US should dump Islamabad-HussainHaqqani

[Not Sure]

From this piece I think H.H. has gauged that there is a lot of life left in this US policy in central/South Asia and that he can position himself as a spokesperson for a particular point of view - if this is so then some bumpy days are ahead of us -- what if Nawaz does not garner a majority and PTI form a government -- and PTI not only does not negotiate with the TTP but instead fights and defeats TTP and cleans up the sectarian outfits? Where would that leave the US? The US would want Pakistan to isolate Iran, it would want Pakistani mercenaries in Bahrain and most of all it would wt Pakistan to distance itself from China and assist the US with it's efforts to isolate China -- but then people in hell want ice water, it's dang sure they are not going to get that -- but seriously consider if the PTI are able to ofr the armed forces the kind of support they seek and are willing to own the effort against TTP and sectarianism, would the points H.H. is making be even worth spit??

That is a possible scenario, but somehow appears to be a very unlikely one.

The TTP has been around for quite a while by now, as an ugly blot on Pakistan's image - esp as some sort training center offering a career in terrorism to the desirous ones around the world - still the consensus among the Pakistani mass on the threat level it poses appears scattered.

Also, the Pakistani Army has already been under pressure from the States and its civilian government to clean that area. Yet, all that will again depend on the kind of majority PTI gets (will it get a full majority and support to assert its authority - very doubtful). After that, we are yet to see the level of motivation the Army finds in this objective (when the past methods and records post a question mark on Army's intents on the matter).

And finally, what are the chances that PTI, with its chairman himself a Pashtun from the area, will force the Army against the TTP that lies in the KPK region, and even invade the Karachi area (after all, that too is said to be one of TTP's main targets) to the benefit of Altaf Hussain? Out of the concern that such a large scale action (anything less than that may not work) might alienate him from rest of the Pashtuns, Imran's tenure may turn out to be another episode of futile efforts at eliminating these threats.


When it comes to diminishing (if not eliminating entirely) the threat of the TTP, I think we should look at the efforts of Musharraf. He was a dictator, Army General, and the President who enjoyed a great support of the masses. And then, he had all the motivations to reduce the prevailing extremism (the kind that supported the likes of the TTP) in the Army, esp the ISI. Yet, with all that unchallenged power his efforts only suppressed the (terrorist) organizations for a while, and they came back full force the moment he was out. And with the "Hate America" culture that grew over the last 5 years, many in the Army/ISI may take the elimination of the TTP as not their own but US's objectives in the making.

Also, we ought to look at the threat that comes from across the western border. In case of US dumping Pakistan, a reduced pressure (from the NATO forces) on the infiltration from Afghanistan will only see a surge in terrorist activities in Pakistan. Will Imran's new, not so experienced, government be able counter that?

Indeed it is purely my opinion but, in the backdrop of all that happened in the past five years, I strongly feel that Hussein Haqqani's points are worth much more than that.

 

[Rig Vedic]

All identity is a creation, why ought an identity at odds with ones confession be chosen?

The identity based on Islam meant a devaluation of the older natural regional identities. The Bengalis broke away in 1971, and in today's Pakistan, the faith-based identity is still being privileged over other identities.

Now, would being Muslim necessarily be in conflict with one's roots? I don't think so - for example the Indonesians are quite comfortable with their Hindu past. However an important difference between Indonesia and Pakistan is that the Indonesian identity is not based on Islam.

Could Pakistan become more like Indonesia as regards its attitude to Islam and its past? Can Pakistan be comfortable with its various regional identities? Or would it have to rely on Islam for maintaining unity?

but it's difficult and even impossible to suggest that diverse peoples be trapped in a single identity

True.

 

[muse]

That is a possible scenario, but somehow appears to be a very unlikely one. .

Yes, it possible that it will unlikely that PTI could be in majority and that even if it were that it would choose war over development - I'll grant you that - Is TTP the entirety of the Pashtun, hardly and it's a strange equation where Pashtuns who are being bombed and murdered would actually be supportive of this activity - Also alot has changed since Musharraf was in office, I mean the TTP is now in cities and I for one would like to see the back of Mr. Gen Kiyani (a disaster in my book)

The identity based on Islam meant a devaluation of the older natural regional identities. The Bengalis broke away in 1971, and in today's Pakistan, the faith-based identity is still being privileged over other identities.

Now, would being Muslim necessarily be in conflict with one's roots? I don't think so - for example the Indonesians are quite comfortable with their Hindu past. However an important difference between Indonesia and Pakistan is that the Indonesian identity is not based on Islam.

Could Pakistan become more like Indonesia as regards its attitude to Islam and its past? Can Pakistan be comfortable with its various regional identities? Or would it have to rely on Islam for maintaining unity?

Are you sure about Indonesians not being aware of and expressing a Muslim identity? The identity does not have to be exclusively this or that, peole have multiple identities that operate on different levels -- but coming back to the question of why it that the notion of Pakistan as a 'fundamentally flawed" idea has currency among Indians, I think this idea should be explored - exactly what about the idea is "fundamentally flawed"?

 

[Pandora]

i dont think Pakistanis will be shedding tears anytime soon over that

more state funds would be wasted on VIP services anyways

I said it sarcastically that he is not planning to come back ever so he went all out or at least until next time PPP comes to power.

 

[Rig Vedic]

Are you sure about Indonesians not being aware of and expressing a Muslim identity? The identity does not have to be exclusively this or that, peole have multiple identities that operate on different levels -- but coming back to the question of why it that the notion of Pakistan as a 'fundamentally flawed" idea has currency among Indians, I think this idea should be explored - exactly what about the idea is "fundamentally flawed"?

