Challenge: A Stable, Strong Pakistan?

[Midas]

Been awhile since I posted here, (exams.. ugh) but my interest in Alternate History has been renewed! Glad to be back.

As the title says "WI: A Stable Strong Pakistan"; but let me clarify. First off I'm part Indian, and partition very negatively affected my family and pretty much ruined my paternal grandmother's side. Nonetheless, that was several generations ago: and seeing Pakistan in the news constantly (either in killings, suicide bombings or cricket scandals) has made me wonder "well what if it weren't so screwed up (1)". I'm really asking two questions here: how can we get a stable and strong Pakistan without absolutely neutering India (or 300 years after some nuclear apocalypse or something else cheeky ) and what would the effects be? For interests sake, I'd like this to not be in relative terms (i.e. "Well if you balkanize India it'd be stronger than all of them) as I can fathom that scenario despite my deficit in knowledge on this topic.

This "WI" ultimately would affect the whole South Asian sphere and global politics to some degree. I suppose PoD wise, I'm assuming we're talking here from the 1930s onwards. So any discussion on it almost necessitates discussion about Partition, India, Bangladesh, China, the U.S. and the Soviet Union (if WWII still happens).

Let me post-script by saying "not neutering India" I'm adding a pretty subjective level to my challenge here. What constitutes "neutering"? As I'm admittedly pro-India this would probably include taking the whole of Jammu and Ladakh, all of Punjab, Junagadh, keeping Hyderabad independent or part of India, West Bengal and the Eastern Territories. However these things are up in the air and I'm interested to hear what people have to say- if any, perhaps this'll be another dead thread for me I know there aren't many South Asian threads. Let me make it clear though my preference in making this thread was to sort of see what an OTL-borders Pakistan (perhaps with all of Kashmir) would look like if it were stable. But I digress. When I have time perhaps I'll throw my opinion in, but sadly I do not tonight...

(1) If there's any Pakistanis on board I mean no offense, and the news I get is no doubt skewed (there's plenty of happiness in Pakistan). But there's no doubt either it's a miserable time for many there, and it has its fair share of social problems and politics in the region have never been so volatile.

 

[Mr Qwerty]

As I understand it, one of Pakistan's problems is a number of paramilitary groups the Pakistan authorities allowed to grow, to improve the defense against any Indian invasion. So what's needed is, that for some reason, Pakistani leaders don't fear attack from India quite so much.

 

[Clipper747]

Kill Zia ul Haq the second he came to power.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

I don't think a Pakistan controled Kashmir would in any way neuter India, but it would go a long ways to remove the paranoia and militancy in Pakistan. The dispute over Kashmir is like two bald men fighting over a comb. Seriously the Kashmiri's don't want to be ruled by either country and it is not so important enough to either to justify the investment in blood and treasure made for it.

Another possible way for Pakistan to gain security would be to join it with Afghanistan, perhaps with the Afghan King as head of State. This would do two things, one give Pakaistan the strategic depth it craves, two draw attention to the security threat from the Soviet Union and away from India.

Finally Bangladesh should've been independent of Pakistan from Independence. It made no sense to have East Pakistan in the first place.

 

[Antipater]

I don't think a Pakistan controled Kashmir would in any way neuter India, but it would go a long ways to remove the paranoia and militancy in Pakistan. The dispute over Kashmir is like two bald men fighting over a comb. Seriously the Kashmiri's don't want to be ruled by either country and it is not so important enough to either to justify the investment in blood and treasure made for it.

I'm not sure that Pakistani control of Kashmir would really make a war with India less likely. That would mean millions more Hindus in Pakistan, including some rather important Hindu Holy sites in Jammu. I think Jammu and Kashmir being united with Pakistan would simply make India the aggressor in a number of Indo-Pakistani Wars.

Another possible way for Pakistan to gain security would be to join it with Afghanistan, perhaps with the Afghan King as head of State. This would do two things, one give Pakaistan the strategic depth it craves, two draw attention to the security threat from the Soviet Union and away from India.

I don't think this would strengthen Pakistan very much, I think if anything it would further undermine the Pakistani state. With Afghanistan, Pashtuns would make up something like 1/3 the population of Pakistan, and have very little in common with the Punjabis who dominate the country economically and politically. And even if the Pashtuns could be reconciled to the Pakistani state, there would still be the issue of the few million Tajiks and other Turkic people who would start with no connection to the Pakistani state.

