Pakistan: Now or Never?
Perspectives on Pakistan
India and Pakistan, living up to low expectations
Email 
Print
Hopes of progress were low when the foreign ministers of India and Pakistan met in Islamabad last week and the two sides lived up to expectations, disagreeing on how to move their relationship forward and blaming each other for souring the mood.
Pakistan took exception to the timing of remarks by the Indian Home Secretary on the eve of the talks accusing the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency of involvement in the November 2008 attack on Mumbai. India objected to comments made by Pakistan Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi comparing those remarks to anti-India speeches given by Hafez Saeed, the founder of the Lashkar-e-Taiba militant group blamed for Mumbai. Qureshi complained his counterpart repeatedly took instructions from Delhi during their talks, an accusation that Indian External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna denied.
Signs are, however, that the mood is steadying and the two countries are trying to put the acrimony behind them.
Pakistan Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani said Pakistan wanted good relations with India and both sides were sincere in improving ties. Indian Foreign Secretary Nirupama Rao, the country’s top diplomat, also stressed in interviews with television channel NDTV and with CNN-IBN that the process of dialogue must continue. “I think in diplomacy, as in life, disappointments such as these needs to be surmounted, because as neighbours India and Pakistan will have to deal with each other,” she said. “We don’t have the luxury of maintaining irresolvable distances between our two countries.”
In an editorial, The Hindu newspaper argued not only that dialogue must continue, but that India and Pakistan must learn the lessons of the Islamabad talks by encouraging officials of both countries to be more restrained in their public comments. Indian Home Secretary G.K. Pillai, it said, should have known better than to air in public India’s allegation about ISI involvement in Mumbai on the eve of the foreign ministers’ talks, an allegation which was not particularly new and which had already been conveyed to Islamabad. ”Its public airing at a sensitive moment raises troubling questions about the motives for doing so, and about who really runs this government,” it said. ”The Pakistan Foreign Minister too has been unnecessarily aggressive in his posturing towards India, perhaps out of domestic political compulsions.”
Those comments found an unlikely echo in the person of Hamid Gul, former head of the ISI, who said the remarks from both Pillai and Qureshi were unnecessary. “I think we need to douse the fires of aggression,” he said.
Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper said in an editorial that the acrimony over the Islamabad talks could actually indicate that Pakistan and India were making a sincere effort to engage with each other - although it also did not rule out the possibility that hawks on both sides of the border were out to sabotage the process.
“The more optimistic interpretation is that India and Pakistan are warily re-engaging one another, the diplomatic hiccups the result of a nascent but real process of rebuilding trust and confidence in a relationship poisoned by mutual distrust,” it said. ”For a dispute that is over six decades old, a few months … is a mere blink of an eye. The optimists suggest that the excruciatingly slow pace of re-engagement isn’t indicative of problems but a way of building a solid base for the next phase of the peace dialogue between the two countries. Rational and sensible people on both sides of the border will be hoping that it is the optimistic hypothesis which is true.”
Qureshi and Krishna will have another chance to meet on the sidelines of an international conference on Afghanistan in Kabul next week. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Gilani – who are the ones who are really driving the dialogue process - could also have an opportunity to talk on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly in New York in September. Qureshi has also been invited to visit India, although no dates have been set.
It will be a long slow process - and one that is always vulnerable to another major militant attack. And as yet, the nature of that re-engagement has yet to really take form. On the surface, the most obvious disagreement is over what should be discussed – India wants action on what it calls cross-border terrorism; Pakistan wants all issues discussed, including what it sees as the core issue of Kashmir.
But the problems run much deeper than that, in what B.Raman, formerly at Indian intelligence agency, the Research & Analysis Wing (R&AW), calls here the “negative reflexes” which have dominated attitudes in both countries since the violent partition of the subcontinent in 1947. (Do read his article for a proposal on how dialogue between the two countries should be structured.)
I would argue they go back even further than 1947, into an asymmetry of thinking between the then-dominant Congress party which wanted an independent, secular and united India, and the Muslim League, which insisted Muslims would neither be safe from Hindu domination nor achieve their political aspirations without a separate homeland. In other words, Congress favoured the status quo, but with India ruled by Indians rather than the British; the Muslim League favoured radical change. Congress insisted Muslims would be safe in a secular and united India; the Muslim League said they would be threatened.
Much of that asymmetry in thinking remains visible today. India wants dialogue to proceed through incremental confidence building measures; Pakistan wants a more radical, all-encompassing peace deal. When it comes to Kashmir, India favours the status quo; Pakistan wants change and in the past has been prepared to nurture Islamist militant groups – some of which are now turning against Pakistan – to force that change.
As Robert Grenier, a former CIA station chief in Islamabad argues here, “The fundamental problem is that the status quo, with India in effective control of most of Jammu and Kashmir, favours India. Thus, a sustained series of so-called confidence building measures which reduces the threat of hostilities has the effect of making the status quo more tolerable for India over time, thus creating a strong disincentive for India to engage in a real negotiation. Correspondingly, in Pakistan, confidence building measures in the absence of progress on the core issues in dispute only make the prospect of Indian concessions on Kashmir all the more unlikely and, thus, a policy focused initially on creating trust all the less sustainable.
“This is especially true where terrorism and militant groups are concerned. In South Asia, as elsewhere, terrorism is the tool of the weak. Without any other effective means of redressing Indian repression of Muslims in Indian administered Kashmir, a Pakistani focus on cracking down on so called “Kashmiri” militant groups based in Pakistan itself is unlikely to be accepted by the army, and only risks further undermining a Pakistani government already beset with domestic militant threats on all sides.”
