The South Asia Politics, News, and Analysis Thread

I'll take the World's Largest democracy over a third rate Junta any day of the year.

Economically, they were different, in terms of internal governance they were different, and in terms of public space for political ideas, it was very different as well (Bengal was always more friendly toward secular ideas).

As for unchanged frontiers, Pakistan lost significant land in the West, but India gave it back (but thats a mere technicality, to be fair). After 1971, it did change permanently (in Pakistani eyes) with Operation Meghdoot in the 80s however.

The military control dynamic is different as well. In the original Pakistan, the military relied on the entrenched, colonial-trained bureaucracy to act as its partner, while its generals were local aristocracy. After 71, most of the noble generals were sacked/retired, and the Army had to rely on its intelligence service to keep power (post-Bhutto).

But, as you say, the point is arguable. I'm just arguing my original position.

I don't think Bangladesh ever exerted much restraint or influence on Pak politics though. Bangladesh was governed as a de facto colony of West Pakistan. It was an economic black hole because they ran it so badly.

As for the others - I'd question how significant they were. The military did not change its strategy even if its personnel changed - and a lot of those old personnel still found jobs in the state. Tikka Khan became Bhutto's defense minister, for instance.

edited 22nd Jul '15 2:21:22 AM by Achaemenid

Oh I'm aware of the misgovernance East Pakistan went through, but that was mostly under Ayub (he of the infamous "defence of the East lies in the West" quote), who wanted the jute money without giving them any leeway...because then they would start with the Language Movement again, which was one of the many reasons that led to his coup in the first place. And while all the provinces were irritated at the Urdu for everything mentality, it was always the Bengalis who rallied the most against it...you don't see it play out in modern Pakistan.

edited 22nd Jul '15 7:06:57 AM by FFShinra

China's Stock Market Pain Is India’s Financial Gain

edited 23rd Jul '15 8:42:09 PM by FluffyMcChicken

And China can't backstop Pakistan financially. Aces for those who'd like GHQ in Rawalpindi to sweat a little...

The Pak Army really is a national cancer.

"We must resist India!"

"I've got an idea, why don't we build a plurinational state, invest in our economy and infrastructure, and generally develop the country so we can laugh at India for having a low HDI and GDP per capita, whilst maintaining a professional Army active in the UN peacekeeping structure so the world sees Pakistan as a responsible, tolerant, and upright member of the community of nations?"

"Nah, let's have military coups, kill some Balochis, fight over shitty glaciers, and generally fail at defeating India so much that we become a byword for military brutality and incompetence."

"Top plan m8. Let's do that."

edited 24th Jul '15 4:09:30 AM by Achaemenid

I have to ask, how did Pakistan ever realistically expect to hang on to Bangladesh/East Pakistan in the first place? Didn't they notice the massive and hostile country in between them?

Well, there were the Army yahoos who thought they'd eventually raise the flag of Pakistan on Red Fort (which is in Delhi), in other words eventually conquering north India to establish a land bridge. Doubt the majority thought like this though. More likely, the majority figured they could run it as a benevolent empire. After all, Britain managed to run undivided India for decades, goes the thinking.

The two-nation theory. The Indian subcontinent consists of "two nations" - Hindus and Muslims - who cannot coexist in the same state. The Pakistani assumption was that shared religion was enough to bind the two halfs of Pakistan together. Obviously, it wasn't.

The Pakistanis also took the British theory of "martial races" in India onboard and underestimated the "weak" Bengalis and Indians.

"1 Muslim Jawan is equal to 10 bloody Hindoo soldiers."

India used Sikhs! It's super effective! Pakistan fainted!

Y'know, one thing I've been really wondering about as of late is the state of the Pak military finances. The US has been reducing aid since 2011, China is slowing down, and I doubt King Salman is too happy with Islamabad right now. I don't doubt Pakistan could weather the situation, but I wonder how much will they have to beg borrow and steal...and how much they'll have to cut in order to handle the smaller budget. Most data on this subject is about five years old (or roughly whenever Siddiqa published Military Inc. and other authors were delving into the Musharraf regime).

IIRC, Indian and Bengali formations had a notorious tendency to disintegrate easily during World War II, especially during the early campaigns against the Japanese, who milked a common anti-colonialist narrative for all it was worth. Of course you had scores of elite units such as the Rajputs at Hong Kong that fought fiercely and were exceptions, but supposedly it wasn't really until the Japanese overstepped their luck and entered India itself that the British Army's Indian troops began to Take a Level in Badass.

China is actually seeing the opportunity to increase its military aid to Pakistan nowadays however - I posted some articles some months ago detailing Pakistani purchases of about a hundred or so Chinese fighter aircraft and around a dozen submarines.

That's not where the martial race theory comes from...

As for the report of Pakistani purchases, that's Rawalpindi's wishlist, not reality (usually). No confirmation that they've recieved or started making the submarines. As for the fighters, they have yet to complete the original contract from the Musharraf years.

Also, the Chinese are not one to simply give away those orders. Even on discount, those orders are not cheap.

I never said that that was where the theory comes from - merely that such experiences may have had a role in cementing the belief among the British into their heads.

For a country of industrial and economic might as China, tossing Pakistan a ton of monkey models wouldn't really be out of question. If anything, the fact that the ISI allowed the Chinese access to those Black Hawk wrecks already signifies an extremely tight relationship between the two countries.

Even in that case, there are plenty of castes and tribes in the rest of India that the British dubbed "martial races", including the Nairs, who come from the tippy tip of south India. If Pakistani assumptions are based off of British ones, they shouldn't get to the conclusion they do. Unless of course, as is more likely, they simply made up that particular set of nonsense statistics for their own sakes.

On the subject of the Pakistan-Chinese relationship, it's not an equal one. Pakistan will give China the moon if Beijing asked, but China doesn't reciprocate that kindly. China wants to be paid for what it builds for Pakistan (and capital ships in particular are not easy for the Chinese to make in large enough droves to just give them away. The ships they CAN do that for (small missile boats and attack patrol craft) they already let Karachi Shipyard build under license, same

Until Pakistan can afford to pay for it, China isn't going to give them what they want. What GHQ fails to remember is that China and India have a very lucrative trade relationship now. They may not trust each other, but they both want to make money. As such, Beijing isn't going to give stuff to Pakistan for free when its not in their immediate interest to strengthen them...Beijing will only do enough to keep GHQ in the game, and that too only if they can get an immediate benefit.

So my question still stands from earlier about Pakistani finances.

On the subject of the Pakistan-Chinese relationship, it's not an equal one.

I don't think any countries have ever had an equal relationship with the PRC in regards to cooperative deals (read: not counting pre-1945 when China was often the bitch of other countries... which is an unequal relationship as well, just in another direction ).

As I recall, not even at the height of Sino-Soviet cooperation did the USSR ever get that much value from working with the PRC.

China treats Pakistan better than, say North Korea (or even, in hindsight, the Soviet Union), but strictly on Beijing's own terms.

Seriously, you should check out the Pakistan Defence Forum and see their wishlists and you'll see what I mean.

The greatest thing to come out of the Sino-Soviet sphere was the fact that the Soviets persuaded the Chinese to intervene in Korea and watched their Uriah Gambit unfold as two of their greatest rivals (the US and the PRC) literally kill each other while smugly tossing in weapons and advisers to the communist side to maintain relevance.

This is particularly related to this thread in that Korea remains one of India's only military operations on foreign non-South Asian soil - as part of their declared status as a neutral broker between the two sides during the ceasefire talks, Indian troops guarded the prison camps tasked with separating both sides' prisoners that wanted to either return home or not.

India operates an airbase in Tajikistan.

I did say "one of only" didn't I?

Probably should have added "during an active conflict" as well.

Government approves Rs 1,000 crore for India-Bangladesh rail link

Does Indian transportation retain British influence? What side of the road do they drive on?

The Indians drive on the same side of the road as the British, on the left. As does Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nepal. And considering that The British Empire built India's railways the influence of The Raj is probably quite strong.

And as an aside, their second largest truck manufacturer is Ashok Leyland, which still uses the old BL roundel.

edited 26th Jul '15 9:55:21 AM by Greenmantle