Stable Pakistan not in India’s interest

[Kasrkin]

Lets see then.

 

[U-571]

Pakistan’s breakup will be a major setback to the Jihad Factory, which functions with the help of its army and the ISI. This in turn will ease pressures on India and the international community.

wht a language here!!!

With China’s one arm, i.e. Pakistan disabled, its expansionist plans will receive a severe jolt. Beijing continues to pose another primary threat to New Delhi. Even as we continue to engage with it as constructively as possible, we must strive to remove the proxy.

why india always underestimates pakistan, is it like a disease or smething, pakistan is not playing china, pakistan has its own role in the region!!!

At the same time, it is prudent to extend moral support to the people of Tibet to sink Chinese expansionism in the morass of insurgency. For a change, let us do to them what they do to us.

and they say, strong china is in our interests, since china has huge investment in india!!!

With disintegration of ISI’s inimical activities of infiltration and pushing of fake currency into India, from Nepal and Bangladesh will cease. Within the Union social harmony will improve enormously. Export of Islamic fundamentalism, with its 360-degree sweep from Islamabad, will vanish. Even a country like Thailand will heave a sigh of relief.

it is the divided muslims tht india face less muslim influence, imagine the united muslim pressure on india!!!, stable pakistan in indias interest

At the height of the recent disturbances in the Valley, when a general asked me for a suggestion to resolve the issue, I said: “ Remove Pakistan. The threat will disappear permanently.” Today the collapse of Pakistan as a state is almost certain. All the King’s men cannot save it from itself.

a typical indian thinking!!!

 

[jeypore]

Contrary to the views of the author I believe a stable Pakistan would be in the interest of the India. Even if Pakistan breaks up this will lead to more unstability in the region. Remember before 1971 India had one country of worry about and that was Pakistan. Now they have Bangladesh and Pakistan to worry about. What do Indians want four more Pakistans.

Any ways thats not going to happen so keep on dreamingits good for health

I agree with you 100%. It would create lots of refugee for example.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I agree with you 100%. It would create lots of refugee for example.

Is that the only reason for opposing the authors views? That refugees would harm India?

 

[U-571]

I agree with you 100%. It would create lots of refugee for example.

a very good example of a typical indian state of mind, why u ppl always burning like hell inside??, r u ppl malnourished in ur home country???

 

[Contrarian]

Contrary to the views of the author I believe a stable Pakistan would be in the interest of the India.

Yes, i believe so as well. But the problem or contradiction here lies that whenever Pakistani Generals, in effect Pakistan's leaders have sensed that they are in a relatively strong and stable position, they try to change the status quo by force. That is worrisome and that is what history has shown of Pakistan.

If that is the trend, and it has been till now then a strong Pakistan is not in India's favour. However if that attitude changes, or Pakistan develops some sort of stake in India's development, this would change immediately.

Even if Pakistan breaks up this will lead to more unstability in the region. Remember before 1971 India had one country of worry about and that was Pakistan. Now they have Bangladesh and Pakistan to worry about. What do Indians want four more Pakistans.

Any ways thats not going to happen so keep on dreamingits good for health

Well no, in that particular case, it is far better to have BD and Pakistan rather than Pakistan alone in the threat matrix. One large country is a more powerful counterweight, in terms of military, economy and influence(size alone gives a lot of influence) than 2 small countries. From a military POV, it is exactly how it should be, 2 smaller but separate states, that are not failing like Afghanistan, that is, they can exist as a cohesive entity and exert control.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yes, i believe so as well. But the problem or contradiction here lies that whenever Pakistani Generals, in effect Pakistan's leaders have sensed that they are in a relatively strong and stable position, they try to change the status quo by force. That is worrisome and that is what history has shown of Pakistan.

If that is the trend, and it has been till now then a strong Pakistan is not in India's favour. However if that attitude changes, or Pakistan develops some sort of stake in India's development, this would change immediately.

That is not entirely correct - Pakistan under a military leadership, and a status of 'stability' has initiated a war only once - 1965 - that could be considered a means of 'changing the status quo'. The Kargil conflict was quite deliberately kept localized, and was conducted at a time when Pakistan was under sanctions and economically quite weak.

