Third Eye:
It does not have to come from anywhere, its there for any one to see. Notice the discomfiture of Pak with India as mentioned by ppl here "on it Western borders ?". The payoffs of engaging someone on more than one front are immense..
That speculation on your part, liek I said, I have no clue where you came up with this leverage argument. It might have some takers on the fringe, but no one I know has ever articulated such a thing. Mostly the view is that an economic partnership and alliance as independent nations is the best way forward.
Look, nothing happens w/o reason. Pak began with the take over attempt of J&K in '47 -48. India has merely replied in kind. Albiet taking a cue from Pak each time but doing a better job of it each time. Lets not get into the whole thing again.. its not going to get us anywhere.
Suffice to say that " no one can ride ur back unless its bent". No country can be dismembered till it wants to..
The argument of J7K is a non sequitur, and you probably realize it, but have to bring it up since there is no justification for Indian involvement in EP. J&K is disputed territory, and the Indian leadership agreed that it was disputed territory and that a plebiscite was the way to resolve the dispute multiple times - it then chose to unilaterally violate those agreements under Nehru. India chose to remove the diplomatic option from the table forcing Pakistan to try the infiltration bid in 1965.
East Pakistan was sovereign Pakistani territory, it was not disputed. Indian intervention in East Pakistan therefore is in no way comparable to the hostility over J&K, just as Baluchistan bears no similarities to J&K.
Lastly, India had already tried supporting the Pashtunistan movement subtly through Afghanistan, before 1965, and therefore had set the precedent for support for proxies.
So what ??
What was preventing Pak from formalising its national institutions like judiciary, constitution, parliament, land holdings,role of various agencies etc the absence of which is the bane / cause for the grief it finds itself now in and on the throes of yet another ' dismemberment" mental.. if not physical this time.
We need to stop blaming others for the mess we find ourselves in.
The 'so what' illustrates the problem on the Indian side. This isn't about the judiciary or national institutions, it is about the refusal to accept Pakistan and the subsequent deliberate attempts to destabilize it - Pashtunistan, Baluch militancy, East Pakistan militancy - you cannot excuse the crimes committed by your nation, the deaths of innocent civilians an soldiers and the intangible costs imposed by the violence, by pointing to 'national institutions'.
India is being blamed here because these actions are India's doing, you are responsible for that mess. How disingenuous can one get! Your argument is like the moraaly depraved one some people make that 'its the woman's fault that she gets raped'!
Absolutely absurd rationale here, but perhaps not surprising given the morally bankrupt apologetics in Kashmir so many Indians spout.
Has Pak accepted what it has / had & reconciled it self to what it ' should have got' in terms of land , money , resources ? If not than Indians also are of the same bent of mind.
Yes we have accepted whatever was agreed to at partition - it was also agreed, by all three sides, British, India and Pakistan, that disputed accessions would be resolved via plebiscite, so we are still waiting for a resolution of that, but that was part of what we accepted.