Time to come down to earth

[Developereo]

In short, the contours of security relations between present day Pakistan are in complete opposite of what Allama Iqbal had articulated. IMHO, this is a fundamental reason why Pakistan is in crisis. It is off balance and out of its equilibrium. And allying with the US or China or Russia will not help if the fundamentals are not changed.

I am not sure I understand. Are you saying Iqbal envisioned Pakistan as a buffer state between India and 'invaders' from the north west? If so, whom did he have in mind, since Iran, Afghanistan and the CARs are not particularly hostile to India? Did he mean China?

Which brings us to your second point. While I agree that Pakistan and India share much culture and history and are natural allies, it doesn't diminish Pakistan's relationship with China in any way. The only argument against China might be that it is a communist state, which is only a problem for hard core religious zealots. The fact that it is not a democracy is also not an issue, since most Chinese people seem happy with the setup and the government is serving their needs well enough.

Being at the center of south Asia and the biggest country by far, India wants to define the relationships as a south Asian matter, primarily to exclude China as an outsider, but there is no reason for others to restrict their world view that way. For Pakistan, China is an immediate neighbor, and an important one.

This also means fundamentally rethinking ideas of supporting groups like LeT and JuD. The role of the Army in Pakistani civilian affairs.

I agree that the non-state actor chips won't play any more. It does not mean what we should not be vigilant against such tricks being played by others in Baluchistan and elsewhere.

 

[mastaan]

First up, Thanks T-Faz for a soulful piece, which shows gut wrentching concern for one's homeland... I am sure, things will turn to good someday...

Nicely articulated points Developereo... Hailing from Jammmu and Kashmir (the north western part, which is more closer to a big Pakistani city than Jammu and we did have a better reception of PTV till a decade back), my 2 cents on what you said...

That is the problem. It is a cycle and, with Kashmir pending, it will continue.

Nehru and his daughter Indira.

You are spot on... It's a cycle and someone has to bite the bullet and say 'hey, ok... I will hold back and let's talk'... I do believe that Manmohan Singh can do that and should do that, but i am not sure if the current government in Pakistan is the best for that kind of a conversation to start... Notwithstanding that, we should talk and more CBMs... The cycle must be broken decisively without much of name calling and finger pointing and transparency will follow slowly...

I meant India does not want anyone questioning it's supremacy in south Asia. I agree that Pakistan will be hard pressed to match India's economy but there is no reason why it can't try. Size doesn't mean anything: look at Japan, Germany and, of course, the US itself.

Economically, i don't think it ever was or will be India vs. Pakistan... Yes, the government wants to flex its muscle as a superpower. But, i don't think Pakistan is a threat or treated as a threat there... You give a beautiful example of japan and Germany... The problem is of Mindset... Both of these economies wanted to removed the cursed history of WWII and bent their back to slug it out... They also must have had scores to settle, sore points (e.g. seperation of Austria from germany or demilitarization of japan for some time), but the still opted to focus their energies on getting a better life and look where they are... The problem I see is... Will the current environment in Pakistan and over engagement in Militancy, US and India ever let that happen?

That is the important factor. India is a darling of the West and it is getting drunk on all the attention, which makes it less interested in regional peace. India believes it can live with hostile neighbors at home as long as it is liked by the big players overseas.

Well, that's the part where India plays both sides. Smile up front and dagger in the other hand. Despite all these diplomatic overtures, India has never relented in its other attacks mentioned earlier.

Like you mentioned, there is a complete lack of trust on both sides.

That 'solution' was to make the LoC permanent, which is what India wants anyway. It completely ignores the wish of the Kashmiri people themselves. Musharraf basically tried to commit treason.

Well, you just articulated my point. India is of the opinion that it doesn't need anything from Pakistan, so it doesn't need peace.

