Pakistan-Afghanistan Relations: The Choice Between Alliance and Acrimony

Javed Sahib's analysis is good.It must be noted that between 1978 and 1992 the ruling Pakistani military junta left no stone unturned to destabilise the de facto PDPA Government of Afghanistan.The Pakistani military junta was instrumental in manipulating the so called Mujahids to destroy Kabul.The same continued with civilian Prime Ministers.Nawaz Sharif took pride in stating that Afghan Army was destroyed as an institution by the so called Mujahids.Benazir continued the same dubious policy of supporting Taliban.Gen NUK Babar called Taliban his boys.Mullah Borjan the true partiot Afghan Taliban leader was mysteriously killed.Afghans say it had a Pakistani hand.

Dr Najib saw the things as they were and tried to make peace.But the civilian government of that time had no intellect and refused the offer.The DG ISI of that time Javed Nasir told Nawaz Sharif that Dr Najib was a Kafir.What bullshit.

I have great regards for Spanta Sahib.He was a true Maslaki.Bisyar Ziad Kaka Adam Bood.No match .But remember he was no Mujahid.

Now as I see it Afghanistan is again being manipulated by so many powers.Its a great tragedy.

Khalq o Parcham Zindadabad

Afgahns are the biggest frustrated people in the World. Even they exist because of Pakistan, when there was no world for them it was Pakistan first who gave them a Hand to Help.
Even today Afghans are doing business hare in Pakistan, investing all of thier Black Money, and converting it into white.
To better establishment of Pakistan, the Govt sholud Banish Afghans from Pakistan!

tahmed32 ji

You are too good, a true universalist (with just the right touch of `nationalism` :)).

Agreed, many of us others operate at a slightly lower level, acknowledging that there are great forces selfishly dividing and uniting people, and no amount of our wishing is going to make them go away. Ignoring them can actually hurt the naive.

kaalchakra #226: you write ``After a certain point, many subnationalities do not consider themselves as `occupied people` anymore. They willingly and often proudly submerge their nationhood within that of their occupiers.``

``Nationality`` is nothing more than ``tribalism`` - i.e. it is based on the human instinct to find safety by becoming part of a herd. The ``herd`` can identify itself on a religious basis, a caste basis, a linguistic basis, a citizenship basis, a regional basis or some mix of the same. So, ``submerging`` one`s ``nationality`` merely means switching to become part of a bigger herd.

Far more important is to get rid of the underlying reason - insecurity - that underlies this ``herd mentality``. And that is best done, I think, by going beyond nationalism to a more universal view of things. ``With malice towards none`` in Lincoln`s insightful words.

romair

You grasp the dilemmas of Islamic leadership better now than you did post 9/11 (as arjun keeps reminding people). On the other hand, wild swings from the extremes of euphoric embrace to dejected abandonment can betray some basic instability.

Armed insurgencies are controlled regularly. When parties share a basic democratic, humanistic mindset, democracy is a powerful antidote. The other very sucessful approach destroys the occupied nation`s own nationhood, and replaces it with a completely new one through unbridled brutality and total mind control maintained over many generations. After a certain point, many subnationalities do not consider themselves as `occupied people` anymore. They willingly and often proudly submerge their nationhood within that of their occupiers.

When one of the two approaches (democracy or unbridled brutality and total mind control) is properly and patiently applied, insurgents wither away. In their place, active agents arise.

#219

Future Trends .....


Hanging of Saddam is but one step forward in the eminently sensible long term US plan for the region -- Control over the oil resources. And this can, in the opinion of the think tank, be easily achieved by balkanisation of the Iran-Iraq-Pakistan region. Small states with oil resources can be ``managed`` effectively (the Kuwait model). Other small & medium states without any significant oil resources can surely be relied upon to maintain a hostile environment with constant mini wars amongst themselves which threaten to spill over into and engulf the ``oil holders`` which would be ``duly protected`` by the US. For a price.

Therefore, the next step would be balkanization of the region. Whether Kurdistan becomes independent first or Balochistan is what remains to be seen. The order is immaterial. What matters is that there is an order in the chaos. The US is slowly and surely inching towards its long term goals. And no amount of chest thumping is going to daunt it…..

