Is a stable Pakistan in our interest?

[ajtr]

^^ You have merely shown examples of some terrorists being highly educated, particularly the ideologues, a well documented fact; how does that prove that most educated people are terrorists?

Ideologues of most extreme movements tend to be well educated, as do some of their pseudo-intellectual minions, again a well documented fact. The upper and some middle leadership of the Indian Maoist movement is testament to this fact. That in no way means that all educated people are extremists, the statistics are vastly against your conclusion.

educated always being in minority has no choice but to follow majority.same the case with pak the educated people u r trying to look in pak who r really want peace with pak r really minuscule.

 

[jakojako777]

in current geopolitics and geo -strategic situation its better for india to have unstable pakistan at our borders which is fighting with itself for its survival.with china breathing down at our neck we dont want stable-pak-china combo.its better not to engage with 2 enemeis at a time.so better keep pak unsable and engage china.

"to have unstable pakistan" as if it is result of ACTIVE Indian support of the Instability?! I don't think that would be good idea.
Perhaps in that case one should not forget about danger that carries that situation.....
We have old proverb ; "Who plays with fire ends up with fingers burnt", or another "What you do to others comes back to you sooner or later"
India is big and strong nation that must have SELF confidence no matter who is challenger end never attacked if not attacked.
Bringing others down with no real reason for aggression (specially if that one is on ones own doorstep) always will end badly one way or another.....
Well that's what I think.......:viannen_51:

 

[ajtr]

only those who dare to play by fire learn how to control it sure it will burn some fingers but then unless u burn fingers u wont be able to cook food,and thus playing by fire u get pactice and u better know with time how not to burn fingers and even control fire too.:twizt:

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Pakistan is not going to become unstable it has the backing of bigger powers and there is military rule it is not a democracy where the collapse would cause chaos, this is the way has been for decades and this silliness that it will collapse or be broken up or fall into a civil war would make no difference to the country since it has been this way from the creation of the country, leaders maybe overthrown or replaced by the bigger powers as needed for their agenda that's about the most one can expect, even after defeating pakistan in 4 wars if India government could not ensure Indian security it is not pakistan faults but the Indian governments fault.

 

[nitesh]

Future is unpredictable, so of course he can't prove a future event but having a stable Pak is beneficial for all [with riders attached] and we ought to strive for the same.

What are the riders attached saar? Please explain

 

[nitesh]

one more disturbing report, this clearly shows the support for the terrorists sadly still people don't want to see the obvious

“The Taliban talk about morality and women’s dress, but they wouldn’t do such a thing to us,” said Muhamed Orenzeib Khan, a petrol station attendant who lost nine members of his family in the blast. “Their target was never the common people.” The brutality of the bombing and people’s reaction show just how complicated Pakistan’s militancy problem has become. The military is now in the third week of a campaign against the Taliban, and though it has widespread public support, there is still a great reluctance to accept that Pakistanis or fellow Muslims are the ones doing the killing.

one more:
http://pragmatic.nationalinterest.in/2009/11/04/why-fight-my-muslim-brethren/

The average Pakistani soldier has already psychologically crossed over to the Jehadi side. It is impossible to convince him to undertake military action against his co-religionist brethren.

In terms of perception of religious observance and its role in public life, there seems to be a shift towards the more severe and less tolerant. This doesn’t necessarily translate always into practice, but more a shared understanding that more severe and more rigid must equal more righteous, and that those who are very severe (or even just look it) must be deferred to.

Now, where this gets scary is when you hear a conversation like:

Person 1: “The Taliban couldn’t have blown up the market in Peshawar because a Muslim wouldn’t do that.”

Person 2: “No, the Americans did it. But you know, the market that got blown up catered for women. And you know it’s haram for women to go out of the house.”

Person 1: “oh…..yeah”[AM]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/world/asia/04pstan.html?_r=1&ref=asia

“It’s not easy to say our countrymen are in any way involved,” said Altaf U. Khan, a professor in the journalism department at the University of Peshawar. “There is a feeling of extreme helplessness: ‘We have no power, so why take responsibility?’ ”

Mr. Afzal, who has relatives in Texas and Florida, offered a view of who was responsible, similar to many others interviewed here. “I’m telling you categorically — the people behind this bomb are the Indians and Mossad,” he said, referring to Israel’s intelligence agency. India and Pakistan are archenemies, and India figures into many Pakistani conspiracy theories.

