Pakistan - Destabilization & Division

Provide your case for Pakistan being internally UNSTABLE, before 2007.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It was theoretically ruled by military strongmen, but many areas were simply lawless and ungoverned, and thus never really unified.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Theoretically the moon is made of cheese.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In the 60 years of Pakistani history leading up to 2007, Pakistan endured three separate military coups and a civil war that split the country in two. Pakistan has never accomplished a peaceful transfer of power between elected civilian governments.

In addition to this, Pakistan hosts some of the world's most extreme levels of poverty and inequality, with essentially zero provision of governance in huge swaths of territory. Add to this the age-old tensions between the Punjabis, Sindhis, Balochis and Pashtuns - which Islamic nationalism has never been sufficient to paper over - and it's frankly surprising that Pakistan has lasted this long in the first place.

 

Indeed, I wonder how Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif got elected for the first time. Did they come in through military force?

Further, you are completely ignoring Indian military attack and threat as a force of tension between Pakistan and India. Pakistan relies on a proportionally large military force to guard against attacks from India, which is roughly ten times its size in population. Not to mention the continued threat from the Societs during the '70s.

Right. You obviously have never been to Pakistan. Though literacy in the tribal and nomadic regions is low, Pakistan's settled areas have almost 80-90% literacy, not to mention most people are trilingual.

What age-old tensions? Where are you pulling all your disinformation from? Is Is this the common reporting in Israeli newspapers today? If you want to see age-old tensions, you should study Israel and all its neighbors, indeed all the nations of Asia, Africa, and South America oppose Israel.

Unfortunately, what people like you don't understand is that Islamic nationalism is the most successful movement in all the history of South Asia in uniting a people, and it is based on a Mughal past and a common religion, along with a collective suffering under the British takeover and their genocides against Muslims in particular. The difference between Israel and Pakistan being, Pakistanis are natives and have lived on their land for nearly 4,000 years. The Israelis are mainly Khazar European converts with no ancestry in Palestine.

 

Both succeeded military rulers, and so their ascensions did not involve the peaceful transfer of power between civilian governments. Pakistan has peacefully transferred power from unelected military regimes to elected civilian governments, but not between elected civilian governments.

Given that I wasn't addressing "forces of tension," but rather evidence of instability, this is not a compelling criticism.

But, yes, Pakistan's regional geopolitical disposition with respect to India is inherently unstable.

None of which has anything to do with poverty or inequality, as such.

The ones I listed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balochistan_conflict , for example.

Israel hasn't existed long enough for any of those tensions to be "age-old." They're rather modern.

No, India has been dramatically more successful than any of the Islamic states in South Asia.

Also, why do you keep bringing up Israel?

 

As much as one can try to distort the truth, these were not bloody coups in any way comparable to the wanton violence that we see in Pakistan now. Regarding civil war, be specific, name the time frame and opposing factions.

Poverty levels are not pertinent to this discussion. Suicide bombings and full scale combat were unheard of UNTIL US intervention circa 2008.

 

I thought we were talking about instability, as opposed to violence per se.

And while a successful coup by a general that has the support of the military can be relatively bloodless, I tend to consider things like suspension of the constitution, declaration of martial law, ethnic riots, etc. evidence of instability. When the army is stepping in to restore order, even in the best of circumstances, that's a sign of severe instability.

What, really? You know the factions today as "Pakistan" and "Bangladesh," and it was in the early 1970's.

I guess this is what happens to people who are too busy criticizing Rushdie to read his books...

Poverty levels are not pertinent to the stability of a country?

Or are we not discussing stability any longer?

By you, maybe.

 

Recently created instability, begets violence. Once again, there was no serious violent INTERNAL instability prior to US & Co intervention.

And (preventable) tragic loss of civilian lives? What is that?

India/Pakistan/Bangladesh. That conflict ended in 1971. That is almost 40 years ago.

? Never read him.

No. Not directly or necessarily. And certainly not in this instance.

