Pakistan: The demon the West created

[SADAKHUSH]

I would rather have the whole indian subcontinent self-destruct and reborn from its ashes like phoenix.

Instead of self destructing yourself think of cutting links with your masters and establish a permanent peaceful relationship with your immediate neighbours.

 

[SADAKHUSH]

Sorry to burst your bubbles but pakistan will not go down.Its here to stay.

USA and West are just pumping more air into your Egotistic leaders and in time it will burst with a big bang, it will be too late to save the erst of Pakistan by than.

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

am i correct in presuming that the reason Paki Trolls are flocking here is coz their own site is down ?
Or perhaps due to the Lack of Indian traffic which is the Life blood of any meaningful discussions that take place on their forums.

Please see my intro posts - I have had nothing to do with PDF for months now.

And what exactly does the above have to do with the discussion anyway?

 

[Cliff@sea]

So i was correct in guessing . . .

Anyway . . .The comment wasn't exactly aimed at you . . .There is one paki Troll here
that towers head feet and Torso above all others.

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

The question is would you rather not have pakistan self destruct and emerge afresh than live like you are?

No, I would rather not have Pakistan 'self destruct and re-emerge' because I don't see how that would improve anything.

Keep in mind that in the case of any 'balkanization of Pakistan' the biggest beneficiaries are going to be the same feudal/sardar/wadera class that is currently in power, except that a balkanized Pakistan would amplify their respective influence in the 'smaller pieces of Pakistan' that are created and this class governs. With this same class in power, how on earth do you expect any sort of reforms or changes to address the many serious issues bedeviling Pakistan currently?

The situation is going to turn into a bigger mess than before, and the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda movement/ideology, with a goal of a 'Utopian Islamic State', is going to be left standing as the single strongest ideological and military force in the region (Pakistan/Afghanistan) which essentially would mean the Afghan conflict on a much larger scale as the Taliban take on the Sardars, Wadera's and Chaudhries.

 

[roma]

What you guys are saying is Pakistan as a failed state and going to be divided. They are not going to be divided soon. If things go really bad, China won't allow it. For China, Pakistan means a lot and that's why West don't want stable Pakistan as they want to indirectly affect China Pakistan is their shortest and safe access .to Gulf and Africa . in latter China has already made a huge investment. If Pakistan gets dysfunctional, China's connection to these part of the world will remain IOR. which will always be in control of India and US Navies.

US and west don't care about Pakistan as long as their efforts to deny China access to many parts of the world. If Pakistan breaks up its ties with China. they will again become favorites of US and west. This what US want in Afghanistan, avoiding China getting its rich natural resources.

The entire game is about natural resources which China needs for its economic growth to surpass US.

your analysis or argument place a lot of weight on china - but the facts show that prc had withdrawn from a number of important resource -related investments which could have been hugely beneficial to both pak and prc , mainly due to china not being willing to take the risk in a society which is increasingly unstable

the fact is that the social instability is caused by the pakistanis themselves , and whatever external actors are only taking some slight advantage of the situation

"respected member" ajtr gave some opinion that the feudal lords would benefit from what "she" calls balkanization - and that may well be - no argument with me on that ..... but the fact remains that it is happening and i'd say it is a result of a level of desperation which even their higher than Himalayas friend cant do a thing about ....in fact my take is that the creating of new provinces and later special territories is desperate attempt to stall the rot from one area spreading into adjacent areas

daily life in pak for the average soul who doesnt have special connections just aint worth it and many a once red-hot jihadist pak -punjabi are finding their way out of the country and swaearing against the very same country they once swore to defend to their last breath

 

[Energon]

No, I would rather not have Pakistan 'self destruct and re-emerge' because I don't see how that would improve anything.

Keep in mind that in the case of any 'balkanization of Pakistan' the biggest beneficiaries are going to be the same feudal/sardar/wadera class that is currently in power, except that a balkanized Pakistan would amplify their respective influence in the 'smaller pieces of Pakistan' that are created and this class governs. With this same class in power, how on earth do you expect any sort of reforms or changes to address the many serious issues bedeviling Pakistan currently?

The situation is going to turn into a bigger mess than before, and the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda movement/ideology, with a goal of a 'Utopian Islamic State', is going to be left standing as the single strongest ideological and military force in the region (Pakistan/Afghanistan) which essentially would mean the Afghan conflict on a much larger scale as the Taliban take on the Sardars, Wadera's and Chaudhries.