The asymmetry is clear even in the language both countries use. India says Kashmir is not disputed; Pakistan says it is. India says it is not a threat to Pakistan; yet Islamabad, and more particularly the generals in Rawalpindi, say it is. Indian politicians sometimes like to stress that India as a rising world power has more important concerns than focusing on Pakistan, infuriating Pakistanis who see this as another expression of Indian insistence on the status quo and evidence of the perceived arrogance of its much bigger neighbour.
You can’t change the asymmetry in thinking which grew out of an earlier era, in 1930s British India. But can India and Pakistan at least acknowledge its existence, and in doing so, find a way to transform their faltering dialogue process into a durable peace?
(Update/postscript: Siddharth Varadarajan at The Hindu has a useful readout on why the foreign ministers’ talks failed, blaming this in particular on an inability to agree a timeline for holding talks on Siachen)
Comments RSSPost Your Comment
-
Author Profile
-
Quote ” The fundamental problem is that the status quo, with India in effective control of most of Jammu and Kashmir, favours India. Thus, a sustained series of so-called confidence building measures which reduces the threat of hostilities has the effect of making the status quo more tolerable for India over time, thus creating a strong disincentive for India to engage in a real negotiation. Correspondingly, in Pakistan, confidence building measures in the absence of progress on the core issues in dispute only make the prospect of Indian concessions on Kashmir all the more unlikely and, thus, a policy focused initially on creating trust all the less sustainable” End Quote.
I have never seen anybody summarize the entire problem using such sanitized words and phrases. The guy has said everything worth saying without crossing any diplomatic lines. Sheer brilliance.
Mr Grenier is dead on and the paragraph above pretty much sums it all up. Putting preconditions on the Kashmir dialogue is the surest way of making it fail. Which means that the current dialogue is simply a diplomatic excercise for domestic and foreign consumption. May God save us from our politicians.
Myra, the assymetry in perceptions is easily explained, Pakistani Army inflicted mass propaganda on its people, while India did not, that explains the wide rift in perceptions.
Many diplomats have died who negotiated on behalf these countries before and many are going to leave the stage for the next round and the next round. No one has ever taugght these two countries how to rule and handle their citizens in the territory left by the Brits. In this period both countries have acquired enough nuclear weaponry to destroy their countries and many others in the neighbouring countries. Let them stay apart for as long as they can and have a dialogue with each other to satisfy their people.
The world will remain safer as long as they are occupied with each other. Their domestic developments are sooner than later going to shape their territory eventually.They have not become Nations even after a lapse of sixty years, they are happy with the chaos!!
Rex Minor
A very nice question you have asked at the end, I understand this was a very strong shock to India and Pakistan’s journey towards peace. They blame India and Indians blame them no one is taking one further step and no one is leaving it’s position. India was insulted their which can not be tolerated but they can do nothing. Only one mre chance can be given to Pakistan. They can’t fight because both of them have got nuclear weapons, they can’t change neighbours obviously.. If peace is what they want then they should accept each others existence. Pakistan should understand the position of India in the world and should make use of its growing neighbour, whose public shares similar interests with its public, to give boost to its economy. India should realize the importance of position of Pakistan which is a gateway to energy rich Iran, gulf, and Central Asia and hence its close ally Russia
With Regards
-Sanskar Shrivastava
http://enewsreport.blogspot.com
India and Pakistan have wasted too much energy on working against each other and blown billions on military hardware.
The only ones profiting from enmity between India and Pakistan are the arms dealers and Arabs.
It is best they both put differences aside and find ways to build consensus.
In Pakistan’s currently polarized and religiously propagandized state, this will be extremely difficult to do, as the Zia Al Haq era has ingrained a poisonous view of Indians in the minds of Pakistani’s upto even today.
Pakistani’s perceptions must be changed somehow. Just merely giving up and abrogating Kashmir is not the answer.
The answer will lie in both sides doing a sustained effort of incremental concessions and tit for tat good actions towards each other.
But let there be no illusions, Pakistan must leave the past behind and get ride of militantism from Kashmir and its soil.
Pakistan and India stand to gain so much from each other in many untold ways, if Pakistan can somehow turn its face away from militantism.
There is no reason why India will not give money for infrastructure for education, give food, technology and what ever aid is needed and above all, a more comprehensive regional water management treaty. If Indians are willing to help Afghans, just imagine the good will Indians are prepared to give Pakistani’s, if they abandon Islamic militantism.
Pakistani’s and Indians can both keep their armys to enforce territory and borders, but both countries can significantly alter the futures of their people for good, if this enmity can be put to the grave. Unfortunately, there are too many outside forces and forces within Pakistan that are working hand in claw to maintain a “containment” or assymetrical warfare against India and this has been extremely counterproductive.
Indians do want a friendly neighbour, a prosperous neighbour. But there are extremist elements in Pakistan that keep sabotaging any chance of sustainable peace. It is a pity that these extremist elements are given so much wiggle room in Pakistan to operate for their own objectives.
If Pakistani’s don’t trust Indians, why not have the UN monitor both sides activities, to ensure that they are both giving peace and equal and sincerely truthful chance?
I think Indians would welcome that. We got nothing to hide.
Further to my previous comment, in Manmohan’ Singh’s own words, “We are willing to meet Pakistan more than half way….if they abandon terrorism as a foreign policy tool”.
So, this peace really is upto Pakistani’s because Indians cannot negotitate or really discuss anything, as long the terrorism virus continues to stew and grow in Pakistan, for Indians are leaving themselves vulnverable and open to opportunistic elements hoping to wreak havoc.
Someone in the Pakistani establishment does not want peace with India.
We Indians have the patience, you Pakistani’s decide and look into your hearts and demand that your leaders to make peace with India.
It is a 1000% assurance that if Militantism is removed from Pakistan, there is no reason why Indo-Pak can even exceed the growth by China. There is a huge potential for both countries to become very successful together, if they choose to work as close neighbours and fix all enmity.
