Re: Managing Pakistan's failure
Posted: 29 Jul 2010 01:19
Tit for tat wont work. India doesnt have non-state actors. Besides they are doing a great job as it is. If India takes action they all stop what they are doing and rally.
Consortium of Indian Defence Websites
https://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/
And ramana garu, that is by doing what?ramana wrote: This is my understanding and the lever that US has on India. If India wants to break the impasse it has to prepare for non-war collapse of TSP. And MMSji is trying for that. We can discuss in Pak failure thread.
By simply being around, growing stronger by the day without "appearing" to do anything...SwamyG wrote:x-posted.And ramana garu, that is by doing what?ramana wrote: This is my understanding and the lever that US has on India. If India wants to break the impasse it has to prepare for non-war collapse of TSP. And MMSji is trying for that. We can discuss in Pak failure thread.
For all the people who think the US is quitting Afghanistan soon - including Paklurks - the US is going to stay in Pakistan. Long term.Muppalla wrote: US will stay as long as it takes to achieve the above.
Arun - just like the almost non existent chink of light between Paki and Indian demographic stats - India has to work on this internally - making Indian rich men store their wealth in India and within Indian laws alongside pressurizing the Swiss. I think we need to look at a phase in world history where we are able to consign Switzerland to where it belongs - a non entity for anything except some hills and valleys. There is institutionalised racism combined with institutionalised SDRE corruption at work here, of the same genre as cooperating with brits for personal gain.A_Gupta wrote: BUT - Indian netas have the same weakness of money stashed away in foreign bank accounts. If they create such a weapon where a person's Swiss bank account can be frozen, they fear that it will be turned upon themselves, sooner or later. Therefore, they will **never** attempt such a thing.
There is some confusion, as to what constitutes "Failure of Pakistan". I'd like to contribute to that confusion.RajeshG wrote:So the barometer for the health of TSP would be the legitimacy of Islam as a governing system and identity within TSP. This is what TSPians identify with.
.......
But here in the present day TSP, we have a core which absolutely would swear by Islam and Islamic governance. So failure of TSP would be when a significant chunk of population stops identifying with Islam. That would be a failure of TSP.
Swami ji,SwamyG wrote:Atri: How is it different from any of the former PMs?
I too have complete faith in tactical brilliance of Pakistani Army jernails. But earlier they have been bailed out by 3.5. I see that 3.5 can quickly become 2 or even 1. Assume for a moment,David Cameron's warning has a ill effect in Downtown London this weekend we can see a significant change in policy of West wrt Pakistan.Their tactical brilliance ensures such outcomes.Pratyush wrote:X post
Because the start has been made by the western world (By recognising ) that TSP is a threat to peace and stability if not contolled. Its a start, we still have a ong way to go. I have full faith in the ablity of TSP to do some thing brilliant to make it a complete Indian victory.
There are other disapprovals vocied from Arab states, Chinese Muslims and so on.The Muslim League leaders positively disapproved of the statement when M. Atay, the leader of the Turkish press mission to India, in a press interview in Lahore on January 28, 1943, stated, "We are Turks first, Muslims afterwards. Religion is an honourable institution but it is individual and personal and has no place in the politics of our country."
Arun,A_Gupta wrote:The Mughal Empire was a success in terms of longevity, maintaining its boundaries, etc. But in terms of control of the economy by a few families, being an autocracy, it resembles Pakistan. Of course, applying modern standards to the Mughal empire is not appropriate. So Pakistan could be a "success" like the Mughal Empire. Converting the intuition that Pakistan is failing to a more precise formulation is not easy.
RajeshG wrote:... TSP was an Islamic nation ...
This is like saying, one should measure the success of heroin on an heroin-addict by the level of euphoria it causes, and not by the physical harm it does.RajeshG wrote:And when we say "success" or "failure" we cannot think of these things in our terms - this has to be success/failure in terms of how TSPians think. While success/failure for India has to be measured in terms of not-this-not-that (eg India is not a Hindu nation) for TSP its a clear ( it-is ) definition -> TSP was an Islamic nation built to provide home for subcontinental muslims who thought they couldnt live in a non-Islamic nation and instead opted for the Islamic way of life.
The GDP/infant-mortality stuff are side-issues.
I also think the precise-formulations are unneccesary. I doubt if there would be nations built/destroyed on statistics. They may add fuel to fire but i doubt if BD people (for eg) studied statistical figures before they decided they had enough of TSP.
What does that mean? If less than 2% of Pakistanis pay income tax, then everything else is above board or underground, depending on how you see it.A_Gupta wrote:How big is Pakistan's underground economy?
Out of more than 170 million Pakistanis, fewer than 2 percent pay income tax, making Pakistan’s revenue from taxes among the lowest in the world
RajeshA wrote:
This is like saying, one should measure the success of heroin on an heroin-addict by the level of euphoria it causes, and not by the physical harm it does.
On this thread, we are just trying to predict how much time the patient has left to live.
Of course medications like American Aid, etc. does prolong the life of the patient, but the patient needs ever greater dosage, and even then the medication can only do so much. At some point of time the organism is bound to collapse, especially with the patient's continued use of heroin.
True. But e.g., corporations and businessmen in Pakistan under-report earnings. What is the estimated gap between reported earnings and actual earnings? The reason for trying to get a handle on this is to get a better estimate of the Pakistani economy.RajeshA wrote:What does that mean? If less than 2% of Pakistanis pay income tax, then everything else is above board or underground, depending on how you see it.
5 centuries ago, Spain was the dominant power, england barely managed to defend herself from the spanish fleet thanks to a huge amount of weather driven luck. its only following the defeat of the armada does british power (naval) start to rise. on the continent, France replaced Spain as the dominant power, england was still considered to be french possessions but increasingly with a mind of its own. i would say 300 years may be more appropriate. i also dont think it was english brains that kept the french in balance with the germans... they did that all by themselvessurinder wrote:X-post
+ UK did that excellently for 5 centuries. One of the main reasons of its rise was that it kept the European Continental powers balanced by each other,while it remained free to pursue colonizaton of the whole world.
oh but they did, england and germany were more natural allies, almost until just before WW1, france was the 800lb gorrilla on the block until england, prussia, russia and the austrians combined to defeat napoleon. france and germany only stopped fighting in 1945 (having started in roman times - the word france comes from frank - a german tribe)+ UK's declince eventually came because France & Germany decided to not fight it out. This unity undermined UK's power more than anything elese. UK could no longer balance European powers and while they were busy, be the winner.
yes, and this pattern marks british AND french colonial wars from Canada to Indonesia, with the Dutch and others caught up in the wake - from around 1700 to 1800+ UK avoided direct fight, although it did fight when there was a need. But mostly it kept proppong up the weaker power to balance the stronger. When A & B were fighting, and A was weak, then UK found moral reasons to support A. When the fight tilted and A became stronger, it abandoned A and supported B. The fight hence continued (almost) ad infinitum. This is the essence of BOP. TSP is weaker, support it. That is all there is to it.
not sure i fully understand the above, the protestant countries worked very hard to undermine the catholic ones - particularly at sea, and england then swept the dutch out of the way. england/france/germany have formed different alliances through this period. greece would have been a non-entity. happy to be corrected on this. they chose the sea because first the mongols and then the ottomans were blocking the land routes to china and india where commercial opportunities lay+ UK supported at various times (using financial muscle and its control of India) practically all powers at one point or the other, eg. Portugal, Brazil, French, Germans, Dutch, Greek, etc.
US ofcourse first applied this principle to the UK and France, having militarily defeated germany and japan. it sought china as its asian poodle, and played a large role in ending british rule in india by withdrawing support from a weakened british government post WW2. also later in getting the british and french out of egypt in 1956+ US has inherited the same idea. It has sought to balance out each power it thinks is a competitor. India certainly qualifies.
The biggest divide in Pakistan is the one between the privileged and the poor. It is a divide that transcends the bonds of Islam even, for otherwise there would be no chance that the poor may someday revolt, when they see no bread on their tables.shiv wrote:But we can wean away Pakis by telling them what their army is doing i.e raping the country and serving the US
RajeshA wrote:
The biggest divide in Pakistan is the one between the privileged and the poor. It is a divide that transcends the bonds of Islam even, for otherwise there would be no chance that the poor may someday revolt, when they see no bread on their tables.
I would say, this country is ripe for some good old fashioned Marxist/Maoist/Naxalite revolution. Even the Ulema in Pakistan has spoken out, that in Islam there is no sanction for land-redistribution. So the poor have to take a different road.
The contention of the Paki-Naxalites should be, that the Turko-Persian-Arab elite have imposed Islam on the Bhumiputras and taken away their land. They are using Islam to keep the poor in slavery. Islam has become a tool for bondage. In order to win back one's rights to a fair distribution of resources and land, one would have to first discard the ideology of the oppressor.
The next step is of course "lock, load, aim and fire"!
I think it is time for cross-pollination of ideas across the KKH!
RajeshA wrote:This is like saying, one should measure the success of heroin on an heroin-addict ....
For any system to carry out whatever it deems as its goal or function, the survival of the system is a minimum criteria. If the system supporting the function fails, the goal may fail or unravel as well.RajeshG wrote:RajeshA wrote:This is like saying, one should measure the success of heroin on an heroin-addict ....
Sorry I dont get the analogy. A heroin addict is not born to be a heroin addict.
Pakistan was born to be the land of Islam to provide (unhindered) Islamic way of life for followers of Islam.
Anything that helps TSP achieve the goal means success of TSP project and anything that undermines it results in a failure.
Its fairly simple. Why complicate it ?