PDA

View Full Version : What happens if Pakistan collapses



Double Edge
11 Sep 19,, 21:45
A lot of discussion on this topic revolves around how to break Pakistan through war with India but very little thought is spent into what comes after. Or we talk about a nuke war and get stuck there.

So continuing on from a previous discussion into a topic in its own right. The scenario is as economic conditions deteriorate in Pakistan. social instability rises, the state cracks down and this results in break away movements. There is no nuke war in this scenario, the Pak state is up its eyeballs in trying to keep the state intact but fails.


Our intelligences agencies would be talking to potential successors in Pakistan, months in advance. These are assets that are cultivated years before any assault takes place. We use Pushtuns and Balochis to break Pakistan.

After breaking it up into 4 countries, we get someone we like into Pak Punjab and install him. The Pakistani population will be too bothered about where their food, water and medicines come from. Civil wars doesn't take place on an empty stomach with people nursing their limbs and lives.


India is not afraid she cannot march to Islamabad. India is afraid she has to occupy Islamabad. Do you really want 200 million Pakistanis now with access to the Indian border to look for work? Do you really want another Bangladesh on your border?

So here are some ideas. Think about the Yugoslav model. All independent countries. Is that the model we can use here ?

In the Serbia autopsy thread Verses details how the erstwhile state of Yugoslavia broke up. Yugoslavia like Pakistan was an artificial entity created out of smaller countries. How did those countries pick up the pieces and move on. I don't think he has gone into that in his thread.


https://youtu.be/dtV_9CYJXJ0

What's interesting about this discussion is asking what next in the event of a total economic collapse. He wants war crimes trials for the Pak army for their atrocities in Balochistan, Sindh KP etc, we have to contain the nukes AND the radicals from interfering so as to prevent some emirate coming up.

What next ? there have to be govts in exile able to take over. We have to have a clear idea of what the administration, diplomacy & security setups these states will have.

What parts do we want ? Just PO J&K or more

We need to have a Marshall plan in place to recover the local economies of the various regions. This way there will be no civil war. You don't get millions of people rushing towards our border either if there is a plan in place to deal with the aftermath which most discussion on the topic does not even bother getting into.

The Brits after winning WW2 royally failed to prevent loss of life during partition. This cannot be allowed to happen in the event there is a collapse in Pakistan.

Still with me, Oracle : )

WABs_OOE
12 Sep 19,, 20:22
Pakistan has no comparison to Yugoslavia. After Tito, you had a strongman, Milosevic, who wanted to break up Yugoslavia. You have no such person in Pakistan.

Even then, they fought some bloody civil wars.

ambidex
03 Jan 20,, 15:10
India has heavily fenced the border. If Pakistan disintegrates I want an RW government in India that can effectively stop refugees pouring into our borders.

Coming back to so-called disintegration.

1. Pakistanis are not a kind of Race that can execute a revolution. They have never done in their history.

2. Islam is quite a strong binding force. Their experience of East Pakistan does not negate this binding force. Anyone who ignores this force because of the creation of Bangladesh is either naive or Indian Congress-I apologist.

3. Mainly an agrarian society they can live off the land quite well.

4. Without overt external military intervention (Deterred by Nukes), no insurgency will survive to leave alone gaining a momentum that can lead to the disintegration.

Double Edge
03 Jan 20,, 15:31
2. Islam is quite a strong binding force. Their experience of East Pakistan does not negate this binding force. Anyone who ignores this force because of the creation of Bangladesh is either naive or Indian Congress-I apologist.

Can you expand on this ?

Oracle
03 Jan 20,, 16:40
1. Pakistanis are not a kind of Race that can execute a revolution. They have never done in their history.

They're not a race. Jeez! Dudeeee...


2. Islam is quite a strong binding force. Their experience of East Pakistan does not negate this binding force. Anyone who ignores this force because of the creation of Bangladesh is either naive or Indian Congress-I apologist.

No religion can stand in front of cruise missiles going off on their asses. When bombs fall, all those islamic jihadi pigs in Pakistan would run to find a rat-hole and that includes the rank and file of the salwar kameez army.

Dead jihadis don't care. Injured jihadis would want morphines to relieve them of the pain. Hungry jihadis would need food. Jihadis have families too, fit ones would scramble to find out if any of their kith and kin has survived.

The thing is, islamic jihadism - pretentious scholars, mainly American and western, have written such terrible thoughts on them, as if attacking Pakistan would cause the world to burn for 100 years. It's not like that, and if thought out, it's much simple.


3. Mainly an agrarian society they can live off the land quite well.

Things need to be thought through. Rice grow in fields, they have to be transported to the nearby market to be sold, for people to buy and eat. Else, only the farmers will be well fed, that too just rice porridge. Soldiers on empty stomach, well.....Kargil rings any bell?

Logistics dude. Also, this scenario is in times of crisis within Pakistan.


4. Without overt external military intervention (Deterred by Nukes), no insurgency will survive to leave alone gaining a momentum that can lead to the disintegration.

I have spoken how the Balochis and the Pushtuns can be used. Let the PA commit genocide on a mass scale (which they're doing, but not in the scale so as the world would take notice). This needs a spark. I am pissed off due to our non-interference policy inside Pakistan, even though terroristan continues its unabated state policy of terrorism against India.

Some country would intervene. That country could be USA. We never know. It could be us, and we'd have support from almost all corners. As about nukes, would Pak Generals think it's better to burn, or would they think let's live this time to fight another war.

Oracle
03 Jan 20,, 16:58
Still with me, Oracle : )

I have commented earlier on this topic per se, but this needs thinking on a different level.

ambidex
04 Jan 20,, 07:29
Can you expand on this ?

Any analyst worth his salt will never explain a problem or a phenomenon or a conclusion based on univariate cause or data.

Two Nation theory was negated or defeated with the creation of Bangladesh is a Congress-I's hogwash to sell its brand and subdue Hindu nationalism. The phrase 'Hindu Pakistan' is an articulation out of this bigger bluff.

ambidex
04 Jan 20,, 08:07
They're not a race. Jeez! Dudeeee...


Please cut personal intonations if you want any discussion to go further. Pakistan as geography contains a sizeable population that belongs to a certain race or races. You want to deny them the race tag then go ahead a derail the discussion like you always do with your juvenile nitpicks.


No religion can stand in front of cruise missiles going off on their asses. When bombs fall, all those islamic jihadi pigs in Pakistan would run to find a rat-hole and that includes the rank and file of the salwar kameez army.


Dead jihadis don't care. Injured jihadis would want morphines to relieve them of the pain. Hungry jihadis would need food. Jihadis have families too, fit ones would scramble to find out if any of their kith and kin has survived. The thing is, islamic jihadism - pretentious scholars, mainly American and western, have written such terrible thoughts on them, as if attacking Pakistan would cause the world to burn for 100 years. It's not like that, and if thought out, it's much simple.
Things need to be thought through. Rice grow in fields, they have to be transported to the nearby market to be sold, for people to buy and eat. Else, only the farmers will be well fed, that too just rice porridge. Soldiers on empty stomach, well.....Kargil rings any bell?


Your first part is too cynical to reason with. The second part is too nuanced to help any strategic level discourse.

Freaing more nitpicks I will add that agrarian societies can live off just with the land without connectivity. With initial civil strive, the land will be redistributed and communities can settle down for good for a long time. Same will be with population numbers with initial squandering it will readjust itself.


Logistics dude. Also, this scenario is in times of crisis within Pakistan.


Addressing me personally will not make anything better for you. Logistics are not required to grow grains or catch a fish.


I have spoken how the Balochis and the Pushtuns can be used. Let the PA commit genocide on a mass scale (which they're doing, but not in the scale so as the world would take notice). This needs a spark. I am pissed off due to our non-interference policy inside Pakistan, even though terroristan continues its unabated state policy of terrorism against India.

Some country would intervene. That country could be USA. We never know. It could be us, and we'd have support from almost all corners. As about nukes, would Pak Generals think it's better to burn, or would they think let's live this time to fight another war.


Can we please focus on the possibility of the disintegration of Pakistan and any credible mechanism if there is any?

I have reduced it to overt military intervention secondary to a regional upsurge which is deterred by Pakistani nukes. In a nutshell no such possibility.

Oracle
04 Jan 20,, 08:37
Please cut personal intonations if you want any discussion to go further. Pakistan as geography contains a sizeable population that belongs to a certain race or races. You want to deny them the race tag then go ahead a derail the discussion like you always do with your juvenile nitpicks.

Your first part is too cynical to reason with. The second part is too nuanced to help any strategic level discourse.

Freaing more nitpicks I will add that agrarian societies can live off just with the land without connectivity. With initial civil strive, the land will be redistributed and communities can settle down for good for a long time. Same will be with population numbers with initial squandering it will readjust itself.

Addressing me personally will not make anything better for you. Logistics are not required to grow grains or catch a fish.

Can we please focus on the possibility of the disintegration of Pakistan and any credible mechanism if there is any?

I have reduced it to overt military intervention secondary to a regional upsurge which is deterred by Pakistani nukes. In a nutshell no such possibility.

Hahahahahaha! Had a good laugh. Thanks. Please continue.

ambidex
04 Jan 20,, 15:47
Moving on ignoring obnoxious troll.
.................................................. ................

Rather deliberating on disintegration more plausible discussion can be on destabilization. Since the thread is mentored by 'what if' scenarios the Disintegration to me seems very difficult and no recent examples are available where a nation that is the size and shape of Pakistan has disintegrated.

Therefore after adding two prime factors of Islam and Nuclear deterrence, I am inclined to add manageable landmass, geographic (strategic) location and China factors to oppose this motion.

ambidex
05 Jan 20,, 01:45
Moving on Ignoring Obnoxious troll.

Reupping my points:

1. Islam
2. Nukes
3. Geography and strategic location
4. Alliance with China
5. Agri land, abundant water resources and consistent good rainy season.
6. Good established political, executive, judicial institutes backed by Constitution and democracy.
7. Proactive diplomacy, OIC, SCO and many more memberships and participant in UN peacekeeping etc.

Any serious poster who is interested in this debate please add your points against or for this scenario so that more defined debate can be done.

I am not sure what is the forum policy on discussing disintegration of a nation but I can add some thoughts on how all these strong points can be weakened and how Pakistan will react especially to the interventions made by India.

Double Edge
05 Jan 20,, 13:09
Any analyst worth his salt will never explain a problem or a phenomenon or a conclusion based on univariate cause or data.
Then what is your basis for this statement that islam is a binding force that must not be ignored ?

i asked you to clarify before responding because i was not sure where you were going.

When partition was about to happen guess which group opposed it ? the Mullahs because their flock would be divided.

Same thing happened in '71

Were they able to stop it ? no hence politics overriding religion


Two Nation theory was negated or defeated with the creation of Bangladesh is a Congress-I's hogwash to sell its brand and subdue Hindu nationalism. The phrase 'Hindu Pakistan' is an articulation out of this bigger bluff.
In '69 Congress was split into Congress(O)rganisation & Congress(R)equisition.

Indira contested under Congress(R) and won by a landslide in '71. 352 seats won by Congress(R)

In '77 Indira ran under Congress(I) and lost. Morarji won 298 seats. That record fell last year.

I don't believe in two nation theory but have to live with its consequences.

I'm curious why you construe that position as subduing Hindu nationalism because i don't see any connection with it whatsoever.

This is about being secular. Simple as...

I don't know what 'Hindu Pakistan' means either ?

ambidex
05 Jan 20,, 15:02
Then what is your basis for this statement that islam is a binding force that must not be ignored?


I do not understand your question? When I gave univariate reason for the creation of Bangladesh? If you are talking about the disintegration of Pakistan then I gave multiple reasons against the motion, not just one.



I asked you to clarify before responding because i was not sure where you were going.

My limited point was that Two nation Theory is still alive and kicking even after the creation of Bangladesh oppose to the popular conclusion among Indian left and Congress-I apologists that it got negated after when East Pakistanis parted their ways from the West Pakistanis.


When partition was about to happen guess which group opposed it? the Mullahs because their flock would be divided.


Though it is factually incorrect I will answer it on its face value. The fact was 'All India Muslim league' won all Muslim constituencies in the central assembly as well as most of the Muslim constituencies in the provincial legislatures. The vote opened the path to Pakistan.