 

[johnee]

My point however is that in order to be objective, one must first realize that a cohort of people given similar circumstances (lets say middle class, educated, well traveled etc. South Asians) are more or less likely to have similar aspirations. Now they may not be able to act on those aspirations or achieve them because of ambient circumstances in a given country, but they are there nonetheless. Just because someone is Pakistani doesn't mean they are permanently impaired or that they are entirely unable to understand what is going on.

Energon,
Your arguement is constructed on the assumption that education and exposure to foreign cultures makes all people similar(that is people have similar aspirations). This is a very tricky assumption, because mere education or travellling does not create the character of a person or a society. The character is formed on many other things like religion, culture, values, beliefs, traditions and the society that a person comes from. Many educated Pakistanis have sympathised with jihadi outfits targeted against India. You have to take into account the condition of Pakistani society before you assume that mere education(assuming its modern) would inspire people to be 'sane'(using it for lack of a better word). Pakistani society is, today, highly radicalised. There are fears, legitimate fears, that even nuclear scientists of the country could be radicalised and thereby terrorists gaining somekind of nuclear raw material. Scientists of any country are perhaps the most educated. If they(creme de creme) can fall for the rhetoric of mullahs, can the ordinary abdul on street resist it?

Also, the education in Pakistan itself is not of very high standard. There is evidence that Pakistani Govt Text Books have contents that seek to brainwash the kids against India and Hindus by misrepresentation of History. And not to mention the madrasas that have become a breeding ground for young talibs/mujahids or whatever they are called these days. In this scenario, do you realistically believe that there is any chance for an educated Pakistani youth to be 'sane'? Where would such a person's sympathies lie, with Taliban(who claim to fight for Islam) or with PA(who also claim to fight for Islam)?

Both a stable Pakistan and unstable Pakistan have not been in India's interest in the past. This is likely to be the case in future. A friendly Pakistan is in the interest of India. But the day Pakistan is friendly to India, it looses its raison de taire. So, India must actively seek to make Pakistan unstable and finally disintegrated. The doomsday scenario of refugee influx is not so doomsday afterall. It is certainly a better than Nuclear MAD situation we face with Pakistan right now.

 

[Singh]

Niteshji,

1. Is Pakistani govt an enemy of Indian govt. or are Pakistani people the enemy of Indian people ?

It is clear to anyone who has been observing the news coming from Pak that those who are opposed to Jinnah's Pakistan/democracy/secularism etc. are also those who are either extremists or hate India or both.

2. Do we wish to keep progressing or teach Pak a lesson ?

The Indian middle class wishes nothing more than to keep progressing, the poor wishes nothing more but to have access to most basic of human needs.

---

Can anyone imagine a strong, prosperous, developed, responsible, peaceful, secure, superpower India in the future, with a "300million strong, unstable, failed, terrorist, extremist, nuclear power, military power, poor, totalitarian, mercurial enemy country" on our West ?

 

[Energon]

Energon,
Your arguement is constructed on the assumption that education and exposure to foreign cultures makes all people similar(that is people have similar aspirations). This is a very tricky assumption, because mere education or travellling does not create the character of a person or a society. The character is formed on many other things like religion, culture, values, beliefs, traditions and the society that a person comes from.

Yes, but my assumption is also based on the correlation between modern education and increase in socioeconomic indicators and subsequent stability observed in many other parts of the world including Africa, South America, South East Asia, China, India and Brazil. The sample size adjusts for various religions and cultural attributes. So yes, the numbers still favor what I'm saying. As far as "character formation" is concerned, there is no credible measurement tool applicable to an entire society (at least not one that I'm aware of).

Also, the education in Pakistan itself is not of very high standard.

I have been following the public discourse on Pakistan's education issues. Just to clarify a few things. The problem isn't the standard of education per se, but rather access to education of high standards. For the people who can afford to attain one do so, and qualitatively it compares to most other nations, most of these people go on to become productive members of society (granted most of them also emigrate). The issue of indoctrination and terrorism through schooling/madrassa is one that is associated with the unorganized education sector. It should be noted that the size of the unorganized education sector is vast, but the indoctrination of terrorism only comes from a part of that sector. Recent studies (especially the ones conducted by Arif Jamal) show that quantitatively, poor and illiterate children who have never been to school have a greater representation in jihadi organizations than those who have been indoctrinated in select madrassas.

