India, Pakistan locked in their animosities

[hembo]

1)Economic point
Let me put is this way if either one of us is out, the cost in order to achieve that would be huge no one is denying but worth every effort as the other remaining party has no longer need to worry about an enemy and the focus would be entirely on the economic front and development

Hi! Nice to have come across your posts. These are quite articulate, well phrased and forthcoming. Bear with me if I may not reciprocate the same, in terms of quality, i.e.

I would like to put forward my opinion on your observation above.

It appears here, you have assumed that as a outcome of a full fledged war, one of the opponents will be completely wiped out of the equation while the other side will call them victorious. I believe that will not be the case, unless of course, god forbid, nuclear option is activated. This, again, will result in wiping out of both the sides. However, I am assuming that in spite of being engaged in a full fledged war, the strategist on both sides would have the minimum common sense to not activate this dreaded option. Hence I would like to visualize the outcome differently. Both sides will lost heavily to the point that they will accept (again?) outsider's (UN?) insisted cease-fire option and will only go backward (economically) by at least 30 years. None of us have become independent enough to defy the World pressure as some of the so called responsible countries are doing. BTW, India has a slight upper hand in this regard, but still not enough. Also, even if, one of us is defeated heavily and forced by the victor to forfeit whatever deemed necessary to please the victor with time, the defeated country will again rise up. I am again assuming that the defeated country will not be merged with the victor here. Classical example: Germany after WW-II, separation and on the brink of economic disaster, it has risen, and how! So, in another 30-50 years, this forceful solution to the problems will be defied the earlier defeated country and the vicious cycle will begin again. Yes my friend, we need to understand this very clearly (without just thinking of our lifetime, but about the time of our children): THIS IS A VICIOUS CYCLE. It will come back to haunt either us or our children.

Now, unlike some members, I don't have any readymade solution with me. My stance is clear: I am ready to listen and evaluate all options suggested by others and at the time, try formulating my own doctrine to suggest, which, unfortunately, is yet to be conceived.

 

[MilesTogo]

My 2 cents - Pakistan would have been better off fighting for Kashmir without coloring it with Islamic paint. Even if Kashmir is given to Pakistan, it will not solve any problems. A few Pakistani's have started realizing that Kashmir is not the root of all the Indo-Pak problems. When Taliban bombs girl's school, it is not for Kashmir, when SriLankans are attacked it is not for Kashmir and the list goes on...Muslim Umma is gradualy coming to terms with the ground realities that Islam can not make all the Muslims same. Bangladeshis and Pakistanis are different. Arabs and Irani are different. Punjabi and Balochi are different and they will remain different for a long time to come. But then you could still live peacefully if one acknowledge and respect the differences. That's the direction rest of the world (non-islamic) is moving to. Thats the only option.

 

[IceCold]

My 2 cents - Pakistan would have been better off fighting for Kashmir without coloring it with Islamic paint. Even if Kashmir is given to Pakistan, it will not solve any problems. A few Pakistani's have started realizing that Kashmir is not the root of all the Indo-Pak problems. When Taliban bombs girl's school, it is not for Kashmir, when SriLankans are attacked it is not for Kashmir and the list goes on...Muslim Umma is gradualy coming to terms with the ground realities that Islam can not make all the Muslims same. Bangladeshis and Pakistanis are different. Arabs and Irani are different. Punjabi and Balochi are different and they will remain different for a long time to come. But then you could still live peacefully if one acknowledge and respect the differences. That's the direction rest of the world (non-islamic) is moving to. Thats the only option.

You are way off here because Pakistan never asked for Kashmir to be given to Pakistan, infact we always maintained that it belongs to the people of Kashmir and let them choose their faith as per the UN resolution.

 

[asq]

Miles to go. It is sad that u mention about world which is still not accepting its responsibility about philistine, about Chechnya, about kashmir.

makes claims are made of Democratic systems yet little is done to alleviate the sorrowful conditions of poor souls living in occupations for 60 years.

In my opinion those democracies of convenience and is only applied for showcase purposes.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Editorial
India’s Challenges​

Published: May 18, 2009

The Indian National Congress party cannot afford a prolonged celebration after its overwhelming election victory. Much of the postvote analysis has focused on the daunting domestic agenda. But now that Congress has a stable mandate — and can shuck a fractious coalition — it is time for India to exercise the kind of regional and global leadership expected of a rising power.

It can start with neighboring Pakistan, arguably the most dangerous country on earth. A report in The Times on Monday reminds us just how dangerous: The United States believes Islamabad is rapidly expanding a nuclear arsenal thought to already contain 80 to 100 weapons.

We have consistently supported appropriate military aid and increased economic aid to help Pakistan fight the Taliban and Al Qaeda, strengthen democratic institutions and improve the life of its people. Squandering precious resources on nuclear bombs is disgraceful when Pakistan is troubled by economic crisis and facing an insurgency that threatens its very existence.

