Printable View
Omarali
Thanks for the comments on Pakistan.
Very pragmatic on the manner of what is happening.
Do let us know more about the situation as it unfolds.
Have you anything to add on the inhouse investigation of how the Stealth Blackhawks could evade Pakistan attention.
I sure would like to know a bit more on Xe and Balochistan as also the alleged Indian involvement.
Thanks for the links.
Read in conjunction with Omar Ali's link http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp...6-5-2011_pg3_4 , it gives some idea of the contradictions, confusion and anguish that plague common Pakistanis and the helplessness to break from this vicious circle that prevents Pakistan to surface and find its rightful place as was visioned by its Founder, Md Ali Jinnah.Quote:
Fareed's Take: Pakistan's chance to become a normal country
Having been caught in a situation that suggests either complicity with al Qaeda or gross incompetence (and the reality is probably a bit of both), Pakistan is now furiously trying to change the subject. Senior generals angrily denounce America for entering the country.
A Pakistani friend put it to me this way: It's like a person caught in bed with another man's wife who is indignant that someone entered his house.
The military has also once again been able to cow the civilian government. According to Pakistani sources, the speech that Prime Minister Gilani gave at a recent news conference was drafted by the military. So having come to power hoping to clip the military's wings, Pakistan's democratically elected government has been reduced to mouthing talking points written for it by the intelligence service.
http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn....n-needs-to-do/
btw, I dont think Jinnah bhoy had much of a vision of anything. As a propaganda tool, it may be useful to pretend that he was a great secularist and liberal and whatnot, but lets not get carried away...
Jinnah's 11 Aug 19476 speech to the Constituent Assembly did show some liberalism and secularism.
What is the way out from the present conditions in Pakistan?
I am sure I've cited the journalist / academic Anatol Lieven before, who has just published a new book. Here is a six question & answer article that IMHO sums up current issues:http://harpers.org/archive/2011/05/hbc-90008092
Responding to the last question comparing India and Pakistan he replies:Link to book:http://www.amazon.com/Pakistan-Hard-...5635921&sr=1-1Quote:
India too suffers from domestic insurgency—the Naxalite Maoists control a much bigger proportion of the country than the Islamist militants do of Pakistan. I also do not think that Pakistan will probably become a failed state in the short term, unless the United States is provoked into destroying it. The question is whether it can ever really progress as a country—and if it doesn’t, whether it can survive in the long term.
Nicely put, although I expect Ray will have something to say on the Naxalites.
Hat tip to CLS daily summary 'Today's Terrorism News' which is by far the best found to date:http://centerlineblog.org/author/ctrlawsec/
I agree that India has many more areas of poor governance than Pakistan does, but that is not the whole story and Anatol Lieven (in his desire to be "fair and balanced") misses the point. The problem with Pakistan is not that some areas are under control of an Islamist insurgency. The tribal areas could form an independent republic and have minimal effect on the rest of the country. And Indian governance is far more rickety than the ISI's hold on Pakistan.
The problem is not governance (though that is a problem), the problem in Pakistan is that the "deep state" (for lack of a better word) is wedded to a mode of existence and an ideology that is dangerous while its failing and that becomes more dangerous if it becomes more successful. IF India becomes more like its advertised ideals (no country is exactly like its ideals, so we are talking about real life here) it will be a better country for its own people and for the world (a democratic, secular, progressive nation). On the other hand, IF Pakistan manages to pull away from its (admittedly confused and contradictory) ideals, it will be a successful rising Asian nation. That is a big difference.
A "successful" Pakistan that has not changed course would be a regional and international disaster. A "successful" India would be a pain in the butt in terms of arrogant public posturing, but it would be a "normal" country, with a kleptocratic ruling elite, lots of corruption, many small insurgencies and a security apparatus to match and more money than it has now. At most, it would start bullying small neighbors about old disputes and small neighbors would have to find patrons across the seas to withstand said bullying.