There is a huge problem here that needs to be addressed. However none of the arguments put forth by you or Nitesh really apply to it.

Both a stable Pakistan and unstable Pakistan have not been in India's interest in the past.

Ok, I cannot stress on this point enough. Pakistan has NEVER really been a stable society. As in a society that is not only politically stable, but also one where its members have a vested interest in its economic progress. Pakistan has primarily relied on resuscitative aid from its benefactors while its military leadership (either in government or independently) has been squandering away all resources on account of their deluded "strategic" objectives. The dynamics of this decrepit model has been aptly described and discussed in Feroz Hassan Khan's "Comparative Strategic Culture: The case of Pakistan"

But the day Pakistan is friendly to India, it looses its raison de taire. So, India must actively seek to make Pakistan unstable and finally disintegrated.

You do realize that these two sentences are self contradictory and unrelated.
Pakistan's identity crisis is its own problem; Dr. Farzana Sheikh's works are a good resource on this topic. What is clear is that this pathological militaristic sense of nationalism and governance is going nowhere and needs to be replaced; hopefully one with a progressive economic oriented model. The only way this can happen is if the middle class educated Pakistanis who place an emphasis on this instead of the failed strategic one are empowered. Whether the current power structure will allow this to happen remains to be seen, but the objective nonetheless should remain clear.

Pakistan and Pakistanis aren't going anywhere. For all those who espouse the age old Indian dogma of splitting Pakistan up into little pieces, I suggest you guys start looking a bit more deeply into this issue, hopefully with a sense of objectivity and pragmatism. I recommend reading some of Dr. Ashutosh Varshney's works on the this deluded notion.

cheers

 

[Energon]

Niteshji,

The Indian middle class wishes nothing more than to keep progressing, the poor wishes nothing more but to have access to most basic of human needs.

I think it is also very important to realize why this is. We are quick to forget that India not too long ago was a nation that was marred in a similar tit for tat quagmire while its state run economy stagnated and its human development indicators dropped off a cliff.

The difference isn't that Indian Hindus are peaceful and Pakistanis Muslims are hateful terror lovers4life, but rather because India's political stability and socially oriented outlook (vs a military oriented one) enabled a critical mass of the progressive middle class (a big range) to set the tone for the new national objective.

 

[nitesh]

Niteshji,

1. Is Pakistani govt an enemy of Indian govt. or are Pakistani people the enemy of Indian people ?

Both are enemies of India
washingtonpost.com

The bombing crossed a new line of callousness, uniting Peshawar in grief and fear and unleashing a tide of anger. But most of the outrage expressed by survivors, witnesses, religious leaders and other residents this week was not directed at Islamist extremist groups, whom the government has blamed for the attack, but at the countries many Pakistanis see as their true enemies: India, Israel and the United States.

In part, this reaction stems from a deep popular conviction that no Muslim could perpetrate such atrocities against other Muslims. The more egregious the attack, the stronger seems the tendency to deny a domestic cause and blame other, more remote culprits. Some religious and political groups are encouraging such responses, eager to whip up xenophobic sentiment for their own ends.

"Muslims! Muslims! We are here to protest against those wrongdoers who work for India, Israel and the United States," a well-dressed, middle-aged rally organizer shouted through a bullhorn. "We protest against American interference and against our government, which is handing over Pakistan to the foreigners and the unbelievers."

2. Do we wish to keep progressing or teach Pak a lesson ?

The Indian middle class wishes nothing more than to keep progressing, the poor wishes nothing more but to have access to most basic of human needs.

Till the time Pakistan is alive it will not allow people to keep progressing the state has to be dealt with

---

Can anyone imagine a strong, prosperous, developed, responsible, peaceful, secure, superpower India in the future, with a "300million strong, unstable, failed, terrorist, extremist, nuclear power, military power, poor, totalitarian, mercurial enemy country" on our West ?

This is the reason why this state has to be dismantled

 

[johnee]

Energon,

let us first understand why Pakistan has become what it is, so that we can understand what are the possible remedies.

