Browse By

REBUTTAL,Balkanising Pakistan a Collective National Security Strategy

Michael Hughes,maybe a Geopolitical Journalist,in the eyes of his own people however his arguments for blkanizing our state,just to stabilize Afghanistan are totally out of line,and are based, on fairy tale presumptions;His lack of knowledge and in depth study of our regional internal dynamics is evident by his methodology of approach and foul assumptions.It is very obvious this work has been done on the behest of ”Research and Analysis Wing” Government of India.Just to very briefly clear the mind set of those who follow,like wise articles on similar lines.Firstly the the Two Entities,”Sind Wa Hind ” have existed,from the mists of Time,The main power has always been Sind,the entity of Hind a geographic name awarded to the Pagan States to our East was the work of Arab Geographers of the 8th century AD.Historically, what is now known as India has never Existed as a State.So the British did the Hindu Brahmans a favour when they handed them over a big country to run,as to,Pakistan,it is a rebirth of its old Civilization. People like Michael should understand,that,in an historical perspective,heritage and culture is ascertained through the lay of the land,the people and their language,Pakistan is indeed a new name,yet our past reflects a very old civilization senior to almost all.Throughout the vicissitudes of time it has always existed,and has given to the World what all is now attributed to the Indians,it was our universities in Taxila,Harrapa and Bahamanabad (Bahaman’nih) which gave the inventions now attributed to Iranians or the Indians.It was our ”NEEL” plant” miscalled indigo,which gave the various hues of colour Blue to the world.We have been a egalitarian society and still are at the grass root level.Feudalism was a British imposition on us,our language spoken by bulk of our population is again distinct from rest of the world,from the present northern ranges of Qara korum to the shores of Qech wa Makran,only one mother language still lasts,a language lives on ,in the mouth of the speakers,a living and growing form,so long as the children learn it from their mothers,political or social reasons may establish a particular form of speech in a dominant position,but insipite of this,over the times ,that has not been the case here,inspite of the turbulent times,our Language has survived.The European Philologists,have termed our language as ”Dardic”,however the basic grammar,structure and elements are that of an old Scythian language on which they all agree.This language effects all the major dialects spoken within our State,namely Kashmiri,Balti,Dardi,Potohari.Hind Kohl (again a wrong term,as our mountains are that of Indus Kohistan or the foot hills of Qara korrum) hence it should be Sind, kohi, Lhanda,Sarieki,Jangali,Vichala,Lasi,Lari,Thari,
and Bar Rohi.(G.A.Grierson,Linguistic Survey of BRITISH INDIA,1891-1921).
Michael,thinks, to stabilize Afghanistan,we must part with our lands along the present Durand line,but is he aware that the so called champions who adhere to his theory are the very same people who are but immigrants in our fair lands since 1855 only.Now, 1855 must be old for people like Michael,but for us it is only yesterday when British opened the flood gates,this lasted till 1931,so these Pushtuns may have soft spot to go back but remember it is not only they who live here, old tribes which speak the old language still form the base of the fabric in these trans-indus regions.As to the term Afghanistan, is Michael, aware that it was coined just in the third decade of the 19th century ? As was the term,Baluchistan,Punjab and Sind (as a province) by the British.Historical geography is a subject which these new geopolitical journalists must study too,before they vent their opinions to the World at large.Proposing a blkanization of our state based on half baked ideas will not do.I have already stated the coining of the term Punjab above,and it is unfair on the part of Michael to state that bulk of our Army is composed of this entity alone,in reality it is composed of all our old tribes,is he aware that only the Baluchi are more in Punjab then in the Baluchistan, as a province !
The Bangladesh episode does not fit well here in his arguments, as it was 1000 miles away in between was the land mass now called India,as to his rationale of our army build up as per his thinking that too needs a more in depth study on his part,in order to preserve our entity against a aggressor who has strangulated our water resources on which Michael for reasons known best to him is quite,reference here is to the foul play of India on the Indus Water Treaty 1960.Wherein India is in process of installing 62 major and minor Dams on our sole share of upper three rivers of the Indus basin.India already has 100 % usage of the lower three rivers of the Indus basin,India runs ultra forward policies based on a fallacious concept called ”mahabharata”,in which Indian thinkers claim,lands across the Oxus as well those of eastern Iran as their boundaries,the Tibetan land mass too falls within their ambit.