Western observers tend to fall into two groups: those who have an existing irrational (or rational, if you think Israel's zero-sum game with the Arabs is "rational") animus against Muslims and Arabs and will believe the worst about Pakistan no matter what. And a much larger group of sane people who are unable to imagine that serious policymakers somewhere might actually regard the paknationalist BS as more than "just propaganda". The eye cannot see what the mind does not know.
and so on.
I would not like to compare India and Pakistan on the same canvas but since one is on this subject, my two paisa views are being given.
The difference is as chalk to cheese.
India is a vast country, with many ethnicities, religions, languages, customs and culture. It is not so in Pakistan.
Pakistan, in comparison, is a small country and has manageable ethnicities, languages, customs and culture. Pakistan has the greatest boon – one religion, and that too, a religion that is clear in establishing that it is supreme. Its minorities are but a handful and their numbers do not count, while India has the second or third largest Muslim population in the world and some states have 30% of the population Muslim! Unlike India, where there are separate Personal Laws for the Muslims, which the Indian Muslims zealously guard, Pakistan has Islamic Sharia applicable to all, be they Muslim or Minorities and of course, Pakistan has the Blasphemy Law which licks into shape any deviant minority.
It is worth noting that the Constitution of India was amended to accommodate Muslim personal law which the Supreme Court had ruled was gender suppressive. Therefore, one can judge to the extent, secularism is protected. Is it perfect? Well, it is more perfect than many other countries with lesser contradictions in terms of religions, ethnicities, languages, customs and culture.
Of course, India’s governance is nothing to write home about. It is a Witches Brew. To imagine trying to chalk a straight path with so many contradictions as mentioned above and added to it is the huge divide between the rich and the poor, between the urban and the rural, between the educated and the illiterate and so on. And to top it all, corruption at high places that have gone unnoticed till recently because of subtle political control over what should have been autonomous institutions. The infamous Bofors case and Quattorochi comes to mind that remains a mystery because of politically nudged indifference to solving the same. The recent 2G spectrum scam incensed the nation so much that there was an All India agitation spearheaded by a non political social worker that brought the Govt nearly to its knees. A super law is in the making to ensure that all politicians and govt functionaries can be called to be accountable and all autonomous institutions including investigation agencies made real autonomous; and So, there is hope that there will be some improvement in governance….a hope!
Anatol Lieven does not compare India and Pakistan. He has merely commented that if Pakistan were a state of the Indian Union, it would be somewhere in the middle—far below such success stories as Karnataka, but well above such dreadful basket cases as Bihar.
On governance, he states India too suffers from domestic insurgency—the Naxalite Maoists control a much bigger proportion of the country than the Islamist militants do of Pakistan.
His comments on the Human Rights does not say much except ‘also goes for human rights in India, as Human Rights Watch reminded us in a recent report on the Indian police’.
Lieven’s comment in no way indicates that governance is more disconnected than Pakistan. Lieven forgets that Pakistan today is still afloat because of foreign money, be it American or Saudi and therefore, if Pakistan was to be less progressive than Karnataka and better than Bihar, then it indicates serious corruption coupled with misgovernance. I think he is not being charitable to Pakistan.
There is nothing wrong intrinsically with Pakistan. It is forgotten that under Ayub, Pakistan has a far better economy than India!
If Pakistan has spiralled downwards, it is because Zia overdid the religion card. So long as Pakistan was not in the grips of the born again Muslims and Mullahs, it was a vibrant nation. It was Zia who led Pakistan to the sorry state it is in.
A. H. Nayyar and Ahmad Salim, in a report for the Sustainable Development Policy Institute (SDPI) in Pakistan, have stated that the educational system in Pakistan was designed “from the very beginning” to reinforce “one particular view of Pakistani nationalism and identity, namely that Pakistan is an Islamic state rather than a country with a majority Muslim population.” Furthermore, the educational system needed to produce an image of a “singular homogeneous majoritarian Muslim identity that could be sharply differentiated from that of India, even though it meant suppressing the many different shades within Pakistan.”