Being from Jammu and Kashmnir, I do believe that letting LOC remain and allowing free movement of goods and people between both places will be the best possible start and is the only peaceful option (I do believe that a military option is just not feasible) and we can move from there... I think both the countries did come closer to that kind of an arrangement, but the efforts were skittled by vested interests on both sides... Both sides need a stronger (read lesser reliant of coalition) governments and I am reasonably sure that you will see lots of progress on that front... with this, you will see both India and Pakistan relenting on diplomatic level attacks (which you highlighted) and hopefully trust will start to build up... You will agree that what was destroyed over generations can not heal back in a day... Today, any Indian politician who raises a hand of friendship with pakistan is ridiculed based on the past experience and like you said... that chain has to be broken somewhere...

I beg to disagree with the point that India is on a high horse of the kind that it does not want to make peace with Pakistan... India knows that if this one issues can be resolved (say over the next 1 or 2 decades), we can simply go full throttle behind our economic aspirations... I don't think that a PM like MMS will think otherwise... It's the tons of old baggage which pulls us back...

However, i do have another postulation... If and when (hopefully sooner than later), Pakistan returns back to a path of economic progress, where education and infrastructure will get serious importance, I do believe that from that side of the border the support for making peace with India will increase as the society at large with further appreciate the importance of safe twins... Obviously, India will also have to get it's own house in order with clear priority of finding a peace in eastern border, which I am sure is pretty quickly achievable...

At the end of it, i'd like to rephrase someone from this thread, we are "naturally conjoined twins" and at peace we can be world beaters individually and together as well... Pakistan is going through a serious turmoil (not that we don't have our share of scandals or project delays due to Govt. etc, but the scale in Pakistan is of a much higher magnitude) and it will serve India best, if we can contribute towards helping them in that cause... anyone thinking otherwise is either thinking either based on past experiences or is simply not being logical... and i will like to conclude by saying that, if we ever make peace, we will be much better partners than US can ever be... Atleast, I believe that!

 

[Developereo]

It's a cycle and someone has to bite the bullet and say 'hey, ok... I will hold back and let's talk'... I do believe that Manmohan Singh can do that and should do that, but i am not sure if the current government in Pakistan is the best for that kind of a conversation to start...

I am not sure how long MMS is going to stick around. If Modi and BJP hardliners get elected, things could get worse.

The other problem is Pakistan's political scene. All the civilian politicians are under a cloud of corruption, incompetence and worse, so it's hard for them to sell any solution to the public.

Being from Jammu and Kashmnir, I do believe that letting LOC remain and allowing free movement of goods and people between both places will be the best possible start and is the only peaceful option (I do believe that a military option is just not feasible) and we can move from there...

That does not honor the wishes of the people in the Valley. I doubt that any solution short of a plebiscite will merit legitimacy.

i will like to conclude by saying that, if we ever make peace, we will be much better partners than US can ever be... Atleast, I believe that!

I agree.

 

[mastaan]

I am not sure how long MMS is going to stick around. If Modi and BJP hardliners get elected, things could get worse.

The other problem is Pakistan's political scene. All the civilian politicians are under a cloud of corruption, incompetence and worse, so it's hard for them to sell any solution to the public.

MMS (or some congress led coalition) will stick around as the main opposition party BJP is leaderless at the moment... BJP, for whatever it states as an oppositions turns quiet Pakistan friendly as history has shown... and I'd like to believe that future will be no different... Modi, can not and will not try to build on the Hindutva agenda as that agenda is not saleable anymore... He knows that from experience of his party in the last elections... It's about economy, inflation, peace and corruption right now... and any elected party will remain to that... you will be surprised that I believe that the biggest anti pakistan force here is media, as they sell that rhetoric with their self styled defence analysis (with some good exceptions of course)... but, that also doesn't sell well and i can try to dig out TRP ratings for that (I remember the reference to this figure as a friend who works for an ad hits measurement agency told me that Pakistan doesn't sell well now a days)

BTW, any chances of Imran scoring a big victory...? I loved his captaincy and cricket and he sounds like a reasonable person... i wonder if things can really really improve under him... I don't think the old culprits will cut it anymore (though Nawaz Sharif is still my best bet)

That does not honor the wishes of the people in the Valley. I doubt that any solution short of a plebiscite will merit legitimacy.