Who appointed the CIA chief the arbitrator here? If he says something favorable to paks he becomes an arbitrator?
The same CIA who printed text books advocating Jihad and supplied to Afghans in the 80s?
I could quote some other American diplomats and experts who advocate liberating Pashtunistan and Blochistan as solutions for the problems in Af-Pak. What say you?
The author writes “Muslim League, which insisted Muslims would neither be safe from Hindu domination nor achieve their political aspirations without a separate homeland”
—
That is a lie!
Read here:
http://www.kashmir-information.com/histo ry/bittertruth.html
The same way westerners like you support a religious exclusivist, terrorist state against a multi-ethnic, multi religious India, your forefathers the British were conniving with Muslim Leagur to balkanize India.
Muslim League’s original demand for Pakistan included
1) the entire Punjab, Bengal provinces ALONG WITH THE HINDU POPULATION (!!!)
2)ASSAM (!!!)
3)Princely states scattered across India with muslim rulers and Hindu majority populations.
Where is the idea of muslim oppression when Muslims were the rulers for 100s of years?!!
If you don’t beleive me read Indian Muslim Historian Rafiq Zakaria’s book on Jinnah. You can google search and read sections for free.
A lot can happen if outside powers stop meddling in the region. It is the geo-politics played by the US, its allies, USSR and China that have led to the current day stalemate between India and Pakistan. The US has been highly influential in the region and has helped Pakistan survive and turn in the wrong direction by encouraging its military to achieve its objectives. USSR has been buried. That leaves US and China. Pakistan has learned the art of playing the big powers against each other and milking a livelihood out of it. And the powers have had to play into Pakistan’s objectives and turn a blind eye on many occasions and even support Pakistan’s cause.
If the big powers simply leave everything to the region, and allow things to settle down on their own, may be there will be room for improvement. This includes China as well. China has used Pakistan as a proxy to contain India. The US has caused tremendous chaos and confusion in the region. If these powers abstain from interfering, it will help India and Pakistan to resolve their differences without seeking outside influence.
Kashmir really is not an issue. Trouble arises there only when Pakistan foments it. And it has to be linked to any foreign aid that Pakistan receives. India for its part should abrogate the law that allows its security forces to act with impunity for its brutal acts in a sensitive region. Personnel must be held accountable for their extra-judicial actions and punished. Pakistan must sincerely stop aiding terrorists to infiltrate into Kashmir and trigger violence.If both countries allow Kashmir to settle and stay in peace for sometime, India will be encouraged to pull its security forces out of Kashmir. If Pakistan wants that to happen, it needs to do its part of not allowing the militant groups to have a free hand.
If Pakistan can help foil any Mumbai style attacks on India in the future, that will bring in more confidence and trust in Indians towards Pakistan. Some sacrifice is needed.
It would probably take a decade of slow confidence building measures between the two countries before anything can be attempted.
Currently the mutual mistrust negates any attempts to improve the situation in the region. Pakistan’s military and the ISI should feel confident in their own military’s strength instead of being paranoiac about Indian threat along its Eastern border. Indian military response has always been in a retaliatory mode. India has not been the aggressor all these years. It has only responded to Pakistani military’s aggression.
Pakistanis have to take India off their minds for sometime and focus on the cancer that is eating them from within. India will not interfere or sabotage anything. Fear about being surrounded by India are unnecessary. India has moved on in a different direction. It does not need to play regional games anymore to progress. It has found a better way to improve its stature in the world.
Pakistan and India should promise each other that there will be no interference in each others’ affairs to start with. This includes Pakistani military, ISI, and its non-state actors. Only after seeing this assurance grow with time, will India be in a position to trust Pakistan. Only then Pakistan’s demands on Kashmir can be looked at.
A lot of patience is needed and diplomacy is the only way out. Flexing muscles will be a futile and wasteful exercise for Pakistan. Nukes will not help it achieve its goals.
” That is a lie. The same way westerners like you support a religious exclusivist, terrorist state against a multi-ethnic, multi religious India, your forefathers the British were conniving with Muslim Leagur to balkanize India.”
………………………………………………
The angry little troll is right. It is ALL Myra’s fault.
Myra, you bad girl, you better apologise to the angry little troll because it was your forefathers who divided India. Ofcourse, its common knowledge that India has always been a single united country throughout its history. Always and forever.
While you’re at it, kindly apologise for the state secularism that your forefathers cherished and which were later adopted by independent India. Otherwise the troll will get even angrier and start bombarding this blog entry with proof of how secular he is.
Shame on you for wanting to bring some peace and reconciliation between two angry brothers. How can anyone stoop so low?
It is ALL your fault and you better apologize to the troll before he really stinks up this civilized discussion.
Bhutto, go get your head checked.
Indians and Paks are more family than any other country.
There are too many misperceptions that need to be rectified.
It is no mystery that the colonialists always made it their prerogative to draw borders that will fuel future conflicts, because this is always good for business, sell arms to both sides. First, Aksai Chin, Durand Line, then Kashmir, Kuwait and many others…the list goes on an on.
On many levels, India and Pakistan are both victims of post colonial foreign policy makers that did things to suit their own agendas. No body can deny that.
India has always been a single united country throughout its history. Always and forever.
===
Oh this religiofascist troll wants to regurgitate hatred and lies he learnt in “pakistan studies” that Pakistan existed for thousands of years…India is recent invention. Please allow freedom of expression for this little fascist troll.
Little fascist Bhutto calls me a troll! I have been in this blog for nearly 2 yrs now, only recently started seeing this little fascist.
At the time of partition when Muslims were in minority, they would not take the democratic route. But when an opportunity presented itself in form of Kashmir, they are crying for plebiscite.
Forget entire India, if only Indian Muslims exclusively were asked to vote on Kashmir’s separation, your deliriums about Islam-unmah and indian-muslims-are-brothers will evaporate instantly.
“Qureshi complained his counterpart repeatedly took instructions from Delhi during their talks, an accusation that Indian External Affairs Minister S.M. Krishna denied.”
Not only Krishna but even Qureshi himself today denies it. What he ‘meant’ was that a junior aide was contacting Delhi. What will be the version to-morrow is something worth waiting.
That apart, what is wrong in consulting your own governemnt? Krishna came representing India, not himself personally with his own personal brief. This is done in every negotiation. So what is that actually got under Qureshi’s bonnet? Besides the Indians claim that the complete Pakistani delegation walked out at times and left them alone in the middle of the discussions. Nothing wrong in that. So what is the fuss really about?
Reports now suggest that the talks broke over the issue of setting time lines. What did Qureshi expect? That the first meeting, after years, and he would be able to come out laying time schedules for what and when? To me, it simply reflects his own inexperience and insecurity.
Lastly, we know what India came out to discuss and India has said it openly time without number. The reason is simple, unless there is some outcome on 26/11 the Indian Govt will simply not be able to carry its population behind it on this one.
It is hilarious to read about Pakistani’s now saying we don’t want to talk, India doesn’t want peace blah blah blah. The fact remains ever since India brought the process to a halt the Pak stand has been that dialogue must remain – or has everyone conveniently forgotten that?
What exactly did the Pakistani side bring to the table?
Shuqaib said:
> Quote ” The fundamental problem is that the status quo, with India in effective control of most of Jammu and Kashmir, favours India. Thus, a sustained series of so-called confidence building measures which reduces the threat of hostilities has the effect of making the status quo more tolerable for India over time, thus creating a strong disincentive for India to engage in a real negotiation. Correspondingly, in Pakistan, confidence building measures in the absence of progress on the core issues in dispute only make the prospect of Indian concessions on Kashmir all the more unlikely and, thus, a policy focused initially on creating trust all the less sustainable” End Quote.
> I have never seen anybody summarize the entire problem using such sanitized words and phrases. The guy has said everything worth saying without crossing any diplomatic lines. Sheer brilliance.
You’re right, and this is Realpolitik. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not talking like an Indian here or boasting about India’s strength. I’m trying to analyse the situation from the perspective of a neutral observer.
Let’s ask ourselves what is the real pressure on India today to settle its differences with Pakistan? India has survived so many years, even with a near-constant terrorist threat, many armed conflicts, opportunistic support to secessionist movements and the like, and yet hasn’t suffered. On the contrary, its GDP growth rate is only accelerating. India will soon be growing at 10% a year for the indefinite future and will become increasingly important to the rest of the world.
In contrast, I have read that Pakistan’s GDP growth rate last year was 0%. This means that India is pulling away from Pakistan. No longer can the two countries be bracketed together in the eyes of foreign observers.
The real urgency is on Pakistan. If Pakistan does not extract a negotiated settlement now, the terms will only get less favourable as time goes on. A decade from now, Pakistan will be economically much weaker compared to India than it is today. It simply cannot make demands then.
Strategies on Kashmir should also be realistic. Formalising the Line of Control as the international border is what is on the table today. Time is on India’s side. The longer the delay, the less there will be on offer.
I would think, given the cards that have been dealt, the Pakistanis should take what’s on offer today and then extract revenge in more constructive ways, i.e., make their country more prosperous with a higher per-capita GDP than India. As a historical example, Japan accepted the reality of defeat after the US nuclear attack, then counterattacked with an onslaught of cheaper and better automobiles.
Pakistan can certainly best India in per-capita economic measures. It has done so before. Why don’t we shift our competitive efforts to a more constructive race to the top, instead of a race to the bottom?
Regards,
Ganesh Prasad
From the comments on this forum I get the impression that the two Govts. are genuinely representing the expressions of its people.
.It is not uncommon to set a time table for future discussions, the question is was it the contents they did not agree on or was India not prepared to commit for further discussions?
.It is also not unusual to consult one’s Govt. for advice, direction and decisions when required. Even the heads of states have to consult their party leaders before commiting to any substance.
Let us conclude that the long awaited meeting was a fiasco. Some basics should have been agreed betweeen the respective Govts. before hand to avoid this theatre act.
In any case if the PM of India has said he is prepared to meet Pakistan more than half way if they abondon terrorism as a foreign policy too. Then the clever Faqir is no different than the Israeli leaders with similar utterences and pretending to be the victims of terrorism from others.Hence no negotiations!! I would say shame on the leaders of Pakistan to even shake hands with the current Indian leaders. If they cannot live as good neighbours with you, then learn to live as good enemies with India. You are not alone in this camp.
Reform the current colonial structure of your military and make it a people’s army not suppressing its own citizens. Let the people work hard and not await the give aways from the Saudis and the USA! China is a great example to follow, their struggle is not foreign to any one. Today they are the third biggest economy in the world.
There is no need for Pakistani Govt. to discuus the plight of kashmiris, they have too much on their plate and worry about the people in their own territory.
Rex Minor
I see very little chance of peace between the two countries, India is still an enemy of Pakistan. Let me explain how; India is biding its time and will negotiate in a time and manner that suits it, ignoring the core issues according to Pakistan’s definition. For Pakistan Kashmir, water, siachin etc are all core issues. India is only worried about terrorism.
India would like to keep the pressure on Pakistan, drag its feet, increase its defense budget rapidly and while Pakistan tries to keep up, valueable resources are sucked into an arms race where social upliftment of people is ignored.
For now, Pakistan must keep a strong military posture towards India, cease all cooperation on issues of terrorism, bring India to a point where it realizes the importance of peace with Pakistan.
Another way is to be an active partner in ‘string of pearls’ strategy of China. Invest heavily into building Pakistan’s Naval power and threaten India’s Navy. Collaborate with China and any other country to curtail India.
Gradually Pakistan military should quit the policy of using armed terrorist groups like LeT against India for tactical gains which bring consequences for Pakistan internationally. There are many other long-term action plans which can be undertaken to challenge India strategically. One of the way is to build Pakistan’s own economy more stronger and sustainable investing in IT, transportation, infrastructure and communication. Only then we can force India to change its stance, it will take time but is the sure way of influencing a much bigger country.
“Pakistan must keep a strong military posture towards India, cease all cooperation on issues of terrorism, bring India to a point where it realizes the importance of peace with Pakistan.”
==
Umair has summed up what pak has been doing for 63 years. And he thinks it has been working for Pakistan!
Cease all co-operation =
“non state” actors funded, trained and sponsored by the state “actors” will continue terrorism.
We are supposed to negotiate on this.
No matter what Indian politicians say in public, they realize that India is under no pressure to solve any dispute with Pakistan that requires any concession from India. Pakistan knows this too and they had to resort to terrorism hoping to achieve some concessions from India. Now that thing has back-fired too.
People in this blog openly declare India as an enemy and only care about their wishlist (no matter how crucial but nobody’s dying because of it) than India’s concern over their sustained support for terrorism. India should make sure that Pakistan’s defense budget stays at 70% in future and improve the internal security situation instead. They are a dying nation and all we need to do is to time them out. At one point, Pakistan will have to resort to openly selling nuclear technology and that would be the final nail in its coffin.
In summary, whatever rules Pakistan wants to play with, India is game for it.
Sadiq Bhutto and GW, it seems you both need some kind of psychatric treatment. In fact the nationalist hindus are grateful for British and other European colonisers for giving hindus freedom from treachourous muslim rulers who ruled over us for 800 years,during the treachourous and brutal muslim rule, hinus have lost their culture, our civilasions, leading to countless other stupid religions beliefs and rituals which find no mention in our ancient hindu scriptures ,
Hindus and muslims are never families, it is these so called Nehru brand socialists and seculrists ,who were more interested to further their interests, at the cost of the nation, Partition is a good thing which happened to hindus, at least they are protected in India .
The only solution to Kashmir issue is the plebiscite to determine the wishes of the people if they want to join Pakistan or wants freedom, but the interests of minority budhists and pandits should also be protected.
” India is only worried about terrorism.” Umair
Like the rest of the world – specially terror emanating from Pakistan.
Pakistanis have to stop behaving like alpha males. That is the real problem that prevents progress from happening. Pakistan is a relatively smaller country compared to India. It simply cannot match India on everything. Some of the posters here reflect Pakistani sentiments clearly – somehow they assume that they ruled India, therefore cannot accept a second fiddle status of a smaller nation. India has its own needs and priorities and Pakistan should not spend its energy trying match each and every one of them. Pakistan has its own needs which are different from those of India. Equating themselves with India has driven them to the brink. This is not cricket or hockey where eleven players face eleven others. Nations are very different from sports teams. I see the attitude in some Pakistanis as though India is standing at their gate asking for favors. India does not need Pakistan at all. Its immense size gives it the needed stability. Things cannot spread far and wide from one end to another. What goes on in Kashmir does not affect the other parts of the country. So India can battle its adversaries in one part and set up centers for progress in another part. For India, Kashmir is really not an issue. All law and order problems that Kashmiris are protesting about are across most of the country. In general, in other states they do not get neighboring countries staging proxy wars supporting them. Kashmir, unfortunately, is sitting next to Pakistan. If Pakistan does not cause irritation, there will be no issue.
The solution to the Kashmir problem is simple. Define the LoC as international border and be done with it. No Indian will accept the secession of Kashmir anymore. Just like Pakistan accepted Bangladesh as a reality, it has no choice but to accept J&K as part of India. Things have moved on. There is no way Pakistan can continue using terrorism as a means to achieve its ends. It is already burning as a result. It will burn more if it continues on. They should be careful about relying on China. Chinese will only use Pakistan to achieve their goals. Any country that has become China’s vassal state would resemble North Korea, Burma etc. If Pakistanis realize what they are walking into, they would be careful. Chinese cannot be held accountable for what they do.
@”There are many other long-term action plans which can be undertaken to challenge India strategically. One of the way is to build Pakistan’s own economy more stronger and sustainable investing in IT, transportation, infrastructure and communication”
Posted by Umairpk
This comment says all about the Pakistani mindset. Even the economic progress which they want to achieve, is in order to “challange India” & not for the betterment of their people & nation.
List of things Pakistan can do to take on India on long term strategic basis:
1.Cease all peace initiatives and keep diplomatic ties to a minimum.
2.Cooperate with China, threaten SLOCs(Sea lines of communication) challenge india from Arabian sea, Indian ocean all the way to South China sea.
3.Invest and transform Pakistan Navy from a coastal Navy to a blue water Navy, with nuclear subs, aircraft carriers, threaten Indian IT and financial hubs of Mumbai and Bangalore.
4.Expand nuclear weapons program, ballistic missiles capability.
5.Deny India a foothold in Afghanistan and any investment opportunity there.
6. Deny a corridor and access to energy resources and transit routes to oil and gas pipelines to central asia and persian gulf.
7. Build an sustainable and diversified Pakistani economy making the country a hub of transportation, communication, technology and aviation. Thereby denying India the competitive advantage in terms of FDI-Foreign investment.
8. In a diplomatic offensive rally in all international organizations, human rights groups, highlight India’s oppression and abuses in Kashmir and its state sponsored terrorism there.
9. Boycott sports with India, also boycott its products etc.
All these steps when implemented properly and pursued vigorously over a period of time will act as force multipliers and give Pakistan considerable leverage to shape things strategically. For now there seem to be no benefit in peace with India. Only punitive actions and belligerent stance will bring India to the negotiating table and discuss with honesty and prepare for concessions. Current soft approach with India does not work, some sticks are required. Pakistan might be a smaller country but that does not mean it doesn’t have the will and ability to confront its enemy no matter how big.
If implemented
In short, to hit where it hurts most, until Pakistan starts to threaten India’s vital economic and security interests and curb its long-term goals, India will never realize how it has undermined Pakistan’s interests in the past and still continues to do so.
Until India is an enemy i see no point in giving a chance to peace initiatives, instead all time and resources must be channelized to undermine India.
Pakistan suffers from several disadvantages vis-a-vis India, Pakistan has a poor geography, sharing a 2200 km long eastern border with a hostile nation, In Afghanistan the border is again porous and the country lacks strategic depth, requiring considerable effort to ensure Afghanistan is atleast neutral if not friendly towards Pakistan, to the south-west is Iran which is largely a Shia dominated country, to the north a small territory is shared with China and south is Arabian sea. Punjab province forms the basis of Pakistan, much of the industry and agriculture based there, provinces of Sindh and Baluchistan have long seen injustice where population has remained under feudalism and denied education and upliftment.
Above all, India has always been an existential threat to Pakistan. In the past a combination of nuclear weapons, assymetric warfare and militant proxies have worked well in Pakistan’s favour to keep the Indian threat in check.
With India’s increasing economic power, it is time for Pakistan to take the fight to a new level and threaten India’s very economic interests in above mentioned ways.
Good luck to all!
Umair,
Your wish list above, is not only fantasial & suicidal but also comical in many ways. While some of your lofty ambitions “to take on India” require the means & resources which you simply don’t have, other measures on your list (like cutting off trade), would actually hurt Pakistan much more than it would hurt India. By all means, keep on spending your meagre resources on defence budget & that will certainly speed up your demise. Also, in order to adopt the “sticks” aproach, one needs to have some sticks in the first place. But keep dreaming buddy, after all it doesen’t cost anything.
KPSingh:
“I see the attitude in some Pakistanis as though India is standing at their gate asking for favors. India does not need Pakistan at all. Its immense size gives it the needed stability.”
-One day India’s sheer size will become its biggest liability, it will disintegrate like Yugoslavia and Pakistan will play its role. With India’s growing economy it will need all energy resources oil and gas it can get its hands upon. Pakistan will deny that, with its strategic position Pakistan is a gateway to central asia. You will never get the access to oil, gas, copper and coal which will be needed to sustain the economic growth and keep up with energy needs of an emerging economy.
there is a reason why china has dramatically increased its footprint in countries with natural resources, they know it fuels their expanding economy.
Even if India were to secure those resources, a hostile Pakistan Navy can enforce and threaten Naval blockade and threaten the oil supply and disrupt India’s economy in a conflict.
-”Just like Pakistan accepted Bangladesh as a reality, it has no choice but to accept J&K as part of India. Things have moved on.” KPSingh
-Yes, just as India accepted Pakistan’s nuclear power status, India has no choice but accept Pakistan’s unwillingness to be forced into submission. Things have certainly moved on, the kind of helpless country Pakistan was in 1971, today it is in a position to pose a serious threat to India’s vital national interests.
It is time India decides what kind of relationship it wants with Pakistan. One like an enemy or like a neighbour and be mindful of the interests of its neighbour. You do’nt have the luxury to remain undecided on this, either way you will have to take a position eventually and that will determine the course of future. Things will never remain the same for ever, just like the situation evolved in last 60 years since independent, things will kieep moving in future as well.
Mortal:
“Your wish list above, is not only fantasial & suicidal but also comical in many ways. While some of your lofty ambitions “to take on India” require the means & resources which you simply don’t have”
-Sitting in the comfort of my home, just at an arms length from the headquarters of Pakistan Military I can assure all these options are discussed in frequent corps commanders conferences which are held among military leaders. Recently Pakistan has been acquiring some of needed military equipment like mid-air refueling tankers, advanced German submarines, AEWCs air-borne warning control systems and the era of aircraft carriers is only a matter of time. Atleast it should be, but those things do take time and require economic strength.
In strategic dialouges with NATO, US and EU, Pakistani leaders have talked of market access and trade/investment. I know Pakistan is very far from being an economic power, depending on IMF and world bank still. Massive economic reforms would be needed to turn around Pakistan’s economy. But when you have to fight an enemy, everything has to be done to defeat the enemy. In Pakistan’s case, to build a strong economy to back the military. And Pakistan military knows this, otherwise if Pakistan’s economy could have been strong I can assure you Kashmir could have been snatched from your hands.
And remember, when US invaded Iraq in first Gulf war, it took help of countries like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, positioned its forces on their territory and Gulf oil money was used to finance that war.
What stops Pakistan from forging partnerships with China, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh etc.? Almost each of these country have a conflict with India.
Last but not least,
If Pakistan manages to protect its interests, keep Afghanistan as its sphere of influence and deny India a foothold there, does not allow India to undermine national interests like support of Kashmir, water issues etc. That will be a success.
India being a larger country, with more regional and global aspirations, it will fail if it does not manage to exploit the full potential of its economy, is unsuccessful in securing energy resources to sustain its growing economy etc.
Both countries India and Pakistan are different with different aspirations. But some of common goals of both are promotion of national interest, better life for their people and larger prosperity. How difficult it is for both India and Pakistan to allow each other to achieve their basic goals?
Given that India has always been an existential threat to Pakistan, I would state India is the culprit.
Umairpk:
No one except you can change the perception about India. It hurts Pakistan, has no effect on India.
@For now, Pakistan must keep a strong military posture towards India, cease all cooperation on issues of terrorism, bring India to a point where it realizes the importance of peace with Pakistan.”
–Umairpk
–All I can do is smile at this strategy. But I liked you “economic growth” plan –except that you are stuck with India again. Is that your bar. For some “sky is the limit” and for some “India is the limit”.
@In the past a combination of nuclear weapons, assymetric warfare and militant proxies have worked well in Pakistan’s favour to keep the Indian threat in check.”
-Umairpk
–This remind me of a quote by Napoleon Bonaparte:
“Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”
Please go ahead with your policy. So far I love Indian strategy of not attacking Pakistan and responding to Pakistan-initiated aggression. Worked pretty well in my opinion.
Umairpk:
@Given that India has always been an existential threat to Pakistan, I would state India is the culprit.”
—I am intrigued by this term “India being an existential threat” for Pakistan.
Did you ever wonder if India was smaller like Pakistan and Pakistan bigger like India, what would be India’s status. May be by now Pakistan would have invaded and taken over India. So feel lucky that Pakistan exists and India did not attack Pakistan. This is no small favor from your “enemy”.
I note that some participnts are desperately disappointed. They had hoped that the Indian ambassador was carrying goodies in his bag for Pakistan. Instead of threatning India, is’nt it about time that Pakistan put its own house in order. The current Pakistan military has never been able to protect Pakistan, and unless you guys accept this fact your start after sixty years would be faulty. The stregnth of each country lies within its people and not dependent upon other powers. The German republic today with eighty million people is the strongest economy in Europe. The same country was defeated by the allied troops almost sixty years ago. This country understood the stregnth of its people and mobilised it and with the help of the marshal plan became over a period the finest example in Europe, Made in Germany was given to their products by the allied force as a punishment, which later became known in the world markets as the finest peace of workmanship. Their talent in inventions and industriousness is second to none. Their inventions have provided a turbo start to the Chinese economy, and today it is the chinese who have the fastest passenger train in the world using the technology imported from Germany. There is no need to threaten India, nor there is a need to use State organised terrorist acts. The Kashmiri resistance in asymetric form is enough to defeat the Indian bogey. The Kashmiris are fine people but they have the ability to learn that freedom from occupation cannot be achieved by Gandhian philosaphies, another bogey which was planted in the Indian sub-continent as if the Brits left their colony because of non violence agitation from the Indian folks.
Ther most powerful and effective step Pakistan could is to turn its back on India and try to forget this episode and like some one mentioned on this forum to forget the loss of east Pakistan. This is what merlyn the magician did ……!
Rex Minor
@ Rajeevk
Also remember the last days of the Bonapart. Next time you are in France, take the chance to visit Mal Maison, where his Josaphine resided.
Rex Minor
Umair,
I happen to live a few blocks from the UN, doesen’t make me an insider of the going-ons in there. But, if indeed your leaders are actually delusional & unrealistic enough to think along the destructive lines, mentioned by you, then God help your country. I like the fact that you want to achieve economic growth & prosperity but the problem is that you want to do it for all the wrong reasons. You simply won’t be able to achieve positive results with a negative motivation & that’s the reason why belligerant militaristic nations like North Korea & Cuba don’t have a viable economy to speak of & Pakistan is very close to being in that catagoty. If you want to build a strong economy, do it for the betterment & prosperity of your poeple & nation and not so that you can “back your military & enable it to challange” your much bigger neighbour.
@”What stops Pakistan from forging partnerships with China, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh etc.? Almost each of these country have a conflict with India”
Nothing stops you from forging partnerships with anyone but all that BS about India having bad relations with Bangladesh, Sri lanka etc is nothing but propaganda in your country. India’s relations with all it’s neighbours, except Pakistan, are good.
Also, if India really wants to hurt Pakistan, all it has to do is impose harsh economic sanctions on Pakistan (similar to US sanctions on Cuba) as per which India won’t do business with any country which does business with Pakistan. How many countries will back Pakistan in such a scenario?
@Umair
Before you fly, you need to walk. Pakistan is no Germany. 63 years of war monegering, religious frenzy, terrorism have taken you to where you are. We don’t care if you live peacefully, prosperously. But you don’t have the instituitional, industrial, societal and educational infrastructure to achieve those goals. I point this out only because of your chest thumping.
The only reason the time b/w 1947-65 Pakistan was relatively prosperous was the society was less militant, residual instituitional benefits of Bristish India and humongous infusion of aid from the West since you were in the “right” camp.
All countries have disputes with neighbours. US has disputes with Mexico and Canada. You get accused by 3 neighbours India, Afghanistan and Iran of sponsoring terrorism in their countries. India’s conflicts are not that serious with neighbors, and they are manageable.
Umair,
With nuclear deterrence, India is no longer an existential threat. Excuse my ignorance of military matters but why do we need strategic depth now?
India presents no threat under the nuclear umbrella.
It would be suicidal of India to deprive us of water, to impose suffocating blockades of our ports or to militarily overwhelm our country.
Yes, We should absolutely be prepared and vigilante but not single-minded. I prefer not to see the world and our future through the limiting prism of animosity with India. We have a beautiful country, beautiful people, majestic landscape, tremendous history, immense creative talent, why limit ourselves?
@ Ganesh.
Salaam.
I’m a realpoliticker too, but I recognize the limits of realpoliticks in maintaining peace in certain situations. I’ll give you a very small example. When the Soviets came knocking in the 1980′s, realpolitiks would have dictated that Pakistan play nice and submit to their will. After all it would be suicidal to do anything else given the disparities in economies and the military between Pakistan and USSR.
But our survival instincts told us that if we did not take the Soviets head on, then they would most likely be in Karachi by the end of the 80s. A few years later, the Americans arrived with the Stingers, but by that time the Soviets were already looking for a way out of the beating we were giving them.
Regarding the current situation, the perspective of the Pakistani establishment today w.r.t India has been shaped by the history of interaction between India and Pakistan. Our policy makers firmly believes that from day one, there has been a constant effort by our neighbour to undermine Pakistan through brute force (Junagadh, Kashmir, Bangladesh etc), support to separatist elements (Mukhti Bahini in 71, Baluchistan and Pakhtunkhwa in the mid 70′s) and diplomatic as well as economic isolation.
Our policymakers have come to the conclusion that the current and future threat from India is constant and un-ending, especially in light of India’s declared aim of becoming a world power. They argue that the first step in becoming a world power is to first gain total supremacy in the region and that is not possible without first tackling Pakistan. In other words, they believe that because of India’s future aspirations, it cannot strategically bypass Pakistan even if it wanted to.
From their perspective, it is not a matter of realpolitiks anymore but rather a matter of Pakistan’s survival as an independent political entity. This ‘shift in perception’ from realpoliticks to survival is the real game changer and it has gone more or less unnoticed by certain quarters.
Now, from the perspective of our policmakers, Kashmir is a strategic ‘riposte’ to try to take the battleground away from Pakistan. As far as the time factor is concerned, our strategists believe that China’s interest in Pakistan negates India’s advantages in time, size and economics, while our ‘strategic assets’ negate India’s conventional superiority. I don’t see this conflict ending anytime soon because realpolitiks have given way to the survival instincts of one side and the aspirations of another.
I would not like to get into a cicular debate about whether the perception of our policy makers is true or not (The Indian public is taught one thing and the Pakisani public another). However, you will most likely agree with me that in politics ‘perception is reality’ and if this is what the top policy makers in Pakistan percieve (and believe me, they do) then India must address that perception one way or another. Otherwise peace will always elude us.
” Why don’t we shift our competitive efforts to a more constructive race to the top, instead of a race to the bottom?”
We would love to see that day.
Salaam Alaikum (Peace be with you)
Some of the things, India should do immediately vis-a-vis the Rogue, Terrorist & Failed State of Pakistan:
1) Cut off all dimplomatic ties.
2) Repeal the ‘No first Nuclear strike’ law.
3) Impose strict economic sanctions (as mentioned by ‘Mortal1′ above).
4) Scrap the Indus Water Treaty, drastically cut off Pakistan’s water supply & choke off it’s agriculture industry. (they accuse us of this anyways, let’s give them their money’s worth)
5) Heavily subsidize the Indian exporters who compete with Pakistani exports (rice, garments etc) & choke off Pakistan’s export industry
6) Sponsor insurgencies in Baluchistan, NWFP & FATA, Sindh & Punjab and break Pakistan into 5-8 nations. (they accuse us of this anyways, let’s give them their money’s worth).
7) Launch more diplomatic offensives & bring their terrorism in front of every nation in the world. Isolate them even more than they currently are. Every Indian embassy & consulate in the world should be used for this. Facilitate, Pakistan being oficially named as a ‘Rogue Nation’.
8) Build relations & use economic clout with China & Saudi Arabia and make them realize that it’s in their interest to dump the terrorist state of Pakistan. Work with Afghanistan, Iran & Russia towards speeding up the failure & disinegration of Pakistan.
Mr Minor:
@Also remember the last days of the Bonapart. Next time you are in France, take the chance to visit Mal Maison, where his Josaphine resided.
Rex Minor
Posted by pakistan
–As a matter of fact, I already did. So, what;s ur point?
Are u this naive to superimpose India and Napolean’s whole life. Pick the best and discard the rest may be not known to you.
Saif1981:
@With nuclear deterrence, India is no longer an existential threat. Excuse my ignorance of military matters but why do we need strategic depth now?”
–I hope he and others with this perception understand this.
@ saif_1980
For the sake of your country, I hope that there are more like you out there in Pakistan, who think like you do.
@ RAAW
belligerence is never the answer for belligerence!
@RAAW:
No need to indulge in such war like maneuvers at this time. I hope you are not suggesting them to be done now.
Compared to 10 years ago, or even 5 years ago Pakistan is much weaker now economically, and diplomatically. In fact the only leverage it has on is through negative tactic of not co-operating in Afghanistan.
Pakistan’s current activities are limited to printing Indian currency, narco traffic and funding, sponsoring terrorism. This has been ineffective to influence India, and more they have been unable to block India’s progress.
Cancelling Indus water treaty, etc come into play only if pakistan army/ISI try Mumbai type attack again.
No one should talk about nuclear weapons, but India’s plan is to ensure second strike capability from multiple patforms especially submarine based.
About 7#.Why waste money on “propaganda” when every one in the world knows what is pakistan upto?
#8 is a very good point. Increasing trade and economic interests between India- China and India- Saudi Arabia are very improtant to contain Pakistani aggression. One major example for efforts to win over SA is inviting the King of SA to be chief guest at Republic day parade a few years ago.
Meant to say no one should talk about nuclear weapons in a trivial fashion.
I’ll add one more to the list above:
9) Accelerate defense spending. I see that these bankrupt fools want to compete with India in defense. Force them to spend more & more of their reserves on defense and that will certainly speed up their bankruptcy & failure.
@ Mortal1:
I appreciate your opinion but sometimes, the opponent leaves you with no option but to pay it back in the same coin.
@seekeroftruth:
I want these steps to be taken ‘yesterday’. Pakistan has proven aplenty that it’s rogue & hostile nation which deserves nothing but hostility in return. I don’t want to wait for another Mumbai 2008. Read the comments above; they see us as nothing but enemies, SO lets show them what enemies REALLY DO!!
I think Shuqaib raises a good point and it deserves attention.
What is the difference between Pakistan’s support of Kashmiri separatists and India’s support of Mukhti Bahini in Bangladesh or Pushtun nationalists in NWFP or Balochi nationalists in Baluchistan?