We all know that Pakistan was supposed to be the homeland of all muslims of pre-independence India, because they did not wish to live on equal terms with 'yindoo baniya' India. Of course, Jinnah's ambitions also played their part and so did the famous British divide and rule policy. But all that apart, the main reason, raison de taire of Pakistan was that it was a land carved out of India where muslims could rule according to their wish. This was not possible in India for many reasons, India was predominantly hindu and most probably remain so, India was about to be a democracy and in democracy, one needs numbers to snatch power, muslims didnt have it. Of course, they would have enjoyed all the rights and live a diginified life, but they wouldnt be able to 'rule' like they once did(according to them) during Mughal era. Now, the muslim elites did not wish to live like equals and instead chose to demand for a separate nation where muslims could rule according to their wishes. This was/is the raison de taire. I stress this point.

Once Pakistan and India were given independence, Pakistan found a need to define a 'national character', so to say. It was widely believed by many at that time that eventually the two nations will unite, sooner than later. This was the fear that even the rulers of Pakistan had. So, they decided to define Pakistani nation as distinct and different from India. This required Pakistan to be different from India by being anti-Indian. Then there is another angle, Pakistani nation has never been comfortable with regional, tribal, cultural, linguistic identities. The rulers of Pakistan tried to 'unite' Pakistan through Islam. Islam and anti-Indian feelings were supposed to be the glue which would bind Pakistan together. Urdu was made the official language of Pakistan eventhough it was not a language that any of the regions of Pakistan spoke. Neither Balochistan, NWFP, Punjab, Sindh spoke urdu as their primary language. Urdu was the language of mohajirs who migrated from Lucknow to Karachi. In the initial phase, it was the mohajirs who held the power and they tried to make Pakistan 'united' by forcing on them urdu and islam. Soon the Punjabis took the power from the mohajirs and today mohajirs are sidelined a lot. And also the Pashtuns have been denied even their simple request/demand of naming their province as 'Pakhtunistan', instead it is called North Western Frontier Province. The people of Pakistan have been consistently denied any regional, linguistic, tribal identity apart from islamic identity. The people have been encouraged to look at themselves as muslims first. Zia-ul-haq took Pakistan in direction firmly to a point where there was no looking back. Even before that the rulers did the same, but Zia sealed the doors of reform and established the seeds of ideas of 'caliphate'. All this to counter the idea of India. You have to appreciate the fact that a newly formed artificial nation does not have its own identity. For example, East Germany had no separate identity from West Germany. Pakistan had the same problem. So the rulers stressed on making Pakistan different from India, so that the idea of merging with India never comes up. There was/is great fear within the ruling classes of Pakistan that India could gobble away Pakistan, not just militarily but culturally. Therefore, Islamic identity was stressed and India was portrayed as a hindu nation, further the people of Pakistan were taught through all means and media that Hindu India subjugated its minorities, Kashmir was presented as an evidence. Therefore Kashmir is not a problem but a symptom of the problem. If Kashmir is solved, something else will be shown as an evidence. The main goal is to portray India as suppressing muslims and therefore an enemy of muslims. Then stressing the Islamic identity of Pakistan. To stress on the Islamic identity, Pakistan has rejected their pre-islamic south asian identity. This is where the problem lies. Pakistani text books start their history from the time of islamic invasions on India. Nothing is mentioned about times before that. Generally, it is represented that the people were jaahil(cultureless, illiterate) before islam arrived and once islam arrived and won(due to its supposed inherent supiriority over the locals and their customs), the local people were converted. Many Pakistani muslims view themselves as the descendents of those rulers/invaders. That is effectively rejecting their south-asian identity and acquiring a central-asian or saudi identity. So, the rivalry between India and Pakistan is not limited or a result of any boundary problem, it stems from the identity crisis of Pakistan. Irrespective of the ruler at the helm of Pakistan, subsequent regimes have continued this policy of hate towards India and more islamization to 'preserve' Pakistan from the cultural invasion of India. Radicalization of Pakistan through KSA sponsored madrassas is part of this agenda. Are you now able to see the pattern, fear of being similar to India and hence being assimilated into India has pushed Pakistan towards hatred towards India and radicalization, which then fuel more hatred and hence more vigorous attempt to destroy India, failing which there is more hatred and more radicalization, which results in more attempts to destroy india and so on. The cycle has been running for past 60yrs.
This is the real problem, Pakistan in its present condition is incapable of being friendly with India. Also it is not capable of being a modern state either. Whether it is stable or unstable is not the factor in it. Let me explain why.
Pakistan is ruled by Army. Army gets all the funds for itself by perpetuating the fear of 'big bad India'. If Pakistan befriends India, then immediately Army will be the first to suffer. Army wont be able to usurp huge portion of budget of Pakistan, then army will weaken. As Army weakens, its hold over the domestic politics of Pakistan will weaken and consequently it will become a mere spectator. Will pakistani army let this happen?

