What's new

Time to shun the past

^^^ Oh so a group in the US is appealing for support for violent insurgents in the sovereign territory of another country.

I am sure some of the post 911 legislation can be used to jail some of these people - but then again, are they acting against US interests.

Another Baluch group is based in Israel...
 
.
Time to shun the past

By Iqbal Ahmad Khan

Wednesday, 22 Jul, 2009

A policy of confrontation with India contains within itself the seeds of our destruction and must be avoided like the plague. It has become a millstone around our neck. At the heart of Pakistan’s foreign and security policies lies India and at the heart of our India policy lies Kashmir, Pakistan’s jugular vein as the country’s founder described it.

Kashmir has bedeviled Pakistan-India relations, is the source of insecurity and instability in the region and a cause of serious concern for the international community.

India reneged on its commitments to Pakistan, the United Nations and the Kashmiris to the holding of a plebiscite in the state. Six rounds of Bhutto-Swaran Singh talks, focused entirely on Kashmir, in 1962-3, proved inconclusive. The negotiations took place in the wake of India’s Himalayan debacle at the hands of China and on the serious prodding of the United States and Great Britain.

Having exhausted the path of diplomacy with an intransigent India, Pakistan embarked on a strategy to bring India to the table in a serious and meaningful engagement on the dispute. In 1965 Pakistan launched Operation Gibraltar in a bid to get Kashmiris to rise against their Indian occupiers. That did not happen. Instead, Pakistan and India got involved in a full-scale war, which neither could afford. After 17 days both were exhausted.

Whatever implications the war might have had for India, its consequences for Pakistan were disastrous. The perceived economic growth that Pakistan had been enjoying for several years and which was widely quoted as a model for Third World countries came to an abrupt halt. Western sanctions were imposed on Pakistan; East Pakistanis were extremely disenchanted leading Mujibur Rahman to launch his six-point programme and the country was engulfed in political turmoil. Six years later Pakistan was embroiled in another war with India. Its outcome was the disintegration of the country.

The East Pakistan tragedy should have prompted an earnest and urgent review of our policy towards India. The security establishment, however, was successful in having recommendations of the Hamoodur Rahman Commission report, which called for the trial of Gen Yahya and his confederacy of generals, shelved. It also managed to have high priority assigned and substantial resources allocated to the rebuilding of the armed forces. After all, East Pakistan had to be avenged.

The military, once again, began to loom large in Pakistan’s politics leading to its logical conclusion. Not only was the democratic government overthrown in a coup d’état, but Pakistan’s most popular and accomplished prime minister was dispatched to the gallows.

The Indian factor again played a major role in Pakistan’s reaction to the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghanistan. The military dictator, who had usurped power on July 5, 1977, enthusiastically embraced the US which lent a new lease of life to his shaky and sanctioned government. The uni-dimensional military-based relationship with the US improved the military balance vis-à-vis India.

The victory of the Mujahideen against a superpower prompted him and his coterie of generals to (a) adopt the ‘strategic depth’ doctrine by ensuring that the new regime in Kabul should be so ingratiated to Pakistan as to invariably do its bidding; (b) employ the CIA-ISI Mujahideen model, successfully used in the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, against India in occupied Kashmir. The former strategy led to the emergence of the Taliban Frankenstein; the latter to such jihadi outfits as the Lashkar-i-Taiba, Jaish-i-Mohammad and the Harkat-ul-Ansar.

It did not take long for Al Qaeda, the Taliban and others to establish a nexus for the use of terror against their adversaries. Neither were the Taliban able to provide strategic depth, nor were the jihadis able to coerce India into settling the Kashmir dispute. The policy, in fact, dangerously backfired, with these battle-hardened and self-sustaining militants posing an existentialist threat to Pakistan itself.

As if the failure of our strategy was not enough of a setback, an emboldened military embarked upon a course that brought serious embarrassment and disgrace to the country. The overthrow in October 1999 of a legally constituted, democratically elected popular government was a direct consequence of the Kargil episode — once again the outcome of our policy of confronting India.

