Re: Terrorist Islamic Republic of Pakistan (TSP): 15 Jan 201

[SSridhar]

You are right about MEDO being geopolitical. But, my intent was to show that the willingness of the US to cobble up Muslim nations together and even hob-nob with and encourage a decidedly very fundamentalist & aggressive terrorist organization like MB for that reason, was not lost upon Pakistan. The MB ideologue and son-in-law of Hasan al-Banna, Said Ramadan, was not only hosted in the White House but soon visited Pakistan too where he collaborated with Abu ala Al Mawdudi. We can only guess here for lack of explicit evidence that the US encouraged MB and its contacts with Jama'at-e-Islami as early as the 50s.

[svinayak]

But, my intent was to show that the willingness of the US to cobble up Muslim nations together and even hob-nob with and encourage a decidedly very fundamentalist & aggressive terrorist organization like MB for that reason, was not lost upon Pakistan.

US for the geo political interest will do anything to get nations to support its interest.

Pakistan from 1947 to 1977 was one entity.
But Pakistan from 1977 onwards with military rule and image creation from C@A is being transformed into another entity.
This is a continuation of the Policy created by Henry Kissinger-1972 for more than 45 years.
The state has been allowed to be become NWS and also retain Jihad as a state policy and also obtain western military aid with more military sophistication.
The state has been allowed to link with all global Islamic movement from AQ, Afghan mujahid etc. Now IS is being being allowed to get connected with Af Pak region.

The MB ideologue and son-in-law of Hasan al-Banna, Said Ramadan, was not only hosted in the White House but soon visited Pakistan too where he collaborated with Abu ala Al Mawdudi. We can only guess here for lack of explicit evidence that the US encouraged MB and its contacts with Jama'at-e-Islami as early as the 50s.

There has been attempt to create a larger Islamic group during the cold war to contain the influence of communism.

[ramana]

X-posts.....

1)

...
Pakistan's relationship with all nations is one of an extortionist/blackmailer

This explains Pakistan completely.

In retrospect this fact should have been evident to everyone right from the time of Jinnah's interview with Life magazine.

In reality, it seems that almost no one outside BRF circles realizes this.

Why that should be the case is something to think about.

2)

{quote="A_Gupta"}On another forum, a Shaan Taseer, presumably related to the Pakjab gov Salman Taseer wrote the following.
Wisdom dawns, but slowly.

It is also vital that we understand that the situation Pakistan is in today is a result of very bad decisions made by the State of Pakistan. It may be comforting to play the victim card and believe that RAW is behind all this, as many hyper nationalized Pakistani youth believe, and as many unscrupulous TV presenters claim; but the fact remains that there is no or scant evidence behind such claims, beyond statements of politicians and generals, whereas there is overwhelming and substantiated evidence of the hand of the State of Pakistan in creating these elements, in its pursuit of a disastrous foreign policy. Many media-age and show business fools in Pakistan believe they are being patriotic by blaming “foreign agencies” for all our terrorism, I say the greatest betrayal to Pakistan at this critical time would be to misdiagnose this predicament.{/quote}

Wisdom is one thing.

But I ask, should a nation not have a "fundamental glue" that gives people a sense of nation. This was precisely the argument that was used to predict that India would fail. However, Hindu culture was a stronger glue than the Brits or the people who wanted Pakistan recognized. The Brits, for long saw themselves as a nation because of a common history and culture which they were unable to see in India and hence the poor prognostication.

To repeat a well worn story, it was assumed that Islam was a cohesive glue - an idea that deserves to be dismissed with the word "Bullshit". There is no Islam glue. Pakistan has no glue.

Pakistan has been held together as well as the Paki army can protect its borders. Where the Paki army retreats, Pakistan retreats. Of course the army has learned the art of extortion and blackmail. They promise a pliable plum for foreign powers to pluck and when it does not work as advertised they ask for help and money pointing usually at India. India is the only country in the world that has to deal with Pakistan but is not bribing Pakistan and not succumbing to threats. This makes the Pakistan army the only viable institution to hold Pakistani unity and this is recognized too well by the US (which fears the consequences of Paki state failure) and by China which must be deeply grateful to Pakistan for accepting their arms exports that no major country with money accepts. Pakistan cheerfully asks for and gets US arms while pretending that they are fully satisfied with what China gives them.

The Pakistan army can be described only by one expression "Cowardly leadership". Gradually they have outsourced all violence against India to Islamic terrorists while the use their tanks and planes against ragtag guerillas in the North west, Using Islamic forces against India is having one side effect that Pakistan did not anticipate - and that is Islam is openly being painted as a religion of bigotry and violence. Ten years ago Pakistanis were at the forefront of defending Islam against criticism. A Paki invented the word "Islamophobia" (how I hate that word). I don't hear a chirp from them now. The only thing Islam can do to redeem its reputation is to shut up and behave peaceful. The problem with this is that if Islam talks peace and the Paki army are afraid of war with India who will be left to fight India? This is where the Paki army are hoping ISIS will step in. They hope Islam in the form of ISIS will punish India and leave them alone. I don't think ISIS will do much in Pakistan or in India. Pakistan has its own Islamic extremists who are not interested in showing Islam to be peaceful. They want to show that they want to fight and kill. If the Paki army does not join them - they will fight the Paki army a fight that essentially sets the Pakistan army against its own Islamic ideology.

Bad Sharif will do nothing much. There will be no coup. I predict that Pakistan will, see at least another 5 years of "civilian rule". I don't see any way the army can step in and try and rule Pakistan because the west will claim that democracy has been discarded - a political hot potato for them. The west will accept a chronically failing Pakistan as long as the army does their work. the west, in the long term may not give a shit about Pakistan.

After all this, I still don't know where Pakistan is headed

3)

shiv,

pakistans glue is poverty AND hopelessness. The one thing that relijion bin pieces teaches is to give up early AND often - if it were not the lords (totally mursee on the loard AND hij messanjer) wish then thus and such would not happen. Bakistan is in a happy equillibrium, of producing more bakistanis, conserving polio and talipaan, etc etc.

The leadership is like the rule of any king -- whether its civilian or military. The only thing that reaChes the ground is horses pis$ and beebles have given up on expecting anything. It is out of jugaad that the cottage industries of smuggling, drugs, hawala etc have risen. This is now the essence of bakistan -- generation old family bijness just like making counterfeit guns in FATA.

Where is bakistan headed? Nowhere. It doesnt want to head. Or rear. Or anything. It is the seculars and progressives and feminists and activits and neo conservatives and so on that want bakistan to give head or rear. Bakistanis are berfectly happy with the increasing populashun, of goats or donkeys.

The question should be -- is the moat wide enough? What is leaking over physically (polio) or electronically (jeehard, d company)? As long as we start digging the new india bakistan border river todin, it will be great preparation for solution bin pieces. The shortest route to makka is via this new river, it is a relijous doody of every peliever to dig it so that cruise ships can ply from kashmeer to makka direct. No hadje subseedy needed.

Anyway, thats what I ruminate after chewing some sdre crud.

[ramana]

Comparing TSP to Ottoman Turkey one finds that TSP is also a new improved millat.

Pakjabis are the Ottoman analogues and rule the roost.

All other Muslim ethnicities are millats: allowed to exist after acknowledging the Pakjabi pre-eminence.

They can rise no farther than the Pakjabis allow.

The millat formula collapsed around 1850s for the Ottomans and eventually led to a new Turkey.

In case of TSP it collapsed by 1971 but they have not yet found another way.
They still are chasing a solution.

One reason for the lack of solution is the stability mantra of US State Dept which is unwilling to see the reality.

To me the end solution will be three Pakjab, Sindh, Baluchistan states with K-P merging with Afghanistan and Kashmir and Northern Areas with India.


If Macedonia level states can exist so can these three.

[ramana]

X-Post...

This is a cross post from the USA positive news thread. A black boy called Ahmed Mohammed made a clock at home and took it to school where he was arrested because they thought it was a bomb.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/communit ... school.ece

Irving 9th-grader arrested after taking homemade clock to school: 'So you tried to make a bomb?'

So why is this news here? I post it here because, despite denials I see this as the reputation that Islam has gained. If you are a Muslim you are probably violent - you will probably want to kill people with a gun or a bomb. This is a sign of the times and I post it here because I think Pakistan has played no small role in ensuring that Islam and Muslims are recognized as a source of violent criminal behaviour. No amount of political correctness or secularism can cover up the fact that a huge number of non Muslim people in the world see Islam as fostering violence among other crimes.

Pakistan was the first country to be created for Muslims alone using the argument that Muslims would be unsafe among others. 6 decades later there is nothing about the Islamic republic of Pakistan that suggests peace or non violence. They harboured Al Qaeda and the Taliban. They nurture violent Islamic groups whose leaders like Hafiz Saeed would be arrested if they stepped into most nations of the world. Travel to Pakistan is seen as a red flag that connect up with some terrorist training. Terrorism and sectaarian violence in Pakistan are virtually uncontrollable. In the news right now as I type this are references to Pakistan carrying out the maximum number of executions in the world; Pakistani air force having attacked a village within their own country in revenge for an attack on some soldiers; and an IATA warning that planes overflying Pakistan should beware of MANPADs.

Pakistan's behaviour on the international stage is the finest example we have to show how Islam means violence. This behaviour is precious. It can always be used politically and as a propaganda point. Protestation that Islam is not violent can only come if people who say that can clean up the millions of acts of Islamic violence visible in the world - and ultimately clean up Pakistan. The latter ain't gonna happen soon.

In other words Pakistan has reverted itself to the non-state actors of yore the Ismaili Hashhashins and become a rent a terrorist land.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassins

[ramana]

Pakistan thinking about Hindus and India has become similar to Hitler's thinking about Jews.

Essentially racial anarchy.

[svinayak]

Pakistan thinking about Hindus and India has become similar to Hitler's thinking about Jews.

Essentially racial anarchy.

It is not 'Has Become'/ It was always like that starting from Two Nation Theory

Bengal Partition and Direct action day are the result of that thinking.

Once the violence was allowed then the thinking and the image gets reinforced in the Brain.

The Marginization of Hindus and Sikhs in Pakistan increased this thinking.


One solution was to change the city demographics after 1965 or 1971

India should have made Lahore half Hindu/Sikhs city.

-----------

Long term change requires social engineering of the Paki society and finally the change in the Indian sub continent muslim to a 'secular muslim'

[ramana]

A glimpse of old Congress thinking....

‘India, Pakistan will both lose if conflict escalates’ - The Hindu

When there is a conflict between two neighbouring countries, the biggest danger is not knowing how it will escalate, according to M.K. Narayanan, former National Security Advisor.

Speaking at the joint meeting of 10 Rotary Clubs on the relationship between India and Pakistan, Mr. Narayanan said: “Both countries are nuclear powers, so both have a lot to lose if the relationship escalates into a conflict.”

Through the years, Kashmir has become a symbol of the Indo-Pak relationship. But, in reality there are a number of issues between the two countries. “Hardly, anyone in Kashmir wants to join Pakistan,” he also said.

He said Pakistan is gaining in confidence when it comes to dealing with India.

“Pakistan’s economy is picking up. They have managed to keep India out of Afghanistan and they have a good relationship with the current government,” he said, adding that Pakistan also has a good relationship with China.

On the other hand, India feels that Pakistan will respond better if India makes more concessions, he added.

Looks like long service did not translate into wisdom about TSP.

[Paul]

Abdullah Janjua ‏@Abdullah_janjua · Aug 5
Lately opp gender handshakes are getting very common in corporate sector.

[ramana]

Two x-Posts....

Falijee, no doubt you are right. This is probably the (lower rent) version of signalling that the Pakisatan regularly does. Of course, none of it matters much. They are not going to do anything other than terrorism. That's the only thing they know, and the only thing that they know won't result in a comprehensive slap. But it is of diminishing utility. They are in a quandary now, and it shows. Hence the desperation to push any donkey across the LoC. Of course, at the same time without the slightest sense of paradox or irony, they believe they are now in a much better position, having kicked the US out of Afghanistan and getting ever closer to China and now opening up to Russia too.