So, the first and major hurdle in making Pakistan a 'friendly' nation is Army. Weakening the hold of Army over Pakistan is out of reach of India. PA is mainly funded by the US, China and KSA. So, effectively India cannot do anything to make Pakistan friendly. It is not in the interest of US, China or KSA to allow Pakistna to be friendly to India.

You may say that Pakistan could remain an anti-indian state and yet become a modern, vibrant and progressive nation. I disagree with that notion. Pakistan cannot be modern, vibrant or progressive. Because India is modern, progressive and vibrant. If Pakistan becomes similar to India. If Pakistan also gives rights to its minorities(an essential feature in democracy), has a progressive society, then it becomes similar to India. Then the logical question will be asked by the populace(now intelligent, progressive and modern) of Pakistan about why Pakistan as a nation exists, when they could have been a part of India and have done all this, why is a separate nation needed?
The question will be Pakistan ka matlab kya?
If the debate then is intellectually honest, then they will realise that creation of Pakistan was a blunder and take steps to rectify the same. Thus a modern, progressive and vibrant Pakistan will soon see no reason to live separately from India and both will try to unite. Thus Pakistan ceases to exist.

On the other hand, if Pakistan continues its present cycle of hate-india, radicalization, hate-kafir(india),radicalization...etc, then sooner than later Pakistan as a nation will be destroyed. Thus Pakistan ceases to exist.

The Pakistani state is an artificial state carved out of India by the British through ambitional jinnah, to weaken the state of India. The Pakistani state is trapped in such a way that it could never be friendly towards India, it is compelled to be hostile to India. But when Paksitan is strong, stable and rich, its ability to cause damage to India increases, while when it is weak, unstable and poor(living on aid), then its ability to cause damage to India decreases. Thus Pakistan as long as it exists in its present form will remain hostile to India, but its ability to damage India depend on its stability. From India' POV, this ability of Pakistan must be kept at as low as possible, that would mean Pakistan remaining a weak, unstable and poor nation. That is in India's interest. But this is temporary relief. The long-term goal must be dissolve the present Pakistani state and dismember the same, so that India could remove its threat and at the same time extend its influence over the newly formed states.
The best example is BD. Had India not interevened and freed BD from Pakistan, today BD would have been East-Pakistan. Imagine the mischief that Paksitan could forment from here and India would be helpless under the nuclear threat. A free BD is more in India's interest then East Pakistan. Similarly, a free Balochistan, a free Sindh, a free NWFP would be more in India's interest.

Of course, you might remind me about the potential refugee problem if Pakistan state collapses. But I believe that the refugee problem is very small and manageble compared to the terrorism India faces under the nuclear umbrella of Pakistan. So, an unstable Pakistan is in India's interests, but India must strive to dismember and denuke Pakistan, that will give rise to permanent solution which is beneficial to India. The present circumstances are against India.

 

[Energon]

johnee, if economic success, progress, and overall modernity are to be considered the primary objectives for the Indian state, it is going to have to outgrow this revanchist nonsense. Pakistan's identity crisis is it's own problem, but this has no bearing whatsoever upon the geographic realities of South Asia.

Also, as I've mentioned, I don't think you have really taken into account the actual long term effects of the dissolution of the Pakistani state upon India. There are far more things at play here than just an influx of refugees.

You are using antiquated parochial dogma to analyze a complex problem and coming up with an oversimplified conclusion. This my friend is a very dangerous path to follow.

Contrary to what you think all of these things have been studied more objectively in various academic capacities, and I urge you to look into it.

cheers

 

[johnee]

johnee, if economic success, progress, and overall modernity are to be considered the primary objectives for the Indian state, it is going to have to outgrow this revanchist nonsense. Pakistan's identity crisis is it's own problem, but this has no bearing whatsoever upon the geographic realities of South Asia.

My friend, Pakistan's identity crisis has a direct effect on the Indo-Pak relations. Many in India believe that 26/11 had happened to goad India to repeat an Operation Parakram, so that Pakistan Army could excuse itself from the war on Taliban(which is considered as strategic interests). So, Pakistan's conditions have a direct impact on Indo-Pak situation.

Also, as I've mentioned, I don't think you have really taken into account the actual long term effects of the dissolution of the Pakistani state upon India. There are far more things at play here than just an influx of refugees.