This was done through myth-making and the embellishment of history. In a chapter on “Historical Falsehoods and Inaccuracies” in Pakistani education, Salim observes that many Pakistan Studies textbooks declare that Muhammad-bin-Qasim, an Arab general who led the Umayyad conquest of the Sindh and Punjab regions in the early eighth century, was Pakistan’s first citizen—a full twelve centuries before its independence in 1947. Indeed, one textbook simply declares that “although Pakistan was created in August 1947, . . . the present-day Pakistan has existed, as a more or less single entity, for centuries.”
In addition, the Pakistani public education system developed a , strongly anti-Indian and anti-Hindu bias in its curriculum as per Nayyar and Salim.
It is unfortunate that you all cannot understand Urdu but Najam Sethi, a journalist on Youtube subscribes to the same theory as Nayyar and Salim. Interestingly, it is in Pakistan history book that Pakistan was there right from the 8th Century and not a country born on 14 Aug 1947!
On Naxals and Maoists, in the next post.
Newsweek reports that Pakistan is well into the construction of a fourth nuclear reactor that will be probably be devoted to weapons production.
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/05/15/f...shab-site.html
If Newsweek figured this out using commercial satellite imagery our betters inside the beltway have known for a long time and have said nothing about it and certainly are not able to stop it, yet we pay and pay the Pak Army.
What the h--- it going on? We are quietly sitting by and helping to subsidize the destruction of the sub-continent.
American decision makers may not all have the same opinion of GHQ that you do. Some must be genuinely fond of their friends in GHQ and think they are capital blokes, what ho. Others may think its racist to regard Pakistanis as less capable of guarding their nukes than America is. Some may even think its a good idea to see the subcontinent run a little mini-cold war complete with nukes.
It takes all sorts.
Omar:
The important thing is what the Indians are going to think about all this. It occurs to me also that our betters inside the beltway may be very sensitive to what the General sahibs in 'Pindi think and say but I wonder if they are as sensitive to how the Indians view all of this, but like you said they may want to see a subcontinental war.
I'll bet you the Indians have looked very closely at Stuxnet and are dreaming something up.
The Americans are dangerous fools at times.
I think American policymakers are quite sensitive to what New Delhi thinks. Witness the skittering that took place when the President spoke about Kashmir last year, followed by the predictable explosion by the Indians.Quote:
Originally Posted by carl
Tequila:
I fear we may be sensitive to diplomatic protestations but not enough to actually do something about this. I fear India may one day decide we can't or won't do anything and act on their own. That wouldn't make much rational sense but emotions can drive things to places where rationality won't go.
This thread is about why we are working with the Pak Army/ISI. One of the stated reasons is always that we do so in order to insure nukes don't fall into the hands of irrational jihadists. It may be the nukes are already in the hands or the irrational and they are building more, with our money. We can at least cut off the funds, but we won't because the nukes might fall into the hands of the irrational. We are nuts.
There is a very interesting development going on in Pakistan beyond the latest shenanigans over OBL and the embarrassment and anger amongst the public.
Pakistan has made overtures to Russia that would have great import on the geopolitical and geostrategic equations in play in the region.
Russia could become another intense and active player in Pakistan in addition to the US and China.
Zardari has announced that Russians would have access to their ports, apart from other concessions.
A better analysis is at:Quote:
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Pakistan offers Russia access to “southern seas
http://voiceofkarachi.blogspot.com/2...access-to.html
http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead...?homepage=true
What is interesting is the intent of Russia working towards the return to its old glory and influence the region, if not the world.
One has to observe how the US will react to this move and what will it be its effect on the US presence in Afghanistan. Will the US abdicate the strategic space to Russia or not?Quote:
In Sochi, the new forum, which Mr. Medvedev described as “a working regional format,” was institutionalised as a permanent arrangement, independent of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation and the Collective Security Treaty Organisation, a defence bloc of former Soviet states focussed on Central Asia. …..
“Russia may become a donor of economic, social and military-political security for Afghanistan, Pakistan and Tajikistan,” Chairman of the Russian Parliament's Foreign Affairs Committee Konstantin Kosachev said commenting on the Sochi summit.