The multiple wars and skirmishes with India (futile at best) and the ensuing instability and insecurity in the region have adversely impacted on the internal political dynamics of Pakistan. The imbalance of a powerful military and a fragile democracy has seriously undermined the political process and impaired the healthy growth of civil institutions. The pursuit of highly ambitious and inherently unrealistic policies of ‘strategic depth’ and ‘coercive diplomacy’ have overstretched our limited resources and subjected our foreign relations to avoidable stresses.

A policy of confrontation with India — and its close cousins militancy and coup d’états — contains within itself the seeds of our destruction and must be avoided like the plague. It has become a millstone around our neck.

The real threat to Pakistan comes not from India, but from militant extremism. The second biggest source of instability emanates, also not from India, but from the widespread poverty and the low levels of human development that characterise our society. We need to divert the enormous time and resources that we continue to invest in our confrontation with India towards fighting militancy and getting rid of the all-pervasive poverty, ignorance and disease.

Pakistan’s history and its present precarious condition demand a serious and honest appraisal of its traditional India policy with the objective of establishing a close, cooperative and tension-free relationship. Realpolitik and sound common sense dictate that Pakistan and India should live in peace and friendship.

The proposed change in our India policy is not tantamount to an acceptance of India’s hegemony. On the contrary, an economically vibrant, politically stable, socially cohesive nuclear Pakistan with 170 million economically empowered, healthy and educated citizens should be able to exude enough confidence and maturity to deter any entity contemplating domination.


Where do I begin?

A policy of confrontation with India contains within itself the seeds of our destruction and must be avoided like the plague.

What Pakistan has is a defense policy, a policy of actively countering Indian hegemony in South Asia. In fact, this in itself contributes a lot to regional peace, the fact that we have a powerful military allows for negotiations and peace time. So, the answer is not to cut back on military spending especially at a crucial juncture in this historical period and the threats we are facing, WoT, Baluchistan separatism, and foreign covert aggression, and as always Kashmir liberation.

Six years later Pakistan was embroiled in another war with India. Its outcome was the disintegration of the country.

The East Pakistan tragedy should have prompted an earnest and urgent review of our policy towards India.

Pakistan did not instigate this event nor was it the provocateur (1971) war. Indian RAW was covertly supporting, training, and arming Mukti Bahini and East Pakistani insurgents years before 1971, this is an act of War by India. The article tries to present this event as if it was caused by "Pakistan's policy of confrontation."

The overthrow in October 1999 of a legally constituted, democratically elected popular government was a direct consequence of the Kargil episode — once again the outcome of our policy of confronting India.

Or maybe this was an outcome of bad political leadership and corrupt practices. Besides, the Kargil event help give Gen. Musharraf an opportunity to rise to Presidential Power, which brought positive economic growth rate, economic recovery, foreign investment, foreign aid, Gwadar project initialization and development. Though I understand historian will see this event as the exception and not the rule, Nonetheless my earlier point is accurate as well.


The real threat to Pakistan comes not from India, but from militant extremism. The second biggest source of instability emanates, also not from India, but from the widespread poverty and the low levels of human development that characterise our society. We need to divert the enormous time and resources that we continue to invest in our confrontation with India towards fighting militancy and getting rid of the all-pervasive poverty, ignorance and disease."

Intelligence agency, media, journalist, and Army personnel have suggested and indicated that many of the Militants receive support-weaponry, funding, and more from Indian RAW. So the point the author makes is flawed and illogical.

No one is denying economic hardship and low levels of human development are harmful to the Nation's health, but I am sick and tired of this pathetic and illogical argument that the reason we have low levels of human development, poverty, and 50% literacy, is because of our defense procurements and expenditure. Pakistan spends around 4-5% of it's National GDP on military expenditure this amount is simply not enough to cause a lack of funding for education, health care, infrastructure, schools, and more.

Pakistan can maintain it's military expenditure and still invest significantly in other areas of national development.

We need to divert the enormous time and resources that we continue to invest in our confrontation with India towards fighting militancy and getting rid of the all-pervasive poverty, ignorance and disease."

Yes we should divert enormous time and resources, but this does not come at the expense of challenging Indian hegemony. I understand this may seem as a dilemma for some, but the problem is bad leadership and lack of visionary leaders with discipline and greatness.


