The US & others working with Pakistan

[ganulv]

The whole "obsession with India" shtick is swallowed whole in this article as if it makes perfect sense. It does not make sense. It is what causes otherwise "moderate" (meaning whisky drinking) generals to keep protecting jihadi militias in pakistan and keep trying to bring down liberal politicians. It is the narrative that has kept an otherwise promising nation hostage for 65 years.

Is the obsession with India often no more than an excuse for doing things that decent human beings know down deep they shouldn’t do? Yes. Is India a real threat to Pakistan? Yes. It is not as if India is to Pakistan as the United States is to Canada. We’re talking about a BRIC country and a Third World country. The Indian government can afford to be the bigger man and they haven’t been.

I’m not trying to be an apologist for the Pakistani elite. They can be disingenuous in the extreme. That does not mean that the potential for harm to Pakistan emanating from Indian is any less genuine.

[Ken White]

I'll make the Popcorn while we're waiting for Ray or Blueblood among others...

[carl]

The Indian government can afford to be the bigger man and they haven’t been.

Considering Kargil, Mumbai and several other things I've forgotten, just how much do the Indians have to take before they make the grade as a bigger man?

[Madhu]

That does not mean that the potential for harm to Pakistan emanating from Indian is any less genuine.

Evidence to support this assertion? What historical evidence of events in history rather than, say, anything written by an analyst in an American or British (be careful with Whitehall) think tank or military journal?

What is this current dire existential Indian threat that requires a multitude of jihadi training camps in Punjab and Kashmir, more nukes than the UK, and the targeting of Shias or other minorities by "rogue" elements of the intelligence services and the treatment of Afghanistan as a client state forever under the control of Rawalpindi?

Seriously, I'd love to have this discussion because the "threat of India" thing is a canard that has embedded itself within the Western policy community even though the evidence is mostly, "that one general I met that one time in Karachi told me they felt threatened by India." And, also, if the American people knew the truth, well, no more foreign military sales!

Afpak pop-COIN, strategic depth, encirclement: all bs theories perfectly suited for a public that knows little about India and Pakistan outside any standard Western sources.

When you take up a client state, and you are busy with other things, the most interesting ideas take hold in PRISM, The Armed Forces Journal, and The Army War College. "Hey, you gotta understand, there are multiple centers of power in Pakistan. Our "t wing" works against the "s wing" of the ISI. We got pro-US guys on our side, man!" The chapter on this stuff in Dereliction of Duty II is gonna be brutal....

I can't wait to hear some of the theories. I really can't. I think this is a wonderful tangent and I look forward to further entries.

(The Whitehall thing is kinda tongue in cheek, kinda not. Say, where do most British Pakistani Muslims come from, demographically? Well, a big chunk from Punjab and, wait for it, Kashmir! Ding, ding, ding....Gee whiz, wonder where the "solve Kashmir, solve Pakistan" stuff comes from?)

PS: Who has been holding out on a bilateral trade deal with India for years and years and years? It ain't the dreaded attacking Indians!

PPS: Ever notice the Indians and Pakistanis talk about that world in a completely different way than Brookings or State or the DOD? I mean, even the paknationalists? Weird, huh?

[Madhu]

I'll make the Popcorn while we're waiting for Ray or Blueblood among others...

This is worthy of popping popcorn.

Hope my comment above didn't come across as too mean. I really do enjoy discussing this topic because I love to know why people think what they think

[Ray]

I'll make the Popcorn while we're waiting for Ray or Blueblood among others...

Madhu has replied most succinctly.

Though Omar may not agree, but one has to understand what 'engineers' the Pakistani psyche.

That apart, sub-nationalities also came into play. The land (Pakistan) belonged to the West Pakistanis who were the "sons of the soil" and yet, unlike the West Pakistanis who were the feudal lords, jagirdars (large land holders who had been given this as rewards for loyal service to the Raj, mostly military men), military men (this was the recruiting zone for Muslims of the British Indian Army) and a large mass of illiterate and bonded peasants, the Mohajirs (refugees from India) were the educated elite, well versed in government administration, judiciary, commerce and so on. It was but natural that the instruments of governance to include judiciary and commerce were taken over by the Mohajir and they became the natural "heirs" to Pakistan. Obviously, it did not endear the Mohajir to the "sons of the soil"! However, in the euphoria of having got their "Land of the Pure", it did not have public manifestation, even though it simmered below the surface.

The Mohajir were equally uncomfortable, they had no roots to the land, being basically usurpers! They had to create an identity for themselves that would make them acceptable. They used Islam (which no Muslim could dare contest) as the foundation and imposed their language, Urdu, as the national language. Thus, they became the de facto ruling class of the newly created Pakistan, the sons of the soil coming a poor second!

