What's new

What can bring India and Pakistan closer

@IceCold

I'm surprised by your comments, did you read the entire article or just stop and the scenarios bit?

The main premise is around changing Pakistan from fractured to friendly state, from an Indian perspective. And also keep in mind that this was in February when the situation seemed more dire than today.

Just quoting the scenario that they recommend India should work for:

Finally, and unlikely as it seems today, there still exists a possibility of a Friendly Pakistan. It would be rooted in Mohammed Ali Jinnah’s original design for the state: Muslim, Moderate and Modern. It is this Pakistan that an Indian grand strategy must systematically work towards constructing.

We have already heard India's "grand startegy" for Pakistan in Indian media.

You Indians can help Pakistan by leaving Pakistan alone, but you wont do that because your own defence analyst said that stable Pakistan is not in india's interest.

And quit brainwashing our young simple-minded Pakistanis by saying India and Pakistan is one. If I had a dollar for every time an Indian said that partition was a mistake and India and Pakistan should form a confederation, I would be rich.

Pakistan and India dont even have normal relations and Indians talk about a confederation or a union:rolleyes:

Pakistan is a reality, we closed the borders in 1947 and we never looked back.
 
Most ppl agree that kashmir is the biggest sticking point between india and pakistan.

but in my opinion ,the biggest problem with pakistan is the trust deficit betwee the two countries.Its no secret that two nation along with its ppl consider each other as rivals at best and sworn enemies at worst of the situations.

Now why is that so??

Pardon me ,but i can only give an unpopualr indian point of view.And i'sure u guys wanna know true indian feeling however uncomfortable that might be.

problem(1)" india hate pakistani motive and desire to sieze kashmir by direct military action and prolong proxy war. Moreover we indians just cant tolerate the fact that pakistan has been too audacious to even think in those lines."

I genuinely believe that if had not see wars of 65 which was in many ways a prelude to war of 71 ,and had pakistan stuck to peaceful negotiations all along ,the kashmir problem might have been solved and even can dare to say that atleast the kahsmir valley could have become part of pakistan by now with india's consent.

What do you think pakistan was doing up until 65?



problem(2.) " pakistan ganging up with china,a country that attacked us while we were most vulnerable and still contemplating some hostile move incase of future china india conflict, a wicked thought clerly resonated here and other pakistani forums. "

Its bad move that pakistan prefered to play parley with china just after sino indian war in 1963 and donated parts of Aksi chin to china. Instead,had pakistan came out strongly aganist china in support of india in 62 ,our relations would've been much different today.

If only guys had played fair.....taking kashmir ect and then expecting support from pakistan is out of the question.


problem(3). " This relentless effort to bleed india by thousand cuts ,be it by through terrorism inside india,sereis of bomb blast with ISI support and even more bold but grusome and damning attacks of 26/11 or prmoting fake currency,communal strife in india."

All these things making pakistan look like a villian for common indians and more difficult of the GOI to take any softer approach with india.

U see guys,

We had been trying solve kashmir problem for many decades.It need peaceful dialogue.
WE als0 know it very well negotiation means give & take...making compromises ,but india cant make compromises /sacrifies with a hostile pakistna ,can it??
With enemies ,u dont negotiate, u can only go to war with.

It was the kashmiris that went agianst indian rule and only after did pakistan support the freedom fighters......you dont want compromise only your own way which you will not get.


If pakistan wants to solve kashmir and closer relation with india,then it must stop doing what it had been doing so unsuccessfully for all these time.Just do the exact opposite ,i bet it'll see far more success not only in kashmir ,but all in other disputes it has with india.[/QUOTE]
 
EjazR quoting the lead article suggests a Muslim, Moderate, and modern Pakistan - I could have done without the "modern" bit, perhaps "enlightened" works better for me - most all of Pakistan's ills can be laid at the feet of Modernity, from radical socialits/populist politics and definitions of "democracy" to the entirely modern ideas that animate it's "fundamentalist" religious community, to the kinds of modern ideas realized in it's "mercantile" (read monopolistic/cartelized) economics.

I think we may get into semantics but miss the main theme. Although there are many other interests and concerns for both countries, from my understanding it woudl be fair to say that the main concern at the moment is cross-border terrorism in India (even if it is from non-state actors)

From my reading a summary is

-- Even now Indian foreign policy has had a blinkered view of Pakistan looking at it as a monolith instead of the various parts that it consists of.

