It is in India’s strategic interest for Pakistan to be a functioning democracy rather than a failed state. Failed states tend to export their problems to their neighbours. Pakistan made that mistake with respect to Afghanistan. Now Pakistan has caught the virus. India could be next. It should be remembered that the last time India made any substantial progress in relations with Pakistan was Nawaz Sharif was the Prime Minister of that country. He was a politician who came up from nowhere and thus a true politician (albeit allegedly an extremely corrupt one.) It was his political skills that brought some form of give-and-take in the negotiations because that is what politicians do. Dealing with democratically elected Pakistani politicians would produce better results that war-mongering military leaders or pseudo-feudal dynastic politicians.

India is the most hetrogenous nation in the world.The majority of kashmiris do not see themselves as indians.Karu talks of tamil blood flowing in his veins.He is a moderate tamil nationalist who has accepted indian nationalism.He wants as his final price reservation in iits.He cannot stand the idea of first rate private institutions not hindered and harassed by the govt.He accuses jayalalitha of being non tamil.

Inspite of persecution by portuguese and having had to take refuge in nearby karnataka/maharashtra GSBs do not face virulent sons of the soil movement in the western coast.Is this perhaps why nitin or ravikiran are strong supporters of libertarianism.In Andhra,kammas,kapus,velamas and reddys have FIRST claim on land.In TN,it is ditto in the case of thevars,gounders,mudaliars,vanniars.The sons of the soil movement is markedly less fervent in karnataka,where BJP has a foothold.In all other southern states it is seen as a north indian party.

In West Punjab,the West will support the muslim rajputs and jats because they are seen as the natural landlords.The West had no qualms when khatri hindus and sikhs and jat sikhs were driven out in 1947,because they considered muslims to the owners of the land even though the last independent ruler of punjab was maharaja ranjitsingh,a sikh ruler with substantial hindu support.

The West has had contempt for hinduism as a decadent religion and they are blind to the reform movements in hinduism and have sort to undermine it by encouraging schisms,bigotry,quota systems.

When we make jugdgements on the congress party,left,MMS we need to give the benefit the doubt to the UPA,because they carry the burden of the historic legacy of having to fight divisive forces.Sometimes a lot of phony-socialism is founded on a pseudo-spititual ,pseudo-brahminical austerity ,its sham machinations,slogans and symbolisms being strategies to outflank sectarian dead weight.

This is compounded by the fact that liberalisation is no doubt going to be beneficial at large.But also it is going to create inequalities.Many of the inefficient forces are going to be swept way.They are also the most reactionary ones,including the soft ‘intellectuals’ and the rentier capitalists(peddlers of sons of the soil theory) of our system.They have no incentive in the reforms to work.Patience has been a cardinal virtue in our system.

The Anglo-American establishment has a different history,demographic profile and geographical spread.I think talented liberal thinkers like you need to take into account the differences at the ground level.

Interesting take, xyz.

I lost you entirely from the point you brought the south Indian Brahmanas in.

There is nothing in common between the punjabis and the pakhtoons except their religion.This conflict will bring the muslim punjabis to their senses.The chief castes/tribes of the pakistan punjab are rajputs and jats.There is also a significant section of pakhtoons who are settled in punjab.The pakhtoons in peshawar and swat have a history of settled existence.But the pakhtoon attitude in this conflict is ambivalent.Let the pakistanis stew in the soup they have created.

Historians point out that people in the notrhwest part of india have always had a distinct identity,marking them from the mainstream.The khalistanis proclaim their contempt for the purbeah(the hindu of the ganga-yamuna doab).Historians point out that the disconnect between the indus and gangetic plains has been the most decisive factor in our military losses.

Even in mahabharatha,salya(who was the ruler of madra desha-present day punjab) is berated for the unorthodox ways of his people.It was in a way inevitable that the majority opted for the new faith.

After the present conflict runs the course in punjab,i am sure ethnic punjabis and sindhis will see profit in a non-confrontationist position with india.But before that a lot of blood will be split by the mullahs,jihadis,Afghans-Persian-Turk-Persian racist supremacists.

India should keep watch over these develpoments.

I am astonished that an educated indian expects fairness from Economist while reporting on pakistan.

This exposes the duplicity(for the n th time) of the Anglo-American Establishment.Liberalism in economic matters but deep conservatism on issues of strategic importance.Many libertarians forget that the nations which championed free trade were also those that were imperialist or were products of imperialism.It was considered legitimate to loot land from others.This has been the reality everywhere.

From the Economists viewpoint,its silence is eloquent but predictable.I cant understand why so many bright people like nitin write tomes of learned discussions on libertarianism.

For instance,south indian brahmanas,other than GSBs are reticent to talk on this issue.Has it something to do with the fact that Parashurama reclaimed the coastal strip while others found a developed agrarian order in other parts.

Balaji, I don’t think Indira was offering to fight the Soviets and it surely was not about strong and stable Pakistan. In fact we didn’t even protest Soviet occupation of Afghanistan – our partner in cold war. She probably wanted joint action, diplomatically speaking, to deal with Soviet occupied Afghan with the communist puppet regime. Of course, the Americans had different idea for Gen Zia.

As for helping Gen Mush fight his own militants, I think we should try it – just like the joint anti-terror deal with ISI, it may work . May be we should send a few soldiers across the border!

Stole my words before I could say them!

A stable and strong Pakistan will be able to effectively send brave freedom fighters to Evil-India-Occupied-Kashmir.

Actually, that’s not true. A Pakistan that meddles in India cannot be stable. It cannot be stable even if India does nothing about the meddling.

Balaji,

There is no strategic, economic or political sense to [re-integrating Pakistan or POK]

There is a lot of strategic and economic sense in re-integrating POK. Mainly because it gives India overland access to Central Asia, and influence China’s access to the Arabian sea. Whether it makes political sense too is another story.

1. Raja Mohan himself had pointed out how Indira offered help to Zia-ul-Haq to fight the Soviet. A stable Pakistan is not just a Nehruvian Utopia.
2. Re-integrating Pakistan or POK with India should be left to fiction writers. There is no strategic, economic or political sense to such proposals. Come to think of it. When was the last time borders were redrawn in any part of the world other than Europe?
3. Helping Musharraf to fight the militants is very much in India’s strategic interest and not just a diplomatic nicety. The easiest way out for Pakistani Army is to cut losses by abandoning the fight against militants. Political instability there is a very good ruse for them to throw the towel and sit nicely in the garrisons. If Emergency can get the army to fight, then emergency it is!

Fair point. Guess the economics works with large doses of aid from stake-holders i.e. Uncle Sam and Uncle Shyam. Kashmir is in much the same situation – it’s a big drag economically, but valuable geopolitically. And a population of 10M – with minimal needs (outside of the AK-47s and rocket-launchers) can certainly be propped up. The US is currently propping up all of Pakistan and getting unpredictable results. Better to prop up a smaller, focussed client state. North Korea solved itself for a little food. So, on second thoughts, great idea!