Contrarian
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 11,571
- Reaction score
- 4
There are many among us who think and say that a stable and prosperous Pakistan is in India's interest. I want to analyze that with respect to some facts and some conjecture.
The primary argument of people who support that say that a stable and prosperous Pakistan is in India's interest because it would give a fillip to the liberal section of Pakistani populace, limit recruitment of young people in jihadist organizations and would make Pakistan more cautious and responsible in its approach towards India as then it would stand to lose a lot. It would also lead to increased trade between India and Pakistan which would also help the Indian economy.
While some of those points are true, i want to ask some questions regarding these:
To what degree?
Consider the flip side of the coin as well:
- A Pakistan which historically had a good economy, certainly better than India in per capita income even uptill 2004-2005.
- Pakistan allied with US which gave it arms and ammunitions exceeding in Quality than what India procured from Soviet/Russia.
- Pakistan was the perfect counter weight of India in each and every sense. They had diplomatic backing of major nations of the world. Till about 2000, Pakistan had the same diplomatic heft that India did.
Consider all these facts and then think, when Pakistan had all these things going for it - a good economy, good weapons, diplomatic heft, etc it always initiated wars or covert action against India. These things have historically enabled Pakistani generals to think they can come up with the next brilliant plan to take back Kashmir/Siachen/etc.
Pakistan and its Army till the 70's even thought they could militarily defeat India in conventional warfare. It was only after they failed repeatedly that they understood that conventional victory is out of question.
Then came the phase of parity - Pakistani generals and politicians thought they were - to use an old phrase - 'equal equal' to India in every respect. If they were atleast equal militarily, diplomatically, economically if not better. And truly, they were equal.
However, after the 90's, the Indian economy started surging ahead, Pakistani generals, realizing that with time their ability to take Kashmir was diminishing, so there was unconventional warfare - intense support of terrorism in Kashmir and the rest of India. I hope none here have forgotten how it was in the early 90's in Kashmir, gunmen openly toting AK-47's roaming around!
Then Kargil happened - but the pattern was same!
By 2000's as Indian economy moved ahead and Pakistan languished. Then 9/11 happened, and Pakistani support to terrorists in Kashmir became harder by the day.
By 2006, Musharraf was saying that Delhi should treat Islamabad as equal!!
For around a decade now, Pakistani military and people talk about minimum deterrence, not the ability to defeat India like how they used to earlier! The military gap b/w the two has grown too great to bridge now and is only increasing year on year.
And today - for a long many years Pakistan has been involved in a war back home, and is economically weak while India has grown to better itself over the years. Have you noticed that terrorism in India has dropped significantly. When Pakistan is occupied in its internal situation, India is safer! Their economy grows hardly faster than their population, which means per capita doesnt increase by much year on year. They are limited by their budgets thus to match India - which though not the objective now- was one the aims of Pakistani Military earlier.
Imagine then, that what would happen, were this to continue for another decade, even a pretense of military for minimum deterrence would be gone?
You cannot deny what the last 2 decades of economic fruits have led to the difference between India and Pakistan! You can see Pakistan now asking for better relations, their ministers saying that the 'old ways of thinking' have stopped now, war is not the solution, etc, etc;
Having an economically strong, stable Pakistan might lead to the same situation that was prevalent earlier - a straitjacketed India.
However, as there are no absolutes, as mentioned in the title, the question is to what degree is good. Having a prosperous Pakistan is bad for India, but an instable ravaged Pakistan is worse.
My contention then is - Is having Pakistan boil at just the right temperature, with just the right amount of economy to keep it moving -slowly- the perfect solution?
Please feel free to disagree from my viewpoint only if you present a different alternative. The purpose of this thread is to think from India's perspective and India's perspective ONLY! So if you plan to start blame games about who did what, this is not the thread for you. PLEASE focus entirely on what India- in your opinion- should do.
The primary argument of people who support that say that a stable and prosperous Pakistan is in India's interest because it would give a fillip to the liberal section of Pakistani populace, limit recruitment of young people in jihadist organizations and would make Pakistan more cautious and responsible in its approach towards India as then it would stand to lose a lot. It would also lead to increased trade between India and Pakistan which would also help the Indian economy.
While some of those points are true, i want to ask some questions regarding these:
To what degree?
Consider the flip side of the coin as well:
- A Pakistan which historically had a good economy, certainly better than India in per capita income even uptill 2004-2005.
- Pakistan allied with US which gave it arms and ammunitions exceeding in Quality than what India procured from Soviet/Russia.
- Pakistan was the perfect counter weight of India in each and every sense. They had diplomatic backing of major nations of the world. Till about 2000, Pakistan had the same diplomatic heft that India did.
Consider all these facts and then think, when Pakistan had all these things going for it - a good economy, good weapons, diplomatic heft, etc it always initiated wars or covert action against India. These things have historically enabled Pakistani generals to think they can come up with the next brilliant plan to take back Kashmir/Siachen/etc.
Pakistan and its Army till the 70's even thought they could militarily defeat India in conventional warfare. It was only after they failed repeatedly that they understood that conventional victory is out of question.
Then came the phase of parity - Pakistani generals and politicians thought they were - to use an old phrase - 'equal equal' to India in every respect. If they were atleast equal militarily, diplomatically, economically if not better. And truly, they were equal.
However, after the 90's, the Indian economy started surging ahead, Pakistani generals, realizing that with time their ability to take Kashmir was diminishing, so there was unconventional warfare - intense support of terrorism in Kashmir and the rest of India. I hope none here have forgotten how it was in the early 90's in Kashmir, gunmen openly toting AK-47's roaming around!
Then Kargil happened - but the pattern was same!
By 2000's as Indian economy moved ahead and Pakistan languished. Then 9/11 happened, and Pakistani support to terrorists in Kashmir became harder by the day.
By 2006, Musharraf was saying that Delhi should treat Islamabad as equal!!
For around a decade now, Pakistani military and people talk about minimum deterrence, not the ability to defeat India like how they used to earlier! The military gap b/w the two has grown too great to bridge now and is only increasing year on year.
And today - for a long many years Pakistan has been involved in a war back home, and is economically weak while India has grown to better itself over the years. Have you noticed that terrorism in India has dropped significantly. When Pakistan is occupied in its internal situation, India is safer! Their economy grows hardly faster than their population, which means per capita doesnt increase by much year on year. They are limited by their budgets thus to match India - which though not the objective now- was one the aims of Pakistani Military earlier.
Imagine then, that what would happen, were this to continue for another decade, even a pretense of military for minimum deterrence would be gone?
You cannot deny what the last 2 decades of economic fruits have led to the difference between India and Pakistan! You can see Pakistan now asking for better relations, their ministers saying that the 'old ways of thinking' have stopped now, war is not the solution, etc, etc;
Having an economically strong, stable Pakistan might lead to the same situation that was prevalent earlier - a straitjacketed India.
However, as there are no absolutes, as mentioned in the title, the question is to what degree is good. Having a prosperous Pakistan is bad for India, but an instable ravaged Pakistan is worse.
My contention then is - Is having Pakistan boil at just the right temperature, with just the right amount of economy to keep it moving -slowly- the perfect solution?
Please feel free to disagree from my viewpoint only if you present a different alternative. The purpose of this thread is to think from India's perspective and India's perspective ONLY! So if you plan to start blame games about who did what, this is not the thread for you. PLEASE focus entirely on what India- in your opinion- should do.
