Is a stable Pakistan in our interest?

AkhandBharat

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
542
Likes
79
Pak charge of funding Taliban absurd, baseless: Antony

Pak charge of funding Taliban absurd, baseless: Antony

India on Tuesday rubbished as 'absurd' and 'totally baseless' Pakistan's allegations that it was supporting and sponsoring Taliban along the border with Afghanistan and said it was the greatest threat to world peace.

"It is absurd and totally baseless. India cannot support Taliban, which is the greatest threat to world peace," Defence Minister A K Antony told reporters on the sidelines of a defence function here.

He was asked about Pakistan Interior Minister Rehman Malik's allegation in this regard.

Malik had claimed that India was fomenting unrest within Pakistan through steps such as funding Taliban fighters based along the border with Afghanistan.

In an interview to a TV news channel, Malik said he was "convinced" India is among "certain hostile agencies" that are backing the Taliban to create instability in Pakistan.

In Bangalore, External Affairs Minister S M Krishna had rejected the charges on Monday, saying, "We want Taliban and Talibanism to be totally eliminated".
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
If that's your worst case scenario, I'd consider upping the thread level to bloody-hellish case scenario.
Supposing that the Pakistani Army somehow crumbles, the Talibunnies take ove the government, where do you think they'll go next? Kashmir. If you think Kashmir is bad today, wait till the Taliban team up with Al Qaida to cause some real mayhem.
Today, at least you have a state to deal with which is to some extent answerable to the UN and to other global powers. The Taliban has no such qualms. They'll be so emboldened by their victory in Pakistan that they'll pull out all the stops. The entire Af-Pak region will turn into a breeding ground for Jihadists (yes, far worse than today).
With the Pakistani Army, atleast we know that we can defeat them if they try and attack. But these mujahideen aren't the kind who sign surrender documents and then keep quiet if you get the drift.

I think the horrors of such a situation are too scary to contemplate. Lets be good and try to beat our neighbour into a functioning democracy. That's the only way out IMO.
Weren't the same mujahideen coming into kassmir after the end of Afghan war and taliban takeover of afghainstan in 1990s.weren't they were the same nwfp people who caused mayhem when they attacked kashmir in 1947.indian army has been fighting same people for last 63 yrs in kashmir.only their names got changed with time.in 1947 they were pathan hordes/mercenary.1965-1971 they were mercenaries 1980s they were mujahideens 1990s-till now they are taliban.we have been fighting them and everytime defeating them.no other army has 62 yrs of exp fighting these people as of indian army,thats why all armies failed.we saw USSR,USA,British army fail,we r seeing pakistani failing against them.so for india it doesn't matter who rule islamabad,coz we will be fighting same people.when taliban takes over islamabad atleast we will know who the enemy is.not like today where there is total confusion about the power center.is it pak army?is it zardari?is it gilani ?is it taliban?so we dont know whom to deal with.

secondly,paks nukes were always a threat for india and will remain same.there wont be no increase and decrease in threat of nuke for india wrt to who is in power there.atleast the threat perception for usa west china etc will increase when taliban comes to power in pak.then only west and others will realize the danger from islamic terrorism which they have created. As of today west clearly differentiates between islamic terrorism it faces from wat india faces.
even let china too realize the threat of nuke proliferation to rogue states like pak and NK.So its better for india that taliban come to power in islamabad.Then only all the nations like china and west who seak with forked tongue will realise the threat from islamic terror.
 

ajtr

Tihar Jail
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
12,038
Likes
723
Completely agree with flint on the points he has raised. I am not going to divulge on the points already raised but rather look at how we can have a stable Pakistan.

It will be india’s worst nightmare if Taliban were to take over Pakistan, with nukes or without nukes, with us/nato intervention or without their intervention. We have seen how much capable the us and their nato allies are in a’stan where after 8 years of war Taliban has significantly gained and now controls 70% of that country and a claim accepted by the us, least they be trusted in Pakistan, and what ever little success they have had some share of that success needs to be given to the pa, which will then be completely hostile to the us and the nato if invaded.

Anyways such a scenario will never really happen, and I have always believed the pa would have a plan B if there is an imminent threat of Taliban take over which as matter of fact is stretching the speculation too far and the best possible plan at that point in time would be to do a coup through an Islamic revolution instigated at the behest of the pa, a more liberal Islamic revolution.

Too much speculation in all of the above scenarios, they can best be put to rest.

There is no reason for me not to believe that once the pa really makes peace with all sorts of Taliban, all the hell that has broken loose in Pakistan will come to rest. pa is well in control, and all that we get to see today is purely because pa is seen as waging a kafirs war on its own people at the behest of kafirs.

One person who spells it out perfectly is imran khan, we might call him a mullah but the fact of the matter is he is one guy who does understand how to get peace in Pakistan, certainly not to our liking or to the liking of the us.
A stable pakistan is in indian interest(this is the west words they feed into indian media to indian masses). A stable pakistan is more dangerous to india than the pakistan in present form.whenever pakistan was stable and felt strong it had attacked india.Take any example.1947-48 pakistan felt it can wrest kashmir through force it attacked J&K.1965 Ayub felt he can defeat india by his newly american arms(pattons&saber) thinking morale of indian army and leadership being low due to 1962 china war and passing away of nehru and drought(that time indian govt had to ask for wheat in aid).1971 india won coz pakistan was in situation as of today. 1980 due to the new american arms like f16s stingers zia started khalistan.then in 1990s it was taliban who were pushed into kashmir after afghan war.kargil happened coz pak army thought it can win localized conflict due to the introduction of nuke in 1998. stable pak is only in usa and west favour so that they can use it but not in indias favour.
 

Energon

DFI stars
Ambassador
Joined
Jun 3, 2009
Messages
1,199
Likes
767
Country flag
Flint has already covered a lot of my talking points succintly, so I won't reiterate them.

The stability of Pakistan is directly proportional to regional stability. India, being the dominant power of the region will never be able to gain a permanent foothold on the political and economic global forum if the region at large remains unstable or destabilizes; nor will it ever realize its dream of becoming a developed nation.

The stability and progress of a nation revolves in great deal around the critical mass of its population. Only a society developed enough to see beyond the wall of ignorance and parochial dogma and peek at the golden pastures of modernity and prosperity will act responsibly to ensure its progress in a constructive manner. Pakistan has never reached this critical mass, and India started making this transition only a couple of decades ago.

Many of you take pride in this widening gap and perhaps even enjoy Pakistan's (now literal) descent into chaos. But allowing the hatred of an old foe to overcome the power of reasoning amounts to an inability to look beyond parochial vestiges responsible for enlightenment in the first place; and that is regression.

The solution here is not to turn Pakistan into another Afghanistan, a society where there is absolutely no hope or desire to be constructive, because that will make them completely nihilistic, which in turn will pretty much ensure a crippling burden for India. Rather, the objective should be to incite them into reaching the critical mass so that they realize the follies of their old ways and move toward building a self sustaining model. Either way Pakistan's internal conflict goes, it is clear that the American gravy train that has kept them intact so far is more than likely over
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,799
Likes
48,278
Country flag
This critical mass you have spoken about Energon will never be reached for one reason-Their Leaders will not let them reach it. It is in the interest of the rulers of Pakistan to keep the people at the level they are at, they can use excuses like the Kashmir issue to keep the fires of hatred burning but for this critical mass to be reached there has to be a fundemental change in the governing body, and the governing body will make sure that change never comes.
 

mattster

Respected Member
Senior Member
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
1,171
Likes
870
Country flag
Obviously its a no-brainer for anyone who wishes India well, to say that it is not in India's interest to have a Pakistan that is a complete basket-case banana republic like some African countries

Having said that; this so-called "critical-mass" that you folks are refering to will never transpire, unless the more than 70% illiterate and madrassa trained population can be educated in a more secular moderate progressive based system. It took Pakistan almost 40 years since the time of General Zia ul Haq to get to this point, and its not going to change overnite.

For that matter, I think that the whole Islamic world is facing an existential crisis of sorts between moderates and fundamentalists. It is not unique to Pakistan, but probably the most severe consequences are felt in places like Pakistan and Afghanistan. If the moderates do not win this "war of ideas" in the Islamic world, then we are truly headed for that "clash of civilizations".

Simply put, nothing substantial is going to change in Pakistan over the next 10 or 20 years, and India should prepare for the worst case scenario. I say this because the Pakistani military commanders and their people at large, have throughout their short history shown a reckless tendency to take huge strategic risks in their dealings with India that have had disasterous consequences for the state of Pakistan.

