Stable Pakistan not in India’s interest

[dabong1]

The best bet for the region , espicially for a particular country in the region is to get its house in order & to stop dreaming of controlling or guiding events outside it borders till it can run its writ within.

I agree...india needs to get its house in order.
Why is it all the neighbours of india do not lke india or have some sort of problem with the country..?

 

[Flintlock]

I agree...india needs to get its house in order.
Why is it all the neighbours of india do not lke india or have some sort of problem with the country..?

Same can be said about Pakistan, and far more truthfully also.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Same can be said about Pakistan, and far more truthfully also.

With about the same level of truth in fact.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

now for the article, its evident that this guy is short-sighted. a destabilized Pakistan will benefit India in the short-run, since it will drain resources used to supply anti-India insurgents, but in the long-run, any hope for peace will be destroyed, and Pakistan will be stuck in a feudal time-warp, and become a haven for extremism.

so in short, i think the article is crap. any article promoting violence is crap

First, thank you for stating that outright.

This article reflects the view of a small minority within a nation of a billion people, and already many members have made up their minds that India wants nothing more than to destroy Pakistan.

How many times has Pakistan openly supported anti-India movements. the world over it is a known fact that Pakistan supports insurgency in Kashmir. So if the government of Pakistan and its military overtly supports a policy of destabilizing India, don't you think that at least some Indians will feel that its high time we play the same game? and for those who support the break up of India, don't you think its hypocritical that you get your feathers ruffled when a crummy article supports the break up or destabilization of Pakistan?

Pakistan's involvement has been primarily limited to the disputed territory of Kashmir, in the context of resolving the dispute after India unilaterally chose to reject diplomatic and legal measures outlined by the IoA and UNSC and has not been along the lines of what this author suggests, of Pakistan attempting to destabilize all of India and viewing it in some way to benefit itself.

It should be noted that it was India that first crossed the threshold, of interference and destabilization outside of disputed Kashmir, in 1971. The majority of Pakistan's subsequent actions still remained primarily confined to the disputed territory of Kashmir.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I have told you Agno, that in my opinion it is better to have a stable Pakistan and not a strong Pakistan till the time there is much more trade b/w India and Pakistan.

A strong Pakistan is a given with a stable Pakistan, so long as the Kashmir dispute remains unresolved and Afghanistan continues to not recognize the Durand.

A stable Pakistan will mean economic growth, and the means to fund military modernization and expansion and R&D in various strategic programs - the two therefore go hand in hand.

You cannot argue against a strong Pakistan and at the same time say you support a stable Pakistan.

 

[Contrarian]

There is a difference. Read-Hindu Growth Rate.

 

[Flintlock]

A strong Pakistan is a given with a stable Pakistan, so long as the Kashmir dispute remains unresolved and Afghanistan continues to not recognize the Durand.

A stable Pakistan will mean economic growth, and the means to fund military modernization and expansion and R&D in various strategic programs - the two therefore go hand in hand.

You cannot argue against a strong Pakistan and at the same time say you support a stable Pakistan.

Well The Durand line ain't changing anytime soon, and neither is the Kashmir status quo.

So the best option for Pakistan is to recognize the permanency of both arrangements and concentrate on reform within the country.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

There is a difference. Read-Hindu Growth Rate.

Not sure what you mean there.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Well The Durand line ain't changing anytime soon, and neither is the Kashmir status quo.

That neither the situation on the Durand nor Kashmir is going to change is precisely why I argued that a stable Pakistan also means a militarily strong Pakistan, since the continuation of those two issues means that its two neighbors will remain hostile and dangerous entities. To cope with any potential threat arising from the regional situation the military will have to remain strong.

So once again, a stable Pakistan in the absence of a resolution of disputes in the neighborhood automatically means a militarily strong Pakistan.

So the best option for Pakistan is to recognize the permanency of both arrangements and concentrate on reform within the country.

Pakistan is in favor of permanency of the Durand, per the historic agreement that exists. It is Afghanistan that has to learn to accept and respect the agreement.

Accepting Kashmir does not affect Pakistan's progress, so long as we continue on the current path of not actively supporting the violent aspect of the insurgency, unless you are implying that India is destabilizing Pakistan because of its non-acceptance.

 

[Contrarian]

Not sure what you mean there.

Commanding Heights : Lord Meghnad Desai | on PBS

Read through-Hindu Rate Of Growth. Stability, not strength.

