Top Indian Myths about Pakistan!

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I agree that this is a belief I personally have held /possibly still do (just not the way you describe it). One of the reasons for this is the repeated statements by Nawaz Sharief/Musharraf that people of Pakistan won't let me settle Kashmir issue. Or that this is the "central issue"

Its a central issue between India and Pakistan - that does not mean that there is no focus on socio-economic development. You are taking an isolated quote and twistign it out of context.

The way I understand it is that if there is a party that offers 15% GDP growth and making LoC the international border and another party that offers 0% growth to economy while maintaining status quo in Kashmir, people will always pick option 2. Since everyone knows this, the only position offered to Pakistani people is option 2.

Now cost of option 2 vs option 1 is debatable. It clearly does not
cost Pakistan a 15% growth rate decrease, but it is still not zero either. (Neither is it for India).

I'm sorry, but this rationale above is absurd. You are pulling these 'percentages' and 'choices' out of your *** really.

Kashmir falls under foreign policy, development and progress under domestic affairs. No leader (save Bhutto' rhetoric with the nuclear program - arguable shaped as an existential choice) has argued that the choice is between Kashmir and development - they are two different issues, and politics in Pakistan always boils down to the bread and butter issues, since the political parties have largely similar positions on Kashmir.

Your 'explanation' above is a classic example of Indian 'myth making' or 'brainwashing' in an attempt to denigrate Pakistan.

Another reason for my belief is the way Pakistan was actively losing areas in the West while trying to gain land in the East. The troops should have been in the West for a long time since land was being lost to Taliban, but Pakistan delayed because Kashmir was more important than NWFP.

A very flawed analysis, but it has been discussed elsewhere on several thread so lets not turn this thread into another FATA/Swat thread.

There have been a variety of reasons behind not shifting troops into the West, and not all of them have involve India. If you have followed the discourse over the events in the North West with any regularity then you should know that.

 

[Nemesis]

Correction -stating the facts is equivalent to challenging myths.

Yes, stating facts would be challenging myths. However, not everything you have stated can be considered facts. Some of them are more along the lines of the Pakistani point of view or Pakistani allegations, not facts

Supported Baluch insurgents in Pakistan

Allegation, not fact.

The invasion of Siachen in 1984 in clear violation of the Simla Accord

India does not agree that it was a violation, so once again, allegation, not fact.

Supported the LTTE (Tamil Tigers) - a terrorist organization in Sri Lanka

LTTE was named a terrorist organization was the Sri Lankan government in 1998, any claim that India supported LTTE at this time is disingenuous.

no war has resulted in a decisive 'victory' for either side.

Kargil??

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Yes, stating facts would be challenging myths. However, not everything you have stated can be considered facts. Some of them are more along the lines of the Pakistani point of view or Pakistani allegations, not facts

No - stating the Pakistani view would be to argue that Pakistan won 1948 and 1965 for example.

Allegation, not fact.

Given the other examples given, India's support for the Baluch insurgency is a moot point.

India does not agree that it was a violation, so once again, allegation, not fact.

Again, it does not matter whether India agrees it was a violation or not - the fact remains that India acted militarily in Siachen, and that, along with 1971 and the LTTE example, debunks the Indian myth of being 'peaceful' and never committing aggression against another nation.

LTTE was named a terrorist organization was the Sri Lankan government in 1998, any claim that India supported LTTE at this time is disingenuous.

Again, since I am not discussing 'terrorism', rather support for proxy groups, the support for the LTTE debunks Indian myths on 'non-aggression' and 'no support for proxies'.

Kargil??

Not a war so not included. It was at best an LoC conflict like Siachen that did not have full Pak. Mil. involvement.

 

[wtf]

Its a central issue between India and Pakistan - that does not mean that there is no focus on socio-economic development. You are taking an isolated quote and twistign it out of context.

I'm sorry, but this rationale above is absurd. You are pulling these 'percentages' and 'choices' out of your *** really.

Kashmir falls under foreign policy, development and progress under domestic affairs. No leader (save Bhutto' rhetoric with the nuclear program - arguable shaped as an existential choice) has argued that the choice is between Kashmir and development - they are two different issues, and politics in Pakistan always boils down to the bread and butter issues, since the political parties have largely similar positions on Kashmir.

Your 'explanation' above is a classic example of Indian 'myth making' or 'brainwashing' in an attempt to denigrate Pakistan.

I can't understand how I denigrated Pakistan. I was just saying that no party in Pakistan can afford to be seen as compromising on Kashmir. And that spending on Kashmir (defense) slows the growth for Pakistan. In spite of this people still vote for Kashmir.
I agree that I made up the 0% 15% numbers - but they were purely illustrative. The real picture is more complicated, but it is not like they have not been studied.

You assume that you can spend on Kashmir while still growing the economy. It is not true - here are a bunch of studies.
Military Expenditures and Economic Growth in Pakistan

Or from world bank
http://www.nyu.edu/fas/institute/dri/Easterly/File/Pakistan.pdf

 

[Nemesis]

No - stating the Pakistani view would be to argue that Pakistan won 1948 and 1965 for example.

Is that the Pakistani view?

Given the other examples given, India's support for the Baluch insurgency is a moot point.

It would counter your assertion that India has supported insurgents in Pakistan.

Again, it does not matter whether India agrees it was a violation or not - the fact remains that India acted militarily in Siachen, and that, along with 1971 and the LTTE example, debunks the Indian myth of being 'peaceful' and never committing aggression against another nation.

Committing aggression against a neighbouring country and acting military to secure a so called disputed region are two different things.

I agree with you on the LTTE however it is no way related to Pakistan. And considering this thread is called Indian myths about Pakistan, it bears no relation to the topic at hand.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

I can't understand how I denigrated Pakistan. I was just saying that no party in Pakistan can afford to be seen as compromising on Kashmir. And that spending on Kashmir (defense) slows the growth for Pakistan. In spite of this people still vote for Kashmir.
I agree that I made up the 0% 15% numbers - but they were purely illustrative. The real picture is more complicated, but it is not like they have not been studied.

You assume that you can spend on Kashmir while still growing the economy. It is not true - here are a bunch of studies.
Military Expenditures and Economic Growth in Pakistan

Or from world bank
http://www.nyu.edu/fas/institute/dri/Easterly/File/Pakistan.pdf

The real picture is more complicated - you are starting to argue over a tangential issue - of the opportunity cost of military expenditure. That argument can be raised with respect to any nation's military expenditure, including India, where hundreds of millions live in poverty.

My point was that the Pakistani public and polity does not view it in the context Indians view it in, of being obsessed with Kashmir to the extent that discourse over socio-economic development takes a back seat in our media and politics.

For the vast majority of Pakistanis, the demands from the government are of jobs, investment in social infrastructure etc. and not of whether they promise to 'free Kashmir'.

Kashmir comes under foreign policy and on kashmir, as I pointed out, most major political parties have had a largely similar position, so it is incorrect to argue that Pakistanis 'choose' between development and Kashmir.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Is that the Pakistani view?

Depends on how you look at it - what's the Indian view?

It would counter your assertion that India has supported insurgents in Pakistan.

That argument is already established with Indian support for insurgents in East Pakistan.

Committing aggression against a neighbouring country and acting military to secure a so called disputed region are two different things.

The first is established through Indian actions in 1971, even if you choose to not count the Simla violation and military aggression in 1984. And your latter opinion then implies that 1948 and 1965 were not acts of aggression either, since they could be argued to have been 'military actions to secure disputed territory'. In which case India remains the only side country to have openly initiated aggression against the other (Pakistan) by virtue of what she did in 1971, and it is Pakistan that is the true 'peaceful country'.

One would argue that your position on Siachen then suggests that anything along the LoC that was not clearly demarcated is open game to military adventurism.

I agree with you on the LTTE however it is no way related to Pakistan. And considering this thread is called Indian myths about Pakistan, it bears no relation to the topic at hand.

You are correct that the LTTE does not fall under 'Pakistani Myth's', but since the argument tends to be that 'India is completely peaceful', I thought including the LTTE example further bolstered the credibility of that point.

 

[A1Kaid]

This one is not just an Indian Myth but an International Myth.


Myth.6
The Taliban threaten Pakistan's Nuclear arsenal, and may gain control of the Nuclear stockpile (if the democratic government collapses)

Pakistan's Nuclear stockpile is under the tight and strict full control of the Nuclear Command & Control Center, they monitor the Nuclear weapons and provide full security at many levels. The Army has the Nukes fully secured. Even in the perfect storm or worse conditions, the government collapsed, Taliban roaming in Islamabad, the Taliban would still fail to acquire any control of Pakistan's nukes.

 

[PeacefulIndian]

Depends on how you look at it - what's the Indian view?


That argument is already established with Indian support for insurgents in East Pakistan.

The first is established through Indian actions in 1971, even if you choose to not count the Simla violation and military aggression in 1984. And your latter opinion then implies that 1948 and 1965 were not acts of aggression either, since they could be argued to have been 'military actions to secure disputed territory'. In which case India remains the only side country to have openly initiated aggression against the other (Pakistan) by virtue of what she did in 1971, and it is Pakistan that is the true 'peaceful country'.

One would argue that your position on Siachen then suggests that anything along the LoC that was not clearly demarcated is open game to military adventurism.

You are correct that the LTTE does not fall under 'Pakistani Myth's', but since the argument tends to be that 'India is completely peaceful', I thought including the LTTE example further bolstered the credibility of that point.

Excepting LTTE.

If at all India is supporting destabilization of Pakistan, how much do you think is the strategy of 'you bleed me, I bleed you'? When you have been exporting terrorism to India all the way, how do you expect to be immune to the repercussions?

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

Excepting LTTE.

If at all India is supporting destabilization of Pakistan, how much do you think is the strategy of 'you bleed me, I bleed you'? When you have been exporting terrorism to India all the way, how do you expect to be immune to the repercussions?

That's besides the point, and I will not argue over its veracity here - the point is that India has supported insurgents and proxies in other nations, which makes that particular allegation directed at Pakistan by Indians disingenuous.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

This one is not just an Indian Myth but an International Myth.


Myth.6
The Taliban threaten Pakistan's Nuclear arsenal, and may gain control of the Nuclear stockpile (if the democratic government collapses)

Pakistan's Nuclear stockpile is under the tight and strict full control of the Nuclear Command & Control Center, they monitor the Nuclear weapons and provide full security at many levels. The Army has the Nukes fully secured. Even in the perfect storm or worse conditions, the government collapsed, Taliban roaming in Islamabad, the Taliban would still fail to acquire any control of Pakistan's nukes.

Yes - we could start another thread on international myth's about Pakistan.

 

[A1Kaid]

Yes - we could start another thread on international myth's about Pakistan.

Sure buddy you and I are the new Myth-Busters!

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

By the way, for our Indian members - I am not trying to bash India here or argue that her actions are somehow indicative of a greater 'moral bankruptcy' than Pakistan's.

The objective is to merely debunk some popular misconceptions about Pakistan that I often hear from Indian posters, and to point out that India too, in some of those cases, has engaged in similar behavior.

 

[PeacefulIndian]

That's besides the point, and I will not argue over its veracity here - the point is that India has supported insurgents and proxies in other nations, which makes that particular allegation directed at Pakistan by Indians disingenuous.

Very convenient for you then. Don't bother about the background, don't worry about what series of events transpired when India supported your so called proxies or insurgents. At least be aware that Indian actions, if at all any, are/were reactive, more so in her own national interests. Your deeds on the contrary still continue to stem from a mentality based on hatred towards India, something which Zia Ul Haq left you with. No national interests involved whatsoever from your side.

 

[PeacefulIndian]

Yes - we could start another thread on international myth's about Pakistan.

How about starting a thread on Pakistani myths about West, Israel & India?

Myth no. 1 - Christianity, Judaism & Hinduism together are trying to wipe out Islam from the earth.

Why not start with this point? Many posters here believe this to be true.