Risk-taking is not always a bad thing, provided it is well thought out.
Indians on the other hand, are on the other end of the spectrum and may be too risk averse.

Ultimately, Pakistanis are their own worst enemies; they keep blaming everyone else on the planet for their own self-induced folly.
 

ejazr

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,523
Likes
1,388
Well interesting discussion and points from both sides but I think we fail to define what type of "Stable Pakistan" are we talking about when we refer to stability.

If its a stable Pakistan where the PA/ISI are still in control then ofcourse this is no in long term interest of India or even the rest of the world.

Borowing from Amitabh Mattoo I would say the best case scenario priority wise for India is as follows:

(1) A stable democratic Pakistan that has a strong civil society and parliament elected by the people fairly who focus on internal and economic development. The PA/ISI should be subservient to the elected officials and should have zero tolerance for any "independant" foreign policy adventures by the PA/ISI (aka Musharraf in Kargil). This is the best case scenario for India's long term interests as well as SAARC economic integration and south Asia.

(2) A Pakistan on the verge of collapse as it is now. Economically and from a security point of view the PA/ISI are busy tackling the threat in their own country and the "Jihadi" mosters that they had a hand in creating. This keeps them away from planning terror strikes in mainland India. Keeps global pressure on PA/ISI to tackle all terrorist groups. And makes them think twice before openly supporting kashmir-centric terrorist groups.

(3) A stable Pakistan where PA/ISI may not be in power but are still in control. They can dictate foreign policy specially vis a vis India. They control the economy and are powerful enough to do a coup whenever they like. The PA/ISI will continue to spread propaganda about India to consume a large amount of resources and scuttle any peace talks with India. Economic benefits will not define such a relation. The people of Pakistan will most likely suffer the most under such a situation but although we may also suffer from concerted terrorist strikes it would be under the control of PA/ISI where these can be forced to tackle and reign them in. Pakistan under Musharraf and Zia are examples of these.

(4) The worst case scenario is still a violent break up of Pakistan due to the Taliban-AQ vs PA/ISI conflict. Not only will there be massive refugee and humanitarian crisis. The entire south asia will suffer as it comes to be looked at as a risky area to do bussiness. Nukes int he hands of possible Taliban/AQ sympathisers will scuttle any foreign investment and India will definitely suffer economically as well. Let alone the fallout of actual nukes being fired. Once Pakistan breaks ups or falls to the Taliban, the fallout will defintely be the worst possible option for India and will take years if not decades to catch up economically while other countries like China missout out on much of the fallout.
 
Joined
Feb 16, 2009
Messages
29,799
Likes
48,278
Country flag
ejaz from the list of scenarios you gave how would the first scenario be accomplished withouth leading to the last scenario? There are many players in the scheme of things; ISI/Army/Dictator in charge, Taliban, Al Queda,jehadi groups LET etc, then you have the foreign powers who support many of these terrorist by funding and supporting them CIA,Chinese and even Japanese. If ISI/ARMY were to lose control it would lead to the fourth scenario, The leaders have chosen this destructive path and the innocent public has to suffer but so far no leader has tried to change from this path and they had decades to do it.
 

Vladimir79

Professional
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Messages
1,404
Likes
82
It is a state built on the foundation of four nations. Several of these nations have joined in on the terror machine that the Taliban represents. You have Pahktoons, Balochis, Kashmirs, and even Punjabs now creating havoc accross the country. The British Empire never was good at drawing borders along cultural lines. Has anyone ever considered the partition of Pakistan?

1) You get seperate states with regional control over their own interests
2) You get accountable entities that are subject to international pressures
3) Pakistan nukes would no longer be a regional threat to anyone
4) Foriegn Wahhabi infuence could be greatly curbed since support comes from nationalist goals
5) The dissolution of PA and ISI would mean no more (large scale) state funded terror
6) The tribal areas would have much more control over their lives leading to less militancy
7) People in general would just have alot less to complain about
 

tarunraju

Sanathan Pepe
Mod
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
9,080
Likes
40,077
Country flag
I think we're being too vain with our infinitely superior security situation vis-à-vis the elements that are destabilizing Pakistan. If Pakistan falls, we're pretty much next. Not in essence that a failed state next to us would hold the power to run us over, but definitely that a failed state has the 'convenience' of zero accountability over any of its elements causing harm to us. Think "Somali Pirates".