Seriously, this needs to be engraved somewhere. Wishing for the balkanization of Pakistan is akin to cutting off the nose to spite the face. People who subscribe to this ludicrous theory fail to realize that the schadenfreude moment they so desperately seek is a mirage. A meltdown in Pakistan will not restore any pre colonial glory in India, the unfolding disaster will however abrogate any chance of future glory.

What would make for an interesting discussion however is whether Pakistan would benefit from an Egypt style revolution.

 

[Energon]

your analysis or argument place a lot of weight on china - but the facts show that prc had withdrawn from a number of important resource -related investments which could have been hugely beneficial to both pak and prc , mainly due to china not being willing to take the risk in a society which is increasingly unstable

China's interest in Pakistan is first and foremost fueled by the need for their own security. Pakistan has always played a critical role in global Islamic terrorism particularly in rebellion movements such as that in Chechnya. Islamic terrorism is also a need based movement, once one "cause" is exhausted it shifts to another one.The Uighur situation in Xinjiang province is a tinderbox and the Chinese will go to lengths to ensure it doesn't blow up once the jihad loses steam in Afghanistan. Stabilizing Pakistan through economic investment etc. would ideally be the best way to handle the situation, but that is far too difficult a task and would require decades to achieve. Hence currying favor with the Pakistani military establishment is the best insurance policy, which entails transfer of military technology, building of strategically located ports, roads etc. which also benefit China tremendously. However at the end of the day China isn't some benevolent sugar daddy. They will not invest in projects that aren't immediately beneficial to them. China is also a mercantile power, their doctrine is to harness raw materials from other countries and then sell them finished goods. Pakistan suffers from the world's ire and hence the affinity for China is understandable, however this could very well backfire in the long run.

 

[civfanatic]

Seriously, this needs to be engraved somewhere. Wishing for the balkanization of Pakistan is akin to cutting off the nose to spite the face. The schadenfreude moment that the subscribers of this ludicrous theory seek is a mirage. A meltdown in Pakistan will not restore any pre colonial glory in India, the unfolding disaster will however abrogate any chance of future glory.

What would make for an interesting discussion however is whether Pakistan would benefit from an Egypt style revolution.

First of all, the existence of Pakistan as a state has no real basis. It is a totally unnatural entity created out of misguided notions of Islamic 'nationalism' and upper-class self-preservation in the context of great power politics and a convenient bonhomie between the Anglo-Saxon world and a pro-West Jinnah. The basis for Pakistan's existence was challenged in 1947 itself, when millions of Muslims chose to remain in India, and was essentially destroyed in 1971, when their fellow Islamic brethren in East Bengal seceded and formed their own state. As such, the 'balkanization' of Pakistan would not be so much a devastating meltdown as a natural unwinding of an ill-conceived aberration of a state.

Secondly, wishing for the balkanization of Pakistan is not so much about 'schadenfreude' but about advancing India's national interests and security. The fact is that there can never be peace between India and Pakistan, period. The military-feudal complex that runs Pakistan will ensure that the Indo-Pak rivalry is kept alive indefinitely, because Pakistan as a state views itself in relation to India; as an antithesis of India. Some misguided Indians might hope that "eventually" the military-feudal complex will be overthrown and replaced by "Pakistani secular liberals", whoever those are, but the chances of Pakistan becoming a liberal, secular democracy living in peace with India are close to zero and is nothing more than fantasy. Indeed, based on current events the chances of Pakistan disintegrating are much higher.

Thirdly, the hypothetical balkanization of Pakistan need not make the situation worse than it is. Both the Balochi and Sindhi independence movements are secular nationalist in nature. FATA and Khyber Pakthunkwa should be returned to a pro-India Afghanistan, as the Pashtuns have never recognized the artificial Durand Line. Islamic radicalism, being a product of the Pakjabi gov't, should be restricted there. I think 30-40 years of Soviet-style forced atheism under an Indian puppet government in Pakjab can do wonders.

 

[trackwhack]

No, I would rather not have Pakistan 'self destruct and re-emerge' because I don't see how that would improve anything.

Keep in mind that in the case of any 'balkanization of Pakistan' the biggest beneficiaries are going to be the same feudal/sardar/wadera class that is currently in power, except that a balkanized Pakistan would amplify their respective influence in the 'smaller pieces of Pakistan' that are created and this class governs. With this same class in power, how on earth do you expect any sort of reforms or changes to address the many serious issues bedeviling Pakistan currently?

The situation is going to turn into a bigger mess than before, and the Taliban and/or Al Qaeda movement/ideology, with a goal of a 'Utopian Islamic State', is going to be left standing as the single strongest ideological and military force in the region (Pakistan/Afghanistan) which essentially would mean the Afghan conflict on a much larger scale as the Taliban take on the Sardars, Wadera's and Chaudhries.

Before the Taliban comes anywhere close to seizing power, the US and Israel will denuke Pakistan. In the ensuing conflict, whether they get to throw a few nukes across the border or not, Pakistan as an entity will cease to exist. Long term power struggles are not possible to predict but as long as there are no nukes there no one will give a damn if you keep killing each other.

Seriously, this needs to be engraved somewhere. Wishing for the balkanization of Pakistan is akin to cutting off the nose to spite the face. People who subscribe to this ludicrous theory fail to realize that the schadenfreude moment they so desperately seek is a mirage. A meltdown in Pakistan will not restore any pre colonial glory in India, the unfolding disaster will however abrogate any chance of future glory.

What would make for an interesting discussion however is whether Pakistan would benefit from an Egypt style revolution.

Wishing is the wrong word, its more like an eventuality. You can play out any number of possible outcomes to the current situation and every outcome indicates/leans towards a divided pakistan.

 

[Energon]

First of all, the existence of Pakistan as a state has no real basis. It is a totally unnatural entity created out of misguided notions of Islamic 'nationalism' and upper-class self-preservation in the context of great power politics and a convenient bonhomie between the Anglo-Saxon world and a pro-West Jinnah. The basis for Pakistan's existence was challenged in 1947 itself, when millions of Muslims chose to remain in India, and was essentially destroyed in 1971, when their fellow Islamic brethren in East Bengal seceded and formed their own state. As such, the 'balkanization' of Pakistan would not be so much a devastating meltdown as a natural unwinding of an ill-conceived aberration of a state.

Yes, Pakistan was borne out of an elitist movement and unfortunately its foundation remained elitist, complete with an intact feudal system. However at this point the legitimacy of Pakistan's origin is a non sequitur. Pakistan exists, and there's nothing anyone can do about it and seeing it break up will not serve any palpable pleasure in reasserting the argument of 'look it was fake to begin with, it should have never existed'. The primary motivator behind the desire to see Pakistan break up is actually emotional, not entirely rational.

Secondly, wishing for the balkanization of Pakistan is not so much about 'schadenfreude' but about advancing India's national interests and security. The fact is that there can never be peace between India and Pakistan, period. The military-feudal complex that runs Pakistan will ensure that the Indo-Pak rivalry is kept alive indefinitely, because Pakistan as a state views itself in relation to India; as an antithesis of India. Some misguided Indians might hope that "eventually" the military-feudal complex will be overthrown and replaced by "Pakistani secular liberals", whoever those are, but the chances of Pakistan becoming a liberal, secular democracy living in peace with India are close to zero and is nothing more than fantasy. Indeed, based on current events the chances of Pakistan disintegrating are much higher.

Thirdly, the hypothetical balkanization of Pakistan need not make the situation worse than it is. Both the Balochi and Sindhi independence movements are secular nationalist in nature. FATA and Khyber Pakthunkwa should be returned to a pro-India Afghanistan, as the Pashtuns have never recognized the artificial Durand Line.

But that's the thing, a Balkanized Pakistan does not present India with any opportunity to advance its interest. Also this is where Agnostic Muslim's point comes into play. Balkanization of Pakistan will not result in an end to the problem, it will merely resurface as multiple copies of the same problem. You will go from one unstable violent antagonist to a bunch of them.

This concept of breaking apart a country and then befriending parts of it using the "enemy of my enemy" clause is an antiquated cold war policy that has for the most part been a failure. Eventually the unstable and violent friends of convenience turn upon the benefactor. All of Pakistan's regions including Sindh and Balochistan have fundamental deficiencies making them highly unstable and extremely violent. Their movements may seem to parallel with your interest for now, but that will not last for long. This notion that somehow the Balochi and Sindhi regions will become vassals of India is a fallacy. Furthermore India possesses neither the political leverage nor the sophisticated foreign policy mechanism to pull this off. India's foreign policy as a whole is a disaster, heck even Bangladesh is antagonistic toward India.

As frustrating as it may sound, the only real solution lies in the hands of Pakistanis. Expecting Pakistan to turn into a benevolent democratic state any time in the near future is unrealistic. For now the best you can hope is for Pakistan to stabilize itself.

 

[KS]

India would have been worse off had there been no Pakistan.

 

[KS]

India's interest is neither served in a balkanized Pakistan nor in a strong,stable Pakistan.

So in essence you refuted the argument that Pakistan is an 'artificial State' since, as you said above, external intervention is probably the only way to destabilize Pakistan to the point that it balkanizes.

Clever way of playing with words. He meant its only the external interests that are stopping Pakistan from getting balkanized.

 

[The Messiah]

Secondly, wishing for the balkanization of Pakistan is not so much about 'schadenfreude' but about advancing India's national interests and security. The fact is that there can never be peace between India and Pakistan, period. The military-feudal complex that runs Pakistan will ensure that the Indo-Pak rivalry is kept alive indefinitely, because Pakistan as a state views itself in relation to India; as an antithesis of India. Some misguided Indians might hope that "eventually" the military-feudal complex will be overthrown and replaced by "Pakistani secular liberals", whoever those are, but the chances of Pakistan becoming a liberal, secular democracy living in peace with India are close to zero and is nothing more than fantasy. Indeed, based on current events the chances of Pakistan disintegrating are much higher.

Another fundamental point why there can't be peace between India and pakistan is that if both countries could co-exist peacefully then what was the need for pakistan in the first place ? This is catch 22 situation from paki pov. From there point of view having peaceful relations with India is like going against ideology of why pakistan was created.

So in conclusion if there is to be peace then the pakistani "state" need to be destroyed and new states should emerge with there local identities...sort of like uae,abu dhabi,qatar....why aren't these countries integrated in saudi arabia ?

 

[Nagraj]

bull's eye.

Another fundamental point why there can't be peace between India and pakistan is that if both countries could co-exist peacefully then what was the need for pakistan in the first place ? This is catch 22 situation from paki pov. From there point of view having peaceful relations with India is like going against ideology of why pakistan was created.

So in conclusion if there is to be peace then the pakistani "state" need to be destroyed and new states should emerge with there local identities...sort of like uae,abu dhabi,qatar.

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

Another fundamental point why there can't be peace between India and pakistan is that if both countries could co-exist peacefully then what was the need for pakistan in the first place ? This is catch 22 situation from paki pov. From there point of view having peaceful relations with India is like going against ideology of why pakistan was created.

So in conclusion if there is to be peace then the pakistani "state" need to be destroyed and new states should emerge with there local identities...sort of like uae,abu dhabi,qatar....why aren't these countries integrated in saudi arabia ?

If the US, UK, Australia and Canada can co-exist peacefully together now, then what was the point of declaring independence from the Crown, which no longer exists in terms of wielding power?

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

Clever way of playing with words. He meant its only the external interests that are stopping Pakistan from getting balkanized.

How so? US aid is more than nullified by the damage done through the US invasion of Afghanistan, and the Saudis and Chinese are certainly not providing unconditional aid, and yet the country is holding together.

The only way any of the domestic insurgencies could spin out of control is if they receive external support, which therefore means that Pakistan cannot be balkanized unless their is external intervention.

 

[Iamanidiot]

Pakistani is already defacto balkanized.

 

[The Messiah]

If the US, UK, Australia and Canada can co-exist peacefully together now, then what was the point of declaring independence from the Crown, which no longer exists in terms of wielding power?

Firstly they are on different continents and secondly usa and canada were never a single entity to begin with. Half of canada speaks french. And the queen is still the de-facto head of state of australia.

 

[Agnostic Muslim]

Firstly they are on different continents and secondly usa and canada were never a single entity to begin with.

But both Canada and Australia still recognize the UK Monarchy do they not? And what difference does it make if they are on different continents the revolutions in communication and travel? Why don't they just become part of the UK again as a single entity?