1965 war with India was Pakistan's biggest blunder, says Ishtiaq Ahmed

[NG Missile Vessels]

Ishtiaq Ahmed, Swedish political scientist and author of Pakistani descent who is on a visit to Bengaluru, speaks on a wide range of subjects in an interview with N B Hombal of DH. The Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Stockholm University gives his take on partition, Pakistan’s economy and how relations can be normalised between India and Pakistan. Excerpts:

●How has been your India tour?

Fantastic. It’s been so good that I actually run the risk of forgetting names of people who have been kind to me, because I am meeting so many people and so many on the same day. It seems that I came here many, many moons ago, whereas I have been here since May 7.

●What are your views on partition?

I strongly believed that partition was a blunder by many and its consequences have been devastating to the social understanding and building trust, which reflects in the politics of India and Pakistan. I am not too sure, but strongly hope that at some point, borders may disappear in this region too, like in the European Union.

●What are the ways to help improve the relations?

Coming to India has greatly reinforced my belief that we people (peace lovers) will certainly isolate those who oppose these kind of activities (building relationships) in the years to come. I think both nations can take risks, allowing people from both sides to mingle with each other, by relaxing the present Visa regimes. This will greatly benefit Pakistan, as India has already proved that it can do without Pakistan.

●Prior to the India visit, you had been to Pakistan. How do you analyse the socio-economic development of both countries.

India is doing good on most fronts, though it might be lagging in some areas. What India I have seen, it is progressing rapidly. On social parameters, women here are dressing freely, roaming around freely on motorbikes and public transport. But in Pakistan, it is still not the case, only the elite who can afford cars can roam around freely. But ordinary girls/women need to be very careful and always face hostile situations wherever they go. It is highly impossible for them to go out alone after 10 pm.

●What is the biggest mistake Pakistan committed post-partition?

I think the 1965 war with India was in some ways responsible for what Pakistan is today. Soon after partition, USA and World Bank invested heavily there, which helped the country achieve a certain degree of progress. But post the 1965 war with India, investment slowed down drastically. From then on, Pakistan was never able to recover economically. The textile industry, which was once flourishing, has now shifted to Bangladesh, where cotton is not even grown. Presently, the Pakistani economy is so bad that it can’t even raise a billion dollars to manage loans. It’s a failing state.

●How can both countries handle the Kashmir issue?

Pakistan must abandon terrorism completely. Only then both countries can come to terms for real peace. Both countries accepting Line of Control as international border might help resolve the issue.

●What does the future holds for Wahhabism?

I don’t think Wahhabism has any future, as Saudi Arabia itself is doing all it can to end Wahhabism. Someone needs to tell them what the real story is. Perhaps Saudi Arabia has taken the first step towards this. Hopefully, others will follow. I only hope they don’t assassinate the Saudi crown prince who has begun the reform process. There must be forces working within to ensure he doesn’t succeed.

●What is your opinion about Uniform Civil Code?

I strongly believe in UCC. I believe in equality and everyone to gain from the same laws.

1965 war with India was Pakistan's biggest blunder, says Ishtiaq Ahmed

www.google.com

 

[Maula Jatt]

Me & my brother had the same conversation couple years ago and we came to the same conclusion and for the same reasoning as his - economics

That trust US had in us was gone after 65, before that yes we were a very close ally which we were using to our advantage to economically transform the lives of our people
In 62 US told us to not invade Indian occupied region we listened, in 65 we didn't outright invade but we kinda pushed the needle which US didn't want us to push - east Asia, Western Europe never pushed the needle and when they did (Suez crisis) they quickly came to Their senses, we never did

Pakistan of 60s was not todays Pakistan - population wise we were smaller than UK (minus Bangladesh, I don't consider them Pakistani even historically cause of various legitimate reasons)

As of now we should have an independent FP streak as we're big enough to do so but in 60s, no
Ayub was right to follow neo-liberal US world order to the T, not only that but make us an active player in it


US told us to not push the needle afa our occupied territory was concerned - we didn't listen, so they stopped investing in our country like how they were investing in Gulf, Iran, east Asia, western Europe
US told us to let go of East Pakistan through a peace deal with the political leadership we didn't listen
US told us to kick out Taliban we didn't listen - I hope this time we are right

Other things he said in the article are BS at worst and exaddurated at best

 

[Vikramaditya-I]

IMO it was not a blunder at all. The timing could not have been perfect, the element of surprise, the strategy everything aligned well. What failed was in execution, I'm sure this forum has discussed it over the years. This is like beating a dead horse. In this day and age, such actions are almost impossible.

 

[epebble]

I think "I strongly believed that partition was a blunder" doesn't have much support nowadays. He may be thinking, without partition, the post 1947 India would be 1.5 present India. But history is hard to predict. What if, due to political impasse, it had become 8 times present Pakistan?