Is it time to shun the past? I don't agree with the premise of this question, because these are contemporary issues.

I would like to add, I understand fatigue is growing but previous Muslim generations when confronted with an enemy a kaffir enemy especially they had struggled with that enemy for decades. I'm sure others said let's just make peace or let's just quit fighting, but wise people prevailed and understood that it is not time to put away the Sword.

We are locked in a long strategic confrontation. The sooner people understand this the better.



Understand that Jerusalem was occupied by the Crusaders (in 1099 c.e) for proximately a hundred years before the Muslims recaptured the city under Gen. Salahuddin (may Allah be pleased with him).

People need to learn it takes time, and it will take time.

I would like to remind the Muslim members an interesting quote by a great Muslim leader, you really ought to think about the principal he is promoted that led him and the Muslims to victory in their "policy of confrontation"...

Around the period of 1111-1112 (Siege of Tyre), the Crusaders launched an offensive to capture the Muslim city of Tyre. The people of Tyre specifically Imams and Army personnel there asked Zahir al-Din Atabek The Governor General of Damascus for help in defending Tyre from the Franks-Crusaders, understanding this would put a tremendous burden and strain on Damascus and Zahir al-Din Atabek militarily and financially they promised to give the city of Tyre to him.

After the siege and battle, Crusaders were defeated. Gov. Gen. Zahir Al-Din successfully defended the Muslim city of Tyre from the kaffirs, he was praised as a hero and champion. Not only did he defeat the Crusaders but he dealt a crushing blow to the enemy around 2,000 Crusaders killed and the Muslims suffered 400 deaths...After the victory, the people of Tyre did not give up the city to Zahir al-Din Atabek as promised. Zahir Al-Din Atabek humbly suggested he did not want that either.

And do you know what he said?


"What I have done I have done only for the sake of Allah and the Muslims, nor out of desire for wealth and kingdom.” -Gov. Gen. Zahir Al-Din Atabek

He then returned to Damascus, after many bloody engagements and with financial, military, and health hardships...




P.S I know there are some difference between the two situations but the fundamentals are quite relevant.
 
Last edited:
.
Yes, but to do that you need to have 'bilateral talks and cooperation', and settled boundaries and a lack of suspicion and distrust.

If you suspect your neighbor is a thief who covets your possessions and land, and in fact refuses to accept that it is your land, will you actually give up your weapons?

The talk about 'ohh look at how much progress Pakistan could have made if it gave up its weapons' is just that - talk. At the end of the day there is a reason why Pakistan spends money on its military, and that reason is India, and unless India decides to resolve disputes, one cannot expect unilateral disarmament from Pakistan.

The recent article in Dawn detailing some of the evidence in the dossier given to India by PM Gillani, indicating India's complicity in supporting terrorists in Baluchistan, is a good example of why such advice to Pakistan, of unilateral disarmament, is hogwash.

Without bilateral cooperation there can be no movement.
AM...there can not be any unilateral disarmament...neither can both the countries give up strategic weapons and assets for which many people have toiled so hard...neither do we seek to 'unify' the two nations....but the way we are spending as if we don't expect to see the turn of this century...is what is alarming...and I speak from a spectator POV.
The reports of our contributions to the BLA and their movement are disturbing...and I'd wait for the GoI/GoP to make a clear-cut announcement regarding the details of the dossier or atleast some admission from our side.Most Indians would be happy carrying out their day-to-day work without having to fear a suicide bomb attack or an attack like that on mumbai....and so would most Pakistanis...this assurance that 'non-state' actors would not be tolerated and a sincere effort to curb the grass-root level hatred is I think what both the countries need and expect.
Kashmir would come second.The problem deepens when you link kashmir to the former...when it is let known that there'd be "some non-state actors acting obviously on their own to strengthen the kashmiri cause"...all of it ceases to be productive.
 
.
Do you guys think ever in our lifetimes we will see us becoming one nation again like East and West Germany?

Dont dismiss this fantasy outright ..... people said the same about the Berlin wall till it happened :)

Then we can both enjoy Kashmir ..... and I can ride my Bullet into the beautiful rugged mountains and valleys of *** too (wistful dreamer here!).

