A recent AP article describes the latest clashes between Pakistani military forces and the Taliban in the Buner region and near the Afghan border. These clashes are similar to the off-and-on relatively minor clashes we’ve seen for several years now. This particular quote from the article is striking, however:
If the Pakistani military either chooses or is forced to use Islam to justify their dead, are they allowing the Taliban to dictate (literally) the terms of the conflict? If the military/people of Pakistan think the conflict is about who can be the best and truest Muslim, has the West already lost Pakistan to the extremists? Is it time to either threaten or simply invite Indian troops to act as peacekeepers in Afghanistan?
In the muslim world it is common to describe anyone who dies as having been martyred. And not just people who die in a conflict, they say the same thing about people dying in a bus crash.
There’s an unquestioning acceptance among all people that the religion is a fact rather than a hypothesis. The day they make the conceptual leap out of this state of mind will be the day when they make the greatest advance they have made in centuries because it will free them to think about things outside of the narrow confines of their self-imposed mental prison.
The idea that their religion is just one belief system among many and may be wrong does not even occur to them. This is applicable to many religious communities in poor countries, not just the islamic ones. Their brains are hemmed in by a cloud of taboo and myth.
While I tend to agree (because *everyone *that’s anyone knows that Christianity is the One True Religion), there’s still that uneasy feeling from the possibility of a lack of control of nuclear weapons, and then there’s India, etc).
Pakistan needs to remain stable in order for our venture in Afghanistan to have a semblance of succeeding.
“Since ancient times the region numerous groups have tried but failed to invade the NWFP including the Persians, Greeks, Scythians, Kushans, Huns, Arabs, Turks, Mongols, Mughals, Sikhs, and the British”
what makes anyone think that Indian troops or US troops would have better luck?
Actually this is a key problem today. I’ve read a lot about the “splitting” of the British India and a consistant theme was always “Muslims simply cannot get a fair shake within the Hindu population.” The British accepted this argument and the population transfer confirmed the people’s feelings.
However decades later we see this isn’t so. India now has the third largest Muslim population (after Indonesia and Pakistan). And soon Indian Muslims will outnumber Pakistan Muslims.
All indications are the Muslims are treated OK in India. Interestingly enough, we find the two wealthiest Indians are not Hindu but Muslims. Muslims make up all sectors in India from technology to farming. Contrast to Pakistan and Bangladesh were the wealthiest people are landowners.
This is problematic for Pakistanis who claimed they couldn’t get a fair shake under a Hindu dominated India because the whole reason for Pakistan’s existance was based on religion.
Of course during the Cold War a weird situation developed where a Pakistan a dictatorship was allied with the USA while India a democracy was in close association with the USSR. (India’s chief enemy China, was seen as a counter balance to the USSR by India).
Now Pakistan uses the Cold War as an “excuse” for lack of a better word, to rationalize the difficulties it has.
Like many other countries Pakistan has spent most of its existance trying to get a piece of land Kashmir, instead of focusing its efforts on bettering it’s own people. Pakistan certainly has the ability to be much better than it is, it’s not a basketcase because of its people or land or resources. It’s a classic example of mismanagement from the top down in every position.
I disagree with this. It’s certainly true that many groups have fought them but none really tried full force. This area is a trade route, but it was never necessary to occupy or defeat it. It was easier to fight it then come to terms with the locals making agreements of accommodation.
In today’s poltically correct world, we see how even powerful nations like Israel and the USA can be defeated simply by fighting on the enemy’s terms
If the US were to use “full force” on the Pakistani side of the border (if I understand how you are using the term), the Pakistani government would face serious unrest, and whoever was in power would be promptly thrown out on their asses in the next election. If the goal is to keep the civilian government in Pakistan as stable as possible, then a “full force” scenario is counterproductive towards that goal.
whats full force? Exterminating every single living human with chemical or biological weapons?
Its mountainous terrain littered with caves and strongholds, where almost every male knows how to fire automatic weapons and the fighters are indistinguishable from the ordinary civilian population. They also have huge stockpiles of weapons stored away that was smuggled across from Afghanistan.
I would assume a key difference is how much influence the religion (or more accurately, the various holy men of the religion) has in government policies. Liberal democracies - not so much. Officially Muslim states - variable, but can be quite a bit.
It’s not just a Muslim thing, the term “Shaheed” martyr is also applied to Indian army fatalities; also, Indian freedom fighters who fought against the British.
Its normal to describe soldiers who have been killed in action as having being martyered. Its done in everyday speech, without conscience thought. A few years back my dads regiment held a memorial for the soldiers killed in the '65 war with India, and at that ceremony they played some tapes of wireless talk, and when asked about someone, they replied that they had been marytered.
Can’t speak for Bangladesh, but not many Pakistanis have seen Brian Glutton’s light.
In 1947, the lands that make up Pakistan now, contributed 1% of British Indias GDP. Its more like 15% and between then and now, the area has experienced continious economic growth (except for a couple of years in the mid 90’s), and there has been massive industrialisation in the Punjab and in Sindh and parts of they Frontier. None of that would have ever happened if Pakistan had remained part of India, especially the India of Nehru and his successors.
On the issue of Kashmir, aside from the emotional issue, between 1965 and 1989, the Kashmir issue was on the backburner, it was not until the Kashmir insurgency broke out in 1989 that Pakistan did anything substantial on the issue.
As for not using full force, well lets see I am from that area, Genghis Khan and his successors definatly used full force, as did the Persians and the British and the Sikhs
Where I’m from specious is common and only costs $ .50. Your question is silly. Pakistan is a Muslim country, using Muslim language doesn’t mean they are kowtowing to the Taliban.
The Persians held the territory for many times in many iterations of the Persian Empire, Parthian, Sasanian, etc… Alexander successfully invaded into India and setup a vassalage there. The Mughal Empire was quite successful there. The Turks were successful there. The White Huns weren’t necessarily the same Huns as in Hungary. The Mongols invaded but didn’t make any attempt to hold it as Genghis was chasing Jalal al-Din punitively as he was the only person at that point to defeat Genghis’s armies.