Once again very good answers. Statements fully backed with logic and this is what i like....
TTP was a threat but when it was under Batiullah mehsud. With him gone, the back of TTP was broken and it is no longer a threat as it use to be.
About your point of India staying in Afghanistan, by all means but at the same i said Pakistan would make sure that there is a friendly regime in Kabul and not like the current one, which means that no friendly regime would allow any country to host shady activities against Pakistan.
Very valid point...And yes Pakistan is in a bargaining position to ensure that the new regime is atleast not Anti-Pak. However i think that AF is too important a theater to leave. I may be wrong but at the moment i don't think US is leaving AF...and as long as that is not happening i don't see a stable AF to the likings of Islamabad. The tussle b/w PA and NATO over Haqqani n/w is a real thorn(again these are my views and please feel free to trash them)....Having said that i would love to see a stable AF ASAP. If india manages to get a stable non anti-India regime(which is the case at the moment) in AF i would say we have done the job....Not sure how much leverage we have in there but certainly is less than Pak....Anyhow if honestly the idea is to have non anti-Pak and non anti-India regime in AF then there should be no problem but vested interests will spoil it for sure....
Do remember that Pakistan was still recovering from the effects of sanctions and mismanagement of the sharif government and as you said it took India a whopping 2 decades to make the economic changes permanent, we never really had that much of a time, still what i am stressing on is that provided the right circumstances and more so a good governance (which we lack currently), Pakistans economy can be brought right on track.So the concept of Pakistans economy not recovering as mentioned by other Indian members is simply misplaced. Both the US and EU are opening up to Pakistan, heck even India wants to increase its bilateral trade, all these aspects lead to a good economy.
There is no doubt on that. If someone feels that pak cannot be fixed then he/she is mistaken. The only real issue(others are just temporary) is that you have a very weak electoral system and thus like of Zardari are coming in...At the moment i feel there is leadership crisis in Pak and coups have played a big role in denying Pak a good civilian leader...India has been lucky in the past...We have the likes of Vajpayee and MMS leading india from last 15 years and results are in front of us...Mind it India's corruption can easily embarrass Pakistan yet when head of the state is as honest as Vajpayee and MMS you can bet on some good work...
Anyhow Let's hope for the best for Pak....
True but in Pakistans case unfortunately not true, reason is due to the incompetence of our political leadership and all development that we have seen is during the military rule. So bottom line is that we Pakistanis don't mind as long as the country is on the right part, i.e development, stable economy, jobs etc. For your last line yes i can say the same because the government inspite of its incompetence, corruption has the full support of the armed forces of Pakistan after all PA as an institution falls under the state and not as a separate entity.
Unfortunately what you said is correct. Long term loss of succesive coups is weak electoral system and now Pak finds herself in catch 22...Military rule brings in stability and economic progress however further weakens the electoral system...Civilian govt is incompetent at the moment and thus performance further alienates the common man who finds Army rule better....This flip flop has to end for a constant progress...I think that Pakistani's should stick to Democracy.....The results are going to be slow but will last forever...
Let me explain my view point on this. You see i agree Pakistan launched a covert opperation but at the same time you also have to see that it was started on a disputed territory and not Indian territory. You could say Pakistan started war, had operation gilabater started on lets say delhi. Our covert support was for the mughadeen fighting in kashmir, an internationally accepted disputed territory, how does India reply, they cross international border and attack Pakistan directly. Indeed the optimism of then the government of Pakistan was misplaced but starting a covert support over a disputed territory and directly crossing an international border are 2 very different things.
My friend i have heard this argument before....but i am not sure how this flawed argument was accepted by masses in Pak...Please tell me one thing if we do surgical strikes in P-O-K what would be Pak's reaction??? Is there any doubt that there will be full-fledge war??? Yes LOC is not international borders but that doesn't mean LOC has no significance. LOC has to be treated like a border till the dispute is solved, there should not be any doubt about it....
There is a reason Pakistan was termed as aggressor(and rightly so) in both 65 and kargil because you broke the sanctity of LOC. Think about India doing the same in eastern border and take the whole/part of Aksai Chin under Chinese control. Do you have any doubt China will launch a full-flede attack on India????