I don't want a pent up a storm on this one... So, in my humble opinion, I can bet my own life that an open border will be the best starting point and then the rest can be decided... because the moment you get into plebicite discussion, there are angles of bringing back Kashmiri Pandits, India agreeing to that, the fact that it is not only Valley but the view of whole of Jammu and Kashmir (which a lot of people tend to forget and the agitation in 2010 in Jammu showed how diametrically opposite Jammu and Ladhakh are to what world believes to the populistic sentiment in Kashmir) that has to be considered, then what happens to Aksai chin in those discussions etc etc and we go back to zero... Your mail was about getting a 'start' and thus is mentioned what I did... At this moment, if you ask any civilian on the road in Srinagar, the first thing he/she will want is peace and normal life...

 

[Developereo]

BTW, any chances of Imran scoring a big victory...? I loved his captaincy and cricket and he sounds like a reasonable person... i wonder if things can really really improve under him...

Imran Khan is an interesting guy. Like most people, I really admire his honesty, patriotism and passion, but sometimes he says and does things that seem very naive and make you wonder if he would be able to navigate the minefields of foreign policy.

However, given the alternatives, he would be my choice.

I don't think the old culprits will cut it anymore (though Nawaz Sharif is still my best bet)

Pakistanis vote on auto-pilot. Chances are they might actually vote in that idiot partyboy Bilawal, just because his last name is Bhutto. (well, it's actually Zardari, but anyway...)

 

[Contrarian]

I never denied that making peace with India will be beneficial for Pakistan. I just question whether the gesture will be returned.
This is assuming that Kashmir can be resolved, which also seems unlikely.

Kashmir's resolution cannot be what Pakistan is expecting. A change in borders is not possible. So Pakistani's who think that no other issue can move forward till kashmir is 'resolved' are holding out the progress in other issues till eternity. Kashmir is a lost cause for Pakistan, the sooner the people in Pakistan accept this reality, the sooner they can mend problems with India.

If India can try to maintain equal relations with US and Russia, why can't other countries maintain equal relations with India and China?

NAM goes both ways.

True

 

[OrionHunter]

That is the problem. It is a cycle and, with Kashmir pending, it will continue.

Kashmir pending!! That 'K' word. Tell me Developereo, even if Kashmir is handed over on a platter to Pakistan, will it result in more food on the table for the average Pakistani? Will it result in Pakistan's GDP zooming to unheard of levels? Will poverty be banished from Pakistan forever? Will the terrorist organizations spawned by the Establisment just walk away and melt into the darkness? Will the standard of living of the average Pakistani improve? Simple answer- NO!

And then Pakistanis insist that Kashmiris must be given the right to self determination as per the relevant UNSC resolutions which give a choice to Kashmiris to either opt for India or Pakistan. There's no third option. But then in the same breath you people contend that a Kashmir solution must take into account the wishes of the Kashmiri people. Well, most Kashmiri Muslims want independence - neither India nor Pakistan. That means a third option which does NOT form part of the UNSC Resolution.

So, what is it you want? A plebiscite or a solution in accordance with the 'wishes' of the Kashmir people? You can't have the cake and eat it too, right?

 

[EjazR]

I am not sure I understand. Are you saying Iqbal envisioned Pakistan as a buffer state between India and 'invaders' from the north west? If so, whom did he have in mind, since Iran, Afghanistan and the CARs are not particularly hostile to India? Did he mean China?

Well I don't see Iqbal talking about North West India - today's Pakistan - as a buffer state. But taking an active part in the Indian polity and defending it from threats from the frontier region.

Just a quick look back in history will tell you that most of the land invasions to the subcontinent occurred through the North West Region and hence the defense of this important region was vital. Moreover, there was no Central Asian republics in the 1930s but were under the control of USSR, which was considered hostile to India at that time as well. And historically China had invaded and taken over parts of Pakistan controlled territory like Gilgit for example under the Tang dynasty

But I also mentioned other things, like the importance of the army being under civilian control as declared by the Nehru report; the importance of Indian Ocean maritime capability and so on. There are multiple threats that could be a point of co-operation rather than antagonism.

Which brings us to your second point. While I agree that Pakistan and India share much culture and history and are natural allies, it doesn't diminish Pakistan's relationship with China in any way. The only argument against China might be that it is a communist state, which is only a problem for hard core religious zealots. The fact that it is not a democracy is also not an issue, since most Chinese people seem happy with the setup and the government is serving their needs well enough.

Being at the center of south Asia and the biggest country by far, India wants to define the relationships as a south Asian matter, primarily to exclude China as an outsider, but there is no reason for others to restrict their world view that way. For Pakistan, China is an immediate neighbor, and an important one.

Well I don't think anyone is indicating that Pakistan should cut off ties like trade e.t.c. from China. Infact, Indo-Chinese trade is orders of magnitude more than Pakistani-Chinese trade. The point is wether, Chinese security ties should be used to counter India. Inviting a superpower so to speak as a counter to the country which should be a natural ally is just harming Pakistani long term interests.

This idea was tried by using the US as a leverage with the same tactic. In fact, for most of the cold war, Pakistani tech in terms of defense was top notch being as it was provided by the US. But we see the consequences of the policies today.

In other words, having ties with China is not an issue. But when it comes to the security of the SAARC region. SAARC ties should be given more prominence. This would be following in the footsteps of that vision IMO.

I agree that the non-state actor chips won't play any more. It does not mean what we should not be vigilant against such tricks being played by others in Baluchistan and elsewhere.

Being vigilant is good, just as it is important to address legitimate grievances wether its Baluchistan or Kashmir or Mizoram. But supporting militants or terrorist groups in other countries for some sort of leverage will backfire no matter if its been done by the US, Pakistan or India.

 

[MastanKhan]

As many of the americans who have been in close relation to pakistan and have had dealings with us have called us 'EXTREMELY NAIVE'-faced the world----they have basically called us of one having a child's mentality---and it shows in our ideology and approach to economics as well.

As a young boy during the reign of Ayub Khan I heard that we have chosen ourselves to be an agricultural country----I think it came about in the 50's----I realized that my grand father's generation were purely and truly dellusional in their approach and so was my father'ss well----and as I was their true child----I am not too proud to say that the fruit did not fall too far from the tree.

As we lacked in educated people in our heirarchy---most of the ministers were land owners / farmer's----and not too many technocrats----there was an inherent regression towards technology----.

Pakistan wanted to be the bread basket of the world----you foreigners on this board---can you really believe that is what what pakistan wanted to be----not a technologically advanced country---but one that provided the world with grain----.

Now those were noble thinkings----but the only problem was that nobody thought about efficiency by involving technology to it. The didnot want to believe that by having mechanized farming----they would also advance the cause of literacy in the country----young pakistanis would have been exposed to technology right from gitgo---ie from the 50's----the world was ready and eager to help.

I feel sorry for the younger generation---truly our grandfathers and fathers failed us---and then we also let you in the hell hole that you live in today---and we made you believe that it was a paradise---.

TFAZ-----it doesnot matter if there are good people left and there is a glimmer of hope----my goodman---I have been saying it for a long time----untill and unless the good people don't start to do anything substantial----it won't mean much-----it won't matter much in the end----good people mean nothing if they have their heads stuck in dark places.

In order for the good people to do anything---these good people need to start doing things different----the word JIHAD NEEDS TO BE GIVEN A DIFFERENT MEANING----it is time that we start a JIHAD against the criminal element in the country---we start a JIHAD against the terrorists of the country----we need to start a JIHAD against corruption-----we need to lay some bodies dead---we need to hang the criminals enmasse----rapists---murderers---criminals---highway robbers---criminal judges----pakistan needs to start the hangings----. Pakistan needs a revolution---just like that of iran---but not of the religious kind but of a law enforcement kind------.

Today's pakistan is like the proverbial DODGE CITY of the 1900 in the united states----pakistan needs to find its WYATT EARP and DOC HOLLIDAY-----.

You young pakistanis----soem of you are going to die in these terrorist attacks---suicide bombings or some of you will die iof you spoke against the fanatics----why don't you die an honorable death----start the jihad----against the criminals----maybe some of you may take out the rapists of Mukhtar Mai and the judge who set them free----start up a force like the 313 for pakistan---or the BADAR BRIGADE FOR PAKISTAN----fight the criminals----hang the murderers and highway robbers and criminal judges---.

