What's new

Friendship with India

Indo Pak friendship cannot happen politically in real life and in the web world as these bashing threads are quite exciting and a good time pass. Other than that in real life common Indians and Pakistanis are quite good friends and share good terms.
 
Friendship with India means...for Pakistan negating the two nation theory. Not going to happen. People should come out of their dreams.
 
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.

Yes yea indians are the almighty saints in asia and rest are pure evil. I dont know how many times i have heard this typical indian ranting. Secondly i have seen ur democracy and you can just keep it. Seriously there is nothing more obvious than an obvious truth.
 
The sad truth is that Pakistan will continue to remain embroiled in conflicts with India till the end of time. So we Indians need to learn to live in this hostile environment as a way of life.

unfortunately what you are suggesting will continue
 
Is not possible. Better way forward is status-quo and working on issues like law and order and power shortage who are the biggest hurdle in our economic growth.

This is not possible too....considering present circumstances of your country....:)

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



yahin aakr to tehar jaata hai kawrwan hmara, nhi to manzilein to hamari nazar main sadiyon se hain....:)
 
Friendship with India | Opinion | DAWN.COM

JUST six months after independence, in a pictorial write-up on Pakistan, America’s Life magazine noted that the newly born nation of 70 million desperately needed India’s capital and industrial know-how to “supplement its faith in Allah and the leadership of an ailing Jinnah”.

It has taken us six decades to pay heed to that advice. The belligerent past, however, keeps haunting us as the population of the country grows faster than in most countries. At the same time, scarce capital and skills flee the country to more profitable avenues abroad, including to Pakistan’s former less-developed half.

At independence Pakistan’s eastern wing had more people than the four western provinces put together. The population of Bangladesh now is 161 million against Pakistan’s over 180 million. The myth of Bengalis’ population growing rapidly thus stands exploded.

The threat to Pakistan’s survival, Life noted in its issue of January 1948, arose from religious warfare and political instability. That threat led to discontent and the ultimate separation of East Pakistan; the memory still haunts us, though less menacingly, in relation to what is left of the country, particularly Balochistan.

Given that the grievances in the case of East Pakistan and Balochistan are similar in essence, national thinking and state policy need to be recast to forestall yet another catastrophe. That Balochistan is contiguous and sparsely populated should not be cause for complacency. The question today is no longer of military conquest but of convincing the people that their security and prosperity lies in a unified Pakistan and not in a series of fiefdoms.

Religious violence and political instability accompanied the birth of Pakistan once the Muslim League, left with no other choice but to take it or leave it, agreed to the partition of Punjab, Bengal and Assam.

The partition of the three provinces weakened the secular forces and fostered schisms in a predominantly Muslim population. Under a divided and dithering political leadership, the civil servants and later the generals became the arbiters in a situation of recurring instability and violence.

In the 1953 riots, the army had to be invited to intervene when the civil administration could not control the violence. In the course of time the politicians became divided and civil servants were weakened by ill-conceived reforms and politicisation, and the control of state policy effectively passed into the hands of the armed forces.

The elections, lacking credibility, did not materially change that reality nor will the ones now coming up because the factors that gave rise to religious violence and political instability persist while evolving events suggest that they may even be aggravated. There should be no delusions about it.

Pakistan shares its unrest and uncertainty with Afghanistan and to a lesser extent with the Central Asian Republics and Iran, with whom it has little in common except religion, which is more divisive and a source of greater violence in Pakistan than in its north-western neighbours.

It will not be possible to effect any change in the political and economic direction of Pakistan so long as the country remains embroiled in the conflicts of its neighbours. The answer lies in a fundamental policy shift by promoting cultural and trade links with India. Both would come naturally and easily.

Pakistan’s cultural and linguistic links with India are rooted in history and the trade routes are diverse and economical. Communal frenzy caused by partition is over and the wounds have healed. The Muslims of India as a community remain backward but, perhaps, suffer much less discrimination and violence than the minority communities do in Pakistan.

Economically, India is growing faster than Pakistan and, unlike Pakistan, has never been ruled by generals. A ready measure of the strength of the Indian economy, besides its faster growth, is the value of its rupee. Two Pakistani rupees now buy one Indian rupee. Not long ago both were at par.

Apart from the benefit of trade, firmly rooted democracy and a secular tradition, the dream of an armed confrontation to wrest Kashmir stands buried for ever.

To quote from The Economist, “India is poised to become one of the four largest powers in the world by the end of the decade”. It has been the world’s largest importer of weapons for five years. The option of jihad no longer exists. Free communication and trade is the answer.

That is what the people want and army chief Gen Kayani has only endorsed it by a declaration that internal terrorism is a greater danger to Pakistan than India. The terrorism must abate with the eastern borders opened. If public opinion is hard to gauge, the call of the general is clear.

The writer is a former civil servant.

kunwaridris@hotmail.com

Interesting therad
 
Kashmir came close to solution and the model is in place.

Musharraf's solution was no solution at all; it essentially caved in to the Indian position.

Don't you see that this is resulting in the rise of forces that have turned on Pakistan and Pakistanis themselves?

Bad tactics do not invalidate the cause itself.

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

I already spelled them out earlier in this thread.

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

Nothing so extreme.
Normal relations should continue but this obsession and belief by some that Pakistan cannot succeed without Indian friendship needs to be shed.

Think about this carefully. Even though India spent more on education, etc, it was Pakistan that was growing faster than India - and that is the bottom line isnt it? In the end, at the end of the year Pakistan's economy expanded more than India's.

The size of an economy says nothing about its composition. GCC countries also have a big economy but who's putting bets on what happens once the oil runs out.