And no need for formalities boss...

Sirs and Madams, this is my first post. But I have been following this forum since 1999 as Kargil unfolded and have been a daily follower. The quality of analysis from so many of the posters was (and continues to be) superior to the blithering crap that most Indian media spew . I've not contributed until now because quite frankly I did not think anything I posted would add much value. Now, I am feeling a bit confident.

If I may say so, I think that JE Menon and Falijee are spot on.I have been observing communication patterns emanating from Pakistan over the last few months, and I think that the OpEd pages of the Pakistani rags indeed give a good indication of what is going through Pakistani decision-makers' minds and I agree these articles are being used to signal. I think they are sh*t-scared. Over the last few weeks and months, it would seem that not only is India giving as good as it gets, but that it may be going on the offensive or has provided other clear and tangible indications that the game has changed. After each Pakistani provocation intended to probe Indian redlines, and after our side provides clear warning or response, a cycle of communications emerges. First, the level of nuclear bombast from senior Pakistani officials increases and then subsides. Then, Phase 2 - enter the retired Pakistani soldiers who seem to have been provided the same talking points from the ISI; across Dawn, The News, and The Tribune, different "retd" columnists are spouting: "Belligerent Modifed/Dovalized India dare not miscalculate by attacking us, we have a common foe in terrorism, India has more to lose, Cold Start could lead to nuclear retaliation, we developed tactical battlefield nukes for a reason, <insert quotes from Bismarck, Napoleon, Yogi Berra, etc. to validate the writer's view of the folly of preemptive or defensive offence>, etc. etc. In the last 2 days alone (I will learn soon how to attach links), all of these rags have had eerily similar OpEd columns.

In keeping with recent suggestions that this thread focus more on analysis, less on Pinglish, I hope to add value by researching some of these Pakistani intelligentsia (yes, I realize it's an oxymoron) and helping establish some correlations between unfolding events and what is being published. For example, I'm keenly interested to see what starts to appear, and from whom, in the OpEd columns based on the recent Kerry/Swaraj joint statement.

I look forward to actively participating and hope that my posts contribute to the purpose of this august Forum.

Cheers.

and

I think that, for a country of Pakistan's size, simply being a crossroads economy, like today's Singapore, Dubai, or old-time Mecca-Madina, is not a legitimate aspiration, it is more like highway bandit thinking.

It is exactly highway bandit thinking. Singapore does not have a pirate mafia oligarchy that controls access and corners all the rent collected. Dubai has a Sheikh oligarchy but they spread the money around among their own people. But if a hypothetical coherent well functioning Pakistan demanded a reasonable fee for transit, no one would be able to refuse as long as goods reached their destination. What the Paki army bandit mafia does is allow only what they want - and disallow everything else. They do not allow free trade with Afghanistan for example. They are IMO shooting themselves in the foot. Not that I care, but they survive because of the services they offer to four-fathers.

As I see it the Indian subcontinent including Pakistan and Afghanistan and Baluchistan are one economic unit. If you exclude India from this unit all the others will get impoverished. The Pakistan army is perfectly capable of allowing impoverishment of Afghans, Baluchis and their own people as long as they get paid. And they get paid for selective transport of material and services for the US and China.

Other than rice, cotton and footballs, Pakistan simply does not have anything for export (aside from terrorists and sunni militias). All of Pakistan cannot survive on the handouts that the US, China and KSA give them. The handouts are given to the Paki army to do specific jobs and the Paki army keeps the loot - even from its own people. They are the highway bandits. There is, in consequence, impoverishment of Pakis, Afghans and Baluchis. And the people of PoK I guess.

If Pakistan was a "normal coherent state" that did not survive on four-father handouts the only way it could earn money is by trade and transit agreements. There is nothing else. And its biggest consumer would be India and the biggest rent payer for transit to Afghanistan would be India again. The Pakistan army avoids this Indian pot of gold for ideological reasons, but is kept alive by four-fathers. Therefore it is extremely important for India not to feed these highway bandits with the temptation of "normal trade relations" with India. It will only make them richer while they blackmail us.

I think it is because Indians in high places do not see Pakistan as a oligarchy of highway bandits that they imagine that trade with Pakistan is a good thing. The highway bandits need to be replaced by a system that feeds and enriches Afghanistan and Baluchistan and not just the Pakistan army. That can never happen under the current scheme of US/Chinese funding of the army which will keep them in power indefinitely

[ramana]

Shiv-ji,
Completely agree with the use of national power argument.
The current GOI Knows that a mere statement by Min of State Defence, or Army Chief or some important government functionary in India will put the Pak Fauj and their media wing's chaddis in a twist.

The possibilities of using this are endless.

A version of this was used by Advani, when he egged / challenged Pakistan post pokharan-2 to test. I think India was well aware of the EXACT state of their weapons program - and not the 100+ going onto 200+ now bakwaas.

One aspect is that the ISPR is battling a war of perceptions within Pakistan. The ISI/Fauj is supposed to be 'hafiz of the zameeni and nazariyati sarhad of Pakistan' (The ISI / Pak Fauj / ISPR are the defenders of both the geographical and ideological boundaries of pakistan)
So they perceive any statement coming out of India as an attack on that nazariyati sarhad (Ideological frontier/boundary)

It is this nazariyat (which we refer to as Pakistaniyat, I call it Pakistani haramigiri) that is at the root of all the trouble, terrorism, religious bigotry that this entity has exported to its neighbours, and carried out within in the form of religious porgroms on its minorities and subsects.

