If Pakistan Fails

[courageneverdies]

Logically, a nation whose top president is corrupt and facing trials against him is INDEED A FAILURE,

I can not help a blind to see. You are an oxymoron. President is being answerable to Justice and so does all the members of parliament. Isn't it an attitude of lively and brave nations? Whats the failure?

Secondly a nation which surrenderd itself to terrorists is a failed nation by itself, fighting a war against its national interest but just to make the west happy is yet another act of cowardliness,

Who surrendered? A fighting Pakistan to you appears to be surrendered? You need an eye-specialist a lot. Its our war and we are fighting it for our ownselves not for the west but with the west. Both West and Pakistan have the same threats and therefore we are eliminating them. If you call "Cooperation" making west happy, than I can't do nothing for you.

I don't know what you have been taught the definition of Cowardliness, in other parts of the world this is called Chivalry and bravery.

The worlds fifth largest army with just 520,000 troops struggling to keep its borders safe is again poor

What are troops for? Of course to safeguard the borders not to sell bangals. They are doing their work, whats your problem?

I thought Pak has the 7th largest Army in the world.

I heard its 5th. Anyhow, 7th ain't bad in 200...

LOL I like to point this out that this is a creation of internal mess and Pakistan did not want to acknowledge these facts. They needed world powers to pressurize them to take action.

Even now its all half hearted measures and I did not undermine your armed forces but the attitude higher up the order.

First, the peace pact with Swat TNSM was done despite of worst international pressure. So this is a fact that negates your point that Pakistan does evrything on the signals of International Powers. Secondly, Op. Rah-e-Rast was designed and operated by Pakistan Army by themselves not because of any international pressure.

In SWA the pressure was indeed there but still Pakistan Army was in accordance with the option of eliminating tought targets in SWA so it is not the result of International Pressure but the decision taken by the Pakistan Army and Pakistani Govt.

I will say it is not justified that we are sacrificing our soldiers and our civilians in bulk and you still call it half-hearted? And you might get that without the authorization of Higher Auths. the Lower Auths can't do much. Ain't talking of Politicians.

India or Pakistan, it doesnt serve any good to groom terrorists again any state and this is bound to boomerang.

Indeed...

I am not talking in terms of India being a saint. India has its fare share of activities in Sri Lanka. LTTE was infact nurtured by India. But, then when the ruling class realized the mistake and overturned the decisions, we had to pay our price. We lost an able PM and lots of terrorist activities got into South of India. Me being a Tamilian myself do not subscribe to tamil elam as a separate state. (Leaving this topic for some other thread)

Bottom Line: Its not the people of India / Pakistan to be blamed its the ruling class. And few people who are motivated by wrong preachings.

Same is the case with Pakistani Govt. What uprise we saw in Mush's period we had to pay price to down it.

Indeed People of Pakistan / India can not be blamed.

May god be with you and hope the same.

Thanks for this. Ameen.

I would not like a failed state trotting my border and at the same time a state itself grooming terrorists against another state. Both are equally dangerous.

Same here.

KIT Over n Out

 

[faithfulguy]

This is absolute rubbish.....these so called religious processions and preacher sessions have always been there .,...now if you mean to say that anyone should be allowed to pick up a loudspeaker and shout...thats against Law...as it is of public inconvenience....

India laws permit any kind of religious preachings all over the country....subject to the permissions from civil authorities.

I know for a fact that Mormons are not allow to proselytize in India. As many people from Europe, Japan, Russia and Americas know, the Mormons generally ride bikes with suites and clean cut look. People would see them riding their bike or knocking on the door. They are banned in India, but they are also banned in China and Pakistan. So India shouldn't worry to much as this policy is something that India,Chicoms and Pakistanis share.

 

[gogbot]

America does have some religious people. But the government allows freedom of religion and religious conversion. India does not allow Johova's witness or Mormons preaching in the streets. So in this regard, government of India does not provide as much religious freedom as the US government. It does not allow free religious proselytizing.

because of Lobbying by other religious groups.
Frankly speaking It was a public decision.
Which is always open to Future changes.

Beside the very idea of preaching religion on the streets is dangerous.
Your just inviting trouble.