Simply exporting raw materials and low tech products will get the economy going for a while, but the long term payoff lies with a value-added, knowledge-based economy. This is where Pakistani planning has fallen flat.

Pakistan's diplomacy may only have succeeded by the grace of the superpowers, but the decision of allying with the superpowers was a decision that Pakistan made.
And one that yielded it enormous benefits. The generous contributions made by those powers to Pakistan in terms of military and economic aid worked wonders for Pakistani economy for a really long time.

You cannot dismiss all of that at the drop of a hat. India by comparison chose to remain largely independent of them, though with Soviet backing. The aid however no where reached near enough bestowed on Pakistan because USA/West were better off economically.

So that is something that Pakistani leaders decided - and one that has yielded good returns as well.

The help Pakistan received by the West was qualitatively different from what India received from the Soviets.

Most of the Western largesse went into the pockets of the elite and there was precious little benefit to the masses. The elite sold off sovereignty for their personal gain. The abject failure of Pakistani diplomacy -- alliance and all -- can be seen by the fact that the West never came to Pakistan's help in the wars.

India, on the other hand, received a lot of know-how from the Soviets which they used to build up local capability, from steel to military to space tech.

What do YOU think is the possible solution to kashmir realistically.

The only viable solution is the Kashmiris' right to self determination. You are right that neither country will budge, which is why this remains a stalemate.

Oh? Pulled off brilliantly? And you totally ignore the stellar roles of ZAB

There is no question that Pakistani behavior set up the situation in the first place. My point was that the Indians pounced on the opportunity, exacerbating it, and ultimately pulling off a coup. This was not exactly the behavior of a "friend" as some are wont to portray India.

As for the post 9/11 situation, could it not be argued in the same vein?

India was far more interested in playing politics in the aftermath of 26/11 than to resolve the matter honestly. Indian diplomacy is fully focused on portraying India as the victim of Pak-origin terrorism while denying its own role in fomenting trouble within Pakistan. This has been debated ad nauseum on this forum and we probably disagree, but that is how we see India's behavior.

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.

Some American general -- forget his name -- also made comments about Indian presence in Afghanistan, but it doesn't matter. Given the American game plan in the region, we fully expect India to get a pass from the Western media. It doesn't change the fact that we know who is doing what where.

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.

Gulf countries, absolutely. America, Afghanistan and India, also.

But not Iran: given the demographics, Iranian and Pakistani goals coincide against Baluch separatism.

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.

And they say we hold crazy theories about India.

Does it occur to the Indians that we support the Kashmiris because they asked us and we promised to help them? It's a moral obligation to help when someone being oppressed asks for your help.

Indian analyses involving -- as always -- mullahs and generals are amusing to read but they say more about the Indians than about Pakistanis.
 
Pakistan kI aur india ki friendship to hona khawab hai ok kion k jab tak kashmir azad nahi ho ga yeh bohut bara jhoot hai han us k bad dekho hoti hai ya nahi but first kashmir
 
Musharraf's solution was no solution at all; it essentially caved in to the Indian position.

And why do you think he (along with the PA, it couldn't have been just one man) came to that solution?

After trying everything else for more than 6 decades?

Bad tactics do not invalidate the cause itself.

What if the cause is itself bad and the tactics are mere manifestations?

I already spelled them out earlier in this thread.

Lack of specifics. The devil is in the detail.

You couldn't bring even one instance of "Indian treachery" except that EU thingy which was debunked.

Nothing so extreme.
Normal relations should continue but this obsession and belief by some that Pakistan cannot succeed without Indian friendship needs to be shed.

And how is that belief among some exactly effecting anything on the ground?
 
Such articles only promote corrupt & propaganda against Pakistan, these writters are only out there to impress their masters & they show them that we are for rent, please rent & we will bark.

Friendship with India No chance, no way & as far as terrorism in Pakistan goes it is fully supported by India, there are tons of evidence available.
 
@Joe Shearer This article perhaps presupposes that the Indian populace wants friendship. We want peace or well at least a relative one, but friendship? For what purpose and to what benefit? The only thing Pakistan can "offer" is a halt to terrorism, which is not as much an offer as it is coercion. A form of coercion further exacerbated by the fact that today there are serious doubts about whether the GOP could even live up to its end of their "offer" even if they wanted to.

Trade is all well and good, might even prove beneficial. Trade can also bring some allied industries together, but such trade can at best provide us a market and cheap raw material. As far as trade routes to the CAR are concerned, well Pakistan can only access the CAR through Afghanistan and that one bit of relevant information should be enough to dismiss any notion that they will ever be able to provide us with a functioning network of trade routes anytime in the near future.

We have nothing to gain from friendship, they can offer us nothing of substantial value. Pakistan can indeed keep up its well practiced coercion but we've seen exactly how receptive we have been to that when it comes to Kashmir. A superficial and devoid of nuance article at best.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.

The problem is that Pakistan is stuck in a viscous downward spiral. Where bad governance and poverty is leading to radicalization of the population which in turn will further lead to more poverty and bad governance. Unless there is a dramatic change (which hopefully happens) it will be harder and harder to do what you say as time goes on.
 
And why do you think he (along with the PA, it couldn't have been just one man) came to that solution?

Since he didn't say, there is no point speculating.

What if the cause is itself bad

Your opinion; we believe the cause is just.

Lack of specifics. The devil is in the detail.

You couldn't bring even one instance of "Indian treachery" except that EU thingy which was debunked.

Nothing was 'debunked'. Indian treachery has been active all these years, from Bangladesh to Baluchistan, from trade to 26/11.

And how is that belief among some exactly effecting anything on the ground?

MFN status and transit rights are being discussed.

Would you allow large numbers of Pakistani trucks to transit through India?
 
Back
Top Bottom