Friendship with India

[Contrarian]

Pakistan's goal should be to focus on growth for its own sake, not in competition with India.

I am saying that the current disparity in international clout is ridiculous.

Of course, no one can predict the future, and the disparity could get better or worse over time.

So if the future is unpredictable, and you want Pakistan to wait.

What different exactly is there between you and the rulers of Pakistan of the decades gone by - who could wrest neither Kashmir militarily nor could they match India economically and diplomatically?
So they also decided to wait, and this led to India running the race faster than Pakistan and increasing rather than decreasing the distance.

So if you wait more, the odds are that the distance would only increase more. Dont you think you are also falling in the same trap?

 

[Developereo]

What different exactly is there between you and the rulers of Pakistan of the decades gone by

The Pakistani elite until now had focused on military might, while neglecting the other aspects I mentioned (economy, diplomacy, media, etc.)

You may be right that the political elite here are not going to change any time soon, so we may be looking at 60 more years of the same blindness.

 

[Koovie]

we're already 4th largest in gdp (ppp)

No 3rd largets by now.

 

[Developereo]

So your "English" gloves come off because someone apparently tried to "to be a smart aleck"?

When they deliberately misrepresent my statement and then comment on it? You bet!

And English suddenly became your "first and primary" language that you need to defend.

I am defending my statements, not English. English does not need defending.

As much as you need to defend the Ummah?

124 posts before mentioning the "ummah"!
That's progress.

OK. But what has this to do with the need for keeping the "enmity" alive?

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. I believe India is just as guilty as Pakistan in keeping the enmity alive.

 

[Contrarian]

The Pakistani elite until now had focused on military might, while neglecting the other aspects I mentioned (economy, diplomacy, media, etc.)

Says who?
Pakistani rulers have given importance to economy, diplomacy, media as well.
I think you are being presumptuous in assuming that they did not.

For the greater part of Pakistani history, it had higher economic growth rates - albeit marginally - than India.

Pakistan has made many diplomatic master strokes that have put India on the defensive.

Media ? Well Pakistan has a thriving media, what Pakistan can not compete in regardless of how much effort its rulers put in is compete with India in media. The sheer volume of Indian people and their global outreach can not be matched by Pakistan. So i will concede this particular point of media - to you.

You may be right that the political elite here are not going to change any time soon, so we may be looking at 60 more years of the same blindness.

Yet, during these current years, it is Indian politicians who are putting more premium on economy and stability than Pakistan. So logic dictates that waiting would cost Pakistan more than acting on reconciliation now.

Would you disagree?

 

[Vinod2070]

So if the future is unpredictable, and you want Pakistan to wait.

What different exactly is there between you and the rulers of Pakistan of the decades gone by - who could wrest neither Kashmir militarily nor could they match India economically and diplomatically?

So they also decided to wait, and this led to India running the race faster than Pakistan and increasing rather than decreasing the distance.

So if you wait more, the odds are that the distance would only increase more. Dont you think you are also falling in the same trap?

See that is where the issue seems to be.

People seem to have just become comfortable with the notion that India has been and always will be an enemy. The reasons don't seem to matter, even the fact that India doesn't see it the same way and doesn't care, doesn't seem to to matter.

Musharraf for all his faults, did bring in some fresh thinking along with the BJP government. That chance was missed and the circus is continuing for another decade.

It is all so ridiculous. It has just taken a life of it's own and the required fresh thinking is not coming from both sides.

 

[Pandora]

Excuse me, but you don't count very well, do you? Dozens is not five, and even the five is not five. Watch closely now:

Herat = 1
Mazhar-i-Sharif =1
Kandahar = 1
Jalalabad = 1
----------------------------
Total of Herat+Mazhar-i-Sharif+Kandahar+Jalalabad = 4

Now please don't take this personally, or as a fallout of the Indo-Pakistani uneasy relationships, but
FOUR IS NOT DOZENS. FOUR IS NOT EVEN FIVE.


At the end of the day, you need to re-read Aesop's fables, and read about the dog in the manger.

Nobody stops Pakistan from offering aid and development support. Nobody obliges Pakistan to restrict herself to supplying Stingers, and nowadays, arms and ammunitions of all sorts, to Afghans intent on tearing the country apart. It is of no use to do this, and then whine about not having the kind of influence that roads, schools and power stations bring.

Well best of luck staying in afghanistan that is if you can. Well Americans are negotiating with Taliban and Karzai will be cleaning talibani toilets in near future and after that i would love to see state of indian consulates and how many will be left.

 

[Developereo]

Dear @Developereo, don't you get it? These are figments of your imagination, these are deeds done by super-heroes in a Valhalla of your own imagining. The average Indian politician is a very simple animal, with an enormous appetite at one end, and a political manifesto at the other.

No part of the Indian elite thinks very hard about Kashmir, about China or about partition, except perhaps the BJP when it isn't hating Muslims - and Christians, and the Dalit, and tribals and Nagas and anything and everything that isn't a caste Hindu.

You are imagining a dream world. There is no such Delhi, no such elite, no such anti-Pakistani syndrome. There is inertia, bureaucratic fear of the unknown, pettiness and jealousy and a resentment of people getting what they want with such ease, rather than submitting themselves to the tyranny of the petty bureaucracy for a visa.

I think you are not giving enough credit to the Indian policy makers.

1971 was pulled off brilliantly.
The post 9/11 terrorism angle has been handled well by India.
Trouble in Baluchistan (although I know you will disagree).

 

[Vinod2070]

124 posts before mentioning the "ummah"!
That's progress.

It is just 73. Progress nonetheless.

Perhaps you haven't been paying attention. I believe India is just as guilty as Pakistan in keeping the enmity alive.

We are not apportioning blame here for the past but talking of future.

So again, why do we need to keep alive an enmity that we didn't choose?

 

[Hulk]

So ur bloody hipocrisy applies to IOK but not junnargarh or mavadar?

Wake up guys, you guys were responsible for Partition. That partition forced Indian leaders specially Sardar Patel to get most princely states join India. When you try to create nation from smaller states no one cares for rules. Look at how US was created or look at the Islamic history. Did anyone cared what god people wanted to worship and who they wanted to be their king. Power of sword was used to win places. Same logic.

 

[Developereo]

Pakistani rulers have given importance to economy, diplomacy, media as well.

You've got to be kidding!

Economy? India lagged only because it was a closed system but, even then, it was laying the groundwork for the essentials: education system, democracy, local industry, etc. Once India opened up, the earlier hard work paid off. Pakistan has a horrible education system, security situation, and many parts of the infrastructure (e.g. power supply) are detrimental to investment. No wonder Pakistani textile owners are investing in Bangladesh instead.

Diplomacy? Not even a comparison. Pakistani "diplomacy" only succeeded by the grace of the superpowers, not by itself. The result is evident now, where Pakistan's standing is horrible compared to India.

Media? When it comes to international impact, which is what matters, Pakistani media is non-existent.

So again, why do we need to keep alive an enmity that we didn't choose?

It would be foolhardy to believe that we can reach normalization without solving Kashmir.

So, leaving Kashmir aside, can we have detente, or do we take time off and come back after a trial separation?

Those are the choices and, given my reservations, I prefer the latter option.

 

[Vinod2070]

It would be foolhardy to believe that we can reach normalization without solving Kashmir.

Kashmir came close to solution and the model is in place.

Hopefully the same thread will be picked up in future and carried to the logical conclusion.

But why hold everything hostage to that? Don't you see that it is harming you more (not that it pleases me. We need to get away from win lose mentality)?

Don't you see that this is resulting in the rise of forces that have turned on Pakistan and Pakistanis themselves?

So, leaving Kashmir aside, can we have detente, or do we take time off and come back after a trial separation?

Those are the choices and, given my reservations, I prefer the latter option.

What are those reservations if they are representative of the wider Pakistani opinion?

I actually think it is workable if the "separation" is real and complete (in the sense of also stopping the likes of LET etc.).

What would that separation really entail in your opinion? Pulling out embassies etc? All trade, travel, sport links etc.?

What else?

 

[danger007]

I think you are not giving enough credit to the Indian policy makers.

1971 was pulled off brilliantly.
The post 9/11 terrorism angle has been handled well by India.
Trouble in Baluchistan (although I know you will disagree).

that one is so stupid.... Pakistan is way better than BD... my god.. they are always live in lala land...

 

[Contrarian]

You've got to be kidding!

Economy? India lagged only because it was a closed system but, even then, it was laying the groundwork for the essentials: education system, democracy, local industry, etc. Once India opened up, the earlier hard work paid off. Pakistan has a horrible education system, security situation, and many parts of the infrastructure (e.g. power supply) are detrimental to investment. No wonder Pakistani textile owners are investing in Bangladesh instead.

Think about this carefully. Even though India spent more on education, etc, it was Pakistan that was growing faster than India - and that is the bottom line isnt it? In the end, at the end of the year Pakistan's economy expanded more than India's.

Diplomacy? Not even a comparison. Pakistani "diplomacy" only succeeded by the grace of the superpowers, not by itself. The result is evident now, where Pakistan's standing is horrible compared to India.

Pakistan's diplomacy may only have succeeded by the grace of the superpowers, but the decision of allying with the superpowers was a decision that Pakistan made.
And one that yielded it enormous benefits. The generous contributions made by those powers to Pakistan in terms of military and economic aid worked wonders for Pakistani economy for a really long time.

You cannot dismiss all of that at the drop of a hat. India by comparison chose to remain largely independent of them, though with Soviet backing. The aid however no where reached near enough bestowed on Pakistan because USA/West were better off economically.

So that is something that Pakistani leaders decided - and one that has yielded good returns as well.

Media? When it comes to international impact, which is what matters, Pakistani media is non-existent.

I agree.

It would be foolhardy to believe that we can reach normalization without solving Kashmir.

So, leaving Kashmir aside, can we have detente, or do we take time off and come back after a trial separation?

Those are the choices and, given my reservations, I prefer the latter option.

What do YOU think is the possible solution to kashmir realistically.

I hope you are not one of those who think Pakistani generals want an independent Kashmir. The truth of the matter is neither India, nor Pakistan want an independent country in the shape of Kashmir and become subject to the whims of them.

So what do you really think is possible?

 

[Bang Galore]

What do YOU think is the possible solution to kashmir realistically.

......../

So what do you really think is possible?

Almost never answered by an Pakistani poster here except in very vague terms. Once the maximalist position is discounted, almost no Pakistani member is willing to suggest what they see as a reasonable alternative along with their reasons why that position is valid & workable. No one suggests why they think India should agree to a compromise & what Pakistan will bring to the table in any deal. The Indian position of conversion of LoC to IB is known (soft borders, greater autonomy etc) but almost nothing is known about Pakistani positions including their stance on the Musharraf-MMS almost agreement.