Burma like wise in the East.and in Afghanistan since the days of Zahir Shah they have invested heavily, the leased submarines from Russia shows their desperate state of affairs, a similar leasing of Air bases in Tajikistan,too.A state within which over 500 million cannot get a single meal to eat.so what do people like Michael want us to do ? Open our borders to them,to roll over ?? Now if only India had been just a nice place to live in, the 16 states which have been revolting since 1947,from Indian federation,and for which Indian Parliament enacted a law,the ACT OF 1958,based on the British Act of 1942, which was the ,’Armed Forces Special Powers Act” .The Act gave sweeping powers to arrest and kill any suspect,however the British had given them only to officers of captain and above only,the Indians took it down to the warrant officer level, and in 1972 the daughter of Nehru,following her father;s footsteps,gave powers down to the Sepoy,in view of increasing revolts in Assam,Nagaland,Mizoram,Meghalaya,Tripura & Arunachal Paredesh, the state of Martial Law in disguise of this law exists to date,as 16 states are now directly under the Armed Forces,It was the same law used in Kashmir to kill millions since 1947, and same used against the Naxiliates, and the same used against the Sikhs, in the Operation Blue Star in 1984,since then in the Indian jails rot 54,000 Sikh prisoners.The Maoist too in the Central Indian States face this ACT.Over 200,000 farmers have committed suicide in India.India guards Kashmir with over 750,000 troops laced with latest military hardware.
Now coming to end of Michael’s mudslinging on Pakistan,perhaps in the interest of all the international community which by itself is no noble beast,should go over the track record of Indian army then would it be able to understand weather the analogy of one ”Christopher Hitches”, so boldly quoted by him,holds water,Indian war machine wants to become the new Reich,after all the swastika the proud symbol of the later Germany is still flown by the RS SS in India, the very organization which runs Indian army & wants India to be cleansed of all people, but the Hindu,the same agenda which the swastika followers in Germany wanted.. but geopolitical journalist like Michael need to research to know the facts.
(The writer has over 25 years of research in the area of Sindh Valley, currently known as Pakistan).
Balkanizing Pakistan: A Collective National Security Strategy
By:Michael Hughes
(This is a cross post from Huffington Post)
Breaking Pakistan to Fix It: The argument for Balkanizing Pakistan or, more specifically, fragmenting the Islamic Republic so it’s easier to police and economically develop, has been on the table since Pakistan’s birth in 1947 when the country was spit out of a British laboratory. And lately, the concept is looking more appealing by the day, because as a result of flawed boundaries combined with the nexus between military rule and Islamic extremism, Pakistan now finds itself on a rapid descent toward certain collapse and the country’s leaders stubbornly refuse to do the things required to change course. But before allowing Pakistan to commit state suicide, self-disintegrate and further destabilize the region, the international community can beat them to the punch and deconstruct the country less violently.To quell any doubts about Pakistan’s seemingly uncontrollable spiral into darkness, just recently, Foreign Policy Magazine ranked Pakistan as the tenth most failed state on earth and it would seem its leaders are hell bent on securing the number one slot – an honor it can add to their already dubious distinction as the world’s largest incubator of jihadist extremism. Afghanistan will never see peace or prosperity with a neighbor like Pakistan and the U.S. will always be threatened by terrorist plots spawned in Pakistan’s lawless regions – like the most recent Times Square bombing.The most popular approach to fragmentation is to break off and allow Afghanistan to absorb Pakistan’s North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) and the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), which would unite the Pashtun tribes. In addition, the provinces of Balochistan and Sindh would become independent sovereign states, leaving Punjab as a standalone entity.Balkanization is based on the premise that the weak central government in Islamabad is incapable of governing Pakistan’s frontiers, which have become the number one source of regional instability. The governing Punjabi elite have neglected the other three major ethnic groups – the Sindhis, Pashtuns, and Baluchis, primarily because a majority of Pakistan’s budget is spent on the military rather than economic development, schooling or infrastructure. Only 2% of Pakistan’s GDP, for example, is spent on education despite the fact Pakistan’s literacy rate stands at 57%.Minority groups have also been underrepresented in institutions such as Pakistan’s military – which is the country’s most powerful entity. Punjabis who represent 40% of the population constitute 90% of the armed forces. Pakistan’s own history provides a prime case study of what happens when an ethnic group can no longer tolerate political and economic disregard. After a quarter century of strife the Bengalis rebelled, seceded and founded Bangladesh in 1971.If the Balkanization solution is ever put in motion, accusations will surely fly that it’s yet another example of U.S. imperialism and neoconservatism run amok. However, this would be a diplomatic and multilateral effort, plus, it is more about reversing the iniquities of British colonialism than it is building some new world order. Inherent InstabilityPakistan’s problems began when the British drew its boundaries haphazardly, which was primarily a product of incompetence and haste than maniacal design. According to an article in the New York Times last year, British colonial officer, Sir Cyril Radcliffe was given six weeks to carve a Muslim-majority state from British India although he had never even been there before. Radcliffe’s private secretary was quoted as saying that Sir Cyril “was a bit flummoxed by the whole thing. It was a rather impossible assignment, really. To partition that subcontinent in six weeks was absurd.” It would be a comical anecdote except for the fact that hundreds of thousands of people died in the ethnic cleansing that followed as a direct result of British carelessness.Pakistan’s border with Afghanistan – the poorly-marked Durand Line – had been drawn in 1893, also by the British, but it was never meant to be a long-term legally-binding boundary. The faux demarcation split the Pashtuns in half. By reinstating the original natural boundaries, Pakistan’s western provinces would be returned to Afghanistan and the Pashtun tribes would be reunited. Such a move would also remove a strategic advantage for the Afghan Taliban, who can easily blend in amongst fellow Pashtuns on the Pakistani side of the border today.The British did not only gift Pakistan with lethal boundaries, according to renowned Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid, Pakistan inherited a “security state” from British rule, described by scholars as “the viceregal tradition” or “a permanent state of martial law”. Intellectual Christopher Hitchens asserted Pakistan has been a fiefdom of the military for most of its short existence. As was once said of Prussia: Pakistan is not a country that has an army, but an army that has a country. Hitchens also said the country was doomed to be a dysfunctional military theocracy from day one – beginning with the very name of the country itself: But then, there is a certain hypocrisy inscribed in the very origins and nature of “Pakistan”. The name is no more than an acronym, confected in the 1930s at Cambridge University by a NW Muslim propagandist named Chaudhri Rahmat Ali. It stands for Punjab, Afghania, Kashmir, and Indus-Sind, plus the suffix “-stan,” meaning “land.” In the Urdu tongue, the resulting word means “Land of the Pure.” The country is a cobbling together of regional, religious, and ethnic nationalisms, and its founding, in 1947, resulted in Pakistan’s becoming, along with Israel, one of the two “faith-based” states to emerge from the partitionist policy of a dying British colonialism. Far from being a “Land of the Pure,” Pakistan is one of the clearest demonstrations of the futility of defining a nation by religion, and one of the textbook failures of a state and a society.Pakistan deteriorated throughout the decades because of its focus on building the military and developing Islamic extremist groups to use as weapons in their eternal obsessive struggle against India. It’s true the U.S. helped Pakistan build these groups since the beginning of the Cold War, but America learned on 9/11 they had created a Frankenstein monster that now needed to be slain.Many analysts have suggested India is less of a national security threat to Pakistan than its homegrown terrorist groups, many of which have openly declared their mission to topple the state, which would allow jihadists to secure nuclear materials. Yet, based on its strategic decision to foster extremism and its recent public support for Taliban rule in Afghanistan, it appears the biggest existential threat to Pakistan is its own political and military leaders.The Last StrawWith that being said, Balkanization does seem like an extreme step at first blush, and perhaps Pakistan should be given another chance. Yet, after considering Pakistan’s historic and current relationship with Al Qaeda – it becomes much easier to justify.Since the war began in 2001 the U.S. has asked Pakistan to root out extremists from sanctuaries in a Rhode Island-sized area called North Waziristan, chief among them being the lethal Haqqani Network. However, Pakistan’s army chief General Ashfaq Kayani asserted his forces were too bogged down fighting the Pakistani Taliban elsewhere in places like South Waziristan, Orakzai Agency and various districts across the NWFP.I contacted an Afghan intelligence analyst about this and he assessed General Kayani’s claim with one single word: rubbish. The Pakistan army consists of 500,000 active duty troops and another 500,000 on reserve. If Pakistan truly wanted to capture the Haqqani Network they would be able to drag them out of their caves by their beards within a few days.In a movement that should have floored U.S. policymakers, Kayani was brazen enough to try and inveigle Afghanistan to strike a power-sharing arrangement with the Haqqanis. And Kayani, apparently the spokesperson for the Haqqani group, said they’d be willing to split from and denounce Al Qaeda, which is President Obama’s primary rationale for the war. However, there is a higher probability of General Kayani converting to Hinduism than there is of the Haqqani Network ever being decoupled from Al Qaeda.According to the Long War Journal, Siraj Haqqani, their leader, sits on Al Qaeda’s decision-making body. Haqqani’s friendship with Osama bin Laden dates back to the war against the Soviets in the 1980s and it was Haqqani that ensured safe passage into Pakistan for many Al Qaeda figures after the collapse of the Taliban in 2001. An Institute for the Study of War analysis concluded that Haqqani was “irreconcilable” and negotiations with him would actually strengthen Al Qaeda and would undermine the raison d’etre for U.S. involvement in Afghanistan over the past decade.In other words, the Haqqani Network is Al Qaeda.Pakistan has had a close relationship with the Haqqanis for over 30 years, who are still seen as a crucial anti-Indian asset. So, for nine years the Pakistanis protected the Haqqanis and claimed ignorance as to the whereabouts of Mullah Omar, Osama bin Laden and the Quetta Shura. Nine years, nearly $300 billion dollars and 1900 dead coalition soldiers later, the U.S. has officially verified that the entire war effort has been focused on the wrong side of the mountains.A stable Afghanistan is in Pakistan’s best interests, but this message has been preached time and again with little to no results, and the U.S. has waited long enough for Pakistan’s leaders to uproot the extremists that orchestrated 9/11. But now, it appears as if the international community will have to do it for them.
(Michael Hughes writes similar articles as the Geopolitics Examiner and the Afghanistan Headlines Examiner for Examiner.com.)

Originally published at : http://yasmeenali.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/rebuttalbalkanising-pakistana-collective-national-security-strategybynaveed-tajammal/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *