Saudis dumping Pak military in favour of India

Discussion in 'Subcontinent & Central Asia' started by Bengal_Tiger, Feb 5, 2016.

  1. Bengal_Tiger

    Bengal_Tiger Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2015
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    450
    Iran-Saudi Crisis and Pakistan
    Column: Politics
    Region: Southern Asia
    Country: Pakistan



    [​IMG]Pakistan has become an intermediary between the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and the Islamic Republic of Iran against the background of increasing fears that a prolonged bilateral confrontation could potentially have serious consequences for the entire region. With a view to resolving the conflict, the civil and military leadership of Pakistan visited Riyadh and Tehran in January 2016. Both capitals responded favorably to the visits of the high-level guests, the tone of the Iranian leaders changed, the world stood still in anticipation of the detente… but no miracle happened. A few days later Riyadh firmly rejected both the mediatory role of Islamabad and the possibility of a dialogue.

    Iran-Saudi tensions were escalating throughout 2015. Riyadh’s irritation grew after diplomatic missions of the Kingdom in Iran were raided, as well as in connection with the lifting of sanctions against Tehran by the United States and the European Union on January 16, 2016, which immediately promised to supply considerable stocks of crude oil to the world market to restore the status of the main hydrocarbon competitor of the KSA.

    The mediatory role of Islamabad was quite understandable. Firstly, its concern was caused by the request of the Foreign Ministry of the KSA for the military establishment in Pakistan not only to send land forces into the zone of a potential conflict, but also to use nuclear weapons, the development of which had been actively financed by Riyadh for many years. In the past, Islamabad repeatedly declared the inadmissibility of a military intervention in a conflict on the side of any state within the Muslim Ummah.

    Secondly, it was caused by Iran’s reaction to the establishment of an anti-terrorist alliance under the leadership of the KSA in December 2015. Islamabad was registered as its member, but it learned about it from statements of officials in Riyadh. The list included 34 more states, with the exception of Iraq, Iran and Syria. As the Saudi authorities explained later on, these countries had not been invited because of a lack of confidence in them.

    Thirdly, Islamabad feared another surge of Sunni-Shiite massacres in its country, especially after the wave of protests that swept neighbouring Iran in early January 2016 in connection with the execution of the well-known Saudi Shiite preacher Ayatollah Nimr al-Nimr by the leadership of the KSA on January 2, 2016.

    Pakistan demonstrated impartiality during the growing tension between the two countries. It did not openly condemn the actions of Iran in connection with the attack on the diplomatic mission of the KSA, but it did not sever diplomatic relations with it either, as did a number of countries of the Persian Gulf; it stressed its neutrality even during the visit of the Foreign Minister of the KSA to Islamabad in mid-January this year.

    Riyadh’s request to send several thousand Pakistani soldiers at the disposal of the authorities of the KSA changed the subsequent course of events. Islamabad immediately canceled a visit of the civilian Defense Minister H. Asif to Tehran in mid-January this year. In a short time, the Pakistani military and, in particular, the Army Chief of Staff General R. Sharif, initiated a project of mediation in the Iran-Saudi conflict.

    On January 18 this year, two Sharifs (the namesakes – Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and Chief of Army Staff General R. Sharif) visited Riyadh with a mission to settle disputes by peaceful means in the interest of the unity of the Muslims in these difficult times. The leadership of the KSA was sympathetic to the mission of Islamabad and handed over a list of items to the Pakistani delegation to be further discussed with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, assuring the guests from Islamabad that if the Islamic Republic of Iran showed positive signs, diplomatic relations could be restored.

    The next day, on January 19, the civil and military leadership of Pakistan arrived in Tehran. It is fair to say that Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif was the first world leader who visited Iran after the lifting of sanctions. As reported by the Pakistani media, he managed to obtain a positive response from the Iranian leadership in respect of initiating the Iran-Saudi dialogue and regulating the issue of coordinators, whose mission, as planned, was to maintain business contacts with officials of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran. The mediation of Pakistan yielded positive results. On January 20, 2016, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei publicly condemned the attack on the embassy of the KSA in Tehran for the first time.

    It seems that Riyadh and Iran heard each other thanks to the efforts of the intermediary. But instead of a triumph, Islamabad’s diplomacy failed once again. On January 25, 2016, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the KSA Adel Al Dzhubeir said that Tehran was pursuing a hostile policy towards the Arab world, and interfered in the internal affairs of foreign countries inciting religious strife and supporting terrorism. Of course, the efforts of Islamabad turned out to be useless against this background.

    Riyadh’s refusal of Islamabad’s services in the development of dialogue with Tehran is due to several factors: the change in the overall political and military situation in the Middle East, the intensification of the military cooperation of the KSA with the United States and India (Indian military and, consequently, their arms are taking up the positions of Pakistani military trainers stationed in Riyadh under the previous agreements) and Islamabad’s repeated refusal to send land forces at the disposal of the KSA. We should recall that in late March 2015, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif promised the Saudis to send his troops at the disposal of Riyadh, but in early April the parliamentarians, under pressure of the generals, refused to send their troops to fight against the Huthis in Yemen.

    The mediation failure of the civil and military leadership of Pakistan to establish Iran-Saudi dialogue means that this time Riyadh excluded Islamabad from the list of its allies for a long time, and it will greatly reduce the amount of financial assistance and expand trade and economic, military and other contacts with its old rival – New Delhi.

    The domestic policy of Pakistan is also in anticipation of change …The issue of the extension of the term of office of the Chief of Army Staff General R.Sharif (official retirement in late November this year), that has long been discussed in the country, has already been decided. On his return from a tour of Iran and Saudi Arabia, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif refused to extend General R.Sharif’s term of office. The army commander had nothing to do but to publicly declare his refusal to continue service and his retirement upon reaching the retirement age. The generals of Pakistan are one of the strongest and most masterful government institutions and have seized power in the country four times; the Army Chief of Staff is the de facto first person in the state. Thus, the completion of the anti-terrorist campaign initiated by General R.Sharif delivered has been jeopardized.

    Alexey Abramov, political commentator, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.



    http://journal-neo.org/2016/02/04/iran-saudi-crisis-and-pakistan/
     
  2.  
  3. Bengal_Tiger

    Bengal_Tiger Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2015
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    450
    1. The Pakistanis have for long exploited Muslim brotherhood talk to manipulate others including the Saudis.

    However this time it has failed.

    The Saudis are not happy with what they perceive as Pakistani betrayal of years of loyal Saudi support including helping them with sanctions, free/subsidize oil, help with their nuclear program etc.

    Pakistan's loss is India's gain, as the article clearly states it is Indian military trainers amongst others that the Saudis are now relying on.



    2. The Saudis are also planning to reduce financial support for the Pakistanis.

    It will be interesting to see if the Pakistanis turn more and more towards China after all this.



    3. As a Bangladeshi, the decrease in Saudi support for Pakistan is good. The Pakistani-Jamaat nexus (slightly different as independent of Pakistan, there are Saudi "Islamists" who are very pro-Jamaat including the wing of the organization in Bangladesh) used to lobby the Saudis to ban Bangladeshi workers from Saudi (almost a decade long ban now) thus causing around $10 billion if not far more in lost remittance earnings, and also other punitive measures against Awami League run Bangladesh, such as the state organized police harassment and beating of Bangladeshi workers anytime the Dhaka government did not follow a pro-Pakistan line.

    In other words the Saudis used to bully Bangladesh for the sake of Pakistan.

    The Saudis were opposed to the India-friendly Awami League and wanted the anti-India/pro-Pakistan BNP-Jamaat nexus in power. However with these recent changes in their attitude towards Pakistan, hopefully they will end their bullying of Bangladesh and their hatred of the Awami League.