Cheers, Doc

my friend dreamer is too small of a word....the whole reason why we made our nation is because we don't FEEL or THINK we are SAME....i mean seriously bro this ain't happening it shouldn't happen...alot of people have sacrificed there lives on both sides for this....we can't let there blood get wasted

i think AM gave a fitting reply however i thought i would put in my two cents....

and just another thing go over to the thread of kasab's trial all you will see is fury anger hatred....so i don't think something like what you think is ever going to be anything BUT a DREAM;)
 
.
NO - nor is there any need or desire for it.

The analogy itself is flawed. East and West Germany were the result of a division by external powers in the wake of a military victory over Nazi Germany.

South Asia on the other hand has hardly even been a united nation, except through the use of military might by emperors, Kings and colonizers.

The creation of Pakistan too was the result of a popular movement led by a political party, in which the people of the provinces comprising Pakistan today chose to be part of an independent nation - Pakistan was not created out of a bifurcation of a nation by an external power against the wishes of its people, as in Germany.


Kashmir can be enjoyed by both by resolving the dispute in accordance with the wishes of the people. If you wish for peace, starting with giving the Kashmiri people their due rights and voice in settling the dispute with Pakistan would be a good step - you can then ride your Bullet to Kashmir as much as you want.

As for unification, 'dreamers' such as yourself only perpetuate the suspicion that all that rhetoric of 'accepting Pakistan' aside, India has not yet done exactly that.

Regional success does not have to be achieved through unification alone - resolution of disputes, and working towards economic cooperation and shared interests in the region, perhaps under the aegis of SAARC, are better ways of working towards regional success that do not impinge upon the sovereignty and independence of other nations.

My friend, you need to let go some of that hate and recognise a rhetorical statement when you see one, and respnd with grace to an expression of friendship and basic brotherhood.

Like the prosperous West Germans for a bankrupt East Germany, I don't think there would be too many Indians too who would be too thrilled at the prospect of subsidizing Pakistan were it to remerge with India ..... for the next few generations by the looks of it.

But the sentiment is there ...... which you choose to rudely trample on.

So be it. I am sure for every Pakistani like you and Zob here, there would be many more like Iqbal Ahmad Khan too ..... and for that we are thankful.

Coming to Kashmir, irrespective of what happens between our countries, can you guys do something, pull some strings, whatever, and help me ride in the part you occupy? A huge bunch of Bullet riders did a Ride of Peace to the Wagah border some years ago (sponsored by Royal Enfield), but then had to leave our bikes in India before going over to Lahore to see an India-Pakistan One Day International. And I must say, they returned to India with only good things to say about you guys and your hospitality. So this time we want to complete the ride :)

Please let me know.

Cheers, Doc
 
.
Where do I begin?



What Pakistan has is a defense policy, a policy of actively countering Indian hegemony in South Asia. In fact, this in itself contributes a lot to regional peace, the fact that we have a powerful military allows for negotiations and peace time. So, the answer is not to cut back on military spending especially at a crucial juncture in this historical period and the threats we are facing, WoT, Baluchistan separatism, and foreign covert aggression, and as always Kashmir liberation.



Pakistan did not instigate this event nor was it the provocateur (1971) war. Indian RAW was covertly supporting, training, and arming Mukti Bahini and East Pakistani insurgents years before 1971, this is an act of War by India. The article tries to present this event as if it was caused by "Pakistan's policy of confrontation."



Or maybe this was an outcome of bad political leadership and corrupt practices. Besides, the Kargil event help give Gen. Musharraf an opportunity to rise to Presidential Power, which brought positive economic growth rate, economic recovery, foreign investment, foreign aid, Gwadar project initialization and development. Though I understand historian will see this event as the exception and not the rule, Nonetheless my earlier point is accurate as well.




Intelligence agency, media, journalist, and Army personnel have suggested and indicated that many of the Militants receive support-weaponry, funding, and more from Indian RAW. So the point the author makes is flawed and illogical.

