Afghan SSR does not mean Soviets would convert every one to atheists.
And what makes you think that was not a big possibility? Fear? Apprehension? Soviets had neither as a world superpower then. On becoming an SSR, education system was made in Russian language, the children were taught Soviet curriculum that had no place for any religious studies. Any religious studies was prohibited and illegal. Ask a Soviet-era student ethnic Russian how much he knew about his Orthodox Christianity during his years in school and you will know.
As mentioned above.You don't have to be a atheist to be a communist.
Oh really? Just try celebrating one of your festivals in public or just re-attempt to open a closed Mosque in a
true Communist country (today's example:
North Korea)--you'd know right away. Contemporary Chinese Communism
isn't Communism that Soviets had followed. Don't confuse them. Chinese learnt from the Soviet fall and the Tienanmen Square Massacre that people should be granted certain freedoms to ensure a survival of their government. Soviets on the other hand were too powerful to be defeated by public revolts and therefore followed state Communism and Atheism
Your Mujahideen were fearful about losing culture and religion and therefore the Soviet-war became an amalgamation of so many external factors.
Look there is a difference between having good relations with soviets and openly embracing Communism.You're mixing two different things.India had good relations with Soviets.Did Soviets convert all Hindus to atheists?
India didn't have a country on its borders being run over by an ideology-themed superpower. You had. There's a stark difference. I am asking you something now:
W
hat was your option THEN at the moment Soviets attacked Afghanistan other than requesting United States to intervene?
Forget about should have would have been and other possible wishful thinking of better relations with Soviets 60 years ago.
Was not talking about 80's era.It is way back in 60's when a U2 flying for US from Pakistani base was shot down over USSR.Then Khrushchev openly threatened Pakistan.US State Department was silent except that their lie that it was a weather plane was caught and they were caught pants down and you wonder why Pakistanis don't trust the US.
I am aware of the incident. Moscow had no interest in you later because New Delhi had already aligned itself with them. With you rushing off to the American camp, naturally they were to treat you as adversaries.
I am talking about 50's when Pakistan was newly born and same with India.USSR tried to establish good relations with Pakistan first but it was snubbed by Pakistan and they developed very strong relations with India after that - Now Soviets did not have a string attached for improving relations that said hey you can only by our friends if you accept communism in your country.That is utterly wrong.Besides Pakistan was much more liberal in 50's/60's/70's.There was no such thing as extremism back then and our society was largely liberal.In fact even today it is largely liberal except a fraction of people.
Of course they didn't have a string attached of accepting Communism. But from my readings, Socialism was widespread in your neighbourhood and the Indians seemingly had a fervent admiration for it as compared to the right wing leanings that was there in your country at that time.
The rest, I partly agree with you. Today you society isn't as liberal as you are saying because of youth being brainwashed by extremists.
US did not have any Military base in Pakistan during 80's.and i was talking about 50's.It was US who largely created a situation in Afghanistan due to which Soviets invaded Afghanistan (Refer to Brzezinski statement
Okay fine, I accept it was American creation. But you still don't understand my question:
Did the Pakistani government have an alternative to the conditions in 80s (forget the 50s) other than run to the American government for cover and ask them to get involved?
Because in the thirty years time between 50s and 80s, there was a great diplomatic rift between you and Kremlin and latter perceived you as an American puppet. Your choice was not to offer any support to the Americans in the form of manpower of Mujahideen and you could have kept totally out of the Afghan affairs, while simultaneously contacting Moscow and announcing your official neutrality in the Afghan war. That could have made a huge difference.
To cap it all:
Americans created the situation in 50s, your leaders chose American hand instead of Kremlin's;
During the Soviet war you had the option to remain militarily and ideologically neutral and therefore ask Americans to tackle Russians on their own, which you didn't.
Because of the facing retaliation of Mujahideen (funded by Americans and trained by you) and combat losses, Soviet air force started doing bomb raids and their famed 'scorch earth' tactics turning Afghanistan to rubble.
Possible solution then: You could have refused cooperation with Americans, declared neutrality, let Soviets take over Afghanistan and establish Afghan SSR (from this thread's perspective) and Afghanistan could have been a better place.
Isn't it?
So whom would you continue to blame? United States who had in this case "come to save you" from a potential Soviet invasion? Or your own country's government who had the choice of even last moment neutrality to reject help to Americans in first place and therefore not turn Afghanistan into what it is today?
