U.S.-Pakistan relations better than they look

March 3, 2011

raymond davisGiven the high-decibel volume of the row over Raymond Davis, the CIA contractor who shot dead two Pakistanis in Lahore in January, it would be tempting to assume that overall relations between Pakistan and the United States are the worst they have been in years.

At a strategic level, however, there’s actually rather greater convergence of views than there has been for a very long time.

In a speech last month, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took a step closer towards meeting Pakistan’s own call for a political settlement in Afghanistan through negotiations with Taliban insurgents which would force al Qaeda to leave the region. It was time, she said, “to get serious about a responsible reconciliation process, led by Afghans and supported by intense regional diplomacy and strong U.S.-backing.”

“Now, I know that reconciling with an adversary that can be as brutal as the Taliban sounds distasteful, even unimaginable. And diplomacy would be easy if we only had to talk to our friends. But that is not how one makes peace,” she said.

Her speech coincided with a report that the United States had begun secret face-to-face talks with representatives of the Taliban for the first time since the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.

Clinton also acknowledged Pakistan’s concerns about Indian influence in Afghanistan.  “We look to them – and all of Afghanistan’s neighbours – to respect Afghanistan’s sovereignty, which means agreeing not to play out their rivalries within its borders, and to support reconciliation and efforts to ensure that al-Qaida and the syndicate of terrorism is denied safe haven everywhere. Afghanistan, in turn, must not allow its territory to be used against others.” Her choice of language was unusual in that it equated both India and Pakistan — traditionally Islamabad has been condemned for unhelpful interference in Afghanistan, while New Delhi has insisted it is interested only in helping Afghan development.

Western officials also say they believe Pakistan, which once looked to use Afghanistan for “strategic depth” against India, has scaled back its ambitions into seeing stability there as an end itself. Pakistani officials have been saying for a while they would settle for a “stable” rather than “friendly” Afghanistan.

At a senior level, Pakistan and the United States have also built good working relations among their top officials — U.S. commanders met Pakistan Army chief General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani in Oman last week in the latest of a series of meetings to build understanding between the two militaries.

I’m told that neither country wants the relationship to be completely derailed by the row over Davis, who Washington insists has diplomatic immunity from prosecution in Pakistan, an assertion contested by Islamabad.

That does not mean the row is not serious.  For the United States, any refusal to recognise what it sees as diplomatic immunity touches a raw nerve, evoking bad memories of the 1979 Iran hostage crisis, which continues to sour relations with Tehran to this day.  For Pakistan, the idea that an American CIA contractor might kill two Pakistanis with impunity (Davis says it was in self-defence) adds to its sense of being a bullied and subservient ally, rather than a respected partner.

In Pakistan, the media has whipped up anti-Americanism to fever pitch over the Davis case. The military establishment, and in particular the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) agency, has been accused in the past of using the media to bolster its position in arguments with the United States.  And the ISI has been unusually public this time around in expressing its frustration with what has always been a tetchy relationship with the CIA.

In the United States, the row has intensifies doubts about Pakistan as a strategic partner — a relationship which many already find hard to understand. 

But it does mean that both are keen to find a solution.  One idea doing the rounds would be for  Pakistan to release Davis in return for a commitment that he be tried in the United States. Various other ideas are also being floated in the media, including payment of compensation to the families of the Pakistanis killed. “The idea is to find a solution whereby the Davis incident does not hijack the U.S.-Pakistan relationship,” The Cable quoted a senior Pakistani official as saying.


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

There is some merit in this analysis. However, there are at least two other aspects to consider:

1. The vulnerability of the relationship in case of further setbacks (e.g., another terror attack on US interests that is traceable to Pakistan). This new-found convergence of views could just as easily evaporate, and it isn’t possible to rule out such an event over the next few months.

2. The views of American players other than the administration (which usually tends to be pragmatic rather than idealistic), e.g., Congress and public opinion. There is a perceptible hardening of opinion against Pakistan in these circles, judging by articles, opinion pieces as well as comments from the general public.

If anything happens to Sherry Rehman or Aasia Bibi (God forbid), there will be a very strong negative reaction towards Pakistan in Western societies, including the US. Unfortunately, based on what I have been seeing of events in Pakistan, I would have to place a high probability on one or both of these occurring in the next few months. Public opinion would necessarily influence Congress, if not the administration.