Pray, explain them.

You are using antiquated parochial dogma to analyze a complex problem and coming up with an oversimplified conclusion. This my friend is a very dangerous path to follow.

Thanx for the advise, but I dont see any dogma. What dogma have you seen in the post, do open my eyes to it. Also articulate what is antiquated

I can understand where you are coming from, it is easy for you to conclude that anything negatively being said about Pakistan by an Indian must be 'parochail', 'dogmatic', and 'antiquated'. You, of course, assume that like all other normal societies, Pakistan just need education and economy to be back on track. But all of these are simple assumptions which would have been perfectly valid in an ideal world. But alas, in a practical world, there are other factors besides education and economy that have effect on a nation's policy towards another nation. Also, you seem to expect that radicalization will vanish as education improves. All of these are mere assumptions/hopes/wishes that have no practical value.

Anyway, I would love to hear your explantion about Pakistan and its present crisis and Indo-Pak relations. Please, present your views instead of name-calling other views.

 

[x11]

There is no pakistani threat....it is just a proxy chinese threat.

Pakistan should not burn...because if the neighbours house burns...it is very likely that our house will also catch fire.

Pakistan should burn in a sim flame..neith too less not too high...so that they mind their own business and we compete with China directly.

 

[Vladimir79]

There is no pakistani threat....it is just a proxy chinese threat.

Pakistan should not burn...because if the neighbours house burns...it is very likely that our house will also catch fire.

Pakistan should burn in a sim flame..neith too less not too high...so that they mind their own business and we compete with China directly.

Right, and who is going to watch the fire so it doesn't get out of control? India already has its own "sim flame" to worry about which China is trying to flame out of control.

 

[Jam]

A nutshell thing is, Stable & Pakistan words cant be used together for atleast next 2.5 decades. More then sure.
There are very practical reasons, pretty basic ones.

 

[ejazr]

@nitesh

I noticed that most of your quotes including the washingtonpost article are from people of poiltcal Islamic parties like Jamaat Islami. Do you seriously believe that they represent the majority of the Pakistanis? These pseudo-Islamic parties were created by military establishment and were indirectly used to fulfill their agenda. These are possibly with collaboration with intelligence agencies working full time to deflect criticism away from teh PA/ISI for their wrong policies and blame India. Ofcourse nowadays when there are people dying everyday and the Taliban sympathisers are also running a full balst propaganda that its the US and India doing these terrorists attack, what woudl you expect the general public to think?

At the same time you will have admit that these MMA and pseudo-Islamic parties have never come to power in a popular vote unless there was a military dictatorship in power which shows how much support they have and why they need these groups.

Having a stable and democratic Pakistan with a strong civil society with minimal interference of PA/ISI is what India should aim for. Its not a a few year process, it might even take decades. So you can't expect 3 decades of indoctrination(starting with Zia's era) even at school level to go away so soon.

Lets not forget that the priamary reason for the creation of Pakistan contrary to what people think was having a strategic foothold for the UK and later US in south asia. Otherwise why would a 95% muslim region with devout muslims (NWFP) have a congress elected govt. in 1946 when the platform was wether you want to go to Pakistan or Hindustan?

Some members have metnioned that Pakistan was "stable" in the 80s and 90s. But it was not a stable democratic govt. and only "looked" stable while it was staged managed under Zia and democratic govts. under Nawaz and Benazir who were popularly elected and wanted trade after all were destablised and finally evicted using the pseudo-Islamic parties like JI and JUI as their minions.

And yes, there are many people who do know where this threat comes from. There are journalists like Saleem Safi and Hamid Mir for example in the mainstream media. And let me quote a local shop owner who also lost his livelihood in the Peshawar attack

One shop-owner who said he lost more than millions of rupees worth of goods in the blast was slightly taken aback when the anchor asked him who he thought was behind the bomb attack. For a few seconds he looked curiously at the anchor’s face, as if wondering why would a major TV news channel be asking a question whose answer was so obvious. ‘What do you mean, who was responsible?’ he asked. ‘The Taliban, of course!’

A nation of sleepwalkers — The Dawn Blog Blog Archive

 

[Known_Unknown]

Energon,

let us first understand why Pakistan has become what it is, so that we can understand what are the possible remedies.