So coming back to your anecdotal statement. I do not need to guess some ragtag romantic notion that they opposed it. The only reality is the outcome that Pakistan got created. It is the same moronic (Leftist) slogan we see these days at CAA protests that we opposed the Islamic state in 1947 and will oppose Hindu state now. If you opposed it then how come you voted for it and how come the Islamic state got created? Another romantic propaganda which is quite prevalent that Muslim stayed back or left Pakistan for their love for the secularism and India.



In '69 Congress was split into Congress(O)rganisation & Congress(R)equisition.

Indira contested under Congress(R) and won by a landslide in '71.

In '77 Indira ran under Congress(I) and lost.

I don't believe in two nation theory but have to live with its consequences.

I'm curious why you construe that position as subduing Hindu nationalism because i don't see any connection with it whatsoever.

This is about being secular. Simple as...

I don't know what 'Hindu Pakistan' means either?

If you do not believe in something how can you suffer its consequences? Nitpicking apart quoting each of your disjointed assertions will make it more confusing and I am already blaming myself for not being clearer with my opening post here.

I will reassert my point again.

Two Nation Theory = Islam

This theory was first given by Savarkar or Jinnah? No by Karl Marx.

48221

https://twitter.com/ARanganathan72/status/961661237170982912

Creation of Bangladesh does not kill or make Two Nation Theory defunct not even the so-called disintegration of Pakistan will. Islam is a dynamic political phenomenon, therefore, it does not override politics when it itself is a political tool. Any Indian who is contemplating to disintegrate Pakistan has to find a way to tackle this political ideology (One factor out of many others).

I hope I am clearer this time.

Double Edge
05 Jan 20,, 16:39
Islam is a dynamic political phenomenon, therefore, it does not override politics when it itself is a political tool. Any Indian who is contemplating to disintegrate Pakistan has to find a way to tackle this political ideology (One factor out of many others).

I hope I am clearer this time.

ok, so what i understood is islam is the binding force that will keep Pakistan together ?

How can Islam be used to override power politics here. How will it be used as a political tool.

Keep in mind we're not talking about re-integration of Pakistan with India.

Just a bunch of smaller entities with a degree of autonomy in most matters other than defense, communications & foreign policy.

How do we keep the peace ? we need a Marshall plan of sorts.

Something that becomes imaginable if we are much larger an economy than today.

Failing that another Bangladesh like country without a military that considers us a primary threat.

Oracle
05 Jan 20,, 17:46
ambidex, aka Hit n Run, is there a source for your signature? The one below:

48222

Thanks. I'm curious.

Oracle
11 Jan 20,, 17:57
So the troll flotilla of Amibidex, a.k.a. Hit n Run in Defenceforumindia, sank here at WAB. Good riddance to pathetic extremist right-wing bullshit.

Oracle
11 Jan 20,, 17:58
To disintegrate Pakistan into many pieces, US+Russia+China must be on the same side. Else, it's not possible.

Double Edge
11 Jan 20,, 20:49
To disintegrate Pakistan into many pieces, US+Russia+China must be on the same side. Else, it's not possible.

Nalapat has another (https://youtu.be/ycH6dADXy7c) idea.

One that is likely to lead to resistance and abuse for him.

He figures Bangladesh was created because we had the Soviets on side.

Therefore to get back PoK means the same with the Americans.

We already have access to ally level hardware with STA2

Only the wedding ring is missing. Yes ?

Oracle
12 Jan 20,, 03:47
Nalapat has another (https://youtu.be/ycH6dADXy7c) idea.

One that is likely to lead to resistance and abuse for him.

He figures Bangladesh was created because we had the Soviets on side.

Therefore to get back PoK means the same with the Americans.

We already have access to ally level hardware with STA2

Only the wedding ring is missing. Yes ?

Yes. We have talked it much earlier than Nalapat thought about it, yes?

But I was not talking about taking PoK back. I was talking about the thread title.

Double Edge
12 Jan 20,, 11:44
Yes. We have talked it much earlier than Nalapat thought about it, yes?
We did not talk about Nalapat wanting a military alliance with the US. Here he is talking about it explicitly.

He's been against the S400 purchase for this reason


But I was not talking about taking PoK back. I was talking about the thread title.
Some would say baby steps first.

Also I find more discussion in the media on this point.

Ever since govt passed a resolution people are under the impression it will happen or we should make it happen.

Sub Suwamy's idea is we can handle Afghanistan if the Americans let us get PO J&K back.

Oracle
12 Jan 20,, 12:46
We did not talk about Nalapat wanting a military alliance with the US. Here he is talking about it explicitly.

He's been against the S400 purchase for this reason

I was saying that that we (I) talked about US having our back and we getting PoK back.


Some would say baby steps first.

Also I find more discussion in the media on this point.

Ever since govt passed a resolution people are under the impression it will happen or we should make it happen.

Sub Suwamy's idea is we can handle Afghanistan if the Americans let us get PO J&K back.

Is there an American alternative for the S-400? If yes, and if US is willing to sell us, go ahead. How do we then pacify the Russians? Maybe buy some frigates, tanks. Okay done then. I agree with Nalapat for the time being.

Baby steps huh. Where is the China factor in all these?

Right now the world is in flux. US vs China. US vs Iran. US got bigger fish to fry now. And if US backs India now, the Dems would put Trump at the stakes and burn him, oh, and burn India too. Pramila Jaypal? Illan Omar? And the big question is what can the US not do in Afghanistan, that they would want us to do there, for a return gift of PoK. It doesn't make sense. Nor does Swamy's logic.

There are 3 scenarios that I can think of where disintegration of Pak is possible:

#1. Internal unrest inside Pak so much so that the world takes notice of that, refugees entering India in the Lacs, and we say enough, we're going in. Others join us.
#2. China finally accept and is contend with the number 2 position, and US-China relations are on an upswing.
#3. Kaboom happens inside major cities in China, which is then traced back to Pakistan, it's Army and the notorious ISI.

#1 is where we will have the support of all major powers minus China. Good to go. But for that, unrest should be created.
#2 & #3 depends on our diplomatic skills to paint Pakistan as the instigator of all terrorist evils that befalls on every neighbouring country as well as US and the West in general, aiming at China in general. We have done that since the 90s, but not a single major power is talking about breaking Pak up, and is rather casual about Pak sponsored terrorism. And this, breaking up of Pakistan, this plan, should come from China.

Every major power tells India to manage the Pak sponsored terrorism issue, and not do anything more. Which is why we got our pilot back within 2 days. Can India get back PoK by itself. I think it can, but this victory will be pyrrhic.

Pakistan has nukes, half a million strong army, 1000s of mercenaries, mad mullahs, jihad and islam. It's a very combustible mix.

2 questions now:

#1. Illhan Omar had an affair with a married dude?
#2. Why does no country want another Islamic country to have nukes?

Double Edge
13 Jan 20,, 22:41
Baby steps huh. Where is the China factor in all these?

This is the bit that i wanted to see if Rishabh spoke about. He is entirely silent on what role China would play. I don't know if that is an oversight or does he believe China would just watch and let the Paks sink.

He says we need agreements in place with the Saudis, UAE & the Americans

China does not come up

Sheeunnlorida
17 Mar 20,, 09:34
India has heavily fenced the border. If Pakistan disintegrates I want an RW government in India that can effectively stop refugees pouring into our borders.

Coming back to so-called disintegration.

1. Pakistanis are not a kind of Race that can execute a revolution. They have never done in their history.

2. Islam (http://learnquranfast.com/) is quite a strong binding force. Their experience of East Pakistan does not negate this binding force. Anyone who ignores this force because of the creation of Bangladesh is either naive or Indian Congress-I apologist.

3. Mainly an agrarian society they can live off the land quite well.

4. Without overt external military intervention (Deterred by Nukes), no insurgency will survive to leave alone gaining a momentum that can lead to the disintegration.

No power can collapse until and unless Allah almighty is with Pakistan

Oracle
17 Mar 20,, 12:26
No power can collapse until and unless Allah almighty is with Pakistan

You mean, Allah in Pakistan = American dollars + Saudi oil + Chinese veto/Pak's back?