Does India really want to destabilize Pakistan?

[Atheist]

ohh bhai i guess you missed a line "Think tanks of India".

And the highlighted part is what the article tries to convey....the hope that the lost feeling of brotherhood be restored...

 

[ambijat]

I am reading this idea for pretty long before, so i just chunk some points, how a stable pakistan can hurt india (according to indian think tanks)

1. Stable Pakistan means more and more involvement in different Provence of India, including support for khalkistan, kashmir, assam, and so o on..
2. Stable Pakistan means a compitor for their growing industries like textile, rice etc.
3. Stable Pakistan means completion of Gawdar, which will surely effect indian trades, and business men of india may prefer this route for punjab dehli, which means more influence of pakistani business community in india.

I have stated three major points why india wont wanting a stable pakistan, there are many other small points as well, which i will shape in the form of an article, and post it soon (if get time).

btw i agree with the article, logically it seem an unstable pakistan might effect indian stability, but it never effected india when bangladesh came. Then how come it will effect, after all they know they can't do anything with tribal area, since pakistani security concerns, but they know very well.. this can help BLA, who is big favor of India.

Kashmir, textiles and rice, Gwadar is this all you need to compete with India in terms of stability? Then its very misconstrued argument. You need a minimum set of these things too, namely, decentralised governance, strong economic indicators, political stability, right to education for girl child, a free social space for cultural growth, all these are minuscule few.
India wants Pakistan to join the party to these things so people at large can benefit with the collective richness of south Asian peoples. I hope the article needs to be seen in this spirit. A stabler Pakistan can only find some room for these other not so war worldly things.
thanks!

 

[wtf]

of course, it will beneficial for the importers/exporters of india/pakistan. But you are missing an point, how many people will loss the job? those transportation which previously were given inside india will now given to the pakistani transporters. ofcourse end beneficiaries would be the consumer.
you have forgotten other aspects, manufacturing cost, textile requires some chemicals which Pakistan,india and bangladesh all import. but my point was competition, which mean reducing prices, and less profit to all countries. Also, the major benefit will reach directly to China, because Gawdar in case of Textile. who has cheap labor, manufacturing cost, and they have in-house chemical available. just the problem which they are facing is transportation, which will be solved after gawdar, but in any case, india will loss.

You are right in that there will be displacement of jobs. This is a valid criticism of international trade. But the economists would also say that creating jobs is the easy part, economic development is difficult.

A government can cut interest rates and it will cause job creation pretty fast. The cost of this would be economic development. This is a balance that each country has to do. But if trade opens up between the countries, there would be economic development that will allow government to cut interest rates or to pay for job creation activities. My guess is that with Manhohan Singh, Montek Singh Ahluwalia and P Chidambaram at the helm , they understand these issues pretty well.

Reducing prices of goods is actually beneficial to both producers and consumers. It allows for the goods to be competitive in international markets. It also will reduce inflation hence increasing the real value of money and improving purchasing power.

International trade almost always benefits everyone involved. The big caveats are job losses and threats to strategic industries (like defence and possibly agriculture).

 

[rubyjackass]

I am reading this idea for pretty long before, so i just chunk some points, how a stable pakistan can hurt india (according to indian think tanks)

1. Stable Pakistan means more and more involvement in different Provence of India, including support for khalkistan, kashmir, assam, and so o on..
2. Stable Pakistan means a compitor for their growing industries like textile, rice etc.
3. Stable Pakistan means completion of Gawdar, which will surely effect indian trades, and business men of india may prefer this route for punjab dehli, which means more influence of pakistani business community in india.

I have stated three major points why india wont wanting a stable pakistan, there are many other small points as well, which i will shape in the form of an article, and post it soon (if get time).

btw i agree with the article, logically it seem an unstable pakistan might effect indian stability, but it never effected india when bangladesh came. Then how come it will effect, after all they know they can't do anything with tribal area, since pakistani security concerns, but they know very well.. this can help BLA, who is big favor of India.

