What's new

Pakistan has to accept India as big brother

Status
Not open for further replies.
India is USA and Pakistan is Mexico :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Start packing and become illegal in India for jobs :chilli:

hWeb

And About America. In 2005, there were 2,80,000 Indians and 2,30,000 Chinese Illegal Immigrates. The figure were 1,20,000 and 1,80,000 in 2000.

As of about Pakistan, Just try to get knowledge about UK Illegals. Even Indians are here too, Pakistan's number is great compared to it's population.
 
But bd and pak can be brother country, isn't it?
That will be a new global concept, where, if one country will say brother country another country, cos they miss each other.
BD is a muslim brother nation which we have 57 other muslim nations also.there is no big or young there even chaina our best friend never ever say any thing like this indians has proud more then there power they can nuke pakistan but no one here accept india as big brother they wanna treat a nuclear missile nation of 170 mn like they treat nepal or maldeves but we have iron hands for them ready 24\7:pakistan:
 
Forget about big brother we have no big brother nor need one! second forget about who is stronger or weaker ! we all know that both can hold there ground in this case Pakistan spically and i say this cuz once again the thread leads us to Pakistan being the weaker player not true in anycase! Coming to the table does not mean that both sides if equal in power of riches plzz come to reality and to world standards this silly talk ! both need to sit down and figure out solutions for all addressed prob's & issues so lets not make a big deal out this cat & mouse theory cuz its not the case...
 
The title is misleading and a fluffy way suggesting that Pakistan should accept the fact that in this South Asian Neighbourhood India is perceived to be a regional power of considerable industrial & military might.

The Western World has accepted that this is China,s and India,s Century.

This is western media.. headlines since the beginning of the 21ST Century.

Can Pakistan accept and live in this reality IF IT IS TRUE ????
 
stupid to call an equally sovereign country 'big' or 'small'...by this logic...USA should be our 'grand daddy'...
Pakistan should be treated as an absolute equal and a partner if relations were to improve.
 
stupid to call an equally sovereign country 'big' or 'small'...by this logic...USA should be our 'grand daddy'...
Pakistan should be treated as an absolute equal and a partner if relations were to improve.

That is a very noble idea, and I do agree with your view point, for that matter with everyone elses' view points that Pakistan should be treated as an equal partner. It would e very true in a Utopian world!

However real world politik dictates that emerging powerhouses crave out their own fiefdoms - if you may - to safeguard their interests.
China has been doing it, USA has the whole N & S American continents, NATO has most of Europe, and Russia has her own sphere of influence. Countries in the proximity of such emerging powerhouses are disadvantaged in that they have to align themselves with the stronger nation or be prepared for a tumultuous relationship if they decide to form alliances with a 'outside' country. Case in point - Georgia, Ukraine, Cuba, Belarus and many more.

Its very clear that Pakistan has aligned, for better or worse, with China, India's regional and in future, international competitor!! Of course that has not went well with babus in South Block and compounded by the fact that some 'rouge actors' in Pakistani establishments are hell bent in their grand scheme of things of creating chaos in India through terrorist activities. Pakistani authorities either feign helplessness or are incapable of controlling these elements and this irks the Indian establishment furthermore.

Now to develop good relations with Pakistan, one has to engage in good trade. For that to happen we need tax breaks and to implement that we need good responsible people on either sides to talk to.

How can India talk to Pakistan with her aligning with China and such 'rogue' elements in their many of their establishments? So how is one to treat them as equal partners?
 
Just like US and Mexico are. Is that clear enough for ya?

How many Pakistanis do you know who want to live in India? We all know there's hardly any Pakistanis living in India, not even close to the number of Mexicans living in U.S. Afghan nationals living in Pakistan are like Mexicans who come to live in Pakistan for a better life, but how many Pakistani nationals do you know who leave Pakistan to live in India "for a better life"?


And if India is like U.S. then why do so many Indians leave their India to live in U.S., Canada, UK, UAE for a better life?
 
US has set a bad precedent. India has been unkind to Pakistan on more than one occassions. That is history. China is not in bed with Pakistan either. You just have to look at the humungous PLA presence they have south west of Kashgar to isolate their Uighurs from funduz over the Himalayas along KKH. If you are not a small nation, why do you continue to behave like one? Why does your Govt and some folk like you continue to stand on (other) shoulders of giants?

China can be ruthless (with its own people) and you just have to see how Musharraf cracked down on militants after Chinese engineers were killed in Pakistan. Some terse exchange must have taken place, if you dont appease the dragon you know what to expect. So it is not a equal relation. China and Pakistan both unfortunately see India as the enemy, that may be the only thing keeping them together, otherwise even your all weather friend is as uneasy of the unrest you are exporting to the world as any other rational nation would be.

You are truly misinformed.