Kashmir came as manna to the sons of the soil who were the backbone of the Pakistan Army. It helped the Army to showcase themselves as the sword arm and champion of Islam, and muscled back into reckoning. Ever since, they have ensured that the Army is made the paramount shareholder in Pakistani politics and governance.

The extent the Army has taken over the reins of governance has been illustrated in Musharraf’s book In the Line of Fire. ISI, in addition, has become a major player ever since Zia’s foray into Afghanistan and which is so evident till date.

Democracy has lost its sheen in Pakistan due to the rampant corruption signaturing every single Pakistani government, and this has given ipso facto the military the right to remove governments and install themselves without any protest from the citizenry. This is the rationale for the see-saw in government formation that is seen in Pakistani governance between the elected government and the military.

To add to the murky milieu of the Pakistani governance, thanks to Zia, who promoted Islam as the panacea of all ills, as also to give legitimacy to his illegitimate government, the fundamentalist terrorists have found a chord and acceptability with the Pakistani populace in the misconceived belief that Islam shall reign supreme. One cannot fault them, especially the unlettered ones, since it is instilled in their psychology that Islam is uber alles being the true religion, and a Muslim is the purest form of human existence in all aspects.
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/interview-with-ray

In other words, they, as a country, require the bogey of India to be relevant. It unites them and irons out their difference.

In order to rally people, governments need enemies. They want us to be afraid, to hate, so we will rally behind them. And if they do not have a real enemy, they will invent one in order to mobilize us.

- Thich Nhat Hanh

This is indicate the how the mindset is created right from childhood and in schools

The Subtle Subversion
The State of Curricula and Textbooks in Pakistan


The objective of the study was to identify problematic ontents of textbooks and to ascertain if the curriculum formulation was the source of such contents. The subjects chosen were those which can offer a greater space for political and ideological manipulation......

The first known work on the deliberate distortion of history for ideological reasons was from Pervez Hoodbhoy and A. H. Nayyar, pointing out the policy directive that had brought about the change and the subsequent distortions entering the Pakistan Studies textbooks, the foremost target of the process of Islamization of education.......

In another famous book on the subject, Murder of History in Pakistan, Professor Aziz analysed in detail 66 school textbooks and identified historical errors and inaccuracies......

In 1993 Rubina Saigol....She also identified such additional categories of problems in curriculum and textbooks as
'glorification of the military'.....

Our analysis found that some of the most significant problems in the current curricula
and textbooks are:

���� Inaccuracies of fact and omissions that serve to substantially distort the nature and significance of actual events in our history.

���� Insensitivity to the existing religious diversity of the nation

���� Incitement to militancy and violence, including encouragement of Jehad and Shahadat.

���� Perspectives that encourage prejudice, bigotry and discrimination towards fellow citizens, especially women and religious minorities, and other towards nations.

���� A glorification of war and the use of force

���� Omission of concepts, events and material that could encourage critical selfawareness among students

Outdated and incoherent pedagogical practices that hinder the development of interest and insight among students......

To give a few examples:

The books on Social Studies systematically misrepresent events that have happened throughout the Pakistan’s history, including those which are within living memory of many
people.

This history is narrated with distortions and omissions. The causes, effects, and responsibility for key events are presented so as to leave a false understanding of our
national experience. A large part of the history of South Asia is also omitted, making it difficult to properly interpret events, and narrowing the perspective that should be open to students. Worse, the material is presented in ways that encourage the student to marginalize and be hostile towards other social groups and people in the region.

The curricula and textbooks are insensitive to the religious diversity of the Pakistani society. While learning of Islamiat is compulsory for Muslim students, on average over a quarter of the material in books to teach Urdu as a language is on one religion. The books on English have lessons with religious content.

Islamiat is also taught in Social Studies classes. Thus, the entire is heavily laden with religious teachings, reflecting a
very narrow view held by a minority among Muslims that all the education should be essentially that of Islamiat.

There is a strong current of exclusivist and divisive tendencies at work in the subject matter recommended for studies in the curriculum documents as well as in textbooks.

Pakistani nationalism is repeatedly defined in a manner that excludes non-Muslim Pakistanis from either being Pakistani nationals or from even being good human beings.

Much of this material runs counter to any efforts at national integration.

The Constitution of Pakistan is cited but misinterpreted, in making the reading of the Qur'an compulsory in schools. The Constitution requires the compulsory reading of the
Qur’an for Muslim students alone, but in complete disregard of this restriction, it is included in the textbooks of a compulsory subject like Urdu which is to be read by
students of all religions. The Class III Urdu textbook has 7 lessons on Nazra Qur'an and its translations. The Urdu and Social Studies curricula even ask for all the students to be
taught Islamic religious practices like Namaz and Wuzu.

http://www.teachereducation.net.pk/reports/rp22.pdf

What more is required to be said as to 'grooming' of the mindset?