I am not saying the Indonesians are not Muslim. All I am saying is that their national identity is not based on Islam. And that is why they can be comfortable with their history.

Does Pakistan, for maintaining unity, need to privilege the Islamic identity over the older natural regional identities, and create a national narrative that is in opposition to "Hindu" India?

If yes, then there is an inherent instability. Because of which there would be a structural necessity of external Godfathers.

 

[muse]

I am not saying the Indonesians are not Muslim. All I am saying is that their national identity is not based on Islam. And that is why they can be comfortable with their history.

Does Pakistan, for maintaining unity, need to privilege the Islamic identity over the older natural regional identities, and create a national narrative that is in opposition to "Hindu" India?

If yes, then there is an inherent instability. Because of which there would be a structural necessity of external Godfathers.

I think Indian friends are confused about the whole islam identity in Pakistan and why it was created - there was already a clamour even from ulema e Hind as well as Jamaat e islami, while neither of these supported the creation of Pakistan, once Pakistan was a done done they soon agitated for their vision, however, at the same time, recall a now forgotten bit of history, the Cold War was a reality, in particular within countries aligned with the US, simultaneously, leftist ideas had gained ground in universities, the politics of identity that we are today familiar with, regional, ethnic,linguistic, were all developed during this time - and it was to counter these, that the idea of Islam as a national identity gained currency -- Yes, it's true that it all came together with Zia, but these ideas had been brewing since before there was a Pakistan.

Once again, I read you using "natural identity" Who dat is? If Identity is a Creation, what's this natural Identity? Recall that what we today call Hindu as an Identity did not exist 200 years ago and was instead the caste Identity as primary - so what we have today is not an "accident", not "natural' but a creation.

 

[tarrar]

great looks like hussain haqqani is being patriotic pakistani, its a voice from all pakistanis

whats the issue

Indians are looking at this from their own view. Which we all know how it is.

 

[acid rain]

The idea that religion and that too a foreign one can be the basis of foming a country is the big flaw.

 

[tarrar]

I am not saying the Indonesians are not Muslim. All I am saying is that their national identity is not based on Islam. And that is why they can be comfortable with their history.

Does Pakistan, for maintaining unity, need to privilege the Islamic identity over the older natural regional identities, and create a national narrative that is in opposition to "Hindu" India?

If yes, then there is an inherent instability. Because of which there would be a structural necessity of external Godfathers.

You need to shut your cr*p. Pakistan needs good & honest Govt. Just because the politicians of Pakistan are corrupt & incompetent it does't mean you should blame Islam for this & cover up their corrupt a**es.

 

[muse]

The idea that religion and that too a foreign one can be the basis of foming a country is the big flaw.

Israel? US founded by puritans -- I think you may be taking a very dogmatic approach and it's not necessary - After all secular Indian has all kinds of religion based policies

 

[somebozo]

The idea that religion and that too a foreign one can be the basis of foming a country is the big flaw.

Until mid 20th century religion was the collective force. Ideologies like socialism, communism, democracy took ground in post WW2 world and eventually earned their position as a divisive forced over religion.

 

[somebozo]

The idea that religion and that too a foreign one can be the basis of foming a country is the big flaw.

Until mid 20th century religion was the collective force. Ideologies like socialism, communism, democracy took ground in post WW2 world and eventually earned their position as a divisive forced over religion.

 

[acid rain]

Israel? US founded by puritans -- I think you may be taking a very dogmatic approach and it's not necessary - After all secular Indian has all kinds of religion based policies

Israel was a percecuted people who migrated from place to place and is their religion causing a problem for them surrounded by an Islamic world? Their emergence is as troublesome and fraught with conflict till date.

The reason for the flaw is that Muslim identity clashes with the ethnic identity of the region which was non Muslim to begin with.

Ideally Islam should have left at a personal level and not introduced as state principle. It would have been a totally different Pakistan if after seperation your forefathers had made it a neutral state based on secular principles allowing people to identify with their roots, it would have avoided this whole Saudiazation of Pakistan.

 

[acid rain]

Until mid 20th century religion was the collective force. Ideologies like socialism, communism, democracy took ground in post WW2 world and eventually earned their position as a divisive forced over religion.

History is therefore replete with wars and conquerors, battles like the crusades, Islamic invasions, forceful conversions of entire nations and genocide of people belonging to a different religious group.

In those times there was utmost almost maddening hatred towards people of other religions, but the world has evolved and so called different idealogies brought about by thinkers who shunned the idea of religion being the sole identity of a nation.

Communism and socialism totally barred all known world religion and made nationalism the sole identity.

Democracy was plural in nature which advocated existence and freedom for all religions.

 

[muse]

Israel was a percecuted people who migrated from place to place and is their religion causing a problem for them surrounded by an Islamic world? Their emergence is as troublesome and fraught with conflict till date.

The reason for the flaw is that Muslim identity clashes with the ethnic identity of the region which was non Muslim to begin with.

Ideally Islam should have left at a personal level and not introduced as state principle. It would have been a totally different Pakistan if after seperation your forefathers had made it a neutral state based on secular principles allowing people to identify with their roots, it would have avoided this whole Saudiazation of Pakistan.

Ideally ? sure
About Israel - it was founded not because of persecution by Muslims but rather by Christians and your comment about religious and ethnic identity being in conflict is interesting -- for instance, and I may be wrong, in India communal strife is what you may be pointing to - but universal religions come with that baggage - they are UNIVERSAL