Friendship with India

[Joe Shearer]

I think you are not giving enough credit to the Indian policy makers.

1971 was pulled off brilliantly.
The post 9/11 terrorism angle has been handled well by India.
Trouble in Baluchistan (although I know you will disagree).

Oh? Pulled off brilliantly? And you totally ignore the stellar roles of ZAB, that prime idiot, always too clever by half, or the drunken sod who should have stuck to soldiering, which he did rather well, by all accounts? Or the great help given behind the scenes by an assortment of generals, as well as a few admirals and air marshals, all working like beavers like the magician's assistants?

Please, I could take this suppressio veri et suggestio falsi more easily from a lesser person.

As for the post 9/11 situation, could it not be argued in the same vein? If Pakistan were to dig a deep pit, and then jump into it feet first, how does it amount to Indian dexterity? The best that can be said was that Indian diplomats stood by, with the rest of the world, muttering in disbelief, "Now that wasn't the cleverest thing to do, was it?" yes, there was a certain degree of unctuous hypocritical regret, but that is not a capital crime, surely.

About Balochistan, I will not insult your intelligence by issuing disclaimers, but merely state that it is a moot point; other than Chuck "Loose Cannon" Hagel, no one has come close to accusing India of complicity. On the other hand, i have it on good evidence from within the ranks of the Pakistani military that both the Gulf nations and Iran, both dear and good friends of Pakistan by your own reckoning, are known to be embroiled in the mess up to their elbows. Ironic. I make no demands that you acknowledge this possibility in public, of course; that would taint the pristine purity of your stance. But it might make for interesting thinking away from the trenches.

 

[Joe Shearer]

Almost never answered by an Pakistani poster here except in very vague terms. Once the maximalist position is discounted, almost no Pakistani member is willing to suggest what they see as a reasonable alternative along with their reasons why that position is valid & workable. No one suggests why they think India should agree to a compromise & what Pakistan will bring to the table in any deal. The Indian position of conversion of LoC to IB is known (soft borders, greater autonomy etc) but almost nothing is known about Pakistani positions including their stance on the Musharraf-MMS almost agreement.

I suspect, as you have hinted, that Pakistan, and individual Pakistanis, don't have a position on Kashmir. It is part of Shikawah, their general complaint to a divine providence against the rather messy dispensation they have been asked to live with. It is therefore a source of a perverse satisfaction, a proof of the extra mile that the faithful have to trudge on their way to their own Calvary. If Kashmir did not exist, they would have to invent it; if India did not exist, they would have to invent it. The alternative does not bear thinking. It would turn the stomach of the hardiest Pakistani. It involves free will, and the effort of taking decisions for themselves, rather than be spoon fed by mullahs or a runaway theocracy. It means giving up their dearly beloved status as the chosen, and joining the rest of the smelly, unwashed world in striving to make their own destiny, rather than having it handed to them on a platter. It involves democracy, with all its uncertainty, and lack of shape and form, and giving up the hard-edged rule by jackboot that they had so happily cosied up to, and had so industriously learnt as a way of life.

Too much trouble. Let's just bash the nearest Indian/Hindu/Christians in possession of a nice bit of property and leave these fuzzy notions to those idiots who believe in them.

 

[Bang Galore]

I suspect, as you have hinted, that Pakistan, and individual Pakistanis, don't have a position on Kashmir. It is part of Shikawah, their general complaint to a divine providence against the rather messy dispensation they have been asked to live with. It is therefore a source of a perverse satisfaction, a proof of the extra mile that the faithful have to trudge on their way to their own Calvary. If Kashmir did not exist, they would have to invent it; if India did not exist, they would have to invent it. The alternative does not bear thinking. It would turn the stomach of the hardiest Pakistani. It involves free will, and the effort of taking decisions for themselves, rather than be spoon fed by mullahs or a runaway theocracy. It means giving up their dearly beloved status as the chosen, and joining the rest of the smelly, unwashed world in striving to make their own destiny, rather than having it handed to them on a platter. It involves democracy, with all its uncertainty, and lack of shape and form, and giving up the hard-edged rule by jackboot that they had so happily cosied up to, and had so industriously learnt as a way of life.

Too much trouble. Let's just bash the nearest Indian/Hindu/Christians in possession of a nice bit of property and leave these fuzzy notions to those idiots who believe in them.

Well said. Could never have put it better.

 

[Vinod2070]

What are those reservations if they are representative of the wider Pakistani opinion?

I actually think it is workable if the "separation" is real and complete (in the sense of also stopping the likes of LET etc.).

What would that separation really entail in your opinion? Pulling out embassies etc? All trade, travel, sport links etc.?

What else?

I have a feeling that most people have not really thought through some of these issues that are presented as a panacea for all ills.

It is just so comforting to live in the familiar rather than venture out and think afresh.

A known devil versus an unknown one. Seems the choice has been made.

 

[NALANDA]

How many indian citizens have you got in Herat, Mazar-i-Sharif, Kandahar and Jalalabad. We have got valid reasons to not to trust india as we have already got our hands full by just keeping you at bay from one side. It is no secret that india supports Baramdagh bughti as he is actively involved in terrorist activities in pakistan.