Before one even talks of getting rid of Pakistan as a geographical entitiy, breaking it down, we must break down this nazariyati sarhad that the pak fauj has set up. This is variously called the Two nation theory or the idea of pakistan - which are all euphemisms of the same nazariyati sarhad.

and

One aspect is that the ISPR is battling a war of perceptions within Pakistan. The ISI/Fauj is supposed to be 'hafiz of the zameeni and nazariyati sarhad of Pakistan' (The ISI / Pak Fauj / ISPR are the defenders of both the geographical and ideological boundaries of pakistan)
So they perceive any statement coming out of India as an attack on that nazariyati sarhad (Ideological frontier/boundary)

It is this nazariyat (which we refer to as Pakistaniyat, I call it Pakistani haramigiri) that is at the root of all the trouble, terrorism, religious bigotry that this entity has exported to its neighbours, and carried out within in the form of religious porgroms on its minorities and subsects.

Before one even talks of getting rid of Pakistan as a geographical entitiy, breaking it down, we must break down this nazariyati sarhad that the pak fauj has set up. This is variously called the Two nation theory or the idea of pakistan - which are all euphemisms of the same nazariyati sarhad.

Beautifully put Gagan.

Translated into English what the Pak fauj/ISI are defending a sense of honour and dignity and that honour and dignity is upheld by
1. Showing aggression and not weakness towards India
2. Hurting India physically
3, Demanding territory and other absurd compensation from India

A person or entity that behaves like this should be insulted and told to fu(k off. This person/entity should not be encouraged by agreeing to negotiate, requesting them to catch criminals and treating them like normal well adjusted members of society.

It is total and complete stupidity on the part of India for not having people to analyse Paki behaviour and advise government with an appropriate response based on the fact that Pakistanis are defending an ideological frontier and are looking for psychological fulfilment by pestering and punishing India. If a person behaves like an idiot, he needs to be handled like one. Psychological profiling of Pakistani behaviour is a must. Experts in various fields need to cooperate to handle international issues. But our governments behave like illiterates - not realizing the value of biological, social and neurosciences in handling people as individuals or as groups. India's lack of ability to handle Pakistan revolves around the Indian leadership's lack of understanding of how behavioural sciences can be applied in international relations. We are bums of the first order. Pakis are also bums but we much climb out of our ignorance. Who is going to tell our government this? Who is going to tell our know-all diplomats this?

[ramana]

CFair's approach to study Pakistan is handicapped by Westhphalian state theory.

TSP is a roving armed kabila ejected out of Hindustan. Its an armed camp situated out side India that is Bharat. See no Hindustan in the name.
Its just waiting there hoping to get an opportunity to strike and take over Red Fort.


Every camp needs enforcers to keep it going.
TSP has kabila guards who are the TSP military with Army (jihad-e-fistula), Air Farce (Fizzilya) and Navy. All have hyper jihadi components in them.

The mullas (Allah) faction are there to keep the masses in line with the kabila goals.

The civilan setup is to get Western aids and façade of Westphalian legitimacy.

The Kabila complex (guards, mullas and civilians) all prevent the masses from settling down as that will break the kabila goal of taking Hindustan. So this Toe-nation theory (see the overly large policeman), Islamic state, Martians etc. all are bokwas.


Kabilas have been broken down in the past. Genghis Khan now is like Ozymandias.

TSP has sub-nationalism: Baluch, Sindhi, Pasthun and Pakjab itself.
The great Ottoman had Arabs, Armenians, Turks and fell apart.
Pak is very minor player compared to that.

All Islamist states were held together with brutal force.
And went their ways when the central force collapsed.
(Four pious Caliphs after Ali's defeat->Ummayads-> Abbasids-> Fatimids, Ottomans ....)

The great mistake in 1965 was not sending one more division & better divisional commanders in Operation Riddle.
And in 1971 was returning the 93,000 POWs without any war settlement.
Indian leaders suffered from enlarged hearts!
An open overt military defeat is needed to help TSP to shed its kabila skin/nature.
The US understands this and contorts itself like a circus artist to provide military aid to TSP kabila guards to keep them going.

And US experts defy logic to support their state.

CFair's approach to study Pakistan is handicapped by Westhphalian state theory.

TSP is a roving armed kabila ejected out of Hindustan. Its an armed camp situated out side India that is Bharat. See no Hindustan in the name.
Its just waiting there hoping to get an opportunity to strike and take over Red Fort.


Every camp needs enforcers to keep it going.
TSP has kabila guards who are the TSP military with Army (jihad-e-fistula), Air Farce (Fizzilya) and Navy. All have hyper jihadi components in them.

The mullas (Allah) faction are there to keep the masses in line with the kabila goals.

The civilan setup is to get Western aids and façade of Westphalian legitimacy.

The Kabila complex (guards, mullas and civilians) all prevent the masses from settling down as that will break the kabila goal of taking Hindustan. So this Toe-nation theory (see the overly large policeman), Islamic state, Martians etc. all are bokwas.

ramana this is a beautiful description that sums up Pakistan well. It's only drawback is not your fault but the fact that the "Westphalian nation state mindset" exists not only in CFair's worldview but in that of everyone who views Pakistan, including Indian policymakers. As I find myself growing old on BRF I realize that most people (media, policymakers, public) have no real grasp of history and tend to take today's facts and assertions as eternal reality. So when Pakistan is presented to them as a nation state they equate it with say the Netherlands of the USA and cannot imagine that a kabila could exist in this day and age.

The problem is explaining this to an incredulous bunch of scholars. Five minutes ago, reading the Hindu I was irritated by another article which spoke of how people to people contacts could change Indian-Pakistani relations. One of the authors had "carnegie blah blah" next to the name. The depth of ignorance of how the kabila is maintained is completely unknown. The kabila controls information transmission within their population so that only the narrative of the kabila guards is reality for that population. That narrative is that Hindu India is out to destroy Islam and Pakistan. If we want people to people contacts with Pakistan we must agree that Hindu India is out to destroy Islam and Pakistan and that this Hindu India needs to be opposed. Or else there can be no friendship. This is the kabila narrative - the "idea of Pakistan" maintained by the Army - the keepers of the kabila.

Shiv, Thanks lot for the praise for developing the Kabila model to describe Pakistan.

As you all know I have been looking at various models of Pakistan since 1999.

Pak Military role in society

Then I discarded it to come up with the modernized Sultanate model where the head of the army and the state is a Sultan modernly called President. The Shura is called Senate etc...
But even this was inadequate.
So was reading about Thirty years war in Europe and Habsburgs. And the Treaty of Westphalia and how it ended religious wars in Europe.
How that led to modern nation-state theory and was used to channel nationalism emerging from the breakdown of Christianity and political Islam.

At same time I read many books on Muslim nationalism in British India and the rantings of Kasim Rizvi in Nizam's Hyderabad and evolution of Urdu by Bilkiz Latif. It then dawned on me that political Islam in India is a state in being and is really a roving camp with out any form roots.

Nizam's Hyderabad is the Mughal court that decamped from Delhi in the sunset of Mughal power to Aurangabad and then to Hyderabad.
So you see the Kabila sometimes develops what passes for high culture aka Ganga-Jamuni tehzeeb (naach gana, cuisine, Sufi songs, fake manners with daggers drawn etc.), but it never settles down.
Nation-state theory was force fed on this camp as part of the Partition and its a mis-fit.

Westphalian nation-state theory is good for the dusk of Europe and not for antediluvian Islamic state structure.


Even Erdogan Turkey is unraveling due to the kabila nature of Islamic state.

[Abhay_S]

^^^ you are on to something with this 'Kabila Model'. here is a related article.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1176607

WHAT do Afghanistan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Mali, northern Nigeria, Pakistan’s tribal areas(whole Pakistan) and Yemen have in common?

They all have Muslim populations, are socially backward, mistreat women, and have a profound distrust of reason and modern education. Above all, they are tribal societies that use Islam to rationalise and uphold archaic tribal values and laws.

[ramana]

^^^ you are on to something with this 'Kabila Model'. here is a related article.

http://www.dawn.com/news/1176607

WHAT do Afghanistan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Mali, northern Nigeria, Pakistan’s tribal areas(whole Pakistan) and Yemen have in common?

They all have Muslim populations, are socially backward, mistreat women, and have a profound distrust of reason and modern education. Above all, they are tribal societies that use Islam to rationalise and uphold archaic tribal values and laws.

Full text of above article:

WHAT do Afghanistan, Somalia, Saudi Arabia, Mali, northern Nigeria, Pakistan’s tribal areas and Yemen have in common?

They all have Muslim populations, are socially backward, mistreat women, and have a profound distrust of reason and modern education. Above all, they are tribal societies that use Islam to rationalise and uphold archaic tribal values and laws.

Unsurprisingly, most of them are caught up in violent conflicts fuelled in equal parts by tribal loyalties, faith and ignorance. Shia-Sunni rivalry is one fault line dividing the Muslim world. The second one is the tension between those aspiring to democracy, and the autocrats who oppress and misrule them.

But the third fault line derives from history and social development. Across the world, nations that had nautical trade links tended to be more receptive to new ideas as ships brought not just goods, but books and travellers from distant lands.

By contrast, societies that evolved far from the sea tended to be more inward-looking; tra­ding caravans covered shorter routes in general, and brought goods from similar regions. And while Yemen traded extensively for centuries, the dominant north of the country remained largely insulated from the southern coast. The trajectories that Muslim societies took after their conversion to Islam obviously differed, but two broad categories soon emerged. Countries that had already achieved a level of civilisation in their pre-Islamic period retained their culture, combining it with their new Muslim identity.

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

Extremist Muslim groups have given Islam a bad name worldwide.

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

Persia, Cairo, Baghdad and Damascus were all centres of ancient civilisations and retai­ned their sophistication. And after the Tur­kish occupation of Constantinople, the conquerors acquired features of Byzantine cul­ture. In India, between the Sultanate period and the fall of the Mughal Empire, Delhi, Lucknow and Hyderabad were synonymous with refinement and gracious living. Perhaps Islamic civilisation reached its apogee in Muslim Spain in Grenada, Cordoba and Seville.

But Riyadh? Jeddah? Mogadishu? For centuries, Muslim nations in the hinterland played little part in world affairs, and contributed nothing to human advancement. In fact, this absence of creativity has remained unchanged.

What has changed, however, is their role in contemporary affairs. In the case of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, the emergence of oil as an essential source of energy a century or so ago has transformed their fortunes, and made them major global players. But this stroke of luck has done little to change their tribal attitudes or autocratic outlook.

The oil embargo of 1973 caused a sudden spike in oil prices, and gave Saudi Arabia a huge cash injection that permitted it to finance the export of its literal, austere Wahabi version of Islam around the world. It has focused on madressahs in the poorest Muslim countries where children are made to memorise religious texts, but are taught little else.

Wahabi influence and money has thus transformed the social and religious landscape across much of the Muslim world. This vision has fuelled extremism by excluding other, less-rigid interpretations of Islam, deeming followers of different sects non-believers.

The normal trajectory from tribalism to liberal democracy passes via feudalism and industrialisation. But as the tribal societies mentioned here have very little agriculture, the feudal phase simply did not emerge. And although oil has transformed some of them into wealthy urbanised states, this change has not been accompanied by a change in social attitudes. Thus, while rich Saudis may drive expensive cars and live in lavish homes, most of them remain Bedouins at heart.

This would be no bad thing had it not been for the fact that this adherence to a literalist belief system, and the conviction that anybody not sharing these views is somehow inferior, has major implications for the world. It is no coincidence that the majority of the 9/11 bombers were Saudis.

While we find the self-styled Islamic State’s violence repugnant, we tend to forget that it mimics the Saudi penalties of beheading and flogging, as well as the repressive attitude towards women. Harsh geography combined with tribal laws often produces a cruel penal system as we have seen across the societies we have examined briefly here. The Taliban, Boko Haram, IS and Al Qaeda are not that far from Riyadh in the way they punish those deemed as having transgressed the rules.

Through mindless terrorism, extremist Muslim groups today have given Islam a bad name across the world. Foreigners are unlikely to analyse the fault lines dividing the Muslim world in an effort to understand what lies behind the insanity gripping so many Muslims.