In fact the 1971 war showed that it was India that was willing to take advantage of an 'unstable' Pakistan and damage her.

So I do not buy the argument that the military has used stability to change the status quo forcefully. I think Pakistan has gone through various strategies, regardless of its 'stability', to resolve Kashmir.

Well no, in that particular case, it is far better to have BD and Pakistan rather than Pakistan alone in the threat matrix. One large country is a more powerful counterweight, in terms of military, economy and influence(size alone gives a lot of influence) than 2 small countries. From a military POV, it is exactly how it should be, 2 smaller but separate states, that are not failing like Afghanistan, that is, they can exist as a cohesive entity and exert control.

It actually works out better from Pakistan's military perspective to have a territorially cohesive country to defend. The resources and investment required to maintain two military industrial complexes in two wings, which is what woudl be required to keep both wings equally secure, would be quite high.

 

[Kasrkin]

Yes, i believe so as well. But the problem or contradiction here lies that whenever Pakistani Generals, in effect Pakistan's leaders have sensed that they are in a relatively strong and stable position, they try to change the status quo by force. That is worrisome and that is what history has shown of Pakistan.

As opposed to what? India shying away from a confrontation by deploying half a million troops and conducting offensive and clearly provocative 'exercises' (Brasstracks) for no real reason only to retreat after Pakistan Army makes counter-deployments?

If we 'provoked' you in 1965 then what exactly was it that you did in 1971? And lets not forget who provoked the Rann of Kutch war. Hate to burst your bubble but India is no angel especially in the case of Pakistan. Siachen was also (and is) is a completely retarded and pointless act of aggression on behalf of India.

Yes, i believe so as well. But the problem or contradiction here lies that whenever Pakistani Generals, in effect Pakistan's leaders have sensed that they are in a relatively strong and stable position, they try to change the status quo by force. That is worrisome and that is what history has shown of Pakistan.

If that is the trend, and it has been till now then a strong Pakistan is not in India's favour. However if that attitude changes, or Pakistan develops some sort of stake in India's development, this would change immediately.

Please note Agnostic Muslim, another approval of the article. This guy obviously thinks, what was it? Yes...only if "Pakistan develops some sort of stake in India's development" then trying to dismember Pakistan will be a bad idea. This is obviously not the case right now(and will never be) so basicly he thinks its quite okay to destablize Pakistan at the moment because Pakistan will try to "change the status-quo" if they dont.

 

[Contrarian]

That is not entirely correct - Pakistan under a military leadership, and a status of 'stability' has initiated a war only once - 1965 - that could be considered a means of 'changing the status quo'. The Kargil conflict was quite deliberately kept localized, and was conducted at a time when Pakistan was under sanctions and economically quite weak.

India was under sanctions as well and was only starting to prosper at that time. That does not take away from the fact that Pakistan tried to change the status quo in Kargil.

I reiterate, Pakistan has launched a war whenever it felt it could change the status quo, and in that vein, a strong Pakistan might be inclined to do the same again in the future. And a strong Pakistan entails a stronger military, which means more resources to carry out the same objective.

I'd rather have just a stable Pakistan as opposed to a strong Pakistan, TILL the time, Pakistan develops a stake in India's growth-via trade for example. If Pakistan's industries depended on Indian goods and vice-verce the powerful business lobies in both countries wont allow war.

And bear in mind this, that Pakistan has been consciously trying to prevent this interdependence. It has consistently opposed any freedom in trade with India from bilateral to SAFTA, by saying that Kashmir needs to be resolved before any trade liberalization. This is completely opposite to India and China's approach whereby they are both promoting trade before the border problems resolution.

In fact the 1971 war showed that it was India that was willing to take advantage of an 'unstable' Pakistan and damage her.

Yes, you hardly expect your rival to keep mum and constantly be attacked!

So I do not buy the argument that the military has used stability to change the status quo forcefully. I think Pakistan has gone through various strategies, regardless of its 'stability', to resolve Kashmir.

The strategies have always been around 2 things-direct military intervention along with the irregular's support. Right from '47-when the 'local people' attacked, to 65-when Pakistan sent in irregulars and then the Army, to '99 when again it sent in the army as irregulars, what has changed? The strategy has been the very same right from the start. You tell me what has changed and how for i am missing your point here.

