Can you please give me a few examples Good Sir. Name me a couple of instances where in the face of Indian demands, Pakistan backed off and accepted Indian's demands.
To this, i have quoted Bang Galore
India does not have to worry about making Pakistan stand down, Pakistan does that brilliantly itself. Lets just take a look at what Pakistan has done for its interests vis-a-vis India. Most agree that Pakistan's primary aim (I'm not taking crazy ideas of destruction of India/hoisting Pakistani flag on red fort etc into account) is to get a settlement on Kashmir, one that is in favour of Pakistan. What is it exactly that Pakistan has done on that score? When Vajpayee embarked on his Lahore bus yatra, Pakistan's position on Kashmir was probably at it's best; the nuclear weapons granted unprecedented parity, Kashmir was still burning & Pakistan had on the Indian side, a PM wanting to make peace, indeed believing that it could be done. Any settlement in1999-2000 would have (most probably) included some land transfers. Kargil ended that idea. The Pakistan army, the saviour of India territorial integrity...the delicious irony! The coup which followed, the terrorist attack on the Indian parliament of 2001 & the attack on the army families in 2002 made sure that nothing happened during the intervening period. The 2001 attacks in America was a good stroke of luck for India because it made everyone more receptive to allegations of Pakistan being a state sponsor of terrorism. Only towards the end of 2005-06 did backroom channels come up with an outline for settlement of Kashmir, only this time involving no land transfers but with Pakistan having a bigger say. A change in government in Pakistan to a civilian one changed matters because they decided that some demonstrations in Kashmir meant that they could push for more. The Mumbai attacks of 2008 followed which effectively nixed any negotiations on Kashmir till date. The intervening period since 1999 has seen India's economy outpace Pakistan's substantially making Pakistan's position more & more unequal. Where does that leave your "core" issue? You are being effectively forced to stand down from your positions which grows even weaker with every passing year.
In view of the above, it may be more prudent to suggest that Pakistan has no bigger enemy than Pakistan itself.
I can also add many instances where Pakistan has backed down.
1. Pakistan started off demanding UNSC resolutions to be implemented ie plebicite in Kashmir.
Then Musharraf came and he agreed to a non plebicite formula to which India had agreed.
Today even Musharraf's ideas are considered too radical and India will not consider any such idea, at best it is being considered to allow free movement b/w 2 kashmir's with no other change apart from withdrawing COIN forces. Pakistani leaders have started making noises about how Kashmir should be put on backburner. Do you see a continuous dilution in what Pakistan is willing to accept in its core issue?
2. Trade. Pakistan started off saying no trade till core issue was resolved. Today Pakistan's leaders say put kashmir on backburner and trade. Something India always wanted as it will eventually give us great leverage over Pakistan. PA knows this as well.
3. Pakistan wanted India to demilitarize Siachen, India wanted AGPL authentication before any other movement in Siachen. I hope you are also aware what many Pakistani commentators pointed out when PA did not want to go for authentication - that any such authentication if accepted by Pakistan will automatically give legitimacy to Indian presence and the lines it holds!
I hope you are reading what has been happening in Track II. Pakistan has informally agreed to authenticating AGPL.
4. India had opposed and stopped Pakistan from getting textile trade concessions from EU. It is only after India leveraged this and used as a bargaining chip for other issues that Pakistan was allowed those concessions.
This is just off the top of my head. There would be many more.
You just cannot stop a rising India from exploiting its growing clout. Pakistan will increasingly have to go on the backfoot.
That more has to do with Pakistan's priorities shifting to her Western borders, and also some of our misguided leaders whom are under the spell that Indian leaders want peace.
There is a reason why Pakistan's priorities has shifted to the Western borders. It is not by default but by design.
India is 7 times bigger than Pakistan, thus it is obvious that her economy and military budget would be 7 times bigger than Pakistan's. The reason why India is slowly becoming the darling of west is because of the Indian market which consists of 1.2 billion consumers and in hopes of using India as a counterweight against China.
The strategy of minimum credible deterrence has worked quite well for Pakistan
India is infact only 3.6 times bigger than Pakistan. Please dont choose the biggest variable you can find - in this case population - to justify anything.
India is becoming a darling of the west for many reasons, one of which is the market. India is growing her economy. With it comes diplomatic might and military might.
Something Pakistan cannot keep matching even in terms of minimum detterence. Your minimum deterrence would have to keep increasing to match India's increase, but your economy is not growing at the same pace as India's for over a decade now to match it.
Pray tell me, when was the last time Pakistan backed off either diplomatically or militarily against India? The minimum deterrence has worked quite well for Pakistan, that is why there has not been any war. An Indian airstrike carried without any impunity or IA/BSF firing mortars and artillery shells inside Pakistan without impunity would equate to Pakistan backing down. But that has not happened, every time Indian Forces have acted belligerent Pakistani Forces have replied in kind. You would have a better argument that India has successfully managed to make Bangladesh, Nepal or Bhutan back down. You can mock the minimum credible deterrence all you want, but on ground it has worked wonders for Pakistan and i am a man who believes that 'Actions speak louder than words'.
Actions have been mentioned above. While you are seeking a humiliating withdrawal or retreat of Pakistan against India, like how India forces Bangladesh, to justify India making Pakistan back down. This is only tactical and represents overwhelming superiority. We have not achieved that yet.
Instead i am showing you examples of how and where Pakistan is diluting her own stand on its demands from India. That is strategically backing down.
As i mentioned before. Your minimum deterrence needs to keep increasing vis-a-vis India as India is expanding faster than ever. However your country is not expanding at the same rate. The gap required for minimum deterrence levels thus keeps increasing for Pakistan.
As i said before, Pakistan till 2 decades back considered minimum deterrence much higher than what it considers now. There is a reason for this.
The question the Indian public should be asking is why with all these billions spent, the balance of power is still the same in the Indo-Pak scenario. India still cannot punish Pakistan for actions she considers unacceptable and naughty.
The effect of the billions spent is more than visible on Pakistan. Military might is only required in some cases. Our objectives are being achieved in Pakistan today without using military, but military capability increasing acting as a catalyst for our designs in Pakistan.
The sheer frustration is quite visible on the IA as it is trying to implement new doctrines in hopes that it might work against Pakistan, and deliver the quick victory the masses and the political masters want. If India could punish Pakistan as you state India can, believe me her reaction would have been very different after the Mumbai attacks. Lots of noise was made from the Indian side, but nothing tangible came off it.
Ofcourse IA is not capable enough to take out PA with minimum losses. That is why money is now being poured over it and it is undergoing a transformation - slowly. Where as IAF and IN today out range, out gun PAF much more than
ever before. That is because those are the areas India focused on for the last decade!
And this is where you fail and fall for the typical Pakistani justification. Just because we have the military capability does not mean we will use it. India may do saber rattling, some provocations here and there, but India realizes war will set her back decades. India as a nation is much more economy and growth oriented than Pakistan. The priority in India is growth. It cannot be risked for war.
Instead, the same objectives can be met by non military means. Something that is being met in Pakistan. Today India is achieving all it wants in Pakistan without having to put its military even on alert status! You assume that India will attack the day it achieves the capability to do so. And equate India not attacking to not having the capability. India thinks differently.
That is something your war planners have already executed. Support Pakistan specific terrorist groups with weapons and money to keep the instability going, but not to the extent where it risks the collapse of the State, which indirectly ensures that the economy stays in the dump. Thus IMO, India has delivered a master stroke, some of my fellow countrymen are just too dumb to see this.
You give India too much credit here. No doubt today Pakistan is just where India wants her to be. But the vast majority of the reason why Pakistan is in this condition is because of Pakistan's own actions - that of rearing terrorist groups on its own soil and even more importantly, using its own citizens for terrorist activities. You radicalized your own society to achieve what you thought were national objectives! You used religion - There is always a blowback! You are facing it.
What you are facing today is not because of India. It is because of Pakistan's decisions taken 2 decades ago.
India is merely acting as a catalyst. You are mistaking the woods for the forest.