And yet, by lumping the entire Islamic world into one monolithic whole, they overlook the underlying tensions and divisions. To this day, the West has refused to acknowledge the Saudi role in the export of the toxic ideas that have inspired two generations of terrorists.

Until we can learn to distinguish between these different strands of Islam, we will not understand why and how our faith has been hijacked.

[email protected]

Published in Dawn, April 18th, 2015

My submission is that its not the tribalism that stunts Muslims but strict adherence to Arabic Islam.
This version is eminently suited to kabila model of roving banditry.

The Turks were not kabila model even though they were nomads!

[ramana]

X-Post...

Well there is also the model of "Cow civilization" and the "Horse Civilization". I don't know if I've read it somewhere, or when I put it there, but for some reason it is there in my mind.

The Cow Civilization is based on production, progress and protection. The Horse Civilization is based on migration, conquest and plunder.

In the Cow Civilization there is respect for women for they are partners. In the Horse Civilization, men roam from one place to another and take women from wherever they can.

In pop culture, it was symbolized by the roving aliens and native humans in Independence Day.

I think nomadic model applies to all malsI societies and not necessarily limited to Bakistan. Infact, I would say that Bakistan's problem is that it is sitting on a geography which is not conducive to nomadic civilization. If Bakistan was a desert, then their nomadic tactics would have been more successful.

I think the real issue about Bakiland should be: there may be innumerable kabilas or wannabe kabilas around the world who want to establish their own nation. But, they don't succeed in establishing it or they are unable to sustain it.
Bakiland has been able to do so. So, the question is what is the secret ingredient to their success?

Bakiland is able to sustain because of Amirkhan help. Simple. Take away Amirkhan help and Bakiland will not survive 2 months as a nation-state. The naivety of dheshi thinkers is that they want Amirkhan to destroy Bakiland. And people think that Amirkhan is stupid in not realizing the perfidy of Bakiland. No, Amirkhan is not stupid. They know much more than we know. They have chosen to prop up Bakiland. Its a deliberate choice. What does that mean? It means Bakiland is a vassal of Amirkhan.

----

I have heard many Baki commentators talk about 'Hindhu psyche'. I assume they mean 'small hearts'. I wonder who came up with this theme for the first time? I mean who invented this theory about 'hindhu psyche' or this a just variation on 'kafir psyche' thing?

[ramana]

http://nation.com.pk/blogs/05-Dec-2015/ ... erspective
How Balochistan became a part of Pakistan – a historical perspective

This resulted in a communique on August 11, 1947, which stated that:
a. The Government of Pakistan recognizes Kalat as an independent sovereign state in treaty relations with the British Government with a status different from that of Indian States.
b. Legal opinion will be sought as to whether or not agreements of leases will be inherited by the Pakistan Government.
c. Meanwhile, a Standstill Agreement has been made between Pakistan and Kalat. ( Jinnah's old Trick)
d. Discussions will take place between Pakistan and Kalat at Karachi at an early date with a view to reaching decisions on Defence, External Affairs and Communications.

Referring to a telegram of October 17, 1947 from Grafftey-Smith, the Political Department, in a note on Pakistan-Kalat negotiations, says that Jinnah had second thoughts regarding the recognition of Kalat as an independent sovereign state, and was now desirous of obtaining its accession in the same form as was accepted by other rulers who joined Pakistan. The same note mentioned that an interesting situation is developing as Pakistan might accept the accession of Kalat’s two feudatories, Lasbela and Kharan.By October 1947, Quaid-i-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah had a change of heart on the recognition of Kalat as an “Independent and a Sovereign State”, and wanted the Khan to sign the same form of instrument of accession as the other states which had joined Pakistan. The Khan was unwilling to abandon the nominally achieved independent status but ready to concede on defence, foreign affairs and communications. However, he was unwilling to sign either a treaty or an Instrument, until and unless he had got a satisfactory agreement on the leased areas. Fears were also being voiced that officials of the Government of Pakistan might start dealing with the two feudatories of Las Bela and Kharan, and accept their de facto accession.By February 1948, the discussions between Kalat and the Government of Pakistan were coming to a head. The Quaid wrote to the Khan of Kalat: “I advise you to join Pakistan without further delay…and let me have your final reply which you promised to do after your stay with me in Karachi when we fully discussed the whole question in all its aspects.” On February 15, 1948, Jinnah visited Sibi, Baluchistan and addressed a Royal Durbar, where he announced that until the Pakistan Constitution is finally written in about two years’ time, he would govern the province with the help of an advisory council that he would nominate. However, the main reason for Jinnah’s visit was to persuade the Khan of Kalat to accede to Pakistan. As it transpired, the Khan failed to turn up for the final meeting with him, pleading illness. In his letter to Jinnah, he said that he had summoned both Houses of the Parliament, Dar-ul-Umara and Dar-ul-Awam, for their opinion about the future relations with the Dominion of Pakistan, and he would inform him about their opinion by the end of the month.
When the Dar-ul-Awam of Kalat met on February 21, 1948, it decided not to accede, but to negotiate a treaty to determine Kalat’s future relations with Pakistan. On March 9, 1948 the Khan received communication from JInnah announcing that he had decided not to deal personally with the Kalat state negotiations, which would henceforth be dealt with by the Pakistan Government. So far there had not been any formal negotiations but only an informal request made by Jinnah to the Khan at Sibi.The US Ambassador to Pakistan in his dispatch home on March 23, 1948 informed that on March 18, “Kharan, Lasbela and Mekran, feudatory states of Kalat” had acceded to Pakistan. The Khan of Kalat objected to their accession, arguing that it was a violation of Kalat’s Standstill Agreement with Pakistan. He also said that while Kharan and Lasbela were its feudatories, Mekran was a district of Kalat. The British Government had placed the control of the foreign policy of the two feudatories under Kalat in July 1947, prior to partition.