You can provide safe havens to Dawood, Khalistani and other internationally wanted terrorits but we should never reciprocate. I must add here few things to clear who started it first and why:-
1)Country which was always ruled by boots and hence by training and motivation prone to aggessive behaviour and not believeing in art of diplomacy.
2) Country which first took side and joined CENTO etc and gave their land (army bases) and sovereignty in lieu of arms and dollars.
3) Ruling elites of the country which needed to justify again and again the reason why they needed to be in power and why army rule was important.
4) Country which started exporting terrorism in 1947/48 in J&K and later in North East part of India in 1950's.

Sense of history eludes indians and hence why the reponse is less than what it should be.

 

[indushek]

I suspect, as you have hinted, that Pakistan, and individual Pakistanis, don't have a position on Kashmir. It is part of Shikawah, their general complaint to a divine providence against the rather messy dispensation they have been asked to live with. It is therefore a source of a perverse satisfaction, a proof of the extra mile that the faithful have to trudge on their way to their own Calvary. If Kashmir did not exist, they would have to invent it; if India did not exist, they would have to invent it. The alternative does not bear thinking. It would turn the stomach of the hardiest Pakistani. It involves free will, and the effort of taking decisions for themselves, rather than be spoon fed by mullahs or a runaway theocracy. It means giving up their dearly beloved status as the chosen, and joining the rest of the smelly, unwashed world in striving to make their own destiny, rather than having it handed to them on a platter. It involves democracy, with all its uncertainty, and lack of shape and form, and giving up the hard-edged rule by jackboot that they had so happily cosied up to, and had so industriously learnt as a way of life.

Too much trouble. Let's just bash the nearest Indian/Hindu/Christians in possession of a nice bit of property and leave these fuzzy notions to those idiots who believe in them.

Sorry would like to disagree with this, they do have a position for sure. Return all the Kashmir to us and open up borders with the rest. Its just that when u point out the Indians may not be willing they look upto the Army and Mullah's for answers to this second question.

 

[Bang Galore]

Sorry would like to disagree with this, they do have a position for sure. Return all the Kashmir to us and open up borders with the rest. Its just that when u point out the Indians may not be willing they look upto the Army and Mullah's for answers to this second question.

That is the maximalist position & certainly can't be an serious outcome of any discussion/deal with India. What we are discussing is whether they have any position other than that.

 

[indushek]

That is the maximalist position & certainly can't be an serious outcome of any discussion/deal with India. What we are discussing is whether they have any position other than that.

No they don't other than a few individuals here and there, called liberal fascists never understood what that means

 

[Bang Galore]

No they don't other than a few individuals here and there, called liberal fascists never understood what that means

That was what @Joe Shearer was pointing out. Pakistanis keep talking about solving Kashmir through discussions, yet are unable to come up with a coherent version of what it is they seek as part of a mutual agreement, their reasoning behind such a proposal and what it is they will offer in return for their proposal being accepted. Hence the

" If Kashmir did not exist, they would have to invent it; if India did not exist, they would have to invent it"

.- JS quote.

 

[shree835]

Friendship with India is only possible when they handover the illegally occupied kashmir to Pakistan!

Friendship with Pakistan is only possible when they handover the illegally occupied Pakistan to India.

 

[indushek]

That was what @Joe Shearer was pointing out. Pakistanis keep talking about solving Kashmir through discussions, yet are unable to come up with a coherent version of what it is they seek as part of a mutual agreement, their reasoning behind such a proposal and what it is they will offer in return for their proposal being accepted. Hence the " If Kashmir did not exist, they would have to invent it; if India did not exist, they would have to invent it".- JS quote.

Then i must have missed the "other" part.

 

[JohnSeb]

Friendship with India is only possible when they handover the illegally occupied kashmir to Pakistan!

Yeah sure why not, will give you tomorrow itself

 

[MST]

That is the maximalist position & certainly can't be an serious outcome of any discussion/deal with India. What we are discussing is whether they have any position other than that.

Call me a pessimist but I have doubts that the Pakistani Establishment (PA) even wants a serious discussion/outcome or solution to the Kashmir dispute. Won't that be like "Shooting yourself in the Foot".

I think it is a realistic assessment. Something Joe has already mentioned I guess.

 

[my2cents]

If its one thing that Pakistan is consistent at - they never learn from their past mistakes.

Yet, we keep making the mistake of extending our hand in friendship. We are equally to blame for rewarding their intransigence.

 

[Contrarian]

Yet, we keep making the mistake of extending our hand in friendship. We are equally to blame for rewarding their intransigence.

What other option is there?
There is an apt term used for Pakistan by Western diplomats -

'Holding a gun to its own head to get what it wants from others'

We have no option but to make do with the cards we have been dealt.
That means we have no alternative to keep striving for trade and a stop to Pakistan continuing as a global terror hub.

As sad as it sounds, we have to make sure Pakistan gets run by sane people. For India cannot remain a stable country if Pakistan destabilizes.