China has never treated Pakistan anything less than an equal and respectable partner. China does not try to dictate Pakistan's internal and foreign affairs (can't say the same about India) nor does Pakistan do the same, and every project we have cooperated on has been a full 50/50 partnership (ie JF-17 Thunder).

As for cracking down on militiants, do you understand the immense pressure that Pakistan is under to keep foreign investment flowing into the country? He had to show the world that he was serious in fighting the insurgency in order to rein in some of the already fleeing foreign capital.
 
One Indian shooting won the Olympics Gold.

Yeah, good for India, with a population of 1.1 billion;

1 gold, 1 silver, 2 bronze in your Olympics history. Incredible India !!

China with a population of 1.3 billions;

163 gold, 117 silver, 106 bronze.

You ask for embarrassment, i will gladly provide you some !!:smitten:

:pakistan::china:

BTW, please keep you India style big brother logic somewhere else!!
 
Just like US and Mexico are. Is that clear enough for ya?
Not really, since you actually have to increase the disparities between India and Pakistan to the extent that they exist between the US and Mexico before you can use that analogy.

At the moment India and Pakistan are pretty equivalent on most socio-economic indicators, per capita, which is not the case with the US and Mexico, so try again.
What was all that talk about "strategic depth"?
Talk, mostly by one general, Aslam Beg I believe, and please read the rest of the comments about Pakistan's involvement in Afghanistan, along with Afghanistan and the Soviets involvement in Pakistan predating Pakistani intervention in Afghanistan - we didn't cast the first stone.
You never cease to amuse me when you blame all sundry for the ills plaguing Pakistan today. US, India, Israel even the Brits and the French were all the usual suspects, but now blaming Afghanistan is a new ball game altogether. Oh dear, either people are highly incompetent to stop others from interfering in the state of affairs or dumb enough not understand whats happening around them. Take your pick. Now with such authorities (obviously drawn from the general population) its anybody's guess as to what direction the country can head into.
Sorry you are amused - I can't help it if you are completely lacking in knowledge about the history of the region and the history of Afghan intervention in Pakistan.

I don't know what to say really to stop you fro being amused, other than go to a library and start reading to become better informed, instead of wasting our and your time on this forum and constantly being 'amused' when facts are put forward that you have no clue about.

Ignorance is bliss, I know, but apparently ignorance is also 'blissfully amusing' for you now.

I will respond to your comments regarding the link you gave after I read it and cross check some information.

Earlier you said that Afghans attacked Pakistan and refused to accept the IB. And now you claim benevolence and that Pakistan worked for the betterment of Afghans!! Kudos on your double standards. C'mon now, it was all about strategic depth - Pakistan's official Afghan policy. Either you are really ignorant to make that above statement or are willingly indulging in doling out misinformation generously in the vain hope that things on the ground might change.
Learn to understand nuance and complex arguments - The Afghans refused to accept Pakistan, supported separatist movements in Baluchistan and FATA/NWFP and essentially sought to usurp Pakistani territory and break it apart.

Pakistan supported one faction in the Afghan civil war, while also attempting to get that faction to compromise with the opposing side (Northern Alliance) - these attempts to get the Taliban to share power are documented by both Ahmed Rashid and Steve Coll in their respective books, Taliban and Ghost Wars. Both authors also argue that the Bhutto government's primary interest in supporting the Taliban was out of an interest in tapping the CAR' natural resources, and ensuring security and stability along the Pak-Afghan border for economic purposes.

And this was while India supported the other factions in the civil war, the brutal dictators of the Northern Alliance, whose atrocities and crime contributed to the Taliban becoming such a popular force in such a short amount of time.

So, there is a huge difference between the meddling of the Afghans in Pakistan and Pakistan's intervention in Afghanistan. Pakistan never sought to break it apart or destabilize it - we in fact sought to stabilize it and establish a strong central, albeit pro-Pakistan (given past history with the Afghans and Indian designs there), government to bring about mutual economic prosperity.

India IS strong. No ifs and buts. Judge for yourself in whichever way possible.
Still insecure? Keep bleating about it, it is still irrelevant to my question which you and Lamayuru are finding so hard to answer for whatever reason.
Can you really say that wrt Pak policy on Afghanistan?
Yes.

Precisely. Well said AM. Now look at the mirror, that same thing applies to Pakistan if you want to compare yourselves with India as a nation state.
Absolutely, though Pakistan and India are far closer on most socio-economic indicators than Afghanistan and Pakistan are - but again, other than helping calm your insecurities and assuaging your ego and arrogance, that has nothing to do with the question at hand.

Nobody is ridiculing Pakistan, its the policies that Pakistan follows that has created such a mess around herself. If you take constructive criticism as personal attacks on your ego, then seriously God help Pakistan.

Actually the comment that Lamayuru passed had nothing to do with constructive criticism, and everything to do with a flame. The issue in fact is that Indians like you are so far gone after being inculcated with hatred against Pakistan, that you actually see blatant flames and puerile comments as 'constructive criticism'.

With attitudes like that, divine help needs to find its way to your door sir, not ours.

Nice quote Mr mod. AM.
Unfortunately for you sitting far from any decision making position in Islamabad, India has been successfully bending Pakistani authorities by using many means available in the diplomatic cookbook, and will continue to do so in the future with much greater success rates given the growing clout India enjoys worldwide. War aint the only way to subdue a nation, and gotta admit Indian politicians are very good at that. Lets see who ends up wearing the "Dunce" hat soon!
And what have you bent us to?

Were you not complaining in the other thread on the Hafiz Saeed issue that 'Pakistan is in denial' and refusing to accept Indian evidence? If your claim is true, then what exactly have you 'bent us to', when you can't even get us to try Hafiz Saeed?

Not try and be a little less arrogant and egotistical, try answering the question, and we might get back to civil discourse.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, good for India, with a population of 1.1 billion;

1 gold, 1 silver, 2 bronze in your Olympics history. Incredible India !!

China with a population of 1.3 billions;

163 gold, 117 silver, 106 bronze.

You ask for embarrassment, i will gladly provide you some !!:smitten:

:pakistan::china:

BTW, please keep you India style big brother logic somewhere else!!

Can we lay off the Olympic medal chest thumping please.

Lets try and get an answer to what this 'lop sided relationship between India and Pakistan' would look like.
 
USA should be our 'grand daddy'

It is. No US- No India, China, Pakistan, Afghanistanas we know them today. US is the engine behind China's rise first and now India's. "Commando" Musharraf war games against the US when they demand "with or against" & after much deliberation comes to a conclusion that partnering with the US on WoT is a good idea. As if..
 
what this 'lop sided relationship between India and Pakistan' would look like.

AM. You will be accused of reverse flaming if you dont drop the 'lop sided' bit in any future references to this thread.

OK. Answering to the call of
what this relationship between India and Pakistan would look like.

There are many levels at which such a partnership has to work. Regional level of mutual concern, global issues of mutual concern, global issues of no concern, issues of resources on land, in outer space & within earth.

Regional, mutual: If it is a commercial venture, ie bidding for joint projects like oil/gas blocks, then it has to be based on what capital can be raised & infused into the project by either again depending on what ratio of the exploits they want to carry back home. For IPI pipeline, had it been a joint bid it may have been the ratio of capital deployed is as gas consumed by Pak to that by India. So India here has a controlling stake. If P has a problem with that then both bid separately & P is paid transit fee by India. Ir has its folks on In-P border where they can monitor how much of the gas is going into In & In deals with Ir only. P offers the guarantees to Ir on the safety of the pipeline etc. within P.

Regional, mutual: If it is a territorial venture, ie Kashmir then Kashmiris should be allowed to make their case on international TV as to why they want to be independent of both In & P. That should take care of their right to self determination brouhaha. Then a vote should be held with 3 choices:
I/P/Independence voted to by all of I and P. Because the entire populace of I and P are stake holders in the K imbroglio.

Regional, mutual: If it is a territorial misadventure, ie Kargil then India should go on international TV and isolate Pakistan. Maybe fight a limited war that internationalises Kashmir, to India's advantage (though India never admitted that in 1999). This is not a flame. It has happened once, it can happen again.

Regional, mutual: If it is an agricultural/irrigation tech venture, something to do with a green revolution then it may start out as 50:50. There could be joint facilities to pursue research in both countries, every patent applied for by a resource from P earns then .1% ownership for P, same for India. How the ownership ultimately ends up is decided by the quality of resources committed by both. Whats nondisputable is that it is based on meritocracy.

Global, mutual: If it has to do with taking a joint position on global issues they can be 50:50 or otherwise on a case by case basis.
- CTBT, NPT Both are in the same camp
- Doha negotiations Both are in the same camp
- Alleviating poverty globally (UN Millennium Goals) Same camp
- Human Rights Same positions

Global, non mutual: Something like the hutu rebels fighting the Kukkis in Congo. Both can create a framework to reiterate only the well known facts. Develop no opinions.

Inter galactic, mutual: Issues of outer space, for something like exploiting moon's mineral resources, again that has to do with what consumption they have back home & can be settled similar to IPI.

If there are any more scenarios any1 is willing to profess, I might risk a solution.
 
Last edited:
If it is a territorial venture, ie Kashmir then Kashmiris should be allowed to make their case on international TV as to why they want to be independent of both In & P.

India has consistently resisted 'internationalizing' Kashmir.
In any case, what do you expect from a TV appearance? An SMS vote?
What is this? American Idol?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom