Why shouldn’t the world be worried?

[godsavetheworld]

Daily Times Editorial

Stop Blaming India for Terrorism: Former PAF Air Marshal

The only strategy viable for Pakistan is an anti-India policy. Is that true?
From recent record, it is no longer true to say that we know what strategies to deploy. It is no longer useful to keep insisting that the only strategy viable for Pakistan is an anti-India policy “because India is funding the terrorists to kill Pakistanis”.

It is unconvincing because no internationally acceptable proof is forthcoming and, besides, it is much less convincing than the argument in favour of normalising relations with India to end the tit-for-tat attacks on each other. Here again, India gets the upper hand because unlike Pakistan it doesn’t use its “non state actors”.

Speaking at a ceremony for the launching of the second edition of the Jinnah Anthology in Karachi, Air Marshal (retd) Asghar Khan said: “India has not been hostile towards Pakistan unless provoked or until we created such conditions, as we did in 1971 in East Pakistan, for India to interfere militarily”. A report in Dawn of April 14 and the deposition of Ajmal Kasab before a court in Mumbai actually point to a continuation of this “revisionist” policy. In short, one is inclined to say that President Asif Zardari is more realistic on the question of both Swat and India than the prime minister.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[PeacefulIndian]

Daily Times Editorial

The only strategy viable for Pakistan is an anti-India policy. Is that true?
From recent record, it is no longer true to say that we know what strategies to deploy. It is no longer useful to keep insisting that the only strategy viable for Pakistan is an anti-India policy “because India is funding the terrorists to kill Pakistanis”.

It is unconvincing because no internationally acceptable proof is forthcoming and, besides, it is much less convincing than the argument in favour of normalising relations with India to end the tit-for-tat attacks on each other. Here again, India gets the upper hand because unlike Pakistan it doesn’t use its “non state actors”.

Speaking at a ceremony for the launching of the second edition of the Jinnah Anthology in Karachi, Air Marshal (retd) Asghar Khan said: “India has not been hostile towards Pakistan unless provoked or until we created such conditions, as we did in 1971 in East Pakistan, for India to interfere militarily”. A report in Dawn of April 14 and the deposition of Ajmal Kasab before a court in Mumbai actually point to a continuation of this “revisionist” policy. In short, one is inclined to say that President Asif Zardari is more realistic on the question of both Swat and India than the prime minister.

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

This is surely gonna fall on deaf ears. He is saying exactly what India, US, West want Pakistan to do. And is in Pakistan's own interest too. But now the fire kindled by Pakistan has gone way beyond control, causing existential threat to its own master. Taking anti-India sentiments out of Pakistani establishment is like taking their soul out.

 

[Neo]

The editorial is altered showing only selected paragraphs.
Here's the full article:

Editorial: Why shouldn’t the world be worried?​

Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani was on TV Monday brushing aside American and global concerns about the Nizam-e Adl Regulation (NAR) in Swat. Referring to US envoy Richard Holbrooke’s statement of concern over the Swat surrender, he said, “He does not need to worry too much about it. This is our country. We know the ground realities better than him. We know much better what kind of strategy should be evolved”. Regarding the declarations of Sufi Muhammad about Pakistan’s superior judiciary and democracy in general, he reserved comment because he felt the Sufi was merely expressing his “personal opinion”.

The Chief Minister NWFP, Ameer Haider Khan Hoti, issued an equally unrealistic statement saying his government “will take strict action against those who want to establish a parallel government in the province”. He said the situation in Swat was returning to normal and he was trying to implement the NAR at the earliest. He wants to resolve the Taliban takeover in Dir and Buner through talks, but he will not allow anyone to challenge his writ. In both cases, there is evidence that belies his assertions. There is no way Pakistan can prevent the world from worrying about what happens inside Pakistan; there is also no way the NWFP government can prevent the rest of Pakistan from worrying about the fallout from Malakand division.

We are long past getting anyone to admit that our problems are our “internal affair”. The terrorists who attack and kill us are also vowing to kill other people in other countries in the West. Since they have done it before while operating from our soil, it would be stupid on the part of Europe and the US to ignore these threats. And if Pakistan succumbs to the terrorists on its own soil, it should know that it is also putting the world at peril. And the world has every right to worry when the decisions taken by the Gilani government in Swat are also being criticised within Pakistan. One must also say here that the world must worry especially if our politicians continue to issue head-buried-in-sand statements like “it is not our war”. Of course, if we disavow this war, then we can’t logically disallow the world from fighting it.

Succumbing to “talks” when one is taking a drubbing will not do. And if we cannot stand up and fight then we must let the world step in and do what has to be done, for its own sake if not for ours. From recent record, it is no longer true to say that we know what strategies to deploy. It is no longer useful to keep insisting that the only strategy viable for Pakistan is an anti-India policy “because India is funding the terrorists to kill Pakistanis”. It is unconvincing because no internationally acceptable proof is forthcoming and, besides, it is much less convincing than the argument in favour of normalising relations with India to end the tit-for-tat attacks on each other. Here again, India gets the upper hand because unlike Pakistan it doesn’t use its “non state actors”.

Both the mainstream parties, the PPP and the PMLN, followed the policy of normalisation with India but were pulled down, and this was done not because their India policy was unpopular. Speaking at a ceremony for the launching of the second edition of the Jinnah Anthology in Karachi, Air Marshal (retd) Asghar Khan said: “India has not been hostile towards Pakistan unless provoked or until we created such conditions, as we did in 1971 in East Pakistan, for India to interfere militarily”. A report in Dawn of April 14 and the deposition of Ajmal Kasab before a court in Mumbai actually point to a continuation of this “revisionist” policy. In short, one is inclined to say that President Asif Zardari is more realistic on the question of both Swat and India than the prime minister.

Leaving all polemic aside, what if Plan A in Swat is not going to work? Only a halfwit will bet that the Taliban will not use the new law in Swat to their advantage and the people of Swat will go into vassalage simply to be spared execution. Plan B is nothing but confronting the terrorists, not alone, but with the help of the world and the help of our own people and media. *

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan

 

[Solomon2]

If anti-India policy is the focus, then Pakistan should openly threaten to attack India unless Indian support for terrorists is withdrawn. If Pakistan won't do that, then sitting its army on the India border seems pointless - either India has little to do with the current terrorism threat - allegations have been made, but no proofs made public - or the Army is too afraid of a general war with India. So re-focusing upon the terrorist threat exclusively makes sense.

Unless, of course, you are an Army officer who doesn't want to unlearn old tricks and learn new ones, with your career or power in the hierarchy possibly suffering as a result.

 

[Patriot]

If anti-India policy is the focus, then Pakistan should openly threaten to attack India unless Indian support for terrorists is withdrawn. If Pakistan won't do that, then sitting its army on the India border seems pointless - either India has little to do with the current terrorism threat - allegations have been made, but no proofs made public - or the Army is too afraid of a general war with India. So re-focusing upon the terrorist threat exclusively makes sense.

Unless, of course, you are an Army officer who doesn't want to unlearn old tricks and learn new ones, with your career or power in the hierarchy possibly suffering as a result.

I guess you forgot how American Forces were deployed all over the world for the Red Army which was not even in the mood to attack America at all.Your Anti Soviet Policy was no different from Pakistan Anti India Policy but only difference is India was able to damage Pakistan where as US was strong enough to **** Soviet Union but Your Generals have found new ways to make money for US companies and more power through Iraq war..

 

[Solomon2]

Your Anti Soviet Policy was no different from Pakistan Anti India Policy but only difference is India was able to damage Pakistan where as US was strong enough to **** Soviet Union

I think you need to expand on this if I am to understand you fully.

 

[Energon]

This is actually a fantastic editorial addressing some really excellent and critical points. Too bad it will probably end up drowning in a useless flame war.

In the mean time however, I would like to add one more point in regards to the Indo-Pak conflict which was overlooked in this piece. The nature of this conflict is not static, India has in the past decade and a half adopted a paradigm shift by reorienting its policy from military action to economics which seems to have paid off quite well. This shift wasn't necessarily instituted on account of a higher moral consciousness (there is no real way to guage this, which is why it should be left out of geopolitical equations IMO), but rather because it made a lot more sense, presented with more lucrative opportunities and offered critical advantages.

The 'economics>military' theory has also been implemented in foreign policy, with Afghanistan serving as the best example. Covert warfare through unreliable proxies doesn't garner nearly as many returns as do key economic development schemes like major highways, pipelines, other assorted construction/agriculture projects, and symbolic ones like building parliament buildings etc. The long term costs and the losses on the other hand are quite debilitating if not fatal when it comes to proxy wars, particularly when one's own land serves as the launching base.

Economic involvement is however a long term investment with a heavy capital input and a lot of risk; but as in with most long term models, eventually the benefits are greater, more sustainable, and the aggregate capital spent more so than not equals or turns out to be lesser than what numerous short term poorly planned investments require (and I'm not even counting the long term monetary and non monetary costs.)
As long as some sort of a credible civilian establishment remains in Afghanistan (and that's a big gamble), the majority of the people who either benefit directly from the aforementioned projects or connect with its iconic value will view India favorably and enable it to retain a position of advantage. The caveat however is that India cannot diminish this position by doing what every other interlocutor related to Afghanistan has always done- use it as a battleground to settle scores in its own private conflicts. Also, increasing the possibility of conflict actually threatens the massive (for a capital starved country like India) investment.

Pakistan is missing out on a huge opportunity. While the populist sentiments are paralyzed by conspiracy theories of "hidden hands", evil nexuses, and 'tit for tat' acts of subversive warfare (promotion of which has turned into a great business opportunity for many a media charlatan- huckster) the rest of the world seems to have moved on to bigger and better things leaving Pakistan behind to flail around in the misery caused by the rebounding effect of promoting insurgency, terrorism and proxy war.

This cannot go on for much longer, there has to be a change sooner than later.

 

[godsavetheworld]

I guess you forgot how American Forces were deployed all over the world for the Red Army which was not even in the mood to attack America at all.Your Anti Soviet Policy was no different from Pakistan Anti India Policy but only difference is India was able to damage Pakistan where as US was strong enough to **** Soviet Union but Your Generals have found new ways to make money for US companies and more power through Iraq war..

Your post light years away from the topic of the thread is. The single biggest difference, is that in the cold war era threat was always external, never internal.
It is always harder to deal with an internal threat, because of one has a tendency to live in denial.

Now lets return to the topic..
Why dont you give me one reason, as to why India poses a bigger threat than extremisim? War on terror has taken twice the toll compared to all Indo-Pak wars combined.