I totally agree with you. It is still to be demonstrated if an unstable Pak will be worse for India. After all the lack of stability in word thought and deed is what made Pak's diplomacy a matter of laughter building the case for India as the author has mentioned.
I dont see how the author missed this contradiction.Well his main point is kind of 'Let's live freely without illusions of a coming victory' and don't believe in 'Indian involvement' crap. Especially the ridiculous claims of Indian funding to TTP, where do ppl come from to make these?!

But if there was better diplomacy then they would have thought more seedha and would not have caused 3 engagements in matter of 60 years.

BTW Bangladesh may seem to you as a devils job. But the evil wass the discontent within. And still there are people saying India should not have let refugees in or interfered later on.

10 mil refugees!! does it not justify any thing like that on humanitarian grounds? Pakistan is now struggling to take care of less than 5 mil now. Only about 2 mil in camps. Look at what it left for India. The insurgencies in the northeast that many here cheer about also have the refugee element to it.

 

[Fracker]

Kashmir, textiles and rice, Gwadar is this all you need to compete with India in terms of stability?

Nope these are some points which no one can deny, i can also post some points how a unstable pakistan can benefit more to india. Also i have posted some points in "kashmir" thread, that how resolution of kashmir can benefit more to both countries.

Also, i never said i thought so but "indian think tanks" thinks, that's why they are involve in baluchistan. while supporting BLA!!

 

[Fracker]

But the economists would also say that creating jobs is the easy part, economic development is difficult.

lolzz, if you see current situation in USA, then you might think otherwise. After economic cricises, now re-development has been started, all indicators showing pretty good signs, but yet people are lossing jobs on daily basis, just last week around 7000+ job losses happened in USA.

A government can cut interest rates and it will cause job creation pretty fast.

we have seen one of the worest crices, and all country dropped interest rate, but yet we have seen something different. yet you believe on this line?

Reducing prices of goods is actually beneficial to both producers and consumers. It allows for the goods to be competitive in international markets. It also will reduce inflation hence increasing the real value of money and improving purchasing power.

International trade almost always benefits everyone involved. The big caveats are job losses and threats to strategic industries (like defence and possibly agriculture).

Agreed!!

 

[Fracker]

Especially the ridiculous claims of Indian funding to TTP, where do ppl come from to make these?!

I also don't believe about funding thing, but i know about training of afghan people who then came to swat.

Also, you are forgetting, most of the pakistani speak about RAW support for BLA, and because of which they raise indian flags at their homes on 15 aug, 2006. RAW's links with Nawab Akbar bhugti, and in the end he killed as a traitor of pakistan.

Pakistan is now struggling to take care of less than 5 mil now. Only about 2 mil in camps.

well sorry can't comment here on this topic, but i am sure you will know, how much most of the pakistani loves current President of Pakistan. . btw my house in mardan, and i know how much help is been given by many pakistanis individually. The government help, UN help or american help can't come even closed to what pakistani normal civilians done for them.

 

[ambijat]

The ISI support to Kahmiri militants and RAWs support to BLA, don't you think they make good analogies.

 

[wtf]

lolzz, if you see current situation in USA, then you might think otherwise. After economic cricises, now re-development has been started, all indicators showing pretty good signs, but yet people are lossing jobs on daily basis, just last week around 7000+ job losses happened in USA.



we have seen one of the worest crices, and all country dropped interest rate, but yet we have seen something different. yet you believe on this line?

The present economic crisis in USA is a complicated one. But it is not the worse that we have seen, the "biggest" was the 1930 depression which was probably caused by a fall in international trade. The worst economic crises on the other hand have all been during wars or totalitarian governments (N Korea, Zimbabwe, post WW2 Japan/Europe etc.). So compared to that the current one is piddling.

The unemployment rate in USA is about 10%, which from my experience in (pre liberalization) India is not too bad. And it is not like people in USA are starving on the streets (which unfortunately is the case in South Asia). I'd rather take free trade and growth for all of us than be stuck in the present situation of South Asian poverty and mutual animosity.