Cactus

1. Afghanistan is not nearly as old nor as inflexible as you claim. It is only about as old as the United States; carved out of the proverbial Iran, Turan and Hindustan.

2. Most of the concept that Afghans will need to rediscover for modern and stable existence are hardly exclusive "Western" in ideology. The fundamental concepts they are most lacking in are essentially universal; the presentation may be "Western", "Persian", "Arab", "Turkish", "Indian", "Chinese"... whatever. The key to coopting the ancient organizations is to present the same old universal concepts in an "Afghan" presentation.

3. The Al Qaeda and other Islamists have a foothold simply because the people of their ilk have been successful in warping the Afghan common man's sense of universal values for centuries. The US and Allied forces are dealing with a perverted set of local values, which they frankly don't have the time and energy to fix all by themselves... all the while fighting the insurgency too. That is the reason the problem is being addressed piece-meal; that is the reason why Afghan officers are being sent to foreign academies to finish learning.

4. The training of the ANA is not just at making them more combat-capable, though that certainly is the center-piece of the project, but also to build a national nucleus. On the outside one may be a Pathan, a Tajik, a Hazara... but once the uniform is worn and the gun held, they should become Afghan; conversely if they don't wear the uniform and carry the gun against the Afghan people, the ANA should treat them as enemies. That is the purpose of training.

5. The whole point of the military training is to provide the Afghans with one of the building blocks of modern nation-state. You will notice that it is not the only thing India is doing: There are medical aid centers, road and high-way projects, loans and grants for energy infrastruture etc. running concurrently.

Agnostic Muslim

Ray,

An excellent series of posts.

I have a few quibbles here and there, but largely agree.
I believe the animosity of the Afghan regimes to Pakistan is steeped first and foremost in their belief that Afghanistan's rightful and historical boundaries stretch to the Arabian sea.

The other factors you mentioned may indeed play a part, but again, it is the Afghans that refused to recognize Pakistan, they were the ones to first try and play the "Pashtun card" to "destabilize and truncate" Pakistan.

The situation is somewhat different from that between India and Pakistan in that the Pakistan has never hearkened for "reuniting Afghanistan and Pakistan" - irredentism has primarily been expressed by the Afghan side, not Pakistan.

Very true.

I would like to add that there is an overwhelming interest in seeing a stable and prosperous Afghanistan (that does not harbor irredentist sentiment) because instability in that country has played havoc in Pakistan, with refugees, drugs, weapons and crime skyrocketing.

I agree with you and Neo on the complications posed by the Tribal structure. It is part of the problem in dealing with the Baloch Sardars, who chafe under any sort of central control, as it is with integrating FATA into Pakistan proper - though some voices are being raised within FATA in favor of changing its status to that of a province (something that may not necessarily bring any immediate change, but might go a long way in establishing the precedent and traditions of a democratic system in sync with that in place in Pakistan proper).

__________________
Pakistan is not going to be a theocratic state to be ruled by priests with a divine mission - Jinnah

Cactus

Brig Ray,

The Afghan National Army has been reportedly recruiting some multiple-ethnicity battalions, as well as some recruits drawn on a limited conscription. IMHO this may accelerate the dissolution of the tribal-centric attitudes if the battalions are well-trained, well-taken-care-of, well-officered and well-used. It wil certainly appeal to the youth drawn from poorer tribes, families with low tribal standing, historically oppressed people (like Hazaras) etc. to know that they will have same opportunities as those deemed their betters by accident of birth.

Back to topic: Have you ever run across foreign officers from largely conscript militaries? Do you think Indian forces can train them at a cultural level? (I don't doubt that they can impart many technical lessons, but wonder how trainers from a country where the concept of conscription is completely unheard of react at a cultural level with their trainees...)

Ray

Are you suggesting that India wants to unite India and Pakistan?

That is a ridiculous thought.

