Pakistan - a failed nation run by failed citizens

[Deleted_User_1]

A failed nation is not attributable to just a failed leadership. Its as much to do with its failed citizens. One good look at the rival boards frequented by Pak citizens tells you the tale. Most of its citizens are expressing condolences and praying to Allah for the Lankan cricketers and their families. Fair enough. Others are cussing at the terrorists for denying them their beloved game for the forseeable future. But is anyone thinking about the BIG picture ? Obviously NOT! You cant fight isolated incidents to quell terrorism. You have to go after its roots. And it starts with acknowledging that there is a problem. And where does it all start ? It has to start with the citizens, as public opinion plays a big rolein public policies in Pakistan, esp, in events such as these. After Mumbai attacks, the entire country was busy denying its links, inspite of the compelling evidence that was emerging.Even now, there is no sight of any punishment meted out to the perpetrators who were behind the Mumbai mayhem. And all the while the great citizens of Terroristan were shabashing its govt's stand & how they didnt get bullied by the Indian govt. Did anyone say big picture ? Shhhh! And what do we see after what is arguably one of the most pathetic attacks of recent times ? Its icons such as Imran Khan appearing on national television & suggesting that Tamil Tigers could have played a hand in this. Failed citzens maketh a failed nation.

What goes around ALWAYS comes around.

[King]

Pakistan and US of A have collectively helped these bad elements flourish directly or indirectly. Unfortunately US of A is now trying to correct their mistake but it's too late. Extremely bad that these elements are effecting every facet of life. Life or cricket isn't the same any more :((

[Prudent]

Failed citzens maketh a failed nation.

So true...

[The Outsider]

Dude, the whole point is that there are ppl inside pakistan with differing agendas. There are ppl who want to secure, and a significant majority that want to use the violence to gain power. This has nothing to do with security arrangements or ability to secure. It is the will that is missing. Imagine this: The bus got blown up by RPGs and many ppl perished. What do you think would have happened? Military coup? Probably. As it stands, I would expect the civilian govt to consolidate power by a) blaming India and b) creating a border crisis or attack in India (not even sure the civilian govt has the ability to do it, but assuming it still has some power left)

I think it's more than the will - there is no way Zardari or Gilani are going to benefit from this. If elections are held tomorrow, they'll both be voted out. I might be wrong, but I feel the entire government and security apparatus in Pakistan has become compromised. Pulling off attacks of this magnitude with such regularity is more than coincidental. There are fundamentalists and Taliban who are going to stop at nothing short of Islamabad and the bomb.

[vroomfondel]

Cliche. South Korea , West Germany and the Republic of Ireland have lived with turbulence at their borders for decades and remain (or remained) stable and relatively untouched. Besides, Pakistan is as unstable as it gets. This is the nadir.

I know not-much about Ireland, but I doubt it even compares to the scale of the challenge in India. And how do you even begin to compare ROK and FDR with present-day India? Their stability was/is artificial and based on the respective backing super-powers (US-USSR and US-China). If anything, this kind of proves the point that India is in a load of shyte if Pak implodes...

[Dhondy]

I know not-much about Ireland, but I doubt it even compares to the scale of the challenge in India. And how do you even begin to compare ROK and FDR with present-day India? Their stability was/is artificial and based on the respective backing super-powers (US-USSR and US-China). If anything, this kind of proves the point that India is in a load of shyte if Pak implodes...

Any examples of a seriously governed nation imploding because of its neighbours?

[Bumper]

Vroom, am afraid I dont understand the logic behind this paranoia of Pakistan's impending implosion destabilising us. 1) India has no control over the stability of Pakistan. Heck, even Pak has no control over it. 2) India has enough problems to deal with already (economy, Islamic terrorism et al) 3) It is in India's best interests to keep Pakistan chaotic and unstable, so Pak is spending its energy surviving, than plotting our down fall. Hoping that a stable Pakistan would be good for us, is lame at best and suicidal at worst. Pakistan has never been stable in its 60 years of independence. And even if it ever becomes stable, the country filled with hate & prejudice will do all it takes to destroy India. Contrary to your theory, if Taliban takes over Pakistan, I believe it will be good for us. US will intervene & China will disassociate itself from Pak and the allied forces will bomb the place to stone age. India in return will pay a price in the form of cross border terrorism & suicide attacks. But how is it any worse than it is today ? I am willing to pay a one time price for permanent peace.

[punjabi_khota]

^iawtc.

[Dhondy]

Yet, Bumps, some states fail because of misgovernment, such as Zimbabwe or a marriage of poverty and organised corruption, such as several African nations, but why did Pakistan fail? It has had strong government, mostly under military leaders, corruption is no worse than India, and Saudi Arabia has more than its share of fundamentalists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Failed_States_Index Five of the top ten failed states are Islamic states, but quite clearly, if you have oil wealth you are immune, so poverty does play a big part. Seven of the top 10 are in Africa. The subcontinent is overrepresented, with Pakistan, BD, SL and Nepal, all in the top 23. SL & BD are democracies and have never had military rule, except for very brief periods in BD's case, so it's not quite clear why India escapes the list. There are many obvious reasons for Pakistan's appearance in the list, so I don't want to espouse my punditry on that, but food for thought here.

[Sachinism]

Theres security points all over Lahore and yet not a single person was shot, caught or anything We'd have expected so much security for the SL team after all the talk before the tour, but this was extremely poor.

[Bumper]

Yet, Bumps, some states fail because of misgovernment, such as Zimbabwe or a marriage of poverty and organised corruption, such as several African nations, but why did Pakistan fail? It has had strong government, mostly under military leaders, corruption is no worse than India, and Saudi Arabia has more than its share of fundamentalists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Failed_States_Index Five of the top ten failed states are Islamic states, but quite clearly, if you have oil wealth you are immune, so poverty does play a big part. Seven of the top 10 are in Africa. The subcontinent is overrepresented, with Pakistan, BD, SL and Nepal, all in the top 23. SL & BD are democracies and have never had military rule, except for very brief periods in BD's case, so it's not quite clear why India escapes the list. There are many obvious reasons for Pakistan's appearance in the list, so I don't want to espouse my punditry on that, but food for thought here.

Just so we are comparing apples & apples, Pakistan should not be compared with tiny nations such as SL, Nepal, BD etc. Rather Pakistan must be compared with India. Both nations started with more or less the same resources and problems. Despite being a bigger nation India had a larger and more diverse population (interms of culture, language, religion, ethnicity etc). Pakistan OTOH had a majority of Muslims and far less diversity (as Islam unites people like none other). Diversity was just one dimension of India's problems. The other unique issues facing India were hostile neighbours (China, Pakistan) and our foreign policies alienating the US (as a result of siding with the Soviets). Inspite of having so many security, population, poverty issues to contend with, did India not manage to remain a stable and secular democracy, focussing on building its educational and economic infrastructure ? Pakistan OTOH was fortunate when it came to foreign policy. It enjoyed the backing of the US & China for the most part, had peaceful relationship with Afghanistan & Iran. Yet, all Pak & its leaders cared about was Kashmir. Pak would rank in the top 8 interms of most military stats, but in the bottom 10 interms of most economical stats. No other nation that has such a strong military is in such doldrums economically. Doesnt it point to Pakistan's skewed priorities and obsession with anything India and Kashmir ? Would any other nation's citizens remain this brain washed about its neighbour ? Unlike other nations, Pakistan had an opportunity to be a successful nation. It chose to fail instead. Its people have more to do with it than its leaders.

[riya]

Great post that was Bumper .They were far too obsessed with kashmir.And still are .They will put the blame on RAW and every other nations but themselves. Their cricket is just a small sample size of the society they live in .simply self destructive .Athletes taking drugs,blame it on IPL or else conspiracies .They never accept their fault always in denial.

[punjabi_khota]

Just so we are comparing apples & apples, Pakistan should not be compared with tiny nations such as SL, Nepal, BD etc. Rather Pakistan must be compared with India. Both nations started with more or less the same resources and problems. Despite being a bigger nation India had a larger and more diverse population (interms of culture, language, religion, ethnicity etc). Pakistan OTOH had a majority of Muslims and far less diversity (as Islam unites people like none other). Diversity was just one dimension of India's problems. The other unique issues facing India were hostile neighbours (China, Pakistan) and our foreign policies alienating the US (as a result of siding with the Soviets). Inspite of having so many security, population, poverty issues to contend with, did India not manage to remain a stable and secular democracy, focussing on building its educational and economic infrastructure ? Pakistan OTOH was fortunate when it came to foreign policy. It enjoyed the backing of the US & China for the most part, had peaceful relationship with Afghanistan & Iran. Yet, all Pak & its leaders cared about was Kashmir. Pak would rank in the top 8 interms of most military stats, but in the bottom 10 interms of most economical stats. No other nation that has such a strong military is in such doldrums economically. Doesnt it point to Pakistan's skewed priorities and obsession with anything India and Kashmir ? Would any other nation's citizens remain this brain washed about its neighbour ? Unlike other nations, Pakistan had an opportunity to be a successful nation. It chose to fail instead. Its people have more to do with it than its leaders.

I think one of the main problems in Pakistan has been the endless supply of super weak leaders. To hide their own incompetencies, they have always wanted to keep the focus on India, even in very good economic times. Maybe it is the reflection of people of country of pure.