    From an Indian perspective, Saudi not trying to support anti-India/pro-Pakistan forces in its sensitive north-eastern flank can only be good news.
     
    Gessler likes this.
  4. Gessler

    Gessler Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    1,389
    Location:
    Vizag, India
    What could the future of the defence relationship between India and the GCC countries be like? Defence analyst Prasun K. Sengupta offers an insight :

    ++++

    I guess the time has come so I better share some good news with you all, which has been under discussion between the involved governments for the past 1 year.

    Regarding the elevation of India-UAE bilateral ties to the comprehensive strategic partnership-level, it has a strong military-industrial cooperation link, which will be realised over the next 2 years. Under this, India's Antrix Corp will supply a clone of the GSAT-7 multufunction satellite equipped with a MIL-SATCOM payload plus a ballistic missile warning system sensor specifically for the GCC's collective integrated air-defence network, along with a customised ground control station that will be located in the UAE. Options call for two more such satellites to be supplied by India. All these satellites will be launched by Arianespace.

    [​IMG]

    The UAE, on behalf of the GCC, will also be contracting Antrix Corp for procuring two exact replicas of the RISAT-1 overhead military reconnaissance satellites, & their ground control station. The PSLVs will launch them.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    These two landmark, game-changing, prestigious projects now constitute the pillar of India's evolving & deepening strategic relations with the GCC member-states & a demonstration of India's determination to ensure geo-strategic stability in the Persian Gulf area, especially with India's civilisational Arab partners like the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Oman & the UAE. It will also enable India in the near future to post a Defence Attache in Dubai--a development that had been opposed tooth-and-nail by Pakistan up until recently.

    The UAE will also be pumping in up to US$75 billion in funds to expand & improve the transportation infrastructure within the Central Asian Republics with the help of Indian companies who will be executing such infrastructure development contracts over the coming 7 years.

    Meanwhile, Pakistan is predictably fuming, squealing, shrieking, cursing, wailing, whinning, etc etc etc. It is also accusing the UAE of sabotaging the latent potential of the Gwadar deep-sea port. All this & more can be viewed here:



    ++++

    http://trishul-trident.blogspot.in/2015/08/plaafs-bmd-network-takes-shape.html

    It serves to note that even though the technology & equipment being discussed is of a very advanced and sophisticated nature, it still technically remains a 'defensive' technology. I have full faith in India to continue maintaining good relations with the Middle East tri-angle : Iran, Saudi/GCC & Israel.

    All in all, India could indeed play a big role in providing the space-based assets needed for a GCC ballistic missile shield.
     
    warrior monk likes this.
  5. sorcerer

    sorcerer Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    Messages:
    6,203
    Likes Received:
    5,114
    Location:
    India
    What will Saudi dooo..when Zakaah will be brought under regularization by GoI.
    Its better not to link too much with KSA.
    KSA will be in dumps in a few years!!! probably 5 to 6 years. USA will sleep with Iran by that time and what will the position of India then?

    pak has chinese money and pakis think they can evolve with chinese institutions technically and economically..Also china cant let pak jeopardize any diplomatic position china has struck in ME along with pak.
    with KSA..pak is just a paid thug.. No wonder pak is neutral
     
    jackprince likes this.
  6. Bengal_Tiger

    Bengal_Tiger Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2015
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    450
    1. I suspect that the Pakistanis might have overdone it with their whole profuse and abundant use of "Muslim Brotherhood" rhetoric with the Saudis. This has an effect but after a while due to overuse, people start to disregard it.

    The Pakistanis did not come up with the goods in terms of providing "soldiers" (mercenaries) for the Yemen operation.

    2. In the long run countries like Saudi, the UAE will have more respect for a parliamentary democracy with a professional, under civilian control army such as India than an unstable state such as Pakistan which also has a major identity crisis ("We are Muslim, but we won't allow Muslims from Bengal to rule us but we'll genocide them", "We are Muslim but we love Bollywood", "We are Muslim but we love China and ignore suffering of Turkic Muslims there, infuriating the Turks" etc).