And about going from house to house. That wont work in India. Its bad idea. People don't generally take kindly to strangers Coming to their houses.

Because of the root of Gandhi and congress party, its a center left party. India was not a big fan of capitalism for a long time after independence. Its only after reform in early 90s that cause the Indian economy to boom.

And so has MAny other economies.
Capitalism Was a new idea. Not accepted by all.
It was during the 80's that the Rajive Ghandi government fought the Communist Parties in India and initiated liberalization.

I'm not arguing that India subcontinent doesn't have its own civilization. It most certain have. Europe is one civilization make up of many counties. The hindu civilization of India is compose of one country. The reason was because the British was the dominate power in India. In Africa, there were many colonies from different nations. If the British was not able to conquere the whole India because of other European powers or native Indian princes were able to successfully resist the British, India would not be a whole country as it is right now.

Hindu Civilisation ?

Of course there were Hindu Kings in India.( the Gupta period was on of the golden ages in India.)

India created Bhuddism whose teachings have always been used by many Indian Emperor.

But then the Muslims. came to India. whilst at first iit was under sword that Islam came. It was the Suffi saints that bought Islam to the masses.

And The Mughal empire the Empire under Mughal Rule is regarded as the 2nd Indian Golden age.

Akbar was sultan Loved by all. And One of the first great secular idealists.

The Taj Mahal was Constructed by the Mugals

Then came the British to Depose the Mugals. who has since Akbar stagnated.

The History of India and the Indian Civilization is for all Born int sub-continet. Whether they be Hindu , Muslim Or Christian. Their faiths and their ancestors all are an Important Part of our history.

Your Idea that India is Nothing but A Hindu land is against the facts and Ideals of its people.

India is not Held together by some Hindu Network.
But by a Strong political central government. And Above all else the identity of the People as Indians and our shared History.

 

[Trisonics]

Can somebody explain the rules for classifying a state as failed? Are there any examples?

 

[gogbot]

I'm certain that there are racism in America. Certain groups are favor over others in college admission. In certain areas, people of certain ethnic background would cling together and these people would not have the complete view of the mainstream culture.

Why cant the same case be made for India.

 

[ssheppard]

Why cant the same case be made for India.

Because what will happen to India bashing then....

 

[faithfulguy]

because of Lobbying by other religious groups.
Frankly speaking It was a public decision.
Which is always open to Future changes.

Beside the very idea of preaching religion on the streets is dangerous.
Your just inviting trouble.

And about going from house to house. That wont work in India. Its bad idea. People don't generally take kindly to strangers Coming to their houses..

I guess India does not practice separation of church and state if an established religion can lobby to exclude other religion. Indian constitution needs something similar to the establishment clause of the US constitution.

Hindu Civilisation ?

Of course there were Hindu Kings in India.( the Gupta period was on of the golden ages in India.)

India created Bhuddism whose teachings have always been used by many Indian Emperor.

But then the Muslims. came to India. whilst at first iit was under sword that Islam came. It was the Suffi saints that bought Islam to the masses.

And The Mughal empire the Empire under Mughal Rule is regarded as the 2nd Indian Golden age.

Akbar was sultan Loved by all. And One of the first great secular idealists.

The Taj Mahal was Constructed by the Mugals

Then came the British to Depose the Mugals. who has since Akbar stagnated.

The History of India and the Indian Civilization is for all Born int sub-continet. Whether they be Hindu , Muslim Or Christian. Their faiths and their ancestors all are an Important Part of our history.

Your Idea that India is Nothing but A Hindu land is against the facts and Ideals of its people.

India is not Held together by some Hindu Network.
But by a Strong political central government. And Above all else the identity of the People as Indians and our shared History.

Currently, the modern Indian government is a succession state of the British Raj. Its the British Raj that created the nation of India. And what make India different from other part of the British Raj is because India observe Hinduism. I'm not saying that India doesn't tolerate others. But what make India a separate country when the Brits left was Hinduism. Also, you never answer my assertion that India is a country today is because of the success of the British Indian company.

 

[faithfulguy]

Why cant the same case be made for India.

So I guess there is racism in India?

You and I know better that instead of race, its

1) religion
2) In hinduism, caste
3) everything else.