Trying to keep up to 100 bombs from extremists is hard enough; expanding the nuclear stockpile makes the challenge worse. Officials in Washington are legitimately asking whether billions of dollars in proposed new assistance might be diverted to Pakistan’s nuclear program. They should demand assurances it will not be.

India is essential to what Pakistan will do. New Delhi exercised welcome restraint when it did not attack Pakistan after the November 2008 attacks in Mumbai by Pakistani-based extremists. But tensions remain high, and the Pakistani Army continues to view India as its main adversary. India should take the lead in initiating arms control talks with Pakistan and China. It should also declare its intention to stop producing nuclear weapons fuel, even before a proposed multinational treaty is negotiated. That would provide leverage for Washington and others to exhort Pakistan to do the same.

It is past time for India — stronger both economically and in international stature — to find a way to resolve tensions with Pakistan over Kashmir. If that festering sore cannot be addressed directly, then — as Stephen P. Cohen, a South Asia expert at the Brookings Institution, suggests — broader regional talks on environmental and water issues might be an interim way to find common ground. Ignoring Kashmir is no longer an option.

India has played a constructive role in helping rebuild Afghanistan, but it must take steps to allay Islamabad’s concerns that this is a plan to encircle Pakistan. It should foster regional trade with Pakistan and Afghanistan. More broadly, India must help to revive world trade talks by opening its markets. It could use its considerable trade clout with Iran, Sudan and Myanmar to curb Tehran’s nuclear program, end the genocide in Darfur and press Myanmar’s junta to expand human rights.

India is the dominant power in South Asia, but it has been hesitant to assume its responsibilities. The Congress Party has to do better — starting with Pakistan.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/opinion/19tue1.html?ref=opinion

 

[BaburCM]

What an utterly yet expectedly biased article coming from the same source which is hell-bent on portraying Pakistan as the mother of all evil. The media witch-hunt in the US against Pakistan is apparent. Every Tom, Dick and Harry is conveying his/her opinion in that particular country. Well, the uncle Tom of this article needs to know that Pakistan will never abide by any outside dictation as far as the nuclear program is concerned. Whether Pakistan decides to shrink or increase its nuclear assets is only Pakistan's concern. Pakistan needs to rapidly accelerate the construction of the new nuclear reactors with the help of China. At this point of time, it's not a mater of luxury, but rather a dire necessity.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Trying to keep up to 100 bombs from extremists is hard enough; expanding the nuclear stockpile makes the challenge worse.

This is rather laughable, though the NYT has become more of a tabloid in terms of its coverage of Pakistan anyway, what with all the rubbish, often contradictory, spewed by their 'anonymous sources', and so is pretty much expected tripe.

Its not as if there is a Taliban posse out hunting the nukes as they are whisked from one spot to the next to avoid them falling into the hands of extremists. There are exceptionally strong command and control processes in place, and these will naturally be extended to cover any additional material or weapon systems, if and when they are manufactured.

The US press deserves a spot next to geo TV with its inane coverage of Pakistan.

 

[BaburCM]

^^ Well, if we are to believe the Yanks, tomorrow Taliban will be in control over the nukes ready to be fired at any possible target. The nuke warheads are already deployed on missiles and ready for a successive launch. All possible by merely pressing on the red button... What an absolutely sensational garbage. Talk about fiction... I'm not surprised by the immense hostility and scaremongering aimed towards Pakistan. It was bound to happen, especially considering the day when Pakistan became a nuclear power. It has since been a very bitter pill to swallow.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

By the way, this comment on their editorial was actually given the 'editor's selection honor':

"Currently over 80% of tax and aid money in Pakistan is spent on defense."



As expected, and Indian poster did raise that canard, but its absurd that the NYT recognized a comment with that excerpt as an 'editor's selection'.

Falling standards or just plain anti-Pakistani?

 

[BaburCM]

^^ Well, that 80% figure misquote just goes to show how uninformed and biased such opinions really are. A distortion of facts to spread misinformation in order to brew anti-Pakistan sentiments all across. Just sheer ludicrous lies with a touch of evil intent.

Well, I'll go for the latter. Purely Pakistan bashing. Suddenly, the greatest ally of the Cold War has become the greatest villain overnight. It's ironic to say the least. We all know what's at stake. Pakistan will do wise by not falling into the trap. Extreme vigilance and caution is required. Wise leadership which is able to calculate each step is required at this critical moment.

 

[Skeptic]

Editorial
India’s Challenges​

Published: May 18, 2009

The Indian National Congress party cannot afford a prolonged celebration after its overwhelming election victory. Much of the postvote analysis has focused on the daunting domestic agenda. But now that Congress has a stable mandate — and can shuck a fractious coalition — it is time for India to exercise the kind of regional and global leadership expected of a rising power.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/19/opinion/19tue1.html?ref=opinion

Congress and more importantly India already has more than its share of domestic issues to sort out first. The elections were won, not by singing slogans of becoming a super power and stabilizing the region, but with promises of secularism, development and internal security for its citizens. We'll play the game of "Who's the regional superpower" later. We have people to feed, we have kids deprived of good education, we have a economy which is in transitory phase and Indian diplomats know well enough what will their participation will be perceived as, if and when they do become a party in this Pakistani mess specially.

Seems like US is running out of tissue papers to wipe out the marks of its misdeeds in SE Asia. We don't have anything to do with it. If India can manage to get its act right domestically, I think it'd have done it's share of contribution to regional stability. NYT better put on their introspective goggles and review US policies and incoherence in their stance.

US and it's flawed strategies have already created a lot of tension and seemingly unending chaos in the region and now their effort to pass on the buck to India, seems selfish and reckless.

Thanks but no thanks.

 

[GlobalStrategist]

There is a very important perception to take into account here--one may refer to South Asia scholars F. Frankel, S.P. Cohen, R. Guha, A. Rashid and an abundance of others--that Pakistan is obsessed with India. I can assure you that India is not obsessed with Pakistan. On the contrary, it is exasperated, and most Indians want one of two things:

1) Peace

2) Absolutely nothing to do with Pakistan i.e. utter indifference

I can understand that the process of Partition was more difficult for Pakistan as a whole. All of Pakistan's major cities experienced vast migration and turmoil. It is undeniable that the residual bitterness, and the subsequent national scarring has been a major obstacle towards peace. Large swathes of India were indifferent to partition--down south, all we heard were radio reports, which were disbelieved because one would have had to bear witness to believe the stories of horror and pain.

While we have our oddball fundamentalists, the BJP and the RSS, who are becoming more and more alienated from the mainstream, very few of us are indoctrinated to hate Pakistan. Even if you talk to the men of the Armed Forces of India, there is a general respect for the "other side"--a simple acknowledgemet that they are simply doing their job, as we are ours. The Indian armed forces have never formulated a doctrine based around a sense of religous/spiritual or ethnic superiority, as envisioned in Pakistan under Ayub and Yahya. Whereas the anti-Indian, (and oddly more Anti-Hindu) historical bias is apparent in Pakistani textbooks, this is overt indoctrination is not overtly apparent in India. Yes there are those fringe organisations, but we wil lovercome them as you are overcoming yours--but we are the Republic of India, not the Hindu Republic of Hindustan. I believe the first step for Pakistan would be to drop the "Islamic Republic" moniker, and develop a national identity rather than rely on the abstraction (and fallacy) of Islamic Unity.

I agree that much needs to be done on the Indian side--we have too look at the situation from your shoes, as a nation deeply scarred. However, it is time that we put the past behind us. Let the old men, politicians and fundoos fight amongst themselves--this is our time, not theirs.

 

[maverick2009]

India pakistan animosity or rivalry is almost like a sibling rivalry of 2 sons born by MOTHER INDIA fighting for recognition./

India the larger more dominant power by geopgraphy industrial might is looking to be recognised as the South Asian regional super power.

For Pakistan its a case we will never bow to you or accept you as our BIG anything.

Kashmir is not the real dispute

 

[Omar1984]

India pakistan animosity or rivalry is almost like a sibling rivalry of 2 sons born by MOTHER INDIA fighting for recognition./

India the larger more dominant power by geopgraphy industrial might is looking to be recognised as the South Asian regional super power.

For Pakistan its a case we will never bow to you or accept you as our BIG anything.

Kashmir is not the real dispute

LOL! If you mean British India when you said "Mother India" then let me tell you Mother India died a long time ago, 62 years ago.

This rivalry is all about Kashmir. If Kashmir was handled the right way 62 years ago, we wouldn't had any rivalry with India.

Before partition, Quaid-e-Azam wanted friendly relations with Inida like US and Canada, but because of Kashmir we are rivals.

Kashmir and Sir Creek are the only disputes we have with India, it got nothing with the "sibling rivalry" bullsh*t you're talking about.

 

[salman nedian]

Asim,
I disagree in some points:

1, I agree that we should build bridges but we should look for dependable friends in the region. Try to improve our education system, provide justice to our people and address issues within our boundaries and all this don’t need Indian help. Let them do what they are doing and focus on our development, protect our interests

2, Terrorists are no doubt affecting us all. But we should look for the root causes. We cannot deny the fact that both the countries are sending terrorists within each other.

3, we cannot trust India, for our development we need to think sincerely about our country. We should protect our country and let them point figures at us which is not important. No one in this world will support the other. We need to think about ourselves and let the whole world do what they want. We should think beyond India and think how we can become a major power.

Countries can coexist with differences and we cannot demand an ideal world.
We have ideological differences with India and let’s accept the fact that we cannot be friends until and unless some specific events occur.