[vroomfondel]

Any examples of a seriously governed nation imploding because of its neighbours?

Not as such, but there are plenty of examples of destabilizing external forces bringing seriously governed nations to their knees -- Iran, Afghanistan, and a whole host of South American countries that the US messed with. But these are cold-war examples fwiw.

Hoping that a stable Pakistan would be good for us, is lame at best and suicidal at worst. ... 3) It is in India's best interests to keep Pakistan chaotic and unstable, so Pak is spending its energy surviving, than plotting our down fall.

Imho, stable (and friendly) neighbors are necessary for any state to prosper. The US and China are probably the only two relevant examples (after the destruction of USSR and formation of the EU), and both spend a lot of energy in keeping a favorable neighborhood. Israel is a highly unhappy exception, if you can call it a prospering state. If you think that we can be a successful superpower with gangrene to our west, then we have a fundamentally unresolvable disagreement.

1) India has no control over the stability of Pakistan. Heck' date=' even Pak has no control over it.[/quote'] I think this is short-sighted. India could have done a lot more to coerce Pakistan into understanding that its best interests lie in being friendly with us (I know it seems like a distant possibility now). We are uncomfortable talking while holding the big stick, and that seems to be the only authority that Pakistan responds to. We could have, for example, strengthened our military to a point where a hot-pursuit or cold-start was possible (this was considered and rejected after Mumbai, given the dilapidated state of our military). We could have engaged in strong diplomacy in Afghanistan (in the early Karzai years, when the world still cared). There were certainly some noises from the NDA, but that all fell to the wayside. We could have established unacceptable costs to the Pakistani strategy of 1000 cuts (a la Israel). For instance, there were many pro-peace positive noises pre-Kargil, but once that event happened we did nothing except sulk like a hurt child -- once again relinquishing an opportunity to establish our strength and legitimacy to defend ourselves. The excuses given then were that our military was not strong enough to engage in punitive action. Fast forward to Mumbai, and again, the option of punitive strikes was off the table for the same reasons as before. Imagine a scenario where we had imposed costs to Pakistani actions against India. If the costs were real, then Pakistan would not be able to sustain such actions over a period of time. There would have to be negotiations, because an all-out war between nuclear powers is a scenario obviated by the intervention of the 'great powers'. Negotiations between nations empower and legitimize both negotiation parties. It would have been possible for India to show strength and for Pakistan to save face (important). In the Kargil case, this would perhaps have resulted in Nawaz retaining power instead of being ousted. These are just thoughts off the top of my head, but they would all positively impact the stability of Pakistan. Instead, our weakness and complacency has allowed India to be used as a tool by the various destabilizing agents in Pak. Your second point has not much to do with anything. All countries have a lot to deal with. local and global 'strategery' is one of those things.

Contrary to your theory, if Taliban takes over Pakistan, I believe it will be good for us. US will intervene & China will disassociate itself from Pak and the allied forces will bomb the place to stone age.

Ok, if there is a taleban takeover of Pakistan: Why would China dissociate? Out of the goodness of their hearts? Wouldn't a Taleban takeover be a golden opportunity to pump in funds to destabilize India? That's all they need -- a regime more suicidal than the current Pak regime to carry out their agenda. I think the bombing to the stone age is very wishful thinking. Why would Obama/EU create another Iraq for themselves? Especially in an area that has historically been difficult to govern -- the british tried and failed, the commies tried and failed, and now the americans are trying and failing. I think what is more likely to happen is that the US will cut a deal with the Taleban and allow them to run roughshod over the region in return for security of American interests. There is already evidence of conciliatory noises from the Obama administration, most recently a call to 'negotiate' with the 'moderate taleban' (wtf is that?). In sum, we will be left with a more suicidal, more fundamentalist, and much more daring version of Pakistan to our left. That is my fear. I don't know the implications of the Islamic bomb, because the current situation is unclear. There are those that say that there is no usable bomb, or that the US already holds the keys etc.

[vroomfondel]

Anyway, this gets into armchair strategery in a way that is a huge waste of time and mental effort. So I will cede the floor to my esteemed colleagues. My point was simply this: This attack was not a game changer in the history of Pakistan. The hoopla and the bombast in these threads is unnecessary. My other point: The failure of the 'people of pakistan' is a canard, and a pretty nasty one at that. We are the same people. We just got lucky with a few amazing leaders like Sardar Patel, Nehru, gaffar khan etc. I have previously (I think with Lurker) made the exact same argument that Bumper is making, but on hindsight I find it inappropriate. (unless you think Islam is the problem, or the idea of Pakistan is the problem -- but then say that, and not 'people').

[Desi Cartman]

I think US has allowed pak to get to this level. US is still providing weapons and money to the paks. I also fail to understand why is that the lankan team had reached the stadium while pak team was still in the hotel, why did SL team had only few armed guards , how come in cross firing none of the attackers were injured , captured or killed... IMO the security forces were part of the plan

[mainhoonna]

Anyway, this gets into armchair strategery in a way that is a huge waste of time and mental effort. So I will cede the floor to my esteemed colleagues. My point was simply this: This attack was not a game changer in the history of Pakistan. The hoopla and the bombast in these threads is unnecessary. My other point: The failure of the 'people of pakistan' is a canard, and a pretty nasty one at that. We are the same people. We just got lucky with a few amazing leaders like Sardar Patel, Nehru, gaffar khan etc. I have previously (I think with Lurker) made the exact same argument that Bumper is making, but on hindsight I find it inappropriate. (unless you think Islam is the problem, or the idea of Pakistan is the problem -- but then say that, and not 'people').

Not v. long ago,I was sitting next to a pakistani guy in a flight.He was from one of the smaller towns in their punjab.While I was enjoying the free liquor,he was starving for ramzan.I ve no issue with hindi being national language but I ve a lot of love and respect for my mother tongue punjabi while he seemed to think punjabi was a langauge best reserved for jahil paindoos.When I asked him about the problems with pakistan,he agreed that there were huge issues with pakistan and his reason for those problems was that people were not religious enough and becoming westernised.He wanted pak to become more islamic. He was a 28 yr old virgin who thought guys who hung around with girls became more effiminate and this was a well educated guy who's been living out of pakistan for the last 10 yrs.( he was going to pakistan to get married).As a punjabi I could find nothing in common with this so called punjabi.So sorry we're not the same people in any way.

[punjabi_khota]

Anyway, this gets into armchair strategery in a way that is a huge waste of time and mental effort. So I will cede the floor to my esteemed colleagues. My point was simply this: This attack was not a game changer in the history of Pakistan. The hoopla and the bombast in these threads is unnecessary. My other point: The failure of the 'people of pakistan' is a canard, and a pretty nasty one at that. We are the same people. We just got lucky with a few amazing leaders like Sardar Patel, Nehru, gaffar khan etc. I have previously (I think with Lurker) made the exact same argument that Bumper is making, but on hindsight I find it inappropriate. (unless you think Islam is the problem, or the idea of Pakistan is the problem -- but then say that, and not 'people').

Pray tell, what defines people anyways ? Sure, the culture is/was same to some extent. The amount of religious bull*****ing, and lack of secular thinking in that country, coupled with strong Saudi influence, has left that country irreversibly brain-washed into thinking SMALL. Choti thinking in Pakistan Vs Big thinking in India. Thats the main difference. While Indians are going to the ****ing moon, and coming up with next big thing in IT and BioTech, Pakistan's best achievement so far has been successfully sucking uncle sam's di]ck for a couple of billion dollars every year. That's where the difference lies, really.

[Dhondy]

My other point: The failure of the 'people of pakistan' is a canard, and a pretty nasty one at that. We are the same people. We just got lucky with a few amazing leaders like Sardar Patel, Nehru, gaffar khan etc. I have previously (I think with Lurker) made the exact same argument that Bumper is making, but on hindsight I find it inappropriate. (unless you think Islam is the problem, or the idea of Pakistan is the problem -- but then say that, and not 'people').

Am dumbstruck. I probably know more padosis than you do, Vroom, living as I do in cosmopolitan UK, and I can tell you we are very, very different. I can't be bothered to write a thesis here, but you seriously need to mull this over. I realise the requirement to be objective, be kind, avoid being pejorative and rise above prejudice, but you couldn't reinvent this stuff.

[vroomfondel]

Pray tell' date=' what defines people anyways ? Sure, the culture is/was same to some extent. The amount of[b'] religious bull*****ing, and lack of secular thinking in that country, coupled with strong Saudi influence, has left that country irreversibly brain-washed into thinking SMALL. Choti thinking in Pakistan Vs Big thinking in India. Thats the main difference.

^ yeah, i agree. but everything you said above has to do with islam, or the ideology of pakistan, or their leaders. I am saying we are fundamentally the same people, and we were fortunate to have people with foresight and an inclusive ideology. therefore, our weakness (diversity) is our strength, and their strength (homogeneity) is killing them. saying that failed state = failed citizens, is almost like saying biharis and UP-ites are failed citizens compared to Punjabis. I'm sure there are people that actually believe this. It dehumanizes people to the point where you can't stand the sight of them (which is mistaken for a sign of strength, or taking a hard stand -- but it's neither).