Under such deteriorating circumstances, a congressperson could be expected to introduce a bill cutting funding to Pakistan or imposing conditions on US aid that are deemed humiliating by the Pakistani establishment and public.

I think it was Christine Fair who recently remarked that there is a push in some defence and intelligence circles in the US to just declare Pakistan the enemy and be done with it. There are contradictions and conflicts that are not easy to reconcile or paper over.

So while it’s interesting to propose a contrarian view to conventional wisdom, there is also sound reasoning behind conventional wisdom, and I don’t believe adequate justice has been done by way of analysing all factors that could impact the US-Pakistan relationship.

Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive

Another important factor is the well-documented current of anti-Americanism among the mainstream Pakistani public. This is not a recent phenomenon, nor is it a response to any single event. For anyone interested in a healthy long-term relationship, this factor alone should be extremely troubling.

And as a wild card, regime change in Iran could alter the stakes in the region and reduce the strategic importance of Pakistan to the US. Iran is in fact overdue for a shift to a more moderate phase.

I could be biased, but I actually don’t believe the US-Pakistan relationship is sustainable in the medium to long term.

Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive

[…] the original here: U.S.-Pakistan relations better than they look Posted in Afghanistan, CIA, Global News Journal, Hillary Clinton, ISI, Pakistan, Pakistan: Now […]

Posted by U.S.-Pakistan relations better than they look | Anti-Mubarak | Report as abusive

[…] more here: U.S.-Pakistan relations better than they look Posted in Afghanistan, CIA, Global News Journal, Hillary Clinton, ISI, Pakistan, Pakistan: Now […]

Posted by U.S.-Pakistan relations better than they look | Anti-Mubarak | Report as abusive

[…] the rest here: U.S.-Pakistan relations better than they look Posted in Afghanistan, CIA, Global News Journal, Hillary Clinton, ISI, Pakistan, Pakistan: Now […]

Posted by U.S.-Pakistan relations better than they look | Anti-Mubarak | Report as abusive


1. You’re right that I’m disappointed the US does not yet see Pakistan as more of a problem than they do at present. I believe this encourages Pakistan to make trouble for India. (I did admit I’m biased.)

2. Your list of achievements and contributions is impressive, but I’m afraid it may not cut much ice with a US that has a “what have you done for me lately” attitude. You need to show continuing value, and there your case is much weaker.

3. Pakistan’s current problems stem from believing that it could sandbox the “good terrorists” from the “bad terrorists”. That’s a fallacy. If you play with matches, you get burnt. India realised this in Sri Lanka. You have yet to learn it about Kashmir in spite of the fact that the blowback is in full blaze.

I actually have no problems, even in principle, with Pakistan disputing the territory of Kashmir. What I, and Indians in general, object to is violence in support of your argument. It’s sad that even the backfiring of this approach hasn’t caused your people to learn the right lessons. Gandhi isn’t as glamorous as Maqbool Butt, but he did win his struggle. Butt lost, and as long as his successors choose violence, they will never win.

Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive

The article argues the US-Pak relationship may not be as bad as it looks….May be.

But this doesn’t take away the fact that, US-Pak relations are at its worst possible, short of war. In recent surveys of public opinion, in either country around 15% or less have mutual positive opinion about each other.

Ideologically they have nothing in common. That people of all races, all belief systems can live together is the American ideology which is in direct contradiction of the religious exclusivist, single religious supremacist founding ideology of Pakistan.

All military alliances were desperately sought after by Pakistani military and politicians to get arms and money. USA just used them for their geostrategic goals. There has never been any basis no ideological alliance between US-Pakistan. Obviously such dishonest relationship is showing strains.

Even before Pakistan army launched Operation Gibraltar infiltration in 1965 (which was rebuffed by Kashmiris), ZA Bhutto was trying to misuse the US alliance egging them on to indulge in surveillance on India. American short sighted foreign policy reached its nadir when it supported Pakistan army in its genocide of millions of Bengalis in 1971.