-- Stable democratic and modern/enlightened Pakistan IS in India's interests, as the other scenarios including a break up of Pakistan would cause more problems for India. Even though there are some sections in India who are gleeful at that prospects mostly because they lack vision/brains on forseeing what this would result in.

-- The democratic/civil society should be empowered so that the influecen of military e.t.c is curtailed in Pakistani politics. Since, a democratic Pakistan would represent the common Pakistanis who want peaceful relations the elected GoP would try to do the same as long as its not inflenced by hawks and military.

-- Sabre rattling and jingoistic pronouncements empower the right-wing / extremists forces in Pakistan as was seen by TTP pledging to fight alongside PA after mumbai attacks. A war or military strikes would do the same. Instead of encouraging the moderate/democratic forces, this would be detrimental to peace and stability in south asia.

-- people-to-people contacts, trade, diplomatic relations should be maintained (these were maintained btw even after mumbai attacks) Reassure Pakistan on the use of water which is the main concern for agriculture.

-- At the same time, take appropiate steps/actions/statements against terrorists that may be a threat to both India and the moderate forces in Pakistan.

What kind of India best brings Pakistan and India together? Perhaps a less "Americanized" India, one which is focused on solving problems internally, come to think of it, it's what we have suggested as prescription for Pakistan - curious that.
I think the perception that India is "Americanized" or there is an Indo-Israeli-American axis was because fo the foreign policy blunders of the past BJP-led NDA government. They did not know the difference between foreign policy and diplomacy. The current govt. can hardly be considered as "Americanised" and is definitely more internally focussed now be it Kashmir, NE India or other issues.
Sure GoI would continue to exapnd and deepen ties with America as would any other country but not follow America blindly in every thing.
Maybe a sign of more positive things to come?
 
Last edited:
-- Stable democratic and modern/enlightened Pakistan IS in India's interests, as the other scenarios including a break up of Pakistan would cause more problems for India.

Take a visit to indian sites and tell your fellow Indians what you have just written and just see what kind of response you'll get. Pakistanis know how the indian mind-set works.


Stable Pakistan not in India’s interest

Capt. Bharat Verma is the editor of Indian Defence Review. A quarterly journal read by leading policy makers at senior bureaucratic, political and military levels, the IDR is renowned as the "most-quoted Indian defence publication". Capt. Verma is also the founder and current editor of Lancer Publishers, a publishing house dedicated to defence and security matters.

Indians pose the biggest threat to the Union of India.

The reason is simple. An average Indian is merely an individual. His personal well-being overrides all other considerations, including national interests.

This is perhaps why many have begun to propagate parting of Kashmir in their write-ups, since it does not belong individually to them. However, imagine the hue and cry if their personal property and family is held hostage by the terrorists. They will sing a different tune.

The blame lies with New Delhi. For the past 60 years, instead of consolidating the Union, leaders encouraged divisiveness on the basis of religion and caste for sheer vote bank politics. Instead of unifying its citizenry with good governance and increasing their stakes through prosperity, so that they may serve the cause of the nation with honor, it has treated its citizens with unprecedented shabbiness.

The result: groups of citizens have risen against the state, mostly for lack of economic progress and denial of justice. Such disgruntled groups are being taken advantage of by the external forces inimical to India.

There can never be unity in diversity. Unity requires a fair amount of uniformity in laws throughout the Union.

That New Delhi is its own worst enemy became obvious when it permitted the creation of a pure Islamic State on its borders. This nation-state contradicts every democratic and multi-cultural value dear to India. Therefore, if New Delhi has not slept a wink since the creation of Pakistan, it has no one except itself to blame!

Islamabad, besides the wars it imposed on New Delhi, extended its so-called Islamic purity to the Kashmir Valley by instigating the locals to carry out ethnic cleansing of the minority communities.

Hence, first we created a state with inbuilt characteristic of fundamentalism and extreme philosophy contrary to our professed beliefs; then the monster in it started ethnic cleansing in the Valley; and engineered demographic changes through Bangladesh in West Bengal, Assam and the Northeast.