As it is the Indian Politicians are using the second largest Moslem population in the world of India playing havoc with India's polity as "vote banks'', therefore, it would be a suicide for the "insufferable Hindus" (as Pakistani views all Indians forgetting it is not a Hindu state) to have more Moslems in India and proving Jinnah, the Father of Pakistan wrong for wanting a Moslem country so that Moslem of India were not swamped by the majority Hindus!! Pakistan would then swamp India without firing a shot.

Indians are stupid, but not that stupid!!

Pakistan was never united with Afghanistan and hence the issue of ''reuniting'' does not come into play!

__________________


"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."

I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.

HAKUNA MATATA

Agnostic Muslim

Salim,

I am not suggesting that the GoP officially (or even clandestinely) wants to reunite India and Pakistan, though given that the leadership of India is reflective of the population of India, and that the overwhelming majority of the Indian diaspora in the States I encounter invariably start calling "partition" a mistake and criticizing Jinnah (quite rude honestly, knowing I am a Pakistani), I am left with the sense that for a lot of Indians, Pakistan is still a tough pill to swallow. I could be wrong, but that is the sense I get from those I meet.

Anyway, what I was referring to were the statements of Indian leaders in the early days after Independence that Pakistan would never survive, and inevitably end up reuniting with India. I was contrasting that position and "atmosphere" with the relationship between Pakistan and Afghanistan (Pakistan and its leadership not having argued for "reunification", enlargement or whatever you want to call it with Afghanistan).

I am arguing over semantics really, so I'll leave it here - lest I further diverge from the subject of the thread.

Agnostic Muslim

I agree with that. In fact I made a similar argument regarding the FC. My contention was that despite all the criticism heaped upon it - the lack of equipment, training, pay, benefits etc. the force has still held together remarkably well in the face of fierce militant assaults and the atrocities (torture, videotaped beheadings and executions) and casualties inflicted upon them.

There have been a few hundred desertions, but insignificant taking into account the overall force. That the force has held together despite these odds indicates that there already is a strong sense of identity and loyalty to an entity beyond merely the Tribe.

Or it may be that the loyalty to tribe and faith is still paramount, but the organization of the FC has allowed for it understand the danger posed by an ideology or organization (Taliban), working against the interests of the State (Pakistan, Pakistan supported Tribal Systems), to the Tribe and faith as they know it.

If the force can be expanded, better trained, better equipped and provided with better pay and benefits, with its own officer schools and academies (rather than secondment from the Pakistan Army), I see that loyalty to State over Tribe only increasing and strengthening, as loyalty to State provides the community with tangible benefits over being "autonomous".

Ray

I am afraid you have been influenced by the Jammait and the RSS nonsence that Pakistan is a tough pill to swallow.

Let's be pragmatic, can Pakistan be captured in totality?

Islam is a religion that has regimentation and speaks of unity amongst Moslems. Hinduism (though not a religion of all Indians) is a hang loose free for all entity, Do as you like type of show - no Sunday to Church (which Indian Christians by and large seem to avoid) and no Friday to the Mosque or prayers five times a day to declare yourself as pious and devout. I do not wish to invite the ire of the Hindus here, but it is too cool a religion to be called a religion!! In fact they have no books on rules how to conduct their lives. Just mythology giving the concept of good and evil and leaving it to them to work it out. Real cool and very chilling out stuff. Chill pill I believe is the modern terminology (Hindus, if you feel I have overstepped,do excuse me!)

Therefore, while Islam has the surge to dream of a ummah, Indians of all religious hues are too busy just to eke an existence and religion is really no big deal here given the general ethos set by the majority religion!!

So, none really thinks that union of Pakistan is desirable. None wants India to be a Moslem majority country. Hindus, Christians or anyone!!

We are happy the irreligious way we have and we don't want to capture Pakistan to have our cool, chill pill life disturbed.

Who care about who said what in history?

We live for the moment and not in history.

