Nor do I expect you to. I don't appreciate it (in the sense you have used the word apparently here) either. But the sense I used the word was, a parlance wherein we refer to analysing something, an example: My asking you to write an 'appreciation' of Pakistan's Role in Afghanistan, will not mean to laud the role but as a way of critically analysing the whole topic.
Hence, when I used the word appreciate for Indian Strategic Thinking, I meant for you to analyse it.
A debatable point. One can argue that the reason for your nation's economic difficulties can be rooted in the absence of stable and strong governance. You have, after all, been ruled for majority of the time by a Military Dictatorship, which has fundamentally consolidated it's own position in the Pakistani Society and allowed (and maybe enabled) the initial weakening and subsequently decay of a sustained and continuos policy initiative aimed more at building a nation state than trying to achieve a military capability to seek a confrontation with India over Kashmir.
If you were to do an analysis of the histories of India and Pakistan, their priorities in the post-independence era, you will be able to appreciate the fact that when the Army in Pakistan worked successively to cement its grip over the power in Pakistan, it was invariably by raising an Indian bogey and by subordinating the National Interests to Security Interests. Conceded that security interests are critical, however, at no time do we find any time critical for Pakistani diversion of priorities to defence than to nation building. What you lacked, was the mature leadership and guidance in form of MA Jinnah to consolidate the nation for a few more years. That, perhaps, would have allowed for strong civil institutions to take roots in the Pakistani Society, thereby enabling a vibrant democracy which we see in India.
Anyways, that is my perspective of your policies. Am sure you can look at the merits or lack thereof in the above statement.
Coming back, you must also realise that 90s was the decade wherein the traditional Indian ally in form of USSR, had lost the cold war and the Pakistani ally US was supreme. India, at the least, was still looked at with suspicion and Pakistan was still a loyal friend and ally, increasingly expressed by US backing of Pakistan's policy on Kashmir, and this was also the era when Pakistan actually weaponised its nuclear program.
Indian economy was near bankrupt and drastic fiscal measures were undertaken. If you were to research the Indian economic situation at time, it was precarious at best. An example can be taken of defence spending where only revenue expenditure was being catered to and capital outlay was down to zero for the duration. That is one of the pre-eminent reason why, in the subsequent Kargil war, the Indian response was slow and calibrated. Bluntly speaking, our economic condition of the preceding decade had left even the Indian Army in a difficult and pre-carious position. The jingoism and the ribbings from members aside, we were in a difficult position at the start of the conflict, with even the US policy against us. Perhaps, this vulnerability of the Indian Economy allowed for application of prudent economic and also security policy in Kargil which allowed for the situation to play out as it did and enabled India to begin a period of turning around US' view of India.
Both the nations have faced difficulties. The difference has been in the response of each.
You had and have a national interest in maintaining a so called strategic 'depth' by controlling Afghanistan. It was your own interest that drove you to a policy which has resulted in a mess for you. From an unstable western neighbour to home grown and supported terrorists, the security challenges have multiplied as a consequence of your own policies. You were already involved in Afghanistan before even the US intervened.
At the same time consolidating itself as the sole repertoire of National Pride and Unity. I hope you realise that under the successive military rule, the civil establishment was never allowed to mature into an effective machinery for governance?
This is something which we had slightly discussed and I had told will be hypothesising about.
You must realise something very clearly of Russia. The Russian policy regarding Islamic Nations is to have a central authority preferably friendly to them to control the nations. Those which can not be controlled, must be de-stabilised. The reason is their restive Central Republic of Chechnya and adjoining regions.
Similarly, Russia needs China for its market and for finance. In addition, China acts as an important counter-balance to US. But also realise that Russia itself sees China as a long term threat, especially for its territories in East, notwithstanding the agreement they have.
You may want to read up about the transient nature of Sino-Pak boundary settlement of 1963 to get a gist of the temporary nature of Chinese agreements. When China can unilaterally withdraw from treaties signed centuries back recognising Tibet as an autonomous and separate kingdom in 'special relationship' with them, then what prevents it from a similar position few decades from now with Russia?
Russia is quite pragmatic and alert to this.
On Pakistan, Russia will gain more through Iran. They have more to gain by facilitating subversion in Baluchistan (through Iran, which has aims of creation of buffer, support of Shias and also of breaking Pakistan as an ally of GCC, something coming to fore in post-Yemen intervention period) and using it as a leverage over Pakistan than any other route involving direct dealings with Pakistan (my opinion only) while at the same time ensuring adequate concerns over CPEC thereby allowing an oil market for itself in form of servicing the Chinese economy thereby securing its own financial interests. I am speculating, may be way wrong here.
I do not subscribe to the fact that Pakistan is in Russian zone yet. You have to wait and see.
Lets do that, watch how things unfold. But strictly analysing from my view point, you are off.
Thanks
May I suggest you think on an unstable CPEC, and how it benefits Iran and Russia?