Saudi Arabia and other Islamic oil-rich countries pitched in with the petro-dollars in support, all in the cause of the illusion called Ummah and the establishment of the Caliphate.

The Indian leadership, for its personal vote-bank gains, helped these inimical forces by invoking the Illegal Migrants (determination by Tribunals) or IMDT Act in Assam, which was subsequently shot down by the Supreme Court. The damage was done, as the Union’s overburdened security forces grapple with 15 million illegal Bangladesh infiltrators creating mayhem on Indian soil.

Islamabad, Dhaka, and now Kathmandu, spurred on by Beijing, have united with the singular agenda: to unhook the Valley and the Northeast from the Indian Union.

In addition, they are instigating the Maoists, who control almost 40 n per cent of the Union’s territory, to set up a parallel government, and ultimately, like the Maoists in Nepal, win the elections in pockets of their influence, and impose a regressive authoritarian governments in tune with their own regime.

And yet, New Delhi, instead of consolidating and unifying the Union , continues to divide its citizenry in religious or caste denominations.

Over the past 60 years, New Delhi’s muddle-headed policies actually encouraged separatism. Instead of ensuring diffusion of secular pan-Indian culture and the integration of the society by encouraging Indians from all over to buy and develop land and industry in the Valley and the Northeast, it imposed restrictions on such settlements.

Meanwhile, Pakistan and Bangladesh exported their fundamentalist population to these areas to change the demographic hues in their favour. The ugly separatist face of the agitation in the Valley today is the consequence of the dereliction of the fundamental duty by the Union.

The trend needs to be reversed forcibly by integrating the Valley firmly into the Indian mainstream by creating a secular mix of population through industrialisation.

Many conveniently propose the myth that a stable Pakistan is in India’s favour. This is a false proposition. The truth is that Pakistan is bad news for the Indian Union since 1947–stable or otherwise.

Islamabad has enjoyed brief periods of political stability since the birth of Pakistan. But even during these interludes, it continued to export terrorism, fake currency and narcotics to India. It continued its attempts to change the demography along our borders, and cultivated sleeper cells and armed groups inside our territory to create an uprising at an appropriate time.

Also, it aligned with Beijing and other powers, in a mutually beneficial scheme, to tie-down and ultimately cause a territorial split of the Union.

With Pakistan on the brink of collapse due to massive internal as well as international contradictions, it is matter of time before it ceases to exist.
Multiple benefits will accrue to the Union of India on such demise.

If Indian national interests are defined with clarity and prioritised, the foremost threat to the Union (and for centuries before its birth) has consistently and continuously materialised on the western periphery.

To defend this key threat to the Union, New Delhi should extend its influence through export of both soft and hard power towards Central Asia, from where invasions have been mounted over centuries. The cessation of Pakistan as a state facilitates furtherance of this pivotal national objective.

The self-destructive path that Islamabad chose will either splinter the state into many parts or it will wither away—a case of natural progression to its logical conclusion. In either case Baluchistan will achieve independence.

For New Delhi this opens a window of opportunity to ensure that the Gwadar port does not fall into the hands of the Chinese. In this, there is synergy between the political objectives of the Americans and the Indians. Our existing goodwill in Baluchistan requires intelligent leveraging.

Sindh and most of the non-Punjabi areas of Pakistan will be our new friends.

Pakistan’s breakup will be a major setback to the Jihad Factory, which functions with the help of its army and the ISI. This in turn will ease pressures on India and the international community.

With China’s one arm, i.e. Pakistan disabled, its expansionist plans will receive a severe jolt. Beijing continues to pose another primary threat to New Delhi. Even as we continue to engage with it as constructively as possible, we must strive to remove the proxy.

At the same time, it is prudent to extend moral support to the people of Tibet to sink Chinese expansionism in the morass of insurgency. For a change, let us do to them what they do to us.

With Pakistan gone, the chances of Central Asia getting infected with the Jihadi fervour will recede. Afghanistan will gain fair amount of stability. India’s access to Central Asian energy routes will open up.

With disintegration of ISI’s inimical activities of infiltration and pushing of fake currency into India, from Nepal and Bangladesh will cease. Within the Union social harmony will improve enormously. Export of Islamic fundamentalism, with its 360-degree sweep from Islamabad, will vanish. Even a country like Thailand will heave a sigh of relief.