Jinnah espoused Secularism once Pakistan was born since he realised that releasing religion on to the masses was the most dangerous thing that could be done. But what of it? Pakistan did not heed his unsaid wise backgrounder!!

Zia thought he was clever by half.

He brought in religion as the be all and end all.

And with Zia perverted counsel, where is Pakistan?

It is being ripped in shreds with contradictions, strife and misguide Islamic zeal in the form of terrorist hell bent in destroying Pakistan!!

It is a sad commentary for a fair deal for Indian Moslem who wanted a homeland, and rightly so, got it as Pakistan for their own!!

And the homeland is being ruined with people there seeking excuses for the ills that they themselves have created and brought upon themselves in the first place!

Regards

Salim/Ray

Ray

I would not really know.

I would beg to differ,

There was an Afghan army.

I have trained with one such officer in the Army College IIRC.

Tronic

Your feelings are totally misplaced. I know most people refer to the partition as the greatest mistake ever to show how indifferent Indians and Pakistanis are; not as a future motive to absorb Pakistan! Like they say, to peacefully co-exist with each other, you must bring out your similarities, not your differences. You like it or not, truth is, there is little difference between the cultures and traditions on both sides. I agree that when I was in India, I always had this thought of Pakistan and its people being the contrast of India; but coming to Canada, my opinions have changed. I have Pakistani Punjabi friends who I can't even say are any different then me apart from their religion; I mean the music they listen to, the way they talk, the inbuilt Punjabi stereotypes, lol, everything is the bloody same! (Ofcourse not to say that Punjabi populations represent both the countries but just shows the artificial divide). Indian and Pakistani partition was indeed artificial, but now it has already happened and both nations have come too far to go down the road of unification. They have just got to learn to live together, as neither will just vanish into thin air!

__________________
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory

Agnostic Muslim

Salim & Tronic:

I honestly don't care about the RSS - to use their propoganda to determine Indian sentiment in general would be tantamount to using the MMA propoganda to determine Pakistani attitudes towards India or the West.

I was merely narrating my experiences, and perhaps it is because the diaspora of most communities tends to be more jingoistic than most of their compatriots back home.

I am also not saying that the existence of such sentiment means there are "plans to absorb" Pakistan - I clarified that in my first sentence - just that I come across it, and while sometimes it could be attributed to what Tronic described, at other times (mostly from people on the "older" side) there is emotion behind it that leaves the atmosphere quite uncomfortable, and etiquette prevents one from blatantly telling the individual conversing with you that "he is full of crap, utterly disrespectful and rude".

I also understand what you are saying Tronic, about playing up the similarities, though I have never seen Pakistanis do it when engaging with Indians. Perhaps it is because Indians may not realize that it may offend some Pakistanis and convey an impression of "non acceptance" (maybe I am more touchy than most about it. I'll have to ask other Pakistanis what they think).

But I will take your assurance that for the most part it is nothing but "banter".

But back to the topic...

Adux

A very long time, I was posting in PDF, there was this lovely thread:

Was partition a mistake? I was suprised to see it in PDF,

According to the poster, If Bangladesh, Pakistan and India was united. He calculated nearly 500 million muslims and 800 million Hindus. Since Hindus are not united and have countless sub-sects etc. The posters dreams he could have made a greater pakistan and a muslim country. I for one believe there was a good probability of that happening, if paritition hadnt taken place. Though it would have been as easy as the poster was advocating. Every Indian I say parition was a mistake, but nobody wants ever to make Pakistan re-integrated into India. It would be the greatest dis-service we are doing to our country.

I love my secular democratic republic of India, I never wanted to live or have my country like a tinpot country.

