a loss of focus of proxy groups from being India specific to global jihad. I have always tried to explain what happened. I have my own explanation - and I haven't seen any better explanation.

First, the US lost interest in Pakistan after 1990 and the money stopped pouring in. Secondly, India, which had been busy fighting the Khalistan movement and later an Sri Lanka insurgency suddenly found itself with a Kashmir on the boil as the same Mujahideen who fought the Soviets poured into Kashmir. It is my belief (again stated in my e book) that India's action was instrumental in helping to turn jihad from being India focused to global.

Why do I say this?

All through the 1990s India gradually built up solid defences against inflitration in Kashmir. If you go through reports of those days - you find that any terrorist entering Kashmir had a limited life span - ranging from 2 weeks to 2 years. Anyone crossing the border from Pakistan was sure to die. Many died at the border itself and it became increasingly difficult to continue armed jihad in India even though Afghanistan was already reeling under the Taliban.

Gradually this led to a dispersal of trained fighters to other Islamic trouble spots - West Asia, Bosnia, Chechnya, the Philippines. There were several major terrorist incidents targeting the US - a barracks in Lebanon, a USN ship, an embassy in Kenya and the WTC bombing attempt in 1993. The focus had already shifted from jihad against India to jihad against everyone else.

But the US remained in denial until 2001. After 2001 I believe there still are some Americans who would like to "put the genie back in the bottle" and go back to the rosy days of India specific jihad.

The point I am trying to make here is that when you infuse the spirit of Islamic jihad into a bunch of people - you are using Islam to make them fight non Islamic people. As long as those jihadis are fighting and winning its good fun for those who watch. But Islamic jihadis are not stupid. As I stated earlier, any nincompoop can survive victory - it is the ability to survive defeat that makes a winner out of you. Islamic jihadis from Pakistan who were getting killed by the hundred in India in Kashmir (the figures are all out there for those who want to look for them) stayed in Pakistan and gradually dispersed though the world to carry out jihad where it was possible. An anti India mindset in Pakistan was successfully converted by the US cold warriors into global jihad.

What the US is now doing is fighting global jihad, not the anti India mindset. For India there is no difference between fighting jihadis or Pakistanis - they are anti-India anyway. If jihad was to magically disappear from the face of this earth, India would still be left with a hostile pre-1965 mentality Pakistan. It is important to understand this difference.

If India fights jihad alone - India is fighting the US battle. If India fights Muslims, India is fighting the US battle. If India fights Pakistan alone, India is fighting only an Indian battle. If India can create a cleavage between violent Muslims and non violent Muslims, India can pull non violent Muslims off to India's side and let the West face Muslim wrath for all Western policies that are anti burkha, anti beard, free criticism showing Jesus as gay and Muhammad the pedophile. We Indians are actually hypocrites in a way. Some of us (DIE?) may enjoy seeing cartoons of Jesus the homo and Mohammad the perdophile but we do not allow any of this in India. It is not the Indian way to show Jesus the homo, Mohammad the pedophile any more than it is the Indian way to show Krishna the randy womanizer, or Draupadi the orgiastic man eater. Pluralism does not encourage the latter. Pluralism calls for more restraint than liberalism.

Back to topic.

What leverage does India have on US behavior regarding Pakistan? If India submits and gives away Kashmir, it will help the US. If India accepts all terrorism against India and still makes peace with Pakistan it helps the US. If India becomes weaker militarily with regard to Pakistan it helps the US. If India pulls away all its troops from their cold start positions and sends them all home so that Pakistan can get back to its usual tricks it helps the US. Every one of these actions will give Pakistan what it is demanding from the US in exchange for cooperation.

A US that cannot get Pakistan to do its bidding can hardly force India to do as it wants.

The only way for the US to make progress in the war (as opposed to pulling out) is to meet India's demands of putting pressure on Pakistan to stop being anti-Indian. If Pakistan suddenly and magically stops being anti-Indian, the entire world becomes united in having to fight global jihad alone.

Will stop here,. I have been saying the same things time and time and time and time and time again. Will do so as and when necessary

[Airavat]

Oxford's Multidimensional Poverty Index.....
Why do I mention it?
Because Pakistan is not going to collapse because of poverty any time soon.....

Dig some more for actual data and methodology before launching forth into opinions.

The geniuses at Oxford sat on their bums and used data collected by someone else four years ago:

The indicators are based on participatory exercises with poor people, emerging international consensus and the availability of suitable data. Most are linked to Millennium Development Goals. The index mainly uses data from three household surveys: the Demographic and Health Survey, the Multiple Indicators Cluster Survey and the World Health Survey. Dimensions such as work, safety, and empowerment may be relevant, but data were not available.

So in the case of Pukistan the ophi morons say this:

Country: Pakistan Year: 2007 Survey: DHS

DHS is the "Demographic and Health Survey" and from their site we learn that they in turn used data allegedly collected by the RAPEs themselves, namely "The National Institute of Population Studies (NIPS)" based in Islamabad. And this too had caveats:

A nationally representative sample of 10,023 ever-married women age 12-49 were interviewed. The sample did not include the Federally Administered Northern Areas (FANA), the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and restricted military and protected areas.

So the data comes from the RAPEs themselves, therefore unreliable in the extreme, does not include military or protected areas (which means the greater part of Pukistan ), and a population of hundreds of millions is represented by only 10,000 females....supposedly interviewed four years ago.

[Prem]

Why Pakistan cannot have onlee India specific terrorists because the Paki Islam is the very foundation of Paki terrorist's mental make up. The Islamic faultlines of 47 compels Paki to think on the line of being Muslim and Muslim must fight with the kuffar. If WEST want to divert the Paki Islamist terrorism toward India as done in past ,then there is nothing stopping Indians to support Iranian doing their own islamist activites on grander scale. They can be much bigger headache than anything Paki can throw in this arena.
Islam made Poak, Islam will fail Poak and Islam will eventually finish Poaks. Poak roast is the best way to manage Poak chaos is to allocate generous amount of land for their burial onlee.

[shiv]

The RAPE of Pakistan and the moderate liberal whisky drinking crowd of Pakistan were anti India long before Islam became Pakistan's main crutch.

Even today the world is divided up into three groups
1) The west: who do not want Islamic jihad against them but wanna be pals with the Paki moderate liberal ass lickers and neither group cares about India.
2) The Paki moderate liberals who do not want jihad on themselves and want aid and green card and don't give a shit about India and would be glad to see jihad being waged in India
3) Indians who now see jihad being waged against India, but even before all that The Paki liberal moderates and their 3.5 friends were waging war against India

Compare the above 3 points and see what is causing takleef to the above groups.

You find that screwing India is not a problem as long as Islamic jihad is directed away from the West and from the Paki liberal moderates. So the Paki liberals and the West are united in
1) not wanting Islamic jihad against themselves
2) Not caring what happens to India, jihad or no jihad.

From here see what is in India's interest.

It is in India's interest to see the continuation of jihad against the west and the Paki moderates.

Check what the jihadis want from the US and the Paki moderates, and see that jihadis don't get it so they keep fighting.

What do jihadis want from the US and/or Pakistan?

[Haresh]

Just received this from "Act for America"

Call it “*****”

One of the so-called “causes” for increased Islamic agitation and militancy directed against the West is the “offense” taken by the Muslim world to the West’s libertarianism.

It’s common to find Muslim leaders decrying the “debauchery” and “depravity” of the West, and how this “immorality” is “invading” the Muslim world.

Not surprisingly, given the supremacist attitude so common to radical Islam, these warning cries are typically couched in the spirit of Islamic moral supremacy. Indeed, organizations like Hizb ut-Tahrir tout the supremacy of Islamic values as one rationale for Muslims in America to isolate themselves from the society around them and carve out their own Muslim enclaves.

Given this moral breast-thumping, we should expect to find that one of the world’s largest Muslim countries, Pakistan, is an exemplar of personal Islamic moral conduct, right?

Well, not exactly. See the Fox News story below (highlights added).


Sexy Web Searches? Call it *****

By Kelli Morgan


Published July 13, 2010


| FoxNews.com





AP

Pakistan has banned content on more than a dozen websites because of offensive and blasphemous material. The Muslim country, which has laws on dress codes, ranks as the top country to proportionally search for certain sex-related terms.

This article was updated on July 14.

They may call it the "Land of the Pure," but Pakistan turns out to be anything but.

The Muslim country, which has banned content on at least 17 websites to block offensive and blasphemous material, is the world's leader in online searches for ***** material, FoxNews.com has learned.

“You won’t find strip clubs in Islamic countries. Most Islamic countries have certain dress codes,” said Gabriel Said Reynolds, professor of Islamic Studies at the University of Notre Dame. “It would be an irony if they haven’t shown the same vigilance to *****.”

So here's the irony: Google ranks Pakistan No. 1 in the world in searches for ***** terms, outranking every other country in the world in searches per person for certain sex-related content.

Pakistan is top dog in searches per-person for "horse sex" since 2004, "donkey sex" since 2007, "rape pictures" between 2004 and 2009, "rape sex" since 2004, "child sex" between 2004 and 2007 and since 2009, "animal sex" since 2004 and "dog sex" since 2005, according to Google Trends and Google Insights, features of Google that generate data based on popular search terms.

The country also is tops -- or has been No. 1 -- in searches for "sex," "camel sex," "rape video," "child sex video" and some other searches that can't be printed here.

Google Trends generates data of popular search terms in geographic locations during specific time frames. Google Insights is a more advanced version that allows users to filter a search to geographic locations, time frames and the nature of a search, including web, images, products and news.

Pakistan ranked No. 1 in all the searches listed above on Google Trends, but on only some of them in Google Insights.

“We do our best to provide accurate data and to provide insights into broad search patterns, but the results for a given query may contain inaccuracies due to data sampling issues, approximations, or incomplete data for the terms entered,” Google said in a statement, when asked about the accuracy of its reports.

The Embassy of Islamic Republic of Pakistan did not reply to a request for an interview.

In addition to banning content on 17 websites, including islamexposed.blogspot.com, Pakistan is monitoring seven other sites -- Google, Yahoo, Bing, YouTube, Amazon, MSN and Hotmail -- for anti-Islamic content, the Associated Press reported in June.

But it’s not to censor the Pakistani people, Reynolds said. It’s to shut out the rest of the world.

“[It] could lead to conversion, which would undermine the very order of the state,” he said. “Part of protecting the society is making sure that there is no way it could be undermined in terms of foreign influences.”

Pakistan temporarily banned Facebook in May when Muslim groups protested the “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day” page, where users were encouraged to upload pictures of the Prophet Muhammad. The page remained on Facebook, but Pakistani users were unable to view it, said Andrew Noyes, manager of Facebook’s Public Policy Communication.

And while Pakistan is taking measures to prevent blasphemous material from being viewed by its citizens, ***** material is “certainly” contradictory to Islam, too, Reynolds said.

The country’s punishment for those charged with blasphemy is execution, but the question remains what -- if anything -- can be done about people who search for ***** on the Web.

“It’s a new phenomenon,” Reynolds said.


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

Make sure you receive all of your messages from ACT for America. Add [email protected] to your address book as an approved email sender. If you found this message in your "Bulk" or "Spam" folder, please click the "Not Spam" button to notify your provider that these are emails you want to receive.

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

ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591
www.actforamerica.org

[JwalaMukhi]

What do jihadis want from the US and/or Pakistan?

Jihadis want the blessings akin to bhasmasura. IOW jihadis want whole of bakistan for themselves and ability to dominate globally (including US) from US. Getting a piece of land from yindoos is incidental. After all, Allah is all merciful and powerful. It is an insult if Allah's wrath is only directed and confined against Indians. Being limitless in his power and reach, jihadis are sworn to spread his reach as far as duniya can be fathomed.
India should recognize the power of this outreach and help true and genuine Jihadis get Bakistan under their control, not pseudo jihadis like Baki army who want to limit and constrain Allah's wrath and power to only puny SDREs.

[shiv]

India should recognize the power of this outreach and help true and genuine Jihadis get Bakistan under their control, not pseudo jihadis like Baki army who want to limit and constrain Allah's wrath and power to only puny SDREs.

Well said. Fact is jihad is a problem that Pakistan and the US need to sort out. As far as India is concerned no dead Indian ever remembers or knows whether he was killed by a bullet from a jihadi gun of from the gun of a moderate Pakistani with a US aid supplied weapon.

Any Indian cooperation is subject to ensuring that no attack, jihadi or non jihadi happens in India.

[RajeshA]

From TSP Thread

US persuades Krishna, Qureshi to talk again in Kabul

The United States has reportedly persuaded the foreign ministers of India and Pakistan to continue the dialogue process, and meet again on the sidelines of an international conference in Kabul on Tuesday.

According to reports, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has talked to Indian External Affairs Minister SM Krishna as well as his Pakistani counterpart, Shah Mehmood Qureshi to raise the prospect of another "talk about talks".

...

Clinton, who spoke to Krishna on Saturday, said she wanted to meet him separately at the summit, saying that she also 'disapproved' of the tone and tenor of Qureshi's language and behaviour during his interaction with the Pakistani media, The Daily Times reports.

The Secretary of State is believed to have told Krishna that she wanted to see the resumption of talks between India and Pakistan, and assured that Pakistan was being persuaded to take 'credible action' against the perpetrators of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks

We have even stopped pretending about resisting American pressure now?

As shiv ji has mentioned earlier, the Pakistani Army is a caged animal right now. It should remain that way.

It is also in India's interest to keep Pakistan on the table. Otherwise the Pakistani Army can always provoke India through some terrorist activity or incursion, and then use the excuse to heighten anti-India posture of Pakistan, most probably consolidating all Pakistanis against India.

So India should be talking, if India does not have any other better option up for consideration. Now India has been able to nail down Pakistan on the issue of 26/11. So there are talks, but they are about 26/11 and it should stay that way. So there is no need to talk about the core issues, and other blah blah!

India is buying time. The clocks are running - India's growth and development, Pakistan's growth in entropy.

More chai-biskuit!

[rohitvats]

Gentlemen,

A humble question - Is there a relationship between the short to medium term goals of Pakistan Establishment and the overall direction that country is taking? Can these goals help in changing the dyamics which are shaping the present condition in TSP?

Allow me to expand a bit -

(a) The short to medium term goal of TSPA is to get the strategic depth in Afganistan. I use short to medium term because depending upon who you speak to, Americans are going to either leave tomorrow or in another 36-48months period. Suppose, US leaves and TSPA is master of Afganistan (at least the southern half) via its proxies - what does that do to the daily bombings and killings across the country? Can the TSPA manage to reign in the section of Taliban which has gone against the Establishment? Or is the divide an ideological one and too deep to be remedied?

(b) Can the withdrawl of US (if there is one) galvanize the faithfuls and make them take on the TSPA in more brazen manner? (this question follows from above)

(c) What benefit, apart from the security paranoia of TSPA about Durand Line, will the Strategic Depth entail for Pakistan? Will we suddenly find the Caspian and CAR Oil flowing to the Arabian Sea? Is it that easy - considering that the Northern Alliance will continue to be arbiter of northern areas of Afg? How will Russia behave and react to this?

(d) Do we still feel that Afg under Taliban==more militancy in J&K? ( i personally do not think so)

(e) Is the situation as obtained today in Pakistan result of the social engineering of that society where the Jihad against USSR merely acted as a catalyst? What is the true source of schism in the TSP Society today? Is the Jihad US/NATO present day catalyst which are leading to fissures at a faster pace?

Finally, nothing achieved in above scenarios is going to put the economic genie back into the bottle. How long can the TSP economy manage to pull the weight?

Many thanx in advance.

[shiv]

Whoa whoa WHOAAA rohitvats!

That is a jihad of a question. I have answered it in ten thousand posts (my view) but will repeat some stuff a little at a time.

I believe the following addresses questions a, b, c and d of your post

First - my thoughts about the Paki army's use for Afghanistan were posted in the post linked below and I reproduce it here:

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 82#p897782

Afghanistan has no history of being a nation minus foreign aid. It has had virtually no economy, no industry, no crops other than opium. Its rulers have always been fed by foreigners - mostly the Brits, but later by the Soviets and the Americans.

There is no history of a "stable Afghanistan" minus foreign aid feeding some ruling monarch or government.

Afghanistan has also not tolerated outsiders despite massacres of Afghans, and the land is defensible by the Afghan people and their mode of war. They cannot be bombed back to the stone ages of obvious reasons. They are already in the stone age.

If the US leaves Afghanistan, the government will not survive unless someone takes over funding and feeding them, and without security assistance there will be war between factions. Even in the past, whoever occupied the throne in Afghanistan got the money and the power to give it to others. If he was knocked out someone else got the money - so there has always been incentive for war.

The Pakistan army is clearly interested in Afghanistan for many reasons. The India excuse may be a bogey. India is a big zero in Afghanistan. There is no way India can touch Afghanistan without going through PoK either by conquest or making borders irrelevant. India's popularity among Afghans probably has much to do with this fact. India's work in Afghanistan today is courtesy the US.

So what is the Paki army's interest in Afghanistan?

1) Self preservation. Pakistan does not exert full control over its Paktunkhwa/FATA border regions and faces an insurgency in Balochistan - both of which can take shelter in Afghanistsn.

2) To control the flow of oil/minerals from Central Asis which will have to go via Pakistan in the absence of any other viable route.

3) "Strategic depth" - which I think is balderdash. This is a non reason. But I mention it for completion

But tell me folks. If no power can defeat Afghanistan, how can Pakistan control Afghanistan? Especially given that Pakistan is disliked? So Pakistan "control" of Afghanistan will only be to keep the country in turmoil, while feeding someone or the other to support Pakistan. The funds have come partly from the US, but opium crops will do nicely. So funding is not an issue for paying off Afghan vassals. Pakistan's real problem will be control and stability in Afghanistan. Being brutal is one thing - but clearly the Taliban which is in "factions" cannot be expected to unite behind Pakistan.

But I doubt of the US will lose interest in Afghanistan this time. If US troops leave the US will want a proxy force exerting their interests - and they might be hoping that the Paki army will somehow rid itself of its anti US jihadis and then take over the role of stabilizing Afghanistan. In turn the US may fund and support the Pakistani army. Before I talk about the feasibility of this far fetched plan it is worth looking at what stakes anyone else may have in Afghanistan.

Russia has faced insurgencies that have come out of Af-Pak and instability in Afghanistan is bound to make the Russians support some faction or other. China is a mystery. The Chinese will probably quietly pay Pakis to be ruthless about any anti-Chinese activity, but this may not work with radical Islamists. Not sure if Iran would get involved - because Iran is already under pressure. India is a zero here.

Getting back to what the US might do if it pulls out of Afghanistan, it will live up to its promise of not losing interest in Pakistan. The US will remain involved with Pakistan. As long as there is no overt presence and fighting by US forces they may be able to extract some promises from the Pak army that US interests - i.e a suppression of Islamists and anti US forces will be performed by the Paki army with the US in the background.

The real "dark horse" right now are the Islamists of Pakistan. Are they merely looking for the US to get out? Will the Islamists just live happily ever after once the US is out? Will they then unite with the Paki army to start targeting India? The worst outcome of this for India will be an India-Pakistan war.

According to conventional wisdom, Pakistan will face defeat in a hot conventional war and may want to avoid that but they may risk a short war hoping to be rescued by the US. To that end there may be a ramping up of terrorism. Interestingly I believe that the Pakistani army may not want the Kashmir issue solved by "soft borders" etc. That would put Pakistan at a disadvantage, and it might give India access to Afghanistan via PoK if this "soft border" business got too lovey dovey. So Pakistan's best bet would be to keep Kashmir on the boil.

But that is nothing new for India. If Pakistan tries to calibrate tensions to avoid hot war and avoid peace also - then it is a situation that India has managed for two decades. Pakistan of course will use opium money here as well and aid money from the US. I see little chance of Pakistan reducing defence spending, little chance of changing its education or working for democracy or development. That will only mean "more of same" and chaos in Afghanistan until some new crisis occurs.

In short, the reason why I put this post in this thread is that the US exit will be an embarrassment for the US and may be bad in the long term. For Afghanistan it will be a disaster. For India it will be "more of same". It is not going to help Pakistan much either, Pakistan will remain on life support for some more time.

India will have to be innovative to thwart the destructive plans of the Paki army.

But I will restate my views on the future of the Pakistan army below - or else I will link a post I have already made.

[RajeshA]

I would like to draw to the attention of the respected ulema here, that Southern Afghanistan and Pakistan are soon going to be bonded in an ever stronger bond of drugs trade. As the Americans draw down their presence in Afghanistan and as American money pouring in into Pakistan also turn to a drip, Pakistan could turn to Afghan heroin to keep its economy afloat!

Pakistan already has the highest number of drug addicts in the world! That too has an influence on recruiting of youth by terrorists.

[brihaspati]

The strength of the PA is perhaps being overestimated. It is in a much weaker position now compared to the Talebs and Jihadis in political terms compared to what existed under Zia. The USA may be trying to strengthen the PA simply out of this fear. However, PA has little chance or options. On the one hand it can be on life support from PRC and USA. On the other it will have to accept the fact that a substantial portion of its lower ranks will desert or shift allegiance to the PakTalebs. Even in teh former option, the second outcome is not unlikely over the long run. It is somewhat turning out the way north-Vietnam-south-Vietnam conflict went. USA will be forced to stick to the very last moment now, because formal withdrawal means a severe loss of face.

If the US army over-winters this year, it will not be able to hold on to AFG positions next year. And then they will have to leave to prevent catastrophic loss of face a la fall of Saigon.

The PA may not be around for long in the form we know it to be.

[SSridhar]

(a) Suppose, US leaves and TSPA is master of Afganistan (at least the southern half) via its proxies - what does that do to the daily bombings and killings across the country? Can the TSPA manage to reign in the section of Taliban which has gone against the Establishment? Or is the divide an ideological one and too deep to be remedied?

Rohitvats, your questions are excellent. One important reason, among quite a few, for the 'Establishment' to scare the US into giving it the role to anoint the next government in Afghanistan, is to retrieve the difficult situation that the PA is facing today vis-a-vis the 'more pious' who have launched a jihad against the 'Establishment' and the other 'less pious' across Pakistan. Of course, India is lurking at the deepest root of it all for the PA. But, tactically, PA has to win over the Punjabi Taliban who have gone totally unfriendly, to use a mild term. The attempt is to use the Haqqanis, Hekmatyars and possibly Mullah Omar is to go back to pre 9/11 state. I do not believe that an euphoric band of jihadis, fresh from their victory over the sole superpower of the US & NATO, who are turning wahhabi/salafi from being Deobandi and who are more closely aligned with Al Qaeda now than in the 90s, would be willing to kowtow to PA. It is worth remembering that even in those days, there were many areas where the Taliban refused firmly Pakistani demands. If the Deobandi view was more regional, the wahhabi view is worldwide. The AQAM (Al Qaeda & Allied Movements) now realize that Pakistan is the first step towards establishing truly the Caliphate as Afghanistan can only be a mere Emirate. So, bludgeoning PA into submission will be intensified provided PA does not jump into their bandwagon too.

(b) Can the withdrawl of US (if there is one) galvanize the faithfuls and make them take on the TSPA in more brazen manner? (this question follows from above)

As above

(c) What benefit, apart from the security paranoia of TSPA about Durand Line, will the Strategic Depth entail for Pakistan?

I believe that PA will be in for a nasty surprise on the Durand Line issue once the AQAM-friendly regime comes back to power. Durand Line and the Greater Pakhtoonistan are something on which no Afghan ruler (including the mujahideen and the Taliban) is willing to compromise.

(d) Do we still feel that Afg under Taliban==more militancy in J&K? ( i personally do not think so)

In the pre 9/11 days, your thinking was all right. The Taliban were happy with their vice squads, prayer calls, floggings etc. while just giving a sanctuary to Al Qaeda and the Punjabi Taliban and turning a blind eye to whatever they were doing. Increasingly, that situation has changed and the two have coalesced ideologically and hence politically too. I expect much more violence not only in J&K but all over India after Pakistan is first run over or even simultaneously depending on situations.

(e) Is the situation as obtained today in Pakistan result of the social engineering of that society where the Jihad against USSR merely acted as a catalyst? What is the true source of schism in the TSP Society today? Is the Jihad US/NATO present day catalyst which are leading to fissures at a faster pace?

I think, the present situation evolved much before the Zia days. It was a slow and relentless pursuit by the Islamists, probably at a Hindu Rate of Growth but it took off after 1971. Pakistan turned increasingly to the Middle East as that defeated country wanted to shape a new identity for itself away from an Indian identity. Zia has been a convenient coat-hanger but the rot was given a big push after 1971.

We can only hypothetically answer the question of whether things would have been different had US/NATO not intervened. IMO, the jihad might have been delayed but it was bound to happen.