    3. From a Bangladeshi viewpoint it would be good if India made it clear to Saudi and others that just as India does not interfere in Saudi's region or support anti-Saudi organizations such as Hizbullah, Saudi should not interfere politically (some humanitarian, economic, peaceful religious activities are ok) in India's doorstep i.e. Bangladesh and support Jamaatis and other pro-Pakistan/anti-Indian forces.

    4. States care about benefit and self-interest and not too much about religion excluding certain red lines, this also applies to the Muslim world and its relations with India. India is seen as a giant and no one will go out of their way to help Pakistan against India, but rather if ties with India help them (Muslim states) they will do that.
     
    Indx TechStyle and DingDong like this.
  7. Panjab47

    Panjab47 सर्वाग्रेक्षत्रियाजट्टादेवकल्पादृढ़व्रता|੧੫| Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2016
    Messages:
    269
    Likes Received:
    201
    Location:
    Hoshiarpur
    @Bengal_Tiger what do you think is good method for dealing with 60 + 20 crore muslim christian in subcontinent?
     
  8. Sakal Gharelu Ustad

    Sakal Gharelu Ustad Detests Jholawalas Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,678
    Likes Received:
    6,658
    I did not get how you concluded that India-SA are forming an axis.

    1. Pak did not provide mercenaries but so did not India. But Pak will still sell nukes to SA if needed and that is not a bad deal.

    2. Parliamentary democracy evokes no respect. Might and power does. SA kisses both China and US right now.

    3. SA has to gain from covert assistance to its ideologues in different countries. I do not see that would stop happening unless the oil profits evaporate away.

    4. Most muslims countries did help Pak against India in '65 and '71. Well, countries do not care about religion all the time but they still do if it is an ideological battle as in case of Indo-Pak.
     
  9. Bengal_Tiger

    Bengal_Tiger Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2015
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    450
    1. I don't think I mentioned the word "axis" to describe anything. It's merely a case of the Saudis reacting to Pakistani "betrayal" by downgrading ties with them, which also means they do not feel inhibited in anyway to be friendlier with India.

    2. Parliamentary democracy does evoke respect hence why even dictators or pseudo-democratic dictators try to legitimize their rule with fake, phoney elections.

    3. SA is Saudi family inc., it's a family run business whose main purpose is to lavish the Saud tribe with billions to live in wealth and extravagance, everything else is secondary and Saudi has supported/betrayed, then once again supported different factions in the Arab and Muslim world. e.g. in Yemen, they were against the Houthis, then supported them against the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated Islah party, then turned against the Houthis again.

    4. Most Muslim countries respect power more than anything else, that is human nature. If America says something or Muslim Bangladesh says something, who will most Muslim states take seriousy? America of course.

    Indian territorial integrity is assured (bar some attempts by the ISI to support separatists) and it is irrelevant what certain Muslim countries would do.

    a - Iran, supports India over Pakistan.
    b - Bangladesh, current India-friendly Awami League Bangladesh supports India to Pakistan.
    c - Afghanistan supports India over Pakistan.
    d - GCC, p1ssed off with the Pakistanis and increasing ties with India.
    e - Egypt, no great fondness for Pakistan and recently attacked Pakistan with the Egyptian ambassador in Dhaka taking a swipe against Pakistan.
    f - Turkey, closest friend of Pakistan and Jamaatis in the Muslim world. There is not much they can say to a nuclear power like India. No grey wolf nationalists have gone to Kashmir, though they have gone to Azerbaijan, Syria etc.

    Name me any Muslim country and I can show you at the very least they have no great hostility to India. Do not confuse some verbal niceties and speeches for actual real hard policies. No Muslim country has any great hatred or enemity with India on the state level.
     
    AbRaj likes this.
  10. Sakal Gharelu Ustad

    Sakal Gharelu Ustad Detests Jholawalas Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2012
    Messages:
    6,678
    Likes Received:
    6,658
    There are countries that flip-flop and those that are just too far to matter.

    a - Iran- gave fighter jets to Pak in '71 war. Might do so again, trade relations are different.
    b - Bangladesh- flip-flop. Current regime in favour, may be not the next one.
    c - Afghanistan - flip-flop. Just wait for Talibunnies to return
    d - GCC- pissed off with the Pakistanis and increasing ties with India. But no long term synergy.
    e - Egypt- flip-flop. Hate Pak does not mean embrace India. Too far.
    f - Turkey- too far to matter.
     
    AbRaj likes this.
  11. DingDong

    DingDong Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2014
    Messages:
    2,227
    Likes Received:
    3,664
    Location:
    Delhi
    Geopolitical concerns will force us to deal with friends and foes alike. We do not need to like them or trust them, we just need to do what serves our best interest even if that means cutting a deal with the Devil itself.

    "Emotional armies loose war". West rules over the world because west is extremely pragmatic.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 10, 2016
  12. warrior monk

    warrior monk Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2014
    Messages:
    585
    Likes Received:
    730
    Location:
    Odisha
    If it is true then it is an excellent news but it raises few contentious issue Iran who was unhappy when we bought the RISAT-2 satellite from Israel after 2008 attacks and Israel must be brought into confidence . Secondly our RISATs with C band fine resolution stripmap mode-1 with 3 m resolution, 30 km swath, cross polarisation will give capabilities no other country posses in ME especially Iran who is an ally of India GCC can easily monitor Iranian troop movements and ballistic missile placements .

    If we are making space based ballistic missile sensor for GCC to pick up the infra red bloom of the BMs it will hurt both Israel and Iran who again are our allies plus we ourselves need 7 of these IR systems for our BMD network won't it jeopardize our ally's capability ??
     
  13. Panjab47

    Panjab47 सर्वाग्रेक्षत्रियाजट्टादेवकल्पादृढ़व्रता|੧੫| Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2016
    Messages:
    269
    Likes Received:
    201
    Location:
    Hoshiarpur
    @DingDong obviously but, part of pragmatism is recognizing present for want it is.

    We already deal with them however, this poster is feeding into the bollywood narrative.

    No different from the secular: muslims in my state are not like that. His version is only a Pakistani muslim is bad. The others are somehow not circumcised inbred cowards eating beef. Don't know where I missed that memo..
     
  14. Bengal_Tiger

    Bengal_Tiger Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2015
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    450
    1. Iran that was 40 years ago and that was the old Shahi Iran, for the past few decades Iran has always preferred India to Pakistan.

    a: Shias are an oppressed minority in Pakistan and the Iranians do not like the anti-Shia Deobandi groups patronized by the Pakistani state, whereas in India Shias have no great problems, in fact apparently the BJP enjoys quite a bit of support from Shias.

    b: Iranians also look down on Pakistan as poor and inferior and have border skirmishes with them, a while ago Iranian troops went inside Pakistani territory and killed Pakistanis and besieged a village for about 6 hours (can find link later if you don't believe me).

    2. Bangladesh. Yes, if the BNP-Jamaat nexus come back in to power they could pursue anti-Indian policies.

    3. Afghanistan is by default a pro-India state due to its hatred of Pakistan which stems from a number of factors. The pro-Pakistan Taliban or other "Islamists" are merely aberrations, any non-Islamist government in Afghanistan is by default pro-India even the current government is called by some fiercer secularists as an "Islamist" one because it can trace its lineage to the Jamiyatul Islami party of Rabbani (Tajik leader).

    4.GCC; The shared religion with Pakistan does not preclude co-operation with India as the OP demonstrates, what is paramount for all of the regimes in the Muslim world and all governments in general is realpolitik and self-interest e.g. America's friendliness with Wahabi Saudi Arabia.

    If Pakistan pees off the GCC they will be friendlier with India and to be honest, can you specifically tell me something in the last few decades which the GCC did which was anti-India (excluding supporting Pakistan.
    which is not motivated by any hatred of India).


    5. Egypt: Point is if they are peed off with Pakistan they are not going to go out of their way to hurt India merely to please Pakistan. Egypt-India relations would only be conducted through the prism of Egyptian self-interest and not any loyalty to Pakistan. Anyway the current Nasserite military that rule Egypt like other neo-Socialist secular Arab nationalists were always part of a Soviet led bloc which was favourable to India e.g. Saddam's Iraq.


    6. Turkey: May be too far to matter, but they are the heaviest supporter of the anti-Indian Jamaat e Islami in the Muslim world thus they cannot be totally ignored. Turks have been indoctrinated to worship and love Pakistan due to their media and brainwashing system, but that does not mean they will actively seek to alienate India. India is too big to be ignored.


    I do not think you can give me any real evidence of any real anti-India policies by any Muslim country. If anything it's China that is a bigger target of certain "Islamists", especially the Turkish Islamists due to their Uighur minority. Muslim states are not a homogeneous bloc and have conflicts with each other and will always prefer a friendly non-Muslim state who can offer them certain benefits to a Muslim state they have a feud with.
     
  15. Gessler

    Gessler Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2016
    Messages:
    821
    Likes Received:
    1,389
    Location:
    Vizag, India
    A lot of the doubts you expressed here were already asked by others on his blog and Prasun addressed them. Excerpts:

    +++
    A) Israel won't react negatively & will in fact welcome it as it will be seen as a deterrent against Iran's ballistic missile arsenal. In addition, GCC member-states like KSA & Qatar are now quite predisposed towards having military cooperation relations with Israel, albeit behind the curtains.

    Iran too won't have any reason to complain as these are defensive surveillance systems.

    B) Japan won't have any objections at all since such a deal cannot proceed ahead without the approval & blessings of the US. And this agreement has the full-fledged support of the US & EU.

    C) Israel's inputs on the RISAT-1 are nil. Israel only supplied the IAI-built RISAT-2/Polaris off-the-shelf for the NTRO.

    D) The GCC member-states did not express a need for such systems until recently as a deterrent against Iran's ballistic missile arsenal, which now for all intents & purposes will be employable only as carriers of conventional warheads for deep strike--a tasking that the obsolete Iranian combat aircraft of 1970s vintage cannot perform with effectiveness.
    +++

    Sure we need a bigger number of such sats ourselves, but with ISRO/SAC expanding their satellite-building capability, the exports are also possible. It's likely such a deal will get ISRO several hundred millions of revenue, which it needs badly.

    Whenever we are dealing in the ME in a big way, we will always maintain the fabric of our relations with the Shias, Sunnis and the Jews. So relax about jeopardizing either. The surveillance is of a defensive nature, plus no one said we can't share a similar technology with the Iranians, if they ask for it.

    Hell, we might, in future, share some of the ABM techs with Iran to balance off the deal on both sides.
     
  16. HariPrasad-1

    HariPrasad-1 Senior Member Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2016
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    1,859
    Location:
    Gujarat
    Land of pure is getting kick on their back from all sides. Now their masters Arabs also have kicked them on their back. Their only master china is in support of them to exploit them strategically and treat them like their slave. As Hasan nisar has rightly said that soon china shall start treating Pakistan like their colony. Like Tarak Fatah said, it is a dysfunctional community which will break. It has no sense of their friends and enemies. Those who spite on their face is their friend and who love and respect them are their enemy.

    Their mind has got subverted. In hatred towards hindus, they are unable to take a stand which is of their own interest. Nawaz is a smart fellow but Chote sharif has made him slave.
     