Cactus

Agnostic Muslim

The Pakistani Frontier Corps organization doesn't work that way; it wasn't designed to work that way; nor can it be made to work that way except by scrapping the whole organization and retaining only its name for a completely differently organized force. The first two points are facts, the third point is an opinion founded on observation of similar cases-studies:

1. The Frontier Corps recruits on tribal basis, as did almost all of its predecessor organizations in the past. Take for example the Khyber Rifles - perhaps the most famous unit of the PFC - which recruits its ORs almost exclusively from the Afridis and allied tribes living near the Khyber Pass*. For most of them, service in the Khyber Rifles only reinforces their regional and tribal ties. Further they are mostly tasked for local duties, unlike regular Army units. For the regular Army regiments, even when drawn from a single ethnic group, Pakistan-wide deployments means that they actually break out of their regional cocoon (invariably the small-village mindedness of North Jehlum). For the PFC it is not so.

2. The Frontier Corps is not designed to work the way your wish/conjecture of how it is working either, as it is a continuation of a force addressing much older priorities than you care to give credit for. The component units of the PFC were drawn primarily from the tribes they worked around so that the tribes will have some modern military training to take on the Russians/Soviets when the Frontier was run over. It was hence the utmost priority to keep good ties with tribes and the religious leaders on whom the inevitable insurgency would depend; even if it meant turning a blind-eye to the depredations of the more powerful tribes and mullahs. The practice of embedding regular military officers on detachment - be they from British Indian Army then, or Pakistani Army now - was also based on good military sense.

3. When the entire design, structure, recruitment, training, indoctrination and motivation of a force is fundamentally geared towards starting an insurgency rather than countering an insurgency AND its loyalty in the campaign is questionable, there is no painless way of correcting the course.

Oh, and here at least the criticism of the Frontier Corps is not of its lack of equipment, training, pay or benefits; it is the lack of will to fight, cowardice and treachery. Lack of will can be fixed with more equipment, training, pay etc.; cowardice may be fixed by the same; treachery should not be attempted to be fixed. There has been treachery - witness the murder of the US Army MAJ earlier this year by a PFC guard as he came out of a US-Pak border conference; treachery is not insignificant no matter how large the overall force.

* OK, I couldn't resist this: In one of the Anglo-Afghan Wars the Afridis of the Khyber Rifles defected en masse to the Afghans, wherein the local commissioner recruited retiring soldiers of the British Indian Army to fill the Khyber Rifles temporarily. The obvious Khukris on the Khyber Rifles' insignia comes from that short period of time when it was almost entirely staffed by Gurkhas. Wikipedia mistakenly attributes it as an "Afghan Knife"; anyone remotely familiar with an Afghan/Khyber choori would no doubt be flummoxed by it.

Agnostic Muslim

Cactus:


I am aware of the history and traditional role of the FC. However, you have missed the point I was making.

Whatever the "historical role of the FC", it has been thrust into a role that has involved being the front line force in the WoT - a role that involves fighting the very Tribes and people it is part of.

This new role has brought out and highlighted the flaws you mentioned, but the force has nonetheless survived, and were the alienation of the members of the FC (due to this new role) so severe, the desertions would not be in the mere hundreds.

As to its "abysmal performance" - I am willing to allow the force to be better trained and equipped before coming to a final conclusion on the issue.

Regarding the "treachery" of some members of the force ( I would put some of the deserters in this category too) - the longer the FC continues to play this role in the WoT, the further removed it is from its traditional role, and the more assured the commitment of those of its members who do remain with it, or do seek to join.

And if we can further better the lot of those who risk the wrath of Tribe and militants to serve on the front lines of the WoT, I think it solidifies their loyalty to an entity beyond the Tribe.

S-2

I've really enjoyed the discussion.

Cactus, I see the incident reported in May, 2007 along the Afghan-Pakistan border. I don't see anything else. Perhaps I've missed something but could you forward a link there as my googlesearch has only noted the aforementioned.

__________________
"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski

Cactus

If it is so, then the following statement certainly didn't reveal it:

The Pakistani Frontier Corps is itself composed of units recruited, trained and deployed along tribal lines at the unit level. Service under such conditions will only reinforce tribal and local affiliations, not national affiliations.