Posted by netizen | Report as abusive

You have done a great job summarizing US-Pakistani relations.
States have interests and not friends. We should be talking about where interests overlap and where they diverge. States try to deceive and fool other states to get advantage. US wants to use Pakistan army to do its bidding. This service has been provided over last 10 years.
The are huge costs to doing this and now the real impact is becoming visible in terms of economy and social unrest. United States is supposed to help by giving aid. Of the First annual installment of aid of $1.5 billion for 2010 only $180 million has been disbursed. The quantum of military aid is unknown. In any case, the cash aid flows NGO’s and corrupt leaders. Should masses care? There are new elections coming up in two years in Pakistan. PPP is most pro American party and they would be most flexible in any settlement regarding Afghanistan. On the other hand if PLMN comes to power, they would make a harder bargain.
The fact of the matter is that there are very few supporters for continued war in Afghanistan. Pakistan is not going to commit suicide for America based on some hypothetical event.
As far as religious differences are concerned, would somebody explain close Saudi-American relations.

Posted by Matrixx | Report as abusive

[…] immunity: USHindustan TimesUS sees limited progress in Pakistan spy standoffJerusalem PostUS-Pakistan relations better than they lookReuters UK (blog)Telegraph.co.uk -Sky News -Sifyall 514 news […]

Posted by Sunraynews | Top US news | Report as abusive

The United States has a very businesslike attitude when it comes to smaller or weaker countries. If it has a need, all principles take a hike and they do what they like, sometimes worsening a situation. In 1978, Pakistan was in a much worse shape than today in regards to international respect and stature. Pakistan was reduced to the state of a pariah when Zia seized power and hanged Bhutto. The US condemned both acts. foreign aid was cut. Then the Soviets marched into Afghanistan. Overnight, Pakistan became the prime focus of US interests. They waived everything that was deemed as a requirement for aid. Money and weapons poured in. The US prevented all efforts to curb Pakistan’s secrete nuclear bomb making. President Reagan even lied to the Congress in order to keep its funding going for the war against the Soviets. He even said, “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” Once that war ended, Pakistan and Afghanistan were abandoned, allowing Pakistani army to start its nefarious activities in the region that culminated in the rise of Al Qaeda and 9/11. Again Pakistan became a front line state on the war on terrorism. When Pakistan began to protect its assets and interests that did not align with American interests, things have gone sour. There is a lesson to be learned from all this. Be careful with the US. Deal with them only on the business front. Keep a distance from them. Become independent financially and otherwise. Or you get Pakistan.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive

Leaders like Maulana Azad, and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan sacrificed and struggled with the masses against British Imperialistic tyranny along side Mahatma Gandhi.

MA Jinnah was a British stooge, never saw the inside of any jail and was secretly corresponding with Winston Churchill who used Jinnah and Muslim League to hold on to his British Empire.

http://www.fredsakademiet.dk/ordbog/_gif s/khan2.jpg

Post 1947 MAJ continued this tradition of being imperialistic stooge and declared that America needs Pak more than the other way round. Pak elite, military rulers continued this tradition and have been compensated more than adequately through billions of dollars and staunch strategic support against India and military gadgets.

Even post 9/11, Musharaff announced alliance with US will ensure protection of anti-India jihadi terror machinery. Without American diplomatic, strategic cover, pak could not have pursued terror campaigan in India for >25 years.

Self-anointed champions of freedom and liberty -the USA-went along with Pakistan and supported its terror activities against India until very recently when we suddenly became “natural allies” after our economy improved.

Posted by netizen | Report as abusive

The US and Pakistan need each other, whether they like it or not. The US needs Pakistan to carry out its geo-strategic efforts in the region. They lost Iran in 1979. If Iran had not turned against the US, they might not have come to Pakistan at all. With Iran gone, Pakistan was their only ground to launch their missions. Pakistan would not have survived so many years without American help, both financially and otherwise. There is a love-hate relationship between the two countries. The US has a very different relationship with Pakistan’s military as compared to Pakistan, the nation. So long as the Pak military is aligned with the US, the rest of Pakistan really does not matter. At least that’s what the US think tanks assume. They committed this mistake in Iran by relying on the Shah too much and the people revolted, thereby bringing in a fundamentalist theocratic state into existence. Too much reliance on Pak military can backfire if the public hatred for the US builds up. All it takes is one more occurrence of any terrorist activity that can be traced back to Pakistan or another Shahzad event in the US. Things are on the edge.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive

Shahidkhan: “you are placing the blame for 9/11 on the Pakistani govt. ? liar liar turban on fire.”