Again like i said before we never attacked India, Kashmir is a disputed territory recognized by the UN. We consider Indian occupation as illegal and hence are justified to use force since talks were bearing no results what so ever. However like i said our optimism was misplaced back then and operation Gilrabater was a tactical error and a wrong judgment call.
That's what i am trying to say...Animosity with India was not only because of threats from India...Your establishment was convinced that they can snatch away Kashmir from India..though they failed both the times and brought lot of bad to Pakistan - be it economical-be it tactical-be it strategical...No doubt masses in Pakistan believe that they have right to use force against India since Kashmir is disputed, because this flawed logic has been fed to you all the time....but this is not how the world works.
Do you see the irony, right from the birth of Pakistan as a nation you were told that India will attack so you should be prepared all the time, dependency on west was not a choice but a necessity even if that means compromising sovereignity but in the end it was Pak who used force against India more than what India did....Unfortunately for Pak all they achieved was bad but india did manage to achieve the results...
If i say yes for your last line, it would be under patriotism and not logic. Our hands are not exactly clean but then again is it our fault if suddenly India starts calling a disputed territory as its atoot aung and dismiss any negotiations and refuse to talk. Indian support for the breakage of Pakistan does not fit well either in the minds of Pakistanis where Indias image is concerned and well that leads to animosity. In another thread i was arguing that Pakistan should give MFN status to India as increase in bilateral trade goes for the betterment of everybody and not just India.
Please don't get me wrong...I by no means is saying India is clean either....I would very candid to share my view....Please do understand the Indian position here...We are convinced that Nehru's decision of halting the war in 47 and going to UN was not right. In fact IA was not even consulted before cease fire was announced!!!... We also strongly believe that status quo is in our favor. Pak cannot snatch away Kashmir from us by force and thanks to Pak dilly-dallying on fulfilling the requirements for plebiscite(which we were not interested in anyways) we have got a perfect excuse to throw away that demand....International community is not interested either and with India's increasing geo-political might there is no way they will....
In short the biggest gainer of any resolution on Kashmir would be Pakistan...As far as India's reluctance to come on talking table than i am afraid recent history tell's us exactly opposite. Vajpayee was really interested in solving the issue(so is MMS) and Lahore Bus Trip was not an eye-wash.....Unfortunately Kargil screwed it up big time(Honestly have no clue what was Mush thinking)....The parliament attack and finally Mumbai Attack...The sooner Pak get her house in order the better chance for a settlement on Kashmir...Logically it is Pakistan who will gain more than India on whatever the solution would be....The more the time will pass more stronger India will become and more assertive India would be on kashmir...This is exactly what happened b/w India and China border issue...China is much more assertive than what she was a decade ago...
Thats a misplace concept, you see Zia rule was different, USSR was present next door itching to cross over to warm waters, we had to stop them. We supported Jhaid and help train Muhajdeen with the help of CIA but that does not mean the whole of Pakistan suddenly became radicalized. Thats a misperception. But that time is long gone almost 3 decades. That philosophy is no longer in existence but on the other hand, Indias view has not changed and Kashmir is still disputed with India refusing to come to a conclusion.
I might be wrong but the loss of USSR and militancy in Kashmir started very much at the same time...Mind it i am not saying that Kashmiri's did not take the path of Guns..they did...In dact 86 rigged elections of kashmir was one of the reason...but it is logical to say that Jihad which worked in bringing the demise of USSR was redirected to bring New Delhi to its knees....
Radicalization does not mean that every Pakistani was changed...Radicalization means that radical Islam was allowed to spread to avenge 71 and Kashmir from New Delhi...Bleed india with thousand cuts is definitely not a wet dream of indians....
Once bitten twice shy is what New delhi is suffering from...I am honestly not convinced that Pak has given up assets that can be used against India. ..To be fair with people like me, incidents like Parliament Attack, Mumbai don't help the perceptions either.....To be honest, i really don't understand why pak is not able to prosecute pigs responsible for Mumbai if they have already given up the JIhadi elements(as claimed by you)....There is plethora of Information out there.....
