The break-up of Pakistan bodes well for India

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Baluchistan shouldnt have much significance in the 'divided Pakistan theory'. More apt would be the tribal areas. But in no way does a divided Pakistan bode well for us, smaller means unstable atleast in S asian context. It would be a massive headache.

The only prayer to Pakistanis is to hold two consecutive elections which are respected by both main political parties and you are through.

I completely agree with your point about consecutive elections. I have argued in the past that Pakistan's democratic evolution and actual return to democracy will in fact begin if and when this government legally completes its term, and the subsequent elections are 'free and fair', with the results largely accepted by the political parties, as was the case with the recent elections.

On your first point, that is what I was alluding to in my previous post - the Tribal areas are in the throes of an Islamist insurgency, not a separatist one, so the tribal insurgency does not lend itself to a 'dividing Pakistan' argument. It does establish that the Pakistani State is 'weakened', in that the insurgency is having an impact on the economy and the writ of the GoP does not extend to parts of its territory.

 

[Flintlock]

^Not necessarily true. I actually wrote a long paragraph describing how the state could break up (if it does happen, it should not) but I deleted it in the interest of not becoming a target of hate-messages.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

^Not necessarily true. I actually wrote a long paragraph describing how the state could break up (if it does happen, it should not) but I deleted it in the interest of not becoming a target of hate-messages.

You are essentially making that argument anyway, but not justifying it, so I cannot but say that you have an invalid argument here.

 

[Flintlock]

You are essentially making that argument anyway, but not justifying it, so I cannot but say that you have an invalid argument here.

Well, can't argue against that~

 

[Bull]

On your first point, that is what I was alluding to in my previous post - the Tribal areas are in the throes of an Islamist insurgency, not a separatist one, so the tribal insurgency does not lend itself to a 'dividing Pakistan' argument. It does establish that the Pakistani State is 'weakened', in that the insurgency is having an impact on the economy and the writ of the GoP does not extend to parts of its territory.

My point was that tribal areas are more relevant to Pakistan than the BLA.

 

[Durrani]

I think the only way pakistan can survive and thrive is to break all the provinces (which are currently perfectly divided ethinically) into smaller pieces. In that way ethnic patriotism will become secondary to national patriotism. Maybe the only way for us to create a national identity is to get rid of all the ethnic identities in our country. So no more punjabi, sindhi, baloch, pathan..... only pakistani !

 

[pama]

By what standard is Pakistan 'breaking up'?

The Baloch insurgency is minimal, the Taliban insurgency is an Islamist one, and Islamism tends to inherently be expansionist (i.e Khilafat and Shariah in all Muslim lands), so if it ever succeeds, you will see a 'larger' Pakistan, not a 'divided' one.

Ethnic tensions in Pakistan exists, but pretty much at the level they exist anywhere else. No larges scale ethnic riots or tensions that pose a serious threat to the stability of the state have occurred in the recent past.

In contrast India has had multiple communal riots and violence, Hindu, Muslim and Christian. So the authors analysis, if looked at in the light of empirical evidence and not a regurgitation of the 'stereotype' of Pakistan, and especially when analyzed relative to comparable tensions in India, is extremely flawed.

yes India has communal riots but if it is not contained elected government will be ousted out.
remember BJP never came to power after 1994 ritos in UP.
so summary is India has democracy to punish and as hope they will be punished.

So this lessen chances of insurgency.
all insurgencies in India has very minimal support from people.
In contrast these Taliban is gaining in support.
These support comes from people who see no hope in elected people as same people(Landlords ) get elected.
These are same people who seek speedy justice.
Poor of poor never have hope to reach top elected post in Pak.

It is just pendulum power moves form landlord to general.

These all boils down to land reforms which never will happen in Pak as elite will never sacrifice there privileges do they?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

yes India has communal riots but if it is not contained elected government will be ousted out.
remember BJP never came to power after 1994 ritos in UP.
so summary is India has democracy to punish and as hope they will be punished.

So this lessen chances of insurgency.
all insurgencies in India has very minimal support from people.
In contrast these Taliban is gaining in support.
These support comes from people who see no hope in elected people as same people(Landlords ) get elected.
These are same people who seek speedy justice.
Poor of poor never have hope to reach top elected post in Pak.

It is just pendulum power moves form landlord to general.

These all boils down to land reforms which never will happen in Pak as elite will never sacrifice there privileges do they?

Thats not an entirely accurate description of Pakistani politics. Nawas Sharif is not from a feudal background, but more of an industrialist. Nor is the MQM a 'feudal party' but one composed of businessmen and people from the Middle class, and this process will only continue and accelerate, so I do not think your arguments on that count are valid.

Democracy is not the point of an insurgency, nor is the Taliban insurgency related to 'democracy', so you are way off field there as well. Secondly, please read and respond to my posts as they relate to the Taliban insurgency not being a 'divisive' insurgency, in the context of the authors argument.

 

[Bull]

Democracy is not the point of an insurgency, nor is the Taliban insurgency related to 'democracy', so you are way off field there as well. Secondly, please read and respond to my posts as they relate to the Taliban insurgency not being a 'divisive' insurgency, in the context of the authors argument.

The taliban movement can become divisive if it goes on to build strength. They seak a sharia or stringent islamist state, while i guess Pakistan is happy with its current form. Wouldnt it clash with each other? What would be the outcome?

 

[pama]

Thats not an entirely accurate description of Pakistani politics. Nawas Sharif is not from a feudal background, but more of an industrialist. Nor is the MQM a 'feudal party' but one composed of businessmen and people from the Middle class, and this process will only continue and accelerate, so I do not think your arguments on that count are valid.

Democracy is not the point of an insurgency, nor is the Taliban insurgency related to 'democracy', so you are way off field there as well. Secondly, please read and respond to my posts as they relate to the Taliban insurgency not being a 'divisive' insurgency, in the context of the authors argument.

I was refering to same people with "land lords" bussiness men and industrilists.
I did not see any instance where person who lived less than 2$ per day became head of state or nation.

 

[PeacefulIndian]

I long suspected Indians here on this forum will think about the same about Pakistan breaking up, I was going though Pakistani youtube videoes and the comments by mostly indians were rubbing thier hands in glee thinking about the prospect of Pakistan breaking up into five states so does this mean with more than a dozen insurgencies going on in India, India will also break up?

Ever since Pakistans creation Indians were saying that Pakistan will not survive from day one but now more than 60 years has passed and Pakistan has gone from strength to strength. As for Nawaz sharif he was saying more about restoring judiciary.

I may be late to reply.
My point is not being understood. They are not opinions of LK Advani or Manmohan Singh. They are from your former PM.
Yes he did talk about restoring judiciary. But when? After he expressed concern on the break up of Balochistan. Did You not hear the interview completely? And have you thought why your former PM had those concerns?

And as far as my personal opinion goes, I am not in favor of so-called break up of pakistan. We already have enough unstable neighbours in form of BD, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Nepal, Burma. I would hate to see another one in that list.