Read my words carefully. I said Pakistani military. Pakistani government is just a dummy structure for getting foreign aid. I’ll refer you to a book named “Nuclear Deception” by Adrian Levy and Catherine Clark. Though this books deals mostly with Pakistan’s clandestine nuclear bomb building, it also goes into details on many other events surrounding the main theme. 9/11 happened because of a chain of events in the Af-Pak region starting from 1995. And all those events were stage managed by Pak military with its single goal of bringing down India, based on the Jihad model that worked against the Soviets. There is not much room here to describe all those details. You can buy a copy from a bookstore if it is available in Pakistan. Good luck.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive

Shahidkhan: “I hope we also get rid of the whole strategic depth concept. There is no need for it.”

Finally, one Pakistani has accepted the truth.

“At a people to people level, the afghans will help us against hegemonic states the way we helped them against the soviets.”

Afghans also will not like Pakistan’s hegemony. Half the Afghans are not Pashtuns and they hate Pakistan from the bottom of their hearts. I do not know how many Pashtuns really trust Pakistan anymore. A lot depends on who replaces Kayani. Two years will run in no time.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive

>> and this is relevant to the article and discussion because …????

Posted by shahidkhan123

Did you stop reading with that sentence? Continue reading…you have the answer. Scroll up again.

I disagree with KPSingh who seems to think you have only deficiencies in reading skills. Stop reading passages in the middle and do not post in agitation.

Posted by netizen | Report as abusive

The author’s opinion which reflected in the title of the Article that -U.S.-Pakistan relations better than they look- smacks of deep understanding of foreign relations between states. US as a sole superpower differentiates between client states and allies. Pakistan as a client state to US only plays an operational role for its strategy in the region. Pakistan may confuse this as friendship and love towards them and out of contempt towards India and their wrong belief that any opinion different from that, from an Indian especially is an instance of jealousy blown out.
If one goes down deeper one can really see this, while US shares its high technology with the Western Europe and Japan through technology transfers, it doesn’t do the same with Pakistan while making it only a client which has to pay through it nose, see the example of the Transfer of F16 jets.

while Understanding the importance of emerging nations like china,India and Brazil, US makes a forward thrust in diplomacy for reshaping the new world. It constantly engages them in world forums like WTO,Human Rights, Intellectual propery rights etc. The relation ship is more equal where US transfers its technology for their markets. This is how it keeps silence on Human Rights with china and willingness to bend International Nuclear regime to suit India.

After the demise of the soviet union, it was only natural for India to strengthen its relationship with US. But I have always wondered, whether Pakistani’s realize their limited capital in the new changing world when US allowed a Nuclear deal to go through NSG, inspite on hue and cry by Pakistan even though US is the best buddy for Pakistanis. That phenomenon was the most important strategic gesture to Pakistan over its importance as it will hugely expands our Nuclear force visa-vis China. Finally the significance of Pakistan outlives the Soviet-Afghan war because of the Need of the US to balance Iran.

If Pakistani’s think US as such a friend then ask them for Technology transfers,the US will answer that in negative and ask them to improve Pakistan’s democracy and strengthen its institutions instead of Army, it simply will say “Dude, its your problem”.

Posted by sensiblepatriot | Report as abusive

Half the Afghans are not Pashtuns and they hate Pakistan from the bottom of their hearts. I do not know how many Pashtuns really trust Pakistan anymore.

Kamran Shafi is a retired Pakistani army officer and a freelance columnist.

http://www.dawn.com/2010/12/14/playing-l ittle-boy-games.html

This is what he found out after visiting Afghanistan:

QUOTE-“And, gentlemen, listen closely: Pakistan is the most hated country in Afghanistan today. So, go figure.”

Posted by netizen | Report as abusive

kpsingh:A lot depends on who replaces Kayani. Two years will run in no time.