Somali Pirates continue with they are doing, while there literally is no 'state' that the international community can pull up and pin down. Somalia is in such a bad shape that no powerful military in its right mind would even want to harm it, because it just isn't viable. There's nothing that Somalia can give you in return for "enduring freedom", a piracy-free Gulf of Aden isn't worth it.

Likewise, the weakening of the Pakistani state would also decrease its accountability over elements within the state trying to harm other countries, particularly India. Tomorrow, the weaker Pakistan will merely say "there's nothing we can do about it", and they'll really mean it.

This is where the India needs to play its cards. All said and done, a weaker Pakistan is not in our interests, just as Pakistan in its present state isn't either. However, a politically stable Pakistan has been better for us. Under Musharraf, we did see a small, but significant improvement in our relations, our borders eased up, we had cricket and media ties, all when we had just finished a conflict in 1999. India must act, and its action should be towards giving Pakistan a government that benefits it, and is relatively OK with us, all while being two sovereign states.
 

ejazr

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,523
Likes
1,388
ejaz from the list of scenarios you gave how would the first scenario be accomplished withouth leading to the last scenario? There are many players in the scheme of things; ISI/Army/Dictator in charge, Taliban, Al Queda,jehadi groups LET etc, then you have the foreign powers who support many of these terrorist by funding and supporting them CIA,Chinese and even Japanese. If ISI/ARMY were to lose control it would lead to the fourth scenario, The leaders have chosen this destructive path and the innocent public has to suffer but so far no leader has tried to change from this path and they had decades to do it.
LF we have to realise that realpolitik is different from idealistic scenarios. At present, US is still the superpower and we have to take into account their interests as well and converge their and our interests. It would be a grave mistake to go against US interests at this point in time.

AFAIK Japanese have never provided any military support. Its only beent he US or China mainly and just as we have made US undertand our point of view, we have to co-opt China as well and make them realise that scenario (1) is what we should have in Pakistan. Difficult but its a long term process.

We underestimate India's "soft" power focus that can really tilt the balance in Pakistan. Providing humanitarian assitances, giving scholarships to Indian unis students from not just Punjab but other provinces. Actively promoting through media both print and video about how favourable a civil PAkistan is and explaining the fallacy of a PA/ISI controller Pakistan. At present the PA/ISI has an active propaganda machine churning out how PA is a blessing for the country. Just two years back before 26/11 PA had the lowest opinion among Pakistani people and that was why Musharraf was forced out of power. It is that popular protest that we must support.

Ofcourse its not an easy task, but some things in this regard would be supporting provincial autonomy so that the provinces get more decision making power, this would break the control of PA/ISI on the provinces. Another is using military diplomacy in a smart way. I'm sure many can see now the wisdom of avoiding military strikes against Pakistan in the aftermath of 26/11 but instead going public with the proofs where even China was forced to censure Pakistani groups in UN resolutions. The people who think unstable and violent break up of Pakistan is good were most likely the same who wanted to attack Pakistan after 26/11 as well. This naive policy would have given an excuse for PA/ISI to stop their operations, solidified TTP, AQ and PA co-operation and bought the ire of US as well as China. How sucessfully would that have been?

At all times we have to tackle different actors in Pakistan. A hardline approach towards the PA/ISI and the softline approach towards the people and empowering the people over the hawks and PA/ISI. Its a difficult task, but if India as an emergin "superpower" can't influence its own neighbourhood then I don't think we can ever be referred to one as such. An economically well intergrated SAARC is a prerequiste on this path.
 

Yusuf

GUARDIAN
Super Mod
Joined
Mar 24, 2009
Messages
24,324
Likes
11,757
Country flag
Many What-ifs In Pakistan

WASHINGTON: What if Pakistan breaks up? It's a question a friend asked recently. He is a former diplomat, a man of wide international experience

who holds reasoned opinions. "Why should we Indians be worked up? If it breaks up, let it go," he said.

We had a cracking debate about it that evening. I wondered whether strategy shops in India, in government and out, had drawn up alternative scenarios of the consequences of such a calamity. "There's no need," he said. "It won't be any different from what we have to face today. If anything, it will be a little easier."