  17. Bengal_Tiger

    Bengal_Tiger Regular Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2015
    Messages:
    189
    Likes Received:
    450
    1. Pakistan is a fundamentally weak state with a huge identity crisis.

    To illustrate how weak it is:

    a: Pakistan has only one religion, Islam - India has Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism, Islam, Zoroastrianism and Christianity with there being high level Zoroastrian businessmen and high level Christians e.g. former defence minister.

    Despite this shared religion of Islam, this could not stop the bloody separation of Pakistan in 1971 when instead of having dialogue and discussion and changing the nature of the federal structure, having a confederation or a peaceful Czech-Slovak style split the army got itself caught up in a humiliating and traumatizing war and surrender.


    b: Pakistan has several main languages which are all Indo-European, in fact all Indo-Iranian i.e. Urdu, Sindhi, Punjabi, Balochi and Pashto (some others too).

    India has the Aryan-Dravidian split linguistically and then there are the totally different languages of the Mongoloid peoples of the north east.


    c: India is larger, more diverse so logically should have more problems and more difficult for a central authority to rule harmoniously. Pakistan is more compact, more homogeneous and less populous but has split once and is still a heavily divided society.



    2. This weakness and identity crisis leads to anomalies like claiming to be the vanguard of Islam but refusing to be ruled by the majority Muslim part of their population (Bengalis in 1971). Claiming to be champions of Islam, a mighty nuclear state and Taliban supporters but then backstabbing the Taliban in 2001 when "Mighty nuclear" Pakistan was threatened by America with the Pakistanis capitulating to American demands like shameless pussycats e.g. the famous Musharraf claim that US official Armitage had threatened to turn Pakistan to the stone age unless they backstabbed the Taliban.

    What use is boasting of a nuclear bomb if you backstab people that fought for you so cheaply? What use is boasting of being the only Muslim nuclear state when neighbour Iran downs US drones, captures US sailors and refuses to accept US drones? Isn't that the sort of behavour nuclear power Pakistan should be exhibiting?



    3. They claim to be champions of Islam but then turn a blind eye to the situation of the Uighurs and other Muslims in China but will go beserk over a few old war criminals executed in Bangladesh and use the Muslim card to try and portray these political leaders as "Muslim scholars" and "Muslim heroes" and this as a war against Islam. The Bangladeshi government clamping down on Jamaat is as much of a war on Islam as the Iraqi government clamping down on ISIS, or ISIS like Jamaat being shown as "Muslim heroes".


    4. They claim to be Muslim first but refused to let Pashtun refugees stay in Punjab and Sindh.

    They claim to be Muslim first but refuse to allow Bihari Muslims in Bangladesh to go to Pakistan as racist Punjabis don't want dark-skinned "kalu" Mohajirs in their province, nor do the Sindhis want them in Sindh e.g. Karachi.


    5. They are hated, disliked or at the very least viewed in a lukewarm manner by every Muslim state in the region be it Iran, Afghanistan or Bangladesh.

    If they were such a great Muslim state why they are hated by all three of these Muslim states (I wouldn't say the Iranians - who prefer India to Pakistan - hate them, but these two are not very close and are distant towards each other)?


    Their country is heading towards some sort of implosion or major crisis.

    When/if Pakistan does break up don't be suprised if the most anti-Indian, anti-Hindu part of that country, Punjab suddenly does a 180 degree turn and as an independent Punjab becomes the most pro-India, pro-Hindu state in south Asia stressing common Indic racial and cultural ties.

    Pakistani Punjabis never were fighters as Ranjit Singh found out when he conquered them, they talk big but when it comes down to it e.g. Niazi surrendering like a coward to Indians rather than fight to the death like Japanese generals did or Musharraf capitulated to US demands for attacking Afghanistan, they are not real fighters. This is why if Pakistan breaks the same Punjabis who were the most vocal in vilifying India and Hindus will become the most eager to lick Indian ass.
     
    SilverSabre likes this.

Share This Page