On March 26, 1948, the Pakistan Army was ordered to move into the Baloch coastal region of Pasni, Jiwani and Turbat. This was the first act of aggression prior to the march on Kalat by a Pakistani military detachment on April 1, 1948. Kalat capitulated on March 27 after the army moved into the coastal region and it was announced in Karachi that the Khan of Kalat has agreed to merge his state with Pakistan. Jinnah accepted this accession under the gun. It should be noted that the Balochistan Assembly had already rejected any suggestion of forfeiting the independence of Balochistan on any pretext. So even the signature of the Khan of Kalat taken under the barrel of the gun, was not viable, because the parliament had rejected the accession and the accession was never mandated by the British Empire either, who had given Balochistan under Kalat independence before India. The sovereign Baloch state after British withdrawal from India lasted only 227 days. During this time Baluchistan had a flag flying in its embassy in Karachi where its ambassador to Pakistan lived.
The true history of Balochistan is never shared or talked about among the general public of Pakistan. Our textbooks and other publications narrate a rhetoric which is far from the truth, and which has made the general public believe in a lie. It is the responsibility of the intellectuals, the teachers and the professors to learn and reveal the real facts according to non-tempered historical documents.

[ramana]

X-Pos...

The first post of the STFUP thread contains this link:

Whither Pakistan ? Growing Instability and Implications for India: an IDSA e-Book, July 2010
http://idsa.in/book/WhitherPakistan

The book is from 2010. It views Pakistan as a security-seeking state.
E.g., chapter IX

Thus Pakistani perception and policies are conditioned by a convoluted insecurity complex on the one hand and an exaggerated self-importance as an Islamic power with a manifest destiny on the other.

Chapter IX does note that:

It is rather strange that, even after acquiring nuclear weapons as a deterrent to any probable all- out Indian attack, Pakistan continues to be plagued by a sense of insecurity.

We come to 2014, when C.C. Fair publishes her "Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War". She writes and says that the idea of Pakistan as a security-seeking state is wrong.
""...I argue in the book that Pakistan's issues with India are ideological, they are philosophical, they are basically - its a civilizational conflict that Pakistan has set up, and therefore how can you resolve a civilizational conflict by resolving a contentious border?" (via my blog page http://arunsmusings.blogspot.com/2014/0 ... about.html which includes SSridhar's summary. )

I think views on BRF have been (even prior to C.C. Fair) that Pakistan is in a civilizational conflict with India; its behavior is not adequately explained by it being a security-seeking state.

I think NSA Dovalji understand the civilizational conflict aspect, at least from all the videos that have been posted on BRF of his speeches. IMO, the difference between MMS and Modi is this difference in viewpoint about Pakistan.

I think "Confidence Building Measures", CBMs, are appropriate with a security-seeking state. The idea is that a continuous lowering of the perceived threat leads to better behavior by the security-seeking state; and it spirals into a self-reinforcing cycle of better relations -> reduced threat -> better relations. Among these CBMs would be greatly reduced covert operations.

The question is how does one deal with a state that is in a civilizational conflict?

IMO, a civilizational conflict is not resolvable until one or both parties are destroyed; or else, one party changes its nazariya. IMO, a cold peace is the best one can hope to achieve in a civilizational conflict. IMO, India wants to focus on development and not have conflict at this time (true of both MMS, Modi). IMO, on the surface, the steps to achieve this cold peace with a state in civilizational conflict look pretty the same as the steps to achieve peace with a security-seeking state. So what Modi/Doval do, on the surface, look very much like what MMS did.

On the not-visible side, the actions will be quite different in the two cases. Here we have to accept on faith that the different understanding is resulting in different actions.

[ramana]

X-Post....

I am coming down to the view that this attack was either the direct handiwork of the PA/ISI, I mean just plain out right directed by them or a group, which wants to trigger a war between India and Pakistan.

Assume for a minute, if this act of war was successful in its objectives, the Indian government would have been under a massive scanner to respond. This would be the case if the PA desires such an escalation, in the belief and hope that its nuclear threat would deter a conventional response along with the support of its Fathers and the lack of Indian strategic objectives vis-a-vis Pakistan or a combination of these factors.

IF this act was independent of direction from the PA, then it ought to find the perpetrators on a war footing for such an act is nothing but an act of war in the name of the PA. The ball is in the PA's court and the Modi government is best advised to keep the PA on a tight leash and if the desired outcomes are not forthcoming - we need public retribution for this act of war. If this act of war is deemed to be independent of direction of the PA/ISI then Pakistan should be looked upon as a failed state and the long overdue covert actions, needed to eliminate such persons and groups needs to be put into action.

I said Normalizing relations with India is their Perestroika.
A successful attack on India is their coup.

[ramana]

"Jhujar"


Debunking the ‘founders’ of Two-Nation Theory
Naa Raped Ammi Ki Talash hai: Asli Abbu Ki Talash Hai: Paki Na Jaane Kiss Harami Ki Awlad hai
-------------