The conversation came back to me when an Islamabad-datelined news item in this newspaper last week said that several Pakistanis had left or were planning to leave their homeland, so dangerous and exasperating life had become there. That doesn't mean that Pakistan will soon be drained of people. It just means some of those who can, mostly from the middle and upper classes, will leave; some, alas, will be the ones with the best minds. The super rich already have a foot in other countries, with villas and estates to care for. Everyone else - the vast majority - will have no option but to stay back. Or, and this is the scary part, will want to run for their lives, helter-skelter, if Pakistan indeed begins to unravel. But where will they go for refuge?

The problem is that if its people start to desert Pakistan, they won't necessarily go in any predictable, orderly manner. There won't be a last person to leave who will turn the lights out and Pakistan will become a dark spot on the map. 'Break-up' is a convenient term in a speculative chat. No one knows exactly how it might happen.

What might a disintegrated Pakistan look like? My friend thinks Balochistan is the province most likely to break away; the north-west frontier area is formally inside Pakistan's borders but is more or less autonomous. The tribes and terrorists there don't care for national borders anyway. So, Pakistan will become Punjab and Sindh, which it has in fact been all these years. How would that make a difference to India?

Well, that's one scenario. But its outcome is not as neat as it might seem. The Pakistani military is unlikely to just let Balochistan go, it will fight tooth and nail to keep the province within Pakistan. As it fights insurgents in Balochistan, its eyes will have to move away from the Taliban, who just might decide to take bold risks.

Here's another scenario: The army, under American pressure, continues to fight the Taliban within Pakistan and the Taliban, with the help of other radical groups spawned and nurtured by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) wing, continues to chip away at the nation's institutional edifice as well as citizens' endurance with an unending series of terrorist attacks in the cities, as it is currently doing. Before long, elements within the army and the ISI, who never wanted to fight their brethren and who hate the Americans, start to break away from the military to go over to the other side. When such a trickle becomes a steady stream, if not a flood, then what?

In other words, if the Taliban, with support from a section of the army, some day takes over in Islamabad, do we say, "Tsk, tsk", and carry on as if nothing happened? Wouldn't Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat have to prepare refugee camps? And, sorry to raise the issue, but won't we have to wonder who controls the nuclear buttons across the border? A fire next door, unfortunately, can singe the neighbourhood.


An unlikely scenario, many might say. But, improbable? Surely not. Remember, ever since the late General Zia-ul Haq began Islamising the military, devout bearded men have existed in good numbers within the rank and file as well as the officers' corps of the Pakistani army and the ISI. Some are already believed to be working with the Taliban and other terrorist groups. If and when the American pressure eases, and if the Pakistani army returns to its old ways, the Taliban's day will dawn once again.

Which brings up a third scenario: A year down the road, US president Barack Obama capitulates to mounting domestic pressure, much of it from his own party, and decides to wind down the American presence in Afghanistan. The ISI tells the Taliban to wait quietly till the infidels have gone. And then move in. Bingo! We can all move back to September 10, 2001. The Taliban, with guidance from the Pakistani forces who are perpetually seeking strategic depth against India, gains effective control over Afghanistan. The Lashkar-e-whatevers and the al-Qaeda are delighted. The Pakistani army is happy that the security of the western flank is outsourced once again to proxies while it resumes directing its low-intensity conflict against India.

Unlikely? Perhaps. Improbable? No. Many Americans are busy comparing their involvement in Afghanistan to Vietnam and asking whether it is worth any more time and effort. There are, however, others who are calling such comparisons nonsensical, since the two situations are entirely different, and are insisting that the stability of both Afghanistan and Pakistan is vital for the world to gain a respite from terrorism. New Delhi can only hope that the latter group wins the argument.

The writer is a former executive editor of this paper.
Many What-ifs In Pakistan - Edit Page - Opinion - Home - The Times of India
 

RPK

Indyakudimahan
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,970
Likes
229
Country flag
The Hindu : National : Tharoor: we want a stable neighbour

PALAKKAD: Union Minister of State for External Affairs Shashi Tharoor said here on Thursday that India had no intention to destabilise Pakistan and it only wanted a strong and stable neighbour.

Talking to reporters, he said New Delhi wanted Islamabad to take strong action to curb terror emanating from its soil. If this was done bilateral ties could be normalised.

Mr. Tharoor said there was no basis for the allegation that India was supporting Taliban against Pakistan. “It is an absurd charge.”

On the border issue with China, he said talks were on to resolve it peacefully. There was growing cooperation between the two Asian powers in economy, trade, commerce, culture etc.

