Pakistan success

Discussion in 'Alternate History Discussion: After 1900' started by ragescyther, Nov 21, 2012.

  1. ragescyther New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    I have a question. I am planning a time line in which Pakistan rises as a great nation, not a super power but one with as much economic influence as Japan .How would pakistan be able to succeed as a nation. We all Know that the modern day nation is almost if not already a failed state.
    How would the nation succeed?
    What factors are necessary?
    If Jinnah stayed alive would it make much of a difference?
    I think Pakistan had the potential to be a great nation. But it was all lost as soon as the first civilian leaders died. It had US and British backing. A large population pool and strategically well placed.
    South Korea rose from ashes and has turned into great nation I think Pakistan could have done the same.
    Anyways I am hoping for a nice discussion and feedback have a great day.

    P.s I am new here so if this is in the wrong section please forgive me.
     
    Ddmkm122 likes this.
  2. PhilippeO Banned

    Joined:
    May 20, 2011
    Not constantly at war with India would be a start. perhaps Kashmir conflict end differently during 50s. India allowed referendum or Pakistan agree to partition of Kashmir with India. it would also reduce military dominance and precedent for support for Islamist terrorist group.


    Reducing ethnic tension also necessary. Perhaps ethnic quota for recruitment to army and civil service ?
     
  3. TheseusDeuteros wombat

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2012
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Indeed, perhaps they could even agree on an independent Kasmir.

    But the real problem, I believe, is that Pakistan isn't a real nation.
    I mean, look at this map. Instead, I'd rather see some small, quite prosperous states such as Baluchistan, Sindh and Punjab.
     
  4. TheHumblePoet Qongton/Egypt

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2010
    Baluchistan wouldnt be quite prosperous, it would be a backwards tribal society. As would Sindh. Karachi would never become the mega-city it is without the backing of the rest of Pakistan and the arrival of millions of Indian Muslims (who wouldnt be coming to Sindh as its not a Muslim homeland).

    Pakistan, while an artificial construct has developed its own unique national identity that most citizens do associate with, as such it can be considered a real state at this point.


    As for the OP's question. Perhaps allowing all of Kashmir to join Pakistan would end most tensions with India. Kashmir originally should have been Pakistani, as it had a Muslim majority. While the ruler opted for India, the same happened in Junagadh, a Hindu majority state that opted to join Pakistan. Here India forcefully annexed it and many believed Pakistan taking all of Kashmir was justified in light of this.

    Furthermore, clearing up the language conflict with East Pakistan (or dropping East Pakistan all together, it was more a burden than an asset for West Pakistan) would help, as would avoiding a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Perhaps if India is more Soviet-leaning in this TL, the West would give Pakistan even more support as a deterrent.
     
  5. Anaxagoras Vox clamantis in deserto Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2005
    Location:
    Between a rock and a weird place
    1. Don't get into a competition with India over respective penis size. . . Oh, I meant Kashmir.

    2. Bangladesh? Who cares about Bangladesh?

    3. Learn the economic lessons of South Korea, Taiwan, and Hong Kong.
     
  6. Kishan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Location:
    Bharat
    The only solution for Kashmir dispute is accepting the LOC as the international border. But the fact is that the Pakistani Army do not want a solution or peace with India as they have to keep the tension permanent so that they can keep the largest slice of the budget loaf for themselves. Also a peaceful climate will cost them their posture as the lone savior of the state and self proclaimed right to throw out any democratically elected regime at their slightest whim. Another powerful group who wants the conflict to remain unresolved is the religious right, the fundamentalist Jihadists like LET and Pak Taliban. For them confrontation against all non-Islamic world is as essential as water for fish.There is no power in Pakistan that is strong enough to challenge the might of the Army and the influence of the devilish mullahs.
     
  7. ragescyther New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    Thank you for your input
    Why would India let go of Kashmir? Could there be any sort of potential compromise between Pakistan and India on the issue?
    Furthermore since I am hoping for a POD of Jinnah surviving I don't think breaking up the nation would be feasible and I want it to stay unified. I think Jinnah surviving would allow the civilian government to become more stable and powerful also it would be able to restrain the army
    How could you get a more soviet leaning India? And would conflicts occur over Kashmir if Jinnah is alive?
    Sorry for the large amount if questions but I really want to clarify my ideas before I get started.
    And I do think Bangladesh is a burden but in the mid 19th century would the people be willing to accept Bangladesh separating.?
    Once again thank you all for you replies, have a great day. :)
     
    Ddmkm122 likes this.
  8. TheseusDeuteros wombat

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2012
    Location:
    Netherlands
    I think it should be possible, but the "how" part is a bit problematic. I know India still has a communist party nowadays. And I found this on the Internet; it might be useful to read through... Perhaps China will be able to spread communism through Tibet and the Himalayas. Maybe the communists even could get support from locals and then a revolution starts. This possibly could result in a divided India with a communist state from the north down to Kerala, and a capitalist state made up of the rest. But I don't think this is quite plausible... :D
    Yes, I believe so, because it's quite a different nation and, even though this may sound silly, it's far from Pakistan. I think exclaves are always quite easy to separate from the 'main' country. Besides, I may be cool to have a Bengal state instead of Bangladesh, which comprises West Bengal of India as well as East Bengal, Bangladesh.
     
  9. PhilippeO Banned

    Joined:
    May 20, 2011
    Kashmir actually several land that maharaja of Kashmir managed to unify. There are Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh. Jammu majority Hindu, Kashmir majority Muslim, while Ladakh majority Buddhist.

    compromise could be Pakistan agree on concept of 'religious majority' and instead of claiming whole of Kashmir, let go of Jammu and Ladakh. and agree to population transfer of minority.
     
  10. Alex1guy First Of His Name

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2011
    Location:
    The New Zealand Empire
    If only it were that simple :/
     
  11. Badshah Badshah-e-Alam

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2010
    Location:
    Canada
    If only.....but the fact is, for Pakistan to be a success, the civilian government needs to be able to override the army, and also the tribal divisions and militant groups present in the country.
     
  12. Dan1988 Vamos abrir a porta da esperança!

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Location:
    ATL Royaume du Canada
    Jinnah living longer could help tremendously, as well as bending over backwards for Bangladesh. With Jinnah living longer, he could've been a Pakistani Atatürk but better.
     
  13. ragescyther New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2011
    How could a civilian government be able to assert control over the army and unify the nation?
    What strategy would be the most effective for Jinnah to use?
    As for Bangladesh couldn't the British Empire keep it separate from the beginning?
    Ataturk did have interesting reforms. I Think the main priority for Jinnah would be to keep the military in a leash and keep the country stable enough for reform.
    Have a good day:)
     
    Ddmkm122 likes this.
  14. Incognito Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2010
    Perhps not Soviet, but India does have its own communist insurgency movement. Maybe have Mao support this movement & one of the Indian leaders crack down hard on percived socialists, increasing public support for the movement?

    Though I don't think Pakistan getting more US aid to fight off commie India is key to its success. There were (and are) plenty of US-backed dictatorships whom American aid didn't help become any more democratic or successful.
     
    Ddmkm122 likes this.
  15. Clandango Disestablishmentarianist

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Location:
    The Back of the Car
    They did it everywhere else.
     
  16. Clandango Disestablishmentarianist

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2012
    Location:
    The Back of the Car
    I burden that had half the population and which had coups overthrow ever single President or Prime Minister from Bengal in favor of a Pashtun.
     
  17. Kishan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Location:
    Bharat
    Had Jinnah lived longer, democracy might have got a better chance of success in Pakistan. But Jinnah becoming a Pakistani Ataturk was quite implausible in the circumstances that gave birth to Pakistan. Jinnah was a very complex and interesting character with many contradictions. He started his political career as a completely secular Congress leader who had nothing but contempt for the Muslim League. I am not sure, but it is said that it was Jinnah who introduced M.K.Gandhi, who returned from South Africa, to the Indian National Congress at a meeting in Bombay. But once he came in touch with Congress, Gandhi had a meteoric rise in politics and in a few years he became the unquestioned leader of the Congress, which became a mass organisation. Many senior leaders of the Congress including Jinnah were sidelined. This was too much for a very proud politician like Jinnah.
    As a Congress leader Jinnah was a completely secular politician. He always wore impeccable western suits. He was fond of whiskey and pork, both taboo for Muslims. He never visited any mosque and ridiculed religious minded Muslims. His wife was not a Muslim, but a Parsee(Zoroastrian) lady.
    But his loss of importance in Congress embittered him and he turned to Muslim League, which was despised by him until then. Muslim League, which had no leaders of stature, welcomed Jinnah wholeheartedly. From the day he joined the Muslim League, Jinnah had only one aim, that is to damage the Congress and Gandhi who blocked his political rise. He took up the demand for Pakistan which he himself had ridiculed as a ''dream of idiots" as his pet theme. He achieved his goal upholding an Islamic identity and hence he could not have made a somersault for a second time to become an "Ataturk".
     
  18. The Ubbergeek Insane internet demigod (TN)

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2005
    Location:
    Province of Quebec
    On Bangladesh, I'd really like to see an ATL who give this nation, or non-nation region (if they stay in India) a really better deal, BTW...
     
  19. Kishan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Location:
    Bharat
    At the time of independence, the native princes were given freedom to join either India or Pakistan, depending on the geography and the religious composition of the people of their state. They were not allowed to opt for independence, as it would have caused instability. Majority of the six hundred and something princes didn't have much option as they were surrounded by one or the other dominion. Three states Kashmir, Hyderabad and Travancore demanded independence. Hyderabad, as large as France, was ruled by a Muslim king, Nizam, but had a large Hindu majority and was surrounded by India on all sides. The people overwhelmingly supported joining India. The attempt of the Prince to remain free was thwarted by the Government of India who sent in forces to annex the state. The demand of Travancore was raised by Diwan(Prime Minister) who was driven out by the enraged people, and the king joined the Dominion. The state of Junagarh, which had majority Hindus had a Muslim ruler who wanted to join Pakistan, but the state was inside Gujarat with no access to Pakistan. Junagarh was also annexed by India.
    But the case of Kashmir was unique. It was a large state ruled by a Hindu king. The Muslims had a majority above 50% overall, with a Hindu majority in the southern Jammu region and Buddhist majority in the eastern Ladakh region. The King, though he was a Hindu, hated Nehru, who was a Kashmiri Brahmin, by caste and had been imprisoned by the King before. Nehru also reciprocated the feeling. But Sheikh Abdullah, the unquestioned leader of Kashmiri Muslims, was a close friend of Nehru and he despised Jinnah.He wanted the accession of Kashmir to India. The King wanted to remain independent and delayed a decision. Pakistan expected the King to join them. An impatient Pakistan sent Army disguised as tribesmen to Kashmir. The frightened King requested India for help. Sheikh Abdullah also sought the help of India.India insisted that the King must sign the instrument of accession for any help. Once the King agreed Indian Army was sent into Kashmir to throw out the invaders. By the time, a ceasefire sponsored by UNO came into force, a third of Kashmir was under Pakistani occupation. The King Hari Singh was deposed and his son Karan Singh was installed. Later Sheikh Abdullah became the Chief Minister of Kashmir. His son Farukh Abdullah also was Chief Minister for a long time. Now he is a Central Cabinet Minister. The Chief Minister of Kashmir is Omar Abdullah, the son of Farukh Abdullah.
     
  20. Kishan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Location:
    Bharat
    In the undivided Pakistan the Eastern half(present Bangladesh) was more populous than West Pakistan. That was why when General Yahya Khan conducted democratic elections to the National Assembly, the Awami League led by Sheikh Mujib-ur Rehman secured absolute majority in the National Assembly without a single member from the West Pakistan. The Awami League had swept the East Pakistan leaving very few seats out of its grasp. The Pakistani Army was always dominated by Punjabis with a few Pashto officers and very little representation for Sindhis, Balochis or the majority Bengalis. The Punjabi elite was not prepared to hand over power to Bengalis or any other group. Then the military junta headed by Yahya Khan conspired with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who had the majority support in the Western half, to deny Mujib and Awami League access to power which was rightfully theirs. Sheikh Mujib and other leaders of Awami League were thrown into prison and a reign of terror was let loose in the East Pakistan. Pakistani Army started a genocide and ethnic cleansing of Bengalis. Millions of refugees fled to India which surrounded the East Pakistan on three sides. The Bengalis rose in revolt and the refugee problem became unbearable. When all diplomatic moves failed, India was forced to send armed forces into the East Pakistan. The Pakistani Army, numbering about hundred thousand, surrendered and Bangladesh was liberated. The genocide and ethnic cleansing conducted by General Yahya and his junta was supported and applauded by none other than President Richard Nixon and the Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, along with Chairman Comrade Mao Zedong.