Finally, nothing achieved in above scenarios is going to put the economic genie back into the bottle. How long can the TSP economy manage to pull the weight?

So long as the 3½ supply Pakistan with the much needed Oxygen.

[rohitvats]

Doctor Sahib, many thanx for the detailed reply.

It again brings forth the hypothesis that I've come to believe recently - that the Islamism genie is truely and clearly out of the bottle and has taken a life of it's own. The Establishment and general populance are moving on different trajectories with different end goals - more clearly articulated as far as Establishment goes while the populance is being pulled in various direction - but the Taliban are turning out to be the one such channeling force pushing the population in a specific direction - which is at odds with the present Establishment.

The reason for my thinking is something like this: The TSPA followed a 3 tier approach while creating and managing the tanzeems: TSPA-->Maulanas (like Saeed)-->Jihadis. Now, initially (the anti-USSR Jihad and Kashmir jihad time) in a society, the Jihadis were a section of the population which ascribed to the book in letter and spirit - people who were respected and galvanized by the society at large. But they were nevertheless, a 'section' of the society. During these times, it was possible for the TSPA to control the Jihadis as they controlled the flow of weapons and money.

But over a period of time, this section has come to represent the main stream of the society. Yes, I know we have argued that TSP Society was always anti-Hindu....but that is one thing. This society is more tribal in its outlook and literalist in its interpretation of Islam. We've a situation where there is open fight between Sunnis - and IMO, the Datta Darbar bombing is the indication of inflexion point.

To this population, Kashmir or Afganistan are not the end - these are just stepping stones to the ultimate glory of Islam and were already pre-ordained. Such a society may see any dithering by TSPA or 'lesser' action on Kashmir or Afganistan as 'sell-out'...they want blood and head of kaffirs,nothing else.Period.

And it is this society that TSPA is going to find diffcult to manage - they cannot simply channel the anger. IMO, that idea is beyond its sell by date. In the tiered approach that I metioned earlier, the foot soldier has taken a life of it's own with it's own agenda - I don't think they ascribe to the very fact of nationhood of Pakistan but they seem to be responding to a bigger call from Ummah and Caliphate. Unless the TSPA co-opts in this agenda of Caliphate and Ummah, I don't see the Jihadis giving shit about TSPA....Afganistan or Kasmir are not going to put this genie back into the bottle.

The advent of officers from middle to lower middle class into the TSPA will further strain the TSPA from with-in. I vividly remember an anecdote in Brian Cloughley book on TSPA History where a Captain (or Lt.) tells him that if Allah is on their side, one does not need laser guided shells (like Copper Head).

[rohitvats]

SSridhar garu, many thanx for the detailed reply.

If I use a pure layman thinking, something like a virus has spread in the TSP Society and with each passing day, this virus is becoming more and more virulent. The earlier medications administered by the TSPA are not going to work.

So, bludgeoning PA into submission will be intensified provided PA does not jump into their bandwagon too.

This Sirs, is the million dollar question that we should be trying to answer.

[shiv]

Regarding point "e"

(e) Is the situation as obtained today in Pakistan result of the social engineering of that society where the Jihad against USSR merely acted as a catalyst? What is the true source of schism in the TSP Society today? Is the Jihad US/NATO present day catalyst which are leading to fissures at a faster pace?

Finally, nothing achieved in above scenarios is going to put the economic genie back into the bottle. How long can the TSP economy manage to pull the weight?

Many thanx in advance.

Rohit if you have read Naipaul's "India a Million Mutinies Now" you will see that Pakistan is a mini India with the same million mutinies (plus a few extra) that has been artificially united in a fascist military dictatorship. The need to hate India and fear India has been fostered by various groups including the army to unite Pakistan despite many fissures ("many mutinies"). When BDesh was formed Islam was encouraged as the glue to bind the sand particles ohis group contains a few RAPEs)
2) Islamists (f Pakistan.

Pakistan consists basically of 3 groups of people
1) Mango Abdul (this group contains a few RAPEs)
2) Islamists (this groups contains many RAPEs)
3) Army (+ establishment) - with many RAPEs

It was the Army that ultimately controlled everyone - but the army gave away part of its controlling power to Islamists. In any "nation state" the government should be the only party with the maximum firepower. This used to be the Paki army - but that is no longer so. Islamists now have significant firepower and the army cannot take them on.

But the Paki army is protected by the US because it controls the nukes. For this reason the Paki army is now a "caged animal". I have made a post explaining this on this very page, it is here:
http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 99#p906399

Because the army is a caged animal - Pakistan's various fissures are opening up. The Paki economy is fcued. It is living on bailouts. Those bailouts will continue forever at least for the Paki army - as long as they control the nukes.

[RajeshA]

I believe, the the big inflexion point in the evolution of Pakistan situation would be when the top layer of the Pakistani Army would be ready to clinch the deal - nukes for visas!

For this both TSPA and USA have to be pushed by the facts on the ground to reach such an agreement. The Crore Commanders would have to get it just right, in order to take the last flight out of Pindi, just before the deluge.

So good relations between USA and the TSP Army Chief does have its benefits!

[chaanakya]

The United States has reportedly persuaded the foreign ministers of India and Pakistan to continue the dialogue process, and meet again on the sidelines of an international conference in Kabul on Tuesday.

According to reports, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has talked to Indian External Affairs Minister SM Krishna as well as his Pakistani counterpart, Shah Mehmood Qureshi to raise the prospect of another "talk about talks".

More chai-biskuit!

I didn’t go to Pak for sight-seeing either: SM Krishna

New Delhi: Responding to a Pakistan Foreign Minister SM Qureshi’s broadside after talks with him on Friday, Indian External Affairs Minister SM Krishna said he had not visited Islamabad for sight seeing.

Krishna’s response was in reply to a question by a TV channel about what he had to say about Qureshi’s statement that he will not come to India for leisure trip. Krishna has invited the Pak FM for further talks here.

Krishna responded by saying even he did not go for sight seeing to Pak and was serious about the talks.

“India has always approaches bilateral talks with utmost seriousness,” he said in his first reaction to Qureshi’s rant that almost sunk the peace process.

On the latter’s charge that India was not prepared for talks, Krishna said one can’t exhaust all issues in only one meeting.

“Talks have to gradually move from one issue to the other,” he said.

Meanwhile, sources at the Centre revealed that the reason that India has not responded again to Qureshi’s jibes is that “we do not want to have a slanging match with them.”

[snip]

On the other hand, Krishna and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton may have a bilateral meeting in Kabul on Tuesday.

Meanwhile No talks between Krishna, Qureshi in Kabul: Rao

New Delhi: Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao Saturday ruled out a bilateral meeting between External Affairs Minister S M Krishna and his Pakistani counterpart Shah Mahmood Qureshi on the sidelines of an international conference in Kabul Tuesday.

"Both Foreign Minister Krishna and Foreign Minister Qureshi will be attending this conference. I don't believe there will be any bilateral meeting during the conference because the way it is structured and the business that has to be transacted at that conference is not going to leave much time for bilateral meetings to begin with and secondly, they have just met in Islamabad," Rao told Times Now in an interview.

Message should go to Kureji ( is it Khujli Mahmud) , FM that if he wants to come to India, invitation still stands but he should not come empty handed. Nazrana to Delhi Sultanate is long overdue.

[A_Gupta]

What set of quantitative measures and trends in those measures would you use to characterize Pakistan's failure? E.g., what measure and trend line, which if it steepens you would say, failure is intensifying, and which if they flatten, you would say, failure is on hiatus?

[shiv]

What set of quantitative measures and trends in those measures would you use to characterize Pakistan's failure? E.g., what measure and trend line, which if it steepens you would say, failure is intensifying, and which if they flatten, you would say, failure is on hiatus?

The only figures that I tend to rely on are human development parameters. Birth rate, infant and maternal mortality, population growth rate, fertility rate, literacy, poverty etc.

These are dry statistics but they are all measures of human misery. Polls and the media tend to exclude what is happening to women and children (say below 10). Women and children below 10 make up a whopping 70% or more of Pakistan - about 100 million or so.

Once you have a population like this governance becomes a problem because large numbers of people don't really care about anything as long as they can get a square meal and some shelter. Furthermore - social structures (families) tend to get broken because men have to go away to find work (or become criminal) leaving women and children defenceless. This sort of society is open to takeover by religion and Islam is perfect. But what happens is that the "islam" that takes over has a local leader for local issues and he is a competitor to the state because the state is providing nothing, and this guy is at least providing succour. If the latter leader also has arms, then the state has a bigger problem getting him under control. So you actually have a virtual or real splitting up of a state.

This is Pakistan. Only nobody believes it yet.

[A_Gupta]

Birth rate, infant and maternal mortality, population growth rate, fertility rate, literacy, poverty etc.

If we can close in on what is in the "etc.", then
a. We can start gathering statistics - say from 1990 onwards
b. We can decide what weights to give each of the factors mentioned above, and come up with a single composite failure index.
c. We can compute the failure index over the past; and we can update the failure index whenever a new measurement of one of the components is made.
d. Since we will then have a numerical measure, we can compare our qualitative assessment with the failure index trend, and try to tease out factors we may have overlooked.

[shiv]

Birth rate, infant and maternal mortality, population growth rate, fertility rate, literacy, poverty etc.

If we can close in on what is in the "etc.", then
a. We can start gathering statistics - say from 1990 onwards
b. We can decide what weights to give each of the factors mentioned above, and come up with a single composite failure index.
c. We can compute the failure index over the past; and we can update the failure index whenever a new measurement of one of the components is made.
d. Since we will then have a numerical measure, we can compare our qualitative assessment with the failure index trend, and try to tease out factors we may have overlooked.

Good idea. One problem is lack of accurate statistics from Pakistan. The 1990 census was held in 1998. The 2001 census was not held at all. Don't even ask about 2010 Still they can be obtained.

I did a lot of this stuff while writing my ebook and I still collect stats and tend to follow them. In 10 years the population has gone up by 35 million (20%) but literacy has not gone up significantly, nor has poverty come down. Only the population numbers are up.

Need to keep in mind that these numbers are "strategic secrets" for Pakistan. Pakistan has more poor people now than the entire population of Pakistan in 1947. This is true of india as well - I say it before someone points it out. For this reason the race is to improve your human development statistics so fast that you will eventually (at some future date) "catch up" with the population increase.

This is a slightly complex calculation - I am not sure I can do it. A statistician/demographer probably could - but readymade stats are available on the net - I have often quoted them

You need to look at
1) the rate of increase of population
2) the rate at which the rate of increase of population is being reduced (meaning that if the growth rate was 3.5 in the last decade and it is 2.8 per thousand in this decade - the rate has fallen by 20% in 10 years) You might want to extrapolate that same rate of fall of growth rate to compute decadal population growth rate in 10 years and 20 years form now.
3) Using those population statistics see the literacy rate 10 years ago and what it is now and assume the same rate of increase in literacy and make a prediction of how many are going to be literate in 10, or 20 years of the rate of increase of literacy remains the same.
4) From this compute the number of extra schools and schoolteachers needed and check the finances required for that. Check if the rate of increase in numbers of schools and teachers matches the required number and then see if the same rate of increase in literacy can be maintained over the next decade.
5) Ditto for all other parameters

If you compute these stats for India, Pakistan, China, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal and plot them versus time in decades you will get a slope that says when, if at all each nation will "catch up" with some ideal figure. It seems that Pakistan slope is currently the worst.

Doing all this is beyond me - but i can blurt collected stats and extrapolations that I have.

[shiv]

One thing we need to understand is that if you are going to have 40 million extra children born in 10 years and it takes 1 year to build a school, you need to build schools for say 1 million children this year (for next year). then you need to build schools (classrooms) for 1.5 million children the next year (for 2 years from now). Then you need to build extra classrooms for say 3 million children for the 3rd years etc. If you say 50 kids to a class - you need to build 20,000 classrooms for the first year. 30,000 the near after and 60,000 for the year after that,

This means that your budget has to keep on increasing every year. Pakistan's budget on education is just not increasing at that rate.

Also note that 1 million kids will need say 30,000 primary schoolteachers in the first year, 40,000 the next year and a further 70,000 or so after that so the budget for salaries has to increase and you already need to have a readymade supply of secondary schools from where you can get educated primary teachers.

Unless you look at figures in this way you cannot understand the problems that Pakistan faces. or for that matter what India has been doing all these years while we have been "wimps" in relation to Pakistan

[RajeshA]

What set of quantitative measures and trends in those measures would you use to characterize Pakistan's failure? E.g., what measure and trend line, which if it steepens you would say, failure is intensifying, and which if they flatten, you would say, failure is on hiatus?

1) Human Development Index (HDI). The HDI is used by the UNDP. It consists of

• Life Expectancy Index
• Education Index
• GDP per capita at PPP

134. India 0.612
141. Pakistan 0.572

2) The World Bank uses a The Worldwide Governance Indicators (WGI). It uses six indicators

• Voice and Accountability
• Political Stability and Absence of Violence
• Government Effectiveness
• Regulatory Quality
• Rule of Law
• Control of Corruption

Please feel free to use the tools. You can call up the various indices for a single country for certain years or make comparisons between countries based on a single index. You can produce Excel sheets if you want.

3) Terrorism
There may be several sources, especially Indian, however one relatively reliable source is the National Counter Terrorism Center in USA. Every year they compile the statistics.
2008 Report on Terrorism (pdf)

Fatalities in 2008 in Terrorist related violence:

• 1. Iraq: 5016
• 2. Pakistan: 2293
• 3. Afghanistan: 1989
• 4. Somalia: 1278
• 5. India: 1113

Kidnappings in 2008

• 1. Pakistan: 1264
• 2. Afghanistan: 584
• 3. Iraq: 371
• 4: India: 366

4. Small Arms Proliferation
There have been some surveys. Here is one by Regional Center for Strategic Studies, Colombo
SMALL ARMS AND HUMAN INSECURITY: Reviewing Participatory Research in South Asia (July 2002) (pdf)

5. Religious Education
There are some numbers flying around. Here is one proper study by Harvard University; Pamona College, Claremont, California; and World Bank - Madrassa Metrics: The Statistics and Rhetoric of Religious Enrollment in Pakistan

A good article The AfPak Madrassa Threat: What Are We to Believe?

6. Population Explosion
One can look at UN Population Division or in Wikipedia

In 2050 A.D.

• 1. India: 1.6 billion
• 2. China: 1.4 billion
• 3. United States: 439 million
• 4. Pakistan: 309 million

7. Not all indicators can be quantified as such. I would consider the fear psychosis of a country very important. How quickly an area adopts the Talibanic way, starting from when the Taliban start to openly threaten and intimidate people in the area, gives an indication of how quickly the whole country could fall. Only certain regions would be immune to an immediate surrender, but most of the country would start to obey the code quite quickly.

Hope it helps!

[ramana]

Can we have our own BRF index to watch the neighborhood? It can be based on a composite of different indexes with suitable weighting factors.