 

[barcelona]

i think its extremely far fetched and if it does goes toward path of failure i think international community wont let that happen................becuz of its nukes it is too important of a state to desend into failure mode..............

 

[fiza200]

Pakistan will not fail.

 

[Kompromat]

Amit Gupta
IPCS – December 29, 2009

Much of Washington’s AfPak strategy has been based on the idea that Pakistan needs to propped up from possible implosion. US policy analysts also point out that one of the countries that would be most affected by this breakup would be India though this is usually couched in alarmist terms of India taking “action” over Pakistani loose nukes.

Little has been written on this issue by Indian scholars and about how the US and India could coordinate their actions in case of such an occurrence—C. Raja Mohan being a notable exception and even he ended with the optimistic conclusion that Pakistan was a long way from state failure and, therefore, it was premature to have such debates.

Yet a discussion needs to be started on this issue mostly to communicate to Pakistan what India’s likely actions will be and, therefore, to prevent any worst case scenarios being built in Islamabad over New Delhi’s intentions. Pakistani strategists and policy analysts base their worst case scenarios on such perceptions and they invariably involve possible future conflict with India. This has also been the worst case scenario in the United States even though it is probably one that is furthest from the minds of Indian policy makers.

What the two countries will have to clearly define—in private talks or in public debate—is what exactly is meant by implosion? Is it wide scale Jihadi activity? Is it a serious secession movement? Or is it the taking over of the Pakistani military by radical elements? It could be a combination of any of these three as well. Having clear discussions on the issue will permit India to take steps to build confidence in Pakistan on Indian intentions.

Probably the first thing that has to be made clear is that India, while strengthening its defenses along the border, will not take advantage of the situation and intervene in any way. For a Pakistan army that views India as its principal threat, implosion would be seen as the easiest way for India to make territorial gains or to put strong pressure on Pakistan to compromise on political and sovereignty issues.

What the Indian government would require from Pakistan are a set of measures it would need for New Delhi to undertake so as not to be perceived as having hostile intentions. Such coordination is possible, of course, both through direct negotiations with Pakistan or, indeed, through second track diplomacy. But it has to be done through Washington to convince Islamabad of Indian intentions. Additionally, it would be useful for New Delhi to have a crisis mechanism in place where Washington was constantly updating it on on-going events in Pakistan and on the steps Washington was taking to defuse the crisis.

Perhaps the most important step that India can take is to publicly declare what it sees as the best end state in Pakistan. From an Indian perspective that would be the restoration of a unified Pakistan with a strong central government in Islamabad. No Indian government relishes the prospect of long term internal instability in Pakistan both for the security and humanitarian implications it has for New Delhi. It makes sense, therefore, to start these discussions with Washington D.C. either directly or through the more informal route of debates at the various think tanks in the beltway.

The second measure to be undertaken with the United States and other nations in the region would be on how to carry out humanitarian operations in an imploding Pakistan. India and the United States would, by default, be the major aid providers and, therefore, it is necessary for the two to work together to coordinate their strategies and to avoid the sort of problems that arose during the Kashmir earthquake of 2005. At that time Indian aid could not go through for some time because of the natural security concerns of the Pakistani defense establishment. From a Pakistani perspective, perhaps the least intrusive measure would be the provision of assistance through India’s naval and maritime fleets. Delivery of this aid could be made through Non Govenmental Organizations and the Red Cross both to ensure efficient utilization and to alleviate Pakistani concerns. In fact, this could serve as the template for any future humanitarian operations in Pakistan and could be worked as a confidence building measure with Islamabad.

It is in India’s interests to start such a debate and help lessen uncertainty in Pakistan and the United States about Indian intentions. It will also help shape the debate within the United States about its AfPak strategy which to a large extent continues to rest on worst case assumptions of state failure in Pakistan and potentially dangerous Indian intervention.

If Pakistan Fails-Amit Gupta,

Mr Amit Gupta must be disappointed.

 

[Kompromat]

Amit Gupta
IPCS – December 29, 2009

Much of Washington’s AfPak strategy has been based on the idea that Pakistan needs to propped up from possible implosion. US policy analysts also point out that one of the countries that would be most affected by this breakup would be India though this is usually couched in alarmist terms of India taking “action” over Pakistani loose nukes.

Little has been written on this issue by Indian scholars and about how the US and India could coordinate their actions in case of such an occurrence—C. Raja Mohan being a notable exception and even he ended with the optimistic conclusion that Pakistan was a long way from state failure and, therefore, it was premature to have such debates.

Yet a discussion needs to be started on this issue mostly to communicate to Pakistan what India’s likely actions will be and, therefore, to prevent any worst case scenarios being built in Islamabad over New Delhi’s intentions. Pakistani strategists and policy analysts base their worst case scenarios on such perceptions and they invariably involve possible future conflict with India. This has also been the worst case scenario in the United States even though it is probably one that is furthest from the minds of Indian policy makers.

What the two countries will have to clearly define—in private talks or in public debate—is what exactly is meant by implosion? Is it wide scale Jihadi activity? Is it a serious secession movement? Or is it the taking over of the Pakistani military by radical elements? It could be a combination of any of these three as well. Having clear discussions on the issue will permit India to take steps to build confidence in Pakistan on Indian intentions.

Probably the first thing that has to be made clear is that India, while strengthening its defenses along the border, will not take advantage of the situation and intervene in any way. For a Pakistan army that views India as its principal threat, implosion would be seen as the easiest way for India to make territorial gains or to put strong pressure on Pakistan to compromise on political and sovereignty issues.

What the Indian government would require from Pakistan are a set of measures it would need for New Delhi to undertake so as not to be perceived as having hostile intentions. Such coordination is possible, of course, both through direct negotiations with Pakistan or, indeed, through second track diplomacy. But it has to be done through Washington to convince Islamabad of Indian intentions. Additionally, it would be useful for New Delhi to have a crisis mechanism in place where Washington was constantly updating it on on-going events in Pakistan and on the steps Washington was taking to defuse the crisis.

Perhaps the most important step that India can take is to publicly declare what it sees as the best end state in Pakistan. From an Indian perspective that would be the restoration of a unified Pakistan with a strong central government in Islamabad. No Indian government relishes the prospect of long term internal instability in Pakistan both for the security and humanitarian implications it has for New Delhi. It makes sense, therefore, to start these discussions with Washington D.C. either directly or through the more informal route of debates at the various think tanks in the beltway.

The second measure to be undertaken with the United States and other nations in the region would be on how to carry out humanitarian operations in an imploding Pakistan. India and the United States would, by default, be the major aid providers and, therefore, it is necessary for the two to work together to coordinate their strategies and to avoid the sort of problems that arose during the Kashmir earthquake of 2005. At that time Indian aid could not go through for some time because of the natural security concerns of the Pakistani defense establishment. From a Pakistani perspective, perhaps the least intrusive measure would be the provision of assistance through India’s naval and maritime fleets. Delivery of this aid could be made through Non Govenmental Organizations and the Red Cross both to ensure efficient utilization and to alleviate Pakistani concerns. In fact, this could serve as the template for any future humanitarian operations in Pakistan and could be worked as a confidence building measure with Islamabad.

It is in India’s interests to start such a debate and help lessen uncertainty in Pakistan and the United States about Indian intentions. It will also help shape the debate within the United States about its AfPak strategy which to a large extent continues to rest on worst case assumptions of state failure in Pakistan and potentially dangerous Indian intervention.

If Pakistan Fails-Amit Gupta,

Mr Amit Gupta must be disappointed.

 

[desimorty]

IF Pakistan falls, its a nightmare. Who controls the nukes? Taliban? or does the Pak Army use them before they loose them?
This should not happen. Will not happen as long is India is next door and cares anything about its self. India, or American will keep any govt. and prop up the Army by any means. When Pakistan went nuclear, it secured its future from every having to fail I guess.
But this nightmare scenario is fantasy, not even all of ISIS will be able to take on Pak army. The only problem, in Pak is lack of development outside Karachi and Punjab. This needs to be addressed. Also the Pak Army needs to butt out of civilian elections. And the civilian representation should be more diverse, instead of Punjab leading Pak, it should be Karachi in my opinon.