What does Pakistan bring to the table on Kashmir, Siachen?

[JanjaWeed]

It's not just about what Pakistan can bring to the table... It's also about who in Pakistan is going to bring that to the table!

 

[Developereo]

The question will become moot in 50 years.

I seriously doubt Pakistan will exist in its current form as a united political entity late into this century.

(OK, I am feeling unusually disillusioned after the election of the usual vampires, but my prediction isn't completely far-fetched).

 

[KRAIT]

The question will become moot in 50 years.
I seriously doubt Pakistan will exist in its current form as a united political entity late into this century.
(OK, I am feeling unusually disillusioned after the election of the usual vampires, but my prediction isn't completely far-fetched).

And that really scares me off sometimes.

 

[Jade]

how about add some small adjustments along with the above offer, that would be nice bro, I am not an idealist & neither do I hop on unrealistic approach like u.n resolutions & getting whole of J&K, I am a realist & approach a matter based on ground realities , we have three points of disputes Kashmir valley & siachen in j.k & sir creek in gujrat & an over all accepted solutions in this three point
can work well so basically in jk turning the LOC in to an IB but with some compromise from your side

the person protesting will be jailed as it will be part of a negotiated settlement authenticated by the govt & army of Pakistan & India with guarantees from the U.S, U.N E.U

Believe me India would be accommodative in case of Sir Creek and Siachen, if Pakistan is accommodative on Kashmir.

 

[Contrarian]

First it is nothing compared to what it can be. We can get access to Iran market too. We can set up industries with Pakistan in their country to sell product further East using Pakistani resources.

Just don't think of 180 million market, think bigger. Think about other countries nearby. You can skip Afghanistan if you want.

What it can be is what it will be as more easing of trade restrictions are carried out by Pakistan. They are obligated to do so under WTO rules. This has nothing to do with any thing related to Kashmir.

We can already sell to Iran. We already have access to Iranian market. Iran has good ports and roads. Indias manufacturing industry is more or less located in West India along the coast.
Why would we need to setup industries in Pakistan to sell to Iran?
Pakistan and Iran can be served very very easily by factories in West India directly.

 

[livingdead]

The question will become moot in 50 years.

I seriously doubt Pakistan will exist in its current form as a united political entity late into this century.

(OK, I am feeling unusually disillusioned after the election of the usual vampires, but my prediction isn't completely far-fetched).

you are unnecessarily pessimistic. We need a weaker enemy, and pakistan should exist to give us that.
but seriously, I think pakistan needs to become more federal and less punjab heavy to remain united.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

The question will become moot in 50 years.

I seriously doubt Pakistan will exist in its current form as a united political entity late into this century.

(OK, I am feeling unusually disillusioned after the election of the usual vampires, but my prediction isn't completely far-fetched).

That underlined statement, my friend; just sounds too unduly pessimisstic. Even though there is an obtuse fringe in my country that subscribes to that outlandish notion also; I do not agree with that.

 

[KRAIT]

That underlined statement, my friend; just sounds too unduly pessimisstic. Even though there is an obtuse fringe in my country that subscribes to that outlandish notion also; I do not agree with that.

If such thing happen, India will be in greater danger unless...

 

[Developereo]

And that really scares me off sometimes.

Well, I don't want to deviate from the thread, but I really don't feel it is as far-fetched as I would have hoped.

Baluchistan and KPK will become Afghanistan #2 and #3: lawless wastelands where Iran/Arabs/US/everyone will jockey to install their favorite puppet.
Kashmir will be gobbled up by India.
Punjab will get the bulk of Pakistan's military might.
Karachi will become a city state like Monaco or Luxemburg.
Sindh will become a vassal state of India like Nepal or Bhutan.

you are unnecessarily pessimistic. We need a weaker enemy, and pakistan should exist to give us that.
but seriously, I think pakistan needs to become more federal and less punjab heavy to remain united.

It's not about what India wants, but what Pakistan will do to itself, all by itself.

That underlined statement, my friend; just sounds too unduly pessimisstic. Even though there is an obtuse fringe in my country that subscribes to that outlandish notion also; I do not agree with that.

As I wrote above, this is about internal dynamics of Pakistan. India doesn't need to do anything.

The capable, nationalist leaders are few and far between. The field is dominated by ethnic and self-serving politicians who act more like regional governors (or worse) than national leaders.

 

[MilSpec]

That underlined statement, my friend; just sounds too unduly pessimisstic. Even though there is an obtuse fringe in my country that subscribes to that outlandish notion also; I do not agree with that.

Borders are never supposed to be static, in 5 to 10 decades it usually changes...

 

[livingdead]

It's not about what India wants, but what Pakistan will do to itself, all by itself.

you responded to my troll post but ignored the serious point I was making, you need a good federal structure to be united. We learnt that lesson too.
When all powerful congress was ruling the center, India was united but the unity was brittle.
Currently regional parties hold power in states and center, and it has made the unity more enduring.
So all power to regionalism and no to unnecessary nationalism.

 

[Developereo]

you responded to my troll post but ignored the serious point I was making, you need a good federal structure to be united. We learnt that lesson too.
When all powerful congress was ruling the center, India was united but the unity was brittle.
Currently regional parties hold power in states and center, and it has made the unity more enduring.
So all power to regionalism and no to unnecessary nationalism.

Regionalism is what did us in in 1971. The Punjabi-Sindhi feudal alliance sent the Bengalis packing.
Ethnic opportunists in Karachi/KPK/Baluchistan are both using and deriding regionalism for their own ends.

Ethnic and sectarian divides are increasing in society, but the national "leaders" are unconcerned beyond ritual sound bites.

Anyway, sorry for deviating from the main topic. Perhaps we can leave it here for now.

 

[Contrarian]

Regionalism is what did us in in 1971. The Punjabi-Sindhi feudal alliance sent the Bengalis packing.
Ethnic opportunists in Karachi/KPK/Baluchistan are both using and deriding regionalism for their own ends.

Ethnic and sectarian divides are increasing in society, but the national "leaders" are unconcerned beyond ritual sound bites.

Anyway, sorry for deviating from the main topic. Perhaps we can leave it here for now.

Despite liking what you say, I have to agree with Hinduguy.
India's experience has been more stability with more regional leaders and regionalism than with a strong Center with a brittle unity.
Regional parties and regional leaders are good for a nation.

 

[GURU DUTT]

Regionalism is what did us in in 1971. The Punjabi-Sindhi feudal alliance sent the Bengalis packing.
Ethnic opportunists in Karachi/KPK/Baluchistan are both using and deriding regionalism for their own ends.

Ethnic and sectarian divides are increasing in society, but the national "leaders" are unconcerned beyond ritual sound bites.

well brother that happens when state discriminates and gives different treatemnt to differnet parties withowt taking merit into considration and later it becomes more vissible and opressed parties revolt but if they get what they asked for and same treatment based on merit they become an asset why pakistan failed with it was cause

1.PA and your beurocracy and ruling elite were all feudals and had taken the majority pakistanies (bengalies) for granted and missused there assets but gave them nothing in return but india is a democracy and all parties get there rights

now the point is what pakistan is willing to give in return for settle ment of kashmir dispeut well thing is they want india to give kashmir for a song but thats not gonna happen after we saw your true nature 1971 after shimla agreement

so the end result is 0 and things will remain as they are baki good luck for future

 

[Developereo]

Despite liking what you say, I have to agree with Hinduguy.
India's experience has been more stability with more regional leaders and regionalism than with a strong Center with a brittle unity.
Regional parties and regional leaders are good for a nation.

I am not against regional pride and regional power. I had discussed this with Indians some time back, and the reason regionalism works in India is because there are enough regional powerbrokers to reduce the chance of collusion and keep everyone (relatively) honest.

In Pakistan, on the other hand, the Punjabi (PML-N) and Sindhi (PPP) parties dominate the scene and take turns serving their regional constituencies.

Everyone else gets left out in the cold.

Perpetually.

well brother that happens when state discriminates and gives different treatemnt to differnet parties withowt taking merit into considration and later it becomes more vissible and opressed parties revolt but if they get what they asked for and same treatment based on merit they become an asset why pakistan failed with it was cause

I agree. Pakistan has had few governments (probably Musharraf's was one) which stressed national interests over regional interests.