Do something young people----otherwise you are at the verge of losing your nation and freedom as well.

 

[Tiki Tam Tam]

The last few posts have been excellent.

My thanks and congratulations to you all, T Faz, Mastan, EjazR, Developereo and others.

If you don't see 'Thanks' from Tiki Tam Tam, it is because for some inexplicable reason, the Thanks button has become selective and temperamental.

 

[CallsignAlzaeem]

This article represents me,Thats the way i think,Come on people,Goddamit its been 63 years,So what if we are nuclear power?,See yourself,Where do we stand today?,I am glad Quaid is not here amongst us,This is the right time to rectify our mistakes and proceed with the promise of a better tomorrow.

 

[Developereo]

So, what is it you want? A plebiscite or a solution in accordance with the 'wishes' of the Kashmir people? You can't have the cake and eat it too, right?

Whatever the Kashmiris want. If they opt for independence, then so be it, and both India and Pakistan must accept it.

Well I don't think anyone is indicating that Pakistan should cut off ties like trade e.t.c. from China. Infact, Indo-Chinese trade is orders of magnitude more than Pakistani-Chinese trade. The point is wether, Chinese security ties should be used to counter India. Inviting a superpower so to speak as a counter to the country which should be a natural ally is just harming Pakistani long term interests.

This idea was tried by using the US as a leverage with the same tactic. In fact, for most of the cold war, Pakistani tech in terms of defense was top notch being as it was provided by the US. But we see the consequences of the policies today.

In other words, having ties with China is not an issue. But when it comes to the security of the SAARC region. SAARC ties should be given more prominence. This would be following in the footsteps of that vision IMO.

Don't you see the inconsistency here? India can form all sorts of military deals all over the world, but Pakistan should not pursue similar arrangements? You are basically saying: accept India as the local hegemon, and don't bring in 'outsiders' to challenge India's supremacy in south Asia. India, on the other hand, is free to weaponize itself to the max, just in case.

Why don't you extend that logic outward and say that India should stop all military cooperation with the West and others, and accept China as the Asian hegemon?

I don't deny that, by virtue of size and location, India has a leading role in south Asia, but all countries ultimately look out for their own self interests. Also, as I mentioned, Pakistan sees itself as a gateway between south Asia and adjoining areas. For us, China is an important neighbor, and that relationship is important on its own merit, regardless of India. Military cooperation is an integral part of it, especially given the West's agenda and duplicity.

 

[TalibanSwatter]

Challenging the Military's Hegemony

Fahd Ali

On May 1/2, 2011 — depending on where you were in the world at that time! — Pakistanis were once again betrayed. Like many other instances in our short history, this betrayal came again at the hands of our beloved military. The betrayal here is not the fact that a raid by American Navy SEALs into Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden was a direct challenge to our ever-elusive sovereignty. It lay in the fact that our military establishment continues to pursue policies that directly oppose the well being of our nation. It is rather preposterous to propel the idea that the military establishment was oblivious of Osama’s presence in Abbottabad. It is ridiculous to argue that our pervasive (and invasive) spying agencies had no clue about what was happening under their noses.

In the aftermath of the raid, Taliban militants have struck thrice in Pakistan: in Shabqadar near Nowshera, in Peshawar on the vehicles belonging to the US consulate, and just days ago in Karachi on PNS Mehran. One does not even have to wait to find out the reactions from the official channels. The armed forces and their various spokespersons inform us that the situation is under control and that it is entering its final moments. The civilian government (ostensibly the interior minister) keeps appearing on the media to beg people to get united against the terrorists. In the meanwhile, some story emerges in the media that claims that this or that ministry or department had informed the relevant security agencies a week or two ago about an impending threat or an attack. Yet nothing happens! The militants remain elusive and get more effective in their strikes and the national unity against religious extremism seems to figure nowhere on the horizon.

What the military and the ruling classes have failed to understand is that there cannot be any unified approach to fighting religious extremism and militancy unless the myriad political contradictions present within Pakistan’s federation are resolved first. The Baloch are up in arms against the state for more than five years. They do not want to have any truck with the current state and its military. Each day brings news of Baloch activists disappearing mysteriously, only to be later found dead on the roadside with their bodies either bullet-riddled or with marks of severe torture. If you are a Baloch, why would you even bother to heed the call of the military-political leadership in Islamabad to unite and fight religious militancy? The Baloch are more interested, and rightly so if I may add, to secure political and economic rights over their territory and resources than to help a state that has denied them these rights for six decades. Right now with the situation as it exists, a Baloch has more chances of dying at the hands of the military, ISI, and other agencies than religious militants. In Sindh the disenchantment with the Punjabi-dominated state runs deep. Their disillusionment with the state is again nothing new and their narrative contains similar complaints — of political rights and economic resources denied. They see the current state more as a usurper than as a protector. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa lives under the tyranny unleashed on them in the past one decade by the Taliban and the state alike. People there are perhaps the only ones really looking forward to this mysterious unity against religious militancy.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the military and the ISI are no longer part of the solution — at least not yet. They are part of the very problem that afflicts this country. The military’s India-centric security paradigm and a penchant for jihad have made us vulnerable both internally and externally. Internally, the price of the propping up of our “unconquerable” defence (naqabal-e-taskheer difa!) and pursuing strategic depth in Afghanistan have resulted in a vast majority of the population remaining without basic necessities like education, health, and safety. The military’s most successful achievement over the years has been its complete dominance over any sort of political discourse on the mainstream media. Hence, we find ourselves in the midst of a situation where nobody — be it the mainstream politicians or most of the mainstream media pundits — is willing to challenge the military’s hegemony over the national security agenda. True, we hear from this or that analyst that the military’s grip over our foreign and domestic policies needs to be challenged, yet these voices remain largely isolated and conveniently ignored by the ruling class of the country. That, I would say, is the other achievement of the military establishment in Pakistan. The military no longer commands the political discourse because of the barrel of the gun that it possesses. It has also emerged as a formidable economic and business enterprise over the years in Pakistan. Since Zia’s dictatorship, the military has advanced its political and economic interests simultaneously. The business interest allows the military to maintain the vast network of patronage that is pursued and developed for its own ends and not for the general welfare of its jawans or of the people as commonly purported. The welfare effect now remains a by-product of the vast business empire that the military manages and operates. Its purpose (effectively speaking) is the political control over a coterie of politicians and businessmen that hang on to the military’s coattails.

Externally, the military’s myopic worldview has made us susceptible to all sorts of wrongdoings. We are popularly believed to be a nation of extremists that harbours and fans religious extremism all over the world. Even if it is just a bad stereotype (which it is) we normally find ourselves in a really tight spot to counter the argument that Pakistan has become a magnet for all the crazy jihadists in the world. It is here where they find a conducive environment that allows them to survive and grow (ideologically), coupled with the logistical support for their violent designs for the rest of the world. The ongoing trial of Pakistani-American businessman Dr Tuhawwar Rana in Chicago where David Coleman Headley has become an approver is a case in point. Headley’s revelations detail the involvement of the ISI elements, al Qaeda and other jihadi organisations in the planning and execution of the 26/11Mumbai attacks. What is generally shocking is how easy it was for Headley, Ilyas Kashmiri and others like them to operate and plan all this from within Pakistan. We may like to live in denial but the reality is that Pakistan is fast becoming (if it already is not) the land that outsiders perceive it to be — a hotbed of jihadi mentality and militancy. In such an environment it becomes increasingly difficult to dissuade external forces from interfering in Pakistan, militarily or otherwise.

Pakistan and Pakistanis find themselves in a space where their choices are fast disappearing. The choices to be made should be as clear as the writing on the wall. But, unfortunately, they are not. We must resolve Pakistan’s inner contradiction as we try to look for unity against religious extremism and militancy. The sooner we realise that challenging the military’s hegemony is just as vital as forcing politicians to do the right thing, the closer we can move to a Pakistan that is just and equitable.