Walls and Bridges

[Kaniska]

Islamist and Arab focused is not something that came about organically -- it was ordered into this focus by Zia and his Jamaati Nizam --- see, whenever you think about Islamism in Pakistan, always compare it with Islamism is Malaysia --- They are both part of the same effort and were incorporated about the same time -- but with very different ideas and intellectual history informing both

You are spot on....This is really a nice explanation...

 

[Dillinger]

PK - one more time, the problem between Pakistan and India is, according to Pakistanis, Kashmir - India from the 80's has moved out of socialism, become open to the world, is now an aspiring super power, Pakistan, from the 80's has moved to fro basket case, to hell hole - As India move along, they wave goodbye to a Pakistan that looks upon them from a cage, a cage of a murderous hate filled religiosity, stuck in time, in geography.

Every now and then, Pakistan can dial up the unease in Kashmir, but the Indian just won't play, where does that leave Pakistan?

Sir,

I wouldn't say that Pakistan has become that irrelevant. Pakistan has time and again achieved a token form of parity with us by aligning itself with global powers. In doing so, while it has had to sacrifice its sovereignty in the true sense, it has always punched above its weight and thus been capable of taking up a significant portion of our strategic thinking space. Pakistan doesn't seem to get rankled by the fact that even as it consolidated its nuclear arsenal on one hand it found itself compelled to hand over airbases to the US- airbases which were used to bomb its own people. Pakistan's problem, a problem even bigger than its Kashmir fixation, is its habit to depend upon other larger countries to render its designs feasible. Absent such a malaise we might have actually seen better relations between the two countries. India's primary objection has always been the interference of other countries within the region which was a result of Pakistan's entry into various groupings which were established by said countries, we have always viewed our issues as bilateral issues which cannot be held open to any outside interference whereas Pakistan has done its best to internationalize these issues. The only point on which India entertains international opinions is terrorism since after 9/11 terrorism has become a global malaise. Our beef has always been with Pakistan's proclivity to involve other countries in issues such as the dispute over Kashmir, all the while conveniently forgetting the fact that even their closest ally- China refuses to take any overt steps to help them or back their claims other then token moral support. Members who consider the Kargil incident to be a success simply because it "internationalized the Kashmir issue" are a dime a dozen on this forum, they too, conveniently forget that the issue was indeed internationalized but it was done so in India's favor with Pakistan having to face the brunt of universal condemnation for being aggressive and belligerent. Kashmir will always remain a sticking point, at least as long as both countries do not officially recognize that the status quo cannot be changed.

India does not grudge Pakistan its existence or its identity but we do not appreciate the dream it nurtures of annexing Kashmir or its attempts at stymieing our legitimate ambitions.

 

[muse]

Ok so far we have seen this from two angles - Mr. Hilaly says walls make good neighbors and I don't think readers have appreciated exactly what Mr. Hilaly is saying - I'll come back to this shortly --And then there is Mr. Hamid, who at least to my thinking echoes Mr. Hilaly, but offers a different option and a WARNING, that it seems very few are willing to pick up on - curious.

So in both outlooks, we see a very pessimistic view of Pakistan and of the advantages of being Pakistan, that is to say he kinds of leverage Pakistan may exercise if it ever decides to wake up to that reality - but more on that later.

 

[Contrarian]

PK - one more time, the problem between Pakistan and India is, according to Pakistanis, Kashmir - India from the 80's has moved out of socialism, become open to the world, is now an aspiring super power, Pakistan, from the 80's has moved to fro basket case, to hell hole - As India move along, they wave goodbye to a Pakistan that looks upon them from a cage, a cage of a murderous hate filled religiosity, stuck in time, in geography.

How Pakistan today looks at India is for Pakistani's to know better.

You however are right in how India has wished to move on from Pakistan. Infact - and this is a literal fact - one of the biggest grouses India had with US when US had just started courting India in the early 2000's, was that India wanted US to de-hyphenate India and Pakistan. Till the early 2000's, absolutely any mention of India was always and always along with Pakistan. It could be anything - from 'nuclear armed' to 'rivals' to 'competitors'. There were dozens upon dozens of headlines regarding this in Times of India screaming this when the US president visited India . US agreed to this and it can be termed practically as the starting point of Indo-US relationship.

Ofcourse, from early 2000's to 2012, the disparity which was minimal then ( infact Pakistan had a good margin of higher per capita income than India), India and Pakistan have moved on different trajectories, so now its not just the US but most other countries in the world who now dont talk of India and Pakistan in the same breadth.

Every now and then, Pakistan can dial up the unease in Kashmir, but the Indian just won't play, where does that leave Pakistan?

And this is also a fact. India will not play on Kashmir. Any solution to Kashmir will be within the Union of India. Pakistan today does not have the military wherewithal or the diplomatic wherewithal to wrest Kashmir from India. At best there would be terrorism, and India has born the worst of it when the Afghanistan hardened jeahdis streamed to Kashmir in the 90's. We got through then when we were almost bankrupt and economic reforms had only started with all the other insurgencies in the North East in full swing and Bangladesh was indirectly supporting them.

We can certainly deal unilaterally today when almost all NE insurgencies are either dead or in dying stages, BD backing us to the hilt, a strong economy and a very strong military along with diplomatic support of most of the globe.

And most Pakistani politicians do understand this - after all they have also started saying to put kashmir on backburner. This is a change from what they earlier said. So there is a change in dynamics at play in Pakistan. How its future looks like is a question Pakistani's like you can answer better.

 

[Dillinger]

Ok so far we have seen this from two angles - Mr. Hilaly says walls make good neighbors and I don't think readers have appreciated exactly what Mr. Hilaly is saying - I'll come back to this shortly --And then there is Mr. Hamid, who at least to my thinking echoes Mr. Hilaly, but offers a different option and a WARNING, that it seems very few are willing to pick up on - curious.

So in both outlooks, we see a very pessimistic view of Pakistan and of the advantages of being Pakistan, that is to say he kinds of leverage Pakistan may exercise if it ever decides to wake up to that reality - but more on that later.

Sir,

Mr. Hilaly's opinion would have been apt if these "walls" could be capable of containing warfare through proxies. In fact that alone is all it would take to ensure that India dedicates a minimal portion of its attention- military or otherwise- towards Pakistan. India has been comfortable with the status quo that persists in Kashmir, while we do claim the Gilgit-Baltistan region to be a part of India, there have been no attempts to realize these claims on India's part. Pakistan on the other hand depends upon proxies and terrorism to keep the issue churning and alive. As long as these situations prevail any wall will prove to be insufficient in shielding either nation and promoting even neutral relations. Even an approach where the two countries simply isolate themselves from the other can only work if both countries truly decide to not interfere in each other's internal affairs and decide to accept the status quo.

 

[muse]

Perhaps Mr. Hilaly is saying discretion is the better part of valor - I don't know, what do you think?

 

[third eye]

India does not grudge Pakistan its existence or its identity but we do not appreciate the dream it nurtures of annexing Kashmir or its attempts at stymieing our legitimate ambitions.

This about sums up the Indian POV.

Zafar is wrong to say that

" What rankles with India is that we are still on the map of the world. Pakistan was not just a mistake in Indian eyes but an insult to the idea of India ".

Nothing can be far from the truth.

Most Indians are happy that Pakistan exists. In hind sight seeing the changes that have happened in the Sub Continent over the last two decades had Pak not existed ( existed in between) the implications for India would be severe.

The Taliban who now abound in Karachi would then be in Kolkatta & Chennai too.

 

[Cherokee]

Perhaps Mr. Hilaly is saying discretion is the better part of valor - I don't you, what do you think?

I completely agree . For Me open Trade and culture , put Kashmir on Backburner and things will itself align itself . India and China are doing the same , but not on this forum

 

[Developereo]

Mr Hilaly is spot on.

While Indians will deny it vociferously, some with good cause since India has a variety of opinions, I believe the Jaswant Singh resentful view of Pakistan dominates the Indian political elite. Some, like Indira Gandhi, were honest enough to admit it openly.

As Hilaly writes, in that view the creation of Pakistan was a crime against India -- something that was stolen from India. For holders of that viewpoint, the only acceptable outcome is for Pakistan to fail, since that will validate their conviction that partition was a mistake. Since, as I wrote above, that viewpoint dominates Indian political circles, it is futile for Pakistan to expect true friendship from India. It simply will not happen.

What, then, to do?

The fact that Pakistan has managed to oblige these Indian nationalists by sinking into decay is something for us to bemoan and for them to gloat. However, being that as it may, how should Pakistan proceed? Does prosperity lie with building walls or mending fences with India?

Given the rising nationalist mood in India, and believing Jaswant Singh's view to still be dominant in India, I believe the best approach is to cut the cord (temporarily) and focus on strengthening Pakistan without any illusions of Indian friendship. Needless to say, this means firing all cylinders (economic, diplomatic, cultural, etc.) not just the military.

Some time in the future, after Pakistan manages to redeem itself, India itself will come around since India, like the rest of the world, respects strength.

 

[liontk]

@muse

Great articles you posted, it cleared up some misconceptions and offered two balanced parallel view to some extent, however I felt there was something missing or may be that I felt or observed as an outsider from the subcontinent. The concept of ones identity i think is the bigger point that both these countries are trying to find, it has been more than 136 years of confedration and even to this day , Canada is following a slippery slope , when it comes to balancing United States and the common wealth influence primarily from the United Kingdom. I think while it may not be a fair comparison to say the subcontinent is similar, however many parallels can be made. I think similarly the past 50 years for the subcontinental nations have been developing their nations self-identity that the people of these nations had lost the opportunity to develop for hundreds of years, while the world advanced forward and the concept of nationhood for some nations occured earlier and in the due process the identities got sorted out ie. protestant v catholicism, role of insitutions, monarchy etc..

When I found this forum coincidently four months ago due to my late obsession with learning urdu, I found this website to be confusing at first as the debates were simply difficult to follow. I understood that pakistan and inde had common history, however I could not comprehend why some identities were clashing and there was so much animosity towards either side. However I must digress for the sake of time, I think the concept of identity is fundamentally very vital to any nation for the sake of survival, I think people cannot expect these issues to resolved over night, it took Canada nearly 146 years to resolve identities yet they still are a constraint on the federation likewise I think pakistan and inde will also take different paths towards resolving the identity crisis, which I conclude is what stood out to me as an outsider, though i could very well be wrong as I have not set foot on the ground situation myself and could very well be living in a western bubble.

Also if you can clarify, how come south asia still grasps with certain identities particularly religion, caste, form of regionalism, nationalism etc... can't they all just combine into a mosaic per say and not clash with each other or is there an inherit clash that i simply cannot see as the partition and two nation theory still puzzles me as somewhat shall I say as an precarious solution.

Once again great article, i must commend you on opening an excellent thread. Personal note, i have extended family living on both side that you can say belong to 1% of the society and as far as fortune goes, I see no difference on either side as my extended familie(never met them) have multi-national passports and ironically enough keep money outside the country, interesting eh!!!

 

[Dillinger]

Perhaps Mr. Hilaly is saying discretion is the better part of valor - I don't you, what do you think?

Obviously it is Sir. Careful and clear thinking prevents adventurism and conflicts. This applies to India as well, one needs to only look at the steps we took leading up to 62 conflict with China. Our ministers in Delhi put 10000 men in an area hitherto unoccupied up against 80000 PLA troops- these men had no backup, no logistical support- is it any surprise that the conclusion of the conflict saw India defeated in immediate military terms? Ministers on our side simply saw an opportunity for adventurism instead of dialogue, after engaging in said adventurism they sat about befuddled and did not even take the required measures to bring forth a tactical victory by committing forces to backup their ambitions. China's claims may have been illegitimate according to us but even if our stand was legitimate our actions were not wise- where was the need to be aggressive with a nation which had no history of a conflict with us? Today they murmur about how 62 was a result of Chinese backstabbing, how we wouldn't have lost if we had committed the required forces which were at our disposal. But then hindsight is always twenty-twenty. There was no immediate need for the forward policy back then. Whatever missteps China had taken did not require immediate military deployment or aggressive posturing. What was achieved? Nearly nothing, tactical victory did not see China annexing Arunachal Pradesh or Sikkim, India did not gain Askai Chin, the border remains as it was pre 62 even today. Tensions exist at the border and incidents such as the Sumdorong Chu debacle and Chola incident have occurred but the real casualty was the destruction of the relationship between India and China. The lengthy example is meant to illustrate how discretion is a must for avoiding foolhardy actions. In Pakistan's context, it must learn to accept that trying to "force" an outcome to the issues that exist between India and Pakistan are impossible- akin to the disputes between China and India. Warfare, covert actions and the like are extensions of state policy and diplomacy but that's the important bit- they are extensions and not tools to be used to promote narrow personal ambitions like Musharaff's Kargil venture or Ayub's Operation Gibraltar.

 

[Contrarian]

Mr Hilaly is spot on.

While Indians will deny it vociferously, some with good cause since India has a variety of opinions, I believe the Jaswant Singh resentful view of Pakistan dominates the Indian political elite. Some, like Indira Gandhi, were honest enough to admit it openly.

As Hilaly writes, in that view the creation of Pakistan was a crime against India -- something that was stolen from India. For holders of that viewpoint, the only acceptable outcome is for Pakistan to fail, since that will validate their conviction that partition was a mistake. Since, as I wrote above, that viewpoint dominates Indian political circles, it is futile for Pakistan to expect true friendship from India. It simply will not happen.

What, then, to do?

The fact that Pakistan has managed to oblige these Indian nationalists by sinking into decay is something for us to bemoan and for them to gloat. However, being that as it may, how should Pakistan proceed? Does prosperity lie with building walls or mending fences with India?

Given the rising nationalist mood in India, and believing Jaswant Singh's view to still be dominant in India, I believe the best approach is to cut the cord (temporarily) and focus on strengthening Pakistan without any illusions of Indian friendship. Needless to say, this means firing all cylinders (economic, diplomatic, cultural, etc.) not just the military.

Some time in the future, after Pakistan manages to redeem itself, India itself will come around since India, like the rest of the world, respects strength.

And India would not have any problem with the course of action you recommend for Pakistan but for one thing.

Stop sending terrorists on our soil, stop trying to raise jehad in Kashmir.
As long as Pakistan can keep these two conditions fulfilled, an overwhelming majority of India would not care. They would not care if bombs exploded in Pakistan. It is your funeral. Just dont export Pakistan's jehadi symptoms to India - Something your military considered a strategic policy till 2001.

 

[Developereo]

And India would not have any problem with the course of action you recommend for Pakistan but for one thing.

Stop sending terrorists on our soil, stop trying to raise jehad in Kashmir.
As long as Pakistan can keep these two conditions fulfilled, an overwhelming majority of India would not care. They would not care if bombs exploded in Pakistan. It is your funeral. Just dont export Pakistan's jehadi symptoms to India - Something your military considered a strategic policy till 2001.

This risks going off-topic but it's not a one way street. We have reason to believe that India is returning the favor at opportune moments. Granted, India is using our own snakes against us, but it doesn't change the basic tit-for-tat.

 

[muse]

@muse

I think the concept of identity is fundamentally very vital to any nation for the sake of survival, I think people cannot expect these issues to resolved over night, ... I think pakistan and inde will also take different paths towards resolving the identity crisis,

Personal note, i have extended family living on both side that you can say belong to 1% of the society and as far as fortune goes, I see no difference on either side as my extended familie(never met them) have multi-national passports and ironically enough keep money outside the country, interesting eh!!!

First the highlighted part: They are part of the same class - pretty much the same kind of education, outlook and orientation, the same kinds of aspirations

Identity: I'm not really big on this concept - I like to think of it as something that must not be static, because once it is, ossification has set in and it's really dead. I had pointed to Economy and the dignity it can afford, but I can see how that may also effect "identity"

I very much agree that Pakistan and India have similar and dissimilar experiences, and that they may and I honestly think will, end up different countries, and that's not bad, respect for differences is just as important as respect for similarities - I also think the experience of Islamization and terrorism and civil war, and terrible governance, for ordinary persons, will lead to a very different Pakistan -- There will always be that germ of Islamism, utopian ideas especially when the Divine is harnessed to them, will find appeal amongst those so inclined, however, with out the state or institutions of the state, they only serve as fodder for ridicule.

 

[pakistanmyblood]

plzzzz build a 100000 foot wall between pakistan nd india. we want no relations with these ppl