From Muhammad Bin Qasim to Mahmud Ghaznavi, we have named the foreign invaders as the founders of this theory.One such ‘historian’, Dr Safdar Mahmud, wrote last year that Ghauri was in fact the founder of Pakistan.Debunking this vile claim, Dr Mubarak Ali wrote, “It is customary to be proud of our invaders such as Muhammad Bin Qasim, Mahmoud of Ghazna and Muhammad Ghori and to denounce other invaders who looted our country from time to time. In fact, all these invaders were mass murderers and should be treated as criminals in history.”Many such historians trace the spiritual link of Two-Nation Theory to the likes of Sheikh Ahmed Sirhindi and Shah Wali Ullah. In our textbooks, the foundation of the idea of two different nations has been credited to Sir Syed Ahmed Khan.When reading through the original text from these personalities, one comes to conclusion that their ideologies were as contradictory and paradoxical as the theory itself.Ahmed Sirhindi was the founder of ‘Wahdatul shahood’, which was considered ‘bid’at’ by most of the Muslim theologians. He was against the Mughal’s policy of ‘sulah-e-kul’ and considered it a hurdle in the way of the spread of Islam. Jahangir arrested Sheikh Ahmed Sirhindi after he was informed of Sheikh’s activities.“Jahangir came to know of a man in Sirhind, who had laid the web of deception for the simple and devoted people. He had appointed his khalifas to various areas from where they are misleading people,” Tuzk-e-Jahangiri, page 360.Sibte Hasan writes in ‘Hindustan Mein Tehzeeb Ka Irtiqa’ that Sheikh Sirhindi considered philosophy as heresy and saw philosophers as idiots. Hassan’s claim can be verified from Sheikh’s letters. He wrote to one of his disciples, “When Jesus invited Plato (the chief of these idiots) to accept his prophethood, his reply was that they were enlightened people and they didn’t feel the need of someone who wanted to enlighten them.” Interestingly, Plato died 348 years before Jesus was born.Sheikh Ahmed Sirhindi had sectarian inclinations as well, as he wrote Radd-i-Rawafiz or ‘Refutation of Shia-ism’. The modern fatwas against Shias are derived mostly from his work.If the founder of Two-Nation Theory is Sheikh Ahmed Sirhindi, who has apostatised Shias, where do we stand?Shah Wali Ullah’s character and ideology, again, are inconsistent to say the least. Shah Wali Ullah invited Ahmed Shah Abdali to invade the subcontinent, knowing that the previous foreign invasion by Nader Shah resulted in him looting and plundering the wealth of Mughal Empire.
“God forbid, your act must not be like that of Nader Shah who destroyed Muslims but left Marathas as they were before,” Shah Wali Ullah wrote to Abdali. (Shah Wali Ullah Dehalvi Ke Siyasi Maktoob by )Describing the result of his invasion, Dr Mubarak Ali writes, “Although Abdali defeated the Marathas in 1761, he further weakened the Mughal emperor and the nobility by plundering their wealth. The idea of reviving power and stability using foreign help failed; so no lesson can be learned from this dismal episode.”An estimate tells that 30-120 million rupees were looted by Ahmed Shah Abdali. He married the younger daughter of Mughal Emperor Muhammad Shah by force. (Shah Wali Ullah was faced with death threats when he translated Quran into Persian and he had to leave Delhi due to fatwas of apostasy.
His son, Shah Abdul Aziz decreed in favour of working for British and be loyal to them but he advised the Muslims must not have any links to them culturally. He even said that it was advisable to wash the utensils used by British before utilising them. Like Sheikh Ahmed Sirhindi, Shah Wali Ullah also apostatised Shias.“A thorough study of lzatal-Khifa and Qurratal-Ainain and the letters of Wali Ullah in Kalimaat-e-Tayyabaat will reveal that Wali Ullah called the Shias as zindiq, nawabit and mubtadi (heretics and innovators in religion), as did Sheikh Ahmad of Sirhind,” writes Khaled Ahmed in Sectarian Wars. (Page 15)Likewise, Wali Ullah’s son, Shah Abdul Aziz wrote ‘Tuhfa Ithna Ashariya’, a comprehensive anti-Shia book.The founder of Pakistan Muhammad Ali Jinnah is well known to be a Shia himself. If we accept Wali Ullah and Sheikh Ahmed as the founders of Two-Nation Theory, we are bound to ‘otherise’ Jinnah, who, in the eyes of the former, was not a Muslim.Syed Ahmed of Bareli and Shah Ismail are also glorified as the freedom fighters who lost their lives, waging jihad against infidels.These personalities, instead of fighting against British, who were geographically near to them and in fact were invaders, went all the way up north to fight against Sikhs and their fellow Muslims.Shah Ismail, when he started lectures on jihad in Calcutta, describing the ‘oppression’ of Muslims by Sikh rulers, was asked the reason behind not waging jihad against the British rulers.“It’s not obligatory to wage jihad against them because Muslims are subjects of British rulers and they are able to live freely under their rule. In case of a foreign attack, it is the responsibility of Muslims to fight for their government,” Shah Ismail responded.
The freedom struggle which led the creation of Pakistan was directed against the British rule. Can we ask how Shah Ismail is a hero of freedom movement when he decreed that there was no jihad against the British?Ismail was not alone in praising the British government and asking his followers to submit themselves to the ruler. Mian Nazir Hussain Dehalvi, one of the leading Ahle Hadith scholars, was praised by British rulers for his ‘services’.To avoid any hurdles on his way to Hajj, Nazir approached Commissioner Delhi for a letter, who wrote, “Maulvi Nazir Hussain is a leading scholar in Delhi, who in difficult times proved his loyalty to British Empire and on his pilgrimage to Mecca, I hope that any British Officer whose help or protection he may need, will be given to him, as he fully deserves it”. (
Sir Syed Ahmed Khan has been frequently placed next to Jinnah and Iqbal as the founder of Pakistan in our textbooks. Altaf Hussain Hali, in Hayat-e-Javed, a biography of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, writes, “Sir Syed Ahmed Khan prayed fervently for Queen Victoria in one of his manajaat, thanking God for her.)Although Sir Syed Ahmed Khan is said to be the founder of the ideology of Pakistan i.e., Hindus and Muslims are two different nations, but Muslims themselves refused to accept him as one of them. All Muslim scholars from subcontinent and Arab unitedly decreed a fatwa of apostasy against him. Sir Syed Ahmed Khan writes in ‘Asbab-i-Baghawat-e-Hind’ that Shah Ismail Shaheed’s fight against Sikhs was actually a jihad. ( The same Sir Syed Ahmed Khan had ardently condemned the 1857 war of independence against British, terming it a mutiny.His contempt for those who fought in the 1857 war was so great that he called one such fighter a ******** (H)Under such circumstances, when the alleged ‘founders’ of Two-Nation Theory either apostatised other Muslims, waged selective jihads to protect the interests of British rulers, wrote extensively in their favour, one can totally expect the nation to be a confused crowd.It is about time historians debunked more of such characters who have falsely been accredited as the founders of this country and how negatively they influenced their followers.


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

[Paul]

[chetak]

^^^^^^^

It's sad for the kids and brave of these guys to carry arms.

They will be among the first to die if the school takes a hit and many kids are slaughtered once again.

[ramana]

Chetak, think about this one.

Paks are creating mini Al Qaidas in all those 3 letter terrorist organizations but without the autonomy.

And that is the weakness.