Enjoy your popcorn!

[ganulv]

that would go to such lengths as to create a peaceful nuclear explosion? Lesser men and women might be restrained by the reasonable prediction that their paranoid and militarily inferior neighbor would see the detonation of a nuclear device as a provocation, an imminent threat, a slap to its national pride, an impetus to redouble its own efforts to split the atom, and as a completely reasonable justification for the development of weapons of mass destruction as a deterrent. The Union Government, however, was bigger than this and forged ahead.

[Ray]

At the same time I will say this that as individuals, the Pakistanis are a good sort.

[Ray]

that would go to such lengths as to create a peaceful nuclear explosion? Lesser men and women might be restrained by the reasonable prediction that their paranoid and militarily inferior neighbor would see the detonation of a nuclear device as a provocation, an imminent threat, a slap to its national pride, an impetus to redouble its own efforts to split the atom, and as a completely reasonable justification for the development of weapons of mass destruction as a deterrent. The Union Government, however, was bigger than this and forged ahead.

Buddha smiled because of Pakistan?

One may indeed feel that the Indian Govt is inept, but within those inept people, some do have vision!

[ganulv]

At the same time I will say this that as individuals, the Pakistanis are a good sort.

One may indeed feel that the Indian Govt is inept, but within those inept people, some do have vision!

and cannot argue with the latter.

[Ken White]

Madhu:

Hope my comment above didn't come across as too mean. I really do enjoy discussing this topic because I love to know why people think what they think.

Not mean at all, good response and yes, why one might think India is to blame for Pakistani intranisigence on the subject is indeed interesting...

Ray:

Madhu has replied most succinctly.

Yes, she did and quite well, too...

Enjoy your popcorn!

Thanks you. I thought I would -- and I did...

ganulv:

One might question whether the nukes -- items of minor consequence in the history of relations in South Asia since 1947 -- were of less concern to India with respect to being seen as a provocation by a paranoid and militarily inferior neighbor as of being seen as potentially useful with respect to larger paranoid military peer neighbor to an extent that seemed to merit that apparent lack of concern for the fears of the smaller neighbor and the protestations of the then acknowledged nuclear holding powers including that larger neighbor... Whew (Fog index of ~9.5).

Or something like that...

[ganulv]

One might question whether the nukes -- items of minor consequence in the history of relations in South Asia since 1947 -- were of less concern to India with respect to being seen as a provocation by a paranoid and militarily inferior neighbor as of being seen as potentially useful with respect to larger paranoid military peer neighbor to an extent that seemed to merit that apparent lack of concern for the fears of the smaller neighbor and the protestations of the then acknowledged nuclear holding powers including that larger neighbor... Whew (Fog index of ~9.5).

Or something like that...

but I have always placed my bet with the believers as far as staying power goes. Because my Cold War years were spent surrounded by Southern Baptists, a people who refuse to acknowledge the existence of fog. I will however concede that the view from Delhi in the ‘70s was far cloudier than it was from Western North Carolina.

[Ray]

Fernandes: Popular but controversial minister

Indian Defence Minister George Fernandes, who resigned on Thursday over a bribery scandal, is a popular figure among the military rank and file.

But his outspoken character often caused ripples within the government.....

Following the nuclear tests, Mr Fernandes caused a diplomatic rift with China, which he described as India's "enemy number one."

He later denied the statement, saying it was wrongly interpreted.

Mr Fernandes openly supported the LTTE's struggle for a separate state in northern Sri Lanka.

He is also a high-profile supporter of the Burma pro-democracy movement, displaying a wall-size picture of Aung San Suu Kyi in his official bungalow, where Burmese underground leaders are frequent visitors.

As a minister, however, Mr Fernandes was particularly popular among soldiers on the front.

He made 18 visits to the icy heights of the Siachen glacier, "the world's highest battlefield" where Indian and Pakistani troops guard their respective stretches of the glacier through the year.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/1223625.stm

[davidbfpo]

Madhu wrote a few posts back, briefly on the Whitehall (UK) stance:

(The Whitehall thing is kinda tongue in cheek, kinda not. Say, where do most British Pakistani Muslims come from, demographically? Well, a big chunk from Punjab and, wait for it, Kashmir! Ding, ding, ding....Gee whiz, wonder where the "solve Kashmir, solve Pakistan" stuff comes from?)

Yes the kith & kin links of the Pakistani / Kashmiri communities in the UK, who are overwhelmingly in the English urban areas outside London, have had an impact on Whitehall and primarily via the Labour Party. The Labour Party IMHO has relied upon their electoral support and given very little in response domestically, let alone over Kashmir.

There has been very little UK aid to Azad Kashmir (AK) despite the kith & kin links. Even the recently built, DFID funded bridge shortening the journey time between AK and Islamabad was built by a Chinese contractor and not widely advertised. In fact our diplomats appear to have looked at other places from the safety of Islamabad, notably the Punjab for commercial reasons and NWFP for security reasons.

Locally it is evident that amongst the younger generation of British-born, Kashmiri origin there is less interest in AK, a place widely regarded as corrupt and far from a green paradise, with high youth unemployment. Not helped by the regular visits by AK politicians at election time to raise funds; Kashmiris here cannot vote in AK elections unless they return.

There is little appetite for "solve Kashmir, solve Pakistan" in Whitehall-Westminster, virtually no political pressure and less community interest, let alone passion.

In summary no solution here.

[omarali50]

About the narrative of Pakistani victimhood vis a vis India, I think it has outlived its usefulness. The Pakistani bourgeoisie (to use a useful Marxist term) is going to have to change gears and its not going to be a pretty process, but what choice do they have? the US may leave (may?) but its not just about the US...nobody can live with a Jihadi state, not even the jihadi state itself. Change will come. http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksd...urgeoisie.html

My version of the Pakistan story is at http://www.brownpundits.com/2011/05/...home-to-roost/

[Ray]

You would be responsible if we fail in war on terror: Pakistan to US

SLAMABAD: Foreign minister Hina Rabbani Khar on Thursday warned that the US would be responsible if Pakistan failed in the war on terrorism, a remark that comes in the backdrop of a move by American lawmakers to freeze aid worth $700 million to Islamabad.

The US would be responsible if Pakistan failed in the war on terrorism or if there were problems, Khar was quoted as saying by TV news channels here.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/w...ntenttarget=no

[carl]

Somebody probably made this observation before but the Pak Army's country sometimes reminds me of the sheriff in Blazing Saddles, "Give me money or I'll shoot myself!"

[Ray]

Son Bilawal unhappy with President Zardari's mild response to religious radicalization in Pak

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/w...w/11070151.cms

[davidbfpo]

An end of year review on American-Pakistan relations by the BBBC, no surprises till the end and citing Professor Hoodbhoy, a Pakistani academic, with my emphasis:

The US has made huge misjudgements during 2011 and while the Pakistani military leadership doesn't want a rupture with United States because of our huge economic dependence on them, there is the pressure within the ranks. They have seen Pakistan humiliated in the Nato attack, humiliated at the time of OBL and at the time of Raymond Davis. The generals see the rising Islamic radicalism creeping within the ranks and they know if they don't stand up to the Americans, they have no future," says Professor Hoodbhoy.

I think relations between Pakistan and US have deteriorated to a point where I think the break is not too far away.

Link to BBC article:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-16369301

Wikipedia one the professor:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pervez_Hoodbhoy

In all the posts on the relationship, primarily the USA, I don't think we have discussed what happens if the 'break' does come.

Clearly the use of Karachi and overland transport to Afghanistan, currently suspended AFAIK, is one issue (separate thread refers to logistics:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=6386 ). The use of a cross-border sanctuary (another separate thread:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ad.php?t=12162 ) is probably the most problematic, regional issue.

So SWC, what does happen?

[carl]

David:

Good question. I wish Omar and Ray would go first so I could ride their coattails but I'll take a chance. My comments are predicated on the Pak Army/ISI initiating the break and the US not prostrating itself before Pindi and the break remaining open.

First thing is when the next Mumbai occurs, India will strike back hard. The US would not try to stop them and nobody else would have any influence.

Indian influence and direct participation in Afghanistan would immediately increase and keep on increasing.

Conventional Pak Army military power would go into an immediate decline, though I don't know how steep, because all the spare parts and technical support for American weapons would stop.

They have been using Taliban & Co. against us but two can play that game. We have done it before. Things in Baluchistan might suddenly get very interesting.

The Pakistani nuclear and arms industries may suddenly experience a rash of unexplained computer problems.

A very large number of important people in Pakistan would suddenly be much poorer with little prospect of the money returning unless the break were mended. That might result in considerable friction between various factions in Pakistan. The internal conflict they have now might get even worse.

If a break were initiated by the Pak Army/ISI it would stand to reason that they would want to increase their support of the various Jihadi groups. If they more directly supported them, it is conceivable that there would be a successful terrorist attack upon the US originating from Pakistan. If that happened, things would go very bad, very fast for Pakistan. God only knows how, but it would.

I can't think of anything the Pak Army/ISI would gain except some short lived emotional satisfaction. The price for that would be almost certain long term disaster.