Again. Before US intervention via drones, cross border raids and political pressure, there was no major instability present in Pakistan.

Then point one out IN Pakistan prior to 2008.

 

This would be funny, if you were doing it on purpose.

 

Oh baby, I am hoping to see one post from you where you don't lean on India.
I did read elsewhere Pakistan has not come to terms about its existence as an independent state - you prove it with each post.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You display a habitual trait of attempting to sow confusion in your posts to all and sundry.
In case you are confused = In a nutshell, this thread focuses on the instability and violence occurring in Pakistan TODAY as a result of US undercover ops, US invasion of Iraq & Afghanistan and associated residue, US drones deployed in Pakistan and US pressure on the Pakistani puppets to fight the Taliban.

Why don`t you read this and debate pertinent points on topic?

 

"All and sundry," huh? That's cute.

That you find my posts confusing says more about you, than my habits.

Ah. And so instability and violence occuring Pakistan at other times, or as a result of other things, is off-limits, according to you. Even in response to direct questions, from you, on those exact topics.

Can you not see how ridiculous your rhetorical tactics are?

 

Physician, heal thyself.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Other things? We are dealing with the present.

No.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Now that's not even cute; that's just canned and boring.

"We" aren't "dealing" with much of anything, so far as I can tell.

Again, cute. But uncompelling.

 

Ultitruth, it would indeed help if Indians and Israelis didn't constantly challenge Pakistan's right to exist as a sovereign nation and preach Pakistan's destruction.

Indian agents have been found (ISI) providing bomb making materials to Bugti rebels and even separatist groups in Northern Pakistan, including the TTP.

As far as Balochistan, you should understand that the Bugti are but one tribe amount the five major tribes of Balochistan. They are being provided arms support from Indian, American, and Israelis who are based in Afghanistan's NATO bases. The Israeli media has recently launched a nationwide campaign, in Israel, to support Baloch Bugti rebellion, and they have already provided moral support for the cause. Naturally India is supporting the Bugtis covertly. The major instigators of the Bugti rebellion have been killed several years ago.

Now, the legitimate grievance of Balochistan is mainly American troops in their province, as is the grievances of all the people of Pakistan. The Americans have essentially forced the Pakistani government to hand over several Pakistani airbases in Balochistan for use in the attack in Afghanistan and predator drone attacks in Pakistan including Juzzak, Bandari/Shamsi, Dalbandin, etc.

Pakistan, in the position in which it is now, of a completely useless and spineless ruling party headed by the PPP under Zardari is screaming for a military coup. This is the problem, Pakistan's internal affairs are constantly under attack by outside powers, mainly India, the US, Israel, and pro-US groups in Afghanistan [Karzai supporters].

 

DH

I suggest you read Kaiser Tufail's interview in the latest Vayu Aerospace and Defence Review.

http://www.zeenews.com/news538699.html

 

I read it. Generally, Indian media like Zee News is always attempting to demonize Pakistan and Pakistanis. In my eyes, the Kargil affair was a success on Pakistan's part of gaining the upper-hand in the liberation of occupied lands in the Northern Areas and occupied Kashmir. America and the world community forced Pakistan to step down, and this is what forced the failure of the operation. It was an ingeniously executed plan, and it is one thing which I applaud Musharraf for. He cares a lot more about the liberation of Kashmiris and people of the Northern Areas than the coward Zardari ever will.

 

Just pointing out that its Pakistan doing the "liberating" there. Thats an act of war.

 

We can discuss this as much as you want. Kashmiris oppose Indian occupation, this is an established fact. Syed Ali Shah Geelani, the most popular leader of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference supports Kashmir joining Pakistan. he is currently in house arrest by the Indian government. Kashmir, being a Muslim nation and linguistically, ethnically tied to the Indus river valley and Northeastern Pakistan belongs in the Federation of Pakistan. The choice is the Kashmiris, and not anyone else, this is why Pakistan always supports a UN plebiscite in the region, while India has always rejected it.