Two years will indeed run out quickly. As the new General replaces Kayani, He finds a totally different world he lives in, from the time of zia’s when Pakistan was equated with India. These were also the times, when being a good muslim and with deep islamic roots became a better qualification for the job. This conservative general also needs to quickly decide with his warped ideas about pakistan’s democracy, fight against terror as also fight against illiteracy,poverty by mainly reducing the military foot print in economic and social discourse of the country. Its like putting a test on quantum mechanics and theory of relativity to a sixth grader. I hope somebody helps this guy.

Posted by sensiblepatriot | Report as abusive

[…] […]

Posted by U.S.-Pakistan relations better than they look – Pakistan Talk Forums | Report as abusive

Shahidkhan123 said:

>> Not pakistan ganesh, the whole world and Kashmiris [consider Kashmir a disputed territory]. Only India considers it like other parts of south asia an an integral part of it british raj inheritance.

You conveniently omit to mention that what many Kashmiris say they want (according to the Chatham House survey) is quite different from what Pakistan has always wanted.

I have no problem as long as AJK and GB are included in “disputed Kashmir” and true Azadi is an option on the plebiscite demanded by Pakistan :-). Let’s then watch the fun when the Kashmiris (on *both* sides of the border) vote. Admit it, your guys wouldn’t have the guts to open up certain possibilities.

Surely you know that Pakistan lobbied the UN to get the independence option removed from the plebiscite, so currently the UN resolution includes a plebiscite that only has two options, accession to India and accession to Pakistan. Since we’re all oh-so-concerned about the aspirations of the Kashmiri people, do you think that’s fair? Why don’t you ask a Kashmiri if that’s acceptable?

By way of analogy, you’re offered a choice between pork and dog’s meat, with halal meat explicitly ruled out as a choice. Would you take it?

You need to face it – the Pakistani stance is hypocritical and patently self-serving since the aim is the incorporation of Kashmir into Pakistan under the slogan of fulfilling the aspirations of the Kashmiri people (which we now know is probably azadi rather than accession to either country).

And there are three qualifications to that as well.

1. Any plebiscite should be fine-grained by region, so Jammu and Ladakh get to choose their destiny independently of the Kashmir Valley and AJK/GB. If you don’t agree, why stop with clubbing the regions of Kashmir together into a vote? Why not have the whole of India and Pakistan vote in aggregate on Kashmir along with the Kashmiris? Majority wins. Fair, huh?

2. The Kashmiri pundits need to get their vote in as well. Some plebiscite after you ethnically cleanse the very people likely to vote for accession to India.

3. Going by the reports of Kashmiri youth lining up to join the army (a photo you commented on), I’m not even sure anymore that the Kashmiris as a group hate India. It could just be a vocal section. Be careful what you wish for when you hold a plebiscite. It could be acutely embarrassing to Pakistan to see their Muslim brothers choosing “naukri and azadi” to “pakistaniyat and mullah shahi” ;-).

Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive

ShahidKhan: “you are moving further from your earlier assertion.”

And do you mind quoting that assertion? I said “Pakistani army” and you switched it to “Pakistani govt” and I told you to read my statement again. So what assertion have I changed? I have always maintained that Pak military is the real villain. And I still do.

“The Pashtun are an integral part of Pakistan’s establishment. It can be said there are two Pashtun countries in the world, Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

I am referring to the Pashtuns in Afghanistan. You can keep your Pashtuns. The Pashtuns in Afghanistan make up about 45% of the population. The rest is non-Pashtun and they do not have much love for Pakistan’s military and the ISI. They fought against the Pashtun dominated Taliban before they were driven out into Pakistan. And the Pashtuns inside Afghanistan today, do not have any special love for Pakistan either. They are wary of your military and its intent. That’s what I was pointing at. With a population that is suspicious of your country and having mostly anger towards you all, having a friendly neighbor to your West is not going to happen that easily, unless you people really bow to them. A lot of damage has been done due to Pakistan’s interference there and they all remember that.

“This ethnic group has contributed many of Pakistan’s presidents & prime ministers(Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zafarullah Khan, Liaqat Ali Khan, Feroz Khan, Zia-ul-Haq). There are more Pashtuns in Karachi than Kabul. Hamid Karzai, though critical of Pakistan, referred to Pakistan and Afghanistan as conjoined twins.”

All this is drivel. The Pashtun head counts in Pakistan do not project any positive image anyway. Most were tyrants who destroyed Pakistan from within. India has a lot of Pashtuns as well who have settled for generations in India. Bollywood is dominated by them, starting from Yusuf bhai, all the way to Shah Rukh Khan.

“This group also inflicted defeat after defeat on what is now republic of india.”

And when was that? Care to provide some concrete references? When did Yahya Khan inflict defeat on India? The last I remember was the dismemberment of East Pakistan when he was in charge.

“Do you really think these people are going to prefer the saffron brigade over their family members across the border. ”

Who cares for saffron brigade? Even Indians do not care much about them. They have their groups and followers, just like the Maoists and other warped groups. Afghans prefer India to Pakistan today because of the constructive efforts by India there. That is why your military wants India out of Afghanistan. Goodwill gesture between India and Afghanistan will give your military a lot of rash and itch.

Most Pashtuns in Pakistan live in a lawless tribal region where even your military is scared to venture into. Pakistan’s laws do not run there. When that is the case, how does it matter if Afghanistan and Pakistan are cojoined twins? NWFP is almost an autonomous region where they care nothing about Pakistan’s law, that does not even work inside Pakistan.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive

>> Did the Maulana know Gandhi slept with his neice naked having ‘involuntary’ eja_cul_ate discharges ? Enlightened indeed.

Posted by shahidkhan12

Pedophile/Child molester Jinnah lusted after a 16 year old girl when he was 41 years old! That too an unsuspecting friend who was shocked to realize the old dracula lusted after her little child. Sad story.

Posted by netizen | Report as abusive

Shahid Khan: “By the way, there is no contest. kashmiris may not want to join pakistan now but they absolutely HATE your guts for state sponsored terrorism you have inflicted upon them.”

And the Balochis hate your guts too. Here is a sample:


If Kashmiris hate us, that is between us and them. You have nothing to do with it. Just like you would want us not to involve ourselves in Balochistan, we also would like you to mind your own business. Kashmir became what it became because of the insurgency propped up by your military cartel in 1989. And that effort has led to portraying our military as an occupying force. But your country bled in the bargain. And we will work with Kashmiris to bring back the goodwill. Once Pakistan dissolves itself into splinter nations, Kashmir will not be an issue. It is only a matter of time. So we have decided to wait it out. Your crocodile tears for Kashmiri Muslims will not turn anyone’s heart. Your country has proved beyond doubt that it is a wolf in a sheep skin. The Americans are going to burn off that skin. Like Libya, Pakistan will plunge into a miserable civil war soon. Kashmir should be the least of your worries.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive


You equate Hindus with “Hindutva fascism” too easily. Whether this is deliberate dishonesty or merely misinformed alarmism is not clear to me. Wouldn’t the BJP be in power in India perpetually if that was indeed the case? I, for one, am not and have never been a BJP supporter. There are millions of Indian voters who think like me.

And people like the Pundits and the Ladakhi Buddhists may not be judging the issue based on religion, as you imply. A rational assessment of their options (being a religious minority in Pakistan – shudder! -, an economically unviable independent country, or part of a diverse and growing economy that is India) may tell them what the best is for them and their children. It could be an economic, not a religious, choice. Why should these people hate or fear India anyway? Surely you’re not making the case that the Indian army is committing atrocities against the Kashmiri pundits and Ladakhi Buddhists as well?

I’m isolating these points because they’re in a separate category. We’ll address the others separately.

Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive

Jammu Kashmir (including areas under illegal occupation by pak)is a microcosm of India in its diversity. We should factor in the opinions of muslims of all sects, Ladakhi buddhists, hindus, sikhs who belong to this region.

Let’s look at a Kashmiri Muslim opinion. Dr. Shabir Choudhry is Director Diplomatic Committee of Kashmir National Party.
Here are some of his thoughts:


How could our Pakistani masters tolerate that Kashmiris could become independent; so Pakistan managed the Tribal attack in which thousands of innocent Kashmiri men and women were killed and women were raped. Our Kashmir was plundered and destroyed; and Kashmiri girls were kidnapped and taken to Peshawer and other parts of Pakistan.

You must have heard recent statements of some Pakistani leaders that they want Kashmir because of water resources. That means they want Jammu and Kashmir for resources and strategic reasons and not because they have love for us. They had no love for people of East Pakistan, no love for people of Balochistan who are facing fourth invasion, and no love for people of FATA and PATA. These are their own people – Pakistanis; don’t be fooled that they have love for us Kashmiris.

Moreover, in my view, it is more important to expose hypocrisy of a ‘friend’ a pretender, a ‘Muslim brother’ who has imperial designs but want to conceal that in name of religion; and wants us to focus Indian side of Kashmir that their own crimes could be hidden.

We are repeatedly told that Pakistan is our brother and promotes Kashmiri peoples right of self determination. This is not true. They have always promoted their interest at the expense of Kashmiri interest

Posted by netizen | Report as abusive

Instead of indulging in abuses, it is important to discuss some scientific facts. Present day pakis are products of rape by invading turks and pashtuns :-)

The brave people who stood up and refused to convert are on the better side of border.

It is always important to keep this in mind when we discuss why pakis act this way.

Visit this link what Pashtuns think of “Pakistan”.


Posted by netizen | Report as abusive

Shahidkhan123 said:

> 7)As Kashmiris will we ever forgive Hindustan for killing more than 120,000 of our brethren?
> 9)I am of the strong belief that Pakistan would have no problems in us Kashmiris being independent

So now you are Kashmiri? Funny how we never had an inkling of this before. I hope this sudden development isn’t in response to my argument that Pakistanis can’t speak for Kashmiris.

(Anonymity cuts both ways. I can’t prove you’re not Kashmiri, and you can’t prove you are. But a sudden appearance of “us Kashmiris” after all the generic Pakistani advocacy is a bit suspicious…)

Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive

Shahidkhan123 said:

> We pakistanis are okay with an independent kashmir.

Butter wouldn’t melt in your mouth, would it?

And I see it’s “We Pakistanis” at the beginning of the same post that ends with “us Kashmiris”. Give us a break.

Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive

> Ganesh, meri jaan, read my post. those words are written by kashmiris. I am trying to show you kashmiris don’t love indians as you claim. I am not claiming I am kashmiri.

Well, it wasn’t clear that the last paragraph that began with “I know what you guys are thinking but take a breather and listen to me” was also part of the quotes.

If the last bit was also a set of quotes, then I misunderstood and I apologise for that.

Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive

You notice that your quotes about the Hindu right wing parties are from Hindus themselves. Would this happen if “Hindu India” was a united whole? Yes, there is a hardcore right wing in India, and no one denies that. But your constant attempts to conflate this right wing with all Hindus and the Indian state is dishonest. Once again I ask, if Hindus were such a monolithic bloc and subscribed to the right wing agenda, wouldn’t the BJP be in power in perpetuity?

Why ignore the civil rights people, NGOs, lawyers, journalists and others who worked to expose the truth behind the Gujarat riots? Most of them were Hindu. Dent your theories much?

Perhaps India is more complex, nuanced, multi-faceted and yes, secular than you would like it to be for your purposes?

A bit of balance and honesty would be respected.

Ganesh Prasad

Posted by prasadgc | Report as abusive


Shahid Khan’s diarrhea here basically spills out everything that is projected in the Pakistani psyche:

These guys can switch sides and change their colors at an instant. This the way they have survived for centuries. This guy lists a bunch of raids by the Afghan war lords of the past, without much realization that the victims of those raids were his own ancestors who were not Muslims. But he has taken pride of what has been done to his ancestors.

Then he slowly unravels his inner passion – Kashmir obsession. It is all right if Pakistan demands self determination or whatever for Kashmiri Muslims. But it is not all right for Balochis to demand the same. Kashmir is only considered a bilateral issue between Pakistan and India and the world does not care beyond that. But these guys assume that the world is demanding from India to give up Kashmir. But China’s invasion of Tibet or crushing of Uighurs is all right. That is because they are an enemy of their enemy. So if China violates every norm, they will not condemn any of it. And all Indians are Hindus in their eyes. Everything is looked at from a religious standpoint. Even their nuclear bomb is called Islamic bomb. It is all right for them to stage militant attacks inside India (like the Mumbai attacks). But they do not hesitate to build up stories of RAW running the TTP mission from its zillion consulates in Afghanistan. These guys have nothing. But they demand all the time. And when we counter them with valid references, we become haters of Pakistan.
This cycle keeps on repeating. It is not only in this forum. This war of words continues in other forums as well. I do not know how far these people can live off macho muscle flexing. They are close to eating grass. But macho has not diminished. There is no realization that they are on the path towards self destruction. It is sad to see their minds completely warped and wasted away with wrong perceptions and contemptuous attitude.

Posted by KPSingh01 | Report as abusive

I was so impressed by the quality of the posts here ( across the border) that I am remain a regular reader here for almost last one year and surely gained a lot . However I am really sad to see the level of discussions and language now.
I don’t understand why we Indian have to prove ourselves repeatedly across the forums that we are a democracy and that too to Pakistan!!
I really would like to ensure to my all dear friends across the border about the status of the majority of Muslims in India with very few examples
1) Mr. APJ Abdul Kalam had handled assignments related to the security and intelligence before becoming the President of the country . Just think, security of the India was in the hand of a MUSLIM.
2) When I failed to join Indian Air Force (my childhood dream) It never come across my mind that the main examiner was a MUSLIM. Just think the person deciding the composition of IAF is a MUSLIM
3) There was a special quota in my engineering college for Kashmiri students and many of them were muslims . Just think Kashmiri muslims not only throw stones on Indian army but they study and do jobs in thousands across India.
4) Now often repeated example of Khans in Bollywood. Doesn’t it also show their acceptance by majority HINDU in India . No prejudice because they are MUSLIM
5) BJP not able to rule India by playing HINDU card and Mr. Bal Thackery do not exist politically now.

I would like to add few lines while diverting a little from the topic. Being a son of defense person I have seen the life and plight of people of Kashmir from very close quarters and was pleasantly surprised to see their quality of life which more than 60% Indian can’t dream of .
Best regards

Posted by sdub | Report as abusive

I vote for a new name for this post…..

“Kashmir, Kashmir, Kashmir, Kashmir and Kashmir repeated for the next 60 years.”

So how relevant is it to the topic??

I am sure US _ Pakistan relations will improve even more if representatives from both sides read this blog :)

In a matter of a few weeks this blog has gone from being half way intelligent to comedy for me.

Posted by DaraIndia | Report as abusive

i respectfully disagree with the author: US-Pakistan relations are actually worse than they look.

Posted by black_hawk | Report as abusive


“A kashmiri told me about some hindu philosophy they occupy Kashmir. It is called chukka niti or something… It has these principles below and it really does remind one of IoK.” Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah

Where the hell you get this load of bull crap, I hope its not in Pakistani text book of 5th class.

Are you able to sleep well at night or you see Hindus coming and killing you in your dreams.

Posted by punjabiyaar | Report as abusive

I don’t believe it. Pakistan is and has been politically unstable, with a putsch possible virtually at any time. The US is murdering civilians in Western Pakistan in its endless tracking of the Taliban. The US has too much at stake with India to “tilt” (Kissinger’s word) too decisively toward Pakistan. Important factions in Pakistan stand in solidarity with Maghreb and Middle-eastern countries who, with reason, distrust US motives.

Posted by Blackorpheus | Report as abusive

We must always diffrentiate between the relation of the American Govt. with foreign Govts and of the American people with the peoples of the world.
It is about time that the American people realise that most Govts in the muslim countries do not represent the expressions of its people, therefore, it is delusion for any american citizen to imagine that the people of the world have love for the footprints of the American military.

Rex Minor

Posted by pakistan | Report as abusive

[…] I wrote earlier this month, overall relations between the United States and Pakistan were rather better than they looked (or at least than they appeared at the height of the Davis row).  Compared to two years […]

Posted by The “sound and fury” of U.S.-Pakistan ties | ServisTech | Report as abusive

[…] there is even a certain amount of strategic convergence between what Pakistan and the United States say they want in seeking stability in Afghanistan – […]

Posted by China-Pakistan-Afghanistan-building economic ties | Pakistan: Now or Never? | Pakistan China Friendship | Report as abusive