Pakistan: Now or Never?
Perspectives on Pakistan
On U.S.-Taliban talks, look at 2014 and work back
Email 
Print
According to Steve Coll in the New Yorker, the United States has begun its first direct talks with the Taliban to see whether it is possible to reach a political settlement to the Afghan war. He writes that after the Sept. 11 2001 attacks on New York and Washington the United States rejected direct talks with Taliban leaders, on the grounds that they were as much to blame for terrorism as Al Qaeda. However, last year, he says, a small number of officials in the Obama administration—among them the late Richard Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan—argued that it was time to try talking to the Taliban again.
“Holbrooke’s final diplomatic achievement, it turns out, was to see this advice accepted. The Obama Administration has entered into direct, secret talks with senior Afghan Taliban leaders, several people briefed about the talks told me last week. The discussions are continuing; they are of an exploratory nature and do not yet amount to a peace negotiation.”
I had heard the same thing some time ago — from an official source who follows Afghanistan closely – that the Americans and the Taliban were holding face-to-face talks for the first time. He said the talks were not yet ”at a decision-making level” but involved Taliban representatives who would report back to the leadership. There has been no official confirmation.
And given that the idea of holding talks with the Taliban has been on the diplomatic agenda for a year, you would probably expect to see the various parties involved in the conflict sounding each other out – though diplomats say that in the first half of last year it was hard to get negotiations moving without the direct involvement of the Americans. By the second half of 2010 the Americans had given greater endorsement to talks, leading — according to the source I spoke to — to direct talks beginning towards the end of the year.
In a speech to the Asia Society on Friday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Washington was “launching a diplomatic surge to move this conflict toward a political outcome that shatters the alliance between the Taliban and al-Qaeda, ends the insurgency, and helps to produce not only a more stable Afghanistan but a more stable region.”
“As military pressure escalates, more insurgents may begin looking for alternatives to violence. And not just low-level fighters. Both we and the Afghans believe that the security and governance gains produced by the military and civilian surges have created an opportunity to get serious about a responsible reconciliation process, led by Afghans and supported by intense regional diplomacy and strong U.S.-backing.”
“Now, I know that reconciling with an adversary that can be as brutal as the Taliban sounds distasteful, even unimaginable. And diplomacy would be easy if we only had to talk to our friends. But that is not how one makes peace. President Reagan understood that when he sat down with the Soviets. And Richard Holbrooke made this his life’s work. He negotiated face-to-face with (former Serbian president) Milosevic and ended a war.”
Pakistan has been pushing hard for talks on a political settlement in Afghanistan which would force al Qaeda to leave the region. A senior Pakistani security official said in December that Washington needed to identify “end conditions” in Afghanistan, rather than setting preconditions for talks that insurgents renounce al Qaeda, give up violence and respect the Afghan constitution. He suggested instead a process in which violence was brought down, insurgents renounced al Qaeda, and a consensus then negotiated on a future Afghan constitution.
Pakistan army chief General Ashfaq Kayani also gave a detailed letter to President Barack Obama late last year on how Pakistan viewed Afghanistan. According to one western official who had seen the letter, the ideas put forward had not been rejected, but were being studied carefully.
So it’s interesting to see that both Britain and the United States are now talking about outcomes for talks with insurgents, rather than preconditions.
According to Clinton, ” Over the past two years, we have laid out our unambiguous red lines for reconciliation with the insurgents: They must renounce violence; they must abandon their alliance with al-Qaeda; and they must abide by the constitution of Afghanistan. Those are necessary outcomes of any negotiation.”
A senior British Foreign Office official, talking last month, made the same point. She said requirements the insurgents renounce al Qaeda, give up violence and respect the Afghan constitution applied to a settlement rather than to the opening of talks. “These are not preconditions for talks,” she said.
And many Afghan experts have long argued that the Taliban could be separated from al Qaeda through a political settlement — most recently in this report by Kandahar-based researchers Alex Strick van Linschoten and Felix Kuehn.
However, whatever happens with talks, this will be a very slow process with a great deal of room to go wrong. The Taliban itself has publicly rejected talks, and as van Linschoten and Kuehn noted in their report, the ramped-up U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan may be fragmenting the insurgency and creating a new generation of younger, more radicalised leaders less open to a peace deal.
For now, both the United States and Britain argue that the military strategy is succeeding in bringing the Taliban to the negotiating table — a calculation that, if wrong, could mean that by the time substantial negotiations get under way, the leadership no longer has the authority to deliver.
And as I noted here, the aim of the current “talks about talks” is not to strike a peace deal overnight, but rather to lay the groundwork so as to reach a final phase by 2014 when the United States and its allies say they will withdraw their troops.
The United States and the Taliban never understood each other when the Taliban were in power in Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001. In his New Yorker article, Coll quotes a story about how Taliban leader Mullah Omar made a cold call to the State Department in 1998. “The United States had just lobbed cruise missiles at Al Qaeda camps in his nation. Omar got a mid-level diplomat on the line and spoke calmly. He suggested that Congress force President Bill Clinton to resign. He said that American military strikes ‘would be counter-productive’, and would ‘spark more, not less, terrorist attacks’, according to a declassified record of the call. ‘Omar emphasized that this was his best advice,’ the record adds. That was the first and last time that Omar spoke to an American government official, as far as is known.”
The Taliban, by many accounts, vastly misjudged the likely U.S. reaction after the Sept. 11 attacks, when they refused to hand over al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden for trial without clear evidence of his involvement.
So both sides need time just to learn how to talk to each other, not so much because of language differences, but because of cultural differences (though that process may have started in one of the many parallel tracks of Afghan diplomacy with former Taliban ambassador to Islamabad Mullah Abdul Salaam Zaeef visiting London this month.
And the substantial issues for talks lie ahead.
How will the Taliban be expected to break with al Qaeda? And where would al Qaeda remnants go once, or if, they are — to use Clinton’s words “on the run”? With uprisings and protests across the Middle East and North Africa, few would want to introduce another element of instability right now if al Qaeda members filtered back into Egypt, where they have their ideological roots, Yemen, where it has a strong presence via Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), or North Africa, home to Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM).
How far would former Taliban leaders be included in the political process in Afghanistan? I hear mixed reports on what could be an acceptable compromise. One official said that the Taliban should not be compared to a national liberation movement – opinion polls, though unreliable in a war zone, tend to suggest they do not enjoy widespread support in Afghanistan. So a power-sharing deal would offer them far greater legitimacy than they deserve — or so the argument goes. The counter-argument, which I have heard from another offiicial, is that the Taliban do not believe that it is up to the Americans and their allies to dictate how Afghanistan should be run.
Then you have the issue of whether the Taliban would be expected to owe allegiance to the existing constitution — which few seem to like much, in part because it is so over-centralised, but are also unwilling to ditch without a better alternative.
A major cause of suspicion — not just in Afghanistan but among other regional players including Iran and Russia – is that the United States might seek permanent military bases in the country even after it pulls out most of its troops in 2014. Clinton, echoing comments made by Obama in 2009, said that, ” we do not seek any permanent American military bases in their country or a presence that would be a threat to any of Afghanistan’s neighbors.” However, the increasing size of American bases in Afghanistan give pause for thought.
We also do not know what would happen to the current government in the event of a political settlement – though it’s worth noting that President Hamid Karzai’s term ends in 2014. If you wanted a political settlement which allowed the former Taliban leadership into government in some form, that could be the time to do it – if, and that is a huge if, conditions are right at the time.
And we do not know how the Pashtun Taliban might be reconciled with the non-Pashtun members of the former Northern Alliance, which fought the Islamist movement when it was in power in Kabul.
So in the short-term don’t expect a breakthrough. Look for progress on smaller confidence-building issues – including the release of prisoners, and taking Taliban names off the UN blacklist - to see whether the talks about talks are making any progress. And as is the case in any peace process worldwide, expect spoilers at every stage from anyone who might stand to gain more out of war than peace.
Comments RSSPost Your Comment
-
Author Profile
-
Umair
“If any country should ever be further divided, it should be India. India in its present state has become a regional hegimon imposing its will on its neighbours and is a threat to its neighbouring nations.”
***I have not heard anyone else complain except Pakistan. “Rising power” will appear “hegimon” to you and that is no surprise.
“Only a divided and weakened India will pose a smaller threat.”
***Looks like you spent a night with that Chinese journalist who proposed that. So your hypothesis that weak and split Pakistan is not India’s interest does not work in a reciprocal manner. I was taking that for guaranteed.
Mortal1 said:
> looks like we’re back to the same old rhetoric of 1971, nukes, kashmir, hegemony, call centers, slums, etc etc….yawn!
On the contrary, I sense a shift in the wind. I don’t know if you sense it, but the tone of the Pakistanis has subtly changed, and I think it reflects new introspection in their country. Some of the old rhetoric still carries over, naturally, but I think dialogue is increasingly possible.
We as civilians/citizens may still be caught up in older ways of thinking and talking, but I believe there is some serious official dialogue going on, and we may even see some dramatic settlement this year, when no one expects anything to happen.
Why do I think so?
Well, the situation resembles an “end game” of sorts, and I think the Pakistani military has reluctantly realised it has reached the end of the road in terms of hostile options. World opinion (especially that of the US) has hardened in a number of ways, funding is becoming more conditional, the Pakistani economy is weakening alarmingly, India’s influence is increasing, and in general, options are running out. They have to look at making peace, finally. The military surely knows, as former Air Marshal Asghar Khan freely admits (http://bit.ly/bP8TRC), that India did not start any wars. The Pakistanis did. (They did it for Kashmir, and they lost every time. He clearly says, “In 60 years, they’ve not aggressed against us.”) And so it’s entirely in the hands of the Pakistani military to change the tenor of the relationship.
There will be a settlement on Kashmir very soon. Former Pakistani Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri has said the Musharraf peace plan is not lost and can be revived (http://bit.ly/gLfcFN). It just takes will on the Pakistani side, and I think that harsh economic reality is playing a part in bringing about that will.
Kashmir itself isn’t such a big issue anymore, as Barkha Dutt also mentions (http://bit.ly/fzXtNe). I think the “indigenous” Kashmir riots were Pakistan’s last throw of the dice (and the only affordable option, at Rs. 400 per stone-thrower
). Regardless of the fervent hope of Pakistanis that Kashmiris will struggle until they manage to break away, the analogy with the fall of Middle Eastern dictators is overblown. India has many more soft options to deal with Kashmir.
I think the settlement is coming, and I also think the Pakistanis sense this better then we do. The person who’s going to blink will always know it first.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
Ganesh Prasad: “I think the settlement is coming, and I also think the Pakistanis sense this better then we do. The person who’s going to blink will always know it first.”
That will buy probably another 20 years of peace. in 1972, after the Simla agreement, Pakistan went off in its own way for sometime. When the Soviet tanks rolled into Kabul, the old emotions returned with a vengeance. People tend to me a lot emotional in Pakistan. In a decade’s time, they were back to square one. In the early and mid eighties Pakistan began to launch its support for extremism in Punjab by helping the Khalistan movement. After that in the 1990s, they were back to the Kashmir campaign again. All earlier accords were tossed up in the air and Pakistan, with its new found power of radical militancy, launched itself against India in a big way. Now it had the nukes to go with it and American support.
Now Pakistan is broke and will need a lot of time to get back to the old ways. Mind it you, it is only the military we are dealing with. In about twenty years, if they recover, they are not going to start on a ground. They have the tendency to go back to their old ways. There is too much macho involved. Until they change that, they are just buying time. For them, a war with India never ended. They are inspired by the repeated assaults of Mahud of Ghor who finally managed to break the back of the Indian king.
We need to be aware of that mentality that is still prevalent in Pakistan. So long as that mentality exists, we simply cannot take their peace overtures for granted. Two decades from now, who knows, there might be new issues in India that can be targeted. We cannot afford to lower our guard. Sometimes peace overtures are made to gain something in terms of international support for money and other matters. I do support peace. But I’d be very cautious about Pakistan. Their establishment is completely ruined. Wolves run their affairs under sheep skin.
