Why Khorasan is Crucial - 2 by Rajinder Puri SignUp
Home Kabir Poetry Blogs BoloKids Writers Contribute Search Contact Site Map Advertise RSS Login Register

In Focus

Going Inner
Photo Essays


A Bystander's Diary
My Word
Random Thoughts

Our Heritage


Society & Lifestyle

Family Matters

Creative Writings

Book Reviews
Ghalib's Corner
Literary Shelf
Love Letters


Computing Articles
Internet Security
My Word Share This Page
Why Khorasan is Crucial - 2
by Rajinder Puri Bookmark and Share

Continued from "Why Khorasan is Crucial"    

Analyzing the impact on the Af-Pak region of the movement led by the non-Pashtun tribes of Afghanistan to carve a new Khorasan State one concluded the first part of this article with the words: “History will compel a choice between Confederation and Balkanization.”

Thus far this scribe has consistently advocated a South Asian Confederation as the best and most peaceful option to stabilize the region. That is the politically correct approach. It is the humane approach. Federating Afghanistan through the creation of a Khorasan province could start the process of creating national federations within a South Asian confederation.

However it must be confessed that the prospects of this happening remain dim. For a South Asian Confederation to emerge it requires two hands to clap. But Pakistan’s hand alternately opens and clenches into a fist. The latest example of this is provided by Pakistan’s cricket captain Shahid Afridi. His gracious conduct while in India won many admirers. But on returning to Pakistan his tune not only changed. Uncharacteristically he ventured into politics. He said: "It is a very difficult thing for us to live with them (Indians) or to have long-term relationship with them. Nothing will come out of talks. See how many times in the past 60 years we have had friendship and then how many times things have gone bad.”

The reasons adduced for Afridi’s change of mind by Indian commentators may be conveniently discarded. It is obvious that his new script was dictated by the hardliners in the Pakistani establishment. That compels one to assess the hard option. The soft option was earlier described by this scribe as the attempt to tame Pakistan’s hardliners through nudging its establishment towards a confederation. The hard option was described as waiting for Pakistan to implode and get Balkanized.

Since the liberal elements in Pakistan’s civil society seem incapable of confronting the hardliners, let us consider Khorasan in the context of the hard option.

India will have to do little to hasten the disintegration of Pakistan. New Delhi will merely have to distance itself from Islamabad, drastically minimize all diplomatic and cultural contacts with Pakistan, and offer moral support to the separatist movements of Baluchistan, Pashtunistan and Khorasan. The rest will follow.

The Jasmine movement in the Middle East most likely will hit Pakistan in fatal fashion. The plans to disintegrate Pakistan have been on the Pentagon’s drawing board for some time. Unfolding events in the Middle East suggest that implementing those plans may have already started.

It is worth recalling that West Asia was always described as the Greater Middle East. But for the first time US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice used the term “New Middle East” to the world in June 2006. She was speaking in, of all places, Tel Aviv. The timing of introducing the new term was highly significant. The June 2006 issue of the US Armed Forces, a journal closely reflective of the Pentagon’s views although not officially connected to it, carried an article by a retired US Army officer and military analyst, Lieutenant Colonel Ralph Peters. The article was entitled “Blood Borders: How a better Middle East would look”.

The article was explosive. It expressed what had been pointed out repeatedly in these columns. Namely, that the legacy of colonialism had left unnatural international borders by violating all accepted norms of nationhood. The author going by ethnic, religious and linguistic criteria drew the map of a New Middle East just before Condoleezza Rice borrowed that term for use in Israel. Let us ignore for the moment what Peters envisaged for West Asia and consider his views about Afghanistan and Pakistan.

He wrote:

“What Afghanistan would lose to Persia in the west, it would gain in the east, as Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier tribes would be reunited with their Afghan brethren (the point of this exercise is not to draw maps as we would like them but as local populations would prefer them). Pakistan, another unnatural state, would also lose its Baluch territory to Free Baluchistan. The remaining “natural” Pakistan would lie entirely east of the Indus, except for a westward spur near Karachi .”

The restructuring of the Af-Pak region is along the lines that were anticipated in these columns much earlier. Independent Pashtunistan, independent Baluchistan, while Punjab and Sind remain in truncated Pakistan. The possibility of this happening will increase manifold if the new movement for Khorasan gathers force. After the article appeared in the Armed Forces Journal there were letters questioning how the Pentagon could ever implement these ideas. Well, five years later the Jasmine revolutions erupted in the Middle East.

Is that mere coincidence?

Robert Blackwill’s suggestion of redeploying NATO troops in Afghanistan clearly intended encouraging Pashtun consolidation across the Pakistan-Afghanistan border to lay the foundation for a Khorasan movement that is now emerging.

It is in this overall situation that one advocated the creation of a South Asian Union as a means for present day Pakistan to survive without altering its borders. There are signs that the Pakistan establishment is unwilling or unable to deliver results to that end. That leaves the hard option and possible Balkanization if Pakistan’s army and its hardliners do not change quickly enough. Balkanization will be messy.

The future of South Asia will become uncertain. But South Asia will survive the crisis.

Pakistan will cease to exist.  

More by :  Rajinder Puri
Views: 1850
Article Comment Mr. Bohre, you are dead right. That is why I keep stressing that Confederation is better and Balkanization could be most messy.
My Word
Article Comment Not to miss the Chinese factor - in situation of Balkanization, aren't Chinese expected to claim some territory themselves ?

At least control of some part as they do today in Aksai Chin ?

And further interference by Chinese in such situation can considerably provide certain direction to the outcomes, which will be different than natural outcomes.

Will Chinese not do their best to prevent formation of Indian (South Asian) confederation ?

Will they not do this at least to preserve oil line from Kazakhstan ?
Dinesh Kumar Bohre
Top | My Word

    A Bystander's Diary     Analysis     Architecture     Astrology     Ayurveda     Book Reviews
    Buddhism     Business     Cartoons     CC++     Cinema     Computing Articles
    Culture     Dances     Education     Environment     Family Matters     Festivals
    Flash     Ghalib's Corner     Going Inner     Health     Hinduism     History
    Humor     Individuality     Internet Security     Java     Linux     Literary Shelf
    Love Letters     Memoirs     Musings     My Word     Networking     Opinion
    Parenting     People     Perspective     Photo Essays     Places     PlainSpeak
    Quotes     Ramblings     Random Thoughts     Recipes     Sikhism     Society
    Spirituality     Stories     Teens     Travelogues     Vastu     Vithika
    Women     Workshop
RSS Feed RSS Feed Home | Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Site Map
No part of this Internet site may be reproduced without prior written permission of the copyright holder.
Developed and Programmed by ekant solutions