It actually works out better from Pakistan's military perspective to have a territorially cohesive country to defend. The resources and investment required to maintain two military industrial complexes in two wings, which is what woudl be required to keep both wings equally secure, would be quite high.

Good if it works out better for Pakistan's military as well. I was only talking from an Indian perspective. Its no longer about the military mate, its about influence, economy, resources, depth and a host of other things. From that perspective, it is much better to have a BD and Pakistan rather than one big Pakistan which would equal India.

 

[Kasrkin]

It actually works out better from Pakistan's military perspective to have a territorially cohesive country to defend. The resources and investment required to maintain two military industrial complexes in two wings, which is what woudl be required to keep both wings equally secure, would be quite high.

And as it is, the Bengalis never joined the military when they were part of Pakistan because they did not like the idea of having to fight for Kashmirs or Punjabis. Now on the other hand they are more than happy to join and defend their 'desh'. Besides defending Pakistan in two wings was and would still be a military nightmare, particularily with India smack in the middle. I think I am much more happy with his arrangment and as it is the cultural and physical difference between the 2 wings would have severely diluted any 'influence' we might have been able to exert on anyone.

 

[Vanguard_786]

Why are Pakistani's on this forum so jolted by this article ? The author talks abouts Indian interest . If Pakistan does break up ( a long shot) then only Pakistanis will be to blame!

Do you think India was responsible for the breakup of Pakistan in 1971 ? Yes, India facilitated it but the seeds of destruction were sown long before India and RAW sponsored Mukti Vahini intervened ?

The need for the hour is for Pakistan to stand united

 

[muse]

Here's a counter point:


Pakistan is India's first line of defence
Gulfnews: Pakistan is India's first line of defence

09/27/2008 12:05 AM | By Kuldip Nayar, Special to Gulf News



The burning of Hotel Marriot at Islamabad that Indian TVs showed at length and repeatedly is still etched in the memory of the horrified people. They are worried about Pakistan. Even the hawks do not conceal their anxiety. The intelligentsia's concern is that the nascent democratic government might not be able to cope with the Al Qaida-Taliban and might have to depend on the military which would want its price.

People do not know how far the Al Qaida-Taliban combine has penetrated Pakistan. But the belief is that the Federally Administered Tribal Area (FATA), Waziristan and, to a large extent, the North West Frontier Province (NWFP), is under the control of the Taliban. Were they to "capture" more territory, what would be its effect on India is the greatest worry. President Asif Ali Zardari's remark that "the Taliban have an upper hand" is all the more unnerving. America agrees with him.

A Pakistani television commentator has challenged Prime Minister Yousuf Reza Gilani to travel from Kohat to Banu. The commentator's contention is that the Pakistan government has already "withdrawn" from this area.

If this is true, there is some truth in the repeated allegation that former president Pervez Musharraf, even when he wore the uniform, was never serious about curbing the Al Qaida-Taliban. He found it an effective way to mulct America.

That he connived at the intervention of the US troops on Pakistani soil is an open secret. In contrast, Zardari's statement or that of the Chief of Army Staff Pervez Kiyani that Pakistan's sovereignty would not be allowed to be trifled with has come as a welcome surprise.

Islamabad is defending its territory and there are signs of it when its guns drove away the American helicopters the other day. Pakistan is careful not to engage the superpower but whatever Islamabad is doing to keep its dignity intact needs to be commended.

I do not think that Al Qaida-Taliban is seeking territory in Pakistan. They want northern areas which would help them recapture Afghanistan which was under their rule until they were toppled.

In fact, the US is responsible for the birth of the Taliban. During the Cold War when Washington wanted to bleed Moscow to death, America trained and armed fundamentalists to oust the irreligious Soviet Union from Afghanistan.

America won the Cold War when the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of what happened to it in Afghanistan. Those fundamentalists are today's Taliban and they have the weapons which were liberally provided by America.

What is not probably appreciated amply is that Pakistan's war against Taliban is India's war too. If ever Pakistan goes under, India's first line of defence would collapse. The Taliban would have secured the launching pad to attack India's values of democracy and liberalism which do not fit into their scheme of things.

Terrorism is the means, Talibalistan is the end. New Delhi and Islamabad should jointly fight against the menace.

There is a lesson for New Delhi which is a sad picture of inaction and ineptness when assessed in terms of action taken against communal forces. Law and order has always been a state subject. Still the centre's response was lukewarm.

It sent to Orissa, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Kerala an advice on the lines of Article 355 which enjoins upon the Union to protect states against external aggression and internal disturbance. Had New Delhi's order gone under Article 355 itself, the fundamentalist Bajrang Dal would not have openly butchered Christians and burnt churches. Surprisingly, there is no ban on Bajrang Dal.

New Delhi has done well in rejecting the demand of BJP for bringing back the Prevention of Terrorists Activities Act (POTA) which authorised the state to detain people for months without trial. The act was used against the Naxalites and Muslims mercilessly. In this atmosphere, the Muslims would have been the target.

This is what has happened after the encounter at Zakir Bagh at Delhi where two terrorists and one police inspector were killed. The debate over the veracity of the "encounter" is still raging. The locality believes it was stage managed. Why such a feeling arises is because of the credibility gap between the people and the authorities.

The matter is much more serious: Muslims and Christians have lost faith in the fairness of the state. This will be hard to restore if the secular forces do not assert themselves and retrieve Muslims, Christians and, more so, the Hindus from the bias and prejudice in which many are stuck.

Kuldip Nayar is a former Indian High Commissioner to the UK and a former Rajya Sabha MP.

 

[Spring Onion]

Well, we need to have the courtesy to atleast ask for a response/opinion before forming our own.

Not all Indians are necessarily rabid Pakistan haters like the author of this article.

Well Agno i would say that it is also not necessary that this and other such authors are rabid Pakistan haters or they hold such an irrational attitude towards their rivals but the main purpose of such articles and analysis or more appropriatly to say suggesting policy line to the authorities concerend.

And Defence Review type of monthly mags are aimed at formulating the opinion of the policy makers in governement and defence pretaining to the security and geo-political intrests within the reigion and at global level.

Such kind of articles suggesting harsh steps and real policy of a governement are not much for public consumption as at public level governements do PR by bluffing them using catchy slogans like "We want to see Pakistan stable."

And whenever we see hawkish policies arround the world we need to understand why hawkish analysts are there associted with concerned departments that are moulding policies.

As far Indian Pakistan-centeric fears and thinking, its a reality that no matter India is aspiring for becoming world power, no matter India is trying to compete with China, the fact will remain that India will always be Pakistani-centric.

Its a compulsion even if they dont want but keeping in view the hegmonic aspirations of India almost all the smaller countries in the region will be looking forward to Pakistan.
Any collaboration between other countries of the region with Pakistan does matter to India.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

India was under sanctions as well and was only starting to prosper at that time. That does not take away from the fact that Pakistan tried to change the status quo in Kargil.

I reiterate, Pakistan has launched a war whenever it felt it could change the status quo, and in that vein, a strong Pakistan might be inclined to do the same again in the future. And a strong Pakistan entails a stronger military, which means more resources to carry out the same objective.

I'd rather have just a stable Pakistan as opposed to a strong Pakistan, TILL the time, Pakistan develops a stake in India's growth-via trade for example. If Pakistan's industries depended on Indian goods and vice-verce the powerful business lobies in both countries wont allow war.

And bear in mind this, that Pakistan has been consciously trying to prevent this interdependence. It has consistently opposed any freedom in trade with India from bilateral to SAFTA, by saying that Kashmir needs to be resolved before any trade liberalization. This is completely opposite to India and China's approach whereby they are both promoting trade before the border problems resolution.
[/quote[

1947 also involved the Maharajah initiating a violent crackdown against the residents of Kashmir, which did initially invite smaller numbers of Tribals to flock there, later turned into a somewhat more organized effort by Pakistan.

But given the Maharajah's atrocities preceding the Tribal invasion, and heart rending violence of partition, it cannot be considered a cut and dry case of 'outside aggression', nor can it by any means be considered aggression against India, since Kashmir was not part of India at that point as there had been no accession (not that the conditions for plebiscite were fulfilled later on either).

Yes, you hardly expect your rival to keep mum and constantly be attacked!