We all know that Pakistan was supposed to be the homeland of all muslims of pre-independence India, because they did not wish to live on equal terms with 'yindoo baniya' India. Of course, Jinnah's ambitions also played their part and so did the famous British divide and rule policy. But all that apart, the main reason, raison de taire of Pakistan was that it was a land carved out of India where muslims could rule according to their wish. This was not possible in India for many reasons, India was predominantly hindu and most probably remain so, India was about to be a democracy and in democracy, one needs numbers to snatch power, muslims didnt have it. Of course, they would have enjoyed all the rights and live a diginified life, but they wouldnt be able to 'rule' like they once did(according to them) during Mughal era. Now, the muslim elites did not wish to live like equals and instead chose to demand for a separate nation where muslims could rule according to their wishes. This was/is the raison de taire. I stress this point.

Once Pakistan and India were given independence, Pakistan found a need to define a 'national character', so to say. It was widely believed by many at that time that eventually the two nations will unite, sooner than later. This was the fear that even the rulers of Pakistan had. So, they decided to define Pakistani nation as distinct and different from India. This required Pakistan to be different from India by being anti-Indian. Then there is another angle, Pakistani nation has never been comfortable with regional, tribal, cultural, linguistic identities. The rulers of Pakistan tried to 'unite' Pakistan through Islam. Islam and anti-Indian feelings were supposed to be the glue which would bind Pakistan together. Urdu was made the official language of Pakistan eventhough it was not a language that any of the regions of Pakistan spoke. Neither Balochistan, NWFP, Punjab, Sindh spoke urdu as their primary language. Urdu was the language of mohajirs who migrated from Lucknow to Karachi. In the initial phase, it was the mohajirs who held the power and they tried to make Pakistan 'united' by forcing on them urdu and islam. Soon the Punjabis took the power from the mohajirs and today mohajirs are sidelined a lot. And also the Pashtuns have been denied even their simple request/demand of naming their province as 'Pakhtunistan', instead it is called North Western Frontier Province. The people of Pakistan have been consistently denied any regional, linguistic, tribal identity apart from islamic identity. The people have been encouraged to look at themselves as muslims first. Zia-ul-haq took Pakistan in direction firmly to a point where there was no looking back. Even before that the rulers did the same, but Zia sealed the doors of reform and established the seeds of ideas of 'caliphate'. All this to counter the idea of India. You have to appreciate the fact that a newly formed artificial nation does not have its own identity. For example, East Germany had no separate identity from West Germany. Pakistan had the same problem. So the rulers stressed on making Pakistan different from India, so that the idea of merging with India never comes up. There was/is great fear within the ruling classes of Pakistan that India could gobble away Pakistan, not just militarily but culturally. Therefore, Islamic identity was stressed and India was portrayed as a hindu nation, further the people of Pakistan were taught through all means and media that Hindu India subjugated its minorities, Kashmir was presented as an evidence. Therefore Kashmir is not a problem but a symptom of the problem. If Kashmir is solved, something else will be shown as an evidence. The main goal is to portray India as suppressing muslims and therefore an enemy of muslims. Then stressing the Islamic identity of Pakistan. To stress on the Islamic identity, Pakistan has rejected their pre-islamic south asian identity. This is where the problem lies. Pakistani text books start their history from the time of islamic invasions on India. Nothing is mentioned about times before that. Generally, it is represented that the people were jaahil(cultureless, illiterate) before islam arrived and once islam arrived and won(due to its supposed inherent supiriority over the locals and their customs), the local people were converted. Many Pakistani muslims view themselves as the descendents of those rulers/invaders. That is effectively rejecting their south-asian identity and acquiring a central-asian or saudi identity. So, the rivalry between India and Pakistan is not limited or a result of any boundary problem, it stems from the identity crisis of Pakistan. Irrespective of the ruler at the helm of Pakistan, subsequent regimes have continued this policy of hate towards India and more islamization to 'preserve' Pakistan from the cultural invasion of India. Radicalization of Pakistan through KSA sponsored madrassas is part of this agenda. Are you now able to see the pattern, fear of being similar to India and hence being assimilated into India has pushed Pakistan towards hatred towards India and radicalization, which then fuel more hatred and hence more vigorous attempt to destroy India, failing which there is more hatred and more radicalization, which results in more attempts to destroy india and so on. The cycle has been running for past 60yrs.
This is the real problem, Pakistan in its present condition is incapable of being friendly with India. Also it is not capable of being a modern state either. Whether it is stable or unstable is not the factor in it. Let me explain why.
Pakistan is ruled by Army. Army gets all the funds for itself by perpetuating the fear of 'big bad India'. If Pakistan befriends India, then immediately Army will be the first to suffer. Army wont be able to usurp huge portion of budget of Pakistan, then army will weaken. As Army weakens, its hold over the domestic politics of Pakistan will weaken and consequently it will become a mere spectator. Will pakistani army let this happen?