Typing on my ipad is a bit cumbersome. I have missed out words and mis-spelled. Sorry for the typos.
Ganesh,
I agree that there’s some serious introspection going on in the liberal quarters of the Pakistani society but as we know, Pakistan has become a conservative country & is on it’s way to becoming a radical state where liberalism & even moderation are becoming taboo. Under such circumstances, it’s hard to imagine that the average Pakistani is doing any introspection or soul searching. Instead, unfortunately, I see more of the same belligerence & finger-pointing. I also agree that Pakistan is running out of options on Kashmir but is it’s military establishment ready to accept this reality & make a deal with India? I have not really seen any concilliatory gestures or signs from the top brass of the PA, which would indicate that they are ready to drop their confrontational attitude & come to the table but if you sense that a settlement is on the cards, I sincerely hope that you’re correct.
@”Kashmir will be India’s nightmare and you will regret for not getting rid of the dispute, by that time it will be too late” Posted by Umairpk
Sorry buddy, your dream of Kashmir going up in flames might remain a dream, afterall!
‘Thousands of Kashmiri youth attend Indian Army recruitment rally’ – BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-as ia-12560761
(Finally, the Indian govt seems to be doing something right in Kashmir)
KP, Mortal1,Netizen:
I appreciate the points you make. We do need to be vigilant and never lower the guard against the kind of mentality the Pak establishment possesses. They would go to any lengths to see India harmed. I have heard of a saying that goes something like this: “Burnt the hutment to kill the rat”. They don’t mind destroying the Pak society if it means getting th indians down.
What could be possible suggestions to resolve this situation?
I remember the Americans disbanding the Iraqi Police and army when Saddam was toppled. It led to numerous difficulties later on the law and order front and countless acts of terrorism visited upon the people in Iraq. New recruitment and fresh training of Iraqis has taken heavy toll on the effectiveness of the Police/Military arms of the state. It is still a job-in-hand.
Would the Americans consider something similar in Pakistan (How to enforce it is entirely another matter!)? New education starting at the kindergarten levels and fresh recruitment of disciplined paramilitary/military units will be required. Cleaning up the mess may take 25-30 years. Short of such drastic steps, it is difficult to visualise peace in the region in our lifetimes.
ome interesting commentary going on, all sorts of speculations and rumors. Has Pakistan Military run out of options? Has US tighten the screws? is Pakistan squeezed? Money is tight so did the world experience a recession its the same everywhere. Is Pakistan broke? Will Pakistan give up Kashmir? Will Pakistan give up its stance vis-a-vis India on all outstanding disputes?
For example will Pakistan give up on its Siachin stance becoz of all these problems?
For anything, my prediction is Pakistan has rather fully mastered these tiny little geo-politics and managed it pretty well. Hats off to our diplomats who do a splendid job, hats off to our politicians who are dumb and lack the committment but still manage it at the end. Guys this is not the end game, what seems to be the end might be a new begining.
For anything, the Raymond Davis case is an example, it seems Pakistan is the only place where CIA is being held accountable. I need Pakistan clearly do need to set its priority straight. If peace with India is in our interest and India is willing to be friendly, then good enough lets do it. Similarly, reduce dependence on US aid and become self sufficient, do not give anyone the excuse that Pakistan’s soil is used for terrorism. Then increase the costs, forge a relationship with US on the basis of equality.
A word on Pakistan military, yes the people of Pakistan stand firmly behind the military and respect it.
All is well, no one is going down. Yes the challenges are enormous, but without challenges life would be dull. Pakistan faces challenges, but does not mean it will give up its stand on issues related to India. Sorry to break anyone’s heart, the are persoanl opinion. I still wish best of luck to everyone.
Mortal:”I also agree that Pakistan is running out of options on Kashmir but is it’s military establishment ready to accept this reality & make a deal with India? I have not really seen any concilliatory gestures or signs from the top brass of the PA”
-Though i do not represent Pak military, but as close i am couple of days back coming back from airport I passed the motorcade of Gen. Kayani who was on his way to Corps headquarter Chaklala. Let me tell you a little secret, first thing, a military always has strategic, tactical and operational plans in place as well as contingencies planned out. Running out of options is not an option for a professional military, the lack of conciliatory gestures on part of PA/ISI is the reason why I claim they have never run out of options. As a neutral observer, for a moment I become an alien, think as a neutral person, not as an Indian or Pakistani taking sides, and I think definitely India is posing some sort of long term threat, either to Baluchistan or just the strategic calculus of Pakistan Army asesses Indian threat to be genuine, that is only thing holding up. I think rather onus is on India to prove otherwise.
I argued this b4, and in response the argument goes, that since Pakistan is nuclear power, Indian threat means nothing. On Baluchsitan the answer is always that no evidence is provided. There are two things here, even though Pakistan is a nuclear power, the cornerstone of Pak nuclear doctrine is to maintain a well trained and organized conventional force to deter aggression, so that nukes are never needed to be used. Therefore, the problem of Indian threat becomes a constant worry for the conventional Army. The SFC (Strategic Force Command) is the last line of defense.
coming to Baluchistan, if RAW is involved there, trust me there will be minimal evidence. Intelligence agencies do not leave paper trail or evidence. Simple as that. Definitely, there are some bottlenecks and roadblocks to peace between India and Pakistan. Only a continuous dialogue, confidence building measures etc can remove those roadblocks.
Most importanlty, India has arrived to a point where it has to make a choice. It has been involved in many wars with Pakistan, after 1971, India thought the rest of Pakistan is only a matter of time before it collapses, but as Pakistan now has become nuclear power. It is now for India to decide how to deal with Pakistan. But be careful, you are dealing with a nuclear power, such countries stand together and do not vanish so easily. But plz i don’t need lecture on USSR, i knew it was a nuke power but vanished.
So, this is it, you decide what you want to do with Pakistan. it is India’s actions that will determine Pakistan’s reaction and not the other way around. Lets see if anyone has any thoughts.
Ps
Even from a business perspective India and Pakistan remain and will remain competitors. Just as mergers and acquisition talks take place between two companies. Smaller companies cut costs to remain competitive, big giants some time collapse like GM or Ford etc. The business environment matters, if a smaller company has dedicated workforce which is well trained, it becomes a force to its larger competitors.
i see the situation between India and Pakistan in this way, never expect a merger or acquisition. As long as Pakistan can have financial wisdom, good governance, it is not going to become bankrupt or insolvent. Its strength is its people and their ability.
And you also have to wonder which side oppresses the Kashmiris more:
http://bbc.in/dKo7xL
“The authorities in Muzaffarabad [...] justify such action [arresting pro-independence activists] on the grounds that local laws do not allow pro-independence politics.”
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
Umair said:
> I think definitely India is posing some sort of long term threat, either to Baluchistan or just the strategic calculus of Pakistan Army asesses Indian threat to be genuine, that is only thing holding up. I think rather onus is on India to prove otherwise.
What is your response to Air Marshal Asghar Khan’s position that India has never aggressed against Pakistan?
The previous clip I posted were excerpts from a Pakistani series called “India: An Enemy Imagined”, in 6 episodes, each episode consisting of 3 parts: http://bit.ly/e05bqF
I would recommend that you watch all 18 clips patiently. It’s well worth it. I felt the series was very well-produced and fairly balanced, with many nuances of opinion. Maleeha Lodhi is a very articulate hawk, as can be expected. I was pleasantly surprised at the views of Air Marshal Asghar Khan and the LUMS academic Aasim Sajjad. More people on both sides of the border need to watch this.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
This is an excerpt of Prof. Aasim Sajjad’s views from the same documentary: http://bit.ly/gFET7g
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
Umairpk: “coming to Baluchistan, if RAW is involved there, trust me there will be minimal evidence. Intelligence agencies do not leave paper trail or evidence. Simple as that.”
Likewise, the whole world knows about the ISI. What amazes me is that you guys campaign about RAW day in and day out, but your ISI is a hundred times worse. It has modeled itself after the CIA or the KGB and has been trained by the CIA during the war against the Soviets. RAW could not even alert anyone about the Mumbai attacks. It cannot knock out Dawood Ibrahim. It this guy was wanted by Mossad, he would have been buried deep underground by now. If you are a country like today’s Japan, with peace and prosperity as the goal, and if India sent in RAW to cause trouble and destabilization, then there will be weight to the claims of injustice from your end. Your ISI has its tentacles far and wide. It was behind the Mumbai attacks. Like you said, intelligence agencies do not leave trails. But we all know who was behind it. ISI/CIA/Mossad etc are not merely intelligence agencies. They are legalized criminal organizations. Some of them stage assassinations, coups, terrorism training etc. RAW was like that in the 1980s. It was due to the circumstances of that time. Things have changed. RAW’s activities have been pulled back considerably in the 21st century. Intelligence gathering will always be going on. All diplomatic missions from all countries are espionage centers.
Generally there is a saying that those who live in glass houses should not throw stones at others. In your country’s case, it is not mere stones. They are boulders. While you are launching boulders towards your neighbors, you are accusing your neighbors of throwing pebbles into your yard. What you are not realizing is that the boulders are slowly weighing your own foundation down.
“Definitely, there are some bottlenecks and roadblocks to peace between India and Pakistan. Only a continuous dialogue, confidence building measures etc can remove those roadblocks.”
India has been sincere. Simla Accord was brushed aside by Pakistan in 1980. When Indian PM went to Lahore, Musharraf launched Kargil attacks. Again when peace initiatives were made, ISI launched Mumbai attacks. What this tells us is that, Pakistan is not one entity. It has several groups and establishments, each with its own foreign policy and agendas. India has made the mistake of dealing with the civilian government, which has no value in Pakistan. Your military wants to deal with us only on war terms. Your ISI is hand in glove with terrorist groups. If you look at past history, Pakistan has made every effort not to make peace with India. And we are fed up with it. There is no hope left in us that anything sincere will come from your end. We will definitely keep some diplomatic initiative towards your country. But we are not expecting anything from it.
“Most importanlty, India has arrived to a point where it has to make a choice. It has been involved in many wars with Pakistan, after 1971, India thought the rest of Pakistan is only a matter of time before it collapses, but as Pakistan now has become nuclear power.”
India is not at the receiving end here. India made the choice in 1971 and cut off one half of Pakistan. It could have accelerated further collapse. You were bailed out by the Americans at that time. They wanted to stage their proxy war against the Soviets after that. If the Soviets had not invaded Afghanistan, your country would have fallen on its own. And now you have become America’s enemy. You are probably relying on China to come and bail you out. Chinese are watching everything carefully. They are worried about another Jasmine revolution erupting in their country. And RAW in those days was engaged in nefarious activities. India’s PM Inder Kumar Gujral pulled everything back out of goodwill. India has not gone back the old ways after that.
“It is now for India to decide how to deal with Pakistan. But be careful, you are dealing with a nuclear power, such countries stand together and do not vanish so easily. But plz i don’t need lecture on USSR, i knew it was a nuke power but vanished.”
You are talking very immaturely. You are not the only nuclear power here. We have nukes too. I am surprised at your belligerence. You are talking like an armed criminal who threatens others because he has grenades covering his whole body. You need to realize that those grenades can explode and tear you to pieces. India is being careful here because we are viewing you exactly the way we would in the case of a dangerously armed criminal.
“So, this is it, you decide what you want to do with Pakistan. it is India’s actions that will determine Pakistan’s reaction and not the other way around. Lets see if anyone has any thoughts.”
India’s actions are not directed towards Pakistan currently. We are only watching the developments inside Pakistan. We are being prepared in case any embers come flying from your side. It is not India, but the whole world has to decide what to do with Pakistan. My recommendation is to restructure the Af-Pak region and get rid off the nukes. Smaller countries in this region would be the practical choice. There are six decades of proof to justify it.
Just an obsrvation!
You guys could keep on debating kashmir or India Pakistan relations and just ignore the artile!
The one thing no one should ignore that Pakstan Army surrendered to the Indian Army without any conditions. Pakistan Govt. is not in a position to stipulate any conditions for settlement with India. Pakistan Army involvement in domestic security matters or helping civilians during floods or involving itself in the American war on terrorism is unlikely to recover their lost dignity. This is their legacy and is going to go down in history with names of the Generals and senior officers involved. The Army is not even able to blame the civilian leaders for the decision was made on the model of ww 2 military text books taught to them by their colonial masters. The ex living Generals should refrain from making wise peace proposals and let the youth of Pakistan regain the dignity for themselves first which their fathers surrendered. The Arab youth have just started the process and the time for the Pakistan youth is slowly coming on the horizon.
Rex Minor
Pakistan: “The ex living Generals should refrain from making wise peace proposals and let the youth of Pakistan regain the dignity for themselves first which their fathers surrendered.”
Why? Is it because truth hurts? No country in South Asia has been as belligerent and war mongering as Pakistan has been. When are you guys going to stop walking with three legs? The colonial British set up Pakistani military with a purpose for their own interests in the region. ISI was set up by the British after Pak military’s birth in 1947. As soon as it was born, it went to war with India. It was like a new wildebeast calf, training its legs after birth.
Pakistan as a nation is only a skin to cover that military. It has been that way ever since. Pakistan as a nation has no meaning or relevance. It is not a nation for Muslims. This truth has been proved beyond doubt when East Pakistan seceded and the Balochi rebellion.
The only thing that has been stable all along has been that military. And its adventure hikes have been encouraged and supported by the colonial and cold war powers. They thought they could slaughter people anywhere and no one would touch them. They have had utter contempt for India. So at the end of it all, everything that is left is the military. The skin has worn out and has leaches and rash all over it.
Pakistan’s military has served its purpose. Russian expansion had been decimated. Colonial power no longer exists. US wants to have nothing to do with this region anymore. So Pak military needs to be dismantled and removed. Until that happens, it will become the eye of the storm and every country will be worried about things getting out of control.
We all know that Pak military armed with its nukes cannot be touched by anyone. The only way to eliminate this sinister cartel is by dismembering the whole region so that it has no justice to exist. And in the bargain, the nukes can be removed. It is going to happen on its own.
“The Arab youth have just started the process and the time for the Pakistan youth is slowly coming on the horizon.”
And it will make Libya resemble a picnic. Brothers might be lobbing nukes at each other. Pakistan is headed the way of Yugoslavia. We are looking forward to the day when the colonial landmine called Pak military disappears.
Umair,
Economic resources are are of paramount importance in order to sustain any kind of conflict & when we say that Pakistan is running out of options, we are mainly referring to those resources. I don’t wish to throw more economic data at you but Pakistan is experiencing a very serious economic condition called “stagflation” & it needs to save every penny that it can. Under such severe circumstances, it would be wise on the part of your generals, to patch up with India & make drastic cuts in defense budget. It’s time for them to decide what’s more important, conflict with India or survival of Pakistan. If they choose to continue on the current trajectory, your country will self-destruct very rapidly. The onus is definetely not on India to prove anything. India is doing just fine & it is Pakistan which is in big trouble here. The sooner your leaders realize this, the better it will be for your country.
An interview with a Baloch leader on a Pakistani channel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRfxLjEO8 FI
Mortal1,
Stagflation is indeed the end game for a nation that does not have a capitalist culture. Stagflation will be impossible to explain to the man on the Pakistani streets. Mr. 10% will be demonized even more than he is now. Stagflation will certainly destabilize Pakistan to dangerous levels.
However, Pakistan is at least two quarters away from stagflation, even if the current state of affairs continue.
Rex Minor said:
> The ex living Generals should refrain from making wise peace proposals and let the youth of Pakistan regain the dignity for themselves first which their fathers surrendered.
Is that code for “Don’t listen to Air Marshal Asghar Khan”?
Looks like Rex has paid money to watch a fight and doesn’t want to be disappointed. Looks like he’s also bet on one side.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
@shahidkhan123
Kashmiri “struggle” is “indigenous”, but Bengali genocide, Baluchistan freedom struggle, Pashtunistan struggle, Jinnahpur project, Sindudesh, Sunn-Shia slaughter, Pashtun-Mohajir mutual slaughter in Karachi, ahmedi slaughter with machine guns are all non-indigenous….
Your enlightened wisdom must come from scholarship in “Pakistan studies” textbooks
Specifically you shouldn’t be accused of madarassa education.
@Umair
“As a neutral observer, for a moment I become an alien, think as a neutral person, not as an Indian or Pakistani taking sides, and I think definitely India is posing some sort of long term threat, either to Baluchistan or just the strategic calculus of Pakistan Army asesses Indian threat to be genuine, that is only thing holding up. I think rather onus is on India to prove otherwise.
I argued this b4, and in response the argument goes, that since Pakistan is nuclear power, Indian threat means nothing.”
***Umair, you are not neutral, you are back on your favorite topic? Do not spin it. Be honest and face it head on at the right time. The right time for you to respond to one month old debate, which you started BTW, is not now. You are telling only part of the reasons for why India won’t do it. Last time you asked Indians to convince you was few entries back and I gave you one page of reasons [not just nuke reason] why India won’t and cannot monkey around with Pakistan to a degree to split it. Nuke reason was just one and is in fact one of the major ones and read your recent statements you have been saying the same thing that it is not 1971.
Do not throw goody goody lines when when the onus is on you to step up and speak. Also do not take these debates as win or lose situations but for understanding each other. Hit and run guerrilla warfare type debates are of no use nor is bringing a point that has been addressed.
This just tells me people want problems to stay.
@chidambaram
Comparing Iraq with Pakistan seriously underestimates the complexity of the pakistan problem.
I’m afraid prasadgc here is promoting kumbaya optimism. Indians have been burnt repeatedly with this Lahore bus yatra mentality. While idealism should be admired, realism would better serve India and its people.
India-Pakistan disputes are unresolvable. Yes, you read that right, not through blogging, not through “peace talks”.
I have been coming here since Mumbai /Nov 2008. How much global watcher (where is he these days), prasadgc, mortal and KPSingh have
persuaded or influenced Umairpk? Not one bit.
Paks can decide what they want to do. For India, it can only manage the pakistan problem. India has become stronger due to better development of institutions, and economic growth with the opposite the case with Pakistan.
Kashmir “dispute” is a manifestation of the pakistan problem, not the other way around.
Guys
I would just state, either all Pakistani corps commanders who meet at GHQ are fools, or Indians are smart. Why on earth does the Pakistan military strategic calculus towards India is negative? Lets talk fact, I don’t have time to research. Can anyone come up with a simple statistic. Tell me how many corps, diviosions, offensive strike corps does Indian Army has? out of total how many are facing towards Pakistan border? As I stated b4, India might not have the intention to committ aggression right now, but certainly possesses the capability. And intention take no time to change. So we are back to square one, pull out Indian Army from Kashmir, withdraw from Siachin, sign a comprehensive peace treaty, resolve Kashmir dispute, Siachin and sir creek, Run Kuch, any pending water disputes, Baghliar dam, respect fully the Indus water treaty. Let us totally work towards peace, nothing short but total normalization in relations. Open up new areas of cooperation, trade, commerce, technology sharing etc.
Regarding stagflation, I did not hear the term before, but know that Pakistan is currently raising $1 billion through bank bonds etc, if I am correct and certainly the economy is frail after the flooding last year and due to security situation last few years FDI investment(foreign) has almost stopped. These require long term reforms, tax collection to fix the economy and painful measures to reduce dependece on IMF. But this particular topic is not regarding macroeconomic indicators, leave it for another time.
@”I would just state, either all Pakistani corps commanders who meet at GHQ are fools, or Indians are smart. Why on earth does the Pakistan military strategic calculus towards India is negative?” Posted by Umairpk
The track record of the Pakistani army speaks for itself. History is testament to the fact that your military establishment has committed numerous blunders while persuing a futile startegy of confronting India with unprovoked conventional & proxy wars. The result of this self-destructive startegy is for all to see. Has it ever occured to you that your military establishment has deliberately kept the perception of a bogus Indian threat alive, simply because it does not intend to relinquish the power, it has become accustomed to & the material resources which they command? It’s time for you to ponder over this possibility instead of dimissing it as Indian propaganda.
@”Tell me how many corps, diviosions, offensive strike corps does Indian Army has? out of total how many are facing towards Pakistan border? As I stated b4, India might not have the intention to committ aggression right now, but certainly possesses the capability. And intention take no time to change.”
By draining it’s resources on an Indian threat based on it’s capability, don’t you think that you are actually falling prey to an Indian trap? If it’s true, this is the smartest startegy, the Indians have deviced; Sinply keep troops ammassed along the border & let Pakistan bleed to death without going to war. And again, I come back to the same question: Why do your generals care about the capability of the Indian military when you have nukes?
@”These require long term reforms, tax collection to fix the economy and painful measures to reduce dependece on IMF.”
Yes, these are long term solutions BUT there’s a great short term solution with long term reppercussions: Patch up with India & cut your defense budget by 50% within months. The question is, are your generals pragmatic enough to swallow their ego & accept this solution.
Umair said:
> pull out Indian Army from Kashmir, withdraw from Siachin, sign a comprehensive peace treaty, resolve Kashmir dispute, Siachin and sir creek, Run Kuch, any pending water disputes, Baghliar dam, respect fully the Indus water treaty.
You have still not explained why India “needs” to do any of these things. India is not the country on the brink of economic disaster.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
It is amazing to see the arrogance and contempt some Pakistanis have. There is little realization that they are on the brink. And they are still talking like some imperialist masters. I think these guys are venting their jealous feelings indirectly. Chest thumping and demanding things helps them console themselves. They know that there is absolutely no match between India and their country. They have somehow grown up with a warped feeling of superiority over India. This complex has been needed to keep their low self esteem covered. Some of them pride themselves in saying that they ruled over India for 800 years, without realizing that their ancestors were the ruled people who converted for various reasons. They are definitely burning with envy as they see India grow in stature while their country has gone from bad to worse in all aspects. They do not realize that it takes hard work and dedication to build a nation. Keeping an enemy at all costs to sustain the unity is a bad approach and there is no realization in them that they are relying on that flimsy reason to keep their frail unity alive. Let them burn. It is not going to change anything. At some point, the Sindhis, Pathans and Balochis will rebel after getting tired of being dragged along towards a path of disaster. When the ship sinks, rats will want to leave. My advance condolences.
> respect fully the Indus water treaty.
As far as I know, India has always honoured the treaty, even during times of war.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
@Umair
“@”I would just state, either all Pakistani corps commanders who meet at GHQ are fools, or Indians are smart. Why on earth does the Pakistan military strategic calculus towards India is negative?”
***You said it right. Pakistani corps commanders are fools. It is a well known fact that Pakistan commanders have failed Pakistan. It is your ordinary soldier that is the bright side for you. Pakistan commanders calculus worked in all wars and shamed Pakistan and your soldier had to save Pakistan’s ass. BTW that included Baloch division in 1965 to save Lahore from advancing Indians.
PA is huge establishment but limited number of officers control and give commands, as it happens in India too. But your top command is just not fit enough to assess the reality of the situations. Despite interacting with Chinese PA generals have not learned to follow that famous Chinese saying that goes something like “do not start a war which you cannot win it”. Their calculus has always been wrong. Thank your soldiers and give hell to PA generals who know more about reals estate and mortgage than strategic military calculus.
@Mortal
“And again, I come back to the same question: Why do your generals care about the capability of the Indian military when you have nukes?”
***You won’t get an answer now although Umair has been saying what Indians say that 1971-type situation is not possible because of nukes.
KP Singh said:
> It is amazing to see the arrogance and contempt some Pakistanis have. There is little realization that they are on the brink.
As Nitin Pai said (http://on.wsj.com/eMX4Fi), Pakistan is “a state that has been on the brink perhaps since the 1950s—so long that its elites have mastered the art of playing from that position.”
You have to admire their chutzpah.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
@Ganesh: Thanks for the link to the WSJ article. I agree with Mr. Pai. Talking with Pakistani leaders is meaningless until they demonstrate sincereity in eliminating India-centric terrorism. Instead efforts should be made to choke their lifeline (funds & resources from the US, Saudi Arabia & China).
It’s good to see that there are some young Pakistanis like this fellow, who are doing something constructive with their time. He seems to be the opposite of a few hate mongering e-journalists that we’ve encountered on this blog:
http://kashifhkhan.wordpress.com/
I sympathize with the Indians, it is heartening to see their desperation in dealing with Pakistan’s strong military establishment. It would probably have been a good idea to avoid all previous wars so both countries would have better relations. Currently, the hopes remain low, with Pakistani military not in a mood to come to the party things look bad for India. good luck to everyone
@Umair
“It would probably have been a good idea to avoid all previous wars so both countries would have better relations.”
***It is not even a debatable point that Pakistan started those wars, and could have avoided and India-Pak relations would be much better.
“Currently, the hopes remain low, with Pakistani military not in a mood to come to the party things look bad for India. good luck to everyone
”
***And you are happy with that old PA approach with smiley face. I am confused you want wars or no wars.
Rex, Umair, and anyone else,
If Gaddafi’s troops start to massacre Libyan protesters, should the world intervene militarily to stop him?
This is a trick question, so be careful how you answer it because it could lead to a related question on the Bangladesh genocide…
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
Ganesh
“If Gaddafi’s troops start to massacre Libyan protesters, should the world intervene militarily to stop him?”
***LOL Nice way to keep them quiet or expect the question to be put away by saying no direct relation to the entry title.
Umairpk: “I sympathize with the Indians, it is heartening to see their desperation in dealing with Pakistan’s strong military establishment.”
The world deals with drug cartels, terrorist organizations and illegal missions the same way. Your military is a mercenary organization. It has been given a nation to legalize its existence. That’s all. Imagine a drug cartel having a nation for its affairs. Or look at Gadaffi.
“It would probably have been a good idea to avoid all previous wars so both countries would have better relations.”
You have indirectly confirmed with us that your military is the evil here – by initiating not one, but four wars. Now your people are facing the consequences of its actions.
“Currently, the hopes remain low, with Pakistani military not in a mood to come to the party things look bad for India. good luck to everyone”
Of course the hope is low. Your military is now facing the American barrel head on. Criminal outfits face their violent end ultimately. I feel sorry for the people of your so called country for they have been used as sand bags by your military. And even sorrier that there is no realization in any of you that you have been fooled and victimized.
Gansh: “If Gaddafi’s troops start to massacre Libyan protesters, should the world intervene militarily to stop him?”
Definitely. In the case of East Pakistan, the US knew India did the right thing. But due to geo-politics they were against India. When Vietnam invaded Kampuchea to throw out Pol Pot, the US campaigned against it as well. Now things have changed. Libya is in the opposite court. And so is Pakistan.
@”I sympathize with the Indians, it is heartening to see their desperation in dealing with Pakistan’s strong military establishment” Posted by Umairpk
You should reserve that sympathy for your fellow Pakistanis because you guys need it now & in the future. Indians are doing just fine. Their country is growing rapidly & the average Indian has the opportunity to get a decent education & earn a good livelihood. Despite problems, the future of Indians has never looked brighter. In contrast, Pakistan’s is rapidly going down the drain. A stagnant economy & precarious security situation, has resulted in unemployment, inflation, illiteracy & poverty touching all time highs. The future of Pakistanis has never looked dimmer.
@”It would probably have been a good idea to avoid all previous wars so both countries would have better relations”
You should tell that to your stupid generals, who started all those wars in the first place.
@”with Pakistani military not in a mood to come to the party things look bad for India.”
Things look bad for India? how so? As explained above, India is doing just fine. It’s growing rapidly & it’s stature in the world is also rising. Your military establishment has already ruined your country with it’s bone-headed decisions. If it continues it’s belligerent ways, it will only speed up the total collapse of your country & it’s subsequent disintegration. So ultimately, if your generals do not want to come to the table, it won’t affect India but it will be VERY bad for Pakistan. The average Pakistani who has been eating grass for a long time, will not be able to afford that as well. So maybe you guys should start getting used to weeds, mud or stones.
“If Gaddafi’s troops start to massacre Libyan protesters, should the world intervene militarily to stop him?”
Absolutely. It’s about time, the world starts intervening to prevent/minimize organized massacres & genocides. Nothing is more important or valuable than human life.
On a different note, why do the Pakistanis have their biggest stadium named after Gaddhafi?
Missiles named after ruthless foreign invaders, stadiums names after brutal foreign dictators….talk about role models!
None of the Pakistanis seem to realize that they are being loyal to their military which has brought their country to the brink of collapse. It is their military that was responsible for the genocide and secession of East Pakistan. But they have cleverly deflected the blame towards India and got away with it. It is their military which never allowed democratic and secular systems to grow and mature. They have sucked out all the resources and depleted allocations for development. They have placed their country on war path by engaging in cold war geo-politics, helped radicalize the country, encouraged terrorism and have completely eroded away all the foundations for stability and growth. It is so unfortunate. Pakistan will go the way of North Korea of China steps in and supports them. Or it will go the way of Yugoslavia if the US is involved.
Mortal1 said:
> Missiles named after ruthless foreign invaders, stadiums names after brutal foreign dictators….talk about role models!
When you view everything through the lens of religion (as I find Pakistanis tend to do), invaders who massacred your own kaffir forefathers become “your” heroes, dictators are acceptable as long as they are Muslim, etc.
And on the topic of glorification of criminals, let’s not forget the mausoleum in Lahore to a murderer called “Ghazi” (holy warrior”) Ilm Din. And what was this holy warrior’s claim to fame? He murdered a Hindu publisher called Raj Pal in 1929 because he was the publisher of a book that Muslims considered blasphemous.
The Wikipedia page on him (http://bit.ly/eXLYja) looks like it was written by a sympathiser. Even the celebrated poet Iqbal thought this guy had done something praiseworthy.
I’ve tried to understand this mindset, and this article by Steven Pinker comes closest to explaining it: http://nyti.ms/eqjpr5
Basically, Pinker says that “morality” is a composite judgement made up of 5 strands (harm, fairness, community, authority and purity). For many Muslims, the “authority” strand takes precedence over the “harm” strand, which explains why they think it’s OK to kill someone who insults the prophet. Others not conditioned to think this way are shocked at the response of such people.
Fortunately, there are Pakistanis who disapprove of this lionisation of Ilm Din: http://bit.ly/g8DjCZ
So yes, there are Pakistanis who disapprove of such extremist viewpoints. But it will take a long time, if it happens at all, for more liberal and humane sentiments to prevail in Pakistan.
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
@”When you view everything through the lens of religion (as I find Pakistanis tend to do), invaders who massacred your own kaffir forefathers become “your” heroes, dictators are acceptable as long as they are Muslim, etc.” Posted by prasadgc
What I find disturbing, is that even amongst muslims, Pakistanis tend to choose the worst, as role models. Take for instance, the mughal dynasty. Amongst all the mughal emperors, including the great Akbar, which one do the Pakistanis consider as a role model? Aurangzeb, the one who killed his brothers, blinded his father and committed atrocities against hindus & sikhs. Is it a surpirise that the pakistani youth have such a warped thinking!
It is typical for ideological systems to twist facts and glorify monsters as heroes. In addition, they develop contempt for others, which enhances the exclusiveness with time. I have read about the various ideological movements in the world and they all follow the same pattern. People are isolated first and indoctrination begins swiftly. At some point, people lose the exposure to the outside world and start repeating the same ideological principles with time. Economic strains provide the necessary breeding ground for things to get worse. At some point, people are fully converted. If you look at North Korea, people have been controlled to such an extent that they consider themselves to be the pure and idealistic society with their leader as a God who has come to protect them and provide for them. Anyone who thinks is swiftly eliminated. And these societies need an external threat or an enemy to keep their conditions sustained at all times. If the conditions change for any reason, then the ideologues trigger violence or a war with others to keep reset everything. If you look at Pakistan, Islamic ideology is a very handy instrument in keeping people isolated from others. India is propped up as an enemy. Kashmir conflict is the engine they have been using to drive their population in the direction they want. And ignorance has been expanded. All curiosity and eagerness to know about India has been prevented by contempt. Negative image of India has helped tremendously. In the 1980s and 1990s, when the going was good, Pakistanis really treated India with utter contempt. And these feelings do not go away easily. When the tide turns, it brings out an immense feeling of frustration. Visit the sites of Aryan nations, Al Qaeda, anti-semitism, Srilankan Tamils, Nazi sympathizers, Afrikaaners etc. You will find a common thread in all of them. Pakistan’s reliance on Islamic isolation is based on a similar approach. All these institutions rely on violence.
KP Singh: Pakistan will go the way of North Korea of China steps in and supports them. Or it will go the way of Yugoslavia if the US is involved.
Unfortunately I am more cynical about it, the state of pakistan I believe will not go either way, Primarily because of the Nuclear arsenal that Pakistan possesses, no country will ever impose its will on pakistani state and even a superpower like US cannot do it . In case of North Korea, the state completely controls all the levers of power unlike pakistan where no entity really controls the state of pakistan. Military though is a dominant power and the major arbiter of the real power in pakistan,it is by no means the only entity of pakistani discourse. Had the military been the only power, we would not have seen dictatorships thrown out realtively peacefully whether its Ayub,yahya or musharraf(with the exception of Zia-ul-Haq), the state of pakistan that finds itself in is even more problamatic. It is infact a chaotic state where no one has any real control to change things for good. As we know that the british granted the state even without necessary democratic institutions have taken root in society, military being the major arbiter of power have controlled all aspects of pakistan. when popular revolutions took root in pakistan demanding for a change in the direction of the state of pakistan. The military passed on the power to democratic forces without giving much authority at the same time. The military also nurtured,trained,assisted the militant culture powered by Extremist and theological Islam which was propogated on the basis of piety and delusions of grandeur which proposed ideal state of islam which are hostile of democracy and dissent against the political class.
The kind of revolutions that we see in Egypt or elsewhere is not possible in pakistan as there are deep vested interests (even a section of middle class) that have profited by the state of pakistan . Every revolution will have a huge presence of the middle class as they drive the dictators out owing to their misrule and unemployment. In pakistan, the military soldiers and their familites and their profiteers are the middle class,media which is controlled by military and the narrative of pakistan which is shown as -the pakistan which is winning against corrupt politicians and becoming true islamist society where no injustice exists or discrimination prevails.
The state of pakistan is going to wither away slowly for decades without failing completely but imposing huge costs on india. The tragedy of pakistan will unravel slowly and painfully perhaps for decades with india bearing most of the cost of the implosion that takes place and there is no escaping from it.
col ghadaffi and his clan belongs to the underworld. And who from the west went over board to rehablitate him into the internatonal communiy, no others than senior members of the Western Underworld, namely Bush, Blair, Barlsconi and lastly the Bona Parte from France.
Libyan people do not want any international help, they are going to tackle the revlutionary turned colonel to the head of the Devil Mafia syndicate of the world. The good news is that all foreigners blood suckers of the Libyan wealth would have left the lybian space by then!
Mr Ghadafi is currently using the American paranoi of Bin Laden and tons of drugs which are behind the Arab revolution.
Rex Minor
It is difficult for a non muslim to appreciate the psyche of a muslim, more so when the guy is an infidel, atheist or pacifist. Fear me and no one else, says Quraan to the believers! This is the state of mind which s not easy to achieve. The Arab youth revolution from Tunisia to Egypt to Libya and beyond is being driven by this psyche and ghadafi and other desert rats would be washed away in no time.
Rex Minor
Of all the bloggers KP despite his plagliat rhetoric, is the only one who is capable of telling us what the future holds for India? How much of the territory and the number of people are likely to survive after the next clash in the sub continent?
Rex Minor
@”In case I was not clear, here is the value of your opinion —–> 0″ Posted by shahidkhan123
If I was a betting man, I’d bet that the score value of your IQ isn’t much higher than that either.
@”Of all the bloggers KP despite his plagliat rhetoric, is the only one who is capable of telling us what the future holds for India?” Posted by pakistan
KP, this fellow has been warming up to you for some time now. You better watch out!