Above all, the gathering threat from a united group of authoritarian regimes along our 14,000 km borders, orchestrated and synchronised by Pakistan, will dissolve.

At the height of the recent disturbances in the Valley, when a general asked me for a suggestion to resolve the issue, I said: “ Remove Pakistan. The threat will disappear permanently.” Today the collapse of Pakistan as a state is almost certain. All the King’s men cannot save it from itself.

Looking ahead, New Delhi should formulate an appropriate strategy for ‘post-Pakistan scenario’ to secure India’s interests in Central Asia.

It is intriguing, therefore, to hear New Delhi mouthing the falsehood that stable Pakistan is in India’s favour. Perpetuation of such illogic for vote-bank politics is harming the consolidation and integration of the Union.

Short-sighted politicians as usual are overlooking the national interest for the short-term personal gains of a few votes.

The writer is Editor, Indian Defence Review. bharat.verma@indiandefencereview.com

Stable Pakistan not in India’s interest
 
Last edited:
We have already heard India's "grand startegy" for Pakistan in Indian media.

You Indians can help Pakistan by leaving Pakistan alone, but you wont do that because your own defence analyst said that stable Pakistan is not in india's interest.

And quit brainwashing our young simple-minded Pakistanis by saying India and Pakistan is one. If I had a dollar for every time an Indian said that partition was a mistake and India and Pakistan should form a confederation, I would be rich.

Pakistan and India dont even have normal relations and Indians talk about a confederation or a union:rolleyes:

Pakistan is a reality, we closed the borders in 1947 and we never looked back.

I don't understand why you are so insecure. Not once in my 600-odd posts have I said Pakistan should not exists anymore and become part of India. But yes I have said that it would be natural to have peaceful relations because it makes cultural and economic sense as well. That doesn't impinge on Pakistani soveriegnity in any way.

Apart from the right fringe, no one wants to take over Pakistan and it would be politcal suicide to even suggest this.
 
I don't understand why you are so insecure. Not once in my 600-odd posts have I said Pakistan should not exists anymore and become part of India. But yes I have said that it would be natural to have peaceful relations because it makes cultural and economic sense as well. That doesn't impinge on Pakistani soveriegnity in any way.

Apart from the right fringe, no one wants to take over Pakistan and it would be politcal suicide to even suggest this.

Pakistanis have access to all Indian websites. We've visited those forums, read indian discussions.

You Indians say one thing in Indian forums and another in Pakistani forums.

First thing you notice in Indian websites, is indians bashing Pakistan, Pakistanis, and Islam..then they make scenarios on how to overtake Pakistan and intergrate into India and marry Pakistani women and convert Pakistanis to hinduism.

Indian media and Bollywood is not that different from Indian websites.

You being an indian should spend some time in indian websites too and then come here and tell me whose insecure.

Pakistanis already know how the indian mind-set works when it comes to Pakistan-India relations.
 
Last edited:
Take a visit to indian sites and tell your fellow Indians what you have just written and just see what kind of response you'll get. Pakistanis know how the indian mind-set works.
Stable Pakistan not in India’s interest


Terrorists attacks terrorises people and by its very nature makes people over-react, I'm not condoning the over-reaction over cool headed thinking but this is a fact. Even sane people over-react then what would you expect of "defence-analysts".
When terrorists attacks started happening in urban areas in Pakistan, there was a clamour to finish of the Taliban, to destroy their bases and kill off any members, suspected or otherwise. Extra judicial killings that came up in the reports are dismissed by many Pakistani themselves as "they deserved it", and these are people who were Pakistanis themselves.

How can we resolve Kashmir if a similar situation continues there? And to say that terrorism exists and justifying it because of Kashmir is like saying TTP violence is ok because their is lack of governance/ lack of justice in those areas. Sure there are problems but that doesn't justify militants crossing the LoC and causing problems in Kashmir or coming to mumbai among others.

If elements are coming across the border into Kashmir or Mumbai, even if it be without state support, would you be surprised at the current reaction in GoI?

You have to learn to see India through its politcal parties and their policies and electoral strengths rather than obscure analysts. That's an advatage of having a democratic country as your "adversary". They eventually have to be transparent to the public.
Even when BJP was in power, it had around 22% of vote share and a shaky coalition of 22 allies. This time around the UPA was able to reach the 50% mark all on its won.