There was no evidence to suggest that there was a conspiracy by some vested interests to spoil the good relationship between the two neighbours.
 

Ray

The Chairman
Professional
Joined
Apr 17, 2009
Messages
43,132
Likes
23,834
Contrary to the boasts of Pakistani Muslims that they are descendants of Arabs or Persia and not of sub continental origin, here is an interesting article:

Insiders, not invaders

Muslims across India are predominantly south Asian in origin, concludes a major forensic study. Prasun Chaudhuri reports:

When Ikramul Haque was studying biology at the Aligarh Muslim University, he was deeply intrigued by the questions raised on the genetic ancestry of Indian Muslims. Those were the turbulent mid-1980s, when religious zealots were describing Muslims across the country as the “descendants of foreign invaders” and “rank outsiders”. By the time he completed PhD in life sciences in 1989, he nursed a secret ambition to piece together the paternal and maternal lineage of Indian Muslims by analysing samples of blood — the ultimate repository of ancestral DNA.

Years later, while working as a DNA expert at Calcutta’s Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL), Haque got the chance to embark on his long-cherished dream. “I knew a DNA study on Muslims around the country would provide a persuasive answer to the age-old question raised about their genetic heritage,” says Haque.

According to him, historical evidence suggests that some Indian Muslims could be descendants of either Iranian and Arabian invaders who married local Hindu women or locals who converted. “We therefore sought to examine contemporary Indian Muslim populations for the occurrence of Middle Eastern genetic signatures (in their DNA samples), expecting them to be manifested in the male line,” reports Haque in a recent issue of the European Journal of Human Genetics (EJHG). “For this, we chose six Muslim populations from three different geographical regions of India that witnessed several human migrations, military invasions from the Middle East and proselytising of native Hindu populations,” he adds.

So Haque and his co-researcher Muthukrishnan Eaaswarkhanth analysed blood samples collected from Dawoodi Bohras (in Tamil Nadu and Gujarat), Iranian Shias (Hyderabad), Indian Shias (Uttar Pradesh), Indian Sunnis (Uttar Pradesh) and Mapplas (Tamil Nadu). “It was for the first time that a research group was extensively examining the genetic patterns of nearly 500 Muslim individuals across India,” Haque told KnowHow. To pin down the telltale genetic footprints, the DNA experts looked into three components of the blood samples. To trace the father’s ancestry, they zeroed in on the DNA on the Y-chromosome, which like the patrilineal surname passes down unchanged from father to son. Maternal lineage tests were derived from mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which is passed from a mother to her child. In addition, they used a unique genetic marker — called LCT/MCM6 lactose tolerance gene variant — which appears to have arisen in Arabs and is associated with the consumption of camel’s milk, an important survival trait in desert nomads.

“Our extensive genetic analyses revealed the greatest affinity of the Indian Muslim populations with indigenous local non-Muslim populations [or the Hindus],” conclude Haque and Eaaswarkhanth in the paper. “In this study, no significant excess of paternally transmitted genetic signal was found, unlike the Muslim communities in China and Central Asia which show a marked presence of Western Y-chromosomes. However, detectable minor frequency of sub-Saharan maternal and Middle Eastern paternal lineages were found to be present in some of the Indian Muslim communities.”

The most interesting finding is that the Dawoodi Bohras, a Muslim community following the Shia faith and speaking Gujarati, are a distinct genetic entity with sub-Saharan African and Arabian maternal lineages, suggesting that some of their ancestors migrated from Yemen, an Arabian country with strong links with sub-Saharan Africa. The sub-Saharan African / Arabian-specific paternal lineage was also found in the Shia Muslims of Lucknow, the erstwhile state of Awadh. The Iranian Shias — recent immigrants from Iran who settled in Hyderabad — too have close genetic affinity with the people of West Asia. “We propose a scientific model according to which the spread of Islam in India was predominantly cultural conversion associated with minor but still detectable levels of gene flow from outside, primarily from Iran and Central Asia, rather than directly from the Arabian Peninsula,” write Haque and his colleagues.

“The findings seem to corroborate archaeological, historical and linguistic evidence that the majority of Indian Muslims are descendants of local people who converted,” says Amalendu Mukherjee, a former professor of history, Calcutta University. “For that matter, many of the military invaders, such as the first Mughal ruler Babur’s forefathers, were also converts — they embraced Islam just a few generations before he was born.”

According to Mukherjee, DNA imprints are the latest evidence in the arsenal of a historian. Another eminent historian (who doesn’t want to be named), however, doesn’t support studies on religion based on DNA. He says, “I don’t think there is any need of DNA profiling of the followers of a particular religion. In any case, they’ve found something very obvious.”

On the contrary, Susanta Roychoudhury, one of the pioneers of genetic anthropology in India, believes that such studies can dispel any doubt regarding the history of human migration in the country. “The study is unique and addresses an important issue,” says Roychoudhury, deputy director of the Indian Institute of Chemical Biology, Calcutta. “It proves once again that there is a fundamental genetic unity in the seemingly diverse ethnic India and that there is no Hindu or Muslim identity in the genetic realm.”

Locals
Therefore, if Pakistan disintegrates, there is nothing to bother about.

They will merely coalesce as per their ethnicity and sub national groups.
 

AkhandBharat

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
542
Likes
79
WASHINGTON: What if Pakistan breaks up? It's a question a friend asked recently. He is a former diplomat, a man of wide international experience

who holds reasoned opinions. "Why should we Indians be worked up? If it breaks up, let it go," he said.

We had a cracking debate about it that evening. I wondered whether strategy shops in India, in government and out, had drawn up alternative scenarios of the consequences of such a calamity. "There's no need," he said. "It won't be any different from what we have to face today. If anything, it will be a little easier."

The conversation came back to me when an Islamabad-datelined news item in this newspaper last week said that several Pakistanis had left or were planning to leave their homeland, so dangerous and exasperating life had become there. That doesn't mean that Pakistan will soon be drained of people. It just means some of those who can, mostly from the middle and upper classes, will leave; some, alas, will be the ones with the best minds. The super rich already have a foot in other countries, with villas and estates to care for. Everyone else - the vast majority - will have no option but to stay back. Or, and this is the scary part, will want to run for their lives, helter-skelter, if Pakistan indeed begins to unravel. But where will they go for refuge?

The problem is that if its people start to desert Pakistan, they won't necessarily go in any predictable, orderly manner. There won't be a last person to leave who will turn the lights out and Pakistan will become a dark spot on the map. 'Break-up' is a convenient term in a speculative chat. No one knows exactly how it might happen.

What might a disintegrated Pakistan look like? My friend thinks Balochistan is the province most likely to break away; the north-west frontier area is formally inside Pakistan's borders but is more or less autonomous. The tribes and terrorists there don't care for national borders anyway. So, Pakistan will become Punjab and Sindh, which it has in fact been all these years. How would that make a difference to India?
The difference would be that Pakistan then would be a land-locked country with no access to ports, thus giving India an advantage by breaking up the pearls in the string that China is trying to create. With balochistan free, India can make it a protectorate state like Maldives and route the pipeline from Iran to Balochistan to India, effectively leaving pakistan out of the picture. Moreover, pakistan will be ever so dependent on foreign gas, which will then give Iran a leverage over it even more, thus improving the ties between India and Iran.The choke point will then be balochistan for china in addition to Malacca strait.

Well, that's one scenario. But its outcome is not as neat as it might seem. The Pakistani military is unlikely to just let Balochistan go, it will fight tooth and nail to keep the province within Pakistan. As it fights insurgents in Balochistan, its eyes will have to move away from the Taliban, who just might decide to take bold risks.

Here's another scenario: The army, under American pressure, continues to fight the Taliban within Pakistan and the Taliban, with the help of other radical groups spawned and nurtured by the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) wing, continues to chip away at the nation's institutional edifice as well as citizens' endurance with an unending series of terrorist attacks in the cities, as it is currently doing. Before long, elements within the army and the ISI, who never wanted to fight their brethren and who hate the Americans, start to break away from the military to go over to the other side. When such a trickle becomes a steady stream, if not a flood, then what?

In other words, if the Taliban, with support from a section of the army, some day takes over in Islamabad, do we say, "Tsk, tsk", and carry on as if nothing happened? Wouldn't Punjab, Rajasthan and Gujarat have to prepare refugee camps? And, sorry to raise the issue, but won't we have to wonder who controls the nuclear buttons across the border? A fire next door, unfortunately, can singe the neighbourhood.
No, we don't have to wonder or worry about who controls the nuclear button next door. The civil war would mean pakistan would be in turmoils for atleast a decade if not more. In that period, India can effectively multiply its conventional warfare advantage vis-a-vis pakistan while deploying an ABM shield and more spy satellites to track down launches. Any missile launch can be detected within seconds even now, and that is the reason why the two countries notify in advance. With the ABM in place, all major cities away from the border can be protected, while the four cities in pakistan can be completely and utterly annihilated.

An unlikely scenario, many might say. But, improbable? Surely not. Remember, ever since the late General Zia-ul Haq began Islamising the military, devout bearded men have existed in good numbers within the rank and file as well as the officers' corps of the Pakistani army and the ISI. Some are already believed to be working with the Taliban and other terrorist groups. If and when the American pressure eases, and if the Pakistani army returns to its old ways, the Taliban's day will dawn once again.

Which brings up a third scenario: A year down the road, US president Barack Obama capitulates to mounting domestic pressure, much of it from his own party, and decides to wind down the American presence in Afghanistan. The ISI tells the Taliban to wait quietly till the infidels have gone. And then move in. Bingo! We can all move back to September 10, 2001. The Taliban, with guidance from the Pakistani forces who are perpetually seeking strategic depth against India, gains effective control over Afghanistan. The Lashkar-e-whatevers and the al-Qaeda are delighted. The Pakistani army is happy that the security of the western flank is outsourced once again to proxies while it resumes directing its low-intensity conflict against India.

Unlikely? Perhaps. Improbable? No. Many Americans are busy comparing their involvement in Afghanistan to Vietnam and asking whether it is worth any more time and effort. There are, however, others who are calling such comparisons nonsensical, since the two situations are entirely different, and are insisting that the stability of both Afghanistan and Pakistan is vital for the world to gain a respite from terrorism. New Delhi can only hope that the latter group wins the argument.
This scenario is impossible. Unites States knows that its in for the long haul and its most liberal president agrees that Afghanistan is too unstable and until the organizations like LeT and Al Qaida are destroyed from Afghanistan and NWFP it will not leave. Pakistan knows that it has no alternative but to act against the radical islamist organizations because they breed hate against the west. America is not leaving Afghanistan anytime soon like Iraq. It will have a permanent base to gather intelligence about the local movements who are capable of striking attacks on US soil and will try to nip them in the bud. The drone attacks are only the beginning. Just look at Hillary Clinton's statement today: "Al-Qaida has had safe haven in pakistan since 2002," she finally asserted when challenged about Washington’s tough prescriptions for Islamabad. "I find it hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where they are and couldn't get them if they really wanted to."

America is aware of the double game that pakistan is playing and its in the subcontinent for the long haul. Sooner or later, the US will realize that balkanization of pakistan and stripping it of its 50-60 nukes will be key if it doesn't want a dirty nuclear strike on its soil. The end of pakistan is near. The wolves can smell it.
 

IBM

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
193
Likes
1
Weak ,unstable,poor, non- Nuclear,disintegrated Pak is good for India. uncle Sam is just doing it. Hope they do it quickly to make our world safe.
 

ejazr

Ambassador
Joined
Oct 8, 2009
Messages
4,523
Likes
1,388
Weak ,unstable,poor, non- Nuclear,disintegrated Pak is good for India. uncle Sam is just doing it. Hope they do it quickly to make our world safe.
US has done far more to keep Pakistan together than any other country in the world. From weapons sales to economic aid to supporting Pakistan in international forums, US has always supported Pakistan. The second biggest US embassy in the world is located in Pakistan. Expecting US to work for India's interests, especially looking at the past 60+ year history and disregarding their own is the biggest fallacy for any Indian. Especially since it continues to be quite malleable to US interests and basically follows their ****tats in issues concerning them.

What is really funny though is that most Pakistanis are by far more anti-American than anti-Indian.


P.S.: I request all those who make a statement either way to actually discuss WHY they think that way. Otherwise its just emotional rhetoric with no sound basis.
 

amitkriit

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2009
Messages
2,463
Likes
1,927
Weak/Volatile Pakistan is in India's interest as long as nuclear weapons don't go into hands of insurgents, and those maniacs don't infiltrate into our borders to launch "Holy Jihad" against our country after defeating the na-Pak-istan government, as they like to call it.
 

Latest Replies

Global Defence

New threads

Articles

Top