 

[Contrarian]

That neither the situation on the Durand nor Kashmir is going to change is precisely why I argued that a stable Pakistan also means a militarily strong Pakistan, since the continuation of those two issues means that its two neighbors will remain hostile and dangerous entities. To cope with any potential threat arising from the regional situation the military will have to remain strong.

So once again, a stable Pakistan in the absence of a resolution of disputes in the neighborhood automatically means a militarily strong Pakistan.

Pakistan is in favor of permanency of the Durand, per the historic agreement that exists. It is Afghanistan that has to learn to accept and respect the agreement.

Accepting Kashmir does not affect Pakistan's progress, so long as we continue on the current path of not actively supporting the violent aspect of the insurgency, unless you are implying that India is destabilizing Pakistan because of its non-acceptance.

Bringing Kashmir into everything and trying to change the status quo is what has brought Pakistan into its current state-directly or indirectly, it has harmed Pakistan much much more in comparison to her attempt to harm India.

The current path is not something Pakistan did out of introspection and hindsight. It was and is imposed on Pakistan. What makes you think that Pakistan wont revert back to the old ways?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Bringing Kashmir into everything and trying to change the status quo is what has brought Pakistan into its current state-directly or indirectly, it has harmed Pakistan much much more in comparison to her attempt to harm India.

The current path is not something Pakistan did out of introspection and hindsight. It was and is imposed on Pakistan. What makes you think that Pakistan wont revert back to the old ways?

Completely disagree.

The current state has been solely due to the geo-politics played out in Afghanistan. Had the cold war not brought the Soviets and the US to Afghanistan, even with continued support of the violent aspect of the Kashmir insurgency, Pakistan would not have faced the blow back it is now.

The current state has everything to do with the events in Afghanistan, not all under Pakistani control or Pakistani influence, and little to do with Kashmir, unless you are implying an Indian role in destabilizing Pakistan, as the author suggests.

And to reiterate, focusing on the non-violent aspect of Kashmiri self-determination does nothing to retard Pakistan's progress, unless India is destabilizing Pakistan for it.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Commanding Heights : Lord Meghnad Desai | on PBS

Read through-Hindu Rate Of Growth. Stability, not strength.

Could you post the relevant excerpts and what exactly the point is that you are trying to make?

 

[Contrarian]

The current state has been solely due to the geo-politics played out in Afghanistan. Had the cold war not brought the Soviets and the US to Afghanistan, even with continued support of the violent aspect of the Kashmir insurgency, Pakistan would not have faced the blow back it is now.

The current state has everything to do with the events in Afghanistan, not all under Pakistani control or Pakistani influence, and little to do with Kashmir, unless you are implying an Indian role in destabilizing Pakistan, as the author suggests.

I am not implying that. What i am implying is that Pakistan sided with the US in the first place to get the military aid and funding to match India. The reason why Pakistan was in the US camp was India.

Leaving apart that point-even after US left Afghanistan, Pakistan decided to divert the Jehadis comming out from Afghanistan and continued to build and expand on what was started by the US to target India-specifically create a massive insurgency in Kashmir. After 9/11, US started and entered Afghanistan, and now you are having this because jehadis are using Pakistan(as they always did) to launch attacks on US troops in Afghanistan. Pakistan has had to(under immense US pressure) exert its control for the first time in its history in FATA/NFWP-which has lead to this crisis.

And to reiterate, focusing on the non-violent aspect of Kashmiri self-determination does nothing to retard Pakistan's progress, unless India is destabilizing Pakistan for it.

Yes, it has nothing to do with Pakistan's progress till it is non violent and diplomatic support. Sadly that is not what Pakistan has done, it has engaged heavily in supporting an armed struggle in Kashmir, which is what has brought this turmoil to Pakistan. It is this desire to take Kashmir by any means which has brought you the military rule successively, and its consequences are there to see.

 

[Contrarian]

Could you post the relevant excerpts and what exactly the point is that you are trying to make?

INTERVIEWER: The other expression used to describe Indian stagnation was the "Hindu rate of growth." Could you explain what that meant?

LORD MEGHNAD DESAI: India between 1950 and 1980 had a very sluggish rate of growth. It was only about 3.5 percent per annum in total, which means in per capital terms is only about 1 percent per annum. There's a big debate as to why the growth rate was so low. The economists have an explanation for growth rate which they call the secular rate of growth.... So an Indian economist ... described it as the Hindu rate of growth. ... India was stuck with this rate of growth. It was India's own contribution to stagnation.