Pakistan would play a key role in the Russian plan in bringing the Russian influence deep South and into the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean. It will also spur the Russian presence in the Indian Ocean and that would not be in the US’ or Chinese interests.
It is a very smart move on the part of the much maligned Zardari to bring all key players in the world into Pakistan to balance any move to unbalance Pakistan by any power.
Yet, one has to see if the bringing in of all powers to play in Pakistan is beneficial or will it only make the situation more complex and explosive.
In so far as to the adding of a nuclear plant to Pakistan’s array, it is indeed disquieting. One wonders if it is for her chronic power shortage or for its nuclear stockpile. It is said that Pakistan has the fourth largest stockpile in the world. The development will be watched with keen interest, not only by India, but also others.
One can do little about Pakistan’s nuclear quest since any action would be an act of war. India naturally would not like to be labelled an aggressor.
However, there is great apprehension in Pakistan that the US could carry out an Abbotabad type of action against its nuclear assets.
The real real concern in India is another Mumbai like terror act, engineered by Pakistan.
This time, the Govt of India would not be able to pussyfoot since the wrath of the people would be inflamed beyond doubt.
What action would/should India take if it happened again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
The real problem is the Govt of India.
It is timid and prefers to 'ride it out'.
The US also encourages the Govt not to upset Pakistan since it would upset whatever little assistance it is getting from the Pak Army in KP.
The US in return provides information as they have done in the Headley case.
The Cold Start Doctrine, even though there are some gaps, can be activated since it is capable of being effective even in its present form since the Doctrine does not envisage a full scale war to the finish.
It is adequate since it was never the intention of India (Govt of India) to have a war to the finish, notwithstanding the Sunderjee Doctrine. Sunderjee was a great admirer of the US military thinking and theoretically wanted to replicate it in the Indian context.
Wars to the finish is not feasible since the international powers will intervene as they have always done. Then there is question of the capability to sustain financially prolonged wars. India is better off in this regard than Pakistan.
It is also a truism that no power would allow Pakistan to roll over since it would not be in their interest to have India the sole regional power, given the manner it is on the rise. None would like another China around.
Ray, your initial comment wasQuote:
Originally Posted by Ray
...but perhaps it is this very timidity of the GOI that will result in their attempting to "ride it out" again rather than in terms of Cold Start to effectively send troops into Pakistan and thereby risk tactical nuke retaliation from Pakistan and the escalation that would follow?Quote:
"This time, the Govt of India would not be able to pussyfoot since the wrath of the people would be inflamed beyond doubt."
If India were to become the sole regional power would it likely become aggressive and predatory like the US, Russia and China? Somehow I don't think so. How would a "timid" power impose itself on those in its region of influence?
PS: Ray as India is one of the few affected countries seemingly taking an aggressive approach to the rapidly spilling over Somali piracy your input (if you can find the time) would IMHO be welcome in the More Piracy Near Somalia thread.
Thanks to ray for his Indian perspective, so this link may help SWC to understand what we can expect from India:http://www.sunday-guardian.com/analy...ation-is-naive
Admittedly a comment on an Indian SF mission.
I did note this, which I've not seen elsewhere and concerned me:The author writes a weekly column, sometimes on national security issues and is a former senior police officer and intelligence officer (with RAW).Quote:
...was it necessary to place their troops along the Line of Control with India on "high alert"?....Fortunately, our official reaction as articulated by our foreign secretary on 6 May in Paris, of continued engagement with Pakistan, was mature and timely.
There is always a desire and tendency with the Indian Govt 'to ride out crises'Quote:
Originally Posted by JMA
I think it is because of a cultural problem.