No one is denying economic hardship and low levels of human development are harmful to the Nation's health, but I am sick and tired of this pathetic and illogical argument that the reason we have low levels of human development, poverty, and 50% literacy, is because of our defense procurements and expenditure. Pakistan spends around 4-5% of it's National GDP on military expenditure this amount is simply not enough to cause a lack of funding for education, health care, infrastructure, schools, and more.

Pakistan can maintain it's military expenditure and still invest significantly in other areas of national development.



Yes we should divert enormous time and resources, but this does not come at the expense of challenging Indian hegemony. I understand this may seem as a dilemma for some, but the problem is bad leadership and lack of visionary leaders with discipline and greatness.


Is it time to shun the past? I don't agree with the premise of this question, because these are contemporary issues.

I would like to add, I understand fatigue is growing but previous Muslim generations when confronted with an enemy a kaffir enemy especially they had struggled with that enemy for decades. I'm sure others said let's just make peace or let's just quit fighting, but wise people prevailed and understood that it is not time to put away the Sword.

We are locked in a long strategic confrontation. The sooner people understand this the better.



Understand that Jerusalem was occupied by the Crusaders (in 1099 c.e) for proximately a hundred years before the Muslims recaptured the city under Gen. Salahuddin (may Allah be pleased with him).

People need to learn it takes time, and it will take time.

I would like to remind the Muslim members an interesting quote by a great Muslim leader, you really ought to think about the principal he is promoted that led him and the Muslims to victory in their "policy of confrontation"...

Around the period of 1111-1112 (Siege of Tyre), the Crusaders launched an offensive to capture the Muslim city of Tyre. The people of Tyre specifically Imams and Army personnel there asked Zahir al-Din Atabek The Governor General of Damascus for help in defending Tyre from the Franks-Crusaders, understanding this would put a tremendous burden and strain on Damascus and Zahir al-Din Atabek militarily and financially they promised to give the city of Tyre to him.

After the siege and battle, Crusaders were defeated. Gov. Gen. Zahir Al-Din successfully defended the Muslim city of Tyre from the kaffirs, he was praised as a hero and champion. Not only did he defeat the Crusaders but he dealt a crushing blow to the enemy around 2,000 Crusaders killed and the Muslims suffered 400 deaths...After the victory, the people of Tyre did not give up the city to Zahir al-Din Atabek as promised. Zahir Al-Din Atabek humbly suggested he did not want that either.

And do you know what he said?


"What I have done I have done only for the sake of Allah and the Muslims, nor out of desire for wealth and kingdom.” -Gov. Gen. Zahir Al-Din Atabek

He then returned to Damascus, after many bloody engagements and with financial, military, and health hardships...




P.S I know there are some difference between the two situations but the fundamentals are quite relevant.

thanks friend for clearly illustrating the mind-set of being stuck in the past!

the author is not suggesting anywhere that Pakistan should capitulate to India so that India can acomplish its goal of the "dominant super power" of the region. however, if we continue to invest in a mind-set which says that "security is pre-eminant" for our existence (for that bench-mark has already been reached with our nuclear arsenal) and further lets be candid, after the un-fortunate incident of mumbai, did India attack us? (some say it had the right) but it did not because it knew the consquences = nuclear retaliation !!!

Pakistan needs to create a balance within itself and it is the sole judge of that - security, education, health, jobs, infrastructure - so that the 170+mill people can look to a prosperous future with pride!

otherwise a tit-for-tat arms race with a country which is 10 times larger than us in economic terms is futile and God Forbid, we could go the way of the USSR as it tried the same policy of a tit-for-tat arms build up (with a suspect economic program) v. the US.

in the end the choice is ours!!!
 
.
I think there is not anything in both countries, if kashmir issue is resolved then india wont have fear that pakistan might try to destabilize the india, neither pakistani would have anything left against india to carry on this (non ending) fight. If kashmir issues was resolve then we had not any 1948, 65 71, 88, or 99, neither we might had any water issue, it is pretty clear to both countries that what belong to which country. similarly other things, if we resolve this issue, then for sure there would be peace in this region, and no Uncle Sam would able to put pressure on any one. I see super powers of future, who have their own silicon valley in india, who have their own textile kings in pakistan.. people move daily from okara to amressor for the job, businessmen coming to lahore for selling their products, gujrat, rajistan (and neighboring) using karachi & gawadar port to access middle east, and saving millions, pakistani gujrat, gujranwala and others using mumbai port to reach south east asia and australia.