Anyways as said there is no way Pak can force India to resolve kashmir, so any steps by pakistan in resolving Mumbai will be welcomed by Indians and rest of world. New delhi would be forced to sit on negotiations table(b/w during Mush we were very close in solving this for good..this should shun away any fears that india will not respond even if GOP take right actions)....
I have explained my side above. How exactly did Pakistan attack India on two different occasions. Yes we did launch operation gilabatar but that was on a disputed territory. You say you have not mentioned 47 since Kashmir back then was not part of India, my question is when did it become Indias part?
Fair enough. What i meant was that as per India Kashmir was not part of India in 47. Pak attacked Kashmir which was independent identity then and that's why that attack cannot be considered as attack on India....I have already shared my views about attack on disputed land
Coming to the threatening attitude, right after East Pakistan was separated from the rest of Pakistan, India was very much ready to attack west, had it not be for China and to some extent the US, we wouldnt have been having this conversation since there would have been no Pakistan. On 78 or was it 79(correct me on dates) India exploded a nuclear device starting a nuclear arms race. Again on 98 India tested nuclear weapons and the tone that was used after those tests against Pakistan isnt a secret either.2001 parliament attack and massive Indian built on our borders, Mumbai attack and talks of strikes across the border, cold start, talks of two front wars by Indian COAS, if these all are not a threatening attitude then what is. Do remember that we are talking this from Pakistans point of view, a country much smaller then its rival. Had we be of equal size, we wouldnt have given it much importance.
Fair enought...The correct date of first nuke test is 74.....I am fine with your perception that there was fear that india will attack and thus Pak wanted to keep India at bay...What i don't understand is attacking a much bigger country and that too twice....Anyhow few things to clarify
- we exploded our first bomb in 74...At that time you had no clue about nuclear bomb. I am not sure about threatning messages in 1999 but at that time it was writing on the wall that both nations have a bomb...So whosoever threatened you must be a fool.....My point is that we got our hands on nukes much before Pak(way back in 74)...We did not threatened you then, neither we attacked you....Does this even momentarily tell that "India will attack" syndrome was a little misplaced????
- Please do keep in mind that we also have much bigger potential adversary....I see lot of people accusing India for starting arms race in South Asia but fail to look at pathetic parity b/w India - China when these weapons were acquired....Just to show you the flips side do you know who introduced first Air-to-Air missile in South Asia???
- During 71 our military wanted to destroy west pakistan army assets as well which was outright rejected(and rightly so) by IG...Annexing Pakistan was not even a plan with IA forget about Civilian Leadership....Had our Army enjoy the powers like PA we would have carried on the war deep into West pakistan which would have been disaster(see the importance of potent civilian govt).....Anyhow we won the war but did not annex BD....We had close to 75 K POW and returned them without taking any leverage viz-a-viz west Pakistan...Does this even momentarily gives an inclination that India's akhand bharat(hegemony) syndrome was a little misplaced???
- I cannot say for sure that China played any part in 71 war. However we had clear support of USSR at that time...You would have read about the nuke submarines that came for our rescue in response to USA AC....So i cannot comment on her role to save west Pakistan...What i know i have shared above.. Please feel free to reject it..
Bulk of your armed forces are on the border with Pakistan, everywhere Indian PM or any governmental official goes the 1st thing they talk about is Pakistan, India using every means available to somehow get Pakistan declared a terrorist and a failed state. Reduction of aid and what not. Cold start doctrine. That makes 95% India Pakistan centric.
A little wrong assertion from the data points that you have shared. We are adversaries. We do have earned some geo-political might due to our newly find economic progress... We would be fools if we don't use diplomacy to hurt Pakistan as much as we can especially when we are convinced that Pakistan has not abandoned the assets(read terrorists) against India....Please don't think diplomacy means we are Pakistan centric...We are doing much more than that at diplomatic level....Regarding Army assets than it is common sense that most of the assets will be located at troubled areas. Eastern border is much more calm then western border and that's justifies the assets location...b/w we are developing eastern border on war footage...