Obviously, the article is saying this is what SHOULD be done by GoI. Not what it IS doing.
 
Mastan

Unfortunately, The Indian think they are more than our military match and given the mentality, the need to feel big - we will continue to have deaf ears.

Had the Indian any real confidence in the overwhelming superiority of his military, they would have gone for adventures already - but Pakistan do not have to match the Indian weapon for weapon, system for system, man for man, all we have to do is ensure that there can never be superiority - and so we must live with a India that will never have accepted partition as a irreversible reality and a India that does not believe in the sovereign equality of nations, so what's different or going to be different?

haha,Isnt that what pakistan army have been preaching to the common pakistanis to justify its existance ,its huge budget and virtual control over pakistan??

As they say while other country has armies...pakistan army has a country.

Coming to adventures...have we seen enough in 65,71, over siachin ahd kargil??

U can agure about what happened in 71,but frankly thats a pay back for ur own martial race adventure of 65.

India has been only reacting to pakistani belligerence through the history.

And to say that does nt accept pakistan or want to assimilate in to into indian union...well,nothing could be further from the truth.


We are democratic set up where noone is looking to grab more land to for posterity,not that we like to loose what u currently posses.And
So we too want none of pakistan. Whats we gonna achieve by occupy a big country with so much hostility for india in anyway??

As i said before in my last post,instead of taking a very hostile confrontational posture toward india like we had seen from the beginning,had pakistan ensured a peaceful non threatening and negotiative approach ,pakistan would 've a become a brotherly country worthy of all evey kind of concession not only on kashmir ,but on all other disputes based on a cordial relation.But unfortunately ,currently its comes across as vicious terrorist monster to general indian population who wants to be protected aganist at all costs.


In other words,if some wise pakistani thinks they could have best of relations with india only if india solves kashmir favourably for pakistan,then let me say only if we continue to have best of relations with each other,then only kashmir issue could be resolved and perhaps even favourably for pakistan with the consent of indian pppl.
 
Dear Mastan,

From responses here overnight, my post seems to have stirred a veritable pakistani hornets nest.

I know it has been eight years since the war on terror---but when the pak millitary decided to take down swat and surrounding areas----it took them merely 30 plus plus days to take out the insurgents.

Those insurgents were better trained, better weapons, more committed and were in larger numbers than bugti, marri and mengal tribesmen.

Sure, but doesn't that prove just one thing? It is so patently obvious to the rest of the world that its frankly embarrassing that you, a Pakistani, would openly bring it up here. Think about it.

Neither does the baluch movement have numbers behind them nor the resource to put in a large army to fight the millitary----the most they can do is guerilla action---a bomb here a bomb there---that is it.

Well, the hostilities have been going on since 1947, which is longer than any other subcontinental issue barring Kashmir. And like for Kashmir, Pakistan have fought three wars over the same ..... only difference being, in these three you guys managed to win. But Balochistan refuses to go away, and has now come front and center on the international table. Its not only about bombs you know .... if it were, Kashmir would have been yours long ago.

Bottomline is that pak and indians can be acquintances---but never friends---there is too much bad blood amongst the hindus, muslims and sikhs for centuries.

I wholly agree with you on this one. Barring the needle pakistan keeps doing in India, which warrants a response, India and my generation of Indians would love to just lock the borders and comfortably forget that Pakistan existed. Will you help us? Or is there a perverse attention-seeking-juvenile-ignored-younger-sibling side to pakistan which keeps fingering just to get some attention, any attention, from an indifferent big brother?

It only needs one Radovan Karagzic to light up the flames and put the sub-continent on fire-----we live with so much hatrde and distrust of each other, that we never share and remember the good things that we ever shared----I guess we never had any good things to share---I believe that there is hardly a common ground that we have that we can look upto as our saving grace---.

We have different gods---we pray different, our religions are different, we eat different, our heroes are different, our social structure is different, some of our languages are written different even some of them are of similiar origin, we have myriads and myriads of things that are different----but there is only one thing amongst a few that is common amongst most of us----some of our ancestory is of common stock---is that enough to get us together----I doubt it very much.

This is probably the biggest and most enduringly successful mass lie played and propagated wholesale on a people in the history of mankind. 150 million proud Indian muslims are proof of that today, as were their forefathers 62 years ago. And please guys, spare us the usual deluge of "Indian Muslim victim" articles which we all recognise as your only weak response to what you will always perceive as the unforgiveable "betrayal" by your so-called Muslim "brothers" in 1947.

Simply put, for a large majority of the Muslim population at the time, and even stronger today, Indian brotherhood was and is stronger than the Islamic one you guys prefer. Deal with it .... or not .... makes no difference to us one way or the other. Just stop fingering, and we'll either be your friend or leave you along to your mutually exclusive existence ..... whatever you prefer. Its not really high up on India's list of priorities right now.

What does a poor man have to lose---nothing much----what does a rich neighbour have to lose---a lot

Again, another popular Pakistani scare tactic, using their poverty card as another missile in their nuclear arsenal. Bhai, like the "mutual destruction" bogey, this "nothing to lose" bogey also is past its sell by date now. Try something new please, its getting boring.

------at this stage---india has analyzed that the loss it would face in a confrontation with pakistan, will not be much---they may recuperate real fast with not much damage----. It is a gamble that indians are made to believe---but are they ready to take it head on---do they have the gumption and the resource---I doubt it----otherwise they could have taken us out in the last 2 oppurtunites that came their way.

Again, brilliant example of the difference in the way a Pakistani and an Indian is wired. Everything for you guys has to be about balls and "pathani" gumption. Sorry boss, the brain is what will always win and what controls the balls. You may of course continue to misconstrue our reluctance to press home the military advantage the "last 2 opportunities" as our inherent Hindu Indian weakness. It is not our overpowering national desire to act in ways that prove our collective national manhood to you, based on your definitions of the same. As for resources, yes we do prefer to use them for ourselves, rather on you ..... after all, there is no valour in kicking someone when he is down and cannot hit back, and defeat is defeat, there are no shades of grey or incremental gradations as such there.

If you decided that millitarily you can't take us out---then come sit and talk----because with all this back bitting---you are making our reslove stronger---the weapons sytems that we delayed / stopped purchasing after 2001 sanctions came off, are back on the procurement list---we don't need to match you one on one---we only need 60---80 percent competitive resource.

Again, its a Pakistani view butted against an Indian one my friend. Simply put, today India does not NEED to talk to Pakistan. Can Pakistan say the same?

I think most Indians have reconciled to a military take-back of *** as not really worth the risk to the civilian population and the lives of our soldiers that would be lost in doing so, not to mention the dent on our economy and on the quality of life we enjoy as the growing middle class, over the next 5-10 years at least (you could argue the nuclear escalation making all that academic as well of course).

I think rhetoric on public fora (like this) and media and international fora aside, most Pakistanis too are in a similar state of mind with regard to the decades long futile struggle to wrest Kashmir away from India. Its simply not possible and definitely not worth the risk - conventional or nuclear.

So where does that leave our countries - as people vs the official Govt. stands? Sabre rattling and empty threats/speeches/salutory demands and protests for eternity? That would still be a preferable status quo, were it not for you guys sending your mullas and jihadis across the border to poison and kill and then be killed (heavenly virgins and all that).

So my friend, 60%, 80%, 93%, etc. look good on paper and in war game simulations.Your think tank is welcome to the same. Moral of the story, stop fingering and go your own way ..... buy weapons, beg weapons, make weapons, disarm and become a haven of peace and tranquility ..... makes no difference to us as long as it is on your side of the border that you use them. We would prefer to lock up the border and move on. Our Kashmir can and will be settled by us like any other internal issue. And you can keep the part of our Kashmir that you hold as a parting gift of an elder brother to his younger prodigal sibling.

Once you stop fingering, over a a few years on its own India will soften (as we have over millenia ..... its in our genes) and come towards you with friendship and a new found respect .... THAT will be a union of EQUALS ...... not what you are stridently demanding (but will never get) today.

Cheers, Doc

Post-script: Wow Khajur, the ending notes of both our posts are the same, almost word for word (I was typing my response when I had not already read yours)!!!! :)
 
Last edited:
Balochistan

As you wrote in this post, http://www.defence.pk/forums/strate...rs-seek-indian-intervention-2.html#post433051

I have a Balochi friend [...] hates Pakistanis [...] and considers himself and other Balochis to be “pure blood” and closer in lineage to Iranis and Afghans. [...] there seems to be more than just a little truth in what he says.

The company you keep says a lot about you. It also tells us all we need to know about your visceral hatred of all things Pakistani.

You have no real idea about the strength of these communities with rest of the Indians

Rediff is about as jingoistic as they come: http://www.rediff.com/news/2009/jul/31kashmir-is-a-humungous-human-tragedy.htm

Investigative journalist and author Harinder Baweja [...] argued that the main reason that a resolution of this problem had been elusive was because of "India's mind-set."
[...]
"government of India is still caught in the containment policy. They believe that any concession given to Kashmir, will in turn open the floodgates for demand in other states."


What is the possibility that Pakistan .. occupied ..kashmiris are oppressed

Pretty much nil, given the absence of any comparable separatist movement in Azad Kashmir.
And don't think we don't know about India's attempts to start one. ;)

while other country has armies...pakistan army has a country.

Yes. we know our army has been a constant thorn in the side of India's hegemonistic plans. We are quite proud of them, actually. :smitten:

we too want none of pakistan.

Agreed. India doesn't want to occupy Pakistan; it just wants to weaken us.
Now I am not blaming Pakistan's problems on India; most of them are our own fault. But India opportunistically adds fuel to the fire through insurgencies, media warfare, and diplomatic machinations.

had pakistan ensured a peaceful non threatening and negotiative approach ,pakistan would 've a become a brotherly country

So, what's your excuse for hostile relations with Nepal, China, Burma, Bangaldesh, and Sri Lanka? Why is China finding it so easy to build that infamous string (noose) of pearls around you?
 
Last edited:
@IceCold

I'm surprised by your comments, did you read the entire article or just stop and the scenarios bit?

The main premise is around changing Pakistan from fractured to friendly state, from an Indian perspective. And also keep in mind that this was in February when the situation seemed more dire than today.

Just quoting the scenario that they recommend India should work for:

A wrong start can never ever have a right end.
 
On the topic of India/Pakistan relations, even if cross-border terrorism by both sides is stopped and Kashmir is resolved, there are some attitudinal problems that need to be corrected.

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. Given her ancient history and culture, India feels that she hasn't been given the proper respect on the world stage. Impotent against the Western powers, she has tried to salvage her pride in the past by trying to act as a regional superpower; but the fact that all her neighbors rebuff her stance and assert their own independence only deepens the shame and frustration.

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, have triggered a cathartic release of pent up pride and frustration. Hence we see an army of jingoistic Indians bloviating in the media and on internet forums about India's accomplishments while, at the same time, belittling her neighbors who dared resist her all these decades. 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.

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

Speaking of media, this is India's loose cannon, and the organ most likely to cause serious damage to India's interests. Flush with money and influence, it has become even more reckless of late, pandering to the jingoists. Not content with bashing Pakistan, as it has been doing for years, Indian media is now stretching its legs and looking for bigger game. The recent media circus against Australia and China should have served as a wake up call, but only time will tell if the Indian media has learnt restraint and adopted a more professional stance.

In a democracy, it is the media which sets the tone and content of national debate on domestic and foreign policy issues and, as we found out after the meeting in Egypt, it is the media which calls the shots in India. 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.
 
Last edited:
Back to Square one ;) I wonder what was the point of starting a new thread if its all gonna end up again in Kashmir. Request the Mods to merge it with an existing thread :D
 
Pakistan vacating occupied kashmir will solve our problems.

So you admit Kashmir is central element in the relationship between India and Pakistan. Even if you are talking of "Your Part of Kashmir", you are talking of "Kashmir Dispute". The same is our call, solve that first and it is equally wise. One needs to be stupid to leave the cancer unaddressed and treat flu to feel healthy and hunky dory.
 
Back to Square one ;) I wonder what was the point of starting a new thread if its all gonna end up again in Kashmir. Request the Mods to merge it with an existing thread :D

Well the answer to the thread is self evident in that disputes have to be resolved or marginalized in some way, so Kashmir is always going to be part of the discussion.

But what we like to see in discussions are ways to move forward, and not just a regurgitation of standard positions of "Kashmir hamara hai' along the likes of those of the last poster.
 
Back
Top Bottom