Pakistan Is COLLAPSING While India Leaves It Behind | Abhijit Iyer-Mitra

Overview

The speaker argues that the India–Pakistan conflict over Kashmir is no longer an insurgency in the classic sense. Instead, they claim that the main continuing pattern is terror attacks enabled by Pakistan.

• They assert that insurgency has effectively ended.
• They argue that militants infiltrate from Pakistan and conduct attacks in Kashmir and within India.
• They cite examples such as the 2008 Mumbai/Bombay attacks, framing them as carried out by Pakistan-based attackers smuggled into India, rather than by Indians acting independently.

India vs. Pakistan: Economic and Political Trajectory

The speaker offers a broader explanation for why India has “left Pakistan behind” economically and politically:

• Reforms beginning in the early 1990s under Narsimha Rao (1991)
• Improvements under subsequent governments, including:
  • Vajpayee
  • Manmohan Singh
• Further developments under Modi

By contrast, Pakistan is described as having deteriorated over time due to:

• repeated military dominance
• poor governance

They use an analogy to illustrate this perceived shift in strength:

The “Indian dog” is now “fat and can bark,” while the “Pakistani dog” is neither well-fed nor able to bark—used to suggest Pakistan was once relatively stronger but India is now ascendant.

Identity, “Othering,” and Counterinsurgency

A key theme is identity politics and the effectiveness of counterinsurgency approaches.

The speaker claims:

• Kashmiris who once identified as Pakistani in the 1980s later increasingly preferred being Indian.
• This is presented as evidence that “not othering” groups works psychologically and politically.

They argue India’s approach helps reduce militancy by:

• distinguishing between “Pakistan” and “Indian Muslims/Kashmiris”
• rather than treating Muslims or Kashmiris as outsiders

They contrast this with other separatist movements, such as Punjab/Khalistan, which they portray as:

• having less genuine local backing
• increasingly being framed as criminal enterprises (including drug-related activity) rather than legitimate independence politics

Britain as a Comparison Case

The discussion then shifts to Britain as a comparative example.

The speaker suggests Britain’s emerging main fault line is between:

• Islam
• British national identity

They reference social unrest and counter-protests, including mentions of events such as:

• Bradford
• the Southport / Rotherham-area references

They ask what India did differently to build a national identity that includes Muslims, linking this to India’s idea of “secularism”:

• framed as a form of pluralism
• described as not forcing religion out of public life entirely
• positioned as more similar to the American model of accommodating pluralism than the French model, which they describe as more strongly anti-clerical

What Unifies Societies?

Finally, the speaker speculates about what truly unifies societies.

They argue that:

• “sharing the same land” is not enough to resolve cultural conflict
• they cite Lebanon as an example

They end by questioning what Britain may lack—or what it needs—in order to develop a more coherent shared identity.

Presenters / Contributors

• Abhijit Iyer-Mitra (commentator/presenter)