What can bring India and Pakistan closer

[Halaku Khan]

I believe Kashmir is the root cause of the anti-India terrorism.

Pakistan wants to solve the root cause; India wants to play games attacking the symptoms. India knows perfectly well that, as long as the root cause remains unresolved, the symptoms will keep resurfacing.

No, Kashmir is a symptom, the root cause is deeper.

 

[Nemesis]

Then let the Kashmiris decide their fate through a plebiscite - after all Indians claim the Kashmiris would choose India any way

The real question is whether Pakistan will agree to an independence option in the plebiscite - something that they have always objected to.

AM, you talk of plebiscite, how would this plebiscite work exactly? Let us assume that the Kashmir valley would choose Pakistan (Which they won't, they would rather be independent or continue to be with India) while Jammu and Ladakh choose India, are we going to have another partition? The point I'm trying to make is that the UN resolutions have become irrelevant. Let me expand a bit on this -

The UN resolutions that you speak of are not "self enforcing". This is what Kofi Annan - the secretary general of the UN at the time - had to say on the UN resolutions on Kashmir -

"The UN resolutions that come under chapter seven of the charter were self-enforcing like those related to East Timor and Iraq. The second type of resolutions which do not fall in the purview of chapter seven needed co-operation of the concerned parties for their implementation. The UN resolutions on Kashmir do not fall in the category of chapter seven and hence required cooperation of the concerned parties for their implementation and in this case it is lacking"

India's position on Kashmir has always been that any dispute with Pakistan needs to be solved on the basis of the Shimla accord of 72. The agreement states - the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organisation, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peace and harmonious relations."

This accord effectively nullifies any UN resolution on Kashmir.

So we have the UN resolutions - which both sides have continously violated, which the UN itself considers not binding, which India rejects - or we have the Shimla accord which was signed by both nations. So why bring up the UN resolutions over and over again?

 

[desiman]

The real question is whether Pakistan will agree to an independence option in the plebiscite - something that they have always objected to.

AM, you talk of plebiscite, how would this plebiscite work exactly? Let us assume that the Kashmir valley would choose Pakistan (Which they won't, they would rather be independent or continue to be with India) while Jammu and Ladakh choose India, are we going to have another partition? The point I'm trying to make is that the UN resolutions have become irrelevant. Let me expand a bit on this -

The UN resolutions that you speak of are not "self enforcing". This is what Kofi Annan - the secretary general of the UN at the time - had to say on the UN resolutions on Kashmir -

"The UN resolutions that come under chapter seven of the charter were self-enforcing like those related to East Timor and Iraq. The second type of resolutions which do not fall in the purview of chapter seven needed co-operation of the concerned parties for their implementation. The UN resolutions on Kashmir do not fall in the category of chapter seven and hence required cooperation of the concerned parties for their implementation and in this case it is lacking"

India's position on Kashmir has always been that any dispute with Pakistan needs to be solved on the basis of the Shimla accord of 72. The agreement states - the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them. Pending the final settlement of any of the problems between the two countries, neither side shall unilaterally alter the situation and both shall prevent the organisation, assistance or encouragement of any acts detrimental to the maintenance of peace and harmonious relations."

This accord effectively nullifies any UN resolution on Kashmir.

So we have the UN resolutions - which both sides have continously violated, which the UN itself considers not binding, which India rejects - or we have the Shimla accord which was signed by both nations. So why bring up the UN resolutions over and over again?

Finally a smart comment and no emotions, thank u

 

[Nemesis]

Developereo,

There are clearly well meaning people on all sides who genuinely want peace and improved relations, but India suffers from an extreme case of persecution complex and wounded pride.

India suffers from a case of persecution complex? By India, you mean the country of India and it's one billion citizens? Are you sure you want to make a generalized statement on 1/6th of the worlds population?

No India does not suffer from a persecution complex. If anything - reading the nonsensical threads posted on mumbai drama's, hindu-zionist conspiracies, etc - it appears that some Pakistanis do.

Given her ancient history and culture, India feels that she hasn't been given the proper respect on the world stage.

Once again India? Please clarify what you mean when you say "India".

Impotent against the Western powers,

It is not.

she has tried to salvage her pride in the past by trying to act as a regional superpower

The only nation that complains that India acts as a regional superpower is Pakistan.

Contrary to popular opinion in Pakistan and the opinions of some Bangladeshi members, India has friendly relations with all our neighbours except Pakistan (and perhaps China). These neighbours include Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives, Sri Lanka ( seriously where did this India has a bad relationship with Sri Lanka come from?) and Bangladesh.

but the fact that all her neighbors rebuff her stance and assert their own independence only deepens the shame and frustration.

Please speak only for Pakistan and not for all of India's neighbours.

The recent change of fortunes due in equal part to India's internal reforms, and newfound Western appreciation for India as a bulwark against China's rise,

Because "Western Appreciation" is used as any sort of yardstick in India.

have triggered a cathartic release of pent up pride and frustration.

The only pent up frustration here is yours. How else can this pseudo-psychological analyses of Indian society be explained.

Hence we see an army of jingoistic Indians bloviating in the media and on internet forums about India's accomplishments

As opposed to an army of jingoistic Pakistanis doing something similar? Seriously, you really think this phenomenon is unique to Indians?

while, at the same time, belittling her neighbors who dared resist her all these decades.

Once again, a phenomenon unique to Indians? We don't see jingoistic Americans/Chinese/Russians/Pakistanis belittling it's enemies? are you sure about that?

Whether this is a healthy manifestation of national pride, or a classic case of overcompensation for these individuals' personal inferiority complex, is best left to psychologists.

Rhetoric doesn't really re-enforce one's opinions.

What it does mean is that the Indian arrogance makes it even more difficult to improve relations with her neighbors.

Let us ponder this assessment of yours - India doesnt have good relations with its neighbours (An assessment not based on facts) because of it's arrogance. So can the same logic be applied to your nation as well? Pakistan doesn't share good relations with either India or Afghanistan and it's relationship with Iran can be described as best as frosty. What would this be a result of?

This is in stark contrast to India's attitude outside the region, where she puts her best foot forward and presents a carefully crafted "Incredible India" media image.

"Incredible India" is a slogan put together by the tourism ministry to increase the number of foreign tourists. What possible relevance does it have on your argument? could it be another half-baked attempt at rhetoric?

Speaking of media, this is India's loose cannon, and the organ most likely to cause serious damage to India's interests.

I am sadly ignorant of the Pakistani media and hence not in a position to make a judgment, but, in India, the media is not a tool of the government. It's entire purpose is to be a watchdog. Safeguarding the interest of the people.

Flush with money and influence, it has become even more reckless of late, pandering to the jingoists.

The only media that panders to journalists would be the tabloids. They neither shape public opinion, nor are taken seriously. Perhaps you should consider changing the newspapers/websites from India that you read.

Not content with bashing Pakistan, as it has been doing for years, Indian media is now stretching its legs and looking for bigger game.

Rhetoric again.

The recent media circus against Australia

I assume you refer to the bashing of Indian students in Australia. I do not wish to go into a tangent discussing this incident, however what media would sit idly by when there have been hundreds of incidences against students in a year? The American media? The British media? The Pakistani media?

and China should have served as a wake up call,

Which media circus would you referring to? The editorials in official PRC newspapers that ridiculed India's economic progress? The analyses which called for India to be disintegrated? Or do you mean the articles in the India media which highlighted the increase military presence in India's north east?

but only time will tell if the Indian media has learnt restraint and adopted a more professional stance.

We shall await with baited breath on your next assessment on our media.

In a democracy, it is the media which sets the tone and content of national debate on domestic and foreign policy issues and

Perhaps...

as we found out after the meeting in Egypt, it is the media which calls the shots in India.

By call the shots you mean - asking explanations from the government over the phrasing of agreements - then yes, the media does indeed "call the shots". It is it's job.

India's relations will remain hostage to her media circuses until an administration arises which has the strength to resist demagoguery and pursue an independent policy agenda in India's long term interests.

This conclusion epitomizes everything wrong with your post. The usage of sophistical rhetoric and generalized assumptions to make half baked assessments might fool the uneducated masses. But i would like to think that this forum consists of members who can see through it. A highly ranked post indeed.

George Orwell once wrote an essay on the use of language to propagate arguments called "The politics of the English language." My advice to you would be to look it up.

 

[Developereo]

The real question is whether Pakistan will agree to an independence option in the plebiscite - something that they have always objected to.

If the Kashmiri population voted for independence, then the Pakistani public would accept it, and the GOP would have to follow. Independence would actually be the best option for India. Kashmir could never function as a truly independent state anyway, and would become a proxy battleground like Afghanistan.

The UN resolutions that you speak of are not "self enforcing". [...]
This accord effectively nullifies any UN resolution on Kashmir.
[...]
So we have the UN resolutions - which both sides have continously violated, which the UN itself considers not binding, which India rejects - or we have the Shimla accord which was signed by both nations. So why bring up the UN resolutions over and over again?

The Simla accords do not nullify the UN resolutions; they are complementary. And there is a world of difference between "not self-enforcing" and "not binding". You know that. We know that. Everybody knows it.

India suffers from a case of persecution complex? By India, you mean the country of India and it's one billion citizens? Are you sure you want to make a generalized statement on 1/6th of the worlds population?

India refers to the collection of entities which claim a pedigree measured in thousands of years. Contemporarily, it refers to the nationalistic entity created in 1947; the India of "Incredible India" and "India Shining".

No India does not suffer from a persecution complex.

Continually harping about lack of representation in global bodies (UNSC), complaining about inadequate respect for its history and "accomplishments", an almost textbook obsession with expensive symbolic goals (chandrayan, arihant, icbms) as opposed to tangible improvements in the standard of life for the impoverished masses.

The Indian whining has toned down a bit in the last decade as a result of Western pandering.

If anything - reading the nonsensical threads posted on mumbai drama's, hindu-zionist conspiracies, etc - it appears that some Pakistanis do.

Israel's intentions towards Pakistan are no secret; they consider Pakistan and Iran to be the only credible foes.

It is not.

India has been impotent and irrelevant on the world stage for several thousand years. It is only in the last few decades that India has been recognized on the regional political radar; and less than a decade on the global scene.

India has friendly relations with all our neighbours except Pakistan (and perhaps China). These neighbours include Nepal, Bhutan, Maldives, Sri Lanka ( seriously where did this India has a bad relationship with Sri Lanka come from?) and Bangladesh.

Nobody is going to explicitly parade their differences with India, but the ease with which China is building its noose of pearls around India says it all. And Sri Lanka's warm relations with Pakistani military also speak volumes. Bangladesh's puppet government is continually at odds with its own people to justify complicity with Indian agenda.

Because "Western Appreciation" is used as any sort of yardstick in India.

Western appreciation is a prerequisite to membership in any global forum, be it UNSC, G20, etc. And the way Indian media balloons with obsequious pride every time Western media or organizations praise India confirms that the post-colonial mentality is far from gone.

The only pent up frustration here is yours.

We are indeed frustrated by India's intransigence in resolving Kashmir and moving towards a meaningful peaceful relationship.

How else can this pseudo-psychological analyses of Indian society be explained.

Honest observation and unemotional analysis based on facts, as opposed to Bollywood hype.

Once again, a phenomenon unique to Indians? We don't see jingoistic Americans/Chinese/Russians/Pakistanis belittling it's enemies? are you sure about that?

Jingoism occurs in all countries but, in the subcontinent, only India has delusions of grandeur and hegemonistic ambitions.

Rhetoric doesn't really re-enforce one's opinions.

It is an accepted fact that jingoism, particularly when used to belittle others, is often a manifestation of personal problems.

Pakistan doesn't share good relations with either India or Afghanistan and it's relationship with Iran can be described as best as frosty. What would this be a result of?

Incompetent leadership, bad policies, external meddling, bad luck, inept diplomacy...

"Incredible India" is a slogan put together by the tourism ministry to increase the number of foreign tourists. What possible relevance does it have on your argument?

It is a convenient synonym for modern Indian nationalism, which often degrades into jingoism.

in India, the media is not a tool of the government.

Based on the pattern and coordination of recent events, some Indian media are clearly mouthpieces for RAW or GOI propaganda.

It's entire purpose is to be a watchdog. Safeguarding the interest of the people.

That is the theoretical purpose and some Indian media are indeed independent. But many influential media outlets are little more than predictable tub thumpers.

I assume you refer to the bashing of Indian students in Australia. I do not wish to go into a tangent discussing this incident, however what media would sit idly by when there have been hundreds of incidences against students in a year? The American media? The British media? The Pakistani media?

It's not clear that Indians were being disproportionately targetted. And it is certainly not true that Australians are any more racist than any other country. Was the Indian media doing a public service to Indians, or exploiting normal crime statistics to trumpet its own horn of self-righteousness?

Which media circus would you referring to? The editorials in official PRC newspapers that ridiculed India's economic progress? The analyses which called for India to be disintegrated? Or do you mean the articles in the India media which highlighted the increase military presence in India's north east?

Chinese media is mostly state controlled so the state has to take responsibility for any irresponsible behavior. But India media hysteria, which necessitated extensive damage control by GOI, was indicative of the sensationalist and jingoist mindset prevalent in the media.

By call the shots you mean - asking explanations from the government over the phrasing of agreements - then yes, the media does indeed "call the shots". It is it's job.

A country should not hold its foreign policy hostage to media "analysts". A true statesman takes a long term view and makes decisions which may not be popular at the time but which are in the country's best interests. Any schmuck can follow opinion polls, but only a leader can lead.

The usage of sophistical rhetoric and generalized assumptions to make half baked assessments might fool the uneducated masses. But i would like to think that this forum consists of members who can see through it.

It's an assessment based on historical and contemporary facts, known patterns of behavior for individuals and media, and an honest appraisal of the reasons why India finds itself better liked by distant foreigners than adjacent neighbors.

I acknowledge that some of the criticism also applies to Pakistan but India, being bigger, naturally wields more influence in these matters.

People who have the courage to be self-critical will see the truth and understand why peace has been so elusive in the subcontinent.

George Orwell once wrote an essay on the use of language to propagate arguments called "The politics of the English language." My advice to you would be to look it up.

Language is the tool used to communicate ideas. Sometimes those ideas can challenge deeply held beliefs and the onus is on the individual to reassess their beliefs based on new information. There is no point blaming the messenger or the medium.

 

[blueoval79]

If the Kashmiri population voted for independence, then the Pakistani public would accept it, and the GOP would have to follow. Independence would actually be the best option for India. Kashmir could never function as a truly independent state anyway, and would become a proxy battleground like Afghanistan.

ROFL....ROFL and A big ROFL.......


remember the old Pakistani Nara......."Kashmir banega Pakistan"

 

[Y2A]

Hi,
I am just sick and tired of animosity between India and Pakistan. I have seen moderate voice from both sides in this forum. I want to explore what India and Pakistan can do to bridge the Gap and get them closer.

Here is what I feel we stand to gain.
1) Better trade means both nations can reduce cost of buying.
2) Pakistan can gain from economic contracts with India.
3) India can gain if it gets road access to Central Asia.
4) Both nations will have less violence, more peace means more tourism.
5) If we start complementing each other, we can influence world decisions. Instead of subtraction we will be doing addition.
Throw your ideas here

Beside these thought are not main stream indian policy but it would be injustice not to appreciate such proposal, Very positive and optimistic approach one has to say, and quite good suggestions in the context of the situation to start the process what is over the years is known as CBMS.

BUT......(see these IFs & BUTs are always going to be the problems)

How exactly this is going to work this time, while peace process for last few years has been based upon the indian mythology of stalling the process when it comes to GIVE some thing in return.

PEACE is A two way process mate, and most of the times what i have found in all this is the indian involvement and baseless hate towards us i.e Pakistan and Pakistanis, which evident in increased interference in FATA & Baluchistan and brutal suppression of human rights in Kashmir.

our reaction in certain accounts can be elaborated more by the newton, you can say that i ambiased and bucked up by core Pakistanism but this is reality my friend and one can escape from dialogue but not from reality, because reality hunts its denier.

 

[Kshatriya]

A common enemy can get us closer.

 

[IceCold]

A common enemy can get us closer.

Terrorism.

 

[vsdoc]

We already seem to have that right? With both sides accusing the other of fomenting terrorism across borders in each others countries?

Can't see how that has brought us closer buddy ..... unless you mean terrorism from a third party source.

Who? "Takfiri arbi chuze"? LOL (yes, we've actually bought that line of yours ..... and pigs are currently flying over the moon)

The way we Indians see it, terrorism is the Pakistani frankenstein that in its mad feeding frenzy has turned on its own creator.

Little surprise that pakistan's line of "see how we ourselves are suffering" has attracted little if any global sympathy.

Cheers, Doc

 

[Nemesis]

If the Kashmiri population voted for independence, then the Pakistani public would accept it,

If that were true then why has all Pakistani governments (Including democratically elected governments) consistently denied the independence option in the plebiscite?

Despite what you may say, Most Pakistanis (Like most Indians) would not accept an Independent Kashmir.

Independence would actually be the best option for India.

Really?

Kashmir could never function as a truly independent state anyway,

Hence it is right for the GOP to deny the independent option?

and would become a proxy battleground like Afghanistan.

Possibly.

The Simla accords do not nullify the UN resolutions; they are complementary.

No, they are not complementary. The Shimla accord states that all disputes will be solved bilaterally. Here, let me state it again for you -

the two countries are resolved to settle their differences by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them.

Bilaterally, based on mutually agreed upon means. As the UN is a multinational body, to enforce UN resolutions would undermine the "bilateral" nature of this dispute. Moreover, as India rejects the UN resolutions, it can't be considered a "mutually agreed upon mean" now, can it?

And there is a world of difference between "not self-enforcing" and "not binding". You know that. We know that. Everybody knows it.

Why don't you tell me the difference?

India refers to the collection of entities which claim a pedigree measured in thousands of years. Contemporarily, it refers to the nationalistic entity created in 1947; the India of "Incredible India" and "India Shining".

Couldn't resist the rhetoric huh?

Continually harping about lack of representation in global bodies (UNSC),

Is this a result of a persecution complex?

Any world body that does not take into account the the opinions of one sixth of humanity cannot be considered truly global.

complaining about inadequate respect for its history and "accomplishments",

Perhaps you should talk in specifics, instead of making generalized assessments.

and accomplishments in quotation? Very nice.

an almost textbook obsession with expensive symbolic goals (chandrayan, arihant, icbms)

These are not symbolic goals. The latter two are important for our security. The first resulted in a find that would in the end benefit humanity.

as opposed to tangible improvements in the standard of life for the impoverished masses.

The same argument can be made for any nation. Including the most powerful.

The Indian whining has toned down a bit in the last decade as a result of Western pandering.

Once again, Western appeasement is not any yardstick used in India.

Israel's intentions towards Pakistan are no secret;

shouldn't you be quoting Ben Gurion right about now?

Israel has no intentions towards Pakistan. This perception is based on the idea that as "Pakistan is a leader in the Muslim world, Israel must have designs against it". What were you saying about a persecution complex?

they consider Pakistan and Iran to be the only credible foes.

Israel has the backing of the entire western world, why would it be concerned about a nation that isn't even in it's immediate neighbourhood? Persecution complex anyone?

India has been impotent and irrelevant on the world stage for several thousand years.

Lack of knowledge of history is not a good thing. By impotent you mean, not interested in military conquest of other nation states? Then yes, we were impotent. I would have thought this is an ideal all nations should follow.

By the way, as "India" historically also refers to Pakistan, shouldn't your assessment then be also applied to Pakistan?

It is only in the last few decades that India has been recognized on the regional political radar;

Modern India has only been around for the last few decades.

and less than a decade on the global scene.

On the contrary, as the leader of N.A.M, India was always on the global scene.

Nobody is going to explicitly parade their differences with India, but the ease with which China is building its noose of pearls around India says it all.

The string of pearls you mean? The only pearl that actually appears on radar is the Pakistani port of Gwadar. Please elaborate the names of Chinese bases in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, Maldives and even Myanmar ( Myanmar has denied reports of a Chinese listening stations).

And Sri Lanka's warm relations with Pakistani military also speak volumes.

Are you seriously under the delusion that Pakistan shares closer relations with Sri Lanka then India? Then why was it that it was the Indian PM that the president of Sri Lanka called to give daily updates on it's war with LTTE? Why was it then that the Sri Lankan army was given explicit orders to defeat the LTTE before the Indian general elections?

India has been giving weapons to the Sri Lankan military for years. (Awaiting snide remarks on the sub standard nature of Indian weaponry)

Bangladesh's puppet government is continually at odds with its own people to justify complicity with Indian agenda.

Puppet government? As the current "puppet" government was chosen by the people, does that mean that Bangladeshis themselves are "puppets"as well? Don't go by the opinions of Bangladeshi members on this forum, most Bangladeshis would be offended that you consider a democratically elected government ( elected through a landslide) to be puppets.

Western appreciation is a prerequisite to membership in any global forum, be it UNSC, G20, etc.

No. Smart diplomacy is a prerequisite to membership in any global forum. That is why China is now part of the WTO after negotiating for 15 years. Are you suggesting that China pandered to the West?

By the way, the G20 is a group of the worlds biggest economies. Western appreciation has nothing to do with it. If it did, then Argentina - which has frosty relations with the UK - would not be a member.

And the way Indian media balloons with obsequious pride every time Western media or organizations praise India confirms that the post-colonial mentality is far from gone.

Post colonial? Don't you mean colonial? Post colonial mentality would be a good thing. It means awareness of the effects of colonial legacy (Whether they be mental/economic/cultural) and taking steps to eradicate it.

As i said before, don't use rhetoric. Especially when you don't know the meaning of certain terms.

We are indeed frustrated by India's intransigence in resolving Kashmir and moving towards a meaningful peaceful relationship.

We are also frustrated by Pakistani efforts in bringing the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks to justice.

Honest observation and unemotional analysis based on facts, as opposed to Bollywood hype.

Or, Sophistical rhetoric and uninformed statements to make half baked analyses that panders to the jingoists in Pakistan.

Jingoism occurs in all countries but, in the subcontinent, only India has delusions of grandeur and hegemonistic ambitions.

India is a status quo nation. She has no hegemonic designs. Not even to claim land occupied by foreign nations. We are happy the way things are. As far as delusions are concerned, we have an ideal that we are trying to strive towards, consider it delusions if you will, it is quite irrelevant.

It is an accepted fact that jingoism, particularly when used to belittle others, is often a manifestation of personal problems.

You speak of individuals, not nations. The only individual belittling others here is you.

Incompetent leadership, bad policies, external meddling, bad luck, inept diplomacy...

....arrogance?

It is a convenient synonym for modern Indian nationalism, which often degrades into jingoism.

It is also a convenient label used by hate mongers to ridicule the Indian nation.

Based on the pattern and coordination of recent events, some Indian media are clearly mouthpieces for RAW or GOI propaganda.

That is the theoretical purpose and some Indian media are indeed independent. But many influential media outlets are little more than predictable tub thumpers.

No private media outlet is a mouthpiece of the government. The GOI already has Doordarshan - which is state owned - for that. Considering that Doordarshan has more reach than any other news channel, why would the GOI rely on private media outlets?

If they are jingoistic - and yes some media houses are indeed jingoistic - it is out of the mistaken belief that Jingoism = ratings or more readership.

It's not clear that Indians were being disproportionately targetted. And it is certainly not true that Australians are any more racist than any other country.

According to the Indian student welfare commitee set up in Sydney, there has been 100 attacks on Indian students in Sydney alone. As you live in Australia, are you seriously saying that the phenomenon of curry bashing is unknown to you?

No media outlets have labeled Australia as Racist. To do so would be unacceptable. However, pointing out that there is a serious problem in Australia is not.

Was the Indian media doing a public service to Indians, or exploiting normal crime statistics to trumpet its own horn of self-righteousness?

Funny, most editorials in even the most jingoistic newspapers considered it ironic that a nation such as India would label Australians as racists. Please feel free to read -

The Times of India - We're even more racist than Aussies:Juggle-Bandhi:Jug Suraiya's blog-The Times Of India

I can give you more if you're interested.

Chinese media is mostly state controlled so the state has to take responsibility for any irresponsible behavior. But India media hysteria, which necessitated extensive damage control by GOI, was indicative of the sensationalist and jingoist mindset prevalent in the media.

Let me repeat once again, Which media circus would you referring to? The editorials in official PRC newspapers that ridiculed India's economic progress? The analyses which called for India to be disintegrated? Or do you mean the articles in the India media which highlighted the increase military presence in India's north east?

A country should not hold its foreign policy hostage to media "analysts". A true statesman takes a long term view and makes decisions which may not be popular at the time but which are in the country's best interests. Any schmuck can follow opinion polls, but only a leader can lead. It's an assessment based on historical and contemporary facts, known patterns of behavior for individuals and media, and an honest appraisal of the reasons why India finds itself better liked by distant foreigners than adjacent neighbors.

I acknowledge that some of the criticism also applies to Pakistan but India, being bigger, naturally wields more influence in these matters.

People who have the courage to be self-critical will see the truth and understand why peace has been so elusive in the subcontinent

I grow tired of your rhetoric. Instead of debating points, you have engaged in meaningless bombast and flowery language to try and make assessments that can be only used in election rallies to persuade the Pakistani public of the bogey of "Indian hegemony".

Language is the tool used to communicate ideas. Sometimes those ideas can challenge deeply held beliefs and the onus is on the individual to reassess their beliefs based on new information.

Agreed.

There is no point blaming the messenger or the medium.

I'm not blaming the medium. Language is a very powerful tool that can be used in all sorts of ways. For example, i could also engage in a 1000 word vitriol against Pakistan and all of it's ills; and considering, my primary study is that of literature, i think i could do a better job.

However, such a thing would only persuade those hate mongers who did not need any persuasion to begin with, and as such would be entirely pointless.

 

[IceCold]

We already seem to have that right? With both sides accusing the other of fomenting terrorism across borders in each others countries?

Can't see how that has brought us closer buddy ..... unless you mean terrorism from a third party source.

Who? "Takfiri arbi chuze"? LOL (yes, we've actually bought that line of yours ..... and pigs are currently flying over the moon)

The way we Indians see it, terrorism is the Pakistani frankenstein that in its mad feeding frenzy has turned on its own creator.

Little surprise that pakistan's line of "see how we ourselves are suffering" has attracted little if any global sympathy.

Cheers, Doc

If only Indians could see, perhaps there wouldn't be a problem in the first place and as for the last line about attracting little sympathy is completely off mark because it maybe just a line for Indians, in reality it is the truth because it has effected Pakistan badly and the world does acknowledges the same but only some ignorant who think otherwise India being on top.

 

[vsdoc]

So you mean as a pakistani you are seeing something different? That India and pakistan have indeed come closer due to the "shared scourge" of terrorism? I do not see it on our side ..... please tell us if you guys see things differently.

Cheers, Doc

 

[PakShaheen79]

I don't think there is any chance in foreseeable future for both countires to come too close to each other.

Over the years despite all out efforts no real gains are there in this context. A status-quo is still there... And it will remain so until and unless a solution of outstanding issues like Kashmir can be found with win-win situation... That itself is almost impossible task to reach.

Next, Both country must accept each other on equal level. No one must try to think itself as Big Brother like thing.

 

[Developereo]

Despite what you may say, Most Pakistanis (Like most Indians) would not accept an Independent Kashmir.

This will come as a shock to Indians, but the only thing that should matter is what the Kashmiris want. The people of India and Pakistan will have to accept the will of the Kashmiri population. Think Quebec and Canada.

As the UN is a multinational body, to enforce UN resolutions would undermine the "bilateral" nature of this dispute. Moreover, as India rejects the UN resolutions, it can't be considered a "mutually agreed upon mean" now, can it?

As a member of the UN, India is obliged to honor its resolutions. And the resolutions are complementary to Shimla in that they reinforce the bilateral nature of the solution.

Why don't you tell me the difference?

Certainly.

self-enforcing means the resolution includes language authorizing the use of international (UN) force to enforce it, regardless of the willingness of the parties involved.
non-binding means the parties involved can chose to ignore the resolution if they don't like it.

The UN resolution on Kashmir is not self-enforcing, meaning the UN cannot enforce it, but it is certainly binding on its members, much as India would like to deny it. Here, I will copy your Kofi Annan quote here so you can read it again s-l-o-w-l-y.

"The UN resolutions that come under chapter seven of the charter were self-enforcing like those related to East Timor and Iraq. The second type of resolutions which do not fall in the purview of chapter seven needed co-operation of the concerned parties for their implementation. The UN resolutions on Kashmir do not fall in the category of chapter seven and hence required cooperation of the concerned parties for their implementation and in this case it is lacking"

There is nothing in Kofi Annan's statement that says India can ignore the resolution and consider it "non-binding".

Couldn't resist the rhetoric huh?

So "Incredible India" and "India Shining" are just empty rhetoric, eh?

Is this a result of a persecution complex?

Any world body that does not take into account the the opinions of one sixth of humanity cannot be considered truly global.

The UNSC is, and always has been, about power not representation. India's exclusion reflects its lack of clout.

and accomplishments in quotation? Very nice.

Indians claim credit for all sorts of "accomplishments" which are laughable to any sane person.
Remember the 35% of US doctors are Indians; 35% of NASA scientists are Indians, etc. etc. ?

Israel has no intentions towards Pakistan. This perception is based on the idea that as "Pakistan is a leader in the Muslim world, Israel must have designs against it".

This perception is based on a history of AIPAC lobbying against Pakistan in Washington and the fact that Pakistan is a nuclear power. It is also based on the well-touted military relationship between India and Israel, including Israeli help for floundering Indian forces in Kargil.

What were you saying about a persecution complex?

Keeping your eyes open and being aware of what's going on is not a persecution complex. Israel is not an abstract entity; it is a country which has shown its animosity towards Pakistan in the past, as indicated above.

Israel has the backing of the entire western world, why would it be concerned about a nation that isn't even in it's immediate neighbourhood?

The two are not mutually exclusive; no country wants to leave anything to chance. Why is Israel concerned about Iran if it has the backing of the "entire western world", as you say?

In any case, this is off-topic.

By impotent you mean, not interested in military conquest of other nation states? Then yes, we were impotent. I would have thought this is an ideal all nations should follow.

By impotent I mean under foreign rule, be it Mughal or British.

By the way, as "India" historically also refers to Pakistan, shouldn't your assessment then be also applied to Pakistan?

Unlike India, Pakistan doesn't have delusions of grandeur and regional hegemonistic plans.

On the contrary, as the leader of N.A.M, India was always on the global scene.

The NAM was the laughingstock of the developed world. It was a pathetic temper tantrum by India to be a "leader" of nations. It was the political equivalent of the dateless nerds club.

The string of pearls you mean?

Noose.

The only pearl that actually appears on radar is the Pakistani port of Gwadar. Please elaborate the names of Chinese bases in Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal, Maldives and even Myanmar ( Myanmar has denied reports of a Chinese listening stations).

http://www.defence.pk/forums/china-defence/26043-chinese-naval-base-sri-lanka.html
Nepal: An emerging strategic arena between New Delhi and Beijing.
Port in China’s ‘String of Pearls’ worries India - Express India

The other “pearls” are naval facilities in Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand, Cambodia and the South China Sea.

Are you seriously under the delusion that Pakistan shares closer relations with Sri Lanka then India?

Sri Lanka has close relations with Pakistan and China, despite India's "concerns". It is this dogged manifestation of independence that so annoys India.

India has been giving weapons to the Sri Lankan military for years.

What's that got to do with anything? Sri Lanka will accept all the help it is offered to defeat the LTTE.

Puppet government? As the current "puppet" government was chosen by the people, does that mean that Bangladeshis themselves are "puppets"as well? Don't go by the opinions of Bangladeshi members on this forum, most Bangladeshis would be offended that you consider a democratically elected government ( elected through a landslide) to be puppets.

I will take the word of the Bangladeshi posters over yours when it comes to Bangladesh's internal matters.

No. Smart diplomacy is a prerequisite to membership in any global forum.

I am sure it is only a coincidence that Indian "diplomatic prowess" just happened to coincide with China's rise and the West's use of India as a counterbalance.

That is why China is now part of the WTO after negotiating for 15 years. Are you suggesting that China pandered to the West?

India is not even remotely in the same league as China. The Chinese get quite annoyed at being lumped together with India by the Western media.

Post colonial? Don't you mean colonial? Post colonial mentality would be a good thing. It means awareness of the effects of colonial legacy (Whether they be mental/economic/cultural) and taking steps to eradicate it.

The term post-colonial has various connotations: Postcolonial Literature

People who call themselves postcolonial scholars generally see themselves as part of a large (if poorly defined and disorganized) movement to expose and struggle against the influence of large, rich nations (mostly European, plus the U.S.) on poorer nations (mostly in the southern hemisphere).

Indian media's desire to portray India as equal to the West is an example of post-colonial viewpoint which, I admit, is not a bad thing.

If you like we can use the less ambiguous term "ex-colonial" to refer to a country which used to be a colony.

We are also frustrated by Pakistani efforts in bringing the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks to justice.

No, you are frustrated by the independence shown by Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Myanmar and, to a certain extent, Bangladesh.

Or, Sophistical rhetoric and uninformed statements to make half baked analyses that panders to the jingoists in Pakistan.

Facts and history. Uncomfortable for some to accept, clearly.

India is a status quo nation. She has no hegemonic designs. Not even to claim land occupied by foreign nations. We are happy the way things are.

You want to keep lands which do not belong to you. Other countries will not let you get away with it.

As far as delusions are concerned, we have an ideal that we are trying to strive towards, consider it delusions if you will, it is quite irrelevant.

India's ambitions are irrelevant to its neighbors except when they infringe upon their sovereignty or obstruct regional peace.

You speak of individuals, not nations. The only individual belittling others here is you.

I only belittle jingoistic bullies. I have no problem with people who want to discuss issues rationally and amicably.

It is also a convenient label used by hate mongers to ridicule the Indian nation.

No.
Not everyone buys into the "Incredible India" hype.
That doesn't mean they hate India, and it doesn't make them a hate monger.
You really need to be less sensitive.

No private media outlet is a mouthpiece of the government. The GOI already has Doordarshan - which is state owned - for that. Considering that Doordarshan has more reach than any other news channel, why would the GOI rely on private media outlets?

Precisely because Doordarshan is a known GOI mouthpiece and anything in it will be dismissed as propaganda.

No media outlets have labeled Australia as Racist.

16th victim: Indian alleges racist attack in Australia
Racist attack: Indian taxi driver assaulted in Australia

Which media circus would you referring to?

The Indian media circus about "racist" attacks in Australia.
The Indian media circus hyping up Chinese border incursions.
The Indian media circus by Bharat Verma and friends.
The Indian media circus that inflames anti-Pakistan feelings at every opportunity.

Instead of debating points, you have engaged in meaningless bombast and flowery language to try and make assessments that can be only used in election rallies to persuade the Pakistani public of the bogey of "Indian hegemony".

I listed specific reasons why India has alienated all her neighbors and I offered an insight into the Indian mindset which leads to such a dysfunctional relationship between India and almost all her neighbors. I pointed out why pandering to the media and opinion polls is not the best way to govern a country.

Also, it seems to be a common misconception in India that Pakistani domestic politics revolves around India. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indians reallly need to get over themselves and their inflated sense of self-importance.

i could also engage in a 1000 word vitriol against Pakistan and all of it's ills

Nobody is denying Pakistan's ills. I specifically mentioned that many of the faults listed also apply to Pakistan. The fact that some people are so sensitive and dismissive of any criticism is one of the reasons both countries lack proper dialog.

If you look at my other posts, I am actually a huge proponent of close ties with India (especially post-Kashmir) because of the overwhelming cultural similarities and, unlike many Indians here, I am actually hopeful that we will eventually get there.