And of course, Masadi knows this all...

hamidm: harsh? you think i could care less what filth a two-taka man like this individual writes on chowk? in the interests of keeping chowk from becoming a cesspool, i do think that chowk staff should be doing what they are supposed to be doing on a moderated board, and shutting out abusive posters like this man.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

#219 by bulleya on January 2, 2007 9:19am PT


and most of all, our own musharraf..


oh so now you think he`s going to swing, huh? just a few years ago you told us he was on a roll and how every grandmother in the US knew about him and how Pakiland was going to sail along with that wind in their sails....of course, that was before you understood the real nature of the relationship (think bomb you to the stone age and bombs on bajaur)....

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

....i think the best way to see how things will pan out in the future is to look at past trends.......most of them are quite clear, yet so many people totally ignore them........

1. no one has, historically, been able to defeat the afghans through an invasion and occupy their lands......the british tried it, the soviets tried it, pakistanis and iranis (?) kind of tried it.......based on this, it should be obvious that nato and usa are not going to be able to do it either........

hence we will soon be seeing a defeated nato coming out of afghanistan.......

2. it is nearly impossible for a structured military to defeat an insurgency, when the military is trying to occupy land.........the only successful example is in malaysia (?) with the brits (?).........all other occupations have failed......at best they have resulted in long term perpetual violence........at worst in all out defeat for the occupying country......french in algeria......soviets in afghanistan.......usa in vietnam.........pakistan in bangladesh.......india in kashmir........israel in lebanon..........israel in palestine.........russia in chechnya.......turkey in kurdistan.........

based on this, the americans were bound to be defeated in iraq......which is what has happened........though it was even a lot faster than i thought.......

3. any dictator, in a muslim country, who sides with the usa, will eventually, one day, get hanged by the usa at some point.........the reason is that sooner or later, the population of that country will rise up against the pro-usa policies of the dictator, thereby forcing the dictator to adopt anti-usa policies....or even more dangerously, anti-israel policy........or the dictator will over-extend himself, in trying to assist the usa, in its conflicts with other countries, thereby weakening himself in his own country............

shah in iran.......zia in pakistan.......saddam in iraq......noriega in panama.......mujahideen leaders in afghanistan........based on this trend, the next on the list are hosni in egypt.....sauds in saudi arabia.......the gulf shiekhs.........the king of jordan.....the leaders of lebanon......and most of all, our own musharraf....

.......the best policy is to niether be a friend of the us govt. nor be an enemy........one is screwed if one does either.......especially if one is a dictator........either your own population will hang you or the americans will.........rumsfeld shaking hands with saddam one day, and executing him the next is a very good example.......

........hence, the best thing for musharraf to do now is to distance himself from the usa and start doing what his own population wants him to do.......rather than waiting till the last second when he has to ditch the usa, in the fear of his own population overthrowing him......or he has to become anti-usa.........in both the later cases, he is screwed............if hilary clinton or borack obama don`t hang him then john mccain or qazi hussain (or nawaz sharif will).........

Re: # 217

salim mian,

....... when i was in eight grade my english teacher named me the `instigator` and to this day i have the dubious reputation of being a master at starting an argument where none exists ........... heck, i can even make a case that people born out of wedlock are superior to people born to married couples based on the example of jesus christ, lawrence of arabia, the prophet ishmael and alexander hamilton ........ so, i understand what you are trying to do here ....... and of course we all know that the moon is made out of cheese .....

Ranjit #209,
Despite what the self-styled demagogues, who claim to speak for ALL Pakistanis, say, there are many many Pakistanis who regret the unnecessary and totally asinine partition of India. Yes, many of these Pakistanis hail from Karachi, NWFP, and Baluchistan. Of course, you would expect the people from Punjab to be very satisfied with partition - they benefited most from the mayhem and inequities visited upon the unfortunate people of India.

Re: # 101

In retrospect Saddam made too many mistakes. He refused to share power with Shites and Kurds in his own country. He attacked Iran and occupied Kuwait.

#209 ranjit: actually....no. :-) what i wrote was to educate you on the origins of the urdu language, which you thought was india. and while at it, i mentioned other historical facts that demonstrate where india is historically relative to pakistan - namely the recipient of ideas. what hamidm says is quite correct, and is in addition to what i wrote: the vast majority of pakistanis are very pleased with their separate nation and - whatever their differences, as in case of urstruly and hamidm - would never dream of undoing partition. on the other hand, over the years i have met countless indians who start off any discussion by talking about the partition as being a big tragedy.

so nice try. but hamidm is right. and guys like arjun are the best friends of fellows like me who - while wishing nothing but peace and prosperity to india - love Pakistan and are very proud of our great history and fine people.