Again, barring 1965, there is no case to be made of being 'constantly attacked', and therefore 1971 was outright and unjustified aggression by India, which in fact makes a strong case for Pakistan to be both stable and strong, as India has chosen to attack it and destabilize it further when it isn't both of the above - the same arguments the author makes against Pakistan being stable and strong apply to India as well when viewed in the light of 1971 and Siachen.

The strategies have always been around 2 things-direct military intervention along with the irregular's support. Right from '47-when the 'local people' attacked, to 65-when Pakistan sent in irregulars and then the Army, to '99 when again it sent in the army as irregulars, what has changed? The strategy has been the very same right from the start. You tell me what has changed and how for i am missing your point here.

I tried to explain the dynamics behind 1947, after that, Pakistan's strategy has always bee to a large part due to India's refusal to implement UNSC resolutions and the condition f plebiscite in the IoA. India unilaterally chose to rule out the recommended legal and diplomatic solutions, not Pakistan.

Good if it works out better for Pakistan's military as well. I was only talking from an Indian perspective. Its no longer about the military mate, its about influence, economy, resources, depth and a host of other things. From that perspective, it is much better to have a BD and Pakistan rather than one big Pakistan which would equal India.

While economy and resources are indeed vital, the viability of defending a nation is still important - Operation Parakaram indicated that India was willing to escalate tensions on the pretext of terrorism, and a Pakistan divided into two wings would have been a nightmare to defend unless we had an astronomical investment to maintain equivalent military industrial complexes in both wings.

East Pakistan did not offer strategic depth, it in fact divided Pakistan's strategic resources. An alliance based on shared interests and values with an independent Bangladesh serves Pakistan better.

 

[Contrarian]

1947 also involved the Maharajah initiating a violent crackdown against the residents of Kashmir, which did initially invite smaller numbers of Tribals to flock there, later turned into a somewhat more organized effort by Pakistan.

But given the Maharajah's atrocities preceding the Tribal invasion, and heart rending violence of partition, it cannot be considered a cut and dry case of 'outside aggression', nor can it by any means be considered aggression against India, since Kashmir was not part of India at that point as there had been no accession (not that the conditions for plebiscite were fulfilled later on either).

I take your case, since at the time of agression in '47, Kashmir was not a part of India.

Again, barring 1965, there is no case to be made of being 'constantly attacked', and therefore 1971 was outright and unjustified aggression by India, which in fact makes a strong case for Pakistan to be both stable and strong, as India has chosen to attack it and destabilize it further when it isn't both of the above - the same arguments the author makes against Pakistan being stable and strong apply to India as well when viewed in the light of 1971 and Siachen.

Siachen was an unoccupied area, India chose to occupy it. Kargil OTOH was in the Indian side of the LoC, and the Pakistani Army chose to occupy the bunkers constructed by India! There is a major difference b/w Siachen and Kargil.

I tried to explain the dynamics behind 1947, after that, Pakistan's strategy has always bee to a large part due to India's refusal to implement UNSC resolutions and the condition f plebiscite in the IoA. India unilaterally chose to rule out the recommended legal and diplomatic solutions, not Pakistan.

Hang on Agno, I disagree, Pakistan did not fulfill its own obligations as well-demilitarization. But lets assume that even if India chose to rule out the recommended legal and diplomatic solutions, does Pakistan get full authority to constantly try and change the status quo by force?

You said Pakistan's strategy regarding Kashmir has changed over the years. I ask you-how? They used irregulars and Army in '47, '65, '99, what was the difference? What was the change of strategy?

While economy and resources are indeed vital, the viability of defending a nation is still important - Operation Parakaram indicated that India was willing to escalate tensions on the pretext of terrorism, and a Pakistan divided into two wings would have been a nightmare to defend unless we had an astronomical investment to maintain equivalent military industrial complexes in both wings.

Therein lies the problem, had Pakistan not decided to use terrorists to put pressure on India, because it could not match India's military conventionally, such a situation would not have occured.

East Pakistan did not offer strategic depth, it in fact divided Pakistan's strategic resources. An alliance based on shared interests and values with an independent Bangladesh serves Pakistan better.

You are completely missing the point of having a large nation, even if divided right at the center. Then Pakistan would have truely been a counterweight to India, now its not.