But there is still fight going on, millions watching with the anger in their eyes, eating popcons.. I am going to beat you this time :x, biggest rivals of all times Pakistan vs India cricket match :)
 
.
I think there is not anything in both countries, if kashmir issue is resolved then india wont have fear that pakistan might try to destabilize the india, neither pakistani would have anything left against india to carry on this (non ending) fight. If kashmir issues was resolve then we had not any 1948, 65 71, 88, or 99, neither we might had any water issue, it is pretty clear to both countries that what belong to which country. similarly other things, if we resolve this issue, then for sure there would be peace in this region, and no Uncle Sam would able to put pressure on any one. I see super powers of future, who have their own silicon valley in india, who have their own textile kings in pakistan.. people move daily from okara to amressor for the job, businessmen coming to lahore for selling their products, gujrat, rajistan (and neighboring) using karachi & gawadar port to access middle east, and saving millions, pakistani gujrat, gujranwala and others using mumbai port to reach south east asia and australia.

But there is still fight going on, millions watching with the anger in their eyes, eating popcons.. I am going to beat you this time :x, biggest rivals of all times Pakistan vs India cricket match :)

dont mind this type of rivalry at all ! this is sports and sports rivalries creates long-time friendships!
 
.
Hi,

Relations could be better between india and pakistan---only if india stops deploying a million man army on pakistani border everytime there is a terrorist attack on mainland india.

What does the spoiler of a peace deal amongst these two nations need---just another terrorist attack and all of indian news media will be threatening to destroy pakistan.

That is how fickle the relationship is.
 
.
well even yesterday ajmal kasab was told by the judge....

PAKISTANI NATIONAL MOHAMMED AJMAL KASAB do you plead guilty!!

i mean seriously....why such emphasis on the nationality terrorists have no nationality.....

the problem with india is that it speaks of friendship but when things start porgressing and difficulties arise it just takes everything back to sqaure one!!!

friendship with india will be benefical only if the distrust and back stabbing by india ends....

till november i was of the opinon india is not our enemy...things can be good come december and again i felt we are back in the 90s with india blaming us and MEDIA drama!!!
 
.
as for friendship well.... i guess this video shows what indians think of us.....



after this i think we would be fools to consider india our friends.....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
.
Kudos to fatman - great find.

now my reasons why WE SHOULD NOT BE FRIENDS are simple....in our quest to compete india we always help "improve ourselves" the minute the friendly atmosphere started with india in 2002 or somwhere around that time...things just screwed up in pakistan because we lost our aim that was to "COMPETE" with india in economy,military sciences everything!!!

secondly what did we get in return blame...accusations & sidelining from india...

to compete with india is healthy for our existence....

I'm with Fracker on this, competion does not have to be negative, however; this thing about competing with India, it's a bit unfair, Pakistanis should compete with France, with Germany, with USA.

India, has struggled for long to bring lives of dignity to her peoples, Pakistanis should cooperate with India in this effort - however; let's also acknowledge that Pakistana and India compete and will continue to do so, over national interests and security policy.

There is a work, you masy be interested in, it's called Co-optition - it's a business strategy, where in cooperation and competition occurs simultaneously - Pakistanis and Indian readers may enjoy exploring this idea further.

I think first thing for both countries and peoples is to be a little less emotional and a lot more respectful towards each other, particularly in their public utterances - our media and our politicians use dreadful language against each other, language that appeals to our emotions and not our brains.

We could start hereon this forum.
 
. . .
I think first thing for both countries and peoples is to be a little less emotional and a lot more respectful towards each other, particularly in their public utterances - our media and our politicians use dreadful language against each other, language that appeals to our emotions and not our brains.

We could start hereon this forum.

GREAT CONCEPT! I would like to extend this also to US/Pakistani dialog. HOWEVER, I am not expecting the virulent irhabi-sympathizers at PDF to go along .....
 
.

Latest posts

Pakistan Defence Latest Posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom