A Weak Pakistan is a Threat to Neighbours

Beena...

"A weak, fragmented Pakistan will pose a threat to all its neighbours. "

It is all a question what that strong pakistan is likely to stand for and support. A pakistan, a strong pakistan strongly supporting the jihadis is bad for the world.

In the past 60 years pakistan has shown beyond doubt what it stands for, and teh world doesnot like it one bit.

India had been telling a long time that the jihadis are supported by the ISI, at last now even the pakistanis are agreeing to it.

Time for teh pakistanis to listen ti India and take any indians words as though it is from the book.

"India had been telling a long time that the jihadis are supported by the ISI, at last now even the pakistanis are agreeing to it."

You are far too optimistic Jayp. Far far too optimistic. The apparent disagreement between the Taliban and the Pakistani middle class/ISI that created the Taliban is a purely INTERNAL issue.

If you think this represents even the slightest change in any Pakistani's mindset, you will be sorely disappointed, and very soon.

Re: # 2

I agree, there will be no substantial change, the support for the jihadis is intrinsic to the TNt strain of islam that created pakistan, that muslims cannot live with other religions. This over the years have been expanded initially to get rid of the ahmadias, then the shias etc.

But with the US intervention, there could be some reduction in the money flows to the jihadis through the ISI. That at least is something good. The fact is that pakistanis and their ideology cannot be changed, it can only be managed by global intervention.

At last things are moving in that direction, and a weekened economy is the first step towards that..

Dear Ms. Sarwar, I can feel the anguish and fear in your writing. Unfortunately, Jayp and Eklavya have a valid point that a strong Pakistan is neither in India's nor Afganistan's interest. Historically, a feudal mindset, that is still prevelant in Pakistan, have always demonstrated animosity towards its neighbors.

When Ayub felt that Pakistan was strong vis-a-vis India he attaked India. Zia's legacy, established from a position of strength, is playing havoc with Afganistan even today and the "blowback" is having its consequences in Pakistan.

When Musharaf felt that he was strong enough bcos of the nuclear weapons, he unleashed Kargil.

So to say that a weak Pakistan is a threat to its neighbors is a fallacy. A strong Pakistan is a nightmare. A weak Pakistan embroiled in its own soup and contained within its borders is perhaps a more suitable arrangement.

Pakistan, a country created by the demand of the Muslim Feudals has never had any democracy. It has always been run by a Fuedal - be it an "elected" one or an oppointed one (Army). You now have Sindhi Feudals running the country.

I dont think that Pakistan is in any danger of failing completely. Yes, there is a possibility of some cracks in its structure from widening. The US will not allow Pakistan to break-up as it is not in its interests. Strangely enough, I dont think it is in interest of the Indians to break it up any further.

Re: # 3

I agree....we cannot eliminate this TNT virus...but it can be contained........in a violent part of world called Pakistan..........

Re: # 4

giani ji,


A broken Pakistan is very much the need of the hour. Politically i might make no difference to the citizens and may prove to be beneficial in the long run. But it would the greatest set back fo Pan-Islamist Al Qaeda and other strains of TNT because it would be a great set back to their dreams of uniting muslims in making an imbecile religious war against non-muslims.

Giani ji, I have no stand on Pakistan's being strong or weak. As individuals, Pakistanis are my friends, and I wish them a strong nation, and much happiness.

I just don't expect even the slightest change with respect to outsiders. It is a purely internal fight.

Those who think that tomorrow, or outside of this conflict, Pakistanis would think and argue differently than they have in the past are fooling themselves.

Simultaneously Pakistan must undertake a major review of its intelligence agencies and them rein in. The bomb attack on Marriott Hotel in Islamabad on September 20 underlined the urgency of a holistic plan for dealing with terrorism. This includes ‘home grown’ terrorism stemming from the ‘jihadi’ groups that Pakistan has long cultivated in the hopes of bleeding India in Kashmir.


Sorry Beena...pipe dream if ever there was one..

In my honest opinion politically Pakistan as a whole has much to gain by delimiting it's constituent parts into independent ethnic entities.
We can have a loose confederation of 5 parts of Pakistan which may be called the "Greater Pakistan" and each may decide it's political , cultural and ethnic identity.

This would end the ideology of pan-Islamist terrorism forever in this region.

That is the only way we can have peace in this region and ensure that Islamism dies its natural death in the 21st century.

Eklaveya,
Dont be so Naive.

Unfortunately, Pakistan has always played according to US script and now Pakistan realsies how dangerous it can turn.

How are the Taliban contacts suddenly openeing up?
Do you think USA or UK ever broke contacts. The only difference is that this time, they want to keep Pakistan out and use Saudi Arabia instead. But even this would not succeed, unless Pakistan is co-opted. Note it somewhere.

Beena,

The title of your essay is: "A weak, Pakistan is a threat to neighbours". Yet, your article does not tell us why! In the second last paragraph you assert: "A weak, fragmented Pakistan will pose a threat to all its neighbours." Thats it. You give no reason what-so-ever. Your title could well have been "zardari goes to UN".

ijaz_gul, please help us get some idea of Pakistani thinking.

See, people like tahmedji never supported Jihad outside of Pakistan. They will continue to not support it.

Do you know any Pakistani who was an External Jihadi (a person who supported Jihad outside of Pakistan) earlier but would not return to supporting External Jihad once Pakistan's current political-economic-social difficulties and instabiities have been resolved? Any Pakistani who has MORALLY and publicly renounced Jihad in such unjust places as in Kashmir?

Seriously, what change in Pakistani mindset do you see, other than 'first let's get strong' and 'in-the-meanwhile-let-Muslims-oppressed-by-Hindus-and-others-switch-to-"Gan dhian-struggle"?'

To me, it all seems like Pakistan's External Jihadis going back home to furnish some supplies and cook some food which ran out in their war with the outside world. They will be back as soon as they have filled their stomachs and replenished their supplies.

Is their any basis for outsiders to believe that isn't true (other than the words of the same Pakistanis)? :(

Eklaveya,
You appear obsessed. Tell me when this mock stuff begin and whp was the prophet?

And you have evaded my question.

Ijaz, don't know the answer to your question!

Ijaz, your theories may well be true, and of course, are always intellectually very interesting. But realistically, the only option for outsiders is to make their own observations. (Would you and I take George Bush and American officials at their word and accept their compelling theories? Can outsiders take Zardari and Pakistani officials at their word and accept their theories? Neither would be right.)

So purely in the spirit of making that observation, do you see any basic change in the worldview of Pakistan's External Jihadis? And by External Jihadis one simply means people who have been supporting one or more of Pakistan's various External Jihads, before they felt the threat at home - people like HP. Is there anything to assure the world that they intend actually stopping their Jihads, in one form or another, after they make sure their own homes are safe?

Yaar, don't take this amiss. I am not doing anything that I would not expect you to do, fully, with regard to the regular pronouncements and policies of Indians or Americans in their dealings with Pakistanis!

#15 Posted by Eklavya

(Would you and I take George Bush and American officials at their word and accept their compelling theories? Can outsiders take Zardari and Pakistani officials at their word and accept their theories? Neither would be right.)

“So purely in the spirit of making that observation, do you see any basic change in the worldview of Pakistan's External Jihadis?�

Kaal gone nuts again! How would Ijaz know? Outsiders can’t accept Zardari’s theories and Kaal can’t accept Bush’s theories. Ijaz would have to be insider of the “Pakistan’s external Jihadi� to accept their theories. Otherwise, he too is an outsider for Jihadis.

Unless Kaal in his infinite non-wisdom is implying that Ijaz has inside track!