Finally Bangladesh should've been independent of Pakistan from Independence. It made no sense to have East Pakistan in the first place.

I completely agree with you here. But if the addition of tens of millions of Bengalis was not helpful to the stability of the Pakistani state, why would adding tens of millions of Pashtuns? I understand that the lack of a land connection between the the two halves of Pakistan was an issue, but the Hindu Kush is at least as substantial a barrier.

A strong, stable Pakistan, in my opinion would more likely result from a Pakistan that remained a Dominion, rather than declaring itself an Islamic Republic. Iskander Mizra was too divisive a figure to serve as a successful head of state of Pakistan, leaving him to become Prime Minister would have been better. Anything that could avert the cycle of coups that began in 1958 would made Pakistan a stronger, and more prosperous country, and staying a part of the British Empire could have done that.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

I'm not sure that Pakistani control of Kashmir would really make a war with India less likely. That would mean millions more Hindus in Pakistan, including some rather important Hindu Holy sites in Jammu. I think Jammu and Kashmir being united with Pakistan would simply make India the aggressor in a number of Indo-Pakistani Wars.

Well no one could be sure of peace, but I think peace is likely if this thorn was removed. IMO if Kashmir had been handed to Pakistan, India would not pursue the issue. Kashmir is a point of pride for India, where as for Pakistan it's a point of pride in addition to strategic necessity. Perhaps an independent Kashmir would be enough to serve as Pakistan's buffer state.

Having more Pashtuns and other types of Afghans in Pakistan early on is IMO not a negative. It means a significant portion of the population will have no vindetta against India which came from the turmoil of separation. Unlike East Pakistanis who never wanted to be part of Pakistan, the interests of the Pashtuns will have to be reconciled with if they were to voluntarily join Pakistan. There will have to be something in it for the Afghans, who in decades past lived a considerably less violent lifestyle than today. I'm talking about the 50's and 60's here.

I have heard it said that Pakistan's problem is that it was created as an Islamic state with an identity entirely built on being Islamic. I don't think this is entirely true. Pakistan was created as a refuge for Indian Muslims who want their own country. Their identity is not just Islamic, but also anti-Indian. The Afghans don't have this issue with India, and their participation in Pakistan would dilute this anti-Indian identity.

Not to say this will lead to peace and happiness for all, but it would be an improvement. Pakistan would be externally secure. It's challenge would be to keep it's diverse population happy, which they can only do by providing a better standard of living.

 

[Wendell]

Kashmir being wholly in one or the other (or in neither) following independence would add stability to the region, but that mitigates only one set of problems.

 

[Barry Bull]

Well no one could be sure of peace, but I think peace is likely if this thorn was removed. IMO if Kashmir had been handed to Pakistan, India would not pursue the issue. Kashmir is a point of pride for India, where as for Pakistan it's a point of pride in addition to strategic necessity. Perhaps an independent Kashmir would be enough to serve as Pakistan's buffer state.

An independent and natural Kashmir with naturality, guaranteed by the Great Powers, will be a goof buffer state that allow cooler heads to prevail in both India and Pakistan.

 

[Ganesha]

However, as has been pointed out, Kashmir is not Pakistan's only issue. In addition, Kashmir is not Pakistan's only issue with India. The Third Indo-Pakistani War was about East Pakistan (now Bangladesh). I think what needs to be done is let Bangladesh be independent (or maybe all of Bengal) right from the get-go; the two halves of Pakistan were too culturally and geographically separated to remain as a viable state for long.

They were always going to have problems with their tribal areas, and Islamic militants have been a real threat for quite some time. I think one of the main factors is to limit the power of the ISI, while making US aid during the Cold War more effective. If you can do those two things, we might have a stable democracy and higher levels of economic development in Pakistan.

 

[tallwingedgoat]

They were always going to have problems with their tribal areas, and Islamic militants have been a real threat for quite some time. I think one of the main factors is to limit the power of the ISI, while making US aid during the Cold War more effective. If you can do those two things, we might have a stable democracy and higher levels of economic development in Pakistan.

If Afghanistan were part of Pakistan, the whole Soviet Afghan War would not have happened, along with with CIA's involvement with tribal militants.