 

[Chandragupt Maurya]

Me & my brother had the same conversation couple years ago and we came to the same conclusion and for the same reasoning as his - economics

That trust US had in us was gone after 65, before that yes we were a very close ally which we were using to our advantage to economically transform the lives of our people
In 62 US told us to not invade Indian occupied region we listened, in 65 we didn't outright invade but we kinda pushed the needle which US didn't want us to push - east Asia, Western Europe never pushed the needle and when they did (Suez crisis) they quickly came to Thier senses, we never did

Pakistan of 60s was not todays Pakistan - population wise we were smaller than UK (minus Bangladesh, I don't consider them Pakistani even historically cause of various reasons)

As of now we should have an independent streak as we're big enough to do so but in 60s, no
Ayub was right to follow neo-liberal US world order to the T, not only that but make us an active player in it,
US told us to not push the needle afa our occupied territory was concerned - we didn't listen, so they stopped investing in US like how they were investing in Gulf, Iran, east Asia, western Europe
US told us to let go of East Pakistan through a peace deal with the political leadership we didn't listen
US told us to kick out Taliban we didn't listen - I hope this time we are right

Other things he said in the article are BS at worst and exaddurated to best

In the past, the Indian economy was only 3-4 times larger than Pakistan, but today it has expanded to become 10-12 times bigger. India's foreign exchange reserves are also significantly greater, approximately 50 to 60 times more than Pakistan's. Additionally, India's defense budget is 8-10 times larger, and its infrastructure surpasses that of Pakistan. The construction of extensive road networks, airports, and railways throughout India has provided the country with a significant advantage. However, in the 1960s and 1970s, Pakistan had a relatively stronger infrastructure, a stronger economy, political influence, and close relations with the US and NATO. Pakistan also had an advantage due to its smaller population size and the territory it needed to defend. Furthermore, Pakistan had access to high-quality Western weapons while India faced sanctions.

 

[Maula Jatt]

In the past, the Indian economy was only 3-4 times larger than Pakistan, but today it has expanded to become 10-12 times bigger. India's foreign exchange reserves are also significantly greater, approximately 50 to 60 times more than Pakistan's. Additionally, India's defense budget is 8-10 times larger, and its infrastructure surpasses that of Pakistan. The construction of extensive road networks, airports, and railways throughout India has provided the country with a significant advantage. However, in the 1960s and 1970s, Pakistan had a relatively stronger infrastructure, a stronger economy, political influence, and close relations with the US and NATO. Pakistan also had an advantage due to its smaller population size and the territory it needed to defend. Furthermore, Pakistan had access to high-quality Western weapons while India faced sanctions.

Art of saying a lot without saying anything - 101

You're a dumbass, don't engage with me

 

[Chandragupt Maurya]

Art of saying a lot without saying anything - 101
You're a dumbass, don't engage with me

Throughout history, the Pakistani military has engaged in such actions, which is the reason why Bangladesh became an independent country. Despite having a predominantly Muslim population and sharing a lengthy border with Pakistan, Kashmir remained under Indian control.

 

[NG Missile Vessels]

India's foreign exchange reserves are also significantly greater, approximately 50 to 60 times more than Pakistan's

170X

 

[Maula Jatt]

Throughout history, the Pakistani military has engaged in such actions, which is the reason why Bangladesh became an independent country. Despite having a predominantly Muslim population and sharing a lengthy border with Pakistan, Kashmir remained under Indian control.

 

[my2cents]

Me & my brother had the same conversation couple years ago and we came to the same conclusion and for the same reasoning as his - economics

That trust US had in us was gone after 65, before that yes we were a very close ally which we were using to our advantage to economically transform the lives of our people
In 62 US told us to not invade Indian occupied region we listened, in 65 we didn't outright invade but we kinda pushed the needle which US didn't want us to push - east Asia, Western Europe never pushed the needle and when they did (Suez crisis) they quickly came to Their senses, we never did

Pakistan of 60s was not todays Pakistan - population wise we were smaller than UK (minus Bangladesh, I don't consider them Pakistani even historically cause of various legitimate reasons)

As of now we should have an independent FP streak as we're big enough to do so but in 60s, no
Ayub was right to follow neo-liberal US world order to the T, not only that but make us an active player in it


US told us to not push the needle afa our occupied territory was concerned - we didn't listen, so they stopped investing in our country like how they were investing in Gulf, Iran, east Asia, western Europe
US told us to let go of East Pakistan through a peace deal with the political leadership we didn't listen
US told us to kick out Taliban we didn't listen - I hope this time we are right

Other things he said in the article are BS at worst and exaddurated to best

They stopped the investing after 1965 but they were always with you. In 1971 war they supported you with 7th fleet accompanied by nuclear armed aircraft carrier. If the Soviet did not send its fleet, India would've lost that war.

 

[Chandragupt Maurya]

They stopped the investing after 1965 but they were always with you. In 1971 war they supported you with 7th fleet accompanied by nuclear armed aircraft carrier. If the Soviet did not send its fleet, India would've lost that war.

The American threat in 1971 played a significant role in influencing Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's decision to authorize India's nuclear detonation in 1973.

 

[legacytiger18]

They stopped the investing after 1965 but they were always with you. In 1971 war they supported you with 7th fleet accompanied by nuclear armed aircraft carrier. If the Soviet did not send its fleet, India would've lost that war.

this is very very true. PM Indira Gandhi was very smart, she got those assurances from Russia before starting the war- she did friendship treaty with Russia in august before starting the war in dec . Otherwise, she wud nt have started the war

 

[Chandragupt Maurya]

this is very very true. PM Indira Gandhi was very smart, she got those assurances from Russia before starting the war- she did friendship treaty with Russia in august before starting the war in dec . Otherwise, she wud nt have started the war

India's decision to pursue nuclear weapons in 1973, as well as its significant investments in space and missile technology, can be attributed to the perceived threat posed by the United States in 1971. the hostile stance of the Western world towards India during that time served as a catalyst for India to develop its nuclear, space, and missile programs. While India's military-industrial complex is not on par with that of Russia or the United States, it remains a significant force and is poised for further growth and expansion. Thus, the past antagonism exhibited by the Western world has played a role in shaping India's current advancements in various technological and military domains.

 

[Falcon26]

He has disqualified himself by saying partition was a blunder. Anything else he says is invalid.

 

[Jazzbot]

I strongly believed that partition was a blunder

Stopped reading after this. Thanks but no thanks.