So, the first and major hurdle in making Pakistan a 'friendly' nation is Army. Weakening the hold of Army over Pakistan is out of reach of India. PA is mainly funded by the US, China and KSA. So, effectively India cannot do anything to make Pakistan friendly. It is not in the interest of US, China or KSA to allow Pakistna to be friendly to India.

You may say that Pakistan could remain an anti-indian state and yet become a modern, vibrant and progressive nation. I disagree with that notion. Pakistan cannot be modern, vibrant or progressive. Because India is modern, progressive and vibrant. If Pakistan becomes similar to India. If Pakistan also gives rights to its minorities(an essential feature in democracy), has a progressive society, then it becomes similar to India. Then the logical question will be asked by the populace(now intelligent, progressive and modern) of Pakistan about why Pakistan as a nation exists, when they could have been a part of India and have done all this, why is a separate nation needed?
The question will be Pakistan ka matlab kya?
If the debate then is intellectually honest, then they will realise that creation of Pakistan was a blunder and take steps to rectify the same. Thus a modern, progressive and vibrant Pakistan will soon see no reason to live separately from India and both will try to unite. Thus Pakistan ceases to exist.

On the other hand, if Pakistan continues its present cycle of hate-india, radicalization, hate-kafir(india),radicalization...etc, then sooner than later Pakistan as a nation will be destroyed. Thus Pakistan ceases to exist.

The Pakistani state is an artificial state carved out of India by the British through ambitional jinnah, to weaken the state of India. The Pakistani state is trapped in such a way that it could never be friendly towards India, it is compelled to be hostile to India. But when Paksitan is strong, stable and rich, its ability to cause damage to India increases, while when it is weak, unstable and poor(living on aid), then its ability to cause damage to India decreases. Thus Pakistan as long as it exists in its present form will remain hostile to India, but its ability to damage India depend on its stability. From India' POV, this ability of Pakistan must be kept at as low as possible, that would mean Pakistan remaining a weak, unstable and poor nation. That is in India's interest. But this is temporary relief. The long-term goal must be dissolve the present Pakistani state and dismember the same, so that India could remove its threat and at the same time extend its influence over the newly formed states.
The best example is BD. Had India not interevened and freed BD from Pakistan, today BD would have been East-Pakistan. Imagine the mischief that Paksitan could forment from here and India would be helpless under the nuclear threat. A free BD is more in India's interest then East Pakistan. Similarly, a free Balochistan, a free Sindh, a free NWFP would be more in India's interest.

Of course, you might remind me about the potential refugee problem if Pakistan state collapses. But I believe that the refugee problem is very small and manageble compared to the terrorism India faces under the nuclear umbrella of Pakistan. So, an unstable Pakistan is in India's interests, but India must strive to dismember and denuke Pakistan, that will give rise to permanent solution which is beneficial to India. The present circumstances are against India.

Great post johnee. Very eloquently put. I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[mattster]

If the debate then is intellectually honest, then they will realise that creation of Pakistan was a blunder and take steps to rectify the same. Thus a modern, progressive and vibrant Pakistan will soon see no reason to live separately from India and both will try to unite. Thus Pakistan ceases to exist.

No offense, Johnee.....but thats just a load of condescending bunk.

There is absolutely no reason that a stable peaceful prosperous Pakistan cannot co-exist with India. There are plenty of countries that were carved out of each other and separated on all sorts of grounds, and still live peacefully side-by-side.

Your theory that a progressive peaceful developed Pakistan will lose its raison d'etre is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part.

Pakistan hostility to India is by and large, a byproduct of the vice-grip control that the military has had from the very moment of its inception. Despite all the lulls where civilian governments have taken over power, the center of power in Pakistan has always been with the military regardless of who is the president.

It is this chronic condition that has caused the endless hostility between India and Pakistan. Its almost like a baby being born with polio.

If Pakistan had ever given a true civilian government and its attendent civil insitutions a chance to emerge, then the history of relations between India and Pakistan would have been very different.