I was just reading this today about the reflection of a Rajput King on the wars fought during the Mughal times between the Rajput and the Mughuls:
It makes me uncomfortable since it is not very PC, but then if one thinks about it, it does indicate a sort of fatalism and unwillingness to be aggressive since there is nothing in afterlife except reincarnation the level of increase in the form of existence in the next life, dependent on the karma of the present!! And to be non violent and being Goody Two Shoes elevates you to a better level of existence in your next life.Quote:
The truth is, I know nothing in our scriptures, which could compare with the motivation and power of Islam. We, too, could and do fight holy wars, but there is no mechanism for conversion in our religion. The urge to convert, definitely is one of the driving forces of Islam.
Our greatest call to war is the Bhagwat Gita, and what does the Gita say? Fight the war or perform the duties of your vocation, whatever they may be, but without thinking of the fruits and the consequence of your action. Compare this with what Islam codifies and spells out in most precise and factual manner. If you die fighting for your God, you go direct to Heaven where houris and other vividly described indescribable pleasures await you.
What is the afterlife the Gita offers? For the great mass of unenlightened souls, there is nothing but an endless cycle reincarnations. Unless we deliver certainties of afterlife and be specific of preternatural joys await those who fulfil their duties,I doubt if we will be able to match the Muslim's zeal or commitment. It is a wonder then that Hindus win was as many as they do!!
Of course, with modernity, very few would believe all this, but then who knows if maybe playing on the subconscious!
Thus, possibly the timidity of the Govt!
If the Govt 'rides it out' once more, then there will be a groundswell against the Govt. Politics in our country is basically for power and pelf and 5 years out of office is an unimaginable torture to them and their extended family. Therefore, they will have to act. There were the nuclear weapons when Kargil happened. Yet, they had to act and they did.
There is always the possibility of Pakistan using a tactical nuclear weapon.The world will be inflamed at the audacity and it will add to their ire of Pakistan being the womb of terrorism and a safe haven for terrorists. Pakistan will be in the international doghouse.
They cannot use the nuclear tactical weapons everywhere and the Indians would not be having a single thrust. It will be on a very broad front. The nuclear fallout will also affect the Pakistanis themselves and their civilians too. It will also affect civilian life in Pakistan after the war because of the residual effect.
It is a gamble that India has to take if they mean business and send a message that enough is enough.
The war will finally be called to a halt by the international powers. And if a tac nuke is used, it will be sooner than later.
If Pakistan is in the international doghouse and the war will be halted, India would have her way in the negotiations that would take place after the war since the world would not be favourable to those who use nuclear weapons, be they tactical or strategic.
I don't think the India, even if she ever becomes a regional power, will be in the same mode as the real powers.Quote:
If India were to become the sole regional power would it likely become aggressive and predatory like the US, Russia and China? Somehow I don't think so. How would a "timid" power impose itself on those in its region of influence?
The problem with India is her cultural psyche. Pacifism and riding the high moral high horse. Right from her Independence, this malaise has overpowered her thinking - this Gandhism of extending the other cheek and all that.
In the first Kashmir war, when the Indian Army was knocking at the door of Muazzfarabad and had linked Uri with Punch, good old 'holy' Nehru, called a stop and like a good boy left it to the UN leaving this unholy mess in Kashmir.
Recalled the troops back to Uri. My uncle was commanding this Brigade.
Instead of understanding realpolitik, Nehru ensured the Indian Army to be a ceremonial army with the Ordnance Factories producing coffee machines, till shaken by China in 1962. In fact, China by doing so, actually did India a favour and woke her from the Rip Van Winkle like eternal sleep!
1965, Pakistan attacked in the Rann of Kutch and like good boys, we allowed Wilson to mediate and part with some of the land. Pakistan, gleeful at this 'victory' clandestinely started Op Gibraltar and when the Kashmiri Muslim gujjars reported the infiltration, escalated it into a full fledged war! That Pakistan failed in its design is another story.
Then at Tashkent, the meek Indian PM Lal Bahadur Shastri (otherwise a good and honest man) was browbeaten to give up strategic gains like the Haji pir Pass.
1971 was a different matter when a woman (and they are dangerous and vicious! :) ), who was called the 'dumb doll, by her political opponents, was the PM. She taught a lesson to Pakistan, the wounds of which they are still licking.
Thereafter, Kargil where the Nation forced action. The Indian culture lulled all with the 'bus diplomacy' and the Mohajir Musharaff (they are the clever lot in Pakistan. In fact, I have published on the rational of the internal struggle between the 'sons of the soil' and the Mohajir (refugees from India) ) pulled the rug from under the feet of India. The fact that India did not cross the LC and enlarge the war was 'mature and statesmanlike' - sops given to satisfy personal egos by the international community petrified that a nuclear war was in the offing!!
Rampant terrorism spawned from across including Mumbai and India plays the role of 'matured statesmanlike' behaviour as many die! Human lives are cheap, so long it is not a politician's or their family's in India!
Like there is deep resentment against the US in Pakistan, there is deep resentment and its is growing at the supine behaviour of the Indian Govt in India.
But then there is saving grace for the pacifist. As more and more Indians become affluent, the less will be their desire to wreck their Nest Egg!
Quote:
PS: Ray as India is one of the few affected countries seemingly taking an aggressive approach to the rapidly spilling over Somali piracy your input (if you can find the time) would IMHO be welcome in the More Piracy Near Somalia thread.
Interesting comments.Quote:
Originally Posted by davidbfpo
PS Sorry if I rambled.
I think enlightened Indians should really grow up out of this "Islam envy". This is not the place for such (always lethal) arguments, but really, we live in a postmodern world where medieval ideologies are still useful for some purposes, but to look at them as if they in themselves will change the fate of nations is to miss what we have learned about human beings in the centuries since 1250 AD.
What works in this century can work in a Hindu country or a Muslim country or a Christian country or a Buddhist country or whatever, because what works involves sidelining and modifying a lot of pre-modern ideas. And those who think that the premodern ideas are complete and workable as they were..well, they didnt even try that in Taliban-ruled Afghanistan, so that is not even worth discussing.
You are absolutely right. I totally agree with you.
I was merely indicating the philosophy that drives India. The timidity and its rationale.
I was not on a discussion of religion per se. Too volatile for comfort. And anyway, I am handicapped on my knowledge of religion.
Interestingly, it may be news to many, but this timidity transcends religions in India. For instance the poems in Kashmiri of the famed Kashmiri Sufi saint Shah Gafoor :
Dah chhi avatar sah lagina tharun
Meh zan prazlan naran chum
Ram Ram karun gau nam sandarun
Dharnai dharun…Soham su
(There are ten incarnations of God, One should never be nervous. Narayana dazzle like the Moon. Repetition of the name Rama leads to one’s salvation. Meditate upon the Eternal).
So, this indicates the Indian docile mindset that transcends religion.
I was quoting from a book based on history of the time of Rana Sangha and the Mughuls.
I don’t think there is any envy involved. It is more of a reflection that there is overwhelming docility of the Indian mind and it is hardly a practical way to approach life. It is fine for those who are totally steeped in Soham but not for realpolitik.
In modern times, once the spiritual is left beyond the temporal, peace and sanity can prevail and of that there is no doubt.
Then, there would not be the turmoil in the name of religion.
Then, there will be no terrorists either, be it 9/11, 7/11 or Mumbai.
The Indian mindset is so evident in our approach. 9/11 brought instant retribution, while repeated terrorism including the Mumbai carnage, only encourages India to extend her hand of friendship and peace while people die, knowing fully well that terrorist are being harboured across the border.
While what you state 'we live in a postmodern world where medieval ideologies are still useful for some purposes, but to look at them as if they in themselves will change the fate of nations is to miss what we have learned about human beings in the centuries since 1250 AD' is indeed a way forward, but observing India's neighbourhood, one is not too sure that your prescription is what is being observed.
I was asked the Indian to explain the Indian docility and that is what I did.
I had no intention to discuss religion because I understand very little of it since it is not a structured religion where one has to attend religious instructions as a matter of lifestyle.
In case it has upset you, I would reiterate that it was not my intention.